The Exordium Parvum states that since "... blessed Benedict had built his monasteries not in towns or around fortified places or in villages, but in places removed from the traffic of men, they promised to imitate him". But how did the Cistercians, especially in Yorkshire, interpret this? Contemporary critics thought they went too far. Nigel Wireker wrote -
"They hate what I increasingly dislike,
A rustic working in his fields nearby.
Desirous of more land, their neighbours bane,
They never want to have fixed boundaries."
Walter Map is more scathing and specific — "They proceed to raze villages and churches, turn out parishioners, destroy the altars of God, not scupling to grow crops". Historians are divided over the subject. Donkin asserts that the Cistercians did depopulate land, but Platt argues that they didn’t. Which theory is correct ?

Donkin supports his view with evidence from chronicles and charters. The provisions of some grants of land by lay patrons give a hint of the displacing of population. An early grant to Rievaulx in Welburn by Roger de Mowbray (between 1154—7) included villeins who could stay on the land or go.¹ In addition, a charter to Kirkstall (1166—94) grants freedom from toll to "all men who remain on the lands which I have given to them [the monks]". Was this just a ‘stay of execution’? As Donkin’s research shows, such hints of displacement sometimes led to outright depopulation. Such a drastic procedure occurred either close to the abbey site or on properties to be organised as granges. On grange sites, the process took many years, but at the abbey, depopulation was completed in one fell swoop.

The Exordium Parvum was followed to the letter concerning the siting of a new abbey. The monks needed to have total seclusion, away from ‘the world’, and if ‘the world’ (that is, people) occupied the land they had been granted, then they had to be removed. This was the case with the early sites of Byland and Kirkstall. In 1142-3 the convent at Hood was given the vill of Byland, and thus became the new home of the community. However, it was only a mile away from Rievaulx, and its monks greatly objected to the close proximity of another house. Therefore the convent had to move again, to Stocking, but before this they got possession of the vill of Byland and reduced it to a grange. The Byland Cartulary goes on to say "with this in view they alloted some land to the inhabitants of Stutekelde where they could build a new vill". This, Donkin writes, "is clear case of organized resettlement following depopulation. ² But was this an exception rather than the rule?

Another group of monks settled at Barnoldswick. However, there was, as the Kirkstall Foundation Chronicle states, a church "very ancient, and founded long before, with four parochial vills, to wit Marton and another Marton, Bracewell and Stock, besides the vill of Barnoldswick, and two small vills appertaining, Elfwynetrop to wit, and Brogden, of which the said monks were by this time in possession, after the removal of the inhabitants." ³ Therefore, some depopulation had occurred, but where did they go ? There is no record of land given to resettle the peasants, so, unlike at Byland, they must have been left to fend for themselves. Moreover, what people were left were accustomed to meet at the church at Barnoldswick on feast days, and this so irritated the monks that the abbot "... pulled the church down to its foundations" in front of the native clerks and parishioners. Was this a warning to them to move out ? In 1152 the community of monks moved to Kirkstall due to the poor climatic conditions, and the former abbey site was reduced to a grange. It is not known which vills were included in the grange of Barnoldswick, but Donkin states that Bracewell and Stock had churches within a few years, so there must have still been settlement in the area. Maybe the continuing presence of stubborn peasants was a factor in the move to Kirkstall ?

However, displacement of population was more common around outlying granges rather than the abbey site. The majority of these were founded in the twelfth century. The Cistercian Rule forbade any contact with lay agriculture. Sometimes, if they were lucky, the monks were granted entire vills. If not, they tried to achieve this aim by accumulating different types of land, such as waste, newly cleared, demesne, and strips and cultures in open fields, probably scattered around, and then, by utilising their superior economic skills (or as critics like Walter Map would attest, using bribery and corruption) consolidated land in certain townships by purchase and exchange. Thus Donkin deduces that "It is in fact difficult to imagine flow consolidation could have been affected where open field strips were involved without some displacement of population." ⁴

Forty—four percent of twelfth century granges in Yorkshire lay within the boundaries of vills which were ‘waste’ or ‘largely waste’ in 1086. The degree of recovery by the time of the Cistercian ‘plantation’ is uncertain. However,there was a great deal of assarting, particularly in the Vale of York, by the Order in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to create granges. Donkin states that new land nearby, either waste or newly cleared, given in exchange, was one solution to the problem of resettlement, as happened at Byland, discussed earlier. An example of displacement of people to a farther distance away occurred when the monks of fountains obtained the land of Hugh de Baldersby, whereby another tenement at Pickhill, four miles north, was given in exchange.

