NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT SIR GEOFFREY LUTTRELL'S RAID ON SEMPRINGHAM PRIORY, 1312

JOYCE COLEMAN

WE know more about Sir Geoffrey Luttrell, commissioner of the Luttrell Psalter (BL, Add. MS. 42130), than about the patrons of many other medieval manuscripts.^ Unfortunately for the many admirers of the Psalter, not all of what we know about Geoffrey casts him in a positive light. In particular, scholars have had to grapple with records that show him leading a violent raid on the Gilbertine priory of Sempringham. According to the royal order dated 27 July 1312, which set up a commission of inquiry in response to the complaint of Prior John de Camelton, 'Geoffrey Literel of Irnham, Edmund de Coleville of Westbitham, John son of John Gobaud, Roger de Birthorpe with John and Thomas his brothers, John de Graveneye, William Pleseleie and John le Hunte, with others' broke the doors and walls of the priory, carrying away goods worth ^^500 and assaulting several of the men who tried to stop them.'^ Art historians have been eager to dissociate Geoffrey from any actual barbarity towards his neighbours. Eric Millar, for example, notes: One would be tempted to infer... that Sir Geoffrey was a person of hasty disposition, were it not that these picturesque details almost certainly represent little more than the common form of pleading in cases of distraint and the like, and refer to what was probably at most a technical assault.^ Janet Backhouse explains this charge, and a later one from 1320 regarding a raid on Sir Ralph de Sancto Laudo, as property disputes regarding land held in Bulby, a village just east of Irnham (site of the Luttrell manor; see fig. i).^ Such 'events', she says, 'which were not at all unusual at the time, reflect nothing more sinister than local disputes over boundaries and the non-payment of local dues.'^ Although acknowledging a possible misuse of seigneurial power, Michael Camille also favours dismissive language in discussing Geoffrey's raids. 'These episodes were likely the result of squabbles over rents or rights', Camille wrote in 1987, 'in which Sir Geoffrey felt within his bounds forcibly to enter and take what was his by force'.^ In his new book on the Psalter, Camille employs an even more radical means of exonerating Geoffrey: he reverses the historical order of events. Geoffrey's raid on Sempringham, Camille notes, 'was probably a reprisal for the prior forcefully retrieving a number of his

103 ^. /. Geoffrey Luttrell's corner of Lincolnshire; drawn by Rachel Wagner

beasts that had been impounded by Roger'.^ This refers to a raid in which the Prior of Sempringham and his men entered the close of Roger de Birthorpe, 'broke his park there, drove away certain animals of the prior which he had taken at Birthorpe,... carried away his goods, and assaulted...his men and servants'.^ However, as noted above, the commission to investigate Geoffrey's raid on Sempringham was set up on 27 July 1312, while that to investigate Sempringham's raid on Roger de Birthorpe is dated 7 September 1312. The terms of the second commission make it clear that the Sempringham-Birthorpe raid was a reprisal for the Luttrell-Sempringham raid, rather than the other way around, as Camille suggests.^ The art historians have been energetic in their attempts to rehabihtate Sir Geoffrey, patron as he is of one of the most beloved manuscripts in the British Library. On the other hand, the historians of the Gilbertine order, unconstrained by codicological loyalties, have taken a darker view of Luttrell's activities. Tracing a decline in the fortunes of the Gilbertine houses over this period. Rose Graham gives a prominent place to their 'severe losses from the assaults of neighbouring knights', of which the chief example is the Luttrell raid.^** Must the art historians' minimizations be rejected, then, and the truth faced that Geoffrey Luttrell was as much local bully as patron of the arts?

104 A petition recently discovered in the Public Record Office sheds new light on this issue. Addressed to the King and his council from Roger de Birthorpe, Geoffrey's associate in the raid on Sempringham Priory, the document establishes that Geoffrey's role in the raid was less prominent, and thus less worrisome, than previously assumed.^^ It also reveals that the urge to minimize the incident is a phenomenon of no recent origin. More importantly, the new information provided by this document points to an unsuspected political context for the Sempringham raid. This investigation has, in turn, shed new light on Geoffrey Luttrell's connection with the rebel earl, Thomas of Lancaster, and on the picture in the Psalter that is often supposed to depict Thomas's execution.

ROGER DE BIRTHORPE'S PETITION The petition is written in a Chancery hand, on a long strip of parchment (io| inches long by 35 inches wide) in Anglo-French, still the language of the upper classes in early fourteenth-century England. In translation, it reads: Roger de Birthorpe shows to our Lord the King and to his council that, as a dispute had developed between John de Camelton, prior of Sempringham, and the said Roger owing to a seizure of cattle that the said Roger had taken from the said prior, and to make a good accord between them, the said Roger called together Sir Edmund Coleville, Sir Geoffrey Luttrell, Sir Guy Gubaud, and many other great lords and good men of the country and led them to the priory of Sempringham to treat with the said prior about the said affair. And the said prior, perceiving their coming, had the doors closed and did not want to speak with them. But as soon as they had left, conceiving a malicious plan, he had the doors cut down by the men of his household, and raised a hue and cry about the said Roger with a great pursuit up to the manor of Birthorpe. And on this [ground], by the patronage and support of Sir Hugh le Despenser and his sisters, ladies m the said priory, [the prior] brought a writ of trespass oyer and terminer against the said Roger [i.e., called for a legal inquiry to 'hear and determine' the extent of Roger's misdoings]. And [the prior] did so much by his false planning and procurement that the inquest found against the said Roger for damages to the prior [of] 500 marks [about £333], whereas neither the said Roger nor any other man acting for him had committed any trespass. And for the great malice of the said prior, the said Roger did not dare remain in England but crossed into Ireland. And the said prior would not let the matter drop, but proceeded with his suit to take his body [i.e., to arrest and imprison Roger]. And [the prior] applied so much pressure that by his contumacy he [Roger] was made outlaw. Because of which outlawry. Sir Henry de Beaumont took possession of his [Roger's] manor of Birthorpe, which was worth £40 a year, as lord-in-chief. And has held it since [as] his land in disinheritance of the said Roger. For which he [Roger] prays that as our lord the King gave him his charter of pardon and restored [him] to his peace, that he might have restitution of his land and [a writ of] attaint on the inquest which found falsely against him.

On the other side of the parchment (the 'dorse') are two legal comments, evidently made by the king's councillors who examined this document: As to the land, sue at [i.e., seek remedy from] the common law.

105 And as to the attaint, let it be declared by the great council if their intention is that the statute applies as well to inquests already held as to inquests which will be

