The Late Medieval Cistercian Monastery of Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire: Monastic Administration, Economy, and Archival Memory (Medieval Monastic Studies, 5) 9782503567716, 2503567711

Citation preview

The Late Medieval Cistercian Monastery of Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire

MEDIEVAL MONASTIC STUDIES Volume 5

General Editors Janet Burton, University of Wales Trinity Saint David Karen Stöber, Universitat de Lleida Editorial Board Frances Andrews, University of St Andrews David Austin, University of Wales Trinity Saint David Edel Bhreathnach, Discovery Programme, Dublin Guido Cariboni, Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano Megan Cassidy-Welch, Monash University James Clark, University of Exeter Albrecht Diem, Syracuse University Marilyn Dunn, University of Glasgow Sarah Foot, Oxford University, Christ Church Paul Freedman, Yale University Alexis Grélois, Université de Rouen Martin Heale, University of Liverpool Emilia Jamroziak, University of Leeds Kurt Villads Jensen, Syddansk Universitet William Chester Jordan, Princeton University József Laszlovszky, Central European University Budapest Julian Luxford, University of St Andrews Colmán Ó Clabaigh, Glenstal Abbey Tadhg O’Keeffe, University College Dublin Jens Röhrkasten, University of Birmingham Antonio Sennis, University College London Orri Vésteinsson, University of Iceland

The Late Medieval Cistercian Monastery of Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire Monastic Administration, Economy, and Archival Memory

by

Michael Spence

F

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2020, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN: 978-2-503-56771-6 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-56772-3 DOI: 10.1484/M.MMS-EB.5.110111 ISSN: 2565-8697 e-ISSN: 2565-9758 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper. D/2020/0095/13

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

7

List of Tables

8

Acknowledgements 9 Abbreviations 11 Introduction 13 Chapter 1 Fountains Abbey: Origins and Development, Antiquarians, and Modern Scholarship

21

Chapter 2 Fountains Abbey in the Long Fifteenth Century

37

Chapter 3 Charters, Cartularies, and Archival Redaction

53

Chapter 4 Abbot Greenwell’s Aide-Memoire? The President Book of Fountains Abbey

61

Chapter 5 Creative Redaction: Reassembling the Past and Developing an Audit Trail

75

Chapter 6 Reflective Redaction: Reviewing the Past

93

Chapter 7 A Forensic Approach to Fountains Cartularies

113

6

ta b l e of con ten ts

Appendix A The President Book of Fountains Abbey

143

Appendix B Cartulary 2, WYAS 150/5384

159

Appendix C Cartulary RP, Univ. Coll. MS 167

165

Appendix D Rentals, Add MS 40010

171

Appendix E Fountains Abbey Manuscripts

181

Appendix F The Charter of William of Goldsborough

183

Bibliography 191 Index 205

List of Illustrations Figure 1. Aerial view of Fountains Abbey today

10

Figure 2. Ground-level view of the Abbey

10

Figure 3. The Principal Estates of Fountains Abbey

25

Figure 4. The Key Sheep-rearing District of Craven

26

Figure 5. Arable Production on Bolton Priory Grange at Malham 1306–1324

103

Figure 6. Implied Grange Revivals on Fountains Estates

110

Figure 7. The ‘Noble Cartulary’: Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 224 (Car­tulary 3E)

114

Figure 8. Compilation Ranges for Fountains Cartularies

116

Figure 9. Estimated Active Life of Cartularies 1 and 2

117

Figure 10. The Muniments Room at Fountains Abbey 

130

Figure 11. Pivotal Role of the President Book

140

Figure 12. Charter of William son of William the King’s Servant, of Goldsborough. Leeds, Brotherton Library, YAS MD 335/4/1/11

184

Figure 13. Dorsal Annotations on MD 335/4/1/11

184

Figure 14. Cartulary 1C, fol. 99r. The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford, MS Rawl. B. 449

185

Figure 15. Cartulary 2, p. 400. WYAS Leeds, WYL 150/5384

186

Figure 16. Detail of Entry on p. 400 of Cartulary 2 WYAS Leeds, WYL 150/5384

186

Figure 17. Cartulary 3E, fols 91v–92r 

189

List of Tables Table 1. The Fountains Family 

24

Table 2. President Book First Index

63

Table 3. President Book, Reconstructed First Index

64

Table 4. President Book Second Index: Dishforth 

66

Table 5. Rental References in President Book Second Index, Compared with Actual Entries in Rentals

67

Table 6. Comparison of Years Cited in President Book Second Index and Rentals

68

Table 7. President Book, Fourth Index: Sample Entry

69

Table 8. Indicative Size of Malham Grange 1305–1361

102

Table 9. Newsham Entries in the President Book and Cartulary 2

119

Table 10. Preliminary Concordance: Extract from fol. 57r of Cartulary 1C

121

Table 11. Extract from President Book Fifth Index

122

Table 12. Codicological Profile of the President Book

156

Table 13. Codicological Profile of Cartulary 2

163

Table 14. Codicological Profile of Cartulary RP

169

Table 15. Date Range of Sections within Rentals

176

Table 16. Codicological Profile of Rentals

177

Table 17. Deeds Registers of Fountains Abbey

181

Table 18. Surviving Miscellaneous Records of Fountains Abbey 182

Acknowledgements The support and encouragement I received while making of this volume have been provided over many years by a number of people. While at Manchester as a mature MA student, Alex Rumble inspired me with an enduring fascination for codicology, and first introduced me to a cartulary of Fountains Abbey. Later, my doctoral thesis, from which this publication developed, was patiently and wisely guided by Emilia Jamroziak at Leeds. My contextual knowledge and understanding of medieval Yorkshire was liberally supplied by the rich source of historians and archaeologists active in the area, with special thanks to Alan King, Tom Lord, Roger Martlew, and particularly Steve Moorhouse, who also introduced me to the Fountains President Book, which is central to the present work. The manuscripts of Fountains Abbey are scattered among five separate repositories, and the helpfulness of staff at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the Brotherton Library in Leeds (and before that the staff at the YAS in Leeds), the West Yorkshire Archive Service in Morley, and the British Library in London is gratefully acknowledged. Throughout this long process, my wife Victoria has provided unfailing support, criticism, and encouragement as appropriate, which extended to onsite camerawork at Fountains Abbey. The comments of the anonymous reviewers at Brepols were invaluable, as were the support and guidance of the publishing manager and General Editors. Over several years, audiences at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds have provided useful feedback on emerging aspects of the book. Finally, the research for this undertaking would have been impossible without my appointment as Visiting Research Fellow by the School of History at Leeds University, and support from the staff of the Institute for Medieval Studies.

Figure 1. Aerial view of Fountains Abbey today: To the top right side of the central cloister lies the warming room, and above it, on the first floor, is the muniments room. Photo copyright: National Trust Images

Figure 2. Ground-level view of the Abbey: The chimney in the centre of the image marks the location of the muniments room, above the warming room. Photo by Victoria Spence.

Abbreviations Fountains Abbey Manuscripts Bursars’ Books Leeds, WYAS, WYL 150/5497 Cartulary 1A London, British Library, Egerton MS 3053A-B Cartulary 1B Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Univ. Coll. 170 Cartulary 1C Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawl. B.449 Cartulary 2 Leeds, WYAS, WYL 150/5384 Cartulary 3A London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius C.XII Cartulary 3B London, British Library, Add MS 40009 Cartulary 3C London, British Library, Add MS 37770 Cartulary 3E Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 224 Cartulary 4 London, British Library, Add MS 18276 Cartulary RP Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Univ. Coll. 167 President Book Leeds, WYAS, WYL 150/5383 Rentals London, British Library, Add MS 40010

Abp Reg (X) York, Borthwick Institute, Archbishop’s Register, Available online at https://archbishopsregisters.york.ac.uk CClR Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1272–1509, ed. by Henry C. Maxwell Lyte and others (London: HMSO, 1892–1963) BL British Library, London Bodl. Bodleian Library, Oxford CPL Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters ed. by William Henry Bliss and others (London: HMSO, 1893–) CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1272–1509, ed. by Henry C. Maxwell Lyte and others (London: HMSO, 1892–1963)

12

a bbr e v i at i o n s

HoRH The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, I: 940–1216; II: 1216–1377; III: 1377–1540, ed. by David Knowles and others (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001–2008) Abstracts of W. T. Lancaster, Abstract of the Charters and Other Documents Fountains Contained in the Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Fountains (Leeds: Whitehead, 1915). Fountains The Fountains Abbey Lease Book, ed. by D. J. Michelmore, Lease Book YASRS, 140 (Leeds: the Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1981) Memorials 1 Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. by J. R. Walbran, Surtees, 42 (Durham: Andrews, 1863) Memorials 2 Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, II, pt 1 ed. by J. R. Walbran and James Raine, Surtees, 67 (Durham: Andrews 1878) Memorials 3 Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, III, ed. by J. T. Fowler, Surtees, 130 (Durham: Andrews, 1918) Narratio Narratio de fundacione Fontanis Monasterij, MS 0.1.79, Trinity College, Cambridge Surtees The Surtees Society TNA The National Archives WYAS West Yorkshire Archive Service YASRS Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series

Introduction Anyone who has had the privilege of seeing a medieval manuscript must be struck by the combination of circumstances which have allowed it to survive for perhaps eight or nine centuries, evading the perils of accidental or intentional destruction. But this tenacious endurance should not endow any medieval document with the automatic right to be accepted at face value. Too often, manuscripts survive without a title, or any explanation of their origin, provenance, or purpose, and the manuscripts which will be considered here are no exception. They consist mainly of workaday records which were drawn up in support of the business activities of a major landowner, which also happened to be a Cistercian monastery. Probably all these surviving records are not in themselves originals, but are fair copies made from a preliminary draft. In almost every case the initial writing will have been edited, or redacted, in some way. This book sets out to explore the evidence, and consider the motives, for archival redaction among the surviving corpus of manuscripts from a Cistercian monastery in the north of England. Fountains Abbey lies on the banks of a small river, nestling in a secluded valley a few kilometres to the southwest of Ripon, North Yorkshire. The location was selected in a time of crisis, but if the decision was in any way hasty, it was still an excellent choice. For the abbey stands midway between the rising uplands of the Pennine Hills to the west, and the fertile plain of the Vale of York to the east. Before long, the abbey had acquired territories to the west for pastoral farming, mainly for the cash crop of wool, and to the east for arable crops. In a so-called pre-Industrial Age, the scale of operations was both extensive and diverse, including iron smelting, lead mining, leather working, and fish farming. Fountains was known as the ‘greatest and richest of English Cistercian abbeys’, even when compared with its close rivals Furness and Rievaulx.1 The surviving corpus is relatively small but is well suited for this study because it comprises several manuscripts containing very similar information, some of which also follow a similar format. The specific manuscripts which will be examined are as follows: Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Service WYAS 150/5384: ‘Cartulary 2’ WYAS 150/5383: ‘President Book’ London, British Library Egerton MS 3053A-B: ‘Cartulary 1A’ Cotton MS Tiberius C.XII: ‘Cartulary 3A’ Add MS 40009: ‘Cartulary 3B’  1 Donnelly, ‘Changes in the Grange Economy’, 402.

14

in tro duct i o n

Add MS 37770: ‘Cartulary 3C’ Add MS 18276: ‘Cartulary 4’ Add MS 40010: ‘Rentals’ Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Univ. Coll. 170: ‘Cartulary 1B’ MS Rawl. B.449: ‘Cartulary 1C’ MS Univ. Coll. 167: ‘Cartulary RP’ In examining the differences between manuscripts like these, how they say something can be just as important as what they say. To highlight this, a holistic approach has been applied to their analysis, which values form and content on a par. Since most of the documents to be examined are unpublished and unedited, a comprehensive description is provided in the Appendices, including a codicological profile for each key manuscript. These profiles seek to integrate all the information on a document on one page, so for example, a given section of text can be aligned with the scribe who wrote it, the quire gathering on which it was written, the pressmarks which distinguish it from other sections of text, and the range of dates it displays. The term ‘redaction’ is used throughout this work in both of its senses. The first is the traditional use of the word, as for preparing a text for publication. The second is the contemporary use, as to censor text deemed unsuitable, for reasons inconvenient to the redactor. Both these forms of redaction are as old as the earliest written documents themselves, but the passage of time can obscure their application. If redaction has been ever-present, it follows that at least some of the documents which did not make it to the present day could have fallen victim to suppressive redaction, that is intentional, rather than accidental, destruction. A cartulary is simply a register, drawn up to capture in a single record, the possession of numerous charters or deeds, an administrative tool which is compiled by copying their contents in part or in full. At the same time it presents a collective image of the past which individual charters cannot convey. And, if instead of faithfully replicating the form and content of the original documents, the compiler of a cartulary chooses to omit some items, or amend others, he is altering the collective image and thereby re-presenting the past. Two decades ago, research on Carolingian and Merovingian documents from the eighth and ninth centuries demonstrated how the cartulary is particularly susceptible to redaction.2 Constance Bouchard has characterised the redaction of cartularies in twelfth- and thirteenth-century France as a desire to organize and rationalize what a monastery owned, to the extent that perceptions of past and present could merge into ‘a seamless Now’.3

 2 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance.  3 Bouchard, ‘Monastic Cartularies’, pp. 29–30.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

At Fountains Abbey the surviving business archive consists of seventeen manuscripts and four hundred or so charters. Among the manuscripts are no fewer than five separate cartularies, which offer an ideal milieu in which to investigate archival redaction. As well as documenting the extensive commercial activity of Fountains, the business archive collectively offers a vast source of incidental information about abbey life. Ostensibly, the original records entered into the archive constitute historical information unselfconsciously compiled, and therefore relatively free of implicit bias, in marked contrast to the inherently self-conscious details found in a biography or chronicle, or, as will be seen in the case of Fountains, the foundation narrative. In reality, any ‘purity’ of unselfconscious information in individual records is diluted by the knowledge that the archive itself was neither static nor autonomous. Over the centuries additions were made and obsolete items discarded. Most importantly, the archive was exposed to amendment by its successive keepers with their own respective implicit and explicit biases. The ability and motivation of archivists to refashion the material in the archive to reflect their contemporary situation is a key aspect of this book. More records survive for Fountains than for any other English Cistercian house. On the other hand, when compared to some other medieval archives, particularly from the cathedral priories of Durham, Winchester or Westminster, or a Benedictine house like Bury St Edmunds, the Fountains Abbey records cannot provide an unbroken view across the centuries of the abbey’s life, or even a complete understanding of the range of documents which once existed. However, the study of those which do remain can be enhanced by a forensic approach, in which attention is given not only to the textual transmission but also to the codicology of specific manuscripts; at times, the integration of form and content in this way can reveal aspects of redaction not otherwise apparent. Even with this approach, it is unrealistic to expect to identify every keeper of the archives who intervened in this way. Nevertheless, in the course of this book the role of John Greenwell (1442–1471) stands out in particular, and to a lesser extent, Marmaduke Huby (1495–1526), along with a previously unnoticed contribution by William Gower (1369–1384), all abbots during the long fifteenth century.4 The motivation for their actions lies in the circumstances of their times, and the first part of the book sets the scene by reviewing the historical context. The general context for any study of Fountains Abbey is the Cistercian movement, which came into existence around the turn of the twelfth century, generally driven by a perceived need to address laxity in the long-established Benedictines. At first, they were just one of several reformist monastic movements formed around the same time, but modern commentators have described the Cistercians as ‘far and away the most prolific and enduring experiment to emerge from the tumultuous intellectual and monastic fervour of the eleventh  4 HoRH, ii, p. 281; iii, p. 293.

15

16

in tro duct i o n

and twelfth centuries’.5 Arguably the strength of the Cistercians derived from a combination of individual self-discipline and organisational coherence. At the level of the individual, the Cistercians required a regime of abstinence from personal comfort in order to follow a programme of devotional liturgy interspersed with physical labour over a working day extending up to eighteen hours; as an organisation, it provided central guidance and control for individual monasteries through annual supervisory visits and annual international gatherings of abbots at the General Chapter.6 The success of this system led to a remarkable expansion across Europe in the early twelfth century, so that between 1113 and 1152 some 340 Cistercian houses were founded.7 Amongst these new monasteries was Fountains Abbey, which was established in Yorkshire during the 1130s amid the political uncertainties of a civil war and the threat of Scottish incursions. Its origins are obscure, but revolve around a breakaway group of Benedictine monks in the city of York, seemingly with no wealthy founder to support their initial establishment; this history is pursued further in Chapter 1. Within fifteen years of its timorous beginnings, relatively modest benefactions of land were being transformed and extended into a vast landed estate across Yorkshire, and into Cumbria, with outposts elsewhere. Before the end of the twelfth century the abbey was administering these lands under tight centralized control, albeit by extensive use of delegated authority to local managers of farming complexes which were worked by monks and monastic staff. Some thirty-three examples of these units, known at Fountains as granges and lodges, are noted in a royal confirmation of 1199 and the list may not have been exhaustive.8 This system endured for a century and a half, but as the 1300s began, fundamental changes were beginning to be trialled and long before the end of the century a substantial part of farming activity at Fountains had been outsourced. Most of the directly managed granges were either leased out or else converted into manorialized vills, with responsibility for working the land now falling to tenants, although livestock management, particularly sheep, remained initially under direct control, which over time then developed into a sophisticated system of managed tenancies. From the mid fifteenth century onwards, most customary tenancies were gradually replaced by leases. Although, as will be seen in Chapter 2, the abbey suffered mixed fortunes on two or three notable occasions, almost from the outset it achieved a level of prosperity which it sustained throughout its existence. By the time of its dissolution in 1539, Fountains was the wealthiest Cistercian house in England, and had probably been so for some considerable time. The enduring financial performance of the abbey over such a long period was not the result of chance

 5 Burton and Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, p. 7.  6 Jamroziak, The Cistercian Order in Medieval Europe, pp. 61–62, 81.  7 Burton, The Monastic Order in Yorkshire, p. 98.  8 Cartulary RP, fol. 9r.

i nt ro d u ct i o n

or charity. Instead it reflects an economic pragmatism which permitted business decisions to be made continually, for more than four centuries, which were more often good than bad. Next to nothing is known about how Fountains, an institution dedicated to spiritual devotion, consistently showed itself capable of taking complex business decisions. Elsewhere, there is evidence in several cases that the need for external advice on such matters became institutionalized as an advisory body, a formally appointed group retained to provide informed views, sometimes on an individual basis, but more importantly, to meet as a committee and provide general guidance or specific advice as the occasion required. Such an advisory council operated at Fountains. When it began has not been determined, and many other details remain obscure. Its origins may perhaps be traced in the cartulary evidence, where a limited number of witnesses are cited a disproportionate number of times, suggesting that some of them may have been in attendance for matters other than their own landholdings.9 However, by the mid fifteenth century there is evidence of the council meeting as a body, possibly comprising up to twelve members.10 Whether key decisions were referred to the Council or taken by an individual office-holder, the process depended on reliable information, which in turn was achieved by keeping consistent records, and thoroughly redacting them. One exceptional example is revealed here for the first time, of an analysis, produced with source reference annotations, within the context of the introspection undertaken by Fountains in response to the financial uncertainties perceived in the mid fifteenth century. Within the general history of the abbey, the specific background for this investigation is the long fifteenth century, which presented the abbey with substantial political and economic challenges. It is also the period during which the manuscripts could have been kept together in the muniments room at Fountains Abbey, and therefore susceptible to collective scrutiny and amendment by the record-keepers of that time. Prominent among these record-keepers is one outstanding personality, John Greenwell (1442–1471), although it has been necessary to reappraise his career in order to understand better his interaction with the manuscripts. These prevailing conditions resulted in a tumultuous time for the abbey financially and politically, although records for the period are intermittent, and the response of some abbots is unknown. Where records do survive, they

 9 Potential candidates could include William Middleton, John Aleman, Alan de Aldfield, and Hugh Magneby.  10 The Bursars’ Books for the year 1456–1457 give details of expenses incurred at gatherings of the council, e.g., p. 17, ‘in vino dato concilio nostro’ (for wine supplied to our council), while the size is suggested on p. 70, for the year 1457–1458: ‘cum xij de concilio’ (with twelve [members] from the council). Further references to concilio are found on pp. 72 and 105 of the Bursars’ Books, and also in Swynton’s Notebook, on pp. 111, 112, and 157, where there are also references to three ‘gentlemen’, William Burton, Stephen Talbote and Robert Thirkeld, in paid service.

17

18

in tro duct i o n

show the abbey in a state of political distrust for much of the first half of the fifteenth century. The most disruptive period took place during the second and third decades, when Fountains was severely disturbed by a disputed abbatial election which was seemingly resolved after the king felt obliged to intervene, but even long afterwards there were sporadic incidents of apparent vendetta against the winning candidate. Subsequently there was at least one attempt to poison an abbot, while the suspicion of Lancastrian sympathies brought Abbot Greenwell (1442–1471) into unwelcome contact with Edward IV. Nevertheless, it was Greenwell who showed the determination and strength of character needed to begin to redress the economic and political complications of the house. He embarked on a policy to restore the tarnished prestige of Fountains, beginning by engineering the award of the pontificalia in 1459. At the same time, he conducted internal reviews of the economic and financial structure of the abbey’s extensive landed estate. The combined effects of the eventful long fifteenth century had a marked influence on the surviving Fountains corpus, both in terms of which documents did not survive and of the evidence to show how Greenwell set about redacting some of those which do. The relationship between redaction and the manipulation of archival memory is examined in Chapter 3, beginning with the process by which documents survive to posterity, involving not only avoiding accidental hazards but also their intentional selection or disposal, which results from the preservation bias of successive record-keepers. At this time, the central role of the cartulary begins to be seen in context. Although nominally just a collective summary of individual charters, a cartulary is susceptible to adjustment of archival memory by simply excluding some charters and amending the form or the order in which others appear. The term ‘redaction’ embraces all these actions of creative and suppressive editing of an earlier text. Detecting redaction is not straightforward, since in many cases it may have been concealed intentionally, and the absence of an exemplar for a manuscript may be due to the accidental hazards of water, fire, or mice as much as censorial redaction. Ironically, the key manuscript for revealing the purpose, process, and product of redaction is not itself a cartulary. Chapter 4 examines a unique document known as the President Book of Fountains, which offers insight into a variety of ways in which contemporary texts were amended, or reshaped, or interrogated, to produce a report. The name, ‘President Book’, is not known to be medieval, nor is this a precedent book in any conventional sense. It can be linked closely to Abbot Greenwell, and resembles a personal memorandum book, containing a series of unrelated sections, several of which are designated here as ‘Indexes’. This enigmatic manuscript contains links to several other records at Fountains, and deconstructing its composition is the key to identifying its enabling role as a vehicle for the redaction of other manuscripts, from reformulating the past, to re-evaluating the economic structure of the monastery, to supplying assorted finding aids to assist navigation in the redacted documents. Three of the ‘Indexes’ are examined here; the first shows a clear connection with

i nt ro d u ct i o n

Fountains Cartulary 2. The Second Index provides unique supplementary information to another Fountains manuscript, Rentals, yet this function is then demonstrated to be incidental, since its main purpose was as a look-up guide for a now unknown manuscript at least twice the size of Rentals. The Third Index sets off a conundrum, since at first it appears to provide a list of cross-references for use in Cartulary 2. When several cross-references were checked, they were seen to have a 20 per cent failure rate, suggesting that they were intended for another document, resembling but not identical to one of the surviving cartularies. Chapter 5 looks at some of the ways in which Abbot Greenwell was able to achieve his objective of restoring the prestige of the house by redacting earlier documents to represent his own perception of past events. Further examination of the President Book demonstrates how five sections can be identified with one or more Fountains cartularies or associated manuscripts, acting as a bridge between the surviving corpus and other manuscripts now lost or destroyed. In the process, further references to a lost cartulary similar in appearance to the survivors are identified . A different aspect of redaction is addressed in Chapter 6 which deconstructs a sample from the largest section of the President Book. This reveals a singular retrospective analysis of a key economic unit, the vast pastureland of Craven in north-west Yorkshire. The analysis is drawn from information in different cartularies, and was prepared at a time when the abbey was seeking ways to protect its financial position. Arising indirectly out of the analysis, more evidence appears for a lost cartulary. In light of the evidence uncovered for redaction, Chapter 7 looks at the surviving cartularies. Using comparative analysis it postulates the active lives of the known manuscripts, and deduces the existence and active life of a further lost document. Additional analysis reconstructs the procedural steps through which a missing volume of one cartulary came to be reconstituted. Finally, the integral role of the President Book in reconditioning the archive is demonstrated, whereby it acts as a transformational bridge between a number of older manuscripts which no longer survive, and some new documents which seem to have been planned but are not known today. In the absence of critical editions of any of the manuscripts examined here, particularly the cartularies, it has been necessary to include several appendices. These supply codicological description, often necessary to support the interpretations of redaction, but too detailed to appear in the body of the work. If critical editions do become available one day, the conclusions reached here can be revisited. This book addresses issues of record-keeping and archival memory at one Cistercian monastery — albeit a well-endowed and prosperous one — in the north of England. However, the methodology employed could be extended to other houses in different geographical locations and different orders, with similar survivals of archival sources, in order to provide comparisons between monasteries dealing with economic change and social and political upheaval in the later Middle Ages.

19

Chapter 1

Fountains Abbey Origins and Development, Antiquarians, and Modern Scholarship

Today the vast ruins of the monastic precinct at Fountains Abbey are carefully preserved as a World Heritage site, yet the imposing grounds on display represent a small fraction of the vast expanses of agricultural land once controlled by the monks.1 After the abbey surrendered to the Crown in 1539, it lay in limbo for a year as plans were considered to develop it as a new bishopric, but when this was rejected it was sold off in 1540, almost entirely to the London merchant, Sir Richard Gresham.2 Gresham had acquired extensive monastic lands not just in Yorkshire, but across the country, in Suffolk, Norfolk, Kent, Cheshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, and Lincolnshire, virtually all of which he sold on quickly to local landowners.3 At Fountains, however, the process was more gradual, and it was Gresham’s son and heir John who dispersed the agricultural estate, but some of it not until over twenty years later,4 while the monastery site was not disposed of until 1597, thereafter passing through a succession of families — Proctor, Messenger, Aislabie, de Grey, Vyner — before eventually reverting to public ownership in 1966 when it was purchased by West Riding County Council.5 The bulk of surviving muniments for the abbey undoubtedly passed down from family to family, as comments from various antiquarians testify.6 Interest in the abbey generally and the abbey site in particular were revived in the mid nineteenth century by the enthusiastic attention of J. R. Walbran (1817–1869), who not only initiated archaeological investigations but also devoted considerable time to documentary research.7 Walbran’s preliminary excavations of 1848–1854 were followed by a complete archaeological survey in 1873 by J. A. Reeve, and an ‘authoritative summary’ by W. St John Hope in 1898/1899. In the later twentieth century, work by R. Gilyard-Beer and Glyn Coppack revealed the

 1 See Figure 3.  2 Coppack, Fountains Abbey, pp. 130–32.  3 Blanchard, ‘Sir Richard Gresham’.  4 ‘Abstract of the Title of the Manors of Calton and Airton in Craven’, in Northallerton, NYCRO, ZEP, Malham Tarn Deeds, item 10, 30 November 1567.  5 In 1983 it came into the joint care of the National Trust and English Heritage, from the then North Yorkshire County Council.  6 For example, ‘from a book, penes M. Messenger, entituled The President Book of Fountains’, Burton, Monasticon Eboracense: And the Ecclesiastical History of Yorkshire, p. 210 n. a.  7 Sheils, ‘John Richard Walbran’.

22

c ha p te r 1

earliest church buildings on the site. More is yet to come: in 2016 the presence of 500 undisturbed graves, each containing up to four bodies, was detected by ground-penetrating radar.8 While the archaeological evidence is well evidenced, no definitive documentary history of Cistercian Fountains Abbey has yet been written, perhaps owing to the discontinuity of written sources, and instead, scholarship has concentrated on specific areas where documentary or archaeological evidence can supply most information. As a result, out of its 407 years of monastic existence, from 1132 to 1539, the beginning is covered, up to 1300, and the very end, mainly the five decades leading up to the surrender of the monastery.9 Between these two periods are almost two centuries of activity about which relatively little has been written, yet, during those years, the abbey had to confront severe challenges, from economic disruption to internal and external political conflict. Information on its foundation and early history derives mainly from a single record, the Narratio. Today, one pre-Dissolution version is extant, a copy made in the first half of the fifteenth century, probably at the abbey.10 Research has shown that this copy, and probably earlier versions, transmitted an institutional desire to ‘cistercianize’ the origins of the abbey, achieved through a redactive process of emphasizing some events, omitting others, and by introducing analogies with the origin of Cîteaux itself.11 Such writing formed part of a general policy promoted around the turn of the twelfth century, designed to counter criticism of the Cistercian movement,12 and the Fountains model partly emulated the earlier Historia Fundationis of Byland and Jervaulx Abbeys, and the chronicle of its own daughter house, Kirkstall; contemporary models have also been identified at Cistercian houses in Sweden and Denmark.13 Making due allowance for the propaganda content of the Narratio, it is nevertheless possible to determine that an incipient monastic establishment was set up at the end of 1132 under the general protection of Archbishop Thurstan of York. The initial community was a group of dissident monks, who were ejected, or departed abruptly, from the Benedictine Abbey of St Mary’s York, without the time or foresight to secure for themselves the patronage  8 St John Hope, ‘Fountains Abbey’; Gilyard-Beer, and Coppack, ‘Excavations at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire, 1979–1980’,147–88; Coppack, Fountains Abbey ; Coppack, ‘The Planning of Cistercian Monasteries in the Later Middle Ages’, pp. 197–209; Guardian, 13 November 2016.  9 See the section in this chapter, pp. 28–35, on ‘Antiquarian Interest and Modern Scholarship’.  10 Cambridge: Trinity College Library, MS 0.1.79.  11 Derek Baker has analysed this record extensively: Baker, ʻThe Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles I’, 14–41; Baker, ‘The Foundation of Fountains Abbey’, 29–43; Baker, ʻThe Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles II’, 179–212.  12 Freeman, ‘Meaning and Multi-Centredness in (Postmodern) Medieval Historiography’, 43–84; and Freeman, Narratives of a New Order, pp. 152–68.  13 Burton, ed., The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and Jervaulx, pp. xxx–xxxi.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

of a substantial lay benefactor, which was by then the established procedure for the foundation of a new Cistercian house. In fact, due to its impromptu beginning, the community was not initially Cistercian, and it seems to have endured a precarious existence until autumn 1133, or even possibly 1134, when it was admitted to the Cistercian family.14 Cistercian endorsement marked a turning point, after which benefactions began to be received from some of the Yorkshire magnate families, particularly the Mowbrays and the Percys, which permitted the colony to move out of subsistence, and then to grow steadily. By 1136, permanent buildings were being erected on the site and the community had grown to thirty-five monks from the initial group of thirteen.15 A continuing inflow of resources and recruits empowered the community’s spiritual aspirations, so that within a short time an ambitious expansion programme was initiated, and new monasteries were founded. In marked contrast to its own (pre-Cistercian) foundation, the expansion programme shows signs of careful preparation, implementation, and adaptation. From their Yorkshire base, the monastery contributed greatly to the spread of Cistercianism across the country, by establishing no fewer than seven daughter houses across England and three granddaughter houses in the twelve-year period between 1138 and 1150. Each new daughter house was colonized by thirteen monks, so over this period some ninety brethren departed from Fountains; among them were most of the original founders, who went as abbots. The speed and the extent of the expansion is shown below in Table 1. It may be no coincidence that this remarkable expansion took place in the midst of a civil war, when baronial lands were liable to forfeiture and reallocation: in some circumstances, making a grant of lands to a religious house might be seen as a defensive measure.16 In addition, two monasteries were established in Norway: monks from Fountains set up Lysa in 1146, and Kirkstead established Hovedøya the following year.17 Under the Cistercian system of filiation, this family of monasteries imposed a considerable responsibility on the abbot of Fountains, who was charged with duty of care, involving annual visitations. At the same time it came to constitute a reservoir of resources for the training and supply of key personnel; Janet Burton has shown that the four successive abbots of Fountains between 1170 and 1211 had previously served as abbot at Pipewell (Robert), Newminster (William), Kirkstall (Ralph Haget), and Louth Park ( John of York), respectively, while in the same period two abbots of Kirkstall

 14 Baker, ‘The Foundation of Fountains Abbey’, 41. A group of breakaway dissidents draws analogy with the establishment of Cîteaux as a breakaway from Molesme.  15 Coppack, Fountains Abbey, pp. 26–27. The initial number of thirteen symbolically resonates with Christ and the Apostles, although it is also the quorum required for a new monastery under Cistercian statutes.  16 For a specific example, see Spence, ‘Fountains Abbey and the Acquisition of Bordley-inCraven’, 38–42.  17 Jamroziak, The Cistercian Order in Medieval Europe, p. 73.

23

24

c ha p te r 1 Table 1. The Fountains Family. Source: Janet Burton and Roger Stalley, ‘Tables of Cistercian Affiliations’, in Cistercian Art and architecture in the British Isles, ed. by Christopher Norton and David Park, page 397.

 

Louth Park, Lincolnshire:

 

Newminster, Northumberland: 1138

Fountains, Yorkshire:      1132

Kirkstead, Lincolnshire:

1139

 

Woburn, Bedfordshire:

1145

 

Kirkstall, Yorkshire:

1147

 

Vaudey, Lincolnshire:

1147

 

Meaux, Yorkshire:

1150

1138

  Pipewell, Northants: 1143 Roche, Yorkshire: 1147 Sawley, Yorkshire: 1147   Medmenham, Berkshire: 1204      

had come from Fountains (Turgisius and Ralph of Newcastle), another from Roche (Elias), and an abbot of Roche (Osmund) had previously been cellarer at Fountains.18 This first phase of activity at Fountains epitomizes the monastery’s philosophy throughout its existence whereby all actions were requisitioned for the glory of God. Consequently, economic activity was not perceived as an end in itself, but always as a means to an end, religious devotion, as encapsulated in the memorable phrase of Abbot Huby in the early sixteenth century, Soli Deo Honor et Gloria (Honour and Glory to God Alone). This expansion of Fountains was one small part of an unprecedented growth of Cistercian houses in this period. The abbey of Cîteaux was only founded in 1098, yet by 1150 some 354 Cistercian houses had been established across Europe; in 1152 the General Chapter attempted to discourage any further increase.19 Certainly after about 1150 the priority at Fountains shifted away from the implantation of new monasteries, to be succeeded by a second phase of expansion, this time of its own landed estates. Like the first, this phase was marked by a rigorous planning process. Although some lands may have been granted spontaneously to the abbey, many others were targeted acquisitions. One tactic used was to lease a desired piece of land, then before the lease expired, convince the landholder to grant it permanently to the  18 Burton, The Monastic Order, p. 165; HoRH, i, pp. 133, 136, 141.  19 Newman, ‘Foundation and Twelfth Century’, pp. 25, 30; Burton and Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, p. 44.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

Figure 3. The Principal Estates of Fountains Abbey. Figure by the author.

abbey. The pastureland of Gnoup and Darnbrook in Craven was acquired from the Percy family in this way in the late twelfth century; initially taken on a seven-year lease, it was eventually granted outright. The lease is not recorded in any cartulary, but the grant is, which mirrors the practice of the Cistercians in twelfth-century Burgundy identified by Constance Bouchard.20 Once sufficient lands had been acquired in a target area, they were reconfigured into semi-autonomous units, known as granges, for arable farming. Reporting to the abbey’s grangemaster, they were managed mainly by lay-brothers with hired labour when required. A parallel system of lodges was created for pastoral farming. Initially concentrating on sheep-rearing, a network of lodges was established on the upland pastures of Nidderdale and Craven, reporting to the abbey stockmaster. This dual system was operating by the final quarter of the twelfth century and underpinned the prosperity of Fountains for the next hundred years. During much of the abbey’s existence, wool production was central to its financial performance, and a major source of revenue to finance major building projects. However, towards the end of the thirteenth century, there was a major

 20 ‘The monks did not bother to store permanently or copy into their cartularies records of pawns [mortgages] that had been redeemed, only of those that ended in a permanent transfer of property to the abbey’s patrimony’ (Bouchard, Holy Entrepreneurs, p. 40). Nevertheless, at Fountains, the original twelfth-century lease of Gnoup and Darnbrook is recorded in the fifteenth-century President Book (p. 112), so a separate record must have been kept somewhere in the intervening period.

25

26

c ha p te r 1

Figure 4. The Key Sheep-rearing District of Craven. The abbey’s influence in this area extended to lands it did not hold directly: through its control of Malham byrlawcourt it had control over the intercommoning activities of contiguous townships surrounding the pastures of Malham Moor. Figure by the author.

setback when Fountains overextended its position and accumulated unmanageable debts. The only remedy was to surrender temporary control to the king, who appointed an administrator in 1272,21 and for the next six years the sale of Fountains wool was applied to reducing the indebtedness. By the mid-1280s the abbey seemed to have recovered momentum, but then in 1291 the king again imposed external management,22 and in one of the cartularies of Fountains an inserted note calculates the level of debt at the end of 1291 at £6473 10s 6d, which had reduced to about £4000 by the following year.23 The episodes disgraced the careers of at least two incumbent abbots, Peter Ayling (1275–1279), and Henry Otley (1284–1290).24 It would be small consolation for Fountains to know that it was not alone in this plight: between 1274 and 1305 no fewer than thirteen other Cistercian houses had been taken into royal administration.25  21 CPR, 1272–1281, p. 59.  22 CPR, 1281–1292, p. 431.  23 Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS, Rawlinson B.449 (Cartulary 1C), fol. 9r. In Memorials 2, p. vi, this passage has been mistranscribed, to read ‘1290 Abbey in debt £6373; reduced to £1293’ (1293 refers to the year, not a sum of money). Subsequent commentators have repeated the figures.  24 HoRH, ii, p. 280.  25 Graves, ‘The Economic Activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England’, 60. For an appraisal of the futures contracts which triggered the crisis, see Bell, Brooks, and Dryburgh, The English Wool Market.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

Eventually, by the early 1300s the situation seems to have been stabilized at Fountains. Few details are known of how this was achieved, but a generous donation of lands by the Countess of Aumale in 1301 surely helped; her grant included the township of Stainburn, and half of Rigton, near Otley, West Yorkshire.26 Yet stability was severely shaken again, little more than a decade later, by marauding Scots in the aftermath of the English defeat at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. In 1319, the abbot of Fountains was granted relief from tax on a long schedule of landholdings which had been laid waste by the Scots — including the Countess of Aumale’s gifts of Stainburn and Rigton.27 The fourteenth century witnessed a major shift in the business pattern at the abbey, which for the previous two centuries had operated its vast landed estate directly, albeit with considerable decentralized power vested in granges and lodges. In a national context, this can be viewed as part of a general shift by major landowners away from demesne farming in this period, but at the same time, perhaps the consequences of overexposure to wool in the late thirteenth century, and the consequences for Abbots Ayling and Otley, had initiated a risk-averse reaction in the management mentality at Fountains in the years that followed. If so, the early fourteenth century incidence of famine and border raids, and later a succession of plague epidemics, including the catastrophic Black Death, would only reinforce that view. Whatever the motivation, starting as early as 1310, the abbey began to move away from dependence on direct management of its assets, and instead, it introduced third-party resources progressively into estate management. The process evidently took time, and ran contrary to the principles on which the abbey had enjoyed economic prosperity for so long. But there was no turning back, and when official approval was required, it was duly requested, and obtained; records survive for 1336 and 1363, but there may have been more.28 The lands so carefully assembled a century and a half earlier were retained, but reconfigured. Many of the grange sites were manorialized, some perhaps remanorialized, during this time, with the abbot of Fountains becoming lord of the manor at multiple locations. Other granges were leased. Lodges were smaller operations, and were generally let out to a single tenant, although the abbey retained close control over stock management. This fundamental change in structure required the establishment of new administrative machinery, reporting procedures, and record-keeping practices. By the third quarter of the fourteenth century the economic structure of the house had been repositioned away from direct farming towards tenanted holdings. This adjustment continued up to the Dissolution, and by the mid fifteenth century the structure was further fine-tuned by the progressive introduction of fixed-term leases to replace customary rental agreements,

 26 CPR, 1292–1301, p. 496.  27 CClR, 1318–1323, p. 167.  28 BL, MS Cott. Tib. C.Xll (Cartulary 3A), fol. 191v; Memorials 1, pp. 203–05.

27

28

c ha p te r 1

although the abbey remained careful to retain control over its cash-generating livestock rearing, as well as a few key granges.29 The debt crises of the late thirteenth century were never repeated, although the fortunes of Fountains were challenged by fundamental changes in economic conditions during the long fifteenth century. Also, in-house political intrigue surfaced at least three times in the 1400s. One of these resulted in a further brief period of royal administration, in 1413, on this occasion to protect the abbey’s assets from sequestration by opposing sides in a disputed abbatial election. Overall, the switch from direct farming to collecting rents was decisive: on the eve of the Dissolution, based on details from the Valor Ecclesiasticus in 1535, 80.2% of the total income was derived from rents, with only 13.4% coming from direct farming, and another 6.4% from spiritualities.30 Following this selective history of the abbey, the following section reviews the work of the handful of scholars who have addressed the surviving muniments.

Antiquarian Interest and Modern Scholarship Roger Dodsworth (1585–1654) was the son of the registrar at York Minster, and began his antiquarian activities with genealogical research in the archives there, but this soon developed into an interest in monastic history, to the point where he had accumulated a collection of charter transcripts by 1638, the genesis of ‘Monasticon Anglicanum’.31 With substantial editorial input from William Dugdale (1605–1686), the final work was published, but not until 1655, shortly after Dodsworth had died. The first edition, in Latin, contains twenty-six pages (733–59) on Fountains Abbey, which represent the first recorded history of the monastery. Most of the entry is given over to a reproduction in full of the Narratio, followed by selected charter copies of endowments; these are mainly from the Mowbrays, and one from the Rumilly family, but the Percys are entirely absent; there is also one confirmation charter from Richard I, and one each from Archbishops Thurstan and Henry Murdac, though none from any pope, perhaps a judicious selection in the Protestant regime of the Interregnum in which it was published. Dodsworth obligingly supplied marginal references identifying his sources.32 Predominantly all the references he cites for charter summaries can be traced unequivocally to one cartulary, Cartulary 1C (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawl. B449). The foliation numbers he cites are post-Dissolution  29 For more details of this major shift, see: Platt, The Monastic Grange, esp. pp. 94–110; and Fountains Lease Book, pp. xxix–lxiv.  30 Memorials 1, pp. 254–57.  31 Parry, ‘Roger Dodsworth’.  32 Derek Baker has pointed out that Dodsworth miscited the source of the Narratio, although it seems to have resulted from an editorial error and an isolated one. See Baker, ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles II’, p. 201.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

insertions into that cartulary, made by Dodsworth himself, or possibly by Richard Gascoigne (c. 1579–1664), a contemporary antiquarian with whom Dodsworth collaborated.33 A century after Dodsworth’s work first appeared, John Burton published the Monasticon Eboracense in 1758. Written in English (as were the later editions of Anglicanum), it dedicated seventy pages to Fountains. Burton too referenced his work, including passages from Anglicanum, although many other references are to appendices which would have contained charter transcriptions: these were to form the bulk of a planned second volume, which was never executed.34 Some references do make the source clear, and it has been possible to identify four surviving manuscripts: these are the President Book (Leeds, WYAS, 150/5383), which he refers to by name; Cartulary 2, or the Coucher (WYAS WYL 150/5384), which he calls the ‘Chartulary’; and two other volumes, ʻCartularies 3A and 3B’, which he refers to indistinctly as the ‘Register’. The interest shown by the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century antiquarians was directed essentially to perpetuate the content of manuscripts, without much attempt at interpretation, and usually with a distinct preference for genealogical aspects. It was not until the nineteenth century that the manuscripts began to be examined critically. The study of all aspects of Fountains Abbey was propelled by the extensive work of J. R. Walbran (1817–1869) over a twenty-five-year period, from about 1844 to his premature death. In 1863 he published the first volume of Memorials of Fountains, which consisted of selected transcriptions of primary sources, including the foundation history.35 This volume contained much new information at the time, but even so it did not match the aspirations of its commission from the Surtees Society, ‘A volume of the charters, etc., of Fountains Abbey’, displayed on the frontispiece. Perhaps Walbran had underestimated the quantity of material to be considered, or more likely he was suffering from the onset of illness; his introduction to the volume carried an apology to subscribers which mentions both. He worked on a second volume from 1863 onwards, but its completion was prevented by a stroke in 1868 from which he died a year later.

 33 Pearson, ‘Richard Gascoigne’. Gascoigne did not publish work on Fountains, but he was intimately acquainted with the cartularies, which he evidently used to prepare genealogies; he had read Cartulary 1C on ʻ16 October 1619’ (fol. 1r), and examined Cartularies 3A (British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius CXII), 3B (BL, Add MS 40009) and 3C (BL, Add MS 37770) in December that year, in the process introducing a table of contents into Cartulary 3B (p. 46) and Cartulary 3C (frontispiece) and occasional glosses elsewhere (e.g. Cartulary 3A, fols 154v, 266r)’.  34 For a meticulous retracing of some of these charters, see Carpenter, ‘James Torre’s Collection of Yorkshire Monastic Charters’, 2–24.  35 Memorials 1.

29

30

c ha p te r 1

His notes were taken up by James Raine, who published a selection of them as the second volume in 1878.36 A further forty years would pass before the third and final volume was produced by J. T. Fowler, based on two collections of financial accounts from the mid fifteenth century, Swynton’s Memorandum Book (BL, Add MS 40011A) and the Bursars’ Books (WYAS, WYL 150/5497).37 The momentum of Walbran’s scholarship was lost in the posthumous second and third volumes, which occasionally contain unacknowledged omissions and at times lack the certainty of touch which he himself displayed for his subject. For example, Raine included in the second volume, on pages 86 to 106, ‘A Note of the Records of Fountains Abbey, and Their Present Places of Deposit’, which is clearly based on Walbran’s own notes, yet it fails to include BL, Add 40010, despite the fact that Walbran had cited from this work on multiple occasions in the first volume, and even prepared an index of its contents; it is highly unlikely that Walbran could have omitted the item himself from the original list.38 Just how much more material Walbran had prepared which was not used or lost cannot now be known, but he did produce very early on, in 1845, a transcription of the President Book, which still exists, albeit no longer fully legible.39 None of the works transcribed by Walbran or his continuators has received further attention since, with the notable exception of the foundation history, which was analysed to modern standards by Baker in 1969 and 1975.40 Arguably the Surtees Society commission could have resulted in a critical edition of the deeds and cartularies. In fact, the second volume of Memorials does include a section devoted to transcriptions of regal and papal privileges from Bodl. MS Univ. Coll. 167, but Walbran’s death prevented the much more extensive coverage he had envisaged, at the very moment when interest in cartularies was developing. In the 1880s J. C. Atkinson published editions for Whitby, Furness, and Rievaulx Abbeys, while around the same time the Grampian Club had produced cartularies for Cambuskenneth Abbey in 1872, for Beauly Priory in 1877, and for Coldstream Abbey in 1879.41 No equivalent publication covering Fountains Abbey appeared then, and while the absence of Walbran’s unremitting determination was no doubt a factor, perhaps an additional consideration was the nature of the Fountains  36 Memorials 2.  37 Memorials 3.  38 Memorials 1 cites from the ‘Register of Rentals of Fountains’ on pp. 333 ns 6, 7; 343 n. 2; 346 n. 2; 348 n. 1; 358 n. 1, and in several other instances. Walbran’s manuscript, ‘Index to the Register of rentals of Fountains’, survives as York Minster Archives, QQ 24.3.  39 York, York Minster Library, Add MS 266.  40 Baker, ʻThe Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles I’, and ʻThe Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles II’.  41 Cartularium Abbathiae De Whiteby, 1878; The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, 1886; Cartularium Abbathiae De Rievalle, 1889; Registrum Monasterii S. Marie de Cambuskenneth, 1872; The Charters of the Priory of Beauly, 1877; and the Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Coldstream, 1879.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

cartulary manuscripts: of the four versions which have survived, none by itself provides a complete set of data.42 The most detailed entries in Walbran’s time could be found in Cartularies 3A, 3B and 3C, but they only covered alphabetical entries from A to M, and the listings N–Y remained unlocated throughout the nineteenth century. Remarkably, in the early twentieth century, a fourth volume, covering Q–Y, was rediscovered,43 and very shortly afterwards W. T. Lancaster produced his Abstracts of Fountains, an abridged translation of all four manuscripts, in 1915.44 He had to overcome the continuing absence of a volume covering the letters N–P, still unlocated to the present day, and drew on another, later, cartulary to supplement his information (Cartulary 4, BL, Add MS 18276): this was only partly successful, not least because that cartulary is less detailed than its earlier cousin, with much abbreviation and an almost complete absence of witness lists. Ironically, full textual transmission and witness lists can often be found in the earliest surviving cartulary (Cartulary 1: Egerton MS 3053A-B, Univ. Coll. 170, and Rawl. B.449), and it is not clear why this source was ignored, although Lancaster affirmed that his work was not intended as a critical edition of the manuscripts, and said it should be regarded mainly ‘as a storehouse of facts for students of Yorkshire topography and genealogy’.45 The identical phrase about ‘Yorkshire topography and genealogy’ can be found in an earlier publication by Lancaster, on Bridlington Priory, produced in 1912, and this looks like a prototype of the work on Fountains, with the same methodology, whereby English abstracts are preferred to Latin transcriptions of charter entries, and any formulaic content is largely eliminated — this means that forms of address, guarantee, witnessing, and sealing are often excluded or excessively abbreviated. Lancaster appears to have hardened his views on this point, since in the Bridlington work there is at least some consideration of the form of the cartulary, as seen by his inclusion of a colour facsimile of one page, together with one paragraph of manuscript description, and two more detailing the variety of forms of address and warranty. In the Fountains edition there is no facsimile page, and the corresponding paragraphs on manuscript description and format are either omitted or severely truncated. Even so, it remains to this day the only authoritative reference work to date on the historical

 42 In some cases, the series is wanting, but the text is complete (BL, Egerton MS 3053A-B, Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MSS Univ. Coll. 170 and Rawl. B.449, BL, MSS Cott. Tib CXII, Add MS 40009 and Add MS 37770, and Manchester, John Rylands, MS Latin 224), while in others (Leeds, WYAS 150/5384 and BL, Add MS 18276) the series is complete, but the text omits significant details, such as witness lists.  43 Now Cartulary 3E.  44 Abstracts of Fountains.  45 Abstracts of Fountains, p. ix. Yet, for example, the entries for Pickhill, on pp. 788–89 could be supplemented from fols 60–62 of Rawl. B.449, with information, including fieldnames and witness lists, which would both be relevant for study of topography and genealogy.

31

32

c ha p te r 1

content of the cartularies of Fountains, to which, occasionally, additional details can be furnished from entries in the Early Yorkshire Charters series.46 Following the appearance of the third volume of Memorials in 1918 there were no further publications on Fountains business records for nearly sixty years, with one exception. This was a brief but perceptive analysis in 1932 of Egerton 3053A-B when it came into the possession of the British Museum.47 From the classification system used to identify individual charter entries, H. I. Bell deduced the archival scheme in which the underlying deeds would have been stored, and in addition he identified a connection with Bodl. Rawl. B. 449, which contains overlapping material for the grange of Aldburgh. However, he also implied that the two scribes of Rawl. B.449 were contemporary, stating that their hands were ‘similar, but not identical’. His statement is accurate, but in fact, these two styles may be separated by several decades, possibly longer, and they provide a key indication that the surviving cartulary is a reworked and expanded edition of a much earlier version. Although since that time no further work has been done on the early deeds registers, in 1981 David Michelmore produced an edition of the late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Lease Book. This represents a modern critical study of the manuscript in question, and the editor set this within the context of the financial management of the abbey’s landed estate from the late fifteenth century up to the Dissolution. Michelmore was well aware that the system of leasing he described was an evolution from an earlier system, and he drew upon occasional fourteenth-century information in Rentals to interpret the changes. His work was supplemented in 1989 by Richard Hoyle, who uncovered additional leasing material in the Dissolution records at the National Archives, and revealed the use of leasing as pre-emptive measures by the abbey in the face of imminent suppression.48 A major addition to the above scholarship was contributed by Joan Wardrop in 1987, in a monograph which analysed the role of benefactors in the expansion of Fountains Abbey from its inception to the end of the thirteenth century, in the nominal context of ‘the benefactions of pious laymen, at times in return for the spiritual benefits of the house’.49 Her work was based on a comprehensive analysis of the early documentary material, embracing original charters as well as all of the cartularies. Although, like Lancaster, her interest was concentrated on the content of the documents, she also considered their diplomatic context, for example in relation to the terms of tenure and related service obligations. Following shortly after Wardrop’s work, in 1993 the content of WYL 150/5497 and BL, Add 40011A  46 Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. by Farrer: in vol. 1, see items 61–86, pp. 62–85; items 502–07, pp. 384–89; item 517, p. 400, and items 519–24, pp. 402–04. In vol. 3, see items 1692–1712, pp. 337–51.  47 Bell, ‘A Register of Fountains Abbey’, 16–18.  48 Hoyle, ‘Monastic Leasing before the Dissolution’.  49 Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors. The quotation is from p. 226.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

formed the basis of an assessment by S. Payne of the beneficial social impact of the abbey on its local environment in the mid fifteenth century; the form of the manuscripts was not considered.50 In summary, the focus of antiquarian publications on the content of Fountains’ records reflected particular aspects of interest to individual authors. This approach continued into the early twentieth century, with the publication by Lancaster of Abstracts of Fountains, with its avowed emphasis on ‘Yorkshire topography and genealogy’. A change in approach was signalled by Bell’s article, which first applied an integrated analysis of form and content to a manuscript. The more recent works of Michelmore and Baker continue this holistic approach to their material. Their work, and that of Wardrop, also unconsciously highlight the shortcomings of the business records they examined: Wardrop’s study up to the turn of the fourteenth century was concerned with legal issues of title and transfer of ownership rights, with little in the way of financial analysis. Michelmore pursued essentially the same theme for the final century of the monastery, but was able to include a financial dimension from the later Miscellaneous Records (Swynton’s Memorandum Book, Bursars’ Books, Stock Book and the Steward’s Book). The only critical editions of Fountains manuscripts to date are the works of Michelmore, on the Lease Book, and Baker, on the Narratio; Michelmore acknowledged the value an edition of the cartularies would bring, and that ‘until such work is undertaken, any attempt to produce a definitive account of the Fountains estates would be premature’.51 The absence of a critical edition of the cartularies is compounded by the lack of scholarly attention on the fourteenth, and much of the fifteenth, centuries, so that between the authoritative works of Wardrop and Michelmore there is an information gap of almost two hundred years of activity at Fountains Abbey which remains to be addressed. For some areas the effective gap is much longer than two centuries. Due to the absence of accounting or financial documents before the fifteenth century, any attempt to examine the business expansion of Fountains in the years following its establishment is effectively limited to the narrative record compiled at Fountains, the Narratio, which covers the period from 1132 to the early thirteenth century.52 In addition there is a ‘chronicle’ of the abbots, which contains summary details up to about 1442;53 although for the period covered by the foundation history, the ‘chronicle’ largely draws from there, or from the same source, but occasionally adds an item or two. The foundation history is written in a traditional, hagiographical style, featuring, at times, slightly awkward attempts to portray the abbey and its leaders in as favourable a light as possible, by effusive exaggeration of

 50  51  52  53

Payne, ‘Fountains Abbey in the Mid-Fifteenth Century’. Fountains Lease Book, p. xv. Baker, ‘The Foundation of Fountains Abbey’, 29. President Book, pp. 12–16.

