English Episcopal Acta, 45

Hitherto, Brian Kemp has edited charters of the twelfth- and thirteenth-century bishops of Salisbury for the English Episcopal Acta series: now he turns his attention to the diocese of Bath and Wells in the first half of the thirteenth century. This was the period in which the bishops of Bath finally recognised that they would not be able to take over Glastonbury as one of their see-churches. Jocelin of Wells continued to use Glastonbury as part of his title until 1219, but then dropped this claim and instead tried to build up the status of the church of Wells, partly through increasing its endowments and partly through trying to give Wells equal status with Bath cathedral priory in the election of new bishops (no. 138). Jocelin himself was unable to add ‘Wells’ to his title, but his successor, Master Roger of Salisbury, quite often did so. This volume contains just over 210 charters and covers two pontificates, those of Jocelin and of Roger. Though the two had enjoyed not wholly dissimilar previous careers (both had been cathedral canons), Jocelin had wider experience both as a royal clerk and through association with his brother Hugh of Wells, bishop of Lincoln, while Roger, a theologian, had a quieter profile and more limited contacts. The main difference, however, lay in the lengths of their pontificates. Jocelin was bishop for just over thirty-six years, Roger for merely three. Accordingly, roughly 180 charters survive from Jocelin’s time in office, but just over thirty from the time of his successor. Across both pontificates, unsurprisingly, most charters concern parish churches and tithes; this is normal in collections of episcopal acta, but the proportion seems to be even higher here, especially under Jocelin. The editor notes Jocelin’s anxiety that vicarages should be properly endowed and his care for endowing churches when he dedicated them. Even more striking is that over a quarter of the charters in the volume relate to Wells cathedral. Jocelin (less so, Roger) took particular care to increase the number of Wells prebends, to ensure that prebends and dignities were suitably endowed and also to enlarge the cathedral’s common fund. Unlike Roger, Jocelin was quite often called on to act as papal judge delegate or to carry out other papal commissions—for example, the task of enquiring into Osmund of Salisbury’s suitability for canonisation. Although Roger’s charters cover a narrower range of concerns they are essentially similar to his predecessor’s in content and form. In terms of diplomatic (a full discussion of which is provided in the introduction, together with accounts of the bishops and of their households), the main innovation at Bath and Wells in this period was dating, employed by Jocelin on a fairly regular basis and by Roger in about half of his surviving charters. Many of Roger’s undated charters were for episcopal tenants; it was quite common for bishops to omit dates in what were, essentially, secular documents. The editor also notes the frequency with which Jocelin’s charters were copied into (indeed often solely survive in) charters of inspeximus issued by either Wells cathedral chapter or by Bath cathedral priory; sometimes both chapters issued inspeximus charters of the same actum, but always operating separately. This is a phenomenon that is noticeable in several other dioceses in the thirteenth century and may perhaps have been welcomed by bishops as a means of providing extra records of their output in an era before episcopal charters were registered. The volume closes with four appendices: the first of these supplies some small amendments to the Fasti 1066–1300 volume for Bath and Wells; the second lists Jocelin’s and Roger’s dataries; the third provides itineraries for Jocelin and Roger; and the fourth supplies editions of twelfth-century Bath acta discovered since the publication of English Episcopal Acta, X (chiefly thanks to the appearance of the Athelney cartulary). Fairly full itineraries can be pieced together from the sources for both bishops: it is noticeable that Westminster and Wells feature frequently in Jocelin’s itinerary but not at all in Roger’s, while both bishops liked spending time on their episcopal manors. Jocelin favoured Wookey, where he built a house, while Roger had a slight preference for Chew Magna. This is a fine edition that provides plenty for scholars studying the thirteenth-century English church to consider

Ancient history · Bishops · Brother · Political science · Successor cardinal · Classics · History · Law · Mathematics · Medieval Literature and History