| Origin and Character of the Order §1 |
| Golden Age of the Order §2 |
| Gradual Decay of the Order §3 |
| History Since the Reformation §4 |
A certain Robert (d. 1108; life in ASB, Apr., iii 662-678) retired from his position as prior at Montier Ia Cells to become head of a company of anchorites in the forest of Molême, northwest of Dijon. The monks objected to his strict rule, however, and in 1098 with twenty followers he withdrew and founded a monastery at Cîteaux (Lat. Cistercium, 20 m. s.e. of Dijon) in Burgundy. §1 A papal command required him to return to Molême (1099), and he was succeeded as abbot at Cîteaux by Alberic, who composed the Instituta monachorum Cisterciensium de Molismo venientium Alberic was succeeded by the able and pious Englishman Harding (or Stephen; see HARDING) who came near seeing the end of the monastery for want of novices. But the entrance of the young Bernard (see BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX) and thirty of his friends brought a change. From this time on the number of monks increased and daughter monasteries were established at La Ferté, 1113; Pontigny,1114; Morimud,
|
120 |
and Clairvaux, 1115. Bernard became abbot of the last. To these establishments others were added by Cîteaux and the daughter foundations. It soon appeared necessary to regulate the relation of the monasteries to one another, and this was done in a manner which formed a new stage in the development of monasticism; for the first time a union of monasteries was effected by a formal constitution. The Charta charitatis, the result of the deliberations of the abbots, formed the basis, which was further expanded by resolutions of subsequent general chapters.
The characteristic peculiarities of the order may be comprised in the following points: (1) A strict observance of the letter of the rule of Benedict. (2) The greatest simplicity, even poverty, in the mode of life; the very churches should be devoid of all show and adornment. (3) The subsistence of the monasteries to be derived exclusively from agriculture and cattle-raising an arrangement from which sprang the importance that the order obtained in the cultivation of the land and colonization. (4) Besides the monks, lay brothers (conversi, laici, barbati) are also to be received; as the monk, in accordance with the regulations, while not freed entirely from labor, has mostly to devote himself to devotion and choir-service, so the lay brother is chiefly occupied with manual labor; the example of Mary and Martha is often quoted; there were also laborers (mercenarii, afterward called familiares) mentioned as early as the statutes of Alberie, who were freemen serving for pay (since the possession of serfs was precluded on principle). (5) As concerns the relation of parent and daughter monasteries, each monastery has a certain authority over its filiations. At the head stands Cîteaux, but the four oldest under-monasteries also enjoy an exceptional position: their abbots visit the mother monastery once every year, and with Cîteaux, one of them stands at the head of each of the five divisions (lineæ) of the order. But all these authorities are subject to the general chapter, which meets annually at ´Cîteaux, in which all abbots have a voice, and which has not only the highest legislative power, but also the decision in all cases of questions which may arise. (6) It was considered highly important at the beginning that there should be no loosening of diocesan bonds. The foremost representative of this idea is Bernard (cf. De moribus et officiis, ix 33-37, in MPL, clxxxii 830-834; De Consid., III iv 4-18). Afterward, however, this principle was greatly neglected. In almost all these regulations can be perceived contrast to those of the Cluniacensians, and this contrast was intentional, for the latter were considered as having apostatized from the true nature of monasticism. Bernard also at first was severe and bitter against them (Epist., i), but later he was much more lenient (Apol. ad Guill.). Peter the Venerable of Cluny was still more friendly (cf. e.g., his Epist., i 28, in MPL, clxxxix 112-159; iv 17 ccxxxix of the letters of Bernard, MPL, clxxxii 398-417). Thus the tension was relaxed, but did not disappear altogether. Devotion to the Virgin Mary, the tendency of the time, was not only accepted by the Cistercians, but their fervency nature heightened it. Mary is the patroness of the order; the general chapter of 1134 declares that all churches of the order shall be dedicated to her, and it devoted to her a special liturgical office on Saturday.
The golden age of the order extends to the second half of the thirteenth century. §2 Different causes contributed to a powerful growth of the order: besides the monastic tendency of the age, there were especially the personality and the labor of Bernard, who is considered as the real saint of the order, and from him the Cistercians are frequently called Bernardines. Pious contemplation was coupled with activity in agriculture and strictly regulated authoritative relations and government, in which all took part. At the death of Bernard the number of convents was 288, and in vain did the general chapter try to stop their increase; at the end of the century there were 529 abbeys, to which were added yet 142 in the thirteenth century until about 1270. Then began a standstill. During the fourteenth century forty-one were added, in the fifteenth century twenty-six, so that the whole number was 738 during the medieval period. In the mean time some foundations were discontinued: to the linea Clarævallis belong 353 (half of the entire number). From France to Hungary, Poland, and Livonia; from Sweden to Portugal; from Scotland to Sicily, Cistercian monasteries were found. During the period of prosperity the connection with Cîteaux and the other mother monasteries was maintained. In the outward construction of the monasteries as well as in the mode of life of the monks, especially in the regulation of religious worship, a conformity existed which united the Cistercians of the different countries among themselves and separated them from all other communities. In the Spanish peninsula the knightly orders of Alcantasa, Calatrava, and Truxillo (qq.v.); in Portugal the order of Aviz (q.v.) were connected with the Cistercians In northeastern Germany and further to the east the Cistercians rendered great service to civilization by their colonizing activity. Marshes were drained and forests were cleared; orchards and vineyards were planted on a gigantic scale; and cattle and sheep were raised. The improvement of its property was the principal aim of each monastery. This period has been lucidly described by Winter (cf., however, Hauck, KD, iv, Leipsic, 1903). During the twelfth century and into the middle of the thirteenth the Cistercians occupied an important position in the government of the Church. Not a few of them were made cardinals. Arnold of Cîteaux under Innocent III undertook the crusade against the Albigenses. as Innocent III charged them with so many things that the chapter of 1211 asked for moderation. Honorius III and lnnocent IV overwhelmed them with privileges.
In the task of influencing spiritually the masses the mendicant friars took precedence of the Cistercians. The great facility with which they went from place to place made them at the same time more efficient instruments for the popes.
|
121 |
Tension between the two orders is evident in the exclusion of the mendicant friars from the studies of the Cistercians, and in the rule that no member of the order should go to confession to a priest of another order. §3 Yet the decay of the order was due mainly and essentially to inner causes. The riches accumulated through industry and economy gradually exercised a detrimental influence on the life of the brothers. The remark of Cæsarius of Heisterbach (q.v.) on the ancient monasteries, "Religion brought forth riches, riches destroyed religion", proved true also with regard to the Cistercians. To this must be added the impossibility of further colonization. Deprived of its strongest outward incentive, the order rapidly declined in inner zeal and energy. The life became lax. General chapters sought to stem the tide, and popes also tried to interfere (as Clement IV in 1265 and Benedict XII in 1335). The fourteenth century and later witnessed the financial decay of many monasteries. Under the laxity of discipline and the increasing demoralization the former industry and strict economy suffered. While it proved impossible to reform the entire order, two new congregations were organized in the fifteenth century, the Congregatio regularis observantiæ regnorum Hispanicorum in Spain (1425) and the Congregatio Italica S. Bernardi, definitively confirmed by Julius II in 1511 in Lombardy and Tuscany, which separated almost entirely from the order and observed greater strictness. It must also be mentioned that, under the incitement of the mendicant friars, the Cistercians cultivated scientific pursuits to a certain degree and founded studia generalia, of which the college of St. Bernard at Paris was the most important. These measures, however, were not sufficient to induce scientific productiveness on a large scale, and services rendered by the Cistercians in that line are insignificant compared with those of the Dominicans and Franciscans.
§4 Through the Reformation the order lost all its possessions in England and Scotland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the greater part in Germany. It retained them in France, but after the concordat of 1516 it suffered under the appointment of abbots in commendam by the royal power. Even the Counterreformation did not help the order much: It had no more any important practical tasks, and the large body of the order proved incapable of returning to the austerity of ancient monasticism. Nevertheless, efforts of this kind were not wanting and led in part to the formation of new branches, such as the Congregatio Lusitana, confirmed in 1567 by Pius V, the Feuillants after 1506, who spread in France and Italy, and others in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The reform, surpassing in austerity even the Carthusians, which was introduced by Abbot Rancé in the monastery of La Trappe did not attain to much importance until after the French Revolution. From these branches must be distinguished the congregations, improperly so called, which united after the fashion of provinces, when the lines and the relation of filiation had lost much of their importance, such as the Polish or Pelpline and the Upper German, with the monastery Salem (Salmansweiler) as center. Many interesting details concerning conditions in the seventeenth century are learned from notes of a monk of Raittenhaslach (Drey Raisen nach Cistertz, Cistercienser-Chronik, iv,1892, 45 sqq.) in 1605, 1609, and 1615, and in Joseph Meglinger's Iter Cisterciense von 1667 (MPL, clxxxv 1565-1622), and from the journey of Abbot Laurentius Scipio of Ossegg to the general chapter in the year 1667 (Cistercienser-Chronik, viii, 1896, 289). In spite of all losses, the number of Cistercian monasteries was still great in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. From that time on the order received blows which left only a few scanty remains of this once powerful community. In Austria Joseph II confiscated a large number of the monasteries; the French Revolution dissolved the order in its mother country; its most venerable places, Cîteaux and Clairvaux, have since then been partly destroyed. New losses were caused by the decree of 1803 passed by the imperial deputation and by the secularization in Prussia in 1810. In 1834 the abbeys in Portugal and in 1835 those in Spain were abolished, and the like fate befell the Polish under Nicholas I On the other hand, a restoration of the former abbey Senanque in the Vaucluse took place in 1854, which was followed by the founding of some others.
At present the order consists of: I The Observantia communis, comprising (1) the Congregatio S. Bernardi in Italia; (2) the vicariate in Belgium; (3) the Austro-Hungarian province of the order; (4) the Swiss-German province. II. The Observantia media, to which belong (1) the congregation of Senanque; (2) the Trappenses mitigati of Casamari. III The Observantia stricta (Trappists), who, however, were entirely separated in 1892 from the jurisdiction of the general abbot chosen by the Observantia communis. More particulars concerning the present organization and rules of the different congregations are given in the article Ueber die Observanzen der Cistercienser in the Cistercienser-Chronik, vii (1895), 117 sqq.
S. M. DEUTSCH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The only reliable source for the early history of Cîteaux is the Exordium ordinis Cisterciensis (the so-called Exordium parvum), by Stephen Harding, in MPL, clxvi 1501-10. Of a partly legendary character is the Exordium magnum O. C., MPL, clxxxv. 995-1198. For the time from 115 to 1153 Bernard of Clairvaux and the older biographies of him must be consulted. An important source for the history of the order are the resolutions of the general chapters, of which the most oopious collection is is Martène and Durand, Thesaurus novus, iv 1243-1646, Paris, 1717. The basis of all later works on the order is L. Janauschek, Originum Cisterciensium, vol i, Vienna, 1877, containing the first trustworthy list of all Cistercian abbeys. Collections of the regulations of the order are contained in P. Guignard, Les Monuments primitifs de la règle Cistercienne, Dijon, 1878; Nomasticon seu antiquiores O. C. constitutiones a Juliano Paris, Fulcardimontis abbate collectæ, Paris, 1664, Editio nova . . . usque ad nostra tempora deducta a R. P. Hug. Séjalon, Solesmes, 1892. Consult further: C. de Visch, Bibliotheca scriptorum sacri O. C., Douai, 1649, Cologne, 1656; B. Tissier, Bibllotheca patrum Cisterciensium, 2 vols., Bonofonte, 1660-69; Angelus Manrique, Cisterciensium . . . annalium tomi iv, Lyons, 1642-59 (reaching to the year 1236; very important, yet to be
|
122 |
|
123 |
|
124 |
|
125 |
|
126 |
|
127 |
|
128 |
|
129 |
|
130 |
|
131 |
|
132 |
|
133 |
|
134 |
|
135 |
|
136 |
|
137 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Rettberg, KD, i. 324-325; H. Hahn, Jahrbucher des frankischen Reichs, pp. 67-82, Berlin, 1863; P. Jaffe, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum, iii. 133, 136-149, Berlin, 1866; J. H. A. Ebrard, Die iroschottische Missionskirche, Gutersloh, 1874; A. Werner, Bonifatius, pp. 113, 273, Leipsic, 1875; Hauck, KD, i. 511.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |