D. The Habit of the Order was to be sober, not conspicuous. When they went abroad, they were to walk two together, and so remain at the journey’s end. In gait, look, habit, or gesture, everything that could be termed indecent or offensive, was to be regarded as criminal. They were not to fix their eyes upon women; and when two were in church in the presence of women, they were mutually to support each other, in observing a serious and modest decorum—“invicem vestram pudicitiam custodite. Deus enim qui habitat in vobis, etiam isto modo custodiet vos a vobis....” All such offences or misdemeanours were to be punished by the Superior. The clandestine receipt of letters or presents was a punishable offence. Their clothes were to be taken from one common Vestiary, and their food from one Larder. All vestments presented by relatives were to be stored in the common Vestiary. All labour was to be considered as done for the common good. He who stole, and he who concealed his knowledge of a theft, were to be punished with equal severity.
E. Their clothes, and the linen of the house, according to the order of the Superior, were to be washed either by themselves or by fullers. In cases of illness, ablutions were to be used according to the physician’s advice; or, on refusal, by order of the Superior. They were to go to the baths only by two or three, and were then to be accompanied by a person duly appointed by the Superior. The sick were to have an Infirmarer; and cellarers, chamberlains, or librarians, were to serve the brethren with cheerfulness and good-will. Books could not be obtained for perusal but at the stated hours. Clothes and shoes were to be given out when needed. No litigations or quarrels were permitted. If a difference arose, it was to be instantly adjusted or put to silence by the authorities. For all offences, satisfaction—for all wrongs, retribution—was to be given; and the offended were commanded to practise, in all cases, the sacred duty of forgiveness towards the offender.
F. Harsh or uncharitable expressions were to be carefully avoided; and if hastily uttered, they were to be followed by an immediate apology. Obedience to the Superior was strictly enjoined; but if, in the exercise of his duty, he spoke harshly to any one, he was not to be called upon for any apology. They were to yield cheerful obedience to the head over them; but chiefly to the Priest, or Presbyter, on whom devolved the care of the whole house. If, in any emergency, the Superior found his authority unequal to the occasion, he was to have recourse to that of the Priest, or Elder. The Superior was bound to exercise his authority in the spirit of Christian charity and meekness, yet with firmness and impartiality. To be practically strict in discipline; but so to demean himself towards the brethren, as rather to win their love by kindness than excite their fear by severity; to set before their eyes an example of godly life; to excite imitation, and conciliate affection.[353]
The Rule of St. Augustin, it has been observed, is more courteous than that of St. Benedict; for among the Canons-Regular, every brother is well shod, well clothed, and well fed; they go out when they like, mix with the world, and converse at table. The Rule of St. Augustin was followed by the Dominicans; but with severe additions in food, fasts, bedding, garments, and utter dereliction of property.—See and compare the Cistercian Rule, as given in the foregoing article on Tinterne Abbey.
Margery, daughter of the above-named Gilbert and Isabella de Laci, was married to John de Verdon; and at the death of her father, who left no male issue, she became joint heiress with her sister Matilda, the wife of Galfrid de Genevile.
From Walter de Laci, the right of all his inheritance descended to a certain Gilbert de Laci, as his son and heir; and from the said Gilbert, in default of male issue, it descended to his two sisters Margery and Matilda aforesaid, co-heiresses; between whom the family property left by their father was equally divided. The above-named Margery, as we have said, married John de Verdon; and to Nicholas, her son by this marriage, descended all the property she inherited from her father. From Nicholas, who died without legitimate issue, the family estates passed to his adopted brother Theobald, as his brother and heir. From Theobald, in like manner, they descended to John; from whom, having no heirs, they descended to William, who also dying childless, they descended to Johanna, Elizabeth, Margery, Isabella, and Catherine, daughters and coheiresses of the above-named Theobald de Verdon. Of these, Catherine dying unmarried, her share of the property fell in equal proportions to her sisters; the eldest of whom wedded Thomas de Furnivall: Elizabeth, the second daughter, married Bartholomew de Burghersh; Margery, the third daughter, William Blount; and Isabella took to husband Henry de Ferrers—names well known in history.
Baldwin, the Bishop above named, was a native of Exeter, where he received, what was considered in those days, a liberal education; and in the early part of his life discharged the functions of a grammar-school in that city. After taking holy orders he was made Archdeacon of Exeter; but soon quitting the duties of that office, he took the habit of the Cistercian Order in the Monastery of Ford, in Devonshire, of which, in a few years afterwards, he was elected Abbot. He was next promoted to the episcopal dignity, and on the 10th of August, 1180, consecrated Bishop of Worcester. On the death of Richard, Archbishop of Canterbury, four years later, he was translated to that see—though not without difficulty, from his being the first of the Cistercian Order in England who had ever been promoted to the archiepiscopal dignity. He was enthroned at Canterbury, May the 19th, 1185, and the same day received the bull from Pope Lucius III., whose successor, Urban III., appointed him to the office of Legate for the diocese of Canterbury. Soon after his installation, he began to build a church and monastery at Hackington, near Canterbury, in honour of “St. Thomas à Becket,” for the reception of secular priests; but, being violently opposed by the monks of Canterbury supported by the Pope’s authority, he was compelled to abandon his undertaking.