[999]See, for instance, Longland’s careful injunction to Elstow in 1531: “Foras moche as the very ordre off sainct benedicte his rules ar nott ther obserued in keping the ffratrye att meale tymes ... butt customably they resorte to certayn places within the monasterye called the housholdes, where moche insolency is use contrarye to the good rules of the said religion, by reason of resorte of seculars both men women and children and many other inconvenyents hath thereby ensewed ... we inioyne ... that ye lady abbesse and your successours see that noo suche householdes be then kepte frome hensforth, butt oonly oon place which shalbe called the mysericorde, where shalbe oon sadde lady of the eldest sorte oversear and maistres to all the residue that thidre shall resorte, whiche in nombre shall nott passe fyve att the uttermoost, besides ther saide ladye oversear or maistres and those fyve wekely to chaunge and soo ... all the covent have kepte the same, and they agen to begynne and the said gouernour and oversear of them contynally to contynue in thatt roome by the space of oon quarter of a yere, and soo quarterly to chaunge att the nominacon and plesure of the ladye abbesse for the tyme being. Over this it is ordered undre the said payne and Iniunction that the ladye abbesse haue no moo susters from hensforth in hir householde butt oonly foure with hir chapleyne and likewise wekely to chaunge till they have goon by course thrugh the hole nomber off susters, and soo aȝen to begynne and contynue.”Archaeologia,XLVII, p. 51.
[1000]Wilkins,Conc.II, p. 16. See also “Et fetez qe lez deuz parties du covent a meyns mangent checun jour en le refreytour” (Wroxall 1338);Sede Vacante Reg.(Worc.), p. 276; cf. Elstow (c. 1432),Linc. Visit.I, p. 53. It is often accepted that the nuns shall keep frater only on the three fish days, but see Gray’s injunction to Delapré Abbey (c. 1432-3) enjoining its observance on the three accustomed days (Sunday, Wednesday and Friday) and on Monday as well.Linc. Visit.I, p. 45.
[1001]Ib.I, p. 68.
[1002]See, for instance, Bokyngham’s injunction to Heynings in 1392: “Item that no nun there shall keep a private chamber, but that all the nuns, who are in good health, shall lie and sleep in the dorter and those who are ill in the infirmary, saving dame Margaret Darcy, nun of the aforesaid house, to whom on account of her noble birth we wish for the time being to allow that room which she now occupies, but without any service of bread and beer, save in case of manifest illness,”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 397d. But see Gynewell’s injunctions to the convent in 1351.Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 34d. For the use of separate rooms allowed to ill nuns, see Nunappleton (1489),V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 172. At Romsey in 1507 the nuns, under the eye of the visitor, “concluded and provided that Joan Patent, nun, who had hurt her leg, by her consent shall in future have meals in her own chamber and shall daily have in her chamber the right of one nun.” Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 230. But usually the use of the common infirmary is enjoined. Separate lodgings were also allowed to ex-superiors after resignation. See above, p.57.
[1003]P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1257/10, ff. 46, 119, 170, 214.
[1004]P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1260/14.
[1005]Gray,Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge, pp. 27, 147, 155, 163, 171.
[1006]Baker,Hist. of Northants.I, p. 280.
[1007]Reg. J. de Pontissara,I, p. 126. William of Wykeham writes to Wherwell in 1387 concerning the abbess’ illicit detention of “certain distributions and pittances as well in money as in spices,” which divers benefactors had endowed.New Coll.MS. f. 89 vº.
[1008]See below, p.653.
[1009]Reg. Thome de Cantilupo, p. 202. Compare Archbishop Winchelsey’s injunction to Sheppey (1296) “ne qua monialis pecuniam vel aliam rem sibi donatam aut aliqualiter adquisitam sibi retineat sine expressa licencia priorisse” (a loophole).Reg. Roberti Winchelsey, p. 100.
[1010]W. Rye,Carrow Abbey, app.IX, p. xix.
[1011]Linc. Visit.I, p. 68.
[1012]See above, pp.15,17,18.
[1013]Test. Ebor.I, pp. 296-7.
[1014]Ib.II, p. 97.
[1015]Lincolnshire Wills, ed. A. R. Maddison (1880), pp. 4, 6.
[1016]See, for example,Test. Ebor.I, pp. 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 31, 43, 54, 62, 90, 98, 109, 143, 166, 179, 216, 292, 337, 345, 349, 363, 376, 382 (chiefly wills of clergy and country gentry); Nicolas,Test. Vetusta,I, pp. 52, 70, 76, 79, 85, 115, 116, 120, 121, 123, 137, 155, 170, 196, 300, 377 (chiefly wills of the aristocracy); Gibbons,Early Lincoln Wills, pp. 18, 21, 25, 26, 40, 41, 56, 60, 67, 71, 76, 80, 87, 97, 125, 138, 139, 150, 160 (chiefly wills of clergy and country gentry). The wills of the citizens of London preserved in the court of Husting contain many legacies to nuns, chiefly annual rents.
[1017]Gray,Priory of St Radegund, Cambridge, p. 156.
[1018]Test. Ebor.I, pp. 317, 322, 324. The items occur in the inventory of the Bishop’s goods and against each is written “Detur Priorissae de Swyna sorori meae.”
[1019]Ib.I, p. 332.
[1020]Test. Ebor.I, pp. 187-9. He also left the Prioress 13s.4d.and each nun 6s.8d.and each sister 3s.4d.To certain nuns he left special bequests, to Margaret de Pykering, “one piece of silver, with the head of a stag in the bottom and 2s.,” to Elizabeth Fairfax 26s.8d.and to Margaret de Cotam 13s.4d.; also to the Prioress and convent “my white vestment with the gold stars and all the appurtenances thereof and my cross with Mary and John in silver and one gilt chalice.” Nor were his legacies confined to Nunmonkton; he left his two sisters at Sempringham 100s.and two nuns of Nunappleton and Marrick respectively, a cow each.
