Harvey, Margaret. Women in The English in Rome 1362-1420: Portrait of an Expatriate Community 120-131


Over thirty English women can be identified who lived for some time between 1360 and 1420 in Rome. Since they could not do most things men did, act as travelling merchants nor of course become clergy, most English women who lived for any length of time in Rome were either wives or widows. There were very few unmarried daughters and few religious. Their experience must have been very different from their sisters in England. Some were probably pilgrims, perhaps pilgrims who stayed. Again the experience must have been different for a woman.

Whereas notaries' protocols usually contain a number of marriage contracts, I found none for English couples in Rome, and only one for an English man, John Cross,[1] (Croce) of Colonna in 1391, several times camerarius of S Thomas's beginning in 1401, whose dower arrangements when he was marrying Angillela, daughter of Francesca, widow of Paulus Macani, are preserved,[2] though some of the other marriages must have taken place in Rome also. Marriage in Italy differed from England and indeed from city to city in the peninsula, though the exchange of `words of present consent', essential for a canonical marriage, was always carefully recorded.[3] In the Roman protocols the actual marriage (subarratio) was before a notary and remembered in a document by which he recorded that the young couple before him were asked in turn if they wished the other to be their wife or husband, replying volo.[4] The man then put a ring on the ring finger of the girl, in token of matrimony by words of present consent. The notary then said `What God has joined together let no man put asunder, in the name of [120] the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.' Names of witnesses were given. But the ring-giving and exchange of consent was merely the culmination of family bargaining. John Cross' dower document explained that the marriage had not yet been completed `he has not yet taken her to his home' (nondum ad eius domum transductam).[5] Women had a dowry, varying in size naturally according to wealth.[6] Thus a few English wills contain gifts to young girls for their marriage. Walter Taylor, the English cursor turned tailor, making his will in 1403, left to Norma the girl of his business partner (puella sua) all his household goods and other bedding, except what was in his shop, for her marriage.[7] John White, founder of S Chrysogonus' hospice, left to Ricciarda, the daughter of his partner Perrinus Baker, thirty ducats for her marriage.[8]

When a woman married she was given clothes and jewels by her husband, and a small donatio propter nuptias,[9] as John Cross' dowry deed explained, `according to Roman custom'. Very often the dowry was invested in the house in which the couple would then live, or at least in real property.[10] If the woman was then widowed she had a right to her dower and half the donatio propter nuptias. If the money had been put into property the widow could live in it.[11] If the woman died first, the husband had her dower. Though many notaries' protocols contain written agreements, these were not necessary; the law in Rome said that where a ring had been given the gift was presumed. The only English example, John Cross', was that the dower of l00 gold ducats would go after both the deaths of both partners, subject to certain conditions, to S Thomas's.

If women wanted to sell property they needed their husband's consent.[12] There are examples of this in the hospital deeds, where an Italian woman sells the hospital a property for instance.[13] During his lifetime the husband administered the dowry,[14] but a widow had the [121] right to claim it and, in theory, could remove herself from her first husband's family, with her dowry, and either return to her father or remarry.[15] This could prove very costly for her first husband's heirs and it was thus in the interests of the first husband's family that the widow remained unmarried; wills often stipulate that the wife's legacy will be greater if she does.[16] The English testators in Rome often followed the same ideas, as Richard son of Roger laid down for Stefania in 1369: she was to live in his house with her children in her widowhood with a quarter of the goods, but if she remarried she took only the goods with no rights in the house.[17] Henry of John in his second will left his wife a stirps if she did not remarry.[18] Hence although there are plenty of examples of these English widows remarrying: as did Rosa Casarola (mentioned below) and Stefania, others did not. Alice Possewich seems to have lived with her sons and Elena Clerk, who was apparently childless, must have lived alone and disposed of her own property.[19] Angillela remarried when Cross died. Her new husband was a German papal cursor and S Thomas's did not get her property. Her second husband became guardian of the German hospice, S Maria dell'Anima and it was eventually the recipient.[20]

