11. THE ABBEY OF THAME
'The abbey of Thame was founded 22 July,
1138,' according to the Annals of Waverley, (fn. 1)
but the words probably mean that on that day
was founded the abbey, which ultimately was
settled at Thame, for the monastery was first
built at Otteley in the parish of Oddington. (fn. 2)
The founder was Robert Gait, or Gai, or Geyt,
or le Gai (for his name had these and many
other forms), who granted five virgates in
Oddington and built an abbey (construxit ibi
abbatiam), having obtained from the abbot of
Waverley a promise to furnish monks for a
monastery. (fn. 3) One of the first of the charters is
dated 'on the day on which the convent came
to Otteley,' (fn. 3) the day no doubt being 22 July,
1138. But it is evident that the abbey spoken
of was nothing more than a temporary residence,
for a charter of the son of the founder releases
the monks from their obligation 'to build an
abbey,' as the site was unsuitable; while the
grandson, reverting to the language of the
original charter, permits that 'the abbey should
be a grange.' (fn. 4) The permanent buildings and
the abbey church were erected on land given by
Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, three carucates in
extent, (fn. 5) being his park of Thame, so that henceforth the abbey was called 'sancte Marie de
Parco Thame,' and was reckoned to be of the
bishop's foundation. The change cannot have
been later than 1140, as the park was confirmed
to the monks by Pope Innocent in March,
1141, (fn. 6) and a probable date is autumn, 1139,
when Alexander and Roger his uncle, either
voluntarily or by compulsion, divested themselves
of much of their wealth. Other early benefactors were the knights that held fees under the
bishop of Lincoln within the hundred of Thame,
who gave largely of their lands in Morton, Tetsworth and Attington; and before 1146, William,
son of Otho, brother of Everard the first abbot,
gave seven hides in Sibdon, Buckinghamshire.
King Stephen also gave them land at Worth
near Faringdon, but Henry II, on his accession,
deprived them of it, as having been given by his
enemies, (fn. 7) though he recompensed them with a
grant of land at Wyfold, Oxon. (fn. 8) Popes
Eugenius and Alexander granted them privileges
such as that no one might interdict their
monastery from divine service, but that even if
excommunicated they might say the office with
closed doors. They had also the regular privilege of the Cistercian order, that they need pay
no tithes on land which they tilled themselves.
This naturally was much resented by rectors and
by monasteries which owned tithe, and many
attempts were made to evade it, so that Pope
Alexander had to write in defence of Thame
more than once, and point out that the privilege
did not merely mean that tithes were not to be
paid by the monastery on newly enclosed land,
but that the monks need not pay on any land
that they cultivated. (fn. 9) The natural result was
that Cistercians became large farmers, not from
love of agriculture, but because their land was
worth nearly 20 per cent. more if they kept it
in their own hands. Already in 1179, as a papal
confirmation tells us, they had four granges in
Oxfordshire, at Wyfold, Otteley, Stoke Talmage,
and Chesterton; and two in Bucks, at Saunderton
and Sibdon; and they had obtained from the king
the concession that their horses and goods need
pay no toll at Hastings, Dover or Southampton
on the one coast, and Dieppe, Barfleur and
Oistreham on the other. Henry III renewed
this privilege, (fn. 10) and granted in 1224 that the
ship of the abbot of Thame might carry abroad
a cargo of wool. (fn. 11)
Of the internal history of a Cistercian house
it is difficult to learn anything. They were not
subject to episcopal visitation, nor had the bishop
the power of examining into the election of an
abbot. We cannot, therefore, tell the numbers
at Thame, but we know from the Chartulary
that there were lay-brothers (conversi) as in
other Cistercian houses, and one of them is
specially mentioned by William of Newburgh
as being of such sanctity that he was supposed
to have the gift of prophecy, and foretold
in 1167 that there would never be a bishop
of Lincoln again. (fn. 12)
In 1291 the income of the abbey was returned at £116, none of it coming from tithe.
The first church they obtained was Chalgrove,
granted to them by Edward II in 1317 to
maintain six monks to pray for the souls of the
king's ancestors and of Peter de Gaveston, earl
of Cornwall. (fn. 13) Two years later the bishop
granted that, as the abbey was loaded with debt,
partly from bad seasons, partly from the duty
of hospitality, partly from the murrain of sheep,
partly from the heavy subventions imposed by
those in power, it might appropriate the church,
and he ordained a vicarage. (fn. 14) His arrangements,
however, did not prove satisfactory, for in 1392
the pope wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury
that the vicar of Chalgrove had sent a petition,
saying that his vicarage was insufficient, that the
monks of Thame had extorted an oath from
him that he would not try to increase his portion,
although their portion was worth £40 a year;
'He fears them greatly and with reason, and
cannot meet them with safety in the city or the
diocese;' the archbishop, therefore, was to
summon the abbot of Thame, to release the
vicar from his oath, and increase his vicarage if
it be insufficient. (fn. 15)
The abbey obtained a second church in 1398,
when the pope gave them permission to appropriate the church of Stoke Talmage. (fn. 16) There
was also a chapel at Latchford, in Haseley, built
in 1300 by the rector of Haseley; (fn. 17) when this
afterwards came into the hands of the abbot of
Thame with the obligation of supplying a monk
to perform the service, the men of Latchford
complained to Parliament that he embezzled the
charters and allowed the chapel to fall to pieces. (fn. 18)
During the course of the fourteenth century the
abbey was allowed to acquire certain lands in
mortmain, the chief of which was the neighbouring manor of Towersey. (fn. 19)
In 1525 Bishop Longland sent to the abbot of
Waverley, who at the time held the post of
visitor of the Cistercians in England, a list
of articles against the abbot and monks of
Thame. (fn. 20) It is evident that during a visit to his
manor of Thame he had heard the common
talk of the doings of the monks, and, as the
founder or patron of the monastery, he could
demand that a visitation should be made. The
accusations were as follows: that the monastery
was full of idle boys, who had no business there,
to the infamy of the house; that the buildings
were in ruins; that the debts were immense, but
nevertheless much money was spent on feasts;
that the abbot lived in great style; that he produced no accounts; that he and his monks were
ignorant and did not know their rule; that the
monks were allowed to engage in archery with
lay people and to have elaborate feasts at taverns;
that after visitations there were no corrections, so
that the neighbours said that the visitations were
of no use. The prior was charged with idleness; he gave no instruction in rules and ceremonies, and through his fault there was neither
study, nor silence, nor seriousness. Two of the
monks were accused of incontinence. In consequence, the abbot of Waverley held a visitation
in February, 1525, and remitted to the bishop
the answers that had been made to his accusations, and the injunctions which had been promulgated. He was evidently intent on shielding
his own order, and implied that he was satisfied
with the replies of the abbot of Thame. The
bishop was far from satisfied, and in his letter,
which was copied into his register, he pointed
out that the abbot had contradicted himself in
several of his answers; that he had admitted
that he was guilty of vice (the crimen pessimum which figures largely in the reports of
Cromwell's visitors); that his answers were,
to say the least, insincere, and where he had
to confess that the articles were true, there
was no punishment awarded. The letter ends
as follows:—
Though the abbot is ignorant and useless, he is
not removed; though religion has been violated it is
not restored. The possessions of the house, once so
ample, will shortly be all dissipated, unless a remedy
is quickly applied. . . . The crimes of the abbot and
brethren are notorious, and cannot be concealed or
obscured by any devices; yet they remain unpunished.
Injunctions are made, but they are only commemorations of old rules, and much less perfect. Seeing,
therefore, that I am the founder of the house, I
cannot allow this monastery, famous of old for men
of holiness, probity, and religion, endowed with
adequate possessions, set up that sanctity of life, the
monastic rule and the service of God should be for
ever observed there, should totter to ruin under an
evil shepherd, and with an irreligious flock. Therefore, holy Father, let it be your care, and that
speedily and without subterfuge, that whatever is
needful according to the rule and constitutions of the
fathers for a worthy reformation be introduced; else
of a surety without your aid we ourselves will think of
a remedy, and if you are determined to break the
rules of the holy fathers to such an extent that this
monastery cannot be renovated with monks of the
Cistercian rule, we shall apply its possessions to some
use more acceptable to God.
The register also contains the list of jewels and
furniture of the monastery that was shown to the
visitor drawn up by John Warren, the abbot;
the debts of the house he declared to be only
£74; but, even without the testimony of the
bishop, it would be clear from the abbot's bombastic and evasive answers to the articles of the
visitor, that he was not a man of accuracy or
truth.
In 1529, when the abbot died, the bishop, as
patron of the abbey, wrote to Cardinal Wolsey
that there was no one in the monastery fit for
the office, and the house was greatly in debt;
he asked that the abbot of Waverley, visitor
of the Cistercians, should be urged to appoint
Robert King, abbot of Bruern, otherwise the
house would be undone. (fn. 21) This suggestion was
accepted, and Dr. King, who was already suffragan of Lincoln, became abbot of Thame, and, in
December, 1537, abbot commendatory of Oseney.
In 1526 the gross income was £203, net £141; (fn. 22)
in 1535 the more exact valuation raised the
net income to £256. In November, 1539, the
house was surrendered to the king by the abbot
and twelve monks. (fn. 23)
Abbots of Thame
Everard, 1138 (fn. 24)
Serlo, 1148
William of Ford, 1184 (fn. 25)
Simon, 1205
Lawrence, 1225 (fn. 26)
Robert de Tett[esworth], 1232
Hillary, 1243
Roger de Marcham, 1252
Richard Bartone, 1259 (fn. 27)
Roger Houttone, 1283
William Strattone, 1302 (fn. 28)
John de Thame, 1316 (fn. 29)
William Steyning, 1349 (fn. 30)
John de Esingdon, 1355 (fn. 30)
Richard de Wath', 1361 (fn. 30)
Henry Towersey, (fn. 31) occurs 1393, (fn. 32) and 1401 (fn. 33)
John, occurs May, 1407 (fn. 34) and 1434 (fn. 35)
John Blackthorn, died 1457 (fn. 36)
Richard Syndesey, elected 1457 (fn. 36)
William Hode, elected 1464 (fn. 37)
Augustine, elected 1472, (fn. 38) occurs 1478 (fn. 39)
John, occurs 1495 (fn. 40) and 1507 (fn. 41)
John Warren, occurs 1509 (fn. 42) and 1525 (fn. 43)
Robert King, elected 1529, (fn. 44) surrendered 1539
The British Museum has a cast from a
poor impression of the thirteenth-century seal.
Pointed oval: the Virgin, with crown, standing
in a canopied niche, the Child on the right
arm, in the left hand a sceptre. On each
side a smaller canopied niche, containing a
saint, full length. In base, a destroyed subject. (fn. 45)
Legend:—
. . . MVNE : . . . MARIE : DE : TAME . . .
The private seal of the abbots of Thame in
use by Abbot William in 1200, (fn. 46) and Abbot
Robert in 1283, (fn. 47) is a small pointed oval with a
half-length figure of an abbot, wearing a (?) cowl;
a pastoral staff in the right hand, the left hand
resting on the breast. Legend:—
SIGILLVM ABBATIS DE TAMA
There is also a small circular counter-seal (fn. 48) of
this abbey, representing an arm vested coming
from the right, and in the hand a pastoral staff.
Legend:—
[CON]TRA SIGILL[VM ABBA]THIE DE THAME