[1021]Ib.I, pp. 14-15. He also leaves 40s.to the Prioress and convent “for a pittance,” 20s.to another nun there and 6s.8d.to a nun of Watton. He evidently had great confidence in Alice Conyers, for the injunctions of his will are to be carried out “according to the counsel and help of the said Alice Conyers and of my executors.” For other gifts of plate to individuals, seeTest. Ebor.I, p. 216,Somerset Med. Wills,I, pp. 18, 144,Reg. Stafford of Exeter, pp. 392, 415, 416,Testamenta Leodiensia(Thoresby Soc. Pub.II, 1890), p. 108.
[1022]Sharpe,Cal. of Wills ... in the Court of Husting,I, p. 688. She also leaves Margaret and two other nuns a piece of blanket to be divided between them.
[1023]Test. Ebor.I, p. 179. He also leaves her 40s.and a silver cup.
[1024]Somerset Medieval Wills,I, p. 47. Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, left a bed among other things to her daughter, a nun of the house of Minoresses without Aldgate (1399). Nicolas,Test. Vetusta,I, p. 148.
[1025]Test. Ebor.I, p. 382.
[1026]Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 194.
[1027]Test. Ebor.I, p. 51.
[1028]Reg. Stafford of Exeter, p. 392. For other gifts of clothes see Rye,Carrow Abbey, app. p. xix (a habit cloth),Lincoln Wills, ed. Foster, p. 84 (“a fyne mantyll of ix yerds off narow cloth”),Test. Ebor.I, p. 59 (my two robes with mantles),ib.II, p. 255 (my best harnassed belt).
[1029]At Hampole in 1320 he warned the prioress to correct those nuns who used new-fangled clothes, contrary to the accustomed use of the order, “whatever might be their condition or state of dignity,”V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 164 (where the date is wrongly given as 1314).
[1030]See e.g. Wilkins,Conc.I, p. 591;V.C.H. Bucks.I, p. 383;Linc. Visit.I, p. 52;ib.II, pp. 3, 8.
[1031]See above, p.76.
[1032]See above, p.328. For other bequests of rings, see the wills of Sir Guy de Beauchamp, 1359 (his fourth best gold ring to his daughter Katherine at Shouldham), Robert de Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, 1368 (“to the Lady of Ulster, a Minoress ... a ring of gold, which was the duke’s, her brother’s”), Thomas Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, 1369 (rings to his daughter and granddaughter at Shouldham). Nicolas,Test. Vetusta,I, pp. 63, 74, 79. But rings might be put to pious uses. The inventory ofjocaliain the custody of the sacrist of Wherwell (c. 1333-40) contains the item, “a small silver croun, with eleven gold rings fixed in it, for the high altar; another better croun of silver, with nineteen gold rings.”V.C.H. Hants.II, p. 135.
[1033]Linc. Dioc. Doc.ed. A. Clark (E.E.T.S.), p. 50.
[1034]Reg. Stafford of Exeter, p. 415.
[1035]Gibbons,Early Linc. Wills, p. 5. In the Prioress’ room at Sheppey at the Dissolution were found “iiij payre of corall beds, contaynyng in all lviij past gawdy (ed.).” Walcott,Invent. of ... Shepey, p. 29.
[1036]Sussex Arch. Coll.IX, p. 8.
[1037]See pp.272-3.
[1038]Another nun says that she has nothing at all for raiment and another deposes, “seeing that the revenues of the house are not above forty pounds and the nuns are thirteen in number with one novice, so many out of rents so slender cannot have sufficient food and clothing, unless some help be given them from other sources by their secular friends.”Linc. Visit.II, pp. 184, 186.
[1039]For these references, seeLinc. Visit.II, pp. 7, 47, 92, 117, 184, 186;Alnwick’s Visit.MS. ff. 6, 71d, 76, 83. Also injunctions as to food at Elstowib.II, p. 39 (and note).
[1040]Baker,Hist. and Antiq. of Northants.I, pp. 280, 282-3.
[1041]Dugdale,Mon.III, p. 359.
[1042]Temp. Henry VII the Abbess of Elstow’s account records the payment of double commons of 1s.a week to the Prioress and 6d.a week single commons to each of the nuns. Pittances (double to the prioress) are paid on days of profession and on the greater feast. The nuns also had dress allowances in money. C. T. Flower,Obedientiars’ Accounts of Glastonbury and other Relig. Houses(St Paul’s Ecclesiol. Soc.VII, ptII, 1912), pp. 52, 55.
[1043]Visit. of Dioc. of Norwich, ed. Jessopp, p. 290.
[1044]Eng. Hist. Rev.VI, p. 34.
[1045]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 176, 177.
[1046]Reg. J. de Pontissara,I, p. 125.
[1047]Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 103.
[1048]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 164.
[1049]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 397d. Compare Eudes Rigaud’s difficulties with the hens at Saint-Aubin, below, p.653.
[1050]E.g. in the will of Agnes de Denton, 1356 (Item to dame Cecilie de Hmythwayt two cows),Testamenta Karleolensia, p. 12; Sir John Fairfax, 1393 (Item I bequeath to dame Katherine de Barlay, nun of Appleton, one cow. Item to dame Custance Colvyll, nun of Marrick, one cow); Sir William Dronsfeld, 1406 (Item I bequeath to dame Alice de Totehill, nun, one cow. Item I bequeath to dame Margaret de Barneby, one cow); Sir Thomas Rednes 1407 (Item to Alice Redness nun [of Hampole] one cow and one fat pig).Test. Ebor.I, pp. 189, 345, 349.
[1051]Alnwick’s Visit.MS. f. 72.
[1052]Wilkins,Conc.I, p. 593.
[1053]New Coll.MS. ff. 85d, 86. The sin ofproprietasseems to have been serious in this house, for the Bishop couples his prohibition of wills with a prohibition of private rooms and pupils, and later (f. 86d) makes a general injunction against private property.
[1054]V.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 78.
[1055]Wilkins,Conc.I, p. 592.
