Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/362

 A HISTORY OF NORFOLK dormitory ; that the offices were not properly distributed, Father Denys holding the offices of commoner, almoner, infirmarer, and pittancer, and being at the same time master of St. Paul's Hospital ; that the altar warden does not sleep in the church, to its jeopardy, and contrary to ancient custom ; that the sacrist deals prodigally with his funds, and goes outside the monastery at night, sitting an unnecessary time with the tailor and his wife, and that the tailor and his wife both lived within the precincts ; that certain jewels given to the high altar by the lady of Blakeney had been alienated by the sacrist ; that the attendance in the infirmary was poor, that Denys was using one of the gardens, planted with saffron, for his own purposes ; that the pensions of the chantries of Hardingham, Wakering and Tye had not been paid ; that laymen sat at table with the monks ; that monks sat and walked within the church and its enclosures, and talked too much with women of doubtful character ; that there was not sufficient fire for the monks in winter ; that the gates and doors of the monastery were not shut at night ; and that there were no monks studying at Oxford. The bishop's injunctions to the priory, based on this comprehensive report, were not dis- patched until 27 April, 1493. They dealt at length with the various evils, and ordered that two monks and two novices should be sent to Gloucester College, Oxford. The visitation was then adjourned until November ; as there is no entry of that date, the bishop must have been satisfied at that period as to the observance of injunction. There were forty-five members pre- sent at the visitation, in addition to the prior.^ Bishop Nicke visited the priory in April, 1 5 1 4. William Repps, D.D., the sacrist, preached a Latin sermon in the chapter-house from the text Expurgate vetus fermentum. The prior did not appear, and made no excuse for his absence. The examination of the various mem- bers of the chapter, as briefly recorded in the register, shows grave complaints. The prior had evidently grievously relaxed the discipline of the house. The sub-prior was denounced by some as a profligate, the buildings were dilapidated, there was no regular schoolmaster, the number of the monks had fallen to thirty-five, women went in and out at pleasure, the seri'ices were con- ducted in a slovenly manner, and sheep fed in the cloister garth. Comperta were drawn up by the bishop's officials based on the evidence, and injunctions were issued, the visitation being kept open to see their observance.^ By the time of the next visitation, in 1520, there had been a great improvement ; the prior answered to his name and produced his accounts. The evil sub-prior and two others against whom ' Jessopp, Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich (Camd. See), 1-8. ' Ibid. 72-9. there had been grave charges no longer appear on the roll. The obedientiaries were unanimous in returning omnia bene, save that the chamber- lain complained that sheep still grazed in the cloister garth. The bishop's consequent injunc- tions were of the briefest character, and were confined to a prohibition of the sheep grazing and a direction that the monks and novices should proceed in an orderly way, two and two, when going from dormitory to quire.' The next visitation was in 1526, wher» Bishop Nicke's influence in the diocese was greatly on the wane. The visitation was con- ducted by the bishop's official, and the prior was absent. Dr. William Repps, the sub-prior, who subsequently became bishop of Norwich, was obviously a lax ruler. Full reports of the visita- tion, with its subsequent comperta and injunc- tions are set forth. As Dr. Jessopp remarks, there were evidently two parties in the monastery, and it is difficult to attempt to unravel the tangle of complaints and counter complaints, and sometimes of evident slander and gross exaggera- tion, which were not accepted by the visitor. Thomas Sail, the third prior, endeavoured to keep the novices in order, but the prior and sub- prior excused them their penances. Though the house was disorderly Dr. Jessopp's opinion that the serious charges broke down, and that the smaller matters were of little moment, is evi- dently correct.* The last visitation was held in 1532, by which time Prior Catton had become abbot of St. Albans, Dr. Repps abbot of St. Benet's Holm, and William Castleton, late abbot of Wymondham, had been elected prior of Nor- wich. The visitation was of a very thorough character. The outcome is that the house was in a somewhat lax condition, there was much dissension, no learning, and but little serious- ness ; 'but of any gross vices we hear not one single word.' * The poor opinion formed by Dr. Jessopp of the general character of this priory as indicated by these several visitations must be held to be correct by every student of monastic times ; its condition during the last half-century of its life was distinctly below that of our other great Benedictine houses : — The priory had nothing to boast of in its history. It was not set down in the wilderness. It had no half fabulous past to look back upon. No saint had come forth from it ; no mart)'r or hero had ever shed the lustre of his name upon its ann.-ils ; only one really eminent man with more than a local reputation had been educated within its walls. From first to last it had been a singularly useless institution as compared with any other great English monastery with equal resources. As to the char.icter of the inmates prior to the days of Bishop Goldwell, the extant episcopal registers at Norwich are silent. Ibid. Ibid. 192-4. 262—70. Ibid. 196-206. 326