PRINTED IN ENGLAND BY J. B. PEACE, M.A., AT THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
ENGLISH NUNNERIES IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES (EXCLUDING DOUBLE GILBERTINE HOUSES)Larger Image
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and ThoughtERRATA FOR THE PASTONS AND THEIR ENGLANDAdd to List of Authorities:BerkeleyExtracts. Abstracts and extracts of Smyth’sLives of the Berkeleys. Fosbroke, T. D. London. 1821.Libraries. Old English Libraries. Savage, E. A. London. 1911.p. 9, l. 6.For“in the cathedral”read“at the door of the cathedral,” and so on pp. 174, 184, and 221n.p. 53, ll. 14 ff. I have somewhat exaggerated the amount of spinning and weaving done at home for purely domestic use in the fifteenth century. The industry in East Anglia was by then highly organised under capitalist clothiers, who employed workers to perform the various processes of the industry in their own homes, providing the raw materials and taking away the finished cloth. Spinning was thus essentially a bye industry as well as a purely domestic occupation. The Bury citizen was probably a clothier “putting out” work and following the quite common practice of having a number of webbers or websters under his eye in his own house. SeeThe Paycockes of Coggeshall, Power, Eileen, pp. 45-8.p. 113, ll. 11 ff.For“de Regimine Principiumof Hoccleve”read“de Regimine Principumof Lydgate” and so on p. 261.p. 154, l. 23.For“Brabraham”read“Babraham.”p. 168, l. 1.For“Paston’s”read“Pastons’.”p. 193, l. 31.For“S. Peter’s Hungate”read“S. Peter, Hungate,” and so on p. 285.p. 198, l. 32.For“herse”read“hearse.”p. 208, n. 2.For“Oddy”read“Addy.”p. 219, n. 1.For“Prothero”read“Ernle (Lord).”p. 240, n. 5.For“Jessop, J. J.”read“Jessopp, A.”p. 280, Index, sub Cambridge, corporal punishment at.For88read82.p. 284, Index, sub Margaret of Anjou.For“(Queen of Edward IV)”read“(Queen of Henry VI).”p. 286, Index, sub Paston, Sir John II.For“make knight”read“made knight.”p. 288, Index.For“Straton Richard,”read“Stratton, Richard.”ERRATA FOR SOCIAL LIFE IN THE DAYS OF PIERS PLOWMANThe main errata are on matters of coinage (pp. 69-70).(a) There were no “copper” coins in England in the 14th (or 15th) centuries.(b) The designs of “noble” and “groat” were not so exactly similar as the text might imply. The noble bears a king with sword and shield on a ship; the groat has a king’s head crowned.(c) “Groats” were first struck in the reign of Ed. III; it is therefore questionable whether they had become the “commonest” silver coins.(d) “Pence” and “farthings” were of silver.(e) There was no coined “shilling” until Henry VII’s reign; until then, the “shilling” was only money of account.p. 103.For“signing” of chartersread“sealing.” No signing was necessary until the Statute of Frauds. See B. II. 112, “this dede I assele.”p. 100. A reviewer inThe Manchester Guardianhas expressed strong disagreement with these generalizations on the medieval woman; and we are loth to neglect such criticisms from a serious source, even when they cannot be called corrections of fact. Both author and editor, on careful reconsideration, are still convinced that these words represent the actual documentary evidence; but their epigrammatic conciseness, necessitated by the whole plan of the book, may well have misled some readers. They would prefer now, therefore, to write thus:“There was a very general tendency,in ecclesiastical circles, to a painful depreciation of women. Marriage (in spite of frequent protests that no such blame was intended) was often regarded by the clergy as a practical confession of failure, since the titles of ‘virgin’ and ‘martyr’ were most desirable. It will be remembered that Chaucer is even more explicit than Langland on the subject of clerical anti-feminism; and if Chaucer, like Dante, gives us fine types of women, these owe far more to the troubadour tradition than to any ecclesiastical source.”
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought
ERRATA FOR THE PASTONS AND THEIR ENGLAND
Add to List of Authorities:
BerkeleyExtracts. Abstracts and extracts of Smyth’sLives of the Berkeleys. Fosbroke, T. D. London. 1821.
Libraries. Old English Libraries. Savage, E. A. London. 1911.
p. 9, l. 6.For“in the cathedral”read“at the door of the cathedral,” and so on pp. 174, 184, and 221n.
p. 53, ll. 14 ff. I have somewhat exaggerated the amount of spinning and weaving done at home for purely domestic use in the fifteenth century. The industry in East Anglia was by then highly organised under capitalist clothiers, who employed workers to perform the various processes of the industry in their own homes, providing the raw materials and taking away the finished cloth. Spinning was thus essentially a bye industry as well as a purely domestic occupation. The Bury citizen was probably a clothier “putting out” work and following the quite common practice of having a number of webbers or websters under his eye in his own house. SeeThe Paycockes of Coggeshall, Power, Eileen, pp. 45-8.
p. 113, ll. 11 ff.For“de Regimine Principiumof Hoccleve”read“de Regimine Principumof Lydgate” and so on p. 261.
p. 154, l. 23.For“Brabraham”read“Babraham.”
p. 168, l. 1.For“Paston’s”read“Pastons’.”
p. 193, l. 31.For“S. Peter’s Hungate”read“S. Peter, Hungate,” and so on p. 285.
p. 198, l. 32.For“herse”read“hearse.”
p. 208, n. 2.For“Oddy”read“Addy.”
p. 219, n. 1.For“Prothero”read“Ernle (Lord).”
p. 240, n. 5.For“Jessop, J. J.”read“Jessopp, A.”
p. 280, Index, sub Cambridge, corporal punishment at.For88read82.
p. 284, Index, sub Margaret of Anjou.For“(Queen of Edward IV)”read“(Queen of Henry VI).”
p. 286, Index, sub Paston, Sir John II.For“make knight”read“made knight.”
p. 288, Index.For“Straton Richard,”read“Stratton, Richard.”
ERRATA FOR SOCIAL LIFE IN THE DAYS OF PIERS PLOWMAN
The main errata are on matters of coinage (pp. 69-70).
(a) There were no “copper” coins in England in the 14th (or 15th) centuries.
(b) The designs of “noble” and “groat” were not so exactly similar as the text might imply. The noble bears a king with sword and shield on a ship; the groat has a king’s head crowned.
(c) “Groats” were first struck in the reign of Ed. III; it is therefore questionable whether they had become the “commonest” silver coins.
(d) “Pence” and “farthings” were of silver.
(e) There was no coined “shilling” until Henry VII’s reign; until then, the “shilling” was only money of account.
p. 103.For“signing” of chartersread“sealing.” No signing was necessary until the Statute of Frauds. See B. II. 112, “this dede I assele.”
p. 100. A reviewer inThe Manchester Guardianhas expressed strong disagreement with these generalizations on the medieval woman; and we are loth to neglect such criticisms from a serious source, even when they cannot be called corrections of fact. Both author and editor, on careful reconsideration, are still convinced that these words represent the actual documentary evidence; but their epigrammatic conciseness, necessitated by the whole plan of the book, may well have misled some readers. They would prefer now, therefore, to write thus:
“There was a very general tendency,in ecclesiastical circles, to a painful depreciation of women. Marriage (in spite of frequent protests that no such blame was intended) was often regarded by the clergy as a practical confession of failure, since the titles of ‘virgin’ and ‘martyr’ were most desirable. It will be remembered that Chaucer is even more explicit than Langland on the subject of clerical anti-feminism; and if Chaucer, like Dante, gives us fine types of women, these owe far more to the troubadour tradition than to any ecclesiastical source.”
Footnotes:
[1]Based on Professor Savine’s analysis of the returns in theValor Ecclesiasticus(Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History), I, 269-288.
[2]I have based this estimate partly on a list compiled by M. E. C. Walcott,English Minsters, vol.II(“The English Student’s Monasticon”), partly on one compiled by Miss H. T. Jacka in an unpublished thesis onThe Dissolution of the English Nunneries; the figures, if not always exactly correct, are approximately correct as far as the classification into groups, according to size, is concerned. It must be remembered, however, that there were more nuns at the beginning than at the end of the period 1270-1536; the convents tended to diminish in size, especially those which were poor and small to begin with.
[3]These are discussed in Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, pp. 112sqq.
[4]V.C.H. Sussex,II, p. 84.
[5]Ib.II, p. 63.
[6]Hugo,Medieval Nunneries of the County of Somerset, Minchin Barrow, p. 108.
[7]Well-known names occur, for instance, among the prioresses of the poor convents of Ivinghoe, Ankerwyke and Little Marlow in Bucks.V.C.H. Bucks,I, p. 355.
[8]Lysons,Magna Britannia,V, p. 113. Compare the remark of a nun of Wenningsen, near Hanover, who considered herself insulted when the great reformer Busch addressed her not as “Klosterfrau” but as “Sister.” “You are not my brother, wherefore then call me sister? My brother is clad in steel and you in a linen frock” (1455). Quoted in Coulton,Medieval Garner, p. 653.
[9]Wykeham’s Register(Hants. Rec. Soc.),II, p. 462. Cf.ib.II, p. 61.
[10]E.g.Reg. ... of Rigaud de Asserio(Hants. Rec. Soc.), p. 394;Reg. ... Stephani Gravesend(Cant. and York. Soc.), p. 200;Wykeham’s Register,loc. cit.
[11]Bishop Cobham of Worcester at Wroxall in 1323 (V.C.H. Warwick,II, p. 71). Cf. the case of Usk in Monmouthshire, “in quo monasterio solum virgines de nobili prosapia procreate recipi consueverunt et solent” (Chron. of Adam of Usk, ed. E. M. Thompson, p. 93).
[12]Gibbons,Early Lincoln Wills, p. 117.
[13]Sharpe,Cal. of Wills enrolled in the Court of Husting,I, p. 236. Cf.ib.I, p. 350 andTestamenta Eboracensia(Surtees Soc.),I, pp. 170, 354.
[14]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 71.
[15]Reg. of Archbishop William Wickwane(Surtees Soc.), p. 113.
[16]Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 98.
[17]William de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, mentions two daughters, nuns at Shouldham, in his will (1296). Sir Guy de Beauchamp mentions his little daughter Katherine, a nun there (1359) and his father Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, mentions the same Katherine and his own daughter Margaret, nuns there (1369). Katherine was still alive in 1400, when she is mentioned in the next Earl’s will.Testamenta Vetusta,I, pp. 52, 63, 79, 153.
[18]See below, p.15.
[19]See below, pp.39-40.
[20]“Et pur certayn cause nous auens enioynt a dame Margaret Darcy, vostre soer, qel ne passe les lieus de cloistre, cest assauoir de quoer, de cloistre, de ffraitour, dormitorie ou fermerie, tantque nous en aueroms autre ordeigne, et qele ne parle od nul estraunge gentz, et soit darreyn enstalle, et en chescun lieu qele ne porte anele, et qele die chescun iour un sautier et june la quarte et la sexte ferie a payn et eu. Ensement voilloms qe la dit dame Margaret se puisse confesser au confessour de vostre couent quant ele auera mester.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 34d. It looks like the penance for immorality.
[21]“Item quod nulla monialis ibidem cameram teneat priuatam, sed quod omnes moniales sane in dormitorio et infirme in infirmaria iaceant atque cubant, preter dominam Margaretam Darcy, monialem prioratus antedicti, cui ob nobilitatem sui generis de camera sua quam tenet in privata, absque tamen alia liberata panis et ceruisie, extra casum infirmitatis manifeste, volumus ad tempus tollerare.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Buckingham, f. 397d.
[22]Canterbury Tales(ed. Skeat), Prologue, ll. 127 ff. It is interesting to notice that theRoman de la Rose, of which Chaucer translated a fragment, contains some remarks upon this subject which are almost paraphrased in his description of Madame Eglentyne.
[23]La Clef d’Amors ..., ed. Doutrepont (1890),V, 3227 ff.
