Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
CHAPTER 4 POSITIONS AND PAYMENT The sociological literature is less extensive on the creation of formal positions within an organization than it is on many other aspects of organizational structure. While there is a copious literature on the creation of new positions, what is lacking a literature on the shift from informal positions to formal positions that accompanies the move from household to office.1 Yet it constitutes one of the central components of Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy. The importance of formal positions is certainly clear. Formal positions outlast their incumbents, and the holder of a formal position typically has a different tenure than that of her superior. They also create a distinction between the incumbent and the position, in that authority and remuneration are tied to the position, not to the incumbent. Formal positions also involve jurisdiction and specified responsibilities, which prevent the incumbent from exploiting the position for her personal goals. The responsibilities attached to positions limit the power of the office holder, and allows others to monitor and control her activities within the organization. In addition, formal positions allow for organizations to reproduce themselves when they have constant entry and exit. By filling specific positions with well-defined responsibilities and jurisdiction, the tasks can be completed in a similar fashion after replacement, and the new office holder can more readily step into the job. This chapter examines the creation of formal positions within English dioceses. At the end of the 11th century, and into the first part of the 12th century, episcopal administration was a household form of administration, where administrators did not have set offices or jurisdictions, and were dependent on the bishop for their position. Starting in some dioceses in the late 11th 1 Arthur L. Stinchcombe, When Formality Works: Authority and Abstraction in Law and Organizations, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Max Weber, Economy and Society, trans. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). 1 century, and throughout the 12th century, the church created a number of formal administrative positions to create an administrative hierarchy, and began to use the cathedral chapter as a source of administrators. What emerged within the English church was a group of administrative offices directly below the bishop. Removing tasks from the bishop’s set of responsibilities, they carved out separate administrative jurisdictions that created new and formal “departments” within the administrative structure of the diocese. Below these high administrative offices was the cathedral chapter, which was the group of canons initially charged with operating the liturgical function of the cathedral, such as officiants in the mass and singing in the choir. The chapter was restructured in the late eleventh century which involves an increased formalization of their role in the cathedral, as well as in their rights and responsibilities. This newly reformed chapter served as an important source for administrators of the diocese, and as the administrative apparatus of the church became increasingly formalized, the canons were differentiated into separate offices under the bishop and other high administrative offices within the church. One of the characteristics that distinguish formal organizations from other forms of social organization is through their method of coordinating action. Formal organizations coordinate the action of disparate social actors through administrative structures, rules, and fiat. This is in stark contrast to other types of social organizations, such as markets (the coordination of action through self interested exchange) and culture (through socialization). Fundamental to this is the way in which the division of labor is structured through the formal organization. This chapter explores certain aspects of the formalization within the medieval church. First, it explores the creation of a formal division of labor structured by the organization. In contrast to social structures such as markets, where collective action is structured and organized through self-interested exchange, in organizations action is structured through formal roles that 2 are attached to offices with definite titles that each have their own responsibilities and rule-based interactions between them that determine collective action. While this is typically deviated from to some degree in most actual organizations, it provides the baseline model for organizational action. This structuring of the division of labor into an administrative structure is the second aspect of formal positions that has tremendous implications for the process of organizing and action. Finally, some form of salary or remuneration is provided to incumbents of these positions in return for their service in these positions, something that is not attached to the individual separate from their incumbency. As we explore the process by which this occurred in the English church, one of the things which will become apparent is that the administrative and role based aspects of formal positions arose as a consequence of new models of remuneration, not vice versa as would be expected. Typically, we would expect money, salaries, property, wages, and so on to be paid in return for certain definite activities on the part of the recipient, namely their labor for the organization. However, instead we see again that the method of payment was a driving force in the development of formal organizational structures in the medieval church, and the formalization of roles and responsibilities were themselves products of formal positions, not vice versa. Over the course of this chapter we will see how this process begins within the household administration and ultimately returns to it, but in a dramatically transformed way. The household model of administration that was common throughout the church prior to the reform era was the initial baseline for later developments. This was leveraged into formal positions by certain bishops who wanted a large household staff but were unable or unwilling to provide for them solely from their own wealth or the bishop’s share of the revenues of the diocese. Formal positions with prebends attached to them became an effective way of shifting the fiscal burden away from the bishop to the organization, but produced a set of organizational resources for 3 incumbents in those positions to utilize over the course of the 12th century to increasingly formalize those positions for organizational ends, which were frequently not those of the bishops. In contrast to this model was a different model based around monastic organization that was initially pushed by reformers, but eventually became increasingly obsolete as it was unable to scale to the demands of ecclesiastical administration. To continue to expand the administrative staff, bishops sought out other alternatives to place their household into places within the church, initially relying on the cathedral chapter and later on churches whose tithing rights were owned by monasteries and other ecclesiastical corporations, or even noble magnates. Familia Administration While the 12th century brought new administrative needs to the church, there had always been a need for some form of diocesan administration. In England, as in the rest of the Latin church, this had been provided by the bishop's household, or familia.2 Household administration is quite common historically, and follows the basic model of authority as based on personal bonds of loyalty and obligation to the head of the organization. In the late 11th and early 12th century English church, the structure of diocesan administration closely followed this model. Formal positions were infrequent, and the majority of the administration of the diocese was conducted by clerks and laymen with personal ties to the bishop. For bishops from the nobility, these were primarily household retainers of their families, while those from a lower social class were able to use their position to attract individuals seeking some form of employment, and employment in the church was attractive. What distinguishes this mode of administration from what we see develop is that the administrators are tied directly 2 Kathleen Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century, 2nd ed., (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967); Heinrich Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). 4 to the bishop, and are fully dependent on the bishop for their livelihood. In this type of administration, appointments, promotions, and continued employment are based on the individuals loyalty and dependence on their superior, in this case the bishop, and the extent to which the bishop has trust in the individual. Expertise and education are possible characteristics of administrators, but these are secondary factors to displays of trust and loyalty, which is the basic employment contract. In a household administration, the division of labor is often indistinct, and varies over time, since there are no or few formal positions with delimited jurisdictions. Instead, the bishop held all of the authority and power, and members of his administration could act only in his name. To the extent that they had some specified set of responsibilities, these were fluid over time, as bishops had great flexibility in the arrangement of their administration, since his staff had no formal protections. Furthermore, the extent to which anyone had any jurisdiction was a personal characteristic, in that they personally carved up administrative tasks, and on their death or removal from their position, their successor might not necessarily have the same set of responsibilities. In terms of remuneration, the members of the bishop's household had no independent claim on salaries or benefices, but instead were provided for out of the bishop's own property. On the continent, it was typical for the upper nobility to become bishops and archbishops, and because of the frequent warfare, they typically used their family's wealth to provide for their staff.3 In England this pattern was different in a number of ways. First, even immediately after the conquest, the bishops were primarily drawn from the lower nobility or from the royal 3 Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders; R. W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages, (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1970); Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Gerd Tellenbach, Church, State, and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest, (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1940). 5 household, which meant that they had less familial wealth and resources to draw on. In addition, the dioceses of England were better endowed, in that they had more property than on the continent, and the property was more productive because it was not as subject to destruction by warring armies or bandits. Because of this, the English bishops were able to provide for their household out of the episcopal estates.4 This was particularly true of the clergy in the early households, who often held episcopal manors in order to provide for payment. However, this method of remuneration was still tied very closely to the bishop's person, in that the members of the household held no legal claim to the property beyond the will of the bishop, so that when the bishop died, they were typically removed from the property in order to allow for the members of the new bishop's administration. Those who did not hold episcopal manors were principally paid from the bishop's revenues, which provided even less protection. This method of appointment and remuneration allowed little continuity of administration, as well as having little in the way of formal jurisdictions and spheres of competency. To provide for their staff in the familia, the bishops provided for the members of the familia through in-kind payments, namely food and shelter. The benefit of this method was that it kept the clerks close to the bishop, in that they were directly dependent on the bishop for their livelihood. However, this method of provision was severely limited in other ways. First, it drew directly from the bishop's revenues, which were also needed to provide for the upkeep of the cathedral, the provision of alms, and the general fund for diocesan operations. While the incomes of the English dioceses varied dramatically, the provision of a growing administration was a drain on the resources of the diocese. This method also required the use of a large staff of lay people to manage the property of the diocese for the provision of the clergy, which put a further drain on the central resources. This method of provision of the clergy created problems 4 Julia Barrow, "Cathedrals, Provosts and Prebends: A Comparison of 12th-Century German and English Practice," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37, no. 4 (1986). 6 for the creation of formal positions in the church administration, in that by tying payment to a direct relationship with the bishop, continuity of administration was difficult, since each successive bishop would bring in his own personal household staff. Since this method of provision was primarily through in kind payments, it presented a difficulty in attracting talented clerics, primarily ones who had higher education, since they would find better sources of employment in places where sinecures were attached to positions. To take one example of this type of household, let us examine the household of Robert the Lotharingian, the bishop of Hereford from 1079 to 1096. We have a pretty clear indication of his household from a grant to Roger de Lacy, a wealthy nobleman in Herefordshire. This actum has a rather long witness list, including Roger Montgomery, the earl of Shrewsbury, the earls staff and family, the bishop's household, and Roger de Lacy's household.5 In the bishop's household are eighteen men, including two occupants of formal positions, six clerks, and ten laymen. The laymen were definitely part of the bishop's household, in that this charter clearly distinguishes the witnesses from the different parties, as well as clearly distinguishing the social order of all of the witnesses: The witnesses of this event are: . . . . Of the bishop's men: Gerard the bishop's brother (who was dean of Hereford), archdeacon Hanfrid, Ansfridus the priest, William, Lewin, Alfward, Saulfus, Alwin; of the laymen of the bishop: Udo, Athalard, Frank, Arnulf, Theobald, Robert, Gozo, Osbert, Peter, and Richard the cupbearer.6 While this actum is distinct in having such a detailed witness list at this early date, it reflects the composition of diocesan administration at the time. The early positions, in this case the dean and the archdeacon, were closely tied to the bishop. In fact, the dean was the bishop's brother. In addition, there was a mix of clergy and laymen handling the episcopal administration, with a 5 V. H. Galbraith, "An Episcopal Land-Grant of 1085," English Historical Review 44, no. 175 (1929). Julia Barrow, ed., English Episcopal Acta, Vol. Vii: Hereford, 1079-1234 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), no. 2. 6 7 majority being laymen. Also noteworthy is the fact that the clergy who are mentioned were not members of the cathedral chapter, but instead were clergy personally tied to the bishop, and did not hold offices separate from their connection to the bishop. In addition, there is little distinction between the men within the same strata. There are only three people mentioned by office (the dean, archdeacon, and cupbearer), otherwise the functions of the members of the household are unclear, which is less a problem of the data then it is a characteristic of households. There are rarely formal jurisdictions in a houshold administration, and the informal jurisdictions shift over time, as particular officials gain greater or lesser responsibilities, though these responsibilities are not protected by any rights.7 Furthermore, the members of the household, outside of the dean and archdeacon, were identified in the domesday book as holding some of the bishop's estates.8 This form of administration has some distinctive properties. For one, it is rather central, in that the bishop has tight control over his staff, because they are all personally dependent on him. In addition, it allowed greater discretion to the bishop, since within the administration there were fewer checks on his power. However, this mode of administration is not very scalable, in that it is difficult to increase the size of the administration to handle new tasks or a greater number of tasks, and coordination is also difficult, since all of the members are tied to the bishop. In addition, the source of authority for any of the administrators was the bishop himself, which made it difficult for them to handle other clergy since they had no independent authority to act. This was particularly difficult for the lay members of the household, since they were of a different ordo than the clergy, and were not recognized as having authority over the clergy.9 7 The idea of formal jurisdiction involves not only the set of tasks for which the officeholder is responsible, but also importantly includes a set of rights to defend their responsibilities from encroachment by others. C.f. Weber, Economy and Society.. 