Unions and Confraternity with Cluny

H. E. J. Cowdrey

doi:10.1017/S0022046900053987

Unions and Confraternity with Cluny

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

H. E. J. Cowdrey

Show author details

H. E. J. Cowdrey: Affiliation:
Fellow, Chaplain and Tutor in Modern History, St. Edmund Hall, Oxford

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

It is not at first sight easy to explain the ever-growing appeal which Cluny had during the tenth and eleventh centuries for clergy and still more for laymen, particularly in Burgundy, France, Christian Spain and North Italy. The basis of Cluniac life was the choir service of the monks and the silence and ordered round of the cloister. By and large the Cluniacs did not seek to work outside the cloister or to become involved in wider pastoral care. They were, indeed, concerned for the Church and for the world at large, but with a view to winning individuals to share spiritually and to support materially the other-worldly ends of the monastic order. Yet, especially under abbots Odilo and Hugh, there was a rapid rise in the number of houses subject to Cluny or otherwise influenced by it; a Cluniac house formed part of the neighbourhood of a large part of the people who lived to the south and west of Lorraine. Cluny itself was well situated to attract travellers, and its dependencies were especially important on the pilgrimage routes. Together with the increasing number of Cluniac houses the long series of charters which record its endowment with monasteries, churches, lands and other wealth testify to its impact upon Church and Society in western Europe.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , October 1965 , pp. 152 - 162

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900053987 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

^{page 152 note 1} In 937 abbot Odo had 17 houses subject to him. When abbot Majolus died in 994 the number was 37. Under abbot Odilo (994–1048) it reached 65, and by the death of Hugh (1049–1109) it was 200: Hallinger, K., Gorze-Kluny, Rome 1950, 744Google Scholar.

^{page 152 note 2} For the charters, see Bruel, A., Recueil des Chartes de l'Abbaye de Cluny, i-vi, Paris 1876–1903Google Scholar; charters are referred to below by the editor's name and the number of the charter. Where appropriate I have taken note of Chaume, M., “Observations sur la Chronologie de l'Abbaye de Cluny”, in Revue Mabillon, xxxi (1941)Google Scholar, xxxii (1942), xxxix (1949) and xlii (1952).

^{page 152 note 3} For discussions of unions and confraternities, see especially Bishop, E., Liturgua Historica, Oxford 1918, 349–69Google Scholar; Thompson, A. Hamilton's introduction to the Liber Vitae Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, Surtees Society 1933Google Scholar, ix-xxviii; and Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England, Cambridge 1940, 472–9Google Scholar.

^{page 153 note 1} For examples of Confraternity Books see Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Libri Confratemitatum Sancti Galli, Augiensis, Fabariensis, Berlin 1884Google Scholar; the Durham Liber Vitae; and Liber Vitae: Register and Martyrology of New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester, ed. W. de G. Birch, Hampshire Record Society, 189a. For Necrologies, see M.G.H., Necrologia, i-v, Berlin 1888–1913.

^{page 153 note 2} Ep. 8: J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina (hereafter cited as P.L.), clix, 932.

^{page 153 note 3} Bruel, 112.

^{page 153 note 4} Bruel, 3111.

^{page 153 note 5} Bruel, 3210.

^{page 154 note 1} The three collections of the Customs of Cluny which are important for this study are (i) Consuetudines Farfenses, in B. Albers, Consuetudines Monasticae, i, Stuttgart 1890, compiled between 1030 and 1048, which record the Customs of abbot Odilo's day, (ii) the Ordo Cluniacensis per Bemardum, in Herrgott, M., Vetus Disciplina Monastica, Paris 1726Google Scholar, which dates from 1067, and (iii) the Antiquiores Consuetudines Monasterii Cluniacensis of Ulrich of Cluny, in P.L., cxlix, 635–778, of c.1070. The Monastic Constitutions of Lanfranc (ed. Knowles, D., London 1951)Google Scholar are indebted to the first two of these collections but give a partly divergent account of unions and confraternities (114–15).