[24]Le Chastiement des Dames (Barbazon and Méon,Fabliaux et Contes,II, p. 200).
[25]See Mrs Green,Town Life in the Fifteenth Century,II, pp. 77-80.
[26]Langland,Vision of Piers the Plowman, ed. Skeat, passus A,VIII, l. 31.
[27]English Gilds, ed. L. T. Smith (E.E.T.S.), p. 194.
[28]Ibid.p. 340.
[29]Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 589.
[30]Sharpe,op. cit.II, p. 299. The Fishmongers, who, up to 1536, were divided into the two companies of salt-fishmongers and stock-fishmongers, were a powerful and important body, as the annals of the City of London in the fourteenth century show, “these fishmongers” in the words of Stow “having been jolly citizens and six mayors of their company in the space of twenty-four years.” Stow’sSurvey of London(ed. Kingsford),I, p. 214.
[31]Sharpe,op. cit.II, p. 606.
[32]Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 594.
[33]Rye,Carrow Abbey, App.IX, pp. xvi, xvii, xviii.
[34]SeeArchaeologia,XV(1806), pp. 100-101;ib.XXXV(1853), p. 464.
[35]V.C.H. London,I, p. 518.
[36]Ib.pp. 518-9.
[37]Sharpe,op. cit.II, p. 267. Two years previously (1396) John de Nevill had left legacies to his sister Eleanor and to his daughter Elizabeth, minoresses of St Clare;Durham Wills and Inventories(Surtees Soc.), p. 39.
[38]Sharpe,op. cit.II, p. 589.
[39]Ib.II, p. 331.
[40]Ib.II, p. 577.
[41]Not counting legacies left to various nunneries, without specific reference to a relative professed there.
[42]Sharpe,op. cit.I, pp. 107, 300, 313, 324, 408, 501, 585, 701. Philip le Taillour had three daughters here in 1292 (I, p. 107), and William de Leyre had three daughters here in 1325 (I, p. 300).
[43]Ib.I, pp. 222, 303, 569, 638, 688;II, pp. 20, 76, 115.
[44]Ib.I, pp. 229, 303, 342, 400, 435;II, pp. 47, 170. Ten nuns in all.
[45]Ib.II, pp. 119, 267, 331, 577, 589.
[46]Ib.I, pp. 26, 126, 238, 349, 628. Ralph le Blund’s three daughters and his sister-in-law were all nuns here in 1295 (I, p. 126) and Thomas Romayn, alderman and pepperer, left bequests to two daughters and to their aunt in 1313 (ib.I, p. 288).
[47]Ib.I, pp. 34, 111, 611;II, p. 119.
[48]Ib.II, pp. 167, 271, 274.
[49]Ib.II, pp. 474, 564.
[50]Ib.I, pp. 510, 638.
[51]Ib.I, p. 119;II, p. 306.
[52]There are two exceptions, Greenfield (Lincs.) (ib.II, p. 327), and Amesbury (Wilts.) (ib.II, p. 326), but the testators in these cases are not burgesses, but a knight and a clerk.
[53]The corresponding fines for girls weremerchetif they married off the manor andleyrwiteif they dispensed with that ceremony. The medieval lord, concerned above all with keeping up the supply of labour upon his manor, naturally held the narrow view of the functions of women, which has been expressed in our day by Kipling: “Now the reserve of a boy is tenfold deeper than the reserve of a maid, she having been made for one end only by blind Nature, but man for several” (Stalky and Co.p. 212).
[54]Henry de Causton,mercatorof London, left a bequest to Johanna, a “sister” at Ankerwyke, formerly servant to his father (1350). Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 638.
[55]Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard(Worc. Hist. Soc.),II, pp. 288-9.
[56]Testamenta Eboracensia(Surtees Soc.),I, p. 6.
[57]Test. Ebor.I, p. 9, dated 1345. Cf. will of Roger de Moreton “civis et mercerus Ebor.” 1390; two of four daughters nuns at St Clement’s, York (ib.I, p. 133).
[58]Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 400, dated 1335.
[59]Ib.I, p. 501, dated 1349.
[60]Ib.I, p. 503, dated 1348.
[61]Testamenta Vetusta,I, p. 286.
[62]See above, p.7. There were two Welbys, two Lekes and two Paynelles at Stixwould;Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 76. Other references might be multiplied.
[63]Cf. also Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 238; andReg. of Bishop Ginsborough(Worc. Hist. Soc.), p. 51.
[64]Testamenta Eboracensia(Surtees Soc.)I, pp. 187 ff. (will of Sir John Fayrfax, rector of Prescot, 1393).
[65]See below, p.302.
[66]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 172.
[67]On this subject see Coulton,Monastic Schools in the Middle Ages(Medieval Studies), pp. 34-5.
[68]Hali Meidenhad, ed. Cockayne (E.E.T.S.), p. 8.
[69]Old English Miscellany, ed. Morris (E.E.T.S., 1872), p. 96.
[70]Clene Maydenhod, ed. Furnivall (E.E.T.S.), pp. 5-6.
[71]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 113.
[72]The English Register of Godstow Nunnery(E.E.T.S.), introduction, pp. xxv-xxvi. Cf.Cartulary of Buckland Priory(Somerset Rec. Soc.), introd. pp. xxii-xxiii.
[73]Reg. of Godstow, u.s. no. 76, pp. 78-9. See also an exceedingly interesting action ofquare impeditbrought by John Stonor (probably the Lord Chief Justice) against the Prioress of Marlow in 1339, probably merely to secure a record. He had bought the advowsons of the two moieties of the church of Little Marlow and an acre of land with each and conveyed the whole to the Prioress, subject to the provision “that out of it the said Prioress and nuns shall find Joan and Cecily, sisters of the aforesaid John, and Katherine, daughter of the aforesaid John, nuns of the aforesaid place, 40s.a year each during their lives, and also for the sustenance of all the nuns towards their kitchen half a mark of silver each year and for the vesture of the twenty nuns serving God there each year 10s.of silver, to be divided equally between them.” After the deaths of the Stonor ladies all the money is to go to the common funds of the house, with certain provisions.Year Books of Edward III, yearsXIIandXIII, ed. L. O. Pike (Rolls Series, 1885), pp. cxi-cxvii, 260-2. For the appropriation of these money dowries to the use of the individual nuns, see below,Ch. VIII,passim.
[74]Nicolas,Testamenta Vetusta,I, p. 118.
[75]Gibbons,Early Lincoln Wills, p. 113.
[76]Testamenta Eboracensia,I, p. 11.
[77]See above, p.6. See also the interesting deed (1429-30) in which Richard Fairfax “scwyer,” made arrangements for the entrance of his daughter “Elan,” to Nunmonkton, always patronised by the Fairfaxes. He left an annual rent of five marks in trust for her “yat my doghtir Elan be made nun in ye house of Nun Monkton, and yat my saydes feffis graunt a nanuel rent of fourty schilyngs ... terme of ye lyffe of ye sayd Elan to ye tym be at sche be a nun.” His feoffees were to pay nineteen marks “for ye makyng ye sayd Elan nun.” And “if sche will be no nun” his wife and feoffees were to marry her at their discretion.V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 123. Cf. an interesting case in which Matilda Toky, the orphan of a citizen of London, is allowed by the mayor and aldermen to become a nun of Kilburn in 1393, taking with her her share (£38. 5s.4½d.) of her father’s estate, after which the prioress of the house comes in person to receive the money from the chamberlain of the city. Riley,Memorials of London, p. 535. The father’s will is in Sharpe,op. cit.II, pp. 288-9; he had three sons and a daughter besides Matilda.
[78]V.C.H Essex,II, p. 117.
[79]Quoted inV.C.H. Beds.I, p. 254.
[80]Testamenta Eboracensia,III, p. 168. The sum left for entrance of Ellen Fairfax to Nunmonkton was about the same, £10. 13s.4d.(16 marks). Above, p.18, note 4. There is an interesting note of the outfit provided for an Austin nun of Lacock on her profession in 1395, attached to a page of the cartulary of that house. “Memorandum concerning the expenses of the veiling of Joan, daughter of Nicholas Samborne, at Lacock, viz. in the 19th year of the reign of King Richard the second after the conquest. First paid to the abbess for her fee 20s.then to the convent 40s., to each nun 2s.Item paid to John Bartelot for veils and linen cloth 102s.” (this large sum may include a supply for the whole house). “Item to a certain woman for one veil 40d.Item for one mantle 10s.Item for one fur of shankes (a cheap fur made from the underpart of rabbit skin) for another mantle, 16s.Item for white cloth to line the first mantle, 16s.Item for white cloth for a tunic 10s.Item one fur for the aforesaid pilch 20s.Item for a maser (cup) 10s.Item for a silver spoon 2s.6d.Item for blankets 6s.8d.Item in canvas for a bed 2s.Item for the purchase of another mantle of worsted 20s.Item paid at the time of profession at one time 20s.Item for a new bed 20s.Item for other necessaries 20s.... Item paid to the said Joan by the order of the abbess.” The total (excluding the last item) is £17. 6s.2d.Archaeol. Journ.1912,LXIX, p. 117.
[81]Mackenzie E. C. Walcott,Inventories of ... the Benedictine Priory of St Mary and Sexburga in the Island of Shepey for Nuns(1869) (reprinted fromArchaeologia Cantiana,VII, pp. 272-306). Compare the letter to Cromwell from Sir Thomas Willoughby, who asks that Elizabeth Rede, his sister-in-law, who had resigned the office of Abbess of Malling, may have suitable lodging within the monastery, “not only that but such plate as my father-in-law did deliver her to occupy in her chamber, that she may have it again.” Wood,Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies,II, p. 153.
[82]“Nullus praelatus in recipiendo monacho, vel canonico, vel sanctimoniali pretium sumere vel exigere ab hiis, qui ad conversionem veniunt, aliqua pacti occasione praesumat. Si quis autem hoc fecerit anathema sit.” Wilkins,Concilia,I, p. 477.
[83]“Monachi etiam sub pretio non recipiantur in monasterio.... Si quis autem exactus pro sua receptione aliquid dederit, ad canonicos ordines non accedat.”Ib.p. 508.
[84]“Praeterea statuimus, praesenti concilio approbante, ut nullus de cetero pro receptione alicujus in religionis domum pecuniam vel quicquam aliud extorquere praesumat; adeo ut si pro paupertate domus ingrediens debeat vestire seipsum praetextu vestimentorum ultra justum pretium eorum ab eo nihil penitus recipiatur.”Ib.p. 591.
[85]Reg. of Walter Giffard(Surtees Soc.), p. 147.
[86]Reg. of Roger de Norbury(Will. Salt Archaeol. Soc. Collections,I), p. 259.
[87]Reg. of Ralph of Shrewsbury(Somerset Rec. Soc.), p. 684.
[88]MS. Register at New College, f. 87d.
[89]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 397d.
[90]Linc. Visit.I, p. 49.
[91]SeeLinc. Visit.II, andAlnwick’s Visit.MS.,passim.
[92]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 133, 134. See also the very sternly worded prohibition sent by Bishop Spofford of Hereford to Aconbury in 1438.Reg. Thome Spofford(Cantilupe Soc.), pp. 223-4.
[93]Archaeologia,XLVII, p. 57.
[94]Linc. Visit.II, p. 117.
[95]Linc. Visit.I, p. 49.
[96]Reg. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Series),I, p. 189.
[97]Ib.I, pp. 40-1, 356.
[98]Wykeham’s Reg.II, pp. 60-61. Cf.ib.p. 462.
[99]Reg. Johannis de Pontissara, pp. 240, 252.
[100]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 397d.
[101]Linc. Visit.I, p. 53. Cf. Flemyng’s injunction in 1422,ib.
[102]Testamenta Vetusta,I, pp. 63-4.
[103]See above, p.7, note 2.
[104]V.C.H. London,I, p. 518.
[105]Linc. Visit.II, p. 5.
