University of Virginia Library

THE TRANSFER OF THE SCHOOL FOR
LAYMEN AND SECULAR PRIESTS TO A LOCATION
OUTSIDE THE CLAUSTRUM

A last point in favor of the theory that the scheme of the
Plan of St. Gall is the product of the monastic reform
movement is to be found in the fact that in this scheme the
school for laymen and secular priests is on a site outside
the Claustrum.[149] The first synod of Aachen did not rule
on the subject of schools, but one should not infer from
this that the issue had not been raised at that time. Haito
touches upon the matter briefly in his discussion of the
rules concerning the reception of the novices, and from the
tenor of his commentary it is tempting to conclude that the

absence of any binding regulations concerning monastic
schools in the statutes of the first synod was caused by the
assembly's inability to reach an agreement on this important
question rather than by its failure to raise the issue:

The expression "so far as possible" could mean a number
of things. It could refer to the availability of suitable
quarters for the secular students, or the availability of a
sufficient number of teachers properly trained to instruct
them. The apposition "until we shall hear a more explicit
ruling in this matter" makes evident that action was
expected in the future, and the second synod did not fail
to take it. But the wording of this subsequent action poses
some problems of interpretation. Chapter 5 of the second
synod refers to the issue of schools with the terse sentence:
"There shall be no other school in the monastery than
that which is used for the instruction of the future
monks."[151] If the word "monasterium" in this sentence
were interpreted to refer to the monastery as a whole, this
ruling would certainly ban the instruction of laymen and
secular priests from the monastic educational system. It is
in this sense that the statute appears to have been interpreted
by such scholars as Emile Lesne[152] and Dom Jean
Leclercq.[153] There are good historical reasons, however, to
suggest that "monasterium" was used here in the sense of
"claustrum" rather than as reference to the monastery in
its entirety.

One of these is the fact that the severity of this statute,
if the complete abolishment of lay instruction had been its
manifest intent, would be entirely out of line with the
general spirit of the resolutions of the second synod, which
were consistently more liberal and more tolerant than those
of the first. Second and more important, however, is the
testimony of history itself; for in its actual implementation,
the rule laid down in chapter 25 of the second synod did
not result in the abolishment of lay instruction but in the
division of the monastic educational system into an "outer
school" (schola exterior) and an "inner school" (schola
interior), the former for the education of the laymen and
secular priests, the latter for the instruction of the monks.[154]

The monastery of St. Gall itself appears to be a typical
example of this development. Its two schools are frequently
referred to in contemporary narratives, the most notable
of which is a passage in chapter 2 of Ekkehard's Casus
sancti Galli, from which we learn that at the time of Abbot
Grimald (841-872) the Irish monk Marcellus was placed in
charge of the Inner School and the monk Iso in charge of
the Outer School.[155] Later teachers, such as Ratpert, the
two Notkers, and the four Ekkehards, taught in both, and
some among them served as the head of both.[156] On the
Plan of St. Gall the Inner School is established in a special
claustral structure that lies to the east of the Church and is
provided with its own chapel, refectory, dormitory, and
warming room; the Outer School lies to the north of the
Church between the Abbot's House and the House for
Distinguished Guests. The Library and the Scriptorium,
two indispensable facilities for both schools, lie midway
between them. As the Inner School was confined to the
training of the novices,[157] the advanced training of the
regular monks may have been conducted in the Scriptorium
and Library.

In proposing that the term "monasterium" in the statute
of the second synod was used in the sense of "claustrum,"
I do not wish to maintain that the total exclusion of lay
instruction from the monasteries may not have been one
of the acknowledged goals of the fanatics in the reform
movement. The introduction of facilities for the instruction
of laymen and the secular clergy no doubt had posed
problems of a disturbing nature, and the education, side
by side, of laymen, secular priests, and monks must have
had a disquieting influence on monastic peace and discipline.
But to overcome these shortcomings by the complete
exclusion of all outsiders from the monastic schools would
have been a measure too radically opposed to the educational
policy of Charlemagne who, in ordering the establishment
of monastic schools for the education of laymen and
secular priests in the first place, had assigned to the
monasteries a clearly defined responsibility within the
empire's general educational system.[158] Many of the bishops
and abbots who attended the synods of Aachen were of
sufficient age to have played a decisive role in the implementation,
if not the original framing, of this policy.
Complete abolishment of lay instruction would have been
too radical a measure to be accepted without opposition,
and the history of the monastic schools shows clearly that,
in this issue also, the extreme wing among the reformists
did not win out.