Andrey Kasatov Saint-Petersburg [email protected]

AN ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH CENTURY CHARTER FROM () IN THE ARCHIVE OF ST. PETERSBURG INSTITUTE OF HISTORY (RAS)*

The generations of scholars have made great eff orts to fi nd and publish medieval documents wri en in scriptoriums of the English and now preserved in diff erent archives of Great Britain. The Russian archives are represented only by separate documents and, hence, it is a great success to discover a new one.1 This study deals with a charter acquired by N. P. Lichatchev (1862–1936), a famous Russian historian and collector of ancient deeds.2 The document itself has a form of the right quadrangular piece of parchment (size 157x123 mm) with plica (a folded edge of a document) bearing slits for a seal’s cord (so called charter “sur double queque”). It becomes common for a royal chancery since the middle of the twel h century being accepted by less powerful lords. It was the seller himself who had sealed the charter: “ego Willelmus… scripto sigillum meum apposui” (Appendix I). The seal, meanwhile, is lost. As we shall see, he hardly took a prominent position and had not own chancery.

(*) The publication is maintained with the program “Organization and fi nancial support to the young scholars of Russian Academy of Sciences on the fi eld of fundamental studies”. (1) View for example the list of documents preserved in the Department of manuscripts of the Russian National Library (РНБ). F. 922. and a collection N 18 “ and Scotland. Deeds and le ers” in the Archive of the Institute of History (Saint-Petersburg, RAS). (2) Col. 18. “England and Scotland. Deeds and le ers”. Folder 381. N 1a. Now the ruins of Priory is situated in the county , Borough of Barnsly. Previous it lied in a Western Riding (wapentake Staincross, parish of Royston) County Yorkshire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_ of_Barnsley; www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/WRY/Royston

243 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 244 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana

So, the charter was wri en by either one of the monks or Stephen, the witness, called a clerk (clericus).3 The charter a ests the purchase of landholdings and possessions (terras et possessiones) with pertinences situated in Carlton village and around it. The seller, William received from the brethren of Monk Bre on fi ve silver shillings under the con- dition that neither he nor his heirs should claim their right or bring an action from this time onwards: “non <…> aliquid jus vel clamum debemus ponere vel poterimus interrogare”. Monk Bre on priory was subordinated to neighboring Pontefract and to immense cluniacensis Lа Charité sur Loire as evi- denced by Adam’s charter.4 Only around 1280–1290 Monk Bre on priory could gain freedom. As electronic data of British archives dem- onstrate, the early documents from Monk Bre on priory are rare and dispersed.5 Sometimes it is possible to make clear the circumstances caused their appearance but the precise date remains unknown. As one example, a fi nal concord between Adam, son of William, and the brethren of Monk Bre on should be mentioned wri en as a list of wit- nesses a ests around the second third of the thirteenth century.6 Some documents from Monk Bre on are preserved at the Sheffi eld Munici- pal Archive but when they were compiled remains unclear. The earli- est deeds from that archive can be dated from 1249–1252.7 There is else one document dated if original at the latest from 1280–1290 and preserved among deeds of Duke Lancaster’s family.8

(3) D. Postles, Country Clerici and the Composition of English Twel h- and Thirteenth-Century Charters, in: K. Heidecker (ed.), Charters and the Use of the Wri en Word in Medieval Society (Turnhout, 2000) 29. (4) W. Farrer (ed.), Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III (Edinburgh, 1916) № 1669. (5) www.nationalarchives.gov.uk. (6) Greater Manchester County Record Offi ce E7 13/4/1. A short content of the deed can be found here www.nationalarchives.gov.uk. I express my gratitude to Mr. Lees, custodian at the Manchester Record Offi ce, for a photo- copy of the document concerned. (7) www.nationalarchives.gov.uk. Wharncliff e Muniments/Deeds 1–687 (1250–1920). (8) h p://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguede tails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=7210339&j=1

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 245

Together with separate charters two cartularies wri en in Monk Bre on Priory and their abstracts are available.9 The earliest manu- script dated from 1336–1340 is preserved now in the British library (Lansdowne 405).10 Although it contains some le ers and diplomas of such papas as Urban III (1185—1187), Clement III (1187–1191) or Innocent III (1198–1216), and private deeds of the twel h–thirteenth centuries all of them are without doubts later copies. The full version of the cartulary can be dated from 1529–1538 and it is kept in the Brit- ish library (Ms. 50755) too. So, none of the cartularies concerned illus- trates the evolution of handwriting at the scriptorium of Monk Bre on Priory when the book script all around Western Europe underwent the transformation and the cursive (chancery script) was proliferating through the royal chancery to become accepted among less powerful lords. Thus, our charter deserves close a ention for two main reasons. From the one hand, we deal in all probability with an original. Taking into account that the evolution and typology of chancery script in Eu- rope (sometimes called “the gothic cursive script”) and particularly in England is still a debated question any new document contributes to its reconstruction.11 From the other hand, it shows some circumstances of everyday economic and social life of the priory and countryside, giving information straight from the tin.12 In the absence of precise dates, wri en into the text of a document, historians have option to a variety of internal and external indicators to determinate approximate or circa dates. As professor Michael Gervers

(9) None of them is published. There is only a book of extracts prepared by J. W. Walker. J. W. Walker (ed.), Abstracts of the Cartularies of the Priory of Monk Bre on (Leeds, 1924) (Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical So- ciety, 66). (10) J. S. Purvis, New light on the chartularies of Monkbre on Priory, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 37 (1948/1951) 67; G. Davis has argued this dat- ing and suggests the XIII c. G. R. C. Davis, Two Cartularies from the West Rid- ing, The British Museum Quarterly 24, N ¾ (1961) 69, n. 1. (11) M. H. Smith, Les “gotiques documentaires”: un carrefour dans l’his- toire le l’écriture latine, Archiv für Diplomatik: Schri geschichte, Siegel- und Wap- penkunde 50 (2004) 417–420. (12) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1669. The Priory was founded as a new monastery of Cluny congregation around 1153–1156 by the descendant of Anglo-Saxon thegns who had survived the Conquest to become the tenants of Norman family of Lacy.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 246 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana supposes the list of witnesses is more instructive than the formulary but it is he who has wri en very intriguing and informative paper about the formulary of charters. He cites some examples when the later copies preserved the formulary of original deeds making confusion.13 But the list of witnesses may be misleading too. Instability of the me- dieval family names or their absence at all is well known. There are cases when witnesses from older sources have been appended to later lists, and there are lists containing names that have exact counterparts in preceding or succeeding generations as our charter demonstrates. Handwriting has also its limitations but it is of importance to establish whether we deal with original, copy or forgery. That’s why the paleo- graphical analyses undertaking in due manner cannot be disregarded. Handwriting looks like a chancery calligraphic script. As separate words evidence, the script itself has a resemblance with book one (Ap- pendix I). Each stem is wri en out in the same manner: bold, strong calligraphic lines resembling to the book le ers. As it might be, some elements show plain that our charter was wri en at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The most visible is the double forms of the capital le ers r, d decorative as they are which can not be found in documents of the twel h century. The cursive elements although not expressed hardens our assumptions. Such elements are most evident on the example of the uncial d. One can notice the slight trace which connects the bo om element of the le er d with its vertical stem. It is so called air trace of feather. A scriber ended bo om element of the le er and without tearing the pen led the feather from right to le to fi nish the le er with a bold and as a rule inclined vertical stem (Appendix II). Nevertheless, our charter has more common with handwriting tra- dition of the eleveth–twel h centuries, too. One can note a slight split on the top of the vertical stems of le ers b, l, h. It was a character- istic feature of Anglo-Norman scribers due to the fact that they had changed the manner of pen-holding and angle of the writing surface (Appendix I, word Alex in line 3). During the thirteenth century the split was transforming or disappeared at all.14 The vertical stems of the le ers m and n are fi nished with curve (Appendix II). It was typical

(13) М. Gervers, The Dating of Medieval English Private Charters of the twel h and thirteenth century. www.utoronto.ca/deeds/pubs/doc2/page1a.htm (14) В. И. МАЖУГА, Почерк в латинском письме конца VIII середины XIII в. Диссертация ... кандидата исторических наук (Ленинград, 1979) 171; A. Derolez, The Paleography of Gothic Manuscript Books. From the Twel h to the Early Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 2003) 136.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 247 for the twel h century but the practise had died out during the fol- lowing century.15 Signs of contraction which can be traced through the thirteenth century usually look like the bold and long lines above the contracted fragment but this is not our case.16 The typical for the twel h and the beginning of the following cen- tury was a long stemmed s crossing the basic line, the stem of the le er having curves up and down. The form is common both for royal and private charters. As time went by the short and more inaccurate form of the le er standing on the basic line had come into being. One can trace both forms in the charter (compare, for example, the fi rst le er s in a word presentes and the last one in a word concessi where s stands on the basic line) but the fi rst is prevailed. Together with the long s the “round” s in the fi nal position appears to substitute the long s from the 1230th onwards.17 Round s is only an exception in our charter. More- over, its form is rather diffi cult to draw as if the scriber practised not rapid but calligraphic style of writing. To conclude, if our charter can be correctly dated from the thirteenth century it was composed some- where around the fi rst third of the century but hardly later. The list of witnesses hardens our assumptions. The charters of Pontefract priory and other documents wri en in Yorkshire give information about some of them but neither William, the seller, nor his father Alexander are mentioned there.18 As the name of Alexander Bec called Alexander from Carlton (de Carletona) a ests, he was born here or possessed patrimonial estates. Alexander, William and his predecessors (antecessores mei) seem to have been connected with Monk Bre on Priory holding some parcels of land from the monks in Carlton village (habuerunt et tenerunt de predictis monachis). The fi rst witness, Robert de Stapilton (Stapliton), is o en met in contemporary sources but there were two Roberts dwelling in the West Riding: grandfather (dead to 1202) and grandson. It is supposed- ly grandson who witnessed our charter for he bears a title “dominus”:

(15) МАЖУГА, Почерк в латинском письме..., 159. (16) See charters of 1220, 1236 accordingly: www.dur.ac.uk/medieval. documents/documents.htm. The last fragment is borrowed from a charter 1200–1218. Published in: Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, Plate XXVII, № 350. (17) www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.documents/documents.htm; L. C. Hector, The Handwriting of English documents (London, 1958) 53. (18) R. Holmes (ed.), The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II (Leeds, 1902) (Yorkshire Archaeological Society. Record Series, XXX).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 248 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana

“teste domino Roberto de Stapiltonа”. On the contrary, his grandfather nowhere named as “dominus” in the charters he witnessed.19 Robert de Stapilton along with Hugo Butler, a steward of the Lacys family, a est- ed the charter of Agnes, daughter of Roger Ledistone.20 It is more likely that same Robert is named as a witness of another charter, in behalf of Idonea, widow of Michael de , dated around 1240–1246.21 Finally, Robert, the prior of Nostell in Yorkshire, leased the dung of 240 sheep to Robert de Stapilton.22 One Robert de Stapelton acts as a member of jury in a lawsuit in 1235–1236. If it is our Robert, he took a prominent position being named personally and heading the list: “ju- ratores dicunt, scilicet Robertus de Stapeltona et alii”.23 The Stapiltons are obvious originated from Stapilton village near Pontefract and possessed it as their patrimonial estate. In other words, they belonged to well-to-do and not unimportant local nobility whose interests were not restricted to an area around Monk Bre on Priory but extended through the whole county.24 The sources show the Stapiltons granting estates to some religious houses of Yorkshire to mention only Pontefract Priory, Monk Bre on Priory or Kirkstal Abbey near Leeds.25 The next witness, Roger de No on, seems to have been a son of Gil- bert de No on mentioned in some charters. He, for example, grants a common pasture to the brethren of Monk Bre on in pure and per- petual alms about 1190–1210. He gives some possessions to one Adam who was a servant of prior William in the place named Carlton. The charter can be dated from 1185–1211.26 There is no suffi cient evidence

(19) Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, № 283 (1216), 285 (1216), 289 (1248) etc. Cр. № 238 (1180), 241 (1180), 390 (1200). It should be pointed out that the title “dominus” does not appear until 1216. (20) Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, № 285. (21) W. Paley Baildon, “Notes on the early Saville pedigree and the But- lers of Skelbrook and Kirk Sandal”, Section III, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 29 (1929) 74. (22) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1540, note 6. (23) F. W. Maitland (ed.), Bracton’s Note Book, vol. III (Cambridge, 1887) № 1169 (24) W. Brown (ed.), Cartularium Prioratus de Gysburne, 2 vols. (Durham etc., 1889) (The Publications of Surtee Society, 86), vol. 1, 52 n. 1. (25) An historical account of Kirkstal-Abbey near Leeds in Yorkshire (Leeds, 1773) 7. (26) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1716, 1717.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 249 for activity of Roger de No on himself but he might be a grantor who had one undated charter made in behalf of Pontefract Priory.27 Roger de No on as Yorkshire antiquarian R. Holmes supposed was born around 1190 and died c. 1241. Evidently, Roger was able to draw up it only being adult. Hence, the charter from our archive hardly was wri en earlier than 1210 or so. Although the next witness, Radulf de Rupe, appears more o en as witness or grantor, it is possible that the deed infringed No on’s interests for his estates (Ne one village in the Domesday Book) bordered directly with seller’s ones.28 It is for that reason that he had a ested the charter right a er Robert de Stapelton. Radulf de Rupe as well as Robert de Stapelton is o en mentioned in charters issued for the benefi t of Monk Bre on Priory. He, there- fore, belonged to the local knightly class and viewed the priory as a spiritual center of vicinity. Radulf, for example, witnessed Roger de Montebegon’s charter that confi rmed the priory’s rights on a wood in Lincolnshire. Roger de Montebegon died soon a er 1227.29 Radulf de Rupe along with Roger de No on appears as a witness of Galfried de Nevill and his wife Mable’s charter issued for Monk Bre on Priory. Aforesaid Galfried (Geoff rey) de Nevill and Mable took part in a law- suit dated from 1232 against Climence of Lungvillers, Mableäs sister.30 Radulf witnesses the grant of Alberthuait manor made by John de Newmarket (de Novomersato) in 1239 in behalf of the same religious house.31 One Radulf de Rupe took part as a orney in a suit of darrein presentment prosecuted before the royal judges in 1217 in Yorkshire.32 In other words, his activity falls on 1210–1230s. Last three witnesses have le only some traces in Yorkshire charters. William de Roreston a ests one of John Malherbe and his wife Matilda’s charter which can be dated from 1172–1181.33 He appears once again as

(27) Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, 441–442, № 346. (28) Carlton was a part of the manor Bre on which had a common bor- der with manor No on. Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, 399. (29) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, 318. (30) W. Brown (ed.) Yorkshire inquisitions of the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I, vol. 1 (Leeds, 1892) 279. (31) W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum (London, 1817–1830), vol. 5, № 4. (32) Maitland, Bracton’s Note Book, vol. III, № 1339. (33) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1679.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 250 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana a witness of one Adam’s charter compiled around 1183–1185. Finally, a man named William de Roreston a ests the Roger de No on’s undated charter mentioned above and published among other charters of Pone- fract priory.34 With caution William of our charter can be identifi ed with aforesaid William for all charters were issued in behalf of Monk Bre on Priory. Hence, we have received evidence that our charter is rather early one for William could not have been born later than 1150th and, so, he was too old in 1220s to date our charter later. We did not manage to fi nd Jordan de Roreston and Stephan, the clerk, in documents available to us. Stephen was certainly a local par- ish priest.35 The only thing that can be stated surely is that Jordan de Roreston was not a relative of William. It is the neighboring estates that had given the same nickname to them. What Roreston concerns it was a village in the entered into the Domesday Book as Rorestone, Rorestune and now a parish and township Royston in the borough of .36 The evidence leads us to conclusion that witnesses of our charter had known each other and were closely connected with Monk Bret- ton Priory. All of them were active during at least the fi rst third of the thirteenth century. The death of Roger de No on around 1241 gives the ultimate date for the charter but it would be more accurately to date it around 1220s taking into account the handwriting evidence and age of William de Roreston as well. The formulary of the charter being standard enough and resem- bling to other private deeds issued about that time is not, nevertheless, out of interest. The deed as a whole can be surely a ributed to the so- called feoff ment charters. Standardized till the end of the twel h cen- tury in regard to their external form the protocol developed. The invo- cation might be instructive for such phrases as “noverit universitas au- dientium” or “omnibus inspecturis tam presentibus quam futuris” appearе at the end of twel h or at the beginning of the thirteenth centuries. In our case, nevertheless, the invocation is standard: “sciant presentes et fu- turi” (all presents and futures should know) and was characteristic not

(34) Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, 441–442, № 346. (35) J. Moorman, Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century (Cam- bridge, 1946) 57–58. (36) Hamilton Thompson Reviewed work(s): The Romanesque Archi- tecture of the Order of Cluny by Joan Evans, English Historical Review 55/217 (1940) 110–112. Also W. Dugdale.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 251 only for the twel h–thirteenth centuries but for pre-Norman England too.37 F. Stenton had pointed out another formula regular since the sec- ond quarter of the thirteenth century: “scripto sigillum meum apposui”.38 Meanwhile, it is well known that already since the end of the twel h century free peasantry of northern England sealed their charters not saying about the lords. So, the formula itself gives but a li le. Nevertheless, some elements are evident. It was well rooted prac- tice for the twel h century to ask a permission of relatives to alienate the property. The permission of heirs fell out of use during the thir- teenth century as grantors themselves guaranteed the irrevocability of their deeds.39 In our case the grantor acts alone. At the same time, the scribers and grantors of the thirteenth century practiced the detailed description of the property transferred but it is not our case. It is said only that landholdings and possessions lay in Carlton and nearby: “in villa Carlentona et in territоrio ejusdem ville”. In other words, the charter should be dated from the thirteenth century but nearly to the beginning. The language of our charter also deserves a ention. It was usual for the English documents to apply special words such as sursumred- dere or sursumredditio to denote the act of giving the property back to own lord. They appear in the English documents around 1254 or so.40 Meanwhile, the scriber was hesitating and wrote them in the ordinary manner i. e. with a gap: sursum reddo and sursum redditio although the gap is hard to see. If not, we get an interesting example of rather early forms sursumreddo and sursumredditio in the English documents. The second curious question is a probative force of the charter it- self. The verbs in passive forms designated that a charter was made

(37) В. И. МАЖУГА, Грамоты цистерцианских аббатств Бургундии и Франш-Конте (1203–1290), in: Рукописные источники по истории Западной Европы в архиве ЛОИИ СССР. Археографический сборник (Ленинград, 1982) 37–82. About formulas see p. 60–71. (38) F. Stenton (ed.), Transcripts of charters relating to the Gilbertine houses of Sixle, Ormsby, Catley, Bullington, and Alvingham (Horncastle, 1922) (Lincoln Record Society, 18) XXVIII. h p://www.archive.org/stream/gilbertinetrans00si xhuo #page/n21/mode/2up. On F. Stenton’s method: М. Gervers, The Dating of Medieval English Private Charters of the Twel h and Thirteenth Centuries (www.utoronto.cadeedspubsdoc2page1a.htm). (39) Stenton, Transcripts of charters..., XVIII–XIX. (40) R. Latham, Revised of Medieval Latin Word-List from British Sources (London, 1965) 388, 470; J. H. Baxter, Ch. Johnson, Medieval Latin Word-List- from British and Irish Sources (London, 1950) 345, 418

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 252 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana post factum: “concessi, quietumclamavi, sursumreddidi”. In other words, the documents were aimed only to commemorate the previous act which was regarded as valid without it. The formal and symbolical procedures played still an important role.41 In our case the formula of abrogation and guarantee is common one although since the twel h century (in charters of Pontefract Priory since the thirteenth century onwards) a special term warantizare takes a prominent position as a sign that the donor will assure stability of the deed against the whole world otherwise pay a fi ne.42 A er dating the charter a question about its purposes should be answered. As it o en happened in the Middle Ages a previous lawsuit and desires of the participants to avoid confl icts in future could be such a reason. The word quietumclmare being too common do not gives us any guidelines. The document has imprinted the ordinary procedure of selling landed property (terras et possessiones) with all pertinent things (cum pertinentiis) showing some aspects of the economic and social relations between lay landholders and the monastery, yet, rather standard.43 It remains unclear who was an initiators of the deed and, hence, why the total sum of payment (fi ve silver shillings) was so mod- erate if not say too insignifi cant; a cow, pare of sheep or small co age cost that sum.44 Under Henry III (1216–1272) the quarter of wheat cost twenty shillings.45 Some clerks forged charters for one mark of silver (13 and ½ shillings or solids) and this sum was not thought consider- able.46 The most obvious reason might be that William’s estates were small enough. For example, one Adam was bestowed by William and the brethren of Monk Bre on with land in Carlton as his fee and inher- itance (in feudo et hereditate) for four solids and eight denarii as his

