20. CONFLICT IN MEDIEVAL IRELAND: THE CISTERCIANS IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of Cistercian monastic houses, especially in remote parts of the British Isles, was wildly popular in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Some of the most magnificent and wealthy houses in England were Cistercian abbeys in Yorkshire; these also oversaw many of the foundations built in even more remote parts of the isles, such as in Wales and Ireland. Competition among the Cistercian houses was, however, fierce, especially when they were located too close to each other and they were founded and patronized by elites of different ethnic groups. This was particularly the case in Ireland, where the Cistercian houses of Mellifont (Louth), founded in 1142 by St. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh; Baltinglass (Wicklow)—a sister house of Mellifont—founded in 1148 by Diarmid Mac Murchada, king of Leinster; and Duiske (aka Graiguenamanagh, Kilkenny), founded by William and Isabella Marshal in 1204, were at constant loggerheads over jurisdiction, the advancement of monks, and conflicts with both the General Chapter and each other. Stephen of Lexington, the abbot of Stanley, a prominent Cistercian house in England, was sent to investigate, and his letters to the General Chapter are an extraordinary testament to the bellicosity of monks when confronted with unwanted competition.

KEEP IN MIND AS YOU READ

Monastic houses in medieval Europe were centers of learning, dominated the local economies of the regions in which they were located, and represented, ideally, the highest level of Christian piety and commitment to Christian practice. Like all institutions, however, monastic orders and the houses of monks and nuns could also be rife with corruption, competition for power and resources, and jealous of wealthier and more influential neighbors—both lay and ecclesiastical. The Cistercians were the most powerful and most widely respected order in the Middle Ages, but they were also frequently open to charges of economic manipulation and exploitation of their peasant tenants.

Document 1: Documents Relating to the Conflict of the Cistercians in Ireland (1228–1229)

[Letter 1] To the Abbot of Citeaux and to the community of abbots in General Chapter, greetings.

It is unbecoming for us to detail Your Paternity for long with our letter, for we know how occupied and burdened you are in many ways with unavoidable and demanding concerns of the Order. However, we have decided to bring to the attention of Your Holiness as briefly as we can this particular matter in Ireland . . .

[W]e came to Ireland where we heard of enormous crimes and horrible and notorious conspiracies which they were shameless enough to add this year to the former offences against those representing our Order . . .

The appeal of modesty and the tediousness of verbosity compel us to say nothing more about the number and the abominable gravity of their crimes, and to keep the knowledge of them away from the hearing of such holy men. But we will conclude with a summation: … we have with us the seal of a certain abbot which was pawned in a tavern for eighteen pence, and we saw the seal of another abbot in the same manner in the possession of a secular; consequently, on account of this the monasteries are reduced almost to nothing … Consequently, compelled by need almost all those in charge of the land wander away from the cloister as they please under the pretext of begging; there is no silence, no monastic discipline in the chapter-house, few are living in community, but they live in miserable huts outside the cloister in groups of threes and fours; they take up a collection and send to the village traders to purchase what they need instead of making use of the provisions of their properties. … Internally all the spiritualties are dissolved, externally the temporalities are almost completely wasted, so that for the most part we can say in truth: there is nothing of the Order there apart from the wearing of the habit.

And so, having exchanged counsel everywhere with worthy and God-fearing men, religious and secular, of high rank and low, we succeeding in discovering one solitary path of recovery and restoration, which we send to Your Holy Paternity under our seal and that of the abbots of Ireland; kindly act in accordance with what is stated there, and confirm it with your authority and insert into the statutes of the present year, lest the Enemy … will entrench himself forever against us and the visitors send after us, and we, who were sent to this region with your authority, will be exposed through negligence to mortal danger or perpetual confusion in this regard, to the shame and scandal of our religious life. Farewell. . . . [Letter 2] From the Council of Abbots. (June, 1228, from Dublin)

When the venerable man, the abbot of Stanley came to the region of Ireland with the authority of the General Chapter, he undertook to summon us together and very firmly to engage us there under oath on the authority of the same Chapter and the Order to determine carefully how the Order there could recover and be restored to its proper state. … [W]e have been unable to discover any means of bringing an end to the horrible conspiracies and inveterate disorders, and of reviving religious life, except that some monasteries be taken away from obedience to undisciplined houses and be subjected by perpetual law to monasteries in other realms than their mother-houses, which are ready and able quickly to restore the ruin of the Order in spiritualties and temporalities . . .