33

34

c ha p te r 1

praise and scrupulous avoidance of direct criticism of individuals. With due allowance for this style it is nevertheless possible from the foundation history to identify the approximate point at which the early community stabilized its situation and embarked on expansion around 1135, and also, from the ‘chronicle’ of the abbots, to infer a crisis of some sort, if only from the fainter praise levelled at some abbots, around the time of the wool futures crisis at the end of the thirteenth century.54 It is perhaps surprising that there is no surviving traditional chronicle of Fountains to continue the history beyond the years covered by the foundation history, even though one seems to have been compiled by Abbot Thornton (1289–1290) in his retirement.55 To some extent, it is possible to balance the internal comments from such sources as the Narratio, with official attestations which have been preserved within the records of Fountains in Cartulary RP, namely royal and papal charters, issued as confirmations of the assets and benefits of the abbey, normally at the abbey’s request. Over a period of seventy-five years between 1135 and 1210 they relate particularly to land rights, and a year-on-year comparison tracks the phased growth of Fountains’ landed estates over that period. Independent state records also contribute occasional fragments of information, such as evidence for the economic damage resulting from the Scots’ incursions through northern Yorkshire in 1319,56 although the absence of many fiscal records for Yorkshire prevents any trends being identified in the fortunes of the house. Finally, the surviving charters and cartularies often supplement this information, with details of the benefactions made to the abbey, which track the aggressive expansion programme initially undertaken, although this material has limitations, including on the one hand a lack of dates generally, and secondly the fact that charters which have not survived will not necessarily be recorded in a cartulary. All three information sources were used extensively by Wardrop to analyse the growth and consolidation of the Fountains estates, as contextualisation for the primary objective of her work on the nature of benefactors and benefactions to the abbey to the end of the thirteenth century. Wardrop’s work analysed the process of expansion at Fountains, and identified an active policy of targeting lands suitable for conversion into demesne culture using the grange as the instrument of control, as opposed to the passive reception

 54 In 1279 Abbot Peter Ayling stood down, or was forced to resign; one of his successors, Abbot Henry Otley is omitted from mention in the Chronicle, and when he died in 1290, he was buried in a less prestigious place than other abbots — at the entrance to the chapter-house (In hostio Capituli), rather than in the chapter-house itself (HoRH, ii, p. 280; Memorials, I, p. 140 n. 1).  55 Thornton served as abbot c. 1289/1290, and died in 1306 (HoRH, ii, p. 280). His endeavours in retirement at Fountains were later emulated by the quondam of daughter house Meaux, Thomas Burton, who completed a chronicle of his abbey in retirement (Taylor, ‘Burton, Thomas (d. 1437) chronicler and abbot of Meaux’).  56 CClR, 1318–1323, p. 167.

fo u ntai ns ab b e y

of whatever lands were bestowed upon them by benefactors. This proactive management is demonstrated by her analysis of benefactions made in the area of Kirby Wiske, which were fashioned into a coherent grange by trading and exchanging lands until the right structure was achieved; the plan included arranging to redeem the debts of at least one benefactor with Joci the Jew of York, as well as the outright purchase of other lands.57 This chapter has identified the relative lack of information on the history of Fountains in its middle years. In the next chapter, the external and internal challenges facing the abbey in the long fifteenth century are described, together with the consequences for Fountains and the determined response of Abbot Greenwell.

 57 Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, pp. 74–79.

35

Chapter 2

Fountains Abbey in the Long Fifteenth Century If the fifteenth-century abbots of Fountains reflected on the first century and a half of the abbey’s existence, they may well have regarded it as a golden era. The evidence that one abbot did indeed look back at that period will be examined in Chapter 6, but the present chapter briefly considers the conjuncture of economic and political circumstances which made much of the long fifteenth century such a challenging period for Fountains Abbey. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, economic prosperity in England had begun to falter. Since the economy was predominantly based on agricultural production it was susceptible to the prevailing climate. Severe wet weather conditions in 1315 and 1316 led to crop failures and livestock pestilence, which in turn led on to widespread famine; although harvests recovered in 1318, three years later there were further failures, this time caused not by excessive rain, but by drought. In northern England this was compounded by the devastation of lands and livestock by marauding Scots in 1318, 1319, and again in 1322.1 Economic statistics for the period must be treated with caution owing to the lack of reliable source material, but if economic prosperity is defined as GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per head of population, then already by 1300 the figure had declined very slightly, perhaps for the first time in the previous century.2 The causes were several, but prominent amongst them was a population that was by then increasing annually at a faster rate than national output, defined here as GDP. Then, with failing crops and widespread animal murrain, GDP began to falter too. Then, as the century progressed, the population was ravaged by the first of a series of devastating plagues, of which the Black Death of 1348–1349 was the deadliest. The catastrophic consequence was a reduction in population from 4.72 million around 1300 to just over 2 million by the early 1400s. In the first half of the fifteenth century the population declined further, and by the 1500s it had not yet recovered even to the post-Black Death level of 2.65 million. At a time when all productive activity was labour-intensive, the result was economic decline. For well over a century, between the 1340s and the 1470s, annual agricultural output was persistently negative, although arable did worse than livestock farming; between the 1350s and the 1450s nominal GDP declined by 31%, before recovering by 27% between the 1450s and 1500s, yet in the first half of the sixteenth century real GDP was just beginning to  1 Kershaw, ‘A Note on the Scots in the West Riding’, 231.  2 Broadberry and others, British Economic Growth, p. 205; Britnell, Britain and Ireland, pp. 84–90.

38

c ha p te r 2

regain the level of the immediate post-Black Death period.3 Yet economics, the gloomy science, can dispassionately, but accurately, point out that so long as population growth remained below GDP growth, then the average individual must be better off, and throughout the period (with one dip) GDP per head of population rose, until by the early 1500s it stood at more than 47% above the figure in the early 1300s. There are few, if any, ‘average’ individuals, and in practice there were economic winners and losers in this situation. With labour in short supply, the cost of labour was bound to increase; conversely, with tenants in short supply, rents would be likely to fall. As the economic downturn was unfolding in the early fourteenth century, Fountains had begun to withdraw from direct involvement in agricultural production, until by around mid-century it had effectively become a property landlord on a grand scale, part of a social affinity which Christopher Dyer has referred to as ‘the medieval aristocracy’, a grouping that traditionally could organize society for its own benefit, but which now stood to lose most under these conditions.4 The Percy family estates in Yorkshire showed declining revenues across the period 1416–1471, although their upland estates in Craven suffered less, and managed to maintain their values in those years.5 To a limited extent it is possible to view the position of Fountains Abbey in the long fifteenth century, and how it might have confronted the considerable economic challenges, but the scarcity of surviving financial data prevent a broad analysis. Fortunately, this limited view can be supplemented by analogy. Several detailed studies have been made using the extensive financial material housed in the archives of Durham Cathedral Priory, a fellow ‘aristocrat’, based not far from Fountains in the north of England. The conclusions from some of these studies are summarized below.6 When A. J. Pollard examined the position of Durham along with major lay landholders in the area, he concluded that upland pastoral areas had been less vulnerable to the economic situation than lowland arable areas.7 In a different approach, R. A. Lomas found there had been a steady increase in the size of individual tenant holdings between the mid fourteenth and late fifteenth centuries, with a matching reduction in the number of tenant holdings until by 1495 there were fewer than half the holdings there had been in 1340.8 This phenomenon is not uncommon for the period, and while it may imply deliberate actions to reduce the number of tenancies in the interests of greater efficiency, it may equally result from ‘the unintended

 3 Broadberry and others, British Economic Growth, pp. 115, 205.  4 Dyer, Everyday Life in Medieval England, p. xii.  5 Bean, The Estates of the Percy Family, p. 40.  6 For an overview of the economic situation at Durham in the fifteenth century, see Dobson, Durham Priory, esp. Ch. 6.  7 Pollard, ‘The North-Eastern Economy and the Agrarian Crisis of 1438–1440’.  8 Lomas, ‘Developments in Land Tenure on the Prior of Durham’s Estates’. Tenancies fell from ‘about 825 to about 375’.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

consequences of demographic shrinkage and flows of migration’, in an era when population growth was stubbornly low, when not negative, and the lure of urban growth was increasing.9 A. T. Brown showed how financial managers at Durham Cathedral Priory had introduced several financial innovations to see if greater administrative efficiency could offset economic difficulties. Chief amongst these measures was a strategic shift towards leasehold tenure, alongside tactical measures, including a pragmatic approach to rent collection, and judicious management of annual rent arrears and delinquency, with the result that, although overall rent levels fell by £100 over the century, arrears and delinquency of more than £500 were all but eliminated.10 The records of Fountains Abbey do not contain the comprehensive financial information available for Durham Cathedral Priory on which the above studies were based. Instead, such data as have survived are invariably abstracts from more complete records which are no longer extant, and often the basis on which the abstracts were compiled is unclear.11 These limitations prevent a thorough analysis of the abbey’s properties and economic activities. Nevertheless, selective use of these sources, to consider rental details at different times in the long fifteenth century, can generate an overall impression of changing circumstances at Fountains during this period. The analysis which follows is based on a sample of nine Fountains sites, all of which were granges, or included a grange at the location. Where possible, the nominal level of rents was compared for dates at six stages: 1305 to 1329; 1329 to 1347; 1347 to 1356; 1356 to 1361; 1361 to 1456/1457; and 1535.12 Between 1305 and 1329, available data permitted a comparison of only five cases. Of these, three had improved and two had declined. Dishforth had more than doubled its rental income over the period, and in doing so had increased the number of tenants from twenty-six to thirty-four, although the major contributor to improvement was the inclusion of a cornmill at £3 p.a. rental.13 At Malham, income rose 16 percent over the twenty-four-year period, with a slight increase in tenants from twenty-eight to thirty-two.14 Across the moor from Malham, at Arncliffe, tenants increased slightly, from ten to eleven, with a marginal increase in income.15 In contrast, at Melmerby, income was down 23 percent in 1329, and the number of tenancies had halved, from forty-nine

 9 Dyer, ‘The Agrarian Problem, p. 33.  10 Brown, ‘Estate Management and Institutional Constraints’, 703.  11 The main source of information is Rentals; the nature and quality of this data are described more fully in Appendix D.  12 Arncliffe, Arnford, Baldersby, Dishforth, Kirby Wiske, Malham, Marton, Melmerby, Stainburn. Data was taken from: Rentals for 1305 to 1361; the Bursars’ Books for 1456–1458; the Steward’s Book for 1528; and the Valor Ecclesiasticus, 1535. Not all locations had details for each date.  13 £3 6s 1d in 1305 to £7 6s 7½d in 1329: Rentals, fols 74v–76r, 131v–132r.  14 £8 19s 4d to £10 8s 4d: Rentals, fols 73r–v, 135r–v, 138r.  15 £1 18s 4d to £1 18s 10½d: Rentals, fols 74r, 138v.

39

40

c ha p te r 2

to twenty-four, while at Stainburn, rental income fell by 20 percent, and the number of tenants reduced from thirty-three in 1316 to twenty-nine in 1329.16 These figures are undoubtedly distorted by the impact of Scottish incursions in May 1318 and September 1319, when large areas of north Yorkshire were laid waste: for this reason Stainburn, Dishforth, Melmerby (and Kirby Wiske) were all granted relief from taxation in 1319; Malham and Arncliffe were not included, suggesting they had been largely unaffected.17 Seen in this light, Dishforth and even Stainburn had recovered by 1329, but Melmerby was still convalescing. In the following period, from 1329 to 1345–1348, comparable information is available for six of the locations, which all show rising income and in most cases a tendency for tenancies to increase.18 Thus, at Melmerby, the number of tenants doubled, from twenty-four in 1329 to forty-nine in 1336, at Dishforth they increased from thirty-three in 1329 to around fifty-four in 1348, while by 1347 Stainburn tenants had risen to forty-six from only nine in 1329.19 More land was being taken into cultivation: at Arncliffe the area let to tenants rose to 10½ bovates in 1346 from 7½ in 1329, in Malham to 26 bovates in 1347 from 21 in 1329, and at Melmerby to 43 bovates in 1340 from 29 in 1329.20 During this period several locations made their first appearance in the financial records. These fall into two categories: firstly, Arnford (1329), Kirk Hammerton (1329), and Baldersby (1336). These three were all former dedicated granges, and their debut as tenanted properties provides confirmation of the abbey’s manorialisation strategy being rolled out at this time. The second category were all stock management sites on the pasturelands of Malham Moor: Westsidehouses, Colgillhouse, Arncliffe Cote, Middle House, and, on the western fringe of the area, Stodhirdhall with Fountains Hall.21 Their listing in 1329 as tenanted properties suggests that, in parallel with manorialisation of granges, the flock management policy of the abbey was being outsourced at this time, at least in part. But if so, this transition had not gone smoothly: two of the pastureland locations are marked in manu domini, ‘in the hands

 16 Melmerby: £8 10s 8d in 1329, from £11 2s 3½d in 1305, Rentals, fols 67r–v, 68r, 131r–v; Stainburn: £10 8s 4d in 1329 from £13 1s 8d in 1316, Rentals, fols 137v, 136r, 66r–v.  17 CClR, 1318–1320, p. 167. Kirby Wiske tenants declined from 14 in 1316 to 9 in 1329, while income fell from £6 4s 0½ d to no more than £4 1s 8d in the same period: Rentals, fols 129r, 66r. The wider context is analysed in Kershaw, ‘A Note on the Scots in the West Riding’. A third raid took place in 1322.  18 Malham: £10 8s 4d (1329) to £11 2s 10d (1336), Rentals, fols 135r–v, 138r, 96r–v; Melmerby: £8 10s 6d (1329) to £12 13s 8d (1340), Rentals, fols 131r–v, 119v, 120r; Dishforth: £8 8s 9½d (1329) to £12 6s 2d (1348), Rentals, fols 131v, 132r, 222r–224r; Stainburn: £10 8s 4d (1329) to £11 14s 6d (1345), Rentals, fols 137v, 136r, 112r.  19 Melmerby: Rentals, fols 131v, 132r, 106v, 107r–v, 108r; Dishforth: 131v–132r, 222r–224r; Stainburn: 137v, 136r, 124v–125v.  20 Arncliffe: Rentals, fols 138v (1329), 115v–116r (1346); Malham: Rentals fols 125v–126r (1347); Melmerby: fols 119v–120r (1340), 131r–v (1329).  21 Rentals, fol. 138v.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

of the lord of the manor’, while a carucate of land on the eastern edge of Malham Moor, at Conistone, is marked as being in the hands of the granger at adjacent Kilnsey; also, parcels of Arncliffcote were being let to tenants of Arncliffe in 1346.22 The third period examined covers the time of the Black Death. In Yorkshire this had greatest impact in 1349. No records survive from Fountains for that year nor for several afterwards, but a comparison can be made between assorted information for the years 1345–1348 and 1356–1361. At Malham, rental income dipped only slightly between 1347 and 1356, but closer inspection shows the number of tenants dropped from thirty-two in 1336 to twenty-three in 1356, when seven tofts were declared to be in manu domini.23 A year later, in 1357, three more tenants had been taken on and the rental nominally improved, to £13 10s 8d, but this included £1 19s 9d from ten tenants in arrears.24 At Dishforth, income improved in 1358 over 1348, but untaken lands included two acres lying fallow, a chapel with an orchard (gardino), and five and a half acres of forland (meadow).25 At Marton rentals dropped by a third between 1345 and 1357, and the number of tenants fell from thirty-one to twenty-three.26 However, no tofts are recorded as in manu domini and no arrears are reported. In contrast, at Melmerby in 1357 untaken land extended to empty tofts worth 6s 3d p.a. and meadowland worth 6s p.a., and it is noted that the abbey gatekeeper (portarius) held lands there, worth 15s 11d before the pestilence, but now only 3s p.a. Meanwhile the mill only yielded 12s p.a., down from 32s in 1340. Overall the rental income had fallen from £12 13s 9d in 1340 to only £5 13s 6d in 1357.27 At Stainburn a similar picture emerges: the rent dropped from £11 14s 6d in 1345 to £9 18s 3d in 1356, although tenancies only fell by four, from thirty-three in 1340. But desolation is implied by the fate of the mill, which had yielded 30s p.a. in 1345, but is not mentioned in 1356, when four empty tofts had been reallocated to other tenants.28 The impact of the Black Death can be glimpsed among these fragmented records. But also, where records exist for both 1356/1357 and 1358, the abbey’s proactive response to the plague can be observed. At Kirk Hammerton and Whixley, the figures for 1358 follow the format ‘solebat reddere […] et modo’ (he/she used to pay […] and now), and the totals for the present year are accompanied by a forecast for the following year. Rents are seen to be holding firm and even increasing, so that both locations forecast higher income for the

 22  23  24  25  26  27  28

Rentals, fol. 138v, 115v–116r. Rentals, fols 96r–v, 154r–v. Rentals, fol. 157v, 158r. £13 7s 8½d from £12 6s 2d; Rentals, fols 222r–224r, 172r–174r. £31 7s 0d down to £20 9s 0d; Rentals, fols 113v, 114r, 147r–v. Rentals, fols 119v, 120r, 143v. Rentals, fols 112r, 150v–151v, 117r–v.

41

42

c ha p te r 2

following year; unfortunately the records for 1359 have not survived.29 By 1361, three significant winners and six losers can be identified across the sample when compared with results from before the incidence of the Black Death (1345–1347 or earlier). Kirby Wiske was 144% higher, Dishforth 84%, and Malham 29%.30 In contrast, Melmerby was 50% lower, Marton 28%, Arnford 25%, Baldersby 17%, Stainburn 11%, and Arncliffe 10% down — although the entire difference in the case of Stainburn was the loss of income from the cornmill, which was in manu domini in 1361.31 After 1361 there are scarcely any surviving records for the remainder of the century and well into the fifteenth, so the next period of comparison spans nearly 100 years, from 1361 to 1456/1457. Although the long gap is necessitated by the absence of intermediate data, the results are revealing. All nine locations have data for 1456/1457, and when compared with 1361, or in a few cases, even earlier, only Kirby Wiske shows a lower figure, while Dishforth remains at the same level.32 The other seven all show improvements, although, given that a century separates the two sets of figures, the increases appear modest, ranging from 5 per cent to 11 per cent. However, these are nominal figures, and when inflation is taken into account, the situation changes; between 1361 and 1456/1457, it has been estimated that prices did not rise at all, instead they shrank on average by 0.2% p.a.33 On this basis, the nominally lower rental, for Kirby Wiske, in fact kept pace in real terms: the 1456/1457 rental of £8 12s 10d had the same purchasing power as the rent of £10 in 1361. Of eight locations which can be compared between 1456/1457 and 1528/1535, seven show a nominal improvement, and one is unchanged.34 However, when inflation is again taken into account, the situation changes. In the period 1456/7 to 1528/1535, prices rose on average 0.8% p.a., so that to purchase goods worth £10 in 1456 would have required £17.20 in 1528.35  29 Kirk Hammerton total income for 1358 is given as £4 10s 5d, and the forecast as £4 17s 6d (Rentals fol. 170r); at Whixley the figures are £5 19s 3d, forecast to rise to £7 4s 7d (fol. 170v).  30 Kirby Wiske, £10, plus 10 quarters of wheat, barley and oats, v £4 1s 8d, Rentals, fols 197r–213r (1361), 129r (1329); Dishforth, £22 14s 2d v £12 6s 2d, Rentals, 184v (1361), 222r–v, 223r–v, 224r (1348); Malham, £14 7s 11d v £11 2s 10d, Rentals, fols 182v, 183r–190r–191r–221r–v (incomplete) (1361), 96r (1336).  31 Melmerby, £6 5s 8½d v £12 13s 9d, Rentals, fols 196r–v; 212r–v (1361), 119v, 120r (1340); Marton, £22 14s 2d v £31 11s 2d, Rentals, fols 195v (1361), 124r–v (1347); Arnford, £5 v £6 13s 4d, Rentals, fols 191v (1361), 138v (1329); Baldersby, £40 18s 8d v £57 7s 6d, Rentals, fols 195r–196r (1361), 112v–113v (1343); Stainburn, £10 10s 4d v £11 14s 6½d, Rentals, fols 201v, 202r–v (1361), 112r (1345); Arncliffe, £3 14s 10d v £4 3s 10d, Rentals, fols 182v, 189v–190r (1361), 115v–116r (1346).  32 Kirby Wiske: Rentals, fol. 212v, and Bursars’ Books, p. 4; Dishforth: Rentals, fol. 184v and Bursars’ Books, p. 4.  33 Bank of England inflation calculator. The calculator is not intended as a precise measure of price changes in the medieval period, but more as an indicator of trends and changes in trends.  34 Improved: Baldersby, Dishforth, Kirby Wiske, Malham, Marton, Melmerby, Stainburn; unchanged: Arnford; 1535 figures are all taken from Valor Ecclesiasticus, v, p. 253.  35 Bank of England calculator.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

As a result, every one of the sample rental figures for 1535 shows a decline in real terms. In order to maintain real value, each entry in 1456/1457 would need to have increased by 40.75% by 1535, but in aggregate they only grew by 16.4%.36 The discrete snapshots emerging from this fragmented data do not permit direct comparisons to be drawn with the conclusions from the studies cited on Durham, but they do allow some cautious observations to be made. First of all, they illustrate the resilience of the abbey in recovering firstly from Scottish devastation in 1318, and subsequently from the Black Death in 1349. Secondly, when considered in the context of prevailing national price level trends, they suggest a marked contrast in fortunes as the long fifteenth century wore on. In the period from 1361 to 1456, real prices fell by some 14 per cent nationally, but rental levels at Fountains increased by almost thirteen percent nominally, giving a real increase of over 30 per cent. By contrast, over the next period, from 1456 to 1535, the economy had recovered, and prices rose by 40 per cent, but the sample rentals at Fountains only rose by just over 10 per cent, so this time real income had deteriorated by almost the same amount as the increase in the earlier period. The sample used is very narrow, and is based moreover on incomplete records, but if they are representative of the monastery as a whole it appears to have maintained its economic equilibrium from just after the Black Death until the Dissolution. In the absence of more solid information, a tentative conclusion suggests that the abbey successfully outperformed the economic depression of the early fifteenth century, but then from mid-century onwards relinquished those gains to the point where by the time of the Valor Ecclesiasticus it was neither better nor worse than it had been in 1361 — and if the Dissolution had not taken place, the economic fortunes of the abbey were set to deteriorate unless significant changes were introduced. The lack of more extensive and consistent data from Fountains also prevents a direct comparison with the findings of Brown at Durham regarding improving financial efficiency, but a few observations can be made.37 Firstly, all the rental figures above are generally quoted gross, that is, they show expected income, without deduction for non-payment, or vacant plots; from time to time in the records, the ominous phrase in manu domini, ‘in the hands of the lord of the manor’ reveals a vacant, unproductive tenancy, yet usually the rental income is still included in the total for the location. Secondly, although the details at Fountains are insufficient to see if the same pragmatic approach to rent collection was being practised as at Durham, where due dates were made more flexible and payment was accepted in kind, there is just a hint of this in the mid fifteenth-century accounts book of Thomas Swinton, who

 36 1456 total, £143 1s 11½d; 1535 total, £166 13s 7¾d.  37 Brown, ‘Estate Management and Institutional Constraints’.

43

44

c ha p te r 2

records the making of payments in this way.38 For example, in 1454–1455, William Hudson, the abbey blacksmith, claimed £11 4s 9d for his wages and expenses over the previous two years. In exchange, he received no cash at all, but instead was allowed his back-rent against four separate properties, and was given two bullocks and two cows from three different sources — arguably also received by the abbey in lieu of rent.39 Exchanges like this provided the abbey with scope for arbitrage, for example if they valued the bullocks given to Hudson at a higher price than they acquired them, but it is not possible to detect this from the details available. Thirdly, there is one significant entry, covering two and a half pages in the Bursars’ Books, dedicated to rent arrears for the year 1456–1457: this amounts to some £144, representing around eighteen per cent of the total rental income of £808 for that year, or roughly one in every six tenants.40 Several of the arrears seem to correspond to upland lodges: the tenant of Westsidehouses on Malham Moor was in arrears for £3 4s 10d, or fully three years’ rent. Although the Bursars’ Books span three years of payments and receipts, this is the only item dedicated to arrears, so it is unclear whether this was a special drive in that year to clear the backlog, or whether similar sections for other years have not survived. Allied to this is another section of the Bursars’ Books, headed ‘Allowances and Reductions’. This list adds up to a further £97, and although many entries cover dilapidation or damage to property, many more relate to rent reductions and they cover the entire spread of Fountains’ estates, regardless of arable or pasture. Even some of the dilapidation allowances could of course be disguised rent relief. Again, this list does not reappear elsewhere in the Bursars’ Books, yet against several entries there is the observation ex convencione, ‘by agreement’, implying a semi-permanent arrangement. In addition, an extensive list of repairs to properties consumed another £51 in 1458; this list too might conceal rent relief. The abbey did receive income from other sources, including the sale of livestock, wool, leather, and lead, manor court fines, and letting out of retained pasturelands and woodlands, which in all amounted to some £147 in 1457–1458 — just enough to offset the rent arrears. While the evidence for Fountains is undoubtedly fragmentary, overall the findings are in line with the detailed research carried out on the records at Durham. It suggests that rent reduction was a reality over the period, and that a number of measures may have been adopted to address and contain the problem. In parallel with the economy, the political environment, internal and external, presented its own set of challenges for Fountains during the long

 38 Thomas Swynton succeeded John Greenwell as abbot in 1471, and before that he had occupied senior roles: Walbran referred to him as Prior Swynton, though this cannot be substantiated. The contents of his Memorandum Book suggest he could have been bursar or cellarer.  39 Memorials 3, pp. 205–06.  40 Memorials 3, pp. 6–7 (arrears), 19–23 (allowances and reductions), 83–85 (property repairs).

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

fifteenth century. Externally, one of the long-standing strengths of the Cistercian movement was severely undermined by the Great Western Schism (1378 to 1417), which resulted in England adhering to one pope in Rome, and France to another one in Avignon. This division in turn fractured the Cistercian command structure under which English abbots were subject to the annual General Chapter at Cîteaux; in its place an English General Chapter was instituted, with delegated powers. By the time the status quo was reinstated in 1413, the interim lines of authority had all too frequently proved divisive among the English houses, and also, critically, had given rise to precedents whereby obedience to the Cistercian hierarchy could be subverted. These precedents materialized progressively in a series of abbatial election disputes from the 1390s onwards whereby dissenting parties came to realize that if their views were rejected or opposed, they could bypass the Cistercian system, by appealing directly to the pope of the day.41 In England, the deposition of Richard II in 1399 demonstrated the ability and willingness of powerful magnates to challenge the political status quo by force of arms. As the fifteenth century progressed, this ability was reinforced by the system of seigneurial affinity, sometimes called bastard feudalism, which permitted some magnates to bankroll personal fighting forces. In turn, this led to abuses whereby local disputes might be determined by armed retainers, in disregard to the king’s law.42 Allied to this situation, the resumption of war in France necessitated the king’s reliance on magnates to supply his fighting forces; this overriding need at times obliged Henry V (1412–1422) to avoid antagonising one or other magnate, which necessitated his overlooking allegations of their domestic excesses. This political environment fostered the growth of rival factions, and the situation was intensified after the succession of Henry VI in 1422, at the age of scarcely nine months, which necessitated the country being governed by a council of magnates for fifteen years, up to 1437. After Henry VI assumed power in his own right, factionalism did not diminish, but intensified to the point where civil war, the so-called Wars of the Roses, broke out in 1455.43 Hostilities were concentrated in two phases: the first, between 1459 and 1471, ended with victory for the Yorkist Edward IV over the Lancastrian Henry VI, and was followed by peace, at times uneasy, until Edward’s death in 1483 triggered a second, shorter phase from 1483 to 1487. Even after that, the reign of Henry VII (1485–1509) was periodically troubled by unrest until the end of the century, with sporadic rallies around pretenders to Henry’s throne arguably only ending with the imprisonment of Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, in 1506.44  41 See Graham, ‘The Great Schism and the English Monasteries of the Cistercian Order’.  42 For an overview, see Coss, ‘Lordship and Affinity’; for specific cases, see Wilcock, ‘Local Disorder in the Honour of Knaresborough’, and Storey, ‘Disorders in Lancastrian West­mor­land’.  43 No rose of any colour was employed as an emblem by either faction, and the title ‘Wars of the Roses’ is probably a nineteenth-century romanticisation (Pollard, The Wars of the Roses, p. 5).  44 Pollard, The Wars of the Roses, pp. 23–40; Hanham, ‘Edmund De La Pole, Defector’.

45

46

c ha p te r 2

In the face of this combination of shifting economic forces and magnate tribalism, how did the wealthiest Cistercian monastery in England fare? Some of the political difficulties which befell Fountains resulted not from its status as a religious house, but from the fact that its annual income was on a par with many of the factious magnates, recalling Dyer’s designation of Fountains as an ‘aristocrat’. Directly comparable figures are difficult to assemble, but as an approximation, the institutional income of Fountains in 1535 was £1115, while a century earlier, the wealthiest magnates, the peers, were receiving similar amounts: John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, was assessed on a personal income of £1333 in 1436, and Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland, on £1210.45 This situation seems to have produced two separate effects, both of which would influence the fortunes of the house during the long fifteenth century. Firstly, the abbots were conscious of their status, and sought to live accordingly; this manifested itself at Fountains in the pursuit of the mitre by John Ripon (1413–1434), and John Greenwell (1442–1471), and the lavish rebuilding of the abbatial accommodation; Marmaduke Huby (1495–1526) ‘doubled the size of his already substantial residence, adding a large hall, great chamber, and private oratory’.46 Secondly, it generated covetousness among some of the aristocracy. Fountains had no direct founder, although the archbishops of York traditionally claimed that distinction, given the decisive role of Archbishop Thurstan (1114–1140) as protector of the initial colony.47 However, two magnate families also considered themselves as patrons, if not founders. The Percys and the Mowbrays were the most prolific benefactors to the abbey in its formative stages, and several of their ancestors were buried at the abbey. Their importance to the house is reflected in the fact that a genealogy of each family is written into one of the cartularies of Fountains.48 Around the turn of the fifteenth century, the abbot of Fountains became involved in a series of incidents which symbolized the unsettled times and challenged the status quo. The first of these related to Meaux Abbey, which had been founded by monks from Fountains in 1150, and consequently the abbots of Fountains exercised the supervisory role of father abbot to Meaux, involving annual visitations, and presiding over the election of a new abbot when required. In 1396 this role fell to Abbot Robert Burley (1383–1410) for an election to replace the 76-year-old incumbent William of Scarborough (1372–1396).49 Two candidates received equal numbers of votes in the election, so, as prescribed, it fell to Robert Burley to nominate the winner. The appointment was duly confirmed, and the new abbot, Thomas Burton, was professed by

 45 Gray, ‘Incomes from Land in England in 1436’, 614, 615.  46 Heale, The Abbots and Priors of Late Medieval England, p. 159.  47 Nicholl, Thurstan Archbishop of York (1114–1140), pp. 171–78.  48 Cartulary 4, pp. 264–65.  49 Bond, Chronica Monasterii De Melsa, iii, p. 233; HoRH, iii, p. 311.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

the archbishop of York in August 1396.50 Yet almost immediately, dissent arose amongst the Meaux community. The dissenters alleged interference in the voting procedure by both the abbot of Fountains and the hereditary founding benefactor, the duke of Gloucester. When they presented their grievances to the English Cistercian Chapter, the Chapter appointed two abbots to investigate. Their inquiries were obstructed by Burley, who then bypassed the authority of the Chapter by appealing directly to Rome. Eventually a compromise was reached, which saw Burton confirmed in office, only for a further intervention by Burley to reopen the whole dispute. In the end, Burton himself chose to resign rather than prolong the discord and extend the financial strains on the abbey by costly further appeals to the pope. Then, when Burley died in 1410, his own succession eventually also led to a bitter dispute at Fountains between two candidates; ironically, one of them was at the time abbot of Meaux, although previously a senior monk of Fountains. The affair was played out in the shadow of the last days of the Schism and the beginning of a papal interregnum presided over by the Council of Constance, where lines of authority were frequently elusive or ambiguous. At about the same time, war against France distracted the incoming monarch, Henry V. As a result, neither religious nor secular authority showed itself able to resolve the dispute at Fountains, which led to an extended period of uncertainty and financial strain. The descent into instability originated in the summer of 1410, out of the apparently legitimate election of Roger Frank as abbot, which was duly confirmed that autumn by the Cistercian General Chapter meeting in Cîteaux. However, the decision was not accepted by one of the losing candidates, John Ripon. He proceeded to ignore the line of Cistercian authority by taking his case to the papal court in Rome, which he knew well, having previously worked there for several years on behalf of Fountains. Yet at first his appeals were rebuffed, twice, and on the second occasion he was excommunicated. Undeterred, he managed a direct approach to the pope, who granted a ruling in March 1413 which allowed Ripon to return to England and oust Frank as abbot. Frank had almost succeeded in quashing Ripon’s appeals in Rome, and he refused to give up even in the face of the papal ruling. Instead, he turned to the English courts to challenge the pope’s authority; this led the king to remove the abbey from Ripon’s control and place it in the care of the archbishop of York and the bishop of Durham in December 1413. Ripon managed to endure this challenge and returned to the abbacy in March 1414 with the king’s approval. Still the matter did not end: Frank was able to spend a further two years appealing to Rome, and once again came very close to overturning the decision, but at last received a decisive rebuff in 1416, and thereafter there were no further official challenges.51 The previous six years had been marked with incidents

 50 Abp Reg 14 (Arundel), fol. 54v.  51 HoRH, iii, pp. 292–93.

47

48

c ha p te r 2

of violence, along with misappropriation of the assets of the house by both parties to finance the extortionate costs of appeal and counter-appeal in Rome. External influences were almost certainly the reason this affair had taken six years to resolve. The influence of John de Mowbray behind John Ripon, and Henry de Percy behind Roger Frank becomes clear from state records: Mowbray won out, and was still receiving an annual payment of 500 marks (£333) at least ten years later. Perhaps on account of this, unrest with the situation continued to fester for long afterwards; evidence has come to light suggesting that for many years a vendetta was conducted against Fountains and particularly the abbot. The most serious incident took place in late 1423, when followers of Henry de Percy, earl of Northumbria, mounted an armed occupation of the abbey, lasting over twenty-four hours, during which valuables were seized and the inhabitants intimidated. Over several years, other reported episodes included goods being sequestered, abbey herdsmen intimidated on the fells, and vexatious summonses issued against the abbot in wapentake courts. The incidents only seem to have come to an end on the death of the successful contender, Abbot John Ripon, in 1434.52 This long-drawn-out affair was not only financially damaging, it also undermined the prestige of the abbey, and this was compounded by humiliation in 1420 when the right to wear the mitre, granted earlier to John Ripon by Pope John XXIII, was withdrawn by Pope Martin V.53 In essence, a mitred abbot was proclaiming equivalency to a bishop, and was highly prized. Despite resistance from the bishops themselves, which resulted in a brief period after 1439 in which the papacy agreed not to issue any more, as the fifteenth century advanced the practice became more prevalent in England; as will be seen, forty years later, Fountains succeeded in regaining its pontificalia.54 John Ripon’s successor as abbot was John Paslew (1434–1442), who seems to have restored some stability, or at least avoided adverse publicity, during his nine-year term of office.55 Latterly he became debilitated by paralysis, and resigned. The abbacy was briefly assumed by John Martin, about whom little is known beyond that he only ruled for seven weeks. However, a John Martin had been a member of the dissident faction during the protracted election dispute, and his abbacy may have represented a reassertion, perhaps a tardy vindication, of the dissidents.56 The cause of his death is unknown. The election of John Greenwell (1442–1471) eventually proved a turning point in the fortunes of the abbey. Even so, the first half of his twenty-nine-year  52 For more detailed analysis of the dispute, see Jacob, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey’, and Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey Revisited’.  53 CPL, vii, fol. 170, May 1420.  54 See Heale, ‘Mitres and Arms’.  55 He had been appointed a papal chaplain in May 1403: CPL, v, fol. 122.  56 Another of the dissidents, William Eastby, had been discovered in chains when Percy’s supporters stormed the abbey in 1423, seven years after Ripon had been confirmed in office.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

tenure would witness further episodes in the era of disrepute and disharmony at Fountains, before a sustained initiative under his leadership started the long process of restoring the reputation and dignity of the house. In 1447 a veteran monk of the community attempted to poison Greenwell. The circumstances surrounding the attempt and its aftermath are recorded in surviving documents, although they do not reveal a credible motive for the act. The confessed culprit, William Downom, allegedly had appropriated funds of the abbey, and challenged the authority and doctrine of the Cistercian Order.57 The incident was reported to Cîteaux, very publicly, involving notarized affidavits, which are now the only source of information about the affair. One of these affidavits was drawn up in the chapter house of Fountains in 1449; another was signed and sealed by the abbots of eighteen English Cistercian houses, who attended a convocation of both English provinces at Leicester in July 1448.58 Although the notarized statements form an incomplete record of the Downom affair, at the same time they disclose incidental evidence of additional unrest at Fountains. Firstly, the names of all the monks listed as present in the chapter house in 1449 do not match completely the signatories at the end of the notarized statement. Five monks omitted to sign, including Thomas Swynton, who would later replace Greenwell as abbot in 1471.59 These omissions on such an important document are unlikely to be an oversight and could be interpreted as dissent from the majority view. Secondly, the same report hints at an earlier incident, about which no more is known. One of the monks who did sign the 1449 affidavit, William Hull, added a qualifying comment: conscius de primis erroribus in ultima rebellione, ‘privy to previous sins during the last trouble’.60 This comment was allowed to stand in a document which was sent to Cîteaux, and clearly was not written frivolously, but whether it refers to something trivial or as serious as another attempted murder is not known. Interestingly, the author of the comment himself subsequently provoked further disruption, as appears in the records of Fountains some six years later: in 1456–1457 Hull was described as an apostate who had issued a writ causing the cellarer to be imprisoned, albeit briefly.61 Shortly afterwards, internal strife was overshadowed by royal displeasure in 1461, when, evidently suspected of Lancastrian sympathies, Greenwell was forbidden to leave London until he had given a formal oath of loyalty to the new Yorkist king, Edward IV, on recognisance of £2000.62 This he duly did, and ostensibly he had regained the king’s favour, for within three years Greenwell

 57 William Downom appears as an acolyte in the ordination list of 2 June 1425 (York, Abp 5A, fol. 412r).  58 Letters from the English Abbots, ed. by Talbot, pp. 22–40.  59 In hurried circumstances, as will be seen.  60 Letters from the English Abbots, ed. by Talbot, p. 24.  61 Memorials, 3, p. 13; Logan, Runaway Religious, p. 213.  62 CClR, 1461–1468, pp. 64, 72, 74; eventually he swore that ‘all his life he shall be loyal liege subject to the king and his heirs’.

49

50

c ha p te r 2

was propelled briefly into public life, selected to propose the prorogation of Parliament, assembled at York in early May 1464. However, an inspection of the transcript in the Parliament Rolls reveals that Greenwell’s text, no doubt supplied by Edward, denounces ‘the ungodly efforts and malicious plots’ of (Lancastrian) ‘traitors and rebels’, whom the king’s forces were even then routing at the battles of Hedgeley Moor (late April), and soon after at Hexham. Thus the ‘honour’ of proposing the prorogation looks more like a deliberate test by Edward of Greenwell’s sincerity and true loyalties (abbas de Founteyns, ad hoc ex regio precepto specialiter assignatus, ‘the Abbot of Fountains, specially assigned on the king’s orders’).63 For Greenwell did indeed have Lancastrian sympathies. The first indication comes from his entry in the Chronicle of Abbots, which he wrote himself, where he states that his acceptance of the abbacy of  Waverley in 1440 came only after being persuaded by the king (Henry VI) and his courtiers.64 Secondly, soon after his election to Fountains there was evidently a violent assault on the house, which in 1443 resulted in Sir John Neville being bound over in the sum of £1000 to keep the peace, specifically against the abbey.65 The cause of the assault is not known, but Neville was a leading Yorkist, who was later killed at the battle of Towton in 1461. Thirdly, an entry in Swynton’s Memorandum Book records a claim for reimbursement by the abbey blacksmith for medicine, purchased for ‘the son of lord Clifford’, sometime in the year 1454–1455. Henry Clifford was born around 1454. Why he should require medicine, or why it should be supplied by Fountains Abbey, is unknown, but his grandfather was Thomas Clifford, eighth lord Clifford, who was killed on 22 May 1455, fighting on the Lancastrian side in the first battle of the Wars of the Roses, which eventually brought Edward IV to power in March 1461.66 Greenwell’s Lancastrian loyalty was finally exposed to public view during the brief period of Henry VI’s return to power (the Readeption, October 1470–April 1471). In February 1471 Henry annulled Greenwell’s surety of £2000 and oath of loyalty to Edward IV, made ten years earlier.67 A reference to the first year of the Readeption is recorded on a blank page of the President Book (p. 68), perhaps reflecting Greenwell’s euphoria, but if so, it was short-lived, like the Readeption itself, which did not reach the end of its first year. When Edward regained the throne in April, Greenwell’s position was clearly compromised by Henry’s annulment of the surety only two months earlier. What transpired is not recorded, but it seems

 63 Parliament Rolls, 3–4 Edward IV, v, 500. Walbran simply considered the incident ‘no small proof of the high social position which Greenwell’s character had obtained for him’ Memorials 1, p. 148 n.  64 President Book, p. 16.  65 Memorials 1, p. 222; see also Abp Reg 19 (Kempe), fols 95v–96r.  66 See Memorials 3, p. 205 for the reference in Swynton’s Memorandum Book; and Memorials 2, p. 106, for Walbran’s emotional interpretation in 1864.  67 CClR, 1461–1468, p. 74.

fo u n tai n s ab b e y i n t h e lo ng f i f t e e nt h ce nt u ry

no coincidence that around this time Greenwell petitioned the pope for permission to resign.68 With remarkable speed the request was granted, and at the beginning of September that same year, Thomas Swynton professed his obedience to the archbishop of York as the new abbot of Fountains. A silent censure of Greenwell can be inferred from the perfunctory citation of Swynton’s election in the archbishop’s register, which omits the customary reference to the previous incumbent.69 When Greenwell died is not known, but a recent study has argued compellingly that he was accorded an honourable burial location in the choir at Fountains.70 In summary, the first half of the fifteenth century saw Fountains disrupted by an election dispute which dragged on for two decades, early on in which a subsequently discredited pope awarded the mitre, which was later withdrawn; at least one poisoning attempt was made on an abbot; one monk not only apostatized, but caused the cellarer to be imprisoned by the secular arm; five choir monks appear to have expressed dissent over the reporting of a murder attempt on the abbot; and a king publicly demanded an abbot profess loyalty, which he then obliged him to proclaim before an assembled Parliament. The second half of the century was not without the occasional incident, but the cumulative, persistent efforts of successive abbots slowly succeeded in restoring the dignity of the house. Greenwell’s appearance before Parliament in 1464 turned out to be the nadir of the monastery’s fifteenth century tribulations. Some six or so years earlier, he seems to have launched the first of his measures to rebuild the prestige of the abbey, and this began to produce results in 1459, when the abbot and Fountains received a papal indult to wear the pontificalia, ‘the mitre, ring, gloves and other pontifical insignia’. Of the eighteen English Cistercian abbots who signed the denunciation of William Downom in 1448, the mitre was borne by only two, Jervaulx and St Mary Graces. For Fountains the award in 1459 possessed an additional significance, offsetting the ignominy of having been deprived of its use some four decades earlier. The 1459 papal citation stated: ‘the monastery is reputed very important and notable and very opulent, and […] its abbot is held in great reverence’.71 At long last, it seemed that favourable comment was being made by a third party. In reality, however, these words would have been quoted verbatim from

 68 Walker, ‘Greenwell, John’.  69 Abp Reg 22 (Neville), fol. 136v. By way of contrast, see the fulsome tribute only a short time before to Abbot William Grayson who resigned from Kirkstall – an act presided over by Greenwell as father abbot (Abp Reg 22, fol. 16r).  70 Carter, ‘The Mysterious Mitre on the Monument’.  71 CPL, xii, p. 34, fol. 188r, 31 July 1459.

51

52

c ha p te r 2

the petition submitted by the abbey itself, and rather than a papal plaudit, they amount to self-representation by Fountains, engineered by Greenwell.72 A vigorous self-representation was the basis of Greenwell’s strategy to rehabilitate the standing of the house, and the pontificalia were just one manifestation. The full range of measures would take many years to complete, and would involve Greenwell’s successors, most notably John Darnton (1479–1495) and Marmaduke Huby (1495–1526), and embrace many of the aspects of abbatial self-representation observed by Martin Heale: ‘monastic ritual, artistic and literary depictions of superiors, and the seals, tombs, houses and households of abbots and priors’.73 Greenwell’s hand can be seen principally in monastic ritual and literary depiction of superiors, leaving other contributions to be made by his successors. During the 1460s he addressed monastic ritual in the abbatial church, probably laying down processional markers along the nave, and introducing organs ‘great and small’.74 However, the clearest evidence for the university-trained Greenwell’s involvement in personal and institutional self-representation comes from the President Book of Fountains, which reveals glimpses of his plans for the rehabilitation of the economic and political fortunes of Fountains. The study of its contents which follows will reveal how the focus of his attention was divided between the political imperative of airbrushing the recent past by adjusting the archival memory of the abbey, the financial imperative of reviewing the economic structure of the house by analysing the records of the previous century, and for good measure, the practical expediency of devising navigation aids where required for the redacted manuscripts.

 72 Several examples of papal letters incorporating the words of Fountains (in quibus hec propriis duximus exprimenda vocabulis) are contained in Bodleian Library, UC 167, for example on folios 19r, 19v, 20v and 21r.  73 Heale, ‘Mitres and Arms’, p. 100; HoRH, iii, p. 293.  74 Coppack, ‘The Planning of Cistercian Monasteries in the Later Middle Ages’, p. 200.

Chapter 3

Charters, Cartularies, and Archival Redaction Archival memory is used here to describe the process by which past actions and events are codified, stored, and transmitted in written form to successive generations. Modern archivists have to contend with the deluge of information available to society in written, digital, or recordable audio or visual form. In these circumstances the archivist is obliged to play an active role in deciding which records to keep, mindful also that not all records can be kept, because individual record-makers can exercise the right to be forgotten. Trevor Foulds observed that few if any medieval cartularies are an exhaustive listing of all available records; they represent a reflection of such records, not a catalogue in the modern sense of the word.1 Such a role is in marked contrast to the traditional function of the archivist, developed over the previous century and a half, as eulogised by Hilary Jenkinson in 1947: ‘His creed, the Sanctity of Evidence; his Task, the Conservation of every scrap of Evidence attaching to the Documents committed to his charge; his Aim, to provide, without prejudice or afterthought, for all who wish to know the means of Knowledge’.2 Thus medieval record-keeping has more in common with our contemporary world than with nineteenth- and early twentieth-century models of passive accumulation. Yet the two environments are very different. Medieval England had no concept of universal literacy; the reading and writing of documents was restricted to a narrow elite. Moreover, the production of most documents, and even making a single copy, was a time-consuming exercise.3 On the other hand, the medieval record-keeper could be very aware of his discretionary powers of creation and oblivion, as implied by the self-conscious and plaintive justification given by Hemming, the scribe of the oldest English cartulary, from Worcester: so that it may be clear to our posterity which and how many possessions in land pertain to the endowment of this monastery for the sustenance of the monks […] or rather which ought by right, although we have been unjustly dispossessed of them by force and fraud.4 Another early cartulary, from Evesham Abbey around 1140, seems to have been assembled in defence of the community’s liberties against the bishop of Worcester, for which purpose the then abbot visited Pope Innocent II in Rome  1  2  3  4

Foulds, ‘Medieval Cartularies’, 21. Cited by Cook, ‘Evidence, Memory, Identity and Community’, 100. The first printing press in England was set up by William Caxton in 1476. Cited by Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 101.

54

c ha p te r 3

around this time. The Evesham cartulary contains the texts of up to thirty-five allegedly pre-Conquest charters, among which at least one has been shown to have been amended to inflate the size of holding. Given the strong sense of injustice expressed by Hemming, the fabrication by Evesham is perhaps unsurprising.5 Such behaviour does not seem unusual in its contemporary context. Through the late eleventh and twelfth centuries written evidence largely supplanted other forms of authentication, and long-established religious houses could find themselves vulnerable if their possessions had been acquired, say, on the swearing of an oath, or had been evidenced in a charter written in Old English, or if early charters had not survived for one reason or another. Alfred Hiatt pointed out the ‘monumental scale’ of forgery emanating from venerable religious houses, naming Westminster, St Augustine’s and Christ Church, Canterbury, Durham, and, later on, Glastonbury.6 It has been estimated that out of 206 surviving English charters from the reign of William I, no fewer than fifty-nine were forgeries, ‘either elaborated from an eleventh-century base or completely fabricated during the twelfth century’.7 This activity highlights the susceptibility of earlier records to reassembly by subsequent record-keepers. Howard Clarke maintained that, at least in the case of Evesham, this did not always necessarily imply intent to defraud, but ‘rather to authenticate in contemporary documentary form rights and possessions which were already held, but for which appropriate written title was lacking’.8 No doubt this was true, but the opportunity to enlarge their property proved an irresistible temptation for others. Similar behaviour to Evesham, but with malice aforethought, was noted by Clanchy, who recorded how the introduction in 1282 of requirements to show written evidence to Chancery clerks, of entitlement to ‘return of writs’ (execution of the king’s writ within a liberty jurisdiction), which were then enrolled as a state record, provided the opportunity for Chertsey Abbey to interpolate documents there which had no authentic history — but once entered on the Chancery roll would not be challenged, and would thereby secure them lands to which they held no defensible title.9 Archival memory for a large landowning monastery centred upon the charter and its aggregated records, the cartularies. Charters provide a written record of an exchange of goods or services between two parties; charters themselves form the only class of original documents from Fountains to survive in any quantity, but even so the survivors are a small percentage of the total that were issued. Most Fountains charters relate to acquisition of lands and related rights; as discussed in Chapter 1, the abbey acquired most of  5 Clarke, ‘The Early Surveys of Evesham Abbey’, p. 23. A charter relating to Newnham had been altered to include the territory of Badby.  6 Hiatt, The Making of Medieval Forgeries, p. 22.  7 Bates, ‘The Forged Charters of William the Conqueror’, p. 124.  8 Bates, ‘The Forged Charters of William the Conqueror’, pp. 111–12.  9 Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 170.

c h art e r s, c art u l ar i e s, an d archi val re dact i o n

its lands during the first century and a half after foundation, and accordingly the deeds mainly also date from that period; thereafter there were relatively few additions. Today, some 400 original charters are still extant, although this represents a mere eleven per cent of the charters recorded in the abbey’s cartularies, which themselves are not an exhaustive listing. While they relate to the early period of the abbey, very few charters survive from the earliest times, before about 1150. In keeping with all other monasteries, most charters at Fountains are known only from their appearance in a cartulary. Aside from these surviving deeds, all the other original documentation from Fountains associated with the management of a vast medieval estate is now lost: the grange records, the manorial accounts and surveys, the court records, the obedientiary accounts have practically all disappeared. All the other surviving manuscripts today are copies of, or extracts from these records, compiled at a remove from the events they describe. Why should this be? In the first place, the writing support for medieval records was either parchment, made from sheep or calf skin, or later paper, made from rags, or sailcoth and vegetable fibre.10 These materials are vulnerable to attrition from the effects of damp, fire, vermin, or simply neglect. But, in addition, those records which have survived the effects of attrition to reach the present day will have been susceptible to another process, described by Adam Kosto as ‘preservation bias’, whereby the endurance of a document is not in the hands of its author, but of each succeeding generation which assesses its value for their particular circumstances.11 In the case of monastic muniments generally, preservation bias is responsible for the disproportionate survival of documents related to landholdings. Ironically, when most charters were issued originally, they stood only as evidence of a land transfer, but not as proof; the evolution to indisputable proof took place between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. This enhanced status ensured they continued to be of use to future landholders long after the monasteries had been suppressed in the 1530s.12 The same could not be said for records of financial performance related to businesses which disappeared centuries ago. The absence of any records for granges at Fountains can be explained by the fact that granges had been dismantled by the mid fourteenth century, so that within a few years at most their records became irrelevant to the new business structure. These two considerations place in context the surviving business records of Fountains Abbey, which fall into two broad groups, aside from the collection of charters. In the first group, ten manuscripts survive in the form of deeds registers, or parts of them: separate editions of at least five cartularies can

 10 Clemens and Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies, pp. 6–9.  11 Kosto, ‘Laymen, Clerics and Documentary Practices’.  12 MacNeil, ‘From the Memory of the Act to the Act Itself ’, 316. An insertion in Cartulary 2 (p. 136) shows it was used in legal proceedings as late as February 1827.

