UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Severity and early English Cistercian architecture Roy, Robert Arthur 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 R68.pdf [ 14.55MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101959.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101959-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101959-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101959-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101959-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101959-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101959-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101959-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101959.ris

Full Text

SEVERITY AND EARLY ENGLISH CISTERCIAN ARCHITECTURE By Robert Arthur Roy B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1964 B.L.S., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of FINE ARTS We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1971 In presenting this thesis i n partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Br i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that per-mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publi-cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Fine A r t s The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date 2Q A p r i l 1971 ABSTRACT It i s generally" agreed that Cistercian architecture of the twelfth century i s plain and simple. Many writers attribute this severity wholly to the influence of St. Bernard, without considering the p o l i t i c a l , social and economic conditions that prevailed during the early years of the Cistercian order's history. In this paper, a wider approach i s taken; from a study of early Cistercian architecture i n England i t i s suggested that the simplicity was the product of several factors, rather than the decree of one man. The paper begins with a brief resume of the events leading to the foundation of the Cistercian order and of i t s early development. The impact of St. Bernard on the order was considerable. Without him i t i s doubtful i f the order would have expanded or, indeed, survived. In England, the movement was faced with many problems. The land was inadequate to support a community that wished to live entirely on it s own agricultural production. As the order expanded, the acquisition of extra land became an ever present problem, thus involving the Cistercians in the secular world they had vowed to leave. They took to producing cash crops, such as wool and adopted other financial practices contrary to their rules. The Cistercian ideal had proved unattainable i n the England of the time. Early French Cistercian buildings reflect the essential simplicity of the architecture. Although the early churches share the same characteristic features, absolute uniformity was not required. L i t t l e decoration was added before the fourteenth century. There i s no example of Cistercian architecture l e f t intact in England. However examination of the ruins that remain do reveal the severity of the earliest constructions. As these were extended more decoration and higher quality stonework i s evident. English Cistercian architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries reflects the development of the order i n England during those years. As the order deviated from i t s rules, so i t s architecture became more elaborate. Because of this we may conclude that simplicity i n English Cistercian architecture was the result of factors other than s t r i c t legislation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER II Origins and Early History of the Cistercian Order 7 CHAPTER I I I History of the Cistercians i n England 25 CHAPTER IV Cis t e r c i a n Architecture i n France 49 CHAPTER V Cis t e r c i a n Architecture i n England 68 CONCLUSION 87 NOTES 91 APPENDIX A Exordium Cisteroiensis Cenobii 104 APPENDIX B Carta Caritatis 105 APPENDIX C A L i s t of the Cis t e r c i a n and Savigniac 108 Foundations i n England and Wales, 1124-1437 APPENDIX D "Apologia" to William, Abbot of St. -Thierry 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY 112 FIGURES 119 PLATES 130 LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 The Cistercian Plan 119 FIGURE 2 Fontenay (cote d'Or) 120 FIGURE 3 Pontigny (Yonne) 121 FIGURE 4 Senanque 122 FIGURE 5 Flaran 123 FIGURE 6 Citeaux I 123 FIGURE 7 Clairvaux I 123 FIGURE 8 Le Thoronet 124 FIGURE 9 Waverly I 125 FIGURE 10 Waverly II 125 FIGURE 11 Tintern I 125 FIGURE 12 Rievaulx 126 FIGURE 13 Fountains I 127 FIGURE 14 Fountains I I 127 FIGURE 15 K i r k s t a l l 128 FIGURE 16 Buildwas 128 FIGURE 17 Furness I 129 FIGURE 18 Furness I I 129 FIGURE 19 Byland 129 LIST OF PLATES PLATE 1 PLATE 2 PLATE 3 Fontenay - Nave looking west Fontenay - Facade Le Thoronet - Nave looking west 130 130 131 Page PLATE 4 Le Thoronet - Facade 131 PLATE 5 Illumination - Frontpiece for a tr e a t i s e on 132 St. Augustine PLATE 6 ' G r i s a i l l e ' Windows - Obazine Abbey (France) 132 PLATE 7 Rievaulx - (a) Later building 133 (b) Early b u i l d i n g 133 PLATE 8 Rievaulx - South transept 134 PLATE 9 Rievaulx - North transept 134 PLATE 10 Rievaulx - Choir 135 PLATE 11 Rievaulx - Decorated corbel on SE transept p i e r 135 PLATE 12 Fountains - The nave 136 PLATE 13 Fountains - Windows - south w a l l cf the nave 136 PLATE 14 Fountains - Transverse b a r r e l vaults - north a i s l e 137 PLATE 15 Fountains - Benches - north side of the presbytery 137 PLATE 16 Fountains - Lancet - north side of the presbytery 138 PLATE 17 Fountains - East window- choir 138 PLATE 18 Fountains - Columns 139 PLATE 19 Fountains - West door 139 PLATE 20 K i r k s t a l l - North transept door 140 PLATE 21 Buildwas - Nave 140 PLATE 22 Byland - T i l e s - south transept f l o o r 141 PLATE 23 Byland - North side - a i s l e w a l l 141 PLATE 24 Byland - West facade - windows 142 PLATE 25 Byland - West facade - main entrance 142 PLATE 26 Jervaulx - Doorway on the SW corner of the church 143 PLATE 27 Jervaulx - D e t a i l of Plate 26 143 INTRODUCTION Numerous writers have stated that the Cistercian order has an inherent interest to the English speaking world in that i t i s the only major religious order which can be deemed the product of an Anglo-Saxon mind. Though Robert of Molesme is considered the founder of the order, and St. Bernard is credited with providing i t with a brilliance which attracted so many recruits in the twelfth century, English writers con-tinually point to the fact that the legislative body which guided the order was the result of the ideas of the English monk, Stephen Harding. Yet, for a l l their pride in this fact, i t is apparent that many English-speaking writers have shown a lack of perception when i t comes to under-standing the basic s p i r i t of the order. This is especially true with regard to a comprehension of Cistercian a r t i s t i c production. It is the aim of this paper, therefore, to attempt to provide a better understanding of a particular form of Cistercian art within the confines of a single country. The a r t i s t i c form is church architecture, possibly the most socially oriented art, and the country i s England. A study of English Cistercian architecture may also be useful at this time because the last detailed analyses of this matter were pub-lished near the turn of the century. Since that time much new material within the f i e l d of art history has been brought forward and approaches 2 to the subject have changed considerably. The main question I wish to pursue i n t h i s paper relates to the purism and severity that i s supposed to be the essence of a l l C i s tercian architecture. The question i s not who determined what form Cistercian architecture should take, but rather what caused Ci s t e r c i a n architecture to take the shape i t did. That I should have selected England for the study was merely a matter of interest on my part. E s s e n t i a l l y , the prob-lem i s one of causation. I have already decided to accept the current notion that early C i s t e r c i a n architecture was p l a i n and simple. I do not, however, accept the notion that t h i s was the re s u l t of the aesthetic preju-dices of one man, namely St. Bernard; t h i s unquestionably i s an over-s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of the matter. Rather I wish to show that purism i n the early stages of the order's existence was the re s u l t of certain i n t e r -relationships of r e l i g i o u s , s o c i a l , and aesthetic factors. I t would appear that much of the c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g regarding the subject of Cis t e r c i a n art has taken a rather obsolete h i s t o r i c a l approach. We have, i n e f f e c t , "old s t y l e " h i s t o r y , the histor y of great men. This approach lends i t s e l f to a dramatic emphasis upon the achieve-ments of powerful individuals. In t h i s case, our grand i n d i v i d u a l i s St. Bernard, who i s continually presented as the man who "made" Cister-cian art what i t i s . That of course i s due to his i n f l u e n t i a l p osition both within his own order and i n Europe generally. This approach i s an offshoot of the i d e a l i s t and romantic schools of thought which were predominant i n the 19th century, and which maintained what now appears to us as an exaggerated view of the importance of the i n d i v i d u a l . Within the framework of art h i s t o r y i t i s clear why t h i s approach should be 3 manifest. This romantic view led art historians to disregard the social and economic position of artists and merely maintain a view of their own creativity without regard to influential factors. In the realm of medieval architecture we are led to a form of constructivist history. It is constructivist essentially because i t creates a view of the past, not on the basis of empirical evidence, but rather on the basis of an individual historian's creative processes. If we view history in this fashion i t i s clear that we are maintaining a rather skeptical approach to the subject. I would certainly hold that a purely visual analysis of architecture w i l l not in the end lead to any absolute knowledge regarding the primary motivations for forms; but i t is a basic lack of documentation which has led us to adopt such techniques in architectural analysis. Without written documentation concerning much a r t i s t i c material we are l e f t to speculate on such things as meaning and style. By the very nature of speculation we cannot expect to gain abso-lutes in knowledge. We are l e f t with generalizations, and our own cre-ations. There is nothing to determine that such creations may not be correct. In certain instances they may be. At the same time, however, our a b i l i t y to determine the correctness of particular arguments is limited. In the end we must be faced with accumulations of data which w i l l either lead us to a better understanding of particular events or draw us away from the comprehension that we desire. Within the realm of speculative analysis there are numerous ways one may approach the problem of investigating medieval architecture. Two methods immediately come to mind. On one hand we may attempt to dis-cover root causes of various styles and architectural forms, while on the other we may place the study purely within the realm of social history. 4 In other words, the latter form attempts to place the investigation with-in the context of the societies in which the art form appeared. It must be understood that from my point of view both fields bear their own par-ticular validity, but in this paper the latter approach is the one which comes closest to presenting a clearer understanding of the social element involved. We must, in the final analysis, create priorities which will govern our approach. In viewing the Cistercians we must never lose sight of the fact that the order was a manifestation of the so-called 12th century Renais-sance. If we assess the architecture from a similar point of view we may in the end be led to a more successful understanding of its form. Un-doubtedly we see that a final conclusive assessment is unlikely. However, we are, through our reasoning processes, able to gain a fairly accurate idea of motivating forces behind certain actions in history. Although one should guard against wide generalizations, I think that such a view of the architectural production of the Cistercians may be applied on the basis of our present knowledge of the order in its early years. From the above remarks, the scope of this paper emerges clearly. I have restricted myself to a discussion of a limited number of houses, principally those whose remains are fairly extensive. These are Fountains, Rievaulx, Kirkstall, Furness, and a few comments on a number of other houses in England. The idea here is to get some picture of the order's architectural work in its early years. Of course this is a very difficult matter, and in many instances we are left to speculation because of the very nature of the destruction of the houses. But even though this is so, we can gain a fairly accurate idea of the motivating factors, by viewing the order within the context of 12th century civilization. 5 It has become apparent to me that such a task requires a more extensive historical background than that found in most papers on the sub-ject. The second chapter is restricted to giving a brief resume of the order's history and a presentation of its ideals. This is necessary be-cause i t is unlikely that a fundamental comprehension of the order's artistic work can be gained without i t . The third chapter is concerned with the history of the Cistercians in England. In this discussion I have narrowed the presentation primarily to the f i r s t two centuries of the order's existence. It will be noted here that greater emphasis is placed upon economic factors, as I believe them to be the essential factors in any assessment of the order's architectural work. This is so because architecture, by its very nature, is not one of the "free" arts. Leon Battista Albert! classified buildings into those which "perform a function", those which "service the organization of the city", and those "devoted to the beauty of temples". Cistercian architecture in its early phase may be classed with those performing a function. Cistercian buildings were designed specifically to accommodate the Benedictine liturgy. By the very fact that they were "use" oriented their peculiar designs were governed by practical considerations. Unlike the other arts, architecture is depen-dent upon basic considerations of use and cost; and while most arts are not bound by the necessities of commissions, architecture has always had to respond to the most constricting economic exigencies. The fourth chapter aims to present a general view of Cister-cian architecture and shows that its nature follows the assessment of the historical development of the order provided in the previous chapter. So far i t has been simpler to divorce pure historical data from artistic considerations. Here, unification of the two is essential. 6 Following the general discussion of Ci s t e r c i a n architecture I w i l l turn to a view of English C i s t e r c i a n architecture i n the f i n a l chap-te r . I t w i l l be deduced from t h i s assessment that the architectural p u r i t y which i s so often attributed to Ci s t e r c i a n architecture i s i n fact a l i m i t e d v i s u a l manifestation of Ci s t e r c i a n history. Poverty, wealth, and decline of the order can be traced i n the development of the archi-tecture. Though t h i s i s a generalization of considerable magnitude i t does provide us with a h i s t o r i c a l approximation--a s l i g h t glimpse into C i s t e r c i a n history. CHAPTER II As stated previously, the Cistercian order had i t s genesis i n the dynamic era of the eleventh and twelfth century Renaissance."'" This was not an isolated development i n i t i a t e d by a few disgruntled monks reacting against what they thought to be malpractices, but rather, part of an o v e r a l l pattern of reform and rejuvenation within the Church. A b r i e f look at Church history i n general and the monastic movement i n pa r t i c u l a r w i l l serve as a framework for introducing the Cis t e r c i a n order. An important fact of Church histo r y becomes apparent from the middle of the eleventh century. I t i s , of course, the increasing inde-pendence of the papacy and i t s development along monarchical l i n e s . As Henri Pirenne has pointed out, the Church, though suffering temporarily after the Carolingian Empire l o s t i t s predominate p o s i t i o n , had gained 2 for i t s e l f greater l i b e r t y . Because i t moved i n a more s p i r i t u a l direc-t i o n , the Church rejected any form of tutelage or secular meddling i n i t s a f f a i r s . With the elec t i o n of Hildebrand as Pope Gregory VII i n 1073, we see a more concerted c o n f l i c t a r i s i n g between Church and State with respect 3 to the appointment of church o f f i c i a l s . In ef f e c t , what Gregory did was to indicate to a l l that i t was the Church's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to appoint or depose i t s own o f f i c i a l s . This move among others was strongly opposed by the German church, while i n France i t was blocked by King P h i l i p I, for 8 whom the t r a f f i c i n bishoprics was too lucr a t i v e to surrender without a struggle. This led to a more di r e c t p o l i c y on the part of Gregory, who at the Synod of 1075 forced the suspension of a number of German bishops 4 and saw to the publication of an investiture decree. We should remember that one aspect of inv e s t i t u r e , the formal i n s t a l l a t i o n into an o f f i c e of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l o f f i c i a l s by laymen, had certain serious effects which were bound to bring on a c o n f l i c t between the temporal and s p i r i t u a l authorities. Among other problems, the one which caused greatest scandal was that of simony. To Gregory i t seemed intolerable that a layman should invest a churchman with the symbols of o f f i c e . The Gregorian programme demanded for i t s success an increasing degree of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n the government of the Church; the bonds between Rome and the l o c a l churches were to be drawn closer.^ The re s u l t of Gregory's decree was a b i t t e r struggle between the papacy and Henry IV. This struggle was ended by Henry TV, who entered Rome i n 1084 and placed Clement I I I on the papal throne. Though Gregory died i n the following year and was not able to see the res u l t s of his reform, he was, i n f a c t , successful to a degree. The success that the Church gained manifested i t s e l f i n the a b i l i t y to take the appointment of bishops out of the hands of the Emperor. But t h i s i t d i d at a price -- the appointment of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l o f f i c i a l s now came under the influence of l o c a l princes. Pirenne states that, "... the Empire suffered thereby; the Papacy gained i n prestige; but the d i s c i p l i n e of the Church was not improved; on the contrary. Every elec-t i o n was bound to be a c o n f l i c t of influences, and while there was no longer simony on the part of the Emperor there was s t i l l pressure and intimidation on the part of magnates. The true solution would have been that of Pascal I I , according to which the bishops would have abandoned t h e i r f i e f s ; but to t h i s the Emperor would not give his consent, for the vast t e r r i t o r i a l wealth of the Church would have passed into the hands of the princes."6 In the l a s t resort, the quarrel of the investitures ended i n the triumph 9 of feudalism over the Church. In seeking to li b e r a t e the clergy from secular influences the Church had made i t more than ever subordinate to them. Though for many years there was a tendency to f e e l that the Gregorian reform was a di r e c t outgrowth of the Cluniac movement, there 7 has been a s h i f t i n recent years to discount t h i s . We may i n fact see Church l i f e at t h i s time to be the product of a complex c u l t u r a l and i n -t e l l e c t u a l revolution which drew upon a number of d i f f e r i n g sources: Cluniac reform, I t a l i a n asceticism, new administrative and le g a l concepts, 8 and a general desire to make Rome predominant i n world a f f a i r s . Although the Gregorian reform may have i n i t a l l y gained i t s i n s p i r a t i o n from the actions of certain monastic groups, i t gradually be-gan to move away from asceticism to a more worldly approach. Tellenbach states that "... while i t was s t i l l admitted that f l i g h t from the world was t r u l y admirable the papal p u b l i c i s t s of the early twelfth century tended increasingly to maintain that the primary aim of the Church, and therefore of i t s leader, was to enter the world, organize i t , and lead 9 i t to salvation." I t i s i n the l i g h t of t h i s struggle, then, that we see a rather paradoxical s i t u a t i o n i n which the leadership of the Church tends toward a l e g a l i s t i c and administrative p o s i t i o n , while the Chri s t i a n community experiences a profound acceleration of pietism which manifests i t s e l f i n the foundation of new monastic orders. Likewise, i t would appear that though the monastic movements of the early twelfth century t r i e d to escape the world, the Church leadership by i t s action kept them i n most instances from succeeding. Just as Gregory had attempted to adopt what he considered an 10 ancient p r a c t i c e , so also d i d the monastic movements which formed them-selves i n the eleventh and twelfth centuries attempt to "clothe themselves i n the sanctifying garb of ancient practice.""^ We see a d e f i n i t e reaction to various forms of decadence within the Church of the eleventh century i n the foundation of new monastic orders. Indeed, the r e v i v a l of monas-ti c i s m i n the eleventh century r e c a l l s the attempts of early Christians who sought ascetic and holy l i v e s by f l e e i n g to the desert.'*""'" This form of l i f e had B i b l i c a l precedence under the theme of following the h i s t o r i c a l C h r i s t , and thus sharing i n the hardships, dangers, and penalties that l o y a l t y to Him exacts. In the E p i s t l e s of St. Paul, asceticism i s de-scribed e s s e n t i a l l y by the image of the s p i r i t u a l athlete who consciously and consistently d i s c i p l i n e s himself i n an e f f o r t to l i v e i n the s p i r i t of C h r i s t , and i n accomplishing t h i s f a c t , attains not only his salvation, but 12 also that of his community. In the Gospels, following Christ does not mean merely imitating what He does, but actually sharing His experiences. In other words those who are c a l l e d by Christ are required to s a c r i f i c e t h e i r feelings and former l i v e s , give absolute p r i o r i t y to the work of the Kingdom of God, and be driven by a single purpose. To follow Christ i s , i n e f f e c t , a 13 coming to l i f e . I t would be well at t h i s point to view some of the monastic groups which formed part of the r e l i g i o u s r e v i v a l of the eleventh century."'"4 In effect we see two areas of r e v i v a l , one i n I t a l y and the other i n France. In I t a l y the drive which began i n 1000 was more or less dissipated by 1100, and we see a return to more ancient forms of monasticism which for the most part remained rather l i m i t e d ventures. In France, on the other hand, the drive to reform began around 1050 and although s t a r t i n g i n a similar 11 fashion to that i n I t a l y , was pushed into another course by the construc-t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l frameworks. Indeed, the constitution created i n France tended to become the basis for supranational organizations. The new orders i n I t a l y were founded by men who had l e f t the old monastic way of l i f e i n search of a more severe form of asceticism. The best known of these groups were Fonte Avallena, Camaldoli, and Vallombrosa. The f i r s t two owed t h e i r existence to St. Romuald of Ravenna (c. 950-1027), the t h i r d to St. John Gaulbert of Florence (990-1073). Both Fonte Avallena and Camaldoli were foundations of hermits while Vallombrosa adopted a severe form of the Benedictine Rule. Vallombrosa had a p a r t i c u l a r importance since i t anticipated the French houses of Tiron, Savigny, and Citeaux. The notable thing about these I t a l i a n foun-dations i s that they were li m i t e d to very few adherents and therefore never grew to any great extent. In France we f i n d a d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n developing i n the middle of the eleventh century. On one hand we see the establishment of a her-mitage near Grande Chartreux by Bruno of Rheims. The constitution of t h i s group was not drawn up u n t i l about the f i r s t t h i r d of the twelfth century by Guigues du Chatel. The essential points i n the constitution of the Carthusians, as the order came to be known, were i s o l a t i o n from worldly a f f a i r s and complete poverty. One s i m i l a r i t y that Chartreux had with i t s I t a l i a n counterparts was i t s l i m i t a t i o n i n s i z e , but t h i s was due to a desire for such a l i m i t a t i o n rather than the r e s u l t of p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. Knowles points to two essential problems facing monastic re-formers at the end of the eleventh century."*"^ The f i r s t of these was the correct interpretation of the Benedictine Rule, while the second was the 12 formulation of co n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanisms designed to create standard observances among various houses. A solution to these problems was attempted by a French group i n the eastern part of the Duchy of Burgundy i n a location known as Citeaux. The house at Citeaux was founded by Robert, the former abbot and founder of the Benedictine house at Molesme. Robert's action was the r e s u l t of an inner c o n f l i c t at Molesme i n which we see two opposing factions. One i s led by Robert, his p r i o r A l b e r i c , and an Englishman by the name of Stephen Harding. These men moved for a more strenuous obser-vance of the Benedictine Rule which they f e l t was not being properly f o l -lowed i n that house. The other group wished to maintain the observances within the community as they were. According to W.A. Parker Mason, a committee was formed to examine the Rule of St. Benedict and report on 17 i t . The report indicated that the Rule was not being kept as clo s e l y as i t should be; i n other words, to the l e t t e r . Accordingly, the com-mittee decided that the Rule was being broken i n three areas: St. Benedict had ordered manual labor, which was being avoided; t i t h e s were accepted when i n fact there was nothing i n the Rule allowing for t h i s ; and f i n a l -18 l y , there was unnecessary luxury i n dress and house. This report apparently was not received with kindness by the majority of the community, and so at length, the reformers determined to secede, which they did on the 21st of March, 1098. I t was at t h i s time that the new community of Citeaux was born. Although Robert may be considered the f i r s t abbot of Citeaux, his length of o f f i c e was cut short by his r e c a l l to Molesme i n 1099. He was followed i n the post by A l b e r i c who maintained the p o s i t i o n u n t i l 1109. Following him was Stephen (1109-1134). These three men may be deemed 13 the most important individuals in framing the constitutions and early 19 direction of the Cistercian order. In determining the achievement of these f i r s t fathers we should consider two things: their changes to the inter-nal l i f e of the monastery; and the creation of a new form of monastic cons t itut ional apparatus.^ Although there i s at present some controversy concerning the legislative documents of the Cistercian order, we may safely say that the framework of the foundation was formed by the following works: the "Exordium Cisteroiensis Cenobii" (also known as the "Exordium Parvum") (see Appendix A), the "Carta Caritatis" (see Appendix B), and the "Instituta 21 Capituli Generalis". The Exordium Parvum is an account of the foundation of the Abbey and a presentation of the order's f i r s t ideals. The Carta Caritatis is the document which established the constitution of the Cistercian order, and the so-called Instituta are the disciplinary decrees made from time to time by the abbots of the order in their annual General Chapter. Although for many years the Carta Caritatis was considered to have been written by Stephen Harding around 1114 and approved by Pope Calixtus II in 1119, i t i s now known to be a composite document drawn up over many years. Knowles has outlined the following development for the 22 charter. The introduction and the f i r s t three clauses were possibly written by Stephen Harding when the f i r s t of Citeaux' daughter houses, La Ferte, was founded in 1113. These sections indicated that no material gains were to be exacted by Citeaux, but that the mother house retained responsibility for the care of the souls of any of i t s offspring. The charter further indicated that the Benedictine Rule was to be followed to the letter i n a l l houses and that a l l customs should be identical. 14 The next stage of the document's development came about 1114 with the foundation of Pontigny. We f i n d now that the charter aimed to maintain a form of central d i r e c t i o n , but at the same time attempted to ensure the autonomy of ind i v i d u a l houses. That the rules of the order were to be maintained was provided for by yearly v i s i t a t i o n s from mother houses to daughter houses and also by a yearly General Chapter to be held at Citeaux. The difference between the Cistercian and Cluniac foundations was that the former had no head to which the rest of the order was accountable, while the l a t t e r had an Archabbot who was responsible for governing the entire order. Although Citeaux was the s i t e of the General Chapter she claimed no more power and only a l i t t l e more prestige than the other houses The Exordium Parvum presents us with a clear picture of the departure from Molesme. I t has been pointed out numerous times that the early Cistercians had no desire to form a new order, but rather wished to reform certain observances within the order as l a i d down i n the Benedictine 24 Rule. At the outset, there i s no indication that the monks of Citeaux attempted to c r i t i c i z e the Cluniac form of monasticism; rather, they merely noted that the l a t t e r group no longer followed the primitive Rule of St. Benedict. As Knowles states, "the Rule of St. Benedict had become submerged under customs, some of which were legitimate interpretations while others were easy going modifications, forming a jungle from which 25 neither the ind i v i d u a l monk nor the abbot of good w i l l could escape." In assessing the difference between Citeaux and Cluny, Knowles 26 draws our attention to two factors. On one hand the early monks of Citeaux l a i d down a s o l i d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l programme designed to regulate most areas of monastic l i f e . On the other they had to decide what form of economic organization to adopt. This l a t t e r consideration was of 15 utmost importance i f they were to free themselves of the abuses they were c r i t i c i z i n g i n the older orders. At the outset the founding fathers could see c l e a r l y that as long as a monastery was i n some way t i e d to the secular world i t would be very d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, to r i s e above that world to a t t a i n a high l e v e l of asceticism. Considering t h i s factor, they resolved to en-sure that a l l of t h e i r houses were established i n locations f a r from the 27 habitation of man. With respect to t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d , they hoped to survive purely 28 on the basis of t h e i r own personal labour. At t h i s point they deter-mined not to follow i n the steps of the older orders, i n that they rejec-ted the acqu i s i t i o n of se r f s , manors, m i l l s , churches, col l e c t i o n s and 29 t i t h e s . In order to by-pass t h i s problem the Cistercians created t h e i r own i n t e r n a l work force with the introduction into t h e i r monasteries of 30 the "Conversi" or lay brothers. These men were normally uneducated peasants who committed themselves to do manual labour and business trans-actions for the house to which they had pledged themselves. Once they had been accepted as lay brothers they could never r i s e above t h e i r ranks to become monks. Although the lay brothers were not an invention of the Cistercians, t h e i r adoption by that order was of major importance i n the 31 ultimate development of the order. One must consider that on the basis of the normal Benedictine day consisting of prayer, study and work, i t became obvious that too l i t t l e time was l e f t for work to enable a monastic house to become s u l f - s u f f i c i e n t . Also, the time a l l o t t e d for t h i s func-t i o n was again shortened by the physical act of going to and from the place of employment. This problem might have been solved i n part by h i r i n g lay workers, but the expense i n the early years would have been pr o h i b i t i v e . 16 Another factor entered the decision for the adoption of lay brothers. I n i t i a l l y the founding fathers had desired to r e s i s t acquiring 32 lands which were actually outside of the monastery precincts. Indeed, t h i s aim was included i n the Papal B u l l of Paschall giving protection to 33 the new order. In Mason's words, the B u l l stated that, "they were to have no lands beyond the actual monastic precincts, no granges, ser f s , m i l l s , or other possessions, such as a seigneur would have, and these 34 si t e s were to be situated i n unfrequented places." I f they were to re-ject a l l the lands outside the monastery precinct, how were they to l i v e ? I t was obvious after some consideration that there was l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d that a monastic house could consolidate a l l i t s land holdings into one monolithic u n i t . Likewise, the early Cistercians probably f e l t that i t would be a bad p o l i c y to reject grants merely because they didn't border on t h e i r i n i t i a l holdings. Besides, they could point to the Rule and note that they would have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n according the h o s p i t a l i t y re-quired of them with respect to t r a v e l l e r s , beggers, widows, and poor peo-35 pie. With t h i s i n mind, i t was decided that they would necessarily 36 have to obtain and operate granges. But i t was impossible for the monks to do t h i s themselves; thus the conversi came to play t h e i r part. Their function was to manage a l l lands too far from the monastery to allow a return to the required r e l i g i o u s services during the day. Though the conversi proved to be the main factor i n the growth and development of the order i n the early years, they had a tendency i n la t e r times to cause much disruption and they generally had a detrimental 37 effect on the ov e r a l l morale of the Cistercians. Closely aligned to the fundamental economic consideration of the order was the re j e c t i o n of a l l sources of wealth and luxury, both 17 domestic and e c c l e s i a s t i c a l . Indications of t h i s attitude are found i n the Exordium Parvum where we see that the fathers had rejected a l l that was not contained within the Benedictine Rule. These included fur gar-ments, l i n e n , combs, fine foods and the l i k e . Furthermore, the following statement of the Exordium Parvum was to have far-reaching implications within a very short time of the i n i t i a l foundation: "And because they did not f i n d i n the Rule or i n the l i f e of St. Benedict that the master had possessed churches or a l t a r s , or offerings, or b u r i a l grounds, or ti t h e s of other men, neither ovens, nor m i l l s , nor distant manors, nor peasants, nor that women ever came into his monastery, nor that he buried the dead there, except i n the case of his own s i s t e r , they re-nounced a l l these things, saying that when St. Benedict said 'that the monk should make himself a stranger to the a c t i v i t i e s of the world' he bore clear witness to the fact that these things should no longer have any place i n the a c t i v i t i e s or i n the hearts of monks, who ought to conform themselves to the etymological o r i g i n of t h e i r name by fl e e i n g from them."38 From the stated ideals of the order we see the development of a paradoxical s i t u a t i o n . As Donnelly points out, the early austerity caused an i n f l u x of donations, some of which were e x p l i c i t l y forbidden by the 39 order's r u l e s . Indeed, i n the second ha l f of the twelfth century we see numerous c r i t i c i s m s of the Cistercians for t h e i r supposed avarice 40 and expansionist p o l i c i e s . By 1191 t h i s s i t u a t i o n had been c l e a r l y recognized by the order i t s e l f when l e g i s l a t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g further ac-qui s i t i o n s was passed at the General Chapter.4"'' We see early infringements of the rules i n eastern Europe where expansionist tendencies were forced on the order by nobles who wished to 42 have t h e i r lands developed. In some instances the labour power of the lay brothers was inadequate to handle the load. A solution to t h i s prob-lem was the leasing and renting of lands. Donnelly gives the example of Lubiasz (1175) which i n i t s foundation charter indicates that peasants were given land and that material resources of the monastery included churches, 18 v i l l a e , and rents. Between 1203 and 1239 i t has been estimated that the 44 abbey acquired about 950,000 acres of land. A natural outcome of the control of such a large area of land was the employment of sharecropping and leasing systems, both being infringements of the rules. We see, then, that by involving themselves i n an expansionist programme the Cistercians soon faced severe external c r i t i c i s m . By look-ing at the problem of t i t h e s we are able to understand how t h i s came about. Although the Cistercians forbade the acceptance of t i t h e s , they also did not have to pay them. This p r i v i l e g e was granted to them by 45 Innocent II who exempted them from payment on lands which they cultivated. Undoubtedly t h i s p r i v i l e g e was given to them as a r e s u l t of hardships faced i n the e a r l i e r days. This was a j u s t i f i e d move i n view of the order's desire not to c o l l e c t revenues i n the t r a d i t i o n a l fashion. Certainly i f they had cut themselves away from those revenues and had been forced to pay t i t h e s on the land that they held, the order would undoubtedly have been i n worse f i n a n c i a l condition than i t was i n i t s f i r s t days. The essential problem caused by exemption from t i t h e s was f r i c t i o n with former t i t h e owners -- that i s , bishops and c l e r i c s who were faced with dwindling reve-nues as C i s t e r c i a n land holdings increased. This s i t u a t i o n lasted u n t i l 1215 when at the Fourth Lateran Council, Innocent I I I revoked the p r i v i l e g e and forced the Cistercians to pay t i t h e s on lands acquired after the date that the Council was held. Because of t h i s action the C i s t e r c i a n economic system changed 46 d r a s t i c a l l y . Instead of acquiring further lands and s t a f f i n g them with lay brothers, the Cistercians now began widespread leasing, g<ave up t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o l i c y of exclusive agrarianism, and became landlords. Coinci-dental with the secularization of land was the decline i n the number of 19 lay brothers. As Graves indicates, the r e l a t i o n between the number of con-v e r s i and the secularization of land i s not t o t a l l y clear. The reduction may have been a concerted e f f o r t on the part of the order to simplify d i s c i p l i n e by reducing the numbers of lay brothers; conversely, the num-bers may have declined as a r e s u l t of lessening requirements as land was 47 leased. To these reasons for the decline, Donnelly adds a g r i c u l t u r a l and urban opportunities outside of r e l i g i o n . 4 ^ When surveying the f i r s t one hundred years of the order's h i s -tory i t becomes quite obvious that the ideals l a i d down i n the Exordium Parvum were almost impossible to maintain. By the end of the twelfth cen-tury the prohibitions against acquisitions of revenues from churches, manors, s e r f s , rents, and other l i k e things were being broken regularly. In effect the economic structure of the Cistercian order from the begin-ning of the thirteenth century onward d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from those of the 49 older congregations. From these basic economic considerations we may now turn to St. Bernard, who was unquestionably the most notable of a l l C i s t e r c i a n s . ^ P r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the accounts of the early years of the order indicate that i f Bernard had not arrived at Citeaux with about t h i r t y of his com-panions the new foundation would have died for lack of new r e c r u i t s . " ^ This s i t u a t i o n , however, was altered completely with Bernard's a r r i v a l i n 1112. As indicated above the i n i t i a l course that the Cistercians were to take resulted from the actions and ideas of Robert, A l b e r i c , and Stephen. Under Bernard, however, t h i s d i r e c t i o n was modified and f i n a l l y redesignated. St. Bernard's po s i t i o n as the savior of the Cistercian order may be questioned, since the new d i r e c t i o n and degree of popular-i z a t i o n which he brought to the order may be considered one of the causes 20 for i t s eventual decline as a spi r i t u a l force. It i s interesting to note that new foundations were established only after the arrival of St. Bernard. One wonders whether the Cister-cians might not have remained as limited i n size as the Carthusians i n their early unwillingness to compromise the rule that they had set for themselves. St. Bernard must be seen as the order's most effective pub-l i c i s t . Although there i s l i t t l e or nothing to indicate that he would have been less s t r i c t i n his observances of the rule, he possibly saw monasticism as the most effective vehicle for salvation. And i f i t was the most effective method of obtaining salvation i t was therefore the duty of monks to promote the monastic way of l i f e within society at large. It is due mainly to this attitude that we see a rather strange situation develop. From the e l i t i s t position that certain monastic groups took, the Cistercians, after their i n i t i a l years, found themselves adopting what might be called a liberal-democratic approach to this form of l i f e in as much as i t was expected that any man could attain perfection within the cloister. This included choir monks and lay brothers. By perfection was meant the true union of God and man through contemplation. Bernard, as well as other monastic personalities, clearly understood that the union of man's soul to God was l i t e r a l l y impossible i n that conditions for such a state were very d i f f i c u l t to attain. It would be within the cloister that this state could best be met. Bernard's ascetic development clearly rests with the Rule of St. Benedict, but a merely l i t e r a l observance of that 52 rule i s not sufficient. As Knowles sees i t , monastic l i f e manifests i t s e l f "not (with) the natural perfection of a l i f e i n a human society, but the supernatural perfection of a l i f e of abnegation of self and imitation of Christ; with exception they presuppose at least the external, 21 material observance of the three great abnegations to which Christ c a l l e d - -that of property, that of marriage and that of the individual's l i b e r t y of 53 action." Gilson feels that Bernard saw the c l o i s t e r , "the school where 54 charity i s taught", as the antechamber of paradise. Again, i t i s pre-sented as a paradise, but not the p a r a d i s e . ^ Within the c l o i s t e r the p r i n c i p a l a c t i v i t y would necessarily be devotion and contemplation. Butler indicates that, "the f i r s t stage i n r i s i n g to contemplation i s 'r e c o l l e c t i o n ' , the act whereby the soul 're-c o l l e c t s ' i t s e l f , and detaches i t s e l f from human a f f a i r s , i n order to con-template God."^ Butler goes on to say that contemplation "spurns the use of things of the senses, so f a r as human f r a i l t y permits, i n order to 57 soar up to contemplation." For Bernard, as f o r Augustine and Gregory, a condition for contemplation i s the banishment from the mind of a l l 58 phantasmata of corporeal images and of a l l sense perceptions. In effect we may with a certain degree of accuracy see the Cis-tercian c l o i s t e r as a workshop for contemplation. Viewed i n t h i s manner, i t i s completely understandable why Cistercian monastic architecture should take the form that i t did. As long as the d r i v i n g force within C i s t e r c i a n monasticism maintained that i t s aim was to be asceticism i n t h i s form, we can r a t i o n a l l y understand the motive force for s i m p l i c i t y i n worldly l i f e . The moment asceticism as such became dissipated we begin to see secular encroachments upon the monastic culture. Bernard's p o s i t i o n within the order may be viewed i n a number of ways. F i r s t , h is greatest impact must inevitably be traced to his a b i l i t y to excite certain s p i r i t u a l energies i n men, and i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that after his death the movements with which he was associated l o s t much of t h e i r momentum. By his personality he shifted the leadership of the order 22 from Citeaux to Clairvaux. With t h i s act he determined f o r a l l times the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of the mother house with i t s offspring. It was Bernard who was responsible for carrying the Cistercians into the mainstream of medieval p o l i t i c s . Noteworthy instances are Bernard's r o l e i n the papal schism created by the simultaneous elections of Anacletus and Innocent II i n 1130, and also his part i n c a l l i n g the Second Crusade i n 1146. Bruno Scott James makes an interesting point when he claims that the Bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne, William of Champeaux, was instrumental i n thrusting Bernard into the public arena by spreading 59 the l a t t e r ' s fame throughout France. From the moment that William i n s t a l l e d him as abbot of Clairvaux i n 1115 Bernard seems to have been directed into a c t i v i t i e s completely divorced from those of the monk. 60 Certainly Bernard's l e t t e r s r e f l e c t t h i s . Bernard seems to have r e s t r i c -ted h is a c t i v i t i e s to problems peculiar to the Church and not with matters of a secular nature,^ 1 that i s as f a r as the Church i t s e l f was able to remove i t s e l f from secular l i f e . Yet, i t i s interesting to note that by the very nature of Bernard's actions, he was i n fact bringing problems to h is own order. For example, as a reward for Bernard's a c t i v i t i e s i n overthrowing the anti-pope Anacletus, the Cistercians gained exemption 6 2 from payment of t i t h e s . As was already mentioned, t h i s was l a t e r to re s u l t i n b i t t e r c o n f l i c t with secular authorities. On the question of the role that the Church was to play i n the world Bernard made his point c l e a r l y i n his t r e a t i s e e n t i t l e d De Consider-atione which was written (between 1149-53) for the e d i f i c a t i o n of Eugen-63 ius I I I , a former Cistercian. In effect what Bernard does here i s to counter much of the work of Gregory VII i n stating that although the papacy can claim the r i g h t to d i r e c t the a c t i v i t i e s of man i n the secular world, 23 i t would be wise to remain outside of t h i s sphere and r e t a i n i t s s p i r i t u a l p u r i t y . It i s at times d i f f i c u l t to see how t h i s desire for separation of state and church works when we view Bernard's p o l i t i c a l involvements. Certainly i n looking at his relationship with Abbot Suger of St. Denis, we r e a l i z e immediately his talent for gaining proper perspective i n the p o l i t i c a l f i e l d . Erwin Panofsky sees the relationship between these two men as an impasse.^ 4 On one hand we have Bernard who holds the good w i l l of the Papacy, while on the other, there i s Suger who i s i n a sim i l a r p o s i t i o n with the French crown. Both undoubtedly r e a l i z e d that any enmity between themselves would prove disadvantageous to t h e i r respective interests. Bernard's relationship with Suger i s noteworthy, however, since i n most instances he demands a perfect separation between s p i r i t u a l and secular a f f a i r s . But, c o n f l i c t s and external p o l i t i c s aside, we must never lose sight of the fact that Bernard was a monk above a l l else. This i s c l e a r l y shown i n several of Bernard's t r e a t i s e s , such as "The Steps of Humility", and "On Loving God", where we f i n d the purely ascetic side of his mind.^ Yet, i n comparing the various facets of his mind we are presented with a man of complicated character. One moment he i s the s t r i c t mystic, while the next he i s the p o l i t i c i a n par excellence. The greatness of St. Bernard can be attested to by the rapid expansion of the order during his l i f e t i m e . In t h i s period no fewer than sixty-eight daughter houses were founded.^ The f i l i a t i o n of Clairvaux had 164 houses i n 1153, and by the end of the century there were no fewer ( 5 7 than 263. Clear l y the attempt of the General Chapter of 1152 to place a check on the excessive m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of foundations was not success-24 f u l . The eventual slowing of the order's growth seems to coincide more or less with the gradual decline i n the performance of the Rule after Bernard's death. Certainly the subsequent decadence of the order was hastened, at least i n d i r e c t l y , by the number of i t s houses, for how could the successors of St. Bernard at Clairvaux v i s i t annually seventy daughter-houses, between Portugal and Sweden, England and S i c i l y ? Rather the task was more than any abbot, however w i l l i n g and able, could carry out. CHAPTER I I I Thus far I have been concerned with two essential determining factors i n the formation of a C i s t e r c i a n a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e , the early h i s t o r y of the C i s t e r c i a n order generally, and i t s ideals. In t h i s chap-ter I intend to discuss the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of early English Cis-tercian h i s t o r y and w i l l attempt to point out some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with the order's a b i l i t y to maintain the p r i s t i n e ideals of the founding fathers. By gaining a better understanding of the order's history within English society at large we should be able to see more c l e a r l y i t s p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s English C i s t e r c i a n architecture. At the outset I must say that the h i s t o r i c a l data available indicate that the English Cistercians were unable to follow a course si m i l a r to that of t h e i r French counterparts. 1 Indeed, i n connection with t h i s point, we may refer to St. Bernard's s i g n i f i c a n t dictum which became the ideal towards which the Cistercians and other monastic orders gravitated. St. Bernard had recom-mended to his novices that they leave t h e i r bodies at the monastery gates 2 and bring nothing inside but t h e i r minds. This ideal of renouncing secu-l a r culture proved a d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, task for eventually even the Cistercians were unable to wholly extricate themselves from the 3 s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic environment i n which they were lodged. 26 A p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y which made monastic autonomy impossible to achieve i n England was a r e s u l t of the peculiar nature of English feudalism. The extent to which the ideals of monasticism and the external r e a l i t i e s of the s o c i a l world became contradictory i s indicated by B.D. H i l l who writes that, "The constitutions of the C i s t e r c i a n order as they were formulated i n the early twelfth century expressed ideals that looked backward to a time i n the early Middle Ages when i t might have been possible for a monastery to i s o l a t e i t s e l f e n t i r e l y from the world around i t . The twelfth century, however, was a time of dynamic growth and rapid s o c i a l change. The p o l i t i -c a l and s o c i a l forces at work were inherently i n c o n f l i c t with the C i s t e r -cian ide a l s . Professed to ideals of severe asceticism, and simultaneously pressured by the demands of the world, the White Monks yielded to the world, and y i e l d i n g they f a i l e d t h e i r own profession."4 The greatest problem for the order i n England appears to have been the economic and p o l i t i c a l i n s t a b i l i t y which plagued the entire i s -land during the reign of King Stephen (1135-54).^ Because of t h i s insta-b i l i t y the very essence of the monastic vocation was infected with secular concerns. I t i s the in t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between monasticism and the secular world that I w i l l deal with i n t h i s chapter. I t i s not without some degree of amazement that we look upon the rapid growth of the Cistercian order i n England (see Appendix C). From the time of the f i r s t foundation, Waverly (1128), to 1150 the order grew to forty-nine houses excluding thirteen Savigniac houses absorbed i n -7 to the order i n 1147. According to Knowles the order numbered approxi-g mately s i x thousand exclusive of lay brothers. Modern historians have noted that the sudden expansion of monas-9 t i c i s m i n England coincided with the anarchy of Stephen's reign. In fact the phenomenon did not escape the eyes of contemporaries either. According to the Augustinian canon, William of Newburgh, more r e l i g i o u s houses were established during t h i s era than had been founded i n the previous one 27 hundred years. The fact is that the Cistercians underwent their most rapid growth in the twelfth century during a time of c i v i l war and anarchy, a period when central authority was weak and baronial power strong. It seems conceivable that the Papacy welcomed the situation that developed during Stephen's reign because i t created an excellent opportunity for the former to increase its influence in England. Cer-tainly i t would appear that the period between 1135 and 1154 were years when Papal influence was at its highest, for after that time English monarchs did their best to reassert a degree of control over the Church; a state which they considered absolutely necessary. In a sense Stephen's reign is the only period when the English church could claim to be more or less free of abuses that Gregory VII wished to rid from the Church as a whole. For the most part, the English church was subjected to a high degree of secular interference in ecclesiastical affairs. Although, as Maurice Powicke points out, serious scholars have long refused to accept Mait-land's notion that the Church was "Anglican before, and has been Catholic since the Reformation", the image s t i l l appears in the affirmative. In-deed, i t appears this way by the very nature of the Church's subordination to the secular power. It seems likely that Stephen would have acted similarly to William and Henry I regarding the Church i f he felt that he could have accomplished i t . The fact is, he couldn't. His long struggle with Henry Murdac over the Bishopric of York is evidence of that. 1 1 As long as Stephen would not allow Henry to take his seat at York, the Papacy would not recognize the right of his heirs to the English throne. The problems for the Church of England were of a continuing nature. Certainly the most dramatic turn of events came during the reign 28 of the next monarch, Henry I I . Again, i t i s a question of secular i n t e r -ference i n Church a f f a i r s . The main characters i n t h i s action are the King himself and Thomas a. Becket, and on t h i s point no more w i l l be said 12 because the matter has already been considerably dealt with. C l e a r l y , the end of the confrontation comes only with the d i r e c t action of Henry VIII i n 1537. But t h i s i s a digression with a d i r e c t purpose. The intention here has been to set down a few reasons for the phenomenal growth of monasticism during the reign of Stephen and also to show that the English Church could not escape secular interference. Let us now look at a few of the t r a d i t i o n a l motives for founding abbeys. Most students of the Cis t e r c i a n movement have considered Chris-t i a n p i e t y to have been the chief, sometimes the only, motive of the great barons who founded and endowed Cis t e r c i a n monasteries. This has been true of much of the research on the subject from Miss A l i c e Cooke's work i n 1893 down to David Knowles' study. For example, Poole attributes the development of the Cistercians to the latent desire for puritanism i n the English character. As he says: "The Cistercian system r e f l e c t s the s p i r i t of puritanism, and i t was t h i s element (for puritanism was always perhaps latent i n the English character) which gave to the movement i t s 13 special appeal i n England." Sayles traces the rapid m u l t i p l i c a t i o n of 14 the C i s t e r c i a n abbeys e n t i r e l y to the influence of St. Bernard. David Knowles sees the expansion i n the twelfth century issuing from the Grego-r i a n Reform."^ H i l l , although accepting the v a l i d i t y of these ideas, feels they are of only p a r t i a l value, i n that they do not ask certain essential s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l questions. He goes on to say that: "The English barons also b u i l t monasteries with a d e f i n i t e desire f o r , and the 29 sure expectation of, material gain." Becoming more specific, H i l l claims that the barons of Stephen's reign were clearly interested in prof-iti n g from the expanding trade in wool and saw that through the Cistercians, whose monasteries cost the lords v i r t u a l l y nothing in the way of an i n i t i a l outlay and whose internal workforce in the form of the lay brothers would provide cheap labour, would in the end probably help to increase the 17 donor's flocks and the quality of the sheep's wool. These have been the traditional explanations for the founda-tion of religious houses. But there was another motive. The rapid expan-sion of the monastic and canonical orders in England contributed beyond measure to the increase of papal influence. Indeed, the monasteries were always inclined to an association with the Papacy, with which many con-tracted a special and immediate relationship, and almost a l l found i t use-f u l to seek regular confirmation of their privileges and possessions by the highest ecclesiastical authority. However, this point must not be inter-preted as a cynical attempt on the part of the Papacy to undermine the authority of the English crown. In practical terms, the opportunity pre-sented i t s e l f and the Church took advantage of i t . Likewise i t was a nat-ural result of the c i v i l war that the ecclesiastical corporations should look to the Head of the Church for the protection which the secular ruler was no longer able to ensure. From a s t r i c t l y religious point of view, monasticism was an integral form of promoting basic reforms within the Church. Reforming bishops had particularly concentrated their efforts to oppose c l e r i c a l marriage and the control of churches by laymen, but with l i t t l e result. The parish clergy continued to marry, and what was more important, to hand on their holdings to their sons, treating their churches as property to be willed like any other possession. Lay patronage helped 30 to make t h i s s i t u a t i o n possible, and there resulted the heavy pressure of lay ownership, with the holding of Church property, even t i t h e s , by lay-men. Connected to t h i s of course, was the problem of the patron forcing his own candidates upon the Church as a r i g h t stemming from his grant. The substitution of monastic for lay patrons during the eleventh and twelfth centuries was therefore a considerable step i n advance, and the bishops as a whole appeared to have encouraged such transfers. I t was during t h i s period that hundreds of parish churches throughout England 18 passed into the hands of the monasteries. From the point of view of immediate gains there seems l i t t l e doubt that the advantages were con-siderable since i t cannot be denied that i t had the effect of making the monasteries s t i l l more important i n the l i f e of the Church, increasing both t h e i r influence and t h e i r revenues. The extension of t h e i r influence also meant an extension of papal authority. But though augmenting i t s power may have given the Church immediate gains, there appears l i t t l e doubt that i t l a t e r worked against i t . This was especially true after Stephen's reign when l i f e i n England had regained a modicum of s t a b i l i t y and when Church holdings had increased to a very great extent. So far I have been concerned with the conditions which made i t possible f o r the expansion of monasticism i n England. I t seems f a i r l y evident at t h i s time that the Cistercians would not have gained the foot-ing i n England that they did i f the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n i n the country i n the middle years of the twelfth century had been d i f f e r e n t . This leads us to further questions which relate to the donors of C i s t e r c i a n houses and also to t h e i r locations. Further to t h i s , we w i l l view t h e i r economic condition. On the question of donors, H i l l leads us to believe that the 31 Ci s t e r c i a n order i n England was more or less dependent on the higher 19 n o b i l i t y for i t s existence. In e f f e c t , what he says i s that many Cis-tercian houses were founded by the n o b i l i t y to s a t i s f y a number of aims. As I have already pointed out, H i l l f eels that the economic motive was possibly the strongest or the most sat i s f a c t o r y explanation for the rapid expansion of the order i n England. Yet there may have been other motives as w e l l . One of these was to donate land which owed secular service to 20 the crown.. I t i s probable that i n certain instances the barons who gave land may have owed m i l i t a r y services to the king, and i n order to escape 21 t h e i r obligations, or reduce them, grants were made i n free alms tenure. Once the crown had confirmed such.grants, the lords could consider them-selves relieved of t h e i r o r i g i n a l obligations. One may ask why the crown would allow i t s own p o s i t i o n to be weakened? In t r u t h t h i s s i t u a t i o n seems to have been prevalent only during the reign of Stephen. In the f i r s t place his m i l i t a r y strength was such that he could not do much to contest these grants and secondly, his p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s the Church was tenuous. As H i l l points out, the s i t u a t i o n r e l a t i n g to the confused status of the n o b i l i t y ' s obligations to the crown resulted i n the great 22 inquest of 1166 when Henry II attempted to c l a r i f y the picture. Although the Cistercians were given land i n free alms tenure, i t i s clear that some monasteries owed knight service for the properties that 23 they held. The usual means of getting around t h i s problem seems to have been the payment of a small fee into the royal treasury. Although H i l l states that many grants which the Cistercians received were uneconomical from a s t r i c t l y commercial point of view, i t seems u n l i k e l y that the ma-j o r i t y of the g i f t s were i n any way donated with a s p i r i t of cynicism. In other words land was not given merely to evade royal assessments. I t 32 seems obvious that any grants which caused a house problems would l i k e l y be mentioned i n t h e i r chronicles or in t e r n a l documents. Those grants which were free from trouble would just as l i k e l y remain outside written notice. On t h i s basis, i t seems rather tenuous to apply any d e f i n i t i v e judgements. What may be said i n fairness i s that the Cistercians i n some instances accepted lands which would more wisely have been avoided. But, i n the end the question of land a c q u i s i t i o n proved to be the order's main undoing and as time went on that p o l i c y led to unfavourable c r i t i c i s m of the order. The continual a c q u i s i t i o n of land was c e r t a i n l y a l o g i c a l exten-sion of the C i s t e r c i a n economy since the survival of the order lay i n large tr a c t s of pasture and arable land. In England a l l of the early Cistercian houses were founded i n remote d i s t r i c t s such as Wales and Yorkshire. Even so, by 1150 there were almost no monastic houses of any sort i n northern 24 and central Wales. The monks were able to move into remote areas with l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y or disturbance and proceeded to develop what has been considered waste land. Usually, once they had developed the lands i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of t h e i r i n i t i a l foundation they l a t e r constructed granges on more distant parts of t h e i r holdings. In many instances these granges m u l t i p l i e d rapidly. Meaux, founded i n 1151, had seven granges by 25 about 1170, and Wardon twelve by 1190. Most commonly, granges were acquired by g i f t . None the l e s s , abbeys also acquired granges by outright purchase and by exchanging other parcels of land with some l o r d or abbey for a favourable grange s i t e . Khowles points out that the increased demand for land came about as a 26 natural outcome of the rapid growth of the order. Coupled with t h i s was the rechannelling of grants from older orders to the Cistercians. This 33 meant that g i f t s of developed land and property which had formerly gone to the older r e l i g i o u s groups, such as v i l l s , churches and t i t h e s , now came to the Cistercians. Donnelly points out that many Cis t e r c i a n abbeys received g i f t s at foundation and l a t e r of entire populated v i l l s and man-27 ors, many of which were held unchanged as sources of income by the abbeys. As examples he points to Fountains which gained the v i l l of Crostheweit around 1227, a l l the v i l l of L i t t o n i n Craven (about 1250) with serfs and homage of free tenants, a moiety of a l l the v i l l of Rygton (in 1244) with homages, services, and a l l the v i l l e i n s for one hundred marks, the v i l l of Torp, the lordship of the v i l l of Wigglesworth, a l l of Robert de Cram-28 mauilla's demesne of Slenyngford with h a l l , the v i l l of Staneye, etc, etc. The possession of manors, especially i n the fourteenth century, and by many other C i s t e r c i a n communities even from t h e i r foundation, i s indicative of t h e i r having made truce with necessity i n some cases and with g i f t s i n s t i l l others. As Donnelly points out, information on manors i n the hands of Cis-tercians abounds i n the sources.^ The continual acquisition of land was bound to lead to deterior-ation of r e l a t i o n s between monastic houses and t h e i r neighbors be they secular or c l e r i c a l . The most common problem lay i n l i t i g a t i o n stemming from disputed claims to land. I f i n no other area one does see a decline i n the basic ideals of the C i s t e r c i a n order here. This aspect of t h e i r l i f e causes us to wonder about the actual state of monastic charity. So far as can be discerned, p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the surviving Cistercian chron-i c l e s include information r e l a t i n g to disputed claims to land. The most 30 notable example i s the Chronicle of Meaux which i s f u l l of information r e l a t i n g to that house's f i n a n c i a l and l e g a l problems. As A. Earle says: "One regrets a l i t t l e , i n reading the very exact chronicles of the Abbot 34 Thomas Burton, that they are so businesslike, they are occupied too much with accounts of the convent's law s u i t s , and properties and agreements 31 respecting them." Earle goes on to say that i t i s a p i t y that so l i t t l e 32 i s known of that house's int e r n a l r e l i g i o u s l i f e . The ultimate impres-sion gained from the chronicles i s one of unnecessary avarice. We are presented with an account of acquiring land, the struggles to keep i t and to increase i t . Those abbots and monks are the most highly esteemed who are able best to guide successfully the temporal a f f a i r s of the house. There i s no r e l i g i o u s s p i r i t i n t h i s work whatever, and i n the end we are l e f t to speculate on the actual state of s p i r i t u a l development contained therein. So f a r as can be discerned i t appears that the Meaux Chronicles mirror with few exceptions the o v e r a l l s i t u a t i o n for the Cistercians i n England. As Fletcher put i t : "The vast mass of documents, chartularies, coucher books, le g a l records, amounting i n number to thousands upon thou-sands, proves that after the f i r s t enthusiasm had cooled, the order was c h i e f l y occupied i n laying f i e l d to f i e l d , house to house, fl o c k to f l o c k , 33 and chattel to c h a t t e l . " Fletcher goes on to say that: "Doubtless much of the wealth so gathered was w e l l and wisely expended i n the improve-ment of the monastic estates, i n the furtherance of agriculture, i n hospi-t a l i t y to wayfarers, and i n r e l i e f of the poor, but i t i s impossible to deny that the greater part of i t went i n building and ornamenting churches and c l o i s t e r s i n a style out of a l l keeping with the s t r i c t n e s s , the sim-p l i c i t y , and the ascetic p r i n c i p l e s of the f i r s t C i s t e r c i a n statutes, or 34 that vast sums were spent i n l i t i g a t i o n . " If the a c q u i s i t i o n of land was an extension of the Cistercian economic regime, then the acquisition of serfs likewise was an extension 35 of land grants. There are numerous indications of Cistercian houses taking on serfs as part of land received. This was done i n spite of Cis-tercian l e g i s l a t i o n against them. Certainly some early v i o l a t i o n s i n t h i s 35 area must have occurred, for i t was the subject of l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1157. Although no concessions were o f f i c i a l l y made, the practice grew, probably because they were a part of transactions involving land, and to get the land, the monks took the serfs. Earle points out that when land was con-veyed to a new owner, any serfs o r i g i n a l l y attached to that land were 36 turned over to the second party. Indeed, t h i s conveyance was so abso-lute that i t included not only the serf himself, but also h is wife and th e i r h e i r s . Graves indicates that there were two ways that serfs were ac-quired: either they came as accessories to land grants or they were 37 purchased. I f the acqui s i t i o n of serfs was an infringement of the early l e g i s l a t i o n of the Cis t e r c i a n order, so was the possession of m i l l s . In keeping with the idea l that the monks were to l i v e from t h e i r own labor and produce, m i l l s were permitted so long as they were to be used for i n -ternal purposes only. The use of m i l l s as a source of income was c l e a r l y forbidden i n the Exordium Parvum. Yet, v i o l a t i o n s of t h i s rule came quite early, for i n 1157 the General Chapter l e g i s l a t e d against any evasion of 38 the r u l e . Probably the main reason for acquiring m i l l s was the supposed p r o f i t that was to be made from them. According to Graves, the English Cistercians were consistently acquiring m i l l s and yet not producing the 39 desired p r o f i t . He goes on to say that between 1249 and 1269, Meaux had spent more money on m i l l s than had been received as revenues from them. In his discussion of the Welsh Cistercians, David Williams indicates that 3 6 most of the houses i n Wales had m i l l s of some description and that they were necessarily part of grain farming. One of the reasons for t h e i r supposedly p r o f i t a b l e nature stems from the fact that l o c a l tenants had to grind t h e i r grain at t h e i r lord's m i l l . I f the English Cistercians f a i l e d i n t h e i r ideals with regard to serfs and m i l l s they did likewise i n t h e i r r e j e c t i o n of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l revenues. As was pointed out e a r l i e r , parish churches came into the hands of the monks i n some instances as a r e s u l t of attempts to correct p r e v a i l -ing abuses. These abuses were usually i n the form of secular interference i n the appointments of parish p r i e s t s and further with the passing on of church lands to would-be heirs . I f i n the f i r s t instance one views the acqu i s i t i o n of parish churches as an aspect of Church reform then possibly c r i t i c i s m of the Cistercians would be i n v a l i d . Yet, Cistercian l e g i s l a t i o n ruled against acquiring churches. This, as we have already seen was c l e a r l y stated i n the Exordium Parvum. What one must r e a l i z e about the acquisition of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l property i s that i t was a further source of income which the Cistercians appear to have needed to carry on t h e i r programmes of ex-pansion. Yet, the acqui s i t i o n of churches also led the order into continual struggles with bishops because of the order's exemption from paying t i t h e s . According to Graves, the Cistercians were holding churches and ecclesias-41 t i c a l property as early as the middle of the twelfth century. The possession of churches provided many problems. Beyond the simple v i o l a t i o n of the rules of the order, there were lawsuits and r i v a l -r i e s . Although the General Chapter passed a series of prohibitions against the practice i n the thirteenth century, i t tended l a t e r to attempt to regu-42 l a t e the exi s t i n g f a c t . When considering the f i n a n c i a l aspects behind owning churches 37 we see that revenues were to be gained from b u r i a l dues, Mass offerings on various r e l i g i o u s holidays, marriages and t i t h e s . We f i n d that i n some instances churches were accepted as part of a larger g i f t containing land. As with se r f s , the r e j e c t i o n of one might mean the loss of the other. An instance of t h i s happened at Meaux where a chantry requiring the services of seven monks was accepted because 43 i t was endowed with land. Both Knowles and Graves indicate that the practice of accepting e c c l e s i a s t i c a l property had begun i n the l a t t e r part of the twelfth cen-44 tury. Indication of t h i s i s clear from the monastic c a r t u l a r i e s . The only house which seems to have remained free, of e c c l e s i a s t i c a l property 45 was Wardon Abbey. Knowles also points out that i n the early days such 46 g i f t s were sometimes refused. An example which he points to i s the g i f t from Roger de Mowbray to Byland (c. 1143) that included the advowsons of Thirsk, Kirby Moorside and a t h i r d church, with the intention that the 47 house should ultimately draw upon th e i r revenues. But the g i f t was re-fused and as a r e s u l t went to a t h i r d party. Knowles goes on to say, how-48 ever, that such s e l f - d e n i a l was not common. That the acceptance of churches was considered a problem before the end of the twelfth century can be deduced from a c i r c u l a r l e t t e r from Pope Alexander I I I i n 1170 which ordered the Cistercians to observe t h e i r constitution and various 49 rules. Graves points out one further area of prohibited a c t i v i t y which should be considered. He says that although markets were not e x p l i c i t l y mentioned i n the Exordium Parvum, i t should be assumed that involvement i n them went against the s p i r i t of the R u l e . ^ Graves goes on to say that even with the l i m i t e d number of sources available we are able to deter-38 mine that at least one t h i r d of the Cistercian houses i n England held market and f a i r p r i v i l e g e s . ^ I t should be borne i n mind that grants of t h i s sort normally came from the crown and that payment was usually made for such r i g h t s . In t h i s b r i e f survey one major conclusion stands out. The economic ide a l as set f o r t h i n the Exordium Parvum was a f a i l u r e i n Eng-52 land. Serfs and m i l l s were owned and exploited, the advowson of churches was normal, and secular involvement i n commerce was a widespread fact. So far I have mentioned only the forbidden areas of economic enterprise. At times i t appears that the Cistercians would have been better o f f i f they had kept to the l e t t e r of the rule and disregarded the many money-making propositions that they engaged i n . But one must not forget that the Cis-tercians worked i n legitimate areas as w e l l and that they were eminently successful i n many enterprises. Indeed, t h e i r success was one of the major reasons for the eventual s p i r i t u a l decline. Although the Cistercians entered many diverse areas of the economy t h e i r greatest single commercial enterprise was t h e i r a c t i v i t y i n the wool trade. Though i t has sometimes been assumed that the Cistercians brought the wool trade to England, i t i s clear that t h i s business was i n existence long before the Cistercians came to that country. As Knowles points out, t h i s view i s incorrect even for the twelfth and thirteenth 53 centuries. Before the Cistercians had arrived i n England large flocks were being reared by the Black Monks and by other e c c l e s i a s t i c a l and lay landowners. But the most important development for the Cistercians was that they were able to develop sheep farming for the export market on a very large scale. Knowles states that the Cistercians were able to main-t a i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n of eminence i n the wool trade u n t i l the fourteenth 39 century essentially because of the fine quality of the wool that they produced.^4 We learn further from Knowles that: "Settling as they did away from cultivation and free of the shackling organization of manor and v i l -lage, with abundant service and an efficient central control, they began very early to have a large surplus from the year's clip which exporters and foreign merchants were willing to buy 'en masse' for the looms of the new towns on the continent ."^ Another point that Knowles makes is that as a rule the Black Monks did not deliver their wool graded as did the 56 Cistercians. Graves tells us that in the area where the best wools were produced, Yorkshire, sheep - farming did not become extensive until after 57 the arrival of the Cistercians. The entrance of the Cistercians into the wool trade appears almost the result of accident. In the first place, by settling in areas which were considered waste i t seems that i t was easier to raise flocks than to plow the land. But, the commitment to breeding sheep had considerable conse-quences for the order. To begin with, wool was a cash crop which neces-sarily brought the monks back to the world that they were attempting to escape. By its very nature, wool militated against the spirit of Cister-cian legislation which aimed at creating self-sufficing foundations owning just enough stock and working enough land for the support of their houses and the maintenance of any visitors who should come their way. But, as Knowles points out, when benefactors vied with one another in giving grants and when, after a few years the product of their work came flowing in the 58 problem was a difficult one. One of the major difficulties faced by the order was a lack of money with which they could conduct the building 40 programmes that they had i n i t i a t e d . We see that the older orders had not encountered such a problem since they had sources of income from rents, t i t h e s , dues and the l i k e . As long as the Cistercians maintained t h e i r i n i t i a l p u r i t y they had none of these forms of revenue. Knowles feels that three forces united at the same moment to make a breach i n the simple economy of the early Cistercians: "the possession of surplus wool, the desire to b u i l d on a grand scale, and the woolmongers present at the gate 59 with a t t r a c t i v e offers of cash." I t has been noted that the middle of the twelfth century was an era of expanding economy and r i s i n g p r i c e s . ^ The development of the Cistercians i n England coincided with t h i s era of expanding trade and commerce which, despite t h e i r e f f o r t s , had a tendency to draw them r i g h t back into the secular world. Once enmeshed i n the developments of secular trade there appeared no hope for the order with regard to the maintenance of t h e i r rules. Indeed, from the middle of the twelfth century i t seems that the great age of Ci s t e r c i a n piety was at an end and from that time the moral decay which had i n i t i a l l y caused dissent was now affecting the order. Certainly the wool trade presents us with a poor impression of the Cistercians as businessmen. Primary among the unfortunate handling of business a f f a i r s was the procedure known as wholesale forward s a l e . ^ This took the form of contracting with a broker for the sale of wool at a fi x e d price for a number of years i n advance, t h i s being done on cash advances. Normally the practice was carried on because of immediate requirements for ready cash to carry on building programmes or the purchase of land. Yet, t h i s type of transaction was susceptible to a l l sorts of problems. Chief among these was the devaluation of wool which meant that the houses had to increase the quota of wool shipped to the dealer. On the other hand, the 41 value of wool rose, but the money had already changed hands and therefore the monks were s t i l l required to produce a stipulated quantity with no f i n a n c i a l compensation. In effect these transactions were a form of loan which i n some instances had interest paying on them at the rate of about s i x t y percent. In the thirteenth century the length of contracts extended 62 from two to twenty years. In time, however, because of various threats of loss against the wool, the merchants came to require something other than the wool for security, and abbeys such as Pipewell, Fountains, and others a c t u a l l y mortgaged t h e i r lands and abbey buildings under the guise 63 of contracts covering the sale of wool. Although the Cistercians were v i t a l l y enmeshed i n the production of wool, they were also involved i n many other economic pursuits. Certainly most a c t i v i t i e s which would prove p r o f i t a b l e to the house and which could be e a s i l y engaged upon were taken up. Some of these we can b r i e f l y look at here. The c u l t i v a t i o n of various grains was a normal a c t i v i t y for the Cistercians i n England.^ 4 But i n many instances t h i s enterprise was lim-i t e d by the q u a l i t y of the land that they received and by the nature of the climate i n which they had elected to l i v e . That they were not always successful i n gaining s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y i n t h i s area can be seen by the permission granted by the crown to import grain. Graves l i s t s about twenty-eight such g r a n t s . ^ He also t e l l s us that the market value of grain was so low that on occasion i t was used as feed for the more p r o f i t -able trade i n swine and hor s e s . ^ With regard to horses we f i n d that the houses of Sallay, Furness, Tintern, and Jervaulx a l l had extensive herds. In certain instances chance placed some of the monasteries close to deposits of minerals and we f i n d from various sources that the monks 42 were not slow i n t h e i r e xploitation of them. The two most important 68 iron producers among the Cistercians were Furness and Flaxley. In the taxation records of 1292 we f i n d that Furness was gaining an income from 69 iron double that of i t s flocks and herds. Between 1160-82, P h i l i p , the second abbot of Meaux acquired a stone quarry for his house which the monks worked for the provision of material for t h e i r own permanent b u i l d -ings. Another mineral that the Cistercians exploited was s a l t . Accord-ing to Graves there were many Cis t e r c i a n houses engaged i n the r e t r i e v a l of 70 s a l t , either from brine p i t s or from evaporation of sea water. Although 71 72 both Graves and Williams discuss t h i s trade they do not make any men-t i o n of the monetary value to the houses involved other than to say that i t was s i g n i f i c a n t since s a l t had much importance i n the preservation of food. One point of import which has not escaped most writers dealing with the a c t i v i t i e s of the order i s that the Cistercians were far from the other-worldly beings that they had i n i t i a l l y aimed at becoming. Certainly Graves appears correct when he states, "... that i n t h e i r varied a c t i v i t i e s the Cistercians were doing much the same thing as any monastic group. And i n that s i m i l a r i t y l i e s the clue to the f a i l u r e of the economic i d e a l , for when the a c t i v i t i e s are studied i n the large, there can be no doubt that the ideal posited i n the f i r s t years at Citeaux had f a i l e d . S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and exclusive agrarianism outside the manorial system were hardly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of an English Cis-tercian abbey at the end of the thirteenth century. Attempts at a pros-perous economic l i f e caused a betrayal of the o r i g i n a l s p i r i t . " 7 3 I t seems strange, then, that the order, despite i t s attempts at gaining f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y , was r e l a t i v e l y poor. Although many Cis-tercian houses had become engaged to some considerable degree i n the wool trade and other economic pursuits, and although the lands and buildings 43 of many abbeys were great assets, there was no house which accumulated 74 considerable amounts of ready cash. "On the contrary," says Graves, "most of the abbeys were troubled with debt, and i n t h i s the Cistercians experienced the same i l l s as did the other monastic bodies in. England i n 75 the thirteenth century." The reason for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r state of a f f a i r s was due e s s e n t i a l l y to the fact that the monks were poor managers. We have indications that after 1157 the General Chapter came to consider the problems of f i n a n c i a l distress a threat to the well-being of the order by the very act of passing l e g i s l a t i o n on the matter. Abbots were t o l d that they should continually check the f i n a n c i a l status of t h e i r 76 daughter houses to ensure that they did not incur debts unnecessarily. In the thirteenth century we have examples of some of the larger C i s t e r c i a n houses suffering from f a i r l y severe indebtedness. In 77 1290 Fountains' debt was somewhere i n the v i c i n i t y of 6,500 pounds, 78 while K i r k s t a l l owed over 5,000 pounds at about the same time. Though we have a few instances where we know the amount of indebtedness i t i s true that we cannot draw general outlines for the entire order i n England on t h i s matter. This i s especially natural since the houses involved were for the most part independent of one another. However, because of the structure of the order we may use certain examples as guidelines for our analysis and say with a certain amount of confidence that the situations c i t e d were more or less c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for the order as a whole. Cer-t a i n l y , i t i s necessary to guard ourselves i n t h i s approach since we w i l l surely lay our argument open to attacks from those who say that the d i s -cussion i s speculative and therefore i n v a l i d . In the end i t must be under-stood that such comments are merely suggestions. When looking at the causes of indebtedness i t i s clear that there 44 are two basic considerations. First, when the order incurred debt as a result of natural disasters such as famine, flood, fires, exactions from the crown and the like, we see that there was relatively l i t t l e the houses could do. However, there were debts brought about by the individual houses' own actions. Such debts were normally the result of land hunger, desire for building, advanced sale of monastic produce, poor leadership, lack of continuity in leadership, and the like. These liabilities were acquired by houses as a result of internal actions and therefore may in some instances be subject to criticism when taking into account the order's constitution. When considering external causes for financial problems the Meaux chronicles present us with numerous examples of disasters that proved more than the house could bear. Indeed, the situation was so bad that the house had to disperse on three separate occasions. Although the dispersals were of short duration they do indicate that the financial situation of the house was not as good as i t might have been. The first occasion of dis-persal came during the abbacy of Adam, the first abbot of the house, and 79 this was essentially the result of over-extension. Adam in his desire to create a great house accepted too many brethren for the land to support. During the abbacy of Thomas, the third abbot, the house, worn down by lawsuits, and the failure of crops, found itself called upon to 80 raise 300 marks, its share of King Richard's ransom from captivity; to do this the monks sold their wool, church plate and other of their trea-sures. This effort caused their ruin. For fifteen months the scattered 81 brethren lived by begging from other houses of the order. They even-tually came together again as a result of a substantial grant made by one 82 William of Rule. 45 The t h i r d occasion for dispersal came as a r e s u l t both of 83 in t e r n a l and external factors. On the one hand, the finances of the house had been put into a ruinous state by Alexander, the fourth abbot. His successor, Hugh, was subsequently faced with the payment of a large 84 fin e placed on a l l r e l i g i o u s houses by King John. The combination of the two constituents caused the house to disband for a while because i n order to pay the fi n e the monks were forced to s e l l t h e i r winter pro-visions of food. This time the dispersal did not l a s t long and after a short i n t e r v a l the monks returned to Meaux. From the time of Richard the crown became increasingly aware of the wealth possessed by the Cistercians. As Graves puts i t , "The singular emergency of the need for money to ransom Richard from his cap-t i v i t y at the hand of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VI, led to an i n -road on the Cistercian treasuries which became under his successors a 85 well-worn path." When the c o l l e c t i o n was taken for the ransom, the churches had to donate t h e i r money, jewels, and plate. Since the Cis-tercians had l i t t l e of these things they were required to hand over a year's production of woo l . ^ On his return Richard made a simi l a r demand of the Cistercians, but accepted a fine instead of the c l i p . When John came to the throne we see a continuing struggle develop between the crown and the Cistercians over money. His demands resulted from his m i l i t a r y campaign against France which he l o s t . As compensation John had to pay 30,000 marks to P h i l i p of France. In order to pay t h i s sum John levied a fine on the entire kingdom. At f i r s t the Cistercians refused to pay saying that such an action would have to be considered by the General Chapter. On hearing t h i s John withdrew the protection of his courts leaving the Cistercians at the mercy of any who 4 6 wished to do them harm. In 1210 the issue of money came up again, and again the order refused to give i n to the king. John i n turn took away t h e i r charters and l i b e r t i e s and i n the end managed to extract from the Cistercians about 25,000 to 30,000 marks. In 1212 John again came to the Cistercians for money, claiming that the order had supported those who attacked his brother-in-law Raymond g of Toulouse. This time he demanded 22,000 pounds which apparently he got. The protection that the Cistercians had gained at high expense i n t h e i r early years gave way very quickly to a state of i n s t a b i l i t y . Indeed, the early years had afforded them an opportunity to gain i n status and wealth very quickly. Once they had attained t h i s p o s i t i o n they put themselves i n -to a s i t u a t i o n whereby the English monarchy saw f i t to make demands upon the accumulated wealth as they saw f i t . But these were not the only demands made against the Cistercians, since they suffered at the hands of the crown u n t i l the time of the disso-l u t i o n . So f a r I have attempted to indicate that the Cistercians had not been i n a f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n to construct grandiose architectural works. At the same time by showing how they slipped from t h e i r mainte-nance of the rule we may make conjectures about the possible d i r e c t i o n that they would have taken i n t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l programmes, had they been i n a p o s i t i o n to do so. I believe that the Cistercians would have produced a much more decorated form of building even before the end of the twelfth century, had they the f i n a n c i a l backing necessary for such ventures. By t h i s I mean f i n a n c i a l backing i n terms of hard cash. As was pointed out at the beginning of t h i s chapter my intention 47 was to draw our attention to the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with the English Cistercians' a b i l i t y to maintain t h e i r early ideals. Though I have stopped with a b r i e f discussion of John's association with the Cistercians i t i s clear that by t h i s time the order was deeply involved with secular i n t e r -ests and therefore had l o s t the a b i l i t y to maintain the rules that i t had set for i t s e l f . I t i s also clear that the period of p u r i t y f o r the Eng-l i s h Cistercians was r e l a t i v e l y short. In a seventy year period we see 88 what may be considered a f a i r l y widespread collapse of t h e i r ideals. The destruction of Cis t e r c i a n p u r i t y seemed to be the r e s u l t of inter n a l and external factors. The growing disregard for the economic con-cepts contained within the Exordium Parvum led to a more worldly and secu-l a r attitude i n many Cistercian houses. By attempting to create great houses they accepted too many brethren for the land to support. This i n the end forced the Cistercians into never-ending f i n a n c i a l struggles f o r s u r v i v a l . When considering expenses on such items as food, clothing, maintenance of a l l sorts for communities which sometimes numbered i n the hundreds; the cost of keeping vast estates; the giving of charity to the poor; the paying of pensions; the entertainment of guests; the paying of interest on loans; and, of course, l e g a l expenses concerned with the pro-tection of property, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to see how they could have avoided being drawn into f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s . But there were special expenses which faced the Cistercians. Once they had established themselves as sheep farmers 'par.excellence' and had gained a considerable p o s i t i o n i n the trade, the monarchy began to look at t h e i r f i n a n c i a l resources with covetous eyes. From Richard I to Henry VIII every English sovereign wanted! his share -- and took care to get i t . The gross amount of taxation (usually forced) yielded up by the 48 order to the English crown during the four hundred years of the order's existence must have been quite enormous. In this chapter, I have attempted to examine the Cistercians in an unromantic fashion. Although this has already been done by Knowles, Donnelly, Graves and H i l l , architectural historians have tended to ignore economic and social influences. I feel that such factors should be con-sidered in any r e a l i s t i c appraisal of architectural forms. The preceding summary of Cistercian history is presented as the background against which the order's architectural development w i l l be assessed. CHAPTER IV How do we begin a discussion about Cistercian architecture? Normally we would start with a comment about the puritanical element con-tained within i t and also about the role that St. Bernard had to play in its formation. From there we would possibly discuss the reason for its character and discover that in fact Cistercian architecture and art gen-erally were reactions against the excesses created by the order of Cluny. I think that i f we were to survey the majority of works dealing with the subject of medieval architecture i t would become fairly clear that the greatest number would follow this outline. In this chapter I intend to discuss the nature of Cistercian architecture and also to comment on some of the opinions that have been given on the subject up to this time. It is clear that the essential nature of Cistercian art has been 1 2 adequately assessed by such men as Marcel Aubert and M.-Anselme Dimier. However, their discussions were usually placed within the frame of over-a l l considerations and the more specific problems have yet to be discussed. Unfortunately, the observations of many art historians have been made on the basis of conjecture rather than on empirical evidence. This conjec-ture is tied fairly well to the comments of some of the earlier writers on the subject. One of these would be Edmund Sharpe, whose broad statements on Cistercian architecture have had an enduring place within any discussion of 50 the matter. Let us review some of these observations. F i r s t , the location of Cis t e r c i a n houses was usually chosen on the basis of remoteness from human habitation. This was especially true i n the e a r l i e r h i s t o r y of the order, for as time went on the si t u a t i o n changed. Examples of houses near or i n towns may be found i n such founda-tions as St. Mary's Graces i n London (founded 1350) and St. Bernard's College at Oxford (founded 1437). Nevertheless, the early rules of the 3 order c l e a r l y forbade the placement of houses near any populated centres. As Orderic V i t a l wrote i n his E c c l e s i a s t i c a l History, " A l l C i s tercian 4 monasteries are constructed i n remote places i n the middle of for e s t s . " Four circumstances helped to dist i n g u i s h Cistercian abbeys from those of the older monies: as mentioned, they were mostly constructed on v i r g i n s i t e s , which allowed a free hand for planning; uniformity of lay-out was common; s i m p l i c i t y of sty l e and decoration was likewise standard; and provision had to be made for large numbers of lay brothers within the monastic enclosure. In C i s t e r c i a n monasteries everywhere i n Western Europe the c l o i s t e r i s the heart of the abbey and around i t are gathered the various conventual buildings (Figure 1).^ The monks were always housed to the east of the c l o i s t e r , while the lay brothers had t h e i r quarters on the west side; the refectory occupied the t h i r d and the church the fourth side, whether north or south. The po s i t i o n of these l a t t e r buildings was dependent mostly on the l i e of the land or on cl i m a t i c conditions. The c l a s s i c example of a Cistercian abbey i s Fontenay (1118), which not only i s one of the best preserved houses, but also one of the oldest (Figure 2). 51 Variations on the established patterns may be.seen at houses such as Pontigny (1114) (Figure 3), Senanque (1148) (Figure 4) and Flaran (1151) (Figure 5). However, most of the houses having f a i r l y odd d i s t r i -butions of buildings were ones which remained small throughout t h e i r h i s -tory and therefore never grew past t h e i r o r i g i n a l configurations. Discussions concerning monastic plans have been taken to ex-tremes when considerations of uniformity a r i s e . Knowles states that, "The exact uniformity which was demanded of a l l Cistercians brought i t about that a single plan, derived o r i g i n a l l y from one or two of the o r i g i n a l Burgundian houses of the order such as Citeaux, Clairvaux and Fontenay, became standard for a l l the early foundations and was reproduced i n i t s main features even i n l a t e r houses." He goes on to say that, "... a b l i n d C i s t e r c i a n of the f i r s t generation, i f removed to a strange house, might 7 have found l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n moving about the conventual buildings." This l a s t point has been mentioned a number of times by d i f f e r e n t writers and i t seems unusual since monks of the Benedictine family probably would have been at home i n most houses following that t r a d i t i o n . But as the plans shown at the end of the chapter a t t e s t , there i s s u f f i c i e n t d i f f e r -ence between houses to indicate that absolute uniformity was not neces-s a r i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Cistercian houses. S i m i l a r i t y i n plans would possibly come during the second generation of building when permanent buildings were erected and would most l i k e l y be the r e s u l t of influences brought by monks of the mother house. But construction carried on i n l a t e r years would be free of such influences and i t would be then that divergent cha r a c t e r i s t i c s would creep i n . Of the general buildings, the church was, of course, the most important. Sharpe t e l l s us that the rules regarding the C i s t e r c i a n church 52 g were formal and numerous. P r i n c i p a l among such regulations was that they were a l l dedicated to the Holy V i r g i n . Aubert indicates that the General 9 Chapter of 1134 decided to place the order under the protection of the V i r g i n and that one could read over the entrance of Citeaux the i n s c r i p -t i o n " H a i l , Holy Mother, under whom combats the Cistercian Order.""^ Another rule applying to Cis t e r c i a n churches was that they were to be con-structed i n the form of a c r o s s . 1 1 Likewise, they were not to have l o f t y 12 13 14 towers, carvings, stained glass, or other superfluous decorations. More w i l l be said of these r e s t r i c t i o n s l a t e r . Both J . B i l s o n 1 ^ and M. Aubert 1^ agree that.there are no examples of Ci s t e r c i a n church architecture which date p r i o r to the f i r s t t h i r t y years of the order's existence. I t i s also pointed out that i n t h i s period 17 there was no d i s t i n c t i v e form of architecture. This i s natural since i n the f i r s t years of any abbey's existence there would be a period of growth and consolidation. Besides, on the basis of a house st a r t i n g with only twelve monks and an abbot there would be l i t t l e l i k e l i h o o d of a founda-t i o n progressing past a stage of wooden construction. This of course would change i f the foundation was the creation of a wealthy benefactor who wished to provide f o r the construction of permanent buildings immedi-ately. Our knowledge of the f i r s t church at Citeaux comes to us from the "Annales" of Citeaux 1^ and from the Exordium Parvum^ i n which we are t o l d that the f i r s t building was nothing other than a roughly constructed wooden structure of small dimensions. Shortly afterward i n 1106 a new stone building replaced the f i r s t church and remained i n existence at least u n t i l 1708 when a description of i t was written by Dom Martene and Dom Durand (Figure 6). They give us the following sketch: 53 "Un des plus venerables endroits de Citeaux, c'est l'ancien Monastere, qui fut habite par les premiers religieux de ce saint l i e u , et ou saint Bernard fut recu. L'eglise en fut consacree l'an 1106, par Gautier, eveque de Chalon. E l l e est assez petite, et je ne crois pas qu'elle a i t plus de quinze pieds de largeur; l a longueur est proportionnee; le choeur peut avoir trente nieds. E l l e est voutee et fort j o l i e . II y a dans le sanctuaire trois fenetres et deux dans l a nef; et c'est assurement ce que l'on^entend par cet endroit de l a vie de saint Bernard, ou i l est di t , qu'il etoit s i mortifie, qu'il ne scavoit pas qu'il n'y avoit dans l'eglise que trois fenetres, ce qui doit s'entendre du sanctuaire. Ce fut la. que saint Etienne et saint Alberic furent enterres. On l'appelle aujourd'hui l a chapelle de saint Edme."20 .As with the f i r s t chapel, the second was of small dimensions, the nave measuring about fifteen metres long, by five metres wide, and 21 the choir, about ten metres i n length. The building was covered by a stone vault. The f i r s t chapel at Clairvaux dates from about 1115 and was s t i l l standing towards the end of the eighteenth century (Figure 7). Like the chapel at Citeaux, the Clairvaux structure was small. According to Aubert i t was during the period of great expansion in the latter half of the twelfth century that the precise definition of 22 Cistercian church design took place. Aubert would agree with other writers that Cistercian architecture came under the influence of St. Ber-23 nard at this time. Certainly i t was the latter part of the century that saw the greatest building activity, and the characteristics previously men-tioned date from that period. Unlike many contemporary church buildings, Cistercian churches did not have crypts. This was found.to be an unnecessary feature since houses of the order did not accept pilgrims (at least not in the early years). Aubert points out that there was nothing i n the order's statutes legislating against crypts and their absence was due to s t r i c t l y practical 24 considerations. 54 In essential design, most Cistercian churches had naves with side a i s l e s . This f a c i l i t a t e d c i r c u l a t i o n about the church and allowed for the placement of a greater number of a l t a r s . In some instances there were churches without a i s l e s such as the f i r s t churches of Waverly and 25 Tintern, but these were rare according to Aubert. Other common features were the f l a t walls of the choirs and also those of i t s flanking chapels. The use of f l a t walls on the eastern end of the church may have been the r e s u l t of a desire for a s i m p l i f i e d and economical design. 26 Aubert t e l l s us that a l l C i s t e r c i a n churches had transepts. It should be remembered that t h i s includes a l l churches after the second churches of Citeaux and Clairvaux. The most common Cistercian plan and one which i s considered to be the archetype -- although we can see that there are many variations of the same theme - - i s comprised of a shallow choir, either square or rectangular, and two chapels on each arm of the transept, separated one from the other by walls. These l a t t e r were usually r e s t r i c t e d to the eastern side of the transepts. Concerning t h i s design Aubert says: "La plus ancienne eglise de ce type qui subsiste encore en France, c e l l e q u i , bien conservee, represente l e mieux l ' e s p r i t de l'abbe de Clairvaux, temoigne l e plus de sa vvolonte de s i m p l i c i t e , de force et de logique, c e l l e qui s e r v i r a de modele a tant d'autres, est 1'eglise de Fontenay."27 The abbey of Fontenay, second daughter of Clairvaux, was founded i n 1119 by St. Bernard i n a forest south-west of Chatillon-sur-Seine. One might say that i n the early years the foundation of Fontenay was a family a f f a i r since i t s f i r s t abbot was St. Bernard's counsin, Geoffrey, and the o r i g i n a l donation of land came from Raynard de Montbard, the saint's uncle. Because of the extent to which St. Bernard's family was involved, Aubert feel s that the saint himself became personally associated i n large measure 55 with the actual design of the church. This may be true, but we see no documentation confirming t h i s b e l i e f . On that basis we may declare state-ments of t h i s kind to be conjecture which cannot therefore stand as fact. As i t appears today, the church at Fontenay i s probably more severe than i t was o r i g i n a l l y since parts of i t are missing. The front porch or narthex, which was a common Cistercian feature, i s now gone. But the i n t e r i o r i s undoubtedly a powerful embodiment of Cistercian sentiment (Plate 1). The li n e s are c r i s p and clear. The choir i s shallow and f l a t -ended and i s flanked by two more chapels on the arms of the transepts. The nave, with i t s arcade of unmoulded pointed arches, i s covered by a pointed b a r r e l vault with transverse arches resting on wal l shafts. The a i s l e s have transverse barre l v a u l t s , a system employed to counter the thrust of the nave vault. There i s no t r i f o r i u m and no clerestory. The only deco-r a t i o n appears i n the c a p i t a l s which take the form of a very simple le a f pattern. Light enters the church from windows at either end and through windows along the a i s l e s . On t h i s point we have an interesting comment from Aubert who says: "L'eclairage sera reduit pour evi t e r toute d i s t r a c -30 t i o n ; les moines chantent les psaumes de memoire..." The naves of Cis t e r c i a n churches were normally quite narrow and i n the early years were divided transversely into two sections. A l -though t h i s feature i s missing from Fontenay, i t was probably the config-uration that would have been found i n the abbey during the twelfth century. The purpose of the d i v i s i o n was to separate the monks from the lay-brothers. In a l l monastic churches of t h i s type the eastern end of the building was reserved f o r the monks while the lay-brothers were r e s t r i c t e d to the west.• Another feature common to Ci s t e r c i a n churches, though missing 56 in most of them today, are walls joining the main nave piers. These were li k e l y designed as supports for the choir s t a l l s which were constructed along these piers for the monks and lay brothers. Certainly the entire effect must have produced the impression of a tightly enclosed space. At Fontenay as at some other Cistercian churches we find that there is now no paving on the floor. Although these floors may have been given a wooden covering, they were more li k e l y originally covered with decorated t i l e s . Likewise, the church is devoid of any b e l l towers. According to Aubert only a small wooden b e l l tower over the crossing was construe-31 ted so that i t s bells could c a l l the community to service. The facades of most Cistercian churches are extremely plain, being devoid of articulation or decoration. The facade of Fontenay is certainly characteristic of many Cistercian churches (Plate 2). It com-prises a bare wall divided into two horizontal sections and three v e r t i c a l sections. The ve r t i c a l divisions are formed by the two plain buttresses which project sl i g h t l y from the face of the building. On the upper level there are seven round headed windows which are bare of decoration save two colonnettes on the upper middle window. The door to the church is round headed and i s lacking decoration except for two small colonnettes. The total impression is quite severe. Another church which appears to represent the Cistercian archi-tectural ideal i s that of Le Thoronet (1136) which is situated i n Provence. It i s one of the best preserved Cistercian churches and therefore provides excellent material for study. According to Dimier, the abbey enjoyed a 32 degree of prosperity, but never attained any position of importance. Construction of the church commenced in 1160 and was completed about 1190. 57 The time lapse of twenty-four years provides us with good indication that the process of erecting permanent churches was not usually undertaken u n t i l the foundation had taken firm root. Certainly this practice was the result of practical considerations. With regard to the plan of Le Thoronet, we see that i t was i n conformity with that of many early Cistercian churches (Figure 8). The building i t s e l f comprises a wide nave of three bays, side aisles, a transept, and a shallow semi-circular apse. Again, as at Fontenay, the lighting comes from either end of the church and through very small windows along the side aisles. The nave is covered by a pointed bar-r e l vault, while the side aisles are covered by half barrel vaults running para l l e l to the nave (Plate 3). There is very l i t t l e articulation except for the transverse ribs of the nave vault which run down attached columns that rest upon undecorated corbel tables. Extending along the nave at the level from which the vault springs is a narrow string course. The moulding for the windows i n the apse and along the nave piers is square and severe. The facade of the church is extremely plain, being completely f l a t except for the window and door openings (Plate 4). There i s no deco-ration here at a l l . Surmounting the church i s a small b e l l tower placed over the crossing. As at Fontenay, the impression given by Le Thoronet is austere. One of the main questions of this thesis is whether this archi-tecture was the result of a conscious effort on the part of the Cistercians to escape the ostentation that seemed to have fal l e n on some of the older monastic orders. There is no question that many students of the Cister-cian order and students of art history generally believe that this was 33 so. As I stated i n the introduction to this paper, I believe the a r t i s t i c and architectural production of the Cistercian order to be a 58 composite of p r a c t i c a l considerations, economic factors, and s p i r i t u a l i n c l i n a t i o n . V i s u a l analysis of Fontenay and Le Thoronet would seem to attest to t h i s b e l i e f . As Aubert has pointed out, the r e j e c t i o n of decoration and luxurious items was not necessary i n the early years of the order's h i s -34 tory since poverty was the governing factor. U n t i l the time of Alberic's death i n 1109 the only consideration presented was that the monks adhere to 35 the Rule of St. Benedict. By necessity, church decorations, ecclesias-t i c a l vestments, and the l i k e were severe. The only art which seems not 36 to have been r e s t r i c t e d i n the same manner was manuscript illumination. Oursel has shown that the Cistercians were i n no way i n h i b i t e d i n t h e i r 37 production of manuscript illuminations (Plate 5). Towards the middle of the twelfth century r e s t r i c t i o n s on manuscript art were imposed on the 38 order by the General Chapter, which decided that manuscripts should be written i n a single colour and that there should be no i l l u s t r a t i o n s . 39 Though there was some acceptance of t h i s rule i t never r e a l l y took hold. The formation of a d e f i n i t e a r t i s t i c attitude came within the f i r s t twenty-five years of the order's existence and i s usually attributed to the influence of St. Bernard. The most important statement on t h i s sub-ject i s undoubtedly St. Bernard's Apologia ad Guillemum (Appendix D) 4^ ! which has been misinterpreted by some and taken out of context by others. The nature of the Apologia has been well explained by A. Luddy. 4 1 I t seems that by 1120 a confrontation between the Cluniacs and the Cister-cians had developed over the question of monastic p u r i t y and observances. Luddy points out that Peter the Venerable took the i n i t i a t i v e on t h i s mat-ter and wrote a long l e t t e r designed to take the Cistercians to task over 42 accusations that had been leveled against Cluny. In Luddy's words, 59 "... the Cistercians are represented as the true d i s c i p l e s of the Pharisees, who, whilst scrupulously s o l i c i t o u s about the lesser prescriptions of the law neglect the more important, so attentive to the rules regarding food and clothing and labour and silence that they have no time to think of such 43 as concern humility and c h a r i t y . " The Apologia was a response to Peter's charges. I t was motivated by a Cluniac abbot, William of St. Thierry and a Canon Regular, Ogerius of St. Nicholas, who f e l t that to leave the charges unanswered would be admit-t i n g the t r u t h of Peter's statements. 44 Although art historians usually c i t e the sections concerned s p e c i f i c a l l y with art and architecture (see Appendix D), the document i s e s s e n t i a l l y concerned with monastic d i s c i p l i n e and observances. The most important thing about t h i s work i s that i t was motivated by those outside of the Ci s t e r c i a n order. I t i s also an i r o n i c a l piece of w r i t i n g since on one hand i t has been taken as an indictment of the Cluniac order, while on the other, the author states that he cannot c r i t i c i z e the r e l i g i o u s of that order. Bernard begins by saying, "How can I l i s t e n i n silence to the charge you bring against us, that we, most miserable of a l l men, so poorly lodged and clothed, presume nevertheless to judge the world; and what i s s t i l l more int o l e r a b l e , that we even censure those who l i v e s a i n t l y l i v e s i n your i l l u s t r i o u s order, and from the depths of our obscurity arrogantly i n s u l t 45 the resplendent l i g h t s of heaven?" Bernard's main concern are the abuses of those who bring the entire monastic profession into disrepute. His c r i t i c i s m i s lodged against 46 those who do not f a i t h f u l l y adhere to the Rule of St. Benedict. With regard to the p o s i t i o n of art i n monasteries, St. Bernard f i r s t asks what place gold has i n churches of those who profess poverty. 60 Likewise, St. Bernard states that monastic churches cannot be judged on the same level as episcopal churches because bishops are required to em-ploy various techniques to engage the devotion of the l a i t y . But monks are men who have l e f t the secular world and have renounced those things which gratify the eyes and ears. With this i n mind, why should monks expend so much money i n decorating their churches? Clearly, the answer is that those monks who do decorate their monasteries have not reconciled their escape from the world -- they are i n fact tied to their previous carnal nature. Ending his criticism of monastic art, St. Bernard states that, "... i f the absurdity of these things does not put us to shame, why at least do we not lament over the cost of them?" The effect that the Apologia had on the Cistercian order was considerable. But a l l the attitudes expressed i n i t need not be taken as originating with St. Bernard. St. Bernard's statements are really an am-p l i f i c a t i o n of the Exordium Parvum of Stephen Harding, and i n the end both works must be taken as representative of a general Benedictine outlook. The major consideration of both men was the attainment of Humility which in turn leads to Charity, the highest virtue since i t places us closer 47 to God. Taken i n this context, then, anything which detracts from Humility must necessarily be cast from the monastic vocation. Clearly, the attitude expressed by St. Bernard was of a practical nature and had nothing to do with his personal likes and dislikes of art. The General Chapters followed the same tone as St. Bernard i n their rejection of anything which smacked of luxury. They did not, how-ever, reject beauty as is often implied. Aubert t e l l s us that because of the decisions taken by the General Chapter the builders of monastic houses looked for simple and logical solutions to the problems of construction, 61 and i t was this approach which produced a form approaching architectural perfection. Even though the clearest statement concerning the Cistercian attitude towards art was made by St. Bernard, the order, by the nature of i t s constitutions had to abide by the regulations l a i d down by the General Chapters. It i s here that we find the actual regulations concerning art. As Aubert has pointed out, the early years saw no necessity for regulations because of the overriding poverty that existed. But as time went on and donations came in, i t became essential to have specific rules. It may be that the rules were indeed necessitated as a result of certain breaches of the order's stated ideals. This, however, is merely conjecture. It does seem f a i r l y reasonable to assume that many of the regulations concerning the arts were influenced by St. Bernard's Apologia. On the basis of Aubert's research and the references which he makes to the legislation of the General Chapter i t is clear that many of the rules were passed in the hundred year period between the death of St. Bernard and the middle of the thirteenth century. This period i s also the era of the Cistercian order's greatest wealth, and following i t i s a quick decline of the influence and wealth of the order. It appears logical therefore that during the middle of the thirteenth century the building activity of the order would be at i t s greatest level. Turning to the legislation that the General Chapter passed con-cerning architecture, Aubert t e l l s us that the only clearly defined pro-49 hibition i n this area was the rejection of stone b e l l towers. This restriction came at the General Chapter of 1157 (article 21) when the f i r s t constructions were giving way to the second generation of buildings.^ A l -though this legislation was generally adhered to in.France and Germany, i t 62 held l i t t l e authority i n Spain, I t a l y and England. The C i s t e r c i a n rules concerning the decorative arts were l a i d down o f f i c i a l l y during the General Chapter of 1134. 5 1 The r e s t r i c t i o n s concerning the inclus i o n of painting, sculpture, glass, etc., were passed at t h i s meeting. I t seems that during the twelfth century the rules were followed quite c l o s e l y , but during the thirteenth century a degree of re-laxation set i n . I t was during the l a t t e r period that we see the inclusion of various art forms i n monastic houses of the order. During the fourteenth and f i f t e e n t h centuries the rules were e n t i r e l y set aside and decoration be-came an int e g r a l part of the Cistercian buildings. The early development of the Cis t e r c i a n order coincided with the beginning of the Gothic period, an a r t i s t i c era which saw the r e j e c t i o n of painted walls i n churches and t h e i r replacement with coloured glass. The Cistercians, however, rejected both forms of art at the General Chapter of 52 1134. Yet, i t i s obvious that the rules concerning these matters were not s t r i c t l y adhered to because at the General Chapter of 1182 the abbots of the order declared that a l l stained glass had to be replaced within two 53 years of that meeting. In order to compensate for the r e s t r i c t i o n s against stained glass windows, many Cis t e r c i a n houses turned to employing ' g r i s a i l l e ' windows designed with s t r i c t l y geometric patterns (Plate 6). By the middle of the thirteenth century, however, the order began to ease i t s rules con-cerning decorated windows and we see rules stating that houses which had changed t h e i r a f f i l i a t i o n from other orders and had entered the Cistercian community could maintain any glass which had been put up before the date of 54 entrance into the order. By the end of the thirteenth century more c o l -oured and decorated windows appeared i n houses of the order and i n the fourteenth century stained glass was quite common i n C i s t e r c i a n churches.*^ 63 Sculptures were also ruled against at the General Chapter of 1134.^ During the l i f e of St. Bernard there was l i t t l e sculpture to be 57 found i n Ci s t e r c i a n houses. According to Aubert the law was s t i l l m effect i n the middle of the thirteenth century when the General Chapter of 1253 required the monks of Royaumont to remove sculptures which they had 58 placed i n that house. But, again by the end of the thirteenth century the Cistercians were coming to accept sculpture more and more. An example of t h i s acceptance would be the decorated tombs found at Royaumont which i n -cluded those of the royal family. Not only did the acceptance of these tombs break the order's regulations concerning sculpture, but they also broke with the stated desire of the Exordium Parvum i n i t s claim that monasteries should not become b u r i a l grounds for the l a i t y . Decorated pavements and embellishments were likewise subjected to s t r i c t controls. Aubert feels, that the order's attitude was i n fact an out-come of St. Bernard's comments on these i n his Apologia. But Aubert goes on to say that the pronouncements on these art forms at the General Chapters of 59 1213, 1218, and 1256 would indicate that the rules were quite often broken. In 1205 the General Chapter ordered Pontigny to remove the decorated t i l e s i n i t s church because they were not i n accordance with the desired simplic-i t y of the o r d e r . ^ I t was because of t h i s attitude that we see the Ci s t e r -cians using paving t i l e s placed i n geometric patterns and employing a li m i t e d range of colours. The idea of s i m p l i c i t y c e r t a i n l y had i t s effect on l i t u r g i c a l ornaments. The General Chapter of 1157 passed s t r i c t rules concerning t h i s matter and i t was here that the Cistercians were t o l d that the use of precious metals for l i t u r g i c a l ornaments would be p r o h i b i t e d . ^ But, by the middle of the thirteenth century t h i s rule was relaxed so that churches 64 of the order could have ornaments made of precious metals so long as their dimensions were s m a l l . ^ By the middle of the thirteenth century the a r t i s t i c attitude of many Cistercians had clearly changed to follow those of their secular compatriots. The reason for this shift i n position was of course complex, but i t was essentially the result of the order's in a b i l i t y to maintain i t s isolation from society. After two centuries Cistercian houses became grouped together by country and province and the power of the General Chap-ter gradually declined as the number of abbots attending decreased. As stated i n the earlier chapters, the Cistercians became like many of the other monastic orders by adopting some of the abuses which they had earlier attacked. Certainly this seems true i n the order's later approach to art. The statutes of the Cistercian order make i t clear that the restrictions against art were of a practical nature. Even St. Bernard's Apologia shows us that the main concern of the Cistercian order was the maintenance of the Benedictine Rule and a l l that went with i t . Yet various art historians have seen f i t to disregard these very simple facts and have produced histories which seem to have no basis for reality other than i n the minds of those who produced them. On this matter I w i l l quote some passages which I consider pertinent to this subject and then comment on them. 63 In Joan Evans' work, Art i n Medieval France, we are presented with the following statement concerning Cistercian art: "Had Stephen Harding continued to be the leader of the Cistercian movement the iconography of the Virgin might have been greatly enriched, for to her the order was especially dedicated. But instead Bernard came to dominate i t , and he was a man who despised beauty. He is said to have spent a year i n the novice's room without noticing whether the ceiling was f l a t or vaulted, and to have been amazed one day to discover that the apse of the chapel had three windows and not one. The only art he'encouraged was that of music, and that, less for i t s own sake than as a form of worship. He pruned away a l l the Cluniac accretions from the bare Benedictine Office, except for 65 the r e c i t a l of the Office of the Dead, and strove i n a l i k e manner to prune away a l l the accretions of splendour and beauty from the Benedictine t r a -d i t i o n of the abbey church."64 With regard to architecture i n p a r t i c u l a r , Joan Evans t e l l s us that: "Just as a sisterhood at i t s foundation often adopts the plainest possible version of the feminine wear i n use at the t i n e , and codifies i t into a uniform, so Bernard adopted the plainest possible version of the cur-rent Burgundian s t y l e as the basis of the architecture of his order."65 Again on architecture, Joan Evans states that: "... a team of workmen must have gone from one secluded abbey to another, with l i t t l e but prohibitions to a s s i s t them i n t h e i r work."66 One wonders when reading these statements whether Joan Evans seriously considered the various questions r e l a t i n g to Cistercian a r t . In the material that I have quoted we are t o l d that Stephen Harding would have promoted the iconography of the V i r g i n i f he had remained the leader of the Ci s t e r c i a n movement. But on t h i s matter we know that the Ci s t e r c i a n consti-tutions did not allow for any leader once Citeaux had created a family of daughter houses. We know from the previous discussion that decisions affect-ing the entire order were the r e s u l t of deliberation among equals at the General Chapter. With regard to the special place of the V i r g i n , we know that t h i s came about during, the General Chapter of 1134. There does not appear to be any documentary evidence to indicate that Stephen Harding would have promoted the p o s i t i o n df the V i r g i n any more than had been done at the 1134 meeting. There i s no documentary evidence to substantiate Joan Evans' b e l i e f that St. Bernard despised beauty. A reading of the Apologia cer-t a i n l y does not indicate that St. Bernard had any p a r t i c u l a r d i s l i k e of art outside the context of monasticism. He merely f e l t that i t was out of place i n a monastic setting. In the f i r s t passage quoted from Joan Evans' work 66 we are t o l d that St. Bernard d i d not know the physical nature of the chapel that he spent his novice year i n . This can be taken i n a number of ways. St. Bernard may have been t o t a l l y disinterested i n architecture. He may have been completely involved with s p i r i t u a l matters. Certainly the l a t t e r i s what W i l l i a n of St. Thierry had attempted to indicate when t e l l i n g that story i n the Saint's biography. He put i t i n the following way: "Since he made a continual practice of such m o r t i f i c a t i o n , i t became habitual to him, and eventually second nature, so that his whole being was taken up with the things that concerned his soul. A l l his hopes and desires were centred on God, and his mind was so u t t e r l y given over to thinking about the things of the s p i r i t that although his eyes were open, he did not see the things that passed i n front of them, ... Indeed, after f i n i s h i n g h i s year i n the n o v i t i a t e , he s t i l l did not know whether the c e i l i n g of the the novices' scriptorium was vaulted or not. And although he used to make frequent v i s i t s to the church, he thought that the sanct-uary had only one window, whereas there were r e a l l y three."67 The available records do not indicate that St. Bernard personally took a hand i n the formulation of the Cistercian rules concerning a r t . So far i t has been assumed that t h i s was so, but there i s no evidence to sub-stantiate t h i s b e l i e f . Joan Evans leads us to understand that Cistercian regulations concerning t h i s matter were e n t i r e l y the r e s u l t of St. Bernard's e f f o r t s . Kenneth Conant shared the same views on t h i s matter i n his book 68 Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture. Conant t e l l s us that: "The Burgundian half-Gothic attracted the attention of Bernard of Clairvaux (himself a Burgundian, born within sight of Dijon) because of i t s austere and p r a c t i c a l character. He made a sober version of i t the standard architecture for Cistercian monasteries a l l over Europe."69 Otto von Simson i n the The Gothic Cathedral shares some of these views. He presents us with the following: "The appraisal of Bernard's a r t i s t i c tastes has r e l i e d far too exclusively on the opinions he expressed i n w r i t i n g , especially i n the Apologia ad Guillelmum, the famous attack upon the ostentation of the Cluniac Order. In t h i s polemical work he makes two s p e c i f i c points about ar t : he condemns as 'monstrous' the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic imagery 67 of Romanesque sculpture and demands their banishment from the cloister; and he inveighs against the immense height, the 'immoderate' length, the 'supervacuous' width of Cluniac churches as incompatible with the s p i r i t of monastic humility. That these views became law for Bernard's own order at least during his lifetime, i s beyond question. The iconophobic bias he expressed in regard to the representational arts --he was a consistant pupil of Augustine even i n this regard -- led to the prohibition of illumination i n Cistercian manuscripts and to the exclusion of a l l imagery, with the excep-tion of painted crucifixes, from the churches of the order."71 Both Conant and von Simson agree that i t was St. Bernard who initiated the regulations concerning art and architecture within the Cis-tercian order. On one hand Conant t e l l s us that St. Bernard was actively involved i n determining the type of architecture to be used by the order, while on the other von Simson indicates that St. Bernard's views became law for the order. Neither of these two positions has been validated. It is interesting to note that von Simson complains that St. Bernard's a r t i s t i c tastes have been too dependent upon literary evidence. This i s surely a curious comment, since the converse i s probably more correct. Cer-tainly the problem with most histories of Cistercian art has been a lack of documentary evidence. Although I have taken only three examples of discussions con-cerning the nature of Cistercian art, I think that they are i n many ways rep-resentative of much that has been written to date. The major criticism that could be leveled against such comments is that they oversimplify an extremely complex hi s t o r i c a l problem. It is foolish to state that the phenomenon of Cistercian art which has a time span of centuries was directed by one man. I think that the criticisms presented here can be maintained as long as there i s no documentary evidence to prove those statements correct. In any event I think that i t i s reasonable to say that Cistercian architecture and art generally were the products of 68 s p i r i t u a l and economic factors working upon one another. In the end these interactions produced art forms of a similar s p i r i t . The architecture and art were not r i g i d l y controlled from Citeaux and i t s General Chapter, but directed in light of monastic principles based on the concept of Humility. CHAPTER V In this chapter I w i l l attempt to relate what I have said in the previous parts of this study. I w i l l f i r s t present an overview of the order's work i n England and then endeavour through logical means to unite the various thoughts offered i n this paper. At this time i t appears to be an almost insurmountable problem to f u l l y accomplish this task owing to the lack of documentation available to present day historians. The problem would be different i f , on the one hand, we had written documentation and, on the other, well preserved examples of Cistercian architecture. The truth i s , however, that we have l i t t l e of either. It i s interesting to note that the majority of studies concerned with English Cistercian architecture have been archeological i n character. This approach i s of course quite v a l i d since we are l e f t with so few written records relating to the construction of Cistercian churches. So far as i s known, there i s no existing description of an English Cistercian monastery in the process of construction. The records available to us are i n the monastic chronicles and these provide us not with descriptive comments, but 2 with data relating to finances, donors, and progression of construction. In many instances we must read between the lines for an idea of the monks' attitudes towards their constructions. This i s particularly true of the Meaux Chronicles which say nothing much about the character of the buildings 70 erected, but t e l l us only about the amount of construction carried on under each abbot. As I have just mentioned, the study of English Cistercian houses is d i f f i c u l t owing to the ruinous condition of the buildings. At this time there i s no: Cistercian house i n England which i s completely intact. Only 3 three of a l l those built have portions s t i l l used for parish churches. However, even those which have remains are in such a state of destruction that to come to any accurate conclusions about their former appearance seems quite remote. Arguments may be presented to the contrary, but they may also be countered on s t r i c t l y logical grounds. In relation to these statements i t i s interesting to note what Bertrand Russell had to say about the problem of structure since any study of architecture w i l l necessarily involve an examination of this subject. We know that to study the structure of an object i s to view i t s parts and the ways in which they are interrelated. This is particularly true of architecture. Russell provides us with an interesting analogy on this matter when he says that, "I f you are learning anatomy, you might f i r s t learn the names and shapes of the various bones, and then be taught where each bone belongs in the skeleton. You would then know the structure of the skeleton i n so far as anatomy has anything to say about i t . But you would not have come to an end of what can be said about structure i n relation to the skeleton. Bones are composed of c e l l s , and cells of molecules, and each molecule has an atomic structure which i t i s the business of chemistry to study. Atoms, i n turn, have a structure which is studied i n physics. At this point, orthodox science ceases i t s analysis, but there is no reason to suppose that further analysis is impossible."4 Russell's view of structure i s especially apt when considering the essential nature of architecture. That we can view architecture i n terms of constituent parts i n order to compreliend i t s structure is partic-ularly true. Further to this approach, however, i s the view that archi-tecture i s really the art of space. Accordingly, F. Stele has stated that, 71 "Architecture is composed of three things: the material sh e l l , the space i t contains, and the essential aim. Of these three only space i s constant and only on i t can a serious study of architecture rest."5 Henri Focillon goes a step beyond this statement when he says that, "A building is not a collection of surfaces, but an assemblage of parts, i n which length, width, and depth agree with one another in a certain fashion, and constitute an entirely new s o l i d that comprises an internal volume and an external mass. A ground-plan can, to be sure, t e l l us a great deal... but this kind of reduction, or, perhaps, abbreviation of the processes of work, by no means embraces the whole of architecture. Indeed i t despoils architecture of i t s fundamental privilege: namely, the mastery of a complete space, not only as a mass, but as a model imposing a new value upon the three dimensions.... It must not be forgotten that mass offers the double and simultaneous aspect of internal mass and external mass, and that the relation of one to the other i s a matter of peculiar interest to the study of form in space."6 I don't think that there is any question that contemporary architects see the study of architecture i n terms of handling space. Cer-tainly Ruskin's view that architecture was nothing other than a frame for sculpture and painting is quite unacceptable in the second half of the twentieth century. If Ruskin was right i n his assessment then any study of early Cistercian building would seem quite f r u i t l e s s . It is f a i r l y evident that the study of architecture can be viewed from many different positions. Indeed, research i n this area relates quite well to Russell's statements regarding the study of anatomy. Although orthodox approaches reach their limits, there is no reason to believe that further analysis i s impossible. When f i r s t approaching English Cistercian architecture I f e l t that the study could be conducted in an orthodox fashion. On delving further into the matter I soon discovered that scope for this effort would be limited. But why should this be so? It is so because I accept the view that architecture is the art of assembling various masses to create space. In s t r i c t l y mathematical terms these masses can be termed as points with respect to length, width, and depth. Now i f the viewer of the architectural spaces involved is termed a zero point from which length, width, and depth 72 are measured certain assessments can be made. But what happens when some of these points are missing as in the case of English Cistercian churches? The answer to this i s , of course, that our space perception is incomplete. We are l e f t with a form of conceptual space. This undoubtedly is unac-ceptable to anyone who wishes to gain definitive conclusions regarding the nature and handling of space. At this point I decided that the most useful study of the order's architecture i n England would be to determine the reasons for simplicity and supposed purism. Although I agree with Focillon that a ground plan is an abbreviation of the architectural process, I also feel that for the purposes of this paper they are of paramount importance. With the plans of the houses we are able to trace the development of those houses with respect to growth in size and also i n wealth. On this last point I should be more explicit and say that the size of the houses does not necessarily provide us with a clear indication of wealth, but i t does give us some idea of the direction i n which they progressed. If nothing else, the architec-ture provides us with concrete visual material regarding the order's spiritual development. In i t we see the process of failure -- that is the failure to adhere to the early ideals of the order. When considering Cistercian building i n England, i t is useful to view the process i n terms of phases. These phases can be expressed as periods of growth and then of consolidation. I think that i t is safe to say that buildings which would be included i n the growth period are the f i r s t temporary constructions and then possibly the f i r s t permanent stone structures. The period of consolidation may be considered as a point when the houses determined to reconstruct their f i r s t stone churches with more elaborate structures. These processes of construction seem to have been 73 followed by most of the principal houses in England. As I said before, our knowledge of the f i r s t Cistercian churches i n England is practically non-existent. This is particularly true of Waverly (1128). This house, founded from L'Aumone i n Burgundy, and supported in i t s early years by Giffard, Bishop of Winchester, was the f i r s t Cistercian church i n England. Our knowledge of this building, however, i s limited since only small fragments remain standing. The f i r s t church was long and narrow, i t s plan following closely the design of churches i n France (Fig. 9). In 1203, the f i r s t church was replaced by a larger one which was not completed u n t i l 1278 (Fig. 10). According to R. Palmer, "The plan of their f i r s t church thus shows a simplicity which i s in accordance both with the principles of their order and with their circumstances."'7 As we can see from the plans, the f i r s t church at Waverly was small in scale and extremely simple. It had an aisleless nave, and a small square-ended presbytery. Harold Brakspear has also found evidence which indicates that the f i r s t permanent church of the sister'house of Tintern (1131) had a similar aisleless plan (Fig. 11). 8 The plans of Waverly and Tintern d i f f e r only in that Waverly had one chapel in each arm of the transept while Tintern had two. The earliest church of the normal Cistercian type was found at Rievaulx (1132) in Yorkshire.^ The nave of this church is the earliest large nave in England and dates from about 1135-40. The plan of this church was very much like that of Fontenay, having a square-ended presbytery, transepts with three eastern chapels, and a b e l l tower over the crossing.10 The nave consisted of nine bays, with north and south aisles, but, unlike any other Cistercian church i n England, the nave piers were square. The nave i t s e l f was covered with a wooden ceiling, while, as at Fontenay, the 74 a i s l e s were covered with transverse b a r r e l vaults. Unlike Fontenay, how-ever, Rievaulx employed round headed clerestory windows. Although many historians dealing with the subject seem to think that the clerestory was a necessity i n England because of a general lack of natural l i g h t , I be-lie v e that i t was probably employed because of the l o c a l b uilding practices. Unfortunately our knowledge of the nave i s based s t r i c t l y on the finds that have been excavated from the s i t e . What remains at th i s time are the outer w a l l s , to the height of a few feet, and the bases of the pier s . S t i l l , we may get the impression from the rough stonework that the charac-ter of the building was severe. Somewhere around 1230 there was a general programme of enlarge-ment i n which additions were made to the presbytery and transepts (Fig. 12). As S i r Charles Peers says, " I t i s not surprising to hear that at the end of the thirteenth century the Abbey was heavily i n debt." 1 1 On the transept a clear l i n e divides the older b u i l d i n g from the new (Plate 7a). The stonework of the new construction i s extremely f i n e while that of the older section i s r e l a t i v e l y rough (Plate 7b). In many ways the stonework i s almost an approximation of the state of the Cistercian i d e a l . When standing at the transept crossing t h i s impression i s p a r t i c -u l a r l y strong (Plates 8 $ 9). The f i r s t church extended only two bays past the transept, but the addition lengthened i t to seven. This part of the church was covered completely by a system of stone ribbed v a u l t s , and i n i t s d e t a i l s seems to have disregarded completely the concept of s i m p l i c i t y . But, as Peers points out, "...the r e s u l t i s one of the most beautiful examples of English 12 Gothic that remains to us." The arrangement here can be traced e a s i l y . The high a l t a r stood on a raised platform i n the second bay from the east. 75 The whole area was floored with glazed green and yellow t i l e s placed in geometric patterns, but of these only a few fragments are l e f t in the south transept. Against the east wall were five chapels placed in line with each aisle and with the main span. The east wall i t s e l f had six lan-cet windows, three on each level of the church (Plate 10). The walls of the aisles have been a l l but destroyed. Only a small fragment of the former construction remains. The impression imparted by this section of Rievaulx is one of sophistication. I don't think I would be too far wrong in saying that the quality of stonework i n the later addition to the church matches that of most cathedral churches i n England. Throughout this part of the building are numerous subtleties which, although not blatant infringe-ments of the order's rules concerning decoration i n churches, seem at best a form of backsliding to the s p i r i t of those rules (Plate 11). After the construction of the eastern extension, no further building of any consequence was carried on. Actually the decline of the 13 house is indicated by the removal of some of the buildings. Although we have few records relating to the finances of such large projects, i t seems evident that much of the money was raised by borrowing from Jewish money-lenders such as Aaron of Lincoln. Knowles t e l l s us that at Aaron's death, nine Cistercian houses owed him a gross 14 sum of more than 6400 marks. Rievaulx was one of those houses. Knowles goes on to say that, "... the original loans were no doubt undertaken to raise funds for buildings which a l l the houses were putting up at this time, and are therefore i n a sense a witness to Cistercian poverty, for the white monks were as yet without the money revenues and gifts which the black monks could devote to the purpose."^ 76 A few miles to the west of Rievaulx i n Yorkshire was another important Cistercian house. This was Fountains (1132). W.H. St. John Hope says that, "Although i t cannot compare in architectural splendour with Tintern, nor i n beauty of situation with Rievaulx, Fountains Abbey, from the great extent and preservation of i t s buildings, and the ease with which they may be studied, certainly takes the f i r s t place i n importance among 17 the Cistercian abbeys of England and Wales." It should be noted here that Hope's study of Fountains Abbey was concerned not so much with the architecture of Fountains, but rather with the true uses of the buildings. As was usual with the Cistercian houses, the f i r s t monks resided in thatched huts. This condition lasted for about two years u n t i l f i n a l l y , out of desperation, they determined to abandon their holdings and migrate to Clairvaux. This situation, however, changed drastically with the arrival of Hugh, Dean of York, who brought with him his wealth and property. Fol-lowing Hugh were two canons of York, Serlo and Tosti, who were also men of considerable wealth. With their resources pooled, they managed to save the house. According to Hope, the early records of Fountains give much infor-mation relating to the poverty of the early days, but say nothing of the 18 building that was conducted at that time. It seems apparent that no construction was carried out u n t i l the arrival of Hugh and his compatriots in 1135. Hugh t e l l s us that the f i r s t church was l a i d out on a large scale and that the plan of the present buildings i s i n the main the f i r s t one (Fig. 13). At the end of the twelfth century, when the abbey had grown to a considerable size, i t was decided to increase the amount of altar space by enlarging the church eastwards with the construction of the "Choir of Nine Chapels" (Fig. 14). The church planned in 1135 consisted of an aisleless presbytery 77 of three bays; north and south transepts, each with three eastern chapels; a nave and a i s l e s of eleven bays; and a western porch or narthex. Hope t e l l s us that the construction took place i n d i f f e r e n t periods, t h i s being 19 indicated by the j o i n t i n g of the masonry. ' He further states that t h i s 20 was a clear i n d i c a t i o n of the abbey's poverty. The main part of the 21 church took about f i f t y years to complete. The nave, as i t stands now, i s roofless. I t comprises arcades of pointed arches resting on round columns which are surmounted by s c a l -loped c a p i t a l s (Plate 12). The bases of these columns rest on square p l i n t h s . Above the arcade i s a clerestory, consisting of simple round arched windows (Plate 13). There i s l i t t l e a r t i c u l a t i o n on the upper wall except for a p l a i n s t r i n g course above and below the windows. As at Rievaulx, the nave was covered with a wooden roof. The side a i s l e s were covered by transverse barrel vaults (Plate 14). The outer wall was pierced by small round arched windows which allowed l i g h t to enter into the a i s l e s . I think that John Bilson was correct when he ..said that, "The e a r l i e r Cis-t ercian churches are marked by great s i m p l i c i t y of treatment, and by an almost entire absence of the r i c h decoration which i s so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of 22 the l a t e r Romanesque." The general impression presented by the nave of Fountains i s one of r e s t r a i n t . By the end of the twelfth century, however, the r e s t r a i n t gave way to what may be considered a f a i r l y sumptuous work. This was the "Choir of Nine Chapels" mentioned e a r l i e r . The new presbytery leading to i t was f i v e bays long, with a i s l e s of the same length. However, at t h i s time, only the outer walls remain i n t a c t . Along the f u l l length of these walls there i s a continuous stone bench surmounted by t r e f o i l e d arches (Plate 15). These arches were o r i g i n a l l y supported by detached marble columns. In each 78 bay of the presbytery i s a lancet (Plate 16). In a l l these bays there were, formerly, attached marble columns supporting the arches. Certainly the most notable features of the "Choir of Nine Chapels" are the large east window (Plate 17) (a f i f t e e n t h century addition) and the two piers within the eastern transept (Plate 18). Within the transept there i s a notable degree of a r t i c u l a t i o n provided by the molding. Along with t h i s a r t i c u l a t i o n i s the emphasis on v e r t i c a l s provided by the piers and by the now missing attached columns. Let us now examine some of the external features of Fountains. The west wa l l of the nave has a large round-headed door consisting of s i x molded orders, jamb columns, and carved ca p i t a l s (Plate 19). On the outer edges of the facade are two broad p i l a s t e r buttresses r i s i n g almost to the point of the gable. The large window above the door was not o r i g i n a l to 23 the church, but added to the facade i n 1494 by Abbot Darnton. Above t h i s window i s a niche which contains a statue of the V i r g i n and Child a l -so dating from t h i s timef Extending across the whole width of the front are the remains of the narthex. The front of the narthex consisted of a series of arches car-r i e d on slender columns and the whole was roofed with a wooden lean-to structure. Along the sides of the nave and the a i s l e s there i s l i t t l e a r t i c u l a t i o n except for p i l a s t e r buttresses and s t r i n g coursing. Along with the window and in t e r n a l structuring of the choir mentioned above, another impressive feature at Fountains i s Abbot Huby's tower, constructed at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The struc-ture i t s e l f measures 170 feet and opens onto the north side of the o r i g i n a l transept. Externally i t i s w e l l a r t i c u l a t e d with buttresses, molding, 79 gables and niches. I think that Palmer is correct when he says of the eastern extension at Fountains that, "Practically adequate, internally beautiful, but externally unimpressive, i t s origin at the hands of the Cistercians 24 shows how far they had travelled from their f i r s t simplicity." On the north and south sides of the new transept there is l i t t l e decoration ex-cept for the buttressing, string coursing, and molding around the lancet windows and the doorways. The patterns for the doors follow closely those of the western entrance. Generally the exterior of Fountains is quite devoid of detail. It would be interesting to know more accurately the cost of con-struction for Fountains. Our knowledge of this matter is rather sparse, 25 but we do have pieces of information gleaned from the Chronicles from which the financial position of the house during various stages of con-struction may be deduced. This information t e l l s us that the economic 26 growth of Fountains was a very gradual process. Unlike many other houses Fountains had no one great benefactor who could provide large sums of cash for the building programmes. It was probably for this reason that the construction of the abbey church was carried on at intervals. But even though the growth was slow, i t was definite. The Fountains Chartulary indicates that as years went on the monastery gained very large tracts of 27 land. By the turn of the thirteenth century Fountains was well estab-lished financially. This is evident from the demands that King John made on the house to support his various military adventures. It is probable that the building programmes undertaken at Fountains would have been more quickly concluded had i t not been for those demands. Certainly John's confiscations of 1210 h i t the abbey very heavily for i t was at this 80 time that the monks had to disperse temporarily. Graves t e l l s us. that the 28 money re a l i z e d from the confiscations came to about 1,200 marks. A l -though the monks of Fountains had much i n the way of landed property, they seemed to be r e l a t i v e l y short of cash. Throughout the thirteenth century they had a flu c t u a t i n g existence which ended i n the house being forced into royal custody f o r r e l i e f from i t s debts. Although i t i s impossible to draw any d e f i n i t i v e conclusions about t h i s state of a f f a i r s , i t seems l i k e l y that the s i t u a t i o n was brought on as the re s u l t of f a i l u r e s i n numerous commercial a c t i v i t i e s and by the debts carr i e d over from building pro-grammes. That t h i s should have happened to the wealthiest of Cistercian houses i s of p a r t i c u l a r interest. Following Rievaulx and Fountains, some of the best examples of early English Cistercian architecture may be found at K i r k s t a l l (1152) and Buildwas (1155-60). As with the former churches, the l a t t e r maintained the t r a d i t i o n a l C i stercian plan (Figs. 15 § 16). But both K i r k s t a l l and Buildwas, though holding to the ideals found i n the churches mentioned e a r l i e r , did elaborate more on the de t a i l s of ornament. K i r k s t a l l , i n -stead of employing the round columns found at Fountains, u t i l i z e d composite 29 piers with twelve engaged columns. As at Fountains the capitals of the nave piers are scalloped, only here there are variat i o n s . The handling of the w a l l surfaces remain quite simple. Actually the w a l l surfaces of K i r k s t a l l are very s i m i l a r to those of Fountains. Concerning the western entrance to K i r k s t a l l , we f i n d much more elaboration than i n the e a r l i e r churches. Bilson t e l l s us that, "At the period of the e a r l i e r Cistercian churches i n England, we generally f i n d that the decoration of English churches was to a great extent concentrated i n 30 t h e i r doorways." At K i r k s t a l l the decoration around the doors i s con-81 siderably more ornate than that of Fountainsj and i n many respects i s a r e f l e c t i o n of Saxon ornamentation (Plate 20). The abbey of Buildwas i n Shropshire began i t s programme of construction shortly after i t s foundation i n 1135. The church consists of a square-ended presbytery of two bays, a crossing with a low central tower, north and south transepts, each with two eastern chapels, and an a i s l e d nave of seven bays. Both the presbytery and the transept chapels were vaulted with ribbed vaults. The eastern end of the church has three t a l l round headed windows which are characterized by a complete lack of decoration. The nave appears very s i m i l a r to the one at Fountains, but i s considerably lower (Plate 21). The piers are c i r c u l a r and have scalloped c a p i t a l s , and both the clerestory and a i s l e windows are round headed. Unlike the churches previously mentioned, there i s no western entrance, but rather a p l a i n facade. The monks entered the church from the c l o i s t e r on the north side. The t o t a l impression of t h i s church i s one of severity. Buildwas has remained mostly untouched by modifications since the turn of the thirteenth century and therefore presents us with an excel-lent example of Cistercian church architecture of the early period. I t seems quite l i k e l y that modifications to the church were not carried out owing to a lack of finances. We are t o l d that the properties of the abbey were never very extensive and that part of i t s income came from c o l l e c t i n g 31 t o l l s from a bridge which crossed the r i v e r Severn. During the l a s t part of the twelfth century a number of Cister-cian churches were erected which abandoned the t r a d i t i o n a l plan, or at 32 least modified i t to some extent. Some examples of these are Furness, 33 34 Byland, and Jervaulx. Furness (1127), i n i t i a l l y a Savigniac house, started i t s programme I 82 of construction shortly after i t s ; foundation. According to;J,C. Dickinson i t i s not too clear how f a r the process had gone before the abbey became 3(5 Cistercian i n 1147. There are indications that the early building con-s i s t e d of transepts of two bays with apsidal chapels, and a square presby-37 tery (Fig. 17). Once the house had become Cistercian the older construc-tions were replaced by a larger structure following more closely the Cister-cian format (Fig. 18). The transept and choir stand at t h i s time almost to t h e i r o r i g i n a l height, but l i t t l e remains of the nave beyond i t s south w a l l , the bases of most of i t s columns, and part of the north w a l l . At the extreme western end of the church i s a b e l l tower which was a f i f t e e n t h century addition. The nave was b u i l t i n the l a t t e r part of the twelfth century and consisted of ten bays. The a i s l e s consisted of quadripartite vaults, none of which remain standing. The nave piers were alternately c i r c u l a r and clustered. The transepts and the crossing date from late i n the twelfth century, but were largely r e b u i l t during the f i f t e e n t h century. The win-dows of the north and south transepts date from the f i f t e e n t h century, and although they contained tracery, they were r e l a t i v e l y unadorned. From what remains of the twelfth century construction, i t appears that Furness main-tained the C i s t e r c i a n i d e a l of s i m p l i c i t y . I t also seems that enrichment of d e t a i l s at Furness came f a i r l y l a t e i n the house's histo r y -- mostly i n the f i f t e e n t h century. Certainly one of the most impressive houses was Byland, of which only a fragment remains today. After Byland was founded i n 1138, there was a period of some years before the house s e t t l e d i n i t s present location. Construction on the present church started sometime after 1177 and from the 83 beginning i t was designed on a large scale (Fig. 19). S i r Charles Peers has noted that the excavated remnants c l e a r l y indicate workmanship and q u a l i t y of the highest order, and t h a t , " . . . i t would be hard to f i n d any-38 thing better of t h e i r kind." Although the normal square-ended presbytery was retained, there was an ambulatory around the choir with f i v e chapels placed against the eastern w a l l . The transepts had both eastern and western a i s l e s with chapels on the eastern side. The high a l t a r was i n the second bay of the presbytery and was surrounded by an arcaded stone screen that extended to the western piers of the crossing. Most of the church was floored with yellow and green t i l e s set i n a geometric pattern (Plate 22). Most of what remains can now be seen i n the two chapels of the south transept. The side a i s l e s were covered with pointed stone ribbed vaults, but the main span was covered i n wood. From what remains of the exterior walls i t i s evident that the whole must have been p l a i n and severe (Plate 23). Almost a l l of the decoration was r e s t r i c t e d to the west facade which features a large c i r c u l a r window, three lancet windows interspersed with molding (Plate 24), and three doors, the centre having a t r e f o i l pattern (Plate 25). The narthex i s now missing. Of Byland, T.S.R. Boase says, "... a b u i l d i n g , o r i g i n a l i n i t s ground plan, i t was i n i t s d e t a i l s and elevations an example of the ready Cistercian reaction to the new Gothic st y l e which t h e i r architecture did so much to foster. I t marks also the passing of C i s t e r c i a n b u i l d i n g from i t s austere i s o l a t i o n into the f u l l current of the contemporary arc h i t e c t u r a l movement."39 Jervaulx was a daughter house of Byland. I t i s u n l i k e l y that we s h a l l ever have a d e f i n i t e picture of i t s structure as so much of the building has been destroyed. However one important feature i s s t i l l e v i -84 dent i n the high quality.of the stonework.. This i s of interest when di s -cussing the economics of building. There i s a very good example of qua l i t y stonework i n the doorway at the south-west end of the church (Plate 26). The door i s round headed, as was usual i n English Cistercian churches, and i s decorated with deep molding and dog-tooth ornaments (Plate 27). As at other Cistercian abbeys, Meaux's f i r s t buildings were of a temporary nature. These were provided by the Earle of Albemarle, William le Gros, who also gave the foundation i t s i n i t i a l grant of land, and support. Under the second abbot, P h i l i p (1160-1182), the f i r s t stone buildings were commenced. I t should be noted that before 1160 the house was not f i n a n c i a l l y w e l l o f f , having dispersed just previous to that. During the reign of the t h i r d abbot, the f i n a n c i a l struggles continued. Besides l e g a l problems and crop f a i l u r e s , the house was forced to raise 300 marks to help pay for the ransom of King Richard. In order to do thi s they were required to s e l l t h e i r sheep, wool, and church plat e , which caused the house to disperse a second time. When the monks returned to t h e i r house they began construction of a new church, p u l l i n g down the pre-vious structure because i t was decided that i t was inconveniently planned. The new bu i l d i n g , i n i t s turn, f e l l to the same fate with the advent of the next abbot. Edward A. Bond has observed that, "The constitutions of the order enjoined extreme s i m p l i c i t y i n the conventual buildings with absence of ornament; i t may be inferred from these successive reconstructions of t h e i r church that our monks had been growing less and less disposed to • . , „ 40 submit to r e s t r a i n t m th i s p a r t i c u l a r . " The chronicles indicate that between 1197-1210 when the reconstruc-t i o n just mentioned took place, large sums of money were expended on various sections of the monastery. I t was during t h i s time that the c l o i s t e r was 85 being b u i l t . Building continued from 1207, when the reconstruction began, u n t i l 1240 at which time the structure was f i n a l l y covered i n lead. Under the ninth abbot, 1249-1269, a b e l f r y was erected and covered i n lead, and a large b e l l was placed within i t . An inner c e i l i n g was added to the church, the f l o o r was l a i d with t i l e s , and the s t a l l s for the lay brothers were inserted. From t h i s time onward succeeding abbots concerned themselves with the creation of various decorative furnishings and arts for the church. Much money was also spent by them for the construction of u t i l i -t a r i a n buildings within the monastic precincts. The plans of English C i s t e r c i a n houses t e l l us much about the development of the order. In the f i r s t years, the houses were quite small and probably very severe. At t h i s time (1128-1154), the houses were sup-ported by donors who, though generous, did not normally present the founda-tions with funds enough to conduct large scale building programmes. In the l a t t e r h a l f of the twelfth century, rapid expansion of the order forced the Cistercians to extend t h e i r e x i s t i n g buildings. This i s especially true of Rievaulx and Fountains. Although the extensions were added over prolonged periods, there were i n s u f f i c i e n t funds available to meet the costs. These and other f i n a n c i a l commitments forced the order into greater involvement with the secular world. Houses founded at the end of the twelfth century did not follow quite the same pattern. Byland, Furness, Jervaulx and Buildwas progressed from t h e i r i n i t i a l temporary constructions to t h e i r permanent buildings i n one step. By that time, the number of r e c r u i t s had decreased and fewer lay brothers were being employed. This gave the order a degree of f i n a n c i a l s t a b i l i t y that was, however, p a r t l y based on practices which v i o l a t e d the 86 dictates of the Exordium Parvum. By the turn of the thirteenth century, the s i m p l i c i t y of the e a r l i e s t houses had given way to much more elaborate work. This may s t i l l be seen at Rievaulx and Fountains where the r e s t r a i n t of the f i r s t churches may be compared with the eastern extensions where that r e s t r a i n t has a l l but disappeared. S i m p l i c i t y and pu r i t y are at an end. CONCLUSION As stated i n the Introduction, t h i s paper examines the factors which caused early English Cistercian architecture to be both p l a i n and simple. The problem of determining causal factors i s complex, since the severity of C i s t e r c i a n architecture was not merely the r e s u l t of St. Ber-nard's a r t i s t i c views, but rather the product of interrelationships of economic, p o l i t i c a l , s p i r i t u a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l factors. Although the Gregorian Reform attempted to free the Church of secular interference i n purely r e l i g i o u s matters, i t s effect was to secu-l a r i z e the Church. This created a paradoxical s i t u a t i o n , because the Papacy a c t i v e l y promoted the development of various monastic groups. The d i v i s i o n of interest was l a t e r to erode the s p i r i t u a l development of certain monas-t i c foundations created i n the eleventh and twelfth centuries. By i t s actions, the Papacy made i t d i f f i c u l t for monks to practise t h e i r vocation. Instead of f l e e i n g to the "desert", as they o r i g i n a l l y intended, the monks became enmeshed i n secular a f f a i r s . The Cistercians set for themselves an i d e a l that was no longer practicable i n the twelfth century. They determined to free themselves from the i n t r i c a t e economic structure that the older orders had developed. Over the years, these older foundations had disregarded the concept of s e l f -88 sufficiency that was a major element.of the Benedictine Rule. By re-turning to the l e t t e r of the Rule, the Cistercians hoped to accomplish more f u l l y the aim of monasticism. Unfortunately, the r e a l i t i e s of twelfth century l i f e did not allow t h i s . The feudal system made i t necessary for each foundation to depend on the n o b i l i t y for donations of land and support; thus, s e l f -s u f f i c i e n c y was u n l i k e l y to be attained. The problem was severe i n England, where the land could not support an a g r i c u l t u r a l system that would provide s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t u n i t s . I t became the practice of English Cistercians to produce cash crops such as wool. To s e l l t h e i r produce necessarily carried them back to the secu-l a r world. During the twelfth century at l e a s t , the English Cistercians were without money revenues other than those gained from the sale of t h e i r products on the open markets. More land was needed to support the large numbers of r e c r u i t s ; likewise, requirements for church and conventual b u i l d -ing space increased. In s t r i v i n g for ever-expanding grants of land, the order became involved i n problems which had no relationship with monastic l i f e . By the turn of the thirteenth century, they possessed much land and various resources but r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e ready cash. The resources which they had allowed them to borrow money f a i r l y heavily, suggesting that the order did not have the funds available to pay for the major building pro-grammes that they conducted. Their revenue was further reduced i n the l a t t e r part of the twelfth century by the exactions of the Crown. Although the Crown demanded money from the Cistercians, they accepted instead large quan-t i t i e s of wool. The monastic chronicles which s t i l l remain to us indicate that the houses i n England were very much concerned with the things of t h i s world. 89 They continually struggled to gain land and once they had i t , attempted to maintain their hold on i t . The Cistercians were caught in a struggle. On one hand the order maintained high spiritual ideals, while on the other i t desired prosperity. The two would not mix. Initially the Cistercians were motivated to live the Benedictine Rule to the letter. They had created for themselves a solid body of legis-lation which stated in concise fashion the aims of the order. Part of that legislation ensured that no house became pre-eminent. Through continual yearly meetings the order attempted to check on the observance of the Rule throughout the order. This is of particular importance in our discussion since we can see that any rule concerning art necessarily had to emanate from the yearly General Chapter. The legislation system did not allow any one man to dictate to the order the ideas which he held. When reviewing the literature on English monasticism, we see that Graves, Donnelly and Knowles a l l found that, though s t i l l financially unsound, the Cistercians had departed from the original spirit of the order with regard to economic practices by the end of the twelfth century. The Exordium Parvum was specific in its demand that no house accept tithes, serfs, mills, or any sources of income that were not specifically mentioned in the Benedictine Rule. But with the expansion of the order i t was neces-sary to support the large numbers and the only way to do this was to par-take in economic activities other than those of simple agrarianism. I have deliberately made much of how the Cistercians departed from their rules. Art historians have consistently stated that Cistercian art was severe because the order's rules demanded i t . But, i f the order was going to disregard the very concise legislation laid down in its principal 90 documents, why should i t not evade those regulations concerning art and architecture? It is possible that had the order been in a better financial position in the latter half of the twelfth century, i t would have adopted a more ornate form of architecture. Although I have stated that the order's architecture was the outcome of major economic considerations, i t would be unwise to disregard other essential factors that had played a part in the formation of that art. The spiritual factor must not be eliminated in any discussion of the English Cistercians. Although they had taken the easier path in their economic l i f e , there is l i t t l e reason to believe that the order had col-lapsed spiritually. Certainly there is good reason to believe that the Cistercians were s t i l l practising their vocation at the end of the twelfth century. This being the case, the influences of that spirituality would necessarily have some part to play in the planning and construction of their monastic houses. In the end any view of English Cistercian architecture must attempt to weld the various parts of the order's history with the visual remains that are left to us. Taking such a position forces us to realize that a definitive analysis of the motivating factors that determined the shape that Cistercian architecture took is unlikely. For those factors were complicated and there is no single answer to the question. We may, however, gain a clearer insight into the order's history. NOTES CHAPTER II 1. On this period see, C. Clagett, ed., Twelfth-Century Europe and the  Foundation of Modern Society. Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1966. CH. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. New York, Meridian, 1955. C.W. Hollister, ed., The Twelfth Century Renaissance. Yew York, Wiley, 1969. 2. Henri Pirenne, A History of Europe. Vol. I. New York, Doubleday, 1956, p. 154. 3. See, G. Tellenbach, Church, State and Christian Society. London, Blackwell, 1966. 4. H. Pirenne, op-cit., p. 166. 5. Ibid., p. 167. 6. Ibid., p. 171. 7. David Knowles, The Monastic Order in England. Cambridge, At the Uni-versity Press, 1963, pp. 273-74. (Hereafter this t i t l e will be cited as M.O.) 8. G. Tellenbach, op-cit., p. 154. 9. Ibid., p. 37. 10. Bennett D. H i l l , English Cistercian Monasteries and their Patrons  in the Twelfth Century. A dissertation submitted to the Department of History of Princeton University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1963, p. 135. 11. See, D. Butler, Benedictine, Monachism. London, 1927. 12. I Corinthians 9:24-27. 13. Ephesians 5:14. 14. See, D. Knowles, M^O., pp. 191-207. 92 15. Ibid., p. 210. 16. The account of the departure from Molesme and the early days at Citeaux i s given in the Exordium ooenobii cisterciensis also known as the Exordium Parvum (See Appendix A). Find this in J. Migne, Patrologiae series Latina, Vol 166, col 501. 17. W.A. Parker-Mason, "The Beginnings of the Cistercian Order". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, London, Vol. XIX, 1905, pp. 169 - 207. 18. Ibid., p. 174. 19. For a discussion concerning the constitutional origins of the Cistercian Order see, Jean-Berthold Mahn, L'Ordre Cistercien et  son Gouvernement Pes Origines au Milieu Du XIII e Siecle (1098- 1265). Deuxieme Edition, Paris, Boccard, 1951. 20. Ibid., pp. 44-59 21. Ibid., pp. 40-70. See also D. Knowles, M.O., pp. 752-753. 22. Ibid., pp. 208-216. 23. J. Mahn, op. c i t . , pp. 197-228. 24. D. Knowles, M.O., p. 209. 25. Ibid., p. 209 26. Ibid., p. 210. 27. See Exordium Parvum (Appendix A). 28. See Exordium Parvum (Appendix A). 29. See Exordium Parvum (Appendix A). 30. See, J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of the Medieval Cistercian Lay- Brotherhood. New York, 1949. 31. Lay brothers were employed at Camaldoli in the eleventh century. 32. W.A. Parker-Mason, op. cit.-, p. 190. 33. Ibid., p. 188. 34. Ibid., p. 190. 35. Ibid., p. 190. 36. See, J. Donnelly, "Changes in the Grange Economy of English and Welsh Cistercian Abbeys, 1300-1540", Traditio, Vol. X, 1954, pp. 399-458. 93 37. See, J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of  38. See Appendix A. 39. See, J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of , p.38 40. See, C. Graves, "The Economic Activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England (1128-1307)", Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, Vol. 13, 1957, pp. 45-54. 41. See, M. Aubert, L'Architecture Cistercienne en France, Paris, Vanoest, 1947, p. 17-20. 42. See, A. Dopsch, The Economic and Social Foundations of European  Civ i l i z a t i o n , London, Routledge, 1937. 43. See, J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of , p. 41. 44. Ibid., p. 41. 45. Ibid., p. 44. 46. Instead of working new aquisitions, the Cistercians turned to leasing land. 47. C. Graves, op. c i t . , pp. 4-5. 48. J.S. Donnelly, "Changes in the Grange Economy ", op. c i t . , pp 405-426, 451-458. 49. C. Graves, op. c i t . , p. 19. 50. See, A.J. Luddy, Life and Teaching of St. Bernard, 2nd Ed., Dublin, G i l l , 1937. 51. See, William of St. Thierry et a l . , St. Bernard of Clairvaux, London, Mowbray, 1960, p. 36. 52. See, Dom Cuthbert Butler, Western Mysticism, London, Constable, 1967, pp. 95-198. 53. D. Knowles, M.O., p. 219. 54. E. Gilson, The Mystical Theology of St. Bernard, London, Sheed, 1955, p. 85. 55. Ibid., p. 91. 56. Dom Butler, op. cit.,-p.-99. 57. Ibid., p. 99. 58. Ibid., p. 99. 94 59. See Introduction to, B.S. James, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, as seen through His Selected Letters, Chicago, 1953. 60. Ibid., Introduction. 61. Those secular matters that Bernard deals with a l l have religious implications. 62. J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of , p. 44. 63. Hayden V. White, "Gregorian Ideal and St. Bernard", Journal of  the History of Ideas, Vol. 21, 1960, p. 342. 64. Erwin Panofsky, Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis and  its Treasures, Princeton, at the University Press, 1946, p. 65. Bernard of Clairvaux, The Steps of Humility, translated from the Latin by G. Webb, London, Mowbray, 1957. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Loving God, translated by a Religious of C.S.M.V., London, Mowbray, 1961. 66. M. Aubert, op. cit . , pp. 14-15. 67. Ibid., p. 15. 68. Ibid., p. 16. CHAPTER III 1. The various charters and cartularies of Cistercian houses provide a fairly good index to the state of spirituality that existed. 2. E. Gilson, op. cit., p. 8. 3. See, J.S. Donnelly, The Decline of  J.S. Donnelly, Changes in the Grange Economy  C. Graves, op. cit., pp. 3-60. B.D. H i l l , op. cit. 4. B.D. H i l l , op. cit., p. 79. 5. See, G.B. Adams, The History of England from the Norman Conquest  to. the Death of John [1066-1216), New York, Greenwood, 1905. J.T. Appleby, The Troubled Reign of King Stephen, London, Bell, 1969. H.A. Cronne, The Reign of Stephen, 1135-1154 - Anarchy in England, London, Weidenfeld, 1970. R.H. Davis, King Stephen, 1135-1154, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1967. 6. Alice Cooke, "The Settlement of the Cistercians in England", English Historical Review, Vol. VIII, 1893. 95 7. "For figures on this matter see D. Knowles, M.O., p. 246-248. 8. Ibid., p. 248. 9. B. H i l l , op-cit., p. 24. 10. Ibid., p. 10. 11. R. Davis, op-cit., pp. 100-1, 104. 12. See, J.C. Robertson,"Materials for the history of Thomas Becket," 7 Vols., Rolls Series, London, 1875-85. 13. A.L. Poole, From the Domesday Book to Magna Carta 1087-1216. London, Oxford, 1955, p. 187. 14. G.O. Sayles, Medieval Foundations of England. London, Methuen, 1964. 15. D. Knowles, VLO., pp. 191-227. 16. B. H i l l , op-cit., p. 55. 17. Ibid., p. 56. 18. D. Knowles, M.O., pp. 564-74, 656-7. 19. B. H i l l , op-cit., p. 26. 20. Ibid., p. 35. 21. This means that the land was given to a religious corporation free of any temporal services. 22. B. H i l l , op-cit., p. 40. 23. D. Knowles, op-cit., pp. 607-12, also Appendix XV of M.O. 24. See, D.H. Williams, The Welsh Cistercians -- Aspects of their Economic History. Pontypool, G r i f f i n , 1969. 25. Chronica Monasterii de Melsa a Fundatione usque ad annum 1396, ed., E.A. Bond, London, 1866-68, Rolls Series, p. 178, V. I. 26. Ibid., p. 350.' 27. J . Donnelly, Changes i n . . . , p. 412. 28. Ibid., p. 412. 29. Ibid., p. 412. 30. See, 25. 31. A. Earle, Essays upon the History of Meaux Abbey and some Principles of Mediaeval Land Tenure. London, 1906, p. 11. 96 32. Ibid., p. 11. 33. Ibid., p. 117. 34. Ibid., p. 117. 35. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 6; Also, J. Donnelly, "Changes i n . . . " , p. 412-414. 36. A. Earle, op-cit., p. 158. 37. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 7. 38. Ibid., pp. 7-8. 39. Ibid., p. 8. 40. Ibid., p. 8. 41. Ibid., p. 9. 42. Ibid., p. 10. 43. Ibid., p. 11. 44. D. Knowles, M.O., p. 656; Also, C. Graves, op-cit., p. 9. 45. Ibid., p. 11. 46. D. Knowles, M.O., p. 355. 47. Ibid., p. 355. 48. Ibid., p. 355. 49. Ibid., p. 355. 50. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 12. 51. Ibid., p. 12. 52. Ibid., p. 10. 53. D. Knowles, The Religious Orders i n England. Cambridge, 1950, p. 65. (Hereafter known as R.OTj 54. Ibid., p. 70. 55. Ibid., p. 66. 56. Ibid., p. 66. 57. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 21. 97 58. D. Knowles, R.O., p. 67. 59. I b i d . , p. 67. 60. See, H. Pirenne, Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe. New York, 1956. 61. D. Knowrles, R.O., p. 68. 62. I b i d . , p. 68. 63. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 29. 64. I b i d . , p. 14. 65. I b i d . , p. 58. 66. I b i d . , p. 16. 67. D. Williams, op-cit., p. 78. 68. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 18. 69. I b i d . , p. 18. 70. Ibid., p. 18. 71. I b i d . , p. 18. 72. D. Williams, op-cit., pp. 78-79. 73. C. Graves, bp-cit., p. 19. 74. I b i d . , p. 32. 75. I b i d . , p. 32. 76. I b i d . , p. 33. 77. I b i d . , p. 34. 78. I b i d . , p. 34. 79. Chronica monasterii de Melsa..., Vol. I . , p. XXIV. 80. I b i d . , p. XXIV. 81. I b i d . , p. XXVIII. 82. I b i d . , p. XXVIII. 83. I b i d . , p. XXVIII. 98 84. See, W.L. Warren, King John. New York, Norton, 1961. 85. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 37. 86. Ibid., p. 37. 87. Ibid., p. 39. 88. In order to comprehend the nature of this collapse one should read St. Bernard's Treatise on Humility and compare i t with the Chitmicles of Meaux. CHAPTER IV 1. Marcel Aubert, L'Architecture Cistercienne en France. Paris, Vanoest, 1947, 2 Vols. 2. M.-Anselme Dimier, Recueil de Plans d'Eglises Cisterciennes. Paris, 1949. 3. The placing of Cistercian houses far from towns and villages followed the terms of the Benedictine Rule. It is also a rule found in the Exordium Parvum. 4. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 89, Vol. I. 5. D. Knowles and J. St. Joseph, Monastic Sites from the Air. Cambridge, 1952, p. xix. 6. D. Knowles, Monastic Sites..., p. xix. 7. Ibid., p. xx. 8. Edmunde Sharpe, Cistercian Architecture. London, 1874, p. 11. 9. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 25. Vol., I. 10. Ibid., p. 25, Vol., I. 11. E. Sharpe, op-cit., p. 11. 12 . Ibid., p. 12. 13. Ibid., p. 13. 14. Ibid., p. 14. 15. John Bilson, 'The Architecture of the Cistercians," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, LXVE, 1909, p. 200. 16. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 151, Vol. I. 99 17. Ib i d . , P- 151, V o l . , I. 18. I b i d . , P- 152, Vol., I. 19. I b i d . , P- 152, Vol., I. 20. Ib i d . , P- 152, Vol.., I. 21. I b i d . , P- 152, Vo l . , I. 22. I b i d . , P- 152, Vol., I. 23. I b i d . , P- 153, Vol., I. 24. Ib i d . , P- 153, Vol., I. 25. I b i d . , P- 153, Vo l . , I. 26. I b i d . , P- 156, V o l . , I. 27. Ib i d . , P- 157, Vol., I. 28. Ib i d . , P- 158, Vo l . , I. 29. Ib i d . , P- 158, Vol., I. 30. Ib i d . , P- 165, V o l . , I. 31. Ib i d . , P- 165, Vo l . , I. 32. M. Dimier, L'Art Cistercien. P a r i s , Zodiaque, 1962, p. 188. 33. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 135, Vol., I. 34. I b i d . , p. 135, V o l . , I. 35. Exordium Parvum, Chap. XV; c i t e d i n M. Aubert, I b i d . , p. 135, V o l . , I. 36. C. Curse1, Les Miniatures Cisterciennes. P a r i s , Macon, 1960. 37. Ibid. 38. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 137, V o l . , I. 39. I b i d . , p. 137, Vol., I. 40. The f u l l t i t l e of t h i s work i s : "Apologia, ad Guillelmum Sancti Theoder-ici abbatem." The complete text i s found i n J.P. Migne, Patrologiae  Cursus Completus. Series Latina, t . 182, c o l . 895-. 100 41. A. Luddy, Life and Teaching of Saint Bernard. Dublin, 1937. 42. Ibid., p. 97. 43. Ibid., p. 96. 44. E. Holt, A Documentary History of Art. New York, 1957, V. I. 45. A. Luddy, op-cit., pp. 98-99. 46. Ibid., p. 102. 47. E. Gilson, op-cit., p. 71. 48. M. Aubert, op-cit., p. 141, Vol., I. 49. Ibid., p. 141. 50. Ibid., p. 141. 51. Ibid., p. 142. 52. Ibid., p. 144. 53. Ibid., pp. 144-145. 54. Ibid., p. 145. 55. Ibid., p. 145. 56. Ibid., p. 145. 57. Ibid., p. 145. 58. Ibid., p. 145. 59. Ibid., p. 146. 60. Ibid., p. 146. 61. Ibid., p. 147. 62. Ibid., p. 147. 63. Joan Evans, Art i n Medieval France, 987-1498. Oxford, 1948. 64. Ibid., p. 65. 65. Ibid., p. 66. 66. Ibid., p. 66. 101 67. William of St. Thierry, et a l , St. Bernard of Clairvaux:. The story of his l i f e as recorded in the Vita Prima Bernardi by certain of his contemporaries. London, 1960, p. 38. 68. K. Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 800-1200. London, Penguin, 1959. 69. Ibid., p. 125. 70. Otto von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral. New York, Pantheon, 1956. 71. Ibid., p. 43. CHAPTER V 1. See, J. Bilson, "The architecture of the Cistercians," op-cit. 2. In special cases we have fabric r o l l s or records of building operations. One of the best of these is the description of the rebuilding of the eastern half of Westminster Abbey by Henry III between 1245 and 1269. 3. These are Dore, Hulme Cultram and Margam. 4. Bertrand Russell, On the Philosophy of Science. New York, 1965, p. 96. 5. Encyclopedia of World Art. New York, 1959-68, 15 Vols, Vol. I. col. 635. 6. Ibid., col. 635. 7. R.L. Palmer, English Monasteries i n the Middle Ages. London, Constable, 1930, p. 80. 8. Ibid., p. 80. 9. See, C. Peers, Rievaulx Abbey. London, H.M.S.O., 1962. 10. Ibid., p. 2. 11. Ibid., p. 1 12. Ibid., p. 4. 13. Ibid., p. 1. 14. D. Knowles, NLO., p. 353. 15. Ibid., p. 354. 102 16. See, W.H. St. John Hope, "Fountains Abbey," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. Vol. XV, 1900. 17. Ibid., p. 269. 18. Ibid., p. 272. 19. Ibid., p. 281. 20. Ibid., p. 281. 21. Ibid., p. 281. 22. J. Bilson, op-cit., p. 193. 23. Ibid., p. 312. 24. W. Hope, op-cit., p. 312. 25. See, J.R. Walbran, "Memorials of Fountains Abbey," Surtees Society, Vol. 42, 1863. 26. A. Earle, op-cit., p. 105. 27. See, J. Walbran, op-cit. 28. C. Graves, op-cit., p. 39. 29. J. Bilson, op-cit., p. 242. 30. Ibid., p. 267. 31. . Buildwas Abbey, London, H.M.S.O., 1946, p. 2. 32. W. Hope, "The Abbey of St. Mary i n Furness, Lancashire," Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian Society. XVI, 1900. 33. C. Peers, Byland Abbey, London, H.M.S.O., 1962. 34. W. Hope, "Jervaulx Abbey," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal. XXI, 1911. 35. W. Hope, "...Furness—," op-cit., p. 222. 36. J. Dickinson, Furness Abbey, London, H.M.S.O., 1965, p. 7. 37. Ibid., p. 7. 38. C. Peers, Byland Abbey. p. 5. 39. T. Boase, English Art 1100-1216. Oxford, Clarendon, 1953, p. 140. 103 40. Chronica Melsa...., p. xxix, V o l . I. APPENDIX A EXORDIUM CISTERCIENSIS CENOBII "...From henceforth, t h i s abbot and his brethern, not forgetting t h e i r undertaking, unanimously decided to adopt and maintain i n that place the Rule of the Blessed Benedict, rej e c t i n g a l l that was contrary to the Rule, that i s to say the fur garments and mantels, the l i n e n , the combs, the mattresses on the beds, and also the v a r i e t y of dishes at meals i n the refectory, down to the r i c h gravies, and i n general everything that was con-tr a r y to the p u r i t y of the Rule. Thus, applying the strictness of the. Rule to every d e t a i l of t h e i r l i f e , both over e c c l e s i a s t i c a l and other observances, they adapted themselves and conformed to the Rule i n every d e t a i l (regulae v e s t i g i i s ) . And so, having put o f f the old man, they re-joiced to put on the new man. And because they did not f i n d i t i n the Rule or in. the l i f e of St. Benedict that the master had possessed churches or a l t e r s , or offerings, or b u r i a l grounds, or ti t h e s of other men, neither ovens, nor m i l l s , nor distant manors, nor peasants, nor that women ever came into his monastery, nor that he buried the dead there, except i n the case of his own s i s t e r , they renounced a l l these things, saying that when St. Benedict said 'that the monk should make himself a stranger to the a c t i v i t i e s of the world' (chapter IV of the Rule) he bore clear witness to the fact that these things should no longer have any place i n the a c t i v i -t i e s or i n the hearts of monks, who ought to conform themselves to the etymological o r i g i n of t h e i r name by fle e i n g from them. Moreover, they said that t i t h e s had been divided into four parts by the holy fathers, who were the organ of the Holy S p i r i t and whose o r d i -nances cannot be broken without committing sacrilege; one part for the bishop, one for the p r i e s t , the t h i r d for strangers who v i s i t e d the church or f o r widows or orphans or for the poor who had no other means of support, and the fourth for the upkeep of the church. Since t h i s d i v i s i o n makes no mention of the monk who has his land on which he can l i v e by his own labour and that of h i s beasts, they condemned the use of ti t h e s as a ri g h t usurped from others. And because the holy men knew that the Blessed Benedict had not b u i l t h is monasteries i n c i t i e s , towns, or v i l l a g e s , but i n places f a r from the haunts of men, they resolved to do the same. And as he ordained that monasteries should be composed of a dozen monks with t h e i r abbot, so they decided to do." L. Bouyer, The Cist e r c i a n Heritage. London, Mowbray, 1958. APPENDIXiB CARTA ' CARITATIS Before the Cistercian abbeys began to f l o u r i s h , the lo r d abbot, Stephen, and h i s monks ordained that abbeys were on no account to be estab-li s h e d i n the diocese of any bishop p r i o r to his r a t i f i c a t i o n and confirma-t i o n of the decree drawn up i n w r i t i n g between the abbey of Citeaux and i t s daughter-houses, i n order to avoid occasion of offence between the bishop and the monks. In t h i s decree, therefore, the aforesaid brethren, guarding against possible dangers to t h e i r mutual peace, have made clear and established and handed down to l a t e r generations i n what manner and by what agreement, nay rather, with what 'love' the monks of t h e i r Order, though separated i n body i n abbeys i n divers parts of the world, might be k n i t together inseparably i n s p i r i t . Moreover, they were of the opinion that t h i s decree should be c a l l e d the 'Charter of Love' because i t casts o f f the burden of a l l exactions, pursues love alone and promotes the wel-fare of souls i n things human and divine. I. Inasmuch as we are known to be servants of the One True King, Lord and Master, a l b e i t unprofitable, we therefore make no claim f o r worldly advantage or temporal gain on our abbots and brother monks, whom i n divers places devotion to God s h a l l c a l l through us, the most wretched of men, to l i v e under regular d i s c i p l i n e . For, i n our desire f o r t h e i r p r o f i t and that of a l l sons of the Holy Church, we are not disposed to diminish t h e i r substance, l e s t i n s t r i v i n g to grow r i c h at t h e i r expense, we may not escape the s i n of avarice, which i s declared by the apostle to be s e r v i -tude to i d o l s . I I . Nevertheless we desire f o r love's sake to r e t a i n the cure of t h e i r souls, so that i f they s h a l l essay to swerve from t h e i r sacred pur-pose and the observance of the Holy Rule -- which God f o r b i d -- they may through our s o l i c i t u d e return to righteousness of l i f e . I I I . We w i l l therefore command them to observe the Rule of St. Benedict i n a l l things as i t i s observed i n the new monastery. Let the monks put no other interpretation upon the Holy Rule but what the holy fathers, our predecessors, namely the monks of the minster, have under-stood and maintained; and as we today understand and uphold i t , so l e t them do also. IV. And inasmuch as we receive i n our c l o i s t e r a l l the monks of t h e i r houses who come to us, and they likewise receive ours i n t h e i r s , so i t seems good to us and i n accordance with our w i l l that they should main-t a i n the customary ceremonial, chants and a l l books necessary for the canonical o f f i c e s , both by day and by night, and f o r the Mass, af t e r the form of the customs and books of the new minster, so that there be no 106 discord in our worship, but that wo may a l l dwell in one.love and under one rule and with like customs. V. No church or person of our Order shall presume to s o l i c i t from anyone a privilege contrary to the common customs of the Order, or in any wise retain i t , i f i t has been granted. VI. When the abbot of the new minster shall come on a v i s i t a t i o n to one of these houses, l e t the abbot of the place recognize the church of the new minster as his mother-house and give place to him i n a l l the precincts of the monastery, and let the v i s i t i n g abbot take the place of the abbot of that house, so long as he remains there. VII. Except that he shall not take his meals i n the guest-room, but in the refectory with the brethren, that discipline may be preserved, un-less the abbot of the house be absent. Likewise l e t i t be done in the case of a l l abbots of our Order who may chance to come on a v i s i t . But i f several shall come at the same time, and the abbot of the house shall, even when a greater abbot i s present, bless his own novices after the regular term of probation. VIII. But l e t the abbot of the new minster be careful not to pre-sume in any wise to conduct or order the affairs of the house he is v i s i t i n g , or meddle in them, against the w i l l of the abbot or the brethren. IX. But i f he learns that the precepts of the Rule or of our Order are transgressed i n the said house, l e t him be diligent to correct the brethren lovingly, and with the advice and i n the presence of the abbot. Even i f the abbot be absent, he shall nevertheless correct what he has found wrong therein. X. Once a year l e t the abbot of the mother-church v i s i t a l l the houses of his foundation either in person or through one of his co-abbots. And i f he shall v i s i t the brethren more often l e t them the more rejoice. XI. Moreover, l e t the abbey of Citeaux be v i s i t e d by the four primary abbots, namely of La Ferte, Pontigny, Clairvaux, and Morimond, together i n person on such a day as they may choosei except that appointed for the holding of the annual chapter, unless perchance one of them be prevented by grievous sickness. XII. When any abbot of our Order shall come to the new minster, l e t f i t t i n g reverence be shown to him; l e t him occupy the abbot's s t a l l and take his meals i n the guest-room i f the abbot is absent. But i f the abbot be present, l e t him do none of these things, but l e t him dine i n the refectory. Let the prior of the abbey take charge of i t s affa i r s . XIII. Between abbeys having no direct relationship with each other, this shall be the rule. Let every abbot give place to his co-abbot within the precincts of his monastery that the saying may be f u l f i l l e d , 'in honour preferring one another.' If two or more abbots shall come to the monastery, the superior i n rank shall take precedence of the others. 10? But l e t them a l l take t h e i r meals together i n the refectory, except the abbot of the house, as stated above. But whenever they meet on other occasions, they s h a l l maintain t h e i r rank i n accordance with the se n i o r i t y of t h e i r abbeys, so that he whose church i s of older founda-t i o n , s h a l l take precedence of the others. Whenever they take t h e i r seats together, l e t each humble himself before the others. XIV. But when any of our churches has by God's grace so increased that i t i s able to establish a new house, l e t the two houses maintain the same relationship between them as obtains between us and our brethren, except that they s h a l l not hold an annual chapter among themselves. XV..' But a l l the abbots of our Order s h a l l without f a i l attend each year the General Chapter at Citeaux, with the sole exception of those detained by bodily i n f i r m i t y . The l a t t e r , however, ought to appoint a suitable delegate, by whom the reason f o r t h e i r absence may be reported to the Chapter. An exception may also be made for those who dwell i n distant lands; l e t them attend at the intervals appointed f o r them i n the Chapter. But i f , and when, on any other occasion any abbot s h a l l presume to absent himself from our General Chapter, l e t him crave pardon f o r his f a u l t at the Chapter held i n the following year; l e t his absence not be passed over without serious attention being paid to i t . XVI. In t h i s General Chapter l e t the abbots take measures f o r the salvation of t h e i r souls, and i f anything i n the observance of the Holy Rule or of the Order ought to be amended or supplemented, l e t them ordain i t and re-establish the bond of peace and charity among them-selves. APPENDIX C A LIST OF THE CISTERCIAN AND SAVIGNIAC FOUNDATIONS IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 1124-1457 CISTERCIAN Waverly (24 Nov.) Tintern (9 May) Rievaulx (5 Mar.) Fountains (27 Dec.) Garendon (28 Oct.) Melrose (23 Mar.) Ford (3 May) Warden (8 Dec.) Thame (22 July) Bordesley (22 Nov.) Newminster (5 Jan.) Kirkstead, Louth Park (2 Feb.) Whitland (16 Sept.) Stoneleigh (?) Revesby (9 Aug.) Cwmhir (22 July) Pipewell (13 Sept.) Boxley (28 Oct.) Woburn (28 May) Rufford (13 July) Dore (26 Apr.) K i r k s t a l l (19 May) Vaudey (23 May) Bittlesden, Brueme (10 July) Roche (30 July) Sawtry (31 July) Margam (21 Nov.) Sawley (6 Jan.) Merevale (10 Oct.) Sibton (22 Feb.) Jervaulx (10 Mar.) Combe (10 July) Holm Cultram (30 Dec.) SAVIGNIAC Furness (4 July) Neath (25 Oct.) Basingwerk (11 July) Quarr (27 Apr.) Combermere (3 Nov.) Calder, Rushen (10 Jan.) Swineshead (1 Feb.) Strata Langthorn (25 July) Buildwas (8 Aug.) Buckfast (27 Apr.) Byland (Sept.) Coggeshall (3 Aug.) 109 YEAR CISTERCIAN 1151 Meaux (1 Jan.) Flaxley (30 Sept.) Stanley (?) 1153 Dieulacres (12 May) Tiltey (22 Sept.) 1164 Strata Florida (1 June) 1170 Strata Marcella (22 July) 1172 Bindon (22 Or 27 Sept.) Whalley (11 Nov.) 1176 Croxden (?) Robertsbridge (29 Mar.) 1179 Caerleon (22 July) 1186 Aberconway (24 July) 1198 Cleeve (25 June) Cymmer (year's end) 1201 Valle Crucis (28 Jan.) Dunkeswell (16 Nov.) 1204 Beaulieu (13 June) 1212 Medmenham (18 June) 1219 Hulton (26 July) 1226 Grace Dieu (24 Apr.) 1239 Betley (25 July) 1246 Hayles (17 June) 1247 Newenham (6 Jan.) 1274 Vale Royal (14 Jan.) 1280 Buckland (?) 1281 Rewley (11 Dec.) 1350 St. Mary Graces, London (20 Mar.) 1437 St. Bernard's College, Oxford (?) APPENDIX D 'APOLOGIA" TO WILLIAM, ABBOT OF ST.-THIERRY "...But these are small things; I w i l l pass on to matters greater in themselves, yet seeming smaller because they are more usual. I say naught of the vast height of your churches, their immoderate length, their superfluous breadth, the costly polishings, the curious carvings and paintings which attract the worshipper's gaze and hinder his attention, and seem to me i n some sort of revival of the ancient Jewish r i t e s . Let this pass, however: say that this is done for God's honour. But I say, as a monk, ask of my brother monks as the pagan (poet Persius) asked of his fellow-pagans: " T e l l me, 0 Pontiffs" (quoth he) "what doeth this gold i n the sanctuary?" So say I, " T e l l me, ye poor men" (for I break the verse to keep the sense) " t e l l me, ye poor ( i f , indeed, ye be poor), what doeth this gold in 'your' sanctuary?" And indeed the bishops have an excuse which monks have not; for we know that they, being debtors both to the wise and the unwise, and unable to excite the devotion of carnal folk by s p i r i -tual things, do so by bodily adornments. But we (monks) who have now come forth from the people; we who have l e f t a l l the precious and beautiful things of the world for Christ's sake; who have counted but dung, that we may win Christ, a l l things f a i r to see or soothing to hear, sweet to smell, delightful to taste, or pleasant to touch -- in a word, a l l bodily delights -- whose devotion, pray, do we monks intend to excite by these things? What pro f i t , I say, do we expect therefrom? The admiration of fools, or the oblations of the simple? Or, since we are scattered among the nations, have we perchance learnt their works and do we yet serve their graven images? To speak plainly, doth the root of a l l this l i e i n covetousness, which is idolatry, and do we seek not profit? If though askest: "How?" I say: "In a strange fashion". For money is so artfu l l y scattered that i t may multiply; i t is expended that i t may give increase, and prodigality giveth birth to plenty: for at the very sight of these costly yet marvelous vanities men are more kindled to offer gifts than to pray. Thus wealth is drawn up by ropes of wealth, thus money bringeth money; for I know not how i t i s that, wheresoever more abundant wealth is seen, there do men offer more freely. Their eyes are feasted with r e l i c s cased i n gold, and their purse-strings are loosed. They are shown a most comely image of some saint, whom they think a l l the more saintly that he is the more gaudily painted. Men run to kiss him, and are invited to give; there is more admiration for his comeliness than veneration for his sanctity. Hence the church is adorned with gemmed crowns of light -- nay, with lustres like cart-wheels, gir t a l l round with lamps, but no less -brilliant with the precious stones that stud them. Moreover we see candelabra standing like trees of massive bronze, fashioned with marvelous subtlety of art, and glistening no less brightly with gems than with the lights they carry. What, think you, i s the purpose of a l l this? The compunction of penitents, or the admiration of the beholders? 0 vanity of vanities, yet no more vain than insane! I l l The church i s resplendent i n her w a l l s , beggarly i n her poor; she clothes her stones i n gold, and leaves her sons naked; the r i c h man's eye i s fed at the expense of the indigent. The curious f i n d t h e i r de-l i g h t here, yet the needy f i n d no r e l i e f . Do we not revere at l e a s t the images of the Saints, which swarm even i n the i n l a i d pavement wheron we tread? Men s p i t oftentimes i n the Angel's face; often, again, the countenance of some Saint i s ground under the heel of a passer-by. And i f he spare not these sacred images, why not even the f a i r colours? Why dost thou make so f a i r which w i l l soon be made so foul? Why l a v i s h b r i g h t hues upon that which must needs be trodden under foot? What a v a i l these comely forms i n places where they are d e f i l e d with customary dust? And, l a s t l y , what are such things as these to you poor men, you monks, you s p i r i t u a l f o l k ? Unless perchance here also ye may answer the poet's question i n the words of the Psalmist: "Lord I have loved the h a b i t a t i o n of Thy House and the place where Thine honour dwelleth." I grant i t , then, l e t us s u f f e r even t h i s to be done i n the church; f o r , though i t be harm-f u l to v a i n and covetous f o l k , yet not so to the simple and devout. But i n the c l o i s t e r , under the eyes of the Brethren who read there, what p r o f i t i s there i n those r i d i c u l o u s monsters, i n that marvelous and deformed come-l i n e s s , that comely deformity? To what purpose are those unclean apes, those f i e r c e l i o n s , those monstrous centaurs, those half-men, those s t r i p e d t i g e r s , those f i g h t i n g knights, those hunters winding t h e i r horns? Many bodies are there seen under one head, or again, many heads to a s i n g l e body. Here i s a four-footed beast with a serpent's t a i l ; there a f i s h with a beast's head. Here again the forepart of a horse t r a i l s h a l f a goat be-hind i t , or a horned beast bears the hinder quarters of a horse. In short, so many and so marvelous are the v a r i e t i e s of divers shapes on every hand, that we are more tempted to read i n the marble than i n our books, and to spend the whole day i n wondering at these things rather than i n meditating the law of God. For God's sake, i f men are not ashamed of these f o l l i e s , why at l e a s t do they not shrink from the expense? The abundance of my matter suggested much more f o r me to add; but from t h i s I am d i s t r a c t e d both by my own anxious business and by the too hasty departure of Brother Oger (the bearer of t h i s l e t t e r ) This i s my opinion of your Order and mine; nor can any man t e s t i f y more t r u l y than you, and those who know me as you do, that I am wont to say these things not about you but to your faces. What i n your Order i s laudable, that I p r a i s e and p u b l i s h abroad; what i s reprehensible, I am wont to persuade you and my other friends to amend. This i s no detrac-t i o n , but rather a t t r a c t i o n : wherefor I wholly pray and beseech you to do the same by me. Farewell." E. Holt, ed., Documentary History of A r t . New York, Doubleday, 1957, v o l . I. BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Abraham, P. Viollet-le-Duc et l e Rationalisme Medieval. P a r i s , 1934. Adams, G.B. History of England, 1066-1216. London, 1905. Adams, G.B. The History of England from the Norman Conquest to the Death  of John (1066-1216). New York, Greenwood, 1905. Appleby, J.T. The Troubled Reign of King Stephen. London, B e l l , 1969. Aubert, M. L'Architecture Cistercienne en France. Pa r i s , Vanoest, 1947, 2 Vols. B a s k e r v i l l e , G. English Monks and the Suppression of the Monasteries. London, Cape, 1937. Begule, L. L'Abbaye de Fontenay et 1'Architecture Cistercienne. Lyon, 1912. Bond, F. The Cathedrals of England and Wales. London, Batsford, 1912. _________ The Chancel of English Churches. London, Oxford, 1912. ________ English Cathedrals. London, Newnes, 1899. Gothic Architecture i n England. London, Batsford, 1905. _________ An Introduction to English Church Architecture from the Eleventh to the Sixteenth Century. London, Oxford, 1913. ' Screens and Gall e r i e s i n English Churches. London, Oxford, 1908. Branner, R. Burguridian Gothic Architecture. London, Zwemmer, 1960. Braun, H. An Introduction to English Medieval Architecture. London, 1951. Bruyne, E. Etude d'Esthetique Medievale. Bruges, 1946, 3 Vols. Clagett, M., ed. Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modem  Society. Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1966. Clapham, A.W. Romanesque Architecture i n England. London, 1950. Conant, K. J . Carolingiari and Romanesque Architecture, 800-1200. London, Penguin, 1959. 113 Cook, G.H. English. Monasteries. London, Phoenix, 1961. Cook, 0. English Abbeys and P r i o r i e s . New York, Viking, 1960. Cottineau, (Dom) . Repetoire Topo-bib1iograpllique des Abbayes et Prieures. P a r i s , Macon, 1935, 2 vols. Craster, O.E. Tintern Abbey. London, HMSO, 1964. Cronne, H.A. The Reign of Stephen 1135-54 Anarchy i n England. London, Weiden f e l d and Nicolson, 1970. Crossley, F.H. English Church Design, 1040-1540. London, 1948. Daniel-Rops, H. Cathedral and Crusade. New York, Doubleday, 1963, 2 vo l s . Davis, H.W.C. England under the Normans and Angevins. London, Methuen, 1949. Davis, R.H.C. King Stephen 1135-1154. Berkeley, University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1967. Dickinson, J.C. Furness Abbey. London, HMSO, 1965. Monastic L i f e i n Medieval England. London, Adam § Charles Black, 1 9 B T ] Dictionnaire d'Archeblogie Chretienne et de L i t u r g i e . P a r i s , 1948. Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique. P a r i s , 1903-50. Dimier, M.A. L'Art Cis t e r c i e n . P a r i s , Zodiaque, 1962. Dimier, M.A. Recueil de Plans d'Eglise Cisterciennes. P a r i s , 1949. Donnelly, J.S. The Decline of the Medieval Cistercian Lay-brotherhood. New York, Fordham, 1949. Dopsch, Alfons. The Economic and Social Foundations of European C i v i l i z a t i o n . London, Routledge, 1937. Earle, A. Essays Upon the History of Meaux Abbey. London, A. Brown § Sons, Ltd., 1906. , Evans, J . Art i n Medieval France, 987-1498. Oxford, 1948. Fletcher, J.S. The Cistercians i n Yorkshire. London, Macmillan, 1919. F o c i l l o n , H. Art d'Occident; l e Moyeri Age Roman et Gothique. Pa r i s , 1938. Fontaine, G. Pontigny, Abbaye Cistercienne. P a r i s , 1928. Frankl, P. Gothic Architecture. London, Penguin, 1962. 114 Frankl, P. The Gothic, L i t e r a r y Sources and Interpretation during Eight  Centuries. Princeton, 1960. G a l l , E. Cathedrals and Abbey Churches of the Rhine. London, Thames and Hudson, 1963. Gilson, E. A History of Chr i s t i a n Philosophy i n the Middle Ages. London, Sheed § Ward, 1955. Gilson, E. La Theologie Mystique de Staint Bernard. Pa r i s , 1934. Gilyard-Beer, R. Abbeys: An Introduction to the Religious Houses of England  and Wales. London, HMSO, 1958. Gilyard-Beer, R. Cleeve Abbey. London, HMSO, 1959. Harvey, J . The Gothic World, 1100-1600. London, Batsford, 1950. Haskins, CH. The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century. New York, Meridian, 1955. H i l l , B.D. English Cistercian Monasteries and t h e i r Patrons i n the Twelfth  Century. Urbana, University of I l l i n o i s , 1968. H o l l i s t e r , C.W., ed. The Twelfth Century Renaissance. New York, Wiley, 1969. James, B.S. St. Bernard of Clairvaux as Seen Through His Selected Letters. Chicago, Regnery, 1953. King, A.A. Citeaux and Her Elder Daughters. London, Burns, 1954. Kingsley-Porter, A. Medieval Architecture, Its Origins and Development. New Haven, 1912, 2 vols. Knoop, D. and Jones, G. The Medieval Mason. Manchester, University Press, 1955. Knowles, M.D. Cistercians and Cluhiacs. Oxford, 1956. . The Evolution of Medieval Thought. New York, Vintage, 1964. . Great Historical^Enterprises - Problems i n Monastic History. London, Nelson, 1963. The Monastic Order i n England. Cambridge, University Press, 1963. . The Religious Orders i n England. Cambridge, University Press, 1950. and Hadcock, R. The Medieval Religious Houses of England and  Wales. London, Longmans, 1953. and St. Joseph, J . Monastic Sites from the A i r . Cambridge, University Press, 1952. 115 . Saints and Scholars. Cambridge, University Press, 1962. Lawrence, CH., ed. The ^English Church and the Papacy i n the Middle Ages. New York, Fordborn, 1965. Leclercq, J . The Love of Learning and the Desire f o r God. New York, Mentor, 1961. Leff, G. Medieval Thought. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1958. Lekai, L.J. The White Monks. Okauchee, Wisconsin, 1953. Luddy, Ai l b e J . L i f e and Teaching of St. Bernard. 2nd ed., Dubbin, G i l l § Son, 1937. Malin, Jean-Berthold, L' Ordre Cistercieri et Son Gouvemement... 2 e ed., P a r i s , Boccard, 1951. M a i l l e , Marquise de, et Henry de Segogne. Abbayes Cistercienries. P a r i s , 1943. . The New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967. Oldenbourg, Z. Saint Bernard. P a r i s , Michel, 1970. Oursel, R. Living Architecture: Romanesque. London, Oldbourne, 1967. Pacht, 0. The Rise of P i c t o r i a l Narrative i n Twelfth Century England. Oxford, Clarendon, 1962. Painter, S. The Reign of King John. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins, 1949. Panofsky, E. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis and i t s Art  Treasures. Princeton, 1946. . Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. New York, Meridian, 1957. Peers, C Byland Abbey. London, HMSO, 1962. . Rievaulx Abbey. London, HMSO, 1962. Poole, A.L. From Domesday Book to Magna Carta 1087-1216. London, Oxford University Press, 1955. Powicke, M. Medieval England 1066-1485. London, Oxford University Press, 1931. Powicke, F.M. A i l r e d of Rievaulx and his Biographer Walter Daniel. Manchester, 1922. Radford, C.A.R. Cymmer Abbey. London, HMSO, 1946. Strata F l o r i d a Abbey. London, HMSO, 1936. . V a l l e Crucis Abbey. London, HMSO, 1953. 116 Reynolds, P.K.B. Croxden Abbey. London, HMSO, 1946. Richardson, J.S. Sweetheart Abbey. Edinburgh, HMSO, 1951. and Wood, M. Melrose Abbey. Edinburgh, HMSO, 1949. Savine, A. English Monasteries on the Eve of the Dissolution. Oxford, 1909. Snape, R.H. English. Monastic Finances i n the Later Middle Ages. New York, Barnes and Noble, 1926. Taylor, A.J. Basingwerk Abbey. London, HMSO, 1966. Tellenbach, G. Church, State and Chr i s t i a n Society. London, B a s i l Blackwell § Mott Ltd., 1966. Thompson, A.H. Netley Abbey. London, HMSO, 1952. Thompson, J.W. Economic and Social History of Europe i i i the Later Middle  Ages (1300-1530). New York, Frederick Ungar, 1960. Ullmann, W. The Growth of Papal Government i n the Middle Ages. London, Methuen § Co. Ltd., 1965. Van der Meer, F. Atlas de 1'Ordre Cistercien . P a r i s , Sequoia, 1965. Van Z e l l e r , H. The Holy Rule: Notes on St. Benedict's Le g i s l a t i o n for Monks. London, Sheed $ Ward, 1959. Violl e t - l e - D u c , E.E. Dictionnaire Raisdnne de 1'Architecture Francaise du  Xle au XVIe Siecle. P a r i s , 1854-68, 10 vols. _________ Lectures on Architecture. Translated by B. Buchnall. London, 1877. Von Simson, Otto. The Gothic Cathedral. New York, Pantheon, 1956. Warren, W.L. King John. New York, W.W. Norton § Co. Inc., 1961 Webb, G. Architecture i n B r i t a i n : The Middle Ages. Harmondsworth, 1956. White, J . Art and Architecture i n I t a l y , 1250-1400. Harmondsworth, Penguin, T91W. William of St.-Thierry et a l . St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Translated by G. Webb. London, Mowbray, 1960. Wood, Susan. English Monasteries and Their Patrons i n the Thirteenth Century. London, Oxford University Press, 1955. PERIODICALS Aubert, M. "L'Architecture cistercienne au Xlle et au XHIe siecle," Revue de L'Art, 1937. . "Building yards and master builders in the Middle Ages," Liturgical Arts, XX, 1951. Barley, M.W. "Cistercian land clearances in Nottinghamshire," Nottingham Medieval Studies, I, 1957. Beer, E.S. "Gothic: origin and diffusion of the term; the idea of style in architecture," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld  Institutes, XI, 1948. Bethell, D.L. "An unpublished letter of St. Stephen Harding," Dublin  Review, LXXIX, 1961. Bilson, J. "The architecture of the Cistercians," Yorkshire Archaeological  Journal, LXVI, 1909. . "The beginnings of Gothic architecture: Norman vaulting in England," Royal Institute of B r i t i s h Architects Journal, VI, 1899; IX, 1902. Bliemetzreider, F. "Isaac de S t e l l a , " Recherches de Theologie Ancienne  et medievale, IV, 1932. Bony, J. "French influences on the origin of English architecture," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XII, 1949. Bukofzer, M. "Speculative thinking i n medieval music," Speculum, XVII, 1942 Cheney, C.R. "Church building in the Middle Ages," Bulletin of the  Rylands Library, XXXIV, 1951/52. Conant, K.J. "Medieval Academy excavations at Cluny," Speculum, XXXIX, 1954. Cooke, A.M. "The settlement of the Cistercians in England," English  Historical Review, VIII, 1893. Crosby, S.M. "Early Gothic architecture -- new problems as a result of the St. Denis excavations," Journal of the Society of  Architectural Historians, VII, 1948. Davis, H.W.C. "The anarchy of Stephen's Reign," English Historical  Review, XVIII, 1903. Davis, R.H.C. "What happened i n Stephen's Reign," History, XLIX, 1964. Dimier, A. "Eglise Cistercienne sur plan Bernardin et sur plan Benedictine," Melanges Rene Crozet, 1966. 118 Donnelly, J.S. "Changes in the grange economy of English and Welsh Cistercian abbeys, 1300-1500," Traditio, X, 1954. Enlart, C. " V i l l a r d de Honnecourt et les Cisterciens," Bibliotheque  de L'Ecole des Chartes, LVI, 1895. Frankl, P. "The secret of the medieval masons," Art Bulletin, XXVII, 1945. Graves, C.V. 'The Economic activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England," Analecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis, XIII, 1957. Hope, W.H. St. John, "The Abbey of St. Mary in Furness, Lancashire," Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian Society, XVI, 1900. . "Fountains Abbey," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XV, 1900. . "Jervaulx Abbey," Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, XXI, 1911. . "Kirkstall Abbey," Journal of the Thoresby Society, XVI, 1907. Micklethwaite, J.T. "Of the Cistercian plan," Yorkshire Archaeological  Journal, VII, 1882. Parker-Mason, W.A. "The beginnings of the Cistercian Order," Trans- actions of the Royal Historical Society, New Series, XIX, 1905. Pevsner, N. "The term 'Architect' in the Middle Ages," Speculum, XVII, 1942. Thompson, A.H. "Cathedral builders i n the Middle Ages," History (London), X, 1925. 119 A. Qiurch 1. Sanctuary B. Sacristy 2. Door to the cemetery C. 'Armarium' or book closet 3. Stairs to the dorter D. Chapter House 4. Monks door E. Stairs to monks dorter 5. Monks choir F. 'Auditorium' or parlour 6. Benches for the inf i r m G. Monks room 7. Rood Screen H. Warming room 8. Lay brothers choir I. Monks refectory 9. Lay brothers door J. Kitchen 10. Reader's p u l p i t K. Lay brothers refectory 11. Passage L. Passage M. 'Cellarium' N. Lay brothers court 0. Narthex P. Cl o i s t e r Q. 'Lavabo' FIGURE 1: THE CISTERCIAN PLAN 1 2 0 FIGURE 2 : FONTENAY (cote d'Or) 121 •B 4140-1160 I — J v. 1185 - 1205 PONTIGNY • X V l i e - K V l l i e s. FIGURE 3 : PONTIGNY (Yonne) 122 FIGURE 4: SENANQUE 123 30 30 FIGURE 6: CITEAUX - I FIGURE 7 : CLAIRVAUX - I 124 LE THORONET i '*', ' : J v e r s 1 2 0 0 . FIGURE 8: LE THORONET 0 5 Wl TQ 30 W> 60 m FIGURE 13: FOUNTAINS I 0 . 6 W 30 SO W> FIGURE 14: FOUNTAINS II 128 129 130 FONTENAY Nave looking west FONTENAY Facade 131 PLATE 3: LE THORONET Nave looking west PLATE 4: LE THORONET Facade 132 133 (a) Later building (b) Early building PLATE 7: RIEVAULX PLATE 9 ; RIEVAULX North Transept 135 136 PLATE 12: FOUNTAINS The Nave PLATE 13: FOUNTAINS - Windows -south w a l l of the nave 137 1 PLATE 14: FOUNTAINS Transverse Barrel Vaults north a i s l e PLATE 15; FOUNTAINS - Benches -north side of the presbytery 138 139 PLATE 18: FOUNTAINS - Columns PLATE 19: FOUNTAINS West Door 140 PLATE 21: BUILDWAS - Nave 141 PLATE 22: BYLAND - T i l e s -south transept f l o o r PLATE 25: BYLAND - West Facade, Main Entrance 143 PLATE 26: JERVAULX Doorway on the southwest corner of the church 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101959/manifest

Comment

Related Items