The Benedictine order is unique in that it is not a confederation so much as a catch-all classification applied to semi-autonomous communities. It imposes no supra-communal hierarchy upon its houses, though individual monasteries often interfere in the matters of their daughter priories unless the latter are able to become independent. Thus, individual houses often have little oversight imposed upon them from outside the cloister [3]. With the exception of visitations, they are generally responsible for disciplining themselves as they see fit with regard to observance of ritual and the Rule. Such a state of affairs has resulted in corruption and scandal within some houses, and this, combined with the hidebound tradition that encumbers many Benedictine communities, has inspired much criticism of the order in the last forty years, especially from the reform-minded clergy. Indeed, when zealous reformers founded the new, more austere monastic orders in the last century, they were reacting in part to what they saw as the opulent and greedy Benedictine houses [4].
The Benedictines are known as the "black monks" and "black nuns" due to the predominantly dark colors of their garments [5]. Their communities vary widely in size and stature, the most prestigious and independent being known as abbeys, the lesser houses as priories [6]. The individual populations of many Benedictine houses peaked several decades ago, and are gradually declining. A very large male community might number over 100 monks; the cathedral priory of Canterbury has 140. Most, though, are much smaller, with some having less than the minimum apostolic ideal of twelve brethren or sisters and one head [7]. A male Benedictine community is termed a priory if it is subordinate to another house, and an abbey if it is independent; cathedral monasteries, which are in a sense dependent upon episcopates, are known as priories, not abbeys. A nunnery, in contrast, is considered a priory if its endowments are relatively minor, and an abbey otherwise [8]. Some of the wealthiest monastic communities in England are Benedictine, including all but one of the cathedral monasteries, but there are many small and poor priories as well [9].
HistoryThe Scandinavian invasions and general upheaval of the following centuries almost extinguished regular clerical life in England. A number of religious communities were destroyed outright by raiders, and many others suffered spiritual decay to the point where their members lived more as laypersons than as clergy. This period was followed in the tenth century by a monastic revival, the impetus for which was provided by St. Dunstan and other energetic reformers. Wayward houses were brought back into line, and new communities were established. Not all monasteries were revitalized, however. In particular, the powerful abbeys formerly populated by mixed communities of men and women religious were not restored to their former glory. Some were abandoned entirely, others converted to exclusively male monasteries, and the single remaining abbey, Barking, was refounded as an all-female house, a shadow of its former self. While new communities of nuns were established during the religious revival of the tenth century, they were not of the same stature as the old abbeys, nor were they the equal of the newer male houses. Female monasticism has never fully recovered the prestige and influence it once had in England [11].
The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought further upheaval. The new masters of England were determined to transform the country's monastic culture by imbuing it with Norman traditions. They set about accomplishing their aims by concentrating on reforming monks' houses, leaving most female communities to their own devices. In addition to founding a number of new male Benedictine monasteries, the Normans altered the character of the pre-Conquest communities by placing them under the leadership of dynamic religious from Bec and other influential French houses. These superiors endeavored to supplant English customs with Continental conventions through various means, including in at least one case force of arms. The realization of their aims was only encouraged by the gradual replacement of Anglo-Saxon religious with clergy drawn from the ranks of the Norman nobility. Given the shift from an Anglo-Saxon to a Norman ruling class following 1066, the latter was a natural process, since the nobility formed the pool from which nearly all religious were drawn during this period. Simultaneously, the Normans began to replace the old conventual churches and claustral complexes with structures built on a scale more magnificent than had previously been common in England. Ultimately, these assimilatory efforts met with success; by the early twelfth century, the pre-Conquest houses were little different from their Norman counterparts. The Conquest thus brought fundamental changes to English monasticism [12].
Since the early years of Henry I's reign, English Benedictine houses have been exposed to Cluniac customs via the exchange of religious between the two orders, notably the installation of Cluniac monks as abbots in independent Benedictine houses. As a result, many Benedictine communities have adopted some Cluniac practices as their own, whether in whole or in part. The changes, generally affecting liturgical celebration, have been for the most part gradual rather than radical [13]. To a lesser extent, the culture of the newer and more austere orders such as the Cistercians has influenced the Benedictines as well. For example, the Cistercian criticism of the acceptance of child oblates has led to the abandonment of this practice by most Benedictine houses [14]. But though the black monks and nuns have made subtle changes in response to the examples set by other orders, their communities and traditions are still fundamentally those of the unaffiliated Benedictines. They have not lost their unique identity.