[1056]In connection with this, see Wickwane’s injunction to Nunappleton in 1281, “We also forbid locked boxes and chests, save if the prioress shall have ordained some seemly arrangement of the kind and shall often see and inspect the contents.”Reg. Wickwane(Surtees Soc.), p. 141. Also Newark’s injunction to Swine in 1298 that “the Prioress and two senior nuns should cause the boxes of any nuns of whom suspicion [of property] should arise to be opened in her presence and the contents seen. And if anyone will not open her box ... then let the prioress break it open.”Reg. of John le Romayn and Hen. of Newark(Surtees Soc.), II, p. 223; compare Eudes Rigaud’s struggle against locked boxes, below, p.652.
[1057]Wilkins,Conc.II, p. 16.
[1058]“Where the lawe and the professyon of yche religyouse person that thei have shuld have one fraitoure and house to ete in in commyn and not in private chaumbers, and so to lygg and slepe in one house, in youre said covent sustren reteynen money and proveis thame selfe privatly ayensthe ordir of religion, etc.” The injunction is coupled with a strong injunction against dowries.Hereford Reg. T. Spofford, p. 224. Compare the injunction to Lymbrook, p.324above.
[1059]V.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 77.
[1060]For other references to thepeculiumfor clothing, seeVisit. of Dioc. of Norwich, ed. Jessopp, p. 274;Sussex Arch. Coll.IX, p. 23; Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, p. 130.
[1061]Thus William of Wykeham, in the course of his severe injunction againstproprietasat Romsey (1387), thus defines it: “Vt autem quid sit proprium vobis plenius innotescat, nos sancti Benedicti regulam imitantes, id totum proprium siue proprietatem fore dicimus et eciam declaramus, quicquid videlicet dederitis vel receperitis sine iussu vestre Abbatisse aut retinueritis sine permissione illius.”New Coll.MS. f. 86d.
[1062]Reg. Wickwane(Surtees Soc.), p. 140.
[1063]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 174.
[1064]Ib.III, p. 164.
[1065]Jessopp,Visit. of Dioc. of Norwich, p. 143.
[1066]Linc. Visit.II, p. 8.
[1067]“The monastery, however, itself ought if possible to be so constructed as to contain within it all necessaries, that is, water, mill, garden and [places for] the various crafts which are exercised within a monastery, so that there be no occasion for monks to wander abroad, since this is in no wise expedient for their souls.”Rule of St Benedict, tr. Gasquet, pp. 117-8.
[1068]Chap.L,ib.p. 88.
[1069]Chap.LI,ib.p. 89.
[1070]Chap.LXVII,ib.p. 118. This, however, is clearly exceptional; the regulation comes in a later chapter and not in the first edition of the rule. The translations of the rule made at a later date for nuns, sometimes specify visits “to fadir or moder or oþer frend” not mentioned in the original.
[1071]In some reformed orders founded at a later date the formula of profession actually contained a vow of perpetual enclosure, e.g. the Poor Clares, whose vow, under the second rule given to them by Urban IV in 1263, comprised obedience, poverty, chastity and enclosure. Thiers,De la Clôture(1681), pp. 41-2. Compare the formula given in the rule of the Order of the Annunciation, founded at the close of the fifteenth century by Jeanne de France, daughter of Louis XI.Ib.p. 55. The nuns of the older orders did not make any specific vow of enclosure, and it was enforced upon them only as an indispensable condition for the fulfilment of their other vows, which accounts for the obstinacy of their opposition; some jurisconsults, indeed, were of the opinion that the Pope could not oblige a nun to be enclosed against her will.Ib.p. 50.
[1072]The passage is quoted in the preface to Thiers,op. cit.For the Church’s view of virginity, see especially St Jerome’s famousEpistola(22)ad Eustochium.
[1073]Thiers,op. cit.p. 245. Quoting the jurisconsult Philippus Probus. For a good example of the mixture of ideas, see Mr Coulton’s account of the arguments used by the monk Idung of St Emmeram in favour of enclosure: “He begins with the usual medieval emphasis on feminine frailty, of which (as he points out) the Church reminds us in her collect for every Virgin Martyr’s feast ‘Victory ... even in the weaker sex.’ Then comes the usual quotation from St Jerome, with its reference to Dinah, which Idung is bold enough to clinch by a detailed allusion to Danae. This, of course, is little more than the usual clerkly ungallantry; but it is followed by a passage of more cruel courtesy. The monk must needs go abroad sometimes on business, as for instance, to buy and sell in markets; ‘but such occupations as these would be most indecent for even an earthly queen, and far below the dignity of a bride of the King of Heaven.’” Coulton,Med. Studies, No. 10, “Monastic Schools in Middle Ages” (1913), pp. 21-2.
[1074]Words which Menander puts in the mouth of one of his characters. Compare the famous Periclean definition of womanly virtue, which is “not to be talked about for good or for evil among men.”
[1075]Coulton,Chaucer and his England, p. 111.
[1076]The following references will be found conveniently collected in Part I chs. 1-16 of a very interesting little book, theTraité de la Clôture des Religieuses, published in Paris in 1681 by Jean-Baptiste Thiers, “Prestre, Bachelier en Theologie de la Faculté de Paris et Curé de Chambrond.” The treatise is divided into two parts, one of which shows “that it is not permitted to nuns to leave their enclosure without necessity,” the other “that it is not permitted to strangers to enter the enclosure of nuns without necessity.” The author contends that enclosure was the immemorial practice of the Church, though the first general decree on the subject was the BullPericuloso; but what he proves is really that the demand grew up gradually and naturally out of the effort to reform the growing abuses in conventual life, which sprang from too free an intercourse with the world.
[1077]Sext. Decret.lib.III, tit. XVI. Quoted inReg. Simonis de Gandavo, pp. 10 ff.; from which I quote. See also Thiers,op. cit.pp. 45-9.
