Medieval English Nunneries c. 1275 to 1535 Part 35

12. _Wherwell._

1284. Archbishop Peckham forbids boarders, adding "Let not virgins be admitted to the habit and veil (_induendae virgines et velandae_) before the completion of their fifteenth year and let not any boy be permitted to be educated with the nuns." _Reg. Epis. J. Peckham_, II, p. 653.

HEREFORDs.h.i.+RE.

13. _Lymbrook._

1422. Bishop Spofford writes: "Wee ordayne and charge you under payne of un.o.bedyence that no suster hald nor receyfe ony surgyner, man or woman weddyd, other maydens of lawful age to be wedded, knave chyldren aboven eght yeer of age." _Reg. Thome Spofford_ (Cant. and York. Soc.), p. 82.

HERTFORDs.h.i.+RE.

14. _Flamstead._

1530. At the visitation of Longland one nun "reported that young girls were allowed to sleep in the dormitory.... The Prioress was enjoined ...

to exclude children of both s.e.xes from the dormitory." _V.C.H. Herts._ IV, p. 433.

15. _Sopwell._

*1446. In the Warden's Accounts of 1446 there is entered payment of 22/6 for Lady Anne Norbery, for the commons of her daughter, apparently a boarder here. (_Rentals and Surveys_, R. 294.) _V.C.H. Herts._ IV, p. 425 (note 41).

1537. At the time of the Dissolution two children were living in the priory. _Ib._ p. 425.

KENT.

16. _Dartford._

In 1527 was confirmed the concession made to sister Elizabeth Cresner by F. Antoninus de Ferraria, formerly vicar of Garsias de Lora, Master General of the Dominican order (1518-24), that she might receive any well born matrons, widows of good repute, to dwell perpetually in the monastery, with or without the habit, according to the custom of the monastery; and also that she might receive young ladies and give them a suitable training, according to the mode heretofore pursued. _Archaeol.

Journ._ (1882) x.x.xIX, p. 178.

LEICESTERs.h.i.+RE.

17. _Gracedieu._

The following references to boarders occur in the Gracedieu accounts (_P.R.O. Minister's Accounts_, 1257/10).

1413-14. "Item received from William Roby for the board of his daughter on the Feast of the Holy Trinity vj s viij d. Item received from Robert Penell for the board of his daughter on the same day v s. Item received for the board of Cecily Nevell on St James' Day in part payment vj s viij d" (p. 7).

1414-15. "Item received from Giles Jurdon for the board of his daughter in Whitsun week vij s. Item received from Thomas Hinte for the food of a certain daughter of his, in part payment of liij s iiij d,--xl s. Item received for the board of Isabel Jurdon xj s, Alice Strelley xxij s, Alice Grey xiij s iiij d, Robert Drewe xxvj s iiij d, Philip Scargell x.x.xiij s vj d, Alice Smyth, iij s iiij d and Dame Joan Scargell iiij s--cxiij s ix d" (p. 79). There is a supplementary list for this year written on a loose sheet: "Item, first, received for the board of Isabel Jurdon for the half year, in part payment ix s. Item received for the board of Alice Strelley from the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross to the feast of [St Peter]

in Chains in the following year, vj s viij d. Item received for the board of Alice Gray from the feast of the Holy Trinity to the feast of the Purification of the blessed Virgin Mary xiij s iiij d. Item received for the board of Alice Strelley for ij quarters of the year and v weeks, at the Feast of St Gregory xv s iiij d. Item received for the board of the daughter of Robert Drowe for half a year, xxvj s viij d. Item received for the board of Philip Scargell, in part payment, from the feast of St John etc., paid for the quarter xxij s iiij d, whence at the Feast of Corpus Christi xxij s iiij d. Item received for the board of Isabel Jurdon at the feast of the Translation of St Thomas of Canterbury, in part payment--ij s. Item received for the board of Alice Smyth in part payment at vj s viij d for the quarter, iij s iiij d. Item received for the board of Dame Skargeyle for two weeks, ij s per week, iiij s. Item received for the board of Philyppe Skergell from the feast of St Laurence to the feast of St Michael, for the half quarter xj s ij d. Total, cxiij s x d."

1416-17. "Item received for the board of the daughter of William Rowby, as for the purchase of one ox--xiij s iiij d."

1417-18. "Item received for the board of Mary de Ecton on the feast of All Saints, in part payment of a larger sum, x.x.xiij s iiij d. Item received for the board of Joan Vilers on the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle vj s viij d. Item received for the board of Katerine Standych on the morrow of the Epiphany vj s viij d. Item received for the board of the daughters of Robert Nevell, knight, on the feast of St Hilary x s. Item received for the board of Joan Villars on the feast of St Hilary xx d. Item received for the board of Mary de Ecton on the Sunday next before the feast of St Valentine xx s. Item received from Joan Villers for her board on the second sunday of Lent vj s viij d. Item received from Katerine Standych in full payment of her board on Whitsunday x s. Item received for the board of the daughters of Robert Neuel on Good Friday x s. Item received from Mary Ecton for her board on the feast of the Purification of the B.V. then owing vj s. Item received from Joan Colyar in part payment of xx s owing for J. Dalby xij s" (p. 179).

These accounts obviously contain ordinary adult boarders as well as children. Moreover in some cases the visitors seem merely to have come for the great feasts and not to have stayed for any length of time, a practice which does not suggest schooling. Mr Coulton has a.n.a.lysed the accounts closely. He writes: "The records of four years give us, at the most liberal interpretation, only nineteen children, whose total sojourn amounted to 648 weeks; that is an average of three pupils all the year round and one extra for two or three months of the time." He adds: "I have, of course ruled out 'Dame Joan Scargill,' who paid 2_s._ a week, or four times the sum paid by a child, and Philip Scargill, who paid eighteen pence and was pretty evidently the Dame's husband; but I have included five others on p. 89, though they are distinctly labelled as _perhendinantes_, and the sums they pay would in any case have suggested boarders rather than schoolgirls. If these were omitted (and I note that Abbot Gasquet also interprets them as merely boarders), this would bring down the average of actual children to about two at any given time."

(_Monastic Schools in the Middle Ages_, p. 27.) He infers the weekly rate of pay (where it can be inferred with any certainty) to be 6_d._ a week for children and 1_s._ or more for their elders. (_Ib._ p. 39.)

1440-1. At Bishop Alnwick's visitation the prioress deposed "that a male child of seven years sleeps in the dorter with the cellaress." Alnwick makes an injunction forbidding boarders, "save childerne, males the ix and females the xiij yere of age, whome we licencede yow to hafe for your relefe." _Linc. Visit._ II, pp. 119, 125.

18. _Langley._

1440. At Bishop Alnwick's visitation Dame Margaret Mountgomerey "says that secular children, female only, do lie of a night in the dorter." The Bishop forbids boarders "men, women ne childerne" without licence. _Linc.

Visit._ II, pp. 175-6.

LINCOLNs.h.i.+RE.

19. _Heynings._

1347. Bishop Gynewell writes to Heynings: "Item we command you on your obedience that henceforth no secular female child who has pa.s.sed the tenth year of her age and no male child, of whatever age he may be, be received to dwell among you; and that no child lie in your dorter with the ladies, nor anywhere else whereby the convent might be disturbed." (_Linc. Epis.

Reg. Memo. Gynewell_, f. 34_d_.)

1387. Bishop Bokyngham writes: "Item, for the removal of all fleshly wantonness (_carnis pruritus quosc.u.mque_), we will and ordain that secular children and especially males shall henceforth in no wise be permitted to sleep with the nuns, but let an honest place be set aside for them outside the cloister, if by our recent and special grace they should chance to be staying there." (_Linc. Epis. Reg. Memo. Bokyngham_, f. 397_d_.)

1442. Alnwick enjoins at his visitation and afterwards in his written injunctions "that fro this day forthe ye receyve no sudeiournauntes that pa.s.se a man x yere, a woman xiiij yere of age, wythowten specyalle leve of hus or our successours bysshops of Lincolne asked and had." (_Linc.

Visit._ II, pp. 134-5.)

20. _Gokewell._

1440. At Alnwick's visitation the Prioress "says that they have no boarders above ten years of age of female and eight years of male s.e.x."

(_Linc. Visit._ II, p. 117.)

21. _Legbourne._

1440. Alnwick ordains "that fro hense forthe ye suffre no seculere persone, woman ne childe, lyg be night in the dormytorye." (_Alnwick's Visit._ MS. f. 68.)

22. _Nuncoton._

1531. Bishop Longland enjoins: "and that ye suffre nott eny men children to be brought upp, nor taught within your monastery, nor to resorte to eny of your susters, nouther to lye within your monastery, nor eny person young ne old to lye within your dorter, but oonly religious women."

(_Archaeologia_, XLVII, p. 58.)

23. _Stixwould._

1440. At Alnwick's visitation: "Dame Alice Thornton says that young secular folk female, of eight or ten years old, do lie in the dorter, but in separate beds.... Also she says that, as she believes, there are males and females, about eighteen in number, who board with divers nuns, not pa.s.sing fourteen or sixteen years in age.... Dame Maud s.h.i.+rwode speaks of the children that lie in the dorter." Alnwick in his injunctions forbids seculars ("women ne childern") to lie in the dorter or to be received as boarders without licence. (_Alnwick's Visit._ MS. 75_d_, 76.)

MIDDLEs.e.x.

24. _St Helen's, Bishopsgate (London)._

1298. The Prioress' account for 25-6 Edward I, contains the following items which probably refer to child boarders. "And by xx s received from Dionisia Miles for her daughter [_gap_] ... after the Nativity of St John the Baptist. And by one mark received for the niece of Robert Morton [?]."

_P.R.O. Ministers' Accounts_, 1258/2.

1432. The injunctions sent by the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's to St Helen's contain the item: "Also we ordeyne and injoyne yow, prioresse and convent, that noo seculere be lokkyd with inne the boundes of the cloystere; ne no seculere persones come withinne aftyr the belle of complyne, except wymment servaunts and mayde childeryne lerners.... Also we ordeyne and injoine that nonne have ne receyve noo schuldrin wyth hem into the house forseyde, but yif that the profite of the comonys turne to the vayle of the same howse." (Dugdale, _Mon._ IV, pp. 553-4, wrongly dated 1439.)