MIRACULA
INTRODUCTION 2I
five or six years. Nevertheless, there are signs of intermediate revisions, and since any work copied under the author's direction was liable to alteration this is not surprising. The De similitudinibus made use of a copy of the Dicta with a text very close to the first recension, but with some variants which approximate to the readings of the second recen sion. Conversely, MSS. K. and Dur have texts in all essentials similar to the second recension, but in a slightly earlier state than that in MS. B.
For all practical purposes, however, MSS. A and B, which alone pre serve the Miracula in conjunction with the Dicta, present the work in its two main stages of development.
MS. A preserves, though in a different order, a text of all but one of the Dicta, and of sixteen of the thirty-two Miracula found in MS. B.
The text of both the Dicta and the Miracula, but especially the latter, is markedly different in the two manuscripts, and more primitive in A than in B.
The revision affected the style, the substance, and the order in which the material was presented. With regard to style and substance the general effect of the revision may be summarized thus:
1. Dicta There are numerous small stylistic changes throughout the Dicta.
Some substantial additions in chapters 5, 10, n, 14, and 17 were bor rowed from the accounts of similar utterances preserved by Eadmer in his Vita Anselmi and his De beatitudine perennis vitae. At these points, therefore, the revised text does not reproduce first-hand records of Alexander himself. Other additions and alterations were made necessary by changes in the order in which the Dicta were arranged, and these changes are discussed below.
2. Miracula The revision was a good deal more thoroughgoing than in the Dicta, and the changes are so great that it has been necessary to print the two recensions separately. These changes show that Alexander allowed him self a great deal of latitude in altering the details of his stories, even in matters of personal experience. Some of these changes are important, most are unimportant, but they show that, here at least, he was no very reliable reporter of the words which he had heard.
Apart from the transposition of the narrative in chapters 44 and 45 from the first to the third person, which has already been mentioned, the following are the main changes of substance in the second recension: cc. 22, 23: In the first recension these two stories are told on the
22 INTRODUCTION
testimony of GofFridus, nephew of Abbot Hugh of Cluny. In the second recension there is no mention of GofFridus, and it is clearly implied that the source of c. 22 at least was Abbot Hugh himself. c. 28: This story is the well-known anecdote of the simoniac bishop who was unable to say the words spiritus sanctus when he was under investigation in a council. In the first recension there is a rather full account of its source: 'Aliud quoque isdem venerabilis pater mihi ali quando narravit quod eiusdem Leonis tempore, quem ipse iuvenis vidit, contigisse cognovit.' Since the previous story in this recension was a reminiscence of the time of Leo IX related by St. Anselm we are left in no doubt that Anselm was the source of this story also. But in the second recension the position of the story was changed: it was put among the stories told by Abbot Hugh and the sentence just quoted was omitted. The reader of the second recension is thus left to conclude that the source of the story was Abbot Hugh.
Not only was the source altered but the whole story was radically revised: the pope was altered from Leo IX to Alexander II, and Hilde brand (who is not mentioned in the earlier version) became the chief character in the revised version. There is other evidence that the incident recorded in the story took place during Hildebrand's legatine council of 1056 in France, so that Alexander has got the name of the pope wrong in both cases, and he is wrong anyhow in saying that the pope was present at the council. So the number of confusions and contradictions in this story is considerable. But there is an inner logic in these apparently arbitrary changes; the details in the first recension are consistent with the setting of the story in St. Anselm's youth; but in the second recension they belong to the general ambit of Hugh of Cluny, who is now assumed to be the source of the anecdote. c. 32: In the first recension the source is 'quidam mihi venerabilis senex, audiente reverendo patre Anselmo et affirmante se hoc iam audivisse': in the second recension Abbot Hugh of Cluny is quoted as the source. c. 35. In the first recension this story is told on the authority of 'multorum et non improbandae auctoritatis virorum': in the second recension the monk Eustace is said to have told it to Archbishop Anselm in Alexander's hearing. c. 44: This story about the healing of a blind man by Anselm is told on the authority of Alexander himself, who saw and heard what was done. In the first recension the story ends with Alexander telling the man to come back next day if he was not cured, and the fact of his cure is
INTRODUCTION
inferred from his failure to return. In the second recension the man replied at once that there was no need for him to return because he was cured, and Anselm ordered the fact to be concealed. In other words a presumed miracle in the first recension was turned into what purported to be an observed fact.
W ith regard to the order in which the material is presented, the following are the main changes to be noted:
1. Dicta The present order of the Dicta in the first recension is as follows: 20,
14, 6, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 10, 16, 15, 13, 1, 7, 3, 4,1 17, 18, 2, 19.2 The small fragment, c. 20a, is omitted in the first recension.
In the second recension the order (i-2oa) is the same as that printed below.
Despite the appearance of arbitrariness in these widely different arrangements, there is clear evidence that Alexander made an attempt to arrange his material in an orderly sequence so far as possible, and the two recensions show the perplexities in which he was involved. In the first recension there are two short sequences which illustrate his procedure:
(i) The sequence of chapters 3 and 4 deals with the subject of good ness in thought, will, and practice (3), and the effects of these virtues on others (4). The connexion between the two chapters is made explicit in the first sentence of chapter 4, which in the first recension runs as follows:
Quoniam superius dictum est, illi qui bonus fieri desiderat tria esse necessaria, videlicet scientia, voluntas, usus, congruum videtur in quirere si etiam et aliis prosit quod bonus quilibet efficitur . . .
Chapter 4 follows naturally from this introduction, but the discussion is abruptly ended with the remark that, though the rewards of the righteous man still remained to be considered, the subject is to be dropped and other themes taken up instead:
Nunc igitur huius rei meta ponatur et quod deus dederit de alia in sequenti bus dicatur.
This abrupt termination is curious, because the very subject which was thus avoided is to be found developed at great length in chapter 5,
1 This chapter is followed by a passage entitled Dicta Anselmi archiepiscopi which is largely the same as Ep. 414 [iii. 133]. It is printed below (pp. 269-70); further details about its transmission will be found below, pp. 29-30.
2 This is the order in MS. A, but there is clear evidence of disturbance, possibly through the transposition of the series 20-13 and 1-19.
INTRODUCTION
which in the second recension follows immediately after chapter 4. In the first recension, however, chapter 5 follows chapters 14 and 6.
(ii) This sequence of chapters 14, 6, 5 is peculiar to the first recension.
The series deals with the related subjects of neighbourly peace and obedience to superiors (14) and the benefits which good men draw from good and bad alike (6). Chapter 5 then takes up the theme of the rewards of goodness, which had been announced and abandoned earlier. The subject is introduced with these words, which appear only in the first recension:
Superius enunciatum esse meminimus, quae sunt habenda in aedificatione bonitatis (c. 3), et quibus ipsa bonitas sit utilis (c. 4). Nunc autem investigare iuvat quantum boni sibimet idem ipse faciat qui bonitati adhaeserit.
This separation of chapter 5 from 3 and 4 is awkward, and the second recension gives a much more satisfactory arrangement by associating chapters 5 and 6 with 3 and 4, and by making chapter 14 the sequel to 13, thus giving the sequence which is printed below. These changes in arrangement entailed some alterations in the text, which can be studied on pp. 127 and 159, below. The alterations show that Alexander felt himself free, while preserving the substance of Anselm's thought, to insert, remove, and alter introductory remarks and connect ing passages with considerable freedom, and this habit can be observed in comparing the texts of the two recensions of several other Dicta.
2. Miracula In the text printed below, the thirty-two Miracula occupy chapters 21 to 52. Of these chapters, 24-27, 29-31, 33-34, 37-40, 49, 51-52 are not found in the first recension. The remainder are arranged in this order: 46, 28, 47, 32, 43, 42, 45, 44, 41, 48, 50, 22, 21, 23, 35, 36. In the second recension all thirty-two chapters are found in the order in which they are printed below.
As with the Dicta, although the differences of arrangement are very great and there is scarcely any point of agreement, each has a certain rough logic of its own. The first recension starts with stories told by Anselm himself (46, 28, 47, 32); then there are stories connected with his stay in Lyons from 1103 to 1x05 (43, 42, 45, 44, 41); then two more stories told by Anselm (48, 50); then three stories which the archbishop and his party heard at Cluny (22, 21, 23), and finally two stories about Mount Vesuvius, later attributed to the monk Eustace (35, 36). In the second recension there is a different emphasis. We begin with a long series of stories attributed to or about Abbot Hugh of Cluny (21—34);
INTRODUCTION 25
then there are the stories of Alexander and his two companions Eustace and Baldwin (35-42, 44-45) with a story about the archbishop of Lyons
(43) * then the stories told by Anselm (46-50), followed by an incident which belongs to the last days of Anselm's second exile in Normandy
(51)) and finally the only story in the collection, certainly a later addi tion, which has no connexion with Anselm or his companions (52).
In the case of the Miracula the differences of arrangement have no special importance except where the context is used to suggest, some times falsely, the source of the story. They show, however, that the work was carefully planned, and is not just a haphazard collection of records of Anselm's life and conversation, as the author declares in his preface.
SOURCES There is very little to add to what has already been said. The only source for the Dicta mentioned by Alexander is Anselm himself, but in the second recension the immediate source for some passages was
Eadmer (see below, pp. 134-9, I5°_I. 16°, 162, 176).
As for the sources of the Miracula the two recensions sometimes differ. The differences have been noted above. The following list gives the informants named by Alexander in his second recension, or implied in his narrative: brackets indicate that the source is only implied; an asterisk indicates that the first recension names or implies a different source:
Alexander: (39, 40, 42, 44, 45) St. Anselm: 46, 47, 48, 49, (50) Baldwin: 37, (38), 41 Eustace: 35*, (36) Hugh, abbot of Cluny: (21), 22*, (23), 24, 25, (26, 27, 28*, 29, 30), 31,
32*, (33) A monk of Cluny?: (34) Hugh, archbishop of Lyons: 43
Tytso, custos of Blangy, a cell of Bee: 51
William, later archbishop of Canterbury: 52
THE DEDICATION
In two manuscripts the work is dedicated to Anselm, abbot of St.
Sabas in Rome, papal legate and nephew of the archbishop; and he is represented as having asked for, or even commanded, a copy to be made.
He was well known at Canterbury, for his uncle had brought him to England in 1100 and he lived as a monk in the community till the arch bishop's death in 1109. He returned to England for a brief period as papal legate in 1115, when he brought the pallium of the new archbishop,
INTRODUCTION
Ralph. In June of this year he assisted at the archbishop's enthronement at Canterbury, and later he presided over a legatine council at West minster. He did not return to England until he came back as abbot of Bury St. Edmunds in 1121. It is reasonable to think that it was during his visit to Canterbury in 1115 that he heard of the existence of Alex ander's work and asked for a copy, for he never again visited England as legate.1
DATE The work probably existed in its definitive form by 1116, with the exception of the last miracle story. As it now stands, this story certainly belongs to a date after 1123, and its intrusive character is also shown by its total lack of connexion with Anselm. Revision apart, substantially the work must have been in existence in 1109 when St. Anselm died.
We have no evidence about the exact date at which the recensions represented by MSS. A and B took shape, but probably the former belongs to a period very soon after 1109 and the latter to about 1115 It seems likely on the evidence of K that the Dicta had reached more or less their final form before the dedication of the work to the legate
Anselm. But the Miracula may well have received their final revision in 1115 in view of the legate's strong interest in this branch of literature.2
MANUSCRIPTS
First Recension A. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 316, early thirteenth century, from the Dominican priory, London. Works of Hugh of St.
Victor, etc., followed (f. i94v) by the first recension of Dicta and Miracula in the order described above.
Second Recension B. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 457, second quarter of twelfth century (after 1123), from Christ Church, Canterbury (f. 3 an erased inscription: Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis). On f. 1 there is the rubric Liber ex dictis beati Anselmi. De monte humilitatis, followed by the Dicta and Miracula as printed below. This manuscript is probably no. 114, De monte humilitatis, in the medieval catalogue; nos. 113 and 1 He remained in Normandy from August 1116 to January 1120, holding legatine authority over England but unable to exercise it. The possibility cannot be excluded that the dedication may date from this period, but the date 1115-16 is much the most likely.
2 For this, see Medieval and Renaissance Studies, iv, 1958, 183-200.
INTRODUCTION
115 were also copies of this work, but bound up with other things (M. R. James, Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover, p. 30). The text of both Dicta and Miracula is in its final state, with the last miracle added after 1123. Apart from this addition the main symptom of the author's continued revision is in the titles of the Dicta, which have often been altered from those given at the beginning of the work. MSS.
Dur. and K show this process of revision at earlier stages.
Dur. Durham Cathedral B iv 32, fourteenth century, ff. 25-49^ the Dicta, cc. 1-20, with prologue dedicating the work to Abbot Anselm and mentioning the appendix of Miracles; the Miracula, however, are omitted. The text, so far as it goes, is very close to B, but it avoids several of B's errors and gives the revised chapter headings at a slightly earlier stage of development.
K. Cambridge University Library Kk. 4. 20, thirteenth to four teenth century, from Norwich Cathedral Priory. A miscellaneous manuscript; ff. 62-77 contain Dicta, cc. 1-20a without the Miracula, preceded by a preface in which all mention of the dedication to the legate Anselm and the Miracles is lacking. So far as it goes, the text is very similar to, and sometimes better than, that in B. The rubrics in the text are nearly always the same as the rubrics in the capitula at the beginning, whereas in B they are nearly always different from the capitula. This fact, together with the absence of dedication, may show that the manuscript derives from a text earlier than that of B. The work has no title, but there is an erased inscription in which the word
Anselm(i) can be read.
The relationship between the main manuscripts may be expressed as follows:
C. 1109 1115
1st Recension 2nd Recension
A used in I im.) : b ■B (with an (Text De s addition after 1123) Dur
FRAGMENTS
Dicta, c. 5
F, F2, D (see above, p. 15) British Museum, Flarleian MS. 232, ff. I4b-i6b, fifteenth century
British Museum, Royal 5 A xii, ff. i4o-i46v, fifteenth century
INTRODUCTION
British Museum, Royal 6 D viii, ff. ii2v-ii5, fourteenth century, from Spalding Priory, Co. Lincoln In the following manuscripts and many others, the first paragraph is omitted and the sermon begins with the words 'Notandum est duas esse beatitudines':
Bodleian MS. Digby 158, ff. 96-103, twelfth century from Reading Hereford Cathedral O. 1. ii, ff. 36-39, early thirteenth century
Hereford Cathedral P. 1. vi, ff. 141-6, fourteenth century Trinity College, Cambridge, 1133, ff. 19-26, thirteenth century
As Dom Wilmart pointed out, the sermon in this form became attached to the letter of William of St. Thierry to the Carthusians, and was printed as a third book of this letter by the editors of St. Bernard
(P.L. 184, 333-64). Charleville MS. 114 (twelfth century from Signy) shows the process of amalgamation with this letter at an early stage (cf.
Wilmart, Auteurs spirituels et textes devots du moyen age latin, 255-6).
Dicta, c. 8
Pavia University MS. 40, fifteenth century, on a fly-leaf at the end :
Anselmus de quadrato stabiliente inc. Vir bonus quadrato lapidi comparatur . . . expl. domus dei nequaquam poterit existere
Dicta, c. 20, with much alteration:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Bodl. 561 (see below, p. 310) Miracula H. Heidelberg University Salem IX, 30, thirteenth century f. 112V Miraculum de sancto Jacobo = c. 23 f. 113 De Gregorio minore in ecclesia sepulto = c. 24 f. 113V Miraculum de Hiltebrando qui vidit deum in ecclesia = c. 26 f. 114 Item de eodem qui videt dominum in capitulo Cluniacensium
= c. 27 f. H4V De episcopo per iudicium Sancti Spiritus . . . = c. 28 f. 115V De proceribus reconciliatis = c. 29
All these stories, except the first two, are about Gregory VII. They have been studied by F. S. Schmitt, 'Neue und alte Hildebrand-Anekdoten aus den Dicta Anselmi', Studi Gregoriani, v, 1950, 1-18. The same col lection of stories is found in:
N. British Museum Cotton Nero A vii, ff. 120-3, twelfth century
INTRODUCTION 2g
Further extracts from the Miracula are preserved in the following manuscripts:
Cambridge University Library Ff. x, 27, late twelfth century f. 216 Miraculum de Stephano a demonibus rapto in monte Bebio
= c. 35 f. 217 Miraculum inauditum de quodam die tempestuoso, de tribus militibus, de civibus et de monte Bebio = c. 36
British Museum Add. MS. 11284 f. 78v Refert Alexander discipulus sancti Anselmi ... (a resume of c. 29) Codex Calixtinus (ed. W. M. Whitehall, 2 vols., Compostella, 1944, i. 276-84) Miraculum sancti Jacobi a sancto Anselmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo editum = c. 21
Miraculum grande sancti Jacobi a sancto Anselmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo editum = c. 22
Miraculum sancti Jacobi a domino papa Calixto conscriptum = c. 23
The connexion between the Codex Calixtinus and the Miracula is studied in R. W. Southern, 'The English Origins of the Miracles of the Virgin', Medieval and Renaissance Studies, iv, 1958, 188-9, 205-16.
These chapters of the Miracula, either in whole or in part, are also found in manuscripts which derive them ultimately from the Codex
Calixtinus, e.g. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 318; Copenhagen, Royal Library, Thott. 519.
APPENDIX The greater part of the text printed on pp. 269-70 has long been known as part of a letter of Anselm to a small religious community of English women who had sought his spiritual counsel (Ep. 414 [iii. 133]).
But it appears in the first recension of the Dicta as an independent piece with a few additional sentences, and in this form it deserves a place here. The additional sentences are as clearly Anselmian as the rest of the piece, but they are in the form of brief notes suitable for a preacher. It looks as if the carefully composed discourse on the rela tions between actions and intentions, which is common to the letter and the Dicta, was used by Anselm in different ways. It could either be used as part of a letter of spiritual advice or it could be worked into a sermon, as circumstances required. We have at least one other example of Anselm's use of a set piece on different occasions (cf. Epp.
INTRODUCTION
2> 35, 51 [i2; i. 27; i. 43]) and this need cause no Surprise. But the existence of this piece in the Dicta throws some light on the materials left behind by Anselm at his death, to which Alexander had access.
This sermon was certainly not reported by Alexander: it is in Anselm's own words, and the notes with which it concludes would require extempore amplification. Whether it was written in the first place for the English nuns to whom it is addressed in Ep. 414, or whether it had an independent existence before the letter was written, we cannot tell.
It certainly had an independent transmission, and it is an excellent example of Anselm's application of his subtle inquiries into the human will to the task of spiritual direction. In this respect it has lost none of its value. The manuscripts in which it is found independently of the letter are:
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 316, f. 207 (= Alexander's Dicta) Jesus College, Cambridge, 76, f. 2iv, twelfth century, from Durham, with the rubric Dicta Anselmi Both these manuscripts have the additional sentences printed below.
The following manuscripts appear to lack these sentences:
British Museum Royal 8 D viii f. 49v (= MS. D, p. 15, above) British Museum Add. 16608, fit. 67-68v, fourteenth century, with the rubric Anselmus de voluntate Trinity College, Cambridge, 59, f. 178
Paris, Bibl. Mazarine 716, f. 113