Chapter 49

[579]See above, p.182.

[580]Dugdale,Mon.II, p. 485 andRot. Parl.III, p. 129. The petition was granted, but the nuns seem to have shown themselves unworthy of the royal clemency, for, after the death of Abbess Joan Furmage in 1394, the King was forced to abrogate the grant, because by fraudulent means an election had been obtained of an unfit person, who, with the object of securing confirmation, had repaired with an excessive number of men to places remote, to the waste and desolation of the convent.Cal. of Pat. Rolls, 1391-6, p. 511.

[581]Cal. of Papal Petitions,I, pp. 56-7.

[582]Cal. of Close Rolls(1313-8), p. 189 andib.(1333-7), pp. 70-1; cf.ib.(1307-13), p. 1 andib.(1323-7), p. 252 andib.(1349-54), p. 29.

[583]Cal. of Close Rolls(1339-41), p. 377.

[584]Ib.(1343-6), pp. 407-8. Cf. p. 418.

[585]Ib.(1343-6), p. 599. The profits during vacancy were similarly remitted to Godstow in 1385 “because of its poverty and misfortunes” (V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 73).

[586]Reg. Epist. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Ser.),I, pp. 40-1, 56-7, 189-90, 356-7, 366-7, 577.

[587]Reg. of ... Rigaud de Asserio(Hants. Rec. Soc.), pp. 387, 388, 394-5. Compare nominations of John de Pontoise.Reg. Johannis de Pontissara(Cant. and York. Soc.),I, pp. 240, 241, 252 and of William of Wykeham,Wykeham’s Reg.(Hants. Rec. Soc.),II, pp. 60, 61.

[588]Reg. of Ralph of Shrewsbury(Somerset Rec. Soc.), pp. 26, 39, 146.

[589]Reg. ... Stephani de Gravesend(Cant. and York. Soc.), p. 200.

[590]Dugdale,Mon.II, p. 473 andV.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 75.

[591]Liveing,op. cit.pp. 97-8 andWykeham’s Reg.II, pp. 461-2.

[592]Liveing,op. cit.p. 98.

[593]Cal. of Close Rolls(1307-8), pp. 48, 53, 134.

[594]V.C.H. Essex,II, p. 117.

[595]V.C.H. Dorset,II, pp. 76-7.

[596]Cal. of Close Rolls(1318-23), p. 517. She was still unadmitted in 1327, when the order was repeated.Ib.(1327-30), p. 204.

[597]Ib.(1333-7), p. 175.

[598]Ib.(1343-6), p. 604.

[599]Liveing,op. cit.p. 99, and in the Register of Bishop Norbury of Lichfield there is a certificate (dated 1358) of “having admitted, twenty years ago,thirtynuns at Nuneaton at the request of the patron, the E. of Lancaster,” Will Salt Arch. Soc. Coll.I, p. 286. Perhaps there is a clerical error.

[600]Reg. Epist. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Ser.),I, pp. 189-90.

[601]Ib.I, pp. 356-7. The reference to “distinguished friends and benefactors” is interesting, because she was the daughter of Robert Bret, “civis London.”

[602]Op. cit.I, pp. 366-7. The assertion that the convent was required to receive Isabel “without burden to themselves by the provision of the parents of the said little maid” is interesting, partly because it suggests that the royal and episcopal nominees were not always received at a loss, partly because it looks suspiciously like a condonation of the dowry system by an otherwise strict disciplinarian.

[603]Sharpe,Cal. of Wills,I, p. 111.

[604]Op. cit.I, pp. 56-7.

[605]Ib.II, p. 704.

[606]An Agnes Turberville was sent by the King to Shaftesbury in 1345.Cal. of Close Rolls, 1343-6, p. 604.

[607]Reg. of Bishop Grandisson, ed. Hingeston-Randolph,I, pp. 213-4.

[608]Op. cit.I, pp. 222-3. Does the Bishop mean that he will help to provide a dowry for Johanete out of his private purse, in another religious house?

[609]See below, p.452.

[610]Cal. of Close Rolls(1313-8), p. 210. A few months later, however, Richard de Ayreminn was sent on the same pretext (p. 312).

[611]Op. cit.(1333-7), p. 175.

[612]Op. cit.(1349-54), p. 82.

[613]Op. cit.(1339-41), p. 466.

[614]Op. cit.(1337-9), p. 286.

[615]Op. cit.(1343-6), p. 652.

[616]Op. cit.(1318-23), p. 517; (1343-6), p. 475.

