Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T08:56:13.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of the Cistercian nuns in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2022

Sally Thompson
Sally Thompson*
Affiliation:
University of London Westfield College
Get access

Extract

The early Cistercians were remarkable for their hostility to the feminine sex. ‘No religious body’ wrote Southern, was ‘more thoroughly masculine in its temper and discipline than the Cistercians, none that shunned female contact with greater determination or that raised more formidable barriers against the intrusion of women.’ The whole tenor of several of the early Cistercian statutes was that women were to be avoided at all costs. One decree enjoined the monks to sing like men and not imitate the high-pitched tinkling of women. Apart from these disparaging references to the female sex in general, an early statute explicitly stated that no Cistercian abbot or monk should bless a nun. In the thirteenth century this was interpreted as applying to the solemn consecration of nuns—a task which pertained to the bishop. It is stated that abbots did have the power to bless nuns at the end of their novitiate. But this later interpretation may well reflect later subtleties. It seems probable that the decree was originally intended to stop the Cistercians concerning themselves with nuns. The view that it was originally a straight-forward prohibition is strengthened by the fact that the same early decree went on to forbid the baptizing of infants. This decree, therefore, is crucial to any analysis of the position of nuns within the Cistercian order in the twelfth century. Dating it is difficult.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 1 , 1978 , pp. 227 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1978 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Southern, [R. W.], Western Society [and the Church in the Middle Ages] (Harmondsworth 1970) p 314Google Scholar.

2 Canivez 1 p 30 cap 73.

3 Ibid 1 p 19 cap 29.

4 Ibid 2 pp 100-1 cap 53 (1231); 2 p 231 cap 5 (1241).

5 Other historians have also suggested this interpretation. See Krenig, [E.], ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster [nach den konstitutionem von Citeaux’] ASOC 10 (1954) pp 11, 16Google Scholar; Fontette, [M.], Les religieuses [à l’âge classique du droit canon. Recherches sur les structures juridiques des branches féminines des ordres] (Paris 1967) p 29Google Scholar.

6 For a summary of the problems surrounding the primitive Cistercian documents see Knowles, D., Great historical enterprises. Problems in monastic history (Edinburgh 1963) pp 197–222Google Scholar. He pointed out, p 220, that the first volume of Canivez is largely out dated by new findings.

7 Damme, J. Van, ‘Genèse des Instituta generalis capituli’ Citeaux 12 (1961) pp 42–53Google Scholar.

8 Lucet, [B.], La codification Cistercienne [de 1202 et son évolution ultérieure] (Rome 1964) P39Google Scholar.

9 BM Additional MS 11294, printed in Fowler, J., Cistercian statutes ad 1256-7 (London 1890)Google Scholar. In this collection, cap 7 p 24 which preceded the prohibition about baptism, merely stated that no bishop was to bless a novice. No mention is made of nuns.

10 Canivez 1 p 405 cap 3.

11 Ibid 2 pp 230-45.

12 For the refusal of the Premonstratensians to admit any more sisters, see a bull of Innocent III (1198) PL 214 (1890) col 174. See also Southern, , Western Society pp 313–14Google Scholar. From the end of the twelfth century the Arrouaisians attempted to limit the numbers of women within the order, and in 1233 it was decreed that no more were to be received without the consent of the whole chapter—see Milis, [L.], L’orare des chanoines [réguliers d’Arrouaise, son histoire et son organisation, de la fondation de l’abbaye-mère (vers 1090) à la fin des chapitres annuels (1471)], 2 vols (Bruges 1969) 1 p 248Google Scholar.

13 For a study of this expansion of Cistercian nunneries in the thirteenth century see Roisin, [S.], ‘L’efflorescence Cistercienne [et le courant féminin de piété au treizième siècle’], RUE 39 (1943) pp 342–78Google Scholar.

14 Canivez 1 p 180 cap 55. For an earlier decree about the presence of women at dedications see ibid 1 p 61 cap 10 (1157).