[1078]See Thiers,op. cit.pp. 53-60 for these, except the reforms of Busch, for which see below,App.III. Three papal bulls were published in the sixteenth century reinforcingPericuloso, viz. the BullCirca pastoralis(1566) andDecori et honestati(1570) of Pius V and the BullDeo sacrisof Gregory XIII (1572).
[1079]“Cependant il n’y a gueres aujourd’hui de point de Discipline Ecclesiastique qui soit ou plus negligé, ou plus ignoré que celui de la clôture des Religieuses; et quoique les Conciles, les Saints Docteurs et les Pères des Monasteres, ayent en divers temps et en divers rencontres, employé leur zèle et leur authorité pour en établir la pratique; nous ne laissons pas neanmoins de voir souvent avec douleur qu’on le viole empunément, sans scrupule, sans réflexion et sans necessité. L’Eglise gemit tous les jours en veuë de ce desordre qui la deshonore notablement; et c’est pour compatir en quelque façon à ses gemissemens, que j’entreprens de le combattre dans ce Traité.”Op. cit.Preface.
[1080]Wilkins,Concilia,II., p. 18.
[1081]See, however, the injunctions of Thomas of Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford, to Lymbrook in 1277, which are in part a recital of Ottobon’s Constitutions.Reg. Thome de Cantilupo, p. 201. Peckham, in the injunctions which he sent to Barking and Godstow in 1279, states that they are based respectively upon those issued by John de Chishull, Bishop of London, and by Robert de Kilwardby, his predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury, and it is probable that both of these prelates had attempted to enforce Ottobon’s Constitutions.Reg. Epis. J. Peckham,I, p. 81;II, p. 846.
[1082]He visited Wherwell in the same year, but his injunctions to that house dealt with the entrance of seculars into the nunnery, not with the exit of nuns.
[1083]Reg. Epis. J. Peckham,II, p. 247.
[1084]Ib.I, pp. 85-6.
[1085]Reg. Epis. J. Peckham,I, pp. 265-6, and in Wilkins,op. cit.II, p. 61.
[1086]Wilkins,op. cit.II, pp. 53-9. Thiers’ remarks on the practice of begging by nuns are interesting in this connection. He contends that only sheer famine justifies the breach of enclosure and adds: “C’est pourquoy je ne comprends pas d’où vient que nous voyons à Paris et ailleurs, tant de Religieuses, quelquefois assez jeunes et assez bien faites qui sous pretexte que leurs Monasteres sont dans le besoin, demandent l’aumône aux portes des Eglises, qui courent par les maisons des seculiers et qui demeurent un temps considerable hors de leurs Monasteres, le plus souvent sans sçavoir ne la vie ni les moeurs des personnes qui exercent l’hospitalité envers elles. On rendroit, ce me semble, un grand service à l’Eglise si on les reduisoit aux termes de la Bulle de Gregoire XIII.Deo sacris, qui leur procure les moyens de subsister honnestement dans leurs Monasteres, sans rompre leur clôture. Car ainsi les gens de bien ne seroient point scandalisez de leurs sorties ne de leurs courses, et elles feroient incomparablement mieux leur salut dans leurs Convents que dans le Monde, où je n’estime pas qu’elles puissent rester en seureté de conscience.” He quotes an ordinance of the General of the Franciscan Order in 1609, forbidding even the sisters of the Tertiary Order to beg. Thiers,op. cit.pp. 167-9.
[1087]Reg. Epis. J. Peckham,II, pp. 659, 664-5.
[1088]Ib.II, pp. 707, 806.
[1089]Reg. Simonis de Gandavo, pp. 10 ff., 109.
[1090]Reg. Godfrey Giffard,II, pp. 515, 517.
[1091]Reg. J. de Pontissara, p. 546.
[1092]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, f. 9.
[1093]Ib.ff. 9d, 10d, 11, 12d, 15d.
[1094]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, f. 10d.
[1095]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, f. 35d.
[1096]Ib.f. 16. See below, p.441.
[1097]Ib.
[1098]Agnes Flixthorpe. See below, p.443.
[1099]Ib.f. 152.
[1100]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Sutton, ff. 5d, 32d, 154. For these and other cases of apostasy see Chap.XI,passim.
[1101]Lyndwood,Provinciale(1679), Pt II, p. 155. Quoted by Mr Coulton inMed. Studies, No. 10, “Monastic Schools in the Middle Ages,” p. 21.
[1102]Apparently friends and relatives in the world outside sometimes intervened, by threats or prayers, to save a nun from punishment. Acompertumof Archbishop Giffard’s visitation of Swine in 1267-8 runs: “Item compertum estthat the Prioress is a suspicious woman and far too credulous, and easily breaks out into correction, and often punishes some unequally for equal faults, and follows with long dislike those whom she dislikes until occasion arise to punish them; hence it is that the nuns, when they suspect that they are going to be troubled with excessive correction, procure the mitigation of her severity by means of the threats of their kinsfolk.”Reg. Walter Giffard, p. 147.
[1103]Reg. Walter de Stapeldon, p. 317. Cf. p. 95. When the London mob had beheaded Stapeldon in Cheapside, his place was filled (after the short rule of Berkeley) by an even greater bishop, John Grandisson, who, in the year of his consecration, directed a mandate to the nuns of Canonsleigh in which he attempted to carry out more closely than his predecessor, though still not exactly, the terms ofPericuloso. He forbade the abbess to allow any nuns to leave the precincts before his visitation “that is to such a distance that it is not possible for them to return the same day.” This was on June 23rd 1329; a month later he was obliged to compromise, for on July 18th he sent a licence to Canonsleigh, recapitulating his former mandate but adding a special indulgence, permitting (“for certain legitimate reasons”) the nuns to absent themselves from the monastery “with honest and senior ladies to visit near relatives and friends of themselves and of the house, who are free from all suspicion,” and fixing the limit of their visit at fifteen days, an improvement on Stapeldon’s month, but still far removed from the spirit of Boniface VIII’s bull.Reg. John de Grandisson,I, pp. 508, 511.
