Growing up in a

Carolirigian
monastery :
Magister Hildemar
and his oblates
Mayke de Jong
The monastic Rules of the earb middleages make
it quite clrar that the monasteries of this period
were populated by a mixed community of adults
and children. The Carolingian commentaries, and
especially the so-called Hildemar commentary on
the Ruleof St Benedict, provide detailed informa-
tion on the education and upbringing of the
children who lived in the monasteries. We learn
from Hildemar that they were subjected to constant
supervision and diligent care. For this reason they
were set apart from the adult monks. However, in
spite of their separation, they were still full
members of the community, who participated in all
the activities of monastic lrfe. Apparently Hildemar
preferred to recruit new members for h,b communi(y
when they were veryyoung. This was the result of a
new development in monastic life: in the
Carolingian period a growing number of monks
were admitted to the priesthnod. Hildemar con-
sidered the children who were raised in the mon-
asteries to be eminently suitable for ordinatiqn.
They were trained to be the future intellectual and
moral elite of the communi&
It is generally assumed that the majority of
new entrants into monastic We in the
Carolingian Empire were #eri WM. These
were young children whose parents gave
them M oblates to a monastic community
where they were brought up and eduh:ated
(Southern 1967:156; Grundmann 1968:
329-30; Lynch 1976:36-8; Let:lercq 1979:
9- 11). The recruitment of regular clerics
in this period can be compared, as Southern
puts it (1967: 156), to an army where
volunteers are in the minority and con-
scripts form the majority. The numhcr of
co~versi, adults who entered religious life
of their own free will, remained relatively
small until the second half of thca eleventh
century. Only then did an increasing pref-
erence develop for adult novices, which went
band in hand with a growing criticism of
child oblation (Lynch 1975; Lynch 1976:
38-40; Teske 1976:286-90; Leclcrcq 1979:
11-16). Ulrich of Cluny (died 1093), for
example, saw the practice d offering
children as the root of the evil which had
ruined contemporary monastic life (MPL
149:635-7). This change in attitude is
clearly observable.
It is tar more difficult to gain auy real
insight into the actuJ number of pirm
nut&i and conversi who populated the mon-
astic communities of the Carolingian
Empire. The sources do not allon, a simple
count (Freise 1978: 1030- 1). But recent
prosoprographic research on Fulda Abbey
has confirmed the impression that the pueri
nutriti did form a considerable group (Scbmid
1970: 185; Schmid 1978:621-4). Therefore,
it would seem to me justified to assume -- be
it tentatively - tb- t a large number of
Carolingian monks grew up within the
monastery confines.
Journal of ~Mrdirwl Hiwq 9(1983) 99 128. North-Hollnnd
0304-4181/83/503.000El~r\,irr Scirncr Publkhm B.V. (North-Holland) 99
In the light of this tentative assumption,
research on their upbringing and education
would appear especially necessary. The
intellectual elite of the Carolingian Empire
was moulded in the monasteries. The monks
were the liWisti par excellence; they re-
corded the sources which have come down
to us, enabling us to gain some insight into
their society. To broaden our understanding
of these sources, knowledge of the authors
education and training is indispensible.
Research into some aspects of this subject
has already been initiated, and is primarily
directed towards the &ritual and intellec-
tual education
(Richt 1962;
.
of children
Rich6 1979 ;
in monasteries
Illmer 1979).
Moreover, their upbringing has also hecn the
subject of research (Lcclercq I972 ;
,McLaughlin 1974:127-33; Riche 1975).
In this context the liberality of the monastic
educators is stressed. Richt believes (1962 :
.504) that the early medieval monks had
rediscovered the child. Benton (1977: 156)
hupposrs they were the only good parents
in the early middle ages.
When the education of young monks is
mentioned, one is usually referred to thr so-
called Hildcmar commentary, one of the
ninth-century commentaries on the Rule of
St Benedict (Richt 1962:504; Richt 1979:
206, 363). Just as most of the early medieval
monastic Rules. the Rule of St Benedict
c.ontaina only summary prescriptions for the
treatment of children living in the mon-
asteries. The Carolingian commentaries pro-
vide a lot more information. This is par-
ticularly true of the Hildrmar commentary;
the commentator paints a vivid picture of
tlrc. education and upbringing he deems
ncce\sary for the younger
mona.stic community.
In this article I shall subject Hildemafs
treatise to a systematic examination, because
the comprehensiveness of his educational
directions is only clear when seen within the
context of the commentary as a whole. In
doing this, my main objective is to con-
tribute to the existing knowledge of Carol-
ingian pedagogy. Atthe same time I hope
to SllOW that the Hildemar commentary
supports the assumption that the majority
of the monks in this-period
life as pueri nulriti.l
The Hildemar commentary
re1igir.m
Very little is known about the life of Magistcr
:.ildcmar. Hr was a monk of Corbie who,
together with i\ certain Abbot Leudcgar,
was charged with the reformation of North
Italian monastic life by Archbishop Angil-
brrt of Milan (824-60). In 841 both Hildc-
mar and Leudegar are to be found in tlir
St Faustinus monastery at Brescia. Thy
moved to tlrc city monastery at Civatc near
Lccco in 845. It was here that Hildemar
dictated his commcntarv on the Rule to his
pupi1s.s He was an ezxtrcmely erudite man,
able to hold his own with 0th scholars of
his day; ht. wrote. among other works, a
commentary on the gospel according to
Luke which has been lost 0 us (Hafncr
1959:146-50). In all probability Ilr llad
brcn ordained; on a list containing thr names
of thirty&c monks at Civate, which was
cntrrcd in the confratcrnity book (liber
confraternitatum) of Pfaffers, his name, Hilde-
mar presbyter, is second only to that of Abbot
Lrudrgar (Piper 1884:384, I 12; Traube
910:42). His death must have occurred
ShcJ dy after 850.
The writim record of his verbal com-
mrntary has come down to us in three
versions. This is Hafners conclusion after a
careful examination of the extant manu-
scripts (1959:99-l 11). One of the versions
was greatly abridged; passages dealing with
local or domestic matters were largely
eliminated (Hafner 1957; Hafner 1959:
60-90). In the past it was incorrectly
attributed to Paul the Deacon and was
published under his authorship in 1880.
The same year also saw the publication by
Mittermtiller of a second, more extensive
version. This mentions Hildemar by name
several times (Mittermiiller 1880:430, 433,
569) and frequent reference is made to his
Frankish origin (Mittermtillcr 1880:369,
417, 460, 462, 465, 529, 572, 582). The
oldest manuscript of tllis version dates from
the eleventh century. A third version, the
so-called recensio Basilii abbatk, is interesting
because the earliest manuscript dates from
possibly before 850. Hildemar is not named,
but in this version his ties with Corbie, his
monastery of origin, are most apparent
(Traube 1910:43-4, 109-13; Hnfner 1959:
115). However, an integral edition thsreof
is not yet available. Therefore, 1 have used
the Mittermtiller edition of the more com-
prehensive version
myresearcll.3
as point of departure for
The Hildemar commentary is tiot the
only Carolingian commentary on the Rule
of St Benedict. An earlier commentary was
written by Smaragdus shortly after the
reforming councils convened at .4achen in
816 and 817 b!r Louis the Pious and Benedict
of Aniane. There are no indications that
Hildemar was familiar with his Dredeces-
.
sors work. The commentaries are
very
different. Smaragdus made extensive use of
Benedict of Anianes Concordia regularurn.
His own additions and comments art few
and very brief. While Smaragdus shows
himself to have been a faithful supporter of
the decisions taken at Aachen, Hildemar
follows, on certain points, the ideas of his
mentor Adalbard of Corbie, Benedict of
Anianes rival and adversary. Hildcmar
comments at length on individual phrases
or words in the Rule; the written account
preserves the liveliness and verbal character
of his commentary (Hafner 1959:99-l89).
Hildemar held his discourses at C&ate,
but they were certainly not intentlcd for
this small community alone. His detailed
directions seem to be more atuned tat the
situation iu the great Carolingian monastic
houses. He himself came fmm the large
community at Corbie and, blxause oThis
extensive travels, was familiar with con-
ditions ir other Frankish molrasteries. He
made us.: of his wide experience in the
commentary. For this reason Semmler
rightly designates the Hildemar commen-
tary as a handbook of monastic usage in the
ninth century (1963d:81). MP.ny facets of
Carolingian monastic life are dl scribed, not
least the care and education of children
growing up within the confines.
Children in the Hildemar commenta) y
When one speaks of children in the context
of the Hildemar commentary, one should
use this general term with c.,tre. Firstly,
these children were boys. It is possible, as
Richi: states, that the education of nuns
differed little from that of _~zonks (1979:
21 l-2). However, Hildemar speaks only of
boys and therefore we can draw no con-
clusions on the training of girb. Secondly,
we may assume that all of tha,e boys were
oblates - children who were hound to the
101
religious life by the vows of their parents.
The commentary makes no mention of
children who lived in the communities
temporarily.
On the subject of the oblation of children,
Hildemar staies that only the childs parents
were entitled to offer him to a monastery.
Ideally, this was done by the father, but if
ht. was deceased the motlter was allowed to
do this in his stead (Mittermiiller 1880:548;
Peuli Disc. Comm., 152). The oblation ritual
took place during * 1. c OtTertory in the mass.
The child held an offering of bread and
water in his hand and was led to the ,nain
altar by his father. In the presence of wit-
ncsses. the father took the vow for his son
;t:id presented him as a living sacrifice
(holocausturn) to the abbot. Before the ritual
took place the parents were obliged to divest
the child of all possessions. In this way the
child became cconotnically dependent on
111~ monastic commuttity and was no longer
ablr to return to the world. In contrast to
111~ Rule. the Hildemarcommcntarv assumes
tllitt the oblatrs portion automatically de-
volvrd upon the community, even though
1111 pitrtnts cnjoyrd usufrttct during their
lifc*timcs. Bebides the oral, parental vow, the
obiatiott was recorded in writing (VogiiC
.tnd Nrufvillc 1972b:632-4; Mittcrmiillcr
1880:548-50; Pauli Disc. Comm., 152).
Thr solemn ritual at the altar and the
dclittitr disposal of thr oblatcs possessions
indicatr that oblation was srcn as irrc-
vocable. In this scnsr Hildcmar shares the
vicaw of ruch contrmporarics a?~ Smaragdtts
.und Hrabanus Maurus, who bclievcd thr
parrtttal vow could not br broken (Span-
nagcl aud Engelbrrt 1974:300; MPL 107:
419~40). So much bo, that thr commentary
tnakvr no mrntion of a confirmation of this
vow by the oblate when adult, as is pre-
scribed by the Capitulare monasticurn of 817
(Semmler 1963c:477.17). From the moment
of their oblation, the children were full
members of the community, and would
aiwavs remain so. As we shall see. this had
important consequences for
education they were given.
the care and
As Hildemar takes into account the
presence of three-year-olds in the monastery,
WC can assume that a child was considered
eligible for oblation at that age (Mitter-
miiller 1880:419; Paufi Disc. Comm., 124).
Neither the Rule of St Benedict nor tltc
Hildemar commentary fi.ted a minimum or
maximum age for adn ittance. Without
further explanation Hildt mar applied the
principle of the personality of the law: The
puer minori aetate mentioned in the Rule is
someone who, according to the law 10
which his parents adhere, is mable 10
take vows independently.
This brings us to a third complication in
thr interpretation of thr concept children
in the Hildemar commentary: the* tcrmi-
nology of infancy and youth is f.tr from
precise. In this respect the corn ncnlary
does not differ from other early twdieval
sources, including thr Rule of St ljencdict
(Leclercq 1972:258; Richt 1979:200; Illmer
I979 :40- I ). Hildemar was certainly well
tcquainted with Isidore of Sevilles formal
l&its of age
scvcnth yrar,
phasrs
pue) itia
- infantia
utitil the
up to the
fourteenth,
.md adolescentia up to the twenty-eighth
year (Lindsay 191 I b: I I .2; Mittcrmiillcr
1880:37, 420). Hr cvcn pointed out the
confttsirlg use of these terms in the RuI~.~
And yet, his own choice of words on this
point was hardly consistent. He used the
trrms infans and puer SO indiscriminately that
IO2
they seem almost synonymous. For example,
in different ways if it suited his explanation
he spoke of the rustodia infantum (Mitter-
miiller 1880:331, 404, 578, 621), but also
ofthe Rule. In the passage mentioned above,
of the custodia puerorum (Mittermiiller 1880 :
581). Not only a three-year-old, but also a
for instance, a puer minori aetate is an un-
fifteen-year-old is described as infans (Mitter-
miiller 1880:582). At thl: same time Hilde-
mar tended to interpret the same expression
of St Benedict is no exception. Although this
Rtile did not exact an exceptionally strict
young and aged members of the co~rtmunity.
asceticism, the monks had to by: content
with one meal a day during mtlet of the
They were allowed to eat at other than the
year (Vogiit and Neufville 1972a:ii80-2;
Zimmermlinn 1973:38-45). As this regime
stipulated times, and their general wcblfare
Has too &ict for the ph&cally weaL St
Benedict called for consideration for the
emancipated child of undetermined age; in
other places it referred to an eight to eleven-
year-old in the first phase ofpuetitia (Mittrr-
miiller 1880:439).
However, Hildcmars terminology on
childhood and youth is not without a
certain system. Infantes and pueri tend to
belong to a younger age category, whi:e
only those who have reached puberty are
referred to as adolescentes (Mittermiiller 1880 :
581). An adolescens can even be twenty or
older, which is consistent with Isidores age
categories. Nevertheless, when reading each
passage it is advisable to ask oneself whit-h
age group Hildcmar has in mind, and one
should take into account thr varying USC of
the same term.
had to be taken into considrratioll (VogiiC
and Neufville 1972b:572). This prc scription
constituted the Doint of departure fbr Hilde-
. .
mars directions for the physical cit.re of the
children in the community. He began his
instructions by explaining the caus: 01~ their
weakness. This, according to Hildemar, was
due to a lack of blood, both in the ye tung and
the aged. A childs blood content rosr
gradually as he grew, bringing about an
increase in strength and vitality. The cidrrly,
Mate, ial care
The presence of young childrrn in a mon-
astrry creatrd problems because they were
incapable of thr physical asceticism cxpcctcd
of a monk. Most authors of medieval
monastic Rules and consuetudines were only
too aware of this. Thry took alleviating
mrasures to accommodate the physically community (Spannagel and Engelbrrt 1974.
wcal.cr mcmbcrs of the community, a grr ;p 252; Mittermiiller 1880:418; PaulI; Diuc.
which included the children (Rich6 1962: Cbmm., 123). The young and the elderly
505; Zimmermann 1973:159-61). The Rule partook of the official meal, but a special
103
meal was served to them prior to this. The
aged sat while the children stood and waited
upon them. Tlte portions they were given at
the official meal, however, were smaller
because they had already eaten once (Mitte-
milller 1880:439; Pauli Disc. Comm., 128).
Thus the physically weak ate more often,
but the portions tltcy rcccived at each sitting
were smaller. On the other hand, the com-
nlrntary deemed it unncccssary IO serve the
older children four :neals on thr summer
dilys WIWI~ tltr wholr community atr twice.
Thcv had to content thrmsclvcs with tltrcr
mcvls ;I day. In this srason only the very
young wCrr fed four times it day (Mittcr-
miillrr I880 :420).
In all probability thr childrrn recrivrd
the nourishing food Hildrmar considcrrd
ttccessary during thc\c* scparatr mrals. This
wit\ primarily the meat of quadrupeds, a
limdstuff strictly forbidden to adult monks
(%iIl~uMT~~~illln 1973:61 -3). That meat was
widrly hrld to br nourishing for rhildrlm is
S~ppi~rcnt from iin .rttrmpt by thr Council of
h;tcht*n (817) to restrict its consumption to
)oung oblitt<~s suffering from an ilInes\
(Scmmlrr 1963c:477). Hildrmar did uot
.rgrcc. Hr allowtad the children meat not
CWIY on fkt d;lys, but RISO ils soon ill tllcy
\howcd ;IIIY sign of physir;d wcaktlrs<. Tl~c
.tbbot itlEt> Ititd IO cnsurc that fish, milk and
buttcar formed part of thrir diet. According
~cr Hildcmar, t11c youngc~t children tI11
thri*r four
9
IuObl Illlill.
.I\ tlrry grt*w oldrr. From the. trntl~ or
ClCVC.Illll yrilr IllCill Wils only .L prrmanc~nl
p.trt of the dic*t of weak child& or tl~osr
\uffcrittg from ilI1 iiluc~ss. Wl 11w thry rcachcd
:hcir sixtc.c.nth yc;tr this indulgcucc cam1 to
.uI .tbrupt rnd .lnd they w(tx subjrctcd to
the dietary pattern of adult monks (Mitter-
miiller 1880:419; Pauli Dkc. Comm., 124).
Whether Hildemar considered them physic
ally adult at this age is highly questionable.
He only remarks that a fifteen-year-old
should content himself, just like one of the
adults (sicuti unus de maioribus), with a
limited amount of food (Mittermiiller 1880:
419).
The Rule of St Benedict did not stipulate
how long the intntes were to retain their
privileged position. Smaragdus filled this
lacuna by fullowing the Rule of the Magister
which allowed children an alleviation of
ilSX*liClsm until tllcir twelfth year (Span-
nngcl n nd Engclbert 1974:25 I). The Hildr-
mar commentary, on the other hand, opted
for fiflrrn as an age limit, but stated that the
infanle5 in thr trict srnsc of the word - the
children undrr scvcn - wcrc in the grratrst
need oicxtra care and nourishment (Mittrr-
miillcr 1880:420; Pauli Disc. Comm., 124).
Thr albbot bore full rrspotlsibility for thrir
cilrc, but thr pritcliCal cxccution of his
policy was delegated to the &arrr. He Ilad
to rnsurr Illat the childrrn wcrc fed in
itccordancc witlt their age. tltitt thc~v atr
regularly, but did tlot r&ivc large quanti-
tirs at any one time. The children wcrc
strictly fbrbiddcn to ask for bread or winr
brtwrt n mralh. Hildrmar brlirvcd th.tt if
11:~ ccllarc~r fbllowcd a wisr policy, hunger
would not drive thtt children to it.\k for cxtr;t
food rMittc*rmiillrr 1880:421, 439; Pauli
Disc. (:omm., 125, 128-9). In it Iargc com-
munitv with many children of varying agc*s,
tllcs rc*!lilrcrs task will not
ilrcorc!ing lo 011. systrm,
rtccdccl an ad,justrd dirt.
The commentator goes into the childrrns
nutrition iu depth and their hygicnc~ is also
I04
discussed. Their attendants were issued with
towels, combs, soap and shoe polish. These
were kept in the room where the children
normally performed their toilet (Mittcr-
miiller 1880:520; Pauli Disc. &mm., 147).
Only one version of the commentary pays
special attention to extra rest, which the
younger children will certainly have nteeded :
in some seasons the period between matins
and lauds was extremely long. Th** younger
children often had difficulty in staying
awake, so they were allowed to go back to
bed for a while. In dcfence of this measure,
the directions of the Rule were interpreted
loosely : tlic alleviation of asceticism was
applicable not only to nutrition, but also to
repose (Hafncr 1959:123).
AhhGugh the Rule of St Benedict made
an exception ofboth thr young and the aged,
111e latter arc hardly mentioned in Hilde-
mars commentary on this instruction. Hildc-
mars preoccupation with the cart of clril-
drcn is striking. It would srem as ifhc saw the
treatment of the older monks as less impor-
tant. Herr the commentary drmonstratcs a
clrar shift in emphasis from the Rule, ;I shift
which we ahall also find in othrr contrxts.
Hildemars idea of thy child
Without doubt Hildcmar rccognizcd that
children, btacause of their limitc*d physical
capacities, differed from adults. Hr tended
to take this into account in the material
organization of monastic liflt. But how did
tllr commentator see the mental drvrlop-
men1 Of the children WI 10 grew up in
monastic communities? Although his com-
ments on this subject are incidcnta! and
often implicit, it is still possible to recon-
struct his ideas on the nature of children.
These ideas determined the way in which
their upbringing assumed practical ftrrms.
The monastic tradition ofwhich Hibrrmar
was a product is characterized by a certain
ambivalence towards children and youths; a
changing emphasis on their good or bad
qualities (Xiche 1962:499-508). WC r:n - d
traces of this attitude in the Hildemar com-
mentary. The expression infans nmcit murmu-
tare fits in with a benevolent approach to the
very young, which is often found in early
medieval clerical authors. They emphasized
the tractability and innocence of small
children. Bede praised their obedience, and
used them as an example for adults (Hurst
1960:559). In the same passage he referred
his readers to the so-called four childlike
virtues, a commonplace also to be found in
Columban, Isidorc and Smaragdus: a child
does not persist in anger, bears no malice, is
never tempted by a beautiful woman, and is
sincere. This attitude to childish innocence,
which playeLi an important role in monastic
theology, is only touched on indirectly by
Hildemar. But he makes **xtensive use of the
topos of the pucr SIICX, the child who, in spite
of his lack of years, possessrs the wisdom of an
old man (Curtius 1961:108-13). In this
cGntext he argued that P wealth of years
did not guarantee wisdom. The abbot was
advised to take this into account when
choosing his councillors (Mittermiiller 1880 :
604-5). Besides this positive approach, early
medieval pedagogy also recognized a more
pessimistic view. In 816 the Council of
Aachen described childhood and youth as
age phases with a strong tendency towards
libidinousness and sin. Hildemar expressed
himself in similar terms (Werminghoff 1906.
413; Mittermiiller 1880:372).
Although this contemporiry ambivalence
towards the young does find some response
in the Hildcmar commentary, his philosophy
of education was only slightly influcnccd by
it. His philosophy was governed by the
conviction tlIat childrcc wccc physically
and mentally wrak and were, therefore, in
need of help iIbId instruction. Only under
tlIesr conditions could they develop into
true monks (MittIrmtillrr 1880:578). Hildr-
mar saw young children primarily as neutral
.111d knI*;Id;Ibh material. Vices acquired at
III Iarly age wcrc difficult to correct Iatcr ; iI
careful upbringing cnsurrd rnduring posi-
Iivc traits. Tlrr commentator believed that
hungry childrrn grrw into greedy adults;
well-fed rhildrrn, on the other IIand, would
hc ablr to abstain morr easily ~11~11 oldrr
(MiItcrmtillc~r 1880:419; Pauli Disc. Cvmm.,
!24). This train of thought becomes cvcn
morr cvidtnt in his conviction that monks
who h,Id been brought up correctly in a
monastic community would havI> no homo-
\cxIuIl tc~ndrnciI*s. Thc~ abbot COL.~ trIIst
IhIm impliriIly on this point, while those
whc) II.Id grown up in the world were ;tlwitys
\uspcct (Xlittcrmtillrr 1880:X33; Pauli Disc.
C.hnc.. 1113).
This optimisIn about the possibility 01
pI*rInancntIy conditioning children was
~h.Ircd by c1tlrc.r monastic educators such as
\V;Ildt*bcrt of Luxcuil (MPL 88: 1070). Simi-
I.Irly , Brde brlicvrd that knowlrdgc acquired
.tt ,111 early .~gc was nrvrr lost (MPL 91 :
1002). This type of pcdxgogy iu best scrvrd
by .IU c.trly start. Thr children werr to
cttttr tltc monastery prcfcrably .ts tabula rasa,
111. iu other word\, .IS young as possible. In
rhih way t1Iey could be bcttcr protcctrd
qraIn\t undcsirablc influcnccs. Alcuin seems
IO bc cxprcssing this idcal when, in his vita
11 Willibrorcl, III% says that as soon as the
saint was weaned his father carried him to
I
the brothers at Ripon where he would see
nothing dishonourable, nor would he hear
anything that was not holy.s The implica-
tion of this passage is clear: before worldly
influences could corrupt him, the immacu-
late infant was taken to a place where his
childlike innocence would bc preserved.
Custodia and disciplina
Hildrmar believed that only an extremely
careful and continuous mental conditioning
of the young oblatcs could produce the
clcsircd results. He borrowed thr key notions
of his idras on education from the Rule of
St Brnrdict which states tlIat children and
youtlIs were to br subjected to custodia and
di.+ina until they rcachrd the ytars of
discretion (Vogue and Ncufvillc l972b :646).
In the Hildrmar commentary, this summary
rc~commcndation was worked up to a pcda-
g1gic system. Tl i c maintcnancc of cwtodia
and disciplina meant that the young monks
hvrd under constant supervision and an
adapted disciplinary regime.
The term cuslodia was not only applic;IblI~
to children .Ind youths; tl1c adult mcmbcrs
of 111~ community wcrc also supcrviscd by
trustworthy monks, the decani and chcalotcs
(Mittrrmullcr 1880:203, 460, 483, 576;
Schroll 1941 :6l-2). The custodia inzantum,
howrvcr, was something clsc agilin. It was
the special task of the magi&i. T~ICC or
four of tltcsc. masters bore tltc rcsponstbility
liar a group of ten children, so that~thcy were
guarded at all times (Mittcrmullcr 1880:
331 2, 578; Pauli Disc. Comm., 100, 157).
