BOOK VI.
FROM THE DEPOSITION OF POPE GREGORY VI. TO THE DEATH
OF POPE CELESTINE III, A.D. 1046-1198.
CHAPTER VII.
MONASTICISM—NEW ORDERS—THE TEMPLARS AND HOSPITALLERS.
IN the history of Monasticism, decay and reformation
are continually alternating. This alternation is a natural result of laying
down as a permanent rule for a numerous succession of men the system which has
been found to meet the particular circumstances of a few. When the rule has
been some time in operation, no test that can be established by requiring a
profession of vocation will be found effectual for the exclusion of unqualified
persons; and, even where there are the same dispositions which originally
gave birth to the rule and won popularity for it, the difference of times or
circumstances may render it no longer suitable as a discipline for them. Hence,
as a great monk of the twelfth century remarked, it was easier to found new
religious societies than to reform the old. Moreover, as the poverty and
devotion of monks never failed to bring them wealth and honour, the effect 0f
these was too commonly a temptation to abandon the virtues by which they had
been procured.
The spirit which produced the endeavour to reform the
church led at the same time to a reform of monachism; and the anarchy, the
insecurity, the manifold miseries of the age tended to excite an enthusiasm for
the life which promised tranquillity and the opportunities of conversing with a
better world. Bernold of Constance tells us that, in the great distractions
between the papacy and the empire, multitudes rushed into the monasteries of
Germany; that some who had been counts and marquises chose to be employed in
the lowest offices, such as baking and cooking; that many, without putting on
the monastic habit, devoted themselves to the service of
certain monasteries; that many young women renounced marriage, and that
the whole population of some towns adopted a monastic system of life.
Among the reformers of German monachism, the most
eminent was William, who in 1071 was promoted from the priory of St.
Emmeran’s, at Ratisbon, to the abbacy of Hirschau, in the Black Forest. He
raised the number of inmates from fifteen to a hundred and fifty, founded some
new monasteries, reformed more than a hundred, and united his monks into a
congregation after the pattern of Cluny, adopting the system of lay-brethren
from Vallombrosa. The virtues of William were not limited to devotion, purity of
life, and rigour of discipline; he is celebrated for his gentleness to all men,
for his charity to the poor, for the largeness of his hospitality, for his
cheerful and kindly manners, for his encouragement of arts and learning. He
provided carefully for the transcription of the holy scriptures and of other
useful books, and instead of locking them up in the library of his abbey, he
endeavoured to spread the knowledge of their contents by presenting copies to
members of other religious houses. The sciences included in the quadrivium, especially
music and mathematics, were sedulously cultivated at Hirschau, and under
William the monks were distinguished for their skill in all that relates to the
ornament of churches—in building, sculpture, painting, carving of wood, and
working in metals. In the general affairs of the church, the abbot of Hirschau
was, by his exertions and by his influence, one of the most active and powerful
supporters of the hierarchical or Hildebrandine party in Germany. He died in
1091, at the age (as is supposed) of sixty-five.
The congregation of Cluny, which had led the way in
the reformation of an earlier period, maintained its preeminence under the
sixty years’ abbacy of Hugh, whose influence in the affairs of the church has
often been mentioned in the preceding chapters. The Cluniacs received additions
to their privileges : Paschal exempted them from the operation of such
interdicts as might be pronounced against any province in which they should be;
Calixtus, on a visit to the great monastery in 1120, conferred on its abbots
the dignity of the Roman cardinalate. But under Hugh’s successor, Pontius, to
whom this honour was granted, dissensions and scandals arose in the order. The
abbot, on finding that he was charged at Rome with dissipating the property of
his monastery, hurried to the pope, resigned his office, and went on pilgrimage
to Jerusalem, with the intention, as he professed, of spending the remainder of
his days there; but he afterwards returned to disturb the peace of the
monastery. Another Hugh was appointed in his room, but died within three
months: and on the renewed vacancy the order again chose a head who sustained
the greatness of its reputation—Peter Maurice, “the Venerable”. The
Vallombrosan, Camaldolite, and other communities were also still in vigour; but
the piety of the age was not content with adding to the numbers enrolled under
the rules which already existed, and during the fifty years which followed the
election of Gregory VII several orders took their beginning. Although the
founders of these were not all of French birth, it was in France, which had
become the centre of religious and intellectual movement, that the new
institutions arose.
I.
ORDER OF GRAMMONT.
The earliest of them was the order of Grammont. The
founder, Stephen, son of a count of Thiers in Auvergne, was born about 1045.
His parents, who believed him to have been granted to them in return for many
prayers and other exercises of devotion, were careful to train him religiously
from his infancy, and at the age of twelve he accompanied his father on a
pilgrimage to the relics of St. Nicolas, which had lately been translated from
Myra, in Lycia, to Bari, in the south of Italy. Stephen fell ill at Benevento,
and was left there in the care of the archbishop, Milo, who was his countryman,
and perhaps a kinsman. The praises which the archbishop bestowed on an ascetic
society of monks in Calabria excited the boy to resolve on embracing the
monastic life, and he steadily adhered to his resolution. After having spent
four years at Rome, he obtained, in the first year of Gregory's pontificate,
the papal sanction for the formation of a new order—a document in which Gregory
bestows on him his blessing, and expresses a wish that he may find companions
innumerable as the stars of heaven.
