JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION  April 2008

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION April 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Louis the Kid at School [Diversion on Regular Canons]

From:

John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

medieval-religion - Scholarly discussions of medieval religious culture <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:18:38 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (356 lines)

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

Christopher Crockett wrote:
> From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> [The Victorine order had abbeys,
>
> have to look at the charters, see how they referred to themselves.

Why is that relevant?  Who is typing this, them or me?

> otherwise one might fall into the Anachronist Trap of thinking that
> all collegial churches were... well, churches.

You know, you're going to have explain that: it keeps going over my head.

> don't think i've ever looked through a Victorine cartulary.
>
> Jean Dufour's new ed. of Louis VI's charters would work, as well.
>
> in Dufour #80, 1113, Louis styles the place
>
> aecclesia Beati Victoris quae juxta Parisiorum civitatem sita est,
> consultu quidem archiepiscoporum et episcoporum et optimatum regni
> nostri, canonicos regulariter viventes ordinari volui...
>
> [note: no mention of St. Augustine]

Take a wild guess at what other Rule might apply to Regular Canons?

> and
>
> praefatae Sancti Victoris aecclesiae...prefata Sancti Victoris
> aecclesia
>
> Dufour 233, 1125,
>
> communi et abbatum et canonicorum assensu, aecclesiae Sancti Victoris
> concessimus... prefata aecclesia Sancti Victoris .... prefati
> canonici Sancti Victoris
>
>
>>> [ME] according to Du Cange, Niermeyer and the OED, any institution
>>> which had an abbot was an _abbatiam_, i.e., "abbey".
>
>> The Austin Canons
>
> there were no "Austin Canons" in France, as far as i know --certainly
> never seen the term, in Latin or French.

It's an English term: like "Black canons".

>> got round this by calling the head of the house a "prelate".
>
> a clear Dodge, just to get around the contentious issue of whether
> nor not to call their houses "abbeys," thereby inflaming the Pedants
> of future centuries.
>
> prefering, "prelateries," i assume.
>
> there's no accounting for English Taste.

Why do you assume it was only in England?

>> But you are ignoring my point that the Victorines had abbeys, e.g. St 
>> Augustine's, Bristol - now Bristol Cathedral.
>
> as far as i am aware (and it's been quite a while since i did
> Victorinism) there was no cathedral chapter [or chapter of a Royal
> collegial abbey] in France which was sucessfully reformed by the
> Victorines.
>
> the Opposition was just too strong and entrenched.
>
> they possessed --from their Royal charter of 1125 (Dufour 233)-- a
> prebend in several cathedral chapters under the King's control and
> the "annates" [a year's income from vacant prebends] in other
> cathedral chapters and the chapters of the Royal [collegial] Abbeys,
> both of these increasing in number as the "Order" [to use your word]
> grew.
>
> in addition to these, some secular collegials were given to them to
> reform (can't think of an example at the moment, but Trust me); and,
> they no doubt had some new foundations.
>
> whether institutions in the latter group were under the headship of
> an "abbot" or a "prior", i know not.
>
> but, i would be somewhat surprised if the latter --rather than the
> former-- were not the case.

If I can decipher your syntax correctly, you are likely to be surprised.

>> No-one disputes that St Victor was an abbey, and was a house of
>> regular canons.
>
> if you say so.
>
> but somebody told me that [all] "collegials" were "churches."

See above.

>> As such, it is not relevant to the original point at issue - unless
>> the whole thing is a misunderstanding on your part.
>
> i'm sure it is.
>
> that must be It.
>
>>>> the Augustinians had priories.]
>>>
>>> in England, perhaps.
>>
>> Well, I certainly understand the English situation best.  I remain
>> to be convinced that you understand the French situation.
>
> "understand" being a relative term (unlike "certainly"), i'm sure
> you're right.

I choose my words carefully.  After all, one wouldn't want to hurt anyone's 
feelings unintentionally, would one?

>>> "Augustinians" is a somewhat vague and (at the least) anachronistic term 
>>> to apply to French collegials in the 12th c.
>>
>> It is neither vague,
>
> only in the sense of
>
> 1. Of statements, etc.: Couched in general or indefinite terms; not
> definitely or precisely expressed; deficient in details or
> particulars.
>
> 2. Of words, language, etc.: Not precise or exact in meaning.
>
> 3. a. Of ideas, knowledge, etc.: Lacking in definiteness or precision:
> indefinite, indistinct.
>
>> nor particularly anachronistic.  It would be more anachronistic to
>> say "Augustinian Order", as the concept of religious orders only 
>> developed during the 12th century.  You would be on firmer ground in 
>> attacking me for saying "Victorine Order",
>
> o.k., i'll do that, then.
>
> 'cept, "attack" is a pretty strong word.
>
> how about something civilized and Englishy, like "take exception to" ?

Fine. Go ahead.

> one reason why "Augustinian Order" is anachronistic might be that it
> was, originally, a Reform movement, taking aim at pre-existing
> institutions (St. Victor being an exception).

Isn't that a non sequitur?  And isn't St Victor somewhat irrelevant, being 
Victorine?

> did Bill Champheaux think of himself as an "Augustinian"?

Why do his thoughts need to be taken into account?  As he adopted the Rule 
of St Augustine, surely he was whether he liked it or not?

> would there be any actual *source* for that (or of any other early
> 12th c. reformed canon thinking of himself as/refering to himself as
> an "Augustinian")?

And the relevance of that is?

> somewhere recently i came across a 12th c. dispute between a
> Benedictine and a Regular Canon,

A Monk and a Regular Canon?

> but i can't recall how the B. refered to his collegial counterpart.
>
> but, i'd be amazed if he called him an "Augustinian."
>
> that would be anachronistic.
>
> and vague.

I see.  And it isn't "anachronistic and vague" to call the monk a 
"Benedictine"?

>> as they are best regarded
>
> lapsing into the Passive Voice

So-called "grammar checkers" are best avoided :-)

>> as a congregation rather than a separate order.
>
> i've certainly never seen any 12th c. source which spoke of a
> Victorine "congregation." [doesn't mean that there isn't one, note.]

And it doesn't mean there wasn't a Victorine Order, either.  We could, 
perhaps, take a vote on the point?

> i wonder how they thought of themselves, in the beginning --recalling
> the Whatsername/Waddell debate about the Cistercians' orginal
> thinking about themselves. [all i can think of is Connie Bouchard,
> and it wasn't her.]

Constance Berman.  That was one bit she got spot-on.  (There's a paper to be 
written - I've just heard one delivered - on the application of these 
'virtuous' names to women, and their adoption by the Puritans.)  Her point 
was that the Cistercians (to be vague and anachronistic) didn't originally 
consider themselves to be an Order - or to be the Cistercian Order.

>> But there is nothing wrong with calling all regular canons living
>> under the Rule of St Augustine "Augustinian",
>
> except that it's anachronistic.
>
> it appears to be an Early Modren confection:
>
> AUGUSTINIAN
>
> 2. Belonging to (n. one of) the order of Augustines.
>
> 1602 W. WATSON Decacord. 75 Dominicans, Augustinians, and other poore
> religious Friers.
> 1875 T. LINDSAY in Sund. Mag. June 589 The Augustinian monks in
> Brussels. 1882 Athenæum 3 June 692/3 A house of Augustinian canons.
>
>
> but, better than "Austin" --at least for 12th c. France-- and Any
> Port in a Storm, i suppose.
>
>> unless they belong to a separate 'Order' - e.g. the
>> Premonstratensians.  The Premonstratensians, incidentally, followed the 
>> Cistercian practice, and termed all their houses abbeys.
>
> no accounting for Taste.
>
> they had "abbots" i presume, and were therefore, by the Licence of Du
> Cange,

The master of what Henry Bradshaw called "Middling and Infamous Latinity".

> permitted to call their houses "abbeys".
>
>> As I said, collegiate/collegial [collégiale] is best reserved for
>> houses of secular canons.
>
> COLLEGIAL
>
> [a. F. collégial, or ad. L. collgil-is, f. collgium COLLEGE.]
>
> 1. Of the nature of, or constituted as, a college. collegial church: =
> collegiate church.
>
> 1530 PALSGR. 207/1 Collegial churche, esglise collegialle.
> 1530-1 Act 22 Hen. VIII, c. 15 Cathedralle and collegiall churches.
> 1641 HEYLIN Help to Hist. (1671) 241 The Castle and the Collegial
> Church being both in rubbish. 1670 G. H. Hist. Cardinals I. iii. 68
> There are sometimes two or three together of principal dignity in
> some Collegial Churches.
>
> the OED expressed the opinion that this usage might be archaic but,

I think they might be calling the word archaic (preferring "collegiate", 
presumably.)

> hey, the Founder of the Church of England can't be "archaic", can he?
>
> i've always thought that he was Infallible.

You are confusing him with someone else...

>> Secular canons, I need hardly add, did not live under a Rule
>
> which is why they were styled "secular"
>
>> - although there is wriggle room in the case of the Rule of St 
>> Chrodegang/Rule of Aix.  Those living under this Rule (pretty well 
>> obsolete by the 12th century)

> yes, a Dead Letter.

Actually, you would be better off using that joke about St Augustine's 
so-called Rule...

> like the Carolingian Dynasty itself.
>
>> are regarded as a secular (it fell out of use because it was
>> insufficiently 'regular'.)
>
> proving that the middlevils were not excessively Literal Minded.
>
>>> e.g., St. John's of Chartres, reformed in the 1090s by Bishop Ivo
>>> certainly had an abbot.

Perhaps you can elaborate on this "certainly" - not being a relative term, 
of course.  (Although I have seen it referred to as a "collegiate abbey".)

>>> Ivo's sucessor, Bishop Godfrey, refers to the canons living a
>>> regular life according to "the canons instituted by St. Augustine" (#19 
>>> below)--
>>>
>>> though i've yet to see any source which refers to it as an
>>> _abbatia_,. it most definitely was *never* referred to as a "priory"
>>
>> Well, can you be sure it wasn't Victorine?
>
> well, pretty much, yeah.
>
> Ivo's reform Stuck --no opposition from the Count, Vidame (who was
> tied to the place) or his immediate sucessor bishops (Godfrey of
> Leves, his nephew, Goslen of Muzy, etc.).
>
> far as i know the church of St. Victor of Paris didn't even have a
> prebend in it, nor rights to the annates there --though St. John had
> a prebend in the cathedral chapter (and maybe the annates there, too,
> i can't recall).
>
> Bishop Godfrey (Ivo's sucessor) might have favored the Victorines
> within his own chapter, but not at St. John's, i don't believe.
>
>> I don't have reference works for French churches
>
> so i gather.
>
>> - particularly those that no longer exist.
>
> well, what of what interest can they possibly be, if they no longer
> exist?
>
> like, say, St. Victor of Paris.
>
>
> btw, the Primary Source for collegial church of St. John of Chartres
> remains
>
> René Merlet, ed. Cartulaire de Saint-Jean-en-Vallée de Chartres.
> Chartres, 1906.
>
> not yet available on The Innernets, apparently.

No copies on Abebooks.

John Briggs

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager