 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture I believe that the size of a diocese like Lincoln made administration even more difficult. That may be why new sees were created after the Reformation. Thus Bristol & Gloucester, among others. The following book made me wonder how closely a bishop was involved with his cathedral day to day: The English secular cathedrals in the Middle Ages: a constitutional study with special reference to the fourteenth century. Kathleen Edwards 1967 2nd ed. English Book Book xx, 412 p. front. 4 plates (incl. facsim.), tables. 23 cm. Manchester, Manchester U.P.; New YOrk, Barnes & Noble, Tom Izbicki > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > > A fascinating clarification, Rosemary. Thank you. > > The subject would indeed make an excellent project: part of the even wider > one of how bishops organised and funded their households/administration, > and the relationship between these men and the chapters of cathedrals. I > find the question especially intriguing at the monastic cathedrals, where > almost all episcopal work must have taken place almost entirely > independent of the monks. The bishop's households at these cathedrals must > have been large and complex communities of Churchmen: yet as far as I can > see this never made them aspire to any institutional collegiately of their > own (unless anyone knows different...) Perhaps there is some useful > information in Hamilton Thompson. Must have a look... > > Jon > > > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:23:39 +0000From: > [log in to unmask]: Re: [M-R] Sufragan BishopsTo: > [log in to unmask]: Scholarly discussions > of medieval religion and culture > > > My own studies of English bishops (which includes noticing rather than > concentrating on their suffragans) suggests that while it was quite common > for them to give benefices to their suffragans, it was rare for these > benefices to be as important and wealthy as the prebends and > archdeaconries. I think this may be explained by sensitivity to the fact > that most of the suffragans were friars and, therefore, should not be > reaping rich rewards from spiritual duties but I suppose, if one took that > argument to its logical conclusion, they should not have received any > benefices. Bishop Alnwick of Norwich used a Franciscan Robert Ryngman, > bishop Gradensis, throughout his Norwich episcopate (1426-37: but only > when he was unable to act himself) and does not seem to have showered him > with rewards; he used William Gunwardby, bishop of Dunkeld (and there are > other instances of Scottish bishops cited in HBC) while bishop of Lincoln > (1437-49) and rewarded him with the vicarage of Cople, Bedfordshire. - > Perhaps the latter was possible because Gunwardby was secular? Or it may > be that Ryngman was given something in Norwich by Alnwick's predecessor, > Wakeryng who certainly also used him but I am afraid I do not have any > references. In 1491 Bishop Hill of London collated a benefice on the > resignation of one James, late bishop of ???Daren' (sorry, I cannot be > sure - it may be one of the Irish bishoprics), who was to be given a > pension, which implies that Hill's predecessor had given the bishop the > benefice. > > As ever, I would also recommend that old standby Alexander Hamilton > Thompson, 1873-1952. The English clergy and their organization in the > later middle ages. The Ford Lectures for 1933. Oxford, 1947. - it has > several pages on suffragans > > It looks like there is much more research to be done through the episcopal > registers - maybe a major project for someone? > > I am working on Bishop Hill and Bishop John Hales of Coventry and > Lichfield for the ODNB and have some queries I hope you can all help me > with - watch this space! > > Rosemary Hayes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Cannon > To: [log in to unmask] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:39 PM > Subject: Re: [M-R] Sufragan Bishops > medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture > > Excellent refs for me, too, Rosemary - thank you. John - I believe I have > just got hold of the right end of the stick (my own stick being a rather > thick short plank), and having done so could clarify what may be useful to > you from what I sent you. I noted in my list that suffragans had a range > of titular sees, and sometimes worked for more than one bishop, though > neither are at the nub of your interest. But I also noted one example of a > suffragan with an English preferment, which is I think more what you are > after - though in this it was not an archdeaconry, rather it was nothing > less than a bishopric: - Carlisle. In this case there were very specific > political circumstances behind the appointment. Interesting, all the same. > I didn't note anyone who had other English titles, but I have to say this > feature - which I now belatedly realise is what you are most interested in > - would not have been picked up by me because it doesn't particularly > suprise me. Surely archdeaconries or other titles might be handed out by a > bishop seeking to bolster either the role, or the standing, or (if a > prebend came with them, as was sometimes the case) the income of anyone > particularly crucial to his administration or his familia? I wonder if > Suffragans might even yet prove tobe a particularly common example of > this, if they had no income from their titular see. Indeed (not quite the > same point I know), some archdeaconries - Kent, Richmond come to mind - > were associated with high standing and a kind of quasi-episcopal power in > and of themselves. In other words, in certain circumstances it seems to > me to be quite a normal medieval practise to give such posts to a > suffragan, vicar-general or suchlike. I wonder if it was in fact quiet > common, just rarely noted. Jon > ********************************************************************** 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 > ********************************************************************** > 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