Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:10:35.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monastic Burials of Non-Patronal Lay Benefactors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

David Postles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Choice of place of burial in the Middle Ages was perhaps the most poignant indicator of belief in the efficacy of different sorts of religious intercession. Ariès concluded that the pre-modern response to death was public and communitarian, becoming only latterly private and individualistic. Most recent reconsiderations of notions of death and burial have concentrated on the early modern period. For this period, the distinction made by Ariès between modern, private, individualistic burial practices and earlier public, communitarian rites, has been revised, both in the sense that this change occurred earlier than Ariès would allow and that other influences were at work, in particular the formative consequences of the Reformation. Research into death and burial in the later Middle Ages has tended to confirm the communitarian nature of the rites surrounding death and burial. Burial in the high Middle Ages has been reviewed from a much more pragmatic rather than theoretical perspective, as a consequence of which the wholly communitarian picture depicted by Ariès has hardly been challenged. Presented here, however, is some modification to the Ariès thesis, supported by some very particular evidence, burials of lay persons who were not of patronal status, in religious houses, within the wider context of burial practices in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in England.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 620 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ariès, P., Western attitudes towards death: from the Middle Ages to the present, Baltimore 1974Google Scholar, and The hour of our death London 1981Google Scholar.

2 Houlbrooke's, R. A. editorial introduction to Death, ritual and bereavement, London 1989Google Scholar, is perhaps the best exposition. Gittings, C., Death, burial and the individual in early modern England, London 1984Google Scholar, preferred later changes with a different causation following Stone, L.. Whaley, J. (ed.), Mirrors of mortality: studies in the social history of death, London 1989, esp. ‘Introduction’ (at pp. 1–14)Google Scholar emphasises rather the dynamics of ritual (esp. at p. 2).

3 Burgess, C., ‘“For the increase of divine service”: chantries in the parish in late medieval Bristol’, this Journal xxxvi (1985), 48–65Google Scholar, is an important contribution. Duffy, E., The stripping of the altars: traditional religion in England c. 1400–c. 1580, Harvard 1992, 301–76Google Scholar, summarises the extensive literature. Wood-Legh, K. L., Perpetual chantries in Britain, Cambridge 1965Google Scholar, emphasised the late medieval nature of this particular form of communitarian response to death. The ritual aspects of death and burial are interestingly elaborated by Finucane, R., ‘Sacred corpse, profane carrion: social ideals and death rituals in the later Middle Ages’, in Whaley, Mirrors of mortality, 40–60Google Scholar. See also Boase, T. R., Death in the Middle Ages, London 1972Google Scholar.

4 For a résumé of recent research for England see Burton, J., Monastic and religious orders in Britain, 1000–1300, Cambridge 1994, 217–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Research into burial in southern European religious houses has taken a less empirical approach. Thus Geary, P. J. states that ‘The present abandonment of the dead is the end result of a gradual process in Western society. It began perhaps in the High Middle Ages, when specialists (monks and canonesses) were entrusted with the care and remembrance of the dead’: Living with the dead in the Middle Ages, Ithaca 1994, 2Google Scholar. The thesis presented here, whilst acknowledging the force of some of Geary's arguments, develops in a different direction. See also Geary, P. J., ‘Echanges et relations entre les vivants et les morts dans la société au haut moyen âge’, Droit et Cultures xii (1986), 3–17Google Scholar. For a further revision of Ariès see McLaughlin, M., Consorting with saints: prayer for the dead in early medieval France, Ithaca 1994, esp. pp. 44–54, 147–8, 118–32Google Scholar, for burials in religious houses in ‘France’. Whilst Geary emphasises the relationship of gift-exchange between living and dead, McLaughlin promotes the notion of associative social bonds between laity and religious to form a liturgical community.

5 Burgess, , ‘“For the increase of divine service”’; Whiting, R., The blind devotion of the people: popular religion and the English Reformation, Cambridge 1989, 20Google Scholar; Brigden, S., London and the Reformation, Oxford 1989, 385–92Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, J. J., The Reformation and the English people, Oxford 1984, 3–18Google Scholar; Rosser, A. G., ‘Communities of parish and guild in the late Middle Ages’, in Wright, S. J. (ed.), Parish, church and people, London 1988, 29–55Google Scholar.

6 The mandate of Pope Innocent IV to the bishop of Worcester in 1254 may have been concerned with the popularity of burials in friaries at the expense of parish churches: The cartulary of Worcester cathedral priory (Register), ed. Darlington, R. R. (Pipe Roll Society lxxvi, 1962–1963), 241–2, no. 464Google Scholar.

7 Helmholz, R. H., ‘Legitim in English legal history’, in his Canon law and the law of England, London 1987, 247–62Google Scholar; the legitim involved here is the (third) part reserved to donors, over which they had full power of disposition, by contrast with the legitim or third part reserved for children and the third part (effectively dower) for widows.

8 Golding, B., ‘Burials and benefactions: an aspect of monastic patronage in thirteenth-century England’, in Ormrod, W. M. (ed.), England in the thirteenth century: proceedings of the 1984 Harlaxton symposium, Nottingham 1985, 64–75Google Scholar, and ‘Anglo-Norman knightly burials’, in Harper-Bill, C. and Harvey, R. (eds), The ideals and practice of knighthood: papers from the fast and second Strawberry Hill conferences, Woodbridge 1986, 35–48Google Scholar. Despite its title, the latter relates exclusively to burials of patrons or founders and their kin.

9 Williams, D. H., ‘Layfolk within Cistercian precincts’, in Loades, J. (ed.), Monastic studies II, Bangor 1991, 104–7Google Scholar.

10 Elkins, S., Holy women of twelfth-century England, Chapel Hill 1988Google Scholar; Thompson, S., Women religious: the founding of English nunneries after the Norman Conquest, Oxford 1991Google Scholar.

11 Brooke, C. N. L., The monastic world 1000–1300, London 1974, 168Google Scholar; Gilchrist, R., Gender and material culture: the archaeology of religious women, London 1994, 58–9, 61Google Scholar.

12 Stoke by Clare Cartulary, ed. Harper-Bill, C. and Mortimer, R. (Suffolk Records Society iv–vi, 1982), 304–5, no. 461Google Scholar.

13 Ibid. iii. 2.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid. iii. 3.

16 But see, however, Harper-Bill, C., ‘The piety of the Anglo-Norman knightly class’, in Brown, R. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Battle conference II 1979, Woodbridge 1980, 63–77, 173–6Google Scholar, where a strong case is made for Clare having been an honorial spiritual centre for some time, and, perhaps by way of comparison, Ward, J., ‘Fashions in monastic endowment’, this Journal xxxii (1981), 427–51Google Scholar.

17 The charters of Norwich cathedral priory, ed. Dodwell, B. (Pipe Roll Society ns xl, 1974 for 1965–6), i. 12, no. A20Google Scholar; English episcopal acta, VII: Norwich, ed. Harper-Bill, C., Oxford 1990, 18–21, no. 21Google Scholar. (I am grateful for this reference to Dr Harper-Bill who points out to me that although the actum of the bishop is spurious and although the bishop did not concede the claim of Thetford, the account represents what the monks of that house expected to happen - that the principal tenants of Bigod could be buried at Thetford in accordance with their honorial ties.)

18 The Eynsham cartulary, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxford Historical Society xlix, li, 1906–1908), i. 91, no. 100Google Scholar. See also the admission of a married couple into the fraternity of Norwich cathedral priory, 1107 x 1114, on their gift of the manor of Eaton, which involved a monk performing services on their behalf: Charters of Norwich cathedral priory (Pipe Roll Society ns xlvi, 1985 for 1978–80), ii. 197, no. 364Google Scholar.

19 Burton, , Monastic and religious orders, 138Google Scholar.

20 Tsurushima, H., ‘The fraternity of Rochester cathedral priory about 1100’, in Chibnall, M. (ed.), Anglo-Norman Studies XIV: proceedings of the Battle conference 1991, Woodbridge 1992, 313–37Google Scholar; Registrum Roffense, ed. Thorpe, J., London 1769, 370–1Google Scholar (I owe this reference to Dr Brett). Tsurushima equates fraternity with burial, citing as evidence the enlargement of the monks' cemetery (p. 336), but there is no conclusive evidence that fraternity conferred burial; burial is mentioned only twice, in each case associated with receipt of the deceased's part of his chattels.

21 Cartulary of Worcester cathedral priory, 80–1, 128–9, 179, 207, nos 143, 243, 335, 394. Similarly, there appear to be no gifts for burial amongst the charters of Norwich cathedral priory: Charters of Norwich cathedral priory, pp. i–ii.

22 Cartulary of Worcester cathedral priory, 81, no. 144.

23 Franklin, M. J., ‘Bodies in medieval Northampton: legatine intervention in the twelfth century’, in Franklin, M. J. and Harper-Bill, C. (eds), Medieval ecclesiastical studies in honour of Dorothy M. Owen, Woodbridge 1995, 57–81 at pp. 68–79Google Scholar, and ‘The cathedral as parish church: the case of southern England’, in Abulafia, D., Franklin, M. J. and Rubin, M. (eds), Church and city 1000–1250: essays in honour of Christopher Brooke, Cambridge 1992, 173–98Google Scholar.

24 McLaughlin, , Consorting with saints, 118–32Google Scholar. For burials in twelfth-century Burgundian and southern French religious houses see Bouchard, C. B., Sword, miter, and cloister: nobility and the church in Burgundy, 980–1198, Ithaca 1987, 190–3Google Scholar, and Bull, M., Knightly piety and the lay response to the first Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony, c.970–1130, Oxford 1993, 143–54Google Scholar.

25 For example Oliver de Sutton's permission to the Carmelites of Boston in 1293 to bury ‘others’ in their conventual cemetery: The rolls and register of Oliver de Sutton, bishop of Lincoln, ed. Hill, R. M. T. (Lincoln Record Society xxxix, xliii, xlviii, lii, lx, lxiv, lxix, lxxvi, 1948–1986), iv. 127–8Google Scholar.

26 I am grateful to Dr Harper-Bill for posing this question. In the case of the mendicants, it is probable that the permission was indeed used to meet demands for burial, but that explanation is less certain for the older religious orders.

27 For an example see below, p. 634 and n. 76

28 Again, I am grateful to Dr Harper-Bill for posing this question. The primary objective at the earlier time of association with saints and the religious is promoted by McLaughlin, Consorting with saints, passim; equally, the anticipated association might have been with the relics of some houses at an earlier time: White, S. D., Custom, kinship and gifts to saints: the laudatio parentum in western France, 1050–1150, Chapel Hill 1988, 26Google Scholar. The evidence seems to suggest that the earlier motive for burial amongst the religious was association with spiritual persons, and that intercession by the laity was not invited until later.

29 Rolls and register of Oliver de Sutton, iii. 43, 54, 58–9, 81, 85, 145, 166–7, 180) 189, 191, 192–3; iv. 2, 7, 73, 81, 83, 87, 92, 101, 132, 146, 180, 191; v. 9, 10, 19, 31, 35, 107, 190, 195, 199. 212; vi. 8, 14, 20, 31, 99, 113, 116, 130, 149, 153, 204.

30 For these houses see Chew, H. M., The ecclesiastical tenants in chief and knight service, Oxford 1932Google Scholar.

31 Helmholz, ‘Legitim in English legal history’.

32 Cheney, M., ‘Inalienability in mid-twelfth century England: enforcement and consequences’, in Kuttner, S. and Pennington, K. (eds), Proceedings of the sixth international congress of medieval canon law, Vatican City 1985, 467–78Google Scholar; Hudson, J., Land, law, and lordship in Anglo-Norman England, Oxford 1994, 231–46Google Scholar; Reynolds, S., Fiefs and vassals: the medieval evidence reinterpreted, Oxford 1994, 176–7Google Scholar.

33 ‘An abstract of the contents of the Burton chartulary’, ed. Wrottesley, G. (Collections for a History of Staffordshire, i/v, 1884), 30Google Scholar: ‘Cum autem mortuus fuerit deferre ad nos se faciet cum tota pecunia sua ad sepeliendum.’

34 Ibid. 34.

35 ibid. 34–5.

36 Ibid. 35–6.

37 Ibid. 36.

38 St Benet of Holme 1020–1210, ed. West, J. R. (Norfolk Record Society ii, 1932), 105–6, no. 190Google Scholar.

39 The cartulary of Daventry Priory, ed.Franklin, M. J. (Northamptonshire Record Society xxxv, 1988), 172–3, 243–4Google Scholar.

40 Reading Abbey cartularies, ed. Kemp, B. (Camden 4th ser. xxxi, xxxiii, 1986, 1989), ii. 242, no. 1079Google Scholar.

41 Cartulary of Daventry Priory, 286–7, nos 875–8.

42 Stoke by Clare cartulary, ii. 351, no. 540.

43 Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon, ed. Stephenson, J. (Rolls Series 1858), ii. 124Google Scholar.

44 Ibid. 12–15.

45 Ibid. 108.

46 Ibid. 122–3.

47 Ibid. 145.

48 Ibid. 166–7.

49 Ibid. 170.

50 Compare the gift, 1100 x 1106, of the land of Stanmere by William, count of Mortain, to St Alban's Abbey, where his sister, Mabilia, was buried: Levett, E. A., Studies in manorial history, ed. Cam, H. M., Coate, M. and Sutherland, L. S., Oxford 1963 edn, 171Google Scholar.

51 Williams, , ‘Layfolk within Cistercian precincts’, 104–7Google Scholar.

52 Dickinson, J. C., The origins of the Austin Canons and their introduction to England, London 1950Google Scholar; Colvin, H. M., The White Canons in England, Oxford 1951Google Scholar; Kershaw, I., Bolton Priory: the economy of a northern monastery, Oxford 1973, 5–7Google Scholar.

53 Cartulary of the priory of St Gregory, Canterbury, ed. Woodcock, A. M. (Camden 3rd ser. lxxxviii, 1956), 1, no. 1Google Scholar. Dr Brett informs me that this document is a thirteenth-century composition, which may affect the authenticity of its details.

54 Golding, , ‘Anglo-Norman knightly burials’, 36Google Scholar.

55 The Thurgarton cartulary, ed. Foulds, T., Stamford 1994, 187–8, no. 319Google Scholar.

56 Ibid. 342–4, no. 561.

57 Sibton Abbey cartularies, ed. Brown, P. (Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters vi, viii, ix, x, 1985–1988), ii. 272–3, no. 374Google Scholar.

58 Reading Abbey cartularies, 242–6, nos 1079–86.

59 Mauss, M., The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, trans. Halls, W. D., London 1990Google Scholar; Rosenwein, B. H., To be the neighbor of St Peter: the social meaning of Cluny's property, 909–1049, Ithaca 1989Google Scholar.

60 Wales, C. J., ‘The knight in twelfth-century Lincolnshire’, unpubl. PhD diss. Cambridge 1983, 235–60Google Scholar.

61 Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. Hart, W. H. (Rolls Series 1863), i. 244–5 (1148 x 1179)Google Scholar.

62 The cartulary of Burscough Priory, ed. Webb, A. N. (Chetha m Society 3rd ser. xviii, 1970), 89, no. 88Google Scholar; Luffield Priory charters, ed. Elvey, G. R. (Northamptonshire Record Society xxv–vi, 1974–1975), ii, 126–7, no. 444Google Scholar; Darley cartulary, ed. Darlington, R. R., Kendal 1945, 125, 277, 287, 305, nos B35, F80, F104, G24Google Scholar; Thurgarton cartulary, 39, 342–4, nos. 61, 561; The cartulary of Cockersand Abbey, ed. Farrer, W. (Chetham Society 2nd ser. xxviii–xl, xliii, lvi–vii, 1898–1905), i/ii. 267–8, no. 8Google Scholar; Rufford charters, ed. Holdsworth, C. J., (Thoroton Society Record Series xxix–xxxi, 1972), i. 33, no. 50Google Scholar; Blythburgh Priory cartulary, ed. Harper-Bill, C. (Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters ii, 1980–1981), i. 84, no. 128Google Scholar; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc 625, fos iv–v, at fo. vr (Leicester Abbey).

63 Southwick cartularies, ed. Hanna, K. A. (Hampshire Record Society ix–x, 1989), ii. 101–3, no. III, 289–92Google Scholar.

64 Rufford charters, i, p. xl, bu t his exampl e reveals tha t even cumulative gifts still amounted to inconsiderable totals - only two acres.

65 Southwick cartularies, i. 28–32, nos 1, 48, 50, 52, 54.

66 Luffield Priory charters, pp. ii. liv–lvi, 126–9, 158–9, nos 444–7, 490.

67 The Thame cartulary, ed. Salter, H. E. (Oxfordshire Record Society xxv–vi, 1947–1948), i. 18, no. 27Google Scholar.

68 Blythburgh Priory cartulary, i. 57–64, nos 65–82.

69 Reading Abbey cartularies, i. 244–5, 319, nos 295, 393.

70 Southwick cartularies, i. 28–32, no. 1, 47–54.

71 Ibid. i. 35, no. 1, 62.

72 Ibid. ii. 219–20, no. III, 568.

73 The cartulary of Tutbury Priory, ed. Saltman, A. (Historical Manuscripts Commission JP 2, 1962), 66–7, no. 53Google Scholar.

74 Rufford charters, i. 211, no. 396.

75 Sibton Abbey charters, ii. 117, 313, nos 148, 429.

76 The cartulary of the Augustinian Friars of Clare, ed. Harper-Bill, C. (Suffolk Records Society, Suffolk Charters xi, 1991), 90–2, nos 158–9, 161–2Google Scholar.

77 Ibid. 84, no. 140 [1361].

78 Ibid. 75, no. 121 [1377].

79 See, for example, the comments of Carpenter, C., ‘The religion of the gentry of fifteenth-century England’;, in Williams, D. (ed.), England in the fifteenth century: proceedings of the 1986 Harlaxton symposium, Woodbridge 1987, 67Google Scholar: ‘although some gentry and noble families were still remembering monastic institutions with which they had a particular link’.

80 Rosenthal, J., The purchase of paradise: gift giving and the aristocracy 1307–1485, London 1972, ch. v, esp. table 7 at p. 82Google Scholar.

81 Testamenta Eboracensia, ed. Raine, J. (Surtees Society iv, 1836), i. 47Google Scholar (will of Thomas de Chaworth, 1347). There are other instances from the 1340s through the late fourteenth century of burial in other houses: Sulby Abbey; Gisburne Priory; Bretton Priory; Malton Priory; Whatton Priory; Cockersand Abbey; St Mary's, York; Worksop Priory; Helaugh Park; Rievaulx Abbey; Selby Abbey; Salley Abbey; but see further the comments below for the comparative context.

82 Saul, N., Scenes from provincial life: knightly families in Sussex, 1280–1400, Oxford 1986, 145 n. 18Google Scholar.

83 Ibid. 142–3, 145; idem, ‘The religious sympathies of the gentry of Gloucestershire, 1200–1500’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society xcviii (1981), 103–4.

84 Vale, M. G. A., Piety, charity and literacy among the Yorkshire gentry, 1370–1480 (Borthwick Papers 1, 1976), 5, 9Google Scholar (quotation at p. 9). For Warwickshire see Carpenter, ‘Religion of the gentry’. See also Brown, A. D., Popular piety in late medieval England: the diocese of Salisbury 1250–1550, Oxford 1995, 30–1, 35–6, 44, 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Fleming, P., ‘Charity, faith and the gentry of Kent, 1422–1529’, in Pollard, A. J. (ed.), Property and politics: essays in later medieval English history, Gloucester 1984, 48–50Google Scholar. The reluctance for burial in religious houses was even more marked amongst townsmen; although they left bequests to the mendicants, burial amongst them was not extensive: Heath, P., ‘Urban piety in the later Middle Ages: the evidence of Hull wills’, in Dobson, R. B. (ed.), The church, politics and patronage in the fifteenth century, Gloucester 1984, 215, 220–2Google Scholar; Tanner, N., The church in late medieval Norwich, 1370–1532, Toronto 1984, 119, 123–5, 189 (appendix 3), 222–3 (appendix 12)Google Scholar.

86 Kemp, B., ‘Some aspects of the parochia of Leominster in the twelfth century’, in Blair, J. (ed.), Ministers and parish churches: the local church in transition 950–1200, Oxford 1988, 88–9Google Scholar; P. H. Hase, ‘The mother churches of Hampshire’, ibid. 54, 56; Barrow, Julia, ‘Urban cemetery location in the high Middle Ages’, in Bassett, S. (ed.), Death in towns: urban responses to the dying and the dead 100–1600, Leicester 1992, 86Google Scholar (burial rights of Worcester).

87 Brett, M., The English church under Henry I, Oxford 1975, 93–4, 98, 221–2, 227Google Scholar; Historia et cartularium monasterii Sancti Pelri Gloucestriae, i, pp. lxxv–lxxvi, lxxvii–lxxviii.