It may be well to state that our Monastery in Paris, although begun in 1615, did not adopt the name and patronage of St. Edmund until after the General Chapter of 1621, which assigned to it the right and title to the ancient Abbey of Bury St. Edmund [1]. It was in the throes of foundation practically up to the year 1632, at least. I have already recounted the first four years of its history, but as some knowledge of what has gone before is essential for any fair understanding of what is to come, I may be pardoned for giving here a brief recapitulation.
In the beginning of the 17th Century, Catholicism in England was in labour. Many movements were afoot for building up again institutions which the 'reformation' had cast down. These movements sometimes clashed one with another, and as is natural, where men are earnest and times are difficult, there were temporary and local struggles before due order was reached. One of these movements was that for restoring the English Benedictine Congregation, and, perhaps unfortunately, two independent bodies of Englishmen engaged themselves in this same movement; the one became monks in Italy, the other in Spain. Later, they felt the need of uniting, and in 1607 there was an understanding between them that they should unite in securing the succession and rights of the old English Congregation, and in re-erecting that, quite independent of any other Congregation, whether of Italy or of Spain. The Italian, or Cassinese, party secured the succession by getting some of their men clothed and aggregated to Westminster Abbey, by Fr. Buckley, the last surviving monk of that Abbey. The Spanish party devoted their efforts to founding houses on the neighbouring Continent, This understanding between the parties seems to have endured until the arrival of Fr. Rudisind Barlow from Spain in 1610. A blunt and vigorous Lancashire man, he insisted on dependence on Spain and pointed out the rashness of casting aside the power and influence of the great Spanish Congregation. There were now two policies again, and division.
In 1614, Fr. Beech of the Cassinese party, acting as procurator in Rome for all parties, secured papal sanction for a scheme of his own, on the lines of the former understanding between himself and the Spanish. All were ordered to unite in accordance with this, and some of the Spanish party did transfer to this English body. But Fr. Rudisind Barlow organised an appeal and in the beginning of 1615 Rome suspended the scheme and the Spanish monks were directed to return to their former obedience. At this time, St. Gregory's at Douai, was the headquarters of the Spanish party, and St. Laurence's, Dieulouard, that, of the English; but there were also two small new foundations, one at S. Malo in Brittany, the other at Chelles near Paris, serving as chaplains to the great nunnery of Chelles. It is to this latter we would call special attention for from it sprang, this very year, the foundation of our house in Paris.
The monks at Chelles were of Spanish profession, but whereas Douai was then in Spanish dominions, Chelles was in France, where Spanish authority and influence was distasteful. Hence the monks at Chelles, whose patrons and benefactors were French, had gladly accepted Fr. Beech's union of 1614 and at once transferred from Spanish obedience to the English body, and when in 1615 (January) the union was suspended, they were loathe to return. They delayed doing so and signified to the papal nuncio in Paris their intention of appealing as also did the Princess Marie, Abbess of Chelles, in the interests of her convent.
It was at this juncture that they made the foundation in Paris (June, 1615). The house was to be chiefly a seminary for maintaining the succession of monk chaplains for Chelles and Fr. Walgrave, superior of the Chelles monks, the Abbess (who provided house and pension) and Fr. Maihew of Dieulouard, who provided the monk students to man it, all had their share in the foundation, and consequently all had a claim in it. It was founded under the auspices of the English body, as opposed to the Spanish party. However in the various moves that took place subsequently it became difficult to say, at any given period, to whom precisely it did belong. For in August, 1615, the monks at Chelles who owed obedience to the superiors of the Spanish party, submitted again to that party, and two years later (1617) Fr. Maihew and his party united with the Spanish party coalescing into one English Benedictine Congregation, and each move affected the status of the Paris house. The Abbess still maintained her claims that the house should be considered as a dependency of Chelles. In this regard Fr. Gifford's action is most important. As Prior of the Paris house and as also president-elect of the united English Congregation, he, about the month of September, 1617, broke off all pretence of dependency on Chelles, provided a house of his own, declined one offered by the Abbess, and received no further pension or gifts from her. The community were his subjects and in view of all that had taken place, he felt in no way bound by Fr. Walgrave's unauthorised agreement. So he made practically a new foundation. Two years later (April, 1619), when he had departed as suffragan bishop to Rheims, his successor, Fr. Leander, for peace sake agreed with Fr. Walgrave to restore the Paris community to dependency on Chelles, but since the conditions of this grant were not complied with, the agreement came to nothing. [2]
Soon after this, in August, 1619, the papal brief finally ratifying the union of parties and the re-establishment of the English Congregation was published. Fr. Walgrave declined joining this body. He was quite free to remain as heretofore, a monk of the Spanish Congregation, and had no obligation to join the new body. Several others of the Spanish party likewise did not join, among whom we may note Fr. John Barnes at Douai. The General of Spain, in order to secure unity of authority among the English monks, decided to make the president of the English Congregation at the same time his vicar with authority over such of his subjects as would not join the English Congregation.