8 Barrow, "Cathedrals, Provosts and Prebends: A Comparison of 12th-Century German and English Practice." 9 Georges Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 8 Overall, the familia system was an effective, if inefficient, system for the local control of dioceses. It also fit well with other systems of administration, such as the royal court, which also relied on the use of personal relations for authority and control. The basic logic of administration through personal relations with a household organizational structure, and both supported each other. By governing through a household, bishops were able to completely replace existing staffs upon taking office, ensuring that they could have a staff loyal and dependent upon them. The question arises then of why this began to change, Bishops had been able to administer their dioceses more or less effectively in the past, and while they had to deal with an increasingly complex and large set of responsibilities over the course of the twelfth century, it was not at all clear that this in itself was the driving force in the development of a formal structure of administration. To explore this question, it is important to begin to investigate the process of formalization in order to start to develop an answer as to why it came into being. The Creation of Formal Positions In the late 11th century a significant development began to transform the organizational structure of dioceses. The household model of administration began to change to one where th ebishop administered the diocese with and through a set of administrators in formal positions with set jurisdictions and tasks. During the period from 1075 to 1250, though nearly all of the activity occurred between roughly 1180 and 1150, individual dioceses began to create formal positions between the bishop and the parish priests and cathedral chapter. The cathedral chapter (i.e., canons) became more involved in not only electing the bishop, but also in filling administrative roles in the diocese. These offices carved up the administration of the diocese into several components over which each office had jurisdiction. The offices were hierarchically 9 ranked by status, with the dean or precentor typically at the top and the archdeacons typically at the bottom. These offices were directly below the bishop, and stood in between the bishop and the cathedral chapter.10 This section first details the different offices that were created, and their attempts to explain their creation using a theoretically informed analysis. The English church developed a set of positions which is known as the “four-corner” system, because the four main officers (dean, precentor, treasurer, and chancellor) of the church had their stall in each of the four corners of the cathedral.11 It was known as the four-corners in that the four principal officers (dean, treasurer, chancellor, and precentor) each established their stalls in one of the four corners of the cathedral. In addition, there was also a group of archdeacons in each diocese, and sometimes formally distinct assistants to the dean and precentor, the subdean and succentor respectively. The principal offices of the diocese were the dean, the archdeacons, chancellor, treasurer, and precentor. The dean was the head of the cathedral chapter, and was responsible for the community of the chapter as well as presiding over the assemblies of the clergy at the cathedral. These assemblies were called for the election of the bishop and for certain acts of the bishop, including the alienation of church property. The archdeacon originated as the administrator of day-to-day affairs in the diocese. In most English dioceses, there were several archdeacons, who were first without territorial jurisdiction. Beginning at the end of the 11th and through the 12th century, archdeacons were reorganized along territorial lines, with one archdeacon who was a chief executive officer, and several archdeacons who were responsible for the parishes within their territory. The office of the 10 Though the incumbents of these offices were also typically members of the chapter, in that the office also had attached to it a prebend which made the incumbent simultaneously a member of the chapter, with the rights of a canon, and above the chapter by virtue of holding a higher office. 11 Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 10 chancellor emerged out of the Magister Scholarum, or the master of the cathedral school, located in the capital town of the diocese. The cathedral school taught Latin, literacy, and the seven liberal arts to younger students in preparation for governmental administration or a clerical career (and later for mercantile careers). During the 12th century, the chancellor transformed this role into the keeper of the bishop's seal, the officer in charge of external affairs and correspondence, responsibility for the cathedral school, and the head of the judicial staff of the diocese. The treasurer was responsible for maintaining and preserving the treasury of the cathedral, which primarily involved relics and other valuable items, not the general operating funds. The precentor emerged out of the office of cantore, who was in charge of leading the choir. Later, the office took on the great share of responsibilities for conducting mass and other rituals at the cathedral as well as some of the local churches. Of the five primary administrative positions within the diocese, the easiest to explain the origin of is the archdeacon. The position of the archdeacon was principally a Norman transplant, with little indication of its existence in England prior to the conquest.12 The archdeaconry was well established in Normandy by the mid-eleventh century. During his tenure, Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury from 1067 to 1089, enacted statutes to get the English cathedrals to adopt this Norman office, in order to aid the bishop in his administration of the diocese.13 In the monastic cathedrals this was often the only secular position in the administration outside of the 12 Frank Barlow, The English Church, 1000-1066: A Constitutional History, (London: Longmans, 1963); Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 13 Frank Barlow, The English Church, 1066-1154: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church, (London: Longman, 1979). 11 secular clerks in the bishop's familia.14 However, in the secular cathedrals they provided the first step in the creation of a broader range of formal administrative positions within the cathedral. The archdiaconate was created before or concurrently with the office of the dean, with the possible exception of Chichester, where the first mention of an archdeacon is c. 1118, while the first mention of the dean is c. 1108, though the vagueness of the dating makes it difficult to tell whether the deanery was in fact created prior to the archdeaconry. However, there are several cases where the deanery was created well after the archdeaconries, notably Salisbury and Wells. The office of the archdeacon underwent an early and important modification in the late 11th and early 12th century as it became territorialized. These territorial archdeaconries were subdivisions of the diocese with an archdeacon at the head of them. At Chichester, Salisbury, Hereford, and Wells, the archdeacons were originally without formally defined territorial jurisdictions until the early part of the 12th century, while at London and Lincoln the archdeaconries were apparently organized territorially from their inception. One significance of this territoriality is that involves a very different type of jurisdiction. Non-territorial archdeacons were principally aides to the bishop, with unclear and loosely defined responsibilities and authority.15 However, the introduction of territorial archdeacons meant that archdeacons had more clearly defined jurisdictions over particular parish churches and parochial revenues, significant judicial roles within their territory, and more clearly defined episcopal authority.16 This shift to a greater formalization in the role of the archdeacon leads me 14 John Le Neve and Diana E. Greenway, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300, Revised and expanded ed., (London: Institute of Historical Research; Athlone P., 1968-), vol. 2. 15 Barlow, The English Church, 1066-1154: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church; Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 16 Brian R. Kemp, "Archdeacons and Parish Churches in England in the Twelfth Century," in Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. George Garnett and John Hudson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Brian R. Kemp, "Informing the Archdeacon on Ecclesiastical 12 below to consider the territorial archdeacon as a different type of position than a non-territorial archdeacon. A similar issue arises with the difference between the office of the master of the schools (magister scholarum) and the chancellor. The master of the schools was an early office that was principally involved with running the schools, while the chancellor added a number of duties including a judicial function, running the chancery and external correspondence, as well as running the schools. Because of this major shift in the nature of the position, the creation of the office of the master of the schools is considered in the following analysis to be distinct from the chancellor. There is an important methodological problem in studying the creation of administrative positions in the English church at this time, namely that it was not a subject that contemporaries found worthy of commenting on. While we can identify new positions being created, and can measure when they were created fairly accurately, much of the process of this creation is difficult to ascertain, because it is not mentioned in the letters, chronicles, or papal decretals during this period, other than the archdeaconries mandated by Lanfranc. Instead, we need to examine the process of formation through indirect references to people incumbent in these positions. Table 1 shows the creation of positions by the bishops who created them in six different dioceses. It identifies the diocese, the individual bishops, their dates of office, and what offices were created by each bishop. This is not a complete list of the bishops in each of the six dioceses under study, but instead just those bishops that are "at risk", to use terminology from event-history analysis, of creating new formal positions. Most of the positions were created in all of the dioceses, but we can see from Table 1 that two positions were not present in several of the dioceses: namely Matters in Twelfth-Century England," in Medieval Ecclesiastical Studies in Honour of Dorothy M. Owen, ed. M.J. Franklin and Christopher Harper-Bill (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell Press, 1995). 13 master of the schools and the non-territorial archdeacon. Lincoln never created non-territorial archdeaconries because Remigius instituted territorial archdeaconries early on. Hereford, Wells, and Chichester never created masters of the schools, though they did create chancellorships, but since no masters of the schools were implemented after 1107, and they were relatively late adopters of the majority of the positions, they created chancellorships directly, instead of transforming the existing position of the master of the schools. There are two main patterns of the creation of positions evident in Table 1. The first pattern is that embodied by Lincoln and Salisbury, which created a large number of positions and early relative to the other dioceses. At Lincoln, Remigius instituted the office of the dean, territorial archdeacon, treasurer, magister scholarum, and precentor by 1092, when they were all present at the dedication of the new cathedral at Lincoln.17 The only change in the composition of the upper administration of Lincoln is the change of the magister scholarum to a chancellor in 1148 under Robert de Chesney. At Salisbury, Osmund had created non-territorial archdeacons by 1085, but the majority of positions were created during the episcopacy of Roger. Roger created the magister scholarum c. 1107, the deanery by 1111, the treasurership and precentorship by 1122, and territorial archdeaconries by 1130. His successor completed the creation of positions by creating the chancellorship from the magister scholarum in 1155. The second pattern is typified by Hereford and Chichester, which created positions late relative to the other dioceses. At Chichester, Ralph Luffa created the office of the dean c. 1108, the non-territorial archdeacon c. 1118, and the precentorship c. 1122. The rest of the offices were established under Hilary, who created the treasurship in 1147/8, territorial archdeacons c. 1157, and the chancellorship sometime between 1154 and 1163. The Robert the Lotharingian in Hereford had established a dean and non-territorial archdeacons fairly early (c. 1085), but it was 17 David M. Smith, ed., English Episcopal Acta, Vol. I: Lincoln, 1067-1185 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), no. 3. 14 not until the beginning of Robert de Bethune's episcopacy that Hereford had territorial archdeacons (c. 1131), a cantore (c. 1132), and a treasurer (by 1132). The offices were not complete at Hereford until William de Vere created the office of the chancellor between 1187 and 1195. The other two dioceses are intermediate between these two patterns. London tends more towards Lincoln and Salisbury, but the treasurership and the transition from a magister scholarum to a chancellor happened much later than at the other two dioceses. At London, Bishop Maurice had instituted non-territorial archdeacons by 1096, territorial archdeacons by 1102, the magister scholarum in 1102, the cantore18 by 1105, and the dean by 1107. The treasurership was not added until 1160-1162 under Richard de Belmeis II, and it was not until 1204 that William de Ste-Mere-Eglise instituted the chancellorship. In contrast, Wells looks in many ways like Chichester and Hereford, in the relative lateness of its positions, though it had archdeacons early on, but Robert of Lewes created a number of positions during the mid-12th century that looks more like the large-scale creation of positions at Lincoln or Salisbury. At Wells, Giso instituted archdeacons c. 1086, and his successor John of Tours had instituted territorial archdeacons by 1106. However, it was not until Robert of Lewes that Wells saw the other major offices, with a dean by 1141, precentor by 1146, the creation of a treasurer between 1153 and 1159, as well as an assistant to the precentor, the succentor, sometime before 1165. The offices at Wells were completed with the creation of the chancellorship c. 1188 by Reginald FitzJocelin. From this we can see that the different dioceses had different patterns of development, and that the majority of the changes were made by specific bishops, such as Maurice at London, 18 This position is equivalent to a precentor. 15 Robert of Lewes at Wells, Remigius at Lincoln and Roger at Salisbury. For the later adopters of positions, the sees of Chichester and Hereford, the development is much less driven by individual bishops, but has a more fragmented development. This suggests several possible explanations for the creation of formal positions. One potential explanation is that the early adopters were aligned with the Gregorian reform movement, which in part sought greater church control and centralization.19 Of the early adopters, all were royal appointments, as were nearly all appointments to English bishoprics prior to 1125, which makes this explanation unlikely.20 One of the bishops was more aligned with the reform movement. Remigius at Lincoln was a monk from Fécamp, which was a minor center of church reform in Normandy. However, during the late 11th and early 12th centuries the reform movement in England was pushed forward by Archbishop Lanfranc and in particular Archbishop Anselm, both of whom sought to increase the power of monks in the church by transforming secular foundations to monastic foundations, which is one of the reasons why Wells does not adopt many positions early in the period.21 Furthermore, Remigius was initially removed from office by the pope on a charge of simony, though he travelled to Rome with Lanfranc and was able to be reinstated in office. Indeed, as we will see later in this chapter, the refoundation of the secular canons in the cathedral chapter, done by all three of these bishops, was most likely a reaction against these reform attempts. In contrast, the other two bishops who adopted positions early on were not considered reformers at all. In particular, Roger of Salisbury, who was discussed in chapter 1, and Maurice 19 Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); Tellenbach, Church, State, and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest; Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, 3d. ed., (London: Methuen, 1970). 