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: 25 March 2011
The earliest extant Canterbury register is an artifact of the scribes and notaries, clerici and magistri working within the household of Archbishop John Pecham (1279-92). Of the numerous members of Pecham's familia, John of Bologna, trained in the Italian notarial arts and the cursus, was of great influence in this regard. He accompanied the new scholar-archbishop who left Rome in June 1279 to take up the most important and exacting ecclesiastical office in England. After Pecham's day, as C. R. Cheney has amply demonstrated, the use of notaries public in English episcopal chanceries was commonplace: the example of the archbishop's employment of notaries, no doubt encouraged and guided by John of Bologna, must be seen as a prime cause of this. Appropriately, John's Summa Notarie, a manual for fledgling notaries in England — ‘where they are unacquainted with the notarial art’ — was dedicated to Pecham. The conceptualisation, composition and even custody of Pecham's register must be seen within this framework. The subsequent rationalisation and retention of Canterbury records of all kinds including registers, though not exclusively attributable to John of Bologna and Pecham's notaries, was probably strongly influenced by them. For this reason, all that can be learned about Pecham's register and record-keeping among his staff is of significance — certainly to historians of what Robert Brentano has called ‘the written Church’.
I would like to express my thanks to the staff of Lambeth Palace Library for their assistance, and to D. M. Smith, Director of the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, University of York, Professor Michael Curley of the University of Puget Sound (Washington) and Professor and Mrs C. R. Cheney for their helpful suggestions and encouragement. Research for this study was supported by a travel grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and a Faculty Research Grant from Georgia Southern College.
1 Cheney, C. R., Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, Oxford 1972, ch. iiiGoogle Scholar , ‘Early English notaries public’, esp. at pp. 26-8; see also p. 49. For John of Bologna (‘ipsam tamen artem tabellionatus ignorant…’) , Rockinger, L., Briefsteller und Formularbucher des xi. bis xiv. Jahr. Munich 1863, 601Google Scholar.
2 Martin, C. T. (ed.), Regislrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, Archiepiscopi Cant uariensis (Rolls Series lxxvii a, b, c, 1882-1885)Google Scholar hereinaftercited as RS 77a, RS 77b, RS 77c) ; Davis, F., Douie, D. et al. (eds), The Register of John Pecham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1279-1282) (Canterbury and York Society lxiv, lxv, 1908, 1969)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as C & Y 64, C & Y 65). Rosalind Hill explains the sixty-year hiatus in publication, C & Y 64, intro., vii-viii.
3 Douie, D., ‘Archbishop Pecham's Register’, Studies in Church History 1 (1964), 173–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar , suggests that rebinding may have been responsible for the ‘loss’ of entries for Pecham's later years. She notes that the present binding is a sixteenth-century one, though, in her introduction to the Canterbury and York edition (C & Y 65), she remarks (p. ix) that the ‘present binding is seventeenth century’.
4 An excellent beginning was made by Claude Jenkins, who examined a few quaternions of Pecham's register with great care, ‘Some thirteenth century registers’, Church Quarterly Review, xcix (1924), 69–115Google Scholar , esp. at pp. 76-86.
5 In Cheney, C. R., English Bishops' Chanceries, 1100-1250, Manchester 1950, 135Google Scholar , the author noted a reference in 1281 to some of Pecham's acts being recorded in a register of Beccles, the notary public, in addition to those entered in the archbishop's own register. Cheney also queried ‘whether this notarial register, though it might constitute an authentic record, formed part of the official archives’. For Cheney's judicious and still rather tentative statements on English notarial registers generally, see Notaries Public, 99-100. The Vatican MS confirms Cheney's suggestions; it also makes it clear that Beccles recorded much more than memoranda of notarial acts in his registrum. Jenkins noticed the same passage in Pecham's register — which, he says, provides ‘rather puzzling’ information, concluding that’ this entry proves the existence of a Day Book, though of a more formal kind, as early as the Thirteenth century’, ‘Thirteenth century registers’, 91.
6 The register (hereinafter cited as Lambeth, Reg. Pecham) was examined in December 1985 and December 1986. The parchment folios are, on average, about 220 mm x 330 mm. The book itself is about 70 mm in thickness, 20 mm of which is taken up by the bindings. Using the first quaternion as a guide (and its format is followed through most of the register), the margins vary from about 23 to 35 mm (right) and from about 30 to 40 mm (left); top and bottom margins are generally 30 mm and 50 mm, respectively. There is a flyleaf, followed by 248 folios (and four unnumbered slips), though foliated in a post-medieval hand up to 249. There are no indications of medieval foliation. When the foliation was done, as C. T. Martin noted at the end of the last century, the number 214 was inadvertently omitted. Characteristics of ink, hand and data entered on the two facing folios (213V, 2i5r), which are both hair sides, is consistent with an error in numbering, rather than the removal of what was once ‘fo. 214’. An index, which seems to be in the same hand as the foliation, begins on 249V and is continued on a sheet pasted to the back binding.
The writing area delimited by the inscribed margins averages 158 mm x 253 mm and, though the size of the writing varies, this area contains about 44 lines. Occasionally (e.g. fo. 4V) there are rulings as well as inscribed margins, but this is the exception. The parchment itself is of variable quality and thickness, and small tags affixed to the outer edges of certain folios served to indicate material of particular importance or utility; some of the tags still bear notations. The register has lost other labels, indicated by threads sewn into the outer edges of various folios.
7 In an appendix to the third volume of his edition for the Rolls Series, Martin indicated very briefly what the various quaternions contained and the order in which they were bound into the register, RS 77c, appendix II, 997-1081. Jenkins pointed out the shortcomings of this appendix in ‘Thirteenth century registers’, 71.
8 The caveat pronounced by R. M. Haines should be acknowledged: the gatherings are not always limited to specific types of data, and the word itself (quaternus) may refer either to a quire made up of specific folios or to divisions of subject matter. ‘The two’, Haines adds, ‘seldom coincided’, The Administration of the Diocese of Worcester in the first half of the Fourteenth Century, London 1965, 5, 7Google Scholar n. This may well have been true of Worcester registers, but is not noticeable in Pecham's register until some of the later quaternions, e.g. quat. ‘cc’ ends with a letter that continues on the first folio of quat. ‘dd’; quat. ‘ee’ ends with material which continues and is concluded on the first folio of quat. ‘ff’; see n. 14 below.
9 An obvious anomaly is found in the very first gathering (‘a’), which concerns temporalities. Whereas fos ir-vjr contain notices about Pecham's temporalities, those on fo. 4.V refer to his successor, Winchelsey's, temporalities. The notations on 4V seem to have been entered in perhaps three different hands and at least four ink tones on different occasions between 1302 and June 1308. They begin, in other words, before Winchelsey's exile and end after his return to England (in March 1308). The last reference to Winchelsey's temporalities, dated early 1311, is on fo. 5r (fos 5V-8V are blank, with the exception of ‘Frater Johannes’ in large letters on 8v). It is puzzling that these notices should have been added to Pecham's, and not to Winchelsey's, register, which, in its present state, is far more extensive than Pecham's: Graham, Rose (ed.), Registrum Roberti Winchelsey (Canterbury and York Society li, lii, 1952, 1956)Google Scholar . Certainly there are other entries predating 1302 in Winchelsey's register. Perhaps it was felt that, since these matters pertained to the see of Canterbury and not to its incumbent, such notices should be kept in one place. DuBoulay passes over these entries in Pecham's register without comment, DuBoulay, F. R. H., ‘The archbishop as territorial magnate’, Medieval Records of the Archbishops of Canterbury, London 1962, 68Google Scholar . In any event, this suggests the still-experimental nature of Canterbury registration around 1300.
10 The first entries made in the gatherings set up by the two scribes are as follows: 13 May 1279 (‘c’, fo. 9); 11 June 1279 (‘g’, fo. 7b); 7 July 1279 fd’, fo. 56) for one scribe, and 2 June 1279 (‘b’, fo. 48); to June 1279 (‘a’ fo 48)> 17 June 1279 (‘x’, fo. 156) and 9 July 1279 fe’, fo. 21) for the second scribe. Obviously, alphabetical sequence in signatures is not closely linked to chronological sequence. The first entries in the third scribe's gatherings span a broader period, 4 February 1283 to 27 January 1285. Jenkins dealt in detail with the set-up of the quaternions in Pecham's register, ‘Thirteenth century registers’, 76-86. At p. 76 he referred to ‘Pecham's scribe or scribes’ — we now see that the latter term is the proper one.
11 Often another scribe wrote the titles on later folios within a gathering.
12 The hands and inks of these catchwords are dissimilar, and there is little evident correlation between the ink and hand of a given catchword and the first entries of the quaternion to which it refers.
13 , Jenkins, op. cit. 86Google Scholar n. 1, rightly claimed that it would not be easy to unravel the three, or possibly four, systems of quaternion organisation in Pecham's register. Though we have attempted to accomplish this, Jenkins's further remark, that none of the Pecham systems appears to be complete, is illustrated in the following case. It would seem reasonable to assume that the (more extensive) enumeration was added, all at once, after the catchwords — to ‘finalise’ the arrangement, perhaps. Yet the catchword offo. 55V is ‘quat”, and the enumeration (but not text) of the indicated gathering is ‘Quaternus Septimus’. This would suggest that, in this case, the enumeration preceded the catchword, though all other catchwords refer to the first word of the following text, not title.
14 For instance, although gathering ‘dd ’ in Lambeth, Reg. Pecham is titled ‘Litterae communes’, in addition it contains Pecham's ordinances for Wingham (also found on fo. 32r of the register). 11 may be appropriate here to note that a published conjectural reading of ‘episcopatibus’ at the top of fo. 20gr (C & Y 65. 232), as a look at similar entries on fos 21 iv and 217r suggests, is probably ‘opinionibus’. The heading is also wrongly cited in the C & Y edition as appearing on fo. 208v; it is on 209r.
15 Finucane, R. C., ‘TheCantilupe-Pechamcontroversy’, in Jancey, M. (ed.), Thomas Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford: essays in his honour, Hereford 1982, 103–23.Google Scholar
16 Vatican MS Cod. Lat. 4016 (hereinafter cited as Vat. MS), fo. gor. The Latin contractions, abbreviations and suspensions of the MS have been extended, except where it is helpful to retain the original form. On fo. gor, Adam is called rector of the church of what looks like ‘Gatton’; on fo. 1 igr (= fo. 16 of the ‘Extract’ summing up the commissioners’ findings), he is called Adam ‘de Achun’, rector of the church of ‘Caxston’, a custos of the archiepiscopal registers, along with Henry of Derby, also noted on fo. 90r.
17 Vat. MS, fo. 90v.
18 On Vat. MS, fo. 91r, for instance.
19 Vat. MS, fos 89r-90r.
20 Churchill, Irene, Canterbury Administration: the administrative machinery of the archbishopric of Canterbury illustrated from original records, London 1933, i. 484Google Scholar , 49m; ii. 211, 242.
21 Vat. MS, fo. 90r.
22 Vat. MS, fos 44r, 45V; see Sayers, Jane E., ‘The medieval care and custody of the archbishop of Canterbury's archives’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research xxxix (1966), 95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar , esp. at pp. 102-6.
23 Vat. MS, fo. 90r
24 Churchill, Irene J., ‘Table of Canterbury archbishopric charters’, Camden Miscellany 15 (Camden Society, 3rd ser. xli, 1929), p. vii.Google Scholar
25 , Sayers, ‘Canterbury archives’, 105.Google Scholar
26 , Churchill, op. cit. p. viii.Google Scholar
27 Tout, T. F., ‘The household of the chancery and its disintegration’, Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. Davis, H. W. C., Oxford 1927, repr. New York 1967, 46-85, at p. 49.Google Scholar
29 Hill, Rosalind M. T. (ed.), The Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sutton, 1280-1299 (Lincoln Record Society xlviii, 1954), iii. intro., p. liiiGoogle Scholar and n. ; Douie, Decima, Archbishop Pecham, Oxford 1952, 189–90Google Scholar.
30 , DuBoulay, ‘The archbishop as territorial magnate’, 60.Google Scholar
31 Vat. MS, fos 90v-ir.
32 Denton, Jeffrey H., Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, Cambridge 1980, 240–2Google Scholar ; cf. Lunt, W. E., Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, New York 1965, i. 207–13Google Scholar , 232- 8 an d ii. 52; on Carlisle, W. E. Lunt, ‘William Testa an d the parliament of Carlisle’, EHR xli (1926), 332–57Google Scholar.
33 Vat. MS, fo. 91r.
34 , Churchill, Canterbury Administration, i. 10Google Scholar , 562n, 569; ii. 242; he became Winchelsey's auditor of causes and one of the prelate's clerici commensales.
35 Vat. MS, fo. gor. Upto n is said to have examined registers of both the court and archbishop of Canterbury, which in this context excludes Pecham's register. This raises the interesting possibility that he was referring to archiepiscopal registers antedating Pecham's —for whose existence there is (otherwise) insufficient evidence: Smith, D. M., Guide to Bishops' Registers of England and Wales, London 1981, 1Google Scholar . On the other hand, the MS reading is registra archiepiscopi; see below n. 38.
36 In York vacancies, the registers seem to have been turned over to the dean and chapter as keepers of spiritualities, but this was not the case in the southern province, at least in the Winchelsey suspension: Longley, Katharine M., ‘Towards a history of archive-keeping in the Church of York: I, The archbishop's muniments,’ Borthwick Institute Bulletin, i. (1976), 59-74, at p. 61Google Scholar.
37 Vat. MS, fo. 97V.
38 Vat. MS, fo. 88v, where Testa says he is going to Canterbury to search through the registra archiepiscopalia to see whether there is aliquidin eis pertinent to the present business; fo. 90r.
39 Vat. MS, fo. 91r.
40 For these entries in printed editions, see C & Y 64. 1, and RS 77a. xlii, 77c. 997.
41 Vat. MS, fo. gir.
42 Lambeth Reg. Pecham, fo. ir.
43 RS 77 a. 271-3; Vat. MS, fo. 91r-v.
44 RS 77 a. 272; Lambeth Reg. Pecham, fo. 76V.
45 RS 77 a. 290; Vat. MS, fos 91V-2V.
46 Lambeth Reg. Pecham, fos 77v-8r.
47 RS 77a. 300; Vat. MS, fo. 92r.
48 RS 77a. 299-300; Vat. MS, fo. 92r-v.
49 Vat. MS, fo. 92V. Annunc. dating = 1282.
50 C & Y 65. 53-4; Vat. MS, to. 92V.
51 Vat. MS, fo. 93r.
52 The added folio (145V) is Pecham's statement of 25 April 1282, answering his suffragans' complaints about his official, see RS 77a. 334-7 = Vat. MS, fos 97V-8V. On the issues see , Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 206–8Google Scholar ; and Powicke, F. M., The Thirteenth Century, 2nd edn, Oxford 1962, 480–92Google Scholar . A later hand in Pecham's register noted that the addition would have been better placed next tofo. 102. While the notaries of 1307 had this gathering open they also copied, from fo. I48r (Vat. MS, fos gSv-gr), Pecham's letter of 23 July 1282 to his proctor at the curia, concerning Cantilupe's appeal = RS 77 a. 382-3.
53 RS 77a. 269-72; Vat. MS, fo. 93r.
54 C & Y 65. 142-3; Va t MS, fo. 93r-v.
55 For Russell, see , Churchill, Canterbury Administration, i. 454Google Scholar , where he is called ‘clericus ad Registrum in Consistorio curie nostre Cantuariensis’ under Winchelsey; see alsoii. 241. Other documents from the court of Arches were also transcribed, which the writer hopes to publish in due course.
56 Pecham's successor inherited his register, as is evident in the entries concerning Winchelsey's temporalities (see above n. 9).
57 Vat. MS, fos 51 v-2r.
58 See Tamba, Giorgio, ‘Lo statuto della societa dei notai di Bologna dell' anno 1288’, in Notariato medievale bolognese, Rome 1977, 275Google Scholar : the thirty-ninth statute required notaries ‘ipsas rogationes suas omni cura et summa diligentia custodire et salvare’. The transition from private to public archives is neatly summed up by Oswald Redlich in Die Privaturkunden des Mittelalters, 1911, repr. Munich 1967, 220Google Scholar . Family custody in England might, on occasion, result in female kin's (‘tarn clerici quam laici utriusque sexus’) retaining possession of protocols and registers — even of the court of Canterbury, around 1310. Churchill commented about this case that ‘reference to feminine interference is curious’; but perhaps, as the Beccles evidence suggests, not so curious after all: Canterbury Administration, i. 454, n. 4.
59 Vat MS, fo. 52r: ‘ubi dictus dominus archiepiscopus fuerat singulis diebus cuiuslibet anni et quid fecerat ibi’.
60 Printed in C & Y 64. xi-xii.
61 Vat. MS, fos 52r-3v.
62 Or practically nothing: in a brief mention towards the close of this part of the 1307 hearing, the commissioners' notaries stated that certain material (the 1282 gravamina passage) was to be found on the fourth folio of Beccles's itinerary (Vat. MS, fo. 97v); but when first encountered (Vat. MS, fo. 52v), they claimed to have found it on the fifth folio. Either way, it does not disturb the present generalisations about content and chronology of the itinerary.
63 Vat. MS, fo. 52V.
64 RS 77a. 278-9.
65 RS 77a. 300 = Lambeth Pecham Reg., fo. 77V.
66 Vat. MS, fo. 521-V.
67 C & Y 65. 60, 176; , Churchill, Canterbury Administration, i. 237–8.Google Scholar
68 There seems to be little evidence of what actually went on during Pecham's visitations; see , Churchill, Canterbury Administration, i. 295–7Google Scholar . The Vatican MS account of this Hereford visitation is the subject of a study soon to be published by Dr Patrick Daly.
69 Vat MS, fo. 52V. The thema is from James i. 27, an epistle eminently suited to humbling the proud - including fractious Hereford canons.
70 Vat. MS, fo. 53V, printed in RS 77 b. 484-6 = Lambeth Pecham Reg., fo. 73r. The excommunication, undated in the RS edition, can now be dated to 16 October 1282.
71 RS 77 b. 421, 478, 484-6; C & Y 65. 177; National Register of Archives, Calendar of Earlier Hereford Cathedral Muniments, ii (1955), 562.Google Scholar
72 Vat. MS, fo. 53V for 5 December; C & Y 65. 181, RS 77a. 430-1 for 7 December.
73 Vat. MS, fo. 53V.
74 Vat. MS, fo. 49V.
75 Vat. MS, fo. 12V.
76 Some of Cantilupe's letters, etc. (not in his own register) copied into Swinfield's Register: Capes, W. (ed.), Regislrum Ricardi de Swinfield, episcopi Herefordensis, A.D. 1283-1317 (Canterbury and York Society vi, 1909), 41–3Google Scholar . For Cantilupe's register, see Smith, David M., ‘Thomas Cantilupe's register: the administration of the diocese of Hereford, 1272-1282’, in , Jancey, St Thomas Cantilupe, 83–101Google Scholar.
77 RS 77a. 309: ‘Qui (Cantilupe) tune post latam in eum sententiam [of 7 February at Lambeth] per suum procuratorem [i.e. Wich] appellavit in scriptis.’
78 The appeal surfaces once again in the Vatican MS, when the records of Cantilupe's notary, Hildebrand, were brought before the commission by Hildebrand's son, who — like Beccles's son and brother-in-law — had preserved the documents for more than twenty-five years (Vat. MS, fos 40V, 43V). Among ten pieces of parchment examined on this occasion, one of them contained Hildebrand's copy of the appeal on the flesh side, and his endorsement ‘For the lord bishop of Hereford, and Master R(obert) his Official, concerning several matters’. The notaries of 1307 merely referred back to the copy from Cantilupe's register for the content of this appeal. This is unfortunate: as it was probably Hildebrand who drafted the appeal, his version would have confirmed the other readings. On Hildebrand, see Cheney, C. R., ‘Notaries public in Italy and England in the Late Middle Ages’, Studi Senesi xcii (3rd ser. xxix, 1980), 173–88Google Scholar . Hildebrand and John of Beccles are treated in Finucane, R., ‘Two notaries and their records in England, 1282-1307’, Journal of Medieval History xiii (1987), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79 Vat. MS, fo. 55V; C & Y 65. 40-1.
80 Vat. MS, fos 55v-6r.
81 Vat. MS, fos 60r, 61v.
82 It was edited by Cheney, C. R., Notaries Public, 166–7Google Scholar and plate 2. Cheney's edition of the c. 22.1 x 21-cm document can be emended by reference to Vat. MS, fos 55v-6r and 61v.
83 This suggests that the preceding material actually began at the start of fo. 2r, which the notaries had first written but then lined out.
84 Vat. MS, fo. 56r.
85 The itinerary description occurs on Vat. MS, fo. 53r.
86 Vat. MS, fo. 56r-v.
87 Vat. MS, fo. 561-; the scribe of 1307 had trouble with his Roman numerals at this point, but consoled himself with a superscript, ‘etc ‘
88 Vat. MS, fos 56V-8V.
89 Vat. MS, fos 52V-3r for itinerary, fos 56V-7V for register numbe r two.
90 Vat. MS, fos 53r, 57r.
91 Vat. MS, fos 53r-v and 57V-8V for itinerary and register, respectively. Unfortunately, the general excommunication mentioned above (n. 65) was not set out fully in Beccles's second register: he contented himself with writing that Pecham ‘monuit in genere et excommunicavit in scriptis omnes huiusmodi visitationem metropolitanum seu quavis iurisdictionem aliam ad ipsum pertinentem sede Herefordense vacante impedientes’.
92 Vat. MS, fo. 53r.
93 Vat. MS, fos 72v-3r.
94 Edwards, K. (ed.), The Registers of Roger Martival, Bishop of Salisbury 1315-1330, iv (Canterbury and York Society lxviii, 1975), xxiiiGoogle Scholar ; for Beccles's custody of documents, , Jenkins, ‘Thirteenth century registers’, 91–2Google Scholar.
85 Vat. MS, fo. 145V. On the often-debated issue of duplicate registers, see, e.g. Hill, R. M. T. (ed.), The Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sulton, 1280-1293, iii (Lincoln Record Society xlviii, 1954), xxviiGoogle Scholar ; and , Smith, Bishops' Registers, xiGoogle Scholar . As Smith suggests, one must define ‘duplicate’ carefully. It is clear that Pecham's register is not a duplicate — in the mirror-image sense — of Beccles's, but the latter's records were undoubtedly among the sources for the archbishop's book; see, e.g. C & Y 65. viii. There are similarities between Beccles's handwriting and some of the entries in Lambeth Reg. Pecham, but the possibility of identity requires further examination. It is known that, in other instances, cited e.g. by Hill in vol. i of Sutlon Rolls and Register (Lincoln Record Society xxxix, 1948), xvii–xviiiGoogle Scholar , notaries themselves (in this case, John de Schalby, in a register begun in 1290) entered material into episcopal registers. A fourteenth-century example in , Haines, Administration of the Diocese of Worcester, 134–6Google Scholar ; for the fifteenth century, see Storey, R. L. (ed.), The Register of Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham, 1406-1437, i (Surtees Society clxiv, 1956), xxvi–xxviiGoogle Scholar.
96 It was not unusual for a curial agent to work for several clients, though in this case no one could have foreseen the violent hostility that quickly grew up between Canterbury and Hereford.
97 , Cheney, Notaries Public, 27, 29Google Scholar ; , Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 43, 49Google Scholar.
98 On the other hand, there is no way to know when he actually composed the quaternion labelled ‘1278’. Some of the earliest material in Pecham's register antedates the prelate's arrival in England, for instance Abbeville, 26 May 1279 = RS 77a. 7-8; see also the earlier entries in Cheney's Itinerary, C & Y 64. ix.
99 Hill, R., ‘Bishop Sutton and his archives: a study in the keeping of records in the thirteenth century’, this Journal ii (1951), 43–53Google Scholar , at pp. 46, 51. (Hill also discussed duplicate registers, 48-9.) One must now question the opinion expressed by Decima Douie, that Beccles was ‘a colourless figure in comparison with John de Scalby’, C & Y 65. x.
100 , Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 54.Google Scholar
101 , Douie, Archbishop Pecham, 322–3Google Scholar ; Knowles, M. D., ‘Some aspects of the career of Archbishop Pecham’, EHR lvii (1942), 178–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar at p. 199. John of Bologna returned to Italy, it seems, as early as 1282 : , Cheney, Notaries Public, 31–2Google Scholar.
102 , Cheney, Notaries Public, 30.Google Scholar