The reference to a statute involving attaint suggests that the petition dates from 1327. In 1326 Edward IPs estranged queen, Isabella, and her lover, Roger de Mortimer, had successfully invaded England. Edward was deposed in January 1327 and murdered soon after, with Mortimer's connivance. ^^ Ruling on behalf of the young Edward III, Isabella and Mortimer then ' launched an unusually serious executive effort to improve the state of peace'.^* One of their first reforms, early in 1327, was to enact a statute allowing writs of attaint to be obtained in oyer and terminer cases.^^ A writ of attaint, according to Whartons Law-Lexicon^ is 'issued to inquire whether a jury of twelve men gave a false verdict, so that the judgment following thereupon might be reversed';^^ basically, it allows a defendant to appeal against a negative judgment. The councillors who examined Roger's petition were evidently unsure if the new statute could be made to apply retrospectively; we will see below what the apparent results of their decision were. It is difficult to decide if the incident described in Roger's petition is the one that led to the 27 July 1312 commission of oyer and terminer, or came subsequent to it. If these are two separate incidents, the previous seizure of cattle, mentioned at the beginning of Roger's petition, would presumably be the event described in the 27 July 1312 commission. The 'visit' recorded in Roger's petition would be a return encounter, which the prior not unreasonably took to be another raiding sortie. The cast of characters is nearly identical in both accounts, except that the party Roger describes in his petition includes Guy Gobaud, whereas the raid recorded in the Calendar of Patent Rolls lists not Guy but his brother, John.^' According to Roger, it was this second, ill-starred visit that led to the commission of oyer and terminer. Since no actual damage was done (according to Roger), perhaps the second visit followed close on the first and so exacerbated the prior that he proceeded to stronger steps than he had earlier contemplated. However, the instigator of the 27 July 1312 commission was not Hugh le Despenser, as Roger asserts, but Henry de Beaumont.^^ Had the prior already initiated a complaint, via Beaumont, and did he now initiate another one, via Despenser? Despenser's name does appear, but later: in the enrollment of letters patent of 17 May 1313, apparently issued after John de Graveneye had been convicted of his role in the alleged attack (see n. 9). Of course, Roger's account may also be jumbled, due to disingenuity, lapse of time, or both. The incident described in his petition might be the actual raid that led to the 27 July 1312 commission. This would imply that the discrepancies between the petition and the CPR commission are negligible. In fact, a chronicle maintained within the priory (known as the Sempringham Continuation) lists Guy, not John, Gobaud as one of the knights who 'assaulted' the priory.^^ Another small tangle involves deciding which Despenser Roger is (apparently inaccurately) accusing of sponsoring the oyer and terminer commission. Hugh le Despenser father and son were both active during this period, and it is often difficult to 106 tell which one is being referred to in records.^*' The fact that the fines due from Graveneye were assigned, 'on the information of H. le Despenser', to 'John de Handlo'^^ suggests the elder Despenser. John de Handlo or Haudlo had been an indentured retainer of Hugh senior since 1300 and remained closely associated with him right up to his execution in 1326. This gift of Graveneye's fines was just one of many grants made to him by Hugh senior.^^ On the other hand, the reference to 'Sir Hugh le Despenser and his sisters, ladies in the said priory' should indicate the younger Hugh. Letters patent of 26 June 1337 granted ^£20 yearly to 'Joan and Eleanor, daughters of Hugh le Despenser, the elder, nuns of Sempyngham'.^^ Nonetheless, Hugh senior is the more likely candidate, since in 1312 his son was associated with the baronial party hostile to Gaveston, and hardly likely to find favour with the king.^^ Such small discrepancies are easily explained by the fifteen-year gap between the events described and the writing of the petition. In any case, accuracy was not Roger's primary goal. It seems obvious that his earnest account of a peace mission gone wrong leaves out some significant incriminating details. While Roger's innocence remains subject to debate, however, his petition offers a great deal of interesting detail about the course of the dispute. Most particularly, in the present context, it seems to reduce considerably Sir Geoffrey Luttrell's role in and responsibility for the raid on Sempringham. Rather than being the initiator and chief bandit, Geoffrey appears in a supportive role, helping a friend make peace with a neighbour. Roger had probably trained as a lawyer, and had certainly acted as attorney for local citizens, including his father, in the early I3oos.^^ His petition shows that he could speak with force and dexterity, and (as we will see further below) he had a way of getting around people. Along with his two brothers and Geoffrey Luttrell, Roger's other allies in his Sempringham excursion(s) were also local gentry: Edmund de Coleville was the baron of Castle Bytham,^^ while the Gobaud family held considerable property in Lincolnshire.^^ John Gobaud senior had been Sheriff of Lincoln in 1302."^^ Roger no doubt found it easy to convince his seigneurial friends that he was completely within his rights to seize the cattle; he calls them 'certain animals of the prior which he [Roger] had taken [to] Birthorpe within his demesne and had impounded, according to the law and custom of the realm'.^^ Roger's account, while biased, is supported by a variety of external considerations and sources. It explains why the (allegedly) captured goods ended up at Birthorpe, rather than at the Luttrell estate in Irnham. Moreover, since Birthorpe was less than a mile from Sempringham Priory, whereas Irnham and Bulby were seven miles away (see fig. i), the 'dispute between neighbours' rationale works even better for Roger than for Geoffrey. Inquests following upon the death of Henry de Beaumont's son John, in 1342, confirm that Henry had been seised of (i.e., that the king had granted him) the Birthorpe property, which he claimed formed part of his barony of Folkingham.^*^ Besides the obvious advantage to Henry in this case, his action in instigating the commission also reflected his own seigneurial duties: as baron of Folkingham he was Sempringham's patron and, writes Graham, he took the responsibility seriously.^^ Henry and his family

107 Fig. 2. Execution of a man, possibly Thomas of Lancaster. BL, Add. MS. 42130, f. 56 (detail)

Fig. J. Close-up of the half-gash on the kneeling man's neck. BL, Add. MS. 42130, f 56 (detail)

108 supported the extensive rebuilding of the priory church begun by John de Camelton in 1301, and later generations of Beaumont heirs were buried h^^

PARTISANSHIP IN THE RAID AND THE PSALTER More remarkable than the fact that Henry de Beaumont intervened in a local 'squabble' is the timing of his intervention. The previous October had seen Beaumont exiled, with Edward IPs favourite Piers Gaveston, during the course of the struggle between the king and the barons known as the Ordainers. While the rebellious barons ruled from London, the king set up a rival government in York. In January 1312 Edward called back the exiles - who rejoined him only in time to retreat with him to Newcastle, as the barons marched north. When Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, captured Newcastle, Beaumont and Gaveston fled to Scarborough. There they were besieged and ultimately forced, on 19 May, to surrender. After a quick trial in Warwick, Gaveston was condemned, handed over to Thomas of Lancaster, and, on 19 June, executed.^^ At this point, Edward and his supporters returned to London, where they were soon alarmed by word of the barons mustering in Worcestershire, intending to march south. On 24 July 1312 the king issued orders that the shires prepare to send troops for the royal defence. Early in August Edward was in Dover securing the Cinque Ports and sending emissaries to seek help from France.^^ Yet in the midst of this chaos, Edward and Beaumont found time, on 27 July, to set up a commission about the Sempringham raid. Partly it may have been the efficiency of the administrative process, grinding away as kingdoms crumbled. On the other hand, partisanship may not have been irrelevant to the Sempringham raid itself, or to its aftermath. Both Beaumont and Hugh le Despenser senior^^ were supporters of the king and Gaveston. The raiders, on the other hand, had links to the 'Contrarian', Thomas of Lancaster. Geoffrey Luttrell, along with a William de Baiocis, had accompanied Thomas's mother overseas in 1298.^^ (The Baiocis, or Bayeux, family held the barony of Thoresway in northern Lincolnshire.)^' The Luttrell estate of Hooton Pagnell, in Yorkshire, was less than nine miles south of Lancaster's castle at Pontefract.^^ Thomas of Lancaster also had ties in Lincolnshire, having become Earl of Lincoln in 1311, by inheritance through his wife Ahce, daughter of Henry de

One intriguing piece of evidence that almost, but not quite, establishes Luttrell's support of Lancaster is a well-known picture in the Psalter. Painted sometime between 1325 and 1345,^** like the rest of the Psalter, this scene depicts a man swinging a sword to behead a kneeling man, whose hands are held up in prayer (f. 56; see fig. 2). Under the sword someone has written the word 'lancastres', in reference to Thomas of Lancaster's execution by decapitation after his last revolt and capture at Boroughbridge, in 1322. Because most scholars have agreed that the caption under the sword was probably added by a later owner, they have been unwilling to affirm that the artist, or

109 Fig. 4. Wall-painting of the execution of 'St' Thomas of Lancaster, Church of St Peter ad Vincula, South Newington, Oxfordshire; drawing by E. W. Tristram. By courtesy of the Victoria (^ Albert Museum; V^A Picture Library

no ^j/ C\ot, J: .W. iRli/KAM Jd^' l^d

Fig. 5. Close-up of the gashes on Thomas's neck, from South Newington; drawing by E. W. Tristram. By courtesy of the Victoria (^ Albert Museum; V(^A Picture Library

III his patron Geoffrey Luttrell, definitely meant the kneeling man to represent Thomas of Lancaster.^^ However, John Edwards has recently put two little-noted facts together to point the way to such a proof. One fact is that, in the picture, Thomas's neck shows a gash going halfway across.*^ Inspection of the manuscript shows that the gash is drawn with a dark lme, the blood smeared red above the wound and, with the wonderful detail typical of the Psalter, dripping down in gobbets below (see fig. 3). On f 53V John the Baptist is being beheaded by a grisly, sword-wielding executioner very like Thomas's (except that John's is bright blue; see fig. 7). John's neck has been cut straight across, however.^^ This contrast confirms that the half-cut on Thomas's neck is a deliberate signal about the nature of that particular execution (or martyrdom). Edwards also instances the wall- painting of Thomas in the church of St Peter ad Vincula, South Newington, Oxfordshire, a scene very similar to that of the Psalter and in which Thomas's neck shows two half-gashes, both gushing blood (see figs. 4 and 5).^* Scholars date this wall- painting to between 1330 and the early 1340s, making it contemporary with the Luttrell Psalter.^^ It seems likely that the paintings were intended as a memorial to Sir John Giffard of Brimpsfield (Gloucs.), a follower of Lancaster who was executed in the reprisals after Boroughbridge.^® The second fact, or purported fact, is that it had taken a number of blows to sever Lancaster's head."*^ Edwards cites this claim from E. W. Tristram, author of the 1933 article that introduced the then newly discovered paintings in South Newington Church. Tristram, however, was simply repeating an assertion made to him orally by M. R. James, the great medieval scholar, who had come to help identify the subjects of the wall- paintings.*^ Most contemporary chroniclers say only that Lancaster was beheaded; the Middle English Brut notes that the executioner was a 'ribaude' (a menial, and thus by implication not an experienced swordsman).'*^ The Vita Edwardi Secundi^ however, substantiates James's claim: 'Then the Earl stretched forth his head as if in prayer,' it records, 'and the executioner cut off his head with two or three strokes' ('Tune comes quasi orando caput extendit, et spiculator bis uel ter percutiens caput amputauit').^** The story may have circulated more widely in oral report, contributing to the popular feeling that Thomas was a saint; miracles began occurring at the execution-place and at his tomb very soon after his 'martyrdom'.^^ Thus it seems safe to claim that, whatever the date at which 'lancastres' was written under the sword, the scene in f. 56 was meant to be, from its creation, a depiction of Thomas of Lancaster's execution. If this idea is accepted, the other images on the two- page spread can be read in relationship to it (see ^z- 6). As Camille proposes, the two archers on the same page (one holding a longbow, the other loading a crossbow) could be reminiscent of the battle of Boroughbridge, where Lancaster was captured.^^ The Brut begins its description of this battle: 'Thoo might men seen Archieres drawen ham in that on side and in that othere...' ('Then might men see archers drawing on the one side and on the other').^^ According to the Vita Edwardi Secundi, the baronial forces trying to ford the River Ure were 'lamentably cut up by a shower of arrows' ('ab ymbre

112 13 2 ^ ^^ S ^" *-^ ^^ t_» •^ ^~-. •— ^ H o s= _ r- ^ .SX^ i-3 C3 W CSS ^ C« *^ ^^

*r "r!; '^^

^1 — \

Figs. 8, g. (Left) Execution of St Bartholomew (who has already been flayed, on the preceding folio): BL, Add. MS. 42130, f 108 (detail); (right) execution by distaff: BL, Add. MS. 42130, f 60 (detail) 114 55 sagittarum misere atteruntur'),^^ a setback that led directly to Lancaster's surrender. Accordingly, in the Psalter, the tall longbowman looms over Lancaster's execution, displacing that scene from the central position at the bottom of the page. Further up the page is a picture of Samson wrestling with the lion. The Vita Edwardi Secundi explicitly finks Samson to Lancaster's downfall, lamenting: 'If thou hadst been steadfast in faith, thou wouldst never have been brought to nought. If Samson had remained cautious and Solomon devout, the one would not have been deprived of his strength nor the other of his wisdom'.^^ Presumably, the Luttrell artist would intend the comparison in a more positive light, pointing up Samson's role as the heroic leader of an oppressed people. Finally, the tonsured man at the bottom of the facing page (f. 55V), described in the catalogue of Additional Manuscripts only as 'an abbot',^' could be meant to represent the prior of the Cluniac house in Pontefract.^^ The figure on f 55V holds a crozier in his right hand while with his left he is gesturing with dismay toward the execution scene. This seems an appropriate posture for the sympathetic prior who had asked for Thomas's body and buried it in the priory church^^ - which subsequently became the site of alleged miracles.^*' That Geoffrey, or his artist, shared the popular feeling that Thomas was a saint is further suggested by the picture's context in the manuscript. From ff. 29 to 6ov, depictions of saints and martyrs are scattered throughout the Psalter, particularly in the bas-de-page position occupied by f. 56's execution scene. Some of these figures have haloes and some, like Lancaster, do not. Furthermore, the scene of Thomas's beheading precisely repeats that of the other two martyrdoms by decapitation: those of John the Baptist (f. 53v) and of Bartholomew (f. 108; fig. 8). In each case, the martyr/victim is shown in profile, kneeling with his hands held up in prayer. The executioner has his left hand on the crown of the saint's head, while his right swings a ball-pommeled sword back in a wide stroke, parallel to the line of text above it. The scene is so iconographic as to become a source of parody. The often-reproduced picture on f. 60, usually described as 'a woman beating a man with her distaff',^^ is clearly intended as a mock- execution/martyrdom (fig. 9). The husband is kneehng in profile, though splayed out more haplessly than the pious saints. His hands are up in prayer (and his knife protruding phallically - but in the wrong direction). The scene literally inverts the standard iconography, with the wife/executioner on the (viewer's) right rather than left and her right (not left) hand on the 'martyr's' head. Meanwhile, she is whipping back with her distaff, in the exact pose of the swordsmen responsible for decapitating SS John, Thomas, and Bartholomew. How can we know that Geoffrey Luttrell himself requested or endorsed the picture of Thomas, with its accompanying images? Janet Backhouse's opinion is that the Psalter's artists 'had been given very specific guidance about at least some of its desired contents',^^ and one would think that the political sensitivity of this image would indicate the patron's direct involvement. It is even possible that Geoffrey had seen the South Newington paintings, and perhaps drawn from them the idea of having Thomas depicted in his Psalter. Such a hypothesis might shave a few years off the range of dates offered for the Psalter's creation, since the paintings' terminus a quo is given as 1330.^^ Geoffrey could have travelled to Gloucestershire to visit his daughter Elizabeth, who had married Walter the son of Walter of Gloucester and was by 1323 a young widow living with her son, probably at her late husband's manor of Alweston (the modern Alveston, about four miles north of Bristol).^* The boy did not come of age until 1336; records from 1324 and 1327 show that Geoffrey was involved with Elizabeth in, and perhaps helping her with, some business affairs.^^ Geoffrey, whose will reveals a taste for pilgrimage,^^ might well have routed a homeward journey from Alweston via South Newington, where, as E. W. Tristram speculated, there may have been a relic of 'St' Thomas of Lancaster.®'^ We have been using evidence from between 1325 and 1345 (the Psalter), which refers to events of 1322 (Lancaster's execution), to illuminate Geoffrey's political sympathies in 1312 (when the Sempringham raid occurred). However, as we have seen, the evidence of Geoffrey's connection to Lancaster dates back as far as 1298. And other evidence from around 1312 supports the suggestion that the Sempringham raiders were aligned (rather cautiously) with the rebellious barons and against the king and his favourites. If Geoffrey supported, and later perhaps even venerated Thomas of Lancaster, he also had reason to dislike Hugh le Despenser personally. One of the Despenser clients, John de Ellerker,^^ had abducted Geoffrey's young daughter in 1309, in the hopes of marrying her and thus inheriting the Luttrell estates. (Andrew Luttrell, who ultimately inherited, was not born until 1313.) Geoffrey had considerable trouble in rescuing his daughter, while Ellerker received a full pardon, 'at the instance of Hugh le Despenser' (whether father or son is not clear).^^ Meanwhile, the man whom Roger de Birthorpe engaged to initiate his counter-suit in September 1312, John Paynel, appeared in October 1313 on a list of men who had supported Lancaster against Gaveston.^^ Paynel was also a distant relation of Geoffrey . Luttrell (the 'Pagnell' in Hooton Pagnell is a variant of'Paynel').'' One of the three justices appointed to this counter-commission was Henry de Baiocis, presumably a relation of the William de Baiocis who had accompanied Lancaster's mother and Geoffrey Luttrell overseas in 1298.'' Henry de Baiocis is also on record as co-owning land in Lincolnshire with John Gobaud, either the man named in the Sempringham commission as participating in the raid, or his father.'' Another of Roger's justices was Henry le Scrope, brother of the Geoffrey le Scrope whose two daughters later married or were engaged to (before an early death) two of Geoffrey Luttrell's sons.'' Beatrice le Scrope, wife of Andrew, Geoffrey's heir, appears in the Psalter's two 'family' miniatures: helping her mother-in-law arm Sir Geoffrey (f. 202v); and sitting next to her husband at the feast (f. 208). . The canons of Sempringham, on the other hand, not only regarded Beaumont as their particular patron, and were harbouring two of Despenser senior's daughters m the priory but must have viewed Thomas of Lancaster with great resentment. In 1311 Thomas had seized lands in Saxby that Edward II had granted, two years previously, to 116 the Gilbertine priory outside Lincoln. The Exchequer continued to extract a £s annual rent from the Gilbertines for years after the land had ceased to be theirs.'^ The incident at Sempringham, in pitting the pro-Beaumont prior against a group of pro-Lancastrian gentry, seems to carry an echo of the much more momentous events that had been unfolding outside southern Lincolnshire. Perhaps Roger, Geoffrey, and the rest had felt the days after Gaveston's downfall to be a propitious time to launch an attack of their own, on a priory much identified with the royal party.

ROGER DE BIRTHORPE'S TROUBLES If SO, they had underestimated the resilience and determination of Edward II's powerful supporters. Roger seems almost to have played into their hands, providing the prior an opportunity to conceive the 'malicious plan' ('mauueys compassement') of responding to the visitors' actions - whatever their actual nature - with a commission of oyer and terminer. These ad hoc bodies were intended to deliver speedier justice than that obtainable through the overloaded courts; but that aim was often considerably impaired by the influence that plaintiffs and their friends could bring to bear on the outcome.'^ The 1327 writ of attaint was a response to 'Several People of the Kingdom' who had complained, in an appeal to Parliament, about greedy men who sought the 'aide & mayntenaunce' of the powerful to steal the lands of their neighbours by setting 'outraious' (outrageous) damages in commissions of oyer and terminer." They could have been describing Roger's case: the fine of 500 marks (about £TfT,?>) imposed on him was a huge sum for a man whose manor was worth £40 a year. In fact, Richard W. Kaeuper has cited Roger as an example of how these commissions could provide 'especially convenient and powerful weapons in the local disputes and feuds which mark the period'.''^ The prior's suit allowed him to please his patron, Henry de Beaumont, by enabling him to gain possession of the manor of Birthorpe, which lay just to the east of Folkingham. Hugh le Despenser's involvement may have begun with an appeal from his daughters Joan and Eleanor, but his well-known greed was evidently activated by the prospect of penalties to impose and distribute among his clients. Roger certainly felt the weight of these forces. King's Bench records of 1313 show that he had been imprisoned in Lincoln Castle but escaped, and did not appear at subsequent proceedings.'^ He evidently preferred outlawry to his chances of staying in England and fighting the case through. The commission against him had wound up its proceedings by 17 May 1313, by which date a fine had been assessed against Roger's confederate John de Graveneye. ^^ Roger's own commission against Sempringham may have folded before 8 February 1313, when one of its justices, Henry le Scrope, was added to Sempringham's commission against Roger.^^ Roger presumably arrived in Ireland sometime in late 1313. Although things had been going wrong for him for some time, he seems to have landed on his feet - perhaps thanks to some more help from Geoffrey Luttrell. At the beginning of the thirteenth century an

117 earlier Geoffrey Luttrell, founder of the family's fortunes and great-great-grandfather of the Psalter's commissioner, had established a branch of the family in Ireland. One of that line, Robert Luttrell, had been Chancellor of Ireland from 1235 to 1246.^^ Records from 1305 to 1311 show a Geoffrey Luttrell in Dublin, acting on juries and otherwise appearing before John de Wogan,^^ who was Justiciar (i.e. chief governor) of Ireland from 1295 to 1313.^^ As it happens, Roger de Birthorpe's first professional positions in Ireland were as a substitute justice for John de Wogan's son, Walter (see below). The Geoffrey Luttrell of Ireland was not the Sir Geoffrey of Irnham in Lincolnshire,^^ but one can form a hypothesis that the Lincolnshire Geoffrey had drawn on family connections to help his friend Roger establish himself in Ireland. Nonetheless, Roger's pardon, referred to in his petition and issued 4 May 1316, suggests that he had found it expedient to rearrange his political affiliations. The Calendar of Patent Rolls records a 'pardon to Roger de Byrthorpe, at the instance of John son of Thomas and other magnates of Ireland, of all his outlawries within the realm. By K [King], on the information of J. de Hothum '.^^ John de Hothum was the Chancellor of the English Exchequer, and a former close associate of Piers Gaveston.^' At the end of his life, Hothum endowed a chantry at Welbeck Abbey (Notts.), whose priest was to pray for the souls of, among others, John de Wogan and Gaveston.^^ Roger did not win Hothum's favour merely by switching factions, however. By 1313, when Roger presumably arrived in Ireland, the Bruces had already begun their incursions into that country. On 26 May 1315, in the wake of Robert Bruce's victory at Bannockburn, his brother Edward launched a full-fledged, and initially successful, invasion of Ireland.^^ In September 1315 Edward II sent Hothum to Ireland to rally the resistance to the Scots.^** Among the powers vested in him was that 'to pardon felons, outlaws, and all persons accused of felony or trespasses...on condition that they serve the king against the enemy'.^^ The 'John son of Thomas' who supported Roger's pardon was John FitzThomas FitzGerald, fifth lord of the barony of Offaly, one of the leading (and most belligerent) magnates in Ireland.^^ FitzThomas had responded quickly to Hothum's call to battle, and clearly Roger had enlisted in turn. By early May 1316 - despite as yet limited gains against the Scots - Hothum had returned to England, accompanied by FitzThomas and by Arnold and John le Poer (perhaps the 'other magnates of Ireland' mentioned in the pardon). Roger's pardon seems to have been high on the agenda, coming through as it did on 4 May. A few days later, on 14 May, John FitzThomas was created first Earl of Kildare.'-' Despite his pardon, Roger apparently stayed on in Ireland. Beginning in 1318, as a substitute for Walter de Wogan, he assumed a series of ever higher legal posts, becoming Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Dublin by November 1327.^'^ One can imagine that when news of the attaint statute arrived in Ireland, Roger's hopes flared, leading him to send off his ardent petition recounting its rather jumbled story and pleading for the writ of attaint to apply retrospectively to his case. It cannot have hurt that Prior John of Camelton and both Despensers (not to mention Edward II) were all dead by that

118 Roger himself travelled to England sometime in 1328, perhaps to try to press his case in person. He then returned to Ireland for at least a year,®^ but by the end of 1330 was back in England, seemingly for good.^' But while Roger seems to have had some base from which to operate, and to have re- established his respectability at home, he was still battling to regain his former manor. The ruling about attaint, apparently, had gone against him. True to his old form, he took unorthodox action. Records reveal that Eleanor, widow of Henry de Beaumont's son John, had been granted custody of the manor of Birthorpe in 1343, during the minority of her son and heir, Henry. An inquest held pursuant to this grant shows that once seised of the Birthorpe property, Henry de Beaumont had conveyed it to Sir Thomas de Grey.^^ Thomas had 'held the manor peacefully until Roger de Birthorpe intruded therein with the assent of Thomas, and that Roger alienated the manor in fee to William de Baiocis, knight, and Robert Frost, chaplain, a year ago.' This William de Baiocis would either be Geoffrey Luttrell's old ally, or else a descendant or relation thereof The escheator, John de Hundon, was 'reprimanded as remiss and negligent' in having failed to recover the manor on behalf of Henry's grandson, a ward of the king.^^ Roger may have had the last laugh, though it was some thirty years in coming. The last record I have found relevant to this case is a reversal, dated 26 March 1344, of the Beaumont inquest's findings. 'It is clear by inspection of Domesday book' and other evidence, the new order reads, that the Birthorpe manor 'is held of the lord of the manor of Folkyngham by knight's service, so that it cannot be called a member of the manor of Folkyngham'.^^** By 1344 Roger must have been at least in his late fifties; but perhaps, at last, he had his manor back.

GEOFFREY LUTTRELL'S PRAGMATIC PARTISANSHIP The precise degree and nature of Roger de Birthorpe's guilt in the Sempringham incident must remain unclear, but there can be no doubt now that Geoffrey Luttrell's role in the event was fairly minor. With other local men of status, he supported a friend, one who had managed to convince himself, and no doubt his supporters as well, that he had a clear legal right to the goods he had 'impounded'. Roger, apparently, had a great facility for finding allies - not only the crew who rode with him to Sempringham Priory, but the men who helped him in Ireland, Sir Thomas de Grey who surrendered the manor of Birthorpe, and the escheator who dragged his feet when he should have been repossessing Birthorpe (though some judicious payoffs might also have been involved). While Roger paid heavily for his involvement with Sempringham, his chief allies evidently suffered no repercussions. Guy Gobaud died in 1314 and Edmund de Coleville in 1316, both in full possession of their estates.^"^^ On 9 September 1312 - two days after Roger de Birthorpe's counter-charge was filed - letters patent recorded a complicated financial arrangement between Geoffrey Luttrell and the Exchequer. Thirty-one pounds were to be withheld from wages due him: ^£25 to pay off an old debt of his father,' loos.

