Chapter IX: The Clergy and Monks (2)

It is uncertain at what period this restriction was first attempted to be enforced in the Western Church, but there are early councils which notice the existence of a strong feeling on the subject[938]. In the year 376 a Gallic synod excommunicated those who should refuse the ministrations of a priest on the ground of his marriage[939]. But this can only prove that at the time there were married priests, whether living in continence or not, and that certain persons were scandalized at them. I cannot admit, as some authors have done, that the Council intended to make such marriages legal; on the contrary, it seems to me that the intention of the canon is merely to assert the validity of the sacraments, however unworthy might be the person by whom they were administered[940]. But restrictions which wound the natural feelings of men are vain: popes and councils may decree, but they cannot enforce obedience, and it seems to me that on this particular subject they never entirely succeeded in carrying out their views. All they did was to convert a holy and a blessed connexion into one of much lower character, and to throw the doors wide open to immorality and scandal. The efforts of Boniface in Germany were particularly directed to this point[941], and his biographer tells us on more than one occasion of his success in destroying the influence of married priests. But it may be questioned whether the same result attended the efforts of the Roman missionaries in England. It seems to me, on the contrary, that we have an almost unbroken chain of evidence to show that, in spite of the exhortations of the bishops, and the legislation of the witan, those at least of the clergy who were not bound to cœnobitical order, did contract marriage, and openly rear the families which were its issue. From Eddius we learn that Wilfrið bishop of York, one of the staunchest supporters of Romish views, had a son[942]; he does not indeed say that this son was born in wedlock, nor does any author directly mention Wilfrið’s marriage: but we may adopt this view of the matter, as the less scandalous of two alternatives, and as rendered probable by the absence of all accusations which might have been brought against the bishop on this score by any one of his numerous enemies. In a charter of emancipation we find among the witnesses, Ælfsige the priest and his son[943]: by another document a lady grants a church hereditarily to Wulfmǽr the priest and his offspring, as long as he shall have any in orders[944], where a succession of married clergymen is obviously contemplated. Again we read of Godwine at Worðig bishop Ælfsige’s son[945], and of the son of Oswald a presbyter[946]. Under Eádweard the Confessor we are told of Robert the deacon and his son-in-law Richard Fitzscrob[947], and of Gódríc a son of the king’s chaplain Gódman[948].

-----

Footnote 938:

“Placuit etiam ut si diacones aut presbyteri coniugati ad torum uxorum
suorum redire voluerint,” etc. Concil. Agathense, an. 506. Can. 9.

Footnote 939:

“Si quis secernat se a presbytero qui uxorem duxit, tanquam non
oporteat, illo liturgiam peragente, de oblatione percipere, anathema
sit.” Concil. Gangrense, an. 376. Can. 4. This provision was retained
by Burkhart of Worms in his collection of canons made in the eleventh
century. See Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 507. Schmidt, Gesch. der
Deutschen, IV Band, lib. 4. cap. 13.

Footnote 940:

This was at least the feeling in the eleventh century. Wendover speaks
in the following terms of the Council of Rome, celebrated by Gregory
the Seventh in 1074:—“Iste papa in synodo generali simoniacos
excommunicavit, uxoratos sacerdotes a divino removit officio, et
laicis missas eorum audire interdixit, novo exemplo et, ut multis
visum est, inconsiderato iudicio, contra sanctorum patrum sententiam,
qui scripserunt, quod sacramenta quae in aecclesia fiunt, baptisma,
chrisma, corpus Christi et sanguis, Spiritu invisibiliter cooperante,
eorundem sacramentorum effectum [habeant], seu per bonos, seu per
malos intra Dei aecclesiam dispensentur; tamen quia Spiritus Sanctus
mystice illa vivificat, nec bonorum meritis amplificantur, nec
peccatis malorum attenuantur. Ex qua re tam grave oritur scandalum, ut
nullius haeresis tempore sancta aecclesia graviori sit schismate
discissa, his pro iustitia, illis contra iustitiam agentibus; porro
paucis continentiam observantibus: aliquibus eam causa lucri ac
iactantiae simulantibus, multis incontinentiam periurio multipliciori
adulterio cumulantibus: ad haec, opportunitate laicis insurgentibus
contra sacros ordines, et se ab omni aecclesiastica subiectione
excutientibus, laici sacra mysteria temerant et de his disputant,
infantes baptizant, sordido aurium humore pro sacro chrismate utentes
et oleo, in extremo vitae viaticum Dominicum et usitatum aecclesiae
obsequium sepulturae a presbyteris uxoratis accipere parvipendunt;
decimas etiam presbyteris debitas igne cremant, corpus Domini a
presbyteris uxoratis consecratum pedibus saepe conculcant, sanguinem
Domini voluntarie frequenter in terram effundunt.” Wend. ii. 13. See
the Acts of this Council in Hardouin, vi. col. 1521 _seq._ In the
following year, 1075, the abbot of Pontoise was insulted and beaten in
a council held at Paris, for defending this decree of Gregory.

Footnote 941:

Boniface appears to have been quite as earnest in the eighth as
Dunstan was in the tenth century. We are told of him in Thuringia,
that in accordance with the instructions of the Apostolical Pontiff,
“senatores plebis totiusque populi principes verbis spiritalibus
affatus est; eosque ad veram agnitionis viam et intelligentiae lucem
provocavit, quam olim ante maxima siquidem ex parte pravis seducti
doctoribus perdiderunt; sed et sacerdotes ac presbiteros, quorum alii
religioso Dei se omnipotentis cultu incoluerunt, alii quidem
fornicaria contaminati pollutione castimoniae continentiam, quam
sacris servientes altaribus servare debuerunt, amiserant, sermonibus
evangelicis, quantum potuit, a malitiae pravitate ad canonicae
constitutionis rectitudinem correxit, ammonuit, atque instruxit.”
Pertz, ii. 341. “Quoniam cessante religiosorum ducum dominatu,
cessavit etiam in eis Christianitatis et religionis intentio, et falsi
seducentes populum introducti sunt fratres, qui sub nomine religionis
maximam haereticae pravitatis introduxerunt sectam. Ex quibus est
Torhtwine et Berhthere, Eanberhct et Hunræd, fornicatores et adulteri,
quos iuxta apostolum Dominus iudicavit Deus.” Pertz, ii. 344. These
seem all to have been Anglosaxons.

“Et recedens, non solum invitatus Baguariorum ab Odilone duce, sed et
spontaneus, visitavit incolas; mansitque apud eos diebus multis,
praedicans et evangelizans verbum Dei; veraeque fidei ac religionis
sacramenta renovavit, et destructores aecclesiarum populique
perversores abigebat. Quorum alii pridem falso se episcopatus gradu
praetulerunt, alii etiam presbyteratus se officio deputabant, alii
haec atque alia innumerabilia fingentes, magna ex parte populum
seduxerunt. Sed quia sanctus vir iam Deo ab infantia deditus, iniuriam
Domini sui non ferens, supradictum ducem cunctumque vulgus ab iniusta
haereticae falsitatis secta et fornicaria sacerdotum deceptione
coercuit; et provinciam Baguariorum, Odilone duce consentiente, in
quattuor divisit parochias, quattuorque his praesidere fecit
episcopos, quos ordinatione scilicet facta, in episcopatus gradum
sublevant.” Pertz, ii. 346.

“Domino Deo opitulante, ac suggerente sancto Bonifatio archiepiscopo,
religionis christianae confirmatum est testamentum, et orthodoxorum
patrum synodalia sunt in Francis correcta instituta, cunctaque canonum
auctoritate emendata atque expiata, et tam laicorum iniusta
concubinarum copula partim, exhortante sancto viro separata est, quam
etiam clericorum nefanda cum uxoribus coniunctio seiuncta ac
segregata.” Pertz, ii. 346. The anonymous author of the life of
Boniface tells of a bishop Gerold, who held the see of Mayence: he had
a son who succeeded him in the bishopric. Pertz, ii. 354.

Footnote 942:

“Sanctus Pontifex noster de exilio cum filio suo proprio rediens,”
etc. Vit. Wilfr. cap. 57.

Footnote 943:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1352.

Footnote 944:

“Wulfmǽr preóst and his bearnteám.” Cod. Dipl. No. 946.

Footnote 945:

“Godwine æt Worðige, Ælfsiges bisceopes sunu.” Chron. Sax. an. 1001.
This however was not confined to England: we hear of more than one
Frankish bishop having children: for example, “Anchisus dux egregius,
filius Arnulfi, episcopi Mettensis.” Ann. Xantens. an. 647. Pertz, ii.
219. See also Paul. Gest. Ep. Mettens. Pertz, ii. 264. [See also T. F.
Klitsche, “Geschichte des Cölibats,” etc. Augsb. 1830; J. A. Zaccaria.
Storia Polemica del Sagro celibato, Roma, 1774; and Suppl. to Engl.
Cyclop., Arts and Sciences, _art._ Celibacy.]

Footnote 946:

“Filius Oswaldi presbyteri.” Hist. Rams., cap. xlv.

Footnote 947:

“Robertum diaconem et generum eius, Ricardum filium Scrob.... quos
plus caeteris rex diligebat.” Flor. Wig. an. 1052.

Footnote 948:

“Godricum regis capellani Godmanni filium, abbatem constituit.” Flor.
Wig. an. 1053.

-----

It may no doubt be argued that in some of these instances the children may have been the issue of marriages contracted before the father entered into orders; but it is obvious that this was not the case with all of them, nor is there any proof that any were so. On the other hand we have evidence of married priests which it would be difficult to reject. Florence speaks of the newly born son of a certain _presbytera_, or priest’s wife[949]: I have already cited a passage from Simeon of Durham which distinctly mentions a married presbyter[950], about the year 1045: and the History of Ely records the wife and family of an archipresbyter in that town[951]. Lastly we are told over and over again that one principal cause for the removal of the canons or prebendaries from the cathedrals and collegiate churches by Æðelwold and Oswald was the contravention of their rule by marriage.

-----

Footnote 949:

Flor. Wig. an. 1035. It is right to add that some MSS. of Florence
read _presbyteri_, not _presbyterae_.

Footnote 950:

See vol. i. 145. “At ille qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat,” etc.
Sim. Dun. Eccl. Dun. cap. xlv.

Footnote 951:

“Mox ingens pestis arripuit domum illius sacerdotis; quae conjugem
eius ac liberos eius cita morte percussit, totamque progeniem funditus
extirpavit.” Hist. Eliens. Anglia Sacra, i. 603.

-----

The frequent allusion to this subject by the kings in various enactments, serve to show very clearly that the clergy would not submit to the restraint attempted to be enforced upon them. But we have a still more conclusive evidence in the words of an episcopal charge delivered by archbishop Ælfric. He says, “Beloved, we cannot now compel you by force to observe chastity, but we admonish you to observe it, as the ministers of Christ ought, and as did those holy men whom we have already mentioned, and who spent all their lives in chastity[952].” It is thus very clear that the clergy paid little regard to such admonishments, unsupported by secular penalties. In this, as perhaps in some other cases, the good sense and sound feeling of the nation struggled successfully against the authority of the Papal See. In fact, though spirituality were the pretext, a most abominable slavery to materialism lies at the root of all the grounds on which the Roman prelates founded the justification of their course. That they had ulterior objects in view may easily be surmised, though these may have been but dimly described and hesitatingly confessed, until Gregory the Seventh boldly and openly avowed them. Had the Roman church ventured to argue that the clergy ought to be separated entirely from the nation and the state, nay from humanity itself, for certain definite purposes and ends, it would at least have deserved the praise of candour; and much might have been alleged in favour of this view while the clergy were still strictly missionaries exposed to the perils and uncertainties of a daily struggle. But, in an absurd idolatry of what was miscalled chastity, to proscribe the noblest condition and some of the highest functions of man, was to set up a rule essentially false, and literally hold out a premium to immorality; and so the more reflecting even of the clergy themselves admitted[953]. Whatever may have been the desire of the prelates, we may be certain that not only in England, but generally throughout the North of Europe, the clergy did enter into quasi-marriages; and as late as the thirteenth century, the priests in Norway replied to Gregory the Ninth by setting up the fact of uninterrupted custom[954].

-----

Footnote 952:

Thorpe, ii. 376.

Footnote 953:

In 1102 archbishop Anselm excommunicated married priests, _sacerdotes
concubinarios_; Wendover, who records this act, expresses a doubt
about its prudence. “Hoc autem bonum quibusdam visum est, et quibusdam
periculosum, ne, dum munditias viribus maiores expeterent, in
immunditias labarentur.” Wend. ii. 171. The results at this day in
Ireland are well known, and the case is very similar in the Roman
Catholic part of Hungary. See Paget, Hungary and Transylvania, i. 114.
Shortly before the Reformation, the inconveniences arising from this
state of things were felt to be so intolerable, yet the danger to
society from a strict enforcement of the rule so great, that in some
parts of Europe the bishop licensed their priests so take concubines,
at a settled tariff, and further raised a sum upon each child born.
Erasmus relates that one bishop had admitted to him the issuing of no
less than twelve thousand such licenses in one year. In his diocese
the tax was probably light, the peasants sturdy, and the female
population more than ordinarily chaste. It was not unusual for the
English kings to compel the priests to redeem their _focariae_ or
concubines, which amounts to much the same thing. This occurred in the
years 1129 and 1208. See Wendover, ii. 210; iii. 223.

Footnote 954:

Gregory writes thus upon the subject to Sigurdr, archbishop of
Nidaros: “Sicut ex parte tua fuit propositum coram nobis tam in
diocesi quam in provincia Nidrosensi abusus detestandae consuetudinis
inolevit, quod videlicet sacerdotes inibi existentes matrimonia
contrahunt, et utuntur tanquam laici sic contractis. Et licet tu iuxta
officii tui debitum id curaveris artius inhibere, multi tamen
praetendentes excusationes frivolas in peccatis, scilicet quod felicis
recordationis Hadrianus papa praedecessor noster, tunc episcopus
Albanensis, dum in partibus illis legationis officio fungeretur, hoc
fieri permisisset, quanquam super hoc nullum ipsius documentum
ostendant, perire potius eligunt quam parere, longam super hoc
nichilominus consuetudinem allegando. Cum igitur diuturnitas temporis
peccatum non minuat sed augmentet, mandamus quatenus, si ita est,
abusum huiusmodi studeas extirpare, et in rebelles, si qui fuerint,
censuram aecclesiasticam exercere. Datum Viterbii, xvii Kal. Junii,
anno undecimo.” This is A.D. 1237. Diplom. Norweg. No. 19, vol. i.
pag. 15.

-----

In addition to the clergy who either in their conventual or parochial churches administered the rites of religion to their flocks, very considerable monastic establishments existed from an early period in England. It is true that not every church which our historians call _monasterium_ was really a monastic foundation, but many of them undoubtedly were so; and it is likely that they supplied no small number of presbyters and bishops to the service of the church. The rule of St. Benedict was well established throughout the West long before Augustine set foot in Britain; and although monks are not necessarily clergymen, it is probable that many of the body in this country took holy orders. Like the clergy the monks were subject to the control of the bishop, and the abbots received consecration from the diocesan. Till a late period in fact, there is little reason to suppose that any English monastery succeeded in obtaining exemption from episcopal visitation: though on the other hand it is probable that monasteries founded by powerful and wealthy laymen did contrive practically to establish a considerable independence. This is the more conceivable, because we cannot doubt that a great difference did from the first exist between the rules adopted by various congregations of monks, or imposed upon them by their patrons and founders, until the time when greater familiarity with Benedict’s regulations, and the customs of celebrated houses, produced a more general conformity.

