1

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).

2

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

3

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

4

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).

5

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).

6

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).

7

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).

6 Julia Barrow, ed., English Episcopal Acta, Vol. Vii: Hereford, 1079-1234 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993),

no. 2.

8

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).

9

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

10

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.

11

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).

12

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

13

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).

14

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.

15

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.

16

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).

17

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).

18

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.

19

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). 30

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.

20

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

21

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).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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. 36

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.

26

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.

27

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

Kathleen Edwards, Secular Cathedral; L.S. Colchester, Wells Cathedral. 38

William Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, p. 195; Regesta, i. no. 326.

28

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.

29

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

30

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.

31

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. 42

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.

32

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

33

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).

34

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).

35

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.

36

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).

37

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. 54

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).

38

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. 56

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).

39

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).

40

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).

41

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.

42

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

43

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 mid-

twelfth 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

44

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)..

45

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).

46

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.

47

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. 67

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).

48

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.

49

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

50

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).

51

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

52

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.

53

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. 79

Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990). 80

For this practice, see chapter 8.

54

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.

55

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.

56

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

57

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

58

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

59

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 well-

educated, 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.

60

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, 1100-1225." 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.

61

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, 1844-1859.

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.

62

———. 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.

63

Table 1 Creation of New Formal Positions by Diocese and Bishop

Dates of Office

Arc

hdea

con

a

Dea

n

Mag

. S

chol.

Chan

cell

or

Pre

cen

tor

Tre

asu

rer

Ter

r. A

rch

dcn

.

Dates of Office

Arc

hdea

con

a

Dea

n

Mag

. S

chol.

Chan

cell

or

Pre

cen

tor

Tre

asu

rer

Ter

r. A

rch

dcn

.

Bath & Wells Lincoln

Giso 1061-1088 X Remigius 1067-1092 X X X X X

John of Tours 1088-1122 X Robert Bloet 1093-1123

Godfrey 1123-1135 Alexander 1123-1148

Robert of Lewes 1136-1166 X X X Robert de Chesney 1148-1166 X

Reginald Fitz Jocelin 1174-1191 X Salisbury

Chichester Hereman 1045-1078

Walter 1060-1070 Osmund 1078-1099 X

Stigand 1070-1087 Roger 1102-1139 X X X X X

Godfrey 1088-1088 Jocelin de Bohun 1141-1184 X

Ralph Luffa 1091-1123 X X X Hereford

Seffrid I 1125-1145 Walter 1060-1079

Hilary 1147-1169 X X X Robert the Lotharingian 1079-1096 X X

London Gerard 1096-1100

William 1051-1075 Reinhelm 1102-1115

Hugh de Aurea Valle 1076-1085 Geoffrey de Clive 1115-1119

Maurice 1086-1107 X X X X X Richard de Capella 1121-1127

Richard de Belmeis I 1108-1127 Robert de Bethune 1131-1148 X X X

Gilbert the Universal 1128-1134 Gilbert Foliot 1148-1163

Robert de Sigilo 1141-1150 Robert of Melun 1163-1167

Richard de Belmeis II 1152-1162 X Robert Foliot 1173-1186

Gilbert Foliot I 1163-1187 William de Vere 1186-1198 X

Richard Fitz Neal 1189-1198

William of Ste.-Mere-Eglise 1198-1221 X

a These are archdeacons without a territorial title.

64

Table 2. Witnesses to acta of the Bishops of Salisbury

Household Clerks Canons Lay Archdcns

Formal Positions

a Other

b

Osmund - - 2 1 - - Roger 3 - 6 4 3 1 Jocelin de Bohun 5 15 7 4 4 - Hubert Walter 15 6 2 5 4 2 Herbert Poore 15 5 6 5 6 1 Richard Poore 10 12 5 6 10 3 a Includes deans, chancellors, precentors, and treasurers. b Includes succentors and subdeans.

Table 3. Institutions and grants to clerks, 1150 to 1230

Number of clerks instituted to

perpetual vicarages Number of grants of

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