(41) Stenton, Transcripts of Charters..., XVII; A. Dumas, Études sur lе clas- sement des formеs des actes, Moyen Age 43 (1933) 33. (42) P. R. Hyams, Warranty and Good Lordship in Twel h Century Eng- land, Law and History Review 5.2 (1987) 437–503. (43) It seems that terms terra and possessio are synonyms. In any case we deal with a standard phrase: Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1469, 1493, 1499. Moreover the word possessio might denote land itself. J. F. Nier- meyer, Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus (Leiden, 1976) 817. (44) Prices are cited according: www. fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.asp?page =source/medievalprices.html. (45) Ф. И. МИХАЛЕВСКИЙ, Очерки истории денег и денежного обращения. Т. 1. Деньги в феодальном хозяйстве (Ленинград, 1948) 197. (46) Postles, Country Clerici…, 35.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 253 services, he possessing only some acres of land and a small co age.47 It could be the case of our William. In the thirteenth century the territory of a village could be split among some (from fi ve to eight and more) landholders.48 We should remember that the cluniacensis monks never used the converses and acted as typical feudal seniors. They granted estates for one life or with hereditary rights. The document illustrates the structure of the manorial estates where Carlton village played not insignifi cant role. It appears twice in charters dra ed by the founder’s descendants: granddaughter Sara (daughter of Adam’s elder heiress Amabel) and daughter Mathilda, only the full half of the village referring to as an inheritance each of them: “pertinent ad portionem meam ex hereditario… fi lie quam legitimo mihi desponsavi con- jugio.”49 Carlton seems to have been divided between sisters. Although there is not a charter issued by Amabel herself, the grant of a half vil- lage made by her is mentioned in Sara’s confi rmation charter. One can suppose that Adam divided Carlton between daughters when he was alive and then granted it to the priory. Nevertheless, the division had taken place and that’s why Adam’s descendants must confi rm monks’ rights on property concerned. The equal division of estates between sisters was in accordance with statum decretum.50 Although there were four villages with the same name in Yorkshire there are li le doubts that we deal with Carlton in Steincross wap- entake north from Monk Bre on.51 Along with Carlton one Roreston

(47) Farrer, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. III, № 1819: … dedi concessi et…confi rmavi Ade famulo nostro fi lio Willelmi de Snithale et heredibus suis terram illam in Karleton que fuit Roberti fi lii Laising cum omnibus pertinen- tiis suis… Holmes, The Chartulary of St. John of Pontefract, vol. II, 331, № 246 (1244). Pro hac vindicione (unam dimidiam acram terre — A. K.) … dedit sep- tem solidos sterlingorum per manibus…. (48) М. А. БАРГ, Исследования по истории английского феодализма XI– XIII вв. (Москва, 1962) Chapter 2. (49) Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 5, № 6, 9; Farrer, Early York- shire Charters, vol. III, № 1678, 1679, 1680. (50) F. M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism 1066–1166 (Ox- ford, 1932) 37–41 and Appendix. H. de Bracton, De ligibus et consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. by G. E. Woodbine, transl. with rev. and notes S. E. Thorne (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1968–1977) Vol. 2, 218; vol. 3, 211–212. (51) Carlton now lies in South Yorkshire, borough of Barnsley, it is impor- tant industrial center. There are here two churches and chapel. h p://www. werelate.org/wiki/Place:Carlton,_South_Yorkshire,_England

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 254 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana appears systematically in the charters issued in behalf of Monk Bret- ton priory. In all probability it is a modern township Royston, situated not far from Monk Bre on and No on. In other words, all se lements mentioned above formed the compact territory around Monk Bre on priory, a spiritual and economic center of the region. To speak in general, Monk Bre on priory possessed estates from Wakefi eld to and was situated near the important town Barnsley where the main roads of Northern England crossed to link castles of Sheffi eld, Doncaster and Cheshire. The tolls for a free pas- sage through monastery’s estates brought considerable incomes to me- dieval religious houses.52 The monks had some advantages of making charters for merchants and consumers, the cult of St. Mary Magdalena played important role too in the everyday life of the neighborhood.53 Although the monks of Monk Bre on had deep interest in establishing a market and fair, in reality it was the monk of Pontefract who had re- ceived a royal charter around 1249 granting the market each Wednes- day and fair at Michaelmas in Barnsley.54 It would be no surprised if a struggle for the charter had taken place and Monk Bre on depending on Pontefract had lost. But the changes had come soon. During the thirteenth century the priory was growing and had be- come richer. Finally, the monks proved strong enough to suit with Pon- tefract priory and obtain independence on it between 1280 and 1290. The growth of the priory is likely to have infl uenced the toponymic. Originally Monk Bre on priory was called the priory of St. Maria Mag- dalena of Lund (modern Landwood 1.5 miles from Bre on) where the church was constructed and consecrated in name of Maria Magdalena. But some charters of the thirteenth century and ours among them at- test the strong association between Maria Magdalena and Bre on that can be result of step by step spreading the popularity and power of the priory and the cult of Maria Magdalena over the neighboring areas. This practice was still in use at the seventeenth century.55

(52) Moorman, Church Life in England…, 295. (53) There were other churches consecrated in honour of her in England although her cult was not popular till the end of the XIII c. I. Maisch, Between Contempt and Veneration. Mary Magdalene through the Centuries (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1998) 46–47. (54) Н. С. Maxwell Lyte (ed.), Calendar of charters rolls preserved in Public Record Offi ce. Henry III, 1226–1257, vol. I (London, 1903) 339. (55) Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 5, 136: De prima fundatione monasterii beatae Marie Magdalenae de Lunda vulgo Munkbreton.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 255

Our investigation has brought us to conclusion that the charter in the archive of St. Petersburg Institute of History is the original. For more detailed analysis all charters of Monk Bre on Priory should be investigated but one thing is clear. The more new individual charter scripts will be taken into consideration the easier it will be for scholars to make a typology of the English document handwriting as a whole.56 The charter shows the obvious trend towards the chancery cursive script but resemblance with book hand is still visible. The process is at the beginning. The charter refl ects among others an episode of economic life of the monastery. Although the fate of the purchased estates is unknown it was practice common for the thirteenth century to accumulate es- tates in own hands and expand the domain. The document a ests once more that Carlton o en mentioned in other charters played if not central but important role in the structure of the priory estates. A er the market and fair were established they had infl uenced not only the handwriting practice as some later original charters evidence but also the prosperity of the monastery itself. At the end of the thirteenth cen- tury Monk Bre on priory had become powerful to tear off the Cluny congregation and join the Benedictian order.

SUMMARY

The charter (157х123 mm) which the present paper deals with ascer- tains the purchase of some parcels of land with all appurtenances in a village Carlton (Yorkshire). As the analysis of paleography and diplomacy a ests the charter is original. The manner of writing would be denoted as the gothic calligraphic chancery script with tendencies to cursive. It helps us to date the charter from the 1220s to the 1230s. The list of witnesses hardens our conjunctions. All they belong to the local gentry or low noble class, with their estates bordering each other. Some of them or their rela- tives show the great activity as witnesses, a orneys or grantors in the life of countryside about the 1220s to the 1240s. The charter a ests the role Carlton village mentioned many times in Monk Bre on charters played in manorial structure of the Priory. As time went on the Priory had become powerful enough to tear off his connection with its mother Cluniac order to join the Benedictine one.

(56) The good example here is the book of W. Heinemeyer, Studien zur Geschichte der gotischen Urkundenschri (Köln, 1982) based on the German sources.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 256 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana x I i d n Appe

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access Andrey Kasatov 257

, , t io us де не

j же

ville )pre- прав

той

вечные от

уступил . на , Роджер

Александр , Магдалины

on(a) et mo-

упомянутый отказ , , я

относящимся другие

ни и , монахов

Марии

Карлтона окрестностях

. ним в каковыми

уступка

св , из к и Стапильтон

впредь эта

всем Бека Рорестон

что u(m) p(er)tinentiis aliq(uo)d названных церкви ,

со Роберт с де

Карлтон 1a).

чтобы и

для № И , . относящимся

Богу de on(a). Rad(ulfo) de Rupe. Will(elmo) вилле

условии

в

Иорданн господин Александра владений ним

:

, к и том

ers”, 381 ers”, сын на

, времена стабильной

всем

истребовать

монахов

и >

земель мне со

Карлтона

их < из вечные

дали

Вильгельм на

прочной , названных

я владения

Свидетельствовали указанных сможем

. и

клирик

Text: , монахи

что была не выше

, и

от

li(us) Alexandri Bec de Carleton(a) co(n)cessi et q(ui)etu(m)clamavi li(us) земли

fi письму выше

Russian Translation:

Стефан наследников потом ,

все

, отношении

сему

в

к

держали

моих наследников

претензию будет

и

и

названные мою

господу Рорестон

кто моих , де

меня там и

те

владели

и за печать наследников

каковые , предъявлять меня мои The deed of purchase landholdings and possessions at Carlton

in behalf of the St. Mary Magdalene’s Priory (Yorkshire) 1220–1241? Priory (Yorkshire) in behalf of the St. Mary Magdalene’s Collection 18 “England and Scotland. Deeds le rma (7)sit et stabil(is) p(re)d(i)c(t)is monachis inp(er)petuu(m) huic p(re)senti sc(ri)pto sigillu(m) за моих fi

Вильгельм вернул или

,

служащим из

, и серебра живущие

приложил (The western section of the Archive of Saint-Petersburg Institute of History (RAS). of Saint-Petersburg Archive section of the (The western

Рупе

право либо

прав - де

ныне

имущества

монахам кто солидов

все всех и

ни предшественники

, от настоящим и пять

, выдвигать я Радульф

, за знают ,

мой

возвращение

должны Ноттон an(te)cessores mei habuer(un)t et tenuer(un)t de p(re)d(i)c(t)is monachis in (4)villa Carleton t(er)ritorio ei(us)dem p(ro) q(ui)nq(e) sol(idis) argenti q(u)os p(re)d(i)c(t)i monachi dederunt m(ihi) ita t(a)n(tum) q(uo)d de cet(er)o n(on) ego (5 possessiones n(on) alqu(i)s he(re)dum meor(um) in p(re)d(i)c(t)as t(er)ras vel fatus Will(elmu)s nachis ibide(m) d(e)o servientib(u)s omnes (3)t(er)ras et possessiones cu(m) p(er)tinentiis q(ua)s Alex(ander) pat(er) me(us) e nachis ibide(m) d(e)o servientib(u)s omnes (3)t(er)ras et possessiones cu(m) p(er)tinentiis q(ua)s vel clamu(m) debemus (6)ponere vel pot(er)imus int(e)rrogare Et ut heo (sic) co(n)cessio et q(ui)etumclamat(i)o sursumreddit clamu(m) debemus (6)ponere vel vel de me et he(re)dib(u)s meis meu(m) apposui. Hiis testib(u)s. D(omi)no Rob(erto) de Sta(8)pilton(a). Rog(ero) No Roreston(a), Steph(an)o cl(er)ico de Carleton(a). Jordan(o) Roreston(a) et aliis Пусть и времена (1)Sciant p(r)esentes et futuri q(uo)d ego Will(elmu)s (1)Sciant p(r)esentes et futuri q(uo)d ego Will(elmu)s sursu(m)reddidi de me (2)et heredibus meis in pe(rpe)tuu(m). Deo et eccl(esi)e s(anc)tae marie magdalene Bre Вильгельм Бреттонской отказался виллы отец

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access 258 Scrinium VΙI–VIII.2 (2011–2012). Ars Christiana s nal fi Standard documents.htm www.dur.ac.uk/ Rear form Grant of Billingham vicarage (1234–1244) medieval.documents/

form The , Standard , 1222–1244 епископа

ector (London, 1958). L. H Письмо Handwriting of English Честерского Rear form documents s (ed.), nal fi Standard ork x II (1916) i d , s n Early XIII c. Early Yorkshire Early Yorkshire Charters Vol. III. Plate XIX. Vol. Farrer W. Y Farrer W. Round rear form Appe (ed.), s ork (1916) 1201–1218 Standard Early Yorkshire Early Yorkshire Charters Vol. III. Plate XXV. Vol. Farrer W. Y Farrer W. , s Round on Priory on rear form of History RAS) form Petersburg Institute Petersburg The charter in behalf Standard of Monk Bre (The archive of the Saint- (The archive

l l rs n e ers ita h s e d na p

l, b T a m, fi Form le C of le

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 01:18:27PM via free access