55

56

c ha p te r 3

be identified, compiled at various times between the thirteenth and early sixteenth centuries.13 Of the five, one stands apart as a register of rights and privileges, while the remaining four are concerned generally with the property portfolio of the monastery, and contain broadly the same content, albeit recorded at different times in the history of Fountains. All five cartularies are considered in Chapter 7, with particular emphasis on the late fourteenth/ early fifteenth-century version, Cartulary 3. The second group is composed of seven other, miscellaneous, business records, which all date mainly from the fifteenth century.14 A summary description of all these manuscripts is given in Appendix E, along with their present locations. Although the monastery operated for more than four hundred years, the extant records seem to come from either the beginning or the end of that period. The first century and a half of activity is covered by each of the four deeds registers; only Cartulary 1 was actually compiled during that period, but Cartularies 2, 3, and 4 are still based substantially on material originating before 1300. The final century of the abbey is covered by the second principal group of records, all compiled at various times in the final hundred years of the abbey’s existence, although two of them focus on earlier material, by then up to a century old. As outlined above, the legacy of preservation bias has bequeathed a corpus of records that excludes financial documents relating to the earlier phases of development at the abbey. Moreover, having been filtered by preservation bias, the corpus has necessarily been vulnerable also to custodian engagement: if a surviving record today presents a different representation of events from its original medieval form, it will be the result of redaction of the archival memory, either by amendment of the original document, or its substitution by another one. The question is, how can we tell? To address this issue attention will now focus on the cartularies and associated records which dominate the surviving corpus of the abbey. This focus provides the opportunity to demonstrate a general case of the analysis developed by Patrick Geary from a study of continental European monastic cartularies from the eighth and ninth centuries, in the Merovingian and Carolingian periods.15 Cartularies are essentially lists (the contemporary term was usually registrum, ‘register’), which record in summarised or complete form the content of deeds (carte) granted to the abbey. Whatever their intended functions may be, all cartularies can generally be characterized by reference to two qualities, based on their physical properties. Firstly, their content is substantially copied material, reproducing details originally entered onto charters, although they may include limited original content; secondly, they almost invariably transmit these details in one of two ways,  13 A sixth cartulary, identified by Davis (# 423), will be treated here as integral with the first for purposes of analysis.  14 See also The Fountains Abbey Rental, ed. by Michelmore.  15 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance.

c h art e r s, c art u l ar i e s, an d archi val re dact i o n

either verbatim and in the first person, or in summary and in the third person. These characteristics influence attempts to refine definition: British usage has been influenced by Davis, who used ‘cartulary’ for those registers with content in the first person and verbatim, with summaries in the third person being classified as ‘inventories’. French and German nomenclature tends towards cartulaire and Kopialbuch for first-person, with inventaire and Traditionsbuch for third-person, records.16 Slightly more than 1000 examples survive from the medieval period in England.17 While any substantial landowner could and probably did assemble a cartulary of his landed possessions, the overwhelming majority of examples that survive today were drawn up by religious houses.18 Yet although monasteries were known in England from at least the time of Bede (673–735), and Anglo-Saxon title deeds survive from the eighth century, the earliest surviving English cartularies are from much later, in the eleventh century, and three of these all come from the same house, Worcester Cathedral Priory, while from the twelfth century there are fewer than thirty surviving.19 In continental Europe the Cistercian monasteries which sprang into existence in France from 1098 onwards were always assiduous record-keepers. Constance Bouchard has pointed out that more twelfth-century charters survive for Cistercian communities in Burgundy than for any other monastic community there; yet seemingly the Cistercians only began to compile cartularies after documents had been accumulated for up to a century.20 The compilation timescale in relation to English houses was refined by Emilia Jamroziak, who observed that cartularies prepared when a monastery had achieved a stable existence, after, say, a century or more, would by then have no direct link with the original issuers of charters, which may account for them often being compiled in summary form, with witness lists either abbreviated, or omitted altogether.21 In contrast, a cartulary compiled early in the life of a monastery could connect directly with the original sponsors and benefactors. This is demonstrated in the case of two other Yorkshire Cistercian houses: firstly, the cartulary of Rievaulx (British Library, Cotton Julius D, I), and secondly, that of Byland Abbey (British Library, MS Egerton 2823). The Rievaulx cartulary was compiled within eighty years of the abbey’s foundation (1132),  16 Davis further sub-divided cartularies into five categories of general, special, cartularies of rights and privileges, chronicle-cartularies, and cartularies in Gospel-Book. Exceptions can readily be pointed out for all these definitions: for example, at Fountains Abbey, Cartulary 2 is clearly an inventory, even though the first half is written in the first person (pp. 1–224), but the second half in the third (pp. 226–505).  17 Davis and others, eds, Medieval Cartularies, p. xiv.  18 For an example of two modest lay cartularies, see A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyle and Adam Fraunceys, ed. by O’Connor.  19 Davis and others, eds, Medieval Cartularies, pp. xv–xvi. In post-Conquest England, preservation bias would surely weigh heavily against records written in obsolescent Old English.  20 Bouchard, Holy Entrepreneurs, pp. 13, 17.  21 Jamroziak, Rievaulx Abbey, p. 24.

57

58

c ha p te r 3

at a time when relations with benefactors and neighbouring landowners were clearly a current issue, and it is organized largely in relation to nine families of benefactors.22 In contrast, the Byland cartulary was completed around 1400, more than two and a half centuries after its foundation, and it is structured principally around the abbey’s landholdings, arranged in alphabetical order.23 Frequently, though not always, a further cartulary or cartularies would be produced by a monastery, decades or centuries after the first. The hazards of survival of manuscripts to the present day prevent any precise calculation of how many subsequent cartularies may have been compiled, but the possibilities are illustrated by the example of Montier-en-Der, north-east France, which produced six cartularies, between the twelfth and mid seventeenth centuries, or the Welsh Augustinian house of Llanthony, for which eight volumes of cartularies are extant.24 The earliest cartularies to survive comprise thirty-six examples from the ninth century in eastern Frankia, and thirty-five from the eleventh century in western Frankia, much earlier than known instances in England, although the possibility of insular influence on these continental collections has been noted.25 Geary’s analysis of ninth- and eleventh-century cartularies augmented the traditional perception of them as an administrative tool, constructed by the passive accumulation of charter summaries in a monastic muniments room. This traditional perception is echoed in Jenkinson’s view of archival theory as a thorough but passive task of retaining and preserving documents ‘without prejudice or afterthought’. It also governed the production of early editions of cartularies (see footnote 41 on p. 30), which were assumed to have been compiled by medieval scribes on the same all-inclusive, non-intrusive basis; as a result, they were viewed as proxies for the charters whose copies they contained. Lancaster’s edition of Fountains Cartulary 3, published in 1915, is faithful to this tradition, although he refines it to the point of excluding introductory and terminal clauses, presumably to concentrate on the body text which describes a specific transaction of land or property rights. A move away from the perception of passive accumulation was signalled by David Walker, who recognized a proactive motivation for a cartulary, which he termed archival sense, defined as ‘an appreciation of documents for their own sake, and an understanding of the shape of any particular archive’.26 Archival sense allows for limiting criteria to define a cartulary, in the process excluding non-qualifying material. Geary did not dismiss the passive assembly of a cartulary if it was designed as an administrative tool. Rather he added to this function a memorial role by demonstrating how selectivity could introduce historical and sacral elements to the purely administrative, and  22 Jamroziak, Rievaulx Abbey, p. 23.  23 Burton, The Cartulary of Byland Abbey, pp. xxvii–xxxii.  24 Bouchard, ‘Monastic Cartularies’, p. 24; Jack, ‘An Archival Case History’, 373.  25 Declercq, ‘Originals and Cartularies’; Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 102.  26 Walker, ‘The Organization of Material in Medieval Cartularies’, 132.

c h art e r s, c art u l ar i e s, an d archi val re dact i o n

thereby fulfil more than one purpose by embracing the cultural history of an institution as much as its materialist history. Bouchard has described this as a commemorative function, ‘less a legal brief than another form of liber memorialis’.27 It is the implication of a memorial role which sets the context for examining archival redaction at Fountains Abbey: This memory, a fundamental element in the institutional memory and thus in self-perception and identity, goes far to explain both the forms that cartularies and related documents assumed and the critical choices of inclusion, exclusion, and adjustment of the documents preserved in these cartularies28 It follows that the active use of selection criteria endows a cartulary with properties which individual charters do not possess, even though physically it may be simply the aggregated representation of individual charter contents. The traditional, essentially one-dimensional, view of a cartulary as merely a proxy for the original charter it reproduces, has been rehoused within a more integrated concept of a self-standing artefact in its own right. Although this role of projecting an institutional identity resulted from Geary’s specific interpretation of Merovingian and Carolingian history, it has proved to be of universal application. His development of the concept of institutional memory, and within that, of archival memory, established a context for re-examination of cartularies, and led him to conclude that ‘each cartulary is the result of a process of neglect, selection, transformation and suppression’.29 With this definition, the potential pliability of a cartulary begins to appear, as a tool through which archival memory is not inactively accumulated, but instead actively constructed, and, potentially, reconstructed time and again. Each time this occurs, an agent is required to perform one or more of the four transformation processes. Such activities are more appropriate to the chronicler than the archivist, and, tellingly, Geary views the cartulary scribe not so much as a copyist, but as an author.30 The author’s concern was to assemble recollections of the past — the archival memory — into the most favourable interpretation for the present. To achieve this he exercised editorial powers of inclusion, exclusion, creation and amendment, in the process destroying previous records if necessary. Clearly the exercise of these powers could influence Kosto’s preservation bias among those documents permitted to survive. The dynamic construction of archival memory is achieved through redaction of a cartulary or any of the related documents in an archive. Redaction may be editorial or censorial. In the editorial sense, it is simply the process of editing a

 27 Bouchard, ‘Monastic Cartularies’, 31.  28 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 86.  29 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 82.  30 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 83.

59

60

c ha p te r 3

text, which, by its nature, results in a modified copy of an original document.31 The extent to which this copy differs from the exemplar depends on the objectives of the redactor, perhaps seeking to achieve uniformity, of syntax, or of appearance, with similar documents, by rearrangement of the original structure. In contrast, censorial redaction does more than reposition or paraphrase. It is invasive, and may involve substantial excision of original text, and insertion of an alternative version.32 Both of these senses are captured by Andrew Wareham in his description of the eleventh-century Worcester cartularies: By redaction we mean not only the editing […] but also the sorting, classification and rubrication of charters within a cartulary format in order to safeguard the interests of the community in future generations against the claims of secular and ecclesiastical lords. In addition […] the scribe’s work might involve recreating ‘lost’ charters or not transcribing other charters into cartularies.33 When applied to a corpus of documents, redaction acquires an additional capability, as a powerful instrument for reinterpretation or suppression of earlier perceptions and assertions. In the context of medieval record-keeping, redaction in its widest sense seems an appropriate description for the manipulation of archival memory by subsequent owners of the corpus, intentionally modifying information present in the original version through amendment, addition, omission, and if necessary, eradication of material, consigning inconvenient evidence to premeditated oblivion, rendering it invisible to later scrutiny. Often redaction of archival memory is undetectable, and was intended to be, but the survival of the unique Fountains President Book allows a glimpse of parts of the process in action. It acts as a vehicle for personal and institutional self-representation, to facilitate the reshaping of archival memory through redaction of earlier records of the monastery to align with alternative contemporary views, and if necessary, also by replacing some records with an amended version. From the brief history of Fountains in the first part of the fifteenth century described in the previous chapter, it is clear there were many issues that the abbey would wish to reinterpret in a more favourable light, if not consign to oblivion, and Abbot Greenwell’s determination to achieve these aims as part of his strategy to restore the prestige of the abbey is established by his close association with the manuscript. Analysis of the President Book will also reveal the extent of relationships between multiple registers and summary documents in the abbey’s possession; as will be seen, links can be proposed between the President Book and almost a dozen surviving, lost, or projected documents.

 31 ‘to put (writing, text, etc.) in an appropriate form for publication’: OED, sv ‘Redaction’, 4a.  32 ‘censoring or obscuring of part of text for legal or security purposes’: New Oxford American Dictionary.  33 Wareham, ‘The Redaction of Cartularies and Economic Upheaval’, p. 193.

Chapter 4

Abbot Greenwell’s Aide-Memoire? The President Book of Fountains Abbey

The President Book is a convenient size, comprising some eighty-nine leaves, roughly 300 × 225 mm. The writing support is paper, suggesting no permanent record was intended. If there was once was a title page or table of contents, these have been lost to dilapidation. Its overall structure seems too formal and impersonal for a casual notebook, and no personal views or comments appear anywhere. It contains nine separate sections with no immediately obvious connection between them, but the content often shows signs of careful planning and contains cross-references to material in other documents: more than anything, it is an assembly of catalogues and indexes. The name, ‘President Book’, is not known to have been used before 1758, but codicological evidence, as explored below, places the manuscript firmly in the fifteenth century. First of all, three sets of watermark symbols are visible at several points on the paper folios, and they can each be associated with paper production in that century, mainly between approximately 1435 and 1468.1 Scribal styles also point to an origin some time during the long fifteenth century, and some specific dates in one section of the text suggest it must have been completed before the resignation of Abbot Greenwell in 1471, although possibly other parts could have been completed several decades earlier. Tellingly, one page is headed with the regnal date of the brief restoration of Henry VI (13 October 1470 to 11 April 1471), but the rest is left blank, as if to confirm that it was Greenwell’s document, and was not used after his resignation by September 1471.2 After the dissolution of Fountains in 1539 its immediate fate is unknown: almost eighty years later the antiquarian Richard Gascoigne studied Fountains manuscripts extensively, particularly in the period 1619–1620, but he left no conclusive evidence of having examined the President Book.3 John Burton did use it in 1758 for his references to Fountains abbots in the Monasticon Eboracense, and referred to it as being at that time in the possession of M. Messenger, then the owner of Studley Hall.4 In 1878 the manuscript remained there, where it was in the company of several other pre-Dissolution manuscripts of Fountains.5 In the 1950s many of these same

 1  2  3  4  5

For more details, see Appendix A, ‘Watermarks’. There are a few insertions from much later, in 1501. Nevertheless, two words written in the margin of page 10 might belong to Gascoigne. Monasticon Eboracense, ed. by Burton, pp. 210–11. Memorials 2, pp. 86, 88, 93.

62

c ha p te r 4

documents came into the care of Leeds Public Libraries, and thence to its present repository, the West Yorkshire Archive Service. The principal content can be classified into nine sections: the first and last sections are incomplete, and, taken with the fact that no cover is present, it seems clear that an unknown portion of the original manuscript has been lost from these two sections. When it was examined by Walbran in 1845, he commented on the water damage to the outer pages. The text is written in Latin throughout, although an insertion on page 40 has been made in English; it is dated January 1468/1469 and, appears to be in Greenwell’s own hand.6 The first section consists of two complete indexes of place-names, preceded by fragments of another. The second and third sections have come to be known as the Catalogue and Chronicle of Abbots. No other copy of either the Catalogue or the Chronicle exists, although a model may be found in an analogous record which has been preserved at Clairvaux, the Catalogue des abbés et des prieurs de Clairvaux de 1114 à 1678, dit Livre des Sépultures.7 The fourth section is another catalogue, this time a seigneurial one. It records the acknowledgement by tenants of Fountains Abbey of their obligation of homage and fealty to the abbot under the terms of their tenancy by knight tenure. The fifth section covers less than a page, and consists of a selective genealogy of the Percy family down to the year 1245. Section Six is another index of place-names, arranged in approximately alphabetical order: each name has one or more subordinate place-names against it, each with a reference number. The seventh section takes up more than half of the entire manuscript. It is a concise economic description of most of the abbey’s landholdings in Craven, the limestone country whose upland pastures formed the centre of its wool production activity. Section Eight seems to document a legal case over property rights: it contains thirty-seven charter summaries, all relating to the acquisition of burgage plots in Ripon, between 1341 and 1393. The short final section is clearly incomplete but would have comprised yet another index, here designated the Fifth Index. Although the pages are dilapidated it appears that some form of listing was being prepared, in alphabetical order by location: those still legible today include Newby Wiske, Newby on Swale, Newton on Swale, North Stainley, Otterburn, Otley, Pickhill, and Wheldrake. From this concise summary, it can be seen that the nine sections of the President Book do not appear to be related to each other, but must be outward facing, towards other documents. To explore this further, three of its constituent sections will now be examined, with particular reference to their connections with other Fountains manuscripts. Each of the sections ostensibly seeks to modify or enhance its target text: they are the First, Second, and Fourth Indexes.

 6 The note is transcribed in Memorials 1, p. 148.  7 Troyes, Les Archives de l’Aube, 3 H 42.

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ?

Due to its location at the dilapidated front end of the manuscript, very little of the First Index now remains, and what does survive is now all but illegible. Fortunately, Walbran was still able to read it in 1845, and the details in Table 2 have been taken from his transcription.8 Table 2. President Book First Index

65 Stodelay [Roger] dimiss[…] In galgha[…] E34 Anno domini [1364] Item […] 66 Swetton In Growelthorpp R[30] Anno domini 1392 Swetton no[…] dimiss… bercarie item In Galgha… E30 Anno domini 1360 67 Swynton in Aldeburgh R3 Anno domini 1392 Item no… tenura Johannis Werst… Galgha… E6 Anno domini 1351 68 Sutton hougraue In Melmorby E[…] domini 1351 69 Thornton episcopi In Brimbem E. Anno domini 1343 Item E19 Anno domini 1345 70 Thornton super moram In Neusom E4 Anno domini 1348 Item R 30 Anno domini 1393 71 Thorp underwod no[ta] dimiss[…] E37 Anno domini 1366 72 Threscefeld In Kylnesay R45 Anno domini 1392 73 Wardonmersk In Aldeburgh R31 Anno domini 1392 74 Wallerthwaite in rot cur de Merkyngton E9 Anno domini 1350; Item E 3 Anno domini 1361; Item E 4 Anno domini 1372; Item R 6 Anno domini 1382; Item R 16 Anno domini 1391. 75 Wynke[s]lay in Galgha… R30 Anno domini1392 no[ta] … [Synnefeld] E22 Anno domini 1363 Wynkeslay cum Wodhous In Merkington R6 Anno domini 1382 Item R16 Anno domini 1391 Wyn[k]eslay In Brimbem E 18 Anno domini 1343 Item E[2]9 Anno domini 1345 76 Useburn nota firma [forins…] In [M]erstonE14 Anno domini 1354 Item in Thorpunderwod E3 anno domini 1348 77 Yarnwyk no[ta] dimiss[…] in melmerby R[3] Anno domini 1379 Item in Slenyngford R13 Anno domini 1383 Item de porta In Merkyngton R16 Anno domini 1391

A list of thirteen locations is arranged in alphanumerical order, from 65, S, to 77, Y; all the locations are landholdings of Fountains. The bold Arabic numbering in the left-hand column is written in a distinctive red in the manuscript, and it must have been entered after the alphabetical list was drawn up, since there are no gaps in the alphabetical order. Each location contains additional information, usually giving a cross-reference to a different location accompanied by a letter, number and date, and occasionally a few additional words; three entries also mention leasing, and one, forinsec income. The key  8 York, York Minster Library, Add MS 266.

63

64

c ha p te r 4 Table 3. President Book, Reconstructed First Index

1 Ainderby

41 Linton

21 Galphay

59 Scotton

3 Appletreewick

42 Litton

22 Galghaleys

60 Sinderby

4 Arncliffe

[?] Liversedge

23 Gokebuskrote

62 Sleningford

5 Baldersby

44 Malham

24 Grantley

[?] Bordley

43 Marton

25 Green Hammerton

65 Studley 66 Swetton

[?] Bradley

[?] Melmerby

28 Harop

67 Swinton

[?] Braithwaite

47 Markington

29 Hebden

68 Sutton

9 […] Cayton

48 Marston

31 Hartwith

69 Thornton

11 Cattall

49 Newsham

32 [Kirk]Heaton

70 Thornton

12 Catton

50 North Stainley

33 Holme

71 ThorpUnderwood

51 Pickhill

35 Ilton

72 Threshfield

[13] Conistone

[?] Couton cum grangia 52 Whixley

36 Ingerthorpe

73 Wardermarsk

[?] Crosthwaite

53 Rainton

10 Carlesmoor

74 Wallerthwaite

[?] Dacre

54 Rigton

37 Kirk Hammerton

75 Winksley

[?] Dishforth

55 Ripley

38 Kirby Wiske

76 Little Ouseburn

17 Dalton

56 Ripon

39 Kirklington

77 Yarnwick

19 Eavestone

58 Sand Hutton

40 Laverton

   

to the cross-references seems to be given by the entry for 74, Wallerthwaite, which mentions manor court rolls (in rot[ulo] cur[ie] de Merkyngton) for Markington, North Yorkshire, for years between 1350 and 1391. Two entries further down, 75, Winksley, also cites two of the same letter/number/date combinations for Markington, although without disclosing that they are court rolls. Wallerthwaite was adjacent to Markington, Winksley is some seven kilometres distant. These court rolls no longer exist, so it is not clear what the references are specifically referring to, but overall the index appears to be tracking performance of some sort on the manorialized estates. If once there was an accompanying legend to this table, it has been lost to dilapidation, along with most of the table itself. However, a very similar format can be observed in one of the cartularies. The same letter/number/ date combinations can be found in Cartulary 2, although there, instead of a single list, individual items appear throughout the manuscript, usually at the end but occasionally at the beginning of each alphabetical section of charter summaries. They all bear matching numbering (in black) with the red numbers in the index. For all thirteen entries in the First Index, the corresponding inserted text in Cartulary 2 is virtually identical, except that the additional phrase, ‘in the court roll’, in rot[ulo] cur[ie], frequently accompanies entries in Cartulary 2, confirming the First Index in the President Book to be an assembly of references to manor court rolls.

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ?

As mentioned above, dilapidation to the front of the manuscript has removed several prior pages, including items 1 to 64 in the First Index. However, since the identical wording for the thirteen surviving entries was located in Cartulary 2, it has been possible to postulate a substantial reconstruction of the sixty-four missing locations, by extracting content for the lost entries from the insertions in the cartulary. This has resulted in the reconstituted index as shown in Table 3. The names in bold font indicate the entries present in the President Book. All the rest have been restored; no additional entries beyond 77, Y were found in Cartulary 2, and this is assumed to be the final entry.9 The details in Table 3 in many cases provide the only reference to the existence of courts in the places mentioned, while the jurisdictional links between, for example Markington and Winskley were previously unknown. Overall, Table 3 is a striking representation of the scale of manorial administration at the abbey during the fourteenth century. Evidence for the likely source document for the manor court records is disclosed in a brief entry in Cartulary 2, at the end of the section on Newsham: in libro longo de factis et contentis curiarum.10 In Cartulary 2, the range of dates entered within these items extends from 1329 to 1400, with the vast majority of entries falling between 1348 and 1392. The entries are abbreviated, and often simply refer to a manor court roll, but in those cases where more detail is disclosed, it generally contains a reference to one of three issues; who was the capital lord; details of leasing arrangements; and liability for transportation charges (portagium). If the libro longo mentioned above was a comprehensive collection of the manor court records, then Fountains must have been lord, or sometimes joint lord, of the manor of practically all these seventy-seven locations. It offers a contrast with the position recorded in 1316, when the abbey held only fourteen such lordships, and provides graphic proof of the extensive manorialisation of its lands consequent upon the decommissioning of the grange system.11 Given that the details in the President Book are virtually identical with those in Cartulary 2 it is possible that one list was the exemplar for the other, although they could both have drawn from a third source. However, the red numbering in the First Index could have acted as a cross-checking system, if the details were first abstracted into the First Index, unnumbered, and then one by one as they were entered into Cartulary 2, they were assigned a number, which was also recorded in the First Index. The Second Index begins on the same dilapidated front page as the end of the First Index. Spanning pages 1 to 9, it is an alphabetical schedule of  9 Some numbers were also missing from Cartulary 2, generally due to dilapidation, but it was possible to infer several of these from very similar entries in Cartulary 4, which in many respects is a copy of Cartulary 2 made in 1509.  10 Cartulary 2, p. 313.  11 Wheldrake, North Cowton, Ilketon, Dishforth, Rainton and Newby, Melmerby, Ainderby, Marston, Stainburn, Rigton, Hopperton, Whixlay, Hoton, and Litton: Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids, ed. by Maxwell Lyte, vi, pp. 165–205.

65

66

c ha p te r 4

locations, and under each name there is a series of coded entries, consisting of a letter, followed by a number in red ink, then usually a year. The year has been omitted from many entries and occasionally a letter or number is also wanting; however, it can be observed that the structure of the list has been carefully planned, so that as far as possible entries appear in both alphabetical and date order. This arrangement is shown in Table 4 which sets out the entry for Dishforth, North Yorkshire (President Book, p. 6): Table 4. President Book Second Index: Dishforth. (Figures in bold type appear in red ink in the manuscript.)

  Disceford

  ff. 43 1305 Item G 1 1305 Item I 57

 

1329 Item H 26 1336 Item N 199

 

1348 Item N 200 1348 Item K 29

 

31 1357 Item L 15 1358 Item M 9 44

 

1361 Item◉ 3 1380 Item N 130 1387

 

Item [R] 18 1391 1392 Item N 205

 

1392 Item [o S] 156

By sampling individual components of the Second Index, it was found that many items appeared to correspond to entries on the folios of Rentals.12 For example, in Table 3, the first line includes the reference ‘ff. 43 1305’. In Rentals, one of the entries for Dishforth appears as item 43 on folio 68v; this folio has been marked in the top right-hand corner with a capital F. The reader of the Second Index could therefore successfully navigate through Rentals to find this specific item; in addition, the Index discloses the year, 1305, which is not present on fol. 69r of Rentals. Separately, three more indexes can be found on the opening folios of Rentals, although only the first one seems to have been completed. This includes an entry for Dishforth, which is not fully legible, but contains some twenty-two folio references: one of these refers to fol. 68, but does not specify ‘ff. 43 1305’.13 Intriguingly, closer inspection shows that the Second Index cannot be referring just to Rentals: of the seventeen items for Dishforth in Table 3, only eleven have entries in Rentals.14 A further difference is shown in the first of  12 Rentals. For a codicological description see Appendix D.  13 10, 11, 12, 12, 16, 22, 30, 31, 32, 42, 43, 44, 68, [70], [92], [126], […], 141, 142, [166], […]. [204]. The second of these indexes repeats the first fourteen of the references in the previous index; the third index has the name only, without references.  14 The Second Index entries are; F 43, 1305, which identifies an item in Rentals, fol. 68, and fol. 68 is identified with Dishforth in the Rentals indexes. Also: G 1 1305, in Rentals, fol. 70, and in Rentals indexes; I 57, 1329, in Rentals, fol. 126, and in Rentals indexes; H 26, 1336, in

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ? Table 5. Rental References in President Book Second Index, Compared with Actual Entries in Rentals

Serial Letters

Date Range

No. of Second Index Entries

No. of Rentals Entries

ff

1304–1391

56

53

G

1301–1381

42

40

H

1240–1396

61

63

I

1239–1397

113

113

K

1336–1397

68

76

L

1348–1435

52

53

M

1351–1398

227

235

N

1192–1400

334

65

O

1273–1381

240

0

P

nil

1

0

Q

1322–1361

105

0

R

1270–1400

154

0

S

none

42

0

unclear

none

6

2

Total entries

1501

700

the indexes in Rentals itself, which contains more entries than the Second Index of the President Book. This reveals the Second Index to be a selective list; the selection criteria are not evident, except that the Index contains no references to the first section of Rentals, which deals with manor court extracts, whereas the index at the beginning of the Rentals manuscript does include such references. In the specific case of Dishforth, the Second Index might have been intended to supply the relevant year to the Rentals entries with a specific year, for example, 1358 for item 43 in section F. However, this is not the general case, because further investigation of the two manuscripts reveals that from time to time a year is stated in Rentals, but is not given in Rentals, fol. 92, and in first Rentals index; N 199, 1348, in Rentals, fol. 216, untraced in Rentals indexes; N 200, 1348, in Rentals, fol. 218, not in Rentals indexes; K 29, 1357, in Rentals fol. 141, and in first Rentals index; K 31, 1357, in Rentals, fol. 142, and in first Rentals index; L 15, 1358, in Rentals, fol. 166, and in first Rentals index; M 9, 1361, in Rentals, fol. 219, and 178, possibly in first Rentals index; M 44, 1361, in Rentals fol. 204, and in first Rentals index; items O 3 1380, N 130 1387, [R] 18 1391 and 1392, N 205 1392, and [o S] 156, are listed in the Second Index but do not appear anywhere in Rentals.

67

68

c ha p te r 4 Table 6. Comparison of Years Cited in President Book Second Index and Rentals. (Bold type denotes years which appear in Rentals but not the President Book; italic, underlined type denotes years which appear in the President Book but not Rentals.)

 

Dates in Rentals

Dates in President Book Second Index

F

1305; 1316; 1330.

1304; 1305; 1316; 1318; 1323; 1331; 1391;

G

1301; 1304; 1305; 1307; 1309; 1310; 1312; 1314; 1315; 1304; 1305; 1306; 1307; 1309; 1310; 1312; 1314; 1315; 1316; 1327. 1316; 1317; (1366 = 1306?)

H

1336; 1340; 1345; 1346.

1240; 1246; 1336; 1345; 1346; 1396;

I

1338; 1340; 1347; 1354; 1355.

1239; 1272; 1304; 1319; 1328; 1329; 1338; 1340; 1347; 1348; 1349; 1351; 1358; 1397;

K

1350; 1351; 1353; 1354; 1356; 1357; 1358.

1336; 1346; 1347; 1348; 1355; 1356; 1357; 1358; 1361;

L

1358; 1435.

1348; 1357; 1358;

M

1361; 1398

1351; 1361; 1363; 1398;

N

1310; 1312; 1318; 1325; 1326; 1328; 1330; 1331; 1333; 1337; 1348; 1352; 1353; 1366; 1371; 1381.

1192; 1206; 1260; 1263; 1264; 1272; 1274; 1279; 1302; 1303; 1304; 1305; 1306; 1310; 1318; 1328; 1329; 1330; 1331; 1333; 1334; 1337; 1338; 1340; 1342; 1343; 1344; 1348; 1349; 1350; 1351; 1352; 1354; 1359; 1361; 1364; 1370; 1371; 1372; 1374; 1381; 1384; 1385; 1386; 1387; 1389; 1392;

O

None

1273; 1281; 1293; 1341; 1346; 1353; 1355; 1362; 1380; 1381; 1391;

Q

None

1322; 1329; 1331; 1333; 1346; 1347; 1349; 1355; 1361;

R

None

1270; 1331; 1343; 1344; 1345; 1347; 1348; 1349; 1350; 1351; 1352; 1353; 1355; 1356; 1357; 1359; 1360; 1361; 1363; 1364; 1366; 1367; 1369; 1370; 1371; 1372; 1381; 1382; 1383; 1387; 1391; 1392; 1393; 1394; 1395; 1399; 1400

the Second Index. Also, none of the Second Index entries with serial letter O or S is accompanied by a date. The perception that the two manuscripts each contain information that resembles the other but never quite matches is reinforced by further comparison, summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Firstly, it can be seen that the total of Second Index entries is more than double those in Rentals, namely 1501 against 700; secondly, while the entries in Rentals are contained within sections lettered F to N, the Second Index carries over 500 references to sections labelled O, P, Q, R, and S; thirdly, the date range of Rentals is more restricted in each section, and generally confined to the fourteenth century,

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ?

whereas the Second Index refers to a selection of earlier dates also, with an overall range between 1192 and 1400. Fourthly, Table 6 highlights the vast number of years which are cited in the Second Index, but which do not appear in Rentals, and to a much smaller extent, vice-versa. The number of discrepancies shows that the two documents can have shared a common source, but cannot have been copied one from the other. Taking these points together demonstrates that both documents have been compiled independently, but almost certainly from a common source. The Second Index could act as a selective interrogation tool for the source document, identifying particular accounts according to an unknown criterion. In contrast, Rentals appears to be the product of a selective interrogation of the same source. The common source is now unknown, but a strong clue lies in a single entry in Cartulary 2, which also gives detailed references to rental schedules. At the end of the entry for Newsham, an insertion identifies rentals for nine specific years: it also suggests where the references have come from: ‘look in the book containing all the rent rolls and other material, for there everything is to be found’.15 If, as seems likely, both manuscripts used this same source, then it can be shown that some data at least was extracted from the common source into Rentals after the material for the Second Index had already been taken. In marked contrast to the enigmatic encryption of the First and Second Indexes, the Fourth Index appears more transparent. It is a comprehensive list of place-names, organized in alphabetical order, and resembles a navigation tool in the form of a look-up table: for example, on the first page, the entry for Askrigg, North Yorkshire (p. 45) reads Table 7. President Book, Fourth Index: Sample Entry

Askeryk     In Aynderby 18 20

   

     

In tabula per se

 

In Newbywiske 1 2

 

If it is a navigation tool, which manuscript was it designed for? Most of the names in the list appear in all of the surviving cartularies, but Cartulary 1 can be excluded because it is not organized alphabetically, while Cartulary 4 was not compiled until the early sixteenth century, so only Cartulary 2 or Cartulary 3 could be potential destinations.  15 Cartulary 2, p. 313, cites the years 1270, 1317, 1329, 1333, 1334, 1336, 1346, 1347, and 1352, and is glossed: Vide librum continentem omnes Rentales rotulos &c quia ibi singula invenienda ‘See the book containing all the rent rolls, because everything is to be found there’.

69

70

c ha p te r 4

At first sight there seems to be a close correspondence with Cartulary 2, since throughout this manuscript, the location headings in many cases have been glossed by inserted text which is in very similar form to the style of the President Book Fourth Index. Thus the details shown in Table 7 are replicated in the section on Askrigg (p. 38) in Cartulary 2, albeit with spelling variations; no other Fountains cartulary uses this cross-referencing system.16 In addition, the connection seems to be reinforced by similarities between the scribal hand which entered the details in Cartulary 2 and one of the hands of the President Book. Taken together, this could suggest that the Fourth Index has been used to classify information extracted from Cartulary 2 into a schedule of cross-references, and that subsequently individual references have been inserted into the relevant place-name sections of Cartulary 2, wherever space would allow, at the beginning or end of each listing. Alternatively, the cross-references in Cartulary 2 could have been copied into the President Book Fourth Index either as they were being entered into Cartulary 2, or sometime later. However, the evidence does not wholly support either of these possibilities, above all because on closer examination many of the cross-references turn out to be incorrect. In the example above of Askrigg, the two references to Aynderby accurately identify entries which mention Askrigg, but only one of those for Newby Wiske, North Yorkshire, does so. The Fourth Index entry for Kirby Wiske, North Yorkshire, contains seven cross-references, but only five of these are verifiable, while in the case of Knaresborough, North Yorkshire, only two out of seven references are correct. In yet other instances, the entry in the Fourth Index does not quite correspond to the inserted text in Cartulary 2. There are only two cross-references for Langstrote in the Fourth Index (President Book, p. 54), but there are five in Cartulary 2 (p. 247): so, in addition to ‘In Allerdale 55, 56’, Cartulary 2 has ‘In Litton 32, 33 and 34’. Under the entries for Allerdale in Cartulary 2, items 55 and 56 (p. 21) each refer to Langgestrohe, or Langstrath, near Borrowdale, in Cumbria. However, under the entries for Litton (pp. 240–41), item 32 refers to a different location: Langestroth, or Langstrothdale, near Littondale, North Yorkshire. The close resemblance of the two place-names can account for the error. However, the additional cross-references, 33 and 34, are simply wrong, at least as far as Cartulary 2 is concerned, since there (p. 241) neither item 33 nor 34 contains any mention, of either Langgestrohe or Langestroth. An inspection of the other potential candidate cartulary reveals no reference at all to either location under Litton, items 32 to 34 (Cartulary 3C, pp. 288–92). A further example of mistaken identity was identified. In the Fourth Index, under Gnowpe (p. 51, Gnoup, or Fountains Fell, North Yorkshire), two cross-references are shown; one is to Litton, 26 and the other to ‘Awstewike’, 3, 5,

 16 Askeryk is spelt Askerik, Aynderby is Anderby, Newbywiske is Newby Wysk. The glossed text is also found in Cartulary 4, but this is substantially a reissue of Cartulary 2, and it was not compiled until 1509.

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ?

6, and 7. The first reference matches item 26 of the entries for Litton in Cartulary 2 (p. 238).17 Not so the second reference, which is wrong in all aspects: to begin with, there are only four entries under Austwick in Cartulary 2 (pp. 39–40), so references in the Index to 5, 6, and 7 are meaningless; secondly, item 3 under Austwick makes no mention of Gnoup. The explanation eventually turns out to be similar to the situation with Langstrath/Langstrothdale. Firstly, in place of Austwick, in the homophonic Hawkswick there are eight items in Cartulary 2 (pp. 181–82). Although none of these carries any reference to Gnoup, items 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 do refer to Gnip, described as a carucate of land within Hawkswick.18 A further example was found, confusing Hetton near Skipton in Craven, with Kirkheaton, thirty miles further south, in the Calder valley.19 These precedents do not instil confidence in the Fourth Index as a reliable navigation tool for Cartulary 2, so, to establish whether the discrepancies identified above were isolated exceptions, a sampling was made using more than a hundred entries chosen at random. As a further control, all items under A and B in the Fourth Index were cross-checked with the glossed insertions in Cartulary 2, and each specific cross-reference was also verified against the entry it seemed to indicate in Cartulary 2. Both of these tests revealed that almost one-fifth did not match up.20 This rate of failure seems to disbar the Fourth Index as a navigational aid for Cartulary 2, or at any rate a useful one, but if so, then from which source or sources are these references taken? Evidently it refers to a cartulary format, and of the surviving sets, the only possible candidates are Cartulary 2 and Cartulary 3.21 Cartulary 3 can be eliminated, since although many references do coincide with entries there, many others do not, to an extent where scribal error is unlikely to account for the differences. For example, under the cross-references for Aldburgh, both the President Book and Cartulary 2 include ‘Dacre 21, 24’ (President Book, p. 45; Cartulary 2, p. 9). Under the Dacre charters in Cartulary 2, items 21 and 24 (pp. 109–10) do refer to Aldburgh, but in Cartulary 3B, while item 21 (fol. 3r) does mention Aldburgh, item 24 (fol. 6r) does not, although the succeeding item 25 does, yet this is not cited as a cross-reference in either of the two lists. In a different example, still from the cross-references for Aldburgh, but this time under the Kirkby Malzeard charters, the two lists have different

 17 In fact, two consecutive items have been numbered 26, but both refer to Gnoup.  18 In Cartulary 2 entry 26 for Litton appears (twice), on p. 238; entries 1–4 for Austwick on pp. 39–40; and entries 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for Hawkswick on pp. 181–82.  19 The term Heton is used to describe both locations (Cartulary 2, p. 184; President Book, p. 52).  20 The first test was based on alphabetical entries under the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, O, P and R. Of 124 comparisons made, 22 (17.7%) showed discrepancies, dispersed across all letters. The second test involved 214 entries under A/B, of which 43, or 20.1%, did not correspond.  21 Cartulary 1 can be disregarded because it is not arranged in alphabetical order, and although Cartulary 4 is arranged in substantially the same form as Cartulary 2, it was not compiled until 1509.

71

72

c ha p te r 4

information: the Fourth Index cites items 26 and 27, while the Cartulary 2 entry cites 24 only. A search for the relevant charter entries in the two cartularies reveals firstly, that in Cartulary 3C this information does not match up at all, since item 26 (fols 81r-v) does not mention Aldburgh — and there is no item 27 at all; and secondly, Cartulary 2 does contain items 26 and 27 (pp. 217–19), but while item 26 mentions Aldburgh, 27 does not, although it does mention the vaguely similar Aldfield several times. A third example is taken, not from Aldburgh, but from Dromondby, where the Fourth Index cites Busby, 1, 3, and 14; the Cartulary 2 entry also cites this but adds three more references, 11, 12, 13, which are inserted out of numerical order and by a similar but not necessarily identical hand. In this case, it was found that charters in Cartulary 2 under Busby contain references to Dromondby in items 1, 3, 13, 14, and 16, and Cartulary 3A has references in items 13, 14 and 16 (fols 244r–245r; items 1–7 are wanting), but neither manuscript contains references in items 11 or 12. Taking all these examples together it becomes clear that neither Cartulary 2 nor Cartulary 3 can be the source of the citations in the Fourth Index of the President Book. This indicates they must refer to a lost record. It is noticeable that both Cartulary 2 and 3 show evidence of renumbering of charter sequences, as if in a realignment exercise, but if so, the changed numbers also show it was not with each other.22 It was seen that the scribe confused places on two occasions, Langstrath with Langstrothdale, and Gnoup with Gnip, yet despite the similarity of the names, this could not have been a casual error, say of transcription, because he inserted additional material which would have required him to search for the names through an entire deeds register and then be oblivious to the different contexts of Langstrath/Langstrothdale, Austwick/Hawkswick and Hetton/ (Kirk)heaton when he found them. This suggests two things; firstly, he was not local, and secondly, he was not closely involved in the business affairs of the abbey. Is this an indication that an external scribe compiled one or other of the manuscripts? These entries did not exist until this scribe wrote them, and although his information was unintentionally misinterpreted, at least it was evidence-based, as opposed to more traditional scribal errors caused by careless reading of the exemplar, such as eye-skip.23 This strongly suggests that he was not engaged in a mere copying exercise but was diligent enough to verify all the items in a list he had been given. The difference between the three cases is that the Langstrath error is not present in the President Book, but the Austwick and Hetton errors are. Finally, there are several examples of entries in the Fourth Index which have not been inserted in Cartulary  22 For example, the total charters for Kirkby Malzeard in Cartulary 2 are 26, versus 27 in Cartulary 3C, but confusingly the sequence in Cartulary 2 runs from 1 to 27, because at some stage they were renumbered after item 16, and in the process item 17 was omitted from the series. Meanwhile the 27 items in Cartulary 3 are numbered 1–26, because there are two items 15, A and B.  23 Clemens and Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies, p. 35.

ab b ot g r e e nw e ll’s ai d e -me mo i re ?

2.24 This seems to demonstrate either that the Fourth Index was prepared for another cartulary, similar but not identical to Cartulary 2; or else, if the Index was intended for Cartulary 2, there was an unusually high margin of error on the part of the scribes. In summary, the nine sections of the President Book are related by similarities of style, but their content is quite discrete, with no overlap or link between sections. On the other hand, each individual section seems to be connected with at least one other document, and the three sections analysed above can be seen as transhipments of information between two sources. The First Index has passed information to Cartulary 2.25 This redaction converted Cartulary 2 from a register of property deeds into a management control document, since it was then able to track the descent of property holdings against manor court verdicts and ensure that court fines were correctly collected, and verdicts correctly enforced. At first sight, the Second and Fourth Indexes seemed to be related to Rentals and to Cartulary 2, respectively, but closer examination reveals a more complex relationship in both cases. The Second Index describes a document approximately twice the size of Rentals, since more than half of its reference codes cannot be found there. Rentals may originally have been larger, but even that would make an unlikely source document for the Second Index because Rentals itself consists entirely of extracts, from more complete rental records. Both documents must have drawn their information from a third, now unknown source. The Fourth Index closely resembles a synthesis of the inserted entries on Cartulary 2, which provide cross-references. But these cross-references frequently do not identify an item accurately, and several can be shown to be errors resulting from confusion over similar-sounding locations. The insertions in Cartulary 2 obstruct its usefulness, and the failure to identify references suggest it may have been prepared from or intended for another cartulary altogether, while the homophonic errors must be put down to the failings of an unsupervised scribe. The First, Second, and Fourth Indexes all seek to mediate other texts, to augment in one way or another the information they conveyed. Two of these other texts are no longer extant, to judge from the evidence of the Second and Fourth Indexes. But they were available to the abbot of the day, and from the dating evidence this points to John Greenwell (1442–1471). The association with Greenwell is reinforced in the next two chapters, which move away from the agents of redaction to investigate some examples of the product of redaction, and illustrate how he responded cogently to the political and economic difficulties of his times, which have been outlined in Chapter 2.

 24 For example (p. 50) the extensive section on York (except for part of the first line, on p. 144) and most of the section on Eseby; or (p. 58) Ripon.  25 It could also be a navigation aid for the information.

73

Chapter 5

Creative Redaction Reassembling the Past and Developing an Audit Trail

There is a significant precedent for the involvement of John Greenwell with the systematic reformulation of the Narratio. Although no comprehensive chronicle of Fountains is known for the later period, the origins and history of the abbey up to the early thirteenth century are recorded in the Narratio, written, as it claims, mainly by a senescent monk, Hugh of Kirkstall.1 Coincidentally, the earliest surviving copy of the Narratio dates only from around the second half of the fifteenth century, the time of Greenwell’s abbacy (1442–1471).2 In his meticulous study of the origins and provenance of the Narratio, Derek Baker believed that Greenwell had redacted this fifteenth-century copy from an earlier version: If, as seems likely, he rediscovered the Narratio he must have been struck by its shortcomings — repetition, incoherence, poor organisation. Hugh of Kirkstall himself had protested his insufficiency — he was merely writing donec veniat qui dignitatem materie cultiori stilo adequet. Greenwell was just such a man, and quite capable of carrying out the revision which the Narratio underwent at about this time. This revision was in the interests of greater cohesion and clarity, and to suit the literary and stylistic taste of the reviser. Again and again one finds relatively minor changes of words and word order, transposition of clauses and sentences, retitling of chapters and subdivision of some of the longer sections. But there were larger changes too.3 Baker’s analysis incorporates a concise description of editorial redaction. Moreover, he placed Greenwell’s action firmly within the era of revival at the abbey and drew attention to building projects under Abbots Darnton (1478–1494) and Huby (1494–1519), and also the compilation of manuscripts, specifically Cartulary 4 in 1509, and Cartulary 3, ‘the great fifteenth century cartulary’, which, he suggested, had been produced towards the end of the century.4 The redaction of cartularies, and who may have been responsible, are addressed extensively in Chapter 7. Meanwhile, Baker’s analysis of the

 1 A short extension of the Narratio also gives selective details up to 1247: Baker, ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles, I’, 39.  2 Cambridge, Christ Church College, O.1.79.  3 Baker, ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles, II’, 184.  4 Baker, ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles, II’, 189.

76

c ha p te r 5

Narratio provides a fitting introduction to Greenwell’s redaction of another key source of the history of Fountains. A clear case for associating Greenwell with the President Book is to be found in the so-called Catalogue and Chronicle of Abbots (they do not bear any title in the manuscript). A description of both Catalogue and Chronicle is contained in Appendix A, but in brief, the Catalogue is a two-page listing of all the abbots of the house up to the time of Greenwell, and the Chronicle is a slightly more extensive commentary on the same abbots, across five pages. The Catalogue was taken from an earlier list, now unknown, which Greenwell had reviewed, and extended. It is still in draft form, and a correction has been inserted for Robert Thornton, who had originally been omitted. He introduced entries for Frank, Ripon, Paslew, and Martin, the most recent abbots before his own time. He also took care to add his own name to the list, and in doing so, two features stand out. Firstly, he names himself as the ‘twenty-eighth’ abbot, continuing a series that began with the first abbot, Richard, in 1132. But not every abbot was automatically assigned a number on the list. The exceptions are those abbots with a chequered history: Maurice and Thorald should be fourth and fifth, respectively, but they are omitted; they both served as suffragans while Abbot Henry Murdac was archbishop of York, but each one stayed only a short time because of Murdac’s insistent involvement with the abbey. Later, at the end of the thirteenth century, Abbots Peter Ayling and Henry Otley were also omitted, at a time when the abbey was beset with financial difficulty. All the other abbots are numbered, until the list reaches Roger Frank: Frank’s predecessor, Robert Burley, is named as ‘thirty-fourth’ abbot, and his successor, John Ripon, as ‘thirty-fifth’. The decision to exclude Frank from the list is the unilateral judgement of Greenwell, in light of the outcome of the election dispute which resulted in Frank’s election being declared null and void by the pope. Greenwell took care to number his own abbacy as ‘thirty-eighth’, even though it had not yet been completed.5 Another feature of the Catalogue is that a list of reigning monarchs is aligned against the abbots to show in which reigns each abbot ruled and how long in each one. Greenwell has extended the list of monarchs to his own time, and has drawn a line from himself to Henry VI. Greenwell did indeed serve for nineteen years under Henry VI, but he also served for ten years under Edward IV, who is absent from the list. While this may simply be because he worked on the Catalogue in the first nineteen years of his abbacy, it is indisputable that Greenwell’s relationship with Edward IV was strained, and his omission from the list may not be accidental.  5 President Book, p. 11. In the Chronicle of Meaux, there are two similar omissions in the numbering of abbots: William of Dringhowe (1349–1353, and 1367–1372) is not numbered for his first abbacy, probably a verdict on his profligate fundraising, although he is assigned as seventeenth abbot for his second term of office; while John de Ryslay (1353–1356) was surely omitted for scheming to depose William by underhand means (Chronica Monasterii De Melsa, ed. by Bond, iii, pp. xii–xiv, xxii–xxiv).

cre at i ve re dact i o n

In the case of the Chronicle, Walbran believed it was probably written by Greenwell; he did not investigate this further, except to recognize its value as the sole surviving source of information about most of the abbots of Fountains.6 However, this exclusivity also raises the possibility of archival redaction: is it credible that the only history of the abbots was written on ephemeral paper in a personal notebook? To attempt an answer requires an examination of the content. To begin with, several details in the Chronicle are cross-referenced to source material, notably a psalter; a chronicle of Abbot Robert Thornton; and a selection of papal privileges granted to Fountains (the author could have used others, but for some reason omitted them).7 This thoroughness suggests scholarly training, and Greenwell, as will be seen, was frequently referred to as a Doctor of Theology. The author also borrowed from the Narratio, but without always acknowledging the source, while on two occasions pointed out inconsistencies there compared with alternative sources.8 In addition, Walbran thought Greenwell had used some wording from the monumental inscriptions to Abbots Ripon and Paslew. Secondly, the Chronicle has the appearance of an interim work: at several points conflicting evidence is set down from different sources, and at one entry there is even the comment ‘inquire how this can be so’ (quere quomodo verum est).9 The implication is that Greenwell was seeking clarification in order to produce his definitive version of the Chronicle. Thirdly, it is noticeable that the entries for Greenwell’s three immediate predecessors describe the personal qualities of each abbot. So, John Ripon (1413–1434) was, ‘a man most worthy of pious memory, proficient in matters spiritual and temporal’, while Ripon’s successor, John Paslew (1434–1442) was ‘handsome in stature, devout in soul, pious to his brothers, kindly to all’; and the seven-week abbacy of John Martyn (1442) was by a man ‘exceptionally adept in material things’.10 These entries are in marked contrast to most of those for previous abbots in the list, which generally follow a formula limited to dates of accession and cessation, length of service, and place of burial; even Henry Murdach is not singled out for praise, despite being the most  6 Memorials 1, p. 130.  7 For example, the President Book asserts (p. 12) that papal privilege 1 in 1141, from Pope Innocent II, was addressed to Abbot Richard II (1141–1143); privilege 2 in 1145 from Eugenius III was addressed to Henry Murdac (1143–1153); (p. 13) privilege 3 from Adrian IV in 1156, and privilege 4, from Alexander III in 1162 were addressed to Abbot Richard III (1150–1170); and privilege 5 in 1172, also from Alexander III, was addressed to Robert of Pipewell (1170–1180). It omits reference to privileges 6 (1182) and 8 (1193), addressed to Abbots William (1180–1190) and Ralph (1190/1191–1203).  8 President Book, pp. 13 ( John of York), 14 (Stephen of Eston).  9 President Book, p. 14. Also (p. 13), the death of Abbot John of York is disputed between information in the Narratio and the Chronicle of Robert Thornton. HoRH accepts Thornton’s date, 1211 (HoRH, i, p. 133).  10 President Book, p. 16.

77

78

c ha p te r 5

influential abbot in its history. These comments on personal qualities suggest that Greenwell probably knew his immediate predecessors, and this reinforces the view that he either wrote the entries or had them drawn up. Moreover, given the litany of misfortune that the abbey experienced during the first half of the fifteenth century, it is notable that no direct criticism is levelled at any of his immediate predecessors. Evidently, Greenwell was engaged in projecting a favourable image of them, and by inference, of the abbey. The image-making goes one stage further: the three previous entries serve as a prelude for the entry on Greenwell himself. This item is unfinished, and the Chronicle ends abruptly at this point: it is as if Greenwell, only too aware he could not write his own epitaph, was determined to set down at least some of it. The wording is fulsome: a professor of theology, a professed monk of Fountains and a scholar there, having been chosen as abbot of daughter house Vaudey, he declined it, preferring to further his studies at Oxford. Later he was again chosen as abbot, this time of Waverley, not a daughter house, but not wanting to leave the community of Fountains, he resisted accepting for forty days, but was eventually persuaded to do so by the entreaties, among others, of the king and some of his nobles; he ruled at Waverley for two years until recalled to Fountains by the (untimely) death of John Martyn. His self-representation is impressive, incorporating academic prowess, reinforced in the Chronicle by the prominent title of magister picked out in bold letters, and evident leadership qualities, with modesty, despite a renown which brought him to the attention of the royal court. For good measure, his hesitation before accepting the abbacy of Waverley is a biblical forty days. All the above points confirm Greenwell as the redactor of the Chronicle, and the Catalogue. Moreover, an appreciation of his redaction skills can be gained by inspecting those entries covering the period when he had been present at the abbey. Although his career took him to study at Oxford and to be abbot at Waverley for two years, he is recorded at Fountains as early as March 1423, which would see him acquainted with the aftermath of the vexatious leadership struggle which followed the death of Abbot Robert Burley, including the infamous incident of the assault on and occupation of the abbey by followers of Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland.11 The Chronicle entries for the fifteenth century minimize references to the earlier difficulties at the abbey, and most notably in relation to the extended election dispute involving Roger Frank and John Ripon. Greenwell skilfully deployed his academic training to accentuate the positive, and smooth over the inconvenient, as revealed by a closer look at the entries for the three abbacies of Robert Burley, Roger Frank, and John Ripon. The entry for Burley (1383/1384–1410) reads:

 11 Abp Reg 5A (Sede Vacante), fol. 356r; Greenwell appears in the ordination list as a deacon.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

Anno domini 1383 Robertus Burley creatus fuit in crastino pu[rificacionis] beate marie qui prefuit tempore Ricardi secundi 15 annos 9 meses 7 dies et tempore Henrici quarti [blank space] et obijt in die sancti servacij, in 3o Idus Maij anno Abbaciatus sui 27 feria 3a in septim[] pentecoste anno domini 1410. Sepelitur in choro in medio ante stall[as] Abbatis et prioris.12 (In the year of Our Lord 1383 Robert Burley was elected abbot on the morrow of the Purification of the Blessed Mary, and he ruled for 15 years 9 months and 7 days in the reign of Richard II and for [blank space] in the reign of Henry IV, and died on St Servatius’s Day in the twenty-seventh year of his abbacy, on the third Ide of May on Tuesday in the week of Pentecost 1410. He is buried in the middle of the choir, in front of the stalls of the abbot and prior). The description ostensibly follows the standard format for all previous abbots up to that point in the Chronicle, omitting any personal description and merely giving the date he was made abbot, how long he ruled and under which monarchs, then the date of his death and location of his burial. Inexplicably, although the text gives the length of service under King Richard II, there is a blank space where the term of office under his successor, Henry IV, should be. It is not immediately apparent why this detail is left blank, since at the time of Burley’s death Henry IV had been on the throne for eleven years. Burley was accorded an honourable burial plot in the middle of the choir in front of the stalls of the abbot and prior. The entry for his successor reads: Anno domini [blank space] Rogerus ffraunk titulo tali quali tempore henrici quarti occupauit sed non pacifice per[fecit] cuius titulus Rome cassabatur et pro Johanne Ripon vero abbate titulus declarabatur et dictus Rogerus expellebatur multis et gravibus hinc inde fusis expensis.13 (In the year of Our Lord [blank space] Roger Fraunk took possession of the abbacy with a title of some sort during the reign of Henry IV, but he did not [complete] it peacefully, and his title was annulled at Rome, and John Ripon was pronounced the true abbot, and the said Roger was driven out, many serious expenses being incurred thereby [by the abbey]). Here the standard format has been all but abandoned. There is no information about when Frank came to office; or when he left it; or when he died; or where he is buried. Further, Greenwell questions the legitimacy of his claim to the abbacy, which was not completed in peace but terminated at Rome, and Frank’s rule with a ‘title of some sort’ was replaced by a ‘true abbot’. The conclusion to the episode was financial damage to the abbey, ‘many serious expenses’.

