. There have been no systematic analyses of the architecture of women religious in France, and few studies of convents include a concern for the special character of female religious life, as distinct from that of monks. In particular, the architectural implications of strict enclosure (clausura), which separated women from the external world, have not been examined, nor has the important and complicated issue of the architectural implications of enclosure for the relationship of women religious to the clergy and liturgy.
The reasons for this neglect are many. With the exception of a few royal or noble foundations (Longchamp, Lys, Maubuisson), convents were often small and poor and have therefore rarely attracted the attention of art historians, who have wanted to study large and significant monuments. At these sites, architectural elaboration was usually confined to one or two details, such as a tracery window (La-Cour-Notre-Dame in the diocese of Sens). The vast majority of convents were destroyed in the Revolution, or the churches and conventual buildings were converted to other purposes. Furthermore, enclosure discourages the study of the few medieval convents that are again in operation. It is probably also true that the lack of interest in convents has historical roots in misogyny.
An examination of the earliest rule specifically for women religious, that of Caesarius of Arles, indicates that the concept of enclosure originated in the early centuries of Christianity. Although there were also a number of double communities for men and women in these centuries, such as that of St. Paulinus at Nola, female monasticism normally took the form of separate establishments with a small number of male clergy in attendance to administer the sacraments. Above all, the monastic administration in women’s orders was not centralized: there was therefore always a wide range of arrangements and solutions for women religious, ranging from one or several women practicing a religious vocation in a home to huge convents with several hundred nuns. Since these orders rarely possessed the unified organizational structure of their male counterparts, there is hardly ever the architectural consistency that can be found among many male houses, especially among the Cistercians and Carthusians. For women’s monasteries, the annual visitation, performed by male counselors or ministers often outside the order, tended to concern observance of the rule, not issues of architectural conformity. The requirements of enclosure were interpreted differently by each order and reached particular complexity in convents that had both male and female communities, such as Fontevrault and Saint-Louis-de-Poissy.
During the 13th century, the requirements of strict enclosure became increasingly rigid and universal; Poor Clares were known as among the most austere and enclosed of the female orders, even though their churches were open to the lay public. The revival and reaffirmation of strict enclosure, which culminated in Boniface VIII’s bull Periculoso of 1298 and were to a large extent based on the rule of the Poor Clares, universalized regulations concerning convents. The abbeys had to incorporate new strictures concerning barriers, turning wheels, grills, and gates that would ensure the separation of women from the out-side world while allowing necessary supplies to be sent to the community. In some orders, such as the Cistercians, which prohibited the public from access to the church, the issues of enclosure were in some respects simplified: the churches of Cistercian women were often small chapels or simple rectangular structures, rarely with aisles or transepts. The only separations that were required were thus those between the clergy and the nuns. On the other hand, the churches at Fontevrault and Poissy, as well as many Clarissan convents, had to accommodate both male and female monastic communities, as well as the lay public and the clergy. These multiple audiences would have led to a series of screens or spatial divisions that are as yet imperfectly understood. It is evident, however, that as a result of enclosure women religious often could not see the altar or had only a partial view and could therefore not participate visually in the Mass, and in particular the elevation of the host.
Caroline A. Bruzelius
[See also: CAESARIUS OF ARLES; FONTEVRAULT; FRANCISCAN ORDER; MENDICANT ART AND ARCHITECTURE; NUNNERIES; WOMEN, RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE OF]
De Fontette, M. Les religieuses a I’age classique du droit canon: recherches surles structures juridiques des branches feminines des ordres. Paris: Vrin, 1967.
Desmarchelier, M. “L’architecture des eglises des moniales cisterciennes: essai de classement de differents types de plans.” In Melanges a la memoire dupere Anselme Dimier, ed. Benoit Chauvin. 3 vols. in 6 parts. Pupillin, Arbois: Chauvin, 1982-87, Vol. 3, part 5, pp. 79-121.
Gesta 31.4 (1992). [Entire issue dedicated to convent architecture.]
World History