[617]Op. cit.(1327-30), p. 366.

[618]Op. cit.(1313-8), p. 611; (1327-30), p. 564; (1341-3), p. 133.

[619]See below. For the prebendal stalls in the churches of five of these abbeys (Romsey, Wherwell, St Mary’s Winchester, Shaftesbury and Wilton), see above, p.144.

[620]Reg. Johannis de Pontissara(Cant. and York. Soc.),I, pp. 243-4, 300-1, 315-6.

[621]Reg. Simonis de Gandavo(Cant. and York. Soc.), pp. 2-3.

[622]Hist. MSS. Comm. Report,IV, p. 329.

[623]Rot. Parl.I, p. 381. John de Houton, clerk, had been sent to Elstow in 1318 (Cal. of Close Rolls(1318-23), p. 119).

[624]Cal. of Close Rolls(1313-8), p. 611.

[625]Op. cit.(1307-13), pp. 581-2.

[626]Cal. of Close Rolls(1313-8), p. 437. The avenere was an officer of the household who had the charge of supplying provisions for the horses. SeePromptorium Parvulorum(Camden Soc.),I, p. 19, n. 2.

[627]Cal. of Close Rolls(1327-30), p. 393.

[628]Ib.p. 523.

[629]Ib.pp. 396, 534.

[630]Rot. Parl.II, pp. 381-2. Letters patent were duly sent to Barking bidding them admit Agnes, on Nov. 6th, 1331.Cal. of Patent Rolls(1330-3), p. 407.

[631]V.C.H. Essex,II, p. 117.

[632]Cal. of Close Rolls(1307-13), p. 267.

[633]Op. cit.(1318-23), p. 117.

[634]Op. cit.(1307-13), p. 328. She was the niece of John de London, late the King’s escheator south of Trent.

[635]Loc. cit.

[636]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 129.

[637]Ib.p. 237.

[638]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 83. The Taxation of Pope Nicholas mentions a pension due to the Abbot of York of £3 for the church of Corby, which was appropriated to the nuns, and for other tithes elsewhere. The sum of £3 is occasionally mentioned in the account rolls of St Michael’s, Stamford, as having been paid to “our Lady of York,” or as being still due.

[639]Dugdale,Mon.IV, pp. 256 ff. Payments to the abbot and to other officiaries of Peterborough also occur very frequently in the conventual accounts.

[640]See above, p.180. Compare the case of St Mary’s, Winchester, where the nuns complained in 1468 that they were so burdened, that they could not fulfil the obligations of their order as to hospitality.V.C.H. Hants.II, pp. 123-4. The difficulty of keeping up the accustomed hospitality was one of the reasons for annexing Wothorpe to St Michael’s, Stamford, after the Black Death. Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 268.

[641]Cal. of Papal Letters,V, p. 347. Compare Gynewell’s injunction in 1351: “E vous, Prioresse, chastiez les soers qils ne acuillent mie trop souent lour amys en la Priorie, a costage e damage de dit mesoun.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 34d.

[642]V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 117, 171, 172, 239. On the subject of abuse of monastic hospitality, see Jusserand,English Wayfaring Life, p. 121. Edward I forbade anyone to eat or lodge in a religious house, unless the superior had invited him or that he were its founder, and even then his consumption was to be moderate.

[643]Pope Boniface VIII’s edict for the stricter enclosure of nuns contained a clause warning secular lords against summoning nuns to attend in person at the law courts; they were to act through their proctors (see version promulgated by Simon of Ghent, Bishop of Salisbury in 1299.Reg. Simonis de Gandavo[Cant. and York Soc.], p. 11). The heads of the larger houses often did act through proctors, but less wealthy convents usually sent the head or one of the other nuns in person. See Eckenstein,Woman under Monasticism, pp. 362-3.

[644]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 360.

[645]V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 104. Compare a long lawsuit waged by Carrow Priory. Rye,Carrow Abbey, App. p. xxi.

[646]P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1260/4. Compare the amusing account of how the Prior of Barnwell secured a favourable judgment from the itinerant justices. “Ipsis eciam justiciariis dedit herbagium alicui tres acras et alicui quatuor, et exennia panis, ceruisie et vini frequenter, in tantum quod in recessu suo omnes tam justiciarii quam clerici, seruientes et precones, gracias uberes referebant, et ipsi Priori (et) canonicis se et sua obligabant.”Liber Memorandorum Ecclesie de Bernewelle, ed. J. Willis Clark (1907), p. 171.

[647]V.C.H. Hants.II, p. 150.

[648]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 164. The “misrule of past presidents” is mentioned as a contributory cause of distress at Lilleshall (1351), St Mary’s Winchester (1364) and Tarrant (1366).Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1351, p. 177; 1364, p. 485; 1366, p. 239.

[649]E.H.R.VI, p. 28.

[650]Wharton,Anglia Sacra,I, p. 362.

[651]Ib.I, p. 364.

[652]Ib.I, p. 377.

[653]Gasquet, however, mistakenly attributes its state entirely to the plague.The Great Pestilence, p. 106.

[654]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. ff. 39d, 83, 96.

[655]Linc. Visit.II, p. 185.

[656]Ib.II, p. 114.

[657]Ib.II, p. 133.

[658]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 72.

[659]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 130, 131.

[660]Ib.II, p. 175.

[661]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 159.

[662]Ib.p. 174.

[663]Ib.p. 164.

[664]Sussex Archaeol. Coll.IX, p. 7.

[665]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 353.

[666]It must be understood that the judicious sale of corrodies was not necessarily harmful to a house. Sometimes it might lead to the acquisition of land or rents at comparatively little expense to the convent, as a glance at some of the charters in the English Register of Godstow Abbey will show. SeeEng. Reg. of Godstow Abbey(E.E.T.S.), pp. xxvii-xxviii. The convent probably drove a good bargain when in 1230 the harassed Stephen, son of Waryn the miller of Oxford, conveyed all his Oxford property to Godstow “and for this graunte, & cetera, the forsaid mynchons yaf to them to ther grete nede, that is to sey, to aquyte hym of the jewry and otherwise where he was endited, X markes of siluer in warison. And furthermore they graunted to hym and to hys wyf molde, with ther seruant to serve them while they lived, two corrodies of ij mynchons and a corrodye of one seruant to their systeynynge” (op. cit.p. 392). Nor was there much harm in grants for a term of years, such as the grant of board and lodging made by the convent of Nunappleton in 1301 to Richard de Fauconberg, in return for certain lands bringing in an annual rent of two marks of silver, both the corrody and the tenure of these lands being for a term of twelve years. Dugdale,Mon.V, p. 653. Sometimes, again, corrodies were granted in return for specified services; in 1270 Richard Grene of Cassington surrendered 5½ acres of arable and 2 roods of meadow land to Godstow in return for “the seruyce under the porter for ever at the yate of Godestowe and j half mark in the name of his wagis yerely.”Eng. Reg. of Godstow, p. 305. At Yedingham in 1352 an interesting grant of acorrodium monialewas made to one Emma Hart, who, in return for a sum of money, was given the position of deye or dairy woman; she was to have the same food-allowance as a nun and a share in all their small pittances, and a building called “le chesehouse” with a solar and cellar to inhabit and was allowed to keep ten sheep and ten ewes at the convent’s charge. In return she was to do the dairy-work and when too old to work any longer the convent engaged to grant her a place in “le sisterhouse.”V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 128. Sometimes also corrodies were granted by way of pensioning off old servants, as when, in 1529, the nuns of Arden granted one to their chaplain “for the gud and diligent seruice yt oure wellbeloued sir Thomas parkynson, preste, hav done to vs in tyme paste.”V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 115. To corrodies such as these there was little objection (though the last might lead to financial loss). The danger came from life-grants in return for an inadequate sum of ready money.

[667]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 115.

[668]She received 68s.4d.in part payment for the commutation of the corrody.

[669]Jessopp,Frivola, pp. 55-6.

[670]Linc. Visit.II, p. 175.

[671]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 71d.

[672]Visit. of the Diocese of Norwich(Camden Soc.), pp. 243, 303-4. There is in the Record Office a petition to the Chancellor from Richard Englyssh and Marjorie his wife, setting out that the Bishop of Rochester had granted Marjorie for life a corrody in Malling Abbey of seven loaves and four gallons of convent ale and three pence for cooked food weekly, which corrody she and her husband had held for some time, but that now the abbess and convent withheld it. Evidently it was a burden to the house, but it is not clear whether the bishop had forced a corrodian on the nuns, or had merely confirmed a grant by them.P.R.O. Early Chanc. Proc.4/196.

[673]Archaeologia,XLVII, p. 58.

[674]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 554. He had once before ordered the holders of corrodies there to display their grants, that it might be known whether they had fulfilled the services due from them.V.C.H. London,I, p. 459.

[675]The appropriation was confirmed by the Pope in 1401.Cal. of Papal Letters,V, p. 347. In 1440 Bishop Alnwick made an injunction at Heynings against the granting of corrodies.Linc. Visit.II, p. 135.

[676]See below, pp.225-6.

[677]Sussex Archaeol. Coll.IX, p. 25.

[678]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 516.

[679]See below, pp.225-6.

[680]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 194.

[681]Linc. Visit.II, p. 175.

[682]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 6.

[683]Liveing,op. cit.p. 146;Cal. of Papal Petitions,I, p. 122. At Studley in 1530 it was found that the woods of the priory had been much diminished by the late prioress and by “Thomas Cardinal of York for the construction of his college in the university of Oxford.”V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 78.

[684]Linc. Visit.II, p. 120.

[685]Linc. Visit.II, p. 147.

[686]Archaeologia,XLVII, pp. 58-9.

[687]V.C.H. Durham,II, p. 107.

[688]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 177.

[689]Test. Ebor.I, pp. 283-4.

[690]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 506, noteb.

[691]Sussex Arch. Coll.IX, p. 19.

[692]V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 76.

[693]See above, p.153.

[694]SeeCh.IV.

[695]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 71.

[696]Reg. of Archbishop William Wickwane(Surtees Soc.), p. 113.

[697]Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 98. Similarly Bishop Edyndon wrote in 1346 and again in 1363 to St Mary’s Winchester, Wherwell and Romsey, forbidding them to take a greater number of nuns than was anciently accustomed or than could be sustained by them without penury.Ib.p. 165.

[698]V.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 77. Nevertheless at Romsey and at Shaftesbury the King and the Bishop himself continued to “dump” nuns, in accordance with their prerogative right, throughout the career of both houses. In the six years following this prohibition of 1326 Bishop Stratford not only gave permission for a novice to be received at the nuns’ own request, but deposited no less than three there himself. The words and the actions of bishops sometimes tallied ill.

[699]SeeV.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 113, 117, 119, 120, 124, 161, 163, 171-2, 188;Reg. of Archbishop Giffard(Surtees Soc.), p. 148;Reg. of Archbishop Wickwane(Surtees Soc.), pp. 112, 113, 140-1.

[700]Reg. Giffard,loc. cit.

[701]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 117.

[702]Ib.III, p. 163. The house was heavily in debt at the time and though the Bishop had forbidden the granting of corrodies and liveries without leave, the Prioress was also charged with having “sold or granted corrodies very burdensome to the house.”

[703]Heynings, Ankerwyke, Legbourne, Nuncoton, St Michael’s Stamford, Gracedieu, Langley.

[704]Linc. Visit.II, p. 134.

[705]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. ff. 71d, 77d.

[706]It would be interesting to collect statistics as to the relative size of different nunneries at different periods. It is here possible to give only a few examples of the decline in the number of inmates. The numbers at Nuneaton varied as follows: 93 (1234), 80 (1328), 46 (1370), 40 (1459), 23 (1539). (V.C.H. Warwick.II, pp. 66-9.) At Romsey (where the statutory number was supposed to be 100) as follows: 91 (1333) and 26 (from 1478 to the Dissolution). (Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey,passim.) At Shaftesbury as follows: forbidden to receive more than 100 in 1218 and in 1322; number fixed at 120 in 1326; between 50-57 (from 1441 to the Dissolution).V.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 77.

[707]New Coll.MS. f. 55d.

[708]Linc. Visit.I, p. 53.

[709]Archaeologia,XLVII, p. 55.

[710]E.H.R.VI, pp. 33-4. From the fact that the Prioress was ordered to make up the number again to fourteen, as soon as she conveniently could, it appears that the ten nuns who gave evidence before the Archbishop represented the full strength of the house.

[711]A few out of many specific instances may be given: Wroxall 1323 (V.C.H. Warwick.II, p. 71); Polesworth 1456 (ib.p. 63); Fairwell 1367 (Reg. of Bishop Stretton, p. 119); Romsey 1302 (Reg. Johannis de PontissaraCant. and York. Soc. p. 127); Moxby 1318 (V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 239); Nuncoton 1531 (Arch.XLVII, p. 58); Sinningthwaite 1534 (Yorks. Arch. Journ.XVI, p. 441).

[712]See above, pp.64-5.

[713]Linc. Visit.I, p. 50.

[714]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 188.

[715]Ib.III, p. 177.

[716]E.g. Clemence Medforde at Ankerwyke in 1441 and Eleanor of Arden in 1396. See above, pp.81,85.

[717]Liveing,op. cit.pp. 100-101.

[718]New Coll.MS. f. 88d.

[719]See above, p.204.

[720]Reg. of Bishop Stapeldon, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, p. 318.

[721]Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, pp. 99-100.

[722]Ib.pp. 102-3.

[723]New Coll.MS. f. 87. In 1492, at the visitation by Archbishop Morton’s commissioners, a nun prays that injunctions be made to the sisters and abbess that they choose no one as auditor without consulting the Archbishop of Canterbury. Liveing,op. cit.pp. 218-9.

[724]For other mentions of the rendering of accounts by bailiffs, officiaries, etc. see Arden 1306 and Arthington 1315 (V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 113, 188), Fairwell 1367 (Reg. of Robert de Stretton, p. 119), Elstow 1422 (Linc. Visit.I, p. 50).

[725]Writing to Sinningthwaite in 1534.Yorks. Archaeol. Journ.XVI, pp. 442-3.

[726]Visit. of the Dioc. of Norwich(Camden Soc.), p. 108.

[727]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 119.

[728]Sometimes specific mention is made of this duty, e.g. in 1318 Thomas de Mydelsburg, rector of Loftus, was ordered to administer the temporal goods of the Cistercian house of Handale, to receive the accounts of the servants and to substitute more capable ones for those who were useless.Ib.III, p. 166. Cf. the commission to the rector of Aberford to be custos of Kirklees about the same time.Yorks. Archaeol. Journ.XVI, p. 362.

[729]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 171.

[730]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 52-3.

[731]In 1442, for instance, the Prioress of Rusper was ordered to render accounts yearly before the Bishop of Chichester and the nuns of the house (Sussex Arch. Coll.V, p. 255), and at Sheppey in 1511, two nuns having complained that the Prioress did not account, she was ordered to render accounts, with an inventory to the convent and to Archbishop Warham (E.H.R.VI, p. 34).

[732]Alnwick Visit.MS. f. 83.

[733]Linc. Visit.II, p. 184.

[734]Linc. Visit.II, p. 1.

[735]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 174.

[736]An inventory of the goods of Easebourne Priory, drawn up for the Bishop of Chichester on May 27th, 1450, has survived. It is very complete and comprises all departments of the house, together with a list of land, chapels and appropriated churches and a note that the house can expend in all £22. 3s.on repairs and other expenses and that the debts “for repairs and other necessary expenses this year” amount to £66. 6s.8d.Sussex Arch. Coll.IX, pp. 10-13. It may be of interest to quote the briefer inventory of the poor house of Ankerwyke, as presented to Bishop Atwater at his visitation in 1519 and copied by his clerk into the register. There were at the time five nuns in the house and one in apostasy. “Redditus ibidem extendunt prima facie ad xxxiij li. x s. Inde resoluunt pro libris (sic) redditibus v li. x s. Et sic habent clare ad reparacionem & alia onera sustinenda ultra xl marcas.Jocalia in Ecclesia: Habent ibidem vestimenta sacerdotalia ad minus serica xiij. Habent eciam vnicam capam de serica & auro. j calicem de argento deaurato. j par Turribulorum. j pixidem de argento pro sacramento. ij libros missales impressos. j magnum par candelabrorum ante summum altare. j paruum par candelabrorum super summum altare. ij urciolos argenteos. j paxbread de argento, una parua campana argentea.Catalla: Habent vaccas duas, ij equas, boues senes iij, unus bouiculus (sic), j vaccam anne (sic) (blank), iij equas pro aratro.Vtensiliavj plumalia, x paria linthiaminum, iiij superpellectilia, iiij paria de le blanketts, ij le white Testers. Habent Redditus Annuales preter terras ipsarum dominicalium (sic) in earundem manibus occupatas xlvj li. xj s. x d.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Visit. Atwater, f. 42. A fair number of inventories of convent property made for this or for other purposes is extant; notably those drawn up, for purposes of spoliation instead of preservation, at the Dissolution. SeeBibliography.

[737]Reg. of Walter Giffard(Surtees Soc.), p. 147.

[738]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 120.

[739]V.C.H. Warwick,II, p. 71.

[740]See below, p.226.

[741]Reg. Epis. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Ser.),III, pp. 805-6.

[742]See below, pp.337-8.

[743]SeeReg. Epis. Johannis Peckham(Rolls. Ser.),II, pp. 654-5, 659, 708.

[744]V.C.H. Yorks.II, pp. 187-8.

