PRIVATE LIFE AND PRIVATE PROPERTY
All things are to be common to all.
_Rule of St Benedict_, ch. XXXIII.
The Rule of seint Maure or of seint Beneit,
Because that it was old and somdel streit
This ilke monk leet olde thinges pace
And held after the newe world the space.
CHAUCER, Prologue, ll. 173-6.
The reaction from a strict routine of life led monks and nuns to a more
serious modification of the Rule under which they lived than that
represented by pet dogs and pretty clothes, which were after all only
superficial frivolities. They sought also to modify two rules which were
fundamental to the Benedictine ideal. One was the rigidly communal life,
the obligation to do everything in company with everyone else. The other
was the obligation of strict personal poverty. A monastery was in its
essence a place where a number of persons lived a communal life, owning no
private property, but holding everything in the name of the community. The
normal routine of conventual life, as laid down in the Benedictine Rule,
secured this end. The inmates of a house spent almost the whole of their
time together. They prayed together in the choir, worked together in the
cloister, ate together in the frater, and slept together in the dorter.
Moreover the strictest regulations were made to prevent the vice of
private property, one of the most serious sins in the monastic calendar,
from making its appearance. All food was to be cooked in a common kitchen
and served in the common frater, in which no meat was allowed. All clothes
were to be provided out of the common goods of the house, and it was the
business of the chamberer or chambress to see to the buying of material,
the making of the clothes and their distribution to the religious; so
carefully was _proprietas_ guarded against, that all old clothes had to be
given back to the chambress, when the new ones were distributed. Above
all it was forbidden to monks and nuns to possess and spend money, save
what was delivered to them by the superior for their necessary expenses
upon a journey[989].
But this combination of rigid communism with rigid personal poverty was
early discovered to be irksome. It seems as though the craving for a
certain privacy of life, a certain minimum of private property, is a
deeply rooted instinct in human nature. Certainly the attempt of
monasticism to expel it with a pitchfork failed. Step by step the rule was
broken down, more especially by a series of modifications in the
prescribed method of feeding and clothing the community. Here, as in the
enclosure question, the monks and nuns came into conflict with their
bishops, though the conflict was never so severe. Here also, the result of
the struggle was the same. A steady attempt by the bishops to enforce the
rule was countered by a steady resistance on the part of the religious and
the end was usually compromise.
The most marked breakdown of the communal way of life in the monasteries
of the later middle ages is to be seen in the gradual neglect of the
frater, in favour of a system of private messes, and in the increasing
allocation of private rooms to individuals. The strict obligation upon all
to keep frater daily was at first only modified in favour of the head of
the house, who usually had her own lodgings, including a dining hall, in
which the rule permitted her to entertain the guests who claimed her
hospitality and such nuns as she chose to invite for their recreation.
From quite early times, however, there existed in many houses a room known
as the _misericord_ (or indulgence), where the strict diet of the frater
was relaxed. Here the occupants of the infirmary, those in their seynies
and all who needed flesh meat and more delicate dishes to support them,
were served. From the fourteenth century onwards, however, the rules of
diet became considerably relaxed and flesh was allowed to everyone on
three days a week[990]. This meant that the _misericord_ was in constant
use and in many monasteries the frater was divided into two stories, the
upper of which was used as the frater proper, where no meat might be
eaten, and the lower as a _misericord_[991]. According to this
arrangement a nun might sometimes be dining in the upper frater, sometimes
in the _misericord_ and sometimes in the abbess' or prioress' lodgings;
and, of these places, there was a distinct tendency for the upper frater
to fall into disuse, since it could in any case only be used on fish (or,
according to later custom, white meat) days.
But a habit even more subversive of strictly communal life and more liable
to lead to disuse of the frater was rapidly spreading at this period. This
was the division of a nunnery into _familiae_, or households, which messed
together, each _familia_ taking its meals separately from the rest. The
common frater was sometimes kept only thrice a week on fish days,
sometimes only in Advent and Lent, sometimes (it would seem) never. This
meant the separate preparation of meals for each household, a practice
which, though uneconomical, was possible, because each nun's food
allowance was fixed and could be drawn separately. Moreover, as we shall
see hereafter, the growing practice of granting an annual money allowance
to each individual, though used for clothes more often than for food,
enabled the nuns to buy meat and other delicacies (if not provided by the
convent) for themselves. The aristocratic ladies of Polsloe even had their
private maids to prepare their meals[992].
This system was evidently well established at a comparatively early date.
It is mentioned in Peckham's injunctions in 1279 and in Exeter and York
injunctions belonging to the early years of the fourteenth century. To
illustrate how it worked, we may analyse the references to _familiae_ in
Alnwick's visitations of the diocese of Lincoln (1440-5)[993]. The number
of households in a nunnery necessarily differed with the size of the
house and it is not always easy to determine the proportion of households
to nuns, because internal evidence sometimes shows that all the inmates
were not present and enumerated at the visitation. Thus at Elstow the
abbess "says that there are five households of nuns kept in the monastery,
whereof the first is that of the abbess, who has five nuns with her; the
second of the prioress, who has two; the third of the subprioress, who has
two; the fourth of the sacrist, who has three; and the fifth of Dame
Margaret Aylesbury, who has two"; but only thirteen nuns gave
evidence[994]. In this house the frater was kept on certain days of the
week, one nun deposing "that on the days whereon they eat together in
frater, they eat larded food in the morning and sup on flesh, and they eat
capons and other two-footed creatures in frater." At Catesby the prioress
deposed that she had four nuns in her _familia_ and that there were three
other households in the cloister. At Stixwould there were "five separate
and distinct households"; at Nuncoton there were three; at St Michael's
Stamford, the prioress and subprioress each had one, but all ate together
in the frater on fish-days; at Stainfield the prioress, the cellaress and
the nun-sisters each kept a household. At Gokewell and Langley the nuns
were said to keep divers households "by two and two" and at Langley the
prioress added, "but they do eat in the frater every day"; also she says
that she herself has three women who board with her and the subprioress
one; also she says that the nuns receive naught from the house but their
meat and drink and she herself keeps one household on her own account. At
Gracedieu the prioress deposed
that frater is not kept nor has it been kept for seven years and that
the nuns sit in company with secular folk at table in her hall every
day and that they have reading during meals; also she says there are
two households only in the house, to wit in her hall and the
infirmary, where there are three at table together;
here the prioress' hall simply took the place of the frater. There were
four households at Godstow and apparently several at Legbourne.
This division into households which messed separately went hand in hand
with another practice, which also softened the rigours of a strictly
communal life, to wit the allocation of separate rooms to certain nuns.
The obedientiaries of a house often had private offices, or _checkers_, in
which to transact their business, and the custom grew by which the head of
each _familia_ had her own room, in which her household dined. The
visitation reports continually refer to these private cells and to their
use as dining rooms and places of reception for visitors. Sometimes the
nuns even slept in them, though the dorter was always much more strictly
kept than the frater; at Godstow in 1432 for instance, Bishop Gray enjoins
"that the beds in the nuns' lodgings (_domicilia_) be altogether removed
from their chambers, save those for small children" (apparently their
pupils) "and that no nun receive any secular person for any recreation in
the nuns' chambers under pain of excommunication"[995]. Some light is
thrown upon these _camerae_ by the inventories of medieval nunneries. Thus
the inventory of the Benedictine Priory of Sheppey made at the Dissolution
describes the contents of "the greate chamber in the Dorter," which was
used as a treasury in which to keep the linen, vestments and plate of the
house, and in which one of the nuns Dame Agnes Davye seems to have slept;
there follows a description of the chambers of eight nuns, with the
furniture in each, from which it is clear that they had brought their own
furniture with them to the monastery. These "chambers" may have been
separate rooms or may have been partitions of the dorter, but if the
latter they were evidently so large as to be to all intents and purposes
separate rooms, for the furniture commonly includes painted cloth or paper
hangings for the room, a chest and a cupboard, besides the bed; in three
there is mention of windows and in two of fire irons. The most likely
conjecture is that the dorter was used as a treasury and bedroom for one
nun and the other chambers are separate rooms[996]. At some other houses
the dorter is mentioned but was clearly divided into separate cells by
wainscot partitions, and the wainscotting was sometimes sold at the
Dissolution[997].
The attitude of ecclesiastical authorities to the modification of the
communal rule involved in _familiae_ and _camerae_ was, for various
reasons, one of strict disapproval. The custom of providing separate
messes was extremely uneconomical; the passing of much time in private
rooms was open to suspicion, especially when male visitors were received
there; communal life was an essential part of the monastic idea; finally
the amenities of private life were apt (as we shall see) to bring in their
train the amenities of private property. The policy of the bishops was,
for all these reasons, to restore communal life. They made general
injunctions that frater and dorter should duly be kept by all the nuns,
they made special injunctions for the abolition of separate households,
and above all they condemned private rooms:
"Also we enioyne yow, pryoresse," writes Alnwick to Catesby in 1442,
"that ye dispose so for your susters that the morne next aftere
Myghelmasse day next commyng wythe owten any lengare delaye, ye and
thai aftere yowre rewle lyfe in commune, etyng and drynkyng in oon
house, slepyng in oon house, prayng and sarufyng [serving] God in oon
oratorye, levyng vtterly all pryuate hydles [hiding-places], chaumbres
and syngulere housholdes, by the whiche hafe comen and growen grete
hurte and peryle of sowles and noyesfulle sklaundere of your
pryorye"[998].
But such injunctions were not easily enforced, and the politic bishops
sometimes tried to reduce rather than to abolish the households and
private rooms. It was often necessary--and indeed reasonable--to recognise
the three _familiae_ of the abbess' or prioress' lodgings, the
_misericord_ or infirmary and the frater[999]. Sometimes the bishops tried
to enforce the rule, laid down by the legate Ottobon (1268), to limit the
number who dined at the superior's table, viz. that at least two-thirds of
the convent were to eat each day in the frater[1000]. At Godstow Bishop
Gray, in 1432, allowed three households besides that of the frater[1001].
The condemnation of private rooms, and more especially of the reception of
visitors therein, was more severe; but here too, it was necessary in
large convents for the obedientiaries to have their offices, and other
individuals were sometimes given special permission to use separate
_camerae_. Some bishops allowed them to sick nuns, but others enforced the
use of the common infirmary[1002].
