« Visiting monks »

Educational mobility in 11th and 12th century monasteries

In this brief article, I argue that some high medieval monastic travels could be perceived as

having an educational purpose. After briefly introducing my theme and sources, I will present

some cases of temporary exchanges of monks between two monasteries. Subsequently, I will go

over different kinds of learning practices which took place during such exchanges, and I will

conclude by reflecting on the link between these practices and the processes of monastic reform.

The essays collected in this volume show that monks could travel for very different reasons.

However, because of the ideal of stability, to which the monks adhered, travelling was always, in

a certain sense, an exception, which had to be justified, authorized and controlled1. Already since

the early Middle Ages, monks were supposed to carry some proof of the purpose and authorized

nature of their journeys, to avoid the suspicion of being wanderers (gyrovagi) or monks who had

run away from their monasteries2. The Regula quattuor patrum (which, according to Adalbert de

Vogüé, goes back to the first decade of the fifth century)3 mentioned that a monk from a known

monastery was not to be welcomed into a different community without the explicit consent of his

1 Wathen 1975, p. 1-44.

2 See the Regula Benedicti 1, 10-11 : quartum vero genus est monachorum quod nominatur

gyrovagum, qui tota vita sua per diversas provincias ternis aut quaternis diebus per diversorum

cellas hospitantur, semper vagi et numquam stabiles et propriis voluntatibus et guilae illecebris

servientes et per omnes deteriores sarabaitis (Pricoco 1995, p. 134-136). For the evolution

undergone by the notion of vagare see De Jong 1996, p. 248 and footnote 70.

3 Pricoco, 1995, p. xxi.

abbot4, and the Regula Benedicti, while expressing the same idea, referred to the letters of

recommendation carried by monks to justify their journeys5. Similar rules also appear in the

decrees of various early medieval councils.6

4 Regula sanctorum patrum Serapionis, Macharii, Pafnutii et alterius Macharii 4, 4 : non licebit

de alio monasterio sine voluntate eius qui praeest fratrem recipere (Pricoco 1995, p. 18).

5 Regula Benedicti 61, 13 : caveat autem abbas, ne aliquando de alio noto monasterio

monachum ad habitandum suscipiat sine consensu abbatis eius aut litteras commendaticias

(Pricoco, p. 250).

6  The first council of Orléans (511) refers to the problem of wandering monks and mentions that

whoever welcomes a stranger monk is guilty (Concilium Aurelianense I, 19 : monachi autem

[…] si per contumaciam extiterit indevotus aut per loca aliqua evagari aut peculiare aliquid

habere praesumserit, omnia quae adquisierit, ab abbatibus auferantur secundum regulam

monasterio profutura. Ipsi autem qui fuerint pervagati, ubi inventi fuerint, cum auxilio episcopi

tanquam fugaces sub custodia revocentur ; et reum se ille abbas futurum esse cognoscat, qui in

huiusmodi personas non regulari animadversione distrinxerit vel qui monachum susceperit

alienum (Basdevant, Gaudemet 1989, p. 82-84). The council of Losne (673-5) explictly mentions

the use of letters, see Concilium Latunense, can. 7 : ut nullus clericum alterius absque literas

episcopi aut abatis sui praesumat recipere, nec monachi sine sacris aut literas, ut diximus, per

patrias vacare aut discurrere praesumat (Basdevant, Gaudemet 1989, p. 578), and can. 19 : et

quoniam ad sanctam sinodum in notitiam pervenit, quod, si monachi in monasterio enutriti

vacando per diversa loca discurrant, eos quidam in eorum comunione suscipiant, idcirco placuit

convenire, ut nullus monachum alterius sine comitatum abatis sui vel literas comendaticias

The expression litterae commendatitiae is attested since the Roman age7, and appears in twelfth-

century monastic sources8. It seems to be used mainly to indicate letters of guarantee issued by a

religious authority for a traveler, similarly to the letters written by bishops for travelling clerks9.

Letters of recommendation are a particularly suitable source to study monastic travels, since they

often contain information about the journey and its goal. Among the variety of monastic journeys

that they attested, in this article I will focus on those which inform us about the practice of

sending one monk to spend a limited amound of time in another monastery. The possibility of

such a journey was envisioned by the Regula Benedicti, which in the chapter consecrated to the

reception of visiting monks stated :

A visiting monk from far away will perhaps present himself and wish to stay as a guest in the monastery.

Provided that he is content with the life as he finds it, and does not make excessive demands that upset the

suscipere praesumat (Basdevant, Gaudemet 1989, p. 582). Here sine is followed by two

accusatives (comitatum and literas), as it is sometimes the case in medieval Latin, see Elliott

1997, p. 26. Comitatus is probably used instead of commeatus (comiatus), see Basdevant,

Gaudemet 1989, footnote 2.

7 Rees 2007, p. 149-168, Wilcox 2012, p. 79-96, Cotton 1981.

8 See for example Hildegard of Bingen’s letter 183 : obsecrans ut eum ad praesentiam tue

beatitudinis cum litteris commendaticiis dirigerem (Van Acker 1991, p. 413) and Peter the

Venerable’s letter 28 : monachos sine permissione abatis proprii aut litteris commendatitiis

indifferenter suscipitis, which echoes the above-mentioned passage of the Benedictine Rule

(Constable 1967, p. 55).

