Friendship in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age: Explorations of a Fundamental Ethical Discourse 3110253976, 9783110253979, 9783110253986, 2010053568

Citation preview

Friendship in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age

Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture Edited by

Albrecht Classen and Marilyn Sandidge

6

De Gruyter

Friendship in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age Explorations of a Fundamental Ethical Discourse Edited by

Albrecht Classen and Marilyn Sandidge

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-025397-9 e-ISBN 978-3-11-025398-6 ISSN 1864-3396 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Friendship in the Middle Ages and early modern age : explorations of a fundamental ethical discourse / [edited] by Albrecht Classen, Marilyn Sandidge. p. cm. ⫺ (Fundamentals of medieval and early modern culture ; 6) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-025397-9 (alk. paper) 1. Friendship. 2. Friendship in literature. 3. Discourse ethics. 4. Literature, Medieval ⫺ History and criticism. 5. European literature ⫺ Renaissance, 1450⫺1600 ⫺ History and criticism. I. Classen, Albrecht. II. Sandidge, Marilyn, 1952⫺ BJ1533.F8F845 2010 1771.6209⫺dc22 2010053568

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2010 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

TableȱofȱContents

AlbrechtȱClassen Introduction:ȱFriendship—TheȱQuestȱforȱaȱHumanȱ IdealȱandȱValue:ȱFromȱAntiquityȱtoȱtheȱEarlyȱModernȱTime A.ȱEarlyȱModernȱPerspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B.ȱFriendshipȱinȱAntiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C.ȱMarcusȱTulliusȱCicero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 D.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȱAntiquity:ȱBishopȱ(Saint)ȱAugustine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 E.ȱFriendshipȱfromȱtheȱEarlyȱMiddleȱAgesȱtoȱ theȱTwelfthȱandȱThirteenthȱCenturies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 F.ȱFriendshipȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱEnglishȱMonasticȱCircles: TheȱCaseȱofȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 G.ȱTheologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱFriendship:ȱThomasȱAquinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 H.ȱAȱVarietyȱofȱVoices:ȱOldȱandȱNew.ȱRetrospectivesȱandȱ InnovativeȱPerspectivesȱonȱFriendship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 I.ȱFriendshipȱandȱWomen: StillȱaȱSomewhatȱUncharteredȱTerritory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 J.ȱTheȱHomosocialȱvs.ȱtheȱHomoerotic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 K.ȱFriendshipȱatȱtheȱCourts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 L.ȱFriendshipȱbetweenȱPeopleȱandȱAnimals: InterconnectednessȱofȱCultureȱandȱNature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 M.ȱVernacularȱMedievalȱSpanishȱCommentators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 N.ȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱItalianȱWorldȱofȱIntellectuals:ȱ TheȱCaseȱofȱBrunettoȱLatini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 O.ȱDante,ȱBoccaccio,ȱandȱPetrarch,ȱasȱProponentsȱofȱtheȱIdealȱ ofȱFriendship:ȱVoicesȱfromȱtheȱ EarlyȱItalianȱRenaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 P.ȱReligiousȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLateȱMiddleȱAges:ȱ ThomasȱàȱKempis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Q.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȬMedievalȱGermanȱLiterature:ȱ SebastianȱBrant:ȱAȱLastȱHurrahȱforȱaȱ TraditionalȱEthicalȱIdeal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

vi

TableȱofȱContents

R.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȬMedievalȱandȱEarlyȬModernȱLiterature: AȱVarietyȱofȱVernacularȱVoices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 S.ȱWomenȱasȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱBeyond: StillȱaȱThornyȱIssue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 T.ȱWomenȱandȱFriendshipȱ(ByȱMarilynȱSandidge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 U.ȱEarlyȱModernȱFriendships:ȱAdditionalȱPerspectives (ByȱMarilynȱSandidge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 V.ȱTheȱOpinionȱofȱtheȱEncyclopedists: AtȱtheȱThresholdȱofȱModernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 W.ȱSomeȱConcludingȱRemarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 X.ȱSummariesȱofȱtheȱContributionsȱtoȱThisȱVolume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Y.ȱTheȱDeclineȱofȱtheȱFriendshipȱIdeal? TheȱTransformationȱofȱaȱTrope.ȱ SomeȱFinalȱReflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Z.ȱSomeȱDedicatoryȱWordsȱinȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱFriendship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Chapterȱ1

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfectingȱinȱAugustine’sȱConfessions andȱtheȱFailureȱofȱClassicalȱamicitia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Chapterȱ2

StavroulaȱConstantinou TheȱGiftȱofȱFriendship:ȱBeneficialȱandȱPoisonous: FriendshipsȱinȱtheȱByzantineȱGreekȱPassionȱofȱ SergiusȱandȱBacchus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Chapterȱ3

Lisa M. C. Weston WhereȱTextualȱBodiesȱMeet: AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Chapterȱ4

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson Sapienterȱamareȱpoterimus:ȱOnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱ inȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Chapterȱ5

MarcȱSaurette PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

TableȱofȱContents

vii

Chapterȱ6

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱand LettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Chapter 7 Julian P. Haseldine MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱActionȱinȱtheȱ TwelfthȱCentury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Chapterȱ8

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱ BonizoȱofȱSutriȱandȱHisȱLiberȱAdȱAmicum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Chapterȱ9

AlbrechtȱClassen FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic:ȱRuedegêrȱinȱtheȱNibelungenlied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 Chapterȱ10

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile:ȱ ImagesȱofȱInteractionȱBetweenȱtheȱSacredȱ andȱSpiritualȱWorldsȱofȱThirteenthȬCenturyȱ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 Chapterȱ11

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 Chapterȱ12

RobertȱStretter EngenderingȱObligation:ȱSwornȱBrotherhoodȱ andȱLoveȱRivalryȱinȱMedievalȱEnglishȱRomance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 Chapterȱ13

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart:ȱFemaleȱHomosocialȱ BondingȱinȱChaucer’sȱ“Squire’sȱTale” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525

viii

TableȱofȱContents

Chapterȱ14

TheodoreȱKaouk SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends inȱHamletȱandȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne’sȱ“OfȱFriendship” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 Chapterȱ15

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱ EineȱkunsthistorischeȱFallstudieȱ(withȱanȱEnglishȱabstract) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561 Chapterȱ16

StellaȱAchilleos FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel:ȱ TheȱDiscoursesȱofȱFriendshipȱandȱParrhesiaȱinȱFrancisȱBacon’sȱ TheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643 Chapterȱ17

VeraȱKeller PaintedȱFriends:ȱPoliticalȱInterestsȱandȱtheȱTransformationȱ ofȱInternationalȱLearnedȱSociability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Chapterȱ18

L.ȱBelleeȱJones “IfȱIȱmustȱexampleȱbee”:ȱȱDonne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeart asȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 Chapterȱ19

Jean-Christophe Van Thienen GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTempleȱ(1633) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 Chapterȱ20

AndrewȱCrome FriendshipȱandȱEnmityȱtoȱGodȱandȱNation:ȱ TheȱComplexitiesȱofȱJewishȬGentileȱ RelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749

TableȱofȱContents

ix

Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783 Index:ȱPersons,ȱSubjects,ȱTitles,ȱConcepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789

Introduction AlbrechtȱClassen (UniversityȱofȱArizona,ȱTucson)

Friendship—TheȱQuestȱforȱaȱHumanȱIdealȱandȱValue FromȱAntiquityȱtoȱtheȱEarlyȱModernȱTime

A.ȱEarlyȱModernȱPerspectivesȱ Letȱusȱbeginȱwithȱanȱintriguingȱandȱmostȱpowerfulȱexampleȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱitȱwas discussedȱ andȱ glorifiedȱ inȱ anȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ text.ȱ Theȱ famousȱ German classicistȱwriter,ȱdramatist,ȱhistorian,ȱandȱpoetȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱ(1759–1806)ȱis todayȱperhapsȱ bestȱknownȱforȱhisȱgloriousȱodeȱ“AnȱdieȱFreude”ȱ(OdeȱtoȱJoy), composedȱinȱ1785.ȱItȱhasȱbecomeȱinȱtheȱmeantimeȱtheȱEuropeanȱhymn,ȱadopted byȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Unionȱ andȱ theȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Europeȱ asȱ theirȱ anthemȱ inȱ 1972, drawingȱfromȱLudwigȱvanȱBeethoven’sȱmusicalȱadaptationȱinȱtheȱfinal,ȱorȱfourth, movementȱ ofȱ hisȱ Ninthȱ Symphonyȱ fromȱ 1824.ȱ Manyȱ otherȱ contemporary composersȱfeltȱsimilarlyȱinspiredȱbyȱSchiller’sȱpoemȱandȱsetȱhisȱwordsȱtoȱmusicȱas well,ȱsuchȱasȱJohannȱGottliebȱNaumannȱ(1786),ȱChristianȱGottfriedȱKörnerȱ(1786), JohannȱFriedrichȱReichardtȱ(1796),ȱJohannȱFriedrichȱHugoȱvonȱDalbergȱ(1799), JohannȱRudolfȱZumsteegȱ(1803).ȱPerhapsȱbetterȱknownȱareȱFranzȱSchubertȱwithȱhis songȱ“AnȱdieȱFreude”ȱDȱ189ȱ(1815),ȱforȱvoiceȱandȱpiano;ȱPyotrȱIlyichȱTchaikovsky (1865)ȱ withȱ hisȱ compositionȱ forȱ soloȱ singers,ȱ choirȱ andȱ orchestraȱ inȱ aȱ Russian translationȱofȱ“Seidȱumschlungen,ȱMillionen!”ȱ(1892;ȱBeȱEmbraced,ȱYouȱMillions); thenȱaȱwaltzȱbyȱJohannȱStraussȱII,ȱandȱaȱcompositionȱbyȱZ.ȱRandallȱStroopeȱ(2002), forȱchoirȱandȱfourȬhandȱpiano.1ȱ

1

LindaȱMaeȱRosettȱJordan,ȱ“Schiller’sȱ‘OdeȱtoȱJoy’ȱandȱBeethoven’sȱ‘Joy’ȱTheme:ȱtheȱGrowthȱofȱan Idea,”ȱPh.ȱD.ȱdiss.ȱUniversityȱofȱTexas,ȱ1964;ȱLudwigȱvanȱBeethoven,ȱOdeȱtoȱJoy:ȱAnȱdieȱFreude (Schiller)ȱ:ȱFinaleȱfromȱSymphonyȱno.ȱ9,ȱOpusȱ125,ȱIntroductionȱandȱinstructionsȱforȱstudyȱbyȱCarl Eberhardt;ȱtrans.ȱKurtȱMichaelisȱ(FrankfurtȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱH.ȱLitolffsȱVerlagȱandȱC.ȱF.ȱPeters, 1985);ȱJamesȱParsons,ȱ“OdeȱtoȱtheȱNinth:ȱtheȱPoeticȱandȱMusicalȱTraditionȱBehindȱtheȱFinaleȱof

2

Introduction

Theȱsecondȱstanzaȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱballadȱformulatesȱinȱmostȱimpressiveȱtermsȱthe idealsȱ pursuedȱ byȱ Schillerȱ andȱ manyȱ ofȱ hisȱ contemporariesȱ fromȱ thisȱ classical periodȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱGermanȱliterature,ȱsuchȱasȱJohannȱWolfgangȱGoetheȱand FriedrichȱvonȱKleist,2ȱwhichȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱdivineȱandȱutopianȱcommunityȱof thoseȱwhoȱunderstandȱandȱshareȱuniversal,ȱcosmic,ȱandȱharmoniousȱjoyȱareȱeither friends,ȱ orȱ marriageȱ partners,ȱ andȱ are,ȱ atȱ anyȱ rate,ȱ intimatelyȱ andȱ closely associatedȱwithȱanotherȱhumanȱbeing,ȱthusȱpursuing,ȱsimilarlyȱtoȱtheȱgods,ȱthe ultimateȱgoalȱofȱallȱourȱexistence,ȱtoȱacquireȱwisdom,ȱhappiness,ȱandȱharmony: WemȱderȱgroßeȱWurfȱgelungen, EinesȱFreundesȱFreundȱzuȱsein, WerȱeinȱholdesȱWeibȱerrungen, MischeȱseinenȱJubelȱein! Ja—werȱauchȱnurȱeineȱSeele SeinȱnenntȱaufȱdemȱErdenrund! Undȱwer’sȱnieȱgekonnt,ȱderȱstehle WeinendȱsichȱausȱdiesemȱBund!3 [Whoeverȱhasȱhadȱtheȱgreatȱfortune, Toȱbeȱaȱfriendȇsȱfriend, Whoeverȱhasȱwonȱtheȱloveȱofȱaȱdevotedȱwife, Addȱhisȱjubilationȱtoȱourȱown! Indeed,ȱwhoeverȱcanȱcallȱevenȱoneȱsoul Hisȱownȱonȱthisȱearth,ȱjoinȱtheȱchorus! Butȱwhoeverȱwasȱneverȱableȱtoȱdoȱsoȱmustȱtearfullyȱ Slinkȱawayȱfromȱthisȱcircle.4]

Furtherȱalong,ȱSchillerȱaddsȱtheȱimportantȱcommentȱaboutȱfriendsȱthatȱtheyȱare someȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱpartnersȱinȱhumanȱlife,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱtestedȱinȱand throughȱdeath:ȱ“Küsseȱgabȱsieȱuns,ȱundȱReben,ȱ/ȱEinenȱFreund,ȱgeprüftȱimȱTod” (249,ȱ 30–31;ȱ Kissesȱ sheȱ gaveȱ us,ȱ andȱ Wine,ȱ /ȱ Aȱ friend,ȱ provenȱ inȱ death).ȱ Very

2

3

4

Beethoven’sȱ‘ChoralȱSymphony,”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss.ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱTexas,ȱDenton,ȱ1992;ȱEsteban Buch,ȱBeethoven’sȱNinth:ȱaȱPoliticalȱHistoryȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2003);ȱDieter Hildebrandt,ȱDieȱNeunte:ȱSchiller,ȱBeethovenȱundȱdieȱGeschichteȱeinesȱmusikalischenȱWelterfolgs.ȱ2nd ed.ȱ (Munich:ȱ Hanser,ȱ 2005);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthem_of_Europeȱ (last accessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010). See,ȱforȱinstance,ȱJuttaȱHeinz,ȱ“‘Dieȱwahre,ȱdieȱtätige,ȱproduktiveȱFreundschaft’ȱ–ȱdieȱFreundschaft vonȱ Goetheȱ undȱ Schillerȱ imȱ Spiegelȱ ihresȱ Briefwechsels,”ȱ Ritualeȱ derȱ Freundschaft,ȱ ed.ȱ Klaus Mangerȱ andȱ Uteȱ Pott.ȱ Ereignisȱ WeimarȬJena.ȱ Kulturȱ umȱ 1800.ȱ Ästhetischeȱ Forschungen,ȱ 7 (Heidelberg:ȱUniversitätsverlagȱWinter,ȱ2006),ȱ193–205. FriedrichȱSchiller,ȱGedichte,ȱed.ȱGeorgȱKurscheidt.ȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱWerkeȱundȱBriefe,ȱ1ȱ(Frankfurt a.ȱM.:ȱDeutscherȱKlassikerȱVerlag,ȱ1992),ȱ248.ȱForȱcommentariesȱonȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱoriginȱofȱthis ode,ȱitsȱrelationshipȱwithȱcontemporaryȱpoetryȱandȱphilosophy,ȱseeȱid.,ȱ1036–43.ȱSeeȱalsoȱSchillerȬ Handbuch,ȱed.ȱHelmutȱKoopmannȱ(Stuttgart:ȱAlfredȱKrönerȱVerlag,ȱ1998),ȱ13,ȱ49,ȱ176,ȱetȱpassim. http://www.raptusassociation.org/ode1785.htmlȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

Introduction

3

similarȱ toȱ thisȱ concept,ȱ Schillerȱ projectedȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ inȱ his balladȱ“DieȱBürgschaft”ȱfromȱ1798.ȱHereȱaȱmanȱcalledȱMörosȱtriesȱtoȱassassinate theȱtyrantȱDionysiusȱtheȱElderȱ(ca.ȱ430–367ȱB.C.E.),ȱrulerȱofȱSyracuseȱinȱSicilyȱsince 405,ȱbutȱtheȱpoliticalȱcriminalȱisȱcaughtȱjustȱinȱtimeȱandȱimmediatelyȱcondemned toȱsufferȱtheȱdeathȱpenalty.5ȱThereȱareȱnoȱcommentsȱjudgingȱtheȱtyrantȱorȱgiving reasonsȱwhyȱhisȱopponentȱtriedȱtoȱkillȱhim.ȱBeforeȱbeingȱexecuted,ȱhowever,ȱthe assassinȱbegsȱtheȱkingȱtoȱgrantȱhimȱthreeȱdaysȱrespiteȱduringȱwhichȱheȱwouldȱlike toȱarrangeȱhisȱsister’sȱmarriage.ȱTheȱtyrantȱinsidiouslyȱgrantsȱhimȱthisȱbreakȱfrom hisȱdeathȱpenalty,ȱbutȱonlyȱonȱtheȱconditionȱthatȱheȱfindsȱaȱfriendȱwillingȱtoȱserve asȱ hisȱ guarantorȱ forȱ hisȱ return.ȱ Ifȱ heȱ failsȱ toȱ arriveȱ withinȱ theȱ stipulatedȱ time, however,ȱasȱtheȱtyrantȱunderscores,ȱtheȱfriendȱwouldȱbeȱputȱtoȱdeathȱinȱhisȱstead, whichȱthenȱwouldȱleaveȱMörosȱscotȬfree,ȱhoweverȱdeeplyȱburdenedȱbyȱpainful feelingsȱ ofȱ guilt.ȱ Indeed,ȱ theȱ tyrant,ȱ trueȱ toȱ hisȱ character,ȱ danglesȱ theȱ most temptingȱproverbialȱcarrotȱinȱfrontȱofȱhim,ȱofferingȱhimȱtheȱchanceȱofȱlifeȱifȱhe betraysȱhisȱfriend,ȱalthoughȱthenȱitȱwouldȱbeȱaȱlifeȱofȱshameȱandȱdishonor.ȱ ButȱMöros’sȱfriendȱimmediatelyȱagreesȱtoȱserveȱinȱthisȱprecariousȱfunction,ȱand theȱerstwhileȱassassinȱrushesȱawayȱtoȱcarryȱoutȱhisȱfamilyȱbusinessȱandȱtoȱmeetȱhis obligationȱ asȱ hisȱ sister’sȱ authorityȱ figure.ȱ Onȱ theȱ thirdȱ day,ȱ onceȱ heȱ has successfullyȱaccomplishedȱhisȱtask,ȱheȱmakesȱeveryȱattemptȱtoȱreturnȱhomeȱand toȱfreeȱhisȱfriendȱfromȱtheȱprisonȱbeforeȱtheȱsetȱdeadline,ȱbutȱsuddenlyȱbothȱnature andȱ robbersȱ standȱ inȱ hisȱ way,ȱ challengingȱ himȱ atȱ everyȱ turnȱ ofȱ hisȱ path. Nevertheless,ȱMörosȱmakesȱeveryȱpossibleȱattempt,ȱovercomingȱfearȱofȱdeathȱand allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ threats,ȱ andȱ reachesȱ theȱ cityȱ justȱ whenȱ hisȱ friendȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ be crucifiedȱinȱhisȱplace.ȱ Despiteȱbeingȱwarnedȱofȱtheȱdangerȱforȱhisȱlifeȱandȱbeingȱadvisedȱtoȱturnȱaway andȱrescueȱhimself,ȱMörosȱpushesȱhisȱwayȱthroughȱtheȱcrowdȱandȱdemandsȱthat theȱ tyrantȱ releaseȱ hisȱ friendȱ andȱ takeȱ himȱ instead,ȱ asȱ wouldȱ beȱ hisȱ moralȱ and ethicalȱduty.ȱTheȱcrowdȱisȱdeeplyȱamazed,ȱifȱnotȱshocked,ȱandȱtheȱnewsȱofȱthis unheardȱofȱproofȱofȱunfailingȱfriendshipȱquicklyȱreachesȱtheȱtyrant.ȱDionysusȱcalls theseȱtwoȱfriendsȱtoȱhisȱcourt,ȱstaresȱatȱthemȱinȱgreatȱsurprise,ȱandȱthenȱsuddenly changesȱhisȱmind,ȱacknowledgingȱthatȱtheseȱtwoȱhaveȱprovenȱthatȱtheȱtraditional valueȱofȱfriendshipȱstillȱholdsȱtrue: Undȱblicketȱsieȱlangeȱverwundertȱan. Daraufȱsprichtȱer:ȱEsȱistȱeuchȱgelungen, IhrȱhabtȱdasȱHerzȱmirȱbezwungen, UndȱdieȱTreue,ȱsieȱistȱdochȱkeinȱleererȱWahn, SoȱnehmetȱauchȱmichȱzumȱGenossenȱan,

5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_I_of_Syracuseȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

4

Introduction Ichȱsei,ȱgewährtȱmirȱdieȱBitte, InȱeuremȱBundeȱderȱdritte.6 [Beingȱlongȱsilent,ȱhe,ȱandȱwonderingȱlong, Gazedȱonȱtheȱpairȱ–ȱ“Inȱpeaceȱdepart, Victors,ȱyeȱhaveȱsubduedȱmyȱheart! Truthȱisȱnoȱdream!ȱ–ȱitsȱpowerȱisȱstrong. Giveȱgraceȱtoȱhimȱwhoȱownsȱhisȱwrong! ‘Tisȱmineȱyourȱsuppliantȱnowȱtoȱbe, Ah,ȱletȱtheȱbandȱofȱloveȱ–ȱbeȱthree!7]

Schillerȱfreelyȱdrewȱfromȱaȱlongȱtraditionȱonȱthisȱliteraryȱmotifȱthatȱhasȱattracted writersȱandȱpoetsȱsinceȱGreekȱandȱRomanȱantiquity—theȱfirstȱoneȱtoȱworkȱwith thisȱ motifȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ Aristoxenoȱ (b.ȱ 370ȱ B.C.E.),ȱ laterȱ followedȱ by numerousȱotherȱclassicalȱwriters,ȱwhoȱallȱdelightedȱinȱelaboratingȱonȱtheȱideaȱof friendshipȱthatȱisȱbeingȱprovenȱinȱsuchȱanȱalmostȱtragicȱcontext,ȱsuchȱasȱGaius IuliusȱHyginusȱ(d.ȱ10ȱC.E.)—andȱthenȱthroughoutȱtheȱentireȱMiddleȱAgesȱand beyond.8ȱAndȱalthoughȱheȱprojectedȱaȱparticularlyȱ‘classical’ȱidealȱofȱfriendship, theȱimportanceȱandȱrecognitionȱofȱhisȱexplorationȱofȱthisȱethicalȱvalueȱhasȱnot fadedȱ everȱ since.ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ theȱ “Odeȱ toȱ Joy”ȱ continuesȱ toȱ enthrallȱ peopleȱ in emotional,ȱ ethical,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ sociologicalȱ terms,ȱ andȱ theȱ idealsȱ concerning friendshipȱcontainedȱinȱthisȱandȱmanyȱofȱSchiller’sȱotherȱpoemsȱhaveȱnotȱlostȱtheir relevanceȱatȱall,ȱdespiteȱmuchȱcriticismȱandȱseriousȱchallenges.9ȱ Theȱpurposeȱofȱourȱvolume,ȱhowever,ȱisȱdirectedȱatȱexploringȱtheȱtreatmentȱand evaluationȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱage,ȱforȱwhich, 6

7 8

9

FriedrichȱSchiller,ȱGedichte,ȱ28,ȱ134–40.ȱForȱaȱgoodȱcommentary,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱ858–60.ȱTheȱproblematic conclusionȱ regardingȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ tyrantȱ doesȱ notȱ findȱ aȱ goodȱ reflectionȱ here,ȱ norȱ inȱ the commentary.ȱScholarsȱhaveȱpaidȱmuchȱattentionȱtoȱthisȱballad;ȱsee,ȱforȱinstanceȱCharlotteȱM. Craig,ȱ“‘TheȱPledge’ȱ(DieȱBürgschaft):ȱSchiller’sȱHumanȱBailȱBondȱBallad,”ȱDalhousieȱReviewȱ82.3 (2002):ȱ413–21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_B%C3%BCrgschaftȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010). FriedrichȱSchiller,ȱGedichte,ȱ858–59;ȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“DasȱMotivȱdesȱaufopferndenȱFreundesȱvon derȱAntikeȱüberȱdasȱMittelalterȱbisȱzurȱNeuzeit,”ȱFabulaȱ47,ȱ1–2ȱ(2006):ȱ17–32;ȱid.,ȱ“Friendshipȱin theȱ Middleȱ Ages:ȱ Aȱ Ciceronianȱ Conceptȱ inȱ Konradȱ vonȱ Würzburg’sȱ Engelhardȱ (ca.ȱ 1280),” Mittellateinischesȱ Jahrbuchȱ 41,ȱ 2ȱ (2006):ȱ 227–46.ȱ Theȱ classicalȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ thisȱ poemȱ andȱ ofȱ this narrativeȱmotifȱareȱbestȱstudiedȱbyȱErnstȱGegenschatz,ȱ“Dieȱ‘pythagoreischeȱBürgschaft’ȱ–ȱzur GeschichteȱeinesȱMotivsȱvonȱAristoxenosȱbisȱSchiller,”ȱBegegnungenȱmitȱNeuemȱundȱAltem,ȱed.ȱPeter Neukamȱ(Munich:ȱBayerischerȱSchulbuchȬVerlag,ȱ1981),ȱ90–54;ȱseeȱalsoȱJ.ȱF.ȱL.ȱRaschen,ȱ“Earlier andȱ Laterȱ Versionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Friendshipȱ Theme.ȱ I:ȱ ‘Damonȱ undȱ Pythias’,”ȱ Modernȱ Philologyȱ 17 (1919/1920):ȱ105Ȭ09.ȱIȱwillȱlaterȱturnȱtoȱaȱpoemȱbyȱErasmusȱWidmannȱ(1572–1634)ȱwhoȱalsoȱvoiced ratherȱseriousȬsatiricalȱcriticismȱagainstȱtheȱidyllicȱnotionȱofȱfriendship. Frauenfreundschaft,ȱMännerfreundschaft:ȱliterarischeȱDiskurseȱimȱ18.ȱJahrhundert,ȱed.ȱWolframȱMauser andȱ Barbaraȱ BeckerȬCantarinoȱ (Tübingen:ȱ Niemeyer,ȱ 1991);ȱ Luziaȱ Thiel,ȱ FreundschaftsȬ Konzeptionenȱimȱspätenȱ18.ȱJahrhundert:ȱSchillersȱ“DonȱKarlos”ȱundȱHölderlinsȱ“Hyperion”.ȱEpistemata. Reiheȱ Literaturwissenschaft,ȱ 498ȱ (Würzburg:ȱ Königshausenȱ &ȱ Neumann,ȱ 2004);ȱ Ritualeȱ der Freundschaft,ȱed.ȱKlausȱMangerȱandȱUteȱPott,ȱ2006ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2).

Introduction

5

ofȱcourse,ȱSchiller’sȱpoemȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱanȱexcellentȱsegue,ȱasȱanȱendpoint,ȱasȱa soundingȱ board,ȱ soȱ toȱ speak,ȱ andȱ asȱ foilȱ againstȱ whichȱ weȱ canȱ easilyȱ judge previousȱapproachesȱtoȱfriendship.ȱHisȱodeȱtoȱjoyȱglorifiedȱtheȱtraditionalȱvalues ofȱlove,ȱhappiness,ȱandȱfriendship,ȱjustȱshortlyȱbeforeȱtheȱoutbreakȱofȱtheȱFrench Revolutionȱ inȱ 1789.ȱ Schiller’sȱ poemȱ isȱ aȱ remarkablyȱ lateȱ andȱ yetȱ enduring testimonyȱofȱtheȱideologyȱgroundedȱinȱtheȱEnlightenmentȱwithȱitsȱalmostȱwillful neglectȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱmachinationsȱandȱmanipulations,ȱpowerȱstructuresȱand subjugationȱ mechanisms,ȱ projecting,ȱ oneȱ lastȱ time,ȱ itȱ seems,ȱ theȱ dreamȱ ofȱ a friendshipȱthatȱmightȱovercomeȱallȱsocialȱclassȱdifferencesȱandȱcreateȱaȱcommunity ofȱideallyȱmindedȱfriends.10ȱPerhapsȱSchiller’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱhisȱcontemporary, theȱ literaryȱ andȱ intellectualȱ giantȱ Johannȱ Wolfgangȱ Goetheȱ (1749–1832),ȱ might haveȱproperlyȱunderscoredȱtheȱenormousȱappealȱofȱtheȱGreekȱidealȱonȱtheȱentire generationȱofȱclassicalȱandȱRomanticistȱwriters.11

B.ȱFriendshipȱinȱAntiquity ToȱexploreȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱage requiresȱthatȱweȱacknowledgeȱitsȱessential,ȱthoughȱcertainlyȱnotȱunchangeableȱor alwaysȱidentical,ȱvalueȱinȱhumanisticȱtermsȱandȱitsȱfoundationȱinȱtheȱhumanities inȱ virtuallyȱ allȱ culturesȱ andȱ inȱ allȱ periods.12ȱ Alreadyȱ inȱ ancientȱ Greekȱ culture friendshipȱ playedȱ aȱ centralȱ roleȱ inȱ publicȱ andȱ privateȱ life,ȱ structuredȱ byȱ the principleȱofȱreciprocityȱandȱagonality.13ȱWeȱwouldȱbeȱhardȱpressedȱtoȱidentifyȱany

10

11

12

13

SeeȱtheȱpowerfulȱandȱinsightfulȱcommentsȱbyȱJostȱHermand,ȱFreundschaft:ȱZurȱGeschichteȱeiner sozialenȱBindungȱ(Cologne,ȱWeimar,ȱandȱVienna:ȱBöhlau,ȱ2006),ȱ1–48.ȱAsȱtoȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetween theȱ twoȱ intellectualȱ giantsȱ Goetheȱ andȱ Schiller,ȱ whoȱ developedȱ anȱ intensiveȱ poeticȱ exchange reflectingȱ theȱ idealsȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ heȱ comments,ȱ ratherȱ scathingly,ȱ 44:ȱ “Stattȱ eineȱ politische SolidaritätȱmitȱdenȱbürgerlichenȱAufklärernȱundȱjakobinischȱgesinntenȱIlluminatenȱanzustreben, zogenȱ sichȱ Goetheȱ undȱ Schillerȱ imȱ Winterȱ 1795ȱ aufȱ 1796ȱ mitȱ diesenȱ Xenienȱ inȱ eine ‘machtgeschützteȱ Innerlichkeit’ȱ zurück,ȱ derȱ eineȱ unverhohleneȱ Übereinstimmungȱ mitȱ den herrschendenȱfeudalabsolutistischenȱVerhältnissenȱzugrundeȱlag,ȱwelcheȱsieȱlediglichȱmitȱeiner ideologischȬästhetischenȱVerklärungȱderȱAntikeȱzuȱverschleiernȱsuchten”ȱ(Insteadȱofȱseekingȱa politicalȱsolidarityȱwithȱtheȱbourgeoisȱenlightenmentȱthinkersȱandȱtheȱJacobineȱIlluminati,ȱGoethe andȱSchillerȱwithdrew,ȱduringȱtheȱWinterȱfromȱ1795ȱtoȱ1796,ȱwithȱtheseȱXenienȱintoȱaȱ‘interiority protectedȱbyȱexternalȱpoliticalȱstructures,’ȱwhichȱwasȱpredicatedȱonȱanȱblatantȱagreementȱwithȱthe rulingȱ feudalȬabsolutistȱ conditionsȱ whichȱ theyȱ onlyȱ triedȱ toȱ veilȱ throughȱ anȱ ideologicalȬ aestheticizingȱglorificationȱofȱantiquity).ȱ RüdigerȱSafranksi,ȱGoetheȱundȱSchiller:ȱGeschichteȱeinerȱFreundschaftȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,ȱ2009). BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity:ȱTheȱMonasticȱExperience,ȱ350–1250.ȱCistercian Studiesȱ Series,ȱ 95ȱ (Kalamazoo,ȱ MI:ȱ Cistercianȱ Publications,ȱ 1988;ȱ nowȱ reissued,ȱ withȱ aȱ new introductionȱbyȱtheȱauthor,ȱIthaca,ȱNY:ȱCornellȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010);ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributions toȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldineȱ(Stroud:ȱSutton,ȱ1999). MarcȱD.ȱSchachter,ȱVoluntaryȱServitudeȱandȱtheȱEroticsȱofȱFriendship:ȱFromȱClassicalȱAntiquityȱtoȱEarly

6

Introduction

ancientȱGreekȱorȱRomanȱphilosopherȱandȱwriterȱwhoȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱapproached theȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱoneȱwayȱorȱtheȱother,ȱsinceȱitȱwasȱregardedȱwithȱsoȱmuch admirationȱandȱrespect,ȱprovidingȱtheȱessentialȱcohesionȱthatȱheldȱthoseȱsocieties together,ȱ whetherȱ weȱ thinkȱ ofȱ Heliod,ȱ Sappho,ȱ Aristotle,ȱ theȱ Stoics,ȱ the Pythagoreans,ȱCicero,ȱandȱmanyȱothers.14ȱ Politicalȱ behaviorȱ andȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ justiceȱ wereȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ idealsȱ of friendship,ȱthatȱis,ȱtoȱassistȱtheȱfriendȱunderȱalmostȱanyȱcircumstancesȱtoȱtheȱbest ofȱ one’sȱ means,ȱ asȱ Schillerȱ wasȱ laterȱ toȱ discussȱ inȱ hisȱ odeȱ (seeȱ above),ȱ though withoutȱneglectingȱtheȱprinciplesȱofȱhonorȱandȱmorality.ȱFriendshipȱwasȱalmost ofȱgreaterȱsignificanceȱthanȱfamilyȱrelationships,ȱasȱlongȱasȱitȱwasȱpredicatedȱon equalityȱandȱmutuality.ȱFriendsȱprovedȱthemselvesȱaboveȱallȱinȱemergenciesȱand dangers,ȱdemonstratingȱtheirȱloyaltyȱandȱtrust,ȱassumingȱtheȱroleȱofȱdefenders beforeȱtheȱcourtȱandȱpursuingȱtheȱfriend’sȱenemiesȱinȱotherȱcases.ȱFriendsȱwere alsoȱ supposedȱ toȱ assistȱ eachȱ otherȱ inȱ materialȱ terms,ȱ andȱ gainedȱ greatȱ honor throughȱ theirȱ constancyȱ andȱ reliabilityȱ practicallyȱ underȱ allȱ circumstances. Friendshipȱwasȱoftenȱcarriedȱoverȱtoȱtheȱnextȱgenerationȱwhenȱfathersȱorȱbrothers marriedȱtheirȱdaughtersȱorȱsistersȱrespectivelyȱtoȱtheirȱfriends.ȱFriendshipȱalso oftenȱturnedȱintoȱpoliticalȱpartnerships,ȱwhichȱfoundȱtheirȱpublicȱexpressionsȱin symposia,ȱ orȱ festiveȱ dinners,ȱ huntingȱ parties,ȱ orȱ politicalȱ collaboration.ȱ In HellenisticȱGreeceȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱrulersȱoftenȱassumedȱorȱwereȱassignedȱimportant officialȱroles,ȱandȱsimilarȱsituationsȱcanȱalsoȱfoundȱinȱmanyȱotherȱperiodsȱand cultures. Ancientȱphilosophersȱregularlyȱfocusedȱonȱ‘friendship’ȱasȱtheȱessentialȱbond amongȱpeople,ȱasȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱsocialȱcommunities,ȱandȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱthe publicȱdevelopmentȱofȱvirtuousȱbehavior.ȱPlato,ȱforȱinstance,ȱdiscussingȱfriendship inȱhisȱdialogueȱLýsis,ȱemphasizesȱ thatȱaȱpersonȱcanȱbeȱfriendsȱonlyȱifȱs/heȱ isȱa friendȱwithȱoneselfȱatȱfirst.ȱFriendshipȱisȱfocusedȱonȱcreatingȱaȱprótonȱphilon,ȱthe publicȱ good.ȱ Aristotleȱ developedȱ thisȱ fragmentaryȱ conceptȱ furtherȱ inȱ his NicomacheanȱEthicsȱ(VIII–IX),ȱrecognizingȱthreeȱlevelsȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱfirstȱbased onȱutility,ȱorȱpersonalȱprofit,ȱthatȱis,ȱmaterialȱgains;ȱtheȱsecondȱonȱjoyfulnessȱor

14

ModernȱFranceȱ(Aldershot,ȱEngland,ȱandȱBurlington,ȱVT:ȱAldershot,ȱ2008).ȱ DavidȱKonstan,ȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱClassicalȱWorld.ȱKeyȱThemesȱinȱAncientȱHistoryȱ(Cambridgeȱand NewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱSeeȱnowȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱDeȱAmicitia:ȱFriendship andȱ Socialȱ Networksȱ inȱ Antiquityȱ andȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ ed.ȱ Katariinaȱ Mustakallioȱ andȱ Christian Krötzel.ȱActaȱInstitutiȱRomaniȱFinlandiae,ȱ36ȱ(Rome:ȱInstitutumȱRomanumȱFinlandiae,ȱ2010).ȱThe volumeȱisȱbasedȱonȱpapersȱpresentedȱatȱaȱconferenceȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱTampere,ȱFinland,ȱin Augustȱ2007.ȱTheȱfocusȱhereȱrestsȱprimarilyȱonȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱduringȱtheȱtransitional periodȱfromȱclassicalȱantiquityȱtoȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱspanȱofȱtopicsȱextendsȱfrom Aristotle’sȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱtopicȱtoȱexpressionsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱfifteenthȱcenturyȱ,ȱwith articlesȱonȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱcertainlyȱbeingȱinȱtheȱminorityȱhere.ȱIȱappreciateȱProf.ȱKrötzel’sȱhelp inȱprovidingȱmeȱwithȱsomeȱbasicȱinformationȱaboutȱthisȱvolumeȱfreshȱofȱtheȱprintingȱpress.ȱ

Introduction

7

emotionalȱdelight,ȱthatȱis,ȱsexualȱlust,ȱandȱtheȱthirdȱonȱtheȱgoodȱinȱabstractȱterms.15 OnlyȱtheȱlatterȱtypeȱofȱfriendshipȱwillȱbeȱlongȬȱorȱeverlastingȱbecauseȱitȱisȱbuilt uponȱmutualityȱinȱwillȱandȱdesireȱforȱtheȱgood.16ȱTheȱtrueȱfriendȱemergesȱasȱan alternativeȱself,ȱorȱasȱanȱalterȱego,ȱwhoȱisȱonlyȱinterestedȱinȱcreatingȱgoodnessȱand happinessȱinȱandȱforȱtheȱfriend.ȱCompleteȱandȱentirelyȱfulfilledȱfriendshipȱleads toȱEudaimonia,ȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱhumanȱcreatureȱcannotȱachieveȱabsoluteȱhappiness byȱandȱthroughȱhim/herself.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Epicure,ȱ allȱ philosophicalȱ activitiesȱ wereȱ predicatedȱ onȱ and consistedȱofȱfriendship.ȱFriendshipȱdisregardsȱallȱsocialȱandȱgenderȱdifferencesȱand canȱevenȱincludeȱslaves.ȱFriendshipȱprocuresȱsafetyȱandȱabsenceȱofȱfear,ȱandȱthus producesȱ theȱ basisȱ uponȱ whichȱ wisdomȱ andȱ happinessȱ canȱ beȱ achieved. Friendshipȱresultsȱinȱvirtueȱandȱagreementȱamongȱtheȱindividuals,ȱwhichȱinȱturn leadsȱtoȱpeaceȱandȱharmonyȱwithinȱtheȱsocialȱcommunity.17 InȱancientȱRome,ȱCiceroȱpickedȱupȱmanyȱofȱtheȱGreekȱideasȱaboutȱfriendship, mostȱpoignantlyȱexpressedȱinȱhisȱtrulyȱfamousȱandȱbyȱnowȱpracticallyȱtimeless dialogueȱtreatiseȱLaelius,ȱorȱDeȱamicitia.ȱForȱhim,ȱfriendsȱmustȱagreeȱinȱmoralȱand ethicalȱtermsȱandȱshareȱinȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱofȱhumanȱlife,ȱasȱmanifestedȱin goodȱ deedsȱ doneȱ forȱ theȱ otherȱ outȱ ofȱ sheerȱ friendliness.ȱ Virtueȱ dominates friendshipȱinȱCicero’sȱphilosophy.ȱWeȱwillȱcomeȱbackȱtoȱhisȱtreatiseȱbelow,ȱbutȱlet usȱfirstȱtraceȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱhistoricalȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱeverȱsince. Seneca,ȱforȱinstance,ȱperceivedȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱmotivationalȱforceȱleadingȱtoȱthe selfȬfulfillmentȱofȱtheȱindividual,ȱrelyingȱonȱtheȱmodelȱofȱanȱeducationalȱproject involvingȱbothȱfriendsȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime. Onlyȱwhenȱanȱindividualȱcanȱshareȱvirtue,ȱknowledge,ȱandȱanyȱotherȱethical goodȱ withȱ aȱ friend,ȱ doesȱ thisȱ translateȱ intoȱ publicȱ joy.ȱ Manyȱ otherȱ Roman philosophers,ȱsuchȱasȱLucian,ȱPlutarch,ȱMaximosȱofȱThyros,ȱandȱLibanios,ȱalso examinedȱandȱdiscussedȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱcentralȱidealȱandȱvalue,ȱofferingȱapproval ofȱandȱadditionsȱtoȱtheȱancientȱGreekȱconcepts. Inȱ lateȱ antiquity,ȱ Christianȱ thinkersȱ suchȱ asȱ St.ȱ Ambrose,ȱ Johnȱ Chrysostom, Jerome,ȱ Paulinusȱ ofȱ Nola,ȱ andȱ St.ȱ Augustine,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ Churchȱ Fathersȱ and others,ȱcontinuedȱwithȱtheȱexaminationȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtranslatedȱthatȱsecular conceptȱintoȱaȱreligiousȱone,ȱyetȱtheyȱstillȱinsistedȱonȱtheȱpracticalȱapplicationȱof thisȱidealȱandȱoftenȱbeganȱtoȱneglectȱitȱevenȱonceȱtheyȱhadȱturnedȱtoȱreligious

15

16

17

Plato,ȱCompleteȱWorks,ȱed.,ȱwithȱintrod.ȱandȱnotes,ȱbyȱJohnȱM.ȱCooper.ȱ AssociateȱEditorȱD.ȱS. Hutchinsonȱ (Indianapolisȱ andȱ Cambridge:Hackettȱ Publishing,ȱ 1997),ȱ Lorraineȱ Smithȱ Pangle, Aristotleȱ andȱ theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Friendship,ȱ ed.ȱ Johnȱ vonȱ Heykingȱ andȱ Richardȱ Avramenko (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003). HeinzȬHorstȱ Schrey,ȱ “Freundschaft,”ȱ Theologischeȱ Realenzyklopädieȱ XIȱ (Berlinȱ andȱ Newȱ York: WalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1983),ȱ590–99;ȱhereȱ591–92.ȱIȱfollowȱhisȱoutlineȱinȱtheȱsubsequentȱsection. NathalieȱvonȱSiemens,ȱAristotelesȱüberȱFreundschaft:ȱUntersuchungenȱzurȱNikomachischenȱEthikȱVIII undȱIX.ȱSymposion,ȱ128ȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱBr.:ȱAlber,ȱ2008).

8

Introduction

asceticism.18ȱIȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱsomeȱofȱtheirȱteachingsȱbelow.ȱAfterȱall,ȱtheyȱallȱrelied consistentlyȱinȱoneȱwayȱorȱtheȱotherȱonȱtheȱteachingsȱdevelopedȱbyȱCiceroȱinȱhis famousȱDeȱamicitia.ȱwrittenȱinȱ44ȱB.C.E.ȱduringȱCicero’sȱretirement,ȱafterȱtheȱdeath ofȱ Juliusȱ Caesarȱ andȱ beforeȱ theȱ conflictȱ withȱ Antony.ȱ Thisȱ highlyȱ influential treatiseȱwasȱdesignedȱasȱaȱdialogue,ȱveryȱmuchȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱSocrates.ȱ“The workȱisȱwrittenȱasȱaȱdialogueȱbetweenȱprominentȱfiguresȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱRoman republicȱ andȱ isȱ setȱ afterȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ theȱ youngerȱ Scipioȱ Africanusȱ (otherwise knownȱasȱScipioȱAemilianus,ȱScipioȱAfricanusȱMinor,ȱorȱScipioȱtheȱYounger)ȱinȱ129 B.C.ȱ TheȱinterlocutorsȱofȱtheȱdialogueȱchosenȱbyȱCiceroȱareȱGaiusȱLaelius,ȱaȱclose friendȱofȱtheȱlateȱstatesman,ȱandȱLaelius’sȱtwoȱsonsȬinȬlaw,ȱGaiusȱFanniusȱand QuintusȱMuciusȱScaevola.ȱInterestingly,ȱScaevolaȱhimselfȱwasȱmentorȱandȱteacher toȱ Cicero,ȱ whoȱ probablyȱ heardȱ hisȱ teacher’sȱ reminiscencesȱ aboutȱ these conversationsȱfirstȬhand.”19

C.ȱMarcusȱTulliusȱCicero Forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ subsequentȱ studies,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ intentionȱ of contextualizingȱtheȱbasicȱidealsȱexpressedȱbothȱbyȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱandȱcountless medievalȱandȱearlyȬmodernȱpredecessors,ȱletȱusȱthenȱtakeȱaȱmoreȱthoroughȱlook firstȱ atȱ howȱ Ciceroȱ (103ȱ B.C.E.–43ȱ B.C.E.)ȱ discussedȱ friendshipȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ the fundamentalȱ valuesȱ ofȱ humanȱ life.ȱ Toȱ keepȱ theȱ largerȱ contextȱ inȱ mind,ȱ hisȱ De

18

19

BarbaraȱvonȱReibnitz,ȱ“Freundschaft,”ȱDerȱNeueȱPauly.ȱEnzyklopädieȱderȱAntike,ȱed.ȱHubertȱCancik andȱ Helmuthȱ Schneider.ȱ Altertum,ȱ vol.ȱ 4ȱ (Stuttgartȱ andȱ Weimar:ȱ Verlagȱ J.ȱ B.ȱ Metzler,ȱ 1998), 669–74.ȱForȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱAugustine,ȱseeȱW.ȱGerlings,ȱ“DasȱFreundschaftsideal Augustins,”ȱThQȱ161ȱ(1981):ȱ165–274.ȱForȱaȱmoreȱcriticalȱinvestigationȱofȱAugustine’sȱperception ofȱfriendship,ȱseeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger.ȱIȱamȱthankfulȱforȱhis personalȱcommentȱtoȱmeȱregardingȱtheȱgrowingȱdisinterestȱbyȱtheȱChurchȱFathersȱonceȱtheyȱgot moreȱinvolvedȱinȱtheirȱasceticȱpracticesȱlaterȱinȱlife.ȱSeeȱCarolinneȱWhite,ȱChristianȱFriendshipȱin theȱ Fourthȱ Centuryȱ (Cambridge,ȱ UK:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992),ȱ 90,ȱ referringȱ toȱ John Chrysostom,ȱemphasizes:ȱ“Unfortunatelyȱthisȱintimacyȱ[hisȱfriendshipȱwithȱBasel]ȱwasȱbroken whenȱBasilȱmadeȱaȱgreaterȱcommitmentȱtoȱtheȱasceticȱlife,ȱwhileȱJohnȱremainedȱȇfetteredȱwith worldlyȱdesires.”ȱȱ Seeȱ theȱ extensiveȱ commentaryȱ byȱ Moritzȱ Seyffert,ȱ inȱ M.ȱ Tuliiȱ Ciceronisȱ Laelius:ȱ Deȱ Amicitia Dialogus.ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ byȱ C.ȱ F.ȱ W.ȱ Müllerȱ (1876;ȱ Hildesheim:ȱ Georgȱ Olms,ȱ 1965);ȱ Davidȱ Konstan, FriendshipȱinȱtheȱClassicalȱWorldȱ(seeȱnoteȱ14);ȱAmiciziaȱeȱpotere:ȱnelleȱlettereȱdiȱCiceroneȱeȱnelleȱelegie ovidianeȱdall’esilio,ȱed.ȱSandraȱCitroniȱMarchetti.ȱStudiȱeȱtesti,ȱ18ȱ(Florence:ȱUniversitàȱdegliȱStudi diȱFirenze,ȱDipartimentoȱdiȱscienzeȱdell’antichitàȱ“GiorgioȱPasquali”,ȱ2001);ȱMargaretȱGraver, Stoicismȱ &ȱ Emotionȱ (Chicagoȱ andȱ London:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 2007).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ the contributionsȱtoȱFriendshipȱ&ȱPolitics:ȱEssaysȱinȱPoliticalȱThought,ȱed.ȱJohnȱvonȱHeykingȱandȱRichard Avramenkoȱ (Notreȱ Dame,ȱ IN:ȱ Notreȱ Dameȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2008).ȱ Seeȱ also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laelius_de_Amicitiaȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

Introduction

9

amicitiaȱ constitutesȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ foundationalȱ textsȱ forȱ theȱ entireȱ discourseȱ on friendshipȱeverȱsinceȱandȱhasȱbeenȱcitedȱthroughoutȱtheȱages.20ȱMostȱimportantly, theȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱemergedȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱtrulyȱimportantȱvaluesȱforȱtheȱcourtly world,ȱandȱsoȱforȱmonasticȱcommunitiesȱthroughoutȱEurope.21ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱmean thatȱ weȱ canȱ easilyȱ defineȱ ‘friendship’ȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ phenomenonȱ translatedȱ into medievalȱandȱthenȱearlyȬmodernȱculture;ȱbutȱweȱcanȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱintellectuals everȱsinceȱhaveȱplacedȱgreatestȱvalueȱonȱthisȱhomosocial,ȱthatȱis,ȱidealizing,ȱethical relationshipȱorȱbond,ȱasȱBrianȱPatrickȱMcGuireȱemphasizes:ȱ Friendshipȱ takesȱ onȱ manyȱ formsȱ inȱ medievalȱ life,ȱ andȱ Iȱ assumeȱ thatȱ most manifestationsȱofȱitȱareȱforeverȱlostȱtoȱus,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱrecordedȱinȱwriting. Theȱcultivationȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱwhichȱbecomesȱevidentȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury moreȱ thanȱ everȱ beforeȱ isȱ onlyȱ one,ȱ ifȱ perhapsȱ theȱ mostȱ obviousȱ manifestationȱ of friendship.22

ȱ Ciceroȱ composedȱ hisȱ essayȱ Onȱ Friendshipȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ oneȱ Onȱ Oldȱ Age, reflectingȱ bothȱ onȱ hisȱ vastȱ learning,ȱ drawingȱ fromȱ Greekȱ philosophyȱ and literature,ȱandȱonȱhisȱpersonalȱlifeȱexperiencesȱinȱItaly.ȱAsȱFrankȱO’Copleyȱaptly putsȱit:ȱ“NotȱonlyȱwasȱthisȱtheȱkindȱofȱargumentȱmostȱlikelyȱtoȱappealȱtoȱCicero’s readers,ȱitȱwasȱtheȱkindȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱbestȱunderstood.ȱImpatientȱasȱheȱwasȱwith speculationȱ aboutȱ theȱ realȱ orȱ idealȱ natureȱ ofȱ oldȱ ageȱ andȱ friendship,ȱ heȱ was anxiousȱtoȱbringȱtheȱwholeȱdiscussionȱdownȱtoȱearth,ȱsoȱtoȱspeak,ȱandȱtoȱshow howȱactualȱpeopleȱlivingȱinȱanȱactualȱworld,ȱmightȱgetȱtheȱbestȱoutȱofȱtheirȱlater yearsȱandȱmightȱfind,ȱform,ȱandȱmaintainȱfriendshipsȱofȱlastingȱmutualȱbenefit.”23 Ciceroȱ emphasizedȱ thatȱ everyoneȱ shouldȱ closelyȱ considerȱ theȱ meaningȱ of friendshipȱasȱfundamentalȱvalueȱinȱhumanȱlife,ȱespeciallyȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱbeenȱso

20

21

22

23

TheȱClassicsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱPapersȱofȱtheȱTwentiethȱAnnualȱConferenceȱofȱtheȱCenterȱforȱMedieval andȱEarlyȱRenaissanceȱStudies,ȱed.ȱAldoȱS.ȱBernardoȱandȱSaulȱLevinȱ(Binghamton,ȱNY:ȱCenterȱfor Medievalȱ&ȱEarlyȱRenaissanceȱStudies,ȱ1990). BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunityȱ(seeȱnoteȱ12);ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friendshipȱand Rivalry:ȱ Theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ Amicitiaȱ inȱ TwelfthȬCenturyȱ Monasticȱ Relations,”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Ecclesiastical Historyȱ44ȱ(1993):ȱ390–414;ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger,ȱ“L’Amourȱdesȱrois:ȱStructureȱsocialeȱd’uneȱforme deȱsensibilitéȱaristocratique,”ȱAnnales:ȱÉconomies.ȱSociété.ȱCivilisationsȱ46ȱ(1991):ȱ547–71. BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱScholarshipȱinȱMedievalȱGermany,”ȱMedievalȱGermany: AssociationsȱandȱDelineations,ȱed.ȱNancyȱvanȱDeusen.ȱClaremontȱCulturalȱStudies.ȱMusicological Studies,ȱ LXII/5ȱ (Ottawa:ȱ Theȱ Instituteȱ ofȱ Mediaevalȱ Music,ȱ 2000),ȱ 29–48;ȱ hereȱ 31.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ C. StephenȱJaeger,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱConflictȱatȱtheȱEarlyȱCathedralȱSchools:ȱTheȱDisputeȱBetween WormsȱandȱWürzburg,”ȱibid.,ȱ49–62. FrankȱO.ȱCopley,ȱin:ȱCicero,ȱOnȱOldȱAgeȱandȱOnȱFriendship,ȱtrans.,ȱwithȱanȱintrod.ȱbyȱFrankȱO. Copleyȱ(AnnȱArbor:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱMichiganȱPress,ȱ1967),ȱxiv.ȱForȱaȱmostȱcomprehensive commentary,ȱ seeȱ M.ȱ Tulliiȱ Ciceronis,ȱ Laelius:ȱ Deȱ amicitiaȱ dialogus.ȱ Mitȱ einemȱ Kommentar herausgegebenȱvonȱMoritzȱSeyffert.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱbyȱC.ȱF.ȱW.ȱMüllerȱ(1876;ȱHildesheim:ȱGeorgȱOlms, 1965).ȱSeeȱnowȱMarcusȱTulliusȱCicero,ȱDeȱsenectute;ȱDeȱamicitia;ȱDeȱdivinatione,ȱwithȱanȱEnglish translationȱbyȱWilliamȱArmisteadȱFalconer.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ154ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvard UniversityȱPress,ȱ2001).

10

Introduction

fortunateȱtoȱenjoyȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱgoodȱfriendsȱoverȱtheȱyears.ȱOldȱpeopleȱwould beȱ particularlyȱ qualifiedȱ toȱ reflectȱ onȱ friendshipȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ extensive experienceȱinȱthisȱregard.ȱ JustȱasȱmuchȱasȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱoldȱageȱledȱCiceroȱtoȱexploreȱtheȱmeaningsȱof basicȱ humanȱ values,ȱ theȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ tookȱ himȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ goal. Wisdomȱandȱtrueȱhumanȱunderstandingȱareȱidentifiedȱasȱtheȱkeystonesȱinȱthe entireȱeffortȱtoȱestablishȱfriendshipȱwithȱequallyȱqualifiedȱpeople.ȱAsȱweȱlearnȱfrom Laelius,ȱtheȱkeyȱspeakerȱinȱthisȱdialogueȱtext,ȱfriendshipȱisȱ“theȱmostȱcomplete agreementȱinȱpolicy,ȱinȱpursuits,ȱandȱinȱopinions.”24ȱFriendshipȱinȱitsȱidealȱform lastsȱ overȱ timeȱ andȱ isȱ deeplyȱ carvedȱ intoȱ memory,ȱ bothȱ ofȱ theȱ survivorsȱ and participantsȱofȱthatȱhumanȱrelationshipȱ(125),ȱwhichȱtheȱhistoricalȱwitnessesȱwould confirm,ȱsinceȱfriendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱsuchȱaȱvaluableȱandȱrareȱphenomenon:ȱ“in theȱwholeȱrangeȱofȱhistoryȱonlyȱthreeȱorȱfourȱpairsȱofȱfriendsȱareȱmentioned;ȱand IȱventureȱtoȱhopeȱthatȱamongȱsuchȱinstancesȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱScipioȱandȱLaelius willȱbeȱknownȱtoȱposterity”ȱ(125).ȱNotȱsurprisingly,ȱheȱurgesȱhisȱlistenerȱ“toȱput friendshipȱbeforeȱallȱthingsȱhuman;ȱforȱnothingȱisȱsoȱconformableȱtoȱnatureȱand nothingȱsoȱadaptableȱtoȱourȱfortunesȱwhetherȱtheyȱbeȱfavourableȱorȱadverse”ȱ(127).ȱ Mostȱimportantly,ȱfriendshipȱcanȱexistȱonlyȱamongȱgoodȱpeople,ȱsignalingȱthat itȱrepresentsȱaȱbenchmarkȱforȱvirtue,ȱwhichȱheȱdefinesȱasȱfollows:ȱ“actȱandȱsoȱlive asȱtoȱgiveȱproofȱofȱloyaltyȱandȱuprightness,ȱofȱfairnessȱandȱgenerosity;ȱwhoȱareȱfree fromȱallȱpassion,ȱcaprice,ȱandȱinsolence,ȱandȱhaveȱgreatȱstrengthȱofȱcharacter” (129).ȱ“Propinquitatis”ȱorȱ“Goodness”ȱemergesȱasȱtheȱcriticalȱfeatureȱofȱfriendship thatȱ noȱ oneȱ wouldȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ takeȱ away,ȱ unlessȱ friendshipȱ itselfȱ wouldȱ be destroyedȱaltogether,ȱwhichȱstandsȱoutȱasȱaȱcompletelyȱuniqueȱbondageȱbetween twoȱpeopleȱ(129).ȱAsȱanȱaside,ȱweȱwillȱlaterȱobserveȱaȱveryȱsimilarȱapproachȱto friendshipȱinȱthisȱregardȱbyȱThomasȱAquinasȱandȱsubsequentȱtheologiansȱand philosophersȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAges. Comparedȱtoȱallȱotherȱrichesȱorȱpowers,ȱfriendshipȱoutshinesȱevenȱgoodȱhealth, wealth,ȱ publicȱ honor,ȱ andȱ sensualȱ pleasures,ȱ especiallyȱ becauseȱ aȱ personȱ can converseȱwithȱaȱfriendȱasȱifȱs/heȱwereȱaȱmirrorȱimageȱofȱoneselfȱ(131).ȱComplete delightȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ honorableȱ fashionȱ resultsȱ fromȱ friendship:ȱ “friendship embracesȱinnumerableȱends;ȱturnȱwhereȱyouȱwillȱitȱisȱeverȱatȱyourȱside;ȱnoȱbarrier shutsȱitȱout;ȱitȱisȱneverȱuntimelyȱandȱneverȱinȱtheȱway”ȱ(133).ȱInȱtheȱcontextȱof everydayȱtroublesȱandȱproblems,ȱfriendshipȱprovidesȱassistanceȱandȱeasesȱmuch pain,ȱitȱ“lessensȱtheȱburdenȱofȱadversityȱbyȱdividingȱandȱsharingȱit”ȱ(133). Butȱfriendshipȱcannotȱbeȱenforced;ȱinsteadȱitȱmustȱbeȱgenuineȱandȱgivenȱfreely, asȱ theȱ ultimateȱ formȱ ofȱ loveȱ (139),ȱ beingȱ entirelyȱ freeȱ ofȱ needȱ orȱ theȱ resultȱ of

24

Cicero,ȱDeȱSenectute,ȱDeȱAmicitia,ȱDeȱDivinatione.ȱWithȱanȱEnglishȱtranslationȱbyȱWilliamȱArmistead Falconer.ȱTheȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary.ȱCicero,ȱXX.ȱLCLȱ154ȱ(1923;ȱCambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon: HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ125.ȱ

Introduction

11

calculation,ȱ orȱ profitȱ thinking.ȱ Laeliusȱ underscoresȱ howȱ muchȱ “theȱ forceȱ of integrityȱisȱsoȱgreatȱthatȱweȱloveȱit,ȱwhetherȱinȱthoseȱweȱhaveȱneverȱseen,ȱor,ȱmore wonderfulȱstill,ȱevenȱinȱanȱenemy,ȱwhatȱwonderȱthatȱmen’sȱsoulsȱareȱstirredȱwhen theyȱthinkȱtheyȱseeȱclearlyȱtheȱvirtueȱandȱgoodnessȱofȱthoseȱwithȱwhomȱaȱclose intimacyȱisȱpossible?”ȱ(141).ȱThisȱobservationȱapparentlyȱinformedȱinȱoneȱwayȱor theȱotherȱSchiller’sȱapproachȱtoȱfriendshipȱasȱexpressedȱinȱhisȱballadsȱ(seeȱabove). Muchȱtheȱsame,ȱhowever,ȱwouldȱfindȱitsȱconfirmationȱinȱmuchȱofȱmedievalȱand earlyȱ modernȱ literature,ȱ asȱ theȱ subsequentȱ contributionsȱ toȱ ourȱ volumeȱ will demonstrateȱ inȱ aȱ multiplicityȱ ofȱ approachesȱ andȱ fociȱ basedȱ onȱ aȱ varietyȱ of interdisciplinaryȱmethods.25ȱOfȱcourse,ȱweȱcannotȱexploreȱhereȱinȱallȱnecessary detailȱtheȱendlessȱramificationsȱofȱCicero’sȱinfluenceȱonȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,26ȱbutȱwe canȱalreadyȱperceiveȱwhyȱhisȱprofoundȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱethicalȱdimensionsȱof friendshipȱwouldȱhaveȱexertedȱsuchȱaȱprofoundȱinfluenceȱfarȱbeyondȱantiquity. Friendsȱdoȱnotȱdependȱonȱeachȱotherȱinȱmaterialȱorȱpoliticalȱterms;ȱinsteadȱthey areȱselfȬsufficientȱindividualsȱwhoȱturnȱvoluntarilyȱtoȱfriendsȱonlyȱbecauseȱthey admireȱtheȱvirtuesȱinȱanotherȱpersonȱ(143).ȱIf,ȱhowever,ȱaȱfriendȱimposesȱrequests thatȱareȱlackingȱinȱvirtueȱorȱmorality,ȱthenȱfriendshipȱitselfȱmightȱbeȱatȱriskȱ(149). Laeliusȱevenȱformulatesȱtheȱimpressiveȱstatementȱsummarizingȱtheȱwholeȱpoint, commentingȱcogently:ȱ“neitherȱaskȱdishonourableȱthings,ȱnorȱdoȱthem,ȱifȱasked. Andȱdishonourableȱitȱcertainlyȱis,ȱandȱnotȱtoȱbeȱallowed,ȱforȱanyoneȱtoȱpleadȱin defenceȱ ofȱ sinsȱ inȱ generalȱ andȱ especiallyȱ ofȱ thoseȱ againstȱ theȱ State,ȱ thatȱ he committedȱthemȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱaȱfriend”ȱ(151).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱfriendshipȱshould notȱ beȱ confusedȱ withȱ absoluteȱ dedicationȱ andȱ lackȱ ofȱ considerationȱ when sinfulnessȱentersȱtheȱpictureȱandȱcloudsȱtheȱvirtuousȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfriends.ȱ ThisȱallowsȱLaeliusȱtoȱformulateȱtheȱnextȱlawȱpertainingȱtoȱfriendship:ȱ“Askȱof friendsȱ onlyȱ whatȱ isȱ honourable;ȱ doȱ forȱ friendsȱ onlyȱ whatȱ isȱ honourableȱ and withoutȱevenȱwaitingȱtoȱbeȱasked;ȱletȱzealȱbeȱeverȱpresent,ȱbutȱhesitationȱabsent; dareȱtoȱgiveȱtrueȱadviceȱwithȱallȱfrankness;ȱinȱfriendshipȱletȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱfriends whoȱareȱwiseȱcounsellorsȱbeȱparamount,ȱandȱletȱthatȱinfluenceȱbeȱemployedȱin advising,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ withȱ frankness,ȱ but,ȱ ifȱ theȱ occasionȱ demands,ȱ evenȱ with sternness,ȱandȱletȱtheȱadviceȱbeȱfollowedȱwhenȱgiven”ȱ(155–57).ȱ

25

26

SeeȱalsoȱDavidȱClark,ȱBetweenȱMedievalȱMen:ȱMaleȱFriendshipȱandȱDesireȱinȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEnglish Literatureȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2009),ȱ althoughȱ heȱ explores,ȱ sometimesȱ aȱ bit speculatively,ȱsameȬsexȱhomoeroticism;ȱseeȱalsoȱAlanȱBray,ȱTheȱFriendȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱThe Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 2003).ȱ Laȱ Sociétéȱ desȱ amisȱ àȱ Romeȱ etȱ dansȱ laȱ littératureȱ médiévaleȱ et humaniste,ȱed.ȱPerrineȱGalandȬHallynȱetȱal.ȱLatinitatis,ȱ2ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2008). Ulrichȱ Gotter,ȱ “Ciceroȱ undȱ dieȱ Freundschaft:ȱ Dieȱ Konstruktionȱ sozialerȱ Normenȱ zwischen römischerȱ Politikȱ undȱ griechischerȱ Philosophie,”ȱ Vergangenheitȱ undȱ Lebenswelt:ȱ soziale Kommunikation,ȱTraditionsbildungȱundȱhistorischesȱBewußtsein,ȱed.ȱHansȬJoachimȱGehrkeȱandȱAstrid Möller.ȱScriptȬOralia,ȱ90ȱ(Tübingen:ȱNarr,ȱ1995),ȱ339–60;ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱFriendship: aȱ History,ȱ ed.ȱ Barbaraȱ Caine.ȱ Criticalȱ Historiesȱ ofȱ Subjectivityȱ andȱ Cultureȱ (London:ȱ Equinox Publishing,ȱ2009).ȱ

12

Introduction

Friends,ȱthen,ȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱboundȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱorȱdependȱonȱeachȱotherȱin politicalȱorȱeconomicȱterms,ȱirrespectiveȱofȱmoralityȱorȱethics,ȱgrantingȱeachȱother sufficientȱ freedomȱ inȱ caseȱ someȱ disagreementȱ mightȱ arise.ȱ Ciceroȱ warnsȱ his readers,ȱ asȱ theȱ subsequentȱ argumentȱ implies,ȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ cannotȱ be automaticallyȱfreeȱofȱtrouble,ȱworries,ȱandȱhardship,ȱsinceȱitȱrepresentsȱconstant negotiationsȱandȱeffortsȱtoȱcommunicateȱasȱopenlyȱandȱhonorablyȱasȱpossible.ȱ Butȱgoodȱpeople,ȱalmostȱbyȱinstinct,ȱorȱdrivenȱbyȱnature,ȱfeelȱattractedȱtoȱeach otherȱandȱsoȱformȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheirȱdesireȱtoȱwinȱvirtue:ȱ“the goodȱhaveȱforȱtheȱgood,ȱasȱifȱfromȱnecessity,ȱaȱkindlyȱfeelingȱwhichȱnatureȱhas madeȱ theȱ fountainȱ ofȱ friendship”ȱ (161).ȱ Littleȱ wonderȱ thenȱ thatȱ medieval intellectualsȱ oftenȱ talkedȱ aboutȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ loveȱ predicatedȱ onȱ the experienceȱ ofȱ virtue,ȱ asȱ weȱ read,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ Heloise’sȱ lettersȱ to Abelard—ifȱweȱcanȱtrustȱtheȱauthenticityȱofȱtheȱtext:ȱ Youȱ know,ȱ greatestȱ partȱ ofȱ myȱ soul,ȱ thatȱ manyȱ peopleȱ loveȱ eachȱ otherȱ forȱ many reasons,ȱ butȱ noȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ theirsȱ willȱ beȱ asȱ constantȱ asȱ thatȱ whichȱ stemsȱ from integrityȱandȱvirtue,ȱandȱfromȱdeepȱlove.ȱForȱIȱdoȱnotȱconsiderȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱthose whoȱseemȱtoȱloveȱeachȱotherȱforȱrichesȱandȱpleasuresȱtoȱbeȱdurableȱatȱall,ȱsinceȱtheȱvery thingsȱonȱwhichȱtheyȱbaseȱtheirȱloveȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱnoȱdurability.ȱConsequently,ȱwhen theirȱrichesȱorȱpleasuresȱrunsȱout,ȱsoȱtooȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱloveȱmayȱfail,ȱsinceȱthey lovedȱtheseȱthingsȱnotȱbecauseȱofȱeachȱotherȱbutȱeachȱotherȱbecauseȱofȱtheseȱthings.27ȱ

Ciceroȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱinclinedȱtoȱembraceȱfriendshipȱwould haveȱ toȱ beȱ freeȱ ofȱ anyȱ need,ȱ orȱ advice;ȱ instead,ȱ heȱ emphasizesȱ primarilyȱ that friendsȱprovideȱadvice,ȱandȱhelpȱeachȱother,ȱbutȱthatȱtheyȱdoȱthisȱonlyȱafterȱthey haveȱbecomeȱfriendsȱandȱdoȱnotȱuseȱtheȱotherȱtoȱelicitȱadvantagesȱorȱprofitsȱwhen theyȱseekȱfriendshipȱ(163).ȱFearȱandȱworriesȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱfarȱawayȱfromȱfriends; otherwiseȱtheȱvirtuousȱrelationshipȱwouldȱsufferȱandȱturnȱintoȱaȱformȱofȱtyranny. Likewise,ȱ changesȱ inȱ materialȱ andȱ politicalȱ powerȱ andȱ rankȱ shouldȱ notȱ affect friendshipȱ(167).ȱ Asȱtoȱtheȱmutualȱexchangesȱamongȱfriends,ȱLaeliusȱdefinesȱaȱnumberȱofȱlimits, theȱmostȱimportantȱofȱwhichȱbeingȱthatȱtheȱfriendȱregardsȱitȱasȱhisȱdutyȱ“toȱstrive

27

QuotedȱfromȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard:ȱPerceptionsȱofȱDialogue inȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱFrance.ȱWithȱaȱtranslationȱbyȱNevilleȱChiavaroliȱandȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews.ȱThe NewȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱSt.ȱMartin’sȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱletterȱ49,ȱ227–29.ȱFollowing,ȱHeloise qualifiesȱherȱstatement,ȱexplaining:ȱ“unlessȱIȱknewȱtheȱunfailingȱfriendshipȱofȱtrueȱloveȱtoȱbe implantedȱinȱyou,ȱIȱwouldȱnotȱpresumeȱtoȱsendȱyouȱinelegantȱlettersȱofȱsuchȱunrefinedȱstyle” (229).ȱCf.ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove:ȱInȱSearchȱofȱaȱLostȱSensibility.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeries (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ27–35,ȱ161–62.ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmy gratitudeȱforȱhisȱcriticalȱcommentsȱonȱthisȱsectionȱofȱtheȱIntroduction.ȱForȱtheȱethicalȱdimension ofȱcourtlyȱlove,ȱseeȱJamesȱA.ȱSchultz,ȱCourtlyȱLove,ȱtheȱLoveȱofȱCourtliness,ȱandȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSexuality (ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2006),ȱ83–85ȱ(thoughȱwithoutȱreference toȱCiceronianȱthinking).

Introduction

13

withȱallȱhisȱmightȱtoȱarouseȱhisȱfriend’sȱprostrateȱsoulȱandȱleadȱitȱtoȱaȱlivelierȱhope andȱintoȱaȱbetterȱtrainȱofȱthought”ȱ(169).ȱTrueȱfriendsȱwouldȱneverȱaskȱanything fromȱeachȱotherȱthatȱmightȱdiminishȱone’sȱreputationȱorȱhonorȱ(171),ȱalthoughȱall theseȱhighȱidealsȱalsoȱimpliedȱthatȱmostȱpeopleȱwouldȱhaveȱonlyȱveryȱfewȱfriends becauseȱnotȱmanyȱindividualsȱwouldȱcommandȱtheȱnecessaryȱmoralȱandȱethical firmness,ȱsteadfastness,ȱandȱconstancyȱ(173).ȱ QuotingȱEnnius,ȱLaeliusȱformulatesȱaȱtimelessȱobservation:ȱ“WhenȱFortune’s fickleȱtheȱfaithfulȱfriendȱisȱfound”ȱ(175),ȱaȱnotionȱwhichȱwasȱlaterȱbeautifullyȱand mostȱ influentiallyȱ repeatedȱ andȱ expandedȱ onȱ byȱ Boethiusȱ inȱ hisȱ famousȱ De consolationeȱphilosophiaeȱ(524ȱC.E.):ȱ Doȱyouȱthinkȱitȱaȱsmallȱmatterȱthatȱyourȱterribleȱmisfortuneȱhasȱrevealedȱtheȱfeelings ofȱthoseȱfriendsȱwhoȱareȱfaithfulȱtoȱyou?ȱFortuneȱhasȱseparatedȱyourȱtrueȱfriendsȱfrom twoȬfacedȱones;ȱwhenȱsheȱleftȱyou,ȱsheȱtookȱherȱfollowersȱwithȱherȱandȱleftȱyouȱyour own.ȱThinkȱhowȱmuchȱyouȱwouldȱhaveȱgivenȱforȱthisȱknowledgeȱwhenȱyouȱwereȱstill onȱtopȱandȱthoughtȱyourselfȱfortunate.ȱNowȱyouȱcomplainȱofȱlostȱriches;ȱbutȱyouȱhave foundȱyourȱfriends,ȱandȱthatȱisȱtheȱmostȱpreciousȱkindȱofȱwealth.28

Forȱ Cicero,ȱ then,ȱ loyaltyȱ emergesȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ criticalȱ featuresȱ determining friendship,ȱ thoughȱ notȱ withoutȱ keepingȱ virtue,ȱ honesty,ȱ etc.ȱ inȱ mind.ȱ Most fittingly,ȱheȱthenȱdefinesȱtheȱwise,ȱtrueȱfriendȱasȱaȱpersonȱwhoȱ“letȱthereȱbeȱno feigningȱorȱhypocrisy;ȱforȱitȱisȱmoreȱbefittingȱaȱcandidȱmanȱtoȱhateȱopenlyȱthanȱto maskȱhisȱrealȱthoughtsȱwithȱaȱlyingȱface;ȱsecondly,ȱletȱhimȱnotȱonlyȱrejectȱcharges preferredȱ byȱ another,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ letȱ himȱ avoidȱ evenȱ beingȱ suspiciousȱ andȱ ever believingȱthatȱhisȱfriendȱhasȱdoneȱsomethingȱwrong”ȱ(177).ȱFriendshipȱdoesȱnot overlookȱsocialȱdifferences,ȱbutȱstillȱtreatsȱtheȱfriendȱasȱanȱequalȱinȱethicalȱand emotionalȱtermsȱ(179),ȱwhichȱalsoȱnecessitatesȱthatȱthoseȱinvolvedȱinȱformingȱa friendshipȱ shouldȱ beȱ ofȱ aȱ matureȱ ageȱ (183).ȱ Onlyȱ thenȱ willȱ itȱ beȱ possibleȱ to discriminateȱcarefullyȱandȱjudiciouslyȱwhatȱoneȱcanȱdemandȱfromȱaȱfriendȱandȱdo toȱaȱfriendȱuponȱhis/herȱrequestȱ(183).ȱ Laeliusȱalsoȱwarnsȱaboutȱpossibleȱchangesȱinȱfriendship,ȱkeepingȱhumanȱfrailty inȱmind,ȱemphasizingȱthatȱonlyȱparticularȱpeopleȱshouldȱbeȱchosenȱasȱfriends: “Nowȱtheyȱareȱworthyȱofȱfriendshipȱwhoȱhaveȱwithinȱtheirȱownȱsoulsȱtheȱreason forȱ theirȱ beingȱ loved.ȱ Aȱ rareȱ classȱ indeed!”ȱ (187).ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ hereȱ he underscoresȱtheȱhighlyȱelusiveȱnatureȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱthatȱcarriesȱwithȱitȱthe profoundȱcharacterȱofȱspiritual,ȱorȱcharacter,ȱnobilityȱthatȱthinksȱnotȱexclusively ofȱhim/herself,ȱbutȱofȱtheȱgoodnessȱandȱwellȬbeingȱofȱallȱwithinȱaȱgivenȱsociety.ȱBy contrast,ȱ“theȱfairȱthingȱis,ȱfirstȱofȱall,ȱtoȱbeȱaȱgoodȱmanȱyourselfȱandȱthenȱtoȱseek anotherȱlikeȱyourself.ȱItȱisȱamongȱsuchȱmenȱthatȱthisȱstabilityȱofȱfriendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmay beȱmadeȱsecure”ȱ(189–91).ȱ

28

Boethius,ȱTheȱConsolationȱofȱPhilosophy,ȱtrans.,ȱwithȱintro.ȱandȱnotesȱbyȱRichardȱH.ȱGreenȱ(1962; Mineola,ȱNY:ȱDoverȱPublications,ȱ2002),ȱProseȱ8,ȱp.ȱ34.

14

Introduction

Hence,ȱacceptingȱviceȱinȱaȱfriendship,ȱorȱasȱpartȱofȱit,ȱwouldȱbeȱcompletelyȱillȬ conceivedȱandȱerroneousȱbecauseȱ“Friendshipȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱusȱbyȱnatureȱasȱthe handmaidȱofȱvirtue,ȱnotȱasȱaȱcomradeȱofȱvice”ȱ(191).ȱHeȱspecifiesȱthenȱthatȱvirtue cannotȱcompletelyȱdevelopȱandȱunfoldȱallȱbyȱitselfȱandȱneedsȱaȱpartnershipȱofȱtwo goodȱpeople,ȱorȱfriends:ȱ“virtueȱcannotȱattainȱherȱhighestȱaimsȱunattended,ȱbut onlyȱinȱunionȱandȱfellowshipȱwithȱanother”ȱ(191).ȱSubsequently,ȱasȱLaelius/Cicero concludes,ȱ friendshipȱ amountsȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ highestȱ idealsȱ inȱ humanȱ life:ȱ “all believeȱthatȱwithoutȱfriendshipȱlifeȱisȱnoȱlifeȱatȱall,ȱorȱatȱleastȱtheyȱsoȱbelieveȱifȱthey haveȱanyȱdesireȱwhateverȱtoȱliveȱtheȱlifeȱofȱfreeȱmen”ȱ(193–95).ȱLifeȱwithoutȱa friendȱisȱsolitary,ȱlonely,ȱdevoidȱofȱhappinessȱandȱjoy,ȱandȱperhapsȱevenȱwithout virtueȱ(195).ȱ However,ȱtrueȱfriendsȱmustȱalsoȱacceptȱadviceȱfromȱtheȱotherȱorȱmustȱbeȱwilling toȱhandȱoutȱadviceȱifȱtheyȱperceiveȱsomeȱshortcomingȱ(199),ȱwhichȱthusȱincludes theȱ valueȱ ofȱ absoluteȱ truthȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ uponȱ whichȱ friendsȱ communicateȱ and exchangeȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ (205).ȱ Theȱ absoluteȱ goalȱ thenȱ aimsȱ forȱ harmonyȱ in interhumanȱrelationshipsȱ(207),ȱwhichȱfriendshipȱcanȱcreate.ȱ“Love,”ȱorȱfriendship, “isȱnothingȱotherȱthanȱtheȱgreatȱesteemȱandȱaffectionȱfeltȱforȱhimȱwhoȱinspiresȱthat sentiment,ȱandȱitȱisȱnotȱsoughtȱbecauseȱofȱmaterialȱneedȱorȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱmaterial gain”ȱ(207).ȱAlthoughȱthereȱwouldȱneverȱbeȱaȱguaranteeȱasȱtoȱfindȱthisȱhappiness, eachȱ humanȱ individualȱ oughtȱ toȱ searchȱ forȱ aȱ friend:ȱ “Butȱ inasmuchȱ asȱ things humanȱareȱfrailȱandȱfleeting,ȱweȱmustȱbeȱeverȱonȱtheȱsearchȱforȱsomeȱpersons whomȱweȱshallȱloveȱandȱwhoȱwillȱloveȱusȱinȱreturn;ȱforȱifȱgoodwillȱandȱaffection areȱtakenȱaway,ȱeveryȱjoyȱisȱtakenȱfromȱlife”ȱ(209).29ȱ

D.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȱAntiquity:ȱBishopȱ(Saint)ȱAugustine NoȱintellectualȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱofȱtheȱtimeȱbeyond,ȱifȱnotȱuntil today,ȱcanȱignoreȱtheȱtoweringȱfigureȱofȱSaintȱAugustineȱ(354–430),ȱoneȱofȱthe ChurchȱFathersȱandȱtheȱfoundersȱofȱtheȱChristianȱChurchȱinȱtheȱWest.30ȱThereȱis hardlyȱanyȱaspectȱinȱhumanȱlifeȱandȱspiritualityȱthatȱheȱdidȱnotȱalreadyȱaddress andȱ ruminateȱ aboutȱ mostȱ thoroughlyȱ fromȱ aȱ theologicalȱ perspective.ȱ Henceȱ it comesȱasȱnoȱsurpriseȱthatȱheȱalsoȱdealtȱwithȱfriendshipȱquiteȱextensivelyȱandȱmany

29

30

SandraȱCitroniȱMarchetti,ȱAmiciziaȱeȱpotere:ȱnellaȱlettereȱdiȱCiceroneȱeȱnelleȱelgieȱovidianeȱdall’ȱesilio. Studiȱ eȱ testi,ȱ 18ȱ ([Florence:]ȱ Universitàȱ degliȱ Studiȱ diȱ Firenze,ȱ Dipartimentoȱ diȱ scienze dell’antichitàȱGiorgioȱPasquali,ȱ2000). HerbertȱT.ȱWeiskotten,ȱTheȱLifeȱofȱSaintȱAugustine:ȱAȱTranslationȱofȱtheȱSanctiȱAugustiniȱVitaȱby Possidius,ȱBishopȱofȱCalamaȱ(Merchantville,ȱNJ:ȱEvolutionȱPublishing,ȱ2008).ȱAȱsurprisinglyȱgood articleȱonȱAugustineȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱonlineȱat: ȱhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippoȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

Introduction

15

timesȱthroughoutȱhisȱwholeȱlifeȱinȱmanyȱofȱhisȱdifferentȱwritings.31ȱMoreover,ȱhe wasȱ theȱ firstȱ inȱ theȱ postȬantiqueȱ worldȱ toȱ tryȱ hisȱ handȱ atȱ elaboratingȱ aȱ more detailedȱcriticalȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱphenomenonȱofȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱof supremeȱimportanceȱforȱhim,ȱespeciallyȱinȱhisȱeffortsȱtoȱdistanceȱ himselfȱfrom Cicero’sȱ approachȱ toȱ thisȱ taskȱ byȱ injectingȱ aȱ stronglyȱ Christianȱ senseȱ intoȱ the discussionȱaboutȱfriendship,ȱifȱnotȱtoȱabandonȱthatȱancientȱidealȱandȱtoȱreplaceȱit withȱaȱnewȱreligiouslyȱinspiredȱone.ȱThisȱmeantȱforȱhimȱthatȱtheȱdevelopmentȱof friendshipȱreflectedȱtheȱworkingsȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱinȱhumanȱlife.ȱAsȱJosephȱT. Lienhard,ȱ S.J.,ȱ signals,ȱ forȱ Augustineȱ “Friendshipȱ alwaysȱ meantȱ theȱ bondȱ that unitesȱtwoȱpersonsȱinȱmutualȱsympathy.”32ȱAsȱheȱemphasizesȱinȱhisȱSoliloquies,ȱtrue friendshipȱallowsȱbothȱtoȱsearchȱforȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit,ȱtoȱfindȱGod,ȱandȱultimatelyȱto gainȱprofoundȱwisdomȱ(1.12.20;ȱ1.13.22).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱfortunate enoughȱ toȱ experienceȱ friendshipȱ areȱ empoweredȱ toȱ realizeȱ theȱ epiphanyȱ of discoveringȱtheȱultimateȱGood,ȱandȱfromȱthereȱthenȱGodȱinȱtheirȱownȱlives.ȱ NotȱsurprisinglyȱforȱthisȱmajorȱChristianȱtheologian,ȱheȱsoonȱenoughȱbeganȱto distanceȱhimselfȱsomewhat,ȱorȱatȱleastȱinȱsubtleȱterms,ȱfromȱCicero’sȱteachings, adding,ȱasȱreflectedȱinȱhisȱ Epistulaȱ258ȱtoȱMarcianus,ȱtheȱdimensionȱofȱmutual agreementȱamongȱfriendsȱinȱmattersȱhumanȱandȱdivine.ȱInȱhisȱEpistulaȱ130.6.13, however,ȱheȱreiterates,ȱinȱstrongȱterms,ȱCicero’sȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱthatȱitȱis triggeredȱbyȱmutualȱattractionȱinȱtheȱsoul,ȱwhereasȱoneȱclearlyȱfeelsȱdistantȱfrom otherȱ peopleȱ notȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ circleȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Foreshadowingȱ many statementsȱbyȱlateȬmedievalȱmysticsȱonȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱunionȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoul withȱtheȱGodhead,ȱAugustineȱ“associatesȱfriendshipȱwithȱGodȱwithȱchoosingȱthe eternalȱandȱrejectingȱtheȱtemporalȱ(s.ȱ299.6)ȱandȱsaysȱelsewhereȱthatȱhumanȱbeings becomeȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱwhenȱGodȱgrantsȱthemȱaȱshareȱinȱhisȱeternalȱwisdomȱ(civ. Deiȱ11.4),ȱorȱthatȱtheȱstateȱofȱoriginalȱjusticeȱwasȱ‘friendshipȱwithȱGod’ȱ(Gn.ȱlitt. 11.34.46).”33 InȱhisȱConfessions,ȱAugustineȱgoesȱintoȱmoreȱdetailȱasȱtoȱhisȱpersonalȱexperiences ofȱfriendship,ȱreferringȱtoȱaȱspecificȱfriendȱwhomȱheȱmetȱduringȱhisȱearlyȱyears: “Myȱ friendȱ sharedȱ inȱ myȱ studies,ȱ andȱ wasȱ veryȱ dearȱ toȱ me;ȱ weȱ were contemporaries,ȱbothȱbloomingȱinȱtheȱflowerȱofȱyouth.ȱHeȱhadȱgrownȱupȱwithȱme asȱaȱboy;ȱweȱhadȱbeenȱtoȱschoolȱtogether,ȱandȱplayedȱtogether.”34ȱButȱAugustine

31 32

33

34

SeeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger. JosephȱT.ȱLienhard,ȱS.J.,ȱ“Friendship,ȱFriends,”ȱAugustineȱthroughȱtheȱAges:ȱAnȱEncylcopedia,ȱed. AllanȱD.ȱFitzgerald,ȱO.S.A.ȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMI,ȱandȱCambridge:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmansȱPublishing, 1999),ȱ372–73;ȱhereȱ372. Lienhard,ȱ S.J.,ȱ “Friendship,ȱ Friends,”ȱ 373ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 32).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Marieȱ Aquinasȱ McNamara, FriendshipȱinȱSaintȱAugustine.ȱStudiaȱFriburgensia,ȱ20ȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱÜ.:ȱUniversitätsȬVerlag,ȱ1958); DonaldȱXȱBurt,ȱFriendshipȱandȱSociety:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱAugustine’sȱPracticalȱPhilosophyȱ(Grand Rapids,ȱMI:ȱW.ȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1999);ȱDagmarȱKiesel,ȱLiebenȱimȱIrdischen:ȱFreundschaft,ȱFrauenȱund FamilieȱbeiȱAugustin.ȱSymposion,ȱ130ȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱBr.ȱandȱMunich:ȱAlber,ȱ2008). Augustine,ȱTheȱConfessions.ȱTrans.ȱandȱed.ȱbyȱPhilipȱBurtonȱwithȱanȱIntroductionȱbyȱRobinȱLane

16

Introduction

isȱcarefulȱandȱsteersȱclearȱfromȱtheȱtraditionalȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱsimple homosocialȱ relationship,ȱ theȱ wayȱ Ciceroȱ hadȱ definedȱ it.ȱ Asȱ muchȱ asȱ affection bondedȱtheseȱtwoȱyoungȱmen,ȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱexperienceȱtrueȱandȱfullȱfriendship. Theȱauthorȱdefinesȱthisȱaspectȱasȱfollows:ȱ“itȱisȱonlyȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwhenȱyouȱglue togetherȱthoseȱwhoȱcleaveȱtoȱyouȱbyȱdiffusingȱyourȱloveȱinȱourȱheartsȱthroughȱtheȱHoly Spiritȱ(Rom.ȱ5.5),ȱwhichȱyouȱhaveȱgivenȱus”ȱ(69).ȱ Leavingȱ asideȱ someȱ commentsȱ aboutȱ theȱ religiousȱ turmoilȱ bothȱ menȱ went through,ȱAugustineȱthenȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱfriend’sȱearlyȱdeathȱpained himȱdeeplyȱandȱalmostȱdestroyedȱhim:ȱ“whenȱheȱhadȱreachedȱmanhoodȱyouȱtook himȱfromȱthisȱlife,ȱwhenȱheȱhadȱbeenȱmyȱfriendȱforȱbarelyȱaȱyearȱ–ȱaȱfriendship sweeterȱtoȱmeȱthanȱallȱtheȱsweetnessesȱofȱmyȱlife,ȱasȱitȱthenȱwas”ȱ(ibid.).ȱTheȱsick manȱwasȱbaptizedȱwhileȱunconscious,ȱtoȱprepareȱhimȱforȱdeath,ȱbutȱheȱrecovered, andȱwhenȱAugustineȱlaterȱteasedȱhimȱaboutȱit,ȱstillȱnotȱbeingȱtheȱdevoutȱChristian heȱ wasȱ laterȱ toȱ become,ȱ aȱ ruptureȱ almostȱ occurredȱ betweenȱ themȱ becauseȱ the friendȱhadȱagreedȱtoȱtheȱbaptismȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱanȱimpendingȱdeath,ȱsoȱnowȱfelt hurtȱbyȱhisȱfriend’sȱdisrespectfulȱwords.ȱ TheȱsubsequentȱemptinessȱinȱAugustine’sȱlifeȱresultingȱfromȱtheȱprocessȱofȱthe alienationȱfromȱhisȱfriendȱhurtȱhimȱbadly,ȱsheddingȱlightȱonȱtheȱabsoluteȱneedȱfor himȱtoȱenjoyȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱhisȱgoodȱfriend:ȱ“forȱtheȱfriendȱIȱhadȱlostȱwas,ȱthough aȱman,ȱaȱthingȱmoreȱrealȱandȱbetterȱthanȱtheȱillusionȱinȱwhichȱIȱbadeȱmyȱsoulȱtrust” (70).ȱInȱretrospectȱtheȱauthorȱrealizesȱthatȱhisȱloveȱforȱhisȱfriendȱhadȱnotȱyetȱbeen asȱstrongȱasȱtheȱloveȱwhichȱbondedȱtogetherȱOrestesȱandȱPylades,ȱ“who,ȱitȱisȱsaid, wereȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱforȱeachȱotherȱorȱtoȱdieȱtogether,ȱsinceȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱbeen worseȱforȱthemȱifȱbothȱwereȱnotȱaliveȱtogether”ȱ(71). Theȱpainȱoverȱtheȱlossȱofȱtheȱfriendȱappearsȱasȱtantamountȱtoȱaȱlossȱofȱhalfȱofȱhis soul:ȱ“Iȱfeltȱthatȱmyȱsoulȱandȱmyȱfriend’sȱwereȱoneȱsoulȱinȱtwoȱbodies,ȱandȱlife filledȱmeȱwithȱhorror,ȱasȱIȱhadȱnoȱwishȱtoȱliveȱon,ȱaȱmereȱhalfȱofȱmyself”ȱ(72).ȱFor theȱtimeȱbeingȱAugustineȱcompensatedȱtheȱlossȱofȱtheȱone,ȱmostȱimportantȱfriend, withȱ spendingȱ timeȱ andȱ activitiesȱ withȱ other,ȱ perhapsȱ secondary,ȱ friends. Operatingȱlikeȱaȱmodernȱpsychologist,ȱtheȱauthorȱdescribesȱhowȱtheȱexchanges amongȱ likeȬmindedȱ peopleȱ inȱ formȱ ofȱ actions,ȱ words,ȱ andȱ giftsȱ supportȱ “the kindlingȱofȱtheȱfireȱwhichȱmeldsȱmindsȱtogether,ȱmakingȱoneȱoutȱofȱmany”ȱ(73). Unabashedlyȱandȱveryȱcarefullyȱchoosingȱhisȱwords,ȱAugustineȱresortsȱtoȱtheȱterm “love”ȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱpassionateȱaffectionȱfeltȱamongȱfriendsȱandȱwhichȱflourishes bestȱandȱperfectlyȱifȱitȱisȱmutual.ȱSpecifically,ȱheȱthenȱexplainsȱtheȱsourceȱofȱallȱour painfulȱ emotionsȱ withȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ love:ȱ “Thisȱ isȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ ourȱ griefȱ if someoneȱdies;ȱthisȱisȱwhyȱweȱareȱdarkenedȱwithȱsorrow,ȱwhyȱsweetnessȱisȱturned toȱbitterness,ȱwhyȱtheȱheartȱstreamsȱwithȱtears.ȱItȱisȱtheȱdeadȱwhoȱhaveȱlostȱtheir life,ȱbutȱtheȱlivingȱexperienceȱdeath”ȱ(73).ȱ

Foxȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱToronto:ȱAlfredȱA.ȱKnopf,ȱ2001),ȱ4.4.7,ȱ69.

Introduction

17

Then,ȱofȱcourse,ȱAugustineȱidentifiesȱthisȱloveȱwithȱGod,ȱsubsumingȱallȱofȱour passionȱ forȱ andȱ withȱ friendsȱ underȱ thisȱ divineȱ powerȱ (74).ȱ Thisȱ position subsequentlyȱ leadsȱ himȱ toȱ exploreȱ increasinglyȱ moreȱ fundamentalȱ questions pertainingȱtoȱcharity,ȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱanȱindividual’sȱlife,ȱtheȱquestȱforȱGod,ȱand hisȱloveȱforȱallȱofȱhisȱfellowȱmen.ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱCiceroȱobviouslyȱinfluencedȱhimȱin hisȱreflectionsȱonȱfriendship,ȱtheȱcriticalȱimpactȱofȱtheȱBiblicalȱtextȱwithȱregardȱto friendshipȱ cannotȱ beȱ overlooked.ȱ Asȱ Raymondȱ DiLorenzoȱ hasȱ observed, “philosophicalȱpsychiatricsȱhaveȱbeenȱreplacedȱbyȱAugustineȱwithȱaȱpsychiatrics ofȱtheȱdivineȱword,ȱimaginedȱinȱbiblicalȱfashionȱasȱcryingȱoutȱtoȱtheȱpsycheȱofȱa humanȱ creatureȱ toȱ turnȱ backȱ inȱ loveȱ toȱ theȱ divineȱ word,ȱ itsȱ dwellingȱ place. Transientȱthings—likeȱAugustine’sȱfriend—exhibitȱtheȱdivineȱword’sȱcallȱinȱtheir temporalȱbeing.ȱInȱtheȱhumanȱexperienceȱofȱtheȱlossȱofȱsuchȱthingsȱwhenȱtheyȱare ardentlyȱloved,ȱGodȱisȱcallingȱoutȱagainȱtoȱtheȱsoul,ȱsaying,ȱasȱAugustineȱimagines it,ȱ‘DoȱIȱpassȱawayȱanywhere?’”35 Nevertheless,ȱ Augustineȱ stillȱ formulatedȱ importantȱ ideasȱ aboutȱ friendship amongȱ mortals,ȱ underscoringȱ theȱ delightȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ feelȱ ifȱ likeȬminded individualsȱformȱsocialȱbondsȱinȱtheirȱquestȱforȱtheȱGodhead:36ȱ inȱmyȱfriendsȱIȱfoundȱotherȱpleasures,ȱwhichȱcaptivatedȱmyȱmindȱevenȱmore:ȱshared talk,ȱsharedȱlaughter,ȱmutualȱactsȱofȱkindness,ȱtheȱsharedȱreadingȱofȱgoodȱliterature, ofȱmomentsȱofȱlevityȱandȱseriousness;ȱoccasionalȱdisagreementsȱthatȱwereȱwithoutȱillȬ feeling,ȱasȱaȱmanȱcanȱdisagreeȱwithȱhimself,ȱwhichȱgaveȱaȱrelishȱtoȱourȱmoreȱusual concord;ȱteachingȱandȱlearningȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱlongingȱimpatientlyȱforȱeachȱother whenȱabsent,ȱwelcomingȱourȱabsentȱfriendsȱwithȱjoyȱwhenȱtheyȱreturnedȱ(73).

AlthoughȱalmostȱaȱthousandȱyearsȱseparateȱAugustineȱfromȱtheȱtwelfthȬcentury intellectuals,ȱtoȱwhomȱweȱwillȱturnȱinȱtheȱnextȱsection,ȱheȱcertainlyȱsetȱtheȱtoneȱand providedȱtheȱessentialȱspiritualȱandȱemotionalȱframeworkȱforȱfutureȱdiscussions onȱfriendship.ȱGranted,ȱAugustineȱdidȱnotȱidealizeȱfriendshipȱasȱtantamountȱtoȱthe humanȱ questȱ forȱ God,ȱ butȱ heȱ certainlyȱ underscoredȱ itsȱ valueȱ inȱ maintaining humanȱ lifeȱ accordingȱ toȱ ethicalȱ andȱ moralȱ ideals.ȱ Hughȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Victorȱ (ca. 1078–1141),ȱforȱexample,ȱwasȱcertainlyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱChurchȱFather’sȱwriting. Forȱhimȱtheȱfriendȱisȱ“paradisusȱhomo,”ȱandȱfriendshipȱemergesȱasȱ“aȱgarden,ȱa treeȱofȱlife,ȱwingsȱforȱtheȱflightȱtoȱGoodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSweetness,ȱlight,ȱfire,ȱwoundȱ.ȱ.ȱ. paradiseȱregained.”37ȱVeryȱmuchȱalsoȱinȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱPlatonicȱthinking,ȱHugh

35

36 37

RaymondȱDiLorenzo,ȱ“DeathȱofȱaȱFriendȱinȱConfessionsȱ4:ȱTheȱRhetoricȱofȱGod,”ȱAmorȱamicitiae: OnȱtheȱLoveȱThatȱisȱFriendship.ȱEssaysȱinȱMedievalȱThoughtȱandȱBeyondȱinȱHonorȱofȱtheȱRev.ȱProfessor JamesȱMcEvoy,ȱed.ȱThomasȱA.ȱF.ȱKellyȱandȱPhilippȱW.ȱRosemann.ȱRecherchesȱdeȱthéololgieȱet philosophieȱmédiévales.ȱBibliotheca,ȱ6ȱ(Leeuven,ȱParis,ȱandȱDudley,ȱMA,ȱ2004),ȱ127–45;ȱhereȱ143. SeeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger. QuotedȱfromȱIvanȱIllich,ȱInȱtheȱVineyardȱofȱtheȱText:ȱAȱCommentaryȱtoȱHugh’sȱDidascaliconȱ(1991; ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ27.ȱSeeȱalsoȱAdèleȱFiske,ȱ“Paradisus Homoȱamicus,”ȱSpeculumȱ40ȱ(1965):ȱ426–59.

18

Introduction

underscoredȱthatȱtrueȱknowledgeȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱgainedȱthroughȱfriendshipȱbecause sharedȱwisdomȱsupersedesȱeverything:ȱ“Theȱlightȱofȱwisdomȱwhichȱenvelopsȱthe mindȱofȱtheȱstudentȱcallsȱandȱdrawsȱhimȱbackȱtoȱhimselfȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱhe affectsȱtheȱotherȱalwaysȱasȱfriend.”38 Ifȱweȱconsider,ȱonceȱagain,ȱhowȱBoethius,ȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱearlyȱsixthȱcenturyȱ(524) hadȱevaluatedȱtheȱnatureȱofȱfriendship,ȱweȱwouldȱbeȱsurprisedȱtoȱdiscoverȱthe stunningȱparallelsȱwithȱAugustine’sȱteaching,ȱsinceȱheȱbasedȱit,ȱjustȱlikeȱmarriage, onȱtheȱnotionȱofȱlove:ȱ“‘Loveȱbindsȱtogetherȱpeopleȱjoinedȱbyȱaȱsacredȱbond;ȱlove bindsȱsacredȱmarriagesȱbyȱchasteȱaffections;ȱloveȱmakesȱtheȱlawsȱwhichȱjoinȱtrue friends.ȱ Oȱ howȱ happyȱ theȱ humanȱ raceȱ wouldȱ be,ȱ ifȱ thatȱ loveȱ whichȱ rulesȱ the heavensȱruledȱalsoȱyourȱsouls!’”39ȱItȱwouldȱbeȱfascinatingȱalsoȱtoȱexploreȱinȱgreater detailȱhowȱtheȱfamousȱMerovingianȱpoetȱVenantiusȱFortunatusȱ(ca.ȱ535–ca.ȱ600) perceivedȱfriendship,ȱaȱthemeȱwhichȱheȱpursuedȱatȱgreatȱlengthȱinȱmanyȱofȱhis poems.ȱButȱatȱthisȱpointȱitȱmustȱsufficeȱtoȱreferȱtoȱhimȱonlyȱasȱanotherȱintriguing sourceȱforȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱduringȱlateȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱearlyȱMiddleȱAges, soȱthatȱweȱcanȱproceedȱmoreȱrapidlyȱtowardȱtheȱnextȱcenturies.40

E.ȱFriendshipȱfromȱtheȱEarlyȱMiddleȱAgesȱtoȱtheȱ TwelfthȱandȱThirteenthȱCenturiesȱ Undoubtedly,ȱtoȱwidenȱourȱfieldȱofȱinvestigationȱandȱtoȱincorporateȱtheȱcircleȱof intellectualsȱ andȱ ecclesiastics,ȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ Renaissanceȱ was deeplyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱclassicalȱidealȱofȱfriendship,ȱbothȱwithinȱtheȱmonastic worldȱandȱoutside.ȱAccordingȱtoȱBernardȱMcGuire,ȱ“Closeȱfriendshipsȱamongȱmen inȱtheȱcloisterȱwereȱseenȱasȱnecessaryȱandȱpositiveȱwithinȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunal life.”41ȱSomeȱofȱtheȱmajorȱfiguresȱinȱthisȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱwereȱBernardȱof

38 39

40

41

Illich,ȱInȱtheȱVineyardȱ(seeȱnoteȱ37),ȱ28. Boethius,ȱTheȱConsolationȱofȱPhilosophy,ȱ35;ȱPoemȱ8.ȱForȱaȱcriticalȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱideological contentȱofȱthisȱpoem,ȱseeȱBoethius,ȱConsolationȱofȱPhilosophy.ȱTrans.,ȱwithȱIntroductionȱandȱNotes, byȱJoelȱC.ȱRelihanȱ(IndianapolisȱandȱCambridge:ȱHackettȱPublishing,ȱ2001),ȱ168.ȱHeȱperceivesȱin thisȱandȱotherȱpoemsȱaȱresonanceȱwithȱtheȱLord’sȱPrayer. VenantiusȱFortunatus,ȱPoemsȱtoȱFriends.ȱTrans.ȱwithȱIntrod.ȱandȱCommentaryȱbyȱJosephȱPucci (Indianapolisȱ andȱ Cambridge:ȱ Hackettȱ Publishing,ȱ 2010).ȱ Seeȱ Pucci’sȱ excellentȱ discussionȱ of friendshipȱinȱFortunatus’sȱpoems,ȱxxxiii–xxxix.ȱCfȱalsoȱJudithȱP.ȱGeorge,ȱVenantiusȱFortunatusȱ:ȱa LatinȱPoetȱinȱMerovingianȱGaulȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress;ȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress, 1992). BernardȱMcGuire,ȱ“TheȱCisterciansȱandȱtheȱRiseȱofȱtheȱExemplumȱinȱEarlyȱThirteenthȬCentury France:ȱAȱReevaluationȱofȱParisȱB.N.ȱMSȱlat.ȱ15912,”ȱClassicaȱetȱmediaevaliaȱ34ȱ(1983):ȱ211–67;ȱhere 222.ȱSeeȱalsoȱGildesȱConstable,ȱTheȱReformationȱofȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury.ȱTheȱTrevelyanȱLectures GivenȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱCambridge,ȱ1985ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ138,

Introduction

19

Tiron,ȱ Stephenȱ ofȱ Obazine,ȱ andȱ Gilbertȱ ofȱ Sempringhamȱ whoȱ wereȱ publicly praisedȱforȱtheirȱintenseȱdedicationȱtoȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱbasisȱforȱtheir spiritualȱ endeavors.42ȱ However,ȱ theȱ traditionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ amongȱ brethrenȱ in monasteriesȱorȱnunsȱinȱconventsȱhasȱaȱlongȱtraditionȱextendingȱatȱleastȱtoȱtheȱearly MiddleȱAges.43 WhileȱwritersȱinȱtheȱearlyȱMiddleȱAgesȱtendedȱtoȱidentifyȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱmodel ofȱbehaviorȱtowardȱtheirȱcontemporariesȱfromȱaȱChristianȱperspective,ȱthatȱis,ȱto prayȱforȱtheȱother,ȱtoȱexpressȱloveȱforȱtheȱneighborȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱChrist,44ȱthose inȱtheȱhighȱMiddleȱAgesȱreturnedȱtoȱnaturalȱfeelingsȱregardingȱfriends.ȱInȱlate antiquityȱChristiansȱstillȱfeltȱhesitantȱtoȱembraceȱcompletelyȱtheȱancientȱidealȱof friendshipȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱstainedȱbyȱhavingȱbeenȱgroundedȱinȱaȱpaganȱculture.ȱBut theȱadaptationȱprocessȱsetȱinȱearlyȱenoughȱbecauseȱtheȱidealȱitselfȱwasȱjustȱtoo alluring.ȱAsȱKlausȱOschemaȱobserves, Christianȱauthorsȱbeganȱtoȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱaȱ‘pure’ȱandȱlaudableȱkindȱofȱlove,ȱand taintedȱformsȱofȱlesserȱvalue.ȱOnȱaȱlinguisticȱlevel,ȱthisȱledȱtoȱtheȱrepressionȱofȱthe verbalȱformȱamareȱandȱitsȱcorrespondingȱsubstantiveȱamorȱinȱfavourȱofȱdiligere,ȱaȱverb derivedȱ fromȱ dilectioȱ andȱ virtuallyȱ unknownȱ beforehand.ȱ Likeȱ caritas,ȱ itȱ impliedȱ a desirelessȱandȱpureȱlove,ȱaddressedȱtoȱGodȱandȱredirectedȱtoȱfellowȱhumansȱonlyȱvia hisȱ intermediateȱ position,ȱ thusȱ makingȱ ‘love’ȱ aȱ tripartiteȱ structureȱ insteadȱ ofȱ the bipolarȱmodernȱconcept.45

TheȱEnglishȱscholarȱandȱteacherȱAdelardȱofȱBathȱ(ca.ȱ1080–ca.ȱ1152),ȱforȱinstance, definedȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱnaturalȱinstinctȱtowardȱotherȱpeopleȱofȱsimilarȱattitudes, values,ȱandȱideals.ȱInȱtheȱthirteenthȱcentury,ȱweȱobserveȱonceȱagainȱaȱdifferent approachȱtoȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱthenȱwasȱrecognizedȱasȱaȱspringboardȱtowardȱlove forȱ God,ȱ asȱ Thomasȱ Aquinasȱ espoused.ȱ Muchȱ later,ȱ inȱ Michelȱ deȱ Montaigne’s essayȱ“Deȱl’amitié,”ȱcontainedȱinȱhisȱL’Essaisȱ(1580),ȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱevenȱbecomes anȱ alterȱ ego,ȱ andȱ representsȱ theȱ highestȱ formȱ ofȱ selfȬrealizationȱ mirroringȱ the partnerȱasȱtheȱrepresentativeȱofȱallȱthoseȱidealsȱoneȱselfȱisȱdeeplyȱaspiringȱfor.46

42 43

44

45

46

withȱreferencesȱtoȱolderȱbutȱstillȱmostȱrelevantȱresearchȱliterature. Constable,ȱTheȱReformationȱofȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,ȱ138ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ41). DavidȱClark,ȱBetweenȱMedievalȱMen:ȱMaleȱFriendshipȱandȱDesireȱinȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEnglishȱLiterature (OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009).ȱ Verenaȱ Epp,ȱ Amicitia:ȱ zurȱ Geschichteȱ personaler,ȱ sozialerȱ undȱ geistlicherȱ Beziehungenȱ imȱ frühen Mittelalter.ȱMonographienȱzurȱGeschichteȱdesȱMittelalters,ȱ44ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱA.ȱHiersemann,ȱ1999). KlausȱOschema,ȱ“SacredȱorȱProfane?ȱReflectionsȱonȱLoveȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,” Love,ȱFriendshipȱandȱFaithȱinȱEurope,ȱ1300–1800,ȱed.ȱLauraȱGowing,ȱMichaelȱHunter,ȱandȱMiriȱRubin (Houndmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2005),ȱ43–65;ȱhereȱ48.ȱ ChristaȱSeidel,”Freundschaft:ȱIII,”ȱHistorischesȱWörterbuchȱderȱPhilosophie,ȱed.ȱJoachimȱRitter.ȱVol. 2ȱ(BaselȱandȱStuttgart:ȱSchwabe,ȱ1972),ȱ1105–14;ȱhereȱ1108–09;ȱDianaȱFritzȱCates,ȱChoosingȱtoȱFeel: Virtue,ȱFriendship,ȱandȱCompassionȱforȱFriendsȱ(NotreȱDame,ȱIN:ȱNotreȱDameȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997); seeȱalsoȱtheȱdiscussionȱbyȱOschema,ȱ“SacredȱorȱProfane?”ȱ48–49ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ45);ȱcf.ȱfurtherȱDaniel Schwartz,ȱAquinasȱonȱFriendship.ȱOxfordȱPhilosophicalȱMonographsȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress;

20

Introduction

Friendshipȱthusȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcatalystȱforȱintellectual,ȱmoral,ȱreligious,ȱorȱethical growth,ȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱfriendȱemergesȱasȱaȱmirror,ȱasȱaȱbenchmark,ȱaȱguide,ȱandȱa roleȱmodel,ȱyetȱs/heȱisȱalsoȱaȱpartner,ȱhenceȱaȱfriendȱinȱtheȱordinaryȱsenseȱofȱthe word.ȱAsȱMauriceȱMerleauȬPontyȱremarksȱquiteȱcorrectly,ȱ“LaȱBoétie’sȱfriendship wasȱfarȱfromȱaȱchanceȱeventȱinȱhisȱlife;ȱoneȱmustȱratherȱsayȱthatȱMontaigneȱandȱthe authorȱofȱtheȱEssaisȱwereȱbornȱfromȱthisȱfriendshipȱandȱthat,ȱinȱsum,ȱexistenceȱfor himȱwasȱtoȱexistȱunderȱtheȱregardȱofȱhisȱfriend.”47 Throughoutȱtheȱages,ȱbutȱespeciallyȱsinceȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱthoughȱinȱever changingȱconstellationsȱandȱmanifestations,ȱfriendsȱassumeȱcenterȱpositionsȱinȱOld NorseȱSagasȱ(NjalsȱSaga),ȱinȱChansonsȱdeȱgesteȱ(ChansonȱdeȱRoland),48ȱinȱheroicȱepics (Elȱ Cantarȱ deȱ Míoȱ Cid,ȱ Nibelungenlied),ȱ courtlyȱ romancesȱ (Chrétienȱ deȱ Troyes’s PercevalȱorȱWolframȱvonȱEschenbach’sȱParzival),ȱandȱinȱlateȬmedievalȱverseȱand proseȱnovellasȱ(Boccaccio’sȱDecameron).49ȱHumanȱlifeȱinȱallȱitsȱdepthsȱandȱheights findsȱmostȱsophisticatedȱexpressionȱinȱtheȱexplorationȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱprofound, yetȱalsoȱhighlyȱchallengingȱpersonalȱrelationshipȱofȱaȱhomosocialȱkind.50ȱ Theȱtragicȱdestinyȱofȱexilesȱdiscussedȱinȱheroicȱpoetryȱisȱmovinglyȱexpressedȱin themȱ beingȱ aloneȱ inȱ theȱ distance,ȱ withoutȱ friends.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Highȱ German “Hildebrandslied,”ȱ forȱ instanceȱ (copiedȱ downȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ ninthȱ centuryȱ inȱ a liturgicalȱ manuscriptȱ inȱ theȱ Benedictineȱ monasteryȱ ofȱ Fulda)ȱ weȱ learnȱ of Hildebrand’sȱfeudalȱlord,ȱDetrihheȱ(ȱDietrich,ȱorȱTheoderic)ȱwhoȱhadȱtoȱescape fromȱhisȱenemyȱOtachrȱ(Odoacer)ȱwithoutȱtheȱassistanceȱofȱanyȱfriends:ȱ“datȱuuas soȱ friuntlaosȱ man”ȱ (24).51ȱ Hisȱ loyalȱ vassalȱ andȱ warriorȱ Hildebrand,ȱ however, receivesȱhighestȱaccoladesȱandȱadmirationȱnotȱonlyȱforȱhisȱmilitaryȱabilities,ȱbut alsoȱforȱbeingȱDietrich’sȱonlyȱtrueȱfriendȱwhoȱevenȱleftȱbehindȱwifeȱandȱchildȱto

47

48

49

50

51

OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007). Mauriceȱ MerleauȬPonty,ȱ “Lectureȱ deȱ Montaigne,”ȱ Signesȱ (Paris:ȱ Gallimard,ȱ 1960),ȱ 262.ȱ Here quotedȱ inȱ Englishȱ translationȱ fromȱ Marcȱ D.ȱ Schachter,ȱ Voluntaryȱ Servitudeȱ andȱ theȱ Eroticsȱ of Friendship:ȱ Fromȱ Classicalȱ Antiquityȱ toȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Franceȱ (Aldershot,ȱ Hampshire,ȱ England: Ashgate;ȱandȱBurlington,ȱVT:ȱAshgate,ȱ2008),ȱ80. Huguetteȱ Legros,ȱ L’Amitiéȱ dansȱ lesȱ chansonsȱ deȱ gesteȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ romaneȱ ([AixȬenȬProvence:] Publicationsȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱdeȱProvence,ȱ2001). ElisabethȱFrenzel,ȱMotiveȱderȱWeltliteratur:ȱEinȱLexikonȱdichtungsgeschichtlicherȱLängsschnitte.ȱ4th, rev.ȱandȱexpandedȱed.ȱKrönersȱTaschenausgabe,ȱ301ȱ(1976;ȱStuttgart:ȱKröner,ȱ1992),ȱ196–218.ȱ SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱAmitiéȱépiqueȱetȱchevaleresque:ȱActesȱduȱcolloqueȱd’Amiens,ȱmarsȱ2000,ȱpubliés parȱ lesȱ soinsȱ deȱ Danielleȱ Buschinger.ȱ Médiévales,ȱ 20ȱ (Amiens:ȱ Pressesȱ duȱ Centreȱ d’études médiévales,ȱUniversitéȱdeȱPicardieȬJulesȬVerne,ȱ2002). Thereȱ areȱ manyȱ excellentȱ criticalȱ editions,ȱ butȱ hereȱ Iȱ quoteȱ fromȱ theȱ onlineȱ versionȱ at: http://www.hsȬaugsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/08Jh/Hildebrand/hil_lied.html;ȱsee alsoȱ theȱ bibliographyȱ listedȱ at:ȱ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_of_Hildebrandȱ (bothȱ last accessedȱ onȱ Augustȱ 1,ȱ 2010);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Althochdeutscheȱ Literatur,ȱ mitȱ Probenȱ ausȱ dem Altniederdeutschen.ȱAusgewählteȱTexteȱmitȱÜbertragungenȱundȱAnmerkungen,ȱherausgegeben, übersetztȱundȱmitȱAnmerkungenȱversehenȱvonȱHorstȱDieterȱSchlosser.ȱFischerȱTaschenbuch,ȱ6455 (Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱFischerȱTaschenbuchȱVerlag,ȱ1980),ȱ264–66.

Introduction

21

stayȱtrueȱtoȱtheȱidealsȱofȱfeudalism.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱpoetȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱconceptȱof friendshipȱonlyȱtentatively,ȱblendingȱitȱapparentlyȱwithȱtheȱideaȱofȱvasallicȱloyalty, butȱ therebyȱ underscoresȱ itsȱ existentialȱ relevanceȱ further,ȱ andȱ thisȱ evenȱ within Germanicȱculturalȱvalues.ȱWoeȱisȱhim,ȱheȱimplies,ȱwhoȱisȱwithoutȱfriends,ȱnot beingȱableȱtoȱcopeȱwithȱtheȱvagariesȱofȱlife,ȱwar,ȱandȱdeath.ȱ Tragically,ȱ however,ȱ mostȱ protagonistsȱ inȱ heroicȱ epics,ȱ whetherȱ Beowulf, Nibelungenlied,ȱorȱElȱPoemaȱdeȱMíoȱCid,ȱoperateȱvirtuallyȱallȱbyȱthemselvesȱandȱdo notȱconfideȱinȱtrueȱfriendsȱasȱtheyȱemergeȱlaterȱinȱcourtlyȱromance,ȱforȱinstance. Theyȱareȱaccompaniedȱbyȱfellowȱwarriors,ȱbyȱadvisors,ȱorȱtheyȱjoinȱtheȱcompany ofȱ otherȱ heroes,ȱ butȱ theȱ classicalȱ notionȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ inȱ itsȱ deeplyȱ emotional connotation,ȱ seemsȱ ratherȱ alienȱ toȱ thatȱ worldȱ becauseȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ personal, affectionateȱcontactsȱandȱrelationshipsȱwasȱofȱrelativelyȱlowȱpriority,ȱorȱsimplyȱnot yetȱavailable,ȱwhichȱmightȱexplainȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplaceȱwhyȱmonkishȱscribesȱeven copiedȱdownȱthoseȱmostlyȱpaganȱtextsȱreflectingȱonȱtheȱpast,ȱwarningȱaboutȱthe direȱconsequencesȱforȱtheȱfutureȱifȱnotȱevenȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbeȱestablished.ȱWe commonlyȱhearȱtheȱwordȱ‘friendship’ȱ(“amistad”)ȱbeingȱused,ȱbutȱthenȱitȱnormally refersȱtoȱtheȱfeudalȱbondȱbetweenȱlordȱandȱvassal.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱweȱstillȱobserveȱheroesȱhuggingȱandȱkissingȱeachȱother,ȱshedding tears,ȱexpressingȱtheirȱgreatȱdesireȱtoȱestablishȱkinshipȱandȱdynasticȱrelationships. Butȱ inȱ mostȱ casesȱ theseȱ gesturesȱ reflectȱ onȱ aȱ tragicȱ senseȱ ofȱ loneliness, abandonment,ȱandȱisolation,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱaȱpotentialȱcomradeȱinȱarmsȱisȱabout toȱdepart.ȱAsȱDavidȱClarkȱnowȱcogentlyȱsuggestsȱwithȱregardȱtoȱBeowulf,ȱ TheȱpoemȱcelebratesȱBeowulf’sȱsplendidȱachievementsȱandȱabilities,ȱcertainly,ȱbutȱit alsoȱdemonstratesȱtheȱfragilityȱofȱaȱheroicȱsocietyȱwhichȱonlyȱanȱexceptionalȱheroȱcan maintain.ȱHomosocialȱbonds,ȱkinshipȱties,ȱmaritalȱalliances—noneȱofȱtheseȱcanȱprevent theȱdestructionȱwhichȱultimatelyȱattendsȱheroicȱsociety.ȱTheȱpoemȱimplicitlyȱcriesȱout forȱanȱalternativeȱmodel,ȱaȱdifferentȱfuture,ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱdelineateȱtheȱsolutionȱand remainsȱambivalentȱaboutȱtheȱnecessityȱofȱabandoningȱtheȱpast.52

AnȱinterestingȱexceptionȱtoȱtheȱruleȱmightȱbeȱRolandȱinȱtheȱOldȱFrenchȱChansonȱde RolandȱorȱinȱPriestȱKonrad’sȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱRolandȱwhereȱtheȱcompanyȱof warriorsȱwhoȱmakeȱupȱEmperorȱCharlemagne’sȱrearȬguardȱwhichȱisȱambushedȱby aȱhugeȱMuslimȱarmyȱloyallyȱfightȱtogetherȱdownȱtoȱtheȱlastȱman.ȱWhenȱtheȱfew remainingȱmenȱareȱattackedȱbyȱonceȱagainȱaȱnewȱarmyȱofȱenemies,ȱBishopȱTurpin inquiresȱaboutȱtheirȱorigin,ȱaddressingȱRolandȱasȱhisȱfriendȱ(inȱKonrad’sȱversion). Theȱlatterȱassuresȱhimȱthatȱitȱwouldȱnotȱmatterȱwhoȱtheyȱareȱandȱhowȱmanyȱthey are,ȱsinceȱallȱopponentsȱwouldȱeventuallyȱsufferȱtheȱsameȱdestiny,ȱtoȱbeȱslainȱby

52

DavidȱClark,ȱBetweenȱMedievalȱMen:ȱMaleȱFriendshipȱandȱDesireȱinȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEnglishȱLiterature (Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009),ȱ143.ȱHisȱintelligentȱcritiqueȱofȱpreviousȱscholarship, especiallyȱofȱchapterȱthreeȱinȱStacyȱS.ȱKlein,ȱReadingȱWomen:ȱQueenshipȱandȱGenderȱinȱAngloȬSaxon Literatureȱ(NotreȱDame,ȱIN:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ2006),ȱcanȱbeȱfullyȱsupported.

22

Introduction

theȱChristians.ȱToȱassureȱTurpinȱaboutȱthatȱandȱtoȱstrengthenȱtheȱbondȱbetween them,ȱRolandȱuttersȱtheȱfollowingȱwords:ȱ“liebirȱgotesȱfriuntȱTurpin,ȱ/ȱnuneȱruoche wirȱwerȱsiȱsin:ȱ/ȱsiȱwellentȱgemarteretȱwerde[n].ȱouchȱsculeȱwirȱersterben”ȱ(6360; dearȱfriendȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱGod,ȱTurpinȱ[or:ȱfriendȱofȱGod],ȱweȱdoȱnotȱcareȱwho theyȱare:ȱtheyȱwantȱtoȱbeȱmartyred.ȱWeȱalsoȱwillȱdie).53 ȱHowȱdifferentȱfromȱantiquityȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcultureȱofȱtheȱhighȱMiddleȱAges! Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ requireȱ aȱ specializedȱ investigationȱ ofȱ theȱ richȱ and complexȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱ‘friend’ȱinȱcourtlyȱromances,ȱsuchȱasȱ“friunt”ȱinȱWolfram’s Parzival,ȱwhereȱitȱsometimesȱmeansȱ‘lover,’ȱsometimesȱ‘friend,’ȱandȱsometimes ‘acquaintance,’ȱandȱalsoȱ‘relative.’54ȱInȱtheȱprologueȱtheȱnarratorȱunderlinesȱhow muchȱ hisȱ societyȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ lostȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ fundamentalȱ values,ȱ here expressedȱinȱtheȱdeteriorationȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“Feignedȱfriendshipȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱfire, itȱdestroysȱaȱman’sȱnobilityȱlikeȱhail.ȱItsȱloyaltyȱisȱsoȱshortȱinȱtheȱtailȱthatȱifȱitȱmeet inȱ theȱ woodȱ withȱ gadfliesȱ itȱ willȱ notȱ quitȱ aȱ biteȱ inȱ three.”55ȱ Atȱ theȱ end,ȱ after ParzivalȱandȱhisȱhalfȬbrotherȱFeirefizȱhaveȱrecognizedȱeachȱotherȱandȱthusȱhave putȱ allȱ theirȱ enmityȱ pastȱ them,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ intervenesȱ againȱ andȱ comments: “FeirefizȱandȱParzivalȱendedȱtheirȱstrifeȱwithȱaȱkiss.ȱItȱwasȱmoreȱfittingȱforȱthem toȱ beȱ friendsȱ thanȱ bitterȱ enemies.ȱ Theirȱ contestȱ wasȱ settledȱ byȱ loyaltyȱ and affection”ȱ(372).56ȱ Althoughȱbeingȱcloselyȱrelated,ȱtheirȱrelationshipȱisȱneverthelessȱcastȱinȱterms ofȱfriendshipȱinȱorderȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱhighȱidealsȱwhichȱinspireȱbothȱprotagonists. Finally,ȱwhenȱFeirefizȱhasȱfallenȱinȱloveȱwithȱRepanseȱdeȱSchoye,ȱGralȱbearerȱand sisterȱofȱtheȱGralȱkingȱAnfortas,ȱheȱappealsȱtoȱParzivalȱforȱhelp,ȱalsoȱresortingȱto

53

54

55

56

Onlineȱtextȱeditionȱin:ȱBibliothecaȱAugustana:ȱ http://www.hsȬaugsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/12Jh/Konrad/kon_rol6.html;ȱwith slightȱtypographicalȱmodificationsȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱHereȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱCarl Wesle’sȱ edition,ȱ Dasȱ Rolandsliedȱ desȱ Pfaffenȱ Konrad.ȱ Rheinischeȱ Beiträgeȱ undȱ Hilfsbücherȱ zur germanischenȱPhilologieȱundȱVolkskunde,ȱ15ȱ(Bonn:ȱKlopp,ȱ1928).ȱSeeȱalsoȱDasȱRolandsliedȱdes PfaffenȱKonrad:ȱmittelhochdeutsch,ȱneuhochdeutsch,ȱed.,ȱtrans.ȱandȱcommentaryȱbyȱDieterȱKartschoke. Rpt.ȱ(1971;ȱ1996;ȱStuttgart:ȱReclam,ȱ2007);ȱforȱtheȱOldȱFrenchȱChansonȱdeȱRolandȱinȱEnglish,ȱseeȱThe SongȱofȱRoland,ȱtrans.ȱwithȱanȱintrod.ȱandȱnotesȱbyȱGlynȱBurgessȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1990);ȱseeȱalso RetoȱRaduolf,ȱBezzola,ȱ“Olivier,”ȱEumusia:ȱFestgabeȱfürȱErnstȱHowaldȱzumȱsechzigstenȱGeburtstagȱam 20.ȱAprilȱ1947ȱed.,ȱFritzȱWehrliȱ(ErlenbachȬZürich:ȱRentsch,1947),ȱ115Ȭ39.ȱ SeeȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱConceptualȱDatabaseȱ(maintainedȱbyȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱSalzburg, onlineȱat:ȱhttp://mhdbdb.sbg.ac.at:8000/mhdbdb/App?action=SelectQuotation&c=PZ+7246ȱ(last accessedȱ onȱ Augustȱ 1,ȱ 2010).ȱ Thereȱ areȱ inȱ totalȱ 4611ȱ referencesȱ toȱ “friunt”ȱ (‘friend’)ȱ inȱ that database. WolframȱvonȱEschenbach,ȱParzival,ȱtrans.ȱA.ȱT.ȱHattoȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1980),ȱ15;ȱforȱtheȱoriginal, seeȱ Wolframȱ vonȱ Eschenbach,ȱ Parzival.ȱ Studienausgabe.ȱ Mittelhochdeutscherȱ Textȱ nachȱ der sechstenȱAusgabeȱvonȱKarlȱLachmann.ȱÜbersetzungȱvonȱPeterȱKnecht.ȱEinführungȱzumȱTextȱvon BerndȱSchirokȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1998). Forȱ aȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ courtlyȱ romances,ȱ seeȱ Xenjaȱ vonȱ Ertzdorff,ȱ “Höfische Freundschaft,”ȱDerȱDeutschunterrichtȱ14.6ȱ(1962):ȱ35Ȭ51.

Introduction

23

theȱtermȱfriendship:ȱ“‘Helpȱme,ȱBrother,ȱtoȱwinȱyourȱaunt’sȱfriendship’ȱanswered FeirefizȱAngevin”ȱ(404). Globallyȱ speakingȱ then,ȱ whetherȱ viewedȱ fromȱ aȱ positiveȱ orȱ aȱ negative perspective,ȱweȱcanȱbeȱsureȱthatȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱcourtsȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱpredicated onȱeroticȱlove,ȱbutȱalso,ȱandȱtoȱaȱlargeȱextent,ȱonȱtheȱnotionȱofȱfriendship,ȱthatȱis, onȱtheȱfundamentalȱbondȱamongȱpeopleȱbasedȱonȱhighlyȱcriticalȱethicalȱvaluesȱand ideals.ȱInȱfact,ȱallȱofȱArthurianȱromancesȱgainedȱmostȱofȱtheirȱinspirationȱfromȱthe dreamȱthatȱpeopleȱofȱallȱkindsȱofȱculturalȱandȱreligious,ȱandȱhereȱinȱWolfram’sȱtext evenȱofȱracialȱbackground,ȱcouldȱformȱaffectionateȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱthus createȱ aȱ new,ȱ almostȱ utopianȱ community—ofȱ courseȱ withȱ theȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ the peasantry. Notȱsurprisingly,ȱcourtlyȱliteratureȱcomposedȱbyȱlayȱauthorsȱreflectedȱtheȱgreat emphasisȱonȱfriendshipȱasȱwell,ȱasȱrichlyȱdemonstratedȱthroughoutȱEuropeȱinȱthe twelfthȬcenturyȱOldȱFrenchȱAmisȱetȱAmiles,ȱtheȱmanyȱLatinȱrecensions,ȱespecially byȱVincentȱdeȱBeauvaisȱinȱhisȱSpeculumȱhistorialeȱ(lib.ȱxxiii.ȱcap.ȱ162Ȭ166ȱandȱ169), thenȱanȱAngloȬNormanȱandȱanȱOldȱNorseȱversion.ȱTheȱmostȱimportantȱpoetic manifestationȱofȱtheȱcentralȱinterestȱinȱfriendshipȱemerged,ȱhowever,ȱnotȱuntilȱthe thirteenthȱcenturyȱwithȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱromanceȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱandȱthe parallelȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱverseȱromanceȱEngelhardȱbyȱKonradȱvonȱWürzburg (ca.ȱ1280).57ȱ Amongȱtheȱmanyȱversionsȱofȱthisȱnarrativeȱplot,ȱweȱcanȱdiscriminateȱatȱleast betweenȱ twoȱ majorȱ branches,ȱ theȱ “romanticȱ group”ȱ andȱ theȱ “hagiographic versions,”ȱasȱMacEdwardȱLeachȱcalledȱthem.58ȱWhileȱweȱcanȱtraceȱtheȱmotifȱatȱleast asȱ farȱ backȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ lateȱ eleventhȱ centuryȱ (Alexandre’sȱ Oldȱ Frenchȱ Athisȱ and Prophilias,ȱtranslatedȱintoȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱbyȱca.ȱ1200),ȱtheȱpanȬEuropean interestȱextendingȱatȱleastȱfarȱintoȱtheȱlateȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱ(Konrad’sȱtextȱhas survivedȱ onlyȱ inȱ oneȱ printȱ versionȱ fromȱ 1573)ȱ clearlyȱ indicatesȱ howȱ muchȱ the courtlyȱworldȱadmiredȱandȱidealizedȱfriendshipȱasȱoneȱofȱitsȱhighestȱvalues.59ȱThe

57

58

59

ForȱKonrad’sȱtextȱandȱtheȱsourceȱhistory,ȱseeȱRüdigerȱBrandt,ȱKonradȱvonȱWürzburg:ȱKleinereȱepische Werke.ȱKlassikerȬLektüren,ȱ2.ȱ2nd,ȱnewlyȱrev.ȱandȱexpandedȱed.ȱ(1999;ȱBerlin:ȱErichȱSchmidt, 2009),ȱ 111–45;ȱ Classen,ȱ “Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,”ȱ 2006ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 8);ȱ forȱ someȱ recent commentsȱonȱtheȱEnglishȱversion,ȱseeȱJeanȱJost,ȱ“LovingȱParentsȱinȱMiddleȱEnglishȱLiterature,” ChildhoodȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱRenaissance:ȱTheȱResultsȱofȱaȱParadigmȱShiftȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱof Mentality,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassenȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2005),ȱ307–28;ȱhere 322–24. AmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱed.ȱMacEdwardȱLeach.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSociety,ȱOriginalȱSeries,ȱ203ȱ(London: EarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSociety,ȱ1937),ȱix–xxxii. ThereȱmightȱbeȱOrientalȱsources,ȱperhapsȱfromȱPersiaȱandȱIndia,ȱwhichȱmadeȱtheirȱwayȱtoȱEurope viaȱ Byzantium.ȱ Butȱ theȱ originȱ alsoȱ mightȱ haveȱ restedȱ inȱ ancientȱ folkloreȱ motifs;ȱ seeȱ Leach, xxxii–xxxix.ȱResearchȱonȱtheseȱquestionsȱhasȱnotȱmuchȱprogressedȱsinceȱtheȱtimeȱofȱLeach;ȱsee VelmaȱBourgeoisȱRichmond,ȱ“AmicusȱetȱAmelius,”ȱMedievalȱFolklore:ȱAnȱEncyclopediaȱofȱMyths, Legends,ȱTales,ȱBeliefs,ȱandȱCustoms,ȱed.ȱCarlȱLindahl,ȱJohnȱMcNamara,ȱandȱJohnȱLindows.ȱVol.ȱ1: AȬKȱ(SantaȱBarbara,ȱCA,ȱDenver,ȱCO,ȱandȱOxford:ȱABCȬCLIO,ȱ2000),ȱ7–9.

24

Introduction

basicȱconceptȱuponȱwhichȱallȱtheseȱversionsȱareȱpredicatedȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱutmost dedicationȱofȱfriendsȱtoȱeachȱotherȱwhoȱevenȱacceptȱtheȱdangerȱofȱhavingȱtoȱdieȱfor theȱfriendȱinȱorderȱtoȱrescueȱhim/herȱfromȱaȱseriousȱcalamity,ȱorȱwhoȱareȱwilling toȱkillȱtheirȱownȱchildrenȱinȱorderȱtoȱsaveȱtheȱfriend’sȱlife.ȱTheȱenormousȱdepthȱof thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ regularlyȱ rewardedȱ byȱ Godȱ whoȱ eitherȱ toleratesȱ the friends’ȱ deceptionȱ asȱ aȱ “Notlüge”ȱ (lyingȱ inȱ anȱ emergency)ȱ orȱ grantsȱ the resurrectionȱofȱtheȱchildrenȱasȱrewardȱforȱtheȱdisplayȱofȱhonestȱfriendship.60 OneȱofȱtheȱearliestȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱpoets,ȱSpervogel,ȱwhoȱcomposedȱmostly didacticȱlyrics,ȱalsoȱaddressedȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendship.61ȱUnderscoringȱtheȱelement ofȱaltruisticȱhelpȱforȱaȱfriend,ȱheȱoffersȱanȱalmostȱdetailedȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱhuman emotionȱandȱrelationship,ȱconcludingȱthatȱ“swâȱvriundeȱeinanderȱwægeȱsint,ȱdaz istȱeinȱmichelȱwunne”ȱ(whereverȱfriendsȱareȱwellȱinclinedȱtowardȱeachȱother,ȱthis bringsȱ aboutȱ greatȱ joy).62ȱ Offeringȱ concreteȱ adviceȱ toȱ hisȱ courtlyȱ audience, Spervogelȱadmonishesȱpeopleȱtoȱabstainȱfromȱopenȱcriticismȱofȱfriends.ȱInstead, inȱcaseȱthereȱmightȱbeȱneedȱforȱcorrections,ȱaȱgoodȱfriendȱshouldȱtakeȱtheȱother quietlyȱasideȱandȱtellȱhimȱopenlyȱhisȱopinion:ȱ“erȱnemeȱinȱbesunderȱhinȱdanȱ/ȱunde sageȱjm,ȱwazȱerȱhabeȱgetân”ȱ(2,ȱ3–4;ȱheȱshouldȱhaveȱaȱprivateȱconversationȱwith himȱ andȱ informȱ himȱ whatȱ heȱ hasȱ done).ȱ Underȱ thoseȱ circumstancesȱ outsiders wouldȱ notȱ hearȱ anythingȱ aboutȱ theȱ transgressionȱ orȱ misbehavior,ȱ whichȱ the perpetratorȱ thenȱ couldȱ quietlyȱ correctȱ withoutȱ flyingȱ intoȱ aȱ rageȱ (2,ȱ 5).ȱ Aȱ true friendȱwouldȱdoȱeverythingȱpossibleȱtoȱpreserveȱhisȱfriend’sȱpublicȱesteemȱand honor:ȱ“desȱhâtȱerȱimmerȱêre”ȱ(2,ȱ6;ȱheȱwillȱalwaysȱenjoyȱhonor).63ȱInȱotherȱwords,

60

61

62

63

SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱAmorȱamicitiae:ȱOnȱtheȱLoveȱThatȱisȱFriendship.ȱEssaysȱinȱMedievalȱThought andȱBeyondȱinȱHonorȱofȱtheȱRev.ȱProfessorȱJamesȱMcEvoy,ȱed.ȱThomasȱA.ȱF.ȱKellyȱandȱPhilippȱW. Rosemann.ȱRecherchesȱdeȱthéologieȱetȱphilosophieȱmédiévales:ȱBibliotheca,ȱ6ȱ(Leeuven,ȱParis,ȱand Dudley,ȱMA:ȱPeeters,ȱ2004).ȱTheȱthematicȱrangeȱisȱhighlyȱdiverse,ȱandȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendship asȱpursuedȱhereȱdoesȱnotȱcompletelyȱhelpȱusȱgraspȱinȱgreaterȱdetailȱtheȱessentialȱelementsȱof friendship.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theȱ authorsȱ discussȱ forcefullyȱ howȱ muchȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ friendship permeatedȱtheȱideologicalȱdiscourseȱfromȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱtoȱearlyȱmodernity.ȱAsȱtheȱeditors appropriatelyȱpointȱoutȱinȱtheirȱ“Preface,”ȱ“ȱTheȱtheoryȱofȱfriendshipȱusedȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱaȱsubȬ categoryȱ ofȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ humanȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ socialȱ andȱ politicalȱ philosophy. Friendshipȱ usedȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ project,ȱ andȱ indisociableȱ fromȱ it.ȱ For Socrates,ȱ philosophyȱ wasȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ asȱ theȱ pursuitȱ ofȱ wisdom,ȱ virtue,ȱ andȱ beautyȱ inȱ a communityȱofȱfriendsȱengagedȱinȱanȱeroticȱquestȱforȱtheȱgood”ȱ(2). OliveȱSayce,ȱTheȱMedievalȱGermanȱLyric,ȱ1150–1300:ȱTheȱDevelopmentȱofȱItsȱThemesȱandȱFormsȱinȱTheir EuropeanȱContextȱ(Oxford:ȱAtȱtheȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱ412–16;ȱNigelȱHarris,ȱ“DidacticȱPoetry,” GermanȱLiteratureȱofȱtheȱHighȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱWillȱHasty.ȱTheȱCamdenȱHouseȱHistoryȱofȱGerman Literature,ȱ3ȱ(Rochester,ȱNY,ȱandȱWoodbridge,ȱSuffolk:ȱBoydellȱ&ȱBrewer,ȱ2006),ȱ123–40;ȱhere 126–28. Desȱ Minnesangsȱ Frühling,ȱ ed.ȱ Hugoȱ Moserȱ andȱ Helmutȱ Tervooren.ȱ Vol.ȱ I:ȱ Texte.ȱ 38.ȱ erneut revidierteȱAuflage.ȱMitȱeinemȱAnhang:ȱDasȱBudapesterȱundȱKremsmünsterȱFragmentȱ(Stuttgart: S.ȱHirzel,ȱ1988),ȱ43,ȱor:ȱ24,ȱ14,ȱor:ȱ1,ȱ6. Helmutȱ Tervooren,ȱ “Spervogel,”ȱ Dieȱ deutscheȱ Literaturȱ desȱ Mittelalters:ȱ Verfasserlexikon.ȱ 2nd

Introduction

25

theȱ poetȱ veryȱ muchȱ mirrorsȱ whatȱ Aelredȱ hadȱ toȱ sayȱ aboutȱ theȱ spiritualȱ and idealisticȱvalueȱofȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱweȱwillȱdiscussȱbelow. AtȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱtheȱAngloȬNormanȱpoetȱMarieȱdeȱFranceȱ(ca. 1160–1190)ȱ offeredȱ aȱ mostȱ meaningfulȱ messageȱ aboutȱ friendshipȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ her fablesȱregardingȱanȱoldȱlionȱwhoȱonceȱhadȱbeenȱmightyȱandȱpowerfulȱandȱwho hadȱenjoyedȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱmanyȱfriends.ȱNow,ȱhowever,ȱinȱhisȱoldȱageȱeveryone beginsȱtoȱhitȱonȱhim,ȱbiteȱhimȱvilifyȱhim,ȱandȱsoȱforth.ȱTheȱlionȱexpressesȱhisȱgreat astonishmentȱaboutȱthisȱturnȱofȱhisȱfortune,ȱbutȱreallyȱlamentsȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhis seemingȱfriendsȱhaveȱallȱbetrayedȱhim: ȱ Saidȱlion:ȱ‘WhatȱwondersȱIȱseeȱhere! Oh,ȱIȱrememberȱwellȱtheȱtime WhenȱIȱwasȱhealthy,ȱinȱmyȱprime, Thatȱotherȱanimalsȱfeltȱfear Andȱhonouredȱmeȱasȱtheirȱseignior. WhenȱIȱwasȱglad,ȱtheyȱfeltȱdelight; WhenȱIȱwasȱangry,ȱitȱwasȱfright. NowȱthatȱI’mȱfeeble,ȱasȱtheyȱsee, Theyȱtrampleȱandȱdefileȱme. Itȱseemsȱtoȱmeȱaȱworseȱoffence fromȱthoseȱwho’veȱbeenȱmyȱbosomȱfriendsȱ– WhomȱIȱhaveȱhonoured,ȱtreatedȱwell, Andȱyetȱwhoȱnothingȱnowȱrecallȱ– ThanȱfromȱthoseȱbeastsȱwhomȱIȱdidȱwrong. Heȱhasȱfewȱfriendsȱwhoȱisȱnotȱstrong.’64

Moreover,ȱsheȱconfirmedȱinȱmanyȱofȱherȱotherȱfablesȱhowȱmuchȱfriendshipȱwas regardedȱasȱanȱessentialȱbondȱamongȱpeopleȱandȱinȱaȱpoliticalȱcontext,ȱandȱhence couldȱeasilyȱbeȱabusedȱasȱwell.ȱSoȱinȱherȱfableȱ“Delȱleün,ȱdeȱlaȱchevre,ȱeȱdeȱla berbiz”ȱ(no.ȱ118,ȱnotȱdiscussedȱabove)ȱwhereȱtheȱlionȱgoesȱhuntingȱwithȱtheȱsheep

64

completelyȱrev.ȱed.ȱbyȱBurghartȱWachingerȱetȱal.ȱVol.ȱ9ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter, 1995),ȱ81–87.ȱHeȱsummarizesȱsuccinctlyȱwhatȱlittleȱisȱreallyȱknownȱaboutȱSpervogel,ȱprobablyȱa goliardȱpoetȱfromȱaroundȱ1200,ȱbutȱheȱdoesȱnotȱtouchȱonȱSpervogel’sȱinterestȱinȱtheȱthemeȱof friendship.ȱ Weȱ canȱ expect,ȱ however,ȱ toȱ findȱ manyȱ moreȱ commentsȱ onȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ rich didacticȱliteratureȱfromȱtheȱentireȱMiddleȱAges.ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱWhatȱNature DoesȱNotȱTeach:ȱDidacticȱLiteratureȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȬModernȱPeriods,ȱed.ȱJuanitaȱFerosȱRuys. Disputatio,ȱ15ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2008).ȱHugoȱvonȱTrimberg’sȱDerȱRenner,ȱed.ȱGustavȱEhrismann. MitȱeinemȱNachwortȱundȱErgänzungenȱvonȱGüntherȱSchweikle.ȱ4ȱvols.ȱDeutscheȱNeudrucke. Reihe:ȱTexteȱdesȱMittelaltersȱ(1908–1911;ȱBerlin:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1970),ȱcontainsȱcountlessȱexamples, whichȱwouldȱdeserveȱfurtherȱinvestigation.ȱSeeȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“ThomasinȱvonȱZerclaere’sȱDer WelscheȱGastȱandȱHugoȱvonȱTrimberg’sȱDerȱRenner:ȱTwoȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱDidacticȱWriters FocusȱonȱGenderȱRelations,”ȱWhatȱNatureȱDoesȱNotȱTeach,ȱ205–29. Marieȱ deȱ France,ȱ Fables,ȱ ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ byȱ Harrietȱ Spiegel.ȱ Medievalȱ Academyȱ Reprintsȱ for Teachingȱ(Toronto,ȱBuffalo,ȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱinȱassociationȱwithȱthe MedievalȱAcademyȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1994),ȱ67,ȱvv.ȱ18–32.

26

Introduction

andȱ theȱ goat,ȱ friendshipȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ aȱ thingȱ whenȱ theȱ powerȱ hierarchy overrulesȱallȱotherȱconcerns.ȱAfterȱtheȱanimalsȱhaveȱkilledȱaȱdeer,ȱtheȱlionȱdemands theȱpreyȱcompletelyȱforȱhimself,ȱadducingȱaȱnumberȱofȱspuriousȱreasons.ȱHaving noȱ recourse,ȱ theȱ sheepȱ andȱ theȱ goatȱ quicklyȱ departȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ afraidȱ of gettingȱintoȱaȱfightȱwithȱtheȱlion.ȱInȱherȱepimythion,ȱtheȱnarratorȱthenȱcomments: “Wheneverȱaȱpoorȱmanȱmakesȱaȱfriendȱ/ȱOfȱoneȱmoreȱpowerfulȱthanȱhe,ȱ/ȱHe’ll neverȱanyȱprofitȱsee.”65ȱMarieȱsharplyȱattacksȱtheȱpowerfulȱonesȱinȱherȱsocietyȱwho onlyȱ pretendȱ toȱ seekȱ friendshipȱ withȱ theirȱ inferiors,ȱ butȱ inȱ realityȱ areȱ solely interestedȱinȱtheirȱownȱprofitsȱandȱadvantages:ȱ“Theȱrichȱmanȱvaluesȱgloryȱmost, /ȱAndȱdoesn’tȱcareȱifȱloveȱisȱlost.ȱ/ȱIfȱthereȱisȱgainȱtoȱbeȱdivided,ȱ/ȱTheȱrichȱman keepsȱall,ȱthat’sȱdecided”ȱ(45–48).ȱ Inȱ“Delȱleünȱmalade”ȱ(no.ȱ14;ȱseeȱabove)ȱtheȱoldȱandȱfrailȱlionȱkingȱsuffersȱfrom allȱkindsȱofȱmistreatmentsȱbyȱhisȱsubjectsȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱnoȱlongerȱafraidȱofȱhim andȱenjoyȱpayingȱhimȱbackȱhisȱcrueltyȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱcommittedȱagainstȱthem inȱtheȱpast.ȱThisȱleadsȱtheȱnarratorȱtoȱconclude:ȱ“Heȱhasȱfewȱfriendsȱwhoȱisȱnot strong”ȱ(67,ȱ32).ȱWeȱmightȱwonder,ȱofȱcourse,ȱwhetherȱMarieȱhereȱreallyȱwanted toȱreferȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword,ȱorȱwhetherȱsheȱdidȱnot ratherȱimplyȱloyaltyȱwhichȱtheȱlion’sȱsubjectsȱowedȱhim.ȱAfterȱall,ȱasȱweȱlearnȱat theȱend:ȱ“Thatȱheȱwhoȱsinksȱtoȱimpotence,ȱ/ȱWho’sȱlostȱstrengthȱandȱintelligence, /ȱ Willȱ beȱ regardedȱ withȱ greatȱ scorn,ȱ /ȱ Evenȱ byȱ thoseȱ whoseȱ loveȱ wasȱ sworn” (35–38).ȱ TheȱfamousȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱpoetȱWaltherȱvonȱderȱVogelweideȱ(ca.ȱ1170–ca. 1230),ȱ whoȱ standsȱ outȱ soȱ muchȱ bothȱ forȱ hisȱ loveȱ songsȱ andȱ hisȱ gnomic,ȱ even politicalȱstanzas,ȱbitterlyȱcomplainedȱaboutȱtheȱhypocrisyȱofȱhisȱcontemporaries, especiallyȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ sweetȱ talkersȱ andȱ yetȱ evilȬminded:ȱ “denȱ diuȱ zunge hoenegetȱundȱdazȱherzeȱgallenȱhât”ȱ(30,ȱ13;ȱwhoȱhaveȱaȱtongueȱofȱhoneyȱandȱa heartȱofȱgall).66ȱTrueȱfriends,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱbehaveȱquiteȱdifferently:ȱ“friundesȱlachen

65

66

Marieȱ deȱ France,ȱ Fables.ȱ Ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ byȱ Harrietȱ Spiegel.ȱ Medievalȱ Academyȱ Reprintsȱ for Teachingȱ(Toronto,ȱBuffalo,ȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱ59,ȱ42–44. WaltherȱvonȱderȱVogelweide,ȱLeich,ȱLieder,ȱSangsprüche.ȱ14.,ȱvölligȱneubearbeiteteȱAuflageȱder AusgabeȱKarlȱLachmannsȱmitȱBeiträgenȱvonȱThomasȱBeinȱundȱHorstȱBrunner,ȱherausgegebenȱvon ChristophȱCormeauȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1996),ȱno.ȱ11,ȱXII,ȱ5,ȱorȱp.ȱ55;ȱsee alsoȱ Waltherȱ vonȱ derȱ Vogelweide,ȱ Theȱ SingleȬStanzaȱ Lyrics,ȱ ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ withȱ introd.ȱ and commentaryȱ byȱ Frederickȱ Goldinȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ London:ȱ Routldege,ȱ 203),ȱ no.ȱ 107,ȱ p.ȱ 301: “tonguesȱ allȱ drippingȱ honeyȱ andȱ theȱ heartȱ inȱ themȱ aflowȱ withȱ gall.”ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ RalfȬHenning Steinmetz,ȱ “Walthersȱ Neuerungenȱ imȱ Minnesangȱ undȱ dieȱ Freundschaftsliteraturȱ imȱ 12. Jahrhundert,”ȱLiteraturwissenschaftlichesȱJahrbuchȱ43ȱ(2003):ȱ19–46.ȱThereȱareȱsomeȱquestionsȱasȱto theȱauthenticityȱofȱWalther’sȱstanzaȱ(andȱsoȱasȱtoȱtheȱnextȱtoȱbeȱdiscussedȱhere),ȱbutȱforȱourȱcontext thisȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱanȱissue;ȱwhetherȱWaltherȱorȱtheȱTruchsessȱvonȱSingenberg,ȱorȱanother poet,ȱcreatedȱitȱdoesȱnotȱreallyȱmatter.ȱForȱourȱconcerns,ȱhereȱweȱhaveȱanotherȱimportantȱvoice addressingȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Seeȱ Ulrichȱ Müller,ȱ “Waltersȱ Sangspruchdichtung,”ȱ Horst Brunner,ȱGerhardȱHahn,ȱUlrichȱMüller,ȱandȱFranzȱViktorȱSpechtler,ȱWaltherȱvonȱderȱVogelweide:

Introduction

27

solȱsînȱâneȱmissetât,ȱ/ȱsüezeȱalsȱderȱâbendtrôt,ȱderȱkündetȱlúterȱmære”ȱ(30,ȱ14–15; aȱfriends’sȱsmileȱshouldȱbeȱhonest,ȱasȱsweetȱasȱtheȱglowingȱduskȱwhichȱannounces crystalȱclearȱnews;ȱGoldin:ȱ“Aȱfriend’sȱlaughterȱshouldȱhideȱnothingȱfalseȱand criminalȱ/ȱsereneȱasȱsunset,ȱwhenȱeveningȱredȱproclaimsȱgoodȱtidings”).ȱHeȱwent evenȱ furtherȱ andȱ dedicatedȱ aȱ wholeȱ stanzaȱ toȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ which deservesȱtoȱbeȱquotedȱhereȱinȱfull: Swerȱsichȱzeȱfriundeȱgewinnenȱlât undȱouchȱdâȱbîȱdieȱtugendeȱhât, dazȱerȱsichȱâneȱwankenȱlâtȱbehalten desȱfriundesȱmacȱmanȱgerneȱschôneȱwalten. ichȱhânȱeteswenneȱfriuntȱerkorn sôȱsinewelȱanȱsînerȱstæte swieȱgerneȱichȱinȱbehaltenȱhæte dazȱichȱinȱmuosteȱhânȱverlorn.

[Whoȱletsȱhimselfȱbeȱwonȱasȱfriend, andȱhasȱthisȱstrength:ȱthatȱheȱcanȱstand, withoutȱwavering,ȱtoȱbeȱheldȱonȱto– oneȱcanȱcherishȱsuchȱaȱfriend,ȱoneȱwillȱwantȱto. SoȱoftenȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱoutȱasȱfriend aȱman,ȱwhenȱheȱstoodȱfast,ȱsoȱrounded, seekȱasȱIȱmightȱtoȱholdȱhimȱI’dȱbefriended, Iȱhadȱtoȱloseȱhimȱinȱtheȱend.]

(79,ȱ25–32;ȱor: no.ȱ 54,ȱ VI;ȱ or: ms.ȱCȱ279)

(Goldin,ȱ289)

Severalȱtimesȱheȱalsoȱwarnedȱofȱtheȱdangerȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱtreatȱfriendshipȱas nothingȱbutȱaȱconvenientȱinstrumentȱtoȱachieveȱmaterialȱorȱpoliticalȱgoals,ȱwould easilyȱdropȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱbelievedȱtoȱbeȱtheirȱfriendȱatȱanyȱmoment’sȱnoticeȱ(79, 33–80,ȱ2;ȱor:ȱno.ȱ54,ȱVII,ȱor:ȱCȱ280).ȱHeȱhimself,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱwouldȱbeȱcompletely loyalȱtoȱaȱtrueȱfriend,ȱbutȱwouldȱquicklyȱrollȱoutȱ[sic]ȱofȱtheȱhandsȱofȱthoseȱwho cannotȱbeȱtrustedȱandȱregardȱfriendshipȱonlyȱfromȱaȱpragmaticȱperspectiveȱ(80, 1–2).ȱ Finally,ȱutteringȱtheȱmostȱseriousȱwarningȱagainstȱdeceptiveȱbehaviorȱamong friends,ȱ Waltherȱ describedȱ inȱ unmistakableȱ termsȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ false friendship,ȱofȱhubrisȱandȱarroganceȱagainstȱone’sȱfriends: Swerȱsichȱdesȱstætenȱfriundesȱdurchȱübermuotȱbehêret undȱerȱdenȱsînenȱdurchȱdesȱfrömdenȱêreȱunêret, derȱmöhteȱersehen,ȱwurdeȱerȱvonȱsînemȱhœhernȱouchȱgesêret, Dazȱdiuȱgehalsenȱfriuntschaftȱsichȱvilȱlîhteȱentrande, swenneȱerȱsichȱlîbesȱundeȱguotesȱsoldeȱumbȱinȱbewegen.

Epocheȱ–ȱWerkȱ–ȱWirkung.ȱ2ndȱrev.ȱandȱexpandedȱed.ȱ(1996;ȱMunich:ȱC.ȱH.ȱBeck,ȱ2009),ȱ135–91.

28

Introduction wirȱhânȱvereischet,ȱdieȱderȱwenkeȱhântȱgepflegen, dazȱsîȱderȱkumberȱwiderȱûfȱdieȱerborneȱfriundeȱwande. Dazȱsolȱnâchȱgotesȱlêhenȱdickeȱnochȱgeschehen. ouchȱhôrteȱichȱdieȱliuteȱdesȱmitȱvolgeȱjehen, gewissenȱfriunt,ȱversuohteȱswertȱsulȱmanȱzeȱnœtenȱsehen. (30,29–31,ȱ2;ȱor: no.ȱ11,ȱXIX) [Whoeverȱlordsȱitȱoverȱhisȱtrueȱfriend,ȱlikeȱoneȱsuperior, whoeverȱdishonorsȱhisȱownȱinȱorderȱtoȱhonorȱaȱstranger, wouldȱcomeȱtoȱknow,ȱwereȱheȱoffendedȱtooȱbyȱthoseȱestablishedȱhigher, thatȱfast,ȱbackȬslappingȱfriendshipȱfallsȱapart,ȱfast,ȱonceȱtested: whenȱtheȱnewȱfriend’sȱcalledȱuponȱtoȱputȱupȱlifeȱandȱfortuneȱforȱhisȱsake. We’veȱlearned:ȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱswitchedȱsoȱonȱtheȱmake wereȱbroughtȱbackȱbyȱdistressȱtoȱtheirȱbornȱfriends,ȱwhoseȱfriendshipȱ lasted. ThatȱshallȱhappenȱoftenȱinȱtheȱdispensationȱofȱtheȱLord. AndȱIȱhaveȱheardȱtheȱfolksȱaffirm,ȱagreeingȱwithȱthisȱword: “Inȱtimesȱofȱneedȱaȱmanȱshallȱknowȱtheȱfaithfulȱfriend,ȱtheȱtrustyȱ sword.”’ (Goldin,ȱno.ȱ109).

Whereasȱ secularȱ poetsȱ inȱ theȱ twelfthȱ andȱ thirteenthȱ centuriesȱ regularly emphasizedȱtheȱsupremeȱimportanceȱofȱcourtlyȱlove,ȱphilosophicalȱwritersȱtended toȱgiveȱpriorityȱtoȱfriendshipȱamongȱmenȱasȱtheȱonlyȱrelevantȱorȱatȱleastȱcrucial sourceȱofȱhappinessȱforȱtheȱindividualȱandȱtheȱcriticalȱmoralȱandȱethicalȱcatalyst forȱ theȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ courtlyȱ societyȱ andȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ Churchȱ (monastic communities,ȱ forȱ instance).ȱ Theseȱ authorsȱ didȱ notȱ hesitateȱ toȱ underscoreȱ how muchȱmoreȱsocietyȱwouldȱgrowȱandȱmaintainȱitsȱstabilityȱandȱwouldȱexperience prosperityȱ ifȱ peopleȱ formedȱ newȱ pairsȱ asȱ friendsȱ andȱ thusȱ unifiedȱ inȱ their endeavorsȱtoȱstriveȱforȱGodȱtogether. Manyȱ timesȱ knightsȱ deliberateȱ withȱ theirȱ advisorsȱ andȱ askȱ forȱ theirȱ advice, resortingȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ‘friend’ȱinȱtheirȱconversation.ȱAȱgoodȱexampleȱwouldȱbe CountȱWetzelȱinȱtheȱGoliardic,ȱorȱByzantine,ȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱbridalȬquest verseȱnarrativeȱHerzogȱErnstȱ(ms.ȱA,ȱfragmentary,ȱca.ȱ1170;ȱms.ȱB,ȱfullyȱdeveloped andȱcompletelyȱpreserved,ȱca.ȱ1220).ȱWithoutȱWetzel,ȱtheȱBavarianȱDukeȱdoesȱnot reallyȱdareȱtoȱmakeȱaȱdecisionȱandȱcloselyȱconsultsȱandȱcooperatesȱwithȱhisȱadvisor andȱfriend,ȱwhoȱaccompaniesȱhimȱwhereverȱheȱgoes,ȱatȱtheȱendȱevenȱtraveling throughȱtheȱworldȱofȱmonstersȱinȱtheȱmythicalȱEast,ȱdisregardingȱallȱthreatsȱto theirȱlivesȱoutȱofȱaȱdeepȱsenseȱofȱloyaltyȱand,ȱifȱweȱmayȱsayȱso,ȱfriendship.67ȱ

67

TheȱLegendȱofȱDukeȱErnst,ȱtrans.,ȱwithȱanȱintroduction,ȱbyȱJ.ȱW.ȱThomasȱandȱCarolyneȱDussère (LincolnȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱNebraskaȱPress,ȱ1979).ȱForȱtheȱoriginalȱMiddleȱHighȱGerman

Introduction

29

Yetȱthereȱisȱmoreȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱthisȱcontext,ȱasȱallȱofȱErnst’sȱbrave companionsȱonȱhisȱjourneyȱthroughȱunknownȱcountriesȱpopulatedȱbyȱmonsters areȱalsoȱidentifiedȱasȱhisȱfriends:ȱ“Now,ȱmyȱdearȱlord,ȱyouȱshouldȱaskȱallȱofȱour companions,ȱasȱcloseȱfriends,ȱtoȱbeȱreadyȱtoȱhelpȱusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ“ȱ(89).ȱTheȱnarratorȱdoes notȱdevelopȱtheȱnotionȱofȱfriendshipȱfurther,ȱbutȱheȱcertainlyȱtreatsȱallȱtheȱloyal warriorsȱasȱfriendsȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱswornȱbloodȱbrotherhood,68ȱalthoughȱErnstȱstill holdsȱtheȱhighestȱrank,ȱasȱDukeȱofȱBavaria,ȱamongȱthemȱall.ȱWhenȱtheyȱareȱabout toȱ runȱ intoȱ theȱ Magneticȱ Mountain,ȱ whereȱ mostȱ ofȱ themȱ willȱ perish,ȱ withȱ the protagonistȱandȱaȱsmallȱgroupȱofȱhisȱclosestȱcompanionsȱbeingȱtheȱonlyȱsurvivors, theȱnarratorȱreiteratesȱhowȱmuchȱfriendshipȱbondsȱamongȱthemȱallȱholdȱthem together:ȱ“Theȱdukeȱandȱhisȱfriends,ȱknightlyȱpilgrimsȱall,ȱwereȱnearingȱaȱmuch greaterȱdanger”ȱ(103).ȱHowever,ȱtoȱbeȱsure,ȱWetzelȱcontinuesȱtoȱserveȱasȱhisȱmost importantȱfriendȱbecauseȱheȱfulfillsȱtheȱroleȱofȱanȱadvisor,ȱveryȱmuchȱinȱtheȱvein ofȱaȱspiritualȱfather,ȱasȱAugustineȱhadȱalreadyȱdiscussedȱthisȱpoint,ȱaddressingȱthe roleȱofȱbishopsȱasȱfriendsȱandȱadvisors.69 Byȱtheȱsameȱtoken,ȱhowever,ȱthereȱareȱalsoȱthoseȱadvisorsȱorȱcounselorsȱwho onlyȱ pretendȱ toȱ beȱ friendsȱ andȱ abuseȱ theȱ termȱ ‘friend’ȱ toȱ blindȱ theȱ emperor’s attentionȱandȱtoȱcarveȱoutȱaȱspaceȱofȱpersonalȱinfluenceȱonȱhim.ȱInspiredȱbyȱthe devil,ȱasȱtheȱnarratorȱcomments,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱemperor’sȱrelativesȱandȱcounselors, Countȱ Henryȱ ofȱ theȱ Palatinate,ȱ deliberatelyȱ plotsȱ toȱ destroyȱ theȱ trustȱ and friendshipȱ thatȱ haveȱ soȱ farȱ bondedȱ theȱ emperorȱ andȱ Dukeȱ Ernstȱ “through treachery”ȱ(70).ȱHisȱreasonsȱareȱsimpleȱenoughȱtoȱunderstandȱbecauseȱHenryȱhas lostȱinȱinfluenceȱsinceȱErnst’sȱarrivalȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱstage,ȱsoȱheȱpursuesȱtheȱplan toȱmalignȱandȱbackstabȱhisȱcompetitor,ȱwhichȱthusȱwouldȱeliminateȱhimȱfromȱthe politicalȱarenaȱandȱrestoreȱHenry’sȱpreviouslyȱinfluentialȱposition.ȱAppealingȱto theȱemperorȱtoȱbelieveȱhisȱconcoctedȱstoryȱaboutȱErnst’sȱsecretȱplansȱtoȱoverthrow hisȱ stepfather,ȱ heȱ emphasizes:ȱ “Iȱ knowȱ wellȱ thatȱ Iȱ oweȱ youȱ greatȱ loyaltyȱ and

68 69

text,ȱseeȱHerzogȱErnst:ȱeinȱmittelalterlichesȱAbenteuerbuch,ȱinȱderȱmittelhochdeutschenȱFassungȱBȱnach derȱAusgabeȱvonȱKarlȱBartschȱmitȱdenȱBruchstückenȱderȱFassungȱA,ȱherausgegeben,ȱübersetzt,ȱmit AnmerkungenȱundȱeinemȱNachwortȱversehenȱvonȱBernhardȱSowinskiȱ(Stuttgart:ȱReclam,ȱ1970). Forȱtheȱmostȱrecentȱscholarlyȱinvestigationȱofȱthisȱtext,ȱseeȱUtaȱGoerlitz,ȱ“‘...Obȱsyeȱheidenȱsynt aderȱ cristen...’:ȱ Figurationenȱ vonȱ Kreuzzugȱ undȱ Heidenkampfȱ inȱ deutschenȱ undȱ lateinischen HerzogȬErnstȬFassungenȱ desȱ HochȬȱ undȱ Spätmittelaltersȱ (HEȱ B,ȱ Cȱ undȱ F),”ȱ Integrationȱ oder Desintegration?:ȱHeidenȱundȱChristenȱimȱMittelalter,ȱed.ȱeademȱandȱWolfgangȱHaubrichsȱ(Stuttgart, Weimar,ȱetȱal.:ȱMetzler,ȱ2009),ȱS.ȱ65Ȭ104.ȱForȱaȱcriticalȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱmanuscriptȱtradition,ȱsee CorneliaȱWeber,ȱUntersuchungȱundȱüberlieferungskritischeȱEditionȱdesȱHerzogȱErnstȱB.ȱMitȱeinem AbdruckȱderȱFragmenteȱvonȱFassungȱA.ȱGöppingerȱArbeitenȱzurȱGermanistik,ȱ611ȱ(Göppingen: Kümmerle,ȱ1994). SeeȱRobertȱStretter’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume. DanielȱEdwardȱDoyle,ȱTheȱBishopȱasȱDisciplinarianȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine.ȱPatristicȱStudies, 4ȱ(NewȱYork,ȱWashington,ȱDC,ȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ2002).

30

Introduction

friendship.ȱIȱtooȱhaveȱbeenȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱempireȱandȱyou,ȱandȱIȱthinkȱIȱamȱhis match”ȱ(71).ȱ EvenȱthoughȱHenryȱalmostȱtooȱlightlyȱemploysȱtheȱtermȱ‘friendship,’ȱheȱknows exactlyȱtheȱdeeperȱmeaningȱimpliedȱandȱcanȱthusȱconvinceȱtheȱemperorȱthatȱheȱis tellingȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱ hisȱ competitor.ȱ Thisȱ thenȱ setsȱ theȱ entireȱ narrativeȱ into motion,ȱpredicated,ȱatȱleastȱatȱtheȱearlyȱstage,ȱonȱtwoȱcompetingȱcourtiersȱwho bothȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱtheȱemperor’sȱtrueȱfriend,ȱErnst,ȱofȱcourse,ȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱabout Henry’sȱ fabricationȱ andȱ soȱ becomesȱ anȱ innocentȱ victimȱ whoȱ canȱ regainȱ the emperor’sȱgraceȱonlyȱmanyȱyearsȱlaterȱafterȱlongȱwarringȱandȱErnst’sȱsubsequent exileȱinȱtheȱwondrousȱEast.

F.ȱFriendshipȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱEnglishȱMonasticȱCircles: TheȱCaseȱofȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx Theȱ religiousȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ theȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ has,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ toȱ be consideredȱ asȱ mostȱ fundamental,ȱ especiallyȱ becauseȱ manyȱ proponentsȱ ofȱ the discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ drewȱ heavilyȱ onȱ Biblicalȱ writingsȱ andȱ theȱ textsȱ ofȱ the Churchȱ Fathers.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ allȱ ofȱ themȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ deeplyȱ influencedȱ by Cicero’sȱseminalȱtreatiseȱonȱfriendshipȱandȱtriedȱtheirȱbestȱtoȱemulateȱhimȱbothȱas thinkersȱandȱwriters.ȱOneȱofȱtheseȱwasȱtheȱtrulyȱfamousȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱwho deeplyȱreflectedȱonȱhisȱclassicalȱsourceȱandȱyetȱimbuedȱitȱprofoundlyȱwithȱhis Christianȱ thinkingȱ whenȱ heȱ discussedȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ forȱ hisȱ readers, primarilyȱamongȱtheȱmembersȱofȱhisȱmonasticȱcommunity.70ȱ Bornȱ aroundȱ 1130ȱ intoȱ aȱ highlyȱ rankedȱ socialȱ familyȱ inȱ Northernȱ England, deeplyȱsteepedȱinȱlearningȱforȱgenerations,ȱheȱbecameȱbothȱaȱhighlyȱsuccessful courtierȱ andȱ laterȱ aȱ majorȱ churchman.ȱ Aelredȱ becameȱ familiarȱ withȱ Ciceros’s treatiseȱveryȱearlyȱinȱhisȱformativeȱyearsȱandȱwasȱtoȱreflectȱuponȱitȱforȱtheȱrestȱof hisȱlife.ȱInȱthisȱregardȱweȱmightȱidentifyȱhimȱclearlyȱasȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱthe twelfthȬcenturyȱRenaissance.ȱHavingȱbeenȱraisedȱatȱtheȱvariousȱcourtsȱofȱScotland andȱEngland,ȱheȱopted,ȱnevertheless,ȱforȱtheȱlifeȱofȱaȱmonkȱwhenȱheȱjoinedȱthe abbeyȱofȱRievaulxȱinȱ1132.ȱThereȱheȱquicklyȱexperiencedȱconsiderableȱsuccess, beingȱ sentȱ toȱ Romeȱ asȱ anȱ officialȱ emissaryȱ alreadyȱ sixȱ yearsȱ later.ȱ Duringȱ this journeyȱ heȱ metȱ famousȱ St.ȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ whoȱ gainedȱ aȱ veryȱ favorable impressionȱofȱtheȱyoungȱman.ȱ

70

MarshaȱL.ȱDutton,”FriendshipȱandȱtheȱLoveȱofȱGod:ȱAugustineȇsȱTeachingȱinȱtheȱConfessionsȱand AelredȱofȱRievaulx’sȱResponseȱinȱSpiritualȱFriendship,”ȱAmericanȱBenedictineȱReviewȱ56ȱ(2005): 3Ȭ40;ȱDamienȱBoquet,ȱL’ȱordreȱdeȱl’affectȱauȱMoyenȱÂge:ȱAutourȱdeȱl’anthropologieȱaffectiveȱd’Aelredȱde Rievaulxȱ(Caen:ȱCRAHM,ȱ2005).

Introduction

31

Afterȱhisȱreturn,ȱAelredȱwasȱappointedȱmasterȱofȱnovices,ȱaȱhighlyȱresponsible position,ȱwhichȱsoonȱresultedȱinȱhimȱwritingȱdown,ȱuponȱBernard’sȱurging,ȱhis basicȱteachingȱprinciples,ȱtheȱMirrorȱofȱCharity.ȱInȱ1143ȱAelredȱwasȱchargedȱwith leadingȱaȱpartyȱofȱmonksȱtoȱfoundȱtheȱnewȱabbeyȱofȱRevesby,ȱbutȱalreadyȱinȱ1147 heȱwasȱaskedȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱRievaulxȱasȱtheȱnewlyȱelectedȱabbot.ȱThereȱheȱbegan writingȱhisȱDeȱSpiritualiȱAmicitiaȱ(SpiritualȱFriendship),ȱalthoughȱasȱabbotȱheȱwas moreȱthanȱbusyȱwithȱhisȱadministrativeȱduties.71ȱ Aelredȱ diedȱ onȱ Januaryȱ 12,ȱ 1167,ȱ highlyȱ reveredȱ byȱ hisȱ monksȱ andȱ friends everywhere.ȱLittleȱwonderȱthatȱhisȱtreatiseȱonȱfriendshipȱenjoyedȱwideȬspread popularityȱandȱwasȱpassedȱonȱforȱcenturies,ȱespeciallyȱsinceȱheȱinjectedȱaȱstrong Christianȱ componentȱ intoȱ theȱ Ciceronianȱ conceptȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ drawing,ȱ for instance,ȱ onȱ Proverbs,ȱ theȱ Gospelȱ byȱ John,ȱ andȱ otherȱ Biblicalȱ texts.72ȱ Atȱ the beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ thirteenthȱ centuryȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Bloisȱ rewroteȱ Aelred’sȱ treatise, entitlingȱ itȱ asȱ Christianȱ Friendship,ȱ basicallyȱ expandingȱ andȱ embellishingȱ it considerably.ȱTheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱPraemonstatenisanȱmonkȱPeterȱofȱHerentals seemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱtheȱlastȱtoȱreferȱdirectlyȱtoȱAelred’sȱessay,ȱandȱbeyondȱthatȱdate weȱhaveȱnoȱclearȱtracesȱofȱtheȱfurtherȱreceptionȱprocess.73ȱ Alreadyȱ inȱ hisȱ prologueȱ Aelredȱ emphasizesȱ howȱ muchȱ inȱ hisȱ youthȱ heȱ had strivenȱtoȱacquireȱfriendships,ȱyetȱwithoutȱknowingȱclearlyȱofȱtheȱprinciplesȱand

71

72

73

Adeleȱ M.ȱ Fiske,ȱ Friendsȱ andȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Monasticȱ Tradition.ȱ Centroȱ interculturalȱ de documentación,ȱ51ȱ(Cuernavaca,ȱMexico:ȱCIDOC,ȱ1970);ȱGabriellaȱLodolo,ȱ“Ilȱtemaȱsimbolicoȱdel paradisoȱnellaȱtradizioneȱmonasticaȱdell’ȱoccidenteȱlatinoȱ(secoliȱVI–XII):ȱLoȱspazioȱdelȱsimbolo,” Aevumȱ51ȱ(1977):ȱ252–88;ȱhereȱ276–83;ȱJulianȱP.ȱHaseldine,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱRivalry:ȱTheȱRoleȱof ‘Amicitia’ȱ inȱ TwelfthȬCenturyȱ Monasticȱ Relations,”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Ecclesiasticalȱ Historyȱ 44ȱ (1993): 390–414. WeȱwillȱlaterȱobserveȱaȱsimilarȱstrategyȱbyȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱinȱhisȱcollectionȱofȱreligiousȱpoems,ȱThe Templeȱ(1613).ȱSeeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱJeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen.ȱ AelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱL’Amitiéȱspirituelle,ȱed.ȱJ.ȱDubois.ȱLatinȱtext,ȱtransl.,ȱnotesȱ(Bruges:ȱC.ȱBeyaert, 1948).ȱAelredȱovȱRievaulx,ȱSpiritualȱFriendship.ȱTrans.ȱbyȱMaryȱEugeniaȱLakerȱSSND.ȱIntroduction byȱDouglassȱRoby.ȱCistercianȱFathersȱSeries,ȱ5ȱ(Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1977).ȱSee alsoȱWalterȱDaniel,ȱTheȱLifeȱofȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱandȱtheȱLetterȱtoȱMaurice,ȱtrans.ȱfromȱtheȱLatinȱand annotatedȱ byȱ F.ȱ M.ȱ Powicke.ȱ Introductionȱ byȱ Marshaȱ Dutton.ȱ Cistercianȱ Fathersȱ Series,ȱ 57 (Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1994).ȱDuttonȱemphasizes:ȱ“WalterȱDanielȱhadȱspent seventeenȱyearsȱatȱRievaulxȱduringȱAelred’sȱabbacyȱandȱwasȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱintimateȱdetailsȱof theȱabbot’sȱlifeȱduringȱhisȱlastȱdecade”ȱ(9).ȱDanielȱcharacterizesȱAelred,ȱforȱinstance,ȱasȱfollows: “DuringȱtheȱtimeȱofȱhisȱtrainingȱinȱChristȱheȱexcelledȱallȱhisȱcomradesȱandȱfellowȬsoldiersȱin humilityȱandȱglowedȱinȱpiety.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱwasȱasȱyouȱmayȱseeȱaȱsingleȱlambȱinȱaȱflockȱofȱsheep,ȱnot anyȱlambȱbutȱaȱlittleȱheȬlamb,ȱsubmittingȱhimselfȱtoȱeveryȱsheepȱandȱinȱeveryȱmovementȱand wriggleȱofȱhisȱwholeȱbody,ȱpayingȱflatteringȱatttentionȱtoȱallȱofȱthem”ȱ(101).ȱDanielȱmentions Aelred’sȱ“threebooksȱtheȱdialogueȱonȱspiritualȱfriendship”ȱ(121),ȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱsayȱmuchȱmoreȱon thatȱtopic.ȱSeeȱalsoȱSquireȱAelred,ȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx:ȱaȱStudyȱ(London:ȱS.P.C.K.,ȱ1969);ȱKennethȱKi KitȱChu,ȱ“MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLateȱTwelfthȱCentury:ȱaȱCriticalȱStudyȱofȱAelred’sȱDeȱspiritali amicitia,”ȱTh.M.ȱthesis,ȱRegentȱCollege,ȱ2008;ȱNathanȱLefler,ȱ“SaintȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱandȱSaint ThomasȱAquinasȱonȱFriendship:ȱaȱComparisonȱofȱMonasticȱandȱScholasticȱTheology,”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss., CatholicȱUniversityȱofȱAmerica,ȱ2008.

32

Introduction

valuesȱintimatelyȱassociatedȱwithȱthisȱideal,ȱuntilȱheȱcameȱacrossȱCicero’sȱfamous Deȱamicitiaȱ(Laelius).ȱYet,ȱonceȱheȱhadȱjoinedȱtheȱmonasteryȱandȱhadȱturnedȱmost ofȱhisȱattentionȱtoȱreligiousȱwritings,ȱtheȱsecularȱapproachȱbyȱCiceroȱlostȱitsȱappeal toȱhim,ȱwhichȱhenceȱmotivatedȱhim,ȱasȱheȱsaysȱinȱhisȱPrologue,ȱtoȱcomposeȱhis ownȱ text,ȱ combiningȱ theȱ classicalȬrhetoricalȱ conceptȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ that advocatedȱ byȱ Biblicalȱ authorsȱ inȱ hisȱ questȱ forȱ ‘spiritualȱ friendship’ȱ whereȱ the connectionȱwithȱaȱfriendȱisȱframedȱbyȱfriendshipȱwithȱChrist.ȱAsȱheȱformulatedȱit inȱhisȱrhetoricalȱstatement:ȱ“Forȱwhatȱmoreȱsublimeȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱofȱfriendship,ȱwhat moreȱtrue,ȱwhatȱmoreȱprofitable,ȱthanȱthatȱitȱoughtȱto,ȱandȱisȱprovedȱto,ȱbeginȱin Christ,ȱ continueȱ inȱ Christ,ȱ andȱ beȱ perfectedȱ inȱ Christ?”ȱ (53).ȱ Fullyȱ approving Cicero’sȱbasicȱdefinitionȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱcompletelyȱharmoniousȱformȱofȱsharing lifeȱwithȱanotherȱperson,ȱheȱaddsȱtheȱtwoȱtermsȱ“benevolence”ȱandȱ“charity”ȱ(53). Friendshipȱconstitutesȱaȱformȱofȱloveȱinȱspiritualȱterms,ȱandȱcanȱclaim,ȱifȱfullyȱlived out,ȱtoȱlastȱinȱeternity.ȱ ReferringȱtoȱSt.ȱJerome,ȱAelredȱunderscoresȱthatȱaȱfriendshipȱthatȱeverȱceasesȱto existȱcannotȱclaimȱeverȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱcompleteȱformȱofȱfriendship.ȱFriendship constitutes,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱabsoluteȱvirtue,ȱhenceȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱratherȱrareȱand difficultȱtoȱfind.ȱTheȱbest,ȱthoughȱhardlyȱeverȱseenȱproofȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwould beȱifȱoneȱpersonȱwereȱwillingȱtoȱlayȱdownȱhisȱlifeȱforȱhisȱfriendȱinȱanȱemergency.74 InȱAelred’sȱownȱwords:ȱ“onlyȱthoseȱdoȱweȱcallȱfriendsȱtoȱwhomȱweȱcanȱfearlessly entrustȱourȱheartȱandȱitsȱsecrets”ȱ(58).ȱCarnalȱfriendshipȱalsoȱfindsȱmentionȱhere, butȱonlyȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱparallelȱmotivationalȱstructureȱtoȱspiritualȱfriendsȱinȱthat bothȱfriendsȱareȱbondedȱtogetherȱthroughȱtheirȱ“mutualȱharmonyȱinȱvice”ȱ(59).75ȱ Worldlyȱfriendshipȱisȱtoȱbeȱdespised,ȱorȱatȱleastȱnotȱtoȱbeȱvaluedȱhighly,ȱbecause itȱisȱpredicatedȱonȱmaterialȱgainsȱandȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱunreliable,ȱeasilyȱcomingȱtoȱan endȱwhenȱtheȱdesiredȱprofitȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱbeȱgainedȱfromȱtheȱotherȱperson.ȱThis was,ȱofȱcourse,ȱveryȱmuchȱtheȱcriticalȱpointȱalreadyȱraisedȱbyȱBoethius,ȱwhoseȱDe Consolatioȱphilosophiaeȱbelongedȱtoȱtheȱstandardȱschoolȱbooksȱofȱhisȱtime.ȱ Finally,ȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱcomesȱintoȱexistenceȱwhenȱtheȱfutureȱfriendsȱare drivenȱ byȱ anȱ innerȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ dignityȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ discoveredȱ inȱ the partner:ȱ“spiritualȱfriendshipȱamongȱtheȱjustȱisȱbornȱofȱaȱsimilarityȱinȱlife,ȱmorals, andȱpursuits,ȱthatȱis,ȱitȱisȱaȱmutualȱconformityȱinȱmattersȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱunited withȱ benevolenceȱ andȱ charity”ȱ (61).ȱ Thisȱ idealȱ formȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ basedȱ on prudence,ȱjustice,ȱfortitude,ȱandȱtemperanceȱandȱcreatesȱasȱmuchȱasȱitȱderivesȱits strengthȱfromȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱvaluesȱandȱideals.ȱ

74 75

Forȱexamplesȱofȱthisȱliteraryȱtrope,ȱseeȱabove. Aelredȱpossiblyȱincludedȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱhomosexualityȱhere,ȱorȱtoȱaȱsituationȱinȱhisȱownȱyounger lifeȱwhereȱheȱmightȱhaveȱexperiencedȱaȱcertainȱhomosexualȱattraction,ȱbutȱitȱdoesȱnotȱsurface clearlyȱenoughȱinȱthisȱpassageȱtoȱextrapolateȱmoreȱthanȱthat;ȱseeȱDouglasȱRoby,ȱ“Introduction” toȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱ21–22.

Introduction

33

CertainlyȱfurtherȱreflectingȱinȱsomeȱwaysȱalsoȱonȱBoethianȱteachings,ȱAelred highlightsȱtheȱfundamentalȱhumanȱdesireȱforȱunityȱwithȱGodȱasȱaȱcornerstoneȱof friendship,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱobservedȱevenȱamongȱanimals,ȱbutȱsoȱmuchȱmoreȱin humanȱbeings.ȱMan’sȱnatureȱpushedȱhimȱtowardȱfriendship,ȱkindlingȱthisȱdesire fromȱbirth,ȱalthoughȱconcupiscence,ȱavarice,ȱenvy,ȱandȱotherȱvicesȱhaveȱdisturbed thisȱ perfectȱ balanceȱ amongȱ peopleȱ sinceȱ theȱ Fall.ȱ Inȱ theȱ postlapsarianȱ world friendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱinȱconstantȱdangerȱofȱbeingȱfragmented,ȱundermined,ȱand destroyedȱbecauseȱofȱgreed,ȱmaterialȱvalues,ȱlustȱforȱpower,ȱhenceȱegoismȱandȱlack ofȱloveȱforȱtheȱfellowȱman.ȱNevertheless,ȱsimilarȱtoȱlove,ȱ“friendshipȱisȱnatural,ȱlike virtue,ȱwisdom,ȱandȱtheȱlike,ȱwhichȱshouldȱbeȱsoughtȱafterȱandȱpreservedȱforȱtheir ownȱsakeȱasȱnaturalȱgoods”ȱ(64).ȱThoseȱwhoȱpursueȱfriendshipȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱsaidȱto pursueȱ wisdom,ȱ andȱ viceȱ versaȱ (65).ȱ Moreover,ȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ guarantees happiness,ȱbothȱhereȱinȱthisȱlifeȱandȱafterwardsȱbecauseȱitȱsecuresȱvirtuesȱ(71).76ȱ Thoseȱwhoȱareȱluckyȱenoughȱtoȱhaveȱfoundȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱwouldȱalsoȱhaveȱa guaranteedȱmedicineȱtoȱsustainȱtheirȱlifeȱ(72).ȱMoreover,ȱfriendshipȱleadsȱmanȱto Godȱbecauseȱitȱisȱ“aȱstageȱtowardȱtheȱloveȱandȱknowledgeȱofȱGod”ȱ(74)ȱinsofarȱas itȱconstitutesȱtheȱrealizationȱofȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱinȱhumanȱlife:ȱ“inȱfriendship areȱjoinedȱhonorȱandȱcharm,ȱtruthȱandȱjoy,ȱsweetnessȱandȱgoodȬwill,ȱaffectionȱand action”ȱ(74).ȱLittleȱwonderȱthenȱthatȱforȱAelredȱtheȱidealȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱfinds expressionȱinȱtheȱideaȱofȱtwoȱpeopleȱbeingȱofȱoneȱheartȱandȱoneȱmind.ȱTrueȱfriends wouldȱbeȱwillingȱtoȱgiveȱtheirȱlivesȱforȱeachȱother,ȱthoughȱtheȱauthorȱexplicitly limitsȱhisȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱChristianȱandȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱthe wicked,ȱwhateverȱthatȱmightȱmean.ȱTheȱauthorȱprovidesȱsomeȱexamples,ȱbutȱthen concludesȱwithȱtheȱgenericȱcomment:ȱ“friendshipȱcannotȱexistȱexceptȱamongȱthe good”ȱ(80).ȱThisȱmeansȱforȱfriendsȱthatȱtheyȱareȱnotȱsupposedȱtoȱaskȱeachȱotherȱto doȱanyȱwrong,ȱorȱanythingȱcontraryȱtoȱChristianȱvalues.ȱ Toȱ helpȱ usȱ understandȱ theȱ widerȱ philosophicalȱ implications,ȱ heȱ addsȱ that friendshipȱmustȱbeȱaccompaniedȱbyȱreason,ȱhonor,ȱandȱjusticeȱ(83).ȱMoreover, friendsȱmustȱbeȱdeterminedȱbyȱ“purityȱofȱintention,ȱtheȱdirectionȱofȱreasonȱandȱthe restraintȱofȱmoderation”ȱ(84).ȱInȱpracticalȱterms,ȱoneȱcanȱexpectȱ“counselȱinȱdoubt, consolationȱ inȱ adversity,ȱ andȱ otherȱ benefitsȱ ofȱ likeȱ nature”ȱ (84)ȱ fromȱ aȱ friend, unlessȱpersonalȱgainsȱorȱmaterialȱprofitȱmotivatesȱanȱallegedȱfriend.ȱAdvantages ofȱmanyȱdifferentȱkindsȱariseȱfromȱfriendship,ȱbutȱitȱcannotȱbeȱestablishedȱwithȱthe hopeȱinȱmindȱofȱgainingȱthoseȱadvantages.ȱInstead,ȱfriendshipȱisȱbasicallyȱdefined byȱpureȱloveȱforȱtheȱotherȱperson,ȱwhichȱcertainlyȱmightȱresultȱinȱmanyȱdifferent benefits.ȱ Inȱtheȱthirdȱandȱfinalȱbookȱofȱhisȱtreatise,ȱAelredȱgoesȱoneȱstepȱfurtherȱandȱplaces friendshipȱwithinȱtheȱdivineȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱmanȱandȱGod.ȱTheȱfriendȱisȱhere

76

BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱBrotherȱandȱLover:ȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱ(NewȱYork:ȱCrossroad,ȱ1994);ȱJohnȱR. Sommerfeldt,ȱPursuingȱPerfectȱHappinessȱ(Mahwah,ȱNJ:ȱNewmanȱPress,ȱ2005).

34

Introduction

definedȱ asȱ “theȱ companionȱ ofȱ yourȱ soul”ȱ (93)ȱ whoȱ fearsȱ nothingȱ andȱ does everythingȱforȱaȱfriend,ȱasȱlongȱasȱitȱwouldȱbeȱhonorableȱandȱnotȱdirectedȱagainst theȱ preceptsȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Theȱ goalȱ toȱ acquireȱ aȱ friendȱ thusȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ extremely challengingȱandȱdemanding,ȱrequiring,ȱaccordingȱtoȱAelred,ȱtheȱfourȱfollowing stages:ȱ 1.ȱ selection;ȱ 2.ȱ probation;ȱ 3.ȱ admission;ȱ andȱ 4.ȱ perfectȱ harmony.ȱ Those peopleȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱmeetȱcertainȱbasicȱstandardsȱofȱbehavior,ȱcommitȱcrime,ȱor betrayȱ theȱ friend,ȱ areȱ notȱ worthyȱ ofȱ beingȱ selected,ȱ orȱ wouldȱ notȱ passȱ the probation.ȱHowever,ȱexpressionsȱofȱanger,ȱwrath,ȱorȱotherȱemotionsȱthatȱseemȱto beȱdetrimentalȱtoȱfriendshipȱbutȱwhichȱwouldȱnotȱundermineȱtheȱbasicȱidealsȱof friendship,ȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱregardedȱasȱreallyȱdangerous.ȱAfterȱall,ȱaȱtrueȱfriend wouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱseeȱthroughȱthemȱandȱrealizeȱthatȱtheyȱareȱnothingȱbutȱephemeral andȱofȱlittleȱrelevanceȱforȱfriendship,ȱasȱlongȱasȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱdishonorȱtheȱother. Destructiveȱbehavior,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱwouldȱconsistȱofȱ“upbraiding,ȱreproach,ȱpride, disclosingȱ ofȱ secretsȱ orȱ aȱ treacherousȱ wound”ȱ (96).ȱ Fickleȱ andȱ untrustworthy personsȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ trueȱ friendsȱ becauseȱ “mutualȱ peaceȱ and tranquilityȱofȱheart”ȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱruleȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱfriendsȱ(98).ȱ Provingȱtoȱbeȱaȱkindȱofȱmodernȱpsychologistȱavantȱlaȱlettreȱthatȱheȱwas,ȱAelred isȱnotȱsoȱblindȱasȱtoȱignoreȱtheȱfactȱthatȱamongȱmanyȱfriendshipsȱriftsȱcouldȱopen upȱ asȱ well,ȱ meaningȱ thatȱ itȱ couldȱ becomeȱ “unstitchedȱ littleȱ byȱ little”ȱ (101), especiallyȱwhenȱtheȱunworthyȱpersonȱrevealsȱsecretsȱorȱprivateȱmattersȱandȱcauses hiddenȱstingsȱofȱdetraction,ȱmeaningȱcommittingȱclearȱactsȱofȱbetrayalȱandȱhurting theȱotherȱ(102).ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱrealȱfriendsȱdemonstrateȱ“loyalty,ȱrightȱintention, discretion,ȱandȱpatience”ȱ(105).ȱResortingȱtoȱBoethiusȱagain,ȱAelredȱemphasizes thatȱ“Aȱfriendȱisȱtestedȱinȱnecessity”ȱ(106),ȱwhereasȱinȱgoodȱandȱprosperousȱtimes oneȱcouldȱneverȱknowȱforȱsureȱwhetherȱanotherȱpersonȱcanȱbeȱtrustedȱasȱaȱfriend. Noȱmaterialȱobjectȱorȱanyȱpossessionȱcouldȱtrulyȱprovideȱhappinessȱifȱtheȱowner couldȱnotȱshareȱitȱwithȱaȱfriendȱ(110). Friendshipȱdevelopsȱbetweenȱtwoȱpeopleȱifȱtheyȱfindȱperfectȱharmonyȱamong them,ȱdoȱnotȱhideȱanythingȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱandȱhaveȱfullȱconfidenceȱinȱtheȱother. Friendsȱenjoyȱ“toȱreadȱtogether,ȱdiscussȱmattersȱtogether,ȱtogetherȱtoȱtrifle,ȱand togetherȱtoȱbeȱinȱearnest;ȱtoȱdifferȱatȱtimesȱwithoutȱillȬhumor,ȱasȱaȱmanȱwouldȱdo withȱhimself,ȱandȱevenȱbyȱaȱveryȱinfrequentȱdisagreementȱtoȱgiveȱzestȱtoȱourȱvery numerousȱ agreements;ȱ toȱ teachȱ oneȱ anotherȱ something,ȱ orȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ one another;ȱwithȱimpatienceȱtoȱlongȱforȱoneȱanotherȱwhenȱabsent;ȱandȱwithȱjoyȱto receiveȱoneȱanotherȱwhenȱreturning”ȱ(113).ȱ Loyal,ȱfrank,ȱcongenial,ȱandȱsympatheticȱexchangesȱunderlieȱfriendship,ȱwhile changeable,ȱsuspiciousȱcharactersȱthreatenȱfriendship,ȱespeciallyȱifȱoneȱthinksȱevil ofȱ theȱ otherȱ (114).ȱ Quiteȱ significantly,ȱ Aelredȱ alsoȱ underscoresȱ thatȱ social inequalityȱshouldȱnotȱmatterȱatȱallȱamongȱfriendsȱbecauseȱdifferentȱranksȱareȱtoȱbe regardedȱasȱnothingȱbutȱexternalȱtrappingsȱprovidedȱbyȱnature;ȱhenceȱtheyȱareȱnot essentialȱandȱwouldȱbeȱonlyȱdetrimentalȱtoȱfriendship:ȱ“Thereforeȱinȱfriendship, whichȱisȱtheȱperfectȱgiftȱofȱnatureȱandȱgraceȱalike,ȱletȱtheȱloftyȱdescend,ȱtheȱlowly

Introduction

35

ascend;ȱtheȱrichȱbeȱinȱwant,ȱtheȱpoorȱbecomeȱrich;ȱandȱthusȱletȱeachȱcommunicate hisȱconditionȱtoȱtheȱother,ȱsoȱthatȱequalityȱmayȱbeȱtheȱresult”ȱ(115).ȱ ReflectingȱuponȱnumerousȱexamplesȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament,ȱAelredȱconcludes thatȱenvyȱcannotȱcorruptȱfriendship;ȱsuspicionȱcannotȱenterȱtheȱmindsȱofȱfriends; andȱambitionȱdoesȱnotȱinterveneȱandȱchangeȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfriendsȱwho wouldȱneverȱfeelȱprideȱoverȱtheȱotherȱ(117).ȱConsequently,ȱtakingȱintoȱaccountȱthe roleȱthatȱmoneyȱcanȱplayȱforȱfriends,ȱtheȱauthorȱencouragesȱhisȱreader/listenerȱto beȱgenerousȱandȱlendȱanyȱamountȱaȱfriendȱwouldȱneedȱwithoutȱexpressingȱany concernsȱorȱworries:ȱ“Therefore,ȱgiveȱtoȱyourȱfriendȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnot reproachȱhim,ȱorȱexpectȱaȱreward”ȱ(118).ȱAsȱaȱrule,ȱ“weȱoughtȱtheȱmoreȱadroitly seekȱoutȱtheȱneedsȱofȱourȱfriends,ȱanticipateȱtheirȱrequestsȱbyȱgoodȱservices,ȱand observeȱ suchȱ demeanorȱ inȱ ourȱ givingȱ thatȱ theȱ recipient,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ giver, appearsȱtoȱbeȱbestowingȱtheȱfavor”ȱ(119).ȱPrimarily,ȱoneȱoughtȱtoȱprayȱforȱone another,ȱsupportȱoneȱanother,ȱgrieveȱforȱoneȱanother,ȱandȱalsoȱtoȱrejoiceȱforȱone another.ȱFriendsȱneedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱfirstȱandȱtheȱmostȱtrustedȱcounselorsȱ(120).ȱ Similarly,ȱfriendsȱobserveȱtheȱfaultsȱandȱvicesȱinȱtheȱotherȱandȱofferȱcorrective criticism,ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ pretendingȱ thatȱ everythingȱ isȱ alrightȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ preserve peace:ȱ “Evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ bitternessȱ ofȱ correctionȱ woundȱ hisȱ soul,ȱ nevertheless ceaseȱnotȱtoȱcorrectȱhim.ȱForȱtheȱwoundsȱinflictedȱbyȱaȱfriendȱareȱmoreȱtolerable thanȱtheȱkissesȱofȱflatterers”ȱ(121).ȱOfȱcourse,ȱandȱfullyȱunderstandably,ȱAelred hastensȱtoȱaddȱtheȱwarningȱthatȱthisȱcriticismȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱutteredȱinȱangerȱor withȱbitternessȱbecauseȱtheȱfriendȱoughtȱtoȱperceiveȱimmediatelyȱthatȱtheȱpurpose ofȱtheseȱsternȱwordsȱwouldȱbeȱnothingȱbutȱtoȱbringȱaboutȱ“theȱbettermentȱofȱhis friendȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthanȱtheȱsatisfactionȱofȱhisȱownȱillȱhumor”ȱ(121).ȱMoreȱpoignantly,ȱhe underscoresȱthatȱtheȱfriendȱoughtȱtoȱrecognizeȱ“thatȱtheȱreproofȱproceedsȱfrom loveȱ ratherȱ thanȱ fromȱ rancor”ȱ (121).ȱ Flatteryȱ andȱ pretenseȱ wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ be regardedȱasȱtheȱworstȱfeatureȱamongȱfriends;ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱtheyȱneedȱtoȱexchange inȱfullȱtruth,ȱwhichȱwouldȱthenȱconstituteȱloveȱforȱtheȱfriendȱ(122).ȱ Speakingȱ fromȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ ofȱ anȱ abbot,ȱ orȱ aȱ personȱ ofȱ higherȱ official responsibilitiesȱwithinȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunityȱandȱhenceȱdeeplyȱconcernedȱwith theȱharmonyȱandȱpeaceȱamongȱallȱmembers,ȱyoungȱandȱold,ȱAelredȱarguesȱthat friendshipȱshouldȱnotȱbecomeȱtheȱconduitȱforȱappointingȱindividualsȱtoȱaȱspecific positionȱoutȱofȱaȱsenseȱofȱobligationȱorȱasȱaȱformȱofȱpoliticalȱpayȬback;ȱinȱother words,ȱ friendshipȱ shouldȱ notȱ beȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ doingȱ business.ȱ Anȱ abbot,ȱ orȱ a manager,ȱasȱweȱwouldȱsayȱtoday,ȱ“shouldȱalwaysȱbeȱguidedȱbyȱreasonȱandȱnotȱby affection.ȱAȱdignityȱandȱburdenȱofȱofficeȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱimposedȱonȱthoseȱwhom weȱpreferȱasȱfriends,ȱbutȱratherȱonȱthoseȱwhomȱweȱbelieveȱbetterȱsuitedȱtoȱsustain suchȱdignitiesȱandȱburdens”ȱ(124).ȱFriendshipȱmustȱbeȱaȱmatterȱofȱprivateȱaffairs, whereasȱpublicȱbusinessȱmustȱbeȱconductedȱbyȱmeansȱofȱreasonȱandȱconcernȱfor theȱpublicȱwelfareȱ(126).ȱ Reflectingȱ uponȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ enduringȱ andȱ pureȱ friendships,ȱ Aelredȱ remarks, providingȱusȱwithȱaȱcompletelyȱclearȱexample,ȱ“Thereȱwasȱnoȱpretenseȱbetween

36

Introduction

us,ȱnoȱsimulation,ȱnoȱdishonorableȱflattery,ȱnoȱunbecomingȱharshness,ȱnoȱevasion, noȱconcealment,ȱbutȱeverythingȱopenȱandȱaboveȱboard;ȱforȱIȱdeemedȱmyȱheartȱin aȱfashionȱhis,ȱandȱhisȱmine,ȱandȱheȱfeltȱinȱlikeȱmannerȱtowardsȱme”ȱ(129).ȱ Referringȱtoȱtheȱemotionalȱsideȱofȱhumanȱexistence,ȱespeciallyȱwithȱrespectȱto grief,ȱheȱhighlightsȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱfriendȱ“wasȱtheȱrefugeȱofȱmyȱspirt,ȱtheȱsweet solaceȱofȱmyȱgriefs,ȱwhoseȱheartȱofȱloveȱreceivedȱmeȱwhenȱfatiguedȱfromȱlabors, whoseȱcounselȱrefreshedȱmeȱwhenȱplungedȱinȱsadnessȱandȱgrief”ȱ(129).ȱOfȱcourse, Aelredȱ framesȱ hisȱ entireȱ discourseȱ withȱ aȱ clearȱ allusionȱ toȱ God,ȱ theȱ ultimate embracerȱofȱallȱhumanȱlifeȱ(129).ȱThusȱheȱconcludesȱhisȱtreatiseȱwithȱtheȱmost meaningfulȱ comment:ȱ “Thusȱ ascendingȱ fromȱ thatȱ holyȱ loveȱ withȱ whichȱ he embracesȱaȱfriendȱtoȱthatȱwithȱwhichȱheȱembracesȱChrist,ȱheȱwillȱjoyfullyȱpartake inȱabundanceȱofȱtheȱspiritualȱfruitȱofȱfriendship,ȱawaitingȱtheȱfullnessȱofȱallȱthings inȱtheȱlifeȱtoȱcome”ȱ(131).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtrueȱfriendshipȱleadsȱtoȱGod,ȱifȱitȱdoes notȱconstituteȱtheȱloveȱforȱGod,ȱorȱemanatesȱfromȱGod.77 Aelred’sȱtreatiseȱobviouslyȱappealedȱsoȱdeeplyȱandȱwidelyȱtoȱhisȱcontemporaries andȱposterityȱbecauseȱitȱcombinesȱethical,ȱmoral,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱreligiousȱaspects. Hisȱdefinitionȱofȱfriendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱhighlyȱcarefulȱandȱpragmatic,ȱsensible andȱ yetȱ demanding.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ examinesȱ bothȱ externalȱ andȱ internalȱ aspects characteristicȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱandȱoutlinesȱinȱveryȱreasonable,ȱrational,ȱandȱyet alsoȱidealisticȱtermsȱtheȱdeeperȱidealsȱandȱvaluesȱofȱfriendshipȱbothȱinȱaȱsocialȱand religious,ȱbothȱinȱaȱpoliticalȱandȱinȱaȱprivateȱcontext,ȱoutliningȱtheȱkeyȱcomponents thatȱsupportȱandȱthoseȱthatȱdistract,ȱifȱnotȱevenȱdestroy,ȱfriendshipȱasȱdefinedȱhere.ȱ Aelredȱ culledȱ muchȱ ofȱ hisȱ materialȱ fromȱ Cicero,ȱ theȱ Bible,ȱ thenȱ alsoȱ from Boethiusȱ andȱ manyȱ otherȱ classicalȱ sources,ȱ andȱ skillfullyȱ addedȱ hisȱ personal perspectives,ȱ hisȱ religiousȱ values,ȱ describedȱ inȱ powerfulȱ andȱ mostȱ convincing termsȱwhyȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱpursuedȱandȱwhatȱimpactȱitȱwould haveȱ onȱ theȱ individual.78ȱ Hisȱ treatiseȱ primarilyȱ addressedȱ theȱ monastic community,ȱwhereȱfriendshipȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddle Agesȱandȱfarȱbeyond.79ȱMoreover,ȱheȱalsoȱexplainedȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱfriendshipȱin aȱ significantȱ letterȱ toȱ theȱ Bishopȱ ofȱ London,ȱ Gilbert.80ȱ Quiteȱ openlyȱ Aelred expressesȱhisȱdesireȱtoȱbeȱhisȱfriend:ȱ“Iȱhaveȱgrownȱveryȱfondȱofȱyouȱnotȱonly

77

78

79 80

DanielȱM.ȱLaȱCorte,ȱ“AbbotȱasȱMagisterȱandȱPaterȱinȱtheȱThoughtȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱand AelredȱofȱRievaulx,”ȱTruthȱasȱGift:ȱStudiesȱinȱCistercianȱHistoryȱinȱHonorȱofȱJohnȱR.ȱSommerfeldt,ȱed. Marshaȱ L.ȱ Dutton,ȱ Danielȱ M.ȱ Laȱ Corte,ȱ andȱ Paulȱ Lockey.ȱ Cistercianȱ Studiesȱ Series,ȱ 204 (Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ2004),ȱ389–406. ForȱfurtherȱcommentsȱonȱtheȱpowerȱofȱAelred’sȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendship,ȱseeȱtheȱintroductionȱby DouglassȱRoby,ȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱbyȱLaker,ȱ17–22ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ73). BrianȱP.ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ222ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ12). R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie,ȱ“AbbotȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx’sȱLetterȱtoȱGilbert,ȱVenerableȱBishopȱofȱLondon.” CistercianȱStudiesȱQuarterlyȱ45.2ȱ(2010):ȱ119Ȭ24.ȱ

Introduction

37

becauseȱIȱhopeȱtoȱbecomeȱacquaintedȱwithȱyourȱserenity,ȱbutȱalso—whichȱIȱsayȱin foolishness—becauseȱIȱdareȱtoȱaspireȱtoȱfriendshipȱitself”ȱ(121).ȱ Forȱhimȱdivineȱloveȱconstitutesȱtheȱessenceȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“whatȱmostȱexalted thingsȱwouldȱloveȱnotȱabase,ȱorȱbaseȱthingsȱexalt,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱone?”ȱ(122).ȱInȱfact, friendshipȱforȱhimȱamountsȱtoȱaȱmostȱpowerfulȱspiritualȱexperience:ȱ“Myȱsoul passesȱthroughȱyouȱbyȱaȱspiritualȱmotion,ȱcrossingȱthroughȱtheȱveryȱsubstanceȱof theȱbodyȱbyȱmeansȱofȱitsȱsubtlety,ȱpouringȱallȱofȱitselfȱintoȱtheȱveryȱbosomȱofȱyour mind,ȱmixingȱaffectionȱwithȱaffection,ȱsenseȱwithȱsense,ȱandȱspiritȱwithȱspirit,ȱso thatȱ myȱ spiritȱ isȱ renewedȱ fromȱ theȱ sharingȱ yourȱ spiritȱ .ȱ .ȱ .”ȱ (122).ȱ Finally, concludingȱhisȱletter,ȱAelredȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱaddresseeȱhadȱgranted himȱentranceȱtoȱtheȱholyȱrealmȱofȱdivineȱfriendshipȱbyȱwelcomingȱhimȱasȱaȱyoung manȱinȱLondon:ȱ“ItȱmakesȱmeȱwantȱtoȱfollowȱthroughȱwithȱwhatȱstartedȱwhenȱI firstȱbecameȱacquaintedȱwithȱyourȱserenity,ȱtoȱhopeȱthatȱafterȱknockingȱonȱthe doorȱofȱyourȱfriendshipȱmyȱsoulȱmightȱbeȱledȱintoȱitsȱinnerȱchamber”ȱ(124).81 TheȱimplicationsȱforȱintellectualsȱfarȱandȱwideȱduringȱtheȱRenaissanceȱofȱthe TwelfthȱCenturyȱwereȱtremendousȱbecauseȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱamongȱmonks couldȱserveȱasȱaȱroleȱmodelȱevenȱforȱtheȱlaity.82ȱMoreover,ȱAelredȱoutlinedȱhow muchȱfriendshipȱcouldȱserveȱasȱtheȱspringboardȱforȱmanȱtoȱfindȱGodȱbecauseȱit provesȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ worldlyȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ spirituality.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ the discourseȱonȱfriendshipȱopenedȱmultipleȱopportunitiesȱtoȱprobeȱtheȱmeaningȱof religiousȱandȱsecularȱvaluesȱandȱtoȱapplyȱthemȱtoȱtheȱrealitiesȱofȱordinaryȱlifeȱboth inȱaȱspiritualȱandȱaȱpoliticalȱsense.ȱFriendshipȱisȱthusȱintriguinglyȱlinkedȱto,ȱifȱit doesȱnotȱevenȱreplace,ȱeroticȱlove,ȱprovidingȱmaleȱmembersȱofȱtheȱcourtsȱandȱthe monasteriesȱaȱmediumȱtoȱcreateȱaffectiveȱbondsȱandȱthusȱformȱnewȱcommunity linksȱamongȱthemselves.

G.ȱTheologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱFriendship:ȱThomasȱAquinas ThroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱfarȱbeyond,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱserved exceedinglyȱwellȱasȱaȱmetaphorȱforȱtheȱidealizedȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱmanȱandȱthe Godhead.ȱAlreadyȱinȱlateȱantiquityȱthinkersȱsuchȱasȱClemensȱofȱAlexandriaȱand JohnȱChrystostomȱutilizedȱthatȱtermȱandȱcombinedȱitȱwithȱloveȱforȱGod:ȱfriends ofȱGod.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱandȱdomineeringȱphilosophersȱfromȱtheȱlater Middleȱ Ages,ȱ Thomasȱ Aquinasȱ (1225–1275),ȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ allȱ peopleȱ areȱ by

81 82

IȱappreciateȱthatȱR.ȱJacobȱMcDonieȱalertedȱmeȱtoȱhisȱpublicationȱofȱthisȱletterȱinȱEnglish. GilesȱConstable,ȱTheȱReformationȱofȱtheȱTwelfthȱCenturyȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress, 1998),ȱ138.

38

Introduction

natureȱfriendsȱofȱallȱotherȱgoodȱpeople,ȱandȱthatȱhumanȱfriendshipȱoughtȱtoȱbe regardedȱasȱanȱanalogyȱtoȱman’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod.83ȱ Inȱ hisȱ Summaȱ Theologiae,ȱ however,ȱ Aquinasȱ qualifiesȱ thatȱ observationȱ aȱ little further,ȱemphasizingȱthatȱ“Friendsȱmustȱbeȱrationalȱcreatures,ȱableȱtoȱreturnȱour loveȱandȱshareȱourȱlife,ȱandȱableȱtoȱbeȱwellȱandȱhappyȱorȱtheȱreverse,ȱsoȱthatȱone canȱ properlyȱ willȱ theirȱ good.”84ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ trueȱ friendsȱ mustȱ henceȱ be receptiveȱtoȱadvice,ȱtoȱwellȬmeaningȱremarks,ȱandȱmustȱbeȱwillingȱtoȱcommunicate withȱtheȱotherȱinȱaȱconstructiveȱmanner,ȱreachingȱoutȱandȱreadyȱtoȱacceptȱatȱthe sameȱtime.ȱNonȬrationalȱcreaturesȱorȱobjectsȱcannotȱbeȱlovedȱasȱfriendsȱbecause theyȱ areȱ notȱ ableȱ toȱ reciprocate:ȱ “Properlyȱ speaking,ȱ Godȱ lovesȱ nonȬrational creaturesȱnotȱasȱfriendsȱbutȱasȱthingsȱwantedȱforȱrationalȱcreaturesȱandȱhimself. Godȱisȱnotȱinȱneedȱofȱthem,ȱbutȱheȱwillsȱthemȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱhisȱgoodnessȱandȱour benefit”ȱ(54).ȱ Inȱaȱlaterȱcontext,ȱcloselyȱfollowingȱAristotle’sȱteachings,85ȱAquinasȱaddsȱthe importantȱpointȱthatȱfriendshipȱrepresentsȱaȱformȱofȱloveȱassociatedȱwithȱgoodness byȱ itself:ȱ “Weȱ distinguishȱ friendship,ȱ withȱ whichȱ weȱ loveȱ anyȱ independently existingȱthingȱtoȱwhomȱweȱwillȱgood,ȱfromȱdesireȱwithȱwhichȱweȱloveȱanyȱgoods weȱwantȱforȱhim”ȱ(100;ȱvol.ȱ9,ȱ60.3).ȱInȱanotherȱcontextȱheȱrevisitsȱthatȱissueȱagain andȱclarifiesȱtheȱspecificȱmeaningȱofȱtrueȱloveȱofȱfriends:ȱ“Friendshipȱbasedȱon convenienceȱorȱpleasureȱisȱfriendshipȱinasmuchȱasȱweȱwantȱourȱfriend’sȱgood;ȱbut becauseȱ thisȱ isȱ subordinatedȱ toȱ ourȱ ownȱ profitȱ orȱ pleasureȱ suchȱ friendshipȱ is subordinatedȱtoȱloveȱofȱdesireȱandȱfallsȱshortȱofȱtrueȱfriendship”ȱ(205;ȱvol.ȱ19,ȱ26.4). Significantly,ȱthen,ȱfriendshipȱemergesȱasȱaȱformȱofȱloveȱ“sinceȱitȱisȱaȱpassion” (205),ȱforȱanotherȱperson.ȱMoreover,ȱ“sinceȱitȱisȱaȱsortȱofȱaffinityȱorȱagreementȱwith theȱobject,ȱwhatȱcausesȱloveȱisȱtheȱgoodnessȱorȱagreeablenessȱofȱthatȱobject”ȱ(205; vol.ȱ19,ȱ27.1).ȱOneȱfindsȱgoodȱfriendsȱwhenȱoneȱknowsȱofȱtheirȱgoodness,ȱwhich exertsȱaȱnaturalȱaffinity:ȱ“Butȱgoodnessȱmustȱbeȱknownȱbeforeȱitȱcanȱbecomeȱthe objectȱofȱlove,ȱsoȱknowledgeȱitselfȱcanȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱcauseȱlove”ȱ(206;ȱvol.ȱ19,ȱ27,ȱ2).ȱ Friendshipȱthusȱemergesȱasȱanȱethicalȱvalue,ȱaȱforceȱinȱhumanȱlifeȱthatȱenables theȱindividualȱaȱpathȱtowardȱgoodness:ȱ“Theȱhappyȱmanȱinȱthisȱlifeȱneedsȱfriends, notȱ forȱ theirȱ externalȱ usefulness,ȱ sinceȱ hisȱ happinessȱ isȱ fromȱ within,ȱ norȱ for pleasure,ȱ sinceȱ hisȱ perfectȱ pleasureȱ comesȱ fromȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ virtue,ȱ butȱ as contributingȱtoȱthatȱactivityȱitself.ȱHeȱdoesȱgoodȱtoȱthem,ȱheȱdelightsȱinȱseeing

83 84

85

SummaȱtheologiaeȱII/II,ȱq.ȱ26.4ȱandȱq.ȱ114,ȱa.ȱ1;ȱcf.ȱSchrey,ȱ“Freundschaft,”ȱ595ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ16). Stȱ Thomasȱ Aquinas,ȱ Summaȱ Theologiae:ȱ Aȱ Conciseȱ Translation,ȱ ed.ȱ Timothyȱ McDermottȱ (1989; London:ȱMethuen,ȱ1992),ȱ54ȱ(vol.ȱ5,ȱ20.2). Aquinasȱ summarizesȱ himselfȱ theȱ fiveȱ majorȱ pointsȱ characterizingȱ friendshipȱ asȱ definedȱ by Aristotle:ȱ“willingȱtheȱfriend’sȱgood,ȱbeingȱgladȱthatȱheȱisȱalive,ȱtakingȱpleasureȱinȱlivingȱwithȱhim, havingȱtheȱsameȱpreferences,ȱsharingȱhisȱgriefsȱandȱjoys.ȱAndȱallȱthese,ȱasȱAristotleȱalsoȱsays, springȱfromȱlovingȱtheȱfriendȱasȱoneȱlovesȱoneself,ȱtheȱunionȱofȱaffectionȱweȱmentioned”ȱ(358;ȱvol. 34,ȱ27.2;ȱseeȱnoteȱ84).

Introduction

39

themȱdoȱgood,ȱandȱinȱturnȱtheyȱhelpȱhimȱandȱdoȱgoodȱtoȱhim.ȱForȱweȱneedȱthe helpȱofȱfriendsȱinȱleadingȱtheȱlivesȱofȱactionȱandȱofȱcontemplation”ȱ(180;ȱvol.ȱ16, 4.7).ȱ Aquinasȱdoesȱnotȱargueȱthatȱfriendsȱareȱabsolutelyȱessentialȱforȱanȱindividual’s achievementȱofȱgoodness,ȱhenceȱtheȱunificationȱwithȱGod.ȱNevertheless,ȱheȱclearly observesȱhowȱmuchȱfriendsȱcanȱhelpȱtoȱproceedȱtowardȱthatȱgoal:ȱ“Forȱweȱneed theȱhelpȱofȱfriendsȱinȱleadingȱtheȱlivesȱofȱactionȱandȱofȱcontemplation.ȱAndȱthough theȱ companionshipȱ ofȱ friendsȱ isȱ notȱ strictlyȱ necessaryȱ evenȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ toȱ the perfectȱhappinessȱofȱourȱheavenlyȱhome,ȱwhereȱaȱmanȱisȱcompletelyȱandȱwholly fulfilledȱinȱGod,ȱyetȱtheȱcompanionshipȱofȱfriendsȱenhancesȱthatȱhappiness”ȱ(180). Happinessȱisȱnot,ȱaccordingȱtoȱAquinas,ȱcontingentȱonȱfriendship,ȱbutȱtheȱsoul’s happinessȱ onceȱ itȱ hasȱ foundȱ God,ȱ “spillsȱ overȱ onȱ toȱ themȱ [friends],ȱ soȱ that friendshipȱalwaysȱaccompaniesȱourȱperfectȱhappiness”ȱ(181).ȱ Inȱ aȱ way,ȱ Aquinasȱ goesȱ evenȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ humanȱ friendship anticipatesȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod:ȱ“Justȱasȱhumanȱlawȱaimsȱprimarilyȱatȱfriendship betweenȱmen,ȱsoȱGod’sȱlawȱaimsȱprimarilyȱatȱfriendshipȱofȱmanȱforȱGod.ȱButȱlove isȱbasedȱonȱlikeness,ȱandȱtoȱloveȱGod,ȱwhoȱisȱmostȱgood,ȱmanȱmustȱbecomeȱgood himself”ȱ (296;ȱ vol.ȱ 29,ȱ 99.2).ȱ Or,ȱ inȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ terms,ȱ “Perfectȱ loveȱ loves anotherȱpersonȱforȱhisȱownȱsakeȱasȱsomeoneȱtoȱwhomȱweȱwillȱgood,ȱasȱaȱfriend; butȱimperfectȱloveȱlovesȱaȱthingȱnotȱforȱitsȱownȱsakeȱbutȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱgoodȱto ourselves,ȱasȱdesirable”ȱ(346;ȱvol.ȱ33,ȱ17.8). Ultimately,ȱhowever,ȱAquinasȱdoesȱnotȱexamineȱhumanȱfriendshipȱforȱitsȱown sake,ȱbutȱperceivesȱitȱasȱanȱavatarȱofȱGod’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱman:ȱ“WhatȱGodȱand manȱhaveȱinȱcommonȱisȱtheȱeternalȱhappinessȱheȱsharesȱwithȱus,ȱtheȱfellowshipȱof hisȱSon;ȱandȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱmanȱbasedȱonȱthisȱweȱcallȱcharity” (349;ȱvol.ȱ34,ȱ23.1).ȱFinally,ȱtoȱquoteȱAquinasȱoneȱmoreȱtime:ȱ“Soȱgreatȱcanȱbeȱour loveȱforȱaȱfriendȱthatȱforȱhisȱsakeȱweȱloveȱthoseȱconnectedȱwithȱhim,ȱevenȱthose whoȱhurtȱandȱhateȱus.ȱAndȱthisȱisȱhowȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱcharityȱextendsȱevenȱto ourȱ enemies,ȱ lovedȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ God,ȱ ourȱ chiefȱ friend”ȱ (ibid.).ȱ And:ȱ “Our friendshipȱwithȱGodȱandȱourȱfellowmenȱconsistsȱinȱlovingȱthis,ȱthatȱweȱandȱour fellowmenȱloveȱGod.ȱForȱsinceȱcharityȱisȱtheȱspiritualȱlifeȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱhappiness weȱshallȱallȱshare,ȱitȱisȱtheȱgoodȱweȱloveȱandȱdesireȱforȱallȱwhoȱareȱourȱfriendsȱin charity”ȱ(354;ȱvol.ȱ34,ȱ25.2).86

86

ForȱaȱgeneralȱintroductionȱtoȱAquinas,ȱthoughȱwithoutȱdiscussingȱhisȱnotionȱofȱfriendship,ȱsee BrianȱDavies,ȱTheȱThoughtȱofȱThomasȱAquinasȱ(1992;ȱOxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱSeeȱfurther JohnȱFrancisȱMonagle,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱAristotleȱandȱSt.ȱThomasȱAquinas:ȱItsȱRelationshipȱtoȱthe CommonȱGood,”ȱPh.D.ȱthesis,ȱSaintȱLouisȱUniversity,ȱ1973;ȱDianaȱFritzȱCates,ȱChoosingȱtoȱFeel: Virtue,ȱFriendship,ȱandȱCompassionȱforȱFriendsȱ(NotreȱDame,ȱIN:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress, 1997);ȱ Danielȱ Schwartz,ȱ Aquinasȱ onȱ Friendship.ȱ Oxfordȱ Philosophicalȱ Monographsȱ (Oxford: ClarendonȱPress,ȱ2007).ȱForȱaȱpostmodernȱperspective,ȱseeȱWilliamȱW.ȱYoung,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱPraise: NamingȱGodȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱAquinasȱandȱDerrida.ȱAshgateȱNewȱCriticalȱThinkingȱinȱReligion,

40

Introduction

H.ȱAȱVarietyȱofȱVoices:ȱOldȱandȱNew.ȱRetrospectivesȱandȱ InnovativeȱPerspectivesȱonȱFriendship.ȱ Beforeȱweȱproceed,ȱletȱusȱtakeȱstockȱofȱwhatȱweȱhaveȱobservedȱsoȱfar.ȱIntriguingly, theȱinvestigationȱofȱtheȱthemeȱofȱ‘friendship’ȱallowsȱusȱtoȱperceiveȱmostȱimportant intellectualȱandȱculturalȬhistoricalȱbridgesȱbetweenȱtheȱworldȱofȱantiquityȱandȱthe lateȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱRenaissance.ȱTheȱtrueȱfriendȱhereȱalwaysȱrepresentsȱthe “paragonȱofȱhumanȱperfectibility,ȱifȱnotȱperfectionȱitself,ȱcompatibleȱwithȱChristian ethics.”87ȱ Plato,ȱ someȱ Stoics,ȱ andȱ theȱ Epicureansȱ hadȱ assumedȱ thatȱ onlyȱ vera amicitiaȱwouldȱprovideȱsufficientȱethicalȱstrengthȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱfundamentalȱgoal ofȱallȱphilosophicalȱenterprises,ȱwisdomȱandȱhappiness.ȱAristotleȱandȱCicero,ȱon theȱotherȱhand,ȱdistinguishedȱbetweenȱordinaryȱfriendshipȱthatȱwouldȱserveȱto achieveȱutilityȱandȱpleasure,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱidealȱfriendshipȱthatȱbegins withȱ virtueȱ andȱ constitutesȱ thisȱ veryȱ virtueȱ toȱ theȱ absoluteȱ endȱ ofȱ human existence.88ȱForȱAristotleȱtheȱvirtuousȱcharacterȱconstitutesȱtheȱspringboardȱforȱtrue andȱ highlyȱ developedȱ friendship,ȱ althoughȱ thereȱ areȱ lesserȱ rankedȱ typesȱ of friendshipȱasȱwell.ȱAtȱanyȱrate,ȱ“inȱallȱthreeȱsortsȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱpartnersȱmust shareȱtheirȱprivateȱlivesȱquiteȱfrequentlyȱinȱorderȱtoȱcultivateȱtheirȱrelationship; therefore,ȱ aȱ certainȱ affabilityȱ andȱ anȱ agreeableȱ natureȱ areȱ essentialȱ toȱ the maintenanceȱofȱthatȱcondition.”89ȱ FriendshipȱwasȱgreatlyȱwelcomedȱbyȱearlyȱChristiansȱbecauseȱitȱguaranteedȱthe stabilityȱ andȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ theirȱ Christianȱ communitiesȱ andȱ protectedȱ them againstȱ theȱ temptationsȱ resultingȱ fromȱ contactsȱ withȱ pagans.90ȱ Aelredȱ also confirmedȱthisȱaspectȱasȱaȱpreconditionȱofȱaȱtrueȱfriendship,ȱbutȱlateȬmedieval writersȱ tendedȱ toȱ goȱ againstȱ suchȱ precepts,ȱ asȱ illustrated,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ byȱ the friendshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ protagonistȱ Reinfriedȱ vonȱ Braunschweigȱ (inȱ the eponymousȱlateȬthirteenthȬcenturyȱanonymousȱromanceȱinȱMiddleȱHighȱGerman, ReinfriedȱvonȱBraunschweig)ȱandȱtheȱPersianȱprinceȱwhoseȱlifeȱheȱhadȱsparedȱafter aȱdeadlyȱduelȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱtheȱcrusadersȱorȱtheȱSaracensȱwouldȱbeȱthe victorsȱandȱwhoȱsubsequentlyȱturnsȱintoȱhisȱfriendȱandȱguide.91

87

88 89 90 91

Theology,ȱandȱBiblicalȱStudiesȱ(Aldershot,ȱEngland;ȱBurlington,ȱVT:ȱAshgate,ȱ2007).ȱSurprisingly, inȱaȱgoodȱnumberȱofȱrelevantȱAquinasȱstudies,ȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱnotȱevenȱmentioned,ȱsee, forȱexample,ȱEleonoreȱStump,ȱAquinas.ȱArgumentsȱofȱtheȱPhilosophersȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork: Routledge,ȱ2003). Reginaldȱ Hyatte,ȱ Theȱ Artsȱ ofȱ Friendship:ȱ Theȱ Idealizationȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Early RenaissanceȱLiterature.ȱBrill’sȱStudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ50ȱ(Leiden,ȱNewȱYork,ȱandȱCologne: E.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1994),ȱ1. Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ5. Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ19. PeterȱBrown,ȱMakingȱofȱLateȱAntiquityȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱ64. ReinfriedȱvonȱBraunschweig,ȱed.ȱKarlȱBartschȱ(1871;ȱHildesheim,ȱZürich,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱGeorg Olms,ȱ1997);ȱcf.ȱWolfgangȱAchnitz,ȱBabylonȱundȱJerusalem:ȱSinnkonstituierungȱimȱ“Reinfriedȱvon

Introduction

41

Muchȱearlier,ȱhowever,ȱmonasticȱcommunitiesȱwereȱbasedȱonȱtheȱprincipleȱof friendshipȱamongȱChristianȱbrethren,ȱasȱoutlinedȱbyȱSt.ȱJohnȱCassianȱ(ca.ȱ365–435) inȱ hisȱ Conference,ȱ distinguishingȱ betweenȱ fraternalȱ charity,ȱ orȱ agapê,ȱ which addressedȱtheȱentireȱcommunity,ȱandȱdiathesis,ȱaȱpartial,ȱindividualizedȱfriendship. Bothȱformsȱofȱfriendshipȱundergirdedȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunityȱandȱwasȱpursued throughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.ȱInȱHyatte’sȱwords,ȱ Cassian’sȱadviceȱonȱtheȱcultivationȱofȱdiathesisȱconcentratesȱonȱnotȱgettingȱangryȱat one’sȱbrothers,ȱonȱnotȱprovokingȱothersȱtoȱanger,ȱandȱonȱassuagingȱanger.ȱTheȱpractice ofȱpatient,ȱhumbleȱsilenceȱfavorsȱdiathesis.ȱInȱhisȱguideȱonȱmonasticȱconduct,ȱCassian discouragesȱalliancesȱthat,ȱbyȱbecomingȱcliques,ȱmightȱdisturbȱcommunalȱharmony, butȱheȱisȱnotȱunfavorableȱtoȱcarefullyȱdisciplinedȱfriendshipsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱthreatenȱto resultȱinȱdissensionȱorȱfactionalism.92

Theȱfactȱbyȱitselfȱthatȱweȱcanȱmoveȱquicklyȱbackȱandȱforthȱfromȱearlyȱantiquity/late antiquityȱtoȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱbeyond,ȱinȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱobservationȱthatȱthe discourseȱonȱfriendshipȱresonatesȱthroughoutȱtheȱclericalȱandȱtheȱsecularȱliterature, especiallyȱcourtlyȱromances,ȱconfirmsȱtheȱenormousȱvalidityȱandȱimpactȱofȱthe idealȱofȱfriendshipȱonȱtheȱintellectualȱlifeȱofȱallȱeducatedȱpeopleȱinȱtheȱWestern world.93 Couldȱthereȱevenȱbeȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱrepresentativesȱofȱdifferentȱsocialȱclasses? Andȱwasȱthatȱeverȱtrulyȱdiscussed,ȱhereȱdisregardingȱAelred’sȱcommentsȱbecause heȱaddressedȱprimarilyȱaȱmonasticȱaudienceȱ(seeȱabove)?94ȱOneȱcaseȱinȱfourteenthȬ centuryȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱliteratureȱprovesȱthatȱsuchȱaȱrelationshipȱwasȱindeed regardedȱasȱaȱpossibility.ȱRuprechtȱvonȱWürzburgȱ(lateȱfourteenthȱcentury),ȱof whomȱ weȱ knowȱ almostȱ nothingȱ exceptȱ thatȱ heȱ probablyȱ originatedȱ fromȱ that Franconian,ȱtodayȱnorthȬBavarian,ȱcity,95ȱdescribesȱinȱhisȱmæreȱ(verseȱnarrative) “Vonȱzweinȱkaufman”ȱ(OfȱTwoȱMerchants)ȱhowȱmuchȱtwoȱmerchants,ȱoneȱvery richȱandȱinfluential,ȱtheȱotherȱpoorȱandȱsubservient,ȱinȱfactȱareȱbondedȱtogetherȱin

92 93 94

95

Braunschweig”ȱundȱimȱ“ApolloniusȱvonȱTyrland”ȱHeinrichsȱvonȱNeustadt.ȱHermaea.ȱGermanistische Forschungen,ȱ Neueȱ Folge,ȱ 98ȱ (Tübingen:ȱ Niemeyer,ȱ 2002),ȱ 172–84;ȱ Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ “The CrusaderȱasȱLoverȱandȱTourist:ȱUtopianȱElementsȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱGermanȱLiterature:ȱFrom HerzogȱErnstȱtoȱReinfriedȱvonȱBraunschweigȱandȱFortunatus,”ȱCurrentȱTopicsȱinȱMedievalȱGerman Literature:ȱTextsȱandȱAnalysesȱ(KalamazooȱPapersȱ2000–2006),ȱed.ȱSibylleȱJefferis.ȱGöppingerȱArbeiten zurȱGermanistik,ȱ748ȱ(Göppingen:ȱKümmerle,ȱ2008),ȱ83–102. Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ58–59ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ87). Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ77–86,ȱandȱevenȱmoreȱdetailed,ȱ87–135ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ87). Weȱwillȱlaterȱseeȱthatȱsuchȱaȱtypeȱofȱfriendshipȱamongȱsociallyȱunequalȱpeopleȱwasȱofȱasȱmuch concernȱforȱtheȱphilosopherȱandȱpoliticianȱFrancisȱBaconȱasȱforȱAelredȱhundredsȱofȱyearsȱbefore him;ȱseeȱmyȱcommentsȱaboveȱandȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱStellaȱAchilleos. HansȬJoachimȱ Ziegeler,ȱ “Ruprechtȱ vonȱ Würzburg,”ȱ Dieȱ deutscheȱ Literaturȱ desȱ Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon.ȱ2ndȱcompletelyȱrev.ȱed.ȱbyȱKurtȱRuhȱetȱal.ȱVol.ȱ8ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalter deȱGruyter,ȱ1992),ȱ418–21.

42

Introduction

closeȱandȱstrongȱfriendshipȱandȱcanȱthusȱnotȱonlyȱenjoyȱtheirȱindividualȱlives,ȱbut exertȱ utmostȱ controlȱ overȱ theȱ entireȱ urbanȱ community.96ȱ Asȱ theȱ narrator comments:ȱ“Bothȱfeltȱgreatȱlikingȱforȱtheȱother,ȱwithȱuprightȱandȱsteadyȱhearts. Constantȱ friendshipȱ fullyȱ ruledȱ inȱ theirȱ hearts.ȱ Theyȱ pursuedȱ thisȱ virtuous relationshipȱforȱaȱlongȱtime.ȱEachȱofȱthemȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱreadyȱtoȱriskȱforȱthe otherȱtheirȱlife,ȱtheirȱproperty,ȱhonor,ȱandȱfamily”ȱ(44).ȱ Theȱclearestȱexpressionȱofȱthisȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱrichȱman’sȱdecisionȱtoȱmarry offȱhisȱdaughterȱtoȱtheȱpoorȱman’sȱson,ȱalthoughȱhisȱwifeȱatȱfirstȱvoicesȱstrong oppositionȱsinceȱsheȱhadȱdreamedȱofȱherȱdaughterȱfindingȱaȱwealthyȱdukeȱorȱeven princeȱforȱherȱhusband.ȱButȱasȱtheȱnarratorȱunderscores,ȱfriendshipȱoverrulesȱall materialȱandȱpoliticalȱgoalsȱpursuedȱbyȱtheȱwife:ȱ“SirȱGillotȱthoughtȱmuchȱabout howȱtoȱguaranteeȱthatȱheȱwouldȱhonorȱGillamȱwithȱsoȱmuchȱfriendshipȱthatȱtheir bondȱofȱloyaltyȱwould,ȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱstrength,ȱneverȱcomeȱapart.ȱHeȱbelievedȱthat itȱwouldȱgiveȱfullȱconfidenceȱtoȱtheȱentireȱcityȱwhenȱthereȱwouldȱbeȱnoȱconflict anywhereȱifȱtheirȱtwoȱchildrenȱwouldȱmarry”ȱ(44).ȱ WhenȱGillotȱproposesȱtoȱhisȱfriendȱthatȱtheirȱchildrenȱmarry,ȱGillamȱresponds inȱaȱveryȱsubservientȱmanner,ȱappealingȱtoȱGillotȱnotȱtoȱmockȱhim,ȱusingȱlanguage asȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ notȱ friends,ȱ butȱ onlyȱ bondedȱ togetherȱ throughȱ aȱ lordȬservant relationship:ȱ“Lord,ȱpleaseȱdoȱnotȱdoȱthatȱtoȱme;ȱwhyȱdoȱyouȱmockȱme,ȱaȱpoor man”ȱ (45).ȱ Then,ȱ however,ȱ theyȱ reachȱ anȱ agreementȱ andȱ reconfirmȱ their friendship.ȱTheȱloveȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱtwoȱyoungȱpeopleȱwhoȱareȱsubsequently allowedȱtoȱmarryȱisȱthusȱframedȱbyȱanȱevenȱmoreȱimportantȱrelationship,ȱthatȱof twoȱfriends.ȱSure,ȱthereȱareȱnoȱfurtherȱreferencesȱtoȱtheseȱtwoȱmenȱinȱtheȱparent generation,ȱbutȱtheȱnarrativeȱisȱcertainlyȱpredicatedȱonȱthatȱideal. Indeed,ȱwhereverȱweȱturn,ȱlateȬmedievalȱverseȱnarrativesȱconfirmȱhowȱmuch friendsȱstandȱbyȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱprotagonist,ȱwhoȱturnsȱtoȱthemȱforȱadviceȱand help.ȱ Aȱ smallȱ butȱ usefulȱ exampleȱ canȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ theȱ anonymousȱ “Theȱ Little BunnyȱRabbit”ȱ(ca.ȱ1300)ȱwhereȱaȱhighlyȱconfusedȱbridegroomȱsuddenlyȱrealizes justȱbeforeȱtheȱweddingȱthatȱhisȱfiancéeȱisȱcompletelyȱlackingȱinȱmoralsȱandȱcannot beȱtrusted,ȱwhereasȱaȱyoungȱpeasantȱmaid,ȱwhomȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱsexuallyȱabused before,ȱcommittingȱwhatȱweȱwouldȱcallȱtodayȱ‘statutoryȱrape,’ȱsuddenlyȱseemsȱto beȱtheȱperfectȱmatchȱwhenȱsheȱappearsȱatȱtheȱfestivitiesȱuponȱhisȱinvitation.ȱ Inȱorderȱtoȱmakeȱaȱgoodȱdecisionȱinȱthisȱaporia,ȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱturnsȱtoȱhis friends:ȱ“heȱhastilyȱaskedȱhisȱfriendsȱwhoȱwereȱthereȱtoȱtellȱhim,ȱinȱtheȱspiritȱof

96

VomȱGroßenȱLöwenhofȱzurȱUniversität:ȱWürzburgȱundȱdieȱdeutscheȱLiteraturȱimȱSpätmittelalter,ȱed. HorstȱBrunnerȱandȱHansȬGünterȱSchmidtȱ(Wiesbaden:ȱDr.ȱLudwigȱReichertȱVerlag,ȱ2002),ȱ52–53. ForȱanȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱEroticȱTalesȱofȱMedievalȱGermany.ȱSelectedȱandȱtrans.ȱbyȱAlbrecht Classen,ȱwithȱaȱcontributionȱbyȱMauriceȱSprague.ȱAndȱwithȱanȱeditionȱofȱFrobenȱChristophȱvon Zimmern’sȱ“DerȱenttäuschteȱLiebhaber.”ȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱTextsȱandȱStudies,ȱ328.ȱ2nd ed.ȱrev.ȱandȱexpandedȱ(2007;ȱTempe:ȱArizonaȱCenterȱforȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱStudies,ȱ2009), 43–53.

