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
|