I read Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte and William Thackeray, and often see mentioned a “living”, which I can tell has something to do with the provision of a salary for a vicar or preacher. Beyond that, I don’t know exactly what they’re talking about. I see the phrase “family living”, or read how someone is “holding the living” until someone else can be old enough to take it.
Can someone teach me “livings” 101?
A quoted context is always nice in these situations as there’s (then) less chance of me making an arse of myself. That notwithstanding, it usually means ‘living wage’; rich you ain’t gonna be, but it’s enough for you and your family to get by on.
Of course, that’s the modern meaning, quite whether it had more nuanced meaning(s) back in the days of Bronte or Thackers’, I couldn’t say.
From Austen’s Northanger Abbey – Mr. Morland is a country preacher, and is making arrangements to provide for his son upon his son’s engagement:
“A living, of which Mr. Morland was himself patron and incumbent, of about
four hundred pounds yearly value, was to be resigned to his son as
soon as he should be old enough to take it; no trifling deduction
from the family income, no niggardly assignment to one of ten
children.”
From Austen’s Sense and Sensibility – a young woman is discussing her clergyman fiancee’s future income possibilities:
“. . . your brother might be persuaded to give him Norland living;
which I understand is a very good one, and the present
incumbent not likely to live a great while. That would
be enough for us to marry upon, and we might trust to time
and chance for the rest.”
“Living” in this case refers to a benefice, i.e. a church post with a regular income and perhaps a house to go with it.
A “living” refers, essentially, to the revenue from a parish, which will go to the rector - the priest who holds the rights to it. In the olden days, this would mean tithes and such; these days, it’s made up from voluntary donations and long-running investments. (Also, these days, the whole business is complicated by investment strategies at the diocesan and national level - the diocesan “quota” [the portion of a parish church’s income that’s forked over to the next level up the national organization] is a constant source of aggravation to local treasurers.)
Because some priests could hold the rights to more than one living, it became common practice to assign subordinate priests to run subsidiary parishes vicariously for them, hence the term vicar.
IIRC, the average parish priest in the UK pulls in about £9,000 a year, plus accomodation.
Yep, ‘an income’ is how I’d read both. Though I’d have thought any additional benefits (like, for example, housing) would be described separately.
There are a couple of further complications which needs to be explained to understand exactly what Austen & Co. were talking about.
As has been explained, a living was an ecclesiastical position (usually as a parish priest) with an income. That income could come from land attached to the position and/or from the tithes.
In England the right to make appointments to that living - the advowson - was a form of private property and could be held by lay owners. The reason for this was usually that the living had originally been held by a monastic institution and so had been confiscated to the Crown when Henry VIII had dissolved the monasteries. Sale of advowsons had then proved an easy means for the Crown to raise money. Only a minority (albeit a substantial one) of livings had ever been controlled by monastic institutions and so most were unaffected by this change. This meant that an advowson was most often controlled by the local bishop, but it could equally be controlled by the Crown, a corporate institution (such as an Oxbridge college) or a private individual. Where it was held by a private individual, that individual was usually a local landowner, as it made sense for them to buy the advowson for their local church. The person (or institution) who held the advowson was the ‘patron’.
Possession of an advowson had two main advantages. The first was the right to make appointments to the living. This was not an absolute right as any appointment had to be approved by the bishop, but in practice the patron chose the new priest. It was not unknown for lay patrons to give the position to relatives, perhaps over several generations, hence the concept of a ‘family living’.
The second advantage was a financial one. An advowson was usually combined with the right to the tithes. Don’t assume that the tithes necessarily went to the priest. That was only the case for those livings which had never been confiscated to the Crown. Where the living had been confiscated, the right to tithes was also usually sold off, usually, as I say, in conjunction with the advowson. Where this had happened, the patron was responsible for providing a salary for the priest which was usually less than the income from the tithes. Technically, a ‘rector’ was a priest who did receive the tithes directly, while a ‘vicar’ was one who only got a salary from a patron.
Thanks for the replies, Steve Wright and APB. I had been going on the assumption that the richest squire in the parish was expected to provide a “living” to the local clergyman, as well as housing somewhere on his estate.
A living is the usufruct of that to which the parish holds title or becomes entitled.
Which of course substitutes one unfamiliar term for another.
Simply, the income from property belonging to the parish, and the tithes which the parish is (now, was formerly) entitled to collect, constitute the living to which the rector is entitled.
Think of it as entailed property – the rector does not hold title to the property itself, but is entitled to the income from it.