Therefore, all the council came to one and only one decision as to what was most necessary for the restoration of Order and the preservation of the same in its proper state, and it was this: that the monastery of Clairvaux should have as daughter-houses the houses of Boyle, Bective, and Kockmoy, together with Mellifont; the monastery of Fountains the houses of Baltinglass, Jerpoint, and Monasterevin; the monastery of Margam the houses of Maigue, Holy Cross, Chore, and Odorney; the monastery of Furness the houses of Owney, Suir, Fermoy, and Corcomroe; the monastery of Buildwas the house of Kilbeggan together with Dublin. Further, because the small monastery of Glanewydan is extremely poor and completely lacking in movable and immovable possessions, … it is to be joined in perpetuity … to the monastery of Dunbrody . . .

The Cistercians built numerous small “daughter” houses in areas near the major foundations. When the disruptions between the Irish and English Cistercian houses began and the entire monastic system in Ireland was investigated by the General Chapter, it was decided to remove the jurisdiction over the smaller daughter-houses from the mother-houses in Ireland and to redistribute them to more reliable overseers in France, England, and Wales. Clairvaux in France was second only to Cîteaux in importance; Fountains was the primary Cistercian foundation in England; Margam was one of the major foundations in Wales; Buildwas was an important house in the Welsh March, and Furness was the primary Cistercian house in Cumbria, on the border of Scotland.

[Letter 3] To the Abbot of Trois Fontaines, greetings. (August, 1228 relating events that had occurred in 1227—the abbot had accompanied the abbot of Froidmont in the initial visitation)

. . . Venerable Father, immediately after the departure of the abbot of Froidmont the aforesaid sinful race and worthless seed rose up on all sides against his orders. … Consequently, many monasteries claimed to be under no obligation to receive a visitation through him, but united in evil, they completely rejected the visitor sent to them. … Indeed, … they also inflicted the greatest injuries on the abbot of Owney, whom the aforesaid lord abbot of Froidmont had appointed as his representative in these parts. His horses were secretly stolen, his cattle plundered, and some of his servants were killed. . . .

Furthermore, when the abbot of Baltinglass … returned to the monastery, … he was thrown from his horse in a disgraceful manner by his own monks and lay-brothers in front of the gates of the monastery, and his seal was violently snatched from his belt and he was shamefully expelled in the midst of a great commotion . . .

[Letter 4] To the King of Cenel Eoghain [the king of the southern Ui Neill], greetings.

At your insistence we have freed the bearers of this letter from the chain of excommunication with which they were bound and have reconciled them to the Order; accordingly, they will be allowed back into the monastery of Mellifont on condition that they bring back the cross, chalices and charters which they took away with them, together with certain books. In addition, as you requested, we have kindly and through dispensation provided, with all the honor we can and dare, according to the rules of our Order, for all who went out from or were expelled from Mellifont, that they never again be fugitives, no matter what they claim to Your Excellency, unless they spurn our counsel and refuse to obey the Order in future. . . .

Therefore, we kindly beseech Your Reverence with all the devotion we are capable of, for your perpetual honor and safety of soul, to protect and defend the aforesaid house of Mellifont, together with the abbot and the persons there assembled, in the way which is proper for so great a prince, never allowing anyone under your power and dominion to harm the aforesaid house or persons or to molest it in any way. . . .

Farewell.

[Letter 5] Report of Abbot Stephen, Sent from Stanley Abbey to General Chapter (November–December, 1228)

The visitations of Ireland being duly carried out according to the rules of the Order with authority of the General Chapter by Brother Stephen, Abbot of Stanley and his companions at great expense in repeated danger, some monks and lay-brothers of Maigue heard that they were on the point of departure to their own country, and they planned an unheard-of conspiracy and attempted to carry out some horrible deeds. For they violently expelled and completely drove away from the monastery their abbot and the monks and lay-brothers who had been sent there with the authority of the Order to teach the rule, … and to reform discipline. In addition, turning the monastery, the cloister as well as the church, into a fortress against God, they stored thirty head of cattle, slaughtered and salted down, under the dormitory; they strongly fortified the dormitories of the monks and lay-brothers with great stones, stakes, palings, and weapons according to the custom of their people. They stored large amounts of grain, hay, flour and other necessities in the church and they placed vessels and containers adequate to hold water in the cloister; in addition, they strongly fortified the shelter above the altar with provisions and weapons so that they could live in it as if it were their keep. Finally, the brought thirty head of cattle on the hoof into the cloister, grazing them on the grass there and on hay stored in the church.

palings: stakes used in making wooden fences

In addition, and we say this with shame and horror, each one of the monks and lay-brothers equipped himself as best he could with weapons prepared especially for him … They joined with themselves under arms about two-hundred house-servants and lay-abouts of the district, partly by money, partly by other means. . . .

Finally, … the sentences of lesser excommunication and then of greater excommunication of such unheard-of, obdurate rebellion were gradually and successive brought against them, and at last they were threatened that, unless they withdrew themselves very deliberately and quickly from such a crime, the secular power would be invoked against them to seize and imprison them. … But they considered everything … to be of no account, and they rang the bells and rashly presumed to celebrate a solemn mass; they stripped the clothes from all the altars to the northern section [of the church] and, we speak the truth, they piled up heaps of stones; in addition, they ate flesh-meat publically with their followers and accomplices in the cloister and the lay-brothers’ dormitory. Finally, the visitor [Stephen of Lexington] … wrote to the lord bishop of Limerick [Hubert de Burgh], … asking him to bring the … excommunicates to a spirit of saner council, or otherwise … to seize them and bind them with chains until through contrition and penance induced by punishment they deserved to be freed by the decree of the Order.

The aforesaid bishop kindly consented to do this … and he sent warnings with all diligence in person and through men of religion, … but in vain. [A]ll that was left now to do was to seize the aforesaid rebels following the customary procedure of the Church. . . .

Therefore, a large number of people broke in, and others from the opposing side battled fiercely, striking with the above-mentioned weapons, and two of the evil accomplices perished in the course of battle and of their wickedness, as was reported by the bishop’s official and many others. The aforesaid excommunicates were brought before the bishop, but they were not prepared to give their consent to the judgment of the Order on any condition and they were sent away as fugitives on the decision of the bishop. … When the disturbance had been quelled and the observance of religious life had been commenced there to the honor of God and the Order, the … visitor together with his companions set out on his journey to [England] and he committed representation of the General Chapter to the abbot of Owney so that he might absolve and reconcile to the Order the above-mentioned excommunicates, excepting the four ring-leaders whose reconciliation he reserved to the General Chapter … In witness of which matter the abbots of Mellifont, Bective, Grey Abbey and Tracton, together with the abbot of Stanley, place their seals.

[Letter 6] To the abbot of Duiske, greetings. (May 1229)

. . . We have learnt, if the reports are correct, that a man called Charles, in name a Cistercian monk though in reality an angel of Satan, stirs up the inexperienced, arouses conspiracies, seduces the crows and leads them in error against the rules of the Order and the obedience to General Chapter, and is plotting to destroy in Ireland that which the Lord in his great compassion has planted and raised up. Wherefore, we require Your Holiness with a very strict injunction to summon the aforesaid monk to you … and sternly admonish him with careful and considered words to restrain himself in future from such evil acts in deeds, gestures, and words … But if after he has been first suspended from divine services he still proves obdurate, … then on our behalf by the authority of the General Chapter and the Order bind him with a chain of anathema for his rebellion . . .

[Letter 7] Articles to be observed throughout the whole of Ireland. May, 1229

1. No one shall be received as a monk, no matter what his nation, unless he knows how to confess his faults in French or Latin, so that when the visitors and correctors of the Order come they may understand [the monks] and be understood by them.

2. The charters and legal documents of the houses shall be carefully gathered together in safe keeping under lock and key . . .

3. The Rule shall only be expounded in French and the chapter of the monks conducted in French or Latin in future, so that in this way those who want to be received in future may attend school in some place where they may learn some gentle manners.

4. In punishment for the conspiracies having arisen throughout the Irish houses generally, it is strictly forbidden for anyone of that language to be appointed abbot for a period of three years, so that their obedience to the Order may be fully tested and they may first learn to be students that in due time and place they may become more capable masters without danger to their souls and to the Order.

5. It is forbidden under threat of anathema for lands or tenancies to be alienated without the consent and confirmation of the father-abbot having been obtained beforehand. . . .

6. Property shall not be leased beyond a term of seven years so that in this way there may be recent memory of the transaction. . . .

7. In order that the property of the house be not uselessly squandered or the crime of simony committed imprudently in future, it is strict decreed under the penalties mentioned that in future monks shall not buy lands or accept the patronage of churches unless it has been established through a thorough inquiry carefully conducted beforehand that they can have clear right of entry and secure title.

8. It is strictly decreed for all officials in the monasteries and in the granges who are in charge of the possessions of the monasteries that they render a true and accurate account to the abbot and council of the house or to those whom the abbot specially appoints for this. . . .

9. It is decreed under the same penalty that lay-brothers are not to sell anything without the consent or permission of the abbot or the cellarer.

10. Monks or lay-brothers who have been sent away are not to be recalled without the special permission of the lord abbot of Clairvaux . . .

11. Under threat of anathema and penalty of deposition or officials and discharge of members of the council, it is strictly forbidden for any woman ever to be received as a nun the aforesaid houses of Ireland in future, on account of the shameful disorders and scandals arisen from such practices.

12. By authority of the Order and the General Chapter, the abbots of St Mary’s Abbey, Dublin, and Duiske are strictly commanded by virtue of obedience to promulgate throughout all the houses of Ireland all the above-mentioned articles, copied down word for word on separate leaves with their seals affixed.

13. Each house shall have its own copy of these for itself. The aforesaid abbots shall order this to be read once each month through the whole year under sure and serious sentence of law and it is to be kept very carefully.

Source: Stephen of Lexington. Letters from Ireland: 1228–1229. Translated by Barry W. O’Dywer. Cistercian Fathers Series: Number Twenty-Eight. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1982. Pp. 43–50, 70–71, 105, 188–191, 197–199, 210–212. Modified by editor. Copyright 1982 by Cistercian Publications, Inc. © 2008 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. Used with permission.

AFTERMATH

The Cistercian Order in the British Isles was not unfazed by the problems such as those that occurred in Ireland in the early part of the thirteenth century, but it did not stop the order from gaining in power and influence—and in wealth—throughout the century. In particular, the Cistercians took advantage of the remote locations of their monasteries to develop advanced methods of breeding sheep that dominated the wool and parchment markets in the latter half of the century. Even so, the General Chapter of the Order was compelled to investigate charges of intra-order conflict in both Ireland and England among Cistercian houses.

ASK YOURSELF

1. Why would monastic communities sometimes descend to such a level of competition and violence as described in this reading?

2. In what ways did competition between the Irish and the Anglo-Norman settlers contribute to the conflict among the Cistercian communities in Ireland?

3. What did the laypeople who supported these monasteries think of what was going on?

TOPICS TO CONSIDER

1. Consider the ways in which founding monasteries close together could contribute to competition and conflict between them.

2. Discuss the ways in which donations by laypeople to monastic houses might make competition among them worse.

3. Consider the impact of ethnic bias on the ways in which conflicts such as these might be adjudicated by the superiors of the monastic order.

Further Information

Lynch, Breda. A Monastic Landscape: The Cistercians in Medieval Ireland. Dartford: Xlibris, 2010.