119 for many defaults, and...20s. for an amerciement'.''*^ Perhaps Geoffrey's role in the Sempringham raid had prompted these Exchequer proceedings against him, but if so, this was the only visible effect the incident had on his career. The series of writs summoning Geoffrey to the Scottish wars, which had begun in 1297, resumed in late 1313 and continued uninterrupted till 1322.'^*^ The last in this series, however, must have been an uncomfortable one for Luttrell. On 25 February 1322 he was ordered 'to appear with horses and arms at Burton-upon-Trent, to proceed with the King and in his service'.'**^ The king's service at that point comprised the pursuit of Thomas of Lancaster (with the intention to carry on and attack the Scots afterwards). Lancaster, who had been besieging Tickhill Castle, had advanced to Tutbury and then to Burton-upon-Trent, where he had destroyed the bridge. ^^^ The king issued the 25 February writ from Weston-under-Edge, en route from Gloucester to the muster at Coventry. Also summoned against Lancaster at the same time as Geoffrey were Henry de Beaumont and Ralph de Sancto Laudo, whom Geoffrey had allegedly raided two years previously.^**^ The Master of the Gilbertine Order had received an earlier summons to provide 'as many men-at-arms as he can'.'**' If Geoffrey actually responded to his summons, he would thus have found himself among (former) opponents, pursuing a friend. When Edward II's men succeeded in fording the Trent, on 10 March, Lancaster retreated to Boroughbridge, where, as we have seen above, he was captured and later executed (on 22 March) at Pontefract.'"^ Geoffrey Luttrell, who later had Lancaster depicted as a pious martyr, may have been constrained to participate in - perhaps even to witness-his hero's downfall.'^^ Yet while the king pursued Lancaster's associates with a bloody vengeance, he seems to have had no doubts about Geoffrey's loyalty. On 9 April - within three weeks of Thomas's execution - Luttrell's name figured on a list of those receiving a royal writ of protection for one year.''** The patent rolls provide no clue as to the reason for the writ; usually such documents imply that the recipient was going overseas on the king's service, but J. S. Critchley notes that they could also function 'as the reverse of the king's malevolentia\^^^ Maureen Jurkowski has concluded, after an examination of the list of writs issued 9 April 1322: 'I don't think it would be inappropriate to interpret these protections as a form of pardon of Lancastrian supporters.'"^ This speculation is supported by the presence on the list of the 'prior of St John the Evangelist, Pontefract', the man who had just requested and received Thomas of Lancaster's mutilated body."^ The research presented here paints a portrait of an adept survivor. From 1312 (the Sempringham raid) through the date of the Psalter's creation. Sir Geoffrey Luttrell nursed a secret admiration for the arch-rebel Thomas of Lancaster - while yet managing, unlike John Giffard and Roger de Birthorpe, to keep himself alive and his manors intact. As Janet Backhouse notes, Luttrell's overriding goal throughout Edward II's turbulent reign was 'to safeguard his family and estates'."^ In this aim he succeeded admirably, surviving with the means and the drive to commission his famous Psalter. Geoffrey Luttrell died on 23 May 1345, having lived long enough, perhaps, to

120 see his old friend Roger finally reinstalled in his manor of Birthorpe. In his will, as all the art historians have piously noted, Geoffrey was careful to include a twenty-shilling bequest to Sempringham Priory, as well as one of five marks to his daughter, Isabella, a nun in that house. "^

APPENDIX: THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF ROGER DE BIRTHORPE'S PETITION Roger's petition is P.R.O., SC8/34, no. 1671. In the original French, with abbreviations expanded, it reads: A nostre Seigneur le Roi et a son counseaill moustre Roger de Birthorpe que come une destaunce estoit meu par entre Johan de Camelton priour de Sempyngham et ledit Roger pur une pryse davers que ledit Roger fist prendre sur ledit priour / et pur bon acord entre eaux faire ledit Roger fist assembler Monseigneur Edmond Colevyle, Monseigneur Geffrey Luterel, Monseigneur Guy Gobaud et plusours autres grantz seigneurs et bones gentz du pays et les mena ala priorie de Sempyngham pur treter ouesque ledit priour de la dite busoigne / et ledit priour aparceuaunt lour venue fist fermer les portes / et ne voleit ovesque eaux parler / mes tauntost apres lour departyr / se propensa de mauueys compassement si fist decouper les portes par ses gentz demeigne / et fist lever hu et cry sur ledit Roger ovesque graunt sute tauntque al maner de Birthorpe et sur ceo par lavowerie et meyntenaunce Monseigneur Hughe le Despenser et ses seors dames en la dite priorie / porta bref de trespas oyer et terminer versus ledit Roger / et taunt fist par son faus compassement et procurement que lenqueste passa encountre ledit Roger as damages le priour de D [500] marks / la ou ledit Roger ne nul homme par luy nul trespas ne fyst. Et pur la graunt malice ledit priour / ledit Roger nosa demorer en Engleterre mes passa en Irlaunde. Et ledit priour ne voleit autre issue prendre mes siwy bref / de prendre son corps et taunt siwy que par sa contumacie fust utiaghe / par quele utlagherye Monseigneur Henry de Beaumond seisy son maner de Birthorpe que vaut .xl. livres par an auxi come chef seigneur et lad tenuz puys son tearre en desheritaunce ledit Roger dount il prie desicome nostre seigneur le Roi luy ad done sa chartre de pardoun et restituyt a sa pees / qil puysse aver restitucioun de sa tearre et ladeynte [l'atteint] sur lenqueste qui passa fausement encountre luy.

Dorse: Quant a la terre / sue a la commone lei.

Et quant al atteinte / soit declare par le grant conseille si leur entencion soit qe lestatut se ostent auxibien as enquestes devant prises come as enquestes qi sont a prendres.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF WORKS CITED CCR Calendar of the Close Rolls CFR Calendar of the Fine Rolls CIM Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (Chancery) CIPM Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and Other Analogous Documents CjfR Calendar of the Justiciary Rolls or Proceedings in the Court of the Justiciar of Ireland

121 CP G. E. Cockayne et al. (eds.). The Complete Peerage (London, 1910-59) CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls DNB Dictionary of National Biography FA Inquisitions and Assessments Relating to Feudal Aids; with Other Analogous Documents., A.D. 1284-1431, vol. 3: Kent-Norfolk P.R.O. Public Record Office, London PW The Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons...., 2 vots., ed. Francis Palgrave (London, 1827-34) V.C.H. Victoria County History

1 I am very grateful to Maureen Jurkowski for her grandson, who had presumably inherited the invaluable historical guidance, and to Mark Bulby manor when his father Thomas died, in Kilfoyle for his comments on an earlier draft of 1314 (Alfred Gibbons (ed.), Early Lincoln Wills this article. The research that led to this article (Lincoln, 1888), p. 9). was begun with the aid of a National Endowment Geoffrey Luttrell, however, did not own any for the Humanities Summer Stipend, and property in Bulby (see CIPM, vol. iii, p. 268, further supported by a grant from the Faculty and vol. viii, pp. 422-3, for the extent of his Research and Creative Activity Committee of lands). He might have been acting on behalf of the University of North Dakota. I would also his brother Guy, who lived and held property like to thank the staff of the Lincolnshire there (BL, Add. ch. 20653: grant of land in Archives Office, the University of London's Bulby by William Geye to Guy Luttrell, 1312). Institute of Historical Research, the Public 5 Janet Backhouse, The Luttrell Psalter (London, Record Office, and the British Library, par- 1989), p. 20. ticularly Michelle Brown and Michael Boggan 6 Michael Camille, 'Labouring for the Lord: The for their kindness in facilitating my request to Ploughman and the Social Order in the Luttrell view the Luttrell Psalter. Psalter', Art History, x (1987), pp. 423-54, esp. 2 P.R.O., C66/138, m. 23d, calendared in CPR p. 444. ^307-13^ P- 530- 7 Camille, Mirror., p. 57. 3 Eric George Millar, 'Introductory', The Luttrell 8 CPR 1307-13. P- 533 (P.R.O., C66/138, m. Psalter (London, 1932), pp. 1-61, esp. p. 3. 20d). 4 The manor of Bulby had descended from Gilbert 9 The succession of raids and counter-raids de Sancto Laudo to his son Adam, then to quickly becomes confusing. Here, to help, is a Adam's brother Ralph, then to Ralph's son compilation of information on these and related Thomas, and to Thomas's son Ralph {CPR events from the Calendar of Patent Rolls and the 1247-58, P-293; CFR 1272-1307, P-143; original Chancery patent rolls: CIPM, vol. ii, p. 423; FA, p. 148; CPR 1301-7, 27 July 1312: Commission of oyer and p. 130; CCR 1313-18, p. 420). The Ralph de terminer set up to investigate raid by Geoffrey Sancto Laudo who was raided in 1320 was, thus, Luttrell, Roger de Birthorpe, et al. on not the same as the Ralph who had a dispute over Sempringham Priory; goods taken worth £500; land with Geoffrey Luttrell's mother in 1298, as 'on the information of H. de Bello Monte Michael Camille assumes [Mirror in Parchment: [Henry de Beaumont]'. Justices: Lambert de The Luttrell Psalter and the Making of Medieval Thrikyngham, John de Neville, and William de England (Chicago, 1998), p. 57; the document Spanneby (P.R.O., C66/138, m. 23d; CPR concerning this dispute is BL, Add. ch. 20652, ^307-13^ P- 530)- not Add. MS. 20652, as stated by Camille (p. 358 7 Sept. 1312: Commission of oyer and n. 24)). The Ralph who had the dispute with terminer set up to investigate raid by Joan Luttrell died in 1308 {CFR 1307-ig, p. 24); Sempringham Priory on Roger de Birthorpe; the man who was raided was that Ralph's young goods taken worth £200; 'by fine of i mark, at

122 the instance of John Payne!'. Justices: Henry de 15 Ibid., p. 773; The Statutes of the Realm, vol. i Eyncourt, Henry le Scrope, and H. [Henry] de (London, 1810), p. 253 (1E3, c.6). Baiocis (P.R.O., C66/138, m. 2od; CPR 1307- 16 W. H. Aggs (ed.), Wharton's Law-Lexicon, nth edn. (London, 1911), p. 87. i3> P- 533)- 8 Feb. 1313: Edmund Deyncurt and H. 17 The inquisition of 17 June I3i4on Guy Gobaud establishes that he was the son and heir of John [Henry] le Scrope added to the commission and Margaret Gobaud {CIPM, vol. v, p. 267). investigating Geoffrey and Roger's raid on 'John son of John Gobaud', mentioned in the 27 Sempringham {CPR 1307-13, p. 598). July 1312 commission {CPR 1307-13, p. 530), is 17 May 1313: A certain John de Handlo is not otherwise attested but would most likely be awarded the fines due from John de Graveneye a younger brother of Guy. (one of Geoffrey and Roger's associates in the original raid on Sempringham), apparently as a 18 CPR 1307-13, p. 530; see n. 9. 19 The Sempringham Continuation, ed. and trans. result of John de Graveneye's conviction in that John Glover, in ''Le Livere de reis de Brittanie'' case; 'on the information of H. [Hugh] le and 'Le Livere de reis de Engletere\ ed. Glover, Despenser' {CPR 1307-13, p. 584). Rolls Series, xiii (London, 1865), pp. 322-55, 2 Jan. 1320: Commission set up to investigate esp. p. 330. raid by Geoffrey Luttrell et ai on the younger 20 Hugh le Despenser senior (1262-1326) was a Ralph de Sancto Laudo (see n. 4 above); goods strong supporter of Edward II through all the taken worth £$0 (P.R.O., C66/152, m. 25d; difficulties occasioned by Edward's patronage CPR 1317-21, p. 474)- of Piers Gaveston. Hugh le Despenser junior 10 Rose Graham, S. Gilbert of Sempringham and {c. 1285-1326), Hugh senior's son, was initially the Gilbertines (London, 1901), pp. 137-^, esp. p. a supporter of Edward and Gaveston's enemy, 137. See also Thorlac Turville-Petre, 'Pohtics Thomas of Lancaster. In 1313, the year after and Poetry in the Early Fourteenth Century: Gaveston was killed, Hugh junior 'was made the The Case of Robert Manning's Chronicle', king's chamberlain in the place of Gaveston, Review of English Studies, xxxix (1988), pp. 1-28, because the barons knew that Edward hated esp. pp. 20-2. him'. In 1318, however, he switched to Edward's 11 After 'discovering' this document myself, with side. From that point to their execution by the help of Maureen Jurkowski, I found it had Isabella and Mortimer in 1326, the two previously been discovered by Richard W. Despensers exercised enormous power in Kaeuper, ' Law and Order in Fourteenth- England {DNB, vol. v, pp. 864-5 (quote from p. Century England: The Evidence of Special 865); J. R. S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Commissions of Oyer and Terminer', Speculum, Pembroke 1307-1324 (Oxford, 1972), p. 12). liv (1979), pp. 734-84, esp. pp. 778 n. 199, 779 21 CPR 1307-13, P- 584- (and perhaps also by other, as yet undiscovered 22 Scott L. Waugh, 'For King, Country, and discoverers!). However, Kaeuper and those who Patron: The Despensers and Local Adminis- cite him (e.g., Nigel Saul, 'The Despensers and tration, 1321-1322', Journal of British Studies, the Downfall of Edward II', English Historical xxii/2 (1983), pp. 23-58, esp. pp. 25, 38; Saul, Review, xcix (1984), pp. 1-33, esp. p. 23) pp. 6-7. somewhat misinterpret the letter (see n. 78 23 CPR 1334-8, p. 464; see also Thomas Rymer below), and also fail, or did not care, to pick up and Robert Sanderson (eds.), Fcedera, Conven- the references to Geoffrey Luttrell. Meanwhile, tiones, Littera et cujuscunque generis Acta the art historians have apparently missed the Publica... (London, 1821), vol. ii, pt. 2, p. 976. reference in Kaeuper, so that there is some 24 DNB, vol. V, p. 865. point, I hope, in rediscovering this petition and 25 P.R.O., CP40/145, rots. 431, 438. introducing it into this new context. 26 John Wild, The History of Castle Bytham 12 For the original text, see the Appendix to this (Stamford, 1871), pp. 53-4; CIPM, vol. v, p. 84. article. 27 CIPM, vol. V, pp. 267-8; CFR 1307-Tg, p. 199. 13 Michael Prestwich, The Three Edwards (London, 28 A. Hughes (ed.). List of Sheriffs for England and 1980), pp. 98-9. Wales, from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1831 14 Kaeuper, p. 745. (1898; rpt. New York, 1963), p. 78.