[1104]See e.g. Wroxall 1338, “Et vous emouvums [? enioiniums], dame prioresse, qe vous ne seyez mes si legere de doner licence a vos soers de isser de le encloystre et nomement la priourie cume vous avez este en ces houres saunz verreye et resonable enchesun et cause.”Worc. Reg. Sede Vacante, p. 276; and St Radegund’s, Cambridge, 1373: “Item, the Prioress is too easily induced to give permission to the nuns to go outside the cloister.” Gray,Priory of St Radegund’s, Cambridge, p. 36.
[1105]See e.g. Fairwell, 1367.Reg. Robert de Stretton, p. 118. The necessity for an injunction against favouritism is shown by thecompertaof Archbishop Langham’s visitation of St Sepulchre, Canterbury, in 1367-8. “Prioressa non permittit moniales ire in villam ad visitandum amicos suos nisi Margeriam Child et Julianam Aldelesse que illuc vadunt quociens eis placet.”Lambeth Reg. Langham, f. 76d. She was also charged with allowing them to receive suspected visitors. See below, p.399.
[1106]An example of such a licence for a particular nun to leave her house is printed in Fosbroke,British Monachism(1817), p. 361 (noteg) and also in Taunton,Engl. Black Monks of St Benedict,I, p. 108, note 2. It is said to be granted on the prayer of “Lady J. wife of Sir W. knight, of our diocese,” whom the nun is to be allowed to visit, with a companion from the same priory and to go thither on horseback “notwithstanding your customs to the contrary.”
[1107]But Archbishop Melton said twice a year at Arthington in 1315.V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 188.
[1108]See e.g. Bishop Spofford’s regulation at Lymbrook in 1437: “nor to be absent lyggyng oute by nyght out of their monastery, but with fader and moder, excepte causes of necessytee.”Hereford Epis. Reg. Spofford,I, f. 77; and Archbishop Lee’s injunction to Sinningthwaite in 1534: “that she from henceforth licence none of her susters to go fourth of the housse, onles it be for the profitt of the house, or visite their fathers and modres, or odre nere kynsfolkes, if the prioresse shall think it conuenient.”Yorks. Arch. Journ.XVI, p. 442. Compare Bishop Gynewell’s injunction to Godstow (1358), “par necessarie et resonable cause ouesque lour parents, honestement au profit de vostre mesoun.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 100d. Sometimes, however, friends were mentioned, e.g. at Nunkeeling (1314) none was to go out “except on the business of the house or to visit friends and relations.”V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 120. Sometimes the sickness of friends was specified. At Marrick (1252) none was to go out unless “the sickness of friends or some other worthy reason” demanded it,ib.p. 117; and at Studley in 1530-1 Bishop Longland ordained “that ye lycence not eny of your ladyes to passe out of the precincte of our monastery to visite their kynsfolks or frendes, onles it be for ther comforte in tyme of ther sikenes, and yett not than onles it shall seme to you, ladye priores, to be behouefull and necessarye, seing that undre suche pretence moche insolency have been used in religion,”Archaeologia,XLVII, p. 54. One of the nuns of Legbourne in 1440 complained bitterly that “the Prioress will not suffer this deponent to visit her parent who is sick [even] when it was thought that he would die.”Linc. Visit.II, p. 186.
[1109]As, needless to say, she sometimes did. In 1351 Bishop Gynewell was obliged to write to Heynings rebuking such disobedience: “encement si auoms entenduz que les dames de dit mesoun sount acustumez demurrer od lour amys outre le terme par vous, Prioresse, assigne, nous commandoms a vous, Prioress auant dit, qe taunt soulement une foith en 1 an donez conge a les dames de visiter lour amys, et certeyn terme resonable pur reuenir, outre qeule terme sils facent demoer, saunz cause resonable par vous accepte, les chastes pur le trespasse solonc les obseruances de vostres ordre saunz delay.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 34d. At Ivinghoe in 1530 it was discovered that one of the nuns had gone on a visit to her friends without permission and had stayed away from the Feast of St Michael to Passion Sunday in the following year (i.e. over six months), which came perilously near to apostasy,V.C.H. Bucks.I, p. 355. In theVitae Patrum,XC, 206, however, there is a tale of a nun who was lent by her Abbess to a certain religious matron and lived with her for a year. See the version inExempla e sermonibus, etc.ed. T. F. Crane, pp. 26-7.
[1110]V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 120, 128, 175, 177, 178.
[1111]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Gynewell, f. 100d.
[1112]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 118, 122, ff. 6-7, 25, 72, 83, 109. At Godstow the prioress said “that the nuns have often access to Oxford under colour of visiting their friends,” p. 114; and at Heynings a discontented nun said “that sisters Ellen Bryg and Agnes Bokke have often recourse to Lincoln and there make long tarrying.” They denied the charge, but a note in the register states, “The nuns have access too often to the house of the treasurer of Lincoln, abiding there sometimes for a week.” The Bishop forbade “accesse suspecte to Lincolne,” pp. 132, 133, 135.
[1113]Ff. 28d, 77d, 95d. To Catesby,op. cit.p. 51. Compare injunctions to Godstow, Gracedieu, Nuncoton and St Michael’s, Stamford, pp. 116, 125.
[1114]Above, p.348. And compare William of Wykeham’s injunction to Romsey, which repeats Peckham’s constitution on this point word for word.New Coll.MS. f. 85.
[1115]See e.g. Drokensford’s injunction to Minchin Barrow [i.e. Barrow Gurney] in 1315: “quod tunc bene incedant et in habitu moniali et non ad alia loca quam se extendit licencia se diuertant quoque modo, et ultra tempus licencie sue se voluntarie non absentent.” Hugo,Med. Nunneries of Somerset, Barrow, App.II, p. 81.
