^{page 144 note 1} Five Centuries of Religion, iv (Cambridge, 1950), chaps, xlix, 1, pp. 508–59Google Scholar.

^{page 145 note 1} Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 630–2; Monasticon (ed. 1819), ii. 245–6.

^{page 145 note 2} The Dissolution of the Monasteries' first appeared in Fraser's Magazine in 1857, whence it was reprinted in the first series of Short Studies on Great Subjects; these went through many editions, with different paginations; in the 1905 reprint of the eighth (1890) ed. the essay is on pp. 401–42 of vol. i. The case is treated in the History of England, ii. 437 (2nd ed., 1862). The commentary there is practically identical with part of that in Short Studies. Froude's second example was taken from Wigmore abbey, for which see Knowles, M. D., ‘The Last Abbot of Wigmore’ in Essays presented to Rose Graham (1950), 138 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 145 note 3} Froude (Short Studies, I. i. 415) wrote of the ‘most lame and impotent conclusion’ of the letter, and stated that the abbot ‘was invited merely to reconsider his doings and, if possible, amend them’. Actually, the letter ends as noted above. Neither Froude nor Gasquet, who used Morton's monition to support contrary views, realized that the invitation to a normally exempt superior to reform his own monastery was common form.

^{page 146 note 1} Monasticon, ii. 206. It is strange that the editors (and, later, Dr. Gairdner) did not notice that Morton's letter of 1490 was addressed to a William, said to have been long (diu) of ill repute.

^{page 146 note 2} Chronica Monasterii S. Albani: Registra quorundam abbatum, ed. H. T. Riley (Rolls Series, 28, VI, i, ii, 1872–3). These will be cited henceforward as Regg., by volume and page.

^{page 146 note 3} E.g., he wrote (Regg., i. 479, note 2) that Wallingford ‘died probably in 1490’.

^{page 146 note 4} ‘Annals of an English Abbey’; in Short Studies, third series.

^{page 146 note 5} Morton was not raised to the cardinalate till 1493; Gasquet (Wallingford, 78–9) makes the same slip, as does also Coulton (Five Centuries, iv. 525). Of the letter, Froude wrote (Short Studies, iii. 126–7): ‘Innocent VIII enjoined on Cardinal Morton to visit St. Albans and report on it. Cardinal Morton, after examination of witnesses, has left in his Register as the result of his enquiry, &c.’

^{page 146 note 6} Ibid.: ‘It was the same William of Wallingford who made the Abbey of St. Albans while he ruled over it, a nest of sodomy and fornication—the very aisles of the church itself being defiled with the abominable orgies of incestuous monks and nuns … The abbot himself, too old for pleasures of the flesh, &c.’ For an explanation of the term ‘incestuous’ we may consult pp. 145–7 of the first volume of Short Studies, where Froude, àpropos of Luther, shows himself more sympathetic towards a canonical offence between persons in religious vows which, he says, ‘was regarded with a superstitious terror as a kind of incest’.

^{page 147 note 1} English Historical Review, xxii (1907), 365–6Google Scholar.

^{page 147 note 2} Vol. i (1908), 269–72.

^{page 147 note 3} Gasquet in a letter to The Tablet of 17 October, 1908. See below, p. 165, note 1.

^{page 147 note 4} E.H.R., xxiv (1909), 91–6.

^{page 147 note 5} Gasquet, letter to The Tablet of 16 January 1909.

^{page 147 note 6} E.H.R., xxiv (1909), 320–1.

^{page 147 note 7} Vol. iii (1911), introd., xxx–xxxiii.

^{page 147 note 8} Abbot Wallingford: an inquiry into the charges made against him and his monks (London, n.d., actually 1912)Google Scholar.

^{page 147 note 9} E.H.R, xxvii (1912), 815–7Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 1} In Five Centuries, iii (1936), 481Google Scholar, Coulton made some passing remarks on the case; ibid., note 3, he promised to deal with Gasquet's treatment of Morton's letter in his next volume; he also treated briefly of St. Albans in an Appendix (ii, pp. 214–6; 254–60) to Ten Medieval Studies (Cambridge, 1930)Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 2} History of the Abbey of St. Alban (London, 1917Google Scholar: but the preface is dated 1914).

^{page 148 note 3} Reddan, M. Miss in Vict. County Hist. Herts, iv (1914), 403–8Google Scholar. Cf. the same writer's articles on Sopwell and Pré (ibid., 424–5; 431). Miss Reddan, so she informed me a few years ago, has unfortunately never found occasion to continue her researches on monastic history.

^{page 148 note 4} For notes on the Register, and Morton's metropolitical visitations, see Jenkins, C. Professor, ‘Cardinal Morton's Register’ in Tudor Studies presented … to A. F. Pollard (London, 1924), 41 ffGoogle Scholar. Coulton (Five Centuries, iv. 525 n.) was mistaken in thinking that Professor Jenkins's paper would have given him further light on the papal action in the case; the bulls cited there were already familiar to previous writers.

^{page 148 note 5} There is a division of opinion on this; Coulton strongly upheld the abbot's authorship; Gasquet as strongly denied it; the internal evidence from style would suggest either Whethamstede or one imitating his way of writing.

^{page 149 note 1} The MS. is Bodley Rawlinson B. 332; the mutilations are at f. 376 and at the end of the volume. Professor R. A. B. Mynors has kindly examined this MS. at Oxford. He informs me that other pages, not noted by the editor, have been torn out, but that the damage gives every sign of having been done at random. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that the mutilation has any sinister significance.

^{page 149 note 2} Printed by Riley as Appendix (D) to his first volume of the Registers, 451–79.

^{page 149 note 3} The MS. is B. M. Cott. Nero D. vii. 25r–68r.

^{page 149 note 4} Abbot Walling ford, 62.

^{page 149 note 5} E.g., Regg., i. Appendix (D), 471: Johannes … de quo fit mentio in praemissis. Cf. ibid., 468: Haec autem scripta sunt ut legant fratres, etc.; ibid., 474: Haec autem pauca de gestis ejus inseruimus, ut legentes fratres, etc.

^{page 149 note 6} Nine pages are omitted by the editor as having been printed already in another context. Cf. p. 472 and pp. 423–32.

^{page 150 note 1} The following is the text of the passage in Regg. i. 479: Et in omnium praedictorum testimonium, et omnium futurorum exemplum praeclarissimum, nos, Thomas Ramryge, tune Prior, et nos, caeteri patres et confratres hujus Monasterii Conventuales, cunctis mortalibus sigillo nostro communi veraciter significamus, et omnium nostrorum unanimi et assensu singulorum private scriptura testamur haec omnia pie et benigniter ab ipso Patre optimo hie fuisse completa et perfecta, anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo octogesimo quarto, die videlicet mensis Augusti octava.

^{page 150 note 2} Regg., i. 477: Paucis post fluentibus annis, id est, quatuordecim.

^{page 150 note 3} Regg., i. 274. This was not noticed by Gasquet; in addition, in his not very literal rendering of the passage (Walling ford, 30–1) he omits tune before the word Prior. This word seems clearly to set the date after Ramryge's election—his testimony is of particular value (this, it would seem, is the point of the word tune) because he was prior when Wallingford finished the tale of his benefactions.

^{page 150 note 4} Walling ford, 55. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the confusion of thought in these pages of Gasquet's book.

^{page 150 note 5} Dr. Coulton, as he says in Five Centuries, iv. 788, obtained transcripts of these documents from the Vatican archives; these have now gone, with his books, to Chicago University. Through the kind offices of Mgr. C. L. Duchemin, Rector of the Beda College, I have been able to obtain fresh transcripts, which have been used in preparing this paper.

^{page 151 note 1} Archiv. Vatic, arm. xxxix torn. 21 f. 235b. This is Coulton's reference (loc. cit., 788), which differs from Gasquet's (tom. 19 f. 270b) and itself differs in style from those in the transcripts which I have been able to check. It may be noted that in Five Centuries iv. 515, note 17 should be deleted where it is printed. It is in fact a part of note 6 on p. 510 which has gone astray.

^{page 151 note 2} Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 630.

^{page 151 note 3} Archiv. Vatican. Inn. VIII arm. vi, Fondo Suppliche Vol. 919 (olim 913), f. 74^V (olim 66^V). Gasquet's reference is incorrect and his comment is confused, but in effect he conflates the petition of Morton's proctor on 30 June and that of Wallingford's agent on 3 July. This vitiates his account.

^{page 151 note 4} Inn. VIII ann. vi, Fondo Suppliche Vol. 919, f. 71^v (olim 913, f. 69).

^{page 151 note 5} Inn. VIII ann. vi. Reg. Lat. vol. 893 f. ib. Both the petition and the bull are straightforward and short.

^{page 151 note 6} Inn. VIII ann. vi. Reg. Lat. vol. 884 fol. 127. The operative portions of this bull are translated by Coulton in Five Centuries, iv. 523–5; the translation seems accurate and no more obscure than the original, where the language is tortuous, if not intentionally ambiguous; after repeated re-reading it appears probable to the present writer (a) that the judges delegate have not yet pronounced (as against Gasquet's statement) and (b) that no more power is given to Morton than in the two issues of Quanta in Dei ecclesia (as against both Gasquet and Coulton). Whatever powers are given can still be negatived by an appeal secured by the bull Decet Romanum pontificem.

^{page 151 note 7} Regg., i. 5. Wallingford is even alluded to as officiarius generalis, a title strange to monastic usage, and perhaps used sarcastically.

^{page 151 note 8} Pluralism of offices was a usual item in visitation questionnaires throughout the later Middle Ages, and as such appeared in the list of questions given for the use of the visitors of Henry VIII in 1535 (Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 787): ‘Whether any religious person of this house do bear, occupy or exercise more offices than one.’ For almost a century able or domineering superiors are found engrossing several offices, but cases of pluralism in a subject are far rarer.

^{page 152 note 1} Regg., i. 117–35.

^{page 152 note 2} Regg., i. introd. xvi, xviii; Gasquet, Wallingford, 8–9; 72 note.

^{page 152 note 3} Gasquet, Walling ford, 77–8.

^{page 152 note 4} Regg., ii. 50.

^{page 152 note 5} Regg., i. Appendix (D), 477: ‘Jam vero hie dicam, palamque monstrabo, quonam scilicet pacto per Spiritus Sancti viam in Abbatem postea electus fuerit. Suscepto pastorall officio, etc’ Gasquet, op. cit., 56, cf. 65, renders: ‘I will plainly show that he was afterwards elected Abbot, that is to say by unanimous agreement, etc.’ As he is twice at pains to make it clear, by construing pacto per Spiritus Sancti viam = ‘by unanimous agreement’, that he failed to recognize the common phrase quo pacto = ‘in what manner’, it is probable that he also misread quonam as quoniam, and translated as ‘that’.

^{page 153 note 1} Gasquet, op. cit., 2: ‘As the visitor studies this work of beauty (sc. the reredos) he must recall the fact that art is a finer and more subtle expression of the inmost soul even than words’. Even if we grant this ‘fact’, artist and patron must not be confused. Who fished the murex up? And what deductions could be made as to the moral excellence of Lord Grimthorpe?

^{page 153 note 2} Cf. the article in V.C.H. Herts, iv, already cited. The painstaking and critical scholarship of the author have added greatly to our knowledge of the affair, though it may be that she attributes too exclusively to Wallingford abuses which were common to the age.

^{page 153 note 3} Regg., ii. 287–9. Among the requests made at Rome is one ‘… ut fiat declaratio super exemptione dicti monasterii, ut poterit appellari ad Curiam de Arcubus’. Miss Reddan, art. cit., 407, takes this to mean that the abbot wished to invalidate appeals such as that of the prioress of Sopwell, but Dr. Irene Churchill has suggested to me the explanation given above (see her Canterbury Administration, i. 427, 460–5, 603). The tuitorial appeal safeguarded the appellant from all molestation for a year, during which he could prosecute his cause at Rome. It was renewable for a longer period.

^{page 154 note 1} Regg., ii. 289.

^{page 154 note 2} This was one of Gasquet's discoveries; for his sources for this and other Vatican documents v. Wallingford, 50, 52 and 54 (notes). Here his reference is Vat. Arch. Arm. xxxix tom. 19 f. 270b.

^{page 154 note 3} Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 630.

^{page 154 note 4} The writer (J. B. Cibo) of the article on Innocent VIII in the Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique vii. ii. 2002–3, remarks: ‘II nʼy a quʼune voix pour parler de sa faiblesse, de sa laissez-aller et de son manque de caractère … il accentua done la vénalité des charges de la curie. Les possesseurs de ces offices cherchèrent à sʼindemnifier aux dépens du public, etc.’

^{page 155 note 1} V. supra, p. 160 note 3. Gasquet misread this document.

^{page 155 note 2} A note of the reply is on the document.

^{page 155 note 3} V. supra, p. 160 note 5.

^{page 155 note 4} V. supra, p. 160 note 6.

^{page 155 note 5} There is no record of it in the Lambeth archives, and neither Gasquet nor Dr. Coulton's searchers, assisted by Mgr. Mercati, were able to find any further relevant documents in the Vatican archives.

^{page 155 note 6} Lollardy, iii. introd., xxxiii: ‘There must have been one more move upon the chessboard.’

^{page 155 note 7} Wallingford, 60: ‘It seems therefore not unlikely that this declaration satisfied the Archbishop that he had been misled by listening too readily to evil and malicious reports.’

^{page 155 note 8} Regg., i. App. (D) 478: ‘Atque tandem … justissimam victoriam reportavit, necnon nostra privilegia omnia illaesa et inviolata cum nostro magno honore … servavit’. Gasquet's interpretation of these words, as by no means excluding a suspension of the privileges by the pope pro hoc vice tantum, appears untenable.

^{page 155 note 9} There, are, however, slight indications that some measures of reform were effected. Thus a new prioress was appointed at Pré, in place of the object of Morton's strictures, shortly before Michaelmas, 1490, and though, as Miss Reddan notes (V.C.H. Herts, iv. 431), it is always possible that her obnoxious predecessor died just then, the coincidence of date is noteworthy. Similarly, a contemporary list of the St. Albans community is extant (printed by Pantin, Chapters of the English Black Monks, Camden Soc, 3 series, liv (1937), 232–4); it does not contain the name of Thomas Sudbury, the monk accused of misconduct by Morton, and another holds his office of almoner. It may be remarked that Coulton (Five Centuries, iv. 521 et al.) strangely confuses the Thomas Sudbury mentioned by Morton with a Thomas Sudbury who was one of the claimants of the headship of St. Andrew's Northampton in the case before Morton at this time. They are certainly distinct persons: Thomas Sudbury of St. Albans occurs frequently in the Registers first as a simple monk and then as Cellarer and Almoner (v. index of Regg. s.v.).

^{page 156 note 1} Gasquet (Walling ford, 61) places Wallingford's death in June 1492, as the congé d'élire was issued on June 29. As it happens, there is record of a citation to visitation, dated 23 May, from the abbot of Ramsey to the abbot of St. Albans. It was received on 5 June, and the usual certificate was returned by Ramryge, as prior during the vacancy, on 15 June (Pantin, Chapters, iii. 223, 232, 244–5).

^{page 156 note 2} The fragmentary notes of comperta, printed by Pantin (Chapters, iii. 234) contain no echoes of Morton's charges. We may note that the abbey of Ramsey, whence the visiting abbot came, had in 1482 been the recipient of a mandate, not very different from that of Morton, from the diocesan, Bishop Russell (printed by A. H. Thompson, Visitations … of Lincoln diocese, ii. i, lxviii, Lincoln Record and Canterbury & York Societies, 1919).

^{page 156 note 3} For this, see the remarks of Professor A. H. Thompson, op. cit., lxii-lxix. The Peterborough mandate is there printed; the rest of the process is ibid., part ii, no. lx. Of the St. Albans case Professor Thompson observes: ‘Morton's arraignment of the convent is in no sense an unique document … it is merely a member of a fairly numerous class, modelled upon forms which were well known in every episcopal chancery; and it is only by a recognition of this elementary point that its real historical value can be appreciated.’

^{page 157 note 1} Regg., ii. introd., xxiv-vi, xxxii-iii. But note that Riley treated the matter without reference to contemporary practice.

^{page 157 note 2} V.C.H. Herts, iv. 408, 401.

^{page 157 note 3} Ibid., 401.

^{page 157 note 4} The offence of offering money in return for appointment to office was an old one; cf. Pantin, Chapters, i. 17 (1219), 234 (1221). In Regg., i. 146–7, there is a list of monks who left St. Albans under abbot Stoke by virtue of papal bulls de promotione.

^{page 157 note 5} Gasquet, Wallingford, 45, hints at this.

^{page 158 note 1} V. Lincoln Visitations, ed. A. H. Thompson, ii. 68–78.

^{page 158 note 2} Gasquet, Wallingford, 3, 4, 28, 69.

^{page 158 note 3} Gairdner, Lollardy, iii. introd., xxxiii.

^{page 158 note 4} The writer of Whethamstede's Register four times uses the term politicus, politice, of Wallingford (Regg., i. 5, 104).