Angelic Monks and Earthly Men: Monasticism and Its Meaning to Medieval Society

by Ludo J.R. Milis

Monasticism is often seen as one of the central driving forces of the medieval world, which both by example and by precept had a considerable impact on society as a whole. This study re-examines the way in which monastic ideals and practices interacted with the world outside the monastery walls.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval

170 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 1992

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really, really disliked this book. Ludo Milis sets out to examine the impact of monasticism on the 'ordinary people' of medieval society, noting that the wealth of monastic historical evidence (and the dearth of evidence from the vast majority of society) has led to a general overvaluation of the impact of monasticism. That's a fair enough idea, and probably has some merit, but the way Milis approaches his argument really weakens any point he may have been able to make.

The biggest problem of Milis's argument is one of definition. He discounts all friars and canons from his argument as they are "not monks." That's questionable, given his working definition of monasticism ('a specific spiritual ideal and aim of perfection implemented as a lifestyle'), but it's made worse when he circumscribes things further. Addressing several ways in which monks impacted and interacted with lay people - landholding, trade, the growth of towns - he says that they essentially don't count, because when monks were doing this, they weren't acting like monks. What Milis winds up doing is carving down the definition of monasticism to the point where is means "people whose spiritual goals cause them to remove themselves from ordinary society" and then using that definition to try to prove that monks didn't interact with society. It's very unhelpful, and a very circular argument that allows Milis to summarily reject all evidence that doesn't fit with his thesis. It's also profoundly unhelpful in gaining a further understanding of medieval society, when the spiritual, economic, political and social were nearly always intertwined.

The other problem is that even when monks were acting like monks (by Milis' narrow definition), there's a good chance that they still impacted society indirectly. In a chapter on art history, Milis attempts to suggest that monks had very little impact through their building projects because they didn't build their churches themselves and they had very little architectural impact on secular building. He barely addresses the psychological or spiritual impact that cathedrals or abbey churches must have had on the laity.

The book is also filled with sweeping generalizations and a persistent unwillingness to acknowledge change over time (for example, Milis claims that matter was viewed with unchanging disgust for a period of over 1000 years, a statement is that a huge oversimplification). He also keeps coming back to the fact that monks probably weren't influential because they were numerically small, an argument that really can't stand on its own.

[Galina Krasskova · Rating 2 out of 5]

I cannot recommend this book. The author seems to have no concept of the sacred or its value and thus seems incapable of comprehending the value it had to medieval communities. it's an incredibly reductive book, one that largely misses the point of both monasticism and cultivation of spiritual life.