| Author |
Message |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Nick Wagg wrote:
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128114052.517855.165810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very
much for the word.
But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and
at the same time, not particular to the agrarian land.
A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious
house.
What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from
monasteries?
Hospitals and secular colleges are included in "Medieval
Religious Houses, England and Wales", by Knowles and Hadcock.
And, in practice, how many of them had granges? I would accept
hospitals, but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges.
Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was established as
and remains decidedly a secular college -- strikes me as a qualifying
as a "religious house".
|
Why? How many of the canons were resident? How much of a common life did
they lead? What precisely are you defining as the "house"?
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:43 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Nick Wagg wrote:
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128114052.517855.165810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very much for
the word.
But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and at
the same time, not particular to the agrarian land.
A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious house.
A quick trip to the (always fascinating, if rather out-dated and
often heavy-reading) online Catholic Encyclopedia shows that, as one
might have expected, "glebe" isn't peculiar to the Anglican
Communion. See:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06582a.htm
|
Well, it's an English *word*, but derived from Latin.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:45 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
[...]
Monasteries are either abbeys or priories. Strictly speaking, a
monastery is for monks - but it is absurd not to call a house of
regular canons a monastery, and it is awfully convenient to include
nunneries as well - or at least have an implied "(and nunneries)"
every time you say "monasteries". "Convent" illustrates the
problem -
it ought to refer to any type of conventual house, rather than just a
nunnery.
I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term
"monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4; but I
don't know how official her statement was.
|
It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to say
"conventual house" each time.
--
John Briggs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:58 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article <U_N0f.10020$4Q.299@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Nick Wagg wrote:
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128114052.517855.165810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very
much for the word.
But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church, and
at the same time, not particular to the agrarian land.
A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious
house.
What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from
monasteries?
Abbey? Convent?
Monasteries are either abbeys or priories. Strictly speaking, a
monastery is for monks - but it is absurd not to call a house of
regular canons a monastery, and it is awfully convenient to
include nunneries as well - or at least have an implied "(and
nunneries)" every time you say "monasteries". "Convent"
illustrates the problem - it ought to refer to any type of
conventual house, rather than just a nunnery.
I'd agree with that, but the Knights Templars and Hospitallers,
separately-established hospitals, and secular colleges all appear to
be included within the category of "religious houses". The contents
list from Knowles and Hadcock lists:
|
I'm perfectly familiar with the category lists of Knowles and Hadcock. My
objection was to the suggestion that other religious houses might have had
granges. The Templars and Hospitallers didn't - they had preceptories or
commanderies. Friaries weren't allowed to own land. Hospitals were
unlikely to have actually done so. Secular colleges and cathedrals might
well have done, but I suggested that it was misleading to call them
"religious houses".
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:03 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Nick Wagg wrote:
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128114052.517855.165810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very
much for the word.
But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church,
and at the same time, not particular to the agrarian land.
A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious
house.
What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from
monasteries?
Hospitals and secular colleges are included in "Medieval
Religious Houses, England and Wales", by Knowles and Hadcock.
And, in practice, how many of them had granges? I would accept
hospitals, but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges.
Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was established
as and remains decidedly a secular college -- strikes me as a
qualifying as a "religious house".
Why? How many of the canons were resident? How much of a common
life did they lead? What precisely are you defining as the
"house"?
|
All were resident: the warden, 12 canons, 13 vicars, 4 clerks, and 6
choristers. They Canons lived (and still live) in lodgings in the
Canons' Cloister, and they prayed and dined communally.
Facilities were provided for sub-groups -- the vicars had a separate
hall, the choristers a school and quarters, and the lay clerks had
their own accommodation.
I'm not clear why you don't consider it to be a "religious house".
What disqualifies it?
--
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: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:25 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Nick Wagg wrote:
"meeso" <maysaraomar@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:1128114052.517855.165810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hello there, John Briggs and John Hall, and Thank you very
much for the word.
But "Glebe" seems to be particular to an "English" church,
and at the same time, not particular to the agrarian land.
A "grange" was a farm owned by a monastery or other religious
house.
What religious houses (in practice) are there apart from
monasteries?
Hospitals and secular colleges are included in "Medieval
Religious Houses, England and Wales", by Knowles and Hadcock.
And, in practice, how many of them had granges? I would accept
hospitals, but I wouldn't really accept secular colleges.
Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was established
as and remains decidedly a secular college -- strikes me as a
qualifying as a "religious house".
Why? How many of the canons were resident? How much of a common
life did they lead? What precisely are you defining as the
"house"?
All were resident: the warden, 12 canons, 13 vicars, 4 clerks, and 6
choristers. They Canons lived (and still live) in lodgings in the
Canons' Cloister, and they prayed and dined communally.
|
Of course they prayed communally - that was the object of the exercise!
Although the vicars only existed to take the place of the canons, which
rather suggests that their actual presence wasn't essential. I'm also
disputing that they dined communally. The vicars and others weren't members
of the college.
| Quote: | Facilities were provided for sub-groups -- the vicars had a separate
hall, the choristers a school and quarters, and the lay clerks had
their own accommodation.
|
That's because they are not part of the "house" (community). By the end of
the Middle Ages many monasteries had lay singers for their Lady Chapel
choirs. I remember visiting a modern Carthusian monastery (if a
charterhouse really is a "monastery") to find the library deserted - the lay
librarian was found praying in the church: whether for a lost book or for a
computer catalogue wasn't vouchsafed!
| Quote: | I'm not clear why you don't consider it to be a "religious house".