20 For more on appointments and elections in the English Church, see chapter 6. 21 Robert Bartlett, Medieval Panorama, (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001); C. R. Cheney, From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170-1213, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). 16 were both former royal chancellors, and Roger continued as a royal chancellor, which often put him on the wrong side of the reforming movement. In fact, both of them centralized church property under themselves, and both signed confessions on their death giving property back to the clergy for their wrongs. Maurice writes to the clergy of London: I am sorry for my evil deeds which I did both greatly against the church of Saint Paul and against you. Wherefore I beg you, to be lenient to me for what I have unjustly committed against you, to hold this agreement that hereafter the customs of your church , statutes, elections, powers in your prebends, and to be established in manors just as you held on the day in which I became bishop."22 The statements of Roger are very similar, he made several deathbed confessions to various ecclesiastical bodies restoring to them land and property he had misappropriated.23 From this, it is clear that the bishops who were creating extensive formal administrations early on were not strongly associated with reform, and at least two of them, Maurice and Roger, were known to be opposed to the reformers.24 This makes the argument that the creation of formal positions was an element of reform an unlikely candidate to explain the original creation of formal positions within the church. If the early development of formal positions was not driven by reformers, it was certainly true that they were Normans. Following from this, it is plausible that it was driven by importation of practices from the Norman church into England. The importance of Normans suggest the hypothesis that the English church borrowed its structure from the Norman church, which in many ways was more developed. We already saw this process operate for the creation of the initial archdiaconates. Furthermore, since royal appointees were creating formal positions within the church at this time, and the king was engaging in a project of Normanification of the 22 Falko Neininger, English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 15: London, 1076-1187, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), no. 9. 23 Edward J. Kealy, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England, (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1972), app. 2. 24 Barlow, The English Church, 1066-1154: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church; Kealy, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England; H. R. Loyn, The English Church, 940-1154, (Harlow, U.K.: Longman, 2000). 17 church,25 it is possible that the new Norman clergy brought with them administrative models from northern France. This would constitute an normative isomorphic process, as the Norman bishops brought with them administrative practices from Normandy and instituted them in England.26 There is some credence to this. All of the bishops in England appointed between 1066 and1125 were Norman, with a few exceptions of Normans who had been born in England. All three of the bishops who created numerous positions early on were Norman, and had experience with the church there to varying degrees. As previously mentioned, Remigius was a monk at Fécamp in Normandy, while Roger had been a parish priest and Maurice had been archdeacon of Le Mans, giving them knowledge of the Norman church system. For Roger, this is particularly apparent, in that in his familia he had a number of staff drawn from Norman churches.27 Remigius, the bishop at Lincoln, was himself a Norman monk from Fontevrault However, this explanation is more difficult for Lincoln and London, since no Norman church had all of the positions that they had implemented by the end of the 11th century.28 Instead, Lincoln in particular was slightly ahead of the Norman churches in the elaboration of a formal administrative structure. This explanation is also complicated by the fact that the Norman bishops in the other dioceses did not create a formal administrative hierarchy, instead relying on their familia and archdeacons to provide for the administration of the diocese. While there was certainly some borrowing of structure that occurred, this does not fully account for the creation 25 For example, Florence of Worcester comments that king William removed archbishop Stigand and his brother bishop Ethelmar from office “that he might appoint persons of his own nation to preferments, and thus confirm his power in his new kingdom” Benjamin Thorpe, ed., Florentii Wigorniensis Monaci Chronicon Ex Chronicis (London: English Historical Society, 1848-1849), 170.. 26 Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell, "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields," American Sociological Review 48, no. 2 (1983). 27 Kealy, Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England. 28 Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 18 of positions. What does seem likely is there were consultations and collective action among the bishops, both Norman and English, to establish similar structures in both places.29 Another possible explanation is that these developments were driven by organizational pressures from changes in the responsibilities and their staffs. Modern research has shown that formal administrative positions would help to coordinate and control activity, and this would be most important for larger dioceses with more people and resources to coordinate and control. If we examine the dioceses that created the most positions the earliest, we can see that these were the larger dioceses, while the smaller dioceses created positions later and in a more sporadic fashion. Lincoln was the largest diocese in Western Europe in the 11th century, and the church was fairly wealthy, with a large number of monasteries as well as many churches. In 1092, when the new cathedral was finished, the bishop Remigius was able to create it with a large chapter. While the actual number of canons in the late eleventh-century is unclear, contemporaries remarked on the size and scholarly background of the cathedral chapter. Henry of Huntingdon wrote that Remigius “graced [the new cathedral] with clergy who were most commendable for their learning and their morals”.30 The reconstitution of Lincoln, as well as other chapters, required a greater degree of supervision than before.31 Furthermore, Salisbury, Lincoln, and London were relatively wealthy dioceses in the late eleventh century. In order to manage the property, a more formal and larger administrative staff would have been more effective than the traditional household organization. Most of this property was in the form of churches, where 29 C. R. Cheney, English Bishops' Chanceries, 1100-1250, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1950). J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Omnium Ss. Patrum, Doctorum Scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum Sive Latinorum, Sive Graecorum, Series Latina, (Paris: Migne, 1844-1859), vol. 195, col. 932A.. See also the statement above by William of Malmesbury. 31 A fuller discussion of this reconstitution is contained later in this chapter as well as in the next chapter. 30 19 revnues were generated from fields attached to the churches, and more importantly, the tithes drawn from the congregation of these churches. These churches needed to be staffed, and their priests overseen by the diocesan administration. This presents a significant management problem, with a large number of people who needed to be assessed, placed, managed, and monitored. This problem was more accute at the larger dioceses, where the situation was more of a problem than at the smaller dioceses, and necessitated a greater formal control apparatus than the smaller dioceses. However, we can also see from Table 4.2 that the relative differences between the dioceses decreases over the twelfth century in the dioceses studied. London and Lincoln remain larger than the others, but London goes from being five times as wealthy as Chicester in 1086 to only twice as wealthy in 1212, and by 1212 Wells, Chichester, and Salisbury are all equivalent in size, with London and Lincoln 1.5 to 2 times as wealthy as these dioceses. There are still differences, but the relative differences diminish over time as the smaller dioceses accumulated property. The argument from size is, however, a necessary but not sufficient condition for the creation of formal administration. If larger dioceses created formal administrative positions in order to manage the heavier organization burden, then we would expect Salisbury to create positions early than under Roger in the first part of the 12th century. However, if we look at the early adopters, what we see is that they were the larger dioceses that created formal positions when there was also a reorganization of the cathedral chapter, as we will see below in the section on the role of the cathedral chapter in developing a diocesan administrative staff. This recommends a fifth argument that helps us to understand the problem. This fits with arguments that existing institutional arrangements make it difficult to implement new 20 organizational structures.32 Even with the introduction of foreign clergy, the local clergy were still significant actors, and though they could not attain the highest offices, were active in protecting their rights, and the formalization of positions was seen as a threat, since it involved shifts in power and property arrangements.33 This resistance made it difficult for bishops to implement large-scale reforms in the dioceses. One of the ways in which this resistance was weakened was in the shift of sees to large towns after the decree of archbishop Lanfranc in 1075. Moving the see allowed bishops greater flexibility in instituting changes, because the customs and rights of the clergy were tied to the specific locale. Moving to a new cathedral meant that the bishop had the opportunity to institute new rules and positions. The diocese of Thetford was moved to Lincoln by Remigius, where construction of the cathedral was completed in 1092. During the construction of the new cathedral, Remigius had created all of the formal positions in the diocese, and when the cathedral was completed in 1092 William of Malmesbury noted that he “filled it with many canons, who themselves were conspicuous because of their scholarship”34 to provide a pool of clergy to serve as administrators along with the new dean, territorial archdeacons, master of schools, and precentor. Similar patterns were seen at Salisbury and London, where the bishops there refounded the cathedrals, with Osmund moving the see from Sherborne to Salisbury and Maurice building a new cathedral in London. At the time of these foundations, Osmund and Maurice also reconstituted the cathedral chapter, which opened up a context for reorganizing the entire administration. 32 Gerald Berk, Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of American Industrial Order, 1865-1917, (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994); Elisabeth S. Clemens and James M. Cook, "Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change," Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1999); Kathleen Thelen and Sven Steinmo, "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics," in Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. Scen Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). 33 On the shift in property arrangements, see chapter 5. 34 David Preest, ed., The Deeds of the Bishops of England by William of Malmesbury (Woodbrige, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2002). 21 The process of creating formal positions thus appears to be a combination of a need to control an increased division of labor, and the means to do so with the reorganization of the chapter, which allows the creation of new administrative structures. The larger dioceses adopted formal positions earlier and more extensively than did the smaller dioceses, but the creation of formal positions occurred immediately after the cathedral was moved, which allowed a rearrangement of the organizational structure of the diocesan administration. The creation of positions and offices allowed a larger administration for the diocese, and one managed by incumbents of these offices who held greater authority and formal limits on their activities, which allowed for a more effective control over an administration that had a greater scope and scale. For the smaller dioceses, the pressure for formal administrative positions was less because there were fewer people to manage, less property to administer, and fewer resources with which to reorganize the diocese. However, as the twelfth century progressed, the work of the smaller dioceses began to look increasingly similar to that of the larger dioceses. Additionally, they had accumulated more property, benefitted from some of the advances for the payment of clergy we will see in the next chapter, and greater resources to restructure their administrations. What we see is that they adopt positions more slowly as the century progresses, in line with the argument from the division of labor. The one exception is Wells, where a number of new positions were created in the mid-twelfth century, but this was when the secular chapter at Wells was reconstituted, fitting the pattern for the larger dioceses, only several decades later. The importance of the constitution of the cathedral and its chapter in the creation of formal positions indicates that we need to look at this process as well. In addition, the chapter served as an important source for administrators that were under the direction of the bishop and 22 other administrative officers of the church. To this end, the next section of the chapter examines the development and role of the cathedral chapter in the creation of a formal administrative structure in the English church. The Cathedral Chapter These formal positions were not the only source of administrators within the church. Below the formal positions was the cathedral chapter, which provided an additional source of administrators for the increasingly bureaucratic church. The chapter was important in the development of a formal administration in that it provided a way of paying and promoting the bishop's clerks. Furthermore, it provided a group of clergy within the church who could serve as potential administrators, whether they had previously been clerks of the bishop or not. The church reformers in England initially pushed for administrative changes in line with their affiliations in the reformed monasteries. Archbishop Lanfranc sought several changes within dioceses, including moving many from small villages to larger, and walled, towns, such as the move from Thetford to Lincoln among other examples. In addition, the archbishop mandated that bishops should create at least one archdeaconry in every diocese. However, Lanfranc's most dramatic policy was to support the existing monastic cathedrals as well as to create some new dioceses with a monastic chapter and to even change some existing secular chapters into monastic ones. To understand the difference between these two types of cathedral organization, it is important to first discuss the two different types of clergy within the Catholic tradition, up to that point. Within the church the members of the clergy are divided into two quite distinct types: secular and regular. Regular clergy are those who follow a monastic rule, the term regular deriving from the Latin for rule, regula. The purpose of the rule was to reduce mundane 23 activities to their minimum to force the individual adhering to the rule the ability to focus as much as possible on spiritual and otherworldly matters. The physical world was a burden, albeit a necessary one, which the monk sought to overcome to strict adherence to ascetic practices. The monastic ideal was captured in the oft repeated phrase that the monk was dead to the world, indicating the turning of his back on the mundane and secular. For much of the history of the Latin church, the principal rule was that of St. Benedict from the 6th century, which imposed a uniformity to western monasticism. The rule covered many aspects of monastic life, including food, dress, interactions, relations with family and the laity, daily activities, personal possessions, the structure of the community, and many other things which covered nearly all aspects of the monk's life. As can be expected, the ideal was rarely attained, and in practice much of this was watered down as monasteries