^{page 154 note 2} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200).

^{page 154 note 3} Con. Farf., ii, 58 (Albers, i, 199).

^{page 154 note 4} Bernard, i, 74 (Herrgott, 274).

^{page 155 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 155 note 2} See Wollasch, J., ‘Muri und St. Blasien’, in Deutsches Archiv, xvii (1961)Google Scholar, Beil. 3, 445–6.

^{page 155 note 3} E.g., Bruel, 2110–12, 3864, 3868.

^{page 155 note 4} Bruel, 2043: supradicta vero abbatissa et aliae subditae Dei ancillae, videntes nullam ex praedicto praedio posse habere ad praesens utilitatem, placuit eis ut adquirerent nostram nostrorumque fratrum societatem.

^{page 155 note 5} Bruel, 3364, 3365.

^{page 155 note 6} Bruel, 3427.

^{page 155 note 7} Ulrich, iii, 22: P.L., cxlix, 764–5. The account of admission in Lanfranc's Monastic Constitutions is broadly similar to Ulrich's. It prescribes the form of the request: Peto per misericordiam Dei, et vestram, et omnium istorum seniorum, societatem et beneficium huius monasterii; and of the abbot's reply: Omnipotens Dominus concedat vobis quod quaeritis, et ipse praestet vobis consortium electorum suorum.

^{page 156 note 1} Cartulaire de l'Abbqye Cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme, ed. C. Métais, ii, Paris 1894, no. 416, 179–80. Hugh, says the charter: decrevit generali praecepto, ut quamdiu vixero, si in eius absentia venero Cluniacum, capitulo et mensae totique ordine vice illius praesim.

^{page 156 note 2} Con. Farf., ii, 58 (Albers, i, 199).

^{page 156 note 3} This fact may be seen in the light of the initiative taken by many of the French bishops during the tenth and eleventh centuries in mitigating lay proprietorship and lay investiture by encouraging gifts to monasteries, and of the good relations which the Cluniacs in general enjoyed with the French episcopate. See G. Mollat, ‘La Restitution des Églises Privées au Patrimoine Ecclésiastique en France du ix^e au xi^e Siècle’, in Remit de Droit Français et Étranger (1949), 399–423, and H. Diener, ‘Das Verhaltnis Clunys zu den Bischöfen vor allem in der Zeit seines Abtes Hugo (1049–1109)’, in Neue Forschungen über Cluny und die Cluniacenscr, ed. G. Tellenbach, Freiburg 1959, 219–352.

^{page 156 note 4} Con. Farf., ii, 61 (Albers, i, 202–3).

^{page 156 note 5} Bruel, 1947, which, like 2043, followed a dispute; cf. Bruel, 2276.

^{page 156 note 6} Bruel, 1984, 2746.

^{page 156 note 7} Bruel, 3416, 3447.

^{page 157 note 1} Bruel, 3546, 3697.

^{page 157 note 2} See Ramackers, J., ‘Analekten zur Geschichte des Reformpapsttums und der Cluniazenser’, Quellen und Forschungen, xxiii (1931), 48–9Google Scholar: Ipsum ergo in primis fratrum nostrum assumimus volentes, ut in omnibus tarn in vita quam in morte ipse sit quasi unus ex nobis. Hoc etiam disponimus, ut in omne vita sua oratio illa, quam pro salute domni Petri regis cotidie in missam dicendam stabilivimus, pro ipso similiter dicatur, ut, quae pro rege singulariter pronunciaretur, nunc pluraliter pro ambobus proferatur.

^{page 157 note 3} The archdeacon of Auch was also given confraternity in Bruel, 1947: see also Bruel, 3619 for an example of a priest.

^{page 157 note 4} Ulrich, ill, 22: P.L., cxlix, 765. It was also omitted for secular clerks.

^{page 157 note 5} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200): Item sunt plerique fideles tarn pauperes quam divites qui cum adducti in capitulum nostrum venerint suscipiunt fraternitatem nostram, prius extra capitulum implorantes illud a d[omino] abbate vel priore, vel per se vel per hospitiarium, quae cum libro datur eis, et annuitur ut partem et communionem habeant de omnibus bonis quae fiunt non solum apud nos sed etiam in cunctis locis nostris in orationibus vel eleemosynis et caeteris bonis. Bernard's chapter De societate nostra danda extraneis was appended to Ulrich with some minor alterations; see P.L., cxlix, 777–8. Bernard says that the novices were admitted to chapter when some great man was present propter societatem (i, 15; Herrgott, 165). For the role of the guestmaster, cf. Lanfranc's Monastic Constitutions, 88.

^{page 157 note 6} Bruel, 2984, 3765, 3777, 3806, 3864, 3868.

^{page 157 note 7} Bruel, 2112 (c. 1040).

^{page 157 note 8} Bruel, 3233, 3661.

^{page 158 note 1} Bruel, 3737.

^{page 158 note 2} For the special benefits which abbot Hugh granted to Urban II during his visit in 1095, see Baluze, E., Miscellanea, vi, Paris 1713, 475–6Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 3} Bruel, 3561.

^{page 158 note 4} Bruel, 3518.

^{page 158 note 5} For particularly full versions of the formula see Bruel, 2110, 2112, 3181.

^{page 158 note 6} The only exception I have noted is in Bruel, 3737. The general rule holds for both Cluniac and non-Cluniac sources.

^{page 158 note 7} At Cluny, as elsewhere, these are distinct but overlapping terms.

^{page 158 note 8} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200). The psalm is Psalm box in the Vulgate; the collect comes from the Orationes ad missam pro salute viuorum: Wilson, H. A., The Gelasian Sacramentary, Oxford 1890, 313Google Scholar.

^{page 159 note 1} E.g., Bruel, 2769.

^{page 159 note 2} See esp. Con. Farf., i, 140 (Albers, i, 133–4). This account of how Odilo instituted at Cluny the Commemoration of All Souls festivo more, prescribing masses and offices for the dead and generous almsgiving to the poor, concludes: Et ut hoc decretum perpetuum vigorem obtineat, volumus et petimus, et praecipimus tam in hoc loco quam in cunctis locis ad istum locum pertinentibus servetur, et si aliquis ex ista nostra fideli inventione sumpserit exemplum, particeps omnium bonorum efficiatur votorum.

^{page 159 note 3} From the Orationes pro defunctis laicis: see Wilson, op. cit., 307.

^{page 159 note 4} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200), see also Con. Farf., ii, 63 (Albers, i, 204).

^{page 159 note 5} Bruel, 2855, 3737, 3765; see also Con. Farf., ii, 58 (Albers, i, 198).

^{page 159 note 6} Bruel, 2110, 2112.

^{page 159 note 7} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200) speaks of a ‘prebenda triginta diebus’; Con. Farf, ii, 63 (Albers, i, 204) speaks of a ‘iustitia triginta diebus’.

^{page 159 note 8} The need for double record is stated in Con. Farf., ii, 58 (Albers, i, 198). For the use and compilation of the Martyrologium see Con. Farf., i, 41, 44 and ii, 63 (Albers i, 32, 35–6 and 204–6) and Bruel, 3312, 3385, 3524. For a discussion of the word see C. Ducange, Glossarium Mediae-et Infimae Latinitatis, S.V.

^{page 160 note 1} Bernard, i, 26 (Herrgott, 200); for examples in the charters see Bruel, 3933, 3362, 3393, 3516, 3652, 3765. For the Cluniac system of government see Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England, Cambridge 1940, 145–50Google Scholar.

^{page 160 note 2} Bruel, 3233. Compare the rulings of the papal legate, cardinal Gerald of Ostia, about the Cluniac house of Saint-Mont in Baluze, Miscellanea, vi, 469–70.

^{page 160 note 3} Bruel, 3516, 3518, 3531.

^{page 160 note 4} Bruel, 3317.

^{page 160 note 5} Bruel, 2984, 3034.

^{page 160 note 6} It is a striking feature of the Cluny charters that references to confraternity occur in considerable numbers throughout the rule of Hugh, whereas both before 1049 and after 1109 they are rare. This suggests that Hugh deliberately used confraternity as an aspect of his vigorous measures to extend and reinforce Cluny's alms and prayers for the dead and to elicit gifts of all kinds to support them. For a statement of this general policy see his letter in Ramackers, art. cit., 47–8. See also abbot Pontius's summary and consolidation of the All Saintstide observances of Cluny in Baluze, Miscellanea, vi, 497–500.

^{page 160 note 7} For the problem of ecclesiastical proprietorship, see (besides the article by Mollat referred to above) G. Schreiber, ‘Cluny und die Eigenkirche’ and ‘Gregor VII, Cluny, Citeaux, Prérnontré zu Eigenkirche, Parochie, Seelsorge’, in his Gemeinschaften des Mittelalters, Regensberg-Munster 1948, 81–138Google Scholar, 283–370.

^{page 160 note 8} In practice donors often reserved a life interest for themselves but secured confraternity for themselves and their descendants.

^{page 161 note 1} Con. Farf., ii, 63 (Albers, i, 204): Tertio Idus iulii depositio domni heinrici imperatoris augusti, nostrae societatis et fraternitatis karissimi, officium fiat plenum et duodecim pauperes reficiantur iustitiaque detur per septem dies.

^{page 161 note 2} For Henry III and Agnes of Poitou, see the Statuta Sancti Hugonis pro Alfonso rege Hispaniamum, in L. D'Achery, Spicilcgium, iii, Paris 1723, 408.

^{page 161 note 3} Con. Farf., ii, 63 (Albers, i, 205). I have found no positive references to the Capetians.

^{page 161 note 4} See Bruel, 3441, 3509, 3540, 3638, also the discussion by Bishko, C. J., ‘Liturgical Intercession at Cluny for the King-Emperors of Leon’, in Studio Monastica, iii (1961), 53–76Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 5} See S. Baluze, Miscellanea, vi, 476–7 and D'Achery, Spicilegium, iii, 408. For the king's reciprocal view, see Bruel, 3638: Quia vero placuit omnipotentiae Creatoris in regno Hesperidum roborare solium meum, ego Dei gratia rex Aldefonsus, sicut haeres paternae dignitatis, ita quoque bonae surcessor voluntatis, pactum fraternae societatis cum meis Cluniacensibus inii, statui, firmavi.

^{page 161 note 6} See Ramackers, art. cit., 48–9.

^{page 161 note 7} Bruel, 3222 (c. 1050).

^{page 161 note 8} Bruel, 2979 (before 1049; Chaume gives the abbot's name as Odilo).

^{page 161 note 9} Bruel, 3377 (1061–73). For further examples see Con. Farf, ii, 63 (Albers, i, 205).

^{page 162 note 1} Bruel, 3042, 3097, 3111, 3121, 3134, 3197, 3181, 3206, 3278, 3304, 3317, 3346, 3351, 3362, 3393, 3414. 3487, 3585, 3765. 3777. 3806, 3864, 3868, all certainly or probably fell into this category.

^{page 162 note 2} Bruel, 3737.

^{page 162 note 3} The vertical nature of the bond is well illustrated by Bruel, 3377: habitatores praefati coenobii praescripto deinceps possideant (a church) quantumcumque sive ad cultum divinum, sive ad profectum loci, sive adornare sive augmentare potuerint, liberam potestatem habeant, ita dumtaxat ut mutua vicissitudine pro carnalis nostri messione ipsi sua spiritualia nobis seminare et impertiri tarn in vita quam in morte non omittant, et bonum eorum peromnia participes asciscant.

Article contents

Unions and Confraternity with Cluny

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests