Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:48:49.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mismanagement and Ecclesiastical Visitation of English Monasteries in the Early-Fourteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Edwin N. Gorsuch
Edwin N. Gorsuch*
Affiliation:
Georgia State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A most pernicious problem contributing to the economic woes of English monasteries in the early-fourteenth century was mismanagement. This condition was usually, if not almost universally, present and derived in part from the fact that the administrators of religious houses, especially the small ones, were not well trained for the complexities of their tasks. The official records of the royal chancery abound with notices that monasteries suffered from this malady, and the entries in these records follow a pattern, repeating time and time again a variety of standard charges. Having perhaps endured internal dissension that had contributed to the economic difficulty, monasteries became impoverished by indiscreet rule, their goods were wasted, and they experienced mismanagement. In addition, the documents assert that these troubled monasteries suffered from indebtedness, that lax discipline prevailed, and that lands of religious corporations were alienated illegally. Finally, the entries maintain that the ill-advised sale of corodies, and the unwarranted grants of pensions contributed to a depressed monastic economy. To illustrate these observations upon defective monastic administration, reference to specific examples is needed.

Type
Miscellany
Information
Traditio , Volume 28 , 1972 , pp. 473 - 482
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

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 Calendar of Patent Rolls… [cited hereafter as CPR] 1327–1330, p. 136.Google Scholar

2 CPR 1327–1330, p. 384.Google Scholar

3 CPR 1327–1330, p. 391.Google Scholar

4 CPR 1327–1330, p. 525.Google Scholar

5 CPR 1334–1338, p. 211.Google Scholar

6 CPR 1345–1348, p. 391.Google Scholar

7 CPR 1348–1350, pp. 175–176.Google Scholar

8 CPR 1330–1334, p. 579.Google Scholar

9 CPR 1340–1343, p. 444.Google Scholar

10 See Knowles, David, The Religious Orders in England I (Cambridge 1948) 55–63, for a discussion of monastic administration.Google Scholar

11 Brown, W. (ed.), Register of Thomas of Corbridge … I (Surtees Society Publ. 138; Durham and London 1925) 228–230, 280–282. The prior of Newstead, together with two canons — two of the wiser monks in the house — and the prior of the house of Felley, were to constitute this committee for overseeing the finances of Newstead. No expenditures were to be undertaken without the knowledge, assent, counsel, and wishes of these individuals. After expenditures had been decided upon by the committee, the proposed action of the four was to be explained, discussed, and agreed to in the chapter of the monastery. Thus, all monks of the house were to have an opportunity to voice their opinions on how revenues were to be spent.Google Scholar

12 The obedientiary system assigned revenues from specified sources to the various monastic officials in such a way that each officer used the proceeds of enumerated properties in making the expenditures required by his position. The system was inefficient during the fourteenth century, when centralized direction and organization of both expenditures and receipts was needed so that the returns from resources could be maximized. Restrictive stipulations in endowments inhibited change from the system, for donors often indicated how the proceeds from their gifts were to be used.Google Scholar

13 Register of Thomas of Corbridge I 272–279. Indeed, the archbishop maintained that he had taken steps which would have made it easier for the prior to effect reform, for he had found during his visitation that there had been living in the priory certain brethren who were contumacious and refractory, and that he had sent them away to other houses in order that the prior might have a better chance to improve conditions at Thurgarton. There had been no such improvement, however, and the archbishop found it necessary to remove the prior, and gave orders to the convent to elect a more judicious monk to the position of leadership.Google Scholar

14 Thompson, A. H. (ed.), Register of William Greenfield … IV (Surtees Society Publ. 152; Durham and London 1938) 28–31.Google Scholar

15 Page, William (ed.), The Victoria History of the County of York III (London 1913) 97–98.Google Scholar

16 See Lucas, Henry S., ‘The Great European Famine of 1315, 1316, and 1317,’ Speculum 5 (1930) 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Victoria History (cit. n. 15) III 97–98.Google Scholar

18 Goodman, A. W. (ed.), Registrum Henrici Woodlock … (Canterbury and York Series; Oxford 1934–1940) 316–317.Google Scholar

19 See Knowles, , Religious Orders I 47 and 104, for comments on John of Rutherwyk, also Registrum Henrici Woodlock 533–537 (an entry under the year 1314).Google Scholar