The Defense of Monastic Memory in Bernard of Clairvaux’S
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CORRECTING FAULTS AND PRESERVING LOVE: THE DEFENSE OF MONASTIC MEMORY IN BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX’S APOLOGIA AND PETER THE VENERABLE’S LETTER 28 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts Whitney Mae Mihalik August, 2013 CORRECTING FAULTS AND PRESERVING LOVE: THE DEFENSE OF MONASTIC MEMORY IN BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX’S APOLOGIA AND PETER THE VENERABLE’S LETTER 28 Whitney Mae Mihalik Thesis Approved: Accepted: __________________________________ _________________________________ Advisor Dean of the College Dr. Constance Bouchard Dr. Chand Midha __________________________________ _________________________________ Co-Advisor or Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Michael Graham Dr. George R. Newkome __________________________________ _________________________________ Department Chair or School Director Date Dr. Martin Wainwright ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 II. HISTORIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................6 III. THE REFORMS OF BENEDICTINE MONASTICISM ...............................26 IV. BERNARD’S APOLOGIA ..............................................................................32 V. PETER’S LETTER 28 .....................................................................................58 VI. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................81 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................85 iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In twelfth-century France, Benedictine monasticism was greatly contested. Most orders followed the Benedictine Rule, a set of monastic rules written in the sixth century. This Rule, written by Saint Benedict of Nursia, created a set of guidelines based on the scriptures and ancient sources on desert monasticism, including the writings of John Cassian and the collection of stories in The Lives of the Desert Fathers. Benedict’s Rule, inspired by ancient models, was to be the standard for medieval monasticism for centuries to come—a monasticism that believed whole-heartedly in the lifestyle it portrayed. However, monks often created their own version of the Rule based on what they interpreted the Rule to really say. This thesis will address how twelfth-century monks, specifically Abbots Bernard of Clairvaux (1113-1153) and Peter the Venerable of Cluny (1122-1156), remembered the Benedictine Rule, and how those versions differed. Each abbot grounded himself in the Rule as well as the very same ancient works as Benedict himself; however, they adopted very different interpretations. Peter’s version was based on nearly two centuries of former interpretation by Cluniac abbots. His version, therefore, included a history of other men’s interpretations. Bernard, on the other hand, did not have this luxury. The abbot of a new order, he did not have the former interpretations of many abbots that Peter did. The Cistercian Order was created under the 1 premise of a strict interpretation of the Rule. By trying to follow it exactly, the Cistercians did not look to traditions of former centuries, but looked to the Rule literally. Therefore, these men, living contemporarily, followed very different interpretations of the Rule because they had different visions of it. This led to a correspondence between the two abbots that is still to this day one of the most famous in all of history. Benedict writes in his Rule: “But if, by recommending a matter of fairness, on account of the correction of faults or the preservation of love, any little thing will have seemed rather restricting, you should not be dismayed by fear and abandon the way of salvation, which is not to be begun except by a narrow entryway.”1 Here Benedict was asking men not to leave the monastic life simply because it would be hard. He was arguing that in order to gain eternal salvation, life must not be easy, there must be rules and these rules would most certainly be difficult. The narrowness he discussed was the basis for his Rule, and the reason he created it. The Rule was a tool for discipline, and therefore anyone who followed the Rule must be disciplined. However, this line also suggested that someone would be enforcing this “narrow entryway” in order to correct “faults.” Therefore, someone must be interpreting the Rule. It was here the basic premises of Bernard’s Apologia and Peter’s Letter 28 were revealed. As abbots, they were in charge of not only enforcing the Rule, but of interpreting it as well. This thesis is primarily concerned with not only the way each man defended his order, but the way in which he used the Rule and ancient sources to defend his created memory of Benedictine monasticism. How they interpreted and remembered the ways in 1 Benedict, The Rule of St Benedict, edited by Abbot Justin McCann (London: Sheed & Ward Ltd, 1972), 12. Though the Latin comes from McCann’s edited and translated volume, the translation of the Latin for the Rule will be my own throughout the paper. Here the Latin reads: Sedet si quid paululum restrictius, dictante aequitatis ratione, propter emendationem vitiorum vel conservationem caritatis processerit, non ilico pavore perterritu srefugias viam salutis, quae non est nisi angusto initio incipienda. 2 which monasticism was created and had been used throughout the early Middle Ages was the true essence of their arguments. They were trying to correct the other’s Order because they were so sure that their own house followed true monasticism and that the other house was in turn following a system that would lead them nowhere. Each of these abbots believed the way in which he was interpreting the Rule was the correct way. Because of this, they felt the need to address the ways in which the other orders were not following the Rule correctly. By doing this, they assumed they could discipline each other into adopting their specific memory of Benedictine monasticism. But, because each was so adamant about his own memory and interpretation, a compromise was out of the question. Therefore, the Apologia and Letter 28 were written as not only defenses of Bernard’s and Peter’s memory of the Rule and ancient monasticism, but they were also accusations about which specific aspects of each other’s practices were wrong. Each abbot dedicated himself to a specific memory and interpretation, and because of this believed the other Order had failed to follow the Rule. In each of their writings, they made it clear that their own interpretations and Order were following the Rule the way it was intended, and that the other abbot and his monks were not. Bernard was the more subtle of the two. He was not on the defensive when he wrote the Apologia, so he did not have to explain why he was right, only how Peter was wrong. He made it seem as though he would have been happy for a Cluniac to offer any criticisms against his own Order—if they could have reasonably found one: This is what I think about your Order and ours. This is the sort of thing I say to our monks, and this is what I say, not about you but to you, as you yourself, and anyone who knows me as you do can best testify. Whatever is praiseworthy in your monks I praise and extol. On the other hand, to you and to my other friends I 3 point out whatever is worthy of reproach, in order that it may be corrected. This is not slander, but candor, and I ask you very earnestly, always to do the same for us. Goodbye.2 And so ends Bernard’s Apologia. Bernard was not slighting the Cluniacs, but disciplining them as Benedict calls for in the earlier passage. Bernard, as an abbot, was concerned with the souls of his brothers, whether Cistercian or Cluniac. He made it clear that it was how he treated the monks in his own house, and therefore he was treating his other brothers no differently. Of course, this infers that Bernard was scolding the Cluniacs on matters in which the Cistercian way of following the Rule disagrees with the Cluniac, therefore, making it clear that he found his way the true way in which the Rule should be followed. However, Peter was not going to let his own Order go undefended. After offering several criticisms to Bernard about the Cistercians, Peter wrote that the Cluniacs followed the Rule as they were supposed to: And we say in order that we may refute the accusations in the order in which they have been placed by you in observation of our rules, by no means do we have a distorted course, by no means do we pursue footpaths which were strange and devious, but through rectitude we follow what is decent of all rules. We do not substitute personal laws for the sayings of the fathers since they were discovered by the saints themselves and they have pleased God, as sacred life and many miracles testify. He allowed and will always allow, that shepherds may take His sheep which they have ruled, and that sheep may obey the shepherds by God. You argue to show us transgressors of our vows, thus we show ourselves as true observers.3 2Bernard of Clairvaux, Apologia, translated by Michael Casey (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1970), 69. 3Peter Venerable, Letter 28, edited by Giles Constable (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967), 58. The translations of Peter’s words throughout this paper will be of my own translation, with Constable’s Latin in the notes. The