Kenrick-Glennon Seminary

“Behold, your servants love her very stones :”Dunbrody Abbey and the Cistercian Ideal

byRev. Mr. Andrew Joseph Walsh

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Schoolof Kenrick-Glennon Seminary in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Arts in Theology

Msgr. Michael J. WittResearch Advisor

2013

Contents

Introduction 3

1 Dunbrody Abbey:History and Architecture 7

1.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.2 Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3 Architectural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.3.1 The Abbey Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.3.2 Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.3.3 Cloister . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.3.4 East Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171.3.5 South Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.3.6 West Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.3.7 Other Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2 Sources of Cistercian Monasticism 22

2.1 Early Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2 Saint Benedict of Nursia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.3 The Spread and Reform of the Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2.4 Cluny and the Age of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3 The Foundation and Spreadof the Cistercian Order 34

3.1 The Beginnings of the Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.2 Saint Bernard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.2.1 Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393.2.2 Combating Wayward Monastic Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403.2.3 The Bernadine Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.3 The Cistercian Order Enters Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453.3.1 Saint Malachy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.4 The Ordor of Savigny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Conclusion 50

1

Appendices 53

Processions in 11th and 12th c. Cistercian Monasteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Plan of Dunbrody Abbey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Plan of Saint Gall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Plan of Roche Abbey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cistercian Abbeys in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Bibliography 62

Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2

Introduction

The very stones incorporated into a unified architectural structure in the Cistercian Order

expressed the ideal of monastic life as inherited from Saint Benedict and interpreted through

the important figures of the Cistercian Order. The tight organizational framework of the

Order, along with a consistent monastic architectural plan, ensured proper observance of

monastic discipline with the goal of individual and communal sanctification. Dunbrody

Abbey in County Wexford, Ireland, was no exception and, through an investigation of this

monastery, the remote and proximate historical influences may be explored. Dunbrody will

provide an entry point into the unique, vast, and complex historical reality of the Cistercian

Order.

A monastery, according to Saint Benedict, has as its guiding principle the desire to be

a “school in the Lord’s service.”1 In this school that lasts a lifetime, the individual learns

to serve God through collective, social, and public worship and in personal sanctification.

The monastery therefore has both a private character, the sanctification of the individuals

who follow the monastic rule of life, and one that is public and visible. As Pope Benedict

XVI wrote, “a hidden monastic life has its own raison d’etre but a monastery also has its

public purpose in the life of the Church and of society, and it must give visibility to the faith

as a force of life.”2 This public purpose had a fundamental influence on the development of

European civilization and culture from the fifth century until today.

Beginning in the fifth century, Benedictine monastic life grew and developed alongside

1Saint Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, in Rb 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and Englishwith Notes, ed. Timothy Fry (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Pr, 1981), Prologue.

2Benedict XVI, General Audience on Saint Benedict of Norcia (9 April 2008), at The Holy See,www.vatican.va.

3

the culture for the next four hundred years. In the eleventh century the western world

rediscovered the lost philosophy and science of the ancient world that influenced leaders

of the Church to revisit the model of the primitive Church.3 The appeal of the primitive

Church gained strength through the reforms of Pope Gregory VII that sought to restore the

discipline and order of the early Church. These concerns coincided with the ferment that

troubled the monastic world of the time.

Very large and affluent abbeys such as Cluny and Saint-Denis dominated monastic life

in the early eleventh century. The corporate wealth, worldly involvements, and excessive

liturgical prayer of these abbeys and their daughter abbeys no longer satisfied many of those

who desired to become monks. Some sought new forms of religious life that focused on three

important themes: the desert ideal, the apostolic life, and a literal observance of the Rule of

Saint Benedict. One such group gathered around an abbot named Robert at the Abbey of

Molesme in eastern France. Robert and around twenty other zealous monks left the abbey

to found a new monastery at Citeaux where the Rule of Saint Benedict would be observed

in a simple and pristine manner.

It was difficult going for many years. Ecclesiastical authorities forced Robert to return

to his monastery, leaving the new monastery in the hands of newly elected Abbot Alberic in

1099, and Stephen Harding, who succeed him in 1109.4 Few postulants joined the struggling

monks, and the monastery was in danger of extinction when, in April of the year 1112,

Bernard of Fontaine knocked on the gate and sought admittance for himself and thirty other

young men. With this infusion of new blood, the Cistercian order, named after its founding

location, rapidly expanded and founded three more monasteries by 1115, when Bernard

became the Abbot of Clairvaux at the age of twenty-five. As a young abbot, Bernard

was able to define his conception of monastic life and put it into practice. Stressing the

importance of the evangelical counsels, Bernard recalled the need for a sober and measured

3C.H. Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism (New York: Longman, 2001), 146.4Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 173.

4

life, especially in the monastic building.5

The zeal that Bernard, Stephen Harding, and the other abbots had for the proper ob-

servance of the Rule necessitated a strict system of unity and filiation. This practice was

intended to keep the monks united in charity for the good of their souls. The Carta Cari-

tatis, written by Stephen Harding and approved at the General Chapter in 1119 expresses

the ideal of unity:

Now, however, we will and we command them, that they observe the Rule of theBlessed Benedict in everything just as it is observed in the New Monastery. Letthem not introduce a different meaning in the interpretation of the Holy Rule;but as our predecessors, the holy fathers - that is to say, the monks of the NewMonastery - understood and kept it, and as we today understand and keep it, solet them too understand and keep it.6

This fierce desire for unity and distinction from the other monastic communities was applied

to everything - to dress, food, furniture, and buildings. Today it is most evident in the unique

architectural style that the Cistercians developed to express their ideal of the monastic life.7

The ranks of the Cistercian order swelled with recruits seeking the “high road of supreme

progress toward Heaven.”8 In 1142 the influence of the Cistercians reached Ireland when

Bishop Malachy of Down brought Cistercian monks to Mellifont after he made two influential

visits with Bernard at Clairvaux.9 Ireland had a complex political geography and a church

in need of reform. Bishop Malachy believed his efforts to be the first step towards bringing

control and order to the Church in Ireland. Not surprisingly, the order grew and expanded in

Ireland to a total of thirty-four Cistercian monasteries, including ten founded by the Anglo-

Norman conquerors after their conquest of Ireland.10 Dunbrody Abbey in County Wexford

5Benedict XVI, General Audience on Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (21 October 2009), at The Holy See,www.vatican.va

6Carta Caritatis in English, at www.ocso.org.7Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 174.8Janet Burton and Julie Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK.: Boydell

Press, 2011), 21.9Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 47.

10Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 47.

5

was one such Cistercian monastery founded by an Anglo-Norman patron named Hervey of

Mount Maurice. In 1182 Abbot John O’Heyne and twelve other Cistercian monks left the

Abbey of Saint Mary in Dublin to found this new monastery.11 Building began immediately,

and in 1201, the Bishop of Ferns consecrated Dunbrody Abbey under the patronage of the

Blessed Virgin Mary imparting the Latin name Portus Sanctae Mariae on the abbey.

Though much ink has been spilled over the Cistercian Order by scholars in recent times,

very little has been written about Dunbrody Abbey, much less an examination of the com-

plexities that forged the identity of this Irish monastery. A geographical, archaeological,

architectural, and historical investigation of Dunbrody Abbey along with a study of the im-

portant remote influences on Cistercian monasticism after Bernard of Clairvaux will shed

light on the complex structure and history of medieval monasticism. These historical roots

are: early monastic sources, the Rule of Saint Benedict, early Cistercian sources, the writings

of Bernard, the Bernadine plan, and the Savigniac Order. Likewise, a study will be made

of the proximate influences: the patron and his land, the structure of filiation, and local

circumstances.

11Aubrey Gwynn and R. Neville Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland (London: Longman, 1970)131.

6

Chapter 1

Dunbrody Abbey:

History and Architecture

1.1 History

The immediate historical context for the founding of the monastery at Dunbrody was the

Anglo-Norman Conquest of Ireland. Before the conquest, there were fifteen Cistercian

monasteries in Ireland. During the period immediately following the conquest, the Anglo-

Normans founded ten monasteries: seven colonized from abbeys in England and Wales, two

colonized from Dublin, and one colonized from France.1 This great influx of new monasteries

was due in part to the well-established links between Ireland and the English church. After

the Norman incursion into Ireland, the English and Norman religious houses became the

first beneficiaries of the newly conquered lands.2

Henry II held a council at Winchester on September 29th 1155 to deliberate with his

nobility whether to conquer Ireland. Henry put off the expedition, since the idea was dis-

pleasing to his mother. Thinking that papal support might lessen her opposition, Henry

1Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 117.2Colman O Clabaigh,“The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” in The Irish Bene-

dictines: A History, ed. Martin Browne and Colman O Clabaigh (Dublin: The Columba Press, 2005),92.

7

sent an important delegation to Pope Adrian IV, an Englishman, seeking his permission to

invade Ireland. Henry based his petition on his desire to “extirpate the seeds of vice among

the Irish people” in a manner that would not injure the Christian community. To ensure

that his petition was granted, the king sought the help of John of Salisbury, a close friend

of Adrian. John visited the pope at Benevento, where Adrian resided from November 1155

to July 1156, and obtained the favor that Henry sought.3 John later recounted the event

in his philosophical work Metalogicus, “At my request he ceded and bestowed Ireland upon

the illustrious king of England, Henry II, to be possessed by hereditary right, as his letters

prove to this day.”4

Giraldus Cambrensis, a historian of the day, later published a papal bull entitled Laud-

abiliter, which he claims was the document given to John. The bull expresses the pope’s

approval of the king’s intention to enter Ireland for the purpose of improving the state of

religion while respecting the rights of the local Church authorities and the Apostolic See.5

However, the bull does not grant Henry a “hereditary right” as John of Salisbury states.

Regardless, Lauabiliter provided the support that Henry sought and a historical citation for

Henry’s sovereignty in Ireland in the succeeding centuries. The king, having papal support,

needed only an opportunity to invade Ireland.

That opportunity came with the ejection of Dermot MacMurrough from his Leinster

Kingdom in 1166 by high king Rory O’Conor.6 MacMurrough, with the support of King

Henry II and several Anglo-Norman lords and knights, invaded Leinster and Meath in 1169.

Henry visited Ireland in 1171 to confirm and secure his power there as Lord of Ireland.

The king confirmed Richard de Clare, second Earl of Pembroke and Strigul (also known

3C. McGrath, “Laudabiliter,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed., vol. 8, ed. Berard Marthaler et al.(New York: Thomson Gale, 2003) 379.

4“Ad preces meas illustri regi Anglorum Henrico secundo, concessit et dedit Hiberniam jure haereditariopossidendam, sicute literae ipsius testantu in hodiernum diem.” John of Salisbury, Metalogicus, in JoannisSaresberiensis Opera Omnia, vol. v, (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik,1969), 205-206.

5McGrath, “Laudabiliter,” 379.6R. D. Edwards, “Ireland, the Catholic Church in,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed., vol. 7, ed.

Berard Marthaler et al. (New York: Thomson Gale, 2003) 554.

8

as Strongbow) as Lord of Leinster.7 With his newly acquired position, Richard looked to

reward his accomplices, beginning with his uncle Hervey of Mount Maurice. To his uncle,

Richard gave two baronies of land on the coast between Wexford and Waterford.8 Richard

also instructed his uncle Hervey to found a Cistercian monastery in County Wexford with his

land. The idea of founding a monastery may not have been entirely his own though; surviving

material “clearly indicates the presence of English monks in Ireland actively canvassing

support and benefactors for their communities.”9

In 1175 Hervey granted land and privileges in honor of God, St. Mary, and St. Benedict,

to the monks of Buildwas Abbey, for the construction of an Abbey of the Cistercian Order.

This grant, a copy of which is extant, became the Charter for the Abbey of Dunbrody. The

charter states that purpose of the grant was the benefit of Hervey’s soul, and “those of his

wife, ancestors, and heirs, as well as for the souls of King Henry and Earl Richard.”10 The

land is defined in the charter by references to hills, woods, plains, rivers, and highways.

The charter further specified that the monks were freed from all secular services, exactions,

or tolls, and that they were entrusted with the safety of any fugitives who sought their

protection. Richard de Clare soon after confirmed the grant of land.

Ranulph, Abbot of Buildwas, dispatched a careful lay brother to inspect the newly do-

nated land.11 The land seemed a solitary waste to the monk who found a hollow oak tree

to be the only shelter. Concluding his inspection of the extent and character of the land,

he returned to Buildwas with the unfavorable news.12 Nothing was done with the land until

November 1182 when Abbot Leonard of St. Mary’s Dublin discussed the matter with Abbot

Ranulph at Buildwas. At the meeting, Ranulph gave a complete quitclaim and left Hervey’s

grant to Leonard and the monks of St. Mary’s. The same year, John O’Heyne and twelve

7Edwards, “Ireland, the Catholic Church in,” 554.8John Thomas Gilbert ed., Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, Dublin: with the Register of its house at

Dunbrody, and Annals of Ireland (London, England: Longman, 1884), lxix. A barony was a subdivision ofa county of various sizes.

9O Clabaigh, “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” 93.10Gilbert, Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, lxxiii.11Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 60.12Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 131.

9

other monks left Dublin to found the new monastery at Dunbrody.13 Shortly thereafter,

Pope Lucius III confirmed the establishment of Portus Sanctae Mariae, the ecclesiastical ti-

tle of Dunbrody Abbey.14 A decade later Pope Celestine III issued a bull of foundation and

confirmation of the monastic lands along with their rights and liberties to Abbot Thomas

and his brother monks at Portus Sanctae Mariae.15 Celestine placed the abbey, the abbot,

the monks, and their successors under the protection of Saint Peter and the see of Rome. He

confirmed their possessions and decreed that the Rule of Saint Benedict and the institutes

of the Cistercian Order were to be perpetually maintained there. Celestine also granted

secular and ecclesiastical rights and privileges to the abbey. The bull was sealed in Rome by

Celestine on December 1st 1195 and bears the attestations of nineteen cardinals, deacons,

and bishops.16

1.2 Lands

The Cistercians had a strong affinity with their surroundings and considered the taming

of a landscape as a symbol of the soul’s return to God.17 Solitude, isolation, along with

productive lands and accessibility of water were the major factors in deciding on a site. If

land was donated to the Cistercians, the monks would often make the decision as to where

precisely on the patron’s land the monastery would be built. The monks based this decision

on many factors both spiritual and practical. Solitude and isolation were necessary for the

Cistercian lifestyle of prayer, study, and work. Productive land would provide sustenance

for the monastic community and a solid foundation for monastic buildings. Water provided

the monastery with a domestic supply for cooking, cleaning, and waste removal. These

conditions created a hierarchy of needs, which influenced the value of a site. Favorable sites

13Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 60.14Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 131.15Bulla magna fundacionis, et confirmacio omnium terrarum et libertatum domus. Gilbert, Chartularies

of St. Mary’s Abbey, 97.16Gilbert, Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, 104.17Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 56.

10

allowed a monastery to grow, whereas a restricted site would inhibit growth. On arrival, the

monks from Dublin would have made a thorough investigation of the sizable amount of land

they were given.18 They soon chose a site and began construction of temporary housing.

Early Cistercian legislation decided that the White Monks would receive “properties

far from the haunts of men.”19 They were contemplatives rather than hermits and their

sites were more secluded than remote. Generally they were separated from civilization, but

not cut off from the world, since their monasteries were relatively near transportation and

communications routes. Dunbrody follows this general rule since it has the characteristic

of being secluded while being located near Waterford harbor. The abbey’s nearness to this

body of water provided its name Portus Sanctae Marie (Port of St. Mary) and an apostolate

sheltering poor souls in need, especially those who came from the sea.20 Solid foundational

rock was, however, of foremost importance for siting a monastery, since building stone could

be brought in from a distance while foundational stone could not. Dunbrody abbey was sited

over slate, though the Cistercians in Ireland mainly sited their monasteries over limestone,

which was in abundance.21 Availability of good quality building stone on site enhanced the

quality of the location and Dunbrody was built with such local stone. The Dunbrody site

was also dry, which meant that time would not have been spent draining bogs or swamps.

Draining such sites was not uncommon for the Irish Cistercians, since they sought secluded

and sometimes desolate locations. The White Monks’ skill in land reclamation usually

triumphed over these and other obstacles, so that a common saying was that “they made

the desert bloom.”22

18One source calculates that Dunbrody Abbey and Tintern Minor Abbey held around 30,758 acres at thetime of the dissolution of the monasteries in the sixteenth century. Colmcille O Combhui, “The Extent ofCistercian Lands in Medieval Ireland,” in Cistercians in the Late Middle Ages, Studies in Medieval CistercianHistory VI, ed. E. Rozanne Elder (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981), 66.

19Exordium Parvum, chapter XV.20Geraldine Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland by the Canons Regular of St

Augustine and the Cistercians, Cistercian Fathers 56 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982), 16.21Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 49.22Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 14. See also the technological advancements

introduced throughout Europe in Thomas Woods, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization(Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2005), 33-35.

11

Another important concern in site selection was water management. River valleys formed

the location of a majority of Cistercian monasteries, since they could provide a constant

supply of water for both the domestic purposes and for power supply.23 Water channeled or

piped from the river located uphill from the monastery provided water pressure and velocity.

The river valley in which Dunbrody is situated is unique due to its relative lack of slope

and distance from its water source. The River Barrow, located 528 feet from the monastery,

provided the water source for Dunbrody. This is the furthest distance from a domestic water

source of all the Cistercian monasteries in Ireland.24

1.3 Architectural Elements

1.3.1 The Abbey Church

Perhaps the most architecturally significant part of Dunbrody is the abbey church.25 The

construction of the new Anglo-Norman abbeys at the beginning of the thirteenth century

introduced rudiments of Early Gothic architecture to Ireland and led to some important revi-

sions in Cistercian church design.26 The church at Dunbrody is one of the largest Cistercian

churches in Ireland, stretching over two hundred feet from west to east. The transepts too

are truly massive, measuring 139 feet 6 inches and containing three side chapels in each arm

of the transept for the celebration of Mass.27 From the inside, which had a barrel-vaulted

ceiling, the church is very stark and even barn-like. This utilitarian approach to church

architecture is very typical of the Cistercians who hoped to create a “workshop of prayer.”

The spatial impression of the church is one of width instead of height, which created a vast

23Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 28.24Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 27.25See Appendix 2 for the ground plan for Dunbrody Abbey.26Christopher Norton and David Park, Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986), 127.27Roger Stalley, “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland, 1142-1272,” in Cistercian Art and

Architecture in the British Isles, ed Christopher Norton and David Park (New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1986), 127.

12

cavernous space. The transepts were equally stark with wide expanses of unbroken wall

space, the chapels and the night stairs giving slight relief. The night stairs connected the

monks’ dormitory with the choir in the eastern part of the church for the night office of

vigils.28

A few features of the abbey church helped it appear less severe. The west facade and

entrance at Dunbrody was perhaps the most attractive part of the church. Its vast window

was filled with a primitive form of plate tracery, an artistic technique that uses thick areas

of stone to separate the glass parts of the window. The entrance was magnificently adorned

with dog-tooth masonry work cut into the stone.29 This ornamental motif was very popu-

lar in Early Gothic architecture.30 One of the first striking features a person might notice

upon entering the church is the enormous bay length between the piers. The bay length at

Dunbrody was twenty-four feet, which was considerably larger than the average bay length

of eighteen feet. This resulted in fewer piers within the nave of the church than the typical

Cistercian church had. Although the piers and arches of Anglo-Norman abbeys were slightly

more ornate than their Irish counterparts, the fundamental designs were not different.31 An-

other peculiar architectural choice at Dunbrody was the placement of the clerestory level

windows above the piers instead of above the arches where they were typically placed. The

placement of these windows left a very disjointed impression.32 This unusual design is found

with surprising frequency in Irish Cistercian churches.33 Two parallel clerestory windows to-

wards the center of the nave were treated differently than the others. Here the windows were

subdivided and decorated with dog-tooth work. This extra ornament, which was adjacent to

the rood screen, was apparently intended to stress the division between the monks’ choir in

the east and that of the lay brothers in the west. It is one of the few instances in which the

28Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 206.29Roger Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland (London: Yale University Press, 1987), 99.30Alison Stones, Glossary of Medieval Art and Architecture at www.medart.pitt.edu 23 November 2012.31Norton, Cistercian Art and Architecture, 137.32Stalley, “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland,” 136.33Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 98.

13

liturgical arrangements of a Cistercian church were expressed in the church architecture.34

The eastern end of the church was very severe. The chancel or sanctuary was not vaulted

and had no architectural adornments; the ceiling consisted of merely timber roofing. This

type of chancel ceiling was a still a novelty at Dunbrody; earlier Cistercian churches erected

a gloomy barrel vault for the chancel. This lack of emphasis on vaulting was presumably de-

rived from an English Cistercian influence.35 The east wall had three graded lancet windows,

otherwise, the wall was exceptionally austere and without adornment. The presence of these

Early English lancets represents the most dramatic novelty of the church at Dunbrody.36

These windows would have flooded the high altars with light in contrast with the gloomy

chancels of early Irish Cistercian churches. Another intriguing architectural choice can be

seen only in the west transept. The wall and arch have banded masonry of yellow limestone

and dark sandstone. This seems a curious selection, since this style is typically found in

Islamic architecture. Its appearance only in the west transept leads one to believe that it

was merely a passing fad of one master builder.

1.3.2 Tower

In the fifteenth century, a surprising addition was made to the structure of the church that

radically changed the aesthetical qualities of the church both from the outside and the inside.

A very large tower was added to the crossing of the nave and the transepts. The originally

constructed church had no provision for such a tower.37 It is unclear why this curious addition

was made, but it is would be safe to surmise that the addition was made for a number of

reasons. Around the middle of the fifteenth century, Dunbrody was continually exposed to

attacks from the Kavanagh family, who made regular forays into south Wexford. Primarily,

then, the tower would have been used for defense. Another use of the tower was as a belfry,

34Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 98.35Stalley, “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland,” 128.36Stalley, “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland,” 128.37Stuart Harrison, “I lift up mine eyes: A Re-Evaluation of the Tower in Cistercian Architecture in Britain

and Ireland,” in Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude, ed Terryl N. Kinder (Turnhout, Belgium:Brepols Publishers, 2004), 133.

14

the bells of which would have been held on the second floor. The other floors of the tower

would have served various needs.

Around the time the tower was added to Dunbrody, many Irish Cistercian houses added

towers. The addition of these towers is remarkable because the Cistercian order decreed,

in 1157, that the construction of stone bell towers was forbidden.38 The French generally

obeyed this statute, but the Irish and occasionally the English flagrantly ignored this statute.

These towers were typically square in dimension, Dunbrody having the greatest dimensions

of the Irish Cistercian towers measuring 37 feet by 36 feet. Dunbrody also had the tallest

tower in Ireland with a measurement of 73 feet 6 inches. To compensate for the enormous

weight of the tower, massive reinforcements were added to the crossing inside the church.39

These pillars were massive, plain and characterless, suggesting the priority of stability over

elegance.40

1.3.3 Cloister

The heart of every monastery is the cloister, the innermost courtyard. Here, in silence, God

speaks to man, “This is why monasteries are oases in which God speaks to humanity; and

in them we find the cloister, a symbolic place because it is an enclosed space yet open to

Heaven.”41 As a symbolic place, twelfth century writers, such as Sicard of Cremona, believed,

“that the four sides of the cloister represented contempt of self, contempt of the world, love

of one’s neighbor and love of God.”42 Another view of the symbolic nature of the cloister was

that of Honorius Augustodunensis who saw the site of the cloister itself as replicating the

portico of Solomon constructed next to the holy temple in Jerusalem.43 Still others identified

38Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 141.39Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 71.40Stuart Harrison, “I lift up mine eyes”, 133.41Benedict XVI, General Audience on Man in Prayer (9) (10 August 2011), at The Holy See,

www.vatican.va.42Sicard of Cremona, Mitrale seu De Officiis Ecclesiasticis Summa, PL 213, cols 25-26. Cited in Megan

Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings: Thirteenth-Century English Cistercian Monasteries,Medieval Church Studies 1 (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2001), 64.

43Honorious Augustodunensis, De Claustro, PL 172, col. 590. Cited in Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spacesand Their Meanings, 64.

15

the cloister with the Garden of Eden. With such varied understandings of the cloister, one

thing was clear: the cloister was to be respected and well maintained.44

The cloister is made up of two parts, the cloister garth or open quadrangle and the cloister

arcade covered walkway.45 As a general rule these are built to the south of the church in

colder northern climates. The cloister arcade is a kind of crossroads for the inner of the

monastery, but they were more than simple corridors. The various sides of the corridor held

different functions. The east corridor held very little unused space. For example at Dunbrody

the east corridor held: the armarium or book cupboard; the entrance to the chapter room;

the entrance to the parlor and the day stairs leading up to the dormitory. One important

feature of the south corridor of Dunbrody is the lavabo, a communal and ritual washing

place, which was situated adjacent to the door of the refectory. The term lavabo means, “I

will wash” in Latin. The lavabo at Dunbrody, which is twelve feet in diameter, indicates the

relative wealth of the abbey since smaller abbeys only had basins inside the corridor. The

southern arcade was also the site of the mandatum.46 This practice, mandated by the Rule,

was the ritual washing of the monks’ feet by the abbot, after the example of Christ (John

13:14-15). The term mandatum comes from the Latin of John 13:34 “Mandatum novum do

vobis.”

The other sides of the cloister corridors held various, but important roles including the

northern corridor which was furnished and used for reading, lectio divina. The whole commu-

nity gathered before Compline for a daily Collations reading at John Cassian’s Conferences

and other edifying works.47 Lectio divina, which means “divine reading” in Latin is the

contemplative reading through which the monk sought communion with God. Lectio formed

part of the monastic day according to Benedict “idleness is the enemy of the soul; and there-

44Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 71.45Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 204.46“More generally, the association of mandatum and refectory was important to giving ‘architectural

definition’ to a liturgical event. The mandatum rite, done in imitation of Christ, who had washed the feet ofthe apostles prior to the Last Supper, carried with it meanings of humility, intimacy, and community. Thewashing of the feet was also symbolic of baptism, where water washes away sin, and provides both blessingand absolution.” Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings, 63.

47Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 72.

16

fore the brethren ought to be employed in manual labor at certain times, at others, in devout

reading (lectione divina).”48 The northern arcade also contained the wax tablet on which

was written the names of monks with particular duties for the week.49

The architectural design of the cloister arcade at Dunbrody is largely unknown, since time

and neglect destroyed almost all the cloister arcades of monasteries after the dissolution of

the monasteries by Henry VIII.50 A little is known about the arcaded walls at Dunbrody

thanks to extant fragments. It is known that the pseudo-colonettes of the arcade are round

dumbbell piers following Romanesque traditions. Another interesting fact about the cloister

of Dunbrody is that the dimensions were close to 120 feet square. This extensive cloister is

comparable with other well-endowed houses such as the great abbey of Fontenay.51

1.3.4 East Range

The east range of Dunbrody lay directly south of the transept of the church and contains

many important elements for the monastery. Immediately south of the transept was the

sacristy (vestiarium) that held the vestments, sacred vessels, and the books required for the

liturgy.52 There is no typical size or shape of the sacristy in Cistercian architecture and at

Dunbrody one large sacristy is connected to a smaller room, presumably an extension of the

sacristy. Beyond the sacristy lay the armarium or book-room, which held the monastery’s

collection of books. This collection probably numbered around sixty books, which were

required to be kept inter ecclesiam et capitulum (between church and chapter).53

The chapter room was a very important gathering place in the monastery of great signif-

icance. Liturgical, commemorative, disciplinary, and educational activities took place daily

in the chapter room, which takes its name from being the room where a chosen monk would

48Saint Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, chapter 48:1.49Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings, 49.50Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 153.51Stalley, “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland,” 127.52Terryl N. Kinder, Cistercian Europe: Architecture of Contemplation (Kalamazoo, MI: William B. Eerd-

mans, 2002), 243.53Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 244.

17

read a chapter of the Rule of Saint Benedict everyday.54 The chapter room at Dunbrody was

relatively small and consisted of six bays of ribbed vaulting which rested on octofoil pillars.55

The room is noted for its very intricate floor tiling, some of which is extant. The chapter

room at Dunbrody also contained the typical three windows, which allowed for direct light in

the mornings from the East.56 Different Cistercian houses had different sized and different

shaped chapter rooms, but they were all situated in the same place and served the same

function.57

Beyond the chapter lay a passageway leading from the outside of the east range to the

parlor. The parlor provided both an office for the prior who would daily distribute the work

tools and a room to speak to others in when necessary.58 Since the parlor was directly open

to the outside, further restriction was needed to maintain the cloister. This extra restriction

took the form of a passageway or slype that acted as a barrier between the parlor and the

cloister.59 Next to the parlor lay the undercroft or day room. This room is a standard part

of the plan and exists in almost every monastery, but its precise function is very difficult to

determine.60 Perhaps it was used as a place to instruct novices or as a task room during the

day. Regardless, it is certain that it held some central role for the monastery. At Dunbrody,

the undercroft was a large room with four vaulted compartments and four eastward facing

windows.61

Running the entire length of the east range on the second floor was the dormitory or

dorter. The Rule of Saint Benedict required this one large room that held the beds of the

monks.62 The day stairs in the east corridor of the cloister provided access to the dormitory

during the day and the night stairs at the far north of the dormitory provided direct access

54Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 72.55This is evident in Appendix 2.56Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 266.57Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 266.58Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 72.59Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 270.60Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 270.61See Appendix 2.62“If possible let all sleep in one place.” Saint Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 22.

18

to the church during the night for the night hours of the office (Vigils). To the south of

the dormitory lay the necessarium or latrine, in the typical Cistercian plan. This location

was usually situated in such way that a channel of water would flush out the system.63

After inspection of the remains, it remains unclear exactly how the water and latrine system

worked at Dunbrody.

1.3.5 South Range

The south range, also known as the refectory range, held three important rooms for the

Abbey of Dunbrody: the warming room, the kitchen, and the refectory. The first, immedi-

ately south of the day stairs, was the calefactorium or warming room. One of the only rooms

where fires were permitted, the warming room was used for only three activities: warming

oneself, greasing one’s shoes, and undergoing bloodletting.64 The layout situated the kitchen

at the western most end of the south range. The primary role of the kitchen, which was

staffed by a monk who served as the cook, was to prepare dishes for dinner and a pound loaf

of bread per person per day.65 Since the kitchen prepared food for both refectories, it was

situated between the monastic refectory and the lay brothers’ refectory.

Between the warming room and the kitchen lay the refectory. At Dunbrody, the layout

of the refectory is anomalous when compared to most other Cistercian houses. At most

monasteries, the refectory was perpendicular to the south cloister corridor while Dunbrody

and a few other Irish houses had refectories parallel to the cloister walk.66 This scheme is very

Benedictine, derived ultimately from the plan of Saint Gall.67 The decision to go with the

Benedictine style refectory is very curious considering that the other held several advantages:

adjustable length to suit the size of the community, a better balance of windows, and the

plan was more logical and striking in architectural terms.68 During meals the monks would

63Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 274.64Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 277.65Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 280.66Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 282-283.67Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 169.68Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 170.

19

eat in silence, listening to an appropriate reading by a lector at a pulpit.69 At Dunbrody, the

reader’s pulpit was situated along the south wall and was reached by a short mural staircase.

To accommodate the pulpit, the wall of the refectory widened at a point, which can be seen

on a drawing of the plan.

1.3.6 West Range

he domain of the lay brothers or conversi was typically the western range. The Cistercian

Order made great use of the lay brothers, who took monastic vows but lived a monastic life

oriented more toward manual labor than toward the celebration of the liturgy. Although

they also engaged in manual labor, the choir monks spent most of their time celebrating the

liturgy, praying lectio divina, and learning. Because of this, the lay brothers were essential

to the running of the monastery.70 Given the extant remains of Dunbrody, it is somewhat

unclear where the lay brothers’ facilities were.71 On the west range there only appears to

be a room about the size of the chapter room. If this was all the room the lay brothers

were given, it seems to indicate that there were relatively few lay brothers. Perhaps also

the lay brothers’ refectory was located on the bottom floor and their dormitory on an upper

floor. Furthermore, since the lay brothers’ quarters lay beyond the west wall of the church,

direct access to the church would have been impossible. This design is obviously inconsistent

with the ideal Cistercian plan, but it could be merely an adaptation of the plan for a much

smaller community. Adjacent to the lay brothers’ facilities was a gate through the wall to

the cloister. This gate, which had a porch on the outside, probably served a similar purpose

as the parlor on the eastern wall.72

69Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 286.70Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 305.71See Appendix 2.72Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 311.

20

1.3.7 Other Buildings

The main approach to a monastery was through a gatehouse, which allowed for increased

security. At the abbey of Dunbrody there remains fragmentary ruins of the monastic gate-

house southwest of the abbey, which marks the main road into the monastic community.

Next to the gatehouse is a small graveyard. Besides a gatehouse, the abbey of Dunbrody

seems to have had a prison, which was commonly used by the Cistercians for punishing way-

ward monks.73 In 1390 Richard II appointed his commissioner David Esmond to investigate

extortion in County Wexford. Soon he found himself captured by the abbot and monks of

Dunbrody and held in the monastic prison for sixteen days until he swore not to prosecute

any of them in his proceedings.74

73Kinder, Cistercian Europe, 311.74Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland, 174.

21

Chapter 2

Sources of Cistercian Monasticism

A selective review of the remote sources of Cistercian monasticism reveals many of the

impulses that drove the unique trajectory of Cistercian life in general and Cistercian archi-

tecture in particular. Although the Rule of Saint Benedict remained the normative source

that guided their reform, early Cistercian apologists regularly appealed to the authority of

pre-Benedictine monastic tradition.1 In doing this, they followed the example of Benedict,

who “expressly looked back to the classic examples of primitive monastic life” in order “to

put its very rich heritage into shape.”2 Desiring to restore observance of the Rule to its

original purity and integrity, “they interpreted the Rule itself in the light of the teaching of

the fathers of the Desert, and particularly of what [John] Cassian has preserved of it.”3

This is one of the main differences between the Cistercian monastic observance and the

spirit present at the great Abbey of Cluny. The Cluniacs saw themselves as true heirs to

Saint Benedict in adapting the Rule to the conditions of their time without the need to

appeal further back in the tradition. The Cistercians, on the other hand, “were more struck

by Saint Benedict’s many links with primitive monasticism and his desire to hand on its

essential heritage unspoilt.”4 Insistence on this point explains why the monastic observance

1Michael Casey, The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol.1 (Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1970),54.

2Louis Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958), 6.3Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage, 6-7.4Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage, 7.

22

at Citeaux “must be seen from the outset in the context of a much more general return

to everything primitive, with the explicit intention of seeking in the primitive not merely

archaism but purity and authenticity.”5

2.1 Early Sources

Christian monasticism finds its roots in Sacred Scripture especially in the life of Jesus Christ

with his apostles and in the life of the early Christians described in the Acts of the Apostles.

Jesus and his apostles were provided for through the generosity of fellow disciples through

a common purse held by Judas (cf. Lk 8:1-3; Jn 13:29). Following the death of Jesus, his

resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Acts of the Apostles states

that the primitive community was “together and had all things in common; and they sold

their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45)”

In two other places (Acts 4:32-35; 5:12-16), Saint Luke, the author of the Acts, describes

the communal life of the early Church emphasizing that they, “were of one heart and soul

(4:32).” This ideal existence is summed up in one word ‘communion’ or koinonia used in

Acts 2:42. Communion is an expression of the disposition of love created by Jesus Christ

and the Holy Spirit where brotherly love is willing to forego ownership for the sake of one

another.6

This type of communal life, presented by Saint Luke as an ideal of Christian life, was not

always lived up to (see Acts 5:1-11). The early disciples did, however, seek this way of life,

not only through their own efforts, but through the grace Christ won for man and offered

through his Church.7 Along with the sharing of goods, the early Church held communal

5Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage, 8.6This idea of imitating the communion of the early church was present in the symbolic understanding of

the cloister: “During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, representations of the cloister as portico of Solomonwere the subject of new interest . . . One of the reasons for the popularity of the cloister plan during theMiddle Ages was that this physical site could be metaphorically identified with the site where the apostleswere said to have gathered. The portico of Solomon was a place of communion, and for the monastery,provided a blueprint for the expression of apostolic community.” Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and TheirMeanings, 64.

7James Hitchcock, History of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 32.

23

prayer of prime importance. They turned toward God in prayer for the replacement of

Judas (Acts 1:24-26), for the naming and ordination of the first seven deacons (Acts 6:6),

and attended regular pray in the temple along with the celebration of the Eucharist (Acts

2:46-47). In addition to this life of communal prayer and living, the early Church experienced

persecution and martyrdom witnessed first through the stoning of Saint Stephen (Acts 7:57-

60). Challenged by this persecution and the real possibility of martyrdom, many early

Christians sought an ascetical spirit of renunciation and prayer. The passage of time and

the creeping of worldliness into Christianity through the imperial recognition of the Church

invigorated the drive for asceticism.8

Men and women withdrew to the deserts of Egypt, Syria, and Judea to live a solitary

life of renunciation and contemplative prayer. Their inspiration was the martyrs of earlier

centuries. Sulpicius Severus wrote of Saint Martin of Tours, leader of the monastic movement

in fourth-century Gaul: “To fast, to keep unceasing vigil, to lacerate the flesh, this also is

a martyrdom.”9 Saints Anthony, Paul of Thebes, Hilarion, and many others represent the

champions of this eremitic life in the desert. Gradually, Christians who sought an ascetical

life realized that it was easier and safer to pursue their life of prayer with the support of

an organized community engaged in the same task.10 The first organized effort appeared in

fourth-century Egypt through the work of Pachomius who saw the dangers of the solitary life

and of lax discipline.11 His monastery was a large community of men and women enclosed

in walls and focused around a church, a common refectory, and an infirmary.12 The monks

lived in simple houses containing around twenty monks under the direction of a prior who

was responsible for their instruction and spiritual guidance.

The life and work of Saint Basil of Caesarea represents another important link in the

monastic movement. After touring the hermitages of solitary men in Egypt and the Pacho-

8Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 3.9Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 3.

10Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 7.11Hitchcock, History, 105.12Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 7.

24

mian communities, he created a community at Caesarea. His monks constituted a spiritual

family living under one roof rather than the huge subdivided Pachomian colony.13 Basil saw

that a solitary life provided no occasion to practice humility, patience, or to perform works

of mercy: “If you live alone, whose feet will you wash?”14 Basil influenced monastic think-

ing through his attempt to bring monasticism under ecclesiastical control, his insistence on

the virtue of work, and in his concept of obedience to the head of the community. Another

monastic figure of the same time period brought the wisdom of the desert monks to the west.

After touring the monastic settlements of Egypt and listening to the practitioners of this

life, John Cassian settled in the south of Gaul and wrote the Institutes and Conferences. His

Institutes contained the first body of instruction on the monastic life to be produced in the

West while his Conferences provided a treasury of axioms and reflections on the techniques

and trials of the interior life of prayer.15

2.2 Saint Benedict of Nursia

By the fifth century, monasticism had struck roots in Italy and southern Gaul thanks to

the work of John Cassian and others who transmitted the ascetical tradition of the Eastern

desert to the West. Promoters of monasticism in the West shared one principal intention:

living the Christian faith more deeply and making it possible for others to do the same. The

way each of them realized this aim differed greatly. The varied rules and customs brought

about the novelty of perpetually wandering monks who were forever changing monasteries

as they pleased.16 This unstable and troublesome situation brought about the need for a

fixed rule that would compel recognition from all who wished to follow the monastic path in

search of God. The rule would need to combine spiritual as well as human qualities in a kind

of synthesis of previous monasteries. The answer to this great need came in the early sixth

13Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 9.14Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 9.15Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 12.16Henri Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1959), 269.

25

century through the work of one man who understood the need for unification and could

offer a valid solution to it, Saint Benedict of Nursia.

Born in Nursia around 480, Benedict grew up in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the

Roman Empire in 476 to the Barbarian Odoacer.17 As a young man Benedict went to Rome

to study and found the society collapsing around him. In reaction to this and in response to

a divine call, he lived in solitude near Subiaco for three years. During this time he devoted

earnest effort and fervent prayers “to make himself fully master of that integral, evangelical

holiness which he desired the others to acquire.”18 His efforts soon brought monastic admirers

who asked him to be their abbot in a nearby monastery. This attempt at leading a monastic

community was a failure and Benedict soon returned to his cave. Eager souls presently

gathered around him again and before long a dozen monastic communities developed under

the leadership of Benedict. Soon, jealousy forced Benedict to leave Subiaco and look for

a permanent place to establish his monastery. Along the road between Rome and Naples

Benedict found the small, fortified town of Cassino and in 529 he established the monastery

of Monte Cassino. Here the Father of Western Monasticism founded the Benedictine Order

and wrote its rule of life.

The Rule of Saint Benedict is not completely original in its content, and Benedict even

refers to various sources including Saint Augustine, John Cassian, and Saint Basil. To these

sources Benedict added his expansive knowledge of Scripture. Benedict became familiar

with these patristic, monastic, and scriptural sources during his youth and through personal

lectio divina as a monk. This practice of lectio divina meant that Benedict’s knowledge of

the tradition was not only academic, it was also a profound knowledge that comes through

a slow and prayerful assimilation of the truth.19 This use of Scripture is the central factor

in the monastic movement, which “was conceived as a response to the precepts of Scripture

17Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 270.18Pius XII, Encyclical on St. Benedict Fulgens radiatur (21 March 1947), 8, at The Holy See,

www.vatican.va.19“Introduction”, in Rb 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes, ed. Timothy Fry

(Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Pr, 1981), 86.

26

and was oriented toward the progressive assimilation of the truths of Scripture.”20 The Rule

itself is full of scriptural quotations and allusions, containing over four hundred references

to the Old and New Testaments.21

Within the Rule itself there is no architectural plan for a monastic community, however,

from the many details about monastic life aspects can be discerned. Consider the oratory,

which belongs exclusively to God and to those who pray to Him during the liturgy (Opus

Dei) or in silent prayer. Besides the oratory, the Rule specifically mentions the kitchen,

refectory, cellar, dormitory, library, infirmary, guesthouse, and monastery gate. These are

mentioned only in relation to their purpose, indicating Benedict’s intention of simply pro-

viding an introduction or modest sketch of monastic life.22 From this vague, but important

sketch, it followed that the “architectural framework of Western monasticism tended to be

strongly standardized.”23 Concerning the construction of the monastery, Benedict writes only

a sentence in chapter sixty-six concerning the porter, “The monastery, if it be possible, ought

to be so constructed that all things necessary, such as water, a mill, a garden, a bakery, and

the various crafts may be contained within it; so that there may be no need for the monks

to go abroad, for this is altogether inexpedient for their souls.”24 Therefore the monastery

resembles a self-sufficient city governed by laws based on Christian love, which separates the

monks from the world in order to guarantee a stable life focused on seeking God alone.25

Benedict’s strength lay in his ability to distill the wisdom of previous monks and ascetics

into a simple and practical work. The Rule displays a great knowledge of men and their

weaknesses as well as the needs of the age and culture in which Benedict wrote. In his

encyclical Fulgens radiatur on Saint Benedict, Pope Pius XII remarked, “There can be

easily discerned and appreciated the prudence of the monastic rule, its opportuneness, its

20“The Role and Interpretation of Scripture in the Rule of Benedict”, in Rb 1980, 467.21“The Role and Interpretation of Scripture in the Rule of Benedict”, in Rb 1980, 468.22Paul Delatte, Commentary On the Rule of St. Benedict (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,

2001), 491.23Richard Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 21, ed Jane

Turner et al. (New York: Grove, 1996), 833.24Saint Benedict, The Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 66.25Hitchcock, History, 106.

27

wonderful harmony and suitability to human nature, as also its significance and supreme

importance.”26 With this remarkable Rule, the sons of Benedict increased in numbers and

spread throughout Europe with the Gospel as their light and Saint Benedict’s heavenly

patronage to support and vivify them.27 Their use of the cross, the book, and the plow to

spread Christian civilization marked the dawn of a new era for Europe, which in many ways

had fallen into darkness.28

2.3 The Spread and Reform of the Order

Through the succeeding centuries the Order of Saint Benedict saw prodigious growth in the

form of new monasteries and convents throughout Western Europe. With this expansion, the

Rule of Saint Benedict gradually supplanted the older traditions of monasticism. These two

phenomena can largely be explained by Saint Benedict’s strict focus on essential principles,

along with a remarkable amount of freedom within monasteries according to the needs of

local conditions having been assessed by the abbot of each monastery.29 Of considerable

importance to the spread of the order was the election of a Benedictine monk to the papacy.

In 590 the clergy and people of Rome unhesitatingly chose Gregory as their bishop. Leaving

behind his abbatial title at Saint Andrew’s Abbey, he brought his monastic experience to the

papacy where he began a campaign to build up the moral and spiritual basis of civilization.30

Convinced of the Rule’s great value to civilization and the Church, Pope Gregory the Great

sought to diffuse and propagate it through the efforts of missionary monks.31 One such effort

took a Roman monk by the name of Augustine, along with forty other monks, to the English

isle. The episcopal see of Canterbury, founded by Augustine, would remain the capital of

English Christianity.32

26Pius XII, Fulgens radiatur, 18.27Pius XII, Fulgens radiatur, 21.28Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Pacis nuntius (24 October 1964), at The Holy See, www.vatican.va.29Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 274.30Hitchcock, History, 126.31Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 275.32Hitchcock, History, 111.

28

Soon Pope Gregory’s efforts to spread monasticism and increase ecclesiastical discipline

failed through human weakness. This was nothing new for Christianity, as one historian

remarked,

Once again there was manifest the great law which governs the Christian con-science as regards both institutions and individuals: spiritual progress is never seton foot once and for all; there must needs be a constant struggle with the powersof darkness, against the weakness of the human heart so prone to compromise;reform is a continual necessity.33

It seemed that the monasteries were not immune to the world around them. One such infec-

tion from the outside world was the appointment of absentee lay abbots by noble patrons.34

The autonomous nature of Benedictine monasteries encouraged such abuses, since there was

no one overseeing the abbot and his interpretation of the Rule.

The decline of monastic observance did not go unnoticed by Emperor Charlemagne, who

took as his advisor the monk Saint Alcuin of York.35 To combat this decline Charlemagne

wanted to impose order and unity on the monasteries. To begin, he requested the genuine

text of the Rule from Monte Cassino itself.36 Around this time a Visigoth nobleman also

by the name Benedict entered the monastic life and founded a monastery at Aniane. He

soon gained acknowledgment as a monastic reformer. Charlemagne’s son Louis the Pious

called upon him to reform monastic practice in his kingdom.37 Louis desired that all the

monasteries would be governed by the one regula of Saint Benedict as well as una consuetudo

or the same customs. In 817 at a synod in Aachen, Benedict’s reforms were issued in the

Capitulare institutum and enforced by monastic inspectors appointed by the emperor.38 The

synod also emphasized the importance of standardization and fostered the development of a

33Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 575.34Anne Dawtry, “Benedictine Order,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 3, ed Jane Turner et al. (New York:

Grove, 1996), 709.35Hitchock, History, 117.36Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 417.37S. Hilpisch, “Benedict of Aniane, St.,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed., vol. 2, ed. Berard

Marthaler et al. (New York: Thomson Gale, 2003) 251.38Hilpisch, “Benedict of Aniane, St.,” 251-252.

29

universally accepted architectural plan.39

The fullest expression of the synod’s intention regarding architectural planning is pre-

served in the plan of Saint Gall.40 The plan, written on five sheets of vellum, contains a

schematic ground plan for an entire monastery.41 Scholars have proposed various theories

to resolve the precise date of the plan, its author, and its purpose. Likely it was drawn

up around 820 by Abbot Heito of Reichenau and sent to Abbot Gozbert of Saint Gall to

guide the construction of the new monastery.42 Regardless, the Saint Gall plan provides an

advanced architectural arrangement in which the monastic church and cloister are of prime

importance. The cloister contains the church on the north range, the calefactory and dormi-

tory on the east range, and the refectory with the kitchen on the south range. Though the

complete enclosure of the cloister was not completely novel at this time, its inclusion in the

plan of Saint Gall indicates that subsequent monastic plans would follow this arrangement.

Indeed beginning in the tenth century there is sufficient evidence that the plan was beginning

to be widely adopted.43

Benedict of Aniane, the Synod of Aachen, and the plan of Saint Gall greatly contributed

to the reform and systematization of Benedictine monasticism. As one historian tersely re-

marks, “The conclusive triumph of the Benedictine rule dates from this period.”44 Though

the Rule of Saint Benedict embedded itself into Western Civilization at this time, the restora-

tion of monastic discipline under Benedict of Aniane did not survive the disintegration of

the Carolingian Empire.

39Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 835.40See Appendix 3 for a copy of the plan.41Werner Jacobson, “St Gall Abbey,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 27, ed Jane Turner et al. (New York:

Grove, 1996), 555.42Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 835.43Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 836.44Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 417.

30

2.4 Cluny and the Age of Reform

Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his general audience of November 11th, 2009 to the topic of

the Cluniac reform in the tenth century. He observed that western monasticism,

was experiencing a severe decline for various reasons: unstable political and socialconditions due to the continuous invasions and sacking by peoples who were notintegrated into the fabric of Europe, widespread poverty and, especially, thedependence of abbeys on the local nobles who controlled all that belonged to theterritories under their jurisdiction.45

These were indeed signs of grave deterioration within monastic discipline. Monasticism once

again needed the zeal of reformers to breathe life into Saint Benedict’s sons. The spirit of

reform fell upon Saint Berno after William the Pious, Duke of Aquitaine, gave him land to

found a monastery. Undoubtedly the nobleman William of Aquitaine must have thought he

was doing little more than many other feudal lords of his time, who founded communities for

the love of God and the salvation of their souls.46 Berno had other plans when he arrived at

Cluny in 910 with twelve companions. He endeavored to embody the monastic principles of

prayer, poverty, and silence in his monastery.47 Freed from worldly ties, Cluny soon became

the “most vibrant center of monastic life in Europe.”48

The vibrancy of Cluny came from a desire to reform Benedictine monasticism in a similar

fashion as Benedict of Aniane had a century earlier.49 In this desire the abbey was not unique

since many other monasteries were dedicated to reviving the strict observance of the Rule.

What set Cluny apart was its insistence on the central role of the liturgy in the monastic and

Christian life. To this end, the monks “devoted themselves with love and great care to the

celebration of the Liturgical Hours, to the singing of the Psalms, to processions as devout

45Benedict XVI, General Audience on the Cluniac Reform (11 November 2009), at The Holy See,www.vatican.va.

46Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 576.47Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 576.48Hitchcock, History, 107.49Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 83.

31

as they were solemn, and above all, to the celebration of Holy Mass.”50 Convinced that

participation in the liturgy of the monastery was participation in the liturgy of heaven, the

monks intensified devotion to the Virgin Mary, reformed the liturgical calendar, promoted

sacred music, and finally developed architecture and art to contribute to the beauty and

solemnity of the rites.51

Their developing architectural style and the sheer number of vocations caused by the

monastery’s reputation for holiness meant that Cluny needed to expand and reconstruct its

abbey grounds. Two consecutive churches were built after the first, begun by Abbot Berno

and finished by Odo.52 The first reconstruction began under Abbot Mayeul and continued

through the abbacy of Odilo (994-1048). Evidence for the construction of this plan can be

found in the Disciplina Farvensis, although the interpretation of this account is difficult due

to the repeated modification of the buildings based on expanding needs.53 The relation of

the main monastic buildings is essentially the same as the plan of St Gall with the abbey

church on the north, the dormitory on the first floor of the east, the refectory and kitchen on

the south, and the cellar on the west. One modification to the St Gall plan was the inclusion

of a chapter room where the monastic community gathered daily on the first floor of the east

range.54 The emergence of the conversi or lay brothers in the life of the monastic community

meant that they too needed housing. Since their responsibilities included physical labor and

interaction with the outside world, their quarters were placed on the west side of the cloister

allowing less restriction with the outside world.55 Because of its expansive nature, Cluny

also included many other buildings that were unconnected or semi-connected to the cloister,

such as the infirmary.

50Benedict XVI, General Audience on the Cluniac Reform (11 November 2009).51Benedict XVI, General Audience on the Cluniac Reform (11 November 2009).52Anselme Dimier, Stones Laid Before the Lord: a History of Monastic Architecture (Cistercian studies

Series 152. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1999), 93.53Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 836.54Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 836.55Fawcett, “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning,” 836.

32

With Cluny as the “heart and soul of a profound renewal of monastic life” the Ordo

Cluniacensis grew rapidly in the first two centuries to the point that it could claim 1,200

monasteries at the beginning of the twelfth century.56 Some monasteries grew too large and

were split to form new ones, while some previously founded monasteries often invited the

Cluniac monks to reform their monasteries. All of the daughter houses looked to Cluny as

an example and model of monastic life and planning. An intricate series of interdependent

houses and visitations further strengthened the ties of the dependent monasteries to Cluny

and spread the Cluniac vision throughout Western Europe.57 Popes such as Benedict VII

and John XI encouraged this success. John XI even wrote Abbot Odo upon his achievement

“at a time when most abbeys were unfaithful to their rule.”58

The reforming movement begun by the Cluniac order became very important because,

“for the first time and this was the ingenious idea of the abbots of Cluny an attack was made

upon the real danger threatening the Church, her contamination by the feudal system.”59

Instead of reform being imposed by lords and emperors from the outside, true reform came

from within the Church herself. And yet the Cluniac order itself was not immune to the

corrupting power of wealth and prestige. With the success and fame of Cluny came a flood

of endowments that exalted the grandeur of the Cluniac ideal.60 Monastic life soon forgot

the austerity of the early days, leaving the monastic spirit weakened. This set the stage for

yet another round of monastic reforms.

56Benedict XVI, General Audience on the Cluniac Reform (11 November 2009).57Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 88.58Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 579.59Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Dark Ages, 580.60Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 88.

33

Chapter 3

The Foundation and Spread

of the Cistercian Order

3.1 The Beginnings of the Order

In the constant cycle of renewal and reform, many new religious orders grew out of the

growing discontent with the monastic practice of the established communities. Historian

James Hitchcock notes the weakness inherent in great religious communities, “Monasticism’s

success was in a sense also its failure, in that houses with reputations for austerity and

holiness attracted donations that threatened to undermine those same virtues.”1 In fact,

Hitchcock believes, “the history of the Church in the Middle Ages is to a great extent the

history of both new and reformed religious communities.” The intellectual and spiritual

ferment caused by this cycle led to investigations and debates about the very nature of the

monastic life.2

The broader political, social, economic, and cultural environments in which monasticism

found itself shaded these debates.3 The effect of these influences meant that many different

1Hitchcock, History, 149.2Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 1.3Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 3.

34

concepts of monastic life emerged by the late eleventh century. Some of the concepts devel-

oped within a group where many individuals would sense the need for reform and renewal

and proceed together to the task. Other movements owed their origins to individuals, to

men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Romuald of Ravenna, Vitalis of Savigny, John Gualbert of

Vallombrosa, Norbert of Xanten, and others typified the influence of one individual on an

entire community, new or reformed.4

Among the new monastic movements and congregations that emerged from this fertile

seedbed, the Cistercian Order, founded at Citeaux, dominates. Influenced by the same

sources, the Cistercian Order shared many characteristic features of the other movements,

but with two important differences. First, the order grew out of a group of monks who left

an established monastery and not from the inspirations and aspirations of one individual.

Still, they had an initial leader and a powerful figure that would leave an impressive mark

on the order in the coming century. Second, from the early part of the twelfth century on,

the Cistercian Order formed a unified whole that gave it a certain tenacity to survive an

aggressive expansion.5 Central to this tight-knit structure was the uniformity of monastic

architecture.

The founding and early development of the so-called ‘New Monastery’ at Citeaux has an

enduring appeal to scholars, probably because of the many problems associated with doc-

umentary sources themselves. One scholar commented, “For students of Cistercian history

there is one plain, but all too familiar fact of life: to turn one’s back on the subject, even

for a moment, is to lose the plot.”6 A full appreciation of the difficulties involved with the

narrative sources of the order’s founding is outside of the scope of this present work.7 Setting

aside debates concerning the authorship, date, and relationship to each other, a considera-

tion will be made of the information contained in the Exordium Parvum and the Exordium

4Hitchcock, History, 152-153.5Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 676David Robinson, The Cistercians in Wales: Architecture and Archaelogy 1130-1540, p. x., cited in

Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 9.7See Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, chapter 1.

35

Cistercii concerning the foundation of the order and the aspirations of the early leaders.

The roots of the order are contained in the prosperous Abbey of Molesme, which was

of “great renown and outstanding in religious fervor.”8 he religious fervor of the community

brought many distinguished men of virtue while the great renown brought wealth and pos-

sessions. “But, because possessions and virtues are not usually steady companions, several

members of that holy community, men truly wise and filled with higher aspirations, decided

to pursue heavenly studies rather than to be entangled in earthly affairs.”9 This occurred in

the year 1098, when twenty-one men and their abbot, Robert, “went out to try to carry out

jointly what they had conceived with one spirit.”10 Soon they appeared before the archbishop

of Lyon, a papal legate, who gave his ecclesiastical approval.11

The young community promptly settled at a desolate and secluded area named Citeaux

near Dijon. The Exordium Cistercii calls Citeaux “a place of horror, a vast wilderness.”

Distanced from the outside world, the monks could worship God in simplicity and poverty.

This remote location was “rarely approached by men back in those days because of the

thickness of grove and thornbush.”12 With the help of Odo, duke of Burgundy, they cleared

away the dense thickets and constructed a wooden monastery to house the community.13 Very

early on Pope Urban II forced Abbot Robert to return to his abbatial office at Molesme.

Without a shepherd, the community elected Alberic to be their abbot. Alberic was “a

learned man, that is to say, well versed in things divine and human, a lover of the Rule and

of the brethren.”14 Leading the ‘New Monastery’, Alberic and his monks “embraced a life of

meticulous celebration of the Divine Office, rigorous fasting, perpetual silence, and manual

labor.”15 They did this by adopting statutes for the observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict.

Rejection of anything contrary to the Rule became their standard, “So that, directing the

8Exordium Cistercii, at www.ocso.org.9Exordium Cistercii.

10Exordium Cistercii.11Burton, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, 10.12Exordium Parvum, 3.5, at www.ocso.org.13Exordium Parvum, 3.7.14Exordium Parvum, 9.2.15Hitchcock, History, 152.

36

whole course of their life by the Rule over the entire tenor of their life, in ecclesiastical as well

as in the rest of the observances, they matched or conformed their steps to the footprints

traced by the Rule.”16 The Exordium Parvum states, “because neither in the Rule nor in

the Life of Saint Benedict did they read that this same teacher had ever possessed churches

and altars, . . . ovens and mills, or manors and serfs . . . they accordingly renounced all these

things.”17

To support the monastery they decided that lay brothers (conversi) and hired hands

were needed to manage the farmsteads and vineyards. They would also receive, “landed

properties far from the haunts of men, and vineyards and meadows and woods and streams

for operating mills (for their own use only) and for fishing, and horses and various kinds

of livestock useful for men’s needs.”18 To standardize daughter houses, they adopted this

statute,

Also, because those holy men knew that the blessed Benedict had built his monas-teries not in cities, nor in walled settlements or villages, but in places removedfrom populated areas, they promised to follow his example in this. And as heused to set up the monasteries he constructed with twelve monks apiece and afather in a addition, they resolved to do likewise.

Stephen Harding succeeded Alberic as Abbot of Citeaux after his death in 1109. Stephen

was, “an ardent lover of and staunch champion of religious life, poverty, and regular disci-

pline.”19 Under his guidance, the monastery adopted this strict statute regarding liturgical

matters:

Next, lest there remain in the house of God, where they wished to serve Goddevotedly day and night, anything smacking of pride or superfluity, or anythingthat might at any time corrupt poverty guardian of the virtues which they hadvoluntarily chosen, they resolved to retain no crosses of gold or silver, but only

16Exordium Parvum, 15.3.17Exordium Parvum, 15.5.18Exordium Parvum, 15.11.19Exordium Cistercii.

37

painted wooden ones; no candelabra except a single one of iron; no thuriblesexcept of copper or iron; no chasuble except of plain cloth or linen, and withoutsilk, gold, and silver; no albs or amices except of linen, and likewise without silk,gold, and silver. As for all mantles and copes and dalmatics and tunics, thesethey rejected entirely. They did, however, retain chalices, not of gold, but ofsilver, and, if possible, gilded; and a ciborium of silver and only gilded, if thatcould be so; only stoles and maniples could be of silk, without gold or silver. Asfor altar cloths, they explicitly decreed that they be of linen, without pictorialornamentation, and that the wine cruets be without gold or silver.20

Many looked upon such severe conditions with a mixture of admiration and contempt. As

the Exordium Cistercii puts it, “their neighbors applauded their holy life but abhorred its

austerity and thus kept from imitating the men whose fervor they approved.” With few

vocations the monks became afraid that, “they might not be able to leave behind heirs to

their poverty.” Their prayers and example soon paid off when the ranks of the order swelled

with new recruits.

The order began founding daughter houses to accommodate the divine blessing of voca-

tions the Cistercian Order received under Abbot Stephen. This process is known as filiation

where, like a family tree, new monasteries split off and form new links within the organiza-

tional structure.21 These new houses required twenty new abbots to oversee the monastic

observance as well as suitable land donated by patrons. Hoping to keep the communities

united by a common observance, Stephen, “in his watchful wisdom provided a document of

admirable discretion; it served as a trimming knife which was to cut off the outgrowth of di-

vision which, if unchecked, could suffocate the fruit of mutual peace.”22 Arranged by Abbot

Stephen and confirmed by the twenty other abbots, the Carta Caritatis (Charter of Charity)

became the most important document dictating the construction of new monasteries and the

monastic life within them.

The Carta Caritatis commands that every foundation, “observe the Rule of Blessed

Benedict in everything just as it is observed in the New Monastery.” They were not to “in-

20Exordium Parvum, 17.5-8.21Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 298.22Exordium Cistercii.

38

troduce a different meaning in the interpretation of the Holy Rule; but as our predecessors

. . . understood and kept it, and as we today understand and keep it, so let them too under-

stand and keep it.”23 Since there would be monks traveling from one monastery to another,

they thought it wise to standardize the liturgical books and customs. This included, “the

usages and chant and all the books necessary for the day and night Hours and for Mass

according to the form of the usages and books of the New Monastery, so that there may be

no discord in our conduct, but that we may live by one charity, one Rule, and like usages.”24

A majority of the document covers the unique and solidly constructed structure of the or-

der, how abbots are chosen or disposed, how monasteries are erected, how visitations are

conducted, and how the General Chapter is executed.

3.2 Saint Bernard

3.2.1 Early Years

In the spring of 1112 the Cistercian Order experienced the most significant event since its

founding fourteen years earlier. It was then that Bernard of Fontaines, a Burgundian of

noble birth, answered the call of Christ and entered the monastery at Citeaux. Bernard

possessed great natural abilities, a fine education, and a remarkable power of persuasion.

After making the irrevocable choice to become a monk, he set about convincing others to

join him in monastic life. He succeeded in convincing one uncle and every one of his brothers

into entering the Cistercian Order.25 In April of 1112 Bernard and around thirty others

knocked at the gate of Citaeux. Upon hearing the question “What do you ask?” from Abbot

Stephen, Bernard answered on behalf of all, “The mercy of God and of the Order.”26 Pope

Benedict XVI described the monastic community which Bernard and his companions entered

23Carta Caritatis, Chapter 2.24Carta Caritatis, Chapter 3.25Henri Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1959), 81.26Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, 82.

39

as, “a new monastic foundation that was more flexible in comparison with the ancient and

venerable monasteries of the period while at the same time stricter in the practice of the

evangelical counsels.”27

Historian Henri Daniel-Rops describes Bernard’s entrance, “[he] experienced that almost

indescribable gladness which reaches to the very roots of a man’s being when he has discov-

ered his true calling.”28 Immediately he began a yearlong novitiate dedicated to prayer and

study. Later Bernard would describe his first twelve months at Citeaux in this way, “I used

in those days, to gather and set up in my heart a sheaf made of our Lord’s sufferings, His

agony and all His bitterness of soul.”29 For the rest of his life he would remain, above all

else, a monk dedicated to seeking God.

Bernard brought new fervor to the order through his holiness of life, intellectual gifts,

and leadership qualities. This fresh blood brought about a rapid increase to the community

so that they formed two new communities at La Ferte and Pontigny in 1113.30 Two years

later, Abbot Stephen sent Bernard to found a monastery at Clairvaux. “Here the young

abbot, he was only twenty-five, was able to define his conception of monastic life and set

about putting it into practice. In looking at the discipline of other monasteries, Bernard

firmly recalled the need for a sober and measured life, at table as in clothing and monastic

buildings, and recommended the support and care of the poor.”31

3.2.2 Combating Wayward Monastic Practices

During these early years as abbot of Clairvaux, Bernard began written correspondence with

many people of both important and modest social status including many important eccle-

siastics. One of these friendships began after a visit to William, Abbot of Saint-Thierry.32

At William’s request Bernard wrote an Apologia in defense of the Cistercian monastic ob-

27Benedict XVI, General Audience on Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (21 October 2009).28Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, 82.29Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, 82.30Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, 82.31Benedict XVI, General Audience on Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (21 October 2009).32Bouyer, The Cistercian Heritage, 16.

40

servance around the year 1125. He wrote, “How can I possibly keep quiet when I hear your

complaints against us?”33 Bernard’s reasons for writing such a defense were manifold. The

first cause that solicited his acerbic criticisms was the transfer of his cousin Robert from the

monastery of Clairvaux to the easier ways of Cluny. This event and the letter sent from

Bernard to his cousin remains the “first shot fired in the great controversy between the con-

gregation of Cluny and the Cistercian reform.”34 The second and most obvious complaint

of Bernard against the Abbey of Cluny was what he considered as a misinterpretation of

the Rule of Saint Benedict and the entire monastic tradition. Early in the Apology Bernard

wrote, “Oh, how far away we have moved from Anthony and his contemporaries?”35 He thus

expressed the variance of his views on foundational monastic concepts with Cluny.

After discussing issues of minor concern, Bernard moved to weightier objections launched

against his opponents. He writes, “I am coming to things of greater moment . . . I shall say

nothing about the soaring heights and extravagant lengths and unnecessary widths of the

churches, nothing about their expensive decorations and their novel images, which catch the

attention of those who go in to pray and dry up their devotion.”36 Here Bernard speaks

specifically to monastic communities, while distinguishing the office and practice of bishops

since appropriate artistic expression varied with each state in life.37 He agrees that bishops

must rouse devotion in worldly or materialistic people and so far as this is concerned, he

approves of whatever serves a devotional purpose and considers bishops bound to promote

it. As Bernard says in one of his sermons, “Those in the world were not yet spiritually

strong; they still needed milk rather than strong food.”38 Monks, however, have renounced

these things that the world holds valuable and attractive to dedicate their lives to seeking

33Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Apologia to Abbot William, in The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 1,trans. Michael Casey (Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1970), 33-34.

34Bruno Scott James ed., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Chicago, IL: Henry Regenery, 1953),1.

35Bernard, Apologia, 54.36Bernard, Apologia, 63. Note the use of the rhetorical device praeteritio.37Elisabeth Melczer and Eileen Soldwedel, “Monastic Goals in the Aesthetics of Saint Bernard,” in Studies

in Cistercian Art and Architecture, Cistercian Studies Series 66 ed. Meredith Lillich (Kalamazoo, MI:Cistercian Publications, 1982), 31.

38Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs I, cited in Melczer, “Monastic Goals,” 31.

41

God. As he puts it, “For the sake of Christ . . . all that is beautiful in sight and sound and

scent we monks have left behind.”39

Bernard considered excessive ornamentation especially odious in the monastic cloister.

He regards whatever has merely entertainment value as completely inappropriate. He cites

the ornamentation of pillars in the cloister with creatures and other artistic representations as

distracting and inexcusable. Bernard writes, “What excuse can there be for these ridiculous

monstrosities in the cloisters where the monks do their reading (lectio), extraordinary things

at once beautiful and ugly?”40 Impeding the recollection of a monastic life is the greatest

problem with such architectural embellishments. He notes, “One could spend the whole day

gazing fascinated at these things, one by one, instead of meditating on the law of God.”41

Striving toward the knowledge of God through contemplation was the aim of the monastic

life not idly admiring curiosities.42 It was a matter of cultivating the inner life at the expense

of outer experience.43

The rejection of such “excess” in art and architecture remained consistent with Bernard’s

critique of excess among monks in “all material possessions” and consistent with the policies

and practices set in place by the early Cistercian founders.44 As a young monk at Citeaux

Bernard would have soaked in the artistic values present in the art and architecture he

encountered there; these initial impressions would influence the ideas that he carried with him

throughout his monastic career. As most scholars agree, the Apologia contains, explicitly and

implicitly, Bernard’s core ideas concerning art and therefore the work became a “bellwether of

monastic and episcopal norms of art patronage contemporary with the Cistercian reform.”45

In 1127, not long after completing the Apologia, Bernard again took to condemning

unnecessary grandeur within a monastic setting. This time he did so in a letter to Abbot

39Bernard, Apologia, 64.40Bernard, Apologia, 66.41Bernard, Apologia, 66.42Melczer, “Monastic Goals,” 32.43Diane J. Reilly, “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art,” in A Companion to Bernard of Clairvaux,

ed. Brian Patrick McGuire (Boston: Brill, 2011), 286.44Reilly, “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art,” 281.45Reilly, “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art,” 280.

42

Suger of Saint-Denis. Of low birth, Suger rose to become one of the great ecclesiastical

statesmen of his time.46 The Abbey of Saint-Denis desperately needed reform, evident by

the great magnificence that Suger lived in.47 The Cistercian reform in general and the ideas

of Bernard in particular influenced and moved Abbot Suger to reform his own life and the

lives of the monks under him.48 Bernard’s letter praises Suger for amending the monastic

observance while mentioning a few of the grave faults the Abbot of Saint-Denis had rectified.

Bernard’s complaints against Suger’s previous lifestyle seem to be twofold: the abbot’s

sumptuousness and the monastery’s lax discipline concerning the cloister. Bernard writes,

“As for myself, the whole and only thing that upset me was the pomp and splendor with

which you traveled. This seemed to me to savor of arrogance.”49 He also speaks of Suger’s

“splendid attire.” More important than the personal pageantry of the abbot, Bernard speaks

with a serious tone about the monastic cloister. The abbot of Clairvaux had heard that the

cloister was “often crowded with soldiers, that business was done there, that it echoed to

the sound of men wrangling, and that sometimes women were to be found there.”50 This

presented an obvious problem, “How could anyone have attended to heavenly, divine, and

spiritual things?” After the reform, “everything is very different. God is invoked there,

continence is cultivated, discipline maintained, spiritual reading encouraged, for the silence

is now unbroken, and the hush from all the din of secular affairs invites the mind to heavenly

thoughts.” Summing up the transformation, Bernard notes, “The vaults of the great abbey

that once resounded to the hubbub of secular business echo only to spiritual canticles.”51

The keeping of strict monastic observance is the real critique of Saint-Denis and its abbot, as

it had been in Bernard’s Apologia. The purity of the cloister must remain inviolate since it

is, “the ‘paradise’ ‘the city surrounded and defended with a wall of discipline’ within which

46Hitchcock, History, 153.47James ed., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 11048James ed., The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 11049Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Trans. Bruno Scott James (Chicago,

IL: Henry Regenery, 1953), 112.50Bernard, Letters, 112.51Bernard, Letters, 114.

43

the Cistercian would persevere until death.”52

3.2.3 The Bernadine Plan

The great abbot of Clairvaux knew that a consistent monastic architectural plan would be

crucial to furthering observance of monastic discipline. The tight organizational structure

of the Cistercian Order would prove to be a suitable vehicle for Bernard to enact his vision.

It is difficult to track a shift in architectural style between the early Cistercian architecture

at Cteaux and Bernard’s ideas since the early structures did not survive. Building on the

instructions of the early founders concerning a certain number and arrangement of buildings,

Bernard took a lively interest in the structures that were built at Clairvaux and its daughter

houses.53 Yet, apart from his remarks concerning architectural decorations in the Apologia,

Bernard nowhere describes in detail a Cistercian architectural aesthetic.54

Still, to facilitate the construction of monasteries with a similar vision of monastic ob-

servance, Bernard arranged for a consistent building plan to be transmitted to each new

monastery. The evidence of this consistency of this planning in twelfth century monasteries

in direct relation to Clairvaux has led some scholars to refer to the architectural layout as

the ‘Bernardine plan.’55 Their faithfulness to the plan of their motherhouse formed informed

almost all of the monasteries built during Bernard’s life.56 This includes twenty-two daugh-

ter houses begun under his direct supervision. Each had “rectilinear chevets and flat-ended

transepts with two or three chapels separated from each other by a wall.”57 Presumably,

the consistency evident in these monasteries was due in part to master-builders who were

also monks or lay brothers. Bernard mentions sending many of these master-builders in his

letters to facilitate monastic construction.58 The degree of uniformity established by the

52Melczer, “Monastic Goals,” 34.53Reilly, “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art,” 293.54Reilly, “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art,” 293.55See Appendix 4 for a ground plan of Roche Abbey, which is considered an example of the Bernadine

plan.56Dimier, Stones Laid Before the Lord, 140.57Melczer, “Monastic Goals,” 35.58Dimier, Stones Laid Before the Lord, 150. See also “Letter 385 - to Malachy” in Letters of St Bernard,

44

Cistercians in their buildings sets them apart from every other religious order of the time.59

3.3 The Cistercian Order Enters Ireland

The Abbey of Clairvaux experienced an impressive crop of new recruits almost from the

date of its foundation thanks to the genius of Bernard.60 His reputation for austerity drew

hundreds to follow his way of life, thus allowing for the impressive expansion of the Cistercian

Order through France and into various countries. Each new monastery had its requirements:

a patron who could offer a suitable site and enough trained monks at Clairvaux to staff the

new place with a common spirit of life.61 Bishop Malachy of Down in Ireland became one

such patron after meeting Bernard in 1140.

3.3.1 Saint Malachy

Bishop Malachy stood out as a luminary of his age, combating the decline in the Irish Church

with ecclesiastical reform. Once a spiritual leader of the Church in the Dark Ages, by the

twelfth century Ireland had become remote and isolated through continuous territorial wars

among Irish kings.62 Hoping to persuade the pope to provide pallia for the two archbishops

in Ireland, Malachy made a detour to Clairvaux on his journey to Rome.63 Greatly impressed

with the immense figure of Bernard, Malachy stopped by again on his return home. There

he expressed his desire to become a simple monk at Clairvaux.64 Since Pope Innoncent II

recognized the need of the Irish Church for a man of Malachy’s stature, he was not allowed

454.59Christopher Brook, “St Bernard, the patrons and monastic planning,” in Cistercian Art and Architecture

in the British Isles, ed. Christopher Norton and David Park (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986),16.

60Daniel-Rops, Cathedral and Crusade, 85.61Christopher Holdsworth, “Bernard as a Father Abbot,” in A Companion to Bernard of Clairvaux, ed.

Brian Patrick McGuire (Boston: Brill, 2011), 193.62Hitchcock, History, 147.63Holdsworth, “Bernard as a Father Abbot,” 193.64Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, trans. Robert T. Meyer

(Kalamazoo, MI: 1978) 53.

45

to stay. Instead he left four of his disciples saying, “I pray that you keep them for me so

that they may learn from you what they may later teach us.” He continued, “they will be

seed to us, and in this seed the people will be blessed, and those people too who from olden

days heard the word monk, but have never seen a monk.”65

Upon arrival home, Malachy searched for and found a patron to provide a site for the

order. Bernard counseled the Irish bishop, “do you, in the meantime, with the wisdom

given you by the Lord look for and prepare a site similar to what you have seen here, far

removed from the turmoil of the world. The time is not far distant when I shall be able

with God’s grace to send you men fashioned anew in Christ.”66 This statement clearly shows

Bernard’s intention to keep monastic sites in Ireland uniform with Clairvaux. The king of

Uriel, Donough O’Carroll, eager to reform the Church in Ireland, gladly donated suitable

land to found the first Cistercian monastery of Mellifont.67

Meanwhile, Malachy sent more Irishmen to Clairvaux to become monks. Of this Bernard

writes, “After they had been taught for some time and were learned in wisdom of heart,

the saintly brother Christian who was one of them was given to them as father and we

sent them out adding enough of our monks to bring them to the number of an abbey.”68 In

1142 Christian O Canarchy, the Irish monks, and their French companions traveled Ireland

to occupy the abbey being built at Mellifont.69 These men have an important mission, as

Bernard writes, “I have sent you these few seeds that you see before you . . . scorn not this

seed . . . I have sowed and now it is for you to water, then God will give the increase.”70 In

another letter he advises, “Do all you can to open your heart to them and cherish them

. . . never allow to perish what your hand has planted.”71

Mellifont, under Malachy’s watchful care, gained notoriety and many Irish aspirants who

65Bernard, The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, 53.66Bernard, Letters, 453.67Holdsworth, “Bernard as a Father Abbot,” 195.68Bernard, The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, 53.69Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 116.70Bernard, Letters, 453.71Bernard, Letters, 454.

46

wished to become monks and lay brothers. Bernard notes this success with gratitude, “I have

learned from your letters and from those of my brethren that the house flourishes exceedingly

both in temporal and in spiritual things. With my whole heart I render thanks to God for

this, and my congratulations to you.” Due to the unhealthy religious environment at the

time and the order’s immaturity in Ireland, Bernard encourages Malachy, “not to remove

your care from them until the work you have so well begun has been perfectly finished.”72

The Abbot of Clairvaux’s concerns notwithstanding, between 1147 and 1153 Mellifont sent

seven new communities to other parts of Ireland.73 Each new community consisted of one

abbot, the required twelve monks, and numerous lay brothers.

Bishop Malachy would live to see only a small portion of the order’s expansion throughout

his homeland. In 1148 he journeyed to France to meet with Pope Eugene, a former monk

of Clairvaux, concerning the pallia for the two Irish archbishops. Having been delayed in

England, Malachy arrived too late to meet with the pope. During a stay at Clairvaux with

Bernard, Malachy became ill and died shortly thereafter on November 2nd 1148.74 The

bishop’s last words were a prayer on behalf of his brethren, “Oh God! Keep them in your

name; not only them, but all those, too, who through my word and ministry have given

themselves to your service.”75 Bernard, with compassion in his heart, wrote his brother

religious in Ireland, “If we had here an abiding city we might rightly shed many tears at the

loss of such a fellow citizen as Malachy; and if we look, as we should, for the one that is

to come, the loss of such a valuable leader will still be an occasion for sorrow.”76 Bernard

continued his beautiful and moving words about Malachy in his requiem homily and another

on the anniversary of his death. Acclaiming him a patron of the order, Bernard begged

Malachy, “Be to us, we pray, another Moses or another Elijah, imparting to us something of

your spirit; at least you have come in their spirit and power.”77

72Bernard, Letters, 454.73Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 116.74Robert Meyer trans., The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, 5.75Bernard, The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, 91.76Bernard, Letters, 455.77Bernard, The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman, 112.

47

3.4 The Ordor of Savigny

Bishop Malachy did witness the grafting of another religious order to the Cistercian family

before his death. In a letter Bernard wrote, “I would suggest that you persuade those

religious who you are hoping will be useful to the new monastery that they should unite

with their Order, for this would be very advantageous to the house, and you would be better

obeyed.”78 Almost certainly Bernard is referring to the Order of Savigny, a congregation of

religious houses very similar to the Cistercians.

In 1112 Vitalis, a secular canon turned hermit, established a stable community of his

followers in the Forest of Savigny in France. Initially the community, observing the Rule of

Saint Benedict, built wooden conventual buildings until they could erect one of stone.79 he

ascetical lifestyle of Savigny drew many into its fold. By 1147, more than thirty dependent

monasteries had formed. The architectural arrangement of the Savigniac monasteries was

similar to the Cistercians. When Abbot Joscelin wanted to erect the second, vast church at

Savigny beginning in 1173, he looked no further than the second abbey church of Clairvaux.80

The relationship between these architectural styles had become solidified when Abbot Serlo

of Savigny transfered the order en masse to the Cistercians in 1147. The Cistercian General

Chapter of that year approved of the fusion of the Savigniac Order with their own.

Along with the new monasteries, the plan brought its own afflictions to the Cistercian

Order. Savigny retained its own customs and practices derived from a wide variety of sources.

Its customs inclined them towards neither Cluny nor Cteaux. In the first fifty years of the

fusion the Savigniac order failed to achieve the necessary reform and brought dissent within

the Cistercian communion.81 Still, the addition of new houses led to further colonization

of the Cistercian Order. St. Mary’s in Dublin became one such outpost when monks from

78Bernard, Letters, 455.79Brenda Bolton, “Savigny, Order of,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 27, ed Jane Turner et al. (New York:

Grove, 1996), 887.80Bolton, “Savigny,” 887.81Bolton, “Savigny,” 887.

48

Savigny colonized there in 1139.82 The eight years between the founding of St. Mary’s

and its entrance into the Cistercian order, “was sufficient to inculcate a sense of seniority

on the part of the later Cistercian community at St. Mary’s, who deliberately falsified the

chronology of their foundation in order to assert their independence from Mellifont, the first

Irish Cistercian foundation.”83 The community in Dublin awaited an opportunity to found

their own daughter house to cement their legacy. Thirty-five years later they would have the

opportunity to do just that at Dunbrody.

82Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 115.83O Clabaigh, “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” 91.

49

Conclusion

Important characters such as Bernard and Malchy dominate the history of medieval monas-

ticism. Their legacy, in word and deed, provided guidance and encouragement to their

contemporaries and those who followed after them in the monastic life. Yet, to each indi-

vidual monastery there were other and equally important proximate influences: the noble

patron, the structure of filiation, and the unique, local circumstances of each abbey.

Noblemen of the time had many motives for granting land to monastic communities and

giving them an endowment. In a religious age, “the primary motive was that of safeguarding

the souls of the benefactor and he souls of his relatives.”84 As the charter of Dunbrody Abbey

demonstrates, “the foundation of a monastery added to the baron’s prestige in this life and

the prayers of its inmates counterbalanced his sins in the next.”85 The prestige in this life

was “possibility of a quiet place of retirement, the added security of death in the monastic

habit and an honorable place of burial for the founder and his descendants.”86 Another

important reason for founding a monastic community was wider considerations of public

policy. One monastic charter states that “they should pray perpetually for the stability of

our kingdom and the safety of our country.”87 Likewise, “it helped secure a baron’s grip on

his newly conquered territories, rendering them more attractive to settlers and colonists and,

in theory, bolstering the local economy through a more efficient exploitation of resources.”88

84Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 66.85O Clabaigh, “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” 92.86O Clabaigh, “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” 92.87Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 66.88O Clabaigh, “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland,” 92.

50

This “effective exploitation of resources” was, in fact, accomplished to a great extent through

the Cistercian Order’s skills in land reclamation. It became common to say, “They made the

desert bloom.”89 For the Cistercians, a suitable patron meant one who had befitting land on

which they could build a new foundation. Land unfavorable to development deterred them

while favorable land encouraged colonization.90

The filiation of the Cistercian Order itself from the wider Benedictine Order became

the model for filiation within the Cistercian Order. With the multiplication of monasteries

within the order, each house that had put out colonies became the head of a filiation or

family of daughter-houses for which it had responsibility. The relationship between these

affiliated monasteries and their abbots became the distinctive mark of the Cistercian Order.

Instead of groupings by geographical areas, groups were formed by the historical accidents of

foundation and patronage. This created ties that cut across national and political frontiers.91

A structure such as this could see a monastery in County Wexford being responsible to one

in Dublin, which in turn was responsible to Buildwas Abbey in Shropshire, England. This

complex structure, combined with the unique fusion of the Savigniac and Cistercian orders,

creates distinctive practices and customs.

Distinctive practices, including unique architectural arrangements can also be attributed,

in part, to distinctive local conditions. For example, until the early thirteenth century “it

was only with difficulty that the Irish monks could be torn from early Celtic customs and

from building ‘miserable huts’ for themselves outside the walls of an abbey,”92 Invariably,

distinctive geological and geographic conditions affected the layout of a monastery and the

materials used in construction. In Ireland for example, the Cistercians situated most abbeys

on limestone, which could be found in surplus in that country. They built most houses in

Ireland in river valleys near a water supply while a few relied on windmills.93 Likewise, the

89Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 14.90Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 16.91Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 185.92Gwynn, Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, 116.93Carville, The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland, 16.

51

finer points of architectural design were unique to each monastery based on the interaction

between local artisans and foreign master-builders. Each monastery was as uniform as the

common observance required and as unique as the men who found a home there.

These findings present clear evidence for the massive historical, ecclesiastical, and geo-

graphical data that shapes a single monastic community and their observance. The analysis

also indicates the complexity of such research. For example, the absence of clear docu-

mentary and archeological evidence does not present strong enough evidentiary support

to provide motives for each specific aspect of monastic life and architecture at a certain

monastery. Still, there is room for further development through archeological research and

a comparative study of various monasteries affiliated through a dependent relationship. For

example, an investigation could be made concerning the influence of the Savigniac Order on

the construction of Cistercian monasteries after the merger between them.

While some questions will remain unanswered by modern scholars, the impact of monas-

tic architecture and observance on the souls who sought holiness within the walls of the

monastery will remain to eternity. The words of the psalmist referring to Jerusalem could

be placed on their lips, “Behold, your servants love her very stones, are moved to pity for

her dust . . . (Ps 102:10)”

52

Appendices

Processions in 11th and 12th c. Cistercian Monasteries

Christian processions find their origin in the liturgical life of ancient Israel and in the writ-

ings of the New Testament. For the Israelites, pilgrimages and processions recalled God’s

accompaniment of his chosen people on their long pilgrimage out of Egypt and later back

from exile. While the Psalms allude to processions (Ps 47, 68, 118), 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Kings 8

gives specific accounts of processions. Both accounts focus on the Ark of the Covenant which

David and Solomon respectively processed with. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ’s entry

into Jerusalem is the most significant procession and stands as the type of future processions

of the Christian people.

The term procession in the Christian tradition is given a clear definition by the Pio-

Benedictine Code: “by the name of sacred processions is signified those solemn supplications

that the faithful populace, led by clerics, make in some order from a sacred place to a sacred

place, for the excitement of faithful piety, to commemorate the beneficence of God and to

give him thanks, and to implore divine help,”94 The Code further specifies ordinary and

extraordinary processions: “they are [called] ordinary that are made on set days during the

year according to liturgical books or the custom of churches; [those are called] extraordinary

that are indicated for public causes on other days.”95 Ordinary processions are strictly litur-

94Code of Canon Law/1917, c. 1290, in The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, ed. EdwardPeters (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001), 436.

95CIC/1917, c. 1290.

53

gical since the rite itself, the chants, and the prayers are specified in normative liturgical

texts.

Continuing the long monastic tradition of processions, the Cistercian order allowed for two

major processions each year, one for Palm Sunday and the other for Candlemas. To facilitate

these processions, processionals were created with the text and chants proper to each. Due

to their zealous reforming nature, the Cistercians simplified the received monastic tradition.

The earlier proliferation of responsories, antiphons, versus, and litanies in the processional

aroused the severe reaction of limiting processions to only two days.96 This practice of

limiting monastic processions was strongly criticized in a letter from Peter Abelard to Saint

Bernard of Clairvaux and causing the Cistercians to add a procession for the Ascension in

1150. Then, between 1202 and 1225, processions for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and

for the Feast of Saint Bernard were added. Finally, after 1289, a procession for the feast of

the Nativity of the Virgin Mary was added bringing the total number up to six per year by

the end of the thirteenth century.97

The simple ritual for the Candlemas procession is found in chapter forty-seven of the

twelfth century Ecclesiastica Officia for the order (1130-1134). This text, along with Saint

Bernard’s Second Sermon for the Purification of Mary provide a clear understanding of the

liturgical rite for February 2nd and of the Cistercian processional practice. The rite begins

in the sanctuary where the abbot, vested in violet cope and without a maniple, blesses

the candles placed there by the sacristan and sprinkles them with holy water.98 Then, “the

cantor offers the abbot a lighted candle, and intones the antiphon Lumen ad revelationem, to

which he adds the verse Nunc dimittis as found in the books.”99 Meanwhile the sacristan and

his assistants distribute the other candles to the monks, novices, lay brothers, and anyone

else present. Then the procession through the cloister takes place.

96Michel Hugo, “The Cluniac Processional of Solesmes,” in The Divine Office in the Latin Middle Ages,ed. Margot Fassler and Rebecca Baltzer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 206.

97Hugo, “The Cluniac Processional of Solesmes,” 206.98Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the Religious Orders (Milwaukee, WI: Bruce, 1955) 108.99Quoted in Chrysogonus Waddell, “Notes on the Early Cistercian Blessing of Candles and Candlemas

Procession,” Liturgy O.C.S.O. 25, no. 1 (1991): 55.

54

The cantor intones the antiphon Ave gratia plena and the procession begins with the

deacon, vested in alb and stole, carrying the processional cross.100 He is followed by the

subdeacon with the holy water, then the rest of the choir monks, the abbot, the novices,

and finally the lay brothers.101 Besides the deacon, subdeacon, and abbot, the rest of the

gathering walked in pairs. The procession moves round the square cloister, first stopping

at a station on the eastern range then a new antiphon is chanted (Adorna thalamum). The

deacon then leads all to the second station near the refectory on the south range. The

antiphon Responsum accepit Simeon is chanted as the procession nears the final station on

the west range of the cloister. Finally the procession returns to the entrance of the church

on the southwest side where the abbot intones the antiphon Hodie beata Virgo.102

Upon reading Bernard’s sermon for this feast, it is clear to the reader that the event was

full of meaning for the monastic community. He says, “We shall be walking two by two, with

candles in our hands - candles lighted not with just any kind of fire, but with fire previously

consecrated in the church through a priestly blessing.”103 Walking in pairs represents the

manner in which Christ sent out the disciples in the Gospels desiring that they might have

communal life and fraternal charity. Lighted candles symbolizing the monastic communities

vigilant watch for the return of the Bridegroom. The “fire previously consecrated in the

church through a priestly blessing” probably refers to the blessing of the fire during the Easter

vigil whose flame was transferred to successive candles through the succeeding months.104

The procession on Palm Sunday to begin Holy Week was similar in design to that of

Candlemas and involved the same level of symbolism in the ritual. The rite began with the

blessing of the palm branches in the abbey church (ad gradum presbyerii) in preparation for

the procession. The blessing consisted of the salutation Dominus vobiscum with its response

100Waddell, “Notes on the Early Cistercian Blessing of Candles and Candlemas Procession,” 61.101Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings, 58.102Waddell, “Notes on the Early Cistercian Blessing of Candles and Candlemas Procession,” 61.103Bernard, Second Sermon for the Purification of Mary, trans. Chrysogonus Waddell in Liturgy O.C.S.O.

25, no. 1 (1991): 25.104Waddell, “Notes on the Early Cistercian Blessing of Candles and Candlemas Procession,” 53.

55

and a single prayer by the officiant who wears a violet cope.105 Though the prayer was

lengthy, it has a striking unity thanks to its logically defined structure.106 The traditional

and theologically rich structure of the blessing included four parts and a doxology: an

invocation; paradigmatic examples from Scripture that serve as types for the celebration; an

epiclesis and blessing; finally a petition for the fruits of the rite celebrated.107 Having been

blessed, the palms would be distributed during the chanting of antiphons Pueri Hebraeorum

tollentes and Pueri Hebraeonun vestinenta.

Like the Candlemas procession, the Palm Sunday one included the chanting of three

antiphons and three stations where the community would pause. The first antiphon sung was

Occurrunt turbae while the community processed through the eastern range of the cloister.

After the first station the antiphon Collegerunt pontifices with the verse Unus autem ex ipsis

was chanted through the south range. Approaching the final station before the door of the

abbey church, the community chanted the antiphon Ave Rex noster. Unlike the Candlemas

procession where the processional cross led the procession, the cross was rather placed here

at this last station. In this procession, the meeting of the cross at the door to the church

symbolized the meeting of Christ outside of Jerusalem before his triumphal entry.

Having met the cross of Christ, the community turns toward it and prostrates themselves.

Then the Gospel is proclaimed before the community and the verses Gloria laus are sung.

Finally, the response Ingrediente Domino is chanted as the community enters the church

accompanying the processional cross representing Christ. Solemn Mass is then celebrated.

Trappist monk and monastic scholar Father Chrysogonus Waddell explains the symbolism

of the rite: “It is essentially a going forth of the community, to meet Christ at the station

of the cross (cross=Christ), there to offer him the homage of our worship and love and

gratitude, and to accompany him into the Holy City (=the church), where we celebrate and

105King, Liurgies of the Religious Orders, 100.106Chrysogonus Waddell, “The Cistercian Palm Sunday Blessing of the Branches,” Liturgy O.C.S.O. 2, no.

1 (1967): 23.107Waddell, “The Cistercian Palm Sunday Blessing of the Branches,” 53.

56

sacramentally participate in the mystery of his life-giving victory over sin and death.”108

While the processions of Candlemas and Palm Sunday occurred once a year to commem-

orate a solemn feast, another rite utilizes similar principles though it would be characterized

as semi-processional. Like the other processions, the Benedictus aquae rite took place be-

tween terce and the solemn conventual Mass. Unlike the others; this rite was performed every

Sunday in Cistercian monasteries to emphasize the purity of the cloister. The rite primarily

took the form of an exorcism and blessing. It was an exorcism in the broad sense defined by

the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively

in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the

Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism.”109

The rite was performed by the obedientry, a monk who was entrusted with administrative

duties. He would asperge the high altar and then process through the cloister arcades

sprinkling a mixture of holy water and salt while the community remained within the church.

When the obedientry returned to the church the community would process forward to the

sanctuary for a blessing.110 The Benedictus aquae ritual expresses the sacred nature of the

cloister topography that was renewed and fortified weekly through the sprinkling of water

and salt.

108Chrysogonus Waddell, “The Cross in the Palm Sunday Procession,” Liturgy O.C.S.O. 2, no. 2 (1967):23.109Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000),

1673.110Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings, 61.

57

Plan of Dunbrody Abbey

Figure 3.1: Outline of Dunbody Abbey from Roger Stalley, The Cistercian Monasteries ofIreland (London: Yale University Press, 1987) all the labels are mine.

58

Plan of Saint Gall

Figure 3.2: Plan of Saint Gall. Included was the dedication: “For thee, my sweetest sonGozbertus, have I drawn this briefly annotated copy of the layout of the monastic buildings,with which you may exercise your ingenuity and recognize my devotion, whereby I trust youdo not find me slow to satisfy your wishes. Do not imagine that I have undertaken thistask supposing you to stand in need of our instruction, but rather believe that out of love ofGod and in the friendly zeal of brotherhood I have depicted this for you alone to scrutinize.Farewell in Christ, always mindful of us, Amen.”

59

Plan of Roche Abbey

Figure 3.3: Outline of Roche Abbey from Lawrence, Medieval Monasticism, 305.

60

Cistercian Abbeys in Ireland

Figure 3.4: Map of Cistercian Abbeys in Ireland from O Combhui, “The Extent of CistercianLands in Medieval Ireland,” 67.

61

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Benedict, Saint. Rb 1980: the Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes. Editedby Timothy Fry. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Pr, 1981.

Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint. The Life and Death of Saint Malachy the Irishman. Trans.Robert T. Meyer. Cistercian Fathers 10. Kalamazoo, MI: 1978.

——— The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Trans. Bruno Scott James. Chicago, IL:Henry Regenery, 1953.

——— Apologia to Abbot William. In The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 1, trans.Michael Casey, 33-69. Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1970.

Gilbert, John Thomas ed. Chartularies of St. Mary’s Abbey, Dublin: with the Register ofits house at Dunbrody, and Annals of Ireland. London, England: Longman, 1884.

Stephen of Lexington. Letters From Ireland. Trans. Barry W. O’Dwyer. Cistercian FathersSeries 28. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982.

Secondary Sources

Benedict XVI. General Audience on Saint Benedict of Norcia (9 April 2008). At The HolySee, www.vatican.va

——— General Audience on Man in Prayer (9) (10 August 2011). At The Holy See,www.vatican.va.

Bolton, Brenda. “Savigny, Order of.” In The Dictionary of Art, vol. 27, ed Jane Turner etal. 887-888. New York: Grove, 1996.

62

Bouyer, Louis. The Cistercian Heritage. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958.

Brooke, Christopher. “St Bernard, the patrons and monastic planning.” In Cistercian Artand Architecture in the British Isles, ed. Christopher Norton and David Park, 11-23.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Burton, Janet, and Julie Kerr. The Cistercians in the Middle Ages. Woodbridge, Suffolk,UK.: Boydell Press, 2011.

Carville, Geraldine. The Occupation of Celtic Sites in Medieval Ireland by the Canons Reg-ular of St Augustine and the Cistercians. Cistercian Fathers 56. Kalamazoo, MI:Cistercian Publications, 1982.

Cassidy-Welch, Megan. Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings: Thirteenth-Century EnglishCistercian Monasteries. Medieval Church Studies 1. Turnhout, Belgium: BrepolsPublishers, 2001.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Con-ference, 2000).

Compendium of the History of the Cistercian Order. Gethsemani, KY: Order of Cisterciansof the Strict Observance, 1944.

Daniel-Rops, Henri. The Church in the Dark Ages. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1959.

——— Cathedral and Crusade. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1957.

Dawtry, Anne. “Benedictine Order.” In The Dictionary of Art, vol. 3, ed Jane Turner et al.708-711. New York: Grove, 1996.

Delatte, Paul. Commentary On the Rule of St. Benedict. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and StockPublishers, 2001.

Dimier, Anselme. Stones Laid Before the Lord: a History of Monastic Architecture. Cister-cian Studies Series 152. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1999.

Edwards, R. D. “Ireland, the Catholic Church in.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed.,vol. 7, ed. Berard Marthaler et al. 553-564. New York: Thomson Gale, 2003.

Fawcett, Richard. “Monastery, 1, 1: Monastic Planning” In The Dictionary of Art, vol. 21ed Jane Turner et al. 833-842. New York: Grove, 1996.

Gwynn, Aubrey, and R. Neville Hadcock. Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland. London:Longman, 1970.

63

Harrison, Stuart. “I lift up mine eyes: A Re-Evaluation of the Tower in Cistercian Archi-tecture in Britain and Ireland.” In Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude, edTerryl N. Kinder, 125-135. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2004.

Hilpisch, S. “Benedict of Aniane, St.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed., vol. 2, ed.Berard Marthaler et al. 251-252. New York: Thomson Gale, 2003.

Hitchcock, James. History of the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Holdsworth, Chritopher. “Bernard as a Father Abbot.” In A Companion to Bernard ofClairvaux, ed. Brian Patrick McGuire, 169-219. Boston: Brill, 2011

Jacobson, Werner. “St Gall Abbey” In The Dictionary of Art, vol. 27 ed Jane Turner et al.554-556. New York: Grove, 1996.

Kinder, Terryl N. Cistercian Europe: Architecture of Contemplation. Kalamazoo, MI:William B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Lawrence, C.H. Medieval Monasticism. New York: Longman, 2001.

Lekai, Louis J. The Cistercians: Ideals and Reality. Kent, OH: Kent State Univ Pr, 1977.

Leroux-Dhuys, Jean-Franois. Cistercian Abbeys. New York: Konemann, 1998.

McGrath, C. “Laudabiliter.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia: 2nd ed., vol. 8, ed. BerardMarthaler et al. 379. New York: Thomson Gale, 2003.

Melczer, Elisabeth and Eileen Soldwedel. “Monastic Goals in the Aesthetics of Saint Bernard.”In Studies in Cistercian Art and Architecture. Cistercian Studies Series 66 ed. Mered-ith Lillich. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982.

Norton, Christopher, and David Park. Cistercian Art and Architecture in the British Isles.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Paul VI. Apostolic Letter Pacis nuntius (24 October 1964). At The Holy See, www.vatican.va.

Pius XII. Encyclical on St. Benedict Fulgens radiatur (21 March 1947). At The Holy See,www.vatican.va.

Reilly, Diane J. “Bernard of Clairvaux and Christian Art.” In A Companion to Bernard ofClairvaux, ed. Brian Patrick McGuire, 271-304. Boston: Brill, 2011.

Salisbury, John of. Metalogicus. In Joannis Saresberiensis Opera Omnia, vol. v, 205-206.Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1969.

64

Stalley, Roger. The Cistercian Monasteries of Ireland. London: Yale University Press, 1987.

——— “The architecture of the Cistercian churches of Ireland, 1142-1272.” In CistercianArt and Architecture in the British Isles, ed. Christopher Norton and David Park,117-137. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Stones, Alison. Glossary of Medieval Art and Architecture. www.medart.pitt.edu.

O Clabaigh, Colman. “The Benedictines in Medieval and Early Modern Ireland.” In TheIrish Benedictines: A History, ed. Martin Browne and Colman O Clabaigh, 79-121.Dublin: The Columba Press, 2005.

O Combhui, Colmcille. “The Extent of Cistercian Lands in Medieval Ireland.” In Cisterciansin the Late Middle Ages. Studies in Medieval Cistercian History VI, ed. E. RozanneElder, 59-69. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981.

Woods, Thomas. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, DC:Regnery Publishing, 2005.

65