Lindsay Rudge PhD Thesis - University of St Andrews

text of the Regula virginum was composed in stages between 512 and 534, the chapter
dealing with enclosure was in the first recension; indeed, it is among the very first
stipulations. This anticipates the probable date of composition of the Vitae patrum
Jurensium, which has been put at c.520. 19 Caesarius could have known of the Jura
monastery from other, informal, sources: the Vitae patrum Jurensium itself records
contact with the abbot of Lérins around 515, and it seems probable that Caesarius had
kept in touch with his old monastery. 20 It is therefore just conceivable that the anonymous
author of the Vitae patrum Jurensium might have chosen to describe longstanding
practices at La Balme in the language of the Arles rule, rather than the admittedly more
likely possibility that Caesarius had based his requirement for permanent enclosure on a
monastic practice in the Jura, or even that both founders had come to the same decision
independently of each other. This situation contrasts with Guillaume’s assessment of
foundations which were made later in the sixth century. None of these three foundations,
Arles, Marseille and La Balme, fit into the schema he proposes for later sixth-century
houses. Guillaume has noted three main characteristics. Firstly, and of particular interest
when considering Caesarius in this regard, foundations tended to be made by an
individual woman or one or more members of her family. Bishops were not the initiators
of the earliest monasteries; they responded to demand. Secondly, such houses were
urban; again, there is a notable exception, in this case La Balme. Lastly, houses for
women were almost always founded in close proximity to those of men. 21 While
admittedly a small sample, these earlier monastic establishments had a somewhat
different character.
It is perhaps a testimony to the scanty existence of monastic foundations for
women that the ties between them are so easy to draw out. However, in searching for the
19 Martine, Vie des Pères de Jura, 53-7.
20 Ibid, 433. See also A. de Vogüé (ed. and trans.) Les Règles des Saints Pères 2 vols., SC 297-8 (Paris,
1982). For further comments on the impact of the monastery on Lérins, see C. Leyser, Authority, passim.
21 Guillaume, ‘Les abbayes de femmes’, 34. Caesarius’ foundations are used as an example of the last point,
although de Vogüé’s analysis of his Rules had established the primacy of the Rule for Virgins: see A. de
Vogüé, ‘La Règle de Césaire d’Arles pour les moines: un résumé de sa Règle pour les moniales’ Revue
d’Histoire de la Spiritualité (1971) 369-406. Caesarius had been abbot of a male monastery in Arles before
making the foundation of St John, but they were some distance apart and there are no references in the Rule
or the Vita Caesarii to contact between them. It is unclear for which (or indeed, if any) community
Caesarius wrote his Rule for Monks.
32