 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / October 2005medieval church's agricultural land?
Hello to everyone, I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the "churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for agriculture and was considerably vast. Most appreciatively, -- Maysara Omar > Hello to everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for > agriculture and was considerably vast. Glebe.  SignatureJohn Briggs >> Hello to everyone, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Glebe. Goodness. Well done John. I know this word but if I had thought for a week I doubt if it would have come back into memory. > I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one > english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and > surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the > "churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for > agriculture and was considerably vast. You may find no such word in English (which was not used for government purposes for nearly 300 years after 1066.) Demesne (from French/Latin) may meet your requirement for the later period. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and >surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the >"churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for >agriculture and was considerably vast. It could be "glebe", which the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes as: "A piece of land serving as part of a clergyman's benefice and providing income." SignatureJohn Hall "I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking." Katherine Cebrian Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for the word. But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at the same time, not particular to the agrarian land. Perhaps you will say maybe such a word does not exist, but I remember reading it in a book that I unfortunately don't recall which one it was, and its definition in a dictionary that I also do not recall which one it was. The definition described the land as agricultural, attributed its property to the church, and if I remember correctly, all was in the medieval period. However, when I try to recall the sound of that word, it feels quite far from the phonetics of "Glebe". But anyway, I thank you very much for your help. -- Maysara Omar > But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at the > same time, not particular to the agrarian land. "Glebe (Lat. gleba) originally signified, in common law, any farm, estate, or parcel of land, and the word is so used in the Theodosian Code. But in ecclesiastical law it has become the technical term for land permanently assigned for the maintenance of the incumbent of a parish, and is the oldest form of parochial endowment. This use of the word is found in numerous medieval charters, of which Du Cange gives a few examples, and formerly no church could be consecrated unless thus endowed with a house and glebe." The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06582a.htm Thank you Liz, and all the rest of you, for all the words. The following words were suggested: Glebe, Demesne, and Manor. And I'm starting to doubt whether "glebe" was the word I read, because I asked elsewhere here and there with no different results. It was a book about medieval Europe and it must had been a discription of some *rural* "glebe". It must be the confusion that araises by reading from many books at the same time, sorry! :-) Again, thanks to all of you, -- Maysara Omar >Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for the >word. > >But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at the >same time, not particular to the agrarian land. au contraire, my father lives in Galashiels, in the Scottish Borders, in Church Street, which backs on to the Glebe. It's a very common name throughout Scotland, where you will not find many English Kirks [as Anglican churches are called]. >Perhaps you will say maybe such a word does not exist, but I remember >reading it in a book that I unfortunately don't recall which one it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But anyway, I thank you very much for your help. How interesting it is to know about that. Thank you so much, Bill. -- Maysara Omar > Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for the > word. > > But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at the > same time, not particular to the agrarian land. A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious house. >> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for >> the word. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious house. What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from monasteries? SignatureJohn Briggs On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >>> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much >>> for the word. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from > monasteries? Hospitals and secular colleges are included in "Medieval Religious Houses, England and Wales", by Knowles and Hadcock. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hospitals and secular colleges are included in "Medieval Religious > Houses, England and Wales", by Knowles and Hadcock. And, in practice, how many of them had granges? I would accept hospitals, but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges. They ought to include secular cathedrals, whose canons had no common life. SignatureJohn Briggs On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And, in practice, how many of them had granges? I would accept > hospitals, but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges. Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was established as and remains decidedly a secular college -- strikes me as a qualifying as a "religious house". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and remains decidedly a secular college -- strikes me as a qualifying > as a "religious house". Why? How many of the canons were resident? How much of a common life did they lead? What precisely are you defining as the "house"? SignatureJohn Briggs On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > life did they lead? What precisely are you defining as the > "house"? All were resident: the warden, 12 canons, 13 vicars, 4 clerks, and 6 choristers. They Canons lived (and still live) in lodgings in the Canons' Cloister, and they prayed and dined communally. Facilities were provided for sub-groups -- the vicars had a separate hall, the choristers a school and quarters, and the lay clerks had their own accommodation. I'm not clear why you don't consider it to be a "religious house". What disqualifies it? SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > choristers. They Canons lived (and still live) in lodgings in the > Canons' Cloister, and they prayed and dined communally. Of course they prayed communally - that was the object of the exercise! Although the vicars only existed to take the place of the canons, which rather suggests that their actual presence wasn't essential. I'm also disputing that they dined communally. The vicars and others weren't members of the college. > Facilities were provided for sub-groups -- the vicars had a separate > hall, the choristers a school and quarters, and the lay clerks had > their own accommodation. That's because they are not part of the "house" (community). By the end of the Middle Ages many monasteries had lay singers for their Lady Chapel choirs. I remember visiting a modern Carthusian monastery (if a charterhouse really is a "monastery") to find the library deserted - the lay librarian was found praying in the church: whether for a lost book or for a computer catalogue wasn't vouchsafed! > I'm not clear why you don't consider it to be a "religious house". > What disqualifies it? I'm saying that it's not a single house, with compulsory residence and a common life. The canons were more like prebendaries at a secular cathedral. SignatureJohn Briggs On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >>>> Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was >>>> established as and remains decidedly a secular college -- [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That's because they are not part of the "house" (community). The vicars and other non-canonical aspects ofo the College were established by the founding charter, and thus formed part of the college. As far as I can tell, your reasoning appears to be circular: "they weren't part of the community because I'm defining community in such a way so as specifically to exclude them". > By the end of the Middle Ages many monasteries had lay singers for > their Lady Chapel choirs. I remember visiting a modern Carthusian [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and a common life. The canons were more like prebendaries at a > secular cathedral. We'll have to disagree, then. I don't accept that a college of canons, vicars, etc. -- founded by charter as a single college formed for religious purposes and living in communal lodgings -- doesn't form a religious "community". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > > On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > >> What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from > >> monasteries? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges. They ought to include > secular cathedrals, whose canons had no common life. Loose canons? SignaturePaul Clark you.missed -> umist to reply > >> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for > >> the word. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from monasteries? Abbey? Convent? Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >>>> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for >>>> the word. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Abbey? Convent? Monasteries are either abbeys or priories. Strictly speaking, a monastery is for monks - but it is absurd not to call a house of regular canons a monastery, and it is awfully convenient to include nunneries as well - or at least have an implied "(and nunneries)" every time you say "monasteries". "Convent" illustrates the problem - it ought to refer to any type of conventual house, rather than just a nunnery. SignatureJohn Briggs [...] > Monasteries are either abbeys or priories. Strictly speaking, a > monastery is for monks - but it is absurd not to call a house of > regular canons a monastery, and it is awfully convenient to include > nunneries as well - or at least have an implied "(and nunneries)" > every time you say "monasteries". "Convent" illustrates the problem - > it ought to refer to any type of conventual house, rather than just a > nunnery. I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term "monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4; but I don't know how official her statement was. SignatureMike. > [...] >> Monasteries are either abbeys or priories. Strictly speaking, a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4; but I > don't know how official her statement was. It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to say "conventual house" each time. SignatureJohn Briggs [...] >> I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term >> "monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4; but I >> don't know how official her statement was. > > It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to say > "conventual house" each time. Do you mean "conventual house" is always the strict term, and "monastery" an informal one? On this I'm not qualified to comment. I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "...and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find monasteries being established for nuns." SignatureMike. > [...] >>> I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you mean "conventual house" is always the strict term, and > "monastery" an informal one? On this I'm not qualified to comment. Well, "conventual house" is a general term, whereas "monastery" should only refer to monks - from the Latin "monachus". There is a complication that "Minster" derives from "monasterium", but was often used for secular collegiate churches (York Minster, Ripon Minster, Beverley Minster, Southwell Minster.) > I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that the > Catholic Encyclopedia says: > "...and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find > monasteries being established for nuns." The Catholic Encyclopedia (sic) is, I believe, of American origin :-) SignatureJohn Briggs >> [...] >>>> I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, "conventual house" is a general term, whereas "monastery" > should only refer to monks - from the Latin "monachus". [...] I don't see difficulty in getting an X for both sexes from a word Y applying only to males: it seems to me quite an ordinary thing for a language to do. In this case, though, we have Jerome's authority for the early feminine form _monacha_ , and I'd hesitate to cross pens with the translator of the Vulgate. >> I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that the >> Catholic Encyclopedia says: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The Catholic Encyclopedia (sic) is, I believe, of American origin :-) You mean information from American Catholics may be unreliable? I can't see why. In any case, there is OED and the Ggl items to consider, quite apart from the English-sounding nun I heard on Radio 4. As I said, I have no expert knowledge of the subject, and at first I thought you might be able to clarify the usage. SignatureMike. On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >>>>> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very >>>>> much for the word. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > illustrates the problem - it ought to refer to any type of > conventual house, rather than just a nunnery. I'd agree with that, but the Knights Templars and Hospitallers, separately-established hospitals, and secular colleges all appear to be included within the category of "religious houses". The contents list from Knowles and Hadcock lists: Benedictine monks, and alien cells Benedictine monks and nuns of the order of Fontevrault Cluniac Houses and dependencies Houses of the Order of Tiron: the Celestines Grandmontines Cistercian Abbeys Cistercian dependencies Carthusians Augustinian Canons, and alien cells Premonstratensian Canons Gilertine priories for Canons and Nuns Houses of Gilbertine Canons Priests and Brothers of regular orders attached to nunneries Abbey of Bridgettines Houses of Bonshommes Trinitarians Mendicant Friars (8 types, including Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.) Houses of Nuns (8 types) Houses of the Knights Templars Knights Hospitallers Hospitals Secular Colleges Academic Secular Colleges in England Other Secular Establishments (Early Monasteries, and houses of uncertain order or foundation) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > be included within the category of "religious houses". The contents > list from Knowles and Hadcock lists: I'm perfectly familiar with the category lists of Knowles and Hadcock. My objection was to the suggestion that other religious houses might have had granges. The Templars and Hospitallers didn't - they had preceptories or commanderies. Friaries weren't allowed to own land. Hospitals were unlikely to have actually done so. Secular colleges and cathedrals might well have done, but I suggested that it was misleading to call them "religious houses". SignatureJohn Briggs At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in <Xns96E682AD5A17Ewhhvans@62.253.170.163>: >Premonstratensian Canons Why does it take three Premonstratensian Canons to change a light-bulb? BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL DOES!!! (Coat. Fetching.) SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle > <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (Coat. Fetching.) That an argument against women's ordination? SignatureMike. At 19:14:25 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in <3qijgsFf7ihhU1@individual.net>: >> At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle >> <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That an argument against women's ordination? Only loose women. You wouldn't want loose canons, would you? SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 19:14:25 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle > <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Only loose women. You wouldn't want loose canons, would you? Ones without balls should be harmless enough. SignatureMike. > At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle > <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (Coat. Fetching.) Actually, to be pedantic, there really *were* Premonstratensian Canonesses in England. Orford Priory in Lincolnshire, for example. SignatureJohn Briggs >> At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle >> <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Actually, to be pedantic, there really *were* Premonstratensian Canonesses >in England. Orford Priory in Lincolnshire, for example. Seems the order was founded by St. Norbert. Perhaps not the most promising start. SignaturePhil C. In uk.culture.language.english John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for >>> the word. >>> But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at the >>> same time, not particular to the agrarian land. >> A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious house. > What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from monasteries? Plenty. Schools for a start. Hospices. Chaplaincies. Nunneries. Axel > In uk.culture.language.english John Briggs > <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Plenty. Schools for a start. Hospices. Chaplaincies. Nunneries. That would own granges? SignatureJohn Briggs >> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for >> the word. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious house. A quick trip to the (always fascinating, if rather out-dated and often heavy-reading) online Catholic Encyclopedia shows that, as one might have expected, "glebe" isn't peculiar to the Anglican Communion. See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06582a.htm SignatureMike. >>> Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for >>> the word. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Communion. See: > http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06582a.htm Well, it's an English *word*, but derived from Latin. SignatureJohn Briggs >>I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >>english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "A piece of land serving as part of a clergyman's benefice and providing > income." I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a relatively small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life". SignatureRob Bannister >>> I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >>> english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly > with "life". Which fits very well with the use of the word "living" to mean the office of Rector. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. >>>I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >>>english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is > cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life". Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which was nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes". Alan Jones At 12:46:02 on Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Alan Jones <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <eyv%e.29723$VI6.1828@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: >Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land >was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which was >nowhere near the church. And this is how the incumbent would probably have received his "living" - in rents from the glebe land. After all, he wouldn't have time to farm it himself, or resources to hire a bailiff. Renting the land out to tenants, however, would have produced a nice little income. SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > At 12:46:02 on Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Alan Jones <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote in <eyv%e.29723$VI6.1828@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > >> Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe >> land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 >> acres) which was nowhere near the church. > > And this is how the incumbent would probably have received his > "living" - in rents from the glebe land. After all, he wouldn't have > time to farm it himself, or resources to hire a bailiff. Renting the > land out to tenants, however, would have produced a nice little > income. Isn't it in _Tristram Shandy_ that we find a wonderful portrait of a rustic parson who spends all his time on farming his glebe? SignatureMike. >> At 12:46:02 on Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Alan Jones <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> >> wrote in <eyv%e.29723$VI6.1828@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Isn't it in _Tristram Shandy_ that we find a wonderful portrait of a > rustic parson who spends all his time on farming his glebe? I thought that was Fanny Hill ... SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >>>>english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who >did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes". Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers, even if not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e a tenth) of their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income. SignaturePhil C. In uk.culture.language.english Phil C. <philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote: >>> I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a relatively >>> small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is >>> cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life". >>Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land >>was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which was >>nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who >>did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes". Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided and not contiguous. > Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers, even if > not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e a tenth) of > their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by > the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income. Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference, in the Church of England, between rector and vicar. Axel On 02 Oct 2005, wrote > In uk.culture.language.english Phil C. > <philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference, > in the Church of England, between rector and vicar. Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding) of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 02 Oct 2005, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding) > of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself. Dredging my memory ....... it was not unusual for the Rector (in this context a layman) to hold the benefice, quite possibly as part of his ownership of the local manor (or something much grander), and receive the tithes, then employed a clergyman as Vicar to run the parish. IIRC the Vicar could either have been paid a stipend (salary) or have the benefit of some glebe land. I was interested to note in an earlier posting the date of 1923 as the date after which the patron of a benefice who was in Holy Orders was legally debarred from presenting himself to a living. In my childhood (1940's & 50's) one local parish had a Rector whose family had hald the benefice in line of succession for many generations - a real old-fashioned "squarson" (a nive portmanteau-word of "squire" and "parson"). I guess, in the light of the 1923 date) that he must have been presented to the living by his father. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk No man is an island. So is Man. On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Stevens wrote >> Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or >> holding) of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the date after which the patron of a benefice who was in Holy > Orders was legally debarred from presenting himself to a living. -snip example- The reason I thought people might be interested in that list was because so many of them seemed, to me, to be surprisingly late survivals: until I'd looked into it, I hadn't realised that the shutting-down of the older system was quite so recent. (One that particularly surprised me was the 1986 severing of advowsons which were appendant to land or manorial titles: I'd have thought that the link would have been formally severed shortly after the property statutes of 1925-26 abolished things like copyhold tenures, but the church tends to move rather slowly on these matters.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 02 Oct 2005, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding) > of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself. The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest would have been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial glebe, and to rectorial tithes. But if the rectory became appropriated by another ecclesiastical body (usually a monastery), they would have received the rectorial income and appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the rectories possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the Crown and were granted to laymen. This was usually because the rectory had become attached to the manor. SignatureJohn Briggs > The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest would have > been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial glebe, and to rectorial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > granted to laymen. This was usually because the rectory had become attached > to the manor. You are using the word "rectory" to refer to the benefice only? I don't think I ever heard that before. Not that that should come as any surprise: until recently, I didn't know the difference between a rector and a vicar. I am familair with a "rectory" in the village where I grew up, but that is the house where the Rector lives. There was a glebe too, as evidenced by "Glebe Avenue", where my uncle used to live. Fran On 02 Oct 2005, Frances Kemmish wrote >> The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest >> would have been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are using the word "rectory" to refer to the benefice only? I > don't think I ever heard that before. It's the proper term -- you'll see the status (Rectory/Vicarage) marked as such for each church on 19th-century Ordnance Surveys. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> On 02 Oct 2005, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > would have been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial > glebe, and to rectorial tithes. That's my point, though: the difference between a rector and a vicar relates to the entitlement to income from the tithes and (where applicable) the glebe lands. The difference doesn't really have anything to do with *land* ownership: a rector could have a substantial income from the tithes, and own no land at all. (The vicar, of course, was entitled to nothing more than the salary paid to him by the rector.) > But if the rectory became appropriated by another ecclesiastical > body (usually a monastery), they would have received the rectorial > income and appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the > rectories possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the > Crown and were granted to laymen. This was usually because the > rectory had become attached to the manor. And manors were *legal* entities rather than physically grounded in land holdings. (That is, if the "manor" was divorced from the original demesne, manor-house and waste, it still remained a manor entitled to its associated rights and income.) In a manorial system, ownership of land -- whilst usual -- was a separate issue: the value of manor related to its rights and entitlements, not to its land. The same goes for benefices, which is why the "difference between rector and vicar" was *not* a function of the nature of land ownership. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > (The vicar, of course, was entitled to > nothing more than the salary paid to him by the rector.) That's not true - there were (are?) vicarial tithes - the lesser or "small" tithes. That's probably because the benefice is instituted as a vicarage. You may (or may not!) be thinking of a Perpetual Curacy :-) SignatureJohn Briggs On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote >> (The vicar, of course, was entitled to >> nothing more than the salary paid to him by the rector.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > instituted as a vicarage. You may (or may not!) be thinking of a > Perpetual Curacy :-) I am; apologies. (As an aside,, I see that the latter were abolished and converted to vicarages in 1968.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years) For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van At 15:46:20 on Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in <Xns96E3AA7A4F22Fwhhvans@80.5.182.99>: >On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I am; apologies. (As an aside,, I see that the latter were abolished >and converted to vicarages in 1968.) For certain values of "perpetual", then... SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) >That's my point, though: the difference between a rector and a vicar >relates to the entitlement to income from the tithes and (where >applicable) the glebe lands. I'm getting a bit confused by all these terms whizzing about, and I don't find my dictionaries of much help. May I take a moment to clarify what I think are the correct terms? I believe that I speak only now of old usage, with all these rights and privileges gradually dropping out of use from the 20s, finally being stopped in 1986. I'll start with a church. This may have land associated with it (the "glebe"). Someone (the "rector") is entitled to the income from the glebe and to the tithes from surrounding landowners. That income is known as the "benefice" or "living". Someone has the right to appoint the rector. That right is "advowson". That right is often held as part of the local manor. The church needs a clergyman to look after the spiritual wellbeing of the congregation. The rector can do that himself, or he can appoint a deputy (the "vicar") to do it for him. (Or perhaps it's the holder of the advowson who decides whether to appoint a working rector or a vicar.) The vicar normally only gets paid (his "stipend") for the job, but might, in certain churches, get part of the tithes. Is all that correct? SignatureGraeme Thomas >> That's my point, though: the difference between a rector and a vicar >> relates to the entitlement to income from the tithes and (where [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > vicar.) The vicar normally only gets paid (his "stipend") for the > job, but might, in certain churches, get part of the tithes. Not exactly. Although vicar normally means "deputy", in this context it only applies when a vicarage has been formally instituted (endowed with the lesser tithes), because the "rector" was an ecclesiastical corporation, rather than an individual. An individual rector would appoint a "curate" to act for him. SignatureJohn Briggs >Not exactly. Although vicar normally means "deputy", in this context it >only applies when a vicarage has been formally instituted (endowed with the >lesser tithes), because the "rector" was an ecclesiastical corporation, >rather than an individual. An individual rector would appoint a "curate" to >act for him. OK. What are "lesser tithes", and how do they compare with the other sort. (I vaguely recall that they are "great tithes".) I assume that the reason that the Rector was an ecclesiatical corporation was normally that the holder of the advowson was the corporation, and appointed themselves (itself?) rector. SignatureGraeme Thomas >> Not exactly. Although vicar normally means "deputy", in this >> context it only applies when a vicarage has been formally instituted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK. What are "lesser tithes", and how do they compare with the other > sort. They are everything else :-) > (I vaguely recall that they are "great tithes".) Predial tithes: tithes of corn, hay, and wood. > I assume that the reason that the Rector was an ecclesiatical > corporation was normally that the holder of the advowson was the > corporation, and appointed themselves (itself?) rector. Well, in effect - although it had to be done formally. If you wished to turn your parish church into a collegiate foundation (e.g. as a chantry for your family), you first had to endow the college with the advowson - thus giving away something (the rectory) that you didn't own! (An Inquisition of Mortmain would be necessary, I believe.) You would probably also endow it with your lesser and more far-flung manors. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one >>>>>english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by > the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income. My vague memories are of what my mother told me when I was very young, and I expect I have run together what she paid as tithes and what as glebe rent. "Queen Anne's Bounty" somewhere came into it as well . . . This would have been in the mid-1940s, I suppose. Alan Jones >>>>> In article >>>>> <1128109774.587001.324610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, meeso [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > what as glebe rent. "Queen Anne's Bounty" somewhere came into it as > well . . . This would have been in the mid-1940s, I suppose. Queen Anne's Bounty was merged with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to form the Church Commissioners (in 1948). Yes, latterly they managed the receipt of tithes. SignatureJohn Briggs >Hello to everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for >agriculture and was considerably vast. Glebe. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.