One of the most disputed questions in Anglosaxon history is that touching the revival of monkery by Dúnstán and his partizans. Its supposed connexion with the tragical story of Eádwig, and the dismemberment of England by Eádgár, have lent it some of the attractions of romance; and by the monastic chroniclers in general, it has very naturally been looked upon as the greatest point in the progressive record of our institutions. Connected as it is with some of the most violent prejudices of our nature, political, professional and personal, it has not only obtained a large share of attention from ecclesiastical historians of all ages, but has been discussed with great eagerness, not to say acrimony, by those who differed in opinion as to the wisdom and justice of the revival itself. Yet it does not appear to me to have been brought to the degree of clearness which we should have expected from the skill and learning of those who have undertaken its elucidation. Neither the share which Dúnstán took in the great revolution, nor the extent to which Æðelwold and Oswald succeeded in their plans, are yet satisfactorily settled; and great obscurity still hangs both over the manner and the effect of the change.

Few things in history, when carefully investigated, do really prove to have been done in a hurry. Sudden revolutions are much less common than we are apt to suppose, and fewer links than we imagine are wanting in the great chain of causes and effects. Could we place ourselves above the exaggerations of partizans, who hold it a point of honour to prove certain events to be indiscriminately right or indiscriminately wrong, we should probably find that the course of human affairs had been one steady and very gradual progression; the reputation of individual men would perhaps be shorn of part of its lustre; and though we should lose some of the satisfaction of hero-worship, we might more readily admit the constant action of a superintending providence, operating without caprice through very common and every-day channels. But it would have been too much to expect an impartial account of the events which led to the reformation of the Benedictine order in England; like Luther in the fifteenth, Dúnstán must be made the principal figure in the picture of the tenth century: throughout all great social struggles the protagonist stalks before us in gigantic stature,—glorious as an archangel, or terrible and hideous as Satan.

The writers who arose shortly after the triumph of the Reformation have revelled in this fruitful theme. The abuses of monachism,—not entirely forgotten at the beginning of the seventeenth century,—its undeniable faults, and the mischief it entails upon society,—judged with the exaggeration which unhappily seems inseparable from religious polemics, produced in every part of Europe a succession of violent and headlong attacks upon the institution and its patrons, which we can now more readily understand than excuse. But just as little can the calm, impartial judgment of the historian ratify the indiscriminate praise which was lavished by the Roman Catholics upon all whom the zeal of Protestants condemned, the misrepresentations of fact by which they attempted to fortify their opinions, or the eager credulity which they showed when any tale, however preposterous, appeared to support their particular objects. In later times the controversy has been renewed with greater decency of language, but not less zeal. The champion of protestantism is the Rev. Mr. Soames: Dr. Lingard takes up the gauntlet on behalf of his church. It is no intention of mine to balance their conflicting views as to the character and intentions of Dúnstán and his two celebrated coadjutors; these have been too deeply tinged by the ground-colour that lies beneath the outlines. But I propose to examine the facts upon which both parties seem agreed, though each may represent them variously in accordance with a favourite theory.

It admits of no doubt whatever that monachism, and monachism under the rule of St. Benedict, had been established at an early period in this country[955]; but it is equally certain that the strict rule had very generally ceased to be maintained at the time when Dúnstán undertook its restoration. Many of the conventual churches had never been connected with monks at all; while among the various abbeys which the piety or avarice of individuals had founded, there were probably numerous instances where no rule had ever prevailed, but the caprice of the founders, who _iure dominii_ imposed such regulations as their vanity suggested, or their industry gleaned from the established orders of Columba, Benedict, and other credited authorities[956]. The chapters, whatever their origin, had in process of time slid into that easy and serene state of secular canons, which we can still contemplate in the venerable precincts of cathedral closes. The celibacy of the clergy had not been maintained: and even in the collegiate churches the presbyter and prebendaries had permitted themselves to take wives, which could never have been contemplated even by those who would have looked with indulgence upon that connexion on the part of parish priests. Moreover in many places, wealthy ease, power, a dignified and somewhat irresponsible position had produced their natural effect upon the canons, some of whom were connected with the best families of the state; so that, in spite of all the deductions which must be made for exaggeration on the part of the monkish writers, we cannot deny that many instances of profligacy and worldly-mindedness did very probably disgrace the clerical profession. It would be strange indeed if what has taken place in every other age and country should have been unexampled only among the Anglosaxons of the ninth and tenth centuries, or that their monks and clergy should have enjoyed a monopoly of purity, holiness and devotion to duty[957].

Footnote 955:

Mr. Soames (Anglosax. Church, p. 179, third edit.) says that Dúnstán’s
monastery at Glastonbury was the first establishment of the kind ever
known in England, and Dúnstán the first of English Benedictine abbots.
Nothing can possibly be more inexact than this assertion. Biscop’s
foundation at Wearmouth was a Benedictine one. In an address to his
monks, he himself is represented to say:—“Ideo multum cavetote,
fratres, semper, ne secundum genus unquam, ne deforis aliunde vobis
Patrem quaeratis; sed iuxta quod Regula magni quondam abbatis
Benedicti, iuxta quod privilegii nostri continent decreta, in conventa
vestrae congregationis communi consilio perquiratis, qui secundum
vitae meritum et sapientiae doctrinam aptior ad tale ministerium
perficiendum digniorque probetur; et quemcunque omnes unanimae
charitatis inquisitione optimum cognoscentes eligeretis, hunc vobis,
accito episcopo, rogetis abbatem consueta benedictione formari.” Beda,
Vit. Bened. § 12. (Opera Minora, ii. 151.) The same author tells us of
abbot Céolfrið:—“Multa diu secum mente versans, utilius decrevit, dato
Fratribus praecepto, ut iuxta sui statuta privilegii, iuxtaque Regulam
sancti abbatis Benedicti, de suis sibi ipsi Patrem, qui aptior esset,
eligerent, etc.” Vit. Bened. § 16. (Op. Min. ii. 156.) The author of
the anonymous life of St. Cúðberht, which is earlier than that of
Beda, says of Cúðberht at Lindisfarne:—“Vivens ibi quoque secundum
sanctam Scripturam, contemplativam vitam in actuali agens, et nobis
regularem vitam primus componens constituit, quam usque hodie cum
Regula Benedicti observamus.” Anon. Cúðb. § 25. (Bed. Op. Min. ii.
271.) At a still later period, viz. the close of the seventh century,
we learn that the monastery of Hnutscilling or Nursling in Hampshire
was a Benedictine one, and St. Boniface a Benedictine monk. His
contemporary biographer Willibald says:—“Maxime suo sub regulari
videlicet disciplina abbati, monachica subditus obedientia praebebat,
ut labore manuum cottidiano et disciplinali officiorum amministratione
incessanter secundum praefinitam beati Patris Benedicti rectae
constitutionis formam insisteret,” etc. Vit. Bonif. Pertz, ii. 336.
One can hardly imagine how Mr. Soames should suffer himself to be
misled by the exaggerations of Dúnstán’s monkish biographers: they are
of a piece with their whole story. That the rule had become very much
relaxed even in the Benedictine abbeys of this country is not to be
doubted: the same thing took place on the continent. Many had perished
in the Danish invasions; many had passed insensibly into the hands of
secular canons: and it is not at all improbable that in the middle of
the tenth century there was not a genuine Benedictine society left in
England. But this will certainly not justify the assertions of
Bridferð or Adelard, that Dúnstán was the first of English Benedictine
monks or abbots. “Et hoc praedicto modo saluberrimam sancti Benedicti
sequens institutionem, primus abbas Anglicae nationis enituit,”
(Bridferð. MS. Cott. Cleop. B. xii. fol. 72.)—“Monachorum ibi scholam
primo primus instituere coepit,”—(Adel. in Angl. Sacra, ii. 101
_note_) are at the least grave mistakes: one desires to believe that
they are not something worse; but they warn us to be extremely
cautious how we admit the authority of their writers as to any facts
they may please to record.

Footnote 956:

On this point Beda speaks most explicitly: “Sunt loca innumera, ut
novimus omnes, in monasteriorum ascripto vocabulum, sed nihil prorsus
monasticae conversationis habentia.” Ep. Ecgb. § 10. “Quod enim turpe
est dicere, tot sub nomine monasteriorum loca hi, qui monachicae vitae
prorsus sunt expertes, in suam ditionem acceperunt, sicut ipse melius
nosti,” etc. Ibid. § 11. “At alii graviore adhuc flagitio, quum sint
ipsi laici et nullius vitae regularis vel usu exerciti, vel amore
praediti, data regibus pecunia, emunt sibi sub praetextu monasteriorum
construendorum territoria, in quibus suae liberius vacent libidini, et
haec insuper in ius sibi haereditarium edictis regalibus faciunt
ascribi, ipsas quoque litteras privilegiorum suorum, quasi veraciter
Deo dignas, pontificum, abbatum et potestatum seculi, obtinent
subscriptione confirmari. Sicque usurpatis sibi agellulis sive vicis,
liberi exinde a divino simul et humano servitio, suis tantum inibi
desideriis laici monachis imperantes deserviunt; immo non monachos ibi
congregant, sed quoscunque ob culpam inobedientiae veris expulsos
monasteriis alicubi forte oberrantes invenerint, aut evocare
monasteriis ipsi valuerint; vel certe quos ipsi de suis satellitibus
ad suscipiendam tonsuram, promissa sibi obedientia monachica, invitare
quiverint. Horum distortis cohortibus suas, quas instruxere, cellas
implent, multumque informi atque inaudito spectaculo, idem ipsi viri
modo coniugis ac liberorum procreandorum curam gerunt, modo
exsurgentes do cubilibus, quid intra septa onasteriorum geri debeat
sedula intentione pertractant.... Sic per annos circiter triginta, hoc
est ex quo Aldfrid rex humanis rebus ablatus est, provincia nostra
vesano illo errore dementata est, ut nullus pene exinde praefectorum
extiterit, qui non huiusmodi sibi monasterium in diebus suae
praefecturae comparaverit, suamque simul coniugem pari reatu nocivi
mercatus astrinxerit; ac praevalente pessima consuetudine, ministri
quoque regis ac famuli idem facere sategerint. Atque ita ordine
perverso innumeri sunt inventi, qui se abbates pariter et praefectos,
sive ministros, aut famulos regis appellant; qui, etsi aliquid vitae
monasterialis ediscere laici, non experiendo sed audiendo, potuerint,
a persona tamen illa ac professione, quae hanc docere debeat, sunt
funditus exsortes; et quidem tales repente, ut nosti, tonsuram pro suo
libitu accipiunt, suo examine de laicis non monachi sed abbates
efficiuntur.” Ibid. § 12, 13. (Bed. Op. Min. ii. 216, 218 _seq._) On
these and other grounds Beda earnestly impresses upon Ecgberht the
duty of founding the twelve bishoprics contemplated by Gregory in the
province of York, in order to multiply the means of ecclesiastical
supervision. But if this was the condition of the Northumbrian
monasteries in the year 734, the period of Northumbria’s greatest
literary eminence, what may we conclude to have been the condition of
similar establishments in less instructed parts of England, especially
after a century of cruel wars had relaxed all the bonds of civilized
society? We may not greatly admire monachism, or believe it useful to
a state; but we can hardly blame those, who, finding the institution
in existence, desire to make the men who are attached to it worthy and
not unworthy members of their profession.

Footnote 957:

In the often-cited letter to Ecgberht, Beda gives but a bad character
to some among the prelates of his time. He says: “Quod non ita loquor,
quasi te aliter facere sciam, sed quia de quibusdam episcopis fama
vulgatum est, quod ipsi ita Christo serviant, ut nullos secum alicuius
religionis aut continentiae viros habeant; sed potius illos qui risui,
iocis, fabulis, commessationibus, et ebrietatibus, caeterisque vitae
remissioris illecebris subigantur, et qui magis quotidie ventrem
dapibus quam mentem sacrificiis coelestibus pascant.” § 4 (Op Min. ii.
209, 210).

-----

As we have seen already, it was only towards the end of the eighth century that Chrodogang introduced a cœnobitical mode of life in the cathedral of his archdiocese. Long before this time the great majority of our churches had been founded; and among them some may possibly from the first have been served by clergymen resident in their own detached houses, and who merely met at stated hours to perform their duties in the choir, living at other times apart upon their præbenda or allowances from the general fund. But some of the cathedrals had been founded in connexion with abbeys; and it is probable that a majority of these great establishments were provided with some Rule of life, and demanded a cœnobitical though not strictly monastic habit. This is too frequently alluded to by the prelates of the seventh century, not to be admitted. But whatever may have been the details in different establishments, we may be certain that residence, temperance, soberness, chastity, and a strict attendance upon the divine services were required by the Rule of every society. Unfortunately these are restrictions and duties which experience proves to have been sometimes neglected; nor can we find any great improbability in the assertion of the Saxon Chronicle, that the canons of Winchester would hold no rule at all[958]; or in the accusations brought against them in the Annals of Winchester[959], and in Wulfstán’s Life of Æðelwold[960], of violating every one of their obligations. I do not see any reason to doubt the justice of the charge made against some of their body by the last-named author, of having deserted the wives they had taken, and living in open and scandalous disregard of morality as well as canonical restraint. Wulfstán very likely made the most of his facts, but it is to be remembered that he was an eye-witness; and it is improbable that he should have been indebted exclusively to his invention for charges so boldly made, so capable of being readily brought to the test, and containing in truth nothing repugnant to our experience of human nature. The canons of Winchester, many of whom were highly connected, wealthy beyond those of most other foundations, and established in the immediate vicinity of the royal court, may possibly have been more than ordinarily neglectful of their duties[961]; and they do appear in fact to have been treated in a much more summary way than the prebendaries of other cathedrals; yet perhaps not with strict justice, unless it can be shown that Winchester was ever a monastic establishment, which, previous to Æðelwold, I do not remember it to have been. Lingard who would have gratefully accepted any evidence against the canons in the other cathedrals, confines himself to Winchester; yet it strikes one as some confirmation of the general charge, even against their brethren at Worcester, that among the signatures to their charters so few are those of deacons and presbyters, till long after Oswald’s appointment to the see. This, although the silence of their adversaries allows us to acquit them of the irregularities laid to the charge of the canons at Winchester, may lead us to infer that they were not scrupulously diligent in fulfilling the duties of their calling.

-----

Footnote 958:

“Dráf út ða clerca of ða biscopríce, forðan ðæt hí noldon nán Regul
healdan.” Chron. Sax. an. 963.

Footnote 959:

“Clerici illi, nominetenus Canonici, frequentationem chori, labores
vigiliarum, et ministerium altaris vicariis suis utcumque sustentatis
relinquentes, et ab aecclesiae conspectu plerumque absentes septennio,
quidquid de praebendis percipiebant, locis et modis sibi placitis
absumebant. Nuda fuit aecclesia intus et extra.” An. Wint. p. 289.

Footnote 960:

“Erant Canonici nefandis scelerum moribus implicati, elatione et
insolentia, atque luxuria praeventi, adeo ut nonnulli eorum
dedignarentur missas suo ordine celebrare, repudiantes uxores quas
illicite duxerant, et alias accipientes, gulae et ebrietati iugiter
dediti.” Vit. Æðelw. p. 614.

Footnote 961:

The description of a secular clerk given by the anonymous author of
the Gesta Abbatum Fontanellensium, written in the ninth century, was
probably not exaggerated. He says of Wido, a relative of Charles
Martel, “Erat de saecularibus clericis, gladioque quem semispatium
vocant semper accinctus, sagoque pro cappa utebatur, parumque
aecclesiasticae disciplinae imperiis parebat. Nam copiam canum
multiplicem semper habebat, cum qua venationi quotidie insistebat,
sagittatorque praecipuus in arcubus ligneis ad aves feriendas erat,
hisque operibus magis quam aecclesiasticae disciplinae studiis se
exercebat.” It does not surprise us to learn that this prelate was
also “ignarus litterarum.” Pertz, i. 284, 285.

-----

We cannot feel the least surprise that Dúnstán desired to reform the state of the church. The peculiar circumstances of his early years, even the severe mental struggles which preceded and explain his adoption of the monastic career, were eminently calculated to train him for a _Reviver_; and Revival was the fashion of his day. Arnold earl of Flanders[962] had lent himself with the utmost zeal to the reform of the Benedictine abbeys in his territory, and they were the models selected for imitation, or as schools of instruction, by other lands, especially England so closely connected with Flanders by commerce and the alliances of the reigning houses[963]. Yet with it all, Dúnstán does not appear to have taken a very prominent part in the proceedings of the friends of monachism,—certainly not the prominent part taken by Oswald or Æðelwold, the last of whom merited the title of the “Father of Monks,” by the attention he paid to their interests. In the archbishop’s own cathedral at Canterbury, the canons were left in undisturbed possession of their property and dignity, nor were monks introduced there by archbishop Ælfríc till some years after Dúnstán’s death. And even this measure, although supported by papal authority[964], was not final: it was only in the time of Lanfranc that the monks obtained secure possession of Christchurch. Dúnstán very probably continued throughout his life to be a favourer of the Order, and merited its gratitude by giving it valuable countenance and substantial protection against violence. But he was assuredly not himself a violent disturber, casting all things divine and human into confusion for the sake of a system of monkery. His recorded conduct shows nothing of the kind. I believe his monkish and very vulgar-minded panegyrists to have done his character and memory great wrong in this respect; and that they have measured the distinguished statesman by the narrow gauge of their own intelligence and desire. Troublous no doubt were his commencements; and in the days of his misery, while his mind yet tossed and struggled among the awful abysses of an unfathomed sea in the fierce conflicts of his ascetic retirement, where the broken heart sought rest and found it not, he may have given credence himself to what he considered supernatural visitations vouchsafed, and powers committed, to him. But when time had somewhat healed his wounds, when the first difficulties of his political life were surmounted, and he ruled England,—nominally as the minister of Eádgár, really as the leader of a very powerful party among the aristocracy,—there can be little doubt that the spirit of compromise, which always has been the secret of our public life, produced its necessary effect upon himself. Dúnstán was neither Richelieu nor Mazarin, but the servant of a king who wielded very limited powers; he had first attained his throne through a revolt, the pretext for which was his brother’s bad government, and its justification,—the consequent right of the people to depose him. Whatever may have been the archbishop’s private leaning, he appears to have conducted himself with great discretion, and to have very skilfully maintained the peace between the two embittered factions; he perhaps encouraged Eádgár to manifest his partiality for monachism by the construction or reform of abbeys; he probably supported Oswald and Æðelwold by his advice, and by preventing them from being illegally interfered with in the course of their lawful actions; but as prime minister of England, he maintained the peace as well for one as for the other, and there is no evidence that any measure of violence or spoliation took place by his connivance or consent. Neither the nation, nor the noble families whose scions found a comfortable provision and sufficient support in the prebends, would have looked calmly upon the unprovoked destruction of rights sanctioned by prescription. But there is indeed no reason to believe that violent measures were resorted to in any of the establishments, to bring about the changes desired. Even in Winchester, where more compulsion seems to have been used than anywhere else, the evicted canons were provided with pensions. I strongly suspect that in fact they did retain during their lives the prebends which could not legally be taken from them, though they might be expelled from the cathedral service and the collegiate buildings; and that this is what the monkish writers veil under the report that pensions were assigned them.

-----

Footnote 962:

Arnold died in 904, but his reforms began twenty years earlier.
However, between the years 912 and 942, Berno, and his still more
celebrated successor Odo, abbots of Cluny, had introduced a reform of
the Benedictine rule in a great number of monasteries. Flodoardus
calls Odo: “Dominus Odo, venerabilis abbas, multorum restaurator
monasteriorum, sanctaeque Regulae reparator.” See Pagi. Baron, ad an.
942. This example was not lost upon Dúnstán.

Footnote 963:

“Baudouin le chauve, II^e comte de Flandre, s’empara, en 900, des deux
abbayes de St. Vaast et St. Bertin.... Dès l’année 944,
Arnould-le-vieux, rentré en possession de St. Vaast, entreprit la
réforme de ces abbayes, par les soins de St. Gérard de Brognes, qu’il
nomma abbé de St. Bertin. Il le chargea ensuite (probablement vers
950) de celle des abbayes de St. Pierre et de St. Bavon à Gand, qu’il
avait également sous son pouvoir: Womare en fut nommé abbé. Ces
reformes, sans doute d’après la règle de Cluny, créé en 910 [read 912
not 910], s’étendirent d’après la chronique de St. Bertin (Thes.
Anecd. iii. 552, 553), à dix-huit abbayes de l’ordre de Saint Benoit
(Chron. de Jean de Thielrode, édit. de M. Vanlokeren, p. 127). Les
moines qui refusèrent de s’y soumettre, furent expulsés de leurs
monastères: quelques-uns émigrèrent en Angleterre ou ailleurs.”
Warnkönig, Hist. Fland. ii. 338 _seq._ In 956 Dúnstán flying from
England, found hospitality and rest in one of these reformed houses,
that of Blandinium or St. Peter, at Ghent.

Footnote 964:

Chron. Sax. an. 995. Probably it never had been monastic from the very
time of Augustine: and the setting up a claim on the part of the
monks, derived from Augustine himself, was totally inadmissible.

-----

Dr. Lingard has very justly observed that Oswald, with all his zeal, made no change whatever in his cathedral of York, which archdiocese he at one time held together with Worcester; and that, generally speaking, the new monasteries were either reared upon perfectly new ground, or on ancient foundations then entirely reduced to ruins[965]. With regard to Worcester, he says:—“Of Oswald we are told that he introduced monks in the place of clergymen into seven churches within his bishopric; but there is reason to believe that some of the seven were new foundations, and that in some of the others the change was effected with the full consent of the canons themselves. In his cathedral he succeeded by the following artifice. Having erected in its vicinity a new church to the honour of the Virgin Mary, he entrusted it to the care of a community of monks, and frequented it himself for the solemn celebration of mass. The presence of the bishop attracted that of the people; the ancient clergy saw their church gradually abandoned; and after some delay, Wensine, their dean, a man advanced in years and of unblemished character, took the monastic habit, and was advanced three years later to the office of prior. The influence of his example and the honour of his promotion, held out a strong temptation to his brethren; till at last the number of canons was so diminished by repeated desertions, that the most wealthy of the churches of Mercia became without dispute or violence, by the very act of its old possessors, a monastery of Benedictine monks[966]. In what manner Oswald proceeded with the other churches we are ignorant; but in 971 he became archbishop of York, and though he held that high dignity during twenty years, we do not read that he introduced a single colony of monks or changed the constitution of a single clerical establishment, within the diocese. The reason is unknown.”

-----

Footnote 965:

Hist. and Ant. Ang. Church, ii. 290, 294. This was certainly the case
with several of Æðelwold’s monasteries; and I regret to think that
many of the Saxon charters which pretend to the greatest antiquity
were forged on occasion of this revival, to enlarge the basis of the
restored foundations.

Footnote 966:

Eadmer, Vit. Oswald, p. 202. Ang. Sac. i. 542. Hist. Rames. p. 400.

-----

It might not unfairly be suggested either that the rights of the canons were too well established to be shaken, or that experience had changed his own mind as to the necessity of the alteration. High station, active engagement with the details of business, increasing age, and a natural mutual respect which grows with better acquaintance, may have convinced Oswald that his youthful zeal had a little outrun discretion, and that the canons in his province and diocese were not so utterly devoid of claims to consideration as he once had imagined in his reforming fervour. But the reader of Anglosaxon history will not fail to have observed that the measured and in general fair tone of Dr. Lingard differs very widely from that of early monkish chroniclers, and that he himself attributes to Oswald a much less active interference than is asserted by many protestant historians. That he is right I do not for a moment doubt; for not only are the accounts of Oswald’s biographers inconsistent with one another, and improbable, but we have very strong evidence that the eviction of the canons from Worcester was not completed in Oswald’s lifetime. We possess no fewer than seventy-eight charters granted by his chapter, and these comprise several signed in 990 and 991, the years immediately preceding that in which he died[967]: these charters are signed in part by presbyters and deacons, in part by clerics, and there is but one signature of a monk[968], though there are at least six _clerici_ who subscribe. Although from an examination of the charters I entertain no doubt that several, if not all, the presbyters and deacons were monks, still it is clear that a number of the canons still retained their influence over the property of the chapter till within a few months of Oswald’s decease. This prelate came to his see in 960, and according to many accounts immediately replaced the canons of Worcester by monks: all agree that he lost no time about it, and Florence[969], himself a monk of that place, fixes his triumph in the year 969. Consistently with this we have a grant of that year[970], in which Wynsige the monk, and all the monks at Worcester are named: we have a similar statement[971] in another document of 974: and in subsequent charters monks are named. A good example occurs in a grant of the year 977, to which are appended the names of eight monks[972]: but coupled with these are also the names of sixteen clerics, exclusive of a presbyter and deacon of old standing, whom the chapter had probably caused to be ordained long before, to do the service for them. All at once the addition _monachus_ to seven of these eight names vanishes, and is replaced by _presbyter_ or _diaconus_. Henceforth the number of _clerici_ gradually diminishes, but, as we have seen, is not entirely gone in 991, the year before Oswald’s death. I do not believe that the bishop had any power to expel the canons, and that he was compelled to let them remain where they were until they died: but he perhaps could prevent any but monks from being received in their places, and it is to be presumed that he could refuse to admit any but monks to priests’ and deacons’ orders. This, we may gather from the charters, was the plan he pursued; and when we consider the dignity and power possessed by the Anglosaxon priesthood, we shall confess that it was one which threw every advantage into the scale of monachism.

-----

Footnote 967:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 674-678.

Footnote 968:

In Nos. 675, 678. In the other charters where this Leófwine occurs, he
is even called _clericus_, unless it were another person of the same
name.

Footnote 969:

An. 969. “S. Oswaldus, sui voti compos effectus, clericos Wigorniensis
aecclesiae monachilem habitum suscipere renuentes de monasterio
expulit; consentientes vero, hoc anno, ipso teste monachizavit, cisque
Ramesiensium coenobitam Wynsinum, magnae religionis virum, loco decani
praefecit.”

Footnote 970:

Cod. Dipl. No. 553.

Footnote 971:

Ibid. No. 586.

Footnote 972:

Ibid. No. 615.

-----

Had we similar means of enquiry, it is very probable that we should come to the same conclusion with regard to other establishments from which the canons are said to have been forcibly driven. However enough seems to have been said, to prove that we must be very careful how we trust to the random assertions of partizans either on one side or the other. Let us be ready to condemn ecclesiastical tyranny and arrogance, wherever it is proved to have disgraced the clerical profession; but let us not forget that it is our duty to judge charitably. In the case which we have now considered, I think we shall be disposed to acquit some men, whose names fill a conspicuous place in Saxon history, of the violence and folly which their own over-zealous partizans have laid to their charge, and which have been used in modern times to embitter the separation unfortunately existing between two great bodies of Christians.