Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:59:29.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cathedrals, Provosts and Prebends: a Comparison of Twelfth-Century German and English Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Julia Barrow
Julia Barrow
Affiliation:
12a Lauder Road, Edinburgh EH9 2EL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been a favourite theme of ecclesiastical historians, particularly in Germany, that the separation of cathedral chapter from episcopal estates was an important step in the development of ecclesiastical administration, not least because it assisted cathedral chapters to become independent and powerful electoral colleges. It was shown by Gerhard Kallen in the 1920s and, more recently and in greater detail, by Rudolf Schieffer, how this separation of estates, which took a long time to be effected, began with grants made to the cathedral ‘for the use of the brothers’ or with grants for more specific purposes, usually of a liturgical nature. This paper looks at a closely related issue, the splitting up of the estates held by the chapter. This division was to some extent inherent from early on, because of the conditions attached to certain benefactions, but it increased throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The way the chapter's revenues were organised had important consequences for the cohesion of the chapter as a community and also for the way in which clerical preferment operated. This can be very clearly demonstrated by a comparative study of the ways in which German and English cathedrals managed their property in the twelfth century. Since the differences between the German and the English systems are so striking the two will be considered in turn, and a comparison will also be made of the control which German and English clerks had over their personal property, which deserves attention not least because the dividing line between personal and chapter property was sometimes a fine one.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 1986 , pp. 536 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Research for this paper was made possible by the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, which generously gave me a research fellowship. I should like to thank them and Professor Peter Herde of the University of Würzburg for their help, and also the staff of the Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv in Munich and of the Staatsarchiv in Würzburg. I am very grateful to Professor C. N. L. Brooke and to Timothy Reuter for offering criticism and bibliographical information and to Richard Hoyle for checking a reference for me. Responsibility for errors and oversights is the author's alone.

BHStA = Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich; MB xxxvii, A/5 xlv = Monumenta Boica xxxvii, xlv, ed. Academia Scientiarum Boica, Monumenta episcopatus Wirziburgensis, Munich 1864, 1899; MUB = Mainz.tr Urkundenbuch, 2 vols., ed. M. Stimming and P. Acht, Darmstadt 1932-71; UB. d. Hochsl. Halb. i = Urkundenbuch des Hochstifts Halberstadt i, ed. G. Schmidt 1883, repr. Osnabrück 1965; Westf. UB i, ii = Regesta Historiac Westfaliae. Accedil Codex Diplomatics i, ii, ed. H. A. Erhard, Münster 1847-51; Weslf. UB iiix = Weslfdlisches Urkundenbuch, ed. R. Wilmans et al., Münster 1859-1940; WStA: Staatsarchiv, Würzburg.

1 Kallen, Gerhard, ‘Der rechtliche Charakter der frühmittelalterlichen sogenannten Güterteilung zwischen Bischof und Kapitel’ (University of Bonn Diss. phil., 1924), 10, 22Google Scholar ; Schieffer, Rudolf, Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln in Deutschland, Bonner Historische Forschungen xliii, Bonn 1976, 264–85, especially pp. 264, 271Google Scholar.

2 For the early history of the term prebend, mainly from French material, see Lesne, E., ‘“Prebenda”. Le sens primitif du terme prebende’, in Melanges Paul Fournier, Paris 1929, 443–53Google Scholar ; for the use of the term in eleventh- and twelfth-century France, when the communal praebenda was divided up, see Lesne, E., ‘Les origines de la prébende’, Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger, 4th ser. viii (1929), 242–90.Google Scholar French evolution was considerably in advance of German and somewhat different from English.

3 Praebenda was originally neuter plural, not feminine singular: Niermeyer, J. F., Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus, Leiden 1976, 822ff.Google Scholar It should be noted that the word Pfründe in modern German has a far wider application - any ecclesiastical benefice or corrody - than the word prebend in English.

4 Westf. UB ii, Cod. nos 224, 241; the word could also be used for a corrody at a monastery, ibid, supplement, no. 99, dated 1236, or for provision for an individual monk or nun in a monastery.

5 In general on English prebends, see Edwards, Kathleen, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn, Manchester 1967, 39–41.Google Scholar Much later in the Middle Ages, German prebends came to consist at least in part of a fixed endowment; see below, p. 542.

6 Blake, David, ‘The development of the chapter of the diocese of Exeter, 1050-1161’, Journal of Medieval History viii (1982), 1, 5.Google Scholar At London in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries the word praebenda meant not only fixed endowments in land but also a share in the communal revenues, Early Charters of St Paul's Cathedral, London, ed. Gibbs, M. (Camden Society, 3rd Series xliii), pp. xx–xxi.Google Scholar St Paul's was briefly influenced by a version of the Rule of Chrodegang in the eleventh century: see Brooke, C. N. L., ‘The composition of the chapter of St Paul's 1086-1163’, Cambridge Historical Journal x (1951), 119Google Scholar.

