The history of monasticism in the core areas of east-central Europe, cannot be properly considered without adopting a broader historiographical approach to this part of the continent. The medieval kingdoms and duchies that are the precursors of the modern political entities of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary do not reflect their medieval territories. Medieval Hungary also included Slovakia, Transylvania, Vojvodina, eastern Slavonia, and, from the early twelfth century, the kingdom of Croatia under the personal union of Arpad kings. Early medieval Polish territory included Greater and Lesser Poland, Mazovia, Lower Silesia, and, from the mid-twelfth century, some overlordship over parts of Pomerania. The territory of early medieval Bohemia also included Moravia.

The dispute over the election of the new archbishop of York after the resignation and death of Archbishop Thurstan in 1140 has come to be seen as one of the episodes exemplifying the power of the twelfth-century monastic reform movement and its influence on the far-flung corners of Latin Europe. The case was first analysed by David Knowles in the 1950s and 60s and then further by Derek Baker in the 1970s. More recently Christopher Norton's study of William Fitzherbert has reopened and extended the issues under debate. These studies not only established the complex details of various stages of the conflicts, but also explained the reasons behind the different stands taken by those supporting and opposing William's election in 1141. While Knowles's conclusions rested largely on his assessment of the personal characters of the key players, Baker took issue with the idea that the dispute can be seen as ‘part of a European struggle for freedom of election and for reform’. His study concentrated, however, on a re-examination of the details of the dispute within the immediate context of Yorkshire and English politics of King Stephen's reign. In his recent study of William of York, Norton once again posed the question of the reasons for the involvement of Cistercians in the conflict. He concentrated on the complex Yorkshire context of the affairs in far greater detail and in a more nuanced fashion than previous scholars. Yet, although the specific English background was undoubtedly a very important factor in the Cistercian involvement, the personal and local political background does not give a full answer, especially to the question of Eugenius's own involvement.

The years between the early fourteenth and the mid sixteenth century are of considerable interest in the history of the prelate. In some respects, this era might be regarded as a golden age of prelacy, culminating in the appearance of great ecclesiastical dignitaries across much of Europe, such as Wolsey, d'Amboise, Cisneros, Lang and Jagiellon. In terms of their political weight, their grandeur and their wide-ranging cultural patronage, these early sixteenth-century ‘cardinal-ministers’ arguably represented a high point in prelatical influence. Nor should they be regarded as wholly distinct from their clerical contemporaries: recent studies of Renaissance cardinals and the early Tudor episcopate indicate that the next rank of senior churchmen were no less concerned to express the importance and dignity of their office. However, the period c. 1300–c. 1560 also witnessed a developing critique of prelacy – not unconnected with these eye-catching assertions of ecclesiastical status and power – with complaints about senior members of the Church hierarchy a commonplace in the literature and preaching of the day. To these criticisms were added attacks on the very concept of the prelate, which was rejected as unscriptural by John Wyclif and his followers: a critique which would be taken up enthusiastically by sixteenth-century reformers in England and Europe.

This volume has grown out of a conference on ‘The Prelate in Late Medieval and Reformation England’, held at the University of Liverpool in September 2011. All the papers delivered at that conference are published below, apart from those given by Natalia Nowakowska and Brigitte Resl. The volume also includes a chapter by Cédric Michon, offered subsequent to the Liverpool conference. I would like to thank the contributors to both the conference and to the volume, all of whom have been stimulating and good-humoured collaborators throughout this project.

I would also like to acknowledge gratefully the work and expert guidance of all those at Boydell & Brewer and York Medieval Press who have been involved with this volume and especially Caroline Palmer, Rohais Haughton and Professor Peter Biller. The Liverpool conference was funded partly by a British Academy Research Development Award, and partly by financial contributions from the department of History of the University of Liverpool and the Liverpool Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, without all of whose generous support the event could not have taken place. This publication has also been made possible by a grant from the Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research, acknowledged here with gratitude.

From the very beginning of monasticism, the role of the abbot was central to the way in which communities of monks functioned on a practical and spiritual level. The abbot was the father and spiritual leader of the community, responsible for guiding the monks towards salvation by preaching, taking confessions, and officiating in the liturgy, while, at the same time, he was head of the monastic community in all its temporal functions. In the twelfth century, the abbot was often the only ordained priest in many Cistercian communities. The Benedictine tradition emphasized hierarchical dependence and total obedience to the abbot: ‘the Abbot represented Christ, and his monks obeyed his command as if they were wishes from God’. Although Cistercian observance was based on the Rule of St Benedict, the white monks curbed the autocratic power of their abbots by the structure of the Chapter General, the filiation system and visitations. This uniformity of practice was also intended to prevent arbitrary decisions of abbots in the very important matter of the liturgy – the leaders of individual communities were not supposed to introduce any changes to the order-wide form of liturgy. Unlike Benedictine abbots who held their position for life, it was not unusual for Cistercian abbots to resign and occasionally even to be deposed if they were seen, by the abbot of the mother house or other delegate of the General Chapter, to fail seriously in their duties.