medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: John Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
> On 04/06/12, Christopher Crockett wrote:
>> Connie Bouchard's assessment...
>> namely, that "Without improper influence from laymen, the monks (and with
them the bishops and even the pope) routinely advanced to the office of abbot
relatives of men who had previously proved themselves in that position..."
>> strikes me as just a WEE bit on the naive/superficial side.
>> does anyone else here happen to think so?
> An interesting question. As the formulation "improper influence from
laymen" if not grossly tautologous implies at least the possibility of
_proper_ influence from laymen, one wonders what Professor Bouchard would
consider such proper influence to have been.
i don't think that she has thought the whole question through all that much.
>Does she give examples?
of "proper influence"?
i doubt it --her Universe is too Black & White to allow for that.
>Was there lay investiture of abbots elsewhere in Burgundy during the period
in question (C12-early C14)?
i'm not thinking so much about "lay investiture" in that period and region.
actual "lay investiture" was certainly a Dead Letter by then.
but the Reality was that *all* 11th-12th c. French monasteries (like
monasteries all over Europe) were thoroughly woven into the socio-political
fabric of their region/micro region.
they were primarily populated by the younger sons of the local "nobility" and
their executive officers were, in the main, chosen from among that class/group
(as the example of the abbots of St. Germain shows: abbots belonging to the
same family, *without a break*, 1099-1174; and from
another(?) family 1226-1309, with two short breaks totaling a mere 13 out of
83 years).
to state, as she does, that this Fact illustrates that this was the case
because the monks "routinely advanced to the office of abbot relatives of men
who had previously proved themselves in that position" is, as i said, at best
naive, at worst a complete misreading of what was going on.
there were, obviously, exceptions --an unusually "reform" minded bishop might
impose his will on an unusually lax house (or, otOh, an unusually venal and
avuncular bishop might impose his will with a very different motive).
and/or the local count (or king) might well have exercised his "influence" to
see to it that an abbot was chosen who was "politically" acceptable to him
(monasteries being, after all, "political" institutions as much as they were
"religious" and economic ones).
but i would submit that this would not have been seen as "improper influence"
--certainly not by the lay lord and those belonging his faction within (and
without) the institution, nor by the "reformers" in those instances where
their interests happened to coincide with those of a "Saintly" lay lord.
this was just the Way things were Done --these institutions were not some
abstract Ideal (much as the more idealistic "reformers" might have wished them
to be).
they were institutions made up of human beings, existing within the context of
a human society which was, by its fundamental nature, full of frightfully
complex and ever-shifting dynamics (*there's* a tautology for you).
i suppose what struck me about Professor Bouchard's curious statement was the
simple fact that there are, apparently, more things in Heaven and Earth than
are Dreamt of, in her rather simple Philosophy.
c
**********************************************************************
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
|