Introduction

43

friendship,ȱ whichȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ theyȱ wouldȱ unanimouslyȱ approveȱ of,ȱ soȱ thatȱ he wouldȱtakeȱherȱasȱaȱwife.ȱTheyȱthenȱadvised,ȱwithȱaȱunifiedȱvoice,ȱthatȱheȱshould rightlyȱmarryȱtheȱyoungȱbeautyȱwithȱtheȱbunnyȱrabbit,ȱifȱheȱwantedȱtoȱpursue whatȱwasȱcorrectȱandȱhonorable.”97ȱ Friendshipȱ hereȱ isȱ recognizedȱ asȱ aȱ spiritualȱ idealȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ practicalȱ social institutionȱuponȱwhichȱtheȱindividualȱcanȱrely.ȱTheseȱfriendsȱdoȱnotȱconsiderȱwhat wouldȱbeȱsociallyȱandȱpoliticallyȱappropriateȱandȱconvenientȱinȱthisȱsituation,ȱif notȱ advantageousȱ forȱ themȱ inȱ monetaryȱ terms;ȱ insteadȱ theyȱ understandȱ the knight’sȱmoralȱdilemmaȱandȱinnerȱturmoil,ȱbeingȱdeeplyȱupsetȱabout,ȱonȱtheȱone hand,ȱhisȱownȱpreviousȱsexualȱaffairȱwithȱtheȱyoungȱwoman,ȱandȱonȱtheȱother becauseȱofȱtheȱfiancée’sȱhorribleȱthoughȱunintendedȱconfessionȱofȱhavingȱslept manyȱtimesȱwithȱaȱpriestȱwithoutȱherȱmotherȱhavingȱeverȱfoundȱout.ȱTheyȱdesire theȱ bestȱ forȱ theirȱ friendȱ andȱ provideȱ himȱ withȱ theȱ ratherȱ unexpectedȱ council, whichȱ suddenlyȱ joinsȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ theȱ villageȱ maidȱ andȱ theȱ young knight—certainlyȱaȱmostȱunrealisticȱoutcome.ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱbriefȱreferenceȱto theȱfriendsȱandȱtheirȱdirectȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱdecisionȬmakingȱprocessȱreveals howȱmuchȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱfriendshipȱtrulyȱmatteredȱinȱsocial,ȱethical,ȱandȱmoral terms.98 Theȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱmerchantsȱfindsȱanȱexcellentȱparallelȱinȱthe friendshipȱbetweenȱtwoȱcitizensȱinȱtheȱkingdomȱofȱBabylonȱwhereȱyoungȱFlôreȱin Konradȱ Fleck’sȱ sentimentalȱ verseȱ romanceȱ Flôreȱ undȱ Blanscheflûrȱ (ca.ȱ 1220)ȱ in MiddleȱHighȱGermanȱsearchesȱforȱhisȱbelovedȱwhomȱhisȱparentsȱhadȱsoldȱinto slavery.ȱWhenȱheȱisȱalreadyȱcloseȱtoȱhisȱgoal,ȱheȱinquiresȱwithȱhisȱhostȱwhetherȱhe couldȱrecommendȱanotherȱinnȬkeeperȱinȱtheȱroyalȱcityȱwhere,ȱasȱheȱknowsȱbyȱthen, hisȱbelovedȱBlanscheflûrȱisȱkeptȱasȱaȱprisoner,ȱorȱ‘property,’ȱbyȱtheȱAdmiral,ȱor Sultan,ȱofȱBabylon.ȱTheȱhostȱimmediatelyȱpoursȱoutȱtheȱgreatȱloveȱandȱrespectȱhe hasȱ forȱ hisȱ friendȱ inȱ thatȱ city:ȱ “erȱ istȱ mînȱ friuntȱ derȱ beste;ȱ /ȱ derȱ wirtȱ iuchȱ wol enthalten.ȱ/ȱvonȱsinnenȱmanicvaltenȱ/ȱerȱistȱwîtenȱmære.ȱ/ȱezȱenistȱkeinȱdincȱsô swære,ȱ/ȱdazȱirȱzeȱschaffendeȱhântȱ/ȱobȱirzȱanȱsîneȱtriuweȱlânt,ȱ/ȱerȱrâtȱiuȱwolȱnâch êren”ȱ(3608–15;ȱheȱisȱmyȱbestȱfriend;ȱheȱwillȱtakeȱgoodȱcareȱofȱyou.ȱHeȱisȱwidely knownȱforȱhisȱmanyȱvirtues.ȱThereȱisȱnothingȱsoȱdifficultȱwhichȱyouȱmightȱhave toȱdoȱthatȱheȱcouldȱnotȱgiveȱyou,ȱifȱyouȱentrustȱitȱtoȱhisȱloyalty,ȱhisȱhonorable advice).99ȱ

97 98

99

SeeȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱinȱmyȱEroticȱTales,ȱ2009,ȱno.ȱ5,ȱ41ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ96). AlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“EroticȱSymbolism,ȱLaughter,ȱandȱHermeneuticsȱatȱWorkȱinȱLateȬMedieval Mœren:ȱTheȱCaseȱofȱDasȱHäslein,”MedievaliaȱetȱHumanistica:ȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissance Cultureȱ34ȱ(2008):ȱ87–104. KonradȱFleck,ȱFloreȱundȱBlanscheflur:ȱEineȱErzählung,ȱed.ȱEmilȱSommer.ȱBibliothekȱderȱgesammten deutschenȱ NationalȬLiteraturȱ vonȱ derȱ ältestenȱ bisȱ aufȱ dieȱ neuereȱ Zeit,ȱ 12ȱ (Quedlinburgȱ and Leipzig:ȱGottfriedȱBasse,ȱ1846).ȱInterestingly,ȱtheȱsameȱsceneȱfindsȱmuchȱlessȱinterestȱbyȱtheȱolder Frenchȱpoetȱofȱtheȱsameȱstory,ȱTheȱRomanceȱofȱFloireȱandȱBlanchefleur:ȱAȱFrenchȱIdyllicȱPoemȱofȱthe

44

Introduction

Atȱ theȱ veryȱ endȱ whenȱ allȱ dangersȱ areȱ overȱ andȱ theȱ despoticȱ Admiralȱ has suddenlyȱbeenȱtransformedȱintoȱaȱbenevolent,ȱmagnanimous,ȱandȱsympathetic rulerȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱamazingȱdemonstrationȱofȱloveȱandȱdedicationȱbyȱtheȱtwo youngȱpeopleȱjustȱwhenȱtheyȱwereȱsupposedȱtoȱbeȱexecuted,ȱFlôreȱappealsȱtoȱhim askingȱforȱBlancheflûr’sȱhandȱandȱtheȱAdmiral’sȱsupport.ȱEveryoneȱatȱcourtȱhas alreadyȱexpressedȱtheirȱsympathyȱforȱtheȱyoungȱprotagonistȱwhenȱheȱhadȱtold themȱaboutȱhisȱadventuresȱandȱhowȱheȱhadȱmanagedȱtoȱsubterfugeȱhisȱwayȱinto theȱtowerȱwhereȱBlancheflûrȱhadȱbeenȱkeptȱasȱaȱprisoner,ȱorȱfutureȱbrideȱforȱthe Admiral.ȱFlôreȱexplicitlyȱresortsȱnowȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ‘friend’ȱwhenȱheȱaddressesȱthe ruler:ȱ“irȱsintȱmînȱfriuntȱnûȱverre”ȱ(7456;ȱyouȱareȱnowȱmyȱbestȱfriend).ȱAlthough theȱAdmiralȱdoesȱnotȱrespondȱquiteȱinȱkind,ȱheȱcertainlyȱbehavesȱasȱaȱfatherly friend,ȱknightingȱFlôreȱandȱtreatingȱhimȱmostȱgenerouslyȱinȱtheȱwayȱthatȱonlyȱa trueȱfriendȱwouldȱdo,ȱalthoughȱheȱhadȱrobbedȱhimȱofȱtheȱoneȱwomanȱwhomȱhe hadȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱhisȱownȱwife.ȱInȱtheȱOldȱFrenchȱversion,ȱhowever,ȱweȱhear: “Heȱ tookȱ Floireȱ byȱ theȱ handȱ andȱ placedȱ himȱ /ȱ Byȱ hisȱ ownȱ side,ȱ kissedȱ and embracedȱ him,ȱ /ȱ Showingȱ himȱ friendshipȱ andȱ compassionȱ /ȱ Andȱ treating Blanchefleurȱinȱlikeȱfashion”ȱ(2864–67).ȱAsȱFleckȱsignalsȱinȱhisȱromance,ȱandȱasȱthe manyȱotherȱEuropeanȱadaptorsȱandȱtranslatorsȱofȱtheȱsameȱtextȱindicatedȱinȱa varietyȱofȱways,ȱtheȱgreatestȱheterosexualȱrelationshipȱisȱeasilyȱcomplementedȱby aȱ profoundȱ homosocialȱ one,ȱ andȱ thisȱ despite,ȱ orȱ perhapsȱ justȱ becauseȱ ofȱ the generationalȱ difference.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ whenȱ courtly,ȱ thenȱ evenȱ marital,ȱ love

TwelfthȱCentury,ȱtrans.ȱintoȱEnglishȱVerseȱbyȱMertonȱJeromeȱHubert.ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolina StudiesȱinȱtheȱRomanceȱLanguagesȱandȱLiteratures,ȱ63ȱ(ChapelȱHill:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱNorth CarolinaȱPress,ȱ1966),ȱ1376–80:ȱ“Heȱisȱmyȱfriendȱandȱmyȱconfrère.ȱ/ȱInȱBabylonȱheȱholdsȱhigh station:ȱ/ȱHouse,ȱtower,ȱwealth,ȱfineȱsituation.ȱ/ȱHeȱisȱmyȱassociateȱinȱtheseȱ/ȱTwoȱcrossings,ȱand weȱshareȱtheȱfees.”ȱSeeȱalsoȱPatriciaȱE.ȱGrieve,ȱFloireȱandȱBlancheflorȱandȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomance. CambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱLiteratureȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱoffers aȱgreatȱpanȬEuropeanȱperspective,ȱbutȱsheȱdoesȱnotȱexamineȱtheȱsubtleȱyetȱsoȱimportantȱfriendship motifȱasȱitȱsuddenlyȱemergesȱinȱFleck’sȱtext.ȱJuttaȱEming,ȱEmotionȱundȱExpression:ȱUntersuchungen ziȱdeitscjemȱimdȱframzösischenȱLiebesȬȱundȱAbenteuerromanenȱdesȱ12.ȱbisȱ16.ȱJahrhunderts.ȱQuellenȱund ForschungenȱzurȱLiteraturȬȱundȱKulturgeschichte,ȱ39ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter, 2006),ȱ122–68,ȱdiscussesȱtheȱaspectsȱofȱaffectionȱandȱemotionalȱattachments,ȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱexamine theȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱsuch.ȱSheȱuses,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱusefulȱtermȱ“EmotionaleȱAffizierungȱals Kulturtransformation”ȱinȱherȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱimpactȱtheȱloveȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱyoungȱpeopleȱforȱeach otherȱhasȱonȱtheȱOrientalȱruler.ȱEmingȱrecognizesȱanȱimportantȱrecodificationȱofȱtheȱemotional configurationȱatȱtheȱAdmiral’sȱcourt,ȱthoughȱsheȱalsoȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱlatterȱdoesȱnotȱfullyȱgraspȱthe idealismȱbehindȱtheȱtwoȱyoungȱpeople’sȱpassionateȱloveȱforȱeachȱother.ȱInstead,ȱheȱisȱprimarily aȱsensualȱpersonȱmostlyȱinterestedȱinȱphysicalȱpleasuresȱ(164).ȱButȱEmingȱmisreadsȱthisȱpassage toȱsomeȱextentȱbecauseȱtheȱAdmiralȱhadȱfreedȱtheȱtwoȱyoungȱpeopleȱoutȱofȱpity,ȱandȱheȱhad displayedȱ aȱ radicalȱ changeȱ ofȱ heartȱ preciselyȱ becauseȱ heȱ wantsȱ toȱ beȱ theirȱ friend.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ a strikingȱparallelȱbetweenȱthisȱlateȬmedievalȱmotifȱandȱtheȱoneȱutilizedȱbyȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱinȱhis balladȱdiscussedȱabove.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱthereȱisȱaȱcertainȱdegreeȱofȱOrientalizationȱatȱplayȱbothȱhere andȱthere,ȱbutȱFleckȱcertainlyȱprojectsȱanȱOrientalȱrulerȱwhoȱhasȱtheȱcapacityȱtoȱperceiveȱtheȱsigns ofȱtrueȱloveȱandȱtoȱgrantȱtheȱloversȱtheirȱownȱspaceȱandȱhenceȱtheirȱfreedom.ȱ

Introduction

45

assumesȱcenterȱpositionȱinȱaȱromance,ȱthenȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱeasilyȱemerges asȱalmostȱequallyȱimportant.ȱ Theȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendshipȱhadȱalmostȱbecomeȱaȱtropeȱof universalȱvalueȱinȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAgesȱfindsȱitsȱconfirmationȱinȱtheȱmæreȱ“The SearchȱforȱtheȱHappilyȱMarriedȱCouple”ȱbyȱHeinrichȱKaufringerȱ(ca.ȱ1400ȱorȱaȱlittle earlier).ȱTheȱconflictȱdescribedȱhereȱpertainsȱtoȱmaritalȱproblemsȱinsofarȱasȱthe protagonistȱhusbandȱleadsȱaȱtooȱgenerousȱlifeȬstyle,ȱwhichȱsheȱcriticizesȱasȱtoo muchȱasȱaȱspendthriftȱattitude,ȱwhileȱhisȱwifeȱtriesȱhardȱtoȱbeȱfrugal,ȱwhichȱhe perceivesȱ asȱ miserliness.ȱ Afterȱ muchȱ searchingȱ farȱ andȱ wide,ȱ however,ȱ the husbandȱhasȱtoȱrealizeȱthatȱhisȱwife’sȱallegedȱshortcomingȱwouldȱbeȱonlyȱaȱminor infraction,ȱcomparedȱtoȱtheȱrealȱproblemsȱofȱadulteryȱandȱnymphomaniaȱwhich otherȱhusbandsȱexperience.100ȱAsideȱfromȱtheseȱponderousȱissues,ȱthereȱareȱalso briefȱbutȱrevealingȱreferencesȱtoȱfriendship.ȱTheȱhusbandȱenjoysȱtheȱcompanyȱof hisȱfriendsȱandȱwelcomesȱthemȱmanyȱtimesȱatȱhome,ȱobviouslyȱwithoutȱtheȱwife’s approval:ȱ“Hisȱheartȱwasȱfilledȱwithȱgreatȱjoyȱwhenȱhisȱgoodȱfriendsȱvisitedȱhim atȱhome.ȱHeȱlikedȱitȱveryȱmuchȱtoȱhaveȱthemȱwithȱhimȱsinceȱheȱdidȱnotȱenjoy missingȱtheirȱcompanyȱ(101).ȱHowever,ȱwhenȱheȱbeginsȱtoȱrealizeȱtheȱconsiderable disagreementȱ withȱ hisȱ wife,ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ consultȱ withȱ hisȱ friends;ȱ insteadȱ he ruminatesȱallȱbyȱhimselfȱoverȱwhatȱtoȱdoȱaboutȱthatȱsituation,ȱandȱhowȱheȱmight findȱaȱcorrectiveȱmodelȱsomewhereȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱ Subsequentlyȱheȱleaves,ȱaccompaniedȱonlyȱbyȱaȱservant,ȱhenceȱnotȱbyȱanyȱofȱhis friendsȱ (102).ȱ Twiceȱ onȱ hisȱ longȱ journeyȱ heȱ believesȱ toȱ haveȱ foundȱ theȱ truly happilyȱ marriedȱ couple,ȱ butȱ eachȱ timeȱ theȱ otherȱ husbandȱ provesȱ himȱ utterly wrong,ȱrevealingȱtheȱcouple’sȱprivateȱshameȱandȱdishonor.ȱButȱthereȱisȱaȱkindȱof friendshipȱbetweenȱtheȱmen.ȱTheȱfirstȱburgherȱinȱtheȱforeignȱcityȱwithȱwhomȱhe staysȱ forȱ aboutȱ halfȱ aȱ yearȱ finallyȱ pleadsȱ withȱ himȱ toȱ revealȱ whatȱ hisȱ true intentionsȱduringȱhisȱstayȱmightȱhaveȱbeen,ȱusingȱmostȱpoliteȱlanguage,ȱdirectly borrowedȱfromȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“‘Iȱbegȱyou,ȱmyȱdearȱsir,ȱandȱconsider itȱasȱjustȱaȱfriendlyȱgesture,ȱthatȱyouȱletȱmeȱknowȱwhatȱyourȱbusinessȱhasȱbeen hereȱ.ȱ.ȱ.’”ȱ(103).ȱOnceȱtheȱtruthȱhasȱbeenȱrevealed,ȱtheȱhostȱasksȱtheȱtravelerȱtoȱstay oneȱ moreȱ day,ȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ whichȱ heȱ admitsȱ toȱ theȱ latterȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱ his 100

TheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱisȱalsoȱcontainedȱinȱmyȱEroticȱTales,ȱ2009,ȱno.ȱ16,ȱ101–07ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ96).ȱFor furtherȱdiscussions,ȱseeȱMichaelaȱWillers,ȱHeinrichȱKaufringerȱalsȱMärenautor:ȱdasȱŒuvreȱdesȱcgm 270ȱ(Berlin:ȱLogosȬVerlag,ȱ2002);ȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“Mord,ȱTotschlagȱ,ȱVergewaltigung,ȱUnterȬ drückungȱundȱSexualität.ȱLiebeȱundȱGewaltȱinȱderȱWeltȱvonȱHeinrichȱKaufringer,”ȱDaphnisȱ29.1–2 (2000):ȱ3–36;ȱMarieȬSophieȱMasse,ȱ“MariageȱetȱadultèreȱdansȱlesȱMaerenȱdeȱHeinrichȱKaufringer,” Sex,ȱLoveȱandȱMarriageȱinȱMedievalȱLiteratureȱandȱReality:ȱthematischeȱBeiträgeȱimȱRahmenȱdesȱ31th InternationalȱCongressȱonȱMedievalȱStudiesȱanȱderȱWesternȱMichiganȱUniversityȱ(KalamazooȬUSA),ȱ8. Ȭȱ12.ȱMaiȱ1996.ȱWodan,ȱ69ȱ(Greifswald:ȱReinkeȬVerlag,ȱ1996),ȱ47–52;ȱMargaȱStede,ȱSchreibenȱinȱder Krise:ȱdieȱTexteȱdesȱHeinrichȱKaufringer.ȱLiteratur,ȱImagination,ȱRealität,ȱ5ȱ(Trier:ȱWissenschaftlicher VerlagȱTrier,ȱ1993).ȱ

46

Introduction

miserableȱmarriage,ȱsinceȱhisȱwifeȱhadȱcommittedȱadulteryȱonceȱwithȱaȱpriest, whomȱherȱhusbandȱsubsequentlyȱkilledȱandȱfromȱwhoseȱbodyȱheȱhadȱtakenȱthe skull.ȱHisȱwifeȱhas,ȱfromȱthenȱonȱwithoutȱfail,ȱtoȱdrinkȱwineȱeveryȱnightȱfromȱthis macabreȱvesselȱasȱaȱritualȱofȱpenanceȱforȱtheȱrestȱofȱherȱlife.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱshowȱhis guestȱtheȱfullȱdiscrepancyȱbetweenȱhisȱwife’sȱdisplayȱofȱhappinessȱandȱherȱtrue shame,ȱheȱorganizesȱaȱbigȱfestival:ȱ“Theȱhostȱinvitedȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱenjoyedȱgreat festivitiesȱwithȱthem”ȱ(103).ȱThereȱareȱnoȱfurtherȱdiscussionsȱaboutȱtheseȱfriends, butȱweȱrealizeȱtheȱparallelsȱinȱtheȱlivesȱofȱbothȱmen.ȱBothȱareȱwealthyȱcityȱdwellers andȱareȱsurrounded,ȱsoȱitȱseems,ȱbyȱmanyȱfriends.ȱNevertheless,ȱdespiteȱthese circlesȱofȱfriendship,ȱneitherȱisȱtrulyȱhappyȱbecauseȱtheirȱmarriagesȱareȱinȱbad shapeȱandȱnoneȱofȱtheȱfriendsȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱtrustworthyȱandȱconfidentȱenoughȱto provideȱadviceȱandȱcouncil.ȱ Theȱsecondȱseeminglyȱhappyȱmarriageȱinȱanotherȱcityȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱevenȱmore inȱcompleteȱdisarrayȱonceȱtheȱhusbandȱhasȱrevealedȱhisȱtrueȱtrouble.ȱHisȱwifeȱis drivenȱbyȱanȱuncontrollableȱsexȱdriveȱandȱhadȱsleptȱwithȱeveryȱmanȱnearbyȱshe couldȱgetȱholdȱof.ȱFinally,ȱherȱhusbandȱresolvedȱtoȱhandleȱtheȱmatterȱprivately, kidnappedȱaȱstrongȱpeasant,ȱandȱenslavedȱhimȱbyȱchainingȱhimȱtoȱtheȱwallsȱdeep downȱinȱhisȱcellarȱwhereȱfromȱthenȱonȱhisȱwifeȱcanȱreceiveȱallȱherȱnecessaryȱsexual satisfactionȱwithȱtheȱpeasant.ȱInȱpublicȱtheȱmarriageȱlooksȱsoundȱandȱsolid,ȱbutȱin private,ȱasȱtheȱhusbandȱdemonstrates,ȱheȱhimselfȱisȱimpotentȱandȱhasȱtoȱraiseȱsix childrenȱthatȱhisȱwifeȱhadȱconceivedȱwithȱtheȱpeasantȱ(106).ȱ Interestinglyȱforȱourȱpurposes,ȱtheȱhusbandȱfoundȱhelpȱamongȱhisȱfriendsȱto carryȱoutȱaȱdeviousȱplanȱtoȱcopeȱwithȱhisȱwife’sȱalmostȱperverseȱsexualȱneeds: “Withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ myȱ friendsȱ andȱ servantsȱ Iȱ forcefullyȱ kidnappedȱ himȱ [the peasant]”ȱ(106).ȱInȱorderȱtoȱpreserveȱhisȱhonorȱandȱthatȱofȱhisȱentireȱhouse,ȱthe presenceȱofȱtheȱpeasantȱhasȱtoȱstayȱaȱtotalȱsecret,ȱandȱapparentlyȱallȱhisȱhelpers, friendsȱandȱservantsȱalike,ȱhaveȱkeptȱtheirȱpromise,ȱthusȱupholdingȱtheȱscreenȱof decencyȱandȱrespect.ȱ Havingȱlearnedȱhisȱlessonȱfromȱtheseȱtwoȱexamples,ȱtheȱfirstȱhusbandȱreturns homeȱandȱfromȱthenȱonȱacceptsȱhisȱwifeȱasȱsheȱis.ȱHeȱcontinuesȱtoȱbeȱgenerous withȱhisȱfriendsȱ(107),ȱbutȱpatientlyȱenduresȱherȱchiding,ȱobviouslyȱreducingȱon hisȱownȱtheȱcontactsȱandȱfestivitiesȱwithȱhisȱfriends,ȱwithoutȱrejectingȱthemȱinȱturn. Asȱfleetingȱasȱtheseȱreferencesȱtoȱfriendshipȱmightȱbe,ȱtheyȱindicateȱhowȱmuch lateȬmedievalȱurbanȱlifeȱwasȱdeeplyȱdeterminedȱbyȱmuchȱhomosocialȱbondingȱand numerousȱsocialȱgatherings,ȱinȱshort,ȱfriendship.101

101

ForȱaȱsocialȬhistoricalȱapproachȱtoȱthisȱtopic,ȱnowȱseeȱKerstinȱSeidel,ȱFreundeȱundȱVerwandte:ȱsoziale BeziehungenȱinȱeinerȱspätmittelalterlichenȱStadt.ȱCampusȱhistorischeȱStudien,ȱ49ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.ȱand NewȱYork:ȱCampusȬVerlag,ȱ2009).

Introduction

47

I.ȱFriendshipȱandȱWomen: StillȱaȱSomewhatȱUncharteredȱTerritory Weȱmightȱalsoȱwantȱto,ȱorȱratherȱshould,ȱincludeȱreferencesȱtoȱfriendshipȱamong women,ȱ andȱ someȱ courtlyȱ romancesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Oldȱ Frenchȱ Escoufleȱ provide supportȱ forȱ thisȱ claim,ȱ withoutȱ usȱ facingȱ anyȱ needȱ toȱ fallȱ intoȱ theȱ usual postmodernȱ trapȱ ofȱ suspectingȱ aȱ typeȱ ofȱ lesbianismȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ workȱ here.102 Nevertheless,ȱthatȱtopicȱbyȱitselfȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱinvestigatedȱsufficiently,ȱneither withȱrespectȱtoȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱpastȱnorȱregardingȱtheȱsituationȱinȱthe modernȱworld.ȱAccordingȱtoȱPatȱO’Connorȱthereȱareȱthreeȱreasonsȱwhichȱmight beȱresponsibleȱforȱthisȱdearthȱofȱcriticalȱstudies,ȱ1.ȱtheȱlackȱofȱsignificantȱliteraryȱor historicalȱdocumentsȱconfirmingȱsuchȱfemaleȱfriendships;ȱ2.ȱtheȱgeneralȱtendency byȱ sociologistsȱ andȱ scholarsȱ inȱ neighboringȱ disciplinesȱ toȱ focusȱ moreȱ on institutionalȱrealitiesȱthanȱonȱprivateȱandȱintimateȱrelationships;ȱ3.ȱ“anyȱserious attemptȱ atȱ theorisingȱ women’sȱ friendshipȱ hasȱ beenȱ threatenedȱ byȱ theȱ popular habitȱ ofȱ trivializingȱ andȱ derogatingȱ women’sȱ friendshipȱ byȱ comparingȱ them negativelyȱwithȱheterosexualȱbonds.”103ȱHowever,ȱasȱrecentȱdiscussionsȱaboutȱthis aspectȱhaveȱrevealed,ȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱwomenȱcanȱbeȱaȱsourceȱofȱpowerȱand agency,ȱandȱmightȱevenȱserveȱasȱaȱ“siteȱofȱresistance.”104ȱByȱtheȱsameȱtoken,ȱas femaleȱscholarsȱhaveȱalertedȱus,ȱthereȱisȱaȱcertainȱdangerȱforȱwomenȱwhenȱthey turnȱtowardȱfriendshipȱbecauseȱitȱcouldȱbeȱthatȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱ“hinderȱwomen fromȱestablishingȱandȱvalidatingȱthemselvesȱasȱindividuals.”105ȱAsȱfarȱasȱweȱcan tellȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱforȱwomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱearlyȱmodern time,ȱtheoreticiansȱonȱfriendshipȱvirtuallyȱignoredȱfemaleȱinterestsȱandȱprobedȱthe ethicalȱimplicationsȱvirtuallyȱonlyȱforȱmen.106ȱInȱmyȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱindividual

102

103

104

105 106

SaharȱAmer,ȱCrossingȱBorders:ȱLoveȱBetweenȱWomenȱinȱMedievalȱFrenchȱandȱArabicȱLiterature.ȱThe MiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ2008),ȱ104–20. Patȱ O’Connor,ȱ Friendshipȱ Betweenȱ Women:ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Reviewȱ (Hemelȱ Hempstead:ȱ Harvester Wheatsheaf,ȱ1992),ȱ1. “Introduction”ȱtoȱCelebratingȱWomen’sȱFriendship:ȱPast,ȱPresentȱandȱFuture,ȱed.ȱRuthȱA.ȱSymer,ȱAnn Koloski,ȱandȱHeloiseȱBrownȱ(NewȱYork:ȱRawȱNerveȱBooks,ȱ1999),ȱ8. Symer,ȱKoloski,ȱandȱBrown,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱ15ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ104). Evenȱpostmodernȱtheoryȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱmetȱtheȱchallengeȱsinceȱ“currentȱmodelsȱand theoriesȱareȱinadequateȱinȱfullyȱunderstandingȱwomen’sȱfriendships,”ȱasȱKatherineȱSide,ȱ“Making andȱBreakingȱWomen’sȱFriendshipsȱinȱFeministȱTheory,”ȱCelebratingȱWomen’sȱFriendship,ȱ57–77; hereȱ69ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ104).ȱSeeȱalsoȱEntdeckungȱderȱFreundschaft:ȱvonȱPhiliaȱbisȱFacebook:ȱseinerȱEminenz ChristophȱKardinalȱSchönbornȱzumȱ65.ȱGeburtstagȱgewidmet,ȱed.ȱGudrunȱKuglerȱandȱDenisȱBorel (Freiburgȱi.ȱBr.,ȱBasel,ȱandȱVienna:ȱHerder,ȱ2010).ȱForȱtheȱfriendshipsȱbetweenȱAugustinȱ and women,ȱ seeȱ Dagmarȱ Kiesel,ȱ Liebenȱ imȱ Irdischen:ȱ Freundschaft,ȱ Frauenȱ undȱ Familieȱ beiȱ Augustin. Symposion,ȱ130ȱ(Freiburgȱi.ȱBr.ȱandȱMunich:ȱAlber,ȱ2008);ȱRosalindȱK.ȱMarshal,ȱQueenȱMary’s Women:ȱFemaleȱRelatives,ȱServants,ȱFriendsȱandȱEnemiesȱofȱMary,ȱQueenȱofȱScotsȱ(Edinburgh:ȱDonald, 2006);ȱforȱfemaleȱfriendshipsȱsinceȱtheȱEnlightenment,ȱseeȱMarthaȱVicinus,ȱIntimateȱFriends:ȱWomen WhoȱLovedȱWomen,ȱ1778Ȭ1928ȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004).

48

Introduction

contributionsȱtoȱthisȱvolume,ȱespeciallyȱinȱlightȱofȱSaraȱȱDeutchȱSchotland’sȱarticle, IȱwillȱreturnȱtoȱthisȱissueȱandȱexamineȱitȱfirstȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱsomeȱsignificantȱtenthȬ andȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ examples,ȱ beforeȱ Iȱ willȱ reflectȱ uponȱ Schotland’sȱ findings. MarilynȱSandidgeȱwillȱthenȱaddȱanȱextensiveȱdiscussionȱdrawingȱonȱaȱrangeȱof lateȬmedievalȱandȱearlyȬmodernȱsources.

J.ȱTheȱHomosocialȱvs.ȱtheȱHomoerotic BothȱinȱAelred’sȱtreatiseȱandȱinȱcountlessȱvernacularȱtextsȱfromȱcourtlyȱliterature, friendshipȱ emergesȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ spiritualizedȱ erosȱ embracingȱ virtuousȱ men specifically,ȱanȱintellectualȱaffectionȱthatȱbringsȱtogetherȱlikeȬmindedȱmalesȱand doesȱnotȱfocusȱonȱtheȱbodyȱatȱall;ȱhenceȱitȱisȱnotȱdeterminedȱbyȱphysicalȱlove,ȱor homosexuality.ȱAsȱRobertoȱJ.ȱGonzálezȬCasanovasȱobserves,ȱ“Asȱaȱcomplement toȱfamilialȱandȱconjugalȱties,ȱmaleȱfriendshipȱisȱoftenȱdepictedȱasȱtransitionȱand counterȬweightȱtoȱcollectiveȱallegiances;ȱitȱcanȱalsoȱserveȱasȱaȱchannelȱforȱsameȬsex affectionsȱ thatȱ areȱ seenȱ asȱ bothȱ essentialȱ toȱ properȱ genderȱ developmentȱ and vulnerableȱtoȱhomoeroticȱattachments.ȱ Despiteȱitsȱambiguities,ȱitȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱaȱcentralȱcategoryȱofȱhumanȱrelationsȱand virtuesȱinȱtheȱimaginativeȱmatrix,ȱideologicalȱcode,ȱandȱtextualȱcanonȱofȱWestern Europeanȱ culturesȱ inȱ theȱ GrecoȬRomanȱ andȱ JudeoȬChristianȱ traditions.”107ȱ He hastensȱtoȱadd,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱthoseȱambiguitiesȱareȱnotȱtoȱbeȱoverlooked,ȱsince friendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱwalkedȱtheȱfineȱlineȱbetweenȱhomoeroticȱandȱhomosocial relationships:ȱ “friendshipȱ isȱ continuouslyȱ beingȱ redefinedȱ withinȱ andȱ across cultures;ȱ inȱ addition,ȱ itsȱ hybridȱ natureȱ constantlyȱ evolvesȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ the symbioticȱ phenomenaȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ sexualityȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ parallelȱ institutionsȱ of familyȱandȱmarriage.”108 Forȱ thoseȱ scholars,ȱ orȱ theologians,ȱ whoȱ exploredȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ valueȱ of friendship,ȱtheȱhumanȱrelationshipȱinȱintellectualȱandȱspiritualȱtermsȱprovedȱtoȱbe theȱmostȱimportantȱpartȱofȱitȱall,ȱnotȱtheȱphysical,ȱeroticȱone.ȱAsȱC.ȱS.ȱLewisȱalready discussedȱ veryȱ insightfully,ȱ friendshipȱ isȱ freelyȱ given,ȱ itȱ hasȱ noȱ economicȱ or militaryȱvalue,ȱandȱoftenȱoperatesȱagainstȱpragmaticȱconceptsȱbecauseȱitȱbridges differencesȱ ofȱ material,ȱ politicalȱ kinds.109ȱ Theȱ veryȱ ambiguityȱ ofȱ friendship “derivesȱ fromȱ itsȱ hybridȱ borrowingsȱ fromȱ kinshipȱ andȱ sexuality;ȱ andȱ its contingencyȱ makesȱ itȱ seekȱ aȱ transcendenceȱ ofȱ whatȱ areȱ perceivedȱ toȱ beȱ the 107

108 109

RobertoȱJ.ȱGonzálezȬCasanovas,ȱ“MaleȱBondingȱasȱCulturalȱConstructionȱinȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱRamon Llull,ȱ andȱ Juanȱ Manuel:ȱ Homosocialȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Iberia,”ȱ Queerȱ Iberia:ȱ Sexualities, Cultures,ȱandȱCrossingsȱfromȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱtoȱtheȱRenaissance,ȱed.ȱJosiahȱBlackmoreȱandȱGregory S.ȱHutchesonȱ(Durham,ȱNC,ȱandȱLondon:ȱDukeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ157–92;ȱhereȱ157. GonzálezȬCasanovas,ȱ“MaleȱBonding,”ȱ158ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ107). C.ȱS.ȱLewis,ȱTheȱFourȱLovesȱ(1960;ȱLondon:ȱHarperȱCollins,ȱ1977),ȱ65–67.

Introduction

49

establishedȱ naturalȱ andȱ societalȱ tiesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Constructionsȱ ofȱ maleȱ bondingȱ can thereforeȱbeȱseenȱtoȱthriveȱalongȱtheȱtextual,ȱsocietal,ȱandȱideologicalȱfrontiersȱof humanȱcultureȱandȱofȱhistoricalȱcultures.”110ȱ

K.ȱFriendshipȱatȱtheȱCourts Courtlyȱ literatureȱ throughoutȱ theȱ centuriesȱ stronglyȱ idealizedȱ friendship,ȱ as reflectedȱbyȱcountlessȱexamplesȱinȱArthurianȱromances,ȱGrailȱromances,ȱcourtly loveȱ narratives,ȱ andȱ otherȱ texts.ȱ Moreover,ȱ friendshipȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ a universalȱthemeȱofȱgreatestȱsignificanceȱforȱpeopleȱofȱallȱculturesȱandȱperiods,ȱas demonstrated,ȱforȱinstance,ȱbyȱfairyȱtales,ȱdidacticȱaccounts,ȱandȱtheȱlike.111ȱPetrus AlfonsiȱgaveȱanȱexcellentȱtestimonyȱofȱthisȱphenomenonȱinȱhisȱDisciplinaȱClericalis, anȱextraordinaryȱcollectionȱofȱinternationalȱtales,ȱprobablyȱofȱPersian,ȱArabicȱand Hebrewȱorigin.ȱAlfonsiȱwasȱaȱJewȱfromȱAndalusia,ȱwhoȱwasȱbaptizedȱinȱ1106ȱand soonȱenoughȱassumedȱaȱmostȱhostileȱattitudeȱtowardȱhisȱpreviousȱcoȬreligionists. Hisȱ Disciplinaȱ Clericalisȱ enjoyedȱ greatȱ popularityȱ forȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ reasons,ȱ but specificallyȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱwisdomȱliteratureȱthatȱenteredȱthisȱcollection.112ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ addressesȱ friendshipȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ tales,ȱ “Theȱ Half Friend”ȱ(no.ȱ1).ȱHereȱaȱdyingȱmanȱteachesȱhisȱsonȱaȱlessonȱaboutȱtheȱscarcityȱof goodȱfriends,ȱsinceȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱgainedȱonlyȱhalfȱaȱfriendȱinȱhisȱwholeȱlife.ȱAt theȱendȱhisȱsonȱrealizesȱthatȱaȱtrueȱfriend,ȱevenȱifȱonlyȱmeetingȱtheȱidealȱpartially, wouldȱbeȱreadyȱtoȱassistȱtheȱotherȱinȱcaseȱofȱneed:ȱ“‘Heȱisȱinȱtruthȱaȱfriendȱwho helpsȱyouȱwhenȱtheȱworldȱhasȱdesertedȱyou.’”113ȱSubsequently,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱson wantsȱtoȱlearnȱwhatȱaȱtrulyȱfullȱfriendȱmightȱbeȱsoȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱmightȱfindȱone someȱday.ȱThisȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱstoryȱbecauseȱtheȱfatherȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱanyone personallyȱwhomȱheȱwouldȱidentifyȱinȱsuchȱterms.ȱHeȱhasȱtoȱresortȱtoȱaȱliterary accountȱofȱanȱoralȱstory,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmeetȱtheȱson’sȱrequest,ȱwhichȱunderscoresȱthe highȱ valueȱ andȱ rarityȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Hereȱ twoȱ trueȱ friends,ȱ oneȱ aȱ merchantȱ in Egypt,ȱtheȱotherȱaȱmerchantȱinȱBagdad,ȱdemonstrateȱwhatȱtheirȱcommitmentȱto eachȱotherȱreallyȱmeans.ȱ TheȱvisitorȱfromȱBagdadȱardentlyȱdesiresȱaȱyoungȱwomanȱwhomȱtheȱEgyptian hadȱraisedȱinȱhisȱhouseȱinȱorderȱtoȱmarryȱherȱlater.ȱButȱsinceȱhisȱfriendȱisȱsuffering

110

111

112

113

GonzálezȬCasanovas,ȱ “Maleȱ Bonding,”164ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 107).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Davidȱ M.ȱ Halperin,ȱ One HundredȱYearsȱofȱHomosexualityȱ(London:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1990),ȱ83–85. LudwigȱDenecke,ȱ“Freundschaftssagen,”ȱEnzyklopädieȱdesȱMärchens,ȱed.ȱKurtȱRanke.ȱVol.ȱ5,ȱ2.3 (BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1986),ȱ315–18. JohnȱTolan,ȱPetrusȱAlfonsiȱandȱHisȱMedievalȱReadersȱ(Gainesville,ȱTallahassee,ȱetȱal.:ȱUniversityȱPress ofȱFlorida,ȱ1993). TheȱDisciplinaȱClericalisȱofȱPetrusȱAlfonis,ȱtrans.ȱandȱed.ȱbyȱEberhardȱHermes.ȱTrans.ȱintoȱEnglish byȱP.ȱR.ȱQuarrieȱ(1970;ȱBerkeleyȱandȱLosȱAngeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1977),ȱ106.

50

Introduction

soȱbadlyȱfromȱloveȱsickness,ȱtheȱEgyptianȱforgoesȱallȱhisȱownȱplansȱandȱsuppresses hisȱdesiresȱforȱthatȱwoman,ȱhandsȱherȱoverȱtoȱhisȱfriend,ȱalongȱwithȱallȱtheȱdowry andȱgiftsȱandȱvaluableȱobjectsȱthatȱheȱhadȱintendedȱtoȱpassȱonȱtoȱherȱlater.ȱAfter this,ȱtheȱEgyptianȱfallsȱintoȱpovertyȱandȱturnsȱtoȱBagdadȱtoȱseeȱhisȱfriend.ȱHaving fallenȱintoȱsuchȱterribleȱshape,ȱheȱspendsȱtheȱnightȱinȱaȱmosqueȱwhereȱheȱwitnesses aȱmurder.ȱTheȱnextȱmorningȱheȱvoluntarilyȱconfessesȱtoȱthatȱcrimeȱbecauseȱhe wantsȱtoȱdie.ȱOnȱhisȱwayȱtoȱtheȱgallows,ȱhowever,ȱhisȱfriendȱrecognizesȱhimȱand jumpsȱintoȱtheȱfrayȱforȱhim,ȱdeclaringȱhimselfȱtoȱhaveȱmurderedȱtheȱman.ȱAtȱthat moment,ȱtheȱtrueȱmurdererȱarrives,ȱwitnessingȱthisȱenormous,ȱtotallyȱunexpected developmentȱofȱevents.ȱSuddenlyȱgrippedȱbyȱfeelingsȱofȱdeepȱguilt,ȱheȱpublicly announcesȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱmurderedȱtheȱman,ȱthusȱliberatingȱtheȱBagdad merchant.ȱ Finally,ȱnotȱevenȱtheȱmurdererȱisȱexecutedȱbecauseȱtheȱkingȱlearnsȱofȱthisȱevent andȱ acknowledgesȱ theȱ virtuesȱ ofȱ allȱ threeȱ men.ȱ Thisȱ taleȱ thusȱ introducesȱ an exampleȱofȱaȱtrueȱfriend.ȱButȱtheȱsonȱfindsȱitȱtoȱbeȱbeyondȱtheȱpaleȱofȱhisȱownȱinner strengthȱandȱexpressesȱwithȱregret:ȱ“‘Itȱisȱscarcelyȱlikelyȱthatȱaȱmanȱcouldȱfindȱsuch aȱfriend.’”ȱ(109).ȱWeȱareȱnotȱfullyȱtoldȱwhatȱstrategiesȱoneȱcouldȱpursueȱtoȱrealize thatȱ goal;ȱ insteadȱ theȱ followingȱ sectionsȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ aspects concerningȱpeople’sȱcharactersȱandȱhowȱanȱindividualȱcouldȱorȱshouldȱrespondȱto themȱinȱorderȱtoȱestablishȱaȱharmoniousȱrelationship.ȱSoȱweȱareȱtold,ȱforȱinstance: “‘Beȱwaryȱofȱenemiesȱonce,ȱbutȱofȱfriendsȱaȱthousandȱtimes;ȱforȱperhapsȱoneȱday yourȱfriendȱwillȱbeȱyourȱenemy,ȱandȱheȱwillȱthusȱbeȱableȱtoȱdoȱyouȱwrongȱmore easily’”ȱ(109).ȱ Onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱaȱgoodȱfriendȱshouldȱneverȱhesitateȱtoȱgiveȱadvice,ȱevenȱifȱthe friendȱmightȱrejectȱit:ȱ“‘Giveȱadviceȱtoȱyourȱfriendȱandȱbeȱonȱhisȱsideȱevenȱifȱheȱwill notȱbelieveȱyou,ȱforȱitȱisȱjustȱthatȱyouȱgiveȱhimȱgoodȱadvice,ȱevenȱifȱheȱrejectsȱitȱand doesȱ notȱ followȱ it’”ȱ (ibid.).ȱ Butȱ theȱ narratorȱ thenȱ turnsȱ increasinglyȱ toȱ general commentsȱ aboutȱ wiseȱ andȱ prudentȱ behavior,ȱ withoutȱ pursuingȱ theȱ ideaȱ of friendshipȱfurther.ȱOnlyȱinȱtheȱchapterȱonȱ“Intelligence”ȱdoesȱheȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱissue atȱstakeȱoneȱmoreȱtime,ȱadmonishingȱtheȱlistener:ȱ“‘Itȱisȱbetterȱtoȱhaveȱaȱwiseȱman asȱanȱenemyȱthanȱaȱfoolȱforȱaȱfriend’”ȱ(110).ȱThenȱheȱhastensȱtoȱadd:ȱ“‘Doȱnot attachȱ anyȱ greatȱ weightȱ toȱ theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ aȱ foolishȱ man,ȱ becauseȱ itȱ isȱ not permanent’”ȱ (110).ȱ Again,ȱ however,ȱ Petrusȱ Alfonsiȱ displaysȱ moreȱ interestȱ in generalȱreflectionsȱonȱwisdomȱthanȱonȱtheȱissueȱofȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱheȱperceives fromȱaȱvarietyȱofȱperspectives,ȱsomeȱofȱwhichȱalmostȱseemȱcontradictory.

Introduction ȱ

51

L.ȱFriendshipȱbetweenȱPeopleȱandȱAnimals: InterconnectednessȱofȱCultureȱandȱNature

Hereȱmightȱalsoȱbeȱaȱgoodȱmomentȱtoȱpauseȱandȱtoȱreflectȱbrieflyȱuponȱyetȱanother varietyȱofȱfriendship,ȱthisȱoneȱbetweenȱanimalsȱandȱhumanȱbeings,ȱwhichȱfound multipleȱexpressionsȱinȱlateȬantiqueȱandȱmedievalȱnarratives,ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱfar beyond,ȱquiteȱcontraryȱtoȱwhatȱpreviousȱscholarshipȱhadȱassumed,ȱasȱifȱanimals wereȱalwaysȱregardedȱonlyȱfromȱaȱpragmaticȱperspectiveȱtoȱprovideȱfoodȱ(cows) andȱenergyȱ(horses).ȱNumerousȱsaints’ȱlivesȱandȱmiracleȱstoriesȱcontainȱreferences toȱdogs,ȱbirds,ȱlions,ȱandȱotherȱpetsȱthatȱwereȱlovedȱbyȱtheirȱmasters,ȱwhoȱinȱturn receivedȱ clearȱ signsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ byȱ theseȱ animals.ȱ Saintȱ Francisȱ ofȱ Assisi (1188–1226)ȱisȱtodayȱperhapsȱmostȱrememberedȱforȱhisȱsermonȱtoȱtheȱbirdsȱandȱfor hisȱloveȱforȱanimals,ȱincludingȱevenȱrapaciousȱwolves,ȱespeciallyȱforȱthoseȱwho wereȱinȱallȱkindsȱofȱneeds.ȱManyȱotherȱsaintsȱareȱalsoȱidentifiedȱasȱindividualsȱwho hadȱdemonstratedȱextraordinaryȱfriendlyȱattitudesȱtowardȱaȱvarietyȱofȱanimals.ȱIn thatȱcontextȱthoseȱcreaturesȱcommonlyȱserveȱsymbolicallyȱasȱGod’sȱservantsȱor messengers,ȱbutȱdespiteȱtheȱprincipallyȱreligiousȱfunctionalizationȱofȱtheȱanimal, theȱ variousȱ authorsȱ stillȱ predicatedȱ theirȱ accountsȱ onȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ friendship betweenȱmanȱandȱanimal.114Courtlyȱromancesȱandȱverseȱnarrativesȱfromȱtheȱentire MiddleȱAgesȱalsoȱincludeȱexamplesȱofȱmostȱaffectionateȱrelationshipsȱbetween peopleȱandȱtheirȱanimals,ȱperhapsȱbestȱknown,ȱforȱinstance,ȱYvainȱandȱhisȱlionȱin ChrétienȱdeȱTroyes’sȱeponymousȱromanceȱ(ca.ȱ1160),ȱorȱinȱHartmannȱvonȱAue’s Iweinȱ(ca.ȱ1190/1200).ȱ Theȱloyalȱdogȱwhoȱfollowsȱhisȱmasterȱtoȱhisȱgrave,ȱorȱfightsȱforȱhimȱafterȱhis death,ȱemergesȱasȱaȱquiteȱcommonȱmotifȱofȱintenseȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmanȱand animal,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱElisabethȱvonȱNassauȬSaarbrücken’sȱKöniginȱElisabethȱ(1437).ȱBut thenȱthereȱareȱalsoȱhorses,ȱdeer,ȱfalcons,ȱparrots,ȱandȱotherȱcreaturesȱthatȱregularly areȱpresentedȱasȱmostȱendearingȱfriendsȱinȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȬmodernȱliterature andȱtheȱvisualȱarts,ȱdemonstratingȱprofoundȱaffectionsȱforȱtheirȱhumanȱmasters.115 Weȱalsoȱencounterȱbees,ȱbeavers,ȱdolphins,ȱsquirrels,ȱflies,ȱrabbits,ȱdeer,ȱlambs, 114

115

AugustȱNitschke,ȱ“TiereȱundȱHeilige:ȱBeobachtungenȱzumȱUrsprungȱundȱWandelȱmenschlichen Verhaltens,”ȱid.,ȱFremdeȱWirklichkeiten.ȱVol.ȱII:ȱDynamikȱderȱNaturȱundȱBewegungenȱdesȱMenschen. Bibliothecaȱeruditorum,ȱ12ȱ(Goldbach:ȱKeip,ȱ1995),ȱ99Ȭ137;ȱAlisonȱG.ȱElliott,ȱRoadsȱtoȱParadise: ReadingȱLivesȱofȱtheȱEarlyȱSaintsȱ(Hanover,ȱNH,ȱandȱLondonȱ:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱNewȱEngland: 1987),ȱ144. TiereȱalsȱFreundeȱimȱMittelalter,ȱeingeleitet,ȱausgewählt,ȱübersetztȱundȱkommentiertȱvonȱGabriela Kompatscher,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ andȱ Peterȱ Dinzelbacherȱ (Badenweiler: Wissenschaftlicherȱ Verlagȱ Bachmann,ȱ 2010).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Robertȱ Gernhardt,ȱ Menschȱ undȱ Tier: GeschichteȱeinerȱheiklenȱBeziehung.ȱSuhrkampȬTaschenbuch,ȱ3301ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱSuhrkamp,ȱ2001); PitaȱKelekna,ȱTheȱHorseȱinȱHumanȱHistoryȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009).ȱSeeȱalso SharonȱS.ȱRobertson,ȱ“MedievalȱAcculturation:ȱManȬAnimalȱRelationshipȱinȱtheȱGermanicȱMiddle Ages,”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss.,ȱAnnȱArbor,ȱUniversityȱofȱMichigan,ȱ1987.ȱ

52

Introduction

snakes,ȱweasels,ȱworms,ȱandȱvariousȱinsects.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱcriticalȱdiscussion ofȱfriendshipȱuncoversȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱweȱareȱtrulyȱdealingȱwithȱaȱuniversal themeȱ ofȱ greatestȱ significanceȱ throughoutȱ theȱ agesȱ inȱ aȱ plethoraȱ ofȱ different contexts.

M.ȱVernacularȱMedievalȱSpanishȱCommentators Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ medievalȱ authorsȱ regularlyȱ referȱ toȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ of virtue,ȱasȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱaȱharmoniousȱsociety,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱAlfonso X’sȱ thirteenthȬcenturyȱ Sieteȱ partidasȱ whereȱ weȱ learn:ȱ “Amistad,ȱ segundȱ dize Aristóteles,ȱesȱvnaȱvirtudȱqueȱesȱbuenaȱenȱsí,ȱeȱprouechosaȱaȱlaȱvidaȱdeȱlosȱomes .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Eȱ concordiaȱ esȱ vnaȱ virtudȱ queȱ esȱ semejanteȱ aȱ laȱ amistad”ȱ ([F]riendship, accordingȱtoȱAristotle,ȱisȱaȱvirtueȱwhichȱisȱintrinsicallyȱgoodȱinȱitselfȱandȱprofitable toȱhumanȱlifeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱConcordȱisȱaȱvirtueȱsimilarȱtoȱfriendship).116ȱAlfonsoȱwentȱsoȱfar asȱ toȱ claimȱ thatȱ ifȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ existedȱ amongȱ people,ȱ theyȱ wouldȱ needȱ no courtsȱorȱmagistratesȱbecauseȱtheȱinherentȱvirtuosityȱofȱfriendshipȱwouldȱmake themȱsuperfluous.117ȱ BothȱhisȱcontemporaryȱRamonȱLlullȱwithȱhisȱLlibreȱd’Amicȱeȱd’AmatȱandȱJuan Manuelȱ(1282–1348)ȱwithȱhisȱElȱCondeȱLucanorȱconfirmedȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱdiscourse onȱ friendshipȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ developedȱ deepȱ rootsȱ andȱ occupiedȱ manyȱ people’s minds. Thisȱ doesȱ notȱ meanȱ thatȱ weȱ couldȱ easilyȱ defineȱ friendshipȱ orȱ reduceȱ itȱ toȱ a simplisticȱformula,ȱasȱBrianȱPatrickȱMcGuireȱhasȱalreadyȱwarnedȱusȱaȱgoodȱdecade ago.118ȱDonȱJuanȱManuelȱwasȱprinceȱofȱCastileȱandȱadelantadoȱmayorȱ(hereditary governor)ȱofȱMurcia,ȱandȱnephewȱofȱAlfonsoȱX.ȱTheȱpoet’sȱlifeȱwasȱdeterminedȱby numerousȱpoliticalȱconflicts,ȱarrangements,ȱsquabbles,ȱtypicalȱofȱhisȱtimeȱwithȱits complexȱpoliticalȱconditionsȱonȱtheȱIberianȱpeninsula.ȱHeȱalsoȱtookȱgreatȱcareȱto collectȱhisȱliteraryȱworksȱandȱtreatises,ȱkeepingȱthemȱinȱhisȱPeñaȱfielȱmonastery whereȱheȱhadȱretiredȱtoȱafterȱhisȱvictoryȱasȱtheȱleaderȱofȱtheȱCastilianȱarmyȱover theȱMoorsȱinȱtheȱbattleȱofȱAlgecirasȱinȱ1344.ȱOfȱtheȱtotalȱofȱfourteenȱthatȱheȱpenned throughoutȱhisȱlife,ȱhowever,ȱonlyȱeightȱhaveȱsurvivedȱuntilȱtoday,ȱamongȱthem

116

117 118

QuotedȱfromȱGonzálezȬCasanovas,ȱ“MaleȱBonding,”ȱ166ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ107).ȱForȱtheȱoriginalȱLatinȱtext, seeȱJacquelineȬLiseȱGenotȬBismuth,ȱMoïseȱleȱSéfaradeȱaliasȱPierreȱd’Alphonse:ȱLaȱDisciplineȱdeȱClergie, Disciplinaȱ Clericalis.ȱ Introduction,ȱ Texteȱ latin,ȱ Traductionȱ nouvelleȱ etȱ notes.ȱ Enȱ annexeȱ une ordonnanceȱ deȱ médecineȱ andalouseȱ &ȱ Laȱ lettreȱ deȱ Josephȱ leȱ Khazarȱ auȱ Vizirȱ duȱ Califeȱ de Cordoue,ȱenȱréponseȱàȱsaȱlettre.ȱAvecȱlaȱparticipationȱdeȱSimoneȱBeauȱ&ȱuneȱcontributionȱde GérardȱGenotȱ(SaintȱPetersburg:ȱEditionsȱEvropeiskiȱDom;ȱParis:ȱÉditionsȱdeȱParis,ȱ2001),ȱ204–208. GonzálezȬCasanovas,ȱ“MaleȱBonding,”ȱ169ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ107). BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱScholarshipȱinȱMedievalȱGermany,”ȱ31ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ22).

Introduction

53

hisȱ Libroȱ deȱ losȱ estadosȱ (Bookȱ ofȱ theȱ Estates),ȱ hisȱ Libroȱ deȱ lasȱ armasȱ (Bookȱ of Weapons),ȱandȱhisȱElȱcondeȱLucanor.119ȱ Theȱlatterȱenjoysȱanȱenormousȱreputationȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱoutstandingȱprose worksȱofȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱSpain,ȱasȱscholarshipȱhasȱconfirmedȱforȱaȱlongȱtime. Ourȱinterestȱhereȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱfirstȱofȱfiveȱpartsȱwhichȱcontainsȱapartȱfromȱtwo prologuesȱfiftyȬthreeȱexemplos,ȱorȱexemplaryȱtalesȱofȱaȱstronglyȱdidacticȱnature.ȱ“In oneȱwayȱorȱanother,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱstoriesȱtackleȱtheȱdifficultȱquestionȱofȱhowȱtoȱdeal mostȱeffectivelyȱwithȱone’sȱfellowȱhumanȬbeings,ȱandȱinȱmanyȱstories,ȱtheȱfellow humanȬbeingsȱareȱliars,ȱcheats,ȱandȱtricksters.ȱOneȱcanȱseeȱinȱthisȱsomethingȱwhich JuanȱManuelȱhadȱhadȱtoȱconfrontȱdirectlyȱinȱhisȱlife,ȱasȱhadȱanyȱfourteenthȬcentury nobleman;ȱtheȱstruggleȱforȱpowerȱinȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱCastileȱwasȱceaseless,ȱand anyoneȱ whoȱ allowedȱ himselfȱ toȱ beȱ outwittedȱ foundȱ hisȱ powerȱ seriously reduced.”120 Inȱ manyȱ respectsȱ weȱ mightȱ identifyȱ Elȱ Condeȱ Lucanorȱ asȱ aȱ mirrorȱ ofȱ social conditions,ȱhumanȱrelationships,ȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱidealsȱandȱconcepts.ȱHenceȱit wouldȱnotȱcomeȱasȱaȱsurpriseȱthatȱDonȱJuanȱManuelȱalsoȱexaminesȱtheȱelementȱof friendship,ȱwhichȱheȱperceivesȱfromȱthreeȱmainȱperspectives:ȱ1.ȱsimpleȱhospitality; 2.ȱaȱfriendshipȱthatȱservesȱmaterialȱorȱpoliticalȱgains;ȱandȱ3.ȱtrueȱandȱprofound friendship.ȱAsȱDavidȱA.ȱFloryȱhasȱobserved,ȱ“Laȱmayoríaȱdeȱlosȱamigos,ȱparaȱel autor,ȱ pertenecenȱ aȱ laȱ especieȱ deȱ amistadȱ queȱ yaȱ denominamosȱ deȱ natureleza oportunista”121ȱ(Theȱmajorityȱofȱfriends,ȱatȱleastȱforȱtheȱauthor,ȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱtype ofȱfriendshipȱthatȱcanȱbeȱidentifiedȱasȱopportunisticȱinȱnature).ȱNevertheless,ȱfor JuanȱManuelȱfriendship,ȱasȱevanescentȱorȱfleetingȱitȱmightȱbeȱinȱtheȱrealȱworld, provesȱtoȱbeȱofȱgreatestȱsignificance.122 AlreadyȱinȱhisȱLibroȱenfenidoȱfromȱca.ȱ1336ȱorȱ1337,ȱtheȱauthorȱdealtȱwithȱmany differentȱtypesȱofȱfriendship,ȱbeginningȱwithȱ“amorȱconplido,”ȱorȱfulfilledȱand completeȱfriendshipȱ(183),ȱandȱending,ȱasȱtheȱfifteenthȱcategory,ȱwithȱ“amorȱde enganno,”ȱorȱfriendshipȱforȱgainȱorȱprofitȱonlyȱ(189).123ȱWeȱgain,ȱhowever,ȱaȱmuch betterȱideaȱofȱhowȱJuanȱManuelȱunderstoodȱandȱdefinedȱfriendshipȱandȱhowȱhe

119

120

121

122 123

JayȱRuud,ȱ“Manuel,ȱDonȱJuan,”ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱMedievalȱLiterature,ȱed.ȱid.ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱFactsȱonȱFile, 2006),ȱ432–33. JuanȱManuel,ȱElȱCondeȱLucanor:ȱCollectionȱofȱMediaevalȱSpanishȱStories.ȱEd.ȱwithȱanȱIntroduction, TranslationȱandȱNotesȱbyȱJohnȱEngland.ȱHispanicȱClassicsȱ(Warminster,ȱEngland:ȱArisȱ&ȱPhillips, 1987),ȱ13. Davidȱ A.ȱ Flory,ȱ Elȱ Condeȱ Lucanor:ȱ Donȱ Juanȱ Manuelȱ enȱ suȱ contextoȱ históricoȱ (Madrid:ȱ Editorial Pliegos,ȱ1995),ȱ91–92.ȱSeeȱalsoȱJonathanȱBurgoyne,ȱReadingȱtheȱExemplumȱRight:ȱFixingȱtheȱMeaning ofȱ Elȱ Condeȱ Lucanor.ȱ Northȱ Carolinaȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Romanceȱ Languagesȱ andȱ Literatures,ȱ 289 (ChapelȱHill,ȱNC:ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ2007). Flory,ȱElȱCondeȱLucanor,ȱ95ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ121). DonȱJuanȱManuel,ȱ“LibroȱEnfenido,”ȱid.,ȱObrasȱcompletas.ȱEd.,ȱprólogoȱyȱnotasȱdeȱJoséȱManuel Blecua.ȱBibliotecaȱRománicaȱHispánica,ȱIV.ȱTextos,ȱ15ȱ(Madrid:ȱEditorialȱGredos,ȱ1982),ȱ141–89.

54

Introduction

situatedȱthisȱhumanȱrelationshipȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱhisȱownȱworldȱwhenȱwe turnȱtoȱtheȱextensiveȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱhisȱElȱCondeȱLucanor.ȱ Oneȱsignificantȱexampleȱwouldȱbeȱ“Deȱloȱqueȱcontesçióȱalȱleónȱetȱalȱtoro”ȱ(no. 22)ȱ whereȱ theȱ lionȱ andȱ theȱ bullȱ enjoyȱ aȱ strongȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ makesȱ them togetherȱtheȱrulersȱoverȱtheirȱcommonlyȱsharedȱlands,ȱtheȱlionȱinȱchargeȱofȱall carnivorous,ȱtheȱbullȱinȱchargeȱofȱallȱherbivorousȱanimals.ȱButȱtheȱotherȱanimals experienceȱ theirȱ governmentȱ asȱ oppression,ȱ andȱ strategizeȱ toȱ undermineȱ their friendshipȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ stageȱ aȱ coupȱ d’etat.ȱ Theȱ foxȱ andȱ theȱ ram,ȱ asȱ theȱ king’s advisors,ȱbeginȱtoȱspreadȱrumors,ȱandȱalthoughȱtheȱlionȱandȱtheȱbullȱmistrustȱthose somewhat,ȱsuspicionȱisȱraisedȱandȱtheȱfriendshipȱfinallyȱfails,ȱturningȱintoȱopen hostility:ȱ“grandȱdesamor”ȱ(142).ȱTheȱlossȱofȱtheirȱfriendshipȱresultsȱinȱbitterȱfights andȱmutualȱdestruction,ȱandȱatȱtheȱendȱtheȱformerlyȱoppressedȱanimalsȱturnȱinto theȱnewȱoppressors.ȱ Countȱ Lucanorȱ thenȱ learnsȱ hisȱ lessonȱ fromȱ thisȱ tale,ȱ asȱ hisȱ advisorȱ Patronio instructsȱhim:ȱ“ifȱyourȱfriendȱisȱaȱmanȱofȱintegrity,ȱwhoȱ[sic]ȱyouȱhaveȱalways foundȱ goodȱ andȱ loyalȱ inȱ hisȱ actions,ȱ andȱ ifȱ youȱ trustȱ himȱ likeȱ aȱ goodȱ sonȱ or brother,ȱIȱadviseȱyouȱnotȱtoȱbelieveȱaȱwordȱwhichȱisȱsaidȱagainstȱhim”ȱ(143–45). Moreȱ important,ȱ however,ȱ Patronioȱ alsoȱ outlinesȱ howȱ toȱ combatȱ suchȱ evil intentionsȱtoȱsowȱtheȱseedȱofȱdiscontentȱamongȱfriends,ȱstronglyȱrecommending toȱkeepȱanȱopenȱcommunicationȱandȱtoȱinformȱtheȱfriendȱimmediatelyȱwhenȱsuch rumorsȱareȱbeingȱspreadȱ(145).ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱplottingȱagainst theirȱfriendshipȱshouldȱbeȱharshlyȱpunishedȱasȱaȱwarningȱforȱallȱothers.ȱOfȱcourse, asȱPatronioȱalsoȱrealizes,ȱandȱwarnsȱhisȱkingȱabout,ȱifȱtheȱfriendȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱnot asȱ trustworthyȱ asȱ assumed,ȱ butȱ wouldȱ beȱ “goodȬtimeȱ friendȱ orȱ aȱ fairȬweather friendȱorȱaȱfriendȱinȱneed”ȱ(145),ȱthenȱtheȱkingȱshouldȱbehaveȱcautiouslyȱandȱnot indicateȱ toȱ theȱ otherȱ thatȱ heȱ mightȱ suspectȱ himȱ ofȱ lackȱ ofȱ trustworthiness.ȱ A resoluteȱ andȱ directȱ communicationȱ promisesȱ toȱ preserveȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ and wouldȱforceȱevenȱfairȬweatherȱfriendsȱtoȱliveȱupȱtoȱtheirȱpromises:ȱ [A]lwaysȱmakeȱitȱabsolutelyȱclearȱtoȱsuchȱaȱfriendȱthatȱjustȱasȱyouȱneedȱhisȱhelp,ȱsoȱhe needsȱyours.ȱSoȱifȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱyouȱtreatȱhimȱwellȱandȱshowȱhimȱgoodȱwill,ȱareȱnot suspiciousȱofȱhimȱwithoutȱreasonȱandȱdoȱnotȱbelieveȱwhatȱmenȱofȱillȬwillȱsay,ȱand overlookȱhisȱerrors,ȱandȱonȱtheȱotherȱyouȱshowȱhimȱthatȱjustȱasȱyouȱneedȱhisȱhelp,ȱso heȱ needsȱ yours,ȱ inȱ thisȱ wayȱ theȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ youȱ willȱ last,ȱ andȱ youȱ willȱ be preventedȱfromȱmakingȱtheȱsameȱmistakeȱasȱtheȱlionȱandȱtheȱbull.ȱ(145)

Muchȱmoreȱsignificantȱforȱourȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱglobalȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱproves toȱbeȱtheȱ48thȱnarrative,ȱ“Deȱloȱqueȱcontesçióȱaȱunoȱqueȱprovavaȱsusȱamigos.”ȱHere theȱCountȱinquiresȱhowȱtoȱtestȱhisȱmanyȱfriendsȱbecauseȱheȱisȱuncertainȱaboutȱtheir claimȱandȱinsistenceȱthatȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱfullyȱtrusted.ȱPatronioȱconfirmsȱthatȱgood friendsȱcanȱbeȱcountedȱamongȱtheȱgreatestȱtreasuresȱinȱthisȱworld,ȱbutȱmostȱfriends quicklyȱ turnȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ fairȬweatherȱ friendsȱ whoȱ areȱ noȱ longerȱ presentȱ when conditionsȱchangeȱtoȱtheȱnegative.ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱnarrativeȱweȱhearȱofȱaȱyoung

Introduction

55

manȱwhoseȱfatherȱencouragesȱhimȱtoȱstriveȱhardȱtoȱmakeȱasȱmanyȱgoodȱfriendsȱas possible.ȱ Thisȱ soonȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ case,ȱ thoughȱ theȱ fatherȱ expressesȱ great surpriseȱthatȱhisȱsonȱhadȱbeenȱableȱtoȱgainȱalreadyȱtenȱveryȱreliableȱfriendsȱinȱsuch aȱshortȱtime.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱtestȱeachȱoneȱofȱtheseȱallegedȱfriends,ȱtheȱsonȱisȱtoldȱtoȱkill aȱ pig,ȱ placeȱ theȱ headȱ intoȱ aȱ bagȱ andȱ pleadȱ withȱ eachȱ friendȱ toȱ hideȱ thatȱ bag, pretendingȱthatȱheȱhadȱactuallyȱkilledȱaȱmanȱandȱwouldȱnowȱfearȱforȱhisȱownȱlife. Moreover,ȱtheȱfatherȱinstructsȱhisȱsonȱtoȱtellȱhisȱfriends:ȱ“ifȱthisȱcameȱtoȱlight,ȱit wouldȱclearlyȱmeanȱcertainȱdeathȱforȱhimȱandȱforȱallȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱfoundȱto knowȱaboutȱit,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱbeggedȱthem,ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱfriendship,ȱtoȱconcealȱthe corpse,ȱand,ȱifȱnecessary,ȱtoȱbeȱreadyȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱhisȱdefence”ȱ(287).ȱ Asȱtoȱbeȱexpected,ȱnoneȱofȱtheȱtenȱfriendsȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱyoungȱman’sȱrescue,ȱand theyȱ allȱ refuseȱ toȱ assistȱ himȱ inȱ thisȱ dangerousȱ situation.ȱ Hypocritically,ȱ some assureȱhim,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱprayȱforȱhimȱorȱassistȱhimȱuntilȱtheȱdayȱof hisȱexecution.ȱJustȱasȱtheȱfatherȱhadȱfeared,ȱnoneȱofȱtheseȱ‘friends’ȱcanȱreallyȱbe calledȱ byȱ thatȱ name.ȱ He,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ hasȱ acquiredȱ onlyȱ oneȱ andȱ aȱ half friendsȱthroughoutȱhisȱlife,ȱandȱheȱencouragesȱhisȱsonȱtoȱtestȱthoseȱtoȱlearnȱwhat trueȱfriendshipȱreallyȱmeans. Theȱoneȱwhoȱisȱidentifiedȱasȱaȱ‘halfȱfriend’ȱrefusesȱtoȱprovideȱanyȱmajorȱhelp,ȱbut heȱ wouldȱbeȱwillingȱtoȱhideȱtheȱbagȱoutȱofȱloveȱforȱhisȱ father.ȱEvenȱ whenȱ the youngȱmanȱdeliberatelyȱgetsȱintoȱaȱfightȱwithȱhimȱtheȱnextȱday,ȱuponȱhisȱfather’s instruction,ȱandȱstrikesȱhimȱinȱhisȱface,ȱtheȱ‘halfȱfriend’ȱstaysȱloyalȱtoȱhisȱpromise: “‘Truly,ȱmyȱson,ȱyouȱhaveȱbehavedȱbadly;ȱbutȱwhateverȱwrongȱyouȱdoȱme,ȱIȱshall neverȱunearthȱtheȱcabbagesȱinȱtheȱgarden’”ȱ(289)ȱwhereȱtheȱbagȱisȱhidden.ȱ Thisȱtestȱofȱtheȱ‘goodȱfriend’ȱfullyȱprovesȱtheȱcriticalȱpointȱthatȱPatronioȱtriesȱto raiseȱregardingȱtheȱprofoundnessȱandȱvalueȱofȱtrueȱfriendship.ȱNotȱonlyȱdoesȱthe formerȱcompletelyȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱson’sȱhelp,ȱheȱalsoȱassuresȱhimȱthatȱheȱwouldȱ“keep himȱfromȱdeathȱandȱharm”ȱ(289).ȱTragically,ȱatȱthatȱveryȱtimeȱanȱactualȱmurder happens,ȱandȱsinceȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱhadȱbeenȱseenȱwalkingȱaroundȱaȱlotȱatȱnight, theȱ suspicionȱ quicklyȱ fallsȱ uponȱ him.ȱ Withoutȱ muchȱ delay,ȱ heȱ isȱ arrested, condemnedȱ toȱ die,ȱ andȱ supposedȱ toȱ beȱ executedȱ soon.ȱ Hisȱ father’sȱ friend, however,ȱjumpsȱin,ȱconvincesȱ theȱjudgesȱthatȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱisȱinnocent,ȱthat insteadȱhisȱownȱsonȱhadȱcommittedȱtheȱmurder,ȱandȱsoȱletsȱtheȱlatter,ȱwhoȱhad willinglyȱsubmittedȱunderȱhisȱfather’sȱwishes,ȱbeȱexecuted,ȱandȱallȱthisȱinȱtheȱname ofȱfriendship.ȱPatronioȱconcludesȱbyȱsummarizingȱtheȱlessonȱthatȱheȱhadȱtriedȱto teachȱtoȱCountȱLucanor:ȱ“Beȱwarnedȱthatȱalthoughȱgoodȱfriendsȱdoȱexist,ȱmany, perhapsȱmost,ȱareȱfairȬweatherȱfriends,ȱwhoȱwillȱturnȱwithȱtheȱtideȱofȱfortune” (289).ȱ Notȱfinished,ȱhowever,ȱPatronioȱthenȱoffersȱanȱallegoricalȱreadingȱofȱhisȱown tale,ȱcorrelatingȱtheȱsonȱlookingȱforȱtrueȱfriendsȱwithȱeverymanȱwhoȱisȱaboutȱtoȱdie andȱseeksȱhelpȱagainstȱdeath.ȱTheȱlaymenȱflatlyȱrefuseȱtoȱassistȱhim,ȱarguingȱthat theyȱhaveȱenoughȱtoȱdoȱandȱcannotȱbeȱbotheredȱbyȱhim.ȱTheȱclergyȱonlyȱpromise

56

Introduction

thatȱ theyȱ wouldȱ prayȱ forȱ him.ȱ Theȱ wifeȱ andȱ childrenȱ pledgeȱ thatȱ theyȱ would accompanyȱhimȱtoȱhisȱgraveȱandȱmournȱhimȱduringȱtheȱburial.ȱDesperate,ȱthen, theȱdyingȱpersonȱturnsȱtoȱGod,ȱhisȱfather,ȱwhoȱadvisesȱhimȱtoȱseekȱoutȱtheȱ‘half friends,’ȱhereȱviewedȱasȱtheȱsaintsȱandȱtheȱVirginȱMary.ȱTheȱhumanȱcreatureȱfinds someȱhelpȱfromȱthem,ȱbutȱnotȱinȱanyȱsenseȱcompleteȱenoughȱtoȱprotectȱhimȱfrom death.ȱNevertheless,ȱevenȱthoughȱonlyȱ‘halfȱfriends,’ȱtheseȱ“neverȱceaseȱtoȱprayȱto Godȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ sinners;ȱ andȱ theȱ Virginȱ Maryȱ showsȱ Himȱ howȱ sheȱ wasȱ His motherȱandȱhowȱmuchȱsheȱsufferedȱinȱbringingȱHimȱintoȱtheȱworldȱandȱnurturing Him”ȱ(289).ȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱfriendshipȱultimatelyȱassumesȱaȱreligiousȱconnotationȱsinceȱtrue friendshipȱhereȱinȱthisȱworldȱbasicallyȱsubstitutesȱforȱtheȱintimateȱrelationship betweenȱ manȱ andȱ God,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ stillȱ meetsȱ differentȱ needsȱ andȱ reflectsȱ onȱ a somewhatȱdifferentȱsetȱofȱvaluesȱandȱideals.ȱNevertheless,ȱheȱwhoȱhasȱtheȱchance ofȱfindingȱaȱtrueȱfindȱinȱthisȱlifeȱcanȱalreadyȱcountȱonȱbeingȱonȱtheȱrightȱtrackȱto findȱGod.ȱThisȱresonatesȱprofoundlyȱwithȱAelred’sȱpositionȱaccordingȱtoȱwhich “friendshipȱofȱmanȱcouldȱbeȱeasilyȱtranslatedȱintoȱaȱfriendshipȱforȱGodȱhimself becauseȱofȱtheȱsimilarityȱexistingȱbetweenȱboth”ȱ(114).ȱRefiningȱthisȱsophisticated point,ȱAelredȱalsoȱobserved:ȱ“ȱWasȱitȱnotȱaȱforetasteȱofȱblessednessȱthusȱtoȱloveȱand thusȱtoȱbeȱloved;ȱthusȱtoȱhelpȱandȱthusȱtoȱbeȱhelped;ȱandȱinȱthisȱwayȱfromȱthe sweetnessȱ ofȱ fraternalȱ charityȱ toȱ wingȱ one’sȱ flightȱ aloftȱ toȱ thatȱ moreȱ sublime splendorȱofȱdivineȱlove,ȱandȱbyȱtheȱladderȱofȱcharityȱnowȱtoȱmountȱtoȱtheȱembrace ofȱChristȱhimself;ȱandȱagainȱtoȱdescendȱtoȱtheȱloveȱofȱneighbor,ȱthereȱpleasantlyȱto rest?”ȱ(129).ȱTrueȱfriendshipȱallowsȱthoseȱinvolvedȱtoȱpartakeȱinȱtheȱdivineȱspirit, toȱovercomeȱtheȱfearȱofȱdeath,ȱandȱhenceȱ“toȱrejoiceȱinȱtheȱeternalȱpossessionȱof SupremeȱGoodness;ȱandȱthisȱfriendship,ȱtoȱwhichȱhereȱweȱadmitȱbutȱfew,ȱwillȱbe outpouredȱuponȱallȱandȱbyȱallȱoutpouredȱuponȱGod,ȱandȱGodȱshallȱbeȱallȱinȱall” (132). Considering,ȱ then,ȱ howȱ Juanȱ Manuelȱ hasȱ Patronioȱ concluded,ȱ weȱ observeȱ a remarkableȱ similarityȱ inȱ theirȱ approachȱ toȱ friendshipȱ asȱ theȱ gatewayȱ toȱ a spiritualizationȱofȱmaterialȱexistence:ȱ“Onceȱtheȱsinnerȱrealizesȱinȱhisȱheartȱthatȱall thisȱcannotȱpreventȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱsoul,ȱheȱturnsȱtoȱGod,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱsonȱturned toȱhisȱfatherȱwhenȱheȱfailedȱtoȱfindȱanyoneȱwhoȱcouldȱsaveȱhimȱfromȱdeath”ȱ(291). Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ Godȱ finallyȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ idealȱ friend,ȱ andȱ strikingȱ aȱ true friendshipȱhereȱonȱearthȱwithȱanotherȱpersonȱallowsȱhim/herȱtoȱpaveȱtheȱway towardȱdivineȱafterlife.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ fortyȬninthȱ narrative,ȱ “Deȱ loȱ queȱ centesçióȱ alȱ queȱ echaronȱ enȱ laȱ isla desnuyoȱquando’lȱtomaronȱelȱseñorioȱqueȱtenié”ȱweȱfindȱremarkableȱconfirmation forȱthisȱapproachȱtoȱfriendship,ȱandȱaȱfurtherȱelaborationȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱthis humanȱrelationship.ȱCountȱLucanor’sȱadvisorȱPatronioȱtriesȱtoȱteachȱhimȱaȱlesson aboutȱtheȱproperȱapproachȱtoȱlifeȱwhichȱallȱpeopleȱshouldȱpursue.ȱTheȱsimileȱhe usesȱrefersȱtoȱaȱcountryȱwhereȱtheȱappointedȱkingȱisȱdethronedȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱhis

Introduction

57

firstȱyear,ȱandȱexpelledȱnakedȱtoȱanȱisolatedȱisland.ȱOneȱdayȱaȱwiseȱking,ȱfully awareȱofȱwhatȱisȱinȱstoreȱforȱhim,ȱhasȱaȱsplendidȱcastleȱbuiltȱsecretlyȱonȱthatȱvery island,ȱandȱonceȱheȱhasȱbeenȱostracized,ȱlikeȱallȱtheȱpreviousȱkings,ȱheȱnowȱenjoys theȱfruitȱofȱhisȱforesightfulȱpreparations.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱjustȱasȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱcase,ȱthe narrativeȱservesȱforȱanȱallegoricalȱinterpretation,ȱsinceȱtheȱnakedȱkingȱstandsȱfor theȱhumanȱindividualȱafterȱhis/herȱdeath,ȱandȱtheȱsecretȱpalaceȱonȱtheȱislandȱfor allȱthoseȱthingsȱthatȱweȱactuallyȱcanȱtakeȱwithȱusȱtoȱtheȱafterlife,ȱthatȱis,ȱvirtually nothing,ȱexceptȱtheȱgoodȱworksȱandȱdeedsȱthatȱtheȱdeceasedȱhasȱdoneȱinȱhis/her life.ȱPatronio’sȱadviceȱhenceȱaimsȱatȱtheȱproperȱpreparationȱforȱdeath,ȱwhichȱneeds toȱbeginȱlongȱbefore:ȱ“doȱsuchȱworksȱinȱthisȱworldȱasȱtoȱensureȱthatȱwhenȱyou comeȱtoȱleaveȱit,ȱyouȱwillȱmeritȱaȱfineȱabodeȱinȱtheȱoneȱwhereȱyouȱareȱtoȱremainȱfor ever”ȱ(295).ȱ Justȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱfictionalȱking,ȱtheȱlistenerȱisȱstronglyȱencouragedȱto ensureȱthatȱs/heȱalsoȱleavesȱbehindȱgoodȱfriendsȱwhoȱcouldȱprovideȱhim/herȱwith thoseȱsuppliesȱthatȱs/heȱmightȱhaveȱforgotten.ȱTheseȱpertainȱtoȱgoodȱdeeds,ȱprayer, donations,ȱandȱtheȱlike:ȱ“friendsȱwhoȱforȱtheȱgoodȱofȱyourȱsoulȱwillȱcompleteȱwhat youȱhaveȱbeenȱunableȱtoȱcompleteȱinȱoneȱlife”ȱ(295).ȱFriendship,ȱinȱotherȱwords, provesȱ toȱ beȱ hereȱ asȱ wellȱ theȱ decisiveȱ pathwayȱ towardȱ aȱ goodȱ spiritualȱ life, preparingȱ theȱ individualȱ properlyȱ forȱ theȱ afterlife,ȱ yetȱ withoutȱ losingȱ the connectionȱtoȱtheȱmaterialȱexistenceȱbeforeȱdeath.ȱFriendsȱthusȱgainȱaȱtremendous importanceȱforȱtheȱwellȬbeingȱofȱtheȱhumanȱsoulȱsinceȱtrueȱfriendshipȱspiritualizes thoseȱ whoȱ areȱ fortunateȱ enoughȱ toȱ beȱ involved—undoubtedlyȱ aȱ profound realizationȱthatȱwillȱringȱthroughoutȱtheȱfollowingȱcenturies,ȱasȱweȱwillȱlaterȱlearn fromȱFrancisȱBaconȱinȱStellaȱAchilleos’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.ȱ

N.ȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱItalianȱWorldȱofȱIntellectuals:ȱ TheȱCaseȱofȱBrunettoȱLatini Throughoutȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ andȱ farȱ beyond,ȱ intellectualsȱ discoveredȱ that friendshipȱcouldȱbeȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱsocialȱbondsȱamongȱeachȱotherȱin orderȱtoȱdevelopȱtheirȱinterestsȱfurtherȱandȱtoȱestablishȱstableȱsocialȱcommunities whereȱtheyȱcouldȱliveȱinȱharmonyȱandȱtranquility.ȱWeȱobserveȱtheȱfirstȱstrong explorationsȱofȱthisȱphenomenonȱinȱcourtlyȱliterature,ȱfromȱwhichȱitȱthenȱmoved onȱ toȱ theȱ learned.ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ lateȬmedievalȱ proseȱ Arthurianȱ novels investigateȱ muchȱ moreȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ thanȱ highȬmedievalȱ verse romances,ȱorȱchansonsȱdeȱgeste,ȱalthoughȱtheȱwarriorȱethosȱhadȱtendedȱtoȱsubscribe toȱtheȱidealȱofȱcompanionship,ȱfellowship,ȱor,ȱasȱweȱmightȱsay,ȱbrotherhoodȱin

58

Introduction

blood,ȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ itȱ didȱ notȱ contradictȱ theȱ principlesȱ ofȱ vassalageȱ andȱ feudal loyalty.124ȱ Nevertheless,ȱfriendshipȱhasȱplayedȱanȱeverȬgrowingȱroleȱinȱhumanȱrelationsȱat leastȱ sinceȱ theȱ twelfthȱ century,ȱ particularlyȱ underȱ theȱ influenceȱ ofȱ Aristotle’s NicomacheanȱEthics.ȱTheȱtriumphȱofȱfriendship,ȱdiscussedȱandȱlivedȱbothȱinȱtheory andȱ practice,ȱ wasȱ finallyȱ achievedȱ inȱ theȱ thirteenthȱ century,ȱ asȱ perhapsȱ best reflectedȱ byȱ Brunettoȱ Latiniȱ (ca.ȱ 1220–1294)’sȱ treatiseȱ Livreȱ douȱ Tresor.125ȱ Dante eternalizedȱhimȱasȱhisȱformerȱteacherȱinȱhisȱDivinaȱCommedia,ȱbutȱthereȱwereȱmany othersȱ whoȱ admiredȱ himȱ deeplyȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ influentialȱ teachersȱ and importantȱpoliticiansȱinȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱFlorence,ȱasȱwellȱasȱwhenȱheȱservedȱas Chancellorȱfromȱ1272ȱtoȱ1274.ȱTheȱLivreȱcompilesȱmuchȱclassicalȱwisdomȱliterature, Biblicalȱ material,ȱ butȱ thenȱ alsoȱ borrowsȱ fromȱ theȱ Physiologusȱ and,ȱ most importantly,ȱfromȱAristotle’sȱNicomacheanȱEthics.ȱLatini’sȱpopularityȱthroughout theȱEuropeanȱMiddleȱAgesȱcanȱhardlyȱbeȱoverestimated,ȱconsideringȱtheȱvarious redactionsȱ alreadyȱ duringȱ hisȱ lifetimeȱ andȱ thenȱ theȱ countlessȱ translationsȱ into otherȱlanguages.126ȱ InȱtheȱsecondȱbookȱLatiniȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱexploreȱtheȱmeaningȱandȱrelevanceȱof virtues,ȱ vices,ȱ goodȱ andȱ evil,ȱ theȱ variousȱ characterȱ traitsȱ inȱ humans,ȱ justice, courage,ȱandȱtemperance,ȱbutȱalsoȱfriendship.ȱHeȱidentifiesȱitȱasȱ“oneȱofȱtheȱvirtues ofȱGodȱandȱofȱman,ȱandȱitȱisȱveryȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱlifeȱofȱmanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”127ȱEveryone needsȱhelpȱandȱsupport,ȱandȱfriendsȱprovideȱtheȱbestȱinȱthisȱregard.ȱEspeciallyȱthe mightyȱandȱrichȱpeople,ȱwhoȱareȱconstantlyȱinȱdangerȱofȱfallingȱdownȱfromȱtheir highȱ postsȱ inȱ life,ȱ muchȱ dependȱ onȱ friendsȱ whomȱ theyȱ canȱ trulyȱ trust.ȱ Since humansȱreallyȱneedȱsocialȱcontacts,ȱfriendsȱconstituteȱtheȱessentialȱcontactȱpoints withinȱsociety:ȱ“Theȱpersonȱwhoȱisȱwithoutȱhisȱfriendȱisȱallȱaloneȱinȱcarryingȱout hisȱaffairs,ȱandȱwhenȱheȱisȱwithȱhisȱgoodȱfriendȱheȱisȱaccompaniedȱandȱhasȱperfect helpȱtoȱaccomplishȱhisȱwork”ȱ(178).128ȱAssumingȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱexistsȱand thatȱpeopleȱcanȱrelyȱonȱtheirȱfriends,ȱheȱreachesȱtheȱremarkableȱinsight:ȱ“fromȱtwo

124

125

126

127

128

Huguetteȱ Legros,ȱ L’Amitiéȱ dansȱ lesȱ chansonsȱ deȱ gesteȱ àȱ l’époqueȱ romaineȱ (AixȬenȬProvence: Publicationsȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱdeȱProvence,ȱ2001).ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱvolume byȱAlbrechtȱClassen. KatarzynaȱDybel,ȱÊtreȱheureuxȱauȱmoyenȱâge:ȱD’AprèsȱleȱromanȱarthurienȱenȱproseȱduȱXIIIeȱsiècle. Synthema,ȱ2ȱ(Louvain,ȱParis,ȱandȱDudley,ȱMA:ȱPeeters,ȱ2004),ȱ134–37. CevaȱBianca,ȱBrunettoȱLatini:ȱl’uomoȱeȱl’operaȱ(Milan:ȱR.ȱRicciardi,ȱ1965);ȱJeanȱC.ȱCampbell,ȱThe Commonwealthȱ ofȱ Nature:ȱ Artȱ andȱ Poeticȱ Communityȱ inȱ theȱ Ageȱ ofȱ Danteȱ (Universityȱ Park: PennsylvaniaȱStateȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2008);ȱIreneȱMaffiaȱScariati,ȱDalȱTresorȱalȱTesoretto:ȱsaggiȱsu BrunettoȱLatiniȱeȱiȱsuoiȱfiancheggiatoriȱ(Rome:ȱAracne,ȱ2010). BrunettoȱLatini,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱtheȱTreasureȱ(LiȱLivresȱdouȱTresor),ȱtrans.ȱPaulȱBarretteȱandȱSpurgeon Baldwin.ȱGarlandȱLibraryȱofȱMedievalȱLiterature,ȱSeriesȱB,ȱ90ȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱGarland, 1993),ȱ177. SebastianȱSchroedter,ȱFreundschaftȱalsȱsozialesȱSystemȱ(Norderstedt:ȱBooksȱonȱDemandȱGmbH, 2006).

Introduction

59

perfectȱ andȱ goodȱ peopleȱ comeȱ perfectȱ worksȱ andȱ perfectȱ intention”ȱ (ibid.). Friendshipȱexpressesȱitselfȱthroughȱcharityȱandȱresistanceȱtoȱdiscord.ȱNoȱconflicts andȱmalevolenceȱcanȱenterȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱtwoȱhonestȱfriends;ȱhenceȱfriendship emergesȱasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱaȱtrulyȱharmoniousȱsocialȱcommunityȱ(ibid.). Latiniȱdividesȱfriendshipsȱintoȱthreeȱcategories,ȱallȱcontingentȱonȱeitherȱmaterial good,ȱprofit,ȱorȱpleasure.ȱHowever,ȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱeachȱotherȱbecauseȱtheyȱaim forȱprofitȱorȱpleasureȱonly,ȱcannotȱbeȱcalledȱtrueȱfriendsȱbecauseȱ“theyȱloveȱthe thingsȱonȱwhichȱtheȱfriendshipȱisȱbased,ȱthatȱis,ȱpleasureȱandȱprofit”ȱ(ibid.).ȱAlmost withȱaȱtwinkleȱinȱhisȱeye,ȱtheȱauthorȱidentifiesȱfriendshipȱbasedȱonȱtheȱdesireȱfor profit,ȱasȱisȱhabitualȱamongȱoldȱpeople,ȱandȱfriendshipȱthatȱonlyȱaimsȱforȱpleasure asȱdeceptiveȱrelationships.ȱByȱcontrast,ȱ“trueȱfriendshipȱwhichȱisȱgoodȱandȱfull existsȱbetweenȱtwoȱgoodȱmenȱwhoȱareȱsimilarȱinȱvirtueȱandȱwhoȱloveȱoneȱanother andȱcareȱforȱoneȱanotherȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱsimilarityȱofȱtheȱvirtuesȱtheyȱpossess” (ibid.).ȱ CloselyȱfollowingȱtheȱideasȱformulatedȱalreadyȱbyȱAelred,ȱLatiniȱunderscores howȱ muchȱ idealȱ friendshipȱ canȱ beȱ identifiedȱ asȱ divineȱ becauseȱ thereȱ isȱ no treacheryȱorȱevil.ȱThisȱimpliesȱforȱhimȱthatȱifȱoneȱobservesȱtrueȱfriendshipȱthen thoseȱ involvedȱ areȱ certainlyȱ toȱ beȱ characterizedȱ asȱ onlyȱ goodȱ peopleȱ because friendshipȱbetweenȱbadȱandȱgoodȱpeopleȱorȱbetweenȱonlyȱbadȱpeopleȱcannotȱexist.ȱ Friendshipȱdoesȱnotȱrequireȱconstantȱcontacts;ȱinsteadȱitȱcanȱthriveȱevenȱover distanceȱandȱtime,ȱalthoughȱLatiniȱalsoȱwarnsȱthatȱaȱtooȱlongȱseparationȱcouldȱlead toȱaȱcoolingȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfriends.ȱTheȱcoreȱmessageȱaboutȱfriendship concernsȱtheȱhighestȱlevelȱofȱvirtuesȱamongȱpeople: Theȱobjectȱofȱloveȱhasȱinȱitselfȱaȱnobleȱqualityȱforȱwhichȱitȱisȱloved,ȱandȱtheȱgoodȱman whoȱisȱaȱfriendȱbecomesȱaȱgoodȱfriend,ȱandȱtheȱoneȱlovesȱtheȱother,ȱandȱnotȱbecause ofȱpassion,ȱbutȱbecauseȱofȱaȱstateȱofȱcharacter.ȱEachȱoneȱofȱtheȱfriendsȱlovesȱtheȱother’s good,ȱandȱrewardsȱtheȱotherȱthroughȱgoodȱwillȱandȱaccordingȱtoȱequity,ȱandȱsuchȱis trueȱfriendship.ȱ(179)

Friendsȱdoȱnotȱholdȱonȱtoȱtheirȱownȱinȱaȱgreedyȱfashion;ȱinsteadȱtheyȱhappilyȱshare everythingȱtheyȱcountȱamongȱtheirȱpropertyȱwithȱtheȱfriendȱ“becauseȱfriendship isȱ likeȱ community,ȱ andȱ eachȱ communityȱ desiresȱ thingsȱ appropriateȱ toȱ itȱ in concupiscenceȱandȱvictoryȱandȱwisdom”ȱ(ibid.).ȱInȱtheȱfollowingȱchapterȱLatini goesȱevenȱoneȱstepȱfurtherȱandȱcomments,ȱ“Friendshipȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱjustice,ȱandȱjust asȱthereȱareȱtwoȱtypesȱofȱjustice,ȱoneȱbasedȱonȱnature,ȱtheȱotherȱonȱlaw,ȱsoȱtooȱthere isȱ aȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ isȱ legalȱ andȱ anotherȱ whichȱ isȱ natural”ȱ (181).ȱ Tooȱ many people,ȱhowever,ȱpursueȱfriendshipȱonlyȱforȱpersonalȱgainȱandȱprofit,ȱandȱlose sightȱofȱtheȱvirtueȱthatȱholdsȱupȱthisȱvalue.ȱ Theȱauthorȱthusȱconcludes:ȱ“friendshipsȱwhichȱareȱbuiltȱonȱgoodnessȱandȱtruth lastȱforȱaȱlongȱtime,ȱbecauseȱvirtueȱcannotȱbeȱchangedȱeasily”ȱ(182).ȱObviously,ȱhe predicatesȱhisȱwholeȱdiscussionȱonȱtheȱnotionȱthatȱfriendshipȱwouldȱlastȱforȱlife, butȱheȱleavesȱopenȱaȱsmallȱwindowȱconcerningȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱevenȱtheȱbest

60

Introduction

friendshipȱmightȱcomeȱtoȱanȱendȱunderȱbadȱcircumstances.ȱAndȱheȱalsoȱwarnsȱof thoseȱwhoȱmightȱabuseȱfriendshipȱforȱmaterialȱgainsȱorȱpoliticalȱadvantages,ȱwhich heȱmustȱhaveȱexperiencedȱoftenȱenoughȱtoȱlamentȱaboutȱsuchȱmanipulations.ȱ Puttingȱ itȱ intoȱ proverbialȱ language,ȱ Latiniȱ avers:ȱ “Theȱ oneȱ whoȱ counterfeits friendshipȱisȱworseȱthanȱaȱcounterfeiterȱofȱgoldȱorȱsilver,ȱsinceȱfriendshipȱisȱthe bestȱtreasureȱthereȱcanȱbe,ȱandȱjustȱasȱtheȱfakeȱcoinȱisȱquicklyȱrecognized,ȱsoȱtooȱis falseȱfriendshipȱquicklyȱdiscovered”ȱ(182).ȱAsȱaȱcorollary,ȱforȱtheȱauthorȱfriendship turnsȱ intoȱ anȱ essentialȱ yardstickȱ toȱ measureȱ theȱ trueȱ qualityȱ ofȱ aȱ person,ȱ the strengthȱ ofȱ hisȱ orȱ herȱ character,ȱ andȱ theȱ degreeȱ toȱ whichȱ s/heȱ knowsȱ howȱ to maintainȱtheȱidealsȱofȱaȱnobleȱandȱhonorableȱlifeȱpleasantȱtoȱGodȱ(182–83).ȱ Theȱultimateȱdemonstrationȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱconsistsȱofȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱpeace andȱharmony,ȱsoȱfriendshipȱrepresentsȱlivedȱvirtues:ȱ“Concordȱofȱopinionȱliesȱin goodȱ men,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ steadfastȱ withinȱ themselvesȱ andȱ withȱ respectȱ to outsideȱmatters,ȱforȱtheyȱalwaysȱselectȱandȱwantȱgoodness”ȱ(183).ȱ ContemporaryȱauthorsȱofȱproseȱnovelsȱcertainlyȱwouldȱhaveȱagreedȱwithȱLatini, andȱsoȱcertainlyȱchimedȱinȱtoȱtheȱsameȱdiscourseȱwithȱveryȱsimilarȱvaluesȱasȱto friendshipȱbeingȱtheȱfundamentalȱglueȱholdingȱallȱofȱcourtlyȱsocietyȱtogether.129

O.ȱDante,ȱBoccaccio,ȱandȱPetrarchȱasȱProponentsȱofȱ theȱIdealȱofȱFriendship:ȱVoicesȱfromȱtheȱ EarlyȱItalianȱRenaissance Boccaccio Wheneverȱweȱencounterȱlargerȱanthologies,ȱorȱcollections,ȱofȱshortȱnarratives,ȱsuch asȱPetrusȱAlfonsi’sȱDisciplinaȱClericalisȱ(seeȱabove)ȱorȱCaesariusȱofȱHeisterbach’s (ca.ȱ 1180–ca.ȱ 1240)ȱ Dialogusȱ Miraculorum,ȱ weȱ canȱ beȱ certainȱ thatȱ theȱ topicȱ of friendshipȱalsoȱsurfaces,ȱsometimesȱassumingȱaȱmajor,ȱatȱotherȱtimesȱaȱminorȱrole. Nevertheless,ȱ suchȱ collectionsȱ regularlyȱ tryȱ toȱ provideȱ theȱ readersȱ withȱ a kaleidoscopeȱ ofȱ variousȱ facetsȱ reflectingȱ humanȱ lifeȱ inȱ allȱ itsȱ diversityȱ and complexity.ȱLittleȱwonder,ȱthen,ȱthatȱBoccaccioȱalsoȱaddressedȱfriendshipȱinȱhis Decameronȱ(ca.ȱ1350),ȱevenȱwhenȱhisȱtrueȱinterestȱrestedȱonȱquiteȱaȱdifferentȱtopic. Thisȱfindsȱitsȱperhapsȱbestȱexpressionȱinȱtheȱsecondȱtaleȱofȱtheȱfirstȱdayȱwhereȱwe learnȱofȱtwoȱveryȱgoodȱfriends,ȱtwoȱParisianȱmerchants,ȱtheȱoneȱcalledȱJehannot deȱChevigny,ȱtheȱotherȱsimplyȱAbraham.ȱAsȱtheȱlatter’sȱnameȱalreadyȱindicates, heȱ isȱ aȱ Jew,ȱ butȱ althoughȱ theȱ formerȱ triesȱ veryȱ hardȱ toȱ convinceȱ hisȱ friendȱ to

129

Dybel,ȱÊtreȱheureuxȱauȱmoyenȱâge,ȱ138–349ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ125);ȱsheȱrefers,ȱaboveȱall,ȱtoȱLeȱLancelotȱen prose,ȱMerlin,ȱMortȱleȱRoiȱArtu,ȱandȱTristanȱenȱprose.ȱ

Introduction

61

convertȱtoȱChristianity,ȱtheȱreligiousȱgulfȱbetweenȱthemȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱany significantȱproblemȱforȱtheirȱfriendship.130ȱ Theȱnarratorȱmakesȱsureȱtoȱconvinceȱusȱthatȱbothȱmenȱimpressȱusȱthroughȱtheir uprightȱandȱmodelȱcharacter.ȱSoȱweȱlearnȱthatȱJehannotȱis”aȱgoodȱman,ȱmostȱloyal andȱrighteous,”ȱwhileȱAbrahamȱstandsȱoutȱasȱ“alsoȱmostȱloyalȱandȱrighteous.”ȱNot surprisingly,ȱbothȱareȱbondedȱbyȱanȱintenseȱfriendship:ȱ“thereȱsubsistedȱaȱvery closeȱfriendship”ȱirrespectiveȱofȱtheirȱpolarȱpositionȱregardingȱreligion.ȱHowever, JehannotȱexpressesȱgreatȱconcernsȱbecauseȱheȱisȱaȱdevoutȱChristianȱandȱsoȱdeeply worriesȱaboutȱhisȱfriendȱnotȱbeingȱwithinȱtheȱfoldȱofȱhisȱownȱchurch:ȱheȱ“beganȱto beȱsorelyȱvexedȱinȱspiritȱthatȱtheȱsoulȱofȱoneȱsoȱworthyȱandȱwiseȱandȱgoodȱshould perishȱforȱwantȱofȱfaith.”ȱ AlthoughȱJehannotȱisȱlackingȱinȱrhetoricalȱ skillsȱand theologicalȱarguments,ȱhisȱconstantȱpleadingȱwithȱhisȱfriendȱfinallyȱshowsȱsome effects:ȱ“AndȱthoughȱtheȱJewȱwasȱaȱgreatȱmasterȱinȱtheȱJewishȱlaw,ȱyet,ȱwhether itȱwasȱbyȱreasonȱofȱhisȱfriendshipȱforȱJehannot,ȱorȱthatȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱdictatedȱthe wordsȱ thatȱ theȱ simpleȱ merchantȱ used,ȱ atȱ anyȱ rateȱ theȱ Jewȱ beganȱ toȱ beȱ much interestedȱinȱJehannotȇsȱarguments,ȱthoughȱstillȱtooȱstaunchȱinȱhisȱfaithȱtoȱsuffer himselfȱtoȱbeȱconverted.” AtȱtheȱendȱAbraham,ȱalreadyȱsomewhatȱcuriousȱandȱopenȬmindedȱinȱresponse toȱhisȱfriend’sȱconstantȱbegging,ȱdecidesȱtoȱtestȱtheȱChristianȱChurchȱbeforeȱhe makesȱanyȱdecision,ȱandȱtravelsȱtoȱRomeȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱhighestȱrepresentatives. Theȱnarrativeȱis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱreallyȱpredicatedȱonȱsatiricalȱanticlericalism,ȱasȱthe subsequentȱdevelopmentsȱindicate.ȱTheȱJewȱobservesȱtheȱcompleteȱmalaiseȱofȱthe clergyȱthroughoutȱallȱranks,ȱandȱlater,ȱuponȱhisȱreturn,ȱexpressesȱgreatȱdisgust:ȱ IȱthinkȱGodȱowesȱthemȱallȱanȱevilȱrecompense:ȱIȱtellȱthee,ȱsoȱfarȱasȱIȱwasȱableȱtoȱcarry myȱinvestigations,ȱholiness,ȱdevotion,ȱgoodȱworksȱorȱexemplaryȱlivingȱinȱanyȱkindȱwas nowhereȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱanyȱclerk;ȱbutȱonlyȱlewdness,ȱavarice,ȱgluttony,ȱandȱtheȱlike, andȱworse,ȱifȱworseȱmayȱbe,ȱappearedȱtoȱbeȱheldȱinȱsuchȱhonourȱofȱall,ȱthatȱ(toȱmy thinking)ȱtheȱplaceȱisȱaȱcentreȱofȱdiabolicalȱratherȱthanȱofȱdivineȱactivities.”

Inȱfact,ȱheȱisȱconvincedȱthatȱallȱthoseȱpriests,ȱcardinals,ȱandȱevenȱtheȱpopeȱstrive theȱ hardestȱ toȱ bringȱ downȱ theȱ Churchȱ throughȱ theirȱ ownȱ moralȱ wrongdoing. Nevertheless,ȱrealizingȱthatȱtheȱChristianȱfaithȱcontinuesȱtoȱprosperȱdespiteȱthe egregiousȱshortcomingsȱofȱtheȱecclesiastics,ȱheȱrecognizesȱtheȱtrueȱstrengthȱofȱthat religionȱasȱtheȱonlyȱvalidȱpathwayȱtoȱGod,ȱsoȱheȱconverts.ȱ Hisȱfriendȱisȱcompletelyȱsurprisedȱbyȱthisȱdevelopmentȱofȱthingsȱandȱcannot believeȱ hisȱ ears:ȱ “Jehannot,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ anticipatedȱ aȱ diametricallyȱ opposite

130

ThereȱareȱmanyȱgoodȱcriticalȱeditionsȱandȱEnglishȱtranslations;ȱforȱourȱpurposesȱitȱisȱsufficientȱto relyȱonȱtheȱoneȱbyȱJ(ames).ȱM(acmullen).ȱRigg,ȱTheȱDecameron.ȱFaithfullyȱtrans.ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ(London: H.ȱM.ȱBullen,ȱ1903),ȱnowȱavailableȱinȱanȱonlineȱversion,ȱsee: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/texts/DecShowText.php?myID=no v0102&lang=engȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

62

Introduction

conclusion,ȱasȱsoonȱasȱheȱheardȱhimȱsoȱspeak,ȱwasȱtheȱbestȱpleasedȱmanȱthatȱever wasȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱSoȱtakingȱAbrahamȱwithȱhimȱ toȱNotreȱDameȱheȱprayedȱthe clergyȱthereȱtoȱbaptiseȱhim.”ȱThisȱhappens,ȱindeed,ȱandȱtheȱnarrativeȱclosesȱwith aȱfinalȱreferenceȱtoȱJehannot’sȱgreatȱeffortsȱtoȱhelpȱhisȱfriendȱtoȱreceiveȱtheȱrelevant instructionȱnecessaryȱforȱaȱChristian:ȱ“Jehannotȱraisedȱhimȱfromȱtheȱsacredȱfont, andȱ namedȱ himȱ Jean;ȱ andȱ afterwardsȱ heȱ causedȱ teachersȱ ofȱ greatȱ eminence thoroughlyȱtoȱinstructȱhimȱinȱourȱfaith.”131ȱ Theȱ ironyȱ inȱ thisȱ storyȱ cannotȱ beȱ overlooked,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ andȱ soȱ theȱ harsh criticismȱagainstȱtheȱmoralȱdownfallȱofȱtheȱChurchȱ(anticlericalism).ȱButȱtheȱtrue valueȱofȱBoccaccio’sȱentertainingȱnarrativeȱrestsȱinȱaȱnumberȱofȱsignificantȱfactors: 1.ȱaȱChristianȱandȱaȱJewishȱmerchantȱareȱgoodȱfriends,ȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱto representȱanyȱproblemȱforȱthemȱandȱtheirȱsocialȱenvironment;ȱ2.ȱtheȱChristian,ȱout ofȱgreatȱconcernȱforȱhisȱfriend,ȱtriesȱveryȱhardȱtoȱconvinceȱhimȱtoȱconvertȱtoȱhis ownȱreligion;ȱ3.ȱJehannotȱfeelsȱdistraughtȱandȱdisappointedȱwhenȱheȱlearnsȱthat Abrahamȱ wantsȱ toȱ visitȱ Romeȱ firstȱ andȱ examineȱ fromȱ hisȱ perspectiveȱ the comportmentȱ ofȱ theȱ clergyȱ thereȱ beforeȱ resolvingȱ theȱ issueȱ forȱ himself.ȱ This indicatesȱhowȱmuchȱJehannotȱhimselfȱisȱjustȱtooȱawareȱofȱtheȱpervasiveȱproblems withinȱtheȱChristianȱChurch.ȱ4.ȱAsȱaȱfriendȱheȱdoesȱnotȱstandȱinȱAbraham’sȱway whenȱheȱfinallyȱdepartsȱforȱRome,ȱalthoughȱheȱisȱgreatlyȱworriedȱthatȱthisȱwould undermineȱallȱofȱhisȱhopesȱtoȱfindȱhisȱfriendȱonȱhisȱsideȱinȱreligiousȱterms.ȱ5.ȱHe happilyȱwelcomesȱhimȱbackȱafterȱhisȱreturnȱfromȱRome,ȱthoughȱheȱisȱconvinced thatȱ heȱ hasȱ completelyȱ lostȱ theȱ cause:ȱ “There,ȱ onȱ hisȱ arrival,ȱ heȱ wasȱ metȱ by Jehannot;ȱandȱtheȱtwoȱmadeȱgreatȱcheerȱtogether.ȱJehannotȱexpectedȱAbrahamȇs conversionȱleastȱofȱallȱthings,ȱandȱallowedȱhimȱsomeȱdaysȱofȱrestȱbeforeȱheȱasked whatȱheȱthoughtȱofȱtheȱHolyȱFatherȱandȱtheȱcardinalsȱandȱtheȱotherȱcourtiers.”ȱ6. Thisȱ subsequentlyȱ meansȱ thatȱ Jehannotȱ wouldȱ haveȱ acceptedȱ Abraham’sȱ final decisionȱeitherȱwayȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱfriends,ȱjustȱasȱheȱhadȱacceptedȱhimȱbefore asȱaȱJewȱirrespectiveȱofȱhisȱmanyȱeffortsȱtoȱconvinceȱhimȱofȱtheȱsuperiorityȱofȱthe ChristianȱChurch.ȱ ThereȱareȱotherȱinstancesȱofȱprofoundȱfriendshipȱinȱBoccaccio’sȱDecameron,ȱsuch asȱbetweenȱSaladinȱandȱtheȱJewȱMelsichedechȱinȱtheȱthirdȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfirstȱday.ȱIn thisȱ famousȱ storyȱ theȱ centralȱ issueȱ hingesȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱ regardingȱ theȱ true religion,ȱwhetherȱJudaism,ȱChristianity,ȱorȱIslam.ȱMelsichedech,ȱhowever,ȱwhom theȱSultanȱtriesȱtoȱtrapȱwithȱthatȱquestion,ȱknowsȱhowȱtoȱescapeȱbyȱtellingȱaȱhighly symbolicȱstoryȱaboutȱtheȱthreeȱringsȱwhichȱrepresentȱtheseȱthreeȱreligions.ȱAfter all,ȱandȱthatȱisȱtheȱcruxȱofȱtheȱaccount,ȱnoȱoneȱcanȱreallyȱdistinguishȱtheseȱrings, 131

TimothyȱR.ȱJordan,ȱ“ImpliedȱAcceptance:ȱTheȱReligiousȱOtherȱinȱtheȱDecameron,”ȱDuliaȱetȱLatria Journalȱ1ȱ(2008):ȱ1–15;ȱJanetȱLevarie,ȱSmarr,ȱ“NonȬChristianȱPeopleȱandȱSpacesȱinȱtheȱDecameron,” Approachesȱ toȱ Teachingȱ Boccaccio’sȱ Decameron,ȱ ed.ȱ Jamesȱ H.ȱ McGregorȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Modern LanguageȱAssociationȱofȱAmerica,ȱ2000),ȱ31–38;ȱeadem,ȱ“OtherȱRacesȱandȱOtherȱPlacesȱinȱthe Decameron,”ȱStudiȱsulȱBoccaccioȱ27ȱ(1998):ȱ113–36.

Introduction

63

althoughȱonlyȱoneȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱtrueȱringȱinheritedȱfromȱtheȱfatherȱ(God) asȱaȱsignȱofȱtheȱownerȱbeingȱtheȱdesignatedȱsuccessorȱandȱpatriarchȱofȱtheȱfamily (mankind).ȱTheȱSultanȱisȱdeeplyȱimpressed,ȱifȱnotȱstunned,ȱbyȱthisȱwiseȱresponse andȱrevealsȱwhatȱhisȱtrueȱintentionȱhadȱbeen,ȱnamelyȱtoȱforceȱtheȱJewȱtoȱlendȱhim aȱlargeȱamountȱofȱmoneyȱifȱheȱhadȱfailedȱtoȱdealȱconstructivelyȱwithȱthisȱsensitive issue.ȱTheȱJew,ȱhowever,ȱnowȱdeclaresȱhisȱownȱwillingnessȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱSultan withȱtheȱnecessaryȱmoney,ȱwhichȱthenȱleadsȱtoȱaȱmostȱharmoniousȱrelationship: “Thereuponȱ theȱ Jewȱ gaveȱ theȱ Soldanȱ allȱ theȱ accommodationȱ thatȱ heȱ required, whichȱtheȱSoldanȱafterwardsȱrepaidȱhimȱinȱfull.ȱHeȱalsoȱgaveȱhimȱmostȱmunificent giftsȱwithȱhisȱlifelongȱamityȱandȱaȱgreatȱandȱhonourableȱpositionȱnearȱhisȱperson.” Hereȱasȱwellȱfriendshipȱemergesȱasȱaȱfundamentalȱvalue,ȱthoughȱBoccaccioȱdoes notȱexploreȱitȱasȱmuchȱasȱinȱtheȱpreviousȱaccount.132ȱ

Petrarch Theȱ greatȱ founderȱ ofȱ Italianȱ humanism,ȱ ifȱ notȱ ofȱ theȱ Renaissance,ȱ Francesco Petrarca,ȱ orȱ Petrarchȱ (1304–1373),ȱ leftȱ numerousȱ commentsȱ aboutȱ allȱ kindsȱ of aspectsȱpertainingȱtoȱhumanȱlife,ȱandȱsoȱfriendshipȱasȱwell,ȱbehind.ȱInȱoneȱofȱhis letters,ȱhowever,ȱaddressedȱtoȱhisȱfriendȱandȱconfessor,ȱtheȱmonkȱDionigiȱdiȱBorgo SanȱSepolcro,ȱcomposedȱsomeȱtimeȱafterȱPetrarchȱhasȱcourageouslyȱventuredȱthe climbȱofȱMontȱVentouxȱonȱAprilȱ26,ȱ1336,ȱheȱfoundȱanȱintriguingȱoccasionȱtoȱreflect onȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ inȱ greaterȱ detail.133ȱ Afterȱ havingȱ decidedȱ toȱ acceptȱ the challengeȱandȱtoȱdareȱtheȱfeatȱwhichȱnoȱoneȱelseȱbeforeȱhadȱeverȱdone,ȱtakingȱon

132

133

DavidȱSulewski,ȱ“Ilȱgiocoȱdellaȱparolaȱtrasformatrice:ȱLȇamiciziaȱfraȱSaladinoȱeȱMelchisedech (Decameronȱ1,3),”ȱRomanceȱReviewȱ15ȱ(2005):ȱ130–41.ȱSeeȱalsoȱReginaldȱHyatte,ȱ“Reconfiguring AncientȱAmicitiaȱPerfectaȱinȱtheȱDecameronȱ10,8,”ȱItalianȱQuarterlyȱ32ȱ(1995):ȱ27–37.ȱDecameronȱ10,8 provedȱtoȱbeȱaȱhighlyȱsuccessfulȱstoryȱaboutȱtrueȱfriendshipȱandȱwasȱadaptedȱandȱtranslatedȱmany timesȱevenȱinȱtheȱGermanȬspeakingȱlands;ȱseeȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“DasȱMotivȱdesȱaufopfernden Freundes”ȱ(2006;ȱseeȱnoteȱ8). ModernȱscholarshipȱhasȱraisedȱmanyȱquestionsȱasȱtoȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱPetrarch’sȱclaim,ȱsuggesting, forȱinstance,ȱthatȱitȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱnothingȱbutȱaȱrhetoricalȱexerciseȱandȱnotȱaȱtrueȱclimb.ȱButȱfor ourȱpurposesȱitȱdoesȱnotȱmatterȱwhetherȱPetrarchȱwroteȱhisȱletterȱreallyȱshortlyȱafterȱtheȱreturn fromȱ theȱ summit,ȱ orȱ fifteenȱ yearsȱ later.ȱ Theȱ textȱ stillȱ reflectsȱ hisȱ primaryȱ interestȱ toȱ climbȱ a mountainȱforȱitsȱownȱsake.ȱForȱcriticalȱcomments,ȱseeȱPierreȱCourcelle,ȱ“PetrarqueȱentreȱSaint AugustinȱetȱlesȱAugustinsȱduȱXIVeȱsiecle,”ȱStudipetrarcheschiȱ7ȱ(1961):ȱ51Ȭ71;ȱGiuseppeȱBillanovich, “Petrarcaȱ eȱ ilȱ Ventuso,”ȱ Italiaȱ medioevaleȱ eȱ umanisricaȱ 9ȱ (1966):ȱ 389Ȭ401;ȱ Michaelȱ O’Connell, “AuthorityȱandȱtheȱTruthȱofȱExperienceȱinȱPetrarch’sȱ‘AscentȱofȱMountȱVentoux’,”ȱPhilological Quarterlyȱ62ȱ(1983):ȱ507–20;ȱLyellȱAsher,ȱ“PetrarchȱatȱtheȱPeakȱofȱFame,”ȱPublicationȱofȱtheȱModern Languageȱ Associationȱ (PMLA)ȱ 108.5ȱ (Oct.,ȱ 1993):ȱ 1050Ȭ1063;ȱ andȱ mostȱ recently,ȱ Unnȱ Falkeid, “Petrarch,ȱMontȱVentouxȱandȱtheȱModernȱSelf,”ȱForumȱItalicumȱ43.1ȱ(2009):ȱ5–28.ȱAsȱtoȱPetrarch’s friendȱtoȱwhomȱheȱaddressedȱhisȱletter,ȱseeȱGuydaȱArmstrong,ȱ“DionigiȱdiȱBorgoȱSanȱSepolcro,” MedievalȱItaly:ȱAnȱEncyclopedia,ȱed.ȱChristopherȱKleinhenzȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱRoutledge, 2004),ȱvol.ȱ1,ȱ296–97.

64

Introduction

aȱmountainȱforȱnoȱotherȱreasonȱbutȱtoȱreachȱitsȱsummitȱandȱtoȱgainȱaȱsweeping viewȱoverȱtheȱworldȱfromȱthere,ȱtheȱauthorȱatȱfirstȱreflectedȱonȱtheȱmostȱreasonable approachȱtoȱthisȱdifficultȱundertaking.ȱUnderstandably,ȱPetrarchȱdecidedȱfromȱthe beginningȱnotȱtoȱventureȱupȱtoȱMontȱVentouxȱwithoutȱaȱtrustworthyȱcompanion. Lookingȱaroundȱamongȱhisȱfriends,ȱhowever,ȱheȱsuddenlyȱrealizedȱtheȱcurious situationȱthatȱnoneȱofȱthemȱwouldȱmeetȱhisȱexpectations.ȱAllȱofȱthemȱwereȱnot suitableȱforȱhisȱendeavorȱbecauseȱeachȱoneȱofȱthemȱwasȱlackingȱinȱoneȱwayȱorȱthe otherȱandȱdisplayedȱcertainȱshortcomingsȱthatȱwouldȱmakeȱthemȱunelectableȱfor theȱoperation. AsȱPetrarchȱobserves,ȱallȱofȱhisȱfriendsȱareȱdearȱtoȱhim,ȱandȱheȱhasȱnoȱquestion aboutȱtheirȱloyaltyȱorȱtrust.ȱNevertheless,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱnecessarilyȱchooseȱfriends becauseȱtheyȱrepresentȱhumanȱperfection.ȱAsȱtheȱpoetȱandȱscholarȱnotesȱinȱhis famousȱletter:ȱ [S]oȱ rarelyȱ doȱ weȱ meetȱ withȱ justȱ theȱ rightȱ combinationȱ ofȱ personalȱ tastesȱ and characteristics,ȱevenȱamongȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱdearestȱtoȱus.”ȱFromȱthereȱheȱgoesȱonȱto outlineȱtheȱshortcomingsȱofȱeachȱandȱeveryone:ȱ“Thisȱoneȱwasȱtooȱapathetic,ȱthatȱone overȬanxious;ȱthisȱoneȱtooȱslow,ȱthatȱoneȱtooȱhasty;ȱoneȱwasȱtooȱsad,ȱanotherȱoverȬ cheerful;ȱoneȱmoreȱsimple,ȱanotherȱmoreȱsagacious,ȱthanȱIȱdesired.ȱIȱfearedȱthisȱone’s taciturnityȱandȱthatȱone’sȱloquacity.ȱTheȱheavyȱdeliberationȱofȱsomeȱrepelledȱmeȱas muchȱasȱtheȱleanȱincapacityȱofȱothers.ȱIȱrejectedȱthoseȱwhoȱwereȱlikelyȱtoȱirritateȱmeȱby aȱ coldȱ wantȱ ofȱ interest,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ thoseȱ whoȱ mightȱ wearyȱ meȱ byȱ theirȱ excessive enthusiasm.134

Petrarchȱ doesȱ not,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ expressȱ hereȱ theȱ opinionȱ ofȱ aȱ morose,ȱ irritated persona,ȱrejectingȱvirtuallyȱallȱfriendsȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱindividualȱfailures.ȱAfterȱall, asȱheȱemphasizes:ȱ“Suchȱdefects,ȱhoweverȱgrave,ȱcouldȱbeȱborneȱwithȱatȱhome,ȱfor charityȱ sufferethȱ allȱ things,ȱ andȱ friendshipȱ acceptsȱ anyȱ burden;ȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ quite otherwiseȱonȱaȱjourney,ȱwhereȱeveryȱweaknessȱbecomesȱmuchȱmoreȱserious.” Inȱotherȱwords,ȱPetrarchȱdemonstratesȱhisȱperspicuityȱinȱtheȱcriticalȱanalysisȱof hisȱfriendsȱwithoutȱtryingȱtoȱmalignȱorȱridiculeȱthem.ȱHeȱindicatesȱthatȱheȱenjoys manyȱ differentȱ friendshipsȱ andȱ isȱ surroundedȱ byȱ manyȱ aȱ goodȱ person. Nevertheless,ȱfriendshipȱshouldȱnotȱblindȱtheȱobserverȱtoȱtheȱhumanȱfrailtyȱof people;ȱ andȱ notȱ everyoneȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ tasksȱ oneȱ setsȱ forȱ oneselfȱ in specificȱcases.ȱFriendship,ȱthen,ȱasȱheȱindicates,ȱhasȱnothingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱbeingȱa masterȱinȱallȱthingsȱandȱexcellingȱinȱeveryȱareaȱofȱhumanȱthinkingȱandȱacting. Instead,ȱfriendshipȱreachesȱoutȱtoȱotherȱpeopleȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱspecificȱcharacters andȱabilities,ȱbutȱnotȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱperfectȱmatchesȱinȱeveryȱregard:ȱ“without

134

FrancisȱPetrarch,ȱFamiliarȱLettersȱ(Epistolaeȱfamiliaresȱ[IV,ȱ1]),ȱinȱPetrarch:ȱTheȱFirstȱModernȱScholar andȱManȱofȱLetters,ȱed.ȱandȱtrans.ȱJamesȱHarveyȱRobinsonȱ(NewȱYork:ȱG.ȱP.ȱPutnam,ȱ1898);ȱseeȱalso MedievalȱSourcebook,ȱonlineȱat: ȱhttp://history.hanover.edu/texts/petrarch/pet17.htmlȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).

Introduction

65

committingȱanyȱbreachȱofȱfriendshipȱIȱsilentlyȱcondemnedȱeveryȱtraitȱwhichȱmight proveȱdisagreeableȱonȱtheȱway.”ȱUltimately,ȱPetrarchȱselectedȱhisȱyoungerȱbrother, whichȱwasȱnot,ȱtoȱnote,ȱaȱvoteȱagainstȱfriendship,ȱbutȱaȱdecisionȱnotȱtoȱrelyȱon friendsȱwithoutȱanyȱregardȱtoȱtheirȱparticularȱidiosyncraciesȱandȱabilities.ȱ Afterȱall,ȱtheȱwriterȱdidȱnotȱneedȱaȱfriendȱforȱhisȱclimbȱtoȱtheȱsummitȱofȱMont Ventoux;ȱheȱneededȱaȱreliableȱandȱtrustworthyȱcompanionȱinȱanȱarduousȱtask. Nevertheless,ȱhisȱbrotherȱregardedȱPetrarch’sȱchoiceȱasȱaȱgreatȱhonor:ȱ“Heȱwas delightedȱandȱgratifiedȱbeyondȱmeasureȱbyȱtheȱthoughtȱofȱholdingȱtheȱplaceȱofȱa friendȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱaȱbrother.”ȱOfȱcourse,ȱthisȱdidȱnotȱmakeȱtheȱlatterȱPetrarch’s friend,ȱbutȱheȱcertainlyȱhelpedȱhimȱsignificantlyȱtoȱovercomeȱmanyȱdifficulties duringȱtheȱclimbȱandȱtoȱreachȱtheȱsummit.ȱAsȱtheȱfewȱremarksȱinȱthisȱnoteworthy letterȱthusȱindicate,ȱPetrarchȱwasȱkeenlyȱawareȱofȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱfriendship andȱknewȱexceedinglyȱwellȱhowȱtoȱevaluateȱtheȱphenomenonȱitselfȱandȱtheȱpeople whomȱheȱallowedȱtoȱjoinȱhimȱinȱhisȱcircleȱofȱfriends.135ȱAlmostȱasȱexpected,ȱonce onȱtheȱsummit,ȱturningȱhisȱeyesȱinȱallȱdirections,ȱbutȱespeciallyȱtowardȱtheȱAlps andȱItaly,ȱaȱstrongȱsenseȱofȱforlornnessȱovercameȱhim:ȱ“Anȱinexpressibleȱlonging cameȱoverȱmeȱtoȱseeȱonceȱmoreȱmyȱfriendȱandȱmyȱcountry.”ȱAfterȱall,ȱPetrarchȱwas deeplyȱcommittedȱtoȱhisȱfriends,ȱandȱthoughȱtheȱlatterȱoneȱremainsȱunnamed,ȱwe canȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱheȱrepresentsȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱallȱbyȱhimself.ȱMoreover, theȱletterȱinȱwhichȱheȱdescribesȱhisȱclimbȱtoȱMontȱVentouxȱwasȱdirectedȱtoȱoneȱof hisȱimportantȱfriends,ȱDionigiȱdiȱBorgoȱSanȱSepolcro,ȱwhomȱheȱwouldȱentrustȱhis mostȱ innerȱ thoughtsȱ andȱ feelȱ assuredȱ thatȱ theȱ addresseeȱ (“father”)ȱ would understandȱandȱsympathizeȱwithȱhim,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱheȱlaysȱbareȱhisȱsoulȱto him,ȱconfessingȱhisȱpersonalȱweaknessesȱandȱshortcomings,ȱworriesȱandȱdesires.ȱ Mostȱsignificantly,ȱthisȱmonumentalȱandȱratherȱcriticalȱletterȱsoȱessentialȱforȱthe understandingȱofȱPetrarchȱwasȱincludedȱinȱhisȱlargeȱcollectionȱofȱ300ȱlettersȱtoȱhis friends,ȱtheȱEpistolaeȱrerumȱfamiliarium,ȱorȱLettersȱonȱFamiliarȱMatters,ȱcompiledȱin theȱyearsȱfollowingȱtheȱBlackȱDeathȱ(1349ȱtoȱca.ȱ1366),ȱinȱwhichȱheȱworkedȱonȱand developedȱaȱwholeȱnetworkȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱdefiningȱmomentsȱofȱthe earlyȱItalianȱRenaissance.ȱDiggingȱhisȱwayȱoutȱofȱtheȱdepressionȱintoȱwhichȱthe devastatingȱBlackȱDeathȱandȱtheȱlossȱofȱnumerousȱrelativesȱandȱacquaintancesȱhad thrownȱhim,ȱheȱfoundȱtheȱnecessaryȱsuccorȱamongȱhisȱfriends.ȱAsȱDoloraȱChapelle Wojciehowskiȱnowȱcomments,ȱ“newȱandȱcontinuingȱfriendshipsȱwouldȱserve,ȱin part,ȱasȱtheȱcorrectiveȱforȱtheseȱdevastatingȱlosses.ȱPlansȱtoȱcreateȱaȱcommunityȱof survivingȱ friendsȱ cameȱ toȱ nothing,ȱ butȱ theȱ collectionȱ itselfȱ envisionedȱ and reconstitutedȱaȱcommunityȱofȱtheȱlivingȱandȱtheȱdead.”136ȱ 135

136

SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱPetrarchȱandȱhisȱReadersȱinȱtheȱRenaissance:ȱActesȱduȱcolloqueȱ“Friendsȱand FoesȱofȱtheȱPoetȱLaureate,ȱed.ȱKarlȱA.ȱE.ȱEnenkelȱandȱJanȱPapy.ȱIntersections,ȱ6ȱ(Leiden,ȱBoston,ȱet al.:ȱBrill,ȱ2006).ȱ DoloraȱChapelleȱWojciehowski,ȱ“FrancisȱPetrarch:ȱFirstȱModernȱFriend,”ȱTexasȱStudiesȱinȱLiterature andȱLanguageȱ47.4ȱ(Winterȱ2005):ȱ270–98;ȱhereȱ279.ȱSeeȱalsoȱNancyȱS.ȱStruever,ȱTheoryȱasȱPractice:

66

Introduction

Moreover,ȱ asȱ sheȱ alsoȱ affirms,ȱ “Forȱ Petrarch,ȱ friendshipȱ andȱ loveȱ were overlappingȱcategoriesȱofȱaffect.ȱDependingȱonȱtheȱintensityȱofȱtheȱrelationship,ȱthe authorȱspokeȱofȱhisȱloveȱandȱpassionȱforȱtheȱcorrespondent.”137ȱButȱweȱalsoȱneed toȱ keepȱ inȱ mindȱ thatȱ forȱ Petrarchȱ friendshipȱ regularlyȱ meantȱ ethicallyȱ ideal relationshipsȱwithȱmenȱofȱtheȱsameȱintellectualȱcaliberȱandȱmoralȱstanding,ȱthatȱis, toȱquoteȱWojciehowskiȱoneȱmoreȱtime,ȱheȱ“linkedȱfriendshipȱandȱvirtue,ȱvirtueȱand virility,ȱ virilityȱ andȱ intimacy.ȱ Theseȱ notionsȱ wouldȱ becomeȱ sedimentedȱ asȱ the conventionsȱofȱhumanistȱfriendship,ȱevenȱasȱtheȱgalvanizingȱtraumaȱofȱtheȱplague recededȱ fromȱ activeȱ memory.”138ȱ Thisȱ didȱ notȱ mean,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ thatȱ the contemporaryȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ suddenlyȱ changedȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ of Petrarch’sȱ contributions.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ itȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ highlyȱ diverseȱ and complex,ȱasȱourȱsubsequentȱexamplesȱwillȱillustrate.

Dante Althoughȱoutȱofȱchronologicalȱsequence,ȱitȱseemsȱfittingȱtoȱconcludeȱthisȱsection withȱaȱfewȱreflectionsȱonȱDanteȱwhoseȱrichȱwork,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱDivinaȱCommedia, wouldȱlendȱitselfȱwellȱforȱfurtherȱexaminationsȱofȱwhatȱfriendshipȱmightȱhave meantȱforȱthisȱintellectualȱgiant.ȱButȱletȱusȱfocusȱonȱhisȱVitaȱnovaȱinsteadȱ(1295) whereȱweȱobserveȱaȱfascinatingȱcomponentȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱresurface anywhereȱelseȱinȱtheȱsameȱclarity.ȱWrittenȱasȱaȱprosimetrum,ȱtheȱVitaȱnovaȱconsists ofȱanȱintensiveȱexchangeȱofȱsonnetsȱamongȱaȱcircleȱofȱfriends,ȱandȱtheȱrespective commentsȱonȱtheseȱpoemsȱwrittenȱinȱprose,ȱeverythingȱfocusing,ȱofȱcourse,ȱonȱthe questionȱhowȱtoȱwinȱlove.ȱAsȱDanteȱexplainsȱearlyȱon:ȱ“AsȱIȱhadȱalreadyȱtriedȱmy handȱatȱtheȱartȱofȱcomposingȱinȱrhyme,ȱIȱdecidedȱtoȱwriteȱaȱsonnetȱinȱwhichȱI wouldȱgreetȱallȱLove’sȱfaithfulȱservants;ȱandȱso,ȱrequestingȱthemȱtoȱinterpretȱmy dream,ȱIȱdescribedȱwhatȱIȱhadȱseenȱinȱmyȱsleep.”139ȱTheȱpoemȱitselfȱprovidedȱthe basisȱforȱcriticalȱexchanges,ȱandȱsoȱtheȱquestionȱregardingȱtheȱtrueȱnatureȱofȱlove

137 138

139

EthicalȱInquiryȱinȱtheȱRenaissanceȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1992). Wojciehowski,ȱ“FrancisȱPetrarch,”ȱ285ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ136). Wojciehowski,ȱ“FrancisȱPetrarch,”ȱ289ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ136).ȱSeeȱalsoȱUllrichȱLanger,ȱPerfectȱFriendship: StudiesȱinȱLiteratureȱandȱMoralȱPhilosophyȱfromȱBoccaccioȱtoȱCorneille.ȱHistoireȱdesȱidéesȱetȱcritique littéraire,ȱ331ȱ(Geneva:ȱDroz:ȱ1994);ȱPeterȱBurke,ȱ“HumanismȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱSixteenthȬCentury Europe,”ȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ1999,ȱ262–74ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ12). Danteȱ Alighieri,ȱ Laȱ Vitaȱ nuovaȱ (Poemsȱ ofȱ Youth,ȱ trans.ȱ withȱ anȱ introd.ȱ byȱ Barbaraȱ Reynolds (London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1969),ȱ32.ȱCf.ȱDanteȱAlighieri,ȱRimeȱgiovanili,ȱeȱdellaȱVitaȱȱnuova,ȱcura,ȱsaggio introduttivoȱeȱintroduzioniȱalleȱrimeȱdiȱTeodolindaȱBarolini,ȱnoteȱdiȱManueleȱGragnolati.ȱClassici dellaȱ BURȱ (Milano:ȱ BURȱ [Bibliotecaȱ universale]ȱ Rizzoli,ȱ 2009).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Jayȱ Ruud,ȱ Critical CompanionȱtoȱDante:ȱaȱLiteraryȱReferenceȱtoȱhisȱLifeȱandȱWorkȱ(NewȱYork:ȱFactsȱonȱFile,ȱ2008);ȱRobert PogueȱHarrison,ȱ“ApproachingȱtheȱVitaȱnuova,”ȱTheȱCambridgeȱCompanionȱtoȱDante,ȱed.ȱRachel Jacoffȱ(Cambridge,ȱEngland;ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007),ȱ35–45.

Introduction

67

transformsȱintoȱtheȱcatalystȱforȱfriendshipȱtoȱform:ȱ“Amongȱthoseȱwhoȱrepliedȱwas someoneȱwhomȱIȱcallȱmyȱclosestȱfriend;ȱheȱwroteȱaȱsonnetȱbeginningȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ“ȱ(33).ȱThe intellectualȱexchangeȱitselfȱdevelopsȱintoȱtheȱplatformȱuponȱwhichȱfriendshipȱcan bloom:ȱ“OurȱfriendshipȱdatedȱfromȱtheȱtimeȱheȱlearnedȱthatȱitȱwasȱIȱwhoȱhadȱsent himȱtheȱsonnet”ȱ(33).ȱLaterȱDanteȱcomposesȱpoemsȱevenȱspecificallyȱforȱhisȱfriend, thoughȱheȱisȱcarefulȱnotȱtoȱuseȱspecificȱwordsȱsinceȱthoseȱcouldȱhurtȱhisȱfriend:ȱ“I decidedȱtoȱcomposeȱsomeȱversesȱforȱmyȱbestȬlovedȱfriend,ȱkeepingȱbackȱcertain wordsȱwhichȱitȱseemedȱbetterȱnotȱtoȱreveal,ȱforȱIȱbelievedȱthatȱhisȱheartȱwasȱstill inȱthrallȱtoȱtheȱbeautyȱofȱthisȱgraciousȱPrimavera”ȱ(71).ȱHowever,ȱweȱdoȱnotȱhear ofȱaȱresponseȱandȱmustȱsimplyȱtrustȱthatȱDanteȱtheȱpoetȱhadȱreachedȱoutȱtoȱhis friendȱsuccessfully.ȱ Subsequentlyȱ inȱ theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ sonnetsȱ weȱ areȱ alsoȱ informedȱ thatȱ Dante obviouslyȱenjoyedȱaȱwholeȱnetworkȱofȱfriends,ȱeachȱofȱthemȱatȱaȱspecificȱrankȱ“in theȱhierarchyȱofȱfriendship”ȱ(85).ȱThatȱfriendȱimploresȱhimȱtoȱcomposeȱaȱspecific sonnetȱ“forȱaȱladyȱwhoȱhadȱdied,ȱdisguisingȱhisȱwordsȱsoȱthatȱitȱseemedȱasȱifȱhe wereȱtalkingȱofȱsomeoneȱelseȱwhoȱwasȱalsoȱdead”ȱ(85).ȱParticularlyȱtheȱprosimetric natureȱ ofȱ theȱ Vitaȱ novaȱ invitesȱ usȱ toȱ graspȱ theȱ agonalȱ purposeȱ ofȱ thisȱ curious collectionȱofȱpoemsȱandȱinterpretations,ȱwhichȱimplicitlyȱpointsȱtowardȱtheȱsocial networkȱthatȱmadeȱthisȱworkȱpossibleȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱNevertheless,ȱasȱManuele Gragnolatiȱ nowȱ argues,ȱ Danteȱ stillȱ claimsȱ supremeȱ authorityȱ andȱ refersȱ toȱ his friendsȱonlyȱasȱrespondentsȱtoȱhisȱownȱpoeticȱcreations.140

140

Manueleȱ Gragnolati,ȱ “Authorshipȱ andȱ Performanceȱ inȱ Dante’sȱ Vitaȱ nova,”ȱ Aspectsȱ ofȱ the PerformativeȱinȱMedievalȱCulture,ȱed.ȱeademȱandȱAlmutȱSuerbaum.ȱTrendsȱinȱMedievalȱPhilology, 18ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱDeȱGruyter,ȱ2010),ȱ125–41;ȱhereȱ134–35.

68

Introduction

P.ȱReligiousȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLateȱMiddleȱAges:ȱ ThomasȱàȱKempis Oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱtheologiansȱeverȱtoȱtalkȱaboutȱintensive,ȱemotional friendshipȱwithȱGod,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱmonkȱandȱpriestȱThomas àȱKempisȱ(ca.ȱ1379–1471)ȱinȱhisȱDeȱimitationeȱChristi,ȱfirstȱpublishedȱanonymously inȱ1418,ȱandȱsubsequentlyȱcopied,ȱtranslated,ȱandȱlaterȱpublishedȱinȱatȱleastȱ700 manuscriptsȱandȱinȱca.ȱ90ȱlanguages.141ȱ Asȱtoȱbeȱexpected,ȱinȱBookȱOneȱThomasȱaddressesȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱChristian virtuesȱandȱwarnsȱhisȱreadersȱaboutȱtheȱcommonȱvicesȱandȱsinsȱafflictingȱmembers ofȱ hisȱ audience,ȱ suchȱ asȱ obedience,ȱ unnecessaryȱ talk,ȱ findingȱ peace,ȱ spiritual progress,ȱresistingȱtemptation,ȱloveȱofȱsolicitudeȱandȱsilence,ȱhumanȱmisery,ȱdeath, God’sȱfinalȱjudgment,ȱandȱtheȱlike.ȱInȱBookȱTwoȱheȱfocusesȱonȱwaysȱhowȱtoȱlearn methodsȱtoȱfindȱaccessȱtoȱtheȱinnerȱlife,ȱthatȱis,ȱhowȱtoȱlistenȱtoȱGodȱspeakingȱtoȱthe soul,ȱhowȱtoȱtrustȱGod,ȱthenȱonȱfeelingsȱandȱintentions,ȱlovingȱJesus,ȱandȱgratitude forȱGod’sȱgrace.ȱ HereȱheȱalsoȱexaminesȱtheȱgreatȱimportanceȱofȱintimateȱfriendshipȱwithȱJesus, whichȱheȱdefinesȱasȱtheȱessentialȱingredientȱtoȱmakeȱlifeȱinȱthisȱworldȱpositiveȱor negative.ȱ Humanȱ existenceȱ withoutȱ Christȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ miserable,ȱ asȱ Thomas emphasizes:ȱ“ToȱbeȱwithoutȱJesusȱisȱanȱunbearableȱhell,ȱandȱtoȱbeȱwithȱJesusȱisȱa sweetȱ paradise.ȱ Ifȱ Jesusȱ isȱ withȱ youȱ noȱ foeȱ canȱ harmȱ you.”142ȱ Afterȱ having establishedȱtheȱcentralȱimportanceȱofȱChristȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱeveryȱgoodȱChristian,ȱthe authorȱthenȱunderscoresȱthatȱnoȱoneȱcanȱleadȱaȱpleasantȱlifeȱwithoutȱaȱfriend,ȱand Christȱthusȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱandȱreliableȱfriend,ȱtheȱbulwarkȱofȱfull andȱprofoundȱhumanȱexistenceȱembracedȱbyȱtheȱfaithȱinȱGod:ȱ“Youȱcannotȱlive

141

142

BijdragenȱoverȱThomasȱaȱKempisȱenȱdeȱmoderneȱdevotie:ȱuitgegevenȱterȱgelegenheidȱvanȱdeȱvijfhonderdste sterfdagȱ vanȱ Thomasȱ aȱ Kempisȱ (Tȱ 1471),ȱ ed.ȱ Michielsȱ Tongeren.ȱ Archivesȱ etȱ bibliothèquesȱ de Belgique:ȱNuméroȱspécial,ȱ4ȱ(Brussels:ȱArchivesȱetȱBibliothèquesȱdeȱBelgique;ȱZwolle:ȱAss.ȱdes Archivistesȱ &ȱ bibliothècairesȱ deȱ Belgique,ȱ 1971);ȱ Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ “Thomasȱ àȱ Kempis,”ȱ The LiteraryȱEncyclopedia,ȱJanuaryȱ18,ȱ2005,ȱat: http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=2.ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010; unfortunately,ȱafterȱtheȱfirstȱca.ȱ150ȱwordsȱthisȱsiteȱisȱaccessibleȱonlyȱthroughȱsubscription);ȱPaul vanȱGeest,ȱThomasȱaȱKempis:ȱmystagoogȱopȱdeȱbreuklijnȱtussenȱdeȱMiddeleeuwenȱenȱdeȱNieuweȱTijd. Inleidingenȱ metȱ kerntekstenȱ (Kampen:ȱ Kok,ȱ 2008).ȱ Seeȱ nowȱ alsoȱ Imitationȱ asȱ Innovation:ȱ the “ImitatioȱChristi”ȱ1450ȱȬȱ1550,ȱed.ȱJaneȱCheng.ȱCatalogueȱtoȱtheȱexhibitionȱinȱinȱtheȱHoughton LibraryȱofȱtheȱHarvardȱCollegeȱLibrary,ȱ3ȱAprilȱȬȱ3ȱJuneȱ2009ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHoughtonȱLibrary, 2009). Quotedȱ fromȱ Thomasȱ àȱ Kempis,ȱ Theȱ Imitationȱ ofȱ Christ:ȱ Aȱ Newȱ Readingȱ ofȱ theȱ 1441ȱ Latin AutographȱManuscriptȱbyȱWilliamȱC.ȱCreasyȱ(Macon,ȱGA:ȱMercerȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ42.ȱSee alsoȱ theȱ onlineȱ version:ȱ http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imitation.htmlȱ (last accessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱSeeȱalsoȱUlrikeȱBodemannȬKornhaas,ȱ“...ȱeinȱgrosser,ȱȱedler,ȱȱthewrerȱ schatzȱ ȱ ligtȱ ȱ innȱ ȱ disemȱ ȱ kleinenȱ ȱ buechlinȱ ȱ begraben”ȱ :ȱ dieȱ einzigartigeȱ Verbreitungsgeschichteȱ der “NachfolgeȱChristi”ȱdesȱThomasȱvonȱȱKempenȱ(Kempen:ȱChoros,ȱ2006).

Introduction

69

wellȱwithoutȱaȱfriend,ȱandȱifȱJesusȱisȱnotȱyourȱbestȱfriend,ȱyouȱwillȱendȱupȱbeing heartbrokenȱandȱdesolate”ȱ(42).ȱ Expressingȱaȱratherȱnegativeȱviewpointȱofȱworldly,ȱhumanȱfriends,ȱwhomȱone mightȱnotȱbeȱableȱtoȱtrustȱallȱtheȱwayȱandȱinȱeveryȱpossibleȱsituation,ȱheȱenjoinsȱhis listenersȱtoȱembraceȱChristȱasȱtheȱonlyȱandȱultimatelyȱreliableȱfriendȱthereȱis:ȱ“you shouldȱloveȱJesusȱChristȱinȱaȱuniqueȱway,ȱforȱheȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱwhoȱwillȱbeȱgood andȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱend”ȱ(43).ȱJesusȱshouldȱalwaysȱstandȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱallȱattention, andȱnoȱfriendshipȱwithȱanotherȱpersonȱshouldȱbeȱregardedȱasȱmoreȱimportantȱthan theȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Christȱ becauseȱ itȱ willȱ helpȱ theȱ believerȱ toȱ gainȱ spiritual freedomȱandȱtoȱbeȱacceptedȱbyȱGod.ȱ Inȱ aȱ laterȱ chapterȱ (3.45),ȱ Thomasȱ goesȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ questionȱ theȱ validity,ȱ or importance,ȱofȱhumanȱfriendsȱinȱcomparisonȱwithȱtheȱfriendȱJesus:ȱ“Itȱisȱrareȱto findȱaȱloyalȱfriendȱwhoȱstandsȱbyȱaȱcompanionȱinȱallȱhisȱtroubles.ȱYou,ȱLord,ȱyou aloneȱareȱmostȱfaithfulȱinȱallȱthings”ȱ(104).ȱRelianceȱonȱotherȱpeople,ȱincluding friends,ȱwouldȱneverȱbeȱgoodȱenoughȱinȱfaceȱofȱtheȱinstabilityȱofȱhumanȱlife.ȱOnly GodȱaloneȱcouldȱprovideȱallȱtheȱhelpȱandȱsupportȱneededȱtoȱsecureȱtheȱwellȬbeing ofȱ theȱ soulȱ inȱ theȱ afterlife:ȱ “whyȱ didȱ Iȱ relyȱ soȱ heavilyȱ onȱ others?ȱ Weȱ areȱ only human,ȱafterȱall;ȱweȱareȱnothingȱbutȱfrailȱmenȱandȱwomen”ȱ(104).ȱThomasȱlaments theȱshortcomingsȱofȱhumanȱlifeȱandȱevenȱdistrustsȱfriendship:ȱ“allȱofȱusȱareȱprone toȱfalsehood,ȱtoȱbeingȱweak,ȱunstableȱandȱfickle,ȱespeciallyȱinȱwhatȱweȱsay.ȱOften weȱcannotȱevenȱbelieveȱwhatȱseemsȱtoȱsoundȱrightȱonȱtheȱsurface,ȱatȱleastȱnotȱat first”ȱ(ibid.).ȱGossipȱandȱcarelessnessȱdetermineȱsocialȱinteractions,ȱsoȱitȱwouldȱbe preferableȱ “toȱ keepȱ silentȱ aboutȱ othersȱ andȱ notȱ toȱ believeȱ gossipȱ orȱ spreadȱ it around”ȱ(ibid.).ȱ Thisȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱtheȱauthorȱwantsȱtoȱwithdrawȱfromȱmankind,ȱorȱthatȱhe wouldȱrecommendȱtotalȱisolationȱfromȱthisȱworld,ȱbutȱheȱcertainlyȱexpressesȱgreat distrustȱinȱtheȱmassesȱandȱstronglyȱencouragesȱhisȱreaderȱtoȱbeȱhighlyȱselectiveȱin choosingȱaȱfriend:ȱ“Howȱgoodȱitȱisȱtoȱconfideȱinȱonlyȱaȱfewȱpeopleȱandȱtoȱseekȱyou always,ȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱprobesȱmyȱheart”ȱ(ibid.).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱonlyȱChristȱcanȱbe trustedȱasȱtheȱtrueȱandȱultimateȱfriend,ȱwhereasȱtheȱpublic,ȱtheȱordinaryȱpeople, tendȱtoȱbetrayȱevenȱtheȱbestȱfriendsȱandȱtoȱseekȱnothingȱbutȱtheirȱownȱadvantage: “Indeed,ȱhowȱgraceȱhasȱgainedȱwhenȱitȱwasȱkeptȱhiddenȱduringȱthisȱfragileȱlife,ȱa lifeȱwhichȱisȱoneȱtestȱandȱconflictȱafterȱanother”ȱ(ibid.).ȱ However,ȱweȱwouldȱmisreadȱThomasȱifȱweȱrecognizedȱinȱhimȱnothingȱbutȱaȱlateȬ medievalȱ misanthropeȱ filledȱ withȱ deepȱ distrustȱ ofȱ peopleȱ atȱ large.ȱ Earthly friendship,ȱsimilarȱtoȱAelred’sȱandȱothers’ȱteachings,ȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱanȱimportant springboardȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱJesusȱinȱchapterȱ46ȱunderscoresȱin explicitȱterms:ȱ“Myȱdearȱfriend,ȱstandȱfirmȱandȱtrustȱinȱme,ȱforȱwhatȱareȱwordsȱbut words”ȱ(105).ȱUltimately,ȱthen,ȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱfadesȱawayȱandȱgivesȱway toȱaȱdeepȱloveȱdirectedȱatȱChrist,ȱasȱtheȱdiscipleȱhasȱtoȱlearn:ȱ“Rejoiceȱonlyȱinȱdeep humilityȱandȱinȱpleasingȱandȱhonoringȱonlyȱme.ȱLetȱthisȱbeȱyourȱwish:ȱwhether

70

Introduction

throughȱlifeȱorȱthroughȱdeath,ȱthatȱGodȱmayȱalwaysȱbeȱglorifiedȱinȱyou”ȱ(111).ȱIn aȱ notȱ tooȱ subtleȱ approach,ȱ Thomasȱ bothȱ embracesȱ andȱ rejectsȱ friendship.ȱ He idealizesȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ preliminaryȱ approachȱ toȱ God,ȱ andȱ heȱ rejectsȱ itȱ asȱ an unreliable,ȱuntrustworthyȱconceptȱinȱfaceȱofȱhumanȱfrailties,ȱsinfulness,ȱandȱall kindsȱofȱshortcomings.

Q.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȬMedievalȱGermanȱLiterature:ȱ SebastianȱBrant.ȱAȱLastȱHurrahȱforȱaȱTraditionalȱEthicalȱIdeal? ManyȱlateȬmedievalȱpoetsȱexploredȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱfriendship,ȱeitherȱinȱaȱsubtle orȱinȱaȱmoreȱexplicitȱfashion,ȱbutȱoftenȱweȱobserveȱaȱratherȱcynicalȱperspectiveȱand aȱ desperateȱ attemptȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ termsȱ withȱ aȱ valueȱ thatȱ appearedȱ toȱ be evanescent.143AtȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱtheȱGermanȱhumanistȱSebastianȱBrant formulatedȱalsoȱsomeȱideasȱaboutȱfriendshipȱinȱhisȱfamousȱdidacticȱnarrative,ȱDas NarrenȱSchyffȱ(1494;ȱDasȱNarrenschiff,ȱorȱTheȱShipȱofȱFools),ȱinȱwhichȱheȱtakesȱswipes atȱaȱbroadȱspectrumȱofȱpeopleȱinȱsociety,ȱbothȱyoungȱandȱold,ȱmenȱandȱwomen, professionalsȱandȱunemployed,ȱmightyȱandȱpowerless,ȱridiculingȱtheȱfoolsȱamong hisȱ contemporaries,ȱ apparentlyȱ aȱ countlessȱ crowd.ȱ Significantly,ȱ inȱ hisȱ tenth section,ȱ“vonȱwarerȱfruntschafft”ȱ(OfȱTrueȱFriendship),ȱBrantȱalsoȱembarkedȱonȱan analysisȱofȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱanȱethicalȱvalue.144ȱHeȱisȱanȱutterȱfool,ȱthe authorȱemphasizes,ȱwhoȱ doesȱ somethingȱevilȱtoȱaȱ friendȱwhoȱhasȱtrustedȱhim completelyȱandȱhasȱsetȱallȱhisȱhope,ȱtrust,ȱandȱconcernsȱuponȱhim.ȱButȱtimesȱhave changed,ȱasȱreflectedȱbyȱtheȱfundamentalȱmessageȱofȱtheȱentireȱNarrenȱSchyff,ȱand basicȱvaluesȱandȱidealsȱseemȱtoȱbeȱlost,ȱwhichȱnecessitatedȱBrantȱcomposingȱthis text.ȱTrueȱfriendshipȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱdisappeared,ȱsinceȱgreatȱfriendsȱlikeȱthoseȱin theȱpastȱnoȱlongerȱappearȱtoȱexist:

143

144

KlausȱOschema,ȱFreundschaftȱundȱNäheȱimȱspätmittelalterlichenȱBurgund:ȱStudienȱzumȱSpannungsfeld vonȱ Emotionȱ undȱ Institutionȱ (Cologne,ȱ Weimar,ȱ andȱ Vienna:ȱ Böhlau,ȱ 2006).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ the contributionsȱtoȱFreundschaftȱoderȱ“amitié”?:ȱeinȱpolitischȬsozialesȱKonzeptȱderȱVormoderneȱimȱzwischenȬ sprachlichenȱ Vergleichȱ (15.ȱ Ȭȱ 17.ȱ Jahrhundert),ȱ ed.ȱ Klausȱ Oschema.ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ historische Forschung.ȱBeiheft,ȱ40ȱ(Berlin:ȱDunckerȱ&ȱHumblot,ȱ2007). SebastianȱBrant,ȱDasȱNarrenschiff:ȱNachȱderȱErstausgabeȱ(Baselȱ1494)ȱmitȱdenȱZusätzenȱderȱAusgaben vonȱ1495ȱundȱ1499,ȱed.ȱManfredȱLemmer.ȱNeudruckeȱdeutscherȱLiteraturwerke,ȱNeueȱFolge,ȱ5 (Tübingen:ȱMaxȱNiemeyer,ȱ1962).ȱScholarshipȱhasȱgivenȱfullȱacknowledgmentȱtoȱthisȱmasterpiece, whichȱ wasȱ widelyȱ hailedȱ alreadyȱ atȱ itsȱ timeȱ asȱ aȱ seminalȱ workȱ worthyȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ byȱ every humanist.ȱ Seeȱ nowȱ AnneȬLaureȱ MetzgerȬRambach,ȱ “Leȱ Texteȱ emprunté”:ȱ Étudeȱ comparéeȱ du NarrenschiffȱdeȱSebastianȱBrantȱetȱdeȱsesȱadaptations;ȱ(1494ȱȬȱ1509).ȱEtudesȱetȱessaisȱsurȱlaȱRenaissance, 76ȱ(Paris:ȱChampion,ȱ2008);ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionsȱto:ȱSebastianȱBrant:ȱ(1457Ȭ1521)ȱed.ȱHansȬGert Roloffȱ,ȱJeanȱMarieȱValentin,ȱandȱVolkhardȱWels.ȱMemoria,ȱ9ȱ(Berlin:ȱWeidler,ȱ2008).ȱ

Introduction Manȱfindtȱderȱfrue dȱ/ȱalsȱDauidȱwas Gantzȱkeinenȱmeȱ/ȱmitȱJonathas AlsȱPatroclusȱvndȱAchilles AlsȱHorestesȱvndȱPilades AlsȱDemadesȱvndȱPythias OderȱderȱschyltknechtȱSaulisȱwas AlsȱScipioȱ/ȱvndȱLelius

71

(9–15)

[Oneȱnoȱlongerȱfindsȱfriendsȱas DavidȱwasȱwithȱJonathas, asȱPatroclesȱandȱAchillesȱwere, asȱOrestesȱandȱPyladesȱwere, asȱDamesȱandȱPythiasȱwere, orȱasȱtheȱsquireȱSaulusȱwas, andȱasȱScipioȱandȱLaeliusȱwere.]

Bitterlyȱdisappointedȱaboutȱtheȱmoralȱmalaise,ȱBrantȱlamentsȱthatȱmoneyȱhasȱbeen substitutedȱforȱallȱtraditionalȱrelationshipsȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“Woȱgeltȱgbristȱdoȱjst frue ntschafftȱvß”ȱ(16;ȱWhereȱmoneyȱisȱlacking,ȱfriendshipȱisȱgone).ȱSelfishnessȱand egoismȱdominateȱtheȱnewȱworldȱ(19),ȱandȱtheȱauthorȱlambastsȱallȱthoseȱwhoȱplace moreȱvalueȱonȱtheirȱownȱprofitȱandȱadvantageȱthanȱonȱtheȱcommunalȱwealȱand wellȬbeing.ȱInȱmostȱcondemnatoryȱterms,ȱBrantȱunderscores:ȱ“Wemȱnitȱderȱgmein nue tzȱjstȱalsȱwerdȱ/ȱAlsȱeigenȱnutzȱdesȱerȱbegertȱ/ȱDenȱhaltȱjchȱfue rȱeinȱnae rschen gouch.ȱ/ȱWasȱgmeynȱistȱ/ȱdasȱistȱeigenȱouchȱ/ȱDochȱCaynȱistȱinȱallemȱstatȱ/ȱDemȱleid istȱwasȱglue cksȱAbelȱhat”ȱ(25–30;ȱHeȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱcherishȱtheȱcommonȱgoodȱas muchȱasȱheȱdesiresȱpersonalȱprofit,ȱIȱregardȱasȱaȱfoolishȱguy.ȱWhatȱisȱcommon goodȱ thatȱ isȱ alsoȱ personalȱ good.ȱ Butȱ Cainȱ isȱ everywhereȱ toȱ beȱ found,ȱ who begrudgesȱAbel’sȱgoodȱfortune).ȱTheȱlossȱofȱsocialȱcommitmentȱandȱresponsibility findsȱitsȱdevastatingȱexpressionȱinȱtheȱlossȱofȱfriendship,ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱsenseȱof ancientȱclassicalȱideals.145

R.ȱFriendshipȱinȱLateȬMedievalȱandȱEarlyȬModernȱLiterature AȱVarietyȱofȱVernacularȱVoices Untilȱtoday,ȱofȱcourse,ȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱhasȱoccupiedȱpeople’sȱminds,ȱand friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ connectionȱ continuesȱ toȱ playȱ aȱ majorȱ roleȱ everywhere,

145

Forȱaȱbroadȱintroduction,ȱseeȱBeatȱMischler,ȱGliederungȱundȱProduktionȱdesȱ‘Narrenschiffes’ȱ(1494) vonȱSebastianȱBrant.ȱStudienȱzurȱGermanistik,ȱAnglistikȱundȱKomparatistik,ȱ103ȱ(Bonn:ȱBouvier, 1981);ȱReinhardȱPȱBecker,ȱGermanȱHumanismȱandȱReformation.ȱTheȱGermanȱLibrary,ȱ6ȱ(NewȱYork: Continuum,ȱ1982);ȱJoachimȱKnape,ȱDichtung,ȱRechtȱundȱFreiheit:ȱStudienȱzuȱLebenȱundȱWerkȱSebastian Brants,ȱ1457–1521.ȱSaeculaȱspiritalia,ȱ23ȱ(BadenȬBaden:ȱValentinȱKoerner,ȱ1992).

72

Introduction

virtuallyȱ inȱ allȱ communitiesȱ allȱ overȱ theȱ world.ȱ Butȱ whereasȱ eroticȱ loveȱ and marriageȱgainedȱincreasinglyȱinȱimportance,ȱ friendshipȱasȱsuchȱwasȱnoȱlonger discussedȱ inȱ asȱ intensiveȱ fashionȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ except,ȱ asȱ Marilyn Sandidgeȱargues,ȱperhapsȱinȱEngland.ȱNevertheless,ȱweȱwouldȱneedȱtoȱqualifyȱthis observationȱ andȱ placeȱ itȱ intoȱ aȱ widerȱ context.ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ Cicero’sȱ Laeliusȱ was republishedȱ numerousȱ timesȱ duringȱ theȱ sixteenthȱ andȱ seventeenthȱ centuries. JohannȱNeuberȱrenderedȱitȱintoȱGermanȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱDeȱamicitiaȱdeutsch,ȱwhich wasȱpublishedȱinȱAugsburgȱinȱ1534,ȱ1535,ȱandȱ1540,146ȱfollowedȱbyȱmanyȱother translatorsȱworkingȱinȱEnglish,ȱFrench,ȱorȱSpanish.147ȱInȱaddition,ȱweȱknowȱofȱa numberȱ ofȱ proseȱ novels,ȱ treatises,ȱ andȱ playsȱ whereȱ theȱ relationshipȱ between friendsȱassumesȱcentralȱposition,ȱeitherȱinfluencedȱbyȱCicero’sȱteachingsȱorȱnot.ȱ Toȱrepeatȱpreviousȱobservations,ȱhumanistsȱandȱphilosophersȱthroughoutȱtime haveȱneverȱignoredȱfriendshipȱbyȱitself,ȱandȱtheologiansȱalsoȱembracedȱtheȱconcept asȱaȱveryȱusefulȱinstrumentȱinȱexploringȱfundamentalȱhumanȱvalues,ȱvirtues,ȱand ideals.148ȱOverall,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱurgencyȱtoȱfathomȱtheȱtrueȱmeaningȱofȱfriendship seemsȱtoȱhaveȱfadedȱsomewhatȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱageȱonȱtheȱContinent,ȱexcept whenȱfriendshipȱwasȱconsideredȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱChristianȱvirtues,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱDe amicitiaȱdeutsch.ȱJohannȱNeuber,ȱforȱinstance,ȱdifferentiatesȱcarefullyȱbetweenȱthe paganȱphilosophyȱespousedȱbyȱCiceroȱandȱtheȱChristianȱidealsȱundergirdingȱthe newȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱoutlinedȱinȱtheȱtranslation.ȱAsȱManuelȱBraunȱnow observes, ZuȱbeobachtenȱistȱeineȱPendelbewegungȱzwischenȱethischenȱundȱaffektivenȱAnteilen beiȱderȱBegründungȱderȱFreundschaft:ȱWohltaten,ȱHilfsbereitschaftȱundȱGeselligkeit stärkenȱdieȱLiebeȱderȱFreunde.ȱIhrȱUrsprungȱaberȱliegtȱinȱdeßȱgemuetsȱbewegung.ȱDoch erstȱdieȱBewährungȱdurchȱTatenȱsteigertȱdieȱBereitschaftȱzumȱEntgegenkommenȱauf

146

147

148

VDȱ 16ȱ andȱ VDȱ 17ȱ (Germanȱ printsȱ fromȱ theȱ sixteenthȱ andȱ seventeenthȱ centuries),ȱ onlineȱ at: http://bvba2.bibȬbvb.de/V/ALHLCLKAFPUP7IY9GF4Q6P1ACBAJH11DH3XRPQGHD5UKPB 3V43Ȭ85102?func=historyȬshort&set_number=036819ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010). See,ȱforȱinstance,ȱTheȱbookeȱofȱfreendeshipȱofȱMarcusȱTullieȱCicero,ȱtrans.ȱJohnȱHaringtonȱ(London:ȱIn FletestreteȱinȱtheȱhousȱofȱTho[mas]ȱBerthelette,ȱ[1550]);ȱhereȱIȱhaveȱconsultedȱtheȱcopyȱinȱthe CambridgeȱUniversityȱLibraryȱ(SSS.34.19).ȱOrȱsee:ȱCatoȱMajor:ȱFirstȱwrittenȱbyȱM.ȱT.ȱCicero;ȱAndȱnow excellentlyȱEnglishedȱbyȱWilliamȱAustenȱofȱLincolnsȱInne,ȱEsquire;ȱWithȱannotationsȱuponȱtheȱnamesȱof theȱmenȱandȱplacesȱ(London:ȱWilliamȱLeake,ȱ1648),ȱChrist’sȱCollege,ȱCambridge,ȱOldȱLibrary,ȱRouse 1.5;ȱCato:ȱor,ȱAnȱEssayȱonȱOldȬAge,ȱbyȱMarcusȱTulliusȱCicero,ȱwithȱremarksȱbyȱWilliamȱMelmoth, Esquȱ(London:ȱJ.ȱDosley,ȱ1777),ȱTrinityȱCollege,ȱCambridge,ȱLowerȱLibrary,ȱZ.10.125.ȱSeeȱalso MarilynȱSandidge’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱIntroductionȱbelow. Thisȱ willȱ beȱ documentedȱ byȱ theȱ contributionsȱ toȱ thisȱ volume.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Wolfgangȱ Weber, “BemerkungenȱzurȱBedeutungȱvonȱFreundschaftȱinȱderȱdeutschenȱpolitischenȱTheorieȱdesȱ15.–18. Jahrhunderts,”ȱIlȱconcettoȱdiȱamiciziaȱnellaȱstoriaȱdellaȱculturaȱeuropeaȱ–ȱDerȱBegriffȱFreundschaftȱinȱder GeschichteȱderȱEuropäischenȱKultur:ȱAttiȱdelȱ22ȱConvegnoȱInternazionaleȱdiȱStudiȱItaloȬTedeschi;ȱMerano, 9ȱȬȱ11ȱmaggio,ȱed.ȱAccademiaȱdiȱStudiȱItaloȬTedeschi/AkademieȱDeutschȬItalienischerȱStudien, underȱtheȱguidanceȱofȱLuigiȱCotteriȱ(Meran:ȱTip.ȱHauger,ȱ1995),ȱ756–64.

Introduction

73

jenesȱ Niveau,ȱ dasȱ nurȱ eineȱ Metapherȱ derȱ Liebessprache,ȱ dieȱ desȱ Entflammens, bezeichnenȱkann,ȱwasȱeineȱRückwendungȱinsȱAffektiveȱbedeutet.149 [Weȱ observeȱ aȱ pendulumȱ movementȱ betweenȱ ethicalȱ andȱ affectiveȱ aspectsȱ that establishȱfriendship:ȱGoodȱdeeds,ȱwillingnessȱtoȱhelp,ȱandȱsociabilityȱstrengthenȱthe loveȱforȱtheȱfriend.ȱItsȱorigin,ȱhowever,ȱrestsȱinȱtheȱstirringȱofȱtheȱmind.ȱYet,ȱonlyȱthe confirmationȱ(ofȱthisȱfriendship)ȱthroughȱactionsȱstrengthensȱtheȱreadinessȱtoȱapproach theȱotherȱonȱthatȱlevelȱwhichȱonlyȱaȱmetaphorȱborrowedȱfromȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱloveȱcan characterize:ȱtheȱmetaphorȱofȱinflammation,ȱwhichȱmeansȱaȱturnȱbackȱtoȱtheȱworldȱof affects.]

Butȱthereȱareȱproblemsȱasȱwell.ȱNeuberȱclaimsȱthatȱtrueȱfriendsȱ(veriȱamici)ȱcan achieveȱperfectȱintellectualȱandȱspiritualȱharmonyȱwithoutȱanyȱdifferenceȱinȱtheir attitudesȱandȱopinions.ȱTheȱhighȱstakesȱinȱsuchȱaȱrelationship,ȱhowever,ȱthreaten toȱundermineȱmostȱfriendshipsȱthatȱdoȱnotȱquiteȱachieveȱtheȱsameȱideal.ȱInȱthis regardȱfriendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱcomparableȱtoȱlove,ȱpredicatedȱonȱvoluntariness, openȱ communication,ȱ andȱ theȱ wishȱ toȱ beȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ otherȱ asȱ muchȱ as possible.150 TheȱsonȱofȱtheȱColmarȱcitizenȱGeorgȱWickram,ȱJörgȱWickramȱ(ca.ȱ1505–ca.ȱ1560), highlyȱ successfulȱ onlyȱ asȱ theȱ authorȱ ofȱ playsȱ andȱ novels,ȱ butȱ deniedȱ any noteworthyȱ socialȱ statusȱ backȱ homeȱ becauseȱ heȱ wasȱ bornȱ asȱ aȱ bastard,151 extensivelyȱexploredȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱhisȱnovelsȱNachbarnȱ(Neighbors) andȱGalmy,ȱemphasizingȱregularlyȱtheȱemotionalȱhomosocialȱrelationshipȱbetween men.152ȱButȱtheȱinflationȱofȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱwordȱ‘friend’ȱinȱthisȱcontextȱalsoȱsignals thatȱtheȱconceptȱitselfȱhadȱbecomeȱtooȱmundaneȱandȱaȱmatterȬofȬfactȱtoȱattract deeperȱ theoreticalȱ elaborationsȱ beyondȱ theȱ ordinaryȱ emotionallyȱ charged statementsȱ exchangedȱ amongȱ theȱ friendsȱ confirmingȱ eachȱ other’sȱ affectional commitment.ȱ Butȱ weȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ agreeȱ withȱ Braun’sȱ observationȱ thatȱ theȱ semantic codificationȱandȱelaborationȱofȱfriendshipȱhadȱreachedȱaȱnewȱdegreeȱofȱintensity inȱtheȱsixteenthȱcentury,ȱbyȱnowȱalsoȱinvolvingȱaȱreadinessȱtoȱdieȱforȱtheȱotherȱat aȱmoment’sȱnotice.153ȱAlthoughȱmarriage,ȱfamily,ȱandȱtheȱsmallȱsocialȱcommunity hadȱ gainedȱ absoluteȱ priorityȱ inȱ lateȬmedievalȱ society,ȱ Wickramȱ explored

149

150 151

152

153

ManuelȱBraun,ȱEhe,ȱLiebe,ȱFreundschaft:ȱSemantikȱderȱVergesellschaftungȱimȱfrühneuhochdeutschen Prosaromanȱ(Tübingen:ȱMaxȱNiemeyer,ȱ2001),ȱ293. Braun,ȱEhe,ȱLiebe,ȱFreundschaft,ȱ294–95ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ149). ErichȱKleinschmidt,ȱ“JörgȱWickram,”ȱDeutscheȱDichterȱderȱfrühenȱNeuzeitȱ(1450–1600):ȱIhrȱLebenȱund Werk,ȱed.ȱStephanȱFüsselȱ(Berlin:ȱErichȱSchmidt,ȱ1993),ȱ494–511. Braun,ȱEhe,ȱLiebe,ȱFreundschaft,ȱ311–41ȱ(seeȱ noteȱ 149);ȱseeȱalsoȱXenjaȱvonȱErtzdorff,ȱ“Höfische Freundschaft,”ȱDeutschunterrichtȱ14.6ȱ(1962):ȱ35–51;ȱElisabethȱWåghällȱNivre,ȱDargestellteȱWeltȱȬ realeȱWelt:ȱFreundschaft,ȱLiebeȱundȱFamilieȱinȱdenȱProsawerkenȱGeorgȱWickrams.ȱFrüheȱNeuzeit,ȱ60 (Bern,ȱBerlin,ȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996). Braun,ȱEhe,ȱLiebe,ȱFreundschaft,ȱ323ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ149).

74

Introduction

alternativesȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ whichȱ perhapsȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ an expressionȱofȱhisȱsenseȱofȱisolationȱandȱbeingȱrejectedȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱillegitimate birth.154ȱNevertheless,ȱfriendshipȱhadȱbecomeȱaȱthemeȱofȱubiquitousȱnatureȱand thusȱlostȱsomeȱofȱitsȱpreviousȱrelevanceȱandȱexclusivity.ȱ Globallyȱspeaking,ȱmuchȱdependsȱonȱtheȱcontextȱandȱtheȱuseȱofȱaȱspecificȱliterary genreȱduringȱtheȱearlyȱ modernȱworld.ȱIfȱweȱconsider,ȱforȱinstance,ȱWickram’s collectionȱ ofȱ facetiousȱ tales,ȱ hisȱ popularȱ Rollwagenbüchleinȱ (1555),ȱ weȱ basically observeȱ theȱ veryȱ oppositeȱ insofarȱ virtuallyȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ shortȱ narrativesȱ focusȱ on humanȱ misbehavior,ȱ conflicts,ȱ strife,ȱ violence,ȱ cussing,ȱ drinking,ȱ andȱ typical examplesȱofȱfoolishnessȱandȱignorance.ȱOnlyȱonceȱdoesȱWickramȱreferȱtoȱfriends, butȱ thenȱ theseȱ operateȱ inȱ theȱ backgroundȱ withoutȱ standingȱ outȱ asȱ trueȱ and remarkableȱfriends.ȱInȱ“Vonȱeinem,ȱsoȱseinenȱfründenȱumbȱseineȱzwentzigjae rige haushaltungȱrechnungȱgibt,”ȱforȱinstance,ȱweȱhearȱofȱaȱmanȱwhoȱfrequentsȱtaverns throughoutȱhisȱlifeȱandȱconstantlyȱresortsȱtoȱegregiousȱcussingȱinȱhisȱordinary speech.ȱFinally,ȱafterȱtwentyȱyearsȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱacquaintancesȱappealȱtoȱhimȱto refrainȱfromȱthisȱevilȱhabit:ȱ“vonȱseinenȱfreundenȱundȱgutenȱgoe nnernȱgestrafftȱmit freuntlichenȱundȱgutenȱwortenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(heȱwasȱreprimandedȱbyȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱgood supportersȱwithȱfriendlyȱandȱgoodȱwords).155ȱ However,ȱafterȱhavingȱstatedȱhisȱpositionȱnotȱtoȱdeviateȱfromȱhisȱhabitualȱway ofȱspeakingȱwithȱallȱnecessaryȱresoluteness,ȱtheȱfriendsȱletȱhimȱgoȱandȱonlyȱlaugh aboutȱhisȱwittyȱremarks:ȱ“wardȱausȱirerȱstraffȱnurȱeinȱgelechter,ȱundȱliessenȱimȱsein weis,ȱ dieweilȱ sieȱ nitȱ andersȱ machenȱ kunden”ȱ (152;ȱ theirȱ criticismȱ turnedȱ into nothingȱbutȱlaughterȱandȱtheyȱletȱhimȱcontinueȱinȱhisȱmannerȱbecauseȱtheyȱcould notȱdoȱanythingȱelse).ȱ Wickramȱimpliesȱthatȱpeopleȱspendȱtimeȱwithȱtheirȱfriends,ȱbothȱinȱgoodȱand badȱcircumstances,ȱandȱheȱsignalsȱthatȱmostȱpeopleȱhaveȱfriends,ȱbutȱtheȱpurpose ofȱhisȱnarrative,ȱlikeȱthatȱofȱmostȱotherȱsimilarȱtalesȱ(Schwänke)ȱaimsȱatȱotherȱgoals, primarilyȱoutliningȱandȱexemplifyingȱshortcomingsȱandȱfailuresȱinȱhumanȱlife.ȱIn otherȱwords,ȱthisȱanthology,ȱveryȱsimilarȱtoȱmanyȱotherȱcontemporaryȱcollections, mostlyȱrefrainsȱfromȱexplicitȱtheoreticalȱexplorations,ȱsoȱfriendshipȱbyȱitselfȱhardly emergesȱ asȱ aȱ significantȱ topic,ȱ asȱ importantȱ asȱ itȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ other contextsȱduringȱthatȱtime.156

154

155

156

JanȬDirkȱMüller,ȱ“FrühbürgerlicheȱPrivatheitȱundȱaltständischeȱGemeinschaft:ȱZuȱJörgȱWickrams HistorieȱVonȱGuo tenȱundȱBoe senȱNachbaurn,”ȱInternationalesȱArchivȱfürȱSozialgeschichteȱderȱDeutschen Literaturȱ5ȱ(1980):ȱ1–32;ȱhereȱ21. GeorgȱWickram,ȱDasȱRollwagenbuchlin.ȱTextȱnachȱderȱAusggabeȱvonȱJohannesȱBolte.ȱEpilogueȱby ElisabethȱEndresȱ(Stuttgart:ȱReclam,ȱ1968),ȱNo.ȱ86,ȱ151. AlbrechtȱClassen,ȱDeutscheȱSchwankliteraturȱdesȱ16.ȱJahrhunderts:ȱStudienȱzuȱMartinȱMontanus,ȱHans Wilhelmȱ Kirchhofȱ undȱ Michaelȱ Lindener.ȱ KoblenzȬLandauerȱ Studienȱ zuȱ GeistesȬ,ȱ KulturȬȱ und Bildungswissenschaften,ȱ4ȱ(Trier:ȱWissenschaftlicherȱVerlagȱTrier,ȱ2009).ȱ

Introduction

75

Aȱsimilarȱphenomenonȱcanȱbeȱobservedȱinȱmuchȱofȱcontemporaryȱliterature, suchȱasȱinȱfamousȱHeptaméronȱ(1558)ȱbyȱMargueriteȱdeȱNavarreȱwhereȱsexuality, marriage,ȱandȱtransgressionȱdominateȱtheȱnarratives.ȱWhenȱfriendshipȱassumes theȱcentralȱfocalȱpoint,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱstoryȱfortyȬseven,ȱtheȱmajorȱissueȱconcerns trust,ȱjealousy,ȱandȱconfidence.ȱDagoucinȱrelatesȱanȱaccountȱofȱtwoȱfriendsȱ“who hadȱfromȱtheirȱchildhoodȱgrownȱupȱtogetherȱasȱsuchȱgoodȱandȱtrueȱfriendsȱthat, asȱtheyȱwereȱoneȱinȱheartȱandȱmind,ȱsoȱinȱhouse,ȱbed,ȱboardȱandȱpurseȱtheyȱwere asȱone.”157ȱOneȱofȱtheseȱgentlemenȱgetsȱmarried,ȱbutȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱchangeȱanything inȱ theirȱ mutualȱ relationshipȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ time.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ jealousyȱ suddenly developsȱinȱtheȱhusband’sȱheart,ȱsoȱheȱtriesȱtoȱpreventȱhisȱwifeȱfromȱhavingȱany closeȱcontactȱwithȱhisȱfriend.ȱTheȱlatterȱquicklyȱlearnsȱaboutȱtheȱsuspicionȱand confrontsȱ hisȱ friend,ȱ assuringȱ himȱ thatȱ nothingȱ ofȱ thatȱ rumorȱ wouldȱ beȱ true. However,ȱheȱexpressesȱhisȱgreatȱdisappointmentȱthatȱhisȱfriendȱhadȱnotȱsharedȱhis worriesȱwithȱhim:ȱ“youȱhaveȱtriedȱtoȱcoverȱupȱyourȱsickness,ȱwhenȱneverȱbefore haveȱyouȱhiddenȱyourȱideas,ȱyourȱfeelingsȱandȱyourȱopinionsȱfromȱme”ȱ(411).ȱBy theȱsameȱtoken,ȱifȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱinȱfactȱbeenȱinȱloveȱwithȱtheȱwife,ȱandȱifȱheȱthen hadȱ triedȱ toȱ hideȱ theseȱ feelingsȱ fromȱ hisȱ friend,ȱ “thenȱ Iȱ wouldȱ beȱ theȱ most treacherousȱfriendȱtheȱworldȱhasȱeverȱseen”ȱ(ibid.).ȱ Thingsȱ areȱ thenȱ settledȱ peacefully,ȱ butȱ theȱ husbandȱ soonȱ enoughȱ develops feelingsȱofȱjealousyȱonceȱagain,ȱandȱthisȱtime,ȱhavingȱbrokenȱhisȱpromiseȱtoȱbe openȱaboutȱhisȱinnerȱemotionsȱtoȱhisȱfriend,ȱreapsȱtheȱresultȱofȱhisȱmisdoing.ȱThe otherȱharshlyȱattacksȱhimȱforȱhisȱdeceptiveȱbehaviorȱandȱforȱhavingȱkeptȱhisȱtrue feelingsȱaȱsecret.ȱConsequently,ȱtheirȱlongȬheldȱfriendshipȱcomesȱtoȱanȱend:ȱ“Just asȱourȱfriendshipȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱgreatestȱfriendshipȱofȱourȱtime,ȱsoȱshallȱourȱenmity beȱtheȱdeadliest”ȱ(412).ȱAndȱtheȱformerȱfriendȱthenȱlivesȱupȱtoȱhisȱownȱwordsȱand doesȱnotȱrestȱuntilȱheȱhasȱactuallyȱcuckoldedȱhisȱformerȱfriendȱbecauseȱtheȱlatter hadȱdestroyedȱtheirȱfriendship:ȱ“Forȱasȱyourȱsuspicionȱhasȱdestroyedȱmyȱloveȱfor you,ȱnowȱyourȱloveȱforȱmeȱwillȱbeȱdestroyedȱbyȱmyȱanger!”ȱ(412).ȱ Surprisingly,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ subsequentȱ discussionȱ amongȱ theȱ companyȱ of narratorsȱhingesȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱonȱtheȱessenceȱandȱmeaningȱofȱfriendship;ȱinstead theyȱinvestigateȱtheȱdireȱconsequencesȱofȱrumorsȱandȱfalseȱallegations,ȱofȱwrong suspicions,ȱwhichȱallȱcouldȱeasilyȱdestroyȱfriendship.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱfriendsȱneed openȱ andȱ honestȱ communication,ȱ confidenceȱ inȱ eachȱ other,ȱ andȱ sincere expressionsȱofȱloyalty.ȱThenȱtheȱnarratorsȱturnȱallȱtheirȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱquestion ofȱwhetherȱtheȱwifeȱshouldȱhaveȱrevealedȱanythingȱofȱherȱhusband’sȱjealousyȱto

157

Margueriteȱ deȱ Navarre,ȱ Theȱ Heptameron.ȱ Trans.ȱ withȱ anȱ introductionȱ byȱ P.ȱ A.ȱ Chiltonȱ (1984; Harmondsworth,ȱMiddlesex,ȱEngland:ȱPenguin,ȱ1986),ȱ410.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱonlineȱEnglishȱtranslation byȱWalterȱKellyȱ(Parisȱ1853)ȱinȱAȱCelebrationȱofȱWomenȱWritersȱat: ȱhttp://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/navarre/heptameron/heptameron.htmlȱ(lastȱaccessedȱon Augustȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱForȱtheȱoriginal,ȱseeȱL’Heptaméron,ȱed.ȱMichelȱFrançoisȱ(Paris:ȱGarnierȱClassiques, 1964).

