The Abbey of St. Albans from 1300 to the dissolution of the monasteries

by V. H. Galbraith

Political Attitude of Abbot and Convent in the 14th Century.

Although the Abbot was a lay magnate as well as a spiritual peer, it is remarkable how seldom the Monastery was involved in political and party strife. The current of life in the cloister but rarely mingled with the stream of national life. Occasionally a great noble, like Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Lincoln, might be the Abbot’s enemy, and try to do him hurt; more often the Abbey enjoyed the favour of nobles of all parties, of Yorkist as of Lancastrian kings, and in return offered indiscriminate hospitality. Such an attitude tended to deprive the Abbey of all political or party value. A natural bias, it should perhaps be added, was displayed in favour of the King, upon whose goodwill the prosperity of the House in large measure depended. Abbot Hugh of Eversdon, for instance, was one of Edward II’s ‘court party,’ and was richly endowed by that King. Again, Abbot Thomas was a close friend and supporter of Edward III, as also of the Black Prince. But this attitude was after all little more than the loyalty which they owed to the King. Their support did not extend to party quarrels, to ‘loving those whom he loved, and shewing enmity towards such as were his enemies.’

This detached political attitude is one reason why monastic chronicles are often so intolerably dull. Yet politics were as keen and as absorbing in the Middle Ages as they are now, and monks and Abbot must have followed their course, and criticised the actors, with as much freedom as the men of to-day. In favour of St. Albans it must be said that, in comparison with other monasteries, its chronicles are singularly living and human. In those written during the revival of historical writing under the guidance of Thomas Walsingham, the political sympathies of the convent during the critical period of Richard II’s reign are fully revealed.

Towards Richard II their feelings were hostile, if not contemptuous. Walsingham, in his history of the reign, describes with unction the King’s childish behaviour during his fits of ungovernable anger,[31] his violent words on more than one occasion to his Parliaments, and his absurd extravagance in dress. With righteous indignation he relates how Richard, on his way to London, borrowed from the monastery a palfrey, which he never returned. Another chronicler tells with scorn of the King’s visit to the Abbey in 1394, when large concessions were promised, but never fulfilled.[32] De la Mare’s successor, John Moote, was apparently on equally indifferent terms with the King. ‘This Abbot,’ says the chronicler, ‘gave to King Richard for the purpose of preserving his good will and avoiding his malice, at different times, one hundred and twenty-six pounds, thirteen shillings and four pence.’[33]

The attitude of the convent towards Richard II seems reasonable enough. The King, although he conferred more than one benefit upon St. Albans, does not appear to have cherished any affection for the Abbey. He was rather ‘an especial favourer and promoter of Westminster,’ whose interests he consistently supported in the disputes of the reign between the two houses concerning Parliamentary precedence. More difficult of explanation are the feelings St. Albans entertained towards John of Gaunt. A contemporary manuscript—called, on account of its bitterness, the ‘Scandalous Chronicle’[34]—reveals the existence of strong hostility towards him, and repeatedly speaks of him in most abusive terms. In the early years of the fifteenth century, when the ‘Scandalous Chronicle’ was utilised for a new edition of the history of the time,[35] the worst of the slighting references to John of Gaunt were erased and the remarks generally toned down, while in the margin of the MSS. is inserted cave quia offendiculum. Plainly it was unwise to have such remarks about the father of the living King, and so the ‘Scandalous Chronicle’ was suppressed at the place where it was written.[36] Many motives may be attributed to the Abbey for its hostile attitude towards John of Gaunt. It had private grievances; the Abbot, for instance, had resented (though he feared to refuse) Lancaster’s demand for large supplies of timber for his castle at Hertford.[37] Another reason, doubtless, was the Duke’s patronage of the ‘Arch-heretic’ Wycliffe, whom the Abbot and convent regarded with peculiar loathing. But the main cause of their hostility towards John of Gaunt sprang almost certainly from his political action. From 1377 to 1386 Lancaster was most unpopular with almost all classes.[38] The many misfortunes of these years—the French raids on the south coast, the failure of the English arms in France and Flanders, and even the unsuccessful government at home—were laid to his charge. From the Historia Anglicana it is evident that the monks shared this common attitude towards John of Gaunt. Again and again responsibility for failure is attributed to him, and he is branded as an incompetent general and a disloyal, scheming and unsuccessful politician. It is rather startling to find, however, that outwardly the most friendly relations were maintained between the Duke and the Abbey, while simultaneously such abuse was heaped upon him in its official chronicles. The Duke acted continuously as a patron of the Abbey, and conferred a long list of benefits upon it.[39] Evidently he was unaware of the secret sentiments of the House which he patronised so liberally.[40]

Revival during de la Mare’s Abbacy.

A growing movement towards reform and revival was thus the main trend of events at St. Albans during the fourteenth century. The persistent efforts of Maryns and the other short-lived abbots removed abuses and restored the discipline. The long abbacy of Thomas de la Mare was marked by able administration, and minute and unflagging attention to the monastery’s interests. The Abbot shirked no contest to retain or regain lands, services or jurisdiction upon which the Abbey had just claims. His rule was necessarily marked by constant litigation with high and low, from which, in a great majority of cases, he emerged successful. This great labour, the details of which fill the chronicles of his abbacy, had the effect of restoring in some measure the Abbey’s material prosperity. Finally, by his statesmanlike measures with regard to future vacancies he had done all in his power to ensure the permanence of his work of financial restoration.

Historical Writing.

The effect of lessening the pressure of outside circumstances and rendering more safe and easy the existence of the Abbey was to promote a mild revival which bore its best fruits in a new outburst of historical writing. The golden age of St. Albans’ historical composition had been the early thirteenth century, and was associated with the names of Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris. Then it was that the St. Albans School grew famous. Its MSS. were frequently lent to other houses for the writing up of their own chronicles,[41] and when official information was required on a point of history it became usual to refer to the St. Albans chronicles.[42] With so long a tradition of annalistic composition[43] the Abbey developed a variety of script unique in England, and experts can identify with considerable certainty the products of the St. Albans scriptorium. The composition of history never actually ceased after the time of Matthew Paris. The tradition was maintained (though perhaps it languished somewhat) by the writings of Rishanger, Trokelowe and Blaneforde. At the close of the fourteenth century occurred the valuable revival under the guidance of Thomas of Walsingham. The years 1370 and 1420 mark roughly the limits within which it fell. The amount of work produced was considerable, and in quality was hardly inferior to that of the thirteenth century. From an historical point of view it is probably more important, since by Walsingham’s time other sources of chronicle writings were beginning to fail.[44]

Unpopularity of Monasticism.