certain grants or liveries, in kind or in money, to other monastic houses.
The nunneries of St Clement's, York, and Moxby seem to have involved
themselves--as a condition, perhaps, of some past benefaction--in a
curious obligation to the friars of their districts. At a visitation of
the former house in 1317, Archbishop Melton found that the Friars Minor of
York, every alternate week of the year, and the Friars Preachers of York
in the same manner, had for a long time been receiving fourteen conventual
loaves; the nuns were ordered to show the friars the Archbishop's order
and to cease from supplying the loaves as long as their own house was
burdened with debt; and in no case was the grant to be made without
special leave from the Archbishop[636]. The next year, on visiting Moxby,
Melton was obliged to make an injunction as to the bread and ale called
"levedemete," which the Friars Minor were accustomed to receive from the
house; if it were owed to them it was to be given as due, if not it was
not to be given without the will of the head[637]. At Alnwick's first
visitation in 1440 the Prioress of St Michael's, Stamford, declared that
the house was burdened with the payment of an annual pension of 60_s._ to
the monastery of St Mary's, York, "and that for tithes not worth more than
forty pence annually; also it is in arrears for twenty years and
more"[638]. The nuns also had to pay various small sums to Peterborough
Abbey, by which they had been founded and to which they always remained
subordinated[639].
The support of resident corrodians and the payment of pensions and
liveries were, however, less onerous than the duty of providing
hospitality for visitors, which the nunneries performed as one of their
religious obligations. _Date_ and _Dabitur_ did not always accompany each
other. The great folk who held the Pope's indult to enter the houses of
Minoresses were probably generous donors; but the unenclosed orders had to
lodge and feed less wealthy guests and often enough they found the
obligation a strain upon their finances. When the nuns of King's Mead,
Derby, in 1326, petitioned the King to take the house into his special
protection, they explained that great numbers of people came there to be
entertained, but that owing to the reduction in their revenue they were
unable to exercise their wonted hospitality[640]; and the number of guests
was mentioned by the nuns of Heynings in 1401 as one reason for their
impoverishment[641]. At Nunappleton in 1315 the Archbishop of York had to
forbid two sets of guests to be received at the same time, until the house
should be relieved of debt; and at Moxby (which was also in debt) he
ordained that relatives of the nuns were not to visit the house for a
longer period than two days; Nunappleton was evidently a favourite resort,
for in 1346 another archbishop speaks of guests flocking--_hospites
confluentes_--to the priory and orders them to be admitted to a hostelry
constructed for the purpose. At Marrick in 1252 it was ordered that
guests were not to stay for more than one night, because the means of the
house barely sufficed for the maintenance of the nuns, sisters and
brethren[642].
Another charge which fell heavily upon the nunneries, sometimes not
entirely by their own fault, was that of litigation. This was only an
occasional expense, but when it occurred it was heavy, and a suit once
begun might drag on for years. Moreover the incidental expenses in
journeys and bribes, which all had to be paid out of the current income of
a house already (perhaps) charged with the payment of tithes and taxes and
badly in need of repair, were often almost as heavy as the costs of the
litigation. For instance an account of Christian Bassett, Prioress of St
Mary de Pre (near St Albans), contains the following list of expenses
incurred by her in the prosecution of a law suit in 1487, during the rule
of her predecessor Alice Wafer:
Item when I ryde to London for the suyt that was taken ayenst dame
Alice Wafer in the commen place, for myself and my preest and a woman
and ij men, their hyre and hors hyre and mete and drynke, in the terme
of Ester ye secunde yere of the regne of kyng Henry the vij{th} xx. s.
Item paid aboute the same suyt at Mydsomer tyme, for iiij men, a woman
and iiij horses xvi s. Item paid for the costs of a man to London at
Mighelmas terme to Master Lathell, to have knowledge whethir I shuld
have nede to come to London or not xij d[643]. Item for the same suyt
of Dame Alice Wafer for herself and a suster wt. her, ij men, ij
horses, in costs at the same time xiiij s. Item for the same suyt when
I cam from London to have councell of Master More and men of lawe for
the same ple x s. Item whan I went to Master Fforster to the Welde to
speke wt. him, to have councell for the wele of the place, for a
kercher geven to hym, ij s. Item on other tyme for a couple of capons
geven to Master Fforster ij s. Item for a man rydyng to London at
Candilmas to speke wt. Master Lathell and Master More and for iiij
hennys geven to them and for the costs of the same man and his hors
iij s. iiij d. Item whan I went to London to speke wt. Master Lathell
for to renewe our charter of the place and other maters of our place
xj s. Item in expenses made upon Master Ffortescue atte dyvers tymes,
whan I wente to hym to have his councell for the same suyt in the
common place xiij s. iiij d. Item paid to a man to ryde to Hertford to
speke wt. Norys, that he shuld speke to Master Ffortescue for the same
ple viij d. Item in costs for a man to go to Barkhamsted to Thomas
Cace viij d. Item whan I went to Master Ffortescue to his place, for
mens hire and hors hire for the same mater ij s. Item whan I went to
London at an other tyme for the same plee, for iiij men and iiij hors
hire xvj s.[644]
After this one does not wonder that in 1517 the convent of Goring pleaded
that owing to lawsuits it was too poor to repair its buildings[645].
The account rolls of the Priory of St Michael's, Stamford, are full of
references to expenses incurred in legal business. On one occasion the
nuns bought a "bill" in the Marshalsea "to have a day of accord" and the
roll for 1375-6 contains items such as,
Paid for a purse to the wife of the Seneschal of the Marshalsea xx d.
Paid for beer bought for the Marshalsea by the Prioress ij s. ij d.
Paid for capons and chickens for the seneschal of the Marshalsea xxiij
d. ob.[646]
Poor Dames Margaret Redynges and Joan Ffychmere "del office del tresorie,"
ending the year L16. 8_s._ 8-1/2_d._ in debt, must often have sighed with
Langland
Lawe is so lordeliche. and loth to make ende,
Withoute presentz or pens. she pleseth wel fewe.
Nor was it only the expenses of great lawsuits which bore heavily upon the
nunneries; a great deal of lesser legal business had to be transacted from
year to year. The treasuresses' accounts of St Michael's, Stamford,
contain many notices of such business; the expenses of Raulyn at the
sessions, expenses of the clerks at the Bishop's court or at the last
session at Stamford, a suit against a neighbouring parson over tithes,
four shillings to Henry Oundyl for suing out writs; and innumerable
entries concerning the inevitable "presentz or pens," a douceur to the
Bishop's clerk, a courtesy to the king's escheator, a present to the
clerks at the sessions, a gift "to divers men of law for their help on
divers occasions." All nunneries had constantly to meet such petty
expenses as these; and if we add an occasional suit on a larger scale the
total amount of money devoured by the Law is considerable.
So far mention has been made only of such reasons for their poverty as
cannot be considered the fault of the nuns. The inclemency of nature, the
rapacity of lay and ecclesiastical authorities and the law's delays could
not be escaped, however wisely a Prioress husbanded her resources.
Nevertheless it cannot be doubted that the nuns themselves, by bad
management, contributed largely to their own misfortunes. Bad
administration, sometimes wilful, but far more often due to sheer
incompetence, was constantly given as a reason for undue poverty. It was
"negligence and bad administration" which nearly caused the dispersion of
the nuns of Wintney during the famine year of 1316[647]; and those of
Hampole in 1353[648]. At Davington in 1511 one of the nuns deposed that
"the rents and revenues of the house decrease owing to the guilt of the
officers"[649]. The fault was often with the head of the house, who loved
to keep in her own hands the disposal of the convent's income, omitted to
consult the chapter in her negotiations, retained the common seal and did
not render accounts. An illustration of the straits to which a house might
be reduced by the bad management of its superior is provided by the
history of Malling Abbey in the early part of the fourteenth century, as
told by William de Dene in his _Historia Roffensis_. In 1321 an abbess had
been deposed, ostensibly on the complaint of her nuns and because the
place had been ruined by her; but too much importance must not be assigned
to the charge, for she was a sister of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, at that
time a leader of the baronial party against Edward II, and it was by the
King's command that Hamo of Hythe, Bishop of Rochester, visited Malling
and deprived her[650]; her deposition was probably a political move. The
same cannot however be said of Lora de Retlyng, who became abbess in 1324.
"The Bishop," says William de Dene, "although unwilling, knowing her
to be insufficient and ignorant, set Lora de Retlyng in command as
abbess, a woman who lacked all the capacity and wisdom of a leader and
ruler, the nuns enthusiastically applauding; and the next day he
blessed her, which benediction was rather a malediction for the
convent. Then the Bishop forbade the Abbess to give a corrody to her
maid-servant, as it had been the ill custom to do, and he sequestrated
the common seal, forbidding it to be used, save when his licence had
been asked and obtained"[651].
Twenty-five years passed and in 1349 the chronicler writes:
The Bishop of Rochester visited the abbeys of Lesnes and Malling, and
he found them so ruined by longstanding mismanagement, that it is
thought they never can recover so long as this world lasts, even to
the day of judgment[652].
Malling had suffered severely from the Black Death in the previous year,
but our knowledge of the character of Lora de Retlyng and the plain
statement of William de Dene ("destructa per malam diutinam custodiam"),
make it clear that bad management and not the pestilence was to blame for
its poverty[653].
Financial mismanagement was, indeed, the most frequent of all charges
brought against superiors at the episcopal visitations. When Alnwick
visited his diocese of Lincoln several cases of such incompetence came to
light. At St Michael's, Stamford (1440), it was found that the Prioress
had never rendered an account during the whole of her term of office, and
one of the nuns declared that she did not rule and supervise temporal
affairs to the benefit of the house; two years later the Bishop visited
the convent again and the Prioress herself pleaded bodily weakness, adding
that since she was impotent to rule the temporalities, nor had they
any industrious man to supervise these and to raise and receive the
produce of the house, and since the rents of the house remained unpaid
in the hands of the tenants, she begged that two nuns might be deputed
to rule the temporalities, and to be responsible for receipts and
payments.
In 1445, however, one of the appointed treasuresses, Alice de Wyteryng,
admitted that she neither wrote down nor accounted for anything concerning
her administration, and another nun complained that, if Wyteryng were to
die, it would be impossible for any of them to say in what state their
finances stood[654]. At the poor and heavily indebted house of Legbourne
(1440) the Prioress, unknown to the Bishop, but with the consent of the
Convent, had sold a corrody to the bailiff of the house, Robert Warde, who
was nevertheless not considered useful to the house in this post; the
tenements and leasehold houses belonging to the house were ruinous and
like to fall through the carelessness of the Prioress and bailiff, and one
aggrieved nun stated that "the prioress is not circumspect in ruling the
temporalities and cares not whether they prosper, but applies all the
common goods of the house to her own uses, as though they were her
own[655]." At Godstow also it was complained that the steward had an
annual fee of ten marks from the house and was useless[656]. At Heynings
(1440) the Prioress was charged with never rendering accounts and with
cutting down timber unnecessarily, but she denied the last charge and said
she had done so only for necessary reasons and with the express consent of
the convent[657]. At Nuncoton corrodies had been sold and bondmen
alienated without the knowledge of the nuns[658]. At Harrold it was found
that no accounts were rendered, that a corrody had been sold for twenty
marks, and that when the Prioress bought anything for the convent, no
tallies or indentures were made between the contracting parties, so that
after a time the sellers came and demanded double the price agreed upon;
one nun also asked that the Bishop should prevent the selling or
alienation of woods[659]. At Langley (which was miserably poor) there was
a similar complaint of the sale of timber[660]. These are the less serious
cases of financial mismanagement; the cases of Gracedieu, Ankerwyke and
Catesby have already been considered. Sometimes the extravagance or
incompetence of a Prioress became so notorious as to necessitate her
suspension or removal; as at Basedale in 1307[661], Rosedale in 1310[662],
Hampole in 1353[663], Easebourne in 1441[664] and St Mary de Pre at the
end of the fifteenth century[665]. But more frequently the bishops
endeavoured to hem in expenditure by elaborate safeguards, which will be
described below.
Besides cases of incompetence and cases of misappropriation of revenues by
an unscrupulous prioress, the mismanagement of the nuns may usually be
traced to a desperate desire to obtain ready money. One means by which
they sought to augment their income was by the sale of corrodies in return
for a lump sum[666]. A man (or woman) would pay down a certain sum of
money, and in return the convent would engage to keep him in board and
lodging for the rest of his natural life; at Arden for instance, in 1524,
Alice widow of William Berre paid twelve pounds and was granted "mett and
drynke as their convent hath" at their common table, or when sick in her
own room, and "on honest chamber with sufficient fyer att all tyme, with
sufficient apperell as shalbe nedful"[667]. Obviously, however, such an
arrangement could only be profitable to the nuns, if the grantee died
before the original sum had been expended in boarding her. The convent, in
fact, acted as a kind of insurance agency and the whole arrangement was
simply a gamble in the life of the corrodian. The temptation to extricate
themselves from present difficulties by means of such gambles, was one
which the nuns could never resist. They would lightly make their grant of
board and lodging for life and take the badly needed money; but it would
be swallowed up only too soon by their creditors and often vanish like
fairy gold in a year. Not so the corrodian. Long-lived as Methusaleh and
lusty of appetite, she appeared year after year at their common table,
year after year consumed their food, wore their apparel, warmed herself
with their firewood. Alice Berre was still hale and hearty after twelve
years, when the commissioners came to Arden and would doubtless have
lasted for several more to come, if his Majesty's quarrel with Rome had
not swept her and her harassed hostesses alike out of their ancient home;
but she must long before have eaten through her original twelve
pounds[668]. There is an amusing complaint in the Register of Crabhouse;
early in the fourteenth century Aleyn Brid and his wife persuaded the nuns
to buy their lands for a sum down and a corrody for their joint and
separate lands. But the lands turned out barren and the corrodians went on
living and doubtless chuckling over their bargain, and "si cher terre de
cy petit value unkes ne fut achate," wrote the exasperated chronicler of
the house[669]. Bishop Alnwick found two striking instances of a bad
gamble during his visitations in 1440-1; at Langley the late Prioress had
sold a corrody to a certain John Fraunceys and his wife for the paltry sum
of twenty marks, and they had already held it for six years[670]; worse
still, at Nuncoton there were two corrodians, each of whom had originally
paid twenty marks, and they had been there for twelve and for twenty
years respectively[671].
In the face of cases like these it is difficult not to suspect that
unscrupulous persons took advantage of the temporary difficulties of the
nuns and of their lack of business acumen. There is comedy, though not for
the unhappy Convent, in the history of a corrody which, in 1526, was said
to have been granted by Thetford to "a certain Foster." Six years later
there was a great to-do at the visitation. The nuns declared that John
Bixley of Thetford, "bocher," had sold his corrody in the house to Thomas
Foster, gentleman, who was nourishing a large household on that pretext,
to wit six persons, himself, his wife, three children and a maid; but
Bixley said that he had never sold his corrody and there in public
displayed his indenture. What happened we do not know; Thomas Foster,
gentleman, must be the same man who had a corrody in 1526, and how John
Bixley came into it is not clear. It looks as though the Convent (which
was so poor that the Bishop had dissolved his visitation there some years
previously) was trying by fair means or foul to get rid of Thomas Foster
and his family; doubtless they had not bargained for a wife, three
children and a maid when they rashly granted him one poor corrody[672]. It
is easy to understand why medieval bishops, at nearly every visitation,
forbade the granting of fees, corrodies or pensions for life or without
episcopal consent; "forasmoche as the graunting of corrodyes and lyveryes
hath bene chargious, bardynouse and greuouse unto your monastery" wrote
Longland to Studley in 1531:
As itt apperithe by the graunte made to Agnes Mosse, Janet bynbrok,
Elizabeth todde and other whiche has right soore hyndrede your place,
In consideracon therof I charge you lady priores upon payne of
contempte and of the lawe, that ye give noo moo like graunts, and that
ye joutt away Elizabeth Todde her seruant ... and that Elizabeth
Todde haue noo kowe going nor other bestes within eny of your
grounds[673];
and Dean Kentwood, visiting St Helen's Bishopsgate in 1432 found that
"diverce fees perpetuelle, corrodies and lyuers have been grauntyd befor
this tyme to diverce officers of your house and other persones, which have
hurt the house and be cause of delapidacyone of the godys of youre seyde
house"[674]. Even the nuns themselves sometimes realised that the sale of
corrodies had brought them no good; they often complained at visitations
that the Prioress had made such grants without consulting them; and the
convent of Heynings gave "the multiplication of divers men who have
acquired corrodies in their house," as one reason for their extreme
poverty, when they petitioned for the appropriation of the church of
Womersley[675].
The nuns were wont to have recourse to other equally improvident
expedients for obtaining money without regard to future embarrassment.
They farmed their churches and alienated their lands and granges or let
them out on long leases. These practices were constantly forbidden in
episcopal injunctions[676]; at the visitation of Easebourne in 1524 the
Prioress, Dame Margaret Sackfelde, being questioned as to what grants they
had made under their convent seal, said that they had made four, to wit,
one to William Salter to farm the rectory there, another of the proceeds
of the chapel of Farnhurst, another of the proceeds of the chapel of
Midhurst and another to William Toty for his corrody; this was
corroborated by the subprioress, who also mentioned a grant of the
proceeds of the church of Easebourne to a rather disreputable person
called Ralph Pratt; and this is only a typical case[677]. The nunnery of
Wix was reduced to such penury in 1283 on account of various alienations
that Pope Martin IV granted the nuns a bull declaring all such grants
void:
It has come to our ears that our beloved daughters in Christ, the
Prioress and convent of the monastery of Wix (who are under the rule
of a prioress), of the order of St Benedict, in the diocese of London,
as well as their predecessors, have conceded tithes, rents, lands,
houses, vineyards, meadows, pastures, woods, mills, rights,
jurisdictions and certain other goods belonging to the said monastery
to several clerks and laymen, to some of them for life, to some for no
short time, to others in perpetuity at farm or under an annual
payment, and have to this effect given letters, taken oaths, made
renunciations, and drawn up public instruments, to the grave harm of
the said monastery; and some of the grantees are said to have sought
confirmatory letters in common form, concerning these grants, from the
apostolic see[678].
This comprehensive catalogue gives some indication of the losses which a
house would suffer from reckless grants. The sale of timber and the
alienation or pawning of plate were other expedients to which the nuns
constantly resorted and which were as constantly prohibited by the
bishops[679]. The Prioress of Nunmonkton in 1397, "alienated timber in
large quantities to the value of a hundred marks"[680]; the cutting down
of woods was charged against the Prioresses of Heynings, Harrold, Langley,
Gracedieu, Catesby and Ankerwyke at Alnwick's visitations; at Langley it
was moreover found that the woods were not properly fenced in after the
trees were felled and so the tree-stumps were damaged[681]; the necessity
for raising the money was sometimes specifically pleaded, as at Markyate,
where a small wood had been sold "to satisfy the creditors of the
house"[682]. These sales of timber were a favourite means of obtaining
ready money; but too often the loss to the house by the destruction of its
woods far outweighed the temporary gain and the Abbeys of St Mary's
Winchester and Romsey made special mention of this cause of impoverishment
in the middle of the fourteenth century[683]. The alienation or pawning of
plate and _jocalia_ was often resorted to in an extremity. At Gracedieu in
1441 the jewels of the house had been pawned without the knowledge of the
convent, so that the nuns (as one of them complained) had not one bowl
from which to drink[684]; the next year it was asserted that the Prioress
of Catesby "pawned the jewels of the house for ten years, to wit one cup
for the sacrament, which still remained in pawn, and also other pieces of
silver"[685]. When Bishop Longland visited Nuncoton in 1531 he found that
the Prioress had in times past sold various goods belonging to her house,
"viz. a bolle ungilte playn with a couer, oon nutt gilte with a couer, ij
bolles white without couers, oon Agnus of gold, oon bocle of gold, oon
chalice, oon maser and many other things"[686]; and in 1436 it was ordered
that the chalices, jewels and ornaments of St Mary's Neasham, which were
then in the hands of sundry creditors, were to be redeemed[687]. In the
case of Sinningthwaite in 1534 the convent was in such a reduced state
that Archbishop Lee was actually obliged to give the nuns licence to
pledge jewels to the value of L15[688]. The charge of pawning or selling
jewels for their own purposes was often made against prioresses whose
conduct in other ways was bad; for instance against Eleanor of Arden in
1396[689], Juliana of Bromhale in 1404[690], Agnes Tawke of Easebourne in
1478[691] and Katherine Wells of Littlemore in 1517[692].
To financial incompetence and to the employment of improvident methods of
raising money, the nuns occasionally added extravagance. The bishops
forbade them to wear gay clothes for reasons unconnected with finance;
nevertheless their silks and furs must have cost money which could ill be
spared, and it is amusing to notice that even at Studley, Rothwell and
Langley, which were among the smallest and poorest houses in the diocese
of Lincoln and in debt, the nuns had to confess to silken veils. The
maintenance of a greater number of servants than the revenues of the house
could support was another not uncommon form of extravagance[693].
Instances of luxurious living on the part of the heads of various houses
have been given elsewhere[694]; it need only be remarked that a
self-indulgent prioress might cripple the resources of a house for many
years to come, whether by spending its revenues too lavishly, or by
raising money by the alienation of its goods.
One other cause of the poverty of nunneries must be noticed, before
turning to the attempts of bishops and other visitors to find a remedy.
Overcrowding was, throughout the earlier period under consideration, a
common cause of financial distress; and the admission of a greater number
of nuns than the revenues of the convent were able to support was
constantly forbidden in episcopal injunctions. Certainly this was not
invariably the fault of the nuns. They suffered (as we have seen) from the
formal right of bishop or of patron to place a nun in their house on
special occasions, and they suffered still more from the constant pressure
to which they were subjected by private persons, anxious to obtain
comfortable provision for daughters and nieces. It was sometimes
impossible and always difficult to resist the importunity of influential
gentlemen in the neighbourhood, whose ill-will might be a serious thing,
whether it showed itself in open violence or in closed purses. The
authorities of the church had sometimes to step in and rescue houses which
had thus been persuaded to burden themselves beyond their means. In 1273
Gregory X issued a bull to the Priory of Carrow, with the intention of
putting a stop to the practice.
Your petition having been expounded to us, containing a complaint that
you have, at the instant requests of certain lords of England, whom
you are unable to resist on account of their power, received so many
nuns already into your monastery, that you may scarce be fitly
sustained by its rents, we therefore, by the authority of these
present letters, forbid you henceforth to receive any nun or sister to
the burden of your house[695].
Some nine years later Archbishop Wickwane wrote in the same strain to the
nuns of Nunkeeling and Wilberfoss:
Because we have learned from public rumour that your monastery is
sometimes burdened by the reception of nuns and by the visits of
secular women and girls, at the instance of great persons, to whom you
foolishly and unlawfully grant easy permission, we order you ...
henceforward, to receive no one as nun or sister of your house, or to
lodge for a time in your monastery, without our special licence[696].
Bishop Stratford, in his visitation of Romsey in 1311, forbade additions
to the nuns, the proper number having been exceeded, and again in 1327 he
wrote:
It is notorious that your house is burdened with ladies beyond the
established number which used to be kept; and I have heard that you
are being pressed to receive more young ladies (_damoyseles_) as nuns,
wherefore I order you strictly that no young lady received by you be
veiled, nor any other received, until the Bishop's visitation, or
until they have special orders from him[697].