15 DDC 3 col 775.

16 Canivez 1 p 139 cap 27. The tone is in marked contrast with the incisive decrees compelling the attendance of abbots at general chapters held at Citeaux, for example ibid 1 p 128 caps 49-50. See also p 237 of this chapter.

17 General chapters were to be held annually at Citeaux, ibid 1 p 13. For an example of the general chapter acting against a local chapter of abbots in Lombardy see ibid 1 p 136 cap 13 (1191).

18 Bouton, [J.] Croix, [‘L’établissement des] Moniales Cisterciennes,’ Mémoires de la société pour l’histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays Bourguignons 15 (Dijon 1953) PP 83–6Google Scholar.

19 Ibid pp 88-9.

20 Ibid p 90. See also Guignard, [P.], Les monuments primitifs [de la règle cistercienne publiés d’après les manuscrits de l’Abbaye de Cîteaux] (Dijon 1878) p lxxxviiiGoogle Scholar.

21 Bouton, Croix, ‘Moniales Cisterciennes’ pp 94–6Google Scholar.

22 PL 185 bis (1854) col 1410.

23 PL 180 (1902) cols 1199-1200; Jaffé 2 no 9013.

24 PL 185 bis (1854) cols 1413-14.

25 Krenig, ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ pp 15-16 and Fontette, , Les religieuses p 29Google Scholar also take this view.

26 Baluze, E., ‘Vita beati Stephani abbatis monasterii Obazinensis’ Miscellanea, ed Mansi, J., 4 vols (Lucca 1761) 1 pp 158–9Google Scholar.

27 Ibid 1 p 160.

28 Manrique, A., Cisterciensium seu vertus ecclesiasticorum annalium a conditio Cistercio, 4vols (Lyons 1642-59) 1 p 430Google Scholar. A decree of 1218 later ordered that nunneries were not to be constructed within six leagues of men’s abbeys, see Canivez, 1 p 485 cap 4.

29 Boyd, [C], A Cistercian nunnery [in medieval Italy; the story of Rifreddo in Saluzzo, 1220-1300] (Cambridge Mass., 1943) p 80Google Scholar.

30 The nunneries were Abbaye Blanche, Bival and Villers Canivet.

31 Rambaud, [J.] Buhot, [‘L’abbaye Normande de] Savigny, [chef d’ordre et fille de Cîteaux],’ Moyen Age 7 (1936) p 105Google Scholar.

32 See Damme, J. Van, ‘La constitution Cistercienne de 1165’, ASOC 19 (1963) p 62 n 3Google Scholar.

33 Buhot Rambaud, ‘Savigny’ p 188. See also O’Donnell, J., The congregation of Savigny, 1147-1344. (Fordham doctoral thesis 1952) p 22Google Scholar. O’Donnell described the union as ‘more a marriage than an amalgamation.’ For an example of a statute specificallyexempting the abbot of Savigny from a ruling which applied to the other Cistercian abbots, see Canivez 1 p 48 cap 22 (1153).

34 Buhot Rambaud, ‘Savigny’ p 106.

35 For evidence of the religious fervour among women in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries see Bolton, [B. M.], ‘Mulieres sanctae’, SCH 10 (1973) pp 77–95Google Scholar.

36 Graham, R., S. Gilbert of Sempringham and the Gilbertines (London 1903) p 13Google Scholar.

37 Life of Gilbert, Saint, ASB February 1 p 572Google Scholar. For a different interpretation of the significance of this refusal, see Golding, [B.], ‘St Bernard and St Gilbert’ [The influence of St Bernard: Anglican essays with an introduction by Jean Leclercq,] ed Ward, B. (Fairacres Oxford 1976) pp 44–6Google Scholar.

38 ‘Dialogus inter Cluniacensem et Cisterciensem monachum’, Martène and Durand, Thesaurus 5 col 1639. For the dating of the Dialogue see Williams, W., ‘A dialogue between a Cluniac and a Cistercian’, JTS 31 (1930) p 167Google Scholar.

39 Liber de miraculis S. Marie Laudensis, PL 156 (1880) cols 1001-2.

40 Canivez, [J.], L’ordre de Cîleaux [en Belgique des origines (1132) au vingtième siècle] (Forges lez Chimay 1936) pp 124–5Google Scholar. See also Hinnebusch, [J.], [The] Historia Occidentalis [of Jacques de Vitry,] Spic Fr 17 (1972) pp 263, 265Google Scholar.

41 Canivez, , L’ordre de Citeaux pp 319–20Google Scholar.

42 Hinnebusch, , Historia Occidentalis p 263Google Scholar.

43 Krenig, ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ p 19.

44 Boyd, , A Cistercian nunnery pp 41–2, 95–103Google Scholar.

45 Canivez I p 405 cap 3. For the role of the father abbot in the care of nunneries see Fontette, , Les religieuses p 35Google Scholar.

46 Krenig, , ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ p 20 n 1Google Scholar.

47 Roisin, , ‘L’efflorescence Cistercienne’ pp 354–5Google Scholar.

48 Hinnebusch, , Historia Occidentals p 263Google Scholar. See also Canivez, , L’ordre de Cîteaux pp 149, 198, 212, 231, 255Google Scholar.

49 Ex gestis sanctorum Villariensium, MGH SS 25 (1880) p 230.

50 Meer, [F.] Van der, Atlas [de l’ordre Cistercien] (Amsterdam/Brussels 1965) p 274Google Scholar.

51 C[hronica] V[illariensis] M[onasterii], MGH SS 25 (1880) p 199.

52 Ibid p 197.

53 Moreau, [E.], L’abbaye de Villers[-en-Brabant aux 12 et 13ième siècles] (Brussels 1909) PP 49–50Google Scholar. See also Hinnebusch, , Historia Occidentalis p 267Google Scholar.

54 Krenig, , ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ pp 17–18Google Scholar. Southern, , Western Society p 316Google Scholar, argued that individual Cistercian abbots did play an important part in the expansion of the nunneries before the general chapter took any account of them.

55 Moreau, , L’abbaye de Villers p 114Google Scholar. For Villers’s patronage of the béguines see Roisin, ‘L’efflorescence Cistercienne’ pp 363-4.

56 Krenig, , ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ pp 19–20Google Scholar.

57 The problem of freeing nunneries from episcopal control is reflected in the statutes of 1244 and 1245 which decreed that new nunneries could not be incorporated until the diocesan had granted a charter renouncing his claims over them Canivez 2 p 275 cap 7 and p 291 cap 6.

58 For the question of Cistercian exemption see Mahn, J., L’ordre Cistercien et son gouvernement (Paris 1951)Google Scholar cap 4.

59 Canivez 1 p 405 cap 3.

60 Ibid 1 pp 320-1 cap 5. Educating children had long been forbidden by the Cistercians, see ibid 1 p 31 cap 78.

61 Ibid 1 p 333 cap 75.

62 Ibid 1 p 403 cap 62.

63 Meer, Van der, Atlas p 274Google Scholar.

64 Compare the view of Boyd, , A Cistercian nunnery pp 84–5 n 28Google Scholar. She also believed there was a change of attitude but dated it from the last quarter of the twelfth century. The English evidence she used to support this date is questionable.

65 Hinnebusch, , Historia Occidentalis pp 116–17Google Scholar. See also note 12 of this chapter.

66 Bolton, ‘Mulieres sanctae’ p 79.

67 Gonzalez, J., El reino de Castille en la epoca de Alfonso VIII, 3 vols (Madrid 1960) 2 p 809Google Scholar.

68 Ibid 3 pp 208-9.

69 In his will the king made generous grants to Cîteaux, ibid, 3 p 346. Alfonso’s wife Eleanor, daughter of Eleanor of Aquitaine was, like her mother, a patron of Fontevrault, ibid 1 p 191, 2 pp 945-6. The power and aristocratic prestige of Las Huelgas suggests interesting similarities with Fontevrault.

70 Lopez, [R.], [El real monasterio de] Las Huelgas [de Burgos y el hospital del Rey] (Burgos 1907) p 329 no 4Google Scholar.

71 Canivez 1 p 139 cap 27. See also p 229 of this chapter. Part of the problem may have been resistance on the part of the nuns to dictation from the all-male general chapter.

72 PL 185 bis (1854) cols 1413-14. For the dating of abbot Guy (1194-1200) see Marilier, J., Chartes et documents concernant l’abbaye de Cîteaux (Rome 1961) p 27Google Scholar.

73 Dimier, [A.], ‘Chapitres generaux [d’abbesses Cisterciennes’], Citeaux 11 (1960) p 272Google Scholar.

74 Dimier, ‘Chapitres generaux’ p 270. Compare the view of Fontette, , Les religieuses p 37Google Scholar who suggested that the chapters at Tart started in 1188 or 89. This is presumably based on a mis-dating of abbot Guy derived from Guignard, , Les monuments primitifs p lxxxixGoogle Scholar.

75 Dimier, ‘Chapitres generaux’ p 274.

76 PL 216 (1891) col 356; Potthast 1 no 4143.

77 Lopez, , Las Huelgas p 329 no 4Google Scholar.

78 Canivez 1 p 517 cap 4.

79 Ibid 2 p 68 cap 16.

80 For example ibid 1 p 505 cap 12 (1219).

81 Ibid 1 p 517 cap 4.

82 Ibid 2 p 335 cap 3.

83 Ibid 2 p 69 cap 17.

84 Ibid 2 p 19 cap 30.

85 CVM p 199.

86 Canivez I p 405 cap 3.

87 For occasions when abbots were reprimanded for acting without this consent see ibid 1 p 231 cap 46, 1 p 216 cap 31.

88 Fontette, , Les religieuses p 31Google Scholar.

89 Krenig, ‘Mitteklterlich frauenklöster’ p 17 n 4 listed four incorporations but omitted one of 1219, Canivez 1 p 513 cap 51. One decree, ibid 1 pp 415-16 cap 59 referred to two nunneries.

90 Canivez 1 p 517 cap 4 (1220), 2 p 68 cap 16 (1228).

91 Krenig ‘Mittelalterlich frauenklöster’ p 17 n 5 cited five. There are a few other examples in addition to these, for example the nunnery of St Pons de Gemenos and its daughter houses were associated in 1223, Canivez 2 p 29 cap 31. It is also possible that Tarrant, Dorset, was incorporated in this year see pp 243-4 of this chapter.

92 Boyd, , A Cistercian nunnery p 102Google Scholar.

93 Canivez 1 p 45 cap 1 (n 52).

94 Ibid 2 p 87 cap 18; 2 pp 85-6 cap 10.

95 For details of these see Roisin, ‘L’efflorescence Cistercienne’ pp 342-78.

96 Canivez 2 p 139 cap 3.

97 Ibid 2 p 76 cap 5 (1229).

98 Ibid 2 p 87 cap 18.

99 Ibid 2 pp 354-5 caps 40-4.

100 See Canivez, L’ordre de Citeaux for individual nunneries.

101 Roisin, ‘L’efflorescence Cistercienne’ p 359.

102 Canivez 2 p 361 cap 4 (1251).

103 Lucet, , La codification Cistercienne p 10Google Scholar.

104 Canivez 2 p 169 cap 4 (1237).

105 Fontette, , Les religieuses p 41Google Scholar.

106 Guignard, , Les monuments primitifs pp lxxiv–lxxxviii, and pp 407–643Google Scholar.

107 MRHEW p 272. Hutton, Nunthorpe and Baysdale are counted as one convent as it was a single foundation which moved site. Knowles and Hadcock noted that sixteen of these houses belonged at one time to another order.

108 Ibid p 266.

109 A bull of Alexander III, Jaffé 2 no 13528, printed in MA 4 p 221 no 2, referred to the nunnery as Cistercian. The Augustinian canons of Breedon, however, disputed that they belonged to the order.