123 29 CPR 1307-13, p. 533. There is no direct Jane Turner (ed.). The Dictionary of Art, vol. evidence about the source of the friction between xix (New York, 1996), p. 818); and Eric Millar Roger de Birthorpe and Sempringham Priory. to between 1335 and 1345 (pp. 3, 120). The priory owned a mill in Birthorpe, as well as 41 Millar, p. 28; Backhouse, p. 9; John Edwards, a chapel (Rose Graham, 'Religious Houses', 'The Other Wall-Paintings at South Newing- V.C.H., Lincoln, vol. ii (London, 1906), p. 181; ton', Oxoniensia, lvi (1991), pp. 103-10, esp. p. Brian Golding, Gilbert of Sempringham and the 103; John Edwards, 'The Cult of "St" Thomas Gilbertine Order, c. 1130-c. 1300 (Oxford, 1995), of Lancaster and Its Iconography', Yorkshire p. 276; Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Archaeological Journal, lxiv (1992), pp. 103-22, Church of Lincoln, vol. ii, ed. C. W. Foster, esp. p. 112. Camille {Mirror, p. 74) is willing Publications of the Lincoln Record Society, to accept the caption as contemporary with the xxviii (Hereford, 1933), p. 24; see also Liber Psalter's creation. antjquus de ordinationibus vicariarum tempore 42 Edwards, 'Cult', p. 112, citing Millar, p. 28. Hugonis Wells, Lincolntensts episcopi, I2og-i23$, 43 Cf Edwards, 'Cult', pp. 112-13. ed. Alfred Gibbons (Lincoln, 1888), p. 54). 44 Edwards, 'Cult', pp. n8-2i and pi. 5; E. W. Perhaps Roger owed the priory tithes or other Tristram, ' The Wall Paintings at South payments for the chapel or mill; or perhaps the Newington', The Burlington Magazine, Ixii priory owed Roger (or he thought it did) for (1933). PP- ii4-29> esp. pp. 123-4, 129, and pi. repairs or other services he had contributed to IV. See also E. W. Tristram, English Wall these buildings. As noted below, in 1301 Prior Painting of the Fourteenth Century (London, John of Camelton of Sempringham had begun a 1955)5 PP- 72-3> 228-9, ^nd pi. 18; Paul Binski, project to rebuild the priory church on a very 'Style and Date', in Christopher Norton, David ambitious scale. Funding, naturally, became a Park, and Binski, Dominican Painting in East continuous preoccupation (Rose Graham, Angha (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 57-81, esp. pp. ' Excavations on the Site of Sempringham 75-6- Priory', Journal of the British Archaeological 45 Tristram, English Wall Painting, pp. 71, 73; Association, 3rd ser., v (1940), pp. 73-101). It is E. T. Long, ' Mediaeval Wall Paintings in thus not surprising that Prior John would be Oxfordshire Churches', Oxoniensia, xxxvii vigorous in collecting payments due to him or in (1972), pp. 86-108, esp. p. 100; Binski, p. 75. fighting off claims from outside. 46 Sir John GifFard of Brimpsfield was executed in 30 cm, vol. ii, p. 457; CCR 1343-^. P- 201. Gloucester soon after the defeat at Borough- 31 Graham, S. Gilbert, p. 311. bridge {Brut, p. 224; A. R. J. Jurica, 'Rapsgate T^2 Graham, 'Excavations', pp. 87-90. Hundred Brimpsfield', in V.C.H., Gloucester, 2)2, Sempringham Continuation, p. 329; Graham, S. vol. vii (Oxford, 1981), pp. 140-9, esp. p. 143; '*' Gilbert, p. 141; Prestwich, pp. 84-5; T. F. George L. Haskins, 'Judicial Proceedings Tout, The Place of the Reign of Edward II in Against a Traitor After Boroughbridge, 1322', English History, 2d edn., rev. by Hilda Johnstone Speculum, xii (1937), pp. 509-11; see also (Manchester, 1936), pp. 88-9. Edwards, 'Cult', p. 120). Although he died 34 J. R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 1307- without an heir of his body {CFR 1327-37, 1322 (London, 1970), pp. 132-3. p. 52; CCR 1330-3. P- 33). he was presumably 35 DNB, vol. V, p. 864. a relation of the Giffard family of South 36 Backhouse, p. 17; CPR I2g2-i3oi, p. 354. Newington, who are identified as patrons of the 37 Golding, p. 273. wall-paintings by their shield, gules, three lions 38 Backhouse, p. 5. passant argent (Tristram, English Wall Painting, 39 CP, vol. vii, p. 390. pp. 71-3). Scholars differ as to which generation 40 Lucy Sandier dates the Psalter to between 1325 of Gifiards commissioned the paintings: John (d. and 1330 (Lucy Freeman Sandier, A Survey of 1369) and Lucy Mortayne; or their son Thomas Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, vol. (d. 1394) and his wife Margaret Mortayne-the 5: Gothic Manuscripts, 1285-1385, pt. 2: Cata- Mortayne shield also appears on the church's logue (London, 1986), p. 120); Janet Backhouse walls, along with donor-portraits of a husband and wife (Tristram, English Wall Painting, to c. 1334 (pp. 58, 60); Nigel Morgan to c. p. 71; A. Caiger-Smith, English Medieval Mural 1330-40 (Nigel J. Morgan, 'Luttrell Psalter', in 124 Paintings (Oxford, 1963), p. 93; Long, p. 100; Paul Binski (eds.). Age of Chivalry: Art in Binski, p. 75). Most favour Thomas and Plantagenet England 1200-1400 (London, 1987), Margaret, because of the emphasis on SS p. 223). The other is a book of hours, known as Thomas (Becket and Lancaster) and Margaret in the Sellers Hours, formerly in the collection of the paintings; but Paul Binski points out that Ruth and Lyle Sellers, now at the Baylor John and Lucy only married in 1344, while the University Medical Center Library, Dallas, paintings are generally dated between 1330 and Texas. This interesting manuscript opens with the early 1340s (Binski, p. 75; see also Tristram, an illustration of Thomas's execution (f. 3r) that English Wail Painting., p. 10). John and Lucy's shows his neck with no gashes at all. Dr Eric choice of the name Thomas for their son may be White, Curator of Special Collections at the further evidence of their interest in Lancaster. Bridwell Library, Southern Methodist Univer- E. W. Tristram hypothesized that a relic of sity, Dallas, has kindly informed me that the Lancaster had been deposited in the church's Sellers Hours is for Sarum Use, dates to about north aisle, where most of the fourteenth-century 1330, and appears to have been illuminated in painting is concentrated {English Wall Painting., or near St Omer (see Eleanor Greenhill's contri- p. 72). bution to Gothic and Renaissance Illuminated 47 Edwards, 'Cult', pp. 106, 112. Manuscripts from Texas Collections^ 23 April- 48 Tristram, 'South Newington', p. 123. 2j June igji (Austin: University of Texas, 49 The Brut., or The Chronicles of England., pt. i, 1971); and Greenhill, 'A Fourteenth-Century ed. Friedrich W. D. Brie, E.E.T.S., O.S., vol. Workshop of Manuscript Illuminators and Its cxxxi (London, i960), p. 223. The chronicles Localization', Zeitschrift fiir Kunstgeschichte., xl that did not go into detail about the decapitation (1977), pp. 6-8, esp. n. 29). From this limited were: Annales Paulini., The Bridlington Chron- sample one might conclude that the story was icle, the Middle English Brut., Capgrave's known only in England, or that it was known Chronicle., the Flores Historiarum, Geoffrey le only by people, such as the Giffards and Geoffrey Baker's Chrontcon, Grey's Scalachronica, Luttrell, who had had some personal connection Higden's Polychronicon, Knighton's Chronicon., with Lancaster. As noted below, Luttrell may Murimuth's Continuatio Chronicarum, the St actually have been present at Lancaster's ex- Albans Chronicle (Trokelowe), and even the ecution. short hagiography, Vita beati Thomae, comitis 52 Camille, Mirror, p. 73. Lancastriae et martyris (ed. Iohannis Gielemans, 53 Brut, p. 219. in Gielemans, Anecdota ex codicibus hagio- 54 Vtta, p. 124. graphicis (Brussels, 1895), pp. 92-100). 55 May McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, 1307- 50 Vita Edwardi Secundi, monachi cuiusdam mal- ijgg (Oxford, 1959), pp. 66-7. mesberiensis., ed. and trans. N. Denholm-Young 56 Vita, p. 126. (London, 1957), p. 126. 57 British Museum, Catalogue of Additions to the 51 For the cult of 'St' Thomas of Lancaster, see Manuscripts, ig26-ig3O (London, 1959), p. 199. Brut, pp. 228-30; CP, vol. vii, pp. 395-6 n. j; 58 The Priory of St John the Evangelist of Christopher Page, 'The Rhymed Office for St Pontefract was founded in 1090 by Robert de Thomas of Lancaster: Poetry, Politics, and Lacy. The prior at the time of Thomas's Liturgy in Fourteenth-Century England', Leeds execution was probably Simon de Castleford, Studies in English, xiv (1983), pp. 134-51; and who was apparently succeeded in August 1322 Edwards, 'Cult'. Edward III petitioned the by Stephen de Cherobles (J. SoUoway,' Priory of Pope three times to canonize Thomas (in 1327, Pontefract', in V.C.H., York, vol. iii (London, 1330, and 1331), but no action was ever taken 1913). PP- 184-6; CPR 1321-4, p. 197). {CP, vol. vii, p. 396 n. ]). 59 Brut, pp. 224., 229. The fact that only one chronicle records the 60 McKisack, p. 69. The text on these two pages of botched execution suggests that this gruesome the Psalter may or may not be meant to have detail was not widely known. Only two other some particular reference to Thomas of items depicting Thomas of Lancaster survive. Lancaster. It reproduces the Vulgate's Psalm 29, One, a pilgrim badge, is too roughly cast to show 'Psalmus cantici in dedicatione domus David' gashes (reproduced in Jonathan Alexander and (Psalm 30 in the King James Version, which