Fr. Walgrave, with the Abbess, still claimed the dependency of the Paris house. He now instituted, with the help of the Abbess and the connivance of Fr. John Barnes, a counter move against, the English Congregation, and at the same time against our Paris house, which they were determined to reduce to subjection or oust from the city. He initiated an English Cluniac movement. It may be noted that some years previously the General of Spain had given him leave to accept benefices in France. [3] The only benefice that he could secure was the Cluniac priory of Longueville, and this involved the necessity of his joining the order of Cluny. He tided over this difficulty : how, we need not now explain. [4] In 1620 he proclaimed himself a monk of Cluny and having obtained from the Abbess the house in Paris, which Fr. Gifford and our fathers had refused, and also means for supporting six monks, he proposed forming a community there of English Cluniacs. He had obtained from the Abbot of Cluny the title of Prior of St. Pancras of Lewes (formerly the head house of Cluny in England), and in this capacity began to receive and profess monks.
Our General Chapter of 1621 elected as president of the Congregation, Fr. Rudisind Barlow, who laying aside the gentle methods of his predecessor, called upon the Abbot of Cluny to restore Fr. Walgrave to his rightful obedience. [5] In 1622 the Abbot deputed the Prior of S. Martin des Champs to deal with the question, and Fr. Walgrave being cited to appear, appealed to the French Parliament. About the same time appeared Fr. Barnes' book, the Examen Trophaeorum, in which the Cluniac pretensions were upheld. It was therein maintained that the Pope had been mis-informed, that in fact no Congregation of Black monks had ever existed in England, that the only body of Benedictines there that could be called a Congregation were the Cluniacs, and consequently that unless they were meant, the English Benedictine Congregation re-established by the papal brief was a mere figment. [6] About August or September of this year, Fr. Barnes joined Fr. Walgrave at Chelles, having previously made profession for Cluny at the hands of the 'Prior of S. Pancras'. [7]
We may now turn our attention to St. Edmund's. According to the articles of union, St. Edmund's and S. Laurence's were to be houses of observancemonasteries, while St. Gregory's and S. Malo were termed 'colleges', or houses of studies. [8] The community varied from twelve to fifteen monks, and of course in the early years they were monks lent from the other monasteries. The first monk clothed for St. Edmund's was Br. Gabriel Latham, who received the habit in 1621, and in the next ten years, only half a dozen others were clothed. At first, St. Edmund's educated novices of other houses, but after 1625 it received instead junior monks who came to do their studies in the University of Paris. [9] The definitely who met at Douai in 1620 to put into act the prescriptions of union appointed as Prior of St. Edmund's, Fr. Monnington in place of Fr. Berrington, who returned however to St. Edmund's as Vicar in France. The General Chapter, in 1621, made Fr. Bagshawe Prior of St. Edmund's, and he held that post until he became president in 1629. As for observance, Fr. Leander in 1620 outlined a measure which should be introduced as a beginning. [10] They should rise for Office either at midnight or about three or four o'clock. The solemnity of the Office was to be that prescribed by the Constitutions for houses of not less than ten choir monks, which meant that on about fifteen greater days in the year the whole office was sung, and on other days lesser portions varying according to the grade of the day. Diet according to the Holy Rule, i.e. perpetual abstinence [11] need not yet be introduced, but 'I ask you,' continues Fr. Leander, 'to conform yourselves with us in the statute of 'The Diet of Convents' together with the other statutes and ceremonies to be introduced in due course.' In the following year (1621) General Chapter decreed that perpetual abstinence must be introduced at St. Edmund's as soon as they had a convenient house together with endowment for eight monks, meanwhile they were dispensed therefrom for three days in the week, except in Lent and Advent. [12] However, St. Edmund's was destined for several years to come to be confronted with great difficulties from without which rendered normal development impossible and to these we may now turn our attention.
