Liber Tertius

doi:10.1017/S2042171000000625

^{page 237 note 1} Cf. supra, Book I, ch. 15.

^{page 237 note 2} The prologue must have been written in the time of the bishops. Nunc probably indicates the point which the account in the L.E. has reached in contrast to the earlier times of Augustine and Etheldreda.

^{page 245 note 1} For Hervey's career as bishop of Bangor see Davies, J. Conway, Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents relating to Welsh Dioceses, 1066–1272 (1946), Hist. Soc. of the Church in Wales, i, 92Google Scholar ff.

^{page 245 note 2} Pancor … haberet : derived from Bede, ii, 2, p. 84.

^{page 245 note 3} Hervey's attempts since 1102 to secure his translation to another bishopric, while supported by Henry I, had met the opposition of Archbishop Anselm. See J. Conway Davies, op. cit., i, 95–96.

^{page 246 note 1} Robert Bloet, bishop of Lincoln 1093–1123.

^{page 246 note 2} Spaldwick, Hunts.

^{page 246 note 3} Cf. Eadmer, Hist. Novorum, p. 195.

^{page 246 note 4} Date: 21 November 1108.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., pp. 11–12, no. ii; Monasticon, i, 474, no. xix. Noted in Papsturkunden in England, i, 104.

^{page 247 note 1} Date: 21 November 1108.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, App., p. 12, no. iii. Noted in Papsturkunden in England, i, 104.

^{page 247 note 2} Date: 21 November, 1108.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 12, no. iv. Noted in Papsturkunden in England, i, 104.

^{page 248 note 1} Date: 21 November 1108.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., pp. 12–13, no. v. Noted in Papsturkunden in England, i, 104.

^{page 249 note 1} The date should be 1109. See infra, ch. 6.

^{page 249 note 2} Date: Nottingham, 17 October 1109. ‘ Some dating inconsistencies ’, as Chaplais, P. has pointed out (‘ The Seals and Original Charters of Henry I ’, Engl. Hist. Rev., lxxv (1960), p. 272CrossRef Google Scholar), ‘ are explained by the fact that the diploma was drafted and written by a scribe of the beneficiary ’. E.g. the dating clause combines with the a.d. 1109 the tenth year of Henry I, correctly, and the tenth year of Paschal II, incorrectly since the latter falls in 1108 and has presumably been copied from Paschal II's letter (ch. 5) without any indication that Paschal had in fact approved the creation of the new see in an earlier year than that in which the charter was issued. (Hence probably the confusion of the compiler of the L.E. who, recognising that 1109 was wrong for Paschal II's tenth year, wrongly altered the a.d. of the charter to 1108.) The reference to Robert, bishop of Lincoln, as qui tunc ecclesie predicte presidebat, if taken literally, could imply that the charter was not written before Robert's death in 1123. This late date receives no support from the witness list (e.g. Mathildis sponsa regis Romanorum), and the phrase is probably to be explained with reference to Paschal II's letter to Anselm (ch. 5). This states that Henry I had requested the creation of a new see ex voluntate Lincolniensis episcopi without supplying the bishop's name. Perhaps the scribe of the charter, writing in 1109, merely added that this bishop, whose assent is referred to, qui tunc ecclesie predicte presidebat (i.e. at the time of Paschal's letter in 1108), was Robert. See Hatton Book of Seals, p. xl, and Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 14, no. viii.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 13, no. vii; Hatton Book of Seals, no. 419; Monasticon, i, 483, no. xx; Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc., xxix, 249. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 919, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 230.

^{page 250 note 1} Date: Castle Holdgate (Salop), 1109 × 1116. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1048, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 325, which place the charter tentatively in 1114. For comments on this charter see Miller, Ely Land Pleas, pp. 445 ff. It is modelled on William I's charter, supra, Book II, ch. 117, and the common passages are shown in italics.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 17, no. ix; Monasticon, i, 482, no. xvi; Hatton Book of Seals, no. 430; Landon, Cartae Antiquae Rolls, no. 50.

^{page 251 note 1} Date: Castle Holdgate (Salop), 1109 × 1116. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1050, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 328, which place the charter tentatively in 1114.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 20, no. xxv.

^{page 252 note 1} The L.E. has two narrative chapters introducing charters of Henry I, one (ch. 9) referring to the beginning of Hervey's pontificate, the other (ch. 39) to the end. The subject of Henry's concessions mentioned in ch. 9 would fit the charters in cc. 11–13 and 15–16, and ch. 39 expressly introduces only one charter (ch. 40). But the itinerary suggested by Farrer implies a different grouping of these charters. Cc. 13, 15, 19, 23 were issued at Eling in transitu, probably in 1127. Cc. 11 and 18 were issued at St-Pierre-sur-Dive, probably in the same year. Cc. 16 and 40 were issued at Argentan and ch. 12 at Windsor, probably in 1129, ch. 24 at Cliff, probably in 1122, and two charters issued at Sawtrey and Ditton (cc. 21–22) belong to 1103–06, preceding Hervey's connection with Ely by at least a year. This leaves for Hervey's early years only Henry's confirmation of Hadham which is dated 1110 and the charters issued at Castle Holdgate, probably in 1114 (7, 8 and 14). The compiler has probably recorded the Ely tradition that Hervey made two concerted attempts to have the Ely liberties confirmed and increased, one in 1114 and another in the closing years of his life, 1127–29, but did not know which charters belonged to these occasions. For the contents of the charters see Miller, Ely, pp. 66–69, 160 ff., 166 ff., and Ely Land Pleas, pp. 445 ff.

^{page 253 note 1} Date: 1109 × 1133. As the place of issue is not given, it is not clear to which, if any, of the groups mentioned supra, p. 252, n. 1, this charter belongs. Regesta, ii, no. 931, suggests 1109.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 18, no. xv. Cf. Monasticon, i, 482, no. xvii; Regesta, ii, no. 931; Miller, Ely, p. 166.

^{page 253 note 2} Date: St-Pierre-sur-Dive, September 1127 × July 1129. Cf. Regesta, ii, 1543, which places the charter in 1127 (August to September).

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App.. p. 18, no. xvi. Cf. Miller, Ely Land Pleas, p. 452. The reference is to the Domesday inquest and the charter is used as evidence to help determine the date of the completion of Domesday Book. For a summary of the relevant literature see Sawyer, P. H., ‘ The “ Original Returns ” and Domesday Book ’, Engl. Hist. Rev., lxx (1955), pp. 177–97Google Scholar.

^{page 254 note 1} Date: Windsor, 1123 × 1130. Cf. Farrer, Itinerary, no. 596, who places the charter tentatively under 1129, and Regesta, ii, no. 1656, which places it under 1130.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 19, no. xviii; Monasticon, i, 482, no. xviii. For the contents see miner, Ely, p. 157; cf. Stenton, , The First Century of English Feudalism (1932), p. 212Google Scholar; also Pipe Roll 31 Henry I (ed. J. Hunter and C. Johnson), p. 44.

^{page 254 note 2} Date: Eling, ? 1127. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1500, which suggests c. August 26, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 555 A.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 19, no. xix; Landon, Cartae Antiquae Rolls, p. 29, no. 51. For the contents see Miller, Ely, p. 166, and for the evidence derived from this charter for the date of the completion of Domesday Book see Galbraith, V. H., ‘ The Making of Domesday Book ’, Engl. Hist. Rev., lvii (1942), 151–77CrossRef Google Scholar and supra, p. 253, n. 2.

^{page 255 note 1} Date: Castle Holdgate, 1109 × 1116. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1049 and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 327, which place the charter tentatively in 1114.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 19, no. xvii; Landon, Cartae Antiquae Rolls, p. 30, no. 52. For the Kentford inquest see Miller, Ely Land Pleas, pp. 445 ff., and supra, pp. 198–99.

^{page 255 note 2} Bishop of Norwich, 1091–1119.

^{page 255 note 3} Sheriff of Norfolk (Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 373, n. 1).

^{page 255 note 4} Justice in Norfolk (ibid.; cf. D. C. Douglas, Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, pp. 66, 67).

^{page 256 note 1} Date: Eling, ? 1127. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1499, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 555.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 20, no. xxi. For the importance of this charter in tracing the history of scutage see Miller, Ely, pp. 160–62; J. H. Round, Feudal England, pp. 268 ff.; Stenton, op. cit., p. 179. Cf. also Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 44, and Red Book of the Exchequer (R.S., 1896), ii, pp. clii–clvi.

^{page 256 note 2} Date: Argentan, ? 1129. Cf. Regesta, ii, 1421, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 581.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., pp. 19–20, no. xx. For the contents see supra, ch. 15.

^{page 257 note 1} This chapter has been copied into the Cronica fundationis monasterii seu abbatie de Chateriz, Brit. Mus., MS. Cotton, Julius A.i, fos. 75v ff. Cf. V.C.H., Cambs., ii, 220 ft., and supra, Book II, ch, 86.

^{page 257 note 2} Cf. Hier. in Tit., i, 7.

^{page 258 note 1} Date: St-Pierre-sur-Dive, September 1127 × July 1129. Cf. Regesta, ii.no. 1542, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 563, which place this charter tentatively in 1127 (August to September).

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 20, no. xxii; Monasticon, ii, 617; Landon, Cartae Antiquae Rolls, no. 68. Cf. Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 44.

^{page 258 note 2} Date: Eling, ? 1127. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1501, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 556. which place this charter tentatively c. August 1127.

Printed: Monasticon, ii, 617. Cf. Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 44. For a facsimile of Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 5, see T. A. M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis (1961), Plate xv.

^{page 259 note 1} Date: Windsor, 1110. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 945, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 260.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., pp. 17–18, no. x. For a similar charter addressed to Abbot Richard see supra, Book II, ch. 149.

^{page 259 note 2} Richard Belmeis, bishop of London 1108–27.

^{page 259 note 3} For Hugh de Bocland cf. Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 328, 355.

^{page 259 note 4} Date: Sawtrey, 1103 × August 1106. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 771, and Farrer, Itinerary, no. 139, which place this charter tentatively in 1106. If this date is correct the charter belongs to the time of Abbot Richard.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 18, no. xi.

^{page 260 note 1} Date: Ditton, 1103 × August 1106. Cf. Farrer, Itinerary, no. 140, dated as supra, ch. 21, and Regesta, ii, no. 1029. Ditton is given as the place of issue in Ely, D. and C, Cart. 5 B as against Sawtrey in the versions of ch. 22 in EFGO. (Regesta, ii, no. 1029, wrongly cites another copy in Liber M, fo. 80, but this is a copy of ch. 21.) It is unlikely that other important variants are concealed in the words obscured or wholly lost in Cart. 5 B owing to its mutilated state (e.g. nothing remains between forisfact’ and Ap’, and the identity of the witness cannot therefore be reconstructed). There is no reason to assume that a third writ, distinct from ch. 21 and ch. 22 and represented by Cart. 5 B, existed, since the aliud breve mentioned in the text of ch. 22 and Cart. 5 B is presumably to be identified with ch. 21, and since the scribe of E or G (whichever was earlier) may well have written Saltredam in error having just written it in a similar context for ch. 21—an error perpetuated in later versions. Cart. 5 B is therefore probably to be taken as a more reliable version of the writ in ch. 22 and Ditton to be preferred as the place of issue.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 18, no. xii. For a facsimile of Cart. 5 B see T. A. M. Bishop, Scriptores Regis, Plate viiia.

^{page 260 note 2} Date: Eling, ? 1127. This charter may belong with the others issued at Eling. See supra, ch. 9. Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1503, which places this charter tentatively c. 26 August 1127.

^{page 260 note 3} Date: King's Cliff (?), 1109–31. Cf. Règesta, ii, no. 930, which places this charter tentatively in 1109.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 20, no. xxiv.

^{page 261 note 1} For an account of the division of the abbey lands see supra, p. 1; Bentham, Ely, i, 133 ff.; Miller, Ely, pp. 75 ff.; V.C.H., Cambs., ii, 203.

^{page 261 note 2} Barnwell Priory.

^{page 261 note 3} Cf. the arrangements made by Abbot Leofsige (supra, Book II, ch. 84) and Ranulf Flambard (ibid., ch. 136).

^{page 261 note 4} Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, p. 324, ‘ Quantitatem possessionum antiquam … is, qui modo rem regit, mille et cccc^tas libras marsupio suo quotannis annumeret. Monachis vix trecentas contulerit, praeter ea quae in suos et servientium et hospitum usus absumit’.

^{page 261 note 5} Cf. Eccli., xxxii, 24.

^{page 262 note 1} Date: 1109 × 1131, and, if any significance may be attached to the position of this chapter in the L.E., late in this period. It must have followed some time after the charter (printed in Miller, Ely, pp. 282–83) confirming Hervey's earlier arrangement.

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 21, no. xxvi; Monasticon, i, 483, no. xxi; Hatton Book of Seals, pp. 291–92, no. 420. For a discussion of the authenticity of this charter see supra, pp. l–li. For the modern names of the manors see Index and for their location the sketch maps in Miller, Ely, following pp. 76 and 220.

^{page 264 note 1} The fall of the tower is recorded in the Winchester Annals (p. 44), s.a. 1111.

^{page 264 note 2} Cf. Dan., iii, 19–100.

^{page 265 note 1} Ralph son of Colsuein held a batellum in mara de Saham of the monks in the time of Henry I (O, fo. 91).

^{page 266 note 1} Exning.

^{page 266 note 2} For the cost of maintaining this causeway see Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, ii, 132, ‘ pro calceto de Saham straminand ’, and also i, 112.

^{page 266 note 3} A slightly different version of this miracle appears in Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., iii, 122–33, where it is said to have been written up by Abbot Warinof St Evroult at Bishop Hervey's request.

^{page 266 note 4} Orderic says nothing of his illness and poverty, but describes his trade. ‘Vicinis suis indigentibus nummos non tamen ad usuram accomodabat, sed propter infidelitatem multorum a debitoribus vadimonia retinebat’.

^{page 267 note 1} Orderic adds a libel on Ralph's methods of doing justice.

^{page 267 note 2} Cf. Regesta, ii, no. 1129, which dates this county court at Huntingdon before Ralph Basset, justiciar, between 28 September 1115 and 5 August 1116, and probably in Spring 1116.

^{page 267 note 3} Orderic gives a detailed and amusing account of Bricstan's interrogation.

^{page 268 note 1} Ralph Basset according to Orderic's version.

^{page 269 note 1} Gilbert Crispin (d. 1117?).

^{page 269 note 2} Orderic's version ends with a pious peroration. For donations received ‘ de Boiis ’ see Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, i, 118–19; ii, 35.

^{page 270 note 1} Cf. Matth., vii, 7; Luc., xi, 9.

^{page 271 note 1} Dunwich (?).

^{page 271 note 2} Ille … remota: intended as two hexameters.

^{page 271 note 3} Cf. Matth., iii, 10.

^{page 271 note 4} Officiis … iacebant scans as an hexameter.

^{page 272 note 1} Cf. Jer., i, 10.

^{page 272 note 2} Cf. Is., xl, 3; Matth., iii, 3; Marc, i, 3; Luc., iii, 4.

^{page 272 note 3} Cf. Matth., xvi, 18.

^{page 272 note 4} Cf. Joh., xi, 39.

^{page 272 note 5} Cf. Tob., vi, 16 ff.

^{page 273 note 1} Cum … facta fuit scans as an elegiac couplet.

^{page 274 note 1} Barningham.

^{page 274 note 2} Cf. Exod., xii, 29–30.

^{page 274 note 3} Perhaps the knight Leofmær, father of Adam of Cockfield, a man of the abb ot of St Edmunds (D. C. Douglas, Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, pp. 110–11).

^{page 275 note 1} Cf. IV Reg., xx.

^{page 276 note 1} Nicholas, father of Henry of Huntingdon, and archdeacon of Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Hertfordshire until his death in 1110. He was succeeded in the latter counties by his son Henry and in Cambridgeshire by William the Breton (Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 302). For a comment on the archdeacon's customs see infra, App. C, p. 402.

^{page 276 note 2} On William the Breton see infra, App. C, p. 403.

^{page 276 note 3} Confundit fasque nefasque: the source has not been identified, but cf. Ovid, , Metamorphoses, vi, 586Google Scholar, fasque nefasque confusura.

^{page 276 note 4} Thren., i, 2.

^{page 276 note 6} Ps., lxxvi, 9.

^{page 277 note 1} Ps., cxlvi, 11.

^{page 277 note 2} Deut., xxxii, 41.

^{page 277 note 3} On the Musard family see Complete Peerage (new edn.), v, 574. For the grant of Estona(probably Aston Somervile, Gloucs). see supra, Book II, ch. 129. The manor seems to have been granted, originally at least, not to the convent, but to Bishop Hervey, before he had any connection with Ely.

^{page 277 note 4} If the identification with Aston Somervile is correct, the manor eventually returned to the Musard family (Rudder, A New History of Gloucestershire, p. 241).

^{page 277 note 5} non … regias: from Florence, s.a. 1104; cf. A.S.C., s.a.

^{page 278 note 1} Date: Argentan, ? 1129. Cf. Farrer, Itinerary, no. 581. But cf. also Regesta, ii, 1420, which places it in 1124. The outside limits are 1123 and 1129 (see ibid.), but if the compiler is right in placing the charter towards the end of Hervey's life, it probably belongs, with the other charters issued at Argentan, to 1129 (see supra, ch. 9).

Printed: Bentham, Ely, i, App., p. 18, no. xiv.

^{page 279 note 1} Cf. Eccl., xxxii, 24.

^{page 279 note 2} Cf. Luc., xvi, 2–9.

^{page 279 note 3} Gilbert the Universal, bishop of London (1128–34). This meeting might belong to the year 1128 when Gilbert attended the dedication ceremony at Thorney church (Miller, Ely, p. 284).

^{page 279 note 4} Ps., xli, 8.

^{page 279 note 5} Ps., xliv, 2.

^{page 279 note 6} Cf. Farrer, Itinerary, p. 563, under 30 August 1131; also Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 252; Florence, ii, 93.

^{page 280 note 1} For the Autrey family see Early Yorkshire Charters, iii, 283.

^{page 281 note 1} This letter from Osbert of Clare, who had spent part of his exile from Westminster at Ely, is printed as No. 33 in the edition of his letters by E. W. Williamson (1929), pp. 116–19.

^{page 281 note 2} Osbert occurs as prior of Daventry in 1135–36. See the notes to this letter in Williamson's edition, pp. 219–20, n. 2.

^{page 281 note 3} St Milburga's house is Wenlock (Salop) (ibid., n. 4) and the Cluniac priory is Bromholm (Norfolk) (ibid., n. 3).

^{page 282 note 1} Identified as Hyssington in Montgomeryshire or Shropshire (ibid., n. 5; also p. 10).

^{page 282 note 2} Perhaps Herbert de Fourches who occurs c. 1160 (ibid., n. 6).

^{page 282 note 3} A common phrase in the Vulgate, e.g. Exod., xxiv, 5; Levit., ix, 8.

^{page 283 note 1} Cf. Is., xxxiii, 9.

^{page 283 note 2} For Nigel's career see F. Liebermann, Einleitung in den Dialogus de Scaccario (1875), pp 29 ff.; J. H. Round in D.N.B.; D. Knowles, The Episcopal Colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket (1951), pp. 9–12.

^{page 284 note 1} The correct version seems to be 5. Kal. June (28 May). In other sources the date of consecration only is given (e.g. Simeon, ii, 285), but Henry of Huntingdon dates the appointment ‘ post Pentecosten ’, i.e. after 14th May (Hist. Anglorum, p. 253).

^{page 284 note 2} For the contribution of Richard of Ely to the L.E. see supra, pp. xlvii–ix.

^{page 284 note 3} Cf. Deut., iv, 19.

^{page 284 note 4} Exhortatio and consolatio are technical terms in rhetoric. Cf. Seneca, Epist., xciv, 21; also xcv, 34, ‘ his adiunxerimus praecepta consolationis, adhortationis … ’ Cf. also Cicero, De Orat., ii, 64.

^{page 284 note 5} Cf. Is., xl, 15.

^{page 284 note 6} See supra, p. 200, n. 4.

^{page 284 note 7} Cf. Florence, s.a. 1135. Henry I died in December 1135 after a reign of thirty-five years and four months.

^{page 285 note 1} For the designation of Stephen cf. Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 270; John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis (ed. R. L. Poole, 1927), p. 86; Gesta Stephani, p. 7; also Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 536, which records the views of those supporting the Empress. The account in the L.E. is probably the source for Diceto, i, 248, ‘ Hugo Bigod, senescallus regis, veniens in Angliam, coram archiepiscopo Cantuariensi Sacramento probavit, quod, dum rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis quibusdam inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhaeredavit, et Stephanum Boloniae comitem haeredem instituit'. See supra, p. lviii.

^{page 285 note 2} Cf. Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., v, 63; Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 538.

^{page 285 note 3} 19 December. The date is variously recorded by the chroniclers. Cf. e.g. Florence, ii, 95 (20 December); Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 538 and Gervase, i, 94 (22 December); Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., v, 55–56 (15 December); Simeon, ii, 286 (1 January—perhaps by omitting the numeral before Kal. Jan. ?); A.S.C. (Midwinter Day).

^{page 285 note 4} His presence there, which does not seem to have been otherwise recorded, is unlikely. King David was not won over until Lent 1136, when Henry received the honor of Huntingdon. The L.E. may be confusing Stephen's coronation with the Easter court of 1136 which Henry is known to have attended. Cf. Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 259; Simeon, ii, 287; Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii, 541; Richard of Hexham, p. 146.

^{page 285 note 5} leges … habere: derived from Florence, i, 224–25, which describes the accession of Harold. See supra, Book II, ch. 101.

^{page 286 note 1} See Annales Radingenses (ed. F. Liebermann, Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Geschichtsquellen, p. 11) and Flores Historiarum (ed. H. R. Luard, R.S., 1890), ii, 58.

^{page 286 note 2} The Ely tradition, as recorded in cc. 47, 51–53, is suspect. It is quite likely that the island was fortified sometime between 1135 and 1137 with a view towards active opposition to the king. But it is unlikely that such an insurrection should have been directed against all the Normans, including Nigel himself, and that Nigel should have acted so resolutely on the king's behalf in 1137 as to suppress it. It is also surprising that, when the conspirators are said to have paid the extreme penalty, one of the chief plotters against the bishop's life, Henry Peregrinus, should have been restored to the bishop's familia by 1144 (infra, ch. 52). The problem is fully discussed in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xli, 318–27Google Scholar. Two alternative solutions are there suggested. Either this account represents a highly-coloured description and defamation of Bishop Nigel's known policy of increasing the number of knights' fees carved out of the Ely lands (Miller, Ely, pp. 167, 172–73), or the preparations made for a rising against Stephen were made on Nigel's authority and, when they had to be dropped on Stephen's sudden return in November 1137, Ranulf was made the scape-goat. Orderic has a similar version of an insurrection detected and put down by Nigel, which differs, however, in a few details. As Orderic had contact with the fenland monasteries (cf. supra, ch. 33 for his abbot's connection with Bishop Hervey. Orderic himself had spent some time at Crowland. See Knowles, The Monastic Order in England, p. 184), his story is probably derived from the same, erratic, local tradition, with additional information from other parts of the country. More certainly; the account in the L.E. is the source of a brief entry in Diceto, i, 252–53.

^{page 286 note 3} Cf. II Petr., ii, 22; Prov., xxvi, 11.

^{page 287 note 1} The description of the Ely insurrection is to some extent modelled on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, and borrowed passages are shown in italics. Nowhere else in the L.E. is there a similarly sustained use of a classical source, and this suggests that the narrative of cc. 47, 51–53 existed as a separate opusculum before it was incorporated into the L.E. See supra, p. xxxix.

^{page 287 note 2} Cf. Bellum Cat., v, 1, nobili genere.

^{page 287 note 3} Cf. ibid., xiv, 1.

^{page 287 note 4} The Wandlebury plea, the proceedings of which are described in this chapter, must have been heard between the accession of Nigel in 1133 and the death of Henry I at the end of 1135. The narrative states that the findings were implemented by the authority of Henry I, but not that they were confirmed by his charter. Certainly no such charter is known to have been issued. For Stephen's preceptum, presumably a writ, see the note to infra, ch. 49. Modern equivalents to the place names will be found in the index, and Bishop Nigel's policy of resuming alienated lands is discussed, with reference to this chapter, in Miller, Ely, pp. 167–74.

^{page 287 note 5} Ralph Basset and Aubrey de Vere I jointly accounted for the farm of Cambridgeshire in 1130 (Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 43).

^{page 288 note 1} Cambridge, late 1139 × 1140. If Roger le Poer continued as chancellor until about June 1139, this writ cannot have been issued until after that date. It cannot then be identified with the confirmation of the Ely liberties which is referred to in Innocent II's letter of 29 April 1139 (infra, ch. 66). This latter confirmation would then be nearer in time than ch. 49 to the Wandlebury plea and is presumably the preceptum in which Stephen is said in ch. 48 to have confirmed the Wandlebury findings. In this case, ch. 49 is not connected, as the compiler of the L.E. thought, with Wandlebury. It is in fact modelled on Henry I's Kentford writ (supra, ch. 7; common passages are shown in italics), and this also has nothing to do with the Wandlebury proceedings, having been issued as early as 1109 × 1116.

After Nigel's defection Stephen is unlikely to have confirmed any Ely liberties before he captured the island during the winter of 1139/40. Ch. 49 thus probably belongs to the same occasion as ch. 63 and may represent Stephen's response to Innocent II's request in infra, ch. 66.

^{page 288 note 2} This is a copy of the inventory, as it existed, not on 5 January 1134 when it was first compiled, but some time after 1143 since Nigel's losses incurred at Wareham are recorded.

^{page 288 note 3} William was appointed in the first year of Nigel's episcopate (infra, ch. 51) and deposed some time between November 1135 and November 1137 (ibid.). His successor Thembert appears in 1144 or 1145 (infra, cc. 90, 92).

^{page 289 note 1} Henry was the second of two priors who held office during the time of Bishop Hervey and must have been replaced by William during the second half of 1133.

^{page 289 note 2} Mentioned as an enemy of St Etheldreda and presumably a supporter of Nigel's policies (infra, ch. 92).

^{page 289 note 3} Presumably the later cantor who received a grant for the scriptorium from Nigel (Brit. Mus., MS. Add. 9822, fo. 61).

^{page 289 note 4} William the Breton. See infra, App. C, p. 403.

^{page 289 note 5} Richard and the remaining witnesses are members of Nigel's familia who occur as witnesses to his charters. E.g. Brit. Mus., MS. Egerton, fo. 18v, which belongs to the same period, and infra, cc. 134–35.

^{page 289 note 6} Bede, iv, 17 (19), p. 245. Cf. supra, Book I, ch. 27.

^{page 289 note 7} Described supra, Book II, ch. 113.

^{page 289 note 8} Supra, Book II, ch. 113.

^{page 290 note 1} Infra, ch. 89.

^{page 290 note 2} Supra, Book II, ch. 98 and infra, ch. 89.

^{page 290 note 3} Supra, Book II, ch. 61.

^{page 290 note 4} Ibid., ch. 54.

^{page 290 note 5} Infra, ch. 89.

^{page 290 note 6} Supra, Book II, ch. 62.

^{page 290 note 7} Ibid., ch. 65.

^{page 291 note 1} The gospels are not mentioned among Edgar's other gifts supra, Book II, ch. 50.

^{page 291 note 2} Infra, ch. 78.

^{page 291 note 3} Mentioned, supra, Book II, ch. 102.

^{page 291 note 4} This is not specifically mentioned infra, in either ch. 78 or 89. It may be the same as the gold chalice removed by Goceline of Ely, stated to have been worth four and a half marks, but to have been made by the monk Wulfwine (infra, ch. 92). Confusion could easily have arisen between the gold chalice ‘ quem Wlstanus monachus fecit ’ and the gilt chalice ‘ quem Wlfwinus huius ecclesie prepositus fecit’.

^{page 291 note 5} Infra, ch. 78.

^{page 292 note 1} This is not mentioned infra, ch. 92, but cf. supra, p. 291, n. 4.

^{page 292 note 2} Perhaps one of the three crosses mentioned infra, ch. 89.

^{page 292 note 3} Mentioned infra, ch. 89, as worth eighteen marks.

^{page 292 note 4} The only turribulum mentioned as lost at Wareham, infra, ch. 78, was one given by Abbot Ælfsige.

^{page 293 note 1} Supra, Book II, ch. 50.

^{page 293 note 2} Ibid., ch. 88.

^{page 293 note 3} Prior of Ely c. 1144.

^{page 294 note 1} If this is the palla which is mentioned infra, ch. 122, it is surprising that no reference is made here to its loss in 1145 and again c. 1159, after it had been restored at the request of Eugenius III, in 1158. It is possible, if unlikely, that this copy of the inventory was made before 1158, but it cannot have been made as early as 1145 when Book II had not yet been completed. Cf. supra, p. xlviii.

^{page 294 note 2} See supra, ch. 33.

^{page 294 note 3} I Cor., x, 7.

^{page 295 note 1} The fourth council, of 398. See C. J. Hefele, Histoire des Conciles, Vol. ii, Pt. i, pp. 114–15; also pp. 102–08.

^{page 295 note 2} Cf. Pseudo-Isidor, Pat. Lat., cxxx, 346, ‘ Ut episcopus nullius causam audiat absque presentia clericorum suorum, alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi, nisi clericorum praesentia confirmetur ’.

^{page 295 note 3} Cf. Matth., xxvi, 5; Marc, xiv, 2.

^{page 296 note 1} 6 November. The year is 1135, as the discovery of the conspiracy precisely two years later (infra, ch. 52) was one of the reasons for Stephen's return from Normandy in Advent 1137 (Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., v, 91). The conventual lands were not confiscated until after December of that year, since the monks are said to have held them on the day when Henry I was alive and dead. See infra, ch. 70.

^{page 296 note 2} Cf. Ps. lxxii, 9.

^{page 296 note 3} Cf. Bellum Cat., xxxvii, 5, ‘ quos flagitium aut facinus domo expulerat … sicut in sentinam confluxerant’.

^{page 296 note 4} Cf. Marc., vi, 17.

^{page 296 note 5} Cf. Bell. Cat., xvii, 6, ‘ quibus in otio vel magnifice vel molliter vivere copia erat …’

^{page 296 note 6} Cf. ibid., xvii, 6, ‘ incerta pro certis, bellum quam pacem malebant’.

^{page 297 note 1} Cf. Bell. Cat, v, 6, ‘ lubido maxima invaserat’.

^{page 297 note 2} Cf. ibid., xii, 2, ‘ iuventutem luxuria atque avaritia cum superbia invasere ’.

^{page 297 note 3} One of Bishop Nigel's advisers. See infra, ch. 89.

^{page 297 note 4} A witness to charters of Bishop Hervey. See e.g. Miller, Ely, pp. 171, 283.

^{page 297 note 5} The exact source has not been traced, but cf. Horace, Epod., xvi, 6, ‘ Novisque rebus infidelis Allobrox ’.

^{page 297 note 6} Cf. Bell. Cat., xiv, 2–4, ‘ Nam quicumque impudicus … pene bona patria laceraverat, quique alienum æs grande conflaverat … praeterea omnes undique parricidae, sacrilegi convicti, iudiciis aut pro factis iudicium timentes, … ei Catilinae proxumi familiaresque erant. Quodsi quis etiam a culpa vacuus in amicitiam eius inciderat, cotidiano usu atque illecebris facile par similisque ceteris emciebatur ’.

^{page 297 note 7} Cf. the oath taken after Catiline's speech (ibid., xxii, 1–2).

^{page 297 note 8} Ibid., xviii, 5, ‘ consilio communicato ’.

^{page 297 note 9} Cf. ibid., xxi, 2, ‘ Turn Catilina polliceri tabulas novas, proscriptionem locupletium, magistratus, sacerdotia, rapinas … ’

^{page 298 note 1} Cf. Bell. Cat, xviii, 4, ‘ ad perturbandam rem publicam ’.

^{page 298 note 2} A common phrase in the Vulgate, e.g. Deut., xvii, 18.

^{page 298 note 3} Cf. I Reg., ii, 8; Ps., cxii, 7.

^{page 298 note 4} Cf. Ps., vii, 16.

^{page 298 note 5} Cf. Bell. Cat., xxx, 7, where the Roman senate promises impunitatem to any freeman prepared to reveal Catiline's plans.

^{page 298 note 6} Cf. II Reg., xvii, 14.

^{page 299 note 1} Cf. Gen., iv, 14–16.

^{page 299 note 2} Cf. Henry I's charter, supra, ch. 8.

^{page 299 note 3} Cf. infra, ch. 65, for the delegation sent to Rome in 1139.

^{page 299 note 4} The phrase seems to refer to a cartulary, like C and D, which place ch. 54 after ch. 55. See supra, p. xl, and infra, ch. 55.