[745]Reg. of Bishop Stapeldon, ed. Hingeston-Randolph, p. 96.

[746]Reg. of Ralph of Shrewsbury(Somerset Rec. Soc.), pp. 240-1, 684.

[747]At Ankerwyke, Catesby, Gracedieu and St Michael’s Stamford.Linc. Visit.II, pp. 6, 9, 52, 125;Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 39d.

[748]To this reception of boarders was sometimes added, but with a different purpose, viz. to protect the nuns from contact with the world.

[749]At Moxby in 1318 no fresh debts, especially large ones, were to be incurred without the convent’s consent and the Archbishop’s special licence.V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 239. At Nuncoton in 1440 “ne that ye aleyne or selle any bondman” was added to the usual prohibition.Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 77d.

[750]Linc. Visit.II, p. 131. A few other instances of these injunctions may be given: Arden (1306), Marrick (1252), Nunburnholme (1318), Nunkeeling (1314), Thicket (1309), Yedingham (1314), Esholt (1318), Hampole (1308, 1312), Nunappleton (1489), Rosedale (1315), Sinningthwaite (1315), Arthington (1318), Moxby (1314, 1318, 1328),V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 113, 117, 119, 124, 128, 161, 163, 172, 174, 177, 188, 239-40; Sinningthwaite (1534),Yorks. Arch. Journ.XVI, p. 441; Arthington (1286),Reg. John le Romeyn(Surtees Soc.I, p. 55); Ankerwyke, Godstow, Gracedieu, Heynings, Langley, Legbourne, Markyate, Nuncoton, Stixwould, St Michael’s Stamford (all 1440-5),Linc. Visit.II, pp. 8, 115, 124, 134, 186 andAlnwick’s Visit.MS. ff. 6d, 77d, 81d, 75d; Elstow (1359),Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 139d; Elstow (1421), Burnham (1434),Linc. Visit.I, pp. 24, 49; Studley, Nuncoton (1531),Arch.XLVII, pp. 54, 58; Polsloe and Canonsleigh (1319),Reg. Stapeldon of Exeter, p. 317; Romsey (1302),Reg. J. de Pontissara, p. 127.

[751]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 343.

[752]Lambeth Reg. Courtenay I, f. 336.

[753]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 49-50.

[754]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, ff. 397-397d. These injunctions are scattered among the others, but have been placed together here for the sake of reference.

[755]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 343. Compare Flemyng’s injunctions in 1422.Linc. Visit.I, p. 49.

[756]Linc. Visit.I, p. 151.

[757]V.C.H. Lincs.II, pp. 148, 150, 154 (note 1).

[758]V.C.H. Northants.II, p. 121.

[759]V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 178-9, andReg. of Archbishop Giffard(Surtees Soc.), pp. 147-8. The canons at these houses must be distinguished from the canons who held prebendal stalls in the Abbeys of Romsey, St Mary’s, Winchester, Wherwell, Wilton and Shaftesbury; these were often bad pluralists and could have been of little use to the abbeys, as chaplains or ascustodes. SeeV.C.H. Hants.II, pp. 122-3 and p.144above, note 1.

[760]Loc. cit.Compare the complaint of the nuns of Brodholme in 1321-2. “A nostre Seyngnur le Roy e a son Counsaill monstrent le Prioresse el Covente de Brodholme, qe lour Gardayns de la dit meson par lour defaute sount lour Rentes abatez, e lour meson a poy ennente e le dit Gardayns ne vollent nulle entent mettre ne despender pur les ayder kaunt eles sount empleydie, mes come eles meymes defendent a graunt meschef. Pur qoi eles prient pur l’amour de Dieu, trescher Seygnour, pur l’alme vostre Pier, e ouir de charite, qe Vous vollez graunter vostre Charter qe l’avantdit Prioresse el covent pouissent avoir lour rentes e lour enproumens, de ordiner a lour voluntes, e al profist de la dit meson, si pleiser Vous soit, Kare autrement ne poivent eles viver.” The reply was “Injusta est peticio, ideo non potest fieri.”Rot. Parl.I, pp. 393-4. Brodholme was one of the only two convents of Premonstratensian nuns in England; the guardians were probably the canons of the Premonstratensian Abbey of Newhouse; for an ordinance (1354, confirmed 1409) regulating the relations between the two houses, seeCal. of Papal Letters,VI, pp. 159-60.

[761]V.C.H. Lincs.II, p. 148 (from Pat. 2 Edw. II, pt ii, m. 22d.).

[762]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, f. 330. Roger de Dauentry, canon of Catesby, had been made master in 1297.Reg. Memo. Sutton.f. 175.

[763]Reg. Epis. Johannis Peckham,III, pp. 850-1.

[764]V.C.H. Northants.II, p. 98.

[765]V.C.H. Derby.II, p. 43.

[766]Loc. cit.see alsoLinc. Epis. Reg. Institution Roll(Northampton) of Sutton for the presentation of William de Stok, monk of Peterborough as Prior of St Michael’s Stamford, by the Abbot, and the Bishop’s ratification.

[767]Walsingham,Gesta Abbatum(Rolls Ser.),II, p. 519, andV.C.H. Herts.IV, p. 429. On their misdeeds see Archbishop Morton’s famous letter in 1490. Wilkins,Concilia,III, p. 632.

[768]SeeCal. of Papal Letters,VI, pp. 159-160.

[769]Mention ofcustodesoccurs at the following houses, in addition to those mentioned in the text: Studley (1290), Goring (1309),V.C.H. Oxon.II, pp. 78, 104; Markyate (1323), Harrold (late thirteenth century),V.C.H. Beds.I, pp. 359, 388; Flamstead (1337), Rowney (1302, 1328),V.C.H. Herts.IV, pp. 432, 434; Arden (1302, 1324), Marrick (1252), Nunburnholme (1314), Yedingham (1280), Basedale (1304), Hampole (1268, 1280, 1308), Handale (1318), Nunappleton (1306), Swine (1267, 1291, 1298),V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 113, 117, 119, 127, 159, 163, 166, 171, 180; all in Lincoln or York. For mention ofcustodesin other dioceses, see Cookhill (1285),Reg. of Godfrey Giffard(Worc. Hist. Soc.),II, p. 267; St Sepulchre’s Canterbury, Davington, Usk, Whitehall (Ilchester), Minchin Barrow, Easebourne, St Bartholomew’s Newcastle, King’s Mead, Derby, below, pp.231-5passim. The frequency with whichcustodesoccur in houses in the diocese of Lincoln and York and their rarity in other dioceses would seem to support the theory of Gilbertine influence. Of the cases quoted from other dioceses all are eithercustodesappointed as a deliberate policy by Archbishop Peckham, orcustodesappointed to meet some special moral or financial crisis, not regular officials. King’s Mead, Derby, seems to be the only nunnery outside the two dioceses of York and Lincoln (with the exception of those in direct dependence on a house of monks) which started its career under the joint government of acustosand a Prioress.V.C.H. Derby,II, p. 43.

[770]Reg. of John le Romeyn(Surtees Soc.),I, pp. xii, xiii, 86, 125, 157, 180.

[771]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, ff. 23d, 37, 44, 60d, 79d, 118d, 328d, 366, 373, 378, 382, 388. (These comprise two appointments to Rowney, Godstow and Nuncoton; the dates are between 1301 and 1318.)

[772]Reg. of John le Romeyn,I, pp. 203-4, 209, 211, 217.

[773]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Sutton, ff. 82d-83.

[774]V.C.H. Lincs.II, p. 179. But in 1318 Dalderby appointed the vicar of Little Coates,loc. cit.f. 373. Originally St Leonard’s Grimsby, had been placed under the protection of the canons of Wellow.

[775]Reg. of Archbishop Giffard(Surtees Soc.), p. 54.

[776]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 113.

[777]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Sutton, ff. 25, 92d.

[778]Sometimes the chaplain of the house must have acted as an unofficialcustosand sometimes he held the position by special mandate, e.g. in 1285 Bishop Giffard ordered the nuns of Cookhill that “for the better conduct of temporal business and for the increase of divine praise,” Thomas their chaplain was to have full charge of their temporal affairs.Reg. of Godfrey Giffard(Worc. Hist. Soc.),II, p. 267.

[779]Reg. Epis. Johannis Peckham(Rolls Ser.),I, pp. 72-3;II, pp. 708-9,III, p. 806.

[780]V.C.H. Northants.II, p. 99.

[781]V.C.H. Somerset,II, p. 157. Text in Hugo,Medieval Nunneries of the County of Somerset: Whitehall in Ilchester, App.VII, pp. 78-9.

[782]Reg. of Ralph of Shrewsbury(Somerset Rec. Soc.), p. 177.

[783]Hugo,op. cit.Minchin Barrow Priory, App.II, pp. 81-3. With these cases compare the appointment ofcustodesto the worldly Prioress of Easebourne in 1441. See above, p.77.

[784]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 413.

[785]Ib.IV, p. 485.

[786]V.C.H. Oxon.II, p. 73.

[787]V.C.H. Derby,II, pp. 43-4 (fromAncient Petitions, No. 11730); cf.Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1327-30, p. 139. See above, p.180.

[788]Linc. Visit.II, p. 7.

[789]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 39d.

[790]Linc. Visit.II, p. 117.

[791]See e.g.V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 113, 117, 119.

[792]Yorks. Arch. Journal,XVI, p. 362.

[793]It will be noticed that all the references tocustodesgiven on p. 230, note 8, belong to the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries; appointments at a later date are generally made to meet some regular crisis. There are no references to the Prior of St Michael’s Stamford in the later account rolls of that house, though one or two rolls belonging to the beginning of the century mention him. One of the few references to the regular appointment of a master in a Cistercian house after the first quarter of the fourteenth century is at Legbourne, where “later Lincoln regulations record the appointment of several masters from 1294-1343 and in 1366 the same official is apparently called anyconomusof Legbourne” (V.C.H. Lincs.II, p. 154, note 1). The will of Adam, vicar of Hallington, “custos sive magister domus monialium de Legbourne,” dated 1345, has been preserved. Gibbons,Early Lincoln Wills, p. 17. Theyconomusof Gokewell in 1440 is a very late instance. (Compare Bokyngham’s advice to the Abbess of Elstow in 1387, above, p.228.) Much the same function as that of thecustos, was, however, probably performed by the steward (senescallus), an official often mentioned during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

[794]See account in L. Eckenstein,Woman under Monasticism, ch.IV.

[795]L. Eckenstein,Woman under Monasticism, ch.IV, pp. 160 ff.

[796]Ib.pp. 238 ff.

[797]Ib.pp. 256 ff.

[798]Ib.pp. 328 ff.

[799]Ib.pp. 416, 419, 428, 458 ff.

[800]SeeRomaniaXIII(1884), pp. 400-3.

“Je ke la vie ai translateePar nun sui Climence numee,De Berekinge sui nunain;Par s’amur pris ceste oevre en main.”

[801]Devon,Issues of the Exchequer, p. 144.

[802]There does exist a catalogue of Syon library, but unluckily it is that of the brothers’ library and the catalogue of the sisters’ library is missing; it was probably a good one since we have notice of several books written for them. See M. Bateson,Cat. of the Lib. of Syon Mon.(1898). Only three continental library catalogues survive, of which two are printed and accessible; one is of the library of the Dominican nuns of Nuremberg, made between 1456-69 and containing 350 books, the other belonged to the Franciscan tertiaries of Delft in the second half of the fifteenth century and contained 109 books; the third comes from the women’s cloister at Wonnenstein in 1498. See M. Deanesly,The Lollard Bible, pp. 110-5.

[803]Sussex Arch. Coll.IX, p. 12.

[804]Mackenzie, Walcott,Inventories of ... the Ben. Priory ... of Shepey for Nuns, pp. 21, 23, 28.

[805]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 424.

[806]At a visitation of St Mary’s Winchester by Dr Hede in 1501, “Elia Pitte, librarian, was also well satisfied with that which was in her charge.”V.C.H. Hants.II, p. 124.

[807]Test. Ebor.I, p. 179.

[808]Sharpe,Cal. of Wills,II, p. 327.

[809]Test. Ebor.II, p. 13.

[810]Ib.III, p. 262.

[811]Ib.III, p. 199. See an interesting list of books left by Peter, vicar of Swine, to Swine Priory some time after 1380.King’s Descrip. Cat. MS.18.

[812]Reg. Stafford of Exeter, p. 419.

[813]Test. Ebor.II, p. 66.

[814]For Barking books (including a book of English religious treatises) see M. Deanesly,The Lollard Bible, pp. 337-9. Besides the books mentioned in the text there are fine psalters written for nuns at St Mary’s Winchester, Amesbury and Wilton in the libraries of Trinity College, Cambridge, All Souls College, Oxford, and the Royal College of Physicians respectively. There is an interesting book in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (McClean MS.123), which belonged to Nuneaton; it contains (1) the metrical Bestiary of William the Norman, (2) theChasteau d’Amoursof Robert Grosseteste, (3) exposition of the Paternoster, (4) the Gospel of Nicodemus, (5) Apocalypse with pictures, (6)Poema Morale, etc.

Back to IndexNext