It has already been said that this approximation to private life was bound
to bring with it an approximation to private property and it remains now
to analyse the process by which these new methods of providing food, and
even more effectively, new methods of providing clothes, resulted in a
spread of _proprietas_, which was considered perfectly legitimate by the
nuns and within limits condoned by the bishops. The impression left upon
the mind by a study of monastic records during the last two centuries of
the middle ages is that in many houses the rule of strict personal poverty
was in practice almost completely abrogated, for it is quite obvious that
the nuns had the private and individual disposal of money and goods.
Indeed some convents seem almost like the inmates of a boarding house,
each of whom receives lodging and a certain minimum of food from the
house, but otherwise caters for herself out of her private income. This is
a considerable departure from the rule of St Benedict, and it is worth
while to analyse the sources from which the nuns drew the money and goods
of which they disposed. These sources may be classified under five
headings: (1) the annual allowance of pocket money (called _peculium_)
which was allowed to each nun from the funds of the house and out of which
she had to provide herself with clothes and other necessities; (2)
pittances in money; (3) gifts in money and kind from friends; (4)
legacies; (5) the proceeds of their own labour.
(1) The practice of giving a _peculium_ in money out of the common funds
of the house to monks and nuns began at quite an early date (it is
mentioned at the Council of Oxford in 1222) and was so much an established
custom in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries that to withhold it was
considered by bishops a legitimate cause of complaint against superiors.
The amount of the _peculium_ varied at different houses. In the majority
of cases it was intended to be used for clothes and its payment is
sometimes entered in account rolls. At Gracedieu the nuns had "salaries"
of 6_s._ 8_d._ a year each for their vesture and the careful treasuress
enters all their names[1003]. At St Michael's, Stamford, a chambress'
account, which has been preserved among the treasuress' accounts, shows
that in 1408-9 the prioress was paid 5_s._ for her "camise" and all the
other eleven nuns 4_s._ each, while the two lay sisters had 3_s._
each[1004]. Similarly at St Radegund's, Cambridge, a certain pension from
St Clement's Church was ear-marked for the clothing of the nuns and was
paid over directly to them[1005]; and the Prioress of Catesby in 1414-5
includes under "customary payments" money paid "to the lady Prioress and
her six nuns and to one sister and her three brethren by the year for
clothing"[1006]. The fact that the _peculium_ was a payment made from the
common funds and not the privately owned income of an individual allowed
it to escape the charge of _proprietas_, but it was nevertheless an
obvious departure from the Benedictine rule, which forbade the individual
disposal of property and made quite different arrangements for the
provision of clothing.
(2) Another class of payments made to individuals from the convent funds
was that of pittances. A pittance was originally an extra allowance of
food and it was quite common for a benefactor to leave money to a convent
for a pittance on the anniversary of his death. These pittances were,
however, sometimes paid in money and most account rolls will provide
examples of both. The nuns of Barking receive "Ruscheaw silver" as well
as the little pies called "risshowes" in Lent; the nuns of St Mary de Pre
(St Albans) had "Maundy silver" as well as ale and wine on Maundy
Thursday; the nuns of St Michael's Stamford receive their pittances
sometimes in money, sometimes in spices or pancakes, wine or beer. The
nuns of Romsey had a pittance of 6_d._ each on the feast of St Martin and
another of 6_d._ each "when blood is let"[1007].
(3) The third source from which nuns obtained private possessions lay in
the gifts, both in money and in kind bestowed upon them by their friends.
It has already been shown, in Chapter I, that there was a growing tendency
in the later middle ages for a nun to be supported by means of an annuity,
paid by her relatives and often ending with her life. The fact that these
annuities were ear-marked for the support of individuals must have
increased the temptation to regard them as the property of those
individuals, a temptation which was not present in the old days when an
aristocratic nun brought with her a grant of land to the house. One is
tempted to conjecture that individuals occasionally retained in their own
hands the expenditure of part at least of their annuities. Specific
information from English sources is unfortunately rare; but in the diocese
of Rouen in the middle of the thirteenth century Archbishop Eudes Rigaud
sometimes found it necessary to enjoin that certain nuns who possessed
rents which were reserved for their own use, should either transfer them
to the common funds, or else dispose of them only with the consent of the
prioress, a significant modification, which suggests that he was unable to
eradicate a deeply rooted custom, although it was strictly against the
rule[1008]. It was some twenty years later (c. 1277) that Bishop Thomas of
Cantilupe, writing to the nuns of Lymbrook, enjoined:
Let none of you keep in her own hand any possession or rent for
clothing and shoeing herself, even with the consent of the prioress,
albeit such possession or rent may be given to her by parents or
friends, because the goods of your community suffice not thereto; but
let it be given up wholly to your prioress, that out of it she may
minister to those to whom the gift was made, according to their needs;
otherwise they may easily fall into the sin of property and a secular
craving for gifts, thus rashly violating their vow[1009].
There are also occasional references to "poor" nuns, without such
annuities or dress-allowances, which suggest that the annuitants had
personal disposal of their own money. Thus John Heyden, esq., in 1480,
bequeaths "to every nun in Norfolk not having an annuity 40d"[1010], and
Bishop Gray in 1432 refers to "a certain chest within the monastery [of
Godstow] for the relief of needy nuns," to which the sum of a hundred
shillings was to be restored[1011].
