I.—The Wardrobe and Household Accounts of Bogo de Clare, a.d. 1284–6.

M. S. Giuseppi

doi:10.1017/S0261340900011024

I.—The Wardrobe and Household Accounts of Bogo de Clare, a.d. 1284–6.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 November 2011

M. S. Giuseppi

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

Bogo de Clare, whose private expenditure forms the subject of the present paper, was a son of Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and a younger brother of Gilbert who succeeded his father in those earldoms in 1261.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 70 , 1920 , pp. 1 - 56

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900011024 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1920

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

^{page 1 note 1} The Latin name Bogo has been englished in the most recent Calendars prepared by the Public Record Office as Bevis. This rendering is opposed to the theories of Mr.Stevenson, W. H. (Complete Peerage, new ed. vol. iii, App. C, pp. 605–6)Google Scholar, who contends that in English Bogo should be Bewes. In the Anglo-Norman form in which I find our hero's name it is spelt Boeghes, which seems to support Mr. Stevenson's contention. Bovo and Bozo or Boso are Latin variants. Bono is probably due to an easy mistaking of u for n in medieval script. In the light of what we know of Bogo de Clare, the suggestion in the Dict. Nat. Biog. (x, 395) that he was called Bono ‘the good’ is unhappy.

^{page 1 note 2} Assoc. Archit. Societies' Reports, xxxiii, 35-73.

^{page 1 note 3} Pat. R. 42 Hen. III, m. 3.

^{page 1 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 1 note 5} Pat. R. 50 Hen. III, ms. 46, 42.

^{page 1 note 6} Register of W. Bronescombe, Bishop of Exeter (ed. Hingeston-Randolph, F. C.), p. 147.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} Pat. R., 22 Edw. I, m. 7.

^{page 2 note 2} Ibid., 13 Edw. I, m. 5.

^{page 2 note 3} Willis, Browne, Survey of the Cath. Ch. of Llandaff, pp. 120–4.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 4} Pat. R., 22 Edw. I, ms. 7, 6d.

^{page 2 note 5} Ibid., m. 2.

^{page 2 note 6} Ed. Rolls Series, iii, 93. In 1282 Archbishop Peckham had accused Bogo of being a ravisher (raptor) of churches rather than a rector (Reg. J. Peckham, ed. Rolls Series, i, 371, 372).

^{page 2 note 7} Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. Club, Bannatyne, i, 158Google Scholar. It is certain, however, that Bogo was dead by 28th October. I am indebted to Mr. Hamilton Thompson for this reference.

^{page 2 note 8} See for instance Rot. Hundred. (ed. Record Comm.), ii, 35, 805, and Plac. de Quo Warranto, p. 810. For the part Bogo played in protecting his family's interests when the fortunes of his brother, the earl, were under a cloud see the inquisitions on the death of Gilbert's widow Joan (Calendar Inqnis. p.m., iv, 326).

^{page 2 note 9} Rot. Parl. (ed. Record Comm.), i, 17. Fo r the later proceedings see Close R., 19 Edw. I, m. 10, and Fine R. of same year, m. 18.

^{page 2 note 10} Inquis. p.m., Edw. II, file 43, no. 42.

^{page 3 note 1} See Archaeologia, lxiv, 145, 146.

^{page 3 note 2} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 4. See Appendix I.

^{page 4 note 1} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2.

^{page 4 note 2} Compar e amongst household accounts of the period already printed those of the countess of Leicester (ed. Roxburghe Club, 1841) and of Bishop Swinfield of Hereford (ed. Camden Soc, 1854).

^{page 4 note 3} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 5.

^{page 4 note 4} The two membranes of this account are numbered in a contemporary hand ‘x^us’ and ‘xi^us’, perhaps in continuation of those in Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2.

^{page 5 note 1} Exch. Accounts, bundle 506, no. 5.

^{page 5 note 2} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 3. See Appendix II.

^{page 6 note 1} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 1.

^{page 6 note 2} Ms. 1 and 2, the latter of which has a contemporary numbering ‘ij^us’ and is described as J. Tygre's account, are totalled together on the dorse. Ms. 3, 4, and 5, numbered respectively ‘ij^us,’ ‘iij^us,’ and ‘iiij^us,’ are similarly totalled together, m. 3 being endorsed ‘Secundus Rotulus Expensarum domus per Manus. W. de Reyni London’. This same membrane is prefaced, however, with the note that Reymund de Sulye accounted previously. M. 6 is endorsed ‘Tercius Rotulus’, etc., and its items are finally totalled with those on ms. 7 and 8, the three being respectively numbered ‘v^us’ (correcte d from ‘iiij^us’), ‘vj^us’, and ‘vij^us.’ Possibly the fact that the first membrane of Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2 is numbered ‘viij^us’ accounts for the present incorrect arrangement of the documents.

^{page 6 note 3} According to Walsingham the bishop's translation had taken place on 16th June so recently as the year 1276 (Hist. Anglic, ed. Rolls series, i, 16).

^{page 6 note 4} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, nos. 6 and 7. See Appendix III.

^{page 7 note 1} Journal of the British Archaeological Association, xviii (1862), pp. 66–75Google Scholar. The accounts he used were those now numbered Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, nos. 2 and 1, which he treated in their correct order. The identification of Bogo was subsequently supplied by a Mr. Wakeman in the same volume of the Journal at pp. 372, 373.

^{page 8 note 1} See Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 1.

^{page 8 note 2} Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journal, xviii, 74.

^{page 10 note 1} Flores Hist., p. 407.

^{page 10 note 2} Liber de Antiquis Legibus (ed. Camden Soc. O. S. 34), p. 113.

^{page 10 note 3} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 4, m. 3 (vide p. 23 infra).

^{page 10 note 4} Ibid., no. 5, m. 1, ced. 2d.

^{page 10 note 5} Ibid., no. 1, m. 3d.

^{page 11 note 1} Ibid., m. 8 d.

^{page 11 note 2} Liber Quotid. Contrarotulatoris Garderobae (ed. Soc. Antiq. Lond.), p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} Exch. Accounts., bundle 91, no. 1, m. 4d.

^{page 11 note 4} Ibid., m. 7d.

^{page 11 note 5} See Archbishop Romeyn's letter to Peckham of Feb. 1290-1, quoted by A. Hamilton Thompson, op. cit., p. 55, and the chronicler of Lanercost's description of the condition in which he had found Bogo's church at Simonburn (York reg. Romeyn, ed. Surtees Soc, II, xliv, xlv).

^{page 12 note 1} I take it, although I have no actual proof, that the Oving (Ouinge, Owinge) of the accounts was the prebendal manor of that name in Sussex and held by Bogo in virtue of his stall in Chichester Cathedral.

^{page 12 note 2} Op. cit., p. 55.

^{page 12 note 3} xxviii, 207-326.

^{page 13 note 1} e.g. Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 5, m. 1 d.

^{page 13 note 2} Ibid., no. 1, m. 8d.

^{page 13 note 3} Hengham, Saham, and Littlebury, it is interesting to note, were amongst the king's officers to be tried before the commissioners of 1289 for corruption amongst other charges. State Trials of the reign of Edward I, 1289-93 (ed. Tout, T. F. and Johnstone, H., Royal Hist. Soc, Camden Series, vol. ix).Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2, m. 1d.

^{page 14 note 2} G. Neilson, Trial by Combat, p. 50.

^{page 14 note 3} Household Roll of Bishop Swinfield (ed. Camden Soc. O. S 59, pp. 125, 201). Nearly a hundred years later the champion of Robert Wyvill, bishop of Salisbury (d. 1375), figures on the bishop's memorial brass in Salisbury cathedral.

^{page 15 note 1} Year Books, 32 3 Edward I (ed. Rolls Series), p. xl.

^{page 15 note 2} Assize Roll, no. 457, m. 8d.

^{page 15 note 3} Ibid., m. 19.

^{page 15 note 4} He was still there on 30th October, having probably stayed on since the Assizes. Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2, m. 2.

^{page 15 note 5} Assize Roll, no. 956, m. 30.

^{page 15 note 6} De Banco Roll, no. 63, m. 62. For this reference I am indebted to Mr. Hamilton Thompson, who owes it, he tells me, to our Fellow Mr. G. F. Farnham.

^{page 15 note 7} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 2, m. 2.

^{page 16 note 1} Though Bogo de Clare was certainly in possession of the rectory of Melton Mowbray, it is possible he did not enjoy it for long. The early history of the church, Mr. Hamilton Thompson tells me, is very obscure, but in Hugh Welles's Matriculus for the archdeaconry of Leicester, compiled about 1227, it was in two medieties, the prior and convent of Lewes being patrons of both. Was Bogo rector only of one mediety or of both together? In any case by 1295 the prior and convent had appropriated both medieties when there is an institution to the vicarage. Possibly they had already regained their possession of the whole by 14th August 1286 when there was an ordination of the vicarage but, owing to the mutilated condition of Bishop Sutton's roll where this is recorded, it is not possible to say how the church then became vacant.

^{page 17 note 1} Rot. Parl. (ed. Rec. Comm.), i, 24.

^{page 17 note 2} Abbrev. Placitoruni (ed. Rec. Comm.), p. 288.

^{page 17 note 3} e. g. the regular weekly payments to the laundress (lotrici) for washing the lord's head.

^{page 18 note 1} Exch. Accounts, bundle 91, no. 1, ms. 7 and 7 d.

^{page 19 note 1} In the transcription the following abbreviations have been adopted: dom., exp., lib., mag., and pred. for domimis, expense, liberata, magister, and predictus and their several inflexions. Where the suspensions of the original documents have been used, they are distinguished by a final apostrophe, e.g. Lond'.

^{page 19 note 2} Visus Compoti de added in another hand. The suspension Recept' should therefore be extended as Receptis, but zvas evidently intended by the original scribe to be read Recepta.

^{page 20 note 1} This entry apparently inserted later.

^{page 20 note 2} Corrected from ap.

^{page 20 note 3} Or possibly Bereford; the initial letter appears to be a correction.

^{page 21 note 1} roba sua written over an erasure.

^{page 21 note 2} These entries apparently inserted later.

^{page 21 note 3} inserted above line.

^{page 21 note 4} The second t inserted above line.

^{page 22 note 1} sic MS.

^{page 22 note 2} apud lond' apparently inserted later.

^{page 22 note 3} Corrected apparently from pro.

^{page 22 note 4} d'inserted above line.

^{page 24 note 1} precii inserted later.

^{page 26 note 1} Corrected from celaroo.

^{page 30 note 1} Written over an erasure.

^{page 32 note 1} A letter before ij. d'. has been erased; query v or i.

^{page 33 note 1} diem apparently written

^{page 35 note 1} Apparently by accident.

^{page 35 note 2} per talliam added later.

^{page 35 note 3} ca inserted later, Pistori being originally written

^{page 35 note 4} per … domini added later.

^{page 35 note 5} per talliam added later

^{page 35 note 6} tam inserted above line.

^{page 36 note 1} Written over an erasure.

^{page 37 note 1} Query partialem throughout.

^{page 38 note 1} Pro written over an erasure.

^{page 39 note 1} Written over an erasure.

^{page 40 note 1} Corrected from viij.

^{page 40 note 2} An erasure follows.

^{page 41 note 1} I Torn away in A.

^{page 41 note 2} Kilkehamton' A.

^{page 41 note 3} An erasure after lx.

^{page 41 note 4} eiusdem A.

^{page 41 note 5} Not in A.

^{page 41 note 6} pred. Walteri A.

^{page 42 note 1} Aillseham A.

^{page 42 note 2} Tela Canabus et alia A.

^{page 42 note 3} Pari A.

^{page 43 note 1} Predicto A.

^{page 43 note 2} Add istius rotuli A.

^{page 43 note 3} Zinciberis A.

^{page 44 note 1} Written over an erasure.

^{page 44 note 2} garnati A.

^{page 44 note 3} Extended albe A.

^{page 44 note 4} pixides pignonad' A.

^{page 44 note 5} pignonad' A.

^{page 44 note 6} batura A.

^{page 44 note 7} Gingibras' A.

^{page 44 note 8} j. pecia syndonis viridis ponderis A.

^{page 45 note 1} Brunham A.

^{page 46 note 1} Melkessam A.

^{page 46 note 2} Item struck through in A.

^{page 46 note 3} i inserted above line.

^{page 46 note 4} domine Regine A.

^{page 46 note 5} A has Summa. istius ro[tuli]. [ex parte ista interl.] Lv. li'. x.s'. j. d'. o'. q^a. in a different handwriting from that of the text.

^{page 47 note 1} Cellarum and Cella throughout in A.

^{page 47 note 2} An erasure after dom.

^{page 47 note 3} de A.

^{page 48 note 1} Owyge A.

^{page 48 note 2} a of ante written over L.

^{page 49 note 1} Ris A.

^{page 49 note 2} tempus omitted in A.

^{page 49 note 3} The words are in their proper order in A.

^{page 49 note 4} vno Equo A

^{page 49 note 5} et ferrura interl. in A.

^{page 49 note 6} Capistr' A.

^{page 49 note 7} per Triginta et vnom diem A.

^{page 49 note 8} viij written over an erasure.

^{page 49 note 9} The symbol & is prefixed to each of the items in this section in A.

^{page 50 note 1} Summa istius ro[tuli]. ex parte ista. A.

^{page 50 note 2} Rokesleche A.

^{page 50 note 3} Bleod' A.

^{page 50 note 4} Turba villa A.

^{page 50 note 5} Ertat A.

^{page 51 note 1} For Jaunorum A has Crocei coloris.

^{page 51 note 2} vine interl. in A.

^{page 51 note 3} The symbol & prefixed in A.

^{page 51 note 4} continentibus interl. in A.

^{page 51 note 5} A adds empte et.

^{page 52 note 1} Zinziber' A.

^{page 52 note 2} Pins A.

^{page 52 note 3} et.j quarteron' A.

^{page 52 note 4} 4 Gariofil' A.

^{page 52 note 5} de Quibib' A.

^{page 52 note 6} A omits pro.

^{page 52 note 7} albi pulueris A.

^{page 52 note 8} zinzibras' A.

^{page 53 note 1} A has the following additional entry [Dom. Willelmo de Melkessam super exp. domus dom. London'.x. li. Summa.x. li'. struck through] quia satisfecit Waltero.

^{page 53 note 2} Summa C. S'. A.

^{page 53 note 3} &Summa istius ro[tuli] ex parte ista A.

^{page 53 note 4} The symbolic & prefixed to each item in this section in A.

^{page 53 note 5} Littlebyry A.

^{page 53 note 6} de expunged in A.

^{page 53 note 7} Dom. Willelmo A.

^{page 53 note 8} The symbol & prefixed to each item in this section in A.

^{page 53 note 9} ad arma Gastonis de Berne A. A has also.xv. s'. immediately following.

^{page 54 note 1} pred. omitted in A.

^{page 54 note 2} Item pro Emendacione vet' ad suramar' dom..ij. s'. vj.d'. A.

^{page 54 note 3} selle A.

^{page 54 note 4} Scurlage A.

^{page 54 note 5} Pincerna A and B.

^{page 54 note 6} dom. Abel A.

^{page 54 note 7} Boydino A.

^{page 54 note 8} Rokesleche A.

^{page 54 note 9} Cyndonis A.

^{page 54 note 10} predictis A.

^{page 54 note 11} robis omitted in A.

^{page 55 note 1} Rokesleye A.

^{page 55 note 2} & omitted in A.

^{page 55 note 3} Worthested A.

^{page 55 note 4} Burham A.

^{page 55 note 5} Reconsio A.

^{page 55 note 6} A has this and in place of the following entries: &Summa summarum omnium exp. istorum. ro[tulo-rum]. garderobe. vj. xxij. li'. iiij.s'. viij. d'. o'. qa. preter exp. domus a festo Natiuitatis dom. vsque festum Pentecostes cuius summa talis est per idem tempus..CCC.xvij. li'. iiij. d'. et sic est summa totalis tarn domus quam garderobe in vniuerso per totum tempus pred..ix. xxxix.li'. v. s'. o'. qa.. Et sic excedunt expense receptam. in.CCC.Lxxv..li'. iij. s'. o'. qa.

^{page 56 note 1} de omitted throughout in A.

^{page 56 note 2} Ertant A.

^{page 56 note 3} A has the symbol & prefixed to both these items.

^{page 56 note 4} A adds pro ut patet infra rotulum.

^{page 56 note 5} Cangy A.

^{page 56 note 6} The passages so marked are arranged in column in A, but not in B.

^{page 56 note 7} The word lib' appears to have been inserted as an afterthought in A.

^{page 56 note 8} A is mutilated here and. the words following have disappeared.

^{page 56 note 9} cella throughout this section in A except in the marginal entry, where sellarum.

Article contents

I.—The Wardrobe and Household Accounts of Bogo de Clare, a.d. 1284–6.

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests