New Introduction vii

NEW INTRODUCTION

The need for reprinting Bruno Scott James's English translation of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's letters demonstrates both the enduring importance of the letters for students of medieval Christianity and the high quality and vitality of James's translation. The letters, gems of literary art and mirrors of monastic culture and society in the twelfth century, still provide engaging and entertaining reading as well as fruitful material for scholarly endeavours. They both edify and delight, calling to mind Horace's recommendation that poets should write to benefit and amuse the reader, to make their words at the same time pleasing and instructive for life: 'Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae/aut simul et iucunda et idonea dicere vitae' (De arte poetica, 333).

In that sense, Bernard's letters are truly classics of literature, and like other classic works, they are read with fresh insights by each new generation of readers. Understanding the culture to which they belong enriches the reader's appreciation of single letters and of the entire corpus. Each of the texts constitutes a small, integral masterpiece, like an intricate section of a tapestry, that benefits and delights the beholder.

The entire collection instructs and pleases the reader with the harmony of scenes forming a panorama of twelfth-century monasticism. To enhance the reader's appreciation of the letters, this new introduction first looks rapidly at recent studies on Bernard of Clairvaux's life and character, then views the role letters generally played in monastic culture and the insights on monastic spirituality and twelfth-century society offered specifically by Bernard's letters. The final section examines briefly the differences between the Latin editions of the letters used by James and the more recent edition by J. Leclercq and H.-M. Rochais which James was awaiting with great anticipation at the time his translation went to press. A comprehensive comparison of the new edition with James's translation and the necessary reworking of the translation awaits another reprinting of the letters.

BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX: RECENT STUDIES

In 1990, the nine-hundredth anniversary of Bernard's birth stimulated a - body of new research on the man whom Giles Constable assesses as 'the great master of late medieval and early modern piety' (Constable, 326) and Brian Patrick McGuire calls 'the difficult saint' (McGuire, 17). The scope of scholarly studies on Bernard indicates the widespread interest

Vil

viii

NEW INTRODUCTION

his works hold for students and specialists in history, theology, spirituality, liturgy, art, rhetoric, and other fields. A selection of the vast research on Bernard published since 1990 appears in the back matter of the present volume.

The events of Bernard's life and the traditional stories related about him are contained in James's introduction and will not be repeated here. From the letters James traces a brief, psychological portrait of Bernard, a man of 'tempestuous temperament'. Recent studies tend to strive for an understanding of the man behind the hagiographical legends and for an explanation of how Bernard maintained a balance between the contemplative monastic life and his intense involvement in affairs of the world.

THE LETTER IN MONASTIC CULTURE

In an electronic age when e-mail is replacing the carefully penned letter, readers may not grasp how letters can be such valuable historical and biographical documents. It will be beneficial to consider the importance of letter writing in the twelfth century and particularly in monastic culture.

All medieval monastic literature issued from life in the monastery, its permeation with the Scriptures, and its integration of the oral, aural, and written word through recitation (speaking out loud), listening, and reading. Reciting, listening, and reading were key elements of the monastic day, all involving the Scriptures or texts permeated by them.

Monks recited the divine office that incorporated much of the Scriptures, intoning the whole of the Psalter, for example, each week.

They listened to talks on the Rule of Benedict with its strong scriptural base. They also heard sermons that commented on the Scriptures, and letters, sermons, and saints' lives read aloud. Those texts proclaimed in alta voce were generally composed for public reading in imitation of an oral style. The Rule provided for private silent reading as well as reading aloud to the community. The silent reader voiced the words either with a slight murmuring sound or without uttering them aloud at all.

Since the monastic composition and use of texts intertwined oral, aural, and written elements, scholars encounter difficulty in separating the oral from the written in the extant texts. Specialists generally search for indications of orality, such as plural direct address or exhortations, to identify sermons, while the hallmarks of a letter are the features of its standard form: the salutation (salutatio), securing of good will (benevolentiae captatio), narration (narratio), petition (petitio), and conclusion (conclusio).

These elements of letter form were codified in manuals known as artes dicaminis, guides to correct style in letter writing.' A talented writer such as Bernard of Clairvaux knew these formulas well and varied them deliberately to make a special impact on his reader.

NEW INTRODUCTION

ix The letter and the sermon are two of the literary genres represented in medieval monastic writing. Other genres included exegetical commentaries, florilegia (collections of sayings and stories), and histories including saints' lives and chronicles. In form and function, letters, sermons, exegetical commentaries, and shorter treatises overlapped: their boundaries were so fluid that the function of one could substitute for another. Of these literary forms, letters and sermons perhaps have the closest similarities. Both could substitute for conversations, and a letter could stand in the place of a sermon. When received, letters were often read aloud either by individual readers or by a lector to a congregation. After praising the superiority of the living word over the spoken, Bernard himself explains that a letter serves as a substitute for a conversation: '. . . being absent from you, . . . I must satisfy myself with the second best alternative of a letter' (L 424, p. 494). In Letter 392

Bernard describes how his letter substitutes for a sermon: "This zeal of mine impels me to write in a letter what I would far sooner inscribe upon your hearts with my voice, if I had the power to follow my will in the matter' (p. 463). Both genres, letter and sermon, were solidly grounded on the Bible and could have persuasive power over their audiences, whether congregations or individual readers.

The eleventh and twelfth centuries represented a sort of Golden Age of letter-writing, followed by a decline in the thirteenth century.3

When sent over long distances from one monastery to another, letters linked distant communities. Monastic correspondence involved messages of friendship, advice, consolation, or inspiration. They often provided encouragement to persevere in the monastic vocation or persuaded new recruits to undertake it. Letters of recommendation, business letters, and discussions of doctrine also were exchanged. Saint

Benedict must have anticipated some problems arising from the transmittal of letters, for the Rule stipulates that letters be sent to the addressee through the abbot: 'On no account shall a monk be allowed to receive letters, tokens or any little gift whatsoever from his parents or anyone else, or from his brethren, or to give the same, without the Abbot's permission' (RB 54). The reference to letters exchanged among the brothers implies that, in the silence of the monastery, letters between members of the same community sometimes provided a means of communication.

People in high positions enlisted special messengers to deliver letters.

A few examples from Bernard's correspondence clarify the process of letter transmission. Bernard's Letter 389 recommends the noted scholar

- John of Salisbury who carried the recommendation himself to the recipient. Other letters such as 264 and 424 indicate that the messenger conveyed a confidential message aloud in addition to the written text.

Some describe the letter-bearer as one dear to Bernard (L 268, 269) and

NEW INTRODUCTION

commend him to the recipient (L 290). The seal carrying Bernard's personal stamp authenticated the letter's authorship. Seals were susceptible to forgery, however, and Bernard states in Letter 354 that he had to have a new seal made because his had been forged. The new seal also was stolen by Bernard's infamous secretary Nicholas (L 363).

Besides the correspondence relayed by personal messengers, communication between monasteries was made possible by regular courier service that circulated the announcements of deaths from one religious house to another in the form of a mortuary roll commonly called the 'Book of the Dead' The messenger arrived at a monastery, where bell-ringing announced his visit and summoned the monks to gather for a communal reading of the message. At the end of the mortuary roll, a blank space was left for acknowledgements, condolences, or news to be written; additional vellum was added when needed.

The rolls could become very lengthy; one from the abbey of St Bavo measures almost 100 feet. The couriers transporting mortuary rolls delivered other correspondence as well and thereby allowed the sending of letters from one monastery to another.

The Cistercian administrative structure, with its network of mother and daughter houses, and its annual meeting called 'general chapter', required abbots to travel and thereby generated the exchange of letters and ensured their conveyance. Abbots made regular visitations to their monastery's mother house and also to their own daughter house(s).

They also attended the general chapter, and from there, they conveyed messages home to their abbeys. Some abbots were appointed to deliver penances to the absent abbots whose excuses for non-attendance had not been accepted. All these journeys of abbots within the order required and facilitated the exchange of letters.'

Communities also received letters from a bishop or an abbot in response to their questions about the Scriptures or concerning thorny theological problems. The letter substituted for the abbot's physical presence among them and for his speaking to them on certain issues. Its arrival could be the occasion for great excitement in the monastery.

The Cistercian Hugh of Francigena, monk at Silvanés in southern France, described how the monks of that abbey received a letter from Gaucelin, bishop of Lodéve (1161-87).° They read silently but mouthed the words: 'It was snatched, stolen, and taken by everyone, and whoever was able to get it would read and reread it, sitting motionless, hidden from others in a corner of the cloister, opening his mouth like a pauper eating in secret.7

Letters of an influential figure such as Bernard of Clairvaux had great potential for persuasion and his recommendations were in high demand.* Consequently, letters of recommendation from the abbot of Clairvaux appear throughout the collection (L 36, 38, 44, 284, 287, 3 37).

NEW INTRODUCTION

xi In Letter 339 Bernard expresses his anger that someone obtained letters of recommendation written in his name without his knowledge.

Persuasive letters on matters of widespread interest were often addressed to a whole community or to the people of a region, where they were read aloud in the churches and served as sermons. Bernard's letters on the Crusades were proclaimed to many congregations.9 Letter

394 alludes to the process for public proclamation of such a letter, a decree that '.

.. a copy of this letter should be carried everywhere and that the bishops and priests should proclaim it to the people of God'

(p. 467):

A MIRROR OF MONASTIC SPIRITUALITY

AND MEDIEVAL SOCIETY

Bruno Scott James wrote eloquently about Bernard's literary style and the strength of the abbot's spirit and personality as it radiates from his letters. The present introduction will briefly touch upon some of the many aspects of monastic spirituality, ecclesiastical affairs, and medieval society reflected in the letters. Many letters are not confined to one theme or issue but weave together several.

The numbers of a few letters dealing with the topic specified appear in parentheses below, but limitations on space do not allow for complete listings here.

Bernard turned his attention so frequently to matters outside the monastery that he described himself as a chimaera: 'neither cleric or layman' who 'kept the habit of a monk' but 'long ago abandoned the life' (L 326, p. 402).7° He intervened in numerous conflicts involving ecclesiastical politics. Letters 127 to 149 treat the 1130 schism and Bernard's effort to rally support for Innocent II; those range from appeals for support addressed to the cities of Genoa and Pisa to expressions of homesickness sent back to Clairvaux. Innocent II later heard Bernard's reproaches on behalf of Albero, archbishop of Tréves, who felt he lacked the pope's support (L 218, 220-222). Numerous letters sent advice to Pope Eugene III, whose election to the Holy See is hailed in Letters 314 and 315. Bernard did not hesitate to admonish

Eugene III that he had been deceived (L 340), for example, or to warn him against the bishop elect of Rodez, whom he called a monster (L

381). Bernard also reprimanded the people of Rome for their rebellion against Eugene III (L 319). Several letters concern the Second Crusade, which Bernard preached at Eugene's request. Number 391 exemplifies this sort of letter intended for public reading aloud. An appeal for the crusade, it urges Christian men to take up the cross to reconquer the Holy Land, and it admonishes against persecution of the Jews, the - subject of number 393 also. Letter 396 orders excommunication for any monk or lay brother who leaves the monastery to join the expedition.

Bernard's refusal to transgress the bounds of his monastic profession and lead the Third Crusade resounds from Letter 399. Royal affairs also

NEW INTRODUCTION

prompted the abbot's intervention. A quarrel between King Louis VI and the bishop of Paris drew Bernard's intervention (L 49ff), and King

Louis incited the abbot's anger for his heedless violence and reprisals in a controversy over the count of Vermandois' attempt to divorce his wife (L 297). Bernard also intervened in disputes over the elections for the archbishop of York in 1141-3 (L 187ff) and for the see of Auxerre in 1152 (L 345-8). Many bishops benefited from the abbot of Clairvaux's advice, consulting him on whether to accept election (L 9), or on decisions to be made in office (L 10, 11, 26-30, 62-5). He reproached them when necessary. A letter to the clergy at Sens after the death of their archbishop serves as exemplary advice on choosing a new leader

(L 260).

Several letters revolve around vocation to the religious life: persuasion to undertake or resume its discipline, rejoicing over such a decision when made, and lamenting over vows broken (L 92, 104, 105,

I10, III, 443). Debates over the best form of religious life surface in Letter 1, from Bernard to his cousin Robert (known as his nephew), who was entrusted to Cluny as a child. Bernard apologizes for his severity toward the young man, who came for a time to Clairvaux, and the abbot persuades him to return. In retelling Robert's story in the third person, Bernard criticizes Cluniac practices such as the reception of child oblates. The Cistercians insisted on receiving young men who were old enough to themselves decide to enter the monastery. Bernard also reprehends the fine food and clothing of the Benedictines and praises a simple diet and hard work.

Negotiations between abbots often involved fugitives who fled one monastery for another, or monks who were seeking to live under a different style of observance (L 67, 68, 86, 234, 428). The latter discussions sometimes revolved around preferences for the Cistercian, Cluniac, or another order's way of life, but often they merely explain simple details of transfer from one place to another. A quarrel between the Cistercians and the Premonstratensians underlies Bernard's arguments in Letter 328.

Rivalries between Cistercians, Cluniacs, and other orders have been exaggerated, and friendly cooperation seems to have been the usual modus operandi, as seen in Bernard's Letter 440, when he commends a cleric to the Canons Regular at Troyes, fearing that the Cistercian life would be too harsh for him; or Letter 450 granting a forge built by Cistercians to the Benedictines at Celles. Nonetheless, rivalry escalated into violence when the Benedictines at Gigny, engaged in a prolonged conflict over the white monks' exemption from tithes, attacked the Cistercian abbey of Miroir (L 353).

The letters commemorate important events in Cistercian history, for example: the founding of Rievaulx abbey in 1132 (L 95); around 1140, the establishment of a sister house of Clairvaux in Sicily (L 276-8); and

NEW INTRODUCTION

xii the election of Bernard Paganelli in 1145 as Pope Eugene III (L 314, 315). Letters of consolation mark the passing of important figures such as Malachy, archbishop of Ireland in 1148 (L 386). Expressions of gratitude for benefactors' donations (L 32) are found, as are requests for aid to monasteries in need, not only Cistercian houses such as MaisonDieu in Bourges (L 406), but also those of other orders such as the Benedictine houses of Liessies (L 233) and Molesme (L 232), the monastery that a group of monks left in 1098 in order to found the 'new monastery' at Citeaux.

One, of the abbot's chief responsibilities was the proper correction of the monks entrusted to his charge. Letter 103 deals with the correction and discipline of a brother, and several letters offer advice to abbots,

Cistercians and others, facing troublesome situations (L 73, 76-9, 81-5, 380). The duty to reproach was often extended to those who needed correction but who did not ask for advice. Bernard chastizes an abbot who deserted his flock to journey to the Holy Land (L 4). His desertion also moved Bernard to compose a treatise on obedience

(L 8). Bernard also reprimands his friend, Atto, bishop of Troyes, for appointing a child as an archdeacon (L 263). One letter hails the decision by Abbot Suger to reform the abbey of Saint Denis, not sparing him reprimands for the earlier excesses under his leadership (L 80). Some correspondence addresses the problems of opposition to reform (L 85,

286), and in one case, letters lament the murders of two reformers

(L 164-7).

Images of monastic spirituality, themes, and subjects appropriate for meditation and study intertwine throughout the letters. Letter 67 contains the well-known description of the monastery of Clairvaux as the nearest earthly approximation to the heavenly Jerusalem, object of monastic contemplation and the desired end for the monk's life of spiritual discipline. Letter 107 praises the lessons learned from nature, superior for Bernard to those the schools offered.

The strength and high value of friendship in twelfth-century monasticism is evident in letters such as 87 and 88 to William of St Thierry, and 119 to Ermengarde, a female friend. Letters 90 and 217 reflect on humility. Letter 423 constitutes a discourse on spiritual progress in the monastic life, and Letter 116 expounds on virginity and contempt for the world.

A few letters reflect views on the liturgy. Bernard wrote Letter 430 to send along with sermons, a hymn, and responsories that he composed for the Office of St Victor. Responding to a request for these liturgical compositions, he sets forth his views on the proper qualities of _ liturgical music. A liturgical dilemma surfaces in Letter 72, where

Bernard advises an abbot who seeks counsel after finding that during a mass he celebrated, there was no wine in the chalice at the moment of consecration.

xiv

NEW INTRODUCTION

The letters address numerous exegetical and theological subjects, including famous controversies. In Letter 215 Bernard objects to the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin instituted by the canons of Lyons. He expounds his views on the Virgin Mary's conception, asserting that she was sanctified in the womb and not at the moment of her conception. Letter 98 constitutes a discourse on the story of the Macchabees and on martyrdom. Bernard comments on baptism in Letter 435, responding to an inquiry about the baptism of an infant by a layman who used a formula that did not correspond word for word to the liturgical norm. Letters 236 to 249 reflect Bernard's famous controversy with Peter Abelard. The abbot of Clairvaux, using formulas common to writing against heresy, repeatedly compares his learned adversary to the heretics Arius, Pelagius, and Nestorius. With similarly vehement language, Bernard also targets Arnold of Brescia (L 250, 2$1) and Henry of Lausanne (L 317, 318), whose heresy prompted his journey to southern France in 1145.

Several letters shed light on Bernard's other works, proving useful in establishing dates for them and providing a fascinating glimpse into the abbot's process of composition. In Letter 19, Bernard cites On Humility and the homilies on Missus est, the Apologia (also referred to in L 87 and 91), as well as unidentified letters and discourses. Letters 159 and 160 refer to the sermons On the Song of Songs. Aelred of Rievaulx's treatise, the Speculum charitatis, is the subject of Letter 177, where

Bernard urges his fellow Cistercian to write the text. Once it was completed, Bernard's letter served as the preface.

The busy abbot was pressed for time to write even to his friends. In letter 91 he complains that he received a second letter from canon

Oger before he had had time to answer the first. The long working days of summer curtailed the time available for writing: 'I scarcely had time to read [your second letter] when it came during my dinner. And now by getting up early I am just able to scribble, on the quiet, this brief reply' (p. 135). In another letter to Oger, Bernard asks that the pace of their letter exchange be slowed down:

We wear ourselves out in scribbling to each other and we exhaust our messengers in sending them backwards and forwards between us. Let us give our heads a respite from dictating, our tongues from chattering, our hands from writing, our messengers from running to and fro, and apply ourselves to meditating day and night on the law of the Lord, which is the law of charity (p. 139).

Letter 92 describes the energy and agitation unleashed when Bernard wrote:

How can the mind be quiet when composing a letter and a turmoil of expressions are clamoring and every sort of phrase and diversity

NEW INTRODUCTION

xv of senses are jostling each other? when words spring into the mind, but just the word one wants escapes ore; when literary effect, sense, and how to convey a meaning clearly, and what should be said, and in what order it should be said, has to be carefully considered; all the things which those who understand these matters scrutinize carefully? ...Can you call this silence even if the lips are not moving? (pp. 137-8) These statements about composition testify to the painstaking scrutiny that Bernard applied to the writing process. May the readers of these

English letters appreciate the scope of James's contribution in translating the complex and sonorous Latin of Saint Bernard and also aspire to read the Latin originals produced so carefully by the master.

JAMES'S SOURCES AND THE LECLERCQ-ROCHAIS EDITION

While Bruno Scott James was keenly aware that a new edition of Bernard's letters was imminent, it did not appear in time for his translation to take it into account. The definitive edition of Bernard's complete works includes two volumes of letters, edited by Jean

Leclercq and Henri-Marie Rochais. A summary of the introduction to that edition will provide necessary background information to appreciate the importance of the letters and the complexity of their manuscript tradition.

The first matter to consider is the number of letters in the two Latin editions and in James's translation. While Leclercq and Rochais respected the Mabillon edition as closely as possible, they added Letters

496-547 to their edition. James knew and translated forty of those, indicated in the chart found in the back matter of this volume."

Readers should be advised that the total number of authentic letters in Leclercg-Rochais is 500; the numbering reaches 547 because many of the letters that Mabillon included have since been judged as inauthentic and five were found to be duplicates.

J. Leclercq and H.-M. Rochais based their edition on five hundred letters thought authentic, extant in almost 400 manuscripts. The editors found 'extreme' variations in the letters' series; the copying of numerous, often short texts produced many scribal errors. Nonetheless, three groups of manuscripts were distinguished by historical references to the letters and by evidence in the manuscripts themselves: (1) a first and oldest collection, in which no letters appear from the last years of Bernard's life; (2) a second collection, which probably corresponds to the corpus mentioned by Geoffrey of Auxerre in 1145 and which does

~ not contain letter 310 (James L 469), supposedly written by Bernard shortly before his death;!? (3) a more extensive and complex collection, apparently an amplification of the 1145 grouping. Establishment of group one is achieved in two ways: (1) evidence for a small collection

— xvi

NEW INTRODUCTION

of letters existing in the summer of 1126, when Bernard in Letter 18 (James L 19) refers to a 'few letters that he has dictated;' and (2) a highly complex study of the manuscripts pointing to the existence of a series of letters later than 1126 but earlier than 1145. For group two, references from Geoffrey of Auxerre, probably dating from May of 1145, and from William of Saint-Thierry, sometime before his own death in September of 1148, signal the existence of a corpus of letters, called corpus epistolaram and codex epistolarum respectively. Group two contains revisions of several letters in group one, and no manuscript from Clairvaux appears in group two. Group three was probably constituted after Bernard's death on 20 August 1153 and Geoffrey of Auxerre doubtless played a role in establishing the register. Many manuscripts from Clairvaux and its daughter-houses are found in this group, pointing to the role of the Clairvaux scriptorium in disseminating Bernard's writings after his death.

The Leclercq-Rochais edition maintained the order of letters 1-495 established in the Mabillon edition and reproduced by J.-P. Migne in the Patrologia latina. That traditional order corresponds more or less to the sequence of the letters in group three of the manuscripts. Overall, differences between the Mabillon edition and that of Leclercq-Rochais are too complex to describe here. However, the dating of the letters deserves attention. Leclercq and Rochais established dates for the letters using not only Mabillon but also the findings of other scholars. The more recent edition of the letters by F Gastaldelli proposes modifications to the dating Leclercq-Rochais suggested for some letters. Those findings are indicated in the table to be found in the back matter of this volume. An asterisk next to the date given designates a change, even a slight one; most modifications involve the assignment of a more specific date, such as the choice of months within a given year.

More information can be found in the notes of the Gastaldelli and Leclercq-Rochais volumes.

BEVERLY MAYNE KIENZLE

The Divinity School, Harvard University NOTES * On the ars dictaminis, see James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A History of Rhetorical Theory from St. Augustine to the Renaissance, (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London:

University of California Press, 1974), pp. 194-268.

* J. Leclercq reviews genres of monastic literature in The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, trans Catharine Misrahi, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1988), pp. 153-72.

5 Giles Constable, Letters and Letter Collections, Typologie des sources du moyen age occidental 17, (Turnhout, 1976), pp31-9.

Constable associates the later decline of letter writing with its condemnation by monastic and canonical reformers who must

NEW INTRODUCTION

| xvii have thought that it threatened monastic seclusion. Constable (p. 37) cites the testimony of Robert of Bridlington from around 1150, who deplored the 'great evils' brought about by the exchange of secret letters and concluded that St Augustine, whose rule was used by medieval canons, was justified in banning secret letters originating either inside or outside the monastery.

* See J. Leclercq, Love of Learning, pp. 176-7.

> lam grateful to Christopher Holdsworth for the suggestions in this paragraph. On the Cistercian administrative structure, see Martha G. Newman, The Boundaries of Charity.

Cistercian Culture and Ecclesiastical Reform, 1098-1180 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford

University Press, 1996), pp. 48-53.

Ms. 611, edited by Beverly Mayne Kienzle, 'The Works of Hugo Francigena: Tractatus de conversione Pontii de Laracio et exordii Salvaniensis monasterii vera narratio; epistolae (Dijon,

Bibliothéque Municipale MS 611)', Sacris enudiri 34 (1994): 273-311.

7 'De epistola quam misistis nobis quo gaudio, quanta laeticia, quanta devotione, et exultacione mentis a fratribus suscepta fuerit; possibilitatis meae non est edicere nec ... memorare valebo, quo legendi studio, quo videndi desiderio rapiebatur ab omnibus, furabatur, tollebatur, et quicumque eam habere poterat in angulum claustri secedens remotus a ceteris legebat atque relegebat adaperiens os suum quasi pauper edens in Spence: B. Kienzle, 'The Works of Hugo Francigena,' Sacris erudiri 34 (1994): 309,

.26—33.

® Giles Constable underscores the persuasive power of the letter in: 'Papal, Imperial and Monastic Propaganda in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries', in Preaching and Propaganda in the Middle Ages: Islam, Byzantium, Latin West. Penn-Paris-Dumbarton Oaks

Colloquia III, Session of October 20-25. 1980, ed. George Makdisi, Dominique Sourdel, Janine Sourdel-Thoumine, (Paris, 1980), pp. 181-2.

9 Giles Constable, 'The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries', Traditio 9 (1953):

245.

10 On this well-known passage, see the articles of Christopher Holdsworth, "Bernard chimera of his age?', in Robert G. Benson and Eric W. Naylor, ed., Essays in Honor of Edward B. King (Sewanee, Tenn., 1991) and Adriaan Bredero, 'St Bernard and the Historians, in M. Basil Pennington, ed., Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, CS 28 (Kalamazoo:

Cistercian Publications, 1977), pp. 27-62.

™.The list of letters not in Mabillon but translated by James, found on page $26 of James, omits letter 233 (C $13), published by Hiiffer. The F Gastaldelli edition, Opere di san Bernardo: Lettere (Milan: Scriptorium Claravellense, 1986-7), the source for the dates of the letters, includes an additional letter, number $48; and two more letters were published in 1987, numbers 549 and $50, by F Heinzer, "Zwei unbekannte Briefe

Bernhards von Clairvaux in einer Handschrift der Zisterzienserinnenabtei Lichtental',

Scriptorium 41 (1987):97-105.

12 Articles examining Letter 469 that were published after the 1987 Italian edition of the letters include: Adriaan Bredero, 'Der Brief des heiligen Bernhards auf dem Sterbebett; ein authentische Falschung', in Falschungen im mittelalter, MGH Schriften B 33V,

V, 201-24; and D. Farkasfalvy, 'The Authenticity of Saint Bernard's Letter from his

Deathbed', Analecta Cisterciensia 34 (1987): 263-8.

↑ Back to top