9 See Morelle 2009, p. 34-50, Gawlik 1991, coll. 2024-2025, Fiesel 1920, p. 157-167, Fabricius

1926, p. 39-86 and 168-194.

monastery, but is simply content with what he finds, he should be received for as long a time as he

wishes10.

Furthermore, the Regula declared that the monk could, « with all humility and love make some

reasonable criticisms or observations, which the abbot should prudently consider ; it is possible

that the Lord guided him to the monastery for this very purpose » 11. If the monk showed himself

to be a valuable member of the community, he was to be allowed to permanently join it, and

even « urged to stay, so that others may learn from his example » 12. It is therefore clear that such

a stay could be considered as beneficial for the host community ; on the other hand, the letters

attest that it could be perceived as beneficial for the monk himself, because it offered him the

opportunity to learn and to progress, and that it could even benefit the monk’s community of

origin when (and if) he came back, since he could share what he learned with his fellow brothers.

An interesting twelfth-century example is offered by a note of recommendation contained in a

letter sent by Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny, to Geoffrey, bishop of Châlons-en-

Champagne, between 1131 and 114313. In it, it is explicitly stated that the man is being sent to

10 Regula Benedicti 61, 1-3 : si quis monachus peregrinus de longinquis provinciis supervenerit,

si pro hospite voluerit habitare in monasterio et contentus est consuetudinem loci quam

invenerit et non forte superfluitate sua perturbat monasterium, sed simpliciter contentus est

quod invenerit, suscipiatur quanto tempore cupit (Pricoco 1995, p. 248).

11 Regula Benedicti 61, 4 : si qua sane rationabiliter et cum humilitate caritatis repraehendit aut

ostendit, tractet abbas prudenter, ne forte pro hoc ipsud eum Dominus direxerit.

12 Regula Benedicti 61, 8-2 : suscipiatur congregationi sociandus, verum etiam suadeatur ut stet,

ut eius exemplo alii erudiantur (Pricoco 1995, p. 250).

13 Constable 1967, ep. 79, p. 214.

the addressee so that he may receive an education. The learning experience is represented as a

transformation from a previous and inferior state to a superior one : thanks to the work of the

bishop, the man in question is to be made honest, wise, and literate (ut cum labore vestro probus,

sapiens, litteratus factus fuerit). It can be noted that Peter used plural verb forms for both himself

and for his addressee : if this is not a plural of humility in the former case, and a mark of respect

in the latter, then he was referring to the relationship between their two communities. In fact, it

seems likely that the accomplishment of the undertaking – that is, the successful education of the

man in question – was supposed to benefit not only Peter himself, but the whole community of

Cluny, to which the man had to be returned (ut […] nobis eum […] reconsignetis). This, by the

way, suggests that he was probably already a monk, or at the very least, that he was destined to

become one. To represent the fact that Cluny would benefit from the work done in Châlons,

Peter used metaphors from the world of agriculture, such as sowing and harvesting, grinding and

eating14 ;  this skilful rhetoric was used to stress and celebrate the work of the bishop (and,

probably, of his household) and the fruitful relations between Châlons and Cluny.

This letter also allows us to observe a recurring pattern with temporary stays in other

monasteries, that is, that they were rarely an isolated phenomenon :  rather, they were often

embedded in a network of contacts and exchanges between two communities. Sometimes we

learn this in passing, as in the letter in question, where Peter mentioned that after his stay in

Châlons, the man had to be given back to Cluny as it had already happened « for the other one » 

(nobis eum, sicut de altero fecistis, reconsignetis). In addition, the dynamics of the relations

between Cluny and Châlons were described in universal terms, by using the adverb semper,

always : « so that we always harvest what you sow ».

14 Ut semper quod vos spargitis, nos colligamus ; quod vos seritis, nos metamus ; quod vos

molitis, nos comedamus.

While in this specific case is not possible to reconstruct the careers, and even the names, of the

people involved in the exchanges, in others we can rely on various letters to track the monks who

travelled from one monastic institution to another and then back. One of such well-documented

example is offered by the exchanges which took place between the episcopal see of Canterbury,

and in particular the monastery of Christ Church of Canterbury, under the archbishop Lanfranc

(1070-1089) and the monastery of Bec, in Normandy, where Anselm was prior (1063-78) and

then abbot (1078-1093). As it is well known, Lanfranc had been prior at Bec when Anselm had

entered that monastery, attracted no doubt by the fame of his fellow countryman. When Lanfranc

was elected abbot of the Saint-Étienne at Caen (in the same region), Anselm succeeded him as

prior, much as he would one day succeed him as archbishop of Canterbury15. Anselm and

Lanfranc entertained a regular correspondence, which informs us about the contacts and the

exchanges between the two centers.

In the oldest letter to Lanfranc which is preserved in Anselm’s letter-collection, the then prior of

Bec congratulated his old friend for his election as archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, and

referred to the fact that several monks of Normandy (from the monasteries of Bec and Caen) had

followed him across the sea16 . Other letters allow us to learn the names of these monks and, in

some cases, to reconstruct their careers. Among the other men who later travelled from

Canterbury to Bec and back, an interesting case is that of Lanfranc’s nephew (also called

Lanfranc), who entered the monastery of Bec around 1073, and is mentioned in various letters.

The archbishop thanked Lanfranc for the warm welcome that the young men had received, and

15 On the relationship between these two men, see Southern 1990, p. 39-66.

16 Legant dilectissimi fratres nostri qui vobiscum sunt (Kohlenberger, Rochais 2004, ep. 1, p. 26-

28). Obviously, the Norman conquest of England, which had just taken place, must be kept in

mind.

