ORA ET LABORA: THE PROCESS OF “MAKING” IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER
Alba Serino
Brown University, University of L’Aquila
The words Ora et Labora, pray and work, were the basic principles of the Rule of
Saint Benedict, adopted in 1098 by Robert of Molesme in the foundation of a new
monastic order, later known as the Cistercians. From the first five “mother abbeys” in
the French region of Burgundy, the Cistercian monks founded new monasteries across
Europe and gradually created a large monastic network that continued to expand up
until the 15th century. Labor was an important aspect in this Order. By recovering the
Rule of Saint Benedict, Robert's mission was to reestablish what he took to be the
forgotten spiritual values of sacrifice and simplicity. This was possible by making the
monks provide for their own living, through manual labor and farming activities. The life
of a Cistercian monk was therefore divided between work and prayer, both essential for
the fulfillment of his spiritual life. The labor activities of the monks were also relevant to
the Order in more secular ways. The building activity of the Cistercian monks and their
reclamation of land contributed to the transformation of the European landscape, from
swamps and forests to fields and impressive architecture.1
1
On the Cistercian Order see Duby, G. (1982). San Bernardo e l'arte cistercense, Torino; Comba, R.
(1985). “I cistercensi fra citta' e campagne nei secoli XII e XIII. Una sintesi mutevole di orientamenti
economici e culturali nell'italia nord-occidentale” in Studi Storici, Anno 26, No. 2, Economia monastica: I
cistercensi e le campagne (Apr. -Jun., 1985), pp. 237-261; Vagni, M. (1993). “L'organizzazione agricola
dei Cistercensi nel Medioevo: l'esperienza di Casamari” in Rivista Cistercense, X-2, Casamari, pp. 81128; Righetti Tosti-Croce, M. (1993). Architettura per il lavoro. Dal caso cistercense a un caso
cistercense: Chiaravalle di Fiastra, Rome; Pressouyre, L. (1994). L'Espace Cistercien. Paris: Comité des
travaux historiques et scientifiques; Rapetti, A. M. (1999). La formazione di una comunità cistercense.
Istituzioni e strutture organizzative di Chiaravalle della Colomba tra XII e XIII secolo. Rome; Piccinni, G.
(2006). “El Modelo Cisterciense en su aplicacion italiana centro-septentrional: algunas ideas desde la
historiografia” in Cistercium. Revista Cisterciense, n. 242-243, anno LVIII. ZAMORA, 45-61; Civantos,
J.M.M. (2006). “Il territorio stratificato: proposte dall'archaeologia del paesaggio” in IV Congresso
Nazionale di Archaeologia Medievale, San Galgano Abbey (September 26-30, 2006). Florence, 3-7;
Addison, K. (2006). Changing places: the Cistercian settlement and rapid climate change in England in
2
I have underlined two reasons for the importance of studying the process of
making in the Cistercian Order, one religious and one economic. In the present paper, I
will suggest that Cistercian work and architecture should be seen as complementary
and should not be studied separately. The monastic order has been celebrated for its
architectural marvels; I would like to extend the discussion beyond the aesthetic
dimensions of the architecture into a wider context that includes the economic and
religious dimension and brings the focus onto “work”.
In his work on Saint Bernard and Cistercian art in 1976, Georges Duby argued
that the spirit of Cistercian architecture lay in the cathedral. 2 Minor architecture,
however, such as granges, hospitals, bridges, mills, and dovecotes can give us new
information on the activities of the monks, both of an economic and religious nature.
Each of these structures, many of which survive in the modern landscape, contributed
to and shaped the economic and spiritual aspects of the Cistercian landscape.
Marvin Trachtenberg and Tim Ingold have both emphasized the process of
making in the study of architecture. In Building-in-Time, Trachtenberg applies what he
defines as a “relativity theory of architecture and time” to pre-modern architecture. What
is useful for this study is his vision of architecture as a process, rather than a finished
product.3 Ingold takes this idea a step further and sees architecture not only as a
making process, but also as a process of growth. In his view, the maker is a participant
Locating Medieval Landscapes. Eds by Lees, A.C. and Overing, G. L, Pennsylvania University Press, pp.
212-238.
2
Duby, op.cit. p.176.
3
Trachtenberg, M. (2010). Building-in-Time: from Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, IX-XXV.
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 3
in a world of active materials. Thus, it is important for scholars to look at the makers’
engagement with the materials themselves while studying the process of making.4
With the help of two different case studies, this paper will consider religious and
secular aspects of labora in Cistercian culture. It will refer to two particular architectural
structures: an outer court building, the so-called ‘woolhouse’ of Fountains Abbey, and
the Capello Bridge of the monastery of San Martino al Cimino.
The Woolhouse of Fountains Abbey
Fountains Abbey is located near the village of Aldfield in North Yorkshire,
England. The Abbey was officially founded in 1132, by monks from the mother abbey of
Clairvaux. According to Glyn Coppack’s reconstruction, the whole area of the monastic
complex was surrounded by a precinct wall and divided by the river Skell into two parts.
The area to the south of the river, where the building identified as woolhouse was also
located, was dedicated to agricultural and industrial processes.5
Today, the structure of the twelfth century woolhouse is in ruins. 6 Glynn
Coppack’s 1977-80 excavations revealed the complex history of the building, which
included at least six phases of construction.7 Excavations also demonstrated that the
original form of the structure was an aisled hall. In this first phase the structure was
most likely a simple storehouse, and it continued to be used as such even after it
acquired new functions. During its second building phase, about seventy years later, a
4
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London and New York:
Routledge, 1-16.
5
Coppack, G. (1986). “The Excavation of an Outer Court Building, Perhaps the Woolhouse, at Fountains
Abbey, North Yorkshire” in Medieval Archaeology, 30 (1986), pp. 46-87; see fig. 1 for the location of the
woolhouse.
6
See fig. 2.
7
Se fig. 3.
4
series of waterworks were added.8 This led archaeologists to identify the building as the
abbey’s woolhouse, used for the storage and processing of the monastery's main
product, wool. As a result of this identification, the structure is commonly referred to as
the ‘woolhouse’. The woolhouse continued to be enlarged in its subsequent building
phases and was finally transformed into a mill. Its development reflected the changes in
the monastery, proving a close connection between the monastery itself and its
surroundings. As the economy of Fountains Abbey developed, the woolhouse continued
to evolve as well.9
Looking now at the location of Fountains' woolhouse, one notices that the
structure was part of the outer court buildings of Fountains Abbey. It was the main
storage building of the monastic complex and, like the rest of the outer court buildings,
constituted a direct link between the monastery and its estates outside the precinct wall.
Each of Fountains' monastic barns, or granges, situated outside the precinct walls, had
its own gate onto the outer court.10 The woolhouse, together with the other outer court
buildings, was therefore the main link between the monastery and the outside world. As
such, the particular location of the building gave it an important role both from a spiritual
and economic point of view.
From the spiritual aspect, one must consider the Cistercian monks’ desire for
isolation from the outside world. In fact, the Cistercian Order aimed to reestablish the
8
Outside of the western wall a culvert was added, together with a sluice to control the flow of water within
the building. Other conduits and drain-pipes were found during the excavations on the eastern side of the
woolhouse. Ibid. pp. 55-56.
9
Ibid. pp. 82-85.
10
Cistercian granges were structures created originally for the storage of agricultural products. These
buildings were built at regular distances from the monastery and could be used as a network to manage
its entire properties. With their peculiar triangular façade, granges distinguished themselves as an
autonomous architectural type and could therefore constitute a sign of the Cistercian presence in the
agricultural landscape. Righetti Tosti-Croce, M. (1993). Architettura per il lavoro. Dal caso cistercense a
un caso cistercense: Chiaravalle di Fiastra. Rome: Viella.
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 5
myth of the desert, introduced by the founders of European monasticism. Their goal
was to recover the concept of renunciation of the outside world and its temptations.11
Working in the woolhouse constituted an important but also spiritually dangerous
connection with the outside world. The function of the woolhouse could be seen also in
connection to this spiritual problem: labor was a way to keep the monks connected to
the real world and also resist its temptations; the labora, once again, was closely
connected to the ora. By working in the building that linked the monastery to the world
outside of the precinct walls, these two parts of the monk's life came together in the
basic principle of ora et labora.
Next, one must consider the role of labor in terms of the economic production of
the monastery. The woolhouse at Fountains was the largest building within the outer
court and the biggest storage building within the precinct. Coppack calculates the total
height of the gable to have been 15.20 meters. In this case, the woolhouse was much
taller than the 3.5 meter high precinct wall, and could therefore be seen outside of the
monastic enclosure.12 This high visibility factor can be linked to the theories of the neomarxist anthropologist Norman Yoffee. In his study on the formation of primary estates,
Yoffee suggests that the productive potential of a past community was increased not
only by the creation of a surplus, but also by the institutionalization of that surplus. He
uses the example of large or peculiar architecture of storage spaces to make this
11
The lack of isolation in several Cistercian monasteries across Europe, especially the communities
established from the thirteenth century, has brought scholars to believe that the idea of establishing a
desertum consisted in a more symbolic rather than real isolation. On the topic see Lekai, L.J. (1978).
“Ideals and Reality in early Cistercian Life and Legislation” in Sommerfeldt, J.R., Cistercian ideals and
reality, Michigan: Cistercian Publications; Pressouyre, L. (1994). L'Espace Cistercien. Paris: Comité des
travaux historiques et scientifiques.
12
Coppack, op.cit., p. 84.
6
surplus evident.13 Fountains' woolhouse can be seen as the architectural representation
of a surplus of production. In this way, the goal of the Cistercian monks was to make the
result of their labor visible and highlight their robust economic activity. So far, the
observation of religious and economic characteristics of Fountains' woolhouse has
highlighted two interesting factors considered by Cistercian monks in the making of a
building: one spiritual, the defense from external temptations, and one secular, the
display of economic resources.
The Capello Bridge of San Martino al Cimino
As previously mentioned, the Cistercian Order contributed significantly to the
transformation of the medieval landscape. One of the ways that they contributed was
their ability to reclaim uncultivated land. For example, it was not uncommon during the
foundation of a Cistercian monastery for the monks to divert the course of a river to
bring fresh water to the enclosure. Another example of the Cistercian talent in hydraulic
engineering is the construction of bridges, such as the case of the Capello Bridge.
The monastery of San Martino al Cimino is located at the top of the hill of the
town of its namesake, a fraction of the city of Viterbo in the northern part of the Lazio
region (Italy). The Cistercian history of the monastery started in 1150, when Pope
Eugene III demanded to replace the existing Benedictine community at San Martino
13
Yoffee’s neo-marxist theories make a second interesting point on the process of creation of political
power, which can be well applied to the study of Cistercian communities: the religious elite of a past
society, he explains, could own land, properties and employed dependents and ceremonial buildings
could link different social units and their belief system. It is automatic to apply this category to Cistercian
estates and to the distribution within their properties of ecclesiastic buildings. If one adopts the model
described by Yoffee, the formation of the Cistercian identity in the medieval landscape could be definitely
compared to the constitution of a political identity. Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the Archaic State:
Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-38.
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 7
with a Cistercian one coming from the monastery of Saint Sulpice in Savoia.14 San
Martino, after an initial period of struggle, gradually expanded its patrimony and reached
the apex of its economic growth during the thirteenth century. It was in this period that
the monks of the Cistercian community planned the construction of the Capello Bridge.
Today, the bridge is in ruins and well hidden by the Cimina forest, about 2.5 kilometers
from the monastery over the course of the Porchetta stream.15 The ruins of the bridge
are mentioned in early eighteenth century documents and can be identified in the 1641
map by Pietro Coretini, but unfortunately no mention has been yet found of this
structure in medieval sources.16 However, the building techniques suggest a date from
the thirteenth or fourteenth century. 17 The position of the structure along a route
connecting the ancient Roman road via Ciminia to the monastery of San Martino is a
further hint on the date and authorship of the Capello Bridge.18 The bridge was built by
the Cistercians to connect their monastery to what had become at that time the main
pilgrimage route to Rome, under the name of via Francigena.19 The bridge ceased to be
14
Egidi, P. (1907). L’Abbazia di San Martino al Cimino presso Viterbo. Roma: Officina Poligrafica Italiana,
pp. 18-19.
15
See fig. 4.
16
Francocci, S., Rose, D. (1996). “L’Antica via Ciminia dell’Etruria” in Rivista di Topografia Antica, VI
(1996), p. 71; Milioni, A. (2007). Carta Archeologica d’Italia: Contributi. Viterbo 2, Viterbo: Universitá degli
Studi della Tuscia, pp. 129-130; Serino, A. (2010). Il monastero cistercense di San Martino al Cimino.
Analisi del territorio pertinente all’abbazia nel Medioevo, masters thesis, Universitá degli Studi della
Tuscia.
17
The segmental arch, the use of small blocks kept together by a large amount of mortar and the
positioning of large blocks of stone right above the piers of the bridge were part of a common technique
used for the construction of small medieval bridges in Italy. In addition, small bridges were rarely built in
stone or brick along secondary routes before the thirteenth century. Patitucci Uggeri, S. (2002). “La
viabilitá di terra e d’acqua nel’Italia medievale” in ed. Patitucci Uggeri, S. Quaderni di Archeologia
Medievale IV. La viabilità medievale in Italia. Contributo alla carta archeologica medievale. Atti del V
Seminario di Archeologia Medievale (Cassino, 2000), Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, p.7; Stopani, R.
(1992). La via Francigena. Una strada europea nell’Italia del Medioevo, Firenze: Le Lettere, p. 23.
18
Serino, op. cit., pp. 88-94.
19
See fig. 5; It is necessary to specify that the so called “via Francigena” was a pilgrimage route
connecting the north of Europe (England, France, Belgium, Germany) to Rome. It was used throughout
the Middle Ages and constantly changed its path through the centuries, maintaining however its name. In
the area of Viterbo, more precisely, the via Francigena had reused until the twelfth century the ancient
8
used after the construction of a new road from Viterbo to San Martino towards the end
of the seventeenth century, which crossed the Porchetta stream at a point further southeast through the use of a new bridge.20
Once again, it is useful to look at factors of visibility in the making of a structure.
For instance, were travelers aware in some way that the bridge was built by the monks
of San Martino and not by a secular institution? Could travelers see the monastery from
the bridge, and in this way feel less the trials of a long journey? An answer to these
questions is offered by the presence of a quarry a few meters away from the bridge.21
This quarry, used to build the structure, can be found to the south along the same river.
Large blocks were cut and transported on water to the location of the bridge, where they
were then manufactured into smaller blocks. The quarry, right along the path, could be
seen by travelers continuing to San Martino from Viterbo. Located on the road that led
from the via Francigena to the monastery of San Martino, the most frequent users of the
bridge were pilgrims. This might have been a factor considered by the monks in their
construction of Capello Bridge. Literary sources describe the thickness of the Cimina
forest, in which the bridge is situated. 22 Today, the forest cuts off the view of the
monastery, which stands forty-five minutes walking distance from the bridge. The walls
of San Martino appear at the very last part of the walk. When I performed the hike from
Capello Bridge to San Martino, I noticed my sense of relief at the site of the monastic
route of the via Cassia and only from the half of the thirteenth century travelers started to prefer the
eastern route of the via Ciminia to the western via Cassia. I am in this case referring to the thirteenth
century via Francigena, which reused the ancient Roman route of the via Ciminia. For a reconstruction of
the course of the via Francigena in the territory of Viterbo see Serino, op. cit., pp. 77-86.
20
Dionisi, S., Esposito, A. (2001). “Paesaggio e viabilitá nel Piano dei Bagni di Viterbo tra Medioevo e
prima Etá moderna” in ed. Fosi, I., Recchia, A.P. (2001). Fra centro e Periferia: strade, territorio, comunitá
negli Anni Santi tfra Cinquecento e Settecento, Roma: Gangemi, pp. 155-172.
21
See fig. 6.
22
Livy, in the first century BCE wrote that “Silva erat Ciminia magis tum invia atque horrenda quam nuper
fuere Germanici saltus, nulli ad eam diem ne mercatorum quidem adita” (Ab Urbe Condita, IX, 36).
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 9
walls. The relief must have been also part of the pilgrim's religious journey to the
monastery. In this view, the sight of the quarry next to the Capello Bridge, emphasizing
the process of the making of the bridge itself, constituted a first hint of the presence of
the monastery, and anticipated the pilgrim’s final relief.
In the process of making the Capello Bridge the monks might have considered
not only the symbolic value of the bridges sight lines in helping a pilgrim in his journey of
penitence; they could have also been mindful of the bridge’s potential to stand as a sign
of their power and control over the landscape. Marjorie Boyer, in her study on medieval
French bridges, stressed that the property of a bridge often determined the property of
the territory around it.23 The presence of the quarry, in this view, would reinforce the
notion of property by highlighting the physical labor used for the construction of the
bridge. The user of the bridge became aware not only of who owned the land, but also
of the power of the monks to transform the appearance of that land through their
engineering skills. The study of the Capello Bridge, in the religious and economic
dimension, has underlined how factors of visibility can influence Cistercian “making”.
Conclusion
This study on the woolhouse of Fountains Abbey and the Capello Bridge of San
Martino has underlined how labor was an important aspect in the life of the Cistercian
monk. In fact, labora was used not only as an instrument to recover the lost Benedictine
values of simplicity and sacrifice, but also to conduct advanced agricultural and building
activities that signaled the dominance of Cistercians. The product of this Cistercian
23
Boyer, M. N. (1976). Medieval French Bridges. A History, Cambridge: Medieval Academy of America,
p.6.
10
architectural “making” was also used to demonstrate economic power. The outer court
buildings at Fountains were not only spaces used for storage and labor activities; other
factors were considered by monks in the construction of these buildings, such as their
position in relation to the monastery and the surrounding estates and also their visibility.
Similarly, other types of ‘minor architecture’ were deployed in multiple ways to
communicate both ora and labora to the community. For instance, the Capello Bridge,
was not only a structure to cross a river, it provided evidence of the monks’ skills in
hydraulic technology and possession of the land, and it could also be seen as a sign of
spiritual motivation for the pilgrim during the process of pilgrimage. In the study of this
structure, one should consider factors of intentionality, such as the visibility of the quarry
used to build it, to prove the ownership and power of its monastic creators.
These religious and economic factors should not be considered separately from
the architecture itself. The building techniques used by Cistercians are essential to
understand factors of intentionality. It is also important to look at architecture as a
process, rather than a singular finished product. Considering Cistercian structures in the
whole process of their “making” from planning to construction provides a better
understanding of both their symbolic and physical value. Additionally, it is useful to look
at the finished product of this “making” as an active participant. In this way, the
structures act both as products of the monks, but also as actors that produce their own
effects: the outer court building could act to intimidate outsiders with its imposing height,
while the bridge could produce relief for weary travelers.
Cistercian work and architecture should be seen as complementary and should
therefore not be studied separately. For example, the impressively tall woolhouse and
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 11
the clever positioning of the bridge relative to the quarry are uniquely Cistercian
architectural achievements, which should not be overlooked for the sake of spiritual
considerations. By looking at both the physical object and its possible symbolic meaning,
this study’s approach can provide a better understanding of Cistercian culture and
architecture, which brought about a significant transformation of the medieval European
landscape thanks to its complex spirituality, divided equally between work and prayer.
Images
Figure 1. Plan of Fountains Abbey (after Coppack 1986).
12
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 13
Figure 2. The ruins of the woolhouse of Fountains Abbey.
14
Figure 3. Reconstruction of the building phases of Fountain Abbey's woolhouse by Glyn
Coppack (after Coppack 1986).
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 15
Figure 4. Ruins of Capello Bridge seen from north (photograph by Alba Serino).
16
Figure 5. Road network connecting the monastery of San Martino to the city of Viterbo.
On the left is the reconstruction of the via Cassia route while on the right is the via
Ciminia, known in the thirteenth century as via Francigena (after Serino 2010).
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 17
Figure 6. Quarry located a few meters from Capello Bridge along the Porchetta stream
(photograph by Alba Serino).
18
Bibliography
Addison, K. (2006). Changing places: the Cistercian settlement and rapid climate
change in England in Locating Medieval Landscapes. Edited by Lees, A.C. and
Overing, G. L. Pennsylvania University Press, pp. 212-238.
Boyer, M. N. (1976). Medieval French Bridges. A History. Cambridge: Medieval
Academy of America.
Civantos, J.M.M. (2006). “Il territorio stratificato: proposte dall'archaeologia del
paesaggio” in IV Congresso Nazionale di Archaeologia Medievale, San Galgano
Abbey (September 26-30, 2006). Florence, 3-7.
Comba, R. (1985). “I cistercensi fra citta' e campagne nei secoli XII e XIII. Una sintesi
mutevole di orientamenti economici e culturali nell'italia nord-occidentale” in Studi
Storici, Anno 26, No. 2, Economia monastica: I cistercensi e le campagne (Apr. Jun., 1985), pp. 237-261.
Coppack, G. (1986). “The Excavation of an Outer Court Building, Perhaps the
Woolhouse, at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire” in Medieval Archaeology, 30
(1986), pp. 46-87.
Dionisi, S., Esposito, A. (2001). “Paesaggio e viabilitá nel Piano dei Bagni di Viterbo tra
Medioevo e prima Etá moderna” in ed. Fosi, I., Recchia, A.P. (2001). Fra centro
e Periferia: strade, territorio, comunitá negli Anni Santi tfra Cinquecento e
Settecento, Roma: Gangemi, pp. 155-172.
Duby, G. (1982). San Bernardo e l'arte cistercense. Torino.
Egidi, P. (1907). L’Abbazia di San Martino al Cimino presso Viterbo. Roma: Officina
Poligrafica Italiana.
Francocci, S., Rose, D. (1996). “L’Antica via Ciminia dell’Etruria” in Rivista di Topografia
Antica, VI (1996).
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London and
New York: Routledge.
Lekai, L.J. (1978). “Ideals and Reality in early Cistercian Life and Legislation” in
Sommerfeldt, J.R., Cistercian ideals and reality. Michigan: Cistercian
Publications.
Milioni, A. (2007). Carta Archeologica d’Italia: Contributi. Viterbo 2, Viterbo: Universitá
degli Studi della Tuscia.
THE PROCESS OF ‘MAKING’ IN THE CISTERCIAN ORDER 19
Patitucci Uggeri, S. (2002). “La viabilitá di terra e d’acqua nel’Italia medievale” in ed.
Patitucci Uggeru, S. Quaderni di Archeologia Medievale IV. La viabilità
medievale in Italia. Contributo alla carta archeologica medievale. Atti del V
Seminario di Archeologia Medievale (Cassino, 2000), Firenze: All’Insegna del
Giglio.
Piccinni, G. (2006). “El Modelo Cisterciense en su aplicacion italiana centroseptentrional: algunas ideas desde la historiografia” in Cistercium. Revista
Cisterciense, n. 242-243, anno LVIII. ZAMORA, 45-61.
Pressouyre, L. (1994). L'Espace Cistercien. Paris: Comité des travaux historiques et
scientifiques.
Rapetti, A. M. (1999). La formazione di una comunità cistercense. Istituzioni e strutture
organizzative di Chiaravalle della Colomba tra XII e XIII secolo. Rome.
Righetti Tosti-Croce, M. (1993). Architettura per il lavoro. Dal caso cistercense a un
caso cistercense: Chiaravalle di Fiastra, Rome: Viella.
Serino, A. (2010). Il monastero cistercense di San Martino al Cimino. Analisi del
territorio pertinente all’abbazia nel Medioevo, Masters thesis, Universitá degli
Studi della Tuscia.
Stopani, R. (1992). La via Francigena. Una strada europea nell’Italia del Medioevo,
Firenze: Le Lettere.
Trachtenberg, M. (2010). Building-in-Time: from Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion.
New Haven and London: Yale University Press, IX-XXV.
Vagni, M. (1993). “L'organizzazione agricola dei Cistercensi nel Medioevo: l'esperienza
di Casamari” in Rivista Cistercense, X-2, Casamari, pp. 81-128.
Yoffee, N. (2005). Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States
and Civilizations. Cambridge University Press.