The Rule of Saint Benedict: Chapter Five, Blind Obedience in a Medieval Monastery

Saint Benedict loves obedience. Besides writing about it in previous chapters (as well as in future chapters!) he dedicates the entirety of chapter five on it. However, Saint Benedict’s writings on this topic do come across as a little worrisome. He demands nothing less than blind obedience from his monks. The first sentence of chapter five is “The first degree of humility is obedience without delay” (Saint Benedict pg. 23). Monks are supposed to be humble so it’s natural that he would talk about how to be humble (he goes more into detail in chapter seven), but Saint Benedict takes this obsession with obedience a bit too far:

“[A]s soon as anything is ordered by the superior, suffer no more delay in doing it than if it had been commanded by God Himself.” (Saint Benedict pg. 23)

 

institution-of-a-monk-from-bl-royal-11-d-ix-f-195-b3fa92

Institution of a monk | BL Royal 11 D IX, f. 195 | Source: Picryl.com

 

One problem with this is that the superiors are human. Their commands may very well be dangerous. (And even God tried to get Abraham to kill his own son.) To make matters even more problematic, Saint Benedict wants his monks to obey while keeping in mind their “fear of hell or…the glory of life everlasting” (Saint Benedict pg. 23).

In Terrence G. Kardong’s translation of The Rule of Saint Benedict, he comments that this chapter “may appear to call for absolute ‘militaristic’ obedience…this is a false impression” (Kardong). He goes on to claim that “the abbot must conform to the high standards” (Kardong) previously set out by The Rule and if he doesn’t, there can be consequences. Kardong is extremely optimistic about how often people, the Church especially, actually follow high standards. I think it’s common knowledge that people in charge take advantage of their power. Corruption in the Catholic Church isn’t a modern-day phenomenon either. (There is an entire era of the papacy that is called the pornocracy due to its corruption.)

Saint Benedict is aware that not every monk will want to do what he is told. (And perhaps what he is told to do isn’t a result of corruption, it’s just something the monk doesn’t want to do.) Saint Benedict is also aware that when people have to do things they don’t want to, they complain, even if God loves blind obedience. As a result, he spends one-third of the chapter (which is only three paragraphs) telling his reader not to complain:

“But this very obedience will then only be acceptable to God and sweet to men, if what is commanded be done not fearfully, tardily, nor coldly, now with murmuring, nor with answer, showing unwillingness.” (Saint Benedict pg. 24)

(I will note that “murmuring” here means grumbling or complaining.)

Finally, Saint Benedict says that even if the reader does obey his superiors, God only accepts this obedience if he doesn’t complain while he does the thing he was asked to do. I do find it interesting that Saint Benedict goes into so much detail when telling his monks to stop whining. Perhaps he was sick and tired of listening to his own monks complain?

 

Main Source:

The Rule of Saint Benedict, With Explanatory Notes. Ichthus Publications.

(I bought my copy of The Rule of Saint Benedict on Amazon. You can purchase my edition of it here.)

Other Sources:

Benedictus, and Terrence G. Kardong. Benedicts Rule: a Translation and Commentary. Liturgical Press, 1996.

(You can find part of this book here.)

The Rule of Saint Benedict: Chapter Four, How to be a Good Christian Monk in 72 Easy Steps

Chapter four of The Rule of Saint Benedict is titled “What are the Instruments of Good Works” (pg. 20). “Good Works” refer to instructions on how to be a good person as well as a good monk. In my translation, there are seventy-two different works (or steps as I shall be referring to them). I will note that a lot of these steps are just the same rule but phrased in a slightly different way. I assume Saint Benedict does this so no monk tries to find a loophole. (I’ve noticed that often times super-specific rules are written purely because someone found a so-called loophole and did something they weren’t supposed to do. Human nature really hasn’t changed too much over the millennia.)

The first step is to love God “with all one’s heart, all one’s soul, and all one’s strength” (pg. 20).

The second one is the same as the first, but to apply this to “one’s neighbor as oneself” (pg. 20).

Steps three through seven are from the Ten Commandments. Don’t kill, commit adultery, steal, covet, and/or lie (pg. 20).

Step eight is “to honor all men” (pg. 20).

Step nine is “not to do to another what one would not have done to oneself” (pg. 20) or the golden rule.

Steps ten through thirteen are all about denying yourself comforts. This includes “to chastise the body” as well as fasting and “not to seek after delicate living” (pg. 20).

Steps fourteen through nineteen are instructions on taking care of those less fortunate than yourself. This means helping the poor, naked, sick, those afflicted, and those grieving. It also includes burying the dead (pg. 20).

 

0a8655388abbb95a0c3342612bcd4dbc

Burying the dead | Source: Pintrest.com

 

Step twenty is “to keep aloof from worldly actions” (pg. 20). I’m not one hundred percent sure how to interpret this. I feel like “worldly actions” could be anything from politics to sex. (Perhaps even both!) Either way, to be a good monk you should avoid both.

Step twenty-one wants you to “prefer nothing to the love of Christ” (pg. 21). This meaning that you should value Christ’s love above everything else.

Steps twenty-two through thirty-four detail how to be a benevolent, truthful person. Don’t let yourself be angry over every little thing, don’t seek revenge, don’t “foster guile in [your] heart” and if you don’t intend to actually make peace don’t pretend that you are (pg. 21). Nor should you “forsake charity,” swear oaths as you run the risk of breaking them, “render evil for evil”, or “be proud” (pg. 21). Instead of cursing people who curse you, you should bless them.

These are a lot of instructions on what not to do. What should you do to be benevolent? Well, you should only tell the truth “from heart and mouth”, “do no wrong to anyone” and “bear patiently wrong done to” you, “love [your] enemies” and finally, you should “bear persecution for justice sake” (pg. 21).

Steps thirty-five and thirty-six tell monks not to be greedy when it comes to food and drink. Don’t drink too much and don’t be “a glutton” (pg. 21).

 

Additional 27695 f. 14

Some gluttonous men drinking |Additional 27695 f. 14 | Source: British Library

 

Steps thirty-seven and thirty-eight basically say not to be lazy (pg. 21).

Steps thirty-nine and forty tell monks not to complain in two different ways. You shouldn’t be a “murmurer” (someone who complains all the time) or a “detractor” (someone who talks badly of others) (pg. 21).

Step forty-one wants you “to put [your] hope in God” (pg. 21).

Steps forty-two and forty-three are restatements from the preface about where your abilities to be good and evil comes from (pg. 21). (Only through God can you be good and when you are bad that’s on you.)

Steps forty-four through forty-seven are reminders that you should fear “the Day of Judgment,” and hell as well as the fact you will die (pg. 21). Saint Benedict also throws in a reminder that you should “desire with all spiritual longing everlasting life” (pg. 21).

Steps forty-eight and forty-nine basically say that God is always watching so you should be careful what you do (pg. 21).

Steps fifty through fifty-two are how to avoid evil thoughts, go to confession when you do have them, and certainly don’t speak your evil thoughts out loud (pg. 22).

Steps fifty-three through fifty-five tell the reader not to be a chatterbox, think before you speak or laugh, and don’t laugh too much (pg. 22).

Steps fifty-six through fifty-eight remind the reader that they need to listen to the “holy reading,” pray “frequently” and go to confession (pg. 22).

Step fifty-nine is “not to fulfill the desires of the flesh” and “to hate one’s own will” (pg. 22).

Step sixty is Saint Benedict telling his monkish reader to obey their abbot, despite him having several chapters saying this (pg. 22).

Step sixty-one says don’t want to be called holy before you actually are holy (pg. 22).

Step sixty-two is “daily…fulfill by one’s deeds the commandments of God” (pg. 22).

Step sixty-three is Saint Benedict reminding his reader “to love chastity” (pg. 22).

Steps sixty-four through sixty-six basically say don’t cause drama in the monastery. Don’t hate anyone, don’t be jealous or envious, and certainly don’t “love strife” (pg. 22)!

Step sixty-seven is don’t be vain (pg. 22).

 

fa4bf31d0d0ce642a828daa85a65b9df

A creature with a mirror | Source: Pintrest.com

 

Steps sixty-eight and sixty-nine tell the monks to “reverence the Seniors” and “love the juniors” (pg. 22). I think we can interpret this to also mean be patient with both.

Step seventy is “to pray for one’s enemies in the love of Christ” (pg. 22).

Step seventy-one is basically don’t go to bed angry when you are fighting with someone (pg. 22).

Finally, step seventy-two is “never to despair of the mercy of God” (pg. 22).

If you (a monk) follow all of these rules, then everyone will be able to live peacefully in the monastery together!

 

 

Main Source:

The Rule of Saint Benedict, With Explanatory Notes. Ichthus Publications.

(I bought my copy of The Rule of Saint Benedict on Amazon. You can purchase my edition of it here.)

Other Sources (used to cross-check translation, not quoted):

Benedictus, and Terrence G. Kardong. Benedicts Rule: a Translation and Commentary. Liturgical Press, 1996.

(You can find this book here.)

The Rule of Saint Benedict: Chapter Two, How to be a Good Abbot

The second chapter of The Rule of Saint Benedict covers “What Kind of Man the Abbot ought to be” (pg. 16). The abbot is in charge of the monastery and all the people who live in it. As The Rule is both a guide on how to be a good holy monk as well as how to actually run a monastery effectively, finding an abbot who knows what he is doing is extremely important. After all, without a competent leader, a community can and often will fall into chaos. (And this applies not only to monasteries but any other community of people as well!) Saint Benedict was an abbot himself, so while his opinion on what makes a good abbot might be a bit biased, he does know what he’s talking about. He is considered the founder of Western Christian monasticism for a reason!

 

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA

A carving of Saint Benedict of Nursia | Source: Wikipedia

 

Saint Benedict’s guide on being an abbot is partially practical instructions and partially fearmongering. The chapter starts off with Saint Benedict reminding the reader that the abbot should always remember his place. He is supposed to “hold the place of Christ in the monastery” so he should “correspond to his name of superior by his deeds” (pg. 16). This means that the abbot should never “teach, or ordain, or command anything contrary to the law of the LORD” (pg. 16). The abbot is his flock’s primary example on how to act so he should behave accordingly. If he doesn’t, he will face the consequences in the afterlife. There God will judge him based on “his own teaching and…the obedience of his disciples” (pg. 16).

But what happens if an abbot tries his best, is holy and good, and his monks still misbehave? Well, all is not lost. God will certainly take the abbot’s effort into consideration. As long as the abbot “bestowed all pastoral diligence” and “employed all his care” into fixing his “corrupt” monks then he will be “absolved” (pg. 16). His monks, however, will not be. They will receive “the punishment of death” (pg. 17). Instead of getting into Heaven like their abbot will, they will not. This is a great example of the practicalness of The Rule. Saint Benedict acknowledges that even if an abbot is holy and good that does not mean his monks will follow his example. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

What if your monks aren’t necessarily bad, but just sort of stubborn? What can you do to prevent your monks from receiving eternal damnation? What can you do to encourage them to be good? Well, Saint Benedict recommends “a two-fold teaching” (pg. 17). He should tell “the intelligent among his disciples” and show “the hard-hearted and the simple-minded” how to act properly. In short, an abbot’s actions speak louder than his words. If he doesn’t practice what he preaches then he is a hypocrite. And no one is going to listen to a hypocrite, especially God. This hypocrisy also runs the risk of sowing discord among his monks.

 

abbot-addressing-monk-from-bl-royal-10-e-iv-f-249-c79e3f

Abbot addressing monk | BL Royal 10 E IV, f. 249 | Source: Picryl.com

 

Hypocrisy isn’t the only way tensions may arise as a direct result of an abbot’s behavior. Saint Benedict stresses that it is extremely important to treat everyone in the monastery equally. An abbot shouldn’t “let…one be loved more than another” (pg. 17). Not even if a monk is “of noble birth” while another monk was “formerly a slave” (pg. 17). Everyone needs to be valued at the same amount. After all, “we are all one in Christ” (pg. 17). That being said, there is a minor exception to this particular rule: The only time the abbot can show some favoritism is if the monk is “found to excel in good works or in obedience” (pg. 17).

