^{page 56 note 1} As Langham was Chancellor in June 1363, when a later licence was granted, he must have had a very clear idea of what had happened in the college during these early years. For the law see the fairly numerous passages in the Corpus bearing on the point (e.g. in the second qucsstio of Causa XII of the Decretum, part of which Wycliffe quotes in the De Ecclesia, p. 371)Google Scholar, and Lyndwood, , iii. 8Google Scholar, ecclesiarum, a reference kindly given me by the Rev. E. G. De S. Wood. Many of the documents concerning the early history of the college are printed in the Appendix to Pratt, 's The Acts and Memorials of John Foxe, ii. pp. 922 ff.Google Scholar I do not give the precise references except for new matter or for a new point.

^{page 56 note 2} Secondary authorities on this period want to be used with extreme caution.

^{page 56 note 3} Litt. Cant. ii. 386.Google Scholar The letter is dated November 9, 1359; not at all improbably it was the start of the negotiations which led to the foundation of the college. They could not have begun long after. The terms of the licence are the best evidence we have for Islep's original intentions as to the composition of the college, and, taken with this letter and the statements of the monks, are quite conclusive.

^{page 57 note 1} Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester 1268–1301, tried in 1288 and afterwards to make prebendal to the collegiate Church of Westbury-on-Trym certain benefices in his gift as bishop. An account of this is given in Mr. J. W. Willis Bund's edition of his register (Wor. Hist. Soc., pp. 1 ff.).Google Scholar As, however, the later registers prove, he was beaten by his chapter, whose interests were affected because during a vacancy they had the right of presentation. Wycliffe was prebendary of Westbury from 1362 to 1375; in 1365, by neglect of duty, he seems to have caused grave scandal (Wittlesey, Register, fol. i and n). I hope to deal with this later in the Historical Review, but, I fear, I have no doubt about it, nor have two or three scholars of judgment to whom I communicated the discovery nine or ten months ago. I cannot at times help feeling that the estimate of Wycliffe's character in the past has been too high and has prejudiced the study of the fourteenth century; from the ‘valet’ point of view, at all events, he is not quite first class.

^{page 57 note 2} Though, of course, this Durham Hall was later in date. The Muni-menta Academica (passim) and the Calendar of Papal Registers (Letters, iv. 52)Google Scholar testify to the treatment which the seculars were meting out to their opponents—it was anything but generous, and though its generosity is not now our first concern, we cannot shirk the question. The whole thing was largely business, and business so often ends ‘below the best.’ This being so, the power of his Chapter almost to dictate to Islep becomes the key of the position—and it has been so strangely overlooked. Why should we assume that they would give so much to their opponents?—and if we do, what is to become of the traditional picture of the grasping medioeval monk?

^{page 58 note 1} Litt. Cant. ii. 416, 417.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 2} Ch. Ch. Canterbury, Reg. B, fol. 381, etc., partially printed in the preface to the Litterae (ii. pp. xxx. if.).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 3} Wilkins, , Concilia, iii, pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} The consortes say that the revenues of Pagham were quasi tota sub-stantia sustentationis dericorum hujusmodi; this agrees with what we know of the value of the living at different times,

^{page 59 note 2} Litt. Cant. ii. xxx.Google Scholar; Rashdall, , Universities, p. 499, note I.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 3} Courtenay, born 1342, was doctor utriusque juris.

^{page 60 note 1} So at least I infer from the tone of the document (Courtenay, Register, fol. 23 v.) appointing a receiver. Compare the documents re Canterbury Hall immediately following and on 39 v. (omnem rancorem si quern contra, nos ob nostrum factum conceperitis) and 43 v. These documents have not been published.

^{page 60 note 2} For Langham, compare his Register, fol. 59 v., but especially the Expositio Causae pro parte domini Simonis, etc. (Pratt, , op. cit. p. 928)Google Scholar; for Wittlesey, Register, fol. 86 v., where Bidyngden (sic), a monk of Canterbury, is appointed to the wardenship of the College founded by Islep de bonis dicte ecclesie, after being nominated to the Archbishop juxta formam fundationis aulae prefatae (08 10, 1371)Google Scholar, and two other documents on or near the same folio; for Sudbury, Register, fol. 61; Sudbury cancels an irregular appointment and makes another from one of three persons nominated by the prior and monks.

^{page 60 note 3} 37 Edw. III; A.C. 1362. D.N.B. gives 1362 for the date of the foundation of the College (wrongly); for the description of its constitution as given therein I can find no authority.

^{page 61 note 1} Islep's Registrar must have been a thrifty person.

^{page 61 note 2} I wish to thank the Rev. Claude Jenkins, Librarian at Lambeth Palace, for much assistance given me in the course of this investigation; and Sir Clifford Allbutt, Sir A. W. Ward, Professor J. P. Whitney, and Mr. G, G. Coulton for criticism and advice.

