Navigation – Plan du site
Espaces monastiques et espaces urbains de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen Âge

The Convents of the Franciscan Province of Anglia and their Role in the Development of English and Welsh Towns in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

Jens Röhrkasten

Résumé

The available evidence suggests that the Franciscans created their English province in a planned and well organised manner, moving first into the major urban centres and then into the important county towns and harbours so that they were represented in all regions of the kingdom. The creation of urban convents had a profound impact on the topography of the towns in question because public, private and commercial space was gradually acquired by the friars when their precincts extended. In a number of cases the Franciscans also made significant contributions to the urban infrastructure by creating water supplies and aqueducts.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

Ce texte fait partie d'un dossier composé des actes des deux journées d’études organisées à Nice en avril 2009 et à Rome les 20 et 21 novembre de la même année, sur le thème « Espaces monastiques et espaces urbains de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen Âge ».

Texte intégral

  • 1 Little 1951, p. 6 ; Cotton 1924, p. 1-4.
  • 2 Little 1951, p. 6 ; Kingsford 1915, p. 15 ; Röhrkasten 2004, p. 43.
  • 3 Little 1892, p. 1-4.
  • 4 Blomefield 1805-10, IV, p. 107 ; Kirkpatrick 1845, p. 104, 108-118, this work was published c. 120 (...)
  • 5 Cooper 1842-1908, I, p. 39 ; Moorman 1952, p. 6 ; Leader 1988, p. 25; Röhrkasten 2008, p. 53.
  • 6 Yates 1969, p. 256.
  • 7 Billson 1920, p.78-79.
  • 8 Martin 1936, p. 42-63 ; Hill 1965, p. 207 ; Robson 1997, p. 1 ; Robson 2010, p. 113-137.
  • 9 Summerson 1993, I, p. 103.
  • 10 Moorman 1983, p. 90 ; Weare 1893, p. 11-12.
  • 11 Little 1951, p. 11.
  • 12 Huygens 1960, p. 75-76.
  • 13 Mapelli 2003, p. 39-61.

1When the Franciscans created their province of Anglia after their arrival in 1224, they extended their order to the whole of the English kingdom and eventually also to the principalities of Wales. Their expansion was carefully planned, a deliberate move from one urban centre to the next, first from Dover to Canterbury1, the ecclesiastical capital of the English kingdom, then to London2, the political and economic centre, and finally to Oxford where they soon began to attract academics from the university3. Having established first contacts in these centres where they soon attracted attention and obtained material support, they expanded into the county towns, reaching Northampton in 1225, Norwich4 and Cambridge5 in 1226, Hereford6 and Worcester before 1228, Leicester7, Nottingham, Salisbury and Gloucester before 1230, York and Lincoln in c. 12308 and Carlisle9 in 1233. In the same period first convents were established in Southampton, Lynn and Bristol10. When the English Franciscan chronicler Thomas of Eccleston wrote in the middle of the thirteenth century he could report that convents had been founded in forty-nine towns within thirty-two years11. This immediate focus on the towns was very different from the order’s beginnings, only a few years earlier, when Jacques de Vitry had observed: De die intrant civitates et villas, ut aliquos lucrifaciant operam dantes actione; nocte vero revertuntur ad heremum vel loca solitaria vacantes contemplationi12. In England the situation was very different: the Minorites immediately went into the towns and the order’s English province which received its geographical structure within a matter of years was entirely based on urban centres; no attempt was made to found hermitages13. One can safely assume that the reverse of Jacques de Vitry’s observation was true: the friars left the towns during the day to pursue their pastoral work in the countryside to return to their urban residences at night.

  • 14 Little 1943, p. 217-21

2The impact of the Franciscans on the English kingdom emerges clearly when we look firstly at the speed of their expansion and secondly at the towns in which they established convents. This is possible even though the foundation dates of mendicant houses are sometimes unknown and the argument has to be based on the first reference to an already existing convent. The majority of the forty-nine houses known to Thomas of Eccleston – thirty-five – was built in the sixteen years between 1224 and 1240, a period during which the order itself underwent a fundamental change which included the creation of a system of education in the community, the generalate of Elias of Cortona and his deposition14.

  • 15 TNA, C 143/216/2 ; CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 113.
  • 16 Howards 1925, p. 107-109.
  • 17 Dickinson 1956, p. 9, 20, 26.

3This very rapid development itself suggests a methodical, planned approach based on strong material support and this impression is confirmed by the types of town chosen by the Franciscans. A large proportion of them – twenty-two – were local administrative centres, county towns. Most of these towns had different functions. An important feature was the royal castle which housed the seat of the local administration under a sheriff. The castles usually accommodated the royal prison and they were the venue for the county courts and for the courts held by the itinerant royal justices. Apart from those attending the local markets these centres were regularly visited by plaintiffs, jurors, local administrators and landowners. Later in the thirteenth century another two county towns, Shrewsbury and Stafford, were given a Franciscan presence, taking the figure to twenty-four. This figure of twenty-four urban centres represents the majority of English county towns but not the complete number overall. It is striking that the Franciscans did not try to build convents in those county towns which were left out in the thirteenth century. Only in two of them, Maidstone15 in Kent and Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, were attempts made to found a Franciscan house, much later, in the fourteenth century and these efforts, of which only one, at Aylesbury, was successful, were not initiated by the Minorites. When we look at those urban centres in this early group which did not have the status of a county town we find two types: important harbours, like Bristol, Grimsby, Lynn, Scarborough and Yarmouth16 or powerful commercial centres in land like Coventry and Stamford. In the fourteenth century only four more Franciscan convents were created in England, three of them were initiated by members of the nobility, among them Aylesbury mentioned above and Walsingham, a friary founded in 1347 in a small Norfolk town which had become a famous pilgrimage site after recurrent visits to its statue of the Virgin by English kings since the first half of the thirteenth century17. It is not clear why there was no Franciscan presence in the other county towns. In some of them, Guildford (Surrey), Warwick and Derby, there were Dominican houses and the Minorites of the English province may have decided that this brought the local community to the limit of what it could support, others may simply have been too small.

  • 18 Eo tempore quo provinciam intraverunt prope Doveram, apud cujusdam nobilis domini hospitium quaesie (...)

4It is much more difficult to assess the impact of the Franciscans on individual towns, on their development and topography. Initially the arrival of a small group of friars from an as yet unknown religious order may not have been noticed at all. According to the Lanercost Chronicle the friars arriving at Dover in 1224 were even regarded with suspicion and arrested for a night18. As in Italy, France or Germany the ecclesiastical authorities will have played an important part in legitimising and supporting them in the beginning. The Franciscans had to find their place in the existing structures of urban society and a space within the urban topography – at a time when there was much demand for urban property. The preconditions they encountered in English towns in the first half of the thirteenth century are not always easy to assess for the modern observer because of differences in the level of information available on individual towns. Some, like London, York, Norwich or Colchester, are very well documented so that a topographical, ecclesiastical, social and economic context for the time of the Franciscan arrival can be established, in other towns this is not possible.

  • 19 Little 1951, p. 6-7 ; Cotton 1924, p. 5.
  • 20 Little 1951, p. 9-10.
  • 21 In many English towns the first reference to the Franciscan convent is clearly later than the friar (...)

5The initial Franciscan impact on the topography of their English host towns was negligent because the friars did not establish permanent residences. At Canterbury the newcomers stayed in the cathedral priory for two days, after that they lodged in the hospital of poor priests in the parish of St Margaret. In addition a room was made available for them in the town’s grammar school where they could spend the day until the scholars’ return19. In London and Oxford the Dominicans offered shelter for the first few days until the friars found lodgings of their own, while at Northampton they were allowed to stay in one of the town’s two hospitals20. It is quite possible that temporary accommodation of this kind was also offered in other towns. These provisional arrangements left few traces in the records and this might explain the lack of information on dates of arrival and convent foundation21.

  • 22 Little 1951, p. 10.
  • 23 Little 1951, p. 22.
  • 24 Little 1951, p. 20.
  • 25 Little 1951, p. 9-10.
  • 26 Little 1951, p. 7.
  • 27 CLR 1226-40 1916, p. 209.
  • 28 Ibid., 230, 290, 347, 394, 404, 441.

6Since the Franciscans had come to stay rather than to visit, temporary accommodation was soon replaced by more permanent structures. In the early phase these were buildings already in existence: in London an apparently vacant house in Cornhill ward owned by one of the city’s sheriffs, in Cambridge the old synagogue, which was also not used at the time22. Since the friars, who were adjacent to the town’s prison, shared the same entrance with the gaolers, the site was deemed unsuitable and exchanged for an empty space where a chapel was built for them, a timber-framed building which was so small that it only took a day to construct23. The group which had remained in Canterbury were also given a plot of land where a chapel was constructed for them24. The Franciscans of Northampton also left their first residence and moved into a house made available for them and the same happened in Oxford, where they had lived with the Dominicans for a week25. These first permanent residences were provided by local people or by royal initiative. This was also the case in Shrewsbury, one of the few county towns where the Minorites arrived after 124026. They were of two types: already existing ordinary residential buildings or small chapels. A royal intervention in the matter of a rent payment due from the Franciscans in Nottingham for « a house […] in which the Friars Minors dwell », from 1233 could indicate that they inhabited an already existing building rather than a purpose-built convent27. By now the friars were having a first impact on the urban topography – with the creation of small chapels or churches, as at Salisbury in September 1233, when the building was sufficiently advanced to receive a roof of wooden shingles or at Reading in 1237, when the Minorite chapel received its wood panelling or at Northampton in 1238, at Winchester in 1239 and at Gloucester in 124028. The fast move into the major English towns suggests deliberate, planned action and so does the conversion of provisional sites into permanent convents, however, the Franciscans do not appear to have had a choice of site. Within the towns they had to accept whatever site was available and given to them.

  • 29 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 334.
  • 30 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 369.
  • 31 Little 1951, p. 21; Kingsford 1915, p. 146 : ad inhospitandum … pauperes fratres minores, quamdiu v (...)
  • 32 CLR 1226-40 1916, p. 282.

7While the Franciscans in many English towns were still happy to accept whatever accommodation was offered to them, in Scarborough29 perhaps as late 1245, and in Chichester as late as 126930, the London Grey Friars introduced a new approach to the problem of finding a suitable site after they had spent one year in an empty building. This approach had two elements: firstly they decided to create a permanent convent and secondly they tried to obtain a site of their own choice. Thomas of Eccleston reports that their key supporter in the city purchased a site for them which he then gave to the city for the use of the Franciscans: qui emptam pro fratribus aream communitati civium appropriavit. The surviving transfer document proves the accuracy of this account, by 1226 the London Franciscans were given a site of their own choice, an assumption justified by the fact that they remained in the location until the dissolution of their convent in the sixteenth century31. With this decision to remain permanently in towns and to find suitable sites, which can be observed in most of its provinces, the order began to shape the development and the topography of its host towns. In the case of England this process of site acquisition and precinct development can be observed in a number of towns. Royal intervention, e.g. the purchase of a plot of land by the king for the use of the friars, as at Winchester in 1238 will have facilitated the process32. It could last into the fourteenth century and required a high degree of determination maintained by generations of friars.

  • 33 « The site then given was outside the town wall between the Wyle Cop and the river, a marshy place (...)
  • 34 CPR 1258-66 1910, p. 342.
  • 35 « The house was established on an island formed by the rivers Cheswold and Don at the bottom of Fra (...)
  • 36 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 451.
  • 37 Martin 1937, p. 103 ; Owen 1984, p. 19.
  • 38 Craster - Thornton 1934,p. 67.
  • 39 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 207 ; Green 1796, I, p. 243.
  • 40 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652.
  • 41 Little 1951, p. 23.
  • 42 Hutton 1926, p. 90.
  • 43 Ferris 2001, p. 98.
  • 44 Martin 1936, p. 43.
  • 45 Hutton 1926, p. 66.
  • 46 Stüdeli 1969 ; Mindermann 1998, p. 83-103.

8Looking at the locations of Franciscan convents in English towns, a clear pattern emerges. One of the preferred types of site for the friaries was close to a river, the Severn in the case of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth33, the Stour in the case of Canterbury, where a bridge was built in 126434, the Ouse in York, on an island formed by two rivers in Doncaster35 and similar locations were chosen in Dorchester, Oxford36 and Lynn, where the convent, situated in the parish of St James, was close to the Mill Fleet stream37. On these sites the advantage of a water current had to be weighed against the risk of flooding, which e.g. affected both York and Doncaster in 131538. Sites on the periphery of the town, near the town wall, can be found in Chichester, Southampton and Worcester while the friars in Lewes had their convent near the town ditch39. At Lincoln, where the first property was close to the old guildhall, the friary also extended towards the town wall40. Preference was also given to areas near the town gates, as at Northampton, where the Minorites were first housed outside the East Gate before being moved into the town41, at Stamford and at Winchester. In Chester they were located near the Water Gate42. Not least because the friaries could expand and take up more place both these types of location could be combined so that a number of Franciscan houses were both close to a gate and extending along the wall, as in London, Colchester and Exeter. The Grey Friars of Gloucester had a similar location. Their convent precinct did not immediately abut on either wall or gate but eventually extended to the southern and eastern sides of the town wall. Even a turret in the fortification was left to the friars’ use43. A closer look at town plans reveals that the Franciscans in Gloucester, Lincoln, Chichester, Colchester and London had chosen a site in the corner of the old Roman town, the Roman wall or its later replacement forming the precinct boundary44. These sites provided a certain amount of seclusion but they restricted the potential for the enlargement and development. On the other hand many of them were easy to reach, like those near the gates or those close to important roads. Reasonably convenient access was also regarded as important in other locations, the friary at Reading being an example45. These types of site correspond to those identified in the towns of other provinces46.

  • 47 In nonnullis quoque locis ita inconsiderate se collocaverat fratrum simplicitas, ut non areas ampli (...)
  • 48 Moorman 1983, p. 102 ; Röhrkasten 2010, p. 115.
  • 49 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 369 ; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 197.
  • 50 Little 1951, p. 23-24.
  • 51 Hutton 1926, p. 67.
  • 52 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 334.
  • 53 Röhrkasten 2008, p. 58-62; Müller 2008, p. 182-197.
  • 54 Hutton 1926, p. 65, 75-6 ; Moorman 1983, p. 169 ; Knowles - Hadcock 1971, p. 191.

9A deliberate choice of site is most probable in those cases, where an already existing convent was relocated. Such sites had to be identified by the friars and the process first of all to obtain and then to develop them was complex and lengthy but it could be done on the basis of detailed knowledge of local conditions. It can be safely assumed that while the first generation of friars was not related to local families, the novices who joined the order often were so that there was detailed knowledge of local society and of the respective convent’s environment. Thomas of Eccleston tried to explain the necessity to relocate a convent with the friars own simplicitas : in some cases they had failed to pay sufficient attention to the possibilities offered by the area and had neglected to think about the restrictions of the site they were given, so that the necessary extentions of convent precincts were not possible47. The relocation of a Franciscan convent occurred at Cambridge, perhaps around 1265, when the original area, the old synagogue, which had been extended earlier on, was abandoned48. A few years later, in 1269, the Franciscans of Chichester were given a new site near the town wall by Richard of Cornwall. The old convent buildings were given to one of the town’s hospitals in 128549. In Northampton the Minorites moved from the East Gate to the northern part of the town50. The first Franciscan convent in Reading, though near a road, had not been convenient because it was at a distance from the town and situated on unsuitable, marshy underground. A new area was provided within the town, however, this was a complicated process because lordship was held by Reading priory which had resisted the Franciscan presence from the start51. A similar situation faced the Grey Friars at Scarborough where the Cistercians initially prevented the creation of a Franciscan convent. The Franciscans refrained from moving into the town but they remained in the vicinity until a plot of land was provided by king Henry III.52 Better known is the situation at Bury St Edmunds, a town in the lordship of the Benedictine abbey which kept the friars at bay in the 1230s during first attempts to create a convent here. Another attempt in 1258 was supported by the English king who instructed one of his justices to ensure that the friars were allowed to enter the town. The site of this convent within Bury St Edmunds is no longer known because the abbot and convent appealed to the pope and the Grey Friars were ordered to abandon the precinct by pope Urban IV in 1263. The friars’ formal submission to the Benedictines was probably part of a negotiated settlement because they were allowed to create a convent outside the town, about a mile away, at Babwell53. In two coastal towns the removal of Franciscan convents was necessitated by natural desasters. The destruction of Winchelsea in a storm in 1267 led to the relocation of the whole settlement and steady coastal erosion at Dunwich meant that a new site for the convent had to be found in 128954. Very exceptional was the situation at Llanfaes, a convent founded in or after 1237 by Llwelleyn ap Iorwerth, prince of Wales, as a burial site for his wife Joan. Following an uprising against English overlordship the town was moved to a settlement around the new castle of Beaumaris in 1296 and the friary remained behind. According to the Franciscan chronicler Thomas there was a key reason for abandoning a site, the impossibility to enlarge the area. The examples given here show that there could also be other reasons, the resistance of older religious institutions or uncontrollable factors like soil erosion. The subject raises a number of questions, e.g. subsequent use of abandoned areas and the use of building materials.

  • 55 Little 1951, p. 44-5.
  • 56 Patent Rolls 1225-32 1903, p. 422-3 ; Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 495-6 ; CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652 (...)
  • 57 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 152, 494 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 218, 222-223 ; TNA C 143/80/18; CPR 1317-21 19 (...)
  • 58 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 447 ; CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 8.
  • 59 TNA C 143/73/8 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 178.
  • 60 TNA C 143/11/13 : si concedamus dilectis nobis in Christo fratribus de ordine minorum quod quandam (...)
  • 61 TNA C 143/26/13.

10The gradual enlargement of Franciscan convent precincts had a significant impact on the development of the host towns. Buildings and space used for a variety of purposes – ranging from living space, space used for commercial activities or paths and streets open to the public – were turned into constituent parts of the religious precincts and withdrawn from public use. The enlargement of Franciscan convents became a policy under Haymo of Faversham who wanted his friars to gain a degree of independence by being able to grow their own food. Franciscan houses were to have gardens wherever that was possible55. The process of gradual property acquisition can be studied in detail in the case of the London Grey Friars where it began in 1227 and ended in 1353. Here an area of substantial size was acquired which housed the largest Franciscan church in the kingdom and numerous outbuildings, including two cloisters, a large quadrangle near the church which was probably accessible to the public and a smaller cloister to the west which the friars may have reserved for the own use. This Franciscan expansion in London is likely to have reduced the trading area available to the butchers and this was only a part of the overall mendicant impact, the relocation of the Dominican convent into the city even necessitating a part rebuilding of the town wall. The effect in other, smaller towns, must have been at least as significant. The grants did not just consist of plots of land but also of lanes and streets running along the convent which in many instances were enclosed by the friars. Such land acquisitions were only permissible after a royal licence had been obtained and since this involved certain administrative procedures, the process is well documented. In Lincoln, where a first extension of the Franciscan convent in 1231 was followed by another in 1237, a lane adjoining the precinct was enclosed in 1258. A further expansion was envisaged a hundred years later, after the Black Death, in 135056. In Oxford, where additional parcels of land were granted to the friars before 1236, in 1246, in 1310, twice in 1319 when they also obtained property formerly used by the Friars of the Penitence of Jesus Christ, in 1321 and in 133757, streets were enclosed and the area given to the convent in 1244 and in 124858. On the first of these occasions the street concerned went parallel to the town wall which was taken down and which had to be replaced by the friars with the new double function as town wall and convent boundary. Such increases in the size of convent areas and especially the enclosure of streets were an important change to the use of urban space. Although access to areas previously open to the public was restricted, this was not necessarily to the disadvantage of the town. The Grey Friars of Canterbury offered to build a bridge and provide access to the townspeople to their church in 130959 and sometimes the friars’ petition was only granted if certain specified conditions were met. In Oxford the Franciscans had to replace the town wall and in York, where they were allowed to enclose a lane leading to mills near York Castle, they were required to provide alternative access and there are a few cases where similar conditions were made.60 However, in most instances Franciscan requests were granted unconditionally and it was rare to encounter resistance to the friars’ plans, as in 1297, when the town government of Scarborough petitioned that their request not be granted because a grant would have led to interference with other – private – property61.

11If we discount the scale of the property transfers and just look at the chronological distribution of Franciscan land acquisition in the host towns, we find that there was an increase after 1280. While the decades before this time have a total of between four and nine land acquisitions per decade this increases to between twelve and sixteen per decade in the years 1280 to 1320. Another increase occurred in the 1330s with twelve transactions while the figure then dropped off to just three in the years 1340 to 1348, one of these being due to the foundation of a new friary at Walsingham in Norfolk. This picture changed again during and after the Black Death which arrived in England in the autumn of 1348. In the four years between 1349 and 1353 nine further land grants to the Franciscans were authorised by the Crown. After this time no further significant changes occurred until the dissolution of the religious houses in England when the precincts gradually disintegrated under different lease agreements and reverted to wholly secular, urban use.

  • 62 Kingsford 1915, p. 147.
  • 63 Patent Rolls 1225-32 1903, p. 422-423.
  • 64 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 152.
  • 65 Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 433, 495-6, 497.
  • 66 Close Rolls 1237-42 1911, p. 61 ; Kingsford 1915, p. 147.
  • 67 Ibid., p. 147-148.
  • 68 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 447.
  • 69 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 339.
  • 70 Ibid., 447 ; CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 494.
  • 71 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 8.
  • 72 Kingsford 1915, p. 148.
  • 73 The transactions for 1249 and 1251: ibid., p. 149.
  • 74 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652.
  • 75 Kingsford 1915, p. 149-150.
  • 76 Ibid., p. 149.
  • 77 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 260-261.
  • 78 Ibid., p. 530.
  • 79 TNA C 143/4/12.
  • 80 Colchester: TNA C 143/4/20 ; CPR 1272-81 1901, p. 299 ; Nottingham : TNA C 143/4/18. London : Kings (...)
  • 81 Canterbury : TNA C 143/5/1 ; CCR 1272-79 1900, p. 543. York : TNA C 143/5/3 ; CPR 1272-81 1901, p.  (...)
  • 82 Kingsford 1915, p. 151.
  • 83 The transactions of 1282, 1283 and 1284, ibid., p. 152.
  • 84 Colchester : TNA C 143/9/8; Norwich: TNA C 143/9/14; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 15; Yarmouth: TNA C 143/9 (...)
  • 85 Ibid., 153.
  • 86 TNA C 143/11/13.
  • 87 Coventry: TNA C 143/12/24 ; Colchester: TNA C 143/12/22.
  • 88 Southampton : TNA C 143/13/11 ; Dunwich : TNA C 143/13/24 ; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 383 ; Yarmouth : i (...)
  • 89 Exeter : TNA C 143/17/4 ; C 143/18/10 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 153.
  • 90 Norwich : CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 493 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 153-154.
  • 91 TNA C 143/19/9 ; CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 14 ; CFR 1272-1307 1911, I, p. 322.
  • 92 Kingsford 1915, p. 154.
  • 93 TNA C 143/23/7.
  • 94 Norwich : TNA C 143/26/3 ; CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 256 ; Scarborough : TNA C 143/26/13.
  • 95 CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 412-413.
  • 96 Kingsford 1915, p. 154.
  • 97 Ibid., p. 154-155.
  • 98 CPR 1301-7 1898, p. 267.
  • 99 Grimsby : TNA C 143/52/22 ; Stafford : TNA C 143/55/13 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 155.
  • 100 Ibid., p. 155-156.
  • 101 Canterbury : TNA C 143/73/8 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 178 ; Colchester: TNA C 143/71/1 ; CPR 1307-13 1 (...)
  • 102 Bedford : CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 276 ; Colchester : TNA C 143/77/5 ; Oxford : TNA C 143/80/18 ; CPR 1 (...)
  • 103 Kingsford 1915, p. 156 (also 1313).
  • 104 TNA C 143/93/13 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 597.
  • 105 Lynn : TNA C 143/101/9 ; York : CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 166.
  • 106 Doncaster : TNA C 143/110/10 ; Scarborough : CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 355.
  • 107 Kingsford 1915, p. 157.
  • 108 TNA C 143/130/12.
  • 109 TNA C 143/136/6 ; C 143/140/5 ; CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 314.
  • 110 Scarborough : TNA C 143/139/6 ; Southampton : TNA C 143/190/2.
  • 111 CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 579, 585.
  • 112 TNA C 143/207/15.
  • 113 TNA C 143/202/20 ; CPR 1327-30 1891, p. 260.
  • 114 Ibid., p. 465.
  • 115 Cambridge : TNA C 143/218/14 ; CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 261 ; Ipswich : TNA C 143/218/9 ; C 143/218/13  (...)
  • 116 CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 261, 360.
  • 117 TNA C 143/226/2.
  • 118 Grantham : CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 117 ; Canterbury : TNA C 143/235/7.
  • 119 CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 248.
  • 120 Ibid., p. 497.
  • 121 CPR 1338-40 1898, p. 14, 108, 110.
  • 122 Norfolk Record Office KL/C50/526.
  • 123 CPR 1348-50 1905, p. 7, 85 ; TNA C 143/291/21.
  • 124 TNA C 143/295/25.
  • 125 TNA C 143/299/10 ; C 143/299/19.
  • 126 TNA C 143/303/5.
  • 127 Kingsford 1915, p. 157.
  • 128 London : ibid. ; Cambridge : TNA C 143/311/5 ; Bedford : TNA C 143/312/19 ; Bristol : TNA C 143/311 (...)

1227

London62

1231

Lincoln63

1236

Oxford64

1237

Colchester

Lincoln

York65

1238

Cambridge

London66

1242

London

London67

1244

Oxford68

1245

Chester69

1246

Gloucester

Oxford70

1248

Oxford71

1249

London

London72

1251

London

London

1252

London73

1258

Lincoln74

1260

London

London

London

London

London75

1261

London76

1268

York77

1271

Yarmouth78

1276

Nottingham79

1278

Colchester

Nottingham

London80

1279

Canterbury

York81

1281

London

London

London82

1282

London

1283

London

1284

London83

1285

Colchester

Norwich

Yarmouth

Gloucester

London84

1287

London85

1288

York86

1289

Coventry

Colchester87

1290

Southampton

Dunwich

Yarmouth

York

London88

1291

Exeter

London89

1292

Norwich

London90

1293

Colchester91

1294

London92

1295

Carmarthen93

1297

Norwich

Scarborough94

1299

Norwich95

1301

London

London96

1302

London

London

1303

London97

1304

Beverley98

1305

Grimsby

Stafford

London99

1306

London100

1309

Canterbury

Colchester101

1310

Bedford

Colchester

Oxford102

1311

London103

1313

Grimsby104

London

1314

Lynn

York105

1315

Doncaster

Scarborough106

1316

London107

1317

Grimsby108

1319

Oxford

Oxford

Oxford109

1320

Scarborough

Southampton110

1321

Oxford111

1327

Carmarthen112

1328

Cambridge113

1329

Lichfield114

1331

Cambridge

Ipswich

Boston115

1332

Boston

Chester116

1333

Grantham117

1335

Grantham

Canterbury118

1336

Canterbury119

1337

Oxford120

1338

Colchester

Ware121

1340

Lynn122

1348

Walsingham

Colchester123

1349

Leicester124

1350

Bodmin

Lincoln125

1351

Walsingham126

1352

London127

1353

Cambridge

London

Bedford

Bristol128

  • 129 Little 1951, p. 98. This assessment was made despite that fact that the Franciscan church in Oxford (...)
  • 130 Little 1951, p. 44-45.
  • 131 Ibid., p. 38.
  • 132 Ibid., p. 23.
  • 133 Ibid., p. 79.
  • 134 Ibid., p. 45 et al.
  • 135 Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 500.
  • 136 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 339.

12It is possible to shed some light on Franciscan building activities which began when the friars moved out of temporary accommodation into more permanent convents. The first Franciscan buildings were wooden structures, perhaps reflecting the architecture of the early Italian friaries. External support for the Minorites in the form of donation of buildings led to problems in the province because opinions varied as to how the order’s characteristic ideal of poverty should be preserved. Existing houses, as in the cases of London, Cambridge or Northampton, soon turned out to be unsuitable. They had to be replaced by structures which were specifically designed to house a religious community but they had to conform to the friars’ lifestyle. In May 1248 John of Parma, the minister general, celebrated the provincial chapter at Oxford in quo confirmavit constitutiones provinciales de parsimonia et paupertate aedificiorum129. Here was a potential disagreement with the English provincial prior William of Nottingham who thought it was better to concede buildings of generous size so that there would be no subsequent temptation to create an architecture which really could not be brought into accord with Franciscan ideals.130 In a number of places there were disputes about the form of new buildings or the way in which they had been embellished. A visitation in Gloucester led to sanctions because of the windows in the friars’ chapel and the provincial also objected to the decoration of their pulpit131. In Shrewsbury, where members of the laity had provided a dormitory with stone walls, the building had to be altered – at great cost, as Thomas of Eccleston reminds his readers – into a wood and mud wall construction132. This was, of course, known to the population and to those who had provided the funds and it is likely to have alienated wellwishers. At Southampton, where the provincial minister Albert of Pisa wanted to remove the cloister, this was only possible with great difficulty quia scilicet homines villae se obiecerunt133. In London, too, there were features of the cloister which were regarded as unsuitable and the question whether the friary should be enclosed by a wall led to a sharp exchange between two of the brethren134. Disputes like these lay at the root of legislation about architectural restrictions in the Franciscan constitutions. However, the disagreements did not stop the trend to replace wooden buildings with more substantial stone structures. This can be seen from the provision of stones as building material at Lincoln in 1237135or at Chester in 1245136.

  • 137 Salisbury : CCR 1288-96 1904, p. 82.
  • 138 Shrewsbury, Worcester, Winchester : CPR 1258-66 1910, p. 39.
  • 139 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 113.

13From the middle of the thirteenth century onwards Franciscan churches became an addition to the often already rich ecclesiastical presence in many English towns137. The most prominent among them was the church of the London Minorites where construction work extended over almost half a century. However, apart from the obvious topographical markers, the churches and their spires, there were other features which have been often overlooked. In some cases, notably in Shrewsbury, Worcester and Winchester the Franciscans gained the right to have separate postern gates through the town walls138. In 1267 the friars’ gate in the town wall of Shrewsbury was to be widened so that even carts could pass through139. This gave them a high degree of freedom to move into the countryside, importantly independence from curfew restrictions.

  • 140 Little 1951, p. 21 ; CLR 1251-1260 1959, p. 274.
  • 141 TNA C 143/4/20 : quemdam aque ductum a fonte quem habere (se dicunt) ex concessione Nicholai de la (...)
  • 142 CCR 1279-88 1902, p. 163.
  • 143 TNA C 143/41/15 ; CPR 1301-7 1898, p. 131 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 383.
  • 144 TNA C 143/13/11 : concedamus Nicholao de Baymflet quod ipse dare possit et assignare dilectis nobis (...)
  • 145 TNA C 143/190/2 ; CPR 1327-30 1891, p. 12.
  • 146 TNA C 143/4/18.
  • 147 CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 442.
  • 148 CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 597.
  • 149 TNA C 143/101/9 ; CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 128.
  • 150 Ibid., p. 377-378, 398.
  • 151 CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 128, 398, 597 ; TNA C 143/101/9 ; CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 377-378. CPR 1330-34 18 (...)
  • 152 CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 85.

14In the case of those convents not conveniently located near a river, the friars pursued a policy of gaining their own water supplies. For this they acquired springs, often outside the urban area. Water conduits and aqueducts connected these springs with the convents, requiring the friars to enter into complex negotiations about permission to cross land under private ownership and to have access to the usually underground culverts for the purpose of maintenance and repair. For the London Grey Friars, who appear to have been the first to obtain this facility, in 1256, we know that the costs for the aqueduct were shared by two prominent citizens140. The friars of Colchester had already acquired their spring outside the town when they applied for the construction of an aqueduct in 1278. Since their convent was located inside the town, the town wall had to be either breached or a tunnel had to be constructed beneath it. Nevertheless the members of the jury who reported on the impact of this building project were not entirely unfavourable for as long as proper repairs were carried out : Dicunt etiam quod si aqua predicta duceretur sub muro ville predicte non erit ad dampnum eiusdem muri nec ville predicte dum tamen dicti fratres reficiant seu adimplent (illam) trencheam quam reparare (seu emendare) poterunt141. In 1282 the Franciscans of Nottingham gained permission to construct a similar water supply142. The work seems to have been more complicated than anticipated or the spring was not suitable because in 1303 another licence was issues for a water supply from a different spring. The project was still under way in 1311143. The complexities of the work involved emerge in other examples, e.g. Southampton where the Minorites were licensed to build an aqueduct in 1290144. It is not clear whether any action was taken at the time because another licence was granted more than thirty years later, in 1327, when it was again specified that water pipes would have to be laid underground. There may have been uncertainty about the route of the conduit because on this occasion, the jury of townspeople having expressed their support, a path was mapped out145. The Franciscans in Northampton were permitted to provide themselves with their own water supply from a spring in 1278 but the spring “Froxwell” does not appear to have been suitable146. In 1291 they were granted another license, this time relating to a spring called “Triwell”, on condition that they compensated those landowners whose estates would be affected147. Water supplies for the Franciscans were also provided in other English and Welsh towns. The complexities of the work and perhaps also negotiations with those whose properties were affected – and it needs to be kept in mind that most licences did not just cover the building phase but subsequent access for maintenance – meant that these efforts continued into the fourteenth century. In Grimsby, where the conduit was to cross two properties apart from the king’s lands, a licence was granted in 1313148. The Franciscans of Lynn in the custody of Cambridge followed in 1314149. In Exeter and Scarborough the royal permits were granted a few years later, in 1316 and 1319 respectively, so that up to four such building projects were being pursued in the English province at the same time150. In the Welsh town of Carmarthen the friars had been permitted in 1284 to use an already existing water course. Plans for a separate aqueduct had been finalised by 1331151. In contrast the Grey Friars of York were supplying themselves from a well in 1335152. It is not known whether these facilities were just for the friars’ own use or whether access was granted to members of the laity. In such a case Franciscan friaries would have offered an additional attraction, becoming the meeting places of servants and others.

  • 153 Summerson 1993, I, p. 124, 178.
  • 154 Röhrkasten 2006, p. 135-151.

15While the arrival of the Franciscan had little effect on English towns, the creation and especially the development of their convents led to significant changes of the topography of the towns affected. These included changes in the use of urban space and alterations to fortifications. The friars’ building activities often extended over long periods of time. Provisional structures or earlier buildings found on site were gradually replaced by chapels and convent buildings which formed the architectural focus of precinct areas which also underwent change, increasing in size until the middle of the fourteenth century. There were setbacks, a few unsuccessful foundation attempts or natural desasters as in Carlisle where the Franciscan house may have been destroyed in the great fire of 1251 and certainly was gutted in another conflagration later in the thirteenth century, in 1292153. Royal as well as civic contributions led to the creation of sacred space which could also be used for secular purposes, for meetings, to deposit muniments or money or for business transactions154. In conjunction with other mendicant houses, the Franciscan friaries made a significant impact on the topography of many English towns. In many cases small parcels of land had to be acquired to be formed into a coherent area occupied by a church and conventual buildings. In the case of smaller settlements their appearance underlined the urban character of the town. However, the friaries also disturbed earlier topographical arrangements, changing land use and sometimes occupying public space.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Sources et bibliographie

Billson 1920 = C. J. Billson, Mediaeval Leicester, Leicester, 1920.

Blomefield 1805-10 = F. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, 11 vols., London2, 1805-10.

CCR 1272-79 1900 = Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1272-79, London, 1900.

CCR 1279-88 1902 = Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1279-88, London, 1902.

CCR 1288-96 1904 = Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1288-96, London, 1904.

CCR 1307-13 1892 = Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1307-13, London, 1892.

CFR 1272-1307 1911 = Calendar of Fine Rolls, I, 1272-1307, London, 1911.

Close Rolls 1234-37 1908 = Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III 1234-37, London, 1908,

Close Rolls 1237-42 1911 = Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III 1237-42, London, 1911.

Close Rolls 1242-47 1916 = Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III 1242-47, London, 1916.

CLR 1226-40 1916 = Calendar of the Liberate Rolls 1226-40, London, 1916.

CLR 1251-1260 1959 = Calendar of Liberate Rolls 1251-1260, London, 1959.

Cooper 1842-1908 = C. H. Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, 5 vol. , Cambridge, 1842-1908.

Cotton 1924 = C. Cotton, The Grey Friars of Canterbury 1224 to 1538, Manchester 1924 (British Society of Franciscan Studies, Extra Series, 2).

CPR 1232-47 1906 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1232-47, London, 1906.

CPR 1247-58 1908 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1247-58, London, 1908.

CPR 1258-66 1910 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1258-66, London, 1910.

CPR 1266-72 1913 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1266-72, London, 1913.

CPR 1272-81 1901 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1272-81, London, 1901.

CPR 1281-92 1893 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1281-92, London 1893.

CPR 1292-1301 1895 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1292-1301, London, 1895.

CPR 1301-7 1898 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1301-7, London, 1898.

CPR 1307-13 1894 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1307-13, London, 1894.

CPR 1313-17 1898 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1313-17, London, 1898.

CPR 1317-21 1903 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1317-21, London, 1903.

CPR 1327-30 1891 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1327-30, London, 1891.

CPR 1330-34 1893 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1330-34, London, 1893.

CPR 1334-38 1895 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1334-38, London, 1895.

CPR 1338-40 1898 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1338-40, London, 1898.

CPR 1348-50 1905 = Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office 1348-50, London, 1905.

Craster - Thornton 1934 = The Chronicle of St. Mary’s Abbey, eds. H. Craster, M. Thornton, York, London, 1934.

Dickinson 1956 = J. C. Dickinson, The Shrine of Our Lady at Walsingham, Cambridge, 1956.

Ferris 2001 = I. M. Ferris, Excavations at Greyfriars, Gloucester, in 1967 and 1974-5, in Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 119, 2001, p. 95-146.

Green 1796 = V. Green, The History and Antiquities of the City and Suburbs of Worcester, 2 vols., London, 1796.

Hill 1965 = F. Hill, Medieval Lincoln, Cambridge, 1965.

Howards 1925 = F. R. B. Howards, The Grey Friars’ Cloisters, Great Yarmouth, in Journal of the British Archaeological Association, n.s. 31, 1925, p. 107-109.

Hudson - Tingey 1906-10 = The Records of the City of Norwich, ed. W. Hudson, J. C. Tingey, 2 vol. , Norwich, 1906-10.

Hutton 1926 = E. Hutton, The Franciscans in England 1224-1538, London, 1926.

Huygens 1960 = Jacques de Vitry, Lettres, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Leiden, 1960.

Kingsford 1915 = C. L. Kingsford (ed.), The Grey Friars of London. Their History with the Register of their Convent and an Appendix of Documents, Aberdeen, 1915 (British Society of Franciscan Studies, 6).

Kirkpatrick 1845 = J. Kirkpatrick, History of the Religious Orders and Communities, and of the Hospitals and Castle, of Norwich, Yarmouth, 1845.

Knowles - Hadcock 1971 = D. Knowles, R. N. Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, England and Wales, Harlow 1971.

Leader 1988 = D. R. Leader, A History of the University of Cambridge. I, The University to 1546, Cambridge, 1988.

Little 1892 = A. G. Little, The Grey Friars in Oxford, Oxford, 1892 (Oxford Historical Society, 20).

Little 1943 = A. G. Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, Manchester, 1943 (Publications of the University of Manchester 284, Historical Series, 81).

Little 1951 = Fratris Thomae vulgo dicti de Eccleston Tractatus de Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. A. G. Little, Manchester, 1951.

Mapelli 2003 = F. J. Mapelli, L’amministrazione francescana di Inghilterra e Francia. Personale di governo e strutture dell’Ordine fino al Concilio di Vienne (1311), Rome, 2003.

Martin 1936 = A. R. Martin, The Greyfriars of Lincoln, in Archaeological Journal, 2nd s., 92, 1936, p. 42-63.

Martin 1937 = A. R. Martin, Franciscan Architecture in England, Manchester, 1937 (BSFS, 18).

Mindermann 1998 = A. Mindermann, Bettelordenskloster und Stadttopographie. Warum lagen Bettelordensklöster am Stadtrand ?, in D. Berg (ed.), Könige, Landesherren und Bettelorden. Konflikt und Kooperation in West- und Mitteleuropa bis zur frühen Neuzeit, Werl, 1998, p. 83-103.

Moorman 1952 = J. R. H. Moorman, The Grey Friars in Cambridge, 1225-1538, Cambridge, 1952.

Moorman 1983 = J. R. H. Moorman, Medieval Franciscan Houses, St. Bonaventure, 1983 (Franciscan Institute Publications. History Series, 4).

Müller 2008 = A. Müller, Lokale Grenzen universaler Expansion : Fallstudien zu Geltungskämpfen zwischen Franziskanern und Benediktinern in der mittelalterlichen englischen Stadt, in R. Andraschek-Holzer, H. Specht (eds.), Mendikanten in Stadt und Land, St Pölten, 2008, p. 182-197.

Owen 1984 = The Making of King’s Lynn. A Documentary Survey, ed. D. M. Owen, Gloucester, 1984 (Records of Social and Economic History, n.s. 9).

Patent Rolls 1225-32 1903 = Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III 1225-32, London, 1903.

Robson 1997 = M. Robson, The Franciscans in the Medieval Custody of York, York, 1997 (University of York, Borthwick Paper, 93).

Robson 2010 = M. Robson, The Greyfriars of Lincoln, c.1230-1330 : The Establishment of the Friary and the Friars’ Ministry and Life in the City and its Environs, in M. Robson, J. Röhrkasten (eds.), Franciscan Organisation in the Mendicant Context. Formal and informal structures of the friars’ lives and ministry in the Middle Ages, Berlin, 2010 (Vita regularis, Abhandlungen, 44), p. 113-137.

Röhrkasten 2004 = J. Röhrkasten, The Mendicant Houses of Medieval London 1221-1539, Münster, 2004 (Vita regularis, 21).

