The Development of Prouille

P. MANDONNET

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROUILLE

TEMPORAL STATUS

All the changes that can be traced in the first period of Prouille follow the variations in its economic condition. In the early days the sisters lived as well as they could on alms and on the revenues donated by Berenger, the first of which did not accrue to them perhaps before 1209.(30) But after 1211 the victorious crusaders began to endow them generously. When Bishop Foulques regained possession of some of the property of his diocese, formerly in a dilapidated condition, he in turn imitated other benefactors. And in that year, by two successive grants, he first definitively secured to the religious women the property of the church of St. Mary. In the seventeenth century, Jean de Réchac read these two deeds together in the rolls of the convent. He published the first one, which was a donation pure and simple, with a reservation of the tithes and first fruits. This deed, which bears no notice of month or day, must have been given prior to May 15, when apparently Simon de Montfort considered the church as belonging to the sisters.(31) A short time later (perhaps before the siege of Toulouse?), in response to the repeated request of St. Dominic, Foulques stated the specifications of his grant; he added the gift of thirty feet of ground on each side of the church, exempting from tithes and first fruits the property acquired by the sisters, and had his act confirmed by the provost of his chapter.(32) The sisters, whose number meanwhile had increased from eleven to eighteen or nineteen, were able to think of constructing a suitable convent, thanks to the numerous gifts which now flowed in upon them.(33)

The work of building went on without delay. A whole series of records mentions the "monastery" and even the new "abbey."(34) Should the latter term be understood in its technical sense? Certainly it was not definitively adopted, because at the same time more unpretentious words like domus,(35) locus,(36) and ecclesia(37) were employed, or quite simply the name, St. Mary of Prouille, or just Prouille. Besides, never did the prior or the prioress claim the title of abbot or abbess. In short, after 1213, the term "abbey" disappeared. The rather high sounding title reflects in a way the impression made on the people by the relatively large size of the new edifice. The prior of Prouille himself would have rejected a term of such little apologetic worth in an Albigensian stronghold. But it is probable that the appearance and disappearance of the word "abbey" indicated something even more significant.

CISTERCIAN SISTERS

Prouille rose and developed in the heart of the Cistercian atmosphere. Numerous traces show the relations of the convent with the Order of St. Bernard, the great preceptor of nuns in that age. Now, when Dominic arrived in Languedoc, he was neither prepared to be the founder of an order nor bent upon becoming so. It is quite natural to think that from the first he considered having his religious house incorporated with the Order of Cîteaux, as an "abbey" of women, once it was fairly established. In 1212-13, the time seemed to have arrived. Perhaps Dominic instituted some proceedings. The year 1213, on the other hand, marked the first show of resistance by the Order of Cîteaux to new incorporations. It soon became invincible. Perhaps for this reason Prouille was not officially recognized as a Cistercian abbey and was not confided to the administration of these religious.(38) Its juridical status and its proper name of "monastery" were not definitively settled until early in the year 1218, with the concession of the great bull of foundation, which sanctioned the independence of the house.(39)

Whatever the situation, beginning with 1212, the religious life of the sisters expanded into its normal and ultimate frame. It would seem natural to place in this period the first writing of the Rule of Prouille(40) and doubtless also the establishment of the cloister. Certain elements of this Rule were borrowed from the great codes of religious life for women as conceived by Cîteaux and Prémontré. But the Rule was original in the sense that it was not made part of a traditional rule. Its existence at Prouille in October, 1215, may be confirmed by the fact that the bull of protection then accorded by the Pope made no mention of a classic rule. We may, however, ask whether an elementary bull of economic protection would have to mention the rule.(41)

