Cistercians, Heresy and Persecution: Politicising the Cistercian Anti-Heretical Fight, 1145-1184

FACULTY OF ARTS

Cistercians, heresy and persecution: Politicising the Cistercian anti-heretical fight, 1145-1184

Doctoral thesis

STAMATIA NOUTSOU

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. David Zbíral, Ph.D.

Department for the Study of Religions Field: Study of Religions

Brno 2021

CISTERCIANS, HERESY AND PERSECUTION: POLITICISING THE CISTERCIAN ANTI-HERETICAL FIGHT, 1145-1184

Bibliographic record

Author: Stamatia Noutsou

Faculty of Arts

Masaryk University

Department for the Study of Religions

Title of Thesis: Cistercians, heresy and persecution: Politicising the Cistercian anti-

heretical fight, 1145-1184

Degree Programme: Study of Religions

Field of Study: Study of Religions

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. David Zbíral, Ph.D.

Year: 2021

Number of Pages: 173

Keywords: Cistercians, Bernard of Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre, Henry of

Marcy, heresy. persecution, violence, ministry, disciplinary

practices, governing the souls

2 CISTERCIANS, HERESY AND PERSECUTION: POLITICISING THE CISTERCIAN ANTI-HERETICAL FIGHT, 1145-1184

Abstract

This dissertation argues that the anti-heretical engagement of the Cistercian Order in the years 1145-1184 held an important but understudied political role. While historiography has so far viewed the Cistercian anti-heretical efforts as a response to an actual danger threatening the Church, as means for consolidating power or as an expression of the

Cistercian concept of caritas and the duty to defend the unity of the Church, what is missing is analysis that could bridge the gap between the socio-political and religious elements of the Cistercian repression of heresy. The overall aim of this study is to get further insight into the political role of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement and more specific into how the

Cistercians perceived their role in society, how they envisioned the ideal society itself and how they tried to construct this society by advocating specific means against religious dissidents. To this end, this dissertation focuses on the anti-heretical polemic of Bernard of

Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre and Henry of Marcy by juxtaposing it with the concept of ministry, the duty of the churchmen not to rule but to protect and direct Christians. Utilizing a methodology which is inspired by the work of Michel Foucault and Talal Asad, the dissertation studies the means against heresy that the three Cistercian abbots propagated as disciplinary practices in the wider framework of ministry. By these practices, the Cistercians could impose their worldview, regulate behaviours, shape the conduct and construct specific subjectivities. This study suggests that the Cistercian ambition to reform the Church, the secular leaders and the laity could be realised through these practices. The analysis not only sharpens our insights on the Cistercian ecclesiology but also reveals that the Cistercian anti-

3 CISTERCIANS, HERESY AND PERSECUTION: POLITICISING THE CISTERCIAN ANTI-HERETICAL FIGHT, 1145-1184 heretical engagement was essentially political, as it resulted in the government of others; they were practical “everyday” governing techniques. My analysis of the Cistercian approach to the violent persecution of heresy shows how, through the prerogative of violence, Bernard of Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre and Henry of Marcy could reconstruct the relationship among the ecclesiastical and secular authorities and laity. From the three abbots, Henry propagated in favor of the use of force against heretics. In his writings we follow how the ideal of militia Christi was introduced in the struggle against heresy.

Preaching, confession, excommunication, public debates, the control of everyday life and penance were the other means against heresy that the Cistercian abbots deployed. Through them they could impose their monastic values, such as obedience, humility and the inner- examination as well as the relation between the abbot and the monk to the world outside the monastic walls.

4 CISTERCIANS, HERESY AND PERSECUTION: POLITICISING THE CISTERCIAN ANTI-HERETICAL FIGHT, 1145-1184

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis entitled Cistercians, heresy and persecution: Politicising the Cistercian anti-heretical fight, 1145-1184 is entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within my text.

Brno, April 30, 2021

CISTERCIANS, HERESY AND PERSECUTION: POLITICISING THE CISTERCIAN ANTI-HERETICAL FIGHT, 1145-1184

Acknowledgements

The process of writing this thesis has been a long and challenging trajectory, which would not achieve its goal without the warm support of many people, who contributed in various ways to this project. I owe a debt of deep gratitude especially to my supervisor, Dr.

David Zbíral, for his valuable and constructive comments on my thesis. This project would not have been accomplished without his tireless support and indefatigable guidance throughout an inspiring process which has also led to an invaluable friendship. I am also grateful to Masaryk University’s Department for the Study of Religions which offered me the opportunity to study in an inspiring academic environment. I extend my gratitude to all academic members who offered me their constructive criticism during this journey. I would like to express my profound thanks to Dr. Robert Shaw for his valuable comments on my dissertation. It has been my good fortune to study together with František Novotný. I am really grateful for our academic and non-academic conversations.

In the wider scholarly community there are many that I am indebted to. To Dr. Tyler

Sergent, who introduced me to the world of the Cistercian studies and has supported my studies meticulously. To Dr. Mette Birkedal Bruun who has always been willing to assist me with her wise comments. To my dear friend Dr. Yiannis Mylonas for his help and our inspiring discussions which have broadened my horizons. I am also grateful to Rachel Ernst,

Andra Alexiu and Delfi Nieto Isabel for their comments, support and exchange of ideas during these years.

A previous version of the chapter on Bernard was published in Religio: revue pro religionistiku (Noutsou, Stamatia. Regere animas : Bernard of Clairvaux's ways of handling heresy as a technology of power. Religio: revue pro religionistiku. Česká společnost pro religionistiku, 2019, roč. 27, č. 1, s. 43-67). I thank Dr Michaela Ondrašinová, the executive editor, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their input.

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family and all of my friends for their crucial role in fulfilling the doctoral studies. And my profound thanks to Christian Armbrecht as without his warm support, patience and understanding this thesis would have not been accomplished.

Table of Contents

Table of Abbreviations 11

1 Introduction 13 1.1 Medieval persecution in modern historiography ...... 14 1.1 Cistercians anti-heretical struggle in historiography ...... 21

2 Theoretical foundations: power, the government of others, violence and the anti- heretical engagement 25 2.1 Power and the government of the souls ...... 25 2.2 Violence ...... 32

3 Bernard of Clairvaux 35 3.1 Bernard’s engagement with heresy: A chronology ...... 37 3.2 Physical violence against heretics ...... 39 3.3 Exclusion of heretics ...... 45 3.4 Can heresy be defeated by preaching? ...... 52 3.5 The need to reveal the truth ...... 58 3.6 The control of everyday life as a way of handling heresy ...... 63 3.7 Conclusion ...... 66

4 Geoffrey of Auxerre 68 4.1 Geoffrey’s engagement with heresy: a chronology ...... 70 4.2 The sources and the problem of heresy ...... 72 4.3 The use of physical violence ...... 78 4.4 Charismatic Authority ...... 84 4.5 Social exclusion ...... 92 4.6 Preaching and debate ...... 101 4.7 Conclusion ...... 109

5 Henry of Marcy 111 5.1 Introduction ...... 111 5.2 Henry’s engagement with heresy: a chronology ...... 114

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.3 Violence in Henry’s letters and in the Canons of the Third Lateran Council 121 5.4 Fighting heresy with nonviolent means ...... 131 5.5 Conclusion ...... 143

6 Conclusion 145

7 Bibliography 151 7.1 Primary sources ...... 151 7.2 Secondary sources ...... 153

Table of Abbreviations

BR: The Rule of Saint Benedict, ed. and trans. Bruce L. Benarde, Cambridge, Massachusetts–

London, England: Harvard University Press 2011.

SBOp II: Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi Opera II, ed. Jean Leclercq – Charles H.

Talbot – Henri Rochais, Roma: Editiones Cisterciences 1958.

SBOp III: Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi Opera III, ed. Jean Leclercq – Charles H.

Talbot – Henri Rochais, Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1963.

SBOp VII: Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi Opera VII, ed. Jean Leclercq – Charles H.

Talbot – Henri Rochais, Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1974.

SBOp VIII: Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi Opera VIII, ed. Jean Leclercq – Charles

H. Talbot – Henri Rochais, Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1977.

Csi: De Consideratione

CS: Sermo super Cantica Canticorum

Mor: De moribus et officio episcoporum

Pre: Liber de Praecepto et Dispensatione

Tpl: Liber ad Milites Templi: De laude novae militiae

PL: Patrologiae cursus completus, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris 1841-1864.

INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction

The focus of this study is the role that persecution in general and violence in particular played in the anti-heretical writings of the Cistercian monks in the period between

1145 and 1184. To this end, I will explore an intriguing process that began with Bernard of

Clairvaux’s engagement in the anti-heretical struggle, continued with the efforts of Geoffrey of Auxerre and ended with Henry of Marcy’s endeavors in southern France, where we see some clear elements of the later inquisition. More specifically, I will focus on violence as a measure against religious dissidents, taking into account not only the physical violence but also other means such as social exclusion, confession, homiletic means and practices of public declaration of the heretical beliefs, which can be characterized as non-physical or symbolic violence. Within this framework, I will compare and contrast different Cistercian approaches – including other authors linked with the Cistercian endeavours, in order to find similarities and differences concerning the violent persecution of heretics among the

Cistercian authors. The main questions that will be addressed in the analysis are how the

Cistercian anti-heretical discourses communicated the prerogative of violence and other means against heresy and how such discourses and actions constructed an ideal vision of society for the authors. Hence, the overall aim in analyzing Cistercian approaches to persecution against heresy is to get further insight into the political role of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement and more specific into how the Cistercians perceived their role in society, how they envisioned the ideal society itself and how they tried to construct this society by advocating specific means against religious dissidents.

13 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Medieval persecution in modern historiography

The persecution against those who were defined as heretics is a subject that has received extensive scholarly attention. Generally, there is an agreement among scholars that the second half of the twelfth century, namely during the years that the Cistercians were active, and especially marked an important shift in the Church’s attitudes towards heresy.1

Historians have argued that persecution gradually became more centralized and intense: from local and sporadic incidents, where the mob played a leading role in exercising violence, persecution became more organized and coordinated with the assistance of secular leaders.2 Moreover, whereas during the 11th and early 12th centuries, the discovery and the elimination of heresy was the duty of the local bishops, the response to this declared threat was transformed into a task of the papacy. Edward Peters, for example, has mentioned that in the 12th century “an elaborate disciplinary structure was erected to be applied when the persuasion failed”.3 The debate on the use of violence against heretics has also been enriched by historians such as Raoul Manselli and Grado Merlo, who have argued that besides the shift in the Church’s approaches towards the persecution of heretics, persuasion as a way to

1 Raoul Manselli, “De la Persuasio à la Coercitio”, in id. Le Credo, la Morale et l’ Inquisition , (Cahiers de Fanjeaux) Toulouse: Privat 1971, 175 -197: 180-181; Henri Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines de l’Inquisition, Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin 1960; Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers 1981, 21 -30; Michael Frassetto, “Precursors to Religious Inquisitions: Anti -heretical Efforts to 1184,” in: Donald Prudlo (ed.), A Companion to Heresy Inquisitions, Leiden: Brill 2019, 41-72. 2 Robert Moore, “Popular Violence and Popular Heresy in Western Europe, c. 1100 -1179”, Studies in Church History 21, 1984, 43-50. 3 Edward Peters, Inquisition, Berkeley: University of California Press 1989, 44.

14 INTRODUCTION handle heresy was not abandoned.4 I would like to suggest that Merlo’s argument that there is no clear distinction or gap between persuasion and coercion in the 12th century opens the way for a fruitful discussion on the interconnection of violence with the non-violent means against heresy.5

A closer look at the historiography on persecution will also reveal that historians have interpreted violence in different ways. Scholars have viewed the intensification of the

Church’s efforts against heresy and the introduction of violence as an indication for the growth and the strengthening of heresy and at the same time a manifestation of the development of the Church’s own disciplinary machinery that allowed the Church to address the issue as never before.6 The ambivalent and hesitant reactions of the 11th and early 12th century were replaced by a stronger and more self-confident policy for the eradication of heresy. Persecution was thus perceived as an obvious indication of the growth of power.

According to this understanding, violence is merely a tool for punishment of heretics and elimination of heresy with apparent effects, that does not require further political analysis.

Other scholars have underscored the political and social role that persecution in general and violence in particular could play. Robert I. Moore, Alexander Patschovsky,

James Given and Cary J. Nederman have successfully argued that heresy is, by definition, a political matter, as accusations of heresy by secular and ecclesiastical elites could serve

4 R. Manselli, “De la Persuasio á la Coercitio”, 175-197; Grado Giovanni Merlo, “Militare per Cristo gli eretici” in Contro gli eretici: La coercizione all’ortodossia prima dell’ Inquisizione, Bologna: Il Mulino, 1196, 11 -49. 5 G. Merlo, “Militare per Cristo gli eretici”, 26. 6 F.ex. Bernard Hamilton, The medieval Inquisition, New York: Holmes and Meier, 1981, 25- 30.

15 INTRODUCTION either as a tool for attacking political opponents by creating an image of enemy and an atmosphere of danger or as a means of consolidating power and authority. Moreover these accusations could be a tool to impose a set of ideals on the society as well as to shape and control behavior.7 To present some notable examples, James Given has demonstrated in his work about Lanquedocian inquisitions in the 13th and 14th centuries, that persecution could have a polysemic character, as the subject of the inquisitors’ “performance were as much the members of the audience as they were the people whom the inquisition sentenced”.8

Hence the inquisitors could not only punish the ones condemned as heretics but also shape and control the behavior of a wider population.

Robert Moore in his work The Formation of a Persecuting Society has characterised the violence applied against heretics as “deliberate and socially sanctioned violence (… ) directed through established governmental, judicial and social institutions” (emphasis mine).9 In the same influential work Moore has presented his argument that during the 12th and the 13th centuries we indeed observe an escalation and the institutionalization of the persecution of groups such as heretics, lepers and Jews. In contrast to historians who explain this development as due to the growth of heresy, Moore has argued that a reverse process

7 Robert Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Authority and Deviance in Western Europe, 950-1250, 1987, Oxford: Blackwell 2007, 114-172; Alexander Patschovsky, “Heresy and Society: On the Political Function of Heresy in Medieval World”, in: Caterina Bruschi – Peter Biller (eds.), Texts and Representations of Medieval Heresy, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: York Medieval Press 2003, 23-44; Kare Bollerman – Thomas M. Izbicki – Cary J. Nederman, „Religion“, in: id, Power and Resistance from the Eleventh to the Sixteen Centuries: Playing the Heresy Card, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, 1-12; James Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society: Power, Resistance in Languedoc, Ithaca- London: Cornell University Press 1997, 5. 8 J. Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society..., 66-73. 9 R. Moore, The Formation..., 5.

16 INTRODUCTION was taking place: it was the ecclesiastical and secular elites who intensified their efforts against groups which they defined as “other” in order to solidify their own power.10 He has repeated his argument in his work The War on Heresy, where he has written that persecution and the categorization of groups as the dangerous other “were the instruments that could be turned to many uses, of which the most general was to extend the reach of governmental institutions and the penetration of society by the culture of the literate minority”.11 Through the persecution of heresy, even when it was an unconscious and gradual development, the centralization of power could be carried out.12 Violence and persecution had another function apart from punishment: it was an instrument to acquire and solidify power.

Moore’s argument, as influential as it has been, received also criticism by historians who suggested that through this understanding such persecution has been constructed as normalized and inexorable. David Nirenberg has challenged the idea of a dominant mentality of persecution in his work Communities of Violence, where he looked closely at the relationships among Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities in the Iberian Peninsula during the 14th century. Nirenberg has pointed out that a historian should look at the local economic, political and social conditions that were in play, every time an incident of cataclysmic violence against one community took place, as violent rhetorics and discourses

10 R. Moore, The Formation..., 144-145. Talal Asad made a similar point already in 1986, when he described heresy as a product of a power process, by which the Church seeks to extend its authority to more areas of life.T. Asad, “Medieval Heresy and Anthropological Views”, Social History, vol. 11, No 3, 1986, 345-362: 355-356. 11 Robert Moore, The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe , London: Profile Books 2012, 329. 12 R. Moore, The War..., 331.

17 INTRODUCTION could have diverse results in different geographical areas.13 Moreover, his conclusion is that violence could play multiple and ambivalent roles depending also on a religious group’s position in a society.14 Violence could be an expression of hostility but it could also reinforce the religious groups’ internal identities and boundaries and be “a gesture of inclusion and exclusion”.15

The persecution of heresy, besides its function as an instrument for the solidification of power or the maintenance of the social order, could also play a productive role, it could produce discourses and knowledge on heresy as well as identities.16 John Arnold has made a stimulating connection between the Church’s growing interest in the spiritual life of the laity and the repression of heresy, and he has interpreted the latter as the result of the former.17 “The machinery of repression was always one part of a larger mechanism for producing and refining orthodox identities,” Arnold has argued, and, thus, he has linked the persecution of heresy with the requirement for annual confession and more intensive preaching activities for lay audiences.18

Another point of criticism to the idea of the persecuting society was articulated by

Christine Caldwell Ames. One of her main points is that even if historians who described

13 David Nirenberg, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the M iddle Ages, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996, 5-6. 14 D. Nirenberg, Communities of Violence..., 166-231. 15 D. Nirenberg, Communities of Violence..., 6. 16 John Arnold, Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing Subject in Medieval Languedoc, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2001, 11. 17 John Arnold, “Repression and Power” in Mimi Rubin – W. Simons (eds), Christianity in Western Europe, 1100- 1500, Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009 335-371: 346. 18 J. Arnold, “Repression and Power”, 357.

18 INTRODUCTION the acceleration of persecution in the 11th and 12th centuries aimed to show that the violent coercion was a product of a specific society, nevertheless they created an image of an unavoidable mentality of persecution, where the role of concrete religious ideologies is almost completely absent.19 As she has argues, the use of force has been interpreted one- dimensionally as an instrument for the accumulation and solidification of power by the elites, with the religious ideas of the ecclesiastical persecutors functioning mostly as a pretext, but not as a real reason, for the extensive efforts against heresy. By neglecting the religious dimension, our picture of persecution and the society, wherein this persecution was born, remains incomplete.20 Caldwell Ames has focused primarily on the role of the members of the Dominican Order in the inquisition in the 13th and early 14th centuries, where she has convincingly demonstrated that their attitudes towards persecution originated in their religious ideas, and that they understood their actions as the fulfillment of their spiritual task of “saving souls”.21 She has successfully relocated the persecution of medieval heresy within religious history and traced how the anti-heretical struggle was an expression of a religious mindset and, furthermore, a part of a broader process of “monasticization” of the world, a phrase that originates in the work of André Vauchez.22 Under this process of

“interior reconquest”, the concept of the “monastery” was expanded beyond the monastic walls to the whole of Christian society, so that all Christians were supposed to live in

19 Christine Caldwell Ames, Righteous Persecution: Inquisition, Dominicans and Christianity in the Middle Ages, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2009, 12 -14 20 Christine Caldwell Ames, “Does the Inquisition Belong to Religious History?”, The American Historical Review, vol 110, issue 1, February 2005, 11 -37: 13-15; C. Ames, Righteous Persecution..., 10-13. 21 C. Ames, Righteous Persecution..., 327. 22 C. Ames, Righteous Persecution…, 10-13.

19 INTRODUCTION accordance with the monastic ideals of obedience and proper behavior.23

In sum, historiography has understood the medieval persecution of heresy and especially violence as a means of punishment and control, as a tool for the quest of political power, a way to maintain a social status quo, as a means to shape a certain pious and orthodox identity and behavior, and lastly as an expression and fulfillment of a certain theology. I believe that Ames has presented a valid argument that the explanations that focus mostly on questions about the pursuit of power and perceive repression primarily as an extra- religious phenomenon offer hardly more than a one-dimensional understanding of persecution and fail to address the genuine beliefs and wider ecclesiology of the persecutors.

In addition, they seem to take for granted that the pursuit of power is natural for every member of a religious institution, regardless of their specific theology. As a consequence, it can become difficult to understand an important dimension of medieval Christianity, which came to the surface when the Church had to deal with the issue of heresy. However, I would argue that these religious beliefs, sincere as they certainly were, were assuredly not isolated from the political and social milieu in which they appeared. To the contrary, they mirrored a specific worldview, which naturally included questions of societal order and the governing of people, matters that are essentially political, as they have to do with “the very way that society is instituted”24. If we do not study medieval repression as a matter where the religious and the political aspects are interwoven, we lose the opportunity to apprehend the dynamic

23 André Vauchez, The Laity in the Middle Ages: Religious Beliefs and Devotional Practices, Daniel Bornstein (ed.), Margery Schneider (trans.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame 1993, 72. 24 Chantal Mouffe, On the Political, New York: Routledge 2005, 8-9.

20 INTRODUCTION of a specific religion’s worldview in its interference with society.

1.1 Cistercians anti-heretical struggle in historiography

The involvement of the Cistercian order in the fight against heretics in the twelfth century has most certainly not been overlooked by modern scholarship. Quite the contrary,

Cistercian anti-heretical writings have been the object of exhaustive rhetorical analysis by scholars addressing the role and the influence of the activities and writings of Cistercian monks on the centralisation of the efforts against heresy, which evolved from a mostly local matter to a challenge that urgently needed a response from the papacy.25 The Cistercian anti- heretical engagement has been linked with the duty of protecting the Christian flock.26

Historians have traced the origins of the Cistercian reaction against heresy back to their understanding of the unity of Christendom and their dedication to the reform of the Church and individual Christians.27 For instance, Pilar Jiménez Sánchez has seen Cistercian accusations against heresy as a tool to impose Cistercian ecclesiology on the local population.28 Jean-Louis Biget has observed how the development of the Order and the intensification of the problem of heresy occurred more or less synchronically, and

25 R. Manselli, “De la ’Persuasio’ á la ’Coercitio’, 24; Robert Moore, “The War against Heresy in Medieval Europe,” Historical Research 81/212, 2008, 189 -210: 204; Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania, 1145-1229: Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard, York: Broydel and Brewer 2001, 8. 26 Alice Chapman, Sacred Authority and Temporal Power in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, Brepols: Turnhout 2013, 84. 27 Martha G. Newman, The Boundaries of Charity: Cistercian Culture and Ecclesiastical Reform, 1098-1180, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1996, 219. 28 Pilar Jiménez Sánchez, Les catharismes: Modèles dissidents du christianisme médiéval (XIIe-XIIIe siècles), Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes 2008, 263-276.

21 INTRODUCTION characterised the monks as “the intellectual creators of heresy”.29 Uwe Brunn, in turn, has related Bernard’s preaching activities against heresy with his wider efforts for canonical reform.30 The idea of the connection between Cistercian anti-heretical efforts and political antagonism born from a struggle for power is also present in Robert Moore’s works, especially in The War on Heresy.31

To be sure, the studies on the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement have shed light on many important issues. I believe, however, that there are still aspects of it that require our attention, such as the different means that the Cistercian abbots propagated as a response to heresy. When it comes more specifically to the Cistercian attitudes towards the violent persecution of heretics, Beverly Kienzle has pointed out that this question has received only limited attention.32 I agree with Kienzle’s point. The studies dedicated to the Cistercians approach towards violence have indeed focused extensively on their ideas about the crusades and only to a lesser degree on the anti-heretical persecution.33 However as it will be shown more thoroughly in the following chapters of this study, historians have approached the

29 Jean Louis Biget, „“Les Albigeois“: Remarques sur une dénomination” in: Monique Zerner (ed.), Inventer l’ Hérésie? Discours Polémique et Pouvoirs avant l’ Inquisition , Collection d’ études médiévales de Nice 1998, 235-7. 30 Uwe Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”: Discours de réforme et propagande antihérétique dans les pays du Rhin et de la Meuse avant l’Inquisition Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes 2006, 124-31. 31 R. Moore, The War..., 146. 32 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 106. 33 For example, Thomas Renna in his article about the approaches of the earlier Cistercians against violence focuses mostly on the crusade propaganda, see Thomas Renna, “Early Cistercian Attitudes Towards War in Historical Perspective,” Citeaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 31 1980, 119-29; The historiography on the Cistercian preaching of the Crusades is quite extensive, for instance Michael Gevers (ed.), The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York : St. Martin's Press 1992.

22 INTRODUCTION attitudes of Bernard of Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre and Henry of Marcy in different ways. When it comes to Bernard of Clairvaux, historiography has focused on his ambivalent reactions that could open the way for the legitimation of the use of violence in the consecutive years. The overall anti-heretical engagement of Geoffrey of Auxerre, Bernard’s secretary and biographer as well as abbot of different Cistercian monasteries, among them

Clairvaux, has received only limited attention, although historians, such as Jean Leclercq, have argued that his role in the development of the Cistercian order was important.34 Lastly, scholars have demonstrated how Henry of Marcy, the seventh abbot of Clairvaux and later bishop and papal legate, held a key role in the wider use of the violent persecution of heresy.

As it will be discussed with more details later in this inquiry, in the studies about Henry’s anti-heretical engagement, violence is perceived either as a means to punish heretics and stop the spread of heresy or as a tool to gain power in local rivalries. What it is missing from the historiography of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement is not only a study of the

Cistercian approaches towards the use of violence against heresy, as Kienzle has pointed out, but also a inquiry that relates violence to the other means that the three Cistercian abbots propagated and uncovers its political dimension. Furthermore, historiography has not yet bridged the gap between the socio-political and religious elements of the Cistercian repression of heresy. As a consequence, their organic and close relation has not yet been explored.

34 Jean “Les écrits de Geoffroy d’ Auxerre” in: id., Recueil d'études sur Saint Bernard et ses écrits, Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura 1962, 27 -46.

23 INTRODUCTION

In the ensuing chapters of this study I will examine the way in which Bernard,

Geoffrey and Henry envisioned, in their polemic, the perfect Christian society. The sources which will be analysed in this inquiry do not offer, of course, a coherent presentation of the

Cistercian political theology. However, an intensive reading of these writings will allow us to discover some fragments of their political ideas, especially regarding the proper societal order and the responsibilities of the churchmen, the secular leaders and the laity. In order to discover the political role of the Cistercian anti-heretical attitudes, we need a theoretical framework which will allow us to analyze equally and inseparably the religious and socio- political aspects of the Cistercian polemic. The inquiry will begin with a discussion of its theoretical framework in order to show why means against heresy in general and violence in particular constitute indeed useful analytical objects.

24 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT

2 Theoretical foundations: power, the government of others, violence and the anti-heretical engagement

2.1 Power and the government of the souls

My main point of departure for addressing the question about the political role of the

Cistercian abbots against heresy is the theoretical works of Michel Foucault and Talal Asad and the insights of modern sociology and critical theory, which underline the importance of heterodoxy or abnormality for the understanding of normality. In other words, if deviancy is to be understood not as a stable and fixed entity, but rather as a set of social relations, accusations of deviancy can shed light on what was considered the norm.35 Moreover, the means that are employed in the treatment of “deviants” can be quite revealing about society.36

One of the fundamental theoretical premises of this survey lies in the field of discourse analysis and is related to the formative, in addition to informative, function of the

35 Heinz Steinert, “Sociology as Deviance: The Disciplines of Social Exclusion”, in: Craig Calhoon – Chris Rojek – Brian Turner (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Sociology, London: SAGE 2005, 471-490: 472. 36 Michel Foucault notes that “it seemed to me to be interesting to try to understand our society and civilization in terms of exclusion, of reject ion, of refusal, in terms of what it does not want, its limits, the way it is obliged to suppress a number of things, people, processes” (Michel Foucault, “Rituals of Exclusion”, in: id., Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 1961- 1984, ed. Sylvère Lotringer, New York: Semiotext[e] 21996 [1 st ed. 1989], 68-73: 69).

25 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT text.37 Since texts do not only mirror, but also constitute the social reality, Bernard’s,

Geoffrey’s and Henry’s anti-heretical writings do not only communicate their perception of the world but also enable them to articulate and impose their politico-theological ideas on the world around them. In other words, the sources in question are to be understood as a form of social action, as a vehicle that facilitates a certain worldview to be materialized in society.38

Another theoretical premise is connected to the way in which we understand the notion of power. Historians who approach the Church’s engagement with heresy as a quest for more power tend to conceive power as a commodity that individuals, groups, or institutions possess or desire to possess.39 As I will argue, it is exactly this understanding of power as ahistorical that results in a fragmented approach to the medieval anti-heretical struggle, where the religious aspect remains absent from the analysis. In addition, when we focus too much on how the ecclesiastical or secular elites sought to possess power, we tend to forget that power is also exercised on others. For example, when we concentrate predominantly on how the Cistercian abbots, through their anti-heretical actions, attempted to solidify their power, little room remains for questions on how, through the various means against heresy they implemented in their works, power could be exercised on their flocks.

37 Ruth Wodak – Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage Publications 2001, 139-184; Louise Philips – Marianne Jørgensen, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, London: Sage Publications 2002, 1-23. 38 Brian Paltridge, Discourse Analysis: an Introduction, London–New York: Continuum 2006, 55-61. 39 Cf. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization , ed. Talcott Parsons (ed.), A. M. Henderson– Talcott Parsons(trans.), New York: The Free Press 1964, 152; Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power I: The History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986, 6.

26 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT

In order to avoid ahistorical definitions of power, it is necessary to look at the

Cistercian sources in order to examine how they understood the concept of power. In her article on Bernard’s understanding of auctoritas and potestas, Alice Chapman has pointed out that whereas the notion of auctoritas is clearer and more connected with the authority of the Church in Bernard’s work, the term potestas, which appears much more often, lacks any specific definition, as it can refer both to ecclesiastical and secular power.40 Therefore, as

Chapman suggests, we should look more to the specific terms, such as the power of the two keys (potestas ligandi et solvendi).41 Appealing to the pope Eugenius III, Bernard reminds him that the pope’s power is connected with Peter’s two keys: “Clearly your power is over sin and not property, since it is because of sin that you have received the keys of the heavenly kingdom (Mt 16:19), to exclude sinners not possessors.”42 Bernard reminds the pope that this power is greater than the power of domination: “tell me, which seems to you the greater honor and greater power: to forgive sins or to divide estates? But there is no comparison.”43

In order to better understand the nature of this power, we should look carefully, as Chapman mentions, at the pope’s ministry in contrast to his dominion.44 The Abbot of Clairvaux

40 Alice Chapman, “Disentangling Potestas in the Works of St . Bernard of Clairvaux”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 60/3, 2004, 587-600. 41 A. Chapman, “Disentangling Potestas in the Works of St. Bernard of Clairvaux”, 594. 42 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration: Advice to a Pope, trans. John Anderson – Elisabeth Kennan, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1976, 36; cf. Csi SBOp III, 402: „Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra, quoniam propter illa, et non propter has, accepistis claves regni caelorum, praevaricatores utique excl usuri, non possessores“. 43 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 36, cf. Csi SBOp III, 402: „Quaenam tibi maior videtur et dignitas et potestas, dimittendi peccata an praedia dividendi? Sed non est comparatio.“. 44 A. Chapman, “Disentangling Potestas…”, 594.

27 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT repeatedly reminds Eugenius that his task is neither domination nor ruling, but ministry.45

The pope, as Peter, received the responsibility to govern the whole world,46 and therefore should act as a “sweating peasant” (rusticani sudoris)47 and a “steward” (villicus),48 whose duty is “to oversee and to manage that for which you must render an account”.49 Moreover he should be the “shepherd” (pastor),50 “the one to whom the keys have been given, to whom the sheep have been entrusted”.51 He is responsible for caring for his flock. So, the power of the papacy, which derives from the two keys, does not consist in domination but constant labour. The pope has to serve and manage the world, to watch over and protect it. The distinction between domination and ministry is also repeated in Bernard’s advice on the duty of bishops.52 The bishops ought to be- according to Bernard- those, who “seeks nothing of his own, but only the honor of God, his neighbor’s salvation, or both together”.53 The concept of ministry as the duty of churchmen appears also in the writings of Geoffrey. In his

45 Csi SBOp III, 417, 418; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 56, 58, 59. 46Csi SBOp III, 424; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 68. 47 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 56; cf. Csi SBOp III, 416. 48 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 60; cf. Csi SBOp III, 419. 49 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 60; cf. Csi SBOp III, 419: „Exi in illum, (...) videre et procurare unde exigendus es rationem .“. 50 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 66-67; cf. Csi SBOp III, 423. 51 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 66-67; cf. Csi SBOp III, 423-424: „Tu es cui claves traditae, cui oves creditae sunt“. 52 Mor, SBOp VII, 103; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, Pauline Matarasso (trans.), Cistercian Publications: Kalamazoo, Michigan, 2004, 42. 53 Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism…, 49; Mor, SBOp, VII, 108: „ut in omnibus videlicet actis vel dictis suis nihil suum quaerat episcopus, sed tantum aut Dei honorem, aut salutem proximorum, aut utrumque“.

28 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT compilation of sermons on the Apocalypse he describes churchmen as “those who govern the people faithfully, and for their good in his [i.e., Christ’s] churches throughout the world”54. Moreover, the clergy is the pastors, the ministers, and the stewards, who serve, teach, lead and guide the little ones. The image of the pope as the shepherd appears again in the letters of Henry.55 In the writings of the Cistercian abbots, the punishment of the transgressors is connected to the duties of the ministers. Bernard reminds the bishops that

“he implores the divine majesty for the aberrations of transgressors and punishes sinners for the wrong done to God”.56 Moreover, he admonished the pope that it is his duty to handle heresy, an appeal that we notice again in Henry’s letter.57 In sermon 14, Geoffrey criticizes the ministers who tolerate and do not punish Jezebel, who was leading people astray.58

In order to understand the political role of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement in relation to the duty of ministry, that is to say a power that does not dominate but guides and directs, the perception of power as a commodity is not enough. To the contrary there is

54 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, trans. Joseph Gibbons, Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications 2000, 38; cf. Ferruccio Gastaldelli (ed.), Goffredo di Auxerre: Super Apocalypsim, Temi e Testi, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1970 , 78: „cui humiliter serviunt qui fideliter, prudenter, utiliter regunt in ecclesiis eius populos orbis terrarum.“. 55 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A. 56 Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism…, 49; Mor, SBOp VII, 108: „Supplicat maiestati pro excessibus delinquentium, vindicat in peccantes iniuriam Dei“. 57 Csi, SBOp III, 432; Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 82; Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A 58 Goffredo di Auxerre: Super Apocalypsim 178; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 142; As will be analyzed below in more detail, this sermon refers to the Waldensian movement and lay/woman preaching. Beverly Kienzle pointed out that the figure of Jezebel encapsulates women preaching. Beverly M. Kienzle, “The Prostitute -Preacher: Patterns of Polemic against Medieval Waldensian Women Preachers” in: Beverly Mayne Kienzle – Pamela J. Walker, (eds), Women Preachers and Prophets through Two Millennia of Christianity , Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press 1998, 99 -114.

29 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT a need to espouse a conceptualization of power as an ensemble of social relations (such as the ministry) where the exercise of power can be carried out through practices as for example the punishment of heretics. Moreover, instead of understanding power as static and exclusively connected to political rivals among elites, we can also think of it as being diffused in every aspect of social activity, running through, connecting, and molding individuals (such as Bernard, Geoffrey and Henry but also theirs audiences), institutions

(such as the Cistercian Order or the Church), beliefs (such as different aspects of Cistercian ecclesiology in the 12th century) and actions (such as Cistercian writings and anti-heretical endeavours).

This understanding of power builds on the work of Michel Foucault and his analyses of the exercise of power and the construction of the subject. Though Foucault never provided a clear definition of power and a firm methodology, he took a crucial step in moving from understanding power as a commodity to conceptualizing it as being diffused and omnipresent in every social relation.59 More explicitly for Foucault, power is exercised and operates through discourses, rituals, individuals, beliefs, and ideas throughout society.60 It is diffused also in the sense that it does not operate only top-down, through the law or the sovereign, but also in a bottom-up direction, or more accurately, in every direction. Power is better understood as a network of multiple non-egalitarian relations, which modify the actions of people. As Foucault notes, “power is never anything more than a relationship”

59 Michel Foucault, “Two Lectures”, in: Colin Gordon, ed., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, New York: Pantheon Books 1980, 78-108: 98. 60 M. Foucault, “Two Lectures”, 98; Michel Foucault, “Technologies of the Self”, in: Lu ther Martin –, Huch Gutman – Patrick Hutton (eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, London: Tavistock 1988, 16-49: 18.

30 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT and consequently the crucial question is not what power is but how it operates in a specific situation.61 A second characteristic of the Foucauldian understanding of power crucial for this thesis is that power is not only repressive but also productive.62 Power can of course be seen as a prohibition, order, punishment, or force. It is, however, more than that, as it can produce discourses, ideas, sets of beliefs, actions and behaviors, and subjectivities. Equally important is the connection that Foucault establishes between power relations and governance, as the former leads to the latter.63 Through the various forms of power relations, we follow how the conduct of individuals is guided and governed. In the Foucauldian outlook, however, government is not restricted to a rigidly political definition (such as the governing of states) but is related to the direction and guidance of the behavior and conduct of individuals.64 In other words, the exercise of power is related to the construction of specific subjectivities in the framework of governing others.

Adopting such an understanding of power allows us to analyse the Cistercian writings, actions, religious beliefs, and ideas not as isolated and fragmented, functioning as a pretext for each other, but as organically interconnected instances, situated and shaped by the same network of power relations.65 Moreover, through this lens, the Cistercian abbots

61 Michel Foucault,“The Subject and Power”, Critical Inquiry 8/4, 1982, 777-795: 786; Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975 -1976, D. Macey (trans.), New York: Picador 2003, 168-150. 62 M. Foucault, “Two Lectures”, 119. 63 Michel Foucault,“The Subject and Power””, 789. 64 M. Foucault, „The Subject and Power“, 790. 65 Historians such as Robert Moore, James Given and John Arnold have been inspired by, and directly or indirectly deployed a Foucauldian approach and this study follows their work. Cf. R. Moore, The Formation of Persecuting Society, 172-173;J. Arnold, Inquisition and Power..., 10; J.Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society..., 34.

31 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT can be perceived not only as figures who possessed or sought to attain more power but also as a vehicle for the operation of power. In other words, they were not seeking power, but exercised power through their actions. Concurrently, they were modified by the same power.

Furthermore, if we do not examine Bernard’s, Geoffrey’s and Henry’s anti-heretical actions as mere instances of the power relations of domination or punishment, where the Cistercian abbots prohibit, order and dictate, we can follow how a subject who would act and behave according to the Cistercian socio-theological ideas is being constructed. It is in this framework of power relations that the Cistercian attitudes towards the persecution of heresy will be analyzed.

2.2 Violence

Violence is an intriguing and complex phenomenon that has attracted the attention of scholars from different fields, such as history and political theory.66 These scholars have shown that the study of violent acts can inform us, among others, about the power structures of a given society, the relations between different social groups and they have examined

66 The bibliography on the phenomenon of violence is vast. Some of the works that have been influential for my inquiry are the following: Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, G. Troth and C. Wittich (transl.), New York: Bedminster Press, 1968; Hannah Arendt, On Violence, San Diego- New York: Harcourt, 1970; David Riches, The Anthropology of Violence, Oxford: Blackwell, 1986; Mary Jackman, “Violenc e in Social Life” in Annual Review of Sociology, vol 28 (2002), 387-415: 405; Espeially for violence in medieval society see Warren Brown, Violence in Medieval Europe, Harlow: Longman 2011, 2-3; Radosław Kotecki – Jacek Maciejewski (eds.), Ecclesia et Violentia: Violence against the Church and Violence within the Church in the Middle Ages , Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2014, 1-8; Hannah Skoda, Medieval Violence: Physical Brutality in Northern France, 1270-1330, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013, 2-9; Christine Caldwell Ames, “Christian Violence against Heretics, Jews and Muslims”, in: Matthew Gordon – Richard Kaeuper – Harriet Zurndorfer (eds.) The Cambridge World History of Violence, Volume 2, AD 500- AD 1500, , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020, 470-491.

32 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT questions about the processes of legitimation of power and domination. What it is shown in the previous chapters is that historiography on medieval persecution has successfully uncovered the multiple layers of violence. Medieval persecution is indeed a part of a strategy for acquiring and maintaining political power, it is also historically and socially contingent and it is also connected with a specific set of beliefs. Undoubtedly this study of the Cistercian approaches towards the persecution of heresy can be benefited from the insights of historiography. However, there are still important questions that warrant to be addressed in order to sharpen our understanding of the character of the Cistercian anti-heretical endeavours. The first question that ought to be raised is what were the appropriate circumstances, according to the Cistercian abbots, under which violence should be exercised. Furthermore we should look at the sources in order to spot who had the right to apply violence. Lastly, in close dialogue with the sources, we need to detect how the

Cistercians presented the persecution of heresy as a “natural” reaction that could not be disputed. The answers of these questions will reveal the “internal logic” behind the

Cistercian attitudes towards the use of force against heresy and will help us to comprehend how Bernard, Geoffrey and Henry perceived the world and their role in it.67 It will also show how they reformulated the relation between the ecclesiastical authorities with the temporal power and the laity.

67 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, the Birth of Prison , Alan Sheridan (trans.), New York: Vintage 1995, 73-135; Michel Foucault, Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1973-1974,. Jacques Lagrange (ed.)Graham Burchell (trans.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2004, 14; Johanna Oksala, Foucault, Politics and Violence, Evanston, Ill. : Northwestern University Press 2012, 36 -50; Peter deAngelis, “The Logic of Violence: Foucault on How the Violence Kills” in: Christopher Yates, Nathan Eckstrand (eds.), Philosophy and the Return of Violence: Studies from this Widening Gyre , New York: The Continuum 2011, 171-188.

33 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: POWER, THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS, VIOLENCE AND THE ANTI-HERETICAL ENGAGEMENT

The aim of this study is to uncover the political role of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement. This inquiry’s novelty is that it does not deal with the question on how governing institutions were implementing violence in order to sustain or increase their power but to see how violence was exactly a way to shape behaviors, govern populations and construct an ideal society. Under this process the Cistercian abbots impose crucial elements of the monastic identity and practice to the rest of the society. Therefore, violence as well as the other means that the Cistercian abbots propagated will be located inside the framework of ministry and it will be analysed as disciplinary practices, which targeted not only the groups which were labelled as heretical but also every member of society.68 These disciplinary techniques were intended to guide and shape the behavior, the mind, and the body of the members of the Christian flock or, “to conduct the conduct of people”.69 These activities were essentially political, as they resulted in the government of others, they were practical “everyday” governing techniques.

68 Foucault, “Technologies of the Self”, 18; Talal Asad, “On Discipline and Humility in Medieval Christian Monasticism”, in: id., Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore – London: The John Hopskins University Press 1993, 125-167: 125. 69 Colin Gordon, “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction”, in: Graham Burchel – Colin Gordon – Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1991, 2.

34 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

3 Bernard of Clairvaux

Bernard, the first abbot of Clairvaux (1090-1153), has been described by modern historians as a pivotal figure not only of the early years of the Cistercian order but also more broadly of twelfth-century Europe. Bernard was a monastic reformer, a devoted Cistercian, and a theologian, but also a figure who did not hesitate to engage in life outside the monastic walls. He got involved in political controversies and earthly matters, including dealing with groups and individuals that were labelled by the ecclesiastical authorities as heretical.

Bernard’s role and importance in the anti-heresy struggle has been a subject of detailed research. His texts have been related to the centralization of the anti-heretical struggle, and especially his preaching activities are considered to have been a model for the following generations of monks and clerics, who became engaged in the same cause.70 On the other hand, historians have also noted Bernard’s limited interest in heresy, as religious dissidence occupies only a small place in his writings. Scholars argue that the abbot of Clairvaux did not bring any important innovations to the tradition of anti-heretical writing, as in this area, he simply followed the tradition of moral theology, using numerous references to the

70 Thus, R. Manselli marks a development that took place in the Church’s attitude against heresy in the years 1144-1145. Before this time, he notes, heresy was quite sporadic. However, the situation changed and the anti -heretical struggle attained a more centralized and universal character, due also to the writings and activities of Be rnard of Clairvaux. See: R. Manselli, “De la Persuasio á la Coercitio”, 180 -181. A similar argument has been proposed by Robert Moore, who saw Bernard’s mission of 1145 as a decisive step in the creation of a more centralized attack on heresy: R. Moore, The Formation…, 24. B. Kienzle, meanwhile, has underlined the importance of the preaching activities of the Cistercian abbot, as he created a powerful example of anti-heretical polemic, which was followed by successive generations of Cistercians and clerics who became engaged in the fight against heresy. B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 8.

35 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

Scriptures.71 Therefore, Bernard’s anti-heretical writings are not particulary informative about the historical forms of Christian dissent in the twelfth century. However, as Karen

Sullivan has rightfully suggested, the Bernardine texts are extremely informative in a different area: they shed new light on Bernard’s thought and how he could reconcile his actions against heresy with his contemplative monastic identity.72

Building on Sullivan’s suggestion, this chapter seeks to move the inquiry into

Bernard’s anti-heretical writings one step further and connect Bernard’s anti-heretical endeavors with his ecclesiology. So far, the focus has been on how his anti-heretical work can be understood as a logical result of his ecclesiology. In his effort to defend the unity of

Christianity and fight for its salvation, or to promote its reformation, the abbot fought against heresy, as for him it represented a major threat that the Church should resist and finally overcome.73 However, the reverse question of what Bernard’s anti-heretical writing brings to the understanding of his ecclesiology has remained almost entirely unexplored.

This chapter seeks to fill this gap by placing Bernard’s anti-heretical discourse at the center of inquiry in order to enrich our understanding of his ecclesiology and to carefully

71 Cf. Karen Sullivan, The Inner Lives of Medieval Inquisitors, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 2011, 32-33; Jean Leclercq, “L’Hérésie d’après les écrits de S. Bernard de Clairvaux”, in: Willem Lourdaux – Daniel Verhelst (eds.), The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th-13th C.): Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13- 16, 1973, Leuven: Leuven University Press 1976, 12 -26; Dominique Iogna Prat, Order and Exclusion: Cluny and Christendom face Heresy, Judaism and Islam (1000 -1150), Graham Robert Edwards (trans.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell Un iversity Press 2003, 126-128; Gillian Rosemary Evans, The Mind of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Oxford: Clarendon 1985. 72 K. Sullivan, The Inner Lives…, 32. 73 Cf. M. Newman, The Boundaries of Charity…,1-15, 219-234; Stephen Robson, With the Spirit and Power of Elijah (Lk 1,17): The Prophetic Reforming Spirituality of Bernard of Clairvaux as Evidenced Particularly in His Letters, Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana 2004, 280-284.

36 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX follow how this ecclesiology was realised through specific means deployed against heresy, which functioned as disciplinary practices.

3.1 Bernard’s engagement with heresy: A chronology

Bernard belonged to the generation that succeeded in centralizing the anti-heretical struggle and creating a picture of heresy as a general and urgent danger.74 The years between the Second Lateran Council (1139) and the Council of Reims (1148) were crucial, as ecclesiastical leaders “put in place what can be recognized in retrospect as the essential foundations of the church for the rest of the Middle Ages, both governmentally and intellectually” and “rejected the most radical implications of the apostolic movement”.75

Already from 1135, Bernard was active against heresy. He had a leading role in the

Council of Pisa,76 before which the wandering preacher Henry of Lausanne was hauled and condemned as a heretic.77 However, Henry continued preaching and in 1145, Bernard of

Clairvaux undertook a preaching mission against heresy in southern France,78 where Henry was captured, chained and delivered to the bishop of the city.79 Similarly, as Uwe Brunn has shown, Bernard, during his preaching mission for the Second Crusade in Cologne in 1146,

74 R. Manselli, “De la Persuasio á la Coercitio...”, 181; R. Moore, “The War against Heresy”, 204. 75 R. Moore, The War…, 144. 76 Robert Somerville, Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11 th and 12 th Centuries, Aldershot: Ashgate 1970, 101. 77 Robert Moore, The Birth of Popular Heresy, London: Arnold 1975, 39. 78 R. Moore, The War…, 121. 79 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 90-93.

37 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX used this opportunity also to preach against heresy in the area.80 In addition, the Cistercian abbot attended the Council of Reims in 1148, which was crucial for the crystallization of the distinction between clergy and laity. The council dealt with cases of heresy – those of Eon de Stella, who was recognized as a lunatic and kept in custody, and Gilbert de la Porée – and condemned the remaining followers of Henry of Lausanne and Peter of Bruys in Gascony and Provence.81

Besides his active engagement in the councils of Pisa and Reims and his two preaching missions, the Abbot of Clairvaux also managed in his writings, which were widely distributed,82 to influence anti-heretical polemics. Generally, the anti-heretical struggle in the Bernardine discourse had an expansive dimension; it became the duty of the Church but also of every Christian. Between 1149 and 1153, Bernard wrote the treatise Five Books on

Consideration (De Consideratione), which is regarded by modern historians as an expression of his political philosophy.83 In this work, which was dedicated to Pope Eugenius, the abbot reminded him that it was his responsibility to find a solution to the problem of heresy. In his epistles, he reached a broader audience by appealing to, among others, the count of Toulouse and the people of the same city, with the aim of mobilizing them in the fight against heresy. The first letter was written before the preaching mission of 1145 and the second after he had accomplished the mission. Bernard’s anti-heretical writings also

80 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…,124-125. 81 R. Moore, The War…, 151-155. 82 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 81. 83 Ian Stuart Robinson, “Church and Papacy” in: James Henderson Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350 -c. 1450, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988, 252-305: 257.

38 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX include sermons 64, 65, and 66 from his major work, Sermons on the Song of Songs. The exact dating of Sermons 65 and 66 has been subject to discussion, as they were traditionally dated to before the preaching mission of 1145 and were supposed to be an answer to the letter of Everwin, Provost of Steinfeld, to Bernard.84 Brunn challenges this dating, arguing that both sermons mirror a feeling of failure and powerlessness arising from the failure of the preaching missions. While Sermon 64 was composed before the preaching mission, he suggests that Sermons 65 and 66 as well as Everwin’s letter were written only after 1147.

Furthermore, while both Sermons have traditionally been perceived as an answer to

Everwin’s letter, Brunn suggests that only Sermon 66 was written as an answer.85

An analysis of these sources shows the means that Bernard of Clairvaux considered useful in handling heresy. These means were preaching against heresy, physical persecution, exclusion, making heretics publicly declare their beliefs and way of life, and controlling everyday behavior, especially relationships between women and men.

3.2 Physical violence against heretics

In Sermon 64 of Bernard’s commentary on the Songs of Songs, the abbot of

Clairvaux argues against the use of violence, as he asserts that heretics must be convinced to return to the Church by using arguments.86 Hence, the reconciliation of heretics is presented as a part of the Church’s salvific mission. Bernard was however aware that the

84 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 82. 85 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…, 169. 86 SC, SBOp II, 170; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons On the Song of Songs III, trans. Kilian Walsh – Irene M. Edmonds, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1979, 175 -176.

39 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX efforts to convince heretics could be unsuccessful and opened the door to their exclusion using a scriptural reference, Titus 3:10.87 The idea that heretics should be excluded for the sake of other Christians and the Church is repeated through Sermons 65 and 66.

Bernard returned to the issue of violence in Sermon 66, where he commented on a letter from Everwin of Steinfeld, the Praemonstratensian prior of a monastery close to

Cologne, but his attitude there was entirely different. Everwin had appealed to the abbot of

Clairvaux when heretical groups appeared in the Rhineland. The prior expressed his anxiety and wonder in his letter, for a small group of heretics who had been caught by the people of

Cologne —without ecclesiastical sanction— in 1143, had preferred death by fire to retraction and salvation.88 In his response, Bernard appeared less surprised by this behaviour than Everwin. By connecting heresy to the devil and outlining the image of the stubborn and hypocritical heretic, Bernard concluded that these people were unable to understand arguments and incapable of recognising their mistakes.89 Thus, it was no wonder that they had not hesitated upon facing death. He continued his reply on the specific event recounted by Everwin by discussing the reaction of the people of Cologne.

So the people have attacked them, making new martyrs for the cause of godless heresy. We applaud

their zeal, but do not recommend their action, because faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of

force, though no doubt it is better for them to be restrained by the sword of someone who bears not the

87 SC, SBOp II, 170; cf. On the Song of Songs III…, 176. 88 Diversorum ad S. Bernardum et alios, Epistola CDXXXII.2 (PL CLXXXII, 677) 89 SC, SBOp II, 186; Cf. Sermons On the Song of Songs III…, 203.

40 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

sword in vain (Rom 13:4) than to be allowed to lead others into heresy. Anyone who punishes a

wrongdoer in righteous wrath is a servant of God.90

This passage has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Bernard’s condemnation of mob violence has been examined in relation to the general framework of the Church’s efforts to centralize justice against more traditional jurisdictions favored by local communities.91

Kienzle has argued that Bernard’s contradictory message opened the door to the violent persecution of heretics, whereas for Sullivan this passage indicates that Bernard understood the necessity of violent acts.92 Leclercq has pointed out that Bernard, recognising that violent acts were an unavoidable reality, sought to limit unrestrained violence by condemning the actions of mobs, “by imposing conditions as to its use and motivation.”93 Henri

Maisonneuve has argued that, following the Augustinian tradition, Bernard was prone to appeal for the assistance of secular leaders when preaching proved ineffective against

90 Sermons On the Song of Songs III…, 204; cf.CS, SBOp II, 186-187: “Itaque irruens in eos populus, novos haereticis suae ipsorum perfidiae martyres dedit. Approbamus zelum, sed factum non suademus, quia fides suadenda est, non imponenda. Quamquam melius procul dubio gladio coercentur, illius videlicet qui non sine causa gladium portat ( Rom 13:4), quam in suum errorem multos traicere permittantur”. 91 Robert Moore, The First European Revolution c. 970-1215, Oxford and New York: Blackwell Publishing, 2000, 168-9. 92 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 106-8; Karen Sullivan, Truth and the Heretic: Crises of Knowledge in Medieval French Literature, Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press 2005, 52. 93 Jean Leclercq, ”Saint Bernard's Attitude Toward War”, in: John Sommerfeldt, Studies in Medieval Cistercian History II, (Cistercian Studies Series 24) , Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publication 1976, 1-39.

41 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX heresy.94 According to Maisonneuve, Bernard’s views on the use of force were related to the discipline and defence of Christian society.95

In my view, the above-mentioned passage shows how the violent persecution of heresy was organically linked to issues of power and authority, as the main point of interest was not the violent act itself, but rather the question of who had the right to exercise physical violence. Bernard appeared disturbed not by the burning of heretics but mostly because violence was committed by those who did not hold the authority to employ it. The Cistercian abbot indeed sought to impose strict limitations regarding the use of violence by reminding his audience that only secular rulers had the right to use force. Bernard, quoted a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans in which Paul deals with the relationship between

Christians and the state of Rome and strongly advocates the need to subordinate to Roman rulers and to show obedience to those who have the right to execute God’s wrath.96 By commenting on a specific event, Bernard seized the opportunity to demonstrate his ideas on the relationship between the laity and secular leaders, which had to be predicated on the former’s obedience to the latter. As “a man of order,”97 he attempted to make a clear distinction between the role of secular elites and that of the laity at large on the basis of the legitimate use of force.

94 H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines…., 104-5. 95 H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines..., 104-5. 96 Robert Jewett, “Romans,” in: James D. G. Dunn (ed.), Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003, 91 -104: 103-4. 97 Gillian Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000, 158.

42 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

Moreover, in this passage, we can follow Bernard’s ideas on the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical authorities, as he evoked the image of the two swords. The symbol of the spiritual and material sword has its origins in the Scripture, in the chapter 22 of the

Gospel of Luke and the chapter 26 of the Gospel of Matthew, has been connected with the relationship between the ecclesiastical and temporal power.98 This is not the only instance where this image appears in Bernardine writings, as it can also be found in Letter 256, written in 1150 to Pope Eugene III, as well as in De Consideratione, where he reminded the

Pope that both swords belonged to the papacy but only secular leaders could use force whenever the Church demanded it.99 The obligation of secular leaders to use the sword in order to assist ecclesiastical authorities is reiterated in Bernard’s letters of crusading propaganda, where he urged knights to seize the sword that was entrusted to them,100 as the clergy should not be actively involved in violent actions.101

The interpretation of the image of the two swords in Bernard’s writings has been extensively discussed, mainly focusing on the nature of the relation between ecclesiastical and secular authorities.102 This specific passage of Bernardine anti-heretical writings, evinces how important it was for Bernard that secular authorities realised their obligations.

98 Elisabeth Kennan, “The ‘De Consideratione’ of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Papacy in the Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review on Scholarship”, Tradition 23, 1967, 73-115; Stanley Chodorow, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid -Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian’s Decretum, Berkely- Los Angeles- London: University of California Press 1972, 227-228; A. Chapman, Sacred Authority…, 181-190. 99 EP 256, in SBOp VIII, 163; Csi, in SBOp III, 454. 100 EP 363, in SBOp VIII, 317. 101 James Brundage, “St Bernard and the Jurists,” in Michae l Gevers (ed.), The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York : St. Martin's Press 1992, 25-33. 102 E. Kennan, “The ‘De Consideratione’...” 73-115; A. Chapman, Sacred Authority..., 181- 189.

43 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

Moreover, he sought to enhance the collaboration between secular and ecclesiastical elites to combat heresy, as the Church’s Councils —for instance, the Second Lateran Council— demanded.103

The discussion of the episode of Cologne finishes with Bernard continuing the quote from Paul: “Anyone who punishes a wrong-doer in righteous wrath is a servant of God.”104

The same quotation, albeit paraphrased, also appears in On the Praise of New Knighthood:

“The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and succumb more confidently.

When he strikes, he does service to Christ, and to himself when he succumbs. Nor does he bear the sword in vain. He is God’s minister in the punishment of evil doers and the praise of well doers”.105 As Aryeh Grabois has argued, Bernard’s image of the fighters who become servants of Christ was a development of the Gregorian ideal of milites Christi.106 The metaphor of milites Christi, which appears frequently in the Rule of Benedict, was traditionally tightly connected to the monastic life, as it represented the spiritual warfare that the monks were entangled with.107 During the pontificate of pope Gregory VII the model of the miles Christi gained another interpretation, as it came to mean the lay warriors who were

103 R. Moore, The War…., 144-5; M. Frasseto, “Precursors to Religious Inquisitions...,” 52 -3. 104 Sermons On the Song of Songs III, 204; cf. SC, in SBOp II, 187: “Dei enim minister ille est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit (Rom 13:4)”. 105 Tpl, SBOp III, 217: “Miles, inquam Christi securus interimit, interit securior. Sibi praestat cum interit, Christo cum interimit. Non enim sine causa gladium portat: Dei enim minister est ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum (Rom 13:4) ” 106 Aryeh Grabois, “Militia and Malitia: The Bernardine Vision of Chivalry”, in: Michael Gevers (ed.), The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York: St. Martin's Press 1992, 49-56: 49. 107 Katherine Allen Smith, “Spiritual Warriors in Citadels of Faith: Martial Rhetoric and Monastic Masculinity in the Long Twelfth Century” in Jennifer D. Thibodeaux (ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle Ages , Basingstoke–New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2010, 86-110: 86-87.

44 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX defending the Church.108 The use of the same quotation reveals that elements of crusading propaganda and especially the idea of milites Christi had gradually begun entering the anti- heretical polemics. By connecting the punishment of heretics with the image of the “servant of God,” the Cistercian abbot gave a new dimension to the fight against heresy. A monastic ideal was more widely diffused in society. Moreover, his understanding of anti-heretical commitment bears an important similarity to the way in which he understood the crusades: both acts are perceived as transformative, for the participant becomes a servant of God. John

R. Sommerfeldt has argued that in the Crusades Bernard saw an opportunity to carry out his ambition to reform society and, especially, secular leaders.109 The defence of Christianity would allow secular leaders to prove that, as a result of an internal reform, they had become servants of God and thus used their arms in God’s service. Likewise, those who punished heretics were transformed into servants of God.

3.3 Exclusion of heretics

The social exclusion of heretics was not a Bernardine novelty. On the contrary, since the early Christian centuries, the expulsion of heretics had been a common and widespread policy against heresy.110 Following this tradition, as Manselli notes, Bernard believed that

108 Carl Edermann, The Origins of the Idea of the Crusade, Marshall W.Baldwin – Walter Goffart (trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Press 1977; 3 -35; Ian Stuart Robinson, “Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ”, History 58/193, 1973, 169-192. 109 John R. Sommerfeldt, “The Bernardine Reform and the Crusading Spirit”, The Catholic Historical Review 86/4, 2000, 567-578: 569. 110 Christine Caldwell Ames, Medieval Heresies: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, New York: Cambridge University Press 2015, 78.

45 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX the exclusion of heretics was a justifiable step when the persuasion of heretics by non-violent means had failed.111

In Bernard’s anti-heretical texts, social exclusion comes frequently into play. In

Sermon 65 on the topic of heresy, he addresses this way of handling heresy:

What is the Church to do but remove the man who will not remove the scandal, unless like him, she is

to be disobedient? (Jn 8:55) For she has this command from the Gospel, not to spare her own eye if it

gives offense, or her hand or her foot, but to pluck it out or cut it off and cast it away from her (Matt

5:29). “If he will not listen to the Church,” it says, “let him be to you as a stranger and a tax collector”

(Matt 18:17).112

It is worth noting how closely in this passage Bernard, building on biblical citations, links the exclusion of heretics with the issue of obedience and the sound functioning of the body of the Church. The point of interest is not heretics and how they can come back to the Church but the Church itself.

Obedience played a central role in Bernard’s thought. “Perfect obedience knows no law. It can be held within no limits” asserts the abbot to his monastic audience in his treatise

On Percept and Dispensation (De Præcepto et Dispensatione).113 Moreover, obedience was a necessary condition for the life of the monks in the monastery. “Obedience without

111 R. Manselli, “De la Persuasio a la Coercitio...”, 181. 112 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 187; cf. SBOp II, 176-177: “Quid factura Ecclesia est, nisi ut amoveat illum qui non vult amovere scandalum, ne sit similis illi inoboediens? Nam hoc mandatum habet ex hoc Evangelio, non parcere ne proprio oculo scandalizanti se, non manui, non pedi, sed eruere illum, abscindere ist a, et proicere a se. Si, inquit Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus (Mt 18:17)”. 113 Bernard of Clairvaux, Book on Precept and Dispensation, Conrad Greenia (trans.) in: Basil Pennington (ed.), The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises I, Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications 1970, 105-150: 114; Pre, SBOp III, 261: “Nam perfecta oboedientia legem nescit, terminis non arctatur”.

46 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX delay”,114 instructs the Rule of Benedict, which the monks should follow strictly, according to Bernard in the same treatise.115 Bernard in this work discusses the necessity of showing obedience primarily to God's commands and the Scripture:

But what is to be understood by the third kind of necessity; Fittingly enough it may be referred to that

necessity so fixed by God…. Under this heading falls that spiritual doctrine and teaching on charity,

humility, meekness and the other virtues, which we can find set forth in both the Old and New

Testaments116

Besides the need to obey the Scripture, in the above-mentioned passages from the Songs of

Songs and On Percept and Dispensation there is a common element. The first is that the obedience that the Church and the monks must show is an end in itself; it is merely a state of being, a permanent disposition rather than a procedure that is followed in order to achieve a result. In this way, the absolute and highest form of obedience, as the foremost monastic ideal, transcends the walls of the monastery and becomes a necessary requirement for the whole Church and for the construction of the obedient subject.

This obedience is also related to the well-being of the Church. By protecting itself, the Church is obedient to the Scriptures. Thus, the exclusion of heretics is not presented as

114 BR, 38: “oboedientia sine mora”; cf 39. 115 Pre, SBOp III, 255, 256; cf. Treatises I, 106, 107. For the importance of the Rule in Bernard’s thought, see Francis Kline, “Saint Bernard and the Rule of Saint Benedict: An Introduction” in: John R. Sommerfeldt (ed.,) Bernard Magister: Papers Presented at the Noncentenary Celebrations of the Birth of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux , Spencer: Cistercian Publications, 1992, 169-183. 116 Treatises I, 110; cf. Pre, SBOp III, 258: “Iam vero necessarium incommutabile quid accipi velim? Equidem nil congruentius, quam quod divina ita constat et aeterna ratione firmatum, ut nulla ex causa possit vel ab ipso Deo, aliquatenus immutari. Sub hoc genere est omnis illa sermonis Dominici in monte habiti spiritualis traditio, et quidquid de d ilectione, humilitate, mansuetudine ceterisque virtutibus, tam in Novo quam in Veteri Testamento spiritualiter observandum contraditur”.

47 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX a form of revenge, a pure punishment coming from wrath, but is a beneficial measure, as it is destined to secure the well-being and unity of the body of the Church. The survival of the

Church is also an act of obedience. In the economy of salvation being obedient is the only choice: if the Church is to survive, it must be obedient to the Scriptures and must ideally remain in this condition permanently and definitively.

Exclusion is an act of obedience, but also of protection, as heretics represent a danger. In Sermon 65, citing a widely used passage from the Epistle to Titus, the Abbot of

Clairvaux declares: “I shall without hesitation reject a heretic after a first and second admonition (Tit 3:10), knowing that such a man is corrupt, and that I must take care he does not corrupt me also”.117

Likewise, in Sermon 66, the idea of the righteous expulsion of heretics from the

Church is connected with the notion of protection: “They should be dealt with, then, either by being forced to send away their women or to leave the Church, as they cause scandal in the Church by their way of life and their consorting with women”.118 And again: “If they do not accept this, you will be completely justified in expelling them from the Church to which they have caused scandal by their blatant and illicit cohabitation”.119 Here, exclusion

117 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 188; cf. CS, SBOp II, 177: “Nunc autem facile, secundum sapientiam Pauli, post unam et secundam admonitionem haereticum hominem devitabo, sciens quia subversus est qui huiusmodi est, ac perinde cautus providere, ne iam sit et subversor”. 118 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 205; cf..CS, SBOp II, 187: “Quamobrem ut deprehendantur, cogendi sunt vel abicere feminas, vel exire de Ecclesia, utpote scandalizantes Ecclesiam in convictu et contubernio feminarum ”. 119 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 206; cf. CS, SBOp II, 188: “Quod si non sustinent, iustissime eliminabuntur de Ecclesia quam scandalizant non solum notabili, sed etiam illicita cohabitatione”.

48 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX becomes, again, a beneficial act; it has the function inside the economy of salvation to secure the salvation of the Church and Christians.

Apart from the Sermons, the imperative of expulsion as one of the main measures against heresy is a common theme in Bernard’s letters. The abbot appeals to the Count of

Toulouse to expel Henry of Lausanne and his followers from his territories. Henry of

Lausanne, who challenged the Church’s authority by his preaching about the nature and the administration of the sacraments, was probably a renegade Black monk, as Bernard mentions in his letter to the count of Toulouse: “He is an apostate who, having abandoned the monastic habit, (for he was once a monk), has returned to the world”120. Henry started teaching in

Lausanne and then in Le Mans in 1116, where he provoked a revolt against the local clergy.

He was condemned at the Council of Pisa before Innocent II in 1135. His name appeared again in relation to Bernard’s mission in southern France in 1145.121 According to Bernard’s letter to the count, by expelling the heretics he will not only protect people but also maintain his good reputation. In this way, the struggle against heresy becomes a personal matter not only for the Church but also for the secular elites: “When he (Henry of Lausanne) was chased from France for his wickedness, the only territory open to him was yours. Only under your protection could he ferociously ravage Christ’s flock. But whether or not this is in keeping with your honour, you alone must judge.”122 In Bernard’s viewpoint, Henry was a dangerous

120 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, trans. Bruno Scott James, London: Burns Oates 1953, 318; cf. Ep 241, SBOp VIII, 126: “Homo apostata est, qui relicto religionis habitu, - nam monachus exstitit-, ad spurcitias carnis et saeculi”. 121 Robert Moore, The Origins of European Dissent, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1977, 83; B Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…, 91-92. 122 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 318; cf. Ep. 241, SBOp VIII, 126: “Quippe de tota Francia pro simili effugatus malitia, has solas sibi invenit expositas, in quibus fiducialiter

49 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX man, who, by abandoning his order, had become a wandering preacher, a danger to the

Church and to Christians, due to the attractiveness of his preaching and lifestyle. The notion of protecting the Christian flock is repeated:

“Enquire if you like why he left Lausanne, Le Mans, Poitiers and Bordeaux. There is no way at all of return open to him in any of these places, because of the foul traces he has left behind him. Do you really hope to collect good fruit from such a bad tree as this?”123

Bernard reminds the people of Toulouse of the danger caused by heresy and, therefore, the need to protect themselves:

“And also, very dear friends, pursue them and seize them, until they have all gone, fled from your midst, for it is not safe to sleep near serpents: ’they agree with the rich to lie in wait at dark corners, and kill the man who never wronged them (Ps 37:39)’.”124

Likewise, in the epistles of Bernard, the exclusion of heretics is represented as an act of protection and self-defense. The Church, secular leaders, and ultimately all Christians share a duty to exclude religious dissidents, as they present a danger to the Church’s good function, mainly with their behavior and way of living. Bernard justifies this need by presenting the defence of the Church and the protection of its people as the highest goal.

Importantly, though the need for obedience is equally necessary for the Church, secular

sub tuo dominatu in gregem Christi toto furore bacchatur. Quod tuone honori congruat, princeps illustris, ipse iudicato”. 123 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 318; cf. Ep 241, SBOp VIII, 127: “Inquire, si placet, vir nobilis, quomodo de Lausanna civitate exierit, quomodo de Cenomannis, quomodo de Pictavi, quomodo de Burdigali, nec patet ei uspiam reversionis aditus, utpote qui foeda post se ubique reliquerit vestigia. Tu de tali arbore tan dem bonos sperabas fructus?”. 124 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 319; cf. Ep 242, SBOp VIII, 128: “Propterea dilectissimi, persequimini et comprehendite eos (Ps 70, 11), et nolite desistere, donec penitus depereant et diffugiant de cunctis finibus vest ris, quia non est tutum dormire vicinis serpentibus. Sedent in insidiis cum divitibus in occultis, ut (Ps 9, 29) interficiant innocentes ”.

50 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX leaders, and the people, their duties are different: the Church has the duty to expel heretics in order to save itself and thus all Christians; secular leaders must assist the Church and save

Christians; and people must help themselves by “pursuing and seizing” heretics. Just as monks have different duties in the monastery, in the anti-heretical struggle every part has a different function but the same aim: self-defense, self-protection, and maintaining the unity of the Church.125

Bernard justifies the need to expel heretics by presenting exclusion as self-chosen.

In Sermon 65, he wonders: “When they dismiss everyone within the Church as dogs and swine, is this not an open admission that they themselves are not within the Church?”126

Heretics, through their rejection of the Church’s prelates, demonstrate their disobedience and, therefore, they choose to be outside the Church. There is no room for heretics in the

Church, where absolute obedience is a necessary requirement. Heretics are the ones who place themselves outside the Church due to their behavior: “They take themselves out of his mighty heritage”,127 declares the Abbot of Clairvaux to his monastic audience. Then, referring to the Gospel of Mark, he warns: “Who does not believe shall be lost”’ (Mk 16:16), for what is believing but having faith?”128 Heretics cannot have a place within the economy of salvation, as they do not possess one of the basic virtues: faith. And if one does not have

125 BR, The Rule of Saint Benedict…, 163. 126 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 182; cf. CS SBOp II, 173: “At istud aperte fateri est, se non esse de Ecclesia, qui omnes, qui de Ecclesia sunt, canes censet et porcos”. 127 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 199; CS cf. SBOp II, 183: “Se potius subtrahunt huic magnae hereditati”. 128 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 201; cf. CS, SBOp II, 185: “Qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur (Mt 16,16). Quid enim credere est, nisi fidem habere? ”.

51 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX faith or does not search for salvation, then exclusion is unavoidable: the search for salvation is obligatory.

3.4 Can heresy be defeated by preaching?

One of the most controversial aspects of Bernardine’s anti-heretical discourse is his position on preaching and persuasion and their effectiveness as means of handling heresy.

On the one hand, the Abbot of Clairvaux did engage in the preaching mission of 1145 in Southern France. This preaching mission was, Moore claims, a decisive moment in the history of anti-heretical persecution, as it created the precedent of an organized mission and an attack against “not only the heretic but [also] his sympathizers”.129 Bernard seemed to understand the significance of preaching and decided to embark on a long journey:

“Although weak in body I have taken the road to those parts which the boar is more especially ravaging without anyone to resist it or save them.”130 He expresses his satisfaction with the results of the preaching mission:

Our stay was short but the fruit of it was not small. When I made the truth clear to you, not only by

word but also by power, the wolves who came among you in the guise of sheep and were devouring

129 R. Moore, The Formation…, 24. 130 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 317; Ep. 241, cf. SBOp VIII, 126: “Et nunc huius rei gratia, licet in multa corporis infirmitate, iter arripui ad has partes, quas potissimum singularis ferus depascitur, dum non est qui (Ps 79, 14) resistat neque qui salvum faciat (Ps7,3)”

52 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

you like bread were found out; so too were the foxes who were spoiling that most precious vineyard of

the Lord, your city, but they were not caught.131

Furthermore, as Brunn argues, during his preaching mission in favor of the Second Crusade in 1146-1147 in the Rhineland, Bernard also preached on the need to reform the clergy but also against heresy.132

The question of Bernard’s participation in a preaching mission outside monastic walls despite his monastic status has been addressed by historians, who link his endeavors with his ecclesiology of Caritas. His worldview “compelled” him to perceive the defense of society as his duty.133 Brunn connects Bernard’s actions with his ambition to reform the clergy, especially in the Rhineland.134 More generally, the question of the right to preach was connected to the conflict between monks and clerics on whether monks also had a duty to become involved with the cura animarum.135 Indeed, in Bernard’s above-mentioned passages, there is a discreet and indirect critique of the clergy, as it was their lack of effectiveness that allowed heresy to flourish. The notions of duty and moral responsibility

131 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 319; cf. Ep. 242, SBOp VIII, 128: “Et mora quidem brevis apud vos, sed non infructuosa. Veritate nimirum per nos manifestata, manifestata autem non solum in sermone, sed etiam in virtute, deprehensi sunt lupi, qui venientes ad vos in vestimentis ovium, devorabant plebem vestram sicut escam panis, sicut oves occisionis: deprehensae vulpes, quae demoliebantur pretiosissimam vineam Domini, civitatem vestram; deprehensae sed non comprehensae”. 132 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…, 124-125. 133 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…, 202-203; Beverly Kienzle, “Tending the Lord’s Vineyard: Cistercians, Rhetoric and Heresy, 1143 -1229: Part I: Bernard of Clairvaux, the 1143 Sermons and the 1145 Preaching Mission”, Heresis 25, 1995, 29-61; M. Newman, The Boundaries..., 219-299; Janet Burton – Julie Kerr, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge: Boydell Press 2011, 189 -190. 134 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…, 124-125. 135 Carolyn Muessig, “What Is Medieval Monastic Preaching? An Introdu ction”, in: id. (ed.), Medieval Monastic Preaching, Leiden: Brill 1998, 1-16: 5.

53 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX are likewise present: Bernard, even though weak in body, had a duty to save the population from heresy, as everyone else had failed to do so. Thus, the preaching mission against heresy is also located at the core of the question on who had the ultimate right and duty to be the pastor, i.e. the one who takes care of, and leads souls. I argue that Bernard’s preaching against heresy ought to be viewed in relation to his thought about the role of the abbot in the monastery. According to the Rule of Benedict, which, as it was demonstrated in the previous chapter, was central to Bernard’s understanding of the monastic life, the abbot “must lead his dis disciples with twofold teaching, that is he should show all good and holy things in deeds more than words, setting out God’s commandments verbally for receptive disciplines, but teaching the hard- hearted and less intelligent the divine precepts by his example”.136

His preaching mission is an instance of imposing the abbot-monk relation to the world outside the monastery in the process of monasticization.

The Abbot of Clairvaux did not have any hesitation when it came to preaching against heresy. But did he perceive preaching and persuasion as effective ways of dealing with heresy? His writings can give contradictory answers. To begin with, the Cistercian abbot did participate in preaching missions, which indicated that he believed that he could handle heresy by homiletic means. In his sermons on the Song of Songs, however, the picture

136 RB, 23; cf RB, 22: “dupplici debet doctrina suis praeesse discipulis. Id est, omnia bona et sancta factis amplius quam verbis ostendat, ut capacibus discipulis mandata Domin i verbis proponere, duris corde vero et simplicioribus factis suis divina praecepta monstrare ”.

54 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX is somewhat different, as in some cases he approves of preaching and persuasion and in some others, he seems to find them inadequate.

In Sermon 64 of the Song of Songs, where Bernard deals with the issue of unauthorized preaching and the conversion of heretics,137 Bernard explains to his audience:

the Bridegroom has given orders that they are not to be exterminated or driven away or killed, but caught.

Cunning little beasts of this kind must obviously be watched with the utmost vigilance and caution, and

so trapped, that is caught in the toils of their own subtlety (Job 5:13)138

And also: “Heretics are to be caught rather than driven away. They are to be caught, I repeat, not by force of arms but by arguments by which their error may be refuted. They themselves, if it can be done, are to be reconciled with the Catholic (Church) and brought back to the true faith”.139 The aim of preaching must therefore be persuasion and the conversion of the heretic. Bernard, however, did not ignore the possibility that preaching could be

137 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…, 82. 138 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 174; cf. CS, SBOp II, 169: “Et vide ne forte ob hoc a sponso iubeantur, non quidem exterminari, vel abigi, vel occidi; sed capi: quod videlicet huiusmodi spirituales dolosasque bestiolas omni vigilantia et cautela observari oporteat et examinari, et sic capi, id est comprehendi, in astutia sua (Job 5, 13). 139 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 175; cf. CS, SBOp II, 170: “ut haeretici capiantur potius quam effugentur. Capiantur, dico, non armis, sed argumentis, quibus refellantur errores eorum; ipsi vero, si fieri potest, reconcilientur Catholica e, revocentur ad veram fidem”.

55 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX unsuccessful. In such case the exclusion of the heretic for the protection of the vines was necessary.140

The tone is, however, different in Sermon 65: “I say this not because I intend to reply to them all – that would be unnecessary”.141 And the same argument repeats even more strongly:

Many other persuasive arguments are adduced by lying and hypocritical spirits to deceive these dull-

witted and foolish people, but it is not necessary to answer all of them. For who can perceive all of

them? Besides, it would be an endless task and quite unnecessary. For these men are not to be convinced

y logical reasoning, which they do not understand, nor prevailed upon by references to authority which

they do not accept, nor can they be won over by persuasive arguments, for they are utterly perverted.142

The Cistercian abbot concludes: “It is unnecessary and useless, therefore, to utter long tirades against these foolish and obstinate men. It is enough that they should be known for what they are, so that you may be on your guard against them”.143

This lack of consistency in his polemical writings on this issue has been noticed by historians, who seek to explain it in different ways. Kienzle links Bernard’s contradictory ideas on preaching and persuasion with his “inner conflicts over the engagement in the

140 CS, SBOp II, 170; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 175-176. 141 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 188-189; cf.CS, SBOp II, 177: “non quod ad omnes respondeam- nec enim necesse est-, sed tantum ut innotescant”. 142 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 203; cf.CS, SBOp II, 186: “Multa quidem et alia huic populo stulto et insipienti a spiritibus erroris, in hypocrisi loquentibus mendacium, mala persuasa sunt; sed non est respondere ad omnia. Quis enim omnia novit? Deinde labor infinitus esset, et minime necessarius. Nam quantum ad istos, nec rationibus convincuntur, quia non intelligunt, nec auctoritatibus corriguntur, quia non recipiunt, nee flectuntur suasionibus, quia subversi sunt”. 143 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 205; cf. CS, SBOp II, 187: “Quae cum ita sint, non est opus, ut dixi, frustra multa adversus homines stultissimos atque obstinatissimos dicere; sufficit innotuisse illos, ut caveantur ”.

56 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

Lord’s vineyard”.144 Interestingly, Brunn, noting the change in tone between Sermons 64 and 66, argues that Sermon 64 was written before the preaching missions of 1145 and

1146/1147, while Sermons 65 and 66 were written afterwards and mirror the disappointment and sense of failure the abbot felt when the ineffectiveness of preaching became evident.145

Brunn also argues that because of this feeling of powerlessness, Bernard did not wish to become a prominent figure of the anti-heretical struggle, and thought that the best solution to heresy would be to make publicly known the measures taken at the Council of Pisa in

1135.146

It is difficult to disagree with Brunn when he argues that Sermons 65 and 66 express a feeling of powerlessness and despair resulting from the negative outcomes of the two preaching missions. It is natural that Bernard was influenced by external factors such as the developments around him and the personal failures that he experienced. The fact that in

Sermon 64 Bernard already mentioned what should be done if heretics insist in their beliefs suggests that he was already at that time aware that preaching might not always be an effective way of dealing with heresy.

The analysis of the passages in question shows that in Bernard’s ecclesiology, coercive elements such as the expulsion of heretics and persuasion could co-exist. Bernard, being the good abbot, should be interested in every sheep of his flock.147 However, the idea

144 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…, 107. 145 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…, 163-164, 175. 146 U. Brunn, Des contestataires aux “cathares”…, 177-178. 147 Michel Foucault, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977- 1978, ed. Michel Senellart, trans. Graham Burchell, New York: Palgrave 2007, 231.

57 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX that as a last resort, heretics should be expelled proves again that in his ecclesiology the salvation of the whole was more important than the salvation of particular individuals.

3.5 The need to reveal the truth

According to Manselli, for the abbot of Clairvaux it was more important to know who the heretics were and what they wanted rather than violently to persecute them.148 A careful reading of the sources shows that there are several passages, especially in his sermons on the Song of Songs, that support this view.

Addressing his monastic audience, the Cistercian abbot claims that “[i]t is enough that they should be known for what they are, so that you may be on your guard against them”.149 Even in situations where the “persuasion” of heretics did not yield satisfactory results, the disclosure of their ideas was considered a success:

“The perverse may be directed towards righteousness, the corrupted called back to the truth, and the corruptors refuted by invincible arguments so that they either correct their

148 R. Manselli, “De la Persuasio á la Coercitio...”, 182. 149 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 205; cf. CS SBOp II, 187: “sufficit innotuisse illos, ut caveantur”.

58 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX error, if that is possible, or, if it is not, they lose their authority and the means of corrupting others.”150

Not only heretical ideas but also the heretics’ way of life should be made known:

“What sign will you give us that this vile heresy may be brought into the open, this heresy which knows so well how to dissemble not only with its tongue but in its life?”151

In other passages of the sermons, the need to uncover heretical ideas is connected with God’s will and glory: “Let them either disclose their secret to the glory of God or else admit that it is not a mystery of God and cease to deny that they are heretics; or at least let them recognize that they are openly hostile to the glory of God, since they refuse to disclose what they know would be to his glory.”152

Bernard asks rhetorically: “How long will you keep secret what God commands should be revealed? How long is your gospel to remain hidden?”153

Bernard was indeed interested in the need for heretics openly to reveal their “errors”, and this “establishment of truth” became a way of handling heresy, a fact which can also inform us on his ecclesiology. Telling the truth is an act of obedience, a sign of humility

150 Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration…, 82-84; cf. Csi, SBOp III, 433: “increduli convertantur ad fidem, conversi non avertantur, aversi revertantur, porro perversi ordinentur ad rectitudinem, subversi ad veritatem revocentur, subversores invictis rationibus convincantur, ut vel emendentur ips, si fieri potest, vel si non, perdant auctoritatem facultatemque alios subvertendi”. 151 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 185; cf. CS SBOp II, 175: “Quod signum dabitis, ut palam fiat pessima haeresis haec, docta mentiri non lingua tantum, sed vita ?” 152 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 182-183; cf.CS, SBOp II, 174: “Aut igitur Dei secretum ad gloriam Dei prodant; aut Dei negent mysterium, et minime se haereticos negent; aut certe nihilominus manifestos se fateantur inimicos gloriae Dei, qui nolunt manifestum fieri quod ei norunt fore ad gloriam ”. 153 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III…, 183; cf. CS, SBOp II, 174: “Usquequo occultum tenetur, quod palam Deus fieri iubet? Usquequo opertum Evangelium vestrum? ”.

59 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX towards God and an expression of the recognition of the divine glory. The monks in a monastery should immediately recognize and declare their mistakes in front of the abbot and the rest of the community whenever they do something wrong.154 According to the Rule of

Benedict, the abbot should know not only the daily acts but also the thoughts of his monks through observation and also through their confession.155 Indeed, knowing an individual’s inner feelings was a condition for the right governance of souls in a monastery, the regere animas. It was an integral part of the abbot-monk relationship and a necessary step on the road to salvation.156 Likewise, for Bernard, heretics should also tell the truth. The

“establishment of the truth” became a way of handling heresy and secured the salvation of the unity and well-being of the Church.

However, in his writings, Bernard does not grant everybody the ability or the authority to know what is hidden in the minds and souls of others. He sets some specific rules: “Teach us, suggest to us how this trickery may be found out. Then the fox will be caught, for a dishonest Catholic does far more harm than an honest heretic. It is not for man

154 RB, 157. 155 RB., 21-27. 156 Michael C. Voigts, “Bernard and the Direction of the Souls” in: id. Letters of Ascent: Spiritual Direction in the Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux , Cambridge: James Clarke and Co. 2014, 17-30: 18-19; Aquinata Böckmann, A Listening Community: A Commentary on the Prologue and Chapters 1-3 of the Rule of St. Benedict, Minnesota: Liturgical Press 2015, 156.

60 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX to know what is in man (Jn 2:25), unless he is enlightened for this very purpose by the Script of God or guided by angelic activity.”157

The model of the specific relation between the abbot and the monks for the direction and guidance of souls in a monastery is transferred in a privileged way through Bernard’s anti-heretical sermons to the rest of the society: those who are “enlightened by the

Scriptures” or “guided by angelic activity” are those who are able to know – and should know – “what is in a man”.

How did this need to reveal one’s ideas and everyday acts publicly or to people with spiritual authority become so important? Problematizing this question from a Foucauldian perspective will help us to better understand the complexity of this way of handling heresy.

In his series of lectures Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice,

Foucault speaks about two kinds of obligations concerning the role of truth in Christianity.

The first is the obligation that is imposed on Christians to recognize, respect and manifest the truth of a specific set of beliefs and “a teaching which is guaranteed and authenticated

… by an institutional authority”.158 He then goes on to describe the second form of truth obligation in Christianity, which has played an important role in the history of “the construction of the subject”, namely the obligation of the Christian to search for the hidden truth inside his or her mind and then declare it publicly to a representative of authority or to

157 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs…, 185; cf. SBOp II, 175: “Docete et suggerite, qualiter fraus deprehendatur. Hoc enim est cepisse vulpem, quia longe plus nocet falsus catholicus quam verus haereticus. Non est autem hominis scire quid sit in homine, nisi quis forte ad hoc ipsum fuerit vel illuminatus Spiritu Dei, vel angelica informatus industria (Io 2, 25)”. 158 Michel Foucault, Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2014, 92.

61 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

God.159 For Foucault, Christianity is a “confessional religion”.160 This obligation to find and manifest the truth about one’s self is at the core of the road to salvation, but it can only be successful if there is someone to provide the right guidance, a role only for the abbot in the monastic context; therefore, it is not surprising that such an obligation appears in Bernard’s anti-heretical discourse if we think of it as an expression and instance of the principle of regere animas.

Confession acquired more and more importance in the 12th century until it became obligatory for all and institutionalized in 1215.161 The power the ecclesiastical authorities could exercise was strengthened via this process, as “the domain of confession is considerably extended since it is no longer a question of confessing only serious transgressions but of confessing everything”.162 I suggest that this way of handling heresy is related to the general process of the institutionalization of confession.

At the same time, the abbot of Clairvaux “exported” the relation between the abbot and the monk outside the walls of the monastery. The abbatial shepherd should know every detail of the thoughts and daily life of his sheep in order to direct their conscience. Translated to the outside world this meant that Christians should admit their truth as an act of obedience and humility, to secure their salvation; conversely, heretics would lose their power to harm others and the unity of the Church as soon as their errors became known. In this way, Bernard

159 M. Foucault, Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling…, 92. 160 M. Foucault, “Technologies of the Self…”, 40. 161 Peter Biller, “Confession in the Middle Ages: Introduction”, in: Peter Biller – Alastair Minnis (eds.), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages , York: York Medieval Press 1988, 1-35: 30. 162 Michel Foucault, Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France, 1974 -1975, ed. Valerio Marchetti – Antonella Salomoni, trans. Graham Burchell, London: Verso 2003, 167.

62 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX could achieve the construction of a subject that would always be in a position to know the truth about itself and to declare this truth to the authorities.

3.6 The control of everyday life as a way of handling heresy

Bernard of Clairvaux was interested in the daily practices of heretics, and accusations of immorality and abnormal sexual activity were repeated throughout his anti-heretical writings. Accusations concerning sexual misconduct were a well-known topos in texts against heresy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.163 In his letter to the Count of Toulouse,

Bernard notes that “frequently after a day of popular adulation this notable preacher is to be found with prostitutes, sometimes even with married women”.164 In Sermons 65 and 66 of the Song of Songs, the abbot of Clairvaux attacks heretics, who “take women not as traveling companions but as mistresses”.165

Since the very first centuries of Christianity, lay sexuality and its regulation was an issue that concerned ecclesiastical authorities, and very often sexual misbehavior was linked with heresy.166 Especially in the years after the Gregorian reform, “the growing concern of

163 James Simpson, “Dogging Cornwall’s ’Secret Freaks’: Beroul on the Limits of European Orthodoxy”, in: Andrew Roach – James Simpson (eds.), Heresy and the Making of European Culture, Medieval and Modern Perspectives, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing 2013, 207-236: 210; Peter Dinzelbacher, “Gruppensex im Untergrund: Chaotische Ketzer und kirchliche Keuscheit im Mittelater”, in: Albrecht Classen (ed.), Sexuality in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: New Approaches to a Fundamental Cultural -Historical and Literary- Anthropological Theme, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2008, 405-427: 405. 164 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…., 317-318; Ep 241, cf. SBOp VIII, 127: “Frequenter siquidem post diurnum populi plausum, nocte insecuta cum meretricibus inventus est praedicator insignis, et interdum etiam com coniugatis ”. 165 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III..., 184; cf. CS, SBOp II, 174: “An quod vobiscum mulierculas non utique circumducitis, sed includitis ?” 166 Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages, London – New York: Routledge 1991, 1-22.

63 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX church officials with lay sexuality was only one shift, as the Church paid increasing attention to lay conduct”.167 Even the canon law became more strict when it came to the regulation of sexual activity, and attempts to establish clerical celibacy were connected with the supremacy of the clergy in relation to the laity.168 Bernard’s anti-heretical discourse belongs to this tradition of condemning the sexual practices of his “enemies”. What is interesting is that in his writings the control of sexuality and thus of everyday life becomes a way of fighting against heresy. In Sermon 65, the abbot of Clairvaux instructs his monastic audience on how to identify and fight heresy:

How then are we to catch them? Let us return to the question of associating and cohabiting with women,

for all of them have some experience of this. “Now, my good man, who is this woman, and where does

she come from? Is she your wife?” “No,” he says, “that is forbidden by my vows.” “Your daughter

then?” “No.” “What then? Not a sister or niece, or at least related to you by birth or marriage?” “No,

not at all.” “And how will you preserve your chastity with her here? You can’t behave like this. Perhaps

you don’t know that the Church forbids cohabitation of men and women if they are vowed to celibacy.

If you do not wish to cause scandal to the Church, send the women away.”169

Likewise, Bernard repeats his instruction:

As I have said, you must separate the man from the woman, although they claim they are living chaste

167 Sara McDougall, “The Persecution of Sex in Late Medieval Troyes”, in: Albrecht Classen (ed.), Sexuality in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: New Approaches to a Fundamental Cultural-Historical and Literary-Anthropological Theme, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2008, 691-714: 692. 168 Paul Beaudette, “’In the World but not of It’: Clerical Celibacy as a Symbol of the Medieval Church”, in: Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform, New York – London: Garland 1998, 23-46: 35. 169 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III..., 186; cf. CS, SBOp II, 176: “Quonam modo capimus illos? Revertamur ad consortium et contuber nium feminarum: hoc enim inter eos nemo qui careat. Interrogo unum quempiam horum: ‘Heus tu, bone vir, quaenam haec mulier, et unde huc tibi? Uxorne tua?’- ‘Non’, inquit, ‘nam voto istud non convenit meo.’ - ‘Filia ego?’- ‘Non’- ‘Quid? Non soror, non neptis, non aliquo saltem propinquitatis vel affitatis gradu attinens tibi?’- ‘Nullo prorsus.’- ‘Et quomodo tuta tibi cum ista continentia

64 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX

lives, and require the women to live with others of their sex who are under similar vows, and similarly,

men with men of the same way of life. In this way you will protect the vows and the reputations of both,

and they will have you as a witness and guardians of their chastity.170

Bernard seems to find it more problematic that women and men who have taken the vow of celibacy continue to live together contrary to the monastic example of separation between men and women rather than cohabitation as such. It was difficult for the abbot of Clairvaux to tolerate this kind of hybridity between lay and monastic status, which was expressed by the new religiosity that had emerged at that time. As a response, the abbot of Clairvaux preached that women and men who had taken the vow of chastity should live separately, as in monasteries.

Bernard’s texts allow a better understanding of the reasons why this daily cohabitation caused anxiety. To begin with, the fact that unmarried women and men associated with each other was a sign of disobedience towards both the Scriptures and the

Church. The vows of chastity that these men and women undertook outside the Church’s authority became a challenge to societal order, as such people did not belong to the clergy or to the monastic estate but wished, at the same time, to imitate them. Their condemnation of marriage also represented a threat to society’s structure, which was supposed to be ordered in such a way that “the entire company of the Catholic Church are either virgins or continent or married. Whoever is outside these three orders, therefore, is not numbered

tua? Sane nec licet tibi istud. Cohabitationem, si nescis, virorum et feminarum in his, qui vovere continentiam, Ecclesia vetat. Si non scandalizare Ecclesiam, eice feminam ”. 170 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs III..., 206; cf. CS, SBOp II, 187-188: “Hoc solo, etiamsi aliud non esset, facile deprehendis si, ut dixi, viros et feminas, qui se continentes dicunt, ab invicem separes, et feminas quidem cum aliis sui et sexus et voti degere cogas, viros aeque cum eiusdem propositi viris. Per hoc enim consultum erit utrorumque voto simul et famae, cum continentiae suae et testes habuerint et custodes ”.

65 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX among the sons of the Church or within the limits of the Christian religion.”171 Thus, the issue of obedience arises again – obedience to the authority of the Scriptures but also to societal expectations. Bernard’s anti-heretical passages operate as a mechanism for the construction of the obedient subject, who allows even her/his everyday life to be governed by others.

As in the case of the public establishment of truth, monks played the important role of “witness” or “guardian”, who assisted others on their path to salvation. In Bernard’s ecclesiology, the beneficial role of the abbot goes beyond monastic walls and becomes a model for society. In the perfect society which he envisioned, the roles of the laity and clergy were clearly demarcated; the laity were to show obedience and the clergy were to guide, control and regulate the conduct of others in everyday life.

3.7 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to shed light on Bernard of Clairvaux’s ecclesiology by examining his anti-heretical discourse. Despite the fact that his writings do not inform us very much about heretics themselves, they do manage to set the boundaries of what was acceptable and thus sketch Bernard’s vision of the perfect society. Through his anti-heresy texts, the Cistercian abbot constructed a vision of society in which the boundaries between the clergy and the laity were clearly marked, as presented in others of his texts.172

Churchmen had the duty to guide and lead people to salvation, while the laity had to show

171 Giles Constable, “The Orders of Society”, in: id., Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995, 249 -360: 305. 172 See, for example, Ep, 78, SBOp VII, 203.

66 BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX obedience to the Church, as the monks obeyed their abbot in a monastery. The abbot had the duty to guide monks through his authority to preach and through his right as well as obligation to know the “truth” and to control their everyday lives. However, the abbot also had the responsibility to defend the flock from individuals who threatened unity; therefore, he had to exclude those who did not show obedience, as, for Bernard, the defense of the whole was more important than the salvation of the few.

The “internal rationality” of violence against heretics reveals that violence is connected to the issue of obedience. This means that one should obey the instruction, coming from Paul, that only those who have the authority can exercise violence. In this way one shows obedience to the societal order. As the analysis of the means used against heresy shows, Bernard’s anti-heretical endeavors belonged to the wider process of the

“monasticization of the world” and to the governing of souls outside the monastery according to the monastic model. The Cistercian abbot – being the carrier of a certain form of productive power – could govern souls by modifying the conduct of others; he controlled and shaped their behavior by constructing a certain subjectivity of obedience. In Bernard of

Clairvaux’s polemical writings, the engagement against heresy attained a self-serving purpose: it not only suppressed heresy but became an instance of how Bernard’s ecclesiology could be implemented through the governing of souls.

67 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

4 Geoffrey of Auxerre

Geoffrey of Auxerre (c. 1120- post 1188) has been described by historians as an important figure of the history of the Cistercian order in the second half of the 12th century because of his writings and his positions that he acquired in the Cistercian hierarchy.173

There is not much information about Geoffrey’s earlier life, before his entrance to the Order.

He was a student of Peter Abelard in Paris, when in 1140 or 1141 attended Bernard of

Clairvaux’s sermon On Conversion and so Geoffrey decided to enter the Cistercian Order.

After his conversion, he followed the Cistercian abbot to Clairvaux, where he became, in

1145, his secretary and then accompanied him on numerous missions.174 During these years,

Geoffrey must not only have been close to the Cistercian abbot but must also have become familiar with the political and ecclesiastical disputes of his time. After Bernard’s death,

Geoffrey held different consecutive high positions in the Cistercian hierarchy: he became

Abbot of Igny in 1157 and, in 1162, Abbot of Clairvaux, a position that he had to resign from in 1165, most probably due to his involvement in the Becket controversy or disputes in the Cistercian order.175 In 1171 he was chosen as abbot of the monastery of Fossanova and in 1176 of Hautecombe. After 1188, Geoffrey retired to Clairvaux, and this is the last

173 Jean Leclercq, “Les écrits de Geoffroy d’ Auxerre” 42; Jean Leclercq, ”Le Témoignage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre sur la vie Cistercienne”, Analecta Monastica 1953, 174-181: 174.

174 The year 1141 is suggested by Ferruccio Gastaldelli, “Le più antiche testimonianze biografiche su san Bernardo. Studio storico-critico sui ’Fragmenta Gaufridi’”, Analecta Cisterciensia 45, 1989, 60-61; Ferruccio Gastaldelli, Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredo di Auxerre, Firenze: Sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo 2001, 361.

175 Adriaan H. Bredero, “The Canonization of Bernard of Clairvaux” in: M. Basil Pennington (ed.), Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: Studies Commemorating the Eight Centenary of his Canonization, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1977, 86-91.

68 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE information we have on his life.176 Hence, Geoffrey was involved in many ecclesiastical and political disputes and conflicts of the time, enjoying recognition because of his close relationship to Bernard but also because of his intellectual and political capacities.

Gastaldeli argued for the complexity of Geoffrey’s personality, as, in spite of his devotion to Cistercian spirituality, we can also trace in his thought some aspects of the scholastic method of his former teacher, Peter Abelard, who was condemned at the Council of Sens after the efforts of Bernard of Clairvaux Peter.177 He belonged to an order that insisted on the strict observance of the Benedictine Rule and envisioned moral reform of the institution of the Church and of its members based less on the law and more on the concept of love.178 At the same time, Geoffrey, as a Cistercian, was a vehicle of the greater reform that was unfolding throughout the twelfth century, where monastic orders attempted to achieve the “monasticization” of society, under which the monastic way of life as well as monastic values were imposed first on secular clergy and then on the rest of society.179

As it will be discussed with more details below, Geoffrey was an important figure of the anti-heretical fight, as in his writings we see a development of the means against heresy.

176 The details on Geoffrey’s life are from F. Gastaldelli, Goffredo di Auxerre: Super Apocalypsim (Temi e Testi, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1970) 11-18. Cf. J. Leclercq, ”Le Témoignage de Geoffroy…”, 174-181; J. Leclercq, ”Les écrits de Geoffroy…”, 27-28.

177 Constant J. Mews, “The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard, Bernard and the Fear of Social Upheaval”, Speculum 77/2, 2002, 342-382: 352- 354. F. Gastaldelli, Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredo di Auxerre, 373- 374.

178 B. Newman, The Boundaries..., 1-25;; Mette Birkedal Bruun, “ Introduction”, in: id. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Cistercian Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, 1-25.

179A. Vauchez, The Laity in the Middle Ages…, 72; Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996, 7; C. Ames, Righteous Persecution..., 10-13.

69 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

Historians have so far viewed Geoffrey’s engagement in fighting heresy mainly as political maneuvers in the quest for power.180 Newman, in her work on the implications of the

Cistercian theology of caritas, regarded Geoffrey’s work as a direct consequence of his ideal of the unity of the Church and his understanding of heresy as a threat against it. As with other Cistercians of the twelfth century, Geoffrey’s engagement was seen as an effort to protect the unity of the Church.181

The ambition of this inquiry is to read afresh Geoffrey’s polemic in order to bridge the gap between the socio-political and religious elements of the repression of heresy in medieval Christendom and to explore their organic and close relation. The aim is twofold: to scrutinize Geoffrey’s ecclesiology through an analysis focused on the means he propagated and used against heresy, and to explore how exactly his ecclesiology was practically implemented through these means.

4.1 Geoffrey’s engagement with heresy: a chronology

Geoffrey’s engagement with heresy began when he accompanied Bernard on his preaching mission to the Midi in 1145 and continued during his life. He was an important figure in the very early years of the Waldensians, as he and Henry of Marcy took the initiative to summon a council in Lyon, where Valdès made a profession of faith. Geoffrey

180 R. Moore, The War…, 220; Michel Rubellin, “Au temps où Valdès n’ était pas hérétique: hypothèses sur le rôle de Valdès à Lyon (1170-1183) Inventer l'Hérésie? Discours polémiques et pouvoirs avant l'Inquisition, ed. Monique Zerner, Collection du Centre d’ Études Médiévales de Nice 1998, 193-218: 199-200.

181 M. Newman, The Boundaries…, 225.

70 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE mentions that “[T]he founder, Wandesius,... abjured the sect”.182 The council was presided over by another Cistercian, the Archbishop of the city, Guichard, who was positive towards

Valdès and his followers, turning to the laymen in order to garner support for his ambition to reform the cathedral chapter.183 Moore argued that even if the Archbishop of Lyons and

Geoffrey belonged to the same order, their relations were not harmonious, due to their differences over the Becket controversy. Valdès’ profession of faith could be seen as a victory for Guichard, who could prove that the group was orthodox.184 Historians have underscored that in his account of the council, Geoffrey reports that Valdès was convicted of sacrilegious presumption (de sacrilega praesumptione convictus), but not of being a heretic.185 The Cistercian author, however, emphasizes that Valdès continued searching for followers who preached publicly. His overall fierce polemic against the Waldensians proves

Geoffrey’s determination to fight against heresy in spite of the different voices in his own order. Moreover, as Biget points out, Geoffrey, together with Henry of Marcy, contributed

182 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 144, Cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, “Abiuravit eiusmodi sectam primus inventor a loco nativitatis Wandesius”, 179. See also Christine Thouzellier, Catharisme et val-déisme en Languedoc à la fin du XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle: politique pontificale, controverses, Louvain: Nauwelaerts – Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts 1969, 26-27; R. Moore, The War…, 220- 222; M. Rubellin, “Au temps où Valdès...”, 199-200.

183 M. Rubellin, “Au temps où Valdès...”, 210; R. Moore, The War…,, 222.

184 R. Moore, The War…,, 222.

185 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 144. Cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 179. For the discussion on Valdes conviction see Antoine Dondaine, „Aux origines du valdéisme: Une profession de foi de Valdès“, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 16, 1946, 191-235; Giovani Gonnet, Enchiridion Fontium Valdensium, Libreria Editrice Claudiana- Torre Pellice 1958, 31- 32; 45-46; C. Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdéisme..., 26-27.

71 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE to the construction of southern France and specifically the Albi region as a territory contaminated by heresy.186

Geoffrey was active in the crucial years before the Inquisition, when the Church’s anti-heretical response was still under formation and negotiation, even though it was gradually attaining a more centralized character.187 This development is apparent in the decisions of the Church councils (such as the Council of Reims in 1148, the Council of Tours in 1163, the Third Lateran Council in 1184, and the bull Ad abolendam at the Council in

Verona in 1184), which will be discussed in further detail in the following chapter of this inquiry. His anti-heretical polemic was composed during an era when heresy was gradually transformed into a crime of lese-majesty.188 The analysis of Geoffrey’s work shows how, in his actions and his writings, he was influenced by this development, but also how, with his actions and his writings, he contributed to it.

4.2 The sources and the problem of heresy

Besides featuring in his actions, the notion of heresy appears also in Geoffrey’s writings: in the Vita prima, the biography of Bernard, where we see an account of the preaching mission of 1145, and in two sermons of his commentary on the Revelation. The

Vita prima belongs to the hagiographical genre, as Geoffrey, who had a major contribution

186 J. Biget, “”Les Albigeois”…”, 245.

187 B. Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, 21-30; Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, Oxford, Malden: Blackwell ³2005 [1st ed. 1977], 41-96; M. Frasseto,” Precursors to Religious Inquisitions…”, 41-72.

188 D. Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion..., 255

72 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE behind it, wrote Bernard’s biography for his canonization in tandem with two other authors.

There has been a vivid discussion on how historians can work with Vita prima as a primary source for the life of the Abbot of Clairvaux.189 These concerns are mostly grounded on the text’s function in the promotion of Bernard’s canonization and more generally on its hagiographical character, as the primary aim of a hagiographical writing, besides successful canonisation, is to instruct and edify.190 Moreover, Geoffrey, “the prince of Cistercian propagandists”, as he was described by Michael Casey, was interested in “administering” the memory of Bernard.191 Thus, recognizing the intentionality of the authors of the Vita prima, and particularly of Geoffrey, in creating a certain image of Bernard opened the way for new methodological approaches to the study of Vita prima.192 Without rejecting it totally as a historical source, the question that has been addressed is whether the Vita prima is also

189 Michael Casey, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima: Translating The First Life into Biography”’, in: John R. Sommerfeldt (ed.), Bernardus Magister: Papers Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Bernard of Clairvaux, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, and Cïteaux 1992, 55-70: 57; Adriaan Bredero, Bernard of Clairvaux: Between Cult and History, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1996, 6; Constant J. Mews, “Accusations of Heresy and Error in the Twelfth Century Schools: The Witness of Gerhoh of Reichersberg and Otto of Freising”, in: Ian Hunter –John Christian Laursen – Cary J. Nederman (eds), Heresy in Transition: Transforming Ideas of Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate 2005, 43-57: 43-44.

190 Thomas Heffernan, Sacred Biography: Saints and Their Biographers in the Middle Ages, New York: Oxford University Press 1988, 19.

191 M. Casey, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima...”, 60

192 Besides the above-mentioned works, valuable for my analysis of the accounts of Vita prima are the following: The First Life of Bernard of Clairvaux, translated and with an introduction by Hilary Costello OSCO, Cistercian Publications: Ohio 2015, ix-xxxix; Marjory Lange ”Mediating a Presence: Rhetorical and Narrative Strategies in the Vita Prima Bernardi” in: Tyler Sergent – Aage Rydstrøm- Poulsen – Marsha Dutton (eds.), Unity of Spirit: Studies on William of Saint Thierry in Honor of E. Rosanne Elder, Cistercian Publications: Ohio 2015, 117-144; Marsha Dutton, ”A Case for Canonization: The Argument of Vita Prima Sancti Bernardi”, Cistercian Studies Quarterly 52.2, 2017, 131-160.

73 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE informative with regards to its authors by examining the specific memory of the Abbot of

Clairvaux they sought to create.193

When it comes more specifically to Vita prima’s accounts of the issue of heresy, traditionally there has been a strong tendency in scholarship to take them at face value and conceive them as a source of information on Bernard’s preaching mission in 1145.194 For example, Kienzle, in her work on Cistercian anti-heretical preaching, based her reconstruction of Bernard’s preaching on the accounts of Vita prima, while she attributed the numerous miracles that Geoffrey describes in these accounts to the hagiographical character of the work.195 Moore’s remark that Geoffrey shaped the picture of Bernard as a

’prophet against heresy’ is a rare example of critical attitude towards the hagiographical text as far as the image of Bernard’s anti-heretical activities are concerned.196 Apart from the

Vita prima, the issue of heresy appears in two of Geoffrey’s Sermons – Sermons 14 and 18

– of his commentary on the Apocalypse, a compilation of sermons originally delivered on different occasions in front of a monastic audience, which Geoffrey reworked during the last years of his life.197 For the Cistercian abbot, the Apocalypse could be used in order to interpret the problems of his age: “By the Lord’s revelation he realized that persecutions of

193 M. Casey, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima...”, 61.

194 B. Newman, The Boundaries…, 226-227; R. Moore, The Origins..., 111-112; H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines de l’Inquisition…, 124-126.

195 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…, 92-93, 97-100.

196 R. Moore, The War..., 222.

197 F. Gastaldelli, Goffredo di Auxerre…, 40-41.

74 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE the faithful were not to happen just in his own day, and at [the lord’s] command he wrote this down so that many should know of them, through him, and that the arrow should inflict less injury”.198 He notes also that this biblical book is useful “for salvation”, because of “its gentleness in applying remedies”.199 Heresy also constitutes a topic of the commentary, appearing in two sermons. In Sermon 14 he discusses unauthorized preaching by wandering laymen and even women. Sermon 18 refers to the conversion of two heretics as a result of

Henry of Henry’s preaching around 1180.200

The topic of these two Sermons seems to be unusual, as the themes appearing in monastic preaching were more commonly taken from the monastic world, whereas matters outside the monastic walls, such as heresy, only rarely became its subjects.201 Generally, the function of monastic preaching was to edify, and Geoffrey himself mentions this goal already in Sermon 2 of his commentary.202 Moreover, another purpose was to exhort the

198 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 18-19. Cf Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Futuras enim non in suis tantum diebus persecutiones fidelium Domino revelante cognovit et eodem praecipiente conscripsit, ut per eum plurimis innotescant et praevisa iactula perinde minus laedant”, 58.

199 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 20. Cf Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “utile est ad salutam et ex unctione iocundum”, 60.

200 Sermon 14: Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 139-147; CF Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 175-182. Sermon 18: Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 175-189; CF Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 206-221.

201 Beverly M. Kienzle,”The Twelfth Century Monastic Sermon”, in: id. (ed.), The Sermon, Turnhout: Brepols 2000, 271-323: 307.

202 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse: ”it seems best to devote an entire sermon to these matters, for your edification”, 35; Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “proptium illis potius convenit assignare sermonem, ad aedificationem vestram”, 75. See Carolyn Muessig, “What Is Medieval Monastic Preaching?..., 1-16.

75 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE audience in order to undertake an action.203 As an example, in Sermon 14, Geoffrey relates successful ministry with the correction and punishment of sinners, urging his audience not to be reluctant to punish.204 In Sermon 18, he asks his audience not to be silent about the two converted heretics.205 Historians who have worked with Sermons 14 and 18 have been interested in the information about the different heretical groups that Geoffrey mentions, his rhetoric against heresy (with a special focus on issues relating to gender), and the way that the Cistercian abbot shaped the problem of heresy.206 However, matters related to the

“internal consumption” of these sermons – specifically, their function to shape the identity and behaviour of the listeners, in this case Cistercian monks, according to a specific ecclesiology – have so far remained untouched. In other sermons, Geoffrey also deals with the problem of clerical marriage by making a reference to the biblical heresy of nicolaitism, which became one of the main issues during the Gregorian reform and has been related by modern historians with the reformists’ efforts to “monasticize” the clergy.207 In Sermon 9, for example, he discusses the heresy of nicolaitism and defines heresy either as a self-chosen erroneous belief, which is stubbornly defended (cum haereticos faciat solus error vel

203 B. Kienzle,,” The Twelfth Century Monastic Sermon...”, 155.

204 Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 178-179; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 143.

205 Goffredo Di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 211; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 179. 206 B. Kienzle, “The Prostitute-Preacher…”, 99-114; J. Biget, “”Les Albigeois”...”, 245-247. 207For the fight against clerical marriage and the sexual immorality of priests, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages, Berkeley – Los Angeles 1965, 136-139; M. Frassetto, Medieval Purity and Piety...:, and especially chapters Uta-Renare Blumenthal, “Pope Gregory VII and the Prohibition of Nicolaitism”, 239-267; Paul Beaudette, “”In the World but not of It”, 23-46, in the same work; Grado Giovanni Merlo, “Christian Experiences of Religious non-Conformism” in: John Arnold (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Christianity, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014, 436-454: 437-438. Anne Llewellyn Barstow, Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: The Eleventh- Century Debates, New York: Edwin Mellen 1982, 23-29.

76 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE obstinatio magis errandi circa articulos fidei), or as a form of inappropriate behavior

(nonnullos etiam super his quae in suis cuique moribus vel operibus).208 We observe an echo of the 12th century tendency to deal with heretics not only in relation to their religious ideas but also in relation to their conduct.209

Generally, in Geoffrey’s overall anti-heretical polemic, we can find characteristics that are also present in Bernard’s writings – for example, the image of the foxes that destroy the Lord’s vineyard, as well as rhetorical patterns which connect heresy with secrecy and hypocrisy, impurity, disease, anti-clericalism, a threat to the social order, and the devil.210

However, despite numerous similarities, Geoffrey’s anti-heretical writings differ considerably from Bernard’s, especially when he explains the popularity of heresy. Both

Bernard and Geoffrey considered greed, evil will, malice and stupidity the reasons for the spread of heresy;211 however, whereas Bernard referred repeatedly to the anti-clerical feelings of heretics, Geoffrey made a different connection. He sought to explain the popularity of heresy through the anti-clerical feelings of the local population, which could

208Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 136; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 98.

209 Herbert Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages: The Historical Links between Heresy, the Mendicant Orders, and the Women’s Religious Movement in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century, with the Historical Foundations of German Mysticism, trans. Steven Rowan, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press 1995, 12-13; A. Patschovsky, “Heresy and Society...” 26-27; C. Ames, Medieval Heresies…, 8-9.

210 Here, I am following the work of Kienzle, who, in her work on Cistercian preaching, suggested that there are four main rhetorical patterns that the Cistecian monks used in their attacks on heresy: demonization, the threat to the social order, physical and moral pollution, and apocalypticism. Cistercian, Heresy and Crusade..., 202.

211 Greed is also mentioned in Bernard’s work Five Books on Consideration (De Consideratione), Csi, SBOp III, 434. The Abbot of Clairvaux mentions the evil and the malice of the heretics as well as their anticlerical feeling but he does not mention the local population; cf. EP 241 in SBOp VIII, 125. Bernard connects the popularity of heresy with stupidity, especially in Sermons 65 and 66 of his commentary on the Song of Songs. See CS, SBOp II 172-188.

77 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE be expressed through socialization with heretics.212 This development is crucial for two reasons: firstly we can see, as Biget has already argued, how Geoffrey shapes the image of southern France as a dangerous area, where the local population was prone to be entrapped by heresy.213 Secondly, we can observe how, for Geoffrey, the ease with which heresy spreads was due not only to the seductive preaching of heretics but also to the anti-clerical feelings of individuals. In an era when measures against heresy expanded to include the supporters of heresy, the fact that Geoffrey attributes responsibility to these individuals constitutes an important development.

4.3 The use of physical violence

Geoffrey’s anti-heretical engagement expanded during a period when the Church’s reaction to heresy was undergoing important changes. We are still in the pre-inquisition period, but the Church’s policy was becoming more severe and far-reaching through the decisions of different councils. The Third Lateran Council in 1179 is a milestone regarding the use of force against heresy and the idea of a crusade against heretics, under the influence of Henry of Marcy.214 Some years later, at the council of Verona in 1184, Pope Lucius III,

212 Vita prima, Epistola Gaufridi, PL, CLXXXV 412: “Milites quidem nonnullos invenimus obstinatos, sed non tam errore, ut nobis videtur, quam cupiditate et voluntate mala. Oderunt enim clerics; et gaudent facetiis Henrici, et quia id loquitur eis unde occasioned habeant et excusationem malitiae suae”; cf. R. Moore, The Birth…, 43.

213 J. Biget, “”Les Albigeois”...”, 245

214 The anti-heretical engagement of Henry of Marcy, the decisions of the Third Lateran Council as well as the Council of Verona will be discussed in further detail in the following chapter of this thesis. H. Maissonneuve, Études sur les Origines de l’ Inquisition, 135-138; Jeffrey Burton Russel, Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority, 55.

78 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE under the auspices of the emperor Frederick Barbarossa, issued the bull Ad abolendam, which has been regarded as the beginning of the Inquisition; according to this document, heretics should be handed over to the secular authorities in order to be punished.215 In this way, close collaboration between ecclesiastical and secular authorities in the punishment of heresy was formally established.216 At the same time, in this period of approximately thirty years in which Geoffrey was active, we see how Cistercian attitudes towards the use of force against heresy tracked a similar course. Bernard, in his mission to Southern France in 1145, was not accompanied by secular forces, whereas in Henry of Marcy’s mission in 1181 in the same area an army was involved. The castle of Lavaur was actually seized by military force during the latter, and so unusual has this action appeared to historians that some have termed it “a pre-crusade”.217 As mentioned in the previous chapter, Geoffrey discusses the conversion of the two heretics; we know from elsewhere that these were actually captured at Lavaur, but he fails to mention the military action. Instead, following an established monastic pattern, he describes how their capture was due simply to the zeal of the faithful.

In a similar manner, as it was discussed in the previous chapters, Bernard of Clairvaux in

Sermon 66 of his Sermons on the Songs of Songs described how people driven by religious zeal attacked the heretics.218 The absence of such an important event in Geoffrey’s writings

215 E. Peters, Heresy and Authority..., 189.

216 Mansi, t. XXII, 492; H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les Origines, 153-155; E. Peters, Inquisition, 47-48; R. Moore, The War..., 206-207.

217 J. Biget, “”Les Albigeois”...”, 244.

218 See note nr. 90.

79 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE is certainly a crucial observation when it comes to understanding his attitude towards violence. Overall, in his writings, we note his reluctance to engage in the use of force against heresy, although violence had already attained legitimacy at the Church’s councils during the years of his active life. This omission becomes more complex taking into consideration that, for Geoffrey, the exercise of ministry could be performed through the deployment of harsher means. According to the Cistercian brother, pastors, who were responsible for guiding the others, might unavoidably “sometimes urge and even compel some”.219 The question that begs to be answered is whether he perceived compulsion as a means also in the fight against heresy.

Geoffrey’s references to physical violence as an appropriate reaction to heresy are indeed very limited in his polemic. He mentions the use of threats, when he describes in

Sermon 14 how the Bishop of Arvenica deployed both arguments and threats in order to convince a group of women to renounce heresy.220 Since there are no specific details about the nature of these threats, it can be suggested that this passage is merely an example of the traditional monastic polemic – imprecatory and invective, as Iogna-Prat describes Bernard’s sermons.221 In Sermon 15, in which Geoffrey continues his commentary on Jezabel, he suggests that the role of punishment is to direct transgressors so that they become conscious of their behavior: “[The Lord] pretends to punish the faults of sinners to lead them to

219 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 141. CF Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “nonullos compellere et urgere”, 177.

220 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 179-180; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 144.

221 D. Iogna-Prat, Order and Exclusion..., 126-127.

80 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE repentance. He reproves those who leave their offences and his patience unnoticed in order to consider both things. As a last resort he brings physical pain on them to make them realize their state”.222 Even bodily pain, as a last step, is legitimized, when it is applied to cause this internal change. In this passage we notice how much attention Geoffrey gives to the internal transformation of sinners and the positive role that corporal punishment can play in this process. So, he does not condemn the use of violence, especially as it can lead to positive results. The question that arises is how we can understand the absence of corporal punishment in Geoffrey’s polemic, particularly when the use of force is not denounced in his overall work.

Historians have noticed that churchmen in the 12th century, such as Bernard, expressed reluctance with respect to using force against heretics.223 Since Geoffrey had a close relation to the Abbot of Clairvaux, the absence of any coercive measures against heretics can reasonably be attributed to Bernard’s influence. In addition, we will be able to better understand his approach towards the physical coercion of heretics if we analyze

Geoffrey’s anti-heretical polemic with the help of other passages in his writings where he refers, albeit implicitly, to the use of violence. In Sermon 13, Geoffrey again criticizes the clergy by referring to the heresy of Nicolaism:

222 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 154; cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Peccantium culpas ulcisci dissimulat, ut adducat ad paenitentiam; dissimulantes suam offensionem et eius expectationem arguit, ad inspirandam eis utriusque rei considerationem; demum flagellat, ut perniciosam tollat impunitatem”, 188.

223 The literature on the Church’s reluctant response to heresy in the 12th century is quite extensive. See B. Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, 21-30; R. Manselli, “De la “Persuasio” á la ’Coercitio’”, 175-185; E. Peters, Inquisition, 44-52; M. Frassetto, “Precursors to Religious Inquisitions...”, 41-72.

81 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

“Would that today our priests may contend with tongues afire rather than with rigid iron swords! Would that they found armaments and shields fit for burning intolerable, and would prefer the dalmatic to the breastplate, the miter to the helmet, the pastoral staff to the military banner! The servants of God are to fight for God with spiritually powerful weapons, not with material and physical ones (2 Co 10:4), contending with prayer, preaching, supplication, and reproof (1 Tim 2:1). Is there any wonder that unclean demons and wicked people have so little fear of the sword of their mouths when they put their confidence in material arms?”224

From this passage it can be assumed that Geoffrey does not refer to the physical coercion of heresy, as he believed that the use of force was not a suitable “weapon” for churchmen. The absence of the idea of physical force as a means of combatting heresy in

Geoffrey’s polemic is not a general moral contempt for the use of violence – nor can it be interpreted as an indication of great tolerance. He does not preach tolerance towards different voices, but, quite to the contrary, urges his audience to participate in the anti-heretical cause, as encouraging such engagement is the duty of a good pastor.225 Rather, it is related to the post-Gregorian idea that churchmen, as a distinguished group in society, should avoid using material weapons and, instead, use only spiritual weapons, which are more powerful and

224 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 135. CF Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Utinam nostri hodie sacerdotes linguis potius igneis quam mucronibus ferreis dimicarent, utinam comburenda igni arma et scuta non tollerent, loricas pro dalmaticis, pro mitris galeas, pro virgis pastoralibus vexilla militaria non praeferrent.Armis siquidem non materialibus, non corporalibus, sed spiritalibus et potentibus Deo, Dei ministro pugnandum; oratione, praedicatione, obsecratione et increpatione fuerat dimicandum. Quid miramur, quod gladius oris eorum ab immundis daemonibus vel iniquis hominibus minus metuitur, quandoquidem in materiali magis confiditur?”, 170.

225 See also note nr. 58.

82 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE thus grant them superiority.226 In his sermons, Geoffrey conveys the idea of a strict societal division into laymen and churchmen, and of the superiority of the latter.227 Moreover, churchmen, in his view, have a duty to engage in both spiritual and earthly matters, unlike kings, who can only be involved in earthly matters.228

Generally, in the sermons on the Apocalypse, Geoffrey is rather critical towards the clergy. He criticizes their leniency when it comes to heresy and their relationship to material goods, and deploys the heresy of the Nicolaites, which is most usually connected to clerical marriage and inappropriate sexual behavior, to show the need for reforming the clergy.229

He was interested in the spiritual development and training of the clergy, as he showed in his work Sermo ad praelatos in consilio convocatos (Sermon for the prelates summoned to council), in which he discusses the same problem. Geoffrey belonged to a generation during whose time, as Martha Newman pointed out, the Cistercians became the “dominant voice for clerical reform”.230 His condemnation of the clerical use of force and the absence of violence in his anti-heretical writings can be expressions of his vision of society – specifically, one in which there was a strict division between groups, each with its distinctive

226 Peter Clarke, “The Medieval Clergy and Violence: a historiographical introduction”, in: Gerhard Jaritz (ed.), Violence and the Medieval Clergy, Budapest: Central European University Press 2011, 3-16.

227 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 81, 131-132; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 41- 42, 94.

228 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 81; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 42.

229 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 80, 136, 168; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 41, 98-99, 132-133.

230 B. Newman, The Boundaries..., 24-37.

83 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE duties and the clergy enjoying superiority overall. Bernard in his anti-heretical polemic approved the zeal of the people who persecuted heresy but strongly disagreed with their actions, as the right to exercise violence belonged to those “who do not carry the sword in vain”. In fact, he did not condemn the action as such but he put some restrictions on the use of force and, in this way, unveiled his vision of the perfect societal division.231 The absence of violence in Geoffrey’s writings, on the other hand, in an era when violent persecution was attaining legitimacy, indicates his close affiliation with the ideals of Gregorian reform and his imagination of the ideal society.

4.4 Charismatic Authority

“When he arrived, he was received by the people of the land with incredible devotion, as if an angel from heaven had descended into their midst. He could not tarry with them, because no one could restrain the crowds of people who pressed upon him, so great was the multitude day and night who approached him to ask his blessing and implore his help”.232

With these words Geoffrey describes the way Bernard was received by the local population during his preaching mission. In the accounts of the preaching mission in southern France,

Bernard is the charismatic figure, who, seen as the champion to turn back the tide of heresy, enjoys the recognition and respect of the other members of the Church: “Because of the great

231 CS, SBOp II,186-187.

232 Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans (trans.), Heresies of the High Middle Ages: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated, New York: Columbia University Press 21991 [1st. Ed. 1969], 125; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 313 “Veniens autem cum incredibili devotione susceptus est a populo terrae, ac si de coelo angelus advenisset. Nec moram facere potuit apud eos, quod irruentium turbas reprimere nemo posset: tanta erat frequentia diebus ac noctibus adventantium, benedictionem expetentium, flagitantium opem”.

84 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE need, the holy man undertook the journey to which he had already often been urged by the

Church of that region”.233

For Geoffrey, Bernard’s authority seemed simply to be adequate in the struggle against heresy, so “he instructed many simple folk in faith, called back the wandering, restored those who had been subverted”.234 In another passage of Vita prima, Geoffrey mentions explicitly that it was exactly Bernard’s authority that was the main weapon in the confrontation with heretics: “And by his authority (auctoritas) he bore down upon and overwhelmed the subverts and the obstinate so that they dared not to resist or even appear”.235 Thus, the abbot of Clairvaux had the authority, the grace of God, and the power to perform miracles: “God was also glorified in his servant by a great many miraculous works; the hearts of some he recalled from impious errors”236 and in the city of Albi he performed a miracle greater even than these, which are not to be despised”.237

The hagiographic character of Vita prima can explain the picture of the charismatic

Bernard that Geoffrey sought to create in his work. It was written to promote Bernard’s

233 W. Wakefield and A. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages..., 125; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 313: “Hac necessitate Vir sanctus iter arripuit, ab ecclesia regionis illius saepius jam ante rogatus”,

234 W. Wakefield and A. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages..., 125; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 313: “multos in fide simplices instruens, nutantes roborans, errantes revocans, subversos reparans”. .

235 W. Wakefield and A. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages…, 125; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 313:“subversores et obstinatos auctoritate sua premens et opprimens, ut non dico resistere, sed ne assistere quidem et apparere praesumerent”.

236 W. Wakefield and A. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages…, 125-126; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 313: “In quo itinere plurimis etiam signis in Servo suo glorificatus est Deus, aliorum corda ab erroribus impiis revocans, aliorum corpora a languoribus variis sanans”.

237 R. Moore, The Birth…, 45; CF. PL, CLXXXV, 414: “In Albigensi civitate factum est, quod caeteris non immerito miraculis credimus praeferendum”.

85 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE canonization and, consequently, the picture of a charismatic Bernard is not unusual or by any means unexpected. However, to classify these accounts under the hagiographic genre is just a first step in the process of analyzing the image of Bernard’s charismatic authority. A hagiographical work can inform us not only about the respective saints but also about the authors.238 For example, in Bernard’s image as a vehement opponent of Abelard and his followers and a fiery defender of orthodoxy, Casey saw a projection of Geoffrey’s personal experience with his own conversion.239 Therefore, the question still remains: what can the process of shaping the charismatic personality inform us about the writer?

In addition, hagiography was far from a static genre, as the picture of the person in question varied according to the ideals of sanctity, that prevailed in a given society or even in a given social group. In the case of Vita prima, for example, recent scholarship has pointed out how Bernard’s involvement in affairs outside the monastic walls as well as his service to the community were transformed into a proof of his sanctity.240 Likewise, his anti- heretical engagement (as part of his involvement in affairs outside the monastery) becomes a proof for Bernard’s sanctity. As a “pious” and “consecrated” endeavor the anti-heretical efforts are legitimized in Vita prima.

238 Thomas Head, “Introduction”, in: id. (ed.), Medieval Hagiography: An Anthology, New York: Routledge 1999, xiii-xxxix.

239 M. Casey, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima...”, 62.

240 The issue of service to the community as a proof of sanctity, see Elke Goez, “... erit communis et nobis- Verstetigung des Vergänglichen. Zur Perpetuierung des Charismas Bernhards von Clairvaux im Zisterzienserorden”, in: Giancarlo Andenna –Mirko Breitenstein– Gert Melville (eds.), Charisma und religiöse Gemeinschaften im Mittelalter, Münster: LIT Verlag 2005, 173-215; Dutton,” A Case for Canonization...”, 131-160.

86 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

Generally, the charismatic personality of Bernard of Clairvaux, as it appears in the accounts of Vita prima, has attracted the attention of historians. Geoffrey’s engagement in shaping and thus administering the memory of the Abbot of Clairvaux has been interpreted as part of his efforts to secure his own position inside the Cistercian Order.241 On the basis of Max Weber’s conception of charismatic authority, as a form for legitimized authority and leadership, Elke Goez has argued that the creation of the image of a charismatic Bernard and

Geoffrey’s personal engagement in the canonization processes, during a period of internal and external challenges, should be viewed in relation to the efforts of the institutionalization of the Cistercian Order, the construction of a specific Cistercian identity, and the legitimization of their status quo.242 Following Goez’s work, it could be added that the deployment of the charismatic Bernard in the fight against heresy strengthened on the one hand the ideal of the monk who actively fights against the Church’s enemies and on the other hand the prominent position of Cistercians in the defense of Christianity.

