No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2009
page 1 note 1 Tout, T. F., ‘A Mediaeval Burglary’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, ii (1914–1915), pp. 348–69Google Scholar; Tout, , Chapters, ii, pp. 55–57Google Scholar; Pearce, E. H., Walter de Wenlok, Abbot of Westminster (London, 1920), pp. 146–66Google Scholar; Westlake, H. F., Westminster Abbey (London, 1923), ii, pp. 430–46.Google Scholar
page 1 note 2 Pearce, E. H., Walter de Wenlok, Abbot of Westminster (London, 1920).Google Scholar
page 1 note 3 I. 14, 42–43, 99, 295, 308, 310, 311. I. 320 is a fragment.
page 1 note 4 I. 20, 28, 167, 210, 237, 239, 255, 257, 305, 315–19, 324–25. Of these, I. 210 is described as litera in the account to which it is a voucher.
page 1 note 5 I. 2, 69, 134, 149, 174.
page 1 note 6 I. 264–65, 315.
page 1 note 7 P.R.O., Ancient Correspondence (S.C.1), vol. xxvii, no. 192. This is a letter to the chancellor, John de Langton, probably written on the occasion of Langton's appointment in 1292.
page 2 note 1 E.g. I. 208, 218.Google Scholar
page 2 note 2 The phrase sigillum … secretum occurs in I. 174.Google Scholar
page 2 note 3 I. 6, 9 (with slits), 8, 11, 17, 19, 48–49, 210–11, 247, 255, 266.I. 341, sent by a steward of the household, may also have slits for a thong.
page 2 note 4 I. 210–11, 247.
page 2 note 5 Below, pp. 7, 26.
page 2 note 6 I. 326–49. It has been assumed that I. 346–48, which use the singular person, were not sent by the abbot himself.
page 3 note 1 The exceptions are I. 342 and 349. Three of the abbot's writs (I. 154, 302, 308) slip into the singular person.
page 3 note 2 One of the abbot's writs (I. 235) has script' instead of dat'.
page 4 note 1 Davis, G. R. C., Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain (London, 1958), p. 116.Google Scholar
page 4 note 2 Below, p. 241.
page 4 note 3 Below, p. 14.
page 4 note 4 Below, p. 242 and note.
page 4 note 5 Below, p. 247.
page 5 note 1 Below, p. 247.
page 5 note 2 Ibid., notes. The monk-warden of ‘La Neyte’ acted as bailiff of ‘Eye’; the reeve of ‘Eye’ was therefore the principal lay official on the manor.
page 5 note 3 V. C. H. Oxon., vi (London, 1959), p. 209Google Scholar; W.A.M. 32691; Westminster Domesday, fos 318v–319.
page 5 note 4 Below, pp. 242, 246.
page 5 note 5 Below, p. 248 and note.
page 5 note 6 The Customary of St Augustine's Canterbury, which was related to Ware's Customary, survives in a fourteenth-century manuscript also containing the regulations of Nicholas de Spina, a late-thirteenth-century abbot of St Augustine's, for his household and a list of his familia (Customary, ii, pp. vi–ixGoogle Scholar; i, pp. 51–64). But the list and regulations are a compilation separate from the Customary and cannot be used as an argument that Ware's Customary originally contained similar material (ibid., i, pp. vi–viii).
page 5 note 7 Walter de Wenlok, p. 112Google Scholar; see Tout, , Chapters, ii, pp. 158–63.Google Scholar
page 6 note 1 Below, p. 248.
page 6 note 2 W.A.M. 19168–223; see especially W.A.M. 19177, 19199.