Spiritual concerns alone do not motivate the lack of interest in the old order; other, more worldly considerations also govern patrons' choices of monastic donees. Practicality favors the granting of assets to houses of the newer orders instead of Benedictine monasteries. The latter require much the same resources as do lay lords: arable, pasture, mills, tolls, fees, and numerous tenants. In the first years following the Conquest, the nobility had a surplus of land, and thus lords were relatively liberal in their donations to monasteries, whether the latter were of pre-Conquest origin or new foundations. As the years progressed, however, cultivated land has become a much more valuable commodity. This is due to both a rise in the price of agricultural produce, and to the fact that many lords subinfeudated their lands to such an extent that their descendants now have less demesne than they would like. Since the newer monastic orders tend to require less in the way of developed land, their popularity has increased at the expense of the Benedictines. A lord today finds that it is much cheaper to endow a house of Cistercian monks, who are happy with land that is waste to the donor, or an Augustinian priory, which is ideally suited to receive gifts of benefices, than it is to support a Benedictine community [18].
This is not to say that Benedictine houses receive so little that they are unable to support themselves; in fact, this is generally not the case, though few communities are actually expanding their holdings to any significant degree. New Benedictine houses have even been founded in the last hundred years, especially in the early and middle parts of the century. Most of these, however, are nunneries. Since female communities are not expected to be as wealthy as their male counterparts, the foundation or patronage of a nunnery is generally not as expensive an undertaking. In some areas, female convents are fairly popular beneficiaries of laypersons' largess; in particular, the middle of this century saw a large number of nunneries founded in the north of England [19].
Some Benedictine houses, especially older ones, are located within towns that have grown up around them over the years. Such monasteries tend to be inextricably involved with the secular communities surrounding them. The monks or nuns may grant the burgesses market privileges, agree to or dispute the formation of guilds, or farm out the right to hold borough courts to the town citizens. If the town prospers, it may generate enormous amounts of wealth for the religious who rule it, though it is also more likely to attempt to wrest control of its government away from its monastic lord. Most religious communities located within urban areas are male houses, though a few nunneries occupy similar positions. Most female convents are founded either in rural areas, or on the suburban outskirts of towns [25].
Patrons who are also liege lords have the right of wardship over the monastic lands when the abbacy or priorate is vacant. The patron, who is often the king, is entitled to custody of the superior's portion of the monastic property and the revenue generated thereby during the vacancy. This privilege mirrors a lord's right of wardship over a lay vassal and his or her property when the latter has not yet come of age. In the case of a house under royal patronage, the justiciar sends royal clerks to audit the monastic property, and a fee is assessed that must be paid to the king annually until the vacancy is filled. A religious from within or outside the community who is appointed by the king acts as a sort of bailiff, ensuring that the appropriate revenue is forwarded to the crown each year. Alternatively, the king may use the wardship as a patronage resource, granting it to a bishop whom the king wishes to reward, or even granting it to the religious house itself in return for a significant fee. Other patrons may follow similar courses of action [26].
The lucrative nature of monastic custody encourages unscrupulous patrons to neglect to fill vacancies for long periods of time. Such extended vacancies have led Benedictine monastic communities to split their lands between the head of the house and the rest of the community. This strategy allows religious houses to avoid forfeiting all of the income generated by their lands while they endure a vacant abbacy or priorate. When the office is not vacant, the superior's portion of the monastic property pays for his or her household and its servants, as well as some of the costs of hospitality. If the monastic community holds lands by knight service, the superior's holdings also provide the necessary knights to the house's liege lord [27].
Internally, Benedictine houses organize themselves along standard monastic lines, with a superior, a cellarer, a precentor, and other officers dictated by the Rule or added to the hierarchy in the last few centuries. Property is divided between the head of the house and the rest of the community [34]. Additionally, the obedientiary system is standard in Benedictine houses. The community's share of the monastic possessions is apportioned between various departments, each headed by an obedientiary, for the purposes of management and profit. This system has led to numerous abuses, and critics of the Benedictines hold the obedientiary system up as an example of why the black monks and nuns are in urgent need of reform [35].
A number of Benedictine nunneries in the north of England hold lands that fall outside the manorial system. Such property lacks the integral labor force found on manorial lands, and thus its holder must directly exploit it instead of merely providing management from a distance. Additionally, northern nunneries tend to possess more appropriated benefices than do their southern counterparts, benefices to which vicars must be appointed. Their holdings therefore threaten to enmesh them in a series of temporal relationships, a state of affairs that is at odds with attempts to remain apart from the secular world [36]. Houses that find themselves in this predicament, inspired by the example set by nearby Gilbertine priories, often incorporate male religious into their communities. Some include a small number of regular canons who are to minister to the nuns' spiritual needs, and may also fulfill parochial duties in appropriated churches. Conversi of one or both sexes may be present, charged with managing and working the community's lands. Many such monasteries are ruled by a prior with a subordinate prioress, or the male and female superiors may share power. Women outnumber men in such communities by a ratio of between two and four to one. The inclusion of male religious and lay sisters serves to insulate the nuns from regular contact with laypersons when such isolation would otherwise be impossible [37].
Ideally, the bishop and the monks work together in harmony in a monastic cathedral, but in practice this is rarely true for a variety of reasons. The bishop's duties keep him from overseeing the religious, and in consequence, the prior has come to function as the de facto head of the community, the bishop holding little actual power over his monks. The bishop is entitled to appoint the prior and usually a few of the other major priory officers, such as the cellarer, the sacrist, the chamberlain, and the almoner, but he should make the appointments only with the consent of the monks. Other officers are to be elected by the religious without interference from the bishop. Other factors, both psychological and practical, contribute to discord between bishop and priory. The latter's monks are permanent fixtures, whereas bishops come and go. Additionally, many bishops have secular ecclesiastical backgrounds, and there may be little love lost between them and the religious for this reason. A bishop of a monastic see has fewer patronage resources with which to reward the secular clergy of his entourage, since the monks hold a significant portion of the episcopal lands [39].
These differences provide opportunities for a host of internal conflicts to plague the cathedral. The monks may attempt to gain additional freedom from their bishop, with their prior leading them in the fight. Since monasteries are supposed to elect their own abbots, the monks often feel entitled to elect one of their number as bishop, and sometimes attempt it. They are usually unsuccessful in such endeavors, which is not surprising given the power wielded by the other interested parties when it comes to the appointment of a bishop, including other members of the secular ecclesiastical hierarchy, the king, and the papacy. When the monks are foiled in their attempt, they tend to alienate their new bishop and work against him [40]. All this contributes to bad feeling between many cathedral priories and their bishop-abbots, and has led to bitter argument and even violence. Baldwin, the archbishop of Canterbury, has been involved for years in a scheme to establish a collegiate church of secular canons that would eventually replace the archdiocesan cathedral priory of Christ Church. He has met strong opposition from his monks, and at one point responded by imprisoning them within their monastery. Even more bitter is the conflict between Hugh of Nonant, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and the diocesan priory of Coventry. The bishop, a longtime foe of cathedral priories, has committed violent acts against his monastery, ejecting a number of the brethren and destroying some of the conventual buildings [41].
While ideally the filling of a vacancy should proceed smoothly as outlined above, it rarely does. The powerful interests of the patron, the visitor, and other parties, which often fail to coincide with those of the community, cannot be denied. In particular, those Benedictine monasteries to which the king acts as patron are expected to send a delegation of religious to court, where they hold an election under royal supervision. The religious, for their part, often require the delegates to take an oath to only elect one of a few candidates, the latter being chosen by the monks or nuns in chapter prior to delegation's departure. The names of the candidates may even be presented to the delegates under seal. The king, of course, will only accept the electoral result if it pleases him. Although the elections held in this manner are clearly controlled by the patron, the monasteries often end up with a superior with whom they are satisfied, since the royal ear is generally receptive to the delegation's recommendations. Occasionally, the king insists upon appointing someone for whom he has been waiting for a vacancy to open. But even in such cases, the new superior is usually qualified for his or her new position [45].
The actual investiture of the superior of a Benedictine community that is not exempt from episcopal authority usually involves the bestowing of formal confirmation and a blessing by a bishop, generally the diocesan. The latter also has the right, by ancient custom, to depose the head of a non-exempt house. This is almost never done, however, probably due to the fact that such an action would irritate the patron of the monastery and other interested and powerful parties. In fact, Benedictine communities have no rules as to how an unworthy superior is to be removed. In most cases, the latter retains his or her office until death, or until he or she is transferred to another priorate or abbacy, or in the case of a male, is made a bishop [46].
While ideally a Benedictine superior is intimately involved in his or her community's conventual life, such is rarely the case. In fact, it may be argued that compared with the superiors of other orders, the abbots and abbesses of large Benedictine houses are the most aloof from their brethren or sisters. Such a superior is not a parental figure so much as an ambassador who represents the community to the outside world, but has little contact with the religious in his or her charge. The problem is at least partly one of limited time. The superior must put much effort into the maintenance of good relations with neighbors, patrons, and other parties of consequence. He or she must also administer his or her portion of the monastic lands; since the latter are often widely scattered, this involves a significant amount of travel [47]. If an abbot, he may be called upon to act as a papal judge-delegate, a position that may easily consume months of time [48]. As a result, the head of a wealthy community is likely to be away from the monastic precinct for much of his or her tenure of office. Smaller and poorer Benedictine monasteries suffer the absence of their superiors less often, allowing the heads of such communities to be more involved in the daily lives of their charges.
Benedictine communities, like houses of other orders, generally appoint a master or mistress of novices, and perhaps a separate master or mistress of children, though usually the two positions are combined into one. Neither office is considered particularly important by the black monks and their female counterparts. This is because the latter do not believe that the training of novices is of great consequence; the two officers are merely meant to teach initiates the community's customs and ensure that they behave themselves [49].
This is not to say that aspirants do not join communities as children; in fact, child novices are still quite common amongst the Benedictines. However, they are not oblates, and thus are supposed to be able to decline profession and reenter the secular world. Older aspirants are meant to spend a year as novices before being professed, but oftentimes their novitiate is considerably shorter [52].
The religious populating Benedictine communities are often of noble stock, especially in the older and wealthier monasteries. Males commonly take the priestly orders; in fact, black monks are more likely to be ordained than the male religious of most other orders [53].
The physical layout and structure of a Benedictine enclosure generally follows standard monastic patterns, with the church forming the northern side of the cloister if possible. The church frequently features a tower at its crossing, or between the nave and chancel if it lacks transepts. Its chancel often sports an apsidal east end, as might the aisles of the chancel. Semicircular projections containing altars may also extend from the east wall of the transepts in a male house, where most of the religious are ordained and thus may celebrate private Masses. A cathedral priory usually sets aside the chancel as a private chapel for its monks [57].
The other three ranges of a Benedictine monastery hold the dormitory,chapter house, parlor, refectory, storage cellars, and so forth. The refectory is often aligned along an east-west axis, with the kitchen and calefactory located either to one side of it, or below the dormitory, or in a detached building to the south of the refectory. The latter arrangement reduces the risk of a blaze spreading through the complex. The subordinate prior or prioress may be quartered on the upper level of the western range; in smaller communities, the superior and guests may be there as well [58].
In general, the course of day-to-day life is to a great extent determined by the myriad traditions that have developed over the years in each house, especially the older monasteries. Some communities stress the celebration of the Divine Office, others the copying of books, and a few have gradually relaxed discipline to the point where the inmates have spare time on their hands. Most have customs that lead to idiosyncrasies. One house might serve two meals each day throughout the winter months, another might extend the celebration of one or more canonical hours at the expense of private prayer, and a third might expect its members to do some ritualized labor on occasion. The presence of so many different customs in Benedictine communities, and the resulting lack of uniformity, has often stood in the way of reform, and this has only encouraged critics in their condemnations of the order. The fact that obedientiaries are excused from following the monastic regimen when they are fulfilling their duties, and often live more as laypersons than as regular clergy, has only increased the outcry of detractors [60].
Roughly speaking, the horarium changes fundamentally three times each year. During the first period, from September 13th through Ash Wednesday, the winter schedule is in effect, featuring one meal per day in the early afternoon except on Sundays and feast days, when a second meal is allowed in the evening. Through the end of October, the religious may nap twice per day, but from November onwards through the winter, they only sleep during the hours of darkness. The second period extends through Lent, and is thus known as the Lenten schedule. During this time, a single meal is taken just as in the winter, but in the late afternoon so as to allow fasting through the daylight hours. A variation of the Lenten schedule applies on other fast days, such as Ember Days. Finally, during the third period, from Easter through September 12th, the religious follow the summer schedule. They nap twice each day and have two meals, dinner around midday and supper in the evening. However, on Wednesdays and Fridays from Whitsuntide onwards, the standard summer schedule is put aside and a single meal is eaten each day in the early afternoon. Children and elderly religious are often allowed a small morning breakfast throughout the year [62]. Sample schedules for each of these periods are provided in the Appendix of this document.
Within the three periods, there are numerous deviations from the standard timetables, the details of which are beyond the scope of this article. The schedule of any monastic house is extremely complex, and given that each Benedictine community incorporates its own variations into daily life, the above can provide only the roughest of outlines.
Furthermore, Benedictine libraries tend to hold a greater diversity of works than do those of the reformist orders, with books on theology, canon law, literature, and medicine nestled alongside bibles, saints' lives, and historical chronicles [66]. The books of these libraries are often not only intellectually stimulating, but also visually stunning. Benedictine scribes and illuminators, as well as the laypersons hired by the black monks and nuns to assist in copying and rubrication, are known for the high quality of their work, and at times considerable resources are lavished upon the creation of a book. The result is a work featuring richly drawn illustrations, gold leaf decoration, and an elaborate binding that may include a cover inlaid with precious metals [67].
The order produced some impressive scholars during the heyday of monastic learning, and even now, the religious of some Benedictine houses are known for their scholarship. Studying generally replaces work on feast days, and in some communities, the horarium is amended to allow those who wish to read during rest periods to do so. These conditions foster intellectual activity in Benedictine houses. With the rise of universities, however, the cloister schools of the black monks are in decline. Men who seek a good education are better off in the secular colleges of Paris than in a monastery. Schooling for women is a different matter, since they generally cannot attend universities. For them, Benedictine conventual life offers the best opportunity for education, and many of the most learned women are found amongst the black nuns [68].
The decline in Benedictine scholarship is due not only to the universities' attraction of learned men away from the monasteries. The obedientiary system, and administrative responsibilities in general, consume energy at the expense of intellectual pursuits. As religious become more involved in managing monastic resources, they have less time for learning or the reproduction of books. Much of the copying that is done is performed by younger religious or those who are uninterested in obedientiary duties. Even the scribes hired by some Benedictine houses are often employed in secretarial capacities instead of as copyists [69].
Though their diets are more restricted, cloistered monks and nuns also enjoy a variety of dishes in many Benedictine communities. Quantities are often generous, and pittances are common additions to the daily meals. Feast days feature elaborate banquets, with ten or more courses served in the refectories of the wealthiest houses on important holidays. Ale is the usual beverage, or wine if the community can afford it. Mead may be served on special occasions [71]. The customary drink in the refectory in the afternoon during the summer and in the evening in winter sometimes includes light bread or cakes [72]. Not surprisingly, reformist clergy often hold up Benedictine diets as further evidence that the order has strayed from the path of true monasticism into sinful corruption [73].
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 1 summarizes the winter horarium through the end of October.
It allows for two sleep periods during daylight hours and a single meal,
dinner, taken in the afternoon. Note that on Sundays and other feast days,
many houses serve a second meal, supper, in the late afternoon or early
evening hours.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 2 outlines the winter horarium from November through the
beginning of Lent. The two daytime naps are eliminated, but otherwise it
is nearly the same as the autumn timetable. Again, the religious of many
houses take a second meal, supper, on Sundays and other feast days.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 3 lays out the Lenten horarium, which is used on other
fast days during the year as well. It is nearly identical to the winter
timetable, except that the religious fast all day and only eat their dinner
in the early evening.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Table 4 summarizes the standard summer horarium. The day starts
earlier and ends later than it does in the winter. To help offset the loss
of sleep, two naps are permitted during the daylight hours. Two meals,
dinner and supper, are taken, the first at around midday, the second in
the early evening.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Finally, Table 5 outlines the alternate summer horarium used on Wednesdays and Fridays from Whitsuntide to the middle of September. In essence, it combines the summer and winter timetables. The days of the religious are long and daytime rest periods are allowed, but no supper is served.
2. Saint Benedict, "Rule for Monasteries," Readings in Medieval History, 2nd edition, ed. Patrick J. Geary (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1997), 158-187.
3. Knowles, Monastic Order, 371; and Janet Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders in Britain 1000-1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 213.
4. Knowles, Monastic Order, 193-202, 276, 315-321, 371, 649-654.
5. G. Cyprian Alston, "Benedictine Order," Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Kevin Knight, 1999, 21 Oct. 2001 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02443a.htm>
6. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 47.
7. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 173-174.
8. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 47, 93.
9. Rosalind Hill, "From the Conquest to the Black Death," A History of Religion in Britain, ed. Sheridan Gilley and W. J. Sheils (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1994), 50; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 8-11.
10. Knowles, Monastic Order, 21-23; and Sharon K. Elkins, Holy Women of Twelfth Century England (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 1.
11. Knowles, Monastic Order, 23-24, 31-42, 48; and Elkins, Holy Women, 1.
12. Knowles, Monastic Order, 111-115, 121, 126-127; and Elkins, Holy Women, 13.
13. Knowles, Monastic Order, 174, 280-286.
14. Knowles, Monastic Order, 421-423.
15. Elkins, Holy Women, 13, 61, 76; and Brian Golding, "Monasticism and the Benedictine Order," Medieval England: An Encyclopedia, ed. Paul E. Szarmach, et al.(New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998), 522.
16. Knowles, Monastic Order, 315; and Janet Burton, The Monastic Order in Yorkshire, 1069-1215 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 43.
17. Knowles, Monastic Order, 425-426.
18. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 48-49, 239-241, 250; Hill, "From the Conquest", 53; Colin Platt, Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to 1600 A.D. (New York: Charles Sribner's Sons, 1978), 46; Hugh M. Thomas, Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders and Thugs: The Gentry of Angevin Yorkshire, 1154-1216 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 33-34; Judith A. Green, The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 403.
19. Thomas, Vassals, 149; and Elkins, Holy Women, 76.
20. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 211-212; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 609.
21. Bennett D. Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries and Their Patrons in the Twelfth Century (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968), 44; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 213; Knowles, Monastic Order, 609; and Green, Aristocracy, 427.
22. Knowles, Monastic Order, 476-478; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 179-180.
23. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 239-241.
24. Knowles, Monastic Order, 609; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 250.
25. Knowles, Monastic Order, 445-447; and Roberta Gilchrist, Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women (London: Routledge, 1994), 64).
26. Green, Aristocracy, 427; Knowles, Monastic Order, 612-614; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 214.
27. Knowles, Monastic Order, 405-406, 612-613; and Doris M. Stenton, English Society in the Early Middle Ages (1066-1307) (Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1951), 242.
28. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 48-49, 245-246
29. G. H. Cook, The English Mediaeval Parish Church (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1970), 41-42; Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 33; and Elkins, Holy Women, 91-92.
30. Knowles, Monastic Order, 481-482; and Roy Midmer, English Mediaeval Monasteries (1066-1540): A Summary (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1979), 19-20.
31. Knowles, Monastic Order, 534-538; and Percy Watson, Building the Medieval Cathedrals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 35.
32. Midmer, English Mediaeval Monasteries, 20-22; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 303.
33. Knowles, Monastic Order, 85.
34. Knowles, Monastic Order, 276, 300-302.
35. Knowles, Monastic Order, 427-431, 435-438.
36. Elkins, Holy Women, 93-94.
37. Elkins, Holy Women, 90-92.
38. Knowles, Monastic Order, 129-134, 625, 629; and Hill, "From the Conquest", 50.
39. Frank Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216, 5th edition (London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., 1999), 316-317; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 318, 624, 626-627.
40. Barlow, Feudal Kingdom, 316-317; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 630.
41. Knowles, Monastic Order, 315-323.
42. Knowles, Monastic Order, 476-478.
43. Knowles, Monastic Order, 473-475.
44. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 213; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 415.
45. Knowles, Monastic Order, 399-403.
46. Knowles, Monastic Order, 403-404.
47. Knowles, Monastic Order, 407-410.
48. Knowles, Monastic Order, 409; and Hill, English Cistercian Monasteries, 144.
49. Knowles, Monastic Order, 422-423.
50. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 178-80; Knowles, Monastic Order, 440, 467; and Eileen Power, Medieval English Nunneries circa 1275 to 1535 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922), 153.
51. Knowles, Monastic Order, 421-422.
52. Knowles, Monastic Order, 419, 422-423.
53. Hamilton, Religion, 29.
54. Knowles, Monastic Order, 444-445.
55. Knowles, Monastic Order, 669-670; Sally Thompson, Women Religious: The Founding of English Nunneries after the Norman Conquest (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 213-214; and Power, Medieval English Nunneries, 342-343.
56. The illustration is conjectural, showing how Durham Cathedral's east end might have looked in the late twelfth century. See Ian Curry, "Aspects of the Anglo-Norman Design of Durham Cathedral," Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th Series, vol. XIV, 1986, 31-48. Architecturally, the illustration is based primarily upon that article's Figures 4 and 8, found on pages 38 and 47 respectively.
57. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 137-139, 141; J. C. Dickinson, Monastic Life in Medieval England (London: Adam and Charles Black Ltd., 1961), 17-26; and Hill, "From the Conquest", 50.
58. Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 141-144.
59. Knowles, Monastic Order, 467, 534-538; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 187-189.
60. Knowles, Monastic Order, 438-439, 457, 467.
61. Knowles, Monastic Order, 448-453.
62. Knowles, Monastic Order, 448-453, 456-457.
63. Knowles, Monastic Order, 463-464, 540-543; and Hamilton, Religion, 29.
64. J. C. Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England (London: S.P.C.K., 1950), 192; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 187-189, 201.
65. Knowles, Monastic Order, 525; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 193-194.
66. Knowles, Monastic Order, 525-526; and Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 194-200.
67. James Westfall Thompson, The Medieval Library (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), 599; Robert Bartlett, England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings 1075-1225 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 528-529; and Knowles, Monastic Order, 522.
68. Dickinson, Origins, 192; Ernest A. Savage, Old English Libraries: The Making, Collection, and Use of Books During the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 1911), 23-24; and Hamilton, Religion, 33.
69. Knowles, Monastic Order, 519-520; and Thompson, Medieval Library, 599.
70. Knowles, Monastic Order, 457-463.
71. Knowles, Monastic Order, 463-465.
72. Knowles, Monastic Order, 457.
73. Knowles, Monastic Order, 669.
74. Alston, "Benedictine Order;" and Elkins, Holy Women, 3-4.
75. Knowles, Monastic Order, 453-456; Power, Medieval English Nunneries, 287; and Burton , Monastic and Religious Orders, 165.
76. David Knowles, "The Monastic Horarium 970-1120," Downside Review, vol. LI, Oct. 1933, 711-717, 721-722; Knowles, Monastic Order, 4-6, 448-471, 714-715; Burton, Monastic and Religious Orders, 159-161; and E. K. Milliken, English Monasticism Yesterday and Today (London: George G. Harrap and Company, Ltd., 1967), 80.
| Copyright © 2002 Christopher Golden All Rights Reserved. Last modified 5-7-02 |