Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

of the archbishop. Baldwin received him gladly, and to the great consternation of the monks, sent him back to Christchurch as prior, in October, 1189. There was a tumult in the monastery, and armed men were sent to guard the approaches to it by the primate, who refused even their necessary food to the beleaguered monks whose rights and immunities were so greatly imperilled. There was a great agitation even in the court of king Richard, who had just been crowned; for the proceedings of the archbishop were considered to be too arbitrary even by his advisers. The king went down to Canterbury, where he was received by the convent, November 27th; and on that day and the next a reconciliation took place between the archbishop and the monks of Christchurch, but it was at the expense of the prior, Roger Norreys, whom his friend and patron, the archbishop, remorselessly deposed.

Roger was now a monk let loose on the world; and, as the chronicler of the abbey brands him, as nullius monasterii monachus. He belonged to no community, though he had taken vows, and had engaged to observe the rule of S. Benedict. But at this time the abbey of Evesham became vacant, and Baldwin, to his everlasting dishonour, persuaded Richard I. to seize on the patronage of the abbey and to send Roger thither as abbot, against the remonstrances of the monks.* Roger Norreys was now at his ease: having had some experience in the government of refractory monks, he knew how to deal with. those who refused to submit to his rule. He was not tried at once at Evesham, for he appears to have lived peaceably with the convent for some years before he broke out and became a public scandal. He was an able man, though neither learned nor good; given to hospitality and a great talker, but destitute of the moral habits befitting his sacred profession. He neglected the rule, as he had always done; absented himself from choir, and wore certain articles of dress not lawful for a monk.

* Mr. Macray says that Roger became abbot of Evesham in 1191, and apparently proves the fact by stating that the predecessor of Roger died November 12, 1191. On the other hand, it is to be considered that Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, is severely blamed by Alan, abbot of Tewkesbury, for sending Roger to Evesham; Hoveden (p. 661) confirms this, and yet Baldwin died November 19, 1190, nearly a year before the abbot whom Roger succeeded. In the absence of more correct information, we believe that Roger was made abbot in 1189, or early in 1190. Perhaps the vacancy was occasioned by a resignation. Gervase (col. 1564) says that Roger was blessed by Baldwin; but the date 1191 is clearly wrong, Baldwin being then dead, and is a mistake of the scribe or of the printer, because the year 1189 is followed by 1191. This chronicle favours the earlier date; for, in p. 134, the Papal delegates find that Roger was blessed by William Northall, bishop of Worcester, who died May 3, 1190.

[graphic]

His mode of life, too, was expensive, and his hospitality was probably extended too frequently to the neighbouring barons. He ceased even to see his monks, and treated them, when he came in contact with them, with ostentatious contempt. He abused them by calling them names, and at last made them too intimately acquainted with hunger and thirst. He spent even the revenues of the community upon himself, not satisfied with the revenues of the abbot; and the monks were so poor that they were unable to get their necessary clothing. Many of them could not appear in choir, so shabby had their garments become; while their food was too frequently brought down to bread and water. It was hard to bear, but bear it they did, however, though they longed to feed on what the abbot gave to his servants; and yet there was none to give them even what the meanest of his servants rejected.

In this strait the monks petitioned the archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter, as legate of the Holy See and protector of the abbey. The legate heard their complaints, and gave them relief; but, on the expiration of the archbishop's legatine powers, Roger returned to his ancient ways, and famine reigned in the abbey once more. The abbot gave grand dinners to the Chief Justice of the kingdom, and entertained the barons with lavish hospitality; but the poor monks had not even the satisfaction of eating the crumbs that fell from the abbot's table, though they were the principal contributors to the cost of that display. But all this time they were not asleep; they were watching Roger, tracking his path, and spying out his secret enormities. For this some of them were expelled the monastery, others were imprisoned; but after all, says the chronicler, we always, by the help of God, came out of his hands alive, though it may be said that some of us died for want of necessary food."

66

They appealed again to the archbishop, who came down to Evesham, but to no great purpose, for the monks failed, for want of sufficient resolution, to make good their case. The abbot, by himself, or by his friends, prevailed upon some of the brethren to relax in their efforts, and the result was, as usual, that a divided house cannot stand. The archbishop returned, the abbot kept his place, and the poor monks were reduced to greater straits than they had ever been in before. The abbot, without learning or even decency, succeeded in his cause, because he knew his own mind, and was able to win over some of the weaker monks, if not to espouse his quarrel, at least not to oppose him, with the necessary firmness.

In this deplorable condition of the monastery Malgerus, bishop of Worcester, compassionating its condition, obtained

from Innocent III. powers to visit all the churches subject to his jurisdiction within the diocese, and to make such corrections therein as should be necessary, from which there should be no appeal. It is plain from the story, and admitted by the chronicler, that the bishop was in good faith; he really believed that the abbey was subject to his authority. He sent word to Evesham that he should arrive on a certain day to make his visitation. When the abbot received this notice, he replied, "He shall be welcome"; for he thought nothing of it, and regarded the bishop's visitation as a visit of common politeness, which he intended to accept and treat as such. But those who were with the abbot saw more in the matter than he did, and began to discuss its real significance. After a time they sent for Thomas of Marlborough, one of the younger monks, learned in the law, and asked him to explain the force of the bishop's words. Thomas, without hesitation, told them that the bishop proposed to visit the abbey as its superior, and ended by saying that the convent must resist or lose its immunities for ever.*

It might be supposed that the monks would be unanimous in their zeal for the rights of their house, and that the visitation by the bishop would meet with universal resistance. But it was far otherwise; many of the more timid, or the more prudent, saw great difficulties in the matter; they feared the expense of a lawsuit, and trembled in anticipation of great privations which they might have to endure if they ventured to resist the episcopal claim. The elders attributed the usual motives to the younger, who, they thought, desired litigation that they might have an excuse for going abroad, where they would be well fed at the expense of the abbey, while those who remained at home perished of want. Some even withdrew

*Thomas of Marlborough is the writer of the history from which we are quoting, and the author of the greater and most interesting portion of this chronicle of the abbey. Mr. Macray has adopted a superstition too common among his fellow-editors, who think they discover original autographs, and would like to believe that he has the MS. which Thomas wrote himself. Mr. Macray's argument would prove that Thomas was not only a skilful scribe, but also a good mason, carpenter, tailor, goldsmith, and glass-stainer, as well as glass manufacturer. He may have been all this, but it is improbable. It might as well be contended that a voluminous marriage settlement, on several skins of parchment, is in the handwriting of the attorney who presents it for the signature of the parties concerned, as that the MS. which Mr. Macray contemplates is in the handwriting of Thomas of Marlborough. If the term "fecit" implies that Thomas wrote it, it must also imply that Thomas was a tailor, for he made two albs: fecit duas albas. Turres presbyterii fecit; fecit thronum feretii, fecit sedes, fecit fenestram vitream de historia S. Egwini (p. 269). Besides all this, he repaired walls and books, and was a perfect mechanic as well as a scientific architect.

VOL. XV.—NO. XXIX. [New Series.]

D

from all share in the struggle, though they were prepared to profit by the issue, if it should be favourable to the menaced community. The younger monks, however, prevailed, and it was finally resolved that the bishop should not be permitted to set foot within the monastery, relying on its exemption from his rule.

The abbot, seeing the resolution of the monks, consented to the plan of resistance, and three of them were sent at once to the bishop to inform him of their purpose. The bishop, persisting in his intention, replied that he should visit the abbey. Roger, now dreading the issue, and caring more for himself than for the abbey he so unworthily governed, offered to receive the bishop, and to submit to him in all matters, provided only he himself should be untouched. He had succeeded in this way with a former bishop who visited the abbey, and observing the compact, had never censured the abbot further than to accept from him a promise never to use the pontifical ornaments which had been conceded to the abbot of Evesham.* Malgerus would make no compromise with the abbot, and on the 23rd of August, 1202, early in the morning, arrived at the gates of the abbey.

But at a still earlier hour every preparation had been made within. The monks had said their office before the usual time, and had closed every door and gate by which the abbey could be entered only the church was open. The bishop's men aud horses were not allowed any shelter, for even the stables were closed. The bishop submitted to the indignity, and entered the church, where, after making his prayer, he proceeded to enter upon his duties. His apparitor summoned the abbot and the monks into his presence, but to no purpose; the abbot had taken to flight about sunrise, and was far on his way to, if he had not already reached, one of his country houses.

At the summons of the bishop twelve monks, however, appeared before him, of whom Thomas of Marlborough was one. Thomas, as the lawyer of the house, spoke for his brethren, thanked the bishop for his good intentions, and civilly declined his jurisdiction. While he was still speaking, the whole community entered the church to say tierce; and Thomas, now triumphant, said to the bishop, "Go away; make haste; the monks are coming in for the service of God."

*Mr. Macray, Index, voc. Adam, says that "Evesham appears to have been the first abbey that obtained the use of the mitre for its abbot. The grant is dated 1163." The abbot of S. Augustine, Canterbury, had this privilege a hundred years before the abbot of Evesham, Alexander II. having granted it in 1063. Thorn. ap. Twysden, col. 1785; and Historia Monaster. S. Augustini, ed. Hardwick, p. 27.

[ocr errors]

"Is this a threat?" asked the bishop. Certainly," replied Thomas, "for you have come on a foolish errand." The bishop retired, and found his way into the chapter-house, where he summoned the monks once more; and each time the summons was repeated, the same obstinate twelve made their appearance, and formally appealed to the Holy See.

The bishop, thus thwarted, suspended the monks, and prohibited the further celebration of the divine office in the church. Having done this, he took his departure without giving his blessing to the monks, or, indeed, being asked for it. The suspension was regarded as a nullity, because of the appeal, and accordingly the office was sung, and mass was said with greater solemnity, if that were possible, than the abbey had ever witnessed before. This was not all; there were two monks of Worcester in the abbey at the time, where they were entertained, because their own monastery had been lately burnt. Now these two monks were subjects of the bishop, and so the monks of Evesham sent them to their superior the same day, on the ground that he had suspended them that morning, though he had not the remotest intention of doing so.

The next day, the feast of S. Bartholomew, the abbot of Alcester, with divers clerks, came to the abbey-the monks were prepared for the visit-but was refused admittance; and so, standing at the gates of the cemetery-the church he could not enter because of the interdict-pronounced sentence of excommunication, by order of the bishop, against the refractory monks. Notwithstanding this further act of rigour, mass and office were never intermitted in the abbey church.

Thomas was now sent by the monks to inform the abbot, who knew as well as they did what had taken place in the abbey he had cowardly deserted. When the resolute monk reached the hiding-place of "the hireling," he was told that he could not speak to him because he was excommunicated. Thomas, nothing daunted, and probably expecting such treatment, retired to a house belonging to the abbey, where he remained for the night, intending to visit his superior the next day he had not been importunate because he thought that the abbot might have been drunk. The next morning he fared no better; so he made his way, as he had been directed, to Canterbury; but meeting the archbishop three miles beyond London, he was spared the rest of the journey. He told his story to the primate cum fletu et ejulatu magno, and implored his protection against the encroachments of his suffragan, who not only violated the immunities of the abbey, but trenched on the rights of the metropolitan. The archbishop, after swearing by the blessed Julian, requested Thomas to keep his grievances

« ÖncekiDevam »