But whether or not nuns were in the habit of retaining in their own
possession regular annuities, it is plain that they did so retain the
various gifts in kind and in money, brought to them from time to time by
their friends; and, judging from the constant references in the visitation
reports, these presents must have been fairly numerous. They varied from
the gifts, rewards, letters, tokens and skins of wine, which the
gatekeeper of Godstow smuggled in to the nuns from the scholars of Oxford,
to the more sober presents of money, clothes and food given to them by
fond relatives for their relief "as in hire habyte and sustenaunce."
(4) One kind of gift deserves, however, a more careful consideration, for
the preservation of many thousands of medieval wills allows us to speak in
detail of legacies to individual nuns, which occur sometimes in company
with legacies to the whole community, sometimes alone. These bequests took
many different forms. Sometimes a father leaves an annuity for the support
of his daughter in her convent[1012]. More frequently a nun becomes the
recipient of a lump sum of money and from the wording of the legacies it
is perfectly clear that these sums are to be delivered into her own hands
for her own use. Let us, for instance, analyse the legacies left by Sir
John Depeden, a northern knight who was a good friend to poor nuns. He
first of all leaves twenty shillings each to the following twelve
nunneries, that they may pray for his soul and his wife's: Esholt,
Arthington, Wilberfoss, Thicket, Moxby, Kirklees, Yedingham, Clementhorpe,
Hampole, Keldholme, Marrick (all in Yorkshire) and Burnham (in
Buckinghamshire). He then continues:
And I give and bequeath to dame Joan Waleys, nun of Watton, to her own
use (_ad usum suum proprium_), 40_s._ And I give and bequeath to dame
Margaret Depeden, nun of Barking, to her own use, 5 marks and one salt
cellar of silver. And I give and bequeath to Elizabeth, daughter of
John FitzRichard, nun of Appleton, to her own use, 40_s._;
moreover he leaves to the Prioress of the last mentioned house 6_s._ 8_d._
and to each nun there 2_s._[1013] There is an obvious distinction here
between the lump sums left to the common funds of the twelve nunneries
grouped together and the gifts to individuals which follow. It is moreover
quite common for a testator, who wishes to give money in charity to a
whole house (as distinct from one who makes a bequest to a relative or
friend therein), to distinguish the amounts to be paid to the prioress and
to each of the nuns. Thus John Brompton, merchant of Beverley (n.d., c.
1441-4) while leaving a lump sum of 20_s._ to the nuns of Watton "for a
pittance," 10_s._ to the nuns of Nunkeeling and 5_s._ to the nuns of
Burnham, thus provides for all the inmates of Swine:
Item I bequeath to the Prioress of Swine, 3_s._ 4_d._, and to each nun
of the said house 2_s._, and to the vicar there 3_s._ 4_d._ and to
each chaplain there celebrating divine service in the churches of the
said town 12_d._, item to Hamond, servant there 12_d._, and to each
woman serving the aforesaid nuns within the aforesaid abbey,
6_d._[1014]
Thus also James Myssenden of Great Limber (1529) distinguishes between the
convent and the individual nuns of Nuncoton: "To the monastery of Cotton,
3l. 6s 8d, to Dame Johan Thomson, prioress of the same 40s, to Dame
Margaret Johnson 6s 8d, to Dame Elynor Hylyarde 6s 8d, to every other nun
of the convent 12d"; and Dame Jane Armstrong, vowess, of Corby, in the
same year leaves the nuns of Sempringham 6_s._ 8_d._, "of which Dame Agnes
Rudd is to have 40d"[1015]. Similar instances may be multiplied from any
collection of wills[1016].
Moreover it seems plain that the money thus willed was actually paid over
to individuals by their convent. The account roll of the treasuress of St
Radegund's Cambridge, in 1449-50, contains an item:
And to Dame Alice Patryk lately dead in full payment of all debts
3_s._ 4_d._ from the legacy of Peter Erle, chaplain, lately deceased.
And to Dame Joan Lancaster in part payment of 6_s._ 8_d._ bequeathed
to her by the aforesaid Peter 3_s._ 4_d._, and to Dame Agnes Swaffham,
subprioress, in part payment of 6_s._ 8_d._, 20_d._[1017]
But it was not only money which was bequeathed to nuns. They often
received quite considerable legacies of jewels and plate, robes and
furniture. What would we not give today to look for a moment at the
beautiful things which Walter Skirlaw, Bishop of Durham, left to his
sister Joan, the Prioress of Swine, in 1404?
Item, one large gilded cup, with a cover and a round foot, and in the
bottom a chaplet of white and red roses and a hind carven in the midst
and all round the outside carven with eagles, lions, crowns and other
ingenious devices (_babonibus_), and in the pommel a nest and three
men standing and taking the chicks from the nest, of the weight of 18
marks.... Item a robe of murrey cloth of Ypres (? _yp'n_) containing a
mantle and hood furred with budge (? _purg'_), another hood furred
with ermine, a cloak furred with half vair, a long robe (_garnach'_)
furred with vair.... Item one bed of tapestry work of a white field,
with a stag standing under a great tree and on either side lilies and
a red border, with the complete tester and three curtains of white
boulter[1018].
