Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive.)
THE ANTIQUARY’S BOOKS
GENERAL EDITOR: J. CHARLES COX, LL.D., F.S.A.
ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE
[Illustration: ST. BENEDICT PATRIARCH OF WESTERN MONKS]
ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE
BY ABBOT GASQUET
O.S.B., D.D., PH.D., D.LITT., F.R.HIST.S.
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS, MAPS AND PLANS
METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET W.C.
LONDON
1904
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE xi
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED BOOKS xv
CHAPTER I
THE MONASTIC LIFE 1
CHAPTER II
THE MATERIAL PARTS OF A MONASTERY 13
CHAPTER III
THE MONASTERY AND ITS RULERS 37
CHAPTER IV
THE OBEDIENTIARIES 58
CHAPTER V
THE OBEDIENTIARIES (_continued_) 85
CHAPTER VI
THE DAILY LIFE IN A MONASTERY 111
CHAPTER VII
THE DAILY LIFE IN A MONASTERY (_continued_) 131
CHAPTER VIII
THE NUNS OF MEDIÆVAL ENGLAND 154
CHAPTER IX
EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS 180
CHAPTER X
THE PAID SERVANTS OF THE MONASTERY 201
CHAPTER XI
THE VARIOUS RELIGIOUS ORDERS 213
LIST OF ENGLISH RELIGIOUS HOUSES 251
INDEX 319
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT
PAGE
The Cloisters, Worcester 18
J. Charles Wall.
The Refectory, Cleve Abbey 23
J. Charles Wall.
Thomas Ramryge, Abbot of St. Alban’s (from brass) 43
J. Charles Wall.
Brother John of Walingford, Infirmarian of St. Alban’s 87
(Cott. MSS., Jul. D. vii.)
Gloucester Cloisters, The Lavatory 102
J. Charles Wall.
Nun asking Pardon of an Abbess 179
(Roy. MSS., 2 B. vii., f. 219.)
Benedictine Monk 215
[The figures representative of the various Religious Orders
are reduced from Dugdale’s _Monasticon_ (1655) and Stevens’
_Continuation_ (1723).]
Benedictine Nun 216
Benedictine Monk of the Cluniac Congregation 219
Cistercian Monk 220
Carthusian Monk 223
Canon Regular of St. Augustine 224
Premonstratensian Canon 227
Gilbertine Canon 228
Gilbertine Nun 231
Knight Hospitaller 232
Knight Templar 235
Dominican Friar 236
Franciscan Friar 239
Franciscan Nun, or Minoress 240
Carmelite Friar 243
Austin Friar 244
Friar of the Sack 247
Trinitarian 248
LIST OF PLATES
St. Benedict, Patriarch of Western Monks _Frontispiece_
From a painting by Sassoferrato at Perugia.
I. Norwich Cathedral, with Cloisters _To face page_ 14
J. Charles Wall.
II. Canons in Choir " 16
Cott. MSS., Dom. A. xvii. f. 11{b}.
III. The Cloisters, Gloucester, showing Carrels " 20
From Murray’s _Cathedrals_.
IV. The Chapter House, Westminster " 26
J. Charles Wall.
V. John Stoke, Abbot of St. Alban’s; Prior Reymund,
St. Alban’s " 52
Cott. MSS., Nero D. iii., pp. 35, 49.
VI. Heading of Mortuary Roll, Thomas Brown, Bishop of
Norwich, _d._ 1445 " 64
Cott. Charters, ii., 18.
VII. Adam the Cellarer, St. Alban’s " 74
Cott. MSS., Nero D. iii., f. 16{b}.
VIII. End of Mortuary Roll, Thomas Brown, Bishop of
Norwich, _d._ 1445 " 94
Cott. Charters, ii., 18.
IX. Franciscans in Choir " 112
Cott. MSS., Dom. A. xvii.
X. Community in Chapter House, Westminster " 122
Harl. MSS., 1498, f. 76.
XI. Henry VI. being received as a Confrater at
Edmondsbury " 126
Harl. MSS., 2278, f. 6.
XII. Refectory Pulpit, Chester " 138
E. H. New.
XIII. Carmelite in his Study " 148
Roy. MSS., 14 E. i., f. 3.
XIV. Elizabeth Harvey, Abbess of Elstow " 154
From Walter’s _Brasses_.
