No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 February 2017
When Boniface VIII issued the constitution Cum ex eo in 1298, he was attempting to address a problem that had long preoccupied church leaders—the education of the parochial clergy. His plan to provide higher education for parish priests—outlined in Cum ex eo—was fairly straightforward: an unordained parochial rector, with episcopal license, could be absent from his parish and use the fruits of his benefice to finance his studies at a studium generale for up to seven years, provided that he proceeded to the order of subdeacon within a year from his institution to his benefice, that he was ordained to the priesthood within a year following the expiration of his license, and that he left his parishioners in the care of a suitable curate.
1 Sext, 1.6, 34. References to the two collections of canon law, Liber Sextus and Liber Extravagantes, are drawn from E. Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879, 1881). The best discussion of Cum ex eo is Leonard E. Boyle, “The Constitution ‘Cum ex eo’ of Boniface VIII: Education of Parochial Clergy,” Mediaeval Studies 24 (1962): 263–302.Google Scholar
2 Boyle provides a succinct history of the church's strategies to educate the clergy in “Cum ex eo,” 263–71. The summary that follows draws on that article.Google Scholar
3 Extra, 3.4, 4.Google Scholar
4 Sext, 1.6, 14.Google Scholar
5 Boyle, “Cum ex eo,” 267–68.Google Scholar
6 Ibid., 268–69.Google Scholar
7 Ibid.; C. J. Godfrey's article, “Non-residence of Parochial Clergy in the Fourteenth Century,” Church Quarterly Review 162 (Oct.-Dec. 1961): 433–46, appeared the year before Boyle's work; however, Godfrey's failure to appreciate fully the canon law as it applied to nonresidence for study weakens his analysis.Google Scholar
8 Boyle, “Cum ex eo',” 276.Google Scholar
9 Sext, 1.6, 34. (“nos, super hoc multorum instantia excitad frequenter, volentes cupientibus in scientia proficere, ut fructum in Dei ecclesia suo tempore afierre valeant, utiliter providere.”)Google Scholar
10 Boyle, “Cum ex eo',” 298.Google Scholar
11 Haines, Roy M., “The Education of the English Clergy during the Later Middle Ages: Some Observations on the Operation of Pope Boniface VIII's Constitution Cum Ex Eo (1298),” Canadian Journal of History 4 (Mar. 1969): 1–22. Other recent critics have similarly questioned the merits of study licenses as a means of encouraging clerical education. P. A. Bill charged that this particular form of licensed absenteeism “could easily result in the neglect of a church and its parishioners.” P. A. Bill, “The Warwickshire Parish Clergy in the Later Middle Ages,” Dugdale Society Occasional Papers 17 (1967): 19. Robert Rodes argued that the effectiveness of Cum ex eo was nullified by the “lack of an administrative machinery to see that the person licensed in fact spent his time in study,” and by “failure to see that the student returned to his parish when [his] seven years were up.” Robert E. Rodes, Jr., Ecclesiastical Administration in Medieval England (Notre Dame, Ind., 1977), 160.Google Scholar
12 Haines, , “Education of the English Clergy,” 20. Boyle answered these arguments in his “Aspects of Clerical Education in Fourteenth-Century England,” The Fourteenth Century Acta 4 (1977): 19–32.Google Scholar
13 Boyle conspicuously stands apart here since his analysis was based on extensive study of the records of licenses preserved in the manuscripts of the Vatican archives. However, his assessment of the day-to-day working of study licenses is drawn from anecdotal evidence from various dioceses.Google Scholar
14 Boyle, , “Aspects of Clerical Education,” 24.Google Scholar
15 Ibid.Google Scholar
16 Out of 182 Norwich license-holders, I find only 38 mentioned by Emden. See A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957–59), hereafter BRUO; and A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge, 1963), hereafter BRUC; Boyle, , “Aspects of Clerical Education,” 24–25; and Swanson, R. N., “Universities, Graduates, and Benefices in Later Medieval England,” Past and Present 106 (Feb. 1985): 32–33.Google Scholar
17 Ayermine was consecrated on 15 September 1325. He issued his first study license from London on 28 November 1325. Thus, the licenses for 1325 include only those issued in the four months between the end of November and the beginning of the new year in March. He died on 27 March, two days into the year 1336. His register calendars all study licenses authorized by him or his official between November 1325 and 20 February 1335 (the date of the last license). These are contained in the Norwich Diocesan Archives Institution Books (Norwich, Norfolk Record Office REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 87–96v). For Ayermine's career, see J. L. Grassi, “William Airmyn and the Bishopric of Norwich,” English Historical Review 60 (Oct. 1955): 550–61.Google Scholar
18 The difference in the two totals is due to the renewals granted to some licensees.Google Scholar
19 The type of license held by six men cannot be determined.Google Scholar
20 Boyle (“Cum ex eo',” 268) recognized that bishops did use the canon's loophole as a way of sending priests off to study, but he does not concentrate on the implications of this fact. Godfrey (“Non-residence of Parochial Clergy,” 440) realized that ordained priests were being dispensed for study, but he did not trace these dispensations to Licet canon. Google Scholar
21 “Super residentia vero (ut praemittitur) facienda, possit ordinarius gratiam dispensationis ad tempus facere, prout causa rationabilis id exposcit.” Sext, 1.6.14.Google Scholar
22 None of these figures takes into account those licensees who had already been studying at a university on licenses issued by bishops prior to Ayermine. Their number cannot be determined.Google Scholar
23 Fifty of the 182 license-holders renewed their licenses one or more times. Thirty-five (19.2 percent) renewed Cum ex eo licenses; sixteen (8.7 percent), renewed Licet canon licenses. These two totals equal fifty-one, but one man renewed both Cum ex eo and Licet canon licenses.Google Scholar
24 In this respect, Norwich licensees were no different from most students at universities, who seldom received degrees. See Emden, BRUO, xviii, and Jean Dunbabin, “Careers and Vocations,” in The History of the University of Oxford, ed. T. H. Aston, Vol. 1, The Early Oxford Schools, ed. J. I. Catto (Oxford, 1984), 568, note 3. But as we shall see below, such short-term licenses were not only used for bachelor's studies. They could also be useful for those rectors pursuing postgraduate degrees in the higher faculties.Google Scholar
25 E.g., REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 87v and 92r. See also Boyle, “Cum ex eo',” 282, 287.Google Scholar
26 Oxford, Bodleian MS Norfolk, Roll 16, dorse, s.n. “Wyveton.”Google Scholar
27 Boyle discusses further episcopal efforts to oversee the enforcement of the terms of study licenses (“Cum ex eo',” 282.)Google Scholar
28 The third candidate was identified as a deacon when his study license was issued, but he was called a priest upon his institution a month earlier; the fourth man was a deacon when his license was issued, but had been instituted to his benefice fourteen months prior to licensing and so was legally obliged to be ordained. If he was licensed for study under Cum ex eo, it was done irregularly.Google Scholar
29 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 26r, 93r, 95v, 103; Emden, , BRUO 3: 2174–75; and Bliss, W.H., ed., Calendar of the Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters 7 vols. (London, 1893–1906), 2: 547, 554. Hereafter cited as CPL. Google Scholar
30 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 58v, 95av; Bk. 3, fol. 20v; Emden, BRUO, 3: 2012–13; CPL, 3: 54, 482; Francis Blomefield (continued by Charles Parkins), An Essay towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 5 vols. (Fersfield, Norwich, and Lynn, 1739–1775), 3: 785.Google Scholar
31 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 34r, 37r, 95r; Bk. 3, fol. 43r; Emden, BRUO, 3: 1636; CPL, 3: 71.Google Scholar
32 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 44r, 95ar, 96r, 96v; Emden, BRUC, 404–5; CPL, 2: 379, 386; Suckling, Alfred, The History and Antiquities of the County of Suffolk: With Genealogical and Architectural Notes of Its Several Towns and Villages 2 vols. (London, 1846), 1: 20.Google Scholar
33 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 26r, 93r, 95r, 95av; Emden, , BRUC 210; CPL, 3: 160, 392, 429; Blomefield, , Essay, 1: 687.Google Scholar
34 For example, Bartholomew de Bourne, king's clerk (REG/1, Bk. 2, 95ar; Emden, , BRUO 1: 232–33); Adam Murymouth, clerk of the archbishop of Canterbury (REG/1, Bk. 2, fol. 91r; CPL, 2: 123).Google Scholar
35 For example, John Bradwell, in service to the Earl of Kent (REG/1, Bk. 2, fol. 93r-v); Galfrid Secerington in service to Thomas Wake, Lord of Lydell (REG/1, Bk. 2, fol. 94r and fol. 87r, 89v; Bk. 1, fol. 74r; Blomefield, , Essay 4: 234); Imbertus de Montemartino, attendant of Queen Margaret (REG/1, Bk. 2, fol. 92r; CPL, 2: 23); Colby, John, clerk of Queen Philippa (REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 95ar, 96r-v; CPL, 2: 333, 388).Google Scholar
36 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 6v, 90r, 95v, 95av; Emden, , BRUC 381; CPL, 2: 335–36.Google Scholar
37 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 94v, 95r; Emden, , BRUC 241.Google Scholar
38 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 87r, 93r, 95r; Emden, , BRUO 3: 2034–35; CPL, 2: 371, 383, 523.Google Scholar
39 See REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 22v, 93r; and Watkin, Aelred, ed., Archdeaconry of Norwich Inventory of Church Goods temp. Edward III, Norfolk Record Society 19, parts 1 & 2 (n.p., 1947–48): 91, 194.Google Scholar
40 See note 39 above.Google Scholar
41 Watkin, , Archdeaconry of Norwich Inventory 86, 84; REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 94v, 92v.Google Scholar
42 REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 93r, 94r; Watkin, , Archdeaconry of Norwich Inventory 128, 211.Google Scholar
43 REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 87r, 91v, 100v; Bk. 5, fol. 68r; Watkin, , Archdeaconry of Norwich Inventory 109, 202; Boyle, Leonard E., “The Oculus Sacerdotis and some other works of William of Pagula,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 5 (1955): 81–110; Boyle, , “'Cum ex eo',” 288–90.Google Scholar
44 I have designated as masters either those men given the title “magister” in the Norwich Episcopal Registers or those men identified as masters by Emden through other sources. By the fourteenth century most men so identified were teachers; in episcopal registers the title normally referred to masters of arts. See Emden, BRUO, xvi; and Dunbabin, , “Careers and Vocations,” 568, n. 3.Google Scholar
45 Eight held doctorates in civil law; one, a bachelor in civil law; one, a bachelor in civil and canon law; and one, a doctorate utriusque juris. Among the licensees that Godfrey identified, most were studying canon law or theology. (“Non-residence of parochial clergy,” 436).Google Scholar
46 Ayermine, as noted, tended to issue licenses in one- or two-year installments. That a quarter of the licensees were designated as masters should not lead us to the conclusion that most licensees were studying for higher degrees. First, if this were the case, even more masters would show up in the Norwich records. Second, most students at universities seldom received even simple bachelor's degrees.Google Scholar
47 REG/1, Bk. 2, fols. 88v, 92r, 95r. Emden, BRUC, 241, 365, 551. In the record of his license, Foxton was described as “cancellarius universitatis Cantabrig” (95r).Google Scholar
48 These numbers are not completely accurate since they do not account for those men licensed for study by Ayermine but instituted to their benefices by his predecessor John Salmon. Since my figures do not exclude Licet canon licensed rectors who were instituted to their benefices before Ayermine came to office, this proportion of one out of five is probably too large. In fact, it is probably closer to one out of six or seven. Peter Heath found that between 1503 and 1528 just over one-sixth of men presented to benefices in Norwich were university graduates (The English Parish Clergy on the Eve of the Reformation [London, 1969], 81). But, as noted, the average length of study licenses granted between 1325 and 1335 was too short to allow most licensees to earn a university degree.Google Scholar
49 Moorman, John R. H., Church Life in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), 4.Google Scholar
50 Two variables marginally affect this total: First, in a handful of cases—no more than ten—two licensed rectors held the same parish at different times due to exchanges between them. This would decrease the percentage of license-supporting parishes slightly. Second, although Cum ex eo licenses were intended only for rectors, it was possible for a vicar to obtain papal dispensation from his oath of perpetual residency in order to study at a university. Ayermine's predecessor John Salmon, acting with papal license, dispensed four perpetual vicars from residency in March 1317. A letter sewn into the binding of the unique manuscript of the book of Margery Kempe is a dispensation granted to a Norwich vicar in 1440 by a papal collector with legatine power. The collector was authorized to dispense up to fourteen vicars for purposes of study. Although these examples fall on either side of Ayermine's episcopacy, we must assume that such dispensations were available to him. In that case the total percentage of parishes sending curates to universities would increase marginally. See Boyle, “Cum ex eo',” 289–96; and Brown Meech, Sanford and Emily Allen, Hope, eds., “The Book of Margery Kempe “ Early English Text Society, o.s. 212 (1940), 1: 351–52.Google Scholar
51 Godfrey reported the number of license-holders compared to the number of parishes in these dioceses. I have calculated the percentages. C. J. Godfrey, “Non-residence of Parochial Clergy,” 433–35.Google Scholar
52 Haines, , “Education of the English Clergy,” 12, n. 47.Google Scholar