Through permanent vigilance tlIcy would
protrct their pupil5 from lapses. In this way
the preventive effect of thr supervision was
guaranteed. In his commentary Hildcmar
referred repeatedly to the Rules instruction :
the children must be supervised everywhere
(ubiubi). He repeats the word ubiubi six
times, and takes every opportunity of fllr-
nishing it with a detailed explanation
(Mittermiiller 1880:331-2, 337, 418, 581,
621; Pauli Disc. Commun., 100, 123-4, 158,
169). He borrowed a metaphor from Greg-
ory the Great which summed up concisely
hisideas on the strict supervision ofchildren :
though a city be strongly walled, it can sti!l
fall to the enemy it; through negligence, one
gate should remain open (Mittermiiller
1880:332, 408; Pauli Disc. Commun., 100,
122). For this reason he warned his audience
that the young monks should not be allowed
to perform any action without supervision.
4nyone who, through carelessness, provided
.I child with the opportunity to sin attracted
,\s much blame as thta sinner himself (Mitter-
tniiiler 1880:337).
Hildemar defcndcd his stringent policy
with the assurance that he was not saying
anything new: he had already witnessed this
type of
Perhaps
survcillancr system in practice.s
he was referring to his experiences
.
monasteries
was not the
;it Coibie. But it is oossible that -he came
;tcrosc a simil:ir system in other
while on his travels, because he
c+nly clerical pcdagoguc to favour this
I nethod of upbringing. Waldrbert of Luxeuil
i Iso prrssed for strict supervision (MPL 88:
1070). At the Council of Aazhm in 816,
similar recommrndations were based on
ciircctions promulgated by z council at
Toledo in 633 (Werminghoff 1906:413). In
all prcjbabiiity, Hildemar based his ideas on
current practices which had long been in
vogue, but had never been described at such
Icangth. At thr snmc time it is striking that he
devoted more attention to supervision than
to the disciplinary regime. En the Rule of
St Benedici the discipk formed an equal
counterpart to the cur~odio. lhe Hildernar
commentary placed it in n subordinate
position.
The commentator followed the Rule in
subjecting the young monks to a different
disciplinary regime. As long as they were
commentary, disciplinary
subject to the special surveil!ancc of their
measures were
masters, they were not punished by ex-
communication, but by beating or fasting
totallv pointless unless thcv
(MittermUer 1889:581, 621; Pauli Disc.
were embedded
Commun., 158-9, 169). A comparable in-
struction can be found in both thr R.ule of
the Magister and that of Isidorc. Smaragdus
sufficed in his commentary by quotil?g
passages from thcsr Rules (Spannagcl and
Engelbert 1974:237), but Hiidcmars eluci-
dation went much further. It is clear that he
saw punishment as medicine. The medicine
was only 10 be administered when all pre-
ventive measures had failed (,Mittermiilier
1880:337). Prevention was his central theme
and it should, in fact, have made punishment
unnecessary. If the masters were still obliged
to use it, this actually meant lhat their
supervision had failed. According to the
I .
in the all-embracing
this ,,tiuld prevent
cuscod:a, b-cause only
the delinquent from
lapsing into his former misconduct (Mitter-
miiller 1880:419; Pauli Disc. Comm., 124).
The extent to which Hildemars emphasis
had shifted towards super&ion is apparent
from his reaction to the Rules warning that
moderation should be exercised in super-
vision and discipline. Hildemar believed
that this warning-was only applicable to the
disriplina. The cushdia was permanent and
107
all-embracing, and for this reason knew no
bounds (Mittermiiller 1880:621; Pauli Disc.
Comm., 169). As we shall see, he certainly
aimed at a liberal disciplinary regime in
which positive sanctions played an impor-
tant role, and harshness was preferably
taboo. Hildemar considered a heavy beating
necessary only when a chdd attempted to
break away from the control of its mentors
(Mittcrmiiller 1880:419; Pauli Disc. Comm.,
124). In this case Hildemar abandoned all
his reservations on the dirciplina, because it
was only usrd in support of the custodia.
Theyears of discretion
Before going into the practical execution of
thr custodia and disciplina, Ict us first find out
who was subject lo this special supervision.
Which age- phases: did the custodia infanturn
span? Hildemar took his lcad from the
directions of the Rule of St Benedict which
s\,ltes that children and youths (pueri parvi
vel adulescentes) should bc supcrviscd until
they reach the years of discretion (Vogiit
,tnd Nrufvillc 1972b:646). Elsewhere this
group is referred to as children up to
f&en (infantes wque quindecim annorum
aetates) (VogtiC and Ncufville 1972b:666), a
good c*x;tmple of the Rules lack of precision
~hc*n dealing with the various age catc-
gorirs. Hildrmar built on these two passages;
from them hr borrowed the age limit of
lihrcn ycitrs which played an important role
in Ilis dirrctions for both cart and education.
In any cazr the young monks were subject to
.1 special supervision at I~sl until tliry wcrc
liftern.
Smaragdus also opted for this age limit.
But when wc compare both commentaries
\nc find that on this point they exhibit
remarkable differences. Smaragdus sufficed
by quoting the Magister who excluded
infantuli from excommunication until they
were fifteen because only then did they fully
comprehend the meaning of penance (Span-
nagel and Engelbert 1974:331). To him
the years of discretion simply began when a
child became fifteen. Hildemar, on the
other hand, saw this as the minimum age
at which young monks could be released
from special supervision, but this depended
on whether their behaviour was consonant
with what could be expected from a fifteen-
year-old. If this was not the case, they
remained under the supervision of their
mentors (Mittermiiller 1880:581; Pauli Disc.
Comm., 158).
The commentator supported this argu-
mcnt with a specific interpretation of the
co.lccpt aetas intelligibilis. This was the age
when men understood excommunication,
that is, when they had learnt to fear it
(Mittermiiller 1880:370, 109; Pauli Diuc.
Comm., 35). If that was not the case, they
remained subject to a separate disciplinary
regime of beatings and fasting. The Rule of
St Benedict assumed - in contrast to the
AMagistcbr - that not only children and
youths, but also older monks could be less
well equipped mentally (VogiiC and Neuf-
~~illr 1972b:542, 552). Hildemar referred to
As point when he set fifteen as the minimum
age at which thr years of discretion might
commence. However. thr young monks -
cvcn though they were fifteen or older -
wcrc not allowrd to Icavc the protection of
the custodia and disciplina until they learned
to fear excommunication, and until they
were no longer in need of the supervision
of their mentors.
Thr question of why the commentator
considered fear of excommunication an
aspect of adult behaviour can be answered
only if one looks closely at the nature of this
punishment. The Hildemar commentary
recognizes two forms of excommunication.
The first was imposed in tl-e case of a minor
sin, and formed part of a series of punish-
ments which became gradually heavier -
the so-called seven stages of correction.
This form of excommunication e%rAuded a
mcnk from participation in communal meals
and from
office. He
. .
a prominent
was barred
role in the divine
from making an
o&ring during the mass or, if he was in
orc!ers, from saying mass. During part of the
mass he lay prostrated in the oratory (Mittcr-
mtiller 1880~344, 348-9; Pauli Disc. Comm..
lo:!-3; Schroll 1941:91-(i). In the case 0Ca
grave sin, the monk was punished with a
harsher form ofexcommunication which was
in accordance with the public penance also
prcvelant in the world (Mittermiiller 1880:
350-5; Pauli Disc. Comm., 103-4; S&roll
19&1:96- 101; Vogel 1969:22-8). Anyone
who had been punished in this way was
excluded from ihe priesthood.
Both types of excommunication meant
temporary exclusion from the community
w llicll, it was supposed, brought the sinner
to shame and repentance (Mittermiiller
1880:341, 366). This assumes a certain
measure of identification with the monastic
community and its Rule, as well as the
ability to live according to the Rule without
supervision. This is the link brtwrcn the two
conditions which Hildcmar believed had to
br met before men could be released from the
custodia: tath fear of excommunication and
the ability to live withokrt strict external
control implied t hat the n:onastic c ,de of
behaviour had been imprintccl IIIL~ their
personality. Thus, according to the Hilde-
mar commentary, maturity was a condition
of mind which i*fas not automatically
acquired at a specific age, but was expressed
in a conformity of behaviour. This maturity
could be long in coming; if necessary the
young monks were kept under the custodia
infantum until their twentieth or thirtieth
year. These adofescentes remained, together
with much younger children, under -he
sharp eyes of their masters during this time
(Mittermiiller 1880:370, 581, 621; Park
Disc. Comm., 158, 169). Therefore, the
concept infantes in the commentary admits
more than one interpretation. It can mean
children under seven, but it can also apply
to a larger group of those considered im-
mature, ranging from three to thirty.
Ihe ordo infantum
The Hildemar commentary draws a sharp
dividing line between the immature mem-
bers of the community who were under
constant supervision and the adults who
wert. no longer subject to permanent sur-
veillance. The infantes and maiores formed
two distinct groups. This difference was also
expressed in the hierarchical structure: the
infarrtes belonged to a separate order which
was not part of the hierarchy of the adult
monks. In this respect the Hildemar com-
mcntdry differs greatly from the Rule. The
latter knew but one order. The position of
the monks therein was determined by thtir
dale ofentry to religious life, by their general
conduct, and by the abbots evaluation of it.
Their age played no role in their position in
the hierarchy. The Rule is emphatic: uefus
non discernat ordines. In the choir and during
meals - precisely those occasions when the
109
whole community came together - the
children took up their rightful places among
the adultsto
This principle was broken by Hildemar.
He believed that young monks under super-
vision belonged to a separate order (Mitter-
miiller 1880:576). To the commentator,
therefore, age was an influential factor in
hierarchical relations in the monastic com-
munity. However, he does not provide us
with furthrr information on the criteria
which determined a childs position in the
childrens order. The time of entry, good
behaviour and especially the possession of
special abilities all played an important
r ol e in an adults placing in the hierarchy
(Mittermtiller 1880: 101, 575; P&i Disc.
Comm., 32-3, 157). It is possible that
Hildemar applied the same criteria to the
childrens order. He does tell us, however,
the exact time of admittance to the adult
hierarchy. This occurred when a young
monk, after leaving the custodia, had SUCCCS~~-
fully completed a probationary period.
If the abbot felt that a fiftccnyear-old
could dn without the supervision of the
magi&i, he entrusted him to the care of a
senior, an older monk of impeccable conduct.
Apparently the seniors often treated their
pupils like lackeys, for Hildemar found it
nrrc*ssary to stress that the children were not
servants, and that thr seniors role was that
of educator. He was to accompany the child
at all times and observe him closely. One of
his major tasks was to ensure that the boy
under his care was not too intimate with
contemporaries (Mittcrmuller 1880:582;
Pauli Dioc. Comm., 159). There can be no
doubt tltat other cltildrcn still subject to the
custodia i~rr meant here. The probationary
period was a transitional stage during which
the young monk had to detach himself from
the group of youngsters with whom he had,
until then, shzred his life. After a maximum
of one year the senior reported his pupils
progress to the abbot. if the report was
favourable, the abbot admitted the young
monk to the adult group (Mittermtiller
1880~582; Pauli Disc. Comm., 158).
Hildemar does not tell us whethe; this
transition to the adult order involved any
kind of ritual. We can assume this was the
case, however, because entering adulthood
had important hierarchical consequences.
And this would certainly be true for a boy
who had been given to the community
when a small child. Hildemar states clearly
that the date of oblation determinej. the
position a youth would occupy in the adult
hierarchy (Mittermiiller 1880:62 I). This
indicates that a youth could take precedence
over a much older monk who had entered
rc*ligious life as an adult, because the former
had been a member of the community
longer. The principle that age had no
bearing on the order is disregarded by
Hildemar with respect to children who were
subject to the custodia. But when they
entered the adult hierarchy the principle
was rcinstatcd. This meant that children
who had been brought up in the monastery
would occupy a relatively high position when
they left the ordo infant& This sudden
promotion must have had important consc-
qucnces for the pueri nut&i. Their high
status derived from their prolonged stay in
the monastery.
Custodia and disciplina in practice
Both Hildemars explicit direction; and his
indirect remarks demonstrate how he saw
I I(:
the practical executio,l of custodia and disci- sat apart, according to their own hierarchy;
plina. In various contexts in the commentary, the commentary is silent on the subject.
we find references to the young monks and However, it does provide precise information
their mentors, and we are able to form an on their placing in the refectory. The adtilt
idea of their life in the community. That monks were dispersed over various tables.
reality and rule were indissolubly linked At each table one or two children stood
needs no further argument. Hildemars ten- opposite their mentors. One child ate stand-
dency to delve into his own experience,
hcwever, brings us closer to the practical
side of an early medieval system of education
than any other source.
reward or encourzgc an especially obedient
child by giving him some of the guests fart.
On the other hand, J refractory child could
The commentator assumed that the child-
monks participated in all the communitys
daily activities. They were present, for
rxample, at the cnpitulum, a gathering which
has been aptly described by S&roll (1941 :
115- 16) as a clearing house for the family
affairs of the community. The monks came
together to l&ten to lectures, to distribute
tasks, to discuss problems which concerned
the whole community, and to discipline
recalcitrant brothers. The abbot could also
use this opportunity to publicly praise an
exemplary child, thus encouraging him to
further good behaviour. Hildemar saw the
refectory as another setting for positive
sanctions. The monastrtys guests were
beated at the .lbbots table and special food
was served LO them. The abbot could
ing at the abbots table. This childs manners
had to be exceptionally good so as not to
annoy any guests who might be seated there
(Mittermtiller !880:427). It is possible that
Hildemars thoughts were running on a
seating arrangement similar to that found
in the monastic plan of St Gall. Her: the
tables were placed in a circle. The adults
sat with their backs to the wall (Hafner
1962: 182). If this is the case, the distance
between the older and younger monk.. was
expressed in a very physical way: the
children stood at one side of the table, while
the adults sat on the other.
Before the children dispersed to their
tables, they gathered at the entrance to the
time. They proceeded in crocodile fashion,
refectory. When their masters arrived, they
all entered together in silence. After the
accompanied by their mentors who bore
meal, they left as a group (Mittermiiller
lighted lamps. Some of the masters led the
1880:418). We find them operating in this
way time and time again, for example when
leaving the oratory after csmpline at bed-
have l;is food taken from him. In doing
this, the abbot shamed and humiliated him
in thr presence of the whole community.
This type of punishment was intended to
encourage a naughty child to follow the
example of hi% fellow whose praises had been
sung (Mittermiiller 1880:419-20; Pauli Disc.
Comm., 124).
In the chapter, the young monks probably
way, others took up a position in the middle
of the procession, while another group
formed the reargdard. The whole line passed
all of the church altars. A short prayer was
said at each of them. Subsequently the
children were allowed to pay a visit to the
latrine, again under strict supervision. The
masters vigilance had to be unceasing until
all the infantes were in bed. They could then
111
peck their own beds because their task was
taken over by others (Mittcrmiiller 1880:
333-4; Pauli Disc. Comm., 100-I). Thr
commentator cntrustcd nightly supervision
to seniores only. Thcsc wcrc cxpcrienccd
older moliks of impeccable conduct. They
kpt their all-night vigil by the light of :t
lamp. Obviously, conduct in the dormi-
lorirs wits i; srnsitivr point for il community
which strove towards sexual asceticism. Thr
monks wwc to avoid anv kind of rcciorocal
phyriri~l contact. Evrn seniors wcrc not
~~IIowNI 10 shitkc itwitkc iI slrrpcr. They had
to tap against tl~r ~W)I of tl~r bed in order to
wi\kc him (Mittcrmiillrr 1880:335-6; Pauli
Ik. Cma., 101). Hildcmar gors into homo-
zr*xu;dity and nocturnal emissions of scrncn
iu dcptl~, ;uld discussrs tl~r purification and
lj~~~~ncc rh*y rrquirr-d (Mittc-rmtillcr 1880:
332 3; Pm/i Dim. Comm., IO1 ).
In tliih rc=qc*ct, llic commcnlitry concurs
with tl~~~ctir~rtio~~softl~c RulrofSt Brncdict,
which i l l SO IWiLtS SVXUill axcticism in till*
dormitory (VogiiE and Nrufvillc l972b :
.X0 2). How<vcr, IIIC commentator diIKcrs
front IIW Rulr on one important point. TIw
Ruh~ l)lil~(d 111~ whole community undrr tl~c
nightly \upc%rv&n of a few seniors, and
y0ungc1 monks should noI
t l J Vi l Cl l other. Hildcmar
~J l,Wd his cWlpllilsia on burVc~illi\ ncc* on lllr
) Ot l I l g ttwmlws of tl~r community. Hc gives
I I S IIIC imprcsbion that IIC bclirv~d the
vigil.mccn should bc ccntcrrd solely on them.
If OI I C of tl~c* childrrn w;mt(td to visit tllc
Llrrinc. or w;untcd ICI Cl~i111611 Iiimsi*If ilftrr il
~ioc~uru,d emission. IIC had to inform a
*t.nior, WIIO .tccompanic*d him. TIIVy wcrc
I101 to Ic.rvc~ tl~c d1J rmiIiJ ry fiJr any oth
privates prilyrr in tlic
that older monks wcrc
allowed to go to the oratory unaccompanied.
The adults were also permitted to leave the
dormitory for the office independently, while
thr younger monks, who were still under
supervision, had to wait until their mentors
and contcmporarics were ready to Icavc en
musse. They were then escorted to the church
in procession (Mittcrmiiller 1880:334; Pauli
Dint. Comm., 101). In the Hildcmar com-
mcmtary, the watcll prescribed by thr Rule
brc;tmC tl~c nocturnal counterpart of the
daily supervision by the magistri. The watch
changed when the community rose and
retired. The commentator
itbottt tl~c time of both.
Thcchild-monks. howcvrr. did not OCCUPY
. .
an cxccptional position at all times. Tl~cy
took ;\ n active part in the communitys
liturgical programmr. They wcrc present at
thr off~cc and the mass. But they stood apart,
. .
srnqng and praying under thr watchful
ryrs of thrir masters (Mittcrmiillcr 1880:
334, 581; Pnuli Disc. Comm., 101, 158).
Normally, if thry had the ability, they sang
tl11~ antiphons in tl~r officc~. This, according
to Hildr*mar, gave them the opportunity to
prac:icc their singing (Mittcrmiiller 1880:
475). On Sundays and fixast-days (IICY
played thrir own particular role in the
litur::y.
Four children sang the first of the twrlvc
Icssons, followed by four priests, thrcr
dracons and finally the abbot (Mittcrmiillcr
1880:427-8; Puuli Disc. &mm., 126-7;
Schroll 1941 : 119-20, 160.. I). During the
fcstivc office, specially appointed monks
intoned thr psalms. To do this, tlley moved
to thr front of the choir, If an .r-!*~lt monk
was brlicvcd unworthy of this task, his place
was taken by the child who ranked highest
in tl~rnrdointntum (Mittc*rmiillcr 1880:475).
II
This indicates that the children had a
separate hierarchy in the oratory in which
they had their own positions just like the
adults. Hildemar permitted the abbot to
promote a person - within his own order -
who sang exceptionally well, but only for the
duration of the office (Mittermtiller 1880:
575 ; Pauli Disc. Comm., 156). Obviously this
type of consideration would have played a
role in the positioning of the cltildren, too.
It is not clear from the commentary whether
the young children, with their bell-like
voices, were given a special role in die
liturgy, bccausc Hildemar always speaks of
ixtn~es, a term hc uses to describe both small
children and all young monks under super-
vision. When he mentions disciplinary
measures in the oratory, IIC is undoubtedly
referring to punishments for those still under
constant surveiliance. If a child refused to
ask forgiveness for a mistake in singing or
reading, or if IIC makes thr same mistake
rcpcatcdly, IIC was beaten by one of the
master..This punishment was dcferrcd until
after the office, and took place in private
(Mittermuller 1880:469-70; Pauli Disc.
&mm., 135).
Thr children also did manual work, again
under supervision (Mittcrmtillcr 1880:334).
Most of this work consisted of household
tasks such as cleaning the monastery build-
ings and furniture, preparing vegetables and
cutting wood. Tlwsc occupations arc mcn-
tioncd by the commentator when hc gives
rxamplrs of a monks normal duties (opera)
(Mittermtillcr 1880:486-7; Pauli Disc.
Cvmm., 138). Thesr activities r?bably took
place within the claustrum, the cllcloscd part
of the monastery which was forbidden to the
laity.2 Hildcmar warned that the clausbum
should not be too small because the monks
needed room to carry out their tasks satis-
factorily. On the other hand, if it were too
large they would have had the opportunity
to gossip, and proper supervision would
have been impossible. He advised monastery
builders to take these dangers into account
(Mittermuller 1880: 183, 613; Pat& Ditu.
Comm., 54-5, 167).
From what we can gather from the com-
mentary, most of the activities of the children
and their mentors took p!a.ae within the
confines of the claustwm. But titey left these
confines for recreation and relartation. Once
a week or month - the decision WAS left to
the masters - the children were allowed an
hours play. The masters took them to a
meadow or any other suitable place avail-
able, and let them run about for at most one
hour. Afterwards their supervision had to be
stricter. The abbot had to ensure that the
younger children especially were given the
opportunity to play. The cot-&entator
believed this to be of great importance
because otherwise human nature would be
violated (Mittcrmuller 1880:418-19; Pauli
Dk Comm., 124). However great his trust
in die effectiveness of the curtodia might have
been, IIC was still confronted with the
natural, that is unchangeable, character-
istics of children which could not bc SUD-
pressed by permanent control. In any case,
ati hours play a week or even a month, seems
it meagre concession. One could ask whether
Hildemar was not being relatively hard.
Ekkehard IV of St Gall recorded that in 91 I,
Conrad I granted the child-monks the
privilege of three extra days of play (Haefelc
1980:42). The Vita S. Magforii, written
between 850 and 930 in Saint-Malo, tells
us that the young monks left the monastery
confines during the afternoon rest period so
113
that their shrill, childish voices would not
disturb the sleeping adults (rlSS, 10 October:
789). That recreation was indispensable
for young children was, therefore, recognized
by other monastic pedagogues.
According to Hildemar, the younger
children in particular were to be given the
opportunity to play and relax. They were
also the group who were in most need of
extra nourishment. But he did not make any
further distinction in the treatment of the
infastes, even though this group, as we have
seen, comprised very different age catc-
gories. In as far as we can tell from the
commentary, in practice both the young
and the older children who fell under
custodia and disciplina were treated in the
same way.
Educatiopl in the monastery school
The Hildcmar commentary leaves us in no
doubt that children growing up in the
monastic communities wcfe to receive an
educauon. The structure of the commentary
is, in itself, an important source of informa-
tion on the nature of this education. The
commentator intersperses his treatise with
expositions on grammar and theology, thus
giving us an impression of the knowledge
one could acquire from a learned magiste,
around the middle of the ninth century
(Schroll 1941 : 124--5; Hafner 1959: 150-2;
Steidlc 1977:187). Hildemar is more reti-
cent, however, on the organization of this
education, and its place in the daily routine
of the young monks. Only in passing do we
discover that the children were taught
singing, grammar and arithmetic. When a
lcarnrd guest was present, the abbot was to
instruct one of the children to discuss these
subjects with the visitor. lhe main purpose,
however, was not to display the childs
knowledge, but to teach him correct eti-
quette. This was necessary for intercourse
with the mighty of the land (potentes). The
abbot had to observe the youth closely and
point out any mistakes afterwards (Mittcr-
mtiller 1880:418; Pauli Disc. Comm., 124).
The commentat: makes no mention at all
of the functioning of a monastery school in
the sense of regular educational practice.
Hildcmar does comment, however, on the
Rules phrase constituenda est ergo nobis domi-
nici scola servitii (Vogue and Neufville 1972a:
422), but puts his emphasis - just as
Smaragdus - on the contemplative side of
monastic life. Schola here is synonymous with
vacatio, learning to liberate oneself from
other cares in order to devote oneself
entirely to Godsservice (Mittermiiller 1880:
66; Spannagcl and Engelbert 1974:48). He
contrasts this way of lift with the school of
human service (schola humani servitiil, in
which men take up arms in the service rtthe
king, and learn skills, such as hurting and
fighting, which are proper to an honourable
worldly life (Mittermuller 1880:66). To
Hildemar, the schola is first and foremost the
monastic commumty itself and its Rule; a
common definition in monastic vorabulary
(Leclercq 1972:268; Kasch 1974:210-2;
Illmer 1979:51-66). Only once does hc use
this term in a different context. Children
and supervised youths who misbehaved
during thr office were not punished there
and then, but later in the schola magistri
(Mittermuller 1880:470). The word schola
here seems to indicate a separate room to
which the youths and their masters could
withdraw. This use of the term is also to be
found in the so-called Consuetudines of Farfa
(Dinter 1980:219-20).
It goes without saying that the lessons
were given in this room. Hildemar remarks
that during the daily period of lecfio, the
literate adult monks read for themselves,
while the youngsters still under supervision
read as a group in the presence of their
mentors (Mittermuller 1880:483). In the
detailed version of the commentary, this
direction is supported by a quote from the
Reguli Magistri: the children are ordered
to busy themselves with their wax tablets
(Mittermuller 1880:481), that is, to practice
their reading and writing. This is the only
indication Hildemar gives of educational
activity in the monasteries of his day. He
gives us no information whatsoever on the
actual subject matter. It probably con-
formed to the standards set down by the
Council of Aachen in 816. Following the
example of Kornelimunster, the scholu.&i -
which means the pueri nubiti - first had to
become word-perfect in psalms, hymns and
the Rule. They also read the bible and com-
mentaries on it, the works of the Church
fathers, and the lives of the saints. They
were to be encouraged to speak Latin among
themselves in order to improve their under-
standing of the texts they read. This would
also help them to formulate a dissertation in
Latin, and to sharpen their intellects (Sem-
mler 1963c:442,449).
It seems improbable that all the magistri
were capable of teaching to the standards
Hildemar set. This task was probably under-
taken by a few specialist masters. The com-
mentary pays very !ittle attention to their
activities. It would seem as if this type of
division of labour had not yet assum-
ed concrete forms. According to Hildemar,
those who possessed knowledge which was
useful to the community, such as grammar
or the art of singing, were obliged to pass it
on to others (Mittermiiller 1980:486-7).
He did not make especially high demands
on the intellectual capacities of the magirtii,
but put more emphasis on other qualities,
such as well-balanced behaviour and a
God-fearing character (Mittermiiller 1880:
418-19; Puuli Diuc. Comm., 124). They
were educators first and foremost, whose
whole way of life set a daily example to the
children under their care. The imparting of
knowledge took place mainly through the
day-to-day practice of monastic life, and is
rightly described by I!lmer as Lerncn durch
NuchLben (1979:445). The young monks,
as we have seen, had their own roles in the
liturgy, during which they could practice
their psalm-singing and reading. The teach-
ing they received during the period of lectio
was undoubtedly designed to assist them in
carrying out their liturgical task. Leclercq
has argued that education in the early
medieval monasteries was predominantly
prtf-monastique, that it was exclusively
designed to prepare the children for monastic
life (Leclercq 1972:268). The Hildemar
commentary c-mfirms this impression. In
fact, it goes even further. ThL children it
describes were, though they enjoyed a tem-
porary exceptional position, already mem-
bers of the community, and as such shared
fully in its activities. We cannot apply to
them the term pupils in the modern sense.
The Hildemar commentary, therefore, forces
us to caution when using the term monastery
school.3
115
Ehators and educational ideals high. The monastic rule of Waldebert of
Lixeuil, quoted by Benedict of Aniane in
his Concordia regularurn, speaks of two or
more seniores who are charged with the
education and upbringing of al! the children
(MPL 88:1070; MPL 103:1101-2). The
reforming Council of Aachen (816) sug-
gested that young clerics be entrusted to the
care of one probatissimus senior (Werminghoff
1906:413).
The division of labour in the upbringing of
the young monks is described by Hildemar
in detail: there can be no doubt as to who
was responsible for their education, of the
standards demanded of them. Here again.
the commentator clearly differs from the
Rule, whic!l states that the superintendence.
of the young was the concern of the whole
community - disciplinae diligentia ab omnibus
rt custodia sit (VogiiC and Neufville 1972b:
666). But in his commentary on this passage,
Hildemar states emphatically that only
thosr monks who wcrr able to discipline
thcm~c~lvrs wcrc entitled to discipiinc the
children (Mittermiiller 1880:621 ; Pauli Disc.
Comm., 169). Only thosr whcm the abbot
could trust implicitly on this point were
allowed to engage in bringing tip the
children (Mittermiillcr 1880:578; Pauli Disc.
Gmn., 157).
1nstr:td of being the rrsponsibility of the
wl~olr community, Hildcmar entrusted this
task to special magi.&. IIwy wcrc srlrctcd
lin their moral qualities, since their br-
haviour ilad to ~rct an cxamplr to thr
childrc*n. Their main task was the. education
of their pupils, but they did have othrr
duties. They wcrr not, for cxamplc, cxcmpt
from kitchrn duties, and for this reason they
wrrc often given absiblancc (Miltcrmiillrr
1880:578; Pauli Disc. Comm., 157). Rut in
~c.nrral their numbers - thrc*c* or four
m.ibtcn to every ten children - mwt have
cnsurcd tlt;~t their pupils wcrc ncvcr without
q)crvision (Mittcrmiillcr 1880:331 -2, 578;
Icr~li Diar. Cnmm., 100, 157). If WC compare
thea numhcr of masters prcscribcd by Hildc-
m,tr with the* numbrrs in other contemporary
,ourccs, WC find th.lt tl~c. former is strikingly
In the Hildemar commentary, seniores did
Hay
a role in the upbringing of the children,
but they were of higher ranr than the
ordinary masters. They were experienced
men, ahd Hildemar cbnsidered ;hem the
mainstay of the community (Mittermiillcr
1880:483; Pauli Disc. Comm., 137). They
carried out the more delicate tasks, such as
the n;ght watch, and the observation of a
young monk who was deemed ready to leave
the custodia (Mittermiiller 1880:331, ~34-5,
582; Pauli Disc. Comm., 100-1, 159). And
then we have the abbot, who played no
mean role in the education of the young
, -
monks. The Hildemar commentary shows
him primarily as the dispcnscr of positive
.sanctions - a word of praise in the chapter,
or an extra plate of food in the rcfcctory. Hc
rnsured that the young children were given
the. opportunity to play, and that their
material wants wcrc met. As he was lhc
person who had most to do with any promi-
ncnt visitors to tlii community, it goes
without stying tllat 11~. obscrvrd and cor-
rrctcd LIIC. cllildrcns manners (Mittcrmiillrr
1880:418-20; Paufi Disc. Comm., 124). Thr
itbbot was tllc magister par cxccllcncc, to
whom tile children werr entrusted at their
oblation (Sandmann 1978:760; Illmer 1979:
37-9, 53-4). Although lie delegated t11e
daily supervision of his charges to others, he
I Iii
remained, to an important
in their development.
extent, involved
The commentary is rather reticent on the
educational ideals held by these men. Hilde-
mar only remarked that the custodia produced
monks who were able to surrender them-
selves completely to the service of God
(Mittermtiller 1880:578). To gain any real
insight into the educational ideals of the
monastic pedagogues, it is necessary to look
at what was expected from an adult monk.
It would be impossible to give a complete
description of the ideal monk here. But I
should like to note a few aspects of the
behaviour expected of him, because this
behaviour was instilled in the child-monks
from
As
a very early age.
is apparent from the Hildemar com-
meutary, the control of~~.,l impulses in an
ascetic community was no mean task. This
will also have formed an important part of
the childrevls upbringing. We also discover
this theme in hagiography. According to
Jonas of Bobbio (who died some time after
659), the abbess Ercantrud kept such a
careful watch over her young nuns that
they were unaware of the difference between
men and women (Krusch 1902:133).
Ideally, therefore, a young regular religious
had to be brought up in ignorance of sexual
differences: in this way the innocence of his
early childhood was preserved. At the same
time, however, adolescence was seen by
monastic pedagogues as an cxtremcly dan-
gerous age phase, marked by sexual impulses
that were only controlled with difficulty.
Hildemar instructed the masters to have
their sticks at the ready in the calefactorium,
in order to restrain the scurrilia of the
children. Shortly afterwards he describes
scurrifitas as words or gestures that could
activate or arouse sexual lust (Mittermiiller
i880:205-6). In this context the attention
he payed to a careful night watch over the
young monks speaks volumes. Intimacies
between adult monks and the children were
strictly forbidden and carried heavy penal-
ties (Mittermiiller 1880:30, 569-70; Pauli
Disc. Comm., 103; Hafner 1959:127-g).
Undoubtedly the control of sexuality
formed an essential aspect of the upbringing
of children in the monasteries. But an all too
obvious er?phasis on this tends to distract
us from other forms of self-control which
were equally important. The young monks
also had to learn to restrain their anger and
aggression. Ifwe take the whole hierarchy of
sins mentioned in the Hildemar commen-
tary, we find that the so-called sins of the
mind were dominated by anger, pride, fury
and jealousy. Hildemar actually called them
sicknesses of the mind (Mittermiiller 1880:
79, 93). Monks had to learn to overcome
their aggressive feelings and replace them
with religious ardour (compunctio) (Mitter-
mtiller 1880:77-8). Hildemar warned them
not to take sides in an argument. They were
to remain impartial even though it might
concern a relative, a countryman, a pupil or
a friend (Mittermiiller 1880:618). That
Hildemar was not the onlv Person who feared
c .
an enduring solidarity between relatives is
apparent iaorn a petition sent to Charle-
magne by the monks of Futda in 812. They
wrote of their fear that the relatives of a
fellow brother, who had been murdered by a
clertc lougmg at the monastery, would
resort to a blood-feud (Semmler 1963a:326).
According to Hildemar, educational prac-
tice should also be directed towards the
control of aggression. The masters were to
set their pupils a good example. They should
117
never act harshlv because moderation and
composure were expected from them. Out-
bursts of anger towards the children were
insisted that the fiueri were not to dislurb the
mass by wandering backwards and forward.;
(Semmler 1963133409).
taboo. If a master, contrary to expectation,
sttff+red from a lack of self-control, the
abbot was to discuss this with him, try to
discover his motives, and perhaps relieve
him of his duties (Mittermiiller L880:418,
622; Pauli Disc. Comm., 124, 169).
In the Rule of St Benedict, control of
anger is only one of many aspects of the all-
embracing ideal of humility (VogiiC and
Ncufville 1972a:472 -90). Another is the
;t\Gd;tncr of rxccssivc gaiety. But Hildcmar
dots remark that a monk was allowed to
Iaugll, as long as his mirth was controll:.d,
an d 11c did not roar with laughter i l S t l i c
Iairy trndrd t o do (Mittcrmiiller 188O:LCI).
WI* find this wariness of &us saeculwis in
other monastic sources because it wa5 ii long-
standing tradition (Stcidlr 1930). TIN
c*ightIt-century Memotiale qualiter warncnd
that young monk5 wcrc to bc closely watched
.tnd tltcir intrrcoursc with lay relatives kept
to .I minimum (,Morgand 1963:246). The
I ~.w .\ taec~l~rb Wibb probably connected to lay
li5tivitic5 and diversions forbidden to monks.
lIi~* commcntitty tcN5 tt? t l l i l t prominent
gttcstk wcr(s h0ttsc.d in appartmcnts 5ituatrd
outsidr thr* claustrum, and that they wtsre in
111~ habit of boisterously ,tmusing thcmsc*lvc5
until tllc small Ilours (Mittc>rmiillrr 1880:
11 I I ). 111(* cc~ntmcntator assumed t11itt ttn-
(ontro1lc*d and noisy bcllaviour could br
from thr laity, but nl.o
Ihrv were inclined to
~~wl u. c, i oci . i nd ccwrilia to livrlinr.ss, hilarity
.III~ frivoloux conduct (Mittc~rtniillcr 1880:
203; Pauli Disc. Comm., 61). The clrildrcns
livclincss was :I problem for mot-c thn one
monastic vducator: Adalhard of Corbic
The humilitas, on the other hand, implied
the opposite of this type of behaviour,
namely control and reserve. Several times in
the commentary, mental anxiety and result-
ing physical restlessness are signalized as
difficult vices to supress. It imputed great
importance to the physical expression of this
control. So much so that sometimes it seems
to identify humilitas with the outward be-
haviour that went with it: a humble monk
always kept his head bowed, showing in this
way his realization of his own insignificance
and vulnerability. Certain tasks, however,
such as pruning hanging vines, could not be
performed in this attitude. But though the
monk lifted his head, his mental attitude
had to remain incuruatus (Mittermiiller 1880:
268; Pauli Disc. Comm., 81; Kasch 1974:
213-4). Control and comDosure were Dart
of this behaviour pattern, because
mentator was especially concerned
.
the corn,,
with the
avoidance of extreme emotion. The Basil
version of the commentary draws a com-
parison to a rider who uses the bit in order to
keep his horse to the middle of the road
(Hafncr 1959: 1 22). In tlic same way, the
monks path lay between cxtremcs of joy
and sorrow. It is obvious that Hildemar was
a product of the Bcnedictinc tradition. for
wl;ich the words ne quid nimis are so charac-
trristic (VogiiC and Neufville 1972b:650).
The value hc placed not only on sclf-
control, but also on the physical expression
thereof, is certainly striking.
The children were to a.cquirc this type of
bchaviour during their upbringing under the
custodia. Eventually they would act per
naturam, ex consuetudine (Mittermiiller 1880:
II8
269; Pauli Disc. Comm., 82). This type of final profession. This took place, together
socialization process, which made great with the renunciation ofmaterial possessions,
demands on &e young monks self-control,
w as time-consuming. It is, therefore, not
surprising that the commentator took a
long period of immaturity into account,
which could, in certain cases, continue until
after the twentieth year. As long as the
youths did not exhibit a sufficient measure of
self-control, they remained under the super-
vision of their masters, and were in this sen!,e
children
Oblates and novices
It is striking how little attention Hildemxr
payed to the instruction of novices, members
of the laity who entered religious life as
adults. In general, he confined his com-
ments to directions on how they were to be
received into the community. In thp com-
mentary he differs from both the Rule of
St Benedict and the interpretation ofit by the
Council of Aachen. This stipulated that
after a probationary period of one year, and
after taking the vow, the monk was bound to
monastic life for ever (Schroll 1941 :66-9;
Semmler 1963d:47-9). According to the
Rule, the candidate novices stay in the
hospice was to be no longer than a few
days. The commentator extended this to a
period of two months; the novice was then
still a member of the laity, he made himself
useful in the hospice, and the Rule was read
to him. After two months he renounced
arms. This ritual was accompanied by the
tonsure and the assumption of the clerical
habit (Mittermiiller 1880:534-6; Pauli Disc.
Comm., 149). The novice was then admitted,
shorn and vested, to the cella novitiorum,
where a master of novices prepared him for
ten months later. Basing his arguments on a
pronouncement by the Council of Nicaea
(325), Hildemar insisted that there was no
return to the world once the novice had
renounced arms, and had been admitted to
the house of novices. He was, of course, free
to decide against profession, but he could
no longer undo his admittance to and in-
clusion in the clerical state (hii:iermiiller
1880:537-8; Pauli Disc. Comm., 149; Mansi
2.681). It 5 apparent from the Ilasil
version: of the commentary that this point
led to a difference of opinion betwern
Benedict of Aniane and Adalhard of Corbic.
Hildemars support of tonsure after only
two months was in accord with his mentor
Adalhards point of view (Hafncr 1959:
141-2; Semmler 1963d:47-9).
The novice, therefore, entered the house
of novices as clericus under the guidance of a
master. This mentor kent him under con-
stant surveillance in
ga\re him household
.
the cella
tasks to
novitiorum, and
perform which
would be part of his dutks 3; a m;nk. He
ensured that the candidate monk devtited
himself to his duties and to the divine
office (Mittermiiller 1880:536; Paufi Disc.
Comm., 149). This is all the commentary has
to say about a novices stay in the cella
novitiorum; extremely meagre information
when compared with the exhaustive data
on the upbringing and guidance of the
infantes. The relatively large amount of
attention given by the commentator to the
latter group leads us to assume that the
majority of new monks originated from their
ranks, while the adult novices were few in
number.
In the course of this number of
119
striking differences between the Rule of
St Benedict and Hildemars commentary
have been noted. These differences indicate
that the position r.f young ablates in the
Carolingian period had increased in impor-
tance. We find, for example, that Hildemars
surveillance in the dormitory, prescribed
For the whole community by the Rule, was
dircactrd primarily towards the young. A
comparable shift in emphasis occurs in the
\cction on the physically infirm members of
t l w community. St Benedict stressed that
both the young and the aged occupy an
c~xccptional position. Hildcmar, on the other
hand, concrntrated almost entirrly on the
cart of thr children. TIIC organizational
liamcwork in which this care assumed prac-
tical Forms also bccamtb more complicated.
I I I the Hildrmar commentary, the children
.irc no longrr part of the general order, but
constituted a srp;lratr ordo with its own
hic*rarchy. And though, according to the
Kul v, 1111~ suprrvision of tlir young was thr
rc*sponsibility of the* w I I oI ~~ community,
Hildt*mar placrd it in 111~ hands of ;I few
\pccialist vducator!+. Hr took into account
l l w prcscnccb of i l lilirly large group of
children, who wcrc watcllcd over by many
m.istcrs. I h novices iii the c&a noviliorum,
OII t l w other hand, wcr(* the* responsibility
Of Ol l l ~Illilhl~l.. I I N* Rule pays rqual attention
IO oblatcs .uld novicrs. but Hildemars
vmph.iaih c.init to lir on the cart and
c*dur.ttiou of IL. c hild-mt)nks. This striking
clc~vc~lopmc~~~t ih linked to I I I C risr of the* priest-
Iuonk, which occurred brtwrcn the sixth
di i d ninth cwruricx
I III t itr of h PI icxj-tnonk
Both in the Llstcrn itnd Wc*stcrn Roman
Empires, the cenobitical monasteries had
been populated by monks who were not in
orders. It is true that a few priests were
needed for spiritual care and the sacraments,
but their numbers were small. They were
not, on the grounds of their ordination, to
assume a prominent position in the com-
munities. Monks were not encouraged to
become priests in their own communities;
it was feared they would feel elevated above
their fellows (Nussbaum 1961 :15-20). Four
centuries later, these proportions had
changed dramatically. Haiissling supposes
(1973:156-7) that around 800 about onc-
third of the members of Frankish monastic
houses were either priests or deacons. This
is probably a cautious estimate. In 825 and
826, the number of monks at Fulda who !.ad
been ordained was more than two-thirds of
the community, a ratio which must idSO
have prevailed at Rcichenau in the same
period (Schmid 1978:622).
Tllr increase in the ranks of priest-monks
was one of the results of the growing nun:ler
of private masses celebrated in the mon-
astcries. A missu privata was a mass which
could be offered without the presence of a
congregation. The reasons for tl~e rise of
this type of mass are still open to debate.
Both the confratcrnity of prayer between tile
monasteries, and the imitation of the liturgi-
cal example set by Rome, played a role
therein. However, according to Vogel, the
rise in the frequency of p&ate masses was
primarily caused by the increased demand
for votive masses, and tl~e practice of con-
verting Fenances into masses (Vogel 1980:
240-6). The reason for entrusting the cele-
bration of these masses to the regular
religious in particular, is linked to an
important change in mens attitude to the
priesthood. Recently Angenendt has pointed masses offered for the living and the dead,
out (1978/79:40-3) that the notion of the which entailed a large amount of aitat
pure instrumentalism of priests, whose way
of life had no influence on the validity of the
sacraments, had largely disappeared from
early medieval thinking. The effectiveness
of the sacraments was now seen in terms of
the ascetic oirtus of the priests who adminis-
tered them. Both the regular canons and the
priest-monks were emiiently suited to the
task; both, by reason of their ascetic way of
life, were mediators par excellence
the sacred and the profane.
between
If we compare the Hildemar commentary
with the Rule of St Benedict, we find that
they represent different stages in this devel-
opment. The Rule takes into account the
elevation of a monk to the priesthood, and
the admittance of a priest to a monastic
order. It places the priest in a relatively high
position in the hierarchy. But fear of their
superbiu still makes itself felt, and recalls the
aversive attitude originally held by monks
towards the secular clergy (Vogue and
Neufville 1972b:634). Although the euchar-
ist was celebrated, it did not form an
integral part of the monastic liturgy; the
offering of milss had not yet become the
special task
communities
of monastic
:31 -2). The
Hildemar conimentary ciearly demonstrates
that a changi: in this situation had come
about. The commentator refers repeatedly
to the celebration of mass, and it seems to
occupy an important place in the com-
munity hc has in mind. Apparently, a
convcntual mass took place twice daily,
and the priests also celebrated private masses
(Mittermuller 1880:309-10,423,555; Puuli
Dim. Comm., 119-20, 125, 152; S&roll
1941 :I 16-7; Haiissling 1973:58-g). The
service, had become an integral part of the
monastic liturgy (Hafner 1959: 136). If we
look at the list of thirty-five monks at Civate
entered in the confraternity book at Pfiiffers,
we find that eleven were priests, six were
deacons, and two were subdeacons (Piper
1884:384). That a large number of monks
were in holy orders is apparent from the
commentary time and time again. As we
have seen, the twelve lessons on feast-days
were read first by four infant~s, then by four
priests, and subsequently by three deacons.
Hildemar is aware of the increase, in the
numbers of priests since St Benedicts day.
For this reason, these priests could no longer
claim a position in the hierarchy after the
abbot, as prescribed by the Rule (Vogue and
Neufville 1972b:636; Mittermuller 1880:
555). And we find there was a growing
preference for abbots who had been or-
dained. If the abbot was in orders he could
celebrate the oblation mass and receive not
only the boy, but also his offer of bread and
wine (Mittermuller 1880:549).
The commentator was obviously keen to
educate monks for priesthood or deaconship
in their own community. He tried to remove
as many obstacles as possible from the paths
of potential priests. As the grave form of
public excommunication permanently cx-
eluded a person from ordination, Hildemar
advised great care in meting out this type of
punishment to candidates for the priesthood.
Only when the transgression, by its very
nature, was so serious as to make future
ordination impossible, should the abbot
impose a public penance. If this was not the
case, he should impose the lesser form on
potential deacons and priests (Mittermuller
121
1880:346, 352-3; Pauli Disc. Comm., 104). had entered religious life as an adult. This
For example, if a monk, under the influence was unnecessary in the case of a )uer nulrifus
of alcohol (drunkenness was seen as an (Mittermiiller 1880:570; Pauli Disc. Comm.,
c*xtmuating circumstance), interfered with a 155). Because a child had grown up in the
parvufus, both were punished. But they community, Hildemar believed him to be
could still br admitted to holy orders if their eminently suitable for the priesthood. That
further brhaviour was good, and the offence the abbot was well informed on the boys
was not rcpcatrd (Mittrrmiiller 1880:350, previous conduct and his merits, probably
369-70; Pauli Disc. Comm., 103; Hafner played a role in this attitude; Hildemars
1959: 127-9). high expectations of the preventive effect of
the cusfodia were certainly decisive when
judging candidates for ordination. This is
illustrated by his conviction that children
TIw pueri nuhili, tl~r children who were who had been brought up correctly need
Irrougli~ up in the monastery, wcrc the most ncvcr be suspected ofhomosexual tendencies.
cligiblc for ordin.ttion. In tllc first place, Thus, this type of education and upbringing
Arir cxtrnsivc education trained them as not only guaranteed a clean record, but also
litteruti who wrrr fully capable of performing mouldcd lasting behaviour patterns, both
the. liturgical tasks which wet-r inhcrcnt to of which were desirable in those al_taining
the* pricAood. For this rc,tson, Schmic! to holy orders.
brlirvcb (1978:624) WV may assume that, in Hc even goes a step further. Compared to
those* monabtrrirs whcrc the najority of the 111: conversi who grew up outside the mon-
mcmb(ars wrrr pric*st-monks, the grcatcr astery, the pueri nuhiti were pure and not
part cntc*rc.d religious lift at an early age. of the world. This view is apparent when
Hildrm,lr, indcrd, drscribcd future pricsrs as the commentary mentions the possible ban-
litle,a/i iLlitrcrmiillcr 1880:346), nndscrmcd ishmcnt of monks. This measure was open
IO comidcr literacy as inhrrrnt to ordination. to the abbot in extreme cases when a member
Morcovrr, the commrntary Icavcs us in no uf the community could no longer be
Doug .tbout who Hildcmar saw as future tolerated. Hildemar was emphatic: only
pricxls: rhc irzJ!lhnles .trt continually and those monks who entered religious life as
~mphalic.~lly shown in this light; they arc adults could be banished from the com-
IO bc protcctcd from anything which might munity. They had already lived in the
Icad IO exclusion from the priesthood world, and therefore remained of the world
(Mitt~rmtillcr 1880:350, 355, 569.-70; Paufi
(saecufaris) ; they could be returned to the
Disc. fhm., 103; Hafncr 1959: 129).
world they had left behind them. This did
lllcir literacy, howcvcsr, is not tlic only
W.IWII Hildcmar prcdratincs thcsc child-
monkh lilr ordination. Their upbringing,
under strict supc*rvision, is a second ad-
v.tntagc. Tlic .tbbot had to ask the advice
(II t11c confL)ror of a candidatr priest w1.0
not apply to thepueri nulri!i, who would tllen
bc forced to live a more sinful lift than rvcr
before. In extreme cases they were in-
carccrated (Mittermiiller 1880: 109, 363,
627; Pauli Disc. Comm., 35, 108, 171). For
them there was no way back, because they
had spent their whole lives within the
monastery confines, and had, in fact, no
experience of life outside. Indeed, Hildemar
did not seem to consider the child-monks as
former members of the laity. He divided
those who were eligible for monastic life
into four categories: the laity, monks from
elsewhere, priests and children (Mitter-
miiller 1880: 103; Pauli Disc. Comm., 33).
The Council of Aachen in 816 seems to
have applied a similar classification. It
placed scholastici at one end of the scale, and
those who have converted from a worldly
state (qui de habitu saeculari conversi sunt) at
the other (Semmler 1963c:422). We dis-
cover the same train of thought in Alcuin
when he tells us that Willibrord came to the
brothers at Ripon straight from his mothers
breast. All of these children grew up in a
monastic environment and, from an early
age, led an ascetic life. Surely this made
them eminently suitable for the priesthood,
because through their upbringing, they had
at their disposal the v&us which lent effective
power to the sacraments.
We have now come to an answer to tlic
question of why the custodia infantum occu-
pied such a prominent position in the
Hildemar commentary, while relatively little
attention was paid to the education of adult
novices. Hildemar had an obvious preference
for young oblates. This is closely connected
to the important position of the priest-
monks in the monasteries rc his day. They
were responsible for the conventual and
private masses, and for the confraternity of
prayer, which occupied such a central place
in the Carolingian monasteries
- and Corbie
and Ciiate were no exceptions. These
priests were expected to be ascetic because
only then were the rituals they celebrated
truly effective. Hildemar demonstrated this
train of thought clearly. He made higher
demands on priest-monks than on ordinary
monks (Mittermiiller 1880:554). The neces-
sary axeticism was institutionalized, aud
its continuity ensured, by bringing up
children in the community. The children
were not pupib who went to school tcm-
porarily in the. monastery. Although, for
practical and pedagogic reasons, they were
separated from the adult m,nks, these
children had their own place aud tlieir own
duties within the community. They were
predestined to strengthen the ranks of the
priest-monks, not only because they were
the future litterati, but especially because,
once adult, they would form the moral elite
of the community. It is no coincidencp that
oblates drfended themselves ac the begin-
ning of the twelfth ccnturi - R period in
whicl. child oblation was open to increasing
criticism - by stating that they had never
committed a sin, or had never concerned
themselves with the vileness of the world,
because they had led a pure life since infancy
(MPL 159:649). This argument probably
carried little weight in a period when adult
monks, who had cntcred religious life of
thcir own free will, were increasingly pre-
ferred. But to Hildcmar, this argument
would have been decisive because he pre-
ferred, for this very reason, pueri nutriti to
conveni. Just as Willibrord was taken to the
monks at Ripon to grow up in isolation, so
Hildemar gladly accepted very young chil-
drcn into his own monastic community, LO
prepare them undrr custodia and dixiplino
for their sacred task.
Notes
I would like to rxpress my sincere thanks to
Drs R. E Kiinzel of Amsterdam and Dr P. D. H.
Leupen of Nijmegcn for their stimulating observatio.ls
cln dn earlier version of this article. My gratitude is
,dao dur to Dr E. Dekkcrs O&B. of Steenbruggc and
Pro&or C. van de Kieli of Amsterdam who made
v.duablc suggestions. But, of court, responsibility for
tl& paper remains rntircly my own. A careful and
rre..~tiv~. traa~lation was made by Anne Lavelle. This
is only possible between the two other versions. Those
texts which occur only in the Basil version were
published by Hafner (1959:116-43). I shall refer to
them where necessary.
4
For the development ofchild oblation in western
monasteries, see Seidl (1872) and Deroux (1927).
Riepcnhoff (1939) attempted to prove that, according
to St Benedicts Rule, the solemn parental vow was not
binding. Lentini (1949) and Stkgemann (1947) dis-
puted this point. More recently Lynch (1976:36-50)
and lllmcr (1979:35-60) have undertaken research
on oblation.
5
Mittermiiller 1880:449: Puerum enim non dicit
illum, cuius aetas ab octave inchoatur anno, sed
illum puerum vocat, qui per se non potest proliteri
secundum lcgcm, quoniam parcntrs eius vivunt. The
manuscripts on which ,Mittermiiller is based give
quoniam. The correct reading, however, is quam, as is
apparent from Pauli Diuc. &mm., 152, BN MS. lat.
12637,1:147v, and Karlsruhe MS, Aug. CIII fos. 16lr-
161~.
6
In c.37 the Rule speaks of inJantes. According to
Hildcmar, an age group which included children
older than seven is meant here. Mittermitller 1880:421:
Scicndum cst cnim, quia, quamvis infans dicatur
5cptem annorum, tamen S. Bcnedictus non dicit
\olttm de illis infantibus qui seprem annos habcnt, sed
rtiam de illis dicit infantibus, qui octo vcl novcm aut
drccm .mnorum sunt, sicut diximus buperius, iuxta
virca rt propter virra indigentcs adiutorio, quia ille
non \olum dr infantibu\ hoc facit, red etiam dc horis,
cum hors \ecunda dicit agere tcrtiam; similitcr et de
trmporibu\ fecit. lllc enim dicit: hiemis ternpus a
k.dcndi> novembris, cum hiemis trmpub non a kalendis
novcmbris inchoatur, ued pustra. This passage is not
to bt* found in the version ascribed to Paul the Deacon,
but it is included in thr recrns% &i/ii abbatis
(K.rrlsruhr, .MS. Aug. CIII I-os.l04r- 104~).
,
Hur51 1960:559: Sicut purr non perscvcrat in
irncundia, non lae\us meminit, non videns pulchram
mulicram drlcctatur, non aliud cogitat, aliud loquitur;
Gc t vus nisi talrm haburretis innocentiam et animi
puritatrm, regnum co&rum non poteris intrarc.
With alight variations we also find thr theme of the
childlike virturb in a letter from Columban (Cundlach
1892: 163), in Isidores Quaesliones de V&i el Nom
Terfamenlo (.MPL 83 :207), and in Smaragdus Diodemu
monnchorum (.MPL 102:655-6). In .dl probability the
lhmr originat,*d in Jrromr, Commentary on Mat-
thew (MPL 26.129).
II
Levison 1919: 177-8: . . t-t ut.ttim .tblactatum
infantulum, tradidit cum patcr Hrypcnsis rcclaesiac
fr.ttribu> rcligio& rtudiis ct a.,cris littrrir rrudicndum
12t
. . . ubi nibii vidcret nisi bonesta, nihil audieret nisi
sancta. The uhrase stofim abl&&am refers to the story
.
of Samuel who was taken to the temple by his mother
Anna (1 Kings 1:20-a). In the ninth century this
text was read during oblation masses at Rheims
(Leclercq 1955:95-6).
l
Mittermtiller 1880:337 : Forte dicit aliquis: Non
hoc rcgula dicit, ut in omnibus sint magistri cum
infantibus. Iste, qui not dicit, non intellegit regulam,
quae ait : ubi CI ubi cwtodia si!, cum ubi rl ubi inttlligitur
im omni loco, et nullam nraetermitti i.e. sive stando aut
ambulando aut sedendo aut aliquid agedo. Nos
vero non dicimus nova, sed intelligimus regulae
iussa, quae etiam vidimus facta.
This passage has Ibeen omitted from the version
ascribed to Paul the Deacon, hut occurs in the Basil
version of the commentary (Karlsruhe, MS. Aug.
CID fos.42v-43r).
to
Vogue and Neufville 1972b:646: Pueri parvi
vel adulescentes in oratorio vel ad mensas cum
disciplina ordines sues consequantur. Foris autem vel
ubiubi et custodiam habeant et disciplinam, usquc
dum ad intelligibilem aetatem prrveniant.
According to Illmer (1979:51), .WS ordines means
that youths kept to their own hierarchy. In De Vogues
opinion, however, Benedict meant to restrict the
general rule to the refectory and the oratory (Vogue
and Ncufville 1972b:647). Elsewhere the children
under suoervision were set apart and their age was of
importance. DC Vogues interpretations seem to me
the most probable
II
M;ttermttller 1880:334: Illis autem, qdibus
nrcrsrarta est custodia, nunquam audrant foris exirc
dormimrm, et in basilicam ire cauba orandi, nisi
tantum quia non possit aliter licri, cum opus est illis
ire, v. gr. ad mingendum et ad &turn. Vadit ille, cui
nccesse est ire, et tangit illum ,eniorum, qui vigihtt,
et ille dccendit lumen et vadit cum illo ad exitum,
et sic lumine acccnso rcvertitur cum illo ad lectum
turn et collocat eum. Et ille maior cui causa lavandi
pollutionem necessitas fuerit, semprr assistcntc et
scientc srniore vadit, quia srmper senior vigiliis insistit.
Instead of .EI ille m&r. , the Basil version
gives Ef ille iunior (Karlsruhe, Cod. Aug. Cl11 f42r).
Therefore, maim means a youth who i\ still under
5upcrvision even though he has reached puberty.
This interpretation is confirmed by the version
ascribed to Paul the Deacon, although the pa$vagr
is worded dilfcrrntly: Similitcr et adolescentiores
artate; aut quibus necessaria custodia est sicut
diximus. quia caus.t labandi pollutionem vadunt;
\rmper asaistcntc et scientc \miorc vadant . . . (Pauli
Disc. &mm., 101).
tt
Hildemar refers constantly to clrmsrr~, and
states emphatically that this word is feminine singular:
Claustra enim est femini generis et numeri singu-
hCi S . . . (Mittermtiller 1880: 183). But we come across
the word I wice in the text in the plural form (Mittrr-
miiller 18F0:183-4). The commentator uses the word
in two dfferent ways. One definition means the
monks quarters which are forbidden to the laity, the
other means claustrum in the more restricted sense:
Claustra enim dixit de illa curtina, ubi monachi sunt,
id est quae est inter porticum et porticum (klittcr-
miiller 1888:183). See Schroll (1941:28-g) and
Hafner (1!162:179-82).
For the origin of the concept clausnutn, and the way
in which it assumed concrete forms in the monastery
plan of St 6al1, see Horn and Born (1979:24 I-6).
13
The commentary makes no mctttlon of a w
called external school - outside the confines of the
claustrum - attended by pupils who were rot destined
for monastic life. The extent to whirh such schools
did exist is still open to dispute. Only the chronicle
of Ekkehard IV ofSt Gall (Haefele 1960 .!Xl) indicate\
the existence of two separate schools, one for the
ablates and one for external pupils. For more informa-
tion on the schools ofSt Call, see Rich4 (1979:191).
I.
Nussbaum (1961) places the rise of the private
mass in the tenth and eleventh catturks. Haiissling
(1973) disputes this. He rightly believes that tht
celebration of mass already played an important role
in the monastic liturgy in the ninth century, and he
emphasizes the influence exerted by the Roman
liturgy on which tt was modelled (298.-347). Krussling,
in contrast to Vogel, believes that the private mass
is an anachronistic concept and, therefore, should not
be used. 1 sham Vogels opinion on this point, and
follow his definition of the missa priuala (1980:234).
Literature
Angenendt, A. 1978179. Religiosidt und Theologie.
Ein apannungsreiches Vcrhaltnis im Mitt&her.
Archiv fur Liturgiewirsenschaft 20/21 :28- 55.
Bcda Vcnerabilis. Super ntrabolas Salomonis alle-
gorica expositio. MPL 9i :957- 1040.
Bcnedictus abbas Aniancnsis. Concordi.t R-gularum.
MPL 103:717-1380.
Benton, J. F. 1477. Individualism :md conformity in
medieval Western Europe. In: A. Banani and
S. Vryonis jr. (cd.), Individualism a,.d cc,nfonnity
in classical Islam, 145-58. Fifth Giorgio Levi della
Vida Biennial Conference. Wiesbadcn.
Curtius, E. R. 1961. Europaische Lircratur und
125
Lateinisches Mitt&titer. Bern and Miinchen.
Demux, M.-P. 1927. Les origines de ioblature
WnCdictine. Revue Mabiiion I 7 : I - 16, 8i- I 13,
193-217,3U5-51.
Dintet, P. (cd.) 1980. Liber tramitis aevi Odiionis
.tbbatib. Corpus Consuctudinum monasticarum IO.
Sicgburg.
Ftcise. E. 1978. Stttdicn zum Einzunsbcreich det Kios-
trrg~mrinschaft Fuida. in: K. %chmid (ed.), Die
Kiostrtgemeinschaft Fuidn im fiiheren Mittciaiter
2.3. M8&terxhr Mittcialtrr-Schriften 8. Miinchcn.
Grundmann, H. 1968. Adcisbekchrungen im Hoch-
mir~ciaitcr. Conwrsi und auf&i im Kioster. In:
J. F&ken&n and K. S&mid (rd.), Adel und
Kit&r. G. Teiienbach zum 65. Geburtstag dargr-
bracht vun Freundm und Schulcrn, 325-45. Frci-
burg, Babel, Wien.
Gundixh. W. (cd.1 1892. Coiumbani roirtoiac. MGH
Epibtolac 3: i56-90. Berlin.
H.lcfrir. H. F. 1980. Ekkrh.lrdi IV Casua Sancti
G.dli. Darmbtadt.
