20 



%\t Jfall of i\t <f tiaw' Pottscs ani> Jltcn | 

 friorks in Wilts. I 



By the Rev. W. G. Clabk-Maxwell. 



[Read at the Bradford Meeting of the Society, July, 1897.] 



HE story of the Pall of the Friars' Houses in Wilts is soon | 

 told. ' There were but four establishments of the kind in 1 

 the county, and they seem to have gone under in the year 1538 H 

 without a struggle. It may be well, however, to add a few words | 

 of explanation of the reasons which led me to exclude the houses II 

 of friars from my former paper on monasteries, among which they I 

 might seem most naturally to be ranked. 1 



The truth is, that friars were not monks, nor was a friary a 1 

 monastery in any true sense of the term. We are apt, in looking 1 

 back upon the religious orders, as we do, across an interval of three I 

 centuries, to blend them all into one general designation of " monk," I 

 but in reality the orders of friars differed widely from the monastic 1 

 institution in (1) the date and method of its origin, (2) the object I 

 and method of its activity, (3) its relation to the house, i.e., the 

 material fabric in which the community was lodged. 



(1) The foundation of the first order of friars dates from the 

 time of St. Francis of Assisi ; that of the first order of monks is lost 

 in the mists of the first centuries of Christianity. It is true that 

 Benedict of Nursia is usually looked upon as the founder of 

 Western monachism, but he was merely the organiser of a com- • 

 munity already existing, and his rule made its way simply by its I 

 inherent excellence, not because Benedict was the first monk, or 

 even the first framer of rules for monks. 



(2) Both monks and friars had this in common, that they had 



1 Wilts Arch. Mag., vol. xxviii., p. 288. 