As to the enclosure, probably the sisters had been able to maintain it from the very beginning in their temporary buildings, as all the early historians of Prouille attest; but it seems more likely that Dominic did not establish it before the erection of regular monastic quarters. Finally, the significance of the proceedings of 1218 was, for the sisters, economic rather than religious, because the purpose was to separate them definitively from the Order at St. Romanus, while at the same time it consecrated the friars in their own regular life of the Preachers, by a privilege identical with that received a year earlier by the friars of Toulouse. It is, therefore, an error and somewhat of an anachronism to interpret this event, as Percin does, as the transition of the sisters from a profession of simple vows to a profession of solemn vows. He says that the first companions of St. Dominic made no profession before that date(42) and that the sisters were at times called dominae. There is nothing surprising in the title; it was classic for nuns in the thirteenth century.(43) In the records of Prouille it is used along with the designations moniales(44)(nuns), sancti moniales (holy nuns ),(45) and particularly sorores (sisters), which appeared to be the preferred title as in accord with their humility.(46)

DATE OF FOUNDATION

One point still awaits consideration, one that gave the new community its true character: its relation to the apostolate of the Preachers among the Albigensians, as directed by Diego of Osma. It is bound up with some chronological details.

The miraculous sign, the occupying of the convent, and the establishing of the cloister were respectively assigned by Percin to July 22, November 22, and December 27 of the year 1206. Echard(47) also mentions the last two dates as having been read by him in the Acts of Prouille. But Réchac, who wrote earlier, had known only the third date.(48) Further, the date, December 27, for the enclosure was already traditional in the early fourteenth century (1307), when Bernard Guidonis gave it as a heritage faithfully transmitted through the generations of sisters.(49) It is the only one of the three dates which can at present be considered as having some foundation. Bernard Guidonis also thought it might be December 27, 1206, because he assigned to that year the foundation of the convent with its cloister.(50) But he himself does not join the two (date and year); thus we see that the two chronological traditions of day and year were transmitted separately. We have suggested that the establishment of the cloister might have occurred several years after the foundation, perhaps in 1212 or 1213. In that case, the year 1206 stands as the only indication given by Bernard Guidonis for the birth of Prouille. According to his method of calculation, the foundation was made between April 2, 1206 and April 22, 1207 (or perhaps March 25, if it is a question of accordance with the Annunciation). That is the sole chronological note of ancient record for this event, the thirteenth century having left no testimony. While it lacks precision and seems rather late, it may be considered approximately correct.

The chronology of Prouille depends, in fact, upon the chronology of the apostolic journeys of Diego and the legates. They were in Carcassès in the late summer or early autumn of 1206, and then again, after the apostolate in the Toulouse district, in the first part of 1207. It is possible and even probable that some conversions were already made among the women at the time of the first visit. The idea of a foundation, however, if it presented itself to the Preachers at all, was something not yet feasible. They could not shoulder such a burden; they had to make their rounds as itinerant preachers. Early in 1207, however, their apostolate centered more in the region of Fanjeaux-Montréal,(51) one of the principal strongholds of heresy. At the same time (March, 1207), Arnold Amaury of Cîteaux arrived with a strong contingent to join the legates at Montreal. This reinforcement was the signal for a complete change in the apostolic method. The system of having a little missionary band tirelessly traversing the whole country was abandoned. The territory was divided among the principal preachers; within each of the new districts, a headquarters or rallying place was appointed from which the work of preaching proceeded. The Bishop of Osma, who with Raoul of Fontfroide was the leader of the apostles, actually organized the system and financed it with modest revenues from his diocese.(52) While to all appearances Diego and Raoul were occupied in visiting the different groups in turn, Dominic was definitely assigned to the neighborhood of Fanjeaux-Montréal, the border country of the itinerant mission. It was at this time that he established his preaching center at Prouille.(53) That was in April, 1207.

This orientation of the apostolic enterprise, on a more stationary basis, led to the beginning of other works. It became possible to assemble the converts, whose number had grown during the missions, and whose distressing plight had doubtless become a matter of concern. In organizing his center, Dominic provided a place for the sisters. Berenger, the archbishop of Narbonne, was then at Carcassonne,(54) evidently hoping through his proximity to show a semblance of participation in the apostolate of the legates. Urgent circumstances obliged him to show at least a minimum of good will.(55) Dominic profited by the occasion to ask him to support the new nuns; as religious head of the territory, it was the duty of the Archbishop to defray the expense of the apostolic work.(56) Berenger could not refuse. What he gave was the charter of April 17, 1207. If this document is not the birth certificate of Prouille, at least it is a very close echo of it. It was, therefore, about the month of April, 1207, that the religious house was instituted; preliminary plans for the project apparently go back to the year 1206.

THE FOUNDER

The convent for the sisters took its place among the dependencies of the apostolic organization directed by St. Dominic. Economically and legally (so far as juridical terms are applicable in the case of new institutes), it was not distinct from it and was known by its title, Sancta Praedicatio. This was the title used four months later in the second charter of Prouille, a deed whereby Saris Gasc and Ermengarde Godoline "donated" themselves and all their possessions to the Lord Dominic and all the friars and sisters of the Catholic establishment. The good name and the prayers of the sisters of Prouille were an apologetic support to the word of their brethren; in return, the nuns looked to the Preachers for their prior and their necessary officials. Certain elements essential to a women's community of the period were ensured in that way. In any case, the nature and the importance of the male element in this community were quite unusual. In likeness nearer to the "double monastery" of Prémontré and Fontevrault than to a simple house of nuns, in reality Prouille was of a type entirely original. Something of that stamp was to mark it always, even when the primitive Praedicatio became a real monastery of Preachers.

The foregoing considerations in settling the foundation date have also settled a final question: Who were the founders of Prouille? The answer is easy. If the founder is he who converted the first recruits, united them, undertook their direction, treated with the Archbishop of Narbonne to obtain their first dowry, attended to the construction of their convent, wrote and put in force the Rule for the nuns, and for eight years acted as prior of Prouille, undeniably St. Dominic merits that title. In the first authentic records, he is the only one explicitly mentioned as concerned in these various functions.(57) The fact that be is the only one named in the charter of April 17, 1207, as having converted the nuns and taken charge of their interests, is particularly remarkable. At that date Diego was still in Languedoc. If the Bishop of Osma had played a part comparable to that of Dominic in the foundation, there would have been no reason for not naming him. In 1259, after Humbert of Romans, in the course of an official visit at Prouille,(58) read the primitive documents on which we now rely, he ordered the name of Dominic to be substituted for that of the Bishop of Osma (59) in the legends concerning the foundation, and though his act had the disagreeable aspect of a pious falsification, it was founded absolutely on truth.

Not that Diego did not merit the place accorded him by Jordan of Saxony in the Libellus.(60) The Bishop was also a founder of Prouille, but in another sense. The foundation was made under his authority, certainly with his counsel, and according to his direction and with his help. When he left for Spain, the future of Prouille was one of his concerns.

Foulques ascribed to himself the construction of the convent.(61) The gift of the church of St. Mary and of the land adjacent to it, that of the church of Fanjeaux and its revenues, of the church of Bram and its tithes and first fruits, justify this affirmation. But Foulques was not a founder; he came on the scene only in 1211. Berenger was on hand at the beginning, but the note of compulsion in his one donation would hardly merit for him a title of honor. Moreover, whether his generosity was sincere and whether the church which he gave really belonged to him may be questioned. The monks of St. Hilary soon reclaimed this benefice, which was still in their possession at the beginning of the century.(62) Finally Dame Cavaers, the châtelaine of Fanjeaux, was listed by Percin in the number of the founders. Apparently she had no other title to that honor than her existence and the error which Percin made in supposing that her intervention was necessary. Balme(63) readily accepted Percin's word, because be believed that this lady, alone among the nobility of Fanjeaux, was free from heresy.(64) But Guiraud(65) discovered that she had yielded as early as 1193. There is no room for her intervention in 1207 in a Catholic cause.(66)