> Bill East wrote:
>
> <[chopchop]...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.
Another aspect of this, the full implications of which have always
eluded me, is that bells, in the Middle Ages, besides signalling
monastic offices, also signalled sacraments, and in this respect,
they were a sign of jealously guarded ecclesiastical privileges. And
in fact, where, as at Durham cathedral priory, bells existed for both
purposes, they were often located in different towers. At Durham,
the three bells of the crossing tower were rung to announce the
monastic offices, while the four bells in the northwest tower, the
Galilee Steeple, were rung for liturgical services and to announce
the arrival of the bishop, etc. Cistercian granges, I believe, were
often forbidden to ring bells, even if they provided Masses for the
monks there, because of the contentious issue of contravening the
complex network of eccesiastical privileges; Waverley's grange at
Neatham agreed to such an arrangment in the mid-13th century. This
situation occasionally led to friction; in 1362 the nuns of
Notre-Dame de l'Eau were forced to destroy the belfry in their chapel
in the city of Chartres, because of contravening privileges of the
dean and chapter. A similar conflict might also have been involved
in the removal of Byland from its orignal location at Old Byland,
which as Bill East noted, was within bell-shot of Rievaulx. If
anyone knows more about the ecclesiastical role of bells, I would
certainly be interested.
Merry Christmas!
Cheers,
Jim Bugslag
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|