 12 President Book, p. 16.  13 President Book, p. 16. My thanks to Ian Moxon for his views on this passage.

79

80

c ha p te r 5

The entry for John Ripon reads: Anno domini [blank space] Johannes Ripon predictus electus immediate post Robertum Burley pro tunc Abbas de Melsa olim cell[erarius] de ffontibus expulso prefato Rogero ffraunk prefuit post ipsum Rogerum expulsum tempore henrici quarti [blank space] et henrici quinti [blank space] et tempore henrici sexti [blank space] et obijt quarto idus marcij anno domini 1434 apud thorpunderwod. In ffontibus sepultus est ante introitum chori in navi ecclesie vir laude et pia memoria dignissimus in spiritualibus et temporalibus utilis cuius anime propicietur deus amen.14 (In the year of Our Lord [blank space] the aforementioned John Ripon, having being elected immediately after Robert Burley, at that time Abbot of Meaux and formerly Cellarer of Fountains, having driven out the aforementioned Roger Frank, ruled, after Roger was expelled, during the reign of Henry IV [blank space] and during the reign of Henry V [blank space] and during the reign of Henry VI [blank space] and he died on the fourth ides of March in the year of Our Lord 1434 at Thorpe Underwood. He was buried at Fountains by the entrance to the choir in the nave of the church. A man most worthy of praise and pious memory, proficient in matters spiritual and temporal. May God rest his soul. Amen). Now the standard format is restored, although there are four significant gaps in the narrative. By stating that Ripon was elected as abbot in succession to Robert Burley, Greenwell is reinforcing his view that Frank was never elected — and in the previous entry on Frank he carefully avoided using the term ‘elected’ or ‘chosen’, preferring instead the Latin occupavit, which means ‘occupied’, but also carries a connotation of unilateral action, ‘appropriated’. This is reinforced in the Catalogue of Abbots, where Roger Frank is not assigned a number, and John Ripon, as twenty-fifth, follows Burley, twenty-fourth. The first telling gap is where the date of Ripon’s election should appear: since Greenwell was confident that Ripon was elected after Burley, this seems a strange omission, although clearly complicated by the status of Frank. In the paragraph on Frank, Greenwell had stated that Ripon was appointed by Rome, and his point was that Ripon had been restored to rightful office after being deprived by Frank, but even so, this would not affect the original date of Ripon’s election. The remaining three gaps compound this anomaly. They all relate to the length of Ripon’s service under three monarchs: Henry IV (1399–1413), Henry V (1413–1422), and Henry VI (1422–1461). Since no date of original election had been given, calculating his length of office was difficult. The paragraph returns to conventional format with Ripon’s date of death, and also his place of burial, at the entry to the choir, and then Greenwell introduces his first

 14 President Book, p. 16.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

eulogy in the Chronicle, bestowing on the character of John Ripon virtues which are not given to any of his predecessors. With these three entries Greenwell was preparing for posterity his version of the archival memory, by sanitising the events surrounding the election dispute. What remained to be done was to remove from the records any trace of information which contradicted his version. This he duly did, or at any rate none has survived. And, it was clearly his intention to convert his advanced draft into a definitive copy of the Catalogue and Chronicle of Abbots, in which no doubt he would have resolved the issue of the blank spaces. However, if he did produce such a version, it has not survived either. As Walbran rightly commented, ‘Had it not been for this compilation, it would now have been impossible to obtain a perfect series of the abbots, or to have ascertained their several places of burial’.15 Walbran ventured no opinion on Greenwell’s motives in preparing a new version. However, the Chronicle, and, to some extent, the Catalogue, provide an exceptional opportunity to observe archival redaction in operation. Although no contradictory internal sources survive, the notoriety of the Frank/Ripon dispute spilled out to the courts of Westminster and Rome. As a result, external sources survive which make it possible to review Greenwell’s advanced draft version of events at the abbey between 1410 and afterwards. The blank spaces in the draft provide the first step to exposing the redaction process, and of these, the crucial gap is the absence of a date in the Chronicle for the appointment of Roger Frank as abbot. Already in the Catalogue, Greenwell had taken the decision to withhold an ordinal number from Frank’s abbacy. Although there were precedents for this, notably in relation to the abbacies of Peter Ayling (1275–1279, deposed), and Henry Otley (1284–1289, resigned), it is not identical treatment, because in the Chronicle both Ayling and Otley have their length of office recorded, and by omitting this for Frank, Greenwell is implying that he never held legitimate office at all. This is refuted by two dependable external sources, which show that the date of Frank’s appointment as abbot is undisputed — he was canonically elected on 30 July 1410 and received the archbishop of York’s blessing on 3 August and later, the confirmation of the General Chapter at Cîteaux, reconvening that year for the first time following the Schism.16 These dates also show that the abbacy was vacant for seventy-eight days until Frank’s election. Three such previous vacancies are shown in the Catalogue, including one as short as twenty-one days, but Greenwell did not add this one.17 This allowed him to infer that Ripon was the immediate successor to Burley, with Frank’s abbacy a brief intrusion.

 15 Memorials 1, p. 130 n.  16 Abp Reg 18 (Bowet), fol. 265r; Statuta, ed. by Canivez, iv, p. 133.  17 Memorials 1, p. 155.

81

82

c ha p te r 5

If the date of Frank’s election is unequivocal, the length of his term of office is less clear. Certainly, he ruled as abbot from July 1410 until March 1413, when John Ripon ousted him with the authority of the pope. The President Book contains one vestige of information on Frank’s time as abbot, probably from 1410, when he received the oath of homage and fealty from a prominent free tenant, the prior of Bolton, John Farnhill.18 In late 1413 the situation became ambiguous, when the king removed the abbacy from John Ripon, but did not restore it to Frank; instead he appointed the archbishop of York and the bishop of Durham as administrators. This period of intervention cannot count as length of office for either Frank or Ripon; it could qualify as another unreported vacancy. Moreover, although the king endorsed the papal confirmation in favour of Ripon as the new abbot in March 1414, and Ripon resumed the abbacy from then until his death in 1434, it was not until 1416 that the Cistercian General Chapter at Cîteaux cancelled its original confirmation of Frank’s election, citing misrepresentation of the original submission.19 Greenwell would be well aware of all these events and he could have opted to allot Frank a term of office to March 1413, but that would have required some explanation of why first the pope and then the king intervened, and thereby have shown the abbey, and the Cistercians, in an unfavourable light as incapable of self-government. His hesitation on this point is understandable, but deciding not to acknowledge the date of Frank’s election in the Chronicle posed consequential problems for other entries there and in the Catalogue. These show up initially in the Catalogue and Chronicle entries for Frank’s predecessor, Robert Burley, where, although Burley’s length of office under Richard II is given, his time under Henry IV has been left blank, when it could be calculated quite readily, as 10 years, 7 months, and 13 days.20 Next, although the Chronicle entry for Frank leaves blank the date of his election, it does at least acknowledge that he served as abbot during the reign of Henry IV. But while this statement is true, it is not the whole truth, since Frank was also abbot under Henry V, albeit for a short period of time.21 That omission leads on to falsehood in Ripon’s entry, which states, correctly, that Roger Frank was deposed, but does not say when this took place. Then it affirms that following Frank’s expulsion John Ripon ruled as abbot during the reigns of Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI. But, since the papal letter

 18 President Book, p. 70, translates as follows: ‘John Farnhill, Prior of Bolton, paid homage [and fealty] to lord Roger Frank, Abbot of Fountains, for the same lands and tenements, and he paid 6s 8d for the chamberlain’s fee, in the presence of many …’. The page is no longer legible, but had been transcribed by Walbran in 1845 (York, York Minster, Add MS 266).  19 Statuta, ed. by Canivez, iv, pp. 206–07.  20 The date of his death is recorded in three ways in the Catalogue: the year is stated 1410, but the day is given variously as St Servatius’ Day, the third Ides of May and Tuesday in Whit Week, all of which correspond to 13 May.  21 Brevity is not an issue, since John Martyn’s abbacy of six weeks and six days is fully recorded on the same page.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

in favour of Ripon was only signed on 30 March 1413, and the first day of Henry V’s reign was 21 March, it is not true to suggest that Ripon was ever abbot during the reign of Henry IV. Also, the persistent appeals of Roger Frank for reinstatement for a further three years after that were no doubt assisted by the fact that the Cistercian General Chapter still had not rescinded their formal confirmation of his 1410 election.22 Greenwell’s assertion that Roger Frank was expelled may be taken as from office, but it could infer that he was driven out of the abbey. External sources confirm that he and twelve other monks were wandering at large, although it seems to have been by their own choosing, and at length the secular arm was instructed to return them to Fountains; later this instruction was reissued without including Frank, although the circumstances surrounding his omission are not known.23 The absence of a specific date for his deposition seems strange, since the appointment of every new abbot would trigger new acts of homage and loyalty by all the abbey’s free tenants, all of which should have been carefully noted in the abbey records, citing dates, locations, and witnesses. Greenwell could not have been unaware of these records, as demonstrated by the single example, given above, of the act of homage and fealty to Frank as abbot, performed by the prior of Bolton in 1410, which appears in Greenwell’s own President Book. The absence of any further records relating to Frank’s election is intriguing. It could of course be the result of natural attrition or preservation bias, but, equally of censorial redaction; there is no evidence either way. In the case of John Ripon, the absence of similar records is even more curious. Ripon himself would surely have been keen to record such events as evidence of the legitimacy of his office, and Greenwell could have used these to cite a firm date for the commencement, or resumption, of his term of office under Henry V. However, if the length of John Ripon’s service under Henry V is debatable, there is no uncertainty over his rule under Henry VI, yet this has also been left in blank, even though it can be readily calculated from the other information in Ripon’s entry.24 The vocabulary employed for the sections on Frank and Ripon is notable, for different reasons. Frank’s tenure is described as ‘not peaceful’; this is a masterly understatement of the situation, but equally the description does not say ‘illegally’, which was the ultimate verdict by the king, the pope, the archbishop of York, and the Cistercian General Chapter. Moreover, it ascribes Frank’s removal to intervention by forces external to the Cistercian Order, namely Rome, with no mention of any involvement in the decision by the father abbot or the Cistercian General Chapter. The most damning description refers to ‘many heavy sums having been expended on account of this affair’.

 22 For a fuller account of the Frank/Ripon episode, see Jacob, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey’, and Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey Revisited’.  23 CPR, 1416–1422, p. 221.  24 He died on 12 March 1434, so his rule under Henry VI was 11 years, 6 months and 11 days.

83

84

c ha p te r 5

Since the Latin uses an ablative absolute construction, it impersonalizes culpability. Undoubtedly both disputing parties appropriated the abbey’s assets to finance the costs of legal challenge and counterchallenge, while the cost of John Ripon’s papal provision, and subsequently, pontificalia, would add to the heavy sums. The evidence that the winning sponsor, John de Mowbray, continued to exact payments for at least ten years after Ripon came to power, would also be known to Greenwell.25 Greenwell’s selective account of Frank falls short of accusing him of being an intruder: he could have used the term usurpavit, ‘usurped’, which appears elsewhere in the President Book.26 Even so, occupavit is unambiguously pejorative; it is not used in the Chronicle to describe any other abbot’s tenure. In contrast, Greenwell commends Ripon’s character, and represents Frank’s abbacy as an unfortunate and expensive interlude, while Ripon’s term of office restored the pious qualities looked for in an abbot.27 His glowing description of Ripon risks overstepping the mark, since pious qualities were equally shown by many of Ripon’s illustrious predecessors, yet such hyperbole is not given to any of their entries in the Chronicle, not even Henry Murdac. But Greenwell’s purpose was to draw the veil over a damaging episode and portray Ripon’s tenure as a positive beginning to better times.

Developing an Audit Trail The previous examples in this chapter demonstrate how Greenwell applied his skills to reshaping the historical narrative of the abbey. The following section examines another section of the President Book, to consider a different product of redaction, in this case the assembly of a review process which concentrates on a key control element in the manorialized system adopted by Fountains in the course of the fourteenth century. The concept of homage and fealty was central to the medieval system of freehold land tenure, in an explicit declaration of subordination by the tenant to the lord of the manor.28 At Fountains this act was the subject of an elaborate ceremony before witnesses. Every change, of either tenant or lord, required renewal of the oath and act, so at Fountains Abbey, in addition to sporadic renewals following the death of individual tenants, a major round of ceremonies would have followed each abbatial succession.

 25 Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey Revisited’, 218–19.  26 President Book, p. 103, when Henry de Percy temporarily deprived the abbey of the lordship of Malham.  27 Walbran thought the description had been taken from Ripon’s burial eulogy; Memorials 1, p. 130 n. 1.  28 See Pennington, ‘Feudal Oath of Fidelity and Homage’.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

One of the nine sections of the President Book is given over to a selective record of these acts, spanning more than a century. It is the only section in the manuscript which carries an explanatory heading (p. 18): Hij quorum nomina subsecuntur Alij fecerunt Homagium & fidelitatem et alij fidelitatem temporibus diversis Abbatibus Monasterij de ffontibus Annis diebus et locis prout inferrtur in subscriptis (Of those names which follow below, some paid homage and fealty, others fealty, to diverse abbots of Fountains on the dates and in the places indicated below). This caption heads up a twenty-one page section, laid out in a uniform format; it supplies the names of the individuals who performed homage and fealty, and usually the name of the abbot before whom it was performed, as well as the venue for the ceremony; the date; names of witnesses; and often the fee paid by the supplicant to the abbot’s chamberlain. The President Book items are numbered consecutively, albeit interrupted by a missing section (at 32, restarting at 39); the range of dates is from 1312 to 1410, but there are also four late additions, all dated 1501, in a different hand. Geographic coverage extends to most areas of the abbey’s landholdings, but it clearly was not intended to be an exhaustive listing: elsewhere in the President Book there are two additional references to acts of homage and fealty which are not captured in this section.29 In the years covered, 1312 to 1410, there were five abbacies, and acts from four of these appear (Walter Coxwald (?1316–1336), Robert Monkton (1346–1369), William Gower (1369–1384), and Robert Burley (1383–1410)), the exception being Robert Copgrove (1336–1346).30 The criteria for inclusion in the list are not apparent, but it is clear that the entries were drawn from a comprehensive record. The most likely source is disclosed indirectly, in a different section of the President Book, which identifies ‘the book of homages, on paper, [marked] with the sign of the cross’.31 What then is its significance? There is no clear trend in the entries; some do show consecutive acts for the same lands, but only for two or three generations; others are solitary entries. However, the date range, from 1312 to 1410, broadly mirrors the range seen for the Second Index, in the previous chapter, so this looks like a further exercise in revisiting the abbey’s situation in the fourteenth century. At the same time, the last date shown falls  29 For example, President Book, p. 70, prior of Bolton, 14[10], and p. 91 re Robert de Feizor, 1265 (although this does appear in the Rentals list as item 1); and Rentals, fol. 75v, John de Baldersby, Roxby Pickhill, 1318, fol. 111r re Miles de la Haye, Hunslet, 1346 (similar to item 23 in the President Book), and fol. 149v, Emmota de Wilsthorp, at Marston Grange, 1358. Two of the items dated 1501 can also be found in the Fountains Lease Book (pp. 69–70).  30 The four 1501 additions all correspond to Abbot Marmaduke Huby (1495–1526).  31 President Book, p. 41: de libro homagiorum in papiro cum signo crucis. This phrase appears at the beginning of the brief succeeding section in the President Book (a one-page genealogy of the Percy family) but otherwise the document is unknown.

85

86

c ha p te r 5

immediately before the costly and divisive election dispute between Roger Frank and John Ripon. Acts of homage and fealty were required upon the election of every new abbot, but during this period it is known that tenant loyalties were divided, and several estates continued to adhere to Frank as late as 1416, even after Ripon was appointed to the abbacy in March 1414. In those circumstances, convening ceremonies of homage and fealty by John Ripon would have been a test of power. Curiously, the self-same heading from the President Book, Hij quorum nomina, etc, can be found in Rentals. However, there, the list is very much reduced, and the whole entry has been crammed into a small space, in marked contrast to the elegant presentation of the much larger list in the President Book. The format in Rentals has been organized in an almost identical way to the President Book, but the difference is that where the President Book list has 105 entries, there are only eighteen in Rentals. Of these eighteen items, fifteen match the text of entries in the President Book, although each manuscript has applied its own numbering system, such that item 1 in the President Book is entered as item 2 in Rentals, and then seriatim.32 Being smaller, the list in Rentals seems to be a more targeted selection. Its date range is narrower, effectively from 1265 to 1356, and it is confined to three abbacies, Alexander (1259–1265), Walter Coxwald (?1316–1336), and Robert Monkton (1346–1369). The entries are almost exclusively from the area of Craven, all of which are also in the President Book listing, but it omits six others on Craven which the President Book includes. Both listings contain entries that the other does not, so neither one can have been the source of information for the other, although it is at least conceivable that the Rentals list was the pilot for the President Book. If not, the appearance of such similar lists in two manuscripts raises for the second time the possibility that they may have been commissioned independently. In any event, the similarity of all the entries points strongly towards a common source, ‘the book of homages, marked with the sign of the cross’.

Superscript References Whereas the listing of homages and fealties implies, but does not reveal its source document, attention now turns to the introduction of a research tool which takes this process one stage further. This particular tool is used in two different sections of the President Book, and is best observed in Section VII, Craven Landholdings. The function of this major section of the President Book is examined in the next chapter, but here attention falls on its distinctive source identification system.  32 Items 1 (fol. 28v), 5 (29r), and 16 (29v) have no counterpart in the President Book entries. Also, the Rentals items are numbered consecutively 1 to 18, except that 9 appears before 8, suggesting that the numbering was added later, to align with another record.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

The tool in question is a superscript annotation; examples appear at frequent intervals items throughout the Craven Landholdings section. Usually they are in the form of an Arabic number, but occasionally also a short phrase, and their positioning shows they are intended to reinforce the information to which they are appended. They have all the appearance of modern footnote references, except there is no explanatory note at the bottom of the page or at the end of the section, or anywhere in the manuscript; they are not listed in any surviving manuscript. Their style closely resembles the hand of the scribe of this section, and from their positioning, they appear integral to the text, and to have been inserted as it was being written. This might suggest that the scribe had his reference sources to hand as he wrote and therefore that they point to one or other internal record of Fountains Abbey, or copies of external records held at the abbey. This reference system was noted by Walbran, who believed that the two source documents were Cartulary 2, and Cartulary RP (MS Univ. Coll. 167, register of regal and papal privileges).33 His view is supported, on the face of it, by the format of the references, which generally are either a single number, in which case the reference seems to point to a cartulary item; or a number accompanied by the letters r or p, suggesting an appropriate entry in the register of r(egal) or p(apal) privileges. The entire Craven Landholdings section is arranged by townships, and the superscript numbering system recommences with each township. Consequently the reference system directs the reader to understand that, for example ‘15’, in the Arncliffe section, refers to item 15 in the Arncliffe section of another document; if a reference in the Arncliffe section has been taken from a different part of the other document, say, Malham, then the author helpfully signals the distinction, for example ʻIn Malghum 15’ . Since the format of the deeds registers is arranged by place-names, the superscript numerals should be readily located within a given section. The system can be tested quite simply, using the following example. The upper portion of the first page relating to Arncliffe in the President Book (p. 113) translates as follows: Arnclyffcote Firstly, from a grant by Turstin de Arches 2 a b and as confirmed by his son Wyelin4 and by Wyelin’s son Reyner 15 de Arches we hold 18 bovates of land in Arncliffe together with the borrens 2 4, marshland and waste places, within those 18 bovates, which we may turn to our benefit and use as best we can.34

 33 York, York Minster Library, Add MS 266, Preface.  34 ‘In primis ex dono 2 a b thurstani de arches & ex confirmacione 4 Wyelini filij sui & Reyneri 15 de Arches filij eiusdem Wyelini habemus xviij bouatas terre in Arnclyff et borganes 2 4 & marescum & vasta loca que sunt infra has xviij bouatas ad u[er]tenda[s] ad proficuum & utilitatem nostram sicut melius poterimus …’.

87

88

c ha p te r 5

The superscript references 2, 2a, 2b, 4, and 15 can now be followed up to see if their source can be determined. Deeds relating to Arncliffe can be found in all four surviving cartularies in varying numbers (Cartulary: 1, twenty-six; 2, forty-six; 3, fifty-eight; 4, forty-nine). The grant referred to above, by Turstin de Arches, of eighteen bovates, and the confirmations of his son Wyelin and grandson Reyner, appear in each one. Cartulary 1 can be eliminated immediately as the potential source document, since its reference system bears no relation to the superscript references; for example, the confirmation by Reyner de Arches is identified there (fol. 81v) not by 15, but by a double coding, cxc and A vii. For a different reason, Cartulary 4 can also be eliminated since it was not compiled until 1509. This leaves Cartularies 2 and 3, and here the first signs are positive. In both cartularies, Reyner’s confirmation is described in an entry numbered 15, so either of them could be the intended source reference. Also, the confirmation charter of Wielinus is entered as item 4 in both cartularies; however, a differentiation emerges here, because in Cartulary 2 the name Wielinus is abbreviated to Will’s, which is the common short form for Willelmus, William. The name Wielinus is unusual, and while it could be abbreviated to Will’s, by scribal convention it would be written in full the first time it occurred, to alert the reader. This does not happen in Cartulary 2 (p. 27), so the reader is unable to identify ‘Wielinus’ unequivocally from the abbreviated form Will’s. The same problem does not arise in Cartulary 3A (fol. 122r), where the name Wielinus appears in full. On this evidence, Cartulary 2 could not be the source reference, but Cartulary 3 could be. In the case of the initial grant by Turstin, which is referenced ‘2 a b’, in Cartulary 2 there is only reference to a single item 2. However, in Cartulary 3, items 2a and 2b are separately listed, and are seen to be two versions of the same charter, with slight variation (fols 120r–121r). Again, therefore, Cartulary 3 could be the source, but Cartulary 2 could not. Finally, two references, 2 and 4, are cited for ‘borrens, marshland and waste places’. In Cartulary 2, item 2 under Arncliffe does contain the phrase, but item 4 does not, whereas Cartulary 3A contains the phrase in items 2a, 2b, and 4. Based on these three tests, Cartulary 2 is ruled out, and Cartulary 3 emerges as the only possible source document of the four surviving records. Nevertheless, further investigation reveals that although the references in Cartulary 3 are found to correspond with almost all superscript numerals, there are sporadic minor discrepancies which cast doubt on the overall situation. These discrepancies show up in the following three examples. Firstly, in the section on Gnoup, or Fountains Fell, North Yorkshire (President Book, p. 112), the third entry is referenced superscript 3. From the previous evidence, this should indicate that item 3 under Gnoup in Cartulary 3, is the source reference. However, this item (Cartulary 3B, pp. 389–90) does not carry all the information needed: the detail is small, but distinctive — the President Book entry identifies Richard Percy as the son of Agnes daughter of William Percy, but Cartulary 3 mentions only Richard, not his forebears.

cre at i ve re dact i o n

The second example occurs in the same section on Gnoup, which carries extensive detail of an agreement, dated to 1409, between Fountains and Sawley Abbey; this is identified by a superscript 6, but on this occasion, there is no matching entry at all in Cartulary 3, since it contains only five items. The existence of such an agreement can be established from two other sources. In the first place, Cartulary 2 does carry reference to an item 6 for Gnoup (p. 167), which it refers to as ‘the second agreement (of Fountains with Sawley)’, although the entry itself contains too few details, for example no date is given, to be the source for the President Book. However, the date can be verified from a separate source, a transcription by Thomas Whitaker of a boundary agreement between Fountains and Sawley delineating the forest of Gnoup, dated Palm Sunday 1409.35 In yet a third example, taken from the section on Malham (p. 101), a reference to Robertus filius jordanii filij Ernisij is tagged with superscript 17; although Cartulary 3C, item 17 under Malham refers to Robert son of Jordan, Ernisius is not mentioned, nor does the name appear in Cartularies 2 or 4.36 Taken together, the above examples eliminate all four surviving deeds registers as the sole sources cited in the Craven Landholdings section. Although, in almost all cases, Cartulary 3 turned out to be the closest surrogate, it was still defective too many times, and even combining the information from all four surviving sets of cartularies does not provide an exact match for all superscript references. The question then arises, what other sources were available? All the information required would be recorded on the original deeds, so it is just possible that the compiler worked directly from the primary material. However, practical considerations reduce this possibility: given the nature of the work he was engaged in, which entailed identifying and classifying key facts, he would first have to familiarize himself with the content of each charter and then have some system allowing him to compare the contents of different charters, which, of course, is just what an existing cartulary would allow him to do. Therefore, this indicates that an additional cartulary was available to Greenwell which has not survived. The above findings also refute Walbran’s assertion that Cartulary 2 was one of the two sources. What then, of the other source identified by Walbran? This was Cartulary RP, which Walbran stated was the cited source for those special references preceded by the letter p or r.37 This cartulary could not possibly have been the source reference, since it was not compiled until the 1490s, at least four decades after the President Book. However, why would  35 Whitaker, The History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven, p. 265. This appears to be an extract from a larger document, since it is confined to the boundaries with the township of Stainforth, but Whitaker does not name his source.  36 The name does appear, once, in Cartulary 3 under item 1 which, however, is not cited as a superscript reference. The grandfather of Robert is also named in Cartulary 1 (item ccxli, K iiii), in which he appears as Hernisii.  37 See Appendix C for further details of Cartulary RP.

89

90

c ha p te r 5

Walbran think otherwise? Five of the special references appear on page 88 of the President Book, each one relating to confirmation of landholdings by a pope or monarch. In order they are as follows: 1. Alexander III, in the third year of his pontificate, 1162, confirming half a carucate of land in Bordley, is cited as P4; 2. Celestinus III, in the second year of his pontificate, 1193, confirming the grange of Bordley, is cited as P8; 3. Richard I, in the tenth year of his reign, 1198, confirming the twin granges of Upper and Lower Bordley, is cited as R12b; 4. Edward III, in the fortieth year of his reign, 1366, confirming the charter of Richard I, is cited as R13; and 5. Richard II, in the ninth year of his reign, 1385, confirming the charter of Edward III, is cited as R14. Cartulary RP differs from the other cartularies in that individual entries are not numbered. However, the fourth entry by order of appearance in the papal privileges section of Cartulary RP does match the information shown above for the first example, P4 (fols 18v–19r), in every detail, except one. Although it gives the date as 1162, it describes this as the third year, not the (correct) fourth year, of Alexander’s pontificate as shown in Cartulary RP. In the second example, however, all the details given for P8 do match precisely the information in the eighth entry in Cartulary RP (fol. 21r). The next three cases all cite royal privileges, and at first sight they appear not to match at all. The third example is labelled ‘12b’, but since there is no explicit numbering of entries in Cartulary RP, it is unclear what is meant by this. The fourth example is ‘13’, and refers to Edward III in 1366, but in Cartulary RP the thirteenth privilege was issued by Richard I in 1198 (fol. 10r). In the fifth example, the fourteenth privilege in Cartulary RP (fol. 10r) was issued by Edward III in 1366, not by Richard in 1385. However, by adopting a different approach, and identifying the information in Craven Landholdings with the content of items in RP, it was found that that the order of appearance had been changed by one place. In other words, all the information cited in the Craven Landholdings section does appear in Cartulary RP and is accurate in every respect except one, namely, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth items in RP correspond instead to the superscript references of 12b, 13, and 14. This situation is reminiscent of the first references, which in many aspects resembled Cartulary 2, but did not match exactly. Here again, Cartulary RP is convergent with the information in the superscript referencing but does not quite match in every detail. Scribal error can never be ruled out, and certainly that could explain the first example above, where the date of Alexander III’s pontificate was written ‘third’ instead of ‘fourth’ (year), but scribal error surely cannot account for entering ‘12b’ instead of ‘13’. Walbran must have seen the close similarity of the references to Cartulary RP, and not

cre at i ve re dact i o n

knowing it was compiled much later, assumed it was the reference source. His conclusion may be inaccurate, but his reasoning lends weight to the idea of a lost cartulary very similar in appearance to Cartulary RP. This examination of the referencing system has revealed the presence of additional cartularies in the fifteenth century at Fountains, which are now unknown. This issue is explored further in Chapter 7. Although the specific source documents have not yet been identified, the purpose of the superscript numerals here is clearly to reinforce the statements of the compiler by providing the evidence to support his assertions. The use of such a sophisticated research tool for the Craven Landholdings section, which is essentially a business analysis, suggests the application of transferable skills by a university-trained theologian.38 The influence of Greenwell is unmistakeable here, as in the earlier sections of this chapter, where his redaction skills were displayed to advantage in reshaping the past to rehabilitate the narrative of the abbey in the late fifteenth century. Having looked briefly at the research tools, the next chapter scrutinizes the material on which those tools were deployed, in a comprehensive exercise of retrospective examination by the abbey of better economic conditions in the previous century. Nevertheless, the economic and political realties were never far apart, and the section can be received on more than one level, since it analyses in great detail the very area which was at the heart of the opposition to John Ripon’s abbacy between 1414 and 1434. Craven people and places surface time and again in claims made by Ripon, of assault on his followers and tenants of the abbey.39 Roger Frank is not known to have had any direct connection with Craven,40 and his success in drawing on the loyalty of at least some of Fountains’ tenants in the area must be due to the main tenant in chief, Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland. It may then be no coincidence that the compilation of the Craven Landholdings section draws attention to many of the people and places involved in the dispute, such as Hertlington, Bordley, Gnoup (near Trenhouse, the scene of an assault) and Arncliffe. Each township section is headed up by the name of the wapentake, Staincliffe (Craven), and by the names of the tenants in chief of the lands held by Fountains: with few exceptions, the names are Percy, or their kinfolk, the castellans of Skipton.

 38 For the earlier role of universities, and Cistercians, in developing tools like this, essentially for exegetical studies, see Rouse and Rouse, Authentic Witnesses, Ch. 7, ‘The Development of Research Tools in the Thirteenth Century’.  39 Named aggressors include Craven residents Henry Hertlyngton, William Preston of Otterburn, and John Addyson of Grassington, while the Craven tenants who had been attacked included John Dene and Thomas Kydde; properties mentioned include Overbordley, Tranhouse and Lainger House, all located on Malham Moor; TNA, SC 8/18/885 and SC 8/111/5525. See Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Revisited’, 219, 224–26.  40 Much earlier, in 1258 a William Fraunk had kept livestock on the common pasture of Malham: Cartulary 3C, pp. 408–09.

91

Chapter 6

Reflective Redaction Reviewing the Past

Earlier, the economic difficulties of the long fifteenth century were examined, together with the active response pursued by Fountains. The present chapter sheds light on some of the review work carried out there at the time, presumably in planning for the measures to be taken. Such work was not unusual: at Durham and elsewhere in the mid fifteenth century, the declining economic situation caused major estate owners to search for answers from the previous century.1 At Fountains the initiative once again seems to have come from John Greenwell, and the evidence can be seen in two sections of the President Book, Craven Landholdings, and the Second Index. More than half of this manuscript is dedicated to a review and analysis of financial and tenurial conditions in the pastoral district of Craven in the period up to the end of the fourteenth century. It will be recalled from Chapter 2 that whereas records from northern magnate landowners such as Durham Priory, the Percy family, and the Fitzhugh family all showed that upland pastoral estates fared better than their lowland arable counterparts, the surviving records for Fountains were too fragmentary to permit clear distinctions in performance to be drawn between their different estates. However, it seems no coincidence that the area which comes under scrutiny in the Fountains internal review of the fourteenth century is the upland Pennine district of Craven. The following analysis concentrates on one township, the key holding of Malham, as representative of the redactive process followed by the com­piler of the Craven Landholdings section. Like most of the President Book, this section carries no title page or indication of its purpose. It extends over thirty-two folios, and takes the form of a schedule, listing twenty locations in Craven.2 These locations do not include all the interests of Fountains Abbey in the district of Craven: up to eleven additional locations are not mentioned, although they all appear

 1 See Lomas, North East England in the Middle Ages; Pollard, ‘The North-Eastern Economy and the Agrarian Crisis of 1438–1440’; Brown, ‘Surviving the Mid-Fifteenth Century Recession’; and Dobie, Accounting at Durham Cathedral Priory, esp. pp. 186–90.  2 Appletreewick; Linton; Calton; Arncliffe; Burnsall; Threshfield; Arnford; Hawkswick; Hertlington; Kilnsey; Scosthrop; Ulcotes; Thorp; Bordley; Malham; Litton; Hebden; Hanlith; Gnoup; Langstroth.

94

c ha p te r 6

in the cartularies.3 Conversely, five locations on the list are all absent from Cartulary 3, the main register, although the first four do appear in Cartulary 2.4 For each of the twenty locations, there is a detailed entry in the schedule, beginning with a common format specifying the wapentake, and the fee of the location, together with the size of a knight’s fee expressed in carucates; occasionally the parish is given. The entry for Bordley (p. 85) appears as: Bordelay hamelete ville de hetone Wapentagium de Staynclyff de parochia de Brynshallo de ffeodo Castri de skyptone ubi xiiij carucate terre faciunt feodum militis (Bordley, hamlet of Hetton township; in the Wapentake of Staincliffe, and the parish of Burnsall, and the fee of Skipton Castle, where fourteen carucates make a knight’s fee). Material allocated to individual locations is generally laconic. Dates are occasionally specified, or else can be deduced from the text, and the range stretches from the mid twelfth century until 1410. The entries deal with grants of land and associated rights, for example for livestock to transit neighbouring lands without hindrance, or to graze on common pasturelands in a township, as well as financial obligations upon the house and in its favour. Fountains had operated five granges in Craven, but Kilnsey, Bordley, Malham, Arnford, and Arncliffe all appear in the section not as granges, but in their contemporary, fifteenth-century form, as townships. The entries for all townships are classified by common marginal headings, as if for purposes of comparison or analysis. Malham is a convenient location to select for analysis, because Fountains did not have the monopoly of the vill there; Bolton Priory also had a significant presence, and surviving records from Bolton can provide a useful basis from comparison.5 Malham is also the largest individual entry in the Craven Landholdings section, which the compiler has set out in three parts. These can be summarized as: remembering the benefactors of specified lands and rights; classifying the lands according to manorial function; and recording the measures taken to minimize cost outlays arising from service obligations. The appearance of benefactor genealogies in Cistercian records is common, and often their inclusion may be connected not simply with individual family histories, but more with the wider aims of the house. Emilia Jamroziak has shown how by preserving patrons’ family origins monastic houses reinforced

 3 Airton, Austwick, Conistone, Grassington, Hellifield, Horton, Kettlewell, Long Preston, Otterburn, Starbotton, and Wigglesworth.  4 Bordley, Hawkswick, Hanlith, Hertlington and Langstroth. Conistone is also missing from Cartulary 3, but appears in 1, 2 and 4.  5 See Bolton Priory Rentals, ed. by Kershaw; Kershaw, Bolton Priory; The Bolton Priory Compotus, ed. by Kershaw and Smith; The Lost Cartulary of Bolton Priory, ed. by Legg.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

their own institutional genealogies.6 At the same time it can be seen as a manifest part of the spiritual contract associated with grants to a religious house, which might include the granting of confraternity, burial at the monastery, or involve the periodic commemoration of the benefactor and their family; a genealogy would act as institutional memory for the house to keep track of descendants.7 There was also a more practical side to this arrangement: if grants by one generation could be amended or even refuted by another, the genealogy provided a means of defending the beneficiary’s interest over the long term, as will be seen below. The Malham section starts with a collection of five genealogies of local donors of land to the abbey. These are set out in schematic form, and are dominated by three families who eventually combined through marriage to form a minor local dynasty, the de Malham/de Otterburns, who would be influential in the area throughout the monastic period and beyond. Although a fragment of the details used also appears in Cartulary 3 (3B, p. 382), here they are much more comprehensive, and what distinguishes them from other examples is the numerical reference system used to associate charters with names in the genealogy. For example: ‘Torfin of Malham had a son Meldred, who gave to us as described in 9, 10, 12’ (President Book, p. 100). These numbers each identify a charter in the Malham section of Cartulary 3. No original charters issued by Meldred survive today, and they may have been lost early on, since none of the three charters referred to above was issued by him: in Cartulary 3C, Malham charters 9 and 10 were issued by his sisters Goda and Sigrith, while in 11 Meldred appears as moral surety for his nephews, Uctred and Hugh: ‘we pledged our faith in the hand of Meldred of Malham’.8 By combining the information from three genealogies an integrated descent of the de Malham family emerges, revealing the continuous relationship between the abbey and this prominent local family up to the turn of the fourteenth century, stretching back to the fathers of the first donors, who may have been active in the second quarter of the twelfth century, before Fountains itself was established, and one generation removed from the Domesday Survey. Some of the pre-Domesday landowners of the area, Thorfinnr, Bjornulfr, Arnketill of Stackhouse, and Gamalbarn of Otterburn, are recalled in several of the names in the genealogy, which supports the suggestion of continuity in the area.9 The de Malham/de Otterburn family not only contributed just over half of all benefactions to Fountains in the township of Malham, but they clearly acted as advisers and managers for the general locality. In a late thirteenth-century cartulary entry, Thomas son of William de Malham is  6 Jamroziak, ‘Genealogy in Monastic Chronicles in England’, pp. 102–03.  7 For a detailed discussion, see Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, Ch. 6, The Benefactors: Patronage and Spiritual Benefits.  8 Cartulary 3C, p. 332; fidem nostram affidavimus in manu Meldredi de Malhum.  9 See Dalton, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship, p. 19; Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, p. 77.

95

96

c ha p te r 6

described as ‘currently our steward in Craven’, while in 1329 Henry de Percy instructs John de Malham, hisʻwell-beloved servant’ to convey property in Malham to Fountains.10 Of all the Malham family charters cited, the most significant is one which does not grant any new land at all: charter 69 is a comprehensive confirmation of all grants of land and rights made by any member of the family anywhere. It was issued, probably in the 1270s, by the fifth-generation Thomas Malham, who is singled out earlier in the Section as the sole heir of both principal arms of the dynasty: [Also] Thomas, son of William son of Arkil of Malham, and of Matilda daughter of William of Malham, confirmed to us in pure alms all lands and holdings with their appurtenances which we hold either by grant or acquisition from their ancestors, or in any other way within and outwith the territory and township of Malham.11 Having established the origins of Fountains property and claims in Malham through genealogical association, the compiler next undertook an analysis of all connected grants, which identifies the specific purposes to which they were applied. To do this, he assigned principal charters to one of thirteen categories.12 In drawing up his analysis, the compiler sometimes disaggregated the details contained in a single charter, allocating individual sections between several categories, while at other times he aggregated several charters, connecting original grants with later confirmations. Because he was assiduous in applying the superscript reference system to his actions, the modern reader has the benefit of an audit trail to show how individual charters or cartulary entries are connected, something which is not always evident from the charters or cartularies themselves.

 10 Cartulary 1B, p. 137: est ad presens senescallus noster in Craven; Cartulary 3C, fol. 207r, notre bene ame vadlet John de Malghum.  11 President Book, p. 108: ‘Et Thomas 69 filius Willelmi filij Arkilli de Malghom Atque filius Matildis filie Willelmi de Malghom confirmauit nobis in puram elemosinam omnes terras & tenementa cum omnibus pertinencijs suis que vel quas nos habemus de dono seu vendacione antecessorum suorum vel quomodocumque in territorio de Malghom &c. infra villam & extra’.  12 President Book, pp. 101–08: ‘de dominio perquisito per parcellas ut patet; [D]e donatis cum toftis & croftis perquisitis; de fforlandis perquisitis per parcellas; de pratis & fordales perquisitis; de sartis & clausuris factis; de Essartis & purpresturis factis; de lapidibus remotis; de Aqueductu pipe nostre plumbee; de mesuagijs & toftis cum croftis perquisitis; de grangia nostra ibidem fact[a]; de excambis factis ibidem nobiscum &c; de clausuris factis circa le Cousydd & le hardflask; De redditibus relaxatis; De confirmacionibus’ (Demesne, acquired in lots; Grants, acquired with tofts and crofts; Forlands acquired, in lots; Assarts and Enclosures made; Essarts and purprestures made; Concerning stones removed; Concerning our lead waterpipe; Messuages, acquired with tofts and crofts; Concerning our grange, made there; On exchanges made with us; On enclosures made near Cousydd and Hardflask; On release of financial obligations; On confirmations’.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

This reclassification provides an insight into how Fountains managed an acquisition. Firstly land was allocated according to use, between directly managed demesne and tenant-managed messuages, then subsequently, the sites were often improved in some way — such as enclosing land (assarts, essarts and purprestures), or by clearing stony ground, or, presumably in the specific case of the grange site, by laying on piped water. Examining the referenced charter entries also reveals an approximate chronology of these developments at Malham, with three separate phases: up to 1190; 1191 to 1220; and 1221 to 1300. The arrangement of material provides an overview of the abbey’s retained landholding in Malham, suggesting that by the end of the three phases, the directly managed demesne totalled about thirteen bovates, while land rented out (messuages, tofts and crofts) was approximately twice that area, at about twenty-six bovates. The size of a bovate, or oxgang, varied from location to location, but in Malham one bovate can be demonstrated to have been equivalent to twenty modern acres. Prior to the mid fourteenth century, demesne land can be taken as a proxy for the grange, and this suggests that the tenanted lands, at 520 acres, were twice the size of the grange, at 260 acres. Prior to about 1163, there is no firm evidence of any Fountains presence in Malham. This is in marked contrast to Bolton Priory, who were granted twelve bovates there probably in the early 1130s, by Helto Mauleverer and his overlords, the Romillies of Skipton Castle, around the time Fountains was coming into existence.13 However, the arrival and consolidation of Fountains seems to have followed a careful strategy. The early grants related predominantly to territorial jurisdiction, whereby the abbey acquired control over practically the whole of the grazing lands of Malham Moor from the two major landholders, the Percy family and the Romillies.14 Once they had secured control of the area for themselves, Fountains then set about restricting access to it by the major free tenants.15 By about 1176 they had secured the western section of the moor from the Percy family and had negotiated what the compiler refers to as enclosures. On examination these are seen to be nominally grants of grazing rights, pasturage, and herbage, to Bolton Priory and members of the Malham family; however, the President Book compiler’s description of clausuris, ‘enclosures’ (pp. 107–07), makes clear that the intention is confinement of the grantees. The rights to the eastern side of the Moor were obtained from the Romillies a few years later, sometime between about 1178 and 1187; the intention here seems to have been to reserve this area predominantly for the abbey itself, especially since it was by then already bounded by at least two Fountains granges, at Kilnsey and at Bordley.

 13 The Lost Cartulary of Bolton Priory, ed. by Legg, p. 65.  14 For the broader context of these benefactions, see Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, esp. pp. 155–67.  15 See Atkin, ‘The Medieval Exploitation and Division of Malham Moor’, esp. 64–68.

97

98

c ha p te r 6

In Malham township, official records do not disclose a grange until about 1190, when the term is first mentioned in relation to Malham in a papal confirmation (1193, Cartulary RP, fol. 21r). However, perhaps up to twenty-five years before then, Fountains had already acquired some lands there, added more to them, and was actively managing them. This resulted from two grants, made by the de Malham family and confirmed by the Percys, which bestowed on the abbey seven bovates; both transactions fall within the compiler’s classification of ‘Grants acquired with tofts and crofts’, but the wording of the entries emphasizes the bovates, and this looks like the nucleus of their operation in the township. These two acquisitions stand out as strategic targets.16 Having secured the lands, the next step was consolidation, and two exchanges of land were negotiated shortly afterwards with relatives of the de Malham family, who evidently still held contiguous land. The clear intention of Fountains was to integrate their lands within the open fields, and at the same time to extend their territory by gaining control of additional rocky land, ‘borrens’, hitherto uncultivated. They achieved all this, but there is evidence of some resistance; the charters include a stipulation that once the harvest has been taken from the field, livestock of the de Malhams and of Fountains are to be allowed onto the stubble, to range freely without any fencing off.17 By the time the grange was established, around 1190, the abbey’s holdings in Malham consisted of demesne land of about nine bovates together with up to fourteen bovates acquired with tofts and crofts; the size of the grange cultivation is never given explicitly but it seems significant that the compiler restricts his use of ‘demesne’ to nine, and shortly after, thirteen, bovates when the further grant was made, as distinct from lands with tofts and crofts, and at this point, may be interpreted as differentiating the centrally-controlled grange from the other holdings, which were rented out and controlled locally. As will be seen later, the size of the grange cultivation could be increased or reduced from year-to-year. The initial grange structure seems to have been completed around the turn of the thirteenth century when land was acquired on the banks of the stream, Malham Beck; the compiler designated this transaction as concerning the grange, and there is also a marginal gloss, ‘Le Graungegarth’. By about 1210 the first phase of management drew to a close, by then embracing an unknown number of tofts and crofts, together with demesne amounting to nine bovates and a further twenty-three bovates of land which could have been let out or managed directly with the demesne, wholly or in part. The  16 In the case of the grant from Ulf and his nephew Uctred, the charter evidence discloses an inducement fee of five silver marks and a horse or eight shillings; for good measure, the act was solemnized in Ripon Minster (Cartulary 3C, p. 325).  17 Cartulary 3C, pp. 347–48: ‘quando bladum amotum fuerit de campo de malghum pasture stipule eiusdem campi omni anno communis erit et averijs monachorum de ffontibus et averijs nostris sine clostura facienda’.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

chronology then shows a gap of about ten years before acquisitions resumed, although this time on a smaller scale. In this second phase, the first transaction was a further piece of land reclassified as demesne, four bovates secured nominally from Bolton Priory in 1222, which may also have involved the transfer of the lordship of the vill to Fountains. The land in question had been granted to Bolton originally by Walter Aleman, also known as Walter of Studley, from the same family who had given eight bovates to Fountains in the first phase. Moreover at around the same time the water cornmill came into the control of Fountains and this too came from the same family, this time from Walter’s brother John Aleman. Subsequently a further four bovates of land, along with tofts and crofts, were acquired. Most of the tofts and crofts appear to be on the west of the stream, and formed part of a row there. The bovates accompanying the tofts and crofts could have been located on either side of the stream, and the same is true of a further five bovates received later, probably in the late 1250s. The second phase is characterized by what appear to be several acts of consolidation, in which Bolton Priory and the Malham family conceded territory or rights to the abbey; for their part, Fountains could keep land they had cleared and enclosed, but they agreed not to place their clearance stones onto common land without consent. They also negotiated a wayleave for a water supply pipe to their grange. Although the second phase continued up to the end of the thirteenth century, there is little evidence of further changes beyond the consolidation phase of the 1250s. The chronology used above is necessarily approximate, but it sets in context the application of the abbey’s holdings in the vill in relation to its overall expansion and management plans. The third focus, evident from the way in which Craven Landholdings was compiled, is upon the need to minimize enduring financial and other liabilities associated with the grants they had received. To an extent this is addressed by the genealogical tables, which allowed the record-keepers to see who might be able to lodge a claim against an ancestor’s grant. This monitoring function is assisted by the format of the section, which identifies and monitors the service obligations acquired with a large number of grants. In her study of Fountains Abbey benefactors, which made an extensive analysis of Fountains’ growth strategy, Joan Wardrop drew attention to the mounting burden of annual service payments which could accompany a progressive expansion in Malham as outlined above.18 The evidence of Craven Landholdings suggests that the monks were well aware of this situation and were managing it actively and continuously. The existence of a service obligation is usually disclosed in the charters and cartularies, though not in every case, and sometimes the nature of the obligation is unclear. They range from token exchanges, such as a pair of boots required annually during the  18 Wardrop, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors, p. 49.

99

1 00

c ha p te r 6

life of the grantors, through regular annual payments in perpetuity to them, their heirs and successors, to the intricacies of forinsec service — where the duties to be performed are either beyond the bounds of land acquired, or to a third party in place of the granter of the land.19 All of the obligations just mentioned were part of the agreement with Ulf and his nephew Uctred in the first acquisition Fountains made of land in Malham vill, probably between 1163 and 1175.20 The section entry (President Book, p. 102) goes on to state that the obligations were later released, by their descendants in the 1250s, specifically Thomas son of William of Malham, and Richard of Otterburn, son of Hugh of Otterburn.21 The role of Thomas son of William is seen to be pivotal in many similar entries and can be attributed to the fact that since his father descended from one of the patriarchs, Roskil, and his mother from another, Torfin, he could relinquish claims and discharge obligations across the twenty bovates and all other grants made by the Malhams. To remove their service obligations to the heirs of Ulf and Uctred, Fountains presumably paid up for some seventy years or so before seizing their opportunity. Such a timespan is well beyond the working life of most clerks, and this emphasizes the value of accurate record-keeping. An even more extreme example is shown in the entries for the Percy family, where an annual payment of twelve pence to the heirs of Matilda, Countess of Warwick, for a grant in 1204 was eventually relinquished 124 years later by Henry Percy in 1328.22 In summary, the compiler of Craven Landholdings concentrated on three main areas. Firstly, genealogies of the principal benefactors are recorded over a period spanning more than a century and a half; the compiler showed the relationships diagrammatically, and carefully inserted superscript numerals to record the specific charters in which each benefactor was a party. Secondly, the format of entries for each location represents a reclassification of material from the formulaic charter style used to record the original benefaction. This reclassification reveals how the compiler perceived the landed estate of Fountains, as between demesne, enclosures, clearances, grange formation, and tenancies. An analysis of this classification for Malham revealed four distinct phases of management of the lands there. Thirdly, it shows how the abbey assiduously tracked its financial commitments attaching to benefactions, and sought to minimize these whenever possible, in some case centuries after the commitment arose. The compilation of the Malham Section of Craven Landholdings illustrates an information-gathering process, charged to produce a briefing document based  19 Abstracts of Fountains, p. 459, item 3 (boots); p. 462, item 13a (annual payment and forinsec).  20 Cartulary 3C, p. 324.  21 ‘Istam terram postmodum purificauit nobis in generali Thomas filius Willelmi de Malghom. Et anno domini 1257 Ricardus de Oterburn filius Hugonis de Oterburn’ (Thomas son of William later absolved us of general charges on this land, as also did Richard of Otterburn son of Hugh of Otterburn in 1257).  22 President Book, p. 105.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

on verifiable information. However, it concentrates on static data, revealing how the estate infrastructure was acquired and then reconfigured. It stops short of reporting on the dynamics of the infrastructure, in terms of revenues generated from year-to-year. As previously mentioned, most of the financial information necessary for such a report is no longer extant, but more than that, it is clear that these historical details were already no longer present when the President Book was being assembled in the mid-1400s. By that time, the granges had been transformed more than a century earlier into manorialized vills and there would have been little need to retain financial records from the previous organisation for more than, perhaps, a few years under the new system. In the circumstances, the second part of the review of the Craven Landholdings had of necessity to rely on such information as was still available, which was in the form of rental records and manor court rolls which had come into existence mainly at the time the granges were transformed. There are references to a book ‘containing all the rent rolls’, and to the ‘Acts Book of the manor courts’.23 These seem to have provided the material for the preparation of Rentals, which contains selected abbreviated entries of many rent rolls and some court extracts. As shown in Chapter 4, the Second Index of the President Book was drawn directly from the book of rent rolls, using selection criteria which do not always match those for Rentals. By examining the Malham entries in the Second Index it is possible to postulate a limited version of the type of review which could be redacted from the selection. The Second Index of the President Book list twenty-eight rentals under Malham, spanning the two centuries between 1192 and 1392. This indicates the ambition of a review, beginning shortly after the grange is known to have begun operating and extending up to thirty years after it had been dismantled. When the President Book index was being compiled, all 200 years of rental summaries presumably were extant, so a decision to select only twenty-eight must have been taken, using criteria which are not known. The surviving twelve extracts in Rentals represent a narrow sample, of only 6 per cent of the total population of records potentially available to the compiler, of the President Book index. Since the original book of rent rolls no longer exists, it is necessary to use the information from Rentals as a surrogate. However, of the twenty-eight entries in the index, only twelve are contained in Rentals, confined to the five decades from 1305 to 1361 — and the Rentals entries are selective extracts and may not contain all the information implied by the President Book index. Moreover, of these twelve records, three refer to the same year of 1361 and are virtually identical, so the effective basis for comparison reduces to the nine years 1305, ‘1316’ (1326), 1329, 1336, 1340, 1347, 1356, 1357, and 1361.24

 23 Cartulary 2, p. 313.  24 In the case of ‘1316’, the compiler of the President Book index seems to have made a trans­crip­ tion error. The corresponding entry in Rentals is marked as 1326, and although neither date can now be checked against the exemplar, information in another section of the Presi­dent

101

102

c ha p te r 6

Despite the evident shortcomings of the information, its value lies in its scarcity: there are no comparable rental records for Fountains Abbey before the second half of the fifteenth century.25 Although the Malham records are not uniform, they were drawn up in a similar way which allows comparisons to be drawn from year-to-year; for example, three classes of tenant are always shown, usually described as freeholders, tenants in bondage, and cottagers. These categories will be examined in turn, but to set the context, firstly the influence of the grange is analysed. In some years the accounts begin by declaring how many bovates of land Fountains held in demesne in Malham and how many in service. Over the nine sample years the total for both categories averages twenty-nine bovates, rising from twenty-five in 1305 to thirty-four in 1361. However, the allocation of bovates between free and bondager tenants (cottagers have no specified allocation of land) does not always reach the total of twenty-eight: the difference must represent the true demesne of Fountains in Malham, representing the grange operation there. When the demesne is compared year-on-year, as in Table 8, the figures would suggest a grange of variable size, in three phases, at least in those years for which records exist: Table 8. Indicative Size of Malham Grange 1305–1361.26

Period Year Bovates

One 1305 1326 9 8

1329 5

Two 1336 1340 0 0

1347 0

1356 12

Three 1357 1361 12 0

Given that the grange was dedicated to arable production, the figures derived from Rentals suggest that sown areas fluctuated considerably from year-toyear, including nothing at all between around 1336 and 1347, if the data can be accepted. It must be emphasized that Table 8 is derived from figures which are not stated in a consistent form in Rentals and therefore the size of the grange is no more than a working hypothesis. Nevertheless, each phase of the hypothesis is supported by evidence from independent sources. The first phase relates to the years 1305 to 1326, and here a good basis for comparison is provided by the records of Bolton Priory, who were managing a remote demesne in Malham during the same period as Fountains. The Fountains grange was nine bovates in 1305 reducing to eight bovates in 1326, suggesting there was a small decline in output by the end of this phase. The accounts for Bolton Priory give details of the physical outputs of their grange operations, including Malham. Across all Bolton’s granges, the Book itself (p. 18) indirectly supports the Rentals date of 1326, since it shows that one of the freeholders listed in Rentals did not swear homage to the abbot of Fountains until 1318.  25 The Fountains Abbey Rental, ed. by Michelmore; summarized totals for 1456–1459 are contained in Memorials, 3, pp. 3–6, 41–42, 81–82.  26 Source: computed from Rentals, fols 73r-v; 254r–255r and 135r-v; 138r; 96r-v; 118v–119r; 125v–126r; 154r-v; 157v–158r; and 182v–183r.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

Figure 5. Arable Production on Bolton Priory Grange at Malham 1306–132427

crops consisted of wheat, barley, oats, beans and rye, in varying quantities; at Malham neither beans nor rye were sown. Figure 5 shows the physical outputs at Malham: the dotted line shows the combined linear trend for all three crops, and it is declining across the period. This falling crop production at Bolton’s Malham grange supports the hypothesis for a gentle decline in sown area at the Fountains grange there over the same period. Ian Kershaw calculated the size of the Bolton demesne in Malham at between sixty and eighty sown acres,28 which corresponds to between three and four bovates. If the Fountains grange at Malham was in the range of eight to nine bovates at this period, it could have been producing about twice the volume of arable crops recorded for Bolton, perhaps also wheat, barley, and oats. The second phase witnessed the continued decline and then disappearance of the grange. Permission to close three granges was sought and received by Fountains Abbey in 1336 from the General Chapter at Cîteaux.29 These were the granges of Baldersby, Marton and Kilnsey, on the grounds that the expense of maintaining them had become prohibitive due to the excessive amounts of hospitality the monks had been obliged to dispense to an increasing volume of travellers in connection with the Scottish wars. This explanation makes sense for Baldersby and Marton, which were both near the main northern highway, the modern A1, but is less obviously applicable to Kilnsey in the

 27 Data compiled from The Bolton Priory Compotus, ed. by Kershaw and Smith, pp. 202–06, 300–04, 325–29, 374–77, 411–15, 469–73, 504–09, and 548–52.  28 Kershaw, Bolton Priory, p. 33.  29 Cartulary 3A, fol. 191v. See also Donnelly, ‘Changes in the Grange Economy’, 427–28.