XV. Benedictine Nuns in Choir " 158
Cott. MSS., Dom. A. xvii.
XVI. Franciscan Nuns in Choir " 176
Cott. MSS., Dom. A. xvii.
XVII. Henry VII. giving Charter to Monks at Westminster
Hall " 194
XVIII. {Seneschal John Whitewell and Mother}
{Illuminator of St. Alban’s } " 200
Cott. MSS., Nero D. iii., ff. 103, 105.
Plan of Beaulieu Abbey, Cistercian " 14
Plan of Repton Priory, Austin Canons " 24
Plan of Watton Priory, Gilbertine, Double House " 34
Map of Houses of the Black Monks }
Map of Houses of the White Monks }
Map of Houses of the Carthusians and Friars } " 318
Map of Houses of the Regular Canons }
Map of Houses of the Nuns }
PREFACE
This volume does not appear to call for any lengthy preface. It should
introduce and explain itself, inasmuch as, beyond giving a brief account
of the origin and aim of each of the Orders existing in England in
pre-Reformation days, and drawing up a general list of the various houses,
all I have attempted to do is to set before the reader, in as plain and
popular a manner as I could, the general tenor of the life lived by the
inmates in any one of those monastic establishments. In one sense the
picture is ideal; that is, all the details of the daily observance could
not perhaps be justified from an appeal to the annals or custumals of any
one single monastery. Regular or religious life was never, it must be
borne in mind, such a cast-iron system, or of so stereotyped a form, that
it could not be, and for that matter frequently was, modified in this or
that particular, according to the needs of places, circumstances, and
times. Even in the case of establishments belonging to the same Order or
religious body this is true; and it is of course all the more certainly
true in regard to houses belonging to different Orders. Still, as will be
explained later, the general agreement of the life led in all the monastic
establishments is so marked, that it has been found possible to sketch a
picture of that life which, without being perhaps actually exact in every
particular for any one individual house, is sufficiently near to the truth
in regard to all the houses in general. The purposes for which the various
parts of the monastery were designed and were used, the duties assigned to
the numerous officials, the provisions by which the well-being and order
of the establishment were secured, the disposition of the hours of the
day, and the regulations for carrying out the common conventual duties,
etc., were similar in all religious bodies in pre-Reformation days; and,
if regard be paid to the changed circumstances, are still applicable to
the monastic and religious establishments now existing in England.
It remains for me to publicly record my thanks to those who have assisted
me in the preparation of this volume.
In regard to the list of the ancient religious houses, which it is to be
hoped may be found of use to the student of monastic archæology, I have to
acknowledge the kind help of the Rev. Dr. Cox, the general editor of the
series; of Mr. W. H. St. John Hope; of Mr. R. C. Fowler, of the Public
Record Office; of the Rev. R. M. Serjeantson; and of the Rev. H. J. D.
Astley. My readers are also indebted to Mr. St. John Hope and to Mr. H.
Brakspear for permission to reproduce three plans giving the typical
arrangement of different religious houses; and lastly, my thanks are due
to Dom H. N. Birt for various suggestions, and for his careful reading of
the proofs for me.
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED BOOKS
By the advice of the editor of this series, the present list of the
principal manuscripts and books used in this volume to describe the life
of an English mediæval monastery is here printed, in place of giving
multitudinous references at the foot of every page. In the case of the
MSS. full transcripts have been made of most of them, in order that all
the available evidence bearing on the subject might be fully considered.
_Consuetudinarium Monasterii B. Marie, Ebor._ St. John’s Coll., Cambridge,
MS. D. 27.
_Consuetudinarium Abbatiæ S. Petri Westmonasteriensis_ (Abbot Ware’s).
(4th part only, much burnt.) Cott. MS. Otho c. xi.
_Constitutiones pro monasterio de Abingdon._ Harl. MSS. 209, ff. 11-12,
85-87.
_Ordinale S. Edmundi de Burgo._ MS. Harl. 2,977.
_Ordinale ecclesiæ S. Augustini Cantuariensis: de disciplina Monachorum_,
etc. Cott. MS. Vitellius D. xvi.
_Consuetudines quædam Abbatiæ S. Edmundi Buriensis._ (Stated in a Papal
letter in the Marini transcripts). Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 15,358, f. 439
_seqq._
_Traditiones patrum O.S.B._ in _Liber albus_ of Edmundsbury. Harl. MS.
1005.
_Consuetudines quædam Abbatiæ de Reading._ MS. Cott. Vesp. E. v. f. 37
_seqq._
_Memoriale qualiter in monasterio conversare debemus._ Harl. MS. 5,431, f.
114 d.
_Officium Senescall. aule Hospitum ecclesie Cantuariensis faciendæ._ MS.
Cott. Galba E. v. f. 26 d _seqq._
_Consuetudines Cantuarienses._ Arund. MS. 68, f. 55 _seqq._
_Traditio Generalis Capituli super mores et observantias monachorum
Ordinis S. Benedicti._ Cott. MS. Faustina C. xii. f. 181.
_Consuetudines Elemosinæ ecclesiæ Sti. Petri et S. Swithune, Winton._
Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 29,436, f. 72 d. _seqq._
_Walteri de Wykwane, Abb. de Winchcombe, perquisita spiritualia et
temporalia, una cum ejusdem monasterii Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus
per eundem factis._ Cott. MS. Cleop. B. II. f. 1. Printed in _Monasticon_.
_Statuta Capituli Generalis O.S.B._ (Reading and Abingdon, A.D. 1388).
Cott. MS. Faustina A. II. f. 93 _seqq._
_Westminster Chapter O.S.B. under King Henry V._ Cott. MS. Vesp. D. ix. f.
193 _seqq._
_Acta Capitulorum Generalium O.S.A._ Brit. Mus. Cotton Charter xiii. 3.
_Acta Capituli Generalis Ordinis Sti. Augustini_, A.D. 1506. R.O.
Exchequer, Q.R. Miscell. 916/44.
_Mortuary Rolls (Norwich)._ Brit. Mus. Cotton Charter II. 17 and 18.
_Visitationes Abbatiæ de Hayles Ord. Cist._ Brit. Mus., Royal MS. 12, E.
XIV. f. 73 _seqq._
_Visitatio Ecclesiæ Cath. Wynton_ (Bp. William of Wykham, A.D. 1386).
Harl. MS. 328.
_Monasticon Cisterciense._ Julianus, Paris. ed. nova Hugo Séjalon. 1892.
_Bibliotheca Premonstratensis_, 1633. Le Paige.
_Customary of the Benedictine Monasteries of Saint Augustine, Canterbury,
and Saint Peter, Westminster._ ed. Sir E. Maunde Thompson (Henry Bradshaw
Soc.). 1902.
_The Ancren Riwle._ ed. J. Morton (Camden Soc.). 1853.
_The Observances in use at the Augustinian Priory at Barnwell,
Cambridgeshire._ ed. J. Willis Clark, M.A., F.S.A. 1897.
_Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Anglia._ Reyner, Clemens.
_Antiquiores Consuetudines Cluniacensis Monasterii--Collectore Udalrico
Monacho._ Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. 149, col. 635 _seqq._
_The Lausiac History of Palladius._ ed. Dom Cuthbert Butler. Part I.
Introduction (Texts and Studies, vol. vi.).
_De Antiquis Ecclesiæ Ritibus._ Martène, III. pp. 253 _seqq._
_Ordinale Conventus Vallis Caulium._ ed. W. de Gray Birch. 1900.
_De Consuetudinibus Abbendoniæ, Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon._ ed. J.
Stevenson (Rolls Series), II. p. 296 _seqq._
_The Ancient English Version of the Rule of St. Francis--Abbreviatio
Statutoram._ 1451: in _Monumenta Franciscana_. Vol. ii. (Rolls Series).
ed. R. Howlett.
_Rouleaux des Morts du ix{e} au xv{e} Siècle_, Léopold Delisle (Soc. de
l’Histoire de France). 1866.
_Accounts of the Obedientiars of Abingdon Abbey._ ed. R. E. G. Kirk
(Camden Soc.). 1892.
_Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of St. Swithun’s Priory,
Winchester._ ed. G. W. Kitchin (Hampshire Record Soc.). 1892.
_De prima Institutione Monachorum_ in _Monasticon Anglicanum_. (ed. Calley
Ellis and Bandinel), I. xix. _seqq._
_Processus electionis Abbatum S. Albani._ Mon. Angl. II. 191, _note_.
_De Consuetudinibus et Ordinationibus officialium separalium in Abbatia de
Evesham._ Mon. Angl. II. 23-5.
_Literæ Constitutionum Hugonis, Lincoln. Episcopi, Visitatione Monalium de
Cotun._ Mon. Angl. V. 677.
_Tractatus Statutorum Ordinis Cartusiensis pro Noviciis_, etc. Mon. Angl.
VI. pp. v., xii.
_De Canonicorum Ordinis Origine_, etc. Mon. Angl. VI. pp. 39-49.
_Ordinatio pro coquina conventus Canonicorum de Haghmon._ Mon. Angl. VI.
111.
_Ordinatio pro officiis Prioris et Subprioris ibidem._ Mon. Angl. VI. p.
112.
_Institutiones beati Gilberti et successorum ejus, per Capitula Generalia
institutæ._ Mon. Angl. VI. p. 2, pp. *xxix.-*xcvii.
_Regula Monachorum S. Trinitatis._ Mon. Angl. VI. p. 3, p. 1,558 _seqq._
_De primordiis et inventione sacræ Religionis Iherosolimorum._ Mon. Angl.
V. p. 2, pp. 787 _seqq._
_De Canonicorum Ordinis Præmonstratensis Origine_, etc. Mon. Angl. V. p.
2, pp. 857 _seqq._
_Consuetudines Abbatiæ Eveshamensis._ Mon. Angl. II. 27-32.
_De officis Præcentoris._ Mon. Angl. II. p. 39.
_De Sacrista._ Mon. Angl. II. p. 40.
_Constitutiones per Decanum et Capitulum Ecclesiæ Cathedralis S. Pauli,
Lond., factæ, Moniales Cœnobii S. Helenæ prope Bishop’s-gate, infra
Civitatem London, tangentes._ Mon. Angl. IV. p. 553.
_Leges Monachis Hydensibus ab Edgaro Rege datæ._ Mon. Angl. II. p. 439
_seqq._
_Constitutiones Capituli Generalis O.S.B. apud Northampton_, A.D. 1225, in
Mon. Angl. I. pp. xlvi.-li.
_A Consuetudinary of the Fourteenth Century for the House of St. Swithin,
Winchester._ ed. G. W. Kitchen, D.D. 1886.
_Collectanea Anglo-Premonstratensia_ (Camden Soc.). 1904.
_Charters and Records of Cluni._ G. Duckett.
_Visitations of English Cluniac Foundations._ G. Duckett.
_Two Chartularies of the Priory of St. Peter at Bath._ ed. W. Hunt
(Somerset Record Soc.). 1893.
_Rentalia et Custumaria of Glastonbury._ ed. C. Elton (Somerset Record
Soc.).
_Woman and Monasticism._ L. Eckenstein. 1896.
_S. Gilbert of Sempringham and the Gilbertines._ Rose Graham. 1902.
_Gesta Abbatum S. Albani._ ed. Riley (Rolls Series), II. pp. 95-107,
_Constitutiones Abbatis Johannis de Maryns_, c. 1308. pp. 301-316,
_Constitutiones_, c. 1336. pp. 418-466, _Constitutiones Abb. Thomæ de la
Mare_, c. 1386. pp. 511-519. _Constitutions for nuns of Sopwell._
_Gesta Abbatum S. Albani._ ed. Riley (Rolls Series), III. pp. 470-72.
_Constitutiones Abbatis Johannis de la Moote._
_Adam de Domerham._ Hearne, p. 123. _De electione Walteri More Abbatis
Cenobii Glastoniensis._
_The Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, Bishop of Bath and Wells
(1329-1363)._ ed. T. S. Holmes (Somerset Record Soc.). 1896.
_Episcopal Register of the Diocese of Winchester._ William of Wykeham. ed.
T. F. Kirby (Hampshire Record Soc.). 1899.
_Episcopal Registers of the Diocese of Exeter._ Seven vols. ed. F. C.
Hingeston-Randolph.
_Episcopal Register of the Diocese of Winchester_, John de Sandale and
Rigaud de Asserio. ed. F. J. Baigent (Hampshire Record Soc.). 1897.
_Episcopal Registers of the Diocese of Worcester._ ed. J. Willis Bund
(Worcester Hist. Soc.).
_Visitations of the Diocese of Norwich_, A.D. 1492-1532. ed. A. Jessop,
D.D. (Camden Soc.). 1888.
_Rites and Customs within the Monastical Church of Durham._ ed. J. Raine
(Surtees Soc.). 1842.
_The Durham Household Book._ ed. J. Raine (Surtees Soc.). 1844.
_Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis._ ed. J. Booth (Surtees Soc.). 1886.
_Durham Account Rolls._ ed. J. T. Fowler (Surtees Soc.). 3 vols.
1898-1900.
ENGLISH MONASTIC LIFE
CHAPTER I
THE MONASTIC LIFE
The regular or monastic life was instituted to enable men to attain with
greater security to the higher ideals of the Christian life proposed to
them in the Gospel. In the early ages of the Church the fervour of the
first converts, strengthened and purified by the fierce persecutions they
had to endure for religion, enabled them, or a considerable number of
them, to reach this high standard without withdrawing from the world, its
business, or society. The belief that, by the means of regulated labour
and strict discipline of the senses and appetites, it was in the power of
man to perfect his moral nature and rise to heights in the spiritual
order, not otherwise attainable, seems almost inherent in man’s nature.
Well-regulated practices founded upon this principle have been existent in
all forms of religious worship other than Christian, and they can be
recognised no less in the observances of ancient Egypt than in those of
the lamas of modern Thibet. In the pagan world this doctrine seems to have
dictated much of the peculiar teaching of the Stoics; and among the Jews
the Essenes governed their lives in theory and practice upon this belief.
Even among the early Christians there were some, who by striving to master
their lower nature desired to attain the true end of human life as the
Gospel taught them, the knowledge and love of God and obedience to His
will. These were known as _Ascetae_, and in one of the earliest Christian
documents they are mentioned as a class of Christians between the laity
and the clergy. They were, however, in the world though not “of the
world,” and strove to reach their goal whilst living their ordinary life
by means of perseverance in prayer, voluntary chastity and poverty, as
well as by the exercise of mortification of all kinds.
Though the practice of seeking seclusion from the world for the purpose of
better carrying out these ideals was apparently not unknown in the third
century, it was not until after the conversion of Constantine that it can
be said to have become general. The triumph of Christianity not only freed
Christians from the spiritual stimulus of persecution, but it opened the
door of the Christian home to worldly habits and luxury which were
hitherto unknown, and which made the practice of the higher ideals of the
spirit difficult, if not impossible, in the ordinary surroundings of the
family life. To use the expression of Walter Hilton, the baptism of
Constantine “brought so many fish into Peter’s net that it was well-nigh
rent by the very multitude.” Henceforth it became necessary for
Christians, who would satisfy the deeply seated instinct of human nature
for the higher life, to seek it mostly in the solitudes of the desert, or
later within the sheltering walls of the monastery.
For a right understanding of monastic history and monastic practices in
the West generally, and even in England, it is necessary to have some
idea at least of the main features of Eastern monachism. It has been
pointed out by Dom Butler, in his masterly introduction to the _Lausiac
History of Palladius_,[1] that monachism developed along two lines in
Egypt. The first was the system initiated and directed by St. Anthony,
when about the year A.D. 305, after living a life of seclusion for some
twenty years, he undertook the direction and organisation of the multitude
of monks which the reputation of his sanctity had drawn to his
neighbourhood. The second was due to St. Pachomius, who, just about the
same time, at the beginning of the fourth century, whilst yet quite a
young man, founded his first monastery at Tabennisi in the far south of
Egypt.
The first system came to prevail over a great portion of the country by
the end of the first century after its foundation by St. Anthony. The
monks were mostly hermits in the strict sense of the word. They lived
apart and “out of earshot of one another,”[2] coming together at certain
times for divine worship. In other districts the religious lived together
in threes or fours, who, on all days but the Saturdays and Sundays when
all assembled in the great church, were used to sing their songs and hymns
together in their common cells. Of this system Palladius, who is the first
authority on the matter, says: “They have different practices, each as he
is able and as he wishes.” Dom Butler thus describes it:--
“There was no rule of life. The Elders exercised an authority, but it
was mainly personal.... The society appears to have been a sort of
spiritual democracy, ruled by the personal influence of the leading
ascetics, but there was no efficient hold upon individuals to keep
them from falling into extravagances.... A young man would put himself
under the guidance of a senior and obey him in all things; but the
bonds between them were wholly voluntary. The purely eremitical life
tended to die out, but what took its place continued to be
semi-eremitical.”[3]
The second system introduced at the beginning of the fourth century may be
described as the cenobitical or conventual type of monachism. Pachomius’
monks lived together under a complete system of organisation, not, indeed,
as a family under a father, but rather as an army under a discipline of a
military character. This form of the monastic life spread with great
rapidity, and by the time of its founder’s death (_c._ 345) it counted
eight monasteries and several hundred monks.
“The most remarkable feature about it,” says Dom Butler, “is that
(like Citeaux in a later age) it almost at once assumed the shape of a
fully organised congregation or order, with a superior general and a
system of visitation and general chapters--in short, all the machinery
of centralised government, such as does not appear again in the
monastic world until the Cistercians and the Mendicant Orders arose in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.”[4]
The various monasteries under the Rule of St. Pachomius existed as
separate houses, each with a head or præpositus and other officials of its
own, and organised apparently on the basis of the trades followed by the
inmates. The numbers in each house naturally varied; between thirty and
forty on an average living together. At the more solemn services all the
members of the various houses came together to the common church; but the
lesser offices were celebrated by the houses individually. Under this
rule, regular organised work was provided for the monk not merely as a
discipline and penitential exercise, as was the case under the Antonian
system, but as a part of the life itself. The common ideal of asceticism
aimed at was not too high.
“The fundamental idea of St. Pachomius’ Rule was,” says Dom Butler,
“to establish a moderate level of observance which might be obligatory
upon all; and to leave it open to each--and to, indeed, encourage
each--to go beyond the fixed minimum, according as he was prompted by
his strength, his courage, and his zeal.”[5]
Hence we find the Pachomian monks eating or fasting as they wished. The
tables were laid at midday, and dinner was provided every hour till
evening; they ate when they liked, or fasted if they felt called on so to
do. Some took a meal only in the evening, others every second or even only
every fifth day. The Rule allowed them their full freedom; and any idea of
what is now understood by “Common Life”--the living together and doing all
things together according to rule--was a feature entirely absent from
Egyptian monachism.
One other feature must also be noticed, which would seem to be the direct
outcome of the liberty allowed in much of the life, and in particular in
the matter of austerities, to the individual monk under the systems both
of St. Anthony and St. Pachomius. It is a spirit of strongly marked
individualism. Each worked for his personal advance in virtue; each strove
to do his utmost in all kinds of ascetical exercises and austerities--in
prolonging his fasts, his prayers, his silence. The favourite name used
to describe any of the prominent monks was “great athlete.” They loved “to
make a record” in austerities, and to contend with one another in
mortifications; and they would freely boast of their spiritual
achievements. This being so, penances and austerities tended to multiply
and increase in severity, and this freedom of the individual in regard to
his asceticism accounts for the very severe and often incongruous
mortifications undertaken by the monks of Egypt.
Monachism was introduced into Western Europe from Egypt by way of Rome.
The first monks who settled in the Eternal City were known as “Egyptians,”
and the Latin translation of the _Vita Antonii_ (_c._ 380) became “the
recognised embodiment of the monastic ideal.” It preserved its primitive
character in the matter of austerities during the fourth century, and St.
Augustine declares that he knew of religious bodies of both sexes, which
exercised themselves “in incredible fastings,” passing not merely one day
without food or drink, which was “a common practice,” but often going “for
three days or more without anything.”
During this same century the monastic life made its appearance in Gaul.
About A.D. 360 St. Martin founded a religious house at Ligugé, near
Poitiers; and when about A.D. 371 he became Bishop of Tours, he
established another monastic centre in a retired position near his
episcopal city, which he made his usual residence. The life led by the
monks was a simple reproduction of that of St. Anthony’s followers.
Cassian, the great organiser of monachism in Gaul, also followed closely
the primitive Egyptian ideals both in theory and practice, whilst what is
known of the early history of the monastery at Lerins, founded by
Honoratus, to whom Cassian dedicated the second part of his Conferences,
points to the fact that here too the eremitical life was regarded as the
monastic ideal. On the whole, therefore, it may be said that the available
evidence “amply justifies the statement that Gallic monachism during the
fifth and sixth centuries was thoroughly Egyptian in both theory and
practice.”[6]
It is now possible to understand the position of St. Benedict in regard to
monasticism. The great Patriarch of Western monks was born probably about
A.D. 480, and it was during that century that the knowledge of Eastern
rules of regular life was increased greatly in Italy by the translation of
an abridgment of Saint Basil’s code into Latin by Rufinus. St. Basil had
introduced for his monks in Cappadocia and the neighbouring provinces
certain modifications of the Egyptian monastic observances. There was more
common life for his religious: they lived together and ate together; and
not when they pleased, but when the superior ordained. They prayed always
in common, and generally depended upon the will of a common superior.
About the same time St. Jerome translated the Rule of Pachomius, and the
influence of these two Rules upon the monastic life of Italy at the period
when St. Benedict comes upon the scene is manifest. Whatever changes had
been introduced into the local observances, and however varied were the
practices of individual monasteries, it is at least certain that at this
period the monastic system in use in Italy was founded upon and drew its
chief inspirations from Egyptian models. What was wholly successful in the
East proved, however, unsuitable to Western imitators, and, owing to the
climatic conditions, impossible. This much seems certain even from the
mention made of the Gyrovagi and Sarabites by St. Benedict, since he
describes them as existing kinds of monks whose example was to be avoided.
That he had practical knowledge and experience of the Egyptian and the
Eastern types of monachism clearly appears in his reference to Cassian and
to the Rule of “Our Holy Father Saint Basil,” as he calls him, and in the
fact that he made his own first essay in the monastic life as a solitary.
When, some time about the beginning of the sixth century, St. Benedict
came to write his Rule, with full knowledge and experience both of the
systems then in vogue and of the existing need of some reconstitution, it
is noteworthy that he did not attempt to restore the lapsed practices of
primitive asceticism, or insist upon any very different scheme of regular
discipline. On the contrary, “he deliberately turned his back on the
austerities that had hitherto been regarded as the chief means for
attaining the spiritual end of the monastic life.” He calls his Rule “a
very little rule for beginners”--_minima inchoationis regula_, and says
that though there may be in it some things “a little severe,” still he
hopes that he will establish “nothing harsh, nothing heavy.” The most
cursory comparison between this new Rule and those which previously
existed will make it abundantly clear that St. Benedict’s legislation was
conceived in a spirit of moderation in regard to every detail of the
monastic life. Common-sense, and the wise consideration of the superior in
tempering any possible severity, according to the needs of times, places,
and circumstances were, by his desire, to preside over the spiritual
growth of those trained in his “school of divine service.”
In addition to this St. Benedict broke with the past in another and not
less important way, and in one which, if rightly considered and acted
upon, more than compensated for the mitigation of corporal austerities
introduced into his rule of life. The strong note of individualism
characteristic of Egyptian monachism, which gave rise to what Dom Butler
calls the “rivalry in ascetical achievement,” gave place in St. Benedict’s
code to the common practices of the community, and to the entire
submission of the individual will, even in matters of personal austerity
and mortification, to the judgment of the superior.
“This two-fold break with the past, in the elimination of austerity
and in the sinking of the individual in the community, made St.
Benedict’s Rule less a development than a revolution in monachism. It
may be almost called a new creation; and it was destined to prove, as
the subsequent history shows, peculiarly adapted to the new races that
were peopling Western Europe.”[7]
We are now in a position to turn to England. When, less than half a
century after St. Benedict’s death, St. Augustine and his fellow monks in
A.D. 597 first brought this Rule of Life to our country, a system of
monasticism had been long established in the land. It was Celtic in its
immediate origin; but whether it had been imported originally from Egypt
or the East generally, or whether, as some recent scholars have thought,
it was a natural and spontaneous growth, is extremely doubtful. The method
of life pursued by the Celtic monks and the austerities practised by them
bear a singular resemblance to the main features of Egyptian monachism; so
close, indeed, is this likeness that it is hard to believe there could
have been no connection between them. One characteristic feature of
Celtic monasticism, on the other hand, appears to be unique and to divide
it off from every other type. The Celtic monasteries included among their
officials one, and in some cases many bishops. At the head was the abbot,
and the episcopal office was held by members of the house subordinate to
him. In certain monasteries the number of bishops was so numerous as to
suggest that they must have really occupied the position of priests at the
subordinate churches. Thus St. Columba went in A.D. 590 from Iona to a
synod at Drumcheatt, accompanied by as many as twenty bishops; and in some
of the Irish ecclesiastical meetings the bishops, as in the case of some
of the African synods, could be counted by hundreds. This Celtic system
appears to be without parallel in other parts of the Christian Church, and
scholars have suggested that it was a purely indigenous growth. One
writer, Mr. Willis Bund, is of the opinion that the origin was tribal and
that the first “monasteries” were mere settlements of Christians--clergy
and laity, men, women, and children--who for the sake of protection lived
together. It was at some subsequent date that a division was made between
the male and female portions of the settlement, and later still the
eremitical idea was grafted on the already existing system. If the tribal
settlement was the origin of the Celtic monastery, it affords some
explanation of the position occupied by the bishops as subjects of the
abbots. The latter were in the first instance the chiefs or governors of
the settlements, which would include the bishop or bishops of the churches
comprised in the settlement. By degrees, according to the theory advanced,
the head received a recognised ecclesiastical position as abbot, the
bishop still continuing to occupy a subordinate position, although there
is evidence in the lives of the early Irish saints to show that the holder
of the office was certainly treated with special dignity and honour.
The Celtic monastic system was apparently in vogue among the remnant of
the ancient British Church in Wales and the West Country on the coming of
St. Augustine. Little is known with certainty, but as the British Church
was Celtic in origin it may be presumed that the Celtic type of monachism
prevailed amongst the Christians in this country after the Saxon conquest.
Whether it followed the distinctive practice of Irish monasticism in
regard to the position of the abbot and the subject bishops may perhaps be
doubted, as this does not appear to have been the practice of the Celtic
Church of Gaul, with which there was a close early connection.
It has usually been supposed that the Rule of St. Columbanus represented
the normal life of a Celtic monastery, but it has been lately shown that,
so far as regards the Irish or Welsh houses, this Rule was never taken as
a guide. It had its origin apparently in the fact that the Celtic monks on
the Continent were induced, almost in spite of themselves, to adopt a
mitigated rule of life by their close contact with Latin monasticism,
which was then organising itself on the lines of the Rule of St.
Benedict.[8] The Columban Rule was a code of great rigour, and “would, if
carried out in its entirety, have made the Celtic monks almost, if not
quite, the most austere of men.” Even if it was not actually in use, the
Rule of St. Columbanus may safely be taken to indicate the tendencies of
Celtic monasticism generally, and the impracticable nature of much of the
legislation and the hard spirit which characterises it goes far to explain
how it came to pass that whenever it was brought face to face with the
wider, milder, and more flexible code of St. Benedict, invariably, sooner
or later, it gave place to it. In some monasteries, for a time, the two
Rules seem to have been combined, or at least to have existed side by
side, as at Luxeuil and Bobbio, in Italy, in the seventh century; but when
the abbot of the former monastery was called upon to defend the Celtic
rule, at the Synod of Macon in A.D. 625, the Columban code may be said to
have ceased to exist anywhere as a separate rule of life.
For the present purpose it will be sufficient to consider English
monasticism from the coming of St. Augustine at the close of the sixth
century as Benedictine. There was, it is true, a brief period when in
Northumberland the Celtic form of regular observance established itself at
Lindisfarne and elsewhere. This was due to the direct appeal made by King
Edwy of Northumbria to the monks of Iona to come into Northumbria, and
continue in the North the work of St. Paulinus, which had been interrupted
by the incursions of Penda. Iona, the foundation and home of St. Columba,
was a large monastic and missionary centre regulated according to the true
type of Celtic monachism under the abbatial superior; and from Iona came
St. Aidan and the other Celtic apostles of the northern parts. In one
point, so far as the evidence exists for forming any judgment at all, the
new foundation of Lindisfarne differed from the parent house at Iona. At
the Northumbrian monastery the bishop was the head and took the place of
the abbot, and did not occupy the subordinate position held by the bishops
at Iona and its dependencies.