It would be commonly agreed that the history of the earliest minsters is obscure, or relatively obscure. There is no English Gregory of Tours: and we do not know as much about the life and foundations of archbishop Theodore of Canterbury as we do about those of his contemporary, bishop Ouen of Rouen. It is hoped, however, that it may be possible in this paper to throw some light on the nature of the early English minsters by considering them against the background of Gallic and Celtic practice at the date, while retaining firmly in the mind the contemporary meaning of certain ecclesiastical terms, as against their later, developed use. A point of main interest about these early minsters is the use of the term mynstru, monasteria, for the dwellings of clerks as well as of monks, and the approximation of the function of the two classes of foundation. Put in another way, it is of interest to know whether the minsters of monks and nuns ever had a parochia, like that of the mother churches of the Continent. Minster and parish: they are the two critical words. With reference to this subject, I wish to consider, first, the reason for the lack of original charter evidence about the earliest English minsters, secondly, the sixth- and seventh-century use of certain terms, thirdly, the position of the Kentish minsters, Thanet, Lyminge, and the rest; and lastly—something that seems to me the clue to the history of the minsters in the seventh century—the efforts of bishops to equate minsters of ascetics with minsters of clerks, and treat them, as bishop Maroveus of Poitiers said to St. Radegund's successor, “like their other parishes.”
Is the Qi experience related to the flow experience? Practicing qigong in urban green spaces