abbot and his monks were commanded to attend the nearest
church (Nocellae, 133, c. ii.). This rule naturally proved
inconvenient when a monastery was situated in a desert or at
a distance from a city, and necessity compelled the ordination
of abbots. This innovation was not introduced without a
struggle, ecclesiastical dignity being regarded as inconsistent
with the higher spiritual life, but, before the close of
the 5th century, at least in the East, abbots seem almost
universally to have become deacons, if not presbyters. The
change spread more slowly in the West, where the office of
abbot was commonly filled by laymen till the end of the 7th
century, and partially so up to the 11th. Ecclesiastical
councils were, however, attended by abbots. Thus at that
held at Constantinople, A.D. 448, for the condemnation of
Eutyches, 23 archimandrites or abbots sign, with 30 bishops,
and, c A.D. 690, Archbishop Theodore promulgated a
canon, inhibiting bishops from compelling abbots to attend
councils. Examples are not uncommon in Spain and in England
in Saxon times. Abbots were permitted by the second council
of Nicaea, A.D. 787, to ordain their monks to the inferior
orders. This rule was adopted in the West, and the strong
prejudice against clerical monks having gradually broken down,
eventually monks, almost without exception, took holy orders.
Abbots were originally subject to episcopal jurisdiction, and
continued generally so, in fact, in the West till the 11th
century. The Code of Justinian (lib. i. tit. iii. de Ep. leg.
xl.) expressly subordinates the abbot to episcopal oversight.
The first case recorded of the partial exemption of an abbot
from episcopal control is that of Faustus, abbot of Lerins,
at the council of Arles, A.D. 456; but the exorbitant claims
and exactions of bishops, to which this repugnance to episcopal
control is to be traced, far more than to the arrogance of
abbots, rendered it increasingly frequent, and, in the 6th
century, the practice of exempting religious houses partly or
altogether from episcopal control, and making them responsible
to the pope alone, received an impulse from Gregory the
Great. These exceptions, introduced with a good object, had
grown into a widespread evil by the 12th century, virtually
creating an imperium in imperio, and depriving the bishop
of all authority over the chief centres of influence in his
diocese. In the 12th century the abbots of Fulda claimed
precedence of the archbishop of Cologne. Abbots more and
more assumed almost episcopal state, and in defiance of the
prohibition of early councils and the protests of St Bernard and
others, adopted the episcopal insignia of mitre, ring, gloves and
sandals. It has been maintained that the right to wear mitres
was sometimes granted by the popes to abbots before the 11th
century, but the documents on which this claim is based are
not genuine (J. Braun, Liturgische Gewandung, p. 453). The
first undoubted instance is the bull by which Alexander II.
in 1063 granted the use of the mitre to Egelsinus, abbot of
the monastery of St Augustine at Canterbury (see MITRE). The
mitred abbots in England were those of Abingdon, St Alban's,
Bardney, Battle, Bury St Edmund's, St Augustine's Canterbury,
Colchester, Croyland, Evesham, Glastonbury, Gloucester,
St Benet's Hulme, Hyde, Malmesbury, Peterborough, Ramsey,
Reading, Selby, Shrewsbury, Tavistock, Thorney, Westminster,
Winchcombe, St Mary's York. Of these the precedence was
originally yielded to the abbot of Glastonbury, until in
A.D. 1154 Adrian IV. (Nicholas Breakspear) granted it to the
abbot of St Alban's, in which monastery he had been brought
up. Next after the abbot of St Alban's ranked the abbot of
Westminster. To distinguish abbots from bishops, it was ordained
that their mitre should be made of less costly materials,
and should not be ornamented with gold, a rule which was soon
entirely disregarded, and that the crook of their pastoral
staff should turn inwards instead of outwards, indicating
that their jurisdiction was limited to their own house.
The adoption of episcopal insignia by abbots was followed
by an encroachment on episcopal functions, which had to be
specially but ineffectually guarded against by the Lateran
council, A.D. 1123. In the East, abbots, if in priests'
orders, with the consent of the bishop, were, as we have
seen, permitted by the second Nicene council, A.D. 787,
to confer the tonsure and admit to the order of reader; but
gradually abbots, in the West also, advanced higher claims,
until we find them in A.D. 1489 permitted by Innocent
IV. to confer both the subdiaconate and diaconate. Of
course, they always and everywhere had the power of admitting
their own monks and vesting them with the religious habit.
When a vacancy occurred, the bishop of the diocese chose
the abbot out of the monks of the convent, but the right
of election was transferred by jurisdiction to the monks
themselves, reserving to the bishop the confirmation of the
election and the benediction of the new abbot. In abbeys
exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, the confirmation and
benediction had to be conferred by the pope in person, the house
being taxed with the expenses of the new abbot's journey to
Rome. By the rule of St Benedict, the consent of the laity
was in some undefined way required; but this seems never
to have been practically enforced. It was necessary that
an abbot should be at least 25 years of age, of legitimate
birth, a monk of the house, unless it furnished no suitable
candidate, when a liberty was allowed of electing from another
convent, well instructed himself, and able to instruct others,
one also who had learned how to command by having practised
obedience. In some exceptional cases an abbot was allowed
to name his own successor. Cassian speaks of an abbot in
Egypt doing this; and in later times we have another example
in the case of St Bruno. Popes and sovereigns gradually
encroached on the rights of the monks, until in Italy the
pope had usurped the nomination of all abbots, and the king in
France, with the exception of Cluny, Premontre and other
houses, chiefs of their order. The election was for life,
unless the abbot was canonically deprived by the chiefs of
his order, or when he was directly subject to them, by the
pope or the bishop. The ceremony of the formal admission of
a Benedictine abbot in medieval times is thus prescribed by
the consuetudinary of Abingdon. The newly elected abbot was
to put off his shoes at the door of the church, and proceed
barefoot to meet the members of the house advancing in a
procession. After proceeding up the nave, he was to kneel
and pray at the topmost step of the entrance of the choir,
into which he was to be introduced by the bishop or his
commissary, and placed in his stall. The monks, then kneeling,
gave him the kiss of peace on the hand, and rising, on the
mouth, the abbot holding his staff of office. He then put
on his shoes in the vestry, and a chapter was held, and
the bishop or his commissary preached a suitable sermon.
The power of the abbot was paternal but absolute, limited,
however, by the canons of the church, and, until the general
establishment of exemptions, by episcopal control. As a
rule, however, implicit obedience was enforced; to act
without his orders was culpable; while it was a sacred duty
to execute his orders, however unreasonable, until they were
withdrawn. Examples among the Egyptian monks of this blind
submission to the commands of the superiors, exalted into
a virtue by those who regarded the entire crushing of the
individual will as the highest excellence, are detailed by
Cassian and others,--- e.g. a monk watering a dry stick,
day after day, for months, or endeavouring to remove a huge
rock immensely exceeding his powers. St Jerome, indeed, lays
down, as the principle of the compact between the abbot and his
monks, that they should obey their superiors in all things,
and perform whatever they commanded (Ep. 2, ad Eustoch. de
custod. virgin.). So despotic did the tyranny become in the
West, that in the time of Charlemagne it was necessary to
restrain abbots by legal enactments from mutilating their
monks and putting out their eyes; while the rule of St
Columban ordained 100 lashes as the punishment for very slight
offences. An abbot also had the power of excommunicating
refractory nuns, which he might use if desired by their abbess.
The abbot was treated with the utmost submission and reverence
by the brethren of his house. When he appeared either in
church or chapter all present rose and bowed. His letters
were received kneeling, like those of the pope and the
king. If he gave a command, the monk receiving it was also to
kneel. No monk might sit in his presence, or leave it without his
permission. The highest place was naturally assigned to him,
both in church and at table. In the East he was commanded to
eat with the other monks. In the West the rule of St Benedict
appointed him a separate table, at which he might entertain
guests and strangers. This permission opening the door to
luxurious living, the council of Aix, A.D. 817, decreed that
the abbot should dine in the refectory, and be content with
the ordinary fare of the monks, unless he had to entertain a
guest. These ordinances proved, however, generally ineffectual
to secure strictness of diet, and contemporaneous literature
abounds with satirical remarks and complaints concerning the
inordinate extravagance of the tables of the abbots. When the
abbot condescended to dine in the refectory, his chaplains waited
upon him with the dishes, a servant, if necessary, assisting
them. At St Alban's the abbot took the lord's seat, in the
centre of the high table, and was served on silver plate, and
sumptuously entertained noblemen, ambassadors and strangers of
quality. When abbots dined in their own private hall, the rule
of St Benedict charged them to invite their monks to their table,
provided there was room, on which occasions the guests were
to abstain from quarrels, slanderous talk and idle gossiping.
The ordinary attire of the abbot was according to rule to be
the same as that of the monks. But by the 10th century the
rule was commonly set aside, and we find frequent complaints of
abbots dressing in silk, and adopting sumptuous attire. They
sometimes even laid aside the monastic habit altogether, and
assumed a secular dress.1 This was a necessary consequence of
their following the chase, which was quite usual, and indeed at
that time only natural. With the increase of wealth and power,
abbots had lost much of their special religious character, and
become great lords, chiefly distinguished from lay lords by
celibacy. Thus we hear of abbots going out to sport, with
their men carrying bows and arrows; keeping horses, dogs and
huntsmen; and special mention is made of an abbot of Leicester,
c. 1360, who was the most skilled of all the nobility in
harehunting. In magnificence of equipage and retinue the
abbots vied with the first nobles of the realm. They rode
on mules with gilded bridles, rich saddles and housings,
carrying hawks on their wrist, followed by an immense train of
attendants. The bells of the churches were rung as they
passed. They associated on equal terms with laymen of the
highest distinction, and shared all their pleasures and
pursuits. This rank and power was, however, often used most
beneficially. For instance, we read of Whiting, the last
abbot of Glastonbury, judicially murdered by Henry VIII.,
that his house was a kind of well-ordered court, where as
