The Dynamic Middle Ages Detailed Project Overview 15/08/2012

The Social Theatre of Wandering Preachers and Hermits, 1050-1150

During late eleventh- and early twelfth-century , wandering preachers took to the roads of Christendom, apparently preaching the . Many of these preachers were accepted, although somewhat tentatively, by the ecclesiastical establishment and some were given licenses to preach around France. Others, such as Henry of Le Mans (d.1148) and Peter of Bruys (d.1135/6), were not so fortunate and were denounced as heretical. Yet these holy men were not just preachers. According to the sources, they led lives informed by concepts of vita apostolica, eremitism, pastoral care, preaching, as well as monasticism. Robert of Molesme (c.1028-1111), Stephen Muret (c.1045- 1125), Robert of Arbrissel (c.1045-1116), Bernard of Tiron (c.1046-1116), Vitalis of Savigny (d.1122), Stephen of Obazine (d.1159), and the two 'heretical' hermit-preachers Henry and Peter, were all presented as living these mixed and dynamic lives. Less defined by one major characteristic, these men were defined by their eclectic lifestyles, which is what makes them such fascinating characters to study. Accordingly, the sources written about them drew upon many different veins of tradition and religious thought in order to discuss and represent the lives of the hermit-preachers. My study investigates these aspects of the hermit-preachers lives, with each chapter discussing how the sources presented different facets of religious expression. Although this is a somewhat artificial distinction, understanding these aspects separately allows us to understand fully how new more 'mixed' religious lives were treated in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.

Nevertheless, we must first understand that we will never be able truly to see the hermit-preachers for who they really were. Regrettably, we have no sources that were written by these men themselves, save one letter by Robert of Arbrissel. It is perhaps telling, in terms of the reaction to heresy, that a book Henry of Le Mans was said to have written concerning his religious vocation no longer exists - though we are forced to speculate whether this was deliberate suppression.1 Acknowledging that we see the lives of hermit-preachers through the eyes of others has had no recognition in the historiography concerned with these individuals thus far. Scholars, such as Henrietta Leyser, have concentrated upon the content of these mens’ lives, rather than the construction of this content. Subsequently, the foundation of the whole project is based upon a new reading of the sources that have been employed in previous scholarship. Starting with these texts, and exploring their construction and intentions, I hope to offer new insights into how the hermit- preachers were self-consciously moulded by those who wrote about them.

Underlining my work is, therefore, a novel methodological and conceptual approach to the sources. This forms the backbone of my thesis and it is worth explaining in some detail. First, I argue that the texts written about the hermit-preachers were complex community constructions. By this, I mean that the sources were written with input and cooperation from those communities in which the authors were embedded. Significant parts of the sources (and hence ‘memories’ of the hermit- preachers) came from individuals other than the author himself. Though undeniably it was the

1 For references to this text see William the Monk, 'Contra Hericum schismaticum et hereticum' in Il monaco Enrico e la sua eresia, ed. Raoul Manselli, 1953, pp. 1–63; , Contra Petrobrusianos Hereticos, ed. James Fearns (Turnhout, 1968), Praefatio, p. 5.

Page 1 of 10 author’s job to weave the thoughts and recollections of others into his text, giving him a pivotal role in its actual transcription, the substance of the work would always be saturated with others’ contributions and memories.

The sources we have are quite explicit about this community aspect of the construction of the text though, as stated above, this has often been overlooked in scholarship. For example, the author of the Vita Bernardi Tironensis said that he had resolved to report in Bernard Life that which he had obtained from ‘the faithful reports of men.’2 We may be tempted to conclude that this was pure hagiographical formulae. Yet the modern editor of the Vita Bernardi has noted that the inconsistencies in Bernard’s Life suggest that the author Geoffrey Grossus included information from others without substantially changing it first.3 Unmistakably, the Life of Bernard of Tiron was a collaborative project even if Geoffrey wrote up these contributions into one whole text. Given that these texts were often written many years after the death of their subject, it is perhaps unsurprising that the authors had to resort to gaining information from those in the same community as them. After a break of several years between book one and two of the Vita Stephani Obazinensis, Stephen of Obazine’s biographer declared that he should finish the Life soon, lest those who knew Stephen when he was alive died before he finished and could not support the truth of what he had written.4 Further references in other sources support the fact that stories of the holy men were reverberating around the monastic communities which they had founded.5 What we have is a definite sense of communication between those who had known the hermit-preachers (or perhaps just heard anecdotes about them) and those who were writing the texts. The monastic communities that these hermit-preachers had founded played a central role in constructing their vitae. In modernity, therefore, we have received our information about these men refracted through a community lens.

