University of Virginia Library

I.7.3

SPECIFIC RULINGS OF THE MONASTIC
REFORM MOVEMENT AFFECTING
MONASTIC ARCHITECTURE

Hans Reinhardt, in questioning Dopsch's thesis that the
Plan of St. Gall was a product of the monastic reform
movement, pointed to two conspicuous features of the
Plan which in his opinion militated against such a connection.
One of these was that the monastery was furnished
with bathhouses not only for the sick but also for the
healthy brethren; and the second, that on the Plan the
abbot was provided with a residence of his own. Both of
these establishments, Reinhardt contended, had been
interdicted by Aachen.[126] In advancing this criticism, however,
Reinhardt failed to take into account that in both
cases the resolutions passed at the second synod modified
those of the first. The synod of 816, to judge from Bishop
Haito's report, prohibited the use of baths by the healthy
monks, reserving this privilege to the sick,[127] yet when this
issue was taken up again in the second synod, the assembly
did not retain the strictness of the prohibition of the preceding
year, but liberalized it by the ruling: "That the
use of baths shall be left to the judgment of the prior."[128]
This was a return to the more tolerant attitude of St.
Benedict of Nursia, who granted the privilege of bathing
to the sick "as often as may be expedient; but to the healthy,
and especially to the young, let them be granted seldom."[129]

The Plan of St. Gall includes among its buildings a
bathhouse for the monks,[130] a bathhouse for the novices,[131]
a bathhouse for the sick,[132] and a bathhouse for the abbot.[133]
There is nothing in either the number, size, or furnishings
of these installations that would conflict with the ruling of
the second synod; and the bathhouse for the monks,
equipped as it was with no more than two tubs for seventy-seven
monks (this is the number of beds in the dormitory),
could scarcely do more to conform to the Rule of St.
Benedict, or to testify to the conservative "judgment of
the prior."

The question of a separate house for the abbot is a
different and considerably more complicated matter. It
appears to have been one of the more delicate issues discussed
in Aachen. As one weighs the respective merits of
the rulings that touch this matter, one cannot avoid the
impression that rather than face the issue squarely, the
leaders of the Church proposed to solve it by indirection.
It looks very much as though during the first synod of
Aachen some of the more extreme reformists argued for
legislation which, if enacted, would have deprived the
abbot of his right to a separate house and kitchen. This
may have been the intent of a preliminary resolution
referred to in chapter 4 of the Statutes of Murbach, which
directs: "That the abbots shall be subject to the same rules
as the brethren in meal and drink, in their sleep, and in
all other matters."[134] As in the question of baths, so in this
issue, too, the thinking of the reformists tended to become
more flexible in the ensuing deliberations as the synods
progressed. The official capitulary of 816 repeats the clause
that puts the abbots on the same footing with the monks
"in meal and drink," etc., but adds to this the important
qualification, "provided that they are not engaged in some
other useful task."[135] The capitulary of 817 drops the issue
altogether.[136] The synod of 816 is quite specific about the
fact that the abbot should not eat with the guests by the
gate of the monastery,[137] i.e., in the house held ready for
the reception of distinguished guests. The synod of 817
eliminates this ruling also. Neither of the two capitularies
contains a clause that challenged the abbot's right to live
in his own house. To introduce such legislation would
have been an abrogation of a time-honored mandate of the
great St. Benedict himself, who in chapters 53 and 56 of
his Rule had directed: "Let there be a separate kitchen for
the abbot and guests,"[138] and "Let the abbot always eat with
the guests and pilgrims. But when there are no guests, let
him have the power to invite whom he will of the
brethren."[139] How doubtful of the legality of any attempt
to tamper with these regulations of the founder of western
monachism some of the members of the synod of 816 must
have been, may be gathered from Abbot Haito's reaction.
Pointing to the irreconcilable conflict between the spirit
of this attempt and the Rule of St. Benedict, Haito
exclaims: "In this matter, to be sure, I wish to follow the
authority of customary procedure, which cannot be overruled
by the dictates of some new legislation."[140]

And in answer to the edict "that the abbot shall not take
his meal with the guests by the gates of the monastery,"
Haito remarks:

In professing this view, Haito informs us:

The auditorium to which Bishop Haito refers as the
traditional place for the abbot to take his meal with the
guests can only have been a room in the abbot's own house,
and since this house lay outside the claustrum near the
gate of the monastery—precisely where it is shown on the
Plan of St. Gall—it must have been provided with its own
kitchen.[143]

A review of the resolutions of the two synods of Aachen
which deal with the abbot's right to eat and sleep in his
own residence, then, provides no evidence to challenge the
theory that the Plan of St. Gall was a product of the
monastic reform movement. It argues, rather, in favor of it.
Moreover, there are other features of the Plan that give
added support to this thesis.

THE TRANSFER OF HOUSES FOR THE WORKMEN
AND CRAFTSMEN FROM AN
EXTRAMURAL TO AN INTRAMURAL LOCATION

A directive issued in chapter 4 of the first synod stipulated
that the monks should help "with their own hands"
(propriis manibus) in the bakehouse and in other workshops,
and should not stray outside for the acquisition of these
necessities.[144] It is Bishop Haito's commentary to this
directive that reveals to us the synod's intent to place the
houses for the workmen and craftsmen within the monastic
precinct, rather than outside. Prior to the issuance of the
regulation, in the monastery of Reichenau at least, the
workshop for the craftsmen lay outside the monastic
compound; and in implementing this rule, Haito ordered,
"that the fullers, the tailors, and the shoemakers be
instructed to perform their work of providing the monks
with their necessary clothing in the future within the
confines of the monastery, and not without, as was the
custom in the past." He adds "that this change should be
effected by the calends of next September."[145] The location
of the Great Collective Workshop and the House of
Coopers and Wheelwrights, immediately to the south and
west of the Monks' Cloister, may be interpreted to be a
direct implementation of this same directive.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE QUARTERS
FOR VISITING MONKS

Another point of agreement between the Plan of St. Gall
and a specific ruling of Aachen is to be found in the
establishment of special quarters for visiting monks.
Chapter 24 of the second synod rules, "that a dormitory
shall be erected by the side of the church where the
visiting monks may sleep."[146] This regulation is new, as it
was not included in the Rule of St. Benedict, who, in an
entire chapter devoted to the question, "How pilgrim
monks are to be received" (De monachis peregrinis, qualiter
suscipiantur), did not make the slightest reference to special
lodgings for visiting monks.[147] On the Plan of St. Gall the
Lodging for Visiting Monks is shown as a separate apartment,
addorsed to the northern wall of the church in the
immediate vicinity of the transept.[148]

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.