The growth of the St. Albans legend is proof that it was no unconscious greatness the members enjoyed. In the eleventh century, when the monastery had become ‘the school of religious observance for all England’ arose the idea of a miraculous origin; it received final consecration in the narrative of Matthew Paris. Henceforth, it was sober history that King Offa founded the Abbey on August 1st, 793, when the ground opened miraculously, revealing the body of the martyr himself with a golden band around his forehead inscribed with his name. From this point its history was made to run on without a break; the names of successive abbots were given with the dates of their reigns, and the acquisition of existing possessions attributed to various of them by a method hidden from us. From a great deal of tradition little more can be deduced than that the Abbey was of royal foundation and exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, that it was early endowed with a wide franchise, and, by analogy, that morals and discipline would be by no means strict in Anglo-Saxon times.
Effect of the Conquest.
With the advent of the Norman Conquest we are on surer ground. Under Abbot Paul (1077–1097) the Abbey was purged of the abuses of the Anglo-Saxon period and a stricter discipline enforced, although only by the loss of exemption from episcopal control. The monastery was now rebuilt on a more magnificent scale, and for nearly two centuries St. Albans was a model house. Under the saintly John de Cella (1195–1214), a stern ascetic, the House perhaps reached its zenith. At no other time were feasts and vigils so strictly observed by the monks, who for fifteen years gave up drinking wine in order that the refectory and dormitory, then ruinous, might be rebuilt. During the Norman period St. Albans had been endowed by many gifts of manors. On some of these cells were founded,[3] but most of them were simply absorbed into the monastic estates, and of course brought within the Abbot’s jurisdiction. The effect of this territorial enrichment of the monastery was twofold. First, it tended to subordinate religious to secular functions: the Abbot became primarily a man of business absorbed in the administration of the estates. Secondly, it attracted the covetous glances of needy kings and popes. At the very commencement of the thirteenth century the Abbot had to face a reorganised Papacy intent upon obtaining funds for the realisation of its strong political ambitions. The Abbey had scarcely escaped the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lincoln[4] (1163) when it fell under stricter subjection to Pope Innocent III. For the future each abbot was to go in person to Rome to secure confirmation of his election, that is to say to be mulcted in a vast sum of money.[5] In a lesser degree the monastery was menaced by the Crown. Every vacancy put the convent at the mercy of the King’s escheator, who in practice could, and often did, exact far more than the sums to which he was entitled. Indeed, both kings and popes were coming to regard the Abbey as a sure source of wealth in any emergency, and they did not scruple to multiply excuses for continual exactions.[6] These dangers of papal and kingly oppression were self-evident, but in the gradual disintegration of feudal society lay a more subtle peril. The monastery’s failure to adapt itself to the new system of relationships which were springing up on lay estates brought upon it the further misfortune of unpopularity.
Decay of the Monastery.
The disfavour incurred by the attempt to retain the manorial system was increased when the organisation itself began to show signs of decay. The decline of religious fervour was followed by a gradual relaxation of monastic discipline, and comparative luxury invaded the cloister. After the death of John of Berkhamstead in 1301 the extent of the falling off began to be apparent. For the next generation the convent was in an unhealthy condition. But though weakened, the organisation was far from being destroyed. At times like this the traditional routine was invaluable. The writing of history, for instance, was continued, and the period is still known to us by the works of John de Trokelowe and Henry de Blaneford, contemporary chroniclers.
At this point our subject begins. The period may be broken up into two parts, and a line of division is supplied by the year 1396, in which Abbot Thomas de la Mare died. Taking our stand, first at 1396, and then at the Dissolution of the Monasteries, we shall look back over the two periods under review and summarize the chief tendencies by which they are marked.[7]
I.
The Revival within the Abbey during the 14th Century.
The ‘fourteenth century revival’ is perhaps too dignified a name for the feeble efforts at reformation in the majority of English monasteries. Most houses failed utterly to arrest the decay that had set in during the thirteenth century, and for the rest of their existence underwent a slow internal dissolution which was merely consummated by the measures of Henry VIII. To this rule there were exceptions. At Bury St. Edmunds,[8] for instance, while John Tymworth was abbot (1379–1390), there was a marked revival accompanied by a little outburst of chronicle writing. More important was the recovery of St. Albans, where a conscious effort towards reform is the main thread of its history. The reigns of four abbots which cover the first half of the century witnessed the restoration of discipline: the long abbacy of Thomas de la Mare (1349–1396) was devoted to the repair of the Abbey finances, which had been depleted by the frequent vacancies. The steps by which first the rule, and then the finances, were strengthened indicate considerable continuity of reforming purpose in successive abbots.
Reform of the Discipline.
The regulations issued by John de Maryns[9] (1302–1308) for the reform of the convent and cells reveal the extent of the decay. The rule of silence, it appears, had been all but forgotten; swearing had grown common, and monks, forgetful of their vow of poverty, were found to possess private property. In the cells the state of affairs was even more deplorable. Brethren were known to insult the priors, whose authority had grown too weak to ensure adequate punishment of offenders. Reference is made to the existence of immorality in the convent. It was necessary to prohibit brethren from intercourse with women, from wandering about singly, and from drinking in the town. The possession of greyhounds for hunting was also forbidden.