Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:33:26.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The so-called Statutes of John Pecham and Robert Winchelsey for the Province of Canterbury1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

C. R. Cheney
C. R. Cheney
Affiliation:
Professor of Medieval History in the University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the legislators of the medieval English Church John Pecham, archbishop of Canterbury, 1279–92, is remembered chiefly on account of canons published in two councils early in his pontificate, at Reading in July-August 1279 and at Lambeth in October 1281. His successor, Robert Winchelsey (1294–1313), less celebrated for his laws, none-the-less is assigned by Lyndwood, the fifteenth-century canonist, nine chapters of the Provinciale. The ‘Winchelsey’ documents and some others described in medieval manuscripts as ‘Statuta’ or ‘Constitutiones’ or ‘Decreta’ of one or other of the two archbishops cannot be immediately or surely connected with any known provincial council. They include texts on questions of almost daily occurrence to medieval archdeacons and parochial clergy: about the calculation of tithe, the duties of stipendiary priests, the obligations of the laity for church repairs. Lyndwood glossed many of them. Modern students of history and canon law commonly cite them. It is, therefore, of some importance to establish the degree of credit which may be allowed to the ascriptions. This study will consider the evidence of the manuscripts and will aim at sorting the genuine statutes from the spurious and the dubious. Some of each kind will be found. The enquiry may not only help to determine the nature of these particular documents, but also may reflect light on other doubtful legislation and illustrate the ways in which laws were framed and customs established in the English Church in the later Middle Ages.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 1961 , pp. 14 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

page 14 note 2 The problems were briefly faced and some provisional conclusions stated by the present writer in ‘Legislation of the Medieval English Church’, Eng. Hist. Rev., 1 (1935), 193–224, 385–4!?. see pp. 408–13Google Scholar.

page 15 note 1 Eng. Hist. Rev., 1. 402–6.

page 15 note 2 Cf. Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration, London 1933, i. 429–30Google Scholar.

page 15 note 3 Reg. Epp. J. Peckham (Rolls Series), ii. 405–6. Two versions are in Worcester, Record Office, Reg. Godfrey Giffard fol. 133r (with an illuminating letter about the council from the bishop at fol. 134v). A third version resembling the second is in Bodleian MS. Ashmole 1146 fol. 78r (a Chichester book), and yet another in Reg. Ric. de Swinfield ep. Herefordensis, Canterbury & York Soc. 1909, 32Google Scholar.

page 15 note 4 Documents … of the Eng. Black Monks, ed. W. A. Pantin (Camden 3rd Series, liv. 1937), iii. 274 and Reg. Epp.J. Peckham, i. 150–1, 225, 256.

page 15 note 5 Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sutton, ed. R. M. T. Hill, Lincoln Rec. Soc. 48, 1954, iii. 56.

page 15 note 6 Flores Hisioriarum (Rolls Series), iii. 279.

page 16 note 1 ‘Articuli … archiepiscopi in prima sua convocatione per R. de Ros concepta’, preserved in the Worcester register of Godfrey Giffard, fol. 392v. This also has (fol. 260r) agenda for the provincial council of 13 October 1286.

page 16 note 2 Reg. Epp. J. Peckham, i. 332, 334.

page 16 note 3 The most recent account of the two councils is in DrDouie's, Decima L.Archbishop Pecham, Oxford 1952, ch. iiiGoogle Scholar.

page 16 note 4 Reprinted in J. D. Mansi, Ampl. Collectio Concil., Venice 1759–98, xxiv. 339–42.

page 16 note 5 In several MSS. nos. 1–6 are appended to the genuine canons of Reading without any dividing line (M, Oa; for the list of MSS. and sigla see below, 33–4). In D the title is: ‘Incipiunt constitutiones de Redyngg’. U and Ha are said to be published at London at the New Temple. In some MSS. no. 2 is attached to the canons of Lambeth.

page 16 note 6 He ascribes all five to Pecham: Provinciate, Oxford 1679, 249–50Google Scholar, 36–40, 230–1, 336–7, 313.

page 17 note 1 John Johnson, A Collection of the Eccles. Laws, London 1720, remarked upon this. While printing nos. 1–7 after the canons of Reading, he admitted that he found ‘no certainty of the time or place’.

page 17 note 2 Which reads: ‘Circumferatur autem cum debita reverentia ad egrotos, sacerdote saltern induto superpellicio et gerente orarium cum lumine previo in lucerna et tintinnabulo sonoro.’

page 17 note 3 The bishops of the province assembled in council, more or less formally, on five occasions between the councils of Reading and of Lambeth.