[1116]See e.g. the synodal Constitutions of c. 1237, Wilkins,Concilia,I, p. 650. Archbishop Courtenay in 1389 sent an interesting injunction to Elstow Abbey, which had evidently been remiss in offering hospitality to travelling nuns: “Inasmuch as it has happened that nuns coming to the monastery on their return from a visit to their friends, have been refused necessities for themselves and for their horses, inhumanly and contrary to the good repute of religion, which we wish to remedy, we order that for each nun thus tarrying provision be made according to the resources of the house, for four horses at least if by day for a whole day, and if [she come] by night or after the hour of nones for the rest of the day and for the night following.”Lambeth Reg. Courtenay,I, f. 336. Injunction repeated by Bishop Flemyng of Lincoln in 1421-2.Visit. of Relig. Houses in Dioc. Linc.I, pp. 50-1.
[1117]See e.g. Peckham’s injunctions to Barking and Godstow. Above, p.348. Religious houses of men were sometimes specially ordered not to receive them, e.g. Bridlington in 1287.Reg. John le Romeyn,I, p. 200. The necessity for such an order appears below, pp.446ff.
[1118]E.g. Peckham to St Sepulchre, Canterbury (1284): “Nullum quoque potum aut cibum ibidem sumat, moram non protrahat, sed statim expedita causa accessus hujusmodi redeat indilate.”Reg. Epis. J. Peckham,II, p. 707; and Bokyngham to Elstow (1387): “Cum vero recreacionis causa, obtenta superioris licencia, moniales antedicte egrediuntur monasterii sui septa, incedant cum familiarium honesta comitiua et sufficiente, ad idem monasterium, redeuntes de eodem citra solis occasum.”Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham, f. 343.
[1119]At Wroxall in 1338 it was specially ordered “qe deux jeunes ne issent poynt ensemble pur male suspecioun qe de ceo purra legerement sourdre, ke Dieuz defent.”Worc. Reg. Sede Vacante, p. 276. At Lymbrook in 1437 Bishop Spofford ordered that no nun was to go out without a companion, and “in case they lygge owte be nyght, two sustres to lye togeder in on bed,” a practice which (according to the usual custom) he forbids in the dorter.Hereford Epis. Reg. Spofford, f. 77.
[1120]See Thiers,op. cit.PtI, chs.XVIII,XXII,XXIII,XXIV,XXXI. He quotes the stories of the nuns of Arles in the fifth century and of Marcigny in the eleventh century, who refused to break their enclosures even for fire and were miraculously preserved, pp. 12-13, 32-5.
[1121]The rhymed Northern Rule of St Benedict for nuns (l. 2094) says that when they go away into the country they should wear “more honest” clothes. “In habitu moniali” is one of the conditions imposed on the nuns of Barrow Gurney in 1315. See above, p.358, note 4. The necessity for such a regulation appears in the decree made by Henry Archbishop of Cologne, executing an enactment of the Provincial Council of Cologne (1310), promulgatingPericuloso. “Nevertheless we often see that having come out of their monasteries they [the nuns] wander about the roads and public places and frequent the houses of secular persons. And, what is more deplorable, having put off their religious habit, they appear in secular dress and bear themselves in public with so much vanity that their conduct may justly be considered suspicious, although their conscience be really pure and without sin. And although hitherto they have been menaced with divers penalties, nevertheless the more strictly they are forbidden to live after this fashion, the more eagerly they disobey, so strongly do they hanker after forbidden things.” The whole injunction is worthy of study. Thiers,op. cit.pp. 491-3. Discipline was laxer in German convents than in those of England. In England, however, there are sometimes complaints that male religious leave their convents in secular attire; see a case at Huntingdon Priory in 1439,Linc. Visit.II, pp. 154-5.
[1122]Seeib.XXV,XXVI,XXVII. A few examples may be given of nuns leaving their houses to become superiors elsewhere: Basedale got prioresses from Rosedale in 1524 and 1527 (Yorks. Arch. Soc.XVI, p. 431 note); Rosedale from Clementhorpe in 1525 (Dugdale,Mon.IV, pp. 317, 385); Kington from Bromhale in 1326 (ib.IV, p. 398) and Ankerwyke from Bromhale in 1421 (Visit. of Relig. Houses in Dioc. Linc.I, p. 156). Sometimes the prioress of one house left it to rule another, e.g. Elizabeth Davell, Prioress of Basedale, became Prioress of Keldholme in 1467 (V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 169). Alice Davy, who occurs as Prioress of Castle Hedingham in 1472 and was afterwards Prioress of Wix (V.C.H. Essex,II, p. 123), and Eleanor Bernard, Prioress of Little Marlow (c. 1516) became Abbess of Delapré (Dugdale,Mon.IV, p. 149). For a form of licence from a prioress, permitting a nun to accept the office of prioress elsewhere, seeMS. Harl.862, f. 94 (“Literae Priorissae de Bromhale quibus licenciam impertit Clementiae Medforde ejusdem Domus, consorori et communiali, ut Prioratui de Ankerwyke sicut Priorissa praeesse valeat”); and compare the reply of the Prioress of St Bartholomew’s, Newcastle, to the Bishop of Durham about the election of Dame Margaret Danby, a nun of her house, to be Prioress of St Mary’s, Neasham, “Whilk Postulacion I graunt fully with assent of my chapiter atte Reverence of God and in plesing of yor gracious lordship; not wythstondyng yat she is ful necessarye and profitable to us both in spirituall governance and temporall” (1428). (V.C.H. Durham,II, p. 107.) Sometimes a mother house from over the sea tried to assert its right to nominate the head of one of its daughter houses, but Cluniacs, Cistercians, Premonstratensians and houses affiliated to Fontevrault were all extremely jealous of French interference. See the letter written by Mary, daughter of Edward I, a nun of Amesbury, to her brother the King in 1316 protesting against the action of the Abbess of Fontevrault, who was reputed to be sending “a prioress from beyond the sea,” instead of acceding to the convent’s request that one of their own number might succeed to the office. Wood,Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies,I, pp. 60-63. It was always held desirable if possible to take a superior from among the nuns of the house in which the vacancy occurred, but sometimes no suitable person could be found.
[1123]See Thiers,I, ch.XXII, who mentions the corollary that the superior of another house may be called in to correct rebellious nuns if their own head is unable to do so. See below, p.466. In 1501 Emma Powes, then at Romsey, is said to have been professed at King’s Mead near Derby “and from that place had been removed to another priory in the Hereford diocese, where she had been prioress, and thence had come to this house.” A charge of incontinence was made against her, and we know from another source that she had been prioress of Lymbrook (she was deprived on or about 24 Nov. 1488,Hereford Reg. Myllyng, p. 112). It is interesting that in 1492 one of the nuns had asked that “a nun who has been brought in, be restored to the place to which she is professed.” Liveing,Records of Romsey Abbey, pp. 219, 225. One of Alnwick’s injunctions to Clemence Medforde, Prioress of Ankerwyke in 1441, was “that henceforth she should not admit that nun of Hinchinbrooke either into the house or to dwell among them, and also that she should not deliver to her that bond which she has from the house of Hinchinbrooke, or any other goods which she has of the same house.”Linc. Visit.II, p. 6. In a list of the nuns of Thetford in 1526 occurs the name of “Domina Elianora Hanam, professa in Wyke (Wix).” Jessopp,Visit. in Dioc. Norwich, p. 243.
[1124]Such, for instance, as leprosy. In 1287 Archbishop John le Romeyn sent a request to the master of Sherburn Hospital, Durham, to receive Basilia de Cotum, a nun of Handale, “quia, ... lepre deformitate aspersa, propter suspectam morbi contagionem, morari non poterit inter sanos, devocionem vestram rogamus quatinus ipsam in hospitali vestro velitis recipere et seorsum in necessariis exhibere, ita, tamen, quod sub religioso habitu quem gerit Deo serviat dum subsistit.”Reg. John le Romeyn,I, p. 163. Richard de Wallingford, the great abbot of St Albans, was a leper, but remained in his house.
[1125]Dugdale,Mon.V, p. 493. Dugdale remarks that “a little scandal also appears to have been attached to her character.” She finally resigned on account of old age in 1320, and perhaps the leave of absence referred to accounts for the appearance of another Prioress in 1308 who resigned in 1309.V.C.H. Yorks.III, pp. 180-1.
[1126]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 127, note 13.
[1127]V.C.H. Dorset,II, p. 78. In 1427 the papal licence was granted to one Isabel Falowfeld, nun of St Bartholomew’s, Newcastle on Tyne, to transfer herself to another monastery of the same order, on account of her weak constitution and the inclemency of the air near St Bartholomew’s.Cal. of Papal Letters,VII, p. 516. See Thiers on the subject,op. cit.pp. 140-2, 213-5. He quotes the decision of the University of Salamanca on the question as to whether the General or any minor official of the Minorites had the power to give permission to a nun of the order who was dangerously ill, to leave her house and enter another of the same order, so as to recover her health. “Exactissima discussione facta circa praesentem difficultatem, omnes unanimiter atque uno ore responderunt atque dixerunt, non posse id fieri stando in jure communi, quod et multis juribus atque rationibus comprobarunt” (p. 214). He also quotes the case of a nun of the Annunciation of Agen, of whom the doctors said that if she stayed in her house she would infallibly die, but if she went out for a change of air and medicinal baths she would infallibly be cured. To which alternative the General of the Order, on being asked to give her a dispensation to go out, replied in one word “Moriatur” (p. 217). But these were both strictly enclosed orders.
[1128]“Si quae vero moniales ad balnea qualitercumque processerint extra monasteria, irremissibiliter priventur habitu regulari; et licentiantes easdem ut praedicta petant balnea, sententiam excommunicationis incurrant.”Nomasticon Cisterciense, p. 533, also in Thiersop. cit.p. 220; cf. pp. 216 ff. But the public baths were of notoriously bad reputation.
[1129]See Thiers,op. cit.PtI, ch.XLII-XLVII. From the fact that he thinks it necessary to devote five chapters to the subject and from the evidence which he adduces and the language which he uses, it is clear that the practice was very prevalent.
[1130]Decret.III, tit.XXXI, c. 18. See Thiers,op. cit.pp. 161-2. Licences to migrate to a convent professing a stricter rule are sometimes found in episcopal registers. See e.g.Hereford Reg. Caroli Bothe, p. 241.
[1131]See his letter to a superior, quoted by Thiers: “Je suis tout-à-fait d’avis que l’on n’ouvre point la porte au changement des Maisons pour le souhait des filles: car ce changement est tout-à-fait contraire au bien des Monasteres qui ont la clôture perpetuelle pour article essentiel. Les filles comme foibles, sont sujettes aux ennuis et les ennuis leur font trouver des expediens et importuns et indiscrets. Que les changemens doncques procedent des jugemens des superieurs et non du désir des filles, qui ne sçauroient mieux declarer qu’elles ne doivent point estre gratifiées, que quand elles se laissent emporter a des desirs si peu justes. Il faut donc demeurer là, et laisser chaque rossignol dans son nid; car autrement le moindre deplaisir qui arriveroit à une fille, seroit capable de l’inquieter et luy faire prendre le change: Et au lieu de se changer elle-même, elle penseroit d’avoir suffisament remedié à son mal, quand elle changeroit de Monastere.” Thiers,op. cit.pp. 160-1.
[1132]Plainly she regarded the things as her own private property and was thus guilty of the sin ofproprietasas well. Compare the evidence of the Abbot of Bardney concerning one of his monks in 1439-40. “Also he deposes that brother John Hale sent out privily all his private goods, with the mind and intent, as it appeared, to leave the house in apostasy and especially a silver spoon and a mazer garnished with silver; and yet he has not yet gone, nor will he disclose to the abbot where such goods are.”Linc. Visit.II, p. 26.
[1133]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 127-9.
[1134]The three anchoresses ofThe Ancren Riwleand their maids will be remembered.
[1135]Raine,Letters from Northern Registers(Rolls Ser.), pp. 196-8. See also Rotha Clay,Hermits and Anchorites of England, pp. 93-4.
[1136]V.C.H. Yorks.III, p. 113 (cf.Test. Ebor.II, p. 98). Two other Yorkshire nuns are found as anchoresses in the first part of the fourteenth century. Joan Sperry, nun of Clementhorpe, was anchoress at Beeston near Leeds in 1322, and in 1348 Margaret la Boteler, nun of Hampole, was anchoress at the chapel of East Layton, Yorks. Clay,op. cit.pp. 254-5, 256. See also the curious case of Avice of Beverley, a nun of Nunburnholme, concerning whom “the Prioress and nuns say that Avice of Beverley, sometime professed nun of Nunburnholme, thrice left the house to the intent that she might lead a stricter life elsewhere. They say that fourteen years at least have passed since she last went away; howbeit they believe her to have lived in chastity. They say that she was disobedient every year and very often while she was with them. They say that she dwelt with them for thirty years before she left the monastery for the first time.” The inquiry which elicited this information was made because she wanted to return (1280).Reg. Wm. Wickwane, p. 92. She had probably tried being an anchoress.
[1137]Visit. of Relig. Houses in Dioc. Linc.I, pp. 113-15. The prioress’ licence addressed to Beatrice is also printed. It may be well here to repeat the editor’s warning that “acts of this description probably form the foundation for the ridiculous superstition, made famous by a striking passage of Scott’sMarmion, that nuns and others who had broken the laws of the church were commonly walled up and left to perish.” Another and perhaps more probable explanation of the superstition is that Scott probably, and certainly others after him, misinterpreted the wordsimmuratio,emmurer, which are constantly used of strict imprisonment by inquisition officials and others. See on the subject, H. Thurston, S.J.,The Immuring of Nuns(Catholic Truth Soc. Historical Papers, No.V).
[1138]Celestria (? Celestina), nun, and Adilda, nun, are mentioned as anchoresses there. Clay,op. cit.pp. 222-3.
[1139]Ib.p. 184. An “ancress” was found at this house at the time of the Dissolution.
[1140]For her works seeRevelations of Divine Love, recorded by Julian, Anchoress at Norwich, ed. Grace Warrack (1901). She is apparently not to be confused with another famous anchoress, Julian Lampet, bequests to whom are often recorded in Norwich wills between 1426 and 1478. The priory seems to have had a succession of two or even three anchoresses named Julian. See Rye,Carrow Abbey, pp. 7-8 and App.IX,passim. For anchoresses enclosed at conventual houses of men, see Clay,op. cit.pp. 77-8; anchoresses are sometimes described as “nun,”ib.pp. 224, 232, 238, 244. Matilda Newton, a nun of Barking, who had been appointed to rule the new Abbey of Syon, but for some reason did not become abbess, returned to her own house as a recluse in 1417.Ib.p. 144.
[1141]Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Dalderby, f. 10 (date 1300). The author ofDives and Pauperdeclares that such secessions were rare among women: “We se that whanne men take thē to be ankeris and reclusys withinne fewe yerys comonly eyther they falle in reūsys or eresyes or they breke out for womās loue or for inkyede of ther lufe or by some gile of þe fend. But of wimē ancres so inclusid is seldome herde any of these defautys, but holely they begīne and holely they ende.”Dives and Pauper, com.VI, ch. B.
[1142]See above, pp.69-71.
[1143]Wilkins,Concilia,II, p. 18. Compare William of Wykeham’s injunctions to Romsey in 1387: “Constitutiones bone memorie domini Othoboni quondam sedis apostolice in Anglia legati in hoc casu editas ut conuenit imitantes, vobis sub penis infrascriptis districcius inhibemus, ne ad officinas aliquas aut alias cameras quascumque forinsecas extra septa claustri, vel ad alia loca in villam vel alibi extra vestrum monasterium, illis quibus hoc ex officio competit dumtaxat exceptis ... exeatis.”New Coll.MS. f. 84. Compare also the injunctions (likewise modelled on Ottobon’s constitution) sent by Thomas of Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford, to Lymbrook about 1277.Reg. Thome de Cantilupo, p. 201.
[1144]Linc. Visit.II, pp. 122, 125.
[1145]Cistercian Stat.A.D.1257-88, ed. J. T. Fowler, 1890, p. 106.
[1146]Blunt,Myroure of Oure Ladye(E.E.T.S.), Introd. pp. xxviii, xxxii.
[1147]P.R.O. Mins. Accts.1260/3.
[1148]“Paid for the hire of three horses for six days going to London for our tithes ..., paid for the hire of a serving-man and for his expenses going with the said horses 2/3, item sent to Dame Katherine Fitzaleyn at the same time 6/8” (Prioress’ Account),ib.1260/4. The treasuress’ account for the same year throws further light upon her movements. “Paid for the expenses of Dame Katherine Fitzaleyn and Dame Ida going to London and for the hire of their horses going and returning, for our tithes £2. 11. 0. ... In the expenses of the sub-Prioress and Dame Katherine Fitzaleyn and two men and three horses going to Fleet for rent and for salt 3/8. In the expenses of Dame Katherine Fitzaleyn and dame Joan Fishmere [the treasuress] for hire of horses 8d.”Ib.1260/5. Dame Katherine also went to the Bishop to get a certificate and in 1377-8 she went with the treasuress Dame Margaret Redinges to Corby and to Sempringham (perhaps to visit the Gilbertine nuns there) and Dames Margaret Redinges and Joan Fishmere went with Robert Clark to Clapton.Ib.1260/7
[1149]Reg. of John de Sandale and Rigaud de Asserio, p. 418. Similar letter to Prior and Convent of the Cathedral Church, p. 576.
[1150]Wilkins,Concilia,II, p. 18.
[1151]Reg. Thome de Cantilupo, p. 201.
[1152]New Coll.MS. f. 85d.