[106]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 26d.
[107]Linc. Visit.II, p. 217.
[108]Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 248.
[109]V.C.H. Yorks,III, p. 163. In 1312 the prioress of Hampole was rebuked for receiving a little girl (puellulam), not on account of her youth, but because she had omitted to obtain the archbishop’s licence.Ib.
[110]Reg. of Archbishop John le Romeyn(Surtees Soc.),I, p. 66.
[111]Reg. Epis. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Series),I, p. 356. Compare Caesarius of Heisterbach: “In the diocese of Trèves is a certain convent of nuns named Lutzerath, wherein by ancient custom no girl is received but at the age of seven years or less; which constitution hath grown up for the preservation of that simplicity of mind which maketh the whole body to shine” (Dial. Mirac.I, p. 389, quoted in Coulton,Medieval Garner, p. 255). The thirteenth century visitations of the diocese of Rouen by Eudes Rigaud make it clear that novices there were often very young, e.g. at St-Saëns in 1266 “una earum erat novicia et minima” (Reg. Visit. Archiepiscopi Rothomagensis, ed. Bonnin, p. 566). The Archbishop ordered novices to be professed at the age of fourteen and not before (ib.pp. 51, 121, 207).
[112]For example the béguine Christina von Stommeln, who said of herself, “So far back as my memory can reach, from the earliest dawn of my childhood, whensoever I heard the lives and manners, the passion and the death of saints and especially of our Lord Christ and His glorious Mother, then in such hearing I was delighted to the very marrow” (quoted in Coulton,op. cit.p. 403). At the age of ten she contracted a mystic marriage with Christ, and at the age of thirteen she joined the béguines at Cologne. Cf. St Catherine of Siena.
[113]Caesarius of Heisterbach,Dialogus Miraculorum, ed. Joseph Strange,I, pp. 53-4.
[114]This was Helswindis von Gimmenich, first abbess of Burtscheid after the transference thither of the nuns of St Saviour of Aachen c. 1220-1222. See Quix,Gesch. der ehemaligen Reichs-Abtei Burtscheid(Aachen 1834).
[115]Caesarius,op. cit.I, pp. 54-5. For another case of children in this convent see the charming story of Gertrude’s purgatory,ib.pp. 344-5. There are fifteenth century English translations in theMyroure of Oure Ladye(E.E.T.S.), pp. 46-7 and inAn Alphabet of Tales(E.E.T.S.), p. 249. A little girl of nine years old had died, and, after death, appeared in broad daylight in her own place in the choir, next to a child of her own age. The latter was so terrified that she was noticed and on being questioned told the vision to the Abbess (from whom Caesarius professes to have had the story). The Abbess says to the child “Sister Margaret, ... if Sister Gertrude come to thee again, say to her:Benedicite, and if she reply to thee,Dominus, ask her whence she comes and what she seeks.” On the following day (continues Caesarius) “she came again and since she repliedDominuswhen she was saluted, the maiden added: ‘Good Sister Gertrude, why come you at such a time and what seek you with us?’ Then she replied: ‘I come here to make satisfaction. Because I willingly whispered with thee in the choir, speaking in half tones, therefore am I ordered to make satisfaction in that place where it befell me to sin. And unless thou beware of the same vice, dying thou shalt suffer the same penance.’ And when she had four times made satisfaction in the same way (by prostrating herself) she said to her sister: ‘Now have I completed my satisfaction; henceforth thou shalt see me no more.’ And thus it was done. For in the sight of her friend she proceeded towards the cemetery, passing over the wall by a miracle. Behold such was the purgatory of this virgin.” It is a tender little tale, and kinder to childish sins than medieval moralists sometimes were; Saint Douceline beat a little girl of seven (one of her béguines) “so shrewdly that the blood ran down her ribs, saying meanwhile that she would sacrifice her to God” simply because she had looked at some men who were at work in the house (see Coulton,op. cit.p. 321).
[116]V.C.H. Lincs.II, p. 184. But the usual custom was to place such women as lay boarders in the custody of a nunnery. See below, pp.419ff.
[117]“Processus et sententia divortii inter Thomam Tudenham militem et Aliciam filiam quondam Johannis Woodhous armigeri, racione quia est monialis professa in prioratu de Crabhous et nunquam carnaliter cognita per maritum suum predictum durante matrimonio predicto, licet matrimonium predictum duravit et ut vir et uxor cohabitaverunt per spacium viij annorum. Durante matrimonio unicus filius ab eadem suscitatus, non tamen per dictum Thomam maritum suum, sed per Ricardum Stapleton servientem patris ipsius Aliciae” (1437). Her husband’s sister Margaret Bedingfield left her a legacy of 10 marks in 1474.Norfolk Archaeology(Norf. and Norwich Arch. Soc.),XIII, pp. 351-2.
[118]Testamenta Vetusta,I, p. 74.
[119]Testamenta Eboracensia,I, p. 18.
[120]See the letter from John Clusey to Cromwell in her favour: “Rygthe honorable, after most humyll comendacyons, I lykewyce besuche you that the Contents of this my symple Letter may be secret; and that for as myche as I have grete cause to goo home I besuche your good Mastershipe to comand Mr Herytag to give attendans opon your Mastershipe for the knowlege off youre plesure in the seyd secrete mater, whiche ys this, My Lord Cardinall causyd me to put a yong gentyll homan to the Monystery and Nunry off Shafftysbyry, and there to be provessyd, and wold hur to be namyd my doythter; and the troythe ys shew was his dowythter; and now by your Visitacyon she haythe commawynment to departe, and knowythe not whether Wherefore I humely besuche youre Mastershipe to dyrect your Letter to the Abbas there, that she may there contynu at hur full age to be professed. Withoute dowyte she ys other xxiiij yere full, or shalbe at shuche tyme of the here as she was boren, which was abowyte Mydelmas. In this your doyng your Mastershipe shall do a very charitable ded, and also bynd her and me to do you such servyce as lyzthe in owre lytell powers; as knowythe owre Lord God, whome I humely besuche prosperyusly and longe to preserve you. Your orator John Clusey.” Ellis,Original Letters, Series I,II, pp. 92-3. An injunction had been made that profession made under twenty-four years was invalid, and that novices or girls professed at an earlier age were to be dismissed.
[121]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 161.
[122]Test. Ebor.III, p. 289, note. She was one of the Conyers of Hornby (Richmondshire) and is mentioned in the will of her brother Christopher Conyers, rector of Rudby in 1483.
[123]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 177.
[124]V.C.H. Durham,II, p. 107. For another instance of dispensation and installation on the same day seeReg. of Bishop Bronescombe of Exeter, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, p. 163. For other dispensationssuper defectu natalium, seeCal. of Papal Letters,III, p. 470 (cf.Cal. of Petit.I, p. 367),V, p. 549 andReg. Johannis de Trillek Episcopi Herefordensis(Cantilupe Soc.), p. 404.
[125]Rabelais,Gargantua, ch.LII.
[126]Reg. Epis. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Ser.),I, p. 367. Cf. pp.191ff. below.
[127]Linc. Visit.II, p. 4. She was also charged with the introduction of unsuitable persons as lay boarders, etc. “Item priorissa introducit in prioratum diuersos extraneos et ignotos, tam mares quam feminas et eos sustentat communibus expensis domus et aliquas quasi ideotas et alias inhabiles fecit moniales. Negat articulum.” Butideotaprobably simply means unlearned here, and in the case of Agnes Hosey, below p.33. Compare the case at Bival in Normandy 1251. “Ibi est quedam filia burgensis de Vallibus que stulta est.”Reg. Visit. Archiep. Rothomag., ed. Bonnin, p. 111.
[128]Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich(Camden Soc.), pp. 91, 311.
[129]Gasquet,Henry VIII and the English Monasteries(pop. ed. 1899), p. 293.
[130]Gairdner,Letters and Papers, etc.,IX, no. 1075.
[131]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 71d.
[132]Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich, p. 91.
[133]Sussex Archaeol. Coll.IX, p. 26.
[134]Wilkins,Concilia,II, p. 487.
[135]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 77.
[136]Hence the certificates sometimes required from bishops to testify whether or not a girl had actually been professed. Such a certificate occurs inWykeham’s Register(II, p. 192), announcing that Joan, daughter of Stephen Asshewy, deceased, was not yet professed at St Mary’s Winchester or at any other house. The case of Isabel, daughter of Sir Philip de Coverle, is also interesting; she left the wretchedly poor house of Sewardsley to claim her share of her mother’s inheritance, therewith to provide fit maintenance for herself among the nuns; but she was excluded from inheriting with her sisters on account of her religious profession (V.C.H. Northants.II, pp. 125-6). Compare also the case of Joan, wife of Nicholas de Grene (1357-8); on a question of inheritance the King’s court issued a writ of inquiry as to whether she had been professed at Nuneaton.Reg. of Bishop Roger de Norbury(William Salt Archaeol. Soc. Collections,I), pp. 285-7.
[137]See e.g. the commission for the release of a novice preserved in the register of Ralph Baldock, Bishop of London (1310). “We have lately received the supplication of our beloved daughter in Christ, Cristina de Burgh, daughter of the noble Sir Robert Fitzwalter, to the effect that whereas she was delivered by her parents, while not yet of a marriageable age, into the order of St Augustine in the monastery of Haliwell of our diocese, and for some time wore the habit of a novice therein and still wears it, nevertheless there is no canonical reason why she should not freely return to the world at her own free will; and whereas we do condescend to licence her to return to the world, having diligently made inquiries in the aforesaid monastery for our information as to the truth of the aforesaid matters, etc. etc.”; the Bishop having no time to finish the inquiry himself commissions his official to carry it on and to release Cristina if the result is satisfactory.Reg. Radulphi Baldock(Cant. and York Soc.), p. 129. But note that this girl is only a novice.
[138]See below, pp.502-9, andNote H.
[139]V.C.H. Bucks.I, p. 355.
[140]Cal. of Papal Letters,I, p. 17.
[141]P.R.O. Early Chanc. Proc.7/70.
[142]Reg. of Bishop Robert de Stretton(Will. Salt Archaeol. Soc. Collections, N.S.VIII), pp. 149-50. With her case compare that of Jane Wadham, which came up after the Dissolution in 1541. She “after arriving at years of discretion was forced by the threats and machinations of malevolent persons to become a regular nun in the house of nuns at Romsey, but having both in public and in private always protested against this seclusion, she conceived herself free from regular observance and in that persuasion joined herself in matrimony with one John Foster,per verba de presenti, intending to have the marriage solemnised as soon as she was free from her religion.” For the further vicissitudes of her married life, see Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 255. Compare also the case of Margery of Hedsor who left Burnham in 1311.V.C.H. Bucks.I, p. 383.
[143]Year Book of 12 Richard II, ed. G. F. Deiser (Ames Foundation, 1914), pp. 71-7. Cf. pp. 150-3. It may be noticed that Marvell, in his poem “Upon Appleton House” (dedicated to the great Lord Fairfax), preserves the tradition of another of these cases. In the time of Anna Langton, the last Prioress of Nunappleton, a certain Isabella Thwaites, who had been placed in her charge, fell in love with William Fairfax. The Prioress, who wished her to become a nun, shut her up, but eventually Fairfax, having got the law upon his side, broke his way into the nunnery and released her and she married him in 1518. It was her sons who obtained the house on its dissolution (see Markham,Life of the great Lord Fairfax, pp. 3, 4).
For a somewhat similar case to that of Clarice Stil, seeGentleman’s Magazine, vol. 102, p. 615. A widow Joan de Swainton married a widower Hugh de Tuthill. She had four daughters by her first husband, and of these Hugh married two to his own two sons by his first wife, and placed the other two (they being under twelve years of age) in the nunnery of Kirklees, in order that his two sons might obtain through their wives the whole inheritance of the co-heiresses. But the wardship of the girls belonged to a certain William de Notton, who prepared to dispute the arrangement, but was dissuaded by one of the young nuns.
