medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Fascinating. I'm tempted to go into a long aside about the significance of 
collegial chapters in med society and architecture, but hard to do so 
without seeming to blatantly self-advertise my book...

Suffice to say that it is in no way a replacement for the extraordinarily 
exhaustive work of Edwards! But I hope a good read nonetheless.

Back to the original post: vicars. As Christopher said, where a lanndholder 
owned a church, they were in theory obliged to ensure that church had an 
incumbent. True of religious houses secular or regular, and indeed of anyone 
else, ie lay landowners too: though for obvious reasons religious houses 
that didn't bother drew reformers' ire.

From the early c13 there were major efforts to ensure secular cathedral 
canons did indeed appoint a vicar in the churches they held; also that they 
had a vicar in their own church, ie a stand-in to perform the offices. The 
canons were busy men - the mainstays of Church and Royal administration 
(indeed, one wonders how this administration would ever have 
evolved/sustained itself without the existence of prebend-owning chapters; 
surely an element in the aggressive self-preservation Chris mentioned) and 
while their loyalty to their church/chapter was considerable, their ability 
to actually attend it (unless they were residentiary canons or dignitaries) 
was limited. These vicars themselves often formed miniature colleges, often 
rather more regular/communalised than their masters, within the cathedral 
community. Hence the 'vicars' closes'.