103

104

c ha p te r 6

Yorkshire Dales. In any event, the remedy was to lease the sites to secular third parties, who would not be bound to provide monastic hospitality. The information in Rentals for Baldersby corroborates the decision, in that the first date for which a rental summary appears is 1336 (fol. 104v); a subsequent entry for 1343 (fol. 112v), not found in the President Book index, clarifies that twenty-five tenants each have a holding of four bovates on a five-year lease; the simplicity of this arrangement is unusual, but is consistent with the terms of permission. Marton also conforms, insofar as the first entry in Rentals is dated 1345 (fol. 113v). However, in the case of Kilnsey, the earliest reference to a rental in the President Book index is dated to 1333, three years before the faculty from Cîteaux was issued.30 Kilnsey acted as the senior grange for up to five others in the vicinity, including Malham, and the closing of the operation at Kilnsey can be seen in the context of an integrated management plan which would embrace all the satellite granges. Therefore it is unlikely that the gradual reduction in sown area at Malham, suggested in Period One in Table 8, between 1305 and 1326, could have taken place without the knowledge or permission of the granger at Kilnsey. Against this perspective, the further reduction of the grange at Malham to five bovates in 1329 and to nil in 1336 can be seen in the context of a coordinated management policy carried out over a period of at least thirty-five years. In turn, this leads to the strong possibility that, at least in the case of Kilnsey, the authorisation granted from Cîteaux in 1336 was a post facto confirmation of a decision previously implemented, which may or may not also have been connected with insupportable hospitality expenses. The five satellite granges to Kilnsey were located at Arncliffe, two at Bordley, Malham, and probably Arnford, and an examination of their entries in Rentals adds support to the notion of a post facto confirmation. Although the entries are generally few and brief, the year 1329 seems significant: in the year in which the grange at Malham was reduced to five bovates, entries are recorded for the first time in Rentals, for Arncliffecote and Arnford (fol. 138v), confirming that both had been let to tenants — perhaps for some time past, since Arncliffecote is shown as having been rented before that date to three unspecified tenants but is now classified as in manu domini. Moreover, the entries for both places appear on the same page of Rentals, and in the same listing is another set of first appearances, this time of some of the pastoral farmsteads straddling Malham Moor right to its westernmost edges at Horton in Ribblesdale.31 Once again, although this is the first appearance in Rentals, the arrangements do not seem

 30 There are eight references in the President Book index, but none of these has a corresponding entry in Rentals. There is one reference to Kilnsey in the President Book dated 1192, but this clearly specifies firme forinsece, not rentals.  31 Rentals, fol. 138v, Table 88, includes: Stodhirdhall, Fountains Hall, Middle House, Westsidehouses, Colgilhous.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

newly-made, since at least one holding, Middle House, is declared in manu domini. Taken together, this information may be interpreted as evidence of a shift in management strategy for Malham Moor, involving the phasing out of the ring of granges around the fringes of the Moor, and establishing a network of independent logie, or sheep-farms. As part of the strategy, the grange at Malham would no longer be required in support of pastoral activity, which would explain its absence from the records by 1336, and by comparison with previous entries, it seems that all five bovates were rented to a freeholder, John Malham (fol. 96r). Between Periods Two and Three the Black Death reached the area in 1349. No records survive from that time, but its impact brought several changes, which can be seen particularly from the records of bondagers and cottagers, as will be analysed below. In the case of demesne, by the time surviving records for Malham resume in 1356, one other change is noticeable: the grange has reopened. It had returned to its former scale, embracing twelve bovates which mainly (nine bovates) had been reclaimed from freeholders. But this did not represent a return to former ways in every sense. Firstly, the forlands or meadows, of the grange had now been rented out. In addition, under the previous system the grange would never have been recorded alongside the tenancies, since the two systems were managed separately. Its inclusion at this time must signify that it was no longer ‘demesne’ in the narrow sense of land directly worked by the abbey, but instead had been made available for rent, like the other holdings, and an annotation on the record for 1356 (fol. 154r), states the going rate: to rent one-quarter of the grange would cost twenty-five shillings. This rate, equivalent to 8s 3d per bovate, compares favourably with most of the bondager rents on the same page, which average around nine shillings per bovate. Despite this, there is no evidence of any tenant in occupation. In the following year, 1357, little had changed, except that the offer rate on the grange had been reduced to the equivalent of 6s 4d per bovate, although bondager rents had not been eased. But four years later, by the time of the final record in 1361, the grange had been leased jointly to three lessees, and for an equivalent rent at the higher rate of 8s 10d. Although there are no further records for Malham in Rentals, a separate record for 1496 shows that that the grange continued to be leased out in three parts at that time, for a marginally lower rate of 8s 3d, as sought in 1356.32 Why the grange at Malham should be re-established after 1349 is not known, but the context may be a further authorisation from the General Chapter received by Fountains Abbey in 1363. On this occasion, nine grange locations were identified as too ruinous to be salvageable, attributed to

 32 The Fountains Abbey Rental, ed. by Michelmore, p. 14. Alice Hogeson, Richard Preston and William Wyndesover paid 100s between them. By 1496 most of the tenancies were held by lease.

105

1 06

c ha p te r 6

the privations of the Scottish invasions, pestilence, and adverse weather.33 Consequently, they could be rented out or manorialized. Kilnsey was included in this group, but no mention was made of Baldersby or Marton. Again, as in 1336, the timing of the authorisation seems late in the day, although the wording in both cases makes it clear the General Chapter has responded to a proposal from Fountains itself, which may suggest a repeat of the post facto application made for Kilnsey in 1336.34 For comparison, the records in Rentals for the year 1361 already show the following granges leased out: Cowton Grange (fol. 198v: £4 p.a. to William Grayne), Sleningford Grange (fol. 199v: £10 p.a., to Robert de Brouhouse and John de Morpeth), Bramley Grange (fol. 200r: £6 13s 4d p.a., to Richard de Thorp, John Peek and Robert de Well), Thorp Underwood Grange (fol. 200r: twenty marks, no lessees named), and Bradley Grange (fol. 217r: £10 p.a., to John Saville). No records for Kilnsey appear in Rentals, but an entry in the President Book Second Index (p. 4) for the year 1352 refers to the situation of the leases already there at that time (status dimiss’ ibidem). It therefore looks as if, once more, the 1363 authorisation was obtained to regularize a position already in operation at least two years earlier.35 Based on the above precedents, and on the known leasing to third parties of other satellite granges of Kilnsey, the underlying motive behind the re-establishment of Malham Grange may have been simply pecuniary. The interim measure adopted between 1336 and at least 1347, if not longer had represented considerable lost income: nine of the twelve bovates were let out to two freeholders, who held by a annual rent averaging only two pence per bovate, compared with the 26s 6d leasing arrangement eventually agreed by 1361. The Rentals records for Malham show that the number of free tenants varies between two and five, in the years for which records exist, although this fluctuation may be due to incomplete record-keeping. The prior of Bolton is present in most years with a declared holding of three bovates, but is absent in 1305, 1356, and 1357. Fountains itself was in turn a free tenant of Bolton for two bovates, as implied by the accounts for 1329, 1356 and 1357. The largest portion of freehold was held by the long-established de Malham family, who had originally granted twenty bovates to the abbey, and had enjoyed a close relationship for a long time, with at least one member of the family acting as the abbey’s steward in Craven. John de Malham held land continuously from 1318 to at least 1347, and took up most of the land freed up by the initial grange closure in 1336, which had been relinquished by 1356, or when the grange reopened.  33 Memorials 1, pp. 203–05. The nine locations were: Aldburgh, Sleningford, Sutton, Cowton, Caiton, Bramley, Bradley, Kilnsey and Thorp Underwood.  34 The surviving records of the Cistercian Chapters-General do not mention either the 1336 or 1363 authorisations: Canivez, Statuta, iii, pp. 436–53, 538–45.  35 There is no reference to the authorisation in the surviving records of Cîteaux (Canivez, Statuta, iii).

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

The general relationship between a lord and his free tenants differed in several aspects from that with unfree tenants. In the first place, free tenants could dispose of their holdings as they wished, and had recourse to the king’s courts in the event of a dispute. Secondly, in some ways it could resemble a peer group, since a free tenant in one manor could hold lands elsewhere, which might be extensive. At Malham, the prior of Bolton and the head of the Malham family, as the two principal free tenants, can be regarded as peers to the abbot of Fountains, since they were lords in their own right elsewhere. Nevertheless, as they held by knight service, both the prior and John Malham were obliged to undertake oaths of homage and fealty. Any suggestion that the status of some free tenants, together with the right to free disposal of holdings, could limit the control exercised by the lord of the manor appears to be refuted by the rental records, which demonstrate quite the opposite: that the abbot of Fountains could lay off surplus land when desired to an accommodating free tenant, as between 1336 and 1347, and also reclaim it when needed, as in 1356. In theory there was nothing to prevent the freeholders in 1356 from offering the land themselves for rent or lease to a third party, or else disposing of it, but instead it was surrendered to the lord of the manor, and in the absence of further information it appears that control was exercised closely at all times by Fountains. On each rental summary for Malham, recorded beneath the entries for free tenants are two categories of unfree tenants, bondagers (tenentes in bondagio) and cottars (cottarij, cotterelli). This classification appears general for all other entries in Rentals, with the occasional addition, for example at Stainburn, of an intermediate class, holding bordland, who sat below the free tenants but above the bondagers and cottars.36 In Malham, both bondagers and cottars occupied a toft, basically a plot with a dwelling, but in addition the bondagers had, generally, one bovate of land with it, whereas the cottars generally just had the toft, although in a few cases additional parcels of land also. Bondagers and cottars alike were liable for land service as part of their tenure, and for six boon-works (precarie) each year at the grange in autumn (fol. 143r). The records suggest a core number of bondager tenancies in Malham, never fewer than fifteen and rising slightly to a maximum of eighteen tenants in 1336 and 1340, which indicates a stability of tenure among the bondagers; evidence supporting this is found in the names of several tenants which appear consistently through the first four decades of the fourteenth century. This period of stability was disrupted sometime between 1347 and the date of the next surviving record, 1356. Firstly, the overall number of tenancies fell sharply: whereas in 1347 there were seventeen tenants, in 1356 there were only twelve, and of these, only five seem to be traceable to tenant families in 1347.

 36 Rentals, fol. 125v, clarifies that bordlanders must grind their corn at the lord’s mill, like the free tenants, but that they are not liable for boonwork or merchet payments, like the bondagers and cottars.

107

1 08

c ha p te r 6

Secondly these tenants were now referred to as ad voluntatem, holding ‘at the will’ of the lord, rather than in bondagio with its connotation of being bound by service to the landholding, a situation which Mark Bailey has crystallized as a shift from a non-contractual to a contractual tenure.37 Their overall unfree status had not changed, although the new description is accompanied by the suppression of land service obligations, specifically the commutation of physical labour, six boon-works in autumn at the grange, into an annual financial obligation, payment of twelve pence, or two pence per boon-work. Thirdly, in some cases the rental had gone down by 10 per cent, from ten shillings to nine shillings per bovate. Fourthly, instead of the uniform allocation of one bovate per tenant, now some three tenancies had two bovates each. In the category below tenants at will, cottars are still called cottars, and their rental seems to have remained around previous levels, but they too had seen changes: the boon-works had also been commuted, and two cottars had taken on a bovate of land each, on the scale of tenants at will. Finally, no fewer than six tofts lay empty. Although from time to time one toft, possibly two, would be in manu domini, ‘unoccupied’, due to non-payment of rent or failure of family succession, generally this was a temporary situation; the surviving records for 1305–1347 show one bondager toft in manu domini in 1336 and one cottar toft in 1340. On the other hand, to have six tofts vacant in 1356 — and still five the following year, signals an extreme situation. Since the Malham records are not a continuous series, and even those records which survive are never complete, their evidence is too deficient to permit definitive conclusions to be drawn. Yet, across the Fountains estates where records, equally fragmentary, exist for this period, some of the same trends can be detected, with commutation of boon-works, changes in tenancy status, and a decline in rents. Some changes are not always consistent: in Kirkby Malzeard in 1358 boon-works were commuted for the redesignated tenants at will (fol. 174v), just as they were for the unredesignated tenants in bondagio in neighbouring Grewelthorpe in the same year (fol. 175r), although Grewelthorpe tenants paid twice the rate of Kirkby Malzeard. In the case of Rigton, rental values did not decline, remaining constant between 1340 and 1361, at 5s per bovate of ten acres (fols 118r, 203r). Nevertheless, at the very least these observed changes are unlikely to have been spontaneous, and the records suggest a managed response to what must have been a widespread threat, or threats, to the status quo. The Black Death had reached York by the end of May 1349 and from there seems to have spread rapidly up the river systems. At the Fountains daughter house of Meaux, near Hull, 80 per cent of the monk population perished, including the abbot: out of fifty choir monks and lay-brothers, only ten survived; thirty years later, the house comprised twenty-one monks and

 37 Bailey, The English Manor, p. 35.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

three lay-brothers.38 Little specific information on mortality at Fountains itself is known, and the business records are generally inconclusive. Certainly the abbot, Robert Monkton, did survive, as evidenced in the President Book, which records him receiving homage and fealty of free tenants before and after 1349. The Homage and Fealty section is potentially a good indicator of mortality levels among the free tenants since a vow of homage was required every time a tenancy changed hands, but it carries no suggestion of any increase in the number of homages immediately after 1349; however, on the one hand, it is unlikely that the list is a comprehensive schedule of homages and fealties, while on the other, almost certainly the severity of the pandemic resulted in records not being maintained for a period. The rental records seem to have been disrupted, from a level of nineteen records for 1347 and 1348, which fall to ten in 1349 and 1350, and 11 in 1351, then after a gap, rise substantially for 1357 and 1358, but since the information in the President Book and in Rentals is selective, it is not possible to suggest how representative they are of the overall position. Although the quantitative information is inconclusive, a qualitative analysis is more revealing at the township level. In the 1356 rental for Malham, only two names of tenants at will can be associated readily with the seventeen bondagers listed there in 1347, although the list is incomplete. In the case of Marton, more extensive records there show that the number and names of bondagers did not vary at all between 1345 and 1347, but when the rentals for 1347 and 1351 are compared, only seven names from twenty-two can be associated — and although only one plot seems to be unoccupied, all the rents have declined, not by 10 per cent as in Malham, but by 25 per cent. This suggests that the pandemic severely reduced the populations in these townships, affecting not just the tenant families in occupation but also other residents who in ordinary circumstances would have immediately occupied any vacant plots but now needed the enticement of reduced rents, if indeed they themselves had managed to survive. A comparison of the 1361 rentals for Malham with the 1379 Poll Tax returns shows limited continuity; twenty-eight names are listed in the rental, and seventy-two in the Poll Tax, but only some fourteen surnames appear in both lists;39 it is known that the Black Death was followed by further epidemics in 1360–1362, 1367–1369, 1373–1375, 1379–1383, and 1389–1393.40 As well as Malham, at Baldersby and Marton the rentals reveal changes in land tenure which were taking place about the same time as the Black Death. Mortality rates at Baldersby appear to have been severe, with only six tenants  38 Horrox, ed., The Black Death, pp. 269–71, 68–69; Briglevic, ‘The Cistercian Economy in England in the Later Middle Ages’, p. 84.  39 The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, ed. by Fenwick, iii, p. 440.  40 Rentals, fols 190r–191r; The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, ed. by Fenwick, iii, p. 440; Ormrod and Lindley, eds, The Black Death in England, pp. 27, 30; Creighton, A History of Epidemics in Britain, pp. 206–07.

109

110

c ha p te r 6

Figure 6. Implied Grange Revivals on Fountains Estates.

in 1357 being clearly related to those in 1348, and rents reduced by 25 per cent. However, there are no references in 1357 to lands in manu domini, even though some twenty-four bovates are unaccounted for. A similar situation can be detected at Marton, with thirteen bovates. When the details are plotted together in Figure 6 a common trend can be observed; the year 1349 has been inserted to indicate the point from which the Black Death could have had an effect on the data. In each case, the tenanted land has declined at one stage, but not necessarily at the same time for each location. At Baldersby and Malham they occur sometime between 1347–1348 and 1356–1357, while at Marton between 1351 and 1353. Although a reduction of tenanted lands took place, at none of the three locations is there a suggestion that the lands were available for rent but not taken up. Moreover, in Marton and Malham the tenanted lands had returned to former levels by 1357 and 1361; the data for Baldersby in 1361 show no similar recovery. The occurrence of three similar situations (the records are incomplete, so there may have been more) could suggest they were all affected by a damaging event, like the catastrophe of the Black Death; however, while this is possible for Malham and Baldersby, it cannot account for Marton. Alternatively, it may reflect a common management policy, and a clue to this possibility lies in information that appears only in the Malham records, but which could apply to the other two locations. In 1356, it is stated that the abbot holds 12 bovates in the grange at Malham.41 This was discussed earlier as a particular case for Malham, but the evidence of Figure 6 might suggest a more widespread policy. Each of the examples occurs before the authorisation of 1363 from the General Chapter to manorialize some granges and rent some to seculars. On the basis of the piecemeal records in Rentals  41 Rentals, fol. 154r, (Abbas) habet ad grangiam suam xij bovatas terre.

re f lect i ve re dact i o n

it is possible to suggest an intermediate position in this decommissioning process, in which initially granges were closed down and the lands rented out in parcels to traditional tenants, before a second phase, in which the grange was reconstituted as a prelude to being offered for lease as a going concern. Staffing of some reconstituted granges is unlikely to have been by lay-brothers: although there were still ten conversi at Fountains in 1381, their duties were quite specialized, such as tanning (Stephen de Barkhouse) or lead-smelting ( John de Ledhouse).42 But paid employees could readily have manned the granges, and there is a fragment of evidence for this in Rentals, headed ‘Wages at Thorp (Underwood)’, probably for 1357; this consists of a list of some sixteen names followed by an amount expressed in shillings, although they were probably paid at least partly in kind, as above the list is a schedule of barley, oats, peas, and beans with their monetary values. By 1361 Thorp Grange was leased out at twenty marks.43 Similar redesignations of tenants and commutation of labour services have been noted on estates across the country during the fourteenth century, though their appearance was not uniform; in Durham the tenants of Durham Cathedral Priory seem to have experienced the same sort of changes at about the same time as Malham, but changes on the estates of Westminster Abbey and of Canterbury Cathedral Priory came into effect two or three decades later, while at Kibworth Harcourt, Leicestershire, they did not happen until the first decade of the fifteenth century.44 Nevertheless, the evidence for the reopening of granges across the Fountains estates does not appear to have many counterparts elsewhere, although Colin Platt cautioned that while the overall strategy in the fourteenth century might have been to convert granges into vills or lease them to lay individuals, monastic pragmatism would accommodate individual manors being reversed back into granges, perhaps more than once, in the light of local circumstances. His comments were based on his analysis of Fountains and Jervaux abbeys.45 The type of review undertaken in the Craven Landholdings survey has a parallel at Durham Priory. In Chapter 2, reference was made to several types of remedial action carried out there to counter the prevailing conditions of declining rentals, as revealed by recent research. There is also evidence to suggest that, in the fifteenth century, the monks at Durham had undertaken their own research into the situation, presumably as preparation for their action plans. A record drawn up shortly before 1440 compared the Priory’s income ten years earlier in 1430, with the situation as far back as 1293.46 The

 42 Mackie, ‘The Clerical Population of the Province of York’, ii, p. 39.  43 Rentals, fols 163r; 200r.  44 Schofield, Peasant and Community in Medieval England, pp. 17, 234; Smith, Canterbury Cathedral Priory, p. 297; Harvey, Westminster Abbey and Its Estates, p. 381.  45 Platt, The Monastic Grange, pp. 100–01.  46 Dobie, Accounting at Durham Cathedral Priory, p. 191.

111

112

c ha p te r 6

timing of the exercise at Durham is conveniently close to the commencement of Greenwell’s abbacy at Fountains. In summary, the examination of Craven Landholdings, in conjunction with financial information located in Rentals using the Second Index, has demonstrated the type of business research the monks themselves were able to conduct in the mid fifteenth century. From a twenty-first-century perspective, it is not possible to determine their research objectives, but they could have embraced a retrospective review of their key sheep-rearing area at a time of economic difficulty, or a campaign to tighten cost control by reducing or eliminating forinsec service obligations. It is interesting to see also how the fourteenth-century transition of granges into either a manorialized vill or a large leased estate, can still be traced through Rentals, even though no direct records remain for the granges themselves. An alternative objective of Craven Landholdings could have been political; this is the area which was most partisan in the difficult abbatial succession at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Rent refusals were part of the struggle, and the analysis of the origins and obligations of Craven landholders may represent an assessment of where the threats had arisen. Whatever the true objectives of the section may have been, it is very clear that such research was wholly dependent on effective record-keeping.

Chapter 7

A Forensic Approach to Fountains Cartularies In the previous two chapters, the compiler’s skills were examined, firstly in the context of reconstructing earlier material into a revised narrative, and secondly in deconstructing earlier material to analyse the formative stages and enduring obligations of perhaps the abbey’s most profitable business area. In this chapter, the case for redaction of archival memory will be examined, in the particular context of cartularies in the long fifteenth century. For ease of reference, these are as follows: Cartulary 1A Cartulary 1B Cartulary 1C Cartulary 2 Cartulary 3A Cartulary 3B Cartulary 3C Cartulary 3E Cartulary 4 Cartulary RP

London, British Library, Egerton MS 3053A-B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Univ. Coll. 170 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawl. B.449 Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Service, WYAS 150/5384 London, British Library, Cotton MS Tiberius C XII London, British Library, Add 40009 London, British Library, Add 37770 Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 224 London, British Library, Add 18276 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Univ. Coll. 167

The analysis includes cartularies listed above, which survive to the present day, and also one or two others which do not. However, most attention will be centred on the volumes of Cartulary 3, which earlier commentators described as the ‘noble cartulary’.1 Cartulary 3 attracts particular interest because opinion is divided on its compilation dates. On the one hand, Davis describes it as late fourteenth/early fifteenth century, while Walbran considered it had been produced in the time of Abbot Huby (1495–1526).2 How could two distinguished commentators differ by over a century in their assessments? And, is either of them correct? Among the five surviving cartularies, only one has an unequivocal date of completion, together with a named compiler and a commissioning abbot; this is Cartulary 4, which was signed and dated by Stephen Grene, a former  1 The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall, ed. by Lancaster and Baildon, p. vii. The term ‘noble’ is probably influenced by the tooled leather covers over wooden boards which still protect two of the volumes.  2 Davis and others, eds, Medieval Cartularies, # 411–17, 419, 421, 422 and 423; Memorials 1, p. 152 n.

114

c ha p te r 7

Figure 7. The ‘Noble Cartulary’: Manchester, John Rylands Library, Latin MS 224 (Car­tulary 3E). [The John Rylands Library /copyright of the University of Manchester]

monk of Meaux Abbey, in 1509 on the orders of Marmaduke Huby.3 None of the other cartularies contains any direct information about when they were compiled. Instead, date ranges can be estimated from codicological analysis, for example by reference to scribal styles which flourished at certain times, and  3 Cartulary 4, fol. 254v.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

to specific details which appear in the text, and even to the writing support, since paper was not in widespread use before the fourteenth century. All of these are approximate, and have resulted in the estimated date ranges which appear against each cartulary in Appendix E, briefly stated as follows: Cartulary 1 late thirteenth, 2 late fourteenth, 3 late fourteenth/early fifteenth, and RP late fifteenth century. One way to test an initial validation of these assessments is to examine the content of each cartulary for explicit references to dates; although charters were not routinely dated, nevertheless some were, and also other dates occasionally appear in the text, often in relation to court cases. An initial examination of the content in the surviving four volumes of Cartulary 3 supports Davis’s view of it as a late fourteenth/early fifteenth-century compilation. When references to explicit dates are recorded, the latest dates in each volume range progressively from 1399 in Cartulary 3A to 1407 in Cartulary 3E. The entire cartulary was written by a single scribe and the explicit dates in each volume also show he completed them in alphabetical order.4 However, this information can only confirm that the entire cartulary could not have been completed earlier than the latest date shown, 1407. It does not prove it was completed at that time, but nor is there any information to show why it should have been compiled later. With the other cartularies, the situation is more favourable. Cartulary 3 is alone in not having additional material inserted into its folios by a later hand during the monastic period.5 This additional material also contains occasional dates, and these make possible a further test for Cartularies 1, 2, and 4. For example, Cartulary 1 has three surviving volumes, and like Cartulary 3, the latest explicit dates in each volume also range progressively from 1261 in 1A through 1276 in 1B to 1284 in 1C.6 Again, these can only represent the earliest completion dates for each volume. However, dates contained in the later inserted entries extend beyond the explicit dates, and include 1297 in 1A, 1301 in 1B, and 1291 in 1C. It follows that for later material to be inserted, the cartulary must have been completed by then, and consequently the date range for compilation of the three volumes of Cartulary 1 can be stated as 1261 to 1297, 1276 to 1301, and 1284 to 1291 respectively. A similar approach can be taken with Cartularies 2 and 4, although the situation is complicated by the fact that 4 is the rewrite of 2 ordered by Abbot Huby. Consequently, the dates in both cartularies should roughly correspond, always allowing for dilapidation in the two manuscripts. In Cartulary 2 the latest explicit date is 1395 in its original material, and its inserted material extends up to 1400, indicating that the cartulary was completed around the last five  4 3A (A–C): 161 dates, from 1189–1399; 3B (D–I), 90 dates, from 1175–1402; 3C (K–M), 135 dates, from 1174–1403; and 3E (Q–Y), 160 dates, from 1181–1407.  5 There are, however, several post-Dissolution insertions in Cartulary 3.  6 1A (BL, MS Egerton MS 3053A-B), 9 dates, from 1193 to 1261; 1B (Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Univ. Coll. 170), 46 dates from 1174 to 1276; 1C (Oxford, Bodl. Lib., MS Rawl. B.449), 35 dates, 1154 to 1284).

115

116

c ha p te r 7

Figure 8. Compilation Ranges for Fountains Cartularies. Figure by the author.

years of the fourteenth century. Cartulary 4 corroborates this information: it contains most of the same dates as Cartulary 2 up to 1400, but then some additional entries, starting at 1404 and continuing to 1509. These relationships can be summarized in Figure 8; Cartulary 4 is omitted because the specific date of compilation, 1509, is known. Of the four, Cartulary 3 now stands out as the only deeds register without a defined date range for compilation. Moreover, the absence of later insertions in 3 raises a further issue in contrast to the other registers, which all appear to have stayed in use, at least sporadically, for some time after their completion. In the case of Cartulary 1, insertions continued at least up to 1348.7 For Cartulary 2, later insertions occur between 1452 and 1465, with a further two in 1502 and 1505. This last information reinforces what we are told by the colophon in Cartulary 4, namely that it was drawn up in 1509 as a replacement for Cartulary 2. By analogy, the later insertions in Cartulary 1 may be interpreted as the absence of an alternative cartulary until at least 1348. However, this raises some fundamental issues when represented in Figure 9. First of all, where was information registered in the years 1348 to 1400? There is no record of any cartulary for this period, yet Cartulary 2 has fifty-two entries dated between 1348 and 1395, and the information clearly has not come from Cartulary 1. Not only that, but it contains a further thirty-five entries dated between 1301 and 1348, which also have not come from Cartulary 1. This evidence leads to one of two conclusions. Either there was no inventory register for the muniments during these years, surely an untenable proposition; or else there must have been a previous register, now unknown, but compiled and in use for much of the fourteenth century. This critical period for the abbey entailed the transition from a grange-based economy to manorialized  7 Also, some material, dated 1394 and 1474, was later bound into the manuscript, though when this occurred cannot be determined.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

Figure 9. Estimated Active Life of Cartularies 1 and 2. Figure by the author.

estate management. The change was largely complete by mid-century, and explains the withdrawal of Cartulary 1, which was organized around the then obsolete granges. It is unthinkable that the administrative management of the abbey would remove Cartulary 1 before a replacement had been completed and thereby tolerate an out-of-date record-keeping classification system for forty or fifty years. Secondly, Cartulary 2 cannot anyway stand as a direct replacement for Cartulary 1, because it is a summarized record, omitting much of the detailed information contained in 1.8 This again points towards an additional cartulary, now unknown. Is it then possible that Cartulary 3 was the replacement for 1? The two registers are certainly closer in form to each other than to Cartulary 2, but the earliest completion dates for Cartulary 3 are on a level with 2, again several decades after the manorialisation of granges had been carried out, so 3 can be ruled out as a direct replacement for 1. A comparison of the textual transmission of a single charter through cartularies 1, 2, and 3 can be found in Appendix F. The case for an additional cartulary, positioned somewhere between 1 and 3, is strengthened by evidence from the President Book. As seen earlier, the section there analysing Craven Landholdings is characterized by a system of superscript numerals designed to reference the source material of the analysis. It was demonstrated in Chapter 4 that none of the surviving cartularies could have been the source record for these references, even though they frequently presented a very close, but never identical, relationship to either 2 or 3. One example for Gnoup showed that Cartulary 3 fell short by only having five entries when the superscript reference number was six. The possibility that this was simply down to scribal error can be discounted, since Cartulary 2 does have a sixth entry, containing information which corroborates the reference, although it is heavily summarized and contains insufficient details to have been the source of the information.9 Nevertheless, the inference must be  8 Cartulary 1 is in reality a hybrid, containing both summarized and complete charter records, and incorporates the remnants of even earlier cartularies, but that remains to be examined elsewhere.  9 This must be a later insertion, since the underlying agreement between Fountains and Sallay was dated 1409.

117

118

c ha p te r 7

that Cartulary 2 was drawn from the same source material as the reference source for the President Book, and therefore that an additional cartulary was in existence when Cartulary 2 was compiled between 1395 and 1400, and moreover was still in existence fifty years later on, when it was consulted by the President Book scribe. If so, it seems to have contained more up-to-date information than Cartulary 3, which would result in Cartulary 3 becoming obsolete before it was completed. Clearly a different explanation is required. The completion of Cartulary 2 took place only a few years before administrative life at Fountains was severely disrupted by the disputed abbatial election between Roger Frank and John Ripon, which lasted from 1413 until 1434.10 Early on in the dispute, the assets of the abbey were sequestrated by both sides. Ripon specifically accused Frank of making off with the common seal and other assets of the abbey. No indication is given of what specific records may have been taken, but Ripon tried to recover a chest of documents from a notary in York in 1414, with what success is not known.11 No records at all have survived which cover the twenty-odd year period of the dispute, and during this turmoil, it is quite possible that the cartulary in use up to that time went missing. As described earlier in Chapter 2, the economic and political impairment to the abbey had been considerable, and it fell to succeeding abbots to begin to restore the fortunes and prestige of the abbey; of these, John Greenwell (1442–1471) played a major role in this process. Greenwell was also the influence behind the President Book. In Chapter 4 this manuscript was seen as a redaction vehicle, with links to Cartulary 2 through the First Index, and to unspecified cartularies through the Second and Fourth Indexes. In all these cases, the references in the President Book could not have come from the other surviving manuscripts. In considering the existence of an additional cartulary, additional evidence, from the Fifth Index, can now be examined. The Fifth Index of the President Book is fragmentary and occupies the final seven pages of the manuscript. The last page is badly faded and other pages have sections obscured by brown varnish, or lost to page trimming or dilapidation, so that up to one-third of the content can no longer be read. At least one page is wanting, probably several more, since the last current page (p. 162) ends abruptly.12 Overall, this section resembles a draft document, composed of several lists of personal names grouped together under place-name headings, and to label it the Fifth Index is probably premature, but convenient. Three immediate points of interest arise from these lists. Firstly, they make use of superscript numerals, although more tentatively than their extensive

 10 For further details, see Jacob, ʻThe Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey’, pp. 79–97, and Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey Revisited’.  11 Notes on Religious Houses, ed. by Baildon, p. 70.  12 It reaches item 140 in a listing of charters for Wheldrake, which, elsewhere, contains at least 175, for example in Cartulary 2.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s Table 9. Newsham Entries in the President Book and Cartulary 2.

President Book Fifth Index, p. 156 10 Andreas fil … kyrkbywiske 14 Amabilia uxor Yvonis de Newsham 19 Gaufridus filius Osberti 20 Henricus de Neville 21 Robertus filius Gaufridi de Nevill 22 Richerus de Kirkby 23–26 Johannes filius Richer

Cartulary 2, pp. 308–13

10 Andreas fil Andrei de Kyrkbywisk 14 Amabilia uxor Yvonis de Newsham [19] Gaufridus filius Osberti 20 Henricus de Neville 21 Robertus filius Gaufridi de Nevill 22 Richerus de Kirkby 23–26 Johannes filius Richer 27–32 Joh. Querdaray fil Richer de 27–32 John Querdaray fil Richer de Kirby Wiske Kyrkbywisc 33 Petrus fil Richeri 33 Peter fil Richeri et frater Joh. Querdaray 34 Alicia fil Walter de Hamest[.] ux. 34 Matilda and Juliana, fil. et et her. Joh. de Querdaray John Querdaray 35 Matilda & Juliana, fil et her 35 Alice quondam ux. J. Querdaray Joh. Querdaray 36 Alice quondam ux J. Querdaray 36 Juliana fil Joh. Querdaray 37 Wms Spyvyn fil Matilda fil J. Querdaray 37 Juliana fil J. Querdaray 38 Wms Spyvyn fil Matilda fil J. Querdaray 38 Agnes quondam fil Thomas [C]oly 39 Xiana de Pokelyngton quondam 39 Agnes fil Thomas [C]oly, Xiana, fil […] ux Thomas [C]oly 40 Xiana de Pokelyngton uxor Thome 40 Wm fil Xiane de Brakanbergh [C]oly 41 Agnes fil Xiane de Poklyngton 41a Wms fil Xiane de Brakanbergh 42 Agnes fil Xiane 41b Testamentum eiusdem Willelmi   43 Robert de Lascels 43 44 Robert Lascels 44 Wm Spyvyn de Newsham 45 Ranulph de Newsham 46 Ranulph fil Robert de Newsham 45 46 47 48a 48b 49 […] 50 51 47 48 49 Ranulph de Newsham Ranulphus fil Robert de Newsham 50 Agnes que fuit ux Robti fil Ranulphi 51 John de Snape 52 Ranulph fil Rob de Newsham 52 Rob de Estotevill dominus de […] 53 Wm Spyvyn fil Matildis fil John 53 Joh. de Snape Querdaray 54 Robert de Estoteuil dominus de 54 Assisa contra Ranulphum fil Robti de Newsham; quer’ in papiro ibidem. Couseby fil Willi de Estoteuill 55 Alan fil Walteri de Newsham 55 Alan fil Walteri de Newsham 56 Adam fil Yvonis 56 Inquisicio de […]

119

1 20

c ha p te r 7

application in the Craven Landholdings section, seen in Chapter 5; secondly, both sections were written by the same scribe. Thirdly, the place-name headings appear alphabetically, but in the restricted range N to Q (including Qeldrik, modern Wheldrake, but omitting Quyxlay, modern Whixley). Intriguingly, these letters correspond to those of the missing volume of Cartulary 3. Since they are alphabetical, the order in which place-names are listed in the Fifth Index also matches their appearance in Cartulary 2; however, within the place-name groupings, the numbering of personal names also shows a close correspondence with the numbering of charter summaries in Cartulary 2. For example, on page 157 of the President Book, under the heading for North Stainley, Robert de Sewerby has a ‘2’ after his name, and also a superscript ‘5’ above Sewerby: in Cartulary 2, the second and fifth entries under Northstaynley are charters issued by Robert de Sewerby. In similar sections covering Otterburn, Otley, and Pickhill, the references all match. And yet, further inspection elsewhere begins to reveal discrepancies between the two texts. This can be demonstrated by observing the corresponding sections for Newsham, as shown in Table 9. Entries 10 to 33 are identical between the Fifth Index and Cartulary 2 (and probably also entries 1 to 10, but these are now illegible in the Fifth Index). However, for entries 34 to 56 only four items match precisely (43, 45, 46, and 55), although the content of all items clearly refers to the same family of donors to Fountains. In the same way, the short section for Newton on Swale in Cartulary 2 contains references to only five items: the Fifth Index correctly lists these, but then goes on to name a sixth item. For North Stainley other discrepancies occur. On balance the exemplar for the Fifth Index cannot have been Cartulary 2, or at least not exclusively. In contrast, the evidence for involvement of Cartulary 1C is compelling. The same President Book scribe who prepared a list of personal names in the Fifth Index under the heading of Pickhill (pp. 157–58), has inserted a very similar list onto blank leaves of the, by then, ancient Cartulary 1C (fols 57r–58r). The list covers three pages, and to the left of the names has two columns of numbers, headed Registr[um] nigr[um], ‘the Black Book’ and papir[us], ‘paper’. The arrangement of the text in both the Fifth Index and the inserted list in Cartulary 1C features similar names in similar order and with similar numbering, to the extent that, when the arrangement of the list inserted into Cartulary 1C is compared with the actual entries in Cartulary 2 under Pickhill, it becomes clear that the column headed papir[us] refers to that cartulary: the first ten names and numbers in that list correspond to the first ten charter summaries under Pickhill in Cartulary 2, which is the only register written on paper. In similar vein, the column headed Registr[um] nigr[um] refers to Cartulary 1C itself.13

 13 For example, the name Symon de Cauncy is listed as 17 in the papir column and 29 in the Registr nigr column, which match entries for this name in Cartulary 2 and Cartulary 1C.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

Curiously, the Fifth Index contains two separate lists for Pickhill. The first list is simpler, a series of personal names accompanied by a number, in all sixty-three. These all match entries for Pickhill in Cartulary 2, but only as far as they go, while Cartulary 2 has 107 entries.14 The second list is longer, and, resembles the inserted list in Cartulary 1C, with two columns of numbers alongside, although dilapidation prevents full reading. Where it is legible, the first column is seen to match the numbering of items in Cartulary 2 as far as 93. The second column reorders the numbers into a series which does not match either Cartulary 2 or Cartulary 1C. How are these lists to be interpreted? From the examples shown for Pickhill, it is possible to propose a general case which may equally apply to Newsham, Newton on Swale, and the other locations. In fact, there are three separate operations being carried out, all of them by the same President Book scribe. Firstly, by his inserted list in Cartulary 1C (fols 57r to 58r), he has prepared a concordance between the entries for Pickhill in the registrum nigrum, Cartulary 1C, and those in the papir Cartulary 2. This would be a necessary step to initiate a reorientation of the record-keeping system from organisation according to granges, like Cartulary 1, to arrangement in alphabetical order of place-name, like all the other surviving cartularies. The stages in the concordance exercise can be illustrated by the following schedule: Table 10. Preliminary Concordance: Extract from fol. 57r of Cartulary 1C.

Reg[istrum] nig[rum]

papir

5

9

8 10 58 19 22

10 11 12 13 14

  Hugh son of Licoriz and Avicia his wife, daughter of William Briton Hugh and Avicia his wife the same Hugh and Avicia William son of Hugh Licoriz Stephen of Roxby the same Stephen

Based on the numbered lists, the information from the papir document, Cartulary 2 was entered first, and then matched up with its counterpart in Cartulary 1C, the registrum nigrum. In fact, some of the information the scribe searched for appears in two separate places in 1C. Part of the manuscript incorporates folios for Baldersby grange from an earlier cartulary, which includes material for Pickhill and he had a choice to make: he ignored the older section. Although at least one item shown in Table 10 under papir, 13, for Stephen of

 14 In Cartulary 2 the Pickhill series of charters runs from 1 to 106, including one item 66b; the inserted list in Cartulary 1C tracks this series as far as 91, including 66b.

121

1 22

c ha p te r 7

Roxby, appears as item IX (fol. 61r) on the earlier, early thirteenth-century folios, the numbers cited under registrum nigrum show that he took instead, 19 (fol. 65v), and all the rest from the more recent late thirteenth-century section. The scribe must also have cross-checked his information with the original charters in the muniments room: in the first entry above, he names Avicia wife of Hugh as the daughter of William Briton, but this detail is not contained in item 5 of Cartulary 1C or item 9 of Cartulary 2. Once the concordance had been completed, the scribe initiated a second operation in the President Book, this time based only on Cartulary 2. He summarized a list of its first sixty-three items, annotating information which links the issuer of one charter with others which they or their family had issued in the list (Fifth Index, pp. 158–59). His pausing at the sixty-third item is very significant, because in Cartulary 2 there is a gloss encapsulating all subsequent entries for Pickhill, from items 64 to 105. It states Omnes iste carte perdite sunt, ‘all these charters have been lost’.15 The gloss is written by a hand very similar to that of the President Book scribe, although the sample wording is too brief to confirm it is identical. What further action the scribe may then have taken to recover or reconstruct the missing material is not known. The third operation was transformational: by means of the scribe’s second list, information was extracted from one source, and then reconfigured for some other destination. This appears to represent a planning stage in migrating to a new archival arrangement. Table 11. Genesis of a New Cartulary? Extract from President Book Fifth Index, page 159.

9

Stephen of Roxby

15

10

Stephen of Roxby

61, 75

11

Symon de Caucy

17

12

Helias son of Stephen of Roxby

18, 77

13

Helias son of Stephen of Roxby

44

14

Helias son of Stephen of Roxby

52

In Table 11, the names in the central column identify issuers of charters for Pickhill. While the numbers in the left-hand column do not correspond to any known cartulary, those in the right-hand column all match entries in Cartulary 2. Since this folio is both dilapidated at the edges and at times obscured by varnish, it is not possible to see the full extent of the scribe’s workings, but the left-hand column appears to represent a renumbering and consolidation. For example, on the first line, Stephen of Roxby’s charter number 15 in Cartulary 2 has been renumbered 9, while on the next line two of his charters 61 and 75, have been assigned a single number, 10. Again, since so little of the Fifth  15 Cartulary 2, pp. 329–35.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

Index remains, it is not clear if there were subsequent stages in the exercise which are now lost, but if it was ever completed, the result is no longer to be found in the Fountains corpus today. However, the timing here is significant. The scribe was operating at some point in the mid fifteenth century, and for some reason he combined information from the in-use Cartulary 2 with the long-obsolete Cartulary 1C. Why was it necessary to do this? Two possibilities arise. Firstly, having made a physical check of the charters held in the muniments store, the scribe had verified that a quantity of the Pickhill charters could not be located. His annotation of the missing items in Cartulary 2 is good evidence that this register acted as the finding aid for the muniment store. However, the limitation of Cartulary 2 is that it only contains abbreviated summaries of each charter; therefore, the scribe could not reconstitute the complete texts of the charters from this source. He needed a full-content cartulary to do this, and the obvious candidate would be Cartulary 3. Yet, instead he opted for the ancient Cartulary 1C, which was an inconvenient way to obtain the information he wanted, since it is organized, not alphabetically like Cartulary 2, but around granges which by that time had been out of use for a century or more. The knowledge that he was forced to consult an obsolete source leads directly into the second possibility. If he did not use the relevant volume of Cartulary 3 at that time, it must have been because it was unavailable to him. In turn there could be two reasons for this absence. Firstly, according to Walbran, Cartulary 3 was not compiled until the time of Marmaduke Huby (1496–1526). In that case, there must have been another cartulary in use in Greenwell’s time, so why was it inaccessible to the President Book scribe? Walbran’s view conflicts with that of Davis, who describes Cartulary 3 as ‘late-fourteenth/early-fifteenth century’, so on that basis it should have been available. This leads on to the second possibility. The corpus of Fountains cartularies today includes only four volumes of Cartulary 3, when undoubtedly once there were at least five; the missing volume is 3D, covering the alphabetical listing N to Q. In Walbran’s time, and throughout the nineteenth century, only the first three volumes of Cartulary 3 were known, covering A to M. Then, early in the twentieth century, 3E was discovered in a solicitor’s office, presumably the result of having been consulted in a property dispute sometime after the Dissolution. The working assumption about 3D was that it too might have been misplaced in the intervening centuries and might one day reappear. On the other hand, if it was already missing in the fifteenth century, the President Book scribe’s recourse to Cartulary 1C could be explained. In addition, if Cartulary 3D was unavailable to the scribe of the Fifth Index, perhaps it was not just the missing charters of Pickhill that he was attempting to replicate, but instead the entire missing volume. Including the section on Pickhill, the Fifth Index concentrates exclusively on the letters N to Q which precisely match the missing volume of Cartulary 3. When and how the volume came to be mislaid cannot be known, but the disturbed history of the abbey

123

124

c ha p te r 7

in the first half of the fifteenth century provide ample scope for such an event. The explanation could lie in the confused events of the election dispute, and perhaps even be linked to the missing chest of documents that John Ripon tried to reclaim in 1414, although it raises the question of why the abbey would wait forty years before making a replacement. Or, is there a direct connection between the forty-odd lost charters of Pickhill and the missing Cartulary 3D? In 1443 Sir John Neville was taken to task for an assault on the abbey. The circumstances surrounding the incident have not come to light, but it may be relevant that the territory of Pickhill was held by Fountains of the Neville fee. If the cause was a dispute over property rights, it is conceivable that, during the assault, charters for Pickhill along with the relevant volume of the main cartulary, were removed by Neville’s supporters. This explanation would support the actions of the scribe of the Fifth Index: to recreate the missing volume, he would first have consulted the original charters in the archive, but for the lost charters he had instead to reconstruct them firstly by reference to the summarized entries in Cartulary 2 to see which charters to include, and then by inspecting Cartulary 1C to locate the full text. One further possibility can be proposed. In Cartulary 1C the President Book scribe has entered a series of incipient genealogies alongside his listing of charters; similar jottings also seem to have been made in the Fifth Index, where some of the initial listings also bear superscript numerals. It will be recalled that genealogical information and superscript numeral references figured prominently in Craven Landholdings, which was written by the same scribe. Therefore it could be that a similar analysis was under consideration here, perhaps covering lands in the Vale of York. This would require more intensive research than the Fifth Index currently displays, but page trimming, dilapidation, and lost leaves may now hide it from view. Whatever its true objective, the Fifth Index reveals the process of redaction, in which the scribe first collated and then reformulated information from at least two cartulary sources. At the same time the process followed by the scribe lends further support for the hypothesis which was first suggested by the section on Craven Landholdings, and then reinforced by the Fourth Index. In both those cases, it became evident that the superscript references could not refer to Cartulary 3, and therefore must refer to another cartulary, or possibly cartularies, current in the mid fifteenth century. With the Fifth Index, the examples given for Newsham, Newton on Swale and North Stainley have demonstrated that information was supplied from a source or sources other than Cartularies 1C or 2, or 3D. Since this eliminates all the known cartulary sources, it points strongly to the existence in the mid fifteenth century of another cartulary which is no longer extant. To pursue this possibility further, at this stage it is useful to consider the fifth surviving register, Cartulary RP. The Cartulary of (R)oyal and (P) apal Privileges is described in Appendix C. It was written by a single scribe sometime after 1491, probably on the direction of Marmaduke Huby, and today consists of two quite distinct sections. The larger second section concerns

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

papal privileges only, and is a faithful manuscript transcription of an early printed book published by the abbot of Cîteaux.16 In contrast, the first part of the cartulary contains both royal and papal privileges, which have been carefully replicated from a much earlier manuscript, whose compilation can be firmly placed to no later than 1386. Indirectly, the structure of the 1386 exemplar may provide further information on the origins of Cartulary 3. A notable feature of the royal privileges section in Cartulary RP is the occurrence of internal cross-references. Their wording indicates that their clear purpose is to avoid repeating text which already exists elsewhere in the document; yet they cannot be traced to another part of the present manuscript. Not one of them can be unequivocally matched up: two are simply incorrect, while another seven do not even refer to other royal privileges, but instead to charters for localities, although such charters form no part of Cartulary RP. The immediate explanation for this is that the copy scribe has transcribed the references verbatim from an exemplar, in which the cross-references did identify text elsewhere, in what must have been a larger document in which property charters and royal and papal privileges coexisted. No such document now exists. However, even though the references cannot be traced, the subject matter is familiar, and bears more than passing resemblance to other documents which have survived. For example, a reference to a royal privilege granted by Henry III is cited ut supra carta 16 inter cartas de Litton, ‘as above, charter no. 16, among the charters of Litton’.17 Cartulary RP is organized in sections solely for popes or monarchs, so there are no place-name sections anywhere in the manuscript which could accommodate charters for Litton, or Cayton, or Kirkbyusburn, or Stainburn, or Allerdale, which are all cited. However, there is a resonance with Cartulary 3: in this cartulary, Henry’s charter is indeed no. 16 in Litton (3C), and the same situation is found for references to 16 in Cayton (3A), 11 in Kirkbyusburn (3C), 92 in Stainburn (3E), and 73 in Allerdale (3A). On the other hand, other cross-references do not match fully: there is no item 27 for Kirkby Malzeard in Cartulary 3C (Add 37770), where the series ends at item 26 (pp. 162–63); nevertheless, the text of item 26 does correspond with the text referenced 27 in Cartulary RP. Elsewhere, although there is an item 26 under Dacre in Cartulary 3B (BL, Add. 40009), page 12, this was issued by William Castley, not by John Mowbray; however, nearby items 29a and 29b (p. 34), were issued by Mowbray, in 1358, and either of them would match the context of a Richard II privilege in 1386.18 The only other surviving register which might conceivably be the source for the references is Cartulary 2, except that it is an abbreviated register, and the purpose of the

 16 Privilegia Ordinis Cisterciensis, Cirey.  17 Cartulary RP, fol. 3v.  18 The relevant charters in Cartulary 3 appear in translation in Abstracts of Fountains: Kirkby Malzeard 26, pp. 415–16; Dacre 29a, 29b, p. 214.

125

1 26

c ha p te r 7

cross-references is clearly to indicate where a full text is to be found. In any event, the numbering sequence in Cartulary 2 again does not quite align with the cross-references in RP: item 27 in Cartulary RP does correspond to item 27 under Kirkby Malzeard (Cartulary 2, p. 219), but item 26 in Cartulary RP aligns with 27 under Dacre (p. 112). Notwithstanding the misaligned references, the first component of RP bears a notable physical resemblance to Cartulary 3 from the decoration, where red ink is employed for initial capitals and for rubrics; in addition, page headings refer to tabule. Intriguingly, the opening page of RP is headed up Tabula XIIII, inviting the question of where were the previous thirteen. Such similarities might indicate that the original material, in the exemplar for the first component of Cartulary RP, was in some way a component part of a cartulary similar but not identical to Cartulary 3. In this way the interpretation of ut supra to property deeds could be understood as ‘in the companion volume’. This hypothetical multi-volume cartulary, incorporating property deeds and royal and papal privileges, resonates with the suggestion put forward at the beginning of this chapter, of an additional register, compiled and in use for much of the fourteenth century, operating in the gap between the compilation of Cartularies 1 and 2. The inclusion of royal and papal charters as a special section within a general cartulary is a common feature among cartularies, as pointed out by David Walker, and numerous examples can be found in Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland.19 On that basis, the additional cartulary can now be designated the Doppelgänger, to signify its status as the role model for RP and also its close, almost identical resemblance to Cartularies 2 and 3. In reality, if it did exist, Doppelgänger must have predated them both. Its compilation must coincide with the end of active life of Cartulary 1, that is around 1348. Subsequently, it was kept up to date, since the index of the papal privileges section prepared four decades later by William Gower included items current to 1386, and later entries extend up to1468, in Greenwell’s time. If this hypothesis is sustained, and the Doppelgänger was in existence in 1386, what then of Cartulary 3? What would be the purpose of compiling such a similar work in the first decade of the fifteenth century? William Pantin noted that at Durham Priory, there were four successive cartularies (approximately 1340, 1380, 1400, and 1456), each of which, he concluded, ‘represent stages in a gradual rearrangement and elaboration of the system of archive-keeping’.20 The dates of the Durham cartularies are remarkably close to record-keeping events at Fountains: 1340 is the end of the active life of Cartulary 1; 1380 is close to the compilation of the papal index in the Doppelgänger; 1400 is about the compilation date for Cartulary 2; and 1456 is around the time that the

 19 Walker, ‘The Organization of Material in Medieval Cartularies’, 135–36.  20 Pantin, Report on the Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, p. 2.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

President Book was in active use. Nevertheless, Pantin’s view, that compiling a new cartulary reflects changing archival practices, would only apply here to the withdrawal of Cartulary 1 and its replacement by the Doppelgänger, since all subsequent Fountains cartularies follow the same administrative practice. A different explanation is required. The point of departure is the estimated active life of the Doppelgänger. Its description would match the source document cited by the President Book scribe in the Craven Landholdings section and some of the Indexes, in which case it was still in use in the mid fifteenth century. Following this assumption, the implication for Cartulary 3 is either that it coexisted with the Doppelgänger, or that it was not compiled until much later. This last point recall’s Walbran’s view, that Cartulary 3 was prepared much later, under Abbot Huby. This possibility is supported by its close resemblance in format to the first part of Cartulary RP, which was indeed compiled in the 1490s, as a diligent copy, format and all, of the 1380s Doppelgänger, so, conceivably, the entire work was reissued at the same time. There is arguably a precedent for this, in the form of the work undertaken by Jean de Cirey, Abbot of Cîteaux (1476–1501). Shortly after his election as abbot, Cirey embarked on an exhaustive review of the muniments at Cîteaux, and the subsequently oversaw the compilation of a cartulary in nine volumes. At the core of this extensive work was an inventory dating back to 1400.21 Huby was a keen supporter of Cirey in his attempts to reform the Cistercian Order; he had tried, unsuccessfully, to arrange for him to visit the English houses.22 It will be recalled too that the greater part of Cartulary RP comprises a verbatim transcription of Cirey’s 1491 publication, Privilegia Ordinis Cisterciensis. Given the undoubted influence Cirey exercised over Huby, this could suggest that Huby oversaw the compilation of Cartulary 3 in emulation of his mentor. However, if this were the case, why would Huby find it necessary shortly afterwards to commission Cartulary 4 as a copy of Cartulary 2? A further argument against its compilation in the 1490s lies in the range of explicit dates found in Cartulary 3. These do not extend beyond 1407 in any of its surviving volumes and argue forcefully against a compilation date, ab initio, under Abbot Huby (1496–1526), since some material would surely have been included from the intervening years. Studies of other Cistercian houses have shown how dorsal annotations can often be associated with a particular cartulary entry, whether by common numbering or transcribing the cartulary rubric.23 The vast majority of the thousands of charters issued by and for Fountains are now lost, but a few  21 Rey, ‘L’entreprise Archivistique De Jean De Cirey’, 10–11. Cartulary 2 at Fountains is also an inventory, dating to 1400.  22 Harper-Bill, ‘Huby, Marmaduke’.  23 See, for example, The Cartulary of Byland Abbey, ed. by Burton, p. xxxv; Rey, ʻL’entreprise Archivistique De Jean De Cirey’; Walker, ‘The Organization of Material in Medieval Cartularies’, 141.

127

1 28

c ha p te r 7

hundred have survived, and some of these have been shown to bear multiple dorsal annotations, linking them with more than one cartulary.24 Could a dorsal annotation then identify the Doppelgänger at Fountains? No, because the annotations mirror the archival organisation and at Fountains there are only two known systems. The first is reflected in Cartulary 1 which identifies individual charters with the bundle to which they belong and the chest in which the bundle was kept. But, when this system was discontinued, all subsequent cartularies reflected the new arrangements which identifies each charter with a place-name, and with a number within the place-name. The Doppelgänger would employ identical notation with Cartularies 2, 3, and 4, and would only be differentiated by displaying a place-name or number not found in another register. In the same way, the consistent realignment of Cartulary 2 annotations with those of Cartulary 3 reinforces the argument that 3 was produced later than 2. On the working assumption that the Doppelgänger did exist, along with the probability that Cartulary 3 was compiled around 1407, we can return to the conundrum raised earlier concerning the evident conflict between the two registers. Around the 1450s, the scribe of Craven Landholdings cited information from the Doppelgänger that cannot be found in Cartulary 3, yet the Doppelgänger had been compiled fifty years before Cartulary 3. The explanation lies in the nature of the cartularies. All the cartularies at Fountains operated as inventories of the deeds store, with the single exception of Cartulary 3. An inventory needed to reflect the content of the store at all times, and it was a dynamic document in that it received updated information: this accounts for the later insertions in Cartularies 1, 2 and 4, and for their absence in 3. In the discussion of superscript annotations above, it was suggested that additional dorsal annotations on charters, and also alteration of entries in Cartulary 2 were to align them with the completed Cartulary 3. However, from a record-keeping perspective it is more practical to align every cartulary with the archival arrangements than to reannotate charters to reflect a new cartulary. This accords with the practice of compiling cartularies directly from the charters, not copying from a previous cartulary.25 When entries in Cartulary 2 appeared to have been realigned with those in Cartulary 3, this is true enough, but obscures the fact that both data sets were aligning with the order of charters in the muniment store at the time. However, in the case of Cartulary 2, it was to update the inventory record, whereas in the case of Cartulary 3, this was the only time the data was entered. Combining this point with an earlier example, the reason that the entries for Gnoup in Cartulary 3 do not show an item 6, dated 1409, must be because the cartulary had been completed before that date. In turn, this demonstrates how Cartulary 3 became

 24 Spence, ‘Cartularies of Fountains Abbey’, 199–200, and see Appendix F.  25 Except in the case of Cartulary 4, which began life as a reissue of Cartulary 2; even here, the scribe has searched around and included some material not present in Cartulary 2.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

obsolete from the moment it was completed, but the others remained current throughout their active lives, and in the case of the Doppelgänger at least until 1468. The different function of Cartulary 3 is considered below. The relationship between Cartulary 2, Cartulary 3 and the original charters recalls Pantin’s view that each new Durham cartulary reflected a change in archival practice. At Fountains in the mid fourteenth century, the replacement of Cartulary 1 by the Doppelgänger conforms to this view, since the timing coincides with the manorialisation of grange sites and the radical changes in administrative practices which this required, which in turn record-keeping was obliged to follow. The administrative changes embraced an extensive overhaul of the storage methods in the muniments room. Cartulary 1 contains an explicit description of the system then in force: it was based around storage chests, teke, allocated to each grange or area. The relevant charters were housed within each chest, and further subdivided into small bundles, or fasciculi, containing up to ten charters.26 Individual bundles were labelled alphabetically, and within each bundle a charter was assigned an ordinal number. Each charter carried a dorsal annotation bearing the letter of the bundle along with the ordinal number. When the grange system was abandoned, and an alphabetical arrangement introduced, the system of chests was scrapped, apart from one or two special categories. Instead, within the muniments room a system of tabule, was set up. All subsequent cartularies carry a page heading with an alphabetical location, accompanied by a numbered Tabula. Each tabula accommodates around forty charters, so equivalent to four of the previous fasciculi, but ignores changes of location: for example tabula octavadecima contains items 8 to 15 (of 15) of Conistone, along with all seven items of Cotum, and items 1 to 30 (of 120) of Cowton.27 Individual charters are identified first by location and then by number, so for example ‘Cowton 6’, which is then entered as a dorsal annotation, but no reference to a tabula appears on the charter. Quite what a tabula was remains obscure; the term had been in use for ‘index’ since the mid thirteenth century,28 but in this context at Fountains it seems to refer to a physical structure. Given that the original meaning is ‘board’, it could have been a variation of a system noticed by John Steane at New College, Oxford, involving a timber framework attached to the walls, which supported a series of planks.29 These planks could correspond to the tabule at Fountains; since each tabula was seemingly restricted to about forty charters, they must have been formed into a series of small containers, perhaps a forerunner of modern pigeonholes. To reorganize the entire muniments room and labelling system was a major administrative

 26  27  28  29

This is described in Cartulary 1B, p. 1. Cartulary 2, pp. 90–94. Rouse and Rouse, Authentic Witnesses, p. 233. Steane, ‘Medieval Muniment Rooms’, 46.

129

130

c ha p te r 7

Figure 10. The Muniments Room at Fountains Abbey. Photo Victoria Spence.

undertaking, and one of the consequential changes was the introduction of the Doppelgänger to replace Cartulary 1. However, half a century further on, when Cartulary 3 was introduced, there had been no significant changes in archival practice which dictated the production of a new cartulary. Cartulary 3 constitutes a static database. Throughout its four surviving volumes, all the folios tend to be fully utilized. There is no empty space which would allow additional material to be added, with the inevitable consequence that with the passage of time the contents would become outdated. While it is true that the vast majority of charters granted to Fountains had been made by the beginning of the fourteenth century, there were still transactions to be recorded, particularly when disputed claims were lodged. Cartulary 3 was not designed to accommodate change, nor are there any significant contemporary glosses or insertions in Cartulary 3 which amend the information there. Interestingly, when Geary observed that the eleventh-century Worcester cartulary of Heming had not been updated, unlike its predecessor, he drew the conclusion that ‘it was a commemorative, historical volume, not a working administrative tool’.30

 30 Geary, Phantoms of Remembrance, p. 102.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

Cartulary 1 shows signs of a more pragmatic attitude to record-keeping. Even bearing in mind that the surviving volumes are not the complete original cartulary, nevertheless there are three clear signs of a different approach. Firstly, several sections from a previous document or documents have been incorporated into the manuscript, indicating a willingness to refresh older material, which was anyway compatible since it was compiled under the same archival system. Secondly, from time to time in the manuscript there are spaces which would accommodate new information: as seen earlier in this chapter, one of these was utilized by the scribe of the President Book Fifth Index in his comparison of entries in Cartularies 1 and 2. Thirdly, throughout the cartulary there are marginal glosses which inform the original material; the scribe comments not just on charters which are included, but also on those which are excluded, and why. Fourthly, its twin identification system permitted every charter to be physically located within a specific bundle, housed within a specific chest. Cartulary 1 was a navigational tool for the muniments store. While the dynamism of Cartulary 1 is absent from Cartulary 3, it is very much present in Cartulary 2. Cartulary 2 was designed as the inventory of the archives under the new archival system, and its charter entries are functional, rather than informative. Instead of reproducing the full text of an original charter, it offers highly truncated and abbreviated summaries, in essence communicating only the essential details needed to identify the original. This corresponds to its role as a finding aid for the archive. Unlike Cartulary 3, this cartulary does have regular later insertions, often at the end of alphabetical sections, with short updated entries. In addition, it has three sets of more formalized insertions, which serve to convert it from an archival navigation tool into a reference guide for manorial estate management: seigneurial details of individual vills; references to information in manor court rolls; and detailed cross-references, albeit several times inaccurately entered. The Doppelgänger was also a finding aid for the muniments store, and its contents were updated to accommodate this function. One of these updates was item 6 under Gnoup, and no doubt many others. This explains why the scribe of the Craven Landholdings section used it as his reference source: in one multi-volume document he had available to him not only all the property deeds, but also the royal and papal privileges. Since it stands out as the only deeds register not to be a finding aid, if not, then, a ‘working administrative tool’, was Cartulary 3 compiled as a ‘commemorative, historical volume’? This seems the most plausible explanation, and its completion before 1409 may be significant in this regard. Around the same time two other Cistercian cartularies were compiled. Firstly, shortly after 1403 the Byland Abbey cartulary appeared. This was lavishly compiled, using extensive rubrics, deploying red line decorations as line fillers, and above all using alternating red and blue initials on successive entries, extending to as much as six-line initials to emphasize new sections. Its function as a commemorative volume was reinforced by the inclusion at the beginning of the foundation history of the abbeys of Byland and its

131

13 2

c ha p te r 7

daughter house Jervaulx.31 Then, in 1412, Furness Abbey also produced a new cartulary.32 Furness and Fountains were long-standing rivals for recognition and influence in the English Cistercian system. The two-volume cartulary of Furness is even more extravagantly decorated than Byland, with conspicuous use of gold-leaf lettering, and elaborately coloured coats of arms shown for benefactors. As a practical guide to the muniments at Furness, it is perhaps questionable; certainly it is a static record and was not updated. Above all, it is an ostentatious exhibition of wealth and status. This contrasts sharply with the utilitarian style employed at Fountains for Cartulary 3, which contains no coats of arms for any benefactor, uses only red ink for rubrics and numbering, and strictly no gold leaf. Yet despite its utilitarian appearance when compared with the Byland and Furness cartularies, it is still an elegant piece of work, and was described by Victorian antiquarians as the noble cartulary. Its function as a commemorative, display work would explain the absence of updated material or any later insertions. This explanation is also consistent with a compilation date of late fourteenth/early fifteenth century.

Conclusion An incomplete set of records is not an ideal basis to undertake a study of monastic record-keeping and redaction, but in this case, the difficulties were more than outweighed by the opportunity to learn more about an obscure period in the history of the richest Cistercian monastery in England. In the opening chapters a review of Fountains Abbey demonstrated that, while the beginnings of the abbey and its final fifty years or so have both been well documented, the century and a half in between them has been largely ignored by historians. This period can conveniently be termed the long fifteenth century, extending from about the mid fourteenth up to the early years of the 1500s. It is a curious fact that most of the surviving manuscripts at Fountains are associated with that period, and so to investigate the manuscripts it was necessary to appreciate first the situation of the abbey in the political and economic environment of those years. Analysis of the surviving documentation has revealed that the initial challenge of these intervening years had been to endure and come to terms with a transcendental shift in economic conditions. This shift had its origins in the early fourteenth century, but then gained irresistible momentum with the Black Death, and was reinforced by a subsequent series of plagues, which reduced the population of England from almost five million at the beginning of the century to just over two million by the end. The economic

 31 The Cartulary of Byland Abbey, ed. by Burton, pp. xxvi–xxxiii.  32 London, TNA, DL 42/3 Furness Cartulary, i, Davis, # 428; and BL Add 33244, Furness Cartulary, ii, Davis # 429.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

consequence of such a dramatically diminished workforce proved terminal for the long-established business structure used by Fountains and other large landowners for the previous 150 years. The Cistercian system of semi-autonomous farming units, known as granges and lodges, had been methodically installed at Fountains and was the bedrock of its prosperity. This system was now just as methodically dismantled as the abbey moved away from direct involvement in farming in response to workforce shortages, and, instead, outsourced most of its activities to tenants by manorialising the granges and becoming a landlord across a wide swathe of Yorkshire and elsewhere. The move proved necessary, but not sufficient, to confront the sustained low level of economic activity which persisted into the fifteenth century, which adversely affected rent levels and rent collection. There was some evidence of a strategic review of conditions at the monastery in the period before the situation had deteriorated, and also of tactical measures, including attempts to improve the efficiency of rent collection. The political environment of the times was as unstable as the economic situation. Traditionally, life at Fountains had been regulated both through the Cistercian hierarchy, via the mother house of Clairvaux to the annual Cistercian General Chapter meeting at Cîteaux, and also under the regime of the English monarch. Towards the end of the fourteenth century the Great Western Schism had divided the Church and religious authority, giving rise to rival popes in Rome and Avignon. Affiliations split along political lines, with France adhering to Avignon, and England to Rome. Consequently the chain of command for English Cistercians was blocked, and ad hoc arrangements resulted in an English Chapter, with power of regulation over the English houses. However, almost from the outset this power was never fully accepted by all the English Cistercians and its authority became repeatedly undermined as abbots ignored its rulings and appealed directly to the pope in Rome. This instability of monastic regulation was echoed by an unsettled monarchy over the period. First, Richard II was deposed in 1399 by Henry IV, whose subsequent rule was often preoccupied with potential challenges to his throne. His son, Henry V, united the country for a while by waging war on France, but his premature death led to further instability when he was succeeded in turn by his infant son Henry VI. In the intermittent royal power vacuums, baronial rivalries arose and festered, eventually resulting in the Wars of the Roses. Within this turbulent environment, Fountains experienced its own period of prolonged instability in the second and third decades of the fifteenth century. The bitterly contested election dispute, over the successor to Abbot Robert Burley, festered in the absence of unambiguous authority from either Church or state. The immediate consequences for Fountains included a squandering of its wealth by both disputants to finance their claims and counterclaims in the papal court, as well as a loss of prestige. Both parties were supported by rival magnates, the Percys and the Mowbrays, whom Henry V chose not to control, so that the affair dragged on without resolution. Even after being declared the winner, Abbot John Ripon’s subsequent rule was beset by a

133

134

c ha p te r 7

disruptive campaign by the losing faction, probably to the end of his life. And unrest at the abbey did not end there: the decades after the dispute continued to be marred by sporadic dissidence, including the attempted poisoning of Greenwell, and perhaps one other, unknown, abbot. Only around the second half of the century did things eventually begin to improve, and this was due to a determined strategy by Abbot Greenwell to restore the prestige of the abbey and strengthen its financial position. Greenwell himself had been the target of the poisoning attempt in 1447, but he went on to restore the prestige of the abbey through a campaign of institutional self-representation. In 1459 he recovered the right to wear the mitre, a recognition which had been removed from Fountains during the tumult of the election dispute forty years previously. Greenwell was renowned as a scholar, and he applied his academic training in pursuit of his objectives. His training is seen to best advantage in the President Book of Fountains, effectively his personal memorandum book. This one document stands at the centre of archival redaction at the abbey in the fifteenth century. In appearance it is unprepossessing, and written on paper which had in places become severely dilapidated, until stabilized by restoration work in the 1950s. It has no distinct beginning, and peters out, unfinished, at the current end of the manuscript, which once held several more folios. None of its nine sections, including five ‘Indexes’, bears any direct relation with another, yet most of them can be linked to other Fountains manuscripts. When these connections have been investigated in the course of this book, they have been seen to illustrate, in a variety of ways, the process, purpose, and product of redaction as applied to the records of Fountains. The redaction process has been uncovered from an examination of the First Index, where information is extracted from one source, reordered, and then inserted into another manuscript. A more sophisticated process is displayed by the Second Index, which comprises an extensive schedule of coded entries; these identify information in a lost manuscript, which records comprehensive details of rentals for the properties Fountains came to manage largely after the granges were manorialized towards the mid fourteenth century. While the Index also functions as a finding aid for a known manuscript, Rentals, closer inspection reveals that Rentals itself has not been compiled from the same lost manuscript of the Index, and the relationship between the two manuscripts only overlaps where both documents use the same data, but not otherwise. Although the Second Index and Rentals share a common source, the origin of Rentals remains obscure. The analysis of the Fourth Index introduces the likelihood of a previously unknown cartulary, extant in the mid fifteenth century. The Fourth Index is more enigmatic than the others for two reasons. Firstly, it has been painstakingly inserted throughout Cartulary 2 as a navigation tool to facilitate cross-references. However, around 20 per cent of references prove incorrect, drawing the conclusion that it had been designed for a different cartulary, similar but not identical to the one it is inserted into. Secondly, the Index

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

displays a significant number of factual errors, resulting from confusion of homophonic place-names. An insight into the purpose of redaction was revealed in Chapter 5. The earliest surviving copy of the abbey’s foundation history, the Narratio, dates from the mid fifteenth century, coinciding with the tenure of John Greenwell. A convincing case has previously been made that Greenwell undertook a major revision of the Narratio, and this revision can now be seen in the context of his planned redaction of the Catalogue and Chronicle of the Abbots. Both the Catalogue and the Chronicle appear in the President Book in advanced draft form, and each shows clear signs of adjustments made by Greenwell to adapt them to his times and his viewpoint. His objective to rehabilitate the public image of the abbey is demonstrated by the interpretation given to the succession of abbots who immediately preceded him, and also to his airbrushing of the events of the damaging dispute fifty years earlier. The short rule of Roger Frank is described as ‘not peaceful’, which studiously ignores external accounts of murder attempts and armed assault on the abbey precinct, while Frank’s successor, is deemed ‘most worthy’, despite duplicitous behaviour at Rome and in the Chancery before he could gain the abbacy. Greenwell did acknowledge that the events of the dispute had been very costly, but if this was the most favourable description he could manage, then in reality the abbey must have been on the brink of collapse. A key tool in the process of redaction is revealed in the analysis of Craven Landholding section in which ‘proto-footnotes’ make their appearance, a system of superscript references which are, however, unaccompanied either by footnotes or endnotes. Their presence is additional evidence of skills acquired by Greenwell during his theological training, but while their purpose here is clearly to authenticate assertions made in his analysis of the Pennine pastureland, the sources cited by the references prove elusive. In the nineteenth century, Walbran had named two Fountains cartularies as the principal sources, but here a series of tests has demonstrated conclusively that neither these two nor any of the surviving cartularies could substantiate fully the indicated references in the text. This is a further indication of the existence of an unknown cartulary, in line with the analysis of the Second Index. The Craven Landholdings section of the President Book shares a theme with the Second Index and probably also with the section on Homage and Fealty, all part of a retrospective examination of the abbey’s estate management in the previous century, particularly in the period leading up to the changeover from granges to manorialisation. The analysis of a key part of the Craven Landholdings section, concentrating on Malham township, shows it was carefully planned to analyse the way in which upland pasturing rights had initially been secured, then arable land in the valley bottom had been purposefully acquired and transformed by exchanging plots to create an integral holding on which a grange could be established. The inherent advantage of monastic agriculture lay in its ability to plan and manage for the long term, and this is revealed by the detailed records kept, not only of

135

1 36

c ha p te r 7

landholders, their heirs and descendants, and their obligations to Fountains, but also of the services owed by Fountains to them. There was a parallel policy of enforcing the collections of payments due to the abbey, while at the same time pursuing a patient but persistent policy of reducing and eliminating its own obligations to others, in some cases after more than a century. In parallel with the Craven Landholdings section, the Second Index identifies in Rentals several of the financial records for Malham. These records permit a reconstruction of the demise of the grange at Fountains, which in turn produces a new interpretation of the abbey’s response to events surrounding the Black Death and its aftermath. By analysis with comparable data from the records of Bolton Priory, who had a competing presence in Malham, it can be demonstrated that the size of the Fountains grange did not remain constant throughout the period. In the early fourteenth century the cultivable area was progressively scaled back until it was reduced to nil by 1336. The grange was closed for cultivation thirteen years before the advent of the Black Death, and the records indicate it remained closed at least until 1347. When the records resume in 1356, the grange had reopened and was operating on a greater scale than before, namely twelve bovates (240 statute acres), versus nine in 1305. But the former structure had not been resurrected, and some lands had been reallocated to tenants. Significantly, the grange was now being managed by a skeleton staff from the monastery, while it was offered to let. For five years the grange continued in this twilight phase, until by 1361 it had been leased out in three parts; 135 years later, descendants of the same lessees continued to hold the former grange. The financial records for Malham also indicate that the Black Death took a heavy toll on bondager tenants, with only 29 percent of holdings in the same hands in 1356 compared with 1347. Even so, there was a ready supply of replacement tenants, except briefly, in 1357, but Malham rents did not weaken through this period, in contrast to other Fountains estates, in lower-lying areas. This is in line with general findings across the north of England.33 The combined information from several sections of the President Book permits a re-examination of the relationship between the five surviving cartularies of Fountains. Previously the four sets of deeds registers, here designated Cartularies 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been regarded as reiterations of essentially the same records, from the late thirteenth to the early sixteenth centuries. A review of explicit dates recorded in each cartulary confirms this in broad terms, but in addition reveals an extensive void in record-keeping in the fourteenth century, between 1348 and 1400. This void resonates with the findings from the Second and Fourth Indexes that an additional cartulary must have been present at one time. Moreover, the second half of the fourteenth century was a critical period of structural change at the abbey, when the

 33 Brown, ‘Surviving the Mid-Fifteenth Century Recession’; Lomas, ‘The Priory of Durham and Its Demesnes’; Pollard, ‘The North-Eastern Economy and the Agrarian Crisis of 1438–1440’.

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

abbey was abandoning direct farming in favour of renting out its lands and its granges were being leased to third parties or else manorialized, with the abbot as lord of the manor. The changeover necessitated a complete administrative overhaul to align with the structural changes, with numerous management records no longer needed to control the granges, but others now required to track receipt of rentals and administer manor court procedures. A consequence of these changes was the need to realign the record-keeping system for the deeds registers. This explains the phasing out of Cartulary 1, which had been organized in harmony with the granges. The three other deeds registers are all arranged alphabetically, so clearly this system had replaced the earlier one, but the questions were, when, and which cartulary? Cartularies 2 and 3 were both compiled at the turn of the fifteenth century, so they came fifty years too late to replace Cartulary 1. The answer to the two questions eventually comes from an unlikely source. Cartulary RP was not completed until the end of the fifteenth century, and does not hold records of property deeds like the other four cartularies. Instead it contains copies of royal and papal grants and confirmations of rights and privileges. Despite ostensibly being eliminated on grounds of timing and content, Cartulary RP has been shown to have a record-keeping link with the elusive fourteenth-century gap. The first half of the manuscript has been copied from an earlier exemplar, including an elaborate index prepared for the papal privileges. This index can be directly attributed to Abbot William Gower (1369–1384, d. 1390), who compiled it in retirement. His exemplar was a previously unknown cartulary, but further analysis of Cartulary RP has demonstrated that the exemplar, now designated the Doppelgänger, was a multi-volume set, embracing not only royal and papal privileges, but also a full range of property deeds. Furthermore, the Doppelgänger matches the profile of the unknown sources identified in the Second and Fourth Indexes of the President Book. Since the President Book was in use until the end of Greenwell’s abbacy in 1471, this would give the Doppelgänger an active life of over a hundred years. While this is quite feasible for a parchment manuscript, it nevertheless suggests a conflicting overlap with two other cartularies. In the case of Cartulary 3, not all commentators have agreed on its compilation date being late fourteenth/early fifteenth century, with John Walbran in particular suggesting it was the work of Abbot Marmaduke Huby (1495–1526); if so, this would eliminate the overlap with the Doppelgänger. Evidence from the Fifth Index of the President Book proves conclusive in resolving this issue. This Index concentrates entirely on a set of place-name charters which completely match the locations in a missing volume of Cartulary 3. This volume was previously thought to have been mislaid after the Dissolution, but the Fifth Index makes clear that efforts were being made to reconstitute it no later than 1471, twenty-four years before Huby became abbot. Walbran’s dating can therefore be rejected, and Cartulary 3 can be accepted as completed by the end of the first decade of the fifteenth century.

137

13 8

c ha p te r 7

The apparently conflicting overlap of cartularies is reconciled not by comparing their dates, but from identifying their different intended functions. Cartulary 1 and the Doppelgänger acted as inventories of the deeds repository: the physical location of original charters in the repository could be identified from page headings and marginal numbering of each entry in both cartularies. To fulfil this function, each cartulary was kept up to date as new entries were taken into the repository. In contrast, Cartulary 3 had no provision to be updated; the space on practically every folio was filled from the outset. It could only have acted as a finding aid very briefly, immediately after its compilation, before new items were added to the repository. However, its function was not as an inventory, but as a display item, to reflect the prestige of the abbey. This is reflected in its carefully composed format, with adequate space for each entry, and its original covering of tooled leather; together these prompted its description of ‘noble cartulary’ by previous commentators. As if in confirmation of this function of Cartulary 3, Fountains Abbey’s great rival produced a competing document shortly afterwards in 1412. The Furness Coucher is lavishly decorated including copious use of gold leaf, and like Cartulary 3, was designed to impress. Unlike Cartulary 3, Cartulary 2 has all the appearance of an inventory, and its compilation date places it in direct conflict with the Doppelgänger. But once again, it is differentiated by function. The manuscript is of paper, not parchment, and therefore not originally designed for long-term use, but intended for a more immediate, specific purpose, as an administrative tool for manor court administration. Additional information has been inserted into this cartulary, from the First Index and from a government fiscal survey. Together, these supplement the charter details for each location by adding information related to the supervision of manor courts; it is further enhanced by the insertion of items from the Fourth Index, which provided cross-references, for example to indicate where certain courts had extra-manorial jurisdiction. Cartulary 4 can be described correctly as a copy of Cartulary 2, reissued in 1509 on the instructions of Abbot Marmaduke Huby. This would be in keeping with the use of Cartulary 2 as an inventory throughout the fifteenth century, and eventually requiring a replacement. However, this explanation is not consistent with the analysis of Cartulary 2 as a manorial administration tool. An alternative explanation for Cartulary 4 involves the fate of the Doppelgänger. From the contents of Cartulary RP, it is known that the Doppelgänger was still receiving additional material as late as 1468, approaching the end of Greenwell’s abbacy. This is consistent with its use as an inventory, and also accounts for the absence of additional material in Cartulary 2. It is not known for how long the Doppelgänger remained in use after that time, but when Cartulary RP was compiled, in 1491 at the earliest, it was found necessary to make an exact copy of the royal and papal privileges section. This must mean that by that time the Doppelgänger itself was no longer intact, otherwise there would be no need to make a copy of any part of it. In turn that implies that a replacement inventory was required. The normal way to do that would be for

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

a scribe to record every document he found in the inventory, but in this case, the decision was made to reproduce the contents of Cartulary 2. The risk of that process was that it would omit charters that had gone missing, and so inadvertently write them out of the archival memory. Cartulary 2 contains details of forty-two charters for Pickhill, which it identifies as having been lost; the cartulary is considerably dilapidated in places, and further references may once have been legible. This would justify reissuing Cartulary 2 as Cartulary 4, to form the basis of a new inventory. It is clear that the shadow of the fifteenth century hangs heavily over the corpus. Even after undertaking a complete reorientation of its business structure in response to the crises of the fourteenth century, the enduring economic conjuncture of the fifteenth century obliged the abbey to defend its income sources, and in searching for solutions it reached back into its financial history: the corpus reflects this in the enigmatic manuscript known as Rentals, along with three separate sections of the President Book. Separately, the impact of the long-running election dispute probably had the greatest negative consequences for several decades afterwards. Not all of its effects are necessarily visible, since it is not known how many documents of title or other muniments were lost in the period, but certainly no business records at all bear witness to the years between 1411 and 1434. On the other hand, the impoverishment of the abbey, the loss of prestige, and the continuing low morale were eventually reversed, largely due to the influence of John Greenwell. In this study three abbots have stood out for their contributions. At the end of the fifteenth century, Marmaduke Huby stabilized the corpus by commissioning Cartulary 4, and in all probability, Cartulary RP also. Huby has long been considered a champion of the abbey, but another abbot, previously little regarded, has now emerged as a significant record-keeper. William Gower was known to be a scholar, but before now his involvement was not suspected with Cartulary RP, and more to the point, with its forerunner, the Doppelgänger. In his retirement years Gower prepared the complex index to the papal privileges, but had not quite finished it before his death in 1390. The Doppelgänger cartulary represented a major change in administrative procedures, and given Gower’s redaction skills, it may even be that he was involved in the original compilation several years earlier. Most credit of all goes to John Greenwell, another scholar who used his training to powerful effect on the corpus and on the self-representation of the house. His path was not straightforward, and the incident of attempted poisoning against him in 1447 still leaves unanswered questions about motive and lingering resentment. The new interpretation of his relationship with Edward IV, outlined in Chapter 2, changes perceptions of his career. He was suspected, rightly as it turned out, by Edward, of Lancastrian loyalties, and can never have enjoyed his confidence. Accordingly, when commanded to prorogue Parliament at York in 1464, he was not being accorded an honour, but was obliged to proclaim his Yorkist allegiance, if only by association, at the very time his fellow Lancastrians were being hunted down in the north

1 39

140

c ha p te r 7

Figure 11. Pivotal Role of the President Book. Black background indicates a lost manu­script. Grey background indicates a deduced manuscript. Figure by the author.

of England as Edward’s forces suppressed their rebellion in Northumberland. Greenwell’s departure from office also now requires revision. Previously it was thought he had petitioned the pope to be allowed to resign on grounds of infirmity. Certainly by then he had been a professed monk for around fifty years. But it was the unintended consequence of intervention by Henry VI that precipitated his departure. During his very brief revival on the throne, the Readeption, in February 1471 Henry had absolved Greenwell of his oath of loyalty to Edward IV, in the process finally making public where Greenwell’s true sympathies lay. Less than two months later Edward was back on the throne, Henry was dead, and Greenwell was in an untenable position, potentially exposed to accusations of treason. The consequences of Greenwell’s hasty exit can be seen in the pages of the President Book. One page, otherwise blank, contains the confident heading ‘the first year of the Readeption’. That first year was never completed, and the page must contain one of the final entries in the document. Elsewhere too there are distinct signs, if not of a hasty departure, then of unfinished business. In particular, the Catalogue and Chronicle of the Abbots, with which Greenwell is most closely associated, is still only a draft; no other version is

a fo r e n s i c ap p roac h to fo u ntai ns cart u lari e s

known. Also, if indeed Cartulary 3D was reconstituted via the Fifth Index, it was subsequently lost again. Neither is there any information about either a new version of Rentals, as strongly indicated by the Second Index. It would be wrong to only associate Greenwell with the President Book, but from a record-keeping viewpoint, the President Book places on view his determination to restore the institutional image and address the financial situation of Fountains, and at the same time it reveals some of the research tools he employed in his work. The President Book’s contribution to the redaction of the archives at Fountains Abbey in the mid fifteenth century can be summarized in Figure 11, reflecting its role as the entrepôt between the source documents and the intended outputs. Of the eight sources, only two have survived, while the destination documents have fared even less well, perhaps a reflection of Greenwell’s involuntary retirement from office. In the Introduction it was suggested that no medieval document had the automatic right to be accepted at face value. All the manuscripts which have been scrutinized in subsequent chapters transmit something more than the mere words on their folios. Cartulary 1 conceals at least one other cartulary within its covers, while Cartulary 2 assumes the guise of an inventory, but was designed to work instead as an aid to manor court administration. Cartulary 3 comes closest to being accepted at face value, being commissioned as a static display of monastic wealth, in marked contrast to all the other cartularies which were working tools. Ironically, when Cartulary 4 was issued as a replacement inventory, it was based on 2 for lack of a contemporary version. The added value of Cartulary RP comes from its first section, which is shown to have been copied from the Doppelgänger. This earlier register turns out to be the key document, whose existence is unconfirmed but can be deduced from four separate sections of the President Book. Designated the Doppelgänger because it mirrored so closely Cartularies 2 and 3, it would have played a central role in archival administration, firstly as the embodiment of the restructured muniments repository when the abbey transformed its business in the mid fourteenth century, then secondly as the repository search tool for the next hundred years, before being partly lost or destroyed sometime after 1468. The nature of Rentals cannot yet be explained satisfactorily. Its content overlaps with the Second Index of the President Book but does not coincide: it is no Doppelgänger, but rather, seems to have an independent origin, possibly just before the arrival of John Greenwell. Whatever its origins may turn out to be, its great merit here has been to reveal the buoyancy of the abbey’s granges in their final years, and to suggest how the abbey successfully confronted the economic challenges of the century following the Black Death, but then appeared to stagnate in the final century before its suppression in 1539. Of all the manuscripts, the President Book least deserves to be accepted at face value. Its multi-functional role was to transform or reconfigure information from other manuscripts in the archive. But without the President Book, much of what has been uncovered here would have remained hidden to view. Redaction is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, and it is rare to be able to glimpse

141

142

c ha p te r 7

or track its effects. The President Book has provided unique information to assist the investigation, and to answer the initial question of how manuscripts are sometimes written or rewritten. I have described this research as having a forensic approach, made necessary by the lack of abundant or continuous material for study, and all the hypotheses and conclusions reached in these pages must be seen in that light. This is not an unusual situation for medieval historians, and it means that few statements here can be considered to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. However, on the balance of probability, and based on current evidence, all of them stand secure. This investigation of archival memory and redaction at Fountains has revealed a level of integration between different types of record which implies a degree of pragmatic decision-making not necessarily to be expected in a monastic community with a focus on spiritual devotion. The attention paid by the Fountains choir monks to matters temporal was professional and generally effective. Given the level of interaction between Cistercian houses across Europe by virtue of the annual General Chapter, the situation at Fountains is unlikely to have been unique, and by applying the methodology used here to the study of record-keeping at other houses of the Cistercian Order, or of other Orders, it may be possible to assemble comparative information on responses to economic exigencies.

Appendix A

The President Book of Fountains Abbey Although it does not qualify as a cartulary within his own definition,1 Davis gives a brief description of this manuscript, which he refers to as a ‘Precedent book alias President’s Book’ — he introduces the onomatopoeic apostrophe s to ‘President’; also he affirms that it contains ‘copies of 36 Fountains charters, not known elsewhere’. The reference to these charters, which all relate to the town of Ripon, exposes Davis’s information source as being a century out of date: it is an unacknowledged quotation from a schedule prepared originally by Walbran, but only published posthumously, in Memorials 2 (pp. 86–87). Walbran’s statement was accurate at the time he made it, but it only remained so until 1913, when the long-missing Cartulary 3E was rediscovered and acquired by the John Rylands Library. This manuscript contains charters in the alphabetical sequence Q–Y, including, under R, all thirty-six charters cited in the President Book. The President Book has the aspect of a personal aide-memoire, with no apparent continuity between successive sections, although its overall structure seems too formal and impersonal for a casual notebook. The content often shows signs of careful planning, and contains cross-references to material in other documents: more than anything, it is an assembly of catalogues and indexes. The difficulty of defining its intended purpose has complicated the issue of what it should be called; the name, ‘President Book’, is not known to have been applied to the manuscript before 1758. The phrase no longer appears on the manuscript today, but it was seen in 1845 by Walbran who concluded it was a post-Dissolution addition, but with a pre-Dissolution origin: The name of ‘President Booke of ye Abbey of ffountaynes’ […] has probably been derived from the practice of placing it and similar volumes of digested history of their estates before the President of the Chapter, who could thus see at once the facts and dates bearing on any point where information was required, without consulting the original Deeds and Records, to which there are constant references.2 In contrast, when it was repaired and rebound at Leeds Public Libraries in 1958, the restorer inserted a rejoinder, to Walbran and others:

 1 Davis and others, eds, Medieval Cartularies, p. 86. Cartularies are defined (p. xiv) as ‘registers of muniments, that is to say, of the title-deeds, (carte), charters of privilege (privilegia) and other documents which are kept by landowners as evidence of their personal or corporate rights’.  2 Memorials 2, p. 87.

144

a p p e n di x a

This title, adopted by most scholarly works citing the volume, is based on a misunderstanding of the 17th century endorsement: ‘An olde President Booke of ye Abbey of ffountaynes’. This is clearly a ‘precedent’ or memorandum book containing a chronology of the abbots to 1442, a register of Homages, and of Ripon and Craven charters. It was compiled under Abbot Greenwell [1442–1471].3 However, both Walbran and the anonymous restorer were selective in the evidence they put forward in support of their conclusions: Walbran’s statement about ‘facts and dates bearing on any point’ overstates the value of such facts and dates, which in context are seldom if ever self-explanatory without the assistance of additional material not in the manuscript itself. Equally, the restorer omits mention of four other sections which do not sustain the notion of a precedent book. The term ‘president book’ does not generally occur amongst manuscripts, in contrast to ‘precedent book’, which is quite prevalent, although most examples seem to date from the late-sixteenth century onwards, and are concerned mainly with legal issues, unlike the President Book. The content of the President Book is discussed below, and some of this material is comparable to some of the content of precedent books, which may for instance provide an index to other documents, and also draw from earlier, medieval, material, so it is just possible that the Fountains manuscript is an early example, but more likely its resemblance to these documents caused it to be so named at a time when orthography remained fluid, and ‘president’ and ‘precedent’ would be fungible forms.4 Without prejudice to the original name or intended function, it is here referred to throughout as President Book for convenience. The writing support throughout the manuscript is paper. Walbran reported in 1845 that the manuscript had suffered some water damage and was illegible in parts, and ‘without the protection of a Cover’. When Leeds Public Libraries acquired it, they noted the absence of a front cover, although by then a back cover was in place, made from three pieces of parchment: no information was given concerning the three pieces of parchment, and they are not in evidence today. In 1958 a thorough restoration process was applied to the manuscript, which stabilized its condition. This process included dismantling the bindings, strengthening each folio by the insertion of a backing sheet, and then rebinding the document. When the manuscript was unbound, the restorer noted the gathering sequence of 10 quires, totalling 89 leaves: this was eight leaves more than the 81 recorded by Walbran; today the rebound President Book again consists of 81 leaves, and an interpretation of the binder’s notes, recorded in

 3 President Book, frontispiece.  4 For example, York, York Minster Archives, DC, L1/1c, 1660–1701, is a precedent book containing an ‘index of wills and administrations’, while Northamptonshire Record Office, Thornton (Brockhall) Collection, Th/1607 is a seventeenth-century tithe precedent book … ‘drawing on thirteenth and fourteenth century sources’.

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

the preface to the President Book, is problematical, since it is unclear where in the gathering sequence the additional leaves were located. Perhaps an attempt was made to preserve the manuscript between 1845 and 1958 which included the addition of a back cover and eight flyleaves. The present manuscript measures approximately 293 by 204 mm (11½ by 8 inches), somewhat smaller than the 304 by 227 mm (12 by 9 inches) noted by Walbran; presumably this was the result of trimming in the restoration process, which in a few cases has cut through text at the edge of a leaf. The principal content can be classified into nine sections, hereafter identified as I to IX: it is evident that Sections I and IX are incomplete, and taken with the fact that no cover is present, the assumption is that an unknown portion of the original manuscript has been lost, sometime before it was seen by Walbran in 1845. The text is written in Latin, although an insertion on page 40 has been made in English. To describe the President Book as an assembly of catalogues and indexes is a convenient generalisation; the nine sections are of unequal size, but each can be characterized as a series of listings, either of places or people, or sometimes both. Although there are few ostensible connections between the nine sections, nevertheless some can be linked with the same external source; up to six of them may be associated with a contemporary manuscript, and an analysis of these connections is central to interpretation of the manuscript as a whole. A brief description of the content and structure of each section follows.

Three Indexes: Section I, pages 1–9 The content of this section consists of two complete indices locorum preceded by fragments of another. Catchwords are displayed at the foot of pages 2, 4, 6, and 8, perhaps suggesting that the pages were not originally bound together but kept loose. The first page, containing the First Index is barely legible today, probably due to water damage, though Walbran was evidently able to read more of it in 1845, and his transcription supplies some of the detail now lost. The page is ruled into two columns, with a left-hand, and central margins. Of the left-hand column only, the lower half is missing, and the upper half contains all that remains of the fragmentary index: this is seen to be arranged in alphabetical order, and a numerical running order has also been assigned in the margin, using red ink. The text is formulaic and laconic: against a serial number in red in the left-hand margin, each place-name entry is associated with a different place-name accompanied by a letter, a number, and a year, and occasionally an additional phrase. Where legible, years cited fall in the range 1343–1393. The last-numbered item in the column bears 77, Yarnwyk, while the first entry at the top of the column is 65, Stodelay Roger, suggesting that perhaps up to three preceding pages may at one time have accommodated missing items, presumably 1 to 64, in the range A to S. The Second Index is much more extensive: it appears to have been started at the point on the page where the First Index ended, on the lower part of

145

146

a p p e n di x a

the left-hand column, now torn away, and continued onto the right-hand column, then across successive pages up to the end of the left-hand column on page 9. Where the First Index is arranged in numerical order, the Second is alphabetical: it too is a series of place-names, now accompanied by one or more letters of the alphabet, together with a number, and often a year. Unlike the First Index, the Second makes no use of the margins, although they are ruled throughout; also, while the First Index was composed of a series of one-line entries, in the Second Index entries are more likely to occupy a small, indented paragraph. The use of red ink has a different function in each table: in the first it assigns an ordinal number to each geographical entry; in the second it identifies individual items within geographical entries; one or two lapses are apparent where a year appears in red. Exceptionally, the first legible entry in the index is not a place, but a person, Abbot John (there were six abbots with this name, up to and including Greenwell). The Third Index, a timetable, is intact, being much smaller than the other two, and is wholly accommodated within the right-hand column of page 9. Unlike the previous two indexes, it makes no use of red ink, and it also bears a title, disclosing it to be a schedule of eighteen vills in which the wapentake court of Staincliffe was held.5 Entries are not alphabetical, but are arranged in date order, the first entry being in October, and the last in September, with a frequency of about three weeks. Each entry also bears a sequential number in the central column, perhaps because two locations hosted the court twice a year (Kettlewell and Swinden). The source of this list is unknown, and it does not appear in any other manuscript.

Catalogue of Abbots: Section II, pages 10–11 Section II consists of a schedule of the names of the abbots of Fountains, in order of succession from the date of foundation, 27 December 1132, specifying the length of their rule and the periods when the position was vacant: the whole section occupies barely a page and a half.6 Here the two-column, two-margin format has been abandoned, and entries are written out in long lines. A catchword has been inserted at the foot of page 10. It was seemingly begun in the time of Abbot Greenwell (1442–1471), since the list of abbots to that point has been written in the same hand. However, the format was interrupted or abandoned: the dates of accession of the first three abbots have been recorded in a specially drawn two-column margin, in a different though contemporary hand, but these details are not continued for any other abbots. The principal hand has entered details on the first page

 5 Nomina villarum in quibus tenetur curia Wapentagij de Staynclyf.  6 This passage is transcribed in Memorials 1, pp. 154–55: Walbran followed Burton in labelling it a ‘Catalogue’.

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

of the lengths of office in years, months, and days, and named the reigning monarchs during each abbacy; only the details of the reigning monarch have been continued onto the second page, which begins with Roger Frank (1410–1413). Most abbots in the list are assigned an ordinal number, but there are some exceptions. Thus, Henry Murdac (1144–1147) is designated, correctly, the third abbot, then he is listed a second time, on the following line, as archbishop, which is factually correct, but incongruous in a list of abbots; tellingly, the Catalogue states his term of office as abbot was seven years and two days, which includes his service as archbishop, up to his death in 1153, and this seems intended to communicate that Murdac never relinquished abbatial control. As if in confirmation of this, his immediate successors as abbot, Maurice (1147–1148) and Thorald (1148–1150), appear together on the same line next in the list, but neither is designated the fourth abbot. The next abbot, Richard (1150–1170), is entered twice — once to signify his term of office during the period in which Murdac was archbishop, with a reporting line to Murdac showing clearly who was managing the abbey’s affairs (there is a similar line for Maurice and Thorald). After Murdac’s death, Richard was deemed to have ruled in his own right, indicated by the gloss at this point — per se —, although for both his entries he is designated the fourth abbot. At other points in the list, three abbots are named, but not assigned an ordinal number. So, Abbot Peter Ayling (1274–1279) should have been the sixteenth abbot (recte eighteenth), but this is allocated to his successor, Nicholas; similarly, Henry Otley (1284–?90) and Roger Frank (1410–1413) are unnumbered. These three abbots were each in office when the abbey was taken into external administration, in 1274 and 1291 during financial difficulties, and in 1413 during a dispute over abbatial succession. This may explain why they are unnumbered, and the same explanation would be consistent with the treatment of Maurice and Thorold, since the abbey could also be said to have been under external control, exercised by Archbishop Henry Murdac during their terms of office. The original list only extended as far as John Greenwell (1442–1471), but a later hand, possibly sixteenth or seventeenth century, has completed the list, from Greenwell’s successor, Thomas Swynton, up to Marmaduke Bradley who signed the deed of surrender in 1539. There is a correcting entry on the first page to indicate the brief abbacy of Robert Thornton (c. 1289–1290), which had been omitted from the original list. From this evidence, the main entries in this section must have been made after October 1442 but before 1471, and subsequently were disregarded until after the Dissolution.7

 7 Dates of abbacies from HoRH, i, pp. 131–32; ii, pp. 279–81; iii, pp. 291–94.

147

1 48

a p p e n di x a

Chronicle of Abbots: Section III, Pages 12–16 Section III covers pages 12 to 16, and its content expands on the previous section since, following brief details of the founding of the abbey by Archbishop Thurstan on 27 December 1132, it lists a brief obituary of each abbot. There is no heading to this section in the manuscript, and the misleading title ‘Chronicle’ seems to have first been used by used by Walbran, but is maintained here for consistency.8 The entries follow a specific format, commencing with the date of death of the abbot, followed by the length of his rule measured in years, months, and days; generally, the place of burial is named, and there may also be a brief reference to his achievements. As deeds of the abbots, they represent a threadbare incarnation of Gesta Abbatum seen elsewhere, but they are the unique source of information for several incumbents.9 Like the Catalogue of Abbots in Section II, the Chronicle also abandons the length of term of office at the entry for Roger Frank.10 The section finishes with the entry on Abbot Greenwell, but it does not record his year of death (1471) or details of burial: the latest date cited is 1443. The ethereal Abbot Thornton, although omitted from the original Catalogue, does appear in the Chronicle; however, the entry is quite different from those around it. It discloses his date of death, 1306, and describes him as by then a former abbot, but without giving the dates or length of his term of office, or assigning him a number; instead it cites two reference sources, seemingly as evidence that he had held the position. One reference is to a psalter, where he is presumably described as abbot of Fountains, and the other a citation in a charter dated 21 December 1289.11 This is arguably corroborated by a letter of protection issued by Edward I on 24 August that year, for ‘Robert, abbot of Fountains, going to the said (Cistercian general) chapter’;12 however, the succeeding abbot was also named Robert (Bishopton), and the date of his election is only known imprecisely, as around 1290.13 This section of the Chronicle is decidedly ambiguous, since it also states that Abbot Henry Otley ruled from the death of his predecessor in 1284 until his own death on 23 December 1290. If indeed Thornton held office in 1289, he subsequently lived on for some sixteen years and it may be that he devoted some of this time to a history of the abbey; a Cronica Roberti Thornton is cited under the

 8 This section of the President Book is transcribed in Memorials 1, pp. 130–53, with prolific footnotes.  9 For a succinct description of more conventional Gesta Abbatum, see Heale, The Abbots and Priors of Late Medieval England, pp. 3–4.  10 In fact, of the remaining five abbots, only the short rule of John Martyn — six weeks, six days in 1442, is duly recorded.  11 The date is given as the feast of St Thomas the Apostle.  12 CPR, 1281–1292, p. 391.  13 HorH, ii, p. 280.

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

Chronicle entry for Abbot John of York (1203–1209), but no other evidence for this chronicle is known. Sections I to III were all written in the same style (‘Hand One’), and together they occupy eight leaves of the first quire gathering of nine leaves. Within the text, dates are cited between the years 1263 to 1443.

Homage and Fealty: Sections IV and V, pages 18–41 Separated by a blank page (17) from Section III, Section IV begins on the last page of Gathering 1, and covers all of Gatherings 2 and 3, although the last page, 38, is blank. The first leaf of Gathering 4, pages 39 and 40 had originally been left blank, and Section V appears on page 41. Entries are laid out in long lines, each one preceded by a place-name in the centre of the page and a personal name to the right-hand edge, and in the left-hand margin most entries display a large Arabic cardinal number. The Section covers pages 18 to 37, but there is discontinuity. At the bottom of page 22 the Arabic numbering sequence reaches 28, but it is then absent from the next five entries, on page 23. Page 24 is blank, then the numbering resumes on page 25, albeit ahead of sequence — the series restarts at 39 when it should be 33, based on the previous entries. The discontinuity is emphasized by the unnumbered entries on page 23, which have been made in a different, but contemporary, hand from pages 18 to 22: there is a catchphrase (Anno dni 1348) on page 22 which corresponds to the opening entry on page 23 and it may be that there was an unfinished attempt to replace a damaged page, with some of the entries not restored. Also on page 22 there is a ghosted image, ‘Ryppelay’, in the heading for entry 28, which has no counterpart on the preceding or following pages, and one explanation would be that it is a smudged heading from the original page 23.14 Possibly this could explain the blank page 24, which could accommodate the six missing items, although the gathering sequence does not show a singleton here. The numbering of individual entries continues to item 96, where it ceases half-way down page 34, leaving three unnumbered items on that page, and four more on page 35. On pages 36 and 37 are four more entries in a different, later, hand. The entries relate to most parts of Yorkshire where Fountains held land, including Craven, Nidderdale, and the Vale of York, as well as their westerly holdings in Cumbria around Lake Derwentwater, but it is not a definitive list; in all it amounts to 105 items,15 of which thirty relate to one area, the district of Craven; the range of dates is from 1312 to 1409 (the last-numbered item, 96).  14 This is confirmed by the items heading the new p. 23, which refer to Ripley, but use a different spelling.  15 Based on 96 numbered items and 16 unnumbered ones (5 on pp. 23, 3 on pp. 34, 4 on p. 35, plus, in a different hand, 3 on pp. 36 and 1 on p. 37), and allowing for an interruption in the numbering sequence at 32; the actual number of entries is therefore 96–7 + 16 = 105.

149

1 50

a p p e n di x a

Section V covers less than a page, and is located on the second leaf, verso, of Gathering 4, the recto being blank. It is written by the same hand who wrote most of the preceding section, and consists of a selective genealogy of the Percy family down to the year 1245. Together with the details of family linkage it recites the monastic burial sites of several members (Reading, Whitby, Fountains, Sallay), and also details of benefactions in Craven — Malham and Malham Moor, Litton and Littondale, and the final entry is for William Percy (d. 1245; nephew and heir of Richard), buried at Sallay Abbey, who is stated to have confirmed the grant of Langstroth to Fountains Abbey.16

Fourth Index: Section VI, pages 42–63 In contrast to the previous Section, here pages have been ruled with double columns and a central margin: the ruling extends through to page 65. The content covers pages 45 to 62 and is another index of place-names, arranged in approximately alphabetical order: each name has one or more subordinate place-names against it, each with a reference number. This Section occupies most of Gathering 4 and the first leaf of Gathering 5, where the second leaf has been prepared with the same ruling, but was not used. Uniquely this Section carries the impression of being set apart from the rest of the manuscript by two half-leaves inserted at the beginning and end (pp. 43–44 and 65–66).

Craven Landholdings: Section VII, pages 68–127 This Section begins on the fifth leaf of Gathering 5 and occupies all of the rest of it, together with all of the next three Gatherings, 6 to 8: in addition, the first leaf of the following gathering had been prepared, but not used, for this Section. It is the longest component of the manuscript, running to sixty pages (within which eleven are blank, where one subsection finishes, and another starts). The format is long lines, with a left-hand margin used for frequent glosses. Unlike any other part of the manuscript, this section has been foliated, in Arabic numerals in a fourteenth- or fifteenth-century hand. On pages 69 and 70, heavy, brown discolouring, probably from the application of varnish, renders the text all but illegible; Walbran also had difficulty with these two pages, but his transcription still is more complete than is possible today.17 The entire content of this substantial section relates exclusively to one area of the Fountains estate, namely the district of Craven, synonymous with the wapentake of Staincliffe. Each page typically contains a comprehensive

 16 Cartulary 1C, pp. 68–69, item DVI, CXXX.  17 York, York Minster Archives, Add MS 266, pp. 63, 64.

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

above-the-line header, starting with the name of the wapentake, then specifying a vill, followed by the parish in which it lies, the fee to which it belongs, and the number of carucates which constitute a knight’s fee there. The text has been carefully arranged, and appears to document the history of acquisition of lands in each place named: the left-hand margin is used frequently to supply subheadings for individual entries. At the end of each subsection is a list of confirmations of the grants by the donors and respective monarchs and popes. Several genealogies are included of the principal donors for several areas.18 This Section is distinguished by the appearance throughout of superscript numerals incorporated within the text, usually above or adjacent to personal names: they have all the appearance of modern referencing, but they are not accompanied by explanatory footnotes or endnotes. At the end of the Section on page 127 thirteen blank pages separate it from the next; the foliation had been continued onto page 129 (fol. 34), but does not seem to continue further.

Ripon Burgages: Section VIII, pages 141–55 Section VIII occupies fourteen pages, wholly contained within Gathering 9. The format is long lines, with a left-hand margin. This margin has been used for numbering thirty-seven items, all relating to the acquisition of burgage plots in Ripon, between 1341 and 1393. Walbran thought this material to be unique, which at the time he wrote, in 1868, was correct.19 Subsequently the final volume (Q–Y) of the principal cartulary, came to light and was purchased by the John Rylands Library in 1913: this volume has a section covering Ripon, on fols 52r to 84v, and the entries between fols 59r and 79v broadly contain the material reflected in Section VIII, although the numbering of entries does not correspond with those in the cartulary, which employs six different numbering series.20 The numbering in the President Book is sequential, 1 to 36 (19 is repeated), in a different ink from the main text, though in a contemporary hand; items 13, 36 and 17 are additionally numbered 19, 21, and 22, respectively, also in a contemporary hand. Trimming of the pages may have removed other secondary numbering.

 18 For example, the lords of Hertlington (p. 72) are linked to acquisitions in Hertlington, Hanlith, Bordley and Arnford. Similar genealogies appear for the de Hebbeden family (p. 76), also the donors of Threshfield (p. 82), the descendants of Edulph de Kylnsay (p. 84), the de Arches family concerning Bordley (p. 88), the descendants of Robert de Fegheser for Calton (p. 91), and the de Malhams for Malhamdale (p. 99).  19 Memorials 2, p. 87.  20 Cartulary 3E: the section on Ripon contains sixty-six items, numbered in the sequence: 1–15 (including 1a, 1b); 1–16; one unnumbered; 1–13; 1–4; 1–8; 1–8. Such a system is unique in the cartularies of Fountains.

15 1

1 52

a p p e n di x a

Fifth Index: Section IX, pages 156–62 The final section occupies six pages, starting on the final verso leaf of Gathering 9, and filling all that now remains of Gathering 10, the final quire of the manuscript: the restorer in 1958 observed eleven leaves in this gathering, but only three are present today. Nevertheless, the text of Section IX matches the 1845 transcription by Walbran, who could also read the final page which is now barely legible; presumably the missing leaves were all blank. The content is yet another index, this time of people; although the pages are dilapidated it appears that the list was divided into locations, in alphabetical order from N to Q. In a similar way to Section VII, personal names are referenced with numbers, in some cases superscript. Elsewhere, tentative genealogical tables have been started on names in adjacent text. The final page of the manuscript, 162, continues the Wheldrake (‘Qweldrik’) section, and the text fills the page, without any obvious termination, but in one way or another this work is unfinished, either by the scribe, or through dilapidation. Following this analysis of the content of the manuscript, the following sections concentrate on aspects of its construction.

