They have chambers with partitions in the dorter. They have separate maids of their own, who do not serve the community[1975]. They do not eat out of the same dish but have divers dishes. Each had one loaf to herself and kept what was over; we ordered the abbess to give them bread without livery (i.e. in common) and to take back what was over. They do not live on the same pittance; in short they do not live in common[1976].
In 1260 it was the same story:
The frater was often left empty, to wit because they did not eat together therein, but they ate meat scattered in cliques by twos and by threes in their chambers (due et due, tres et tres, sparsim et socialiter in cameris). They had many chambers and five maid servants to boot.... Each of them had one loaf daily and retained what remained over. We ordered that the remnant should be given in alms and counselled them to eat and to live in common and to remove the chambers[1977].
At Montivilliers the order to dine together was repeated at almost every visitation; the nuns had separate dishes cooked for themselves in the kitchen and when they were in the infirmary “for recreation or for slight ailments” they used to eat separately in little companies (per conventicula)[1978]. At St Saëns[1979] and at St Léger de Préaux[1980] also the nuns had separate food allowances and ate in the infirmary; at Bival some of them had food prepared separately[1981], and at Villarceaux in 1266 the Archbishop made the following injunction:
We ordered her (the Abbess) to permit them to dine together twice a day according to their rule and to have a bell rung twice, to wit for dinner and for supper, so that they might come together at the sound into the frater, in a more seemly way than they have been wont. For they often ate separately in their chambers[1982].
At St Sauveur also Rigaud ordered all to dine together in the frater, and in the infirmary all nuns, except those actually in bed, were to use the same food at the same table[1983]. At Bondeville the nuns seem to have been in the habit of congregating, with the servants of the house, in a certain oven room, doubtless for the sake of the warmth; and the Archbishop several times forbade the practice on account of possible scandal[1984]. Private drinking parties sometimes occurred; at St Sauveur the nuns occasionally drank outside the frater or infirmary in their own chambers[1985] and at Almenèches they drank after Compline[1986].
(4) It has already been said that the nunneries were often reduced to great straits by poverty. As a result they invented a number of devices for obtaining ready money. Some of these devices seem to modern eyes harmless enough; but they were opposed by medieval Visitors because they brought the nunneries into too close contact with the world and were subversive of discipline. One of their devices has already been described. At St Saëns, Villarceaux, Bival and St Sauveur it is evident that the nuns were in the habit not merely of giving away but actually of selling the food and drink left over from meals and their old clothes to people outside the convent. At Bondeville Rigaud had, in 1251, to forbid them to sell their thread and their spindles[1987]. At many houses they were accustomed to knit or embroider silken purses, tassels, cushions or needle cases, either for sale or as gifts to their friends, and the Archbishop forbade them to do any silkwork except for church ornament[1988]. He was not remarkably successful, since he had to repeat the injunction eight times at St Amand, between 1254 and 1267. It is interesting to compare his attitude with the similar prohibition made to the anchoresses of the Ancren Riwle early in the same century: “Make no purses to gain friends therewith, nor blodbendes of silk; but shape and sew and mend church vestments and poor people’s clothes”[1989].
Another means of getting money was by taking schoolchildren as boarders and the general attitude of the Church towards this custom is strikingly illustrated in Eudes Rigaud’s Register. The provincial council of Rouen in 1231, attempting to deal with the bad discipline in Benedictine nunneries, had promulgated a statute forbidding the reception of children to be educated, and the context shows that the practice was regarded solely in the light of an interference with convent discipline, by bringing the nuns into contact with the world:
On account of the scandals which rise out of the conversation of nuns, we ordain for black nuns that they shall receive nothing to be deposited with them in their houses by any persons; above all let them by no means permit the strong-boxes of clergy, or of the laity too, to be placed in their custody[1990]. Boys and girls who are accustomed to be brought up and taught there are immediately to be put away[1991].
In accordance with this statute and with the invariable custom of ecclesiastical authorities it was Eudes Rigaud’s practice to order the expulsion of children wherever he found them, and the number of these prohibitions increased during the last years covered by his diary, which points to a firm determination to eradicate the fault, though it would also seem to imply a certain flouting of his authority by the nuns. In four cases (St Saëns, St Aubin, Bival and Villarceaux) the moral record of the houses concerned was so disgraceful that the Archbishop might well be thought to have been actuated by concern for the children growing up under such evil influences[1992]; but the fact that he took the same course at Bondeville, St Sauveur, St Amand and St Léger de Préaux, against which none but minor breaches of the rule were charged, shows that his policy was dictated by care for the nuns and not for their pupils. Bondeville was an obstinate offender. There in 1255 the Archbishop ordered the Prioress and Subprioress to remove their little nieces[1993] and a certain other girl[1994]; in 1257 he noted the presence of five ladies (domicelle) who had not been received as novices[1995]; and in 1261 he noted again that “Many secular girls were used to be placed there with their costs”[1996]. In the two last cases the Register—probably, as Mr Coulton suggests, by a clerical oversight—contains no injunction to remove the children; and in 1266 only one boarder, “a lady of Rouen, Laurentia called quatuor Homines” was ordered to be sent away, though the Archbishop explicitly stated that “Certain girls (iuvencule), daughters of burgesses of Rouen, were there as it were in charge [of the nuns], which displeased us”[1997]. There was, however, no ambiguity about his action in 1268 when he ordered a certain