became more prominent and included more people. This led to repeated efforts for reform within the confines of the monastic world, including various movements for purification and reform. It was from these communities that a reform movement, known popularly as the Gregorian Reform after pope Gregory VII, one of the principal architects of reform and the person who made the reform movement a dominant force within the church. In contrast to the otherworldly life of the regular clergy were the secular clergy. They drew their name because unlike the regular clergy who turned their back on the world, the secular clergy were definitely of the world, or saecula. For a universal church which sought to provide religious guidance to all from the lowest the highest, it was necessary for some of the clergy to deal with the world directly. These were the secular clergy, which includes bishops, archbishops, priests, archdeacons, and others who are charged to handle worldly affairs. This includes a wide variety of functions, including performing sacraments, ordaining other members 24 of the clergy, providing pastoral care to the laity, managing church property, running the cathedral, and so on. This group of clergy is much less clearly defined than the regular clergy. There is no standard rule, nor any other indicator of membership other than ordination. Some members of the secular clergy lived together in communities, while others did not. Some followed a rule, many of the most important, such as bishops, had no corrolary with a monastic rule. The monastic cathedral was a uniquely English establishment.35 Unlike a typical cathedral where the cathedral and city churches were staffed by a chapter of secular clergy, the monastic cathedral was instead built around a Benedictine monastery. This organizational form originated from the reintroduction of Christianity from Ireland, which was heavily monastic in character.36 Unlike a typical monastery with an abbot as head of the community, the monastery was organized under the bishop, and the titular head of the monks was a prior subject to the bishop. The reformers, many of whom came from the continent, found this to be an attractive organizational structure that was in line with their own purposes. In many ways, the goals of the reformers was to make the lives of the secular clergy more similar to that of the regular clergy, and to turn their focus inward towards the church as opposed to outwards towards the world. The reformers broadly pursued several major policies. One was to push a ban on lay investitures, the widespread practice of having powerful lay rulers, such as kings or members of the nobility, themselves appoint individuals to positions within the church. This was especially 35 There were only two monastic cathedrals outside of England, one in Italy and one in Ireland. However, these were not the organization of dioceses in Ireland itself, as there as well as in Wales the bishop was not based in a fixed see, and was himself subordinate to a local monastery, making the abbot the principal ecclesiastical official in a diocese. Instead of having a cathedral as episcopal seat, the bishop travelled throughout the diocese providing pastoral care as an itinerant bishop subject to an abbot. 36 25 important in the selection of bishops and abbots who were themselves powerful actors within the church, and reformers saw the practice of lay investiture as producing poor clerics who were not focused on the well-being of the church. A closely related practice that reformers sought to prevent was simony, or the purchase of ecclesiastical offices for money. These were often done by laymen who held rights, whether by law, custom, or usurpation, over the appointment of clergy, and used this as a way of generating revenue. Many church offices, especially high offices like abbacies, held large amounts of property which could then be used to enrich the officeholder. In this way, the office was an investment which produced particularly egregious cases of rent-seeking behavior. While the attempt to place bans on lay investiture and especially simony were popular within the church, another major element of the reformers' policies was much less so. In addition to attempting to separate the church from powerful lay rulers by removing their rights to appoint clergy, and to stop the buying and selling of church offices which led to their utilization as a vehicle for personal enrichment, the reformers sought to separate the secular clergy from another main social relation: family. The reformers pushed very hard to ban clerical marriage throughout the Latin church, not just for monks but for all those who were in orders. The monastic cathedral was seen by Lanfranc and other reformers as one of the best ways to get the secular clergy to become celibate, by essentially turning the main bastion of the secular clergy into a chapter of regular clergy. The monastic cathedral model provided for monastic discipline, based upon asceticism as opposed to the externally imposed legal rules binding secular clergy. The regular clergy in a monastic chapter were also much more independent of the bishop than were the canons in a secular chapter. This meant that the local clergy in these dioceses would have been much more likely to be in line with reformers’ goals. 26 One way in which we can see the importance of the chapter organization in the creation of formal positions is that except for the archdiaconate, formal positions were not created in monastic cathedrals. Furthermore, as a model the monastic cathedral proved contentious in several ways. The secular clergy were beginning to be more active and unified in acting, much of it directed against the monasteries. The rhetoric of the reformers as well as their strong push against clerical marriage alienated the clerks. The increasing number of monksbecoming bishops and seeking greater administrative roles in the church directly threatened the clerks organizational positions and opportunities. On the other hand, there were a number of attempts to create monastic cathedrals that were seen by monks, not inappropriately, as naked theft. One example of this which was notorious in England was the diocese of Bath. The diocese centered on Somerset was originally based in a secular cathedral at Wells. The bishop John of Tours, who had previously been the physician to the king, moved the see to the rich monastery of Bath around 1089 with royal approval. The original church at Wells lost its status as a cathedral, and the monastery of Bath became the new chapter under Bishop John. This move from a poor church to a rich monastery was supported by Lanfranc in his support of monastic cathedrals, as well as being potentially lucrative for the bishop, who might have hoped for private patients who were visiting the famous baths in the city.37 The monks of Bath as well as other monks examining these events were upset by the change. They were furious that the lay servants of the bishop’s household were doling out their livings, and the revenues of the diocese were were used to buy the city itself for the bishop and the diocese.38 This tension in the chapter was somewhat relieved in following years as some independence was restored to the monks. Additionally, John returned the chapter its estates along with some of the newly acquired properties, but in fact he and his successors continued to 37 38 Kathleen Edwards, Secular Cathedral; L.S. Colchester, Wells Cathedral. William Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, p. 195; Regesta, i. no. 326. 27 hold poessession of most of these properties. Eventually, it took the monks seventy years to have all of their properties restored to them. His sucessor, Robert of Lewes, was a secular clerk who sought to reestablish a chapter of clerks in the diocese. To this end he rebuilt the chapter at Wells, among other administrative reforms. The monks were concerned about their potential loss of rights to elect the bishop as well as the general dignity of being a cathedral, but were somewhat pacified by further restorations of their property. The conflict between the two chapters ultimately dominated the political life of the diocese for the next century. The two chapters were more or less coequal in the diocese, but a later bishop, Savaric, sought to incorporate the very rich and famous monastery of Glastonbury in the diocese.39 The abbey itself was richer than the diocese, making it an attractive target for Savaric. He used the upheavel surrounding the captivity of king Richard to get possession of the abbey, and received papal confirmation to move the see to the abbey. This was ultimately short-lived, but created tremendous negative feelings towards the acquisition of monasteries for creating a monastic cathedral from all sides. Beyond the basic conflict between the two types of clergy, and the difficulties in turning existing abbeys into cathedrals, the monastic cathedral model proved difficult for the expansion of administration in the twelfth century. In this case, as well as others, the move to the monastic chapter was driven principally by greed on the part of individual bishops. Separate from this, however, were the administrative limitations of monastic cathedrals. As we will see in secular cathedrals, not having canons and prebends made it difficult for bishops in these dioceses to provide for their staff. The existence of prebends was also essential in providing for the expansion of formal offices in dioceses by creating a separate means of providing for them. The 39 During this time the monks made the widely believed claim that Glastonbury was in fact Avalon, where king Arthur of legendary fame was buried with his wife. 28 monks themselves were not helpful either in providing administrative assistance, in large part because of their otherworldliness. In contrast to the monastic cathedral was the typical model of cathedral organization based around a secular chapter. Each cathedral was staffed by a chapter composed of canons who were responsible for the liturgical functions of the cathedral. The idea of the bishop and cathdral developed early in church history when it was based in a more urban society. The bishop was the local religious leader for the city in the sole church, and to assist him in running the church were a number of other men from the community. As Christianity became universal and western society became less urban and more rural, the bishop could no longer provide for the spiritual sustenance of the area, and often not even of the entirety of the city. This required a larger and more formal group of people to aid the bishop. In the city where the bishop was resident, this was typically the cathedral chapter, who served the cathedral itself and typically other churches spread throughout the city. They sang in the choir, officiated the mass, served as priests, and were otherwise involved in the liturgical functions of the bishopric. In outlying churches other arrangements were involved, which were hardly uniform. Many churches had no priest or clergyman to officiate, relying on itinerant priests. Others drew from the local village someone who was barely able to recite the Latin liturgy, much less understand it or be able to read the bible. Others were well-served by chaplains attached to the church through a vicarage, or the patronage of a local lord or monastery, especially those in the noble houses. Monasteries often had a member of their community get an exception and be ordained priest so that he could lead the monks in the services. The cathedral chapter in a secular cathedral initially began as the group of clergy associated with the cathedral to run the liturgical operations. They composed the choir and the 29 officiants, and were often hereditary sinecures, since there was little restriction the canons of the cathedral from marrying and living in their own houses. The development of the prebendal system at the end of the eleventh century involved the bringing of the canons into the cathedral, in that it required them to live communally and celibately. This movement of the canons into a common life and with individual prebends to pay for them created a means in which the bishops could collate their clerks into the cathedral chapter. The chapters of the English dioceses were reconstituted in the late eleventh century, all around 1090.40 This was immediately after the death of Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, who had been a strong advocate of moral reform of the clergy and was active in establishing many of the principles of the Gregorian reform in England. One of the ways in which he sought to transform the secular clergy was through the expansion of monastic cathedrals. The monastic cathedral, as discussed in chapter 3, was a peculiarly English way of structuring churches. The monastic cathedral had a bishop and archdeacons, but was otherwise administered by an abbey of Benedictine monks who served as the chapter of the cathedral. With respect to the goals of the reform movement, namely bans on clerical marriage and the moral reform of the clergy, this was an effective means in that it brough regular clergy who were under a strict rule into the administration of the dioceses. Lanfranc was successful in establishin monastic chapters at a number of cathedrals. Prior to the conquest, Winchester, Worcester, and Canterbury were monastic foundations. After the conquest, Lanfranc took this structure and changed Rochester and Durham into monastic cathedrals, constituted the new diocese of Ely with the see at Ely 40 Cheney, English Bishops' Chanceries, 1100-1250; Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century.. The one important exception is Bath and Wells, where the see was moved to Bath and constituted as a monastic cathedral, and then constituted as a dual see diocese in 1136 with the refoundation of a secular chapter at Wells. A similar structure was used at Coventry, where there was a monastic foundation at Coventry and a secular foundation at Lichfield. 30 abbey, and refounded Norwich, Coventry, and Bath as monastic cathedrals in their respective moves from Elmham, Lichfield, and Wells. Relations between the secular clergy and regular clergy were very antagonistic in the twelfth century.41 Given the timing of the new constitutions for the secular chapters, it appears as though the bishops at the remaining secular cathedrals sought to retain their secular chapters, and did so through reforming the secular chapter, by making it somewhat monastic while keeping it full of secular clergy.42 As one chronicler put it, the English bishops “made a determined effort to turn out the monks who were living the monastic life in a number of English Cathedrals”.43 The chronicler then recounts how they tried to turn Winchester into a secular cathedral, until Lanfranc intervened and forced it to remain a monastic cathedral, though this did not “succeed in allaying the enmity which some had conceived against the monks”.44 By refounding the chapters with a more formal constitution, these bishops were able to preemtpt any further encroachment of monastic chapters on the existing secular cathedrals. Much of this was driven by the use of the chapter in these cathedrals as an increasingly administrative body, as we will see below. Monks in general made poor administrators, because administration necessarily involves secular affairs such as management, organizational disciplining, and land administration. The monk’s rejection of the world and his asceticism made him typically poorer at administration, and their observance of the Benedictine rule also made them less likely to engage in worldly activities. Furthermore, the refounded chapters served as an important resource for bishops by providing them with paid positions that they could appoint their clerks to, as indicated below, which would have been more difficult with a monastic chapter. 41 For more on this topic, and how it impacted the selection of bishops, see chapter 6. A fuller discussion of these reforms is in chapter 5. 43 Martin Rule, ed., Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia (London: Longman & Co., 1884). 44 Ibid. 42 31 The cathedral chapter was the primary executive and legislative organ in the diocese. They were responsible for electing the bishop, and had to pass on any alienations of property held by the diocese. In addition, they continued in their role as the primary officiants of the cathedral in performing the liturgical duties. The prebendal system, as we will see in the next chapter, was a way of paying for the canons by giving them individual pieces of property in which they were responsible for managing in return for the revenues that the property could generate. These revenues were used to pay for their own support, as well as for any of the tasks of their office. The bringing together of the canons into the cathedral with prebends to pay for them created an opportunity for the bishops to fill them with their clerks. The primary problem with the familia administration was that it was difficult for the bishop to pay for his administrative staff. The creation of formal positions was one way to pay for clerks to serve as administrators without having to draw from the bishop's own property, and the chapter served as an additional resource. The prebends served as a way of paying for them, so that the bishop could have an administrative staff without having to pay for them out of his own revenues. As we saw in the previous section, the growing administrative demands of the diocese led to the establishment of formal positions. The same pressures were felt in the houshold, but the familia administrative structure made it difficult to expand, because of the financial and material pressures of supporting a larger staff. What we see with the chapter is that the reconsituted chapter served as an important resource for the bishops, as were the formal positions, in that it allowed the bishop to expand the administration by putting his clerks into the chapter and the higher church offices. In secular cathedrals the canons and the holders of administrative offices were provided for through prebends. The prebend was a sinecure to provide for their own person, as well as the 32 operations of their office. These sinecures included a certain amount of land, and not infrequently a church, where they were able to collect the tithes for their own use. In this capacity, the holder of the prebend was to manage the property, as landlord of land and priest in the churches. Attached to each prebend were a number of rights, responsibilities, and requirements. As we will see below, these developed over time as the prebendal system became more elaborate. In general, the holder of a prebend held the property for their own use and that of the office, but there might be some requirement attached to the prebend to give a rent of some portion of the revenues of the prebend to either the bishop or to the common fund of the cathedral. In addition, the prebend was attached to membership in the college of canons of the cathedral church, which gave them a set of rights of participation in the college. By being a member of the cathedral church, the holder of the prebend was required to be in residency, though as we shall see this requirement was relaxed and modified in a number of ways, and getting the canons to maintain residency was a continual problem in the church. Furthermore, the holder of the prebend held extensive rights over the property, which protected them from the encroachment of others, including the bishop, monasteries, the laity, and other canons. This system was the closest to the idea of salary in Weber's discussion of bureaucracy.45 The property was technically owned by the office, in that a canon who held a particular prebend was able to enjoy the fruits of the property, but was unable to alienate the property, and had restrictions on their ability to rent it out or use it for purposes outside of the scope of using it for their own sustenance and to provide for the needs of their office. In this sense, it represents an important move in the separation of individual property rights from property rights attached to positions. In the terms of Weber, it involves the important separation of the office from the 45 Max Weber, Economy and Society, trans. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). 33 incumbent, in that the benefits of the property accrue to the individual only insofar as they hold the office, and cease upon their removal from the office.46 In this way, it tied the property to the position, not to the individual, separating in a significant way ownership from control. However, in an important sense the prebendal system was not the same as the salary system that Weber describes. One important difference was that the system was based on direct control over property, instead of drawing a salary from the organization.47 These benefices were for the rights to the produce and revenues generated by particular parcels of land, and more importantly, the tithes generated by churches at which the holder of the prebend served as a priest, or contracted it out to a vicar. The prebendal system of benefices for the clergy came about after the Norman Conquest. There is little evidence of its existence prior to the conquest, and nearly all of the structural elements seem to have Norman origins.48 While the prebendal system solved the important problem of paying for the clergy in the newly created positions, in large part the system was created as a way of avoiding the direct monasticization of the cathedrals. As mentioned in chapter 3, the English church was distinct from continental churches in having the clergy of some of the cathedrals organized as Benedictine monasteries. As we saw in the previous chapter, the bishops reconstituted their chapters after the death of Lanfranc to prevent a future archbishop from establishing them as monastic chapters. This allowed them to remain secular, and furthermore, to serve as a means of provisioning an administrative staff in the dioceses. It is in this context that we see the development of a prebendal system in the secular cathedrals in England. The prebendal system appears with the reorganization of the dioceses 46 Though there is an important exception to this for officeholders who die while in office, who were given rights over the benefits of the prebend for a year after deat, as discussed below. 47 Weber in fact separates out prebendal bureaucracies from other forms on this dimension alone. 48 Kathleen Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century, 2nd ed., (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967). 34 upon the construction of the new cathedrals. At Lincoln the dedication of the new cathedral in 1192 included the establishment of prebends there.49 Similarly, at London the dedication of Osmund the bishop lists the different prebends created there, as well as what should be done when a prebend is left vacant by a deceased canon.50 While it is impossible to absolutely determine that the creation of the prebendal system was conditional on the reorganization of the cathedral, the lack of evidence for its existence prior to the reorganization strongly suggests that the creation of the new system was able to occur because of the opening of the institutional structure of the diocese upon the creation of a new cathedral. This suggests that the prebendal system was able to be created because of the general reorganization of the dioceses, in the context of attempts to establish monastic cathedrals. The reconstitution of the chapter happened with the creation of prebends for the canons of the cathedral. However, this still does not indicate why the prebendal system was created. There seem to be two reasons why the prebendal system came into existence. The first was a reaction to the creation of monastic cathedrals, and the reorganization of some secular cathedrals as monastic cathedrals. In addition to this, the prebendal system established a way of managing church property as the church was increasing its land holdings. As discussed in the previous chapter, the prebendal system emerged in England at the same time as Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury, and other reformed monks were attempting to reform the English church through a monasticization of the secular clergy. This 49 Marjorie Chibnall, ed., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969-1980); Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century; Diana E. Greenway, ed., The History of the English People by Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968); David Preest, ed., The Deeds of the Bishops of England by William of Malmesbury (Woodbrige, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2002); David M. Smith, ed., English Episcopal Acta, Vol. I: Lincoln, 1067-1185 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980). 50 Brian R. Kemp, ed., English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 18: Salisbury, 1078-1217 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), no. 3. 35 was especially true of the dioceses, where the push to establish monastic chapters was particularly strong, and was successful in a number of instances. Beyond the attempts of the secular clergy to protect their positions in the dioceses, the creation of the prebendal system was also seen as a way of better managing the property of the church. The conquest of England established more secure claims of the church to a variety of land holdings, and one of the ways in which William the Conqueror sought to pacify his new lands was through the church. This led to the transfer of large amounts of land to the church, both the monasteries and the dioceses. The increase in land holdings, as well as the existing holdings, created a problem of management, since the administration of the dioceses in the late 11th century was not very well developed, and it was not principally focused on land management. The prebendal system established a way for the church to manage large amounts of land in a decentralized way by granting broad rights to the holder of prebends. Hugh the Chanter describes this motivation in the creation of a prebendal system at York: For many years the canons lived together in common, but the archbishop then decided, upon advice, to give each on a prebend from the lands of St. Peter [York Minster Cathedral], much of which lay desolate. The purpose was to increase the number of canons and to encourage each one, as it were for his own sake, to build up and cultivate his share with greater zeal.51 Eerily echoing arguments from agency theory, this indicates that a motivation for the creation of individual prebends, as opposed to communal property, was driven by the desire to make land more productive.52 By giving out the land to individuals in the chapter, and not the chapter as a whole, it was hoped that they would pay more attention to the management of the property, and since they drew the revenues from it, make it more productive for their own selfish interests. 51 Hugh the Chanter, The History of the Church of York, 1066-1127, trans. Charles Johnson, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 18. 52 On agency theory, see Eugene F. Fama and Michael C. Jensen, "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics 26, no. 2 (1983); Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure," Journal of Financial Economics 4 (1976). 36 The prebendal system was primarily for the canons of the cathedral, who were paid from the income and produce generated by their holdings. However, it also allowed for the easier development of formal positions. In all of the dioceses, the administrative officials of the diocese were given prebends to hold, and these prebends were attached to their particular office. For example, the dean of Wells held the prebend of Wedmore Prima, and this was permanently attached to the deanery.53 The one exception to this was the archdeacons in some of the dioceses. Since some of the archdeaconries had been created prior to the establishment of the prebendal system, some of them were not originally constituted with a prebend attached. The problem of paying these archdeacons often continued through the end of the thirteenth century, in large part because many of the cathedral chapters were antagonistic to the archdeacons, who were notorious for exacting strict justice, and were often perceived as being overly acquisitive of others’ property.54 Because of this resistance, prebends were not attached to these until the late thirteenth century, and these archdeacons often had to use their powers to gain property for their own support. The development of perpetual vicarages helped this problem, by allowing the bishop to appoint archdeacons to these vicarages as a way of providing for them. However, this exception is telling, since it was the archdeacons who did not have prebends attached who were particularly active in exacting property. Furthermore, the reason why this organizational conflict was created was because of the timing of the creation of the office. Whereas other archdeaconries were established after the creation of the prebendal system, and thusly had 53 Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vol. 7. Brian R. Kemp, "Archdeacons and Parish Churches in England in the Twelfth Century," in Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, ed. George Garnett and John Hudson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Robert E. Rodes, Ecclesiastical Administration in Medieval England: The Anglo-Saxons to the Reformation, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977); Jean Scammell, "The Rural Chapter in England from the Eleventh to the Fourtheenth Century," English Historical Review 86, no. 339 (1971). 54 37 prebends attached to their positions, those positions created prior to the establishment of the prebendal system had a difficult time in getting property attached to their office. Because of the paucity of records, it is impossible to assess just how frequent this was, but we can see that as the chapter developed, many of the bishop's clerks were elevated to canonries. In London, we have little records of the composition of Maurice's household, who was the bishop who instituted prebendaries there. However, for his successor, Richard de Belmeis, we have a more accurate picture. There are seven identifiable members of his household, and of these, four later became canons.55 In addition, he placed two of his sons and four of his nephews into prebends. Here we can see that the organizational logic of the household, based on trust, loyalty, and dependence, was also carried over into the early chapter, as Richard sought to fill the chapter with not only his clerks, but his relatives as well.56 A similar pattern holds at the other dioceses. The cathedral chapter became a way of moving the household into the diocesan hierarchy, and provided a means of paying for them. Over the course of the twelfth century, we see a similar pattern, as clerks are moved into the chapter. However, towards the end of the twelfth century we see a decrease in the number of relatives who were elevated into the chapter in the same diocese. That is, bishop's had a harder time placing their relatives into the chapter of their own diocese, though if they had the right qualifications (serving as a clerk and having some form of education or administrative experience) were frequently in the service of other bishops. Not all of the canons of the chuch began as clerks of the bishop. The bishops in England had control over the appointment of new canons, but many were legacies from earlier bishops, and some were appointed based on restrictions on the original grant of the prebend, while others 55 Neininger, English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 15: London, 1076-1187. Brooke argues that Richard was able to place his relatives into the chapter by agreeing to protect hereditary rights for the other canons in the chapter. Christopher N.L. Brooke, "The Earliest Times to 1485," in A History of St. Paul's Cathedral, and the Men Associated with It, ed. W.R. Matthews and W.M. Atkins (London: 1957). 56 38 were appointed because their appointment might be attached to the grant of land to the diocese by the prospective canons family.57 Some of the canons would have been clerks of the previous bishop, while others were put into place for a variety of other reasons. Some of the canons were children of the local elite, where a suitable donation to the diocese would allow their children to gain a position. Similarly, some of the prebends were granted by the king as positions for his clerks to have paying positions within the clergy. Finally, others, and this is particularly true later in the twelfth century and in the thirteenth century, were graduates of the universities who were recruited directly into the chapter to serve as administrators. These canons served as a pool of literate and educated clergy who were a pool of administrators on which the bishop could draw staff. Some of the canons were explicitly linked to particular offices, such as an archdeaconry or the chancery, where the holder of the prebend served as an official within that “department” of the diocese. In addition, these canons had the requisite background to serve as officials, and were brought into administrative tasks by the bishops. The individual prebend of the canons was instrumental in England's ability to attract and retain university educated clergy, because it was potentially more lucrative to the individual than the communal arrangements that were more common on the continent. Even without domestic universities throughout most of the twelfth century, the English church pulled ahead of France in bringing university trained clergy into ecclesiastical administration.58 The individual prebends proved attractive to the university graduates, since it provided a more stable as well as larger 57 Everett Uberto Crosby, Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century; Joseph H. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry into Religious Life from 1000 to 1260: A Social, Economic, and Legal Study, (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1976). 58 John W. Baldwin, "Studium Et Regnum: The Penetration of University Personnel into French and English Administration at the Turn of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries," Revue des Études Islamiques 44 (1976). 39 income.59 In addition, because the bishop had more control over the appointment of canons, he was able to institute canons who were better educated and better able to serve as administrators. The chapter also served as an important entry into the higher administrative positions within the diocese. As the secular career path within the diocese developed, the college of canons proved to be an important source for the promotion of clergy to the higher offices. As Table 6.6 indicates, after 1170 the most important source of new incumbents to the higher diocesan offices was the cathedral chapter. For those whose backgrounds can be identified, 45% of new precentors, 83% of new chancellors, and 60% of new archdeacons were canons. The majority of those who did not come up from the chapter were those who were initially in another high office, and had been canons before then. The chapter became an important resource for the secular clergy in developing a bureaucratic career, as it became the prime source for the selection of incumbents to the higher administrative offices, as well as an important source of lower administrators in its own right. Indeed, the cathedral chapter became a prime source for the development of professional administrators, by providing them with positions and compensation that allowed for a new system of administration. The professionalization of the clergy occurred because the chapter provided a way of introducing to diocesan administration who were educated in the universities. As the chapter became linked into a bureaucratic career within the church, it provided a means of advancement to the very top of the diocese for those whose primary focus was on administration, and it socialized individual members of the clergy into organizational roles in a way that would have been impossible without the chapter and inducements for promotions into the upper clergy. 59 Julia Barrow, "Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany, 1100-1225," Viator 20 (1989). 40 Rebuilding of the Household The formal positions and the cathedral chapter were important sources for the creation of a bureaucratic structure, by bringing administration out of the familia into a set of positions with formal jurisdictions, tasks, and independent means of support. By the end of the twelfth century, this group of clergy in these formal positions were essential to the operation of the diocese, and their influence was dramatic in the building of a bureaucratic church. However, we also see at the end of the twelfth century the growing importance of the bishop's familia in the administration of the diocese. This pattern represents a bit of a puzzle, since the development of formal positions should have created a steady decline in the role of the bishop's household, yet we see a resurgence of their role towards the end of the twelfth century and into the thirteenth. As the number of formal position grew, and the incumbents in them became increasingly professionalized, we would expect a diminished role for clerks who were affiliated only with the bishop, not with a formal position within the cathedral. Instead, we see that there is a growth in the importance of unattached clerks in the bishop's familia in the last few decades of the twelfth century, and into the thirteenth. This shift was not accompanied by a shift away from the use of the clergy in the administrative positions or in the cathedral chapter. Instead, there is a growth in the number of clerks appearing in administrative activities in the church, in addition to the canons and higher clergy. We can see this in the successive bishop of Salisbury. Table 2 shows the number of different types of witnesses to the various bishop’s acts from Osmund to Richard Poore, which is the best indicator of administrative activity available.60 We can see here that there were only three witnesses to Osmund’s acts, of whom two were laypersons. However, under Roger, we 60 F.M. Stenton, "Acta Episcoporum," Cambridge Historical Journal 3, no. 1 (1929).. After Richard Poore, the bishops of Salisbury used registers, which makes comparisons impossible to earlier periods. 41 can see that his witnesses included eight of the incumbents of formal offices (four archdeacons, the dean, precentor, chancellor, and subdean), three clerks, and six laypersons. In Jocelin’s administration, we see a dramatic increase in the use of canons, of whom fifteen witness his acts, compared to only five household clerks. However, under Hubert Walter we see that there is an increased use of clerks, though a large number of incumbents of formal positions and canons appear as well. Herbert Poore presents a similar pattern, with a large number of clerks, most of the incumbents of the formal positions, and some canons. Under his brother Richard, we see that there is an almost equal use of clerks and canons, and a heavy of the officers of the church. The pattern at Salisbury is illustrative of the patterns in the other dioceses, where towards the end of the twelfth century we see an increased use of household clerks, in combination with the incumbents of formal positions and the cathedral chapter. This all indicates that there was a growing role for the bishop’s household in the administration of the diocese, but also a heavy use of the diocesan officers, as we would expect. There are several reasons for the increasing use of unattached clerks towards the end of the twelfth century. The first is that the administrative complexity of running the dioceses was steadily increasing, while the size of the college of canons remained largely the same. The majority of the chapter was established by the middle of the twelfth century at all of these dioceses. At Lincoln, the chapter had 43 canons by 1146, and only increases by six after that. Similarly, by 1150 Salisbury had 47 canons, and only increased by five in the hundred years after 1150. Thus, the size of the chapter expanded rapidly at the end of the eleventh and through the first half of the twelfth century, and then expands very slowly after that. Because the data is biased towards later years, it is likely that most of the expansion occurred well prior to 1150. Also, we can see in the number of new canons created that many were created early on. London established its size very early, by 1100, and while Lincoln and Salisbury seemingly develop at a 42 slower pace, roughly half of their ultimate total number of canons were in place by 1110 at the latest. The administrative positions within the diocese were nearly all established by the midtwelfth century, and the college of canons did not increase significantly in the dioceses. However, the work of the diocese was steadily increasing. The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts was increasing, the property holdings of the diocese were becoming more fully established, there was an increased monitoring of the parish clergy and the local monastic houses to ensure obedience to the laws of the church, and the activities of all of the members of the church were becoming more constrained by an increasingly elaborate system of rules. The shift to a higher level of formal regulation over the jurisdiction of positions, the activities of their incumbents, and the appointment to these positions made them increasingly autonomous from the bishop. The traditional familia administration was closely linked to the will of the bishop, who had a high level of autonomy in action because the administrative staff was dependent on him. As positions became formalized, and administrators were drawn from the college of canons, by virtue of being in these independent positions they had a greater degree of autonomy in their own action with respect to the bishop. That is, they gained power through formalization by being able to protect their jurisdictions and having control over certain organizational tasks that was independent of the interests of any particular bishop. The irony was this was obtained through formalization, which greatly restricted the clergy holding admiinstrative positions from pursuing their own interests, instead creating a convergence of organizational interests with personal interests because of the structure of positions and careers. This made the administrative staff of the diocese increasingly independent of the bishop. A similar paradox happened with respect to the bishop, who gained power in the sense of control over resources through the process of creating an administrative staff in formal positions, but 43 they lost a significant amount of control over the activities of the staff through the same process of formalization.61 This restricted the bishop's control over the administrative staff of the diocese, and the familia was a way in which the bishop could expand those parts of the administration under his direct control. The shift away from the household led to the bishop seeking to expand those parts of the administration under his direct control, while keeping those aspects of the administration that were protected by formal positions the same size. However, the revenues of the diocese were not significantly increasing over this period, at least to the extent of the bishop being able to provide for a much larger administration out of his own pocket. What allowed the administration to expand was the development of a new legal arrangement that provided an important source for bisops to pay for their clerks, while still keeping them out of the formal administrative apparatus of the formal positions and the cathedral chapter. These arrangements were known as perpetual vicarages and were essential in allowing the bishop to expand his household. The prebendal system was also having difficulties in expanding in the later twelfth century. The creation of individual prebends made it easier for other groups to gain prebends within the chapter. Most notably were royal prebends and monastic prebends. Furthermore, the bishops in monastic cathedrals were unable to rely upon their own chapters for their staff, they had to try to place their clerks in prebends in other dioceses. All of the dioceses granted prebends of the church to the king and large monasteries. The royal grants were a way for the king to pay for his own administrative staff, by endowing prebends at the cathedrals and having the bishop appoint his clerks to them. For the most part, these royal prebends restricted who was 61 This represents the orthogonal nature of two different conceptions of power. One is built on seeing power as control over resources, while the other conception of power considers power as being able to act autonomously. Richard M. Emerson, "Power-Dependence Relations," American Sociological Review 27, no. 1 (1962); Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation, (New York: Basic Books, 1977).. 44 able to hold the prebend, or even giving explicit right to the king to appoint a clerk to that prebend in perpetuity.62 Similarly, prebends were granted to monasteries, giving them rights in the cathedral, the most important being participation in the election of the bishop. Because the monastery was non-resident in the chapter, they were to appoint a vicar to replace them for the functions of the chapter, and to pay for them out of the revenues of the prebend. In many of these grants of prebendal rights to the monasteries, the bishop held the right of presentation, such that he could appoint his clerks to fill the offices required by the prebend holder, but unable to be fulfilled by the monks of the abbey. In part this is related to the issue of non-residency discussed below, as this made sure that a member of the secular clergy was there to fill the duties of the prebendary. However, it also served as a means for provisioning the clerks of the bishop’s household outside of the bishop’s own land, in the same way as the system of perpetual vicarages operated, as we will see later in the chapter. Because prebends were tied to individuals, and the statutes of the cathedral were not well specified early on, it prevented the establishment of particular tasks to all of the prebends of the cathedral. Some were assigned explicitly to the officers of the church, such as the dean, archdeacons, etc., as well as some of the minor offices, such as the almoner. Furthermore, other canons worked in the administration of the church as well, but this was not always explicitly defined. However, there were a number of prebends in every church which had unspecified responsibilities, other than falling under general canonical discipline. That is, they could not sell offices, marry, or pass on land to their children (which they were not supposed to have in the first 62 Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century; Ulrich Rasche, "The Early Phase of Appropriation of Parish Churches in Medieval England," Journal of Medieval History 26, no. 3 (2000); R.N. Swanson, "Universities, Graduates and Benefices in Later Medieval England," Past and Present 106 (1985); A. Hamilton Thompson, "Diocesan Organization in the Middle Ages: Archdeacons and Rural Deans," Proceedings of the British Academy 29 (1943). 45 place), and were expected to be resident, though this restriction was weakly enforced, and for the royal prebends, would involve engaging in a struggle with the king. The individual aspect of the chapter expanded over time in certain ways, with the important exception below of the common fund and the role of the assembled (i.e. resident) chapter holding vacant prebends in common. The clearest way in which we can see this trend is the creation of statutes that allowed the canon to retain rights for one year after his death. This happened in all of the dioceses, and made the prebend in certain ways closer to private property than property attached to an office. We can see the process of this in the diocese of Chichester. During his tenure (1125-1145) bishop Seffrid I gave the following confirmation to the chapter there: In the name of the Holy Trinity I, Seffrid, by the grace of God bishop of Chichester, concede to the canons of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Chichester, the liberty prepared by our ancestor and confirmed by his seal, namely that from the day of a canon’s death and burial for one year and a day to its return, they shall hold their prebend exactly as it was when it was alloted in life, with the advice of the dean and his canons, to free them from debts which they owe and to alms for their burial and for the use of their parents and family.63 Similar grants were given at the other cathedrals, giving rights to the canons after their death for the support of their family and to repay their debts. However, this was mitigated over the course of the twelfth century. In 1152 bishop Hilary was told by Pope Eugenius III that half of a deceased canon’s prebend should go for the use of the surviving canons, while the other half was for the construction and maintenance of the church, but could be used to pay off any debts of the dead canon.64 Similarly, Pope Alexander III confirmed this to Hilary in 1163.65 Simon of Wells, the bishop of Chichester after Hilary, confirmed these statutes, though he did allow the dead canon to retain rights over those parts of the prebend he was responsible for cultivating, but all of 63 Henry Mayr-Harting, The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, 1075-1207, (Torquay, U.K.: Devonshire Press, 1964), no. 15. 64 Walther Holtzmann, Papsturkunden in England, (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1952-1972), ii, no. 70. 65 Ibid., ii, no. 113. 46 the rest of the prebend would go immediately to his successor.66 While never becoming fully private property, the extent to which the property was that of the canon, versus that of the particular office, was never fully resolved, with some always set aside to pay off debts. Support for family was removed, but there was still a sense that these benefices were not fully a part of the office, though it tended that way in the thirteenth century.67 Finally, the chapter was becoming increasingly autonomous over the course of the twelfth century.68 This is represented in a number of different ways. First, by 1150 there was established in all the dioceses a separation of the property of the bishop and the property of the chapter. The chapter held property in the form of prebends separate from episcopal control (though the bishop had rights of appointments to them for the most part), as well as property held communally in the form of the common fund.69 Furthermore, the chapter gained rights over the election of the bishop and the election of the dean. The rules on how to appoint a new bishop were very unclear in the eleventh century, and were largely in the hands of the king. In the twelfth century as the canon law developed it became policy to push for the election of bishops by the clergy of the diocese.70 However, which clergy would participate was not fully established, since it could include the lower ranks of the secular clergy and the monks of the religious houses within the diocese. In order to gain greater authority within the diocese, the chapter acted to assert rights over the election of a new bishop, and were successful in gaining relatively exclusive privilege for this election, with the exception of the archbishopric of Canterbury, where the monastic chapter and the suffragan bishops 66 Mayr-Harting, The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, 1075-1207, no. 145. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 68 Crosby, Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis. 69 Ibid; Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 70 Robert Louis Benson, The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office, (Princeton N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1968). 67 47 participated.71 Furthermore, they gained the right from the bishop to elect the dean, the head of the chapter, to more fully establish their autonomy from the bishop. It was this point of power and privilege in the church where a dean of Chichester could say to the abbot of Battle abbey with whom the diocese was in a dispute with, “and so we are the church; we will endure after the bishop departs, and that is why we demand this of you”.72 By the end of the twelfth century, the chapter saw itself as distinct and somewhat autonomous from the bishop.73 The prebendal system allowed for the early development of an administrative staff separate from the household in the administration of English dioceses. However, it created some problems for the bishops in establishing administrations that were provided for solely through prebends. The prebendaries became increasingly autonomous over the twelfth century, as the engaged in collective action to protect their property. This reduced the reliance the bishop could have on members of the chapter to serve as administrators, and lessened the willingness of the bishop to expand the chapter. Furthermore, the canons were expensive, and held a significant amount of property, which made the creation of new prebends problematic. As we saw in the previous chapter, around the middle of the twelfth century the size of the chapter, at least at the larger dioceses, is well-established, and there are few new prebends created in following decades. In addition, the individuation of the prebends and their early development made it difficult to keep all of the canons resident in the cathedral, either to serve in the liturgical function of the cathedral or in the administration of the diocese. The solution to this problem was the increased reliance on the common fund as a means to incentivize residency among the chapter, the subject of the next section. 71 Robert Benson, "Election by Community and Chapter: Reflections on Co-Responsibility in the Historical Church," The Jurist 31, no. 1 (1971); Benson, The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office. 72 Eleanor Searle, ed., The Chronicle of Battle Abbey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 172. 73 Crosby, Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis. 48 The perpetual vicarage developed in the later part of the twelfth century in order to make sure that churches owned by monasteries or other bodies were staffed by priests who were able to perform the mass. This had been a significant problem before then, and as literacy expanded in the church, the concern about priests being unable to perform the functions of their office, and churches without pastors, became increasingly salient. Furthermore, the largest monasteries were very large landholders and the perpetual vicarage was a way of getting for the secular clergy some of the revenues of the monasteries, which were otherwise going to the support of a relatively small number of monks. A perpetual vicarage was an arrangement whereby the holder of the church, such as a monastery, would agree to pay out of the revenues of the church a salary to a member of the secular clergy who would serve as a priest for the church. The monastery would still be able to gain rents (primarily in the form of tithes) from the church, but some portion of this was apportioned to the vicar for the church. These vicars were typically in residency, but as they were used to pay for the bishop's clerks, this would only work effectively for those churches close to the bishop's palace or the cathedral. For more far flung churches, the perpetual vicar would often subcontract out his pastoral duties to another and lower ranking priest so that the clerk could remain in the see while still gaining a salary from his position. Perpetual vicarages first appear in England after 1150, and quickly spread and became heavily used. Indeed, we see a quick rise in the number of the bishop's clerks who were instituted into vicarages. Table 3 shows the number of clerks instituted to perpetual vicarages as well as grants of land from 1150 to 1229 in six dioceses. What we see here is that at the time of the decrease in the growth of the chapter after 1150, the use of perpetual vicarages to fund clerks begins, increasing to a total of thirty clerks being instituted into perpetual vicarages. This represents a very heavy use of this new way of paying for administrative staff. These data most likely understate the situation, since not all of these records survive. As registers became more 49 heavily used, we see a much higher rate of institution into vicarages as the records were kept both at the recipient (i.e. the monastery) and at the sender (the bishop's chancery). If we look at Lincoln, where Hugh was the first bishop in England to use a register, beginning in 1217, eight years after his election, we see that institutions to vicarages was one of the most common acts done by the bishop. For his predecessor, William of Blois, who was bishop from 1203 to 1206, we only have records of three institutions of clerks to vicarages.74 However, Hugh, who was bishop from 1217 to 1235, we have a total of 83 institutions.75 Some of this might be a higher rate of appointment, but the difference is also likely because these were not the most important records for the monasteries to maintain, so many of the records of the appointments were most likely lost. It is much more likely that the numbers in table 4.5 understate the actual extent of institutions to vicarages, and that they were much more common earlier on. The perpetual vicarages were an effective tool for the bishop, in that they allowed him to expand the number of clerks in his household. While they also had a pastoral function, in ensuring that churches had priests to perform the office, they were common in large part because they were a means for the bishop to effectively have the monasteries pay for his staff. This innovation was tremendously important in allowing the expansion of the administrative staff of the church, and we can see that the perpetual vicarage and the increase in the household occur at the same time, and the argument here is that this is because the perpetual vicarage was a structural innovation that allowed the expansion of the administration by providing a means of supporting a larger administrative staff. In fact, the Fourth Lateran Council required perpetual vicarages in churches held by monasteries, but they had become common in England well over 40 years prior to the council. The Fourth Lateran Council was concerned with the pastoral role 74 David M. Smith, English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 4: Lincoln, 1186-1206, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), nos. 235, 87, 96. 75 Brian R. Kemp, English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 19: Salisbury, 1217-1228, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). 50 of vicarages, and ensuring that churches had trained priests, but they became prevalent, at least in England, because they provided a way of expanding the administration. The growing autonomy of the chapter and the increasing separation of the chapter and bishop was counteracted by various attempts by bishops to regain a more direct control over the administration of the diocese. Prebends gave the canons an independent source of income, and while they were dependent on the bishop for their appointment, barring serious misdeeds they held their position for life. In addition, towards the end of the twelfth century, we saw in chapter 4 a resurgant importance of the episcopal household in the administration of the diocese, in large part as an attempt by the bishop to regain a more direct authority over the administration of the diocese, instead of having much of the administrative activity being carried out by members of the clergy who had legal rights that restricted the bishops control over their activities. The household was able to become reestablished as an important component of the diocesan administration because of several new techniques for the funding of the clergy that allowed the bishop to appoint his clerks to positions that lacked the autonomy of the chapter and the higher offices of the diocese. While these formal positions were very important in developing the upper administration of the diocese, and were essential in the building of bureaucratic careers which socialized the clergy and induced compliance through expectations about promotion, the bishops also sought to have a firmer grip on their diocese, and did were able to do so by the creation of several new ways of paying for their clerks. The principal method that was developed that allowed the bishop to expand his administration by adding in clerks who were more dependent on him was through perpetual vicarages. A perpetual vicar was someone who served as priest of a church, serving in the place of the holder of the rights to tithes from the church. This was typically used for churches held by monastic communities, where they were unable to have a member of the community serve as 51 priest, but held the rights to the tithes given to the church. This method was also used for holders of churches among the secular clergy who were non-resident in the church, many of them canons of the cathedral who were resident at the cathedral, but their prebend held a church outside of the town, preventing the canon from serving as the priest. In place of the individual or corporation that appropriated the tithes, the priest was to be paid out of that appropriation, with the amount to be paid to the priest typically specified by the early thirteenth century. The perpetual vicarage began in the mid-twelfth century, and was created at two different types of events. The first was in the granting of rights to a church to a canon or a monastic community, and specified the creation of a perpetual vicarage in the grant. A fairly typical example of this was the grant of the church of Owersby to Royston priory by Bishop Hugh of Avalon at Lincoln: Hugh by the grace of God bishop of Lincoln to all of the faithful of Christ to whom the present communication shall reach, greetings in the Lord. We are willing to reach the acquaintance of your community with divine regard and consideration of the poverty of the house of the canons reglar of Royston, and concede to H. the prior and his canons who are servants with god that on the presentation of Eustace de Merk who was instituted there they may have the church of St. Martin Owersby in perpetuity. They must save a suitable portion of it and the prior and canons must present to the bishop a perpetual vicar for the later disposition of the bishop.76 The second event, and much more frequent, was on the occasion of a monastery seeking a confirmation for their ownership of a church, either after a grant or in the occasional reconfirmations of property.77 Here, the bishops would confirm the monastery’s possession of the rights to appropriate the tithes from the church, but they were required to withold some portion of the tithes in order to provide for the priest who was appointed in their place. 76 David M. Smith, English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 4: Lincoln, 1186-1206, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), no. 162. 77 For more on confirmations, see chapter 8. 52 The perpetual vicarage developed from several factors. The foremost, and the reason the Third Lateran Council required the use of perpetual vicars,78 was the pastoral dimension. Churches held by monastic communities were frequently led by a serf who served as a priest, or by a priest who might serve a number of different churches. While this allowed the monastery to retain a larger share of the tithes, it made pastoral care poorer. The perpetual vicarage was a way of retaining the rights of the monastery, but also providing for the pastoral care for the congregation of the church, by requiring the monastery to pay for a suitable priest, and to provide a suitable income to the priest. The perpetual vicarages largely came out of a set of arrangements between monasteries and the bishops. As we will see in chapter 8, perpetual vicarages were built into grants or confirmations of churches. They appear in these forms almost always in combination with the granting or confirmation of rights over the church to the monastery in perpetuity, saving the requirement for the monastery to support a vicar in its stead. Since the regular clergy could not serve as priests, they were unable to perform the divine office at these churches, and when it entered into the formal canon law in 1189, it was for this pastoral purpose that they were required.79 However, they were used beforehand in England, in part for pastoral provision, but more importantly, and frequently, as a means for providing for the clerks of the bishop’s household. The trade-off was that monasteries had a stronger record of their rights over the church, and did not have to continue to seek confirmations for their property with successive bishops.80 They were given a firm legal document, with a canonical establishment of ownership (an in proprios usus clause), and in return, set some of the revenues aside for the provision of a vicar. 78 Though as we saw in the previous chapter, this was well after the practice had become established in England. Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990). 80 For this practice, see chapter 8. 79 53 After these were required by the Third Lateran Council in 1189, the usage expands dramatically, and more rights were secured for the patrons of the church (i.e., the monastery) to present to the bishop a suitable clerk for the benefice, but still they were used as a means for provisioning the household clerks of the bishop, as the practice initially developed in England. In addition, as we saw prebends were given to monasteries as well. In return, they were to appoint a vicar in their place to stand in their place in the cathedral. While the monasteries held the rights of participation of a canon, they could not serve the pastoral function, nor the administrative function, of canons in the chapter.81 These were another means for getting monastic support for the provisioning of household clerks. By gaining prebendal rights, the monasteries were able to gain some income, but more importantly have a voice in the selection of a new bishop, rights to which by the late twelfth century were firmly in the hands of the chapter.82 However, the trade was for a reduced income from the prebend through the establishment of a perpetual vicar, which gave the bishop another source for the provisioning of clerks in his household. The clerks in this later familia administration were very different from those at the end of the eleventh century. Unlike the earlier system, the perpetual vicarage provided a means of support independent from the bishop, and because they were lifetime appointments, a degree of autonomy from the bishop that was lacking in the previous system. In addition, it also meant that they were better paid, though the amounts of these positions were not well established until later, and many of them were not tremendously high paying positions, especially in comparison to the prebends of the canons and those holding the higher adminsitrative offices. 81 Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 82 Benson, "Election by Community and Chapter: Reflections on Co-Responsibility in the Historical Church."; Benson, The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office. 54 In addition, these clerks were more highly educated. Many were graduates of the universities, and the new system of payment, as well as hopes of a future career in the cathedral, drew in a number of talented individuals to serve in the bishop's familia. Also, this led to the household being much more professional in this period than in the original period, in that these were largely members of the secular clergy entering into bureaucratic careers at the entry level, but had a similar educational background as those who were canons. Indeed, we see that the bishop's clerks with university education were more likely to be promoted into the cathedral chapter, from which they could build a career into the higher diocesan offices. Finally, the bishop's role had dramatically changed over the twelfth century, and along with that his household. The formalization of roles and jurisdictions into positions removed a great deal of autonomy from the bishop, as well as restricting the number of organizational tasks to which he had to be directly responsible for. Instead, the diocese in the first half of the thirteenth century, while the bishop retained a great deal of control over the diocese, had a number of administrative offices that were largely independent of the bishop, and were operated according to the canon law. The bishop's household was primarily responsible for the production of documents, arranging for his visitations, and serving as an advisor to the bishop. Gone were the days where the household was the sole administrative organ of the diocese. Replacing this was a household that aided the bishop in performing his duties, and served as his advisor in matters of expertise, such as in the law or theology. This household, while not as firmly in the bureaucratic mold as formal positions were, was still a place for the professional administrators coming out of the universities, and served as a feeder into the developing bureaucratic careers of the English church. 55 Summary The earliest elements of bureaucratic structures emerged with the formation of formal positions within diocesan administration. The administration of dioceses had been based in the episcopal household, known as the familia. The familia was composed of priests, clerks, relatives, and laymen who were personally attached to the bishop, and each successive bishop brought in a new household to manage diocesan affairs. This household administration began to shift in the late 11th century for several reasons. English bishops in particular, though this was by no means restricted to England, were increasingly drawn from the lesser nobility which made it difficult for them to independently support a large household. Furthermore, it meant that they had fewer family retainers which they could bring with them when they were appointed bishop. This put pressures on the bishops to find ways for the diocesan property to support their staff. Additionally, the earliest bishops after the conquest followed the royal policy of “Normanification” of England, by finding ways to put Normans in place of the local Anglo-Saxon clergy. These patterns help to explain a peculiar pattern within the English church. Those who were most active early in the establishment of formal positions within diocesan administration were those who were most clearly opposed to the reform movement within the church. Instead, reformers pursued a very different strategy, stemming from the principles of the Gregorian Reform to monasticize the clergy. Because of the influence of the Celtic Church on England, several dioceses in England were staffed not by secular clergy, but instead by Benedictine monks or Augustinian canons. Early reformers, especially Archbishop Lanfranc, sought to replace the secular canons at a number of cathedrals with monastic chapters, and were successful in a number of cases. However, these monastic cathedrals became increasingly less important over 56 the course of the 12th century, in large part because of the role of officials within the secular cathedrals. Thus, the earliest formalization of diocesan administration occurred in the secular cathedrals where opponents of reform sought to place Normans in their own household into positions of authority over the Anglo-Saxon clergy in the chapter. Other secular cathedrals followed more slowly, but by the mid-12th century, the formal administrative structure of a secular cathedral was in place in nearly all of the English secular dioceses. The mere establishment of formal positions did not mean the disappearance of the logic of household administration. Instead, nepotism and the placement of trusted friends into these positions were very common in the first half of the 12th century. However, by being placed into positions with increasingly formal jurisdictions, responsibilities, and powers, they survived each successive bishop, creating a structural basis for the advancement of careers. As the Anglo-Saxon clergy were increasingly replaced by Normans, the cathedral chapter in secular cathedrals underwent a significant transformation. Initially positions of local status and to perform sacramental rituals within the cathedral, the chapter began to be utilized by bishops as another source of administrative positions to attract educated clerks and others into administrative service. This was a result of the system of providing support for the members of the cathedral chapter. In the secular cathedrals, canons had traditionally supported themselves and their families from the tithes of churches and rents from land that were individually separated into prebends. In addition there were also incomes from properties that were held by the chapter in common with the bishop which also provided support. This prebendal system became extensively expanded starting in the late 11th century, and continued into the late 12th century. In particular, the number of prebends increased as well as the amount of property 57 attached to them, and as an inducement to live at the cathedral in service to the diocese, additional revenues were to be had from the common fund for those who lived in residence. The prebends were an early way to build a diocesan administration, and administrative positions had prebends attached to them, typically the more prosperous ones, which served as an inducement to native and foreign clerks to serve in the diocesan administration. However, as the patterns of feudal patrilineage were increasingly formalized, the nobility also sought to endow prebends for their children who were sent to careers in the church, which reduced the overall number of prebends available for canons who served administrative roles. Additionally, monasteries were also active in gaining rights to revenues from churches, particularly those donated to them by the nobility, which restricted the growth of an administrative system built solely on prebends. For the bishops of the monastic cathedrals, the lack of any prebendal system also made it difficult to establish an administrative staff that went beyond the archdeacons. Over the course of the 12th century, the linking of property to positions allowed for the recruitment of educated clerks, and made England a major center for the careers of university trained graduates. Furthermore, it also created the basic structural framework for a formal administration. The jurisdictions and responsibilities of these positions became increasingly formalized and systematized, which led to a greater autonomy of the incumbents in these offices from their bishop, even as they were increasingly bound by formal strictures. For the bishops, this meant that many of the essential operations of the diocese were increasingly taken care of by these administrators, but they had fewer people to assist them among the ranks of administrators and canons for the tasks which they held to themselves. In response to these pressures, English bishops began to establish a vicarage system for churches whose rights were held by monasteries and the nobility. As the bishops gained greater control over the establishment of ecclesiastical property rights, they began to require the holders 58 of these rights to establish fixed wages for a vicar who would also serve as the priest of the church, or otherwise pay someone else to serve as the priest. These vicarages, which were firmly institutionalized for the entire church at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, had been in extensive use in England starting after 1150. The bishops utilized the vicarages in part to ensure that churches had adequate pastoral care, but also as a means to provide means of support to low level clerks who served on their own staffs. Along with the creation of the officialis, essentially the bishop’s factotum, the bishops of the late 12th and early 13th centuries recreated a familia organization, but one that was quite different from the traditional familia administration. The clerks in this familia were better paid, more autonomous from the bishop, and were welleducated, while at the same time looking for advancement in the diocesan administration, hoping to advance to canon or other offices and further their careers. Furthermore, they were not the sole administrators of the diocese, or even the most important, but served as a training ground for the next generation of professional administrators. 59 Works Cited Baldwin, John W. "Studium Et Regnum: The Penetration of University Personnel into French and English Administration at the Turn of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries." Revue des Études Islamiques 44 (1976): 199-215. Barlow, Frank. The English Church, 1000-1066: A Constitutional History. London: Longmans, 1963. ———. The English Church, 1066-1154: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church. London: Longman, 1979. Barnes, Rosemary G. "Lambeth Ms. 1212 and the White Book of Canterbury." The Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research 32 (1959): 57-62. Barrow, Julia. "Cathedrals, Provosts and Prebends: A Comparison of 12th-Century German and English Practice." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 37, no. 4 (1986): 536-64. ———. "Education and the Recruitment of Cathedral Canons in England and Germany, 11001225." Viator 20 (1989): 117-38. ———, ed. English Episcopal Acta, Vol. Vii: Hereford, 1079-1234. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Bartlett, Robert. Medieval Panorama. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001. Berk, Gerald. Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of American Industrial Order, 1865-1917. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Brooke, Christopher N.L. "The Earliest Times to 1485." In A History of St. Paul's Cathedral, and the Men Associated with It, edited by W.R. Matthews and W.M. Atkins. London, 1957. Cheney, C. R. English Bishops' Chanceries, 1100-1250. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1950. ———. From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170-1213. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956. Clemens, Elisabeth S., and James M. Cook. "Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change." Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1999): 441-66. Crosby, Everett Uberto. Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa Episcopalis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48, no. 2 (1983): 147-60. Duby, Georges. The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Edwards, Kathleen. The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages: A Constitutional Study with Special Reference to the Fourteenth Century. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Edwards, Richard. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books, 1979. Emerson, Richard M. "Power-Dependence Relations." American Sociological Review 27, no. 1 (1962): 31-40. Fichtenau, Heinrich. Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Galbraith, V. H. "An Episcopal Land-Grant of 1085." English Historical Review 44, no. 175 (1929): 353-72. 60 Howell, Margaret. "Abbatial Vacancies and the Divided Mensa in Medieval England." Journal of Ecclesiastical History 33, no. 2 (1982): 173-92. Hugh the Chanter. The History of the Church of York, 1066-1127. Translated by Charles Johnson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Kealy, Edward J. Roger of Salisbury, Viceroy of England. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1972. Kemp, Brian R. "Archdeacons and Parish Churches in England in the Twelfth Century." In Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, edited by George Garnett and John Hudson, 341-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 19: Salisbury, 1217-1228. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. ———. "Informing the Archdeacon on Ecclesiastical Matters in Twelfth-Century England." In Medieval Ecclesiastical Studies in Honour of Dorothy M. Owen, edited by M.J. Franklin and Christopher Harper-Bill, 131-50. Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell Press, 1995. Le Neve, John, and Diana E. Greenway. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300. Revised and expanded ed. London: Institute of Historical Research; Athlone P., 1968-. Loyn, H. R. The English Church, 940-1154. Harlow, U.K.: Longman, 2000. Lynch, Joseph H. Simoniacal Entry into Religious Life from 1000 to 1260: A Social, Economic, and Legal Study. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1976. Mayr-Harting, Henry. The Acta of the Bishops of Chichester, 1075-1207. Torquay, U.K.: Devonshire Press, 1964. Migne, J. P. Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Omnium Ss. Patrum, Doctorum Scriptorumque Ecclesiasticorum Sive Latinorum, Sive Graecorum, Series Latina. Paris: Migne, 18441859. Morris, Colin. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. Neininger, Falko. English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 15: London, 1076-1187. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Preest, David, ed. The Deeds of the Bishops of England by William of Malmesbury. Woodbrige, U.K.: Boydell Press, 2002. Rule, Martin, ed. Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia. London: Longman & Co., 1884. Smith, David M. English Episcopal Acta, Vol. 4: Lincoln, 1186-1206. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. ———, ed. English Episcopal Acta, Vol. I: Lincoln, 1067-1185. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Southern, R. W. Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1970. Stenton, F.M. "Acta Episcoporum." Cambridge Historical Journal 3, no. 1 (1929): 1-14. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. When Formality Works: Authority and Abstraction in Law and Organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Tanner, Joseph R., Charles W. Previté-Orton, and Z.N. Brooke, eds. Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 5, Contest of Empire and Papacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Tellenbach, Gerd. The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 61 ———. Church, State, and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1940. Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steinmo. "Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics." In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Scen Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. Florentii Wigorniensis Monaci Chronicon Ex Chronicis. London: English Historical Society, 1848-1849. Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. 3d. ed. London: Methuen, 1970. Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Translated by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. 62 Precentor Treasurer Terr. Archdcn. X Chancellor X X X X X X X X X X Lincoln 1061-1088 John of Tours 1088-1122 Godfrey 1123-1135 Robert of Lewes 1136-1166 Reginald Fitz Jocelin 1174-1191 X Remigius X X X X X 1067-1092 Robert Bloet 1093-1123 Alexander 1123-1148 Robert de Chesney 1148-1166 1060-1070 Hereman 1045-1078 Osmund 1078-1099 Stigand 1070-1087 Roger 1102-1139 Godfrey 1088-1088 Jocelin de Bohun 1141-1184 Ralph Luffa 1091-1123 Seffrid I 1125-1145 Hilary 1147-1169 X X X X X X Walter Robert the Lotharingian 1060-1079 Gerard 1096-1100 1079-1096 William 1051-1075 Reinhelm 1102-1115 Hugh de Aurea Valle 1076-1085 Geoffrey de Clive 1115-1119 Richard de Capella 1121-1127 X X X X X X Hereford London X X Salisbury Chichester Walter Mag. Schol. Giso Dean Bath & Wells Dates of Office Archdeacona Terr. Archdcn. Treasurer Precentor Chancellor Mag. Schol. Dean Dates of Office Archdeacona Table 1 Creation of New Formal Positions by Diocese and Bishop Maurice 1086-1107 Richard de Belmeis I 1108-1127 X X Robert de Bethune 1131-1148 Gilbert the Universal 1128-1134 Gilbert Foliot 1148-1163 Robert de Sigilo 1141-1150 Richard de Belmeis II 1152-1162 Gilbert Foliot I 1163-1187 Richard Fitz Neal 1189-1198 William of Ste.-Mere-Eglise 1198-1221 X Robert of Melun 1163-1167 Robert Foliot 1173-1186 William de Vere 1186-1198 X X X X a These are archdeacons without a territorial title. 63 Table 2. Witnesses to acta of the Bishops of Salisbury Household Clerks Canons Osmund Roger 3 Jocelin de Bohun 5 15 Hubert Walter 15 6 Herbert Poore 15 5 Richard Poore 10 12 a b Lay 2 6 7 2 6 5 Archdcns 1 4 4 5 5 6 Formal Positionsa 3 4 4 6 10 Other b 1 2 1 3 Includes deans, chancellors, precentors, and treasurers. Includes succentors and subdeans. Table 3. Institutions and grants to clerks, 1150 to 1230 Number of clerks instituted to Number of grants of perpetual vicarages land to clerks 1150-1159 1 3 1160-1169 2 4 1170-1179 8 1 1180-1189 10 4 1190-1199 30 1 1200-1209 16 1 1210-1219 11 2 1220-1229 17 7 64