What disqualifies it?
|
I'm saying that it's not a single house, with compulsory residence and a
common life. The canons were more like prebendaries at a secular cathedral.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:04 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, John Briggs wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
|
| Quote: | Hmmm.... St George's at Windsor Castle -- which was
established as and remains decidedly a secular college --
strikes me as a qualifying as a "religious house".
Why? How many of the canons were resident? How much of a
common life did they lead? What precisely are you defining as
the "house"?
All were resident: the warden, 12 canons, 13 vicars, 4 clerks,
and 6 choristers. They Canons lived (and still live) in lodgings
in the Canons' Cloister, and they prayed and dined communally.
Of course they prayed communally - that was the object of the
exercise! Although the vicars only existed to take the place of
the canons, which rather suggests that their actual presence
wasn't essential. I'm also disputing that they dined communally.
The vicars and others weren't members of the college.
Facilities were provided for sub-groups -- the vicars had a
separate hall, the choristers a school and quarters, and the lay
clerks had their own accommodation.
That's because they are not part of the "house" (community).
|
The vicars and other non-canonical aspects ofo the College were
established by the founding charter, and thus formed part of
the college.
As far as I can tell, your reasoning appears to be circular: "they
weren't part of the community because I'm defining community in such a
way so as specifically to exclude them".
| Quote: | By the end of the Middle Ages many monasteries had lay singers for
their Lady Chapel choirs. I remember visiting a modern Carthusian
monastery (if a charterhouse really is a "monastery") to find the
library deserted - the lay librarian was found praying in the
church: whether for a lost book or for a computer catalogue wasn't
vouchsafed!
I'm not clear why you don't consider it to be a "religious
house". What disqualifies it?
I'm saying that it's not a single house, with compulsory residence
and a common life. The canons were more like prebendaries at a
secular cathedral.
|
We'll have to disagree, then. I don't accept that a college of canons,
vicars, etc. -- founded by charter as a single college formed for
religious purposes and living in communal lodgings -- doesn't form a
religious "community".
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term
"monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4;
but I
don't know how official her statement was.
It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to
say
"conventual house" each time.
|
Do you mean "conventual house" is always the strict term, and
"monastery" an informal one? On this I'm not qualified to comment.
I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that the
Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"...and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find
monasteries being established for nuns."
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:14 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term
"monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4; but
I don't know how official her statement was.
It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to say
"conventual house" each time.
Do you mean "conventual house" is always the strict term, and
"monastery" an informal one? On this I'm not qualified to comment.
|
Well, "conventual house" is a general term, whereas "monastery" should only
refer to monks - from the Latin "monachus". There is a complication that
"Minster" derives from "monasterium", but was often used for secular
collegiate churches (York Minster, Ripon Minster, Beverley Minster,
Southwell Minster.)
| Quote: | I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that the
Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"...and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find
monasteries being established for nuns."
|
The Catholic Encyclopedia (sic) is, I believe, of American origin 
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:06 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
I believe one Order of nuns -- Benedictine? -- uses the term
"monastery". I certainly heard one member saying so on Radio 4;
but
I don't know how official her statement was.
It's not *strictly* correct, but certainly easier than having to
say
"conventual house" each time.
Do you mean "conventual house" is always the strict term, and
"monastery" an informal one? On this I'm not qualified to comment.
Well, "conventual house" is a general term, whereas "monastery"
should only refer to monks - from the Latin "monachus". [...]
|
I don't see difficulty in getting an X for both sexes from a word Y
applying only to males: it seems to me quite an ordinary thing for a
language to do. In this case, though, we have Jerome's authority for
the early feminine form _monacha_ , and I'd hesitate to cross pens
with the translator of the Vulgate.
| Quote: |
I note nuns in monasteries in several Googles and OED, and that
the
Catholic Encyclopedia says:
"...and wherever the Benedictine monks went, there also we find
monasteries being established for nuns."
The Catholic Encyclopedia (sic) is, I believe, of American origin
|
You mean information from American Catholics may be unreliable? I
can't see why. In any case, there is OED and the Ggl items to
consider, quite apart from the English-sounding nun I heard on Radio
4.
As I said, I have no expert knowledge of the subject, and at first I
thought you might be able to clarify the usage.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
<Xns96E682AD5A17Ewhhvans@62.253.170.163>:
| Quote: | Premonstratensian Canons
|
Why does it take three Premonstratensian Canons to change a light-bulb?
BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL DOES!!!
(Coat. Fetching.)
--
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 |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:14 am
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
That an argument against women's ordination?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:24 am
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
At 19:14:25 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Mike Lyle
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
<3qijgsFf7ihhU1@individual.net>:
| Quote: | Molly Mockford wrote:
At 11:48:06 on Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
Xns96E682AD5A17Ewhhvans@62.253.170.163>:
Premonstratensian Canons
Why does it take three Premonstratensian Canons to change a
light-bulb?
BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL DOES!!!
(Coat. Fetching.)
That an argument against women's ordination?
|
Only loose women. You wouldn't want loose canons, would you?
--
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 |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:32 am
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
Ones without balls should be harmless enough.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:54 am
Post subject: Re: medieval church's agricultural land? |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
Actually, to be pedantic, there really *were* Premonstratensian Canonesses
in England. Orford Priory in Lincolnshire, for example.
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in