of bishops, felt themselves obliged to condemn it in strong terms, and to forbid its continuance. In some cases during the eighth century, it was provided that, if the diocesan bishop would not perform his functions with respect to a monastery on reasonable terms, the abbot might apply to another." On the whole, it may be said, that the exemptions of this period were not sought for the sake of emancipation from the rightful authority of the bishops, but from their rapacity. The bishop still retained his general supervision of religion and morals in the exempt monasteries; he was even entitled to inquire into the administration of the temporalities, while he was restrained from acts of plunder and oppression.* When some monasteries had obtained such privileges, it became usual with founders to insist that those which they established should stand on a level with others in this respect. There were, too, certain monasteries which were styled royal-either from having been founded by princes, or from having obtained their special protection; and these were exempt from all jurisdiction except that of the sovereign, which was exercised through the missi and the bishops. Some, of more than ordinary dignity, had bishops of their own, resident within their walls, as was the case at St. Denys. And in addition to these, it appears that the popes had already commenced a practice of granting exemption from all authority but their own. The first instance is commonly said to have been a grant from Zacharias to the abbey of Fulda; but the genuineness of the document is much questioned. If genuine, it was granted at the request of Boniface himself, and therefore not with an intention to injure the rights of the diocesan.a But when the archbishoprick and the abbacy which had been united in the Apostle of Germany were divided, the privileges conferred on Fulda, and the renown which it acquired as the resting-place of his remains, excited the jealousy of Lull, his successor in the see of Mentz. The archbishop complained that the exemption wrongfully interfered with his jurisdiction. He is said to have persecuted the abbot, Sturmi, by unscrupulous means Thomass. I. iii. 35; Planck, ii. 511-2; Rettb. ii. 669. E. g. Conc. Tolet. IV. A.D. 633, c. 51 (which says that bishops treat their monks like slaves); Conc. Tol. IX. A.D. 655, c. 2. -even inducing Pipin, by a charge of treason, to banish him for two years; and the enmity between the two continued to the end of the abbot's life, so that, on his deathbed, in declaring his forgiveness of all men, he thought it necessary to mention Lull by name, as being the person who most especially needed it. Exemptions existed also in the patriarchate of Constantinople, where some monasteries were discharged from the bishop's authority and subject to the metropolitan, while others were subject to the patriarch only. In token of these privileges, the metropolitan or patriarchal crosier was erected over the altar in the chapel of the monastery." The second council of Nicæa allowed abbots, if they were presbyters, to ordain the lower clergy of their monastery. The rule was adopted in the west, and from this and other circumstances, it came to pass that the inmates of a monastery, with very few exceptions, belonged to some grade of the hierarchy.h The age of admission to the monastic communities was variously fixed. The Trullan council lays down that it ought not to be under ten. Theodore of Canterbury names fifteen as the age for monks, and sixteen or seventeen for nuns. The capitularies of 789 re-enact the old African canons which forbade the reception of women before the age of twenty-five, unless for some special reason.m But, besides those who took the vows on themselves, children might be devoted by their parents to the monastic state; and in this case, as in the other, there was no release from its obligations." Charlemagne, however, endeavoured to put some limit to the practice, by ordering that, "saving the authority of the canons," girls should not be veiled until they were old enough to understand their engagements." Many orders are found against the admission of serfs into monasteries without the consent of their masters, and of freemen without license from the sovereign. It was not unusual to make a false profession of withdrawing from the world, for the sake of escaping from military service. In order to check this abuse, Charlemagne orders, in 805, that those who forsake the world shall be obliged to live strictly according to rule, either as canons or as monks.P Although the observance of the same rule was a bond of union between monastic societies, no more intimate connexion was as yet organised in the west. Some of the greater monasteries had cells or priories dependent on them; but, except on this very limited scale, there was no affiliation of one religious house to another, nor was there any subjection of many to a common head, as had been the case in the system of St. Pachomius. It was usual for an abbot, in sending forth one of his monks to found a new community, to release him from the vow of obedience so soon as he should be able to establish a footing. During the earlier part of the period, it was forbidden to an abbot to have more than one monastery, although Gregory the Great allowed it in some cases;" but this rule was afterwards disregarded. Pluralities, both ecclesiastical and monastic, became frequent, and sometimes both kinds were held by the same person. Thus, about the year 720, Hugh, a member of the Carolingian family, was at once bishop of Paris, Rouen, and Bayeux, and abbot of Fontenelle and Jumièges. In the instances where a see was usually filled from a particular monastery, the bishops often united the abbacy with their higher office; and where bishops were able to usurp the nomination to an abbacy, they sometimes took it for themselves. Thus Sidonius, bishop of Constance, who had already got possession of the abbey of Reichenau, resolved in 759 to make himself master also of that of St. Gall; and, although we are told by the monastic historians that his rapacity was punished by a death like that of Arius, the next bishop, John, not only engrossed the same rich preferment, but towards the end of his life formed a scheme of providing for his three nephews by transferring the bishoprick to one of them, and an abbacy to each of the others." X Many of the monastic societies were specially exempted by sovereigns from all public imposts and tolls." But such exemptions were as often tokens of poverty on the part of the house as of extraordinary royal favour. Thus, in a list of the Frankish monasteries, drawn up at Aix-la-Chapelle, in 817, where they are ranged in three classes, as owing to the prince both gifts and military service, as owing gifts only, or as free from all duty except 9 Mabill. VII. xxii. xxvii. See vol. i. p. 316. The order of St. Columba, in which the abbot of Iona was the general superior (see vol. i. p. 543), was an exception to the usual system of the west. Planck, ii. 494-5. Conc. Epaon. A.D. 517, c. 9. u Epp. x. 61; xi. 72. * Schröckh, xx. 71. y Ratpert. de Casibus S. Galli, 2-3 (Pertz, ii. 63); Planck, ii. 521. See e. g. the charter granted to Corbie by Clotaire III. in 669 (Hard. iii. 1010), and many in Bouquet, t.v. prayer, the most distinguished foundations are for the most part included in the most heavily burdened class.* As monasteries grew rich, some evil consequences followed. The vow of poverty was considered to be satisfied by the renunciation of individual property. Where its obligation was felt as matter of conscience, the monks retained their original simplicity of dress and food, while their superfluous wealth was spent on other objects, such as the erection of costly buildings. But very commonly the possession of the means of luxury introduced the enjoyment of it. In the east, the confessor Maximus, in the middle of the seventh century, denounces the disorderly lives of monks, and says that their profession of piety was no better than hypocrisy. Charlemagne in 811 censures the abbots as caring only to swell the numbers of their monks and to obtain good chanters and readers, without any solicitude as to their morals. He sarcastically asks how the monks and clergy understand the text against entangling themselves with the affairs of this life; whether they suppose the only difference between themselves and secular men to consist in their being unmarried and carrying no arms; whether those can be said to have forsaken the world who are incessantly striving to increase their possessions by all sorts of means—who use the hopes of heaven and the terrors of hell, the names of God and the saints, to extort gifts not only from the rich but from the poor and ignorant, and, by diverting property from the lawful heirs, drive many to theft and robbery. How, he continues, can they be said to have forsaken the world who suborn perjury in order to acquire what they covet? or those who retain their secular property, and are surrounded by bands of armed men ? d Abbots, as well as bishops, were addicted to war, to hunting and hawking, to games of chance, to the company of minstrels and jesters. There are many ordinances against irregularities of this kind-some of them extending to abbesses also; and there are frequent complaints of gross immorality among recluses of both sexes, with attempts to restrain such practices. Pertz, Leges, i. 223; Planck, ii. 516. for gloves, girdles, or the binding of books; but in such cases it would seem that the work was to be performed by the lay dependants of the house. See the charters granted by Charlemagne to St. Denys, in 774 (Bouquet, v. 727); and to Sithiu (St. Bertin's, at St. Omer), in 788 (ib. 752). E. g. Conc. Nic. II. A.D. 787, c. 20; Conc. Trullan. A.D. 691, c. 47; Conc. Towards the end of the period, a remarkable reformer of the monastic life appeared in France. Witiza, afterwards known as Benedict of Aniane, was of Gothic descent, and son of the count of Maguelone in Septimania. When a boy, he was placed in the court of Pipin, to whom he became cupbearer, and he continued in the service of Charlemagne. In returning from Rome after his master's visit to Adrian in 774, he narrowly escaped drowning in a vain attempt to save his brother," who had rashly plunged into a swollen ford; and, in gratitude for his preservation, he carried out a thought which he had already for some time entertained, of embracing the monastic life, by entering the monastery of St. Seine, in Burgundy. Although he had assumed the name of Benedict, the rule of the Nursian monk appeared to him fit only for weak beginners, and he rushed into the austerities of eastern monachism. He macerated his body by excessive fasting; his dress was of rags, swarming with vermin, and patched with a variety of colours; he took very little sleep, and that on the bare ground; he never bathed; he courted derision and insult as a madman, and often expressed his fear of hell in piteous outcries. His abbot repeatedly urged him to relent from these rigours, but Benedict was inflexible.k h On the death of the abbot, Benedict was chosen as his successor; but he fled from St. Seine, and built himself a little hermitage on his father's estate, by the bank of the river Aniane." Some monks attempted to live with him, but found themselves unable to support the excessive severity of his system." In course of time, however, a considerable society was gathered around him, and a monastery was erected near his cell. Benedict himself took part in the building of it; he and his monks were obliged to carry the materials, as they were unable to provide oxen for the work." The walls were of wood; the roof was thatched with straw; the vestments for divine service were coarse, whereas silk was usually employed for such purposes; the eucharistic vessels were of wood, afterwards of glass, and finally of pewter. The monks lived chiefly on bread and water, varied sometimes by milk, and on Sundays and holydays by a scanty allowance of wine. If the rigid simplicity of Benedict's first arrangements was partly dictated by fear lest richness of architecture and of ornament should prove injurious to monastic discipline, he must afterwards have changed his opinion Arelat. A.D. 813, c. 7; Capit. Aquisgr. A.D. 802, c. 17. Vita ap. Mabill. v. 192 seqq. c. 1. m C. 10. 。 C. 12. k C. 7. n C. 11. P C. 14. 4 This was sometimes matter of complaint. See Mabill. V. ciii. and the ca |