Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T08:21:37.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Clerical Population of Medieval England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Josiah Cox Russell
Josiah Cox Russell*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The clergy of medieval England constituted a small but important section of the population. As an order of society it included persons of a wide variety of dignities from the archbishop of Canterbury who sat on the right side of the king to the poor clerk or lonely anchorite. The problem of estimating their numbers varies also from group to group of the clergy, for a careful census of medieval population was almost never made. Such estimates as are made must be secured from data usually prepared for purposes of taxation or other matters of record. They are very uneven because there was little uniformity of practices. Some groups, such as the clerks in minor orders, might be expected to be slighted in the sources, but others of greater importance in their day share the same obscurity with respect to numbers, and for no group is there a continuous and well attested record. This study discusses briefly the sources and methods used and then considers the numbers of the secular clergy and (in much more detail) the orders of nuns, monks, canons, and friars.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 2 , 1944 , pp. 177 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © 1944 by Cosmopolitan Science & Art Service Co., Inc. 

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 The author acknowledges gratefully the grant from the Penrose Fund of the American Philosophical Society which financed his study of population in medieval England in 1938-9. The abbreviations used below are: Google Scholar

Gasquet, , B.D. = Gasquet, F. A., The Black Death of 1348 and 1349 (London, 1908); Gasquet, , G.P. = Gasquet, F. A., The Great Pestilence (London, 1893); Knowles = Knowles, David, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1940); Russell = Russell, J. C., Medieval British Population (as yet unpublished); Thompson = Thompson, A. H., Visitations of Religious Houses in the Diocese of Lincoln (London, 1919, 1927, Canterbury and York Society); V.C.M. = Victoria County History (Westminster, 1900-); the reference is to the volume, usually no. II, in which the religious houses are discussed. Data otherwise unidentified will be found in the history of the house in the Victoria County History. Data from the poll taxes will be designated in reference between parentheses, for example (9/18), with the Public Record Office (= P.R.O.) designation E 179 omitted. Data of the time of the Dissolution comes usually from the Letter and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1861-1910); the reference is to the volume and page numbers of this set, for example, XII, i, 314 (or L.P. XII, i, 314).Google Scholar

2 The data from the general enrollment are published by Topham, John, “Subsidy Roll of 51 Edward III,” Archaeologia , VII (1785), 337–347. For the political conditions of the time of the poll taxes see Oman, C., Great Revolt of 1381 (Oxford, 1906). The demographic problems of the evidence of the local lay returns are discussed in Russell, ch. VI.Google Scholar

3 The enumeration of the clerks in the villages would be a very difficult task. However, a study of their activities would be a very valuable contribution to our knowledge of the medieval Church and society. From even a relatively casual study of the appearance of their names in local charters it is clear that, as a group, they were a class of local lawyers, writing charters and probably wills and manorial accounts. On the average there were usually one and often more of such clerks on each manor in the thirteenth century, which should indicate more than ten thousand and possibly double that number. They seem to have possessed holdings which would indicate that they were at least part-time farmers.Google Scholar

4 Possibly some estimate of clerical increase might be made by using the evidence in Lunt, W. E., The Valuation of Norwich (Oxford, 1926) and the Taxatio Ecclesiastica et Wallie auctoritate P. Nicholai IV circa 1291 (London, 1802) together with much supplementary data, but it would be a very laborious task. On the problems and recent bibliography of the schools see my “The early schools of Oxford and Cambridge,” The Historian, V (1943), 61-76. Some idea of ecclesiastical development comes from the following: Andrieu-Guitrancourt, P., Essai sur l'évolution du décanat rural en Angleterre (Paris, 1935); Hartridge, R. A. R., A history of vicarages in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1930); Reichel, O. J., The origin and growth of the English parish (London, 1921).Google Scholar

5 The estimate of the total population comes from Russell, ch. X. The numbers of the religious come from the last table in this article.Google Scholar

6 Listed among the tenants-in-chief are Amesbury (Ellis, Henry, A General Introduction to Domesday Book [London, 1833], I, 373); Barking, (ibid., I, 381); Chateris, (I, 396); Romsey, (I, 481); Shaftesbury, (I, 484); Wilton, (I, 512); and Winchester, (I, 513).Google Scholar

7 Stratford, Holy Sepulchre of Canterbury, Elstow, Clerkenwell and Redlingfield.Google Scholar

8 V.C.H. , Lincs., II, 151–3, Herts., II, 422, and Wilts. (from Tanner, T., Notitia Monastica [London, 1744], p. 589) respectively.Google Scholar

9 V.C.H. , Dors., II, 73 and Warw., II, 66 ff.Google Scholar

10 V.C.H., Warw., II, 65–66.Google Scholar

11 Arden, Yorks., 6 or 9, 1396; Barking, Esx., 14, 1397; Markyate, Beds., 12, 1406; Moxby, Yorks., 9, 1423.Google Scholar

12 See Table 1, note 1.Google Scholar

13 See estimates in same note.Google Scholar

14 V.C.H., Suff., II, 58 for Bury; V.C.H., Norfolk, II, 331 for Holme (26 to 14); Dugdale, W., The Antiquities of Warwickshire (London, 1658), p. 100 for Coventry; V.C.H., Worcs., II, 97 for Worcester, 115 for Evesham. The last also appears in Knowles, p. 714. His list on pp. 713–4 is one of the few attempts to secure figures on early membership.Google Scholar

15 Knowles, , p. 714.Google Scholar

16 V.C.H. under the appropriate house, but see Knowles, , pp. 713–714.Google Scholar

17 For these see V.C.H. Lincoln, II, 118–9 for Spalding and p. 124 for Belvoir. For Battle and Canterbury, Knowles, p. 714.Google Scholar

18 Major houses: Abingdon, Ely, Thornay, Durham, Gloucester, Tewkesbury, St. Albans, Ramsay, Christchurch and St. Augustine's, Canterbury, Rochester, Crowland, Westminster, Peterborough, Bath, Glastonbury, Bury St. Edmunds, Winchester, Hyde, Malmesbury, Worcester, Evesham, St. Mary, York.—Minor houses: Bodmin, Tavistock, Abbotsbury, Cerne, Milton, Sherbourne, Cranbourne, Winchcombe, Cirencester, St. Guthlac, Hereford, Leominster, St. Neot's, Hunts., Bardney, Stow, Spalding, Stratford, St. Benet Holme, Molycourt, Eynsham, Burton, Athelney, Muchelney, Hoxney, Romburgh, Chertsey, and Pershore.Google Scholar

19 St. Albans, 50, 1190 (Knowles, p. 713); Glastonbury, 72, ca. 1172 (ibid., p. 714); Whitby, 38, 1175–6 (ibid.); It is unfortunate that this critical period should present such little evidence.Google Scholar

20 See Table 3, note g.Google Scholar

21 These houses are Abingdon, Reading, Snelshall, Colchester, Tewkesbury, Winchcombe, St. Neot's, Christ Church, Canterbury, Rochester, Dover, Faversham, Peterborough, Blyth, Eynsham, Athelney, Alvecote, and Snayth.Google Scholar

22 These are Abbotsbury, Cerne, Milton, Sherbourne, Cranbourne, Bristol, Ramsey, St. Ives, Dunster, Chertsey, Battle, Coventry, Malmesbury, Evesham, and York.Google Scholar

23 Beaulieu, , 2 (1400 figure); Luffield, , 5 (3 in 1493, suppressed in 1494); Colne, Earl's, 6 (half of regular pre-plague figure); Stanley, Gloucester, 3 (1510 figure); St. Augustine's Canterbury, 84 (1423 figure); Lincoln, , 2 (cell of St. Mary's, York, 3 in 1258); Aldeby, 3 (1482 figure); St. Leonard, Norwich, 4, half of pre-plague regular figure); Sele, 4 (1441 figure); Middlesborough, 2 (1450 figure).Google Scholar

24 The following are the conjectures: Wallingford, 3; Hurley, 2; Bradwell, 2; St. Neot's, Cornwall, 2; St. Martin, Cornwall, 2; Scylly, 2; Exeter, 3; Ewias Harrold, 3; St. Guthlac, Hereford, 8; Kilpec, 2; Barton, 2; Redburn, 2; Hertford, 3; Salburn, 2; Deeping, 2; Lynn, 4; Yarmouth, 3; Modewy, 2; Coket, 2; Warmington, 2; Warkworth, 2; Bromfield, 2; Hoxne, 2; Romburgh, 2; Snape, 2; Gouthland, 2.Google Scholar

25 V.C.H. Oxon., II, 66.Google Scholar

26 Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., Octavo Publ. XXXIV (1902), 30.Google Scholar

27 Kirk, R. E., ed. Accounts of the Obedientiars of Abingdon Abbey (London, 1892, Camden Soc.).Google Scholar

28 Gasquet, , G.P. , p. 181.Google Scholar

29 Sherborne, Dors., 15, 1459; Durham, , 74, 1458; Muchelney, Somst., 13, 1463. The very heavy loss suffered by Durham reduces the value of comparison of these figures with those of the dissolution.Google Scholar

30 See Knowles, David, Religious Houses of Medieval England (London, 1939), pp. 96–98.Google Scholar

31 Thetford is said to have had 13 originally, Mendham 8, Lewes 12 in 1180. All had more later.Google Scholar

32 Printed by Pignot, J. H., Histoire de Vordre de Cluny (Paris, 1868), II, 569–571 from which it has been reprinted by Duckett, G. F., Charters and Records of Cluni, I, 36-37. The second list appears in Anger, D., “Le nombre des moines a Cluny,” Revue Bénédictine, XXXVI (1924), 267-71.Google Scholar

33 Published by Duckett, , op. cit. II, 208-214; translated by Duckett, , Visitations of English Cluniac Foundations (London, 1890), unfortunately with several errors.Google Scholar

34 Anger, , op. cit. Google Scholar

35 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 37.Google Scholar

36 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 42; Charters, II, 212.Google Scholar

37 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 41; Charters, II, 211.Google Scholar

38 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 37; Charters, II, 208.Google Scholar

39 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 38; Charters II, 208-9.Google Scholar

40 Since most religious houses seem to have not changed much in numbers in the first half of the fourteenth century, an exact date is hard to give.Google Scholar

41 V.C.H. , Sussex, II, 66. The reference given there seems to be wrong, however.Google Scholar

42 Duckett, , Visitations , p. 38.Google Scholar

43 V.C.H. , Norfolk, II, 358 ff.Google Scholar

44 V.C.H. , Sussex, II, 66.Google Scholar

45 The estimate lists 535 monks (as in Table 6, note d), 91 from houses listed in the suppression group of 1530–6 (Note g); Wardon, Biddlesden, Dore, Sawtrey, Rufford, Bruern, Quarr, Netley, and Stoneleigh; and a proportion (.817) of the numbers listed in the dissolution returns of 1537–40 for Woburn, Bindon, Coggeshall, Stratford Langhorne, Hayles, Pipewell, Cleeve, Beaulieu, Robertsbridge, Combe, and Merevale; and 59 for four others: Pulton, Ches. and Oswestre, Salop., 6 each; conjectures: Rewley, 9 (it had 16 in 1292 and is reduced by .54), and Waverley, Surrey 38 (it had 70 in 1187 and is also reduced by .54).Google Scholar

46 Robertsbridge, Sussex, had 9 in 1418. Meaux, Yorks., had 28 in 1393, a few more than its poll tax and suppression figures.Google Scholar

47 For these houses, see Morgan, Marjorie M., “The suppression of the alien priories,” History , XXVI (1941), 204–212.Google Scholar

48 St. Michael's Mount, Cornwall, 1, 1381 (24/5); Truwardworth, 1 (ibid.); St. Anthony, 2 (ibid.); Minster, 1 (ibid.); Glasney near Penrin, 6 (ibid.); Panfield, Essex, 1, 1377; Flaxley, Herefs., 5, 1379 (30/7); Hinkley, Leics., 1, 1377 (35/5); Bluecroft, 8, 1377 (35/5); Burwell, Lincs., 1, 1337 (probably no more in 1377); Minting, 2, 1377 (35/7); Hough, 4, 1381 (35/16); Cammeringham, 2, 1377 (35/7); West Ravendale, 2, 1381 (35/7); Tutbury, Staffs., 4, 1377 (15/3); Stoke by Clav …, Suffolk, 7, 1381 (45/5a); Wolston, Warwick, 1, 1351 (?); Wootton Wawen, 2, 1374; Astley, Worc., 2, 1354.Google Scholar

49 St. Anthony, Cornwall, 7, 1534; Glasney near Penrin, 5, 1534; Folkstone, Kent, 2, 1534; and Began, near Richmond, Yorks, 3.Google Scholar

50 Bristol, Glos., 6, 1148; Lanthony, 13, ca. 1150; Studley, Warw., 3, ca. 1180; St. Bartholomew, 35, 1174.Google Scholar

51 St. Oswald, 5, 1147; Holy Trinity, 8, 1194; Merton, 16, 1117; 23, 1121; 36, 1130; Studley, as above.Google Scholar

52 See Table 7, note e.Google Scholar

53 For 1381-1400: Newark, Surrey, 5, 1397; Wartre, Yorks., 12, 1388: for 1400–1425 see Table 7, note f; for 1450-74, Lanthony, Glos., 22, 1452 and St. Thomas of London, 9, 1463 and Table 7, note i.Google Scholar

54 Temple, 12, in 1310 (estimate 8 in 1530); Flitcham, 2 in 1514; Fineslade, 7 in 1526; Carham 2 before dissolution; Breamore, 3 in 1493; Mottisfont, (standard figure 8 probably of pre-plague, estimate 5); Ipswich, St. Peter and Paul, 6, 1520.Google Scholar

55 Since the houses were probably small, four is assigned to each one.Google Scholar

56 Poughley (estimate by conjecture, 4); Blacknor, , 4, Thoby, , 3, Tiptree, , 2, listed above.Google Scholar

57 Sandleford, , 1478; Chetwode, , 1460; Spinney, , 1449; Bicknacre, , 1507; Horsley, , 1380; Regis, Grafton, 1483; Norton, Cold, 1507; Selborne, , 4, 1450; Alnesborough, , 1424; Chipley, , 1455.Google Scholar

58 For these houses see Knowles, , Religious Houses of Medieval England. Google Scholar

59 For Dale, , V.C.H., Derbyshire, II, 63 ff.; for Torre, F. A. Gasquet, Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia (London, 1904-6), p. 136; for Blanchland, , History of Northumberland, VI (1902), 313.Google Scholar

60 Calendar of Close Rolls, 1323-27 , p. 139.Google Scholar

61 Torre, Devon, 11, 1377 (24/10b); West Langdon, Kent, 6, 1381 (8/2b); Cockersand, Lancs., 13, 1381 (63/12); Hornby, Lancs., 5, 1381 (63/12) (not used); Croxton, Leics., 29, 1377 (35/5); Newhouse or Newsham, Lincs., 21, 1377 (35/7); 24, 1381 (35/16); Barlings, 33, 1377 (35/7); Hagnaby, 12, 1377 (35/7); 10, 1381 (35/16); Tupholme, 7, 1377 (35/7); 5, 1381 (35/16); Newbo, 9, 1377 (35/7); 6, 1381 (35/11); West Dereham, Norfolk, 17, 1381 (45/9); Langley, 14, 1377 (45/14); Wendling, 7, 1377 (45/14); 7, 1379 (45/7c); Alnwick, Northumberland, 17, 1379; 15, 1381 (62/42c); Blanchland, 5, 1379; 5, 1781 (62/42c); Leiston, Suffolk, 11, 1381 (45/5a); Hepp or Shapp, Westmoreland, 6, 1379 (60/1) (not used); Halesowen, Worcester, 11, 1381 (58/10); Coverham, Yorks., 16, 1381 (63/12); St. Agatha, Easby, 10, 1381 (63/12); Eggleston, 11, 1381 (63/12).Google Scholar

62 V.C.H. York, III, 246 ff.Google Scholar

63 V.C.H. Lincoln, II, 202.Google Scholar

64 V.C.H. Derby, II, 65.Google Scholar

65 Edited by Gasquet, , Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia. Google Scholar

66 The averages are made to the nearest half integer. Lavendon, Bucks, 10.5; Beauchief, Derby, 14; Stanley Park or Dale, 16; Torre, Devon, 16.5; Beeleigh, Essex, 11.5; West Langdon, Kent, 11; St. Redegund or Bradsole, 9; Cockersand, Lancs., 21; Hornby, 6 (calculated from the poll tax return); Croxton, Leics., 23; Newhouse or Newsham, Lincs., 17; Barlings, 19; Hagnaby, 16.5; Tupholme, 17; Newbo, 13.5; West Dereham, Norfolk, 15; Langley, 14; Wendling, 6.5; Sulby or Welford, 10; Alnwick, Northumberland, 23; Blanchland, 11; Welbeck, Notts, 21; Tichfield, Southants, 14; Leiston, Suffolk, 16.5; Bayham, Sussex, 10; Durford, 9; Shapp or Hepp, Westmoreland, 8 (calculated from poll tax and suppression lists); Halesowen, Worcs., 19; Dodford, 14; Coverham, Yorks., 17.5; St. Agatha, Easby, 20.5; Eggleston, 14.Google Scholar

67 These houses are Easby, Barlings, Beauchief, Bayham, Coverham, Croxton, Hagnaby, Halesowen, Langdon, Langley, Lavendon, Leiston, Newhouse, St. Radegund, Sulby, Titchfield, Tupholme, Welbeck, Wendling, West Dereham.Google Scholar

68 Lavendon, Bucks., 10 or 11, 1535; Stanley Park or Dale, Derby, 17, 1538 (XIII, ii, 258); Torre, Devon, 16 (XIV, i, 135); West Langdon, 11, 1535 (IX, 816, 829); Cockersand, Lancs., 22, 1536; 23, 1539 (XIV, i, 59); Hornby, 3, 1535, 2, 1538; Croxton, Leics., 19, 1538 (XIII, ii, 120); Newhouse, Lincs., 10, 1536; Hagnaby, 7, 1536; Tupholme, 9, 1536; Newbo, 8, 1536; West Dereham, Norfolk, 6, 1539 (XIV, i, 598); Langley, 6, 1536; Sulby, Northants., 12, 1538 (XIII, ii, 153); Alnwick, Northumberland, 17, 1539 (XIV, ii, 264); Blanchland, 9, 1539 (XIV, ii, 259); Welbeck, Notts., 21, 1538; Tichfield, Southants., 12, 1537; Durford, Sussex, 9, 1536; Hepp or Shapp, Westm., 15, 1540 (XV, 23); Easby, 18, 1535; Eggleston, 9, 1537.—From V.C.H. if no reference given.Google Scholar

69 See under various houses in V.C.H., Lincolnshire, II. Sempringham, 60; Haverholme, 50; St. Catherine, 16; Bullington, 50; Alvingham, 40; Sixhills, 55; Ormsby, 35; Catley, 35; Newstead on Ancolme, 13.Google Scholar

70 New Bidding, Herts., 2, 1381 (44/347, not counted); Sempringham, Lincs., 9, 1381 (35/16); Haverholme, 7, 1381 (35/16); St. Catherine, Lincoln, 11, 1377 (35/7); 11, 1381 (35/16); Bullington, 10, 1377 (35/7); 8, 1381 (35/16); Alvingham, 8, 1377 (35/7), 5, 1381 (35/16); Sixhills, 11, 1377 (35/7); 5, 1381 (35/16); Ormsby, 6, 1377 (35/7); Catley, 4, 1377 (35/7); Newstead on Ancolme, 13, 1377 (35/7); 7, 1381 (35/11); Shouldham, Norfolk, 6, 1381 (45/9); Ellington, Yorks., 5, 1381 (63/12); Malton, 10, 1381 (63/12); St. Andrews, York, 4, 1381 (63/12).Google Scholar

71 St. Catherine, Lincoln, 3 lay brethren; Bullington, 2; Newstead, 1; Shouldham, 2.Google Scholar

72 Chicksands, Beds., 7; Mirmaud or Welle, Cambs., 2; Fordham, 4; Sempringham, Lincs., 17; Haverholm, 7; St. Catherine, Lincoln, 13; Bullington, 10; Alvingham, 8; Sixhills, 8; Ormsby, 3; Catley, 3; Newstead on Ancolme, 6; Shouldham, Norfolk, 10;Mattersay, Notts., 8, 1539; Clattercote, Oxon., 4, 1536; Marlborough, Wilts., 5, 1539; Ellerton, Yorks., 5; Malton, 11, 1539; Walton, 9, 1539; St. Andrews, York, 4. All returns are of 1538 unless otherwise noted.Google Scholar

73 Wilburgham, Cambs., no return; Neubigging, Herts., suppressed in 1528.Google Scholar

74 See Table 8, notes a and b.Google Scholar

75 See Table 8, notes m and p.Google Scholar

76 The houses are Arundel, Beverlay, Boston, Chichester, Derby, Gloucester, Guilford, Lincoln, London, Lynn, Northampton, Norwich, Pontefract, Stamford, Winchester, Warwick, Yarm, and York.Google Scholar

77 King's Langley and Oxford; Canterbury, Ipswich, and Sudbury.Google Scholar

78 93 multiplied by .926 to reduce it to the 1320-40 basis.Google Scholar

79 Hinnebusch, W. A., “The Personnel of the Early English Dominican Province,” The Catholic Historical Review , XXIX (1943), 326–346, particularly 338 ff. He has averages or figures for 43 out of 50 houses with a total of 1,595, to which he adds 175 for the seven with no evidence. My estimates were prepared before his appeared in print, so I am leaving it to illustrate the relative accuracy attained by a smaller sample.Google Scholar

80 Studies in English Franciscan History (London, 1917), p. 72.Google Scholar

81 The Austin house at York had 20 in 1440 as against an earlier 40. The Oxford figures of 1377 are given by Little, , op. cit. , p. 72.Google Scholar

82 The evidence for the general trend is in chapter ten of my forthcoming Medieval British Population. Google Scholar