Medieval English Benedictine Liturgy

Studies in the Formation, Structure, and Content of the Monastic Votive Office, c. 950-1540

Sally Elizabeth (Roper) Harper

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367192839
• eBook ISBN: 9780429513718
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Originally published in 1993, Medieval English Benedictine Liturgy is a detailed study of the liturgical use of medieval monasteries in England, spanning 500 years. The study examines the major votive observances that came to fruition in the twelfth century and later and argues that these important practices affected earlier monastic observances. The book's emphasis on Anglo-Saxon liturgy provides a bridge between the practices of the English Benedictines before and after the Conquest. The book also traces the chronological progress of three individual observances and extends where possible into the sixteenth century. The book argues that, at a broader level, while liturgy has been recognized as an indispensable part of the study of the context and use of medieval chant and polyphony.

Part I

THE FORMATION OF VOTIVE

OBSERVANCE IN ENGLISH MONASTERIES

BEFORE THE NORMAN CONQUEST

Chapter One

ST BENEDICT’S OPUS DEI: THE BASIS FOR LATER VOTIVE OBSERVANCE

The liturgical scheme drawn up by St Benedict of Nursia (c.480-c.550) for the daily worship of the first Benedictine community at Monte Cassino is presented as Chapters 8-20 of The Rule of St Benedict. The pattern described in this document is simple and uncluttered, operating within a carefully planned routine, where the community was subject to strict discipline but ‘nothing harsh or burdensome’: In qua institutione nihil asperum, nihil grave, nos constituturos speramus (RB Prologue: 4).¹ The liturgical prayer of the community (Opus Dei), amounting to about four hours a day, was only one element of the prescribed lifestyle. Approximately six hours were devoted to manual labour, and a further four to lectio (reading or private prayer) and meditatio (memorization, repetition and reflection on biblical texts).² This particular balance, however, was not retained by all of the communities which adopted RB during the Middle Ages. The tendency for liturgical expansion which began during the eighth century (discussed at the end of this chapter) set a precedent for widespread proliferation of liturgical accretions, resulting in a serious distortion of St Benedict’s original ideal. Nevertheless, the directions for Opus Dei presented in RB remained the basic foundation around which all subsequent liturgical change was made, and the purpose of this chapter is to consider the basic evidence of the document as a precursor for intercession of a votive nature.

Comparison with earlier monastic rules reveals that most of Benedict’s directions for the structure of the office and the daily order of psalmody are more clearly regulated than those of his predecessors. But other areas within the liturgical scheme of RB—including the conclusion of the office hours and the regulation of periods of private prayer—are described with less precision. This may imply that certain practices were too familiar to merit explicit discussion, or it may be that genuine flexibility was thought to be desirable. The following discussion, some of which inevitably summarizes and conflates the extensive work of other scholars, aims to relate some of the ambiguities of RB to later sources which clarify the issue by providing more complete instructions or additional texts. It also evaluates the legacy of RB by examining its contemporary significance and derivation from other rules, the extent to which it was received during the Middle Ages and its early adoption in England. The second part of the chapter considers the aims of some of the earliest Benedictine reformers, most notably Benedict of Aniane, and the resulting proliferation of liturgical accretions.

THE RULE OF ST BENEDICT AND ITS PRECURSORS

Most of RB draws on existing monastic practice. It is but one of many Latin rules written between the fifth and sixth centuries, and was not conceived other than for use by the community at Monte Cassino. Its widespread circulation only began during the eighth century when it was promulgated throughout the empire of Charlemagne (768-814). RB demonstrates parallels with a group of more than twenty rules written at a slightly earlier date in Italy and Southern Gaul. Traces of Caesarius of Aries (c.470-542) and eastern rules are present, but much of the material is lifted directly from a code termed Regula Magistri (RM), a lengthy anonymous monastic rule of over 50,000 words written in Italy south-east of Rome in the first quarter of the sixth century.³

The close relationship between RM and RB, the obvious debt in the latter work to the Roman Office, the cathedral usage of Jerusalem and a variety of other monastic traditions, imply that St Benedict’s code is a document of concensus rather than of originality. But in many respects fidelity to established practice was the key to its contemporary popularity: its traditionalism marked it out as a masterful distillation of earlier monastic experience. It also represents a considerable advance in quality on RM: it is more concise, structurally and stylistically superior, and more humane in its outlook.

Unlike RM, RB presents liturgical directions as a continuous sequence of chapters (RB 8-20; RM deals with the ordering of the liturgical day at a later stage, primarily in Chapters 33-37, but also 44-45 and 49). Table 1:1 (pp. 181-86) presents in summary format the prescribed structure for each of the office hours in RB. In essence the structure of the office parallels the practice of the contemporary Roman basilicas served by monks, but Benedict’s version of the Psalter (here presented alongside the later standard secular cursus of psalms as Table 1:2) is modified, eliminating some of the repetitions in the Roman monastic office, where the daily psalmody at all hours except Matins and Vespers was fixed. RB imposes firm regulation on the number of psalms at Matins (twelve) and Vespers (four)—RB Chapters 9, 11, 17—and introduces variable psalmody at Lauds, Prime, Terce, Sext and None. RM gives no indication of the ordering of the psalms.

The two documents also diverge significantly in that RM prescribes daily reception of the communion under both kinds. RB is notably silent on the matter of the communion. The term communio appears three times (RB 38:2, 38:10, 63:4) but not in the chapters specifically devoted to the liturgy. Opinion varies considerably as to the frequency of mass celebration amongst the early Benedictines. Adalbert De Vogüé is most cautious, considering that a conventual mass would ‘at most’ have been limited to Sundays and feastdays, or even without any sense of fixed regularity whatsoever.⁴ C.H. Lawrence is less circumspect, arguing for a single celebration of conventual mass on Sundays, feastdays and other important occasions, including special needs. He sees this partly as the result of the small number of priests in the earliest Benedictine communities, and partly the result of an abbot’s inability to legislate on the eucharistic liturgy: a task which had to be left to a bishop.⁵ George Guiver, however, suggests that the communion was not celebrated at the monastery at all, and that the monks simply visited the local parish church.⁶ The infrequency of eucharistic celebration implied in the liturgical scheme of RB was overturned in the later Middle Ages. Most communities were required to be present for at least two daily masses by the tenth century (the Mass of the Day and the Chapter or Morrow Mass), whilst a third celebration in honour of the Virgin was added in many foundations during the twelfth century.

MONASTIC PRAYER

As suggested above, RB allows for a surprising degree of flexibility in certain areas. This is most explicitly stated in the chapter dealing with the order of psalmody, which, after its enumeration of the psalms to be recited at each hour, gives the following modified directive:

Hoc praecipue commonentes ut, si cui forte haec distributio psalmorum displicuerit, ordinet si melius aliter iudicaverit, dum omnimodis id attendat ut omni hebdomada psalterium ex integro numero centum quinquaginta psalmorum psallantur, et dominico die semper a caput reprehendatur ad vigilas. RB 18:22-23

There is also very little formal direction for the manner in which periods of time for prayer should be structured. RB recommends private prayer but seems concerned to safeguard its spontaneity, and Chapter 20, which concludes the specifically liturgical section of RB, presents an ideal of brevity and purity:

Et ideo brevis debet esse et pura oratio, nisi forte ex affectu inspirations divinae gratiae protendatur. RB 20:4

This recommendation is also applied to prayer in community, presumably before or after an office:

In conventu tamen omnino brevietur oratio, et facto signo a priore omnes pariter surgant. RB 20:5

Chapter 52 (concerned with the oratory of the monastery) certainly implies that private prayer might follow an office, an important factor when considering the expansion of the hours in later years by the addition of independent observances. (This will be further discussed in relation to the imprecision of RB’s directions on the closing ceremonies of the hours, below.) Indeed, private prayer was allowed in the oratory on all occasions:

Oratorium hoc sit quod dicitur, nec ibi quicquam aliud geratur aut condatur. Expleto opere Dei, omnes cum summo silentio exeant, et habeatur reverentia Deo, ut frater qui forte sibi peculiariter vult orare non impediatur alterius improbitate. Sed et si aliter vult sibi forte secretius orare, simpliciter intret et oret, non in clamosa voce, sed in lacrimis et intentione cordis. Ergo qui simile opus non facit, non permittatur explicito opere Dei remorari in oratorio, sicut dictum est, ne alius impedimentum patiatur. RB 52:1-5

Private prayer was also considered a suitable act of self-denial during Lent:

Ergo his diebus augeamus nobis aliquid solito pensu servitutis nostrae, orationes peculiares, ciborum et potus abstinentiam, ut unusquisque super mensuram sibi indictam aliquid propria voluntate … ojferat Deo. RB 49:5-6

The term used here for private prayer, orationes peculiares, is one which was used in a similar context three centuries later by Rabanus Maurus (776 or 784-856), Abbot of Fulda and Archbishop of Mainz, in a manual dealing with the sacraments, communal prayer and other matters (De clericorum institutione). Rabanus identifies three categories of prayer: private (privatae) personal (peculiares) and secret (furtivae).⁷ RB on most occasions refers simply to private devotions as oratio, but in Chapter 17, part of the section dealing formally with the Divine Office, oratio seems to be used to refer to the entire office:

Tertia vero, sexta et no na, item eo ordine celebretur oratio, id est ver su, hymnos earundem horarum, ternos psalmos, lectionem et versu, Kyrie eleison et missas. RB 17:5

This may also imply a link with the reference to oratio in community at RB 20:5 (cited above). Timothy Fry’s discussion of the liturgical code in RB suggests that the term oratio (when applied to communal prayer) may well indicate the use of psalter collects evident in cathedral worship at a similar period: a psalm ‘Christianized’ by a collect and followed by a brief period of silent prayer.⁸ Both St Cassian and RM seem to have been familiar with the notion of private prayer after psalms, and de Vogüé argues stron...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Note on citation and abbreviations
• Abbreviations
• Part I. The Formation of Votive Observance in English Monasteries Before the Norman Conquest
• Part II. Three Case Studies Taken from Later Medieval Practice
• Tables
• Descriptive Catalogue
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Index