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 