Before proceeding to act on this privilege, Stephen
paid a farewell visit to his parents, but ended it by secretly leaving his
home, with a determination never to return, and took up his abode at Muret,
near Limoges, where he built himself a hut of branches of trees in a rocky and
wooded solitude. Here, putting on a ring, the only article which he had
reserved out of his property, he solemnly devoted himself to the holy Trinity
and to the virgin Mother. The rigour of his diet was extreme; he wore an iron
cuirass, like Dominic of Fonte Avellano, and over it a thin dress, which was
alike throughout all the changes of the season; his bed was formed of boards
sunk in the earth, so that it resembled a grave, nor did he allow himself even
straw to soften it; his devotional exercises were frequent, and such was his
fervour that, while engaged in them, he sometimes forgot food and sleep for
days together. He always prayed kneeling, and his prayers were accompanied by
frequent obeisances and kissing of the earth, so that not only did his hands
and knees become callous like those of a camel, but his nose was bent by the
effect of his prostrations.
After a year, during which he was known only to the
neighbouring shepherds, Stephen was joined by two companions; and the number
was soon increased. His disciples were treated with an indulgence which he
denied to himself and he desired them to call him not abbot or master, but
corrector. It was believed that he had the power of reading their hearts; tales
are related of miracles which he did, and of the wonderful efficacy of his
prayers; and a sweet odour was perceived to proceed from his person by those who
conversed with him. After having spent fifty years in his retirement, Stephen
died in 1124.
At his death, the place where he had so long lived
unmolested was claimed by a neighbouring monastery. His disciples, unwilling to
engage in any contention, prayed for direction in the choice of another
habitation; and as they were at mass, the answer was given by a heavenly voice,
which thrice pronounced the words—“To Grammont!”. The new home thus pointed out
was but a league distant, and the monks removed to it, carrying with them the
relics of their founder. They studiously concealed the spot where the body was
deposited; but its presence was betrayed by a great number of miracles. On this
the prior addressed the spirit of his former master in a tone of complaint and
reproach, threatening that, if Stephen continued to regard his own fame for
sanctity so as to turn the solitude of his disciples into a fair, his relics
should be thrown into the river; and from that time the saint was content to
exert his miraculous power in such a manner as not to expose his followers to
the distractions which had before endangered their quiet and their humility.
Sixty-five years after his death, he was canonized by Clement III.
Although, in the privilege which Gregory had granted
to Stephen, it was supposed that the Benedictine rule would be observed by the
new order, the discipline of the Grandimontans was more severe than that of St.
Benedict. Stephen professed that his only rule was that of Christian religion,
and the code of his order was unwritten until the time of his third successor,
Stephen of Lisiac (A.D. 1141). Obedience and poverty are laid down as the
foundations. The monks were to accept no payment for Divine offices : they were
to possess no churches, and no lands beyond the precincts of their monasteries,
nor were they allowed to keep any cattle —“for”, it is said, “if ye were to
possess beasts, ye would love them, and for the love which ye would bestow on
beasts, so much of Divine love would be withdrawn from you”. They were never to
go to law for such property as might be bestowed on them. The founder assured
them on his death-bed that, if they kept themselves from the love of earthly
things, God would not fail to provide for them; when reduced to such necessity
as to have had no food for two days, they might send out brethren to beg, but
these were bound to return as soon as they had secured one day’s provisions.
They were to go out in parties of two or more; they were not to fall into
company with travellers, and were to avoid castles. They must not leave the
wilderness to preach; their life there was to be their true sermon. Their
monasteries were to be strictly shut against all but persons of great
authority; they were charged altogether to shun intercourse with women. Even
the sick were forbidden to taste flesh; but they were to be carefully tended,
and, rather than that they should lack what they needed, even the ornaments of
the church were to be sold. The members of the order were bound to silence at
times, and were to communicate by signs, of which a detailed system is laid
down; and it was directed that when they spoke, their discourse must be of an
edifying kind. The monks were to devote themselves entirely to spiritual
things, while their temporal affairs were to be managed by “bearded” or lay
brethren.
Under Stephen of Lisiac the order of Grandimontans,
or “Good men”, as they were popularly called, became numerous; and
eventually it had about 140 “cells”, subject to the “prior” of the mother
community. So long as the austerity of its discipline remained, it enjoyed a
high reputation, but the relaxations of its rules, although sanctioned by
popes, and internal quarrels between the monks and the lay brethren led to its
decline.
II.
BRUNO, CARTHUSIAN ORDER.
Ten years later than the order of Grammont, that of
the Carthusians was founded by Bruno, a native of Cologne, who had been
distinguished as master of the cathedral school at Reims. The popular legend
ascribes his retirement from the world to a scene which he is supposed to have
witnessed at Paris, on the death of a doctor who had been greatly esteemed for
piety as well as for learning. As the funeral procession was on its way to
the grave, the corpse (it is said) raised itself from the bier, and uttered the
words, “By God’s righteous judgment I am accused!”. The rites were suspended
for a day; and when they were resumed, the dead man again exclaimed, “By God’s
righteous judgment I am judged!”. A second time the completion of the ceremony
was deferred; but on the third day the horror of the spectators was raised to a
height by his once more lifting up his ghastly head, and moaning forth, in a
tone of the deepest misery, “By God’s righteous judgment I am condemned!”.