7 It is unfortunately impossible in this article, which attempts merely to give an outline of the most important features of the German prebendal system, to look at more than a few German cathedrals: Mainz, Würzburg, Bamberg, Paderborn, Münster, Minden and Halberstadt, with occasional forays elsewhere. Minor secular collegiate churches, since they had the same organisation as, and close links with, cathedral churches, are discussed here too.

8 Feine, H. E., Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte: die Katholische Kirche, 4th edn, Cologne-Graz 1964, 380–2.Google Scholar

9 In the late eleventh century at Bamberg, Die Regeslen der Bischofe und des Domkapitels von Bamberg, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft fur fränkische Geschichte, 6. Reihe, i, Würzburg and Munich 1932-1963, no. 567 of 1093.Google Scholar Mainz Cathedral chapter under its provost issued and sealed a document 1146X 1148, MUB ii. no. 116 and cf. no. 164; Würzburg Cathedral chapter issued and sealed its first document in 1169, MB xxxvii, no. 110, and cf. Johanek, P., Die Fruhzeit der Sicgelurkunde im Bis turn Würzburg (Quellcn und Forschungen zur Geschichte dcs Bistums und Hochstifts Würzburg) xx, 1969, 83. Halberstadt Cathedral had a seal from 1174,Google ScholarBrackmann, A., ‘Urkundliche Geschichte des Halbcrstädter Domkapitels im Mittclalter’, Zeilschrift des Harz-Vereins für Geschichte und Altertumskunde xxxii (1899), 77–8.Google Scholar The seals used by twelfth-century German cathedral chapters are cathedral seals, bearing the name of the church as their legend, and not corporation seals, Ibid. 78.

10 On episcopal seals cf. BHStA Würzburger Urkunde 4063 for Stift Haug; though curiously enough, despite its wording, no seal seems ever to have been applied to it, Johanek, op. cit. 90. See also UB d. Hochst. Halb. i. no. 198 dated 1140, a grant by provost Martin of Halberstadt Cathedral; and, for Magdeburg, Claude, D., Geschichte des Erzbislums Magdeburg bis in das 12. Jahrhundert, Cologne, Vienna 1972-5, ii. 212–13.Google Scholar

11 MB xxxvii. nos 95 (for Würzburg Cathedral chapter, 1149) and 99 (for Würzburg Cathedral chapter, 1156).

12 MB xxxvii. no. 79, dated 1131, for Würzburg Cathedral chapter.

13 Ibid. no. 99, dated 1156, for Würzburg Cathedral; Westf. UB ii. no. 427, for Minden, datable 1181 x 1185.

14 Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 426.

15 MB xxxvii. no. 149, April 1189 (concerning a land purchase by Würzburg Cathedral chapter); Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 539, 1194 (concerning tithes bought by Münster Cathedral); Ibid. iii. no. in, dated 1217; and Ibid. vi. no. 59 of 1213-36 concerning prebendal organisation at minor Stifte in the dioceses of Münster and Minden.

16 BHStA, Würzburger Urkunde 5637 for Neumünster, Würzburg, 1130; cf. also Westf. UB vi. 66, 92-3, 142, 187, 195 and 209 for the chapters of various churches in the diocese of Minden; BHStA Bamberger Urkunden 185 (1130) and 418 (1201) for Bamberg Cathedral.

17 It was not always clear which was episcopal and which was chapter property, Westf. UB iii. 105 (1217) for Münster Cathedral chapter.

18 Cf. MB xxxvii. no. 119 (1172) and MB xlv. no. 25 (late twelfth century).

19 Starflinger, H., Die Entwicklung der Domvoglei in den altbayerischen Bistümern, Ludwigshafen 1908, 61.Google Scholar For the splitting up of the Domvogtei at Bamberg see BHStA, Bamberger Urkunden 185, 326, and 418; at Halbcrstadt the advocacy seems to have remained a single unit, though with subadvocacies for the uillicationes, , Brackmann, ‘Urkundliche Geschichte’, 92–3Google Scholar.

20 MB xlv. no. 29, dated 24 August 1212, for Würzburg Cathedral chapter; WStA, Standbuch 522, fo. 5 (1213), for Neumünster, Würzburg; Westf. UB vi. no. 54 (1213 x 1216?) for Minden.

21 Cf. Schich, W., Würzburg im Miltelalter, Cologne 1977, 143Google Scholar ; Prinz, J., Mimigernaford Münster, Münster 1960, 143.Google Scholar In the monastic world, the communal and individual uses of the word praebenda also co-existed happily in the twelfth century: cf. Wibaldi Epistolae Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum i, ed. Jaffé, P., Berlin 1864, nos. 210, 230, 256, 384, 449, 463Google Scholar.

28 Bishop Erlung's charter is printed in MB xxxvii. no. 75; Archbishop Adalbert's in MUB i. no. 492. Adalbert's charter states that these were the regulations which already applied in the Marienstift in Erfurt.

23 Westf. UB vi no. 5 4 (1213 X 1216?).

24 Ibid. iv. no. 185 (17 November 1230).

26 WStA, Standbuch 184, fos 54-5, of 1159 but referring to arrangements made before 1146; and BHStA, Würzburger Urkunde 5653 (1160).

26 Herzog, U., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Domkapitcls zu Münster und seines Besitzes im Mittelalter (Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte vi, 1961), 39–40.Google Scholar The offices, small estates, were farmed out to canons who had to distribute most of the income to their colleagues. See also UB d. Hochst. Halb. i. no. 456, statutes of c. 1200X 1210 setting out penalties for non-payment of income from offices at Halberstadt.

27 MUB ii. no. 517 (1186 x 1189) for Mainz, and Westf. UB iii. no. 466 (dated 8 March 1247, when food payments finally ceased officially at Münster).

28 The impression was doubtless all the deeper for being relatively recent: much of Germany east of the Rhine did not adopt the Rule of Aachen till c. 1000, , Schieffer, Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln, 232–60, especially pp. 254-6Google Scholar.

29 Westf. UB iii. nos 111, 127 (documents of 1217 and 1218 referring to Bishop Hermann's foundation of the Stift in the 1180s).

30 Amrhein, A., ‘Reihenfolge der Mitglieder des adeligen Domstiftes zu Würzburg’, i, Archiv des historischen Vereines von Unterfranken und Aschaffenburg xxxii (1889), 27.Google Scholar K. Edwards remarked on a similar system at Chartres Cathedral where the lands making up the prebends were regularly redivided every 5, 9 or 12 years, The English Secular Cathedrals, 40.

31 The Rule of Aachen ascribes this duty to the praelati of the church, chs 121-2, MGH Concilia II, 1906, i. 400-3; according to Werminghoff the praelati included the provost: ‘Die Beschlüsse des Aachener Concils imjahre 816’, Neues Archiv xxvii (1901-1902), 625.Google Scholar For the use of the title dispensator, see BHStA, Würzburger Urkunde 5656 of 1161 for Neumünster, Würzburg.

32 Westf. UB i. Cod. no. 155, also Osnabrücker Urkundenbuch, ed. Philippi, F.,Google Scholar repr. Osnabrück 1969, i. no. 156. Both editions accept the document as genuine.

33 MB xxxvii. nos 121 (1174), 142 (27 Ma y 1188), 156 (1197 - here although the dean controlled the lease the wax was payable to the custos), 181 (1212, with dues paid in wheat), and 185 (1213 - here the property was a vineyard).

34 MB xxxvii. no. 159.

35 The word also occurs in Westf. UB iii. no. 232, for Münster Cathedral, datable 1226X 1248. For a discussion of the mixed social status of ctroccnsuales, see , Johanek, Die Frühzeit der Sicgelurkunde, 298–9Google Scholar.

36 As in Westf. UB iii. no. 397, dated 24 April 1242, for Münster Cathedral; and MB xxxvii. no. 156 (see n. 32). It was also sensible to make censuales pay to the custos their fee to inherit when this consisted, as it often did, of the best piece of clothing belonging to the deceased, since the cusios’ duties included care of church vestments, BHStA, Bamberger Urkunde 335, dated Maundy Thursday 1178.

37 WStA, Standbuch 184, fos 42-3 (probably of 1199), 78V-79V (1189), and 84V-85V (1199).

38 Westf. UB iii. no. 135 (1218X 1226).

39 MUB ii. no. 372.

40 MB xxxvii. no. 99. In BHStA, Würzburger Urkund e 5656 of 1161, a provost claims the right to control a transaction made by a mansionarius of the church.

41 WStA, Standbuch 184, fos 54-55 (pre-1159); Westf. UB iv. no. 27 (1207) and probably also Ibid. no. 55 (1213).

42 , Brackmann, ‘Urkundliche Geschichte’, 49.Google Scholar

43 Until the fourteenth century at Münster, , Herzog, Untersuchungcn, 27.Google Scholar Passau Cathedral, where the dean supervised prebendal distribution in the twelfth century, was something of an exception, Oswald, J., Das die Passauer Domkapitel (Münchner Studien zur historischen Theologie x, 1933), 13Google Scholar.

44 MUB i. no. 492.

45 Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 224.

46 Ibid. Cod. no. 309. For the year of grace, see p. 549 below.

47 MUB ii. no. 315 (1169).

48 BHStA, Bamberger Urkunde 327 (1176).

49 Westf. UB iii. no. 33 (1205).

50 Ibid. iv. no. 185 (17 November 1230).

51 Ibid. iii. no. 67 (1212); for oboedientiae, see p. 548 below.

52 From the early twelfth century on, the provosts of the Mainz Stifte St Johann, St Stephan, St Viktor and St Moritz were almost invariably cathedral canons, while the provosts of other Stifte in the diocese of Mainz were often, though not always, cathedral canons, cf. Schöntag, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Erzbistums Mainz, Darmstadt, Marburg 1973, 54.Google Scholar For documents enjoining that only cathedral canons should become provosts of certain Stifle, see Weslf. UB vi. nos 207 and 212 (1230) concerning the Stifle St Martin and St Johann in Minden, and MB xxxvii. no. 133 (1183) concerning the Stifte of Haug, NeuMünster and Ansbach in the diocese of Würzburg.

53 Wentz, G. and Schwineköper, B., Das Erzbistum Magdeburg I, i, Das Domstift St Moritz in Magdeburg, Germania Sacra, Berlin 1972, 134, 243Google Scholar , and see , Claude, Ceschichte des Erzbistums Magdeburg ii. 212Google Scholar.

54 Westf. UB i. Cod. no. 188 (b).

55 MUB i. no. 492; Ibid. ii. nos 250, 315, 336.

56 Westf. UB ii. Cod no. 359.

57 Ibid. iv. nos 27 and 185. At Halberstadt, separate funding for the provostships at minor Stifle began by at least the late 1130s, while there is no evidence for separate funding for the cathedral provostship until 1187, UB d. Hochst. Halb. i. nos 183, 191, 317.

58 MB xxxvii. no. 78 (and cf. another forgery, Ibid. no. 88); for the circumstances in which they were actually written, see , Johanek, Frühzeit der Siegelurkunde, 299–300.Google Scholar The wording of WStA, Standbuch 184, fos. 38V-40 (1184) suggests that the provostship of Neumünster may have had separate funding by then.

59 Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 235 (1140 x 1147).

80 , Schöntag, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Erzbistums Mainz, 54–6.Google Scholar

81 Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 388 (1177) and iii. nos 111 (referring to late twelfth-century arrangements) and 261 (1229). See also Hilling, N., ‘Die Entstehungsgeschichte der Münsterschen Archidiakonate’, Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Alterthumskunde lx (1902), 50–2Google Scholar.

64 Westf. UB iii. nos 269, 270 (both 1230). The cathedral deanery and provostship also got small archdeaconries, Hilling, art. cit. 51-2.

63 Westf. UB vi. no. 207 (5 December 1230); Ibid. iv. no. 198 (20 January 1231).

64 Ibid. vi. no. 58.

65 Schöffel, P., Herbipolis Sacra, Würzburg 1948, 91, n. 3.Google Scholar

66 MB xxxvii. no. 78 (see n. 58 above).

67 Bischoff, B. and Hofmann, J., Libri Sancti Kiliani (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Bis turns und Hochstifts Würzburg vi, 1952), 113Google Scholar ; Thurn, H., Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg III, i, Die Pergamenthandschriften der ehemaligen Dombibliothek, Wiesbaden 1984, 30Google Scholar.

68 Das Register Gregors VII, ed. E. Caspar, ii. no. 10, MGH, Epistolae Selectae II, i. 140-1; Codex Udalrici, no. 106, Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarumv. 192, datable 1084-1102. For the sacrarium at Freising, see Die Traditionen des Hochstifts Freising, ed. Bitterauf, T. (Quellen und Erörterungen zur bayerischen und deutschen Geschichte, NF iv, v, 1905-1906), ii. 176–7Google Scholar , no. 1287. For the earliest custos at Bamberg, see Die Regesten der Bischöfe… von Bamberg, 25.Google Scholar The earliest cathedral custos at Würzburg occurs in 1156 (MB xxxvii. no. 99); a custos Willebraht occurs in a document of 1065 for St Stephan, Würzburg, but since he occurs in the company of Dean Engilhard who seems to have been dean of a Nebenstift (cf. MB xxxvii. no. 69 of 1069) Willebraht was probably custos at a Nebenstift: Urkundenbuch der Benediktincr-Ablei St Stephan in Würzburg i, ed. Bendel, F. J., Heidingsfelder, F. and Kaufmann, M., Leipzig 1912, 11Google Scholar.

69 Many grantors of small estates to Münster Cathedral were eleventh-century laymen and bishops, Herzog, Untersuchungen, 30-2.

70 Cf. Westf. UB iii. no. 178 (1222).

71 For the origins of the system at Münster, see Herzog, loc. cit. The earliest reference to a Münster obedience as such is in Westf. UB ii. no. 307 (1155 x 1159). U. Hopp e traces the origins of the obedience system at Paderborn back to Bishop Meinwerk in the early eleventh century, Die Paderbomer Domfreiheit, Munich 1975, 50–1Google Scholar.

72 Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 385; and cf. Herzog, Untersuchungen, 29.

73 Westf. UB iii. no. 67.

74 Ibid. iv. no. 204 (31 January 1231).

75 Ibid. vi. no. 207 (5 December 1230).

76 Cf. Ibid., stipulations for the cathedral canons of Minden, and MB xxxvii. no. 74, stipulations for the cathedral canons of Würzburg of 1106, and see also nn. 77-8 below.

77 MB xxxvii. no. 74.

78 Ibid, no 105, for the cathedral; WStA, Standbuch 184, fos 34-5 for Neumünster; and Standbuch 122, fo. 19 for Stift Haug, Würzburg.

79 WStA Standbuch 184, fos 68v-6g (another copy ibid, fos 73-4).

80 The nine obituary grants by cathedral canons, or by relatives on their behalf, are: MB xxxvii. nos 83 (1137), 107 (1165), 109 (1169), 180 (1211), BHStA Würzburgcr Urkunde 5655 (by the cathedral cantor to Neumünstcr, 1160), WStA, Standbuch 184, fos 92V-93V (by the cathedral cellarer to Neumünster, 1212), and Codex Diplomalicus sive anecdota res Moguntinas… illustrantia, ed. Gudenus, V. F., Göttingen, Frankfurt, Leipzig 1743-1768, ii. 35–6Google Scholar (1218); the four obituary grants by bishops: MB xxxvii. nos 72 (t 103), 100 (in 1158 by Bishop Gebhard, who had possibly been a cathedral canon in his youth), 122 (1176), and WStA, Standbuch 122, fo. 20 (1165); the grant by a dean of Haug: WStA, Standbuch 122, fo. 21 (1176); the ten grants by canons of Neumünster: WStA 184, fos 12V-13 (1142), 26-27v (1158), 51-v (1156), 75v-6 (1185), 94-95v (1212), 103-105v (1217) and BHStA, Würzburger Urkunden 5652 (1158), and 5654 (1160); and see n. 79 above.

81 Arrived at by analysing the canons listed in , Amrhein, Reihenfolge, i. 82–106.Google Scholar The list contains several canons more than once and a few canons who occur only in forged charters, so that it is difficult to find out how many canons were not listed in the necrology. The necrology was edited by Wegele, F. X., Corpus Regulae seu Kalendarium Domus S. Kiliani Wirceburgensis (Abhandlungen der königlichen Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Hist. Cl. xiii, 1877)Google Scholar.

82 Westf. UB ii. Cod. nos 289 (1153, referring to an earlier grant), 309 (1156 x 1159), 355 (1172), 400 (1179), 434 (1183), and iv. no. 27 (1207); see also Ibid. ii. Reg. no. 1561, for a grant recorded in a necrology. Similarly in Saxony canons were expected to make such grants: , Brackmann, ‘Urkundliche Geschichte’, 28–9Google Scholar.

83 Bodleian, Oxford, Bodley MS Rawlinson B328; pr. by Rawlinson, R. as an appendix to his The History of the Cathedral Church of Hereford, London 1717.Google Scholar By the late Middle Ages, however, payments from obituary grants could make a substantial addition to a canon's revenue in England: , Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals, 46–7Google Scholar.

84 E.g. MB xxxvii. nos 109 and 115 and Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 538 (1194).

86 Westf. UB iii. no. 130 (5 July 1218), Potthast 5856. Cf. also MG H Diplomata X. ii, Friderici 1, no. 492 of 26 September 1165.

86 MB xxxvii. nos 107 (1165), 115(1171); BHStA, Brandenburg-Ansbacher Urkunden, 826-7 (both 1157), 835 (1168); Codex diplomatics… ii. 35-6 (1218); WStA, Standbuch 184, fos. 12v-13 (here the nominee was not a kinsman), 83v-84v (1199), 90-1 (1206); Westf. UB ii. Cod. no. 355 (1172); UBd. Hochsl. Halb. i. nos 146 (1109 x 1120), 171(1133). Dean Persius of Würzburg described the strict regulations for bequeathing oblations, especially houses, in the 1170s; see Johanek, P., ‘Ein Brief zur Geschichte des Würzburger Domkapitels im 12. Jahrhundert’, Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch fÜr Geschichte und Kunst xxvi (1974). 33–4Google Scholar.

87 For the origins of the Erboblei system see , Johanek, art. cit. 24–34Google Scholar ; for an explanation of how it worked in the late Middle Ages, see , Amrhein, ‘Reihenfolge’ i. 21-8, 302–3Google Scholar.

88 Codex diplomaticus… ii. 35-6 (1218).

89 BHStA, Brandenburg-Ansbacher Urkunde 835 (1168).

90 For the tumus system, see , Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgcschichte 386Google Scholar ; and, in greater detail and with mid-thirteenth-century records, , Amrhein, ‘Reihenfolge’ i. 20-3, 301–5.Google Scholar A charter issued by Mainz Cathedral chapter in the second decade of the thirteenth century specifically mentions canons receiving their prebends at the request of canons who were their kinsmen, and other canons: WStA, Mainzer Bücher verschiedenen Inhalts xvii, fo. 127.

91 For Wulfred's reform, carried out between 808 and 813, just before the Rule of Aachen was drawn up, see Brooks, N. P., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury, Leicester 1984, 155–6Google Scholar ; for Lichfield, see VCH Staffordshire iii. 140, quoting the fourteenth-century(!) Lichfield Chronicle. A provost, Aldred of Chester-le-Street (the fore-runner of the see of Durham) occurs on 10 August 970, Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, ed. Lindelöf, U. (Surtees Society cxl, 1927), 185,Google Scholar but Durham never adopted a canonical rule; cf. Barlow, F., The English Church 1000-1066, 2nd edn, London 1979, 229Google Scholar.

92 See Whitelock, D., Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, Chambers Memorial Lecture 1974, London 1975, 27–30Google Scholar , who would favour the Rule of Aachen being brought to London at the end of the tenth century; and Brooke, C. N. L., ‘The earliest times to 1485’, in A History ofSt Paul's Cathedral, ed. Matthews, W. R. and Atkin, W. M., London 1957, 11–15,Google Scholar who would favour its introduction by Theodred.

93 For lists of manuscripts of the Aachen Rule, see WerminghofFs introduction to the Rule in MGH Concilia II, i. 310-11; and a supplementary list by Schieffer, Die Entstehung von Domkapiteln, 249, n. 105.

94 ‘De archidiacono vel preposito-Be þam aercediacone 7 þam pravoste’: The Old English Version of the Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang together with the Latin Original, ed. Napier, A. S. (Early English Texts Society cl, 1916), ch. viii, 16–18.Google Scholar Another chapter (ch. xliv, pp. 51-3) speaks of provosts in the plural, under the charge of praelati, but it is likely that the word ‘provosts’ here was a general term for some of the lower dignitaries. For the two insular manuscripts, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS 191, and Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale MS 8558-8563, see Werminghoff, A., ‘Die Beschlüsse des Aachener Concils im Jahre 816’, Neues Archiv xxvii (1901-1902), 646–7.Google Scholar A. T. Bannister's theory that the Rule of Chrodegang was imposed on Hereford in the late eleventh century has no evidence to support it ( The Cathedral Church of Hereford, London 1924, 25–6Google Scholar ); see Barrow, J., ‘The Bishops of Hereford and their Acta 1163-1219’, unpublished 1983 Oxford University DPhil diss., 94Google Scholar.

95 , Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, 90.Google Scholar

96 The title of Isaac, the head of Giso's chapter, is not known, Historiola de Primordüs Episcopalus Somerselensis, in Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Hunter, J. (Camden Society viii, 1840), 19Google Scholar ; for the twelfth-century Wells provosts, see Ibid. 23-4, and Gransden, A., ‘The history of Wells Cathedral, c. 1090-1547’, in Wells Cathedral: a history, ed. Colchester, L. S., Shepton Mallet 1982, 24–5.Google Scholar Perhaps the Aelfnod mynsterpravost who occurs in the company of Bishop Giso of Wells in the 1080s was a provost of Wells rather than a prior of Bath as suggested by Robertson, A. J., Anglo-Saxon Charters, Cambridge 1939, 236-8, 488Google Scholar.

97 The Historians of the Church of York, ed. Raine, J. (Rolls Series, 1879-1894), ii, 107–8Google Scholar ; Hill, R. M. T. and Brooke, C. N. L., ‘From 627 until the early fourteenth century’, in Aylmer, G. E. and Cant, R., A History of York Minster, Oxford 1977, 22Google Scholar.

98 For Durham, see , Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, 229Google Scholar ; for Hereford, see Barrow, J., ‘Hereford bishops and married clergy’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

99 Except, presumably, at London; cf. , Whitelock, Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops, 30Google Scholar.

100 , Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, 240–1.Google Scholar

101 For the most recent treatment of this subject see Greenway, D. E., ‘The False Institutio of St Osmund’, in Tradition and Change, Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall, ed. Greenway, D., Holdsworth, C. and Sayers, J., Cambridge 1985, 83–4Google Scholar.

102 For Canterbury's estates, see , Brooks, The Early History, 100–7Google Scholar , 130 137-42, 144, 233, 242, 284-7, 300-3, 311-13ff.; for London, see , Gibbs, Early Charters, pp. xviii–xxiGoogle Scholar.

103 On Lincoln, see Owen, D., ‘The Norman cathedral at Lincoln’, Anglo-Norman Studies vi (1983), 194–5Google Scholar.

104 Cf. VCH Middlesex i. 120-2; VCH Dorset iii. 70; VCH Sussex i. 389; VCH Somerset i. 455-8; Domesday Book XVII, Herefordshire, ed. F. and C. Thorne, Chichester 1983, fo. 181c.

105 VCH Sussex i 391.

106 , Barlow, The English Church 1000-1066, 239–40Google Scholar ; Domesday Book XVII, Herefordshire fo. 181c.

107 For the prebend at Chichester, see The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, ed. Mayr-Harting, H. M. R. E. (Canterbury and York Society cxxx, 1964), 41Google Scholar ; and ibid, for four clerks with separate holdings. For estates at Wells, see VCH Somerset i. 455, 458. For Hereford and St Paul's, see pp. 557-8, 559 below.

108 , Greenway, ‘The False Institutio of St Osmund’, 77–101, especially pp. 89-90.Google Scholar

109 Discussed by , Gibbs, Early Charters, pp. xxii–xxvGoogle Scholar ; by Brooke, C. N. L., ‘The earliest times to 1485’, in A History of Si Paul's Cathedral, ed. Matthews, W. R. and Atkins, W. M., London 1957, 19Google Scholar ; and by Greenway, art. cit. 89.

110 The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln (Lincoln Record Society xxvii, 1931), ed. Foster, C. W., i. nos 33, 35, 41Google Scholar ; for early royal confirmations of prebendal foundations, ibid, nos 7, 31, 44, 58. King Stephen was also an active benefactor. The endowments of each Lincoln prebend are listed (with dates) in Neve, John Le, Fasti Ecdesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300: III Lincoln, ed. Greenway, D. E., London 1977, passimGoogle Scholar.

111 Taxatio Ecclesiastica Angliae el Walliae Auctoritate Papae Nicholai IV circa A.D. 1291, Record Commission, London 1802.Google Scholar

112 , Blake, ‘The development of the chapter’, 5.Google Scholar

113 Ibid. 8.

114 Ibid. 5.

118 Domesday Book… Herefordshire, fos. 181c-182d. Page, W., ‘Some remarks on the churches of the Domesday Survey’, Archaeologia lxvi (1915), 94Google Scholar , draws attention to these holdings and suggests that they were of ancient origin: but they more probably represent an attempt by Bishop Robert Losinga (1079-95) or his predecessor Walter (1061-79) to enlarge the chapter and place it on a sound economic footing after the destruction of the cathedral by the Welsh in 1055. Jones, M., ‘The Estates of the Cathedral Church of Hereford’, unpublished 1958 Oxford University BLitt diss., 41Google Scholar , thinks- I would argue, mistakenly that only a few of these clerks could have been cathedral canons.

118 Domesday Book… Herefordshire, fo. 181d.

117 It is possible that the Domesday figure should be increased to 29 to include the priest mentioned on the bishop of Hereford's manor at Inkberrow in Worcestershire (VCH Worcestershire i. 289), because the church of Inkberrow later formed a cathedral prebend, but it is equally likely that the priest mentioned was a parish priest.

118 Herefordshire Domesday, ed. Galbraith, V. H. and Tait, J. (Pipe Roll Society, NS xxv, 1950), 26.Google Scholar Similar co-relations exist between the clerk at Huntington and the later prebend there, between the three clerks at Moreton on Lugg and the two later prebends of Moreton Magna and Parva, and the three episcopal clerks at Pyon and the later prebend there.

119 Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1152: II, Regesta Henrici Primi, ed. Johnson, C. and Cronne, H. A., Oxford 1956, no. 1101, of the year 1115.Google Scholar

120 See The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, ed. Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Cambridge 1967, nos 80, 327.Google Scholar

121 See Ibid. no. 315, for the prebend of Wellington, founded by Robert de Chandos with a grant of the parish church of Wellington; and Cheney, M. G., Roger, Bishop of Worcester, 1164-1117, Oxford, 1980, 260–2Google Scholar , concerning the prebend of Moreton and Whaddon, two churches originally granted by Roger Parvus. The penitentiary at Hereford occurs first under Bishop Ralph de Maidstone (1234-9): Hereford Cathedral, Dean and Chapter Muniments no. 1409; and cf. The Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral, ed. Bradshaw, H. and Wordsworth, C., Cambridge 1892-1897, ii. 58Google Scholar.

122 E.g. Inkberrow, The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot, no. 314.

123 For readjustments in the prebendal endowments at Hereford, see below, n. 143. For the value of prebends, see , Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, 39–40Google Scholar.

124 VCH Staffordshire iii. 141.

125 Ibid. 140-1.

126 Ibid.

127 Early Charters of Si PauPs, 2-3; a writ of Edward the Confessor, Ibid. 9, suggests that the canons were independent in dealing with their estates.

128 Ibid. pp. xxii-xxv.

129 See n. 109 above. At St Paul's in the early twelfth century the separate estates for each canon were called sceolande or solandae, while the term praebenda meant the entire income of each canon, Early Charters of St Paul's, pp. xx-xxi. See also Brooke, ‘The earliest times to 1485’, 40ff.

130 Registrum Antiquissimum i. no. 33. At York, too, Henr y 1 grante d churches as a prebend for William fitz Herbert, the son of his chamberlain, Early Yorkshire Charters, ed. Farrer, W., Edinburgh 1914, i. no. 132Google Scholar.

131 For the endowments of each Lincoln prebend, see Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae... Lincoln, passim. Only eleven prebends had no parish churches attached. As at Hereford, the Lincoln prebendal endowments underwent frequent alteration in the twelfth century.

132 , Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, 33.Google Scholar Wells and Salisbury were almost as large.

133 Quoted Ibid. 41.

134 The Statutes of Lincoln Cathedral ii. 58.

135 , Edwards, English Secular Cathedrals, 43Google Scholar , and , Brooke, ‘The earliest times to 1485’, 60–3Google Scholar.

136 , Edwards, op. cit. 41–6, 49.Google Scholar

137 Early Charters of St Paul's, pp. xx-xxi.

138 The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 101; Diceto, Ralph de, Opera Historica, ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series, 1876), ii, pp. lxix–lxxGoogle Scholar.

139 , Blake, ‘The development of the chapter’, 5Google Scholar : , Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals, 47Google Scholar.

140 VCH Staffordshire iii. 142-3.

141 Ibid.

142 The earliest references are in Hereford Cathedral, Dean and Chapter Muniments, nos 274 and 1091, datable 1187/8 x c. 1201 (custodes or wardens of the chapter's manors).

143 Cf. Charters and Records of Hereford Cathedral, ed. Capes, W. W. (Cantilupe Society 1908), 37, 42Google Scholar ; and Registrant Ricardi de Swinfield, ed. Capes, W. W. (Canterbury and York Society vi, 1909), 75Google Scholar.

144 The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, no. 101.

144 VCH Staffordshire in. 142.

148 Diceto, Ralph de, Opera Historica ii. p. lxxiGoogle Scholar ; see Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., Gilbert Foliot and his Letters, Cambridge 1965, 271, n. 2Google Scholar.

147 Barlow, F., Edward the Confessor, London 1970, 150, 229.Google Scholar Spirites had been dispossessed in 1065.

148 E.g. Master Robert de Haseley, a clerk of Henry 11 and a canon of Hereford; Landboc sive Registrum Monasterii… de Winchclcumba, ed. Royce, D., Exeter 1892-1903, ii. 260Google Scholar.

149 E.g. Master Roger, Master Osbert de Camera, Nicholas the archdeacon and his brother and nephew, all canons of St Paul's in the second half of the twelfth century, Early Charters of St Paul's, nos 240, 79, 134-5. A more striking example is Canon Roger fitz Maurice of Hereford, for whose activities see Hereford Cathedral, Dean and Chapter Muniments, nos 155, 156, 160, 411 and 792, of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century.

150 Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Gregorian reform in action: clerical marriage in England, 1050-1200’, Cambridge Historical Journal xii (1956)Google Scholar discusses the decline of marriage among the higher clergy; Kemp, Brian, ‘Hereditary benefices in the medieval English Church: a Herefordshire example’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research xliii (1970)Google Scholar traces the dynasty of the priests of Eye near Leominster in Herefordshire. See also Cheney, M. G., Roger, Bishop of Worcester 1164-1179, Oxford 1980, 69–78Google Scholar.

151 cf. UB d. Hochst. Halb. i. no. 412, datable 1193 x 1201.