241 M. Casey, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima….”, 60-70; Elke Goez, “... erit communis et nobis” 173-215.

242 E. Goez, “... erit communis et nobis”, 188-214. The deployment of Max Weber’s theory in the analysis of the charismatic personality of Bernard of Clairvaux began much earlier with J. Leclercq. CF J. Leclercq,” Towards a Sociological Interpretation of the Various Saint Bernard’s’’ in: John Sommerfeldt (ed.) Bernardus Magister. Papers Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Cistercian Publications: Ohio 1992, 20-26. Stephen Jaeger studied the issue of legitimization and charisma in his work on Bernard. CF Stephen Jaeger, “Bernhard von Clairvaux: Charisma und Exemplarität’’ in: Nicholaus Staubach (ed.), Exemplaris imago: Ideale in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, Frankfurt 2012, 119-135. Martha Newman in her work on how the reading of charismatic texts such as Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Job contributed to the creation of the Cistercian identity notes: “By connecting Bernard’s character to his writings, Cistercian monks in the middle and later part of the twelfth century articulated a way to think about themselves as Bernard’s disciplines even after the geographical spread of the Cistercian order and his death in 1153 prevented them from direct personal contact with their teacher”. Cf. Martha Newman, “Text and Authority in the Formation of the Cistercian Order: Re-Assessing the Early Cistercian Reform’’, in: Christopher M. Bellitto and Louis I. Hamilton (eds.), Reforming the Church Before Modernity, Aldershot, England– Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company 2005, 173-198: 188-189.

87 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

This ideal of the charismatic monastic leader is present also in Geoffrey’s Sermon

18 of his commentary on the Apocalypse, where he discusses the letter to the Church of

Philadelphia (Rv 3:7) and that only the Church has the key for “granting and denying an understanding of Scripture” (tribuendi et negandi intelligentiam Scripturarum)243. In this context, Geoffrey refers to the conversion of two heretics by the preaching of Henry of

Marcy, another Cistercian abbot involved in the anti-heretical struggle: “They (two arch- heretics) were caught… by a zealous band of the faithful, and were brought before our venerable father and lord Henry, bishop of Alba, then legate of the Apostolic See in

Aquitaine. They stood there while the bishop delivered a sermon against their heresy to a great multitude from every walk of life, as the Holy Spirit gave him the ability. By the Lord’s inspiration the arch-heretics were struck with sorrow at the gracious words coming from his mouth”.244 We do not know the exact content of Henry’s Sermon, as Geoffrey in his narration mentions no details of the sermon but only its results. The conversion of the two heretics is presented simply as a miracle attributed to the personality of the Cistercian abbot and to the extraordinary supernatural abilities invested in him by the divine.

We notice how the description of Henry’s success bears two important resemblances to the passages from Vita prima. Firstly, the abilities and the talents of the two Cistercian abbots originated from God (charisma), and, secondly, the two abbots enjoyed the

243 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 180; Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 211.

244 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 178. Cf. Goffredi di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “duos haeresiarchas… ab exercitu zelo fidei congregato, comprehensos novimus et oblatos venerabili patri nostro domino Henrico Albanensi episcopo, apostolicae sedis in Aquitania tunc legato. Quibus astantibus, dum idem pontifex ad copiosissimam multitudinem diversae conditionis et diversi ordinis, adversus eandem haeresim sermonem faceret, prout Spiritus Sanctus dabat eloqui illi, praedicti haeresiarche in verbis gratiae quae procedebant de ore eius, Domino inspirante, usque adeo sunt compuncti”, 210.

88 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE recognition and trust of the people (authority). Therefore, the broader deployment of charismatic authority in Geoffrey’s polemic suggests that it cannot adequately be explained away simply as a hagiographical topos. Quite the contrary, there is a more intimate link to charismatic leadership in the way that Geoffrey deals with heresy, which reveals the deeply political implications of his endeavor. This crucial connection can be better understood if we analyze it in the light of Weber’s concept of charismatic authority and Foucault’s discussion on the construction of the obedient subject. Charismatic authority appears in

Weber’s work as one of the three ideal types of legitimate domination, which claims legitimacy due to a leader’s heroic actions or divine and extraordinary qualities.245 By exhibiting these exceptional qualities of divine origin, in this instance Bernard’s and Henry’s outstanding preaching and their miraculous conversion of heretics, the two Cistercian abbots achieve recognition from, and the devotion of the people. Especially in Vita prima, Geoffrey describes repeatedly how the people who heard Bernard preaching recognized his gift. In the way that Geoffrey presents them, the two figures enjoy people’s belief in their legitimacy and, in turn, the picture of a potent Cistercian leader is legitimized as well.246 Furthermore, their anti-heretical engagement – a proof of their sainthood and charisma – is transformed into the duty of every Cistercian monk. Thus, by the deployment of the charismatic figure, the anti-heretical engagement becomes an integral part of a political process – that is, the

245 Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, (eds.) Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press 1978 [1968], 212, 241-245.

246 M. Weber, Economy and Society..., 213

89 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE legitimization of a specific type of authority, namely the monastic abbot as a strong leader and defender of the Church.

Another crucial political implication is the relationship of personal obedience that is developed between the charismatic figure and the people who recognize his authority. We see in the sources how people, after listening to Bernard, agreed to fight against heresy and how the two heretics broke down in tears after hearing Henry’s preaching and followed a religious life. As in the case of the knights in Vita prima, obedience to Bernard became the fundament of their behavior. It was not so much the content of the command that was important but the very fact that it was given by Bernard. Charisma demands complete obedience from those who recognize it and leaves little space for doubts or questions.247 For

Bernard’s and Henry’s followers the duty to fight against heresy emerged mainly from their devotion to their leaders, whose influence was omnipresent. The obligation of obedience to charismatic authority is personal, complete, and shapes the attitudes of the followers, and, in this way, constructs a certain kind of subjectivity, one in which the subject shows obedience not only to a rule or command but to a personality.248

Moreover, the two main heroes of Geoffrey’s anti-heretical polemic belonged to the

Cistercian Order and, thus, indirectly, Cistercians are praised for their abilities in successfully fighting heresy. Taking into consideration that the fight against heresy was primarily a duty of the bishops, the passages can also be interpreted as an oblique critique

247 E. Goez, “... erit communis et nobis”, 173-215. Max Weber. “Charisma and Institutionalization in the Political Sphere” in: S.N. Eisenstadt (ed.), On Charisma and Institution Building, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1968, 46.

248 M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 128-129.

90 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE that affirmed the authority of the Order; the Cistercians abbots had to intervene by their preaching in cases where the clergy had proven ineffectual.249 In these accounts, the idea of the active Cistercian involvement in the world as a duty and a sign of charisma (in the same manner as Bernard’s involvement is a proof of sanctity) is constructed, as the role of charisma in a hagiographical text was not only to evoke admiration but also to stimulate imitation.250

It is however important to stress that at least in his anti-heretical polemic Geoffrey did not try to present himself as a charismatic authority, instead constructing the image of the charismatic Bernard and (to a lesser extent) Henry. The reason for this might be that, as far as we know, Geoffrey, in contrast to the two other Cistercian abbots, did not preach against heresy outside the monastic walls. By following Stephen Jaeger, it can also be suggested that Geoffrey could deploy the charismatic figure image of Bernard that Bernard had already constructed on himself in his own writings; for instance, Jaeger has argued that in Vita Malechiae Bernard was aware of his charisma and he consciously or unconsciously articulated images of, and expressions about himself that could be used in his biography.251

However, as I argue, Geoffrey did not need to create an image of himself as a charismatic leader. As mentioned above, contemporary scholarship sees in the Vita prima Geoffrey’s efforts to become the administrator of Bernard’s memory as a means of strengthening his

249 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade...., 1-2; E. Peters, Inquisition, 36-38; B. Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, 35; M. Frassetto” Precursors to Religious Inquisitions...”, 43.

250 S. Jaeger, “Bernhard von Clairvaux: Charisma und Exemplarität...”, 182.

251 S. Jaeger, “Bernhard von Clairvaux: Charisma und Exemplarität...”, 119-135.

91 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE position inside the Cistercian order. The administration of Bernard’s image would certainly award Geoffrey with the prestige and honor he needed, and thus it can be perceived as a tacit strategy of accumulating symbolic capital. By this procedure, Geoffrey not only strengthened his own position during the internal conflicts in the Cistercian order but could also legitimize his conception of the world and impose it on his audience.252

4.5 Social exclusion

The social exclusion of heretics as a remedy against heresy is widespread in

Geoffrey’s polemics, similarly as in other anti-heretical polemics of his time.253 Bernard of

Clairvaux, for example, repeatedly and fiercely propagated the need to exclude heretics and avoid any contact with them. Likewise, in Geoffrey’s accounts in Vita prima the message is the same: heretics should be excluded or avoided like Jezebel in Sermon 14: “Would she not have been warned once and twice, and then been avoided by all the faithful (1 Cor 5:11)’’.254

252 Here, my analysis is highly indebted to the work of Pierre Bourdieu and especially to his understanding of the symbolic capital. For Bourdieu the different classes and fractions factions in a society are engaged in a symbolic struggle in order to impose their own understanding of the social world and the legitimacy of their own domination, through, f.ex. their writings (symbolic production). See Pierre Bourdieu, “Symbolic Power”, Critique of Anthropology 4/13-14, 1979, 77-85: 80; In this framework, symbolic capital can be understood as the capacity to legitimately demand acceptance, recognition or obedience and is related to prestige or authority, see Pierre Bourdieu, “Symbolic Capital and Social Classes (introduction, translation and notes by Loic Wacquant)” Journal of Classical Sociology 13/2, 2013, 292-302: 297. Moreover, he expanded the Weberian notion of charisma from an ideal type of leadership to every form of legitimization in social relations, Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1990, 141. CF David Swartz, Power and Culture, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1997, 43- 44, James Kelhoffer, Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2010, 9-11.

253 C. Ames, Medieval Heresies, 78.

254 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 143. CF Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “er post unam vel alteram increpationem, fidelibus omnibus devitandam?”, 179.

92 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

A closer analysis of Geoffrey’s writings indicates, however, that he did more than simply repeat Bernard’s ideas. One characteristic example of Geoffrey’s departure from the approach Bernard expressed in his own writings, comes from his accounts in Vita prima, where he mentions that the local knights promised the delegation to “drive out” heretics.255

He then continues: “to make sure that this would not be infringed by anybody who might be bribed by the heretics, judgement was pronounced that the heretics, their supporters and anybody who gave them any help would not be eligible to give evidence, or seek redress in the courts, and nobody would have any dealings with them either socially or commercially”256. These passages, where Geoffrey speaks about the responsibility of the laity to fight heresy and the use of judgments (sententiae), are crucial, as they reveal his importance in the development of the Church’s anti-heretical struggle in the pre-inquisition era and his departure from the Bernard’s attitude. Beginning with the role of the laity, it is necessary to mention that the idea of the social exclusion of heretics as a shared responsibility appears in the epistles of Bernard of Clairvaux, where he appeals to the Count of Toulouse as well as to the local population to contribute to the fight against heresy by driving the heretics out from their communities.257 In the accounts of Vita prima, though,

Geoffrey provides more specific descriptions of how the local population and, more

255 R. Moore, The Birth…, 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “De militibus promisere nonnulli, quod deinceps expellerent, et non manu tenerent eos”.

256 R. Moore, The Birth..., 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “Si qui vero cupidi fuerint, et aliter voluerint agere, haereticorum munera diligentes, data est sententia in haereticos et in fautores eorum, atque in omnes qui manu tenuerunt eos, ut neque in testimonio, neque in judicio suscipiantur, nemo communicet in convivio, neque in commercio”.

257 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…,, 318; cf. Ep. 241, SBOp VIII, 126 and Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 319; cf. Ep. 242, SBOp VIII, 128.

93 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE specifically, the knights became actively engaged in the fight against heresy. The Cistercian abbot narrates how “their supporters renounced them” and how “the people promised that nobody would give them any support thereafter”.258 The active engagement of the local population can be interpreted as evidence of Bernard’s influence, as the successes of the preaching mission underlines Bernard’s importance; the local population saw in Bernard a persuasive figure and an authority that they could follow.

This transformation of the anti-heretical struggle, where the need to exclude heretics led to the inclusion of more Christians in the fight against heretics, has certain political implications, specifically when it comes to the issue of governing souls. To begin with, we follow the establishment of a model of informal social control, where a group exercises supervision over another group in society and intervenes when the behavior of the controlled group does not conform to the accepted standard. According to sociologists, there is a close interplay between informal social control and self-control, as individuals internalize the social control that they exercise on others, and thus become self-controlled.259 In other words, by internalizing social restraints, groups in the local population not only promise to exercise social control over others but also indirectly or passively discipline themselves to avoid deviancy. Active participation in the anti-heretical struggle is not only a technique of domination; it also functions as a technology of the self, in the sense that individuals do not

258 R. Moore, The Birth..., 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “.Vocatus est ergo Henricus, vocati sunt Ariani: et pollicitus est populus, quod nemo eos deinceps susciperet de caetero, nisi venirent et palam loquerentur”.

259 Stephen F. Steele and Jammie Price, Applied Sociology. Terms, Topics and Tasks, 2004 Belmont, California.: Thomson/Wadsworth 2008, 43.

94 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE simply comply with orders but change their own behavior and transform themselves.260 This process results not only in the maintenance of orthodoxy but also in the construction of the self-disciplined subject, one that follows a specific model of behavior.

In addition, in these accounts we notice how Geoffrey mentions in particular the role of knights in the exclusion of heretics, which is similar to the one we find in accounts of the meetings of Lombers in 1165, where heretics met with representatives of the local churchmen, among them two Cistercian abbots, the Abbot of Fontfroide and the Abbot of

Candeil.261 The particular reference to the actions of knights can indicate some elements of the social composition of the heretical milieu and the socio-economic situation of the time.262

Jiménez Sanchez interprets the event of Lombers as an example of how the Church attempted to impose its authority on the lesser nobility of the area.263 In the accounts of Vita prima, a similar technique is at play; Geoffrey seeks to enforce the authority of the Church by imposing his ecclesiology and a very specific model of behavior. When it comes to his ecclesiology, we see how he envisioned a Christian society in which the laity, and especially the knights, played a role in its defense and protection, but under the Church’s guidance.

260 Foucault writes about the technology of the self, that it permits “individuals to effect by their means or with help of others a certain number of operations on their own bodies and souls, thoughts, conduct, and way of being, so as to transform themselves in order to attain a certain state of happiness, purity, wisdom perfection, or immortality” in M. Foucault, “Technologies of the Self”, 18.

261 “I warn the knights of Lombers no longer to support those persons, by reason of the solemn promise that they made in my hands”. W. Wakefield and A. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages…,194; cf. Joannes Dominicus Mansi [Gian Domenico Mansi] (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio… XXII, Venetiis: Antonius Zatta 1778 (Firenze – Venezia 1758-1798), col. 166.

262 J. Biget, “Les Albigeois”...”, 230-232; P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 272-273

263 P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes...,, 272-273.

95 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

Following the monastic ideal of Cistercian theology, the specific model of behavior included obedience and active defense of the faith.264 We witness, therefore, how a group of people are indirectly guided to follow a specific norm of conduct in the name of the well-being of the community under the governance of an abbot, in this case, the Cistercian leaders.265 In this way, the exclusion of heretics not only functions as a disciplinary mechanism for the punishment and disciplining of heretics (a technology of domination) but also consists of an internalized mode of control that creates the obedient and “fighting” subject.

The deployment of the measure of judgments (sententiae) over those who were found to be heretics, their supporters, and generally those who assisted heretics in the accounts of the Vita prima is further evidence that this work essentially mirrors the ideas of its author.

Writing these accounts before the first attempt to canonize Bernard in 1163, Geoffrey describes how “Judgement was pronounced that the heretics, their supporters (fautores), and anyone who gave them any help (atque in omnes qui manu tenuerunt eos) would not be eligible to give evidence, or seek redress in the courts, and nobody would have any dealings with them either socially or commercially” and how “judgement was pronounced against him and his patrons”266.

The importance of these passages has not gone unnoticed by historians. In Geoffrey’s polemical discourse, civic sanctions (or conciliar legislation, as Jimenez notes) as measures

264 M. Newman, The Boundaries..., 27.

265 M. Newman, The Boundaries..., 171.

266 R. Moore, The Birth…., 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “Data proinde sententia est in haereticum et in fautores ejus”.

96 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE against heresy were introduced for the first time, prefiguring later measures taken in the

Third Lateran Council in 1179, and the bull Ad abolendam in 1184.267 The parallel reading of Bernard’s polemical writings strengthens the observation that Geoffrey did not just echo the Bernardine message concerning the fight against heresy. When Bernard propagated the exclusion of heretics, even in his epistles that are related to the mission of 1145, he did not describe it as a “judgment” (sententia) but merely as an action that the ecclesiastical and secular authorities as well as the laity should undertake to protect themselves from the danger of heresy and maintain the unity of Christendom. Jiménez Sanchez argues that in the accounts of the meeting of Lombers there is a decisive step in the introduction of coercive measures against heretics and the legitimization of juridical procedures. In this way, the more traditional forms of spiritual justice (that we find, for example, in Bernard’s polemic) were strengthened by the deployment of juridical means268. In spite of some important differences between Geoffrey’s account and the sources on the meeting of Lombers, in this passage of the Vita prima, where we can see the deployment of judgement, we closely follow how the introduction of the juridical element seems to have begun earlier, at least in the years that Geoffrey was writing this document .269

Following Moore, we see in Geoffrey’s discourse a novelty compared with the earlier tradition: the introduction of more detailed punitive measures touching upon crucial aspects

267 H. Maisonneuve Études sur les origines de l’Inquisition,124; R. Moore, The War..., 122; P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 264.

268 P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 276

269 The two most important differences are that the meeting of Lombers was an arbitration with judges and that representatives of the secular authorities were present. See, P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 268- 276.

97 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE of human activities. Contrary to the accounts of the Vita prima, Bernard did not mention any specific sanctions that could weaken the social, economic, or legal status of the heretics, their followers, or their supporters. As Moore commented, similar means would become the norm during the following decades.270 Already in 1163, during the council of Tours, which was held under the patronage of the King of England, Pope Alexander III took similar measures not only against heretics but also against their supporters, forbidding social and commercial interactions with them. In 1179, during the Third Lateran Council, these measures reappeared: social and economic relations with heretics and their supporters were forbidden under sentence of anathema. In 1184, Pope Lucius III and the emperor Frederick, with the decree Ad abolendam, stipulated, among other sanctions, the excommunication of heretics and those who protected them.271 These accounts give testimony to Geoffrey’s important role in this wider development, where jurisdiction against heretics was becoming a means to fight heresy.272

Furthermore, in the account of Vita prima, we see how not only the heretics and their supporters but “anybody who gave them help” becomes the target of the fight against heresy.

This inclusion is another novelty compared to the Bernardine polemic.273 To understand the importance of this development, it is again crucial to bear in mind that Vita prima was

270 R. Moore, The War…,, 122.

271 For the Council of Tours, see Mansi t. XXI, 1178 H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les origins, 126-127; R. Moore, The War on…., 184-185, For the Third Lateran Council, see H. Maisonneuve, Études sur les origins, 133-138, R. Manselli, “De la “persuasio” á la ’coercitio’”, 185

272 Edward Peters, ed., Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe: Documents in Translation, London: Scolar Press 1980, 166.

273 R. Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, 24.

98 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE written between two important councils, the Council of Reims (1148), where the target of the anti-heretical struggle was broadened to include the followers of heretics, and the

Council of Tours (1163), where, as previously mentioned, extended measures against heretics and their protectors were decreed.274 The measures against heresy in Geoffrey’s accounts are more similar to the decisions of the Council of Tours than those of the Council of Reims. Therefore, in his writings, we discern an echo of this development but also an effort to legitimize and impose this new policy against heresy through his writings and through Bernard’s authoritative image. Besides the role of such measures in the overall development of anti-heretical policies, how they were introduced can also inform us about issues relating to Geoffrey’s politico-religious ideas and the governing of conduct.

The social, economic and legal exclusion of heretics through the sententiae, besides serving a clear punitive and dissuasive purpose, could also be indicative of Geoffrey’s political thoughts and vision of the ideal society. In these measures we see how heretics as well as their supporters were rejected from Christian society and every aspect of communal life. Therefore, disobedience and offence towards the Church was equivalent to offence towards the whole of society, as, in Geoffrey’s mind, the two entities seem to be inseparable.

This idea of the identification and assimilation of Church and society also appears in other passages of his work. For Geoffrey, following the Pauline tradition (Col 1:24), the body of

Jesus was the Church, where all social groups were placed: “his hands refer to men holding

274 For the text of the Council of Reims, see Mansi 21, col. 711-718, article XVII; R. Moore, The War..., 155, 185.

99 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE office, his right hand to spiritual ministries, and his left to corporal deputies … His feet designate his last and humble members”.275

Furthermore, not only could the Church preside over heretics and institute measures against them but it could also reinforce its control over every aspect of human society and on the larger population, as everyone could be a potential “suspect”. In this way, the exclusion of heretics became a technology of governing. In his work on the polemic of Peter the Venerable, Iogna-Prat characterises “the all-embracing notion of Christendom, which… connoted a social and temporal structure”; in Geoffrey’s passages we see how a similar process unfolds and how the Cistercian abbot envisioned society as a community of faithful

Christians, obedient to the churchmen, who were responsible for supervising every kind of human activity.276

As in Geoffrey’s characterization of the social exclusion of heretics as a shared responsibility, we see how, by these novelties, the obedient subject is constructed in

Geoffrey’s discourse. To begin with, the exclusion of heretics and their supporters from religious, social and economic life is a technology for the governing of souls, where a specific subjectivity is the result of an external constraint imposed on the population: the subject should be disciplined – or excluded. At the same time, we see how the expansion of the notion of control results in the construction of obedient subjectivity. The exercise of control became more analytical, as members of the laity, in being obedient to the Church,

275 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 47; cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Manus Domini in corpore eius, quod est ecclesia, officiales viros commendant, dextera quidem spiritalibus ministeriis, laeva corporalibus deputatos…. Pedes eius extrema quaedam et humilia membra designant”, 87.

276 D. Iogna-Prat,Order and Exclusion..., 2.

100 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE should have been able to give a more exhaustive account of their social and economic activities and most importantly of whom they socialized with.277 Obedience to the Church was no longer connected only with proper religious behaviour. In Geoffrey’s accounts, the subject should be alert at every moment of his life in order to avoid socializing with the wrong people and, by this self constraint, learn to behave only in the proper manner.

4.6 Preaching and debate

The stereotype of the secret character of heresy as a hidden danger that threatens the

Church is extensively deployed in Geoffrey’s anti-heretical polemic.278 Typically, heretics were invisible to the ecclesiastical authorities as they pretended to be humble and good

(circumeunt urbes et viculos sub praetextu paupertatis),279 they kept their ideas secret from all others but themselves,280 and they avoided any public confrontation with members of the

Church.281 The need to manifest the truth about heretics, when it came to both their behavior and their ideas, plays an important role in Geoffrey’s polemic on fighting heresy. He urges his monastic audience: “We must not keep silent concerning the aforesaid former arch-

277 M. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population…,180-181.

278 Herbert Grundmann, „Der Typus des Ketzers in Mittelalterliche Anschauung“, in: Kultur- und Universalgeschichte: Walter Goetz zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, Leipzig -Berlin 1927, 91-107; E. Peters, Inquisition, 46; B. Kienzle,Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade…., 205; K. Sullivan, Truth and the Heretic...:1- 4.

279 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 179.

280 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 210.

281 CF PL, CLXXXV, 412; cf. R. Moore, The Birth…,, 43

101 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE heretics who confessed all these things publicly”.282 In Geoffrey’s understanding, truth could be manifested mainly in two ways, through preaching about heresy and through public discourse with the heretics themselves, and both had specific political implications.

Beginning with preaching, Geoffrey argues how preaching and the disclosure of heretical ideas could be useful means against heresy, following a tradition that had already been shaped, for example, in the anti-heretical writings of Bernard of Clairvaux. Bernard’s successes in fighting heresy during the mission of 1145 came as a result of his preaching activities, even if the tone regarding the effectiveness of preaching is less optimistic in

Geoffrey’s accounts in Vita prima that than in Bernard’s own: whereas on completion of the mission Bernard writes “I give thanks to God that our coming to you was not in vain. Our stay was short, but the fruit of it was not small”,283 Geoffrey concludes that the mission finished too early, without optimal results, as Bernard had to return to his monks.284

However, despite the pessimistic tone, the message remains that through extensive preaching it is possible to deal with heresy.

Also, in Sermon 18 of Geoffrey’s commentary on the Apocalypse, which was written almost two decades later than the Vita prima, Geoffrey praises the preaching abilities of

Henry of Marcy, which led to the confession and conversion of two heretics, most probably

282 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 179; cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Nec super praedictis quondam haeresiarchis haec omnia publice confitentibus”, 211.

283Ep, 242, SBOp VIII, 128.

284 PL, CLXXXV, 412; cf. Moore, The Birth…., 43.

102 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

Raymond de Bauniaco285 and Bernard Raymond, who were caught by the mob in Valence, a town near Toulouse, during the Cistercian abbot’s mission to the area, around 1180.286

While describing the successes of Bernard and Henry in dealing with heresy by preaching,

Geoffrey mentions that they, in contrast to the heretics, had divine authority and therefore the ability to preach persuasively. Henry could deliver a sermon that made the two heretics to convert because he “the Holy Spirit gave him the ability”.287 In sharp contrast to the preaching of the Cistercian abbots, the heretics “sharpen their tongues with exquisitely composed words; they are novel parrots unaware of what they are saying and declaring. The hellebore they use to color, or rather discolor, their words, is insult and railing against the clergy”.288 By presenting heretics as the converse of the charismatic figure of the preacher,

Geoffrey not only delegitimizes them but also strengthens the authority of the clergy to preach.

285 Traditionally, de Baimiaco. According to new findings, however, the correct version of the surname is probably de Bauniaco. See Jacques Dalarun– Annie Dufour– Anne Grondeux –Denis Muzerelle –Fabio Zinelli, “La ’Charte de Niquinta’, analyse formelle”, in: Monique Zerner (ed.), L’histoire du catharisme en discussion: Le “concile” de Saint-Félix (1167), Nice: Centre d’Études Médiévales – Université de Nice – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 2001, 135-201: 155-156.

286 Geoffrey, however, does not mention any specific details or the names of the two heretics. Cf. C Thouzellier Catharisme et Valdéisme, 21-23, 38-39; Yves Marie Joseph Congar, „Henri de Marcy, abbé de Clairvaux, cardinal-évêque d’Albano et légat pontifical“, Analecta Monastica V, (Studia Anselmiana 43), 1958, 1-90: 37; B. Kienzle, Cistercians Heresy and Crusade..., 133.

287 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 178; cf Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, “prout Spiritus Sanctus dabat eloqui illi”, 210.

288 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 143-144; cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “Verbis compositis et exquisitis acuunt linguas suas, novos exhibent psittacos, ignorantes de quibus loquuntur, de quibus affirmant. Elleborum unde suorum pigmenta acuant, immo figmenta verborum, vituperatio est et derogatio clericorum”, 179.

103 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

The issue of unauthorized preaching was one of the main themes of Sermon 14, where the Cistercian abbot attacks those who preach, and those who accept women as preachers: “The principal see of the Gauls, Lyons, created new apostles, and has not blushed to bring women into that circle…. They go around cities and villages… looking for opportunities to preach”.289 Besides condemning unauthorised preaching per se, Geoffrey also connects it with the issue of obedience to the Church: Valdès disobeyed the decisions of the Council of Lyons and “did not stop recruiting and sending out disciples”.290 Geoffrey was not the first to defend the exclusive right of churchmen to preach, as it was also a common theme in Bernard’s polemic, for example.291 In a time when the division between the clergy and the laity was becoming wider, we see how Geoffrey, through his anti-heretical accounts, directly underlines that preaching is exclusively the duty of churchmen and, in this way, demarcates more clearly the boundary between these two social groups.292

At the same time, in his anti-heretical writings, by presenting Bernard and Henry as powerful examples, he indirectly criticizes the abilities of the secular clergy to preach

289 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 143; cf. Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, “Galliarum sedes prima Lungdunum novos creavit apostolos, nec erubuit apostolas etiam sociare… et praedicationis obtenu”, 179.

290 Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 144; cf Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim: “colligere et disseminare discipulos non desistit”, 179.

291 SBOp VIII, 129; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters…, 319.

292 Beverly Mayne Kienzle, “Preaching as Touchstone of Orthodoxy and Dissidence in the Middle Ages”, Medieval Sermon Studies 43, 1999, 19-54: 23-33; Beverly Mayne Kienzle, “Holiness and Obedience: Denunciation of of Medieval Waldendian Preaching”, in: Alberto Ferreiro (ed.), The Devil, Heresy and Witchcraft in the Middle Ages. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey B. Russel, Leiden: Brill 1998, 259-278. It is noteworthy that besides Geoffrey’s (and Bernard’s) negative voices, there were other ecclesiastical figures who were more sympathetic to lay preaching, such as Peter the Chanter and his circle. For these voices, see Philippe Buc, “Vox clamantis in deserto? Pierre le Chantre et la prédication laïque”, Revue Mabillon 4, 1993, 5- 47.

104 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE successfully against heresy and makes a strong claim that also monks or at least abbots hold the right to preach publicly. As Carolyn Muessig argues, even if preaching as a duty of the cura animarum belonged principally to the secular clergy, especially in the twelfth century, the idea of the monk who followed an active life was becoming more common.293 These blurred lines between clergy and monks might indicate a tendency towards the monasticization of the clergy, which had become more evident with the Gregorian

Reform294. Through Bernard’s and Henry’s successes, the model of the preaching monk was legitimized and Cistercian influence in the Christian community beyond monastic walls was conveyed.

Revealing the truth by preaching was not the only way of dealing with heresy, as, according to Geoffrey, heretics themselves should make public their beliefs and behavior through discourse with the authorities. The effectiveness of the public confession of heretical ideas is underlined by the Vita prima, where people refused to support heretics who did not show the will to debate with Bernard. On the first occasion in Toulouse, “the people promised that nobody would give them any support thereafter unless they came forward for public debate (pallam loquerentur)”.295 On the second occasion, Geoffrey writes: “[A]ll of them however now said that they would support him no longer, because he fled from debate

293 Carolyn Muessig, “What Is Medieval Monastic Preaching? An Introduction”, in: Muessig, Medieval Monastic Preaching, 1-16: 5.

294 G. Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, 78.

295 R. Moore, The Birth of Popular Heresy, 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “et pollicitus est populus, quod nemo eos deinceps susciperet de caetero, nisi venirent et palam loquerentur”.

105 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

(colloquium) with the abbot”.296 Unfortunately, Geoffrey did not provide us with further information about these debates, which, it seems, the delegation of the preaching mission wished to hold. We can understand, however, their importance as the refusal of heretics to participate was interpreted as proof of their guilt.

Debates between heretics and churchmen did take place in the twelfth century; for example, Bernard of Clairvaux, in his answer to Ewervin, presented a scenario for a meeting between churchmen and heretics.297 In Sermon 14, Geoffrey describes how a group of heretical women verbally attacked the archbishop of Arvenica, as he had discovered them preaching in the past and forced them “by threats and arguments” (minis et persuasionibus) to publicly reveal their heretical beliefs.298

As Peters argues, these debates, which functioned as ways of handling heresy in the framework of caritas and persuasion, demonstrated in many cases the inability of prelates to deal with heresy.299 Jiménez Sanchez argues that in the years before 1160-1170, informal public meetings between churchmen and heretics demonstrated the churchmen’s belief that combating heresy was possible through polemical debate.300 Charles Connell, commenting on the public debate in Lombers, views these disputations as exemplifying the Church’s

296 R. Moore, The Birth..., 43; cf. PL, CLXXXV, 412: “Omnes tamen affirmabant quod deinceps non manu tenerent eum, siquidem domini Abbatis colloquium refugisset”.

297 P. Jiménez-Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 268: M. Newman, The Boundaries of Charity, 225. CF SBOp II, 178-188.

298 Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, 179; cf. Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, 144..

299 E. Peters, Heresy and Authority, 166-167.

300 P. Jiménez-Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 276.

106 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE more open approach towards heresy at a time when ecclesiastical leaders thought that heretics could be persuaded to return to orthodoxy if they faced public humiliation.301 Such arguments are valid; however, as I will show below, public discourse with heretics could have had a further specific function in relation to the governance of souls.

It is very difficult to judge from Geoffrey’s accounts whether the disputations that he mentions in the Vita prima could have resembled the meeting in Lombers in terms of content and organization. What is evident, however, in these accounts is the request that heretics publicly reveal the truth about their beliefs as well as their behavior. Therefore, we see a development in comparison to Bernard’s writings. For Bernard, it was enough that the ecclesiastical authorities got to know the truth about heresy;302 in Geoffrey’s writing, heretics had to publicly and actively reveal their heresy and discuss their beliefs and actions.

Their public confession was transformed into a means of fighting heresy in a way that resembles confession under the inquisitorial procedures that followed in the years to come.303 Thus, Geoffrey’ account mirrors the development in the second half of the twelfth century, described by Raoul Manselli, that marks a shift in the Church’s activities against

301 Charles W. Connell, Popular Opinion in the Middle Ages: Challenging Public Ideas and Attitudes, Berlin: De Gruyter 2016, 117. The historiography on the meeting in Lombers is vast and generally historians have interpreted it either as an expression of a local political struggle for power and an effort to impose the ideals of papal reform (J. Biget “’Les Albigeois’...” 233; P. Jiménez-Sanchez, Les Catharismes..., 268-276) or as a proof of the power that the Cathars had in the region; as during the meeting the “boni homines” refused to answer many questions, they presented their beliefs and despite their condemnation by the clergy, they left. See Damian J. Smith Crusade, Heresy and Inquisition in the Lands of the Crown of Aragon, c. 1167-1276, Leiden – Boston: Brill 2010, 77. For the extant record of the debate, see Gian Domenico Mansi, ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio… XXII, Venetiis: Antonius Zatta, 1778, col. 157-168.

302 R.l Manselli, “De la ’persuasio’...”, 182.

303 J. Arnold, Inquisition and Power, 74-110; Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Inquisition, Public Fame and Confession: General Rules and English Practice,” ed. Mary Catherine Flannery and Katie L. Walter, The Culture of Inquisition in Medieval England, Westfield Medieval Studies 4, Cambridge: Brewer 2013, 8-29: 8-15.

107 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE heresy; besides preaching, the Church should disseminate confessions of heresy so that the depravity of heretical beliefs should become widely known.304

Moreover, in Geoffrey’s anti-heretical accounts and especially in his call for public confessions of heretical beliefs and deeds, we observe, in the same manner as we saw in

Bernard’s writings, elements of another broader process, which has crucial political implications for the emergence of a new subjectivity. It is the transformation from traditional accusatorial procedures to the procedures of inquisition, where the avowal of transgressions was becoming more dominant.305 Through this obligation to avow, heretics, in Geoffrey’s writings, were transformed into confessing subjects required to exhaustively examine their inner thoughts, motives, and actions under the spiritual guidance of churchmen.306 These confessions thus played the role of the technology of the self, through which subjects could modify their inner beliefs and behaviors by themselves under the spiritual guidance of others.307 Thus, heretical confessions were not only a way to manifest truth and deal with heresy, but also a technique to govern souls – not through force or even persuasion but through self-examination and the public declaration of truth.

304 R. Manselli, “De la ’persuasio’...“ 183. Manselli describes how, in the second half of the 12th century, getting heretics to both confess and reject their beliefs became more widespread as a way of dealing with heresy. See also Ilarino da Milano, „La ’Manifestatio heresis catarorum quam fecit Bonacursus’ secondo il cod. Ottob. lat. 136 della Biblioteca Vaticana“, Aevum 12, 1938, 281-333, and especially pages 292-293, where the importance of the public character of the confession is underlined..

305 M. Foucault, Wrong- Doing Truth-Telling..., 83-123; E. Peters, Inquisition, 44-53.

306 Michel Foucault, About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Lectures at Dartmouth College 1980, Graham Burchell (trans.), Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press 2016, 211.

307 M. Foucault, Wrong- Doing Truth-Telling..., 24.

108 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE

4.7 Conclusion

As has been analyzed in this inquiry, Geoffrey of Auxerre was an important figure at a critical time in the struggle against heresy – specifically, just before the creation of the

Inquisition. It is mistaken simply to characterize him as an echo of Bernard, although he was influenced heavily by his teacher’s spirit, as shown by his approach to the violent coercion of heretics in spite of the legitimization of the use of physical force in his immediate surroundings. In Geoffrey’s writings we also see the impact of contemporary developments in the anti-heretical struggle, especially when it comes to the exclusion of heretics, their followers, and their supporters from every social activity. In his works we also witness elements that bring us closer to the Inquisition, such as the broader use of sententiae and the insistence on the confession of heretical beliefs and behavior.

When it comes to his ecclesiology, we see how Geoffrey was loyal to the Cistercian idea of the unity of Christendom under caritas. His anti-heretical polemic mirrors how he envisioned a unified society, one in which all societal groups actively and harmoniously participated in its defense, as in the image of the Church as a living body that appears repeatedly in Geoffrey’s sermons on the Apocalypse. The clergy would not tolerate dissidents; the laity, under the guidance and all-encompassing control of the ecclesiastical elites, would exclude heretics from society; and monastic leaders in particular, representing superior authority still than secular clergy, would lead the efforts against heresy.

Furthermore, in Geoffrey’s polemic another Cistercian ideal emerges, namely the will to reform. Indeed, the anti-heretical struggle constituted an opportunity for reform for both the clergy and the laity. The clergy needed to abandon a secular way of life and focus

109 GEOFFREY OF AUXERRE on how to fight heresy. The laity, and especially the knights, needed to overcome their malice and greed, and, by giving their promise to ecclesiastical elites, become fighters for the Church in the struggle against heresy.

Lastly, in the sources analyzed here, we see how a specific obedient subject, analogous to the ideal of the disciplined monk in the monastery, was constructed. The exclusion of heretics and their supporters from the social and economic activities, the imposition on the laity of the responsibility to fight against heresy, legal judgments, and the public confession of heretical beliefs and behavior were not only measures to defeat heresy and defend the unity of Christendom, but also disciplinary techniques inside the framework of the government of others, through which individuals would modify their conduct without the use of force.

110 HENRY OF MARCY

5 Henry of Marcy

5.1 Introduction

Whereas both Bernard of Clairvaux’s and Geoffrey of Auxerre’s attitudes towards the violent persecution of heresy seemed to be either hesitant or unclear, the writings and the actions of Henry of Marcy signified the transition to a different approach, where the use of force constituted a legitimate means against heretics. However, Henry not only propagated the use of violence as an appropriate way of combating heresy, but also other means such as preaching and excommunication, public disclosure of heretical beliefs, the interrogation of suspects, and penance. In Henry’s writings we observe a response that shares resemblances with the later inquisition, where confession, interrogation and persuasion coexisted with violence.308 Thus, Henry holds an important position in the trajectory to the establishment of the inquisition as in his work there are elements that were present in Bernard’s and Geoffrey’s writings but also, we see the introduction of other means, such as violence.

Henry entered the Cistercian Order around 1155 and he became abbot of

Hautecombe in 1170, a position he held until 1176; he was subsequently elected abbot of

Clairvaux in 1176 and he remained in office until 1179.309 During the time that Henry was abbot of those monasteries, he became familiar with the ecclesiastical and political matters

308 Arnold, Inquisition and Power…., 19-47, 60-63; Caldwell Ames, Righteous Persecution…., 8.

309 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 2-3.

111 HENRY OF MARCY of his time through several visits to the daughter monasteries, e.g. the monastery of

Fossanova, where he met other influential churchmen.310 As Yves Congar has pointed out,

Henry’s letters to other monasteries demonstrated his genuine interest in the problems that could occur in the Cistercian monastic environment.311 In this way he followed the example of Bernard of Clairvaux, he fulfilled the role of the father-abbot, who actively protects and guides his monks even those in distant monasteries by maintaining personal communication.312 In 1179, at the Third Lateran Council he was appointed cardinal bishop of Albano and in 1181 papal legate.313 In this office he was very active, travelling almost constantly in order to resolve disputes among ecclesiastical and secular leaders.314 His important role in the ecclesiastical politics of his time is demonstrated by the fact that his name appeared in the discussions of papal elections in 1187, an office that he however declined.315 Henry’s name is also connected to the history of the crusades as he was also chosen to preach in favour of the Third Crusade in 1187 and during the last years of his life wrote the work De pergrinante civitate Dei, his crusading manifesto.316 Henry was actively

310 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,….”, 3-6.

311 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 5.

312 Emilia Jamroziak, The Cistercian Order in Medieval Europe, 1090-1550, London and New York: Routledge 2013, 47.

313 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 18, 30.

314 Ian Stuart Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990, 169.

315 I.S.Robinson, The Papacy, 218

316 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 30-55; B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 112.

112 HENRY OF MARCY mediating ecclesiastical controversies until his death in 1189.317 I. S. Robinson has described

Henry as “the central figure of the papal-Cistercian alliance of the last quarter of the twelfth century”, who was responsible for the persecution of heresy, the reconciliation between the kings of France and England and the crusade preaching.318 At the same time, he was interested in reforming the clergy and dealing with simony.319 Hence, in the same manner as Bernard and Geoffrey, Henry, too, was involved in several disputes and missions outside the monastic walls. However, unlike Bernard and Geoffrey, who remained inside the

Cistercian circle as abbots throughout their lives, Henry acquired positions in the Church hierarchy, which brought him even closer to papal policy but also afforded him the opportunity to bring the Cistercian ideals into a broader environment.320 As a bishop he became responsible not only for spiritual matters but also for the practical care of Christians.

In his letter to the bishop of Sens, Bernard of Clairvaux describes the office of bishop as a“bridge between God and neighbor” (pontem inter Deum et proximum) and “the good mediator” (bonus mediator) between God and the people. Moreover, a bishop “implores the divine majesty for the aberrations of transgressors and punishes sinners for the wrong done to God. He approaches the ungrateful with the benefactions of God’s kindness, while he

317 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 25-55.

318 I.S.Robinson, The Papacy, 242.

319 Unpublished and unavailable online: Cassandra Chideock (ed), “Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade, 1177-1189” [manuscript of a Ph.D. thesis], Cambridge: Cambridge University 2001, 40.

320 M. Newman, The Boundaries…., 148-149. However, Henry was not the first Cistercian to acquire similar positions. See, f.ex. Joel Lipkin, “The Entrance of the Cistercians into the Church Hierarchy 1098- 1227: the Bernardine Influence”, in: Rozanne Elder– John R. Sommerfeldt (eds.), The Chimera of his Age: Studies on Bernard of Clairvaux, Studies in Medieval Cistercian History 5, Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications 1980, 62-73: 63.

113 HENRY OF MARCY points out to scoffers the severity of his might”.321 Later in the same letter, Bernard instructs the bishop to show reverence to the king in relation to his military affairs.322 Thus, bishop’s responsibility could mean, among others, involvement in military actions when they were prosecuted under concrete circumstances, they had the approval of a legitimate authority, and they were exercised for the righteous cause, the defense of the Church and the protection of Christians from their enemies.323 As a legate he was a part of the larger and complex papal machinery for the administration of Christendom and the diffusion of the pope’s power and authority in distant places.324

5.2 Henry’s engagement with heresy: a chronology

Henry’s engagement with heresy began in 1177, when Raymond V, count of

Toulouse, sent a letter to the Cistercian General Chapter with a plea for their assistance in the elimination of heresy in his dominions, a problem which was becoming, as he stated, alarming,325 and which he could not eliminate himself, as many of his noble men supported

321 Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, 49; cf. Mor, SBOp VII: “Supplicat maiestati pro excessibus delinquentium, vindicat in peccantes iniuriam Dei. Ingratis improperat beneficia pietatis, contemnentibus potentiae severitatem insinuat”, 108.

322 Mor, SBOp VII, 126; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism...,, 75.

323 Frederick Russel, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1975, 36-37, 188-189; Kurt Villads Jensen, “Bishops on Crusade”, in: Anthony John Lappin– Elena Balzamo (eds.), Dominus Episcopus: Medieval Bishops between Diocese and Court, Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien 2018, 83-99: 83-85.

324 I.S. Robinson, The Papacy, 147-148; Kriston K. Rennie, The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2013, 20-36.

325 Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury: the Chronicle of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I by Gervace, the Monk of Canterbury, (ed.) W. Stubbs, RS, 73, London, 1879, 270: “In tantum equidem haec putida haeresis tabes praevaluit, ut omnes fere illi consentientes arbitrentur

114 HENRY OF MARCY the heretics.326 Raymond was in favor of the idea of a joint secular and ecclesiastical mission in the area and the coordination of preaching activities with military actions.327 He also writes that he has invited the king of France to join such an expedition.328 The authenticity of this letter has been challenged by Moore, as it was not mentioned at all in one of the most important sources for these events, the chronicle of Roger of Howden.329 Other historians have not raised similar doubts and have placed the count’s letter in the social conflicts in the city of Toulouse and the political rivalries in the area, and more specifically his controversy with Roger Tencavel, vicomte of Béziers, and Alfonso II king of Aragon.330 Biget has proposed that this letter was written with the help of Cistercians, as it employed the image of the little foxes.331 Biget has also characterised the letter as Raymond’s manoeuvre in the

obsequium se praestare Deo, et ipse iniquus qui misterium jam operatur iniquitatis in filios difidentiae sic transfigurat se in angelum lucis, ut uxor a viro, filius a patre, nurus a socru discedant proh dolor!”.

326 Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works…, 270-271: “Ego quidem qui uno e duobus divinis accingor gladio, et qui me irae Dei vindicem et ministrum Dei in hoc ipsum constitutum confiteor, dum tali infidelitati modum ponere et finem dare innitor, ad tantum et tale negotium complendum vires meas deficere cognosco, quoniam terrae meae nobiliores, jam praelibata infidelitatis tabe, aruerunt, et cum ipsis maxima hominum multitudo a fide corruens aruit, unde id perficere non audeo nec valeo.”.

327 Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works..., 271: “Quoniam igitur spiritualis gladii virtutem nil perficere posse cognoscimus ad tantam haeresis pravitatem extirpandam, oportet ut corporalis gladii animadversione compellatur.”.

328 Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works..., 271.

329 R. Moore, The War..., 199.

330 John Hine Mundy, “The Abjuration of Peter Maurandus” in id., Studies in the Ecclesiastical and Social History of Toulouse in the Age of the Cathars, Aldershot: Ashgate 2006, 161-167: 161-162; P. Jiménez Sanchez, Les Catharismes…, 276-277; Elaine Graham-Leigh, The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade, Rochester N.Y.: Boydell Press 2005, 104-106; Moore, The First European Revolution..., 164-165; Moore, The War..., 192-193.

331 J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 238.

115 HENRY OF MARCY framework of realpolitik, since Raymond had understood that he could not avoid an intervention in his dominions by the kings of France and England. Therefore, he took the initiative to contact the Cistercian Order and make an appeal to the king of France in order to show that he had the ambition to fight heresy and at the same time divide the two kings.332

The efforts to undertake actions against heresy seemed to bear fruits and in 1178

Henry wrote two letters, one to the king of France Luis VII (written in Spring of 1178) and the pope Alexander III (written in May 1178) in order to convince them to support a joint, ecclesiastical and secular, mission to eradicate heresy in southern France with the participation of the kings of England and France.333 The mission was established by pope

Alexander, under the leadership of Peter of Chrysogonus, who had already been appointed as papal legate in 1174, and Henry of Marcy with the participation of many French and

English churchmen and laymen. The Count of Toulouse was leading the military forces but the two kings did not participate.334 Two letters, one written by the Cistercian abbot and one by Peter of Chrysogonus in autumn 1178, after the mission was completed, inform us about the events that took place in Toulouse and in the land of Trencavel.335 Henry’s letter 29

(Audite coeli) and Peter of St. Chrysogonus’ Ad universos fideles, were a call to a wider mobilization against heresy in southern France. According to Congar, the aim of Henry’s

332 J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 238- 240.

333 Ep. 28, PL CCIV, 234-5 and Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 2235. For the dates of the letters, see Congar,“Henri de Marcy”, 14.

334 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, , 19; R. Moore, The War..., 191-192.

335 Peter of St. Chrysogonus letter is in PL CXCIX, 1119- 124, Epistola 29 is in PL CCIV, 235-40. Both documents have been translated into English in Moore, The Birth, 113-116 and 116-122, respectively.

116 HENRY OF MARCY letter (ep. 29) was to exhort people to fight against heresy.336 Kienzle has suggested that especially the last two letters were probably written for public reading and therefore they could function as sermons.337 In the following year, Henry participated in the Third Lateran

Council, where he was appointed papal legate to France in order to ensure that the decision of the Council would be implemented in the area. Scholars have persuasively argued that the ideas of the abbot of Clairvaux exerted major influence in forming the Church’s response against heresy, as it was expressed in Canon 27 of the Lateran Council.338 As we have already seen in the previous chapter, Henry was an important figure for the early history of the Waldensians, as he was present in Lyon in 1180, where Valdes made his profession of faith.339 In 1181 he returned, as papal legate, to southern France raising and leading an army for another mission against the heretics in an action that has been described as “pre-crusade”, as it was the first time that a papal legate raised and led an army in a mission in a Christian area.340 Biget has again connected this new mission to the unstable situation in which southern France was already in 1179, when Raymond V had to face the viscounts of Nims,

Narbonne and Albi who made an alliance with king Alfonso and Roger II Trencavel who

336 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy,...”, 20.

337 B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and the Crusade..., 121.

338 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 28-29; B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 112.

339 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 28-29; Christine Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdéisme en Languedoc à la fin du XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle: Politique pontificale – controverses, Louvain: Nauwelaerts – Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts 21969 [1st ed. 1965], 34-35.

340 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 36; R. Moore, The War..., 215; J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 244.

117 HENRY OF MARCY also switched his allegiance to the king.341 Henry’s forces besieged Lavaur, an important bastion of Roger Trencavel.342 During this mission the episode that, as we have seen in the previous chapter, was mentioned by Geoffrey of Auxerre in his Sermon 18 of On the

Apocalypse: the conversion of the two heresiarchs, Raymond de Bauniaco and Bernard

Raymond, after they were captured and listened to Henry’s preaching.343 This episode, as

Congar has noticed, proves that Henry did not abandon his teaching activities during this mission.344 Thus, persuasion and coercion were equally important in Henry’s anti-heretical engagement.

There is general agreement in modern scholarship when it comes to the importance of Henry’s role in the legitimization of the use of violence against the heretics.345 Moreover, scholars have pointed out that the idea of the crusade against heresy was introduced by the

Cistercian abbot.346 Maisonneuve has argued that unlike Bernard’s mission in 1145, in

Henry’s mission secular leaders did participate with the aim either to convert heretics or to drive them away from the area.347 Congar has come to the same conclusion by comparing two passages, one from Bernard’s crusade propaganda in Ad milites Templi (In Praise of the

341 J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 242-243.

342 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 36-37.

343 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 37-38.

344 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 37- 38.

345 R. Manselli, “„De la ‚persuasio‘ à la ‚coercitio‘“, 184-185.

346 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 18; H. Maisonneuve, Études..., 134-135;

347 H. Maisonneuve, Études..., 131- 132.

118 HENRY OF MARCY

New Knighthood), where the danger against Jerusalem is presented, and one from Henry’s letter to the pope about the threat that heresy represents. The language of the two passages is quite similar and shows how the crusade ideology entered the anti-heretical polemic.348

Historiography has also demonstrated the importance of his endeavors for the later establishment of the inquisition: During the mission of 1178, a record with the names of suspected heretics was created in a similar manner as inquisitors later worked.349 Moreover,

Maisonneuve has discussed how the tribunals, that found place during Henry’s mission in

1178, as measurements such as excommunication, exile and confiscation were not always successful, had many similarities with the procedure adopted by the inquisition.350

Historians however have tried to understand Henry’s attitudes towards violence in different ways. Scholars have located Henry’s action into the more general transition from persuasion to persecution and the intensification of the Church’s response to the threat of heresy.351 For example, Congar has repeatedly mentioned how heretics were becoming more powerful and he has developed the argument, which was later repeated by Kienzle, that Henry, having in mind the unsuccessful preaching mission of Bernard in 1145, wanted to avoid a failure and thus became more inclined to the use of force, especially after 1177.352 Congar has concluded that during the last months of 1177, Henry’s attitudes towards the violent

348 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 18; B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 109, 115.

349 J. Arnold, Confession and Power..., 31-32; R. Moore, The Formation…, 25.

350 H. Maisonneuve, Études..., 133.

351 H. Manselli, „De la ‚persuasio‘ à la ‚coercitio‘“, 185-186.

352 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 13; B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 109.

119 HENRY OF MARCY persecution of heresy took shape.353 By the year 1179 and the Third Lateran Council, Henry had already decided that violence was necessary for the elimination of heresy.354 Another strand of historiography locates Henry’s actions in the context of the regional political controversies in Southern France, where accusations of heresy and the efforts to eradicate it were used as weapons in the struggle for political power. Their understanding is closely linked with the argument that the intensification of the anti-heretical struggle during the second half of the 12th century was not a response to a “real” threat; rather, accusations of heresy were either fabricated or were a product of the imagination of churchmen like the

Cistercian abbot, who “were seeing heresy everywhere”.355 According to this historiographical strand, the Cistercians in general and Henry as well as Geoffrey of Auxerre in particular were responsible for the creation of the image of heretical threat in southern

France in order to secure the influence and power of their Order.356 Newman has argued that

Henry’s efforts must be seen under the prism of the Cistercian idea of the Christian unity and the need to defend it against enemies such as heresy. Henry of Marcy, as a papal legate, was even closer to papacy than Bernard and Geoffrey, and he strongly promoted the idea of

353 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 12.

354 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy...”, 18; B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade..., 109.

355 R. Moore, The War..., 193; J. Biget,”“Les albigeois”...”, 247; Mark Gregory Pegg, The Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press 2008, 10-12; Michael Barbezat, Burning Bodies: Communities, Eschatology, and the Punishment of Heresy in the Middle Ages, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2018, 143-144.

356 R. Moore, The War..., 221; J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 245.

120 HENRY OF MARCY the collaboration between the secular leaders and the Church.357 Chideock linked Henry’s anti-heretical involvement to his understanding of history as a series of battles between God and evil. Heretics, as well as Muslims in his crusade propaganda, represent evil whereas

God was represented by Christians.358

The introduction of violence against heretics in Henry’s polemic and endeavors is indeed a major novelty in relation to Bernard and Geoffrey and it is natural that modern historiography has focused on it. However, historians have not yet perceived violence as an analytical object that can inform us of Henry’s ecclesiology. Moreover, there is a gap when it comes to the connection of violence with other measures against heresy that the Cistercian abbot propagated in his work.359 This study argues that to have a better understanding of

Henry’s anti-heretical engagement we have to analyse these means and find their “internal logic” and how through them a specific subject was constructed.

5.3 Violence in Henry’s letters and in the Canons of the Third Lateran Council

Henry’s arguments against heresy are similar to the two other Cistercian abbots. In all of his epistles we see the common argument: that heretics consist of a danger for

357 M. Newman, The Boundaries..., 219-234; C. Chideock, “Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade, 1177- 1189”, 70-180.

358 C. Chideock, “Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade, 1177-1189”, 142.

359 R. Manselli has argued that the years between 1179-1184 were very important for the passage from persuasion to coercion. However, as he has noted non coercive elements were also applied applied at the same time. „De la ‚persuasio‘ à la ‚coercitio‘“, 185-186.

121 HENRY OF MARCY destruction due to their secretiveness and hypocrisy.360 The image of the foxes that destroy the Lord’s vineyard appears also in Henry’s anti-heretical polemic in the same way it did in

Bernard’s and Geoffrey’s.361 What changes though is that the language and the images that

Henry uses are stronger, with frequent references to the Old Testament and military vocabulary.362 To a much greater extent than in Bernard’s and Geoffrey’s polemic, we see in his writings elements of the theology of coercion and destruction, which were renewed in the years of the Gregorian Reform and during the crusades.363 He describes, for example, the alarming situation with a reference from the scripture: “outside the sword kills, and inside the death is similar ” (Lam. 1-20).364 In his letter to the king Louis VII, he praises the king for his decision to eliminate heresy (eliminanda haereticorum incertitudine), he pleads him to devote his troops (copiam impendat) and to take the cross (susceptionem crucis) so he can declare the victory of this fight (decernitur hujus pugnae victoria).365 Similar polemic language is used in his two other letters, where there are also many references from the

Scripture. In the letter to Alexander III, Henry pleads the pope to fight against heresy by

360 Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 223D: “ et quod multi in faciunt”; Ep. 29, PL CCIV, 235C-235D: “non habent certos aditus, semitas ambulant- circulares; et in quodam suarum fraudium labyrintho monstra novissima recondutur”.

361 Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 224C: “ita de vinea Domini Sabaoth vulpeculas demolientes”.

362 For the question of language and especially the rhetorical patterns that Henry deployed in his anti-heretical writings, see B. Kienzle, Cistercians, Heresy and the Crusade..., 109-134.

363 Gerd Althoff, Selig sind, die Verfolgung ausüben“. Päpste und Gewalt im Hochmittelalter, Stuttgart: Theiss 2013; Christian Hofreiter, Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018, 168-170.

364 Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 223D: “Foris occidit gladius et domi mors similis est.”.

365 Ep. 28, PL CCIV, 234B; 234C; 235A; 234D.

122 HENRY OF MARCY using the image of Phinehas, who strove his sword against the Israilite man who has relations to a woman from the Midianites (Nr. 25: 6-9).366 Heresy is also linked to the symbol of

Sodom and Gomorrah and the fight against heretics is compared, in his epistle, Audite coeli, to the battle of David against Goliath.367

Henry’s aim with his letters is to alarm the recipients about the situation and to persuade them of the need to fight against heresy. Reasonably, the arguments that he uses are different in accordance with the position of the recipient, there are, however, some common features, which are connected both to the use of violence and Henry’s ecclesiology.

The plea to Alexander III is based on the idea that only the pope, the amicus sponsi, has the “remedy” to eliminate heresy and he can prove that he is the beneficial pastor, as he can solve the problem of heresy in the same manner he did with schism.368 As discussed in the previous chapter of this study, both of these arguments appeared in Bernard’s appeal to the pope Eugenius in his work On the Considerations. Henry employs another image that was present in Bernard’s polemic, the symbol of the two swords (gladii duo), in order to remind him that the Church holds the absolute authority and the duty to fight its enemies.369

The deployment of such an image demonstrates what Henry understood as the relationship

366 Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 224A; K. V. Jensen discusses how the image of Phinehas, which was applied by Peter Damian in the end of the eleventh century became a model for the medieval bishops, see K.V. Jensen,“Bishops on Crusade”, 87-88.

367 Ep. 11, PL CCIV, 223D; Ep. 29, PL CCI, 235B.

368 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A: “Tempus est ut amicus sponsi sponsae ulciscatur injurias, et gladius Phinees sacerdotis in incestum Israelitae et Madianitidis exeratur. Ecce in diebus vestris, auctore Domino, sedata sunt schismata; euge pastror bone, facite ut et haereses sopiantur”.

369 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224D.

123 HENRY OF MARCY between the Church and the secular leaders: the Church had the primacy but at the same time he understood that the collaboration with the secular leaders was necessary. As

Bernard, Henry was in favor of a close collaboration between two uneven partners, where the Church had the leading role.

In the same letter, Henry asked the pope to prolong Peter of Chrysogonus’ s mandate in Southern France, as the legate possesses all the virtues and abilities to eradicate heresy.370

In his arguments about the need to extend the mandate, we can follow how Henry shaped the figure of the good churchman. In accordance with the spirit of the Gregorian reform, which condemned simony, Henry highlights that among one of the examples of Peter’s virtues is that he refused to receive money during an election.371 Peter shows humility

(humilitas), a monastic merit that in Bernard of Clairvaux’s writings is also associated with the ideal of bishop.372 Peter is “precious” and “beneficial” without being severe but at the same time he fights “against the beasts of Ephesus (1 Cor 15-32); to don Simon Peter against

Simon the Magician (Acts 8. 9-24); and to display a new Elisha to the lepers of Syria (II

Kings 5)”.373 These descriptions are in accordance with the Cistercian ideology of the monks as fighters of the faith and Christianity, which is rooted in the Benedictine Rule: “Therefore

370 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A-225A

371 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A

372 Mor, SBOp VII, 121; cf. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism...,, 67.

373 For the English translation: B. Kienzle, Cistercian, Heresy, Crusade..., 119; cf. Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224B- 224D: “sit nemini gravis, charus et utilis factus est universis. Pugnat constater ad bestias Ephesi, Simonem Petrum contra Simones magos induens et leprosis Syriae novum exhibens Eliseum, evellit et destruit, aedificat et plantat.”.

124 HENRY OF MARCY our hearts and bodies must be prepared to fight for holy obedience to his instructions”374. As

Newman has pointed out, the Cistercians renewed the interpretation of this ideal by stressing its transformative character for the individual monk.375 Peter is transformed to a warrior who fights for the orthodox faith and the Church to fulfill his duty as a churchman to defend the

Church.

Regarding the king of France, the Cistercian abbot presented his participation in a mission against heresy as an action of devotion and a way to honor God.376 This transformative characteristic of participation in a mission reminds the reader of Bernard’s argument when he appealed to the Count of Toulouse and the people of the city to fight heresy. However, the reference to violence and armed forces brings this argument closer to the crusade propaganda.377 Henry highlights that it is not enough to be alarmed because of the presence of heresy, as was the case in Bernard’s letters, where he asked from the people of Toulouse to be alerted due to the presence of heresy, but that the secular leaders must actively persecute it. Another reason that Henry uses in order to persuade Louis VIII to cooperate in the mission is the salvific potential of such action (salutem vestram promoveat), an argument that we find in Bernard’s crusade propaganda but not in his anti-heretical

374 RB, 7; “Ergo praeparanda sunt corda et corpora nostra sanctae praeceptorum boedientiae militanda.”, 6.

375 M. Newman, The Boundaries..., 21-22.

376 Ep. 28, PL CCIV 234B- 235A

377 M. Newman, The Boundaries...,, 232

125 HENRY OF MARCY polemic.378 In his appeal to the king, Henry constructs the ideal of the temporal ruler, who shows concern not only for the secular but also for the spiritual matters assisting the

Church.379

The use of violence is legitimized through an image that is common in Henry’s letter to the pope and in Audite coeli, namely that the anti-heretical fight is an opportunity to avenge the injuries caused by heresy.380 This argument is also common in the writings for the crusade but it does not appear in the anti-heretical polemic of the two earlier Cistercian abbots.381 Hence, this is an important innovation that demonstrates how the crusade ideology permeates the anti-heretical polemic. Besides the notion of avenge, the duty to fight is linked with the emotion of grief. In the first lines of Audite coeli we read “Listen, Oh heavens, to our Lament! Let the earth feel the grief of our heart!”.382 The element of grief is well known in the sources about the crusades but was absent in Bernard’s and Geoffrey’s anti-heretical writings.383

378 Ep. 28, PL CCIV 234B. See also 234C. Penny J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270, Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America 1991, 69.

379 Ep. 28, PL CCIV 234B: “Gratias Deo super inenarrabili dono ejus, de cujus munere venit ut in terris positus de coelestibus cogiteris”.

380 Ep. 11, PL CCIV 224A: “ulciscatur injurias”; Ep. 29 PL CCIV, 240C-240C: “ut Christi ulciscantur injurias”.

381 P. J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades..., 67.

382 Moore, The Birth, 117, cf. Ep 29, PL CCIV, 235B: “Audite, coeli quod plangimus, sentiat terra gemitum cordis nostri.”.

383 P. J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades..., 67.

126 HENRY OF MARCY

As discussed in previous chapters of this study, the appeal for a universal fight against heresy, in which the secular rulers and the laity engage themselves, was common both in Bernard and in Geoffrey. This plea is also present in Henry’s writings, albeit it has a more militaristic tone, as he refers to an “army of Christ” (certamine pars Christi vincitur).384 In Audite coeli Henry makes an appeal: “Arise husbands and fathers; arise, princes of nations and leaders of peoples”.385 This struggle will certainly be victorious as people are fighting in the love of God (si in amore Christi militet pugnaturus).386 What is important for the development of the Church’s response to heresy is that the ideal of the miles Christi, which was present in Bernard of Clairvaux’s crusade polemic, is introduced in the fight against heresy. Beginning his inquiry with the Third Lateran Council, Merlo has suggested that in the last thirty years of the 12th century, the ideal of militia Christi is becoming increasingly present in the polemic against heresy. In Henry’s letter, we see how this idea has started becoming stronger earlier, at least after Henry’s first mission in 1178.

The deployment of such an ideal is another step in the process of legitimation of the persecution of heresy. However, there are two other important implications. The first is connecting to the reformulation of the relationship among the Church, the secular leaders and the laity: the Church holds the primacy and the seculars have the duty to assist it.

Moreover, we see how an important monastic value is imposed into a non monastic audience

384 R. Moore, The Birth, 117; cf. Ep. 29 PL CCIV, 235B

385 Moore, The Birth, 117, cf. Ep 29, PL CCIV, 235B: “Surgite, inquam, surgite viri Patres, duces gentium, principes popalorum.”.

386 Ep. 29 PL CCIV, 235B.

127 HENRY OF MARCY through the polemic against heresy, and laity is transformed into warriors of the Christ, with a duty to show a specific behavior (to assist and defend the Church against its enemies) and way of thinking (the defense of Church becomes a personal matter).

In Henry’s letters we observe how some crucial elements of the crusade preaching have entered the anti-heretical polemic and how violence was becoming a legitimate means against heresy. Chideock has convincingly argued that Henry recognized and “truly believed” in the “positive violence” in the sense that he propagated that violent actions aim at the defence of the Church.387 I agree with her argument that Henry was obviously in favor of a Church-authorized violence. Moreover, in Henry's letters we can follow how the relationship among the Church, the secular leaders and the laity was formulated.

Furthermore, I argue that the violence Henry propagated had also a productive dimension, it was a disciplinary practice through which the monastic ideal of miles Christi was imposed to non-monastic audiences. It was a process of internalizing specific rules to regulate behavior: the duty to show obedience to the Church and to actively fight the Church’s enemies. In the previous chapters I argued that Bernard and Geoffrey sought to impose a similar societal relation upon their audiences and construct the disciplined subject. With

Henry this process is becoming even more evident and intense by the introduction of the ideal of the warrior.

The question on the collaboration of the Church with the secular leaders is present in the Canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council: “ecclesiastical discipline... is however, aided

387 C. Chideock, “Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade”, 120

128 HENRY OF MARCY by the ordinances of Catholic princes”.388 Biget has argued that Henry’s letter, Audite coeli, where he described the mission of 1178 is connected with this canon, as the regions that he referred to were also included in the canon.389 Danica Summerlin has also pointed out that the mission of 1178 was most probably the source for this canon.390 The importance of this council, where Henry most likely played an influential role, for the development of the

Church’s reactions against heretics, has been recognized by historians: the Third Lateran

Council was crucial for the later establishment of the inquisition, the Albigensian crusade and more generally for the development of the ideology of just war.391 Rebecca Rist has suggested that even if according to the c. 27 indulgences and eternal award were promised, there was not a call for a crusade, as votive obligations and the taking of cross were not mentioned. However, contrary to Norman Housley, who has argued that the coercive elements of the canon were exclusively against the mercenaries and not the heretics, Rist has pointed out that there was a call for military action, as Alexander III had already supported the joint mission of 1178.392 Moore has argued that through the decisions of the

388 Edward Peters (ed.), Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe: Documents in Translation, London: Scolar Press 1980, 169. Josepho Alberigo– Josepho A. Dossetti– Perikle P. Joannou et al., Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, Bologna: Istituto per le scienze religiose 1973, 224: “licet ecclesiastica disciplina, sacerdotali iudiciio, cruentas effugiat ultiones, catholicorum tamen principum constitutionibus adiuvatur”.

389 J. Biget, ““Les albigeois”...”, 242.

390 Danica Summerlin, The Canons Of the Third Lateran Council of 1179, their Origins and Perceptions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2019, 60.

391 Y. Congar, “Henri de Marcy”, 27; H. Maisonneuve, Études..., 134; C. Thouzellier, Catharisme et Valdéisme..., 24; R. Moore, The Formation..., 25; The War..., 207-208; F. Russel, The Just War... , 186, 189; D. Summerlin, The Canons..., 102.

392 Rebecca Rist, “The medieval Papacy, Crusading and Heresy, 1095-1291” in: Keith Sisson.– Atria A. Larson, (eds.), A Companion to the Medieval Papacy: Growth of an Ideology and Institution, Leiden: Brill 2016, 309-332: 314-315.

129 HENRY OF MARCY

Third Lateran Council and later through the bull Ad abolendam (1184) heresy was transformed from a “general but amorphous danger into a specific and universal threat, requiring sustained disciplinary action”.393

This investigation has demonstrated that the question of the relationship between secular and spiritual authorities played a critical role in the anti-heretical writings of Bernard,

Geoffrey and Henry. The novelty in the council’s canon is the element of the remission of sins for those who join the struggle against heresy: “those who may in conflict with these heretics die in repentance, let them no doubt that they will receive the remission of their sins and the fruit of eternal reward. Trusting in the mercy of God and in the authority of the

Apostles Peter and Paul, we also grant to the faithful who take up arms against them and at the advice of the bishops or other prelates undertake to conquer them, a remission of two years’ penance”.394 In the canon 27 we see how the struggle against heresy finally acquired another essential element of the crusade propaganda, that was not present in Henry’s letters, namely the penitential character. Thus, the process of the “monasticization” of the world through the anti-heretical efforts was developed and Henry, by the influence that he extended on papal policies, was a crucial character.

The prerogative of violence, so evident in Henry’s anti-heretical polemic, has a polysemantic character. Through the legitimization of violent persecution of heresy, Henry

393 R. Moore, The War..., 208.

394 E. Peters, Heresy and Authority, 169-170; cf. Josepho Alberigo et al., Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 225: “Qui autem in vera poenitentia ibi decesserint, et peccatorum indulgentiam et fructum mercedis aeternae se non dubitent percepturos. Nos etiam de misericordia Dei et beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli auctoritate confisi, fidelibus Christianis, qui contra eos arma susceperint et ad episcoporum seu aliorum praelatorum consilium ad eos certaverint expugnandos, biennium de poenitentia iniucta relaxamus”.

130 HENRY OF MARCY draws strict borders between the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, but they have to collaborate under the aegis of the Church. Through the participation in the missions and the indulgences, laymen are transformed into crusaders and soldiers of the Church.

5.4 Fighting heresy with nonviolent means

Historians have underlined the importance of the mission of 1178 for the later establishment of the inquisition.395 Indeed, in Henry’s letters, and especially in his description of the mission in 1178 in Audite coeli, we see how it became crucial for the members of the mission to meet and “examine” the heretics in order to make them publicly confess their beliefs.

In his letter Audite coeli, Henry narrates how the members of the mission, after they had the first success with preaching activities,396 wanted to “meet these wild beasts” and

“devoted great effort and attention to having them compelled to appear in public so that we could examine them, and make them renounce in daylight the works of darkness”.397 The need that the heretics should publicly reveal their “errors” was also present in Bernard and

Geoffrey as it is discussed in the preceding chapters. However, later in passage of Audite

395 H. Maisonneuve, Études..., 133, R. Moore, The Formation..., 163.

396 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 236D: “Verum, procedente tempore, et data nobis requi diebus paucis, nuntiatum est uni de nobis verbum exhortationis assumere et regula verae fidei coram infideli multitudine disputare. Habito autem sermone orthodoxae praedicationis ad plebem, conterriti sunt in Sion peccatores, possedit tremor hypocritas”; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 119.

397 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237A: “Ex illa ergo die dominus legatus, et nos alii, qui cum feris bestiis congredi putabamus(…) studium totum convertimus et laborem, ut vel coasti prodirent in publicum, et abjicerent in luce opera tenebrarum.”; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 119.

131 HENRY OF MARCY coeli there is a description of a procedure that was not only a novelty in comparison to

Bernard and Geoffrey but also an innovation with paramount importance for the development of the Church’s anti-heretical policy and the establishment of the inquisition.

Henry continues his narration:

at the instruction of the legate and the bishop and certain of the clergy, the consuls of the city and some

other faithful men who had not been touched by any rumour of heresy were made to promise to give us

in writings the names of everyone they knew who had been or might in the future become members or

accomplices of the heresy, and to leave out nobody at all, for love or money398

This passage is important for the later development of the inquisition for many reasons.

Firstly, we see how the idea of keeping catalogues about the suspected heretics was introduced, a practice which was fundamental for the inquisitors.399 Secondly, in the above passage the anti-heretical response was broadened to include certain laymen, who would play an active role not only in fighting heresy but also in informing the authorities about possible suspects of heresy. This is a new development in comparison to Bernard’s instruction to the people of Toulouse, where it was not enough that the laity would be alerted and avoid the heretics, and to Geoffrey’s accounts in Vita prima where the knights would publicly renounce them. This procedure, that we read in Audite coeli, would be redefined and extended in the following years. Already in 1184, the pope Lucius III and the emperor

398 Moore, The Birth, 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237B: “Factum est exinde, praecipiente legato, ut juraret episcopus, et quidam de clero, et consules civitatis aliique viri fideles, quos nondum in aliquo perfidiae fama resperserat, ut quoscunque vel hactenus noverant, vel nosse eos contingeret in futuro, qui essent hujus haeresis vel complices, vel actores, eorum nobis nomina scripto depromerent, nulli penitus vel amore, vel pretio, vel cujuspiam necesitudinis ratione parcentes.”.

399 J. Given, Inquisition and Medieval Society..., 25-51.

132 HENRY OF MARCY

Frederick I (Barbarossa) issued the decretal Ad Abolendum, the foundation of inquisition, according to historians,400 which determined that:

every archbishop or bishop, by himself, or his archdeacon, or by other trustworthy and fit persons, shall

twice, or once, in the year go round any parish in which it shall have been reported that heretics reside;

and there call upon three or more persons of good credit, or, if it seems expedient, on the whole

neighborhood, to take an oath that if anyone shall know that there are heretics in the place or any persons

holding secret conventicles or differing in the life and manners from the common conversation of the

faithful, he will make it his business to point them out to the bishop or archdeacon401

Later in this development the Council of Toulouse in 1229 reaffirmed this practice.402 I will argue that the above-mentioned passage from Henry’s letters demonstrates how the

Church’s ability to penetrate the local community was strengthened by the establishment of a technique of constant monitoring of the population from inside with specific “informers” who had to report deviant behaviors. Furthermore, the duty of collaboration with the ecclesiastical authorities that was imposed on certain members of society (the consuls of the city and some other faithful men) was becoming more intense. The passage also reveals that in Henry’s ecclesiology, as it was the case with the two other Cistercian abbots, there was a clear distinction between the duties of the secular elites and those of the laity.

400 C. Thouzellier, Catharisme et valdéisme..., 26; R. Manselli, „De la ‚persuasio‘ à la ‚coercitio‘“, 185; R. Moore, The War…, 205.

401 E. Peters, Heresy and Authority, 172; Giovanni Gonnet (ed.), Enchiridion fontium valdensium: Recueil critique des sources concernant les Vaudois au Moyen Âge I, Torre Pellice: Claudiana 1958, 53: “ut quilibet archiepiscopus vel episcopus per se, vel archidiaconum, suum, aut per alias honestas idoneasque personas, bis vel semel in anno propriam parochiam, in qua fama fuerit haereticos habitare, circumeat, et ibitres vel plures boni testimonii viros, vel etiam, si expedire videbitur, totam viciniam iurare compellat, quod, si quis ibidem haereticos scierit vel aliquos occulta conventicula celebrantes, seu a communi conversatione fidelium vita et moribus dissidentes, eosepiscopo vel archidiacono studeat indicare.”.

402 J. Arnold, Confession and Power..., 35- 37.

133 HENRY OF MARCY

Equally important is that in Henry’s passage the definition of heretic was transformed to include those who might adopt heretical beliefs in the future. Arnold has argued that the delegates of the mission in 1178 were mainly interested in recording the powerful members of the city, as they asked the “informers” not to leave anyone out “for love or for money”. According to Arnold, the Church policy against heresy moved forward from dealing only with the heresiarchs to include those who were powerful enough to support and protect the heretics. It is only later that the records of the inquisitors will include whole populations regardless of the social stratum that they belong to.403 The crucial point remains, however, that in Henry’s letter, we see how the control is intensified, as the target of the anti-heretical reaction is expanded to include not only heretics, their supporters and their protectors but also those who might become heretics in the future. This exhaustive monitoring aimed at the elimination of heresy in the area. However, it could also function as an indirect way of shaping behaviors of those who were under constant control. Moreover, the people under exhaustive control could internalize the specific norms of proper conduct, and thus this control could lead to self-disciplining and regulating of their own behavior and activities.404

In his description of the mission Henry noted that “a very large number of names had entered this catalogue”405 Moore has argued that this success might not only be for religious

403 J. Arnold, Confession and Power..., 32.

404 At this point, the analysis owes debt to M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 149- 156.

405 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237A: “Cumque per dies singulos innumera multitudo in catalogum illius conscriptionis incederet”.

134 HENRY OF MARCY reasons but must be seen into the framework of the rapid economic expansion of the city that created rivalries and the conflict against Count Raymond.406 The members of the mission decided to start the examination procedure with the “great Peter Maurand” (magnus ille Petrus Moranus), a “wealthy and well connected, great even among the ten greatest men of the city, whom the devil had so blinded with sin that he said he was St John the

Evangelist… a layman and uneducated”, as Henry portrayed him.407 The fact that Peter

Maurand was prominent and powerful is demonstrated by Henry’s explanation that “we decided to begin our investigation with him, so that the rest of the heretics would be frightened”408. His examination could function as an example for those who challenged the

Church by their beliefs. Peter’s social position is also indicated by his refusal to appear in front of the delegation, as he was “trusting his riches and his relations”.409 However, he was persuaded by “threats as well as arguments” and he was brought to the delegation.410 Even if he denied the accusations, that he was a heretic, that he“fallen into the Arian heresy (…)

406 R. Moore, The War..., 193.

407 R. Moore, The Birth..., 118; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 236B-236C: “rebus locuples, ornatus fratribus, et amicis, et magnus homo inter maximos civitatis: quem ita, peccatis exigentibus, diabolus excaecarat, ut seipsum Joannem evangelistam diceret,(...) licet tanquam laicus idiota” . For more information about Peter Maurand’s and his family’s status in the political context in Toulouse as well as the document of Maurand’s abjuration, see John Hine Mundy, “The Abjuration of Peter Maurandus” in id., Studies in the Ecclesiastical and Social History of Toulouse in the Age of the Cathars, Aldershot: Ashgate 2006, 161-167. Peter Maurand’s role is also discussed in Moore, The War, 192-194.

408 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237B-C: “Super quo nos omnes, communicato consilio, decrevimus ab illo inchoare judicium, ut turba in reliquis perfida contremisceret, cum falsi evangelistae versutiam veri evangelii simplicitas condemnasset.”.

409 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237C: “Sed ille in multitudine divitiarum suarum et parentum numerositate confidens”.

410 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237C: “mistis cum terrore blanditiis”.

135 HENRY OF MARCY leading by others and leading others”,he declined to take an oath.411 According to Henry’s passage, as Peter eventually agreed to take an oath, being afraid that his denial would be a proof of his heretical beliefs, “the relics of the saints were soon respectfully brought in”.412

Henry continues his description:

“During the chant which we sang (…) manifest fear and paleness overcame Peter, and colour of face

and courage of mind alike forsook him. When the Holy Ghost approached how could any spirit remain

among its enemies? You could see him shaken as though by some paralytic disease, and deprived of

speech and sense, though everyone said that he was so eloquent that he usually overcame all others in

argument… The wretched man swore to all those around him that he would truthfully explain his

beliefs….”413

According to Henry, in the confession of Peter Maurand the divine intervention continued:

“Then an extraordinary thing happened, which gave great pleasure to the pious who were present. A

book had brought in, on which Peter had taken his oath, and when one of the clerks present sought a

forecast of what would happen by seeing what passage he opened it at, this text from the scripture turned

up: “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before time?”

411 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237D-238A:” In Arianae haeresis deveneris pravitatem; imo per multiplicium errorum versutias et ducas ipse alios, et ab aliis deducaris.”.

412 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 237D: “Mox igitur sanctorum reliquiae honorabiliter efferuntur”.

413 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 238A: “Ipsum vero Petrum in cantu (...) profusis lacrymis cantabamus, tremor evidens et pallor operuit; ita ut ab eo color multus aufugeret, et virtus animi deperiret. Quomodo enim, adveniente Spiritu sancto, in adversariis ejus spiritus remaneret? Cernere erat hominem quasi morbo paralysi dissolutum, nec loquelam retinuisse, nec sensum, quamvis tantae facundiae fuisse diceretur ad omnibus, quod omnes in dicendo solitus sit superare (...) Jurat infelix astantibus universis quod de omnibus fidei articuliss, quos requireremus ab eo, suae credulitatis exprimeret veritatem”.

136 HENRY OF MARCY

(Mt 8:29)... Instead, contrary to his own decision to lie about everything, he [Peter] betrayed the truth

of his own falsity”414

Moore has pointed out that this episode was indeed extraordinary, as such an act could be received as “improper and superstitious” but it can be explained as a way to put more pressure on Peter in order to confess his beliefs or to please the crowd.415 I argue that the elements of miracle and divine intervention that appear in the examination of Peter Maurand indicate that Henry’s monastic background as the passade have similarities with Geoffrey’s description in Sermon 18 of On the Apocalypse, where the two heresiarchs “struck in sorrow” converted “with tears” (cum multis lacrimis) after listening to Henry's preaching.

The two descriptions of the confessions that appear in the writings of the Cistercian abbots resemble the instruction of giving confession in the Rule of Benedict: “confess past sin to

God in prayer daily, with tears and sighing” (emphasis mine).416 In this episode in Audite coeli, as well as in Geoffrey’s, the confession has a strong transformative character and this transformation affects both the body and the mind. Peter was internalizing the need to demonstrate discipline to his confessors in the same way as the monks in the monastery.417

The result of this confession was not only Peter Maurand’s transformation. Henry describes

414 R. Moore, The Birth..., 119-120; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 238A-238B: “Res mira, et in tali spectaculo pia jucunditate gratissima!. Allatus est liber, in quo juraverat, et uno de circumstantibus religioso quodam loco occurrentis litterae praenosticum perquirente, illius Scripturae textus occurrit: ”Quid tibi et nobis, Jesu, Fili Dei? Venisti ante tempus perdere nos?(...) sed contra id quod de omnibus mentiri decreverat, falsitatis suae prodidit veritatem”.

415 R. Moore, The War..., 194-195.

416 BR 35; cf. 34: “mala sua praeterita cum lacrimis vel gemitu cottidiae in oratione Deo confiteri”.

417 M. Foucault, Wrong- Doing, Truth-Telling..., 128-129

137 HENRY OF MARCY how the whole city was renewed again and its face “grew brighter” (ut universa urbis facies laetior videretur).418

The passage on Peter Maurand’s examination and confession is quite different from the Peter of St Chyrsogonus’s account on the examination of the two heretics, Raymond de

Bauniaco and Bernard Raymond, that took place during the same mission (in 1178).

According to Peter’s account, the two heretics met Reginald, bishop of Bath, the vicomte

Touraine and Raymold de Neufchatel (who all participated in the mission), who were on their way to Albi, in order to free the bishop of the city.419 The two heretics complained that they were treated unjustly by the count of Toulouse and therefore they wanted to return safely to the city, albeit they had been excommunicated, in order to defend their beliefs.420

The bishop and the vicomte agreed that Raymond de Bauniaco and Bernard Raymond would be examined for their beliefs and they could safely leave regardless of the result of the examination.421 During their public examination, the two heretics insisted on their claim that their beliefs were orthodox.422 However, as Peter narrates, when they confessed publicly again, the people that were present, among them the count of Toulouse, reacted strongly as they had heard and had seen them preaching heretical beliefs. The members of the delegation asked Raymond de Bauniaco and Bernard Raymond to take an oath in order to demonstrate

418 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 238B; cf R. Moore, The Birth..., 120

419 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 1119C- 1121B; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 113;

420 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 1121B-1121C; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 113- 114.

421 PL, CXCIX, 1121A-1121B; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 113-114.

422 PL, CXCIX, 1122A-1122D; cf. R. Moore, The Birth..., 114-115.

138 HENRY OF MARCY the truth of their confession. The two heretics refused persistently and at the end they were declared excommunicated. In the account of Peter of Chrysogonus, the presence of the people, who can testify that Raymond de Bauniaco and Bernard Raymond hold heretical beliefs is much more important than in Henry’s writings. Twice in Peter’s text the testimony of the participants led the delegation to reject the heretics’ confession as sincere.423 On the other hand, the element of divine intervention, which is strong in the polemic of the

Cistercian abbots, is absent.

To return to Henry’s letter, Peter Maurand, after he confessed and was put into custody, “came to his senses, and was moved to repentance by the Lord who looked down on him, for he realised that he deserved death both in this life and the next”.424 Hence, Peter, as he understood the severity of his transgressions, sought voluntarily for a way to demonstrate his repentance and conversion. After he appeared naked in front of the people of Toulouse, he confessed again and then by giving an oath he abjurated his beliefs and he swore to the count and the people of Toulouse that he would submit himself to the legate of the mission.425 So, the next day, as Henry wrote, the abjuration of Peter Maurand took place:

423 PL, CXCIX, 1122D: Illis vero respondentibus, sic se ita credere, et nihilominus negantibus, se unquam aliter pradicasse, nobilis vir comes Tolosanus, et multi alii clerici et laici, qui eos audierant aliter praedicants, vehementer admiratione commoti, et Christianae fidei zelo succensi surrexerunt, et eos plane in caput suum mentitos fuisse manifestius convicerunt; PL, CXCIX, 1123D: Cum autem a multis et sufficientibus testibus fuissent convicti, et adhuc multi ad ferendum contra eos testimonium praepararent. For translation in English, see R. Moore, The Birth..., 115-116.

424 R. Moore, The Birth..., 120; Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 238D: “Datur comiti reus,et haereticus judicatus, statimque sub diligenti pollicitatione parentum custodiae publicae mancipatur (...) Petrus ad se reversus, Domino respiciente, compunctus, cum se dignum penitus tam praesenti morte cerneret quam futura”.

425 Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 238D-239A; cf.R. Moore, The Birth..., 120.

139 HENRY OF MARCY

Before the enormous crowd Peter, now our man, was led naked and barefoot from the doorway of the

church, being scourged by the bishop of Toulouse and the abbot of St Sermin until he prostrated himself

at the feet of the lord legate on the steps of the altar. There, in face of the church, he abjured all heresy

and pronounced a curse on all heretics and was reconciled with the sacraments of the Church. All his

possessions were confiscated and taken from him, and the penance was laid on him that should depart

as an exile from his native land within forty days, and spend three years in Jerusalem in the service of

the poor. In the meantime he was to go round every church in Toulouse on each Lord’s day, naked and

barefoot with disciplinary scourges, to restore all the goods which he had taken from churches, to return

all interest which he had won by usury, to make amends for all the injuries that he had inflicted on the

poor, and to rase to its foundations one of his castles which he had polluted with meetings of heretics426

The above passage about Peter Maurand’s abjuration and penance demonstrates the important position that Henry of Marcy and the mission of 1178 hold in the trajectory to the establishment of the inquisition. The obligation that was imposed on Peter Maurand to spend three years in Jerusalem is reminiscent of the duty of taking part in a crusade. It was also a precedent of similar sentences of the later inquisitors, such as the sentences given by the inquisitor Pierre Selha after 1240, as Andrew Roach has pointed out.427 Moreover, the obligation to tear down one of his castles became a more widespread practice with the

426 Moore, The Birth, 121; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV 239B- 239C: “Et ecce, coram illa multitudine multa minis , Petrus ille jam noster per ipsas ecclesiae valvas nudus et discalceatus adducitur, caedentibus eum hinc inde episcopo Tolosano, et abbate Sancti Saturnini, donec ad pedes legati in ipsis altaris gradibus se prosterneret. Ibi in facie Ecclesiae ecclesiasticis reconciliatus est sacramentis; abjurata omni haeresi, et haereticis anathematizatis ab eo. Mox autem possessionibus ejus publicatis universaliter et proscriptis, poenitentia illi talis injungitur, quod infra quadraginta dies a patria sua exsulanturus abscederet, in servitio pauprum Hierosalymis triennio moraturus. Interim vero singulis diebus Dominicis ecclesias Tolosanae urbis nudus et discalceatus cum disciplinalibus virgis jussus est circuire, ecclesiarum bona quae abstulerat reddere, usuras omnes quas acceperat restituere, damna pauperum quos afflixerat resarcire, et castrum quoddam suum, quod haereticorum conventiculis profanarat, ab ipsis fundamentis evertere.”.

427 Andrew Roach, “Penance and the Making of the Inquisition in Languedoc”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52/3, 2001, 409-33: 418.

140 HENRY OF MARCY council of Toulouse in 1229, where it was determined that the houses where heretics would be found should be destroyed.428

Peter Maurand’s abjuration and public penance have been placed by scholars within the framework of the local controversies in Toulouse: being a prominent citizen, Peter must have also made enemies, who wished for his elimination.429 However, building upon the insights of historiography, which has discussed how penance could be a punitive or preventative measure against heresy or a means of imposing obedience on the penitents, I argue that this episode had also other implications.430 The public character of the penance and especially the humiliation of the penitent show that this form of punishment had also a communicative dimension, as the Church could publicly reestablish its authority, which was challenged by the heretic. and to reimpose the orthodox identity to the audience.

In Henry’s narration, violence appears again with the form of the force that was inflicted on Peter’s body. This force, apart from punishment, was a form of ritualized violence, authorized and applied by the Church, which had multiple functions. Firstly, it was a way of social communication, under which a very specific message was disseminated: heresy is a danger and only the Church can assure salvation. Moreover, this kind of violence could function a means of production of a specific subject : the effects of violence into Peter

Maurand’s body disciplines him and transforms in the same manner as the monks in the

428 E. Peters, Heresy and Authority..., 194.

429 R. Moore, The War...; 192-198; The First European Revolution...,164; J. Biget, ““Les Albigeois”...”, 240- 242.

430 Roach, “Penance and the Making”, 433; Mary Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance in Thirteenth century France, New York: Cornell University Press 1995, 20-34; Pawel Kras, “Public Penance of Heretics: Its Forms and Functions”, Roczniki Humanistyczne, vol 66, issue 2, 2018, 57-77

141 HENRY OF MARCY monasteries.431 By being naked, prostrated in front of the ecclesiastical authority and scourged, Peter seems to embrace the virtue of humility, which plays a crucial role in the monastic life. Lastly, the obligation to give up his fortune, to tear down his castle and to restore the damages that he inflicted both on the church and on the people shows how the

Church was interested in controlling every aspect of human life, an aspect of the anti- heretical struggle that was present in Bernard’s polemic as well. At the same time, we see how the ideal of poverty and the service to others was imposed to Peter through penance.

He has to undergo a process in order to demonstrate his conversion, the penance symbolizes a spiritual progress, he is transformed to a new man.

After Peter Maurand’s abjuration was completed, Henry informed that the legation wished to continue with the examination of other suspects, who were known “either through public suspicion or private accusation”432 Thus we see how the anti-heretical fight was broadened to include more as the list of suspects became extended. The deployment of such a technique had crucial consequences. Moore has argued how the scope of the law was extended to include new offences that had to do with the general “public good” and not with personal injuries. Moreover, this procedure opened the way for the massive denunciations of heretics, that found place in the following centuries, since the laymen had to denounce

431 Talal Asad, “Pain and Truth in Medieval Christian Ritual”, in: id., Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam, Baltimore – London: The John Hopskins University Press 1993, 83-123: 105-115. For an excellent inquiry on the role of penance in the monastic environment see also Katherine Allan Smith, “Discipline, Compassion and monastic Ideals of Community, c.950-1250”, Journal of medieval History, 35/4, 2012, 326-339.

432 R. Moore, The Birth..., 121; cf. Ep. 24, PL CCIV, 239C: “Post haec illo dimisso, dominus legatus as alios manus misit, examinaturus utique illos, quos in magno numero vel suspicio publica, vel accusatio privata notaverat.”.

142 HENRY OF MARCY and not to accuse, and thus they did not risk a punishment in case of a false accusation.433

This description demonstrates how important Henry of Clairvaux and the mission of 1178 for the development of the Church’s policies.

5.5 Conclusion

Henry of Marcy was a Cistercian abbot, who became engaged in the Church’s anti- heretical fight in the crucial years of the last half of the 12th century. Unlike his predecessors,

Bernard of Clairvaux and Geoffrey of Auxerre, became a bishop and later a papal legate.

From these positions and in accordance with the Bernardine ideal for the bishops, he fought actively against heresy and shaped the Church’s anti heretical policy.

The importance of Henry’s writings and actions for the later development of the

Church’s response to heresy has been paramount, especially when it comes to the legitimation of the use of violence against heretics and the establishment of the inquisition.

In his polemic elements of the crusade propaganda such as violence, the transformative character of the endeavors, the revenge for injuries and grief over the disasters that are caused by the enemies of the Church, enter the anti-heretical polemic. At the same time,

Henry’s polemic allows us to examine aspects of his ecclesiology. In Henry’s writings, in a similar manner as with Bernard and Geoffrey, we see how the model of the collaboration between t the ecclesiastical and secular authorities. He propagates the use of controlled force under the aegis of the Church. The social model according to which the different societal groups have their own strictly distinguished function and the Church is on the top of the

433 Moore, The War..., 206.

143 HENRY OF MARCY pyramid is not just expressed but also imposed through Henry’s plea for the violent persecution of heresy.

The inquiry of Henry’s polemic revealed how the use of violence as well as Peter

Maurand’s confession and public penance operated as disciplinary practices through which the monastic values of obedience and humility as well as the ideal of the fighting monk and of the spiritual progress could be diffused beyond the monastic walls and imposed on

Henry’s audiences.

144 CONCLUSION

6 Conclusion

The question of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement in the twelfth century has been a topic that has attracted the attention of modern historiography. Historians have sought to locate this engagement in the wider development of the anti-heretical fight and in the overall framework of social and political changes that took place at the same time. In a different manner, historians have linked this engagement to the Cistercian understanding of their duty to defend the unity of the Church and to protect the Christian flock. However, the need to bridge the gap between the socio-political and religious elements of the Cistercian repression of heresy remains. What was the specific Cistercian ecclesiology that we detect in their anti-heretical writings and how did their efforts against heresy enable them to materialize this ecclesiology outside their monastic environment? These were the two main questions that have been addressed throughout this thesis. The departure point of this inquiry has been the connection between the Cistercian anti-heretical actions and writings and the

Cistercian concept of ministry, the obligation that churchmen had to defend and protect the

Christians but also to direct and govern them. In this framework, I have analysed the various means against heresy which were propagated in the writings of three Cistercian abbots,

Bernard of Clairvaux, Geoffrey of Auxerre and Henry of Marcy in order to find how they function in relation to the duty of the Churchmen to govern their Christian flock.

The analysis has demonstrated that Bernard’s, Geoffrey’s and Henry’s writings had a double, informative and formative, dimension. When it comes to the informative aspect the inquiry on the means against heresy has sharpened our understanding on how the

Cistercian abbots envisioned the ideal Christian society as a unity, in which all societal

145 CONCLUSION groups actively and harmoniously participated in its defence. By communicating the prerogative of violence, Bernard, Geoffrey and Henry reflected the ideals of the Gregorian reform and constructed a vision of society in which the boundaries between the churchmen, the secular elites and the laity were clearly marked and aligned to specific modes of conduct.

Bernard’s disapproval of the mob violence against heresy was not a proof of his pacifistic and tolerant attitude but merely an expression of his worldview, that the secular leaders under the instruction of the Church had the right to persecute. The absence of violence against heresy in Geoffrey’s sermons to his monastic audience can be understood as an instruction to his audience that the clergy should not use force. In Henry’s letters, violence against heresy attained legitimacy and elements of the crusade propaganda entered the anti- heretical polemic. Henry, unlike Bernard and Geoffrey, was appointed bishop and papal legate and, as I have argued, his attitude towards violence should be seen in relation to

Bernard’s writing on the duties of bishops. Furthermore, in his letter to pope Alexander III, by utilizing a well-known image that also appeared in Bernard’s writing, the symbol of the two swords, Henry formulated the relation between the Church and the secular leaders. It is a relationship of collaboration of two unequal partners, as the Church had the supremacy and the temporal rulers the duty to assist. In his letter to the king of France, Henry shaped the ideal of the Christian rule.

Preaching as well the control of everyday life had a double function. They were means against heresy but also through them clear lines among churchmen, temporal rulers and the laity were reformulated. The idea that heresy could be combated by preaching is common in the works of three Cistercian abbots. In Geoffrey’s accounts in the Vita prima and his sermons On the Apocalypse we have followed how the triumphs of Bernard’s and

146 CONCLUSION

Henry’s preaching activities were implemented to prove that the Church held the right to preach. In Bernard’s sermons the cohabitation of men and women who claimed that they live chastely together should not be tolerated, as it produced hybridity between lay and monastic status. The abbot of Clairvaux responded that women and men who had taken the vow of chastity should live separately in monasteries.

Building on insights from Talal Asad’s work, this thesis has looked at the means against heretics as disciplinary practices through which certain worldviews were imposed on society. The analysis has shown there was a common internal logic behind the means against heresy that Bernard, Geoffrey and Henry propagated. Through these means monastic values such as obedience and humility, and ideals such as spiritual progression, transformation and spiritual fight as well as the relation between the abbot and monks could be imposed on audiences outside the monastic environment The three Cistercian abbots expressed the need that the heretics reveal their heretical beliefs during public declarations, confessions and debates. Bernard connected this confession with the issue of obedience, as the heretics should obey the Scripture and reveal their ideas. Confession was also linked to the abbot-monk relation, as confession should be made to those able of spiritual guidance, because of their ecclesiastical status. There was a strong connection between the exclusion of the heretics and duty to obey the Scripture and defend the Church. The dramatic narrations of cases of confession in Geoffrey’s and Henry’s writings echoed the instruction of the Rule of Benedict. During their confession Raymond de Bauniaco and Bernard Raymond (in

Geoffrey’s sermon) and Peter Maurand (in Henry’s letter) underwent a transformation. The sincere revealing and denunciation of their heretical beliefs was a step in their spiritual progress. The penance and the ritual flagellation of Peter Maurand connected the fight

147 CONCLUSION against heresy with the value of humility. The public character of these episodes indicated that these means were not targeted only at the heretics but were meant as collective experiences. Likewise, the prerogative of violence was a means to impose particular monastic values. My analysis has concluded that Bernard, Geoffrey and Henry were not by definition against or in favour of violent persecution of heretics. It was mostly a question of the right intentions and appropriate circumstances. For Bernard and Geoffrey physical violence was linked to the issue of obedience to the hierarchical structure of society. In

Henry’s letters violence had a transformative character and was connected to spiritual progress by deploying elements from the crusade propaganda, such as the symbol of militia

Christi, an image with monastic origins. Hence, the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement is closely connected to the wider process of monasticization of the world beyond the walls of the monastery, as it enabled the Cistercian abbots to impose the monastic values to non- monastic audiences.

My analysis of the sources in close dialogue with the work of Michel Foucault has led to the final conclusion of this thesis concerning the political dimension of the Cistercian anti-heretical engagement. In order to understand this dimension, I have argued that we ought to view this engagement in relation to the Cistercian understanding of ministry, the duty of the churchmen to guide and govern the Christian flock. The role of the means against heresy was meant to regulate behaviours, to shape the conduct and to construct subjects in such a way that they would not resist being governed. Through the obligation to confess the inner and sincere beliefs, to be alerted over the presence of religious deviants and to actively fight the heretics, the Christians could internalize a set of values and self-regulate their

148 CONCLUSION behaviours. The Cistercian anti-heretical engagement was an expression and at the same time the fulfillment of the duty to govern.

149

7 Bibliography

7.1 Primary sources

- Alberigo, Josepho– Josepho A. Dossetti– Perikle P. Joannou et al., Conciliorum

oecumenicorum decreta, Bologna: Istituto per le scienze religiose 1973.

- The Rule of Saint Benedict, Bruce L. Benarde (ed. and trans.), Cambridge,

Massachusetts– London, England: Harvard University Press 2011.

- Gervase of Canterbury, The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury: The

Chronicle of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I by Gervace, the Monk of

Canterbury, W. Stubbs (ed.), RS, 73, London 1879.

- Gonnet, Giovanni (ed.), Enchiridion fontium valdensium: Recueil critique des

sources concernant les Vaudois au Moyen Âge I, Torre Pellice: Claudiana 1958.

- Gastaldelli, Ferruccio (ed.), Goffredo di Auxerre: Super Apocalypsim, Temi e Testi,

Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1970.

- Mansi, Gian Domenico (ed.), Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio…

XXII, Venetiis: Antonius Zatta, 1778.

- Migne, J. P., (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus, Paris 1841-1864.

- Sancti Bernardi Opera II, Jean Leclercq – Charles H. Talbot – Henri Rochais (eds.),

Roma: Editiones Cisterciences 1958.

- Sancti Bernardi Opera III, Jean Leclercq – Charles H. Talbot – Henri Rochais (eds.),

Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1963.

- Sancti Bernardi Opera VII, Jean Leclercq – Charles H. Talbot – Henri Rochais

(eds.), Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1974.

151

- SBOp VIII: Bernard of Clairvaux, Sancti Bernardi Opera VIII, Jean Leclercq –

Charles H. Talbot – Henri Rochais (eds.), Romae: Editiones Cistercienses 1977.

152

7.2 Secondary sources

- Althoff, Gerd, Selig sind, die Verfolgung ausüben“. Päpste und Gewalt im

Hochmittelalter, Stuttgart: Theiss 2013.

- Arendt, Hannah, On Violence, San Diego- New York: Harcourt 1970.

- Arnold, John, Inquisition and Power: Catharism and the Confessing

Subject in Medieval Languedoc, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press 2001.

- Arnold, John, “Repression and Power”, in: M. Rubin – W. Simons (eds.),

Christianity in Western Europe, 1100- 1500, Cambridge History of

Christianity, vol. 4, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 335 -

371.

- Asad, Talal, “Medieval Heresy: An Anthropological View”, Social

History 11/3, 1986, 345-362.

- Asad, Talal, “On Discipline and Humility in Medieval Christian Monasticism”, in:

id., Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and

Islam, Baltimore – London: The John Hopskins University Press 1993, 125-167.

- Barbezat, Michael, Burning Bodies: Communities, Eschatology, and the Punishment

of Heresy in the Middle Ages, Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2018.

- Barstow, Anne Llewellyn, Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: The

Eleventh- Century Debates, New York: Edwin Mellen 1982.

153

- Bernard of Clairvaux, The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Bruno Scott James (

trans.), London: Burns Oates 1953.

- Bernard of Clairvaux, Book on Precept and Dispensation, trans. Conrad Greenia in:

Basil Pennington (ed.), The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux: Treatises I, Spencer,

Mass.: Cistercian Publications 1970, 105-150.

- Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration: Advice to a Pope, John

Anderson – Elisabeth Kennan (trans.), Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications

1976.

- Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons On the Song of Songs III, Kilian Walsh – Irene M.

Edmonds (trans.), Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1979.

- Bernard of Clairvaux, On Baptism and the Office of Bishops, Pauline Matarasso

(trans.), Cistercian Publications: Kalamazoo, Michigan 2004.

- Beaudette, Paul, “’In the World but not of It’: Clerical Celibacy as a Symbol of the

Medieval Church”, in: Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays

on Medieval Clerical Celibacy and Religious Reform, New York – London: Garland

1998, 23-46.

- Biget, Jean- Louis, "Les Albigeois: Remarques Sur une Dénomination”

in: Monique Zerner (ed.), Inventer l’ Hérésie? Discours Polémique et

Pouvoirs avant l’ Inquisition, Nice: Centre d’Études Médiévales 1998,

219-255.

154

- Biller, Peter, “Confession in the Middle Ages: Introduction”, in: Peter Biller –

Alastair Minnis (eds.), Handling Sin: Confession in the Middle Ages, York: York

Medieval Press 1988, 1-35.

- Blumenthal, Uta-Renate, “Pope Gregory VII and the Prohibition of Nicolaitism”, in:

Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval Purity and Piety: Essays on Medieval Clerical

Celibacy and Religious Reform, New York – London: Garland 1998, 239-267.

- Bollermann, Kare– Izbicki, Thomas M.– Nederman, Cary J., (eds),

“Introduction” in: id., Religion, Power and Resistance from the Eleventh

to the Sixteen Centuries: Playing the Heresy Card, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan 2014, 1-9.

- Bourdieu, Pierre, “Symbolic Power”, Critique of Anthropology 4/13-14, 1979, 77-

85.

- Bourdieu, Pierre, The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1990.

- Bourdieu, Pierre, “Symbolic Capital and Social Classes (introduction, translation

and notes by Loic Wacquant)”, Journal of Classical Sociology 13/2, 2013, 292-302.

- Bredero, Adriaan H., “The Canonization of Bernard of Clairvaux” in: M. Basil

Pennington (ed.), Saint Bernard of Clairvaux: Studies Commemorating the Eight

Centenary of his Canonization, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications 1977, 86-

91.

- Bredero, Adriaan, Bernard of Clairvaux: Between Cult and History, Grand Rapids,

MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1996.

- Brown, Warren, Violence in Medieval Europe, Harlow: Longman 2011.

155

- Brundage, James, “St Bernard and the Jurists,” in: Michael Gevers, (ed.), The Second

Crusade and the Cistercians, New York : St. Martin's Press 1992, 25-33.

- Brunn, Uwe, Des contestataires aux “cathares”: Discours de réforme et

propagande antihérétique dans les pays du Rhin et de la Meuse avant l’Inquisition,

Paris: Institut d’études augustiniennes 2006.

- Burton, Janet – Kerr Julie, The Cistercians in the Middle Ages, Woodbridge: Boydell

Press 2011.

- Bruun, Mette Birkedal, “ Introduction”, in: id. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to

the Cistercian Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012, 1-25.

- Buc, Philippe, “Vox clamantis in deserto? Pierre le Chantre et la prédication laïque”,

Revue Mabillon 4, 1993, 5-47.

- Böckmann, Aquinata, A Listening Community: A Commentary on the Prologue and

Chapters 1-3 of the Rule of St. Benedict, Minnesota: Liturgical Press 2015.

- Caldwell Ames, Christine, “Does the Inquisition Belong to Religious History?”, The

American Historical Review 110/1, 2005, 11-37.

- Caldwell Ames, Christine, Righteous Persecution: Inquisition,

Dominicans and Christianity in the Middle Ages, Philadelphia: University

of Pennsylvania Press 2009.

- Caldwell Ames, Christine, Medieval Heresies: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,

New York: Cambridge University Press 2015.

- Caldwell Ames, Christine, “Christian Violence against Heretics, Jews and Muslims”,

in: Matthew Gordon –Richard Kaeuper– Harriet Zurndorfer (eds.), The Cambridge

156

World History of Violence, Volume 2, AD 500- AD 1500, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press 2020, 470-491.

- Casey, Michael, “Towards a Methodology for the Vita Prima: Translating The First

Life into Biography”’, in: John R. Sommerfeldt (ed.), Bernardus Magister: Papers

Presented at the Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Bernard of Clairvaux,

Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, and Cïteaux 1992, 55-70.

- Chideock, Cassandra (ed), “Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade, 1177-1189”

[manuscript of a Ph.D. thesis], Cambridge: Cambridge University 2001

(Unpublished and unavailable online).

- Chapman, Alice, “Disentangling Potestas in the Works of St. Bernard of

Clairvaux”, Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 60/3, 2004, 587-600.

- Chapman, Alice, Sacred Authority and Temporal Power in the writings

of Bernard of Clairvaux, Brepols: Turnhout 2013.

- Chodorow, Stanley, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-

Twelfth Century: the Ecclesiology of Gratian’s Decretum, Berkely- Los Angeles-

London: University of California Press 1972.

- Clarke, Peter, “The Medieval Clergy and Violence: a historiographical

introduction”, in: Gerhard Jaritz (ed.), Violence and the Medieval Clergy, Budapest:

Central European University Press 2011, 3-16.

- Cole, Penny J., The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270,

Cambridge, Mass.: Medieval Academy of America 1991.

157

- Connell, Charles W., Popular Opinion in the Middle Ages: Challenging Public Ideas

and Attitudes, Berlin: De Gruyter 2016.

- Constable, Giles, “The Orders of Society”, in: id., Three Studies in Medieval

Religious and Social Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995, 249-

360.

- Constable, Giles, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press 1996.

- Costello, Hilary, “Introduction” in: The First Life of Bernard of Clairvaux, Hilary

Costello (trans), Cistercian Publications: Ohio 2015, ix-xxxix.

- da Milano, Ilarino, „La ’Manifestatio heresis catarorum quam fecit Bonacursus’

secondo il cod. Ottob. lat. 136 della Biblioteca Vaticana“, Aevum 12, 1938, 281-333.

- Dalarun, Jacques– Annie Dufour– Anne Grondeux –Denis Muzerelle –Fabio Zinelli,

“La ’Charte de Niquinta’, analyse formelle”, in: Monique Zerner (ed.), L’histoire du

catharisme en discussion: Le “concile” de Saint-Félix (1167), Nice: Centre d’Études

Médiévales – Université de Nice – Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

2001, 135-201.

- deAngelis, Peter, “The Logic of Violence: Foucault on How the Violence Kills” in:

Christopher Yates – Nathan Eckstrand (eds.), Philosophy and the Return of Violence:

Studies from this Widening Gyre, New York: The Continuum 2011, 171-188.

- Dinzelbacher, Peter, “Gruppensex im Untergrund: Chaotische Ketzer und kirchliche

Keuscheit im Mittelater”, in: Albrecht Classen (ed.), Sexuality in the Middle Ages

and Early Modern Times: New Approaches to a Fundamental Cultural-Historical

and Literary-Anthropological Theme, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2008, 405-427.

158

- Dondaine, Antoine, „Aux origines du valdéisme: Une profession de foi de Valdès“,

Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 16, 1946, 191-235.

- Dutton, Marsha, ”A Case for Canonization: The Argument of Vita Prima Sancti

Bernardi”, Cistercian Studies Quarterly 52.2, 2017, 131-160.

- Edermann, Carl, The Origins of the Idea of the Crusade, Marshall W.Baldwin and

Walter Goffart (trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Press 1977.

- Evans, Gillian Rosemary, The Mind of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Oxford:

Clarendon 1985.

- Evans, Gillian Rosemary Bernard of Clairvaux, Oxford: Oxford University Press

2000.

- Foucault, Michel, “Two Lectures”, in: Colin Gordon (ed.)., Power/Knowledge:

Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, New York: Pantheon Books

1980, 78-108.

- Foucault, Michel, “The Subject and Power”, Critical Inquiry 8/4, 1982, 777-795.

- Foucault, Michel, “Technologies of the Self”, in: Luther Martin– Huch Gutman–

Patrick Hutton (eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault,

London: Tavistock 1988, 16-49.

- Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, the Birth of Prison, Alan Sheridan (trans.),

New York: Vintage 1995.

- Foucault, Michel, “Rituals of Exclusion”, in: id., Foucault Live:

Collected Interviews, 1961-1984, Sylvère Lotringer (ed.), New York:

Semiotext[e] 21996 [1st ed. 1989], 68-73.

159

- Foucault, Michel, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collége de France,

1975-1976, trans. D. Macey, New York: Picador 2003.

- Foucault, Michel, Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France, 1974-1975, ed.

Valerio Marchetti – Antonella Salomoni (trans.), London: Verso 2003

- Foucault, Michel, Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1973-1974,

ed. Jacques Lagrange, Graham Burchell (trans.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan

2004.

- Foucault, Michel, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de

France, 1977-1978, Michel Senellart (ed.), Graham Burchell (trans.), New York:

Palgrave 2007.

- Foucault, Michel, Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2014.

- Foucault, Michel, About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self: Lectures at

Dartmouth College 1980, Graham Burchell (trans.), Chicago – London: The

University of Chicago Press 2016.

- Frassetto, Michael, “Precursors to Religious Inquisitions: Anti-heretical

Efforts to 1184”, in: Donald Prudlo (ed.), A Companion to Heresy

Inquisitions, Leiden: Brill 2019, 41- 72.

- Gastaldelli, Ferruccio (ed.), Goffredo di Auxerre, Super Apocalypsim, Roma:

Edizioni di storia e letteratura 1970

- Gastaldelli, Ferruccio, “Le più antiche testimonianze biografiche su san Bernardo.

Studio storico-critico sui ’Fragmenta Gaufridi’”, Analecta Cisterciensia 45, 1989, 3-

80.

160

- Gastaldelli, Ferruccio, Studi su San Bernardo e Goffredo di Auxerre, Firenze: Sismel

Edizioni del Galluzzo 2001.

- Geoffrey of Auxerre, On the Apocalypse, Joseph Gibbons (trans.), Kalamazoo,

Michigan: Cistercian Publications 2000.

- Gevers, Michael, (ed.), The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York : St.

Martin's Press 1992.

- Given, James, Inquisition and Medieval Society: Power, Resistance in

Languedoc, Ithaca- London: Cornell University Press 1997.

- Goez, Elke, “... erit communis et nobis- Verstetigung des Vergänglichen. Zur

Perpetuierung des Charismas Bernhards von Clairvaux im Zisterzienserorden”, in:

Giancarlo Andenna –Mirko Breitenstein– Gert Melville (eds.), Charisma und

religiöse Gemeinschaften im Mittelalter, Münster: LIT Verlag 2005, 173:215.

- Gordon, Colin “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction”, in: The

Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Graham Burchel – Colin

Gordon– Peter Miller, (eds.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

1991.

- Grabois, Aryeh, “Militia and Malitia: The Bernardine Vision of Chivalry”, in:

Michael Gevers (ed.), The Second Crusade and the Cistercians, New York : St.

Martin's Press 1992, 49-56.

- Graham-Leigh, Elaine, The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade,

Rochester N.Y.: Boydell Press 2005.

161

- Grundmann, Herbert, „Der Typus des Ketzers in Mittelalterliche Anschauung“, in:

Kultur- und Universalgeschichte: Walter Goetz zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, Leipzig -

Berlin 1927, 91-107.

- Grundmann, Herbert, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages: The Historical Links

between Heresy, the Mendicant Orders, and the Women’s Religious Movement in

the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century, with the Historical Foundations of German

Mysticism, Steven Rowan (trans.), Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press

1995.

- Hamilton, Bernard, The Medieval Inquisition, New York: Holmes and

Meier Publishers 1981.

- Head, Thomas, “ Introduction”, in: id. (ed.), Medieval Hagiography: an Anthology,

New York: Routledge 1999, xiii-xxxix.

- Heffernan, Thomas, Sacred Biography: Saints and Their Biographers in the Middle

Ages, New York: Oxford University Press 1988.

- Hofreiter, Christian, Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian

Interpretations of Herem Passages, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2018.

- Iogna Prat, Dominique, Order and Exclusion: Cluny and Christendom face Heresy,

Judaism and Islam (1000-1150), Graham Robert Edwards (trans.), Ithaca, NY:

Cornell University Press 2003.

- Jaeger, Stephen, “Bernhard von Clairvaux: Charisma und Exemplarität’’ in:

Nicholaus Staubach (ed.), Exemplaris imago: Ideale in Mittelalter und früher

Neuzeit, Frankfurt 2012, 119-135.

162

- Jamroziak, Emilia, The Cisteercian Order in Medieval Europe, 1090-1550, London

and New York: Routledge 2013

- Jackman, Mary, “Violence in Social Life”, Annual Review of Sociology

28, 2002, 387-415.

- Jensen, Kurt Villads, “Bishops on Crusade”, in: Anthony John Lappin– Elena

Balzamo (eds.), Dominus Episcopus: Medieval Bishops between Diocese and Court,

Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien 2018, 83-99.

- Jewett, Robert, “Romans,” in: James D. G. Dunn (ed.), Cambridge Companion to St

Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003, 91-104.

- Jiménez Sánchez, Pilar, Les catharismes: Modèles dissidents du christianisme

médiéval (XIIe-XIIIe siècles), Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes 2008.

- Kelhoffer, James, Persecution, Persuasion and Power: Readiness to Withstand

Hardship as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament, Tübingen: Mohr

Siebeck 2010.

- Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Inquisition, Public Fame and Confession: General Rules and

English Practice,” in: Mary Catherine Flannery – Katie L. Walter (eds.), The Culture

of Inquisition in Medieval England, Westfield Medieval Studies 4, Cambridge:

Brewer 2013, 8-29.

- Kennan, Elisabeth, “The ‘De Consideratione’ of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the

Papacy in the Mid-Twelfth Century: A Review on Scholarship”, Tradition 23, 1967,

73-115.

163

- Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, “Tending the Lord’s Vineyard: Cistercians, Rhetoric and

Heresy, 1143-1229: “Part I: Bernard of Clairvaux, the 1143 Sermons and the 1145

Preaching Mission”, Heresis 25, 1995, 29-61.

- Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, “The Prostitute-Preacher: Patterns of Polemic

against Medieval Waldensian Women Preachers” in: Beverly Mayne

Kienzle and Pamela J. Walker, (eds.), Women Preachers and Prophets

through Two Millennia of Christianity, Berkeley– Los Angeles– London:

University of California Press 1998.

- Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, “Holiness and Obedience: Denunciation of Medieval

Waldendian Preaching”, in: Alberto Ferreiro (ed.), The Devil, Heresy and Witchcraft

in the Middle Ages. Essays in Honor of Jeffrey B. Russel, Leiden: Brill 1998, 259-

278.

- Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, “Preaching as Touchstone of Orthodoxy and Dissidence in

the Middle Ages”, Medieval Sermon Studies 43, 1999, 19-54.

- Kienzle, Beverly M, ”The Twelfth Century Monastic Sermon”, in: id. (ed.), The

Sermon, Turnhout: Brepols 2000, 271-323.

- Kienzle, Beverly Mayne, Cistercians, Heresy and Crusade in Occitania1145-1229:

Preaching in the Lord’s Vineyard, York: Broydel and Brewer, 2001.

- Kotecki, Radosław and Maciejewski, Jacek (eds.), Ecclesia et Violentia: Violence

against the Church and Violence within the Church in the Middle Ages, Newcastle

upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2014.

164

- Kras, Pawel, “Public Penance of Heretics: Its Forms and Functions”, Roczniki

Humanistyczne 66/ 2, 2018, 57-77.

- Lambert, Malcolm, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian

Reform to the Reformation, Oxford, Malden: Blackwell ³2005 [1st ed. 1977].

- Lange, Marjory, ”Mediating a Presence: Rhetorical and Narrative Strategies in the

Vita Prima Bernardi” in: Tyler Sergent – Aage Rydstrøm- Poulsen – Marsha Dutton

(eds.), Unity of Spirit: Studies on William of Saint Thierry in Honor of E. Rosanne

Elder, Cistercian Publications: Ohio 2015, 117-144.

- Leclercq, Jean, ”Le Témoignage de Geoffroy d’Auxerre sur la vie Cistercienne”,

Analecta Monastica 1953, 174-181.

- Leclercq, Jean, “Les écrits de Geoffroy d’ Auxerre” in: id., Recueil d'études sur Saint

Bernard et ses écrits, Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura 1962, 27-46.

- Leclercq, Jean, “L’Hérésie d’après les écrits de S. Bernard de Clairvaux”, in: Willem

Lourdaux – Daniel Verhelst (eds.), The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th-

13th C.): Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13-16, 1973,

Leuven: Leuven University Press 1976, 12-26.

- Leclercq, Jean,” Saint Bernard's Attitude Toward War”, in: John Sommerfeldt (ed.),

Studies in Medieval Cistercian History II, (Cistercian Studies Series 24), Kalamazoo,

MI: Cistercian Publication 1976, 1-39.

- Leclercq, Jean,” Towards a Sociological Interpretation of the Various Saint

Bernards’ ’ in: John Sommerfeldt (ed.) Bernardus Magister. Papers Presented at the

Nonacentenary Celebration of the Birth of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Cistercian

Publications: Ohio 1992, 20-26.

165

- Lipkin, Joel, “The Entrance of the Cistercians into the Church Hierarchy 1098- 1227:

the Bernardine Influence”, in: Rozanne Elder– John R. Sommerfeldt (eds.), The

Chimera of his Age: Studies on Bernard of Clairvaux, Studies in Medieval Cistercian

History 5, Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications 1980, 62-73.

- Maisonneuve, Henri, Études sur les origines de l’ Inquisition, Paris:

Librairie philosophique J. Vrin 1960.

- Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power I: The History of Power from the

Beginning to A.D. 1760, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.

- Manselli, Raoul, “De la Persuasion à la Coercitio”, in: id. Le Credo, la

Morale et l’ Inquisition, (Cahiers de Fanjeaux) Toulouse: Privat 1971,

175-197.

- Mansfield, Mary, The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance in Thirteenth century

France, New York: Cornell University Press 1995.

- McDougall, Sara, “The Persecution of Sex in Late Medieval Troyes”, in: Albrecht

Classen (ed.), Sexuality in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: New

Approaches to a Fundamental Cultural-Historical and Literary-Anthropological

Theme, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 2008, 691-714.

- Merlo, Grado Giovanni, “Militare per Cristo gli eretici” in: id. Contro gli eretici: La

coercizione all’ortodossia prima dell’ Inquisizione, Bologna: Il Mulino 1196, 11-49.

- Merlo, Grado Giovanni, “Christian Experiences of Religious non-Conformism” in:

John Arnold (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Christianity, Oxford: Oxford

University Press 2014, 436-454.

166

- Mews, Constant J., “The Council of Sens (1141): Abelard, Bernard and the Fear of

Social Upheaval”, Speculum 77/2, 2002, 342-382.

- Mews, Constant J., “Accusations of Heresy and Error in the Twelfth Century

Schools: The Witness of Gerhoh of Reichersberg and Otto of Freising”, in: Ian

Hunter –John Christian Laursen – Cary J. Nederman (eds.), Heresy in Transition:

Transforming Ideas of Heresy in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Aldershot:

Ashgate 2005, 43-57.

- Moore, Robert, The Birth of Popular Heresy, London: Arnold 1975.

- Moore, Robert, The Origins of European Dissent, New York: St Martin’s Press

1977.

- Moore, Robert, “Popular Violence and Popular Heresy in Western Europe, c. 1100-

1179”, Studies in Church History 21, 1984, 43-50.

- Moore, Robert, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Authority and Deviance in

Western Europe, 950-1250, Oxford: Blackwell 22007 [1st ed. 1987].

- Moore, Robert, The First European Revolution c. 970-1215, Oxford and New York:

Blackwell Publishing 2000.

- Moore, Robert, “The War against Heresy in Medieval Europe,” Historical Research

81/212, 2008, 189-210.

- Moore, Robert, The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe, London:

Profile Books 2012.

- Mundy, John Hine, “The Abjuration of Peter Maurandus” in id., Studies in the

Ecclesiastical and Social History of Toulouse in the Age of the Cathars, Aldershot:

Ashgate 2006, 161-167.

167

- Mouffe, Chantal, On the Political, New York: Routledge 2005.

- Muessig, Carolyn, “What Is Medieval Monastic Preaching? An Introduction”, in: id.

(ed.), Medieval Monastic Preaching, Leiden: Brill 1998, 1-16.

- Newman, Martha G., The Boundaries of Charity: Cistercian Culture and

Ecclesiastical Reform, 1098-1180, Stanford: Stanford University Press

1996.

- Newman, Martha, “Text and Authority in the Formation of the Cistercian Order: Re-

Assessing the Early Cistercian Reform’’, in: Christopher M. Bellitto – Louis I.

Hamilton (eds.), Reforming the Church Before Modernity, Aldershot, England–

Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company 2005, 173-198.

- Nirenberg, David, Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle

Ages, Princeton: Princeton University Press 2015.

- Oksala, Johanna, Foucault, Politics and Violence, Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern

University Press 2012.

- Paltridge, Brian, Discourse Analysis: an Introduction, London– New York:

Continuum 2006

- Patschovsky, Alexander, “Heresy and Society: On the Political Function of Heresy

in Medieval World”, in: Caterina Bruschi– Peter Biller (eds.), Texts and

Representations of Medieval Heresy, Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: York Medieval

Press 2003, 23-41.

- Pegg, Mark Gregory, The Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle

for Christendom, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press 2008.

168

- Peters, Edward, Inquisition, Berkeley: University of California Press 1989.

- Peters, Edward (ed.), Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe: Documents in

Translation, London: Scolar Press 1980.

- Philips, Louise and Jørgensen, Marianne, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method,

London: Sage Publications 2002.

- Renna, Thomas, “Early Cistercian Attitudes Towards War in Historical

Perspective,” Citeaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 31, 1980, 119-129.

- Rennie, Kriston K., The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation, Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan 2013.

- Richards, Jeffrey, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle

Ages, London – New York: Routledge 1991.

- Riches, David, The Anthropology of Violence, Oxford: Blackwell 1986.

- Rist, Rebecca “The medieval Papacy, Crusading and Heresy, 1095-1291” in: Keith

Sisson.– Atria A. Larson, (eds.), A Companion to the Medieval Papacy: Growth of

an Ideology and Institution, Leiden: Brill 2016 309-332.

- Roach, Andrew, “Penance and the Making of the Inquisition in Languedoc”, Journal

of Ecclesiastical History 52/3, 2001, 409-33.

- Robinson, Ian Stuart, “Gregory VII and the Soldiers of Christ”, History. 58/193,

1973, 169-192.

- Robinson, Ian Stuart, “Church and Papacy” in: James Henderson Burns (ed.), The

Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought, c. 350-c. 1450, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press 1988, 252-305.

169

- Robinson, Ian Stuart, The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990.

- Robson, Stephen, With the Spirit and Power of Elijah (Lk 1,17): The Prophetic

Reforming Spirituality of Bernard of Clairvaux as Evidenced Particularly in His

Letters, Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana 2004.

- Rubellin, Michel, “Au temps où Valdès n’ était pas hérétique: hypothèses sur le rôle

de Valdès à Lyon (1170-1183)”, in: Monique Zerner (ed.), Inventer l'Hérésie?

Discours polémiques et pouvoirs avant l'Inquisition, Collection du Centre d’ Études

Médiévales de Nice 1998, 193-218.

- Russell, Jeffrey Burton, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages, Berkeley –

Los Angeles 1965.

- Russel, Frederick, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press 1975

- Simpson, James, “Dogging Cornwall’s ’Secret Freaks’: Beroul on the Limits of

European Orthodoxy”, in: Andrew Roach – James Simpson (eds.), Heresy and the

Making of European Culture, Medieval and Modern Perspectives, Farnham:

Ashgate Publishing 2013, 207-236.

- Skoda, Hannah, Medieval Violence: Physical Brutality in Northern France, 1270-

1330, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2013.

- Smith, Damian J., Crusade, Heresy and Inquisition in the Lands of the Crown of

Aragon, c. 1167-1276, Leiden – Boston: Brill 2010.

- Smith, Katherine Allen, “Spiritual Warriors in Citadels of Faith: Martial Rhetoric

and Monastic Masculinity in the Long Twelfth Century” in: Jennifer D. Thibodeaux

170

(ed.), Negotiating Clerical Identities: Priests, Monks and Masculinity in the Middle

Ages, Basingstoke–New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2010, 86-110.

- Smith, Katherine Allan, “Discipline, Compassion and monastic Ideals of

Community, c.950-1250”, Journal of medieval History, 35/4, 2012, 326-339.

- Sommerfeldt, John R., “The Bernardine Reform and the Crusading Spirit”, The

Catholic Historical Review 86/4, 2000, 567-578.

- Somerville, Robert, Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th and 12th

Centuries, Aldershot: Ashgate 1970.

- Steele, Stephen F. – Jammie Price, Applied Sociology. Terms, Topics and Tasks,

2004 Belmont, California.: Thomson/Wadsworth 2008

- Steinert, Heinz, “Sociology as Deviance: The Disciplines of Social Exclusion”, in:

Craig Calhoon – Chris Rojek – Brian Turner (eds.), The Sage Handbook of

Sociology, London: SAGE 2005, 471-490.

- Sullivan, Karen, Truth and the Heretic: Crises of Knowledge in Medieval French

Literature, Chicago – London: The University of Chicago Press 2005.

- Sullivan, Karen, The Inner Lives of Medieval Inquisitors, Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press 2011.

- Summerlin, Danica, The Canons Of the Third Lateran Council of 1179, their Origins

and Perceptions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2019.

- Swartz, David, Power and Culture, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1997.

- Thouzellier, Christine, Catharisme et valdéisme en Languedoc à la fin du XIIe et au

début du XIIIe siècle: Politique pontificale – controverses, Louvain: Nauwelaerts –

Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts 21969 [1st ed. 1965].

171

- Vauchez, André, The Laity in the Middle Ages: Religious Beliefs and

Devotional Practices, Daniel Bornstein (ed.)– Margery Schneider

(trans.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame 1993.

- Voigts, Michael C., “Bernard and the Direction of the Souls” in: id. Letters of Ascent:

Spiritual Direction in the Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux, Cambridge: James Clarke

and Co. 2014, 17-30.

- Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans (trans.), Heresies of the High Middle Ages:

Selected Sources Translated and Annotated, New York: Columbia University Press

21991 [1st. Ed. 1969]

- Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Talcott Parsons

(ed.) – A. M. Henderson (trans.) – Talcott Parsons, New York: The Free Press 1964.

- Weber Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, G. Troth

and C. Wittich (trans.), New York: Bedminster Press 1968.

- Weber, Max “Charisma and Institutionalization in the Political Sphere” in: S.N.

Eisenstadt (ed.), On Charisma and Institution Building, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press 1968.

- Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael (eds)., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis,

London: Sage Publications 2001.

172