How should an abbot act if a monk isn’t excelling in good works or in obedience? Well, it depends on the circumstance. If a monk with a “good disposition and understanding” does something wrong an abbot “for the first or second time, correct only with words” (pg. 18). But if the monk is “froward and hard of heart, and proud, or disobedient” the abbot must be much harsher in his punishment. Saint Benedict recommends “chastis[ing] with bodily stripes at the very first offense” (pg. 18). Saint Benedict argues that ‘”The fool is not corrected with words” (pg. 18), so why bother talking to them about what they did wrong?

To prevent his monks from misbehaving in the first place, an abbot needs to show “the rigor of a master” as well as “the loving affection of a father” (pg. 18). He should “rebuke the undisciplined and restless” and “exhort the obedient, mild, and patient to advance in virtue” (pg. 18). To put it simply, an abbot needs to reward good behavior and punish bad ones. That also means that he shouldn’t turn a blind eye when monks do act up. Instead of ignoring misdeeds, “as soon as they appear, let him strive with all his might to root them out” (pg. 18).

 

Royal 10 E.IV, f.224v

Abbot blessing monks | BL Royal 10 E IV, f. 224v | Source: Picryl.com

 

When running his monastery and disciplining the monks an abbot “ought always to remember what he is” (pg. 18). He is in charge of his flock, thus he must “[adapt] himself to many dispositions” (pg. 18). What works with one monk punishment wise might not work with another one:

“Let him so accommodate and suit himself to the character and intelligence of each, winning some by kindness, others by reproof, others by persuasion, that he may not only suffer no loss in the flock committed to him, but may even rejoice in their virtuous increase.” (pg. 18)

Saint Benedict ends this chapter by going into further detail with what he said in the beginning. An abbot shouldn’t concentrate too much on “fleeting, earthly, and perishable things” (pg. 18). He is in charge of and responsible for his monks’ souls, thus he should act like it. By saving these souls, “he will be himself cured of his own defects” (pg. 19).

 

Main Source:

The Rule of Saint Benedict, With Explanatory Notes. Ichthus Publications.

(I bought my copy of The Rule of Saint Benedict on Amazon. You can find the book I’m reading here.)

The Rule of Saint Benedict: Chapter One, Why Cenobites Are the Best Type of Monks and Why the Others Are Terrible (According to Saint Benedict)

Today I will continue my analysis of The Rule of Saint Benedict. In this post, I want to focus on Chapter One of The Rule. Each of the chapters in The Rule is titled according to what it is about. This chapter is appropriately titled “Of the Several Kinds of Monks and their way of Life” (pg. 15). Needless to say, Saint Benedict spends this chapter describing the types of monks that exist during the time he’s writing. However, not all of these categories are equal in the saint’s eyes!

Who are the different kinds of monks? Saint Benedict categorizes them in the ways they operate, not their orders. The types of monks Saint Benedict describes are the Cenobites, the Anchorites/Hermits, the Sarabites, and the Girovagi. Each group worships God in their own way.

 

monk-leading-hermit-from-bl-royal-10-e-iv-f-118v-68755f

Monk leading hermit | BL Royal 10 E IV, f. 118v | Source: Picryl.com

 

Saint Benedict defines the Cenobites as “those in monasteries, who live under a rule or an Abbot” (pg. 15). This is the most description the Cenobites get in chapter one. Well, until the end when Saint Benedict makes his favoritism really known. He ends the chapter by calling the Cenobites “the strongest kind of monks” (pg. 16). A footnote in my copy of The Rule clarifies that the Latin words Saint Benedict uses are fortissimum genus. While fortissimum does mean “strongest” in Latin, he’s not exactly calling Cenobites the strongest monks. Instead, there is an implication that “cenobitical life consists in the perpetual and absolute submission to the will of another which that life entails” (pg. 16). This is certainly appropriate as Saint Benedict wants the Cenobites to follow and not stray from The Rule. In fact, The Rule was written specifically for Cenobites!

The Anchorites/Hermits are the second kind of monk. As the word hermit suggests, these monks go out into the wild to pray and worship on their own. However, not just anyone is allowed to be an Anchorite or a Hermit. Saint Benedict says that you cannot be “in the first fervor of religious life” (pg. 15) if you want to be one. It is only after a “long probation in the monastery” (pg. 15) will you be allowed to go out on your own. After all, going out by yourself “to fight against the devil” is not a great idea as you will be “without the support of others” (pg. 15). Even Christ was tempted by the devil when he was alone. If you are to be a hermit it’s vital for you to be able “to fight by the strength of their own arm” (pg. 15). Thus, if you are new to the monastic life you won’t have the tools you need to fight temptation. And the only way to gain these tools is “by the help and experience of many” (pg. 15).

The Sarabites are the third type of monk. Saint Benedict is not exactly fond of them. He describes them as the “most baneful kind of monk” (pg. 15). Sarabites have no abbot to rule them, nor do they have a community to support them. Instead, they go out “in twos or threes, or even singly, without a shepherd” (pg. 15). Because they aren’t part of a larger community, Saint Benedict claims that they are “shut up, not in the LORD’s sheepfolds, but in their own” (pg. 15). He also describes them as follows:

“Whatever they think fit or choose to do, they call that holy; and what they like not, that they consider unlawful” (pg. 15).

Saint Benedict lacks some self-awareness here as he’s basically doing the same thing with The Rule. Anyone who doesn’t follow it is unlawful and disobedient.

But if you think Saint Benedict hates Sarabites, he really hates Girovagi. Girovagi spend their lives “wandering” (pg. 15) and don’t stay in the same place for very long. They have “no stability” and they have “given up to their own pleasures and to the snares of gluttony” (pg. 15). Saint Benedict describes them as being “worse in all things than the Sarabites” (pg. 15). He hates them so much that he won’t go into further detail about them, saying that “it is better to say nothing than to speak” (pg. 15).

 

Main Source:

The Rule of Saint Benedict, With Explanatory Notes. Ichthus Publications.

(I bought my copy of The Rule of Saint Benedict on Amazon. A link to that is here.)

A Golden Age for Nuns? More Like The Nickel Age

An essay answering the question, “Was there a golden age for women in the Middle Ages?”

For some context, the source cited as “???” came from a book I had scanned, but forgot to write down the title and author for. I spend about an hour trying to find it in the Bodleian Library again, but due to the library’s sheer size I was unable to locate it again.

Posted with permission from  faithsaysstuff.wordpress.com 

There was not really a Golden Age for women in the Middle Ages. However, there were periods in the span of 500-1500 where conditions for women were slightly less awful than they were before or eventually would become. The quality of life for religious women, in particular, fluctuated over the course of the middle ages. Nuns, in particular, had an unstable golden age before it quickly was destroyed during and after the Viking invasions. After their golden age, the lives of nuns generally deteriorated. However, depending on what region and century of the medieval period they lived in, their lives afterward varied in quality.

When you compare the lives of nuns’ pre-Viking invasion to post Viking invasion, an argument can be made that the golden age for nuns in Europe was before the Viking invasions in the ninth century.  From the sixth century up to around the ninth century “all the Anglo-Saxon nunneries in Southern England…were founded by members of a royal house, usually by either a reigning monarch or one of his close female relatives” (Yorke 98-99). Due to this information, one would think this guaranteed that the nunnery would be well taken care of. Or at the very least the nunnery would be taken care of until the member of the royal house who founded it died. However, this was often not the case. Many of the religious communities founded by women for women “survived only a decade or so [and] others only a generation or two” (Schulenburg 221). But this did not necessarily mean the establishments were considered failures. Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg makes the observation that in regards to the female religious communities lasting “it seems, the intention [was] that [the female nobility’s] foundations would endure for only the length of their own lifetimes” (221). This is significant because it implies that people were building monasteries for the sake of building them. Founding and throwing money into an institution that will not last could be seen as a status symbol as well.

For royalty across Europe, nunneries/female monasteries/religious houses were an investment. Granted, it might be a short-term investment, but it was an investment nonetheless. The monasteries had multiple different purposes when they were open and operating. They were seen “as a temporary investment in the Church” (Schulenburg 218). Monasteries were also a good way to be sure the founding noble family always had those who had dedicated their lives to God praying for their souls (Schulenburg 219). However, why nunneries and other homes for the femalereligious were so popular amongst nobility was “never explicitly stated” (Yorke 101).

Because these monasteries were “established and endowed by the aristocracy on their own family estates” they were often used by their founders as retirement homes for widows or rejected wives (Schulenburg 218). The queens who founded the nunneries might also use them as a place to retire to or to live at. It should be noted the former queen would often work at her nunnery as an abbess. Working as an abbess was seen as a good thing because the job “would provide [the queen] with a position of power, wealth and independence” (Yorke 101). It seems that a former queen working as an abbess was the modern-day equivalent of a retiree working as a greeter at a superstore or as a substitute teacher: it gave the queens something to do without the job being too stressful. Occasionally, however, married kings would send queens to their nunneries against their will. This would happen when a king either wanted to remarry someone new or to spite the queen’s overbearing male relatives (Yorke 102).

Queens were not the only laywomen who were sent to monasteries. In France, nobility would send their daughters to a monastery so they could receive a proper education (Schulenburg 214). Monasteries would also be used as a place of “refuge for daughters who did not wish to marry” (Schulenburg 218). However, Schulenburg notes that daughters might also be sent to a monastery if their families could not create a “politically or economically” advantageous marriage for them (218). This is important because it implies some families took into consideration their daughter’s wishes for her life while others did not. This evidence of a woman’s lack of agency doestarnish the statement golden age for women was pre-Viking invasion.

However, there were still benefits for being a nun during this time period. One such benefit for the female religious pre-Viking invasion was the double monastery. Many monasteries before the ninth century were double monasteries, meaning both men and women resided there. This type of monastery was beneficial to both monks and nuns. Close living arraignments allowed nuns and monks to interact with one another, thus allowing for the sharing of ideas and knowledge, especially the sharing of the Latin language. In fact, “before the twelfth century [nuns] were usually given the opportunity to be learned” (Hobbs 192). This is significant because it allowed nuns, who might not have had access to learning Latin otherwise, the opportunity to learn the language of the Church.

Another advantage of monks and nuns living either together or close together was the demystification of the other sex. One male monastic leader, Bernard of Clairvaux even said to his monks ‘“To be always with a woman and not have sexual relations with her is more difficult than to raise the dead. You cannot do the less difficult; do you think I will believe that you can do what is more difficult?”’ (Bynum 16). While this seems to be true for Bernard of Clairvaux, for others the best way to come to terms with the fact not every woman is constantly scheming ways “to arouse desire in people, so that they will want to lie with them” (De Meun, The Romance of The Rose16 (9013)), is to just be around women every day. By separating the sexes and not allowing men and women to interact in nonsexual contexts, the Church furthered their misogynistic ideas about women. After all, the nuns who willingly joined their monasteries wanted to live celibate lives just as the monks did.

The golden age of nuns came to a startling halt during the Viking invasions. During this time, the willingness of either parents sending their daughters to nunneries or of women going there willingly themselves decreased dramatically (??? 62). This is due to the fact when Vikings raided female monasteries they would destroy the monastery, rape, then murder the nuns who resided there. The Vikings did this so often, nearly all of the female monasteries in England alone were completely distroyed (Schulenburg 222-223). Needless to say, if you had a daughter you were thinking of sending to a nunnery, and you heard reports these attacks, you would be a lot less likely to send her off to a place where these horrible things are happening. It was only sometime after the invasions stopped were women slightlymore willing to join monasteries.

