Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:54:22.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The architectural interest of the Regularis Concordia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Mark Spurrell
Mark Spurrell
Affiliation:
Wallingford, Oxon.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Regularis Concordia was issued by the synod which met in Winchester in the early years of the 970s at the height of the English Benedictine reform movement. At this time perhaps as many as fifteen monasteries were either being planned or were in the course of construction. In spite of this building activity, very little is said directly in RC about the buildings of a community, but it contains a considerable amount of primary evidence concerning the assumptions and expectations which its compilers had about the buildings needed by an English monastery at that time. In RC there is no consciously stated ideal setting, like that of the later Cistercians, in which a monastic community should live the life prescribed in this consuetudinary. Certain anxieties are shown about the use to which some of the buildings are to be put, and, in one area – the guest house – improvements are suggested, but for the most part any information which we can gather is from incidental or casual reference.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anglo-Saxon England , Volume 21 , December 1992 , pp. 161 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The date is discussed in Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, ed. Whitelock, D., Brett, M. and Brooke, C.N.L., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1981) 1, 133–6.Google Scholar For a discussion of the authorship, see Lapidge, M., ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’, Bishop Æthelwold, ed. Yorke, B. (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 89–117, at 98, where the claim of Æthelwold to be recognised as compiler is made. It is not necessary here to enter into this discussion and I have used the neutral expression ‘compilers’ in this paper.Google Scholar

2 The inspiration for this present article was Harold Taylor, ‘The Architectural Interest of Æthelwulf's De abbatibus’, ASE 3 (1974), 163–75. His article, however, is an attempt to understand imaginary buildings which are described by Æthelwulf — a different situation from that which confronts the student of the Regularis Concordia, where for the most part the buildings are an unconscious background to the customs prescribed. Regularis Concordia will hereafter be abbreviated as RC.Google Scholar

3 For examples, see below, nn. 37 and 88.

4 RC, ed. Symons, , §5 (p. 3) = CCMon, §5 (p. 72).Google Scholar In references to ‘ed. Symons’, the number refers to the section number in Regularis Concordia, ed. Symons, T. (London, 1953).Google Scholar In references to ‘CCMon’ the numbers refer to the section numbers in Corpus Consuetudinum Monasticarum [general editior: Hallinger, K.] (Siegburg, 1963–) VII.3 (1984), 61–147. The text printed is that of T. Symons and S. Spath, the critical apparatus by M. Wegener, and the explanatory notes by K. Hallinger.Google Scholar

5 For discussions of the sources of RC, see Symons, T., ‘Regularis Concordia, History and Derivation’, Tenth-Century Studies, ed. Parsons, D. (London and Chichester, 1975), pp. 37—59Google Scholar; and Klukas, A.W., ‘Architecture and Liturgy: Deerhurst Priory as an Expression of the Regularis Concordia’, Viator 15 (1984), 81—106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The latter emphasises the Lotharingian influence. Symons takes a more balanced view, and Lapidge, ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’, p. 99Google Scholar, points out that the recent discovery of the early eleventh-century Consuetudines Floriacenses antiquiores provides new evidence to justify the recognition of the influence of Fleury.

6 In his edition of RC, Dom Thomas Symons gives a list of buildings mentioned in RC, but makes no distinctions among them. See also Cramp, R.J., ‘Monastic Sites’, in The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Wilson, D.M. (London, 1976), pp. 201–52, at 208: ‘…the Regularis Concordia mentions, besides the church, the common refectory, common dormitory, the cloister, a room set apart for the daily chapter meeting, a warming house, kitchen, bakehouse, guest house and authitorium. This may be presumed to constitute the normal tenth-century complex.’Google Scholar

7 Ælfrici epistula ad monachos Egneshamnenses directa, ed. Nocent, H. (text), Hallinger, K. and Elvert, C., CCMon VII.3 (Siegburg, 1984), 149–85Google Scholar, to which the section numbers refer. ‘Ed. Bateson’ refers to M. Bateson's edition of the Epistula, in Kitchin, G.W., Compotus Rolls of the Obedientiaries of Saint Swithun's Priory, Winchester, Hampshire Record Soc. (Winchester, 1892), pp. 173–98.Google Scholar

8 E. g. RC, ed. Symons, , §10 (p. 7) = CCMon, §10 (p. 76).Google Scholar

9 RC, ed. Symons, , §2 (p. 1) = CCMon, §2 (p. 69)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §5 (p. 3) = CCMon, §5 (p. 72)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §10 (p. 7) = CCMon, §10 (p. 75).Google Scholar

10 RC, ed. Symons, , §57 (p. 56) = CCMon, §86 (p. 132).Google Scholar

11 RC, ed. Symons, , §36 (p. 34) = CCMon, §60 (p. 105).Google Scholar

12 RC, ed. Symons, , §57 (p. 56) = CCMon, §86 (p. 132–3).Google Scholar

13 See below, p. 164.Google Scholar

14 Cf. RC, ed. Symons, , §55 (p. 54) = CCMon, §83 (p. 131).Google Scholar

15 CCMon VII.3, 17.Google Scholar

16 E. g. RC, ed. Symons, , §26 (p. 23) = CCMon, §35 (p. 92).Google Scholar

17 RC, ed. Symons, , §64 (p. 63) = CCMon, §97 (p. 140).Google Scholar

18 RC, ed. Symons, , §29 (p. 26) = CCMon, §40 (p. 95).Google Scholar

19 RC, ed. Symons, §29 (p. 26) = CCMon, §40 (p. 96).Google Scholar

20 Hallinger (CCMon VII.3, 95 n.) quotes Theodomar's Epistula ad Theodoricum, written 778 × 797, as authority for this statement: ‘Accedentes ad refectorium, sive exeuntes, summum silentium observamus. Si quis aliquem sonitum in oratorio vel in refectorio sive dormitorio fecerit, prostratus senioribus poenitentium agit’ (CCMon I (Siegburg, 1963), 134).Google Scholar

21 RC, ed. Symons, §42 (p. 41) = CCMon, §71 (p. 115).Google Scholar

22 RC, ed. Symons, , §40 (p. 39) = CCMon, §66 (p. 112).Google Scholar

23 RC, ed. Symons, , §39 (p. 39) = CCMon, §63 (p. 110).Google Scholar

24 RC, ed. Symons, , p. 26, n. 2.Google Scholar

25 RC, ed. Symons, , §29 (p. 26) = CCMon, §40 (p. 96).Google Scholar

26 The cloister at Cluny for instance, was not rectangular, nor apparently was that at Saint-Riquier, but that was perhaps a rather different structure.

27 RC, ed. Symons, , §29 (p. 26) = CCMon, §40 (p. 96)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §55 (p. 54) = CCMon, §83 (p. 131).Google Scholar

28 RC, ed. Symons, , §57 (p. 56) = CCMon, §86 (p. 133).Google Scholar

29 RC, ed. Symons, , §56 (pp. 54–5) = CCMon, §84 (p. 131).Google Scholar

30 RC, ed. Symons, , §24 (p. 20) = CCMon, §31 (p. 90).Google Scholar

31 RC, ed. Symons, , §56 (p. 55) = CCMon, §84 (p. 131).Google Scholar

32 See below, n. 35.

33 Epistula, CCMon, §60 (p. 178)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 192.Google Scholar

34 RC, ed. Symons, , §56 (p. 55) = CCMon, §84 (p. 131): ‘Excepto auditorii loco, qui et ab hoc maxime eo censetur nomine quod ibi audiendum sit quid a praeceptore iubeatur; non vero fabulis aut otiosis ibi aut alicubi vacari loquelis oportet. Nam dum regulae auctoritas omni tempore silentio studendum dicat, opportuno tamen tempore de rebus necessariis pro taciturnitatis gravitate, uti patronus noster beatus Benedictus, non alta sed submissa voce loquendum permisimus …’ The words in italic type are phrases quoted from the Regula S. Benedicti, chs. xlii and vi respectively.Google Scholar

35 RC, ed. Symons, , §27 (p. 24) = CCMon, §38 (p. 94).Google Scholar

36 RC, ed. Symons, , §15 (p. 11) = CCMon, §16 (p. 80)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §55 (p. 54) = CCMon, §83 (p. 131). Both these instances are in quotations from the Memoriale qualiter and the Regula S. Benedicti respectively.Google Scholar

37 RC, ed. Symons, , §21 (p. 17) = CCMon, §26 (p. 86): ‘Hoc expleto, facto signo a priore, convenientes ad capitulum ipso praecedente, versa facie orientem salutent crucem et ceteris undique fratribus se vultu indinato humilient; cuius humiliationis ratio et in omni conventu custodienda est’. The words in roman type have been inserted in the Memoriale qualiter which is here printed in italics.Google Scholar

38 Horn, W. and Born, E., The Plan of St. Gall, 3 vols. (Berkeley, 1979) I, 248–9.Google Scholar

39 See H. M. and Taylor, J., Anglo-Saxon Architecture, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1965–1978) II, 520–2, for a discussion of Anglo-Saxon Romsey and bibliography.Google Scholar

40 RC, ed. Symons, , §43 (p. 41) = CCMon, §73 (p. 115)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §47 (p. 45) = CCMon, §75 (p. 118).Google Scholar

41 RC, ed. Symons, , §65 (p. 64) = CCMon, §98 (p. 141).Google Scholar

42 RC, ed. Symons, , §47 (p. 46) = CCMon, §76 (p. 119).Google Scholar

43 RC, ed. Symons, , §63 (p. 62) = CCMon, §95 (p. 139).Google Scholar

44 A remote but not inexact parallel can be found in the development of domestic offices in nineteenth-century English country houses. ‘Efficiency involved analyzing the different functions performed by different servants, giving each function its own area and often its ow n room…’ (Girouard, M., Life in the English Country House: a Socialand Architectural History (London, 1979), p. 276).Google Scholar

45 RC, ed. Symons, , §62 (p. 61) = CCMon, §94 (p. 138)Google Scholar: ‘Sint igitur in unoquoque monasterio singula loca ad hoc constituta ubi pauperum fiat susceptio, omnique die sine intermissione tres ex his qui continuo in monasterio pascuntur, eligantur pauperes, quibus eiusdem Mandati exhibeatur obsequium…’ The CCMon text supplies a full stop after fiat susceptio. Ælfric, however, thirty years later describes the maundy of the three poor men as taking place loco apto (Epistula, CCMon, §62 (p. 179)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 192).Google Scholar

46 ‘Singula loca i.e. domus hospitium… (CCMon VII.3 138 n.).

47 Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England. A History of its Development from the Times of Saint Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council, 940–1216, 2nd ed. (Cambridge 1963) pp. 479–80.Google Scholar

48 Epistula, CCMon, §64 (p. 179)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, p. 192.Google Scholar

49 RC, ed. Symons, §33 (p. 30) = CCMon, §54 (p. 101).Google Scholar

50 RC, ed. Symons, §34 (p. 33) = CCMon, §57 (p. 103).Google Scholar

51 RC, ed. Symons, §36 (p. 35) = CCMon, §60 (p. 106).Google Scholar

52 RC, ed. Symons, , §34 (p. 33) = CCMon, §57 (p. 104).Google Scholar

53 Knowles The Monastic Order, p. 44 n. 19.Google Scholar

54 These two senses are given by Niermeyer, J.F., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden, 1984)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘altare’ and by Blaise, A., Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs Chrétiens (Turnhout, 1954)Google Scholar, but the meaning ‘sanctuary’ is not given by Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources, I, A-B, ed. Latham, R.E. (Oxford, 1975), s. v. Roman Catholic servers at Mass today are still described as being ‘on the altar’.Google Scholar

55 RC, ed. Symons, , §40 (p. 39) = CCMon, §65 (p. 111).Google ScholarAltaria must surely mean tables here, but Ælfric in the parallel passage (Epistula, CCMon, §35 (p. 168)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 185)Google Scholar has lavent sacerdotes altaria et cetera pavimenta aecclesiae. See also RC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 65) = CCMon, §100 (p. 142).Google Scholar

56 RC, ed. Symons, , §47 (p. 45) = CCMon, §75 (p. 118)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §51 (p. 50) = CCMon, §79 (p. 126).Google Scholar

57 RC, ed. Symons, , §46 (p. 44) = CCMon, §74 (p. 118).Google Scholar

58 RC, ed. Symons, , §51 (p. 49) = CCMon, §79 (p. 125).Google Scholar

59 RC, ed. Symons, , §19 (p. 15) = CCMon, §21 (p. 84).Google ScholarKlukas, , ‘Architecture and Liturgy: Deerhurst Priory’, p. 86Google Scholar, quotes the analogy of the Essen Consuetudinary, which he claims ‘shows a remarkably close textual and liturgical relationship’ to RC, and suggests that RC is here thinking of a western porticus similar to that of St Peter in Essen which was on an enclosed and elevated platform at the west end of the nave, and where matins of All Saints was sung. The text of RC, however, does not rule out the monks going to different porticus on different days. For an edition of the Essen Consuetudinary, see Der Liber ordinarius der Essener Stiftskirche, ed. Arens, F. (Paderborn, 1908).Google Scholar

60 RC, ed. Symons, , §44 (p. 42) = CCMon, §73 (p. 115).Google Scholar

61 RC, ed. Symons, , §48 (p. 47) = CCMon, §77 (p. 119).Google Scholar

62 RC, ed. Symons, , §48 (p. 48) = CCMon, §77 (p. 121)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §58 (p. 57) = CCMon, §88 (p. 135).Google Scholar

63 RC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 65) = CCMon, §100 (p. 142).Google Scholar

64 RC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 66) = CCMon, §100 (p. 143).Google Scholar

65 RC, ed. Symons, , §17 (p. 13) = CCMon, §18 (p. 82).Google Scholar

66 RC, ed. Symons, , §20 (p. 16) = CCMon, §24 (p. 86).Google Scholar

67 RC, ed. Symons, , §25 (p. 22) = CCMon, §34 (p. 91).Google Scholar

68 RC, ed. Symons, , §20 (p. 16) = CCMon, §25 (p. 86).Google Scholar

69 Heitz, C.Recherches sur les rapports entre architecture et liturgie à l'époque carolingienne (Paris 1963) pp. 79–81.Google Scholar

70 RC, ed. Symons, , §37 (p. 36) = CCMon, §61 (p. 109).Google Scholar This custom is paralleled in the Verdun Customary and in other Lotharingian sources; see Symons, T., ‘Sources of the Regularis Concordia’, Downside Rev. 59 (1941), 14–36, 143–70 and 264–89, at 274 and 284.Google Scholar

71 RC, ed. Symons, , §48 (p. 47) = CCMon, §77 (p. 120).Google Scholar

72 The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. Knowles, D. (London, 1951), at, for example, p. 21.Google Scholar There is no mention in RC of the Lenten Veil, cortina inter chorum et altare, mentioned ibid. p. 19.

73 RC, ed. Symons, , §40 (p. 38) = CCMon, §65 (p. 111).Google Scholar

74 RC, ed. Symons, , §17 (p. 13) = CCMon, §18 (p. 82).Google Scholar

75 RC, ed. Symons, , §17 (p. 13) = CCMon, §18 (p. 82)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §25 (p. 21) = CCMon, §32 (p. 91)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §25 (p. 22) = CCMon, §32 (p. 91).Google Scholar

76 RC, ed. Symons, , §41 (p. 39) = CCMon, §67 (p. 112).Google Scholar

77 RC, ed. Symons, , §48 (p. 48) = CCMon, §77 (p. 121)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §53 (p. 51) = CCMon, §80 (p. 128)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §68 (p. 57) = CCMon, §88 (p. 135).Google Scholar

78 RC, ed. Symons, , §48 (p. 48) = CCMon, §77 (p. 121)Google Scholar; ed. Symons, , §58 (p. 57) = CCMon, §88 (p. 135).Google Scholar

79 The Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, ed. Niermeyer, s.v., gives a wide range of meanings for the word oratorium, including basilica, abbey church, parish church, non-parochial church, chapel within or outside a church, oratory and hassock.

80 RC, ed. Symons, , §25 (p. 21) = CCMon, §32 (p. 91).Google Scholar

81 RC, ed. Symons, , §53 (p. 51–2) = CCMon, §80 (p. 128).Google Scholar

82 RC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 65) = CCMon, §100 (p. 142).Google Scholar

83 RC, ed. Symons, , §68 (p. 67) = CCMon, §102 (p. 145). The earlier but not necessarily better manuscript of RC (London, British Library, Cotton Faustina B. iii (s. xex), 159r–198r) omits the words in oratorio.Google Scholar

84 RC, ed. Symons, , §35 (p. 34) = CCMon, §59 (p. 105). A phrase from the Regula S. benedicti, ch. lxvii, but from a completely different context.Google Scholar

85 See, e. g., The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. Knowles, , pp. 12 and 27.Google Scholar

86 RC, ed. Symons, , §6 (p. 4) = CCMon, §6 (p. 73).Google Scholar

87 RC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 66) = CCMon, §100 (p. 143).Google Scholar

88 RC, ed. Symons, , §15 (p. 12) = CCMon, §16 (p. 81): ‘Tunc provideat sibi corpoream naturae necessitatem si ipsa hora indiguerit, et sic ad oratorium festinando psallat psalmum Ad te Domine levavianimam meam, cum summa reverentia et cautela intrans ut alios orantes non impediat at tunc flexis genibus in loco congruo et consueto, in Domini conspectu effundat preces corde magis quam ore, ita ut illius vox per magnam animi compunctionem … aures misericordis Domini efficaciter penetret…’ The words in roman type appear to have been inserted into a quotation from the Memoriale qualiter here printed in italics.Google Scholar

89 For discussions of the Trina oratio, see Tolhurst, J.B.L., The Monastic Breviary of Hyde Abbey, Winchester VI, HBS 80 (London 1942), 56–64Google Scholar; Symons, T., ‘Notes on the History of Benedictinism,’ Downside Rev. 65 (1947), 260–74, 66 (1948), 191–203, at 191–4Google Scholar; CCMon VII.3, 81 n. Other references are given in CCMon VII. 4 (Siegburg, 1986), 16.Google Scholar

90 See discussion by Davril, A., CCMon VII.1 (Siegburg, 1984), 337.Google Scholar

91 Cf. Consuetudines Floriacenses Antiquiores {CCMon VII.3, 40) which uses the word statio for each place of prayer, a term not found in RC.

92 The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc, ed. Knowles, D. p. 79: ‘Circumeat omnia altaria in cripto, et quae ex utraque parte chori subtus est …’Google Scholar

93 Thus Hallinger (CCMon VII.3, 81 n.) who comments on inde veniat (RC, ed. Symons, , §15 (p. 11) = CCMon, §16 (p. 81))Google Scholar, ‘quibus innotescit hac vice Wintonienses Floriacensium immitantes ter locum mutasse orandi’, while Tolhurst, The Monastic breviary, pp. 57—9Google Scholar and Symons (ed.) both pass over the question of any movement from place to place in silence. The usage of RC in such phrases as inde … eant ad mandatum (ed. Symons, , §26 (p. 22) = CCMon, §35 (p. 92))Google Scholar, exhinc … collationem adeant (ed. Symons, , §27 (p. 23) = CCMon, §36 (p. 92))Google Scholar, dehinc … eant fratres ad agendum mandatum (ed. Symons, , §40 (p. 39) = CCMon, §66 (p. 112))Google Scholar, and venientes ad mandatum (ed. Symons, , §42 (p. 40) = CCMon, §70 (p. 74)), which all involve movement from place to place, supports the view that inde veniat in this context cannot indicate anything other than a movement from one place to another.Google Scholar

94 RC, ed. Symons, , §15–17 (pp. 11–13) = CCMon, §16–18 (pp. 80–2).Google Scholar

95 Epistula, CCMon, §30 (p. 165)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 183.Google Scholar

96 Epistula, CCMon, §3 (p. 156)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 175.Google Scholar

97 RC, ed. Symons, , §49 (p. 48) = CCMon, §77 (p. 122).Google Scholar

98 RC, ed. Symons, , §36 (p. 34) = CCMon, §60 (p. 105).Google Scholar

99 Epistula, CCMon, §7 (p. 157)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 176.Google ScholarRC, ed. Symons, , §39 (p. 38) = CCMon, §63 (p. 110).Google Scholar

100 Epistula, CCMon, §48 (p. 175)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 190.Google ScholarRC, ed. Symons, , §53 (p. 51) = CCMon, §80 (p. 128).Google Scholar

101 RC, ed. Symons, , §37 (p. 36) = CCMow, §61 (p. 109).Google Scholar

102 That the porticus should be upstairs is suggested by Klukas (‘Architecture and Liturgy: Deerhurst Priory,’ pp. 86–7) in the context of Deerhurst, but it is, of course, unsafe to apply this idea to R C in general, as if there were a model church in the mind of the compilers of RC, nor does it seem right to apply this idea to in parte chori which one would expect to indicate a position within the choir.Google Scholar

103 Epistula, CCMon, §33 (p. 167)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

104 Epistula, CCMon, §67 (p. 180)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 193.Google ScholarRC, ed. Symons, , §67 (p. 65) = CCMon. §100 (p. 142).Google Scholar

105 Epistula, CCMon, §14 (p. 159)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 178.Google ScholarRC, ed. Symons, , §29 (p. 25–6) = CCMon, §40 (p. 95).Google Scholar

106 See above, pp. 163–4 and 165.Google Scholar

107 Epistula, CCMon, §30 (p. 165)Google Scholar; ed. Bateson, , p. 182.Google Scholar

108 Conant, K.J., Cluny, les églises et la maison du chef d'ordre (Macon, 1968), fig. 47.Google Scholar There is no mention of a separate abbot's house in the decrees of the Council of Aix of AD 816 (CCMon I, 464) from which derives the prohibition in RC, ed. Symons, , §63 (p. 62) = CCMon, §95 (p. 139).Google Scholar

109 There is, as it happens, no mention in RC of any offices that we associate with the western range of the cloister. The parlour as discussed by RC is that for use among the brethren rather than that for talking with seculars, which in later times was often situated in the eastern range near the chapter-house. No location, however, is hinted at by RC.

110 See above, p. 173.Google Scholar