^{page 62 note 1} I understand from Mun. Acad. ii. 388Google Scholar, that non-M.A.s were practically equivalent to religiosi; and although the warden need not have got so far as the magistratus—the statement current that he had to be M.A. is wrong—the qualifications required were in practice, as they were meant to be, a bar to all non-seculars. Other arguments founded on the statutes might be adduced in favour of a date later than the quarrel or Wycliffe's appointment.

^{page 63 note 1} It is usual to lay the blame for this on Woodhall's violent temper, and when grounds for the opinion are given, to allege the incident of Woodhall's doctorate, narrated in the Mun. Acad. i. 221 ff.Google Scholar It is difficult to get to the bottom of this matter, but the kind of support he received makes it very likely that Woodhall was in the right; it reads like vested interests. In any case, he was not, it seems, in 1360 on bad terms with the seculars, and of violence of temper there is not a word.

^{page 63 note 2} The Oxford diocese was formed in 1542; Oxoniensis is read for Exoniensis in Walsingham, ii. 218.

^{page 63 note 3} See the Perdonatio, Pratt, , op. cit. p. 935.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 1} P. 371. Et cum pretextu illius juci sophistici episcopus et suum capitulum sunt una persona a qua non licet alienare bona illius ecclesie, ista persona vendicat bona illius collegii proprietarie possidere. This, I take it, is. merely an opponent's way of saying what I have said above.

^{page 65 note 1} Cf. Litt. Cant., ii. 510Google Scholar, if a reference is wanted for what might be assumed.

^{page 66 note 1} In essentials the Reformer takes up the same line and with an equal lack of candour.

^{page 66 note 2} The Commissio Causae, which Pratt did not print, is a most amusing document. It does not raise one's opinion of the consortes—or of mediæval lawyers—or leave the impression that they had a strong case. An import ant point, noticed on the next page, is the refusal of costs to the monks.

^{page 66 note 3} The point is important. Lechler and the D.N.B. have no authority for their statements to the contrary. Even the consortes do not support them. Langham had no occasion or chance to issue fresh statutes (cf. Litt. Cant. ii. p. xxxi.).Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 4} Traditio Apostolorum, 11 29, 1367Google Scholar (Langham's Register, fol. 59 v.). The consortes, and the Reformer, if he were the Warden, were, we note, the appellants.

^{page 67 note 1} Lewis' date for the Determinatio is a guess. As Loserth shews, a date some ten or twelve years later is, with our present knowledge, much more convincing. Would an apprentice-theologian be allowed to inter vene in such high matters, and could he intervene without disaster to his side? In early 1366 Wycliffe had not yet ‘opposed.’ When pages have been written on Wycliffe's part in the affair, which is much more than doubtful, it is strange that Langham's, which is certain, has been so consistently ignored.

^{page 67 note 2} Readers of the Litt. Cant, will doubtless remember the passage on p. 491 of vol. ii, ‘Insuper quamplures aulae Oxonienses nuper perquisitae collegio, una dumtaxat excepta, venditae sunt per scolares seculares et eorum feoffatores eo quod candicio feoffamenti, religiosis et secularibus nuper facti, per exclusionem secularium est subducta.’ The seculars seem to have known their business; the monks to have received a much impoverished estate. The date is October 1370, not 1369.

^{page 67 note 3} Calendar of Papal Registers, Letters, iv. 193.Google Scholar The reservation, accord ing to Wycliffe, was given of the Pope's own accord, which is important though it does not exclude hints from the king or Langham or from someone else. It came just before the Reformer's licence, of which late 1371 or early 1372 ought to be the date.

^{page 68 note 1} Pp. 370–1; opinions differ as to the interpretation of this passage; my own conviction is that we have here the ex-warden speaking, and not altogether at his best. Wykeham lodged at Canterbury Hall in 1379 in prima fundatione collegii sui; had Wycliffe just heard of his intentions?

^{page 68 note 2} So I interpret Pratt, , op. cit. p. 928Google Scholar (towards the end of text), but it is not quite clear that all eight had been appointed, though some had been. Cf. Litt. Cant. ii. 490…Google Scholarsaeculares, quorum tamen nullus juxta primariam ordinacionem admissus superstes sit. The date is October 1370, not 1369.

^{page 68 note 3} This seems a more reasonable interpretation of the facts than to postulate a second Midelworthy (F.Z. p. 519); he could still remain a party to the suit, and in fact would have to do so. From the Queen, 's computusGoogle Scholar I gather he became a fellow early in the year.

^{page 69 note 1} At Islep's death the revenues of the college were £68 8s. 6d.; what each monk cost in 1363–5 we cannot say, later they received £10 each from Pagham (Wood, , City of Oxford, ii., 289 and 286)Google Scholar; on the Wilkins scale the cost of each secular works out at £7 at least, probably much more; the warden £10, and there were sundry officers. Without Pagham and with a lawsuit there might have been about enough for three, but certainly not enough for four.

