English Monastic Life

by Francis Aidan Gasquet

1. THE BISHOP

Normally, the bishop of the diocese in which a religious house was situated, was its Visitor and ultimate authority, except in so far as an appeal lay from him to the pope. In process of time exemptions from the regular jurisdiction of the diocesan tended to multiply; whole Orders, like the Cistercian and the Cluniacs among the Benedictines, and the Premonstratensians among the Canons Regular, and even individual houses, like St. Alban’s and Bury St. Edmunds, on one ground or another obtained their freedom from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. In the case of great bodies, like those of Citeaux, Cluny, Prémontré, and later the Gilbertines, the privilege of exemption was in the first instance obtained from the pope, on the ground that the individual houses were parts of a great corporation with its centre at the mother-house. Such monasteries were all subject to the authority of a central government, and regular Visitors were appointed by it. In the thirteenth century, on the same principle, the mendicant Orders, whose members were attached to the general body and not to the locality in which they might happen to be, were freed from the immediate control of the bishops of the various dioceses in which their convents were situated.

In the case of individual houses, the exemption was granted by the Holy See as a favour and a privilege. It is hard to understand in what the privilege really consisted, except that it was certainly considered an honourable thing to be immediately subject only to the head of the Christian Church. Such privileges were, on the whole, few; only five Benedictine houses in England possessed them, and even such great and important abbeys as Glastonbury, in the South of England, and St. Mary’s, York, in the North, were subject to the regular jurisdiction of the diocesan. In the case of the few Benedictine houses which, by the intercession of the king or other powerful friends, had obtained exemption in this matter, regular fees had to be paid to the Roman chancery for the privilege. St. Alban’s, for example, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, made an annual payment of £14 to the papal collector in lieu of the large fees previously paid on the election of every new abbot, and as an acknowledgment of the various privileges granted to him, such as, for example, the right to rank first in dignity among the abbots, and for the abbot to be able “even outside his own churches to use pontificalia and solemnly bless the people.” Edmundsbury, in the same way, paid an annual sum for its exemption and privileges, as also did Westminster, St. Augustine’s (Canterbury), Waltham Holy Cross, and a few others. By this time, too, some of the Cluniac houses, such as Lewes Priory and Lenton, had obtained their exemption and right of election.

In regard to the non-exempt monasteries and convents—that is ordinarily—the relation between the bishops and the religious houses was constant; and, apparently, with exceptions of course, cordial. The episcopal registers show that the bishops did not shirk the duty of visiting, and correcting what they found amiss in the houses under their control; and whilst there is evidence of a natural desire on their part to bring the regular life up to a high standard, there is little or none of any narrow spirit in the exercise of this part of the episcopal office, or of any determination to worry the religious, to misunderstand the purpose of their high vocation, or to make regular life unworkable in practice by any over-strict interpretation of the letter of the law. It is, of course, after all, only natural that these good relations should exist between the bishop and the regulars of his diocese. The unexempt houses were not extra-diocesan so far as episcopal authority went, like those of the exempt Orders; but they were for the most part the most important and the most useful centres of spiritual life in each diocese. It was therefore to the bishop’s interest as head of the diocese to see that in these establishments the lamp of fervour should not be allowed to grow dim, and that the good work should not be permitted to suffer through any lessening of the cordial relations which had traditionally existed between the bishops and the religious houses within the pale of his jurisdiction.

The bishop’s duties to the religious houses in his diocese were various. In the first place, in regard to the election of the superior: here much depended upon the actual position of the monastery in regard to the king, to the patron, or even to the Order. If the king was the founder of the house or had come to be regarded as such, which may roughly be said to have been the case in most of the greater monastic establishments, and especially in those which held lands immediately from the Crown, then the bishop had nothing to say to the matter till the royal assent had been given. The process has been already briefly explained; but the main features may again be set out. On the death of the superior, the religious would have to make choice of some of their number to proceed to the court to inform the king of the demise and to obtain the congé d’élire, or permission to elect. The first action of the king would be the appointment of officials to administer the property in his name during the vacancy, having due regard to the needs of the community. He would then issue his licence for the religious to choose a new superior. All this, especially if the king were abroad or in some far-off part of the country, would take time, sometimes measured by weeks. On the reception of the congé d’élire, the convent proceeded to the formal election, the result of which had to be reported to the king; and if he assented to the choice made, this was signified to the bishop, whose office it was to inquire concerning the validity of the election and the fitness of the person chosen—that is, he was bound to see whether the canonical forms had all been adhered to in the process and the election legal, and whether the elect had the qualities necessary to make a fitting superior and a ruler in temporals and in spirituals. If after inquiry all proved to be satisfactory, the bishop formally confirmed the choice of the monks and signified the confirmation to the king, asking for the restitution of temporalities to the new superior. If the election was that of an abbot, the bishop then bestowed the solemn blessing upon the elect thus confirmed, generally in some place other than his own monastic church, and wrote a formal letter to the community, charging them to receive their new superior and show him all obedience. Finally, the bishop appointed a commission to proceed to the house and install the abbot or prior in his office.

In the case of houses which acknowledged founders or patrons other than the king, the deaths of superiors were communicated to them, and permission to proceed to the choice of successors was asked more as a form than as a reality. The rest was in the hands of the bishops. In ordinary circumstances where there was no such lay patron, a community, on the death of a superior, merely assembled and at once made choice of a successor. This election had then to be communicated at once to the bishop, whose duty it was to inquire into the circumstances of the election and to determine whether the canonical formalities had been complied with. If this inquiry proved satisfactory, the bishop proceeded to the canonical examination of the elect before confirming the choice. This kind of election was completed by the issue of the episcopal letters claiming the obedience of the monks for their new superior. It was frequently the custom for the bishop to appoint custodians of the temporalities during the vacancy at such of these religious houses as were immediately subject to him. The frequency of the adoption by religious of the form of election by which they requested the bishop to make choice of their superior is at least evidence of the more than cordial relations which existed between the diocesan and the regulars, and of their confidence in his desire to serve their house to the best of his power in the choice of the most fitting superior.

Sometimes, of course, the episcopal examination of the process, or of the elect, would lead to the quashing of the election. This took place generally when some canonical form had not been adhered to, as on this matter the law was rightly most strict. Less frequently, the elect on inquiry was found to lack some quality essential in a good ruler, and it then became the duty of the bishop to declare the choice void. Sometimes this led to the convent being deprived of its voice in the election, and in such a case the choice devolved upon the bishop. Numerous instances, however, make it clear that although legally the bishop was bound to declare such an election void, he would always, if possible, himself appoint the religious who had been the choice of the community.

In other instances again, the bishop’s part in the appointment of a new superior was confined to the blessing of the abbot after the confirmation of the election by the pope, or by the superior of the religious body. This was the case in the Cistercian and Cluniac bodies, and in such of the great abbeys as were exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. Sometimes, as in the case of St. Alban’s, even the solemn blessing of the new abbot could by special privilege be given by any bishop the elect might choose for the purpose.

Outside the time of the elections and visitations, the bishops exercised generally a paternal and watchful care over the religious houses of their diocese. Before the suppression of the alien priories, for example, these foreign settlements were supervised by the Ordinary quite as strictly as were the English religious houses under his jurisdiction. These priories were mostly established in the first instance to look after estates which had been bestowed upon foreign abbeys, and the number in each house was supposed to be strictly limited, and was, in fact, small. It was not uncommon, however, to find that more than the stipulated number of religious were quartered upon the small community by the foreign superior, or that an annual payment greater than the revenue of the English estate would allow was demanded by the authorities of the foreign mother-house. Against both of these abuses the bishop of the diocese had officially to guard. We find, for instance, Bishop Grandisson of Exeter giving his licence for a monk of Bec to live for some months only at Cowick Priory, and for another to leave Cowick on a visit to Bec. Also in regard to Tywardreath, a cell of the Abbey of St. Sergius, near Ghent, the same bishop on examination found that the revenue was so diminished that it could not support the six monks it was supposed to maintain, and he therefore sent back three of their number to their mother-house on the Continent. This conclusion, be it remarked, was arrived at only after careful inquiry, and after the bishop had for a time appointed a monk from another religious house to assist the foreign superior in the administration of the temporals of his priory. Upon the report of this assistant he deprived the superior for negligence, and appointed custodians of the temporalities of the house. From the episcopal registers generally it appears, too, that once the foreign religious were settled in any alien priory, they came under the jurisdiction of the bishop of the locality, in the same way as the English religious. The alien prior’s appointment had to be confirmed by him, and no religious could come to the house or go from it, even to return to the foreign mother-house, without his permission.

In regard to all non-exempt monastic establishments of men and convents of women, the episcopal powers were very great and were freely exercised. Thus to take some examples: the Benedictine abbey of Tavistock in the fourteenth century was seriously troubled by debt, partly, at least, caused by an incapable and unworthy superior. This abbot, by the way, had been provided by the pope; and apparently the bishop did not consider that his functions extended beyond issuing a commission to induct him into his office. In a short time matters came to a crisis, and reports as to the bad state of the house came to the ears of Bishop Grandisson. He forthwith prohibited the house from admitting more members to the habit until he had had time to examine into matters. The abbot replied by claiming exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, apparently on the ground that he had been appointed by the Holy See. The bishop, as he said, “out of reverence for the lord Pope who had created the both of us,” waived this as a right and came to the house as a friend, to see what remedy could be found to allay the rumours that were rife in the country as to gross mismanagement at the abbey. How far the bishop succeeded does not transpire; but a couple of years later the abbot was suspended and deposed, and the bishop appointed the Cistercian abbot of Buckland and a monk of Tavistock to administer the goods of the abbey pending another election. How thoroughly the religious approved of the action of the bishop may be gauged by the fact that they asked him to appoint their abbot for them.

In the ordinary and extraordinary visitations made by the bishop, the interests of the religious houses were apparently the only considerations which weighed with him. Sometimes the injunctions and monitions given at a visitation appertained to the most minute points of regular life, and sometimes the visitatorial powers were continued in force for considerable periods in order to secure that certain points that needed correction might be seen to. One curious right possessed and exercised by the bishop of any diocese on first coming to his see, was that of appointing one person in each monastery and convent to be received as a religious without payment or pension. It is proper, however, to say that this right was always exercised with fatherly discretion. Again and again the records of visitations in the episcopal registers show that the bishop did not hesitate to appoint a co-adjutor to any superior whom he might find deficient in the power of governing, either in spirituals or temporals. Officials who were shown to be incapable in the course of such inquiries were removed, and others were either appointed by the bishop, or their appointment sanctioned by him. Religious who had proved themselves undesirable or impossible in one house were not unfrequently translated by the bishop to another. Thus in A.D. 1338-9 great storms had wrought destruction at Bodmin. The priory buildings were in ruins, and a sum of money had to be raised for the necessary repairs which were urgently required. Bishop Grandisson gave his permission for the monks to sell a corrody—or undertaking to give board and lodging for life at the priory—for a payment of ready money. A few years later, in 1347, on his visitation the bishop found things financially in a bad way. He removed the almoner from his office, regulated the number of servants and the amount of food; and having appointed an administrator, sent the prior to live for a time in one of the priory granges, in order to see whether the house could be recovered from its state of bankruptcy by careful administration.

One proof of the friendly relations which as a rule existed between the bishop and the regular clergy of his diocese may be seen in the fact that the abbots and superiors were frequently, if not generally, found in the lists of those appointed as diocesan collectors on any given occasion. The superiors of religious houses contributed to the loans and grants raised in common with the rest of the diocesan clergy, either for the needs of the sovereign, the Holy See, or the bishop. That there were at times difficulty and friction in the working out of these well-understood principles of subordination need not be denied; but that as a whole the system, which may be described as normal, brought about harmonious relations between the bishop and the regulars must be conceded by all who will study its workings in the records of pre-Reformation episcopal government.