I've thought about this monk/friar/canon regular business for a long time,
impelled in part by the fact that I am "monk" and my scholarly interest
centers on the canons regular of St. Victor. I wonder what you think of
this reconstruction; can you suggest evidence to support or undercut its
parts? I'm sorry its so long.
"Monks," distinguised by celibacy and the deliberate formation of a counter
cultural mindset, either solitary or communal, emerged as the "religious"
of the early church. E.g., Augustine thought of himself and his clergy who
lived the common life with him as monks. Stylites were monks. This
monopoly continued until Carolingian times where the idea of canons
[regular] emerged in theory at least. Generally, though, until the
eleventh century the Benedictine Rule had a virtual monopoly of vowed,
counter-cultural, celibate life in the West. By the twelfth century things
are changing. We have the emergence of religious "orders' in the modern
sense (Cistercians, Premontre, Carthusians, Fontevrault) Since there had
been no "orders" (organization of religious houses into congregations,
provinces and so forth) previously, for a time this helped differentiate
the traditional Benedictine houses from the new houses (gradually the
Benedictine houses will be forced into congregations by reform minded
prelates, and some wouldl even adopt the idea of joining a congregation
rather than an individual house). Ironically, the canons regular almost
universally adopted the Rule of Augustine as particularly theirs (Augustine
wrote for "monks"). Moreover, the constitutions of most canons regular seem
to have been derived either from Citeaux or Cluny, with the result that it
is very difficult to find any significant difference in spirituality and
lifestyle between canons regular and monks. Others in the twelfth century
would write new rules altogether, but only a few were recognized by the
church. The Benedictine polemicists were in a bind. Against the canons
regular and secular clergy they insisted on the superiority of the
contemplative life, but then the canons regular and secular clergy could
question their right to preaching and other forms of ministry.
Thus, what I think happened is that out of a broad, inclusive and
ill-defined tradition various particular options were defined and labeled
(or mislabeled or labeled several different ways). One could be an
independent religious house/community which admitted members to itself
(even these would be joined into [reformed] congregations as they still are
today), or one could be a order in which one joined a wider aggregate
(province) which assigned members to local houses and moved them around.
One could give different emphases to prayer and activity (there was a
growing consensus that the vita mixta was "superior"--in fact,there can be
no such thing as a purely contemplative or purely active religious order).
And, finally, houses and orders could be dedicated to specific tasks: care
of the sick, teaching, whatever, as happened increasingly toward modern
times. Various juridical and historical reasons led to calling some groups
monks and some friars and so forth, but the labels are arbitrary, and there
was practically no conceivable form of polity or celibate, counter-cultural
lifestyle that at some time was not lived by people who called themselves
monks.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|