^{page 299 note 5} Date: 1133 × 1139. Certainly before Innocent II's confirmation (infra, ch. 56) of 27 April 1139 and, if the L.E. is to be trusted, after 5 November 1137. The Harley charter must be a scriptorium copy and the original has not survived. There is, however, no reason to suspect the contents which correspond closely with the genuine papal confirmation (ch. 56). Cf. supra, p. 1. The charter is modelled on Hervey's division charter (supra, ch. 26) and passages in common with it are shown in italics. Nigel did not re-grant Stretham, Shelford, Winston, Bawdsey and Brightwell, but added West Wratting, Stetchworth, Stapleford-all in Cambs.—and Kingston (Suffolk).

Printed: Monasticon, i, 484, no. xxii; Hatton Book of Seals, no. 415.

For comments on this charter see ibid., p. 284 and Miller, Ely, pp. 75–77.

^{page 300 note 1} But cf. supra, ch. 26, which grants ‘ una vaccaria in Biela ’ and later ‘ quattuor quoque pensas casei in Dereforda ’.

^{page 301 note 1} But cf. ibid., which grants ‘ Brihtwella cum Rixemera ’.

^{page 301 note 2} Date: 5 December 1138.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 17.

The sequence of documents in C and D, where ch. 55 precedes ch. 54, is to be preferred to that of the L.E. Ch. 55 is a general confirmation of the liberties of the see and the convent, and there is nothing in it to suggest that it was a confirmation of Nigel's division charter, as the compiler of the L.E. inferred (supra, ch. 53). In C and D, on the other hand, Nigel's charter is appropriately followed by the privilege (ch. 56) confirming it.

^{page 302 note 1} Date: 27 April 1139.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 21.

This privilege is modelled on Nigel's charter (supra, ch. 54) and passages in common with are shown in italics. Cf. also a similar privilege of Lucius II, infra, ch. 85.

^{page 303 note 1} Supra, ch. 12.

^{page 303 note 2} Supra, ch. 15.

^{page 303 note 3} Supra, ch. 18.

^{page 303 note 4} Supra, ch. 19.

^{page 303 note 5} Probably referring to a lost charter of Stephen, confirming the findings of the Wandlebury plea, and not to supra, ch. 49 q.v.

^{page 303 note 6} Supra, Book II, ch. 93.

^{page 304 note 1} Neither Innocent II's confirmation nor that of Lucius II (ch. 85) mention Nigel's grant of the monks' court (supra, ch. 54).

^{page 305 note 1} This chapter and the rest of the compilation must therefore have been written after Nigel's death in 1169. See supra, p. xlviii.

^{page 305 note 2} Cottenham (Cambs.).

^{page 307 note 1} 1135.

^{page 307 note 2} For a Ralph Grossus, holding in Wallingford, see Book of Fees, Pt. i, 1198–1242, pp. 110, 114–15.

^{page 307 note 3} Cf. Prov., xxix, 15.

^{page 310 note 1} Common phrase in the Vulgate, e.g. Exod., vii, 9.

^{page 312 note 1} On the evidence of this phrase Thomas is accredited with the authorship of the L.E. He was clearly a scribe of the Ely scriptorium (litteralis scientie), but the sustained rhyming prose and the occasional hexameters employed in this chapter are not a characteristic feature of the rest of the L.E. and it is safer to infer only that Thomas was the author of a miracle collection which included this miracle.

^{page 312 note 2} Cf. Hebr., xii, 6.

^{page 312 note 3} Hanc … dolores scans as two hexameters.

^{page 312 note 4} Fratres … patientem scans as two hexameters.

^{page 313 note 1} In … audit eos scans as an elegiac couplet.

^{page 313 note 2} Lecto … virago: perhaps intended to scan as an hexameter.

^{page 314 note 1} Nigel's fifth year lasted from October 1137 to 1138 and Stephen's fourth year from December 1138 to 1139. Presumably the year 1138 is intended. The account, which follows, of events in the period 1138–40 is independent of other known sources. Cf. Gesta Stephani, pp. 20–67; Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, pp. 261, 267.

^{page 314 note 2} Cf. Matth., viii, 10; Luc, vii, 9.

^{page 314 note 3} For the rising of Baldwin de Rivers see Annals of Waverley, p. 225.

^{page 314 note 4} Cf. I Reg., xvii, 24; xix, 8.

^{page 315 note 1} Cf. Gesta Stephani, p. 67; Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. Weaver, p. 59. Nigel was expelled from his see some time after Christmas 1139 (Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 267; Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 411).

^{page 315 note 2} Date: Cambridge, winter 1139/40. Cf. supra, ch. 49.

^{page 316 note 1} Alexander succeeded Thembert as prior some time between 1144 (infra, ch. 92) and 1151, when he attended the London council (infra, cc. 97, 103). This chapter must have been written after he had been succeeded, and his successor Salomon occurs for the first time in 1163 (Bentham, Ely, i, 216).

^{page 316 note 2} This phrase and the rubrics which follow are inaccurate. The letters procured by Alexander must be cc. 65–67, all issued on 3 Kl. Maii, and to these should be added ch. 56, issued on 5 Kl. Mali (see the introductory phrase at the end of ch. 53). But these letters belong to 1139. They do not concern Nigel's expulsion, and the addressees do not correspond to those named here. The only letter which fits the description given here is ch. 68. But this letter cannot have been brought back by the same delegation as the others, since it was issued more than a year later and refers to the presence at the curia of Nigel himself. No similar letter addressed to Arch-bishop Hugh of Rouen is included in the L.E. But the existence in the cartulary in G of a letter identical with ch. 68, except that it is addressed to H. archiepiscopo, suggests that—as in the case of the later letters from Lucius II (infra, cc. 83–84)—a copy addressed to the archbishop of Rouen did exist. The compiler seems to have wrongly conflated into one phrase two sentences, introducing two quite distinct groups of letters. Alexander's mission was not, therefore, concerned with the restitution of Nigel to his see. It was sent, probably, to attend the second Lateran council of 1139 on Nigel's behalf,—and this may have given rise to John of Salisbury's disputed recollection that Nigel had been present himself (cf. The Letters of John of Salisbury, i, 9). Its chief business was to acquire a papal confirmation of Nigel's division of the Ely lands and papal support for his policy of resuming alienated lands.

^{page 316 note 3} Date: Lateran, 29 April 1139. Cf. Papsturkunden in England, ii, 166.

Printed: ibid., ii, no. 22 and partly in Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 412.

The rubric is inept. The letter concerns Nigel's policy of resuming knights' fees, described supra, ch. 48. Cf. Round, op. cit., pp. 411–12 and in Engl. Hist. Rev., viii, pp. 515–19.

^{page 316 note 4} Cf. Eccles., iv, 12.

^{page 317 note 1} Date: Lateran, 29 April 1139.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 23 and partly in Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 412.

For the rubric and date cf. supra, ch. 65. The letter refers back to Henry I's charter in ch. 7, a lost charter of Stephen (see supra, ch. 48) and the privilege of Victor II (supra, Book II, ch. 93). Stephen complied with the Pope's request in his Cambridge charter (supra, ch. 49).

^{page 317 note 2} Date: Lateran, 29 April 1139.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 24 and partly in Round, Engl. Hist. Rev., viii, p. 516.

For the date and contents of this letter, exempting Bishop Nigel and Abbot Robert of Thorney from attendance at the second Lateran council of 1139, see ibid., pp. 515–19. Cf. also The Letters of John of Salisbury, i, 9 and supra, ch. 65.

^{page 318 note 1} These are the envoys referred to in the introductory phrases supra, cc. 53 and 64.

^{page 318 note 2} Date: Trastevere, 5 October 1140. The year cannot be earlier than 1140 when Nigel was for the first time driven from his see. By October 1141 the Empress had been in power for eight months and Nigel had presumably been restored, and by October 1142 he had made his peace with Stephen (infra, ch. 75). When he was expelled a second time Lucius II had succeeded to the papacy (infra, ch. 83).

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 27.

This letter alone of the series introduced supra, ch. 64, concerns Nigel's expulsion. The variant reading in G ‘ H. archiepiscopo ’ suggests that a copy was sent to Hugh, archbishop of Rouen, as stated ibid., and both letters were probably issued, as is indicated in the preamble, on the application at the papal curia by Bishop Nigel in person.

^{page 319 note 1} The narrative at the beginning of this chapter describes events towards the end of 1141 or early in 1142 and thus plausibly places the invasion by the earls after Nigel's return to Ely with the support of the Empress and after Stephen's release in November 1141. But the compiler, in inserting this section of the narrative before the battle of Lincoln (ch. 72) and before Nigel's return (ch. 73), has badly confused the chronological order. See Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 161, and for a different reconstruction infra, App. E, p. 433.

^{page 319 note 2} Cf. I Thess., v, 3.

^{page 319 note 3} The earls Geoffrey de Mandeville and Gilbert of Pembroke may have received their instructions when they met the king after his release at Canterbury (Christmas 1141). See Round, op. cit., pp. 140 ff., but cf. also ibid., p. 158 for Round's suggestion that this happened at Ipswich in 1142.

^{page 319 note 4} Date: Hertford (?) 1140. After the expulsion of Nigel towards the end of 1139 or early in 1140 and before the elevation of Geoffrey de Mandeville to the earldom in June or December 1140. The manuscript reading of Hereford is probably to be interpreted as Hertford. See Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 46–49, and in Engl. Hist. Rev., viii, p. 518.

^{page 320 note 1} Date: Bury St Edmunds, 1140. Cf. supra, ch. 70. This writ should follow the writ, given as ch. 76, which threatens the Scalers with constraint at the hands of Aubrey de Vere. It is probable that the execution of this order devolved upon Geoffrey de Mandeville, because Aubrey was killed in May 1140. This is the date given by the Southwark Annals (Brit. Mus., MS. Cotton, Faustina A.viii, fo. 132V) and Round's argument in favour of 1141, based on the Chronicle of Melrose is inconclusive. See Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 81. The problem is more fully discussed in Historia Eliensis Book III, App. C. For the rent owed by the Sealers see supra, cc. 26, 54 and infra, ch. 115; also Miller, Ely, p. 40.

^{page 320 note 2} Cf. Luc, xi, 17; Matth., xii, 25.

^{page 320 note 3} Potens … instruunt: cf. Florence, ii, 96, s.a. 1136. The phrase cannot therefore be derived from Bodl., MS. 297 which ends at 1131. Cf. supra, p. xxix, n. 20.

^{page 320 note 4} The rest of the chapter gives an independent account of the battle of Lincoln (2 February 1141). Cf. Simeon, ii, 307–08; Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., v, 126 ff.; Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, pp. 268 ff.; Gesta Stephani, pp. 73 ff.; Malmesbury, Will, Gesta Regum, ii, 569 ffGoogle Scholar. The account differs from the sources cited in two respects.

(i) It adds the names of Brian Fitz Count, Baldwin de Rivers and of a Welsh king Morgarus to those known to have been present. The first two are likely to have attended. Morgarus is probably a mistake. There was a Morgan ap Owain, who seized Usk in 1139 and was still alive in n 58. But the Welsh princes present at Lincoln have been convincingly identified as Cadwaladr and Madog ap Maredudd of Powys (J. E. Lloyd, A History of Wales, 1948, ii, 478, 489. 507).

(ii) The version of Stephen's capture differs in detail from that of William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon and John of Hexham, who alone give a detailed account.

^{page 321 note 1} Cf. Matth., xxvi, 47, 55; Luc, xxii, 52.

^{page 321 note 2} 2 February (1141).

^{page 321 note 3} Cf. Cicero, Or. Philippica II, vii, 20, sanguinem nostrum sitiebat.

^{page 321 note 4} Cf. Ezech., xxii, 25.

^{page 321 note 5} Stephen was taken to the Empress at Gloucester and afterwards moved to Bristol. See Florence, ii, 129; Malmesbury, Will, Gesta Regum, ii, 572Google Scholar.

^{page 322 note 1} This time reference places Nigel's return towards the end of 1141 or early in 1142. He presumably returned before Stephen's release in November 1141, and perhaps about the end of July, since he was a witness to Matilda's charter to William of Beauchamp at Oxford (dated soon after 25 July 1141 by Round), but is not known to have followed her to the siege of Winchester in August. See Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 314–15; 124–25. Cf. supra, ch. 69, and for a comment on this chapter see infra, App. E, p. 434.

^{page 322 note 2} These advisers were members of Nigel's familia. See the list of witnesses to Nigel's charters, e.g. Liber M, pp. 154, 158; MS. Egerton 3047, fo. 18v. For Gocelin see infra, ch. 92 and for Ralph (Fitz Olaf) see Gray, A., The Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge (Cambridge Antiquarian Soc, xxxi, 1898), pp. 74–77Google Scholar. This may have been the occasion when Nigel took into his hands the administration of the sacristy, an action for which Nigel was reprimanded by Archbishop Thomas Becket in a letter indicating that the church treasures had been used pro pecunia mutuanda (MS. Cotton, Titus A.i, fo. 53; cf. Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, ii, 168). For details of Nigel's abstractions see infra, ch. 92, which probably followed on this chapter in the narrative source here adapted by the compiler of the L.E. See Introduction, supra, pp. xxxviii–ix.

^{page 322 note 3} On the state of the coinage in Stephen's reign see A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (2nd edn., 1955), pp. 154–55.

^{page 322 note 4} This chapter presents an independent account of Stephen's release from captivity in November 1141. Cf. Simeon, ii, 310 f.; Orderic Vitalis, Hist. Eccl., v, 130; Malmesbury, Will, Gesta Regum, ii, 587Google Scholar; also Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 135 and Poole, op. cit., p. 145. The names of Earls Gilbert of Pembroke and William of Arundel (or Sussex) are here added to those known to have worked for the king's release.

^{page 322 note 5} Bishop Henry was legate from 1139 to 1143.

^{page 323 note 1} Cf. I Mac., i, 3.

^{page 323 note 2} Date: ? 1142. For a writ identical with ch. 75, except for the addition of Ipswich as the place of issue, see infra, ch. 87 and for a comment on both chapters see infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 323 note 3} Date: Oxford, late 1139 × 1140. This writ should precede ch. 71, where Geoffrey de Mandeville is ordered to apply the constraint threatened here. The limits of the date of issue are further defined by the reference to Aubrey de Vere I—who must be meant, as his son would have been styled comes (Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 188–90)—if his death is to be placed, in spite of the arguments advanced by Round in favour of 1141, in May 1140. See infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 324 note 1} Cf. I Mac, i, 3.

^{page 324 note 2} In 1139.

^{page 324 note 3} This description suits the council held in Mid-Lent 1143 (Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 276), but according to the Waverley Annals (p. 229) the accusation against Nigel was brought before a later council held in November of the same year. For further discussion see infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 324 note 4} He occurs as prior of Eye about 1130 (Monasticon, iii, 402).

^{page 324 note 5} He occurs as prior of St Frideswide's about 1157 (Monasticon, ii, 135).

^{page 324 note 6} For a discussion of this chapter see infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 325 note 1} For the objects listed below cf. the inventory in ch. 50. Since not all these treasures are included there and only a few are there described as lost at Wareham, there must have been another document in which the treasures lost or converted by Nigel on various occasions, i.e. in 1141 (supra, ch. 73), at Wareham, to finance his journey to Rome in 1144, to pay for his second concord with Stephen (ch. 89), and for the purchase of the post of treasurer for Richard Fitz Neal (ch. 122), were registered, and which served as a basis for the chapters concerned.

^{page 325 note 2} Not included in ch. 50.

^{page 325 note 3} Not included in ch. 50, but a turribulum made by the monk Wulfstan is there listed as lost at Wareham.

^{page 325 note 4} Not included in ch. 50.

^{page 325 note 5} Listed in ch. 50 as lost at Wareham.

^{page 325 note 6} The fourteenth textus of ch. 50, listed as lost at Wareham.

^{page 325 note 7} Not specified in ch. 50.

^{page 325 note 8} The persons named were members of Nigel's familia. Cf. supra, cc. 50, 73 and infra, cc. 89, 92, 138.

^{page 325 note 9} See infra, ch. 92.

^{page 325 note 10} One of Nigel's leading advisers, later archdeacon of Ely. Cf. supra, ch. 37.

^{page 325 note 11} A frequent witness of Nigel's charters, e.g. MS. Egerton 3047, fo. 62V.

^{page 325 note 12} Sometimes called of Shelford. See infra, ch. 92.

^{page 325 note 13} See supra, ch. 52.

^{page 325 note 14} Ralph Fitz Olaf, Nigel's steward, and founder of the family of Lisle. See Miller, Ely, pp. 180, 196.

^{page 325 note 15} See supra, ch. 73.

^{page 325 note 16} The grant of Hadstock is mentioned again later (in ch. 89) in connection with Nigel's use of church treasures in 1144/5, and it is there confirmed by two charters of Archbishop Theobald (cc. 90, 91). The exact terms of the grant are not clear, since the manor did not remain part of the convent's share of the Ely lands, and yet its return to the bishop does not seem to have been recorded. Perhaps, like the specific securities mentioned in ch. 89, it was intended as security against Nigel's loan from the sacristy, although there is no indication in Nigel's charter or Theobald's confirmation that the grant should be anything but permanent. In this case it would have reverted to the bishop when the loans were made good. This cannot have happened before 1163. But some time between Thomas Becket's accession to Canterbury and Nigel's death the monks recovered full control of the sacristy (see supra, ch. 73, p. 322, n. 2) and may have restored Hadstock to the bishop in return.

^{page 326 note 1} Only the removal of a chalice and the stripping of the shrine are mentioned in ch. 50.

The other treasures are listed there without any reference to their subsequent removal.

^{page 326 note 2} Date: Lateran, 24 May 1144. The letter was issued on the same day as ch. 85, for which the full dating clause has been preserved.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 36.

^{page 327 note 1} Cf. Act., v, 29.

^{page 327 note 2} Date: Lateran, 24 May 1144. Cf. the full dating clause of ch. 85.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 39 and partly in Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, P. 413.

^{page 327 note 3} Date: Lateran, 24 May 1144. Cf. ch. 85.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 38 and partly in Round, op. cit., p. 412.

^{page 328 note 1} The actions of Geoffrey de Mandeville in 1143, based on Benwick, Fordham, Ely, Aldreth and Ramsey, are described by Round, op. cit., pp. 209 ff.

^{page 328 note 2} Cf. Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 277; Gesta Stephani, pp. 106–10; Ramsey Chronicle, pp. 329 ff.

^{page 328 note 3} For a translation of this account and a comparison with similar descriptions from Peterborough and Ramsey see Round, op. cit., pp. 213–20.

^{page 328 note 4} Cf. Verg., Aen., iii, 142, ‘ victum seges aegra negabat’.

^{page 328 note 5} Cf. Apoc, ix, 6.

^{page 329 note 1} Date: 1144. This letter does not seem to belong to the group in which the compiler has placed it. It seems to have been issued after Nigel had left Rome, that is after 24 May 1144 and presumably before Geoffrey de Mandeville's death in August of that year. See Round, op. cit., pp. 209 ff.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 40.

^{page 329 note 2} Date: Lateran, 24 May 1144. Cf. the full dating clause in ch. 85.

Printed, as far as frater noster: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 37. This letter is the companion piece to ch. 79 and, but for the addressees, identical with it.

^{page 330 note 1} Cf. Act., v, 29.

^{page 330 note 2} Date: Lateran, 24 May, 1144.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 35. This privilege is based on the confirmation of Innocent II (supra, ch. 56), and passages in common with it are shown in italics. None of the convent's possessions mentioned there has been lost since 1139 and the following have been added: Little Thetford (retrieved at Wandlebury, supra, ch. 48), land in Isleham and Henny Hill (both in Cambs.) and in London.

^{page 332 note 1} Cf. Council of Calcedon (451), canon 24.

^{page 332 note 2} Probably about August 1144. See Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 221.

^{page 333 note 1} The reference must be to Richard Fitz Neal, who is stated later in this chapter to have been made a hostage a second time. This corroborates the assertion, made supra, ch. 74, that there had been an earlier concord, the terms of which Nigel had broken. See infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 333 note 2} Richard of Punchardon's connection with Stephen may have been by way of Stephen's nephew, Hugh du Puiset, whose charters—after his appointment to the see of Durham—are frequently witnessed by Richard and other members of the Punchardon family. See Scammel, G. V., Hugh du Puiset (1956), p. 221, n. 4Google Scholar. Richard occurs as a witness to one of Nigel's charters which may have been issued at this time (Gray, A., The Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge Antiquarian Society, 1898, p. 75Google Scholar).

^{page 333 note 3} This remark presumably refers to Richard's exercise of his functions as archdeacon of Ely, when he succeeded William of Laventon some time after 1159. (William witnesses charters in company with Richard ‘ thesaurarius regis Anglie ’, an office to which he seems to have been appointed about 1159. See supra, Introduction, p. lviii. Bentham placed William's death about 1160, Ely, i, 272.) The monks also held Richard responsible for Henry II's decision, on Nigel's death, to take the convent's lands into his hands (infra, ch. 138).

^{page 333 note 4} Date: Ipswich, late 1144 or 1145. It must be after 24 May 1144 when Nigel was still at Rome. Stephen was campaigning in East Anglia in 1145 (Gesta Stephani, p. 116). Cf. supra, ch. 75, which gives a writ identical with this except for the place of issue, which is there omitted, and infra, App. E, p. 435.

^{page 334 note 1} Date: Bury St Edmunds, late 1144 or 1145 (as for ch. 87). The conventual lands must have suffered the same fate as the bishop's during Geoffrey de Mandeville's insurrection of 1143–44. See supra, ch. 83.

^{page 334 note 2} The word novissime seems to have been used to distinguish Nigel's recent visit of 1144 from an earlier one, and this corroborates the conclusion that he went to Rome in 1140 (supra, ch. 68).

^{page 334 note 3} See supra, ch. 78. It looks as though the compiler is here using a narrative source in which these two chapters formed a continuous account, which continued further with the matter in cc. 92 and 137. See Introduction, supra, p. xxxix.

^{page 335 note 1} Supra, ch. 78.

^{page 335 note 2} Listed as taken by Nigel supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 3} Listed as taken by Nigel supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 4} Listed as taken by Nigel supra, ch. 50, but valued there at 12 marks.

^{page 335 note 5} Not specifically mentioned in supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 6} Listed as taken by Nigel supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 7} Not identifiable from supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 8} Prior Thembert's only dated appearance. His predecessor was alive in 1134 and he had been succeeded by 1151. See supra, ch. 50.

^{page 335 note 9} As William of Laventon, when mentioned in connection with this matter in ch. 87 is not styled archdeacon, this must be William the Breton. See supra, ch. 37. For a note on the other sureties see supra, ch. 78. Of those not previously mentioned Ernulf and Gilbert occur as witnesses to Nigel's grant to St Radegund's (Gray, op. cit., p. 75), about 1144–45. Alexander the clerk, not identical with Alexander pincerna, occurs as witness to the same charter as the latter in MS. Egerton, 3047, fo. 18v. Albertus Anglicus held one of the knights' fees created by Nigel after 1135 (Miller, Ely, pp. 172, 195–96).

^{page 336 note 1} Date: Late 1144 or 1145. In spite of confirmations by Archbishop Theobald (see infra, ch. 91) Hadstock did not become a permanent part of the convent's share of the Ely lands. See supra, ch. 78.

^{page 336 note 2} The omission of the name of Ælfsige from D and M suggests that the name was also omitted from the original charter and that its author thought Hadstock to have been granted in the time of Leofsige. This would explain also the omission of the names of Abbots Leofwine and Leofric which should otherwise have been inserted after Ælfsige. The addition in EFGO could be the result of the compilation of L.E., Book II, where the grant is said to have been made by Cnut, whose charter mentioning Abbot Ælfsige is there included as ch. 77. The old name of Hadstock was Cadenho. See supra, ch. 76.

^{page 336 note 3} The relics of St Botulf are variously reported to have lain at Peterborough, Thorney and Bury St Edmunds. See Hugh Candidus, Chronicle (ed. W. T. Mellows), p. 63; Gaimar, Lestorie des Engles (R.S.), i, p. xl; Die Heiligen Englands (ed. Liebermann), pp. 11, 15. The phrase used in this charter clearly implies that he governed a monastery at Cadenho and was himself buried there, and this description would seem to require the identification of Cadenho with Icanho or else further to emphasise the confusion which attended the local tradition regarding Botulf's relics. See the Vita by Folcard of St Bertin in Brit. Mus., MS. Harley, 3097, fos. 61V–64V, and cf. T. D. Hardy, Desc. Cat., i, 373–75 and supra, Book II, ch. 138.

^{page 337 note 1} Date: 1144 × 1150.

Printed: Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 319–20, no. 98. Theobald issued a second confirmation (which is extant in the original, Ely D. and C., Cart., no. 84) after he became legate. It is printed by Saltman, ibid., pp. 320–21, no. 99 and dated 1150–61. Its variant readings from ch. 91 are indicated infra in the textual notes. It is modelled on Nigel's charter, supra, ch. 90, and common passages are shown in italics.

^{page 338 note 1} See supra, ch. 89.

^{page 338 note 2} There is no supporting evidence that Nigel wished to place the Ely endowment and cathedral into the hands of secular clergy, as this phrase seems to imply.

^{page 338 note 3} Bishop Alexander of Lincoln. Cf. infra, ch. 122.

^{page 338 note 4} These objects may correspond to the chlamys and the baltheus … de cingulo Ædgari regis mentioned supra, ch. 50, but not shown as removed by Nigel.

^{page 338 note 5} All listed supra, ch. 50, but not as removed by Nigel.

^{page 339 note 1} Presumably Prior Thembert.

^{page 339 note 2} Not identifiable from ch. 50.

^{page 339 note 3} This suggests that Nigel was at this time using the income set aside for the sacristy. See supra, ch. 53 and infra, n. 7.

^{page 339 note 4} Mentioned in ch. 50, but not shown as removed by Nigel.

^{page 339 note 5} Cf. the charges levelled against the addressee of a well-known letter, written by John of Salisbury, who may—in spite of certain difficulties attending the identification—have been Bishop Nigel. See C. N. L. Brooke, Letters of John of Salisbury, i, p. 9, no. 6; also Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 137.

^{page 339 note 5} Cf. Deut., xxxii, 43.

^{page 339 note 7} The exact scope of the office in which Gocelin succeeded Thurstan is not clear. Whatever his office may have been under Bishop Hervey, as Gocelin is here spoken of as the chief despoiler of the church treasures, it is possible that Nigel put him in charge of the sacristy and that he is the clericus uxoratus mentioned in this connection in a letter from Archbishop Thomas Becket (MS. Cotton, Titus A.i, fo. 53). For Gocelin's wife Agnes and the possibility that Ralph Fitz Olaf, Nigel's chamberlain, began his career in Gocelin's service see Nigel's charter to Robert Fitz Ralph (MS. Cotton, Claudius Cxi, fo. 339).

^{page 339 note 8} This is listed in ch. 50, but without reference to Gocelin. The chalice there listed as lost through him was made by Sithric the prepositus.

^{page 340 note 1} For the family of Wattisham (Suffolk) see Miller, Ely, p. 184.

^{page 340 note 2} Cf. Is., ix, 5.

^{page 340 note 3} Ps., ix, 7.

^{page 340 note 4} See supra, ch. 78. For William, a goldsmith and benefactor of St Radegund's Priory, see Gray, Priory of St Radegund, p. 74.

^{page 340 note 5} Cf. Ezech., xiii, 5.

^{page 340 note 6} Ps., lii, 6.

^{page 340 note 7} Cf. Eccli., li, 10.

^{page 341 note 1} Cf. Ps., cviii, 5.

^{page 341 note 2} Cf. Is., i, 2.

^{page 341 note 3} Cf. Sap., x, 21.

^{page 341 note 4} This chapter seems to have belonged to the preface of a Life of Etheldreda, presumably that mentioned below as written by the pupil of the rhetor Julian. It is impossible to identify this Life with any of the known Lives, which are discussed supra, pp. xxx–xxxiv.

^{page 341 note 5} Ps., xxxvii, 11.

^{page 341 note 6} Cf. Tob., ii, 1.6.

^{page 341 note 7} Is., xxiii, 16.

^{page 341 note 8} Cf. Deut., xxviii, 65.

^{page 342 note 1} Ps., xlviii, 13.

^{page 342 note 2} Greg. M., Dial., iii, 18, Pat. Lat., lxxvii, col. 268a.

^{page 343 note 1} Cf. Is., lxvi, 11.

^{page 343 note 2} Cf. Gen., iii, 19.

^{page 343 note 3} Abbot of St Edmunds (1146–56).

^{page 343 note 4} Supra, Book I, ch. 23.

^{page 344 note 1} Date: Lateran, 17 March 1150 or 1153. Holtzmann (Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 63) prefers 1150, but 1153 may be more appropriate. The complaints which gave rise to this letter probably originated with the monks. In 1150 they were already involved in the Stetch-worth case (infra, ch. 96). But neither does this letter mention Stetchworth nor does any part of the Stetchworth correspondence refer back to this letter. It is unlikely that the monks should have ceased to press this matter during the three years of their dealings with the papal curia over Stetchworth (1150–53), and more probable that it was first formally raised in the last year of Eugenius III's pontificate and re-opened by Adrian IV in 1156 (infra, ch. 123).

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 63.

^{page 344 note 2} For the history of enfeoffment in the abbey estates see Miller, Ely, pp. 164 ff.

^{page 345 note 1} II Tim., iii, 12.

^{page 345 note 2} This is the beginning of an account of the litigation over the possession of Stetchworth, based on a historia composed by the monk Richard (infra). For a summary of the case see infra, App. C, pp. 405–07. Henry's father was William the Breton and the phrase here used suggests that he was still alive. His deposition may have been the result of Richard's complaints at Rome in 1150 (infra, ch. 100). Cf. supra, ch. 37.

^{page 345 note 3} Cf. Ps., vii, 16.

^{page 345 note 4} Hilary, Bishop of Chichester (1147–69).

^{page 345 note 6} Cf. Dan., xiii, 22.

^{page 345 note 5} If the work referred to as huius operis could be safely taken to be the L.E., Richard could be accredited with the authorship of all three books. But as the phrase could equally well be meant to describe Richard's task of initiating and conducting the appeal itself, no final conclusion can be drawn. The historia, which he undoubtedly wrote, must have been an account of the litigation from which cc. 96 and 101 are derived. See Introduction, supra, pp. xlvii–ix.

^{page 346 note 1} Date: 8 May × December 1150. This letter gives a more detailed summary than ch. 96 of the case up to December 1150. See App. C.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 69.

^{page 346 note 2} This charter was probably genuine. See Miller, Ely, pp. 168–69, 280.

^{page 346 note 3} Supra, Book II, ch. 93.

^{page 346 note 4} Supra, Book III, ch. 5.

^{page 346 note 5} Supra, ch. 56.

^{page 346 note 6} Supra, ch. 85.

^{page 346 note 7} According to Book II, cc. 67 and 88, Stetchworth was acquired after Edgar's death, but this passage presumably refers to provision made in Edgar's privilege (Book II, ch. 5) for future acquisitions ‘ fratrum loco manentium victui vel vestitui necessaria ministrantes ’.

^{page 346 note 8} Probably the division charters, supra, cc. 26, 54.

^{page 346 note 9} Cf. Judic., i, 35; I Reg., v, 6.

^{page 347 note 1} Cf. Phil., ii, 21.

^{page 347 note 2} Correctly identified by Saltman as Harrow, against Holtzmann's needless emendation to Teresvillam (Thiersville). See Saltman, op. cit., p. 146, and Papsturkunden in England, 223–24.

^{page 347 note 3} 8 May 1150.

^{page 347 note 4} The fourth Sunday in Lent, 1151.

^{page 347 note 5} I Par., xii, 17.

^{page 348 note 1} Date: 8 May × December 1150. See infra, App. C.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 62, where it is dated 1149 on the assumption that Richard met Theobald at Thiersville.

^{page 348 note 2} Date: 8 May × December 1150.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 67, where it is dated 1151, on the grounds that this letter should be taken to follow ch. 100. It is, however, more likely that the instructions contained in ch. 100 set on foot, not the trial reported in ch. 99, but a later trial held also under the presidency of Theobald and Hilary. For the argument supporting the date suggested here see infra, App. C.

^{page 349 note 1} Date: Ferentino, 22 December 1150.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 64. For the contents see supra, ch. 99 and infra, App. C.

^{page 349 note 2} Perhaps the priest of Stuntney chapel, mentioned infra, ch. 105.

^{page 350 note 1} For a comment on the charges brought against the archdeacon see infra, App. C, p. 404.

^{page 350 note 2} On these customs see supra, Book II, ch. 54 and infra, App. C, p. 403.

^{page 350 note 3} Identified by Holtzmann (Papsturkunden in England, ii, 231) with the London synod mentioned by Henry of Huntingdon under 1151.

^{page 350 note 4} Date: Ferentino, 22 December 1150.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 65. For the contents see supra, ch. 100, n. 1, and cf. cc. 37, 101, 107 and Book II, ch. 54.

^{page 351 note 1} Date: Lent 1151 × June 1152.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 68, where it is dated c. 1151. For the date and contents see infra, App. C.

^{page 351 note 2} This is the earliest datable reference to Prior Alexander. His successor occurs for the first time in 1163 (Bentham, Ely, i, 216).

^{page 351 note 3} Presumably the later prior (c. 1163–77).

^{page 351 note 4} For the authorities here cited see the convent's first letter, supra, ch. 97.

^{page 352 note 1} Stewart uses this passage to prove that Richard was not prior (Liber Eliensis, p. v). This is correct in as much as the prior, with whom Richard attended the council, must have been Alexander. But it is also misleading, since it is nowhere suggested that Richard was prior at this time. He is usually identified with the prior of that name who succeeded Salomon in n 77. See Introduction, supra, p. xlvii.

^{page 352 note 2} The London council held in Lent, 1151 (Papsturkunden in England, ii, 231).

^{page 352 note 3} Date: Segni, 15 June 1152.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 71. For the contents see infra, App. C.

^{page 353 note 1} Date: Segni, 5 February 1152.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 69. For the contents see infra, App. C.

^{page 353 note 2} In the reply to this letter (ch. 106, q.v.) the archdeacon is called William de Laventuna.

^{page 354 note 1} Perhaps the Joseph who brought the forgery charge against the clerk Henry (supra, ch. 100).

^{page 354 note 2} Date: Tenham, 1152.

Printed: Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 321–22, no. 100. For the date and contents see infra, App. C.

^{page 354 note 3} Perhaps West Lavington (Wilts.). See Stephen's grant to Bishop Roger of Salisbury (c. 1136) of ‘ servitium et terram Willelmi filii Malgeri de Laventona ’ (Charters and Documents illustrating the History of the Cathedral, City and Diocese of Salisbury, ed. W. D. Macray, R.S., 1891, p. 8), and cf. Pipe Roll, 2 Henry II for evidence that an Archdeacon William had interests in Wiltshire.

^{page 355 note 1} For a copy of this charter see Liber M, p. 154.

^{page 355 note 2} Date: 22 December 1150 × early 1152.

Printed: Saltman, op. cit., p. 323, no. 101, where it is dated 1152. This letter is the reply to ch. 102 and may refer to William the Breton before his deposition. See infra, App. C.

^{page 355 note 3} Date: December 1152.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 74. This letter supplies the key dates for the chronology of the Stetchworth case. See infra, App. C.

^{page 356 note 1} 18 November.

^{page 356 note 2} The passage shown in italics is modelled on Eugenius III's letter (ch. 104), to which this is the reply.

^{page 356 note 3} The feast falls on 12 May.

^{page 358 note 1} 7 December.

^{page 358 note 2} Date: 28 September 1153.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 80. See infra, App. C.

^{page 360 note 1} Date: Lateran, 28 September 1153.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 79. See infra, App. C.

^{page 361 note 1} Date: 1154. After the time limit mentioned in ch. 110 had expired. See infra, App. C.

^{page 361 note 2} Date: After September 1154. See supra, ch. 111.

^{page 362 note 1} Date: After September 1154. See supra, ch. 111.

Printed: Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 323–24, no. 102, where it is dated ‘ end of 1153 ’.

^{page 362 note 2} Date: 1154.

^{page 363 note 1} This account is derived from a document dated 1154. Stephen de Scalers owed a farm of 126 quarters of grain (Miller, Ely, p. 40). He and his uncle, Hugh de Sealers of Whaddon, had already been in difficulties over the payment of their farm in 1140 (see supra, cc. 71 and 76). This account helps roughly to corroborate the date of the completion of the L.E. (cf. Introduction, supra, p. xlviii). It must have been written after the death of Stephen de Sealers (1168) and of Bishop Nigel (1169), but before 1178 when Stephen's son, William, found himself in arrears and was persuaded only by an alarming disease to pay his due. This settlement is recorded in Liber M, p. 219 and, had it been available for comment at the time of writing, would undoubtedly have been mentioned in the L.E., since—like this chapter—it was dressed up as a miracle story and included in B (Book of Miracles), Bollandist Ada Sanctorum (3rd edn.) Junii, v, 489. The monks eventually exchanged their farm for a piece of land in Newton (Liber M, p. 605). See Miller, Ely, pp. 40, 178; Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, p. 209.

^{page 363 note 2} I.e. written after Nigel's death.

^{page 364 note 1} Stephen held one and a half knights' fees of the bishop in Shelford. See Farrer, op. cit., p. 208, 209.

^{page 365 note 1} Cf. supra, Book I, ch. 31, which refers forward to miracles which happened at St Etheldreda's spring.

^{page 365 note 2} Cf. Ps., Ixxvii, 6.

^{page 365 note 3} Cf. Is., xxxiii, 9; also supra, ch. 44.

^{page 365 note 4} Cf. Ps., xxi, 25.

^{page 367 note 1} Cf. S. J. A. Evans, Ely Chapter Ordinances and Visitation Records, 1241–1515, Camden Miscellany, xvii (1940), p. 13; F. R. Chapman, Sacrist Rolls of Ely, i, 117–18.

^{page 367 note 2} Hist. Eccl., iv, 17 (19), p. 245.

^{page 368 note 1} Cf. Dan., xiv, 33, 41.

^{page 368 note 2} Cf. Ps., lxiv, 5.

^{page 368 note 3} Cf. LXX., lxiv, 6.

^{page 368 note 4} The miracle stories in this chapter and ch. 120 are derived from the Libellus, and passages in common with it are shown within pointed brackets. The verbal parallels are close enough to show that it is the Latin version of the Libellus which was used, but the reference to the latter in ch. 120 strongly suggests that an Old English version of the Libellus, and not merely of isolated documents, had also once existed. See Introduction, supra, pp. li–iii.

^{page 3638 note 5} Dunham … interiit: cf. supra, Book II, ch. 11.

^{page 369 note 1} Cf. Ps., xxxiii, 18.

^{page 369 note 2} Cf. Prov., xxiv, 16.

^{page 369 note 3} This miracle story is derived from the Libellus. See supra, ch. 119.

^{page 369 note 4} Quodam … Alderman: cf. supra, Book II, ch. 35.

^{page 369 note 5} Cf. Prov., xxi, 30.

^{page 370 note 1} Cf. Prov., xiv, 11.

^{page 370 note 2} Cf. Ps., lx, 8.

^{page 370 note 3} Cf. e.g. Ps., xxxiv, 19; lxviii, 5.

^{page 370 note 4} Cf. Ps., xxxvi, 39.

^{page 370 note 5} St Cross.

^{page 370 note 6} Cf. Ps., lxxii, 7–9.

^{page 370 note 7} See supra, ch. 47.

^{page 371 note 1} Cf. Hebr., iv, 13.

^{page 371 note 2} Cf. Ps., lxxxviii, 8, 14.

^{page 371 note 3} Cf. Rom., ii, 5.

^{page 371 note 4} This account of the accession of Henry II adds nothing to the stock of information found in the major chronicles, but seems to be independent of them.

^{page 372 note 1} The siege of Toulouse of 1159. The fine, which is here mentioned as paid by Nigel, may have been connected with the arbitrary dona exacted from the ecclesiastical tenants-in-chief to help finance this campaign (cf. Round, Feudal England, pp. 275 ff.). The appointment of Richard as treasurer may not therefore have been directly purchased, but it must have been sufficiently close in time to the payment of the fine to allow the rumour to have gained ground. The suggestion by Richardson, H. G. (Engl. Hist. Rev., xliii, 1928, pp. 163–66Google Scholar), that the account given in this chapter must be rejected because of a gross confusion of chronology, cannot be sustained. See Introduction, supra, p. lviii.

^{page 372 note 2} On the career of Richard Fitz Neal see H. G. Richardson, art. cit. The damage which the priory is said to have suffered may refer to nothing more sinister than Richard's exercise of the normal functions of an archdeacon of Ely—an office which he held from c. 1160 until his appointment to the see of London in 1189. The compiler also holds him to account for the king's action, on Bishop Nigel's death, of deposing the prior and taking the priory's possessions into his hands (infra, ch. 138).

^{page 372 note 3} For Queen Emma's gift see the inventory of 1134, supra, ch. 50. The first time when the palla was sold (or pawned) to the bishop of Lincoln (altera vice) must have been in 1144/45. Nigel's loans from the treasures of his church, negotiated at this time, are described supra, ch. 89, and it is to this chapter that the phrase ‘ ut scriptum est supra ’ must refer, although the palla itself is not there mentioned. The bishop of Lincoln was Alexander who made a journey to Rome in 1145 (Henry Hunt., Hist. Anglorum, p. 278). The account of the recovery of the palla, which occupies the rest of the chapter, is concerned with that earlier occasion, and not with 1159, and the reference to Eugenius III is therefore chronologically sound.

^{page 373 note 1} Date: Benevento, 22 February 1156.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 92, and partly in Bollandist Ada Sanctorum (1st edn.) Junii, iv, 581 and Migne, , Pat. hat., clxxxviii, 1452, no. 88. Cc. 123–29Google Scholar concern Adrian IV's attempt to compel Bishop Nigel to restore the possessions alienated by him from his church, and in particular to resume certain knights' fees. They should be read together with five letters sent by Archbishop Theobald, which are included in the collection of the Letters of John of Salisbury, vol. i, as nos. 39–43. Apart from no. 40, which is an appeal against Nigel's suspension, these letters relate to a payment of 100 marks, due from Nigel in connection with his alienations.

^{page 373 note 2} See supra, ch. 95.

^{page 373 note 3} Date: Benevento, 22 February 1156.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 93. This letter is the companion piece to ch. 123, q.v.

^{page 374 note 1} Date: Lateran, 17 March 1157. The date of the year is fixed by the absence of Henry II, who did not return until April 1157 (R. W. Eyton, Court, Household and Itinerary of King Henry II, p. 25).

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 96. See supra, ch. 123.

^{page 375 note 1} Date: ? 1157.

Printed: Saltman, Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, pp. 324–25, no. 103, dated 1157. Of the particular estates mentioned in this letter Marham was in the hands of the earl of Warenne, to whom it was eventually conceded in 1200 (see Miller, Ely, pp. 169–70, 174; also Curia Regis Rolls of the reigns of Richard and John (1925), i, 93–94). But at some stage during this controversy Bishop Nigel gave it to the monks (Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 53, 1; Liber M, p. 155). The earl of Clare had an interest in Hartest (Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 53, 2; Liber M, p. 156; confirmed by Prior Alexander in Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 53, 3. Cf. Miller, Ely, p. 250, n. 4). Rettendon was retrieved before the vacancy on Bishop Nigel's death (The Great Roll of the Pipe … 5, 16–20 Henry II, p. 116).

^{page 376 note 1} Date: Lateran, 16 January 1158.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 100. This letter is the companion piece of cc. 128 and 129.

^{page 376 note 2} The reference to William of Warenne is presumably on account of Marham (supra, ch. 126), to the earl of Clare presumably on account of Hartest (ibid). and to Aubrey de Vere perhaps on account of the two Rodings (see P. Morant, History and Antiquities of the County of Essex (1768), ii, 447; Miller, Ely, p. 173, n. 1). The holdings of the other tenants named have not been traced.

^{page 377 note 1} Date: 16 January 1158.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 99. This letter is the companion piece to cc. 127 and 129. See supra, ch. 123.

^{page 378 note 1} Date: Lateran, 16 January 1158.

Printed: Papsturkunden in England, ii, no. 98, and partly in Bollandist Ada Sanctorum (1st edn.) Junii, iv, 581 and Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i, 627 ff. This letter is the companion piece to cc. 127 and 128, q.v.

^{page 381 note 1} 1 Date: 1135 × 1169. For a comment on this writ see infra, App. C, p. 408.

^{page 381 note 2} Date: ? 1162 × 1169. This letter may represent Nigel's action in response to a letter from Archbishop Thomas Becket (MS. Cotton, Titus A.i, fo. 53), which reproved him inter alia for allowing the customs of the convent's churches to be held by one of his clerks.

^{page 381 note 3} This refers to Nigel's charter (supra, ch. 54), which specifies the estates assigned to the monks and grants them in addition the churches belonging to the estates mentioned.

^{page 382 note 1} Date: ? 1162 × 1169. The contents and witness list suggest that this charter belongs to the same period as supra, ch. 134, q.v.

^{page 382 note 2} See supra, ch. 54, and cf. ch. 134.

^{page 382 note 3} Supra, ch. 54.

^{page 383 note 1} This reference must be to the second of Bishop Hervey's charters, specifying the estates assigned to the monks (supra, ch. 26), which mentions their court, and this helps to confirm its authenticity.

^{page 383 note 2} Supra, ch. 54.

^{page 383 note 3} Date: 1139 × 1160. The reference to tempore guerre probably brings forward the anterior limit to at least 1145 and the witness list is characteristic of the later years of Nigel's pontificate. The superior limit is fixed by the death of Adam of Cockfield, i.e. between 1156 and 1160. See C. Hart, ‘ An Early Charter of Adam of Cockfield ’, Engl. Hist. Rev., lxxii (1957), pp. 466–69 and D. C. Douglas, Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds. Erneõern must be the Alnet'ne in Blything hundred of Dd, ii, fo. 385 (Ernetune, Ernetherne, Hamilton, I.C.C., pp. 158, 181), where Ely held 2 carucates. This manor is not named among those granted to the monks by Bishop Hervey, but his allocation did include 30,000 eels from Dunwich and, as 80 burgesses from Dunwich are said to have belonged to Alnet'ne according to Domesday Book, Adam had perhaps interfered with their rights.

^{page 384 note 1} Another account of Nigel's death is given infra, ch. 138, and verbal parallels (which are shown in italics) in the two versions suggest that they have been adapted from a common source. See Introduction, supra, p. xxxix.

^{page 384 note 2} As Bishop Nigel died on 30 May 1169, this would place the beginning of his illness in May 1166. But cf. Gervase, i, 185, where Nigel is spoken of as tactus paralysi among events of October 1164.

^{page 384 note 3} Cf. Zach., viii, 15.

^{page 385 note 1} The regnal year is given as the seventeenth in all manuscripts, and this cannot be earlier than 1170. But as there is no record that Nigel was translated to another place of burial some time after his death, the regnal year must have been wrongly calculated. For a similar miscalculation of Stephen's regnal years see supra, ch. 62.

^{page 385 note 2} Cf. Is., xix, 20.

^{page 385 note 3} For the dates of the priors named in O see Bentham, Ely, i, 216.

^{page 385 note 4} Cf. Jer., xxv, 9; xix, 9, and elsewhere.

^{page 385 note 5} Cf. Ezech., xi, 2.

^{page 385 note 6} Cf. Ezech., iii, 14.

^{page 385 note 7} This chapter continues the account of the punishment awarded to members of the Episcopal familia, as well as to Prior Thembert and Ralph the sacrist, the beginning of which is given in supra, cc. 78, 89 and 92. It is likely that all three chapters are derived from a consecutive narrative, perhaps included among the opuscula ascribed to the monk Richard. See Introduction, supra, p. xxxix.

^{page 386 note 1} For Thembert and Ralph see supra, cc. 89, 92.

^{page 386 note 2} Cf. Ezech., xxxiii, 7.

^{page 386 note 3} Adam is known as a witness of Bishop Nigel's charters (Liber M, pp. 154, 155), but his particular offence is nowhere mentioned.

^{page 386 note 4} See ch. 89.

^{page 386 note 5} Ch. 92.

^{page 386 note 6} Ch. 89.

^{page 386 note 7} See supra, ch. 78. The loss of the palla is not elsewhere mentioned.

^{page 386 note 8} A frequent witness of Nigel's charters from the early years of his episcopate. See Liber M, p. 241, a notification from Prior William (1133–44 ?) He was still active in the episcopal familia after the appointment of Richard Fitz Neal to the treasurership, c. 1159 (MS. Cotton, Claudius Cxi, fo. 339).

^{page 386 note 9} If this were William the Breton, who, as archdeacon, was one of the fideiussores in 1144/5 who are listed supra, ch. 89, we should expect in this record of retribution to find some mention of his later deposition. It is more likely, therefore, to be William de Laventon, who was concerned in the same transaction, before he became archdeacon (supra, cc. 37, 89, 100). The date of his death is not known. It must have been after c. 1159, since he witnesses some of Nigel's charters in the company of Richard Fitz Neal as treasurer (e.g. Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 53, 1 and 2; O, fo. 105V), and before Nigel's death in 1169, since Richard had succeeded him in time to witness several of Nigel's charters as archdeacon of Ely (e.g. Liber M, p. 158; Ely, D. and C, Cart. no. 56). Bentham, Ely, i, 272, suggests c. 1160, but without giving any conclusive evidence.

^{page 386 note 10} The use of italics indicates verbal parallels with supra, ch. 137.

^{page 387 note 1} The point at issue was clearly whether the possessions of the convent should be taken into the king's hands during a vacancy in the bishopric of Ely. See infra, App. C, p. 407.

^{page 387 note 2} See infra, ch. 139.

^{page 387 note 3} Date: 1133 × 1169. The position of this charter in the L.E. suggests that it was issued towards the end of Nigel's pontificate. Monasticon, vi, 1552 (quoting Tanner, who in his turn cites only the L.E). gives the date, presumably for this reason, as 1160. This date, or a little earlier, is accepted as likely by Clay, C. T. (Early Yorkshire Charters, v, 169–70Google Scholar) on the grounds that Robert, who occurs as chamberlain to the earl of Richmond from Michaelmas 1130, cannot be traced in Earl Conan's charters later than in the early part of 1158 and may therefore have entered the monastery about this time (supra, ch. 138). 1160 would also suit the date of Earl Conan's confirmation (infra, ch. 140) and the grant by Aubrey Picot (ch. 141). For details on Robert the chamberlain and his grants to Ely in Great Wilbraham, Denny, Waterbeach, Elmeney and Wendy, see C. T. Clay, loc. cit.: also Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, pp. 17, 120, 121, 190. Before Nigel's death the endowment of the cell at Denny was granted to the Templars, who converted it to a preceptory. For details of this transaction and the relevant evidence see B. A. Lees, Records of the Templars in England in the Twelfth Century (1935), pp. cxlv and 224–25.

Printed: Douglas, Feudal Documents from the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, pp. xxxviii-ix; Monasticon, vi, 1552. Summarised in Early Yorkshire Charters, v, 169–70.

^{page 388 note 1} Kirkby Fleetham {Early Yorkshire Charters, v, 169).

^{page 388 note 2} Bottisham (?).

^{page 388 note 3} Whaddon (?).

^{page 388 note 4} Histon.

^{page 389 note 1} Date: 1160 × 1169.

Printed: Monasticon, vi, 1552; Early Yorkshire Charters, iv, 63, no. 66. For Earl Conan and the date of this charter see ibid., iv, 91. See also supra, ch. 139, which is here confirmed, and infra, ch. 142.

^{page 389 note 2} Date: c. 1160 × 1169. After Robert the chamberlain's charter (supra, ch. 139) and probably after supra, ch. 140. Henry Picot is entered in Nigel's carta of 1166, as holding a knight's fee (Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 363), but must have died some time before this, since his son Aubrey certified in the same year that he held the fee which his father had held all his life (ibid., P. 370).

Printed: Monasticon, vi, 1552–53. For the contents see supra, ch. 139 and infra, ch. 142. For the Picot family see Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, pp. 124–25.

^{page 390 note 1} Date: c. 1160 × 1169. After supra, cc. 140 and 142, which it confirms. Cf. Farrer, Feudal Cambridgeshire, p. 120, who places the confirmation in 1169, presumably on the evidence of its position in the L.E.

Printed: Monasticon, vi, 1549–50.

^{page 391 note 1} For the relationship of this Passio with similar works see infra, App. F.

^{page 391 note 2} quoniam … martyrio: part of the opening sentence of Giles, Passio X.

^{page 391 note 3} Cum … refertur: follows Giles, Passio Quinta, occasionally falling back on Grim's Vita.

^{page 391 note 4} After regebat, Passio Quinta continues independently.

^{page 391 note 5} quod … gratia: is exactly parallel to Grim's Vita; the same words occur in Passio Quinta, but differently disposed.

^{page 392 note 1} quoniam … exasperaverunt: shared with Passio Quinta. For words in common with Grim's Vita see textual notes.

^{page 392 note 2} After deprehenderet, Passio Quinta continues independently.

^{page 392 note 3} ad … protelavit: is exactly parallel to John of Salisbury's Vita (Robertson, Materials, ii, 317) and does not occur in the other Passions.

^{page 392 note 4} Tandem … proruperunt: most closely related to Passio Quarta, but scarcely less close to Passio Quinta; Robertson Passio X occasionally coincides.

^{page 393 note 1} presul … Domini: shared with Passio Quarta and Quinta and less closely with Grim's Vita.

^{page 393 note 2} A bsit … recedam: shared with Passio Quarta, Quinta and Grim's Vita.

^{page 393 note 3} Hoc … centesimo: related most closely to Passio Quarta. But the passage is based on Grim's Vita and is partly shared by Passio Quinta and Robertson Passio X.

^{page 393 note 4} Passio Quinta reads ‘ praeciso vero eodem ictu haec referentis brachio ’, a phrase which may have been taken over from Grim's Vita, but may even then imply that Grim was the author also of Passio Quinta.

^{page 394 note 1} In … monachorum: is very close to Grim's Vita. The same passage occurs with slight changes in words and order in Passio Quarta and Quinta.

^{page 394 note 2} tarn … nocuisse: is most closely related to Passio Quarta and slightly less so to Passio Quinta, and the passage is derived from Grim's Vita which has a number of verbal parallels.

^{page 394 note 3} Ipsa … secula: derived from John of Salisbury's Vita (Robertson, Materials, ii, 321–22). Ipsa, femoralia … cilicina occurs also in Robertson Passio X.

Article contents

Liber Tertius

Abstract

Access options

References

Article contents

Liber Tertius

Abstract

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