¹ Raymundus de Pennaforte, Summa (Rome, 1603), p. 442.

² F. E. Hagedorn, General Legislation on Indulgences (Washington, 1924), p. 46.

³ “dummodo de peccatis suis contriti fuerint et ore confessi”—Michael Tangl, Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500 (Innsbruck, 1894), p. 281.

⁴ Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ed. Rose Graham, Canterbury and York Ser., lxxvi, 249.

⁵ The Register of William Wickwane, ed. William Brown, Surtees Soc, cxiv, 22.

⁶ The Register of William of Wykeham, Part ii, ed. T. F. Kirby, Hampshire Record Soc, xiii, 123.

⁷ The Register of Thomas de Brantyngham, Part I, ed. F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, Exeter Episcopal Registers, vi, 566.

⁸ Richard d'Aungerville of Bury: Fragments of his Register, Surtees Soc, cxix, 28.

⁹ “et aliqui ex ipsis … a poena et a culpa … absolvant: nos, abusus huiusmodi … aboleri volentes”, etc. Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg (Leipzig, 1922), ii, 1190.)

¹⁰ Hagedorn, Chap. vi.

¹¹ “Forma litterarum praedicatorum” (Mansi, Concilia, xxii, 1050). See also Nikolaus Paulus, “Die Formel: In remissionem peccatorum iniungimus”, in Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelaiter (Paderborn, 1922–23), i, 120–131.

¹² Tangl, p. 282.

¹³ “[Da]te igitur elemosinam ut omnia munda sint vobis, quia elemosina a morte liberat, peccata purgat, et facit in venire vitam aeternam. Sicut aqua ignem ardentem extinguit, ita elemosina peccato resistit.” Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Part ii, ed. J. T. Fowler, Surtees Soc, lxxviii, 83.

¹⁴ “quum solum ipsis competat indulgentias sibi concessas insinuare populo, et caritativa postulare subsidia suppliciter ab eodem” (Corpus Juris Canonici, ii, 1190).

¹⁵ In the whole matter of canon law the authors are deeply indebted to the generous personal assistance of Professor Stephan G. Kuttner of Catholic University and to Nikolaus Paulus' thorough discussion of the canon law governing the pardoner, “Die Quästoren oder Almosensammler als Verkündiger von Ablässen”, in Geschichte des Ablasses, ii, 265–291.

¹⁶ “peccuniarum questui solum operam impudenter impendunt, et non profectum animarum querunt” (The Register of John de Grandisson, Part ii, ed. F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, Exeter Episcopal Registers, iv, 1178).

¹⁷ See below, n. 73.

¹⁸ Bullarium Romanum, iii, 768.

¹⁹ “effusis lacrimarum profluviis, ad quas habent oculos eruditos … sic motive proponunt, tamque indulgentiarum numerositatem contra statutum generalis Concilii, & relaxationem peccaminum pollicentur, quod vix est aliquis, etiam ipsorum agnoscens nequitias, qui se a subventione eorum valeat continere”—C. Moguntinum (Mansi, xxiii, 1102).

²⁰ “benefactoribus locorum, quorum quaestores exsistunt, remissionem plenariam peccatorum indulgeant” (this and following citations are derived from Clement V's catalogue of abuses practiced by pardoners: Corpus Juris Canonici, ii, 1190).

²¹ “indulgentias populo motu suo proprio de facto concedant.” …

²² “a periuriis, homicidiis et peccatis aliis sibi confitentes absolvant” …

²³ “et aliqui ex ipsis eos a poena et a culpa, (ut eorum verbis utamur,) absolvant” … The direct effect of this false forgiveness of sin was an erroneous belief on the part of the victim that he was duly confessed and absolved. One of Berthold von Regensburg's numerous indictments of the pardoner reads: “dû verderbest dem almehtigen gote ein michel teil sêlen. Swenne dû ûf stêst unde vergibest einem alle die sünde die er ie getete umb einen einigen helbelinc oder umb einigen pfenninc, sô waenet er, er habe gebüezet, unde wil für baz niht mêr büezen”—Predigten, ed. Franz Pfeiffer and Joseph Strobl (Vienna, 1862, 1880), i, 117.

²⁴ “animas tres vel plures parentum vel amicorum illorum, qui eleemosynas eis conferunt, de purgatorio, (ut asserunt mendaciter), extrahant, et ad gaudia paradisi perducant” (Corpus Juris Canonici, ii, 1190).

²⁵ “damnatis in inferno liberationem pro modica pecunia promittentes”—C. Bitterense (Mansi, xxiii, 693); “ab inferno, ubi nulla est redemptio. Unde … contra iustitiam suam animam patris vel matris vel alicuius se pro certa pecunia extrahere dicunt”—“De Helymosinis Colligendis: Capitulum lxxxvii”, Liber Regulae S. Spiritus, ed. A. Francesco la Cava (Milan, 1947), p. 199.

²⁶ See discussion below, n. 51.

²⁷ “luridis manibus seu pedibus crematorum” (Bullarium Romanum, iii, 389).

²⁸ “Hi profanissimi, pro reliquiis saepe exponunt ossa profana hominum, seu brutorum, & miracula mentiuntur”—C. Moguntinum (Mansi, xxiii, 1102).

²⁹ “Et cum forsitan ossa galline deferant secum dicunt: Quicunque ilia obsculatus fuerit, in dentibus, ore vel fatie, nunquam dolorem sentiet” (Liber Regulae S. Spiritus, p. 199). The abuse of false relics is, however, the rarest of the pardoner's abuses; see discussion below, n. 51.

³⁰ “pro uno firmaculo, anulo vel adminus uno denario conferendo” (“Registrum Radulphi Baldock, etc.”, ed. R. C. Fowler, Canterbury and York Series, vii, 134).