page 17 note 4 Cf. Reg. Epp. J. Peckham, i. 237–8, 255; Reg. J. Pecham (Canterbury & York Soc. 1908) 150Google Scholar; Annales Monastici (Rolls Series), ii. 395–7, iii. 288, iv. 483; Flores Historiarum (Rolls Series), iii. 54–5; Gesta Abbatum S. Albani (Rolls Series), i. 458–9

page 18 note 1 For the confusion which has been caused by the lack of a complete date see Makower, F., Const. Hist, of the Church of England, London 1895, 361 n. 36Google Scholar.

page 18 note 2 Text Ha of nos. 1–6 and the summons concludes: ‘Edita fuerunt hec statuta London’ apud Novum Templum’; this may have arisen from a misunderstanding of the summons.

page 18 note 3 All MSS. are fifteenth-century or later, all are ascribed to Gray. It figured in the York Provinciate of 1518 as Gray's. For printed editions see Spelman, H., Concilia, ii, London 1664, 290Google Scholar; Wilkins, Concilia, i. 698, iii. 676; Mansi, Ampl. Collectio, xxiii. 789, 792; Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, ed. W. Farrer, Chetham Soc. 1898–1909, i. pt. i, 50.

page 19 note 1 Cf. Reg. Epp. J. Peckham, iii. p. cxli. In two closely related fifteenth-century MSS. (BbY) the statute is attributed to archbishop Robert ‘in sua visitatione in diocesi Wigorniensi’, and in CaGb to Robert ‘suam provinciam visitando’; it is also ascribed to Robert Winchelsey in ZaDb. The appearance of Robert's name is probably the result of confusion with Winchelsey's revised version of the decree. Ea entitles it ‘Statuta consilii provincialis Cantuarie’.

page 19 note 2 Cf. the attribution of ‘Casus in quibus simplex sacerdos non potest absolvere’ to archbishop Stephen Langton: Wilkins, i. 597, and see Eng. Hist. Rev., 1 (1935), 400Google Scholar.

page 19 note 3 See the ruling of William de la Cornere and other clerks of the archbishop concerning the laity's obligations in the chapels of Alvaston and Boulton, near Derby, made at the metropolitan visitation, March 1280 (Cartulary of Darky Abbey, ed. Darlington, R. R., Derbys. Archaeol. & Natural Hist. Soc. 1945, i. 239–40, 291–2Google Scholar).

page 19 note 4 Unless the reference to ‘capitulis vestris generalibus’ suggests that the writer was a bishop and the recipient an archdeacon; in which case nostri, a few lines below, must be emended to vestri.

page 19 note 5 Wilkins, ii. 140, 286, 709. The Exeter statute appears, only slightly modified, in a group ascribed to archbishop Walter in Bodleian MS. Bodley 794 fol. 187r. Here also, following the statute ‘de mortuariis’ ascribed to Stephen Langton (fol. 187v) is another statement which is probably a memorandum based on the Exeter statute (‘Item quod rector ecclesie habebit omnes arbores …’). This occurs in B.M. MS. Harl. 3705 fol. 41v after no. 8 above, and in All Souls Coll. MS. 42 fol. 254v and Dublin, Trin. Coll. MS. E.2.22, p. 128; it is re-cast in the form of a statute in Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Add. 3575. fol.289v.

page 20 note 1 They are unlikely to have been mandates issued on visitation, since Pecham did not visit the diocese of Worcester until 1282.

page 20 note 2 The order of nos. 5 and 6 is reversed, and this extraneous piece divides no. 5 from the mandate for proctors. The MS. is a miscellaneous register of Reading Abbey, which does not seem to have had interests in Canterbury diocese.

page 21 note 1 Above, 15.

page 21 note 2 In at least ten MSS. of the statute on stipendiaries, in several groups of the statutes on ornaments, and also in a few MSS. of the tithe statute no. 16. In Ka the statute on stipendiaries under this title is followed without break by no. 14.

page 22 note 1 He seems to announce the intention in writing to the dean of Bristol (18 May 1301) after visitation, when he orders: ‘quod mercatores in una parochia commorantes et in alia seldas ubi sua de die exercent mercimonia optinentes quoad decimas et oblations eo pretextu faciendas et solvendas id communiter observent quod per loci diocesanum super hoc dudum fuerat ordinatum donee cum maiori deliberatione super hoc equitatis tramite pro conservatione iuris cuiusque loci aliter duxerimus ordinandum.’ The Great Red Book of Bristol, ed. Veale, E. W. W., text, part i (Bristol Record Soc, iv., 1933)Google Scholar, 92. Cf. Reg. W. de Geynesburgh, ed. J. W. W. Bund and R. A. Wilson (Worcs. Hist. Soc. 1907–29), 7–8, wrongly dated 1303.

page 22 note 2 Great Red Book of Bristol, i. 91.

page 22 note 3 B.M. MS. Harl. 335, fol. 15r.

page 22 note 4 Other miscellaneous documents were included under this head in U and Qa.

page 23 note 1 Gf. Eng. Hist. Rev., 1 (1935), 398–400Google Scholar and Cheney, C. R., Eng. Synodalia of the XIII Century, Oxford 1941, 65–7Google Scholar.

page 23 note 2 It is instructive to see the same sort of error produced by the editors of printed editions. Spelman's placing of nos. 1 and 14 under archbishop Simon Mepham is an example; this was probably not authorised by the MS. he copied.

page 23 note 3 When Roger Martival used no. 1 he did not name Winchelsey or invoke metropolitan authority. When Simon Islip quoted and confirmed no. 4, along with Boniface on tithe and Mepham on oblations, he did not name the authors (his mandate is with Sa).

page 23 note 4 Fa (now lost), the only unascribed text, was printed by Spelman (ii. 501) sub anno 1332; printed by Wilkins (ii. 280–1) sub anno 1305.

page 23 note 5 The exceptions can be seen in the List of MSS. below.

page 24 note 1 Wilkins, iii. 213 from Lambeth, Reg. W. Courtenay, fol. 76v. Winchelsey's statute was re-published and declared binding throughout the province by archbishop Henry Chichele in a convocation of November 1419 (Reg. H. Chichele, Canterbury & York Soc. 1937–47, iii. 59Google Scholar cf. i. pp. cxlviii–ix). William Lyndwood was prelocutor of the clergy in this convocation.

page 24 note 2 Salisbury, Diocesan Registry, Reg. Martival, ii. fol. 103v. I owe my knowledge of this document to the kindness of Dr. K. M. Wood-Legh. In two important variants only it agrees with Ea against the commoner version.

page 24 note 3 B.M. MS. Harl. 335, fol. 12r.

page 24 note 4 Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Gg. 4, 32, fols. 125rb–129rb. Viet. County Hist. London, i. 200–1 is at fault in referring to ‘capellani non stipendiarii’ (cf. fol. 129ra).

page 24 note 5 MS. cit., fol. 118ra, 119va. This is undated, but followed by other complaints dated 15 December 1314 (fols. 120rb–121va); cf. Viet. County Hist. London, i. 201, where both are dated 1315.

page 25 note 1 Here, as elsewhere, Lyndwood reads ‘provincia’ where all MSS. read ‘archiepiscopatus’.

page 25 note 2 No metropolitan visitation of Salisbury is recorded by Dr. Churchill between 1285 and 1329. Ea appends to its version of the statute a form of oath, extracted from the statute, and this was printed by Spelman and Wilkins. There seems no reason to suppose that it was officially produced.

page 25 note 3 Cf. Reg. R. Winchelsey, Canterbury & York Soc. 1952–56Google Scholar, i. xviii ff. He had started to visit his archdiocese in 1296 (ibid., xvi).

page 25 note 4 Churchill, Canterbury Administration, ii. 36–8, 149.

page 26 note 1 Wa reads: ‘Decretum domini Roberti de Wynchelse de ornamentis ecclesie inveniendis et corrigendis. Hoc est decretum domini Roberti nuper Cantuariensis archiepiscopi in sua visitatione provinciali, inter rectores et parochianos locorum (add perpetuis G) temporibus observandum (observandis GWa), inter cetera tenorem continens infrascrip turn.’

page 26 note 2 On 26 December 1304 Winchelsey announced his forthcoming visitation of the diocese of Winchester, and he was in the diocese between 15 January and ao February 1305 (Reg. R. Winchelsey, i. pp. xviii, xli). If the decree was promulgated when he was at Merton (Surrey) on 20 February 1305 this might explain the appearance of this placename in some texts of these documents; but for official dating the visitation of Winchester diocese fell entirely within the year 1304 (ending 24 March 1305).

page 26 note 3 Like MOPDb this calls the statute a ‘Constitutio generalis’.

page 26 note 4 Lb is like no. 4 but is very corrupt and omits mention of books.

page 26 note 5 Oa contains only the new section, in an extremely confused series, under the running title of Winchelsey at Merton.

page 26 note 6 ‘Walterus permissione divina Cantuariensis archiepiscopus addidit huic constitutioni ilia quinque (sic) superius expressata, viz. legendam, anthiphonarium, duo psalteria, gradale, troparium, ordinale, manuale, etc.’

page 27 note 1 It occurs in a form different from that of group 6 in Ka.

page 27 note 2 This is often followed by a string of references to the Corpus iuris and commentators (cf. Wilkins, ii. 278–9).

page 28 note 1 Some were stated in Eng. Hist. Rev., 1. 406.

page 28 note 2 Bingham's statutes are found in B.M. MS. Harl. 52, fol. 119v, Bridport's are printed in Wilkins, i. 714–20. The numeration of chapters of these and other synodal statutes in the text above is that which will be used in the forthcoming continuation to Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Eccles. Documents.

page 28 note 3 Cf. Cheney, Eng. Synodalia, 97–101.

page 28 note 4 Cf. Cheney, , ‘The Medieval Statutes of the Diocese of Carlisle’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxii (1947), 52–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 28 note 5 Cf. also the use of Bingham, c. 43–4, below 29 n. 4.

page 28 note 6 Lyndwood gives the text in its original order, immediately following no. 9, in Provinciale, iii. 16, 6. Some texts only contain the second part, ‘Item precipimus … ’ (e.g. S). Nos. 9–10 are ascribed to the legate Ottobuono in Ta, which in no. 9 reads ‘appulciones’ and ‘particulariter decimentur’.

page 29 note 1 The rubricator also wrote at the head of the page ‘Wynchelse Merton’, but the first word is partly erased.

page 29 note 2 For the last words: ‘donee … persolverint’ it reads ‘ipso facto’.

page 29 note 3 Wilkins, ii. 297–8 (c. 62–3).1

page 29 note 4 This follows another series (8, 14, 9, ioii) in S, ascribed to Winchelsey at Merton. In Ab (fol. 159r ‘Inter eccl. rectores’) and in R (fol. 55va ‘Cum inter rectores’) Bingham c. 43–4 are ascribed to Winchelsey. R, which is preceded by nos. 7, 19 and :6, ends: ‘Hec est constitutio facta et optime de mundo approbata et per totum mundum adiudicata at per apostolicam sedem confirmata et sic finit hec constitutio’. Bingham c. 43–4 appear among pseudo-Langton material in M fol. 119vb.

page 29 note 5 Salisbury, D. & C. muniments, Liber evidentiarum C, witnesses to the interchange of statutes between Salisbury and Winchester (cf. Eng. Synodalia, 105, 126, 144–5). Statutes of John Gervais of Winchester (c. 62–4, cf. above) appear as ‘Constitutio fratris Iohannis Cantuariensis archiepiscopi edita London’ a.d. 1280 de decimis et oblationibus’ in the fifteenth-century Oxford, Brasenose Coll. MS. 14 fol. 173rb.

page 30 note 1 The same sequence and ascription of nos. 8, 17, etc. is found in Bb; but here the only heading for no. 9 onwards is a running title: ‘Robertus Wynchelsey apud Merton’, which has been extended beyond the ‘Expliciunt’.

page 30 note 2 Wilkins, i. 734a (c. 43). It is also in the statutes of London (Eng. Hist: Rev., xxx (1915), 298, c. 74), but the ‘Winchelsey’ text agrees with Norwich's ‘citra conscientiam’ against London's ‘preter conscientiam’.

page 30 note 3 B.M. MS. Harl. 335, fol. 15r, inc. ‘Quamquam per diversorum …’. Winchelsey's visitation of the diocese of London occurred in 1303.

page 31 note 1 Qa is the early fourteenth-century flyleaf of a glossed Liber Sext which belonged c. 13 70 to the parson of South Walsham St. Lawrence (Norfolk). The mid-fourteenth-century U text is an addition (partly marginal) to the main collection in this volume.

page 31 note 2 The word ‘nuper’ may suggest that the exemplar of B was written soon after Winchelsey's death (cf. above, 26 n. 1); but it would be dangerous to rely much on this.

page 31 note 3 Cf. Eng. Hist. Rev., 1 (1935), 399, 411. It also occurs in Kb, appended to a conflate version of archbishop Boniface's canons, 1261 (fol. 23r). In Da Ta no. 8 (under the ascription to archbishop Robert at Lambeth) is followed by the whole of c. 22–23 of Bridport, ending with the words ‘ecclesiastica coartari’. In YBb no. 8 is followed by the part of Bridport c. 22 contained in no. 17 and all of c. 23: the whole is ascribed to Robert at Merton, 1222! Ww has the Bridport extracts with deleted ascription to Boniface.

page 31 note 4 This relates its origin to that of nos. 9–11 and 13 above.

page 32 note 1 Cf. Eng. Hist. Rev., l (1935), 400Google Scholar.

page 32 note 2 It precedes no. 14 (both unascribed) in CFKBbCb. In Ra the running title is ‘Wynchelsey’; in Ka the statutes follow no. 1, which is ascribed to Winchelsey.

page 32 note 3 Wilkins, ii. 147.