Bruno, struck with terror, and filled with a sense of the nothingness of human
reputation by this awful revelation as to one who had been so highly venerated,
resolved, as the only means of safety, to hide himself in the desert.
Such was the tale which was adopted by the Carthusian
order; but the real motives of Bruno’s withdrawal appear to have been partly a
conviction of the unsatisfying nature of worldly things, and partly a wish to
escape from the tyranny of Manasses, archbishop of Reims, a violent, grasping,
and ambitious prelate, whose character may be inferred from a saying recorded
of him—that “The archbishopric of Reims would be a fine thing, if one had not
to sing masses for it”. By the advice of Hugh, bishop of Grenoble, Bruno with
six companions took up his abode among the wild and solemn rocky solitudes of
the Chartreuse, from which his order derived its name; and so much was the
bishop pleased with the system, that he often withdrew for a time from the
world, to live with the Carthusians in the strict observance of their usages.
The community, to which no one was admitted under the age of twenty, consisted
of monks and lay brethren; the number of the former being limited to thirteen
(or at the utmost, to fourteen), and that of the lay brethren to sixteen, on
the ground that the wilderness could not support a larger company without the
necessity of their being entangled in the affairs of this world. They were
forbidden to possess any land, except in the neighbourhood of their monastery,
and the number of beasts which they were allowed to keep was limited. The
object of their retreat was declared to be the salvation of their own
souls,—the part of Mary, not that of Martha; hence the intrusion of poor
strangers into their wilderness was discouraged, and, although the monks were
not absolutely forbidden to relieve such strangers, they were charged rather to
spend any superfluities which they might have on the poor of their own
neighbourhood. Their manner of life was extremely rigid. They wore goatskins
next to the flesh, and their dress was altogether of the coarsest kind. For
three days in the week their food was bread and water; on the other days they
added pulse; the highest luxuries of festivals were cheese and fish; and the
small quantity of wine allowed by the Benedictine rule was never to be drunk
undiluted. The only greater relaxation as to diet was at the periodical
bleedings, which took place five times in the year. They confessed every week,
and underwent a weekly flagellation; but it was a part of their obedience that
no one should impose any extraordinary austerity on himself without the leave
of the prior. They ordinarily spoke on Sundays and festivals only; the lay
brethren alone were allowed to relieve their silence by signs : and it was
required that these signs should be of a “rustic” character, without any
“facetiousness or wantonness”; that they should not be taught to strangers, and
that no other code of signals should be learnt. When, however, any monks were
employed together in copying or binding books, or in any other common labour,
they were at liberty to converse among themselves, although not with others.
Each monk was to cook for himself in his cell, which he was very rarely to
leave; and in the cells most of the offices of religion were to be performed,
except on Sundays, when the brethren met in the church and in the refectory. If
any present were sent to a member of the society, the prior was not only
authorized (as in the Benedictine rule) to give it to another, but, in order to
eradicate the idea of individual property, it was even ordered that the present
should not be given to the person for whom it had been intended. In the service
of their churches everything was to be plain and severe; no processions were
allowed, and all ornament was forbidden, with the exception of one silver
chalice, and a silver tube for drinking the eucharistic wine. Notwithstanding
their poverty, Guibert of Nogent found the Carthusians possessed of a valuable
library; and much of their time was devoted to transcription and other literary
labours. After having spent six years at the Chartreuse, Bruno reluctantly
complied with an invitation to Rome from Urban II, who had formerly been his
pupil at Reims but he soon became weary of the city, and, after having refused
the bishopric of Reggio, he founded, under the patronage of the grand count
Roger, a second Chartreuse (Sto. Stefano del Bosco) in the diocese of
Squillace, where he died in 1101. In the meantime the original foundation had
been carried on by his disciples, who, after having accompanied him into Italy,
had returned at his desire, and re-established themselves under Landuin as
prior. The “customs” of the order were digested into a written code by the
fifth prior, Guigo I, in 1128; the founder was canonized by Leo X in 1513.
The rigour of the Carthusian institutions rendered the
progress of the order slow; yet it gradually made its way. There were also
Carthusian nuns; but the discipline was too severe for the female sex, and in
the eighteenth century only five convents of women professed the rule. Although
the Carthusians became wealthy, and built magnificent houses (the Certosa near
Pavia being perhaps the most splendid monastery in the world), they preserved
themselves from personal luxury more strictly than any other order; thus they
escaped the satire which was profusely lavished on monks in general, and they
never needed a reformation.
III.
ORDER OF FONTEVRAUD.
The next in time of the new orders was founded by
Robert, a native of Arbrissel or Albresec, near Rennes. Robert was born about
1047, and, after having studied at Paris, where he became a teacher of
theology, he accepted in 1086 an invitation to act as vicar to Sylvester,
bishop of Rennes, a man of high birth, who, although himself illiterate,
respected learning in others. Here he for four years exerted himself to enforce
the Hildebrandine principles as to celibacy, simony, and emancipation of the
church from lay control; but after his patron’s death he found it expedient to
withdraw from the enmity of the canons, whom he had provoked by his endeavours
to reform them. For a time he taught theology at Angers, and in 1091 he
withdrew to the forest of Craon, on the confines of Anjou and Brittany, where
he entered on a course of extraordinary austerity. Disciples and imitators soon
gathered around him, and for these, whom he styled “the poor of Christ”, he
founded in 1094 a society on the principles of the canonical life.
Pope Urban, on his visit to France, in 1096, sent for
Robert, and, being struck with his eloquence, bestowed on him the title
of “apostolical preacher”, with a charge to publish the crusade. The zeal
with which Robert executed this commission, in cities, villages, and hamlets,
was the means of sending many to fight the battles of Christendom in the east;
while others were persuaded by his discourse to forsake their homes and attach
themselves to him as their master. In 1100 he laid the foundation of a great
establishment at Fontevraud, in the diocese of Poitiers—then a rough tract,
overgrown with thorns and brushwood. His followers were of both sexes; the men
were committed to two of his chief disciples, while he himself especially took
care of the women. From time to time he left Fontevraud for the labours of his
office as apostolical preacher, which gave him opportunities of making his
institutions known, and of founding similar communities in various parts of
France. His preaching was addressed with great effect to unhappy women who had
fallen from virtue; among his converts was the notorious queen Bertrada, whom
he persuaded, after the death of Philip, to live for a time at Fontevraud under
the severe discipline of his community. He had three nunneries—one for virgins
and widows, one for the sick and lepers, and the third for women whom he had
reclaimed from a life of sin. The rule was very strict; the female recluses
were not allowed to speak except in the chapter-house, because, it is said,
Robert knew that they could not be restrained from idle talk except by an
entire prohibition of speech. But it was rumoured that Robert laid himself open
to scandal by reviving a kind of fanaticism which had been practised in the
early African church. Godfrey of Vendome remonstrates with him on this subject,
and mentions that he was charged also with partiality in his behaviour towards
his female disciples—treating some with indulgence, while to others he was
harsh in language, and mercilessly subjected them to cold, hunger, and
nakedness. Marbod, bishop of Rennes, likewise addressed to him a letter of
admonition—censuring him for the affectations which he practised for the sake
of influence over the simple, but which, in the bishop’s opinion, were more
likely to make his sanity suspected—the long beard, the naked feet, the old and
tattered garments; and telling him that, by attacking the clergy in his
sermons, he excited the people to the sin of despising their pastors. It
appears also that Roscellin (whose peculiar opinions will hereafter engage our
attention) attacked Robert for receiving into his society women who had fled
from their husbands, and for detaining them in defiance of the bishop of
Angers.
The institute of Fontevraud was confirmed by Paschal
II in 1106, and again in 1113. Robert, finding his strength decay, in 1115
committed the superintendence of his whole order—men as well as women—to a
female superior—an extraordinary arrangement, for which he alleged the
precedent that the Saviour on the cross commended St. John to the care of the
blessed Virgin as his mother. At the founder’s death, in 1117, the number of
nuns at Fontevraud already amounted to 3,000; and soon after it was between 4,000
and 5,000. The order spread, so that it had establishments in Spain and in
England, as well as in France, and some smaller orders, as those of Tiron and
Savigny, branched off from it.
IV.
ROBERT OF MOLESME, CISTERCIAN ORDER.
Of the orders which had their origin about this time
the most widely extended and most powerful was the Cistercian. The founder,
Robert, was son of a nobleman in Champagne, and entered a monastery at fifteen.
After having lived in several religious houses without finding any one
sufficiently strict for his idea of the monastic profession, he became the head
of a society at Molesme, in the diocese of Langres. They were at first
excessively poor, and underwent great privations; but the sight of their rigid
life soon drew to them a profusion of gifts, which led to a relaxation of their
discipline, and Robert, after having in vain remonstrated, left them in
indignation. In compliance with their urgent requests he consented to return;
but he soon had the mortification of discovering that their invitation had been
prompted by no better motive than a wish to recover the popular esteem and
bounty which had been withdrawn from them in consequence of his departure.
Discords arose on the subject of dispensations from the Benedictine rule; and
in 1098, Robert, with the sanction of the legate Hugh of Lyons, withdrew with
twenty companions to Cistercium or Citeaux, a lonely and uncultivated place in
the neighbourhood of Dijon. The duke of Burgundy bestowed on the infant community
a site for buildings, with land for tillage, and contributed to its support. In
the following year, Robert was once more desired to return to Molesme by the
authority of Urban II, on the representation of the monks that their society
had fallen into disorder and that they were persecuted by their neighbours, and
he continued to govern his earlier foundation until his death, in 1110.
His successor at Citeaux, Alberic, laid down the rule
for the new order, and it was afterwards carried out with greater rigour by the
third abbot, Stephen Harding, an Englishman and one of Robert’s original
companions, whose code, entitled the "Charter of Love", was
sanctioned by pope Calixtus in 1119. The Cistercians were to observe the rule
of St. Benedict, without any glosses or relaxations. Their dress was to be
white, agreeably to a pattern which the blessed Virgin had shown to Alberic in
a vision. They were to accept no gifts of churches, altars, or tithes, and were
to refrain, from intermeddling with the pastoral office. From the ides of
September to Easter, they were to eat but one meal daily. Their monasteries,
which were all to be dedicated to the blessed Virgin, were to be planted in
lonely places they were to eschew all pomp, pride, and superfluity; their
services were to be simple and plain, and all vocal artifices were forbidden in
their chanting; some of the ecclesiastical vestments were discarded, and those
which were retained were to be of fustian or linen, without any golden
ornaments. They were to have only one iron chandelier; their censers were to be
of brass or iron; no plate was allowed, except one chalice and a tube for the
eucharistic wine, and these were, if possible, to be of silver gilt, but not of
gold. Paintings, sculpture, and stained glass were prohibited, as being likely
to distract the mind from spiritual meditation; the only exception as to such
things was in favour of painted wooden crosses. The monks were to give
themselves wholly to spiritual employments, while the secular affairs of the
community were to be managed by the “bearded” or lay brethren. No serfs were
allowed, but hired servants were employed to assist in labour. In the
simplicity of their church-services and furniture the Cistercians differed from
the Cluniacs, whose ritual was distinguished for its splendour; the elder order
regarded the principle of the younger as a reproach against itself and a
rivalry soon sprang up between them. The white dress, which, although already
adopted at Camaldoli, was a novelty in France, gave offence to the other
monastic societies, which had worn black habits as a symbol of humility and
regarded the new colour as a pretension to superior righteousness; but the
Cistercians defended it as expressive of the joy which became the angelic life
of the cloister.
In 1113 the order of Citeaux received the member from
whose reputation it was to derive its greatest lustre and popularity—St.
Bernard. The same year saw the foundation of La Ferté, the eldest daughter
society; Pontigny followed in 1114, Clairvaux (of which the young Bernard was
the first abbot) and Morimond in 1115. The rule of the Cistercians was approved
by the bishops in whose dioceses these monasteries were situated; and Stephen
Harding required that, before the foundation of any monastery, the bishop of
the place should signify his assent to the rule, so that no difficulty might
afterwards arise from a conflict between the duties of the monks towards their
order and that obedience to episcopal authority which was an essential part of
the system. While the government of the Cluniacs was monarchical, that of the
Cistercians was aristocratic; the four chief “daughters”—those which have
just been named—were allowed a large influence in the affairs of the order;
their abbots took the lead in electing the abbot of Citeaux, who was subject to
their visitation and correction. But the most remarkable feature in the system
was that of the annual general chapters, the first of which was held in 1116.
For these meetings every abbot of the order was required to appear at Citeaux,
unless prevented by illness, in which case he was represented by a deputy. From
the nearer countries, the attendance was to be every year; from the more
remote, it was, according to their distance, to be once in three, four, five,
or seven years. Such meetings had been held occasionally in other orders, as in
that of Grammont; but it was among the Cistercians that they were for the first
time organized as a part of the regular government, and from them they were
copied by the Carthusians and others. The effect of this arrangement was found
to be beneficial, not only in securing a general superintendence of the
community, but as a means of preventing jealousies by allowing the affiliated
societies a share in the administration of the whole.
After having thrown out its first swarms, the
Cistercian order rapidly increased. At the general chapter in 1151 it numbered
upwards of 500 monasteries, and it was resolved that no further additions
should be admitted. But in the following century the number had advanced to
1800, and eventually it was much greater. The Cistercians grew rich, and
reforms became necessary among them; but until the rise of the mendicant
orders, they were the most popular of all the monastic societies.
V.
NORBERT.
The canonical life had fallen into great decay.
Nicolas II, in the council of 1059, attempted a reformation, by which canons
were to have a common table and a common dormitory, and, although they were not
required to sacrifice their private property, were enjoined to hold their
official revenues in common. But a new system, which resembled that of
monasticism in the renunciation of all individual property, was also introduced
during the eleventh century, the first example of it having apparently been given
by some clergy of Avignon, who in 1038 established themselves at the church of
St. Rufus. The canons of this system were styled regular, and took their name
from St. Augustine, who had instituted a similar mode of life among his clergy,
and from whose writings their rule was compiled.
In the twelfth century a new order of canons was
founded by Norbert, who was born of a noble family at Xanten, on the lower
Rhine, about 1080. In early life he obtained canonries both at his native place
and at Cologne. He attached himself to the court of Henry V, with whom he
enjoyed great favour, and his life was that of a courtly ecclesiastic, devoted
to the enjoyments of the world, and altogether careless of his spiritual
duties. In 1111 he accompanied the emperor to Italy, where the first impulse to
a change was given by his horror at the outrages and imprisonment to which the
pope was subjected. A scruple as to investiture led him soon after to refuse
the see of Cambray; and his conversion was completed by a thunder-storm, in
which he appears to have been thrown from his horse, which was startled by a
flash of lightning, and to have been rendered for a time insensible; while the
voice which he is said to have heard from heaven, and other circumstances more
closely assimilating his case to that of St. Paul, may be ascribed either to
his imagination or to inventions
After this Norbert withdrew for a time to a monastery;
and, as he was yet only a subdeacon, he presented himself before the archbishop
of Cologne, with a request that the orders of deacon and priest might be
conferred on him in one day. The archbishop, finding that this request
proceeded from an excess of zeal, consented to dispense with the canons which
forbade such ordinations; and Norbert, exchanging his gay dress for a rough
sheepskin, girt around him with a cord, set out on the career of a preacher and
a reformer. His appearance in this character displeased his brethren, and, at a
council held by the legate Conon at Fritzlar in 1118, some of them charged him
with turbulence, assumption, and eccentricities unbecoming both his birth and
his ecclesiastical station. As the attempt to do good in his own country seemed
hopeless, he resigned his benefices, sold all that he possessed, gave away the
price, and went forth with two brethren to preach the gospel in apostolical
poverty. At St. Giles, in Provence, he became known to pope Gelasius, who
wished to retain him in his company; but Norbert was bent on continuing his
labours, and obtained from the pope a licence to preach wheresoever he would.
He made his way through France, barefooted and thinly clad, disregarding the
roughness of the ways, the rain, the ice and the snow. At Valenciennes, finding
that his knowledge of French was insufficient for preaching, while the people
could not understand his German, he prayed for the gift of tongues, and we are
told that his prayer was heard. At Cambray, the city of which he had refused to
be bishop, he fell dangerously ill, and his two original companions, with a
third who had joined him at Orleans, died; but he found a new associate in the
bishop’s chaplain, Hugh. The effect of his preaching was heightened by
miracles, and wherever he appeared he was received with veneration.
In company with Hugh, Norbert repaired to the council
of Reims, with a view of soliciting from Calixtus a renewal of the general
licence to preach which had been bestowed on him by Gelasius. On account of
their mean appearance, they were unable to obtain an audience of the pope; and
they left the city in despair. But on the road they met with Bartholomew,
bishop of Laon, who persuaded them to return with him to Reims, and not only
obtained for them the licence which they sought, but, by the pope’s permission,
carried them with him to Laon, with a view of employing them in a reform of his
canons. Norbert, however, found the task of reform beyond his power; he refused
an abbacy in the city of Laon, but, at Bartholomew’s entreaty, he consented to
remain within the diocese; and, after having been conducted by the bishop from
one spot to another, with a view of fixing on a site, he at length chose
Prémontré, a secluded and marshy valley in the forest of Coucy, from which his
order took the name of Premostratensian.
A little chapel was already built there, and Norbert,
on passing a night in it, had a vision of the blessed Virgin, who showed him a
white woollen garment, as a pattern of the dress which his order was to assume.
Having chosen a situation, Norbert went forth in the
beginning of Lent to gather companions, and by Easter he returned to Prémontré
with thirteen, whose number was speedily increased. For a time, like Anthony
and Benedict, he was much vexed by the devices of the devil; but he was
victorious in the contest. Thus we are told that once, when the enemy was
rushing on him in the shape of a bear, he compelled him to vanish; and that by
a like power he obliged the wolves of the neighbourhood to perform the duty of
sheepdogs. In the rule of the Premonstratensians the rigid life of monks was
combined with the practical duties of the clerical office. The Cistercian
system of annual chapters was adopted, and the three houses of the order which
ranked next in dignity after Prémontré were invested with privileges resembling
those enjoyed by the four “chief daughters” of Citeaux. The order was not
allowed to possess tolls, taxes, or serfs; and the members were specially
forbidden to keep any animals of the more curious kinds—such as deers, bears,
monkeys, peacocks, swans, or hawks. The new establishment met with favour and
liberal patronage, and Norbert founded other monasteries on the same model in
various parts of France and Germany. Theobald, count of Champagne, was desirous
to enter into the society of Prémontré; but the founder told him that it was
God’s will that he should continue in his life of piety and beneficence as a
layman, and that he should marry in the hope of raising offspring to inherit
his territories. The fame of Norbert was increased by the victory which he
gained in 1124 over the followers of a fanatic of Antwerp named Tanchelm, whose
system appears to have been a mixture of impiety and immorality; and in 1126
the discipline and the possessions of the Premonstratensians were confirmed by
Honorius II.
In the same year, Count Theobald married a German
princess. Norbert was invited to the nuptials, and had proceeded as far as
Spires, where the emperor Lothair III and two papal legates happened to be. The
clergy of Magdeburg, being unable to agree in the choice of an archbishop, had
resolved to be guided by the advice of these legates; and on Norbert’s entering
a church where their deputies were in conference with the representatives of
Rome, his appearance was hailed as providential, and the legates recommended
him for the vacant dignity. The emperor, who had been struck by his preaching,
con Armed the choice, and it was in vain that Norbert endeavoured to escape by
pleading that he was unfit for the office, and that he was involved in other
engagements. At Magdeburg he was received with great pomp; but he had altered
nothing in his habits, and when he appeared last in the procession, barefooted
and meanly dressed, the porter of the archiepiscopal palace was about to shut
him out as a beggar. On discovering the mistake, the man was filled with
dismay; but Norbert told him that he had understood his unfitness better than
those who had forced him to accept the see. As archbishop, Norbert took an
active part in the affairs of the church. Notwithstanding much opposition, he
established a college of Premonstratensians instead of the dissolute canons of
St. Mary at Magdeburg. In 1129 he resigned the headship of his order to his old
companion Hugh; and, on revisiting Prémontré two years later, in company with
pope Innocent II, he had the satisfaction of finding that his rule was
faithfully observed by a brotherhood of about 500.
