Introduction

Samantha Kahn Herrick

Every medieval saint’s cult required a set of narratives, for every saint was de- fined by the story that revealed his or her sanctity. Such narratives were often transmitted as Latin texts, although they could be written in the vernacular or composed and preserved orally—​and indeed many stories about saints cir- culated in some combination of these forms. Those still accessible to scholars are primarily the written works on which this book focuses. The fundamental text related the saint’s story as his or her devotees wished to tell it—​his or her life (vita), if the saint died peacefully, or passion (passio), if he or she was martyred. Miracle collections recorded and publicized the wonders that were said to have occurred at the saint’s tomb (and elsewhere). Inventions (inven- tiones) reported the discovery of relics; translations (translationes) their ritual transfer and installation—​these are the most common of the many different sorts of texts produced in the Latin Middle Ages, in their thousands, to pro- mote and celebrate the sanctity and wondrous deeds of myriad holy women and men. These are the sorts of documents most often meant by the term hagiography. The modern study of such texts owes much to the work of pre-​modern scholars. Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther criticized Catholic vener- ation of saints. Among other things, they alleged that the stories told about in- dividual saints were often untrue.1 In response to such charges, the Jesuit (d. 1665) began the critical examination of saints honored in the Ro- man calendar.2 He aimed to weed both baseless narratives and dubious cults by means of the latest analytical tools. The fruit of his work—​scholarly studies and editions of “valid” narratives—​were published, starting in 1643, in the . This gargantuan task was then continued by his collaborators and

1 Martin Luther, De captivitate babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, Wittenberg, 1520, iv.13. 2 Bolland implemented the plan set out by another Jesuit, (d. 1629). See D. Knowles, “Great Historical Enterprises I: The ”, Transactions of the Royal Histor- ical Society 8 (1958), 147–66;​ G. Philippart, “Le riche et encombrant héritage de Jean Bolland (1643) et le fantôme hagiologique”, in E. Bozóky (ed.), Hagiographie, idéologie et politique au Moyen Âge en Occident. Actes du colloque international du Centre d’Études supérieures de Civli- sation médiévale de Poitiers, 11–14​ septembre 2008 (Hagiologia, 8), Turnhout, 2012, pp. 9–33;​ and http://​bollandistes.org/.​

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/9789004417472_002 2 Herrick successors, known as the Société des Bollandistes. By 1940, the Acta Sanctorum filled sixty-​eight volumes and it remains the foremost repository of narratives about saints.3 In addition, the Bollandists have inventoried thousands of texts and manuscripts.4 Over time, however, the Bollandists’ approach to the ma- terials they study has evolved and their views have, in turn, profoundly influ- enced how scholars understand and use these sources. In 1905, the revolutionized the study of these materials with his book Les Légendes hagiographiques, translated into English two years later as The Legends of the Saints.5 Delehaye asserted that saints’ leg- ends, although rooted in some historical or topographical reality, were by defi- nition not factual. Imagination had “embellished or distorted” their content until fiction outweighed fact.6 Far from making the resulting texts worthless to serious scholars, however, Delehaye argued that these legends could yield valuable insights into the medieval world, if used properly. Such use entailed recognizing these sources for what they were and asking the right questions about them. This strategy was perhaps best summarized by Marc Bloch, who understood and endorsed Delehaye’s method fully:

At least three fourths of the lives of the saints of the high Middle Ages can teach us nothing concrete about those pious personages whose careers they pretend to describe. If, on the other hand, we consult them as to the way of life or thought peculiar to the epoch in which they were written (all things which the biographer of the saint had not the least intention of revealing), we shall find them invaluable.7

The view of and approach to hagiographical texts that Delehaye set out (and Bloch encapsulated) reshaped scholarship.

3 Full references for the Acta Sanctorum (aass), both the print and digital editions, are in the List of Abbreviations. 4 The Bibliotheca hagiographica latina (bhl) and Bibliotheca hagiographica latina manuscrip- ta (BHLms) provide inventories of, respectively, texts and manuscripts. Although necessarily imperfect, these tools are invaluable in allowing researchers to identify and discuss hagiog- raphical materials. Both appear in the List of Abbreviations. 5 H. Delehaye, Les Légendes hagiographiques, , 1905; trans. V.M. Crawford, The Legends of the Saints: An Introduction to Hagiography, London, 1907. 6 Delehaye, Légendes, 2nd ed., Brussels, 1906, p. 11: “Ce fait historique est orné ou défiguré par l’imagination populaire … selon que la prépondérance se trouve du côté de la réalité ou de la fiction, un même récit pourra êtra classé dans l’histoire ou dans la légende”. 7 M. Bloch, The Historian’s Craft, trans. P. Putnam, Manchester, 1953, p. 63.