^{page 69 note 2} Fasciculi Zizaniorum, pp. 513 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 70 note 1} Woodford, , Quaestiones apud F.Z., p. 517Google Scholar; Wycliffe, , De Civili Dominio, ii. 1Google Scholar, and iii. 351; Little, , Grey Friars, p. 81Google Scholar, Quando concurrebam cum eo in lectura sententiarum.

^{page 71 note 1} Both names were familiar in the fourteenth century: among all the cases I have looked into of that period I have found one possible instance of confusion, and that made under provocation (Rev. Raine, J., Lives of the Archbishops of York, i., p. 462).Google Scholar I have to thank Mr. Hudson for very kindly giving me copies of the documents.

^{page 72 note 1} Islep, Register, fol. 316 v. To argue that because Islep and Reade were at Merton, this Wyklif is the vicar of Mayfield, when good evidence says he was the Reformer, will convince only those who are determined to believe it.

^{page 72 note 2} Is Shirley (F.Z. p. 527)Google Scholar justified in building so much as he does on a signature at Mayfield, Islep's ‘favourite place of residence’? The non-attendance of the newly-appointed warden is much more significant as to his identity; if he were the Reformer, it is quite natural; if the vicar, it requires explanation, especially in the depth of winter.

^{page 73 note 1} The Warden was certainly not B.D. at the date of his appointment, nor yet in late April 1367; he is called B.D. in May 1370 (Viterbo), which means March 1370, if not December 1369, as the latest date possible for the degree (Pratt, , op. cit. p. 927).Google Scholar The Reformer was not B.D. in April 1368 (Lincoln licence); he is described as Master of Theology (Avignon) in December 1373 (the D.N.B. article, where such mistakes are far too numerous, has January 1373 for 7 Kal. Jan. 1373); December 1370 is therefore the latest date for his baccalaureate (Mun. Acad. pp. 388 ff.)Google Scholar, various considerations suggesting nine or twelve months earlier. Space forbids me going into details.

^{page 73 note 2} The evidence seems good enough. With regard to the cause of Wyklif's disappearance, we know that in 1334 the North and South had fought about the college, the North complaining that their men were badly treated in the matter of elections, and in 1349 there had been a pitched battle between the two nations, ending doubtless in a compromise under external pressure. In 1354–5 was the affair of the arrows. In 1356 John Wyklif was seneschal of the week; it was hardly an important office, though Lechler makes much of it; he spent a good deal of college money on entertaining strangers. Nine of the fellows of the previous year, Swyneshed among the number, cannot be traced in 1356, in which year ten new names (i.e. names not found in 1355) appear, some, including Wyklif's, to disappear in 1357. Such evidence cannot be conclusive as to what had happened, for documents may be incomplete and so forth, and some names reappear, but Islep visited the college in November 1357 by the instructions of the Pope. Some trouble seems evident, probably with Wyklif as its cause or victim. Had the Reformer been worked into Merton to pacify the Northerners, and had he, then a borealis militans, tried to capture Merton for the North? Such is my suggestion, which I hope elsewhere to follow out, though pending further investigation I do not pledge myself to it.

^{page 74 note 1} The evidence for the identity of the Reformer and the elder Wycliffe of Queen's appears to me conclusive, especially as the Reformer obtained a licence for non-residence on August 29, 1363 (Buckingham, Mem. fol. 7; the D.N.B. transfers this reference to the 1368 licence, which is to be found on fol. 56 v.). I have to thank Canon C. W. Foster for this information and much else.

^{page 74 note 2} For an M.A.—or shall we say a secular?—the theological course lasted nine years and a bit (Mun. Acad. pp. 389—391)Google Scholar, in the Reformer's case, apparently, all the years 1364–1372, with perhaps a term in 1363 and a term (or two) in 1373. It is impossible to discount the significance of such chronology.

^{page 74 note 3} Shirley's argument (F.Z., p. 527)Google Scholar ignores the Warden's ambiguous position after Langham's judgment.

^{page 74 note 4} This younger Wycliffe (not John Wyclif, as in the D.N.B.) was starting Latin, for he was provided with a Latin grammar. He cannot be the Wycliffe of 1363—5 unless the Queen's people ‘endowed’ him after two years' waste of time; besides, the earlier Wycliffe had a room to himself. He cannot be the Wycliffe of 1374—5, for besides the room, special arrangements were made for his comfort, far in excess of that allowed to any undergraduate, not a nobleman. These and the full name and title—the pro camera Magistri Johannis Wiolif of the computus (F. Z. p. 515)Google Scholar sounds somewhat pompous—would become the late royal commissioner at Bruges, to whom the college was so glad to offer hospitality. Has the curt pro pensione Wiclif of 1381 also a touch of human nature in it? Twenty shillings was a very great deal to pay for rent.

^{page 75 note 1} P. 67 supra.