| Author |
Message |
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:47 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Molly Mockford wrote:
At 12:46:02 on Sat, 1 Oct 2005, Alan Jones <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote in <eyv%e.29723$VI6.1828@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe
land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2
acres) which was nowhere near the church.
And this is how the incumbent would probably have received his
"living" - in rents from the glebe land. After all, he wouldn't have
time to farm it himself, or resources to hire a bailiff. Renting the
land out to tenants, however, would have produced a nice little
income.
Isn't it in _Tristram Shandy_ that we find a wonderful portrait of a
rustic parson who spends all his time on farming his glebe?
|
I thought that was Fanny Hill ...
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:48 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:46:02 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Bannister" <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3q6anoFd271cU2@individual.net...
John Hall wrote:
In article <1128109774.587001.324610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
meeso <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> writes:
I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one
english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and
surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the
"churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for
agriculture and was considerably vast.
It could be "glebe", which the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes as:
"A piece of land serving as part of a clergyman's benefice and providing
income."
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a relatively
small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is
cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land
was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which was
nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who
did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes".
|
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers, even if
not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e a tenth) of
their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by
the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income.
--
Phil C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:50 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
In uk.culture.language.english Phil C. <philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote:
| Quote: | I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a relatively
small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is
cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land
was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which was
nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who
did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes".
|
Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided
and not contiguous.
| Quote: | Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers, even if
not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e a tenth) of
their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by
the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income.
|
Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference,
in the Church of England, between rector and vicar.
Axel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:55 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, wrote
| Quote: | In uk.culture.language.english Phil C.
philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote:
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a
relatively small portion of land to support the clergyman.
Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and
possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the
glebe land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit
(about 2 acres) which was nowhere near the church. At least, I
suppose it was rented; my mother (who did the books) referred to
our payment as "tithes".
Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided
and not contiguous.
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers,
even if not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e
a tenth) of their produce to the local church. The glebe land was
actually held by the incumbent to farm or rent out for his
income.
Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference,
in the Church of England, between rector and vicar.
|
Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding) of
the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, wrote
In uk.culture.language.english Phil C.
philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote:
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a
relatively small portion of land to support the clergyman.
Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and
possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the
glebe land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit
(about 2 acres) which was nowhere near the church. At least, I
suppose it was rented; my mother (who did the books) referred to
our payment as "tithes".
Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided
and not contiguous.
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers,
even if not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e
a tenth) of their produce to the local church. The glebe land was
actually held by the incumbent to farm or rent out for his
income.
Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference,
in the Church of England, between rector and vicar.
Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding)
of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself.
|
Dredging my memory ....... it was not unusual for the Rector (in this
context a layman) to hold the benefice, quite possibly as part of his
ownership of the local manor (or something much grander), and receive the
tithes, then employed a clergyman as Vicar to run the parish. IIRC the
Vicar could either have been paid a stipend (salary) or have the benefit of
some glebe land.
I was interested to note in an earlier posting the date of 1923 as the date
after which the patron of a benefice who was in Holy Orders was legally
debarred from presenting himself to a living. In my childhood (1940's &
50's) one local parish had a Rector whose family had hald the benefice in
line of succession for many generations - a real old-fashioned "squarson"
(a nive portmanteau-word of "squire" and "parson"). I guess, in the light
of the 1923 date) that he must have been presented to the living by his
father.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:46 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Mike Stevens wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or
holding) of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself.
Dredging my memory ....... it was not unusual for the Rector (in
this context a layman) to hold the benefice, quite possibly as
part of his ownership of the local manor (or something much
grander), and receive the tithes, then employed a clergyman as
Vicar to run the parish. IIRC the Vicar could either have been
paid a stipend (salary) or have the benefit of some glebe land.
I was interested to note in an earlier posting the date of 1923 as
the date after which the patron of a benefice who was in Holy
Orders was legally debarred from presenting himself to a living.
|
-snip example-
The reason I thought people might be interested in that list was
because so many of them seemed, to me, to be surprisingly late
survivals: until I'd looked into it, I hadn't realised that the
shutting-down of the older system was quite so recent.
(One that particularly surprised me was the 1986 severing of advowsons
which were appendant to land or manorial titles: I'd have thought that
the link would have been formally severed shortly after the property
statutes of 1925-26 abolished things like copyhold tenures, but the
church tends to move rather slowly on these matters.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:41 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, wrote
In uk.culture.language.english Phil C.
philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote:
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a
relatively small portion of land to support the clergyman.
Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and
possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the
glebe land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit
(about 2 acres) which was nowhere near the church. At least, I
suppose it was rented; my mother (who did the books) referred to
our payment as "tithes".
Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided
and not contiguous.
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers,
even if not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e
a tenth) of their produce to the local church. The glebe land was
actually held by the incumbent to farm or rent out for his
income.
Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the difference,
in the Church of England, between rector and vicar.
Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or holding)
of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself.
|
The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest would have
been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial glebe, and to rectorial
tithes. But if the rectory became appropriated by another ecclesiastical
body (usually a monastery), they would have received the rectorial income
and appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the rectories
possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the Crown and were
granted to laymen. This was usually because the rectory had become attached
to the manor.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frances Kemmish
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:02 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest would have
been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial glebe, and to rectorial
tithes. But if the rectory became appropriated by another ecclesiastical
body (usually a monastery), they would have received the rectorial income
and appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the rectories
possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the Crown and were
granted to laymen. This was usually because the rectory had become attached
to the manor.
|
You are using the word "rectory" to refer to the benefice only? I don't
think I ever heard that before. Not that that should come as any
surprise: until recently, I didn't know the difference between a rector
and a vicar.
I am familair with a "rectory" in the village where I grew up, but that
is the house where the Rector lives. There was a glebe too, as evidenced
by "Glebe Avenue", where my uncle used to live.
Fran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:13 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 02 Oct 2005, wrote
In uk.culture.language.english Phil C.
philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote:
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was
a relatively small portion of land to support the clergyman.
Interestingly, it is cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and
possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the
glebe land was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit
(about 2 acres) which was nowhere near the church. At least, I
suppose it was rented; my mother (who did the books) referred
to our payment as "tithes".
Agricultural land belonging to a holding was frequently divided
and not contiguous.
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers,
even if not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe
(i.e a tenth) of their produce to the local church. The glebe
land was actually held by the incumbent to farm or rent out for
his income.
Depends on the nature of the land ownership. Hence the
difference, in the Church of England, between rector and vicar.
Surely the rector/vicar difference related to ownership (or
holding) of the *benefice*, not to ownership of any land itself.
The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest
would have been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial
glebe, and to rectorial tithes.
|
That's my point, though: the difference between a rector and a vicar
relates to the entitlement to income from the tithes and (where
applicable) the glebe lands.
The difference doesn't really have anything to do with *land*
ownership: a rector could have a substantial income from the tithes,
and own no land at all. (The vicar, of course, was entitled to nothing
more than the salary paid to him by the rector.)
| Quote: | But if the rectory became appropriated by another ecclesiastical
body (usually a monastery), they would have received the rectorial
income and appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the
rectories possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the
Crown and were granted to laymen. This was usually because the
rectory had become attached to the manor.
|
And manors were *legal* entities rather than physically grounded in
land holdings. (That is, if the "manor" was divorced from the original
demesne, manor-house and waste, it still remained a manor entitled to
its associated rights and income.)
In a manorial system, ownership of land -- whilst usual -- was a
separate issue: the value of manor related to its rights and
entitlements, not to its land.
The same goes for benefices, which is why the "difference between
rector and vicar" was *not* a function of the nature of land ownership.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:15 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, Frances Kemmish wrote
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
The benefice would normally have been a rectory, so the priest
would have been the rector, entitled to income from rectorial
glebe, and to rectorial tithes. But if the rectory became
appropriated by another ecclesiastical body (usually a
monastery), they would have received the rectorial income and
appointed a vicar. Come the Dissolution, most of the rectories
possessed by the monasteries fell into the hands of the Crown and
were granted to laymen. This was usually because the rectory had
become attached to the manor.
You are using the word "rectory" to refer to the benefice only? I
don't think I ever heard that before.
|
It's the proper term -- you'll see the status (Rectory/Vicarage) marked
as such for each church on 19th-century Ordnance Surveys.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:27 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: |
(The vicar, of course, was entitled to
nothing more than the salary paid to him by the rector.)
|
That's not true - there were (are?) vicarial tithes - the lesser or "small"
tithes. That's probably because the benefice is instituted as a vicarage.
You may (or may not!) be thinking of a Perpetual Curacy 
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:40 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
"Phil C." <philstoxicwaste@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:4hevj1lhocgvtamk0e8eat4kjmulhga6vg@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 12:46:02 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"Robert Bannister" <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3q6anoFd271cU2@individual.net...
John Hall wrote:
In article <1128109774.587001.324610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
meeso <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> writes:
I'd really appreicate it if someone could tell me what is the one
english word to describe the agricultural land owned by the church, and
surrounding it, in medieval Europe. However, I do not mean the
"churchyard", for the other land I am talking about was used for
agriculture and was considerably vast.
It could be "glebe", which the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes as:
"A piece of land serving as part of a clergyman's benefice and
providing
income."
I was going to suggest the same word, but I remembered it was a
relatively
small portion of land to support the clergyman. Interestingly, it is
cognate with Russian "hleb" (bread) and possibly with "life".
Its extent may vary. In the parish where I was brought up, the glebe land
was not all in one patch. My family rented one bit (about 2 acres) which
was
nowhere near the church. At least, I suppose it was rented; my mother (who
did the books) referred to our payment as "tithes".
Tithes were a rather different concept, weren't they? Farmers, even if
not on church-owned land, would have to pay a tithe (i.e a tenth) of
their produce to the local church. The glebe land was actually held by
the incumbent to farm or rent out for his income.
|
My vague memories are of what my mother told me when I was very young, and I
expect I have run together what she paid as tithes and what as glebe rent.
"Queen Anne's Bounty" somewhere came into it as well . . . This would have
been in the mid-1940s, I suppose.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:46 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
(The vicar, of course, was entitled to
nothing more than the salary paid to him by the rector.)
That's not true - there were (are?) vicarial tithes - the lesser
or "small" tithes. That's probably because the benefice is
instituted as a vicarage. You may (or may not!) be thinking of a
Perpetual Curacy
|
I am; apologies. (As an aside,, I see that the latter were abolished
and converted to vicarages in 1968.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
At 15:46:20 on Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<Xns96E3AA7A4F22Fwhhvans@80.5.182.99>:
| Quote: | On 02 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
You may (or may not!) be thinking of a
Perpetual Curacy :-)
I am; apologies. (As an aside,, I see that the latter were abolished
and converted to vicarages in 1968.)
|
For certain values of "perpetual", then...
--
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graeme Thomas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
In article <Xns96E3A4E94F922whhvans@62.253.170.163>, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> writes
| Quote: | That's my point, though: the difference between a rector and a vicar
relates to the entitlement to income from the tithes and (where
applicable) the glebe lands.
|
I'm getting a bit confused by all these terms whizzing about, and I
don't find my dictionaries of much help. May I take a moment to clarify
what I think are the correct terms? I believe that I speak only now of
old usage, with all these rights and privileges gradually dropping out
of use from the 20s, finally being stopped in 1986.
I'll start with a church. This may have land associated with it (the
"glebe"). Someone (the "rector") is entitled to the income from the
glebe and to the tithes from surrounding landowners. That income is
known as the "benefice" or "living".
Someone has the right to appoint the rector. That right is "advowson".
That right is often held as part of the local manor.
The church needs a clergyman to look after the spiritual wellbeing of
the congregation. The rector can do that himself, or he can appoint a
deputy (the "vicar") to do it for him. (Or perhaps it's the holder of
the advowson who decides whether to appoint a working rector or a
vicar.) The vicar normally only gets paid (his "stipend") for the job,
but might, in certain churches, get part of the tithes.
Is all that correct?
--
Graeme Thomas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in