Criminal Churchmen in the Age of Edward III: The Case of Bishop Thomas de Lisle by John Aberth (review)

542BOOK REVIEWS which was between 5% and 10% of the masculine school-age population, according to Black's estimate. Again supporting evidence is lacking. On the whole, the communal Latin and abbaco schools were successful and continuous. The university was neither. It probably was very small, perhaps eight professors in 1255, and seem to have died by the early fourteenth century. The government made several unsuccessful efforts to revive it in the next 200 years. AlthoughArezzo awarded some degrees, the university did not recover as a teaching institution for several reasons. The costs would have been higher than the Aretines were willing to bear. The ruling class never reached a consensus that a local university was needed. And Florence, which ruled Arezzo from 1384, did not grant permission for a university. When Lorenzo de' Medici signaled his intention of moving the University ofFlorence, the Aretines eagerly offered to be hosts. But it moved to Pisa in 1473. Beyond the individual documents, Black makes the case that Arezzo's strong tradition of Latin schooling nourished such important Aretine-born humanists as Leonardo Bruni, Carlo Marsuppini, and Benedetto Accolti. Indeed, Black claims that Arezzo was the only Italian town to maintain an unbroken tradition of classical studies from the end of the thirteenth century to the flowering of the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. This appears to be too much local patriotism . The nature and quality ofthe Aretine classical tradition need further investigation , and other towns, such as Bologna with its famous university, may have stronger claims. Overall, the picture of Aretine communal pre-university education is similar to that found elsewhere in Tuscany and Italy in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Paul F. Grendler University ofToronto Criminal Churchmen in theAge ofEdwardIII: The Case ofBishop Thomas de Lisle. By John Aberth. (University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1996. Pp. xxiv, 280. $45.00.) Thomas de Lisle, a Dominican friar, was appointed bishop of Ely by Pope Clement VI in 1345. His officials—and by implication and accusation the bishop—embarked on something like a local reign of terror, involving arson, intimidation, theft, and murder. The resultant legal actions dragged in King Edward III, who took the dispute and the law into his own hands. His temporalities confiscated, de Lisle fled to Avignon, invoking papal support and political theory in an ineffective search for reinstatement. The pope's interference resulted in harassment of the English clerics who obeyed his mandates, and a strong assertion of royal authority over the English church. The story is a good one. John Aberth's analysis of the bishop's activities considers his alleged criminality without quite prejudging his role as medieval God- book reviews543 father; although he clearly thinks de Lisle guilty, driven by financial problems caused by mamtaining a lavish lifestyle -when his revenues were declining after the Black Death. Others may feel that reasonable doubts remain to challenge the verdict. This is not a straightforward episcopal biography. Apart from finding the motivation for de Lisle's actions in his financial problems, and his exploitation of his household and administration to create a gang, his episcopal status seems secondary. Diocesan rule and estate administration receive only brief consideration . The legal history holds center stage, locating events in a broader debate on criminality in fourteenth-century England, and about Edward Ill's own responsibility for the breakdown in law and order. Here Aberth finds against the king. Aberth acknowledges the problems of using overtly one-sided legal records, yet seems happy to accept them largely at face-value. He efficiently proposes explanations for the actions of both sides in a case; but the end product seems inconclusive. De Lisle was misguided and deluded to believe papalist ideas on relations between pope and prince,church and state;but flight is not irrefutable proof of guilt. His years of exile raise their own questions: why was he not relegated to obscurity by translation? Other reviewers have praised this book. My reaction is more guarded, confidence being undermined by some curious slips in the early chapters. If de Lisle was, as postulated, from a neo-gentry family, would they really call a daughter "Ancilla"? "Fruit" repeatedly appears...