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
17 comments:
Were libraries always contained in Monasteries giving the Christian Church full control of education? Or were their other public libraries in Medieval Europe?
Nice question. Early on, I think whatever libraries existed tended to be in monasteries, and books were scarce anyway. [If you've ever seen the movie The Name of the Rose you have an idea of how important (and dangerous) ideas and books could be in an age when access was limited.] Later in the medieval world lords began to collect their own libraries too, and kings and queens owned books (normally some devotional ones and some 'histories' or 'romances'). Certainly in England 'public' libraries don't really emerge until after Henry VIII dissolves the monasteries, and their books are scattered: even then, they mostly went into private collections until much later when the notion of 'public' education being desirable became a common idea in society. Maybe in Italy or France it was different. How would you find out?
So the medieval church did control education, but we could also think of this in a positive sense - they had responsibility for education. Does thinking of it in those terms change your sense of the issue?
Did the monks, under the Rule of St Benedict, have any choice in their activities, or was every single second of their days mapped out?
Good question. I suspect the point of living by the Rule was partly to remove choice and therefore temptation. It seems like every moment was not only mapped out, but dedicated to God and to a kind of self denial. Why might that have been attractive? Any suggestions?
Through the readings it seems that monks were the ones who truly devoted themselves to God spiritually, mentally and physically. Where as Bishops, who were usually from wealthy families, used their position within the Church to influence Kings and the believers within their parish to their will, rather then the "will of God". Thus, the church used Christianity as a mean to rule believers rather then Christianity being only a form of religious practice.
Do you agree or am i reading it wrong?
I agree in part, although from the readings I think it suggests that Monks and Nuns in monasticism, were dedicated to saving their own souls and thus extracted themselves from society or the outside world to solely concentrate on that task; whereas Bishops and Priests had a different responsibility within the christian clergy to save the souls of the people in their diocese.
I think the relationship between Bishops and Kings was mutually satisfying, as it enabled the Kings to have influence over who would be elected to be Bishop in their city/region and at the same time allowed Bishops and Priests to spread Christianity with political protection, which in turn helped the King get more control of his subjects. Basically I think its saying it was a win win for both parties.
I mostly agree with what both of you have said.
I am curious as to whether I'm the only one who thinks to some extent that monastic life is a bit selfish…. My ideas about religion is using the values, morality ect. that it teaches, to benefit others. Rather than just living in Christian recluse with God as you could say monasticism is.
I agree with you Deniz about Bishops and other clergy exploiting their position ect… The power the church had and the amount of land ect. they owned seemed wrong, definitely an opportunity for corruption - whether overt or not...
However Gregory I 's contribution as Pope seemed to be decent at the time, in terms of his book "Pastoral Care" and getting them out of the declining social situation, with the plague ect.
The Rule of Saint Benedict makes reference to the Abbot not being able to make distinctions between persons within the Monarchy, except for particular merit. What does this particular merit entail?
They are definitely different, but I think I see it more as an issue of practicality. Monks are certainly the most directly involved in prayer and spiritual contemplation, but Christian society on earth can't consist solely of those that pray... who would tend the sheep, and cook the food, and build the roads, etc? Bishops served to govern the rest of society in the most Christian possible way. We could think of them as the administrative wing of the organisation. If that were the case, their noble lineage could have been useful since the rest of society (including kings etc.) would be more likely to pay attention to them. Their influence could be used for 'corrupt' ends, but it could also be used for 'good'.
Depending on when and where we are discussing, it might also be true that even monks were from wealthy families. The more powerful the church became, the more desirable having a son in the church would have been!
Yes - great points Stacey. There is certainly a distinction between the responsibilities of bishops and monks. But while monks were certainly concerned for their own souls, I'd say we mustn't think of them as completely selfish. I sometimes like to think of a monastery as kind of like a prayer factory. It produced prayer and focus on the divine on behalf of a wider Christian community, who in return/appreciation gave it gifts (for example in wills, etc.) and supported its activities. Withdrawal from the world might have been necessary to achieve its goal, but it hides from us the reality that monasteries were still plugged into the world around.
What do the rest of you think? Monasteries: selfish or productive institutions?!
Oops, typo. I think you meant 'monastery'? But yes - this is a good point. Did anyone spot the criteria that can be used to distinguish special people? I'm sure they're in there...
Hi guys, I'm posting this for Warren who is having login issues:
"I am interested in The Rules use of scripture - the background metaphors that come from the Christian tradition, such as Benedict's suggestion at the very start that salvation is achieved through the narrow path; I know little about Christianity, but I am interested in looking at how it was alive for the persons of the past"
I cannot believe that The England we know today actually gained its name from Angle-land, and the Franks renamed the French!! Also I found it really astonishing that The Germanic women had much more presence in their society as opposed to the Roman women.
Monasteries seem to me to be almost entirely selfish institutions. They appear to be a closed group for a select few, all who were intent on saving their own souls. The rule 'concerning the manner of receiving brothers' displays the gruelling initiation process newcomers had to face. Also, with the secluded lifestyle lead by the monks, how could they possibly serve to better society? In my view, Christianity should be about getting out there and connecting with people, helping the poor and such. But the monks seemed only concerned with their own adgendas. How can you benefit the world if you're cut off from it?
I was also curious as to whether monks ever tried to leave their monastery, and what their punishment was?
Tough questions Tiff! But let me put this question to you - and to the group. If monks were being selfish, why were monasteries so respected in the community? And how come people made donations to the abbey during their lives, and left lands and cash to them in death? What was it that the monks 'produced' that benefited these people?
Having said that - there were some people who agreed that you had to be out in the world to benefit it properly, even if you still lived a life of denial. In a few weeks we're going to be talking about a very different type of monk called a mendicant (it means someone begging) that arose in the 13th century in response to such criticisms... (but for now let's not get ahead of ourselves!)
Also just curious as to why people entered monastic life? aside from wanting to be closer to God ect..
what did it give them that life outside didn't?
Did the monks believe that praying and devoting their life and soul to God would benefit the community?Was it also a privilege to become a monk or was it something that anyone from the community could become?
Also was the monastery grounds and majority of the buildings exclusive to the monks and servants or those in position of power or somewhat wealth, or would all Christians of the community be accepted in for help when they were sick, in want of education or a place in the cemetery?
My interpretation is the "plan" shows how a monastery and monks should function which is in an orderly community and spiritualist manner. One that is a working centre of everyday life but which is centred around God, one in which monks (those fully devoted) were centred close to God and heaven.
Post a Comment