Anselm’s answer clearly shows that the exchanges of men were one of the means through which

the two leaders entertained their friendly relationship :

You indicated that you were happy about the fact that I – not to mention the others – received our dearest

friend, your nephew, with great joy. I am, therefore, quite delighted at this joy of yours ; and the joy I felt

concerning our afore-mentioned friend has been renewed by growing, although it always thrives. And I

am even more pleased to realized that it has turned out according to your wish – and indeed I am not

ashamed to admit that I had this mainly in mind when I received him17.

In the same letter, Anselm referred to a monk of his, Maurice, who was spending a temporary

stay in Canterbury. In several letters, the prior hinted that he would have liked to have him back,

but bowed to Lanfranc’s will if the archbishop desired to keep Maurice with him a while longer.

This is particularly explicit in the letters addressed to Maurice himself, who clearly longed to

return to Bec : Anselm asked him to be patient and stressed the fact that they both needed to

obey Lanfranc and be in his good grace18. This helps us to understand how monastic exchanges

between two monasteries could affect the relationships between their leaders : on the one hand

17 Significastis vos inde laetos esse quia ego – ut de aliis taceam – dilectissimum nostrum,

nepotem vestrum, valde gaudens suscepi. Tanto igitur et hac vestra laetitia sum laetificatus, et

gaudium quod habueram de praedicto caro nostro, quamvis semper vigeat, augendo est

renovatum : quanto id – quod non verecundor fateri me scilicet ex magna parte illum sic

suscipiendo intendisse – ad votum provenisse cognovi (Kohlenberger, Rochais 2004, ep. 32, p.

112). I use here the English translation in Fröhlich 1990, p. 127.

18 Cuius voluntati nos oboedire oportet (Kohlenberger, Rochais 2004, ep. 42, p. 140) and eius

semper nobis amplectenda gratia (Kohlenberger, Rochais 2004, ep. 43, p. 142).

they could mark and foster a friendship, but on the other hand there was always the risk that they

could damage it, for example if one of the parties was offended by something. The fact that

the « visiting monk » was a pawn in a larger game does not, however, mean that his personal

needs were not taken into consideration : in discussing the length of Maurice’s stay in

Canterbury, Anselm also declared that they also had to take into account what was advantageous

for him (quod tibi expedit)19.

An important means of helping monks to adjust to life in a new community was to recommend

them to one or more people who already lived there. When Maurice had left Bec for Canterbury,

Anselm had recommended him to many people there : beside of course Lanfranc, also to Henry,

a former monk of Bec who had become prior of the monastery of Christ Church, to Gundulf,

another monk of Bec who had followed Lanfranc and was now at Christ Church, to Herluin, who

had himself been the beneficiary of a letter of recommendation addressed to the prior Henry

when he had moved from Bec to Canterbury, as well as to a lay doctor, Albert, whose

professional help Anselm later requested for Lanfranc the younger.20 The names of these men,

together with those of the others who later travelled from Canterbury to Bec and vice versa,

reappear throughout the letter-collection, which helps us to understand the importance of this

network in Anselm’s life and action.

In the case of Lanfranc the younger, his uncle recommended him to Anselm, to whom he asked

to take particular care of him for two reasons. Firstly, he had recently entered monastic life –

which as clearly perceived as a delicate stage of life – and secondly he was at an age where,

according to the letter-writer, a young man was « racked inwardly by many different temptations

19 Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 43, p. 142 and ep. 69, p. 210.

20 Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 32-36, p. 112-120.

through the suggestions of evil spirits assailing him and tormented by the itching of the flesh in

many different ways within and without ».21

In a later letter, Anselm reassured the archbishop that his nephew was doing well in the

monastery, behaving in an irreproachable way and showing a positive attitude toward his fellow

monks22. The successful adaptation to life in the community is represented through the reference

of the creation of friendly bonds : the young man is described as lovable to everyone for his

merits, and as having won the affection both of his superior (Anselm) and of the whole

community.23 In the same letter the prior referred to the progresses of two other men who had

come from Canterbury. He told Anselm that Wido, because of his particular talents, had been

charged of teaching the young boys, which clearly shows that welcoming him was profitable for

Bec24. In discussing the matter, the prior stressed that not only those who now possessed Wido

should rejoice, but also those who had formed him – which constitutes another example of the

use of the rhetoric of mutual benefit to representi monastic exchanges25.

21 Quia accedens ad servitutem Dei et maxime id aetatis homo multis variisque temptationibus

per temptatorum spirituum suggestiones intrinsecus laniatur, multis diversisque carnis

titillationibus intus et exterius cruciatur (Clover, Gibson 1979, ep. 18, p. 96-98).

22 Sic utique cavet a quibus est cavendum, ut nulli nostrum iure videatur reprehensibilis ; sic

studet humili benignitati et benignae humilitati (Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 39, p. 130).

23 Sic quieti et silentio atque orationi, ut merito sit omnibus amabilis. Vnde certe cotidie et ipse

me de se laetum facit laetiorem, et ego ilium - ut de communi proximorum dilectione taceam -

vestro et suo merito dilectum habeam dilectorem.

24 Domnum vero Widonem, quem magisterio puerorum addidimus, sic suavis commendat

oboedientia et in strenuitate humilitas (Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, p. 132).

25 Ut pariter gloriari possimus et vos per quem, et nos qui eum talem habemus.

The other man mentioned in this letter is Osbern, for whom also Anselm had words of praise :

Your Dom Osbern, in fact, daily develops (pinguescit – literally, to grow fat or rich) admirably, both in

his fervor for prayer seasoned with a sense of joy in his progress in knowledge (scientiae profectu)

through perseverance in study, coolness of thinking, and a tenacious memory26.

The vocabulary of learning is clearly crucial, and education appears to be perceived as a highly

individualised process of moral, intellectual and spiritual improvement. A surprising side to this

story is that only a later letter, and precisely the one with which Anselm sent Osbern back to

Canterbury (recommending him to the prior Henri), allows us to find out the true reason why this

man had been sent to spend some time in Bec. We learn that Osbern had been sent away from his

monastery of Christ Church because of the bad behavior that he had displayed there, in the hope

that the stay in Bec may have an educational and corrective effect on him27 ; a pratice which is

attested elsewhere28.

26 Domnus Osbernus vester utique et pietatis affectu hilaritate conditio et in dies venerabiliter

pinguescit, et scientiae profectu per studii instantiam et ingenii serenitatem tenacemque

memoriam cotidie laudabiliter crescit, trans. Fröhlich 1990, p. 140.

27 Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 67, p. 206, see below.

28 See for example two letters of the Benedictine abbot Geoffrey of Vendôme : fratrem hunc cum

litteris nostris ad vos mittere curavimus ut eum ad salutem animae suae in congregatione vestra

recipiatis, si tamen recipere vultis. Diu enim, ut ipse bene nostis, nobiscum fuit, sed mores suos

iuxta desiderium nostrum corrigere noluit, and praesentium latorem vestrae bonitatis

transmittimus, quatinus eum in congregatione vestra ad salutem animae vestrae ad salutem

animae suae, si vulitis, recipiatis […] Diu etenim nobiscum fuit et pravos mores suos semper

In the case of Osbern, the goal seems to have been achieved : Anselm declared that he now

regretted and condemned his past mistakes, and burned with the desire of a praiseworthy life. In

Anselm’s judgement, he had achieved or was about to achieve that redeeming transformation of

the inner man which was frequently associated with successful monastic formation in the

monastic texts of this period29.

This brief overview of some monastic exchanges which are attested by Anselm and Lanfranc’s

correspondence offered a wide range of situations, from the case of a « bad monk » sent to

another monastery in the hope that he may reform himself to that of « good monks » who were

supposed to improve themselves even more and to make themselves appreciated and useful in

the host community. To try and understand in a better way why such exchanges could benefit

both communities, I will now focus on the learning practices which could take place in the

everyday life of these « visiting monks » .

In recommending his nephew to Anselm, Lanfranc of Canterbury had some practical suggestions

concerning how the prior could help the young man in adapting to monastic life. He did not ask

Anselm to mentor the young Lanfranc individually, but simply to allow him to share as much as

possible in his informal talk (ut vestri eum colloquii participem sepissime faciatis) and to direct

all those whose teachings could do him good to converse with him on every appropriate occasion

emendare contempsit, sed bonum quod apud nos diutius facere distulit apud vos forsitan facere

curabit (Giordanengo 1996, ep. 11, p. 20 and ep. 13, p. 23 respectively).

29 Dilectus meus, domnus Osbernus vester, qui ad vos ducitur, sic pristinae vitae perversitatem

sponte accusat et exsecratur, atque, inquantum ex ea quam nobiscum habuit conversatione

palam et secrete experiri potui, sic vitae laudabilis amore accenditur, ut non immerito interior

eius homo in melius aut iam mutatus aut procul dubio facile mutandus existimetur (Kohlenberger

& Rochais 2004, ep. 67, p. 206).

(omnesque quorum doctrina salubris ei esse potest colloqui cum eo quotiens expedit iubeatis).

Such informal conversations were clearly perceived as an important and effective means of

teaching and learning. One of their advantages was probably their adaptability to the needs of

each learner and to his progress : for example, Lanfranc the younger could go from the condition

of a simple listener to an increasingly active participation to the conversations of Anselm’s circle

of friends in Bec.

Another interesting description of learning pratices concerning visiting monks can be found in a

letter which Anselm addressed to Maurice during the latter’s stay in Canterbury, telling him to

seize the opportunity to learn some things that he did not learn in Bec. Specifically, Maurice was

invited to profit from the presence in Canterbury of master Arnulf, a specialist in grammar :

I have learned that Dom Arnulf is giving you lessons. If this is so I am delighted ; as you may have

noticed, I have always wanted to see you make progress, and now I desire it more than ever. I have also

heard that he excels in declensions ; now, as you know, it has always been a hard chore for me to decline

with children, and I am aware that in this science you made less progress with me than you should have. I

send you, then, as my dearest son, this word of advice, this plea : everything you may read with him, or in

any other way, apply yourself to declining it with care30.

