GENERAL BOOKS AND BOOKS OF ANCIENT HISTORY Seymour and Frary, How the World Votes, by Edward Stanwood.. BOOKS OF MEDIEVAL AND MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY Mierow, The Gothic History of Jordanes, by E. H. M.. Duclaux, A Short History of France, by Professor C. D. Hazen Lees, Alfred the Great, by Professor L. M. Larson. Gosses and Japikse, Handboek tot de Staatkundige Geschiedenis van Nederland Hruschewskyj, Geschichte der Ukraine, I., by Professor F. A. Golder Phillipson, Alsace-Lorraine, Past, Present, and Future, by Professor C. D. Hazen, BOOKS OF AMERICAN HISTORY Commons, History of Labour in the United States, by Professor M. B. Hammond. McMaster, The Life and Times of Stephen Girard, by Professor K. C. Babcock. Glasson, Federal Military Pensions in the United States Foulke, Fighting the Spoilsmen . Palmer, America in France, by Professor H. C. Bell Veblen, The Higher Learning in America. MINOR NOTICES The American Historical Association supplies the REVIEW to all its membe the Executive Council of the Association elects members of the Board of Editors. Correspondence in regard to contributions to the REVIEW may be sent to the Managing Ed: J. Franklin Jameson, Carnegie Institution, 1140 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C., or to Board of Editors. Books for review may be sent to the Managing Editor. Subscriptions shoul Isent to The Macmillan Company, 41 North Queen St., Lancaster, Pa., or 66 Fifth Ave., New Y The price of subscription, to persons who are not members of the American Historical Associ is four dollars a year; single numbers are sold for one dollar; bound volumes may be obtaine five dollars. Back numbers or volumes of the REVIEW may be obtained at the same rate. COPYRIGHT, 1919, BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY The American Historical Review THE ENGLISH BENEDICTINES AND THEIR BISHOPS IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY THE 'HE relations between the religious orders and the diocesan episcopate form not the least interesting chapter in the history of the medieval Church. It is with one phase of the story that this article deals. The black monks of St. Benedict are taken for consideration partly because the Benedictines were the largest monastic order, and partly because, unlike the Carthusians and Cistercians, their houses were for the most part not exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. The fullness of English records permits of a more thorough examination of monachism in England than seems possible in the case of any other country. As institutions vary from generation to generation, this study has been further restricted to the thirteenth century, when the medieval Church reached the height of its development. The internal affairs of a monastery were in charge of its superior, the abbot or prior, who, according to the rule of St. Benedict,1 was elected by the entire community or by its wiser part. The right of election "can never pass for a privilege which detracts from the legitimate authority of the bishops. . . . On the contrary, he (St. Benedict) appeals to the bishops themselves to oppose the election if the monks have chosen not a censor of their faults, but one who would flatter them, and to place over the house of the Lord a worthy governor.' " After choosing its abbot, a convent made known to the bishop of the diocese the result of the election and asked that he give it his episcopal confirmation. One example, taken from a monastic chartulary, will suffice to show the process. On the eve of St. John Baptist's Day, 1261, the prior of St. 1 J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, LXVI. 879, ch. lxiv. 2 Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l'Église, I. iii, c. 12. Peter's, Bath, died. The subprior and convent sent messengers to the bishop, informing him of the prior's death and praying for license to elect his successor. This license was formally granted by the bishop on the following day. The convent proceeded to elect its prior, and the election was confirmed by the bishop when the result was made known to him.3 The application to the bishop for license to elect, which was part of the procedure followed by the monks of Bath, was unusual. Freedom of election belonged to each monastic community "as a natural privilege and a common right". The priory of St. Peter was the cathedral chapter of the diocese of Bath, and, although the prior was the actual superior of the convent, the bishop held theoretically the position of abbot. It was on that account that the convent applied to him for license to elect. A similar license was sought by the abbey of Eynsham, but for another reason; the Bishop of Lincoln from whom they asked the desired permission was the patron of the abbey, ejusdem domus patronus. Saving, however, for exceptional circumstances, a monastery did not require episcopal permission for the election of its superior. Confirmation of an abbatial election was not an empty formality; the diocesan might withhold his confirmation for reasons which to him seemed sufficient. The election of Thomas Whalley as abbot of Selby in 1270 was quashed by the Archbishop of York, Walter Giffard, who then appointed as abbot the same man, and sent to the convent notice of the appointment with an order that the new superior be obeyed.' Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, quashed the election of Thomas de Kerdinton to the priory of Caldwell, on the ground of defective vision, paralysis, old age, and ignorance, propter defectum persone tam pro debilitate visus quam propter morbum paralitic' et etiam propter senium et insufficientiam litterature; an array of defects which would seem to be good warrant for the bishop's action. After confirmation of his election, the new head of a religious 3 Two Chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath (Somerset Record Society, 1893), nos. 253-259. 4 Thomassin, Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline, I. iii, c. 32. 5 On the relation of a bishop to his cathedral chapter when it was composed of monks, see a letter of Innocent III., in Patrologia Latina, CCXIV. 1076–1083. The concordat of 1205 between the bishop and chapter of Bath is summarized in A. Luchaire, Innocent III.: le Concile de Latran (Paris, 1908), p. 127. • Rotuli Grosseteste necnon Lexington (Lincoln Record Society), p. 459. 7 Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York (Surtees Soc., 1904), pp. 217-220. 8 Rotuli Grosseteste, p. 325. house was installed by the bishop or a deputy acting for him. Records of the institution and induction of abbots and priors are to be found in the various episcopal registers." It may here be pointed out that the priors of dependent houses, or cells of greater abbeys, were not elected by the monks of the priory, but were appointed by the abbot of the mother-house. This was because the monks of such a priory were members of the community, commonachi, of the mother-house, and not a separate convent; and their prior ranked as an administrative official of the great monastery.10 The appointment of the prior of a dependent house required episcopal confirmation, and the bishop instituted on presentation by the abbot and convent. A priory situated in a diocese other than that in which was the mother-house, was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which it was itself situated; and it was to him that the prior-designate would be presented for institution.12 With the exempt abbeys, free from all diocesan jurisdiction, we are not here concerned; their elections were confirmed not by the bishop of the diocese, but by the pope.13 So important was his office that, after the election had been duly confirmed, an abbot received benediction, munus benedictionis, from the bishop; for his office was a spiritual one. At an earlier date this seems to have been made an occasion for requiring perquisites from the monasteries, but in 1138 a synod meeting at Westminster under the presidency of the papal legate provided that "at the consecration of bishops or benediction of abbots no cope nor ecclesiastical vestment nor anything else should be demanded". Similar provisions can be found among the privileges granted by the popes to individual monasteries.15 9 E. g., ibid., p. 509; Reg. Romeyn (Surtees Soc., 1913, 1916), I. 139; Reg. Halton (Canterbury and York Soc., 1913), I. 216; Reg. Swinfield (ibid., 1909), pp. 426, 524; Rotuli Welles (Linc. Rec. Soc., 1912-1914), II. 136. 10 In the election of an abbot, the priors of dependent houses were summoned to take part; an indication that they were members of the community. See an account of the election of the abbot of St. Peter's, Gloucester, 1284, Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, R. S., vol. III., no. dccccxxxi. 11 Rotuli Grosseteste, p. 255; Rotuli Welles, III. 44, 150. 12 E. g., the Bishop of Hereford instituted the prior of Bromfield, a cell of St. Peter's, Gloucester, Reg. Swinfield, p. 426; and the Bishop of Lincoln, the prior of St. Leonard's, Stamford, a cell of Durham, Rotuli Welles, III. 121. 13 So the Lateran Council, 1215, decreed; see Gesta Abbatum S. Albani, R. S., I. 307. 14 Wilkins, Concilia, I. 415. 15 E. g., 'Inhibemus ne quis pro benedictione abbatis . . . palefredum vel cappam seu quodlibet aliud . a monasterio vestro exigere vel extorquere presumat "a Bardeney privilege. MS. Cotton. Vesp. E. XX., f. 24. The benediction of an abbot was an occasion of great solemnity. In this the abbot might be the central figure, but care was taken that the bishop be shown the respect and honor due his position. So in an agreement made in 1237 between Archbishop Edmund Rich and the abbot and convent of St. Augustine's, Canterbury, it was stated that when the archbishop should come to bless the abbot, he was to be received by the convent with a procession and the ringing of bells.16 Of far greater importance than such ceremonial recognition of the episcopal dignity was the fact that on receiving benediction the new abbot made his pledge of canonical obedience to the diocesan, by which he admitted that he was subject to the bishop's jurisdiction.17 An abbot whose monastery had a dependent house in a diocese other than his own, took the oath of obedience to the bishop of that other diocese for the priory which his abbey had there. So we find Richard de Swinfield, bishop of Hereford, citing the abbot of Reading to appear before him to take the pledge of canonical obedience for the priory of Leominster and churches which Reading Abbey had in the diocese of Hereford.18 The abbot's profession, as it was called,19. is not recorded in Bishop Swinfield's register; but the bishop's jurisdiction was unquestionably recognized, for his exercise of it is more than once mentioned.20 This particular case is the more worthy of note because the bishop had recognized the plenary jurisdiction of the abbey over Leominster, seven months before issuing his citation,21 an acknowledgment which he confirmed two years later.22 There was a long-standing quarrel between the bishops of Hereford and the abbots of Reading in regard to Leominster priory, a quarrel which Swinfield inherited from his predecessor, 23 but which evidently came to an end during his episcopate.24 The most important exercise of episcopal jurisdiction over religious houses was the visitation, made by the bishop either in person 16 Cal. Charter Rolls, I. 238. Pope Gregory IX.'s confirmation of the composition is given in K. R. Misc. Bk. 27, f. 93. 17 The pledge made by the prior of St. Martin's, Dover, to the Archbishop of Canterbury is illustrative. Reg. Peckham (Canterbury and York Soc.), p. 207. 18 Reg. Swinfield, p. 21. 19"... qui professionem suam, ut moris est, fecit. . . ." Ibid., p. 302. 20 Ibid., pp. 108, 111, 131, 149. 21 On April 20, 1283. Ibid., p. 64. 22 On April 19, 1285. Ibid., p. 100. 23 Reg. Cantilupe (Canterbury and York Soc., 1907), p. 263, passim; Reg. Swinfield, pp. 28-32, 38. 24 The register of his successor, Adam de Orleton, gives no indication that he had any trouble on this score. |