.‘ _ a uvtKuut FINES: '04-. “ .- 3 25¢ per day per item 3 ‘ 114““ .‘ . : (Sufi mumnc LIBRARY MATERIALS. A > ‘3 Place in book return to new: '. I “43””, a' charge from circulation rec: W © 1981 DONALD DEE HOCHSTETLER All Rights Reserved A CONFLICT OF TRADITIONS: CONSECRATION FOR WOMEN IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES By Donald Dee Hochstetier A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1981 ABSTRACT A CONFLICT OF TRADITIONS: CONSECRATION FOR WOMEN IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES By Donald Dee Hochstetler In the period between the early sixth century and the death of Louis the Pious developments occurred which were instrumental in forming the Western conception of the role of consecrated women in Church and in society. These centuries were marked by continual efforts to reform the practice of consecration on the basis of Inonastic principles. It is one object of this dissertation to examine the principles and persons which formed and enforced this deal. The religious life of women was affected by more than the ideals of the reformers. The reality of consecration remained con- siderably different from that desired by the reformers. In order to put the ideal into perspective, the dissertation will consider the religious, social, and economic factors which formed the actual character of early medieval consecration. Principles of monastic reform were devised by certain bishops in the early sixth century. These ideals were adopted and refined by subsequent generations of bishops. The reformers felt that there Donald Dee Hochstetler were weaknesses in the practice of consecration that could only be rectified by making monasticism the only form of consecration avail- able to women. Other forms of consecration permitted too many free- doms to consecrated women, resulting in too little separation between religious and secular worlds. In fact, the secular nobility and its attitudes, not religious authorities and ideals, actually determined the character of consecration. The bishops strove to reduce the con- trol of secular nobles over the internal function of religious institutions, and to change the behavior of consecrated women. The reform movement reached its climax with the accession of the Carolingian kings. These rulers replaced the bishops as the leaders of reform. Now reform was directed by a single person with real power (seldom possessed by bishops) to affect the behavior of the nobility. The Carolingians agreed that a variety of forms of consecration was undesirable; but a variety of monastic practice still existed. The royal program decreed that there must be one form of monasticism: Benedictine monasticism. Therefore, a single form of consecration, Benedictine monasticism, should guide all conse- crated women in the kingdom. A number of factors limited the effectiveness of the reform movement. Most important was the fact that the nobility did not support the reform movement. Noble opinion mattered: the nobility founded and economically supported most communities of women. Most communities were the property of the founding families, used as family economic interest demanded. Success of reform would have. meant a drastic reduction in the nobility's capacity to control the Donald Dee Hochstetler goods connected with the communities possessed by it; control of property was the foundation of the nobility's political power. Consecrated noblewomen ignored the injunctions of the monas- tic ideal to reject the attitudes of their class. Class determined one's standing in religious communities, and consecrated women con- tinued to possess property. The primary allegiance of these women was to their families, not to ecclesiastical authorities. The direction of reform by the kings was a mixed blessing. The kings were the greatest possessors of religious institutions. The kings, despite their pronouncements, did not hesitate to protect their interests in the properties of communities of women. The relationship of the royal family to communities in its possession was usually typical of the nobility as a whole. The limited support of the kings for monastic reform in practice more than any other factor restricted the success of the reform program devised by the Carolingian rulers themselves. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter INTRODUCTION ................................................. I. MONASTICISM FOR WOMEN: THE CREATION OF AN IDEAL ....... II. THE CHARACTER OF NONMONASTIC FORMS OF CONSECRATION FOR WOMEN: ATTEMPTS T0 LIMIT AND ERADICATE THEM ........... III. MODIFICATION OF THE MONASTIC IDEAL: THE EFFECT OF NOBLE PATRONAGE ON CONSECRATION FOR WOMEN .............. IV. THE CONTINUED ASSOCIATION OF CONSECRATED WOMEN WITH SECULAR SOCIETY: THE ISSUES OF PROPERTY AND MARRIAGE .. V. THE CAROLINGIAN RULERS AS POSSESSORS OF COMMUNITIES OF WOMEN: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PRACTICE AND THE BENEDICTINE IDEAL ...................................... CONCLUSION ................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY ........................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................. ii Page 15 104 172 256 300 330 340 348 INTRODUCTION Women dedicated to religious service were of great importance to the Christian religion from its earliest days. It was not until the early Middle ages, however, that the development of a clear con- ception of the role of consecrated women in the Church and in society took place in the West. In the period between the second decade of the sixth century and the death of Louis the Pious a crucial event took place within the Frankish Church: the definition of a monastic ideal which was intended to guide the practice of all consecrated women. At the same time the leaders of the Frankish Church, the bishops and the kings, continually sought to enforce obedience to that ideal through ecclesiastical legislation. It will be one object of this study to analyze the component parts of this monastic ideal, the reasons for its existence, and the success of attempts to make monasticism the only form of consecration for women. This analysis will be founded on the premise that the meaning of early medieval monasticism for women can only be understood properly if it is looked at in its role as a means to reform the practice of consecration for women as a whole. A balanced portrayal of consecration for women needs to go beyond the ideal, of course. Reform is after all a reaction to a _§£E£!