Historical Accuracy of Brother Cadfael Mysteries
Steve Gordon
having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
portrayed, the setting, or other details. I realize that some place-names
are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey), that Queen Mathilda
becomes Queen Maude (why -- to protect the ancient dead?), etc.
But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
detective work be medieval or modern?
Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
order in medieval England?
More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
detected by medievalist viewers?
Dan Goodman
Steve Gordon <lape...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
>having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
>about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
>portrayed, the setting, or other details. I realize that some place-names
>are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey), that Queen Mathilda
>becomes Queen Maude (why -- to protect the ancient dead?), etc.
Both Maude and Mathilda are accurate names, sort of; I believe that was
discussed here recently.
>But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
>detective work be medieval or modern?
"Empirical, deductive thinking patterns" could be medieval, modern,
classical -- perhaps prehistoric, though there's a certain lack of written
evidence:) Whether what's shown on tv is at all like anything which would
have actually happened -- or anything like the books -- I don't know.
>Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
>and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
What do you mean by "rather egalitarian?"
>Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
>order in medieval England?
>More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
>detected by medievalist viewers?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Sarah Doyle
Steve Gordon wrote in message ...
>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
>having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
>about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
>portrayed, the setting, or other details. I realize that some place-names
>are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey)
Incidentally, Shrewsbury Abbey does exist (well it did then) as did Ramsey
Abbey.
My main problem with Cadfael is the clothing. Most of it is way out for the
mid 12th century.
Sarah Doyle
Conquest
Anthony J. Bryant
> I realize that some place-names
> becomes Queen Maude (why -- to protect the ancient dead?), etc.
Shrewsbury and Ramsey were both abbeys operational during that period.
The Empress' name can either be rendered Mathilda or Maude; it's a
language choice. (Like the guy can be Charlemagne, Karl der Grosse,
Charles the Great, or -- as I call him -- Big Chuck.)
> But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
> detective work be medieval or modern?
What do you mean? There were plenty of innovative and critical thinkers
all throughout history.
> Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
> and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
It's relative...
> Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
> order in medieval England?
I spent some time in a monastery, and attended an orthodox seminary. Let
me tell you; it's not up to ANYONE to judge "seemingly non-pious" as NO
ONE knows what's in another's heart. And Cadfael seems to exhibit plenty
of piety. ("You came to the church late, brother." "I came when He
called.")
> More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
> detected by medievalist viewers?
Costume. Ugh.
Tony
ModernLog
detective work be medieval or modern?<<
Check any book on history of medieval logic. Your average priest of monk may
not have known any of Aristotle's logic, but folks like Anselm of Canterbury
certainly would have.
Irving H. Anellis, MLP Book Publishers; MLP : = : Mathematics, Logic,
Philosophy [and Their History]
Dave Page
size of the abbey is also very well presented, they didn't all have hundreds
of occupants, Mulchelney Abbey (Somerset) had a maximum occupation of 198 in
the mid 14th (I believe there were between 12 and 15 during the 12th
Century).
The medicines that Cadfael administers also appear to be correct, as I have
come across quite a few of them. Several in Bald's Leechbook (10th C),
Gilbertus Anglicus' Compendium Medicinae (circa 1250) and de liber de
diversis medicinis (14th C).
All in all, Ellis Peters did her homework very well. I think that the
inaccuracies lie with the production company's interpretation.
Dave Page
Paul J Gans
>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
>having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
>about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
>are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey), that Queen Mathilda
>becomes Queen Maude (why -- to protect the ancient dead?), etc.
Mathilda, Matilda, Maude and a number of others are the same
name. Language differences.
Shrewsbury Abbey is, or was, quite real. I'm told that the
site is now a railway station or some such. Ramsey Abbey is
also real.
>But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
>detective work be medieval or modern?
Nothing wrong with his empirical deductive thinking. He would
not have been alone in this. The medievals were not at all
a stupid lot.
One criticism I might levy is that Cadfael's attitudes in a
subtle way are perhaps too modern.
>Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
>and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
I don't think that the relations are egalitarian. When one
KNOWS one's place it becomes easier to communicate as nobody
thinks you are trying to appear to be other than what you
are. Folks talked back to kings. The medievals had not
yet reached that state of absolute monarchies and enforced
social separation.
For instance, when one sees a man wearing a sword, you *KNOW*
that he is of the warrior class (not necessarily noble). When
you are seen tonsured, folks KNOW that you are a cleric of some
sort. The cues, not obvious to us, were manifest to the medievals.
Another thing: we are still coming out of the Victorian era
and though we think of ourselves as liberated in speech and
actions about sex, we are, in fact, nowhere near the state of
the medievals. To see this in operation all one has to do is
read some of the literature of the time. People are made to
deal very matter-of-factly with things I won't even mention
in a family newsgroup ;-) Examples exist both in Shakespeare
(later in time) and in Chaucer, who for example, speaks
openly of breaking wind.
Names show this as well. What does one think that the name
Ivar the Boneless means? Yes, exactly. That's what it seems
to mean.
And such talk would have been common among all classes.
>Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
>order in medieval England?
Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
but not those of a monk. Also, we know that he is Welsh (i.e.
from a place with a totally different social organization than
that in England and France), was a soldier in the Holy Land for
many years, had a liason with, IIRC, Moslem woman named Miriamne,
had a child by her, though he was born after he left the Holy Land,
etc., etc. So actually, when we see Cadfael in the monastery, he
is being *very* sober and restricted. Imagine what his language
would have been if he did not control it.
And, of course, he was not alone. Many of the higher officers of
the monastery would be from the nobility and would have grown up
in military or quasi-military households.
>More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
>detected by medievalist viewers?
Not directly. Ellis Peters kept major historical events in the
background. We even deal with the *under-sheriff* rather than
the Sheriff, I suspect because the actual under-sheriff, if there
was one, is unknown. But I've noted a few bits in the videos.
The use of forks at the table for one. The clothing doesn't look
quite right to me, but then, I'm not the expert on that.
All in all they manage to convey a much better view of the Middle
Ages than Hollywood. I've used several of the videos as adjuncts
to class work and they've been both popular and useful.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Steve Gordon
Goodman) wrote:
> In article <lapeplau-ya0240800...@news.ucla.edu>,
> Steve Gordon <lape...@ucla.edu> wrote:
(clipped)
>
> >But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
> >detective work be medieval or modern?
>
> "Empirical, deductive thinking patterns" could be medieval, modern,
> classical -- perhaps prehistoric, though there's a certain lack of written
> evidence:) Whether what's shown on tv is at all like anything which would
> have actually happened -- or anything like the books -- I don't know.
A recent episode showed Cadfael using "trial by Bible" -- blindfolded
suspects point randomly to a page of the Bible, under the assumption that
God will guide the hands to the truth. (Did this actually happen, as an
alternative to trial by water, trial by ordeal?)
Also, Cadfael seemed to doubt the existence of miracles, such as that St.
Winifred's remains could move themselves to a wagon as a sign that She
"wanted" to go to Ramsey Abbey.
My question is how and why would some men favor empirical, deductive
evidence, while their peers believe in miracles and intuition? Cadfael
seems to be Sherlock Holmes in medieval "drag."
I realize this dual-belief system was not unusual in medieval times or
even later, as Newton (?) believed both in the experimental method and in
astrology.
A few years ago a survey asked Californians whether earthquakes are caused
by geological forces or by God's wrath at our sinfulness here. Many of the
respondents said, "Both!"
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
[]
>Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
>order in medieval England?
I am a modern Christian so of course that reflects on my view of the
series and the book, but certainly in the books, and from what I remember
in those shows I have been able to catch Cadfael struck me as being quite
pious. Prior? Robert would of course disagree, but I think the head of the
Abby would not.
Robert
Pete Barrett
Prescott) wrote:
>Shrewsbury Abbey, a Benedictine house, was founded in 1083. The
>relics of St Winifred were indeed moved there in 1183, three years
>after the succession of King Stephen. There is a Ramsey Abbey, but not
>in the correct area.
>Btw. Maude was never queen, she was Empress by marriage.
>
But Stephen's wife was also called Matilda (though I've never heard of her being
referred to as Maud - she was certainly Queen.
Pete Barrett
Urania
I"ll try to correct one or two.
Shrewsbury Abbey IS genuine. The abbey was destroyed at the Reformation,
but the church survives and indeed is a parish church today - much loved
and cherished by its congregation. Ellis Peters worshipped there
regularly in her last years and (AFAIK) her funeral service was conducted
there and the royalties from her books go to its support.) A road has
been built across the site of the rest of the abbey, but part of the wall
of the refectory (where the brothers ate) survives including the pulpit
from which one of the brothers read aloud to the rest while they were
eating. It is a while since I was in Shewesbury, but the local people
have cashed in on Brother Cadfael and you can follow trails round the
town to visit the sites of his (fictional) activities. I believe the Herb
Garden has been recreated close to the Abbey.
The church used in the TV films was somewhere in Eastern Europe - the
wall paintings are all wrong for 12th C England, but it was probably the
most unspoiled - and cheapest! - location they could get. Modern
Shrewesbury would have been impossible.
Brother Cadfael was most certainly a monk! He may have come late to the
monastic life, but he had taken the full vows of poverty chastity and
obedience - and it is the last he finds so difficult to keep, especially
when about other people's business! He is not a priest - that is why he
is called "Frother" not "Father", but at that early date, few monks were
priests - usually only the abbot and one or two others who would have the
"cure of souls" of the rest of the community and the power to celebrate
mass. (It was the Cistercian order which had two levels of monkhood: the
choir monks and the lay-brothers to do the manual work, but the
Benedictines to which Bro. Cadfael belongs - so I believe - did not have
this 2 tier system, at least not in the 12th Century.
Ellis Peters was a respected novelist who researched her period
meticulously. Of course, she could not escape being a 20th century woman
but I think the accuracy of her books is about as good as you will get at
the level of light fiction.
The TV plays are another matter. I think the early ones were better. The
more recent have departed from the books and sensationalised in a
fashionable way. I don't enjoy them any more.
J.L. Hensley
Cadfael doubted the existence of this particular miracle involving the bones
of St. Winifred, I would refer readers to one of the first (the first???)
books in the series. In "A Morbid Taste for Bones", Brother Cadfael has his
first encounter with the bones of the saint. It no doubt influenced his
later actions.
Steve Gordon wrote in message ...
>
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> One criticism I might levy is that Cadfael's attitudes in a
> subtle way are perhaps too modern.
Apart from the costume (knitted mail et al!), this is my
main criticism: Cadfael is an essentially modern figure.
However, I think that this is intentional . . . to make him
comprehensible to modern readers.
--- Tony Jebson
Anthony J. Bryant
> Definitely yes. Cadfael 'is' a brother not a monk. Monasteries and
> nunneries accepted all sorts of people. They gained wealth that way.
> They were safe refuges for the unmarriagable, widowed, mentally
> challenged and those with somewhat murky pasts.
Brothers *are* monks. He's tonsured, he wears the habit. He's a monk.
Trust me on this one: I "did time" at a monastery-cum-seminary. <G>
Tony
Walter Nelson
> In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
> having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
> about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
> portrayed, the setting, or other details.
In the most recent episode, I was struck immediately by the fact that the
Sheriff was holding a monk to be hanged for murder. As I recall, the Church
had juristiction over clergy, even for worldly crimes like murder, and the
Bishop would probably have taken possession of the prisoner to be tried under
Canon law.
I did appreciate the trial by ordeal (throwing people in the pond) in the last
episode, but their depiction of the early medieval legal process seems a bit
cursory. For one thing, the kin of victims had a lot of say in prosecution,
and I believe that in the reign of King Stephen, practices like compurgeration
(a specified number of people swearing to a person's innocence) or wergeld
(paying a fee to compensate the kin of a slaughtered person) were still being
used. There was also a fair degree of trial by combat, which I have not yet
seen depicted. I would like to see a proper pre-jury (the first Grand and
Petty Juries were introduced by Henry II, who succeeded Stephen) medieval trial
on the show some time, which would be a delightful forway into how much our
ideas of jurispurdens have changed.
> But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
> detective work be medieval or modern?
>
An excellent question. People were capable of deductive reasoning in the 12th
Century, and the age produced some genuinely brilliant minds, but there were
also a lot of "And then a miracle happens" or "It's this way because some old
book says it's this way" lines of reasoning. I would like it if,
occasionally, Cadfael would go off in some wierd and convoluted pre-modern bit
of scholastic syllogizing.
> Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
> and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
>
Probably not. Class differences were not as rigid in the early Middle Ages as
they later became. This isn't to say that peasants weren't poor and oppressed,
but I think the lines were a bit muddier.
> Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
> order in medieval England?
>
Probably, though he would have to tread carefully to avoid falling into a
heresy trap. It was sometimes a bit dangerous to think too freely in the
Medieval Church. As to non-piety, the lack of piety on the part of the clergy
was a constant complaint against the Medieval Church. There were a whole lot
of people living the good life while feeding at the Holy Trough. This isn't to
say that there weren't a lot of quite pious clergy, but I, for one, would like
to see a bit more clerical worldliness and Church corruption on the show.
> More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
> detected by medievalist viewers?
The Sheriff and his men read a lot like modern police.
Walter Nelson
Anthony J. Bryant
> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
> but not those of a monk.
Is that something from the books? From my experience at St. Tikhon's,
and from what I get from the show, I thought he was a full-fledged monk.
He's even trained novices, and layfolk don't do that usually.
Tony
Jgissw
>Date: 11 Jan 1999 17:33:29 GMT
>Examples exist both in Shakespeare
>(later in time) and in Chaucer, who for example, speaks
>openly of breaking wind.
>Names show this as well. What does one think that the name
>Ivar the Boneless means? Yes, exactly. That's what it seems
>to mean.
"I cannot conceive you, sir." "His mother could, and thereby had a baby
for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed."
While we're on the 12th century, have you any opinions about Urban Holmes'
_Daily living in the twelfth Century_? Based on Neckam's reports. I'm
going to read it anyhow, but it was published in '51. The college has quite a
few books dating back to 1921, about daily life in the MA. I don't suppose
that matters as much as books on technology.
Cheers
John GW
(remove "no guano bwana?" from address to answer)
D. Spencer Hines
is totally without foundation, or not?
One cannot be a brother without being a monk but the converse is not
true?
I'm talking about the television show.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "General propositions do not decide concrete
cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more
subtle than any articulate major premise." --- Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. [1841-1935] --- Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75
[1905]
Anthony J. Bryant wrote in message <369AA8...@indiana.edu>...
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: My question is how and why would some men favor empirical, deductive
: evidence, while their peers believe in miracles and intuition? Cadfael
: seems to be Sherlock Holmes in medieval "drag."
The same person can do both -- they may simply divide up the world and the
nature of evidence differently than a modern person. My favorite example
of this (probably because I wrote a paper on the topic) is the attitude
Gerald de Barri (aka Giraldus Cambrensis) took toward marvels, wonders,
and miracles. He demonstrates a startling combination of blythe credulity
and empirical, skeptical reasoning -- very occasionally on the same topic.
For example, in one passage of the Itinerary Through Wales (using the
Penguin edition translation) he observes: "The local inhabitants will
assure you that the lake has many miraculous properties. ... In the winter
months, when it is covered with ice, and when the surface is frozen over
with a smooth and slippery coat, it emits a horrible groaning sound, like
the lowing of a vast herd of cattle all driven together in one place. It
is ossible, of course, that this is caused by the cracking of the ice and
the sudden violent eruption of enclosed pockets of air through vents
imperceptible to the eye."
Similarly, in the Description of Ireland, he relates that Solinus claimed
that Ireland had no bees, and immediately counters it with the evidence of
his own senses. He follows this with a suggestion that perhaps the bees
had been imported in the mean time -- which has the appearance of
backpedalling, but would surely be the most logical way of correlating the
two observations.
And yet he strongly professed his belief in the possibility of miracles,
noting after relating a particularly unlikely story, "If I reject
[miracles], I place a limit on God's power, and that I will never do." But
following this immediately with, "If I say that I believe it, I have the
audacity to move beyond the bounds of credibility, and that I will not do
either. ... I would put this story, and others of a similar nature, should
the circumstance arise, among those which cannot be rejected out of hand
and yet which I cannot accept with any real conviction."
Gerald has always struck me as decidedly towards the skeptical end of the
scale for his day -- we are fortunate that he provided us with so much
commentary on his own attitudes toward the things he was reporting. But
he gives us a very nice measuring stick for how realistic a character like
Cadfael was for his day. (Gerald was born roughly in the same period as
the series is set.)
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Caedmon Parsons
At what point did the West develop the concept of the 'lay brother' as
something distinct from the 'monastic'? I was under the impression
that this was a development of the Fransiscan/Dominican period.
Caedmon
Caedmon Parsons
wrote:
>
>Also, Cadfael seemed to doubt the existence of miracles, such as that St.
>Winifred's remains could move themselves to a wagon as a sign that She
>"wanted" to go to Ramsey Abbey.
>
>evidence, while their peers believe in miracles and intuition? Cadfael
>seems to be Sherlock Holmes in medieval "drag."
I've neither seen the show nor read the books, but I don't think
"empirical" vs. "miracles" is a necessary medieval duality. The Bible
and most of the Fathers are quite clear about the necessity of
"testing the spirits", etc. Certainly, many medievals (indeed, plenty
of moderns) were ready to believe anything they saw was automatically
either demonic or angelic, but an educated Christian of the Middle
Ages would have been well aware of many Church cautions against
accepting "miracles" without due testing on the part of proper
ecclesiastical authorities.
Caedmon
David C. Pugh
Joanna Prescott wrote in message <36a7bbd7...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:41:09 -0500, "Anthony J. Bryant"
><ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>>Joanna Prescott wrote:
>>> Definitely yes. Cadfael 'is' a brother not a monk. Monasteries and
>>> nunneries accepted all sorts of people. They gained wealth that way.
>>> They were safe refuges for the unmarriagable, widowed, mentally
>>> challenged and those with somewhat murky pasts.
>>
>>Brothers *are* monks. He's tonsured, he wears the habit. He's a monk.
>>Trust me on this one: I "did time" at a monastery-cum-seminary. <G>
>>
>Monastic Order in England' and I can't find any definite proof one way
>or another. It does mention that choir monks had beards but that
>doesn't help as none of them do in Cadfael. I have some vague memory
>about different sizes of tonsures but can't find any information.
>Cadfael often misses, or is late for, Offices but his role as
>Infirmarian might excuse him from strict attendance.
The only thing that "brother" could mean except "monk" is _lay brother_
(conversus), which was a Cistercian thing, not a Benedictine. The conversi
were grunt labour, illiterate, and the idea of one being the Infirmarian is
unthinkable. In the same way, Benedictine houses were indeed full of
non-monks, hangers-on and pensioners, but they wouldn't hold office either.
Is there perhaps a confusion here between monk and priest? A monk doesn't
have to be ordained, in fact they generally weren't until the twelfth
century, when the trend to ordination accelerated hard, especially among the
Cluniacs. I don't know the books well enough to remember whether he is a
priest _as well as_ a monk.
David
D. Spencer Hines
>The Benedictines did NOT have lay brothers at the time of Cadfael (I
>was surprised at this). Paid labourers and servants did the manual
>work from which the Rule excluded them.
>So they were all monks but only a few would have been priests.
>
>This is from Dom David Knowles' book. He cites a tome on the
>development of lay brethren which I can post if anyone wants it.
>
>Joanna
So is this, infra, correct or not --- fair lady?
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
>>> but not those of a monk.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Paul J Gans
>> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
>> but not those of a monk.
>Is that something from the books? From my experience at St. Tikhon's,
>and from what I get from the show, I thought he was a full-fledged monk.
>He's even trained novices, and layfolk don't do that usually.
>Tony
You've raised a salient point. I got the definite impression
from the books that he was a lay brother. But as you pointed
out earlier, that was a category not used by the Benedictines,
as far as I know. And Cadfael was definitely *not* a Cistercian.
Thus there are two possibilities: I've got the wrong memories
from the books or we've missed something about the Benedictines.
I'd vote for the first one. ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J Gans
>Joanna Prescott wrote in message <36a7bbd7...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>David
Cadfael was clearly not a priest. Several plot twists hinge
on that. Indeed, one plot involving a pregnant young woman
who wanted to confess her sins to Cadfael seemed a bit strange
to me. She would clearly have known that she needed a priest
for that. On the other hand there were circumstances, such
as impending death, where a non-priest could apply some last
rights.
Most of us are not used to living in a society in which religion
is a total part of life, so we find some of these things strange
or puzzling.
Dick Wisan
>
>Is there perhaps a confusion here between monk and priest? A monk doesn't
>have to be ordained, in fact they generally weren't until the twelfth
>century, when the trend to ordination accelerated hard, especially among the
>Cluniacs. I don't know the books well enough to remember whether he is a
>priest _as well as_ a monk.
He's not. One of the plots (I think it's one they made a film of) turns
on the fact that Cadfael cannot hear confession & grant absolution --he
has to refer the person to a priest & IIRC it's the character of that
priest which generates the plot.
Certainly monk, but not priest.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Dick Wisan
Isn't that the trick of most historical novels? The hero is essentially
a modern man --sometimes there's some peculiarity in his upbringing
that's meant to account for it.
Perhaps a few of the very best historical novels manage otherwise. Zoe
Oldenburg, perhaps, or Patrick O'Brien?
Paul J Gans
>To my knowledge David Knowles is _the_ accepted expert but he was
>writing in the 1940s. It's always possible that his research has been
>superceded.
Now you've got me confused. I'm not arguing with Knowles, whom
I agree is one of the major figures in this area.
But you've written several contradictory things now.
At one point you wrote:
>>I've spent most of this evening wading through Dom David Knowles' 'The
>>Monastic Order in England' and I can't find any definite proof one way
>>or another. It does mention that choir monks had beards but that
>>doesn't help as none of them do in Cadfael. I have some vague memory
>>about different sizes of tonsures but can't find any information.
>>Cadfael often misses, or is late for, Offices but his role as
>>Infirmarian might excuse him from strict attendance.
and then, in reply to David Pugh you wrote:
>Further reading has proved you to be correct. The Benedictines did
>have conversi but it was the Cistercians who incorporated the idea
>into their Rule as Lay Brothers when presumably their status improved
>slightly. I agree about the Infirmarian. That was a high office.
(Conversi are essentially lay brothers.)
So we have two questions: one is factual concerning the
Benedictines in mid-twelfth century England. The other
is "literary". Did Ellis Peters describe Cadfael as a
monk or as a lay brother.
I want to thank you for your time in reading Knowles. One
of the very neat things about this group is the generosity
of its contributors.
------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "General propositions do not decide concrete
cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more
subtle than any articulate major premise." --- Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. [1841-1935] --- Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75
[1905]
Paul J Gans wrote in message <77g1n0$6h5$5...@news.panix.com>...
What does "essentially" mean in this sentence?
>
>So we have two questions: one is factual concerning the
>Benedictines in mid-twelfth century England. The other
>is "literary". Did Ellis Peters describe Cadfael as a
>monk or as a lay brother.
>
>I want to thank you for your time in reading Knowles. One
>of the very neat things about this group is the generosity
>of its contributors.
>
> ------- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>
Fair Enough. There are indeed several questions to be answered
here --- indeed, more than just two.
But, lest we be diverted from the plain meaning of the initial
categorical *ex cathedra* statement, here it is again:
>>> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
>>> but not those of a monk.
Cadfael is, of course, the fictional creation of Ellis Peters. So the
statement, supra, refers to that "literary" character --- not a
historical one.
We also have a television series with Derek Jacobi in the lead role as
Cadfael and certain artistic liberties may have been taken with Ellis
Peters' novels. That is why I say there are more than two questions
here.
It is conceivable, I suppose, that Cadfael is not a monk in the books,
but is in the television series. So, we need to sort that out as
well.
Thank you all kindly.
CG Luxford
On 12 Jan 1999, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> So the previously stated distinction between a 'brother' and a 'monk
> is totally without foundation, or not?
>
> One cannot be a brother without being a monk but the converse is not
> true?
>
Other way round. All monks are 'brothers', but some orders also have/had
lay brothers who, while not being monks, were/are brothers.
Chris,
Caedmon Parsons
>and then, in reply to David Pugh you wrote:
>
>>Further reading has proved you to be correct. The Benedictines did
>>have conversi but it was the Cistercians who incorporated the idea
>>into their Rule as Lay Brothers when presumably their status improved
>>slightly. I agree about the Infirmarian. That was a high office.
>
>(Conversi are essentially lay brothers.)
As I read it, 'conversi' existed for both the Benedictines and the
Cistercians. The Cistercians included them within their rule, making
them 'lay brothers', but the Benedictines in this period had not done
so.
IOW:
Cisterican conversus=lay brother
Benedictine conversus=basic laborer.
The duties of a conversus might have been the same as a lay brother,
but the social position and relation to the order's rule is not.
Caedmon
Gareth
On 12 Jan 1999, Paul J Gans wrote:
> Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
> >> but not those of a monk.
>
> >Is that something from the books? From my experience at St. Tikhon's,
> >and from what I get from the show, I thought he was a full-fledged monk.
> >He's even trained novices, and layfolk don't do that usually.
>
> >Tony
>
> You've raised a salient point. I got the definite impression
> from the books that he was a lay brother. But as you pointed
> out earlier, that was a category not used by the Benedictines,
> as far as I know. And Cadfael was definitely *not* a Cistercian.
>
Hmmmm. Well I always thought from the books that he was a monk - at
least he certainly sleeps in the same dormitory as them, has the same
tonsure as them, and the books I'm sure mention that he's taken his vows
as a Monk. As I recall 'though he wasn't a priest, but then that was not
unusual
Gareth
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans wrote in message <77g06n$6h5$2...@news.panix.com>...
(...)
>Thus there are two possibilities: I've got the wrong memories
>from the books or we've missed something about the Benedictines.
>
>I'd vote for the first one. ;-)
Fraid so :-) The thing is, the term "lay brother" is extremely misleading.
Lay brother sounds as if it should mean a brother (i.e., a monk) who, like
most monks at that time, was a layman in the modern sense of not being an
ordained priest. But it doesn't mean that at all.
Before the Reform, conversus meant a monk who was not an oblate, but later
it came to mean a permanently second-class member of the community, possibly
created by the absorption of the Benedictine class of hired labourers and
servants. The Cistercian lay brothers were absolutely forbidden to become
monks, but had to remain in their calling - a sort of spiritually
disciplined proletariat. BTW, they were also called laici or forinseci - in
contrast to the claustrales or interiores, the monks proper; or fratres
barbati, on the grounds that the ordained monks were clean-shaven.
Cadfael was a lay _man_, in our modern sense of not being a priest, but not
a lay _brother_. The distinction is crucial.
I'm not certain whether a full-blooded claustral monk who was not ordained,
like Cadfael, was then considered a "layman", but I think not. He was
professed in religion, a sacramental status, and I think the major divide
ran between this and being in the world, not between being ordained and not.
Though monks and clerics argued over this, as over much else.
Honorius Augustodunensis writes:
Perhaps there are babblers who with windy eloquence contend that the king
is not to be numbered with the laity since he is anointed with priestly
oil. But there is a plain reason which mocks this folly: the king is
either a layman or a clerk. Is he a clerk? Then he must be a
doorkeeper, lector, exorcist, acolyte, sub-deacon, deacon or priest. But
he is none of these. Therefore he is not a clerk. So he is a layman
pure and simple, unless perhaps you think he is a monk. But if he is a
monk, how can he have a wife and bear a sword? No. He is neither monk
nor clerk; just a layman; nothing more.
So an unordained choir monk wasn't a cleric, but not exactly a layman
either. The twelfth was not a cut-and-dried century.
David
Lyle H. Gray
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
>>>> but not those of a monk.
>
>Cadfael is, of course, the fictional creation of Ellis Peters. So the
>statement, supra, refers to that "literary" character --- not a
>historical one.
>
>We also have a television series with Derek Jacobi in the lead role as
>Cadfael and certain artistic liberties may have been taken with Ellis
>Peters' novels. That is why I say there are more than two questions
>here.
>
>It is conceivable, I suppose, that Cadfael is not a monk in the books,
>but is in the television series. So, we need to sort that out as
>well.
As near as I can tell, from the copy of _A Morbid Taste For Bones_
sitting on my desk beside my keyboard, Cadfael is indeed a monk, not a
lay-brother. Peters makes reference to lay-servants and lay-brothers
in the book, but never once does she refer to Cadfael in such fashion,
only as "Brother Cadfael".
Also, at one point a young woman addresses Cadfael, and says, "You are
one of the monks from Shrewsbury," to which he responds, "I am." So,
that would seem to settle that point, as I can't imagine that Cadfael
would have reason to lie about it.
On another point: In this book, while Brother Cadfeal does tend the
herbarium and the gardens, he is not the infirmarer. That title is
given to a Brother named Edmund.
Lyle H. Gray
inceptum perage
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> The Sheriff and his men read a lot like modern police.
Good point.
I keep expecting Berengar to walk up to Cadfael in one episode and say
"What's all this, then?"
Tony
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Thus there are two possibilities: I've got the wrong memories
> from the books or we've missed something about the Benedictines.
>
> I'd vote for the first one. ;-)
Like that's never happened to me. <G>
If only it wouldn't happen when I'm trying to remember those important
but obscure texts I could never find again if my life depended on it...
Tony
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> Hmmmm. Well I always thought from the books that he was a monk - at
> least he certainly sleeps in the same dormitory as them, has the same
> tonsure as them, and the books I'm sure mention that he's taken his vows
> as a Monk. As I recall 'though he wasn't a priest, but then that was not
> unusual
>
I did, too. I *know* he's not a priest, but I've only read two Cadfael
books (some time ago) and I can't remember what the author says about
Cadfael's status. As far as evidence and historical precedent are
concerned, he has to be a full-fledged monk, considering his habit,
tonsure, and duties.
Tony
Usenet Reader
In article <sgordon-2808...@gordon2.calstatela.edu> on 11writes:
> A recent episode showed Cadfael using "trial by Bible" --
> blindfolded suspects point randomly to a page of the Bible,
> under the assumption that God will guide the hands to the
> truth. (Did this actually happen, as an alternative to trial
> by water, trial by ordeal?)
Dunno about then, but some people do a similar thing now. When
needing advice, they open the Bible at a random point, assuming
that God will guide their hands to the proper passage, and read
there.
--- Wm. Randolph U Franklin, WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.DELETETHIS.EDU
Paul J Gans
>In article <369A9857...@texas.net>, je...@texas.net says...
>>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> One criticism I might levy is that Cadfael's attitudes in a
>>> subtle way are perhaps too modern.
>>[snip]
>>
>>Apart from the costume (knitted mail et al!), this is my
>>main criticism: Cadfael is an essentially modern figure.
>>
>>However, I think that this is intentional . . . to make him
>>comprehensible to modern readers.
>Isn't that the trick of most historical novels? The hero is essentially
>a modern man --sometimes there's some peculiarity in his upbringing
>that's meant to account for it.
>Perhaps a few of the very best historical novels manage otherwise. Zoe
>Oldenburg, perhaps, or Patrick O'Brien?
You've raised a fascinating question. It is one of the reasons
why, many years ago, I became involved with the Middle Ages.
In my opinion the mindset of someone living in 1800 or so is
not that different than ours. At least, when I started looking
at things medieval that seemed right (it was then not even 150
years ago). So one could "get into the head" of a Jack Aubrey.
But that gets harder the further back one goes, again in my
opinion. I think that the mind of an ancient Egyptian is
essentially closed to us, for instance. So what is the
least time back one can go to find a culture that is notably
different than ours but one in which the mindset *might*
still be accessible. I came up with the Middle Ages.
Of course, this is an ideosyncratic view. Other periods
could be argued too -- and it's not my aim to start an
argument.
Dick has hit upon something important. I think that this
using a character with a "modern" viewpoint allows us to
burrow through to an older period.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote in message <77g06n$6h5$2...@news.panix.com>...
>(...)
>>Thus there are two possibilities: I've got the wrong memories
>>from the books or we've missed something about the Benedictines.
>>
>>I'd vote for the first one. ;-)
>Fraid so :-) The thing is, the term "lay brother" is extremely misleading.
>David
I *love* that quote from Honorius Augustodunensis. Among other
things it answers an earlier question in this thread about the
ability of the medievals to do logical analysis.
I'm convinced that I was in error in my earlier assertions.
Thanks for the post.
Steve Gordon
use9...@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Usenet Reader) wrote:
In which branch of Christianity is this form of guidance still practiced?
And is it done as an official church ceremony, or just by individual
believers?
MurrellB
Paul J Gans wrote:
> >> Cadfael is not a monk. He is a lay brother, sworn to certain vows
> >> but not those of a monk.
Gareth asks:
> I got the definite impression
> from the books that he was a lay brother. But as you pointed
> out earlier, that was a category not used by the Benedictines...
Actually, the Benedictines *originally* were to
be lay monks according to Benedict of Nursia.
In his Rule, he laid down strict considerations
for any priest who might join. In time, priests
became the "superior" monks over the "field" or
lay monks. The priest-monks became the choir
monks whereas the uneducated brothers worked
in the field.
--Beatrix
nic...@my-dejanews.com
In article <77gapi$3sb$1...@readme.online.no>,
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> Honorius Augustodunensis writes:
> Perhaps there are babblers who with windy eloquence contend that the king
> is not to be numbered with the laity since he is anointed with priestly
> oil. But there is a plain reason which mocks this folly: the king is
> either a layman or a clerk. Is he a clerk? Then he must be a
> doorkeeper, lector, exorcist, acolyte, sub-deacon, deacon or priest. But
> he is none of these. Therefore he is not a clerk. So he is a layman
> pure and simple, unless perhaps you think he is a monk. But if he is a
> monk, how can he have a wife and bear a sword? No. He is neither monk
> nor clerk; just a layman; nothing more.
>
> So an unordained choir monk wasn't a cleric, but not exactly a layman
> either. The twelfth was not a cut-and-dried century.
What you're getting into here is the difference between secular and regular
clergy. Secular clergy includes the seven orders mentioned above; the
defining characteristic of regular clergy is that they follow a rule, usually
involving vows (obedience, celebacy, etc.) Sometimes there is overlap (the
best example is that of canons regular--the staff clergy at a larger church,
who often followed a rule, usually the quite flexible Rule of St. Augustine).
The earlier you go, the better the chance that a given monk will also not be
in Holy Orders.
Susan Carroll-Clark
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
David C. Pugh
nic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <77iicq$uu5
>> So an unordained choir monk wasn't a cleric, but not exactly a layman
>> either. The twelfth was not a cut-and-dried century.
>
>What you're getting into here is the difference between secular and regular
>clergy.
No I'm not. That's a different issue again.
Secular clergy includes the seven orders mentioned above; the
>defining characteristic of regular clergy is that they follow a rule,
usually
>involving vows (obedience, celebacy, etc.)
Yes, but an unordained choir monk like Cadfael is neither secular nor
regular clergy. He isn't clergy at all. The mission of the regular canons
you are talking about was not monastic, but pastoral - although the
difference between regular canons and Black houses in the twelfth century
was not always clear, and some of the canons were far stricter than some of
the monks, despite being in the world to serve it. (Secular clergy were
clergy that no one had yet succeeded in making regular, probably because
they were too attached to their mistresses........)
> The earlier you go, the better the chance that a given monk will also not
be
>in Holy Orders.
Quite. It was the Cluniac practice of private masses that drove the trend
towards ordination of large numbers of choir monks. This could reasonably be
regarded as an abuse. Since a monk is not really supposed to deal with
outsiders at all, he doesn't need priestly functions. A monastic house
needed one priest for the mass plus some spares, but the monk's vocation is
"not to preach but to weep".
David
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>I keep expecting Berengar to walk up to Cadfael in one episode and say
>"What's all this, then?"
>
Actually, Berengar's name is one of the things that I've felt grated a little.
He's called Hugh Berengar in the TV series, which seems wrong - Hugh fitz
Berengar I'd believe, or Hugh de Somewhere (but not Berengar, which as far as I
know is only a personal name). But the way it's said makes it sound like a
surname, and it's surely too early for those. Unless anyone knows of an instance
this early of someone using their father's name as a surname without the 'fitz'.
Pete Barrett
Sophia
<sarah...@virgin.net> writes
>
>Steve Gordon wrote in message ...
>>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
>>having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
>>about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
>>portrayed, the setting, or other details. I realize that some place-names
>>are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey)
>
>Incidentally, Shrewsbury Abbey does exist (well it did then) as did Ramsey
>Abbey.
>
Shrewsbury Abbey still does exist, at least in part. The nave of the church
certainly survives, this was, I think, the part which the laity were allowed to
use; when the Dissolution came the townspeople bought it from the King
and continued to use it. The choir, which was the monks' part, was
allowed to fall to ruin. This arrangement, in which the church was divided,
was common to a number of Benedictine abbeys in England and a number
of those of the Augustinian Cannons. To it we owe the survival of
sustantial parts of the churches of Abingdon, Malmesbury, Waltham and
others which would otherwise have been lost.
As far as I know the cloister and conventual buildings of the monastery
have been almost completely destroyed, though I have read that a few
fragments of the refectory remain. The shorn off fragment of the church is
worth a visit, it is beautiful, though sad.
Ramsey Abbey was in Cambridgeshire in the town of Ramsey. Some
fragments survive, including the Lady Chapel (c.13) and the gateway. The
site is now a school, which incorporates the ruins.
>
>
Sophia:
Faith in fabulousness
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: Actually, Berengar's name is one of the things that I've felt grated a
little. : He's called Hugh Berengar in the TV series, which seems wrong -
Hugh fitz : Berengar I'd believe, or Hugh de Somewhere (but not Berengar,
which as far as I : know is only a personal name). But the way it's said
makes it sound like a : surname, and it's surely too early for those.
Unless anyone knows of an instance : this early of someone using their
father's name as a surname without the 'fitz'.
Sure (courtesy of Reaney & Wilson "A Dictionary of English Surnames",
under "Berringer"):
Hugo Berengeri (temp. Ric I)
Walter Beneger (1208)
ok, about half a century later than our target, we can get closer under
"Hugh" (no reason to stick with the same name elements except that you've
got to start somewhere)
Rogerus Hugo (1185)
While marked patronyms are more "normal" during the period in question,
unmarked ones are a consistant alternative construction.
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Caedmon Parsons
<davi...@online.no> wrote:
>
>nic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <77iicq$uu5
>>> So an unordained choir monk wasn't a cleric, but not exactly a layman
>>> either. The twelfth was not a cut-and-dried century.
>>
>>What you're getting into here is the difference between secular and regular
>>clergy.
>
>No I'm not. That's a different issue again.
>
[snip]
>> The earlier you go, the better the chance that a given monk will also not
>be
>>in Holy Orders.
>
>
>Quite. It was the Cluniac practice of private masses that drove the trend
>towards ordination of large numbers of choir monks. This could reasonably be
>regarded as an abuse. Since a monk is not really supposed to deal with
>outsiders at all, he doesn't need priestly functions. A monastic house
>needed one priest for the mass plus some spares, but the monk's vocation is
>"not to preach but to weep".
>
I don't know if it will help, but there is some correspondence with
Orthodoxy where the situation remains similar to the old Western form
(i.e., no complications like lay brothers or friars, etc, the vast
majority of monks unordained--and unlikely to be, St. John Cassian
warned monks to avoid bishops, primarily because bishops might ordain
one). In Orthodoxy, the position of monks (an ordained monk is
distinguished as an hieromonk) is indeed not "cut and dried".
Technically, they are laity--but "regular" laity (those of us in the
world), don't treat them as laity, they hold a special position due to
their vows/commitments.
Caedmon
>
>
erilar
joa...@lotos-land.demon.co.uk (Joanna Prescott) wrote:
> On 12 Jan 1999 14:30:03 GMT, "D. Spencer Hines"
> <shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >So is this, infra, correct or not --- fair lady?
>
> To my knowledge David Knowles is _the_ accepted expert but he was
> writing in the 1940s. It's always possible that his research has been
> superceded.
>
Depends on what you've been reading lately. Not on nuns. I just finished
_Inventing the Middle Ages_ ;-)
Mary
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka erilar)
Owe wie jamerliche junge liute tuont
den e vil hovelichen ir gemuete stuont!
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.win.bright.net/~erilarlo
erilar
Only two? I have them ALL. Monk.
nic...@my-dejanews.com
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> Yes, but an unordained choir monk like Cadfael is neither secular nor
> regular clergy. He isn't clergy at all.
Wait a minute. He's following a monastic rule, is he not? If he's under vows
of obligation to a monastery, I believe he would be able to claim "benefit of
clergy" in a legal sense. I'm using "clergy" in the more general sense here,
not in the specific sense of "those in Holy Orders." Nuns aren't clergy,
either, but they are considered, for lack of a better term, "church people."
The mission of the regular canons
> you are talking about was not monastic, but pastoral - although the
> difference between regular canons and Black houses in the twelfth century
> was not always clear, and some of the canons were far stricter than some of
> the monks, despite being in the world to serve it.
I certainly agree with that, and it's no coincidence that the Dominicans and
most of the other mendicant orders outside of the Franciscans used the Rule of
St. Augustine, which was the rule used by the Canons Regular (although the
Dominicans added other requirements). This was a rule which could be used by
an order which was not cloistered like traditional monks, but working in the
community.
(Secular clergy were
> clergy that no one had yet succeeded in making regular, probably because
> they were too attached to their mistresses........)
Not sure whether that's quite right. The raison d'etre of secular clergy is
right there in their name--they were meant as ministers to their communities.
The vast majority were probably parish priests; they were simply not suited
to following a monastic rule because they did not live in a community with
other religious. Up until the 13th century mendicants, most "regular" clergy
were cloistered, although some were quite a bit more extreme about it than
others.
Susan
Brian M. Scott
Barrett) wrote:
>Actually, Berengar's name is one of the things that I've felt grated a little.
>He's called Hugh Berengar in the TV series, which seems wrong - Hugh fitz
>Berengar I'd believe, or Hugh de Somewhere (but not Berengar, which as far as I
>know is only a personal name). But the way it's said makes it sound like a
>surname, and it's surely too early for those. Unless anyone knows of an instance
>this early of someone using their father's name as a surname without the 'fitz'.
The more thoroughly Latinized documents, which in this period are in
the majority, don't tell us much about vernacular usage. The Bury
survey of c.1100, which is not Latinized, has three types of
patronymic bynames: asyndetic (i.e., consisting of the father's
unmodified forename, as in <Hugh Berengar>), simple genitives
(analogous to modern <Richards>), and genitive phrases involving
<dohtor> 'daughter' or <sunu> 'son'. No one has yet done a full
survey of their relative frequencies, but according to Cecily Clark in
_The Cambridge History of the English Language_, Vol. II, it appears
that the asyndetic style prevailed until c.1300.
In my experience <fitz> forms are actually not especially common,
though one certainly does get forms like the 12th c. <Osbertus le fiz
Fulco>. On the other hand, this may be just a French version of
<Osbertus filius Fulcone>. Scribes of that period generally tried to
distance official documents from the vernacular. The preferred
language was Latin, and French was a sort of poor man's Latin for this
purpose. Thus, both of these may simply be describing Osbert as the
son of Fulk, and in the vernacular he might actually have been known
as <Osbert Fulk>.
At any rate, the form <Hugh Berengar> is actually very appropriate.
Brian M. Scott
Greg Kelleher
were illegitimate, eg Brian Fitzcount, natural son of the Count of Brittany,
who held the castIe of Wallingford during the reign of Stephen.
Greg K
n article
<369d3f6a...@news.csuohio.edu> sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
writes:>From: sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)>Subject: Re: Historical
Accuracy of Brother Cadfael Mysteries>Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 01:03:31 GMT
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "General propositions do not decide concrete
cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more
subtle than any articulate major premise." --- Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. [1841-1935] --- Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75
[1905]
erilar wrote in message ...
>In article <36a06b27...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>joa...@lotos-land.demon.co.uk (Joanna Prescott) wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jan 1999 14:30:03 GMT, "D. Spencer Hines"
>> <shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >So is this, infra, correct or not --- fair lady?
>>
>> To my knowledge David Knowles is _the_ accepted expert but he was
>> writing in the 1940s. It's always possible that his research has
been
>> superceded.
>>
>Depends on what you've been reading lately. Not on nuns. I just
finished
>_Inventing the Middle Ages_ ;-)
>
D. Spencer Hines
You missed the last round on this subject.
See Deja News.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "General propositions do not decide concrete
cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more
subtle than any articulate major premise." --- Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. [1841-1935] --- Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75
[1905]
Greg Kelleher wrote in message ...
David C. Pugh
nic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>
>> Yes, but an unordained choir monk like Cadfael is neither secular nor
>> regular clergy. He isn't clergy at all.
>
>Wait a minute. He's following a monastic rule, is he not? If he's under
vows
>of obligation to a monastery, I believe he would be able to claim "benefit
of
>clergy" in a legal sense.
Now the issue of criminous clerks had hardly arisen at this time. If you
read the Constitutions of Clarendon, the king is thinking of discipline of
beneficed clergy. Monks weren't supposed to commit crimes outside the walls,
because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. OK, I guess
that if one did, the abbot would want him back and not to see him hanged by
the king's justices, but that isn't really where the emphasis of the
Criminous Clerks dispute lay.
I'm using "clergy" in the more general sense here,
>not in the specific sense of "those in Holy Orders."
Why? Not enough confusion already?
Nuns aren't clergy,
>either, but they are considered, for lack of a better term, "church
people."
>
That is precisely what I was saying: unordained monks were not clergy but
not exactly laity either - they fell on the "church people" side of the
ultimate watershed of those who were professed in religion and those who
were not. But let's keep "clergy" for those in Orders, on the model of
Honorius' expostulations quoted earlier.
(....)
>
>I certainly agree with that, and it's no coincidence that the Dominicans
and
>most of the other mendicant orders outside of the Franciscans used the Rule
of
>St. Augustine, which was the rule used by the Canons Regular (although the
>Dominicans added other requirements). This was a rule which could be used
by
>an order which was not cloistered like traditional monks, but working in
the
>community.
>
Yes, in many ways the early canons are as interesting as the monks, but get
less attention. Our historical novelist friends give us Benedictine monks,
and plenty of Dominican and Franscican friars, but when did you last see an
Austin, Premonstratensian or Grandmontine hero?
> (Secular clergy were
>> clergy that no one had yet succeeded in making regular, probably because
>> they were too attached to their mistresses........)
>
>Not sure whether that's quite right.
OK, so I forgot the smiley. But there's some truth in it.
The raison d'etre of secular clergy is
>right there in their name--they were meant as ministers to their
communities.
So regular canons weren't meant as ministers to their communities? Living
under a Rule wouldn't prevent this, but it would prevent abuses.
(If I may permit myself a wild analogy, you wouldn't like your bank or HMO
not to have an external auditor, would you?)
I don't think that "secular" and "regular" are true opposites. In the eyes
of a reformer, the opposite of Regular is "corrupt".........
>The vast majority were probably parish priests; they were simply not
suited
>to following a monastic rule because they did not live in a community with
>other religious.
Perhaps, but you don't need a large group to live under the Austin rule. As
you say, this was adapted to become the friars, and they did live in very
small groups. But you're probably right, most of the fuss was about the
cathedral chapters. Much more scope for corruption here.
Up until the 13th century mendicants, most "regular" clergy
>were cloistered, although some were quite a bit more extreme about it than
>others.
>
What do you mean by "cloistered" here? If they were truly cloistered, then
they were monks, not canons. Living in discipline behind walls, but they had
the cure of souls - which monks were not supposed to have, for it imperilled
their own.
David
Brian M. Scott
Kelleher) wrote:
>I seem to remember that the fitz part of a name indicated that the offspring
>were illegitimate, eg Brian Fitzcount, natural son of the Count of Brittany,
>who held the castIe of Wallingford during the reign of Stephen.
No, this is a common misconception. It's true that some illegitimate
offspring of nobility were identified in this way, but then it would
have been a natural descriptive byname. Remember that at that time
bynames were for the most part descriptive in one way or another.
They weren't necessarily fixed, either, though modern histories tend
to pick one and use it consistently.
In origin <fitz> is a straightforward patronymic element, no different
from Old English <sunu> 'son': <Gilbert le Fiz Kew> 1279 'Gilbert the
cook's son', <Rauf le fuiz William> 1299 'Ralph the son of William',
<Robert le fuitz Wautier> 1329 'Robert the son of Walter', etc.
What's interesting is that there's no parallel use of <fils> in
France: the construction is distinctively Anglo-Norman. The
association with bastardy seems to owe much to Charles II, who used
<Fitzroy> as a surname for his illegitimate sons. (Oddly enough, the
name isn't always to be taken literally: early examples include <fis
le Rey> from a 13th c. Subsidy Roll, which isn't likely to contain the
names of royal offspring, legitimate or otherwise.)
Brian M. Scott
Pete Barrett
>
>
>At any rate, the form <Hugh Berengar> is actually very appropriate.
>
Thanks. I wasn't aware of all that.
Pete Barrett
nic...@my-dejanews.com
In article <77kgnt$i3b$1...@readme.online.no>,
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> Now the issue of criminous clerks had hardly arisen at this time. If you
> read the Constitutions of Clarendon, the king is thinking of discipline of
> beneficed clergy. Monks weren't supposed to commit crimes outside the walls,
> because they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. OK, I guess
> that if one did, the abbot would want him back and not to see him hanged by
> the king's justices, but that isn't really where the emphasis of the
> Criminous Clerks dispute lay.
I wasn't referencing the criminous clerks dispute at all, but rather making a
more general point about who was considered to "belong" to the Church. The
common, perhaps sloppy usage is to call all of these people "clergy."
> I'm using "clergy" in the more general sense here,
> >not in the specific sense of "those in Holy Orders."
>
> Why? Not enough confusion already?
I apologize for my imprecise use of terms.
> Yes, in many ways the early canons are as interesting as the monks, but get
> less attention. Our historical novelist friends give us Benedictine monks,
> and plenty of Dominican and Franscican friars, but when did you last see an
> Austin, Premonstratensian or Grandmontine hero?
When's the last time you saw a Dominican hero? :-) (Sore spot of mine--the
Dominicans are almost always the heavies in most of the historical novels I've
seen--I guess it's that Inquisition thing. And novelists often assume that
"Black Friars" means they dress in all black, so they end up looking like
Benedictines instead.
> The raison d'etre of secular clergy is
> >right there in their name--they were meant as ministers to their
> communities.
>
> So regular canons weren't meant as ministers to their communities? Living
> under a Rule wouldn't prevent this, but it would prevent abuses.
Sure they were. But as I think I mentioned, most monastic rules assume
communal living, and the average priest living anywhere but in an urban
setting was likely not going to be able to do that. Quite a lot of them
seemed to have lived alone, especially in the poorer parishes where the
benefice was barely enough to support even one priest, and in the case of
chantry priests who were attached to households and the like.
> Up until the 13th century mendicants, most "regular" clergy
> >were cloistered, although some were quite a bit more extreme about it than
> >others.
> >
> What do you mean by "cloistered" here? If they were truly cloistered, then
> they were monks, not canons. Living in discipline behind walls, but they had
> the cure of souls - which monks were not supposed to have, for it imperilled
> their own.
I should elaborate. Before the 13th century mendicants, canons were about
the only non-cloistered (e.g. living apart from the secular community)
religious to be following a rule. After the 13th century, friars enter the
picture as a sort of middle ground between monks and canons--they follow a
rule, but they're not necessarily ordained clergy, nor are they attached to a
particular church, having instead their own houses and priories.
Jgissw
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:54:50 GMT
>When's the last time you saw a Dominican hero? :-) (Sore spot of mine--the
>Dominicans are almost always the heavies in most of the historical novels
>I've
>seen--I guess it's that Inquisition thing. And novelists often assume that
>"Black Friars" means they dress in
>all black, so they end up looking like
>Benedictines instead.
>
What were the Cluniacs? Urban Holmes refers to them. Would you care to
give a little disquisition on these various orders?
Cheers
John GW
(remove "no guano bwana?" from address to answer)
David C. Pugh
nic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>I wasn't referencing the criminous clerks dispute at all, but rather making
a
>more general point about who was considered to "belong" to the Church. The
>common, perhaps sloppy usage is to call all of these people "clergy."
>
OK. Your phrase "church people", though not reflecting any contemporary
term, was clear enough, but "benefit of clergy" did look as if it was
opening a whole new can of worms. Which in this context would be better left
closed.
>I apologize for my imprecise use of terms.
>
I much prefer the tripartite division of that Honorius quote: clerics, monks
and laymen.
I vaguely remember from Duby that the "classic" tripartite division into
prayers, fighters and workers wasn't the only one - did he mention a
cleric/monk/layman scheme or is it my post-pneumoniac mental processes
playing me a trick????
>> Yes, in many ways the early canons are as interesting as the monks, but
get
>> less attention. Our historical novelist friends give us Benedictine
monks,
>> and plenty of Dominican and Franscican friars, but when did you last see
an
>> Austin, Premonstratensian or Grandmontine hero?
>
>When's the last time you saw a Dominican hero? :-)
Oops, I should have said "hero or villain", shouldn't I?
>>
>> So regular canons weren't meant as ministers to their communities? Living
>> under a Rule wouldn't prevent this, but it would prevent abuses.
>
>Sure they were. But as I think I mentioned, most monastic rules assume
>communal living, and the average priest living anywhere but in an urban
>setting was likely not going to be able to do that. Quite a lot of them
>seemed to have lived alone, especially in the poorer parishes where the
>benefice was barely enough to support even one priest, and in the case of
>chantry priests who were attached to households and the like.
>
Fair enough. In my defence, I would say that most of the polemics concerned
the corruption and reform of cathedral chapters (regular canons or irregular
lives), and that not many writers took much of an interest in solo parish
and chantry priests. Do you know of any? I don't think expectations were
very high.
>I should elaborate. Before the 13th century mendicants, canons were about
>the only non-cloistered (e.g. living apart from the secular community)
>religious to be following a rule.
Yes, but you said last time that most regular clergy were cloistered, so now
we agree.
After the 13th century, friars enter the
>picture as a sort of middle ground between monks and canons--they follow a
>rule, but they're not necessarily ordained clergy, nor are they attached to
a
>particular church, having instead their own houses and priories.
>
>
I read somewhere that they undercut the regulars - offered the same
services, but cheaper. Mass-market canons, as it were. :-)
I suspect you're a thirteenth-century buff, whereas I'm a twelfth-century
maven. The mendicants are at the tail-end of the period that interests me,
and I wouldn't dare debate you on them!
David
David C. Pugh
Jgissw wrote in message
> What were the Cluniacs? Urban Holmes refers to them. Would you care
to
>give a little disquisition on these various orders?
>
Not friars at all, John. Not exactly an order either, but a congregation or
subcategory of Benedictines, with a top-down government of parent and
daughter houses, strict discipline, emphasis on the liturgy at the expense
of manual labour, and independence from the episcopate. Many of the
"Gregorian" reformers were Cluniacs.
However, as with Fiefs and Vassals, if you look too closely at
twelfth-century monasticism, all the neat categories dissolve :-)
David
nic...@my-dejanews.com
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote:
> I vaguely remember from Duby that the "classic" tripartite division into
> prayers, fighters and workers wasn't the only one - did he mention a
> cleric/monk/layman scheme or is it my post-pneumoniac mental processes
> playing me a trick????
Hmm...it's been awhile since I've read Duby, and my copy is out on loan.
Maybe someone else will chime in. (Honestly, I could have just used the term
"religious" from the beginning and avoided all confusion....)
> Fair enough. In my defence, I would say that most of the polemics concerned
> the corruption and reform of cathedral chapters (regular canons or irregular
> lives), and that not many writers took much of an interest in solo parish
> and chantry priests. Do you know of any? I don't think expectations were
> very high.
I do think some of the episcopal visitations involve parish churches. In
England, the rural deans were supposed to do visitations; I can't remember
right off whether any of them have left records. Chantry priests were
certainly in theory under *someone's* authority (probably the bishop's), but I
think you're right that checking up on them was quite lax. In any case, the
reformers' main concern with parish priests seems to be lack of education--
which is certainly a target of reform, but has a different flavour to it.
> After the 13th century, friars enter the
> >picture as a sort of middle ground between monks and canons--they follow a
> >rule, but they're not necessarily ordained clergy, nor are they attached to
> a
> >particular church, having instead their own houses and priories.
> >
> >
> I read somewhere that they undercut the regulars - offered the same
> services, but cheaper. Mass-market canons, as it were. :-)
Not to mention the fact that there was a widespread view that confessing to a
passing friar was a good way to get off easy on the penance. He probably
didn't know you very well and might be more interested in the coin you could
give him as alms.
> I suspect you're a thirteenth-century buff, whereas I'm a twelfth-century
> maven. The mendicants are at the tail-end of the period that interests me,
> and I wouldn't dare debate you on them!
Bingo. My primary field of interest is (you guessed it) Dominicans in the
thirteenth century.
Susan Carroll-Clark
David C. Pugh
nic...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <77o2se$ng5
(.....)
(Honestly, I could have just used the term
>"religious" from the beginning and avoided all confusion....)
>
Right! Memo to self for next life.......
(....)
In any case, the
>reformers' main concern with parish priests seems to be lack of education--
>which is certainly a target of reform, but has a different flavour to it.
>
The Reform might even be a unique case of a crack-down that started at the
top....... :-)
(...)
>Not to mention the fact that there was a widespread view that confessing to
a
>passing friar was a good way to get off easy on the penance. He probably
>didn't know you very well and might be more interested in the coin you
could
>give him as alms.
>
Well, he would have needed the coin more than your comfy canon. Supply and
demand, sounds like perfect competition to me.....
>Bingo. My primary field of interest is (you guessed it) Dominicans in the
>thirteenth century.
>
Aha! A heavy Group resource! Say farewell to peace!
David
Jgissw
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:54:11 GMT
> Chantry priests were
>certainly in theory under *someone's* authority (probably the bishop's), but
>I
>think you're right that checking up on them was quite lax.
Haven't read Duby yet and will probably have to take it back before I can
finish it (bit off more than I can chew, I suppose), but note that he remarked
that the monastic orders were a means of extending the Pope's temporal
authority and that the orders were in some conflict with the bishops.
Usenet Reader
In article <lapeplau-ya0240800...@news.ucla.edu> on
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:04:41 -0700, lape...@ucla.edu (Steve Gordon)
writes:
I've seen it mentioned matter-of-factly in stories in some
fundamentalist Protestant religious tracts. That is, someone in
the story would be described as doing it. The story's tone would
be that this was a normal thing to do.
Nevertheless, I dunno how often people actually did or do it, or
whether it was officially authorized, or just something personal.
A tendancy in Christianity is for some individuals to extend the
religion in a new way. The lucky ones, like Francis of Assisi,
become saints. The unlucky ones get burned at the stake.
I vaguely remember reading that people would do this with Virgil's
Aeneid at one time. It's not that different from any other form
of divining auguries. Details would be appreciated.
Here's another religious text factoid. Some fundamentalists
believe that the KJV is divinely inspired. I'm not talking about
the original texts, but about the English translation.
Since I'm not a professional historian, I don't mind having the
historians correct any errors or biases in this.
CSnow49551
does and did exist and did actually contain the shrine of St. Winifred, the
fragments of which still exist in the church. It is set by the river in a very
nice location, and is open for services and visitation. I've done both there
two years ago.
Carolyn
Richard York
Brian M. Scott wrote in message <369e25a6...@news.csuohio.edu>...
>
The
>association with bastardy seems to owe much to Charles II, who used
><Fitzroy> as a surname for his illegitimate sons. (Oddly enough, the
>name isn't always to be taken literally: early examples include <fis
>le Rey> from a 13th c. Subsidy Roll, which isn't likely to contain the
>names of royal offspring, legitimate or otherwise.)
>
As a non-academic I'm probably entering waters too hot, but - John
Southworth's 1989 "The English Medieval Minstrel" mentions Le Roy Druet, Le
Roy Grey, le Roy Henry, Le Roy Page, Le Roy Robert , also "King Copyn,
herald" by the 1300's - is this relevant or helpful?
Best Wishes,
Richard.
Richard York
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote in message
<77ejtm$jf$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
<snip>
> they may simply divide up the world and the
>nature of evidence differently than a modern person. My favorite example
>of this (probably because I wrote a paper on the topic) is the attitude
>Gerald de Barri (aka Giraldus Cambrensis) took toward marvels, wonders,
>and miracles. < ...> startling combination of blythe credulity and
empirical,
> skeptical reasoning -- very occasionally on the same topic.
<snip>
>Gerald has always struck me as decidedly towards the skeptical end of the
>scale for his day -- we are fortunate that he provided us with so much
>commentary on his own attitudes toward the things he was reporting< ....>
I returned from my own travels, having just started to read Gerald, to find
the very enjoyable Cadfael thread & this ref. to Gerald amongst it. Anyone
providing the story of how half an oblation to a holy Staff gets you half a
cure for swellings has my vote :-)
What are your views on how typical was his credulity/scepticism mix for his
& the succeeding century or so? - re- Paul Gans' comments on people's
mind-sets - and the ordinary people who didn't write books but got reported
in Gerald's - do other reporters describe them as being as credulous as does
Gerald? They seem to be reported by both Chaucer & Shakespeare as having
not changed much, is this reflected in the wider reading of you who are
more, er, widely read ? I note, Heather, you describe Gerald as to the
skeptical end.
Answers by ng, please, not by shoulder bones, I haven't yet learned to read
those.
More reading will I'm sure *eventually* give me some answers, but I'd really
like some informed opinions in this lifetime! I don't have much access to
academic libraries
Thanks & Best Wishes,
Richard.
David C. Pugh
Richard York wrote in message <4UHo2.7619$dh1.1664@wards>...
>
>As a non-academic I'm probably entering waters too hot, but - John
>Southworth's 1989 "The English Medieval Minstrel" mentions Le Roy Druet,
Le
>Roy Grey, le Roy Henry, Le Roy Page, Le Roy Robert , also "King Copyn,
>herald" by the 1300's - is this relevant or helpful?
It should be noted that some English surnames derive from the parts played
by villagers or urban artisans in the mystery plays and so forth - parts in
which they would specialise. So "John Bishop" is not necessarily the son of
a bishop, but could be the man who always plays the Bishop. Maybe some of
these guys did a really mean Herod?
David
Richard York
David C. Pugh wrote in message <77vrek$o30$1...@readme.online.no>...
>
>Richard York wrote
- John
>>Southworth's 1989 "The English Medieval Minstrel" mentions Le Roy Druet,
>Le
>>Roy Grey, le Roy Henry, Le Roy Page, Le Roy Robert , also "King Copyn,
>>herald" by the 1300's - is this relevant or helpful?
>
>It should be noted that some English surnames derive from the parts played
>by villagers or urban artisans in the mystery plays and so forth - parts in
>which they would specialise. So "John Bishop" is not necessarily the son of
>a bishop, but could be the man who always plays the Bishop. Maybe some of
>these guys did a really mean Herod?
>
>David
>
that certain minstrels were honoured with this royal title - "Le Roy
Robert" of 1296 was also described as Robert the King's Trumpeter, and
Robert the Taborer, and "Robert King of Minstrels"; but adds that the title
yet survives among Heralds as in Garter King of Arms.
Best Wishes
Richard.
Brian M. Scott
<ric...@lizards.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote in message <369e25a6...@news.csuohio.edu>...
>> The
>>association with bastardy seems to owe much to Charles II, who used
>><Fitzroy> as a surname for his illegitimate sons. (Oddly enough, the
>>name isn't always to be taken literally: early examples include <fis
>>le Rey> from a 13th c. Subsidy Roll, which isn't likely to contain the
>>names of royal offspring, legitimate or otherwise.)
>As a non-academic I'm probably entering waters too hot, but - John
>Southworth's 1989 "The English Medieval Minstrel" mentions Le Roy Druet, Le
>Roy Grey, le Roy Henry, Le Roy Page, Le Roy Robert , also "King Copyn,
>herald" by the 1300's - is this relevant or helpful?
It's at least tangentially related. There are many examples in
various account books and such of minstrels referred to as 'king (of
minstrels)', just as a senior herald was from a very early date a
'king (of arms)'. Lebel mentions an officer of the morals police who
was called <le roi des ribauds>, and the byname actually occurs in
Paris in 1292 (<le Roy des ribauz>) and at Lyon in 1388 (<le Roy du
ribaut>); he says that the dukes of Burgundy, Berry, and Orle/ans each
had one in the 14th c. Certain corporations had at their head a king,
e.g., <le roi des merciers>. At Dijon and Chalons-sur-Sao^ne the <roi
de l'arc> had brought down the popinjay in the annual archery contest.
What's not clear is the extent to which these designations, like those
commemorating roles in Passion plays and the like, gave rise to
surnames.
Brian M. Scott
Paul J Gans
I don't know. The views of ordinary folks are still not
much reported. I'd suspect that they were far more
credulous than the nobility who in turn would have been
more credulous than the aristocracy. Travel, education,
and access to books does tend to broaden one's views.
Folks today are still rather credulous. Other than to
mention the widespread belief that the millenium starts
on 1 Jan 2000, I'll not mention others because they
will only start flame wars. But I'm sure every reader
can think up a few favorite examples. ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
sk...@ix.netcom.com
long to finish reading.
The Cadfael TV series is (as many if not all of you know) based on
Ellis Peters' extensive set of mysteries. I haven't watched the TV
series so don't kave any idea how faithful it is to the books.
Ellis Peters is a pseudonym of Edith Pargeter a serious historian
credited with many barely-fictionalized historical novels dealing with
the period from the Maude/Stephen war through the Wars of the Roses
and, I believe, of a three-volume non-fiction history of the Cadfael
period, which I haven't been able to find.
Her barely-fiction stuff includes a conscious and informed effort to
present the ambience of the times she writes about, and can probably
be generally trusted on questions (such as could Cadfael be a monk not
just a brother; were his potions really used at the time; is that how
lepers were treated etc.) about the accuracy of her work.
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:08:02 -0700, lape...@ucla.edu (Steve Gordon)
wrote:
>In the U.S. the TV series based on the Brother Cadfael mystery books is
>having a good run on public broadcasting. Do medievalists have opinions
>about its accuracy according to historical knowledge about the social roles
>portrayed, the setting, or other details. I realize that some place-names
>are fictionalized (Shrewsbury Abbey, Ramsey Abbey), that Queen Mathilda
>becomes Queen Maude (why -- to protect the ancient dead?), etc.
>
>But would Brother Cadfael's empirical, deductive thinking patterns in his
>detective work be medieval or modern?
>
>Are the rather egalitarian relations shown between monk and abbot, women
>and men, and nobility and peasants completely implausible?
>
>Would a semingly non-pious monk such as Cadfael have been accepted by his
>order in medieval England?
>
>More generally, are there any "historical howlers" (blatant errors)
>detected by medievalist viewers?