"The Former Cluniac Priory Church at Paray-le-Monial:
A Study of Its Eleventh- and Twelfth-century Architecture and
Sculpture,"
(Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University: 1994)
For a variety of reasons, legal and technical, I have yet to scan-in and establish links to any of the illustrative material. Thus so far I have focused on making sections of my thesis available which have few or no illustrations.
Most importantly, the priory church was the site of the daily office of the monks. Though we have no records of the liturgical arrangement of the church from the Middle Ages, we do have the plan of Etienne Martellange recording how the interior was organized in the early seventeenth century (Fig. 4). Using what we know about Cluny II and other monastic churches, we can see that Martellange's indications are probably not too far off from the original disposition.
Entry from the claustral buildings seems to have been possible in four places. Clearly, one could enter from two places along the north walk. On the Martellange plan, a doorway opens on to the southwest corner of the south aisle, probably from the west end of the walk. This entrance provided direct access to the stairs leading to the upper level of the porch without passing near the choir or having to negotiate one's way through the aisles of the nave, effectively separating the user from the rest of the monastic congregation as well as the laity. (Note 6) At the east end of the walk, another entrance opened on to the south cross arm almost on axis with the south transept chapel. One could also enter the south cross arm through the south portal, which may in Martellange's time have led from the Chapter House. A stairwell stood in the southeast corner of the transept, apparently providing direct communication between the dormitory on the upper story of the adjacent building and the church, a convenience certainly appreciated by the monks on their way to matins early in the morning.
Perhaps the greatest difference between the church as it was used in the Middle Ages and as it is today is that the most sacred part of the church would be separated from the rest. As McClendon, Mö:bius and Mettler have all stressed, the nave or western part of monastic churches was contrasted with the eastern working part, the choir and sanctuary. (Note 7) Indeed, Martellange's plan shows a barrier isolating the central vessel east of the third set of piers from the adjacent spaces. (Note 8) In the choir monks would spend a good part of their day chanting the office. (Note 9) Further east stood the sanctuary with the main altar, the most sacred part of the church and therefore, the architectural and liturgical focus of the building. (Note 10) As we saw above, the arrangement during the early seventeenth century provided three possible entrances from the cloister into this area.
Martellange's plan is important because it shows the liturgical arrangement of the interior at the time. He clearly indicates not only the location of the choir screen, and the placement of the main altar, but also steps, and the disposition of a host of secondary altars and barriers. Between the two piers just west of the crossing, a barrier stretched across the nave permitting movement further west only through openings adjacent to the piers. An altar, probably dedicated to the Holy Cross (see below), stood against the west face of the barrier. East of this barrier just beyond the east side of the crossing piers stood a second cross wall. This one was open at the center and ran to the edges of the crossing where it joined similar barriers running east-west between the crossing piers. Another opening existed east of the southwest crossing pier allowing communication with the south cross arm. No corresponding gap is indicated on the north. The enclosure ran eastwards past the eastern pair of crossing piers leaving openings immediately before the eastmost set of piers. The enclosure is the choir screen that separated the choir from the rest of the church. Presumably the stalls or seats for the monks were arranged against the interior faces. Just west of the lateral openings and east of the eastern crossing piers, Martellange drew two parallel lines. Similar lines mark the entrances from the transept into the choir aisles and into the south aisle of the nave. Exactly what these indicate is not clear; apparently, they were some sort of barrier. But unlike the barrier indicated for the choir screen, Martellange did not shade them. They might indicate steps, though this seems unlikely, since Martellange usually indicates steps by a single line, as we can see at the north and south entrances to the ambulatory. If Martellange did mean to indicate steps in these locations, then there would also have to be a step into the south aisle but not one into the north, and this seems unlikely. Perhaps the double lines indicate some sort of grate intended to close off certain parts of the church. Grates located across the entrances between north cross arm and choir aisle, and south nave aisle and south cross arm would keep the laity out of the ambulatory and south cross arm, areas apparently used for the monks. (Note 11) Those across the south choir aisle and choir probably restricted access to the sanctuary with its high altar, an area reserved for the celebrant, though one would have expected some sort of communication between the choir and the main altar. Presumably, these grates could be opened to permit circulation when needed.
