>
>>The difficulty arises when two
>>monasteries, like Rievaulx and Old Byland, are within earshot of each other;
>>then the confusion arises. The monks couldn't look at their wrist-watches
>>to check if that was their bell ringing, or the other firm's.
>
>that's fascinating. do the sources discuss or allude to any differences?
>This, on a small scale is what provoked the fights over easter -- when the
>king and his wife celebrated it on different days.
>
>Why, yes! It was considered intolerable, and not to be borne; moreover, a
remarkable thing, that in such a remote, out-of-the-way spot, two
monasteries should be founded next door to each other. The problem was
solved only when the monks of Old Byland moved a few miles further away, to
the present site of Byland abbey.
Cf. the English Heritage guide to Rievaulx, by Glyn Copack:
"None the less the last years of William's abbacy were marked by problems
with neighbours. One such occurred in 1143 with Roger de Mowbray who had
settled a group of Savigniac monks at Old Byland on the opposite side of the
Rye. Since the two monasteries followed slightly different time tables,
their bells disturbed each other, creating a situation 'which was not
fitting and could not be endured.'"
The same point is made, with the same quotation, in the English Heritage
guide to Byland Abbey, by Stuart Harrison. Neither say from what text they
are quoting.
Oriens.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|