John D. Cotts, the Clerical Dilemma. Peter of Blois and Literate Culture in the Twelfth Century
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
John D. Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma. Peter of Blois and Literate Culture in the Twelfth Century. W ashington, DC: The Catholic University of Am erica Press, 2009. ix+320pp. $74.95. ISBN 978-0-8132-1676-8 The twelfth century was a turbulent but inspiring period in m edieval Europe. Nations were beginning to develop a sense of national identity; the Church was consolidating power while, at the sam e tim e, ecclesiastic scholars debated the virtues and vices of education and m onastic reform in the new universities of Paris and Bologna. Voices for reform clashed with voices for tradition. Kings vied for suprem acy against bishops, and questions of the soul were enm eshed with the needs of the secular court. This is the era of strong kings like England’s Henry II (1154–89) who fought both wars of words and wars of faith against friends and foreign foes. The is the age of Becket (1118–70), a secular advisor who becam e one of the m ost vocal advocates of the rights of the Church against the King who appointed him , and was m artyred for his cause. The twelfth century was an era of hum anism , conservatism , progressive thinking and religious intolerance, of crusade and m onastic piety. This is the world captured by John D. Cotts in his excellent new work that re-exam ines this period through the eyes of a seem ingly insignificant secular cleric, Peter of Blois. Peter of Blois (c. 1135–c. 1212) may have been an elegant fraud, who may have forged royal preference to give him self m ore prom inence in the world of politics and spirituality; or he m ay have been a genuine actor on the stage of twelfth-century Europe. As Cotts explains in his introduction, Peter of Blois has long been dism issed by scholars and critics as a m arginal figure, a fraud who claim ed an audience to which he actually had no access, a ‘com piler’ who m erely retooled the works of others to suit his own agenda. But Cotts’s argum ent is that, despite their shortcom ings, the works of Peter of Blois—an extensive collection of letters com plem ented by long treatises on various m atters—are really crafted, deliberate literary 0orks that contradict m ost m odern assum ptions about both the m an and the period. The letter collection of Peter of Blois is the prim ary focus of Cotts’s study, and in each chapter the author discusses significant issues of the day and how Peter responded to them , often revising the letters and rewriting them for later circulation. The m ain collection of 163 item s survives in over three hundred m anuscripts spread across Europe (4), and is addressed to ‘clergy of all ranks from all over Europe’, allowing readers to ‘re-create his clerical world, his saeculum’ (12). Despite its apparent popularity in and im m ediately after Peter’s lifetim e, later scholars have dism issed his work, a trend sparked by the tendency of enthusiastic editors to taint it as a source. Cotts outlines the relationship of Peter and the historians, and the critical disregard he has received over the years. Peter’s work was poorly received in the nineteenth century; he was a hard sell because of his obvious am bition and sycophantic style, and it is evident that the judgm ent of nineteenth-century critics has passed into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Academ ia regards Peter, at best, as a m inor lum inary with great aspirations that were never realised; at worst, as a plagiarist who sim ply appropriated the work of others to further his own am bitions. However, Cotts’s careful and m eticulous study lifts Peter of Blois’s work out of the m orass of scholarly derision and elevates it as an im portant historical source for the com plexities of the twelfth century. The m ethod and approach are clear and accessible and the author outlines his goals in the introduction, setting the scene for a re- exam ination of both Peter’s work and the persona behind it. His introduction offers an insight into the difficulties of reconstructing such a past, and explains the m erit of doing so through the epistolary tradition which provides the key to understanding what Cotts calls the ‘clerical dilem m a’, ‘the balancing of professional, educational, and spiritual concerns in an uneasy synthesis’ (15). The shifting nature of Peter’s collection dem onstrates not only the shifting power structures 2 of Europe, but also the pressure placed on clerics who often found them selves torn between secular responsibilities and loyalties and spiritual duties and concerns. Cotts sifts through dubious anecdotes, rhetorical flourishes, defensive diatribes, all enm eshed with literary flair to piece together the fragm ented m osaic of Peter’s world. Chapter One provides a reconstruction of the chronological career and events of Peter’s life, intertwining biography with the epistolary evidence provided by Peter and his contem poraries—a story of life and letters. Cotts punctuates his analysis of Peter’s m aterial with his subject’s own words, and attem pts to answers the questions that Peter him self posed. Part of Peter’s frustrations in his political am bitions (he never achieved the bishopric he desired) stem s from his som ewhat hum ble origins. He was born to a relatively im poverished Breton noblem an who was subjected to som e form of slander in his life, slander against which Peter defended his fam ily for years in his struggle to establish his own credibility. Peter had an illustrious career, which Cotts outlines in detail, shuttling between the universities and courts of France and England. He preferred France and often lam ents in his letters that he would m uch prefer to return even though political interests and assignm ents kept him in England. He was influenced by the intellectual centres of the Loire valley, which he claim s as his true patrim ony, and educated form ally in Bologna and in Paris. Peter m akes frequent reference to the leading lum inaries from whom he took inspiration, and occasionally, m aterial: John of Salisbury, Henry II, Reginald of Rotrou, Archbishop of Canterbury Richard of Dover, and later Archbishop Baldwin of Ford. He had num erous patrons, though his letters suggest he was often currying favour for m ore, or to replace those who inconveniently died. He was centrally involved in, or at least party to, the dispute between Henry II and Becket, and his letters provide a different perspective on Becket’s death. It is a fascinating life, even in the m ere facts of it, but his letters tell the m ost intriguing tales, which is the focus of Chapter Two. Here 3 Cotts looks at the creation of the letter collection as a whole—its m otives, its purpose, its structure, and its function within the literary, political, and spiritual realm s. The letters were copied over and over, and exist in other com pilations, though Peter also crafted his collection with deliberate care, juxtaposing earlier drafts with later ones as a form of debate or dialogue, and choosing those that were m ost im m ediate to his goals. Cotts further exam ines the negative reception of the letter collection by later scholars, and certainly backtracks a bit in re-presenting inform ation from the introduction. But the overall effect is a cohesive portrait of Peter’s uvre, its contents, its difficulties, and its popularity in the hundred years after his death. Cotts provides a clear breakdown of Peter’s letters, including two tables where he charts the num ber of recipients, the num ber of letters in Peter’s nam e or in another’s nam e, and then the types of letters, by subject, in the collections. The careful analysis of these letters shows the versatility of the epistolary tradition and the art with which Peter practiced his craft. Chapter Three paints the portrait of a school-trained cleric trying to carve a niche from rhetorical skill and advocating for his livelihood without the benefit of noble blood ties. Peter had to contend with rivals who questioned his abilities, and with an inauspicious fam ily lineage. He responded to accusations of being a compilator with the argum ent that his use of august m odels was an exhibition of his knowledge and the depth of his intellect, and that it took great skill to not only quote figures like Gregory the Great, but to use them and m ould them into his own argum ent. From the specific com ponents and inspiration of the letter collection Chapter Four investigates another of Peter’s works, the Invectiva in depravatorem, in the context of his letters and his own view of his pastoral duties. The Invectiva further addresses the criticism of his contem poraries and defends against the stigm a of ‘courtly clerics’ who curry favour to get rich and who are only interested in preferm ent—a charge levied at Peter in his own lifetim e. 4 In this treatise, Peter responds vehem ently and eloquently to these attacks, and this chapter situates his defense as a polem ic on pastoral advice and the ideal of clerical service to kings and the secular court. Chapter Five investigates Peter’s rôle and input into the Becket affair from the perspective of a m an with frustrated bishopric am bitions who nonetheless com m ented heavily on the qualities and attributes of the ‘ideal bishop’.