Married women could make wills while their husbands were alive when the wife was not ill, though it was unusual. An interesting example, where the woman may be Italian, is Rosa Ubertini Casarola of the Biberatica region, near Trajan's forum, evidently with property of her own to protect and quarrelling with her husband. In July 1363,[21] as the wife of John the Englishman, she annulled the gift of a house to him because it was `forced by the violence of her husband, because of the many wounds her husband continuously gave her and his threats'.[22] If Rosa herself was not English born she moved in a very English ambience. On 30 July the same year she made her will,[23] leaving her servant John Bramantis, an Englishman, the use (sedium) in two houses for his life, with the arrangements already discussed earlier. All o£ this was to go to the monastery of SS Andrew and Gregory for her soul after Bramantis' death.[24] She left to her parish, SS Apostoli, money for [122] masses, to the female convent of S Maria in Julia money for masses and to Robert the English oblate there, an executor, a small legacy.[25] The `poor of the hospital of the English newly built in Arenula region' were given bedding. Robert de Pigna received a small legacy. Richard the Englishman of Trevi region, her godfather, was an executor. Simon, paternostrarius of Parione, was another. Henry the Englishman of Trastevere was a witness. Her husband was carefully excluded, on the same grounds as before. In October the same year she made another will, again annulling her gift to her husband.[26] This time she left parts of her houses to the monastery of S Andrew, another part to SS Apostoli, with sedium again to Bramantis and John the Englishman, her servants. She left another legacy for Margaret her English servant, and ten libri for Bocard her brother. Bramantis and Richard the Englishman of Trevi were executors. Yet another arrangement followed in 1367;[27] this time houses went to S Andrew's and SS Apostoli, with sedium for John Bramantis and a legacy for Bocard, with the cassation of the gift to her husband and Italian executors. Finally in 1369 Bramantis had become her husband, doubtless the best arrangement in her interests, and a house went to S Andrew's, with usufruct to the couple for their lives.[28] Thus in the end Rosa married the servant, but first ensured that her property would have good protectors.

Rosa's is the only will I have found by an Englishwoman whose husband was still alive. Four wills survive by English widows between 1360 and 1420. The earliest was of Amara, widow of Henry Orlandi, living in Arenula in 1365, and apparently actually resident in the hospice of S Thomas.[29] She was simply identified as Amata wife of the late Herrici. Her heir was a son Angelus who received six florins, a quilt and a pair of sheets. He was not an executor. Elena Clerk, who left an elaborate will in 1390, was described as her husband's widow. No children were mentioned and the executors, including one woman, were all English.[30] Johanna de la Morte de Gascognia, making her will in 1396, was described as Johanna, daughter of the late Peter de la Morte de Gascognia, wife of the late Guilelmus of Civita Vecchia, now living in Parione region.[31] They counted as English because Gascony was English territory; they certainly identified themselves as such. No children were mentioned and she left her house in Parione and goods to Davit son of John of Wales, cernitor. It is not clear what relation existed between the two.

Alice Possewich made her will in 1401. In it she was called Alice [123] Irland, widow of the late Richard Irland, otherwise called Possewich, cursor of the pope.[32] When we first meet her in Rome in 1379 she was identified as Alice, daughter of the late William de Ricchal o£ a diocese which may be York, and the deed revealed that 150 florins of the 200 that bought their house in Parione was from Alice's father.[33] The Possewichs are discussed in detail elsewhere. Here it is enough to notice that Alice's husband Richard made her his heir and one of his executors in 1391 when their two sons John and Richard junior were still very young.[34] She must have spent ten years as a widow in Rome when she finally made her will but there was nothing in her husband's will which prevented her from remarrying; she was there made guardian of her two sons, the house in Rome and all his goods given her for herself, for Richard's soul and for their two sons.

The complications of the Roman inheritance laws and the implicaÁtions of relationships can be illustrated in the case of the house called Lo Confesse already encountered.[35] The case illustrates better than many the widow allowed to live in the house with her children if she did not remarry. Stefania was very vulnerable and seems to have relied on the executors of her husband's will, who were also officials of S Thomas's, to protect her. They were, of course, also protecting their own future legacy. Although the gift to S Thomas's by William paternostarius was said to be for the highest religious motives `so that God might pardon the soul of the testator and of his relatives' (ut Deus indulgeat anime ipsius testatoris et parentum suorum), the officials still asked Stefania for rent once she remarried. The institution offered protection but not great generÁosity.