§.9!2 which a particular group feels to be no longer desirable. Thus, it will be a second object of this study to discuss that actual- ity of consecration for women which the pro-monastic reformers tried 1 to change. That consideration will fall into two parts. On an ecclesiological level, it will be necessary to discuss nonmonastic forms of consecration: consecrated widowhood/virginity practiced by the individual in her own home;the diaconate; and the canonical form. On a secular level, there will be an evaluation of the influence of family ties, possession of property, and patronage of communities of *women by secular nobles on the character of consecration. A third element in the formation of consecration as it actually existed was the support of the nobility both for nonmonastic forms and for a con- cept of consecration which did not exclude the intrusion of secular practices and attitudes into the religious life of women. It was the Frankish bishops of the sixth century who established the first definition of properly practiced consecration for women in the history of the Western Church. It was the innovation of the bishops to create an ideal of consecration which was based on two ideas. First, the bishops rejected the practices of consecration as it then existed because they felt it to be full of abuses which reduced its value as a means of expressing religious devotion. Second, they promoted a single form of consecration, monasticism, as the only solution to these abuses. The bishops presented monasticism as the only means of expressing religious devotion that would permit the individual to achieve successfully those ideals of consecrated virginity which served as the reason for existence of all the various forms of consecration for women. It was necessary for the early medieval proponents of monasticism to define the exact nature of that form as practiced by women, for that had not been done prior to the sixth century. The goal of the monastic reformers from the sixth to the mid-ninth century was first of all to organize and purify the practice of monasticism so that it could with justice be presented as the only proper form of consecration for women. This purified monasticism was to serve as tool for the reform of consecretion as a whole. The creation of the monastic ideal for women must be placed in its proper context. That context was the multiplicity of forms by which women could express their religious devotion in the early Middle Ages. Monasticism was only one of a variety of such forms, a rather late development in the religious world of women, and one that most likely did not attract even a simple majority of consecrated women in the early Middle Ages. The significance of monasticism for women is that, due to the decision of the leadership of the Frankish Church, it was made the standard by which the practice of consecration was judged. Several factors frustrated the realization of the monastic ideal to the extent desired by the monastic reformers of the Mero- vingian and Carolingian eras. Among those factors was the undeniable validity of those nonmonastic forms which the supporters of monasticism sought to eradicate. It is essential to examine the nonmonastic forms and their relationship to monasticism in some detail. Without an understanding of that relationship early medieval monasticism is deprived of its proper context, and its true significance as a reform- ing ideal is lost. The staying power and attractiveness of nonmonastic forms was due in part to their solid foundation in the practice of the apostolic and patristic Church. Unmarried women, and widows hiparticular, were indispensible to the spread of Christianity into the Greek speaking world. The homes of widows were way stations to wandering mission- aries. Christian widows served as examples of fortitude and piety to the local communities of believers. The consecrated women of the apostolic Church was not secluded from the world like a nun, but was actively involved in the functions of the Christian community. The practice of the apostolic Church in regard to consecration established a long-lived tradition. The active participation of consecrated women in the functions of the Christian community, their considerable con- tact with the secular world, continued into the early Middle Ages. In the patristic period of the Church there took place a further development which was to characterize consecration for women: there arose that multiplicity of forms of consecration which was to be so typical of the early Middle Ages as well. One of thsoe forms was monasticism, to be sure. But monasticism was forced to compete for the allegiance of religious women with other forms which were more directly descended from the customs of the New Testament Church. Out of the consecrated widowhood/virginity of the apostolic and patristic Church there evolved the diaconate for women, and later still the office of canoness. The last two forms added to the active participation of the consecrated widow in the Christian community a close involvement of consecrated women in the sacral functions of the Church. The work of certain consecrated women became tied closely to that performed by the deacons and other male assistants of the priest. While monasticism for women was developing in some circles of the Christian community, another concept of consecration was grow- ing which worked in directions contrary to those suggested by the monastic ideal. Instead of monastic separation from the world the diaconate provided yet greater participation for consecrated women in the world. Instead of merely meditation, prayer, and study of the Scriptures the diaconal and canonical forms allowed for some type of active participation by consecrated women in the performance of the ritual of the mass. . Again, only in this context of the complex character of con- secration can the role of monasticism be understood. Monasticism for women meant reform, a reaction to the reality of consecration as it existed in the Merovingian and Carolingian periods. The sixth century bishops established the pattern of the subsequent approach of the leadership of the Frankish Church to the reform of consecra- tion. The desire for reform was expressed in influential monastic rules and in the decrees of the bishops in their synods. In the early sixth century Bishop Caesarius of Arles wrote his great monastic rule for women, the first such rule in the West. The work of Caesarius was of tremendous importance, for his vision of monasti- cism for women provided an answer to what many of his fellow bishops felt were the abuses which resulted from the freedoms given to the individual by nonmonastic forms of consecration. While Caesarius defined the character of monasticism for women, his definition would have produced no results had the time not been ripe for such a work. Other bishops were clearly uneasy about the validity of the traditional means available to women who wished to enter the religious life. That this is so is proved by the synodal decrees of the period. The first redaction of Caesarius' rule was written c. 512. In 517 the Council of Albon prohibited the consecra- tion of any more deaconesses, a command which was repeated by the Council of Orleans of 533. These decisions were only two of several synodal decrees of the sixth through the mid-ninth century which represented one aspect of the reform of consecration on monastic principles. That aspect was the effort to reduce the active role of consecrated women in the world and to remove them from excessively close connection with the sacral functions of the Church. The reduction of the active role of consecrated women in the important functions of the Christian community would be accomplished by forcing all consecrated women to adopt the monastic life. Thus it was essen- tial for the bishops of the sixth and of later centuries to define the exact character of that monastic life, so that consecrated women would know what was expected of them. The work of definition was accomplished through a series of monastic rules and synodal decrees. Yet there were weaknesses in the practice of monasticism by women. From the point of view of the reformers monasticism itself was riddled with abuses which reduced its value as a form of conse- cration. The monasticism of the sixth century was not so different from other forms of consecration that it could justifiably be pre- sented as the only means by which the religious woman could express her devotion to God. Therefore, it was a second aim of monastic reformers to purify monastic practice, to free monasticism as an institution from abuses, to make monasticism significantly different from other forms of consecration. In this respect as in so many others Caesarius was the pioneer. His rule was a detailed blueprint for the reformation of monasticism. The monasticism of Caesarius was clearly distinct in its practice and in its goals from nonmonastic forms of consecration and from unreformed monasticism. And in this respect as well the work of Caesarius was adopted and amplified in later monastic rules and in the synodal decrees of the Merovingian and Carolingian eras. Caesarius' definition and reform of monasticism were not the final word. No single synod of the early Middle Ages succeeded in establishing monasticism as the only form of consecration for women. The ideals and problems first faced in the sixth century remained living issues to the death of Louis the Pious. With the accession of the Carolingians to the Frankish throne, however, the attack on nonmonastic forms and on irregularities within monasticism became a centrally directed program. The directioncn’reform fell out of the hands of the bishops and was assumed by the kings. Under the Carolingians a final element was added to the reform movement. No longer were all forms of cenobitic monasticism equally acceptable. The ideal came to be that all communities of men and of women were to follow the rule of Benedict of Nursia. There can be no doubt that this aspect of the Carolingian reform of religion was due to the close association of the Benedictine reformer Boniface with the rise of the Carolingian house. The descendants of Pippin I did not promote the Benedictine rule out of respect for Boniface's memory, however. Boniface had suggested to the new ruling family a means whereby the control of the ruler over every aspect of religious life in the king— dom could be greatly increased. The ruler and the bishops worked together to create that order and regularity in the Church which was so dear to the Carolingian concept of royal power. The Carolingian reform program was the logical culmination of a reform movement which was already old in the mid-eighth century. The Carolingians continued and sharpened the attempt to limit the scope and to define more closely the character of nonmonastic forms of consecration for women. The eradication of such forms was the final goal, but the Carolingians were to find nonmonastic forms as difficult to deal with as had the bishops of the sixth century. Non- monastic forms were solidly grounded in the customs of the apostolic and patristic Church; they had long centuries of tradition and prac- tice behind them. The idea that only monasticism could properly protect the ideals of consecrated virginity was a bold innovation. 'The attack on nonmonastic forms was a long process which usually resulted in a compromise which modified those forms but did not lead to their immediate demise. The theological validity of nonmonastic forms was a signifi- cant factor in the continued existence of those forms despite the efforts of the Benedictine reformers. Of more importance in the sur- vival of nonmonastic forms, however, was their association with the attitudes of the Frankish nobility toward consecration for women. It will be the purpose of Chapters III and IV of this study to show that the nobility, whether secular or consecrated, possessed a conception of the meaning of consecration that differed from that of the Benedictine reformers. The nobles supported the existence of established nonmonastic forms because the existence of those forms facilitated the functioning of the traditional relationship of the nobility to consecration for women. The ideas of the nobility about the role of consecrated women in society was instrumental in forming the character of both of nonmonastic forms of consecration and of unreformed monasticism. The pro-Benedictine reformers sought to establish a type of consecration for women which was directed accord- ing to purely religious concepts, as those concepts were defined by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. From the point of view of the reformers the traditional practice of consecration was permeated far too much by the secular assumptions of the nobility. The reformers were correct in their assessment of the domi- nating role of the nobility in determining the character of consecra- tion. The nobles' conceptions of the meaning of consecration for women brought internal and external pressures to bear on the world of religion. Consecrated noblewomen did not leave the attitudes of their class behind them upon entering the religious life, but mirrored the assumptions of their unconsecrated relatives. It was this uni- formity of conceptions about consecration by nobles within and with- out the religious world which frustrated the complete application of the reforming ideals of ecclesiastical legislation and monastic rules. There is abundant evidence to show that consecrated noblewomen did not leave behind the attitudes of their class. Injunctions against the removal of consecrated women from religious life for marriage are frequently so phrased as to indicate that the cooperation of the 10 women in their removal was not unusual. The very repetition of commands that women dedicated to God were to remain in the religious life forever shows that for many women their primary allegiance was to their families and not to their profession. The cooperation of women in their removal from their religious retreat was a result of their failure to separate their attitudes from those of their secular relatives. One factor in the inability of many women to develop a monastic personality (one separated from the atti- tudes of the secular world) was that they remained in frequent con- tact with their families. Neither they nor their relatives desired that extreme limitation on contacts between consecrated women and outsiders that was required by all monastic rules. Those rules them- selves suggest that excessively frequent contact between members of religious communities and their relatives was an important problem. Dissensions arose within religious institutions because some individuals insisted on the privileges of rank which would have been theirs in the secular world. In this regard the insistence of all monastic rules on humility and mutual respect among members of a monastic community takes on a new meaning. Insistence on humility was not primarily a reminder to all the members of a virtue expected of followers of Christ. It was an attempt on the part of reforming bishops to change the mores of the nobles in monastic institutions by demanding a change in behavior on their part, a very practical aspect of the management of a large body of women of differing social grada- tions. 11 Many consecrated women of the early Middle Ages have left behind documents which show their concerns and ideals. These docu— ments were seldom saints' lives or other products of pious contempla- tion. They were charters of donation to religious institutions, in short, records of land deals. The charters of consecrated women show that they continued to possess landed property in great amounts. Through their charters the women claimed usufruct, exchanged holdings, protected their own interests as landlords, and they did not forget their children or other relatives. Noble abbesses who had founded religious institituions did not hesitate to give those communities and all the lands attached to them to other religious institutions. There was no difference between the attitudes of many consecrated women toward property and family and those of their secular relatives. Unconsecrated nobles treated communities of consecrated women in ways that lessened the ability of those communities to fulfill their religious mission. Religious institutions had little leverage against the nobles who founded them and donated to them the lands which served as their economic support. Most abbesses were members of the families who had founded the communities of which they were the head. These abbesses were clearly in their positions of authority so that they could protect the family's interests in the foundation. A final concern of an account of consecration for women in the early Middle Ages must be the actual relationship of the kings to consecration. The Carolingian rulers were instrumental in the founda- tion and enforcement of the ideal of Benedictine monasticism through their capitular decrees. The question is, to what extent did royal 12 actions match royal pronouncements? One cannot deny the significance of Carolingian support for Benedictine reform of consecration. With- out that support, without the program of reform according to Benedictine principles devised by the Carolingian monarchs, monasti- cism for women would have remained but one of several forms of con- secration. On the other hand, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Carolingian kings' support for Benedictine reform was a matter of organization and rationalization, not of spiritual commit- ment. The Carolingian rulers were as ready to use donations to religious institutions as investments as were any of their vassals. They did not hesitate to use the possessions of religious communities for the benefit of their own families. Like other nobles the Carolingians placed relatives in positions of authority in religious institutions in order to protect family interests. Despite royal decrees, the Carolingian family was seldom different from other nobles in its treatment of communities of women. Because they were responsible for governing huge properties and populations attached to their institutions abbesses were very important to the secular government of the Frankish kingdom. Abbesses were ranked among the great political officers of the realm. When the king felt a need to confer with an abbess on political or religious matters his command would spring the bounds of monastic rules and ecclesiastical legislation which required her continual presence in her community. The command of the king obviated ecclesi- astical chains of authority which made the bishop the only person who could authorize any exception to the monastic rule of stability. 13 There was much in the way nobles, both secular and conse- crated, used religious institutions of women that ran counter to the ideals of the Benedictine reform movement. Yet almost all Carolingian capitularies and synodal decrees were concerned with the regulation of the internal functions of religious communities. Except when they reacted to the crassest acts of noble oppression the royal capitularies did little to change the relation of religious institu- tions to the secular nobility. Yet the capitularies were the instru- ments with which the kings carried out their ancient role of pro- tector of all consecrated women in the kingdom. Thus the relationship of the ideal of reform of consecration on monastic principles to the actual practice of consecration in the early Middle Ages was as follows: What were seen as abuses by some leaders of Frankish society were accepted by others as usages sancti- fied by the Scriptures and by centuries of ecclesiastical tradition. The nobility regarded its relationship to communities of women as long established rights accruing to it because of its social position. If that relationship had been as fully altered as was desired by the ecclesiastical reformers the rights and powers of the secular nobility would have been changed out of all recognition. But the reform movement, for all its successes, still had much to accomplish by 840. Traditional forms and relationships continued to meet the needs of people whose opinions mattered. It was no help that the most important proponents of reform, the kings, were not consistent in their application of the principles of that reform. While the character of consecration for women had been significantly modified 14 by the death of Louis the Pious, the change was far from as great as it would have been had the relationship between the nobility and communities of consecrated women been more fundamentally restructured. :6 Ms... a.'\ ‘r u‘. I l\ CHAPTER I MONASTICISM FOR WOMEN: THE CREATION OF AN IDEAL The sixth century was one of the two most important periods in the development of consecration for women in the West. Certain bishops, inspired by the work of Caesarius of Arles, propounded the idea that monasticism could not any longer be allowed to serve as merely one of several legitimate forms of consecration for women. The cutting edge of theological thought in the Frankish Church asserted that only monasticism could properly fulfill the ideals of consecrated virginity which were the foundation for all forms of service to the Church in the early Middle Ages. In monastic rules and in synodal decrees of the sixth and seventh centuries the pro- ponents of monasticism presented that form as the only means of saving consecrated virginity from deterioration to the point of use- lessness. Each nonmonastic form came to be identified as an abuse in itself. At the same time the promonastic bishops, again taking their lead from Caesarius, recognized that there were problems within monasticism as it existed in the early Middle Ages. Unreformed monasticism of the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries was far too similar to nonmonastic forms. Nuns shared too much in the freedoms 15 16 and lack of seclusion which were typical of consecrated widows and virgins living at home, of deaconesses, and of canonesses. Thus, the object of the monastic rules and ecclesiastical legislation of the sixth and seventh centuries was to purify monasticism so that it could achieve the mission envisioned for it by the reformers. The reform movement consisted of a two-pronged attack. There was the _drive to vitiate the validity of nonmonastic forms of consecration and to promote monasticism as the only alternative to nonmonastic forms. On the other hand there was the attempt to define what the character of monasticism for women must be, and to end abuses in communities of nuns. It was this concreteness of definition, the existence of written rules which were meant for the use of more than one community, which separated monasticism from other forms of con- secration. Monastic rule emphasized restriction and sacrifice as opposed to freedoms, duties and subordination as opposed to rights. The logical conclusion of the drive for definition, limita- tion, and rationality in consecration which was begun by the bishops of the sixth century was taken in the late eighth century. During the reign of Charlemagne the king and his advisers, in their desire to create uniformity in all institution of the Frankish Church, came to feel that the variety of interpretations of monasticism was an abuse. Rationalized monasticism directed by one rule for all nuns and all monks throughout the kingdom would have greater appeal against nonmonastic forms. Diversity of interpretation was characteristic of nonmonastic forms, and the lack of definition made monasticism too similar to those other forms. The decision of the king and his 17 advisers was to make Benedictine monasticism the only acceptable form of monastic life in the kingdom. At the same time the attack on non- monastic forms was continued, this time directed by the king. What was involved was nothing short of a program of reform for consecration for women. The program was continued in the reign of Louis the Pious. Together the reigns of Charlemagne and of Louis compose the second great era of development of consecration for women. In that period the ideas expressed by the bishops of the xisth and seventh centuries were taken farther and made into a coherent program directed from a single source: the kings and their closest advisers; it was the era of royally promulgated Benedictine monasticism. Before turning to the development of monasticism for women it will be useful to indicate briefly the concepts involved in that ideal of consecrated virginity which monasticism was meant to protect. The status of women who were dedicated to the service of God was quite high from the earliest days of the Church. By the end of the third century there was in existence a set of terms which were used throughout the early Middle Ages to express the nature and to high- light the importance of the life lived by consecrated women. These terms stressed those factors which were common to all the several forms by which women could serve the Church: virginity, marriage to Christ, a servant relationship to God, personal holiness. Such terms were: Virgines sanctae; ancillae Dei; sponsa Christi; virgines . . . . . 1 sacrae; famulae Dei; monachae; sanctimoniales; religiosae. 18 Maintenance of virginity was only one of the concepts common to the forms of religious consecration for women. The ancient idea of consecrated virginity on which all forms of consecration--including the monastic-~were based went beyond the negative, and emphasized marriage with Christ more than renunciation of earthly marriage. Early in the patristic age of the Church the idea arose that the consecrated virgin might reject earthly marriage but did so to become sponsa Christi, the bride of Christ. It was her status as a bride of Christ and not that of perpetual virgin that gave the consecrated virgin such prestige in the Christian community.2 Jerome called consecrated women "lady" ("domina"): "For I should call the spouse 3 The terms used by Jerome and by other Fathers of my Lord 'ggmina.'" such as Ambrose and Augustine show that even when virginity pgr_§g_ was under consideration there was a tendency to see it as a dowry offered to Christ as bridegroom. Maintenance of virginity could not be an end in itself; it needed a holy purpose to make it consecrated virginity.4 Ambrose seems to have been the first of the Fathers of the Church to indicate the desirability of a formal profession of conse- crated virginity. Ambrose frequently used the verb "profiteri" in connection with consecrated virgins to imply the act of offering one- self to Christ. Ambrose felt that this act should be done publicly.5 What kind of public act or ceremony was used by the Church at this time, if any, Ambrose does not say. Hugo Koch has warned us that we must be careful not to read fourth century developments back into the third century, when the ideals and ceremonies currounding consecration 19 of women to the service of the Church were just beginning to develop. Koch argues that Joseph Wilpert is guilty of such anachronisms in his citation of Tertullian to prove the existence of public and private vows of consecrated virginity in the third century. Koch shows con- vincingly that in each instance cited by Wilpert Tertullian was talking about the veil and its role in the life of the virgin.6 According to Tertullian, it was the will of God that all virgins, whether consecrated or not, must wear the veil at all times.7 This meant that not only were consecrated virgins to wear that veil which made them indistinguishable from matrons, but there was to be no visible difference between consecrated and other virgins.8 The rationale behind this command is to be found in Tertullian's.Qg 9533., chapter 22, where he said that no female was really a virgin anymore after she had become capable of bearing children and could marry. Some women might have married men, but others chose to devote themselves to God. These latter were also to wear the hairstyle and clothing of the responsible matron. In so doing they did not act falsely, for "you have married Christ, you have given him your flesh; behave responsibly for your husband; if secular marriage requires that you wear the veil, so much more does yours."9 Thus, the veil early became the classic symbol of the consecrated virgin, then of the nun. Terms used to describe the assumption of the consecrated life came to emphasize the veil: velare; velamine tegere; velamen accipere, etc.10 But it must be noted here that to the early Church the consecrated Virgin's veil did not represent seclusion from the rest of the Christian community; it was not a symbol which served to 20 make the consecrated virgin stand out from other women. Instead, the veil symbolized maturity; it made the consecrated virgin an integral part of the Christian commonwealth. The consecrated virgin had made a decision of her own to join the other matrons and to share in the rights of the matron's status. She had decided to become an active member of the local congregation of believers, not to isolate herself from society. Wilpert aptly points out that consecrated life contained a negative and a positive element, "in that the maiden rejected marriage, denied the world and her friends, and instead offered her virginity to Christ."11 To express this idea Psalm 44 became the anthem of the consecrated virgin. Of greatest importance were verses ll and l2: Listen my daughter, and see, and lend your ear; forget your people and your father's house, for the king desires your beauty, he who is the Lord your God - adore him! As Ambrose described here, the consecrated virgin was "Always a spouse, always unmarried, so that love may have no end, nor modesty any curse."13 None of the Fathers ever doubted the difficulty of the path chosen by consecrated women. Ambrose considered the life so far beyond the capacities of human nature that the pattern for it must come, he felt, from heavenly inspiration, and that the strength to continue in this supernatural way of life must also come from heaven. "Who could deny that this way of life flows from heaven, and could hardly exist on earth if God had not descended to earth and become 14 human?" To Cyprian a chaste life was like that of the angels. He felt that the physical element was so altered in the consecrated 21 virgin, so purified by her spiritual aspect, and the spirit in its turn so changed by the supernatural grace of God, that the virgin grew beyond those sinful desires which were a natural part of human nature. The result was that she became more like an angel than like 15 These Fathers realized that human nature and society a human being. set up innumerable powerful barriers to perseverance in the life of consecrated virginity. In addition to her status as the bride of Christ the position of the consecrated virgin in the Christian community rested on her heroism in assuming the rigors of the ascetic life of her own free will. That made her equivalent to the martyrs. Ambrose declared that the consecrated virgin made herself into a martyr by choosing 16 her life, and Jerome called virginity "a daily martyrdom." It was therefore one of the most important developments in the history of Christian thought when the idea arose that this voluntary martyrdom could only be properly expressed in an organized form: through monasticism. No one has so excellently outlined the components of this life of martydom expressed through the monastic form as has Stephan Hilpisch: Everything that the old asceticism and the old consecrated virginity had already suggested and had practiced to a certain extent--separation from the world and total surrender to Christ--received concerete form in monasticism. Monasti- cism also provided a certain enhancement and a strengthening through external forms vis-a-vis the dangers which threatened the ascetics and virgins who lived in the world, and despite which many succeeded. That was the total rejection of possissions and of all earthly things; unquestioning obedi- ence to authority; communal life; uniformity in dress; and 17 a life of prayer and work according to an established norm. 22 Proponents of monasticism sought to end those irregularities which arose in the first centuries of consecrated virginity. Those irregu- larities developed because there were lacking means by which conse- crated women were protected from the cares and temptations of the world they had supposedly left. Before examining the problems faced by the proponents of the monastic life, their successes and failures, it is essential to consider the components of those ideals which they sought to enact. There are a number of specific characteristics of the ideal nun and of the ideal community of nuns to be found in the various monastic rules for women, in the vitae of saints, in synodal legisla- tion, and in the capitularies of the kings. Although these sources vary greatly in sophistication and although the people who drew them up are separated by many years, there is a surprising agreement in all of them about the importance of the monastic as opposed to other forms of consecration, and about the personal and communal qualities to be expected of the followers of the monastic way. 1. Separation from the world was the very basis of the monastic life. It was the rajsgg_g'§trg of monasticism to provide protection for the interior life of community and individual. That is what gave this form of consecration its meaning and purpose--to shield the religious community from the distractions of the secular world. Women entered the monastic life to worship God as they felt he should be worshiped. The monastery was inhabited by people who thought that true Christianity was not possible in the secular world 23 because that world contained too many temptations or distractions. Separation had two foundations: (a) (b) Personal separation from the world was felt to begin with the individual. The pleasures, cares, and relation- ships which were typical of the secular person were to have no place in the life of the nun. She was to strive to eliminate those emotions which were based on human as opposed to spiritual desires. To that end she was supposed to limit her contacts with her family and to cut herself off from their secular concerns with wealth and power. She was also to restrict severely associa- tions with all other secular persons, female as well as male, and with male religious. Separation of the community depended on the independence of that community. Its religious functions could not be performed properly if outsiders--lay or ecclesiastical-- continually interfered in the management of its internal affairs. The management of those affairs was the responsibility of the abbess. Therefore, the abbess was ideally selected from among the members of the community, either by cooption by the ruling abbess or by election by the members, in the absence of any pressure from out- siders. The economic support of the community had to be assured so that religious functions were not neglected while individual members were forced to provide their own support. The ideal community would be able to 2. 24 provide each member with sufficient food, drink, and clothing. This was essential if the monastic ideals of communal life and individual poverty were to be realized. Certain personal attitudes were expected to evolve out of a mentality which had nothing to do with secular conceptions about life. (a) (b) (C) (d) 18 Voluntary personal poverty: the true nun had no personal possessions, was indeed supposed to feel contempt for such things. It was not her business to concern herself with the provision of her food and clothing. That was taken care of by the bishop, by the abbess, and by the communal life. All things in the monastery belonged to every member equally, thus to none individually. Stability: the nun might not leave the monastery for any reason until the day she died. Perseverance: the foundation of stability. Once having put her hand to the plow the nun was never to look back, no matter what trials beset her. Rules and synodal decrees often repeated the warning that went with the exhortation: "Remember Lot's wife" ("Mementote uxoris Loth . . ."). Chastity: concern for the chastity of the nun in its most obvious sense was not lacking in ecclesiastical legislation. Of the monastic rules that of Caesarius devoted the most space to the issue of sexual temptation. 25 But in all sources (and this was certainly true of Caesarius' writings) the most frequent mention of chastity was in connection with stability, the family, and illicit marriage. In Frankish society it was much more likely that a nun would lose her chastity through leaving the monastery (willingly or not) as a result of family pressure to get married than through fornication. She thereby showed a lack of stability and perseverance, lost her chastity, the gift she had offered to Christ, and committed adultery, not fornication, because she was already married to Christ. (e) Obedience: only through absolute obedience to a regularly elected abbess could regular and peaceful life be main- tained in the community. (f) A sense of equality and of humility: all were to be social equals within a monastic community. No one was to pride herself on former wealth or status in the secular world, nor was this to be a criterion for promotion to monastic offices. Lack of humility and mutual respect, like disobedience was a source of disruption and scandal. A frequent refrain of the rules was, "You may not go to law" ("Nullas lites habeatis"). 3. The collection of individuals formed a monastic community. The personal characteristics of the ideal nun facilitated her opera- tion as a member of the community and destroyed her proud sense of 26 individuality; she was to have no individuality. The qualities of the ideal community, in addition to those found above under "Separation" were: (a) Communal life: as already mentioned, this was essential (b) to the maintenance of individual poverty. Also, since_ all were equally poor and equally rich there would be no basis for jealousy or oppression due to wealth and the power it brought. Communal life was an instrument to destroy any undue sense of individuality. No one was to have private quarters; all worked together toward a common goal; all ate together at the same time; all worshiped together at the same time. Regular life: the accomplishment of personal and com- munity monastic virtues depended on the existence of and strict adherence to a clearly established rule. Monastic life, it was felt, could not be based on ad hoc formula- tions, nor on a set of rules to which there were con- tinual exceptions. Thus the term "regular life" can be defined as both life according to a written rule and as an orderly, quiet, harmonious life. Defined in the latter sense regular life can be seen as that life which resulted when all the other prescriptions for individual and com- munity were fulfilled by women who understood the pre- scriptions, agreed with them, and strove to live accord- ing to their spirit. 27 The reformers realized that if monasticism was to be the only valid form of consecration for women it was essential that the separa- tion from the world which made monasticism possible be properly observed. The nun was to be like Radegund who, entering the monastery at Poitiers and being elected abbess, so completely dedi- cated herself to the religious life that . . she gained for herself in heaven much more than she lost on earth. Soon her holy conversion began to express itself in humility of conversation, in abundance of charity, in the light of chastity, in the fatness of fasting, and she gave herself with such total love to her Spouse that, embracing God with a pure heart, she realized that Christ lived within her.19 But the best of wills could be overwhelmed by secular cares and temptations, and so it was essential that the secular world be kept as far away as possible. The ideal situation would be that demanded by Caesarius in his rule: "Secular matrons and girls or other women, or men in secular dress are to be forbidden entrance."20 Caesarius stood for an extremely severe cloister; he forbade convivia for even the most important people, such as abbots, monks, priests, the parents of the abbess, even bishops, including the bishop of Arles.21 Aurelian, a successof of Caesarius as bishop of Arles (546- 5l), agreed with this strict construction of separation in his own rule for nuns. He excluded secular men and women from the monastery precincts, except for the basilica and the salutatorium.22 Donatus of Besangon, in his rule for nuns written c. 624, adopted Caesarius' prohibition against the custom of giving convivia for important visitors of monasteries, but with Donatus we see the . . . . . 23 beginning of compromise in the excluSion of secular persons. 28 Donatus provided that women or girls in secular dress, noble or not, were not to be permitted to enter the monastery, whether to pray, to visit relatives, or for whatever reason, "except those who are religious and godfearing, whom the mother of the monastery judges to be worthy because of the merits of their lives."24 Obviously, there had to be some exceptions to this struct separation from the outside world. Workmen to do repairs were one such exception. According to Caesarius they were to enter in the presennce of the provisor, the legal representative of the community, 25 Aurelian but the abbess must know and approve of their presence. made it clear that though the provisors were important officers they might not enter the monastery at will, especially if they were secular. The provisors might only enter if they were accompanying repairman, "and this only if the abbess sees a need for them to enter; as for others, they have no license or liberty to enter."26 Donatus echoed the idea; the provisor might enter only if there was repair work to be overseen, and he had to notify the abbess of his intent to enter.27 The synodal decrees and capitularies did not devote as much space to the specific means by which communities of women were to be protected from intrusions by secular persons as did the rules. Those sources were more concerned with regulating in detail the relations between consecrated women and priests. However, as early as the Council of Epaon of 517 the attitudes expressed in subsequent capitu- laries and synodal decrees toward both priests and laymen were established: 29 Men are not to enter monasteries of women for any purpose or ministrations whatever unless they are of virtuous life (probata vitae) and of appropriate age.28 Only the good of the community could justify its entrance by persons who were not members of the institution. This good might have had to do with the upkeep of the buildings or it might have concerned the spiritual welfare of the members. But the admittance of outsiders had-to have a purpose; their presence had to improve the situation of the women and facilitate the functioning of the religious life of the community. It was felt that good could not come from evil per- sons. The bishops at the Council of Arles agreed with their prede- cessors at Epaon that this was so. In their decrees they copied the statement of the Council of Epaon verbatim.29 Further evidence that this ideal first established in the sixth century was considered valid in the Carolingian period is found in Council of Chalon of 813: "No vassal of the abbess nor any minister nor cleric nor layperson may enter a cloister of the maid- servants of Christ unless the necessity of work (necessitatis 30 operandi) requires it." The relatively new status of vassal was added to the old list of those who might enter only with good reason. The bishops at Chalon were determined not to allow political and social developments to create loopholes which would lessen the separa- tion of communities of consecrated women from the secular world. Since few secular persons (at least those who were not related to members of a community) would have a legitimate reason for entrance into a community of women, they would generally have presented less of a problem than did priests. While priests were indispensable to 30 a community of women, they were also men and did not live a monastic life. Capitularies and conciliar decrees shared the concern first expressed by Caesarius about the repeated contact between priests and nuns which the service of the mass required. Priests were out- siders, and eveyone agreed that they must be approached with care. Like carpenters, priests had a job to perform; once it was done they must leave. The frequent connection of priests with secular persons in synodal decrees and capitularies as individuals who must have good reasons to enter a community of women is instructive. There was no office so exalted that it permitted its holder to enter a cloister as he pleased. The protection which separation from the world afforded to monastic life needed to be absolute if it was to be worth anything. Further, all nonmonastic persons, even priests, needed to understand that they were in the monastery to perform a function, that this was the only reason they had been granted entrance, and that once their function was performed they were totally out of place and no longer welcome. Caesarius laid the foundations for those attitudes toward priests in his rule. The only men he would allow into the "secret parts" of the monastery were the bishops, presbyters, deacons, sub- deacons, and one or two readers, "whose age and life commends them, 31 Not all bishops and priests who ought to read the mass daily." were acceptable, but only those of proper age and probity. The bishops of the Council of Macon of 583 seem to have been inspired by this provision of Caesarius' rule, for they commanded something quite similar: "that no bishop, presbyter, deacon, cleric, or any 31 layperson is to be permitted to enter a monastery of women unless he 32 It is of virtuous life and proper age, and as utility directs." was the purpose of separation to protect probity of life; thus all who came inside the monastic precincts were to be of the highest character. We have already seen that Donatus would permit the entrance of those secular persons who, after careful scrutiny by the abbess, showed themselves to be holy and godfearing individuals. The continuing importance of the ideal of separation even against priests and monks is illustrated by Rudolf or Fulda's vita of Leoba. The events it related were from the eighth century, but the vita itself was written c. 836. The community at Winburn, where Leoba became a nun, was a double monastery. Such an institution might seem to offer ample opportunity for mischief, but Rudolf assures us that Winburn was a perfect monastery. Never was a woman allowed into the men's section or men into the women's section execpt for the presbyters who were allowed into the women's church in order to perform the mass, and once the mass was solemnly finished with a prayer, had to return immediately to their own side. For the women having renounced the world wanted to associate only with their own group, and never entered the exitura unless a rational cause or some great necessity forced them out, and then only with counsel. 3 The source of this strictly kept cloister was the strong leadership of Abbess Tetta. A rigor of discipline always flourished in that place beyond what was to be found in others, and maintained with such sollicitude that none of the women was permitted access to the clerics. For the virgins, with whom she [Tetta] remained continually, so little desired contact with men that not only laymen or clerics but even their own bishops were denied access to the congregation of women. 32 Again and again we find that the bishop himself was considered an outsider, that even his rank Was not exalted enough to permit him to ride roughshod over the boundaries of the cloister. The first quotation from Leoba's xjtg_is especially interesting, for it shows a group of women that was totally dedicated to its own monastic society and had no interest for any other (". . . saeculo renuntians earum collegio sociare voluerat . . ."). The ideal was a group of women so intensely involved in the monastic life that a bishop would be as much an intrusive force as a secular person. If such was the attitude toward bishops, priests could expect no greater privileges. The basic ideal laid down in most ecclesiasti- cal legislation concerning relations between priests and consecrated women was ". . . clerics and laymen are not to enter monasteries of "35 The concept was women, except for a priest to sing mas . . . . put more indirectly in the requirement that "Concerning monasteries of women, that the priest shall be permitted to come to them at the proper time for the performance of the solemnities of the mass, and then he is to return to his own church."36 Outside of serving mass the priest had no reason to be inside a monastery of women. It was his duty to appear punctually at the proper times for mass, then to disappear until his services were needed again. That the services rendered by priests to monasteries of women were at all times carefully defined and limited is illustrated by two sources from the reign of Charlemagne. The Council of Tours of 813 required that 33 Presbyters, deacons, and other clerics are not to be permitted residence within the cloister of women's mon— asteries. Nor are they to enter monasteries except at those times when the solemnities of the mass are being celebrated.37 It might seem at first thought that having clerics closely available would have been a convenience for all concerned. Yet the intrusion of nonmonastic persons into the heart of the cloister was considered a spiritual inconvenience by the reformers of consecration for women. The Council of Fréjus of 796/7 required that the separation of consecrated women from the world be kept inviolate. To this end the Council called on the bishops to act in their traditional role as protectors of the consecrated women in their dioceses. Presbyters who wished to visit or preach at monasteries of women were to obtain 38 It was recognized at Fréjus that the permission of the bishop. priests could provide religious services to communities of women other than the saying of mass. But those services were regarded with yet more suspicion than the performance of the mass, which did not require the permission of the bishop. The laudable desire to preach was put on the same level as the desire simply to visit a religious institution of women, and did not create an automatic exception to the severity of separation. It might be asked if there was a different attitude toward monks, since they were also members of the monastic world. The Council of Paris of 829 established "That access of canons and monks to monasteries of consecrated women is not to be allowed unless there 39 is a good cause to do so." This indicates that monks and canons did not have special privileges due to their status. But there was 34 no definition of what a gxd cause (causa utilitatis) might be, nor of who was to be the judge of utility. A solution may have been offered in the Episcoporum ad Hludovicum imperatorem relatio of 829. The issue here was that certain monks and canons, without consulting the bishop, had imprudently gone visiting houses of nuns and of canonesses. From this all sorts of evils had arisen; therefore, "We henceforth forbid such a deed, except for the case of preaching (causa praedicationis), because it is con- gruous with neither the canonical nor with the monastic profession."4O As far as some churchmen were concerned it was the bishop who was to regulate contacts between monks and consecrated women. Of course, monks would not have any justification for regular contacts with consecrated women, as did priests. Also, their reasons for con- tact had to be of a religious nature, as the Episcoporum . . . relatio foresaw only one reason for monks or canons entering a community of consecrated women, to preach. In general, then, the ecclesiastical legislators of the whole period from the sixth to the ninth century were at one in maintaining the necessity of a fairly severe separation of consecrated women from the nonmonastic world. But the legislators were not unrealistic, for they did realize that there were legitimate reasons for the contact of nuns with outsiders, or at least reasons that would legitimate the entrance of an outsider into a community of women. There are two sources from the early ninth century which expressed this guarded practicality particularly well. The Capitula ecclesiastica 2g Salz of 803-804 states that no one might enter a monastery of women except 35 for the presbyter, who was to enter at the proper time, "for the good 41 A capitulary of the monastery according to canonical institution." of c. 8l3 forbade anyone, layperson or cleric, unless he was a presbyter serving mass, to enter a monastery of women, "unless the needs of the monastery require it."42 The separation of nuns from the world was accomplished on two levels. First, entrance of potentially disturbing elements was per- mitted only under those conditions in which their presence would be least distracting: it must be for the good of the monastery. Second, those outsiders who were admitted must be of the most virtuous type. Unlike the actions and conversation of the average nonmonastic person the behavior of those who were admitted would detract the thoughts of the members of the community as little as possible from their proper lines. There was a special group of laymen which received much attention in rules and in ecclesiastical legislation: the relatives of consecrated women. However, while the rules were quite concerned about contacts between nuns and their relatives the subject was not touched on at all in synodal decrees, nor in the capitularies. Councils and kings were interested in the removal of women for pur- poses of marriage, whereas the rules were concerned with the