|
You are here:
The fall
(2/2)
The mid-thirteenth century heralded a period
of general decline: the abbey suffered financial strain; numbers
were badly hit by the Black
Death and never fully recovered. There were also disciplinary
problems, and in 1361 the community was accused of a string of
abuses
that included laying violent hands on their own brethren (and others),
carrying arms and playing dice. Moreover, the administration
of
the abbeys fragmented estates now grew increasingly complex,
and the abbot, as the head and representative of the community,
was more extensively involved in external affairs. Litigation increased,
and whilst this was mostly concerned with land disputes, other
matters
were brought to the courts; these could be costly and time-consuming.
Anabilia, a recluse from Doncaster, sued Abbot
Stephen (c.1286-1300) for withdrawing her weekly corrody
of five monastery loaves and three gallons of monastery ale, which,
she claimed, had been granted for life by Abbot Walter (1254-68).
The case was in the courts from 1289-93.(3)
Business relating to the Order could be onerous,
and even dangerous. In accordance with Cistercian legislation the
abbots of Roche acted as arbiters in clashes between neighbouring
Cistercians. This involved them in some perilous situations. Abbot
Robert of Kesburgh’s experience at Meaux at
the turn of the fifteenth century was particularly hazardous. The General
Chapter sent the abbots of Roche and Furness to investigate
complaints that the election of Abbot Thomas Burton, in 1396, had
been imposed upon the monks of Meaux. Upon his arrival at the abbey
Robert was refused entry. The gates were closed, and a group of
men armed with bows, arrows and other warlike weapons were posed
to keep him out. Robert, prudently, withdrew, but the matter was
later resolved through arbitration in favour of Abbot Thomas of
Meaux.
From the mid-thirteenth century the abbots of
Roche were not only weighed down by business relating to the house
and Order,
but
were
thrust to the forefront of political affairs. In December 1264 Abbot
Walter and over one hundred other prelates were summoned to
attend Simon de
Montforts parliament that was held in London, 28 January,
1265. This was a momentous occasion, for hitherto only eleven prelates
and twenty-three magnates had attended. (4) Moreover,
it changed the nature of the abbots role, for he was now
considered a political figure and expected to lend counsel and
aid in these turbulent times. War against France and the threat
of a Scots invasion meant that his presence was frequently
demanded throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Indeed,
in 1313 Abbot Robert was summoned to parliament on three occasions.
It was, therefore, a changed and changing world;
the abbot of Roche was not simply the Father of a secluded community,
but drawn into administration, litigation and political affairs.
He was bound by loyalties to the abbey, the Order and the king,
and there could be a conflict of interests. Abbot William (c.1324-30)
and twelve other Northern abbots were prohibited from attending
the Annual General Chapter at Cîteaux in
1327, when it was feared that the Scots would take advantage of
the weak government. The abbots were instructed to remain at home
and guard the area.
Furthermore, Roche was no longer a safe haven,
secluded and sheltered from external conflict. In 1322 the valley
of Roche was ravaged by rebels, when John of Mowbray and other
supporters of the earl of Lancaster besieged Tickhill
Castle, situated a few miles from the abbey. This placed the
abbot in a tricky position and demanded diplomacy, for whilst he
received a royal mandate to muster troops to resist these rebels,
he did not want to provoke them to attack the abbey. The situation
was resolved on 2 March 1322, with the defeat of the rebels at
Boroughbridge.
<back><new
section> |