30 Audivi quod legas a domno Arnulfo. Quod si verum est, placet mihi qui semper profectum

tuum, sicut ipse ex parte expertus es, desideravi, nec unquam utique plus quam modo. Audivi

quoque quod ipse multum valeat in declinatione, et tu scis quia molestum mihi semper fuerit

pueris declinare, unde valde minus quam tibi expediret, scio te apud me in declinandi scientia

profecisse. Hortor itaque, et precor, et ut filio charissimo praecipio, quatenus quidquid ab eo

legeris, et quidquid aliud poteris, diligentissime declinare studeas (Kohlenberger & Rochais

2004, ep. 64, p. 192). I use here the English translation available in Murphy 1980, p. 168). The

It is clear that Anselm had taught Maurice in the past, and that he continued to feel the

responsibility of advising him on how to progress further. He took the blame for the

shortcomings in Maurice’s grammatical instruction, and encouraged him to seize this opportunity

to fill the gaps. In facts, he even suggested that Maurice should focus on the books which he had

not studied with Anselm31.

To express the notion of Maurice’s training under Arnulf’s guidance, Anselm used the

expression « to read with someone » (legere ab aliquo), which usually indicated a master’s

reading and explaining the texts to one or more pupils32. However, in the kind of reading implied

by this letter, the learners were not simple listeners : there is a specific reference to the exercise

of the declinatio, where the readers inflected the nouns or conjugated the verbs which they found

in the text. A mature learner such as Maurice may even have experimented with possible

variations of a given sentence, and his interaction with the master probably resembled more a

learned conversation than a classroom lecture to young pupils.

The other letters addressed by Anselm to Maurice attest that he was expected to come back to

Bec with more than a perfected knowledge of Latin grammar and literature : he had to copy

books which were only available in Canterbury and bring back the manuscripts for his

monastery’s library. The prior gave Maurice his opinion regarding which texts he should copy,

Arnulf mentioned here was probably a monk of the abbey of Saint-Lucien (Beauvais), whose

name is more frequently spelled as  « Ernulf » , see Sharpe 2009, p. 27 n. 69.

31 Volo quatenus ut fiat quantum potes, satagas, et praecipue de Virgilio et aliis auctoribus, quos

a me non legisti (Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 64, p. 192).

32 Leclercq 1996, p. 120.

depending on the time at his disposal : the usefulness of the books was important, but the good

quality of the copy even more.

I shall be glad if you are able to copy the whole of the commentary to the Aphorisms but if not, I

admonish you not to leave out those words which are in Greek or uncommon. You are pondering how

much time you should spend on the little book De pulsibus, but I would prefer you spend whatever time

there is in completing the Aphorisms. Knowledge of that [other] little volume is of no use except to those

who delve into it most frequently and diligently. If you can copy anything else after the Aphorisms and

this book, I shall accept it gratefully. About both these undertaking I admonish you that whatever you do

the copy should deserve, by very diligent and careful execution, to be called perfect. For I would prefer

part of an obscure and unusual work faithfully copied than the whole of it corrupted by mistakes.33

While these letters help us understanding one of the means through which intellectual exchanges

between monasteries could take place, a reflection on the educational value of monastic

exchanges would not be complete if it did not take into account moral and spiritual training. In

33 Glosas Aphorismi si omnes potes scribere gaudeo ; sin autem, eas quae sunt Graecorum aut

inusitatorum nominum ne deseras admoneo. Quod tamen temporis in libello de pulsibus

insumere deliberas, malo ut ad perficiendum quidquid est in aphorismo impendas. Non enim

eiusdem libelli scientia utilis est, nisi frequentissimo et diligentissimo usu se illa occupantibus.

Si quid tamen post aphorismum, et de hoc potes, libenter accipio. De utroque hoc praecipue

moneo ut quidquid feceris studiosissima exquisitione correctum, dignum sit dici perfectum. Malo

enim in ignota inusitataque scriptura partem integram veritate, quam totum corruptum falsitate

(Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 60, p. 180, trans. Fröhlich 1990, p. 173). See also ep. 43, p.

142-143, which repeats many of the same ideas.

fact, as we have already seen in Peter the Venerable’s letter, the acquisition of the knowledge of

the litterae was always supposed to go hand in hand with the mores, as it had been studied

especially with reference to the secular and canonical world34. This analysis of references to

education in letters dealing with monastic exchanges allow us to observe that the link between

intellectual and moral training was crucial for monastic conceptions of education as well :

according to Peter the Venerable’s letter of recommendation the man was to be made not only

litteratus, but also honest and wise, and Anselm’s letters are no exception. They attest that while

someone’s moral improvement could be a goal in itself (as in the case of Osbern’s stay in Bec),

when someone’s intellectual education is discussed, there is always a reference to moral and

spiritual matters, too. In fact, Anselm made clear that, during Maurice’s stay, his spiritual and

moral achievements were even more important than his intellectual ones :

Above all, I thank you as much as I can, because wherever you are you live in a way which honors me,

also living among unknown and foreign people, for having nurtured such a disciple, although not I but the

Holy Spirit has taught you. In any case, the more you have been tested and found worthy in dangerous

company, the more you will be dear to God and God’s friends.35

34 See Jaeger 1994, p. 49-52 and Münster-Swendsen 2008, p. 43-64.

35 Ante omnia gratias tibi, quantas possum, ago ; quia ubicumque sic vivis, ut quamquam non

ego, sed Spiritus sanctus te bene vivere docuerit, tamen honor mihi etiam sit inter ignotos et

alienigenas talem nutrisse discipulum. Tanto utrique eris Deo et amicis Dei charior, quanto

fueris in periculosa conversatione inventus probatior (Kohlenberger & Rochais 2004, ep. 60, p.

182, trans. Fröhlich 1990, p. 173).

Anselm was acknowledging that being away from one’s own community always presented a

risk : therefore, a monk’s stay could also serve as a test of his character. At the same time,

Maurice’s good conduct in Canterbury was a testimony of the instruction that he had received in

Bec, which suggests that visiting monks could be seen as living advertisement, « poster boys » of

their communities. In fact, in some cases, the exchanges seem to have planned specifically so

that the monks could spread customs and traditions, affecting the host community by making it

more similar to their community of origin – that is, as the sources often say, by « reforming » it.

For example, Peter of Celle, while he was abbot of the monastery of Saint-Remi in Reims, sent

some of his monks to the priory of Lapley, which was experiencing serious difficulties. In two

letters addressed to the prior of Worcester between 1162 and 1173, he presented the monks that

was sending, stressing their qualities, which he clearly regarded as crucial for the success of the

undertaking : We are sending then from our presence brother Absalon whose diligence we have

experienced in many things and by whose zeal, if the grace of God be with him, we hope those

ruins will be repaired and changed for the better36. While Absalon was replacing the prior of

Laplay, other monks seem to have been sent simply to offer to the community the example of

their good behavior, since Peter states : I am sending from our presence brothers of intact

reputation among us, whose manner of life, if presentiments of good things can be apprehended

from past ones, we believe will be good and honest in your land37.

36 Mittimus itaque a latere nostro fratrem Absalonem cuius industriam in multis experti sumus et

cuius studio si ei gratia Dei affuerit ruinas illas reparandas et in melius commutandas speramus

(Haseldine 2001, ep. 111, p. 438).

37 Mitto autem a latere nostro fratres integre hactenus apud nos reputationis, quorum

conversationem, si de preteritis futurorum presagia apprehenduntur, bonam in terra vestra

credimus futuram et honestam (Haseldine 2001, ep. 112, p. 440).

Even more interesting for the purpose of the present article is the fact that monks could spend

time away from their monastery specifically to be instructed so that they could, later on, go back

to their community and spread what they had learned. A very famous case is that of the Irish

monks that Bernard of Clairvaux welcomed in his monastery for this purpose, as we learn from

the letters that he exchanged with Malachy, archbishop of Armagh and former abbot of Bagor.

The latter visited Clairvaux around 1140, and left there four of his companions, who were

supposed to be instructed in the Cistercian way of life, so that they could later spread it in Ireland

by establishing a new monastic foundation. Some time later, Malachy sent Bernard other men

and asked him to send back two of the brothers who had been receiving training in Clairvaux, in

the hope that they could begin the work and later be joined by the others. The abbot’s reply was

probably disappointing for the bishop : he explained that, after consulting with his community,

he did not believe that it would be wise to send the monks in question back yet, because they

were not ready and still had much to learn :

With regard to your wish that I should send you two of the brothers to prepare a place, I have discussed it

with the brethren and we are agreed that it would not be well for them to be separated from us until Christ

is more fully formed in them, until they fully trained (doceantur) to fight for the Lord. When they have

been instructed in the school of the Holy Ghost (in schola Sanctus Spiritus eruditi), when they are clothed

with strength from on high, then they will return to their father to sing the songs of the Lord no longer in a

strange land but in their own38.

38 Duximus non eos separandos ab invicem, donc plenius in eis formetur Christus, donec ad

integrum doceantur proeliari proelia Domini. Cum igitur fuerint in schola Sanctus Spiritus

eruditi, cum induti virtute ex alto, tunc demum ad patrem filii revertentur, ut cantent canticum

Domini, non iam in terra aliena, sed in sua (Gastaldelli 1987, ep. 341, p. 387-388, trans. Scott

As it can be seen, once again the learning appears to be conceived as an individualized process of

personal improvement, where the inner man is gradually shaped in Christ’s image. There is no

mention of a formal training that men in question may have been receiving, and it is seems to be

implied that the simple fact of living in Clairvaux and interacing on a daily basis with its

community was having a transformative impact on these men, who could not be separated from

it precisely because their instruction was not yet complete. As in Osbern’s case, the successful

education is represented as a transformation into new men (novos de veteribus homines) :

renewal was, in fact, a concept frequently associated with religious education, and in particular

with novitiate39. Bernard also used agricultural metaphors to represent the exchange, exactly as

Peter the Venerable had done: « blessed for ever be the name of the Lord by whose gift it has

come about that we have sons in common whom your teaching has planted, my exhortations

have watered, and to whom God has given increase »40. In the letter with which he finally sent

the monks back to Ireland, Bernard referred to them as seeds and inverted the metaphor : now

Malachy had to continue watering what Bernard has planted41.

James 1998, p. 252).

39 For example, the Cistercian abbot Adam of Perseigne described monastic formation as

quomodo scilicet noviter conversi de saeculo in novum hominem valeant reformari (Bouvet

1960, ep. 5, p. 112).

40 Sit nomen Domini benedictum in saecula, de cuius munere venit ut communes habeam filios

vobiscum, quos vestra praedicatio plantavit, nostra exhortatio rigavit, Deus autem incrementum

dedit.

41 Itaque ego seminavi, rigate vos, et Deus incrementum dabit (Gastaldelli 1987, ep. 356, p. 414).

This monastic exchange was followed by another, as we learn from a later letter of Bernard’s

that some monks of Clairvaux had been sent to spend time in the new Irish foundation. However,

a disagreement soon arose between the French monks and the Irish, and the former came back to

Clairvaux. Bernard wrote to Malachy to tell him that he regretted his monks’ decision and to

express his concerns for the new foundation, which he considered still fragile and in need of

special care. Therefore, he explained that he would have liked for monks of Clairvaux to be

there, but claimed that it was not easy for him to find, within his community, monks willing to

go to Ireland. Nevertheless, he sent two :

I have sent back to you my very dear son Christian, having instructed him as well as I could in the

observances of our Order, and I hope that in future he will be more careful about them. Do not be

surprised that I have not been able to send many with him, for I could not find many suitable men who

were willing to go, and I was loath to oblige them to do so against their will. My dear brother Robert

acceded to my request this time like an obedient son. It will be your business to help him in the buildings

and other things necessary for the well being of your house42.

42 Carissimum filium nostrum Christianum et vestrum remisimus ad vos, quantum potuimus

instructum plenius in his quae ad Ordinem pertinent, et de cetero circa observantias eius

sollicitiorem futurum, ut speramus. Nec mire mini , quod non plures cum eo misimus fratres,

quoniam nec idoneos invenimus fratres, qui facile acquiescerent, nec invitos cogere cons ilium

fuit. Dilectissimus frater noster Robertus precibus nostris acquievit etiam hac vice, tamquam

filius oboedientiae. Vestrum erit iuvare eum, ut possit iam in aedificiis et in ceteris necessariis

promo veri domus vestra (Gastaldelli 1987, ep. 357, p. 418, trans. Scott James 1998, p. 454-455).

The monks in question had clearly been assigned different roles : while Christian, having been

instructed in the observances of the Cistercian order, was probably charged with spreading and

enforcing their traditions, Robert seems to have been responsible for more practical matters,

perhaps with overseeing the construction of the buildings which were necessary to the

monastery. Once more, individual traits and talents were taken in consideration in monastic

exchanges, to determine how the stays could be most beneficial both for the visiting monks and

for the communities.

Overall, I believe that even the few examples which have been cited so far suffice to show that

monastic journeys could have educational purposes, if we interpret education in the broad sense

which is attested by the sources themselves. In fact, the letters use the vocabulary of learning and

teaching for a wide range of situations and contents, from the adaptation to monastic life to the

mastery of Latin grammar and to the knowledge of Cistercian traditions. Notwithstanding this

variety, the cases which have been cited on the basis of preserved eleventh and twelfth-century

monastic letters share various common traits : first of all, the exchanges were not isolated, but

represented a part of existing relationships between two communities, and – especially – their

leaders. Secondly, they are often represented as being beneficial for different parties : the monks

themselves, the host community and the community of origin.

Another important element is that education doesn’t seem to take place solely through formal

means (that is, through the hierarchical, vertical and one-way transmission of a corpus of

knowledge by a master in a formal setting), but also through informal and shared ones, where

various people were involved and non-written means of communicating and co-constructing

knowledge, such as friendly conversation and participation in communal activities, played a

crucial role43. This was a very flexible kind of teaching and learning, which could be adapted to

the individual because it took into account his strengths and weaknesses. Social interaction

between the newcomers and the members of the hosting community clearly played a crucial

role : conversations, as we have seen, could be an important means of learning. In addition, the

fact that simply living in a certain community seems to have been perceived as potentially

having a transformative effect suggests that that the learning process could take place through the

visiting monks’ participation – probably passive at first, but then increasingly active – to the

activities of the host community : not only attending mass or listening to the readings, but also

walking around the monastery and eating in the refectory, since all these activities had to be

performed in the proper way44. Differences clearly existed between the uses and traditions of

various communities, and yet the sources do not mention that visiting monks received a formal

training for this purpose (as it happened for young boys in a designated school) ; therefore, it can

be supposed that they were expected to learn by imitating their fellow monks and by relying on

their help and correction whenever necessary. In this way, the monastery itself acted as a school

(according to the ideal of the schola Christi presented in the Benedictine Rule)45, through all its

spiritual, intellectual, social, and manual activities : monastic life was inherently an  « 

educational  »  one.46

43 The importance of non-written forms of communication in the monastic world has long been

acknowledged, see Kasper, Schreiner 1997, Vanderputten 2011.

44 In these sense, medieval monasteries can be interpreted as « communities of pratice » , see

Vanderputten 2016 and Long, 2017.

45 See Regula Benedicti, Prologus, 45 : Constituenda est ergo nobis dominici schola servitii

(Pricoco 1995, p. 124).

46 See Leclercq 1992, p. 279–98, Southern 1982, p. 115.

Final bibliography

Basdevant, Gaudemet 1989 = Les canons des conciles mérovingiens (VIe-VIIe siècles), ed. B.

Basdevant, J. Gaudemet, Paris, 1989.

Bouvet 1960 = Adam de Perseigne, Lettres, éd. J. Bouvet, Paris, 1960.

Clover, Gibson 1979 = The letters of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. H. Clover, M.

T. Gibson, Oxford, 1979.

Constable 1967 = The letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable, Cambridge, 1967.

Cotton 1981 = H. Cotton, Documentary letters of recommendation in Latin from the Roman

Empire, Konigstein im Taunus, 1981.

De Jong 1996 = M. De Jong, In Samuel’s image : child oblation in the early medieval West,

Leiden – New York – Cologne, 1996.

Elliott 1997 = A brief introduction to medieval Latin grammar, in Medieval Latin, ed. by K.P.

Harrington, Chicago - London, 1997 p. 1-51.

Fabricius 1926 = C. Fabricius, Die Litterae Formatae im Frühmittelalter, in Archiv für

Urkundenforschung, 9, 1926, p. 39-86 and p. 168-194.

Fiesel 1920 = L. Fiesel, Die kirchlichen Empfehlungsbriefe und das kirchlichklösterliche

Geleitswesen, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte : Kanonistische Abteilung,

10, 1920, p. 157-167.

Fröhlich 1990 = W. Fröhlich, The letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Kalamazoo, 1990.

Gastaldelli 1987 = Opere di san Bernardo 6/2. Lettere 211-548, ed. F. Gastaldelli, Milano,

1987.

Gawlik 1991 = A. Gawlik, Litterae formatae, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, V, Stuttgart, 1991,

coll. 2024-2025.

Giordanengo 1996 = Geoffroy de Vendôme, Œuvres, ed. G. Giordanengo, Paris, 1996.

Haseldine 2001 = The letters of Peter of Celle, ed. J. Haseldine, Oxford, 2001.

Jaeger 1994 = C.S. Jaeger, The envy of angels : cathedral schools and social ideals in

medieval Europe, Philadelphia, 1994.

Kasper, Schreiner 1997 = Viva vox und ratio scripta : mündliche und schriftliche

Kommunikationsformen im Mönchtum des Mittelalters, ed. C.M Kasper, K. Schreiner, Münster,

1997.

Kohlenberger, Rochais 2004 = L’œuvre de S. Anselme de Cantorbéry 6. Lettres 1 à 147

(Priorat et abbatiat au Bec), ed. H. Kohlenberger, H. Rochais, Paris, 2004.

Leclercq 1992 = J. Leclercq, La communauté formatrice selon St. Bernard de Clairvaux, in J.

Leclerq, Recueil d’études sur saint Bernard et ses écrits, V, Rome, 1992, p. 279–98.

Leclercq 1996 = J. Leclercq, The love of learning and the desire for God : a study of monastic

culture, New York, 1996.

Long 2017= M. Long, High medieval monasteries as communities of practice : approaching

monastic learning through letters, in Journal of religious history, 41, 2017, p. 42–59.

Morelle 2009 = L. Morelle, Sur les « papiers » du voyageur au haut Moyen Âge : lettres de

recommandation et lettres dimissoires en faveur des clercs, in Se déplacer du Moyen Âge à nos

jours : Actes du 6e colloque européen de Calais, 2006-2007, ed. S. Curveiller, L. Buchard,

Calais, 2009, p. 34-50

Münster-Swendsen 2008 = M. Münster-Swendsen, Medieval ‘virtuosity’ : classroom practice

and the transfer of charismatic power in medieval scholarly culture c. 1000–1230, in

Negotiating heritage : memories of the Middle Ages, ed. S. Glaser, M. Birkedal Bruun, Turnhout,

2008, p. 43-63.

Murphy 1980 = J. Murphy, The teaching of Latin as a second language in the twelfth century,

in Studies in medieval linguistic thought : dedicated to Geoffrey L. Bursill-Hall on the occasion

of his sixtieth birthday on 15 May 1980, ed. G.L. Bursill-Hall, E.F. K. Koerner, H.-J. Niederehe,

and R.H. Robins, Amsterdam, 1980, p. 159-175.

Pricoco 1995 = La Regola di san Benedetto e le Regole dei Padri, ed. S. Pricoco, Milano,

1995.

Rees 2007, = R. Rees, Letters of recommendation and the rhetoric of praise, in Ancient

letters. Classical and late antique epistolography, ed. R. Morello, A. Morrison, Oxford, 2007, p.

149-168.

Scott James 1998 = The letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. B. Scott James, Kalamazoo,

1988.

Sharpe 2009 = R. Sharpe, Anselm as author : publishing in the late eleventh century in

Journal of medieval latin, 19, 2009, p. 1-87.

Southern 1982 =R.W. Southern, The schools of Paris and the school of Chartres, in

Renaissance and renewal in the twelfth century, ed. R.L. Benson, G. Constable and C.D.

Lanham, Cambridge (Mass.), 1982, p. 113-137.

Southern 1990 = R. Southern, Saint Anselm : a portrait in a landscape, Cambridge 1990.

Van Acker 1991 = Hildegardis Bingensis Epistolarium. Pars secunda (91-250r), ed. L.

Van Acker, Turnhout 1993 (Corpus christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis, 91A).

Vanderputten 2011 = Understanding monastic practices of oral communication (Western

Europe, tenth-thirteenth centuries), ed. S. Vanderputten, Turnhout, 2001.

Vanderputten 2016 = S. Vanderputten, Communities of practice and emotional aspects of

loyalty in reformist circles of the tenth and eleventh centuries, in Loyalty in the Middle Ages.

Ideal and practice of a cross-social value, ed. J. Sonntag and C. Zermatten, Turnhout, 2016, pp.

279–303.

Wathen 1975 = A. Wathen, Conversatio and stability in the Rule of saint Benedict, in

Monastic Studies, 11, 1975, 1-44.

Wilcox 2012 = A. Wilcox, The gift of correspondence in classical Rome. Friendship in

Cicero’s Ad familiares and Seneca’s Moral epistles, Madison, 2012, p. 79-96.