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.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This paper presents the results of a case study of wax seals dated between 1225 and 1250 from St Ethelbert’s Hospital, Hereford. When medieval matrices were impressed into soft wax, handprints were often left on the reverse of the seal. The use of modern forensic techniques to capture and compare these prints provides evidence about the process of sealing and its relationship to the individual matrix owner. Seals with the same print on the reverse could be impressed with different matrices, and impressions of the same matrix have different prints on the reverse. The impressing of the matrix was not, then, as has been claimed, the responsibility of the matrix owner as the only way to impress their identity into the wax. This evidence allows a reappraisal of administrative developments in sealing, and the separation of the process of sealing from both the performance of livery of seisin and the seal owner.
In January 1296, by order of Oliver Sutton, bishop of Lincoln, Thomas Paynel and William, son of Robert of Whitwell, displayed in the church of Gosberton all the weapons and other objects that they had gathered together ‘for the fortifying of their bodies or the construction of machines’, and which they had used in a recent violent intrusion there. Thomas and Robert had not been alone in this attack. It had also involved Sir Ranulph de Rye – a man who perhaps considered himself to be the church's patron, who the following year would have the penance he had been charged to perform following the incident remitted – and his servant, Ralph Nodinay of Gosberton, who was excused the beating originally imposed upon him. Thomas and Robert, however, did not have their penances remitted. The display of weaponry at Gosberton was followed by their walking barefoot to Lincoln cathedral, where again they would display the equipment they had used to violate the church's property and attack its personnel, before handing it over to the church. These events at Gosberton have, understandably, been described as an example of thirteenth-century anti-clericalism: hostility shown by lay people towards the Church and clerics. Violent altercations between clergy and laity and legal complaints in both secular and ecclesiastical courts are points at which we can see dissatisfaction with the clergy surface. These could result from disillusionment with the performance of a particular cleric's pastoral ministry, particularly in a period of papally sponsored ecclesiastical reform where higher standards of duty came to be expected, or might arise from economic disputes, for example over the payment of tithes, as the balance of what was considered fair and reasonable shifted in response to changes in the agricultural economy of the parish. The issues of tithes and ministry could also come together: negligent clergy – the absentees, the pluralists and the ill-educated – who did not provide resident replacement clergy were conceived of as breaking the bond of mutual obligation between clergy and laity because despite not providing the spiritual care that was their responsibility they still collected tithes, leading their parishioners to question the value they received from such arrangements.
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
The thirteenth century saw major developments in England's administration, as the procedures and processes of government expanded rapidly, the principles enshrined in Magna Carta became embedded, knights and burgesses were summoned to Parliament for the first time, and nothing short of a political revolution took place. The essays here draw on material available for the first time via the completion of the project to calendar all the Fine Rolls of Henry III; these rolls comprise the last series of records of the English Chancery from that period to become readily available in a convenient form, thereby transforming access to several important fields of research, including financial, legal, political and social issues. The volume covers topics including the evidential value of the fine rolls themselves and their wider significance for the English polity, developments in legal and financial administration, the roles of women and the church, and the fascinating details of the development of the office of escheator. Related or parallel developments in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are also dealt with, giving a broader British dimension.
Louise J. Wilkinson is Professor of Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University; David Crook is Honorary Research Fellow at the National Archives and the University of Notthingham.
Contributors: Nick Barratt, Paul Brand, David Carpenter, David Crook, Paul Dryburgh, Beth Hartland, Philippa Hoskin, Charles Insley, Adrian Jobson, Tony Moore, Alice Taylor, Nicholas Vincent, Scott Waugh, Louise Wilkinson
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
The two bishops of Worcester between 1218 and 1266, William of Blois and Walter de Cantilupe, were in many ways very similar. Both were dedicated reformers, who made use of the cathedral chapter's churches for their own households for example. Yet their relationships with the monastic chapter of Worcester were very different. William's episcopate was marked by acrimony and dispute, Walter's by harmony and assent. The reasons for these differences are complex but include the personalities and backgrounds of the bishops, the chapter's growing awareness of the limitations of monastic chapters for bishops' patronage and political changes within England.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.