Halnrt, W. 1957. Paulu\ Diaconu\ und drr ihm
ruge*chrirbenrn Komm~*ntar zur Rcgula Brnc-
dicti. in: B. Stridic (rd.), Commcntationcr in
Rrgulam S. Bcncdicti. Studia Anarimiana 4 :347
38. Roma.
Hhrr, \V. 1959. Drr B.~ailiuscomtncntar zur Rcgul.1
C: Bcncdicri. Ein Beitr.tg zur Autotenfragc Karol-
ingiwhrr Rcgrikotnmc~itarr. ii&rage Lur
Gr&ichtr dca\ dltrn Mdnclltuma und dr, Brnr-
diktinrrordrnr 23. Munalcr (WC ,tf.j.
H,~(irrr, W. 196. Drr St. &lirr Klo\tcrplan im
l.irhtr van H:\drmer\ Rcgcikommrntar. in: J. Duf f
(rd.), Studirn hum St.Gailcr Klo~crrphrn, 177 92.
Slitt~~ilungcn zur v.~tc*riPndiachcn G~~rchichtc 42.
S.mkt G.dirn.
&u\*ling, A. A. 1973. Monrhrkonvcnt und
I:.urll.~rirtic.R~lrt. Einr Studir ubrt dir Mc\\c. in
clcr ~~b~~rrdi8ndibcllrn Kloatc~rliturgir dr\ fritin~rrn
Slitt~l.dtrt\ und Lur Gr\chichcr drr MesrhPufigkrit.
i.ilurgirwi~*rnsci~~~ftlirll~ Qurilrn und Foruchtmgrn
8. Mun~trr (Wr\tf.).
Hlt~tonymu\. Commc~nt.~tii in Ev.mgriii M;ltth.~ri.
IL1 Pi, 2ti : I5 28
lhIl11. \1. .Illd E. Horn 1979. Thaw Pl.rn or Sl. Gail. A
\tudy of the .irchitcxturr .md xxmomy of, .md liL
III ,I p.lt.ldigmatir C.~roiingian momtstrry, I. Lo\
.\ngcic\ .md London.
HI ab.ums M,nlrua. Libvr dr ~,blationr putirorum.
MPI. I07 :I 19 40.
Iiur\t. D. (cd.) 1960. Brd.t V~~ncxlbiiia. in 5latri
F.~.u~g~hum rxpobitic,. CSEI. 120:451 648. Turn-
hout.
Iilmer, D. 1979. Eniehung und Wissensvermittiung
im friihen Mitteiaitet. Ein Beitrag aur Entstehungs-
geschichte der Schuic. Second edition. Kasteiiaun
and Hunsrtick.
lsidorus cpiscopus Hispaiensis. Quaestiones de Veteri
ct Novo Testamento. MPL 83:201-7.
Kasch, E. 1974. Das Liturgische Vokabular der
friihen lateinischen MBnchsrenchl. Re~uiac Bene-
dicti Studia Supplementa I. HTidcsheiG.
Krusch, B. (ed.) 1902. Jonas Bohiensis, Vita
Coiumbani abbatis et disciwiorum eius. MGH
Scriptores rerum metovingic~rurn 4:6i - 152. Han-
novcr and Leipzig.
Lrcicrcq, J. 1955. Messes pour la prafcssion et iobia-
tion monastiques. Archiv ftir Liturgiewissenschaft
4, 1:93-6.
Lecicrcq, J. :961. i&udes sur le vocabuiaire monasti-
quc au moycn Bge. Studia Anscimiana 48. Roma.
Leci,rcq, J. 1972. Pedagogic ct formation spiritueilr
du Vlc au IXe si&cic. La scuoia neii occidcnte
idtir 1, driiaito mrdioevo 1 :255-90. Settimanc di
Studio 19. Spoicto.
Lrcletcq, J. 1979. Monks and love in twelfth-century
France. Psycho-historical essays. Oxford.
Lcntini, A. 1949. Note suii obiazione dei fanciuiii
nrlia Regoia di S. Bcncdetto. Studia Brnrdictina
in memoriam gioriosi ante saccuia XIV transitu5
S.P. Benrdicti. Studia An\cimiana i8-19:195-223.
Lrviaon, W. (rd.) 1919. Alcuinus, \%a Wiliibrordi.
YCH Scriptorvs rcrum mrrovingicarum 7 : I I3-4!.
Hannovct .md Leipzig.
Linds.\y, \Y. M. (rd.) 191 I .I and b. lsidori Hisp.dCn&
rpixopi Etymoiogiarum sivr Originum libri XX.
2 ~015. Ox(i,rd.
Lynch, J. H. 1975. .Mon.katic recruitment in thr
cirvcnth and twelfth crnturies: homr \ociai .tnd
economic considerationa. Amrrican Bcncdictinr
rrvicw 26:425-47.
Lynch, J. H. 1976. Simoniacai rntry into religious
lifr from IOOO- 1260. Ohio.
Man$ J. D. 19Olff. Sncrorum conciliorum nova ct
.nnpiissima coiicctio. Reprinted with hcqueh. Paris
McL.tughiin, M. M. 1974. Survivors .md burrogatra:
children dnd parents from the nmth to the thirteenth
crntury. In : Lloyd dcMause (cd. j, Thea history 01
childhood, 101 -81. New York.
Mittctmiillrr, R. (ed.) 1880. Expoaitio rcgulac .tb
Hiidrmnro tradita ct nunc primum typis mand.~t.t.
Vit.1 CI rcgula SS. P. Bcncdicti u11.l cum exr .,Li&mr
r~guiar, 3. Rcgcnsburg, New York .tnd Cit .m.lti.
MMotg.md, D. C. (cd.) 1963. Mcmorieic qu.tiitrr.
Corpu\ ronburtudinum monasticxum 1 :29-82.
Sirgburg.
Nussbaum, 0. 1961. Kloster, Prirswrmiinch und
Privatmesse. Ihr Verhiiltnis im Westen van den
Anfgngen bis zum hohen Mittelalter. Theophaneia
14. Bonn.
Pauli Warnefridi Diaconi Casinensis Communtarium
in Regulam Benedicti. 1880. Florilegium Casinense,
Bibliotheca Casinensis 4. Monte Cassino.
Piper, P. (cd.) 1884. MGH Libri Confraternitatum
Sancti Galli, Augiensis, Fabariensis. Berlin.
Rich& P. 1962. Education et culture dans IOccidcnt
barbare, Vie-VIIIe si&cles. Paris.
Rich& P. 1975. Lenfant dans la s&&t monastique
au XIIe sit&. R. Louis, J. Jolivrt and J. Chatillon
(pds.), Picrrc AbClard, Pierre le V&u%ablc. Les
courants philosophiques 1ittCraires rt .wtistiquca en
Occidrnt au milieu du XIIe siCclc, Colloques
internationaux du Centre National dc la Rcchcrc1.c
Scicntiliquc 546:689- 702. Paris.
Rich& P. 1979. Les Ccoles ct Icnscignemrnt da1 L
IOccidmt chrbticn. DC Is Iin du Ve au miliw da
XIc sit&. Pa&.
RicpenholT, J. R. 1939. Zur Frage des Ursprung5 der
Verbindlichkcit dc*s Oblatmin~ritutr. Ein B&rag
zur Gcwzhichtc dcs mittclalterlichen Bildungs-
wcwn~. Mimstersche BcitrBgc zur Gcschichtsfor-
whung 74-5. Mimstcr (Westf.).
S.mdmann, ,M. 1978. Wirkungsberrich fuldisch~r
%nchr. In: K. Schmid (cd.), Die Kloatcrgcmein-
\&aft Fulda im friihrrcn Mittelaltcr 2.2 :692-791.
Mtinrtcr\chr ~Iittrl;Jtrr-Schriftctl 8. Miinrhcn.
S&mid, K. 1970. Die Mbnchsgcmcinsch~ft van
Fulda .da sozi;tlgeacl,ic!ltlicllrh Problem. Frii,rmit-
trlaltrrlichr Studicn 4: 173-200.
Schmld, K. 1978. YGnchalirtrn und Klo~trrkonvrnt
van Fulda Lur Zcit dcr Kxolinger. In: K. S&mid
(cd.), Die Kloatc~rgcmrinbcI~,In van Fulda im
friiherrn .Mittcl.dtrr 2.2:571 -635. Miinsterschc
~irt~l.lltcr-Scllriften 8. Miinchm.
Schroll, M. A. 1941. Bcncdictinr mcn....:;ci~m A.,
rrflrctcd in IIIC W.wncfrid-Hildrmar comm~*ntarirb
on the Rulr. New Yurk.
Sridl, J. N. 1872. Dir Colt-Vrrlobung vun Kindrrn in
.Mhnch+ uud Nonnrnklowrn odrr dr pu& oblatia.
MilllChl~n.
Swnmlrr, J. (cd.) 1963. Supplcx Librllua mm+
~horum Fuldrnrium C wolo Impcr.w~ri porrcctub.
Corpw conaurtudinum monabticarum I :.%21- 7.
Siegburg.
Sc,mmlcr, J, (rd.) 1963b. Consurtudinrs Corbcwurcs.
Corpw conwrdtudinum mona&arum I :365-420.
Sicgburg.
Semmlrr, J. (cd.) 1963c. Legislatio Aquisgrancnsis.
Corpu!, consurtudinum mona&arum I :434-582.
Siegburg.
%mmler, J. 1963d. Die Btzschl~~sc drs Aachewr
Konzils im Jahre 816. Zdtschdft Wr Kirchcnge-
schichte 74: 15-82.
S. Anselmi Similitudines (false Eadmero attrib.1.
MPL 159:605-7,08.
Smaraadus. Diadema monachorum. MPL 102:593-
690. -
Southern, R. W. 1967 The making of the middle
ages. Second edition. London.
Spannagel, A. ani: P. Engelbert (cd,) 1974. Smaragdi
abbatis Expositm in Regulam S. Benedicti. Corpus
consurtudinum monasticarum 8. Siegburg.
Stcnemann. 1. 1947. Die Vwbindlichkeit drr Oblation
t&h deriegula Benedicti. In: H. S. Brechtw (cd.),
I!encdictus, der Vatcr dcs Abendlandes, 547- 1947,
119-38. Miinchell.
Stcidlc. B. 1930. Da* Lachen im altcn Mrinchtum.
Beitrage und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte drs
Benediktincrordenb und seine Zweige 20:271 -80.
Stcidlc, B. 1977. Dcr Rat der Briider nach den
iiitesten Regula Benrdictikommentaren der abrc\
Smaragdus (urn 826) und drs Magisrers Hildrmar
(urn 850). Erbe und Auftrag 53: 181 92.
Tcske, W. 1976. L aicn, Laicnmtinchc wnd Laicn-
briidcr in dcr Abtci Cluny. Ein Beitrag zum
Konvcrsrn-Problem, I. Fr~ihmittelaltrrli .bc
Studicn 10:248-32?.
Traube, L. 1910. Textgescbichtr der Regula S.
Benedicti. Second edition, ed. H. Pleukcrs. Abhand-
lungcn dcr Kiiniglich Bayerischen Akadcmie dcr
Wiwnsrhdftcn, pllilosoplliscll-phllologisc)le und
historischc Klassc 25.2. Miincben.
Udalricua Cluniaccnsis. Antiquiores consuctudmea
monasterli Cluniacensis. MPL 149:633-778.
\erhulst, A. E. and J. Semmlrr 1962. Les .\taruts
dAdalhard de Corbie de Ian 822. Lr moyen age
68:YI -123,233-69.
Vit.1 %laglorii cpiscopi Doh nsis. ASS IO O._tobrr:
782-91.
Vogel, C. 1969. Lr pCchcur ct la p&itencc .IU moyen
bgc. Paris.
Vogel, C. 1980. Unc mutation culrurllr incxpliqu&:
le passage dr IEurh.tristic communaucairr & la
mew privh. Rrvue dcs scicnccs rchgeusrs 54:
231-55.
Vogiie, A. dc, and J. de Ncufvillc (cd., 1972 a and b.
La R+gle de Saint Ben&t vol. I and 2. Sourcca
Chr&ticnnes 182 and 183. Parib.
Waldebertus abbas Luxoviensis. Regula ad virgineb.
MPL 88:1053-70.
Werminghoff, A. (cd.) 1906. Concilia aevi Karolini 1.
MGH Concilin ? i.
Hannover .wd Leipzig.
127
Zelzcr, K. 1961. ~bcrlegungcn au einer Gesamtcdi-
tion dcs Whnach~arolintischen Kommentars zur
Rcgula S. Rcncdicti aus d& Tradition dcs Hildemar
von Corbic. Revue BCnCdictine 91:373-82.
Zimmcrmann, G. 1973. Ordenslebcn und Lebensstan-
dard. We Cura Corporis in den Ordensvorschriftcn
dss akndlgndischen Hochmiucl.dters. Eeitrrge zur
Gcschichw des altcn M(inchturns und des Bene-
diktinwordcns 32. Miinster (We&).
128