³¹ “bladum a simplicibus extorqueant” (Liber Regulae S. Spiritus, p. 199).

³² “peccuniam, animalia, et cetera queque bona” (Register Grandisson, i, 444); “pecunia et alia bona” (Memorials of Beverley Minster: Chapter Act Book, Part I, ed. A. F. Leach, Surtees Soc, xcviii, 204).

³³ “vitae sanctitatem exterius praetendentes … eleemosynas … postea in ebrietatibus & luxuriis, in omni conspectu prodigaliter consumere non erubescunt”—Synodus Exoniensis (Mansi, xxiv, 829); “consumunt in commessationibus, ebrietate, ludis, & luxuriis”—C. Moguntinum (Mansi, xxiii, 1102). Examples could be multiplied. The proclivity of the pardoner for the tavern seems to have been one of his best known characteristics.

³⁴ “Eleemosynarum quoque quaestores … admitti, nisi apostolicas vel diocesani episcopi litteras veras exhibeant, prohibemus”—C. Lateranense, iv (Mansi, xxii, 1050).

³⁵ “Et tunc, praeter id quod in ipsis continebitur litteris, nihil populo proponere permittantur” (idem). The effect of this provision was to deprive every eleemosynary questor of the right to preach. Abuses in preaching were by no means limited to lay pardoners (see Paulus, ii, 289), and we have found no basis for J. M. Manly's assertion that “friars and others specially found and declared fit” were permitted to preach eleemosynary indulgences (Some New Light on Chaucer [New York, 1926], p. 129). On the contrary, friars, or more properly hospital brothers engaged in collections, are necessarily included because collections for hospitals were presumed to be carried on by members of the order operating the hospital, but that any exception from this rule was made in their favor does not appear. The much used papal form letter “Si iuxta sententiam” specifically prohibits brothers from preaching except as provided in the Lateran Council. This form letter states that questors are to be admitted to churches “ut super elemosinis acquirendis per … eosdem fratres, dummodo idonei et bone conversationis existant, verbum exhortationis ad populum proponatur, salva in omnibus supradictis declaratione concilii generalis” (Tangl, p. 282). The General Council (Lateran Council) provided as above that the questor was to preach only in so far as reading the contents of his letters could be considered preaching. The other frequently used papal form letter “Querelam gravem” contains the same provision (ibid., p. 267). An example of the application of this rule to brothers in England is to be found in the register of John le Romeyn of York: “cum fratres hospitalis predicti [Sancti Jacobi de Alto Passu] vel eorum nuncii ad vos accesserint, fidelium elemosinas petituri, ipsos benigno intuitu admittatis gracius ad petita; quos, tamen, predicare nolumus ullo modo” (The Register of John le Romeyn, Surtees Soc., cxxiii, 7). To this one may add the comments of the canon law glossators, the clearest of which reads: “questores non sunt permittendi praedicare”—Clementis Papae V Constitutiones (Rome, 1582), v, ix, 2. On this whole question, see Paulus, ii, 289–290, from which the major portion of the above material was taken.

³⁶ “Forma litterarum praedicatorum”, which begins, “Quoniam (ut ait Apostolus) omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi” (Mansi, xxii, 1049–50).

³⁷ “Qui autem ad quaerendas eleemosynas destinantur, modesti sint & discreti, nec in tabernis aut locis aliis incongruis hospitentur” (idem).

³⁸ Bullarium Romanum, iii, 767–768.

³⁹ Corpus Juris Canonici, ii, 1190. On the technical aspects of this canon, see Paulus, ii, 284–285.

⁴⁰ “De Questoribus”, Regimen Animarum (Harley 2272), f. 9^b et seq. The MS. is dated 1343. Through the kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum, we are enabled to publish in its entirety this valuable summary by an English manualist of the law governing the pardoner in Chaucer's own time. The section has appeared only in brief extracts in Owst's Preaching in Med. England, Chapt. iii. At ll. 24–26, “questores … diocesani”, the text varies from that of the “Abusionibus” (Corpus Juris Canonici, ii, 1190) in its insistence on episcopal letters. We have somewhat modernized and corrected the text.

⁴¹ To the authority of the Regimen Animarum on this point, one may add that of Wyclif. In the Tractatus de Blashemia-–ed. M. H. Dziewicki (London, 1893), p. 272—he discusses the law of the pardoner and its non-enforcement, noting the “Cum ex eo” and “Abusionibus.” The less important “Sedis Apostolicae”, however, he does not mention.

⁴² See letter addressed to collector for fabric of Beverley Minster asking him to turn in his collections immediately, “Quum magister operis ecclesiae nostra[e] pecunia hiis diebus indigeat vehementer” (Chapter Act Book, I, 281).

⁴³ “in hospitali S. Antonii Viennensis diocesis jaceat magna multitudo languencium, cecorum, claudorum, aridorum, et aliorum variis morborum generibus laborancium, expectancium graciam de supernis, quorum corpora et membra sunt de diversis infirmitatibus graviter deformata, ad quorum vite sustentacionem prope dicti hospitalis non suppetunt facultates, nisi devocio Christi fidelium ad illud per elemosinarum largicionem manus porrexerit adjutrices” (The Register of William of Wykeham, Part ii, ed. T. F. Kirby, Hampshire Record Soc, xiii, 107).

⁴⁴ “Si iuxta sententiam” (Tangl, p. 282).

⁴⁵ See Innocent III's complaint against the Knights of St. John that illiterate lay brothers were being used for collections: “fratres Hospitalis sancti Joannis laici et illiterati” (Patrologia Latina, ccxiv, 425).

⁴⁶ “Quia inverecundi quaestores turpissimos suos quaestus ad firmam emunt”—“Articuli … editi per universitatem Oxon.”, Concilia Magnae Britanniae, ed. David Wilkins (London, 1737), iii, 365; “Nec praedicatio alicujus provinciae eis, vel quibusdam aliis, committatur ad firmam”—C. Parisiensis (Mansi, xxii, 821).

⁴⁷ Attempts on the part of the parish clergy to squeeze from the pardoner a part of his receipts seem to have been very general. Typical is the formulary “Querelam gravem”, which states, “iidem presbiteri quandam partem elemosinarum pauperum exigunt impudenter” (Tangl, p. 267). Almost all English licenses direct the local clergy to release the collection to the pardoner “absque diminutione qualibet.”

⁴⁸ See Paulus, ii, 266–287.

⁴⁹ See, e.g., those by Nicholas IV in 1290 (Les Registres de Nicholas IV, n. 2324–46) and by Robert Winchelsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1309 (Reg. Baldock, 103–105).

⁵⁰ Jean XXII: Lettres Communes, n. 49814.

⁵¹ The carrying of false relics seems to have been the most effectively controlled of all the pardoner's abuses. Genuine relics might legally be carried by the pardoner if the diocesan bishop's permission were obtained (C. Parisiense [1213]: Mansi, xxii, 821; Cilium Oculi Sacerdotis, cited by G. R. Owst, Preaching in Medieval England [Cambridge, 1926], p. 109, n. 1), but the sale of such relics was forbidden by the Lateran Council of 1215, and the prohibition, at least in so far as pardoners were concerned, was apparently observed. Traffic in false relics seems also to have been very infrequent. Although one may find the standard abuses of pardoners repeated over and over again, the abuse of false relics does not appear among them. There is no mention of it in any of the manuals which treat of the pardoner, and it is noticed in only a few church councils: C. Moguntinum (1261); C. Lugdunense (1274); C. Trevirense (1310) (Mansi, xxiii, 1102; xxiv, 131; xxv, 269). The relative infrequency of the practice of employing false relics may perhaps be attributed to a considerably sterner attitude toward this abuse. Thus the Synod of Exeter (1287) provides—without mentioning pardoners—that anyone causing false relics to be venerated be treated as a heretic: “tanquam haereticos censemus graviter puniendos” (Mansi, xxiv, 830). Only the hardiest of adventurers seem to have been willing to take this risk (for an example of such a group, see Bullarium Romanum, iii, 389).

⁵² The shrine seems to have been built between 1302 and 1308, and major work upon the nave to have been undertaken immediately after the completion of the shrine (Chapter Act Book, i, xxxiii, xciv–xcv).

⁵³ Chapter Act Book, i, xxii; Acta SS Bollard., xv, 166.

⁵⁴ Ibid., i, 229–231.

⁵⁵ If one catalogues from the fragmentary existing records the institutions, all possessing indulgences, which were collecting in the Province of York, Beverley Minster's main area of operations, within the same years (1302–28) the results are impressive. With the exception of St. Mary Roncesvalles, all of the major hospitals are represented—St. Anthony of Vienne (The Register of William Greenfield, Part i, ed. William Brown, Surtees Soc, cxlv, 107), St. James of Altopascio (ibid, i, 131), Holy Ghost in Saxia of Rome (ibid., i, 107). With them are the major churches of York: the metropolitan church of St. Peter (ibid., i, 4) and the collegiate church of St. Wilfrid (Memorials SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Pt. ii, ed. J. T. Fowler, Surtees Soc, lxxviii, 82). Somewhat earlier will be found the inevitable bridge and burned monastery.

⁵⁶ Beverley Minster had received indulgences from Archbishops John le Romeyn for repair of the existing fabric (Chapter Act Book, i, 2) and Thomas Corbridge for the shrine (ibid., i, 3). In collections Chapter questors were allowed to state their business immediately after the privileged metropolitan church of St. Peter, a not inconsiderable advantage (ibid., ii, 72, in Surtees Soc, cviii).

⁵⁷ Elyas de Lumby's letter of appointment indicates that collections were customarily made in Lincoln (ibid., i, 229). The letter which he carried to the Bishop of Lincoln thanks the Bishop for past favors (ibid., I, 253).

⁵⁸ On 7 June 1314 simultaneous letters were addressed to the Bishops of Norwich and Ely (ibid., I, 317). The Bishop of Norwich replied that his diocese was already filled with collectors for recently burned religious buildings within the diocese, and with collectors whom he felt obliged to admit “propter mandata superiorum nostrorum.” He could admit no more “absque gravi scandalo” (ibid., i, 318). The implication would seem to be clear that by this date (1314) Beverley Minster had still to obtain any further privileges within the Province of Canterbury. There is no indication that Beverley Minster was ever licensed to collect in the dioceses of Norwich and Ely.

⁵⁹ 11 April, 1309 (Reg. Baldock, etc., pp. 103–105).

⁶⁰ Chapter Act Book, i, 252–253.

⁶¹ Elyas's letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury reads: “Vestram paternitatem in Domino requirimus et rogamus quatinus Elye de Lumby, clerico … dignemini indulgere, et super hujusmodi indulgentia vestras litteras concedere munere caritatis” (Chapter Act Book, i, 252). This request is principally for permission to collect, but an appeal for the grant of indulgences would seem to be at least implied. If one compares this letter with John of Gaunt's frank request to “ercevesques et evesques” to grant collectors of St. Mary Roncesvalles “pardon et indulgence, et sur ce de granter lettres de mandement a voz obedienters”, the parallelism of phrase will be apparent (Register, I, 45, Camden Soc, 3rd Ser. xx).

⁶² On 23 Dec. 1312 three questors were appointed for Lincoln (Chapter Act Book, I, 299). Collections were probably resumed considerably earlier than this record indicates.

⁶³ Beverley Minster tried again in 1314, relying on the influence of William de Melton, in 1309 Provost of Beverley and in 1316 elected Archbishop of York (DNB). He is requested to give aid to John de Lincoln, a successor Elyas de Lumby, who has “quaedam negotia ipsam fabricam et quaestum ejusdem tangentia in curia Domini Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi” (ibid., i, 323–324). There is, however, no record of John de Lincoln's having received any indulgences or of collections having been extended into additional dioceses of the Province of Canterbury.

⁶⁴ Ibid., i, 368. Although not early examples (1319–20), these are among the few which indicate this aspect of the system's operation.

⁶⁵ See the contract of Elyas de Lumby, above, p. 260. The practice of substitution seems to have been a well established one. Innocent III in 1198 complains of the ill effects of this delegation of authority: “Quia vero non sufficiunt per se loca omnia circumire, sibi clericos, sacerdotes, laicos, etiam rudes, non religiosos, sed in nequitiis exercitatos assumunt” (Patrologia Latino, ccxiv, 425).

⁶⁶ Chapter Act Book, i, 369.

⁶⁷ Ibid., i, 382.

⁶⁸ See Monechant's substitution of John de Claworth. Monechant's appointment by the Chapter reads: “praesentibus valituris donec eas duxerimus revocandas.” Claworth's appointment by Monechant reads: “praesentibus tantummodo valituris quousque illas duxero revocandas” (ibid., i, 368).

⁶⁹ Walter de Stamford and Alexander de Derby, questors of Beverley Minster, when sent to Norwich and Ely in June 1314, were issued “transcriptum duarum bullarum, videlicet Alexandri et Innocentii, sigillo Capituli consignatum” (Chapter Act Book, I, 317). This is probably a more or less accepted arrangement, since we find Archbishop Robert Winchelsey stating in 1306 that letters may be originals or “eorum tenoribus sub notis et autenticis sigillis contentis” (Reg. Baldock, etc., p. 39).

⁷⁰ The seal of the diocesan Bishop was the regular guarantee to the clergy of the diocese that the pardoner's credentials were genuine. The inspection of all papal letters was required of the diocesan Bishop by the Council of Vienne; see Reg. Anim (p. 257, above), ll. 28–29. These he seems to have sealed, just as he did indulgences which he himself granted to institutions within his own diocese (Reg. Brantyngham, i, 489, 350). The Archbishop also examined and sealed papal letters (Reg. Baldock, I, 211).

⁷¹ Walter de Stamford and Alexander de Derby likewise received from the Chapter letters of appointment or “procuratoria” (“Facta fuerunt duo procuratoria unum Waltero et aliud Alexandra”—Chapter Act Book, I, 317). Questors were examined by the Bishop or his Official to make sure that the questor bearing the letter of appointment was the questor named in it (Reg. Greenfield, I, 131–132).

⁷² “nostras Literas, vero sigillo nostro munitas, nostrique anuli impressione in dorso sigilli consignatas” (Reg. Brantyngham, I, 320). The practical application of the provision for the episcopal inspection of pardoners' credentials imposed by the Council of Vienne seems to have been that no questor could be admitted without letters from the diocesan Bishop. See Reg. Anim. (p. 257, above), ll. 24–26, and n. 40.

⁷³ “Proviso quod hujusmodi negotium expediatur sicut decet statim post Evangelium lectum” (Chapter Act Book, ii, 72–73). The more usual form is the vaguer “intra missarum solemnia.” On this point see Owst, Preaching, Appendix I.

⁷⁴ “absque diminutione qualibet fideliter persolvant et restituant” (Chapter Act Book, ii, 72). This provision is of extremely general occurrence.

⁷⁵ “presentibus post triennium minime valituris” (Reg. Wickwane, p. 22). Most licenses ran for two or three years.

⁷⁶ The text of this letter of protection does not appear in the Chapter Act Book, but it is specified as one of Richard Monechant's credentials in a letter of revocation (ii, 27).

⁷⁷ “juramento corporaliter praestito obligari dicto Capitulo in vigintilibris sterlingorum” (Chapter Act Book, I, 230). This bond appears to have been used generally, for the summons addressed to Robert de Pagula, also a questor for Beverly Minster, reminds him to render his accounts “prout juramento corporali a te praestito es astrictus” (i, 320).

⁷⁸ “in admissione praefati officii liberata per indenturam” (i, 298).

⁷⁹ See citation of Robert de Pagula (i, 320).

⁸⁰ i, 298.

⁸¹ John de Fitling, Elyas de Lumby, John de Bristol, Robert de Pagula, Richard Monechant, Thomas Gamell, and Thomas Bradele all were called to a sudden accounting or relieved of their positions at one time or another.

⁸² The term “clericus” would here seem to indicate that the questor was literate, had received a church education, and the first tonsure. For discussion of whole problem, see Karl Krebs, “Der Bedeutungswandel von M.E. Clerk”, Bonner Studien zur englischen Philologie, xxi (1933).

⁸³ Chapter Act Book, I, 369.

⁸⁴ Ibid., ii, 28. He is the only collector to whose name “clericus” is not affixed. However, in other cases the title sometimes is used and sometimes not.

⁸⁵ “burgenses Beverlaci” (ii, 79).

⁸⁶ Reg. Greenfield, i, 4–5. John de Lincoln seems always to have enjoyed a certain distinction. He is here named as collector for the whole Province of York, a position he could hardly be expected to fill without substituting additional questors.

⁸⁷ Ibid., i, 107.

⁸⁸ Idem. He obtained appointment to all of these offices on the same day, 21 May 1306.

⁸⁹ Chapter Act Book, i, 298. He must have been employed at some time preceding November 1312, for the record cited is of his being relieved of his duties by Elyas de Lumby. He was soon re-employed.

⁹⁰ Ibid., i, 307.

⁹¹ Ibid., i, 323–324. See also above, n. 63.

⁹² There are mentions of “dominus Willelmus de Humbleton, capellanus” (ibid., I, 280); “Johannem de Langtoft, capellanum” (i, 298); and “Sir J. Smith” (i, 299). These names occur scarcely more than once each.

⁹³ Reg. Greenfield, i, 107; Memorials SS. Peter and Wilfrid, ii, 83.

⁹⁴ Chapter Act Booh, I, xcvii. See here editor's remarks on professional collecting.

⁹⁵ The recently published Liber Regulae S. Spiritus (Milan, 1947) is an excellent addition to our knowledge of these hospitals, but the rule of such a hospital unfortunately sheds little light on the actual procedures used in the gatherings of alms. See “De Helymosinis Colligendis”, pp. 198–199.

⁹⁶ Reg. Greenfield, i, 131–132. Some light is shed by this incident on the usual procedure in matters concerning the pardoner. The questors here had come first to the Archbishop, who sent them to his Official, because he remembered “quod in domo archiepiscopi non consueverunt negocia hujusmodi expediri set ad officialem omnia mittebantur.”

⁹⁷ Editor's note (idem). It is difficult to say whether the collectors here mentioned carried an indulgence from Bishop Patrasso, or whether they carried a Papal indulgence and an accompanying letter, probably also with indulgence, from the Bishop. The latter is perhaps the more likely. Altopascio was regularly granted Papal indulgences and regularly collected in York. One finds such references as early as 1280, when Archbishop William Wickwane admitted questors of this hospital “juxta vires votivas litterarum papalium” (Reg. Wickwane, p. 212).

⁹⁸ Reg. Greenfield, i. 132. This would appear to be one of the commonly used paraphrases of the formulary “Si iuxta sententiam”, which provides that collectors be brothers of the Hospital “idonei et bone conversationis” or their nuntii “dummodo non sint questuarii” (Tangl, p. 281). Archbishop John le Romeyn of York in 1287 uses approximately the language of the letters here mentioned in licensing “fratres hospitalis predicti [Sancti Jacobi de Alto Passu] vel eorum nuncii” (Reg. Romeyn, i, 7).

⁹⁹ “qui videtur procurator substitutus cum in substitutione nominetur Bonaventura alumpnus et confrater hospitalis” (Reg. Greenfield, i, 131). The sense of “cum” would here appear to be “whereas.”

¹⁰⁰ “Preterea ille Anglicus qui venit cum eo questuarius est notorius, cui in privilegiis committi negocium prohibetur” (ibid., i, 132). The Official refused to permit him to collect because his letters forbade their use by questors of evil repute or “questuarii”; see n. 98, above, and Paulus: “Es sollte damit verhindert werden, dass die religiösen Genossenschaften ihre Kollekten durch gedungene Quästoren vornehemen liessen” (Geschichte des Ablasses, ii, 289).

¹⁰¹ The following examples do not actually concern Anglicus himself. The entry noticed above is the only one mentioning him. All examples used, however, are from records of pardoners for foreign hospitals. Anglicus is employed as a type figure.

¹⁰² The rather stern attitude of the Official in this case may in some measure be due to the privileges which the questors were demanding, nothing less than the convocation of all the clergy in the diocese: “Petunt insuper convocacionem cleri vestri per to tarn vestram diocesim quam sine precepto vestro eciam si nuncius esset idoneus concedere non auderem” (Reg. Greenfield, I, 132).

¹⁰³ “Emanavit Litera pro Nunciis negociorum Sancti Antonii, Viennensis Dyocesis, per annum duratura; et dabunt Fabrice Exoniensi v marcas” (The Register of Walter de Stapeldon, ed. F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, Exeter Episcopal Registers, ii, 398). Italics are editor's.

¹⁰⁴ “Apud Lawyttone … emanarunt quatuor Mandata Archidiaconis et eorum Officialibus, pro subsidio Domus Sancti Antonini; et dabit dicti subsidii Collector ad elemosinam Domini v marcas” (ibid., ii, 326). See also the license of John de Wintone to collect in the diocese for the same Hospital: “et dabit singulis annis vj marcas” (idem).

¹⁰⁵ On the customary nature of this contribution, Paulus observes: “Es war nämlich vielfach üblich, dass die Sammler sowohl den Bischöfen als den Pfarrgeistlichen eine Abgabe entrichteten” (Geschichte des Ablasses, ii, 290). This, of course, does not mean that all Bishops adopted this procedure.

¹⁰⁶ “per se et suos inquirant in parochia in qua officium visitationis impendunt in rebus vel personis aliquid fuerit corrigendum et excessus si quos ibidem invenerint vel tunc vel in proximo capitulo corrigantur”—W. Lyndwood, Provinciale (London, 1529), f. 5^a.

¹⁰⁷ See Bishop Grandisson's citation of Richard de Chuddele, Official of the Archdeacon of Cornwall, for receiving a deposit of fifteen marks sterling “per quosdam ficticios elemosinarum quaestores Sancti Sepulchri” (Reg. Grandisson, i, 426–427).

