A HISTORY OF YORKSHIRE 



was to admonish the dissentient nuns named, 

 that they and all others must accept Joan de 

 Pykering as prioress from the date of her nomi- 

 nation, and reverently obey her. The lay folk 

 were to cease their opposition, under pain of the 

 greater excommunication. One of the latter, 

 who is not mentioned in the letter, Nicholas de 

 Rippinghall, was dealt with a little later by the 

 archbishop, who imposed the following penance. 

 On the second Sunday in Lent he was to go 

 bareheaded to the cathedral church of York, 

 clad in a tunic only, holding a taper of a pound 

 weight and after the procession was to go before 

 the high altar, and humbly oiFer the lighted taper 

 and receive a discipline there from the arch- 

 bishop's penitentiary. The following Sunday 

 he was to do the same in Kirkby Moorside 

 Church and, after the Gospel, offer the taper and 

 receive a discipline there from the vicar or parish 

 clerk, and on the next two Sundays he was to 

 do much the same in the conventual church of 

 Keldholme." 



On 3 September the archbishop issued a 

 mandate to the official of Cleveland, stating that 

 at the visitation of Keldholme he had found the 

 four nuns, Isabella de Langctoft, Mary de Holm, 

 Joan de Roseles and Anabilla de Lokton, in- 

 corrigible rebels. Within eight days Isabella 

 was to be sent to Handale, Mary within fifteen 

 days to Swine, Joan within three weeks to 

 Nun Appleton, and Anabilla within a month to 

 VVallingwells, there to perform the penances 

 imposed upon them." The stern action of the 

 archbishop had, however, little effect, and on 

 I February following, the archbishop addressed 

 a letter to the sub-prioress and convent, com- 

 manding them that they one and ail, without 

 delay, should direct a letter under their com- 

 mon seal, to the lady Joan Wake, lady of 

 Liddell, stating that they had admitted Joan 

 de Pykering unanimously as their prioress, and 

 intended to obey her in all things as such, and 

 asking the lady Joan Wake to direct that the 

 said prioress should have possession of the tem- 

 poralities and free administration in the same."' 



On 5 February the archbishop issued another 

 commission to correct the crimes and excesses 

 revealed at a visitation of Keldholme and 

 described in an annexed schedule, which schedule 

 has not been copied into the Register." Very 

 shortly afterwards (17 February) he directed the 

 same commissioners to inquire whether Joan 

 de Pykering desired, for a good reason, of her 

 own free will to resign, and if they found that 

 she did, they were to enjoin the sub-prioress and 

 convent to proceed to the canonical election of 

 a new prioress.'^ This was followed by the 

 election, on 7 March, of Emma de Stapelton as 



" York Archiepis. Reg. Greenfield, fol. ixb 

 "Ibid. fol. 92/5. "Ibid. fol. Q.^. 



"Ibid. >»Ibid. ^' 



fol. 95^. 



prioress for the second time,*" and on the same- 

 date an order was sent to Keldholme, forbidding 

 the sale of corrodies, or granting leases of the- 

 convent's property for long periods, and directing 

 that each year the accounts of the house were 

 to be made up within the octave of All Saints." 

 On 6 March the archbishop wrote to Esholt,** 

 ordering the prioress and convent of that house 

 to receive Emma de Newcastle, nun professed at 

 Keldholme, who had been found guilty, at the 

 recent visitation, of conduct contrary to the 

 honesty of her rule. She was to go to Esholt 

 for a time, and there perform the penance 

 assigned her. She was to be last in quire, clois- 

 ter, refectory and dormitory. A similar letter 

 was sent at the same time to Nunkeeling^' 

 respecting Maud Bigot, another nun of Keld- 

 holme, who was temporarily transferred to that 

 house, under like conditions. 



After this, if silence in the Registers may be 

 accepted as a sign of improvement, the troubles 

 which had distracted the little nunnery for a 

 time, at least, came to an end. On 7 April 1 3 10 

 the archbishop committed the custody of the 

 temporalities of the nuns of Keldholme to 

 Richard del Clay, vicar of Lastingham.'^ On 

 Monday after the feast of St. Margaret 13 14 the 

 nunnery was again visited, and the archbishop 

 issued a number of injunctions to the nuns.^' Many 

 of them are the ordinary exhortations to the due 

 observance of the rule, which almost assume 

 a common form in these decrees, but a few had 

 special reference to the condition of the house. 

 The necessary repairs were to be carried out, 

 specially as regarded the roofs, as soon as could 

 be. Secular finery and singularity of dress was 

 to be avoided by the nuns, nor were they to 

 wear anything but such as befitted religion. 

 No nun or other person belonging to the house 

 was to take away books, ornaments or other 

 things belonging to the church, without the 

 express consent of the prioress and convent. 

 The prioress was strictly enjoined that puppies 

 [caniculos) were excluded from entering quire, 

 cloister, and other places, and nuns who offended 

 in regard to this were to be punished. 



Trouble again manifested itself, and on 

 27 October 1315^* the archbishop directed 

 Richard del Clay, the custos of the monastery, 

 to proceed at once to Keldholme, and summon 

 before him in chapter Emma de Ebor' (who it 

 will be remembered had been prioress for a short 

 time in 1308) and Mary de Holm, who, like 

 daughters of perdition, were disobedient and 

 rebels against their prioress. Having read the 



^Ibid. " Ibid. fol. 96. "Ibid. 



" This is remarkable, as Nunkeeling was a Benedic- 

 tine house, and it was not the custom to send members 

 of one order to houses of another order to undergo 

 penances. 



" York Archiepis. Reg. Greenfield, fol. 99^. 



"Ibid. fol. 1 01^. "Ibid. fol. 108. 



168 