125 translates it as 'A Psalm and Song at the Henry de Lacy from at least 1305 to de Lacy's dedication of the house of David'). This was the death in 1311, and as one of his executors, Henry song sung at the rededication of the Temple in le Scrope must have known Thomas of Jerusalem, although the text is a very personal Lancaster, who was de Lacy's son-in-law and his celebration of recovery from serious illness. The successor as earl of Lincoln. In 1318-19 Henry lines immediately above the execution scene are le Scrope received a gift of furs from Thomas (as the Luttrell Psalter gives them) 'Conuertisti (Brigette Vale, *The Profits of the Law and the planctum meum in gaudium michi concidisti "Rise" of the Scropes', in Michael Hicks (ed.), saccum meum & circumdedisti me leticia' (verse Profit, Piety and the Professions in Later Medieval 12:' Thou hast turned for me my mourning into England (Gloucester, 1990), pp. 91-102, esp. joy: thou hast cut my sackcloth, and hast pp. 93-6). compassed me with gladness'). Obviously, 75 CCR 1333-7, P- 203; Graham, S. Gilbert, p. Thomas himself did not recover from decapi- 142. tation, but his followers' mourning must have 76 Kaeuper, p. 775. been somewhat alleviated by the subsequent 77 Rotuli Parliament or uni, vol. ii, p. 407. downfall of Edward II. 78 Kaeuper, p. 777. Kaeuper goes on to note that in 61 Backhouse, p. 49, fig. 59; Camille, Mirror, p. their heyday the two Despensers 'were probably 300, fig. 139. the masters in malicious prosecution through 62 Backhouse, p. 14; see also pp. 52-3, 56. oyer and terminer' (p. 778), interpreting Roger's 63 See n. 46 above. case as an example of Hugh senior grabbing a 64 CIPM, vol. vi, p. 247; CCR 1323-7, p. 25; H. manor for his 'friend Henry de Beaumont' (p. C. Darby and G. R. Versey (eds.), Domesday 779). Kaeuper seems unaware of the Patent Rolls Gazetteer (Cambridge, 1975), p. 147. See also evidence that places the commission in 1312, Backhouse, pp. 20-1. Backhouse notes that rather earlier than the period of the Despensers' Walter, Elizabeth's husband, had fought at ascendancy (1318-26) (Waugh, p. 25). The Boroughbridge in 1322 (presumably on the justices assigned to the commission on the king's side) and had died in 1323 - perhaps of a Sempringham raid (see n. 9 above) were not related wound. clients of the Despensers (cf Waugh, pp. 47-56), 65 CCR J333-7^ P- 603; CCR 1323-7^ P- 162; CCR but well-established royal justices of long service 132J-30, p. 104. In fact, in his lifetime, Geoffrey (see, e.g., CPR 1307-12, pp. 36, 37, 87, 167, 172, Luttrell had no other heir in the second 241, 254, 258, 462, 476, 521, 533, 537). generation than Elizabeth's son. Andrew did not Moreover, as noted above, Henry de Beaumont produce a child until 1364, by his second had strong local connections with Sempringham marriage and long after Geoffrey's death and seems to have acted on his own behalf both (Backhouse, p. 1^2). to support the priory and to acquire Roger's manor. 66 Camille, Mirror, p. 136. 67 English Wall Painting, p. 72; see n. 46 above. 79 P.R.O., KB27/217, rot. 8; see also KB27/216, South Newington lies slightly south of the line rot. 8od. between Irnham and Alveston. 80 CPR 1307-13^ P- 584- 68 Waugh, p. 51. 81 CPR 1307-13^ P- 598. 69 Camille, Mirror, pp. 93-4; CCR 1307-13, pp. 82 Francis Elrington Ball, A History of the County 160-1; quote from CPR 1307-13, p. 181. of Dublin, pt. 4 (Dublin, 1906), pp. 2-3. 70 CPR 1307-13^ P- 533; CP^ 1313-^^ P- 25. 83 CJR 1305-7^ PP- 219, 235, 312-13, 479; CyR 71 CP, vol. X, p. 320. 1308-14, pp. 45-6; CJR 1308-14, p. 218. 72 CPR 13^3-^7^ P- 25; CPR J2g2-i3oi, p. 354. 84 CPR i3n-2i. PP- 193, 524; CPR 1321-4, pp. 73 FA, pp. 164, 222, 236. 22, 113; Francis Elrington Ball, The Judges in 74 CPR 1313-17, p. 25; N. Harris Nicolas, Ireland, I22i-ig2i, vol. i (New York, 1927), p. 'History of the Family of Scrope', in The 64; H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles (eds.). Controversy Between Sir Richard Scrope and Sir The Administration of Ireland, 1172-1377 Robert Grosvenor in the Court of Chivalry, vol. ii, (Dublin, 1963), p. 83; CPR 1307-13^ P- 568. ed. Nicolas (London, 1832), pp. 1-161, esp. pp. 85 A case of 18 Nov. 1305 establishes that the Irish 11, 95, 104; Backhouse, p. 28. As an associate of Geoffrey's parents were Thomas and Ismania 126 Luttrell {CJR 1303-1307, p. 467), whereas wound in the process, and fought again in his those of the Lincolnshire Geoffrey were Robert retinue at Bannockburn (1314) (pp. xvi, xviii- and Joan (CP, vol. viii, pp. 286-7). xix). His son's chronicle records the heroic 86 CPR 1313-17. P- 455- exchanges of the two men (p. 141). Thomas also 87 Tout, pp. 85, 86 n. 2. served as manucaptor for Beaumont when he 88 J. R. S. Phillips, 'The Mission of John de was imprisoned in 1323 (p. xxi). He died around Hothum to Ireland, 1315-1316', in James Lydon 1343 (P- '^vii). (ed.), England and Ireland in the Later Middle Edward II's accounts for 1326, compiled in Ages (Blackrock, 1981), pp. 62-85, esp. p. 77. the last desperate months of his reign, record the 89 Phillips, 'Mission', pp. 62, 282. large award of 200 marks (about £133) to 90 James Lydon, 'The Years of Crisis, 1254-1315' Thomas de Grey. The money, says the book, and ' The Impact of the Bruce Invasion, 'was given at the instigation of Sir Hugh le 1315-27', in Art Cosgrove (ed.), A New History Despenser junior, who desired above all things of Ireland, vol. ii: Medieval Ireland, ii6g-iS34 that the said Sir Thomas remain with him for the (Oxford, 1987), pp. 179-204 and 275-302, esp. rest of his life' ('furent donez par procurement pp. 287-8; Phillips, 'Mission'; CPR 1313-17, monsieur Hughe le Despenser le fiutz qe desirast PP- 346-7- sur toute rien qe le dit mousieur Thomas 91 CPR 1313-n^ P- 347- demorast ouesque lui a terme de vie') (Soc. of 92 CP, vol. vii, pp. 218-21; Lydon, pp. 185-8. Antiquaries MS. 122, f 29r; cf. Saul, p. 7). 93 J. R. S. Phillips, 'Documents on the Early This record suggests that Thomas was also an Stages of the Bruce Invasion of Ireland, 1315- ally of the Despensers, although by 1326 Henry 1316', Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, de Beaumont was supporting Isabella and Ixxix C (1979), pp. 247-70, esp. pp. 251-2; Mortimer against Edward and the Despensers Phillips, 'Mission', p. 74; CP, vol. vii, p. 221. (Turville-Petre, p. 10). 94 CPR 1317-21, pp. 193, 524; CPR 1321-4, pp. 99 CIM, vol. ii, p. 457; CCR 1343-6^ p. 201; 22, 113, 420; CPR 1324-7, pp. 26, 198; CPR quotes from latter source. 1327-30, p. 188; Richardson and Sayles, pp. 100 CCR 1343-6, p. 321. 108, 156, 168. 101 CIPM, vol. V, pp. 267-8; CIPM, vol. vi, p. 95 DNB, vol. V, pp. 864-5; Graham, 'Religious 476; C. Moor (ed.). Knights of Edward /, vol. i Houses', p. 187. (Leeds, 1929), p. 223. 96 CPR 1327-30, p. 320. 102 CPR 1307-13, p. 492. 97 CPR 1330-4, p. 60. On 7 Dec. 1330, Roger was 103 PW, vol. i, div. 2, p. 719; P^, vol. ii, div. 3, pp. commissioned as justice to investigate a com- plaint of a raid by Prior John of Glinton, of 1127-8. Sempringham, on property in Eveden (ibid.). 104 PW, vol. ii, div. 3, p. 1128. Perhaps sensitive to the irony, Roger had 105 Maddicott, pp. 307-9. withdrawn from the commission by 30 Jan. 1331 106 PW, vol. ii, div. 2, App., p. 179. (ibid., p. 126). 107 PW, vol. ii, div. 3, p. 1420. 98 This is probably the Sir Thomas de Grey who 108 Maddicott, pp. 310-11. was the father of Thomas de Grey of Heton, 109 Previous scholars have noted the 1322 summons author of the Anglo-French prose chronicle to Geoffrey, but have missed its connection to known as the Scalachronica. Although the Lancaster. The writs issued between 7 and 18 editor's introduction to that text associates the Feb. 1322 are more explicit. That to the Master family primarily with Northumberland, of the Gilbertines, for example - issued 11 Feb. mentioning no holdings in Lincolnshire (J. and ordering him to muster his soldiers at Stevenson, 'Introduction', to Sir Thomas Gray Coventry by 28 Feb. - mentions both the of Heton, Scalachronica, Maitland Club, vol. xl 'Scottish enemies and rebels' and 'certain (Edinburgh, 1836), pp. i-xxxviii, esp. pp. xv- magnates...[who are] besieging our castle of xxvii). Sir Thomas had done Beaumont good Tickhill with an armed force' ('Scoti inimici et service and would have been a likely candidate rebelles'; 'quidam Magnates... Castrum nos- for his largesse. Thomas saved Beaumont's life at trum de Tykhull armata potencia obsedentes') Stirling Bridge (1304), suffering a near-fatal {PW, vol. ii, div. 2, pp. 549-50; Maddicott, p.

127 307). It is not immediately clear why Geoffrey newly appointed Chancellor (ibid.; see also was not also ordered to the big muster at Brut, p. 225). Coventry. However, the fact that those sum- 111 J. S. Critchley,' The Early History of the Writ moned on 25 Feb. were all Lincolnshire men, of Judicial Protection', Bulletin of the Institute and that the writ simultaneously requested of Historical Research, xlv (1972), pp. 196-213, them to 'assist the Sheriff of Lincoln in the esp. p. 212. conservancy of the peace' {PW, vol. ii, div. 3, p. 112 Maureen Jurkowski, personal communication, 1128; div. I, p. 280), suggests that Edward may 15 Sept. 1999. have wanted them in place to control any local 113 CPR 1321-4, p. 89. Yet another person on the disruption caused by adherents of Lancaster list is ' Master William de Baiocis, parson of the (who was, as noted above, Earl of Lincoln), church of Burton by Lincoln'. no CPR 1321-4, p. 89. The writs were issued 'on 114 Backhouse, p. 29. the information of R. [Robert] de Baldok', the 115 Millar, p. 55.

128