Gender and horizontal networks in Carolingian monasticisms (up to c. 840)

Abstract

Horizontal networks of monasticisms, along with the rulers and bishops responsible for regulating them, were the moving force behind monastic regulations and the business of monastic definition in the Carolingian world: they were main agents, in short, for what has been traditionally labelled ‘Carolingian monastic reform’. These networks not only set the agenda but built consensus behind these new initiatives; in short, they were an integral part of the process by which these ideals were embedded, to greater or lesser degrees, within individual communities’ praxis. These newly-expanded horizontal monastic networks were not all-encompassing, however: they were, by design, overwhelmingly male. And so too those changes identified by modern historians as ‘Carolingian monastic reform’ were applied overwhelmingly to male communities, while female communities were addressed with their own, explicitly gendered, set of prescriptions. There was no singular ‘Carolingian monastic reform’ for the simple reason (among many others) that there was no singular ideal of ‘Carolingian monasticism’: rather, like all other parts of Carolingian society, monasticisms were fundamentally and insurmountably gendered.