We know that at Cluny, in the late eleventh century, the choir was divided into two parts, the chorus major and the chorus minor. (Note 12) The latter stood just to the west of the former. The chorus major as its name implies was the more important of the two; here the main body of monks sang the Office. The customaries tell us that the most important monks sat on benches across the west side, facing east so they could see into the sanctuary. At the center, there was an opening to the chorus minor to the west. When present, the abbot was seated on the south (dextra) side and to be seated in his vicinity was particularly prestigious. The prior sat to the north of the opening. Against the east side of the enclosure facing the senior monks were the novices and the young oblates accompanied by the monks responsible for them. This side was also open at the center to provide communication between the choir and the sanctuary (sanctuarium or presbyterium) during the mass. Along the sides were the rest of the community of healthy monks; those on the right or south side were referred to the chorus abbatis and those on the left or north the <>chorus prioris. Entrance was generally made through an opening along the south flank. According to Möbius the chorus minor was for the elderly and infirm monks who were well enough to make it to the main church. (Note 13) The choir arrangement on Martellange's plan of Paray agrees along general lines with what we know about Cluny. On the plan, it is separated from the rest of the church. There are entrances from the main space along the south and west sides, as well as between the choir and the sanctuary. Moreover, the small area between the choir proper and the altar centered on the nave, probably the Holy Cross altar, may have served as the chorus minor. Unlike Cluny, there is only one altar in the sanctuary area; probably this lack of secondary or matutinal altars reflects the smaller size Paray's community, as does the smaller chorus minor.
The radiating chapels at Paray reflect the growing desire to articulate architecturally an increasing number of altars. Secondary altars were an important part of liturgical processions. However, serving as stations for the processions was not the main purpose for their existence. These ancillary altars were the foci of so-called private, or more properly, votive masses. (Note 14) Private masses were in part an expression of private piety, and in part the reward one received for making a donation to a religious foundation. (Note 15) Major donors might be honored by an altar of their own, (Note 16) presumably less important patrons might have a mass devoted to them alone, while the average benefactor might be included in the prayers or in a mass for all those who shared the same anniversary. The long necrologies, or lists of the dead who should be remembered, show that the Cluniacs were particularly tied to this ecclesiastical "economy." The large percentage of Cluniac monks who were priests was needed to celebrate these masses.
Votive masses and the accompanying multiplication of altars for celebrating them were nothing new during the late eleventh and early twelfth century, nor were some of the problems associated with them. The sound generated in reciting these masses would have been one such complication. As the number of masses necessarily increased over time, difficulties created by them must have become more acute. One could imagine the problem of noise in a small church like Cluny II, where very little space separated the monks chanting in the choir and sanctuary from those performing masses at secondary altars in the flanking apsidioles. (Note 17) The problem was probably alleviated by having these secondary masses read rather than sung. But the growing number of monks as well as the growing amount of sound produced by the ever increasing number of votive masses must have been important factors contributing to the decision to build a new and much larger church. (Note 18) At Cluny III, the very size of the building effectively separated the choir and sanctuary from the subsidiary altars. Doubling the aisles pushed the transepts further away to the north and south. Locating the choir between the two transepts helped separate this space from the secondary altars further east. And the ambulatory pushed them even further from the center of liturgical activity. Despite all this effort to separate the choir from the secondary altars and their chapels, votive masses continued to be a problem at Cluny, and Peter the Venerable in one of his statutes permitted private masses only after the day's major mass. (Note 19)
Even a priory like Paray would have had acoustic problems similar to those at Cluny, though on a smaller scale. Being smaller in scale meant that Paray could not handle such problems in the same way. Unlike Cluny III, the priory church does not have large interior spaces separating the choir and sanctuary from the secondary altars. Instead at Paray, an additional rectangular bay was inserted between the ambulatory and the apsidiole of each radiating chapels. Adding the extra presbytery bay between ambulatory and apsidiole moves the apsidiole with its altar further away from the choir and sanctuary than it would have been if the chapels had been simple apses. The two-part plan of these radiating chapels is not found at Cluny III and seems to have been used for the first time at Paray.
