 |
Christchurch, Oxford--a foundation established
on the income of suppressed religious houses
|
In the background of Henry’s decision we should note
that over the centuries the Church had become very land rich—indeed the Church
owned more land in England than the Crown—owning approximately a third of the
land in England. About half this land
was owned by religious orders, the other half by the dioceses, bishops,
rectories, and other entities representing the secular clergy.
How did the Church manage to come into such wealth? Remember that medieval Europe did not have a
cash economy. The foundation of wealth
was land. And when people wanted to make
a contribution to the Church they often gave land. Kings and nobles, in founding monasteries,
provided land for the support of the monks or nuns. Kings and nobles might also—out of piety or
penance or even just good will—give land for the support of a particular
church. The Earl of Warwick, for
example, might give a manor to provide income for a pastor in
Warwickshire. The pastor—or actually,
“rector” of the church in question would receive the rent each year from this
manor as part of his income. The Duke of
Norfolk might give the tolls on a bridge to the Dean of Norwich as part of the
income to the deanery. A knight in Coventry,
dying without heirs, might will his fief to salary a canon at Lincoln. You get the idea. And of course the King, using the bishoprics
to provide positions and salaries for his important advisors, would richly
endow those bishoprics with income-producing lands. These endowments—or rather the positions they
salaried—were called benefices. Over the
centuries, these incomes add up and positions from Archbishops and their
Archdeacons down to canons and rectors were usually well provided for.
Moreover, people making pilgrimage to certain
shrines—the tomb of Saint Thomas a Becket at Canterbury being the richest—but
also Saint Frideswide at Oxford, Edward the Confessor at Westminster, Saint
Hugh at Lincoln, Saint Cuthbert at Durham, et al—drew pilgrims and gifts to
these abbey and cathedral churches.
Glastonbury Abbey was associated with King Arthur but also had legends
that it was founded by Joseph of Arimathea. There were even stories that Jesus
had visited there as a boy—and returned after his resurrection to see it again.
Some monasteries contained relics of
dubious provenance or artifacts that were just outright frauds such as the
“Rood of Grace” at Boxley Abbey—a crucifix that could move its head, shed
tears, and make various facial expressions—controlled by a system of levers
managed by a monk from behind a curtain.
Fraud it may have been, but as
P.T. Barnum said—“There’s a sucker born every minute” and pilgrims flocked to
the abbey with their gifts and donations.
Such relics—and frauds—would bring in gifts of jewelry, gold, silver, and
coin as well as donations of property.
People might give or bequeath in their wills to a monastery or to a
cathedral houses or shops—the income from which would provide for Masses to be
said or prayers to be offered or processions to be conducted for the souls of
the donor and his or her loved ones.
Property went to the Church—but the Church, like wise
financiers, never alienated property and thus grew very rich. The Benedictine monks and Augustinian
Canons, like the bishops and secular clergy, tended to rent out their lands and
salary themselves from the rents, but the Cistercian monks were more hands-on. The Cistercians had vast number of lay
brothers who actually worked the monastery properties. Indeed the Cistercians were masters at
sheep-herding and ran a vast wool industry with the work of the
laybrothers. Moreover, unlike the
Benedictines and the Canons, both of whom tended to put much of their income
into the ornaments for the abbey churches, the Cistercians both lived and
prayed frugally. Cistercian churches
had no stained glass. Vestments were
only of wool and never of silk. Altar
cross and candle holders, as well as thuribles and other required furnishings,
were of iron, chalices of silver and not gold.
Books were not illuminated and there were no organs or instruments in
their churches. Thus, by hard work and meager
living they grew exceptionally wealthy.
Over the centuries, various monasteries had closed—or
been closed—and their incomes diverted to chartable endeavors but the idea of systematically
suppressing monasteries was first that of Cardinal Wolsey and it was done for
reasons of “reform.” While many
monasteries, and especially those of nuns, were poor and had a tough time
getting by, there were others whose incomes were more than sufficient. Since many of the poorer ones had few—if
any—vocations and numbers were dwindling, Wolsey thought for the sake of
organization it might be a good idea to close the smaller houses, move the nuns
or monks to larger and more secure communities, and use the property of the
closed houses to endow a number of new charitable or educational
endeavors. Among his other endeavors,
the Cardinal founded two educational institutions from the income of suppressed
religious houses: a grammar school in his native town of Ipswich and Cardinal
College, Oxford. The former exists today
as The King’s School, the latter as Christchurch College, Oxford. Wolsey had no idea of eliminating religious
life in England—far from it—and indeed at the time of his fall in 1530 it would
have been inconceivable to think that the vast monastic institutions would
totally disappear in just a little over a decade. But we will hear more of that in the next
posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment