{"id":8073,"date":"2020-04-01T15:10:36","date_gmt":"2020-04-01T14:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/?p=8073"},"modified":"2020-04-01T17:40:26","modified_gmt":"2020-04-01T16:40:26","slug":"canterbury-mazers-virtual-material-culture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/canterbury-mazers-virtual-material-culture\/","title":{"rendered":"Canterbury mazers – virtual material culture"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

While governments \u2013 national, regional and local, continue to grapple with the situation, and a large number of businesses and charities are equally trying to manage, even survive \u2013 note, for example, the grave problems being experienced in the horticultural and agricultural sectors; universities, too, are feeling the strain. This is certainly the case sorting out what to do for the best for students regarding teaching, assessments and exams, and thus matters of progression and completion of degrees. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Bute Mazer, National Museum of Scotland<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As I mentioned last week, for postgraduates, especially in history, access to archives and libraries is a very major issue, and it is great to report at a very local level the Kent History Postgraduate group has come together, as I would always expect it would, to support each other at this challenging time. Consequently, as well as the main group using Teams, we also have a subsidiary group, as well as more informal groups communicating via older methods such as phone and email. Similarly, supervisors are supporting undergraduate and postgraduates, which from the Centre\u2019s perspective this week has meant two video-link supervisions, again using Teams, and members of the Centre\u2019s staff: Professor Louise Wilkinson, Dr Diane Heath and I have been in communication, not least because we will be saying goodbye to Louise later this month as she moves (virtually at the moment) to Lincoln. As I have said in the past, and everyone I know agrees, she will be a tremendous loss to CCCU, the communities of Canterbury city and cathedral, and from a personal point of view, CKHH. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic opportunity for both Louise and Lincoln, so all at the Centre wish her all the very best for the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Dining using mazers – Luttrell Psalter [copyright British Library]<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Now for something completely different, and although I had thought about featuring civic responsibility in the early Tudor period using evidence from Sandwich and Dover in this part of the blog, instead I have decided to go for virtual material culture as it seems equally appropriate! Consequently, I\u2019m going to return to a favourite item \u2013 the mazer bowl, but those I\u2019m going to talk about no longer survive, rather they \u2018exist\u2019 in an inventory, compiled by the refectorer at Canterbury Christ Church Priory in 1328. To recap, mazers are turned wooden drinking bowls, they were frequently made of maple wood and often have additional decoration in the form of a silver or silver-gilt band around the rim, a medallion at the base, sometimes a foot and rarely a cover. They vary in size, the degree of ornamentation and so quality, and by the late Middle Ages were ubiquitous. Some medallions are plain, but among the 19 designs listed in the Canterbury inventory of 180 mazers were those showing the Virgin Mary, a lion and shield, a rose, a boar, and a vine and winepress. A small number (9) were said to incorporate jewels, perhaps in the foot, as Randulf de Priteswell\u2019s which had 4 in the foot, but some of the other jewels were probably at the base of the mazer. Interestingly, 12 of these mazers had names, some such as Crondale and Knolton may be linked to monks from those places, a cover called angel may have been named for its decoration, but it is far less clear why there were mazers called Hare and Lorechon. However, the most common means of identification in the inventory was the monk \u2018owner\u2019 and a hundred different monks were listed accounting for 148 of the mazers, three men having four each.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For those of you who know about medieval monasteries, you might wonder why I\u2019m mentioning individual ownership instead of talking about articles held in common within the priory. So what is going on? The answer, I think, may be something more complicated than a simple binary of communal\/individual and that\u2019s what I\u2019m going to explore. For only two of the 90 plus named monks so far identified in the inventory were seemingly alive in 1328. A few had been dead for over a century, the earliest being Prior Wibert who had died in 1167, although most had been monks in the late thirteenth century. Moreover, the refectorer\u2019s list appears to have included almost all of these late thirteenth-century brethren because in 1328 there were about 65 monks at the cathedral priory, more than double the number in 1298. Thus, Roger de Holyngbourne was not referring to contemporaries when he identified the mazers but to his deceased brethren to whom the mazers had belonged in the relatively recent past. That is many of the monks in 1328 would have known these men or would have known of them through hearsay. So how were the mazers used and what may they have meant to the community when the monks filed into the refectory twice a day to eat their dinner and supper?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The Pikefish mazer – St John’s hospital, Sandwich<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It is not clear how and when the refectorer acquired each individual mazer, but it seems far more likely that they had been given to the priory by individual monks rather than that the priory had purchased distinctive mazers to give to specific brethren. If this was the case it is significant because it suggests that individual monks offered a mazer to the priory, the particularity of its form a matter of their choice. Even though each monk may have had the use of \u2018his\u2019 bowl while he lived at Canterbury, it was no longer owned by him becoming instead part of the priory\u2019s plate. However, in theory at least, this raises certain difficulties for as a Benedictine house the concept of individuality, especially regarding a monk\u2019s possessions, was an anathema. To hold in common had been St Benedict\u2019s directive, albeit this would not have precluded the giving of a gift to the monastery by those seeking entry. Even though circumstantial, this may suggest that mazers allocated to named monks by Roger in 1328 had been given to the house when those same monks first \u2018turned from the world\u2019 and\/or at their profession. Amongst the ordinances governing the cathedral priory, which comprised \u2018The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc\u2019 and later directives by Archbishop Winchelsey, were those covering the entry of novices and their progress to ordination. Each stage in this move from the secular world to becoming a monk was governed by ritual involving the applicant, the prior and the convent. The first of these occasions was the withdrawal from secular life at which the petitioner sought formal entry to become a novice. The ceremony included his first tonsure and the removal of his secular clothes and their replacement by a monastic habit without a cowl. Notwithstanding an absence of any references in the priory\u2019s archive to gifts given by the petitioner at this time, it would appear to have been a fitting occasion, perhaps seen as marking the new entrant\u2019s abandonment of personal possessions for the communal life of the monastery. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
The cover for the Bute Mazer<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Alternatively, such a gift may have been viewed as more\nappropriate at the time of profession. At this point the novice was received\ninto the convent as a monk, being allowed thereafter to perform all the sacred\nduties except those reserved for priests. The ceremony was long and complex,\ninvolving elements such as the novice\u2019s written profession that was read by him\nto the assembled convent before being placed on the altar, and the removal of\nhis tunic by the prior who then clothed him in his cowl, a symbolic ending of\nhis \u2018old\u2019 life and his beginning as a \u2018new man\u2019. Again, there are no specific\nreferences to the giving of gifts on such occasions, but the donation of a\nmazer might be seen as especially appropriate because of its association with\nhospitality and community. In addition, it had the potential to become a prized\npiece of plate, although the level and type of decoration and embellishment was\npresumably linked to the wealth and status of the donor and his family. Thus,\nthe mazer mattered to the giver and receiver at the time it was given, and if\nthe monk had use of it while at the priory it probably continued to matter to\nhim. As he held it in both hands while drinking ale or wine, as he would the\nchalice, it could have been a twice daily reminder of Christ\u2019s sacrifice, as\nwell as his promise to God and to those around him. Furthermore, its\ndistinctive form underlined that it was his gift, a reminder of his place\nwithin the monastery and, perhaps like his surname, a reminder of his earlier\nlife and family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus far I have considered the potentially dynamic relationship between communal and personal possessions respecting the initial use of some of these mazers in the late thirteenth century, but what about this relationship in 1328? Unless the mazers said to belong to deceased monks were no longer used, which seems unlikely, the current user in the early fourteenth century was reminded daily of his predecessor, possibly someone he had known personally. This brings me to thinking about commemoration and memory, especially important features of monastic life. We know that former members of such communities were commemorated in a variety of ways, including the celebration of obits  (anniversary of the day of death)  and the giving of corrodies, the latter comprising the placing of the deceased monk\u2019s portions of food and drink on the refectory tables at meal times for a set period after his death, the whole given to the poor once the meal ended. At Durham Priory and St Alban\u2019s Abbey, and perhaps at other Benedictine houses, this linking of meals and commemoration was also temporal. Immediately after dinner the monks went to the monastic cemetery where their predecessors were buried and stood bare headed for a considerable time to pray for the souls of their departed brethren before returning to the cloister.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Eastbridge Hospital refectory – wall painting of Christ in Majesty<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Although I have no proof that the mazers at Canterbury in 1328 were\nunderstood in this way, it seems feasible that the act of drinking in the\nrefectory may have meant that the current user saw himself in a sense joining\nin a process of communal drinking through time. Under such circumstances he\nmight have responded by offering up prayers for the soul of the giver and the\nsouls of those who had since drunk from the same bowl. This lent continuity to\nhis actions, and he might take comfort, therefore, from the idea that his\nsuccessors would keep on saying prayers so that he became another link in a\nprayer chain which would continue forever. Such ideas may also have been valued\nby the convent as a whole, the mazers collectively, as the cemetery at Durham comprised a tomb\ncollection, having the potential to draw the monks together prayerfully through\nthe remembrance of shared meals. Additionally, not all the mazers would have\nbeen needed in 1328 because there were fewer monks than there were mazers. If\nthe arrangements at Canterbury resembled those at Durham, those not required\nprobably remained in the ambries (wall cupboards) with the linen. Yet even if\nthey were hidden from view their presence would have been common knowledge,\nhaving the potential to act as physical reminders, as the mazers on the tables\ndid, of the monks\u2019 deceased brethren. Thus, the social memory of the cathedral\nmonks was constructed through the things that had been given, touched and used\nby their predecessors. This suggests that the mazers may be been seen as having\nacquired value through their repeated use over time. Yet, it is also possible that\nthe habitual viewing and using might reduce or change both individual and\nsocial memory, even in a society that privileged the ability to remember, the\ndeceased monks becoming partially forgotten unless something triggered the act\nof remembering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nonetheless, one group of mazers, the great cups, may have been particularly valued mnemonically through their special communal usage. Again, the example of Durham seems applicable for there they passed a great mazer called the Grace Cup from monk to monk so that all might drink after grace had been said at each meal. Some great mazers were employed only on special occasions: the Judas Cup brought out once a year on Maundy Thursday, presumably at supper, for the convent to share together. This temporal use of the Judas Cup within the liturgical calendar presumably ensured it was viewed as part of the cyclical rhythm of the convent\u2019s life. As such it provided annually, at the very least, the means of commemorating a specific event, and might potentially have stimulated the monks\u2019 spiritual responses through sight and touch during a period of heightened religious fervour. Whether any of the great mazers at Canterbury were similarly deployed is unknown but another, though related, use may have been the act of communal drinking to commemorate especially important past members of the convent. Prior Wibert\u2019s mazer would seem to fit this category, as well as the one linked to St Thomas, and perhaps also that of Archbishop Hubert Walter, their ritualized use possibly mirrored by the way Durham Priory may have employed the St Beedes Bowl. Prior Wibert and Archbishop Walter\u2019s great cups were most likely used at their respective obits, whereas St Thomas\u2019 mazer may have been brought out on his three feast days, the cup passed from monk to monk as a spatial and temporal reminder of the community\u2019s reciprocal relationship with its saintly provider and protector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Medallion showing Virgin and Child – St John’s hospital mazer, Canterbury <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Now I appreciate much of this relies on conjecture regarding my attempt to think about how the mazers may have been used by the monks in fourteenth-century Canterbury, and therefore how they and the convent may have viewed these drinking bowls, but it does, I believe, offer insights respecting possession, ownership and use, as well as the fluidity and complexity of these concepts. This sense that things change over time, too, is valuable, which suggests to me it is worth considering virtual material culture because, I hope, they offer insights respecting commemoration and the desire to unite the community of the living and the dead in medieval society. Consequently, I hope you have found this interesting and many thanks to those who have made it to the end!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While governments \u2013 national, regional and local, continue to grapple with the situation, and a large number of businesses and charities are equally trying to manage, even survive \u2013 note, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6665,"featured_media":8077,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[973,2374,822,1001,818,5762,982,986,1029,817],"tags":[85,3505,7741,533,7725,9,317,3066,7734,2438,2722,273,7745,2670,7749,7069,1093,7730,185,7717,7726,7737,6758,1014,1914,7753,1133,7721,2361],"class_list":["post-8073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-academic","category-archaeology","category-blog-posts","category-canterbury","category-events","category-heritage","category-kent","category-local-and-regional-history","category-middle-ages","category-news","tag-archaeology","tag-archbishop-lanfranc","tag-archbishop-winchelsey","tag-british-library","tag-bute-mazer","tag-canterbury","tag-canterbury-cathedral","tag-christ-church-priory","tag-ckhh","tag-dr-diane-heath","tag-durham-priory","tag-eastbridge-hospital","tag-grace-cup","tag-hubert-walter","tag-judas-cup","tag-kent-history-postgraduates","tag-lincoln","tag-luttrell-psalter","tag-material-culture","tag-mazer","tag-national-museum-of-scotland","tag-pikefish-mazer","tag-prior-wibert","tag-professor-louise-wilkinson","tag-st-albans-abbey","tag-st-beedes-bowl","tag-st-johns-hospital","tag-st-nicholas-hospital-canterbury","tag-st-thomas-of-canterbury"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"authorName":"Sheila Sweetinburgh","featuredImage":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/445\/2020\/04\/ButeMazer1Edin.jpg","postExcerpt":"While governments \u2013 national, regional and local, continue to grapple with the situation, and a large number of businesses and charities are equally trying to manage, even survive \u2013 note, […]","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6665"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8073"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8073\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8106,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8073\/revisions\/8106"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.canterbury.ac.uk\/kenthistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}