Scribal Hands Four contemporary scribal hands (hereafter One, Two, Three, and Four respectively) were involved in the writing of the President Book. They all use a writing style which was in general use throughout England during the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Hand One completed the first five sections, pages 1 to 41; Two was responsible for Section VI, pages 42 to 63; Three for Sections VII and IX, pages 68 to 127, and 156 to 162; and Four for Section VIII, pages 141 to 155. The distinctive features between hands are slight: the upper-case letter A is flourished in Hand One, but plain in Two, Three and Four: upper-case R is flourished in One and Four, and plain in Two and Three; and R; lower-case y has a right-curling descender in One, Two, and Three, but left-curling in Four; and lower-case g has a single bowl and a left-curling descender in One and Four, but a double bowl in Two and Three.

Inserted Texts In addition to the four principal hands, four additional hands have inserted unrelated text into what must have been a convenient space in the manuscript at the time; none is earlier than the principal hands but three of them are not much later than them, while the fourth is sixteenth century, but pre-Dissolution. All the insertions are brief; they appear on pages 40, 64, 68, and 139. On page 40 is a paragraph in English, dated January 1464, concerning arbitration in a

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

dispute between Stephen Mydelton of Sutton and Thomas Batty of Kirkby Malzeard, seemingly in the hand of Abbot Greenwell (1442–1471); the paragraph includes the phrase ‘to us John Abbot of ffonteyns’. On page 64, in a scrawling Latin, is another paragraph, recording an abuse of Abbey lands in Marston by John Notyngham and others. Page 68 contains a single-line entry in clear, neat Latin recording the date of reaccession by Henry VI, which must have been entered after September 1470, but before April 1471, when Edward IV regained the throne. The fourth entry, on page 139, is also in Latin, and describes the bounds between Horton in Ribblesdale and Stainforth, North Yorkshire.

Watermarks Several distinctive watermarks are visible today on the manuscript, although restoration work in 1957 may now be impeding their detection. Shapes which can be distinguished include an ox (Gatherings 1, 2, 4 and 5), crosskeys (Gathering 5), a bell (Gatherings 6, 7, and 8), and a triple mound (Gatherings 9 and 10). Although the first use of paper in England began early in the fourteenth century, there is no known domestic paper production facility until the late fifteenth century, probably stimulated by the introduction of printing presses; before then supplies were imported.21 The watermarks on the President Book folios will represent their factory of origin and perhaps indicate their likely date of manufacture, but the proliferation of production facilities and the widespread copying of motifs over many years do not permit precision of location or age; nevertheless, if the same watermark can be identified on more than one manuscript this may be taken as an indication of contemporary production.

Dates The President Book discloses dates in two forms. Firstly, many dates are given explicitly, both in the original text and, in two cases, in inserted texts; secondly, from other information disclosed in the text, some dates can be inferred. In the original text explicit dates do not occur later than 1410, with a relative conformity between most sections: thus, in Section I, the fragmentary First Index shows dates from 1343 to 1393, and the Second Index from 1263 to 1400; Section IV, 1312–1406; Section VII, 1198–1410; Section VIII, 1341–1393. The two dates in inserted text are both later, 1469 (p. 40), and 1501 (pp. 36 to 37). Implicit dates are less consistent: on the one hand, the Percy genealogy ends with William Percy, who died in 1245; on the other, the biographies of abbots in Sections II and III cannot have been completed before 1443.

 21 Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, p. 120; Shorter, Paper Mills and Paper Makers, p. 27.

15 3

154

a p p e n di x a

Document Integrity Analysis of the President Book has shown it to be a compendium: the content is in nine parts, the quire gatherings are in ten sections, the work was undertaken by four scribes. Taking this into account, along with the fact that the provenance is obscure, it is reasonable to question whether it has always been one book: perhaps the fact that the manuscript has no cover today means there never was one. Moreover, there is evidence to indicate that some sections may once have been independent documents. Firstly, Sections I, II, and IV have catchwords displayed on consecutive folios, a device which is not used throughout the whole manuscript and suggests these sections have been treated differently at some point. Elsewhere, the half-leaves inserted at the beginning and end of Section V differentiate it from the rest of the manuscript, while Section VII has a contemporary foliation series which is not seen in any other section. While the content overall can be characterized as a series of lists, the nature of the lists themselves is decidedly eclectic. Section I contains three indexes, each one different from the other, and none of them relating to material in the manuscript itself. The first two indexes employ red ink to distinguish numerals from dates, an idiosyncrasy not found anywhere else in the entire manuscript. While the presence of five indexes overall lends some thematic consistency to the manuscript content, it does not apply throughout, and cannot be said of Sections II and III, the Catalogue, and the Chronicle of Abbots. Their presence is unannounced by a title page and they may have been copied from elsewhere, like every other section. However, in this case the information is self-contained, and does not refer the reader to a separate source. Even though the Chronicle and the Catalogue of Abbots bear no textual relationship with the three indexes which precede them, nor with the Catalogue of Homage and Fealty, nor with the Percy genealogy, nevertheless all five sections are firmly linked by having been written in the same scribal hand, indeed the first four sections exclusively occupy the first three quire gatherings of the document as it is now bound. This suggests that all five sections were entered into the manuscript, or possibly formed a separate manuscript, at about the same period, which cannot have been before 1443, even though the dates of homages do not extend beyond 1406;22 this paradox is compounded by the Percy genealogy, which not only has no textual connection with its predecessors, but describes events which terminated as far back as 1245 (even though an updated version to 1409 is known, albeit from Cartulary 4 (fol. 256v)), yet this entry was made by the same hand, One, who compiled the previous four sections. The contribution of Hand One ends with his one-page Percy genealogy, which is located on the third folio of a new quire, 4, the previous

 22 There are three later insertions of homages, bearing the date 1501, but these are in a different hand.

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

two remaining blank; the rest of this quire is shared with Section VI, which was written by Hand Two, and is another index. A change then takes place at Section VII, where instead of an index there is an analytical description, written by Hand Three; this section is the largest individual component of the manuscript and extends across four quires, 5 to 8. Hand Three has also written the final Section, IX, on Quires 9 and 10, so it may be that Quires 5 to 10 always belonged together. The codicological profile shown in Table 12, assembles the individual elements of format and composition encountered in the President Book and provides a basis to assess the integrity of the manuscript. It must be stressed that the separation into quires is indicative only, and is derived from the restorer’s 1957 description of eighty-nine folios when today there are only eighty-one. Also, the location of watermarks is based on images detected by the unaided eye, and more may be present, awaiting specialist photography. The profile is orientated to the scribes. Hand One occupies four quires of paper, all with the same watermark, and which comprise the first five sections of the manuscript. The content of these sections yields several dates; the latest is 1443, which shows that this section could not have been completed before then, and this is corroborated by the indicative watermark date limit, of 1448; this particular watermark is also visible on another Fountains manuscript, the Bursars’ Books, which was written no earlier than 1459.23 Hand Two compiled Index 4 on the last part of the same quire used by One, suggesting the two hands were contemporary. Hand Three employed four quires to compile the largest single component of the manuscript, the analysis of Craven. The separate foliation of these quires indicates it once had an independent status. The bell watermark tentatively suggests an indicative date range between 1435 and 1468,24 and since Quire 5 bears the same watermark as the previous four used by Hands One and Two, Hand Three’s work can be presumed to be contemporary with One and Two. Hand Four used two quires for the account of Ripon burgages. Although the latest date in the text is 1393, the reappearance of Hand Three on Quire 9, following Hand Four, points to this work also being contemporary with the other hands, and the watermark evidence of the triple mound motif may suggest a date range between approximately 1432 and 1493. On balance, there may have been up to three separate booklets originally: these are delineated in Table 12 by the two sets of blank pages. The first set, pages 63 to 68, comes immediately after Section VI, and could indicate that the first six sections formed one booklet. This is supported by the watermark evidence, which shows the ox symbol only in this part of the manuscript, albeit including the blank pages. Section VII is bounded on both sides by

 23 Leeds, WYAS, WYL 150/5497: the images are visible on pp. 50, 62, 65, 74, 119, 132, 136, and 150.  24 The latest date in the text is (probably; barely legible) 1410 (President Book, p. 70).

15 5

156

a p p e n di x a Table 12. Codicological Profile of the President Book. The date ranges for watermark symbols are estimated by reference to the Briquet and Piccard online collections, for example: Ox, Briquet 2782, Piccard 86179; Bell, Briquet 3984, Piccard 40768; Triple Mound, Briquet 11662, Piccard 150014.

Hand (pages)

ONE  1–41

Quire (pages) 1(1–18)         2, 3(19–38)         4(39–62)    

Watermarks (pages) Ox: ‘1446–1448’       17 19 26 29 31 38       50 56

Section: Content (pages) I, 1–9: Indexes 1–3 II, 10–11: Catalogue III, 12–16: Chronicle     IV, 18–40: Homages         V, 41: Genealogy    

1263–1400 1443 1443     1312–1406         1245    

VI, 42–62: Index 4

 

Dates

TWO 42–62

 

BLANK 63–68

5(63–86)

68

blank pages 63–68

 

      6, 7, 8(87–130)           9(131–58)  

       

VII, 69–127: Craven   [also foliated, 1–34]  

1198–1410      

Bell: ‘1435–1468’ 93 113 117

       

       

134

blank pages 128–40

 

Triple Mound: ‘1432–1493’ 141 146 155    

VIIII, 141–55: Ripon

1341–1393

 

 

  IX, 156–62: Indexes

   

THREE 69–127

BLANK 128–40 FOUR 141–55

 

THREE 156–62

  10(159–62)

t h e p r e s i d e n t b o ok o f fo u ntai ns ab b e y

blank pages, which may be an indication that it once stood apart, and this is reinforced by the presence of a foliation for this section alone, which moreover was written by a single hand, Three. Beyond the second set of blank pages, Sections VIII and IX show some signs of independence, though less convincing than Section VII. Any definitive conclusion on its assembly is impeded by the knowledge that folios are wanting at the beginning and at the end of the manuscript, and also, according to the restorer,25 that an indeterminate number were cut from Quire 4. Several possibilities could be deduced from Table 12: the manuscript could have been one document from the outset, but equally, pages 1 to 68, could have been added to an earlier section, which in turn might have been entire, from pages 69 to (beyond) 162, or it could have been formed from two sections, from pages 69 to 140, and an earlier section, from 141 to (beyond) 162. As background to the structure of the President Book it is useful to consider briefly the development of book production. From the twelfth century, a change in the nature of books gradually took place in response to the growing influence of universities, where a book was required as a didactic tool more than a source of introspective contemplation. The need to interrogate the text gave rise to the evolution of a set of research tools which are still in use today, including tables of contents, alphabetical indexes (tabule) and footnotes.26 It is interesting to note how some of these tools were initially deployed: for example, indexes could be included with the text to which they refer, as in present-day usage, but equally they might be bound together with other indexes.27 Also, the use of Arabic numerals was adopted for indexation purposes well before they were used for arithmetical calculation: ‘virtually all reference tools of the thirteenth century used Arabic numerals’.28

 25  26  27  28

President Book, preface. Parkes, ‘The Influence on the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio’, p. 135. Parkes, ‘The Influence on the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio’, p. 131. Rouse and Rouse, Authentic Witnesses, p. 242.

15 7

Appendix B

Cartulary 2, WYAS 150/5384 Cartulary 2 is not the oldest surviving register of Fountains Abbey, but it is the oldest comprehensive version, containing details of the monastery’s interests in 154 locations, arranged in alphabetical order, from Acaster to Yarm-on-Tees, although the entries are summarized and lack witness lists. It is the only Fountains cartulary written on paper, as opposed to parchment, and it is also written in a functional, late fourteenth-/fifteenth-century hand, unlike the more formal styles used in Cartularies 1, 3, and RP. The manuscript today is approximately 300 mm by 220 mm in size, with watermarks occasionally visible, and has been ascribed by Davis to the late fourteenth century; he characterizes it as an ‘Inventory or abstract of charters, with some misc. additions passim’.1 There is no evidence now to support the presence of pressmarks reported by Davis, although the manuscript is no longer wholly legible, owing to dilapidation and the presence of varnish stains on up to 10 per cent of the 505 pages. The number of entries under each location is variable, and in total there are some 3480.2 A comparison with surviving sections of the earlier register, Cartulary 1, reveals that Cartulary 2 covers the same material as 1 with a few additions, but that the arrangement of material has been changed completely; in Cartulary 1, the arrangement is not by alphabetical order, but instead according to granges. Each page in Cartulary 2 carries a heading, with the name of the township and the ordinal number of the tabula, ‘table’, to which charters on that page belong (these might be the ‘press-marks’ mentioned by Davis). Each table seems to contain forty charters, and the entire cartulary is accommodated within ninety-one tables. These have been grouped together by the score, from first, prima, to twentieth, vicesima; the table following vicesima, reverts to prima, and on up to vicesima again, until table ninety-one, described as ‘eleventh’, undecima. From corrections made to the table numbers, it can be deduced that only after the cartulary had already been compiled as far as ‘S’, Studley, a set of entries was inserted into section ‘C’, requiring consequential adjustments.3 By itself Cartulary 2 does not constitute a direct replacement of the earlier cartulary, since it omits substantial information found there; it is extensive,  1 Davis and others, eds, Medieval Cartularies, p. 85, item # 421.  2 An alternative figure of 3382, was cited, posthumously, in Memorials 2, but may be a mistranscription of Walbran’s notes.  3 Crosthwaite entries now form the twenty-first table, but the previous twenty-first, Dacre, has been amended to twenty-second, and so on for every subsequent entry as far as Sallay, which is unamended as 76th (sextadecima). The vill of Crosthwaite was given to Fountains by Alicia de Rumilly, with her body for burial (Cartulary 4, fol. 256r), which dates the grant to around 1215.

1 60

a p p e n di x b

but not comprehensive, containing details from thousands of charters, but in an abbreviated format. This structure suggests it may have been designed as a finding aid for the archive, and this seems to be supported by the colophon to Cartulary 4, dated 1509, where its compiler, Stephen Grene, explains he is updating an old deeds register, antiquum registrum.4 The content and structure of Cartulary 4 bear a close relationship to Cartulary 2, and the implication is that Cartulary 2 had remained in use perhaps for more than a century, up to 1509. Its fate immediately after the Dissolution is not known for certain, but it seems likely to have remained with the new owners of the abbey site, and passed down, eventually to the Ingleby family. Walbran located it in the muniment room at Studley Hall in the nineteenth century. John Burton had correspondence with Sir John Ingilby in 1768, and had earlier cited from it in the Monasticon Eboracense, where he referred to it as the ‘Chart[ulary] de Font[ibus]’, as distinct from Cartulary 3, which he referred to as the ‘Register of Fountains Abbey’.5 Along with other Fountains records, including the President Book, Cartulary 2 came into the care and possession of Leeds City Libraries in the 1950s. In passing it is worth noting that Burton may have been obliged to make such use of Cartulary 2, despite its abbreviated form, simply because he did not have access to all available volumes of Cartulary 3, the ‘Register’, which contains full charter transcripts. Significantly he makes no references to the Register for letters of the alphabet after G (p. 167, Grenbergh), suggesting not only that 3D and 3E were missing, but also that he did not have access to 3C (letters K to M), or for some reason chose not to use it.

Scribal Hands Four principal hands were involved in compiling Cartulary 2; two of these have written the charter abstracts, and two others are responsible for most of the miscellaneous additions. Hand I compiled the alphabetical listings for the letter A on pages 1 to 41, and also brief entries on pages 104, 105, 113, 214, 224, 282, and 415. Two of these entries changed the state of the manuscript. Firstly, on pages 104 and 105, he inserted the new section for Crosthwaite which resulted in all subsequent tables being renumbered (see footnote [348], above). Secondly, in his entry on page 224, midway through the manuscript, he switched the narrative focus, from the monastery (‘they gave us’) to the

 4 Cartulary RP, fol. 254v: me rescribi fecit … Marmaducus Huby, ((Abbot) Marmaduke Huby had me rewritten).  5 See for example, Monasticon Eboracense, p. 159, a reference to Dacre, identified as ‘Regist. De Fontib, p. 17, no. 2’, which matches precisely its location in Cartulary 3; and p. 151, a reference to ‘Chart. De Font. See Bordley no 8’, which can only correspond to Cartulary 2, unless the reference is to a source which has not survived. On the inside flyleaf of Cartulary 3B an eighteenth-century hand has inscribed, confusingly, ‘Register or Coucher Book of Fountains Abbey’. Burton’s letter to Ingilby is preserved as Leeds, WYAS, WYL 230/3769.

c art u lary 2, w yas 15 0 / 5 3 84

benefactor (‘we gave the monks’). Hand II wrote most of the rest of the manuscript, from Baldersby to Yarm, pages 43 to 505, and he maintained the narrative switch on pages 225 to 505. Hand III made extensive, formulaic entries of two sets of data, throughout the manuscript, usually at the end of each township section. The first of these entries identifies cross-references for the township, ostensibly elsewhere in the manuscript, while the second series specifies one or more manor court references where the township is presumably cited. Hand IV also entered serial information relating to each township; in his case the relevant extract has been copied from Kirkby’s Inquest, detailing information on landholdings in 1284. Hands I and II are in a cursive secretary suggestive of the second half of the fourteenth century/early fifteenth centuries; Hands III and IV are contemporary with each other, and possibly with I and II, but they could also be some decades later. Given that a number of pages are severely stained, it is possible that other scribes might have contributed to the manuscript, although there is no specific evidence to support this. Occasional insertions in a later hand can be detected (pp. 117, 391 (dated 1452), 136 (1827), 150 (1465), 180, 200, 219–20 (payments to Roger de Mowbray), 229 (partial boundary description between Bordley and Kilnsey; resembles Hand Three of the President Book), 248, 265, 288 (probably antiquarian), 290, 298, 313, 372, 373, 374, 413, 416 (1502), 431, 442, 457, 477, 482, and 502). When the manuscript was examined prior to conservation in 1958, it was found to be in eight sections, of varying length.6 The first gathering is shorter than the rest, which may indicate loss of pages through dilapidation. Half-way through the manuscript, the alphabetical sections no longer correspond to an individual gathering and the alphabetical order of entries is occasionally disregarded, suggesting that the initial arrangement had been interrupted in some way. This takes place at around the same point where Hand II switched from first-person to third-person narrative.

Watermarks Several watermarks are noticeable throughout the manuscript, although the state of preservation does not allow each folio to be examined closely. At least seven forms of image can be identified, of which four appear regularly; they are variously in the form of a flower, twin globes or circles, an ox head, and crossed keys, respectively. The appearance of the twin globes at the beginning, middle, and end of the manuscript suggests it was compiled as an integral  6 Cartulary 2, preface, Binder’s notes: ‘Each section was threadstitched together onto four thick leather bands which served to hold the sheets together and to keep the back square. The book was covered with nine sheets of parchment (disused plea rolls and letters patent) stitched together and held by two horn or bone buttons. These covers had slits to fit over the bands and the sewing, made of hemp cord with a brass ferrule, held the bands and the covers in place’.

161

1 62

a p p e n di x b

document, and this is reinforced by the consistent appearance of the ox head image in Sections Three to Seven.

Dates It has been estimated that over 90 percent of the one million private charters or title deeds from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries which survive as originals or copies in Britain were issued without dates.7 Coincidentally, of the 3480 charter copies in the cartulary, to date it has been possible to identify 214 dates, based almost entirely on explicit references to the year of grace or regnal year. In the case of Cartulary 2, the entries are invariably summarized copies of the original deed, and even if a date was included on the original, it may not appear in the cartulary; this is compensated by the fact that it includes many copies of court pleas, dispute resolutions and regal charters, all of which have a higher propensity to display a date than private deeds. To this total can be added a further 130 dates which are not directly associated with a deed; and may have been added after the cartulary was completed. It would no doubt be possible to estimate many more dates by examining witness lists, word patterns, and other techniques. However, here the explicit dates will be used as a basis for estimating the completion date of the manuscript. An entry made by Hand II, under Wheldrake (p. 373), equates to 27 August 1395.8 This provides a terminus a quo, on the working assumption that the scribe would not ignore the most recent material available to him. Corroboration is provided by the second set of dates: those entered by Hands II and IV extend no further than 1400, which suggests firstly that the manuscript could not have been completed before the end of the century, and secondly, that all four Hands are contemporary.

Document Integrity The codicological profile indicates that Hands I and II worked together, since they compiled interconnecting sections of the manuscript. The compilation seems to have been a continuous process, perhaps becoming slightly more hurried towards the end: the first four sections were carefully planned to accommodate complete alphabetical sections (A–L) on the leaves assigned to them. Sections 5 to 8 do not achieve the same alphabetical precision, and also where Sections 4 and 5 come together, there is a change of watermarks on three successive folios (p. 246, ox head, p. 247, crossed keys, p. 249, twin

 7 Gervers, Dating Undated Medieval Charters, p. 33.  8 Stated as Friday next after St Bartholomew the Apostle, 19 Ric II. Later, pre-Dissolution dates are seen on pp. 117 and 391 (1452), 373 (1458), 150 (1465), and 416 (1502).

c art u lary 2, w yas 15 0 / 5 3 84 Table 13. Codicological Profile of Cartulary 2.

Scribe*: Pages

Section: Pages

Watermarks: Pages

Content: entries under Letter

Dates

I: 1–42

1: 1–42

Twin Globes: 8, 14, 29, 31, 40 Flower: 42

A

1359

II: 43–103 I: 104, 105 II: 106–505 (I: 113)

2: 43–134

Flower: 48, 67, 71, 88, 133

B–D

1176–1392

3: 135–94

Flower: 147, 150, 177, 183, 186, 191. Crossed Keys: 168, 172, 174, 176.

E–H

1174–1465

(I: 214, 224)

4: 195–246

Ox head 200, 230, 244, 246

I–L

1220–1392

(I: 282, 415)

5: 247–300

Crossed Keys: 247 Twin Globes: 249 Ox head: 256, 269, 286

Ma–Mi

1182–1394

 

6: 301–58

Ox head: 304, 306, 316, 357

Mi–Que

1201–1452

 

7: 359–438

Ox head: 394

Que–Sto

1252–1458

 

8: 439–505

Twin Globes: 457, 459, 463, 469, 477, 481, 483, 493, 495 497

Sto–Y

1227–?1452

*Hands II and IV are omitted on grounds of ubiquity: their insertions appear throughout the manuscript

globes); it is also the point where the narrative focus was changed.9 The profile also signals that the manuscript was consulted and annotated in the 1450s and 1460s, during the abbacy of John Greenwell. This provides an upper limit to the date range for its completion, with the lower limit suggested by the watermarks (‘1401–1412’), and supported by the latest earlier dates (1400), to give a working assumption for its completion of between 1400 and 1410. Its form whenever originally completed was substantially as survives today, other than dilapidation to the covers and adjacent pages; between current pages 194 and 195 an original leaf is also wanting, which contained entries for Huby and Hunslet, and twenty-one entries for minor holdings beginning with the letter H.10

 9 The brief use of red ink for title initials, started on p. 83 then abandoned on p. 95, may also be a sign of plans changed or cut short.  10 These details are available from Cartulary 4, which indicates that the missing leaf was still in place in 1509 when its content was copied into Cartulary 4.

163

Appendix C

Cartulary RP, Univ. Coll. MS 167 When Walbran saw this manuscript (Davis # 420) in the library of University College Oxford in the mid nineteenth century, he found it entitled ‘Cartae Regum Angliae et Privilegia Pontificum Abbatiae de Fontibus in agro Eborz. Concessa’, a fol. 1 ad 60 — to which is added — ‘Privilegia et immunitates ordinis Cisterciensis per Johannem Abbatem Cistercij collecta’ A fol. 61 ad fol. 149. Today this title is not in evidence, but the description is accurate. However, some clarification is required. Firstly, although the content appears to have two quite separate components, the entire manuscript is the work of a single scribe. It is written throughout in a consistent hand, and upon the same ruled writing frame of up to forty-six long lines, with a broad outer margin. But, although the scribe may be the same, there are significant differences in content, decoration, and dating between the two components. The first component, up to fol. 60r, contains three separate sections: fols 1 to 16 are dedicated to royal charters (carte regum), fols 17 to 46r to papal privileges (privilegia) granted to Fountains, and fols 46v to 59 to two indexes. The royal charters per se are twenty-one in number, spanning from Stephen in 1135 to Richard II in 1386, and are confirmations mainly of land grants but also of immunity from tolls or other levies. These are followed by five charters, referred to as Carte Regum de quibusdem statutis, issued by kings, but not specifically for Fountains; they include a reissue of Magna Carta by Henry III, and a memorandum, inserted on the orders of Edward I, of his correspondence with Scottish nobles in 1290. The entries are not in date order, and they were not originally numbered (a later hand, probably seventeenth century, has supplied numbers, and also dates, although these are not always accurate). The papal privileges total 125, also originally unnumbered, but these were later inserted, by the same seventeenth-century hand, along with, generally inaccurate, dates. Some privileges are specific to Fountains, others are addressed to the Cistercians generally or specific groups: their content is varied, but gives prominent coverage to exemption from tithes, along with admonitions to malefactors, and clarification on the discretionary authority of the abbot. Both the royal charters and the papal privileges appear to have been transcribed in full, except where the scribe occasionally avoids duplication with a previous entry by the insertion ut supra (as above). Navigational tools are provided in the form of two indexes, but they both apply only to the papal privileges. The First Index is particularly rigorous. It carries an explanatory rubric, making clear that it is not based simply on the first line of each

1 66

a p p e n di x c

transcript, but instead identifies points of principle.1 Consequently, it may reference several points from a single transcript, or the same point in several transcripts. Also, a single point in one transcript may be cross-referenced: so for example, the prerogative for the abbey to judge its staff and tenants, under canon law, is entered three times, once under the letter A, and twice under C.2 The construction of such an elaborate index suggests a university training.3 The most likely candidate is Abbot William Gower (1369–1384), who is described as a Bachelor of Divinity.4 He is recorded in the Chronicle of Abbots as having resigned the abbacy in 1384 due to failing eyesight, but lived as the quondam until 1390, providing him the time and opportunity to undertake the formidable task of preparing the index. Further support for Gower’s role is provided by the fact that the index only covers entries up to the year 1386 (93 of the 128 entries), and in turn this is corroborated by the dates of the royal charters in this section, which also do not go beyond 1386. It is followed by a smaller index, relating to the abbey’s property holdings, which bears an explanatory rubric, relating to immunity from tithes on property acquired prior to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1225.5 Instead of identifying points of principle, this index is an alphabetical list of locations, which from the rubric were all considered to have been acquired before 1225, and so exempt from tithes. Both indexes use numbers in red ink to identify the privileges they are referring to; this feature recalls the design of the Second Index in the President Book. The First Index only covers items in the papal section up to 1386, although entries there continued up to 1468. That the Second Index does not also cover the regal privileges is a little surprising, since it specifically catalogues lands acquired before the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and at least ten of the regal privileges also list precisely such lands. Equally curious is the realisation that the First Index is unfinished. Comprehensive though  1 ‘In ista tabula subsequenti notandum quod non componitur vocabuli secundum verba et dictiones sed secundum sentencias et fructuosum intellectum clausularum’ (Note that references in the following table are not based on words and sentences, but instead on the purpose and productive meaning of their conclusions); rubric, fol. 46v.  2 ‘Adulteros et fornicatores servientes vel tenentes nostros corrigere debemus in capitulis nostris; Capitulis nostris corrigere debemus adulteria et fornicaciones familiarium tenentium nostrorum; and Corrigere debemus tenentes et familiares nostros adulteros et fornicatores’ (fols 47r, 48v, 49v).  3 See Rouse and Rouse, ‘La Naissance Des Index’, and ‘Concordances Et Index’; also Sandler, ‘Index-making in the Fourteenth Century’.  4 HoRH, iii, pp. 291–92.  5 Sciendum quod generale concilium lateranij celebratum erat sub Innocencium iijo papam pontificis sui anno xvij hoc est mense Novembris anno domini mo cc xvo et sic de iure communi omnes terre prius nobis appropriate dummodo fuit per nos vel nostras expensas culte sunt omnino indecimabiles (Be it known that the General Lateran Council was convened by Pope Innocent III in his seventeenth year that is, in November 1215, and so, all lands endowed to us before then, provided they are cultivated by us or else at our expense, are completely exempt from tithes (literally, ‘untitheable’)); fol. 58v.

c art u l ary rp, u ni v. co ll. ms 167

its cross-references may be, they only cover up to Privilege 81 (fol. 35r) out of 125. In addition, although an explanatory note at the start of the index states that where an authenticated privilege is not kept at Fountains, this will be indicated by the initials ab, ac, ad, or af, this annotation system extends no further than the fourth page (fol. 48r), leaving a further twenty pages not so annotated.6 These annotations against the index identify nine privileges in this way, but the rubrics above each privilege transcript identify no fewer than twenty-six items. Also, the word quere, ‘inquire’, appears against two items (fol. 57r), as if validation was still required. This first component appears to have once belonged to a much larger manuscript, or possibly set of manuscripts: there are persistent cross-references which cannot be linked to material in the present cartulary. The second component occupies almost sixty per cent of the manuscript, and is a copy of a work by the Abbot of Cîteaux, Jean de Cirey, whose Privilegia Ordinis Cisterciensis appeared as a printed book, published in 1491, which has been transcribed verbatim into the manuscript cartulary.7 Just as the content is different between the two components, so too is the decoration. In the first component, the decoration used for the regal and papal privileges closely resembles Cartulary 3, not just that red ink is employed for initial capitals and for rubrics, but also in the design of most capitals. There is a hint of incompletion here, since the decoration falters before the end, so the final three folios do not display the heading Privilegia, and the red initials stop at fol. 44v. On all previous folios of this component (1–43), where the red page headings do appear, they are accompanied by references to numbered Tabule, also in red. These follow a sequence, in which all the royal charters are in Tabule XIIII and XV, then the papal privileges occupy XVI, XVII, and XVIII; the system peters out at the same point as the page headings, on fol. 42r. The two indexes do not resemble Cartulary 3 so much as the Second Index of the President Book, in that red ink is used for an explanatory heading, and also for numbers to identify individual privileges. In contrast, the second component is entirely monochrome, with elaborate pen-decorated initial capitals, which closely imitate the initial capitals in Cirey’s Privilegia, which are also in monochrome printer’s black. There has been no attempt to replicate the printing type; the transcription is in the same hand used for the first section of the manuscript. The first component is not organized in date order, but a range of dates can be extracted from textual entries, as follows: Folios

Section

Date range

1–16r 17r–46r

Royal charters Papal Privileges

1135–1386 1138–1468

 6 The annotations may be only guide letters, awaiting completion in red ink.  7 Privilegia Ordinis Cisterciensis, Cirey.

1 67

1 68

a p p e n di x c

A closer inspection of these dates suggests the influence of the Frank/Ripon election dispute in two ways. Firstly, the series of royal charters contains no entry later then 1386. Yet later royal charters to Fountains are known, including one by Henry VI in 1425, and another by Edward IV in 1461.8 Secondly, although the papal privileges specific to Fountains do span the period of the election dispute, they contain only one within the period itself. This is dated 1414 and is a general confirmation of previous privileges and exemptions. Significantly, it was issued by John XXIII (soon after, deposed by the Council of Constance, in 1415), who had upheld John Ripon in the election dispute, and had gone on shortly afterwards to award Fountains the mitre, which was later revoked by Martin V in 1420 — which is not recorded in the cartulary. The preceding comments refer only to the first section of the manuscript, up to folio 59. The second component, replicating Cirey’s Privilegia, is laid out in order of papal succession, and within that generally in date order, between 1100 and 1493; it contains several entries within the period 1413 to 1435, from popes and also from the Council of Basle.9 Comparing the papal privilege section of the first component with the content of Cirey’s Privilegia in the second, reveals no evidence of editorial assimilation between the two. There is occasional duplication of material, and at times different material from the same popes appears in one section but not the other. For example, the same privilege of Boniface VIII (1294–1303) appears in the first section (no. 112, fol. 42r) and in the Cirey transcription (no.50, fol. 77r), but while there are two privileges of Boniface IX (1389–1404) in the first section, neither appears in the transcription, even though the rubric to one of them states that the bull is not at Fountains but kept at Cîteaux under a lead seal.10 Coincidentally, this concern for an authenticated document with a lead seal recurs at several points in the first section, fols 17r–46r.11 While this may reflect rigorous archival discipline, alternatively it may be another echo of the Ripon/Frank election dispute, in this case recalling the irremediable failure of Roger Frank to secure a lead seal, on the point of victory.12 Furthermore, Guido Cariboni recently drew attention to the significance of one particular privilege, Attendentes quomodo, originally issued by Pope Alexander III in 1169.13 Amongst other issues, this privilege determines that deposed abbots have no

 8 CPR, 1422–1429, p. 299; and WYAS, WYL 150/935 (Edward IV).  9 Cartulary RP, fols 90v–95v contain: John XXIII, Privilege 67, 1414; 68, 69, 79, 1415; Martin V: 71, 1424, 72, 1417; Council of Basle: 73, 1433; 74, 1435; and 75, 1437.  10 Privilege 146, fol. 43r.  11 Fol. 32r: ‘In monasterio Mellifontis in Hibernia est sub bulla’ (in the monastery of Mellifont with a lead seal); fol. 42v: ‘Memorandum quod hec bulla non habetur sub plumbo in monasterio de Fontibus, set apud Cistercium’ (note that this bull is not held with a lead seal at Fountains, but at Cîteaux).  12 See Spence, ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Revisited’, p. 222.  13 Cariboni, ‘The Three Privileges “Attendentes Quomodo” of Alexander III’.

c art u l ary rp, u ni v. co ll. ms 167

169

right of appeal to Rome, a topic that again resonates with the election dispute. Ultimately three variants of this privilege were issued, but the existence of the third is known only through its appearance in this Fountains manuscript, Univ. Coll. 167.14 Just as with the preoccupation over lead seals, this privilege may have been included as an oblique reference to Roger Frank; perhaps it is no coincidence that it is followed by a bull seeking to end personal disputes in the Order. Table 14. Codicological Profile of Cartulary RP.

Folios

1–16r

17r–46r

46v–58v

58v–59v

61r–148v

Quire Marks

 

32v, 40v: catchwords

 

 

 

Decoration

red rubrics, red page headings; tabule numbered XIIII–XVIIJ (fols 1–41v); no original numbering of entries, but indexes use red Arabic numerals

monochrome; pen-decorated capitals; no original numbering of entries

Content

25 royal 128 papal privileges, plus privileges 5 royal statutes

Gower’s index for papal items 1–93

index re application of Lateran IV to Fountains landholdings

A: 1–126, papal privileges; B: 127–50, princely privileges

Dates in Text

1135–1386

to 1386

 

A: 1100–1493; B: 1170–1483

Hand

A single scribe wrote the entire manuscript sometime after 1491

1138–1468

Writing Frame up to 47 long lines throughout the manuscript

 14 Fol. 37r: a note states that the original is kept at Vaudey Abbey, a daughter house of Fountains.

Appendix D

Rentals, Add MS 40010 Although Walbran was familiar with this manuscript, which he calls the ‘Register of Rentals of Fountains’,1 he did not mention it as a potential source of information in the President Book, yet of the surviving manuscripts it is the only potential candidate for the specialized information it contains. Almost every page of Rentals consists of lists of names and columns of figures, whether of manorial rentals or court fines, due or paid, or of specific details of the size of individual landholdings. It was compiled around the middle of the fifteenth century, but its subsequent fate is unknown until it was sold at auction by the Ingilby family in the 1920s, when it was acquired by the British Museum (now British Library). Today the manuscript is contained within solid boards, probably wooden; these are concealed beneath modern covers, of a leathercloth outer skin and a marbled-green pastedown. There has been deterioration of the folios at the front and back with some loss of written material, suggesting a prolonged period without protection of covers; throughout the manuscript, several folios have been trimmed to fit the boards, resulting in occasional loss of textual content. The writing support is parchment, and not of best quality since it shows lunette stretch marks in several places. The pages are approximately 300 mm by 135 mm in size, but the writing space generally occupies 200 mm by 100 mm after allowing for a broad outside margin and bottom gutter, and narrow inside margin and top gutter; the use of a pricking instrument for the vertical margins is occasionally visible. The area of the writing space varies in the manuscript, but it can accommodate forty-seven lines. In numerous places erosion of the text has also occurred, suggesting frequent consultation, though how much of this has occurred since the Dissolution is not certain.

Navigation Aids However, the evidence of frequent pre-Dissolution consultation can be seen in the form of several medieval notations; these are quite distinct from the modern pagination (top centre of each page, not always discernible) and foliation (top right-hand corner of rectos), both in pencil, characteristic of the British Library. Firstly, a medieval foliation in Arabic numerals commences, as folio 1 on modern folio 7, and continues as far as folio 221 (modern 224), although it is not always visible on intermediate folios, perhaps due to later page trimming since it is located in the top right corner of the recto leaf. Later,  1 Memorials 1, p. 346.

172

a p p e n di x d

on modern folios 129–34 (medieval fols 124–29), a short second medieval foliation, 1–6, can be detected, although the order of the last three folios is now reversed; further on in the manuscript a third, short, medieval foliation is also visible (modern fols 189–95, medieval 186–92), also numbered 1–7. Secondly, four different sets of quire notations can be observed. None of these covers the entire manuscript, indeed none of them forms a complete series; the two most comprehensive are found together, one in roman, the other in Arabic numerals, and cover seven gatherings of approximately twelve folios each (one quire has 11 folios, another 15). The numbering of the two series is not aligned: roman ij is found on the same folio as Arabic 3, and so on to vij/8. The other two quire notations are less complete, and occur in different parts of the manuscript: one, in roman numerals (?ij) and iij, on fols 121 and 129 (medieval 116 and 124); the other, in roman numerals (?) to 9, on fols 141, 155, 167, 179, 191 and 201 (medieval 136, 150, 162, 174, 194, and 198). Thirdly, a substantial part of the manuscript is divided into eight sections, marked by the letters F, G, H, I, K, L, M, or N alongside the foliation numbers; the system begins at fol. 64 (58) and continues to the end. There are three principal sections to Rentals, of unequal sizes. The first section is a set of alphabetical indexes and consists of seven folios; the second is devoted to extracts from manor court rolls and occupies forty-nine folios, or approximately one-fifth of the manuscript; the third section takes up the remaining 220 folios, which are dedicated principally to the manorial rental extracts from which the manuscript takes its name. Within this third section (fols 185v–187v) there is an inserted schedule, entitled Oneracio Curie, but written in English, detailing the matters a manor court should inquire into to safeguard the interests of the lord of the manor. Occasional blank pages have been left at irregular intervals, throughout the manuscript, in all just over a dozen. Three indexes of place-names constitute the first section. Index 1 is the biggest and occupies the first six folios; however, it is incomplete because the original first folio is wanting, and the alphabetical series now starts half-way through the letter C. Some place-name entries have no locational references beside them, while others have fifteen or more; where references are given, in each case these correspond to the medieval foliation and accurately identify a relevant location in the manuscript. Index 2 occupies folio 6v, is alphabetically almost complete (lacking only the letters F and O), yet it contains fewer entries than the first, 127 versus 251,2 and has many fewer locational references, 70, against 707 in Index 1. Index 3 straddles Index 2 in the manuscript; its entries from A to S are on folio 6r, and residual S to U/W on folio 7r. Its alphabetical list lacks entries for E, F, O, and Y, although the number of alphabetical entries

 2 The numbers quoted in this section are based on detectable, not necessarily legible, items in the manuscript, which is dilapidated in the indexes section. The margin of error in calculations could be of the order of at least of 10 per cent.

r e ntals, ad d ms 40 0 10

is greater than Index 2 but smaller than Index 1, at 289. Dilapidation of the manuscript makes direct comparison of entries in all three indexes difficult, but based on the visible content, the coverage of Index 3 does not extend beyond (medieval) folio 74, and of Index 2 not beyond (medieval) folio 82, while Index 1 covers up to (medieval) folio 218, which corresponds to the end of Section M. Shortly after this point the medieval foliation ceases, at (medieval) folio 221, but the manuscript continues for another forty-six folios (modern fols 224 to 270). Thus the present manuscript is not covered completely by any of the indexes, not even by combining the three. It appears that Index 3 may have been the first to be compiled, but was abandoned when Index 2 was started. Since neither of these indexes covers the manuscript beyond folio 82, it may be that the manuscript did not extend further at that time; when Index 3 was drawn up it extended almost as far as the limit of the medieval foliation, which conceivably was inserted at that time by the compiler.

Manor Court Extracts Following immediately on from the indexes, the second section of Rentals consists of a selection of assertions concerning tenurial conditions, which appear to have been taken from manorial court records. Paul Harvey has described how the complexities and variations of manorial court structures extended to every tenant of a landlord, free or unfree, and dealt with issues of mutual interest to every resident, but all within a self-administered regime, ‘based on the customs of the particular manor’.3 In the second section of Rentals the information has come from at least twenty-five different locations;4 this is well short of the seventy-seven listed in the President Book First Index (see Table 3), and no details of actual court sessions are disclosed, and the nature of the court, the date, the venue, the composition of the jury and the names of the president and other officials do not appear. Information is arranged by township, and this is assisted by the insertion of subheadings and glosses in the outer margins of all folios. The subject matter contains few issues of public order (other than breaking into the common fold to ‘rescue’ livestock), and is representative of business generally dealt with by a court baron and a byrlaw court. Entries are sometimes incomplete, and the section lacks an overall uniformity, yet some themes persist, particularly those which result in a fine being exacted by the lord of the manor, such as unauthorized cutting down of wood, blocking of water-courses, improvised cart routes across

 3 Harvey, Manorial Records.  4 Ainderby, Aldeburgh, Baldersby, Bradley, Castelay, Cowton, Crosthwaite, Dishforth, Eveston, Growelthorp, Ilton, Kilnsey, Laverton, Litton, Malham, Marston, Marton, Melmerby, Rainton, Rigton, Stainburn, Swetton, Swinton, Thornton on the Moor, Wheldrake (Rentals, fols 7r–55r).

17 3

1 74

a p p e n di x d

productive farmland, and determination of the unfree status of a tenant as a prelude to the levying of merchet to permit a daughter to marry. Free tenants also appear, usually to swear homage and fealty to the lord. Occasional land transfers are also noted: appropriately enough, the fishery on the river Ure near Aldeburgh is rented out to John Fysch, of Masham (modern fol. 12v). Interspersed among these court baron proceedings are the workings of the byrlaw court, which usually are signalled in the text by introductory phrases of communal authority: ‘It has been ordered by the agreement of the tenants’ (Ordinatum est ex assensu tenementum; fol. 24r); ‘It has been verified by the community’ (Compertum est per communitatem; fol. 20v). References to the official in charge, the byrlawgrave, appear occasionally. No conflict is implied by the existence of two courts; in essence, the court baron concentrated on the regulation of tenurial relations between lords of the manor and free and unfree tenants, while a byrlaw court exercised authority delegated by the court baron in relation to estate management, which could and did extend to controlling the activities of contiguous townships where intercommoning was practised. Neither system extended to self-determination, but instead promoted supervised self-regulation, whereby the entire village community was encouraged to participate in the drawing-up, determination, and enforcement of the bylaws, but they were invariably subject to prior approval by the chief lord of the manor. The need for the manorial communities of Fountains to do this was highlighted by Angus Winchester: On the Yorkshire estates of Fountains Abbey the final clause of the charge to the jury of the court baron was that they should present by their oaths ‘all maner of panes birelawze constitions [sic] or usys that ye have condissende apon emonges you for gude rewill and profette of yourselfe’.5 Winchester is quoting here from the Oneracio Curie section of Rentals (fols 185v–187v). The Oneracio subject-matter relates closely to the second section of Rentals, but it is not located there or nearby, instead appearing some forty folios further on as an intruded passage among the main, third section, which deals with manorial rentals. Written in a later, fifteenth-century hand than those of the rest of the manuscript, the Oneracio stands apart as the only passage in English in the entire manuscript. Within the manor court extracts there are few explicit dates; those that have been identified all come from the fourteenth century. However, there is an extensive system of two-symbol references, which attach to every entry: these take the form of the letters E or R, accompanied by a number, ‘E44’, or ‘R7’, and evidently, they identify to the compiler the source of the entry he made.

 5 Winchester, The Harvest of the Hills, p. 44. For a description of similar conditions at fourteenth-century Durham Priory, see Ault, ‘Village by-Laws by Common Consent’.

r e ntals, ad d ms 40 0 10

Rental Summaries The title of Rentals is clearly taken from the third section of the manuscript, which is by far the largest, and is dedicated to extracts from manorial rentals of the abbey’s free and unfree tenants. Typically, manorial rentals include ‘the names of tenants, the nature of their tenure, and the amount of rent each pays; occasionally they include a brief description of what tenants hold, there may be a formal mention of services due from each occupant, and sometimes these are particularized’.6 While parts of Dennis Stuart’s description match every item in the third section, the whole description probably does not match any one in particular, emphasizing the selectiveness of the compiler. Entries may vary from a single line to an extensive list covering several pages; occasionally a date is included with an entry, or a township may be named in the first line, but there is no consistency to either of these and the general arrangement suggests no planning of layout was involved. To call the manuscript ‘Rentals’ is slightly misleading, since there is not a single example of a complete rental account; invariably, entries are abbreviated or in some way a partial record, and ‘Rentals Extracts’ would be a more accurate title. The presence of marginal glosses supplying item numbers and township names, together with serial labelling of folios with the letters F to N, may represent subsequent efforts to introduce finding aids, and some of these were introduced at the same time as the indexes. Some 700 separate entries have been identified, made by township and by year, in a format which generally permits comparison to be made between several years for the same township. For one year, 1361, identical data has been entered twice for categories M1 to M12, by two different scribes (fols 182–85 and 189–95).

Dates In contrast with the section on manor court summaries, dates appear at irregular intervals throughout the section rental extracts. The method of dating employed is not always consistent, and varies between regnal years and years of grace, occasionally confusing the two; in several cases no date is disclosed at all for a section, while in others it is linked to preceding text by the convenient anno quo supra, ‘in the year as above’. Wherever dates are given, they are always in the fourteenth century, the sole exception being a reference to 1435 for a small set of six entries, but this provides the earliest date by which this part of the manuscript could have been completed. The principal Hands, C, D, and E all correspond to the fifteenth century; the two hands used for the indexes, A and B, must be either contemporary or later than

 6 Stuart, Manorial Records, p. 43.

17 5

176

a p p e n di x d

the others, and both show a resemblance to the style of Swynton’s Notebook, suggesting they were not entered into Rentals before the mid fifteenth century. Overall, the third section comprises 220 entries which have been equipped with an additional finding aid. The entries are grouped into eight sub-sections, identified by the letters F, G, H, I, K, L, M, and N, which appear on almost every recto throughout each subsection alongside the foliation, and from their position it is clear that the letters were added after the medieval foliation. Originally each letter was intended to represent one year, since on each opening page there is an entry hic incipit anno, ‘here begins [the section for] the year’. If so, the system did not last,7 and as seen below, each letter now covers a range of years, which sometimes overlap between sub-sections: Table 15. Date Range of Sections within Rentals.

F: 1305–1330; mainly 1305 and 1316. G: 1304–1328; mainly 1314 and 1317. H: 1336–1346; mainly 1336 and 1346. I: 1319–1347; mainly 1329, 1340, 1347. K: 1356–1361; mainly 1357. L: 1358–1435; 52 items, 1358; 6, 1435. M: 1361–1398; mainly 1361. N: 1310–1381; varied.

Although nominally the coverage extends from 1304 to 1435, overwhelmingly the emphasis is from 1304 to 1398, since only one small section contains dates after then, six entries for 1435 which sit incongruously in subsection L where all the other entries are for a single year, 1358.8 Although most rental extracts appear within the sections lettered F to M, a small number lie outside: several folios (55v–63v) preceding section F contain rental summaries for Wheldrake, Ilton, Aldfield, Stainburn, and Ripley, mainly for the year 1397.

 7 A similar situation occurs in Swynton’s Memorandum Book, where the pages were premarked alphabetically, but eventually overwhelmed, so that ‘kyrkbywysk’ and ‘Dacre’ appear under the letter ‘H’ (pp. 55 and 59).  8 See fols 179v and 180r–81v.

17 7

r e ntals, ad d ms 40 0 10

Document Integrity Table 16. Codicological Profile of Rentals. Italic numbers indicate medieval foliation.

Hand

Foliations Quire Notations Modern Medieval Roman Arabic folio

A, B

1–7

[…] – 1

C

7–89

1–83

ij

 

 

iij

D E

C

 

 

“Pressmarks” (folio)  Content 

 

none

3

16[10]

none

4

28[22]

 

 

iiii

5

40[34]

 

 

v

6

51[45]

 

 

vj

?7

65[59]

 

 

vij

8

77[71]

G (76)[70]–(88)[82]

84–111

i

 

102[96]

H (89)[83]–(101)[95]

117–40

112–35

ij

 

117[12] none (102)[96]–(116)[111]

“1” (129)

124

iij

 

129[24]

“3” (131)

126

 

 

 

“6” (132)

127

 

 

 

“5” (133)

128

 

 

 

“4” (134)

129

 

 

 

141–82

136–77

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

Indexes

 

Manor Court Extracts

 

      1304–1328

F (64)[58]–(75)[69]

90–116

Dates 

1336–1346

I (117)[12]–(140)[135]

1319–1347

 

1356–1435

141[36] K (141)[36]–(166)[161]

 

 

 

4

155[50]

 

 

 

6

167[62] L (167)[62]–(182)[177]

 

Rental Records

 

 

 

7

179[74]

 

F

182–85

177–80

 

 

 

M (182)[77]–(185)[180]

1361–1398

G, H

 

 

 

none (185)[80]–(188)[184]

 

M (189)[86]–(221)[218]

1361–1398

N (222)[19]–(270)[none]

1310–1381

C

v

185 –187

180 –183

189–224

186–221

 

 

 

“1” (189)

186

 

 

 

v

v

v

“2” (190)

187

 

 

 

“4” (192)

189

 

 

 

“5” (193)

190

 

 

 

“6” (194)

191

 

 

 

“7” (195)

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

9?

203[00]

225–70

none

 

 

 

1 78

a p p e n di x d

Scribal Hands Up to seven hands can be identified in the manuscript, although in practice most of the manuscript can be attributed to just one, namely C, with smaller contributions from D and E, while A and B contributed the indexes, and F and G have intruded small amounts of material.9 Hand A also inserted the medieval foliation, to construct a basis for his index. None of the three principal hands has been identified in other surviving Fountains manuscripts; however, Hand A, possibly, bears some resemblance to that of Thomas Swinton, who was abbot between 1471 and 1478, and earlier had held several other offices, in the course of which he was the author of Swynton’s Memorandum Book (1446–1458). In its description of Rentals, the British Library names one scribe as ‘John Vsborn[e], (ff. 225, 237)’.10 His signature, which appears on those two folios, certainly resembles Hand C, although the letters of the signature do not provide a large enough sample to be conclusive. Also, Vsborn[e]’s signature is written in red ink, which is used only intermittently in the manuscript: it makes its appearance at folio 64 and continues up to folio 89, then from folio 224 to the end, but it is seldom a predominant feature, restricted to occasional pressmarks or serial numbers. Two John Usburns are known: in 1396 John Usburn, monk of Fountains, was granted a papal indult to study theology at university for seven years (CPL, v, fol. 183); while in 1464 another John Usburne, monk of Fountains, appears in the ordination lists (Abp Reg 5A, fol. 480v).

Profile Synopsis Four foliations, two principal (one modern, one medieval) and two subsidiary series (both medieval) can be identified. The principal medieval series runs from 1 to 221, although fols 102, 183, and 184 are wanting. The modern foliation runs from 1 to 270, and the medieval foliation sits alongside the modern, from fols 7 to 224; the modern foliation is continuous where the three medieval folios are wanting. The additional forty-six modern folios cover the indexes at the beginning, and all Section N, at the end. The third foliation is a small grouping of Arabic numerals in the order 1, 3, 6, 5, and 4, which appear on medieval folios 124, 126, 127, 128, and 129, which were all written by Hand E, covering rental summaries between 1319  9 Hand A has written fols 1–5v; Hand B, fol. 6 and the top half of fol. 7r; Hand C, the rest of fol. 7r and up to 88r, then fol. 136r- to the top of fol. 182r, fols 189r–264v, and fols 265r–269v; Hand D, fols 90r–116v; Hand E, fols 117r–134v; F, fols 182r–185r; G, fols 185v to 187r. Additionally, the signature of John Vsborn[e] appears on fols 235r and 237r.  10 From the online British Library catalogue: [15 April 2019].

r e ntals, ad d ms 40 0 10

and 1347. Unusually, these have been inserted at the bottom centre of rectos instead of the more normal top right corner, which suggests that space was already occupied The fourth foliation has been inserted in Arabic numerals, from 1 to 7, on medieval folios 186 to 192. These have been inserted at the bottom right corner of rectos. This foliation covers the beginning of Section M, and follows a blank folio, 185, at the point where medieval fols 183 and 184 are wanting. The text covers rental summaries for multiple locations, with no apparent common element.11 There are also four quire notations, all medieval. Two occur together, on the same folios. The first is in roman numerals from ij to vij, the second in Arabic from 3 to 8, on medieval folios 10, 22, 34, 45, 59, and 71. This suggests that the two quire notations were inserted at different times, the earlier being the Arabic series. The indicated quire gatherings are therefore twelve, twelve, eleven, fourteen, and twelve. There is no firm evidence of the initial notations, viz. i in the roman series, and 1 and 2 in the Arabic series. Since the standard quire gathering is twelve folios, this suggests that formerly there were perhaps an additional twenty-four or more folios preceding this section, which forms the start of the present manuscript, immediately after the index folios, which carry no medieval foliation. The section was written by one hand, C, and covers all the manor court extracts and also the rental summaries with pressmarks F and G, containing explicit date references in the range 1304 to 1328. The third notation consists of roman numerals i, ii, and iii on medieval folios 96, 112, and 124. This indicates quire gatherings of sixteen and twelve folios, containing part of the rental summary section written by Hand D on which the pressmark ‘H’ would be expected to appear but is absent, together with the entire section written by Hand E, under pressmark ‘I’; indicated date range of rental summaries is 1319–1347. The fourth quire notation is only detectable with reasonable certainty on the bottom left corner of three folios, (medieval) 150, 162, and 174, which display Arabic numerals 4, 6, and 7, although there is an indistinguishable symbol in the appropriate position on fol. 136, as well as a possible ‘9’ on fol. 200. These brief details also suggest quire gatherings of twelve and twelve, in line with the first two notations. The arrangement of the quire notations indicate that Hands D and E worked on rental summary sections ‘H’ and ‘I’, while Hand C prepared the rest of the manuscript sections, with brief insertions onto his folios by Hand F of a rental section ‘M’, and Hands G and H of the Oneracio Curie.

 11 Winskley, Hertwith, Dacre, Bewerley, Trohope, Sixford, Dalagh, Warsill, Threshfield, Burnsall, Arncliffe, Ulcotes, Kettlewell, Coniston, Linton, Thorp, Hebden, Darnbrook House, West Side House, Arncliffecote, Malham, Malham Grange, Long Preston, Calton, Holmknotts, Wigglesworth, Austwick, Arnford, Horton, Fountainscales, Colgilhouse, Wheldrake, Wheldrake Grange, Dishforth, Marton on the Moor, Rainton, and [the start of] Baldersby.

17 9

1 80

a p p e n di x d

Additional notations may become visible with the aid of light sources, but it seems inevitable that many will have been lost due to page trimming, or dilapidation of folio corners. Even so, taken together, the incomplete quire notations indicate up to at least an additional four quires, or nearly fifty additional folios, could once have formed part of the manuscript. In contrast, the medieval foliation terminates at 221, modern 224, and three folios into Section N, which might suggest that the manuscript ended there at one time. Alternatively, it may simply be that the foliator’s work was interrupted at that point, bearing in mind that all three indexes remain unfinished, and that the Third Index was probably compiled by the foliator, but the reason for such an interruption is unclear. The section on court records and the first thirty-three folios of the rentals section were written by the same scribe, C, suggesting that the two pieces of work are connected in some way other than merely sharing a manuscript. The rentals summary section has a dedicated additional notation sequence in the form of the ‘pressmarks’ F to N. This notation ignores the earlier section on court roll extracts, even though the evidence above showed the two sections were probably never separate, being written by the same hand, C. From their location, the pressmarks must have been added after the medieval foliation was already present, but why they begin with ‘F’ and not ‘A’ is another obscurity, implying discontinuity either in this manuscript or possibly its exemplar. On balance, although loss of the covers and deterioration of the front and back surviving folios make it impossible to calculate the original size of Rentals, the combined evidence of form and structure in the holistic profile indicate it may have contained some fifty additional folios, with the court record extract section being at least a third larger than its present size.

Summary In content, Rentals combines selected parts of rental records, alongside nonrental material from manor court records: the information in this manuscript is unique, since the original sources no longer exist. It is retrospective, drawing for the most part from business records that were several decades old at the time they were consulted. There is a consistency of approach throughout, whereby firstly, only a few records have been selected and secondly no record has been reproduced in its entirety, but has been subject to selective abstraction, using criteria which are not immediately evident. Its format is of a working document, not one for presentation or public display, although three attempts to introduce indexes suggest that it was intended for use by third parties unfamiliar with its layout. None of the current indexes provides a complete finding aid for the present manuscript, in fact they overlap, and they all give the impression of incomplete work undertaken probably in the mid fifteenth century on a manuscript by then up to twenty-five years old, containing material substantially from the previous century.

Appendix E

Fountains Abbey Manuscripts Table 17. Deeds Registers of Fountains Abbey

Cartulary Content 1

2

3

RP

Shelfmark

1A: Grange of Aldburgh

BL

1B: 2 granges and Craven

Bodl.

Univ Coll 170

1C: 10 granges

Bodl.

Rawl B.449

Landholdings A–Y

WYAS

WYAS 150/5384

3A: Landholdings A–C

BL

Cott Tib C.XII

3B: Landholdings D–I

BL

Add 40009

3C: Landholdings K–M

BL

Add 37770**

3D: Landholdings N–Q

unlocated

3E: Landholdings Q–Y 4

Archive*

***

Landholdings A–Y Regal/papal confirmations and privileges.

Date

Egerton MS 3053A-B

 

late 13th century late 14th century

late 14th/ early 15th century

JRL

Latin 224

BL

Add 18276

1509

Univ Coll. 167

late 15th century

Bodl.

* BL: London, British Library; Bodl.: Oxford, Bodleian Library; WYAS: Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Services; JRL: Manchester, John Rylands Library. ** Leaves from this manuscript evidently became detached, and most now form WYAS WYL 150/5385: they contain entries for ‘Fontes’ (Swanley Grange), Hopperton, Horton, Ingerthorpe, and Ilkley; the section on Galphay is lost. *** Only one entry under Q — Qwynholme (modern Whinholme) — appears, as the first item in the volume. All other Q entries would be in the missing volume 3D.

1 82

a p p e n di x e Table 18. Surviving Miscellaneous Records of Fountains Abbey

Manuscript

Content

Archive* Shelfmark

President Book

Miscellany

Rentals

14th C court verdicts; rental summaries, mainly 14th C.

BL

Add 40010

15th century

Swynton’s Memo- Financial notes from randum Book 1446–1458.

BL

Add 40011A

15th century

WYAS

Date

WYL 150/5383 15th century

Bursars’ Books

Financial notes from 1456–1459.

WYAS

Stock Book

Livestock accounts, 1480–1490.

YAS

MD 335/4/2

15th century

Steward’s Book

Financial notes from 1525–1539.

YAS

MD 335/4/4

16th century

Lease Book

Leases, mainly from 1495–1539.1

YAS

MS 284

15th/16th centuries

WYL 150/5497 15th century

*BL: London, British Library; WYAS: Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Services; YAS: Leeds, Brotherton Library, Yorkshire Archaeological and Historical Society Collection.

 1 A modern critical edition exists: The Fountains Abbey Lease Book, ed. by Michelmore.

Appendix F

The Charter of William of Goldsborough Among the extant original charters, several can be traced through one or more cartularies by reference to the textual entry and in a few cases from the dorsal annotations on the charter itself. The following example is based on the quitclaim of William, son of William the king’s serjeant, of Goldsborough (North Yorkshire). William’s original charter survives today as Leeds, Brotherton Library, YAS MD 335/4/1/11. The text transcribes as follows: Omnibus christi fidelibus presentibus et futuris Willelmus filius Willelmi servientis de Godelesburg Salutem Sciatis me concessisse quiet | umclamasse de me et heredibus meis & presenti carta mea confirmasse Deo et monachis Ecclesie Sancte Marie de Fontibus in | puram et perpetuam elemosinam totam terram & quicquid Willelmus pater meus dedit eis in territorio de Rippelay scilicet in | Godwynescales per plenarias diuisas suas cum omnibus pertinencijs libertatibus & aisiamentis ville de Rippelay ad eandem terram | pertinentibus sicut carta patris mei quam inde habent testatur. Et ego & heredes mei omnia prenominata prefatis monachis | Warentizabimus acquietabimus & defendemus contra omnes gentes in perpetuum Quod si forte dictam terram de Godwynescales eis | ibidem Waretizabimus non potuerimus faciemus eis valenciam tante terre cum pertinencijs suis de terra nostra de Godelesburg | Hanc autem concessionem quietam clamacionem & presentis carte confirmacionem feci eis monachis spontanea voluntate mea in Curia | de Cnaresburg quando pater meus de prenominata terra eis ibidem plenariam tradidit saisinam Et ad maiorem huius rei securitatem | huic carte mee sigillum nomine meo impressum apposui. | Hiis testibus domino Ada de Stauel Canonico de Suwelle | tunc Senescallo de Cnaresburg Roberto de Plumpton Ricardo de Godelesburg Magistro Waltero de Stauel Jordano recep | tore Ricardo de Brerton Roberto de Neuton Baldewino filio Henrici de Screvin Thome filio de Rogeri de Rippelay & multis aliis. A summary English translation is printed in Abstracts of Fountains, p. 609.

1 84

a p p e n di x f

Figure 12. Charter of William son of William the King’s Servant, of Goldsborough. Leeds, Brotherton Library, YAS MD 335/4/1/11. Reproduced with the permission of Special Collections, Leeds University Library.

Figure 13. Dorsal Annotations on MD 335/4/1/11. Medieval annotations include: (top centre) ‘Rippelay; […]… (in red ink); D iiij’; and (bottom right) ‘Rippelay 14, 14’. Reproduced with the permission of Special Collections, Leeds University Library.

t h e c h art e r o f w i l l i am o f go ld sb o ro u gh

Figure 14. Cartulary 1C, fol. 99r. The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford, MS Rawl. B. 449.

In Cartulary 1C the charter text is transmitted in full, albeit with abbreviations, and without witnesses, as seen in fig. 14. In the left-hand margin the charter is identified as ‘XXVI’, in red ink, and ‘DIIII’ in black. These correspond to the faded annotations on the top centre of the dorse of the original charter.

185

1 86

a p p e n di x f

Figure 15. Cartulary 2, p. 400. WYAS Leeds, WYL 150/5384.

In Cartulary 2 the charter text appears in summarised and abbreviated form, as shown in fig. 15.

Figure 16. Detail of Entry on p. 400 of Cartulary 2. WYAS Leeds, WYL 150/5384.

t h e c h art e r o f w i l l i am o f go ld sb o ro u gh

The text is partly impaired, but reads: Omnibus &c Willelmus filius Willelmi seruientis de Godelesburgh salutem. Sciatis me concessisse & quietumclamasse de me et heredibus meis deo & monachis de ffontibus in puram et perpetuam elemosinam totam terram & quicquid Willelmus pater meus dedit eis in territorio de Ripplay silicet in Godwynescales per plenarias duisas cum omnibus pertinencijs suis sicut carta patris mei quam inde habunt testatur. Et ego &c. The scribe’s captures with 62 words the essence of the 216 words of the original charter. In the left-hand margin of Cartulary 2 the entry is identified as ‘14’, which corresponds to the annotation at the bottom right-hand corner of the charter dorse. In Cartulary 3E, the charter is again copied out in full, as shown in fig. 17 on the following pages. In contrast to the pattern observed with the first two cartularies, in Cartulary 3E the entry bears the number 18, which is absent from the dorse of the charter.1 While it is possible that number 18 was annotated but later eroded or erased from the dorse, there is no evidence to support this. On the other hand, the other annotations can be linked and shed light on the composition procedure for cartularies 1 and 2. In both cases, the hand of the numbering of the entry in the cartulary very closely resembles the hand which endorsed the charter, and this is reinforced for Cartulary 1 by the use of red ink for the number (‘36’ in the cartulary and ‘36th’ on the charter) and black for the serial letter and number (DIIII). This suggests that the scribe had the charters in front of him when he compiled, or perhaps revised, the cartulary, and as he completed each entry he annotated its identity numbers on the dorse of the charter. When Cartulary 2 was being compiled, the same process was followed, with the additional step that since Cartulary 2 employed a different annotation system, it was necessary to erase or deface the previous system on the dorse of the charter before entering the new number. In turn, because the ‘14’ has not been defaced, the compiler of Cartulary 3 seems to have adopted a different approach. From this it can be deduced that Cartularies 1 and 2 were prepared in the muniments room at the abbey, since both cartularies were prepared by reference to the original charters. Cartulary 3E may also have been compiled in this way, but there is no evidence to confirm this.

 1 The scribe has also styled one of the witnesses Richard de Burton, although the original charter clearly states Richard of ‘Brerton’ (Brearton), a settlement not far from Goldsborough.

187

1 88

a p p e n di x f

t h e c h art e r o f w i l l i am o f go ld sb o ro u gh

Figure 17. Cartulary 3E, fols 91v–92r. Copyright of the University of Manchester.

189

Bibliography Manuscripts and Archival Sources, and other unedited material Cambridge, Trinity College Library MS 0.1.79, the Narratio Leeds, West Yorkshire Archive Services WYL 150/935, confirmation Charter of Edward IV WYL 150/5383, the President Book WYL 150/5384, Cartulary 2 WYL 150/5385, detached leaves from Cartulary 3C WYL 150/5497, Bursars’ Books WYL 230/3769, letter from John Burton to Sir John Ingilby, 1768 Leeds, Brotherton Library YAS MD335/4/4, Steward’s Book London, British Library Cott. Tib. C.Xll, Cartulary 3A Add MS 18276, Cartulary 4 Add MS 33244, Furness Cartulary, vol. i Add MS 37770, Cartulary 3C Add MS 40009, Cartulary 3B Add MS 40010, Rentals Add MS 40011A, Swynton’s Memorandum Book Egerton MS 3053A-B, Cartulary 1A London, The National Archives SC 8/18/885, petition to the king by Abbot Ripon SC 8/111/5525, petition to the king by Abbot Ripon DL 42/3, Furness Cartulary, vol. ii Manchester, John Rylands Library Latin MS 224, Cartulary 3E Northallerton, North Yorkshire County Record Office ZEP, Malham Tarn Deeds Northamptonshire Record Office Th/107, precedent book

1 92

bi bl io gr a p h y

Oxford, Bodleian Library Rawl. B.449, Cartulary 1C Univ. Coll. 167, Cartulary RP Univ. Coll. 170, Cartulary 1B Troyes, Les Archives de l’Aube 3 H 42 Catalogue Des Abbés Et Des Prieurs De Clairvaux De 1114 À 1678, Dit Livre Des Sépultures York, York Minster Library Add MS 266, Walbran transcription of President Book, 1845 DC, L1/1c, Precedent Book

Printed Primary Sources Abstract of the Charters and Other Documents Contained in the Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Fountains, ed. by William T. Lancaster, 2 vols (Leeds: Whitehead, 1915) The Bolton Priory Compotus, 1286–1325, Together with a Priory Account Roll for 1377–78, ed. by Ian Kershaw and David M. Smith, YASRS, 154 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000) Bolton Priory Rentals and Ministers’ Accounts, ed. by Ian Kershaw, YASRS, 132 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1970) A Calendar of the Cartularies of John Pyle and Adam Fraunceys, ed. by S. J. O’Connor, Camden Society, 5th series, 2 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1993) Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1272–1509, ed. by Henry C. Maxwell Lyte and others (London: HMSO, 1892–1963) Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, ed. by William Henry Bliss, Jesse A. Twemlow, Charles Johnson, Michael Haren, and Anne P. Fuller (London: HMSO, 1893–) Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office, 1232–1509, ed. by Henry C. Maxwell Lyte and others (London: HMSO, 1891–1916) Cartularium Abbathiae De Rievalle, ed. by John C. Atkinson, Surtees, 83 (Durham: Surtees Society, 1889) Cartularium Abbathiae De Whiteby Ordinis S. Benedicti, I, ed. by John C. Atkinson, Surtees, 89 (Durham: Surtees Society, 1878) The Cartulary of Byland Abbey, ed. by Janet Burton, Surtees, 208 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004) The Charters of the Priory of Beauly, ed. by Edmund Chisholm Batten (Edinburgh: Grampian Club, 1877) The Chartulary of the Cistercian Abbey of Coldstream, ed. by Charles Rogers (London: Grampian Club, 1879) Chronica Monasterii De Melsa, ed. by Edward A. Bond, vol. iii (London: Longmans Green Reader and Dyer, 1868)

b i b li o graphy

The Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, 1i, ed. by John C. Atkinson, Chetham Society, ns, 9 (Manchester: The Chetham Society, 1886) The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall in the West Riding of the county of York, ed. by William T. Lancaster and William Paley Baildon, Thoresby Society Publications, 8 (Leeds: The Thoresby Society, 1904) Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. by William Farrer, 3 vols (Edinburgh: Ballantyne, Hanson, 1914, 1915, 1916) The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and Jervaulx, ed. by Janet Burton (York: Borthwick Publications, 2006) The Fountains Abbey Lease Book, ed. by David J. Michelmore, YASRS, 140 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1981) The Fountains Abbey Rental 1495/6, ed. by David J. Michelmore (Leeds: the editor, 1974) Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids; with Other Analogous Documents Preserved in the Public Record Office, A.D. 1284–1431, ed. by Henry C. Maxwell Lyte, 6: York and Additions (London: HMSO, 1920) Letters from the English Abbots to the Chapter at Cîteaux 1442–1521, ed. by Charles H. Talbot, Camden Society, 4th series, 4 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1967) The Lost Cartulary of Bolton Priory, ed. by Katrina Jane Legg, YASRS, 160 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2009) Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, ed. by John R. Walbran, Surtees, 42 (Durham: Andrews, 1863) —— , Vol. ii, pt 1, ed. by John R. Walbran and James Raine, Surtees, 67 (Durham: Andrews, 1878) —— , Vol. iii, ed. by Joseph T. Fowler, Surtees, 130 (Durham: Andrews, 1918) Monastic Chancery Proceedings (Yorkshire), ed. by John S. Purvis, YASRS, 88 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1934) Monasticon Eboracense: And the Ecclesiastical History of Yorkshire, ed. by John M. Burton (London: printed for the Author, 1758) Notes on the Religious and Secular Houses of Yorkshire, I, ed. by William Paley Baildon, YASRS, 17 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1895) The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, ed. by Carolyn C. Fenwick, 3 vols, iii, WiltshireYorkshire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Privilegia Ordinis Cisterciensis, Jean de Cirey (Dijon: Peter Metlinger, 1491) Registrum Monasterii S. Marie de Cambuskenneth, A.D. 1147–1535, ed. by William Fraser (Edinburgh: Grampian Club, 1872) Statuta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis Ab Anno 1116 Ad Annum 1786, ed. by Joseph M. Canivez, 7 vols (Louvain: Revue d’histoire ecclesiastique, 1933) The Thurgarton Cartulary, ed. by Trevor Foulds (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1994) Valor Ecclesiasticus, ed. by John Caley, vol. v (London: Commissioners on the Public Records, 1825)

193

1 94

bi bl io gr a p h y

Secondary Works Atkin, Mary A., ‘The Medieval Exploitation and Division of Malham Moor’, Nomina, 14 (1992), 61–71 Ault, Warren O., ‘Village By-Laws by Common Consent’, Speculum, 29 (1954), 378–94 Bailey, Mark, ‘Villeinage in England: A Regional Case Study c.1250–1349’, Economic History Review, 62 (2009), 430–57 —— , The Decline of Serfdom in Late Medieval England (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014) —— , ed., The English Manor 1200–1500 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002) Bailey, Mark, and Stephen Rigby, eds, Town and Countryside in the Age of the Black Death (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Baker, L. G. Derek, ‘The Foundation of Fountains Abbey’, Northern History, 4 (1969), 29–43 —— , ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles: The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey I’, Analecta Cisterciensia, 25 (1969), 14–41 —— , ‘The Genesis of English Cistercian Chronicles: The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey II’, Analecta Cisterciensia, 31 (1975), 179–212 —— , ed., Renaissance and Renewal in Christian History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977) Barrell, Andrew D. M., The Papacy, Scotland and Northern England 1342–1378 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) Bates, David, ‘The Forged Charters of William the Conqueror and Bishop William of Calais’, in Anglo-Norman Durham, ed. by David Rollason, Margaret Harvey and Michael Prestwich (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1994), pp. 111–24 Bean, John M. W., The Estates of the Percy Family 1416–1537 (London: Oxford University Press, 1958) Bedos-Rezak, Brigitte, ‘Towards an Archaeology of the Medieval Charter: Textual Production and Reproduction in Northern French Chartriers’, in Charters, Cartularies, and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West, ed. by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002), pp. 43–60 Bell, Adrian R., Chris Brooks, and Paul R. Dryburgh, The English Wool Market c. 1230–1327 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) Bell, David N., ‘Cistercian Scriptoria in England: What They Were and Where They Were’, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses, 57 (2006), 45–68 B[ell], Harold I., ‘A Register of Fountains Abbey’, British Museum Quarterly, 7 (1932–1933), 16–18 Benedictow, Ole J., The Black Death 1346–1353: A Complete History (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004) Berman, Constance Hoffman, ‘Medieval Agriculture, the Southern French Countryside and the Early Cistercians’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, ns, 75, 5 (1976), 1–179

b i b li o graphy

Bethell, Denis, ‘The Foundation of Fountains Abbey and the State of St Mary’s York in 1132’, Journal of Medieval History, 17 (1966), 11–27 Blanchard, Ian, ‘Sir Richard Gresham (c. 1485–1549)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) Bouchard, Constance Brittain, Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights, and Economic Exchange in Twelfth Century Burgundy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991) —— , ed., The Cartulary of Flavigny (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1991) —— , ‘Monastic Cartularies: Organising Eternity’, in Charters, Cartularies and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West, ed. by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002), pp. 22–32 Bridbury, A. R., ‘The Black Death’, Economic History Review, 26 (1973), 577–92 —— , ‘Before the Black Death’, Economic History Review, 30 (1977), 393–410 Britnell, R., Britain and Ireland 1050–1530 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) Broadberry, Stephen, Bruce M. S. Campbell, Alexander Klein, Mark Overton, and Bas Van Leeuwen, British Economic Growth 1270–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015) Brown, A. T., ‘Estate Management and Institutional Constraints in Pre-Industrial England: The Ecclesiastical Estates of Durham, c. 1400–1640’, Economic History Review, 67 (2014), 699–719 —— , ‘Surviving the Mid-Fifteenth Century Recession: Durham Cathedral Priory, 1400–1520’, Northern History, 47 (2010), 209–31 Brundage, James A., Medieval Canon Law (London: Longman, 1995) Bruun, Mette Birkedal, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) Burton, Janet, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain 1000–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) —— , ‘The Estates and Economy of Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire’, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses, 49 (1998), 32–94 —— , The Monastic Order in Yorkshire 1069–1215 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pbk edn, 2006) —— , ed., The Foundation History of the Abbeys of Byland and Jervaulx (York: Borthwick Publications, 2006) —— , ‘Citadels of God: Monasteries, Violence, and the Struggle for Power in Northern England, 1135–54’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 31 (2009), 17–30 Burton, Janet, and Roger Stalley, ‘Tables of Cistercian Affiliations’, in Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. by Christopher Norton and David Park (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 394–401 Burton, Janet, and Karen Stöber, eds, Monasteries and Society in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008) Burton, Janet, and Julie Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2011) Campbell, Bruce M. S., English Seignorial Agriculture 1250–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)

195

1 96

bi bl io gr a p h y

—— , ‘The Agrarian Problem in the Early Fourteenth Century’, Past and Present, 188 (2005), 3–70 Cariboni, Guido, ‘The Three Privileges “Attendentes Quomodo” of Alexander III: Revision, Use and Tradition of Papal Documentation among the Cistercians’, Studi Medievali, 57.2 (2016), 631–48 Carpenter, David, ‘James Torre’s Collection of Yorkshire Monastic Charters’, Monastic Research Bulletin, 16 (2010), 2–24 Carter, Michael, ‘The Mysterious Mitre on the Monument: A Fifteenth-Century Grave Cover at Fountains Abbey, Yorkshire’, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses, 66 (2015), 7–19 Castor, Helen, The King, the Crown, and the Duchy of Lancaster: Public Authority and Private Power, 1399–1461 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) Chastang, Pierre, ‘Cartulaires, cartularisation et scripturalité médiévale: la structuration d’un nouveau champ de recherche’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Xe–XIIe siècles, 49 (2006), 21–32 —— , ‘L’archéologie du texte médiéval. Autour de travaux récents sur l’écrit au Moyen Âge’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 63 (2008), 245–69 Clanchy, Michael T., From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) —— , ‘The Franchise of Return of Writs’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 17 (1967), 59–82 Clark, James G., ed., The Religious Orders in Pre-Reformation England (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2002) Clemens, Raymond, and Timothy Graham, Introduction to Manuscript Studies (London: Cornell University Press, 2007) Constable, Giles, Monastic Tithes from Their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) Cook, Terry, ‘Evidence, Memory, Identity and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms’, Archival Science, 13 (2013), 95–120 Coppack, Glyn, ‘The Planning of Cistercian Monasteries in the Later Middle Ages: The Evidence from Fountains, Rievaulx, Sawley and Rushden’, in The Religious Orders in Pre-Reformation England, ed. by James G. Clark (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2002), pp. 197–209 —— , Fountains Abbey: The Cistercians in Northern England (Stroud: Tempus, 2003) Coss, Peter, ‘Lordship and Affinity’, in A Social History of England 1200–1500, ed. by Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 51–56 Creighton, Charles, A History of Epidemics in Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891) Cross, Claire, and Noreen Vickers, Monks, Friars and Nuns in Sixteenth Century Yorkshire, YASRS, 150 (Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society, 1995) Curry, Ann, and Elizabeth Mathew, eds, Concepts and Patterns of Service in the Later Middle Ages (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000) Dalton, Paul, Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire 1066–1154 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)

b i b li o graphy

Davis, Godfrey R. C., rev. Claire Breay, Julian Harrison, and David M. Smith, eds, Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain and Ireland (London: British Library, 2010) Declercq, Georges, ‘Originals and Cartularies: The Organization of Archival Memory (Ninth-Eleventh Centuries)’, in Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society, ed. by Karl Heidecker (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 147–70 Denholm-Young, Neil, Handwriting in England and Wales (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1954) Derolez, Albert, The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books: From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) Dobie, Alisdair John, Accounting at Durham Cathedral Priory: Management and Control of a Major Ecclesiastical Corporation 1083–1539 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) Dobson, Richard B., Durham Priory 1400–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) Dodd, Gwilym, ed., Henry V: New Interpretations (Woodbridge: Boydell for York Medieval Press, 2013) Dodds, Ben, Peasants and Production in the Medieval North-East: The Evidence from Tithes 1270–1536 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007) Donkin, Robin A., ‘Cattle on the Estates of Cistercian Monasteries in England and Wales’, Economic History Review, ns, 15 (1962), 31–53 —— , ‘The Cistercian Order and the Settlement of Northern England’, Geographical Review, 3 (1969), 403–16 —— , The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of Medieval England and Wales (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1978) Donnelly, James S., ‘Changes in the Grange Economy of English and Welsh Cistercian Abbeys, 1300–1540’, Traditio, 10 (1954), 399–458 Drew, John S., ‘Manorial Accounts of St Swithun’s Priory, Winchester’, The English Historical Review, 242 (1947), 20–41 Dyer, Christopher, Lords and Peasants in a Changing Society: The Estates of the Bish­ op­ric of Worcester 680–1540 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) —— , Everyday Life in Medieval England (London: Hambledon, 2000) —— , An Age of Transition? Economy and Society in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005) —— , ‘The Agrarian Problem, 1440–1520’, in Landlords and Tenants in Britain 1440– 1660: Tawney’s Agrarian Problem Revisited, ed. by Jane Whittle (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013), pp. 19–34 —— , ‘England’s Economy in the Fifteenth Century’, in The Fifteenth Century, XIII: Exploring the Evidence: Commemoration, Administration and the Economy, ed. by Linda Clark (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), pp. 201–25 Foulds, Trevor, ‘Unpublished Monastic Cartularies of Nottinghamshire: A Guide to Their Contents’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society, 88 (1984), 89–98 —— , ‘Medieval Cartularies’, Archives, 18 (1987), 3–35 Freeman, Elizabeth, ‘Meaning and Multi-Centredness in (Postmodern) Medieval Historiography: The Foundation History of Fountains Abbey’, Parergon, 16 (1999), 43–84

197

1 98

bi bl io gr a p h y

—— , Narratives of a New Order: Cistercian Historical Writing in England 1150–1220 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002) Geary, Patrick J., Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Milennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) —— , ‘From Charter to Cartulary: From Archival Practice to History’, in Representing History 900–1300: Art, Music, History, ed. by Robert A. Maxwell (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010), pp. 181–86 Genêt, Jean-Philippe, ‘Cartulaires, registres et histoire: l’exemple anglais’, in Le métier d’historien au Moyen Âge, ed. by Bernard Guenée (Paris: Universite de Paris, 1977), pp. 95–138 Gervers, Michael, ed., Dating Undated Medieval Charters (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000) Gilyard-Beer, Roy, and Glyn Coppack, ‘Excavations at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire, 1979–1980: The Early Development of the Monastery’, Archaeologia, 108 (1986), 147–88 Given-Wilson, Chris, The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity: Service, Politics, and Finance in England, 1360–1413 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986) Goldberg, P. J. P., ‘Introduction’, in The Black Death in England, ed. by Mark Ormrod and Philip Lindley (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1996), 1–15 Graham, Rose, ‘The Great Schism and the English Monasteries of the Cistercian Order’, English Historical Review, 44 (1929), 373–87 Gransden, Antonia, Historical Writing in England, ii: 1307 to the Early Sixteenth Century (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982) Graves, Coburn V., ‘The Economic Activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England 1128–1367’, Analecta Sacra Ordinis Cisterciensis, 13 (1957), 3–60 Gray, Howard L., ‘Incomes from Land in England in 1436’, English Historical Review, 49 (1934), 607–39 Griffiths, Ralph A., ‘The Percies, the Nevilles, and the Duke of Exeter, 1452–55’, Speculum, 43 (1968), 589–632 —— , The Reign of King Henry Vl (Stroud: Sutton, 2004) Guyotjeannin, Olivier, ‘La tradition de l’ombre. Les actes sous le regard des archivistes médiévaux’, in Charters, Cartularies and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West, ed. by Adam J. Kosto and Anders Winroth (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002), pp. 81–112 Guyotjeannin, Olivier, Laurent Morelle, and Michel Parisse, eds, Les Cartulaires (Paris: Ecole des Chartes, 1993) Haines, Roy M., ‘The Compilation of a Late Fourteenth-Century Precedent Book — Register Brian 2’, in The Materials, Sources and Methods of Ecclesiastical History, ed. by Derek Baker (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975), pp. 173–85 Halcrow, Elizabeth M., ‘The Decline of Demesne Farming on the Estates of Durham Cathedral Priory’, Economic History Review, 7 (1955), 345–56 Hanham, Alison, ‘Edmund de la Pole, defector’, Renaissance Studies, 2 (1988), 240–50 Harper-Bill, Christopher, ‘Huby, Marmaduke (c. 1439–1536)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)

b i b li o graphy

Harvey, Barbara, Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977) Harvey, Paul D. A., ed., Manorial Records of Cuxham, Oxfordshire c. 1200–1359, Oxfordshire Record Society Publications, 50 (London: HMSO, 1976) —— , ed., The Peasant Land Market in Medieval England (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984) —— , Manorial Records (London: British Records Association, 1984) Hatcher, John, ‘The Great Slump of the Mid-Fifteenth Century’, in Progress and Problems in Medieval England: Essays in Honour of Edward Miller, ed. by Richard Britnell and John Hatcher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 237–72 Heale, Martin, ‘“Not a Thing for a Stranger to Enter Upon”; the Selection of Monastic Superiors in Late Medieval and Early Tudor England’, in Monasteries and Society in the British Isles in the Later Middle Ages, ed. by Janet E. Burton and Karen Stöber (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2008), pp. 51–68 —— , The Abbots and Priors of Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) —— , ‘Mitres and Arms’, in Self-Representation of Medieval Religious Communities, ed. by Anne Müller and Karen Stöber (Berlin: Lit, 2009), pp. 99–122 Hector, Leonard C., The Handwriting of English Documents, 2nd edn (London: Edward Arnold, 1966) Heidecker, Karl, ed., Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) Hiatt, Alfred, The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England (London: The British Library, 2004) Hicks, Michael A., ‘The 1468 Statute of Livery’, Historical Research, 64 (1991), 15–28 —— , Edward IV (London: Hodder, 2004) Horrox, Rosemary, trans. and ed., The Black Death (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994) Hoyle, Richard W., ‘Monastic Leasing before the Dissolution: The Evidence of Bolton Priory and Fountains Abbey’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 61 (1989), 111–37 Hunter, Dard, Papermaking: The History and Technique of an Ancient Craft (New York: Dover, 1947) Jack, R. Ian, ‘An Archival Case History: The Cartularies and Registers of Llanthony Priory in Gloucestershire’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 4 (1972), 370–83 Jacob, Ernest F., ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Abbey 1410–16’, in Essays in Later Medieval History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968), pp. 79–97 Jamroziak, Emilia, ‘Rievaulx Abbey as a Wool Producer in the Late Thirteenth Century: Cistercians, Sheep and Debts’, Northern History, 40 (2003), 197–218 —— , ‘Making and Breaking the Bonds: Yorkshire Cistercians and Their Neighbours’, in Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in Honour of Peter Ferguson, ed. by Terryl N. Kinder (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), pp. 63–70 —— , Rievaulx Abbey and Its Social Context 1132–1300: Memory, Locality and Networks (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005)

199

200

bi bl io gr a p h y

—— , ‘Genealogy in Monastic Chronicles in England’, in Broken Lines: Genealogical Literature in Medieval Britain and France, ed. by Raluca L. Radulescu and Edward Donald Kennedy (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), pp. 101–20 —— , ‘Centres and Peripheries’, in The Cistercian Order, ed. by Mette Birkedal Bruun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 65–79 —— , The Cistercian Order in Medieval Europe 1090–1500 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013) Jenkinson, Hilary, ‘The Use of Arabic and Roman Numerals in English Archives’, Antiquaries Journal, 6 (1926), 263–75 Johnson, Charles, and Hilary Jenkinson, English Court Hand A.D. 1066 to 1500, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1915) Ker, Neil R., ed., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books (London: Royal Historical Society, 2nd edn, 1964) Kershaw, Ian, Bolton Priory: The Economy of a Northern Monastery 1286–1325 (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) —— , ‘A Note on the Scots in the West Riding, 1318–1319’, Northern History, 17 (1981), 231–39 Kitchin, George W., ed., Compotus Rolls of St Swithun’s Priory, Winchester, Hampshire Record Society, 7 (Winchester: Warren, 1892) Kosto, Adam J, ‘The Liber Feodorum Maior of the Counts of Barcelona: The Cartu­ lary as an Expression of Power’, Journal of Medieval History, 27 (2001), 1–22 —— , ‘Laymen, Clerics and Documentary Practices in the Early Middle Ages: The Example of Catalonia’, Speculum, 80 (2005), 44–74 Kosto, Adam J., and Anders Winroth, eds, Charters Cartularies and Archives: The Preservation and Transmission of Documents in the Medieval West (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002) Landau, Peter, ‘Collectio Fontanensis: A Decretal Collection of the Twelfth Century for an English Cistercian Abbey’, in Law as Profession and Practice in Medieval Europe, ed. by Keith Pennington and Melodie Harris Eichbauer (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 187–204 Lander, Jack R., The Wars of the Roses (Stroud: Sutton, pbk repr., 1993) Lawrence, Anne, ‘English Cistercian Manuscripts of the Twelfth Century’, in Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. by Christopher Norton and David Park (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 284–98 —— , ‘Cistercian Decoration: Twelfth-Century Legislation on Illumination and Its Interpretation in England’, Reading Medieval Studies, 21 (1995), 31–52 Lawrence-Mathers, Ann, Manuscripts in Northumbria in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003) Levett, Ada Elizabeth, ‘The Courts and Court Rolls of St Albans Abbey’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th series, 7 (1924), 52–76 Logan, F. Donald, Runaway Religious (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) Lomas, Richard A., ‘Developments in Land Tenure on the Prior of Durham’s Estates in the Later Middle Ages’, Northern History, 13 (1977), 27–43 —— , ‘The Priory of Durham and Its Demesnes in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries’, Economic History Review, 31 (1978), 339–53 —— , North East England in the Middle Ages (Edinburgh: John Donald, 1992)

b i b li o graphy

MacNeil, Heather, ‘From the Memory of the Act to the Act Itself. The Evolution of Written Records as Proof of Jural Acts in England, 11th to 17th Century’, Archival Science, 6 (2006), 313–28 Marilier, Jean, ed., Chartes et documents concernant l’abbaye de Cîteaux (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1961) Mellinger, Laura, ‘Politics in the Convent: The Election of a Fifteenth-Century Abbess’, Church History, 63 (1994), 529–40 Mooney, Linne R., ‘Professional Scribes? Identifying English Scribes Who Had a Hand in More Than One Manuscript’, in New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies, ed. by Derek Pearsall (Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 2000), pp. 131–41 Moorhouse, Stephen, ‘Monastic Estates: Their Composition and Development’, in The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, ed. by Roberta Gilchrist and Harold Mytum, British Archaeological Reports, 203 (Oxford: BAR, 1989), pp. 29–81 Morley, Henry T., ‘Notes on Arabic Numerals in Mediaeval England’, Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 50 (1947), 81–86 Müller, Anne, and Karen Stöber, eds, Self-Representation of Medieval Religious Communities (Berlin: Lit, 2009) Müller, Miriam, ‘Peasants, Lords and Developments in Later Medieval England’, in The Development of Leasehold in Northwestern Europe, c. 1200–1600, ed. by Bas J. P. van Bavel and Philip R. Schofield (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), pp. 155–78 Newman, Mark, The Wonder of the North: Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015) Newman, Martha, ‘Foundation and Twelfth Century’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order, ed. by Mette Birkedal Bruun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 25–37 Nicholl, David, Thurstan Archbishop of York 1114–1140 (York: Stonegate, 1964) Norton, Christopher, and David Park, eds, Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) Ormrod, Mark, and Philip Lindley, eds, The Black Death in England (Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1996) Pantin, William A., ‘English Monastic Letter-Books’, in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. by J. G. Edwards and others (Manchester: n. pub., 1933), pp. 201–22 —— , Report on the Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Durham (Durham: privately printed, 1939) Parry, Graham, ‘Roger Dodsworth (bap. 1585, d. 1654)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) Parkes, Malcolm B., English Cursive Book Hands (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) —— , ‘The Influence on the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book’, in Medieval Learning and Literature, ed. by J. J. G Alexander and M. T. Gibson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), pp. 115–41 Payne, Shirley, Fountains Abbey in the Mid-Fifteenth Century: Teesside Papers in North Eastern History (Cleveland: University of Teesside, 1993) Pearson, R. E. O., ‘Richard Gascoigne (bap. 1579, d. 1661x4), antiquary’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)

201

202

bi bl io gr a p h y

Pennington, Kenneth, ‘Feudal Oath of Fidelity and Homage’, in Law as Profession and Practice in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of James A. Brundage, ed. by Keith Pennington and Melodie Harris Eichbauer (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), pp. 93–115 Platt, Colin, The Monastic Grange in Medieval England: A Reassessment (London: Macmillan, 1969) Pollard, Anthony J., ‘The North-Eastern Economy and the Agrarian Crisis of 1438–1440’, Northern History, 25 (1989), 88–105 —— , North-Eastern England During the Wars of the Roses: Lay Society, War and Politics 1450–1500 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) —— , The Wars of the Roses (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2nd edn, 2001) Poulle, Emmanuel, ‘Classement et cotation des chartriers au Moyen Âge, Scriptorium, 50 (1996), 345–55 Raftis, J. Ambrose, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1957) Ramsay, Nigel, ‘The Library and Archives 1109–1541’, in A History of Ely Cathedral, ed. by Peter Meadows and Nigel Ramsay (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2003), pp. 157–68 Rawcliffe, Carole, ‘Baronial Councils in the Later Middle Ages’, in Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Late Medieval England, ed. by Charles Ross (Gloucester: Sutton, 1979), pp. 87–108 Rawcliffe, Carole, and Susan Flower, ‘English Nobleman and Their Advisers: Consultation and Collaboration in the Later Middle Ages’, Journal of British Studies, 25 (1986), 157–77 Razi, Zvi, and Richard Smith, eds, Medieval Society and the Manor Court (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) Reale, Nancy M. and Ruth E. Sterglantz, eds, Satura: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honour of Robert R. Raymo (Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2001) Rey, Coraline, ‘L’entreprise archivistique de Jean de Cirey, abbé de Cîteaux (1476– 1501). Le Dossier Documentaire De La Seigneurie De Villars En Côte-D’or’, Bulletin du centre d’études médiévales d’Auxerre, BUCEMA, 14 (2010), 1–6 Rogers, Alan, ‘Maintenance and the Wars of the Roses’, History Today, 17.3 (1967), 198–203 Rouse, Mary A., and Richard H. Rouse, ‘La naissance des index’, in Histoire de l’édition française (Paris: Promodis, 1982), pp. 77–85 —— , ‘Concordances et index’, in Mise en page et mise en texte du livre manu­scrit, ed. by Henri-Jean Martin and Jean Vezin (Paris: Promodis, 1990), pp. 219–28 —— , Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) Sandler, Lucy Freeman, ‘Index-making in the Fourteenth Century’, in Satura: Studies in Medieval Literature in Honour of Robert R. Raymo, ed. by Nancy M. Reale and Ruth E. Sterglantz (Donington: Shaun Tyas, 2001), pp. 164–75 Saunders, Herbert W., An Introduction to the Obedientiary and Manor Rolls of Norwich Cathedral (Norwich: Jarrold, 1930) Sayers, Jane E., ‘The Medieval Care and Custody of the Archbishop of Canter­ bury’s Archives’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 39 (1966), 95–107

b i b li o graphy

Schofield, Phillip, Peasant and Community in Medieval England 1200–1500 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) Sheils, William Joseph, ‘John Richard Walbran (1817–1869)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) Shorter, Alfred H., Paper Mills and Paper Makers in England 1495–1800 (Hilversum: Paper Publications Society, 1957) Smith, Reginald A. L., Canterbury Cathedral Priory: A Study in Monastic Administration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943) Spence, Michael, ‘Cartularies of Fountains Abbey: Archival Systems and Practices’, Cîteaux, Commentarii Cistercienses, 61 (2010), 185–205 —— , ‘Fountains Abbey and the Acquisition of Bordley-in-Craven: Anglo-Scan­ dinavians, Scots and Monastic Flocks’, Northern History, 53.01 (2016), 26–55 —— , ‘The Disputed Election at Fountains Revisited’, Journal of Medieval Monastic Studies, 8 (2019), 207–33 St John Hope, W. H., ‘Fountains Abbey’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 15 (1900), 269–402 Steane, John, ‘Medieval Muniment Rooms, Their Furniture, Fittings and Information Retrieval Systems’, Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, 54 (2010), 35–50 Storey, Robin L., ‘Disorders in Lancastrian Westmorland: Some Early Chancery Proceedings’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, ns, 53 (1954), 69–80 —— , ‘Papal Provisions to English Monasteries’, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 35 (1991), 77–91 Stuart, Dennis, Manorial Records (Chichester: Phillimore, 2004) Taylor, John, ‘Burton, Thomas (d. 1437), chronicler and abbot of Meaux’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, I: 940–1216, ed. by David Knowles, Christopher N. L. Brooke and Vera C. M. London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 2001) The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, II: 1216–1377, ed. by David M. Smith and Vera C. M. London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) The Heads of Religious Houses in England and Wales, III: 1377–1540, ed. by David M. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) Vezin, Jean, ‘Écritures imitées dans les livres et les documents du haut Moyen Âge (Viie–Xie siècle)’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 165 (2007), 47–66 Walker, David, ‘The Organization of Material in Medieval Cartularies’, in The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in Honour of Kathleen Major, ed. by D. A. Bullough and R. L. Storey (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), pp. 132–50 Walker, John, ‘Greenwell, John (d. in or after 1471)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) Wardrop, Joan, Fountains Abbey and Its Benefactors 1132–1300 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1987) Wareham, Andrew, ‘The Redaction of Cartularies and Economic Upheaval in Western England c. 996–1096’, in Anglo-Norman Studies 36, ed. by David Bates (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2014), pp. 189–219

203

2 04

bi bl io gr a p h y

Whitaker, Thomas D., The History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven in the County of York, 3rd edn (Leeds: Joseph Dodgson, 1878) Whittle, Jane, ed., Landlords and Tenants in Britain, 1440–1660: Tawney’s Agrarian Problem Revisited (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013) Wilcock, Ruth, ‘Local Disorder in the Honour of Knaresborough, c. 1438–1461 and the National Context’, Northern History, 41 (2004), 39–80 Williams, Ann, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge: Boydell, repr., 2000) Winchester, Angus J. L., The Harvest of the Hills: Rural Life in Northern England and the Scottish Borders 1400–1700 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000) Yeo, Geoffrey, ‘Record-Keeping at St Paul’s Cathedral’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, 8 (1986), 30–44

Theses Briglevic, Kseniga, ‘The Cistercian Economy in England in the Later Middle Ages’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 2000) Clarke, Howard Brian, ‘The Early Surveys of Evesham Abbey: An Investigation into the Problem of Continuity in Anglo-Norman England’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham, 1977) Mackie, Frederick Peter, ‘The Clerical Population of the Province of York: An Edition of the Clerical Poll Tax Enrolments 1377–1381’, (unpublished doctoral thesis: University of York, 1998)

Online Resources Briquet Online watermark collection (v. 1.2-2017-01-17): [accessed 8 January 2019] Piccard online watermark collection: https://www.piccard-online.de/start.php [accessed 6 May 2019] The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (Leicester: Scholarly Digital Editions and the National Archives, 2005) 3–4 Edward IV: [accessed 28 April 2019] Bank of England inflation calculator: [accessed 28 April 2019]

Index

abbeys, Cistercian Byland: 22, 57, 58, 131, 132 Cîteaux: 22, 23, 24, 45, 47, 49, 81, 82, 103, 104, 124, 127, 133, 167, 168; see also Cirey, Jean Clairvaux, mother house of Fountains: 62, 133 Fountains: see Fountains Abbey Furness: 13, 30, 131, 132, 138 Jervaulx: 22, 51, 131 Kirkstall: see Kirkstall Abbey Meaux: see Meaux Abbey Rievaulx : 13, 30, 57 abbots: see Burton, Thomas; Cirey, Jean; see also abbots, Fountains Abbey abbots, Fountains Abbey: Ayling, Peter: 26, 27, 34, 76, 81, 147 Burley, Robert: 46, 47, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 133 Frank, Roger: 47, 48, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 91, 118, 135, 147, 148, 168, 169 Gower, William: 15, 85, 126, 137, 139, 166, 169 Greenwell, John: 15, 17, 18, 19, 35, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 60, 61, 62, 73, 75–84, 89, 91, 93, 112, 118, 123, 126, 134, 135, 137, 138–40, 141, 144, 146–48, 153, 163 Huby, Marmaduke: 15, 24, 46, 52, 75, 85, 113, 114, 115, 123, 124, 127, 137, 138, 139, 160 Martin, John: 48, 76 Monkton, Robert: 85, 86, 109

Murdac, Henry: 77, 84, 147; see also Murdac, Henry, archbishop of York Otley, Henry: 26, 27, 34, 76, 81, 147, 148 Paslew, John: 48, 76, 77 Ripon, John: 46, 47, 48, 76– 84, 86, 91, 118, 123, 133, 168 Swynton, Thomas: 44, 49, 51, 147 archives: 15, 28, 38, 131, 141 Arncliffe, North Yorkshire: 39, 40, 41, 42, 64, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 104, 179 Arncliffecote, North Yorkshire: 87, 104, 179 Arnclyffcote: see Arncliffecote Arnford, North Yorkshire: 39, 40, 42, 93, 94, 104, 151, 179 Avignon: 45, 133 Baldersby, North Yorkshire: 39, 40, 42, 64, 85, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 121, 161, 173, 179 Bannockburn, battle of: 27 Basle, Council of: 168 Black Death: 27, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 105, 108, 109, 110, 132, 136, 141 Bolton Priory in Malham: 94, 97, 99, 102–03, 106, 107, 136 Bordley, North Yorkshire: 23, 64, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 104, 151, 160, 161 Burton, Thomas, Abbot of Meaux: 34, 46, 47

206

i n dex

cartularies: 14–15, 17– 34, 46, 53–60, 64, 65, 69–73, 75, 87– 91, 94–96, 99, 113–118, 120–32, 134–39, 141, 143, 151, 159, 162, 167, 168, 183, 187; see also manuscripts, Fountains Abbey; Evesham Abbey, cartulary; Worcester Cathedral Priory, cartularies charters: see charters under Fountains Abbey Cirey, Jean, Abbot of Cîteaux: 124, 127, 167, 168 Cistercian movement: 15, 22, 45 codicological profiles: 14 Cartulary 2: 163 Cartulary RP: 169 President Book: 156 Rentals: 177 Conistone, North Yorkshire: 41, 64, 94, 129 Disceford: see Dishforth Dishforth, North Yorkshire: 39– 42, 64, 65, 66, 67, 173, 179 Dissolution: 27, 28, 32, 43, 61, 123, 137, 143, 147, 152, 160, 162, 171 Downom, William, monk of Fountains: 49, 51 Durham, bishop of: 47, 82 Durham, Priory of: 15, 38, 39, 43, 44, 54, 93, 111, 112, 126, 129, 174 Edward IV, King of England: 18, 45, 49, 50, 76, 139, 140, 148, 153, 168 Evesham Abbey, cartulary: 53, 54 feudalism, bastard: 45 Fountains Abbey abbots: see abbots, Fountains Abbey advisory Council: 17

as lord of the manor: 27, 84, 107, 172–74 charters: 15, 29, 32, 34, 54, 55, 71, 72, 89, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 115, 118, 120, 122–31, 137–39, 143, 144, 159, 160, 165, 166, 167, 168, 183–89 Chronicle of the Abbots: 33, 34, 50, 62, 76–79, 81, 82, 84, 135, 140, 148–49, 154, 166 economy: 116 election, disputed: 18, 28, 47, 48, 51, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 86, 118, 123, 133, 134, 139, 168, 169 external administration: 26, 28, 147 foundation history: 29, 30, 33, 34, 135 granges: see granges, Fountains Abbey indebtedness: 26 landholdings: 17, 27, 55, 58, 63, 85, 90, 161, 169, 171 landholdings, Craven: 86–91, 93, 94, 99, 100, 101, 111, 112, 117, 120, 124, 127, 128, 131, 135, 136, 150–51 manuscripts: see manuscripts, Fountains Abbey monks: see Downom, William; Hull, William record-keepers: 17, 18, 54, 57, 99 wool: 13, 25, 26, 27, 34, 44, 62 General Chapter, Cistercian: 16, 24, 45, 47, 81, 82, 83, 103, 105, 106, 110, 133, 142 General Chapter, English: 45, 47 Gnoup (Fountains Fell), North Yorkshire: 25, 70, 71, 72, 88, 89, 91, 93, 117, 128, 131

index

grange, Bolton Priory at Malham: 102–03 granges, Fountains Abbey: 16, 25, 27, 28, 34, 39, 40, 55, 65, 97, 99, 101–06, 111, 112, 116, 117, 121, 123, 129, 133–37, 141, 159 Aldburgh: 32 Arncliffe: 94, 104 Arnford: 40, 94, 104 Baldersby: 40, 103, 110, 121 Bordley: 90, 94, 97, 104 Bradley: 106 Bramley: 106 Cowton: 106 Kilnsey: 41, 94, 97, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110 Kirby Wiske: 35 Kirk Hammerton: 40 Malham: 94, 98, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 179 Marston: 85 Marton: 103, 110 Sleningford: 106 Thorpe Underwood: 106, 111 Wheldrake: 179 see also lodges Henry V, King of England: 45, 47, 80, 82, 83, 133 Henry VI, King of England: 45, 50, 61, 76, 80, 82, 83, 133, 140, 153 Hull, William, monk of Fountains: 49 in manu domini, ‘in the hands of the lord of the manor’: 40, 41, 42, 43, 104, 105, 108, 110 Kilnsey, North Yorkshire: 41, 93, 94, 104, 106, 161, 173; see also granges, Fountains Abbey Kirby Wiske, North Yorkshire: 35, 39, 40, 42, 64, 70, 119;

see also granges, Fountains Abbey Kirk Hammerton, North Yorkshire: 40, 41, 42, 64; see also granges, Fountains Abbey Lancastrian adherence: 18, 45, 49, 50, 139 leasehold tenure: 16, 24, 25, 27, 39, 104–07, 111, 112, 136 lodges: 16, 25, 27, 44, 133; see also granges, Fountains Abbey Malham, North Yorkshire: 26, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 64, 84, 87, 89, 91, 93–111, 135, 136, 150, 173, 179 de Malham family: 95, 96, 98, 106, 151 grange: see granges, Fountains Abbey manorialization of grange sites: 16, 27, 40, 64, 65, 84, 101, 106, 110, 112, 116, 117, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136 manuscripts: 13–14, 15, 29, 58, 141–42, 144 manuscripts, Fountains Abbey: 9, 11, 15, 17–19, 29, 31, 33, 52, 55, 56, 61–73, 75, 86, 115, 118, 132, 134, 144, 178, 181 Cartulary 1: 11, 13–14, 26, 28, 29, 31, 56, 69, 71, 88, 89, 96, 113, 115, 116–17, 120–23, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 137, 138, 141, 150, 159, 185, 187 Cartulary 2: 11, 13, 19, 29, 55, 57, 64–65, 69, 70–73, 87–90, 94, 101, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120–23, 124–29, 131, 134, 138–39, 141, 159–63

207

208

i n dex

Cartulary 3: 11, 13–14, 27, 29, 31, 56, 58, 69, 70, 71–72, 75, 88–89, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 103, 113, 115–18, 120, 123, 124, 125–26, 127–32, 137–38, 140, 141, 143, 151, 160, 167, 187, 188–89 Cartulary 4: 11, 14, 31, 46, 65, 69, 70, 71, 75, 88, 113–14, 116, 127, 128, 138, 139, 141, 154, 159, 160, 163 Cartulary RP: 11, 14, 16, 34, 87, 89, 90–91, 98, 113, 124–26, 127, 137, 138, 139, 141, 160, 165–69 Doppelgänger: 126–29, 131, 137, 138, 139, 141 President Book: 11, 18, 19, 21, 25, 29, 30, 33, 50, 52, 60, 61–73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85–86, 87–90, 93, 95–97, 100, 101, 104, 106, 109, 117–23, 124, 126, 127, 131, 134–37, 139, 140, 141, 143–57 Rentals: 11, 14, 19, 30, 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 66–69, 73, 85, 86, 101, 102, 104–07, 109–12, 134, 136, 139, 141, 171–80 Marton-le -Moor, North Yorkshire: 39, 41, 42, 64, 109, 110, 173, 179; see also granges, Fountains Abbey Meaux Abbey: 24, 34, 46, 47, 76, 80, 108, 114; see also Burton, Thomas Melmerby, North Yorkshire: 39–40, 41, 42, 63, 64, 65, 173 memory, archival: 18, 19, 52, 53–54, 56, 59–60, 81, 113–42 Murdac, Henry, archbishop of York: 28, 76, 147; see also abbots, Fountains Abbey Narratio de fundacione Fontanis Monasterij: 22, 28, 33, 34, 75, 76, 77, 135

pontificalia: 18, 48, 51, 52, 84 population of England: 37, 38, 39, 132 preservation bias in recordkeeping: 18, 55, 56, 57, 59, 83 redaction, archival: 13–15, 18, 19, 56, 59–60, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 91, 113–42 Richard II, King of England: 45, 79, 82, 90, 125, 133, 165 Rievaulx Abbey: 13, 30, 57 Rigton, North Yorkshire: 27, 64, 65, 108, 173 Schism, Great Western: 45, 47, 81, 133 Stainburn, North Yorkshire: 27, 39, 40, 41, 42, 65, 107, 125, 173, 176 superscript reference system: 86–89, 90, 96, 117, 118, 120, 124, 128, 135, 151, 152 Thurstan, Archbishop of York: 22, 28, 46, 148 Valor Ecclesiasticus: 28, 39, 42, 43 Wars of the Roses: 45, 50, 133 Whixley, North Yorkshire: 41, 42, 64, 120 Worcester Cathedral Priory, cartularies: 53, 57, 60, 130 Yorkist adherence: 45, 49, 50, 139

Medieval Monastic Studies

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series Women in the Medieval Monastic World, ed. by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber (2015) Kathryn E. Salzer, Vaucelles Abbey: Social, Political, and Ecclesiastical Relation­ ships in the Borderland Region of the Cambrésis, 1131–1300 (2017) Michael Carter, The Art and Architecture of the Cistercians in Northern England, c. 1300–1540 (2019) Monastic Europe: Medieval Communities, Landscapes, and Settlement, ed. by Edel Bhreathnach, Małgorzata Krasnodębska-D’Aughton, and Keith Smith (2019)