An excellent example of outright depopulation and its consequences is the case involving Kirkstall Abbey. It had acquired the entire vill of Accrington in exchange for the grange of Cliviger in the 1190’s. After a few years the inhabitants were removed to reduce the vill to a grange, and all would have been well, but, as the foundation Chronicle records " certain malignants living in the neighbourhood whose ancestors had held Accrington before, at the instigation of the Devil utterly burnt up the same grange with all its furniture and cruelly slew three lay brothers".⁵ Incidents such as this no doubt influenced Walter Map to write "Those upon whom comes an invasion of Cistercians may be sure that they are doomed to a lasting exile ... They are left destitute... Some are hooked into robbery or theft, and despairing an end to their misery, spurn life ". ⁶ The social and economic hardships produced by the white monk’s policy of creating solitudes on previously populated sites cannot be underestimated, especially as very little resettlement of peasants by the monks occurred. ‘Moral obligation’were two words often lacking in the Cistercian vocabulary.

Donkin evaluates that "Probably all granges founded alongside active village communities witnessed some displacement of population, and most cases of outright depopulation must be attributed to their presence".⁷ It is not too obvious to say that if a grange is named after a former vill, then de-population occurred.

In contrast, Colin Platt argues that there were not enough lay brothers and hired workers to work the large and numerous granges, (the large number at Rievaulx was an exception) and, in any case, the Rule stipulates that the lay brothers were there to manage the estate, and were not a labour force. These men were artisans, not agricultural workers. Extra help was needed to ensure the grange system ran smoothly, especially at harvest time. Therefore, he states "far from rejecting any form of local assistance, the Cistercians made every effort from the first either to negotiate the gift of peasant cultivators and their families, or to secure their purchase or exchange".⁸

Platt would use the two examples of gifts of serfs to Rievaulx and Kirkstall mentioned earlier to support this. A more explicit example comes from a grant from Roger de Thorneton before 1186, giving to the monks of Byland "Richard son of Aidild and Godida his wife and Nicholas their sort and all ownership (villein) from these the rest of my possessions for half a mark of silver". The Rule did not provide for the use of serfs, but sometimes they were included in the grant, and if the monks would not accept them, then they would not receive the land. Sometimes the serfs were given free (as incentives?), but at other times (as above) money payments were specifically mentioned. The acceptance or purchase of such serfs was completely contrary to the Cistercian Ideal, out as the monks became more and more desirous of land to expanad their economic programme (and Increase their power), their high-minded principles were conveniently forgotten. Thus they acquired ownership of not only serfs, but also mills and churches. The ‘forbidden fruit’ of the manorial system often proved to be too tempting for the white monks and Platt argues that if local labour is there for the taking, why get rid of it ?

Platt supports his argument with archaeological evidence and economic common sense. He says that economic rather than spiritual factors determined the siting of granges. They were often near settlement (people,buildings, roads), and thus in ‘the world’ which was contrary to their Rule. But factors of economic convenience made granges evolve near existing settlement.

He argues that even where depopulation is said to have taken place before the vill is reduced to a grange, it was usually not complete. Thorpe Underwood had an existing peasant settlement which needed removing In order that Fountains could construct a new grange there. However, included in the gift of land were seven peasant families, bondsmen of Oliver de Buscy, who had been formerly settled on the land. Although it was strictly, against the Rule, extra labour on a new grange would be welcomed, and Platt states "It need scarcely be supposed that the abbey accepted the bondmen and their families, only to drive them away." ⁹ Such peasants might be more reliable than lay brothers, whose discipline was sometimes problematic.

In addition, Platt elaborates his theory with archaeological evidence. The earthworks at some grange sites show evidence of dwellings which were not grange buildings, but which were contemporary to them. He evaluates that such evidence shows that a vill was not destroyed and its population dispersed, prior to the formation of the grange, but rather that peasant workers were allowed to stay and laboured on the grange. Platt gives some examples as the Fountains granges at Morker and Cayton, the Rievaulx granges at Griff and Newlass, Jervaulx’s Akebar and Braithwaite, Byland’s Old Byland and Kirkstall’s Barnoldswick. However, it has already been established that the monks re-settled peasants at Old Byland (the present-day name for Stutkelde) while using their former vill as a grange, so total depopulation had occurred; they obviously didn’t want to use the serfs as a labour force, thus compounding Platt’s theory!

