ANTIQUITE TARDIVE Antigitedad Tardfa — Late Antiquity Tarda Antichita Spatantike TISSUS ET VETEMENTS DANS L’ANTIQUITE TARDIVE BREPOLSAn Tard, 11, 2004, p. 357 & 371 BUILDING WORLDS APART. WALLS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNAL MONASTICISM FROM AUGUSTINE THROUGH BENEDICT* Hexprick Dey La création de mondes séparés : murs périphériques et construction du monachisme cénobitique de saint Augustin & saint Benoit Cet article cherche d explorer les origines et le développement de I'enceinte monastique, de I'Afri- ‘que d’Augustin & Wali de Benoit, en rapprochant les données textuelles et les malgres traces ar Chéoloviques. Alors que les monastéres envisagés par Augustin étaient des structures plus ow moins ‘ouvertes au monde extérieur, les monastéres en Italie, :l'époque de Benoit, sont devenus des espaces circonserits dans une enceinte imperméable. L’expérience de la vie communautaire menée dans une lature diffore fondamentalement de celle d'une communauté physiquement ouverte sur I'extérieur sinsi la présence ou l'absence de murs périphériques autour les monastéres a pu exercer une forte influence sur la conception et la réalité quotidienne de la vie conduite & Vintérieur. Dans la derniére partie de l'article, auteur suggére que la pensée “semi-pélagienne» et en particulier les éerts de Jean Cassie ont influencé la théologie monastique et propose dinterpréter l'apparition de murs “aurour des monastéres en Italie au vF sidcle comme la représentation architectonique d'un nowveatt cpavadigme de la vie cénobitique. [Auteur] ‘The story of the origins and development of coenobitic monasticism in the Latin-speaking West during Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages has long been a topic ff scholarly interest". The ancient protagonists are well= * My warmest thanks are due to Professor Sabine MacCormack, ‘without whose eneouragement and wise counsel this pape ikely swould never have seen the light of day. 1. For recent studies (by no means an exhaustive fist) on the “development of westea monasticism, with further bibliographical lisings of prior works, v.D. Caner, Wandering, begging monks: spiviaal aushoriny and the promotion of monasticism in tate sigur, Berkeley, 2002; A. Grote, Anachorese und Z0nobi der Rekurs des frien westichen Manchtums auf manastische Konzepte des Ostens, Statigart, 2001; M, Dunn, The Emergence ‘of monasticism: fom the Desert Fathers tothe early Middle Ages, (Osiord, 2000;.4. de Vogté, Regards su fe monackisme despre: nies sdeles, Reewe ‘articles, Rome, 2000 (Studia Anseimine, 130i i, stove ltraire a mouvement monastique dans Va riguie, Paris. 1991; C. Leyser, duthority and Ascetciom from Augustine to Gregory the Great, Oxford, 2000; G. Jens Italia ascetca atgue monastea: das Astesen- snd Mnchtwm in talien ‘om den Anfinigen bis zur Zelt der Langobarden (ca. 150/250. ‘641, Stiga, 1995; and J. Driscoll and M. Sheridan (ed), ‘known, and they have all, to varying degrees, been subject to close scrutiny. If Augustine has outstripped the rest, nonetheless Ambrose, John Cassian, Benedict, Gregory I, and Eugippius, as well as such shadowy figures as the “Four Fathers” and “The Master", have all been extensively queried for their bearing on the intellectual and institutional development of Latin monasticism?. The result is arich and Spiritual progress: studies in the spirituality of late antiquity ‘and early monasticism: papers ofthe symposium ofthe Monastic Institute, Rome, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 14-15 May 1992, Rome, 1994, Older but stil fundamental is F. Prinz, Frithes “Ménchtum im Frankenrich:kultur und Gesellschaft in Gallien, den Rheintandern und Bayern am Beispeil der monastischen “Ennwicklung (4. bis 8. akrhunder), 2 ed, Munich, 1988. The ‘more general study of R. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity, Cambridge, 1990, is also useful, 2. In addition to the works cited in m1, above, andthe critical ‘editions introduced below, noteworthy publications include: Stewart, Cassian the Monk, New York, 1998; A. de Vogé, Reading Saint Benedict: reflections on the Rule (trans. . Friedlander), Kalamazoo, MI, 1994; i, Le Mali, Euaipe et saint Benoit. Recueil articles, Hildesheim, 1984 (RBS ‘Supplementa,17);R, Markus, Sacculum: History and Society in358 HENDRICK DEY varied tradition of scholarship on the textual sources, and a ‘complex and not infrequently contradictory picture of what ‘writers in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries thought about the theory and practice of communal religious life. As itis really only in the event past, however, that serious attempts have been made to examine early monastic communities from an archaeological perspective, we have been much slower to come to grips with monasteries as pla- «es: as defined and bounded spaces which literally shaped the daily rounds of work, contemplation and prayer that together comprised he essentials of monastic life. Even now, after some three decades of growing archaeological interest in ate antiquity and the early middle ages, the data relevant to monastic foundations in Italy, Gaul, and Africa, the “eradles” of early monasticism inthe west, ae depressingly {exiguous, Still, some new evidence has appeated, and more ‘will surely come to Hight; in the interim, the copious textual evidence remains o be examined for what it can reveal about space and place in the monastic milieu of figures from Augus- tine to Benedict and beyond. Of course, any attempt at a titerary topography” of early monasteries is bound to create the Theology of St Augustine, 2% o4., Cambridge, 1988; P. Rousseau, Asceres, amhority. and the church inthe age of “Jerome anc Cassian, Oxfors, 1978; 0. Chadwick, John Cassian, ‘ed, Cambridge, 1968: and P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo 4 biography London, 1967. Ths already partial isting does not, however, sccount for the eastern monastic tradition that so profoundly influenced the carly history of Latin monasticism, ‘which will appear here ony through the lens ofthe Latin authors sho introduced it to the West. The classic study on easter ‘monasticism remains that ofD. Chitty, The desert city an ine sroduetion tothe study of Egyptian and Palestinian monasticism, ‘Oxford. 1966; om eastern influence in the West, ee most ecenily Groie, tnachorese und Zinobium, ct. (a. 1). ‘The work mostdiretly relevant tothe theme of the present study is P Bonnerue,Eléments de topographie historique dans les ré- les monastiques occidentales, in Studia Monastica, 37, 1995, p. §7-77, Other recent steps in simile direction include S, MeNally(ed.), Shaping community: the art and archaeology of monasticism: papers from a symposium held atthe Frederick R Meisman Museum, University of Momesota, March 10-12, 200, Osiord, 2001 (BAR International Series, 941}, and ‘M.Aston, G Keovill and T. Hall (ed), Monastic archaeology: ‘papers on the std 0f medieval monasteries, Oxford, 2001, The ‘more general recent study’ edited by M. de Jong and F. Theuws, Tepographies of power in the early Mlddte Ages, Leiden and Boston, 2001, also contains simulating work on “monastic to- pographies", albeit primarily for the Carolingian period; on the ‘subject of monastic space and its separation from the secular realm, see especially M. de Jong, Monastlc prisoners or opting cout? Political coercion amd honour in the Frankish kingdoms (9. 291-328), Peter Fengusson’s somewhat older study remains 2 stimulating example of a survey of monastic architecture ‘conducted within mare restricted geographical and chronological parameters; ¥. Architecture of solitude: Cistercian abbeys in nvelil-cenay: England, Princeton, 1984, An Tard, 12, 2005 atleast as many questions as it answers, but it remains an cffort worth making, If nothing else, a dedicated effort (o assess “monastic space” inthe light of texts can at least en- courage archaeologists and historians to ask more, better {questions ofthe physical remains as they come to light. What follows is one such attempt, albeit ona strictly limited scale. \When possible, the results of excavations have been adduced. inrelation othe primary sources: in the tnuous nexus which, ‘occasionally result lies an intimation of richer prospects. ‘This paper is about walls, and thei role in the formation, definition, and regulation of eoenobitic monastic identity. My particular concern is with the Rule of Benedict and the Regula Magisti, and the implications of these texts for the existence of perimeter walls around monasteries in pre- Carolingian Italy; this order can just as well be reversed, however, in which case the issue at hand is equally well construed as an analysis of the influence of “walls”, conceptual and physical, on the model of monastic spirituality developed in these documents. To put itanother way, I want to consider the Rules not only as a prescription for future practice, but as a description of existing condi- tions, as a means of coming to some understanding of the manner in which walls came to define the physical, {intellectual and spiritual parameters within which Early “Medieval monks were supposed to live and work. ‘The undertaking will involve the stady of walls in the literal sense, but also in the extended conceptual, ‘metaphorical and symbolic aspects of the term. It is not, however, anything approaching a comprehensive survey of ‘monastic identity, which would of course be a far longer and more daunting project, even within the relatively confined geographical and chronological parameters of Early Medieval Italy, [have chosen walls as a lens through which 10 approach monasti¢ identity for two reasons in particular First, because itis now a commonplace of anthropological theory that identity, whether in an ethnic, cultural, or ‘vocational milieu, is most often defined not so much by reference to what a given “insider” group is, but rather to ‘what iis not ~ what “we” are typically becomes a function ‘of what “others” are (or are not}. Walls, then, immediately present themselves as a vehicle par excellence forthe esta- blishment of such exclusionary formulations of group identity’. The second reason is more pragmatic. While the 4. Much rent work on such exclusionary consructions of identity ‘in Late Antique and Early Medieval aly, primarily onthe subject ‘of “barbarian” identity has been done by Walter Pol: v. W, Pobl {4,, Kingdoms of the empire: the integration of barbarians in Tate antiguity, Leiden and New York, 1997; W. Pobl and H, Reimitz, Strategies of distinction: te construction of ethnic ‘communities, 300-800, Leiden and Boston, 1998; and W. Pob, Hi, Reimitz and 1, Wood (24.), The Transformation of frontiers from late antiguity othe Carolingians, Leiden and Boston, 2001 ‘8. Though of couse, walls ean define interactions and identity in a ‘multiplicity of ways. The comments ofa contemporary practicingtn Tard, 12, 2005 pasttwio decades have witnessed an explosion ofarchaealo- gical inguiry into Early Medieval monasteries, the vast jority ofthe extant remeins date to the Carolingian period or later. Material evidence forthe eruial formative period spanning the later fourth century through the seventh is much harder to come by. Even when the locations of early monasteries are known with some certainty, their physical traces are often concealed boneath later structures. Walls, located as they were onthe periphery of monasteries, seem a priori more likely to preserve some traces of thei original configurations than structures located closer tothe center of monastic compounds, where architectural modifications tended to be frequent and extensive. And ifthe current tate ofarchacological research is insufficientto present anything like a comprehensive picture, thee is some evidence for ‘walls in this easly period: moreover, the potential for furure discoveries is excellent: at some point inthe not-too-distant ature, it should be possible to draw reasonably definite con- clusions about whether the major monastic foundations of the Early Middle Ages in tay and elsewhere were provided ‘with walls ornot, even iftheir precise configurations remain unknown While the Rule of Benedicr’s (hereafter RB) ultimate predominance in the Wester tation has often resulted in its treatment as an entity unto itself, particularly in discus- sions of the subsequent development of medieval monasticism’ it was atthe time of its composition merely nother in along sequence of co-existing rules all of which wick, John Cassian. cit. (3.2), p. 114); where Cassian differs markedly fom Augustine, however, isin the element of compul- sian he introduces ~ Augustine would never have desribed manks asinany sense “captive” intheir obedience to any earthly regimen, howsver inspired; humans are by necessity captive only to the scramble workings of God's grace. Hence Augustine's words ear the end of the Praeceprunn (8, 1): Doner dominus, ut observeris haee amnia cum dilectione, tamguam spiralis ‘tudinis amatores et bono Christi adove de bona snversaione flagrantes. nom sicut serv sub lege, sedsicut liberi sub gratia constut 82. « ..'ebsissance silence, attention & Dieu, Mhumiité..» de Nogad, La Régie de saint Benott cit. (0.7), vol. 1, p. 38) ‘his account (p. 33-38) remains the best brief treatment of the stinct influences of Augustine and the RA on Benedict. BUILDING WORLDS APART WALLS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNAL MONASTICISM 371 part, to Cassian’s anti-Augustinian views on grace and free vill. Augustine's formulation of communal life, in other words, was considerably encroached upon by a tincture of | “Semi-Pelagianism” in the canonical and subsequently immensely influential RB, via the influence, however toned- dovm it became, of the RM. Hence, monastic architecture \was adapted, consciously or otherwise, toa view ofthe world in which the active cultivation of an elevated spiritual status, and a conscious, even self-conscious, inclination toward “good works”, were as essential for the pursuit of sanctity and salvation as the workings of grace. If | am not mistaken jnmy interpretation ofthis phenomenon, the enclosed worlds of Benediet’s elausira, and the tater cloisters of Wester Europe and beyond, are the product of a pervasive re-for- mulation of Augustine’s understanding of grace, “good works”, and free will ‘And! if the Rule of Benedict captures a moment in the evolving legacy of Augustine’s thought, as it stood ater a century and a half in dialogue with many of his staunchest erties, so too may archaeology provide a further series of “snapshots” of individual monastic communities, frozen at finite points in their evolution. If enough ofthese vignettes are captured, it may one day be possible to assemble them ina sort of moving picture of their own, to compare against the received narrative of the textual sources, and to be incorporated within it, Space and place, then, may become asccrucial in advancing our understanding of the theological underpinnings and the practice of Latin monasticism as the written word, Surely, future discourse stands only to benefit from the combined efforts of textual scholars and archaeologists, University of Michigan