Clôture

CLÔTURE/Enclosure Mette Birkedal Bruun In the chapter on enclosure (clôture), Barthes turns his attention to physically demarcated forms of existence. The dynamic between text and praxis underlies the chapter and indeed the very publication of Comment vivre ensemble. On the one hand, the “novelistic simulations of everyday spaces” studied by Barthes oscillate between animal and human modes of being on one side, and on the other literary explorations of such modes of being in descriptions of the correlation between space and existence, and Barthes discusses the capacity of fictive texts to bring out nuances pertaining to this correlation. On the other hand, the translation of Barthes’s lectures at the Collège de France into a textual whole, complete with explanatory notes, involves a transposition from oral discourse to edited text, from academic praxis to literary representation and from the enclosure of the academic auditory and its scholarly community to an indefinite and partly anonymous universe of readers and commentators. The interaction between text and practice is explored in the substance of Barthes’s work and exploited in the emergence of the volume. The generic challenges and dynamic potential of this interaction are worth keeping in mind as we turn to texts that present a monastic vision of (co)habitation. Our point of departure is taken in Barthes’s concern with clôture as a physical boundary and as a demarcation of privacy. Monastic enclosure (Latin: clausura) serves as our point of orientation.1 The monastic mode of being offers a wide array of paradigmatic dimensions associated with enclosure. The monastery involves architectural demarcations such as walls and gates; rules that regulate 1 | The tension between enclosure and its disruption has been the primary focus of the collective interdisciplinary research project “Solitudes: Withdrawal and Engagement in the Long Seventeenth Century” (2013-2017), financed by the European Research Council (313397 – MOS); sincere thanks are due to my Solitudes colleagues Lars Nørgaard, Kristian Mejrup, Eelco Nagelsmit, and Sven R. Havsteen. The perspectives related to privacy pertain to research carried out at the Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Privacy Studies. al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 136 Mette Birkedal Bruun the crossing of those walls and behavior within them; an anthropological ideal that prescribes the annihilation of the fallen self and a set of practices aimed at shaping human beings according to that ideal; a delineation of the communities that belong respectively within and without the walls, and a competing delineation of groups who are occasionally allowed to partake in the isolation; aesthetic exploitation of the enclosure; and, finally, a fundamental vision that motivates it all and is disseminated in genres legislative, historiographical, poetic, meditative, and exemplary. As with Barthes’s volume, each of these textual genres must translate between practice and text and deal with questions concerning audiences, genre-specificities, the ability of text to convey practice, and that proprium of text and practice, respectively, that defies any translation. The monastic movement takes architectural, sociological, aesthetic, and existential dimensions of enclosure to a degree of physical concreteness that makes it a suitable vantage point from which to look at questions that hover less manifestly over the enclosures discussed by Barthes. The focus is partly on the desert monasticism that is one of the five basic focal points of Comment vivre ensemble and its repercussions in Benedictine monasticism, and partly on notions of privacy in the classical age and the grand siècle, Barthes’s epochal point de repère. Barthes’s idea of clôture as a system of concentric circles that define a particular anthropology connects our different historical foci. M URS DE DÉLIMITATION Monastic enclosure has its historical roots in the Egyptian desert. It comes charged with Hellenistic and biblical mythologies associated with the wilderness (Barthes 2002: 99) but above all with a set of practices shaped by the religious and social circumstances of the period. The first half of the fourth century saw a wide-ranging institutionalization of religious withdrawal from society, spanning from the ascetical balancing act of Symeon the Stylite (ibid: 96) to the congregations of hermits in regulated communities pioneered by Pachomius (d. ca. 348). In the Western world the cloistered life was epitomized in the Rule of Benedict (ca. 530) that became the blueprint for Benedictines and Cistercians. This rule augments the role of place with its demand for steadfastness (stabilitas loci), and it deploys the challenges involved in cohabitation to disciplinary ends. Medieval Cistercians described the nature of their enclosure with reference to the wilderness; modern scholars took their foundation myths at face value and charged them with hypocrisy because the Cistercian sites were not, technically speaking, deserted (Bruun 2008; Bruun/Jamroziak 2013). Enclosure is key to monastic life. Medieval abbeys abiding by the principles of the Rule of Benedict and related regulations are organized in zones of withdrawal: from the physical border with the wider world created by the al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM CLÔTURE/Enclosure outer wall, via the zones pertaining to courtyards, workshops, stables, and guest houses to the central complex built around the monastic court and the cloister that surrounds it. This is the heart of the abbey from which there is access to the central buildings: the church, the chapterhouse, the dormitory, and the refectory. The church itself has several zones, most importantly a demarcation that separates the choir from the nave and the choir monks from other churchgoers. The monastic life lived in these zones is minutely organized in different spaces, each of which hems in a particular activity: the church sustains a focused prayer, the refectory stages the attention to bodily needs at mealtimes, and the chapterhouse serves the orientation to the rule and its fulfillment. The medieval Cistercian manual Ecclesiastica officia carefully describes how monks must comport themselves in each of these rooms. The hood of the monastic habit creates an individual enclosure. It shields the monk from his surroundings and prevents his gaze from wandering. The hood forces him to focus and keeps him on the via regia, the direct road to salvation (cf. Num. 20:17, “we will go along the King’s Highway, not turning aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through your territory”). The hood prevents the monk’s gaze from turning left or right and reins in his curiosity. Much is at stake, for it was curiosity that drove Eve and thus humankind into the Fall, and the slightest restlessness or lack of concentration is a Fall en miniature (Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum 4.17; Bernard of Clairvaux, De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae 10.28; Ecclesiastica officia 72.14). The body marks the enclosure of the soul: the senses are described as doors and windows that give access to sin (Bernard of Clairvaux, In dedicatione ecclesiae sermo 3.1; Dominica VI post Pentecosten sermo 2.5; Super Cantica canticorum sermo 35.2). The soul is the innermost core in a concentric system, and it is the soul that all these demarcations serve to protect: the abbey walls; the cloistered yard and its surrounding rooms; the hood and the body. Benedictine enclosure can be breached on several occasions. The two most salient are the entries of postulants and guests, respectively. Such entries come with a dispensation of segregation; they are fraught with danger and surrounded by legislative and practical safeguards. For whomsoever wants to be a monk, the trial of monastic life is condensed at the abbey wall, and the postulant has to stand by the gate for several days in order to show his persistence before he is allowed to enter the apprenticeship of the novitiate. The Rule of Benedict states that no one who seeks to enter monastic life should be allowed easy access (58.1). Only gradually is the hopeful candidate admitted through different sections of the abbey, moving slowly toward its center. First, he enters the guest house, and after a trial period he proceeds into the novices’ area (the Rule of Benedict 58.1-26); only after a year is he allowed full access. The novice’s entry goes but one way; guests who belong to the world and will return to the world pose a correspondingly greater threat to the enclosure. On the one hand, the al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 137 138 Mette Birkedal Bruun obligation to cater for strangers and travelers is incumbent upon Christian and, particularly, monastic life, and the guest house is a mandatory monastic building (e.g., Puzicha 1980; Kerr 2008). On the other hand, guests upset the, ideally hermetic, enclosure. The tension becomes especially acute in early modern French monasteries. In the aftermath of the Council of Trent (15451563) and its concern with lay edification, catechisms and devotional manuals increasingly encouraged laypeople to withdraw from the world in retraites of some eight to ten days. Thus, abbeys became places of resort and loci of devotion not only for monks and nuns but also for devout laypeople. They offered the possibility of a strong dose of devotion, but they also incarnated the simplicity so treasured by contemporary aesthetics. Guests wrote rapt reports, conveying their impressions of enclosed existence to the wider world. They praised the clarity and simplicity that characterized monastic life and described their visit as a veritable peek into beatitude (e.g., Félibien 1671). In the meeting between the monastic inmates and their guests, the demarcations within the abbey were negotiated. They became zones where guests were permitted to partake for a while in monastic life and where, in turn, monks and nuns had to protect themselves from the external threat to their enclosure posed by guests they were bound to welcome. We can only begin to imagine the practical frictions; they seldom come out in the texts. For some visitors the gradual entry into the abbey began well beyond the monastic precinct. Guests who came to the isolated Cistercian abbey of La Trappe in Normandy in the late 17th century recall how the abbey – like some Grail castle – was so inaccessible that they had to hire a local guide to find it. Such visitors’ reports conjure up a vision of the monastic enclosure in which notions of withdrawal, seclusion, privileged insight, and secrecy merge (Félibien 1671: 6). Devout members of the nobility had apartments in abbeys or on their fringes. No matter how physically concrete and devotionally absolute, monastic walls were also porous and permeable. Such modulations of the monastic enclosure found different architectural expressions. Four paradigmatic types are Mlle de Guise, Marie de Lorraine (1615-1688), who regularly withdrew from her Parisian palace to her apartment at the Abbaye de Saint-Pierre de Montmartre, where her sister was abbess; Anne of Austria (1606-1666), who had a pavilion for retreat, built on pillars, adjacent to the convent of Val-deGrâce in Paris; Mme de Sablé’s (1599-1678) apartment in the convent of PortRoyal in Paris, which had access from the street and a window that opened into the church and thus offered a lodging perched on the very wall (Lafond 1984: 205; see also Barthes 2002: 102-103); and Mme de Guise, Élisabeth d’Orléans (1646-1696), who had a lodge in the outer court of La Trappe. As a woman she could not reside within the monks’ enclosure, but as a princess she could not be excluded from the precinct either. The monastic walls competed with other forms of demarcation. Mme de Guise was Louis XIV’s cousin, and when the al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM CLÔTURE/Enclosure abbot of La Trappe visited her at her lodge there, he was not allowed to sit. In a religious sense the abbey was his turf, but socially it was hers. This quick sketch reminds us that enclosure may heighten the density of (religious) ideals and aesthetics and require finely chiseled control in order to do so. It also shows the titillating potential of enclosure and the communicative clout of the correspondent who has gazed within. Our examples are monastic. It may be suggested, however, that most of Barthes’s “novelistic simulations of everyday spaces” gain momentum from more or less explicit rehearsals of similar traits – from the protective and civilizing potency of Robinson Crusoe’s barricade, to the mental intensity personified in the confined woman of Poitiers and in Barthes’s mapping of the zones of voluntary and involuntary, physical and psychological sequestration inherent in Gide’s portrayal of her. C OMMENT VIVRE ENSEMBLE The clausura not only shuts people out; it also encloses the inmates together. The life prescribed in the Rule of Benedict is cenobitic (from Greek κοινός βίος, ‘common life’) rather than eremitical (cf. the Rule of Benedict 1; see also Barthes 2002: 49), and it raises with particular weight the question of how to live together. The shared life strengthens the individual against diabolic attack (the Rule of Benedict 1.3), but the cohabitation also becomes a part of the monastic discipline alongside ascetic practices such as fasts and vigils. The underlying idea is that intense communion with other human beings is an ongoing trial. In the monastic universe, cohabitation tests humility and underpins the desired annihilation of the proud self (Cassian, Collationes 20.1; Asad 1993: 125-167). Within the enclosure the monk is overseen by the abbot and his fellow monks. Above all, however, he is monitored by God, whose angels report to their divine master the monk’s every movement, adding to the basic panoptic tenor of monasticism. The monk is, in the abbot of La Trappe’s words, an homme regardé, an observed human being (Rancé 1689: 1.125). The monks testify to each other’s misconduct in order to help their peers to perfection (Ecclesiastica officia 70). In their cohabitation they test and hone self-control on a daily basis. They must converse harmoniously and suppress any trace of anger. They must, however, not become so absorbed in friendship that their attention is led astray from God or love of neighbor. In the cenobitic life silence becomes a fence that protects each monk from expressing ire, wit, rebellion, or love beyond brotherly care (the Rule of Benedict 4.68-73 and 6). No fence is impenetrable, however, and even silence cannot prevent the monks from harassing each other with gestures, sneering, murmur, laughter, or frowns. This gallery of grimacing faces appears in a sermon that thus offers – perhaps al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 139 140 Mette Birkedal Bruun – lived life caught in a textual snapshot (Bernard of Clairvaux, Super Cantica canticorum 29; Bruun 2011). Just as, in Benedictine monasticism, the monastic precinct disciplines the monk spatially, the canonical hours discipline him temporally. Barthes argues that the ideal idiorrythmie appears in the monastic complex of Mount Athos, which is less minutely organized than the Benedictine schedule: “Chaque sujet y a son rythme propre.” (Barthes 2002: 37) It is the ideal of Benedictine monasticism that each monk’s own rhythm is subject to the common rhythm, indicated by the seven daily services of the Divine Office at which the 150 psalms from the Old Testament are chanted each week (the Rule of Benedict 10-19). These prayers ensure that the monks’ focus is turned toward God and help to structure their day so tightly that not a minute is left for idleness. In these services the monks’ own rhythm is bent toward the common rhythm and is eventually subsumed in a divine rhythm ostensibly decreed by the Bible (cf. the reference to Ps. 119:164 in the Rule of Benedict 16.1). The Benedictine cohabitation is a Procrustean bed. It molds individuals so as to enable them to discard postlapsarian pride and fit the anthropological ideal of humility and obedience in a surrender of their own will to the abbot’s discretion on God’s behalf. The community is a source of strength, but it is also a disciplinary means. The monastic universe is but one example, but at the same time it is an example that throws light on fundamental features of cohabitation intensified by enclosure. This demonstration of a willful and conscious pruning of individuals within the Benedictine community and its temporal, spatial, and ascetic organization reminds us how cohabitation may serve the shaping of oneself and of others – in ways pertaining to body, mind, and mores. L E PRIVÉ , C ’EST LE TERRITOIRE For Barthes, the notion of clôture is closely linked to the notion of privacy, which in turn is closely linked to that of territory. He speaks of the concentric circles of privacy – estate, house, room, and bed (2002: 93) – but historically speaking it makes sense to add to this structure the circles of body and soul or self. The term ‘private’ and its derivatives come from Latin privatus, which means ‘divested,’ ‘robbed,’ or ‘liberated.’ The notion of privacy is, at its semantic basis, a negation, and the state of privacy is the state of one who is not in office. In a classical context, the vita privata is the opposite of the public life with its offices and obligations. Cicero’s great manifesto on civic obligations De officiis (44 BC) is permeated by the dichotomy between public and private. He describes, for example, how private property is based on the allocation of things that by nature are common (pro communibus) to individuals (privati) through usage, purchase, al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM CLÔTURE/Enclosure or military force (Cicero, De officiis 1.7). He lists the duties of the magistrate, the private person, and the foreigner and describes the ways in which the private person must cohabit with others in order to fulfill his obligations as a good citizen. He must be neither servile nor domineering and in matters of the state ever labor for peace and honor (ibid 1.34). Vitruvius defines the ideal physical framework for private life in the sixth book of De architectura (ca. 15 BC), dedicated to the ideal private home. He structures domestic space in respectively private zones, those that are accessible only to the inhabitants, and zones to which guests also have access. Unless invited, guests cannot enter private rooms such as bedrooms, private dining rooms, and bathrooms, while anyone may enter the common rooms (Vitruvius, De architectura 6.5.1). This restricted access means that private homes must be shaped according to the profession of their owners and the professional duties, representative and otherwise, that these owners must be able to execute at home (ibid 6.5.2). Marcus Aurelius’ meditations (170-180) add yet another element to the notion of privacy. Written in Greek, the work evidently involves a terminological move away from the root privat-. More importantly, however, his meditations approach an association of physical withdrawal and meditative withdrawal into oneself (εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀναχωρεῖν, 4.3). The ἀναχώρησις (anachōrēsis, ‘withdrawal’) described by Marcus Aurelius is in some ways related to the withdrawal exercised by the Desert Fathers some 100 years later. Their more lasting and radical segregation from society is augmented by their ἄσκησις (askēsis, ‘asceticism’), a form of training aimed at disciplining the anchorites so that they might triumph over their body and in their entire existence turn toward God (Endjsø 2008: 101-129; Hadot 2009: 81-125). This discipline brings us back to the monastic enclosure and communal honing that goes on within it as a way to support, survey, and test the ascetic. The notion of privacy is not central to the early monastic tradition, which prefers notions of hiddenness such as secretum. It gains ground, however, in the early modern period. The English term privacy occurs from the mid-15th century (Huebert 1997: 28), while French and German show a preference for adjectival constructions. For example, vie privée indicates a life that is not associated with a profession, while oraison privée is the prayer that is performed not by a priest but by the individual believer, no matter how public the location. Similarly, Privatandacht denotes a devotion that takes place in a domestic, more intimate sphere as against the public church service. With the intensified crossconfessional emphasis on sincerity and heart-felt devotion in the 17th century, privacy became a privileged place fit to sustain the earnestness desired, and Pietist circles, to mention but one example, treasured the personal faith nurtured in privacy. But what was positively charged for devout believers proved problematic for the authorities. Decrees such as the one issued in Denmark- al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 141 142 Mette Birkedal Bruun Norway on October 2, 1706 (Seiner Königlichen Majestät zu Dennemarck und Norwegen ernstliches Edict wider die Privat- oder heimlichen Zusammenkünffte der Pietisten) sought to curb the Pietists’ private conventicles. Such decrees placed private religious meetings under official ecclesiastical control, prescribing the public church service as the ideal. For Barthes, privacy connotes the territory of the individual (2002: 93). The private sphere may be a safe haven for those who are within it, but for the authorities it is uncontrollable and potentially threatening, exactly because it is private. In early modern devotion, privacy may be a state wherein believers give up their official insignia, indeed their professional territory, and surrender themselves to God. This is applicable not least in a French context, which maintains linguistically the negation inherent in the Latin privatus. Here the idea of a life divested (privée) of worldly honors and professional distinctions chimes with contemporary, devout norms regarding a life orientated toward God in renunciation of the fallen self. This ideal to some extent adopts the monastic concept of regulated withdrawal and leads to a host of manuals that prescribe a minutely structured life including prayers at specific hours and regular retreats. Solitude becomes the locus of both the radical enclosure of monasticism and the private person’s religious withdrawal from the business of everyday life. The enclosure of cenobitic monasticism and the private nonofficial life both enact early modern French Catholic notions of religious retraite as a vie privée. In his grand pious-pedagogical compendium La methode d’étudier et d’enseigner chrétiennement & solidement les lettres humaines (1682), the Oratorian Louis Thomassin (1619-1695) establishes a connection between the classical notion of vita privata and the Christian idea of solitude. Thomassin introduces his chapter on the private life with an avowal that “la vie privée, une condition mediocre, la retraite, la solitude, le silence sont des biens preferables à toutes les grandeurs de la terre” (“the private life, a modest condition, retreat, solitude, and silence are preferable to all the greatness of the world,” Thomassin 1682: 452). He visits Horace, Virgil, Cicero, and Martial, explaining how well their texts on the private life accord with Christian ideals, and he lingers over the Horatian claim that retreat and solitude become something special when dedicated to studies and when “on se soustrait à tout ce qui est au dehors, pour rentrer en soy-mesme, & y contempler ces veritez & ces regles de sagesse & de justice, qui fixent l’ame & la font joüir d’une heureuse tranquilité” (“one withdraws from everything that is outside [oneself] in order to enter into oneself and there contemplate those truths and those rules of wisdom and justice that anchor the soul and enable it to enjoy a happy tranquility,” ibid: 454). Thomassin is most enthusiastic about Seneca’s statement regarding the happiness of those who enjoy peace far from the tumultuous splendor of court, awaiting death without trouble and fear (ibid: 454-455). In this version of a private life the human being al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM CLÔTURE/Enclosure is no longer concerned with being known by others but only with knowing him or herself as created and fallen and thus dependent on God’s grace. Seen from a grand-siècle religious point of view, the “private” renunciation of worldly honors may be portrayed, textually, as far more heroic than any martial exploits. The retirement of the former commander Louis II Bourbon de Condé (1621-1686), known as le grand Condé, to his palace at Chantilly and his renunciation of both his offices and his former libertine mores for the pursuit of a life of devout and erudite absorption was seen as an eminent expression of a vie privée. Within the palatial clôture that demarcates the vie privée of Condé and those of like mind, cohabitation involves a close, if potentially numerous, circle of family, servants, and friends; stripped of a certain worldly distinction, it is seen as an instance of voluntary diminution. One of the funeral sermons is cued by this diminishment for a claim to grandeur, stating that “le Prince de Condé n’a jamais êté, ni paru plus grand, que dans sa retraite; c’est le dernier comble de sa grandeur d’avoir êté un Prince d’un merite universel, qui a soûtenu le caractere de Heros jusques dans sa vie privée” (“the Prince de Condé never was or appeared to be greater than in his retirement; it is the ultimate culmination of his grandeur to have been a prince of universal merit, who maintained his heroic character even into his private life” Daubenton 1687: 25). The literary rehearsals maintain the view that Condé’s greatness hinges on a turn to God in his private mode of being. His is an existence in which he gives up his territory in a professional sense, retreats to his territory in an architectural and social sense, and thus enters God’s territory in a devotional sense. P ERSPECTIVES The modern understanding of privacy takes its point of departure in a definition formulated by the American lawyers Samuel D. Warren (18521910) and Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941) in an article published in 1890. Their definition of privacy as “the right to be let alone” (1890: 193) emerged at a time when the press had begun to chase stories of prominent people’s private lives: “Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic life; and numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops’ [Luke 12:3].” (ibid: 195) The article avowed that “solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual” (ibid: 196) and referred to the citizen’s right to “his reputation.” Having explained how legislation can no longer make do with paragraphs on rights concerning property, life, and conviction but has to preserve less tangible values too, the authors conclude by pedagogically describing the problem by way of an architectural image that brings us back to Barthes’s idea of the private realm al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 143 144 Mette Birkedal Bruun as a territory and a domain: “The common law has always recognized a man’s house as his castle, impregnable, often, even to its own officers engaged in the execution of its commands. Shall the courts thus close the front entrance to constituted authority, and open wide the back door to idle or prurient curiosity?” (ibid: 220) The article laid the foundation for the understanding of privacy featured in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to privacy and family life and which at once opens and closes the door in its understanding that privacy, while being an indisputable right, may shield activities that pose a threat to the state and its citizens, along the lines of the suspicion that dogged the Pietist conventicles: 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Whereas the classical world deployed the notion of privatus to define a particular status, in the early modern period privacy became a place and a state that human beings could – and, from a religious perspective, should – seek out. When privacy came under pressure, it was increasingly defined as a right. Warren and Brandeis insist that the back door to the territory must be kept closed, and they exploit the domestic enclosure metaphorically to describe the need for a legally defined boundary against the curious gaze. Since then the issue has only become more pertinent. We hone, abolish, and negotiate enclosure on a daily basis with barriers around our homes that make us invisible and glass walls in our offices that turn us into hommes regardés; we delineate virtual intimate spheres with privacy protection, spam filters, and firewalls. Within such concentric domains it becomes germane to ask again – with Barthes – how are we to live together? How live together within and across different enclosures? How to treat ‘in novelistic simulation’ these different enclosures and the human life led inside them; how to translate issues related to such practices in texts fit to explore their nuances? R EFERENCES Asad, Talal (1993): Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Barthes, Roland (1965): “La voyageuse de nuit.” In: La vie de Rancé par Chateaubriand, Paris: Union générale d’éditions, pp. 9-21. al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM CLÔTURE/Enclosure Barthes, Roland (2002): Comment vivre ensemble: Cours et séminaires au Collège de France (1976-1977), Paris: Seuil/IMEC. Bernard of Clairvaux (1990-1999): Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Gerhard Winkler/Alberich Altermatt/Denis Farkasfalvy/Polykarp Zakar, Innsbruck: Tyrolia. Beugnot, Bernard (1996): Le discours de la retraite au XVIIe siècle: Loin du monde et du bruit, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Bruun, Mette Birkedal (2008): “The Wilderness as a lieu de mémoire: Literary Deserts in Cîteaux and La Trappe.” In: Mette Birkedal Bruun/Stephanie Glaser (eds.), Negotiating Heritage: Memories of the Middle Ages, Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 21-42. Bruun, Mette Birkedal (2011): “Wandering Eyes, Muttering, and Frowns: Bernard of Clairvaux and the Communicative Implications of Gesture.” In: Steven Vanderputten (ed.), Understanding Monastic Practices of Oral Communication, Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 337-363. Bruun, Mette Birkedal (2013): “Trembling in Time: Silence and Meaning between Barthes, Chateaubriand and Rancé.” In: Babette Hellemans/ Willemien Otten/Burcht Pranger (eds.), On Religion and Memory, New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 100-120. Bruun, Mette Birkedal/Jamroziak, Emilia (2013). “Introduction: Withdrawal and Engagement.” In: Mette Birkedal Bruun (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-10. Cassian (1965): “De institutis coenobiorum.” In: Jean-Claude Guy (ed. and trans.), Institutions cénobitiques [Sources Chrétiennes 109], Paris: Cerf. Cassidy-Welch, Megan (2001): Monastic Spaces and Their Meanings: Thirteenth-Century English Cistercian Monasteries, Turnhout: Brepols. Cicero (1913): De officiis. In: On Duties [Loeb Classical Library 30], trans. Walter Miller, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Daubenton, Guillaume (1687): Oraison funèbre de […] Louis de Bourbon, prince de Condé […] prononcée à Dijon, dans l’église des PP. de la Compagnie de Jésus, le 28 de février 1687, Dijon: Jean Ressayre. Davril, Anselme (2004): “Fonctions des Cloîtres dans les monastères au Moyen Âge.” In: Peter K. Klein (ed.), Der mittelalterliche Kreuzgang, Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, pp. 22-26. Ecclesiastica officia (1989): In: Danièle Choisselet/Placide Vernet (eds. and trans.), Les ‘Ecclesiastica Officia’ Cisterciens du XIIème siècle, Reiningue: Abbaye d’Œlenberg. Endsjø, Dag Ø. (2008): Primordial Landscapes, Incorruptible Bodies, Desert Asceticism and the Christian Appropriation of Greek Ideas on Geography, Bodies, and Immortality, New York: Peter Lang. European Convention on Human Rights: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/ Convention_ENG.pdf [accessed November 13, 2017] al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM 145 146 Mette Birkedal Bruun Félibien des Avaux, André (1671): Description de l’abbaye de La Trappe, Paris: Frederic Léonard. Hadot, Pierre (2009 [1995]: Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, Oxford: Blackwell. Huebert, Ronald (1997): “Privacy: The Early Social History of a Word.” In: Sewanee Review 105, pp. 21-38. Kerr, Julie (2008): “Cistercian Hospitality in the Later Middle Ages.” In: Janet Burton/Karen Stöber (eds.), Monasteries and Society in the British Isles in the Later Middle Ages, Woodbridge: Boydell, pp. 25-39. Lafond, Jean (1984): “Madame de Sablé et son salon.” In: Jean Lafond/Jean Mesnard (eds.), Images de La Rochefoucauld, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, pp. 201-216. Marcus Aurelius (1916): Meditationes. In: C. R. Haines (ed. and trans.), Marcus Aurelius [Loeb Classical Library 58], Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Puzicha, Michaela (1980): Christus peregrinus: Die Fremdenaufnahme (Mt 25,35) als Werk der privaten Wohltätigkeit im Urteil der Alten Kirche, Münster: Aschendorf. Rancé, Armand-Jean le Bouthillier de (1689): La règle de Saint Benoist: Nouvellement traduite, et expliquée selon son véritable esprit, par l’Auteur des Devoirs de la Vie Monastique, 2 vols, Paris: François Muguet. The Rule of Benedict (1980): Regula. In: Timothy Fry/Imogene Baker/Timothy Horner/Augusta Raabe/Mark Sheridan (eds.), RB 1980: The Rule of St. Benedict, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Thomassin, Louis (1682): La methode d’étudier et d’enseigner chrétiennement & solidement les lettres humaines par rapport aux lettres divines et aux écritures, vol. 3: De l’Etude des Poëtes, où on explique leur Religion & leur Morale, Paris: François Muguet. Vitruvius (1931/1934): De architectura. In: Frank Granger (ed. and trans.), On Architecture [Loeb Classical Library 251/280], 2 vols., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, Samuel D./Brandeis Louis D. (1890): “The Right to Privacy.” In: Harvard Law Review 4/5, pp. 193-220. Zerubavel, Eviatar (1985) [1981]: Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life, Berkeley: University of California Press. al Library (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) - National Library of Denmark / Copenhagen University Library Authenticated Download Date | 10/2/19 8:58 AM