Jon


>From: Christopher Crockett <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious   
>            culture <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [M-R] Funding of Prebends
>Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:21:56 -0500
>
>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>
>From: Ms B M Cook <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> > Can anyone who is clued up in medieaval economics tell me how prebends 
>were
>
>funded,
>
>the comments by Jon and John are a good beginning but, as they noted, are 
>(or
>may be) peculiar to England.
>
>i'll try and add some thoughts concerning France (Chartres specifically), 
>what
>little i know on that subject.
>
> >or rather tell me if I am remembering correctly or have got the whole 
>thing
>screwed up.
>
>well...
>
> > As I believe, prebends were incomes provided for Cathedral Canons who 
>lived
>
>in houses and not a quasi monastic common life.
>
>attempts were made, in the late 11th and, particularly, the early 12th c. 
>to
>"reform" the cathedral chapters of France --esp. those in the "Royal 
>Domain"--
>which would have meant the "regularisation" of the living conditions of 
>their
>canons but, as far as i am aware, the Cure didn't Take, anywhere, and 
>things
>went on pretty much as usual.
>
>ocassionally individual bishops of a Reforming Bent could, with difficulty,
>enforce some Canonical dictates --Ivo of Chartres seems to have been able 
>to
>discipline at least one married canon, for example-- but there was
>considerable opposition from the King, Louis VI and his Queen even going so
>far as to take a solemn oath in the cathedral of Paris that they would 
>never,
>ever, allow the chapter of that church to be reformed in their lifetime.
>
>otOh, Fat Louis was a patron of the new (regular) collegial of St. Victor
>(just outside then-Paris), including the granting a prebend --or at least 
>the
>"annates"  to vacant prebends-- in various secular chapters/collegials to 
>the
>Victorines.
>
>i have long been puzzled by this seeming contradiction in royal policy, but
>have about decided that it was a question of what was thought to be an
>appropriate venue for "regularisation" --new, reform chapters (e.g. the
>Victorines) were O.K., but the reform of pre-existing institutions (esp. 
>the
>cathedral chapters of Paris and Orleans and the "royal abbeys", the 
>collegials
>of Etampes, Poissy, Corbeil, etc.) was to be resisted, even to the point of
>violence.
>
>in the case of Orleans, the Sub-Dean of the the cathedral was murdered; in
>Paris, the Prior of St. Victor's was set upon by thugs related to an
>Archdeacon and died in the arms of the reforming Bishop, Stephen of Senlis
>--these guys were, clearly, Playing Hard Ball.
>
>and, a lot more was at stake than just the question of whether the canons
>lived and played together well --these powerful, wealthy ecclesiastical
>institutions were, at the same time, vehicles for the projection of Royal
>Power and for the dispensation of Royal Patronage (a not-inconsiderable 
>factor
>in the "First Among Equals" nature of the monarchy at this time).
>
> > All parish churches in a diocese had to pay tithes.
>
>yes, theoretically.
>
>however, (in N. France) in the course of the late 9th and 10th cc. many, 
>many
>churches "fell into lay hands," and the tithes (and lands) went with them.
>
>in particular, the *vast* estates (the "villas," which eventually developed
>into "villages") of the ancient major monasteries (St. Denis, Fleury, St.
>Martin of Tours, St. Germain of Auxerre, etc.) were largely dismantled, 
>their
>incomes doled out to the new aristocracy (like the Capetians themselves) 
>and,
>through subinfudation, provided the financial infrastructure necessary to 
>keep
>Europe's head above water during this period of great chaos.
>
>what we see in the documents, increasingly, in the course of the 11th and 
>12th
>c. is the return of these tithes and lands to the church --and not always 
>to
>the specific ecclesiastical institution which originally owned them.
>
>circumstances were, obviously, different in different locales.
>
>in the Chartres diocese, it appears (from the *surviving* documents) that 
>the
>"Lands of St. Mary" (i.e., of the cathedral), largely, remained intact 
>(though
>they were subject to the rapine of various local hoodlums, like the 
>Viscounts
>of Chartres and of Chateaudun, cf. the letters of Bishops Fulbert and Ivo).
>
>most --or at least it *seems* like most-- of the charters we have from the
>later 11th and early 12th c. from the monastic chapters of the region deal
>with the restoration of property (including tithes) to ecclesiastical hands
>--though not to the cathedral chapter(s).
>
>in other words, though there were 943 parishes in the diocese of Chartres 
>(the
>largest in France, i believe) in the 13th c., the tithes from many (most?) 
>of
>them were in the hands of either institutions other than the cathdral or 
>(in
>some cases at least) still in lay hands.
>
> >This tithe was divided into 3 equal parts. Part 1 went to pay the stipend 
>of
>the incumbent and keep the church in good repair; Part 2 went on charitable
>works in the parish. Part 3 went to the diocese for the support of the 
>Bishop
>and the Cathedral.
>
>logical though this speculation may seem, i know not your source for it.
>
>the "cathedral's" (Bishop's and chapter's) income also consisted --perhaps
>even primarily consisted-- of vast estates which it owned and administered
>*directly*: "The Lands of St. Mary" in Fulbert and Ivo's letters.
>
> > In certain cases, the tithe income from certain churches was earmarked 
>for
>the support of a particular named canon - this was his prebend;
>
>perhaps.
>
>at Chartres (as best i can make out) particular estates seem to have been
>speicfically dedicated to the support of particular "Personae", the
>"Dignataries"/ executive officers who actually ran the whole operation: the
>Dean, Sub-Dean, Chanter, Archdeacons, Provosts, etc.
>
>from some (usually post-12th c.) entries in the cathedral necrology i've 
>seen,
>it appears that some holders of these offices made various "improvements" 
>(or
>acquistitions) in the prebendary estates which supported his Dignity 
>--often
>for the purpose of establishing an income which was to be used (in part) to
>pay for the clebration of his own "anniversary."
>
>i'm not at all sure that "the tithe income from certain churches was 
>earmarked
>for
>the support of a particular named canon" and that "this was his prebend."
>
>this *may* have been true.
>
>or not.
>
>the *impression* i have is that the ordinary (i.e, the non-Personae) 
>canons'
>prebends came out of the Central Slush Fund (i forget the Latin), which 
>came
>(i assume) from both the tithes as well as from income from the Lands of 
>St.
>Mary.
>
>the latter were administered/overseen by the Dignataries of the chapter 
>called
>Provosts (there were 5 or so, in the dio. of Chartres).
>
>apparently, this post was noted for it's great potential for Abuse; there 
>was
>an attempt at the reform of their offices under (i think) Ivo, and again at
>the end of the 12th c., when the chapter was in great need of funds to pay 
>for
>the building of the present structure after the great fire of 1194.
>
>
> >of course, he could be assigned the income from more than one parish 
>church.
>In these cases, the said canon had some responsibility of oversight for the
>church or churches which supported him. Was he technically the parish 
>priest
>himself and appointed a deputy - a vicar - to have the pastoral care of the
>parish.
>
>
>again, sounds perfectly logical, but i know not whether specific parishes 
>were
>assigned to specific canons --much less whether or not *canons* served as
>parish priests, either directly or through "vicars."
>
>certainly, i don't think i've ever come across such a phenomenon extant in 
>the
>Chartres chapter/diocese in cc. 11-13.
>
>but, that doesn't mean that it wasn't the case.
>
>i do know that the appointment of the parish priest --like the tithes owed 
>and
>the land (if any) belonging directly to the parish church-- was in the 
>hands
>of the "owner," whether that owner be the Bishop, the Chapter of the
>cathedral, or the Abbot of a monastery or collegial.
>
>*those* were the guys who had the right of "cure" (appointment).
>
>(of course, the Middlevils would say, first of all, that it was the *Saint*
>which was the "owner" of the land, the ecclesiastical institution only 
>acting
>as servants of their patron.)
>
>
> > Is this true, and was it true for most of Christendon during most of the
>Middle Ages ?
>
>who nose?
>
> > Any useful references ?
>
>you might look at the lengthy introduction to the Chartres cathedral
>cartulary.
>
>it was the work of Lucein Merlet, the Archiviste of the Eure-et-Loir 
>archives
>and one of the most thoroughly knowlegable historians ever to work on the
>diocese.
>
>it is available here:
>
>http://books.google.com/books?id=APQEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA158&dq=inauthor:lucien+inauthor:merlet&as_brr=1#PPP7,M1
>
>
>the older ed. of the Paris cathedral cartulary will have a lengthy
>introduction by Benjamin Guerard (Merlet's teacher, i believe) which might
>also be of help, if you can get aholt of it (it's not yet on either Google 
>or
>the BN's Gallic site http://gallica.bnf.fr).
>
>ditto, any other cathedral cartularies which follow Guerard's Ecole des
>Chartes pattern for editing them.
>
>anyway, read Merlet's introduction and let me know what it says.
>
>c
>
>**********************************************************************
>To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
>to: [log in to unmask]
>To send a message to the list, address it to:
>[log in to unmask]
>To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
>to: [log in to unmask]
>In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
>[log in to unmask]
>For further information, visit our web site:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html