However, after the Viking invasions female monasteries were in devastating states of poverty. This was another reason women were not exactly keen to become nuns (Schulenburg 225). Because Christianity was then flourishing in Europe, the Church no longer depended on contributions from anyone who was willing to donate (Schulenburg 233). This meant the Church was no longer obligated to treat women with respect, thus they figured they could treat women anyway they saw fit. And they most certainly did. It did not help that during “the tenth and early eleventh centuries…religious leaders showed little concern for encouraging women’s religiosity” (Bynum 14).

In Normandy during the eleventh century, Bishop Eudes Rigaud essentially ran his female monasteries into the ground by leaving the nuns to live in extreme poverty (???). Bishop Eudes Rigaud refused to supply the nuns with resources. When the nuns resorted to selling “silk purses, lace and lace collars, [and] other silk accessories” as well as ‘“needle cases”’ and even ‘“bonnets [and] firewood’” (??? 64) the bishop forbid them from doing so. However, it seems that the nuns ignored him and kept trying to support themselves without the Church’s support because throughout the years, Bishop Eudes Rigaud was recorded several more times telling the nuns to stop (??? 64). However, Bishop Eudes Rigaud must have realized he was both fighting a losing battle and making himself look bad to the people the nuns were selling to because he finally relented and ordered the nuns ‘“a sufficient supply of things needful to them”’ (??? 64).

Besides forcing nuns to live in terrible poverty, clergymen used their new freedom to shut down female monasteries and replace them with male only monasteries. The ways they shut down female monasteries varied from mildly terrible to a plan worthy of a comic book super villain. Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg explains that sometimes bishops would simply evict the nuns. There is also a story where an Earl Godwine sent his nephew to a convent in Berkeley to impregnate as many nuns as he could so they had a valid reason to shut it down (Schulenburg 231). While, the authenticity of this story is debated by historians, “other sources verify…a flourishing community of nuns at Berkeley and that the house was suppressed in the reign of Edward the Confessor” (Schulenburg 231). If we assume the story istrue and not just propaganda or a medieval urban legend, it can be safely said that by the time these events occurred the golden age for nuns had long passed. The mere fact men were willing to go so far as to impregnate nuns, thus defiling them in the eyes of medieval society just to get their monastery speaks volumes about how little men regarded women during this time period. It also says a lot regarding how much time and effort a man was willing to put in just to get a building and some land.

Over all, medieval nuns did not exactly have a golden age, especially when it came to terms of stability. Even when queens founded their monasteries, they were not maintainable, nor did their founders seem to care if they were. After all, a queen’s nunnery was expected to be solely a place for her benefit with little regard for the nuns who lived there.  While nuns were able to learn Latin and become educated, they were only given this opportunity due to the men they lived with or nearby. Once the men were gone, nuns had that opportunity snatched from them. The fact that the clergy did not care about religious women and the way they treated them further emphasizes how the golden age for nuns was long over as well as not exactly a golden age at all.

Works Cited

Bynum, Caroline Walker. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. University of California Press. 1987.

Hobbs, Kathleen M.. “Blood and Rosaries: Virginity, Violence, and Desire in Chaucer’s ‘Prioress’s Tale’”. Constructions of Widowhood and Virginity in the Middle Ages, edited by Cindy L. Carlson and Angela Jane Weisl, MacMillan Press. 1999, pp. 181-198.

De Meun, Jean. “The Romance of the Rose”. Woman Defamed and Woman Defended, edited by Alcuin Blamires, Karen Pratt and C.W. Marx, Clarendon Press. 1992, pp. 148-166.

Schulenburg, Jane Tibbetts. “Women’s Monastic Communities, 500-1100: Patterns of Expansion and Decline”. Sisters and Workers in the Middle Ages, edited by Judith M. Bennett, University of Chicago Press. 1989, pp. 208-239.

Yorke, Barbara. ‘“Sisters Under the Skin’? Anglo-Saxon Nuns and Nunneries in Southern England.” Reading Medieval Studies, vol. 15, 1989, pp. 95-117

???