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: 06 February 2009
1 McFarlane, K. B., ‘Had Edward I a “policy” towards the earls?’, in The Mobility of Later Medieval England, Oxford 1973, 248–67 (repr. from History1 [1965], 145–59).Google Scholar
2 Plucknett, T. F. T., Legislation of Edward 1, Oxford 1949, 110Google Scholar, quoted in Holmes, G. A., The Estates of the Higher Mobility in Fourteenth Century England, Cambridge 1957, 41.Google Scholar
3 Prestwich, M., Edward I, London 1988, 61.Google Scholar
4 McFarlane, ‘Had Edward I a “policy”?’, 254; Somerville, R., History of the Duchy of Lancaster, London 1953, i. 19–20.Google Scholar
5 Ibid. 7.
6 Complete Peerage, ed. Cokayne, G. E., new edn Gibbs, V. and others, 13 vols, London 1910–1959, iv. 198–200;Google ScholarKerr, W. J. B., Higham Ferrers and its Ducal and Royal Castle and Park, Northampton 1925, 21–6;Google ScholarPowicke, F. M., Henry III and the Lord Edward, Oxford 1947, 523–4.Google Scholar
7 Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series, 1864–9), ii (‘Annales de Waverleia’), 358; iv (‘Chronicon Thomae Wykes’),Google Scholar160; Calendar of Patent Rolls(hereinafter CPR) 1258–66, 409.Google Scholar
8 CPR 1258–66, 409, 419, 426, 435.
9 Calendar of Close Rolls (hereinafter CCR) 1264–8, 135.
10 CPR 1258–66, 503, 522. For copies of the agreement see BL, Lansdowne 229, fo. 24V, and PRO, DL42/II, fo. 44V. The cup was delivered to the wardrobe on 19 Dec.: CPR 1258–66, 517–18 and DL42/11, fo. 44V.
11 Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard, H. R. (Rolls Series, 1890), iii. 7.Google Scholar
12 ‘Annales de Waverleia’, 370; ‘Chronicon Thomae Wykes’, 188–9; Annales Monastici, ed. Luard, , iii (‘Annales de Dunstaplia’), 241.Google Scholar
13 CPR 1258–66, 597, 605, 622, 628, 665, 671.
14 28 June: an original is PRO, DLi0/104 copied in DL42/1, fos 2v–3r, and original of inspeximus of 1285 is DLi 0/164 copied in DL42/1, fo. IIr–v (as Calendar of Charter Rolls,ii. 321), and for the grant of goods see CPR 1258–66, 612. 12 July: an original is DL10/105 copied in DL42/1, fo. 3r and printed in Harcourt, L. W. Vernon, His Grace the Steward, London 1907, 158–9, and inspeximus of 1330 is in Cal. Charter Rolls,iv. 196. 5 August: CPR 1258–66, 622, and a copy in DL42/11, fo. 44V.Google Scholar
15 CCR 1268–72, 214.
16 Statutes of the Realm (Record Commission, 11 vols in 12, 1810–28), I ii. 14 nn. 17, 18.
17 Jacob, E. F., Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, 1258–67, Oxford 1925, 389.Google Scholar
18 Flores Historiarum, ii. 11–12.
19 CPR 1266–72, 22, 127, 129, 203, 262, 697.
20 ‘Annales de Dunstaplia’, 251; CPR 1266–72, 203.
21 Powicke, Henry and Lord Edward, 525.
22 Jacob, Studies, 391–2; below pp. 67–68.
23 CCR 1268–72, 126 (and a copy from the close rolls of this memorandum is in PRO, DL41/6/2).
24 CPR 1266–72, 336, and a copy in PRO, DL42/11, fo. 44V.
25 CCR 1268–72, 122–3; two originals, both with remnants of seals, survive as PRO, DL25/2226, /2228 and were copied in DL42/2, fos 14V, i–jr. The witness list of this charter is different from that of Robert's other charters as below.
26 Copied in PRO, DL42/2, fo. 14r–v.
27 As a charter it is copied in DL42/2, fo. i6r–v, and in CCR 1268–72, 123–4, and as a letter in DL42/2, fos i6v–i7r.
28 An original with seal is PRO, DL25/2227, with two copies in DL42/2, fos I4v–i5r, I5v–i6r, and a copy in CCR 1268–72, 124–5, a nd alsomtne coram rege rol for I274 (below n. 40).
29 CPR 1266–72, 129.
30 For examples see Stones, E. L. G. and Simpson, G. G., Edward I and the Throne of Scotland 1290–6, Oxford 1978, ii. 98n;Google ScholarBuck, M., Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II, Cambridge 1983, 1987; below pp. 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Originals, one with a small seal and the other with a large seal, are PRO, DL25/1664, /2225, both copied in DL42/2, fos I2v–i3r, I4r. The copy in PRO, C54/86 m. 7 (CCR 1268–72, 125) has a section missing: from end of line 5 of the text on p. 125 to read ‘Anglie dederat nobis per quinquaginta milium librarum finem quem cum eodem domino Edmundo fecimus prout in scripto inter nos et manucaptores nostros et predictum dominum Edmundum inde confecto plenius continetur nobis terras’.
32 CCR 1268–72, 126; The Antient Kalendars and Inventories, ed. F., Palgrave (Record Commission, 1836), i. 92 where ‘Transcriptum obligationis Johannis’ should surely read ‘Roberti’.Google Scholar
33 Original is PRO, DL25/958, copied in DL42/2, fo. iv, and another copy is DL41/10/2.
34 An original with seal is PRO, DL25/2229, with two copies in DL42/2, fos i5r–v, 17r–v.
35 Original with seven seal tags and remnants of seals is PRO, DL25/2231, copied in DL42/2, fo. i8r.
36 Original of the second, with seal tag torn away, is PRO, DL25/2230, and both are copied in DL42/2, fos I7v–i8r.
37 An original is PRO, DL25/2219, with two copies in DL42/2, fos IOV–I ir.
38 CPR 1266–72, 497.
39 CCR 1268–72, 398; Complete Peerage, iv. 200–1;Google ScholarSelect Cases in the Court of the King's Bench under Edward I, ed. Sayles, G.O., i (Selden Society, lv, 1936), 20–1.Google Scholar
40 Jacob, , Studies, 218–19, 388–94 (and there are copies of the plea from the coram rege roll in PRO, DL42/11, fos 53r–54r and DL41/6/2).Google Scholar
41 CCR 1272s, 333.
42 Somerville, Lancaster, 7, 911; CPR 1266–72, 488; CPR 1272–81, 165.
43 Complete Peerage, iv. 202, v. 305, vi. 463.
44 CPR 1272–81, 93 (copy also in PRO, DL42/2, fo. ir–v).
45 Somerville, Lancaster, 6–7.
46 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iii. 96–7.Google Scholar
47 BL, Lans. 229, fo. 2ir.
48 Above, p. 61.
49 Denton, J. H., Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, Cambridge 1980, 100.Google Scholar
50 BL, Lans. 229, fo. 24V, and see Denton, Winchelsey, 170, 205. The last part of the letter is transcribed in Complete Peerage, v. 307.Google Scholar
51 J. R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster 1307–1322, Oxford 1970, 2.
52 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ed. R., Graham, ii (Canterbury and York Society, 1956), 566–7, where John is described as ‘lator presentium’.Google Scholar
53 Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. G., Digard and others (Ecole franchise de Rome, 1907–1939), no. 3681Google Scholar (Calendar of Papal Letters, i, ed. Bliss, W. H., London 1893, 588)Google Scholar; Complete Peerage, v. 308.Google Scholar
54 Appendix, no. 1.
55 Helmholz, R. H., Canon Law and the Law of England, London1987 (repr. o f Usury and the medieval church courts’, Speculum lxi [1986]), 324, 328.Google Scholar
56 Decretum, diet, post 1 4 3 4 (Corpus luris Canonici, ed. E., Friedberg, Leipzig 1879–1881, i. col. 735).Google Scholar
57 Helmholz, Canon Law, 325, 330–I.Google Scholar
58 Appendix, nos. 5, 6.
59 Below n. 119.
60 Bateson, M. T., ‘PapalJurisdiction and Courts in England, 1272–1327’, unpublished PhD diss., Manchester 1987, 85–119.Google Scholar The major case concerning the exercise of York metropolitan jurisdiction over the priory of Durham featured subdelegation to multiple commissaries (Brentano, R., York Metropolitan Jurisdiction and Papal Judges–Delegate, 1279–96 [University of California Publications, lviii, 1959], esp. 159–61, 230–4).Google Scholar
61 Rotuli Ricardi Gravesend, ed. Davis, F. N. (Canterbury and York Society, 1925 and Lincoln Record Society, XX, 1925), 112, 115, 129; Rolls and Register of Oliver Sutton, ed. Hill, R. M. T., ii (Lincoln Record Society, xiiii, 1950), 78.Google Scholar
62 Appendix, no. 4, p. 87.
63 Appendix, nos. 2, 3, p. 71.
64 Emden, A. B., Biographical Register ofOxford to 1500, 3 vols, Oxford 1957–9, iii. 1641–2Google Scholar; Denton, , Winchelsey, 179.Google Scholar
65 Parliamentary Writs, ed. Palgrave, F. (Record Commission, 2 vols in 4, 1827–34), I ii. 91, 110, 113Google Scholar; Denton, J. H. and Dooley, J. P., Representatives of the Lower Clergy in Parliament 1205–1340, Woodbridge 1987, 6–7.Google Scholar
66 Anglo–Scottish Relations 1174–1328, ed. Stones, E. L. G.., 2nd edn, Oxford 1970, no. 29.Google Scholar
67 See references in Churchill, I., Canterbury Administration, 2 vols, London 1933,Google Scholar and in Registrum Winchelsey, ed. Graham, .Google Scholar
68 Below p. 82.
69 Somerville, Lancaster 19.
70 Appendix, no 10.
71 Below n. 127.
72 Appendix, no. 11.
73 Sext 1 3 11 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. cols. 941–2). For discussion of citations extra diocesem and of the effectiveness of ’Statutum quod‘ see Bateson, ‘Papal Jurisdiction and Courts’, 64–84.Google Scholar
74 Extra 1 3 28 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, ii. col. 31).
75 Sayers, J. E., Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury, 1198–1254, Oxford 1971, 61–2.Google Scholar
76 Appendix, no. 4. The terms of ‘Statutum quod’ on this matter reiterate c. 2 of the decrees of the Council of Lyons, 1245, where it is declared that causes commissioned by the apostolic see should not be heard ‘alibi quam in civitatibus, vel locis magnis et insignibus, ubi haberi valeat iuris copia peritorum’: Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols, Florence 1759–1798, xxiii. 619Google Scholar; Hefele, C.–J., Histoire des Conciles, ed. H., Leclercq, 8 vols in 16, Paris 1907–1921, v/2. 1643.Google Scholar
77 But see below n. 137. In another case of 1291–2 (Rothwell v. Paggrave, concerning defamation) there were many differences between the terms of the mandate and the libel, but it seems to have been accepted by judge and parties alike that while the mandate provided the basis for the suit it did not direct its progress: Bateson, ‘Papal Jurisdiction and Courts’, 149–55. For this case see also Helmholz, R. H., ‘Canonical defamation in medieval England’, American Journal of Legal History xv (1971), 257.Google Scholar
78 For contemporary debate, and differences of opinion, concerning penalties see McLaughlin, T. P., ‘The teaching of the canonists on usury: iv. Punishment of usurers’, Mediaeval Studies ii (1940), esp. 4–5.Google Scholar
79 T. P. McLaughlin, ‘The teaching of the canonists on usury’, Mediaeval Studies i (939) 112.Google Scholar
80 Concerning usurious contracts see ibid. 112–13.
81 Ibid. 113–15. The exceptional cases discussed by J. T. Noonan (The Scholastic Analysis of Usury, Cambridge, MA 1957, 99–132) do not suggest that the earl of Lancaster had any entitlement in canon law to receive payment beyond the principal.
82 Prynne, W., The Third Tome of our Exact Chronological Vindication of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of our … English Kings, London 1668 reissued 1670 and 1672, 948.Google Scholar
83 Denton, , Winchelsey, 206.Google Scholar
84 Prynne, , Third Tome, 902–3 (and CCR I2g6–ijo2, 497).Google Scholar
85 CCR 1296–1302, 571.
86 PRO, KB27/i68, m. 10‘Had Edward I a “policy”?’, 255–6; A. Beardwood, ‘The trial of Walter Langton, bishop of Lichfield, 1307–12’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. liv, pt 3 (1964), 14–16; Records of the Trial of Walter Langeton Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield 1307–12, ed. A., Beardwood (Camden Society, 4th ser. vi, 1969), esp. 283–90.Google Scholar
87 Antient Kalendars, i. 92.
88 McFarlane, ‘Had Edward I a “policy”?’, 255–6; A. Beardwood, 'The trial of Walter Langton, bishop of Lichfield, 1307–12', Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. liv, pt 3 (1964), 14–16; Records of the Trial of Walter Langeton Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield 1307–12, ed. A. Beardwood (Camden Society, 4th ser. vi, 1969), esp.
89 CPR 1292–1301, 65, 67, 134, 226, 229.
90 Calendar of Chancery Warrants, i. 189, 239, 319, 326, 341; Complete Peerage, v. 307–9; Gascon Rolls 1307–17, ed. Y., Renouard, London 1962, pp. xx–xxi.Google Scholar
91 Above p. 68.Google Scholar
92 PRO, C66/96, m. 17 (CPR 1272–1281, 203), and also a copy in PRO, DL41/6/2.Google Scholar
93 An original of the inspeximus is PRO, DL10/164, copied in DL42/1, fo. III–v (Cal. Charter Rolls, ii. 321).Google Scholar
94 Above p. 62.Google Scholar
95 PRO, DL41/1/34.Google Scholar
96 Ellis, G., Earldoms in Fee, London 1963, 40.Google Scholar
97 Davis, R. H. C., King Stephen, 3rd edn, London 1990, 30–1, 125–41.Google Scholar
98 Tout, T. F., ‘The earldoms under Edward I’, TRHS, n.s. viii (1894), 129–55Google Scholar; McFarlane, , ‘Had Edward I a “policy”?–52.Google ScholarAs well as Edmund earl of Lancaster, Edward i's brother, there was Edmund earl of Cornwall, his first cousin, William de Valence earl of Pembroke, his uncle, and the earls of Gloucester, Hereford and Richmond, who were related to him by marriage.Google Scholar
99 Somerville, , Lancaster, 8–10Google Scholar; Ellis, , Earldoms, 148;Google ScholarRhodes, W. E., ‘Edmund, earl of Lancaster’, EHR x (1895), 32.Google Scholar
100 Ellis, , Earldoms, 78–9.Google Scholar
101 Somerville, , Lancaster, 3n, 8–9Google Scholar; and see Cat. Charter Rolls, ii. 63Google Scholar; Cal. Chancery Warrants, i. 264Google Scholar; Foedera, ed. Rymer, T. (Record Commission, 3 vols in 6, 1816–30), II i. 44.Google Scholar
102 Powicke, , Henry and Lord Edward, 518,Google Scholarput his trust in Foedera, I i. 465z,Google Scholar but see Harcourt, , Steward, 138, 154–5, 159–61Google Scholar; Ellis, , Earldoms, 155nGoogle Scholar; and Somerville, , Lancaster, 2.Google Scholar
103 Harcourt, , Steward, 139, 161–3.Google Scholar
104 Letters and charters of Thomas dated 6 Nov. 1308, 22 Jan., 31 May, 14 July 1309, 7 Feb. 1310 etc.Google Scholar bear these titles (see references in Maddicott, , Thomas of Lancaster, 342).Google ScholarWe are very grateful for the advice of Maddicott, on this matter.Google Scholar
105 Foedera, ed. Rymer, , II i. 44Google Scholar; Harcourt, , Steward, 142, 164Google Scholar; Maddicott, , Thomas of Lancaster, 76–7.Google Scholar
106 Ibid. 242, 289–90.
107 Above p. 68.Google Scholar
108 Somerville, , Lancaster, 9n, 19.Google Scholar
109 Johannis de Trokelowe … Chronica et Annales, ed. H.T., Riley (Rolls Series, 1866), 70.Google Scholar
110 Complete Peerage, iv. 204.Google Scholar
111 Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury, Oxford 1952, 87Google Scholar; Helmholz, , Canon Law, 326–8, 334. Donahue does not mention any usury case in 263 sets of cause papers surviving from the York Consistory Court in the fourteenth century:Google ScholarDonahue, C., ‘Roman canon law in the medieval English Church: Stubbs vs. Maitland reexamined …’, Michigan Law Review lxxii (1974), esp. 658–60.Google Scholar
112 No cases were noted in Sayers, Papal Judges Delegate or in Bateson, ‘Papal Jurisdiction and Courts’.Google Scholar
113 Below n. 127.Google Scholar
114 Herde, P., ‘Papal formularies for letters of justice (13th–16th centuries)’Google Scholar, in S., Kuttner and Ryan, J. J. (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law 1963, Vatican City 1965, 340.Google Scholar
115 For the form of this mandate see Herde, P., Audienlia Litterarum Conlradictarum, Tübingen 1970, ii. 155.Google Scholar
116 Lateran, III (1179), c. 25: Mansi, Nova Collectio, xxii, 231Google Scholar; Hefele-Leclercq, , Conciles, v pt 2. 1105Google Scholar; Gilchrist, J., The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, London 1969, 173Google Scholar; and Extra 5 19 3 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. col. 812).Google Scholar
117 See below n. 132.Google Scholar
118 Also in Registrum Winchelsey, ed. Graham, , i. 407.Google Scholar
119 The visitation began on 14 March (ibid. ii. 729) and lasted until the end of July (the last of his letters dated in the diocese is PRO, E328/26/23, Cirencester 31 July).
120 Above n. 76.
121 Roger, M. Martival, archdeacon of Leicester 1295–1310, dean of Lincoln 1310–1315, bishop of Salisbury 1315–1330Google Scholar (Le Neve, J., Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541, i,Google ScholarLincoln Diocese, ed. King, H. P. F., London 1962, 3, 12).Google Scholar
122 Blanche of Navarre, widow of Edmund of Lancaster.Google Scholar
123 Sutton, M. Thomas, archdeacon of Northampton 1291–1316Google Scholar (Le Neve, , Fasti, i. 10).Google Scholar
124 For the title see Cheney, C. R., Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Oxford 1972, 84–5.Google Scholar
125 A copy of the libel was kept among the royal muniments, along with Ferrers's later renunciation of the proceedings: Antient kalendars, i. 92.Google Scholar
126 aut commissario interlined.Google Scholar
127 Lyons, II (1274), cc. 26, 27: Mansi, Nova Collectio, xxiv. 99–100Google Scholar; Hefele-Leclercq, , Conciles, vi, pt 1. 204–6Google Scholar; Gilchrist, , Economic Activity, 194–6Google Scholar; Sext 551 and 552 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. cols. 1081–1082).Google Scholar
128 Above pp. 74–5.Google Scholar
129 Above pp. 81–2.Google Scholar
130 For discussion of the impetration of mandates and the contradiction of details given by the plaintiff see Sayers, J. E., ‘Canterbury proctors at the court of “audientia litterarum contradictarum”’, Traditio xxii (1966), 311–45.Google ScholarIt is to be doubted that a mandate impetrated per falsi suggestionem was thereby invalid, as Thomas's proctor claimed, for the defendant's proctors at Rome had the opportunity to amend the details.Google ScholarArchbishop Pecham wrote often to his proctors and others warning and complaining about deceitful impetrations: Registrum Epistolarum Johannis Peckham, ed. C.T., Martin (Rolls Series, 1882–1885), i. 278–9. ii. 407–8, 413 ii. 882–3.Google Scholar
131 The exception would only have carried force if the objection had been made specifically against the citation of Thomas to St Paul's. It was the place of hearing, not the place of citation, with which ‘Statutum quod’ was essentially concerned, and citations to places outside the diocese of the delegate were allowed by ‘Statutum quod’ only with the consent of both parties: above p. 75.
132 Extra 5 19 14 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. col. 815).Google Scholar
133 Above n. 116.
134 The Cippenham charter: above pp. 65–6.Google Scholar
135 Above p. 88 (Libel item i).
136 Below n. 138.
137 Yet, canon law specified that the same penalties imposed on usurers fell on their heirs if they opposed restitution of the usurious gain: Extra 5 19 9Google Scholar (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. cols. 813–14)Google Scholar and McLaughlin, in Mediaeval Studies ii (1940), 8n.Google Scholar
138 The clause ‘Et quidam alii’ in the papal mandate made possible the prosecution of those not specifically named (Sayers, Papal Judges Delegate, 67–8); but such prosecutions applied, of course, to the living. Even so, it is difficult to see the force of the exception: the action was against Thomas but had to begin with the agreement made by Edmund and proceed on the basis that the heir had persisted in usury (see previous note).Google Scholar
139 Extra 2 1 11 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. col. 242).Google Scholar
140 The lands were transferred to Edmund on the basis of the Cippenham charter and by the actual grant of 9 July 1269 by Robert's sureties (above p. 67).
141 For the term ‘hypoteca’ see Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law, Cambridge 1968, ii. 118n.Google Scholar
142 ‘cum … appareat … nullam traditionem huiusmodi pignoris obligationem (recte obligationis) si qua fuerit veram (veram interlined) vel interpretativam quoquo modo fuisse subsecutam’. The sense of this must be that the debt had not been paid off. The exception is, however, weakened by the denial of payment whether explicit or implicit (‘veram vel interpretativam’), for the libel claimed that it was the receipt of income from the lands that had paid off the obligation, and more than twice over.
143 Pollock, and Maitland, , History of Law, ii. 119Google Scholar pointed to frequent examples in the thirteenth-century plea rolls of pledged land which was apparently mortgage, that is profits from the land were held by the creditor with no reduction of the debt. For the mart gage they cited Glanvill, as has McLaughlin, in Mediaeval Studies i (1939), 113–14:Google ScholarDe Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae, ed. G.E., Woodbine, New Haven 1932, 137, 139 (Bk 10 cc. 6, 8).Google ScholarWhile Glanvill had stated that the mart gage was permitted by the king's court, he stressed none the less that it was recognised as unjust and a kind of usury. For the condemnation of the canonists see above n. 81.Google Scholar
144 It is indeed clear in canon law that only notorious usurers suffer the ipso facto penalties as sought by Ferrers. On notoriety and the requirements of the law see McLaughlin, in Mediaeval Studies ii (1940), 12–13.Google Scholar
145 Also in Registrum Winchelsey, ed. Graham, , i. 412–13.Google Scholar
146 For discussion of the use of this term in contemporary letters of proxy see Denton, and Dooley, , Representatives of the Lower Clergy, 41–3.Google Scholar
147 For another example of the fixing of the date of a hearing at Rome by a plaintiff see BL, Cotton Nero C ix, fo. 194.V (appeal by the proctor of the prior and chapter of Canterbury in a case against the archdeacon of Canterbury, c. 1297). Ferrers acted within his rights in appealing to Rome from the sub-delegates without reference to Winchelsey, the principal delegate: Extra 1 29 27 (Corpus, ed. Friedberg, , ii. cols. 171–2).Google Scholar
148 Cheney, , Notaries Public, 85.Google Scholar