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 France, wandering preachers took to the roads of Christendom, apparently preaching the Gospel. 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; Peter the Venerable, 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, Bernard of Clairvaux 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 bishops; the first by Baudri, bishop 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.