(PDF) The bishop, the prior, and the founding of the burgh of St Andrews, The Innes Review

The intertwined relationship between the foundation of the burgh of St Andrews by Robert, bishop of St Andrews (d.1159), and the establishment of the Augustinian cathedral priory (St Andrews Day 1140) has not hitherto been explored. Building on the work of A. A. M. Duncan, it is argued here that the burgh was set up in response to the establishment of the new priory and the ambitious programme pursued by its first prior, Robert (1140–60). The burgh's early history was bound up in the contentious relationship of bishop and prior, as Prior Robert sought to gain sole control over the cathedral and the altar of the apostle Saint Andrew, the parish church, ecclesiastical lands in east Fife, and their revenues. The burgh allowed Bishop Robert to recoup some of his financial losses, but the priory's commercial ambitions presented competition for the…

The Innes Review 66.1 (2015): 72–101 DOI: 10.3366/inr.2015.0085 # Edinburgh University Press www.euppublishing.com/journal/inr Matthew Hammond The bishop, the prior, and the founding of the burgh of St Andrews Abstract: The intertwined relationship between the foundation of the burgh of St Andrews by Robert, bishop of St Andrews (d.1159), and the establishment of the Augustinian cathedral priory (St Andrews Day 1140) has not hitherto been explored. Building on the work of A. A. M. Duncan, it is argued here that the burgh was set up in response to the establishment of the new priory and the ambitious programme pursued by its first prior, Robert (1140–60). The burgh’s early history was bound up in the contentious relationship of bishop and prior, as Prior Robert sought to gain sole control over the cathedral and the altar of the apostle Saint Andrew, the parish church, ecclesiastical lands in east Fife, and their revenues. The burgh allowed Bishop Robert to recoup some of his financial losses, but the priory’s commercial ambitions presented competition for the bishop’s burgesses in the burgh’s first generation. Keywords: David I, king of Scots; Fife; Matthew, bishop of Aberdeen; Robert, bishop of St Andrews; burgh of St Andrews; assemblies; Augustinian Order. Robert by the grace of God humble servant of St Andrew (gives) greeting to all the faithful both future and present. May it be noted to your love that with the help of God and by permission of our king, David, we have established a burgh at St Andrews in Scotland and that in that burgh with the consent of the king and with his firm peace we have made Mainard the Fleming provost, and we have granted to this said Mainard and his heirs in the burgh, on account of his service faithfully rendered to us and ours, three tofts, from Burgess Street as far as the prior’s river-bank freely and quit of all custom for sixteen farthings, that is four pence for each virgate of land. For he is the one who started to build and stock the said burgh from scratch. For this reason we humbly beg our successors that, for the love of God and of St Andrew and of us, they love and support him and his heirs, and that no one should do harm to him or This work was produced under the auspices of a project funded by the Leverhulme Trust, ‘The Transformation of Gaelic Scotland in the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries’, a partnership between the University of Glasgow and Kings College London. I would like to thank Dauvit Broun and Simon Taylor for reading and commenting on this text, and Richard Fawcett for kindly sharing a forthcoming book chapter. FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 73 his, on pain of excommunication by God and St Andrew and by us; and if anyone should do him harm, for any reason, the earthly king should not delay to do justice for him, for if he does not do it himself, may the King of Kings, the just and impartial judge, do justice for him in the great day of punishment. The said town is alms of the same blessed king, and the said Mainard was his burgess in Berwick whom he [the king] granted in alms to St Andrew and to us along with the aforesaid alms. With these witnesses: the prior of the church of the same town, William and Thorald.1 This document, preserved only in a seventeenth-century copy, tells us more about the circumstances behind the founding of St Andrews than we know about most Scottish burghs. Uniquely for the twelfth century, we are given the name and identity of the man who laid out the burgh in Scotland’s premier ecclesiastical centre. Mainard the Fleming 1 Translation by Simon Taylor: see Simon Taylor with Gilbert Márkus, The Place-Names of Fife, Volume Three: St Andrews and the East Neuk [PNF, III] (Donington, 2009), 429–30. For original Latin text, see Scottish Episcopal Acta, I, The Twelfth Century, ed. Norman Shead, Scottish History Society (Woodbridge, forthcoming), no. 144 (H2/10/16; St Andrews University Archives, 65/23/402). My thanks to Norman Shead for permitting me to use his forthcoming edition of twelfth-century Scottish episcopal charters (abbreviated form: SEA), references to which also appear in the People of Medieval Scotland database. Because this edition is still forthcoming, the conventional references have also been given herein for twelfth-century episcopal charters. Moreover, all charter references include their unique ‘H-numbers’, employing the system used in the PoMS database. A full explanation of this system, as well as a concordance for all the SEA charters can be found here: http://www.poms.ac.uk/information/. In order to save space, only the H-number is given, rather than the full reference format, as follows: PoMS, H2/ 10/16 (http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/source/1256/; accessed 23 February 2015). Source pages can be found by removing the ‘H’ and entering the number into the Basic Search box, choosing the ‘source’ result option. Latin text of SEA, no. 144: Robertus dei gratia Sanctiandree humilis minister universis fidelibus tam futuris quam presentibus salutem. Innotescat dilectioni vestre nos deo auxiliante et licentia regis nostri Davidis burgum apud Sanctumandream in Scotia statuisse et in ipso burgo hunc Mynardum Flandrensem cum regis consensu et eius firma pace prefectum fecisse et huic prefato Mynardo et heredibus suis in ipso burgo propter suum servitium nobis et nostris fideliter exhibitum tres toftas scilicet a vico burgendi usque ad rivum prioris, libere et quiete ab omni consuetudine, pro sedecim nummis scilicet uniquique virgate terre quatuor denarios concedimus quia ipse ex prioribus est qui burgum supradictum edificare et instaurare incepit. Eapropter successoribus nostris humiliter supplicamus quatenus ipsum et heredes suos pro amore dei et Sanctiandree diligant et manuteneant et nullus ei et suis super excommunicatione dei et Sancti Andree et nostre iniuriam inferat et si quis ei quacunque ex causa iniuriam fecerit rex terre ei propter deum rectum facere non deferret quod si ipse non fecerit rex regum iustus et equus iudex in die magne ultionis ei rectum faciat. Super dicta enim villa elemosina illius benedicti regis est et ipse supradictus Mynardus eius proprius burgensis in Bervik fuit quem Sanctoandree et nobis cum predicta elemosina in elemosinam tribuit. His testibus: priore ecclesie eiusdem ville, Willielmo, Torrel. . . 74 Matthew Hammond had been the king’s burgess in Berwick (we know from numismatic sources that he was also a royal moneyer) and had been ‘given’ by the king along with the villa to St Andrew and the bishop. This remarkable charter is usually remembered for the detail it gives us – the foundation of the burgh by Bishop Robert (elected 1123r24, consecrated 1127, died 1159), that Mainard ‘started to build and stock the burgh’, that Mainard was the first provost or grieve, and that he was given three tofts on ‘Burgess Street’ (later South Street) hereditarily. There are two dimensions of this charter, however, that have not garnered much discussion and which shed light on this dynamic and momentous period in St Andrews’ history. The first is the role of the king in the charter text. The figure of the king of Scots, David I (1124–53), looms large. Bishop Robert set up the burgh by the permission of the king. Mainard was made grieve not only with the king’s consent, but by his firm peace, a legal phrase that guaranteed the king’s protection, a not insignificant question for a man who would likely have to ‘break a few eggshells’ in building a new burgh from scratch on a site that had been inhabited for centuries. ‘The earthly king’ should not hesitate in protecting Mainard; the town itself is the king’s alms, and Mainard, formerly the king’s burgess, was given in alms by the king. The reference to the town as the king’s alms must have been intended to point the charter’s audience to the legendary account of St Andrews’ foundation by King Hungus, thereby adding a long historical dimension to the relationship of the king with that place. The second dimension refers to the audience of the document. The production of charters in the middle of the twelfth century was still an ad hoc affair, and depended largely on the beneficiary’s petition or request (often accompanied by money). Foundation charters were unlikely to have been routinely produced because the burgh infrastructure of a court and community would not have existed at that nascent stage; furthermore, there is no mention of the burgesses as a group in this text.2 As beneficiary, it is likely that Mainard played a role in the document’s production, but this is far from a standard charter recording the gift of lands to a burgess. The bishop’s own voice seems to shine through and the tone of that voice is concern. Robert seems to fear for Mainard’s safety or at least that of his handiwork. Remarkably, 2 On the nascent state of charter production in Scotland in the mid-twelfth century, see Dauvit Broun, ‘The writing of charters in Scotland and Ireland in the twelfth century’, in Charters and the Use of the Written Word in Medieval Society, ed. Karl Heidecker (Turnhout, 2000), 113–31; Matthew Hammond, ‘The adoption and routinization of Scottish royal charter production for lay beneficiaries, 1124–1195, in Anglo-Norman Studies XXXVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2013, ed. David Bates (Woodbridge, 2014), 91–115. FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 75 God and St Andrew are each invoked five times. The figure of the king is linked up with that of God: both are responsible in the act of establishing the burgh; God is referred to as the King of Kings. The bishop is reminding the king of his role in setting up the burgh and providing Mainard, that he had given Mainard his firm peace. Multiple approaches are deployed in trying to ensure Mainard’s position: he threatens excommunication by God, St Andrew, and the bishop on anyone who would harm Mainard, and proclaims that if the earthly king should fail to do justice on the malefactor, that God will do so ‘on the day of punishment’. While it is not clear what dangers may have threatened Mainard, this charter was an attempt by a frustrated and aging bishop to reach out beyond his earthly years and protect the head of his burgh from what seem like his many enemies. His audience comprises the men who would be the bishops to follow him: ‘we humbly beg our successors’. Bishop Robert was afraid what he had built would be undone. Bishop Robert and the foundation of the cathedral priory Why was the bishop so worried? In order to answer that question, we need to look at the broader context of what was happening in St Andrews during Bishop Robert’s time as bishop. In a masterly piece of historical synthesis, A. A. M. Duncan has established not only that Bishop Robert’s diploma or charter instituting Augustinian canons in the church of St Andrew must date to 1140, not 1144, but also has painstakingly pieced together the chain of events leading up to the cathedral priory’s foundation.3 Duncan’s reconstruction of events was informed by contemporary charters, chronicles, and the St Andrews foundation accounts, especially that now known as the Augustinian’s Account, a narrative of the cathedral priory’s founding probably written by its first prior.4 King Alexander I (1107–24) had desired a reformed Augustinian cathedral chapter at St Andrews, staffed from his foundation at Scone, but had been frustrated in his attempts to do so by unknown local figures, perhaps the five hereditary personae who shared the altar offerings. Alexander had initially provided the large cluster of east Fife lands known as the Cursus Apri (Boar’s Raik) for this purpose, 3 SEA, no. 133 (H2/10/4; Liber Cartarum Prioratus Sancti Andree in Scotia [St A. Lib.], ed. Thomas Thomson (Edinburgh, 1841), 122–3); A. A. M. Duncan, ‘The Foundation of St Andrews Cathedral Priory, 1140’, Scottish Historical Review [SHR] 84 (2005), 1–37. Duncan describes this document as a diploma, whereas PoMS classifies it as a charter. 4 Simon Taylor’s edition of Foundation Account B and the Augustinian’s Account is found in PNF, III, Appendix One, 564–615. For the founding of the priory and its early history, see also now Garrett Ratcliff, ‘Scottish Augustinians: A Study of the Regular Canonical Movement in the Kingdom of Scotland, c. 1120–1215’, unpublished PhD thesis (University of Edinburgh, 2012), 78–105. 76 Matthew Hammond but had then reneged on this gift. Shortly before his death, however, the king secured the election of the then Augustinian prior of Scone, Robert, to the see of St Andrews, and reinstated the gift of the Boar’s Raik lands, presumably with the assumption that the new Bishop Robert would carry out his plan. Unfortunately for him, the bishop was hampered in his work by the limited resources available.5 The bishop’s project focused on expanding the cathedral of which St Rule’s is the only surviving remnant, and in building a collection of houses to form a sort of cloister.6 When this work had proceeded far enough to begin to put the plan into place, the bishop sent for someone to head up a chapter of canons, to Scone’s mother house of Nostell in Yorkshire (the same place which probably had supplied the masons for the building of the version of St Andrews cathedral we know as St Rule’s).7 The man they sent, Brother Robert, was apparently not the sort of patient, unpresumptuous type the bishop had hoped for; in fact, it seems the two were often at loggerheads. Brother Robert probably arrived late in 1138 with some of his own clerks, and initially concentrated his efforts on the pilgrim hospital.8 Earl Henry, David I’s knightly son and king-designate, suffered from a serious illness, the recovery from which probably inspired the establishment of the Cistercian house of Newbattle on 1 Nov. 1140.9 Four weeks later, according to Duncan’s convincing reasoning, father and son arrived in St Andrews, a place not on the usual royal route, in order to thank St Andrew for his aid in Henry’s recovery, and to finish what Alexander I had started.10 The king had given the cathedral the church of Haddington in late 1139 or early 1140, and this was augmented by the associated lands of Clerkington at an assembly at Perth on 14 June 1140.11 Shortly afterwards, at Scone, plans for a 5 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 3–8. PNF, III, 612–14. 7 Richard Fawcett, ‘Medieval ecclesiastical architecture of St Andrews as a channel for the introduction of new ideas’, in Medieval St Andrews, ed. Katie Stevenson and Michael Brown (Woodbridge, forthcoming); see also his The Architecture of the Scottish Medieval Church, 1100–1560 (New Haven and London, 2011); John Bilson, ‘Wharram-le-Street Church, Yorkshire, and St Rule’s Church, St Andrews’, Archaeologia 73 (1923), 55–72. 8 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 9–11. 9 G. W. S. Barrow, The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 2003), 165; Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 36; The Charters of David I: The Written Acts of David I king of Scots, 1124–53 and of his son Henry earl of Northumberland, 1139–52 [Chrs David I], ed. G. W. S. Barrow (Woodbridge, 1999), no. 96. 10 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 15. 11 Chrs David I, nos. 85, 86, 87 (H1/4/37, 38, 39); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 11–13. 6 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 77 monastic chapter at St Andrews were in the air, with the king making more donations for the hospital and the ‘brethren’, and with Scone possibly planning to send some canons regular to form the new convent.12 Then, at Kinross, the church of Linlithgow was added to the growing endowment pot.13 Finally, probably on St Andrews Day, 1140, the king, his son, and many lay magnates, sat down in the unfinished cloister with the bishop and the soon-to-be prior. There, perhaps after having received an earful from a persuasive Brother Robert, the king scolded the bishop for dragging his heels on the project of instituting a reformed chapter. The bishop argued that he could not deprive his successors of the episcopal temporalities, and the king responded that the Boar’s Raik, the revenues from which Bishop Robert had been enjoying for well over a decade, had been provided by King Alexander for setting up a reformed chapter, and that these should form part of the endowment of the new priory. ‘Partly freely, partly under compulsion’, the bishop also parted with two of the portions of the personae.14 Under pressure, the bishop hastily composed a diploma or charter instituting this new Augustinian priory, which Duncan argues reflects as much the influence of Prior Robert as the bishop himself. The endowment cobbles together eighteen named settlements, drawn from the Boar’s Raik, along with two portions of the personae for the priory and one for the hospital, and his books, and clarifies that the pilgrim hospital is in the possession of the priory, together with some of his teinds in crops, beasts, and cáin. Moreover, Bishop Robert confirmed royal gifts from the kingdom’s two biggest burghs – a mark of silver from Perth and a fishing in Berwick.15 Furthermore, a significant role for Earl Henry is reflected in his own charter, dated at Kilrymont, confirming the gifts of the bishop and king.16 Bishop Robert’s tendency, first demonstrated in 1140, of making concessions to Prior Robert only under pressure from the king and reformist clerics, settled into a consistent pattern over the following two decades. Bishop vs Prior: of céli Dé and Kinninmonth Bishop Robert’s activities up to his death in 1159 reveal him time and again attempting to put the brakes on the whirlwind of change that was 12 Chrs David I, nos. 88, 89 (H1/4/40, 41); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 12. Chrs David I, nos. 93, 94 (H1/4/44, 45); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 13–14. It was later specified that this was to pay for the lighting of the church of St Andrew and the canons’ clothing. 14 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 15–16. 15 SEA, no. 133 (H2/10/4; St A. Lib., 122–3); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 17–18. Duncan suggests that the pious harangues found in Bishop Robert’s ‘diploma’, Earl Henry’s confirmation, and King David’s later confirmation were all written by Prior Robert. 16 Chrs David I, no. 129 (H3/3/6). 13 78 Matthew Hammond Prior Robert. While the prior had the support of a growing number of heads of Augustinian religious houses, not to mention the royal house, neither was the bishop entirely on his own. The aging Robert was joined by his nephew Matthew, who became the first known archdeacon of St Andrews by about 1150. Matthew’s father, Simon son of Michael, was a member of an east Fife family which evidently formed some kind of familial bond, now indiscernible, to Bishop Robert or one of his siblings.17 Together with his brothers Odo, Simon and Alan, Archdeacon Matthew, who became bishop of Aberdeen in 1172, would head up a power network which would, in a sense, carry on Bishop Robert’s legacy for another generation.18 Probably within the first year of the priory’s existence, King David expanded their foothold in his burghs, giving 40s. from the cáin of ships in Perth and a toft beside the church in Berwick, as well as further properties and privileges, including their own court, whose jurisdiction cut into that of the bishop’s existing court.19 Over the following decade, Prior Robert sought to expand the priory’s landed estates and other sources of income, as well as to consolidate its position in the cathedral itself. In both of these aims, the two largest obstacles to change were Archdeacon Matthew and his family, working in conjunction with the bishop, and the pre-existing community of céli Dé, sometimes known as ‘culdees’. The céli Dé were married men who nevertheless lived celibately, semi-communally, and served a side altar in the church. The céli Dé also held land corporately, much of it in the Boar’s Raik and elsewhere in east Fife.20 Moreover, they had some role, now poorly understood, in the election of bishops.21 After the secular personae, whose income from the altar offerings was absorbed by the priory early on, the more legitimately devout céli Dé were the next target in Prior Robert’s goal of establishing the canons as the sole claimants to the church of 17 On Matthew’s career, see Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae Occidentalis ab initio usque ad annum MCXCVIII. Series VI. Britannia, Scotia et Hibernia, Scandinavia. Tomus I. Ecclesia Scoticana, ed. D. E. R. Watt (Stuttgart, 1991), 7. 18 G.W.S. Barrow, ‘The early charters of the family of Kinninmonth of that ilk’, in The Study of Medieval Records, ed. D.A. Bullough and R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), 107–31, at 110–15. 19 Chrs David I, nos. 92 (H1/4/43), 126, 127 (H1/4/59, 60); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 19–21. 20 G. W. S. Barrow, ‘The clergy at St Andrews’, in his Kingdom of the Scots, 2nd edn, 187–202, first published as ‘The cathedral chapter at St Andrews and the culdees in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, iii (1952); PNF, III, 420–425. Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 25–6. In 1309, one of the three baronies in the Boar’s Raik was still held by the céli Dé. 21 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 26; Barrow, ‘The clergy at St Andrews’, 197–8. FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 79 St Andrew. The priory wanted to absorb fully the céli Dé along with their lands, thereby eliminating their primary rivals in terms of electing future bishops. Prior Robert went straight to the top, realising he was unlikely to gain much local support. In 1147, Pope Eugene III granted the prior and canons the sole right to elect future bishops.22 Furthermore, the pontiff stipulated that regular canons should be substituted on the death of each céli Dé. Bishop Robert was unlikely to have been cheered by the prospect of Prior Robert choosing, or perhaps even being, his successor. While the process envisaged by Pope Eugene may have resulted in the diminution of the céli Dé from twelve to six, Prior Robert’s gambit was ultimately a failure. As is well known, the community survived as a staunch ally of the bishop against the ambitions of the priory, eventually transmogrifying into the collegiate church of St Mary’s on the Rock and claiming rights in the electoral process in the thirteenth century, while the priory’s attempts to elect future bishops ended in disaster.23 Dispute and contention also followed when Prior Robert set his sights on another clump of lands, the shire of Kinninmonth, roughly halfway between St Andrews and Cupar.24 The issue of Kinninmonth’s ownership may have come up as early as 1140, and the bishop apparently produced a charter, no longer extant, giving the priory Kinninmonth with its toft in Kilrymont at some point thereafter. It is known only from King David’s confirmation made at Stirling at an assembly probably dating to between 1147 and 1152, which Prior Robert seems to have attended.25 These two charters were ineffective, however, and it is possible that Bishop Robert was trying to associate it permanently with the office of archdeacon as a pretence for keeping it out of the prior’s hands. Archdeacon Matthew apparently possessed it very soon thereafter and possibly held it from the time of gaining the office.26 In 1152, the bishop produced a new charter recording the gift 22 St A. Lib., 48–50 (H2/128/3); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 24–5. Prior Robert was also instrumental in the founding of the Augustinian house at Cambuskenneth around this same time: Registrum Monasterii S. Marie de Cambuskenneth, ed. William Fraser (Grampian Club, Edinburgh, 1872), no. 23 (H2/128/2). 23 Barrow, ‘The clergy at St Andrews’, 198–202; Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 28–9. 24 The shire of Kinninmonth took up much of the eastern part of Ceres parish and parts of St Andrews St Leonards parish. PNF, III, 425; PNF, II, 58, 91–3. 25 The prior’s presence, in addition to being the named beneficiary of this charter, is also likely based on the existence of a brieve relating to the priory’s timber rights in Clackmannan, probably dating to the same occasion. Chrs David I, nos. 153, 154 (H1/4/ 80, 81). It is possible that the reference to ‘Kilrymont’ rather than St Andrews means that the bishop’s initial charter predated the establishment of the burgh. 26 The Acts of Malcolm IV King of Scots 1153– 65, ed. G. W. S. Barrow, Regesta Regum Scottorum 1 [RRS 1] (Edinburgh 1960), no. 120 (H1/5/14). 80 Matthew Hammond of the lands to the priory, which survives as a contemporary single sheet.27 The charter, witnessed by the bishops of Glasgow and Moray, the abbots of Kelso, Dunfermline, and the Augustinian houses of Holyrood and Stirling, was clearly produced at a major regnal or ‘national’ assembly, a scenario which suggests that its production was the result of the issue being raised, presumably by Prior Robert, in order to settle the issue in front of the king and prelates. Many of the other witnesses, however, including Archdeacon Matthew and the bishop’s other nepotes John (the future Bishop John ‘Scot’) and Ralph, plus Aiulf the dean and Master Herbert, are representatives of the network supporting the bishop against the priory. These were household members of the bishop’s entourage, and as such witnessed his charters frequently; they are unlikely to have had much of a voice at the assembly, with the possible exception of the archdeacon. The timing of this assembly and the attempt to resolve the Kinninmonth issue in favour of the prior were likely not accidental. Tensions which had simmered for the previous decade came to a head in 1152, in what turned out to be a critical year for the kingdom. The death of King David’s hand-groomed successor, Earl Henry, on 12 June 1152, shocked the kingdom and brought about a period of crisis. Peaceful transfer of power was a real concern, with the heir now a twelve-year old grandson. King David had probably been born, at the latest, around 1085, which would have made him about sixty-eight when his son and heir died.28 The period of just under a year before David’s own death on 24 May 1153 saw the old king energetically scramble to set the affairs of the kingdom to right. Bishop Robert was likely not much younger, if at all: he had been appointed the first prior of Scone while a canon of Nostell Priory in Yorkshire at the time of Alexander I’s foundation, the dating of which is a matter of some debate.29 Taking a conservative estimate for the founding, if Robert was thirty in 1120, he would have been thirty-seven when consecrated bishop, fifty at the founding of the priory, sixty-two at Earl Henry’s death, and about sixty-nine at his own death in 1159, but he could have been older than this. He certainly received a papal indulgence in 1156 that he need not travel outwith his own diocese due to his advanced 27 SEA, no. 137 (H2/10/9; National Library of Scotland, MS Adv. 15.1.18, no. 12). G. W. S. Barrow, ‘David I (c.1085–1153)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2006 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/ article/7208, accessed 26 Jan 2015]; Archibald Dunbar, Scottish Kings. A Revised Chronology of Scottish History 1005–1625 (Edinburgh, 1899), 58. 29 A. A. M. Duncan, The Kingship of the Scots 842–1292. Succession and Independence (Edinburgh, 2002), 82–86; Ratcliff, ‘Scottish Augustinians’, 47–51; Ian B. Cowan and David E. Easson, Medieval Religious Houses: Scotland, 2nd edn (London, 1976), 97. 28 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 81 age.30 King David clearly wanted to tidy up unfinished business at St Andrews before shuffling off his mortal coil. What to do about the céli Dé and the shire of Kinninmonth were top of the agenda. Duncan suggests persuasively that two of David’s charters dealing with céli Dé are contemporaneous, dating to the point shortly after Henry’s funeral at Kelso as the king was stopping at Berwick en route to Newcastle, where he would set up his grandson William as earl of Northumberland.31 The brief charter, which survives as an ‘original’ and is dated at Berwick, gives the island of Loch Leven to the canons of St Andrews and institutes the canonical order there, specifying that those céli Dé who failed to adopt the new order would be expelled.32 The concomitant charter, which survives only in the priory’s cartulary, followed up Pope Eugene’s instruction by allowing the prior and canons of St Andrews to take in céli Dé as canons, ‘along with their possessions and revenues’. Unlike at Loch Leven, the céli Dé could choose not to become canons, although their place and their property were meant to transfer over after their deaths.33 The king’s allowance that the céli Dé might choose not to convert gave them enough breathing space to survive, albeit in diminished numbers.34 Bishop Robert was at Berwick, possibly after attending the funeral at Kelso, and since the priory was the beneficiary of these two charters, it is likely that Prior Robert was also present at Berwick. Taken together, the charters suggest a negotiation between the three men. By allowing the conversion of the Loch Leven céli Dé, a gift which, as Duncan points out, cost the bishop nothing, he was presumably able to secure the more moderate settlement in St Andrews itself. That the bishop had hitherto done nothing to implement the papal mandate suggests that he saw it as in his own interests to slow down the prior’s planned absorption of the céli Dé; that they survived at all shows up the inefficacy of David’s charter to sway Bishop Robert in his position. The provision that the céli Dé could remain so until death bought them time. Furthermore, this was an issue which had a bearing on episcopal election, as the céli Dé likely had some kind of role in the process, and may have acted on behalf of the king’s candidate, Hugh, in 1178.35 Maintaining the position of the céli Dé could have been part of the bishop’s plan to prevent canonical elections. 30 Robert Somerville, Scotia Pontificia. Papal Letters to Scotland before the Pontificate of Innocent III (Oxford, 1982), no. 38 (H2/130/5). 31 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 26–7. 32 Chrs David I, no. 208 (H1/4/118; National Records of Scotland, GD 90/1/2). 33 Chrs David I, no. 209 (H1/4/119). 34 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 28. 35 Ibid., 26. 82 Matthew Hammond If we accept Duncan’s argument that these two royal charters dealing with the céli Dé date to the summer of 1152 at Berwick, a number of other pieces of the puzzle of David’s final year fall into place (see table). William, the first abbot of the Augustinian house at Stirling (Cambuskenneth), appears on that occasion for the last time.36 A charter of David dated at the Castle of Maidens (Edinburgh) marks the first time that William, abbot of Holyrood, appears.37 The previous abbot, Osbert, had died on 17 Nov. 1151, and, according to the Holyrood chronicle, the new abbot was elected in ‘1152’.38 I would suggest that the new abbot was elected under the eye of King David, who had come to Edinburgh after his trip to Northumberland, and that further, the man put forward for the job was Abbot William of Stirling.39 Two further details allow the remainder of the year’s activities to fall into place. The first is the attestation of this Edinburgh charter by William the chaplain, his final appearance before being elevated to the bishopric of Moray, according to Barrow.40 The second is the subsequent vacancy in the leadership of Cambuskenneth Abbey. Its next abbot, Isaac, appears in only one charter, and this is Bishop Robert’s new charter, discussed above, giving Kinninmonth to the priory. Surviving as an ‘original’, this is also the first appearance of William, bishop of Moray.41 As previously mentioned, this charter evidently was composed at a major ‘national’ assembly. Moreover, Bishop Robert’s charter spelling out the details of the endowment of the priory at Loch Leven must postdate 36 Chrs David I, no. 209 (H1/4/119). Ibid., no. 212 (H1/4/122). 38 The Heads of Religious Houses in Scotland from Twelfth to Sixteenth Centuries, ed. D. E. R. Watt and N. F. Shead (Edinburgh, 2001), 92. 39 Andrew T. Smith and Garrett B. Ratcliff discuss the high degree of interconnectedness among Augustinian houses in Scotland, pointing in particular to the issue of personnel exchange between houses, ‘A survey of relations between Scottish Augustinian canons before 1215’, in The Regular Canons in the Medieval British Isles, ed. Janet Burton and Karen Stöber (Turnhout, Belgium, 2011), 115–144, at 141–3. 40 Chrs David I, p. 157. 41 SEA, no. 137 (H2/10/9; National Library of Scotland, MS Adv. 15.1.18, no. 12). It is possible that the Isaac who became prior of Scone in ‘1154’ was this same man. If this is the case, he may have been elected abbot in the summer of 1152, perhaps at the urging of Bishop Robert, and then been replaced by Alured at the putative ‘regnal’ assembly in Stirling, presumably for political reasons. If this line of reasoning is followed, admittedly based on scant and circumstantial evidence, Scone may have been more aligned with the bishop’s agenda (remembering Bishop Robert was its founding prior), and the other Augustinian houses aligned with Prior Robert of St Andrews. Perhaps Robert had negotiated Isaac’s transfer from Cambuskenneth to Scone. This could also explain why Scone, the kingdom’s first Augustinian house, was not erected to abbatial status until after Bishop Robert’s death, some years after Jedburgh. 37 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 83 Table 1: Suggested sequence of charters between the deaths of Earl Henry and King David. Charter reference Place-date Date Proposed timing & context Original (O) or copy (C)? Chrs David, no. 208 Berwick None Mid-June 1152: negotiation between King David, Bishop Robert, and Prior Robert over the céli Dé at St Andrews and Loch Leven (O): NRS, GD 90/1/2 Chrs David, no. 209 1150r53, perhaps 1152r 1150r53 Chrs David, no. 212 Edinburgh 1152r53 Election of William, abbot of Cambuskenneth to abbacy of Holyrood SEA, no. 137 None SEA, no. 132 None Chrs David, no. 213 Stirling Chrs David, no. 214 Stirling 1152 Late summer/ early autumn 1152: proposed major assembly at 1152r56 Stirling, where William was consecrated bishop of 1147r53, Moray, and Isaac may prob. have been elected abbot 1152r53 of Cambuskenneth. King, 1147r53, bishop, prior, and prob. Archdeacon Matthew 1152r53 would have been present, along with bishops of Glasgow, Dunkeld, Moray, and several abbots and priors, resulting in episcopal charters on Kinninmonth and Loch Leven céli Dé. Chrs David, St Andrews 1152r53 no. 215 SEA, no. 144 1140r53 Autumn 1152 (St Andrews Day?): Four bishops and four Augustinian heads at St Andrews assembly. Bishop Robert absent from royal charter granting canons’ ‘burgesses’ freedom from toll in Berwick; Bishop Robert’s charter anent Mainard Fleming. Alured possibly elected abbot of Cambuskenneth here. (C): St Andrews Priory (C): Whitby Abbey (O): NLS, MS Adv,15.1.18, no.12 (C): St Andrews Priory (C): Cambuskenneth Abbey (C): Cambuskenneth Abbey (C): St Andrews Priory (C): 1614 archiepiscopal charter 84 Matthew Hammond King David’s Berwick céli Dé charters, and probably postdates his charter dated at Edinburgh, given that William, abbot of Holyrood, witnesses.42 Two royal charters in favour of Cambuskenneth abbey must also be placed after the Edinburgh charter, and are dated at Stirling; one of them is witnessed by William, bishop of Moray.43 The likeliest scenario is that in late summer or early autumn 1152, the royal household travelled from Edinburgh to Stirling, the spot where assemblies drawing together the constituent parts of the kingdom were held, placed as it was near the borders of Scotia, Lothian, and Strathclyde. This putative assembly would have had plenty to occupy itself given the crisis point in the kingdom’s history, but it would have also been the moment when William was consecrated bishop of Moray.44 This clearly happened between the surviving charter texts dated at Edinburgh and Stirling, and a consecration at a large assembly would have been appropriate. It may have also been the occasion for the election of the short-serving Abbot Isaac. This means both Bishop Robert’s charters anent Kinninmonth and Loch Leven would have been the product of assembled debate and would have effectively been produced, like his 1140 diploma, under outside pressure, perhaps most vocally expressed by Prior Robert and his Augustinian colleagues. The anathema pronounced on any who might cause injury in terms of the Kinninmonth gift to the priory could have been added at the prior’s insistence, after the failure of his first charter and the earlier royal confirmation to result in its alienation; this is Bishop Robert’s only use of the anathema (although he does threaten excommunication in his famous ‘burgh’ charter). King David’s last visit to St Andrews must have come after this proposed Stirling assembly. Given that David attended the saint’s shrine after Henry’s recovery in 1140, it is unsurprising that he might want to revisit the shrine following his son’s death. Alternatively, he may have wished to beseech Saint Andrew as protector of the kingdom in those precarious days. It may have been at this point that Bishop Robert produced another short charter for the priory of the toft in Kilrymont on which Archdeacon Matthew’s house is situated, as well as three 42 SEA, no. 132 (H2/10/20; St A. Lib., 43). Chrs David I, nos. 213, 214 (H1/4/123, 124). 44 If the proposal of a Stirling assembly where William was consecrated bishop is correct, the charter evidence suggests it would have been attended by the bishops of St Andrews, Glasgow, and Dunkeld, and, if the sequence of events regarding the 1152 St Andrews assembly is correct, by the bishops of Aberdeen and Caithness as well, which would have been appropriate for an episcopal consecration. Duncan suggested that William’s consecration took place at St Andrews, but that is unlikely, because William was already bishop at Abbot Isaac’s only attestation, yet Alured was already abbot at the St Andrews assembly. 43 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 85 crofts on the Kinness Burn of the tenure of Kinninmonth, especially if the ‘Walter the steward’ who witnessed it is to be identified with the king’s steward.45 It looks as if the prior, returning home with his strongly-worded charter anent the shire of Kinninmonth, was seeking to gain actual possession in the first instance to those properties nearest the cathedral; that Archdeacon Matthew and other allies of the bishop, including his nephew John, witness the document suggests its main purpose was to secure their acceptance to the deal, while the king was present to make the alienation stick. With the céli Dé and Kinninmonth issues apparently settled, attention seems to have turned to the priory’s commercial interests, particularly its toehold in Berwick. At St Andrews, Prior Robert got a charter from King David granting a second toft in Berwick, which King Mael Coluim’s confirmation states was beside the river Tweed, a much better position for access to their fisheries.46 Uniquely among the king’s charters to the church of St Andrew, the patron saint is mentioned no fewer than three times in the dispositive clause – ‘to St Andrew and the prior of St Andrews and the canons of the church of St Andrew(s)’, bolstering the notion that the royal visit dated to St Andrew’s feast day.47 The prior’s main purpose was evidently the acquisition of freedom from toll and custom for their men based in the kingdom’s largest port town. The remarkable absence of Bishop Robert and Archdeacon Matthew from the witness list of the St Andrews-dated charter could imply their disapproval. This is particularly noteworthy given that the bishops of Aberdeen, Moray and Caithness were in attendance. The three northern bishops seem to have accompanied the king from Stirling, perhaps planning to continue travelling north to view William’s new diocese. Abbot William of Holyrood and Prior Osbert of Jedburgh were joined now by Alured, abbot of Cambuskenneth, having replaced the short-lived (or at least short-serving) Abbot Isaac; together with Prior Robert, they formed a small conference of heads of Augustinian religious houses in Scotland, with the notable, and perhaps not accidental, exception of Scone. While it is impossible to pinpoint the timing of Bishop Robert’s famous charter about Mainard the Fleming and his status in the burgh of 45 SEA, no. 134 (H2/10/17; St A. Lib., 124). Chrs David I, no. 215 (H1/4/125). Barrow dates this to 1152r53, and King David died on 24 May 1153. It was the last but one in the edition, and this final one is dated to probably 1141r50, and was likely placed at the end due to its dubious authenticity. See also RRS 1, no. 174, and Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 19. 47 Sancto Andree et priori Sancti Andree canonicis ecclesie Sancti Andree. Andrew is mentioned only once in all of David’s charters for the cathedral and hospital: see Chrs David I, nos. 85, 88, 92, 93, 94, 126, 127, 153, 157, 173, 206, 207, 208, and 209. 46 86 Matthew Hammond St Andrews, I think there is a compelling case to be made that it dates to this assembly, perhaps on St Andrews Day, 1152. If the late copy is representative, the very unusual attestation of Prior Robert (‘the prior of the same town’), mentioning neither his name, nor associating him with St Andrew, could suggest a deliberate snubbing which would fit with the tense atmosphere that may have characterised the royal visit. Both charters mention the saint an unusual number of times – five times in the bishop’s, three in the king’s much shorter charter. The bishop’s charter text survives in the burgh’s records; there is no hint of it in the priory’s archive.48 The subject of Berwick, which was evidently raised at the 1152 St Andrews assembly, may also lurk in the subtext of the bishop’s document. Mainard had himself been a burgess of Berwick, an important burgh to which he may have continued to travel and trade. Moreover, Geoffrey Barrow has suggested that the two other witnesses, William and Thorald, were the two brothers of Thor, first archdeacon of Lothian. Thorald was a ‘prudent man from Holy Island’ and William son of Malger was a burgess of Berwick who traded with Friesland.49 Mainard and William, and possibly Thorald, all would have had commercial ties with Berwick that would have been vital for the success of the young episcopal burgh. It is perhaps in this context that we should view the prior’s acquisition of freedom from toll and custom for their men in Berwick, and the bishop’s absence from that charter’s witness list. We are likely only getting hints of a much more complex tangle of interests, but the bishop’s opposition of tax-free status for the priory’s Berwick men, called ‘burgesses’ in the king’s charter, at least allows a flavour of the nature of the argument. The bishop’s charter would have sought to defend Mainard, perhaps alongside William son of Malger, in terms of commercial ties taking in both burghs; presumably asking King David to stick by him, seeking to persuade the other bishops and abbots, all while sending a warning to Prior Robert, who presumably had designs of his own in St Andrews, which might have involved sidelining Mainard and his family. Bishop vs Prior: of burghs and ‘burgesses’ This interpretation of Bishop Robert’s famous charter would mean that it was produced several years, perhaps a decade, after the burgh’s initial foundation, an event I will now seek to place in context. Before the 1140s, the only burghs in the kingdom belonged to the king, the most important of which – Berwick, Perth, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, 48 See note 2, above. G. W. S. Barrow, Kingship and Unity Scotland 1000–1306 (Edinburgh, 1981), 92. This would presumably place Archdeacon Thor(ald) of Lothian in the same political camp as Archdeacon Matthew, with clear links to the bishop’s burgh project. 49 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 87 Stirling – had been founded at the very beginning of David’s reign or even earlier.50 The first non-royal burgh was probably that given to the abbot of Holyrood: at some point between 1128 and 1141r47 David granted the canons license to build a burgh between their church and Edinburgh. The canons’ burgesses had the same rights as the king’s burgesses, the only limitation being that they had to buy and sell in the Edinburgh market. Given that the abbey also held Inverleith and its harbour, it is likely that their commercial activity was substantial.51 By contrast, the king allowed Scone to have only a smith, a tanner, and a shoemaker, with the same freedoms as the burgesses of Perth.52 David and his successors may have realised that giving such rights to monasteries could result in unwanted competition for their own burgesses. The king established his own burghs at the sites of some other religious houses, including Dunfermline, Haddington, Jedburgh, and possibly Selkirk, presumably for this reason; at Dunfermline, the priory set up their own burgh which at some point superseded the royal one.53 As Duncan has shown, the Augustinian house of Holyrood was a major influence on St Andrews’ endowment.54 King David’s early confirmation to the cathedral priory suggests that St Andrews was following the lead of Holyrood in provisions regarding the priory’s court, the prohibition on outsiders poinding, the timber rights in Clackmannan (later augmented by a toft), the fishery and toft in Berwick, and silver coin from maritime trade at Perth to pay for vestments.55 One right that Holyrood had which St Andrews priory did not acquire was the right to have their own burgh. Given the influence of Holyrood and Prior Robert’s ambitious and acquisitive nature, it seems likely that he would have lobbied for his own burgh rights as well. Duncan argues that David’s confirmation dates to sometime between 1141 and 1150, and suggests an assembly shortly after the return of David from England in October 1141 as a likely setting.56 50 A. A. M. Duncan, Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom (Edinburgh, 1975), 465. Chrs David I, no. 147 (H1/4/74). 52 RRS 1, nos. 243 (H1/5/102), 246 (H1/5/105); Chrs David I, no. 225 (12). 53 Ian B. Cowan, ‘The Emergence of the Urban Parish’, in The Scottish Medieval Town, ed. Michael Lynch, Michael Spearman, and Geoffrey Stell (Edinburgh, 1988), 82–98, at 88–9. 54 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 22–23. 55 Chrs David I, no. 126 (H1/4/59); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 19–23. Despite being in office for twenty years, we only have six instances of Prior Robert witnessing charters; nevertheless, the abbot of Holyrood was present on four of these occasions; both men were also present at the gift of the abbey of Loch Leven to St Andrews priory. SEA, nos. 120, 124, 126, 132; Chrs David I, no. 159. Four of these were charters of Bishop Robert, suggesting the prior seldom was able to leave St Andrews. 56 Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 23. 51 88 Matthew Hammond If this confirmation does indeed offer us a snapshot of the situation late in 1141 or early in 1142, it is possible that at that time there was as yet no burgh at St Andrews. That is not to say there was no secular settlement or a lack of trade. We can safely assume that a market had been in operation at Kilrymont prior to the establishment of the burgh; the pilgrim trade and its converging road network and harbour, the only one between Crail and Ferryport-on-Craig (Tayport), all but assure us this was the case. A brief royal charter from early in King William’s reign renewed the rights of the bishop and céli Dé of Brechin of a weekly market on Sundays, as King David had given it, ‘as freely as the bishop of St Andrews has his market’.57 Thus, Brechin had a market but no burgh. The reference to the bishop of St Andrews’ market, with no mention of his burgh, could be read as harking back to a time before the 1140s, when the bishop of St Andrews may have had market rights but no burgh rights.58 It is important to consider the role played by monasteries in the early development of burghs in coming to any conclusions about St Andrews’ foundation. Abbots and priors had men under their lordship, often living and operating in major burghs. Their principal duty was to obtain goods for the use of the monastery, but as these men often had freedom from tolls and customs, they may have been engaging in other commercial activities and paying money back to their lords; in other words, as burgesses were a source of cash income for the royal coffers, so these men may have filled the same function for abbots and priors.59 The case of Kelso is instructive. Early in his reign, King William granted license to that abbey’s ‘men dwelling at Kelso’ to buy fuel, timber, and grain at Kelso, except for on neighbouring Roxburgh’s market day. Furthermore, these men could sell bread, ale, and meat ‘in their windows’; they could also bring fish on horses or carts and sell them ‘in their windows’. They were even allowed to travel around and sell these items, but ‘carts coming from elsewhere’ had to use the king’s market in Roxburgh, suggesting that this had not always been the case. This probably stems from the fact that religious houses were generally allowed to buy goods for their own needs, namely food, drink, and fuel. Since their men enjoyed freedom from toll and 57 The Acts of William I King of Scots 1165–1214, ed. G. W. S. Barrow with the collaboration of W. W. Scott, Regesta Regum Scottorum 2 [RRS 2] (Edinburgh 1971), no. 115 (H1/6/99). 58 Alternatively, it could refer to a different market of the bishop of St Andrews, perhaps somewhere north of the Tay, or it could simply refer to the market rights inherent in those of the burgh, in other words, the situation after the founding of St Andrews burgh. 59 Perhaps they would have sold some of the fish from the Berwick fishings, for example. FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 89 custom, it seems very likely indeed that these men would sell their ‘duty-free’ wares to all and sundry. King William was presumably attempting to control a situation which had already developed on the ground, and to protect the rights of his own burgesses of Roxburgh as much as was possible at that time. This unofficial ‘burgh’ at Kelso was thriving, and some of the proceeds must have filled the abbey’s coffers. Indeed, the king’s attempts were apparently in vain, and the abbey’s men were calling themselves burgesses by 1237.60 In the absence of lordship over their own burgh, the prior and canons sought the next best thing – freedom from toll and custom throughout the realm, especially in burghs, and permission to buy and sell. Holding these rights would allow the monastery to engage in commercial activity on a level almost equal to the bishop’s burgesses. Involvement in Perth and especially Berwick were important to the priory from the outset, and the king’s initial 1140 endowment included the gift of a fishing at Berwick.61 The priory managed to acquire a separate charter, most likely early in 1141, adding to the fishery a toft (a later charter reveals that it was next to the church62), free and quit from all secular service and custom. Moreover, the canons and their men were to be free of toll throughout the kingdom, in burghs and outwith, with permission to buy grain and flour ‘for their own use’.63 I would argue that the ‘for their own use’ clause frequently found in charters such as this was a sop to the reformist sensibilities of the day, similar to the insistence that sales were made only ‘in great poverty and need’. In any event, the priory evidently had men operating in Berwick from its earliest days. This was in keeping with other Augustinian houses: Holyrood and Jedburgh both had fishings and tofts at Berwick, and Holyrood certainly had freedom from toll.64 These liberties were similar to those of burgesses, suggesting the priory’s men in Berwick (and potentially in Perth, where they also had fishing rights) were agitating to engage in economic activity beyond simply acquiring the necessities of the chapter. Again, the priory seems to be following a policy of deliberately trying to gain the same liberties held by Holyrood, which had complete freedom from toll, not to mention its own burgh. As Duncan points out, however, these rights are not mentioned in David’s grand confirmation, which he suggests may date to ‘the months after October 1141’, nor in 60 RRS 2, no. 64 (H1/6/49); Duncan, Making of the Kingdom, 470–71. SEA, no. 133 (H2/10/4; St A. Lib., 122–3); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 17. 62 RRS 1, no. 174 (H1/5/51). 63 Chrs David I, no. 92 (H1/4/43). For the date, see Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 19. 64 Ibid., nos. 147 (H1/4/74), 174 (H1/4/95). 61 90 Matthew Hammond those of his successors.65 It is possible that the new charter with the additional rights was simply left out when the grand confirmation was compiled; alternatively, the bishop may have raised an objection, possibly at some point in 1141. The issue was raised again at David’s 1152 visit. In the charter witnessed by three Augustinian heads, the king granted a ‘certain full toft in Berwick’, in perpetual alms, free and quit from all service and custom, adding that the men dwelling in that toft shall be free and quit from all exaction and custom and toll and all other things as are the other burgesses of his other alms.66 The use of the verb concedere, ‘to grant’, without the verb dare, ‘to give’, reveals that the primary purpose of this charter was not the transfer of land, not an original gift from the king.67 Instead, the king was conceding to a situation that already existed on the ground; he was displaying public recognition of the fact that the canons had acquired this toft (by what means we do not know). A later charter states that this toft was beside the river Tweed, suggesting the canons had sought a place more suitable for the exigencies of maritime trade. The real point of this charter was of course the royal command freeing the priory’s men from fines imposed upon them. This renewed attempt suggests the earlier charter had been unsuccessful in maintaining the priory’s agents’ freedoms. It is also noteworthy that the canons sought parity with the men dwelling on the king’s other alms; this must refer to the lands at Berwick held by the prior’s Augustinian peers, the abbot of Holyrood and the prior of Jedburgh, who were present that day.68 Finally, these monasteries’ men, acting on their behalf in Berwick, are called burgenses, ‘burgesses’. Even though that term’s meaning was more fluid in the mid-twelfth century than in the thirteenth, this terminology reveals that on the ground, with many of the same rights as the king’s burgesses, agents of religious houses were virtually indistinguishable and engaged in many of the same activities as the ‘official’ burgesses. The situation bears comparison with Kelso’s traders, an abbey which had extensive lands and privileges in Berwick, and as we have seen they emerged as a quasiburgh in competition with Roxburgh.69 Perhaps the priory’s men in Berwick had been buying goods there to be shipped to St Andrews, 65 Chrs David I, no. 126 (H1/4/59); Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 23; RRS 1, no. 174 (H1/5/51); RRS 2, no. 28 (H1/6/23). 66 Chrs David I, no. 215 (H1/4/125). 67 John Reuben Davies, ‘The donor and the duty of warrandice: giving and granting in Scottish charters’ in The Reality behind Charter Diplomatic in Anglo-Norman Britain, ed. Dauvit Broun (Glasgow, 2011), 120–65. 68 Jedburgh had a toft and fishing from David I. Chrs David I, no. 174 (H1/5/95). 69 RRS 1, no. 131 (H1/5/24). FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 91 where any excess could have been sold, thus providing major competition for the bishop’s burgesses. St Andrews cathedral priory was not asking for anything out the ordinary with their attempts to acquire freedom from toll and permission to buy. These rights were frequently held by other monastic houses. Holyrood’s canons, for example, were ‘free of toll and all customary dues in all the king’s burghs throughout his land, namely in all commodities which they may buy or sell’.70 Houses of other orders, including Dunfermline, Coldingham, May, Dryburgh, and Coupar Angus, had similar freedoms by 1165.71 Among Augustinian houses, however, Scone and Jedburgh did not have the same freedom from toll and custom for its men in burghs, perhaps because they were both adjacent to royal burghs; moreover, neither gained abbatial status until after David’s death.72 Stirling’s abbey of Cambuskenneth, however, seems to have had freedom from toll from the outset.73 Jedburgh, which had lands and rights in Berwick, was allowed the limited ‘freedom in their houses in Berwick to receive tonnels of wine brought thither by merchants and emptied there without the king’s officers demanding anything therefrom’, a very specific example which also illustrates the type of transaction St Andrews priory’s men would have encountered.74 Early in St Andrews priory’s history they did seem to acquire these rights. Probably early in 1141, David’s gift of the fishing and toft in Berwick had included ‘freedom from toll throughout his realm, within and outwith burghs’ for the canons and their men.75 Yet apart from a vague reference to freedom from exaction thrown in as the last line of the king’s grand confirmation, these freedoms disappear.76 The apparent failure of the priory to implement these freedoms must be down to Bishop Robert. I argue the priory lost these freedoms due to the bishop convincing the king to agree to his establishment of a burgh at St Andrews. As at Scone and Jedburgh, the existence of the burgh prevented the canons from exercising the full freedoms enjoyed by many of their peers. When the priory acquired a renewal of one of the Berwick tofts from the visiting king David in 1152, they only managed to wrangle freedom from toll for the men dwelling on that specific toft.77 Moreover, it would wait 70 Chrs David I, no. 147 (H1/4/74); see also RRS 2, no. 39 (H1/6/34). Chrs David I, no. 186 (H1/4/105); RRS 1, nos. 173 (H1/5/50), 200, 201 (H1/5/76, 77), 222 (H1/5/88); RRS 2, no. 30 (H1/6/25). 72 Chrs David I, no. 174 (H1/4/95); RRS 1, no. 243 (H1/5/102). 73 Chrs David I, no. 128 (H1/4/61). 74 RRS 2, no. 62 (H1/6/47). 75 Chrs David I, no. 92 (H1/4/43). 76 Chrs David I, no. 126 (H1/4/59); RRS 1, no. 174 (H1/5/95); RRS 2, no. 28 (H1/6/23). 77 Chrs David I, no. 215 (H1/4/125). 71 92 Matthew Hammond until William’s own visit early in his reign for a renewal of this charter to be acquired, and as with the earlier Berwick charters, the language would not make it into the grand confirmations.78 It was not until 1228 that the priory would get full-throated royal support, when Alexander II granted the canons and the servants permission to ‘buy grain and other necessities for their own use free of toll and custom’, forbidding anyone to annoy them or their buyers, on pain of his full forfeiture, with specific instruction to his sheriffs.79 If the bishop’s burgesses were the men annoying the priory’s agents, they may have been in direct competition. It is now possible to propose a tentative scenario for how the burgh of St Andrews came into being. In the autumn of 1140, when the priory was founded at the little assembly in the cloister, I suspect that the bishop had a market and a secular settlement, but no burgh as yet. As the details of the priory’s endowment were hammered out over the following year, however, the question of the status of the agents in Berwick emerged, and Prior Robert may have raised the possibility of gaining burghal rights in line with Holyrood’s. Bishop Robert’s first, now lost, charter giving Kinninmonth with the ‘toft of Kilrymont’ may have dated to around this time. This is likely the same toft ‘in the burgh’ mentioned in a royal charter of 1163r64. The description of the toft as being in Kilrymont may suggest that the bishop’s initial gift predated the establishment of the burgh.80 If the bishop had successfully lobbied against the freedom from toll and custom of the priory’s Berwick men in 1141 (between the charter granting the freedom and the royal confirmation, which does not mention it), this may have also been around the time when the bishop convinced the king to allow a burgh at St Andrews under his lordship rather than the priory’s, and to send him Mainard from Berwick to lay it out. Perhaps the bishop made the case that the cash income from the burgh would offset the losses to his revenues inherent in the priory’s endowment. At this time, a burgh at St Andrews would make sense for the king as well; its harbour would make a valuable stopping point between Berwick and Edinburgh/ Leith to the south and Perth to the north. This importance would have decreased as Inverkeithing, Kinghorn and Crail, not to mention Dundee, were all given burghal status under David’s grandsons. Moreover, by 1152, the priory’s ‘burgesses’ in 78 RRS 2, no. 32 (H1/6/27). This was probably renewed because it had been left out of William’s grand confirmation, which had been produced in Dunfermline probably soon before this. RRS 2, no. 28. See also RRS 3, no. 143 (H1/7/ 146; St A. Lib., 232–6). 79 RRS 3, no. 136 (H1/7/139; St A. Lib., 236–7). 80 RRS 3, no. 239 (H1/5/113); see also RRS 2, no. 330 (H1/6/301). FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 93 Berwick would have rubbed shoulders with the recognised burgesses of the bishop; perhaps there was confusion or conflation from the point of the king’s burgesses and foreign traders about which were the ‘real’ burgesses of St Andrews. This may have been the context in which the problems with tolls from the priory’s men played out. It is also possible that similar tensions could have played out in Perth, another major royal burgh and port town where the priory had rights. Perhaps Bishop Robert feared that with the death of Earl Henry and the impending deaths of himself and King David, Prior Robert would have his run of the burgh, perhaps even manage to gain the lordship for himself. The old bishop hung on to life until early in 1159, and the prior, despite being a generation younger, died the following year. The bishop appears to have taken a more conciliatory stance during these final years, acknowledging the canons’ right to elect their own prior81, giving three tofts in the burgh82, and conceding to their possession of six of the seven altar portions, saving only his sole episcopal portion, but the appearance of conciliation is almost certainly illusory.83 The attestation of William, bishop of Moray, and Osbert, now abbot of Jedburgh, to Bishop Robert’s charters dealing with free election and the altar portions suggests they were produced at the same time and presumably at some kind of royal assembly, given that both men were frequently with the king. It is tempting to pair these two episcopal charters up with King Mael Coluim’s confirmation of all seven altar portions, ‘as the muniment of Bishop Robert bears witness.’84 This royal confirmation might itself date from the same gathering, evidently in Edinburgh, at which the king confirmed the priory’s fishing in Berwick, with no mention of associated tofts or freedom from toll.85 There is a remarkable discrepancy, however, given that the surviving text of Bishop Robert’s charter dealing with altar portions makes clear that he 81 SEA, no. 138 (H2/10/26; National Library of Scotland, Adv. MS 15.1.18, no. 21). SEA, no. 135 (H2/10/18; St A. Lib., 124). It is hard to date this document precisely, but it may have been produced around this time. The bishop’s motivation for the gift is uncertain, but the involvement of the Templars may have figured. The military orders had a presence in St Andrews, and Richard of the Hospital of Jerusalem and Robert brother of the Temple witness Mael Coluim’s grand confirmation to the priory, probably in 1160. During this same period (1153r62), Mael Coluim gave the Hospitallers a toft in each of his burghs, which the bishop could have matched in his own burgh. See RRS 1, nos. 174, 193. 83 SEA, no. 136 (H2/10/25; NLS, MS Adv.15.1.18, no.11); cartulary copy in St A. Lib., 125. On the personae and their portions in the 1130s and 1140s, see Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 10. 84 RRS 1, no. 159 (H1/5/36). Latin text: ut munimentum Roberti episcopi protestatur. 85 Ibid., no. 160 (H1/5/37). 82 94 Matthew Hammond is reserving the seventh, episcopal, portion for himself. Both documents survive only from the priory’s thirteenth-century cartulary, but it would be odd for the canons to tamper with one charter and not the other. The royal confirmations could date to as late as January 1162, while Bishop Robert died early in 1159 and may have travelled little in his final years. On balance, it seems the most likely sequence of events was that the bishop attended a royal assembly and was convinced to give, or to recognise the priory’s right, to six of the altar portions. This was likely the occasion for Bishop Robert’s charter regarding free election of the prior. The attestation of this surviving contemporary single sheet by Robert, prior of Restenneth, suggests that the establishment of that priory as a cell of Jedburgh Abbey may have been part of the business discussed at this assembly; nevertheless, this does not date to the same time as King Mael Coluim’s charter confirming Restenneth to Jedburgh Abbey, which postdates Bishop Robert’s death.86 Quite why there was perceived to be a need for this episcopal charter is unclear, except that it displays the bishop at his most deferential, granting (in the sense of conceding to) rather than giving, the priorate of the canons in the church of blessed Andrew to Lord (or Dom) Robert, the first prior of St Andrews, and his successors, with the blessing of the canons and the due profession of obedience to him, also granting the free election of the prior by the canons or their wiser part.87 Normally there would be no need for this sort of charter, and the real purpose must have been in its public pronouncement in the assembly of prelates and aristocrats. The subtext seems to be that Bishop Robert had perhaps been trying to undermine the position of Prior Robert from within. The concession that the ‘wiser part’ of the brethren might elect the next prior could have been the real purpose here, if the bishop had been attempting to depose Prior Robert or assure a more sympathetic successor through influence over the céli Dé who may have converted to canons after Pope Eugene’s letter. Returning now to the issue of the altar offerings, at some later point, perhaps as he neared his death, the bishop may have been persuaded to part with his own seventh portion, which may or may not have resulted in a written document. The Edinburgh assembly at which all seven portions were confirmed, along with the bare-bones renewal of a fishing in Berwick, could have happened soon after the king’s death, although it likely took place in 1159 after Bishop Robert’s death and before Bishop William’s journey to the papal curia in Anagni. That the royal confirmation mentions Bishop Robert but fails to 86 SEA, no. 138 (H2/10/26; National Library of Scotland, Adv. MS 15.1.18, no. 21); see also RRS 1, no. 195 (H1/5/71). 87 Domno Rodberto primo priore ecclesie sancti Andree eiusque successoribus. FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 95 mention his successor Arnold. Bishop Robert’s ‘muniment’ mentioned in the royal confirmation may have never existed, even if, for example, a deathbed donation had been secured (or had been accepted as such). This could explain why, at a much later date, the two seemingly incompatible charters were both entered into the cartulary. In any event, the priory soon obtained a charter of all seven altar portions from Bishop Arnold, a gift which was again vouchsafed by royal confirmation.88 King Mael Coluim’s reign (1153–65) was also characterised by continued competition between the priory and the burgh of St Andrews on the commercial front. The priory continued making inroads in the royal burghs, gaining a toft in Inverkeithing and an additional fishing net at Perth.89 Perhaps the Inverkeithing connection explains the free passage on the Forth ferry (Queensferry), from either direction, given to Prior Robert, his tenants, horses and goods.90 The priory’s continued interest in Perth suggests they were expanding their commercial interests, presumably in direct competition with the bishop’s burgesses. Mael Coluim granted the priory possession of Baldwin the lorimer’s buildings in Perth with the land on which they were built; this had probably come after a longstanding dispute with Baldwin the exact nature of which it is impossible to know.91 William’s confirmation, 1165r69, describes the land as a toft with a booth on Perth’s North Street at the castle.92 This would seem to be a prime spot for buying and selling. The young king does not appear to have visited St Andrews until 1160 or 1161, probably for the consecration of Arnold as bishop of St Andrews on 20 November 1160, when the canons obtained an itemized renewal of its possessions from the king.93 Probably at the same time, certainly at the same place, the ‘burgesses of the bishop of St Andrews’ got from the king a charter granting them the same ‘liberties and customs that the king’s burgesses have in common throughout his land, no matter to what port they may put in’.94 It is not clear at what ports they had encountered difficulties, or 88 SEA, no. 155 (H2/10/40; NLS, MS Adv.15.1.18, no. 10); RRS 1, no. 176 (H1/5/53). RRS 2, no. 28 (H1/6/23). Dunfermline, Holyrood, Scone, Cambuskenneth, Inchcolm, and Kelso abbeys also got tofts in Inverkeithing. RRS 1, nos. 178, 212, 232, 243; RRS 2, no. 60; Charters of the Abbey of Inchcolm, ed. D. E. Easson and A. Macdonald, Scottish History Society, 3rd series (Edinburgh, 1938), no. 7; on the Perth fishing, see RRS 1, no. 119. 90 RRS 1, no. 126 (H1/5/20). 91 RRS 1, no. 221 (H1/5/87). See also nos. 121, 171 (H1/5/15, 48); Chrs David I, no. 176 (H1/4/96). For a detailed analysis of these texts, see Hammond, ‘Scottish Royal Charter Production’, 96–8. 92 RRS 2, no. 28 (H1/6/23). 93 Ibid., no. 174 (H1/5/51). 94 Ibid., no. 166 (H1/5/43). 89 96 Matthew Hammond if the competition with the priory’s quasi-burgessses compelled this unequivocal expression of their status. At the very least, this ensured that the bishop’s burgesses were able to trade in burghs like Berwick and Perth without fear of tolls being levied. The priory, as we have seen, had trouble maintaining the toll-free status for its own trading men. This, the first surviving original charter of a king of Scots to any burgesses anywhere, records that the bishop’s burgesses had full parity with the king’s own burgesses, placing them on a firm footing for the following century and more. The next generation: Archdeacon Matthew and the ‘Kinninmonth network’ A final, workable, settlement on the issue of Kinninmonth was probably not agreed until after King David’s death. Despite its strong wording, Bishop Robert’s charter argued above to date to a large assembly at Stirling in late summer or autumn of 1152, giving Kinninmonth with its toft in Kilrymont to the priory was apparently, like its antecedents, ineffectual.95 This is clear because early in Mael Coluim’s reign, probably between 24 May 1153 and 8 April 1156, at an assembly at Perth, the king confirmed a number of Archdeacon Matthew’s possessions, including Kinninmonth with the toft in Kilrymont (along with the parish church of St Andrews and various other lands), suggesting Matthew had either never relinquished possession, or had quickly regained it on David’s death. Even more remarkably, Mael Coluim’s confirmation mentions an earlier charter of Bishop Robert, apparently (unless this is a later insertion) acting with Prior Robert and the whole convent of the church of St Andrew(s).96 Perhaps after David’s death, the throne occupied by a young, weak, successor, Bishop Robert’s hand was strengthened, and Prior Robert came to an arrangement that included allowing Matthew to retain possession. This may not be the whole story, however, as a brieve of King Mael Coluim from around the same time licenced the prior of St Andrews to discover and regain the prior’s fugitive neyfs of Kinninmonth, wherever they may be.97 Regardless of what was happening on the ground, somehow out of this tangled web there emerged a workable 95 SEA, no. 137 (H2/10/9; National Library of Scotland, MS Adv. 15.1.18, no. 12). RRS 1, no. 120 (H1/5/14). Unfortunately this joint charter, if it ever existed, no longer survives. See also Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, 111–12. Latin text: Kinninmunet quemadmodum ei episcopi Roberti carta testatur et Roberti prioris et tocius conuentus ecclesie Sancti Andree cum toft de Kilrimund et cum omnibus aliis appendiciis. 97 RRS 1, no. 167 (H1/5/44). 96 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 97 compromise, whereby Matthew and his heirs would continue to hold the shire (and later barony) of Kinninmonth, but with the lordship transferred from the bishop to the priory. Matthew’s brother Odo was marischal under Bishop Arnold (1160r62), was steward of the episcopal household shortly thereafter, and remained a steward in St Andrews for the following three decades.98 Barrow suggests that Odo may have initially served as steward to both bishop and priory until the time of Bishop Hugh (1178–88), when he seems to have become steward exclusively to the priory.99 In any event, by the early 1190s, Odo had charters from the prior and the king holding Kinninmonth with the whole shire and the toft in the burgh of St Andrews in feu and heritage, for an annual rent of two marks.100 Prior Gilbert’s charter to Odo’s son Adam upon his succession, circa 1196r98, spells out the terms of the arrangement: Adam held the lands by hereditary right, with the two marks being paid annually on Whitsun and Martinmas, and a relief of one mark to be paid to the priory on the deaths of Adam and his successors; furthermore, it stated that Adam and his heirs would succeed to the stewardship.101 Like his father, Adam was long-lived, half a century later selling a house next to St Leonard’s hospital, with the consent of his son, John.102 In 1438, James of Kinninmonth, a knight, claimed the balliary, stewardry and marshalry of St Andrews.103 Odo’s descendants, the Kinninmonths of that ilk, outlived the cathedral priory itself, holding the lands until 1736.104 How did Odo, presumably like his brother Matthew a nephew of Bishop Robert, become allies of the priory? At the time of Bishop Robert’s death in 1159, Archdeacon Matthew seemed likely to carry on his uncle’s antagonistic attitude to the priory and its projects, the most significant of which was a new cathedral church. Bishop Arnold (20 Nov. 1160–13 Sept. 1162), a former abbot of Kelso, began the new cathedral at St Andrews, joined now by the long-serving Prior Walter (1160–ca 1196, 1198r99).105 It is probably no accident that this new 98 PoMS, no. 1022 (http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/person/1022/; accessed 15 March 2015). 99 Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, 112. 100 The prior’s charter does not survive but is mentioned in the royal confirmation: RRS 2, no. 330 (H1/6/301). 101 Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, no. 7 (H2/97/5); RRS 2, no. 411 (H1/6/379). 102 St A. Lib., p. 281 (H3/323/1); Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, no. 13 (H3/323/2). For Adam, see PoMS, no. 1020 (http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/person/1020/; accessed 15 March 2015). 103 St A. Lib., 429–32. 104 Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, 108. 105 Alan Orr Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History A.D. 500 to 1286, 2 vols (Edinburgh, 1922), II, 250. 98 Matthew Hammond direction was only taken after the deaths of the two Roberts. Moreover, the construction of a massive new church went hand in hand with the renewed push for papal recognition of archiepiscopal status and was evidently meant to rival York Minster.106 It is unlikely that this new cathedral would have been conceived by Bishop Robert, whose expansion of the earlier church (‘St Rule’s’) implies the cloister in which the assembly met in 1140 would have been aligned with that church. Furthermore, the moving of the pilgrim hospital to the current site of St Leonard’s College may have been a prerequisite for laying out the new cathedral; this had happened by the time work on the new church began.107 It is unlikely that large area would have been clear of buildings, and the existing hospital and ‘parsonages’ may have been on this site. The priory attempted to consolidate its rights over the whole of what was developing into a ‘cathedral precinct’, despite the continued existence of the céli Dé and the fact that Bishop Robert had made sure Matthew had rights to the parish church. Bishop Arnold ceded control to the priory of ‘all the land from the street between the burgh and the new hospital as far as Stermolind Bridge and from there as the Kinness burn falls into the sea, and along the road which goes from the burgh to the church as far as the sea’.108 Following the line of Abbey Walk and the Kinness burn to the south, and the road from the burgh to the north of the new cathedral, this gift effectively encompasses virtually all of the cathedral precinct. Bishop Arnold’s sternly worded command ‘by episcopal authority that the canons shall have that land as the rest of the lands which were given to them in alms’ and threat of anathema on any who would infringe on the priory’s rights in that regard demonstrate a concern for local opposition, echoing previous use of the anathema directed at Matthew. The witness list reveals the charter’s true target: Archdeacon Matthew is the first witness, and is joined by associates Archdeacon Thorald of Lothian, Aiulf the dean, Masters Andrew and Herbert, and, interestingly, a Stephen clerk of Berwick. Early in his reign, King Mael Coluim had granted Matthew the royal dignity in the parish church of St Andrews, which at that time was located next to the cathedral; presumably Robert had already invested him with 106 Malcolm Thurlby, ‘St Andrews Cathedral Priory and the Beginnings of Gothic Architecture in Northern Britain’, in Medieval Art and Architecture in the Diocese of St Andrews, ed. John Higgitt (Leeds, 1994), 47–60, at 52, 54–56; Dauvit Broun, Scottish Independence and the Idea of Britain (Edinburgh 2007), 137; Ian Campbell, ‘Planning for pilgrims: St Andrews as the second Rome’, Innes Review, 64 (2013), 1–22, at 16–17. 107 SEA, no. 152 (H2/10/34; St A. Lib., 127). The older hospital could only take six pilgrims at a time. Duncan, ‘Foundation’, 10–11; PNF, III, 527–8. 108 SEA, no. 152 (H2/10/34; St A. Lib., 127). FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 99 the episcopal dignity in that church.109 If Archdeacon Matthew had managed to hold onto his rights through Arnold’s short episcopacy, this changed abruptly with the arrival of Bishop Richard, a nephew of the long-serving Augustinian abbot of Holyrood, Alwine (1128–51).110 A large royal assembly met at St Andrews in 1163 or 1164, probably for Richard’s election. Probably at that time, Richard gave the parish church of Kilrymont with its land of ‘Kindargog’, the chapels of the whole shire of Kilrymont, and the toft in the burgh with the houses built on it, all as held by Matthew the archdeacon.111 The king, three bishops, eight abbots, three earls, the steward and constable, were present, among many others, witnessing the king’s confirmation, and it may have taken this kind of political pressure to assure Matthew’s acquiescence. Richard’s charter as the newly elect does not survive, but a new version was composed probably at his consecration in 1165, which is marked by a preamble noting that what he has given to the priory should be held in perpetual alms quit and undisturbed.112 It seems unlikely that Matthew would have given up these valuable rights in exchange for nothing; perhaps it was at this time that the priory gave up on trying to oust him from the shire of Kinninmonth, or perhaps Matthew was promised the bishopric of Aberdeen upon the death of Bishop Edward, given this transpired in 1172. Richard was an avid supporter of the cathedral project, drawing land into burgage for the support of the building works.113 Events following Bishop Richard’s death in 1178 explain the alignment of the priory’s interests with the network of Archdeacon Matthew, now bishop of Aberdeen (1172–99). It is likely that Prior Walter, in seeking to press the priory’s claim of electing bishops of St Andrews, sought to gain as much local support as possible in the choice of John ‘the Scot’, a nephew of both Matthew and Bishop Robert.114 The election, and the clout lent to it by Bishop Matthew, aroused the ire of King William, who had his own chaplain, Hugh, consecrated as bishop of St Andrews by some unnamed bishops. Matthew’s support for his nephew was demonstrated when he consecrated John at Holyrood abbey in 1180, under the eye of the papal legate, Alexis. Despite this, John, Matthew, and various family members, including probably 109 RRS 1, no. 120 (H1/5/14). Watt, Series Episcoporum, 86. 111 RRS 1, no. 239 (H1/5/113). See also no. 240 (H1/5/114). 112 SEA, no. 181 (H2/10/43; St A. Lib., 132–33). Richard was consecrated under papal mandate by the bishops of Scotland, and five bishops witness that charter. 113 SEA, no. 195 (H2/10/89; St A. Lib., 141). 114 Watt, Series Episcoporum, 87. Nepos in the case of Bishop Robert could also mean ‘grandson’. 110 100 Matthew Hammond Matthew’s brother Odo the steward and progenitor of the Kinninmonth family, soon fled to the court of Henry II.115 This realignment explains the ongoing success of the relationships between the Kinninmonths and the priory, with Odo switching his allegiance as steward from the bishop to the priory. Furthermore, at least two other individuals with ties to the St Andrews ecclesiastical establishment, Aiulf the dean and Roger of Feddich, were imperilled by their association with John ‘the Scot’.116 With the offending bishop out of the kingdom, the irate king William took his anger out on Matthew, causing his houses to be burned down.117 We are not told where these houses were, but while Matthew had been bishop of Aberdeen in 1172, his personal career and family networks very much centred around St Andrews and east Fife, and we know that as archdeacon of St Andrews for at least two decades, Matthew had land and houses in Kilrymont, and furthermore that the shire of Kinninmonth had associated with it a toft in the burgh.118 Thus, it is likely that the conflagration took place in St Andrews. Much of the disruption and damage that marred the city in this period is known from the activities of Hugh’s successor, Roger (elected 1189; 1198–1202). For example, Roger restored Odo the steward to the lands he had held from Richard.119 In 1198 or 1199, Bishop Roger granted his burgesses all the liberties which they had had in the time of his predecessor Bishop Richard, making particular note of their rights of milling, common pasture, and ‘going out far and wide by the three ancient and customary exits from the toun of St Andrews’, suggesting their abilities to exercise these rights had been curtailed in the intervening two decades.120 These disruptions may have occurred due to the attacks by King William’s men, and they may have been exacerbated by the fact that Bishop Hugh was frequently away, not to mention Roger’s long tenure as an unconsecrated bishop-elect. The mention in Bishop Roger’s charter of the burgesses’ right to go out far and wide by the three ancient ports suggests that either the ports themselves were physically blocked or damaged or, more likely, that the burgesses did not feel they had the security of the king’s peace when venturing forth to sell outside the burgh. With the restoration of their safety and rights by Bishop Roger and the alliance of the Kinninmonths 115 Watt, Series Episcoporum, 7–8, 88–90. Barrow, ‘Kinninmonth’, 113. 117 Ibid., 112–113; Alan O. Anderson, Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers, A.D. 500 to 1286 (London, 1908, reprintd Stamford, 1991), 275. 118 Watt, Series Episcoporum, 7–8. 119 PoMS, H2/10/110 (http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/source/1296/; accessed 16 January 2015). 120 SEA, no. 258 (H2/10/124; St A.U.L., B65/1/1, (Black Book of St Andrews), fo.35r). 116 FOUNDING OF THE BURGH OF ST ANDREWS 101 and the priory, the burgh was finally in a stable position. Indeed, the interests of the burgh and the priory gradually became so interweaved that their shared history in the thirteenth century would be very different from the burgh’s early history.121 Thus the aftershocks of the tumultuous relationship between Bishop Robert and Prior Robert continued to reverberate for a generation after their deaths. Eventually, the man whom Bishop Robert had chosen to vouchsafe his legacy, his nephew Matthew, made common cause with a new, probably much more diplomatic, prior, ironically almost bringing Prior Robert’s dream of episcopal election to fruition. King William’s implacable opposition meant the exile of much of the ‘Kinninmonth’ network, although Matthew, John ‘the Scot’, and their confederates eventually came back into the good graces of the king. Matthew had given up his archidiaconal rights over the parish church of St Andrews (Holy Trinity) and its various appurtenances, but had managed to retain the shire of Kinninmonth for one brother (Odo) and to gain the archdeaconate of Aberdeen for another (Simon). The enduring legacy of Bishop Robert, however, is not to be found in his physical descendants, but in the burgh he evidently fought so hard to establish and maintain. For a man who strived continuously over two decades to move slowly in the face of a maelstrom, the bishop’s most, and perhaps only unequivocal success was the creation of the kingdom’s first episcopal burgh, in the face of the ambitious goals of a younger generation of reformers from his own Augustinian order, and in the staunching of the priory’s own competing commercial activities. The bishop seems to have successfully defended Mainard Fleming and his Berwick connections from ruin, and the achievement of full equality with the king’s burgesses soon after the bishop’s death would ensure the burgh’s survival and success in coming generations. DR MATTHEW HAMMOND IS RESEARCH ASSOCIATE IN THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES (HISTORY), UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 121 Matthew Hammond, ‘The burgh of St Andrews and its inhabitants before the Wars of Independence’, in Medieval St Andrews, ed. Katie Stevenson and Michael Brown (Woodbridge, forthcoming).

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The bishop, the prior, and the founding of the burgh of St Andrews, The Innes Review

The bishop, the prior, and the founding of the burgh of St Andrews, The Innes Review

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS