Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The present article originated out of an attempt to re-edit the letters of Gilbert Foliot, whose career as abbot of Gloucester, bishop of Hereford, and bishop of London covered nearly half of the twelfth century (1139-87). The edition by J. A. Giles is thoroughly unsatisfactory: the text is un-trustworthy, there is no index, and no attempt has been made to date the letters or to arrange them in any coherent order. Nothing could be done at present about the text, since the necessary manuscripts could not be consulted; but it was possible to make an index and with its assistance to arrange the letters in some sort of order and assign to them approximate dates. The chief clues for dating are naturally the names of persons, usually ecclesiastics, mentioned in the letters, but it soon became evident that the only lists available of these ecclesiastics (other than bishops) are for the most part entirely unreliable, and that a complete revision of these lists is a necessary preliminary to any attempt at precise dating, not only of these letters, but also of twelfth-century documents in general. In the thirteenth century, when Patent and Close Rolls begin, there is more positive information, and still more when episcopal registers become available. Before that time, documents were rarely dated, and appointments and deaths of minor officials were not important enough to receive much notice from chroniclers. It is for this early period, when references have to be collected from a number of scattered sources and exact dates are rare, that revision is most needed, and to it we are confining our investigation.
1 The dates of their deaths agree exactly with those given by Stubbs, or are only different by a day or two. The greatest discrepancy is in the case of Hugh Foliot—26 July in Stubbs, 7 August in the obit roll (i.e. 7 id. Aug. instead of 7 kal. Aug.).
1 A more modern work, F. T. Havergal, Fasti Herefordienses, published at Edinburgh in 1869, also gives lists of all the Hereford cathedral dignitaries. For the period with which we are concerned the author has been content merely to copy, without due acknowledgement, the names and dates given by Duffus Hardy.
3 These documents are not numbered. Our references will always be to the documents in which a name appears, and we shall quote each document by the page on which it begins; if there are more documents than one on a page, they will be distinguished as a, b, c, etc. We shall refer to this collection as Capes.
4 In one charter of Henry II (p. 19b) the list of witnesses is headed by two bishops followed by ‘Theobaldo Cantuariensi’, who is indexed under archbishops of Canterbury, though his name does not head the list and ‘archiepiscopo’ is missing. The obvious guess is that it is a mistake for ‘Thoma cancellario’, and this is borne out by the fact that the charter also occurs in Bishop Cantilupe's Register (p. 96), where ‘Thoma Cantuariensi’ is the reading.
5 Browne Willis seems to be the authority he followed; cf. p. 35, n. 1.
6 Cf. English Historical Review XLVIII, pp. 250–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where Mr H. G. Richardson mentions another document of Guala, dated 17 November 1218, at Reading.
7 A few more Hereford charters were discovered by Canon A. T. Bannister in a British Museum manuscript containing a partial transcript of a Hereford cartulary. He has published a calendar of its contents in ‘A Lost Cartulary of Hereford Cathedral’ (Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, 1914-1917, pp. 268–77).Google Scholar There are some early charters, most of which are in Capes, whose dating Canon Bannister accepts without question. Of the remainder only two contain the names of Hereford dignitaries. The first (p. 275) is a recognition of Bishop R. and is witnessed by Ralph, archdeacon of Hereford; he dates it 1163-95, though even Robert Foliot was dead by 1186. The outside dates for it are 1179-86. The second (p. 276) is a grant by William Devereux of the church of Putley to Ralph, dean of Hereford. This, for some obscure reason, he dates 1258-65, when there was no Dean Ralph, ignoring another charter dated by himself and Capes 1174-88 (probably 1180-4), in which Ralph Murdac confirms the grant of William Devereux, ‘predecessor meus’. The dean must be the Ralph who was dean under Robert de Bethune and Gilbert Foliot; one of the witnesses, Ranulf fitzErchemar, was canon under the same two bishops. Ranulf left a son to inherit his property, and it looks as if he was not yet a canon when he witnessed this document; in that case its date might be c. 1140.
7a Capes, p. 11b.
8 Ibid. p. 24b.
9 Ibid. p. 32.
10 In the case of Hugh of Mapenore the obit roll gives 16 April as the date of death, in Hugh Foliot's case 7 August; otherwise it agrees exactly.
11 Anglia Sacra, II, p. 312. The author, a monk at Llanthony when Robert de Bethune was prior, accompanied the bishop to Hereford for his enthronement. Later he himself became prior, but owing to his devotion to the bishop was subsequently ejected by Roger, earl of Hereford. His close connexion with the bishop gave him every opportunity to know the facts, but the little he does tell us has to be judged in the light of his manifest partisanship. If his order of events could be trusted, the Ralph incident preceded the death of Henry I; but his narrative is not consecutive.
12 A bull of Innocent II (Capes, p. 6; Holtzmann, Papsturkunden, II, no. 15) speaks of a visit of the bishop to the Pope, but this must have been an earlier visit. The bull is dated ao December at Pisa, and so falls within the years 1133–6 (Holtzmann dates it 1134–5). It is addressed to the clergy and people of Hereford, and contains an injunction to them to be obedient to their bishop; but there is no suggestion that they had been disobedient nor of a deposed dean.
13 Epp. 2, 81. Ep. 81 is placed among his letters as bishop of Hereford, but it has no proper address, and the heading is obviously a later addition. Foliot's wording is vague, but suggests lay rather than episcopal violence.
14 Gilb. Foliot, ep. 123, and Hist, et cart. num. Glos. (Rolls), III, 237, where it is wrongly dated 1163; Roger de Port's charter (ibid, III, 257) gives the correct date.
15 Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France, no. 1142.
16 Capes, pp. 10 a, b.
17 Capes, pp. 13, 16a; Gilb. Fol. ep. 186 (this, according to its address, was written by Gilbert as bishop of London, but the list of witnesses shows that it belongs to bis Hereford period).
18 Hist, et cart. mon. Glos. II, 106.
19 Hist, et cart. mon. Glos. I, 252 and III, 6; Bishop Cantilupe's Register p. 49.
20 Capes, pp. 16b, 17a.
21 Ibid. p. 18b.
22 Ibid. p. 23; Reg. S. Osmund (Rolls), I, p. 253.
23 Capes, pp. 24a, 26b.
24 , Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, XI, pp. 298–9Google Scholar; ‘Cart. S. Joh. de Brecon’ in Arch. Cambr. 4th series, XIV, p. 19Google Scholar.
25 Capes, p. 24a.
25a Ibid. pp. 21b, 22b, 25b, 26a.
26 Ibid. p. 31b; Holtzmann, Papsturkunden, II, no. 226.
27 Capes, p. 33b.
28 Capes, p. 37a; Cart. Oseney, ed. Salter. v, p. 110 (dated 1191). Another document in which he appears (Capes, p. 33a) has no clue for closer dating.
29 Curia Regis Rolls, I, p. 342.
30 Capes, p. 42b.
31 Ibid. pp. 38b, 40b.
32 He gives as his reference ‘Fin. levat. A. 5. John. R.’ In Curia Regis Rolls, IV, p. 23, there does appear in 1205 Hugo decanus de Hereford; this may be Rawlinson's source. The Hugo is obviously Hugh of Mapenore, but the editor of the Curia Regis Rolls, misled by Hardy, has indexed him as Hugh de Braose.
33 Capes, p. 40a. This probably belongs to the beginning of Giles's episcopate and therefore might be dated c. 1202.
34 Capes, p. 40b. Again probably an early charter of the bishop.
35 Gir. Cambr. (Rolls), in, p. 321. Willis found this reference in Gerald of Wales, but it was one of the few things Hardy failed to copy from Willis, so that the first date he gives for Hugh of Mapenore is 1207.
36 Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1216-25, p. 11.
37 Reg. bishop Swinfield, p. 30; the dates of this and the accompanying inspeximus by the legate Guala have already been discussed.
38 Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France, no. 1142.
39 Capes, pp. 10a, 15.
40 Ibid. p. 13.
41 Ibid. p. 16a.
42 Gir. Cambr. (Rolls), I, p. 270.
43 Capes, pp. 25b, 21a.
44 He witnessed a document of uncertain date (Capes, p. 37b), which may possibly belong to the last year of Robert Foliot's episcopate.
45 Capes, p. 37a.
46 Gir. Cambr. III, p. 321.
47 Hist, et cart. mon. Glos. II, p. 58.
48 Capes, p. 40a, b.
49 Ibid. p. 43.
50 Thus William precentor attests a recognition of Hugh of Mapenore (Reg. bishop Sviinfield, p. 30), a document of 1219-24 (Capes, p. 48a; the mention of Hugh Foliot as bishop fixes the first date; the attestation of Bishop Reiner of St Asaph, who died in 1224, fixes the second), and'one or two documents of uncertain date (e.g. Capes, pp. 45 b, 46 b) which cannot be much, if at all, earlier than 1216.
51 The Medieval Latin Word List (ed. Baxter and Johnson) gives the first date for cantor c. 1150, for precentor 1187. But cantor can be found as early as the new chapter organization, e.g. at Salisbury in 1091 (cf. Reg. S. Osmund, I, p. 214). Precentor occurs in Lincoln at least as early as 1147 (cf. Salter, H. E. in E.H.R. XXXV, pp. 212–14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 E.g. Capes, pp. 64a, 67b. In the latter document the presence of the actual precentor may be noted.
53 Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France, no. 1142.
54 Cf. Capes, p. 57.
55 Ibid. p. 13.
56 Ibid. p. 16a; Gilb. Fol. ep. 186.
57 E.g. Capes, pp. 16b, 17a.
58 , Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, XI, pp. 208–9Google Scholar; ‘Cart. S. Joh. de Brecon’ in Arch. Cambr. 4th series, XIV, p. 19Google Scholar.
59 Capes, p. 37b. Capes notes that this William was unknown before.
60 Ibid. p. 43.
61 Reg. bishop Swinfield, p. 30.
62 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1225-32, p. 394.
63 Capes, pp. 23, 33b.
64 Cf. Capes, p. 37b (temp. William Foliot, precentor).
65 Ibid. p. 39a (1201-3).
66 Miss Gibbs, Early Charters of St Paul's Cathedral, p. xxxii, notes that in 1183 a Master Ralph witnesses after the magister scholarum of London as theologus.
67 Capes, pp. 36b, 37a; the first of these is probably an early charter of the bishop.
68 Ibid. p. 38b.
69 Ibid. pp. 40a, 43.
70 Reg. bishop Swinfield, p. 30.
71 Capes, p. 45b. The two canons who attest witnessed a number of later documents, one at least being not earlier than 1234 (Capes, p. 76a).
72 Unfortunately, Horoy in his edition of Honorius's letters omits this letter altogether, and Pressutti and Potthast, who include it in their calendars of Honorius's letters, do not mention the proctors. So we are left with conjecture.
73 Capes, p. 77.
74 Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France, no. 1138.
75 Transcribed by Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, III, pp. 232-3. Eyton believed William to be archdeacon of Shropshire, since it was the Shropshire part of the Hereford diocese that was affected. He takes for granted that there was an archdeacon of Shropshire at this time, which is most unlikely.
76 John of Worcester, ed. J. R. H. Weaver, p. 15.
77 MSS. Egerton, 3031, f. 93b and Cotton. Vesp. E. xxv, f. 120b. We owe these references to transcripts kindly lent to us by Professor F. M. Stenton.
78 Antiquities of Shropshire, I, p. 207.
79 E.g. Gilb. Fol. ep. 186; Capes, pp. 13, 16, 17a.
80 Capes, p. 23.
81 Ibid. p. 22b.
82 This error has been the cause of much later confusion; it frequently led Canon Capes astray, and must have misled Stubbs into ascribing Ralph's promotion to Gilbert Foliot. Le Neve was responsible (his successors faithfully copying his mistake), and his c. 1163, it appears, was a misprint for c. 1173! For his authority is ‘Lib. S. Joh. de Brecon, MS. f. 51’, and he gives the same authority when he dates the treasurer Ivo ‘temp. Geoffrey dean c. 1173’. He had already dated Geoffrey in 1173, correctly quoting the Register of St Osmund as evidence. The document to which he refers is doubtless the one which is to be found in the’ Cartulary of St John of Brecon’ printed in Arch. Cambr., 4th series, XIV, p. 19; in it Geoffrey, Ivo, and Ralph appear together as witnesses. What this document does prove is that Geoffrey and Ivo lasted on to the time of Ralph, i.e. at least till 1179.
The mistake about Walter has led Eyton in his Antiquities of Shropshire into a series of blunders, which is most unfortunate in a work so distinguished for its learning and accuracy. He started with the belief that Walter was archdeacon first of Hereford and then of Shropshire. As Peter and Walter frequently attested Gilbert Foliot's charters as archdeacons, he assumed that Peter was archdeacon of Shropshire, and, as Peter attested before Walter, he assumed that the Shropshire archdeaconry was then taking precedence over the Hereford; also that Peter was dead by 1155 (Eyton, op. cit. XI, p. 208).
83 Sarum Charters (Rolls), no. 48.
84 Ancient Charters (ed. J. H. Round in Pipe Roll Society, vol. x), no. 46. This was at London, where there seems to have been quite a family gathering of the Foliots, three of London and two of Hereford being present.
85 Hist. MSS. Commission Report, Wells, I, p. 21.Google Scholar For the date, see Robinson, J. Armitage, Somerset Historical Essays, p. 114.Google Scholar Besides this, he attested three charters of Henry II which cannot be later than 1182 (, Delisle and , Berger, Recueil des actes de Henri II, II, pp. 186, 187, 216)Google Scholar.
86 E.g. Capes, pp. 20, 21a, 22a.
87 Ibid. p. 34b.
88 Probably his absence accounts for the appearance of a vice-archdeacon, William of Stoke, as witness to a charter of Bishop William de Vere (MS. Egerton, 3031, f. 56b, a reference which we owe to Professor Stenton). William of Stoke witnessed a number of charters as canon in Robert Foliot's episcopate (e.g. Capes, pp. 21a, 25a; Round, Cal. doc...in France, no. 416).
89 M. Gibbs, Early Charters of St Paul's, no. 57.
90 Feet of Fines in Pipe Roll Society, vol. XXIII, no. 106.
91 Gir. Cambr. (Rolls), I. p. 306.
92 His successor appears as witness to a charter of King John on 4 June 1200 (Reg. S. Osmund, I, p. 212).
93 Here, not for the first time, Le Neve (who dates William 1200-21 and believes his name to have been FitzWalter) is a more reliable guide than his modern editor.
94 Capes, p. 43.
95 As is well known, Archdeacons were given territorial administration, usually taking their titles from counties (or county towns). As Shropshire was divided between two dioceses, there was an archdeacon of Salop for the Chester-Lichfield diocese as well as for the Hereford diocese. This has given rise to some confusion: for instance, in the old lists Hugh Foliot, archdeacon of Shropshire (Hereford), is also wrongly included in the Lichfield archdeaconry; the editor of the Curia Regis Rolls, vol. I, has accordingly indexed him under ‘Shrewsbury, archdeacon of.’
96 Capes, p. 10a.
97 Probably considerably earlier. He attested a charter in which Earl Roger of Hereford (ob. 1155) was concerned (Egerton MS. 3031, f. 45b), and another which mentions Abbot Edward of Reading (ibid. f. 56) and is therefore probably earlier than 1155. These manuscript references we owe to Professor Stenton.
98 23 Henry II, p. 56.
99 P.R. 32 Henry II, p. 30.
100 Capes, p. 23.
101 Ibid. p. 25b.
103 E.g. Capes, pp. 34b, 46b; Curia Regis Rolls, I, p. 209; Egerton MS. 3031, ff. 97b, 100b (again derived from Professor Stenton).