The more complex plan of Paray's radiating chapels which recall individual churches would create an appropriate setting for the performance of a mass; while doing so, this plan of these chapels also helped to assure that votive masses were performed far enough away from the choir and sanctuary so as not to interfere with the chanting of the offices and the performance of the mass when they took place there.
The present arrangement of altars at Paray certainly differs from that of the twelfth century. Until the rearrangements in the 1960s brought about by Vatican II, the main altar stood in the chevet apse. (Note 20) Martellange's plan indicates that each radiating chapel had a secondary altar, as did the chapel protruding from the south cross arm. Though the corresponding chapel to the north has a platform like the four other chapels, Martellange did not mark it with a cross to indicate an altar, suggesting that it was not consecrated. (Note 21) There were no altars in the choir aisles. The present altars along the perimeter wall of the aisles flanking the nave date only to the late nineteenth century. In Martellange's time, five stood in the nave. In the typical medieval arrangement for a monastic church, one stood just outside the choir and the four others against the nave supports. The axial altar at the head of the nave in clear view of the laity may have been dedicated to the Holy Cross, such a dedication for altars in this location in monastic churches went back to the Carolingian period. (Note 22) This apparently was the case in Cluny II. (Note 23) The plan of Cluny III published by Mabillon shows an altar to the Holy Cross just outside the choir screen between its entrance and the adjacent pier to the south demonstrating that the tradition of locating a Holy Cross altar in the nave just west of the choir was maintained at Cluny, though in a slightly modified form, through the end of the seventeenth century. (Note 24) Paray's cartulary records a rite of penance performed before an altar to the Holy Cross at Paray ca 1150. Since it seems very unlikely that the church was finished and the nave vaulted at this time, the altar mentioned in this charter almost certainly cannot be at the location in question. (Note 25)
In terms of other possible altar dedications at Paray, donations to the priory were given in the name of a number of Saints include the Savior, the Virgin, John the Baptist, Grat, Gervais, Benedict and Peter and Paul. (Note 26) Whether all these saints had altars consecrated to them in the priory church is not known. The cartulary also mentions a number of altars specifically. During the time of Abbot Odilo of Cluny, an oath was sworn on the Gospels placed on the altar of the Lord. (Note 27) An altar to the Baptist is mentioned twice. Once during the tenure of Prior Hugh (sometime during last quarter of eleventh or the first decade of twelfth centuries) and the other in 1147. The earlier one, a donation specifically to the altar, would be too early for the present structure. (Note 28) The later, dated charter, records the donation sworn at the altar of Saint John itself. (Note 29) The Saint John altar mentioned in the later charter may well have been located in the east end of the extant church, since this part of Paray had probably been completed by 1147. The only other altar named specifically in the cartulary is found in another charter made under Girardus' tenure as prior (ca 1150). This document, mentioned above, records the renunciation of a certain Wido of false accusations he had made previously. He performed this act before the altare crucis which he also had to kiss. (Note 30) Presumably the main altar in the sanctuary apse was dedicated to the Virgin and the Baptist, the patrons of priory.
In the nineteenth century, Cucherat reported that the altar in the "petite nef gauche," apparently the north choir aisle, was dedicated to Saint Blaise. (Note 31) Cucherat also related that around 1834 this altar's dedication was changed to the Sacred Heart, and that the relics were moved to the chapel of Saint Joseph, though without indicating which chapel this might have been. Much to the abb‚'s dismay, Millet discarded the relics during his restoration. (Note 32) Also in Cucherat's time, the altar against the terminating wall on the south was dedicated to the Magdalene. (Note 33) As noted above, Martellange's plan suggests that these lateral spaces were not used for altars during the early seventeenth century.
Though sources such as Martellange, the Revolutionary inventory and Cucherat, all give indications about altar locations, these are relatively late, and until additional medieval texts are discovered, our understanding of the liturgical function and the use of the priory church at Paray is limited to the laconic references that survive in the cartulary, and to speculative comparisons with the general practices at Cluny known from the eleventh-century customaries.
Send any comments or suggestions to Minott Kerr at:
mkerr@reed.eduLast Modified: 21 May 1996