¹⁰⁸ Bishops seem to have understood the practices of Archdeacons, but rarely to have become explicit as did Bishop Grandisson. Complaints were directed to Archdeacons of the regions in which the Bishop knew pardoners to be operating without his license, “in … jurisdictionis nostrae elusionem manifestam” (“The Register of Richard de Kellawe”, ed. T. D. Hardy, Return Brit. Med. Aev. Scrip., Pt. lxii, iii, 326). It is inconceivable that the Bishop should know of the activities of these pardoners while the Official, whose profitable business it was to seek out irregularities, did not know of their presence in his own archdeaconry.

¹⁰⁹ “Ceterum mirantes audivimus quod quidam inferiores ministri, ut de majoribus ad presens ob eorum reverenciam taceamus, a predictis fratribus et nunciis [Sancti Antonii] pecuniam, pro concedenda eis licencia proponendi negocia pauperum hospitalis predicti et ad opus ipsorum elemosinas colligendi in locis in quibus iidem ministri potestatem habent et jurisdiccionem exercent, extorquere nituntur” (Reg. Romeyn, i, 9). The class of “inferiores ministri” was headed by the Archdeacon's Official. The “majores ministri” here glanced at would appear rather clearly to be the Archdeacons themselves.

¹¹⁰ The diocesan Bishop alone was entrusted with examination and licensing. See above, notes 70, 72.

¹¹¹ See above, pp. 253–255.

¹¹² The Archdeacon is the minister of justice regularly appealed to for the apprehension of pardoners (see above, n. 108; Chapter Act Book, ii, 27–28). The Council of Vienne, however, placed punishment in the hands of the Bishop: “per episcopos locorum punientur” (Regimen Animarum, 1. 53).

¹¹³ See above, n. 73.

¹¹⁴ In York, in the year 1287, for instance, existing records indicate that the following institutions were licensed to collect:

Date of License Institution Duration

19 Mar. 1286–87 St. Anthony of Vienne 1 year

31 July 1286 Humberston Abbey 5 years

10 Nov. 1286 St. Cuthbert, Durham 3 years

18 Oct. 1287 St. James of Altopascio 2 years

23 Apr. 1286 Bridge at Stamford 3 years

10 Sept. 1286 Cathedral Whithorn 7 years

¹¹⁵ “Querelam gravem” (Tangl, p. 267).

¹¹⁶ “Urbani V Papae bulla contra quaestores hospital. Jerusalem in Anglia” (Wilkins, iii, 84; cited by Jusserand “Chaucer's Pardoner and the Pope's Pardoners”, Chaucer Soc. Essays, v, 432–433).

¹¹⁷ Piers Plowman, B. Prologue 81. See also Wyclif: “he (the pardoner) schal be sped & resceyved of curatis for to have part of þat he getiþ?” (The English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted, ed. F. D. Matthew, EETS, O.S., lxxiv, 154).

¹¹⁸ “Manducemus ergo ut evangelizemus, non evangelizemus et (ut?) manducemus, sicut predicatores conducti, qui ponunt in celum os suum cum bene predicant, set lingua eorum transivit in terra cum laudem vel lucrum captant” (Liber Regulae S. Spiritus, p. 198). The figure is from Psalm 72, v. 9 (Vulgate).

¹¹⁹ “et non est ita largum et magnum hospitale in toto mundo … si omnes hospitales domus essent in unum congregate”—John Bromyarde, Summa Praedicantium (Basle, 1484), ii, Tit. “Mors”, cxxxix.

¹²⁰ “grauntynge mo yeris of pardon than comen before domes day” (Wyclif, Unprinted English Works, p. 154).

¹²¹ See discussion above, p. 254.

¹²² Cilium Oculi Sacerdotis (f. 41^r) reads: “Nec benedictionibus eorum populus se prosternat.” Owst, Preaching, p. 109, n. 2.

¹²³ “Sicque prefati questores, per nostram Diocesim pervagantes, vestris opere et auxilio et favore suffulti indebito, populum simplicem et indoctum seducunt et, quantum in eis est, fallunt spiritualiter et deceptant” (Reg. Grandisson, ii, 1179).

¹²⁴ Paulus, ii, 287.

¹²⁵ “se quaestores et fratres militiae S. Lazari Jerosolimitani, licet falso, palam et publice se asserunt” (Jean XXII: Lettres Communes, n. 29656). The military religious order of St. Lazarus, which originated as a hospital for lepers in Jerusalem, had by 1253 transferred its headquarters from Acre to France. By the middle of the 14th century, it possessed over 300 establishments: E. J. King, The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London, 1931), pp. 303–304. The Order appeared in England as early as the reign of Stephen: R. M. Clay, The Mediaeval Hospitals of England (London, 1909), p. 251.

¹²⁶ St. Anthony seems to have had the most far-flung collection system of all. Consequently one finds Papal letters of complaint in her behalf against the operation of false pardoners (Les Registres d'Innocent IV, n. 1411); against refusal to admit collectors to churches (Les Registres de Clement IV, n. 1547); against the detention of pigs “nomine Sancti Antonii nutriti” (Jean XXII: Lettres Communes, n. 49822), etc. The extent of these difficulties would appear to be a measure of the institution's inability to take direct action against distant abuses.

¹²⁷ The Hospital of St. Mary Roncevall at Charing Cross was a daughter house of St. Mary Roncevalles in the Pyrenees. From its foundation (ca. 1230) to the Black Death (1348–49) it was the prosperous central house of the Order in the British Isles. The effects, however, of disease, war, and schism made themselves felt, and in 1382, 1390, 1393, 1396, king's clerks were Wardens of the Hospital. It is interesting to note that the king's clerk was not forgetful of collections. False questors were suppressed and a sealed chest containing “bulls, apostolic instruments, and other muniments” was seized: James Galloway, Historical Sketches of Old Charing (London, 1914), pp. 1–27, 41; Manly, New Light, pp. 125–126. The history of the “naturalization” of this alien house corresponds rather closely to that of another, the London house of St. Anthony of Vienne (Clay, Mediaeval Hospitals, pp. 208–209).

¹²⁸ See above, n. 116.

¹²⁹ “Historical Papers and Letters from the Northern Registers”, ed. J. Raine, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, Pt. lxi, 187–188. According to Riant, the “fratres Bethleemitani”, an order of hospitallers, arose at the beginning of the thirteenth century. (Etudes sur l'Histoire de l'Eglise de Bethléem [1888], i, 96). Matthew of Paris seems to regard them as newly arrived in England in 1257, when he comments upon their habit with its distinctive star, and records the gift to them of an establishment in Cambridge (“Chronica Majora”, ed. H. R. Luard, Rer. Brit. Med. Aev. Scrip., Pt. lvii, v, 631). It would appear, however, that the Brothers of Bethlehem never were at Cambridge (H. P. Stokes, “Outside Trumpington Gates”, Cambridge Ant. Soc, xliv [1908], 31) and that the Brothers had arrived in England and established themselves at Bishopsgate in London by 1247 (Dugdale, Monasticon [1661], ii, 381–383). The famous Hospital of St. Mary of Bethlehem at Bishopsgate was clearly a dependency of the Church of Bethlehem (Cal. Papal Letters, xi, 6–8), and was served by the Brothers of Bethlehem, as appears rather definitely from the 1247 grant of the Bishopsgate establishment, where the starred habit of the Brothers is prominently mentioned: “signum stellae deferant publice in Capis, & Mantellis”; “Habitum cum stellis gerentis” (Monasticon, ii, 382, 383). The difficulties which the Bishops of Bethlehem experienced in controlling pardoners for their international collection system are indicated by Riant: “À leurs fonctions hospitalières, ils joignaient celles de quêteurs pour l'église de Bethléem; et nos évêques se voient souvent forcés de recourir au S. Siège, soit pour les ramener à l'obéissance, soit pour leur faire restituer le produit de leurs quêtes (Etudes, i, 97). For assistance with this material, we are deeply indebted to Dr. Richard Emery of Queens College.

¹³⁰ In the “Reply of Friar Daw Thopas” (“Political Poems”, ed. T. Wright, Rer. Brit. Med. Aev. Scrip., Pt. xiv, ii, 78–79) the worthy friar avoids the accusation of farming brought against the friars by saying:

I trowe thou menys the pardonystres

of seint Thomas of Acres,

of Antoun, or of Runcevale,

that rennen so faste aboute.

The institutions here named are St. Thomas of Acre, St. Anthony of Vienne, and St. Mary Roncesvalles.

¹³¹ J. S. P. Tatlock, Mind and Art of Chaucer (Syracuse, 1950), p. 92.

¹³² “Preface” to the Fables, Ancient and Modern.

¹³³ “For myn entente is nat but for to wynne” (vi [C] 403). See above, n. 16.

¹³⁴ “Nay, I wol drynke licour of the vyne,

And have a joly wenche in every toun“ (vi [C] 452–453). See above, n. 33.

¹³⁵ ”Thus spitte I out my venym under hewe

Of hoolynesse, to semen hooly and trewe“ (vi [C] 421–422). See above, n. 33.

¹³⁶ See F. N. Robinson's note to vi [C] 333 (Complete Works [Boston, 1933]). Preaching as an abuse is discussed above, n. 35.

¹³⁷ “Com forth anon, and kneleth heere adoun,

And mekely receyveth my pardoun“ (vi [C] 925–926). See above, n. 122.

¹³⁸ vi [C] 913–915; 931–940. See above, nn. 22, 23.

¹³⁹ vi [C] 906–910. See above, p. 255.

¹⁴⁰ i (A) 686–687; vi (C) 342–343:

Bulles of popes and of cardynales,

Of patriarkes and bishopes I shewe.

All of the prelates here mentioned regularly granted indulgences except Cardinals, and Cardinals might do so when they possessed jurisdiction. A foreign hospital might conceivably gain indulgences at one time or another from all of them. There is thus no inherent improbability in the source of the credentials. It is, however, difficult to know whether Chaucer is here getting at the much criticized plethora of indulgences “comen from Rome al hoot”, or whether he is bringing out a common characteristic of pardoners, the tendency to exaggerate the indulgences they do have: “indulgencias alias quam Literis nostris in ea parte testimonialibus annexas” (Reg. Grandisson, ii, 1178); “cum veris sibi indultis falsa quedam et subdola miscere dicuntur in suis exortacionibus” (Reg. Baldock, etc., p. 139).

¹⁴¹ By context the seal would seem to be that of the Bishop. See Piers Plowman, B Prologue, 68–69. However, the term “lige lordes seel” may allude rather to the royal protection than to the episcopal license (see above, n. 76). Brown (ed. Pardoner's Tale [Oxford, 1935], p. 27) and Mrs. Marie Hamilton, (“Credentials of Chaucer's Pardoner”, JEGP, XL [1941], 70) hold the latter opinion.

¹⁴² “Which were me yeven by the popes hond” (vi [C] 922). “Und er giht, er habe von dem bâbeste den gewalt, daz er dir alle dîne sünde abe neme umbe einigen helbelinc oder einen heller” (Berthold von Regensburg, Predigten, i, 208).

¹⁴³ New Light, pp. 124–130. See also S. Moore, MP, xxv (1927), 59–66.

