• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How religious was the tenth-century reform?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How religious was the tenth-century reform? The monastic reform that occurred in tenth-century England could be said to have both political and religious dimensions to it. Ostensibly, it was an attempt to return to a 'golden age' of Benedictine monasticism of the seventh and eighth centuries, which had been responsible for producing Bede. Contemporary England, it was felt, with its increasingly secular minsters, was far removed from this vision of the past. Reform, which involved replacing secular clerks with monks adhering to St. Benedict's Rule and promoted by Dunstan, Oswald and Aethelwold, took place on a fairly erratic basis during the reigns of Edmund, Eadred and Eadwig. It was not till Edgar ascended to the throne in 959 that the reform process really began to get underway, standardised in the Regularis Concordia of circa 970. The political aspect of the reform is related to its timing: the attempted unification of monasterial practice coincided with the unification of England, as Edgar gradually asserted West Saxon supremacy over the rest of England. The reform could also be said to have increased the king's power by reducing the influence of local aristocrats with the removal of secularium prioratus, arguably one of the factors in the so-called anti-monastic reaction which followed Edgar's death. In light of this, the tenth-century reform can easily be perceived as being more political than religious. But it would be unwise to downplay the religious side. We need to ask ourselves exactly how conscious and deliberate were the political motives and effects of the reform whilst being careful not to separate forcefully religious from political aspects of the reform (for instance, by assuming that the bishops involved had solely religious motives or the king solely political): as we shall see, in the period in question politics was inextricably intertwined with religion and many apparently ecclesiastical matters could have a political dimension. True Benedictine monasticism, asserts Blair, seems to have been almost dead in tenth-century England. ...read more.

Middle

He and Oswald both experienced exile and Aethelwold must have feared it from time to time. Given that they might have enjoyed more comfortable and stable lives had they not been pressing for reform, it would seem as though the desire Dunstan, Oswald and Aethelwold had to see implementation of strict Benedictinism in England had firm spiritual roots. Whether the same can be said of the royal reasons for monastic reform is a matter of debate. An exceptionally pious king might want to impose what he saw as an ideal form of monastic rule, perhaps as a way of dutifully proving to God that he was fit to rule. However, as we have seen, even kings who initially appear sensitive to the possibility may balk at the idea of large-scale reform once they realise the costs it could incur to them, both financially and in terms of making enemies amongst influential landowners. Could we say therefore that Eadgar realised what his forebears had not: that there were certain political benefits to be gained from monastic reform? Eric John sees the reform movement as a deliberate joint attack by monks and the king on the entrenched interests of local aristocrats, formerly accustomed to the possession of hereditary rights over monastic offices and clerical property. The Regularis Concordia strictly forbade secularium prioratum, which could be interpreted as meaning the direct rule of monasteries by laymen. Interference by local magnates, was, if we are to believe Aethelwold a significant problem. In 'An Old English Account of King Eadgar's Establishment of Monasteries' he warns of the malpractices of local magnates and families which threatened newly revived monasteries, but according to Eric John he is implying that this menace was not new. But while it is undoubtedly true that reform represented a mutually advantageous alliance between the king and monks, John's analysis is flawed. Patrick Wormald has demonstrated that the jurisdictional immunity of the Oswaldslow is a post-Conquest forgery, thereby demolishing John's argument that Eadgar used this to strengthen episcopal authority at the expense of local aristocratic power. ...read more.

Conclusion

of the old communities. At the time of the Norman Conquest, the tiny number of Benedictine houses co-existed with hundreds of small, secular minsters. Furthermore, nearly all the reformed monasteries were in the south. If reform was a conscious and deliberate effort to impose royal authority over a newly-unified England, it turned out to be very limited indeed. The English tenth-century monastic revival was certainly not as self-consciously spiritual as the Cluniac movement, and to ignore the fact that both ecclesiasts and the king had major political benefits to be accrued from such a reform would be foolish. However, as has hopefully been demonstrated, it is possible to be too cynical. While these political advantages with hindsight might look as though they had been purposefully and carefully thought-out, they may not have been obvious before the reform took place. And while we must be careful of too readily believing the words of their sometimes sycophantic biographers, the ecclesiastical reformers' unstinting adherence to their aims, despite periods of unpopularity exile, demonstrates the passion that allegiance to the Rule of St. Benedict could incite. This unstoppable zeal for reform on their part must have affected the actions of King Eadgar, who took advantage of the strengthening of Wessex's control over the rest of England and the increase in the wealth of the crown to commit himself to a reform programme. While he may have given some thought to the possible political benefits (for instance, by thinking along Carolingian lines), Eadgar's keenness definitely seems to have had a spiritual side to it, although this may have been selfish. Lastly, although the Regularis Concordia can seem at times to be overtly political, it is simply the product of an age in which politics and religion operated extremely closely together. Monastic revival was therefore part of a larger process of religious revival which was inspired by the political regeneration and unification of England. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree 1500-1599 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree 1500-1599 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Was there a decisive change in ideas about masculinity and femininity

    The subordination of women continued in the New Testament where they are described as "the weaker vessel," 7 for these reasons it was viewed as imperative that women, unable to control their immoral natures, submitted to the control of their father or husband.

  2. Assess the role and importance of Hernan Cortes in the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

    The modern steel armour worn by the Spaniards proved to be resilient against the relatively primitive weapons of the Aztecs, whilst Spanish canon and guns although few in number were used to devastating effect. Although this technological superiority cannot be said to have been decisive, the Aztecs quickly learning how

  1. Tudor Coursework - Elizabethan foreign policy.

    It may be argued that all Elizabeth was interested in was keeping trade routes open and keeping her economy afloat. It may be argued that it was Philip II who always saw things in religious terms a perspective that always tainted their relationship.

  2. Was female rule unacceptable in early modern Europe? ...

    the French were able to regulate who took to the throne and who maintained power. 'Salic law was clear, however; it decreed a purely French solution. (Elsewhere, in countries where Salic law did not apply - Scotland, England, Spain...women undoubtedly had the right to succeed to the crown, although their

  1. Assess the view that the Dutch rebels challenged Philip IIs rule primarily in defense ...

    cautious policy of centralisation.'13 This states both Philip's desire to centralise and geographically, the extent to which we intended to do so. The anti-heresy legislation, and the Inquisitors that were instigated, are evidence of the oppressive rule exercised by Philip.

  2. Three Estates in France

    Though there were many grievances, the Third Estate had some very specific problems they wanted fixed. They wanted to eliminate noble and clerical privilege, they wanted protection from the nobility, and they wanted their political and civil right to be put into consideration.

  1. How did the perception of Spain as the centre of a mighty European empire ...

    unrecognisable, and as such, needing different council or solutions to that which Philip offered. This was a major reason for the rapid progression of the Dutch revolt, spreading from scattered iconoclasm to full scale rebellion. Philip's controlling, jealous nature caused his empire to slow down to the extent that its ability to function was severely impaired.

  2. Why did Charles V Abdicate?

    until May 3, 1558. Up to that date, Charles continued to use the title of Emperor. Charles gave Burgundy, Spain and the American colonies to his son Philip II. He retired to the Monastery of Yuste, near Cuacos de Yuste.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work