Monastic brethren, however, did not just write about those men who were celebrated. They also chose to document the lives and beliefs of the two hermit-preachers of this study who were condemned as heretics. William the Monk, and Peter the Venerable all wrote about Henry of Le Mans and Peter of Bruys and all were members of monastic communities. Still, they were not, unlike the authors who described above, members of the communities founded by the hermit-preachers or part of their following. They therefore wrote about events and people external to their own communities. Yet there was, I believe, a more fundamental difference between these authors and those that wrote about such men as Bernard of Tiron or Stephen of Obazine. This difference stemmed not so much from the identities of the monks themselves, but the community

2 Geoffrey Grossus, 'Vita beati Bernardi Fundatoris Congregationis de Tironio in Gallia auctore Gaufredo Grosso', in PL 172, Prologue.4, col. 1370D. 3 Ruth Harwood Cline, 'Introduction', in Ruth Harwood Cline (ed.), The Life of Blessed Bernard of Tiron (Washington, 2009), p. xii. 4 'Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis', in Michel Aubrun (ed.), Vie de Saint Étienne D’Obazine, (Clermont-Ferrand, 1970), bk. 2.Prologue, p. 94. 5 See for example Hugh Lacerta, 'Liber de doctrina vel liber sententiarum seu rationum beati viri Stephani primi patris religionis Grandimontis' in Iohannes Becquet (ed.), Scriptores Ordinis Grandimontensis, CC VIII (Turnhout, 1968), p. 4; Hugh Francigena, 'Incipit tractatus de conversione Pontii de Laracio et exordii Salvaniensis monasterii vera narratio' in Beverly M. Kienzle (ed.), The Works of Hugo Francigena: Tractatus de conversione Pontii de Laracio et exordii monasterii vera narratio; epistolae (Dijon, Bibliothèque Municipale Ms. 611) in Sacris Erudiri 34 (1994), p. 288.

Page 2 of 10 they saw themselves taking part in when they wrote about the two heresiarchs. Essentially, when the monks wrote about these two men they wrote as part of the wider community of the Christian faithful even though they were simultaneously monks in distinct and defined monastic communities of their own. These authors even noted their own awkward positions; 'I am the chimaera of my age', Bernard wrote famously, 'neither cleric nor layman. I have kept the habit of a monk, but I have long ago abandoned the life.'6 Peter the Venerable and Bernard's involvement in the world thus marks them as different from other monastic authors who wrote about the hermit-preachers and, accordingly, they had a unique sense of duty to the world outside of the cloister. This explains why, when Bernard wrote letters containing denunciations of Henry of Le Mans, he said he wrote because of his responsibilities to the wider Christian community.7 This uncanny ability to flit between different levels of community makes these individuals, as authors, fascinating and illustrates a crucial divergence between who wrote about orthodox hermit-preachers and those who wrote about those considered heretical.

Be that as it may, not all of the sources about the hermit-preachers were written by monks. In terms of vitae, we have two notable exceptions, the Vita Roberti Abrissello and the Vita Vitalis Saviniacensis. Both of these texts were written by ; the first by Baudri, of Dol (1107- 1130) and the second by Stephen of Fougères, bishop of Rennes (1168-1178). Remarkably, these were extremely well connected men. For instance, Baudri of Dol personally knew the daughters of William the Conqueror (c.1027-1087). Likewise, before his elevation to the bishopric of Rennes, Stephen of Fougères had been a chancery scribe in the court of Henry II (1154-1189) and was also a member of the Fougères family who had bestowed Savigny monastery its initial grant of land.8

These two texts serve to remind us that it was not always monks who memorialised the hermit- preachers through text. Like the authors who wrote about the two heretical hermit-preachers, Stephen and Baudri were outside of the community about whom they were writing. Undeniably, this influenced the content of the vitae, as is displayed throughout the rest of the dissertation, and gave a certain public tinge to their content since access to information concerning the monastic aspects of the hermit-preachers would have been severely limited. Baudri even declared he was overwhelmed by the task of writing Robert's vita, not least because the abbess of Fontevraud, Petronilla of Chemillé, had provided him with notes that '…contained next to nothing about Lord Robert.'9 Appreciating the position of these authors and, consequently, the information that would have been available to them (notably more public perceptions of the holy men) allows us to better understand why the Lives took the shape and content that they did.

Secondly, as all of the documents that were written about the hermit-preachers were written by others, they all had specific intentions in their presentation of these individuals' religious vocations.

6Bernard of Clairvaux, 'Letter 326', in Bruno Scott James (ed. and trans.), The Letters of St. Bernard of Clairvaux , newly translated by Bruno Scott James (London, 1953), p. 402. 7 Bernard of Clairvaux, 'Letter 317', in Ibid. , pp. 387–389; Bernard of Clairvaux, 'Letter 318', in Ibid., pp. 389– 391. 8 Ralph of Fougères, ‘Fundatio Savignei’, in Gallia Christiana, Instr. III, vol. XI, col.110. 9'...prope nihil de domino Roberto continebant.' Baudri of Dol, 'Vita B. Roberti de Abrissello auctore Baldrico Ep iscopo Dolensi', in PL 162, Prologue.2, cols. 1045A–1045B.

Page 3 of 10 Most significantly, they were written as part of the process of categorising orthodoxy and heterodoxy. In a period in which Herbert Grundmann has claimed there was a ‘make shift stance’ towards heresy, these texts were defining contributions.10 Essentially, these texts helped to classify, and in certain ways manufactured, the divisions between what (and who) should be considered as holy and what should be considered as sinful. Hence, these texts were all involved in the same process by which Christendom defined its faith and the boundaries of that faith.

For those communities who wanted to secure reverence for their founder, the most official way by which they could accomplish this was by official canonisation. As a result, many of the vitae were written for presentation to the papacy for the initiation of such procedures as was common in the twelfth century. Three requests and/or canonisation procedures for these putative saints show the desire for such official veneration.11 Undoubtedly, this hope affected the content of the texts. Those who contributed their knowledge of the holy men to these documents attempted to define a model of holiness and, most significantly, a model of orthodoxy. Despite this, only Stephen of Muret was ever canonised which is indicative of the papacy’s growing need to control sanctification and sanctity during this period. Nevertheless, we should not assume that just because of these men were not officially canonised that they were not venerated or did not have local cults. Indeed, vitae were one way to cultivate, maintain and even to cement these manifestations of worship into the annals of history. A hermit-preacher did not have to be canonised in order to promote and construct visions of orthodoxy; it could be accomplished on a local level just as well as on a universal one.

The texts that were written about those hermit-preachers who were eventually deemed heretical by the ecclesiastical establishment were also part of the process of defining and refining who and what was considered orthodoxy and heresy. The most official way by which these individuals could be condemned was at church councils which were, in some ways, the ‘heretical equivalent’ to canonisation. Both Henry of Le Mans and Peter of Bruys were condemned repeatedly at such councils; first in the Council of Toulouse in 1119, secondly at the 1135 Council of Pisa and thirdly in the twenty-third canon of the Second Lateran Council in 1139.12 Notably, several of the narrative texts written about Henry and Peter were produced just prior to their second and third condemnations. For instance, if one accepts Giles Constable’s dating, then the first draft of the

10 Herbert Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages, trans. Steve Rowan (Notre Dame, 1995), p. 22. 11 For Vitalis of Savigny see Raoul of Fougères, 'Epistola ad Innocent IV', in Claude Auvry and Auguste Laveille (eds), Histoire de la Congrégation de Savigny, vol. 3 (Paris, 1895), p. 361. For Stephen of Muret see Clement III, 'Epistola CXIII', in PL 204, cols. 1426B–1427B. For the multitude of documents relating to Robert of Molesme see Honorius III, 'Epistola CCXXVI Ad Hugonem Lingonensem et Gerardum Valentinensem', in César Auguste Horoy (ed.), Medii aevi bibliotheca patristica, vol. III (Paris, 1879), cols. 684–685; Bishops of Langres and Valence, 'Epistola ad Honorius III', in Processus Canonizationis: AASS April III, cols. 684–685; Bishops of Langres, 'Epistola ad Honorius III' in Ibid., col. 685; Honorius III, 'Epistola LXXXIII Ad abbates et conventum Molismens' in César Auguste Horoy (ed.), Medii aevi bibliotheca patristica, vol. IV. 12'Canon III, Council of Toulouse', in J. D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, Et Amplissia Collectio, vol. 2 1 (Firenze, 1692), col. 226– 227; Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium, ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru (Le Mans, 1901), p. 437; 'Ca non 23, Lateran II', in H.J. Schroeder (ed.), Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and C ommentary, (London, 1937), p. 548.

Page 4 of 10 Contra Petrobrusianos was written immediately before the Second Lateran Council.13 It may even have been Peter the Venerable’s presence at the council which prompted the reissue of the original Toulouse canon in 1139. There was evidently a need to repeat earlier official judgements, reinforce ecclesiastical agendas but also to detail, in-depth, their transgressions against the true faith.

Even so, the process of elucidating heresy and orthodoxy was not simply confined to official levels. The categorisation and (re)definition of heresy and orthodoxy had to be communicated to communities and to the wider Christian faithful. Traditionally, scholars have proposed that the use of such texts, particularly hagiographies, was edificatory. Yet, there is an essential problem with making such a claim if by nature these texts were meant to be recording something exceptional and thus inimitable.14 Still, this relies on the assumption that edification necessarily meant imitation. If we define edification as spiritual instruction or improvement, then all the texts that discuss ‘orthodox’ or ‘heretical’ hermit-preachers were edificatory. They were designed to instruct Christians about the right and wrong forms of spirituality. Seeing the texts in this way, I believe, explains more satisfactorily the edificatory overtones that were scattered throughout the sources about both the praised and vilified hermit-preachers.15 A text did not have to be celebratory to be spiritually instructive.

Despite the similarities in the reasons for writing, these texts had different audiences, different people they were trying to edify, which reflected the different communities who constructed the texts. With monastic authors and communities, for example, hagiographies were designed for a monastic audience. Vitae were a central part of monastic liturgy, and kept the sanctity of the hermit- preacher alive for future generations and informed monastic identity and sense of history. Hugh Francigena, for instance, commented that he wrote his work so that future monks might know how great the fathers were who gave Silvanès monastery its beginning.16 In contrast, the sources about the condemned preachers, which were compiled by those who felt themselves to be writing as part of the wider Christian faithful, had quite a different audience. For these texts sought to edify the whole of the Christian community. They were written against the heretics, for the Christian faithful, as Peter the Venerable affirmed.17

Recognising these two different aspects of source construction are vital for a reappraisal of the hermit-preachers of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. In looking at the sources in this way, we add two crucial considerations: (1) community construction and (2) the process of defining orthodoxy and heresy. Following this, each chapter of the thesis explores how these varied

13 The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. Giles Constable, vol. II (Cambridge, 1967), p. 285–88. 14 Ineke van’t Spijker, 'Model Reading: Saints Lives and Literature of Religious Formation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries', in Etienne Renard et al. (eds), Scribere Sanctorum Gesta: Recueil D’études D’hagiographie Médiévale Offert à Guy Philippat, (Turnhout, 2005), p. 144. 15 For a few of these references see 'Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis', bk. 1.Prologue, p. 45; Baudri of Dol, 'Vita B. Roberti de Abrissello auctore Baldrico Episcopo Dolensi', in PL 162, col. 1046B; Geoffrey Grossus, 'Vita Bernardi', Prologue.3, col. 1370A; Peter the Venerable, Contra Petrobrusianos Hereticos, ed. James Fearns (Turnhout, 1968), Praefatio, p. 4; Actus Pontificum, p. 414; William the Monk, 'Contra Hericum schismaticum et hereticum', in Il monaco Enrico e la sua eresia, ed. Raoul Manselli, 1953. 16 Hugh Francigena, 'Tractatus', p. 287. 17 Peter the Venerable, Contra Petrobrusianos, p. 6.

Page 5 of 10 communities expressed the different elements of the hermit-preachers' lives. Each aspect that these different communities had to express, each and every idiosyncrasy of the way the hermit-preachers were thought to live, was informed by, and reflected, the thoughts and position of these communities. At points it must have been difficult, and this was shown throughout the sources, to reconcile their own concept of the religious vocation with men profoundly different from them.

In order to illustrate the effect that these aspects of source construction had upon the different aspects of the hermit-preachers' lives I would like to explore one such aspect here; the vita apostolica. It has long been contended in scholarship that the hermit-preachers lived an apostolic life.18 Yet despite the phrase vita apostolica having become a quasi-epithet whenever certain names are mentioned, the maxim is curiously absent from the texts written about the hermit-preachers even though it was commonly used in the twelfth century. The absence of the phrase in itself may have been incidental to understanding. As Peter Biller has noted, medieval contemporaries could have had the thing even if they did not have the word.19 Nevertheless, the absence of the term vita apostolica needs explaining rather than being indiscriminately and unreservedly imposed upon these men. In my work on apostolicity I suggest that, while not denying the vita apostolica as a model, it was a model only used in certain situations. Moreover, different communities who contributed to the production of the text put different emphases on different aspects of apostolicity. Consequently, we might speak of those who constructed the texts as bestowing upon the hermit-preachers a variety of apostolic moments, rather than an apostolic life.

Preaching was one moment in the hermit-preachers’ lives/Lives where we can see allusions to apostolicity. Here, we find that those who wrote situated between the secular and religious spheres employed certain concepts of apostolicity most consistently. Considering that it is thought that the very notion of the apostolic life underwent a conceptual transformation during the twelfth century,

18 For the fullest accounts see Ernest W. McDonnell, 'The ‘Vita Apostolica’: Diversity or Dissent', Church History 24.1 (1955), p. 15ff; Friedrich Kempf, 'The ‘Vita Evangelica’ Movement and the Appearance of New Orders', in Friedrich Kempf et al (eds), Handbook of Church History: The Church in the Ages of Feudalism, trans. Anselm Biggs (London, 1969), pp. 453–465; Stanisław Trawkowski, 'Entre l’orthodoxie et l’hérésie: Vita Apostolica et le problem de la désobéissance', in W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst (eds), The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th-13th C.): Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain, May 13-16, 1973 (Leuven, 1976), pp. 157– 166; Henrietta Leyser, Hermits and the New Monasticism (London, 1984), p. 26ff; Herbert Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages, trans. Steve Rowan (Notre Dame, 1995), pp. 1–22. For those who discuss the apostolicity of the hermit-preachers as part of the twelfth-century Renaissance or see Brenda Bolton, The Medieval Reformation (London, 1983), pp. 19–21; Gerhart B. Ladner, Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages, vol. 2 (Rome, 1983), p. 526; Jean Châtillon, 'The Spiritual Renaissance at the End of the Eleventh Century and the Beginning of the Twelfth', American Benedictine Review 36.3 (1985), p. 302ff; André Vauchez, The Spirituality of the Medieval West: From the Eighth to the Twelfth Century, trans. Colette Friedlander (Kalamazoo, 1993), p. 106ff; Gary Dickson, 'Medieval Revivalism', in Daniel Bornstein (ed.), Medieval Christianity (Minneapolis, 2010), p. 172.For those who simply include the hermit-preachers' apostolicism as a precursor to other discussions see Bernard McGinn, The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism (1200-1350) (New York, 1998), pp. 2–7; Julie Bond Hassel, Choosing Not to Marry: Women and Autonomy in the Katherine Group (New York, 2002) ; Francois Petit, Spirituality of the Premonstratensians: The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Collegeville, 2011), pp. 12–14. 19 Peter Biller, 'Words and the Medieval Notion of ‘Religion’', The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36.3 (1985), p. 360.

Page 6 of 10 this is pertinent.20 Prior to this, the vita apostolica had been defined by the biblical verses from Acts of the Apostles 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 and it was interpreted accordingly; living with one heart and one soul and possessing all things in common.21 At some point during this dynamic century – and scholars disagree over exactly when this shift occurred – the conception of the apostolic life became increasingly defined by the Synoptic rather than by Acts. Contemporaries used an evangelical model of the apostolic life, rather than a communal model.22 Little thought, however, has been given to the identity of those who constructed these notions of apostolicity and the subsequent impact that this had upon such notions.

The Vita Vitalis, for instance, is one of the sources that has the strongest focus upon preaching and, correspondingly, framed this preaching in terms of apostolicity using the agricultural language from, and allusions to, the parable of the sower in order to secure this link.23 Preaching was seen as scattering and sowing the Word; an apostolic activity.24 What is more, this was an apostolic activity that was public since it required an audience. When we acknowledge the author Stephen of Fougères’ position, the use of this more public conception of apostolicity becomes understandable. As stated above, Stephen was well connected. Through the court of Henry II and his own family he would have been privy to much information regarding Vitalis of Savigny. Yet this information would have been far likelier to concern Vitalis’ role within the world rather than in the monastery. Indeed, only one chapter of Vitalis' Life is dedicated to Savigny monastery itself (book 1.8), with scarce mention of the monastery elsewhere.25 Even so, the Savigny chapter was far more concerned with the manoeuvrings of the Fougères family rather than the monastery or the monks – whom the chapter does not even mention!26

The evangelical model of the vita apostolica, therefore, was bound to be more prevalent in Vitalis’ life because this conception was more public by definition. It was about being in the world as opposed to being withdrawn from the world. This is supported by the fact that we find only one reference using a variation of the same parabolic nomenclature (semina) of the vita in Vitalis’

20 See the chapter ‘Monks, Canons and Laymen in Search of the Apostolic Life’ in M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man, And Society in the Twelfth Century (Toronto, 1997), pp. 202–238; Constable, Reformation, pp. 156–160; Constable, 'Renewal', p. 51ff; Marie-Humbert Vicaire, L’imitation des apôtres: moines, chanoines, mendiants (IVe-XIIIe siècles) (Paris, 1963). For other works that discuss this transformation see Andrew Garrett Traver, 'The Identification of the Vita Apostolica with a Life of Itinerant Preaching and Mendicancy: Its Origins, Adherents and Critics Ca.1050-1266', (Unpublished PhD, Toronto, 1996), p. 21ff and McGinn, Mysticism, pp. 6– 8. 21 The defining verses of these passages from Acts of the Apostles were Acts 2:44-45: 'And all that believed were together and had all things in common; And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all men, as every man had need.', and Acts 2:32: 'And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither did any one of them say that any of the things that he possessed was his own, but all things were common between them.' 22 McGinn, Mysticism, p. 6. 23 See for example Stephen of Fougères, 'Vita Vitalis', in E.P. Sauvage (ed.), Annalecta Bollandiana 1 (1882), bk. 2.4, p. 374. 24 This activity was, of course, also performed by Christ yet it is beyond the remit of this brief overview to discuss the deliberate ambiguity often posed between vita Christi and vita apostolorum. Scholarship that reifies the hermit-preachers under the banner 'vita apostolica' often fails to appreciate this. 25 See Stephen of Fougères, 'Vita Vitalis', bk. 1.1, p. 359 & bk. 2.14, p. 382, for example. 26 Ibid., bk. 1.8, pp. 364–365.

Page 7 of 10 Rotulus which is notable considering both that Stephen of Fougères stated that his text was based at least partially upon this memorial document and the sheer length of the roll itself.27 Evidently the monastic communities who signed the document in acknowledgement of Vitalis’ death were not used to thinking of Vitalis in these terms. Written by an author who himself was also in the world, the Vita Vitalis displayed its writer’s social milieu and the public memories from this that contributed to the construction of the source. As bishop, Stephen may have even been betraying many of this own conceptions of preaching since this was part of pastoral duties.

Importantly, the Vita Vitalis is but one example. We find many more conceptions of this evangelical model of the vita apostolica by the authors who saw only saw the hermit-preachers through a public perspective. Baudri of Dol, Peter the Venerable and the author of the Actus Pontificum all employed similar notions from the Synoptic Gospels, and specifically the parable of the sower, to describe the preaching of the hermit-preachers.28 Until now we have neglected to see this influence of authorship upon the apostolicity presented in the sources.

It was not only the community that influenced how the vita apostolica was viewed. As stated above, these sources were constructed as part of the dynamic process of defining heresy and orthodoxy in the twelfth century. In the Synoptic Gospels, Christ sent his apostles into the world in order to spread the Word. This very concept of ‘being sent’ became one of the major – and defining – boundaries between heretical and orthodox preaching. William the Monk, for example, said that in his debate with the heresiarch Henry of Le Mans, Henry had said that Christ had sent him to preach when he commanded his disciples to go forth and teach all nations [Mt 28:19]. William was not satisfied with Henry’s justification for his preaching, and quoted multiple bible verses in response, including the pivotal Romans 10:14-15: How can they believe, if they have not heard? How can they hear, if they do not preach? Truly how can they preach, unless they are sent? 29 Due to this, William believed that Henry was not a legitimate preacher because he was fraudulently imitating the office of the apostle. This belief was to become a defining one. The idea that someone had to be sent in order to preach was announced publicly at the Council of Verona in 1184 and again in the Fourth Lateran Council, both of which used Paul’s same anaphora.30 It was, importantly, a tangible way to differentiate between who was, and who was not, a heretic and it gave the Church a certain level of control over individual spirituality under an institutional roof. Apostolicity (or the subversive of such) was clearly a key tenant of how to define heresy.

Nonetheless we must remember that preaching was only one aspect of the hermit-preachers’ lives. Robert of Arbrissel was likened to Paul ‘in his preaching and travel’, but this was alongside other

27 'Rouleau De Bienheureux Vital, Abbé De Savigny', in Léopold V. Delisle (ed.), Rouleaux Des Morts Du IXe u XVe Siècle (Paris, 1866), sec. 173, p. 334; Stephen of Fougères, 'Vita Vitalis', bk. 2.13, p. 380. The Rotulus is remarkable for its size and was only surpassed by Matilda of Caen's, daughter of William the Conqueror. 28 See for instance Baudri of Dol, 'Vita B. Roberti', col. 1043B; Peter the Venerable, Contra Petrobrusianos, Praefatio, p. 4; Actus Pontificum, p. 410. 29William the Monk, 'Contra Henricum', pp. 45–46. 30 Lucius III, ‘Ad abolendam diversarum haeresium pravitatem’, in Enchiridion Fontium Valdensium, ed. Giovanni Gonnet (Torre Pellice, 1958), 51; ‘Canon 3, Lateran IV’, in Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, ed. H.J. Schroeder (London, 1937).

Page 8 of 10 biblical and early Christian models that represented the diverse facets of his life.31 Preaching was only a moment in Robert's life and thus so too was apostolicity. Similarly, another central aspect of the evangelical model of apostolicity, poverty, was also expressed as a moment in the hermit- preachers' lives both textually and temporally. It is regrettably beyond the remit of this overview to describe fully how these moments were presented. For the purpose of this outline, however, it is worth noting that in describing the hermit-preachers' renunciation of the world (a discrete moment rather than a continuous process) as motivated by Gospel verses, the communities made these episodes apostolically inspired without using the phrase vita apostolica.32 As with preaching, the identity of the communities who contributed to the production of the texts also fundamentally influenced the presentations of poverty we find in the sources. Overall, from this brief discussion we can see that who wrote the source and the processes intrinsic to this production profoundly affected the content and interpretation of the hermit-preachers' lives. It has been necessary to demonstrate this perhaps in more depth than required since without understanding the texts in this way, we are likely to overlook much complexity and nuance hidden beneath their surface.

The remaining chapters of my thesis investigate this same dynamic between source construction and content with regard to three other aspects of the hermit-preachers lives; displays of piety, eremitism, and finally, the relationship between the hermit-preachers and the high echelons of ecclesiastical authority. Chapter three of my work, for example, explores how the communities presented the idea of the hermit-preachers' displays of piety within the texts. It asks how the relationship between rural monastic and the urban communities, where the hermit-preachers often drew in large crowds, functioned within the texts and what affect this has on how we should view these individuals' lives. In this way, this chapter will explore how more 'traditional' forms of piety dealt with more 'unusual' expressions of spirituality, and indeed whether we can categorise them as 'traditional' and 'novel'. Intrinsically connected to preaching, this chapter will also explore the idea of the 'public' and 'private' elements of the hermit-preachers' holiness, alongside notions of public penance, pilgrimage and more public displays of piety in general.

In chapter four, I investigate the eremitism of the hermit-preachers and how the communities who wrote about these men were able to reconcile the prior solitary life of the hermit-preacher with the fact that they founded monastic communities later in life. Regarding those preachers labelled as orthodox, I argue that in the texts the community resolved this by presenting their community as the climactic and 'final' community of the hermit-preachers, anchoring them to the coenobitic ideal. Alongside this, prior communities the hermit-preacher was involved in were dismissed as incompatible with the longing for the solitary and poor life of the desert, which was only fully realised in institutional form with the foundation of this 'final' community. In presenting the dynamic between eremitism and coenobitism in this way, the communities therefore showed an intriguing tension between the communal and the solitary life and also, significantly, a communal acceptance and institutionalisation of the desert.

31 Andreas of Fontevraud, 'Second Life of Robert of Arbrissel', in Robert of Arbrissel: A Medieval Religious Life, trans. Bruce L. Vernarde (Washington, 2003), chap. 69, p. 64. 32 ‘Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis’, bk. 1.2, p. 46; Hugh Francigena, ‘Tractatus’, 288; Stephen of Fougères, ‘Vita Vitalis’, bk. 2.13, p. 380.

Page 9 of 10 Finally, the last chapter will examine how the texts and communities represented the relationship between the hermit-preacher and the higher echelons of ecclesiastical authority. Although not a characteristic of the hermit-preachers lives as such, their relationship with authority defined their religious expression and, as such, this relationship cannot be neglected. Through this chapter, I will examine notions of authority within the text and the difficult and complex relationship between forms of inspirational and institutional spiritual power. Granting licenses to preach, confirmations of monastic foundations and the like will all be dealt with in this chapter. With the inclusion of both ‘orthodox’ and ‘heretical’ hermit-preachers this chapter should raise some interesting points about how communities viewed the authority’s response to the new religious impulses of the twelfth century and will bring us back to ideas of how the texts sought to define orthodoxy and heresy that are explored above in chapter one.

My thesis, therefore, allows us to understand fully how the communities who wrote about the hermit-preachers conceptualised different elements of their lives. Most importantly, it will help us to understand how these aspects were constructed self-consciously and retroactively by those who wrote about them. I argue throughout that it is only in this way, by starting with the sources and understanding them in this manner, can we begin to appreciate the complexity of the relationship between author/s and their subjects, biographers and protagonists, hermit-preachers and monks, and understand the limits of current approaches to research on this spiritual group.

Page 10 of 10