This essay investigates the theme of authority and resistance in the microcosm of the late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Cistercian monastery. Beginning with an examination of Cistercian statutes, this study explores evidence for tensions concerning hierarchy, communal life and ‘individuality’, or perhaps more accurately ‘selfhood’, in the Cistercian Order. It then turns to literary sources to examine how these tensions were expressed, and to an extent resolved, in some of the short narrative accounts that remain from British houses. The evidence shows that despite being highly prescribed, the power relationships within the monastery were, to an extent, flexible and negotiable – and that these didactic narratives, exempla, offer particularly interesting insights into the dynamics of power in this setting.

At first glance, the study of power relations within a monastic community might appear underwhelming compared with the studies of civil and political strife discussed by other essays in this collection. After all, Cistercian life was heavily regulated. The order was founded on a more rigorous interpretation of the Benedictine Rule, the basic premise of which was unquestioning obedience: obedience to the daily routine of offices and labours, obedience to the abbot and, through these, obedience to God. In addition, the detailed rules mapped out by the order's customaries, as well as the statutes promulgated at the annual meeting of the order's abbots, the General Chapter, show how highly regulated power relations within the community actually were. Yet it is the very prescriptive nature of the order that makes it such an interesting case study for the theme of authority and resistance. The amount of written evidence left by the Cistercians not only makes such power relationships particularly visible to the historian, but also allows us to see when these relationships were challenged or subverted, and the strategies that were employed to deal with such behaviour.

Areas of tension

The growing number of statutes issued at the annual General Chapter from the late twelfth century onwards provides clear evidence that the boundaries of authority within the order were repeatedly being tested. While some statutes tackled new problems as they arose, others were re-issued with amendments to cover their application in a variety of circumstances, while yet others reversed previous decisions or granted exceptions. Indeed, while the statutes produced by the General Chapter certainly show the strongly regulated nature of the order, they also reveal that it could be relatively flexible in practice.