Lay-Brothers

The Cistercians were renowned for their commitment to manual work and their insistence on self-sufficiency. They intended to live from the fruits of their own labour in isolated spots, ‘far from the haunts of men’. In c. 1115, some twenty years after the foundation of Cîteaux, the Cistercians realised that to achieve this ideal they needed help: the monks could not themselves tend the livestock, cultivate the land, manage outlying properties and participate in a full liturgical day at the abbey. It was therefore decided to introduce a community of lay-brothers (or conversi), men who would be primarily responsible for managing the land and animals, yet would take vows of obedience to the abbot and observe the rules of the Cistercian Order. The incorporation of lay-brothers was not a Cistercian invention, but the White Monks were the first to draw up comprehensive legislation for their organisation [the Usus Conversorum] and to make the lay-brothers an integral part of the community.

Nevertheless, the lay-brotherhood formed their own separate community within the abbey. It was thus stipulated that no lay-brother should ever take the monastic habit but, following the words of I Corinthians 7:20, Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.(1) The lay-brotherhood was not seen as a stepping stone to the monastic life, but as a separate vocation. Each Cistercian abbey, therefore, consisted of two distinct, yet complementary communities living in communion.

Both the monks and lay-brothers worked and prayed, but whereas the monks’ day centred on the celebration of the Canonical Hours in the church, the lay-brothers’ time was structured around the workplace and most of their Offices were celebrated here. Furthermore, while the monks spent much of their time reading and meditating on the Word of God (lectio divina) the lay-brothers were generally illiterate and were not, in any case, to read from books.(2) An anecdote recounted by Jocelin of Furness tells of a lay-brother of Melrose who was influenced by the devil to learn to read, but ultimately realised the errors of his ways and repented of his sin.(3)

Having spurned this world’s riches, behold! The new soldiers of Christ, poor with the poor Christ, began discussing by what planning, by what device, by what management they would be able to support themselves in this life, as well as their guests who came, both rich and poor, whom the Rule commands to welcome as Christ. It was then that they enacted a definition to receive, with their bishop’s permission, bearded lay-brothers, and to treat them as themselves in life and death – except that they might not become monks – and also hired hands; for without the assistance of these they did not understand how they could fully observe the precepts of the Rule day and night. [Exordium Parvum XV in Waddell, Narrative and Legislative Texts, p. 435.]

The lay-brothers who lived and worked at the abbey had their own separate quarters in the western range. Here they were removed from the monks in the cloister and also convenient to the court, where they spent much of their day working. Their refectory was situated on the ground-floor of the southern part of the range and their dormitory was located on the upper level. While the monks’ cloister was nestled within the precinct, cocooned from the hustle and bustle of daily life, the lay-brothers’ quarters faced out towards the guesthouse, gatehouse and courts. Whenever the lay-brothers celebrated the Offices in the church they occupied inward facing stalls in the western part of the church, where they had their own choir. This was separated from the monks’ choir in the east by a dividing screen, a further reflection of the distinction between these two communities. The lay-brothers’ Offices were simpler and shorter than the monks’ and to avoid any discordance, all Offices that the lay-brothers celebrated in church were recited in silence, although those chanted at work were said aloud. Whereas the lay-brothers would have heard but not seen the monks, they themselves were neither seen nor heard.

A number of the lay-brothers lived on granges. These were farm complexes established for the direct exploitation of the land and some provided hospitality to passers-by. In theory, each grange was to be within a day’s walk from the abbey so that the lay-brothers there could return to the abbey on Sundays and feast days when they did not work, to follow the full liturgical day in the church.

The lay-brothers were therefore defined and distinguished from the monks by what they did and where, but also by their appearance. Whereas the monks were shaved and tonsured, the lay-brothers had fringes and wore beards which, it was ruled, should measure no more than two fingers in length.(4) Their clothing was simple but practical, and made from coarse animal skins. They dressed similarly to peasants and instead of the monastic habit and cowl wore short belted tunics, a cloak and often a shawl over their shoulders. ‘Unauthorised cloaks’ were confiscated and those who refused to comply were denied Communion and took the last place at meals and services in the church. Blacksmiths wore black, rounded smocks to protect their garments from sparks, and the abbot might grant extra garments to herdsmen, waggoners and shepherds, since they worked in harsh weather conditions.

Who were the lay-brothers?

The incorporation of the lay-brothers opened the Cistercian life to a group of people hitherto excluded from monastic life. The illiterate and those of lesser standing had now the same opportunity as a monk to secure for themselves salvation. On a more practical level, admission to the lay-brotherhood provided these men with work, food and a roof of over their heads. Most of the lay-brothers would have been local men from the surrounding villages who sought security, as well as salvation within the Cistercian life, but a few nobles, who were probably motivated by the idea of humility, chose to enter the Cistercian community as lay-brothers rather than choir monks. This practice was, however, discouraged by the General Chapter which claimed that these men were more useful as monks.(5) Some lay-brothers were highly regarded within the Order and the neighbourhood – they appear as witnesses of charters and are cited as reliable witnesses of miracles.(6) A few, like Sinnulph, a lay-brother of Fountains, were instrumental in winning new recruits for their abbey, some of whom rose to prominent positions within the Order. It was on Brother Sinnulph’s advice that the knight, Ralph, was encouraged to take the habit at Fountains; Ralph later became abbot of the house.(7)

The lay-brothers were essentially brought in to manage the abbey granges, by cultivating the land and organising animal husbandry and a number worked within the abbey precinct. They included blacksmiths, bakers, weavers, masons, cobblers, skinners and tanners, for there was much to be done to sustain a self-sufficient community. There was food to be grown, stored and prepared, clothing, utensils and tools to be made, fences and buildings erected and maintained, and parchment prepared for manuscripts. The lay-brothers were effectively the economic backbone of the community and bore the lion’s share of the labour. While manual labour still formed part of the monks’ daily routine, with the exception of harvest time when they joined the lay-brothers to work in the fields, the monks were largely engaged with lighter tasks in and around the claustral area, such as working in the kitchen, greasing boots, tending the herb-garden and copying manuscripts. The lay-brothers’ duties often extended beyond the abbey precinct and the granges. They might accompany the abbot or another member of the community on a journey, travel to markets and fairs to buy or sell produce on the community’s behalf, negotiate with merchants – especially regarding the sale of the abbey’s wool – and mediate in other ways between the monastery and the outside world.

Decline of the lay-brothers

The lay-brotherhood had its heyday in the mid-twelfth century, and at this time most abbeys had more lay-brothers than monks. During Aelred’s abbacy at Rievaulx there were about 140 monks and 240 lay-brothers and on feast days, when all the lay-brothers congregated in the church to celebrate the Hours, the church was crowded with the brethren ‘like bees in a hive’, making movement of any kind virtually impossible.(8)

By the end of the twelfth century there were signs of decline. Reports of misconduct increased – both cases of individual disobedience and violence, and riots. An interesting example is that of William Acton, a lay-brother of Rievaulx Abbey in Yorkshire who, in 1279, claimed he was a leper, stabbed a monk of the house who was examining him and promptly fled into the woods with two monks of the abbey hot at his heels who subsequently caught William and beat him to death.(9)

When in 1195 the abbot of Cymmer, Wales, banned the drinking of ale the lay-brothers of the abbey stole his horse.
[Canivez, Statutes I, 1195: 66, p. 191].

A number of group uprisings were triggered by the prohibition of ale at the granges. The abbot of Margam’s banning of ale in 1206 incited the lay-brothers of the abbey to retaliate. They pulled the cellarer from his horse and proceeded to attack both him and the abbot, whom they then pursued for several miles. To cap it all off they barricaded themselves inside the monks’ dormitory and refused to give the monks any food.(10)

The decline of the lay-brothers was also accelerated by external conditions. The demise of the manorial system of farming in the twelfth century had meant that a number of peasants were on the move seeking work and security. Membership of the Cistercian lay-brotherhood was seen by some as an attractive proposition. The disappearance of the manorial system and serfdom in the thirteenth century brought changes that augmented the demise of the lay-brotherhood. Peasants were now lease-holders and the Cistercian abbeys were, if anything, seen now as the competition rather than an alternative. The Black Death in the fourteenth century badly reduced their numbers, which never recovered. By the time of the Dissolution most abbeys had only a handful of lay-brothers.

References
(1) Capitula XXII in Narrative and Legislative Texts from Early Cîteaux, ed. C. Waddell (Cîteaux, 1999), p. 412.
(2) Cistercian Lay Brothers: Twelfth-century Usages with Related Texts, ed. C. Waddell (Brecht, 2000), ch. IX (p. 182).
(3) G. J. McFadden, ‘An edition and translation of the Life of Waldef, Abbot of Melrose, by Jocelin of Furness’ , Ph.D. thesis (University of Columbia, 1952), p. 328.
(4) Waddell, Cistercian Lay-Brothers, p. 193 (note to chapter XXI).(5) Statuta capitulorum generalium ordinis Cisterciensis ab anno 1116 ad annum 1786, ed. J. Canivez (8 vols; Louvain, 1933-41), I, 1188: 8 (p. 108).
(6) Walter Daniels, a monk of Rievaulx and the biographer of Aelred cites two lay-brothers of the abbey – Argar, a shepherd, and Baldric – as reliable witnesses of Aelred’s miracles, ‘Letter to Maurice’ in Walter Daniels, Vita Aelredi, The Life of Aelred of Rievaulx, ed. and tr. F. M. Powicke (Oxford, 1950), pp. 68-69.
(7) Memorials of the Abbey of St Mary of Fountains, I, ed. J. Walbran, Surtees Society 42 (Durham, 1863), pp. 117-119; see M. Cassidy-Welch’s discussion of Sinnulph in Monastic Spaces (Turnhout, 2001), pp. 191-193.
(8) Walter Daniels, Life of Aelred, p. 38. At Waverley in the twelfth century there were some seventy monks and 120 lay-brothers.
(9) Cited in Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces, p. 185. The abbot of Meaux took steps to humble the pride of lay-brothers of the abbey in c. 1220; he removed the prompted their abbot to enforce measures to humble their pride – he removed the offenders from the charge of the farms and granges and put them to the more demeaning work of caring for the cattle and pigs, Meaux I, p. 432.

(10) Canivez, Statutes I, 1206: 23 (p. 324).