Women could be executors of wills, though they were often associated with men, as Richard Possewich's will showed. In 1379 Richard Teste made his wife Sibilla his executor.[36] He had already left her a house, inter vivos, and in his will also left her all his goods. He named the custos of the hospice of S Thomas's, John Ponfret as her assistant (adjutor) if she wished. If she did not want the task of executor, then John would do it but only with Sibilla's consent. Sibilla in the event sold her house to William son of Richard paternostrarius.[37] Sibilla was also executor, along with William paternostrarius and William Holdernesse, of the will of Elena Clerk, widow of John Clerk, paternostrarius in 1390.[38] In the end this will caused problems, because Elena's legacies could not be met without first selling her house. So the three executors were recorded doing so.[39] [124]

There are very few cases where we can tell the national origin of the women. When a wife was called Anglica, like Rosa Casarola, it is not always clear whether she was English by origin or just by marriage, but some English men married Italian wives. Maria Baker, wife of Perrinus Baker, the Gascon merchant who joined with John White in establishing S Chrysogonus', was called Romana.[40] Perrinus' daughter Ricciarda who must have been born in Rome, later married the Englishman John Ely.[41] Evidently Vannotia the daughter of Stefania, wife of Richard son of Roger, an Englishman, married an Italian, though it is not clear if Stefania was herself Italian,[42] and as we have seen John Cross married the Italian Angillela.[43]

Where the women married again, as did Rosa Casarola, Stefania and Margaret, widow of William Holdernesse by 1407,[44] the second husband was often English. Henry of John of Trastevere, in his second will made in 1378, asked for prayers for the souls of his wives, one of whom, Margaret, was still alive.[45]

Like their husbands, of course, the women could not live in a wholly English ambience, but they nevertheless did associate with many English people, showing what a small society the English group in Rome actually was. The will of Elena Clerk in 1390 is particularly interesting for what it reveals about English women known to Elena. She had been married to John Clerk, paternostrarius since at least 1376[46] and lived from then onwards in Rome but was a widow by the time she made her will.[47] The house which she left to the English hospice in the Pizzomerle district was given on condition that Agnes Taylour, an Englishwoman, could stay in it for her life and with her, if Agnes agreed, Cecilia Howden, also English. Cecilia also received a ducat and a bed cover with a pair of sheets and one head scarf and Agnes a head scarf. In addition there were legacies to Elena, daughter of William the English tailor (two gold ducats and a bed), to Alice, wife of Simon Brugge the Englishman of Ponte region, two of the four ducats he owed Elena, to Agnes Sparcha, an English woman, one woollen gown (juppolantem) a hood, a cloak of cameline cloth and one ducat, to Alice, wife of William the paternostrarius, one head scarf, to Alice Possewich one linen sheet and a towel, and to Sibilla Teste who was an executor a cloak with a hood of `mixed', a pair of stockings and a head scarf, with four gold ducats. Of these only Alice Possewich, Alice, wife of William, and Sibilla Teste can be traced otherwise. This suggests at least that [125] there were some single (widowed?) English women living in Rome. It seems unlikely that these were merely pilgrims passing through.

There were no English women running businesses, although there were female businesses in Rome: for example we hear of women fruiterers and the hospice of S Thomas in 1406 was renting a shop to Vetula who sold green stuff and apples (herbas et poma).[48] There was also the woman who made her living baking bread, noticed earlier.[49] It was probably much easier for a woman to run a business in England than anywhere in the Mediterranean countries and the businesses that Italian woman did run were often lowly.[50] In Florence for instance the types of jobs commonly done by women were domestic service, as uncloisÁtered religious, weavers, spinners, sellers of dishes and of fruit. Rosa Casarola relied upon her servant, John Bramantis to run what she called in 1367 contrada pro cernendo farinas with everything for the task in her houses where she left him the right to live.[51] Henry of John of Trastevere had two stirpes ad cernendum in the Trastevere region which he had bought in 1354.[52] His widow Margaret was to have these unless she re-married, according to his will in 1378.[53] But there are no examples of Englishwomen taking over as paternostraria for instance, though in 1527 there was one woman paternostraria in Rome.[54] A few English woman were servants. Robert of Pigna left the use of half a house for life to Alice an English woman who had been his servant and she lived in it with her husband John.[55] Rosa Casarola had an English servant called Margaret in 1363.[56] When Margery Kemp came to Rome in 1414 and quarrelled with her travelling companions, her servant girl obtained temporary employment in S Thomas's hospice as keeper of the wine.[57] Thus there would be servants in most of the households encountered here, though we cannot now recover them, and one supposes that some brought female servants from England, as Margery did. The Agnes `who is wont to carry the water', left a bed by Alice Possewich in 1401 was, however, probably Italian.[58]

An alternative career for women was in a religious order or as a `penitent', for which several possibilities existed in the areas of Rome where English people lived.[59] No English names occur among the lists [126] of nuns in the protocols of notaries. In the papal letters there is only one religious, Katherine Kelsey, of the diocese of London, who in 1399 was living enclosed near S Peter's as what would in England have been called an anchoress.[60] She was given permission to visit relatives or go on pilgrimage.[61] Her father may have been a patron of S Thomas's; if so he was a London merchant.[62]

There are examples of extended families living together. In 1367 for instance Simon, son of Simon, his wife Cecilia and brother John bought a house jointly.[63] But more commonly our sources suggest English family units of husband, wife and children and even more commonly only of husband and wife. There are in fact remarkably few children, perhaps because several couples were very young and lived in Rome only briefly; but it is also noticeable that, out of fourteen wills for the period 1362 to 1420, few mention children. Amata Orlandi mentions one son,[64] Richard of Roger had a son, a daughter and probably a posthumous child, and there was no mention of grandchildren,[65] Henry of Trastevere probably, and the Possewichs certainly, had two sons.[66] The other nine wills seem to be of childless people, though John Shepherd, Robert of Pigna,[67] William Scossa,[68] Richard Teste,[69] Elena Clerk,[70] Walter Taylour,[71] and Joanna de la Morte[72] had all been married. Even so very wealthy a merchant as John White does not seem to have acquired a wife. This evidence perhaps conforms to the information about low birth-rates which others notice for Italian cities of the period.[73]

Membership of the confraternity of both hospices must have been open to women; both John Shepherd and his wife were to live in the hospice of S Thomas and share its care.[74] Much later Alice Possewich expected to have masses said for her soul within S Thomas's and talked of `the brothers and sisters of the hospital', who were distinguished from the poor in general.[75] In 1412 the papal indult was granted to the brethren and sisters of the hospital of S Thomas, wherever they may be.[76] The case of S Chrysogonus was similar. The list of early confratres, [127], though mostly men, included Perrinus Baker's wife Maria.[77] By no means all Roman confraternities were mixed. The confraternity of S Salvatore ad Sancta Sanctorum, for instance, was a male association and thus hardly received legacies from women.[78]

Same of the lone women may have been pilgrims and for them the English hospice of S Thomas performed a vital function. In William Swan's letter book there is a series of letters about Alice Proude alias Tudor, who came in 1407 to do business whilst the curia was wandering and then made a pilgrimage to Rome. Alice travelled to Italy via Cologne with a parry of at least three. At Cologne in July she met Swan's friend John Launce returning to London and told him how she had been cheated in an exchange of money in London or Bruges, having been given a traveller's letter (literam traffatoriam) on which she was likely to lose six marks. Launce gave her a letter of recommendation to Swan and took the details to Bruges and even to London to try to get her a remedy, but meanwhile Alice was short of money. She went first to do her business at the curia in Viterbo, where she met and nursed Swan who fell very ill there and reckoned he owed her his life. She then came to Rome, where Richard Brisby, who had been in her original group, promised to pay her expenses. Evidently she wanted to hire priests to do a circuit of churches and celebrate six masses at scala celi.[79] John Lincoln at the hospice of S Thomas told Swan that enquiries showed she could have this for one ducat. Swan had clearly undertaken to organise money for Alice but on 22 October John Thomasson and John Lincoln from the hospice wrote to Swan that she still had received only half a ducat and it was costing her that for her weekly board. They could not lend her any because, with the curia absent, they too were very short. By December Swan was writing that she had left to return home.[80] But her stay in Rome had been made at least possible, if not comfortable, by the kindness of others and particularly men.