53 These are the wills of Roger de Northwold (Norfolk and Norwich Record Office, Norwich Consistory Court Register Heydon, fols. 16v-17r), Nicholas Wileby (Reg. Heydon, fol. 99v), Bernard (Paganus) St. Clare (Reg. Heydon, fol. 121v), and Edmund Bacon (Reg. Heydon, fol. 206r). John de Broughton, licensed as rector of Sharrington in 1328, is perhaps the same Broughton whose will is recorded in Reg. Harsyk, fol. 269r, but the connection is not certain. The earliest surviving wills of the clergy of Norwich begin only in 1370—thirty-five years after the last study license issued by Ayermine. Presumably many of the rectors he licensed had already died, some of them no doubt victims of the Black Death which struck in the interim.Google Scholar
54 REG/1, Bk. 2, fol. 96r; Heydon, Register, fol. 121v.Google Scholar
55 Blomefield, , An Essay 3: 48.Google Scholar
56 An important caveat must apply here. I have based my calculation of the length of time rectors stayed in their parishes after their licenses expired on the notices in the episcopal registers of subsequent institutions of other men to the same benefices. In some cases these subsequent institutions were by way of exchange of benefices; in others, they were by the resignation of the study-licensed incumbent. In either case there is no guarantee that the licensed incumbent was actually resident full-time in his benefice once his license expired.Google Scholar
57 On the interparochial circulation of manuals see Robert M. Ball, “The Education of the English Parish Clergy in the Later Middle Ages with Particular Reference to the Manuals of Instruction” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1976), 83–93.Google Scholar
58 Moorman, John R. H., “The Medieval Parsonage and Its Occupants,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 28 (1944): 13; Pantin, W. A., “Medieval Priests’ Houses in Southwest England,” Medieval Archaeology 1 (1957): 119.Google Scholar
59 Swanson, , “Universities, Graduates and Benefices in Later Medieval England,” 32–35.Google Scholar
60 See Ziegler, Philip, The Black Death (Harmondsworth, 1970), 236; Gottfried, Robert S., The Black Death, Natural and Human Disaster in Medieval Europe (New York, 1983), 65–66; Page, William, ed., The Victoria History of the County of Norfolk (London, 1906), 2: 241.Google Scholar
61 REG/1, Bk. 4, fol. 118v; CPL, 3: 331; The Victoria History of Norfolk, 2: 241.Google Scholar
62 Gottfried, , The Black Death 130–31.Google Scholar
63 Bateman's record of appropriation links the foundation of Trinity Hall to the effects of the plague in a way the charters of Trinity do not: “Nos considerantes quod nulla causa magis poterit esse pia quam certa personas scolasticas indigentes pietatis opera exercere qui iuri insistint canonico et civili ut divinarum ac etiam humanarum rerum noticiam iusti scienciam habeant iniusti qua clericorum relevatur inopia, sciencia dilatatur, ecclesia defensatur, et res pupplica gubernatur, quodque pestilencia pridium ingruens tot subtraxit in locis singulis et in nostra presertim diocesis literatos quod pauci remanent hiis diebus per quos cura poterit ecclesiastica gubernari; idcirco ad honorem dei omnipotentis ac utilitatem, commodum, regimen, et directionem rei publice et specialiter nostre ecclesie cathedrali sancte trinititatis nostreque diocesis Norwicensis, unum collegium scolarum iuris canonici et civilis sancte trinitati votabile insignitum in universitate cantebriggiensis fundamus….” REG/1, Bk. 4, fol. 8v.Google Scholar
64 “… ordinamus quod per tota tempora quibus fructus, redditus, et proventus ecclesie prefate remanebunt … in usus dicti collegii reservati liceat rector dicte ecclesie qui pro tempore fuerit a dicta se ecclesia absentare et in aula seu hospicio dicti collegii in universitate Cantabrigienis studiorum causa continue remanere, et omnes fructus, redditus, et proventus dicte ecclesie ad firman libere dimittere” (“We order that for the entire time during which the fruits, rents and income of the said church shall remain reserved for the use of the said college, the rector of the said church is permitted to be absent from his church and stay in the hall or the lodgings of the said college in the University of Cambridge in order to pursue studies; and he is permitted to put to farm all the fruits, rents and income of the said church.”) REG/1, Bk. 4, fol. 9v.Google Scholar
65 Unfortunately, I cannot consider here the question of how useful a university education was for the daily challenges of the cura animarum. For some suggestions concerning this, see Dunbabin, “Careers and Vocations,” 569, 572; and Boyle, Leonard E., “The Quodlibets of St. Thomas and Pastoral Care,” The Thomist 38 (1974): 232–56.Google Scholar