In the same year Anne St Quintin left the same noble lady "one silken
quilt and one pair of sheets of cloth of Rennes"[1019]. Eleven years
earlier Sir John Fairfax, rector of Prescot, had left his sister Margaret
Fairfax, Prioress of Nunmonkton (of whom we have already heard much that
was not to her good):
one silver gilt cup with a cover, and one silver cup with a cover, one
mazer with a cover of silver gilt, one pix of silver for spices, six
silver spoons, one cloak of black cloth furred with gray, one round
silver basin and ten marks of silver[1020].
Master John de Wodhouse in 1345 leaves Dame Alice Conyers, nun of
Nunappleton, "fifteen marks [and] a long chest standing against my bed at
York, one maser cup with an image of St Michael in the bottom and one cup
of silver, which I had of her gift, with a hand in the bottom holding a
falcon"[1021], and Isabella, widow of Thomas Corp, a London pepperer, in
1356, leaves
to Margaret, sister of William Heyroun, vintner, nun at Barking, a
silver plated cup with covercle, twelve silver spoons, two cups of
mazer and a silver enamelled pix, together with three gold rings, with
emerald, sapphire and diamond respectively and divers household
goods[1022].
Possibly some of these splendid pieces of plate found their way to the
altar, and the cups and spoons to the frater of the house, but the nuns
undoubtedly sometimes kept them for private use in their own _camerae_.
Here also were kept the beds, such as that splendid one left by Bishop
Skirlaw to his sister, the "bed of Norfolk" which Sir Robert de Roos left
to his daughter Joan (1392)[1023], the "bed of worstede with sheets, which
she kindly gave me," left by William Felawe, clerk, to Katherine Slo,
Prioress of Shaftesbury (1411)[1024]. Doubtless Juliana de Crofton, nun
of Hampole, knew what use to make of "six shillings and eightpence and a
cloak lined with blue and two tablets and one saddle with a bridle and two
leather bowls"[1025]; here at one gift was the wherewithal for writing a
letter to announce a visit and for paying that visit on horseback, in gay
and unconventual attire. Indeed the constant legacies of clothes to nuns
go far to explain where it was that they obtained those cheerful secular
garments, against which their bishops waged war in vain. In days when
clothes were made of heavy and valuable stuffs and richly adorned, it was
a very common custom for a woman to divide up her wardrobe between
different legatees, and men also handed on their best garments. When in
1397 Margaret Fairfax is found using "divers furs and even gray fur
(_gris_)"[1026], one remembers, with a sudden flash of comprehension, the
"cloak of black cloth furred with gray" which her brother left her four
years earlier. What did Elizabeth de Newemarche, nun, do with the mantle
of brounemelly left her by Lady Isabel Fitzwilliam?[1027] What did Sir
William Bonevyll's sister at Wherwell do with "his best hoppelond with the
fur"?[1028] What above all did the Prioress of Swine do with all those
costly fur trimmings left her by the Bishop of Durham? Yorkshire nunneries
were apt to be undisciplined and worldly; great ladies there, if
Archbishop Melton is to be believed, sometimes considered that they might
dress according to their rank[1029]. We may safely guess that the Prioress
of Swine, like her contemporary at Nunmonkton, wore the furs; and
visitation records do not lead us to suppose that other nuns sold their
blue-lined cloaks and houppelonds for the sake of their convents, or
bestowed them on the poor.
It is a common injunction that nuns are to wear no other ring than that
which, at their consecration, made them brides of Christ[1030]; but the
rule was often disobeyed and Dame Clemence Medforde's "golden rings
exceeding costly with divers precious stones"[1031] are explained when we
remember the "three gold rings, one having a sapphire, another an emerald
and the third a diamond" which the rich pepperer's widow left to Dame
Margaret Heyroun[1032]. Madame Eglentyne herself may have owed to one of
the many friends, who held her digne of reverence, her "peire of bedes,
gauded al with grene," of small coral. When Sir Thomas Cumberworth died in
1451 he ordered that "the prioris of Coton, of Irford, of Legburn and of
Grenefeld have Ilkon of yam a pare bedys of corall, as far as that I have
may laste, and after yiff yam gette [give them jet] bedes"[1033], and so
also Matilda Latymer left her daughter at Buckland a set of "Bedys de
corall"[1034] and Margerie de Crioll left a nun of Shaftesbury "my
paternoster of coral and white pearls, which the Countess of Pembroke gave
me"[1035].
(5) The fifth and last source from which nuns could derive a private
income was by the work of their own hands and brains. It has been stated
above that very little is known about the sale of fine needlework by nuns,
but a very interesting case at Easebourne seems to show that they
sometimes considered themselves entitled to retain for their own private
use the sums which they earned. In 1441 one of the complaints against the
gay prioress was that she "compels her sisters to work continually like
hired workwomen, and they receive nothing whatever for their own use from
their work, but the prioress takes the whole profit." The bishop's
injunction is extremely significant:
the prioress shall by no means compel her sisters to continual work of
their hands and if they should wish of their own accord to work, they
shall be free to do so, but yet so that they may reserve for
themselves the half part of what they gain by their hands; the other
part shall be converted to the advantage of the house and unburdening
it from debt[1036].
In fine, the Bishop is obliged to acquiesce in a serious breach of the
Benedictine rule: the plea of the nuns to commit the sin of _proprietas_
is considered as a reasonable demand; and the compromise that half their
earnings should go to the common fund is intended rather to check the
prioress than the nuns. From the injunctions of other bishops it would
appear that the private boarders and private pupils taken by individual
nuns sometimes paid their fees to those individuals and not to the
house[1037]; the "household" system made the reception of such boarders
easy.
From whatever source nuns obtained control of money and goods, whether
from the _peculium_, from gifts, from legacies, or from the proceeds of
their own labour, one thing is clear: in a fourteenth or fifteenth century
house, where the system of the _peculium_ and the _familia_ obtained,
there was a considerable approximation to private life and to private
property. The control of money and goods and the division into households,
catering separately for themselves, worked in together. The responsibility
of the convent towards its members was sometimes limited to a bare minimum
of food, such as the staple bread and beer, and perhaps a small dress
allowance. All the rest was provided by the nuns themselves. In strict
theory annuities, gifts and legacies, were put into common stock and
administered by the convent. In practice they were obviously retained in
individual possession and administered as private property by the nuns.
Even legacies of lump sums to a whole convent were probably divided up
between the nuns, an equal sum being paid to each and perhaps double to
the prioress.
An analysis of the conditions revealed at Alnwick's visitation of the
Lincoln diocese in 1440-5 throws an exceedingly interesting side-light,
not only on the vow of monastic poverty, as understood in the fifteenth
century, but also on the domestic economy of the houses, the majority of
which were small and poor. It may also conveniently be compared with the
evidence given by the same visitations as to the system of _familiae_ in
these houses. At some the house supplied all food and clothes or a
_peculium_ for clothes, at some it provided only a bare minimum of food,
at some neither dress nor dress allowance was provided. At Legbourne
every nun has one loaf, one half gallon of beer a day, one pig a year,
18_d._ for beef, every day in Advent and Lent two herrings, and a
little butter in summer and sometimes two stone of cheese a year and
8_d._ a year for raiment and no more;
the sum of 2_s._ 2_d._ a year for beef and clothes was certainly not
excessive[1038]. At Stixwould
every nun receives in the year one pig, one sheep, a quarter of beef,
two stones of butter, three stones of cheese, every day in Advent and
Lent three herrings, six salt fish and twelve doughcakes a year; and
they were wont to have 6_s._ 8_d._ for their raiment, but for several
years back (one nun said for twenty years) as regards raiment they
have received nothing.
At St Michael's Stamford, the house provided only "bread and beer and a
mark for fish and flesh and other things and as to their raiment they
receive naught of the house"; out of the mark the nuns catered for
themselves. Other houses provided still less out of the common funds; at
Gokewell the nuns received nothing from the house but bread and beer and
at Markyate (a poor house, of not unblemished reputation and badly in
debt) "they receive of the house only bread, beer and two marks for their
raiment and what else is necessary for their living, which are less than
enough for their sundry needful wants"; Alnwick ordered all victuals to be
given them "of the commune stores of the house owte of one selare and one
kytchyne" and fixed the dress allowance at a noble yearly, but he did not
say how the house was to raise funds. At Nuncoton the allowance was 8_s._
a year, but when Alnwick came the nuns had received only 1_s._ each. At
Fosse, Langley and Ankerwyke the houses provided meat and drink, but no
dress or dress allowance; and at Catesby it was complained that "the
prioress does not give the nuns satisfaction in the matter of their
raiment and money for victuals and touching the premises the prioress is
in the nuns' debt for three-quarters of the year"[1039]. From these
references it is plain that the nuns usually bought their own clothes and
often catered for themselves in flesh food; also that the poverty of many
houses was so great that the nuns could not have lived decently without
the help of friends, whether because their dress allowances were always in
arrears, or because the house recognised no responsibility to clothe them
from its exiguous funds. Yet as regards food at least, the habit of
catering separately for separate messes was undoubtedly less economical
than the regular maintenance of a common table would have been.
A highly interesting light on the control of money allowances for the
purchase of food by the individual nuns of a convent is thrown by convent
account rolls. These accounts show two different methods of catering in
force. In one all the housekeeping was done by the cellaress, who bought
such stores as were needed to supplement the produce of the home farm and
provided the nuns with the whole of their food. This is the normal method,
which accords with the Rule; it is to be found in the Syon cellaresses'
rolls and in the roll of Elizabeth Swynford, Prioress of Catesby
(1414-15). The latter sets forth: (1) the produce of the home farm, how
many animals were delivered to the larder, how many to the kitchen, how
much grain was malted, etc.; (2) the payments for food bought to
supplement this home produce:
in flesh and eggs bought from the feast of St Michael until Lent
33/0-1/2, and in expenses of the house from Easter unto the feast of
St Michael in beef and eggs bought, L7. 1. 9., ... in 2 barrels 4
kemps of oil and salt fish bought in time of Lent L3. 0. 6,
besides sundry odd purchases of red herrings, pepper, saffron, salt,
garlic and fat[1040].
But some account rolls show an entirely different method of housekeeping.
By this the convent provided the nuns with their daily ration of bread and
beer and perhaps with a certain amount of green food and dairy produce,
but paid them an allowance of money with which to buy their meat and fish
food for themselves. On this system the convent still had to provide the
nuns with their pittances, though often enough these too were paid in
money, and usually also with the bulk of their Lenten fare of salt fish
and spices, which was bought in large quantities at a time and stored. An
extreme example of this system is found in the account of Christian
Bassett, Prioress of St Mary de Pre (St Albans) in 1486-8. Under the
heading _Comyns, Pytances and Partycions_ she pays to herself as prioress:
for her comyns for xxj monethes ... vj l. viij s iiij d. ... Item paid
to dame Alice Wafyr for her comyns for xxj monethes ... vj l. viij s
iiij d. ... Item paid to vij susters of the same place for their
comons for xxj monethis ... xxj li. vj s viij d. Item paid to dame
Johan Knollys for her comyns for v monethis xvj s viij d. ... Item
paid for brede and ale and fewell departyd amongs the susters by a
yere and a half lij s. Item paid for ij bushell of pesyn departyd
amongs the susters in Lente xvj d.
The rest of the section contains notices of special pittances, paid
sometimes in money and sometimes in kind; for instance 10_s._ 6_d._ is
paid for "Maundy Ale" and 10_d._ for wine on two Maundy Thursdays, but the
sisters also get "Maundy money" amounting to 21_d._ One interesting item
runs: "delyvered of the rente in Cambrigge amongs the susters for the tyme
of this accompte xlviij s"; these rents, which are entered among the
receipts, were no doubt ear-marked for the nuns, possibly as _peculia_ for
the purchase of clothes, possibly as a pittance[1041]. The same system of
housekeeping was obviously also in vogue at St Michael's, Stamford, at the
time of Alnwick's visitation; but the account rolls of this house are not
easy to interpret, because although they contain no reference to catering,
other than certain pittances and feasts on Maundy Thursday and other
festal occasions, neither do they contain any reference to commons money.
No separate cellaress' accounts have survived to throw any further light
upon the subject. At Elstow Abbey some years later the practice of paying
"commons" money was well established[1042].
It is tempting to conjecture what considerations may have prevailed to
make some houses substitute money grants for the provision of food in
kind. The tendency certainly grew with the custom of forming _familiae_
which messed separately and it certainly increased with time. Even at
Catesby, which we saw to be a typical example of communal housekeeping in
1414-5, it seems to have become customary to give money for some at least
of the victuals in 1442. The tendency also grew with poverty, as appears
from Alnwick's visitations, though it is not clear whence the nuns
obtained the wherewithal to feed themselves adequately, unless they had
the use of extra funds of their own. It may also be conjectured that the
system would be easier to work in a town than in the depths of the
country. In a town the nuns could buy in the open market, and it was as
easy for individuals to buy in small quantities as for the cellaress to
buy wholesale. In the country, however, the convent would not only be more
dependent on the home farm, but such purchases as had to be made at
occasional fairs and weekly markets could more easily be made in bulk, a
consideration which also accounts for the fact that the barrels and cades
of salt fish for Lent were usually laid in wholesale by the cellaress.
Moreover it would often be convenient for a town house to lease out the
greater number of its demesnes and to depend upon what it could purchase
for its daily fare. St Mary de Pre is particularly interesting in this
respect; the 1486-8 account shows no sign of any home farm; the income of
the house is derived almost entirely from "rents of assise and rents farm"
within the town of St Albans and in other places and from tithes, and the
proportion of farms or leases is noticeably large. Even the bread and beer
distributed among the sisters did not come from a home farm; it was bought
with 52_s._ received from the Abbot of St Albans for that purpose; the
kitchener of the parent abbey similarly provided the nuns with 12_s._,
"for potage money departyd amongs the susters for a yere," and at the
forester's office they received 8_s._ for their fuel.
Occasional references show what a variety of household charges the nuns
sometimes had to bear out of their _peculia_, and the other sources of
their private income. At Campsey in 1532, for instance,
the subprioress says that the prioress will not allow her servants to
go out upon the necessary errands of the nuns, but they hire outsiders
at their own cost and Dame Isabella Norwiche says that sick nuns in
the time of their sickness bear the cost of what is needful to them
and it is not provided at the charge of the house[1043].
At Sheppey also, in 1511, there was no infirmary and when ill the nuns had
to hire women for themselves and pay for them out of their own
money[1044]. At Langley in 1440 Alnwick ordered that each nun should have
yearly a cartload of fuel, cut at the cost of the house, but carried at
the cost of the nuns[1045]. At Wherwell there was a custom by which, on
the first occasion that a nun took her turn in reading from the pulpit, a
certain sum of money or a pittance was exacted from her for the benefit of
the convent, a custom forbidden by Bishop John of Pontoise in 1302[1046];
and there is mention of another pittance in 1311, when Bishop Woodlock
ordered that for digging the grave and preparing the coffin of a nun who
had died and for pittances to the sisters on the day of her burial, the
goods of the deceased nun should not be expended, because she ought not to
have private property, but the common goods of the church were to be
spent; which seems like locking the stable door after the horse has
gone[1047].
It is interesting to trace the attitude of ecclesiastic authorities to
these various manifestations of _proprietas_. The bishops found some
difficulty in persuading nuns, accustomed to expend money for themselves
and to dine in _familiae_ in separate rooms, accustomed also to receive
gifts and legacies in money and kind, that they must hold all things in
common. At Arthington, in 1307, two nuns, Agnes de Screvyn (who had
resigned the post of Prioress in 1303) and Isabella Couvel, asserted that
certain animals and goods belonging to the priory were their private
property and Archbishop Greenfield bids the Prioress admonish them to
resign these within three days "to lawful and honest uses," according to
her judgment[1048]. Similarly Bishop Bokyngham writes to Heynings in 1392:
We order that cows, sows, capons, hens and all animals of any kind
soever, together with wild or tame birds, which are held by certain of
the nuns (whether with or without licence) ... shall be delivered up
to the common use of the convent within three days, without the
alienation or subtraction of any of them[1049].
In the light of these passages it is interesting to find that cows and
pigs are among the legacies sometimes left to nuns[1050]. At Nuncoton, in
1440, where certain nuns were in the habit of wandering in their gardens
and gathering herbs instead of attending Compline,
Dame Alice Aunselle prays that they may all live in common and that no
nun may have anything, such as cups and the like, as her own; but that
if any such there be, they be kept in common by their common servant
and that they may not have houses or separate gardens appointed, as it
were, to them[1051],
which illustrates how easily the household system slid into _proprietas_.
It was sometimes even necessary to forbid nuns to make wills and bequeath
their property. This was forbidden by the Council of Oxford in 1222[1052]
and in 1387 William of Wykeham sent a stern injunction to the nuns of
Romsey, pointing out that by making wills they were falling into the sin
of property[1053]. In 1394, on the death of Joan Furmage, Abbess of
Shaftesbury,
the bishop ordered the Abbey to be sequestrated and annulled the will
by which she had alienated the goods of the house in bequests to
friends, declaring such a disposition to be injurious to the community
and contrary to the usage of religious women[1054].
The history of the attitude of ecclesiastical authorities to two sources
of private income, the _peculium_ and the gifts from friends to
individuals, is of even greater significance than these attempts to cope
with private goods, for it shows how powerless the bishops were against
the steady weakening of discipline in monastic houses. Here, as in the
enclosure struggle and the struggle against _familiae_, they were forced
into compromise at best and at worst into acquiescence. At its first
appearance the custom of giving a _peculium_ to individuals was severely
condemned as a manifest breach of the rule:
"Moneys shall not be assigned to each separately for clothes," says
the Council of Oxford in 1222, "But such shall be diligently attended
to by certain persons deputed to this purpose, chamberers or
chambresses, who according to the need of each and the resources of
the house, shall minister garments to them.... Also it shall not be
lawful for the chamberer or chambress to give to any monk, canon or
nun, monies or anything else for clothes, nor shall it be lawful for
monk, canon or nun to receive anything; otherwise let the chamberer be
deposed from office and the monk, canon or nun go without new clothes
for that year"[1055].
Similarly, in the Constitutions of the legate Ottobon in 1268, the
_peculium_ is grouped with other forms of property; ch. XL enacts that no
religious is to possess property and that the head of the house is to make
diligent search for such property twice a year[1056], and ch. XLI enacts
that no money is to be given to a religious for clothes, shoes and other
necessities, but he is to be given the article itself[1057]. In 1438 a
severe injunction from Bishop Spofford of Hereford to the nuns of Aconbury
shows the close connection between the _peculium_ and the private _camera_
of the nuns[1058]. Yet in 1380 we find a bishop of Salisbury assigning a
weekly allowance of 2_d._ to each nun of Shaftesbury from the issues of
the house[1059]; and in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries nuns
regularly complain to their visitors when their allowances are in arrears
and the bishops regularly ordain that the money is to be paid[1060]. In
the thirteenth century it is a fault in the Prioress to give the nuns a
_peculium_; in the fifteenth century it is a fault to withhold it.
The custom as to presents from friends was that the nuns might receive
gifts, only by the permission of their superior, to whom everything must
be shown[1061]. Thus Archbishop Wickwane writes to Nunappleton in 1281:
"that no nun shall appropriate to herself any gift, garment or shoes of
the gift of anyone, without the consent and assignment of the
prioress"[1062]; Archbishop Greenfield in 1315 forbids the nuns of
Rosedale to accept or give any presents without the consent of the
Prioress[1063]; and Archbishop Bowet in 1411 enacts that any nun of
Hampole receiving gifts or _legacies_ from friends is at once on returning
to reveal them to the Prioress[1064]. Occasionally a Prioress, whether out
of zeal for the Rule or for some other reason, showed herself unwilling to
allow the nuns to receive presents. The nuns of Flixton in 1514
complained: "that they receive no annual pensions and that the prioress is
angry when anything is given to them by their friends"[1065] and Alnwick
in 1441 wrote to the Prioress of Ankerwyke, whose nuns complained both of
insufficient clothes and of her bad temper when their friends came to see
them,
And what euer thise saide frendes wyll gyfe your sustres in relefe of
thaym as in hire habyte and sustenaunce, ye suffre your sustres to
take hit, so that no abuse of euel come therbye noyther to the place
ne to the persones therof[1066].
It was indeed almost a necessity to encourage the reception of presents,
when (as so often happened towards the close of the middle ages) nuns were
dependent for clothes upon their friends. But with Bishop Praty ordering
that the nuns of Easebourne shall receive half the sums paid them for
their work, and with Bishop Alnwick encouraging presents and enforcing the
payment of _peculia_, it is plain that the Lady Poverty had fallen upon
evil days.