Since President Barlow could not himself remain long in Paris, he deputed Frs. Berrington and Bagshaw in 1622 to conduct the process against Fr. Walgrave. Fr. Walgrave and Fr. Barnes retorted that all the monks at Paris were their subjects and could not lawfully proceed against them, and in 1623 they affixed to the doors of the Paris house a document dated September 25th, solemnly excommunicating Frs. Berrington and Bagshaw and all those associated with them, as rebellious subjects. [13] Unfortunately, soon after this ridiculous proceeding, a disaster befel our fathers which laid them open to many difficulties. The house in which they lived was in Rue Vaulgirard, near the Queen Mother's palace of Luxembourg. This palace was to be extended, and certain neighbouring houses had to be removed for that purpose, among which was ours. Thus about March or April 1624, our fathers had at the very shortest notice to leave their house and find another before they could obtain the due ecclesiastical permissions for having a chapel and saying Mass in the new house. [14] The Abbess of Chelles at once begged the Archbishop of Paris and the Bishop of Metz, who were the authorities concerned, to grant them no permissions whatever. [15] Fortunately the Paris fathers secured the goodwill of the papal nuncio, who saved them from suppression, but the Archbishop of Paris would not allow them a chapel and the priests had to go outside to say Mass, and could not sing the Office in the house. [16]
President Barlow requested Prior Bagshaw to go to Rome in order to get a confirmation of the brief of Paul V., which was being attacked, and also to bring about the condemnation of Frs. Walgrave and Barnes. Accordingly he went in August, and while in Rome he also endeavoured to get leave from the Pope for a chapel, but it was not until January, 1626 that the Pope gave the permission to which the Archbishop of Paris then consented. [17] Even then it was only a private chapel and they were forbidden to sing the Office.. Fr. Gifford, now Archbishop of Rheims, used all his influence on behalf of the house he had founded, gave various attestations, and came several times to Paris to aid in pacifying. Together with another father (presumably Fr. Leander) he went to the Abbess and offered even, for peace sake, to make St. Edmund's again subject to Chelles, but the Abbess would not have them in Paris at all. [18] She was very irate with the nuncio for favouring them and wrote to him threatening to bring the matter before the civil courts. [19]
However, the case of Frs. Walgrave and Barnes came before the nuncio in 1625. It was a very protracted affair and we need not go into it in detail. The climax came at the end of 1626 when Fr. Barnes was found to be in correspondence with English statesmenwhich rendered him suspect and in January, 1627, he was conducted from Paris under civil escort.[20] The mind of the Abbess was now changed and in March she rejected Fr. Walgrave. He betook himself to the house in Paris which he had formerly received from the Abbess, but Chelles claimed this too, and after a long civil process they obtained it in 1632. As Cluny still acknowledged Fr. Walgrave, he was granted a pension on the monastery of Marmoutiers, in exchange for which they granted him the small priory of La Celle. [21] We need follow him no further, except to state that he came to an amicable understanding with his brethren.
Meanwhile, the Community of St. Edmund's continued under difficulties in their small and inconvenient house in the Rue d'Enfer. To judge by the council book and the acts of visitation, a regular and careful monastic observance was maintained, but the unfavourable attitude produced by Chelles in the mind of the Archbishop of Paris still endured and he continued the limitations to their rights of chapel and would grant them no final authorisation for establishment. [22] One of the last acts of Archbishop Gifford before his death (it is dated March 5th, 1629, and he died on April 10th), was the following:
In spite of this and other such attestations and petitions, the fathers of St. Edmund's did not succeed until about March, 1632, when they removed into a house in the suburb S. Jacques. It was a house that had been a convent of Feuillantine nuns from whom they now leased it. The Archbishop of Paris now gave them leave to establish themselves there and granted them all the faculties they had previously enjoyed, as follows :
The nuncio in Paris, Mgr. Bagni, writing to Ingoli, March 8th, 1632, comments on the fact that the Archbishop of Paris had at first refused leave for establishment. [25] What led him to grant it I cannot say; but Weldon copies a passage from Bishop Ellis, in which it is stated that Pope Urban VIII. when directing a brief to the French King, at that time sent a request by the legate who conveyed it, that a ' certa et permanens domus' be granted to the English Benedictines in Paris1. Certain it is that while the French ecclesiastical authorities, misled by the Abbess of Chelles and her party, looked askance at the Paris community, the papal nuncio in Paris befriended and protected them and especially Cardinal Spada to whom Prior Bagshaw wrote in 1626 that the house in Paris 'owes its existence and conservation entirely to the sole beneficence of your illustrious lordship'. [26]
Thus in March, 1632, our fathers removed to their new abode with full permission to establish themselves with the faculties they enjoyed before the disturbance and the council book notes under March 12th : 'it was concluded yt ye Rd f vicaire generall should lay out what moneys he thinketh fitt for ye fournishing or adorning our new chappell'. From that time St. Edmund's was free to develop in peace.