The whole chapter-house rang with such a noise
that it seemed
more like a group of drunken revellers than humble monks, of
which there was no sign.(24)
[From Thurstan’s letter to the archbishop of Canterbury]
When
Archbishop Thurstan arrived at St Mary’s in October
1132, he was confronted by the sight of Abbot Geoffrey at the chapter-house
door, with a crowd of his monks. Regardless of his age and disability,
Geoffrey was determined to put up a feisty performance and announced
that Thurstan might only enter the chapter-house with a few of
his eight clerics. This was an unthinkable prospect for the archbishop;
Thurstan was used to having his band of advisors at all times and
fully intended that they should accompany him on this occasion.
When the archbishop raised his objections, a spectacular rumpus
broke out. In their efforts to keep Thurstan and his advisors out
of the chapter-house, the monks physically threatened the archbishop;
Thurstan responded by wielding his episcopal weapon and imposed
an interdict. This meant that the monks were suspended from administering
the sacraments. The archbishop’s threats were of little consequence
and if anything, incited the rebels to further violence; they now
pounced on the group of reformers, who clutched to Thurstan for
protection and, amidst jeers, made their way to the church where
they locked themselves inside. Meanwhile, the abbey servants barred
the gates and doors of the precinct, and prepared for ambush. All
in all this is presented as a harrowing and traumatic experience,
which left the reforming group with little option but to flee their
abbey.
These men should not be
regarded as turning away from their vow but as looking forward, since
they are leaving a place where the opportunity for sin is too great and
desire to serve God in more security.
[Thurstan’s letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, p. 160}
Abbot Geoffrey was outraged at the turn of events
and accused the runaways of disobedience and desertion. To vent
his anger and
set
out his version of events, Geoffrey wrote letters to Henry I (1100-1135),
the archbishop of Canterbury, and a number of bishops, abbots and
monks in the locality. In response, Thurstan wrote a lengthy letter
to Archbishop William of Canterbury, ‘lest an erroneous account
should be spread by the report of enemies’; he also sought
to engage William’s support for the reformers and for reform
in general, and hoped the archbishop might help heal the rift between
Abbot Geoffrey and the group that had fled St Mary’s. Hugh
of Kirkstall includes the whole of Thurstan’s letter in his
foundation history of Fountains, ‘to strengthen the evidence
of its truth’.(25) Thurstan
stressed that the monks did not desert their abbey, since their
departure was a necessity, and that this
was not an act of disobedience, as they sought to fulfil and commit
themselves more fully to the Benedictine way of life, not to shirk
it. He explicitly compares their departure and situation with that
of the monks who left Molesme in 1098 to establish the first Cistercian
community, and in so doing presents the Yorkshire monks as the
Cîteaux of the North, an analogy that is echoed throughout
the Narratio.