University of Virginia Library

III. 3

THE ABBOT'S HOUSE

North of the Church, in line with the transept, is the Abbot's
House (aula), and with it a narrow annex containing the
abbot's kitchen (coquina), cellar (cellariū), and bath (balneatorium),
as well as the quarters for his servants (cubiliae
famulantium). The yard in which these buildings (fig. 251)
stand is enclosed by fences:

Only on two sides (south and west) are these fences
actually drawn out. The eastern leg of the fence probably
coincided with the seam of two connecting sheets of parchment
and was presumably left out for that reason.[308] The
northern portion probably coincided with the outer wall
enclosure, which is nowhere shown on the Plan.[309]

The plot appears to have been calculated as a square of
100 × 100 feet. The Abbot's House measures 40 × 55 feet;
the annex (kitchen, cellar, and bath), 25 × 55 feet; the
privy, 10 × 20 feet.

III.3.1

THE AULA

The aula consists of a double-storied oblong hall divided
on the ground floor by a central cross partition into "the
abbot's sitting room" (mansio abbatis) and his "bedroom"
(dormitoriū). On the upper level is the abbot's "store room
and solarium" (supra camera et solarium), we are informed
by a title written in the pale-brown ink of the second scribe.[310]
On either side, along the entire length of the building,
there is a "porch brightened by arcades" (porticus arcubus
lucida and porticus similis). Both porches are accessible
from the abbot's living room and both have doors that open
to the exterior, two on the side of the annex, and one on
the opposite side giving access to a plot of land that may
have served as the abbot's garden. An opening in the center
of the southern gable wall of the aula leads through a
covered passage into the northern arm of the transept of
the Church (ad eclam ingressus). In the opposite gable wall
a similar passage connects the dormitory with a "privy"
(requisitum naturae), furnished with six seats.

Both dormitory and living room are heated by a "corner
fireplace" (caminata; caminata).[311] Installed back to back
they probably shared a single chimney flue. The abbot's
living room is furnished with wall benches (sedilia) and two

[ILLUSTRATION]

PLAN OF ST. GALL. ABBOT'S HOUSE,
ANNEX WITH KITCHEN, CELLAR & BATH

260.C SOUTH ELEVATION

260.B WEST ELEVATION

Our assumption that the Annex of the Abbot's House was meant to be built in timber
is reasonable, but by no means compelling. In so important a residence even its service
building might have been of masonry.

260.A PLAN

AUTHORS' INTERPRETATION

The Annex is a narrow building, divided internally into three equal
parts which contain the services that make the Abbot's House a
self-sufficient residence. It is furnished on the east side with a lean-to
which serves as bedrooms for the servants (FAMULANTES) who
attend to the Abbot's needs as well as those of the seven monks who
share his quarters.

cupboards for dishes and drinking vessels (toregmata).[312] His
bedroom has eight "beds" (lecti hic). One of these, set
slightly apart from the others and in closer proximity to the
fireplace, was presumably the abbot's.

III.3.2

OTHER MEDIEVAL BUILDINGS OF
THE SAME TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

The plan of the Abbot's aula is, as far as I can judge, the
earliest visual record we have of a medieval hall with a
solarium. It is also the earliest record of a medieval residence
whose rooms are heated by corner fireplaces that
release their smoke through a chimney. A solarium is "a
place open to the sun";[313] in Rome the sun-exposed roofs or
decks in front of houses (even the house-fronts of an entire
insula) usually supported by colonnades or by arcades,
were known as solaria.[314]

In medieval literature the term solarium is used varyingly
to designate 1) the open galleries that surrounded the upper
story of a palace; 2) the window-lighted chambers of the
upper story of a palace, even if not surrounded by open
galleries; 3) as pars pro toto for the palace; and 4) the
galleries or tribunes of churches.[315] An excellent example of
a medieval residence with a solarium is the aula of the
Priory of Christ Church at Canterbury. An elevation of
this is given in the remarkable twelfth-century drawing
which records the system of water distribution and drainage,
installed in this Priory around 1165 (fig. 252).[316] A building
of similar design was Harold's castle at Bosham, Sussex,
depicted on the famous Bayeux tapestry (ca. 1070-1080)
where a drinking feast is being given in the solarium above
the ground-floor porches (fig. 253).[317] The solarium as such,
however, is a considerably older institution. It was a
favorite feature of the palaces of Carolingian emperors and
nobles, as is attested by numerous literary references;[318] in a
contemporary work, the Brevium exempla,[319] we find this
description of a royal residence, which sounds like a literary
counterpart of the drawing of the Abbot's House on the
Plan of St. Gall:

Although we lack particulars about this arrangement, the
basic structure is clear: a two-story building abutted by
two open porches on the ground floor, and above these
porches the sunlit galleries designated as solaria. This is,
in essence, the arrangement of the hall of William the
Conqueror on the Bayeux tapestry (fig. 253), and it is like
the aula of the Priory of Christchurch at Canterbury (fig.
252).

III.3.3

RECONSTRUCTION

Jules Leeman, in his model of 1877 (fig. 267),[321] and Karl
Gruber, in his bird's-eye view of 1952 (fig. 282),[322] envisioned
the Abbot's House as a structure of basilican elevation.
Fiechter-Zollikofer (1936)[323] and Otto Volkers (1937)[324]
thought of it is a simple box-shaped house with the second
story extending over the porches (figs. 254-255). Leeman's
and Gruber's versions appear to me the more likely of the
two interpretations, because the Plan does not stipulate
that the two porches were to be surmounted by upper
galleries or other superincumbent rooms. Each porch is
referred to in the singular, porticus arcubus lucida; porticus
similis. This suggests that there was nothing above. If the
architect had a building in mind in which the second story
was to extend out over the porches, he could have stated
this simply by adding to their titles supra similiter ("above,
a second flight of porches").

There is no doubt that the house was a masonry structure.
Its arcuated porches permit no other assumption.

As in all the other buildings of the Plan where stairs are
missing,[325] we have refrained from introducing them in our
reconstruction (fig. 257-259). The problem could have been
settled in a number of different ways. Perhaps the Abbot's
House was meant to have had an outer flight of stairs, such
as those in the Palace of William the Conqueror on the
Bayeux tapestry (fig. 253) or in the abbot's house of the
Cistercian Monastery of Marienthal near Helmstedt,
Germany (fig. 256).[326] Or perhaps it was to have had a
circular staircase tower of the type found on the Carolingian
gate-house of the Monastery of Lorsch.

I do not think that there is any necessity to assume that
the annex was a masonry structure. In general, this type of
ancillary structure was built in timber, even at considerably
later periods.

III.3.4

THE ABBOT'S RIGHT TO LIVE IN
A SEPARATE HOUSE

St. Benedict, in a chapter the brevity of which reflects its
importance, grants the abbot the right to live in a separate
house:

During the preliminary discussions of the first synod of
Aachen a movement was under way to curtail these freedoms.
I have dealt with the dynamics of these attempts at
length in a previous chapter.[328]
A word should be said, however,
to explain the fact that the abbot's bedroom contained
seven beds in addition to his own.

Chapter 22 of the Rule of St. Benedict prescribes that if
possible, all monks should sleep in one place, but if their
number does not permit this, they should sleep by tens or
twenties, with seniors to supervise them (Si potest fieri,
omnes in uno loco dormiant; sin autem multitudo non sinit,
deni aut uiceni cum senioribus, qui super eos solliciti sint,

pausent).[329] In chapter 13 of a capitulary issued at Frankfort
in 794, this was interpreted to mean "that the abbot should
sleep with the monks in conformity with the Rule" (Ut
abbas cum suis dormiat monachis secundum regulam sancti
Benedicti).[330] In one of the preliminary resolutions formulated
during the first synod of Aachen (816) this view was
reemphasized: "The abbots shall be subject to the same
rules as the brethren in meal and drink, in their sleep and
in all other matters" (Ut abates communes esse debeant suis
monachis in manducando, in bibendo, in dormiendo seu in
ceteris quibuslibet causis.)[331] This can only have been intended
to mean that the abbot should be brought back into the
company of the monks, at least when he slept. To enlarge
the abbot's bedroom into a dormitory, so that he could sleep
in the same room with others, may have been an ingenious
compromise between the rigorous views of the reformists
and the abbot's traditional right to live in a separate house.
Hildemar makes some interesting suggestions concerning
the criteria which should govern the abbot's selection,
should he make use of his "power to invite whom he will
of the brethren":

III.3.5

LATER PRACTICES

Separate quarters for the Abbot became a standard practice
in the monastic building tradition following the second
synod of Aachen. But during the Cluniac reform of the
eleventh century this privilege was revoked. The Customs
of Udalric written about 1085, tell us that "the abbot's bed
stood in the middle of the dormitory next to the wall" and
that it was the abbot himself who struck the bell to arouse
the brothers for the divine service.[333] In the early Cistercian
monasteries likewise the abbot was at first required to sleep
in the monk's dormitory, but later on, in the thirteenth
century, he was again installed in a house of his own.[334] In
Carolingian times, I am inclined to think this was the rule
rather than the exception; and the Plan of St. Gall must
have been a primary force in solidifying that custom. It
certainly left its imprint on the monastery for which it was
drawn. Gozbert (816-836), during the last six years of his
abbacy, was too intensely preoccupied with the completion
of his new church to allow himself to get involved in the
construction of a new residence. This project was undertaken
by his second successor Grimald, abbot of St. Gall
from 841-872 (and for much of that time also chancellor
at the court of Louis the German), who built himself an
aula worthy of his high political standing. Two wall
inscriptions of the new building, recorded in Cod. 397 of
St. Gall[335] describe it as follows:

This hall was built by masters of the palace, while
the island of Reichenau furnished its famous
painters.

A second inscription praised the splendid marble columns
of the abbot's residence and stated that it was built by
Grimaldus during the reign of Louis the Pious:

Abbot Grimald's aula stood to the north of the abbey
church—like the Abbot's House on the Plan of St. Gall,
but a little further east than the latter. In 1414 it was gutted
by fire, and subsequently rebuilt internally and re-roofed.
In this form it is portrayed on the bird's-eye-view of the
City of St. Gall, in 1596 (fig. 507), and all subsequent views

of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.[338]

[ILLUSTRATION]

TABLE I
ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION OF A BENEDICTINE MONASTERY
IN THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE AND LOUIS THE PIOUS

"The Abbot is believed to be the representative of Christ in the monastery and his order should be received as a divine command and not suffer any delay in execution."
St. Benedict, who wrote these lines, was wary of the office of Provost, preferring instead to divide power among deans rather than centralize authority in a second in
command, whose presence "might lead to rivalries and dissention." But the growing managerial complexities of the medieval monastery, with its vast web of outlying
estates, and with serfs and workmen living within the monastic enclosure itself, made inevitable the existence of such an executive.

‡ Latin words lacking English equivalents are set in roman type, an exception to normal editorial style.