^{page 1 note 1} They would form a subject of their own. The number associated with St. Mary's Abbey is considerable; no less than thirty are given in Mr. Hunter Blair's Durham Seals; and there are several, at present unrecorded, in the collection of documents at the Public Record Office.

^{page 1 note 2} As an example of one of the worst gaps which ought to be filled, no impression of the priory seal of Bolton appears to be available.

^{page 1 note 3} Berlière, Le sceau conventuel, Revue Bénédictine, October 1926. The word ecclesia occurs in the legend of the early abbey seal of Selby (pl. viii, no. 10), and the use of that seal in 1282 tends to show that the old ecclesia seal was retained as the conventual or capitular seal. Personal names occur on the seals of the abbots of Selby from early in the thirteenth century.

^{page 2 note 1} In the Selby Coucher Book the following phrases occur in sealing clauses: sig. nostrum (or suum) in c. 1261, 1308, 1383, 1465 (nos. 399, 670 a, 1280, and vol. ii, p. 348); sig. nostrum (or suum commune in 1291, 1321, 1402 (nos. 550, 542, and vol. i, p. 6); sig. abbatis et conventus in 1318 (no. 874); sig. capituli nostri in 1244–54 and 1263–9 (nos. 287, 286, 288); sig. commune capituli, together with the seal of Abbot Thomas, in 1255 (no. 487); commune sig. capituli nostri in 1255–80 (no. 565). In 1342 there was appended to one part of an indenture the sig. capituli domus, also described in the document as sig. commune capituli, and to the other the seal of the abbot (vol. ii, p. 364). But the Selby evidence, of special value in proving the identity of the common seal and the chapter seal, is in two related documents of date 1260, of precisely the same type, one said to be sealed with sig. suum commune and the other with sig. capituli sui (nos. 1140, 1141); and the same evidence occurs in another pair of related documents of date 1254–80 (nos. 1049, 1052). It was doubtless this seal which, under the name of the sig. commune, formed the subject of inquiry as to its safe custody in the articles of the archbishop's visitation in 1343 (vol. ii, p. 368). In 1259 the abbot's seal was apparently put to an agreement by the abbot and convent (no. 174); and in 1307 there is mention of sig. nostrum quo utimur ad causas (no. 607), though no example of an ad causas seal for Selby is now known.

In the Whitby Chartulary there is the same variety of phrasing in the sealing clauses: sig. nostrum (or suum) in c. 1220, 1318, 1446 (nos. 418, 11, 563); sig. nostrum commune in c. 1312–18 and 1508 (nos. 401, 392); sig. abbatis et conventus in c. 1190–1211 (no. 255); sig. commune abbatis et conventus in 1348 (no. 293); sig. capituli nostri (or sui) in 1230, 1264, 1286, 1313 (nos. 273, 449, 509, 9); sig. capituli de W. in c. 1231 (no. 292); and sig. commune capituli sui (or nostri) in 1325 and 1358 (nos. 424, 549).

^{page 2 note 2} It is probable that this special Cistercian custom was due to the reversion to the strict letter of the Rule of St. Benedict (Cap. III) which placed the abbot in a position of supreme responsibility.

^{page 2 note 3} Berlière, op. cit., p. 304, to whom several of the following references are due. An exception to the latter rule was the seal regarded on good evidence as the second seal of St. Bernard himself, dating from 1151, which bore his personal name (Vacandard, Vie de S. Bernard, t. ii, p. 546).

^{page 2 note 4} Martene, Thesaurus, t. iv, p. 1294.

^{page 2 note 5} Auvray, Reg. de Grégoire IX, no. 2257.

^{page 3 note 1} Du Cange, Glossarium, ed. 1883, t. vii, p. 476.

^{page 3 note 2} Libellus Antiquarum Definitionum, in Nomasticon Cisterciense, p. 436. In the statutes of 1218 any convent having its own seal must break it (Martène, op. cit., p. 1322).

^{page 3 note 3} Du Cange, op. cit., t. vii, p. 475.

