Chapter III

PONTIUS AND ANACLET

Shortly before the upheaval of the papal schism a dispute erupted at Cluny, which rocked the relatively peaceful world of Western monasti- cism, and deeply involved the papacy. The conflict centered around the abbot, Pontius, and ended in a violent clash between him and his succes­ sor, Peter the Venerable. Some scholars see the dispute as part of the first rumblings of the papal schism. They interpret it as the northern counter­ part of the division within the curia, and believe that it delineates the ideological guidelines of each of the papal contenders in the schism. To them the evidence is very strong that Anaclet was ideologically associated with Pontius, and Innocent with Peter. Anaclet had taken orders at Cluny under Pontius, and even though the abbot had died by 1130, these schol­ ars believe that his followers must have supported Anaclet because they shared a common monastic philosophy. This probability appears to be strengthened by Peter the Venerable's vehement rejection of Anaclet, and his unstinting support of Innocent. According to this perspective, one has only to observe the values upheld by each abbot to know the religious philosophy of the two cardi­ nals vying for the papacy.1 Here the differences appear to be clear cut. While the advocates of this view believe that Pontius permitted the stan­ dards of Cluny to degenerate, they hold that Peter the Venerable restored, and further tightened discipline under pressure from the .2 Accordingly, when St. Bernard harshly criticized the excesses of Cluny, he was referring to the reign of Pontius rather than the rule of Peter the Venerable.3 Therefore, even though he was a member of an older Benedictine house, Peter is seen to have represented the 's most enlightened tendencies, and his support of Innocent is viewed as a compelling argument that Innocent also extolled these same principles. Churchmen recognized him as for this reason, and conversely, they rejected Anaclet because they saw him as spiritually aligned with the

1 Chodorow, Christian Political Theory, p. 42, n. 37. 2 Ibid., 22-26. John Van Engen questions whether there was a crisis in the older Benedic­ tine houses during this period. "The 'Crisis of Οεηο^^!^ Reconsidered: Benedictine Monasticism in the Years 1050-1150," Speculum (1986), 269-804. 3 For a discussion of this issue see Adriaan Bredero, "Cluny et Citeaux au XIIe siècle: les origines de la controverse," Studi Medievali 12, nr. 1 (1971). 22 THE JEWISH POPE outmoded traditions of the old Cluny. Today this view is being challenged by a number of scholars, who are reinvestigating the reign of Pontius and the dispute at Cluny. The salient events of the controversy are not clear because its two main sources— De Miraculis of Peter the Venerable, and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Ordericus Vitalis—conflict.4 Ordericus, a Norman , is considered to be a reliable reporter to the degree that he had access to accurate infor• mation, and his account is generally substantiated by others. Peter, how• ever, was directly involved in the dispute, and understandably could not entirely detach himself from it. Also, his memory may have been some• what vague, since he did not write his version until 20 years after the events. Nevertheless, until recently scholars accepted it with little scepti• cism. Now they are detecting discrepancies, which make them take Order• icus' account, written only 10 years after the conflict, more seriously.5 The dispute evolved roughly as follows. Peter the Venerable contended that there had been grumbling against Pontius within Cluny since 1112 because of his poor administration, and many other sources attest that bishops in overlapping territories resented Cluniac exemptions. However, to the outside world Pontius appeared as one of the pillars of the reform papacy from his consecration by Archbishop Guy of Vienne (later Calixtus II) in 1109 until 1122.6 In that year he suddenly arrived in Rome, where

4 De Miraculis, PL 189:922-926. The account of Pontius is found in cc. 12 and 13 of book 2 of Peter's biography of Matthew, cardinal bishop of Albano, formerly of the Cluniac monastery of St. Martin-des-Champs, and grand of Cluny. See Pietro Zerbi, "Intorno alio scisma de Ponzio, Abate di Cluny," in Studi storici in onore di Ottorino Bertolini 2, ed. Pa• cini (Pisa, 1971), 835-891 at p. 836, n. 1 for a discussion of De Miraculis. The best edition of the Historia Ecclesiastica is edited by Marjorie Chibnall, The Ecclesiastic History of Orderic Vi• talis (Oxford, New York, 1969, 1972-1978). The events concerning the dispute at Cluny are in Book XII, vol. 6 (1978), pp. 311-316. See also by Chibnall The World of Orderic Vitalis (Oxford, 1984). 5 Teilenbach, "Der Sturz," p. 16. Tellenbach noticed that Peter did not mention Pontius' painful imprisonment in the Septizonium. Instead, Peter affirmed that Pontius died from an epidemic not mentioned in any other source. These discrepancies suggested to him that at least Peter did not present an accurate account of details, and that perhaps his distortions went beyond details. Geoffrey of Vigeois mentions Pontius' imprisonment in the Septizoni• um. Ex Chronico Gaufredi Vosiensis, ed. M. Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 12 (Paris, 1806, new ed. 1968) p. 432:. "Et ut breviter multa perstringam, jussu Apos- tolici Pontius frater Comités de Melgoire sine audientia captus, in turre quae dicitur ad Septem-Salas usque ad obitum, videlicet ν. Kai. Januarii, in custodia tentus est. Sepultus est quasi pauper, imo captivus, apud S. Andream." Ordericus also reports that Pontius was im­ prisoned. Chibnall, Ecclesiastic History 6, p. 314. 6 Ex Chronico Cluniacensi, ed. Bouquet, Recueil 12, p. 313: "Successit ei in Abbatiae re- gimine venerabilis vitae vir nomine Pontius, tarn carnis quam mentis nobilitaie clarissimus, communique totius sanctae Fraternitatis electione promotus, VII. Idus Maii a domino Widone Viennensis Ecclesiae reverendo Archiepiscopo consecratus, et in sede sua cum mag­ na totius populi exultatione locatus est." Both Abbots Hugh I and Peter the Venerable were consecrated by archbishops of Besançon (Hugh and Anseric). Hugh II, the follower of Pon• tius, seems not to have been consecrated at all. Since Guy was acting in the place of the archbishop of Besançon about the time of Pontius' election, it may have been in this capacity that he consecrated Pontius. Guy continued to have contact with Pontius and Cluny throughout Pontius' abbacy; e.g. Dedicatio Capellae—1118: "Anno incarnationis Domini 1118. xvij. Kai. Septemb. consecratum est Oratorium hoc cum Altari a reuerendissimo Arch-