Durham E-Theses The Durham clergy of the early sixteenth century 1494 - 1540 Stevens, Louise Marie How to cite: Stevens, Louise Marie (1979) The Durham clergy of the early sixteenth century 1494 - 1540, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10174/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk The Durham Clergy of the Early Sixteenth Century 1494 - 1540 Louise Marie Stevens A thesis presented in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.A. in the University of Durham Department of History 1979 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Abstract Sixteenth century polemicists and later historians have traditionally denounced the Pre-Reformation clergy as being morally bankrupt, financially rapacious, and generally lacking in vocation. Recent historiography has proven otherwise in such areas as Lancashire, and Lincoln; the Durham County evidence is similarly lacking in scandalous detail about the early six• teenth century secular clergy. The resident beneficed and unbeneficed clergy were mainly local men, proceeding through orders within the county palatine or at York, and had few educational opportunities open to them. The beneficed clergy proceeded through orders more slowly than did their colleagues in the southern pro• vince, and the unbeneficed did so at an even slower rate. Their dedica• tion to their duties was mixed. Dilapidations were the most frequent' com• plaint made against them, and it was a fault of which both the beneficed and unbeneficed were equally guilty. There were cases of non-residence and pluralism, but monitions to reside seem to have been obeyed in general. Most of the clergy spent long periods of time, ten, fifteen and twenty years and more, farming their glebe, saying mass and providing hospitality. Aside from administering the sacraments, their lives differed little from those of their parishioners. They were ready to deal with their parishioners on the same terms as their parishioners dealt with each other, yet in all of the forums in which dissatisfaction with the clergy could have been voiced, there was a loud silence. One cannot say that the Durham clergy conformed 100 # of the time to the prescriptions of canon law, or even that they fulfilled their duties to the best of their abilities, merely that they satisfied the expectations of this particular lay community. Table of Contents List of Tables p. i Abbreviations ii Acknowledgements iii Declaration & Statement of Copyright iv I. Introduction 1 II. Durham County in the Early Sixteenth Century 14 III. Origins, Education and Social Standing: Origins 39 Education 57 Social Standing 74 IV. The Structure of the Clerical Career: The Bace to the Priesthood 79 Duties and Deficiencies 95 V. The Economic Position of the Clergy: Income 110 Expenditure 139 Standard of Living 158 VI. Clergy-Lay Relations: The Points of Contact 165 VII. Conclusion 195 Appendices A. Map of Durham Vicarages 208 B. Map of Durham Rectories 210 C. The Unbeneficed Clergy 212 Bibliography 254 List of Tables I. The Beneficed Clergy 1494-1540 p. 41 II, County Breakdown 48 III. The Beneficed Clergy, 1501 48 IV. The Unbeneficed Clergy 1494-1540 53 V. The Patrons and Education 64 VI. The Beneficed Clergy Observation of the Interstices 84 VII. The Unbeneficed Clergy Observation of the Interstices 84 VIII. The Beneficed Clergy Ordained Outside York and Durham 86 IX. The Unbeneficed Clergy Bearing Letters Dimissory at York 88 X. The Beneficed Clergy Length of Tenure 92 XI. The Beneficed Clergy, Pluralists Length of Tenure 92 Abbreviations Archiepiscopal Register - AR Archaeologia Aeliana AA Borthwick Institute of Historical Research Borth. I.H.R. British Library BL Consistory Court Act Book CCAB Dean and Chapter Library D. & C. Lib. Depositions ... from the Courts of Durham SS 21 Durham University Journal DUJ Durham Chancery Enrollments DURH 3 Durham Dept. of Palaeography, Prior's Kitchen DPK Durham Dept. of Palaeography, South Road DSR English Historical Review EHR Fasti Dunelmenses £S 139 Fox's Register. Surtees. Soc. vol. 147 FR Injunctions ... of Bishop Barnes SS 22 Journal of Ecclesiastical History JEEI Locellus Loc. Original Will Orig. Will Patent Rolls C 66 Prior's Register V PReg. V Probate Register I PR I Probate Register II PR II Probate Register III PR III Probate Register V PR V Public Record Office PRO Small Prior's Register IV SPReg. IV State Papers, Henry VIII SP 1 Tunstail's Register. Surtees Soc. vol. 161 TR Yorkshire Archaeological Journal YAJ Valor Ecclesiasticus Valor, V Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the help of the archivists in London, York, and Durham. In particular I would like to thank Miss Margaret McCollum and Mrs. J.L. Drury at South Bead; Mr. Pat Mus.set and Mr. Martin Snape at the Prior's Kitchen; Mr. J.E. Fagg, for what proved to be extremely helpful and enjoyable tutorials in palaeography; and my supervisor, Dr. D.M. Loades, for all the advice and encouragement he gave me during the course of this work. Finally, I owe a special vote of thanks to Peter Benham for all his patience and good humor, and most especially to my parents, Richard and Loretta Stevens, without whose help and understanding this project would have had no beginning. Declaration and Statement of Copyright None of the material contained in this thesis has been' submitted for a degree in the University of Durham or any other university, and it is entirely the individual work of this author* The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without her prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Chapter One Introduction Until very recently the Pre—Reformation clergy were badly repre• sented by both their own contemporaries and later historians. As early as the fourteenth century Chaucer depicted them, wittily if sarcastically, as worldly nuns and corrupt clergymen;* Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors were enacted to protect the full sovereignty of the English monarchy from papal interference, and polemical tracts had occasionally surfaced, casting suspicion upon the local religious in the minds of those who read or heard of them by word of mouth. By contrast, the old time Lollardy had been effectively driven underground in an England which remained steadfastly Catholic both in doctrine and practice. The scales remained precariously balanced throughout the fifteenth century in this love / hate relationship between the clergy and the laity. However, with each new provocation in the sixteenth century, they began to tilt in favor of the laity at the expense of the religious. Papal exactions; Hunne's case; the protest of Luther, markedly successful in the disorganized German principalities; all induced a growing climate of doubt and uncertainty. Finally, only two matters be• came certain: the king needed money, the king needed an heir, and the scales hit rock bottom for the clergy. In the process of assuming the title of Supreme Head of the Church in England, Henry VIII let loose the reins on anticlericalism. Grievances against the clergy were presented in Parliament. They stood accused of being monetarily rapacious, morally lax, and both absentee and pluralist *See Chaucer's description of the prioress and the pardoner in "The General Prologue" to "The Canterbury Tales" in jp.N. Robinson, ed., The tforks of Geoffrey Chaucer (Boston, 19&1), pp. 18, 23. His parson is conspicuous for the vices which he did not possess. See pages 21-22. 2 on a grand scale* Also effective was a propaganda campaign issuing forth from the presses of Thomas Berthelet, the king's printer, and from others. Christopher St. Germain argued dispassionately on the abuses of the clergy and more importantly on their relation to the temporal govern• ment, but his intellectual dogmatism was perhaps too weighty for the com- 2 mon folk. The more sensational impression, and longer lasting, was that made by such scurrilous pamphleteers as Simon Fish. For him. the clerical estate was immoral and power-hungry:. Ye, and what do they more?. Truely nothing but applie theym silves by all the sleyghtes they may, to have to do with every mannes wife, every mannes daughter, and every mannes mayde, that cukkoldrie and baudrie shulde reigne over all emong your subiectes, that noman shulde know his owne childe, that theyre bastardes might eitherite the possessions of every man, to put the right begotten children clere beside theire inheritaunce, yn subversion of all estates and godly ordre ... What remedy: make lawes ageynst theim? I am yn doubt whether ye be able: Are they not stronger in your owne parliament house then your silfe? what a nombre of Bisshopes, abbotes, and priours, are lordes of your parliament? are not all the learned men in your realme in fee with theim, to speake yn your parliament house for theim ageinst your crowne, dignite, and comon welth of your realme; a fewe of youre owne lerned counsell onely excepted?* In such manner did Fish taunt Henry with a faulty sovereignty.