Norbert died in 1134. The Premonstratensians spread
widely; even in the founder's lifetime they had houses in Syria and Palestine;
and the order was divided into thirty provinces, each of which was under a
superintendent, styled circator. They long kept up their
severity; but in the course of years their discipline was impaired by wealth,
and the order has become extinct even in some countries of the Roman communion
where it was once established. The founder was canonized by Gregory XIII in
1582.
VI.
CANONS OF ST. ANTONY.
Some orders were established for the performance of
special acts of charity, as the canons of St. Antony, founded in the end of the
eleventh century by Gaston, a nobleman of Dauphiny, in thankfulness for his
recovery from the pestilence called St. Antony's fire. And to such an
institution is to be traced the origin of one of the great military orders
which are a remarkable feature of this time.
A monastery for the benefit of Latin pilgrims had been
founded at Jerusalem about the middle of the eleventh century, chiefly through
the bounty of merchants of Amalfi. To this was attached a hospital for each
sex—that for men having a chapel dedicated to St. John the Almsgiver, who was
afterwards superseded as patron by the more venerable name of St. John the
Baptist; and relief was given to pilgrims who were sick, or who had been
reduced to destitution, whether by the expenses of their journey or by the robbers
who infested the roads. From the time of the conquest by the crusaders, the
brethren of the hospital became independent of the monastery, and formed
themselves into a separate order, distinguished by a black dress, with a white
cross on the breast, and living monastically under a rule which was confirmed
by Paschal II in 1113. The piety and charity of these brethren attracted
general reverence; they were enriched by gifts and endowments, both in Asia and
in Europe, from kings and other benefactors; and many knights who had gone to
the Holy Land as crusaders or as pilgrims enrolled themselves among them. Among
these was Raymond du Puy, who in 1118 became master of the hospital, and soon
after drew up a rule which was sanctioned by pope Calixtus in 1120. The
Hospitallers were to profess poverty, obedience, and strict chastity; they were
to beg for the poor, and, whenever they went abroad for this or any other
purpose, they were not to go singly, but with companions assigned by the
master. No one was to possess any money without the master’s leave, and, when
travelling, they were to carry a light with them, which was to be kept burning
throughout the night.
About the same time arose the military order of the
Temple. In 1118, Hugh des Payens and seven other French knights, impressed by
the dangers to which Christianity was exposed in the east, and by the attacks
to which pilgrims were subject from infidels and robbers, vowed before the
patriarch of Jerusalem to fight for the faith against the unbelievers, to
defend the highways, to observe the three monastic obligations, and to live
under a discipline adopted from the canons of St. Augustine.
By the formation of this society the Hospitallers were
roused to emulation. The martial spirit revived in some of the brethren, who
had formerly been knights; and as the wealth of the body was far more than
sufficient for their original objects, Raymond du Puy offered their gratuitous
services against the infidels to king Baldwin. The Hospitallers were now
divided into three classes—knights, clergy, and serving brethren—the last
consisting of persons who were not of noble birth. Both the knights and the
servitors were bound, when not engaged in war, to devote themselves to the
original purposes of the order. They soon distinguished themselves by signal
acts of valour, and in 1130 their institution was confirmed by Innocent II. But
by degrees they cast off the modesty and humility by which they had been at
first distinguished; they defied and insulted the patriarchs of Jerusalem, and
claimed immunity from the payment of ecclesiastical dues. When expelled from
the Holy Land, they settled successively in Cyprus, Rhodes, and Malta; and in
the last of these seats they continued almost to our own time.
The career of the Templars was shorter, but yet more
brilliant. At first they were excessively poor, although the seal of the order,
which displays two knights seated on one horse, may perhaps be better
interpreted as a symbol of their brotherly union than as signifying that the
first grand master and Godfrey of St. Omer possessed but a single charger
between them. In 1127, Hugh des Payens and some of his brethren returned to
Europe. St. Bernard, who was nephew to one of the members, warmly took up their
cause, and addressed a letter to Hugh, in which he enthusiastically commended
the institution, exhorted the Templars to the fullfillment of their
duties, and dilated on the holy memories connected with Jerusalem and
Palestine. At the council of Troyes, held by a papal legate in 1128, Hugh
appeared and gave an account of the origin of his order and he received for it
a code of statutes, drawn up under the direction of Bernard. These no longer
exist in their original form, but their substance is preserved in the extant
rule, which is divided into 72 heads. The Templars were charged to be regular
in devotion, self-denying, and modest. Each knight was restricted to three
horses—the poverty of God’s house for the time not allowing of a greater
number. No gold or silver was to be used in the trappings of their horses; and
if such ornaments should be given to them, they were ordered to disguise the
precious metals with colour, in order to avoid the appearance of pride. They
were to have no locked trunks; they were not to receive letters, even from
their nearest relations, without the master's knowledge, and were to read all
letters in his presence. They were to receive no presents except by leave of
the master, who was entitled to transfer presents from the knight for whom they
were intended to another. They were forbidden to hawk and to hunt, nor might
they accompany a person engaged in such amusements, except for the purpose of
defending him from infidel treachery. They were charged “always to strike the
lion”—a charge which seems to mean that they were bound to unceasing hostility
against the enemies of the faith. Individual property in lands and men was
allowed. Married brethren might be associated into the order; but they were not
to wear its white dress, and they were bound to make it their heir. The
Templars were forbidden to kiss even their mothers or sisters, and were never
to walk alone. The habit of the order was white, to which Eugenius III added a
red cross on the breast the banner, the Beauseant, was of black and
white, inscribed with the motto, “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo
da gloriam”.
Although at the time of the council of Troyes the
order had already been nine years in existence, the number of its members was
only nine; but when thus solemnly inaugurated, and aided by the zealous
recommendations of the great saint of Clairvaux, it rapidly increased. There
were soon three hundred knights, of the noblest families, a large body of
chaplains, and a countless train of servitors and artificers. Emperors, kings,
and other potentates enriched the order with lands and endowments, so that, within
fifty years after its foundation, it already enjoyed a royal revenue, derived
from possessions in all parts of Europe. But, according to the writer who
states this, it had even then begun to display the pride, insolence, and
defiance of ecclesiastical authority which, afterwards rendered it unpopular,
and prepared the way for its falling undefended and unlamented, although
probably guiltless of the charges on which it was condemned.
By the rise of the new orders the influence of
monachism in the church was greatly increased. They were strictly bound to the
papacy by ties of mutual interest, and could always reckon on the pope as their
patron in disputes with bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities. A large
proportion of the papal rescripts during this time consists of privileges
granted to monasteries. Many were absolutely exempted from the jurisdiction of
bishops; yet such exemptions were less frequently bestowed, as the monastic communities
became better able to defend themselves against oppression, and as,
consequently, the original pretext for exemptions no longer existed. If bishops
had formerly found it difficult to contend with the abbots of powerful
individual monasteries, it was now a far more serious matter to deal with a
member of a great order, connected with brethren everywhere, closely allied
with the pope, and having in the abbot of Cluny or of Citeaux a chief totally
independent of the bishop, and able to support his brethren against all
opposition. The grievance of which bishops had formerly complained, therefore,
was now more rarely inflicted by the privileges bestowed on monasteries; yet
the monks were, although without it, in a higher position than ever.
The monastic communities not only intercepted the
bounty which would otherwise have been bestowed on the secular clergy, but
preyed very seriously on the settled revenues of the church. Laymen, who were
moved by conscience or by compulsion to resign tithes which they had held, were
inclined to bestow them on monasteries rather than on the parish churches to
which they rightfully belonged. And as, by an abuse already described, it had
often happened that a layman possessed himself of the oblations belonging to a
church, assigning only a miserable stipend to the incumbent, these dues, as
well as the tithes, were, in case of a restitution, transferred to the monks.
Although some abbots refused to enrich their monasteries by accepting tithes or
ecclesiastical dues, and although some of the new monastic rules contained
express prohibitions on the subject, it was with little effect that synods
attempted to check such impropriations; nor did they perfectly succeed in
forbidding monks to interfere with the secular clergy by undertaking pastoral
and priestly functions.
The monks of Monte Cassino, the “head and mother
of all monasteries”, claimed liberties even against the papacy itself. An abbot
named Seniorectus (Signoretto), elected during the pontificate of Honorius II,
refused to make a profession of fidelity to the pope, and, on being asked why
he should scruple to comply with a form to which all archbishops and bishops
submitted, the monks replied that it had never been required of their
abbots—that bishops had often fallen into heresy or schism, but Monte Cassino had
always been pure. Honorius gave way; but when Reginald, the successor of
Seniorectus, had received benediction from the antipope Anacletus, the plea
for exemption could no longer be plausibly pretended, and, notwithstanding the
vehement opposition of the monks, Innocent II insisted on an oath of obedience
as a condition of their reconciliation to the Roman church.
New privileges were conferred on orders or on
particular monasteries. According to the chroniclers of St. Augustine’s, at
Canterbury, the use of the mitre was granted to Egilsin, abbot of that house,
by Alexander II in 1063, although they admit that, through the “simplicity” of
the abbots and the enmity of the archbishops, the privilege lay dormant for
more than a century. The earliest undoubted grant of the mitre, however, is one
which was made to the abbot of St. Maximin’s, at Treves, by Gregory VII. Among
other privileges granted to monasteries were exemption from the payment of
tithes and from the jurisdiction of legates; exemption from excommunication
except by the pope alone, and from any interdict which might be laid on the
country in which the monastery was situated; permission that the abbots should
wear the episcopal ring, gloves, and sandals, and should not be bound to attend
any councils except those summoned by the pope himself. The abbots of Cluny and
Vendome were, by virtue of their office, cardinals of the Roman church.
In addition to the genuine grants, forgery was now
very largely used to advance the pretensions of monastic bodies. Thus we are
told that Leo IX, on visiting Subiaco in 1051, found many spurious documents
and committed them to the flames. Even Monte Cassino did not disdain to make
use of the forger’s arts. The monks of St. Medard’s at Soissons were notorious
for impostures of this kind; one of them, named Guerno, confessed on his
death-bed that he had travelled widely, supplying monasteries with pretended “apostolic”
privileges, and that among those who had employed him in such fabrications was
the proud society of St. Augustine’s, at Canterbury.