Although Platt is correct when he mentions Barnoldswick, as some peasants remained when the land was reduced to a grange on the monk’s departure to Kirkstall, and these could have been used as extra labour; however, he omits to mention that some depopulation had already occurred, and that by pulling the church down, the abbot gave a clear signal about his intentions towards the remaining native population. He wanted them out.

Platt uses Cayton, a well-known example of Cistercian depopulation, to support his view. This was acquired as a vill three years after the foundation of Fountains, and was only three miles away from the abbey. This vill would have had resident peasant families on it. Where did they go? Platt says that the grange was remote from lay settlement, and therefore labour was scarce. If depopulation occurred at the outset, it was soon reversed. He uses the earthworks as evidence. To the south of the grange buildings is the line of a former village street, with peasant houses on either side. He states that these are contemporary with the grange buildings and were thus used to house peasant labourers. Either the native families were never evicted, or they were soon brought back, or others were acquired by gift or purchase.

He concludes his argument by stating that a grange was managed by only three or four lay brothers, and that the estate was mainly dependent on the labour of a tied peasantry. The lay brothers and hired servants would have a private enclosure, and just beyond it the peasant’s houses were situated (as seen at Cayton). He admits that some depopulation did occur at the outset of the Cistercian plantation, usually at the abbey site, but asserts that the white monks did not abhor peasants on their land. Their labour was vital in order for the Cistercians to achieve economic self-sufficiency and superiority.

It has been seen that historians come to differing conclusions concerning the extent of depopulation on lands acquired by the Cistercians, due to the fact that they produce different forms of evidence to support their theory. Donkin looked at charters and chronicles, Platt studied archaeological remains and used economic ‘ common sense.’ In addition, one of their crucial sticking points concerns the lay brothers. Donkin (and Bishop) claim there were plenty of enthusiastic conversi still attracted to the Order throughout the thirteenth century, who could work the ever-expanding grange system. In contrast, Platt argues that there could never possibly be enough. It must be said that a far deeper study must be done to yield a conclusive theory. Although they all followed the same Rule, every Cistercian house was different, and different circumstances produce different results. The attitudes of particular abbots may play a vital part in evaluating the extent of depopulation, but little is known of many, as is little known about the numbers of lay brothers on a particular grange. Thus the question may never be fully answered, unless new evidence comes to light. Critics such as Walter Map might nave exaggerated the Cistercian’s manic greed for land and the consequences for the people who lived on the latest object of the white monk’s desire, but ‘there’s no smoke without fire’, and the Cistercian Order, by following its Rule to the letter, certainly committed numerous acts of most uncharitable behaviour against fellow Christians.

Bishop, T.A.M. - Monastic Granges in Yorkshire (English Historical Review, Vol. LI, 1936)

Butler, Lionel and Given-Wilson, Chris - Medieval Monasteries of Great Britain (Michael Joseph, 1979)

Donkin, R.A. - The Cistercian Order and the Settlement of Northern England (Geography Review, Vol. 59, 1969)

Donkin, R.A. - The Cistercian Grange in England in the 12^th and 13^th centuries, with special reference to Yorkshire (Studia Monastica, 1964)

Donkin, R.A. - Settlement and Depopulation on Cistercian Estates during the 12^th and 13^th centuries, especially in Yorkshire (B.I.H.R., 1960)

Fletcher, J.S. - The Cistercians in Yorkshire (S.P.C.K., 1919)

Graves, Coburn V. - The Economic Activities of the Cistercians in Medieval England (1128-1307) (Analecta Cisterciersit XII, 1957)

Platt, Colin - The Monastic Grange in Medieval England (Macmillan, 1969)

Waites, Brian - The Monastic Settlement of North-East Yorkshire (Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Vol. XL)

Early Cistercian Documents in Translation - Summa Cartae Caritatis; Exordium Parvum (by Bede K. Lackner from 'Les plus anciens textes de Citeaux' - by Jean de la Croix Brouton and Jean-Baptiste Van Damme) (Achel: Abbaye Cistercienne, 1974)

Cistercian Foundation Documents - Byland Cartulery (translated from W. Dugdale, 'Monasticon Anglicarium'); Foundation Chronicle of Kirkstall Abbey

Grant to Byland Abbey by Roger de Thorneton - B.M. Add Mss No. 7459 (before 1186)

Walter Map - De Nugis Curialium (XXIV. Of the Origins of the Cistercians; XXV. A Digression of Master Walter Map on Monkery.)

Nigel Wireker - Mirror of Fools (Concerning the White Monks) (translated G. Regenos, 1959)

Back to homepage