The lengths to which Launce was prepared to go to try to remedy her wrongs were impressive. Once back in London he wrote to Swan about the result of his labours. He searched for Philip Glefarde who had cheated her but he was not to be found either in Bruges at the sign of the Keys where the widow would not even acknowledge that Alice had stayed there, nor at the sign of the Bear in London. He had spoken with merchants at Bruges whom Alice had also talked to. John Aurifaber, however, in the parish of S Bartholemew the Less in London said that [128] he would make arrangements (ordinabit) for her. In other words Launce made possible her financing.[81]

The story makes it easier to understand how Margery Kemp survived in Rome in 1414 even when she had quarrelled with her companions. Clearly a woman could not travel alone. Margery, with one maidservant whose tasks included preparing food and washing clothes,[82] travelled in a group and at first one of the company looked after her money, about twenty pounds.[83] The group of course went armed.[84] She always describes men doing the exchange of money, or helping her to do it.[85] In Rome itself she borrowed from Richard, a broken-backed Irishman, who was willing to wait for his money until they both got to Bristol, when she duly paid two years later.[86] From Constance onwards, when she had quarrelled with her earlier companions, Margery was obliged to travel with an unknown man. Both were very frightened, he of what others might do to him because she was so strange, Margery of rape.[87] Equally, when Richard the broken-backed man met her, he was reluctant to escort her alone, partly because the conventions would have found such a partnership unseemly. When Margery returned to Norwich rumour had gone before that she had conceived and borne a child while away.[88] As soon as possible in Rome therefore, Richard consigned her to a company which included another woman.[89] In Rome Margery never approached clergy directly herself but got Richard to do it for her.[90] Rome was full of supposedly celibate clerics and their female companions. One may notice here the casual way the location of S Thomas's hospice was given in the records for 1362: `opposite is the church of SS Mary and Catherine, on one side Fina the concubine of the late Archpriest of the said church is the holder'.[91] Dietrich of Niem, the outstanding critic of curial corruption, had a concubine, casually mentioned living in one of his houses.[92] Thus a single woman could acquire a bad reputation in Rome very easily. This was no place for an unprotected woman.

Margery's description of living in poverty in Rome is very real and horrible. She had no bed clothes; the group had been carrying their own and presumably when she fell out with them they took the bedding. Washing must have been difficult for the poor; Margery [129] became covered with vermin.[93] But many were willing to give her alms.[94] One way corporate institutions like the hospice of S Thomas functioned was to provide protection for women alone in Rome. That must explain why Rosa Casarola's first scheme for preventing her husband from obtaining her property was to will it to a monastery.[95] Likewise in 1402 William Holdernesse gave a house to the hospice of S Thomas with sedium for his wife and any one future child for life.[96] In 1407 his widow was living in this, having married again.[97] William the paternostrarius did the same for himself and his wife Eloyse at the same time, 1402.[98] When Robert of Pigna died and left half his household goods for the use of his servant Alice for her life with reversion to S Thomas after her death, the hospice officials kept very careful eyes upon the property and by 1377 agreed with Alice that, since the goods were now worn out, Alice would promise to restore 8 florins worth to the hospice at her death; her husband guaranteed this.[99] Essentially, one assumes, this meant that if Alice died first, her husband, who had had a house free, would make good the loss. Very probably the single old of either sex who were benefactors moved into the hospice to die there, as Amata apparently did in 1365.[100] John Palmer clearly did the same in 1383,[101] and John White was ill and living in his own hospice of S Chrysogonus when he made his will in 1404.[102]

The levels of wealth of these women varied greatly. Alice Shepherd, wife of the `founder' of S Thomas's hospice, had a dowry of fifteen gold florins in one hand and ten shilling in the other, as her husband's will put it, a small sum.[103] Alice Possewich on the other hand had at least 150 florins from her father.[104]Ð Elena Clerk owned two houses at her death, one worth 150 florins.[105]Ð Ricciarda, daughter of Perrinus Baker, who married John Ely, sergeant-at-arms to Martin V, eventually left her father's house in Arenula, to S Edmund's hospice in 1445. It must have been hers to leave.[106]

Few conclusions can be drawn about the life of English women in this expatriate group. They probably had a more restricted life than their contemporaries in England, where some of them might have conducted business, as Margery Kemp so famously did.[107] The hospices provided an artificial kin group for unprotected women, though it is evident that the men who ran their affairs were shrewdly able to exploit [130] the chance to add to the properties of the institutions. It certainly looks as if Stefania allowed the men running the hospice of S Thomas to acquire property which they should not have had, otherwise it is difficult to see why compensation was adjudged to Vannotia's husband. But in general a widow, left alone in a foreign country, must have been glad to have a corporate institution to rely on. It would have supported Sibilla Teste to have as her helper in executing her husband's will the custos of S Thomas's hospice, though her husband did not force her to accept him. If, by the time a husband died, the wife was too old to return home to England to her own family, the hospice could be expected to take some care, particularly if a legacy was involved!

[1] Nagl, Anima in Rom, no. 217, S Maria dell'Anima, Instr. Litt. B tom. I, ff. 118-120v, for Johannes Croce or Cross, marrying an Italian in 1391.

[2] Nagl, Anima in Rom, no. 217.

[3] C. Klapisch-Zuber, Women, Family and Ritual in Renaissance Italy (trans), Chicago 1985, especially chapters 6, 9 and 1o. Chapter 9 discusses the differences between Roman and Florentine customs.

[4] Goioli, pp. 4-5.

[5]Ð See p. 120.

[6] Goioli, pp. 170-1, where Stefanello receives as the dowry for his future wife Andreotta from her mother the widow Lorenza half of 5o libri provisini, the rest to follow.

[7] m. 163.

[8] m. 169.

[9] Goioli, pp. 73-4 where Giovanni, of Ripa region receives as deposit from Petrucciolus 50 gold florins which are for ornaments for Altadonna, future wife of Petrucciolus, daughter of Giovanni.

[10] Caputgallis, pp. 209-10: Lorenzo son of Corrado or Renco de Sabella gets a dowry of 60 libri for his future wife Caterina and promises to invest it in property, in 1379.

[11] Re, Statuti, 1/1, chapter 44, p. 31.

[12] Re, Statuti, 1/1, pp. 51-2

[13] m. 77: Paula wife of Nucius Sclavi sells a house to the hospice of S Thomas with permission of her husband.

[14] Klapisch-Zuber, Women, Family, p. 216 for instance. 121

[15] Ibid., esp. pp. 120-4.

[16] For instance, Caputgallis, no. 659.

[17] m 56..

[18] m. 93.ÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ

[19] m. 119.

[20] A. J. Schmidlin, Geshichte der deutschen Nationalkirche in Rom, S Maria dell'Anima, Freiburg im Br. 1906, p. 50.

[21] S Angelo, 1/1, ff. 121v-122. Referred to briefly by Brentano, Rome before Avignon, pp. 283-4Á.

[22] Vi cohacta ab ipso eius marito et propter multa vulnera que continue dictas eius maritus ditte Rose inferibat et minas quas continue faciebat et facit ditte Rose.

[23] S.. Angelo, 1/1, f 141r/v.

[24] Now S Gregorio al Celio, in via S Gregorio, Caraffa, Monasticon, i, p. 56.

[25] Caraffa, Monasticon, 1, pp. 65-6.

[26] S Angelo, 1/1, ff. 173v-174v.

[27] S Angelo, 1/3, f. 9.

[28] S Angelo, 1/5, ff. 5 iv-52.

[29] Goioli, p. 248-9, no. 148.

[30] m. 119.

[31] m. 138.

[32] m. 158.

[33] m. 100.

[34] m. 123.

[35] See above p. 68.

[36] m. 99.

[37] rn. 121.

[38] m. 119.

[39] m. 122.

[40] Venerabile, p. 94.

[41] Venerabile, p. 65.

[42] See for the story p. 68.

[43] See p. 120.

[44] For Margaret m. 179, her husband was Raulinus, an Englishman.

[45] m. 93.

[46] m .90.

[47] m. 119.

[48] Goioli, p. 220: Margarita pomarola; m. 172.

[49] Above p. 116.

[50] D. Herlihy, Opera Muliebria. Women and Work in Medieval Europe, New York etc. 1990, pp. 159, 160.

[51] Above p. 126.

[52] m 24.

[53] m. 93

[54]Lee, Descriptio Urbis, p. 343.

[55] m 88 and other refs, p. 67.

[56] S Angelo, t/1, f£ 173v-74v.

[57] Kemp, The Book, pp. 94-5.

[58] m. 151.

[59] L. Temperini, `Fenomeni di vita communitaria tra i penitenti franciscani in Roma e dintori', in R. Pazzelli and L. Temperini, eds., Prima manifestazioni di vita communitaria maschile e femminile nel movimento franciscano della penitenzia (1215-1447) (= Commissione storica internationale T.O.R), Rome 1982, pp. 603-53, esp. pp. 628-9.

[60] For definition P. H. Cullum, `Vowesses and female lay piety in the province of York, 1300-1530', Northern History, 32 (1996), pp. 21-41, esp. pp. 21, 25Á.

[61] CPL, v p. 249; mentioned in J. A. F. Thomson, `The `well of grace': Englishmen and Rome in the fifteenth Century', in R. B. Dobson, ed., The Church, Politics and Patronage in the Fifteenth Century, Gloucester 1984, pp. 99-114, esp. p 107. For vowesses see also M. C. Erler, `Three fifteenth-century vowesses', in: C. M. Barron and A. F. Sutton, eds., Medieval London Widows, London, 1994, pp. 165-183.Á

[62] Above pp. 75-6.

[63] m. 50.

[64] Goioli, p. 248.

[65] Above p. 68.

[66] rn. 93; and see below p. 144.

[67] m. 53.

[68] m. 91.

[69] m. 99.

[70] m. 119.

[71] m. 109.

[72] m. 138.

[73] Herlihy, `The Tuscan town in the Quattrocento', esp. p. 97, 103.

[74] m.37.

[75] m. 158.

[76] CPL, v1, p. 332.

[77] Venerabile Collegio Inglese, Liber 272, f 1.

[78] Hubert, `Economie de la proprietª immobili¿re', pp. 198-213, 218-25.

[79] See above p. 76 for the place.

[80] Arch Seld. B 23, ff. 34v, 39, 40-40v, 41, 48r/v.

[81] Arch Seld. B 23, ff. 40r/v.

[82] Book, p. 66, lines 14-15.

[83] Book, chapter 26, p. 62, lines 3-5; p. 64, lines 15-18.

[84] Book, chapter 30, p. 77, lines 6-8.

[85] Book, chapter 27, p. 64, lines 20-21.

[86] Book, chapter 37, p. 92, line 17; chapter 44, p. 106, lines 21-31.

[87] Book, chapter 27, p. 65, lines 6-13; chapter 30, P. 77, line 11.

[88] Book, chapter 43, p. 103, lines 7-13.

[89] Book, chapter 30, p. 77, lines 4-24.

[90] Book, chapters 32 and 33, pp. 80-2.

[91] m. 32; Venerabile p. 29 note 60.

[92] Erler, Dietrich, Appendix, p. xxiii.

[93] Book, chapter 34, p. 86, lines 1-5.

[94] Book, chapter 38, pp. 92-4.

[95] Above p. 24.

[96] m. 160.

[97] m. 179.

[98] m. 159.

[99] AC Sez. i, 649/ 13, ff 18v-19.

[100] Goioli, p. 249.

[101] m. 115.

[102] m. 169.

[103] Venerabile, p. 42; Goioli, pp. 188-90.

[104] Above p. 124.

[105] mm.119. 122.

[106] mm. 201, 203; mm. for the house see above p. 83.

[107] See C. M. Barron and A. F. Sutton, eds., Medieval London Widows, London 1994, for discussion of the whole question.