^{page 3 note 4} Martène, op. cit., p. 1294, the alternative being added by Muller, Von den Siegeln im Orden (Cistercienser Chronik, January 1919), p. 2, note 8, quoting another manuscript. The alternative is also given in the Institutiones Capituli Generalis Cisterciensis of 1240 and 1256 in Nomasticon Cisterciense, p. 330. St. Bernard himself had used both types, his first being of the ‘pastoral staff’ type, and his second the ‘effigy’ type (Vacandard, op. cit., t. ii, p. 542).

^{page 3 note 5} Cf. the legend on one of the Waverley seals of the simple ‘pastoral staff’ type: con‘trasig:] abbacie: de: Waverleia (V.C.H. Surrey, vol. ii, p. 88; Brakspear, Waverley Abbey, pl. 19). At first sight it would appear that this should be more correctly described as the counterseal of the abbey; but the above quotation makes it clear that it was regarded as the counterseal of the abbot. The abbot thus represented the house, and the device on the seal was the symbol of his office. For Kirkstall (nos. 2 and 3) there are two seals of the same ‘pastoral staff’ type, one having the legend contrasigil: de: Kirkest', and the other cont' sigill' abb'is de Kyrkestall, the latter defining more clearly what was intended by the former.

^{page 3 note 6} Nomasticon Cisterciense, p. 436.

^{page 3 note 7} Bullarium Romanum Augustae Taurinorum, ed. 1859, vol. iv, pp. 329–55.

^{page 4 note 1} Ibid., p. 330.

^{page 4 note 2} Ibid., p. 333.

^{page 4 note 3} Lyndwood, Provinciale, Appendix, p. 67.

^{page 4 note 4} Statutes of the Realm, vol. i, p. 151. It is highly probable that financial considerations had formed one of the principal reasons for the need of a seal which required a wider sanction for its custody and use than that of the abbot alone. This is borne out by the wording of the Statute of Carlisle. But the need was doubtless felt earlier than that. The financial state of some of the Yorkshire Cistercian houses in the last part of the thirteenth century was precarious; and when the need of a conventual seal became imperative the legislation of Otho was found to be available.

^{page 4 note 5} As an indication of French conformity with the established rule there are no Cistercian conventual seals earlier than 1335 given by A. Coulon, Inventaire des sceaux de la Bourgogne, Paris, 1912.

^{page 4 note 6} In the earliest Yorkshire examples sig. abbatis et conventus is usual; but legends take various forms, especially in later examples in England, e. g. sig. ecclesie at Bordesley, sig. commune monasterii at Beaulieu, sig. commune at Kirkstall, sig. commune capituli monachorum at Combe; but the use of the word chapter in Cistercian seals is exceptional. See the seals of several Cistercian houses in Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Seals, vol. i.

^{page 5 note 1} Liber Novellarum Definitionum, in Nomasticon Cisterciense, p. 518, where also the use is duly recognized of a conventual seal, on which the image of the Virgin Mary should be engraved.

^{page 5 note 2} At the Scottish Cistercian house of Melrose the legend on this type is s' minus abbatis de Melros (C. H. Hunter Blair, Durham Seals, No. 3673). Cf. the ad causas seals which were used for minor business in the Benedictine and other orders.

^{page 6 note 1} It also occurs at Robertsbridge (B.M. Cat., no. 3913; illustrated in Archaeologia, vol. lxv, pl. xxxv, no. 1).

^{page 6 note 2} They are certainly earlier than 1315, when the Rievaulx seal was actually in use. The style of the canopies closely resembles that in the seal of Richard Kellawe, bishop of Durham 1311–16, (Archaeologia, vol. lxxii, pl. 11, no. 1). It might therefore be supposed that they date from the Statute of Carlisle in 1306/7. But there is a piece of documentary evidence which may suggest an earlier date. In Sept. 1291 the abbot and convent of Rievaulx were making arrangements with the general chapter of the Cistercian order for a yearly payment in respect of money advanced to them; in witness whereof the said abbot caused his seal, which he commonly used, to be appended to the agreement, and the convent, quia sigillum non habemus, were bound by the seal of their abbot for that purpose (quantum ad haec) (Rievaulx Chartulary, p. 377). This suggests, not that there was no conventual seal in existence, but that it had not been brought overseas to Citeaux, where the document in all probability was drawn up; for if the old practice of using the abbot's seal only was still in force there would have been no point in the limitation which the words quantum ad haec imply. Tentatively we may conclude that these seals belong to a date about 1280, made and used under the sanction given by the legate Otho in 1237 (see note 4 on p. 4). From certain points in their architectural design they may well be contemporary with the counterseal of Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham 1284–1316 (Archaeologia, vol. lxxii, pl. iii, no. 7). But the important point is clear that as they were earlier than 1335 they indicate that the ordinary Cistercian rules were abrogated in England earlier than in the mother-houses in France.

^{page 7 note 1} In view of the use of the abbot's seal (no. 3) in 1287 it is probable that the fourteenth-century seal, which was in use in 1343 and in 1531, was the only abbey seal ever used at Kirkstall. There is a puzzling piece of evidence which might suggest that, contrary to the rules, there was an earlier abbey seal of Kirkstall in 1205. About that year the composition of a dispute between Trinity Priory, York, and Kirkstall Abbey was sealed with the seals of the arbitrators and sigillis utriusque capituli (Kirk stall Coucher Book, no. 346); and another agreement between the two houses was sealed utriusque domus sigillo (ibid., no. 348). But, as the Benedictine evidence has indicated, the actual words used in a sealing clause need not be taken too precisely; and it is probable that the seal, described in these alternative ways, was really the abbot's seal used for the abbey's business.

^{page 7 note 2} Double Monasteries and the Male Element in Nunneries, being App. VIII to The Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee on the Ministry of Women, 1919, p. 160.

^{page 7 note 3} The use of an early conventual seal in Cistercian nunneries is shown in the constitution drawn up by the Bishop of Lincoln before 1235 for the Cistercian priory of Nuncotham, where the sigillum domus is mentioned, to be kept in the custody of the master, the prioress, and certain nuns elected for the purpose (Monasticon, Anglicanum, vol. v, p. 677).

^{page 8 note 1} This suggests another point of difference between the two orders, as ad causas seals, so described, were not customary in the Cistercian order; see note 2 on p. 5.

^{page 8 note 2} Some interesting notes on the early abbey seals of Tongerloo in Belgium are given by H. Lamy, L'Abbaye de Tongerloo, Louvain, 1914, p. 245.

^{page 9 note 1} Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. xxxiii.

^{page 9 note 2} To an agreement between the Cistercian and Gilbertine houses, made at Kirkstead and Sempringham in 1163, the seals of several abbots and priors of the two orders were affixed (Rievaulx Chartulary, p. 181).

^{page 9 note 3} e. g. sig. ecclesie (Lincoln), sig. commune domus (Ormesby), singnum conventus (Bullington), sig. prioratus (Catteley), sig. capituli prioris et conventus (Bullington), and sig. prioris et conventus (Sempringham). Cf. also sig. prioris et conventus de Suldham (Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. vi, pt. 2, p. 974).

^{page 9 note 4} e. g. Alvingham, Bullington, and Chicksands.

^{page 9 note 5} G. Vallier, Sigillographie de l'ordre des Chartreux, Montreuil-sur-mer, 1891, pp. xvii, xviii, quoting the Nova Collectio of statutes, II. P. Cap. III, no. 23, p. 48.

^{page 9 note 6} In the sealing clauses of deeds in the Pontefract Chartulary the priory seal was variously described: sig. nostrum in c. 1220 (no. 146); sig. nostrum commune in c. 1250 (p. 582); sig. nostrum auctenticum in 1248 (no. 480); sig. domini prioris et capituli in 1235 (no. 154). On one occasion, apparently in 1238 during an interregnum in the office of prior, an agreement was sealed with the seal of the sub-prior (no. 201).

^{page 10 note 1} Described as the seal of the prior and convent in 1414 (Monk Bretton Chartulary, no. 501), and as the common seal in the deed of surrender of 1538 (J. W. Walker, Monk Bretton Priory, p. 52). For the removal of the common seal in 1252–3 during the dispute with Pontefract Priory see ibid., p. 10.

^{page 10 note 2} The seals, both of the prior and of the convent, were attached to the profession of obedience to the archbishop of York at his visitation on 4 Jan. 1280/1 (Register William Wickwane, p. 139).

^{page 10 note 3} This is suggested by the Drax seals, and it was the chapter seal of Newburgh which was attached to the deed of surrender. But the apparent use in 1343 of a second priory seal at Guisborough, when the chapter seal was in existence, suggests that sometimes the priory seal and the chapter seal were used concurrently. At Bridlington in 1327 the chapter seal ad causas was used as a counterseal to the priory seal.

^{page 10 note 4} A good example of the haphazard wording of sealing clauses is shown by nos. 1164 and 1185 in the Guisborough Chartulary: to both the original documents the twelfth-century priory seal was attached; in one sealing clause it is described as conventus sig., and in the other, of date 1223, as sig. capituli; but this was probably before the special chapter seal was made. It is curious to find the prior's seal apparently put to a lease in 1232 where we should have expected the priory or chapter seal (no. 1289). In 1239 a certain Andrew, a canon of Guisborough, was acting on behalf of the prior and convent, and to an agreement which he made with the prior and convent of Durham he put his own seal (no. 1165).

^{page 11 note 1} As an example of centralization in dealing with the property of the Templars, the common seal of the chapter was put to a grant of lands in Yorkshire in 1306, the grant being made by the master of the order in England, and the brethren, with the assent of the chapter (Yorks. Deeds, vol. v, no. 286, Yorks. Record Series).

^{page 12 note 1} John with no surname in the deed. For the probable date of his installation as prior in succession to John de Lund—a date which would tend to fix the date of this seal—see A. Hamilton Thompson, Bolton Priory (Thoresby Soc.), p. 76.

^{page 13 note 1} For the design of these two seals cf. the counterseals of Anthony Bek, bp. of Durham 1284–1311, and Richard Kellawe, bp. of Durham 1311–16, illustrated in Archaeologia, vol. lxxii, pl. iii, nos. 7 and 8.

^{page 13 note 2} In the B.M. Cat., no. 2818 a small seal of Byland is described—green wax; indistinct: round, ¾ in.; the Virgin, half-length, the Child on the left arm; *AVε…… This is attached to Add. Chart. 20546 in B.M., being an obligation by Adam, abbot of Bell[a Landa] of date c. 1262. It is difficult to make out anything definite on the seal attached to that document, and the description so given would appear to be of the imaginative order; the device more closely resembles a bird. It may have been a signet used by Abbot Adam.

^{page 13 note 3} Comparing the legend with the similar types of conventual seals for Jervaulx and Rievaulx it is possible that the order of the words was misplaced in error; and the word et would ordinarily occur between Abbatis and Conventus.

^{page 14 note 1} ‘William the abbot of Byland’ in the deed.

^{page 14 note 2} Styled collector within the archdeaconry of Cleveland.

^{page 16 note 1} This was a house of Augustinian Canons of the Order of the Temple. ‘They are sometimes erroneously said to have been affiliated to the Knights Templars, but were in reality a cell of the abbey of the Temple of the Lord at Jerusalem and in no way connected with the Knights of the Temple of Solomon; at a later date these canons seem to have been considered as ordinary Austin Canons’ (V.C.H. Yorks., vol. iii, p. 89). The Temple of the Lord was a church at Jerusalem served by a community of Augustinian Canons under an abbot (ibid., p. 241; and see E.H.R., vol. xxvi, pp. 498–501).

^{page 16 note 2} Sigillum capituli nostri in the sealing clause of the deed.

^{page 17 note 1} That was the year when Abbot Robert Burley died. There were considerable disturbances during the time of his successor, Roger Frank, whose appointment was subsequently annulled by the Pope. In a petition to Parliament in 1414 he is alleged to have taken off chalices, jewels, and other ornaments belonging to the house to the value of 2,000 marks, and also the common seal, all of which he was still retaining (Memorials of Fountains, i, p. 209). It seems probable that this second seal was made as a result of the disappearance of the first, which the absconding abbot had used for pledging the house in large sums. This may explain the date 1410, the last year in which the old seal might be considered to have been used for lawful purposes. But as Roger Frank, in a rival petition to Parliament, stated that he was in possession of the abbacy for three years before being evicted (ibid., p. 211) it was probably not actually made until about 1413.

^{page 17 note 2} Mr. Hunter Blair is of opinion that the heads represent Thurstan, archbishop of York, and St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Durham Seals, p. 564 n.).

^{page 18 note 1} It is scarcely possible that the letters ‘pri’ are those of ‘prioris’; they may represent the beginning of ‘patris’.

^{page 18 note 2} A signet of Abbot Huby, representing a pastoral staff issuing from a mitre, enfiled by two palm branches crossed for M, and a key placed fess-wise for H (so described by Mr. Walbran), is illustrated in Memorials of Fountains, i, p. 242.

^{page 18 note 3} Sigillum officii sui in the sealing clause.

^{page 18 note 4} In 1424 the counterseal had a shield bearing a cross between four lions (no. 2 above). That was the shield traditionally associated with King Oswald, and also used by Nostell Priory. But Tonge in his Visitation of 1530 (p. 78) gives the arms of Fountains as azure three horseshoes or. The earliest appearance of the horseshoes in connexion with Fountains seems to date from the time of Abbot Huby, 1494–1526; they occur on his work in the south transept and on the tower which he built. Sir William Hope suggested that these arms were those of Huby himself rather than those of the abbey (Yorks. Arch Journal, xv, p. 316); but this seal, of which Sir William Hope was probably unaware, was used by Abbot Thirsk in 1529, only one year before the date of Tonge's Visitation, and it seems more natural to suppose that the arms were, as Tonge says, those of the abbey itself. Their position and duplication on this seal are also an indication, though not a proof, that they were not the personal arms of an abbot. It therefore seems probable that between 1424 and the end of the century a change was made in the abbey arms.

^{page 19 note 1} To the same priory seal, which is described in the sealing clause of the deed as sigillum capituli.

^{page 19 note 2} Sigillum prioratus in the sealing clause.

^{page 19 note 3} Sigillum suum commune ad causas in the sealing clause.

^{page 20 note 1} As collector of tenths within the archdeaconry of Cleveland, the seal being described as quo utimur in hac parte.

^{page 20 note 2} An imperfect seal of the sub-prior, of date 1298, is given in Durham Seals, no. 3486. No. 3488 is a seal, of date 1362, of the proctor of the prior and convent.

^{page 20 note 3} It is there given as the seal of Henry of Lancaster, earl of Derby. But the document to which it is attached is an indenture between Henry de Lancaster, earl of Derby, and Sir Thomas Wake, lord of Lidell, on one part, and the prior and convent of Hautemprise on the other; and as doubtless both the two former affixed their seals to that part of the indenture remaining with the prior and only one seal is attached to this part, it seems clear that this part was the one sealed by the prior. Moreover, this document came from the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster, where it is natural to suppose that the part of the indenture sealed by the prior was retained.

^{page 21 note 1} Possibly not the official seal, but certainly used by Prioress Elizabeth Arley.

^{page 21 note 2} The house was founded by Michael de la Pole in 1377/8.

^{page 22 note 1} Loravallis occurs in the list of spellings given in Janauschek, P. L., Originum Cisterciensium, Vienna, 1877Google Scholar, tom, i, no. 306.

^{page 22 note 2} No such arms appear to have been borne by any of the Yorkshire families of Gower; but in Burke's General Armory a family of Gower is given as bearing or, three bars gu. in chief as many torteaux.

^{page 22 note 3} Another priory seal of date 1357, very imperfect, is given in Durham Seals, no 3505, Nos. 3502 and 3503 are seals used at Kirkham in respect of the collection of the annual tenths.

^{page 23 note 1} Kirklees was traditionally founded by Reiner le Fleming in the reign of Henry II; but in Reiner's charter (Mon. Ang., v, p. 739) the nuns were already dwelling in the place where he then granted them land.

^{page 23 note 2} The legend is incorrectly given, and it is certainly the same seal as the earlier examples.

^{page 24 note 1} Possibly a motto such as Ie su sel damur lel.

^{page 24 note 2} Cast cxxxvii, 70, in B.M. is of a different seal, of similar design and same size, dexter side broken away; …. .

^{page 24 note 3} Another Prior's seal, a secretum, an antique gem, a nude figure, is given in Durham Seals, no. 3514, reference lost.

^{page 25 note 1} The design of the seal suggests the prior Henry who occurs in 1227 rather than prior Henry de Melkingthorpe, 1318–21, to whom it is assigned in Durham Seals, p. 574 n.

^{page 25 note 2} Used by the abbot and convent.

^{page 25 note 3} In view of the legend it is scarcely possible to regard this as the abbey seal of Meaux; it may be the seal of an abbot, but even this is liable to doubt. No impression attached to a document appears to be known.

^{page 26 note 1} Sigillum commune in both the B.M. charters.

^{page 26 note 2} Possibly Capud nostrum est dominus; cf. the counterseal of Selby Abbey.

^{page 26 note 3} Probably dating from the foundation c. Feb. 1397/8.

^{page 26 note 4} In his foundation charter the Duke of Surrey mentions the affection he bore for the feasts of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and St. Nicholas, in whose honour and everlasting memory he had founded the house (Yorks. Arch. Journal, xviii, p. 254).

^{page 26 note 5} The representation of St. Nicholas precisely corresponds with that in the priory seal; and the two seals were doubtless contemporary.

^{page 27 note 1} Although the last letter of the second word in the legend is apparently R the seal is more likely to be as described above than that of the ‘Secretary of the Chapter’ as given in the B.M. Catalogue.

^{page 27 note 2} Used by the prior as collector of tenths for the king.

^{page 28 note 1} Described by the prior and convent in the deed as sigillum nostrum.

^{page 28 note 2} Described as sigillum officii mei.

^{page 28 note 3} Described in both documents as the seal of the chapter.

^{page 29 note 1} So named in the deed, but written above the line, and may be in error; for John Tunstal occurs as prior in 1387 and 1402 (Baildon, Monastic Notes, p. 166).

^{page 29 note 2} The seal of the warden is described in the proceedings in The Scrope and Grosvenor Controversy (vol. i, p. 340)—the Resurrection above a tower, on either side a shield, one bearing a saltire and the other a bend (for Scrope); sigillvm Gardini Ordinis Fratrvm Minorvm Ricamvndi.

^{page 30 note 1} It seems reasonably certain that illustration no. 3, the last word of the legend being revelo (B.M. Cat., no. 3905), has nothing to do with Rievaulx.

^{page 30 note 2} The illustrations in pl. viii, nos. 2, 3, of this paper also show that there must have been two separate seals of this design with trifling differences in detail; one of these is taken from a cast in the B.M. (xlvii, 676) and the other from an original impression attached to one of the Durham deeds.

^{page 31 note 1} Hunter, South Yorkshire, vol. ii, p. ii, gives an illustration of the common seal of Roche from the deed of surrender. This illustration is most misleading. In the centre beneath a canopy are the Virgin and Child; in either side-niche is a monk facing inwards; the legend is given as . The seal attached to the deed of surrender is now only a fragment; but sufficient remains to show quite conclusively that the central figure is an abbot standing, as described above, and to suggest that the general design resembles the late 13th- or early 14th-century Cistercian seals of Byland, Jervaulx, and Rievaulx. Practically no trace of the legend remains; and it is not unlikely that Hunter's wording was imaginative. Aveling, Roche Abbey, copies Hunter's illustration in his plate x, fig. 4. His fig. 3, taken from a deed of date 1385, resembles the seal attached to the deed of surrender more closely than does his fig. 4; and it seems probable that these two illustrations were really derived from impressions of the same original matrix.

^{page 31 note 2} This has a counterseal, oval, ⅝ × ½ in., an antique gem, a winged figure; also illustrated loc. cit.

^{page 31 note 3} Possibly, though less likely, a late seal of the abbey.

^{page 33 note 1} With a counterseal, pointed oval, 1¼ × ¾ in., a double-headed eagle: .

^{page 33 note 2} B.M. Cat., no. 4328, given in V.C.H. Yorks., iii, p. 105, is not the seal of Whitby Abbey, but the counterseal of the Borough of Hartlepool; this is corrected in B.M. Cat., vol. ii, sub Hartlepool.

^{page 34 note 1} Probably either Thomas de Bolton, abbot 1394–1413, or John de Skelton, abbot 1413–37.

^{page 34 note 2} The type of lettering is conjectural.