Monasticism

The Reformation has profoundly influenced modern attitudes to monasticism through the largely negative portrayal of monasteries in the traditional Protestant version of English history. Even in a thoroughly secular society it has left a residue of suspicion and a lack of empathy for the monastic vocation. Today religious houses are associated with sanitized ruins and the fervour that inspired them is alien. Something of this fervour can be found in the classic survey of English medieval monasticism by David Knowles, himself a Benedictine monk. More recent work has tended to emphasize institutional and demographic rather than spiritual developments. The formative period, the years of monastic expansion, continues to attract scholars producing studies of orders and general works, most recently Janet Burton’s lucid exposition. The late medieval period has received less attention and lacks any general synthesis, though there has been a steady growth of studies of individual houses.

Monasticism had a strong appeal in the middle ages. At the height of its expansion in the mid-twelfth century nine new houses were founded a year and by about 1320 there were over a thousand houses in England. No other period has equalled it. In the twelfth century monasticism represented the ideal of Christian observance and it was widely assumed that a serious commitment to live a Christian life entailed becoming a monk. Such was the appeal of this ideal that monasteries were able to recruit on a large scale and draw widespread support from society to sustain them. Lay support, particularly royal and magnate patronage, was crucial in providing the resources necessary to found religious houses; without it expansion would not have been possible. Though they did not become monks, founders, patrons and benefactors were able to participate in the monastic ideal by making gifts. In return monasteries offered to smooth the route to heaven through masses, prayers and provision of a privileged burial place. Part of the appeal of monasticism lay in its variety, which ranged from the relatively enclosed communities of the Cistercians to the Augus-tinians and friars who sought to engage more directly with society.

From the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries successive waves of monasticism flowed into England from the continent; Cluniacs in the late eleventh century, Cistercians and Augustinians from the early twelfth, Premonstratensians and the military orders from the mid-twelfth, and finally the friars in the early thirteenth. New orders often sprang from a sense of renewal and reform, seeking a return to what they saw as a simpler, more austere monasticism, with more scope for solitude, prayer and contemplation. In part they were a reaction against the corporate wealth and elaborate ritual of existing orders. Medieval monasticism had a strong cyclical element as each new order reinterpreted and reinvigorated the monastic ideal but in turn became settled and prosperous and through its very success lost some of its early zeal. The Cluniacs, once seen as reformers, were reviled for their worldliness by the Cistercians, who in turn also became comfortably established. For at the heart of medieval monasticism was a fundamental tension between the religious life and the demands of the secular world. As each order became powerful and successful it received lands intended to guarantee its independence but which inevitably brought more involvement in society and more distractions from the life of the cloister.

Around 1100 the Benedictines dominated. They were the oldest and richest order, well established before the Conquest. In the half-century after 1066, Normanization brought a significant revival, often spearheaded by Norman abbots. The number of houses increased; twenty-nine dependent cells, offshoots from large houses, and some forty-five alien priories, daughter houses of foreign monasteries, were founded. Benedictine energy fostered the uniquely English cathedral monasteries served by monks rather than secular canons as was usual on the continent, revived the great northern houses at Durham, York and Whitby, and launched a major building campaign. The great Benedictine Anglo-Norman abbeys were at the heart of the English church’s spiritual vigour and reached the peak of their influence in the reign of Henry I. Much of this was due to the reforming influence of the great French abbey of Cluny. The Cluniacs placed worship at the centre of their life through elaborate liturgy and splendid buildings. The first English Cluniac house was established at Lewes in 1077. The great Benedictine houses were also major economic centres with considerable wealth and power and they attracted substantial aristocratic patronage. This made them vulnerable to reforming critics and led to the loss of their spiritual leadership to the Cistercians. However, they remained an important part of English monasticism until the Dissolution.

The Augustinians, regular canons, tend to be eclipsed in accounts of monasticism by the zeal of the Cistercians and friars, yet they were one of the most successful monastic orders. From three houses in 1100 they grew to be the largest order in England with 274 houses compared with 219 Benedictine. The Augustinian rule was popular because of its adaptability, to location, suiting both towns and rural settings, to size, both large and small communities, and purpose, allowing more contact with society. This enabled some pastoral functions to be undertaken such as care of the sick; St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Smithfield, was linked with an Augustinian house. Because it was suitable for small-scale foundations it was popular with local landowners and those of more modest means. The only new monastic order originating in England, the Gilbertines, founded by Gilbert of Sempringham in the early twelfth century, grew out of the Augustinian tradition.

The Cistercians, one of the most austere and influential medieval orders, took over monastic leadership from the Benedictines in the early twelfth century under the charismatic guidance of St Bernard of Clairvaux. They were critical of what they regarded as the lapses of the Cluniacs, their elaborate buildings and liturgy and the worldliness that came with success. Instead they sought a simpler, more austere interpretation of the Benedictine rule which emphasized contemplation and prayer, located in remote places away from the distractions of secular society, and from where local peasants could be removed. Their version of Christian perfection met a widespread spiritual need felt in the twelfth century. The Cistercians quickly became popular and gained a reputation for asceticism and sanctity; William of Malmesbury described their life as the ‘surest road to heaven’. From their arrival in 1128 until 1152, when the order imposed a ban on new foundations, they dominated monastic foundations and grew spectacularly quickly, particularly in the north where Rievaulx abbey, Yorkshire, was a notable centre. Their values were reflected in the somewhat puritanical, plain appearance of their churches and in their simple dress and food. Manual labour had an important place in the Cistercian rule and was part of the daily lives of monks, who might help at haymaking and harvesting, although most of the physical labour of cultivation was assigned to lay brothers.

The Cistercians brought two important innovations to monasticism: their economic system of granges and a sophisticated international organizational structure. A grange was a monastic farm settlement used to exploit the remote lands often given to the order. Conversi or lay brothers bore the brunt of the physical work, allowing monks to carry out the Opus Dei. Recruited from the lower social classes, lay brothers were, in practice, second-class monks who shared the monastic life but in a parallel system with fewer religious duties. The organizational structure consisted of mother and daughter houses; every abbey had a mother house, which had founded it and took responsibility for it. The whole order came together at chapters general attended by all abbots, which gave it unity and internationalism. A system of visitations, inspections, maintained discipline and high standards. However, austerity and purity were difficult to sustain in the long term and, though Rievaulx and other houses retained their ascetic zeal into the thirteenth century, the Cistercians grew rich. In the process they also gained a reputation for avarice and sharp practice in the management of their estates. By the end of the thirteenth century the Cistercians, like the Benedictines, had become so well established that their fervour began to be blunted by the compromises that wealth and influence brought.

The Premonstratensians or white canons were more austere than the Augus-tinians. They placed more emphasis on the contemplative life, with a regime of fasting and silence drawn from the Cistercian tradition. Like the Augustinians they could be founded with modest resources. Between the mid-twelfth and mid-thirteenth centuries forty houses were established. Their development in the second half of the twelfth century benefited from the restrictions placed on Cistercian expansion at this time. In contrast to the Cistercians the much smaller Carthusian order retained and enhanced its reputation through the middle ages. After the foundation of their first house in 1178-9, they grew slowly, with only three in 1320 and ten by 1414 when the last house was founded. The Carthusians combined the individualism of the hermit with the community of monasticism in a group hermitage; monks lived physically austere lives in separate quarters but came together for services. It was essentially a solitary approach, which emphasized personal contemplation. Though small the order was influential, being one of the few that grew after the Black Death and maintained its reputation for asceticism. Its influence was particularly strong in the fifteenth century when it attracted royal and aristocratic patronage. Two military orders, the Templars and Hospitallers, are further evidence of the wide appeal and adaptability of monastic orders. They successfully combined the military skills and religious devotion of the knightly class in religious orders dedicated to protecting travellers and undertaking crusades around the Mediterranean. Though their main activities were outside England they maintained English centres, known as precep-tories and commanderies, for the administration of property and recruitment. The first Templar preceptory dates from about 1128 and the first Hospitaller comman-dery from about 1144. Each had over thirty houses by 1200 and continued to expand

In the thirteenth century as crusading retained its appeal. Gifts to the military orders were an attractive way to support the crusades without the commitment and risk of going personally.

The friars were the last great wave of medieval monastic expansion. The Dominicans, friars preachers, arrived in England in 1221 and spread quickly. By 1260 there were about thirty-six houses, a similar expansion rate to the Cistercians. The Franciscans, friars minor, arrived in 1224 and also made rapid progress, founding fifteen houses by 1230. Together the Dominicans and Franciscans had founded over 120 houses by 1300, about sixty each. There were two other main orders of friars: the Carmelites, white friars, the third largest order, who arrived in 1242 and had twenty-six houses by 1300; and the Augustinians, Austin friars, established in 1248 with about twelve houses by 1300. A largely urban phenomenon, there were about 190 friaries at their peak just before the Black Death. Like the Cistercians, the friars developed into strong international bodies. The Dominicans had three levels of organization, local, provincial and order-wide: priors attended the annual chapter of their province, and the whole order met in the general chapter. What is most notable about the Dominicans is the representative element at all levels of organization from prior to master-general. A similar but less representative system operated in the other orders and all used visitations to maintain standards.

Daily prayers, preaching and hearing confessions were the central tasks of the friars. What made them distinctive and appealing was their poverty, a rejection of property ownership and an emphasis on mendicancy, begging for alms. They were founded in response to a widely perceived need for more and better-quality preaching to promote religion among the laity, especially in towns. Here they found a ready audience among educated people and met their increasing demand for religious instruction. The friars quickly became both popular and fashionable, readily attracting a steady flow of gifts. They were respected not only for their poverty but because they were seen to be outside the ecclesiastical hierarchy and showed that a religious life could be led outside the cloisters of the old orders. Conflicts soon arose, however, with the parish clergy over the pastoral work undertaken by mendicants, which competed with existing churches on such matters as preaching and burials. Bishops were also wary of their independent status within their dioceses. Despite this, friars made an important contribution to the wider church in the thirteenth century; they produced books of sermons and preaching manuals, dominated the theology faculties of the universities and served as bishops and royal servants. There was some waning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when they became the butt of satire and criticism. As with all orders, the more successful they became the harder it was for them to preserve their ideals, especially poverty, but in contrast to the enclosed orders they continued to be respected and popular, still able to attract pious bequests.

Recent studies have begun to enlarge our understanding of female monasticism considerably, despite the relative scarcity of evidence. The distortions arising from traditional unfavourable comparisons with male houses have been challenged by a recent re-evaluation of the role of women religious. Female monasticism faced obstacles: outright hostility from the Cistercians, restriction to a limited role in the mendicant orders and a general dependence on men to celebrate mass and carry out visitations. Female houses did not share the rapid expansion of male houses and never reached their numbers; by the mid-thirteenth century there were only 150 female houses compared with 550 male. Nunneries were also generally smaller and poorer than monasteries. Nevertheless, a gradual expansion took place between 1100 and 1300 under both male and female patronage. Benedictine houses made up the majority, half the total with most of the rest Cistercian or Augustinian. Initial Cistercian hostility was grudgingly overcome in 1213 when female houses were formally recognized. The medieval church generally remained ambivalent about female monas-ticism. Nuns never achieved equality with monks or friars, an inferiority reflected in the dependence of all female houses on men, and a relative lack of education and scope for pastoral work. However, the church’s ambivalence was not shared by the laity. Late medieval wills generally contain more bequests to local nunneries than monasteries, except friaries. Although this reflects a perceived economic need, the piety and spirituality of nuns, in themselves a reflection of the poverty and austerity of their houses, were valued and supported by their communities.

With the exception of the Carthusians, monastic expansion had passed its peak by 1300 and new foundations were rare. The main institutional changes concerned the alien priories linked with houses in France. During the Hundred Years’ War their links brought them under suspicion and in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they were either naturalized as English houses or dissolved and their assets transferred to new educational and secular foundations. A few small native houses in chronic financial difficulties were also suppressed. The most serious challenge was the Black Death, which in the short term devastated the numbers of the religious with losses of up to 50 per cent and in the longer term exacerbated already difficult economic circumstances.

Assessments of the general state of late medieval monasticism still have echoes of the historical debate on the causes of the Reformation. The critical Protestant traditional asserts that there was a significant falling away from the ideals and achievements of the twelfth century to the extent that the monasteries deserved their fate at the Dissolution. Contemporary satirists and some visitation records present a gloomy picture of faults: neglect of the liturgy, drinking, gambling, extravagance, sexual failings and other departures from the rule. However, this evidence needs to be approached with caution. Studies of the visitation records have concluded that, despite the high standards demanded and the emphasis on faults, most houses suffered from slackness rather than more serious faults, from mediocrity rather than depravity. A major decline in standards is difficult to sustain. Many of the faults so often attributed to the late medieval period can, in fact, be found in Jocelin of Brakelond’s account of twelfth-century monastic life at Bury.

Late medieval English monasteries were fully integrated into lay society with estates to administer and interests to defend, which absorbed considerable energy. These activities were particularly important in the adverse economic conditions after the Black Death when poorly endowed houses struggled to survive as income declined and costs rose; in these circumstances it was difficult to maintain numbers and easy for standards to slip. Their preoccupation with estate management helped them to survive but removed monks from the liturgy and prayer and lessened their detachment from the world. Some houses, notably St Albans in the fifteenth century, remained vigorous centres of scholarly activity, and monastic colleges were founded in universities. Yet monastic life for many had become comfortable - too comfortable, contemporary critics and some historians would argue. This was certainly true of Westminster abbey and other great Benedictine houses. Barbara Harvey’s vivid, pioneering study of Westminster shows how much its monks identified with the preoccupations of secular life, and indeed imitated it. They lived like nobility and gentry, most notably in the high meat content of their diet, the use of private chambers and the receipt of wages. Patterns of lay patronage and bequests in late medieval wills clearly show a lack of support for traditional orders and a preference for friars and nuns. The laity placed less value on the spiritual services of monastic houses; instead chantries and secular colleges of priests were favoured. Enclosed orders were no longer satisfying the spiritual needs of society in the way they had in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and without a clear spiritual function their future was less secure. Despite the continuing respect for friars and Carthusians, and revivals in some houses such as Winchcombe and Fountains in the late fifteenth century, the impression of comfortable mediocrity, a complacent average, is hard to shake off. The vitality in other aspects of late medieval religion is less evident in monasticism.