¹⁴⁴ “Paradiso”, xxix, 124 ff. (cited by Paulus, Geschichle, ii, 282). It is interesting that Dante chose St. Anthony of Vienne, perhaps the most widely known of all.

¹⁴⁵ In 1393, there is an entry in the Ely Episcopal Registers: “Indulg. for Hosp. B.V.M. of Rouncevall Pampilion' dioc., and for construction of a branch of it at Charing Cross” (ed. A. Gibbons [Lincoln, 1891], p. 398). Another reference in Winchester ca. 1399 records the granting of an indulgence by Bishop Wykeham for subscribers to the same building fund (Reg. Wykeham, ii, 490). Building funds were notoriously unending, and we have no reason to suppose that these two references represent either the beginning or the end.

¹⁴⁵ St. Anthony (Reg. Innoc, iv, n. 1411; Honorius, iii, in Bull. Rom., iii, 389; Reg. Jean xxii, n. 49762, etc.); St. James of Altopascio (Reg. Greenfield, i, 131–132); Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem (Reg. Grandisson, i, 426–427); Holy Ghost of Rome (Reg. Grandisson, ii, 1178–79); Knights of St. John (Wilkins, iii, 84), Brothers of Bethlehem (Reg. Baldock, i, 103–105; Northern Registers, pp. 187–188). We have not discovered a reference to a purely local institution's being cited in this connection, but the foreign hospitals and their branches, as indicated above, are frequently cited, and occasionally in a group. Thus Bishop Grandisson specifies as offenders collectors for the hospitals of the Holy Ghost, St. Anthony, and St. John (Reg. Grandisson, ii, 1179).

¹⁴⁷ Contemporary satire does not afford a very satisfactory basis for comparison since references to pardoners by the names of the institutions they represent are not numerous. However, such references as we have come upon seem to bear out the general pattern. Thus Piers Plowman mentions “Paumpelon” (St. Mary Roncesvalles) and “Rome”, which may possibly be the Hospital of the Holy Ghost, of Rome (C. Passus, xx, 218), while the “Reply of Friar Daw Thopas” refers to St. Anthony, St. Thomas of Acre, and St. Mary Roncesvalles (see above, n. 130).

¹⁴⁸ See above, n. 51.

¹⁴⁹ See above, n. 140. One wonders whether it is not the relics rather than the credentials which lead Jusserand to the conclusion that the Pardoner is “false” (Chaucer Soc. Essays, v). Jusserand would have us believe that two separate groups of pardoners existed: the one a saintly pardoner—who tended rapidly to disappear—and the other an evil pardoner, like a mildewed ear blasting his wholesome brother. Yet in practice no such distinction existed. It was quite possible to be a true pardoner one day and a false one the next—and vice versa. Thomas of the Brothers of Bethlehem, who preached such abuses as to attain the distinction of being cited personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury, had in fact been an accredited pardoner, but had simply refused to accept his suspension from office (Reg. Baldock, etc., pp. 103–105; see also above, n. 129). Alexander de Derby, on the other hand, was apprehended by the Chapter of Beverley Minster and confessed that he had collected in the Chapter's name without any authorization. Yet less than two months after the suspension of sentence, he was duly licensed and collecting for Beverley Minster (Chapter Act Book, I, 316–317). The only real distinction between a true and a false pardoner is the possession of a license. Jusserand gives us no good reasons for considering the Pardoner's credentials invalid.

¹⁵⁰ The satiric end of the Pardoner-Summoner relationship has been recognized by C. R. Sleeth, “The Friendship of Chaucer's Summoner and Pardoner”, MLN, lvi (1941), 138. However, Sleeth seems to follow Jusserand in considering the Pardoner “false”, a conclusion not justified, it seems to us by Chaucer's presentation (see above, nn. 140, 149).

¹⁵¹ In the Council of the Latetan and elsewhere (see Reg. Anim., ll. 11–12) the wearing of the habit of an order as a kind of camouflage is noted. There is no indication that the Pardoner takes the least trouble to disguise his activities. Although Mrs. Hamilton has argued skilfully that the Pardoner is an Augustinian canon (JEGP, xl, 1–72), there seems to be little of the religious left about him. Whatever he may have been before, and there are definite hints of the apostate about him (vi [C] 439–453), he would seem here to be the strongest example of the “quaestuarius notorius”, the professional collector at his worst.

¹⁵² The Summoner, the personification of the non-enforcement of law, is here definitely associated with the Archdeacon, but that Chaucer intended to limit the reference of the Summoner to the Archdeacon is doubtful. The location of the Archdeacon's Hell, which the Summoner privately reveals to a “good felawe”: “‘Purs is the ercedekenes helle,‘ seyde he” (i [A] 658) is to be found in Gower's Vox Clamantis: “Torquentur bursa sic reus atque rea” (iii, 194) applied to ecclesiastical justice in general. One suspects that Chaucer associated the Summoner with the Archdeacon for the same reason that he associated the Pardoner with a foreign hospital: both seem to have enjoyed unenviable reputations (see J. T. Queenan, “A Translation of Book III of Gower's Vox Clamantis”, unpublished Master's Essay: New Brunswick, 1949, “Introduction”, p. vii).

¹⁵³ See Durandus's analysis of the effects of the unrestrained abuses of pardoners. He mentions the deception of the people, the corruption within the Church, and the contempt of the power of the keys which the Church brings upon itself by permitting such abuses (Paulus, ii, 284). These are almost precisely the aspects of the pardoner which Chaucer places before us.

¹⁵⁴ Proposal for the Universal Use of Irish Manufacture, Proposal that all the Ladies and Women of Ireland should appear constantly in Irish Manufactures, etc. This is of course not to say that there is no irony in these works.