Röhrkasten 2006 = J. Röhrkasten, Secular Uses of the Mendicant Priories of Medieval London, in P. Trio, M. de Smet (eds.), The Use and Abuse of Sacred Places in Late Medieval Towns, Leuven, 2006 (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia. Series, I / Studia, 38), p. 135-151.

Röhrkasten 2008 = J. Röhrkasten, The Creation and Early History of the Franciscan Custody of Cambridge, in Canterbury Studies in Franciscan History, I, Canterbury, 2008, p. 51-81.

Röhrkasten 2010 = J. Röhrkasten, Friars and the Laity in the Franciscan Custody of Cambridge, in The Friars in Medieval Britain, ed. N. Rogers, Donington, 2010 (Harlaxton Medieval Studies, 19), p. 107-124.

Sheehan 1984 = M. W. Sheehan, The Religious Orders 1220-1370, in T. H. Aston (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, I, J. I. Catto (ed.), The Early Oxford Schools, Oxford, 1984, p. 193-221.

Stevenson 1839 = Chronicon de Lanercost (1201-1346), ed. J. Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1839.

Stüdeli 1969 = B. Stüdeli, Minoritenniederlassungen und mittelalterliche Stadt. Beiträge zur Bedeutung von Minoriten- und anderen Mendikantenanlagen im öffentlichen Leben der mittelalterlichen Stadtgemeinde, insbesondere der deutschen Schweiz, Werl, 1969 (Franziskanische Forschungen, 21).

Summerson 1993 = H. Summerson, Medieval Carlisle : The City and the Borders from the Late Eleventh to the Mid-Sixteenth Century, 2 vol. , Stroud, 1993 (Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. Extra Series, 25).

TNA = The National Archives, London.

Weare 1893 = G. E. Weare, A Collectanea Relating to the Bristol Friars Minor and their Convent, Bristol, 1893.

Yates 1969 = W. N. Yates, The Attempt to Establish a Dominican Priory at Hereford, 1246-1342, in Downside Review, 87, 1969, p. 254-267.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Little 1951, p. 6 ; Cotton 1924, p. 1-4.

2 Little 1951, p. 6 ; Kingsford 1915, p. 15 ; Röhrkasten 2004, p. 43.

3 Little 1892, p. 1-4.

4 Blomefield 1805-10, IV, p. 107 ; Kirkpatrick 1845, p. 104, 108-118, this work was published c. 120 years after it was written ; Hudson - Tingey 1906-10, II, p. xv.

5 Cooper 1842-1908, I, p. 39 ; Moorman 1952, p. 6 ; Leader 1988, p. 25; Röhrkasten 2008, p. 53.

6 Yates 1969, p. 256.

7 Billson 1920, p.78-79.

8 Martin 1936, p. 42-63 ; Hill 1965, p. 207 ; Robson 1997, p. 1 ; Robson 2010, p. 113-137.

9 Summerson 1993, I, p. 103.

10 Moorman 1983, p. 90 ; Weare 1893, p. 11-12.

11 Little 1951, p. 11.

12 Huygens 1960, p. 75-76.

13 Mapelli 2003, p. 39-61.

14 Little 1943, p. 217-21

15 TNA, C 143/216/2 ; CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 113.

16 Howards 1925, p. 107-109.

17 Dickinson 1956, p. 9, 20, 26.

18 Eo tempore quo provinciam intraverunt prope Doveram, apud cujusdam nobilis domini hospitium quaesierunt ut mendici, et acceperunt ut ignoti. Nam in quadam forti camera eos recludens exitum seris obstruxit, ut, mane facto, vicinorum judicio qui essent discuteretur : Stevenson 1839, p. 30.

19 Little 1951, p. 6-7 ; Cotton 1924, p. 5.

20 Little 1951, p. 9-10.

21 In many English towns the first reference to the Franciscan convent is clearly later than the friars’ first arrival.

22 Little 1951, p. 10.

23 Little 1951, p. 22.

24 Little 1951, p. 20.

25 Little 1951, p. 9-10.

26 Little 1951, p. 7.

27 CLR 1226-40 1916, p. 209.

28 Ibid., 230, 290, 347, 394, 404, 441.

29 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 334.

30 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 369.

31 Little 1951, p. 21; Kingsford 1915, p. 146 : ad inhospitandum … pauperes fratres minores, quamdiu voluerint ibi esse.

32 CLR 1226-40 1916, p. 282.

33 « The site then given was outside the town wall between the Wyle Cop and the river, a marshy place liable to flood, on the south-east of the city » : Hutton 1926, p. 90.

34 CPR 1258-66 1910, p. 342.

35 « The house was established on an island formed by the rivers Cheswold and Don at the bottom of Francis Gate at the north end of the Friars’ Bridge » : Hutton 1926, p. 81.

36 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 451.

37 Martin 1937, p. 103 ; Owen 1984, p. 19.

38 Craster - Thornton 1934,p. 67.

39 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 207 ; Green 1796, I, p. 243.

40 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652.

41 Little 1951, p. 23.

42 Hutton 1926, p. 90.

43 Ferris 2001, p. 98.

44 Martin 1936, p. 43.

45 Hutton 1926, p. 66.

46 Stüdeli 1969 ; Mindermann 1998, p. 83-103.

47 In nonnullis quoque locis ita inconsiderate se collocaverat fratrum simplicitas, ut non areas ampliari, sed ex toto domos amoveri oporteret : Little 1951, p. 44.

48 Moorman 1983, p. 102 ; Röhrkasten 2010, p. 115.

49 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 369 ; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 197.

50 Little 1951, p. 23-24.

51 Hutton 1926, p. 67.

52 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 334.

53 Röhrkasten 2008, p. 58-62; Müller 2008, p. 182-197.

54 Hutton 1926, p. 65, 75-6 ; Moorman 1983, p. 169 ; Knowles - Hadcock 1971, p. 191.

55 Little 1951, p. 44-5.

56 Patent Rolls 1225-32 1903, p. 422-3 ; Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 495-6 ; CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652 ; TNA C 143/299/19.

57 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 152, 494 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 218, 222-223 ; TNA C 143/80/18; CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 314, 579, 585 ; TNA C 143/136/6; C 143/140/5 ; CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 497.

58 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 447 ; CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 8.

59 TNA C 143/73/8 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 178.

60 TNA C 143/11/13 : si concedamus dilectis nobis in Christo fratribus de ordine minorum quod quandam venellam que contigua est muro suo ibidem et que se extendit in longitudine et latitudine a via regia usque ad venellam que se ducit versus molendina nostra […] includere […] possint. The jury approved : si predicti fratres minores faciant quandam aliam venellam eiusdem longitudinis et latitudinis, which was to take on the function of the road lost to the public. The licence was granted in January 1290 : CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 338. Already in 1268 the Franciscans of York had received an additional land grant with the proviso that access had to be granted in times of crisis : CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 260-261 ; TNA C 143/139/6: Scarborough 1320.

61 TNA C 143/26/13.

62 Kingsford 1915, p. 147.

63 Patent Rolls 1225-32 1903, p. 422-423.

64 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 152.

65 Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 433, 495-6, 497.

66 Close Rolls 1237-42 1911, p. 61 ; Kingsford 1915, p. 147.

67 Ibid., p. 147-148.

68 CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 447.

69 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 339.

70 Ibid., 447 ; CPR 1232-47 1906, p. 494.

71 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 8.

72 Kingsford 1915, p. 148.

73 The transactions for 1249 and 1251: ibid., p. 149.

74 CPR 1247-58 1908, p. 652.

75 Kingsford 1915, p. 149-150.

76 Ibid., p. 149.

77 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 260-261.

78 Ibid., p. 530.

79 TNA C 143/4/12.

80 Colchester: TNA C 143/4/20 ; CPR 1272-81 1901, p. 299 ; Nottingham : TNA C 143/4/18. London : Kingsford 1915, p. 151.

81 Canterbury : TNA C 143/5/1 ; CCR 1272-79 1900, p. 543. York : TNA C 143/5/3 ; CPR 1272-81 1901, p. 395.

82 Kingsford 1915, p. 151.

83 The transactions of 1282, 1283 and 1284, ibid., p. 152.

84 Colchester : TNA C 143/9/8; Norwich: TNA C 143/9/14; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 15; Yarmouth: TNA C 143/9/4; Gloucester: TNA C 143/8/15; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 152-153.

85 Ibid., 153.

86 TNA C 143/11/13.

87 Coventry: TNA C 143/12/24 ; Colchester: TNA C 143/12/22.

88 Southampton : TNA C 143/13/11 ; Dunwich : TNA C 143/13/24 ; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 383 ; Yarmouth : ibid., p. 358; York : ibid., p. 338; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 153.

89 Exeter : TNA C 143/17/4 ; C 143/18/10 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 153.

90 Norwich : CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 493 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 153-154.

91 TNA C 143/19/9 ; CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 14 ; CFR 1272-1307 1911, I, p. 322.

92 Kingsford 1915, p. 154.

93 TNA C 143/23/7.

94 Norwich : TNA C 143/26/3 ; CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 256 ; Scarborough : TNA C 143/26/13.

95 CPR 1292-1301 1895, p. 412-413.

96 Kingsford 1915, p. 154.

97 Ibid., p. 154-155.

98 CPR 1301-7 1898, p. 267.

99 Grimsby : TNA C 143/52/22 ; Stafford : TNA C 143/55/13 ; London : Kingsford 1915, p. 155.

100 Ibid., p. 155-156.

101 Canterbury : TNA C 143/73/8 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 178 ; Colchester: TNA C 143/71/1 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 157 ; CCR 1307-13 1892, p. 152.

102 Bedford : CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 276 ; Colchester : TNA C 143/77/5 ; Oxford : TNA C 143/80/18 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 218, 222-223.

103 Kingsford 1915, p. 156 (also 1313).

104 TNA C 143/93/13 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 597.

105 Lynn : TNA C 143/101/9 ; York : CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 166.

106 Doncaster : TNA C 143/110/10 ; Scarborough : CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 355.

107 Kingsford 1915, p. 157.

108 TNA C 143/130/12.

109 TNA C 143/136/6 ; C 143/140/5 ; CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 314.

110 Scarborough : TNA C 143/139/6 ; Southampton : TNA C 143/190/2.

111 CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 579, 585.

112 TNA C 143/207/15.

113 TNA C 143/202/20 ; CPR 1327-30 1891, p. 260.

114 Ibid., p. 465.

115 Cambridge : TNA C 143/218/14 ; CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 261 ; Ipswich : TNA C 143/218/9 ; C 143/218/13 ; Boston : TNA C 143/218/11.

116 CPR 1330-34 1893, p. 261, 360.

117 TNA C 143/226/2.

118 Grantham : CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 117 ; Canterbury : TNA C 143/235/7.

119 CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 248.

120 Ibid., p. 497.

121 CPR 1338-40 1898, p. 14, 108, 110.

122 Norfolk Record Office KL/C50/526.

123 CPR 1348-50 1905, p. 7, 85 ; TNA C 143/291/21.

124 TNA C 143/295/25.

125 TNA C 143/299/10 ; C 143/299/19.

126 TNA C 143/303/5.

127 Kingsford 1915, p. 157.

128 London : ibid. ; Cambridge : TNA C 143/311/5 ; Bedford : TNA C 143/312/19 ; Bristol : TNA C 143/311/13.

129 Little 1951, p. 98. This assessment was made despite that fact that the Franciscan church in Oxford was larger than previously thought, Sheehan 1984, p. 195.

130 Little 1951, p. 44-45.

131 Ibid., p. 38.

132 Ibid., p. 23.

133 Ibid., p. 79.

134 Ibid., p. 45 et al.

135 Close Rolls 1234-37 1908, p. 500.

136 Close Rolls 1242-47 1916, p. 339.

137 Salisbury : CCR 1288-96 1904, p. 82.

138 Shrewsbury, Worcester, Winchester : CPR 1258-66 1910, p. 39.

139 CPR 1266-72 1913, p. 113.

140 Little 1951, p. 21 ; CLR 1251-1260 1959, p. 274.

141 TNA C 143/4/20 : quemdam aque ductum a fonte quem habere (se dicunt) ex concessione Nicholai de la Warde extra villam predictam facere possint infra dominicas terras nostras ibidem per medium muri ville predicte usque ad situm suum proprium in eadem villa. Ita quod per conductum illum aqua ducatur a fonte predicto ad ecclesiam et alias officinas fratrum predictorum. CPR 1272-81 1901, p. 299.

142 CCR 1279-88 1902, p. 163.

143 TNA C 143/41/15 ; CPR 1301-7 1898, p. 131 ; CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 383.

144 TNA C 143/13/11 : concedamus Nicholao de Baymflet quod ipse dare possit et assignare dilectis nobis in Christo fratribus Minoribus eiusdem ville Suht’ quendam fontem in manerio ipsius Nicholai de Shyrle existens ; Ita quod fontem illum includere possunt muro lapideo et aquam ex inde per quendam aqueductum subterraneum usque ad ecclesiam eorundem fratrum in villa predicta ducere ; CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 365.

145 TNA C 143/190/2 ; CPR 1327-30 1891, p. 12.

146 TNA C 143/4/18.

147 CPR 1281-92 1893, p. 442.

148 CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 597.

149 TNA C 143/101/9 ; CPR 1313-17 1898, p. 128.

150 Ibid., p. 377-378, 398.

151 CPR 1307-13 1894, p. 128, 398, 597 ; TNA C 143/101/9 ; CPR 1317-21 1903, p. 377-378. CPR 1330-34 1893, p 146 ; TNA C 143/7/5.

152 CPR 1334-38 1895, p. 85.

153 Summerson 1993, I, p. 124, 178.

154 Röhrkasten 2006, p. 135-151.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jens Röhrkasten, « The Convents of the Franciscan Province of Anglia and their Role in the Development of English and Welsh Towns in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries », Mélanges de l’École française de Rome - Moyen Âge [En ligne], 124-1 | 2012, mis en ligne le 30 septembre 2012, consulté le 24 septembre 2017. URL : http://mefrm.revues.org/230 ; DOI : 10.4000/mefrm.230

Haut de page

Auteur

Jens Röhrkasten

University of Birmingham, Department of History, Lecturer in Medieval History - j.roehrkasten[at]bham.ac.uk

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© École française de Rome

Haut de page
  • Logo École française de Rome
  • Revues.org