110 Canivez 2 p 355 cap 43.

111 The Complete Peerage by G. E. C, rev ed Gibbs, V., Doublcday, H. A., Walde, Lord Howard de, White, G. H. and Lea, R. S., 12 vols (London 1910-59) 1 p 238Google Scholar.

112 MA 5 p 744 no 1.

113 Annales de Wavcrlcia, Annales Monastici ed Luard, H., 5 vols, RS 36 (London 1864-9) 2 pp 344–5Google Scholar.

114 Evidence from the pipe rolls suggests that the founder, Ralph de Kahaines, was dead by 1175-6. See Pipe Roll 21 Henry 11 (1174/5) p 23 and 22 Henry 11 (1175/6) p 155, Pipe Roll Society (London 1897, 1904) The date given in MRHEW for Tarrant, p 276, is C1186.

115 The declaration of abbess Claricia to bishop Richard, preserved in the Salisbury diocesan record office, referred to the house as Cistercian, chapter records, press 2 box 1.

116 A confirmation charter of Henry III, dated 1235 referred to Ralph de Kahaines’s grants and those of his son William, and gave the dedication of the convent as All Saints, MA 5 p 621 no 6. Dedication to the Virgin was obligatory for Cistercian houses, Canivez 1 p 17 cap 18, and it does occur in later Tarrant charters, for example MA 5 p 620 nos 2 and 3.

117 Canivez 2 p 29 cap 30 ‘petitio Cantuariensis et Domini Sarisberiensis de abbatia iterura Ordini incorporanda exauditut.’ The use of the word ‘iterum’ is puzzling as there seems to be no earlier mention of the petition.

118 Ibid 2 p 29 cap 31.

119 The constitutions promulgated by him for the diocese of Salisbury acted as a model for several other areas. See Councils and synods with other documents relating to the English church, ed Powicke, F. M. and Cheney, C. R., 2 vols (Oxford 1964) 1 PP 57–96Google Scholar.

120 DNB 16 p 108.

121 Matthew Paris described Tarrant as ‘domum scilicet sanctimonialium quam venerabilis episcopus R. Dunelmensis a fundamentis construxerat.’ Matthei Parisiensis chronica majora, ed Luard, H., 7 vols RS 57 (London 1872-84) 3 p 392Google Scholar. Poore, Richard was translated to Durham in 1228, Le Neve 2, Monastic Cathedrals (1971) P 31Google Scholar.

122 Canivez 2 p 170 cap 11.

123 Declaration of abbess Claricia to bishop Richard Poore preserved in the Salisbury diocesan record office, chapter records, press 2 box 1.

124 Canivez 2 p 271 cap 62.

125 For example Tarrant and Swine are described as Cistercian in the close rolls of 1233 when the nuns were declared exempt from the payment of a tax. Close Rolb [of the reign of] Henry III [preserved in the Public Record Office], 14 vols, PRO texts and calendars(London 1903-27) 2 (1905) 1231-34 p 295.

126 Close rolls Henry III 14 (1938) 1268-72 p 301.

127 Canivez 6 p 719 caps 45-6.

128 Fontette, , Les religieuses p 34Google Scholar.

129 There are no priories among the list of Cistercian houses in MRHEW pp 112-15.

130 Canivez 2 p 117 cap 31.

131 Fontette, , Les religieuses p 34Google Scholar.

132 One example of a list probably dating from the early thirteenth century which makes no mention of nunneries is BM Cotton Faustina B VII fol 36—see the article by Birch, W. ‘On the date of foundation ascribed to the Cistercian abbeys in Great Britain’, Journal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (London 1870) pp 281–99, 352–69Google Scholar.

133 [The historical works of] Gervase of Canterbury, ed Stubbs, W., 2 vols RS 73 (1879-80) 2 pp 414–49Google Scholar.

134 Gervase of Canterbury 2 p xlii.

135 Knowles, D., ‘Gervase of Canterbury and the Mappa Mundi’, DR 48 (1930) p 238Google Scholar.

136 Gervase of Canterbury 2 pp 418-49. The houses are Amesbury p 420; Camesturne p 422; Shouldham p 428; Brewood p 438; Duva (Keldholme), Rosedale and Sinningthwaite p 440. Camesturne may be the same house as Tarrant, the only other priory of nuns in Dorset, but the identification is not certain. It is possible that the white habits worn at Brewood White Ladies, Shropshire, reflect an early imitation of Cistercian customs. It is clear that the house became a member of the Augustinian order, see VCH Salop, 2 (1973) p 83.

137 Daniel, Walter, Life of Ailred abbot of Rievaulx, ed Powicke, F. M. (2 ed Edinburgh 1963) p 10Google Scholar.

138 Brooke, C. N. L., The Monastic World 1000-1300 (London 1974) pp 28, 139Google Scholar. A feature of unbleached material is that it can take a variety of muted colours, with whiteness eventually predominating after frequent washing.

139 Martène and Durand, Thesaurus 5 p 1645.

140 Gervase of Canterbury 2 p 420.

141 MRHEW p 104.

142 For details of the Fontevraldine habit see Fontette, , Les religieuses p 76 n 78Google Scholar. Very little is known about the clothing of the Arrouaisians. The nuns’ habits were probably some combination of black and white, see Milis, , L’ordre des chanoines pp 489, 491Google Scholar. The Norbertine sisters also wore unbleached wool. A white alb may well have covered most of the dark tunic underneath, see Petit, F. ‘Les vêtements des Prémontrés au 12 siècle’, Analecta Praemonstratensia (Tongerloo/Averbode 1925-) 15 (1939) p 23Google Scholar. The Gilbertines may also have worn a fuller white tunic in addition to the black habit, MA 6 (2) p lxxix.

143 Sempringham, Haverholme, Catley, Sixhills, Bullington, Alvingham, Ormsby and Chick sands.

144 Nun Cotham, Stixwould, Wykeham, Hampole and Catesby. MRHEW p 271, suggested that it was the presence of brothers in these houses which explained why they were mistakenly taken to be members of the order of Sempringham. But it was only in the case of Catesby, Northants, that the Mappa Mundi specifically described it as Gilbertine, , Cervase of Canterbury 2 p 431Google Scholar.

145 Some Stixwould charters are printed in Stenton, [F. M.], [Documents illustrative of the social and economic history of the] Danelaw from various collections] (London 1920)Google Scholar cap 7. For these witnesses see pp 283-4, p 288 no 385. In a charter transcribed in the Stixwould cartulary, BM Add MS 46701 fol 6v, Thomas and Tori act as witnesses but are not given the title of canon.

146 Oxford Bodleian MS Linc charter 1167; see also the charter printed in Stenton, Danelaw p 286 no 382 which refers to the same grant.

147 For example a Wykeham charter printed in MA 5 p 670 no 2 is witnessed by Nigel, a canon of the house; a letter of bishop Gravesend referring to the canons of Catesby is enrolled in Sutton’s register, see The rolls and register of bishop Oliver Sutton 1280-99, ed Hill, R. M. T., 7 vols (Lincoln 1948-75) 2 (1950) p 5Google Scholar. The brothers of Nun Cotham are mentioned in a letter of Alexander III see MA 5 p 676 no 4.

148 For example a charter of Henry II to Swine referred to canons and brothers of the house, EYC 3 p 78 no 1363. There are occasional references to canons of Legbourne, for example BM Add charter 7524, Oxford Bodleian MS Line charter 1165.

149 Chronicon monasterii it Melsa a fundatione usque ad annum 1396, ed Bond, E., 3 vols RS 43 (1886-8) 2 p 13Google Scholar.

150 MRHEW p 153. See also VCH Northants 2 (1906) p 123.

151 Close Rolls Henry III, 1268-72 (1938) p 301.

152 I am grateful to professor Holdsworth for pointing out that, in general, references to Cistercian brothers in papal bulls confirming monastic possessions are comparatively infrequent pre Alexander III. For example, Adrian IV’s bull to Rufford, dated?nj6 stated that the monks followed the Benedictine rule making no reference to the Cistercians, while a bull of Alexander III dated 1160 did refer to the ‘consuetudinem Cisterciensium fratrum’, Rufford charters, ed Holdsworth, C. J., 2 vols, Thoroton Society Record Series, 29 and 30, (Nottingham 1972-4) 2 pp 364, 366–8Google Scholar.

153 Holtzmann, [W.], [Papsturkunden in England,] 3 vols (Berlin/Göttingen 1930-52) 3 (1952) pp 370–1Google Scholar.

154 MA 5 p 676 no 4. The dating clause of this bull is omitted and it is described in Holtzmann 3 p 31 as a bull of Alexander IV, But the reference to prioress Mathilda and pope Anastasius would indicate that it it earlier. It presumably dates from ci 168-77 as it is very similar to the bull of Alexander III printed in Holtzmann 3 p 366.

155 MA 4 p 261 no 2.

156 PRO Anc Deeds E 326/B11365 transcribed in Sturman, [W.], [‘History of the nunnery of St Michael outside] Stamford.’ (unpublished MA thesis, London 1945)appendix 4 p 391Google Scholar.

157 Compare the view taken in MRHEW p 271, that it was in response to a decree of the general chapter.

158 Sturman, ‘Stamford’ p 205.

159 Memorials of the abbey of St Mary of Fountains, ed Walbran, J., 3 vols SS 42, 67, 130 (1863-1918) 1 (1863) p 123 n 6Google Scholar.

160 HRH p 136 (Kirkstall), p 133 (Fountains).

161 EYC 1 pp 167-8 no 200.

162 MA (1 ed 1655) p 828.

163 Register of Waller Giffard [Lord Archbishop of York 1266-79,] ed Brown, W. SS 109 (1904) p 295Google Scholar.

164 He cannot be identified with the justiciar of the same name. Apart from the early date, the names of his wife and mother differ from those of the justiciar, see Calendar [of the] charter rolls [preserved in the Public Record Office,] 6 vols, PRO texts and calendars (1903-27) 4 (1912) p 392. There is further evidence of an earlier Geoffrey fitz Peter in the Pipe Roll of 7 Henry II (1160/1) p 57. See also a reference in Winchester in the early middle ages; an edition and discussion of Winton Domesday, ed Biddle, M. (Oxford 1976) p 106 no 509Google Scholar and note.

165 For example, a confirmation charter of Henry II has the addition of a thirteenth century dating clause. Calendar charter rolls 4 p 391.

166 Ibid 4 p 392.

167 BM MS Cotton Claud Dm fols 140v-62v. This is printed in Annales Edwardi 11 Henrici de Blaneford chronica et Edwardi II vita Johannie de Trokelowe, ed Hearne, T. (Oxford 1729) pp 384–93Google Scholar. The abbot of Waverley is Adam, see ibid p 387. This could either refer to Adam 1 (1216-19) or Adam 2 (1219-36) VCH Surrey 2 (1905) p 88.

168 The founder is described as a brother Robert de Verli in a notification of Puiset, Hugh du, EYC 3 p 75 no 1360Google Scholar. He is also described as Verli, Magister Robert de in MA 5 p 495 no 5Google Scholar. This is probably the same man as the Magister Robert de Swine who featured in several witness lists, for example EYC 3 p 59 no 1338; Oxford Bodleian MS Dodsworth 7 fol 256.

169 Register Walter Giffard pp 147-8.

170 MA 6 (2) pp 948-9. See also Golding, ‘St Bernard and St Gilbert’ pp 44-8.

171 For the story of the nun of Watton see PL 195 (1855) cols 789-96, and above pp 205-26.

172 VCH Wilts 3 (1956) p 303.

173 MRHEW p 281.

174 VCH Wilts 3 p 303 n 8.

175 Ibid 3 p 303.