[144]It was probably more common for widows to take a simple vow of chastity and to remain in the world. But the will of Thomas de Kent, fishmonger, seems to show that it would be considered quite natural for a widow to take the veil, even in the burgess class, which possibly remarried more frequently than the nobles. He left his wife a tenement for life, adding that should she wish to enter any religious house the same was to be sold and half the proceeds given for her maintenance (Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 124).
[145]V.C.H. Suffolk,II, p. 113. Cf.Testamenta Eboracensia,I, p. 117.
[146]V.C.H. London,I, p. 519. Cf. Sybil de Felton, widow of Sir Thomas Morley, who became Abbess of Barking in 1393, at the age of thirty-four.V.C.H. Essex,II, p. 121.
[147]V.C.H. Warwick,II, p. 71.
[148]English Register of Godstow Nunnery(E.E.T.S.), p. 43.
[149]Ib.p. 383. Confirmation of this deed of grant by Peter Durant, about 1200.Ib.p. 384.
[150]Sharpe,op. cit.I, p. 108.
[151]V.C.H. Essex,II, pp. 120-2. Margaret Botetourt became Abbess of Polesworth in 1362, by episcopal dispensation, when under the age of twenty. “This early promotion was not the only mark of favour which this prioress obtained. In 1390 the Pope granted her exemption from the jurisdiction of the Archbishop or Bishop of Lichfield.”V.C.H. Warwick,II, p. 63.
[152]“I take it that Prioress Joan was an heiress, and, in fact, the last representative of the elder line of her family, and the nuns knew perfectly well what they were about when they chose a lady of birth and wealth, and highly connected to boot, to rule over them. They certainly were not disappointed in any expectations they may have formed. The new prioress set to work in earnest to make the nunnery into quite a new and imposing place and her friends and kinsfolk rallied round her nobly.” Jessopp,Ups and Downs of an Old NunneryinFrivola, pp. 59-60.
[153]Reg. of Crabhouse Nunnery, ed. Mary Bateson (Norf. Archaeology,XI), pp. 57-62passim.
[154]They are as follows: (1)congé d’élireby the Bishop-Elect as patron, (2) notification by the subprioress and nuns of the date appointed for the election, (3) formal warning by the subprioress that all who ought not to be present should leave the chapter house, (4) notification of the election of Alice de la Flagge, (5) declaration of Alice’s assent, (6) letter from subprioress and convent to the Bishop-Elect praying him to confirm the election, (7) letter from the Prior of Worcester to the same effect, to the Bishop-Elect, (8) the same to the commissary general, (9) commission from the Bishop-Elect to the Prior and to the commissary-general, empowering them to receive, examine and confirm the election, (10) instrument by the subprioress and convent appointing Richard de Bereburn, chaplain, their proctor to present the elect to the Bishop-Elect, (11) another appointing two of the nuns as proctors “to instruct and do things concerning the business of the election,” (12) decree by the subprioress and convent, describing the method and result of the election and addressed to the Bishop-Elect, (13) acts concerning the election made before the Bishop’s commissaries by Richard de Bereburn, proctor, by the subprioress and by the two nuns,instructrices, examined on oath, (14) certificate by the Dean of the Christianity of Worcester that he had proclaimed the election, (15) confirmation of the election by the commissaries, (16) final declaration by the Prior of this confirmation and of the installation and benediction of the new prioress and of the injunction of obedience upon the nuns, and (17) a certificate by the commissaries of the Bishop-Elect that the business was completed.Reg. Sede Vacante(Worc. Hist. Soc.), pp. 111-4; the text in Nash,Hist. and Antiquities of Worcestershire(1781),I, pp. 212-6, which also contains many documents relating to the election of other prioresses of this house. There are frequent notices of elections in episcopal registers; for other very detailed accounts, seeReg. of Bishop Grandisson of Exeter, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, ptIII, pp. 999-1002 (Canonsleigh) andReg. of Ralph of Shrewsbury(Somerset Rec. Soc.) pp. 284-7 (Cannington). See also Eckenstein,Woman under Monasticism, pp. 367-8.
[155]See e.g.V.C.H. Glouc.II, p. 93;Reg. of Bishop Grandisson, ptII, p. 742;V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 114-5, 120, 124; Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 636;ib.V, p. 207;V.C.H. Durham,II, p. 107.
[156]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 458.
[157]Evidently this was the usual payment here, for, in the roll for 1392-3, there is an item “Paye al officiale pour stalling de prioris xs.”P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1260/4.
[158]P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1260.
[159]The Cistercians fixed the age at 30. Later the Council of Trent fixed it at 40 including 8 years of profession.
[160]An election by acclamation was said to be conductedvia Spiritus sanctiorper inspirationem. For this and the methods of electionvia scrutiniiandvia compromissi, see J. Wickham Legg,On the Three Ways of Canonical Election(Trans. St Paul’s Eccles. Soc.III, 299-312).
[161]Reg. Sede Vacante(Worc. Hist. Soc.), p. 114, and Nash,op. cit.I, p. 214.
[162]From a document preserved at the Exchequer Gate, Lincoln.
[163]For the following account, seeLinc. Epis. Reg. Visit. Longland, ff. 22-25.
[164]Compare the complaint of one of the nuns at St Michael’s Stamford in 1445, “Dicit quod priorissa est sibi nimis rigorosa in correccionibus, nam pro leuibus punit eam rigorose.”Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 96.
[165]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 415. For another instance of disturbances in a convent caused by the appointment of a Prioress (here the head of the house) by the Bishop contrary to the will of the nuns, see two letters written by the nuns of Stratford to Cromwell, about the same time that Longland was having such trouble at Elstow. In one they ask his help “for the removing of our supposed prioress,” explaining “Sir, since the time that we put up our supplication unto the king, we have been worse entreated than ever we were before, for meat, drink and threatening words; and as soon as we speak to have anything remedied she biddeth us to go to Cromwell and let him help us; and that the old lady, who is prioress in right, is like to die for lack of sustenance and good keeping, for she can get neither meat, drink nor money to help herself.” In another letter they report “that the chancellor of my lord of London (the Bishop) hath been with us yesterday and that he sayeth the prioress shall continue and be prioress still, in spite of our teeth, and of their teeths that say nay to it, and that he commanded her to assault us and to punish us, that other may beware by us.” Wood,Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies,I, nos. xxx and xxxi, pp. 68-70.
[166]V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 167-9.
[167]Ib.III, p. 180 andReg. of John le Romeyn(Surtees Soc.),I, pp. 213-4. Whether any nuns were sent to Rosedale does not appear, but shortly afterwards two nuns, Elizabeth de Rue and Helewis Darains, were sent to Nunburnholme and to Wykeham respectively; these punishments may not have been connected with the election trouble.Reg. Romeyn,I, pp. 177, 214 note, 225; compare p. 216. Josiana appears to have been twice Prioress; she was confirmed in 1290 and finally resigned because of old age in 1320, but Joan de Moubray is mentioned as Prioress in 1308 and she resigned in 1309.V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 181. There was discord over an election at St Clement’s, York, in 1316, one party in the convent electing Agnes de Methelay, and the other Beatrice de Brandesby.Sede vacante, the Dean and Chapter appointed the former.V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 129. See also a case at Goring.V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 103.
[168]Translated from Caesarius of Heisterbach’sDialogus Miraculorumin Coulton,A Medieval Garner, pp. 251-2.
[169]Dugdale,Mon.II, p. 318.
[170]See Brewer,Reign of Henry VIII,II, pp. 281-3.
[171]See Wood,op. cit.II, nos. xxi, xxii, pp. 52-6. (See nos. xxiii, xxiv, xxv, lxxiii and lxxiv for further letters from Margaret Vernon.)
[172]See, for example, the account in theSt Albans Chronicles(Rolls Series) of the great costs incurred by the Abbots of St Albans in seeking confirmation here. A detailed account of expenses incurred at Rome for the confirmation of Abbot John IV in 1302 has been translated in Coulton,Medieval Garner, p. 517; the total was 2561 marks sterling, i.e. about £34,000 in modern money. See also Froude’s essay entitled “Annals of an English Abbey” in hisShort Studies on Great Subjects, 3rd ser. pp. 1sqq.
[173]Pierre Du Bois,De Recuperatione Terre Sancte, ed. Ch.-V. Langlois (Paris, 1891), p. 83.
[174]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 363.
[175]At the time of the suppression Joan Scott “late prioress” is placed second in the list of nuns at Handale and is described as “aet. 90 and blynd.”V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 166. At Esholt the ex-prioress was over 70 and is described as “decrepita et non abilis ad equitandum, neque eundum.”Ib.p. 162.
[176]Wood,op. cit.II, p. 153. See A. H. Thompson,English Monasteries, p. 123.
[177]V.C.H. Suffolk,II, p. 116. See also the provision made for Joyce Brome, ex-prioress of Wroxall. Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 89 note. For the case of Isabel Spynys, prioress of Wilberfoss (1348), seeV.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 126; and for an example of such an arrangement at a priory of monks see the very detailed ordinance for the living of John Assheby, ex-prior of Daventry, by Bishop Flemyng of Lincoln in 1420.Linc. Visit.I, pp. 39-42. It was not unusual to make provision in the form of corrodies such as these for other nuns, who were prevented by age and infirmity from taking part in the communal life of the convent. Isabel Warde of Moxby, “impotens et surda,” held such a grant for life at the time of the dissolution (V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 239) and Margaret de Shyrburn of Yedingham, who was ill of dropsy, had a secular girl to wait on her in 1314.Ib.p. 127 note. Compare the amusing case of Joan Heyronne of St Helen’s, Bishopsgate (1385), who was ill of gout and not sympathised with by her sisters (V.C.H. London,I, p. 458), and see also cases at Romsey (1507), Liveing,op. cit.p. 230; Malling (1400),Cal. of Pap. Letters,V, p. 355; and St Mary’s, Neasham,V.C.H. Durham,II, p. 107.
[178]V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 120-1. Compare an amusing and very similar disturbance at Flixton between 1514 and 1532.Visit. of Dioc. Norwich, ed. Jessopp (Camden Soc.), pp. 142-4, 185, 190, 261, 318.
[179]The abbess’s or prioress’s chamber is constantly mentioned in the surveys of nunneries made at the time of the Dissolution, e.g. at Arthington, Wykeham, Basedale and Kirklees (Yorks. Archaeol. Journ.IX, pp. 212, 326, 327, 332); at Cheshunt (Cussans,Hist. of Herts., Hertford Hundred,II, p. 270), Sheppey (Mackenzie E. C. Walcott,Inventories of St Mary’s Hospital, Dover, etc.p. 28), Kilburn (Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 424). See also the inventory of the goods of Langley in 1485 (Walcott,Inventory of St Mary’s Benedictine Nunnery at Langley[Leic. Architec. Soc. 1872], p. 4). The last three contain interesting inventories of the furniture of the prioress’s chamber. At Sheppey it was hung with green “saye” and contained “a trussyng bed of waynscot with testar, sylar and cortens of red and yelow sarcenet”; at Kilburn it was hung with “four peces of sey redde and grene, with a bordure of story,” and contained “a standinge bedd with four posts of weynscott, a trundle bedd under the same ... a syller of yelowe and redde bokerame and three curteyns of the same work.” At Langley also there were two beds in the prioress’s chamber “hur owne bed” and “ye secunde bed in hur chambur.” Clearly the prioress nearly always had a nun to sleep with her, and the evidence of visitations bears this out; see e.g. cases at Redlingfield, 1427 (V.C.H. Suffolk,II, p. 83), Littlemore, 1445 (Linc. Visit.II, p. 217, “iacet de nocte in eodem lecto cum priorissa”), Flamstead, 1530 (V.C.H. Herts.IV, p. 433). For the position of the prioress’s chamber see plan of the nunnery buildings of St Radegund’s, Cambridge (now Jesus College) (Gray,Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge, p. 53).