The Plan of St. Gall :: :: University of Virginia Library

The general aim of the monastic reform movement was to
create a single, universally binding code of rules (una
consuetudo) to replace the mixed rule (regula mixta) that
prevailed in the preceding period, a code of rules that
settled points not foreseen in the Rule of St. Benedict of

Nursia, and suppressed prescriptions that had become
superannuated or impracticable. The soul and leader of
this movement was Benedict of Aniane, the friend and
adviser of Louis the Pious. Under his guidance the movement
reached its climax in two synods—during which the
empire's leading bishops and abbots congregated in the
sacristy of the imperial chapel at Aachen—the first in the
autumn of 816, the second in the summer of 817.[118] The
deliberations of each synod resulted in a set of resolutions
which the attending dignitaries were instructed to make
known to their monks upon return to their respective
monasteries.

The resolutions passed during the first synod of 816
consisted of thirty-six chapters, the original text of which
was only recently discovered by Joseph Semmler in a
manuscript at Wolfenbüttel dating from about 820, which
furnishes us with the important date, August 23, 816.[119]
Prior to Semmler's discovery of this authentic contemporary
copy of the capitulary, the contents of the resolutions
of the synod of 816 had been known only through a
promulgation by Bishop Haito of Basel to his monks in the
abbey of Reichenau and Murbach, the so-called Statutes of
Murbach.[120]

The resolutions adopted during the second synod consisted
of forty-three chapters, and were promulgated in an
imperial ordinance dated July 10, 817, the famous Capitulare
monasticum of Louis the Pious.[121] Although the
Statutes of Murbach lists considerably fewer resolutions
than either of the two imperial capitularies, it is in many
respects of greater historical interest because it contains,
in addition to the resolutions themselves, an extensive
commentary by Bishop Haito that clarifies the intent of
the new legislation and suggests procedures for its implementation.

Haito's remarks provide insight into the disagreements
that must have prevailed during the first synod of Aachen,
and exhibit his doubt of the finality of some of the more
controversial resolutions passed by this assembly. There
are instances where he declares it his intention to postpone
action on a particular issue,[122] and others where he states he
will refuse to implement a resolution, suggesting that less
restrictive action on it might be forthcoming in the future.[123]
Others among the returning bishops and abbots may have
reacted in a similar manner,[124] and the fact that a second
synod was called into being only a year later is, in itself,
an indication that not everything was settled during the
first one.

In general the resolutions of the second synod were
milder than those of the first; the liberal and more humanistic
wing among the reformists apparently won out over
the restrictive asceticism promoted by Benedict of Aniane
and his supporters.[125] It is important to consider this
moderation of policy by the second synod, as it bears
directly upon the interpretation of certain specific resolutions
that affected the architectural layout of the Plan.

[118]

For a general background of these two synods, see von Schubert,
1921, 617ff; Schmitz, I, 1948, 102ff; and Semmler, 1960, 309ff.

[119]

Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Cod. Wolfenbüttel, Vogel 27, fols.
89r-91r; see Semmler, 1960, 318. The text has been published by
Semmler in Corpus consuetudinum monasticarum, I, 1963, 451-68.

[120]

The history of the so-called Statutes of Murbach is fascinating.
Formerly attributed to Abbot Simpert of Murbach, this document was
first ascribed to Bishop Haito of Basel by Otto Seebass (1891) in a
brilliant, yet highly speculative, analysis, on the details of which I have
reported in Studien, 1962, 110-11. Seebass was not familiar with the
original text, but only with a copy of about 1500 that was written in the
monastery of Murbach, and later found its way into St. Ulrich and St.
Afra in Augsburg. The attribution of this text to Bishop Haito of Basel
was questioned in 1958 by Semmler (1958/60, 273-85, and 1963,
15-82); but at about the same time, Christian Wilsdorf discovered in the
Archives départementales du Haut-Rhin at Colmar the original Carolingian
rotulus from which the copy at St. Ulrich and St. Afra had been
made (see Wilsdorf, 1961). An analysis of the script of this manuscript
by Professor Bischoff suggests that the rotulus was written by scribes of
the scriptorium of Basel (according to a personal communication to me
from Dr. Semmler, dated November 7, 1963). The rotulus of Colmar,
therefore, is now generally accepted as being the authentic Carolingian
text of the Statutes of Murbach. It has been published by Semmler in
Corp. cons. mon., I, 1963, 437-50 under the title Actuum praeliminarium
synodi primae Aquisgranensis commentationes sive Statuta Murbacensia
(816), hereafter referred to as Statuta Murbacensia.

[121]

First published by Alfred Boretius in Mon. Germ. Hist., Leg. Sec.
II, Capit. I, 1883, 343-49; subsequently by Bruno Albers in Cons.
mon., III, 1907, 79-93. These texts are now superseded by Semmler's
edition in Corp. cons. mon., I, 1963, 469-810 under the title Synodi
secundae Aquisgranensis decreta authentica (817).

[122]

A typical example of this is to be found in Haito's commentary on
chapter 21, which prohibits the use of baths for the healthy monks
(see below, p. 22).

[123]

A typical example of the latter is his reaction to the resolution that
threatens the abbot's right to live in a separate house (see below, p. 22).
A second definite suggestion that further legislation may be expected is
to be found in Haito's commentary on chapter 20 "until we hear of a more
specific ruling" ("usquedum decretum manifestius inde audiatur"); cf.
below, note 37.

[124]

With regard to this opposition, see Lesne, 1920; Levillain, 1925;
Hafner, in Studien, 1962, 177; and Semmler, 1963, 76ff.

[125]

On the internal conflicts of St. Benedict of Aniane, his initial ascetic
leanings and his gradual conversion to the more tolerant humanism of
St. Benedict of Nursia, see Hauck, 1912, 588ff; Hilpisch, 1929, 117ff.
For the accomplishments and personality of Benedict of Aniane in
general, see Narberhaus, 1930, passim; the article by Schmitz, "Benoit
d'Aniane," in DHGE, VIII, 1934, cols. 177-88; Schmitz, I, 1948,
103ff; Schmitz, 1957, 401-15; and the article by Semmler, "Benedikt v.
Aniane," in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, I, 1958, cols. 179-80.

University of Virginia Library

I.7.2

THE GENERAL AIM OF THE MONASTIC REFORM MOVEMENT

THE GENERAL AIM OF THE
MONASTIC REFORM MOVEMENT