Date sent: Wed, 17 Jul 96 14:10:55 UT
From: Simon Marchini <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Burton Abbey - Wealthiest in Staffordshire
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
Julia Burrow wrote....
As a general rule in medieval England (throughout the whole period from the
reign of Edgar to the Dissolution) the wealthiest houses were Benedictine
ones of pre-Conquest foundation. Most of these were in what historically had
been the kingdom of Wessex, though several very wealthy ones were in
the Fens where they had been set up in the 960s-70s by supporters of King
Edgar, and there are a few others in Kent and in what had been Mercia.
Burton fits into this general pattern (it was Mercian) and is only exceptional
in being the northwesternmost of the late Anglo-Saxon Benedictine foundations.
This is interesting for two reasons, firstly was the beneditine order the
chose of the wealthest and most powerful in the pre Norman england? If this
is the case why - what was so attractive to the men of power ? Secondly, this
wealth may explain the initial wealth of such houses but how did they continue
to thrive - surely the Normans would have invested in such houses and yet if
Julia is to be believed they never managed to equal the wealth of the
Bendictine monks and their late english benefactors. The final point I would
like to ask is to do with the implied geographical spread. Why was it that
the relgious houses which appear to be the wealthest were in the south of the
country ?
Again I thank you for your help.
Simon Marchini
There was no Benedictine order as such in the earlier middle ages. It only
became necessary to define one after the appearance of the Cistercians,
Carthusians, Augustinians and so forth in the late eleventh and early twelfth
centuries. Abbeys founded in the 10th and early 11th cs. were usually
independent from each other. One feature shared by very many tenth-century
abbeys was their use of the Benedictine Rule and Edgar and his successors
insisted on English monasteries following this.
The wealthiest English abbeys seem to have been those which built up large
collections of wealthy manors, preferably in fertile, grain-producing areas.
Tenth- and eleventh-century foundations had a head start over 12th century
ones, which often had to make do with less good quality land or even sources of
income unconnected with farmland, like rents from town property. These sources
could provide a good income but not usually the exceptionally good income
enoyed by places like Glastonbury, Malmesbury and so forth.
On the geographical spread, the question you most need to consider is the
political history of England north of the Humber. It was too unstable in the
10th and 11th centuries (up to the last decade or so of the 11th c) to provide
the tranquillity necessary to foster big monastic foundations. Moreover local
patrons probably favoured smaller churches, or else episcopal
churches like Durham (which during the 10th c., just to make matters
complicated, had been at Chester-le-Street and prior to that had been on
Lindisfarne). The 10th c Benedictine reformers like Bishop Aethelwold of
Winchester relied heavily on royal protection and didn't operate in areas where
royal protection was weak - this meant that they avoided England north of the
Trent. One of these days David Rollason will write a history of Anglo-Saxon
England north of the Humber but until then you can get a quick overview of the
political situation by looking at Pauline Stafford's Unification and Conquest.
It's a big subject.
Julia Barrow
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|