I hope you enjoyed the first lecture and tutorial. Having moved *very* briskly through the Late Roman Empire, this week we're going to be thinking about the ways that Christianity structured life - at least for some people - in the Early Medieval World.
This image shows a plan of a monastery drawn up in a place called Reichenau sometime in the early 9th century (about 819-826 A.D.). It's known as the St Gall Monastery Plan, because it's been stored in the library of St Gall monastery, almost since it was made. The actual artefact is massive; it's made of five pieces of parchment sewn together, and measures 112 cm x 77.5 cm. I've chosen this image to stimulate your thoughts this week because scholars think that this plan isn't a plan at all... In other words, it's not like an architect's drawing to help builders to construct a monastery, or even a drawing of what the floorplan of an actual set of buildings looked like. Instead, they think it might be a kind of map of the ideal organisation of a monastery, and maybe therefore a visual metaphor for the ideal organisation of Christian life.
So when you're reading and preparing for this week, it might be useful to think about what kinds of ideal Christian organisation the readings are discussing. What are they saying about how monks should live? Or about other Christians? What did this organisation represent; what was it for? Or perhaps you have other responses...!
If you have 'time', you might also want to think about how differently from us medieval people thought about time itself. How does the Benedictine Rule structure the hours of the day?
Post your thoughts, comments, ideas, questions or uncertainties below, and we'll discuss further when we meet on Monday.
Have a great week!
Kathleen
P.S. You can read more about the St Gall Plan and zoom in to see the amazing detail here: http://www.stgallplan.org/en/
P.P.S. You can find out more about medieval concepts of dates and times here: http://www.gardenhistoryinfo.com/medieval/medtime.html
11 comments:
In the grand scheme of things, this will seem a little unimportant, but i was taken by the number of designated places for servents on the 'map'. Who were these people? Serfs? Paid help? Lowly religious monks (just starting out in the monastery)? Were women allowed to work or was it an all-male environment? I always presumed it was the monks who did all the work in the monasteries, becoming quite highly skilled in both craft and religious teachings, as a result.
Great question Clare. Actually it's not a small issue, now or then.
In very early monasteries - and probably in most small or poor ones - the monks themselves did the work. But as monasteries grew more wealthy and large, and as the amount of spiritual work they were expected to do increased, they took on what were called 'lay brothers' to do the menial tasks, and most of the jobs that required interacting with the outside world. Often these men came from the local peasantry. Lay brothers were not 'full' monks (sometimes called choir monks, because they sang mass), but they lived by a Rule (a kind of 'Benedictine Lite') and their work was dedicated to God. However, they weren't considered as high up the spiritual hierarchy as the choir monks.
You're correct to suspect that monasteries were (generally) all male environments. There were some interesting exceptions: for example, convents of nuns needed some male staff because there were important tasks that women were not able to do - like being priest.
There are some great books in the library if you want to follow this up. Try C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism as a starting point.
In relation to section 58 of the Rule of St. Benedict, titled 'Concerning the Manner of Receiving Brothers', I find it interesting that a multitude of tests were used to establish whether people striving to join the Monastery were steadfast in their devotion to God, and if so were on that basis allowed to convert. Section 58 also provides that after joining the congregation, monks were not allowed to leave.
Was exile from the monastery the central type of punishment for monks who disobeyed this requirement and were monks who left allowed back in?
Hi Dinesh, I was also interested by this initiation of sorts that new members of a monestary had to undergo...it must have been a lengthy and involved process. With what seem to me as periods of probation where one must prove ones worthiness.
In the second half of this weeks reading I stumbled across part of the answer to your question. I found it in the sub section entitled Medieval Voices on page 127; In Chapter 29 of the Benedictine Rule (this chapter was left out of the extracts in our reader) It states that..'If a brother who by his own fault leaves the monastery wishes to return, let him first promise all amends for the fault on account of which he departed and let him be recieved into the last place so that thereby his humility may be proved. But if he leaves again, up to the third time, let him be taken back in the same way knowing that after this every opportunity of return in denied'
I think that this seems a fair rule...however a hard one for the monk returning, the process of being humbled could be harsher than what is discribed here!
The election of Abbots in monasteries shows a contrast to the election of Bishops in the early church, as Bishops often came from wealthy aristocracy and Abbots were chosen for humility and servitude; but were Abbots ever denounced or replaced? In Chapter 2 of the Benedictine Rule is describes what the Abbot was supposed to be like once chosen, but how were they chosen? Was it a vote between the monks or did a particular individual sort of assume the role?
Initiation is a great issue to focus on. I think what seems like the harshness of initiation rules might be to do with what monasteries were really for, as opposed to how they could be perceived from outside. To local people, monastic life might have seemed pretty luxurious: there was food laid on, and you got shelter and status, with (comparatively) little hard labour. I think the monks probably worried that some people - especially adults who had already lived 'in the world' - might be trying to join for the 'wrong' reasons. They wouldn't really be dedicated to a life of piety and prayer and denial. And if the monastery filled up with people like that, not only would discipline probably dissolve, but the key purpose of the monastery - producing effective prayer - would be undermined. Plus, I suppose, we could think of it as a kind of proactive policy for mental suitability. Monastic life was hard, and they were trying to weed out the people who wouldn't be likely to cope before they 'signed on the dotted line', and as Dinesh noticed, couldn't pull out.
Do these ideas fit with yours? Are there more possible explanations?
What I found to be of the highest interest in this weeks readings is that the monastic ideal was always to be alone with god, and that the word monk comes from the greek word monachos, meaning 'someone who lives alone'. What I found equally as interesting is the idea that the Holy men who lived alone always attracted followers, kind of a testament to the herd-like nature of men.
The nature in which politics and religion played hand in hand as bishops most often stemmed from wealthy families is also a critical point.
Although I would describe myself as somewhat of a cynic of the church in general I was pleasantly surprised to learn that they often fed and sheltered the poor. I think it is fair to say without the church having existed institutions such as universities may not exist as education may have stayed a 'privilege of the wealthy elite'.
Having read up on the strict lifestyles of monks and the rigid control exercised by the church, coupled with its influence over Medieval society, I was rendered quite surprised by the discovery that the eighth and ninth centuries saw an increase in the spread of classical learning, as I had previously considered the Medieval church to be averse to all forms of non-Christian material, and extremely rigorous in its enforcement of this rule. As a big fan of both Classical and Medieval history, it was interesting to read and understand how the Classical lifestyle formed the foundation upon which the Medieval world and Christianity were constructed. As a lover of Classical literature also, I find myself thankful towards the Medieval church for its preservation of these documents and the revival in Classical learning that occurred under its guidance. I confess that I was not previously aware of the massive role that the church played in all aspects of education in Medieval life.
Whilst reading this week’s reading s I was most taken with the section of the Benedictine’s Rule concerning ‘humility’. It described how monks must live in a constant state of feeling worthless, believing that they are “viler and more worthless than all”. All this is on the basis that they are not worthy enough to live in God’s presence as they are but they must partake in constant penance to rectify this. I’m intrigued to understand what the psychological mindset of the monks must have been at the time. For, personally I don’t believe that relentlessly telling yourself that you’re worthless would have too good an impact on your state of mind.
Oh thanks, this is helpful. Admittedly, I wrote the above comment before I had done this weeks's readings, but now that I have, its all becoming clearer. The term 'lay brothers' certainly rings a bell, and their role makes perfect sense in the larger monastic communities. Again, thanks!
No problems! And for the record, I should correct a minor error in my information above - the monks weren't singing mass as such, but the 'hours', i.e. the psalms specified to be sung at certain times, as we saw. (Only ordained priests could say the mass.)
Post a Comment