The situation at the great Abbey of Shaftesbury was the same. As early as
1218 the Pope had forbidden the community to admit nuns beyond the number
of a hundred because they were unable to support more or to give alms to
the poor; in 1322 Bishop Mortival wrote remonstrating with them for their
neglect of the Pope's order and repeating the prohibition to admit more
nuns until the state of the Abbey was relieved, on the ground that the
inmates of the house were far too many for its goods to support; and in
1326 (in response to a petition from the Abbess asking him to fix the
statutory number) the Bishop issued an order stating that the house was
capable of maintaining a hundred and twenty nuns and no more and that no
novices were to be received until the community was reduced to that
number[698].
Episcopal prohibitions to receive new inmates without special licence were
very common, especially in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries. Bishops realised that overcrowding only increased the growing
poverty of the nunneries. In the poor diocese of York, between 1250 and
1320, the nuns were over and over again forbidden to receive nuns, lay
sisters or lay brothers without the licence of the Archbishop. Injunctions
to this effect were issued to Marrick (1252), Swine (1268), Wilberfoss
(1282), Nunappleton (1282, 1290, 1346), Hampole (1267, 1308, 1312), Arden
(1306), Thicket (1309, 1314), Nunkeeling (1282, 1314), Nunburnholme
(1318), Esholt (1318), Arthington (1318) and Sinningthwaite (1319)[699].
At Swine, after the visitation by Archbishop Walter Giffard in 1267-8, it
was noted among the _comperta_
that the house of Swine cannot sustain more nuns or sisters than now
are there, inasmuch as those at present there are ill provided with
food, as is said above, and that the house nevertheless remains at
least a hundred and forty marks in debt; wherefore the lord Archbishop
decreed that no nun or sister should thenceforward be received there,
save with his consent[700].
A very severe punishment was decreed at Marrick, where the Archbishop
announced that any man or woman admitted without his licence would be
expelled without hope of mercy, the Prioress would be deposed and any
other nuns who agreed condemned to fast on bread and water for two months
(except on Sundays and festivals)[701]. In other dioceses the bishops
pursued a similar policy. But it was not easy to enforce these
prohibitions. Four years after Archbishop Greenfield's injunction to
Hampole (1308) he was obliged to address another letter to the convent,
having heard that the prioress had received
a little girl (_puellulam_), by name Maud de Dreffield, niece of the
Abbot of Roche, and another named Jonetta, her own niece, at the
instance of Sir Hugh de Cressy, her brother, that after a time they
might be admitted to the habit and profession of nuns[702].
The predicament of the Prioress is easily understood; how was she to
refuse her noble brother and the Abbot of Roche? They could bring to bear
far more pressure than a distant archbishop, who came upon his visitations
at long intervals. Moreover the ever present need of ready money made the
resistance of nuns less determined than it might otherwise have been; for
a dowry in hand they were, as usual, willing to encumber themselves with a
new mouth to feed throughout long years to come.
Prohibitions from increasing the number of nuns become more rare in the
second half of the fourteenth and during the fifteenth century. Even when
the population recovered from the havoc wrought by the Black Death, the
numbers in the nunneries continued steadily to decline. Perhaps fashion
had veered, conscious that the golden days of monasticism were over; more
likely the growing poverty of the houses rendered them a less tempting
retreat. A need for restricting the number of nuns still continued,
because the decline in the revenues of the nunneries was swifter than the
decline in the number of the nuns. Thus in 1440-1 Alnwick included in his
injunctions to seven houses a prohibition to receive more nuns than could
competently be sustained by their revenues[703], and the evidence given at
his visitations shows the necessity for such a restriction. The injunction
to Heynings is particularly interesting:
For as mykelle as we fonde that agayn the entente and the forbedyng of
the commune lawe there are in your saide pryorye meo nunnes and
susters professed then may be competently susteyned of the revenews of
your sayde pryorye, the exilitee of the saide revenews and charitees
duly considered, we commaunde, ordeyn, charge and enioyne yowe vnder
payne etc. etc. that fro this day forthe ye receyve no mo in to nunnes
ne sustres in your saide pryory wyth owte the advyse and assent of hus
(and) of our successours bysshope of Lincolne, so that we or thai,
wele informed of the yerely valwe of your saide revenews may ordeyn
for the nombre competente of nunnes and susters[704].
Nevertheless even at Nuncoton, one of the houses to which a similar
injunction was sent, a nun gave evidence "that in her oun time there were
in the habit eighteen or twenty nuns and now there are only fourteen," and
the Bishop himself remarked that "ther be but fewe in couent in regarde of
tymes here to fore"[705]. Everywhere this decline in the number of nuns
went steadily on during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries[706]. And
from the beginning of the fifteenth century there appear, here and there
among visitatorial injunctions, commands of a very different nature; here
and there a Bishop is found trying, not to keep down, but to keep up the
number of nuns. Instead of the repeated prohibitions addressed to Romsey
at the beginning of the fourteenth century, there is an injunction from
William of Wykeham in 1387, ordering the Abbess to augment the number of
nuns, which had fallen far below the statutory number[707]. Similarly in
1432 Bishop Gray wrote to Elstow,
since the accustomed number of nuns of the said monastery has so
lessened, that those who are now received scarcely suffice for the
chanting of divine service by night and day according to the
requirement of the rule, we will and enjoin upon you the abbess, in
virtue of obedience and under the penalties written above and beneath,
that, with what speed you can, you cause the number of nuns in the
said monastery to be increased in proportion to its resources[708].
At Studley in 1531, although the house was badly in debt, the nuns were
ordered to live less luxuriously and "to augment your nombre of ladyes
within the yere"[709]. In this connection Archbishop Warham's visitation
of Sheppey in 1511 is significant. The Prioress, when questioned as to the
number of nuns in the house, said that "she had heard there were
seventeen; she knew of fourteen; she herself wished to increase the number
to fourteen if she could find any who wished to enter into religion"[710].
It is an interesting reflection that Henry VIII may simply have
accelerated, by his violent measure, a gradual dissolution of the
nunneries through poverty and through change of fashion.
This account of the attempts of medieval bishops to prevent the nunneries
from burdening themselves with inmates, beyond the number which could be
supported by their revenues, leads to a consideration of the other methods
employed by them to remedy the financial distress in which the nuns so
often found themselves. These methods may be divided into three classes;
(1) arrangements to safeguard expenditure by the head of the house and to
impose a check upon autocracy, (2) arrangements to prevent rash
expenditure or improvident means of raising money, by requiring episcopal
consent before certain steps could be taken, and (3) if the incompetence
of the nuns were such that even these restrictions were insufficient, the
appointment of a male _custos_, master or guardian, to manage the finances
of the house.
Arrangements for safeguarding expenditure by the head of the house were of
four kinds: (1) provision for the consultation of the whole convent in
important negotiations, (2) provision for the safe custody of the common
seal, (3) provision for the regular presentation of accounts, and (4) the
appointment of coadjutresses to the Prioress, or of two or three
treasuresses, to be jointly responsible for receipts and expenditure. It
was a common injunction that the whole convent, or at least "the more and
sounder part of it," should be consulted in all important negotiations,
such as the alienation of property, the leasing of land and farms, the
cutting down of woods, the incurring of debts and the reception of
novices[711]. It has already been shown that Prioresses acted
autocratically in performing such business on their own initiative, and
the injunction sent by Peckham to the Abbess of Romsey shows the lengths
to which this independence might lead them[712]. Flemyng's injunction to
Elstow in 1421-2 is typical:
That the Abbess deliver not nor demise to farm appropriated churches,
pensions, portions, manors or granges belonging to the monastery, nor
do any other such weighty business, without the express consent of the
greater and sounder part of the convent[713].
At Arthington in 1318 the Prioress was specially ordered to consult the
convent in sales of wool and other business matters[714]; the Prioress of
Sinningthwaite the next year was told to take counsel with the older nuns
and in all writings under the common seal to employ a faithful clerk and
to have the deed read, discussed and sealed in the presence of the whole
convent, those who spoke against it on reasonable grounds being heard and
the deed if necessary corrected[715]. Provision for the safe custody of
the common seal, and for the assent of the whole convent to all writings
which received its imprint, was a necessary corollary to the demand that
the Prioress should consult her nuns in matters of business. Medieval
superiors were constantly charged with keeping the common seal in their
own custody[716] and nuns and bishops alike objected to a custom which
rendered the convent responsible for any rash agreement into which the
Prioress might enter. Elaborate arrangements for the custody of the seal
are therefore common in visitatorial injunctions. In 1302 Bishop John of
Pontoise wrote to Romsey that
whereas from the bad keeping of the common seal many evils to the
house have hitherto happened (as the Bishop has now learned from the
experience of fact), and also may happen unless wholesome remedy be
applied, three at least of the discreeter ladies shall be appointed by
the Abbess and by the larger and wiser part of the convent to keep the
seal; and when any letter shall be sealed with the common seal in the
chapter before the whole convent, it shall be read and explained in an
intelligible tongue to all the ladies, publicly, distinctly and openly
and afterwards sealed in the same chapter, (not in corners or
secretly, as has hitherto been the custom,) and signed as it is read,
so that what concerns all may be approved by all. Which done the seal
shall be replaced in the same place under the said custody[717].
These injunctions were repeated by Bishop Woodlock nine years later, but
in 1387 William of Wykeham laid down much more stringent rules. The seal
was to be kept securely under seven, or at least five locks and keys, of
which one key was to be in the custody of the abbess and the others to
remain with some of the more prudent and mature nuns, nominated by the
convent; no letter was to be sealed without first being read before the
whole convent in the vulgar tongue and approved by all or by the greater
and wiser part of the nuns[718]. Seven locks was an unusually large
number; usually three, or even two, were ordered. At Malling, where, as we
have seen, Bishop Hamo of Hythe unwillingly confirmed an "insufficient and
ignorant" woman as Abbess, he took the extreme step of sequestrating the
common seal and forbidding it to be used without his permission[719].
Another method of keeping some control over the expenditure not only of
the head or treasurers of the house, but also of the other obedientiaries,
was by ordering the regular presentation of accounts before the whole
convent; and in spite of the injunctions of councils and of bishops no
regulation was more often broken. Bishop Stapeldon's rules, drawn up for
the guidance of Polsloe and Canonsleigh, afford a good example of these
injunctions, and deal with the presentation of accounts by the bailiffs
and officers of the house, as well as by the Prioress:
Item, let the accounts of all your bailiffs, reeves and receivers,
both foreign and denizen, be overlooked every year, between Easter and
Whitsuntide, and between the Feast of St Michael and Christmas, after
final account rendered in the Priory before the Prioress, or before
those whom she is pleased to put in her place, and before two or three
of the most ancient and wise ladies of the said religion and house,
assigned by the Convent for this purpose; and let the rolls of the
accounts thus rendered remain in the common treasury, so that they may
be consulted, if need shall arise by reason of the death of a
Prioress, or of the death or removal of bailiffs, receivers or reeves.
Item, let the Prioress each year, between Christmas and Easter, before
the whole convent, or six ladies assigned by the convent for this
purpose, show forth the state of the house, and its receipts and
expenses, not in detail but in gross (_ne mie par menue parceles mes
par grosses sommes_), and the debts and the names of the debtors and
creditors for any sum above forty shillings. And all these things are
to be put into writing and placed in the common treasury, to the
intent that it may be seen each year how your goods increase or
decrease[720].
Bishop Pontoise ordered that at Romsey an account should be rendered twice
a year and at the end thereof the state of the house should be declared by
the auditors of the convent, or at least by the seniors of the convent,
but finding the practice in abeyance in 1302 he ordered the account to be
rendered once a year[721]; his ordinance was repeated by Bishop Woodlock
in 1311[722] and by William of Wykeham in 1387[723], both of whom
specially refer to the rendering of accounts by officials and
obedientiaries as well as by the Abbess[724]. More frequently, especially
in the smaller houses, the Bishops confined their efforts to extracting
the main account from the Prioress, with the double object, so
ungraciously expressed by Archbishop Lee, "that it may appere in whate
state the housse standith in, and also that it may be knowen, whethur she
be profitable to the house or not"[725]. How far it was a common practice
that the accounts should be audited by some external person, it is
impossible to say. Our only evidence lies in occasional injunctions such
as those sent by Bishops Pontoise and Woodlock to Romsey, or by Bishop
Buckingham to Heynings; or an occasional remark, such as the Prioress of
Blackborough's excuse that she did not render account in order "to save
the expenses of an auditor"[726]; or an occasional order addressed by a
Bishop to some person bidding him go and examine the accounts of a house.
In 1314 William, rector of Londesborough, was made _custos_ of
Nunburnholme on peculiar terms, being ordered to go there three times a
year and hear the accounts of the ministers and _prepositi_ of the house;
his duties were thus, in effect, those of an unpaid auditor and no
more[727]. It is probable that the accounts of bailiffs and other servants
were audited by the _custos_, in those houses to which such an official
was attached[728]; whether his own accounts were scrutinised is another
matter. In 1309 Archbishop Greenfield wrote to his own receiver, William
de Jafford, to audit the accounts of Nunappleton[729], and after the
revelations of Margaret Wavere's maladministration at Catesby in 1445, a
commission for the inspection of the accounts was granted to the Abbot of
St James, Northampton[730]. In some cases the annual statement of
accounts was ordered to be made before the Bishop of the diocese, as well
as the nuns of the house, and in such cases he would act as auditor
himself[731].
It was also a common practice for the Visitor to demand that the current
balance sheet and inventory (the _status domus_) of a monastic house
should be produced, together with its foundation charter and various other
documents, before he took the evidence of the inmates at a visitation. The
register of Bishop Alnwick's visitations shows the procedure very clearly;
usually there is simply a note to the effect that the Prioress handed in
the _status domus_, but at some houses the Bishop encountered
difficulties. At St Michael's Stamford, in 1440, the old Prioress (who, it
will be remembered, had rendered no account at all during her twelve years
of office) was unable to produce a balance sheet, or one of the required
certificates, and Alnwick was obliged to proceed with her examination
"hiis exhibendis non exhibitis." He made shift however to extract some
verbal information from her; she said that the house was in debt L20 at
her installation and now only 20 marks, that it could expend L40, besides
10 marks appropriated to the office of pittancer and besides "the
perquisites of the stewardship"; she said also "that they plough with two
teams and they have eight oxen, seven horses, a bailiff, four
serving-folk, a carter for the teams, and a man who is their baker and
brewer, whose wife makes the malt"[732]. At Legbourne also the Prioress
showed the state of the house, as it now stands, as they say, but not
annual charges, etc.... She says that the house owed L43 at the time
of her confirmation and installation and now only L14; nevertheless
because the state of the house is not fully shown, she has the next
day at Louth to show it more fully[733].
At Ankerwyke also Clemence Medforde gave in an incomplete balance sheet:
she shewed a roll containing the rents of the house, which, after
deducting rent-charges, reach the total of L22. 6. 7. Touching the
stewardship of the temporalities and touching the other receipts, as
from alms and other like sources, she shews nothing, and says that at
the time of her preferment the house was 300 marks in debt, and now is
in debt only L40, and she declares some of the names of the creditors
of this sum[734].
A special demand for a complete statement of accounts was sometimes made
in cases where gross maladministration was charged against a prioress.
Thus in 1310 Archbishop Greenfield ordered an investigation of certain
charges (unspecified, but clearly of this nature) made against the
Prioress of Rosedale; her accounts,
as well as those of all bailiffs and other officials and servants who
were bound to render accounts, were to be examined and the prioress
was ordered to render to the commissioners full and complete accounts
from the time of her promotion, as well as a statement of the then
position of the house,
and a further letter from the Archbishop to the Subprioress and nuns
ordered them to display the _status domus_ to the commissioners, as it was
when the Prioress took office and as it was at the time he wrote. She
resigned shortly afterwards, _sentiens se impotentem_; but in 1315 her
successor was enjoined to draw up a certified statement showing the credit
and debit accounts of the house and to send it to the Archbishop before a
certain date[735]. Usually the Bishop demanded not only the account roll
of a house, but also an inventory, doubtless in order that he might see
whether anything had been alienated, and these inventories sometimes
remain attached to the account of the visitation preserved in the
episcopal register[736].
If a Prioress were found to be hopelessly incompetent or unscrupulous, but
not bad enough to be deprived of her position, Bishops sometimes took the
extreme measure of appointing one or more coadjutresses, to govern the
house in conjunction with her; and often (even when there was no complaint
against the Prioress) the nuns were ordered to elect treasuresses, to
receive and disburse the income of the house from all sources. One of the
_comperta_ at the visitation of Swine in 1268 was to the effect that
the sums of money which are bestowed in charity upon the convent, for
pittances and garments and other necessary uses, are received by the
Prioress; which ought the rather to be in the custody of two honest
nuns and distributed to those in need of them, and in no wise
converted to other uses[737].
At Nunkeeling in 1314 it was ordained that all money due to the house
should be received by two bursars, elected by the convent[738], and in
1323 Bishop Cobham of Worcester made a similar injunction at Wroxall, that
two sisters were to be chosen by the chapter, to do the business of the
convent in receiving rents, etc.[739] Elaborate arrangements for the
appointment of treasuresses were made by Bishop Bokyngham at Elstow and at
Heynings, in 1388 and 1392 respectively, and by Bishop Flemyng at Elstow
in 1421-2[740]. It will suffice here to quote the much earlier arrangement
made by Archbishop Peckham at Usk in 1284:
"Since," he wrote, "lately visiting you by our metropolitan right, we
found you in a most desolate state (_multipliciter desolatas_),
desiring to avoid such desolation in future, we order, by the counsel
of discreet men, that henceforth two provident and discreet nuns be
elected by the consent of the prioress and community; into whose hands
all the money of the house shall be brought, whether from granges, or
from appropriated churches, or coming from any other offerings, to be
carefully looked after by their consent. And as well the Prioress as
the other nuns shall receive (money for) all necessary expenses from
their hands and in no manner otherwise. And we will that these nuns be
called Treasuresses, which Treasuresses thrice in the year, to wit in
Lent, Whitsuntide and on the Feast of St Michael, shall render account
before the Prioress for the time being and before five or six elders
of the chapter."
In addition they were to have a priest as _custos_ or administrator of
their temporal and spiritual possessions[741].
The appointment of a coadjutress to the head of a house in the
administration of its affairs is of the same nature. The appointment of
coadjutresses was a favourite device with Archbishop Peckham, to check an
extravagant or incapable head. At the great abbey of Romsey three
coadjutresses were appointed, without whose testimony and advice the
Abbess was to undertake no important business[742]. At Wherwell one
coadjutress only, a certain J. de Ver, was appointed in 1284, and the same
year the Archbishop wrote to his commissary on the subject of the Priory
of the Holy Sepulchre, Canterbury:
Since by the carelessness and neglect of the Prioress the goods of the
house are said to be much wasted, we wish you to assign to her two
coadjutresses, to wit Dame Sara and another of the more honest and
wise ladies; but let neither be Benedicta, who is said to have greatly
offended the whole community by her discords.
Here, as at Usk, Peckham appointed in addition a master to look after
their affairs[743]. At the disorderly house of Arthington Isabella Couvel
was in 1312 associated with the Prioress Isabella de Berghby, but the
Prioress seems to have resented the appointment and promptly ran
away[744]. In the Exeter diocese Bishop Stapeldon made Joan de Radyngton
coadjutress to Petronilla, Abbess of Canonsleigh in 1320[745]; and in the
diocese of Bath and Wells Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury in 1335 appointed two
coadjutresses to Cecilia de Draycote, Prioress of White Hall, Ilchester,
and in 1351, when his visitation had revealed many scandals at Cannington,
including the simoniacal admission of nuns and unauthorised sale of
corrodies by the Prioress, the Bishop, instead of depriving her "tempered
the rigour of the law with clemency" and appointed two coadjutresses
without whose consent she was to do nothing[746]. Bishop Alnwick made use
of this method of controlling a superior in several cases where serious
mismanagement had come to light at his visitation[747], and other
instances of this method of controlling the administration of a superior
might be multiplied from the episcopal registers.
The appointment of treasuresses and of coadjutresses and the provision for
due consultation of the chapter, custody of the common seal and
presentment of accounts had the purpose of safeguarding the nuns against
reckless expenditure or maladministration by the head of the house, and,
where the injunctions of the Visitor were carried out, such precautions
doubtless proved of use. Some further check was, however, necessary, to
safeguard the nuns against themselves, and to prevent the whole convent
from rash sales of land, alienation of goods and from all those other
improvident devices for obtaining ready money, to which they were so much
addicted. The Bishop often attempted to impose such a check by forbidding
certain steps to be taken without his own consent. The business for which
an episcopal licence was necessary usually comprised the alienation of
land or its lease for life or for a long term of years, the sale of any
corrodies or payment of any fees or pensions, and (as has already been
pointed out) the reception of new inmates, who might overcrowd the house
and thus impose a strain upon its revenues[748]. Other business, such as
the sale of woods, was sometimes included[749]. The prohibition of
corrodies, fees and pensions was doubtless intended to protect the nuns
against the exactions of patrons and other persons, who claimed the right
to pension off relatives or old servants by this means, as well as against
their own improvidence in selling such doles for inadequate sums of ready
money. As typical of such prohibitions may be quoted Alnwick's injunction
(given in two parts) to Harrold in 1442-3:
Also we enioyne yow, prioresse, and your sucessours vndere payne of
pry[v]acyone and perpetuelle amocyone fro your and thaire astate and
dygnyte that fro hense forthe ye ne thai selle, graunte ne gyfe to ony
persone what euer thai be any corrody, lyverye, pensyone or anuyte to
terme of lyve, certeyn tyme or perpetuelly, but if ye or thai fyrste
declare the cause to vs or our successours bysshoppes of Lincolne, and
in that case have our specyalle licence or of our saide successours
and also the fulle assent of the more hole parte of your couent. Also
we enioyne yow prioresse and your successours vndere the payne of
priuacyone afore saide that ye ne thai selle, gyfe, aleyne, ne felle
no grete wode or tymbere, saue to necessary reparacyone of your place
and your tenaundryes, but if ye and thai hafe specyalle licence ther
to, of vs or our successours bysshoppes of Lincolne and the cause
declared to vs or our successours[750].
An exceptionally conscientious Bishop would sometimes send even more full
and elaborate instructions to a nunnery on the management of its property,
and examples of such minute regulations are to be found in the injunctions
sent to Elstow Abbey at different times by Bishop Bokyngham (1387)[751],
Archbishop Courtenay (1389)[752] and Bishop Flemyng (1421-2)[753]. Bishop
Bokyngham also sent very full injunctions to Heynings in 1392 and these
may be quoted to illustrate the care which the Visitors sometimes took to
set a house upon a firm financial footing, so far as it was possible to do
so by the mere giving of good advice:
The Prioress, indeed, shall attempt to do nothing without the counsel
of two nuns, elected by the convent to assist her in the government
of the aforesaid priory, both within and without; and when any
important business has to be done concerning the state of the priory,
the same Prioress shall expound it to the convent in common, and shall
settle and accomplish it according to their counsel, to the advantage
of the aforesaid house. And each year the receiver shall display fully
in chapter to the convent in common the state of the house and an
account of the administration of its goods, clearly and openly
written.... Item we command and ordain that the common seal and
muniments of the house be faithfully kept under three locks, of which
one key shall be in the custody of the prioress, another of the
subprioress and the third of a nun elected for this purpose by the
convent.... Item we enjoin and command that two receivers be each year
elected by the chapter, who shall receive all money whatsoever,
forthcoming from the churches, manors or rents of the said priory, the
which two elected (receivers), together with the Prioress and with an
auditor deputed in the name of the convent, shall hear and receive in
writing the computation, account and reckoning of all bailiffs without
the precincts of the house, who receive any moneys, or any other goods
whatsoever in the name of the said convent, from churches, manors or
rents. And afterwards the same two elected receivers, before the
Prioress and two other of the greater, elder and more prudent nuns,
elected to this end by the convent, shall faithfully render at least
twice every year the account and computation of all the receipts and
expenses of the same (receivers) within the precincts of the aforesaid
house, to the said Prioress and two sisters elected and deputed in the
name of the convent. And when this has been done, we will and enjoin
that twice in every year the Prioress of the aforesaid house show the
whole state of the aforesaid house in chapter, the whole convent being
assembled on a certain day for this purpose. And we will that the roll
of the aforesaid balance sheet, or paper of account or reckoning,
remain altogether in the archives of the aforesaid house, that the
prioress and the elder and more prudent (nuns) of the aforesaid house
may be able easily to learn the state of the same in future years and
whenever any difficulty may arise. And let bailiffs be constituted of
sufficient faculties and of commendable discretion and fidelity, the
best that can be found, and let them similarly render due account
every year before the same prioress and convent.... Furthermore we
will that the Prioress and convent of the aforesaid house do not sell
or concede in perpetuity or grant for a term corrodies, stipends,
liveries or pensions to clerics or to laymen, save with our licence
first sought and obtained[754].
At Elstow Bokyngham gave a more detailed injunction about the appointment
of bailiffs and other officers.
Let the Abbess for the government of the aforesaid monastery have
faithful servants, in especial for the government and supervision
without waste of the husbandry and the manors and stock and woods of
the aforesaid house; the which the Abbess herself is bound, if she
can, to supervise each year in person, or else let her cause them to
be industriously supervised by others; and to look after the external
and internal business of the house and to prosecute it outside let her
appoint also some man of proven experience and of mature age[755].
The purpose of those regulations and restrictions which have hitherto been
described, was to assist the nuns in managing their own finances. But the
nuns were never very good business women, and they were moreover in theory
confined to the precincts of the cloister, so that it was difficult for
them to manage their own business, unless they imperilled their souls by
excursions into the world. During the thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries, therefore, a common method of extricating them from their
difficulties was by appointing a male guardian, known in different places
as Custos, Prior, Warden or Master, to supervise the temporal affairs of a
house and to look after its finances. In the early history of Cistercian
nunneries each house was governed jointly by a Prior and Prioress and in
some cases a few canons are found holding the temporalities jointly with
the nuns. Of these Cistercian houses Mr Hamilton Thompson says:
As in the case of the Gilbertine priories, such nunneries are rarely
found outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire: they were under the bishop's
supervision and their connexion with the order of Citeaux was nominal.
Their geographical distribution, as well as the fact that St Gilbert
attempted to affiliate his nunneries to the Cistercian order and
modelled them upon its rule, provokes the suspicion that such houses
were a result of the growth of the Gilbertine order, and, if not
intended to become double houses, were at any rate imitations of the
corporations of nuns at Sempringham and elsewhere[756].
References to canons occur in connection with the houses of Stixwould,
Heynings and Legbourne in Lincolnshire[757], Catesby in
Northamptonshire[758] and Swine in Yorkshire[759]. The _comperta_ of
Archbishop Giffard's visitation of Swine in 1267-8 show that the house at
that time closely resembled the double houses belonging to the Gilbertine
order.
_Item compertum est_, that the two windows, by which the food and
drink of the canons and lay brothers are conveyed (to them), are not
at all well guarded by the two nuns who are called janitresses,
inasmuch as suspicious conversations are frequently held there between
the canons and lay brothers on the one hand and the nuns and sisters
on the other. _Item compertum est_ that the door which leads to the
church is not at all carefully kept by a certain secular boy, who
permits the canons and lay brothers to enter indiscriminately in the
twilight, that they may talk with the nuns and sisters, the which door
was wont to be guarded diligently by a trusty and energetic lay
brother.
It has already been described how the ill-management of the canons and lay
brothers ("who dissipate and consume, under colour of guardianship, the
goods outside, which were wont to be committed to the guardianship of one
of the nuns") caused the nuns to go short in clothes and food and even to
be reduced to drinking water instead of beer twice a week, though the
canons and their friends "did themselves very well" (_satis habundanter et
laute procurantur_)[760]. In most cases this double constitution of nuns
and canons was in abeyance in Cistercian houses before the fourteenth
century, though a prior and canons are mentioned at Stixwould in 1308[761]
and Richard de Staunton, "canon of Catesby," was made master of that
house as late as 1316[762].
In other houses where no trace of canons has survived there are often
references to the resident Prior, especially in the dioceses of York and
Lincoln, and this official is sometimes found in Benedictine houses (e.g.
Godstow[763], St Michael's Stamford[764], and King's Mead, Derby[765]). He
seems to have acted as senior chaplain and confessor to the nuns as well
as supervising their financial business. In cases where a nunnery was in
some sort of dependence upon an abbey or priory of monks, it is usual to
find a religious of that house acting as _custos_ of the nuns. At St
Michael's Stamford, for instance, the abbots of Peterborough had the right
of nominating a resident prior, subject to the approval of the Bishop of
Lincoln, and the office was often held by a monk of Peterborough[766].
Similarly a monk of St Albans acted as _custos_ of Sopwell[767] and a
canon of Newhouse dwelt at Brodholme "to say daily mass for the sisters
and to overlook their temporalities"[768]. The joint rule of Cistercian
houses by a Prior and Prioress seems to have died out in most cases by the
end of the thirteenth century, but it was customary for some secular or
regular cleric to be appointed in most of the small and poor houses of
York and Lincoln to look after their business[769]. Usually the _custos_
appointed was the vicar or rector of some neighbouring parish. Archbishop
Romeyn, for instance, placed Sinningthwaite, Wilberfoss and Arthington
under the guardianship of the rectors of Kirk Deighton, Sutton-on-Derwent
and Kippax respectively, and he made the vicars of Thirkleby and Bossall
successively masters of Moxby[770]. Bishop Dalderby of Lincoln appointed
neighbouring rectors and vicars to be masters of Legbourne, Godstow,
Rowney, Sewardsley, Fosse, Delapre, St Leonard's Grimsby, and
Nuncoton[771].
Sometimes, on the other hand, canons or monks of religious houses in the
vicinity were charged with looking after the affairs of nunneries. Swine
was managed by Robert de Spalding, a canon of the Premonstratensian house
of Croxton, and in 1289-90 Archbishop Romeyn wrote remonstrating with the
Abbot of Croxton for recalling him, and begging that he might be allowed
to continue at Swine, "cum idem vester canonicus proficuos labores ibidem
impenderit ad relevacionem probabilem depressionis notorie dicte domus";
but the capable Robert was not allowed to return and in 1290 John Bustard,
canon of St Robert's Knaresborough, was appointed in his place. John was
not a success and the next year the Abbot removed him; in 1295 Robert of
Spalding became master again and in 1298 the rector of Londesborough was
appointed[772]. At Catesby in 1293 the office of master was held by a
certain Robert de Wardon, a canon of Canons Ashby, who had apparently left
the nuns and gone back to his own house, to the great detriment of the
nunnery, for Bishop Sutton wrote in 1293 to the Prior of Canons Ashby,
bidding him send back the truant[773]. Similarly a canon of Wellow is
found as warden of St Leonard's Grimsby in 1232 and in 1303[774], a monk
of Whitby as guardian of Handale and Basedale in 1268[775], a canon of
Newburgh at Arden in 1302[776] and a canon of Lincoln at Heynings in 1291:
concerning the latter Bishop Sutton wrote to the nuns that since, "because
of private business and various other impediments he is prevented from
looking after your business as much as it requires, the vicar of Upton
your neighbour is to look after your affairs in his absence," and in 1294
he was definitely replaced by the rector of Blankney[777]. It is clear
from this letter that the masters of nunneries could be non-resident and
this was no doubt usually the case when the office was held by the rector
of a neighbouring parish. Indeed sometimes the same man would be master of
more than one nunnery; as in the case of the monk of Whitby mentioned
above. It was probably rare after the beginning of the fourteenth century
for a _custos_ to reside at a nunnery, as the early Cistercian priors had
done[778].
The appointment of _custodes_ to manage the finances of nunneries was a
favourite policy with Archbishop Peckham, doubtless because it facilitated
the enforcement of strict enclosure upon the nuns. At Godstow there was
already at the time a master, but Peckham also gave the custody of
Davington to the vicar of Faversham in 1279, and that of Holy Sepulchre,
Canterbury, to the vicar of Wickham in 1284, while at Usk in 1284 he
ordered the nuns to have "some senior priest circumspect in temporal and
in spiritual affairs to be, with the consent of the diocesan, master of
all your goods, internal and external, temporal and spiritual"[779]. At
other times a _custos_ would be appointed to meet a particular difficulty
when the financial state of a house had become specially weak. About 1303,
for instance, a monk of Peterborough was made for a season special warden
of St Michael's, Stamford, "with full powers over the temporalities and of
adjudicating and ordering all temporal matters both within and without the
convent as he should think profitable"; the appointment is specially
interesting because there was at the time a resident prior at St Michael's
and the "spiritual disposition of all things concerning the house" is
reserved to this prior and to the prioress[780]. A more serious crisis
occurred at the Priory of White Hall, Ilchester, which was evidently in a
disorderly condition at the beginning of the fourteenth century. In 1323
Bishop John of Drokensford wrote to Henry of Birlaunde, rector of Stoke
and to John de Herminal, announcing that the Prioress, Alice de Chilterne,
was defamed of incontinence with a chaplain and had so mismanaged and
turned to her own nefarious uses the revenues of the house that her
sisters were compelled to beg their bread; she had however submitted
herself to the Bishop, but as public affairs called him to London and as
he did not wish to leave the nunnery unprovided for, he committed the
custody to these two men, ordering them to administer the necessities of
life to the Prioress and sisters, according to the means of the house,
until his return[781]. Some ten years later Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury
similarly gave the custody of White Hall, Ilchester, to the rectors of
Limington and St John's Ilchester[782]. The nunnery of Barrow, near
Bristol, was also in a disorderly condition; in 1315 John of Drokensford
wrote to the Prioress ordering her to leave the management of secular
matters to a _custos_ appointed by him, and the same day appointed William
de Sutton; and in 1324-5, when he had been obliged to remove the Prioress
Joanna Gurney, he committed the custody of the house to William, rector of
Backwell, ordering him to do the best he could with the advice of the
subprioress and one of the nuns[783]. More often sheer financial distress,
rather than moral disorder, was the reason for which a _custos_ was
appointed to a house. At St Sepulchre's Canterbury, the rector of
Whitstable was made _custos_, "by reason of the miserable want and extreme
poverty of the said house" (1359) and for the same reason another secular
cleric received the "supervision, custody or administration" of the same
house in 1365[784]. In 1366 Thomas Hatfield, Bishop of Durham,
pitying the miserable state of St Bartholomew's at Newcastle-on-Tyne,
both as to spirituals and temporals, and dreading the immediate ruin
thereof, unless some speedy remedy should be applied, committed it to
the care of Hugh de Arnecliffe, priest in the church of St Nicholas in
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, strictly enjoining the prioress and nuns to be
obedient to him in every particular and trusting to his prudence to
find relief for the poor servants of Christ here, in their poverty and
distress.[785]
Sometimes the nuns themselves begged for a _custos_ to assist them, in
terms which show that they found the management of their own finances too
much for them. At Godstow in 1316 the King was obliged, at the request of
the Abbess and nuns, to take the Abbey into his special protection "on
account of its miserable state," and he appointed the Abbot of Eynsham and
the Prior of Bicester as keepers, ordering them to pay the nuns a certain
allowance and to apply the residue to the discharging of their debts[786].
Similarly in 1327 the Prioress and nuns of King's Mead, Derby, represented
themselves as much reduced, and begged the King to take the house into his
special protection, granting the custody of it to Robert of Alsop and
Simon of Little Chester, until it should be relieved. Three months later
Edward III granted it protection for three years and appointed Robert of
Alsop and Simon of Little Chester custodians, who, after due provision for
the sustenance of the prioress and nuns, were to apply the issues and
rents to the discharge of the liabilities of the house and to the
improvement of its condition[787]. Some interesting evidence in this
connection was given during Alnwick's visitations of the diocese of
Lincoln. When Clemence Medforde, the Prioress of Ankerwyke, was asked
whether she had observed the Bishop's injunctions, she answered
that such injunctions were, and are, well observed as regards both her
and her sisters in effect and according to their power, except the
injunction whereby she is bound to supply to her sisters sufficient
raiment for their habits, and as touching the non-observance of that
injunction she answers that she cannot observe it, because of the
poverty and insufficiency of the resources of the house, which have
been much lessened by reason of the want of a surveyor or steward
(_yconomus_). Wherefore she besought my lord's good-will and
assistance that he would deign with charitable consideration to make
provision of such steward or director.... And when these nuns, all and
several, had been so examined and were gathered together again in the
chapter house, the said Depyng (the Visitor) gave consideration to two
grievances, wherein the priory and nuns alike suffer no small damage,
the which, as he affirmed, were worthy of reform above the rest of
those that stood most in need of reform, to wit the lack of raiment
for the habit, of bedclothes and of a steward or seneschal, but in
these matters, as he averred, he could not apply a remedy for the
nonce without riper deliberation and consultation with my lord[788].
Similarly the old Prioress of St Michael's Stamford, when asking for the
appointment of two nuns as treasuresses, complained "that she herself is
impotent to rule temporalities, nor have they an industrious man to
supervise these and to raise and receive (external payments)"; another nun
said that "they have not a discreet layman to rule their temporalities,"
and a third also complained of the lack of a "receiver"[789]. At Gokewell,
on the other hand, the Prioress said "that the rector of Flixborough is
their steward (_yconomus_) and he looks after the temporalities and not
she"; he was evidently a true friend to the nuns, for she said "that the
house does not exceed L10 in rents and is greatly in debt to the rector of
Flixborough"[790]. The terms of appointment of _custodes_ often specify
the inexpertness of the nuns, or their need for someone to supervise the
management of their estates[791]. Perhaps the fullest set of instructions
to a _custos_ which have survived are those given by Archbishop Melton to
Roger de Saxton, rector of Aberford, in making him _custos_ of Kirklees in
1317:
Trusting in your industry, we by tenour of the present (letters) give
you power during our pleasure to look after, guard and administer the
temporal possessions of our beloved religious ladies, the Prioress and
convent of Kirklees in our diocese, throughout their manors and
buildings (_loca_) wherever these be, and to receive and hear the
account of all servants and ministers serving in the same, and to make
those payments (_allocandum_) which by reason ought to be made, as
well as to remove all useless ministers and servants and to appoint in
their place others of greater utility, and to do all other things
which shall seem to you to be to the advantage of the place, firmly
enjoining the said prioress and convent, as well as the sisters and
lay brothers of the house, in virtue of holy obedience, that they
permit you freely to administer in all and each of the aforesaid
matters[792].
It must have been of great assistance to the worried and incompetent nuns
to have a reliable guardian thus to look after their temporal affairs, and
it is difficult to understand why the practice of having a resident prior
died out at the Cistercian houses and at Benedictine houses (e.g. St
Michael's, Stamford) which had such an official in the thirteenth and
early fourteenth centuries. Even the appointment of neighbouring rectors
as _custodes_ of nunneries in the York and Lincoln dioceses ceased,
apparently, to be common by the middle of the fourteenth century[793]. It
is a curious anomaly that this remedy should have been applied less and
less often during the very centuries when the nunneries were becoming
increasingly poor, and stood daily in greater need of external assistance
in the management of their temporal affairs.