76

Introduction

theȱ friend,ȱandȱwhatȱchastityȱtrulyȱmeansȱforȱwomen.ȱInȱfact,ȱhereȱasȱwellȱ we observeȱthatȱdespiteȱtheȱgreatȱinterestȱinȱfriendshipȱperȱse,ȱitȱisȱacceptedȱmoreȱas aȱ givenȱ thanȱ asȱ aȱ goalȱ thatȱ needsȱ toȱ beȱ aspiredȱ orȱ strivenȱ for.158ȱ Otherwise, however,ȱMarguerite’sȱnarratorsȱdoȱnotȱpayȱmuchȱmoreȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱthemeȱof friendship;ȱinsteadȱtheyȱprimarilyȱexamineȱcasesȱofȱadultery,ȱyoungȱlove,ȱfoolish behaviorȱofȱmarriageȱpartners,ȱandȱconflictsȱinȱwooing. IfȱweȱconsultȱcontemporaryȱGermanȱjestȱnarrativesȱ(Schwänke)ȱmostlyȱcomposed sinceȱtheȱ1550s,ȱbeginning,ȱaboveȱall,ȱwithȱJörgȱWickram’sȱRollwagenbüchleinȱ(The LittleȱBookȱforȱtheȱTravelingȱCoach),ȱweȱcanȱeasilyȱidentifyȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱpolitical, erotic,ȱreligious,ȱandȱmilitaryȱthemes.ȱLoveȱandȱmarriage,ȱanticlericalism,ȱcriticism ofȱ tyrannicalȱ rulers,ȱ foolishȱ behaviorȱ amongȱ peopleȱ ofȱ allȱ socialȱ classes,ȱ age groups,ȱandȱgenders,ȱproblemsȱwithȱmoney,ȱtheȱlossȱofȱbodyȱcontrolȱ(scatology), andȱlinguisticȱpunsȱdominateȱthisȱhugeȱgenreȱofȱmostlyȱminusculeȱyetȱentertaining proseȱtexts,ȱbutȱweȱdoȱnotȱfindȱanyȱseriousȱinterestȱinȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendship,ȱnot toȱspeakȱofȱtheoreticalȱdiscussions.159 Oneȱimportantȱexception,ȱhowever,ȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱMartinȱMontanusȱ(ca.ȱ1537–ca. 1570ȱorȱ1580)ȱwhoȱincludedȱaȱversionȱofȱoneȱofȱBoccaccio’sȱstoriesȱcontainedȱinȱhis Decameronȱinȱhisȱownȱcollectionȱofȱshortȱandȱentertainingȱnarratives,ȱWegkürzer (1557).ȱHeȱhadȱbecomeȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱfamousȱworkȱbyȱhisȱItalianȱpredecessor throughȱtheȱGermanȱtranslationȱbyȱHeinrichȱSchlüsselfelderȱ(aliasȱArigo)ȱfrom 1472/1473,ȱbutȱheȱalsoȱusedȱmanyȱotherȱsources,ȱembellishingȱthemȱwithȱcreative

158

159

ModelsȱofȱWomenȱinȱSixteenthȬCenturyȱFrenchȱLiterature:ȱFemaleȱExemplarityȱinȱtheȱHistoiresȱtragiques (1559)ȱ andȱ theȱ Heptaméronȱ (1559),ȱ ed.ȱ Pollieȱ Bromilow;ȱ withȱ aȱ forewordȱ byȱ Jenniferȱ J.ȱ Britnell (Lewiston,ȱ NY:ȱ Edwinȱ Mellenȱ Press,ȱ 2007);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Elizabethȱ C.ȱ Zegura,ȱ “Trueȱ Storiesȱ and AlternativeȱDiscourses:ȱTheȱGameȱofȱLoveȱinȱMargueriteȱdeȱNavarre’sȱHeptaméron,”ȱDiscoursesȱon Love,ȱMarriage,ȱandȱTransgressionȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱLiterature,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassen. Medievalȱ andȱ Renaissanceȱ Textsȱ andȱ Studies,ȱ 278ȱ (Tempe:ȱ Arizonaȱ Centerȱ forȱ Medievalȱ and RenaissanceȱStudies,ȱ2004),ȱ351–68;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱeadem,ȱ“LaughingȱOutȱLoudȱinȱtheȱHeptaméron:ȱA Reassessmentȱ ofȱ Margueriteȱ deȱ Navarre’sȱ Ambivalentȱ Humor,”ȱ Laughterȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages: EpistemologyȱofȱaȱFundamentalȱHumanȱBehavior,ȱitsȱMeaning,ȱandȱConsequences,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassen. Fundamentalsȱ ofȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Culture,ȱ 5ȱ (Berlinȱ andȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Walterȱ de Gruyter,ȱ2010),ȱ603–20.ȱSeeȱalsoȱApproachesȱtoȱTeachingȱMargueriteȱdeȱNavarre’sȱHeptameron,ȱed. Coletteȱ H.ȱ Winn.ȱ Approachesȱ toȱ Teachingȱ Worldȱ Literatureȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Modernȱ Language Association,ȱ2007).ȱTheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱMarguerite’sȱworldȱhasȱalreadyȱbeenȱexamined severalȱtimes:ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱReinierȱLeushuis,ȱ“Mariageȱetȱ‘honnêteȱamitié’ȱdansȱl’Heptaméron deȱ Margueriteȱ deȱ Navarre:ȱ Desȱ idéauxȱ ecclésiastiqueȱ etȱ aristocratiqueȱ àȱ l’agapeȱ duȱ dialogue humaniste,”ȱ Frenchȱ Forumȱ 28:1ȱ (Winterȱ 2003):ȱ 29Ȭ56;ȱ Maryȱ J.ȱ Baker,ȱ “Friendshipȱ Revisited: HeptaméronȱTalesȱ10,ȱ21,ȱ15,ȱandȱ70,”ȱRomanceȱQuarterlyȱ48.1ȱ(Winterȱ2001):ȱ3Ȭ14. Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ Deutscheȱ Schwankliteraturȱ desȱ 16.ȱ Jahrhundertsȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 156).ȱ Theȱ collection DeutscheȱSchwänke,ȱed.ȱLeanderȱPetzoldtȱ(Stuttgart:ȱReclam,ȱ1979),ȱconfirmsȱthisȱobservation.ȱThe interestȱrestsȱonȱlaughableȱscenes,ȱ onȱ people’sȱstupidȱandȱirrationalȱbehavior,ȱonȱcriticismȱof pompousȱ authorityȱ figures,ȱ onȱ arroganceȱ andȱ pride,ȱ amongȱ manyȱ otherȱ humanȱ vicesȱ and shortcomings.

Introduction

77

additionsȱ orȱ innovativeȱ elementsȱ andȱ motifs.160ȱ Oneȱ remarkableȱ jestȱ narrative centersȱonȱtheȱaccountȱofȱtwoȱfriendsȱwhoȱareȱwillingȱtoȱdoȱanythingȱpossibleȱfor eachȱotherȱwithinȱtheȱconstraintsȱofȱmoralityȱandȱvirtuesȱasȱanȱexpressionȱofȱtheir extraordinaryȱdedicationȱtoȱtheȱidealsȱofȱfriendship.161ȱAlthoughȱBoccaccio,ȱinȱhis genius,ȱhadȱdevelopedȱaȱhighlyȱidiosyncraticȱaccountȱ(eighthȱstoryȱofȱtheȱtenth day),162ȱheȱinȱturnȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱborrowedȱfromȱolderȱsources,ȱperhapsȱtheȱGesta Romanorumȱ(ca.ȱ1342,ȱmanyȱtimesȱthereafter).ȱWeȱcanȱtraceȱtheȱmotifȱevenȱtoȱearlier sources,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ Petrusȱ Alfonsi’sȱ Disciplinaȱ Clericalisȱ (seeȱ above),ȱ andȱ we possiblyȱ evenȱ haveȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ basicȱ narrativeȱ modelȱ asȱ anȱ archetypeȱ in Westernȱliterature.163ȱInȱfact,ȱhereȱweȱcanȱsuddenlyȱcloseȱtheȱcircleȱandȱreturnȱto theȱballadȱbyȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱdiscussedȱabove,ȱwhereȱtheȱsameȱmotifȱdetermines theȱplotȱsurprisinglyȱcloseȱtoȱtheȱnumerousȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȬmodernȱversions.ȱ Humanȱsocietyȱalwaysȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱknownȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱcoreȱvalueȱamongȱits members,ȱalthoughȱatȱsomeȱtimesȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱgainedȱprimary relevance;ȱatȱotherȱtimesȱitȱseemsȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱenjoyedȱtheȱsameȱdegreeȱofȱurgency andȱ importance.ȱ Theȱ historicalȱ annalsȱ continuedȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ personal relationshipsȱthroughoutȱtimes,ȱregularlyȱreflectingȱuponȱchangingȱconditionsȱand degreesȱ ofȱ acceptanceȱ andȱ toleranceȱ amongȱ people.ȱ Forȱ Immanuelȱ Kant (1724–1804),ȱforȱinstance,ȱfriendshipȱconstitutedȱtheȱbasisȱforȱallȱrationalȱethics becauseȱallȱpeopleȱlive,ȱifȱnotȱengagedȱinȱwarfare,ȱtogetherȱinȱaȱuniverseȱ“asȱifȱall wereȱbrothersȱsubmissiveȱtoȱaȱuniversalȱfatherȱwhoȱwantsȱtheȱhappinessȱofȱall.”164ȱ

160

161

162

163

164

BodoȱGotzkowsky,ȱ“Volksbücher”:ȱProsaromane,ȱRenaissancenovellen,ȱVersdichtungenȱundȱSchwankȬ bücher.ȱBibliographieȱderȱdeutschenȱDrucke.ȱPartȱI:ȱDruckeȱdesȱ15.ȱundȱ16.ȱJahrhunderts.ȱBibliotheca BibliographicaȱAureliana,ȱCXXVȱ(BadenȬBaden:ȱVerlagȱValentinȱKoerner,ȱ1991),ȱ528–34;ȱcf.ȱalso Classen,ȱDeutscheȱSchwankliteratur,ȱ29–35ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ156);ȱforȱtheȱbroadȱreceptionȱofȱBoccaccio’s workȱinȱearlyȬmodernȱGermany,ȱseeȱUrsulaȱKocher,ȱBoccaccioȱundȱdieȱdeutscheȱNovellistik:ȱFormen derȱTranspositionȱitalienischerȱ‘novelle’ȱimȱ15.ȱundȱ16.ȱJahrhundert.ȱChloe:ȱBeihefteȱzumȱDaphnis,ȱ38 (AmsterdamȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱEditionsȱRodopi,ȱ2005).ȱForȱaȱrecentȱstudyȱonȱMontanusȱinȱEnglish, seeȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“MartinȱMontanusȱasȱEntertainerȱandȱSocialȱCritic,”ȱTheȱRockyȱMountain ReviewȱofȱLanguageȱandȱLiteratureȱ62.2ȱ(2008):ȱ11–33. AlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“DasȱMotivȱdesȱaufopferndenȱFreundes,”ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ8).ȱTheȱtextȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱin Martinȱ Montanus,ȱ Schwankbücherȱ (1557–1566),ȱ ed.ȱ Johannesȱ Bolte.ȱ Volkskundlicheȱ Quellen: NeudruckeȱeuropäischerȱTexteȱundȱUntersuchungen,ȱIIIȱ(1899;ȱHildesheimȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱGeorg Solms,ȱ1972)ȱ,ȱWegkürzer,ȱno.ȱ42.ȱ Giovanniȱ Boccaccio,ȱ Decameron.ȱ Edizioneȱ criticaȱ secondoȱ l’autografoȱ hamiltoniano,ȱ aȱ curaȱ di VittoreȱBranca.ȱScrittoriȱitalianiȱeȱtestiȱantichiȱpubblicatiȱdall’AccademiaȱdellaȱCruscaȱ(Firenze: AccademiaȱdellaȱCrusca,ȱ1976),ȱ685. Elisabethȱ Frenzel,ȱ “Freundschaftsbeweis,”ȱ eadem,ȱ ed.,ȱ Motiveȱ derȱ Weltliteratur:ȱ Einȱ Lexikon dichtungsgeschichtlicherȱLängsschnitte.ȱ4thȱrev.ȱandȱexpandedȱed.ȱKrönersȱTaschenausgabe,ȱ301 (1976;ȱStuttgartȱ1992),ȱ196–218. AlanȱBray,ȱTheȱFriend,ȱ2003,ȱ213ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ25).

78

Introduction

Indeed,ȱforȱearlyȱmodernȱsociety,ȱatȱleastȱuntilȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱ“theȱgood ofȱ kinshipȱ layȱ inȱ theȱ friendshipȱ (theȱ ‘society’)ȱ thatȱ itȱ couldȱ createȱ between individualsȱandȱbetweenȱgroups,ȱwhoȱmightȱotherwiseȱbeȱatȱenmity;ȱandȱitsȱrituals andȱ rhetoricȱ wereȱ designedȱ toȱ negotiateȱ thatȱ precariousȱ transition.”165ȱ But friendshipȱinȱearlyȬmodernȱsocietyȱsometimesȱseemsȱtoȱgetȱlostȱfromȱourȱview preciselyȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱeverȱpresentȱandȱplayedȱsuchȱsignificantȱrolesȱinȱsocial conditions,ȱ explicitlyȱ demonstratedȱ throughȱ aȱ complexȱ systemȱ ofȱ ritualsȱ and gestures,ȱimagesȱandȱwords.166ȱAsȱMauriceȱAymardȱemphasizes,ȱ Friendshipȱwasȱubiquitous,ȱcommonplace,ȱandȱnecessary.ȱItȱtookȱmanyȱformsȱandȱwas aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ fabricȱ ofȱ socialȱ relations,ȱ whichȱ itȱ helpedȱ toȱ shape.ȱ Itȱ keptȱ theȱ social machineryȱrunningȱsmoothly.ȱYetȱfriendship,ȱwhenȱitȱinvolvedȱtwoȱpeopleȱwhoȱchose eachȱotherȱfreelyȱandȱwithȱnoȱendȱinȱmindȱbutȱthemselves,ȱwasȱalsoȱexceptionalȱand unique,ȱsettingȱtheȱfriendsȱapartȱfromȱtheȱrestȱofȱsociety.ȱSuchȱfriendshipȱwasȱsoȱrare thatȱMontaigne,ȱboastingȱofȱhisȱwithȱEtienneȱdeȱLaȱBoétie,ȱreckonedȱitsȱprobabilityȱas ‘onceȱinȱthreeȱcenturies.’ȱPersonalȱfriendshipȱwasȱdefinedȱbyȱcontrastȱwithȱordinary socialȱfriendships.ȱItȱtookȱitsȱmodelȱfromȱtheȱStoicsȱandȱadaptedȱitȱtoȱtheȱrealitiesȱofȱthe age.167

Friendshipȱcouldȱbeȱaȱmatterȱofȱgreatȱpoliticalȱconcern,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱLouis deȱ Rouvroy,ȱ Dukeȱ ofȱ SaintȬSimonȱ (1675–1755),ȱ whoȱ providedȱ mostȱ insightful reflectionsȱaboutȱhisȱownȱlifeȱinȱhisȱMémoires,ȱdeeplyȱdeterminedȱbyȱhisȱquestȱfor friendsȱ andȱ solidȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ servedȱ himȱ forȱ politicalȱ ends.168ȱ “For Montaigne,ȱfriendshipȱspokeȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱpassion.ȱForȱSaintȬSimon,ȱitȱspokeȱthe languageȱ ofȱ aȱ carefullyȱ calculatedȱ marriage,ȱ oneȱ that,ȱ likeȱ hisȱ own,ȱ createdȱ a profoundȱandȱdurableȱunderstanding.”169ȱTheȱpointȱforȱusȱcanȱnotȱbeȱtoȱexamine thisȱintriguingȱtestimony,ȱalmostȱfromȱaȱmomentȱinȱtimeȱbeyondȱtheȱpaleȱofȱour globalȱinvestigations.ȱNevertheless,ȱweȱgetȱaȱstrongȱsenseȱofȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱstudy ofȱfriendshipȱinȱfactȱprovidesȱenormouslyȱsignificantȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱbasicȱsocial andȱmentalȬhistoricalȱstructuresȱofȱeachȱsocietyȱorȱculturalȱgroupȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱof Westernȱ civilization.170ȱ Theȱ bedrockȱ ofȱ thisȱ discourseȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ the

165 166 167

168

169 170

Bray,ȱTheȱFriend,ȱ214ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ25). SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱRitualeȱderȱFreundschaft,ȱed.ȱKlausȱMangerȱandȱUteȱPott,ȱ2006ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2). MauriceȱAymard,ȱ“FriendsȱandȱNeighbors,”ȱPassionsȱofȱtheȱRenaissance,ȱed.ȱRogerȱChartier.ȱA HistoryȱofȱPrivateȱLife,ȱIIIȱ(1986;ȱCambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱBelknapȱPressȱofȱHarvard UniversityȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ447–91;ȱhereȱ453. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Rouvroy,_duc_de_SaintȬSimon.ȱForȱhisȱcompleteȱworks, seeȱhttp://rouvroy.medusis.com/infos/tomes.htmlȱ(bothȱlastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010). Aymard,ȱ“FriendsȱandȱNeighbors,”ȱ461. DieȱKulturȱderȱFreundschaft:ȱPraxenȱundȱSemantikenȱinȱanthropologischȬpädagogischerȱPerspektive,ȱed. MeikeȱBaader.ȱBeltzȬBibliothekȱ(WeinheimȱandȱBasel:ȱBeltz,ȱ2008);ȱBarbaraȱBeckerȬCantarino,ȱ“Zur TheorieȱderȱliterarischenȱFreundschaftȱimȱ18.ȱJahrhundertȱamȱBeispielȱderȱSophieȱLaȱRoche,” Frauenfreundschaftȱ Ȭȱ Männerfreundschaft:ȱ Literarischeȱ Diskurseȱ imȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhundert,ȱ ed.ȱ Wolfram Mauserȱ(Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1991),ȱ47–74.ȱ

Introduction

79

philosophicalȱinvestigationsȱbyȱthinkersȱsuchȱasȱAristotle,ȱCicero,ȱSt.ȱAugustine, AelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱandȱThomasȱAquinas,ȱandȱtheirȱconceptsȱandȱidealsȱwereȱthen adoptedȱandȱfurtherȱdevelopedȱbyȱearlyȬmodernȱphilosophersȱandȱtheologians, suchȱasȱBenedictȱdeȱSpinoza,ȱChristianȱThomasius,ȱAnthonyȱEarlȱofȱShaftesbury, andȱImmanuelȱKant.ȱThomasisus,ȱaboveȱall,ȱidentifiedȱfriendshipȱasȱoneȱofȱthe fundamentalȱ instrumentsȱ toȱ achieveȱ trueȱ happinessȱ hereȱ inȱ thisȱ life.ȱ Forȱ him, friendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱaȱnatural,ȱrationalȱinclinationȱofȱmanȱinȱhisȱsocialȱcontext toȱaspireȱforȱhappiness.ȱSimilarȱmindsȱjoinȱinȱfriendshipȱandȱstriveȱforȱloveȱof wisdomȱandȱgoodness.ȱHeȱarguedȱthatȱidealȱpeopleȱembraceȱfriendshipȱasȱthe centralȱvalueȱinȱtheirȱlifeȱandȱbuildȱtheirȱethicsȱonȱit.ȱFriendshipȱthusȱtransforms intoȱaȱprofoundȱloveȱforȱallȱpeopleȱandȱtheȱfatherland.ȱForȱShaftesburyȱfriendship isȱ“sublimeȱHeroickȱPassion”ȱandȱhasȱuniversalȱrelevance.171ȱ Asȱearlyȱasȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱfriendshipȱfoundȱanȱinnovative expressionȱ inȱ soȱ calledȱ albaȱ amicorumȱ (Freundschaftsalben,ȱ Philothekoi,ȱ or Stammbücher),ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ authorsȱ recordedȱ theirȱ travelȱ experiencesȱ orȱ other observations,ȱ comparableȱ toȱ letterȱ collections,ȱ andȱ gaveȱ theseȱ asȱ giftsȱ toȱ their friendsȱorȱsons.172ȱTheyȱalsoȱcontainȱdrawingsȱofȱfamousȱpeople,ȱcoatsȱofȱarms,ȱand otherȱobjects.ȱTheȱfirstȱThesaurusȱAmicorumȱwasȱprintedȱbyȱJeanȱdeȱTournesȱin Lyonȱinȱ1558,ȱbutȱhandwrittenȱFreundschaftsalbenȱemergedȱearlierȱinȱ1545ȱ(C.ȱde Senarclens),ȱ1548ȱ(C.ȱvonȱTeuffenbach)ȱandȱ1549ȱ(A.ȱUlrich).173ȱByȱtheȱendȱofȱthe centuryȱthisȱgenreȱgainedȱinȱpoliticalȱsignificanceȱandȱservedȱasȱaȱmediumȱfor learnedȱfriendsȱtoȱexchangeȱinformationȱaboutȱaȱvarietyȱofȱsubjectȱmattersȱforȱthe illuminationȱofȱtheȱprince.174 Nevertheless,ȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱitselfȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱfadedȱinȱsignificance andȱoverallȱrelevanceȱsinceȱtheȱseventeenthȱcentury,ȱifȱweȱcanȱtrustȱtheȱevidence ofȱtheȱfamousȱencyclopediaȱbyȱJohannȱHeinrichȱZedler.ȱInȱhisȱGrossesȱvollstae ndiges UniversalsȱLexiconȱAllerȱWissenschafftenȱundȱKue nste,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthereȱisȱonlyȱaȱbrief entryȱ onȱ theȱ “Freund”ȱ (friend),ȱ andȱ thenȱ primarilyȱ seenȱ fromȱ aȱ Biblicalȱ andȱ a generallyȱmoralȱcontext.ȱZedlerȱidentifiesȱthoseȱasȱfriendsȱwhoȱareȱrelatedȱtoȱeach otherȱthroughȱbloodȱand,ȱmuchȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱbondedȱwith

171

172

173

174

Ch.ȱSeidel,ȱ“ȱFreundschaft:ȱIII,”ȱHistorischesȱWörterbuchȱderȱPhilosophie,ȱ2,ȱ1108–14ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ46).ȱSee alsoȱmyȱmoreȱextensiveȱandȱfocusedȱdiscussionȱofȱShaftesbury’sȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱfurther below. ȱKeesȱThomassen;ȱCassandraȱBosters,ȱAlbaȱamicorum:ȱVijfȱeeuwenȱvriendschapȱopȱpapierȱgezet:ȱhet albumȱamicorumȱenȱhetȱpoëziealbumȱinȱdeȱNederlanden;ȱverschenenȱterȱgelegenheidȱvanȱdeȱtentoonstelling ȇAlbaȱ Amicorumȇȱ inȱ hetȱ Rijksmuseumȱ MeermannoȬWestreenianumȱ /ȱ Museumȱ vanȱ hetȱ Boekȱ te ȇsȬGravenhage],ȱwithȱaȱforewordȱbyȱK.ȱThomassenȱ(ȇsȬGravenhage:ȱSchwartzȱetȱal.,ȱ1990);ȱMirella Spadafora,ȱHabentȱsuaȱfataȱlibelliȱ|gliȱalbaȱamicorumȱeȱilȱloroȱstraordinarioȱcorredoȱiconograficoȱ(1545ȱȬ 1630ȱc.).ȱVociȱdiȱclio,ȱ4ȱ(Bologna:ȱCLUEB:ȱ2009). WolfgangȱKlose,ȱ“Freundschaftsalben,”ȱHistorischesȱWörterbuchȱderȱRhetorik,ȱed.ȱGertȱUeding.ȱVol. 3ȱ(Tübingen:ȱMaxȱNiemeyerȱVerlag,ȱ1996),ȱ472–76. SeeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱVeraȱKeller.

80

Introduction

eachȱotherȱbecauseȱofȱaȱsimilarityȱinȱtheirȱheartfeltȱsentiments,ȱsuchȱasȱDavidȱand Jonathanȱ(1ȱSam.ȱ18;ȱ2ȱSam.ȱ1:26).ȱTrueȱfriendshipȱhereȱonȱearthȱmirrorsȱman’s friendshipȱwithȱChrist.ȱMoreover,ȱ“EinȱFreundȱistȱgerneȱumȱdenȱandern”175ȱ(A friendȱhappilyȱspendsȱtimeȱwithȱtheȱother).ȱAȱfriendȱentrustsȱallȱhisȱsecretsȱtoȱthe other,ȱandȱsupportsȱhimȱinȱeveryȱsituation,ȱdemonstratingȱcompleteȱloyalty.ȱ Finally:ȱ“EinȱFreundȱerzeigetȱdemȱanderenȱallesȱLiebesȱundȱGuts;ȱdazuȱerklae ret erȱsichȱebenfallss,ȱJer.ȱ32,ȱ41.ȱundȱthutȱihnenȱauchȱwue rcklichȱGutesȱanȱLeibȱund Seele,ȱ theiletȱ ihnenȱ mitȱ allerleyȱ leiblicheȱ undȱ geistliche,ȱ zeitlicheȱ undȱ ewige Wohlthaten,ȱundȱmachetȱsieȱendlichȱgarȱselig”ȱ(ibid.;ȱAȱfriendȱdemonstratesȱevery kindȱofȱloveȱandȱgoodnessȱtoȱtheȱothers,ȱasȱitȱsaysȱso,ȱJer.ȱ31:41,ȱandȱtrulyȱdoes goodȱ toȱ theirȱ bodyȱ andȱ soul.ȱ Heȱ sharesȱ withȱ themȱ allȱ kindsȱ ofȱ physicalȱ and spiritual,ȱtemporalȱandȱeternalȱblessings,ȱandȱhelpsȱthemȱtoȱgainȱsalvation).ȱWhen weȱcheckȱunderȱtheȱLatinȱtermȱ“amicus,”ȱwhichȱmightȱbeȱreasonableȱinȱlightȱof Zedler’sȱlearnedȱorientation,ȱweȱfindȱnothingȱbutȱshortȱcommentsȱonȱ“Amici”ȱas anȱhonorableȱtitleȱforȱthoseȱkingsȱwhoȱhadȱassistedȱtheȱRomanȱRepublicȱandȱfor those,ȱ later,ȱ whoȱ providedȱ counselȱ toȱ theȱ Romanȱ emperors.176ȱ Thenȱ heȱ also discussesȱ“Amicitia,”ȱinȱmythologicalȱtermsȱtheȱdaughterȱofȱnight,ȱandȱ“Amicus,” aȱfriendȱinȱbusinessȱrelationships,ȱorȱaȱcorrespondentȱofȱmerchantsȱ(1731–32).ȱ ThereȱisȱnothingȱofȱtheȱdramaȱandȱintensityȱassociatedȱwithȱfriendshipȱasȱSchiller wasȱtoȱprojectȱonlyȱaȱfewȱdecadesȱlaterȱinȱhisȱfamousȱballadsȱ(seeȱabove).ȱZedler treatsȱ friendshipȱ inȱ anȱ almostȱ pedestrianȱ andȱ shorthandȱ fashion,ȱ repeating,ȱ of course,ȱsomeȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱissuesȱasȱoutlinedȱinȱpastȱphilosophicalȱandȱreligious treatises,ȱbutȱbasicallyȱdealsȱwithȱfriendshipȱonlyȱinȱaȱfairlyȱsuperficialȱmanner.ȱAs weȱwillȱobserveȱbelow,ȱotherȱencyclopedistsȱfollowedȱZedler’sȱleadȱinȱthisȱregard, continuingȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱtopicȱofȱ‘friendship’ȱinȱtheirȱhugeȱcompendia,ȱbutȱpaying onlyȱsecondaryȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱissueȱatȱhand.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ ignoreȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ forȱ Baroque literature,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ poetsȱ dealȱ withȱ aȱ friendȱ whoȱ hasȱ passedȱ away.177 Nevertheless,ȱfriendship,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱobservedȱitȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱnotȱtoȱspeak ofȱantiquity,ȱhadȱobviouslyȱlostȱsomeȱofȱitsȱdramatic,ȱethicalȱrelevance.ȱWeȱwill observeȱthisȱbelowȱinȱlightȱofȱsomeȱBaroqueȱ(Widmann),ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱofȱsome Anacreonticȱ(Hagedorn)ȱpoetry.

175

176 177

JohannȱHeinrichȱZedler,ȱGrossesȱvollstae ndisgesȱUniversalȱLexiconȱAllerȱWissenschafftenȱundȱKue nste .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱVol.ȱ9ȱ(HalleȱandȱLeipzig,ȱZedler,ȱ1735),ȱ1836. Zedler,ȱGrossesȱvollstae ndigesȱUniversalȱLexicon,ȱvol.ȱ1,ȱ1733,ȱ1731ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ175). MariaȱFürstenwald,ȱ“LetztesȱEhren=GedaechtnuessȱundȱHimmel=klingendesȱSchaeferspiel:ȱDer literarischeȱFreundschaftsȬȱundȱTotenkultȱimȱSpiegelȱdesȱbarockenȱTrauerschäferspiels,”ȱDaphnis 2ȱ(1973):ȱ32Ȭ53.ȱ

Introduction

81

S.ȱWomenȱasȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱBeyondȱ: StillȱaȱThornyȱIssueȱ Asȱweȱhaveȱobservedȱnumerousȱtimes,ȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱfriendshipȱtakesȱusȱveryȱfar backȱtoȱantiquity,ȱandȱfromȱthenȱonȱvirtuallyȱallȱtheȱmajorȱintellectualsȱdelvedȱinto theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ exploredȱ itsȱ ethical,ȱ moral,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ religious meanings.ȱDespiteȱsomeȱsignificantȱdifferencesȱregardingȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱvarious stagesȱofȱlife,ȱthinkersȱsuchȱasȱCiceroȱandȱAugustine,ȱAmbroseȱandȱAelred,ȱbut thenȱ alsoȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ majorȱ religiousȱ authorsȱ ofȱ theȱ famousȱ twelfthȱ century, followedȱbyȱtheȱleadingȱphilosophersȱfromȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearly modernȱage,ȱallȱacceptedȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱbedrockȱofȱtheirȱvalueȱsystem.ȱThisȱisȱnot toȱimplyȱthatȱwomenȱexpressedȱlessȱconcernȱwithȱorȱinterestȱinȱfriendship,ȱasȱour exampleȱofȱMarieȱdeȱFrance’sȱFablesȱindicated.178ȱButȱinȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱpatriarchal Westernȱliterature,ȱfriendshipȱamongȱwomenȱwasȱmostlyȱexcised,ȱignored,ȱorȱcast intoȱ aȱ shadowȱ ofȱ doubtȱ sinceȱ onlyȱ menȱ wereȱ regardedȱ asȱ strongȱ enoughȱ to maintainȱtheȱserene,ȱmostlyȱrational,ȱidealisticȱfriendshipȱwithȱanotherȱperson.179ȱ Inȱcourtlyȱromancesȱweȱcomeȱacrossȱnumerousȱcasesȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmen andȱ women,ȱ allȱ sharingȱ theȱ sameȱ valuesȱ andȱ ideals,ȱ andȱ allȱ inspiredȱ byȱ the classicalȱconceptȱofȱamicitia,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱLancelotȱromance.180ȱNevertheless,ȱwe mostlyȱhaveȱtoȱrealizeȱthatȱthoseȱfriendshipsȱresultȱinȱregularȱeroticȱrelationships andȱcannotȱbeȱequatedȱwithȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱclassicalȱsenseȱofȱtheȱwordȱ(Cicero). Inȱ fact,ȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ allȱ thoseȱ intensiveȱ explorationsȱ fromȱ antiquityȱ onwardsȱ it wouldȱ beȱ extremelyȱ difficultȱ toȱ identifyȱ specificȱ discussionsȱ aboutȱ female friendshipȱinȱmedievalȱliterature,ȱcomposedȱinȱLatinȱorȱinȱanyȱvernacular,ȱatȱthe presentȱ stageȱ ofȱ research.ȱ Possiblyȱ femaleȱ monasticȱ communitiesȱ knewȱ and idealizedȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱamongȱtheȱnuns,ȱandȱtheȱworldȱofȱmysticism mightȱalsoȱbeȱaȱpromisingȱ domainȱwhereȱfriendshipȱsurfacedȱasȱanȱimportant topic,ȱasȱweȱlearnȱfromȱDavidȱF.ȱTinsley’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.ȱButȱthere areȱnoȱtheoreticalȱtreatisesȱonȱfriendship,ȱasȱfarȱasȱIȱcanȱtell,ȱfocusedȱonȱaȱparticular relationshipȱamongȱwomen.ȱ However,ȱ addressingȱ friendshipȱ inȱ courtlyȱ romances,ȱ Rosemarieȱ Deist insightfullyȱcomments,ȱ“Theȱmutualȱadmirationȱofȱfriendsȱinȱclassicalȱamicitiaȱvera surfacesȱinȱtheȱmoralȱqualitiesȱofȱprowessȱandȱgoodȱrepute.ȱLancelot’sȱspirit,ȱhis

178

179

180

Forȱpostmodernȱperspectives,ȱseeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱCelebratingȱWomen’sȱFriendship,ȱ1999ȱ(see noteȱ104).ȱHowever,ȱbothȱtheȱeditorsȱandȱtheȱauthorsȱconfirmȱthatȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfemaleȱfriendship stillȱsuffersȱfromȱhavingȱbeenȱignoredȱforȱfarȱtooȱlongȱuntilȱtoday. ConstantȱJ.ȱMewsȱandȱNevilleȱChiavaroli,ȱ“TheȱLatinȱWest,”ȱFriendship:ȱAȱHistory,ȱed.ȱBarbara Caine.ȱCriticalȱHistoriesȱofȱSubjectivityȱandȱCultureȱ(London:ȱEquinox,ȱ2009),ȱ73–110ȱ;ȱhereȱ73. RosemarieȱDeist,ȱGenderȱandȱPower:ȱCounsellorsȱandȱTheirȱMastersȱinȱAntiquityȱandȱMedievalȱCourtly Romance.ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱälterenȱLiteraturgeschichteȱ(Heidelberg:ȱUniversitätsverlagȱWinter,ȱ2003), 74–84.

82

Introduction

nameȱ andȱ renown,ȱ areȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ Sister’sȱ affectionateȱ andȱ intimate venerationȱforȱhim.”181ȱAlreadyȱmuchȱearlierȱthanȱthat,ȱfemaleȱnunsȱ inȱ AngloȬ Saxonȱ Englandȱ andȱ Bishopȱ Bonifaceȱ workingȱ asȱ aȱ missionaryȱ inȱ Carolingian Germanyȱ exchangedȱ numerousȱ lettersȱ expressingȱ theirȱ deeplyȬfeltȱ affectionȱ as friends.182ȱThereȱareȱcountlessȱexamplesȱofȱsuchȱfriendshipsȱamongȱmembersȱof religiousȱorders,ȱandȱweȱonlyȱneedȱtoȱthinkȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱBernardȱof Clairvaux,183ȱ or,ȱ onȱ aȱ moreȱ humbleȱ level,ȱ ofȱ Henryȱ Susoȱ (Heinrichȱ Seuse)ȱ and ElisabethȱStagel.184ȱ ItȱisȱnotȱquiteȱclearȱyetȱwhyȱthereȱareȱsoȱmanyȱreferencesȱtoȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendship throughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱearlyȱmodernȱtimeȱandȱhardlyȱanyȱtoȱfriendship amongȱ women.ȱ Inȱ ourȱ volumeȱ weȱ willȱ hearȱ ofȱ someȱ AngloȬSaxonȱ nunsȱ who entertainedȱ aȱ strongȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Saintȱ Bonifaceȱ (Lisaȱ M.ȱ C.ȱ Weston).ȱ And Jenniferȱ ConstantineȬJacksonȱ offersȱ aȱ penetratingȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ friendship betweenȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱwhichȱisȱfascinatinglyȱcomplementedȱbyȱDavidȱF. Tinsley’sȱstudyȱofȱHenryȱSuso’sȱandȱElsbethȱStagel’sȱfriendship.ȱAllȱthis,ȱhowever, doesȱ notȱ provideȱ usȱ withȱ aȱ goodȱ explanationȱ forȱ theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ friendships betweenȱwomenȱinȱlateȬmedievalȱliteraryȱandȱnonȬliteraryȱdocuments.ȱWeȱmight haveȱsimplyȱignoredȱthemȱsoȱfar,ȱthoughȱIȱsuspectȱthatȱtheȱpatriarchalȱframework ofȱ medievalȱ andȱ earlyȱ modernȱ societyȱ preventedȱ womenȱ fromȱ exploring friendshipȱinȱtheirȱownȱtermsȱandȱforȱtheirȱownȱpurposes.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ closeȱ relationshipsȱ between womenȱasȱfriendsȱwereȱimpossible.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtheseȱmustȱhaveȱcertainlyȱalso existed,ȱsuchȱasȱamongȱnunsȱinȱtheȱcountlessȱfemaleȱconventsȱthroughoutȱEurope. Twoȱfamousȱtextȱcorporaȱwhereȱweȱmightȱsuccessfullyȱunearthȱdefiniteȱevidence forȱfemaleȬfemaleȱbondingȱwouldȱbe,ȱfirst,ȱtheȱcommentsȱbyȱtheȱtenthȬcentury canonesseȱHrotsvitaȱofȱGandersheimȱ(ca.ȱ935–afterȱ972)ȱ(northernȱGermany)ȱabout herȱlearningȱexperiencesȱandȱpersonalȱlifeȱinȱtheȱfemaleȱcommunity,ȱwellȱtaken careȱofȱbyȱherȱteachersȱandȱsupervisors.185ȱInȱtheȱPrefaceȱtoȱherȱreligiousȱlegends

181

ȱ Deist,ȱGenderȱandȱPower,ȱ84ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ180).

182

183

184

185

Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ “Frauenbriefeȱ anȱ Bonifatius:ȱ Frühmittelalterlicheȱ Literaturdenkmälerȱ aus modernerȱmentalitätsgeschichtlicherȱSicht,”ȱArchivȱfürȱKulturgeschichteȱ72,ȱ2ȱ(1990):ȱ251–ȱ73;ȱJoan M.ȱFerrante,ȱToȱtheȱGloryȱofȱHerȱSex:ȱWomen’sȱRolesȱinȱtheȱCompositionȱofȱMedievalȱTexts.ȱWomenȱof Lettersȱ (Bloomingtonȱ andȱ Indianapolis:ȱ Indianaȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1997),ȱ 10–35ȱ (without knowledgeȱofȱmyȱstudy).ȱMostȱimportantȱinȱourȱcontextȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthis volumeȱbyȱLisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston. WalterȱYsebaert,ȱ“MedievalȱFriendshipsȱandȱNetworks,”ȱHandbookȱofȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱed.ȱAlbrecht Classenȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱdeȱGruyter,ȱforthcoming). DavidȱF.ȱTinsley,ȱTheȱScourgeȱandȱtheȱCross:ȱAsceticȱMentalitiesȱofȱtheȱLaterȱMiddleȱAges.ȱMedievalia Groningana,ȱ 14ȱ (Leuven,ȱ Belgium:ȱ Peetersȱ Publishers,ȱ 2009);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ hisȱ contributionȱ toȱ this volume. HrotsvithaeȱOpera.ȱMitȱEinleitungȱundȱKommentarȱvonȱH.ȱHomeyerȱ(Munich,ȱPaderborn,ȱand

Introduction

83

sheȱemphasizes:ȱ“IȱwasȱfirstȱtaughtȱbyȱRiccardis,ȱtheȱwisestȱandȱkindestȱofȱteachers, andȱbyȱothersȱthereafter,ȱwhoȱcontinuedȱmyȱeducationȱ/ȱandȱthen,ȱfinally,ȱbyȱmy ladyȱofȱhighȱstationȱ/ȱGerbergaȱofȱroyalȱblood,ȱmyȱmercifulȱabbess,ȱunderȱwhose ruleȱIȱnowȱlive.ȱSheȱisȱyoungerȱinȱyearsȱthanȱI,ȱbutȱasȱbefitsȱtheȱEmperor’sȱniece, moreȱ advancedȱ inȱ learning.ȱ /ȱ Itȱ wasȱ she,ȱ who,ȱ otherȱ authorsȱ concerningȱ / continuedȱmyȱinstructionȱ/ȱofferingȱmeȱanȱintrodcutionȱ/ȱtoȱtheȱworksȱofȱthose writersȱwhomȱsheȱherselfȱstudiedȱwithȱlearnedȱmen.”186ȱDespiteȱallȱherȱexpressions ofȱrespectȱandȱsubmissionȱunderȱherȱteachers’ȱauthority,ȱweȱcanȱclearlyȱperceive theȱemotionalȱbondsȱamongȱallȱtheseȱwomen.ȱ TheȱotherȱsignificantȱtextȱcorpusȱwithȱcluesȱasȱtoȱfemaleȬfemaleȱfriendshipȱisȱthe theȱ correspondenceȱ byȱ theȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ magistra,ȱ mystic,ȱ healer,ȱ and prophetessȱHildegardȱofȱBingenȱ(1083–1179),ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱsheȱaddressedȱher fellowȬsistersȱorȱtalkedȱaboutȱherȱownȱrelationshipȱwithȱthem.ȱ Oneȱ amongȱ them,ȱ Richardisȱ ofȱ Stade,ȱ aȱ closeȱ collaboratorȱ inȱ herȱ projectȱ of writingȱdownȱherȱvisionsȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱSciviasȱ(ca.ȱ1141–1151),ȱHildegardȱmust haveȱ befriendedȱ aboveȱ all,ȱ consideringȱ theȱ almostȱ desperateȱ fightȱ sheȱ putȱ up tryingȱtoȱpreventȱRichardisȱfromȱbeingȱappointedȱabbessȱatȱBassumȱnearȱBremen (northernȱGermany),ȱthoughȱallȱthatȱtoȱnoȱavail.ȱInȱaȱletterȱtoȱRichardis’sȱbrother, Hartwig,ȱArchbishopȱofȱBremen,ȱshortlyȱafterȱtheȱnun’sȱsuddenȱdeathȱinȱ1151ȱor 1152,187ȱtheȱmysticȱclearlyȱrevealsȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱtheseȱtwoȱwomenȱseemȱto haveȱbeenȱbondedȱtogether:ȱ“myȱdaughterȱRichardis,ȱwhomȱIȱcallȱbothȱdaughter andȱmother,ȱbecauseȱIȱcherishedȱherȱwithȱdivineȱlove,ȱasȱindeedȱtheȱLivingȱLight hadȱinstructedȱmeȱtoȱdoȱinȱaȱveryȱvividȱvision.”188ȱAndȱreflectingȱonȱaȱvisionȱshe hadȱhadȱconcerningȱRichardis,ȱHildegardȱemphasizes:ȱ“althoughȱtheȱworldȱloved herȱphysicalȱbeautyȱandȱherȱworldlyȱwisdomȱwhileȱsheȱwasȱstillȱalive,ȱmyȱsoulȱhas theȱgreatestȱconfidenceȱinȱherȱsalvationȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱNow,ȱasȱforȱme,ȱIȱcastȱoutȱofȱmyȱheart thatȱgriefȱyouȱcausedȱmeȱinȱtheȱmatterȱofȱthisȱmyȱdaughter”ȱ(51).ȱ

186

187

188

Vienna:ȱVerlagȱFerdinandȱSchöningh,ȱ1970);ȱseeȱespeciallyȱherȱwarmȱcommentsȱaboutȱherȱteacher Rikkardisȱ andȱ theȱ abbessȱ Gerberga,ȱ 38.ȱ Toȱ whatȱ extentȱ weȱ couldȱ reallyȱ talkȱ aboutȱ female friendshipȱinȱthisȱcaseȱremainsȱdebatable,ȱofȱcourse.ȱForȱanȱoverviewȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱlatestȱresearch onȱHrotsvita,ȱseeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱHrotsvitȱ[sic]ȱofȱGandersheim:ȱContexts,ȱIdentities,ȱAffinities,ȱand Performances,ȱed.ȱPhyllisȱR.ȱBrown,ȱLindaȱA.ȱMcMillin,ȱandȱKatharinaȱM.ȱWilsonȱ(Toronto,ȱBuffalo, andȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ2004). HrotsvitȱofȱGandersheim,ȱAȱFlorilegiumȱofȱHerȱWorks.ȱTrans.,ȱwithȱIntroduction,ȱInterpretiveȱEssay andȱNotesȱbyȱKatharinaȱM.ȱWilson.LibraryȱofȱMedievalȱWomenȱ(Cambridge:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ1998), 19. TheȱLettersȱofȱHildegardȱofȱBingen,ȱtrans.ȱJosephȱL.ȱBairdȱandȱRaddȱK.ȱEhrman.ȱVol.ȱ1ȱ(NewȱYork andȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱLetterȱNo.ȱ13,ȱHartwig,ȱArchbishopȱofȱBremen,ȱto Hildegard,ȱ 1152,ȱ 49–50.ȱ Forȱ theȱ criticalȱ editionȱ ofȱ herȱ letters,ȱ seeȱ Hildegardisȱ Bingensis, Epistolarivm,ȱvols.ȱ1Ȭ2ȱed.ȱL.ȱvanȱAcker.ȱCorpvsȱChristianorvm.ȱContinuatioȱMediaeualis,ȱXCI,ȱXCI A.ȱvol.ȱ3ȱed.ȱL.ȱvanȱAckerȱ(†)ȱandȱM.ȱKlaesȬHachmöllerȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ1991–2001).ȱ TheȱLettersȱofȱHildegardȱofȱBingen,ȱNo.ȱ13r,ȱp.ȱ51ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ186).

84

Introduction

InȱaȱpreviousȱletterȱtoȱHartwig,ȱHildegardȱhadȱalreadyȱclearlyȱexpressedȱhow passionatelyȱsheȱfeltȱaboutȱthisȱfellowȱsister,ȱherȱfriend,ȱwhoseȱelectionȱasȱabbess ofȱ Bassumȱ sheȱ regardedȱ asȱ aȱ personalȱ insult,ȱ ifȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ caseȱ ofȱ simony,ȱ as HildegardȱbitinglyȱarguedȱinȱanotherȱletterȱtoȱHartwigȱ(no.ȱ12,ȱ48).ȱAppealingȱto theȱbrotherȱinȱastoundinglyȱpassionateȱterms,ȱtheȱmagistraȱcallsȱoutȱtoȱhim:ȱ“My spiritȱisȱexceedinglyȱsad,ȱbecauseȱaȱcertainȱhorribleȱmanȱhasȱtrampledȱunderfoot myȱdesireȱandȱwillȱ(andȱnotȱmineȱalone,ȱbutȱalsoȱmyȱsisters’ȱandȱfriends’),ȱandȱhas rashlyȱdraggedȱourȱbelovedȱdaughterȱRichardisȱoutȱofȱourȱcloister”ȱ(48).ȱTrulyȱin aȱ desperateȱ mood,ȱ Hildegardȱ concludesȱ herȱ letterȱ withȱ aȱ lastȬditchȱ effort, appealingȱtoȱHartwig:ȱ“sendȱmyȱdearestȱdaughterȱbackȱtoȱme.ȱIfȱyouȱdoȱso,ȱGod willȱgiveȱyouȱtheȱblessingȱwhichȱIsaacȱgaveȱtoȱhisȱsonȱJacobȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(49).189ȱ Significantly,ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱaȱletterȱwhichȱtheȱmagistraȱaddressedȱdirectlyȱtoȱthe newlyȱappointedȱabbess,ȱandȱhereȱsheȱresortsȱveryȱdeliberatelyȱtoȱtheȱtraditional terminologyȱ ofȱ familyȱ relationships:ȱ “Daughter,ȱ listenȱ toȱ me,ȱ yourȱ mother, speakingȱtoȱyouȱinȱtheȱspirit:ȱmyȱgriefȱfliesȱupȱtoȱheaven.ȱMyȱsorrowȱisȱdestroying theȱgreatȱconfidenceȱandȱconsolationȱthatȱIȱonceȱhadȱinȱmankind”ȱ(vol.ȱI,ȱno.ȱ64, 143).ȱRepeatedlyȱevokingȱBiblicalȱstatementsȱ(Ps.ȱ21:2,ȱMattȱ27:46;ȱMarkȱ15:34), Hildegardȱcastsȱherselfȱasȱanȱ“orphan”ȱwhoȱhasȱbeenȱforsakenȱbyȱtheȱdaughter (144).ȱButȱsheȱisȱfullyȱawareȱofȱtheȱpossibleȱdangerȱofȱtransgression,ȱofȱwhichȱshe herselfȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱguilty:ȱ“Iȱsoȱlovedȱtheȱnobilityȱofȱyourȱcharacter,ȱyour wisdom,ȱyourȱchastity,ȱyourȱspirit,ȱandȱindeedȱeveryȱaspectȱofȱyourȱlife”ȱ(144). Otherȱpeopleȱnoticedȱthisȱintenseȱemotionalȱattachmentȱandȱbeganȱtoȱquestionȱits properȱnature,ȱasȱHildegardȱrevealsȱherselfȱinȱherȱletter:ȱ“manyȱpeopleȱhaveȱsaid toȱme:ȱWhatȱareȱyouȱdoing?”ȱ(144).ȱ Hildegardȱ roundsȱ offȱ herȱ letterȱ withȱ theȱ explicitȱ admissionȱ ofȱ herȱ loveȱ for Richardis:ȱ“Now,ȱletȱallȱwhoȱhaveȱgriefȱlikeȱmineȱmournȱwithȱme,ȱallȱwho,ȱinȱthe loveȱofȱGod,ȱhaveȱhadȱsuchȱgreatȱloveȱinȱtheirȱheartsȱandȱmindsȱforȱaȱperson—as Iȱhadȱforȱyou—butȱwhoȱwasȱsnatchedȱawayȱfromȱthemȱinȱanȱinstant,ȱasȱyouȱwere fromȱme”ȱ(144).ȱNotȱcompletelyȱresignedȱtoȱherȱownȱdestiny,ȱHildegardȱsubtly incorporatesȱ alsoȱ aȱ wordȱ ofȱ warningȱ intoȱ theȱ finalȱ paragraph,ȱ admonishing Richardisȱ thatȱ sheȱ mightȱ loseȱ herȱ happinessȱ ifȱ sheȱ wereȱ toȱ forgetȱ aboutȱ her spiritualȱmother,ȱHildegard:ȱ“Beȱmindfulȱofȱyourȱpoorȱdesolateȱmother,ȱHildegard, soȱthatȱyourȱhappinessȱmayȱnotȱfade”ȱ(144).ȱWhetherȱhereȱweȱmightȱrecognize sameȬsexȱloveȱinȱtheȱmodernȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword,ȱthatȱis,ȱlesbianȱtendencies,ȱcannot beȱdeterminedȱandȱwouldȱnotȱreallyȱmatterȱinȱourȱcontext,ȱbutȱweȱknowȱforȱsure thatȱthisȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱHildegardȱandȱRichardisȱconstitutedȱaȱpowerful friendshipȱbetweenȱtwoȱwomen,ȱtheȱolderȱoneȱcertainlyȱcompletelyȱdomineering,

189

BarbaraȱJ.ȱNewman,ȱ“Introduction”ȱtoȱHildegardȱofȱBingen,ȱScivias,ȱtrans.ȱMotherȱColumbaȱHart andȱJaneȱBishop,ȱprefaceȱbyȱCarolineȱWalkerȱBynum.ȱClassicsȱofȱWesternȱSpiritualityȱȱ(NewȱYork andȱMahwah:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ15.

Introduction

85

theȱyoungerȱoneȱapparentlyȱquiteȱhappyȱaboutȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱfreeȱherselfȱfrom theȱconventȱinȱBingenȱandȱtoȱriseȱtoȱtheȱpowerfulȱpositionȱasȱabbessȱofȱaȱconvent inȱtheȱnorthȱofȱGermany.ȱ Hildegardȱ failed,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ bothȱ becauseȱ theȱ authoritiesȱ overruledȱ herȱ and becauseȱRichardisȱsurprisinglyȱpassedȱaway,ȱnotȱtoȱforgetȱRichardis’sȱownȱdesire toȱfindȱherȱownȱwayȱinȱlifeȱandȱtoȱgainȱtheȱrankȱofȱanȱabbess,ȱfreeȱofȱHildegard’s overbearingȱinfluence.ȱWeȱcanȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱallȱtheseȱexpressionsȱofȱardentȱdesire toȱhaveȱRichardisȱreturnȱtoȱBingenȱandȱtoȱrejoinȱtheȱconventȱunderȱHildegard’s leadership,ȱorȱdominance,ȱindicateȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱolderȱwomanȱwasȱemotionally attachedȱtoȱtheȱyoungerȱandȱtriedȱwithȱallȱherȱmightȱandȱinfluenceȱtoȱallureȱher friendȱandȱcompanionȱbackȱtoȱherȱasȱmother,ȱmagistra,ȱorȱsimplyȱfriend.ȱWeȱare onȱsafeȱgroundȱtoȱclaimȱthatȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱdeterminedȱthatȱrelationship, unlessȱweȱareȱdealingȱwithȱHildegard’sȱmotherlyȱinstinctsȱandȱneedsȱtoȱcontrolȱall herȱfellowȱsisters;ȱanythingȱelse,ȱasȱsuggestiveȱasȱitȱmightȱbe,ȱwouldȱamountȱto speculation.ȱButȱallȱthisȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfutureȱresearch.190ȱ PeterȱDronkeȱsensitivelyȱcharacterizedȱtheȱuniqueȱtoneȱofȱvoiceȱinȱHildegard’s letters,ȱespeciallyȱtoȱRichardis,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ“SoȱtooȱsheȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱRichardis asȱanȱequal,ȱanȱabbessȱlikeȱherself:ȱsheȱisȱstillȱ‘theȱmaiden,’ȱtheȱspiritualȱdaughter, whoȱmustȱlistenȱtoȱherȱmother.ȱYetȱwhatȱtheȱmotherȱnowȱbringsȱforthȱisȱnotȱa commandȱbutȱaȱplanctus.ȱSheȱexpressesȱherȱsenseȱofȱbetrayalȱcitingȱtheȱwordsȱof Psalmȱ117:9ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwhichȱcontrastȱtheȱsteadfastnessȱofȱGod’sȱloveȱwithȱtheȱfickleness

190

Rosemaryȱ Rader,ȱ Breakingȱ Boundaries:ȱ Male/Femaleȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Communities. TheologicalȱInquiriesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1983).ȱWhetherȱlesbianismȱwasȱinvolvedȱhere cannotȱbeȱdeductedȱfromȱHildegard’sȱstatement;ȱbutȱthatȱisȱaȱveryȱdifficultȱdecisionȱtoȱmakeȱatȱany rate.ȱ Asȱ inȱ manyȱ previousȱ cases,ȱ weȱ wouldȱ walkȱ aȱ veryȱ fineȱ lineȱ betweenȱ homosocialȱ and homoeroticȱrelationships.ȱForȱlesbianismȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱseeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱSameȱSex LoveȱandȱDesireȱAmongȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱFrancescaȱCanadéȱSautmanȱandȱPamela Sheingorn.ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Houndmills,ȱ Basingstoke,ȱ Hampshire: Palgrave,ȱ2001).ȱSeeȱespeciallyȱSusanȱSchibanoff,ȱ“HildegardȱofȱBingenȱandȱRichardisȱofȱStade: TheȱDiscourseȱofȱDesire”ȱ(49–83).ȱOlderȱscholarshipȱonȱlesbianismȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱcanȱbe foundȱthere.ȱTheȱentireȱissueȱremainsȱratherȱtheoreticalȱandȱdoesȱnotȱfindȱanȱeasyȱsolution.ȱWe, asȱheirsȱofȱtheȱpostȬFreudianȱworld,ȱconstantlyȱfaceȱtheȱdangerȱofȱanachronisticȱreadingsȱinto medievalȱtexts,ȱparticularlyȱwhenȱfriendshipȱandȱloveȱareȱinvolved.ȱSeeȱnowȱalsoȱtheȱsensitive analysisȱ ofȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ byȱ Barbaraȱ Beuys,ȱ Dennȱ ichȱ binȱ krankȱ vorȱ Liebe:ȱ Dasȱ Lebenȱ der HildegardȱvonȱBingenȱ(MunichȱandȱVienna:ȱCarlȱHanserȱVerlag,ȱ2001),ȱ196–205.ȱForȱher,ȱRichardis mustȱhaveȱbeenȱstuckȱbetweenȱaȱrockȱandȱaȱhardȱstoneȱbecauseȱherȱownȱfamilyȱhadȱprobably pushedȱherȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱpositionȱasȱabbessȱafterȱtheȱnunsȱinȱBassumȱhadȱelectedȱher.ȱAtȱthe sameȱ timeȱ movingȱ awayȱ fromȱ Hildegardȱ mightȱ haveȱ seemedȱ toȱ beȱ liberatingȱ forȱ theȱ young womanȱ whoȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ delightedȱ toȱ beȱ freedȱ fromȱ theȱ domineeringȱ magistraȱ in RupertusbergȱnearȱBingen.ȱMoreover,ȱRichardisȱhadȱHildegard’sȱownȱindependenceȱinȱmind whenȱsheȱacceptedȱherȱelectionȱasȱabbess.ȱForȱtheȱlatter,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱlosingȱherȱfriend,ȱa belovedȱnun,ȱmeantȱthatȱsheȱhadȱtoȱgetȱusedȱtoȱaȱnewȱassistantȱinȱherȱeffortȱtoȱcopyȱdownȱher visionaryȱexperiences.ȱFinally,ȱasȱBeuysȱalertsȱus,ȱHildegardȱmustȱhaveȱfeltȱdeeplyȱinsultedȱasȱa prophetessȱwhenȱsheȱwasȱabandonedȱbyȱsuchȱaȱcloseȱcollaboratorȱ(201–02).

86

Introduction

ofȱhumanȱhopes.”191ȱWhateverȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱwomenȱmight haveȱbeen,ȱweȱcanȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱhereȱweȱfaceȱaȱmostȱsignificantȱcaseȱofȱfemale friendshipȱinȱtheȱhighȱMiddleȱAges.ȱItȱwouldȱbeȱintriguingȱtoȱexploreȱfurtherȱto whatȱ extent,ȱ ifȱ atȱ all,ȱ Hildegardȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ influencedȱ byȱ Aelredȱ of Rievaulx’sȱteaching,ȱorȱwhetherȱsheȱleanedȱmoreȱinȱtheȱdirectionȱofȱAugustine,ȱbut thereȱisȱnoȱroomȱhereȱtoȱanswerȱthisȱquestionȱtoȱtheȱfullȱextentȱnecessaryȱtoȱdo justiceȱtoȱit. ȱConsideringȱfemaleȱfiguresȱwhoȱserveȱasȱfriends,ȱBrangæneȱinȱGottfriedȱvon Strassburg’sȱTristanȱ(ca.ȱ1210)ȱeasilyȱcomesȱtoȱmind,ȱanȱolderȱwomanȱwhoȱstands byȱtheȱyoungȱIrishȱprincessȱIsolde,ȱbasicallyȱsacrificingȱherselfȱforȱherȱrelativeȱand confidentȱwithoutȱeverȱexperiencingȱpersonalȱhappinessȱandȱpersonalȱfulfillment byȱandȱforȱherself.192ȱWouldȱsheȱcountȱasȱaȱfriend?ȱBrangæneȱdutifullyȱacceptsȱher role,ȱbutȱsheȱalsoȱenjoysȱaȱpoliticalȱandȱemotionalȱintimacyȱwithȱIsoldeȱthatȱwould underscoreȱtheirȱfriendship.193ȱ WhenȱweȱcontrastȱherȱwithȱtheȱchambermaidȱinȱHeinrichȱKaufringer’sȱverse narrativeȱ“DieȱunschuldigeȱMörderin”ȱ(‘TheȱInnocentȱMurderess,’ȱca.ȱ1400)ȱwho actsȱ aȱ similarȱ role,ȱ weȱ canȱ easilyȱ understandȱ theȱ remarkableȱ contrast.ȱ In Kaufringer’sȱ narrativeȱ theȱ maidȱ alsoȱ substitutesȱ forȱ herȱ mistressȱ duringȱ the weddingȱnightȱbecauseȱtheȱlatterȱhasȱprematurelyȱlostȱherȱvirginity—inȱthisȱcase, however,ȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱdeception,ȱifȱnotȱrape.194ȱSexualȱviolence,ȱdeception,ȱand abuseȱdominateȱthisȱlateȬmedievalȱnarrative,ȱwhileȱGottfriedȱstillȱcouldȱconceive ofȱ aȱ worldȱ whereȱ twoȱ womenȱ closelyȱ cooperateȱ toȱ saveȱ theȱ one’sȱ honorȱ and preventȱherȱmarriageȱfromȱfallingȱapart,ȱwhichȱwouldȱalsoȱhaveȱhadȱdevastating consequencesȱforȱtheȱentireȱcountry.ȱSoȱweȱcanȱeasilyȱrecognizeȱtheȱhighȱmoral groundȱ onȱ whichȱ Brangæneȱ stands,ȱ whichȱ indeedȱ couldȱ beȱ identifiedȱ asȱ true friendshipȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱethicalȱsense.ȱ

191

192

193

194

PeterȱDronke,ȱWomenȱWritersȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱAȱCriticalȱStudyȱofȱTextsȱfromȱPerpetuaȱ(†203)ȱto MargueriteȱPoreteȱ(†ȱ1310)ȱ(Cambridge,ȱLondon,ȱetȱal.:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1984),ȱ157. MiriamȱRheingoldȱFuller,ȱ“Shadow,ȱSupprt,ȱandȱSurrogate:ȱBrangeinȱinȱtheȱTristanȱLegends,” TristaniaȱXXIȱ(2001–2002):ȱ13–41. GottfriedȱvonȱStrassburg,ȱTristan,ȱnachȱdemȱTextȱvonȱFriedrichȱRankeȱneuȱherausgegeben,ȱins Neuhochdeutscheȱübersetzt,ȱmitȱeinemȱStellenkommentarȱundȱeinemȱNachwortȱvonȱRüdiger Krohn.ȱ3ȱvols.ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱReclam,ȱ1980);ȱcf.ȱGiselaȱHollandt,ȱDieȱHauptgestaltenȱinȱGottfriedsȱTristan: Wesenszüge,ȱHandlungsfunktion,ȱMotivȱderȱlIst.ȱPhilologischeȱStudienȱundȱQuellen,ȱ30ȱ(Berlin:ȱErich Schmidt,ȱ1966),ȱ41–52;ȱhowever,ȱsheȱonlyȱdiscussesȱBrangæne’sȱloyaltyȱandȱpurityȱofȱmindȱas Isolde’sȱcounselor,ȱadvisor,ȱandȱsupporter.ȱKeepingȱinȱmindȱtheȱintriguingȱDameȱdeȱlaȱTourȱin ChristineȱdeȱPizan’sȱLeȱLivreȱdeȱducȱdeȱdesȱvraisȱamansȱ(1403–1405),ȱwhoseȱfamousȱletterȱtoȱherȱlady andȱfriendȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱfurtherȱbelow,ȱweȱmightȱalsoȱidentifyȱBrangæneȱasȱaȱtrueȱfriend. Quotedȱ fromȱ Novellistikȱ desȱ Mittelalters:ȱ Märendichtung,ȱ ed.,ȱ trans.,ȱ andȱ commentedȱ byȱ Klaus Grubmüller.ȱBibliothekȱdesȱMittelalters,ȱ23ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱDeutscherȱKlassikerȱVerlag,ȱ1996), 798–838;ȱforȱaȱsolidȱcommentary,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱ1285–91.

Introduction

87

Byȱcontrast,ȱinȱKaufringer’sȱtale,ȱafterȱtheȱcopulationȱandȱafterȱtheȱhusbandȱhas fallenȱasleep,ȱtheȱmaidȱrefusesȱtoȱslipȱoutȱofȱtheȱbedȱandȱtoȱmakeȱroomȱforȱthe legallyȱmarriedȱwife,ȱutterlyȱfoolishlyȱtryingȱtoȱriseȱtoȱpowerȱherselfȱtherebyȱand inȱthisȱcuriousȱsituation.ȱInȱherȱdesperation,ȱtheȱfemaleȱprotagonistȱthenȱsetsȱfire toȱtheȱbedroom,ȱrescuesȱherȱhusbandȱandȱlocksȱtheȱdoorȱbehindȱher,ȱsoȱtheȱmaid diesȱinȱtheȱflames.ȱWhileȱweȱwouldȱcertainlyȱpayȱgreatȱrespectȱtoȱBrangæne,ȱasȱa confidentȱandȱfriend,ȱwillingȱtoȱsacrificeȱvirtuallyȱeverythingȱforȱherȱqueenȱand friend,ȱKaufringerȱ presentsȱtheȱveryȱoppositeȱcharacterȱwhoȱhasȱnoȱinterestȱin friendshipȱ andȱ doesȱ everythingȱ inȱ herȱ power,ȱ whenȱ theȱ opportunityȱ arises,ȱ to destroyȱ herȱ mistress,ȱ andȱ this,ȱ althoughȱ sheȱ hadȱ swornȱ toȱ beȱ loyalȱ andȱ toȱ be mindfulȱofȱtheȱmanyȱfavorsȱsheȱhadȱreceivedȱfromȱtheȱcountessȱsoȱfarȱ(513–15).195 Theȱ searchȱ forȱ friendlyȱ relationshipsȱ amongȱ women,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ theȱ Middle Ages,ȱ suffersȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ problemȱ thatȱ weȱ faceȱ inȱ ourȱ searchȱ forȱ women’s writingsȱinȱtheȱpremodernȱera.ȱButȱthereȱisȱnoȱreasonȱtoȱassumeȱthatȱwomenȱwere lessȱ interestedȱ inȱ friendship,ȱ and,ȱ furthermore,ȱ thatȱ theyȱ caredȱ lessȱ aboutȱ the ancientȬclassicalȱandȱmedievalȱstudiesȱonȱfriendshipȱ(Cicero,ȱAugustine,ȱAelred). EarlyȱChristianȱliterature,ȱespeciallyȱepistolaryȱtexts,ȱaboundsȱwithȱexpressionsȱof friendshipȱamongȱnuns,ȱabbesses,ȱandȱotherȱecclesiastics.196 Perhapsȱ weȱ shouldȱ addȱ hereȱ aȱ fewȱ commentsȱ onȱ theȱ intenseȱ butȱ friendly relationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱfemaleȱprotagonistȱinȱChristineȱdeȱPizan’sȱLeȱLivreȱduȱduc desȱvraisȱamansȱ(1403–1405)ȱandȱherȱfemaleȱcounselorȱandȱformerȱgoverness,ȱSebile deȱMontȱHault,ȱDameȱdeȱlaȱTour—aȱremarkableȱtextȱveryȱmuchȱcontemporaryȱto Chaucer’sȱCanterburyȱTalesȱ(ca.ȱ1399–1400).ȱTheȱDameȱstronglyȱadvisesȱtheȱladyȱto abstainȱ fromȱ herȱ loveȱ affairȱ withȱ theȱ dukeȱ becauseȱ sheȱ wouldȱ riskȱ herȱ social standingȱandȱwouldȱnotȱgainȱmuchȱtrulyȱfromȱthatȱeroticȱrelationship,ȱapartȱfrom temporaryȱ pleasures.ȱ Althoughȱ Sebileȱ signsȱ herȱ letterȱ onlyȱ withȱ theȱ formulaic “Vostreȱhumbleȱserf”ȱ(Yourȱhumbleȱcreature),197ȱsheȱclearlyȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuch sheȱcaresȱforȱherȱwellȬbeingȱandȱgoodȱpublicȱreputation:ȱ“c’estȱaȱsavoirȱqueȱne

195

196

197

SeeȱmyȱEnglishȱtranslationȱinȱEroticȱTalesȱofȱMedievalȱGermany,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ2009,ȱ114ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ96):ȱ“The maidȱ didȱ notȱ object,ȱ andȱ rightȱ awayȱ promisedȱ theȱ queenȱ loyallyȱ andȱ withoutȱ cunningȱ toȱ do everythingȱsheȱhadȱaskedȱofȱher.ȱThenȱtheyȱenteredȱtheȱchamberȱandȱputȱoutȱtheȱlight.” Rosemaryȱ Rader,ȱ Breakingȱ Boundaries:ȱ Male/Femaleȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Communities. TheologicalȱInquiriesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1983);ȱUlrikeȱWiethaus,ȱ“InȱSearchȱofȱMedieval Women’sȱFriendship:ȱHildegardȱvonȱBingen’sȱLettersȱtoȱHerȱFemaleȱContemporaries,”ȱMapsȱof FleshȱandȱLight:ȱTheȱReligiousȱExperienceȱofȱMedievalȱWomenȱ Mystics,ȱed.ȱeademȱ(Syracuse,ȱNY: SyracuseȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ93–111. Christineȱ deȱ Pizan,ȱ Leȱ Livreȱ duȱ ducȱ desȱ vraisȱ amans.ȱ Aȱ Criticalȱ Editionȱ byȱ Thelmaȱ S.ȱ Fenster. Medievalȱ&ȱRenaissanceȱTextsȱ&ȱStudies,ȱ124ȱ(Binghamton,ȱNY:ȱMedievalȱ&ȱRenaissanceȱTexts &ȱStudies,ȱ1995),ȱ146.ȱForȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱChristineȱdeȱPizan,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱtheȱDukeȱof TrueȱLovers.ȱTrans.,ȱwithȱanȱintroductionȱbyȱThelmaȱS.ȱFenster.ȱWithȱlyricȱpoetryȱtrans.ȱbyȱNadia Margolisȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPerseaȱBooks,ȱ1991),ȱ120.

88

Introduction

savezȱl’entencionȱdeȱmaȱrequeste,ȱmesȱdeȱlaȱvostreȱvoulezȱqueȱjeȱsacheȱqueȱpour mourirȱn’empireriésȱvostreȱhonneur:ȱjeȱvousȱfaisȱcertaine,ȱtresȱdoulceȱmaistresse, etȱvousȱasseure,ȱqueȱmonȱvouloirȱn’estȱautreȱchoseȱforsȱseulementȱetȱentierement leȱvostre”ȱ(145;ȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnotȱknowȱtheȱintentȱofȱmyȱrequest,ȱbut,ȱasȱtoȱyourȱown intention,ȱyouȱwishȱmeȱtoȱknowȱthatȱyouȱwouldȱnotȱdiminishȱyourȱhonorȱonȱpain ofȱdeath:ȱIȱassureȱandȱreassureȱyou,ȱveryȱsweetȱmistress,ȱthatȱmyȱwillȱisȱnothing butȱtoȱdoȱyourȱwill;ȱ95).ȱ Surprisingly,ȱbutȱinȱfullȱconfirmationȱofȱwhatȱIȱamȱtryingȱtoȱbringȱtoȱlightȱhere, theȱyoungȱprincessȱlaterȱaddressesȱtheȱDameȱdeȱlaȱTourȱasȱ“Aȱmaȱtresȱchereȱet bonneȱamie”ȱ(170;ȱToȱmyȱveryȱgoodȱandȱdearȱfriend;ȱ110)ȱandȱthenȱemphasizes mostȱexplicitly:ȱ“Etȱsoiezȱcertaineȱqueȱvousȱavezȱuneȱamieȱenȱmoy,ȱetȱleȱpouez essayerȱquantȱvousȱplaira”ȱ(ibid.;ȱRestȱassuredȱthatȱyouȱhaveȱaȱfriendȱinȱme,ȱand thatȱyouȱmayȱputȱitȱtoȱtheȱtestȱwheneverȱitȱpleasesȱyou;ȱ110).ȱSheȱthenȱgoesȱon, therebyȱdiversifyingȱherȱemotionalȱrelationshipȱwithȱherȱformerȱgoverness,ȱ“Chere mereȱetȱamie,ȱvousȱsavezȱassezȱl’estatȱcommentȱjeȱsuisȱgouverneeȱetȱtenueȱenȱgrant subgecionȱetȱcrainteȱetȱrudementȱmeneeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,ȱcarȱjeȱvousȱsçayȱsiȱseureȱqueȱjeȱm’y pourroieȱ fier.ȱ Siȱ pouezȱ savoirȱ queȱ c’estȱ moultȱ grantȱ destreceȱ aȱ jeuneȱ cuerȱ de tousjoursȱvivreȱaȱdesplaisanceȱetȱsansȱaucuneȱjoyeuseté”ȱ(ibid.;ȱDearȱmotherȱand friend,ȱ youȱ knowȱ veryȱ wellȱ howȱ Iȱ amȱ governedȱ hereȱ andȱ heldȱ inȱ extreme submissionȱandȱfearȱandȱtreatedȱroughly,ȱandȱthatȱmyȱlotȱisȱveryȱhard,ȱwhichȱgives meȱlittleȱpleasure;ȱibid.).ȱ ThereȱisȱcertainlyȱaȱdegreeȱofȱauthorityȱinȱSebile’sȱletterȱandȱsubsequentȱresponse toȱherȱformerȱmistress,ȱbutȱweȱalsoȱdiscernȱclearlyȱhowȱmuchȱsheȱcaresȱforȱherȱand treatsȱherȱundoubtedlyȱasȱaȱfriend,ȱifȱnotȱasȱherȱownȱdaughter:ȱ“jeȱsuisȱtenueȱde vousȱadmonnesterȱvostreȱbienȱcommeȱaȱcelleȱquiȱaȱestéȱenȱmaȱgouvernanceȱdepuis enfanceȱjusquesȱaȱore,ȱtoutȱn’enȱfusseȱjeȱmieȱdigne”ȱ(171;ȱIȱamȱboundȱtoȱcounsel youȱforȱyourȱgoodȱasȱsomeoneȱwhoȱhasȱbeenȱinȱmyȱtutelageȱfromȱchildhoodȱuntil now,ȱhoweverȱunworthyȱIȱmayȱhaveȱbeen;ȱ112).ȱAtȱtheȱend,ȱofȱcourse,ȱsheȱthen resortsȱagainȱtoȱmostȱrespectfulȱandȱpoliteȱlanguageȱexpectedȱfromȱaȱgoverness, callingȱherselfȱ“Vostreȱtresȱhumbleȱcreature”ȱ(180;ȱYourȱhumbleȱcreature;ȱ120),ȱbut theȱ emotionalȱ dimensionȱ hiddenȱ betweenȱ theȱ lines,ȱ basicallyȱ tantamountȱ to friendship,ȱcannotȱbeȱoverlooked.ȱAsȱtheȱprincessȱadmitsȱherselfȱinȱherȱletter:ȱ“je vousȱprieȱsurȱtouteȱl’amourȱqueȱavezȱaȱmoyȱque,ȱtantostȱcesȱletresȱveues,ȱleȱplus hastivementȱ queȱ vousȱ pourrésȱ queȱ vousȱ ordeniésȱ deȱ vozȱ besongnesȱ enȱ tele maniereȱqueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(170;ȱIȱbegȱyou,ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱallȱtheȱloveȱyouȱhaveȱforȱme,ȱthat, onceȱyouȱhaveȱseenȱthisȱletter,ȱyouȱputȱyourȱaffairsȱinȱorderȱasȱquicklyȱasȱyouȱcan, suchȱthatȱyouȱareȱreadyȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱmeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.;ȱ111).ȱAndȱsheȱevenȱconcludesȱherȱletter withȱtheȱgreetingȱinȱverse,ȱaffirmingȱtheȱdeepȱfriendship:ȱ“Aȱlaȱdameȱqueȱclamoit /ȱMoultȱs’amie,ȱetȱtresȱl’amoit”ȱ(171,ȱvv.ȱ3166–67;ȱtoȱtheȱladyȱwhomȱsheȱcalledȱher veryȱgoodȱfriendȱandȱwhomȱsheȱlovedȱdearly),ȱasȱformulaicȱasȱthatȱmightȱsound.

Introduction

89

ȱ Weȱ canȱ beȱ sure,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ futureȱ researchȱ willȱ unearthȱ manyȱ innovative attemptsȱbyȱRenaissanceȱwomenȱwriters,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtoȱexpressȱtheirȱgreatȱneed forȱ andȱ interestȱ inȱ friendshipȱ withȱ otherȱ women,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Lauraȱ Cereta (1469–1499).198 ȱInȱherȱletterȱtoȱSantaȱPelegrinaȱsheȱgoesȱtoȱgreatȱlengthȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱproblems ofȱandȱwithȱfriendship,ȱsinceȱpeopleȱtendȱtoȱdisregardȱitȱasȱaȱphenomenonȱthatȱis notȱ“useful”:ȱ“Andȱsoȱfriendship,ȱthoughȱextraordinaryȱinȱitsȱethicalȱdimensions andȱ lifelongȱ inȱ itsȱ physicalȱ aspect,ȱ isȱ disregardedȱ amongȱ humanȱ desires.”199 Addressingȱherȱfriend’sȱlongȱsilenceȱandȱherȱownȱfeelingsȱofȱbeingȱrejectedȱbyȱher, sheȱemphasizesȱthatȱfriendshipȱdoesȱnotȱconsistȱofȱanȱ“exchangeȱofȱflatteryȱand gifts”ȱ (137).ȱ Appealingȱ toȱ theȱ addresseeȱ toȱ resumeȱ theȱ communication,ȱ Laura outlinesȱhowȱaȱrupturedȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbeȱrestored:ȱ“Theȱquestionȱyouȱraiseȱhas toȱbeȱdebated,ȱnotȱmockedȱorȱbelittled,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱsacredȱpledgeȱofȱourȱloyaltyȱand respectȱforȱoneȱanother,ȱthoughȱnowȱbeatenȱandȱbroken,ȱcanȱbeȱhealed,ȱandȱsoȱthat everything—onceȱ theȱ sicknessȱ inȱ ourȱ thoughtsȱ aboutȱ oneȱ anotherȱ hasȱ been medicated—mayȱ soonȱ beȱ rightȱ againȱ betweenȱ us”ȱ (137).ȱ Forȱ her,ȱ friendship amountsȱtoȱbeingȱoneȱofȱtheȱhighestȱformsȱofȱlove:ȱ“you,ȱwhoȱareȱtheȱmostȱbeloved ofȱfriends”ȱ(138).ȱProbingȱtheȱcausesȱofȱtheirȱconflict,ȱsheȱthenȱconcludes:ȱ“Afterȱall, thisȱ isȱ theȱ hallmarkȱ ofȱ one’sȱ humanity:ȱ theȱ abilityȱ toȱ recognizeȱ one’sȱ own weakness.ȱThereforeȱdismissȱtheȱthoughtȱofȱaȱquarrelȱasȱtheȱresultȱofȱourȱdifference ofȱopinion”ȱ(138).ȱ Moderataȱ Fonte,ȱ orȱ ratherȱ Modestaȱ Pozzoȱ (1555–1592),ȱ inȱ herȱ Theȱ Worthȱ of Womenȱ(Ilȱmeritoȱdelleȱdonne),ȱwrittenȱaroundȱ1592ȱandȱpublishedȱposthumouslyȱin 1600,ȱalsoȱengagedȱinȱaȱcriticalȱexaminationȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱhasȱherȱcharacter Leonoraȱstate:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ‘thisȱsacredȱvirtueȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱutterlyȱpureȱandȱunaffected, itȱ rejectsȱ allȱ falsity,ȱ caresȱ nothingȱ forȱ honor,ȱ scornsȱ allȱ boasting,ȱ pretense,ȱ and simulation,ȱ andȱ isȱ neverȱ idle,ȱ butȱ alwaysȱ eagerȱ toȱ showȱ itselfȱ concretelyȱ in demonstrationsȱ ofȱ affection’.”200ȱ Herȱ dialogueȱ partnerȱ Corinnaȱ confirmsȱ her opinionȱandȱaddsȱtheȱfurtherȱcomment:ȱ“‘ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱForȱaȱmanȱwhoȱisȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱto anotherȱmustȱbehaveȱtowardȱhimȱinȱanȱabsolutelyȱfrankȱandȱopenȱmanner:ȱthere mustȱbeȱnoȱartificeȱinȱhisȱbehavior,ȱnoȱpoliteȱscruples,ȱnoȱhiddenȱobjectȱorȱsecret agenda.ȱHeȱshouldȱtreatȱhisȱfriendȱjustȱasȱheȱwouldȱaȱbrother,ȱaȱfather,ȱaȱson,ȱthat is,ȱheȱshouldȱbeȱasȱfreeȱandȱeasyȱinȱallȱhisȱdealingsȱwithȱhimȱasȱheȱmightȱbeȱwith

198

199

200

CarolynȱJamesȱandȱBillȱKent,ȱ“RenaissanceȱFriendship:ȱTraditionalȱTruths,ȱNewȱandȱDissenting Voices,”ȱFriendship:ȱAȱHistory,ȱ111–64;ȱhereȱ145ȱ(2009;ȱseeȱnoteȱ179). LauraȱCereta,ȱCollectedȱLettersȱofȱaȱRenaissanceȱFeminist.ȱTranscribed,ȱTranslated,ȱandȱEditedȱby DianaȱRobin.ȱTheȱOtherȱVoiceȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEuropeȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱUniversityȱof ChicagoȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ137. ModerataȱFonteȱ(ModestaȱPozzo),ȱTheȱWorthȱofȱWomen:ȱWhereinȱIsȱClearlyȱRevealedȱTheirȱNobility andȱTheirȱSuperiorityȱtoȱMen.ȱEd.ȱandȱTransl.ȱbyȱVirginiaȱCox.ȱTheȱOtherȱVoiceȱinȱEarlyȱModern Europeȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ124.

90

Introduction

aȱbloodȱrelative,ȱevenȱfeelingȱatȱlibertyȱtoȱcommandȱfavorsȱwhenȱheȱneedsȱthem, andȱ heȱ shouldȱ giveȱ hisȱ friendȱ licenseȱ toȱ behaveȱ justȱ asȱ freelyȱ inȱ return,ȱ never denyingȱhimȱanythingȱheȱasks”ȱ(124).ȱ Demonstratingȱherȱprofoundȱlearning,ȱModerataȱquotesȱvariousȱauthoritiesȱfrom antiquityȱ(Ovid,ȱSeneca,ȱDemetrius,ȱandȱCicero)ȱtoȱtheȱearlyȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱwho allȱconfirmedȱthatȱmisfortuneȱbringsȱtoȱlightȱtheȱgenuineȱaffectionȱbetweenȱfriends, andȱexposesȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱonlyȱfalseȱfriendsȱ(125–27),ȱaȱfundamentalȱideaȱthat BoethiusȱhadȱdiscussedȱasȱwellȱinȱhisȱConsolatioȱphilosophiaeȱ(seeȱabove).ȱCorinna thenȱconcludes:ȱ“‘trueȱfriendship,ȱtrueȱaffinity,ȱisȱtheȱcauseȱofȱallȱgood.ȱForȱitȱis friendshipȱthatȱkeepsȱtheȱworldȱalive:ȱfriendshipȱsealsȱtheȱmarriagesȱthatȱpreserve theȱindividualȱinȱtheȱspecies,ȱwhileȱtheȱfriendshipȱandȱbondingȱofȱtheȱelements maintainsȱhealthȱinȱourȱbodies,ȱandȱbringsȱfineȱweatherȱtoȱtheȱair,ȱcalmȱtoȱtheȱsea, andȱpeaceȱtoȱtheȱearth,ȱsoȱthatȱcitiesȱcanȱbeȱbuilt,ȱkingdomsȱgrowȱtoȱgreatness,ȱand allȱcreaturesȱliveȱinȱcomfortȱ.ȱ.ȱ.’”ȱ(128). Whatȱwasȱregardedȱasȱsincereȱfriendship,ȱwhatȱwasȱperceivedȱasȱsimulations? Baroqueȱwritersȱtendedȱtoȱmanipulateȱmanyȱofȱtheȱtraditionalȱethicalȱvaluesȱas partȱofȱtheȱcourtlyȱetiquettes,ȱandȱinȱthisȱprocessȱalsoȱcouldȱbecomeȱanȱinstrument forȱpoliteȱmannersȱandȱgentleness.ȱMadeleineȱdeȱScudéryȱ(1607–1701),ȱoneȱofȱthe mostȱpopularȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱEuropeanȱnovelists,ȱhasȱoneȱofȱherȱspeakersȱin theȱRhetoricalȱDialoguesȱsayȱthatȱ“friendshipȱisȱsoȱdelicateȱ[aȱrelationship]ȱthatȱyou canȱneverȱbeȱtooȱcarefulȱnotȱtoȱendangerȱit.”201ȱAndȱaȱbitȱlaterȱsheȱhasȱaȱwoman calledȱBériseȱreflectȱuponȱlettersȱofȱgallantry:ȱ“Oneȱisȱableȱtoȱmockȱ[everything] ingeniouslyȱ[inȱtheseȱletters],ȱpraiseȱandȱflatteryȱagreeablyȱfindȱtheirȱplaceȱinȱthem, inȱthemȱoneȱspeaksȱsometimesȱofȱfriendship,ȱasȱifȱoneȱwereȱspeakingȱofȱlove,ȱin themȱoneȱsearchesȱforȱnovelty;ȱinȱthemȱoneȱisȱableȱalsoȱtoȱspeakȱinnocentȱlies” (147).ȱSubsequentlyȱsheȱisȱaskedȱtoȱdescribeȱinȱdetailȱhowȱloveȱlettersȱareȱtoȱbe composed,ȱ whichȱ allowsȱ herȱ alsoȱ toȱ referȱ toȱ lettersȱ ofȱ friendship:ȱ “Thoseȱ who receiveȱanȱelegantȱletterȱofȱfriendshipȱmakeȱaȱpointȱofȱshowingȱit,ȱwhileȱthoseȱwho receiveȱanȱelegantȱloveȱletterȱareȱembarrassedȱtoȱpublishȱit;ȱthusȱoneȱshouldȱnot findȱitȱstrangeȱthatȱoneȱseesȱsoȱfewȱgoodȱonesȱofȱthisȱlastȱkind”ȱ(148).ȱ Surprisingly,ȱhowever,ȱasȱL.ȱBelleeȱJonesȱalertsȱusȱinȱherȱcontributionȱtoȱthis volume,ȱsixteenthȬȱandȱthenȱevenȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱphilosophersȱandȱwriters, suchȱasȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne,ȱexplicitlyȱinsistedȱonȱmen’sȱexclusionaryȱclaimȱto possessȱ theȱ powerȱ ofȱ mindȱ andȱ strengthȱ ofȱ soulȱ toȱ developȱ trueȱ friendship, whereasȱthatȱwouldȱneverȱbeȱpossibleȱamongȱandȱbyȱwomen.ȱCuriously,ȱhowever, theȱveryȱinsistenceȱonȱthisȱpoint,ȱformulatedȱwithȱaȱratherȱstrangeȱhysteria,ȱmight indicateȱ theȱ veryȱ opposite,ȱ asȱ ifȱ theȱ maleȱ debatersȱ focusedȱ onȱ theȱ topicȱ of

201

MadeleineȱdeȱScudéry,ȱSelectedȱLetters,ȱOratrions,ȱandȱRhetoricalȱDialogues.ȱEd.ȱandȱTrans.ȱbyȱJane DonawerthȱandȱJulieȱStrongson.ȱTheȱOtherȱVoiceȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEuropeȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon: TheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ130.

Introduction

91

friendshipȱtriedȱdeliberatelyȱhardȱtoȱprojectȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱandȱfemaleȱfriends asȱaȱmatterȱtooȱabsurdȱandȱoutlandishȱtoȱexistȱinȱreality.ȱPerhapsȱthatȱwasȱprecisely theirȱstrategyȱtoȱholdȱonȱtoȱtheirȱpublicȱandȱprivateȱpower,ȱwhileȱrealityȱmight haveȱbeenȱquiteȱtheȱopposite.ȱWhere,ȱhowever,ȱwouldȱweȱhaveȱtoȱdrawȱtheȱline betweenȱ femaleȱ homosocialȱ friendshipȱ andȱ sameȬsexȱ erotics?202ȱ Thatȱ issue,ȱ of course,ȱpertainsȱjustȱasȱmuchȱtoȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱandȱcannotȱbeȱdecidedȱhere soȱeasily,ȱifȱatȱall.ȱ Butȱwomenȱhaveȱenjoyedȱfriendship,ȱbothȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱfarȱbeyond. Afterȱ all,ȱ thereȱ haveȱ beenȱ manyȱ casesȱ ofȱ famousȱ femaleȱ friendshipsȱ sinceȱ the eighteenthȱandȱnineteenthȱcenturies,ȱbothȱinȱreligiousȱcircles,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱQuakers, andȱinȱsecularȱcontexts.203ȱWhyȱnotȱearlierȱalready?ȱWhyȱnotȱinȱtheȱChurch?ȱWhy notȱ amongȱ theȱ courtlyȱ ladies?ȱ Raisingȱ theseȱ questionsȱ implies,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ that positiveȱanswersȱareȱjustȱaboutȱtoȱbeȱdeveloped.ȱObviously,ȱourȱresearchȱcannot claimȱtoȱbeȱexhaustive,ȱandȱtheȱmoreȱaspectsȱweȱaddressȱregardingȱfriendship,ȱthe moreȱ questionsȱ appearȱ onȱ theȱ horizon.ȱ Theȱ evidenceȱ byȱ Lauraȱ Ceretaȱ and ModerataȱFonte,ȱamongȱothers,ȱindicatesȱalreadyȱwhereȱweȱcanȱexpectȱtoȱdiscover moreȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ modernȱ age,ȱ thus counterbalancingȱ centuriesȱ ofȱ maleȱ subjugationȱ ofȱ women,ȱ henceȱ ofȱ female friendshipsȱasȱwell.ȱ“Theȱslightingȱofȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱisȱpart,ȱthen,ȱofȱtheȱmore generalȱslightingȱandȱdevaluationȱofȱthoseȱactivitiesȱofȱwomenȱthatȱgoȱbeyond theirȱtraditionalȱconnectionsȱtoȱmenȱandȱfamily.”204

202

203

204

LillianȱFaderman,ȱSurpassingȱtheȱLoveȱofȱMen:ȱRomanticȱFriendshipȱandȱLoveȱBetweenȱWomenȱfromȱthe RenaissanceȱtoȱtheȱPresentȱ(NewȱYork:ȱWilliamȱMorrowȱandȱCompany,ȱ1981);ȱHarrietteȱAndreadis, SapphoȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEngland:ȱFemaleȱSameȬSexȱLiteraryȱEroticsȱ1550–1714.ȱChicagoȱSeriesȱon Sexuality,ȱHistoryȱandȱSocietyȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2001). Forȱ examplesȱ fromȱ earlierȱ centuries,ȱ seeȱ Rosalindȱ K.ȱ Marshal,ȱ Queenȱ Mary’sȱ Women:ȱ Female Relatives,ȱServants,ȱFriendsȱandȱEnemiesȱofȱMary,ȱQueenȱofȱScotsȱ(Edinburgh:ȱJohnȱDonald,ȱ2006); JaniceȱRaymond,ȱAȱPassionȱforȱFriends:ȱTowardȱaȱPhilosophyȱofȱFemaleȱAffectionȱ(Boston:ȱBeaconȱPress, 1986);ȱ Margretȱ Hansen,ȱ Freundinnen:ȱ Freundschaftserfahrungenȱ inȱ weiblichenȱ Biographien. InternationaleȱHochschulschriften,ȱ532ȱ(Münster,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.:ȱWaxmann,ȱ2009).ȱForȱQuakers, seeȱSandraȱStanleyȱHolton,ȱQuakerȱWomen:ȱ PersonalȱLife,ȱMemoryȱandȱRadicalismȱinȱtheȱLivesȱof WomenȱFriends,ȱ1780–1930.ȱWomen’sȱandȱGenderȱHistoryȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱRoutledge, 2007). FernȱL.ȱJohnsonȱandȱElizabethȱJ.ȱAries,ȱ“TheȱTalkȱofȱWomenȱFriends,”ȱLanguageȱandȱGender:ȱA Reader,ȱed.ȱJenniferȱCoatesȱ(Oxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ1998),ȱ215–25;ȱhereȱ215.

92

Introduction

T.ȱWomenȱandȱFriendship MarilynȱSandidgeȱ (WestfieldȱStateȱUniversity,ȱMA) Althoughȱ theȱ questionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ andȱ betweenȱ womenȱ duringȱ these periodsȱisȱstillȱcomplexȱandȱfarȱfromȱclear,ȱnewȱperspectivesȱonȱtheȱdistinctive natureȱ ofȱ theseȱ friendshipsȱ haveȱ ledȱ scholarsȱ toȱ challengeȱ earlierȱ assumptions aboutȱtheseȱrelationships.ȱInȱaȱstudyȱofȱtheȱlivesȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱwomen,ȱSara MendelsonȱandȱPatriciaȱCrawfordȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱaȱ“literaryȱculture” aboutȱ women’sȱ friendshipȱ makesȱ itȱ veryȱ difficultȱ toȱ recoverȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ these relationships,ȱwhichȱwereȱ“basedȱinȱactivitiesȱandȱoralȱtraditions”ȱandȱdiffered markedlyȱ betweenȱ socialȱ classes.205ȱ Karmaȱ Lochrieȱ arguesȱ thatȱ ecclesiastical writers’ȱlabelingȱofȱwomenȱwhoȱtalkedȱtogetherȱasȱgossipersȱwhoseȱsoleȱtopicȱwas sexȱhelpedȱleadȱtoȱtheȱrelativeȱsilenceȱaboutȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱandȱloveȱthen.206 Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ time,ȱ asȱ Catherineȱ Mooneyȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ “women’sȱ wordsȱ almost invariablyȱ reachȱ usȱ onlyȱ afterȱ havingȱ passedȱ throughȱ theȱ filtersȱ ofȱ theirȱ male confessors,ȱpatrons,ȱandȱscribes.”207ȱ Theseȱrealizations,ȱDavidȱTinsleyȱnotes,ȱhave,ȱtherefore,ȱsparkedȱthreeȱdecades ofȱfeministȱresearchȱinȱwhichȱscholarsȱhaveȱsubjectedȱmedievalȱattitudesȱtoward gender,ȱpower,ȱandȱhierarchyȱtoȱcriticalȱanalysisȱandȱfoundȱnewȱinsights.208ȱThere are,ȱ weȱ nowȱ know,ȱ setsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ correspondenceȱ writtenȱ bothȱ byȱ andȱ to womenȱinȱreligiousȱcommunities,ȱforȱexample.ȱTheseȱsetsȱareȱlimitedȱinȱcontrast toȱ theȱ immenseȱ numberȱ ofȱ extantȱ lettersȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ writtenȱ byȱ andȱ toȱ male ecclesiasticsȱ mentionedȱ above;ȱ however,ȱ weȱ doȱ getȱ glimpsesȱ intoȱ women’s understandingȱ ofȱ theseȱ networksȱ fromȱ themȱ nonetheless.ȱ Amongȱ thisȱ small

205

206

207

208

SaraȱMendelsonȱandȱPatriciaȱCrawford,ȱWomenȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEnglandȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork: ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ231. Karmaȱ Lochrie,ȱ “Betweenȱ Women,”ȱ Cambridgeȱ Companionȱ toȱ Medievalȱ Women’sȱ Writing,ȱ ed. Carolynȱ Dinshawȱ andȱ Davidȱ Wallace.ȱ Cambridgeȱ Companionsȱ toȱ Literatureȱ (Cambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003),ȱ70–90;ȱhereȱ71–72. GenderedȱVoices:ȱMedievalȱSaintsȱandȱtheirȱInterpreters,ȱed.ȱCatherineȱM.ȱMooney.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAges Seriesȱ(Philadelphia,ȱPA:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ7. Seeȱ“TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱForȱinsightful studiesȱonȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱwomen’sȱtexts,ȱseeȱUrsulaȱPeters,ȱReligiöseȱErfahrungȱalsȱliterarisches Faktum:ȱZurȱVorgeschichteȱundȱGeneseȱfrauenmystischerȱTexteȱdesȱ13.undȱ14.ȱJahrhunderts.ȱHermaea, NeueȱFolge,ȱ56ȱ(Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1988);ȱMooney,ȱGenderedȱVoices;ȱandȱJohnȱWaylandȱCoakley, Women,ȱMen,ȱandȱSpiritualȱPower:ȱFemaleȱSaintsȱandȱtheirȱMaleȱCollaboratorsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱColumbia Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2006);ȱ Laurieȱ Finke,ȱ Women’sȱ Writingȱ inȱ English:ȱ Medievalȱ Englandȱ (London: Longman,ȱ 1999);ȱ Newȱ Readingsȱ onȱ Womenȱ inȱ Oldȱ Englishȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Helenȱ Damicoȱ and AlexandraȱHennesseyȱOlsenȱ(Bloomington,ȱIN:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990);ȱClaireȱLessȱand GillianȱOvering,ȱDoubleȱAgents:ȱWomenȱandȱClericalȱCultureȱinȱAngloȬSaxonȱEngland.ȱTheȱMiddle AgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ2001).ȱ

Introduction

93

numberȱofȱletters,ȱsomeȱareȱwrittenȱbyȱreligiousȱwomenȱwhoȱreferȱtoȱothersȱas “amicitia,”ȱandȱsomeȱareȱmaleȱChurchȱleadersȱsuchȱasȱAnselmȱdesiringȱtoȱbeȱin friendship,ȱ“amicitiam,”ȱwithȱaȱwoman,ȱasȱR.ȱJacobȱMcDonieȱnotesȱinȱhisȱarticle inȱ thisȱ volumeȱ andȱ Sallyȱ Vaughnȱ exploresȱ inȱ severalȱ recentȱ works.209ȱ Explicit evidenceȱofȱwomen’sȱparticipationȱinȱformalȱfriendshipsȱisȱshownȱthroughȱthe articlesȱ withinȱ thisȱ volumeȱ byȱ Jenniferȱ ConstantineȬJackson,ȱ whoȱ detailsȱ the brilliantȱexchangesȱbetweenȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱaboutȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheirȱspiritual friendship,ȱ andȱ byȱ Lisaȱ Weston,ȱ whoȱ examinesȱ women’sȱ participationȱ inȱ the BonifaceȱCircle,ȱpointingȱtoȱtheȱsyntheticȱkinshipȱrelationshipsȱthatȱbothȱmenȱand womenȱuseȱthereȱtoȱtextualizeȱepistolaryȱfriendship.210ȱInȱaddition,ȱtheȱcloseȬknit groupsȱofȱQuakerȱwomenȱdiscussedȱlaterȱinȱthisȱIntroductionȱasȱsharingȱspiritual insightsȱwereȱcalledȱWomenȱFriendshipȱgroups,ȱandȱtheseȱwomenȱwere,ȱinȱthe sameȱsenseȱasȱtheȱmen,ȱfriends. Muchȱofȱtheȱnewȱscholarshipȱaboutȱwomen’sȱfriendshipsȱgrowsȱoutȱofȱreaders understandingȱthatȱtheyȱmustȱlookȱbeyondȱtheȱmaleȬcenteredȱlanguageȱpatterns andȱ literaryȱ formsȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ recognizeȱ theȱ fullȱ involvementȱ ofȱ womenȱ in, especially,ȱmedievalȱworks,ȱscholarsȱhavingȱrecentlyȱattributedȱtheȱapparentȱlack ofȱfriendshipȱwithȱandȱbetweenȱwomenȱinȱmanyȱtextsȱtoȱalternateȱphrasingȱand differencesȱ inȱ proportionȱ andȱ perspective.211ȱ Thus,ȱ despiteȱ statementsȱ toȱ the contrary,ȱsuchȱasȱAllanȱBray’sȱclaimȱthatȱnoȱevidenceȱexistsȱofȱfemaleȱfriendship orȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱaȱmanȱandȱwomanȱinȱEnglishȱmedievalȱorȱRenaissance works,ȱ scholarsȱ nowȱ identifyȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ womenȱ and othersȱasȱfriendships.212ȱHolleȱCanatellaȱdefinesȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱGoscelin ofȱSaintȱBertinȱandȱEveȱofȱWiltonȱnotȱasȱaȱsexualȱlove,ȱbutȱasȱaȱspiritualȱfriendship thatȱennobled,ȱinȱJaeger’sȱterms,ȱbothȱofȱthem.213ȱDianeȱWatt,ȱinȱMedievalȱWomen’s

209

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie,ȱ“MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury,”ȱin thisȱ volume.ȱ Sallyȱ N.ȱ Vaughn,ȱ St.ȱ Anselmȱ andȱ theȱ Handmaidensȱ ofȱ God:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Anselm’s CorrespondenceȱwithȱWomenȱ(Turnhout,ȱBelgium:ȱBrepols,ȱ2002)ȱandȱ“St.ȱAnselmȱandȱhisȱStudents WritingȱaboutȱLove:ȱAȱTheologicalȱFoundationȱforȱtheȱRiseȱofȱRomanticȱLoveȱinȱEurope,”ȱJournal ofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSexualityȱ19.1ȱ(2010):ȱ54–73.

210

Jenniferȱ ConstantineȬJackson,“Sapienterȱ amareȱ poterimus”:ȱ Onȱ Rhetoricȱ andȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ the LettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱLisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston,ȱ“WhereȱTextualȱBodiesȱMeet: AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume. See,ȱforȱexample,ȱSeekingȱtheȱWomanȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱWritings:ȱEssaysȱinȱFeminist ContextualȱCriticism.ȱEd.ȱSheilaȱFisherȱandȱJanetȱE.ȱHalleyȱ(Knoxville:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱTennessee Press,ȱ1989);ȱSisterȱAllenȱPrudence,ȱR.S.M.,ȱTheȱConceptȱofȱWoman:ȱTheȱAristotelianȱRevolution,ȱ750 B.C.ȱ–ȱA.D.ȱ1250ȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMI:ȱWilliamȱB.ȱEerdmans,ȱ1997);ȱandȱAllen,ȱTheȱConceptȱofȱWoman, vol.ȱ 2:ȱ Theȱ Earlyȱ Humanistȱ Reformation,ȱ 1250–1500ȱ (Grandȱ Rapids,ȱ MI:ȱ Williamȱ B.ȱ Eerdmans PublishingȱCompany,ȱ2002).ȱAlsoȱaȱnewȱonȬlineȱsource:ȱTheȱOtherȱVoiceȱInȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope,ȱed Margaretȱ Kingȱ andȱ Albertȱ Rabil,ȱ Jr.ȱ Aȱ Comprehensiveȱ Englishȱ Languageȱ Bibliography. http://albertrabil.com/othervoicebib.htmlȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010). TheȱFriend,ȱ175ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ164) “Longȱ Distanceȱ Love:ȱ Theȱ Ideologyȱ ofȱ MaleȬFemaleȱ Spiritualȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Goscelinȱ ofȱ Sain

211

212 213

94

Introduction

Writings:ȱ Worksȱ byȱ andȱ forȱ Womenȱ inȱ England,ȱ 1100–1500,ȱ arguesȱ thatȱ the relationshipsȱbetweenȱChristinaȱofȱMarkyateȱandȱGeoffreyȱdeȱGorran,ȱabbotȱofȱSt. Albans,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ betweenȱ herȱ andȱ Roger,ȱ aȱ hermitȱ monkȱ andȱ deaconȱ atȱ St. Albans,ȱwereȱtrueȱspiritualȱfriendships.214ȱMaryȱJaneȱMorrowȱinȱ“SharingȱTexts: Anselmianȱ Prayers,ȱ Aȱ Nunnery’sȱ Psalter,ȱ andȱ theȱ Roleȱ ofȱ Friendship”ȱ shows examplesȱ ofȱ menȱ andȱ womenȱ sharingȱ devotionalȱ materialsȱ inȱ friendshipȬlike contexts,215ȱwhileȱinȱthisȱvolume,ȱDavidȱF.ȱTinsleyȱoutlinesȱtheȱobviousȱspiritual friendshipȱbetweenȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel.216ȱ Althoughȱweȱrecognizeȱspiritualȱfriendshipsȱamongȱmaleȱreligiousȱfiguresȱand saintsȱasȱaȱmeansȱtoȱgainȱfavorȱwithȱorȱfeelȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱGod,ȱscholarship hasȱnotȱconsideredȱtheȱactivitiesȱofȱtheȱmedievalȱwomenȱmysticsȱasȱsimilarȱinȱany way.ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ obviousȱ differences,ȱ theȱ bondsȱ thatȱ womenȱ mysticsȱ created betweenȱthemselvesȱandȱJesusȱorȱGodȱgaveȱthemȱaȱsimilarȱsenseȱofȱimmediacyȱand spiritualȱrealization.ȱJustȱasȱmenȱenvisionedȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱasȱfriendships, womenȱvisionariesȱtypicallyȱbondedȱwithȱMaryȱinȱaȱrelationshipȱvisualizedȱasȱa feudalȱceremonyȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ devoteeȱtookȱMaryȱasȱherȱfeudalȱLordȱandȱwas receivedȱintoȱherȱprotectionȱasȱvassal.ȱ Thisȱbondingȱwasȱanalogousȱtoȱtheȱritualȱactsȱandȱoathsȱthatȱboundȱmenȱtoȱtheir lords,ȱsecularȱandȱspiritual.ȱ“ItȱisȱMaryȱwho,ȱasȱwiseȱguardianȱandȱaffectionate mother,ȱbringsȱtogetherȱtheȱsaintȱandȱherȱsonȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱByȱallowingȱherȱdaughtersȱto participateȱ inȱ herȱ experience,ȱ sheȱ leadsȱ themȱ toȱ aȱ matureȱ andȱ compassionate abilityȱ toȱ love.”217ȱ Theirȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Maryȱ embodiesȱ characteristicsȱ very similarȱ toȱ theirȱ maleȱ counterparts’ȱ friendshipsȱ withȱ saintsȱ orȱ theirȱ God.ȱ Ifȱ we considerȱtheȱcaseȱofȱHildegardȱofȱBingen,ȱforȱexample,ȱAlbrechtȱClassenȱargues, “Theȱ intricateȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ gazingȱ mysticȱ andȱ theȱ Godhead itself”makesȱquestionsȱofȱgenderedȱrelationshipsȱirrelevant.218 Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱintenseȱsenseȱofȱbondingȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomenȱor womenȱ andȱ womenȱ ofȱ relativelyȱ equalȱ statusȱ andȱ sharingȱ similar interests—markersȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱletterȱcollectionsȱamongȱmen—alsoȱappears inȱotherȱlettersȱasȱwellȱasȱotherȱtypesȱofȱwritingȱbyȱwomen.ȱKarenȱCherewatukȱand UlrikeȱWiethausȱinȱDearȱSister:ȱMedievalȱWomenȱandȱtheȱEpistolaryȱGenreȱdiscuss

214

215

216 217

218

Bertin’sȱLiberȱconfortatorius,”ȱTheȱJournalȱofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSexualityȱ19.1ȱ(2010):ȱ35–53. Dianeȱ Watt,ȱ ed.ȱ Medievalȱ Women’sȱ Writings:ȱ Worksȱ byȱ andȱ forȱ Womenȱ inȱ England,ȱ 1100–1500 (CambridgeȱandȱMalden,ȱMA:ȱPolityȱPress,ȱ2007),ȱ19ȱandȱ67. VoicesȱinȱDialogue:ȱReadingȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱLindaȱOlsonȱandȱKathrynȱKerbyȬFulton (NotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ97–113. “TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSussoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱ Elizabethȱ A.ȱ Petroff,ȱ Medievalȱ Women’sȱ Visionaryȱ Literature,ȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxford UniversityȱPress,ȱ1986),ȱ11.ȱ TheȱPowerȱofȱaȱWoman’sȱVoiceȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱLiteratures.ȱFundamentalsȱofȱMedieval andȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Culture,ȱ 1ȱ (Walterȱ deȱ Gruyter:ȱ Berlinȱ andȱ Newȱ York,ȱ 2007),ȱ 150.ȱ Seeȱ also Classen’sȱchapterȱonȱtheȱsisterbooksȱofȱlateȱMedievalȱGermany,ȱWoman’sȱVoice,ȱ231–69.

Introduction

95

secularȱandȱreligiousȱlettersȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomenȱthatȱshowȱaȱrespectȱand fondnessȱforȱoneȱanotherȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱcalledȱ“friendship.”219ȱKarmaȱLochrieȱsees theȱessenceȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱMargeryȱKempȱand JulianȱofȱNorwichȱandȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱlettersȱbetweenȱHildegardȱofȱBingenȱand Richardisȱareȱthoughtȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbetween women.220ȱ Althoughȱ Christineȱ deȱ Pizanȱ doesȱ notȱ provideȱ aȱ theory,ȱ sheȱ does provideȱaȱmodelȱofȱidealȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱwomenȱwhenȱsheȱcallsȱforȱwomen’s selfȬrepresentationȱ andȱ aȱ communityȱ thatȱ providesȱ spiritualȱ andȱ intellectual strength.221ȱFurthermore,ȱLisaȱVollendorf’sȱstatementȱaboutȱaȱseventeenthȬcentury conventȱcanȱbeȱappliedȱtoȱwomen’sȱreligiousȱhousesȱinȱgeneral:ȱ Forȱallȱofȱitsȱvariabilityȱinȱgenre,ȱstyle,ȱandȱpurpose,ȱliteratureȱproducedȱinȱtheȱconvent emphasizesȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱwomenȇsȱalliancesȱwithȱeachȱother.ȱWomenȇsȱnetworks emergeȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ chiefȱ themesȱ inȱ poetry,ȱ drama,ȱ andȱ vitae.ȱ Asȱ Sorȱ Violanteȇs discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ suggests,ȱ conventȱ lifeȱ generated—indeed, required—strongȱbondsȱamongȱwomen.ȱForȱscholarsȱinterestedȱinȱwomenȇsȱhistory, theȱdepictionsȱofȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱinȱconventȱwritingȱareȱvaluableȱpreciselyȱbecause theyȱcoverȱtheȱpositiveȱandȱnegativeȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱbondsȱthatȱwomenȱforgedȱwithȱeach other.222

ScholarsȱsuchȱasȱMaryȱErlerȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱlivesȱofȱlateȱmedievalȱsecular womenȱ wereȱ oftenȱ quiteȱ likeȱ thoseȱ ofȱ religiousȱ womenȱ and,ȱ thus,ȱ openȱ to friendships:ȱ Theȱclosenessȱofȱfemaleȱsecularȱandȱreligiousȱlifeȱisȱvisibleȱinȱaȱcommonȱspirituality whichȱtranscendsȱstateȱinȱlifeȱandȱwhichȱoftenȱpresentsȱonlyȱmarginallyȱdifferentiated idealsȱtoȱsecularȱandȱreligiousȱwomen:ȱhumility,ȱobedience,ȱsomeȱdegreeȱofȱphysical enclosure.ȱTheseȱidealsȱareȱsupportedȱasȱwellȱbyȱcommonȱtexts,ȱwhichȱwereȱreadȱboth byȱlaywomenȱandȱnuns.223ȱ

Joanneȱ Findon,ȱ agrees,ȱ notingȱ theȱ similarȱ unofficialȱ networkingȱ thatȱ existed betweenȱwomenȱinȱmanyȱmedievalȱcommunitiesȱandȱremarkingȱinȱparticularȱon theȱspiritualȱrelationshipsȱcreatedȱbyȱbaptismȱthatȱshowȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱsocial bondsȱofȱloyaltyȱbeyondȱtheȱbiologicalȱfamily.224

219

220

221 222

223

224

Dearȱ Sister:ȱ Medievalȱ Womenȱ andȱ theȱ Epistolaryȱ Genre.ȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Seriesȱ (Philadelphia,ȱ PA: UniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1993). KarmaȱLochrie,ȱ“BetweenȱWomen,”ȱCambridgeȱCompanionȱtoȱMedievalȱWomen’sȱWriting,ȱ70–90;ȱhere 76–77ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ206). Lochrie,ȱ“BetweenȱWomen,”ȱ77ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ206). LisaȱVollendorf,ȱ“TheȱValueȱofȱFemaleȱFriendshipȱinȱSeventeenthȬCenturyȱSpain,”ȱTexasȱStudies inȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱ47.4ȱ(Winterȱ2005):ȱ425–45;ȱhereȱ436. MaryȱC.ȱErler,ȱWomen,ȱReading,ȱandȱPietyȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱEngland.ȱCambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱMedieval Literature,ȱ46ȱ(CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ5. JoanneȱFindon,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱStory:ȱFemaleȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱYwainȱandȱGawain,” Parergonȱ22.1ȱ(2005):ȱ71–94;ȱhereȱ76.

96

Introduction

IfȱweȱturnȱtoȱtheȱsecularȱliteratureȱofȱAngloȬSaxonȱEngland,ȱtheȱelegyȱcommonly knownȱasȱTheȱWife’sȱLamentȱalreadyȱpresentsȱscholarsȱconsiderableȱmaterialȱto debate,ȱsuchȱasȱwhatȱtheȱrelationshipsȱareȱamongȱtheȱcharactersȱandȱwhatȱhas happenedȱtoȱisolateȱtheȱspeakerȱfromȱherȱ“freond”;ȱhowever,ȱanȱexaminationȱof theȱfriendshipȱtermsȱinȱtheȱpoemȱraisesȱevenȱmoreȱquestionsȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱtruly masculineȱconnotationsȱtheȱtermsȱcarry.ȱFoundȱinȱtheȱtenthȬcenturyȱcompilation ofȱOldȱEnglishȱpoemsȱknownȱasȱtheȱExeterȱBook,ȱtheȱpoemȱwasȱfirstȱpublishedȱin 1842ȱbyȱBenjaminȱThorpe,ȱwhoȱconsideredȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱtheȱpoemȱtoȱbeȱaȱman.225 Sinceȱthen,ȱhowever,ȱmostȱscholarsȱhaveȱacceptedȱtheȱspeakerȱasȱaȱwomanȱbased onȱtheȱfeminineȱinflectionsȱofȱthreeȱwordsȱinȱtheȱfirstȱtwoȱlinesȱofȱtheȱpoem.226 Althoughȱaȱnumberȱofȱinterpretationsȱhaveȱbeenȱproposedȱandȱcontested,ȱinȱa mostȱ basicȱ summaryȱ ofȱ theȱ poemȱ theȱ womanȱ lamentsȱ thatȱ herȱ husbandȱ has traveledȱacrossȱtheȱsea,ȱthatȱhisȱkinsmenȱhaveȱplottedȱagainstȱherȱorȱthem,ȱandȱthat theyȱcondemnedȱherȱtoȱliveȱaloneȱinȱanȱearthenȱstructureȱunderȱaȱtree.ȱItȱisȱnotȱat allȱclearȱwhyȱhisȱkinsmenȱhaveȱforcedȱtheȱpairȱtoȱseparateȱorȱifȱtheȱhusbandȱisȱin leagueȱwithȱhisȱkinsmenȱagainstȱher.227 TheȱBosworthȬTollerȱAngloȬSaxonȱdictionaryȱfromȱ1848ȱcitesȱaȱlineȱfromȱthe poemȱ asȱ aȱ simpleȱ exampleȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ noȱ senseȱ ofȱ aȱ loveȱ relationship betweenȱtheȱtwoȱparticipants:ȱ“isȱnuȱswaȱhitȱnoȱwæreȱfreondscipeȱuncer;ȱ2425”(our friendshipȱisȱnowȱasȱthoughȱitȱneverȱwere).228ȱTheȱonlyȱfriendshipȱwordȱinȱtheir dictionaryȱ glossedȱ toȱ meanȱ anȱ amorousȱ relationshipȱ orȱ loveȱ isȱ theȱ compound “freondlufu,”ȱwithȱtheȱwordȱforȱlove,ȱ“lufu,”ȱattachedȱtoȱ“freond.”ȱEntriesȱinȱlater AngloȬSaxonȱ dictionaries,ȱ however,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Aȱ Conciseȱ AngloȬSaxonȱ Dictionary, ClarkȱHallȱandȱMeritt,ȱandȱglossariesȱsuchȱasȱthatȱinȱTheȱCambridgeȱOldȱEnglish Readerȱgiveȱ“lover”ȱasȱaȱpossibleȱdefinitionȱofȱ“freond”ȱandȱ“conjugalȱlove”ȱforȱone definitionȱofȱ“freondscipe”229ȱsoȱthatȱKarlȱWentersdorf’sȱcommentȱonȱaȱlineȱinȱthe poemȱisȱtypicalȱofȱmanyȱscholars’:ȱ“Certainlyȱthereȱisȱnoȱproblemȱinȱtakingȱ the

225

226 227

228

229

BenjaminȱThorpe,ȱCodexȱexoniensis.ȱAȱcollectionȱofȱAngloȬSaxonȱpoetry,ȱfromȱaȱmanuscriptȱinȱtheȱlibrary ofȱ theȱ deanȱ andȱ chapterȱ ofȱ theȱ Exeter,ȱ withȱ anȱ Englishȱ translation,ȱ notes,ȱ andȱ indexesȱ (London:ȱ W. Pickering,ȱ1842),ȱ115aȱandȱ115bȱofȱExeterȱCathedralȱLibraryȱMSȱ3501. “Geomorre”ȱandȱ“minreȱsylfre.”ȱ AccordingȱtoȱFredericȱG.ȱCassidyȱandȱRichardȱN.ȱRinglerȱinȱtheirȱrevisionȱofȱBright’sȱOldȱEnglish GrammarȱandȱReader,ȱ3rdȱed.ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHolt,ȱReinhartȱandȱWinston,ȱInc.,ȱ1971),ȱ343,ȱ“Scholars areȱnowȱprettyȱmuchȱagreedȱthatȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱWife’sȱLamentȱisȱaȱdramaticȱmonologueȱspokenȱby aȱwoman.ȱTheyȱagreeȱaboutȱlittleȱelse.Ȉȱ JosephȱBosworth,ȱAnȱAngloȬSaxonȱDictionary:ȱBasedȱonȱtheȱManuscriptȱCollectionsȱofȱtheȱLateȱJoseph Bosworth:ȱ Supplementȱ byȱ Thomasȱ Northcoteȱ Tollerȱ (Oxford:ȱ Theȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1898),ȱ 335. AvailableȱonȬlineȱat:ȱhttp://beowulf.engl.uky.edu/~kiernan/BT/BosworthȬToller.htmȱ(lastȱaccessed onȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱTranslationsȱareȱmineȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted.ȱ JohnȱR.ȱClarkȱHall,ȱAȱConciseȱAngloȬSaxonȱDictionary,ȱ4thȱed.ȱwithȱSupplementȱbyȱHerbertȱD. Merittȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1960);ȱandȱRichardȱMarsden,ȱTheȱCambridgeȱOld EnglishȱReaderȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004).

Introduction

97

freondȱofȱ47bȱtoȱbeȱtheȱsameȱmanȱasȱtheȱhlafordȱofȱ6a,ȱsinceȱfreondȱnotȱuncommonly denotesȱ‘lover’ȱandȱ‘husband.’”230ȱ However,ȱ itȱ isȱ actuallyȱ notȱ easyȱ toȱ findȱ anȱ Oldȱ Englishȱ textȱ whereȱ “freond” clearlyȱ meansȱ lover.ȱ Kingȱ Alfred’sȱ translationsȱ ofȱ Gregory’sȱ Pastoralȱ Careȱ and OrosiusȱareȱgivenȱbyȱClarkȱHallȱandȱMerittȱasȱtheȱtextsȱwhereȱthisȱusageȱisȱfound, butȱinȱtheirȱcontexts,ȱtheȱwordsȱfitȱbetterȱasȱsimplyȱfriendȱorȱfriendshipȱinsteadȱof loverȱandȱconjugalȱlove.231ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱWife’sȱLamentȱisȱnotȱlistedȱasȱaȱsourceȱin theirȱdictionaryȱforȱtheseȱuses,ȱandȱtheȱOEDȱdoesȱnotȱlistȱanȱexampleȱofȱ“friend” appliedȱtoȱaȱloverȱuntilȱaȱ1490ȱtextȱprintedȱbyȱCaxton.ȱIfȱthereȱwereȱaȱclearȱhistory ofȱtheȱwordsȱdelineatingȱheterosexualȱrelationshipsȱinȱOldȱEnglishȱliterature,ȱthen theȱspeaker’sȱuseȱofȱthemȱinȱthisȱpoemȱwouldȱbeȱunremarkable,ȱbutȱthatȱisȱnotȱthe case.ȱ Instead,ȱIȱargueȱforȱappropriationȱofȱtraditionalȱmaleȱtermsȱbyȱaȱlyricalȱfemale voiceȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱseriousnessȱofȱtheȱcommitmentȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱhadȱmadeȱto eachȱother.ȱInȱaȱstudyȱofȱtheȱwordȱ“beotedan,”ȱmeaningȱtoȱboast,ȱvow,ȱorȱpromise, whichȱtheȱfemaleȱspeakerȱusesȱinȱtheȱpoemȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱpledgeȱsheȱandȱher husbandȱ hadȱ madeȱ toȱ eachȱ other,ȱ Ashbyȱ Kinchȱ notesȱ thatȱ thisȱ wordȱ isȱ used elsewhereȱonlyȱtoȱdescribeȱanȱexclusivelyȱmaleȬmaleȱbond: Byȱ injectingȱ theȱ voiceȱ andȱ perspectiveȱ ofȱ aȱ womanȱ intoȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ warrior culture,ȱtheȱpoemȱimplicitlyȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱethicsȱofȱwarriorȱcultureȱoughtȱrightlyȱto applyȱ toȱ maleȬfemaleȱ interpersonalȱ relationshipsȱ asȱ well:ȱ violatingȱ anȱ oathȱ isȱ a fundamentalȱabrogationȱofȱethicalȱnorms,ȱregardlessȱofȱtheȱgenderȱofȱtheȱoathȬtakers.232

Lookedȱatȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱtermsȱinȱtheȱpoemȱareȱanȱextensionȱofȱtheȱoaths ofȱloyaltyȱbetweenȱtheȱcoupleȱandȱcallȱintoȱquestionȱtheȱvaluesȱofȱthisȱwarrior cultureȱwhereȱaȱbrideȱmayȱbeȱmarriedȱoffȱtoȱanȱenemyȱtribeȱasȱaȱpeaceȬweaverȱand thenȱ beȱ discardedȱ whenȱ politicalȱ eventsȱ intervene.ȱ Repeatedȱ fourȱ timesȱ inȱ the poem,ȱ formsȱ ofȱ “freond”ȱ indicateȱ theȱ trustȱ andȱ respectȱ thatȱ characterizedȱ the couple’sȱrelationshipȱbeforeȱtheȱtroubleȱstartedȱandȱshowȱthroughȱcontrastȱtheir currentȱalienation.ȱInȱanȱabruptlyȱshortȱline,ȱtheȱspeakerȱcapturesȱtheȱeffectȱofȱtheir currentȱalienation:ȱ“isȱnuȱswaȱhitȱnoȱwæreȱfreondscipeȱuncer”ȱ(2425;ȱourȱfriendship isȱnowȱasȱthoughȱitȱneverȱwere).ȱWithȱaȱlaterȱlineȰ“þætȱminȱfreondȱsiteðȱ/ȱunder stanhliþe,ȱ/.ȱstormeȱbehrimed”ȱ(4748;ȱThatȱmyȱfriendȱmayȱsitȱunderȱstonyȱcliffs, stormsȱ berimed)Ȱitȱ isȱ unclearȱ whetherȱ theȱ wifeȱ isȱ imaginingȱ herȱ husband’s miserableȱstateȱorȱcursingȱhimȱtoȱendureȱthisȱmisery.ȱEitherȱwayȱweȱinterpretȱ“min

230

231 232

“TheȱSituationȱofȱtheȱNarratorȱinȱtheȱOldȱEnglishȱWifeȇsȱLament,”ȱSpeculum,ȱ56.3ȱ(1981):ȱ492–16; hereȱ493.ȱ AȱConciseȱAngloȬSaxonȱDictionary,ȱ139ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ229). AshbyȱKinch,ȱ“TheȱEthicalȱAgencyȱofȱtheȱFemaleȱLyricȱVoice:ȱTheȱWifeȇsȱLamentȱandȱCatullusȱ64,” StudiesȱinȱPhilologyȱ103.2ȱ(2006):ȱ121–52;ȱ125–26.

98

Introduction

freond”ȱinȱthisȱline,ȱhowever,ȱasȱbitterȱironyȱorȱnot,ȱuseȱofȱ“friend”ȱstrengthensȱthe emotionȱinȱtheȱlines.233ȱ Furthermore,ȱtwiceȱformsȱofȱ“wine,”ȱaȱsynonymȱmeaningȱfriend,ȱprotectorȱor lord,ȱcarryingȱclearlyȱmasculineȱconnotations,ȱareȱalsoȱused:ȱ“wineleasȱwræcca” (10;ȱfriendlessȱexile)ȱandȱ“seȱminȱwine”ȱ(50;ȱthisȱfriendȱofȱmine).ȱAdoptingȱthese termsȱusuallyȱfoundȱinȱOldȱEnglishȱheroicȱpoemsȱsuchȱasȱBeowulfȱandȱTheȱTragedy ofȱHildeburhȱtoȱdescribeȱmenȱjoinedȱinȱcomitatusȱorȱfoundȱinȱspiritualȱworksȱsuch asȱTheȱDreamȱofȱtheȱRoodȱtoȱdescribeȱaȱfriendȱofȱGodȱdramaticallyȱunderscoresȱnot onlyȱtheȱwoman’sȱsenseȱofȱbetrayalȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱaȱrelationshipȱlike this.ȱAbandoningȱaȱloverȱisȱoneȱthing,ȱbutȱabandoningȱaȱfriendȱisȱquiteȱanother.ȱ Ifȱweȱturnȱtoȱtheȱnobleȱwomanȱinȱmedievalȱliterature,ȱsheȱisȱusuallyȱflankedȱby familyȱmembers,ȱbyȱladiesȱinȱwaitingȱorȱbyȱservingȱwomenȱandȱseldomȱinteracts toȱanyȱdegreeȱwithȱaȱwomanȱoutsideȱofȱtheseȱintimate,ȱcarefullyȱdefinedȱnetworks. AsȱC.ȱStephenȱJaegerȱexplainsȱinȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ“theȱoldȱCiceronianȱnotionȱof friendshipȱasȱloveȱofȱvirtueȱtranslatedȱintoȱ‘loveȱraisesȱtheȱworthȱofȱlovers’”ȱfor charactersȱ inȱ theȱ courtlyȱ loveȱ literature.ȱ Whileȱ theyȱ pursueȱ theseȱ chivalric activities,ȱmaleȱcharactersȱsuchȱasȱAmisȱandȱAmilion,ȱforȱexample,ȱareȱcalledȱtrue friendsȱ andȱ actȱ inȱ waysȱ thatȱ accordȱ withȱ theȱ patternsȱ outlinedȱ inȱ classical friendshipȱtreatises.ȱForȱwomenȱcharacters,ȱthough,ȱweȱmightȱsayȱtheȱCiceronian notionȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱloveȱofȱvirtueȱisȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱtranslatedȱasȱtransfigured. Althoughȱ aȱ goodȱ numberȱ ofȱ womenȱ inȱ theseȱ romancesȱ doȱ lackȱ friendsȱ or companionsȱ whoȱ couldȱ beȱ friends,ȱ others,ȱ recentȱ studiesȱ haveȱ argued,ȱ have someoneȱthatȱmeetsȱtheȱtestȱforȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱbutȱisȱneverȱcalledȱaȱfriend.ȱ Itȱisȱclear,ȱforȱexample,ȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱwomenȱGuilliadonȱandȱGuildelüecȱinȱMarie deȱ France’sȱ Eliducȱ haveȱ aȱ spiritualȱ relationshipȱ thatȱ isȱ strongerȱ thanȱ the relationshipȱbetweenȱEliducȱandȱhisȱwife,ȱGuildelüec.234ȱInȱaȱreversalȱofȱtheȱusual romanceȱplotȱwhereȱmenȱmustȱsacrificeȱtheirȱwivesȱforȱfriendship,ȱhereȱaȱwoman sacrificesȱ herȱ husbandȱ forȱ aȱ woman.235ȱ Whenȱ Eliducȱ bringsȱ hisȱ loverȱ backȱ to Englandȱafterȱservingȱherȱfather,ȱtheȱkingȱofȱLogres,ȱhisȱfirstȱwifeȱdiscoversȱher

233

234

235

Forȱalternateȱinterpretationsȱofȱthisȱline,ȱseeȱElinorȱLench,ȱ“TheȱWife’sȱLament:ȱAȱPoemȱofȱthe Livingȱ Dead,”ȱ Comitatus:ȱ Aȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Renaissanceȱ Studiesȱ 1ȱ (1970):ȱ 323;ȱ Karlȱ P. Wentersdorf,ȱ“TheȱSituationȱofȱtheȱNarratorȱinȱtheȱOldȱEnglishȱWife’sȱLament,”ȱOldȱEnglishȱShorter Poems:ȱ Basicȱ Readings,ȱ ed.ȱ Katherineȱ O’Brienȱ O’Keeffe.ȱ Garlandȱ Referenceȱ Libraryȱ ofȱ the Humanities,ȱ1432ȱ(ȱNewȱYork:ȱGarland,ȱ1994),ȱ357–92ȱ(orig.ȱinȱSpeculumȱ56.3ȱ[1981]:ȱ492–516);ȱand JohnȱD.ȱNiles,ȱ“TheȱProblemȱofȱtheȱEndingȱofȱtheȱWife’sȱ‘Lament’,”ȱSpeculumȱ78.4ȱ(2003):ȱ1107–50. MarieȱdeȱFrance,ȱLesȱlaisȱdeȱMarieȱdeȱFrance,ȱed.ȱJeanȱRychner.ȱClassiquesȱfrançaisȱduȱMoyenȱAge, 93ȱ(Paris:ȱChampion,ȱ1983).ȱSeeȱalsoȱMarcoȱD.ȱRoman,ȱ“ReclaimingȱtheȱSelfȱThroughȱSilence:ȱThe RiversideȱCounselor’sȱStoriesȱandȱtheȱLaisȱofȱMarieȱdeȱFrance,”ȱCrossingȱtheȱBridge:ȱComparativeȱEssays onȱMedievalȱEuropeanȱandȱHeianȱJapaneseȱWomenȱWriters,ȱed.ȱBarbaraȱStevensonȱandȱCynthiaȱHo. TheȱNewȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱHoundmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire:ȱPalgrave,ȱ2000), 175–88. Lochrie,ȱ“BetweenȱWomen,”84ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ206).

Introduction

99

comatoseȱinȱaȱtombȱandȱsavesȱherȱlife.ȱTheȱfirstȱwifeȱthenȱretreatsȱtoȱanȱabbeyȱso thatȱtheȱpairȱcanȱbeȱfreeȱtoȱmarry.ȱEventuallyȱtheȱsecondȱwifeȱjoinsȱherȱinȱtheȱabbey andȱtheȱtwoȱlovinglyȱserveȱGodȱtogether.ȱMarieȱdeȱFrance,ȱasȱusualȱinȱherȱlais,ȱhas reversedȱtheȱconventionalȱpatternsȱinȱmedievalȱliteratureȱinȱorderȱtoȱplaceȱwomen charactersȱinȱcontextsȱofȱpower,ȱthisȱtimeȱasȱspiritualȱfriendsȱofȱGod. WhereasȱaȱnobleȱwomanȱlikeȱGuenevere,ȱIsolde,ȱorȱHeurodisȱmightȱspendȱtime withȱherȱladiesȱinȱwaitingȱorȱservants,ȱoftentimesȱwithinȱaȱcastleȱorȱhome,ȱthese women,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ positions,ȱ areȱ notȱ calledȱ friends.ȱ Ifȱ weȱ expandȱ the restrictiveȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ onceȱ again,ȱ however,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ toȱ consider relationshipsȱbetweenȱwomenȱofȱdifferentȱranks,ȱweȱdoȱfindȱfriends.ȱWomenȱgain emotionalȱ supportȱ orȱ adviceȱ fromȱ anotherȱ friendlyȱ womanȱ inȱ aȱ numberȱ of romances,ȱincludingȱWilliamȱofȱPalerne,ȱFlorisȱBlauncheflour,ȱOctovian,ȱandȱLayȱle FreineȱinȱEnglishȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱsomeȱofȱMarieȱdeȱFrance’sȱLais.ȱ Oneȱ strikingȱ exampleȱ isȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ servantȱ Lunetȱ andȱ her mistressȱAlundyneȱinȱtheȱMiddleȬEnglishȱversionȱofȱYwainȱandȱGawain,ȱaȱromance probablyȱ basedȱ onȱ butȱ differentȱ inȱ importantȱ waysȱ fromȱ Chrétienȱ deȱ Troyes’s Yvain.236ȱHereȱYwainȱisȱrescuedȱbyȱLunetȱafterȱheȱhasȱkilledȱaȱknightȱinȱbattle. Lunet,ȱtheȱcompanionȱofȱtheȱdeadȱknightȇsȱwife,ȱgivesȱhimȱaȱringȱthatȱmakesȱhim invisibleȱandȱconvincesȱtheȱgrievingȱwidow,ȱAlundyne,ȱtoȱmarryȱhim.ȱLaterȱon, afterȱheȱdoesȱnotȱreturnȱfromȱadventuringȱabroadȱwithȱGawainȱwhenȱheȱpromised heȱwould,ȱAlundyneȱrenouncesȱtheirȱrelationship.ȱAfterȱmuchȱdebateȱbetween Alundyneȱ andȱ Lunet,ȱ Lunetȱ convincesȱ Alundyneȱ toȱ reconcileȱ withȱ him,ȱ thus bringingȱtheȱtaleȱtoȱaȱhappyȱending.ȱInȱherȱstudyȱofȱtheȱpoem,ȱJoanneȱ Findon arguesȱthat,ȱwhileȱtheȱmaleȱcharactersȱtestȱtheirȱchivalricȱvalues,ȱtheseȱtwoȱwomen testȱandȱstrengthenȱtheirȱloyaltyȱandȱaffectionȱforȱeachȱother,ȱthusȱtheirȱfriendship, andȱtheȱdecisionsȱtheyȱmakeȱadvanceȱtheȱnarrativeȱtowardsȱitsȱmoralȱandȱhappy ending.ȱ“TheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱLunetȱandȱAlundyneȱemergesȱasȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱa typeȱofȱfemaleȱdiscourseȱthatȱsubtlyȱchallengesȱtheȱchivalricȱmaleȱvaluesȱofȱthe romanceȱtext.”237 ȱAsȱheȱdoesȱsoȱoftenȱwithȱsocialȱissues,ȱChaucerȱcomplicatesȱourȱviewsȱofȱwomen’s friendshipsȱasȱheȱoverlaysȱcontendingȱdiscoursesȱaboutȱtheȱtopic.ȱWhenȱtheȱWife ofȱ Bathȱ inȱ theȱ Canterburyȱ Talesȱ usesȱ theȱ wordȱ “friend”ȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ her acquaintances,ȱtheȱwordȱironicallyȱshiftsȱinȱmeaningȱasȱherȱnarrativeȱprogresses. OneȱofȱtheȱfalseȱaccusationsȱtheȱWifeȱmakesȱagainstȱherȱfirstȱthreeȱhusbandsȱis theirȱobjectingȱtoȱherȱhavingȱanȱinnocentȱfriendship:ȱ“andȱifȱIȱhaveȱaȱgossibȱorȱa freendȱ/ȱWithoutenȱgilt,ȱthouȱchidestȱasȱaȱfeend”ȱ(andȱifȱIȱhaveȱaȱcloseȱcompanion

236

237

YwainȱandȱGawain,ȱed.ȱFriedman,ȱAlbertȱB.,ȱandȱNormanȱT.ȱHarrington.ȱEETSȱo.s.ȱ254.ȱ(1964; London:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱRpt.ȱ1981).ȱ JoanneȱFindonȱ“TheȱOtherȱStory,”ȱ73ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ224).

100

Introduction

orȱ aȱ friendȱ quiteȱ innocently,ȱ youȱ chideȱ meȱ likeȱ aȱ fiend).238ȱ Inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ we assumeȱsheȱmeansȱaȱfemaleȱ“friend.”ȱAsȱsoonȱasȱweȱreadȱ“his”ȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱthe sentence,ȱhoweverȰ“IfȱthatȱIȱwalkeȱorȱpleyeȱuntoȱhisȱhous”ȱ(IfȱIȱwalkȱorȱplayȱin hisȱhouse)Ȱweȱrealizeȱthatȱsheȱisȱactuallyȱtalkingȱaboutȱvisitingȱaȱmaleȱ“friend” inȱhisȱhouse,ȱquiteȱaȱdifferentȱcircumstance.ȱInsteadȱofȱaffirmingȱtrueȱfriendship betweenȱwomen,ȱtheȱlinesȱhaveȱreintroducedȱmisogynistȱviewsȱonȱwomen’sȱsexual appetitesȱandȱtheȱimpossibilityȱofȱwomenȱformingȱinnocentȱrelationshipsȱofȱthis type.ȱ Onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ severalȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ theȱ Talesȱ suchȱ asȱ thatȱ between Custanceȱandȱtheȱconstable’sȱwifeȱHermengyldȱinȱtheȱManȱofȱLaw’sȱTaleȱillustrate aȱtrueȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱwomenȱwithoutȱmentioningȱtheȱwordȱ“friend”ȱandȱall ofȱitsȱtroublingȱassociationsȱconnectedȱtoȱwomen.239ȱAlthoughȱtheirȱtimeȱtogether representsȱjustȱoneȱpartȱofȱtheȱplot,ȱitȱisȱaȱkeyȱevent;ȱbeforeȱandȱafterȱherȱtimeȱwith Hermengyld,ȱCustanceȱisȱsurroundedȱbyȱwomenȱwhoȱplotȱherȱdeathȱbecauseȱshe isȱ aȱ beautifulȱ youngȱ Christianȱ womanȱ whomȱ theirȱ sonsȱ wantȱ toȱ marry. HermengyldȱandȱCustanceȱspendȱmostȱofȱtheȱnightȱinȱprayerȱbeforeȱHermengyld isȱmurderedȱbyȱaȱspurnedȱwouldȬbeȱloverȱofȱCustance’sȱwhileȱsleepingȱinȱtheȱsame bedȱwithȱCustance.ȱHermengyld,ȱwhoȱhadȱtakenȱCustanceȱinȱandȱcaredȱforȱher,ȱis essentiallyȱsacrificedȱinȱplaceȱofȱCustance.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱFindonȱcontendsȱthatȱtheirs isȱanȱhonorableȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱanalogousȱtoȱthoseȱofȱmen.240ȱ InȱanotherȱstudyȱofȱaȱChaucerȱtale,ȱSaraȱDeutchȱSchotland,ȱasȱdiscussedȱabove, arguesȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱthatȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱCanaceeȱandȱtheȱfemaleȱfalcon inȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱshowsȱthatȱ“friendshipsȱbetweenȱwomenȱprovideȱprotectionȱin aȱdangerousȱworld.”241ȱQuestionsȱofȱwomen’sȱsecurityȱareȱalsoȱraisedȱinȱChaucer’s TroylusȱandȱCriseydeȱasȱpervasiveȱironyȱundercutsȱtheȱscoresȱofȱfriendshipȱwords inȱ Troylusȱ andȱ Criseydeȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ whereȱ theȱ narrativeȱ focusesȱ onȱ Criseyde’s alienationȱandȱisolationȱratherȱthanȱonȱherȱinfidelity.ȱTheȱfirstȱuseȱofȱ“frend”ȱinȱthe workȱrefersȱtoȱCriseyde’sȱisolationȱasȱsheȱhasȱnotȱgotȱaȱ“frendȱtoȱwhomȱsheȱdorste hirȱmone”ȱ(Iȱ98);ȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱPandarusȱisȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱTroylusȱis asȱhisȱfriendȱ(Iȱ548);ȱtheȱfirstȱdescriptionȱofȱCriseydeȱthatȱPandarusȱgivesȱTroylus saysȱnoȱoneȱelseȱisȱ“frendlyer,ȱnȱ’aȱmoreȱgracious”ȱthanȱsheȱ(Iȱ884);ȱandȱtheȱfirst descriptionȱPandarusȱgivesȱCriseydeȱofȱTroylusȱendsȱwithȱtheȱclaimȱthatȱ“therto

238

239 240 241

“TheȱWifeȱofȱBath’sȱTale,”ȱTheȱCompleteȱPoetryȱandȱProseȱofȱGeoffreyȱChaucer,ȱed.ȱJohnȱFisherȱ(New York,ȱChicago,ȱLondon:ȱHolt,ȱRinehart,ȱandȱWinston,ȱ1977;ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ1989),ȱIII.ȱ1–1264;ȱIII.ȱ244–45. Inȱanotherȱtale,ȱTheȱFranklin’s,ȱDorigenȱisȱalsoȱoutȱwalkingȱwithȱ“friends”ȱwhenȱsheȱencounters Aurelius,ȱwhoȱpursuesȱherȱevenȱthoughȱsheȱisȱmarried.ȱWomenȱwanderingȱaround,ȱpresumably withȱfriends,ȱinsteadȱofȱstayingȱhomeȱwasȱaȱfrequentȱtopicȱofȱsermonsȱatȱtheȱtime.ȱSeeȱPeggy Knapp,ȱChaucerȱandȱtheȱSocialȱContestȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1990),ȱ97. “ManȱofȱLaw’sȱTale,”ȱTheȱCompleteȱPoetryȱandȱProse,ȱII.ȱ1–1190ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ238). Findon,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱStory,”ȱ78ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ224). “TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart:ȱFemaleȱHomosocialȱBonding,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume.

Introduction

101

heȱisȱtheȱfrendliesteȱmanȱ/ȱOfȱgretȱestatȱthatȱevereȱIȱsaughȱmyȱlyve”242ȱ(IIȱ204–05). Asȱtheȱcharactersȱbecomeȱenmeshedȱinȱlayerȱafterȱlayerȱofȱdeceitȱandȱbetrayal,ȱthe moreȱthanȱeightyȱadditionalȱironicalȱusesȱofȱfriendshipȱtermsȱmakeȱitȱclearȱthatȱthe oneȱthingȱCriseydeȱcouldȱhaveȱusedȱwasȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱtoȱofferȱherȱsoundȱadvice andȱprotection.243ȱTheȱundercurrentȱofȱcompetingȱperspectivesȱonȱthisȱissueȱin Chaucer’sȱworksȱseemsȱtoȱsuggestȱrealȱanxietyȱoverȱtheȱquestionsȱofȱwomenȱand friendshipȱwithinȱhisȱculture.ȱ Aȱ numberȱ ofȱ studiesȱ ofȱ womenȱ inȱ earlyȱ modernȱ literatureȱ alsoȱ identify relationshipsȱ thatȱ shouldȱ clearlyȱ beȱ consideredȱ friendships.ȱ Whileȱ examining Emilia’sȱroleȱinȱTheȱTwoȱNobleȱKinsmen,ȱbyȱShakespeareȱandȱFletcher,ȱforȱexample, LaurieȱJ.ȱShannonȱcontendsȱthatȱwillfulȱchastityȱinȱwomenȱcanȱcreateȱtheȱbondsȱof virtueȱ necessaryȱ forȱ femaleȱ friendships.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ earlyȱ modernȱ versionȱ ofȱ the Palamonȱ andȱ Arciteȱ story,ȱ Emilia’sȱ argumentsȱ forȱ remainingȱ chasteȱ insteadȱ of enteringȱintoȱaȱforcedȱmarriageȱincludeȱaȱnostalgicȱviewȱofȱanȱearlierȱfriendship withȱ Flavinaȱ thatȱ echoesȱ friendshipsȱ thatȱ writersȱ suchȱ asȱ Montaigneȱ sayȱ are possibleȱ onlyȱ betweenȱ men.ȱ Notingȱ Emilia’sȱ devotionȱ toȱ theȱ goddessȱ Diana, Shannonȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Queenȱ Elizabeth’sȱ choiceȱ ofȱ chastityȱ andȱ theȱ Petrarchan model’sȱrejectionȱofȱmaleȱdesireȱmakeȱthisȱ“moralȱambitious”ȱtypeȱofȱchastityȱ“a pursuitȱofȱintegrityȱandȱautonomy”ȱactingȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱmaleȱvirtueȱthatȱproves friendship.244ȱBasedȱonȱthisȱpremise,ȱShannonȱthenȱbuildsȱherȱcaseȱforȱ“chastity, pluralized,ȱstrengthenedȱasȱfemaleȱfriendship,ȱandȱlinkedȱtoȱaȱproprietaryȱzoneȱof affectionateȱ autonomy,ȱ offer[ring]ȱ theȱ onlyȱ contestȱ inȱ theȱ playȱ toȱ political subjugationȱandȱunreasonableȱrule.”245ȱ Englishȱpublicȱdocumentsȱduringȱbothȱtheȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȱmodernȱperiods frequentlyȱcontainȱtheȱwordȱ“friend”ȱusedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱwomenȱtoȱreferȱto someoneȱ designatedȱ toȱ ensureȱ theȱ financialȱ orȱ physicalȱ wellȬbeingȱ ofȱ single, engaged,ȱorȱwidowedȱwomen.ȱSinceȱfinancialȱcontrolȱlayȱgenerallyȱinȱtheȱhands ofȱmen,ȱtheseȱfriendsȱareȱalmostȱalwaysȱmen.ȱForȱexample,ȱtheȱtermȱ“friends”ȱis usedȱ inȱ theȱ pieceȱ ofȱ royalȱ legislationȱ fromȱ theȱ tenthȱ centuryȱ calledȱ Wifmannes beweddungȱtoȱreferȱtoȱpeopleȱonȱtheȱbride’sȱsideȱwhoȱmustȱconsentȱalongȱwithȱher toȱtheȱmarriageȱandȱalsoȱtoȱman’sȱacquaintancesȱwhoȱmustȱensureȱthatȱheȱtreats

242

243

244

245

“TroylusȱandȱCriseyde,”ȱTheȱCompleteȱPoetryȱandȱProse,ȱ403–540ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ238).ȱSectionȱandȱline numbersȱwillȱbeȱgivenȱinȱtheȱtext. ForȱaȱconcordanceȱofȱtheȱtermsȱinȱChaucer’sȱworks,ȱseeȱonlineȱat: www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/chaucer/concordance/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱSee nowȱ alsoȱ Gretchenȱ Mieszkowski,ȱ “Chaucerianȱ Comedy:ȱ Troilusȱ andȱ Criseyde,”ȱ Laughterȱ inȱ the MiddleȱAgesȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱAge,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassen.ȱFundamentalsȱofȱMedievalȱandȱEarly ModernȱCulture,ȱ5ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱDeȱGruyter,ȱ2010),ȱ457–80. LaurieȱJ.ȱShannon,ȱ“Emilia’sȱArgument:ȱFriendshipȱandȱ‘HumanȱTitle’ȱinȱTheȱTwoȱNobleȱKinsmen,” EnglishȱLiteraryȱHistoryȱ64.3ȱ(Fallȱ1997):ȱ657–682;ȱhereȱ659. Ibid,ȱ676.

102

Introduction

herȱ well.246ȱ Inȱ aȱ surveyȱ ofȱ willsȱ fromȱ severalȱ areasȱ ofȱ England,ȱ weȱ canȱ seeȱ the commonȱuseȱofȱthisȱtermȱtoȱreferȱtoȱsomeoneȱwho,ȱdisplayingȱbothȱloyaltyȱand virtue,ȱcanȱbeȱtrustedȱtoȱtakeȱcareȱofȱorȱprotectȱaȱwomanȱorȱherȱpropertyȱinȱthe future.ȱWhenȱLadyȱPeryneȱClanboweȱwroteȱoutȱherȱwillȱinȱ1422,ȱsheȱcalledȱthose designatedȱtoȱexecuteȱherȱwillȱasȱ“myȱtrustyȱfrendes,”ȱtwoȱwomenȱandȱthreeȱmen, andȱthenȱlistsȱtheȱthingsȱsheȱhasȱwilledȱtoȱthemȱtoȱensureȱthatȱtheyȱdoȱherȱbusiness theȱwayȱsheȱwantsȱitȱdone.ȱ Furthermore,ȱaddingȱaȱsecondȱlayerȱofȱprotectiveȱfriendship,ȱsheȱalsoȱlistsȱthe thingsȱsheȱisȱleavingȱtoȱherȱbrotherȱRobertȱ“vponȱthisȱcondicion,ȱþatȱheȱbeȱgood frendȱtoȱmyȱexecutours,ȱandȱþatȱheȱleteȱhemȱnoteȱ(letȱthemȱnot)ȱoffȱministracion offȱ mynȱ otherȱ goodeȱ onȱ theȱ Manereȱ ofȱ Pychardisokellȱ neȱ ellesȱ whereȱ (nor elsewhere).”247ȱWhenȱWilliamȱKymeȱofȱAshbyȱwillsȱThomasȱKendallȱ“myȱbestȱcote toȱbeȱgoodȱfrendeȱtoȱmyȱwyff,”ȱonȱ6ȱNovemberȱ1530,ȱheȱisȱplacingȱtrustȱinȱKendall toȱlookȱafterȱhisȱwife’sȱinterestsȱwhileȱheȱisȱgone.248ȱInȱanotherȱcase,ȱapparently worriedȱthatȱhisȱsonȱmightȱnotȱpayȱhisȱwifeȱherȱyearlyȱannuityȱafterȱhisȱdeath,ȱJohn Scamonȱdeclaresȱthatȱherȱsecurityȱwillȱbeȱjudgedȱpubliclyȱbyȱtheȱ“syghttesȱofȱher frendes,”ȱ(sightsȱofȱherȱfriends)ȱandȱmakesȱarrangementsȱforȱsomeoneȱtoȱstepȱin ifȱnecessary.249ȱLaterȱon,ȱillustratingȱtheȱchangesȱinȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱwordȱbroughtȱon byȱtheȱProtestantȱReformation,ȱasȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱtheȱdraperȱGeorgeȱPease,ȱwhen askedȱhowȱheȱhadȱorderedȱhisȱestate,ȱsaidȱheȱhadȱleftȱitȱtoȱhisȱfriends.ȱWhenȱasked whatȱheȱhadȱdoneȱforȱhisȱwife,ȱ“heȱrepliedȱthatȱsheȱwasȱoneȱofȱhisȱfriends.”250ȱ Beyondȱthisȱdistinctȱuseȱinȱwills,ȱ“friend”ȱisȱalsoȱemployedȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱof unmarriedȱorȱwidowedȱwomenȱwritersȱduringȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod,ȱsuchȱas IsabellaȱWhitneyȱandȱAemiliaȱLanyerȱinȱEngland,ȱinȱappealsȱforȱfinancialȱsupport. InȱtheȱprefatoryȱmaterialȱtoȱIsabellaȱWhitney’sȱ1587ȱbookȱofȱverseȱentitledȱNosgay, sheȱ repeatedlyȱ usesȱ “friend”ȱ whenȱ sheȱ isȱ appealingȱ forȱ theȱ moneyȱ toȱ stayȱ in Londonȱafterȱsheȱhasȱlostȱherȱjob.ȱTheȱopeningȱdedicationȱofȱNosgayȱtoȱGeorge Mainwaring,ȱaȱprominentȱfigureȱinȱShropshireȱwhoȱownedȱmuchȱproperty,ȱcalls himȱherȱchiefȱfriendȱandȱasksȱhimȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱworkȱasȱaȱpresentȱtoȱrepayȱhimȱfor

246

247

248

249 250

AndrewȱRabin,ȱ“FemaleȱAdvocacyȱandȱRoyalȱProtectionȱinȱTenthȬCenturyȱEngland:ȱTheȱLegal CareerȱofȱQueenȱAElfthryth,”ȱSpeculumȱ84.2ȱ(Aprilȱ2009):ȱ261–81;ȱhereȱ268. FrederickȱJ.ȱFurnivall,ȱFiftyȱEarliestȱEnglishȱWillsȱinȱtheȱCourtȱofȱProbate,ȱLondon:ȱA.D.ȱ1387–1439ȱwith aȱPriest’sȱofȱ1454,ȱ50–51. “LincolnȱWills:ȱ1530ȱ(November),”ȱLincolnȱWillsȱ3:ȱ1530–1532ȱ(1930),ȱ68–82.ȱhttp://www.britishȬ history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53724ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010). “LincolnȱWills:ȱ1531ȱ(April),”ȱ125–35. “Wills:ȱJamesȱIȱ(1603–25),”ȱed.ȱR.ȱR.ȱSharpe.ȱCalendarȱofȱwillsȱprovedȱandȱenrolledȱinȱtheȱCourt ofȱ Husting,ȱ London:ȱ Partȱ 2:ȱ 1358–1688ȱ (1890),ȱ 730–51.ȱ Onlineȱ at:ȱ http://www.britishȬ history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=67039ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱAnotherȱfrequentȱuseȱof “friends”ȱinȱtheseȱwillsȱisȱtoȱspeakȱofȱtheȱpoor,ȱwhoȱareȱtoȱreceiveȱsomeȱportionȱofȱgoodsȱtoȱensure theȱgoodȱhealthȱofȱtheȱtestator’sȱsoul.

Introduction

103

theȱthingsȱheȱhasȱdoneȱforȱherȱinȱtheȱpast.251ȱInterestingly,ȱwhenȱsheȱincludesȱa verseȱletterȱwrittenȱtoȱherȱcousin,ȱ“IȱCosinȱam,ȱandȱfaithfullȱfriend,ȱ/ȱnotȱminding onceȱtoȱswerve.ȱ/ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ/ȱYourȱpooreȱKinsewoman,ȱIsabellaȱWhitney”ȱ(8),ȱclaimingȱa kinshipȱrelationshipȱwithȱhimȱisȱapparentlyȱnotȱadequateȱforȱherȱpurposes.252ȱBy definingȱherselfȱalsoȱasȱaȱfaithfulȱfriend,ȱsheȱisȱappealingȱtoȱhimȱthroughȱaȱsense ofȱloyaltyȱandȱvirtuousȱbehaviorȱstillȱactivelyȱassociatedȱwithȱfriendshipȱinstead ofȱ throughȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ kinshipȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ extended familyȱwasȱlessening.ȱ Furthermore,ȱsheȱtellsȱherȱbrotherȱGeoffreyȱWhitney,ȱaȱcourtȱfigureȱfrequently listedȱasȱreceivingȱbequestsȱfromȱQueenȱElizabethȱandȱbestȱknownȱforȱwriting ChoiceȱofȱEmblemsȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱEarlȱofȱLeicester,ȱthatȱwithoutȱimmediateȱhelp sheȱwillȱhaveȱtoȱremainȱatȱhomeȱinȱtheȱcountryȱdependentȱonȱfriendsȱasȱwellȱasȱon herȱparents:ȱ“ButȱstyllȱtoȱfriendsȱIȱmustȱappealeȱ(andȱnextȱourȱParentesȱdeare)” (7).253ȱNoticeȱthatȱsheȱwillȱappealȱforȱsupportȱfromȱherȱfriendsȱbeforeȱaskingȱher parentsȱforȱhelp.ȱWithinȱtheȱmainȱpoemȱofȱtheȱvolume,ȱ“WyllȱandȱTestament,”ȱshe usesȱ“friend”ȱagainȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱdescribeȱpeopleȱwhoseȱfinancialȱsupportȱsheȱwants (“vponȱherȱFriendesȱprocurement”12),ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱreferȱironicallyȱtoȱthoseȱwho haveȱallowedȱothersȱtoȱremainȱinȱLondon’sȱdebtor’sȱprisonȱtheȱCounter:ȱ“And suchȱasȱFriendsȱwylȱnotȱthemȱbayle,ȱ/ȱwhoseȱcoyneȱisȱveryȱthin”ȱ(14546).ȱThese “friends”ȱsheȱwantsȱtoȱsendȱintoȱtheȱbowelsȱofȱtheȱprisonȱtoȱpunishȱthemȱforȱtheir miserliness.ȱ Inȱ aȱ finalȱ interestingȱ touch,ȱ asȱ theȱ earliestȱ secularȱ womanȱ seeking publicationȱ inȱ England,ȱ sheȱ alsoȱ willsȱ herȱ “friends”ȱ toȱ buyȱ booksȱ fromȱ her publisher,ȱRichardȱJones,ȱthusȱpotentionallyȱaddingȱtoȱherȱincome.ȱWhitneyȱclearly believesȱfriendsȱareȱthoseȱoutsideȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱobligatedȱtoȱhelpȱothersȱfinancially inȱ lateȱ 16thȬcenturyȱ London,ȱ aȱ placeȱ whichȱ isȱ defined,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Danielle Clarke,ȱbyȱ“commercialȱpower,”ȱ“financialȱrapaciousness,”ȱandȱ“lackȱofȱcharity” forȱWhitney.254ȱ IfȱweȱlookȱatȱAemiliaȱLanyer,ȱanotherȱwomanȱfacedȱwithȱsupportingȱherselfȱand, inȱ herȱ case,ȱ herȱ family,ȱ aȱ fewȱ decadesȱ later,ȱ sheȱ definesȱ herȱ currentȱ financial problemsȱasȱwellȱasȱsocialȱisolationȱasȱaȱlossȱofȱfriendship:ȱ VnconstantȱFortune,ȱthouȱartȱmostȱtooȱblame,ȱWhoȱcastsȱvsȱdowneȱintoȱsoȱ loweȱ a frame:ȱWhereȱourȱgreatȱfriendsȱweeȱcannotȱdaylyȱsee,ȱSoȱgreatȱaȱdifferenceȱisȱthereȱin degree.255ȱ

251

252

253 254 255

IsabellaȱWhitney,ȱ“FromȱaȱSweetȱNosgay,”ȱed.ȱDanielleȱClarke,ȱIsabellaȱWhitney,ȱMaryȱSidneyȱand AemiliaȱLanyer:ȱRenaissanceȱWomenȱPoetsȱ(London,ȱNewȱYork,ȱandȱToronto:ȱPenguinȱBooks,ȱ2000), 3–4. IsabellaȱWhitney,ȱ“FromȱaȱSweetȱNosgay,”13ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ251).ȱLineȱnumbersȱareȱgivenȱwithinȱthe text. Ibid,ȱ8.ȱItalicsȱareȱmine. IsabellaȱWhitney,ȱxivȱ(seeȱnoteȱ251). SalveȱDeusȱRexȱJudæorum,ȱ“TheȱDescriptionȱofȱCookeȬham,”ȱ IsabellaȱWhitney,ȱMaryȱSidneyȱand

104

Introduction

BeforeȱsheȱbecameȱpregnantȱbyȱHenryȱCarey,ȱLordȱHunsdon,ȱQueenȱElizabeth’s LordȱChamberlain,ȱLanyerȱhadȱlivedȱamongȱcourtȱsociety,ȱveryȱwellȱprovidedȱfor asȱhisȱmistress;ȱafterȱsheȱbecameȱpregnant,ȱsheȱwasȱpaidȱoffȱandȱmarriedȱtoȱaȱcourt musician.ȱInȱtheȱpoemȱsheȱwroteȱyearsȱlaterȱaboutȱherȱchangeȱinȱfortune,ȱsheȱrefers euphemisticallyȱ toȱ herȱ povertyȱ asȱ beingȱ inȱ tooȱ “loweȱ aȱ frame”ȱ toȱ seeȱ “great friends.”ȱMoreover,ȱbyȱprefacingȱherȱbookȱwithȱaȱseriesȱofȱdedicationsȱtoȱwealthy women,ȱ Lanyerȱ isȱ saidȱ toȱ useȱ theȱ patronageȱ systemȱ toȱ negotiateȱ hierarchical relationshipsȱbetweenȱherselfȱandȱrichȱwomenȱmuchȱasȱherȱmaleȱcontemporaries do,ȱaccordingȱtoȱAmyȱGreenstadt,ȱandȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱwereȱ“conceivedȱasȱa formȱofȱfriendshipȱorȱamicitia.”256ȱ Asȱaȱlastȱexampleȱofȱfriendshipȱdirectlyȱconnectedȱtoȱwomenȱweȱshouldȱexamine theȱ poetryȱ andȱ proseȱ ofȱ Katherineȱ Philips,ȱ aȱ popularȱ Englishȱ writerȱ ofȱ the seventeenthȱcenturyȱwhoȱestablishedȱaȱFriendshipȱSocietyȱandȱwroteȱaȱgreatȱdeal aboutȱfriendship.ȱHarrietteȱAndreadis,ȱdrawingȱonȱtheȱworkȱofȱAlanȱBrayȱand othersȱwhoȱreconsiderȱfriendshipȱinȱhomoeroticȱasȱwellȱasȱhomosocialȱterms,ȱsays Philips’sȱ worksȱ “revealȱ theȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ sheȱ wasȱ determinedȱ toȱ proveȱ that womenȱwereȱworthyȱfriendsȱtoȱmenȱasȱwellȱasȱableȱtoȱemulateȱtheȱ‘unions’ȱso familiarȱinȱtheȱdiscourseȱandȱideologyȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendship.”257 PhilipsȱcontinuedȱtoȱwriteȱaboutȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱdespiteȱJeremyȱTaylor’sȱsaying inȱ responseȱ toȱ herȱ queryȱ onȱ itȱ thatȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ womenȱ wasȱ not possibleȱinȱtheȱworkȱentitledȱ“AȱDiscourseȱofȱtheȱNature,ȱOffices,ȱandȱMeasures, ofȱFriendship,ȱwithȱRulesȱofȱConductingȱIt,ȱinȱaȱLetterȱtoȱtheȱMostȱIngeniousȱand ExcellentȱMrs.ȱKatharineȱ[sic]ȱPhilips”ȱ(1657).258ȱUsingȱaȱPlatonicȱidealȱtoȱargueȱher case,ȱsheȱwritesȱinȱ“TheȱFriend”: Ifȱsoulesȱnoȱsexesȱhave,ȱforȱmenȱtȇexclude Womenȱfromȱfriendshipȇsȱvastȱcapacity, Isȱaȱdesignȱinjuriousȱandȱrude, Onelyȱmaintainȇdȱbyȱpartiallȱtyranny. Loveȱisȱallowȇdȱtoȱus,ȱandȱInnocence, Andȱnoblestȱfriendshipsȱdoeȱproceedȱfromȱthence.ȱ

256

257 258

259

(19–24)259

AemiliaȱLanyer,ȱed.ȱDanielleȱClark,ȱ274–80;ȱhereȱ103–106ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ251).ȱEarlierȱChristineȱofȱPizan hadȱcounseledȱwidowsȱtoȱbeȱselfȬsufficientȱwithoutȱhavingȱtoȱappealȱforȱsupportȱfromȱfriends.ȱSee ChristineȱdeȱPisan,ȱLeȱLivreȱdesȱtroisȱvertus,ȱéd.ȱCharityȱCannonȱWillardȱetȱEricȱHicks.ȱBibliothèque duȱXVeȱsiècle,ȱ50ȱ(Paris:ȱChampion,ȱ1989).ȱForȱfurtherȱdiscussionsȱofȱChristine’sȱcommentsȱon friendship,ȱseeȱAlbrechtȱClassen’sȱcommentsȱabove. AmyȱGreenstadt,ȱ“AemiliaȱLanyer’sȱPatheticȱPhallacy,”ȱTheȱJournalȱofȱEarlyȱModernȱCulturalȱStudies 8.1ȱ(2008):ȱ67–97;ȱhereȱ72.ȱ Ibid. Harrietteȱ Andreadis,ȱ “ReȬConfiguringȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Friendship:ȱ Katherineȱ Philipsȱ and HomoeroticȱDesire,”ȱStudiesȱinȱEnglishȱLiteratureȱ1500–1900ȱ46.3ȱ(2006):ȱ523–42;ȱhereȱ534. KatherineȱPhilips,ȱTheȱCollectedȱWorksȱofȱKatherineȱPhilips:ȱTheȱMatchlessȱOrinda,ȱ3ȱvols.,ȱed.ȱPatrick

Introduction

105

Anotherȱcritic,ȱMarkȱLlewellyn,ȱarguesȱthatȱfriendshipȱforȱPhilipsȱandȱothersȱat thatȱ timeȱ isȱ anȱ imaginingȱ ofȱ theȱ spiritualȱ possibilitiesȱ thatȱ canȱ beȱ attainedȱ by intermixingȱanȱidealizedȱunionȱofȱtwoȱsoulsȱandȱtheȱundercurrentsȱofȱsexuality associatedȱwithȱaȱunionȱofȱsouls.260ȱHeȱcontendsȱthatȱherȱpoetryȱechoesȱothers’ȱat thatȱtimeȱsuchȱasȱJohnȱDonne’sȱinȱthatȱthroughȱwhatȱhasȱbeenȱcalledȱaȱȈ’sublime spiritualȱeros’ȱloveȱforȱaȱsupremelyȱattractiveȱmanȱ(orȱinȱsomeȱversionsȱaȱwoman), strippedȱofȱallȱsensualȱappetite,ȱcouldȱbecomeȱtheȱpathwayȱtoȱapprehensionȱof, andȱeventuallyȱmysticȱunionȱwith,ȱdivineȱloveȱandȱbeauty.”261ȱPhilips’sȱwritings onȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomenȱasȱwellȱasȱbetweenȱwomenȱandȱother womenȱareȱthusȱevidenceȱofȱanȱintellectualȱdebateȱonȱtheseȱtopicsȱgoingȱbackȱto Platoȱwhoseȱtermsȱareȱdeterminedȱinȱthisȱseventeenthȱcenturyȱcaseȱbyȱwomen. Althoughȱsomeȱmenȱinȱearlyȱmodernȱcultureȱmayȱstillȱmaintainȱthatȱwomenȱare incapableȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱbasedȱonȱvirtuousȱbehaviorȱandȱsharedȱloveȱofȱthe good,ȱtheȱwomenȱatȱthisȱtimeȱapparentlyȱdoȱnotȱagree.ȱ

U.ȱEarlyȱModernȱFriendships:ȱAdditionalȱPerspectives (MarilynȱSandidge) Itȱisȱsafeȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtheȱappetiteȱearlyȱmodernȱhumanistsȱhadȱforȱtheȱworksȱof Greekȱ andȱ Romanȱ writersȰavailableȱ nowȱ toȱ theȱ largeȱ readingȱ publicȱ in printȰrevivedȱinterestȱinȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendship,ȱasȱinȱmanyȱotherȱclassicalȱideas. ThroughoutȱEuropeȱinȱtheȱfifteenthȱcentury,ȱtheȱpopularityȱofȱthisȱtopicȱcanȱbe attestedȱbyȱtheȱseventyȱeditionsȱprintedȱofȱCicero’sȱLaelius;ȱinȱEngland,ȱfromȱthe earliestȱ versionȱ ofȱ Cicero’sȱ worksȱ printed,ȱ anȱ Englishȱ translationȱ putȱ outȱ by Williamȱ Caxtonȱ inȱ 1481,ȱ untilȱ theȱ earlyȱ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ Cicero’sȱ works containingȱDeȱamiticiaȱwereȱprintedȱcontinually,ȱforȱaȱtotalȱofȱfiftyȱeditions.262ȱThe interestȱ generatedȱ fromȱ justȱ thisȱ oneȱ workȱ mustȱ haveȱ beenȱ considerable.ȱ As evidencedȱinȱaȱrangeȱofȱEnglishȱliteraryȱworks,ȱincludingȱtheȱEnglishȱRenaissance dramatists’ȱexplorationȱofȱfriendshipȱonȱtheȱstage,ȱlesserȱpoets’ȱoccasionalȱverseȱon friendships,ȱ poets’ȱ elegiesȱ onȱ fellowȱ writers,ȱ protestantȱ religiousȱ figures’

260

261 262

Thomas,ȱG.ȱGreer,ȱandȱR.ȱLittleȱ(StumpȱCross,ȱEssex:ȱStumpȱCrossȱBooks,ȱ1990),ȱVolumeȱOne:ȱThe Poems. MarkȱLlewellyn,ȱ“KatherineȱPhilips:ȱFriendship,ȱPoetryȱandȱNeoȬplatonicȱThoughtȱinȱSeventeenth CenturyȱEngland”ȱPhilologicalȱQuarterlyȱ81.4ȱ(2002):ȱ441–68.ȱSeeȱforȱsimilarȱviewsȱonȱseventeenthȬ centuryȱfriendshipsȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomenȱFrancesȱHarris,ȱTransformationsȱofȱLove:ȱFriendship ofȱJohnȱEvelynȱandȱMargaretȱGodolphinȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002).ȱ Ibid. Theȱ Englishȱ Shortȱ Titleȱ Catalogue.ȱ http://estc.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=loginȬblȬestcȱ (last accessedȱ Augustȱ 1,ȱ 2010).ȱ Albrechtȱ Classenȱ examinedȱ theȱ sameȱ data,ȱ pursuingȱ aȱ similar perspectiveȱconsideringȱtheȱpopularityȱofȱthatȱtextȱonȱaȱEuropeanȱlevel;ȱseeȱabove.

106

Introduction

friendshipȱ tropesȱ inȱ poetry,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ nonfictionȱ sources,ȱ includingȱ letters, friendshipȱ albums,ȱ journals,ȱ politicalȱ treatises,ȱ andȱ theȱ like,ȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ early modernȱwritersȱwereȱdrawnȱtoȱreexamineȱtheȱpowerȱofȱthisȱconceptȱandȱallȱofȱits associations,ȱ toȱ test,ȱ inȱ aȱ sense,ȱ itsȱ viabilityȱ andȱ toȱ adaptȱ itsȱ featuresȱ toȱ new doctrines,ȱtoȱcontemporaryȱpolitical,ȱeconomic,ȱandȱreligiousȱrealities,ȱandȱtoȱsocial behaviorsȱandȱculturalȱdemandsȱofȱthisȱperiod.ȱFriendshipȱinȱaȱgoodȱmanyȱofȱthese casesȱ wouldȱ notȱ meetȱ allȱ ofȱ theȱ requirementsȱ neededȱ toȱ satisfyȱ theȱ classical definitionȱofȱtheȱterm;ȱhowever,ȱthoseȱwhoȱembracedȱhumanismȱinȱEnglandȱwere neverthelessȱclearlyȱdrawnȱtowardȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱitȱhadȱbeenȱpassed downȱtoȱthem,ȱappreciatingȱitsȱprospectsȱforȱimprovingȱnotȱonlyȱsocialȱrelations withinȱtheȱlargerȱcommunityȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱindividualȱlife. Drawingȱonȱtheȱidealȱofȱclassicalȱvirtuousȱfriendship,ȱtheȱeducatedȱeliteȱand membersȱ ofȱ sixteenthȬcenturyȱ literaryȱ circlesȱ formedȱ “noninstrumental” friendshipsȱ“basedȱinȱaffinity,”ȱwithȱfiguresȱsuchȱasȱFulkeȱGrevilleȱinȱEngland composingȱtheȱ“familiarȱletter,”ȱanȱ“intimateȱletterȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱconvention inȱhumanistȱcircles.”263ȱTheȱmajorȱfiguresȱofȱtheȱtimeȰMontaigne,ȱShakespeare, Bacon,ȱJonson,ȱMilton,ȱandȱothersȰcelebratedȱpersonalȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtwo men.ȱShakespeare,ȱinȱfact,ȱexploresȱtheȱconflictsȱbetweenȱmaleȬmaleȱandȱmaleȬ femaleȱpairsȱinȱsevenȱofȱhisȱplays.264ȱItȱhasȱevenȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱ“theȱprestigeȱthat humanismȱ grantedȱ maleȬmaleȱ friendshipȱ threatenedȱ theȱ primacyȱ ofȱ kinship networksȱ dependentȱ onȱ marriage.”265ȱ Ifȱ weȱ lookȱ atȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ friendship terminology,ȱ manyȱ Englishȱ poetsȱ wroteȱ critiques,ȱ praises,ȱ defenses,ȱ orȱ elegies aboutȱ theirȱ poetȱ friends,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Henryȱ King’s,ȱ “Vponȱ theȱ Deathȱ ofȱ myȱ ever DesiredȱfreindȱDrȱDonneȱDeaneȱofȱPaules”ȱandȱAndrewȱMarvell’s,ȱ“ToȱHisȱNoble FriendȱMr.ȱRichardȱLovelace,ȱuponȱHisȱPoems.”ȱAlthoughȱnotȱalwaysȱasȱpositive inȱtheirȱpraiseȱasȱtheȱnamedȱ“friend”ȱmightȱwish,ȱtheseȱpoemsȱshowȱaȱsenseȱof community,ȱcalledȱfriendship,ȱthatȱlearnedȱmen,ȱandȱweȱwillȱsee,ȱwomen,ȱwished toȱbeȱaȱpartȱof.ȱ DuringȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱElizabeth’sȱreign,ȱpoetsȱsuchȱasȱBarnabeȱGooge,ȱGeorge Turberville,ȱandȱThomasȱHowellȱincorporatedȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱfriendshipȱintoȱtheir

263

264

265

Bray,ȱ Theȱ Friend,ȱ 2003,ȱ 41,ȱ 47–48ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 25).ȱ Theȱ Englishȱ Shortȱ Titleȱ Catalogueȱ listsȱ many publicationsȱ ofȱ lettersȱ andȱ otherȱ documentsȱ writtenȱ byȱ lesserȱ knownȱ writersȱ addressedȱ toȱ a “friend”ȱduringȱtheseȱdecades.ȱSeeȱESTCȱatȱTheȱBritishȱLibraryȱonlineȱat: ȱhttp://estc.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=loginȬblȬestcȱ(lastȱaccessedȱ8/16/10). Seeȱ Robertȱ Sturges,ȱ Chaucer’sȱ Pardonerȱ andȱ Genderȱ Theory:ȱ Bodiesȱ ofȱ Discourseȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ St. Martin’sȱPress,ȱ2000).ȱAlsoȱseeȱforȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱmaleȱfriendshipsȱLaurensȱJ.ȱMills,ȱOneȱSoulȱin BodiesȱTwain:ȱFriendshipȱinȱTudorȱLiteratureȱandȱStuartȱDramaȱ(Bloomington,ȱIN:ȱTheȱPrincipiaȱPress, 1937).ȱ Gregoryȱ Chaplin,ȱ “‘Oneȱ Flesh,ȱ Oneȱ Heart,ȱ Oneȱ Soul’:ȱ Renaissanceȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Miltonic Marriage,”ȱ Modernȱ Philologyȱ (2001):ȱ 266–92.ȱ Seeȱ Lornaȱ Hutson,ȱ Theȱ Usurer’sȱ Daughter:ȱ Male FriendshipȱandȱFictionsȱofȱWomenȱinȱSixteenthȬCenturyȱEnglandȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge, 1994).

Introduction

107

collectionsȱofȱsonnetsȱofferingȱadviceȱtoȱyoungȱmen.ȱOftenȱhavingȱbegunȱtoȱwrite poetryȱwhileȱatȱOxford,ȱCambridge,ȱorȱtheȱInnsȱofȱCourt,ȱtheseȱmidȬTudorȱpoets wroteȱcoterieȱpiecesȱfullȱofȱdialogue,ȱsharingȱtheirȱpoemsȱandȱrespondingȱtoȱeach other’sȱworkȱinȱmanuscriptȱformȱbeforeȱhavingȱthemȱprinted.ȱWithȱdedications suchȱasȱHowell’sȱ“toȱhisȱapprouedȱFreindeȱMaisterȱHenryȱLasselsȱGentilmen”ȱ(sig A2r)ȱ orȱ Googe’s,ȱ whichȱ callsȱ theȱ poemsȱ themselvesȱ “theȱ numbredȱ heapesȱ of sundryeȱ frendshyps”ȱ (sig.ȱ A6v),ȱ theȱ poetsȱ adoptedȱ theȱ sonnetȱ form,ȱ usually associatedȱwithȱheterosexualȱrelationships,ȱtoȱexploreȱtopicsȱmaleȱfriendsȱwould typicallyȱdiscuss.266ȱInsteadȱofȱenvisioningȱaȱhumbleȱmaleȱspeakerȱseekingȱpity fromȱ aȱ distantȱ femaleȱ lover,ȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ theseȱ poemsȱ showȱ uncomplicated homosocialȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱlikeȬmindedȱpeers.ȱ WeȱhaveȱtoȱrememberȱthatȱShakespeareȱalsoȱaddressedȱaȱyoungȱmaleȱfriendȱin theȱfirstȱ126ȱsonnetsȱoutȱofȱ154ȱinȱhisȱcollection.ȱWithoutȱenteringȱintoȱaȱdebate overȱ theȱ possibleȱ homoeroticȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theȱ maleȬmaleȱ friendshipȱ in Shakespeare’sȱsonnets,ȱweȱcanȱseeȱthatȱtheȱpoetȱreflectsȱonȱbothȱtheȱvalueȱandȱthe anxietyȱinherentȱinȱaȱrelationshipȱheȱrepeatedlyȱcallsȱaȱfriendship.ȱAlthoughȱthe twoȱmenȱareȱnotȱposedȱasȱequals,ȱoneȱperhapsȱasȱanȱolderȱpoetȱandȱtheȱother, perhapsȱaȱyoungerȱpatron,ȱtheȱpoemsȱrehearseȱconversationsȱonȱvirtue,ȱbeauty, truth,ȱlove,ȱpublicȱopinion,ȱtime,ȱdeathȰallȱnaturalȱtopicsȱofȱconversationȱbetween friends.ȱWhenȱShakespeareȱtalksȱofȱtheȱrivalȱwomanȱinȱtheseȱpoems,ȱtheȱmore virtuousȱcharacterȱofȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱisȱclearȱthroughȱimplication,ȱasȱinȱSonnetȱ138 whereȱtheȱspeakerȱsays,ȱ“whenȱmyȱloveȱswearsȱthatȱsheȱisȱmadeȱofȱtruth,ȱ/ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱI knowȱ sheȱ lies,”ȱ theȱ punȱ onȱ “lies”ȱ suggestingȱ bothȱ aȱ woman’sȱ untruthfulȱ and sexualȱnature.267ȱEvenȱwhenȱtheȱyoungȱmanȱwinsȱoverȱtheȱwoman,ȱtheȱspeakerȱcan useȱfriendshipȱtermsȱtoȱregainȱhisȱequilibrium,ȱclaimingȱ“butȱhere’sȱtheȱjoy,ȱmy friendȱandȱIȱareȱone”ȱ(Sonnetȱ42).ȱShakespeare’sȱarguablyȱmostȱfamousȱsonnetȱon theȱvalueȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱSonnetȱ30,ȱwhere,ȱafterȱpouringȱoverȱremembrancesȱof woesȱandȱlossesȱandȱpain,ȱheȱassertsȱthatȱwhenȱ“Iȱthinkȱonȱthee,ȱdearȱfriend,ȱ/ȱAll lossesȱareȱrestor’d.”ȱThisȱisȱnotȱtoȱoversimplifyȱaȱbeautifullyȱcomplexȱsetȱofȱpoems thatȱ touchȱ onȱ mostȱ issuesȱ foundȱ underȱ discussionȱ inȱ Tudorȱ England,ȱ butȱ to indicateȱthatȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtheȱpowerȱitȱevokesȱinformȱmanyȱof theȱ lyricalȱ poemsȱ thatȱ areȱ conventionallyȱ associatedȱ onlyȱ withȱ heterosexual relationships.ȱ AlastairȱFowlerȱascribesȱtheȱgrowthȱofȱaȱnewȱformȱofȱelegyȱatȱthisȱtimeȱtoȱthese groupsȱofȱlikeȬmindedȱfriends:ȱ

266

267

Cathyȱ Shrank,ȱ “’Mattersȱ ofȱ loveȱ asȱ ofȱ discourse’:ȱ Theȱ Englishȱ Sonnet,ȱ 1560–1580,”ȱ Studiesȱ in Philologyȱ105.1ȱ(2008):ȱ30Ȭ49;ȱhereȱ43Ȭ44. TheȱRiversideȱShakespeare,ȱed.ȱG.ȱBlakemoreȱEvansȱ(2ndȱed.ȱ1997;ȱBoston,ȱAtlanta,ȱetȱal.:ȱHoughton Mifflin,ȱ1974),ȱ1774ȱ.ȱAllȱcitationsȱtoȱShakespeareȱareȱfromȱthisȱeditionȱofȱhisȱcompleteȱworks.

108

Introduction Theȱdevelopmentȱofȱliteraryȱcoteriesȱandȱnewȱformsȱofȱpatronageȱmadeȱpossibleȱthe seventeenthȬcenturyȱgenreȱofȱcriticalȱelegy,ȱaȱsubgenreȱdistinctȱfromȱepitaph,ȱepicede, andȱpersonalȱfuneralȱelegy.ȱTheȱoccasionalityȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱelegyȱfocusedȱonȱaȱnotional, imaginaryȱceremonyȱmourningȱtheȱdeathȱofȱanȱadmiredȱpoet.ȱButȱtheȱactualȱoccasion wasȱoftenȱtheȱprintingȱofȱaȱvolumeȱofȱsimilarȱcriticalȱelegies,ȱlikeȱtheȱJustaȱEduardoȱKing Naufrago,ȱabȱamicisȱmoerentibus.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ(Cambridge,ȱ1638)ȱforȱEdwardȱKing.268ȱ

Althoughȱ“Lycidas,”ȱJohnȱMilton’sȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱworkedȱjustȱ cited,ȱJusta EduardoȱKingȱNaufrago,ȱabȱamicisȱmoerentibus,ȱbecomesȱtheȱmodelȱforȱlaterȱwriters toȱmournȱtheȱlossȱofȱfriends,ȱespeciallyȱpoetȱfriends,ȱMiltonȱhadȱbeenȱinvitedȱto writeȱ aȱ poemȱ forȱ theȱ collection,ȱ andȱ theȱ emotionȱ displayedȱ inȱ itȱ is,ȱ therefore, perhapsȱmoreȱconventionalȱthanȱthatȱinȱhisȱelegyȱEpitaphiumȱDamonis,ȱwrittenȱtwo yearsȱ laterȱ aboutȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ hisȱ childhoodȱ friendȱ Diodati,ȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ had clearlyȱexperiencedȱaȱtrue,ȱemotionallyȱchargedȱandȱvirtuousȱfriendship.ȱ“They wereȱpartnersȱonȱaȱdivinelyȱinspiredȱquestȱtowardȱvirtueȱandȱselfȬperfection.”269 Itȱisȱhardȱtoȱjudgeȱtheȱsincerityȱinȱtheȱworksȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimȱfriendshipsȱduring theȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod,ȱbutȱweȱshouldȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱeasyȱto evaluateȱtheȱclaimsȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱinȱearlierȱwriters’ȱworksȱasȱwell. ȱ Ifȱweȱturnȱfromȱliteratureȱtoȱpoliticalȱconsiderations,ȱweȱnoteȱthatȱRenaissance selfhood,ȱ asȱ definedȱ byȱ Stephenȱ Greenblatt,ȱ isȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ anȱ individual’s attemptsȱ toȱ fashionȱ anȱ imageȱ ofȱ aȱ successfulȱ participantȱ inȱ aȱ publicȱ arena.270 Whereasȱmanyȱexamplesȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱusesȱofȱfriendshipȱduringȱtheȱmedieval periodȱhaveȱbeenȱnoted,ȱtheȱcalculationsȱbehindȱfriendshipsȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodern periodȱwhenȱone’sȱchoicesȱofȱfriendsȱwereȱcrucialȱtoȱbuildingȱone’sȱimageȱareȱeven moreȱstriking.ȱEvenȱinȱtheȱlateȱmedievalȱperiod,ȱaccordingȱtoȱWalterȱYsebaert, friendshipȱ hadȱ “acquiredȱ aȱ normativeȱ andȱ bureaucraticȱ character,”ȱ with friendshipsȱ almostȱ resemblingȱ contracts.271ȱ Yet,ȱ asȱ Veraȱ Kellerȱ arguesȱ inȱ this volume,ȱduringȱearlierȱperiods,ȱ“thereȱwasȱnoȱdiscourseȱofȱselfȱinterestȱlikeȱtheȱone whichȱdevelopedȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱseventeenthȱcentury.”272ȱ

268

269 270

271

272

AlastairȱFowler,ȱ“TheȱFormationȱofȱGenresȱinȱtheȱRenaissanceȱandȱAfter,”ȱNewȱLiteraryȱHistory 34.2ȱ(2003):ȱ185Ȭ200;ȱhereȱ187. Chaplin,ȱ“‘OneȱFlesh,ȱOneȱHeart,ȱOneȱSoul,’”ȱ276ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ265). SeeȱtheȱnowȱiconicȱRenaissanceȱSelfȬFashioning:ȱFromȱMoreȱtoȱShakespeareȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱof ChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980). WalterȱYsebaert,ȱ“Friendship,”ȱHandbookȱofȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassenȱ(BerlinȱandȱNew York:ȱ deȱ Gruyter,ȱ forthcoming).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Claudiaȱ Garnier,ȱ Amicusȱ amicisȱ –ȱ inimicusȱ inimicis. PolitischeȱFreundschaftȱundȱfürstlicheȱNetzwerkeȱimȱ13.ȱJahrhundert.ȱMonographienȱzurȱGeschichte desȱMittelalters,ȱ46ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱAntonȱHiersemann,ȱ2000);ȱMichaelȱHicksȱandȱP.ȱS.ȱLewis,ȱ“Decayed andȱNonȬFeudalismȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱFrance,”ȱBulletinȱofȱtheȱInstituteȱofȱHistoricalȱResearch,ȱ37/38 (1964–1965):ȱ157–84. SeeȱVeraȱKeller’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.

Introduction

109

Friendshipȱwasȱaȱveryȱusefulȱtoolȱforȱindividualsȱnotȱonlyȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱfavors friendsȱ mightȱ bestow,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ publicȱ imageȱ friendshipȱ could project.ȱInȱanȱattemptȱtoȱpersuadeȱErasmusȱtoȱvisitȱhimȱinȱEngland,ȱWilliamȱLord MountjoyȱflattersȱhimȱbyȱcitingȱErasmus’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱnewȱKingȱHenry VIII:ȱ“WhatȱmayȱnotȱErasmusȱaugurȱofȱaȱprinceȱwhoseȱadmirableȱdispositionȱisȱso wellȱknownȱtoȱhim—whoseȱfriendshipȱheȱpossesses—andȱfromȱwhomȱErasmus hasȱreceivedȱaȱletterȱwrittenȱwhollyȱwithȱhisȱownȱhand?ȱIfȱheȱcouldȱseeȱhowȱnobly, howȱwisely,ȱtheȱprinceȱbehaves,ȱisȱsureȱheȱwouldȱhastenȱtoȱEngland.”273ȱ England’sȱQueenȱElizabeth,ȱwhoȱthroughȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱpoetry,ȱart,ȱandȱdrama presentedȱ atȱ courtȱ couldȱ makeȱ herȱ concernsȱ quiteȱ clear,ȱ patronizedȱ theȱ boys’ theaterȱ companiesȱ withȱ theirȱ frequentȱ didacticȱ themesȱ onȱ properȱ behaviorȱ for courtiersȱandȱdiplomats,ȱwhichȱincludedȱdisplaysȱofȱfriendship.274ȱUnderscoring theȱqueen’sȱauthority,ȱtheȱplaysȱputȱonȱbyȱtheȱChildrenȱofȱPaul’sȱandȱtheȱChildren ofȱtheȱChapelȱportrayedȱnoblesȱasȱlittleȱboysȱlearning,ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱRichard Edwards’sȱ Chapelȱ playȱ Damonȱ andȱ Pithiasȱ (performedȱ 1564–1565),ȱ toȱ equate friendshipȱwithȱsubmissionȱtoȱaȱruler’sȱwill:ȱ“HowȱhappieȱareȱtheȱmercifullȱPrinces ofȱtheirȱpeopleȱbeloved,ȱ/ȱHavingȱsureȱfriendesȱeueriewheare,ȱnoȱfeareȱdothȱtouch 275 them”ȱ(352–53,ȱsig.ȱC1). ȱWhenȱaȱruler’sȱsubjectsȱareȱhisȱorȱherȱfriends,ȱthereȱis noȱneedȱforȱtyranny. Asȱ theȱ Protestantȱ Reformationȱ forcedȱ Westernȱ Europeȱ toȱ redrawȱ clerical friendshipȱnetworks,ȱitȱalsoȱledȱtoȱnewȱandȱsometimesȱradicalȱviewsȱofȱspiritual friendship.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Gregoryȱ Chaplin,ȱ “Certainȱ humanistȱ andȱ puritan writingsȱ onȱ theȱ familyȱ increasinglyȱ stressedȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ spousesȱ in termsȱcloseȱtoȱthoseȱofȱmaleȱfriendship.”276ȱAlthoughȱnotȱdescribedȱinȱquiteȱthe sameȱ idealisticȱ termsȱ asȱ perfectȱ maleȱ friendships,ȱ marriagesȱ wereȱ sometimes describedȱbyȱhumanistsȱsuchȱasȱErasmusȱasȱpactsȱinȱwhichȱmenȱandȱwomenȱacted asȱfriendsȱasȱwellȱasȱsexualȱpartnersȱandȱparents.277ȱThisȱnewȱviewȱofȱtheȱnuclear familyȱbasedȱonȱfriendshipȱemanatingȱfromȱGodȱthenȱshowsȱupȱinȱpoetry,ȱfor example,ȱfromȱtheȱWestminsterȱSchoolȱandȱChristȱChurchȱOxfordȱcirclesȱwhen

273

274

275

276 277

“HenryȱVIII:ȱMayȱ1509,ȱ16–30,”ȱLettersȱandȱPapers,ȱForeignȱandȱDomestic,ȱHenryȱVIII,ȱVolumeȱ1: 1509–1514ȱ(1920),ȱ24–34,ȱonlineȱat:ȱ http://www.britishȬhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=102617&strquery=friendȱ(lastȱaccessed onȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱSeeȱalsoȱRomanoȱRuggeri,ȱUnȱamicoȱdiȱErasmo:ȱPolidoroȱVirgili.ȱBibliotecaȱdel Rinascimento:ȱDocumentiȱeȱricercheȱ(Urbino:ȱQuattroVenti,ȱ1992). JeanneȱH.ȱMcCarthy,ȱ“ElizabethȱI’sȱ‘pictureȱinȱlittle’:ȱBoyȱCompanyȱRepresentationsȱofȱaȱQueen’s Authority,”ȱStudiesȱinȱPhilologyȱ100.4ȱ(Fallȱ2003):ȱ425–62.ȱ QuotedȱinȱMcCarthy,ȱ“ElizabethȱI’sȱ‘pictureȱinȱlittle,’”ȱ448–50,ȱ460.ȱForȱaȱthoroughȱexamination ofȱtheȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱthatȱmotifȱinȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱearlyȱMiddleȱAges,ȱseeȱErnstȱGegenschatz,ȱ“Die ‘pythagoreischeȱBürgschaft,’”ȱ1981ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ8).ȱ Chaplin,ȱ“‘OneȱFlesh,ȱOneȱHeart,ȱOneȱSoul,’”ȱ190ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ265). TheȱideaȱofȱamicitiaȱbetweenȱhusbandȱandȱwifeȱisȱcentralȱtoȱbothȱofȱDesideriusȱErasmus’sȱworks onȱmarriage:ȱChristianiȱmatrimonijȱinstitutioȱandȱEncomiumȱmatrimonii.

110

Introduction

poetsȱsuchȱasȱHenryȱKingȱandȱNicholasȱOldisworthȱwriteȱaboutȱtheirȱwivesȱas equalsȱandȱfriends.278 Furthermore,ȱasȱAndrewȱCrome’sȱarticleȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱexplains,ȱthoseȱwho arguedȱforȱreadmissionȱofȱJewsȱtoȱEnglandȱinȱ1655ȱevenȱusedȱtheȱtermsȱ“friend” andȱ“friendship”ȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱEngland’sȱChristiansȱand God’sȱchosenȱpeople.ȱToȱbeȱaȱfriendȱtoȱGodȱnowȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱtoȱtheȱJews; throughȱreadmission,ȱEnglandȱcouldȱshowȱGodȱitsȱdepthȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱthe Jewsȱandȱperhapsȱmakeȱupȱforȱitsȱearlierȱmistreatmentȱofȱthem.279 Anotherȱradicalȱnewȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱ“friend”ȱtoȱrepresentȱspiritualȱrelationships developedȱinȱQuakerȱgroups,ȱreferringȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱQuakerȱmen,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱQuaker women.ȱOriginallyȱcalledȱtheȱChildrenȱofȱLightȱorȱFriendsȱofȱTruth,ȱbasedȱonȱthe QuakerȱbeliefȱthatȱChrist’sȱspiritȱlivesȱwithinȱtheȱindividualȱperson,ȱtheseȱbelievers referredȱtoȱthemselves,ȱwhetherȱwomenȱorȱmen,ȱasȱ“Friends”ȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheir sharedȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱLightȱwithin.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱfriendshipȱwasȱprimarilyȱoneȱwith God,ȱQuakersȱblurredȱtheȱlinesȱbetweenȱindividualȱcelebrantsȱtoȱmoveȱtowardsȱan idealȱcommunityȱofȱ“friends/Friends.”ȱSinceȱtheyȱwereȱsaidȱtoȱexperienceȱtheȱsame innerȱtruthȱasȱmen,ȱtheȱsoulȱbeingȱgenderȱneutral,ȱQuakerȱwomenȱwereȱableȱto participateȱ fully,ȱ formingȱ networksȱ ofȱ Friendsȱ thatȱ “helpedȱ fosterȱ aȱ cultureȱ of activeȱwomenȱpreachersȱandȱmissionaries.”280ȱ WhileȱimprisonedȱforȱthreeȱyearsȱbyȱtheȱInquisition,ȱtheȱtwoȱQuakerȱFriends Katharineȱ Evansȱ andȱ Sarahȱ Cheevers,ȱ whoȱ claimȱ thatȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ had becomeȱaȱmarriageȱofȱFriends,ȱwroteȱaȱjointȱtreatiseȱcalledȱ“AȱVision”ȱformed,ȱthey said,ȱfromȱGod’sȱwordsȱbecomingȱwithinȱthemȱoneȱvoice.281ȱDespiteȱquestions aboutȱtheȱeroticȱpossibilitiesȱinherentȱinȱaȱ“marriage,”ȱitȱappearsȱthatȱtheȱwomen’s relationshipȱwithȱeachȱotherȱandȱwithȱGodȱhasȱimportantȱsimilaritiesȱwithȱearly Christianȱviewsȱofȱspiritaliȱamicitia. Nothingȱisȱprobablyȱmoreȱvitalȱtoȱtheȱformationȱofȱhumanȱsocietyȱthanȱourȱability toȱworkȱtogetherȱratherȱthanȱtoȱpreferȱindependenceȱandȱisolation.ȱClearly,ȱthis distinguishingȱhumanȱcharacteristicȱisȱessentialȱasȱwellȱforȱusȱtoȱbeȱableȱtoȱform friendships,ȱwhich,ȱalongȱwithȱfamilyȱstructure,ȱprovideȱtheȱbasicȱinterconnections betweenȱhumans.ȱTheȱpremiseȱthatȱvirtuous,ȱaltruisticȱbehavior,ȱorȱ“friendship” inȱAristotle’sȱterms,ȱisȱpossibleȱunderliesȱmanyȱhumanȱsocialȱstructures.ȱTheȱearly

278

279

280

281

SeeȱJohnȱGows,ȱ“NicholasȱOldisworth,ȱRichardȱBacon,ȱandȱtheȱPracticesȱofȱCarolineȱFriendship,” TexasȱStudiesȱinȱLanguageȱandȱLiteratureȱ47.4ȱ(2005):ȱ366–402;ȱhereȱ373–74. SeeȱAndrewȱCrome,ȱ’“FriendshipȱandȱEnmityȱtoȱGodȱandȱNation:ȱTheȱComplexitiesȱofȱJewishȬ GentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655,”ȱinȱthisȱvolume. RachelȱWarburton,ȱ“‘TheȱLordȱhathȱjoinedȱusȱtogetherȱandȱwoȱbeȱtoȱthemȱthatȱshouldȱpartȱus’: Katharineȱ Evansȱ andȱ Sarahȱ Cheeversȱ asȱ Travelingȱ Friends,”ȱ Texasȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Literatureȱ and Languageȱ47.4ȱ(2005):ȱ405–24;ȱhereȱ410–11.ȱForȱQuakerȱwomenȱfriends,ȱseeȱSandraȱStanleyȱHolton, QuakerȱWomen,ȱ2007ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ203).ȱ Warburton,ȱ“‘TheȱLordȱhathȱjoinedȱusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.,‘”ȱ415ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ280).

Introduction

111

modernȱEnglishȱphilosopherȱandȱpoliticianȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱanȱessay inȱ ourȱ collectionȱ byȱ Stellaȱ Achilleos,ȱ recognizedȱ theȱ centralȱ importanceȱ of friendship,ȱarguingȱinȱhisȱessayȱ“OfȱFriendship”ȱthat weȱmayȱgoȱfurther,ȱandȱaffirmȱmostȱtruly,ȱthatȱitȱisȱaȱmereȱandȱmiserableȱsolitudeȱto wantȱtrueȱfriends;ȱwithoutȱwhichȱtheȱworldȱisȱbutȱaȱwilderness;ȱandȱevenȱinȱthisȱsense alsoȱ ofȱ solitude,ȱ whosoeverȱ inȱ theȱ frameȱ ofȱ hisȱ natureȱ andȱ affections,ȱ isȱ unfitȱ for friendship,ȱheȱtakethȱitȱofȱtheȱbeast,ȱandȱnotȱfromȱhumanity.282

Oneȱotherȱearlyȱmodernȱphilosopherȱinȱparticularȱwasȱdrawnȱtoȱtheȱpotentially advantageousȱroleȱfriendshipȱcouldȱplayȱinȱsociety.ȱWhenȱheȱsetȱoutȱtoȱdeviseȱhis integratedȱ moralȱ system,ȱ Renéȱ Descarteȱ includedȱ friendshipȱ asȱ anȱ essential element.ȱAsȱdescribedȱinȱDiscoursȱandȱinȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱPrincessȱElisabeth, daughterȱofȱFrederickȱV,ȱaboutȱMachiavelli’sȱPrince,ȱDescartesȱsawȱfriendshipȱas theȱobligationȱsomeoneȱowesȱothers,ȱallowingȱproperȱworkingȱofȱaȱsocietyȱbound byȱgenerosity,ȱnotȱaȱcontract.283ȱTimothyȱReissȱsummarizesȱDescarte’sȱviewsȱthis way: Toȱfailȱfriendshipȱwasȱtoȱfailȱsocialȱrenewal.ȱTheȱindividual’sȱinterest,ȱprotectedȱby amity,ȱwasȱthatȱofȱtheȱthinkingȱsubjectȱwhoseȱwillȱallowedȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱMethod. Soȱtoȱfailȱfriendshipȱwasȱtoȱfailȱknowledgeȱofȱtruth,ȱprudence,ȱgoodȱjudgmentȱandȱthe subjectȱagentȱitself.ȱItȱwasȱtoȱopposeȱtheȱcogitioȱandȱwhatȱitȱwasȱtoȱbeȱhumanȱatȱall.284

Asȱlateȱasȱtheȱ1640s,ȱtherefore,ȱEuropeanȱthinkersȱcouldȱstillȱhaveȱfaithȱinȱvirtuous, idealȱfriendship.ȱAlthoughȱJamesȱMcEvoyȱhadȱinȱmindȱsmall,ȱancientȱsocieties whenȱheȱclaimedȱthatȱcertainȱformalȱsocialȱandȱlegalȱinstitutions,ȱsuchȱasȱjudicial systems,ȱbecomeȱunnecessaryȱwhenȱnetworksȱofȱfriendsȱcouldȱtakeȱtheirȱplace, Descarteȱwasȱenvisioningȱaȱmodernȱsocietyȱinȱwhichȱfriendshipȱprovidedȱtheȱlink betweenȱ theȱ individual’sȱ freeȱ willȱ andȱ selfȬinterestȱ andȱ theȱ greaterȱ goodȱ ofȱ a communalȱsociety.285ȱHeȱbelievedȱthatȱtheȱimpulsesȱtowardȱaltruisticȱandȱvirtuous behaviorȱinherentȱinȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbeȱtaughtȱandȱthenȱusedȱtoȱunderlieȱtheȱvast expansionȱofȱformalȱandȱinstitutionalȱstructuresȱinȱhumanȱcivilization.ȱFromȱour earliestȱ literature,ȱ archetypalȱ heroesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ eponymousȱ Gilgameshȱ inȱ the ancientȱSumerianȱepicȱbearingȱthatȱnameȱmustȱlearnȱtheȱkeyȱtypesȱofȱbehaviorȱin friendship—toȱ constrainȱ impulsesȱ toȱ dominateȱ others,ȱ toȱ valueȱ theȱ worthȱ of anotherȱ humanȱ beingȱ similarȱ toȱ himself,ȱ andȱ toȱ shareȱ activitiesȱ withȱ thisȱ likeȬ

282

283

284 285

http://infomotions.com/alex2/authors/baconȬfrancis/baconȬessaysȬ684/#_57649ȱ (lastȱ accessed Augustȱ1,ȱ2010). TimothyȱJ.ȱReiss,ȱMiragesȱofȱtheȱSelfe:ȱPatternsȱofȱPersonhoodȱinȱAncientȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope (Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003),ȱ516. Ibid. Jamesȱ McEvoy,ȱ “Philiaȱ andȱ Amicitia;ȱ theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ fromȱ Platoȱ toȱ Aquinas,” SewaneeȱMediaevalȱColloquiumȱ2ȱ(1985):ȱ1Ȭ23;ȱhereȱ2.

112

Introduction

mindedȱ person;ȱ thus,ȱ beforeȱ heȱ learnsȱ hisȱ secondȱ bigȱ lesson,ȱ toȱ acceptȱ human mortality,ȱheȱlearnsȱtoȱbehaveȱasȱaȱfriend.ȱ MoreȱthanȱfourȱthousandȱyearsȱagoȱinȱtheȱTigrisȬEuphratesȱriverȱvalleys,ȱthis mythologicalȱnarrativeȱdescribesȱtheȱwayȱtheȱskyȬgodȱAnu,ȱatȱtheȱrequestȱofȱthe people,ȱsendsȱGilgameshȱsomeoneȱsaidȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriend,ȱsomeoneȱworthyȱofȱhimȱto convinceȱhimȱtoȱreformȱhisȱbehaviorȱandȱtoȱmoderateȱhisȱsexualȱdesiresȱsoȱthat everyoneȱcouldȱenjoyȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱcivilization.286ȱThisȱsameȱidealȱappealedȱtoȱearly modernȱwriters,ȱreaders,ȱchurchȱleaders,ȱandȱphilosophersȱinȱEngland,ȱIȱargue,ȱas theyȱturnedȱtoȱclassicalȱworksȱforȱhelpȱreorientingȱthemselvesȱinȱaȱworldȱtornȱapart byȱreligiousȱstrifeȱandȱthenȱcivilȱwar.

V.ȱTheȱOpinionȱofȱtheȱEncyclopedists: AtȱtheȱThresholdȱofȱModernity WhenȱweȱturnȱtoȱearlyȬmodernȱencyclopedias,ȱweȱfindȱonlyȱlimitedȱinterestȱinȱthe topicȱofȱfriendship,ȱasȱifȱtheȱurgencyȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱitȱhadȱpassedȱaway.ȱIn theȱ respectiveȱ volumeȱ ofȱ theȱ famousȱ Encyclopedieȱ ouȱ Dictionnaireȱ raisonnéȱ by DiderotȱandȱD’Alembertȱfromȱ1751ȱfriendshipȱisȱdefinedȱasȱfollows:ȱ“L’amitiéȱn’est autreȱ choseȱ queȱ l’habitudeȱ d’entretenirȱ avecȱ quelqu’unȱ unȱ commerceȱ honnêteeȱ & agréable”ȱ(Friendshipȱisȱnoȱotherȱmatterȱthanȱtheȱhabitȱofȱentertainingȱanȱhonorable andȱagreeableȱrelationshipȱwithȱsomeone).287ȱThen,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱtextȱdifferentiates moreȱ specifically:ȱ “Leȱ commerceȱ queȱ nousȱ pouvonsȱ avoirȱ avecȱ lesȱ hommes, regardeȱouȱl’espritȱouȱleȱcœur:ȱleȱpurȱcommerceȱdeȱl’espritȱs’appelleȱsimplement connoissance;ȱ leȱ commerceȱ leȱ cœurȱ s’intéresseȱ parȱ l’agrémentȱ qu’ilȱ enȱ tire,ȱ est amitié!”ȱ(361;ȱTheȱrelationshipȱweȱcanȱenjoyȱwithȱpeopleȱpertainsȱeitherȱtoȱtheȱmind orȱtoȱtheȱheart:ȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱtheȱmindȱaloneȱisȱsimplyȱcalledȱacquaintance; theȱrelationshipȱthroughȱtheȱheart,ȱwhichȱisȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱpleasureȱoneȱcan deriveȱfromȱit,ȱisȱfriendship).ȱ This,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ sameȱ asȱ charityȱ whichȱ aimsȱ toȱ doȱ goodȱ forȱ all. Friendship,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱreliesȱonȱcharity,ȱinȱfact,ȱitȱisȱbeingȱpredicatedȱon it,ȱandȱ“ajoûteȱuneȱhabitudeȱdeȱliaisonȱparticuliere,ȱquiȱfaitȱentreȱdeuxȱpersonnes unȱagrémentȱdeȱcommerceȱmutuel”ȱ(ibid.;ȱaddsȱaȱhabitȱofȱaȱpersonalȱattachment whichȱmakesȱaȱpleasureȱofȱmutualȱcommerceȱbetweenȱtwoȱpeople).ȱPeopleȱwho 286 287

TheȱEpicȱofȱGilgamesh,ȱtrans.ȱMaureenȱGalleryȱKovacsȱ(Stanford:ȱStanfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990). Encyclopédie,ȱouȱDictionnaireȱraisonnéȱdesȱsciences,ȱdesȱartsȱetȱdesȱmétiers,ȱparȱuneȱsociétéȱdeȱgensȱde lettres.ȱMisȱenȱordreȱ&ȱpubliéȱparȱM.ȱDiderotȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,ȱparȱM.ȱD’Alembert.ȱVol.ȱ1ȱ(Paris:ȱBriasson, David,ȱetȱal.,ȱ1751),ȱ361.ȱForȱtranslationȱhelpȱandȱsearchȱoptionsȱregardingȱthisȱencyclopedia,ȱsee http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/index.htmlȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010).ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpress thanksȱtoȱmyȱcolleagueȱElizabethȱChesneyȱZegura,ȱDept.ȱofȱFrenchȱandȱItalian,ȱTheȱUniversityȱof Arizona,ȱforȱherȱassistanceȱinȱfineȬtuningȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslations.ȱ

Introduction

113

trulyȱsearchȱforȱfriendsȱtakeȱaȱslowȱandȱconsiderateȱapproach:ȱ“C’estȱleȱcaractere desȱ hommesȱ deȱ s’approprierȱ peuȱ àȱ peuȱ jusqu’auxȱ gracesȱ qu’onȱ leurȱ fait;ȱ une longueȱpossessionȱaccoûtumeȱnaturellementȱàȱregarderȱcommeȱsiennesȱlesȱchoses qu’onȱ tientȱ d’autrui”ȱ (ibid.;ȱ Itȱ isȱ man’sȱ characterȱ toȱ appropriateȱ thingsȱ for themselvesȱbitȱbyȱbitȱincludingȱtheȱfavorsȱthatȱoneȱgrantsȱthem;ȱhavingȱaȱlongȬtime controlȱoverȱthingsȱthatȱoneȱhasȱreceivedȱfromȱothersȱgetsȱoneȱnaturallyȱusedȱto regardȱthoseȱasȱone’sȱown).ȱ Theȱdesireȱforȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱnaturalȱinstinct,ȱbutȱifȱfacesȱnumerousȱchallenges andȱbarriers:ȱ“onȱvoudroitȱs’enȱformerȱunȱtitreȱpourȱlesȱgouverner;ȱlorsqueȱces prétensionsȱsontȱréciproques,ȱcommeȱilȱarriveȱsouvent,ȱl’amourȱpropreȱs’irrite,ȱcrie desȱdeuxȱcôtés,ȱ&ȱproduitȱdeȱl’aigreur,ȱdesȱfroideurs,ȱdesȱexplicationsȱameres,ȱ& laȱrupture”ȱ(ibid.;ȱHeȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱmakeȱitȱintoȱaȱrightȱforȱhimselfȱtoȱcontrolȱthem. Whenȱtheseȱclaimsȱareȱreciprocal,ȱasȱoftenȱhappens,ȱvanityȱisȱaroused,ȱcriesȱoutȱon bothȱsides,ȱandȱproducesȱharshness,ȱcoolness,ȱbitterȱexplanations,ȱandȱrupture) Peopleȱwithȱextremeȱcharactersȱwouldȱhaveȱaȱhardȱtimeȱfindingȱfriends,ȱwhile thoseȱofȱaȱmilderȱnatureȱunderstandȱandȱappreciateȱtheȱsweetȱvaluesȱofȱfriendship (362).ȱMoreover,ȱasȱweȱthenȱread:”Unȱamiȱqueȱl’onȱauraȱcultivéȱpourȱlaȱdouceur &ȱl’agrémentȱdeȱsonȱentretien,ȱexigeȱdeȱvousȱunȱserviceȱquiȱintéresseroitȱvotre fortune;ȱl’amicitéȱn’étoitȱpointȱd’unȱdegréȱàȱmériterȱunȱtelȱsacrifice”ȱ(362;ȱAȱfriend whomȱ oneȱ hasȱ cultivatedȱ forȱ theȱ sweetnessȱ andȱ pleasureȱ ofȱ hisȱ conversation requiresȱofȱyouȱaȱserviceȱthatȱinvolvesȱyourȱfortune.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱwasȱnotȱofȱa degreeȱtoȱwarrantȱsuchȱaȱsacrifice).ȱTheȱrightȱmeasureȱtoȱdetermineȱtrueȱfriendship consistsȱofȱanȱequalȱexchangeȱandȱaȱkindȱofȱlovingȱrelationship:ȱ“ilȱfautȱqueȱl’un dansȱ sonȱ besoinȱ attendeȱ ouȱ exigeȱ toûjoursȱ moinsȱ queȱ plusȱ deȱ sonȱ ami,ȱ &ȱ que l’autreȱselonȱsesȱfacultésȱdonneȱtoûjoursȱàȱsonȱamiȱplusȱqueȱmoins”ȱ(ibid.;ȱitȱwould beȱappropriateȱthatȱoneȱalwaysȱpaysȱlessȱattentionȱorȱdemandsȱlessȱforȱoneselfȱthan forȱhisȱfriend). Socialȱdifferencesȱshouldȱnotȱmatter,ȱwhereasȱaȱsharedȱ“libertéȱdeȱsentimentȱ& deȱlangageȱaussiȱgrande,ȱqueȱsiȱl’unȱdesȱdeuxȱn’étoitȱpointȱsupérieurs,ȱniȱl’autre inférieur.ȱL’égalitéȱdoitȱseȱtrouverȱdeȱpartȱ&ȱd’autre,ȱdansȱlaȱdouceurȱduȱcommerce deȱl’amitié;ȱcetteȱdouceurȱestȱdeȱseȱproposerȱmutuellementȱsesȱpensées,ȱsesȱgoûts, sesȱdoutes,ȱsesȱdifficultés;ȱmaisȱtoûjoursȱdansȱlaȱsphereȱduȱcaractereȱdeȱl’amitiéȱqui estȱétabli”ȱ(ibid.;ȱsuchȱgreatȱfreedomȱinȱfeelingsȱandȱlanguageȱthatȱoneȱofȱtheȱtwo isȱnotȱatȱallȱsuperior,ȱnorȱtheȱotherȱinferior.ȱEqualityȱmustȱbeȱfoundȱinȱbothȱof them,ȱthatȱis,ȱinȱtheȱsweetnessȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱofȱfriendship.ȱThisȱsweetness consistsȱ ofȱ sharingȱ mutuallyȱ one’sȱ thoughts,ȱ one’sȱ tastes,ȱ one’sȱ doubts,ȱ one’s difficulties,ȱandȱthisȱalwaysȱinȱtheȱsphereȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱoneȱhasȱestablished).ȱ Theseȱareȱgeneralȱphilosophicalȱruminations,ȱwithoutȱanyȱreferenceȱtoȱAristotle, Cicero,ȱAelred,ȱorȱThomasȱAquinas,ȱandȱweȱalsoȱdoȱnotȱhearȱofȱMontaigne,ȱBacon, orȱHerbert.ȱFriendshipȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱmatterȱofȱsocialȱnegotiations,ȱifȱnotȱofȱaȱsocial contract,ȱandȱtheȱauthorȱadmonishesȱtheȱreader:ȱ“L’amitiéȱneȱmetȱpasȱplusȱd’égalité

114

Introduction

queȱleȱrapportȱduȱsangȱlaȱparentéȱentreȱdesȱparensȱd’unȱrangȱfortȱdifférent,ȱne permetȱpasȱcertaineȱfamiliaritéȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱC’estȱqueȱl’airȱdeȱfamiliaritéȱneȱconvenoitȱpas auȱrespectȱdûȱauȱrangȱduȱPrince;ȱ&ȱceȱsontȱdesȱattentionsȱdansȱl’amitié,ȱcomme dansȱ laȱ parenté,ȱ auquellesȱ ilȱ neȱ fautȱ pasȱ manquer”ȱ (ibid.;ȱ Friendshipȱ doesȱ not implyȱmoreȱequalityȱthanȱbloodȱrelation.ȱTheȱrelationȱbetweenȱrelativesȱofȱvery differentȱ ranksȱ doesȱ notȱ allowȱ forȱ aȱ certainȱ familiarity.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Itȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ airȱ of familiarityȱisȱnotȱsuitableȱtoȱtheȱrespectȱdueȱtoȱtheȱrankȱofȱtheȱruler,ȱandȱtheseȱare considerationsȱthat,ȱinȱfriendship,ȱasȱinȱkinship,ȱmustȱnotȱbeȱoverlooked). TheȱEncyclopædiaȱBritannicaȱfromȱ1779ȱhasȱnotȱmuchȱtoȱsayȱaboutȱfriendshipȱand limitsȱitselfȱtoȱtheȱalmostȱmeaninglessȱdefinition:ȱ“aȱstateȱofȱmutualȱgoodȬwill,ȱor desireȱofȱdoingȱgoodȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱbetwixtȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱindividuals.”288ȱWeȱare thenȱaskedȱtoȱmoveȱtoȱtheȱentryȱonȱmorals,ȱorȱmoralȱphilosophy.ȱButȱthereȱweȱonly learnȱ aboutȱ theȱ naturalȱ growthȱ fromȱ childhoodȱ toȱ theȱ teenageȱ years:ȱ “Inȱ this turbulentȱ periodȱ heȱ entersȱ moreȱ deeplyȱ intoȱ aȱ relishȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ company, exercise,ȱandȱdiversions,ȱtheȱloveȱofȱtruth,ȱofȱimitation,ȱandȱofȱdesign,ȱgrowsȱupon himȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”289ȱ Maturityȱisȱfinallyȱreachedȱaȱfewȱyearsȱlater,ȱandȱitȱisȱalsoȱassociatedȱwithȱtrue friendship:ȱ“heȱformsȱmoreȱintimateȱfriendships,ȱgraspsȱatȱpower,ȱcourtsȱhonour, laysȱdownȱcoolerȱplansȱofȱinterest,ȱandȱbecomesȱmoreȱattentiveȱtoȱtheȱconcernsȱof society”ȱ (280).ȱ However,ȱ theȱ authorȱ alsoȱ citesȱ aȱ varietyȱ ofȱ opinionsȱ regarding friendshipȱ thatȱ signalȱ howȱ littleȱ itȱ isȱ worthȱ toȱ deserveȱ anyȱ respectȱ anyȱ longer: “Thereȱare,ȱindeed,ȱmenȱwhoȱaffirmȱthatȱallȱbenevolenceȱisȱhypocrisy,ȱfriendship aȱcheat,ȱpublicȱspiritȱaȱfarce,ȱfidelityȱaȱsnareȱtoȱprocureȱtrustȱandȱconfidenceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Othersȱagain,ȱtooȱvirtuousȱtoȱaccuseȱthemselvesȱandȱallȱmankindȱofȱdirectȱknavery, yetȱinsist,ȱthatȱwhateverȱaffectionȱoneȱmayȱfeel,ȱorȱimagineȱheȱfeels,ȱforȱothers,ȱno passionȱisȱorȱcanȱbeȱdisinterested;ȱthatȱtheȱmostȱgenerousȱfriendship,ȱhowever sincere,ȱisȱonlyȱaȱmodificationȱofȱselfȬlove”ȱ(281).ȱ Citingȱ onlyȱ thoseȱ sources,ȱ andȱ notȱ anyȱ thatȱ wouldȱ stillȱ defineȱ orȱ defend friendshipȱinȱthisȱcontext,ȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱmostȱdisturbing,ȱandȱsignals,ȱonceȱagain, thatȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendship,ȱindeed,ȱcanȱbeȱusedȱasȱaȱfundamentalȱmarkerȱofȱa paradigmȱ shift.ȱ Theȱ writerȱ isȱ willingȱ toȱ admitȱ thatȱ weȱ stillȱ admireȱ “social affections,ȱasȱcompassion,ȱnaturalȱaffection,ȱfriendship,ȱbenevolence,ȱandȱtheȱlike” (285),ȱbutȱthereȱisȱnoȱfurtherȱinterestȱinȱinvestigatingȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱfriendship perȱseȱonȱaȱlargerȱscaleȱorȱfromȱaȱphilosophicalȱperspective. InȱtheȱhugeȱencyclopediaȱbyȱJohannȱGeorgȱKrünitzȱ(vol.ȱ15,ȱ1778)ȱweȱobserve alreadyȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱlimitȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱanȱelaborationȱofȱthe terminology,ȱsoȱasȱtoȱconnectingȱfriendshipȱwithȱbloodȱrelationshipȱandȱfamily,

288

289

EncyclopædiaȱBritannica;ȱorȱaȱDictionaryȱofȱArts,ȱSciences,ȱ&.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ3rdȱed.ȱVol.ȱIVȱ(Edinburgh:ȱJ.ȱBalfour andȱCo.ȱW.ȱGordon,ȱetȱal.,ȱ1779),ȱ3133. EncyclopaediaȱBritannica,ȱvol.ȱXIIȱ(Edinburgh:ȱA.ȱBellȱandȱC.ȱMacfarquhar,ȱ1797),ȱ279.

Introduction

115

withȱeroticȱlove,ȱacquaintance,ȱalthoughȱweȱstillȱlearnȱofȱaȱconceptȱofȱfriendship inȱtheȱethicalȱsense:ȱ“DerȱNeigungȱnach,ȱeineȱPerson,ȱdieȱmanȱliebt,ȱderenȱBeßtes manȱzuȱbefoe rdernȱsucht,ȱohneȱRue cksichtȱaufȱdasȱGeschlecht”ȱ(Accordingȱtoȱthe inclination,ȱ aȱ personȱ whomȱ oneȱ loves,ȱ whoseȱ advantageȱ oneȱ triesȱ toȱ promote, irrespectiveȱ ofȱ theȱ gender).290ȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ asȱ heȱ emphasizes,ȱ manyȱ people generallyȱcallȱthoseȱfriendsȱwithȱwhomȱtheyȱentertainȱregularȱbusinessȱorȱhave otherȱaffairsȱwithȱthem.ȱ Laterȱscholarsȱcontributingȱtoȱencyclopediasȱmostlyȱpursueȱonlyȱaȱhistoricalȱor linguisticȱorientationȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱrangeȱofȱmeaningsȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱterm ‘friendship.’ȱ Ferdinandȱ Wachter,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ hisȱ entryȱ toȱ theȱ Allgemeine EncyclopaedieȱderȱWissenschaftenȱundȱKuensteȱ(1849)ȱlimitsȱhisȱinterestȱinȱtheȱtopicȱto theȱquestionȱwhereȱtheȱtermȱappearsȱinȱmedievalȱliteraryȱtextsȱandȱhowȱmuch ‘friendship’ȱcouldȱactuallyȱimplyȱbloodȱrelationship,ȱcompanionship,ȱorȱpolitical contacts,ȱwhereasȱtheȱethicalȱdimensionȱofȱfriendshipȱhardlyȱfindsȱanyȱattention.291 Inȱfact,ȱheȱconsidersȱfriendshipȱonlyȱinȱtermsȱofȱetymology,ȱnotȱasȱanȱethicalȱvalue.ȱ So,ȱ altogether,ȱ someȱ mightȱ speculate,ȱ atȱ theȱ riskȱ ofȱ ignoringȱ aȱ plethoraȱ of additionalȱmodernȱliteratureȱandȱencyclopedias,ȱthatȱfriendshipȱcertainlyȱplayed aȱcentralȱroleȱinȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱandȱthenȱsomewhatȱstillȱinȱthe earlyȱ modernȱ age,ȱ whereasȱ attemptsȱ byȱ Schillerȱ andȱ othersȱ toȱ reviveȱ that traditionalȱ idealȱ mightȱ wellȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ lastȱ gaspsȱ ofȱ aȱ failedȱ ideologyȱ and strategy.ȱPerhapsȱtheȱtestimonyȱofȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱwomenȱwritersȱmightȱhelp usȱtoȱcontradictȱthatȱimpression,ȱalthoughȱweȱdoȱnotȱreallyȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱkindȱof profoundȱtheoreticalȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱphenomenonȱitselfȱasȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.292 Thisȱisȱnotȱtoȱsayȱthatȱpeopleȱnoȱlongerȱenjoyȱfriendshipȱtoday,ȱbutȱitȱmightȱwell haveȱturnedȱintoȱaȱutilitarian,ȱpragmaticȱrelationship,ȱwhereasȱtheȱwritersȱweȱhave consideredȱ soȱ farȱ regardedȱ itȱ primarilyȱ asȱ theȱ springboardȱ toȱ God.ȱ Asȱ aȱ final afterthought,ȱifȱweȱturnȱtoȱlateȱtwentiethȬcenturyȱsocialistȱstatements,ȱweȱcome acrossȱtheȱratherȱamazingȱcommentȱinȱtheȱGreatȱSovietȱEncyclopedia:ȱ“Communist moralityȱ regardsȱ friendshipȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ moralȱ feelingsȱ and relationshipsȱofȱtheȱpersonality.ȱClassȬantagonisticȱsociety,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱpeople’s interestsȱareȱdissociatedȱandȱ‘surrogatesȱofȱcollectivity’ȱ(K.ȱMarx)ȱareȱsubstituted forȱ theȱ freeȱ associationȱ ofȱ people,ȱ placesȱ itsȱ membersȱ inȱ mutuallyȱ hostile relationships.ȱInȱsocialistȱsociety,ȱpersonalȱfriendlyȱattachmentsȱareȱnot,ȱasȱaȱrule,

290

291

292

JohannȱGeorgȱKrue nitz,ȱOeconomischeȱEncyclopae die,ȱoderȱallgemeinesȱSystemȱderȱStaats=Stadt=Haus= u.ȱLandtwirthschaft.ȱVol.ȱ15ȱ(Berlin:ȱJoachimȱPauli,ȱ1778),ȱ30. FerdinandȱWachter,ȱ“Freund,”ȱAllgemeineȱEncyclopaedieȱderȱWissenschaftenȱundȱKuenste,ȱed.ȱJ.ȱS. ErschȱandȱJ.ȱG.ȱGruber.ȱFirstȱSection.ȱAȬG,ȱed.ȱJ.ȱG.ȱGruber.ȱVolȱ49ȱ(Leipzig:ȱF.ȱA.ȱBrockhaus,ȱ1849), 172–77. Lillianȱ Faderman,ȱ Surpassingȱ theȱ Loveȱ ofȱ Men,ȱ 1981ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 202);ȱ Paulaȱ R.ȱ Backscheider, EighteenthȬCenturyȱWomenȱPoetsȱandȱTheirȱPoetry:ȱInventingȱAgency,ȱInventingȱGenreȱ(Baltimore: JohnsȱHopkinsȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005).

116

Introduction

opposedȱtoȱaȱsystemȱofȱsocialȱties,ȱbut,ȱbeingȱbasedȱonȱcommonȱviewpointsȱand ideals,ȱ supplementȱ theseȱ tiesȱ andȱ giveȱ themȱ concreteȱ expression.ȱ Theȱ moral evaluationȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱitsȱsocialȱimpactȱandȱtheȱvaluesȱthatȱit affirms.ȱ Classicalȱ examplesȱ ofȱ trueȱ andȱ highȬprincipledȱ friendshipȱ (Marxȱ and Engels,ȱA.ȱI.ȱHerzenȱandȱN.ȱP.ȱOgarev)ȱstillȱserveȱtodayȱasȱmodelsȱofȱmorality.”293 ȱSomeȱofȱtheȱmedievalȱauthorsȱwouldȱhaveȱcertainlyȱagreedȱwithȱthatȱposition, withȱtheȱprovisoȱonlyȱthatȱtheȱepithetȱ‘social’ȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱreplacedȱbyȱthe nounȱ‘God.’ȱTheȱentryȱonȱ‘friend’ȱinȱtheȱOxfordȱEnglishȱDictionaryȱconfirmsȱthatȱwe canȱtraceȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱthisȱphenomenonȱthroughoutȱtheȱages:ȱ“[Com.ȱTeut.:ȱOE. fréondȱstr.ȱmasc.ȱ=ȱOFris.,ȱOS.ȱfriund,ȱfriondȱ(Du.ȱvriend),ȱOHG.ȱfriuntȱ(MHG. vriunt,ȱmod.Ger.ȱfreund),ȱON.ȱ(withȱchangeȱofȱdeclensionȱinȱsing.)ȱfr{aeacu}nde (Sw.ȱfrände,ȱDa.ȱfrænde),ȱGoth.ȱfrijônds;ȱtheȱpr.ȱpple.ȱofȱtheȱOTeut.ȱvb.ȱ*frijôjanȱto loveȱ(OE.ȱfréo{asg}an,ȱfréon,ȱGoth.ȱfrijôn;ȱtheȱGer.ȱfreien,ȱDu.ȱvrijenȱtoȱwoo,ȱandȱthe rareȱ ON.ȱ friáȱ toȱ caress,ȱ areȱ prob.ȱ notȱ identical,ȱ thoughȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ root),ȱ f. preȬTeut.ȱ*priyoȬȱdear:ȱseeȱFREEȱa.].”ȱ Hereȱisȱaȱlistȱofȱrelevantȱsourcesȱwhereȱtheȱtermȱappears,ȱagainȱaccordingȱtoȱthe OED:ȱBeowulfȱ1018ȱ(Gr.)ȱHeorotȱinnanȱwæsȱfreondumȱafylled.ȱa1000ȱCædmonȇs Gen.ȱ 2025ȱ {Th}aȱ {th}ætȱ inwitspellȱ Abrahamȱ sæ{asg}deȱ freondumȱ sinum.ȱ c1200 ORMINȱ17960,ȱ&ȱwhaseȱissȱ{th}attȱbridgumessȱfrend,ȱHeȱstanntȱwi{th}{th}ȱhimm. c1205ȱLAY.ȱ703ȱ{Ygh}eȱsculen..beonȱmineȱleofeȱfreond.ȱc1305ȱPilateȱ98Ȭ9ȱinȱE.E.P. (1862)ȱ114ȱGodeȱfreondȱhiȱwereȱForȱtueiȱschrewenȱwolle{th}ȱfreondȱbeo.ȱc1400 Destr.ȱTroyȱ8523ȱHoȱwasȱvnkyndlyȱtoȱknawȱofȱhirȱkydȱfrendis.ȱ1484ȱCAXTON FablesȱofȱÆsopȱIII.ȱxiii,ȱAȱtreweȱfrendȱisȱoftymeȱbetterȱatȱaȱnedeȱthanȱaȱRoyalme. 1557ȱ Tottelȇsȱ Misc.ȱ (Arb.)ȱ 185ȱ Aȱ faythfullȱ frendeȱ isȱ thingȱ mostȱ worth.ȱ c1651 HOBBESȱRhet.ȱ(1840)ȱ455ȱAȱfriendȱisȱheȱthatȱloves,ȱandȱheȱthatȱisȱbeloved.ȱ1768Ȭ74 TUCKERȱLt.ȱNat.ȱ(1852)ȱII.ȱ310ȱIfȱweȱobserveȱtheȱcommonȱdiscoursesȱofȱmankind, weȱshallȱfindȱaȱfriendȱtoȱbeȱoneȱweȱfrequentlyȱvisit,ȱwhoȱisȱourȱboonȱcompanion, orȱjoinsȱwithȱusȱinȱourȱpleasuresȱandȱdiversions,ȱorȱ[etc.].ȱ1801ȱSOUTHEYȱThalaba VIII.ȱi,ȱTheȱsoundȱofȱhisȱdearȱnativeȱtongueȱMayȱbeȱlikeȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱaȱfriend.ȱ1881 BESANTȱ&ȱRICEȱChapl.ȱFleetȱI.ȱ91ȱTheȱdoctorȱisȱaȱprivateȱfriendȱofȱtheȱdean.”294ȱ Thisȱdoesȱ notȱ necessarilyȱmeanȱthatȱfriendshipȱwasȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱeachȱand everyȱoneȱtextȱmentionedȱhere,ȱbutȱweȱcanȱbeȱcertain,ȱinȱlightȱofȱthatȱevidenceȱthat theȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ ofȱ centralȱ relevanceȱ throughoutȱ theȱ ages, sometimesȱless,ȱsometimesȱmoreȱintensive.ȱUltimately,ȱhowever,ȱweȱstillȱcanȱclaim,

293

294

I.ȱS.ȱKon,ȱ“Friendship,”ȱGreatȱSovietȱEncyclopedia.ȱAȱtrans.ȱofȱtheȱthirdȱed.,ȱed.ȱA.ȱM.ȱProkhorov (1970;ȱNewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱMacmillanȱandȱCollierȱMacmillan,ȱ1975),ȱ511–12;ȱhereȱ512. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50089947?query_type=word&queryword=friend&first=1& max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=Y4v7ȬKt7TFkȬ2636&hilite=500 89947ȱ (lastȱ accessedȱ onȱ Aug.ȱ 1,2010).ȱ Anotherȱ goodȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ historicalȱ depthȱ ofȱ the discourseȱonȱfriendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱJacobȱGrimmȱandȱWilhelmȱGrimm,ȱDeutschesȱWörterbuch. Vol.ȱ4.1,ȱ2ndȱhalf:ȱForschelȬGefolgsmannȱ(Leipzig:ȱS.ȱHirzel,ȱ1878).ȱ161–64.

Introduction

117

Iȱbelieve,ȱthatȱtheȱidealistic,ȱethicalȱvalueȱofȱfriendshipȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱenjoyedȱmore respectȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱthanȱinȱtheȱsubsequentȱcenturiesȱwhenȱrationalism, relativism,ȱ andȱ cynicismȱ underminedȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ traditionalȱ characteristics. Nevertheless,ȱasȱWaltherȱvonȱderȱVogelweide’sȱtestimony,ȱamongȱmanyȱothers, alreadyȱ indicated,ȱ thoseȱ investedȱ inȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ wereȱ alreadyȱ fully awareȱofȱitsȱfragileȱnatureȱandȱtheȱgreatȱneedȱtoȱinvestȱeveryȱpowerȱtheȱindividual mightȱhaveȱavailableȱtoȱmaintainȱtheȱhighȱstandardsȱofȱmoralȱandȱethicalȱbehavior toȱliveȱupȱtoȱthatȱideal.

W.ȱSomeȱConcludingȱRemarksȱ Asȱ hasȱ becomeȱ quiteȱ apparentȱ throughoutȱ ourȱ Introduction,ȱ despiteȱ aȱ certain declineȱ inȱ theȱ philosophicalȱ discussions,ȱ theȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ has continued,ȱ andȱ thereȱ areȱ countlessȱ leadsȱ fromȱ theȱ lateȱ antiquityȱ throughȱ the Middleȱ Agesȱ andȱ farȱ beyondȱ focusingȱ onȱ theȱ ethical,ȱ moral,ȱ religious,ȱ and philosophicalȱsignificanceȱofȱfriendship.ȱAfterȱall,ȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱbelongs toȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ inȱ humanȱ lifeȱ andȱ hasȱ thereforeȱ regularly attractedȱ farȬreachingȱ andȱ ponderousȱ philosophicalȱ ruminations.ȱ Whether friendshipȱcontinuesȱtoȱholdȱtheȱsameȱvalueȱtodayȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱtheȱtopicȱof otherȱinvestigations,ȱthoughȱIȱamȱcertainȱthatȱtheȱmodern/postmodernȱworldȱhas movedȱconsiderablyȱbeyondȱtheȱtraditionalȱvalueȱsystem,ȱincludingȱfriendship,ȱas embracedȱbyȱintellectualsȱthroughoutȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱMiddleȱAges. Altogether,ȱ weȱ canȱ concludeȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ centralȱ human values,ȱ andȱ thisȱ throughoutȱ timesȱ inȱ virtuallyȱ allȱ cultures,ȱ languages,ȱ and religions,ȱ servingȱ asȱ anȱ extraordinarilyȱ richȱ andȱ complexȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ a communicativeȱcommunity.ȱFriendshipȱhasȱspecificallyȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱmirrorȱof Westernȱ culture—andȱ probablyȱ Easternȱ asȱ well—untilȱ today.ȱ Virtuallyȱ every majorȱthinker,ȱwriter,ȱartist,ȱorȱcomposerȱhasȱacceptedȱtheȱsupremeȱimportanceȱof friendshipȱforȱhumanȱlife.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱeachȱageȱhasȱpursuedȱaȱsomewhatȱdifferent approachȱ toȱ thisȱ centralȱ concept,ȱ andȱ byȱ tracingȱ thoseȱ variances,ȱ individual positions,ȱandȱtheȱglobalȱdiscourseȱweȱcanȱsafelyȱassumeȱthatȱweȱwillȱgainȱthereby aȱmajorȱfootholdȱinȱtheȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱcourseȱofȱWesternȱcivilization,ȱbothȱin theȱ secularȱ andȱ theȱ religiousȱ domain.ȱ Friendshipȱ hasȱ commonlyȱ servedȱ asȱ the platformȱforȱpoliticalȱrelationships,ȱbothȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtoday.295ȱ Itȱwasȱtheȱmediumȱforȱphilosophicalȱexchanges,ȱforȱreligiousȱconversations,ȱfor artisticȱdiscussions,ȱandȱyetȱitȱhasȱalsoȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱmostȱpersonal,ȱintimate,ȱyet powerfulȱ andȱ confidenceȱ buildingȱ aspectȱ inȱ humanȱ existence.ȱ Perhapsȱ not surprisingly,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ above,ȱ alreadyȱ asȱ earlyȱ asȱ inȱ lateȱ antiquity 295

ClaudiaȱGarnier,ȱAmicusȱamicis,ȱinimicusȱinimicis,ȱ2000ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ271).

118

Introduction

individualsȱenjoyedȱaȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱanimals,ȱbothȱpetsȱandȱwildȱbeasts, whichȱsignalsȱtoȱusȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱreallyȱcouldȱexpressȱitselfȱinȱa varietyȱofȱmanifestationsȱandȱthatȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbeȱdirectedȱbothȱtoȱpeopleȱand animals.ȱ Losingȱaȱrealȱfriendȱcanȱbeȱasȱdevastatingȱasȱwinningȱaȱnewȱfriendȱcanȱelevate oneȱtoȱaȱhigherȱlevelȱofȱhappiness,ȱevenȱinȱaȱphilosophicalȱandȱreligiousȱsense. Throughȱfriendshipȱpeopleȱhaveȱdiscoveredȱtheirȱownȱspirit,ȱandȱatȱtimesȱeven foundȱtheirȱwayȱtoȱGod.ȱNoȱfriendshipȱisȱlikeȱanyȱother,ȱandȱyetȱtheyȱallȱshare centralȱelementsȱandȱkeyȱvalues.ȱWeȱcanȱdefineȱtheȱcharacterȱofȱindividualsȱand ofȱ societiesȱ byȱ investigatingȱ theirȱ approachȱ toȱ andȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ friendship.296 Whereasȱcourtlyȱloveȱhasȱtraditionallyȱbeenȱidentifiedȱasȱtheȱbedrockȱofȱmedieval courtlyȱ society,ȱ weȱ areȱ nowȱ inȱ aȱ goodȱ positionȱ toȱ addȱ friendshipȱ asȱ theȱ most important,ȱsomehowȱcomplementaryȱvalueȱdeterminingȱallȱsocialȱrelationships duringȱthatȱperiod.ȱFriendshipȱcontinuedȱtoȱenjoyȱgreatȱsignificanceȱinȱsubsequent centuriesȱ asȱ well,ȱ but,ȱ asȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ theȱ contributorsȱ toȱ thisȱ volumeȱ note, problems,ȱformsȱofȱabuse,ȱlackȱofȱtrueȱadherenceȱtoȱtheȱideal,ȱandȱotherȱissues becameȱ moreȱ andȱ moreȱ noticeable.ȱ Weȱ areȱ stillȱ talkingȱ aboutȱ friendshipȱ and embraceȱourȱfriends,ȱbutȱinȱaȱwayȱtheȱlinkȱtoȱtheȱschoolsȱofȱthoughtȱadvocatedȱby Aristotle,ȱCicero,ȱandȱAelred,ȱforȱinstance,ȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱsomehowȱbroken.297ȱ

X.ȱCriticalȱSummariesȱofȱtheȱContributionsȱtoȱthisȱVolumeȱ Theȱ subsequentȱ articlesȱ inȱ thisȱ volumeȱ willȱ investigateȱ theȱ entireȱ historyȱ of Westernȱintellectualȱlifeȱfromȱlateȱantiquityȱtoȱtheȱeighteenthȱcenturyȱinȱlightȱofȱthe themeȱofȱfriendshipȱbecauseȱmostȱhumanȱrelationshipsȱdrawȱfromȱandȱhaveȱbeen inspiredȱbyȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendship,ȱifȱpresent,ȱavailable,ȱorȱrealizable.ȱApart fromȱeroticȱlove,ȱthereȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱhardlyȱanythingȱelseȱmoreȱimportantȱinȱhuman livesȱthanȱtoȱenjoyȱtheȱfriendshipȱwithȱaȱlikeȬmindedȱperson.298ȱManyȱtheologians throughoutȱ theȱ agesȱ haveȱ thusȱ understandablyȱ correlatedȱ friendshipȱ between

296

297

298

Forȱpsychologicalȱandȱsociologicalȱperspectivesȱofȱaȱgeneralȱkind,ȱseeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱThe CompanyȱTheyȱKeep:ȱFriendshipȱinȱChildhoodȱandȱAdolescence,ȱed.ȱWilliamȱM.ȱBukowski,ȱAndrewȱF. Newcomb,ȱandȱWillardȱW.ȱHartup.ȱCambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱSocialȱandȱEmotionalȱDevelopment (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996). Seeȱ theȱ contributionsȱ toȱ Philosophieȱ derȱ Freundschaft,ȱ ed.ȱ KlausȬDieterȱ Eichler.ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ (1999; Leipzig:ȱReclam,ȱ2000);ȱLizȱSpencerȱandȱRayȱPahl,ȱRethinkingȱFriendship:ȱHiddenȱSolidaritiesȱToday (Princeton,ȱNJ,ȱandȱOxford:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2006). IgorȱS.ȱKon,ȱFreundschaft:ȱGeschichteȱundȱSozialpsychologieȱderȱFreundschaftȱalsȱsozialeȱInstitutionȱund individuelleȱ Beziehung,ȱ trans.ȱ fromȱ theȱ Russianȱ byȱ Valeriȱ Danilow.ȱ Rowohltsȱ deutsche Enzyklopädie,ȱ390ȱ(ReinbekȱbeiȱHamburg:ȱRowohlt,ȱ1979);ȱWilliamȱK.ȱRawlins,ȱTheȱCompassȱof Friendship:ȱNarratives,ȱIdentities,ȱandȱDialoguesȱ(LosȱAngeles,ȱCA:ȱSageȱPublications,ȱ2009).

Introduction

119

peopleȱwithȱtheȱmuchȱmoreȱprofoundȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱaȱhuman beingȱandȱGod. Weȱ shouldȱ endȱ hereȱ withȱ whatȱ weȱ startedȱ with,ȱ quotingȱ Friedrichȱ Schiller’s famousȱandȱcertainlyȱmostȱbeautifulȱversesȱinȱhisȱ“OdeȱtoȱJoy”ȱoneȱmoreȱtimeȱto underscoreȱinȱsummaryȱwhatȱtheȱcentralȱintentȱofȱthisȱvolumeȱisȱtoȱaccomplish: “Whoeverȱhasȱhadȱtheȱgreatȱfortune,ȱ/ȱToȱbeȱaȱfriendȇsȱfriend.”ȱAsȱweȱknowȱboth fromȱ theȱ subsequentȱ linesȱ inȱ Schiller’sȱ textȱ andȱ fromȱ theȱ wealthȱ ofȱ classicalȬ antique,ȱmedieval,ȱandȱearlyȱmodernȱliterature,ȱtheȱtriumphȱofȱestablishingȱtrue andȱprofoundȱfriendshipȱgivesȱcauseȱforȱjubilation.ȱBlessedȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱcan claimȱoneȱfriendȱinȱhis/herȱlife.ȱInȱDonȱJuanȱManuel’sȱCondeȱLucanorȱweȱlearned thatȱevenȱtoȱhaveȱfoundȱhalfȱaȱfriendȱconstitutedȱanȱincredibleȱaccomplishment andȱ treasureȱ becauseȱ mostȱ peopleȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ untrustworthyȱ andȱ unreliable, selfishȱandȱhostile.ȱErasmusȱWidmannȱ(1572–1634)ȱquestionedȱtheȱentireȱnotionȱof friendship,ȱcastingȱitȱasȱanȱidealȱfromȱtheȱpastȱwithȱnoȱvalidityȱatȱhisȱtimeȱbecause ofȱpeople’sȱselfishness.ȱTheȱcountlessȱfriendshipȱalbumsȱfromȱtheȱseventeenthȱand eighteenthȱ centuriesȱ indicated,ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ howȱ muchȱ theȱ inflationȱ ofȱ friendship declarationsȱhadȱalreadyȱunderminedȱtheȱentireȱvalueȱsystem,ȱalthoughȱweȱcan alwaysȱidentifyȱindividualȱvoicesȱtoȱtheȱcontrary,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱBaroqueȱpoetȱSimon Dachȱ (1605–1659)ȱ withȱ hisȱ “Liedȱ derȱ Freundschaft”ȱ (beforeȱ 1640)ȱ inȱ whichȱ he createdȱaȱremarkableȱpaeanȱonȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendship.ȱTheȱtitleȱinȱLatinȱreflectsȱa senseȱofȱtriumphancy:ȱ“PerstetȱamicitiæȱsemperȱvenerabileȱFædus!,”ȱbutȱitȱseems toȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱwhereȱheȱtrulyȱaddressesȱfriendshipȱallȱbyȱitself.ȱHisȱposition wasȱtoȱidentifyȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱoneȱvalueȱthatȱisȱtheȱmostȱessentialȱoneȱinȱhuman life,ȱreflectingȱhisȱmostȱinnerȱnobleȱcharacter:ȱ“DerȱMenschȱhatȱnichtsȱsoȱeigen,ȱ/ Soȱwohlȱstehtȱihmȱnichtsȱan,ȱ/ȱAlsȱdaßȱerȱTreu’ȱerzeigenȱ/ȱUndȱFreundschaftȱhalten kann”ȱ(1Ȭ4;ȱThereȱisȱnothingȱsoȱintimateȱforȱman,ȱthereȱisȱnothingȱsoȱappropriate forȱhimȱbutȱtoȱshowȱloyaltyȱandȱkeepȱfriendship).299ȱFriedrichȱSchiller,ȱofȱcourse, alsoȱ stillȱ believedȱ inȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ humanity’sȱ best,ȱ mostȱ glorious accomplishments,ȱrareȱbutȱhighlyȱpowerful,ȱand,ȱonceȱachieved,ȱofȱeternalȱvalue andȱrelevance. Trueȱfriendship,ȱaccordingȱtoȱhimȱandȱmanyȱmedievalȱprecursors,ȱamountsȱto poetry,ȱtoȱaȱspiritualȱexperience,ȱevenȱtoȱanȱepiphany.ȱWhatȱintellectual,ȱmystic,

299

QuotedȱfromȱDerȱewigeȱBrunnen:ȱEinȱVolksbuchȱdeutscherȱDichtung.ȱGesammeltȱundȱherausgegeben vonȱLudwigȱReinersȱ(Munich:ȱC.ȱH.ȱBeck,ȱ1955),ȱ59.ȱAllȱtheȱotherȱpoemsȱinȱthisȱsectionȱdedicated toȱfriendshipȱdateȱfromȱtheȱeighteenthȱandȱnineteenthȱcenturies.ȱSeeȱalsoȱSimonȱDach,ȱGedichte, ed.ȱWaltherȱZiesemer.ȱSchriftenȱderȱKönigsbergerȱGelehrtenȱGesellschaft.ȱSonderreihe,ȱȱ4–7ȱ(Halle a.ȱd.ȱS.:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1936–1938),ȱvol.ȱ1,ȱno.ȱ62,ȱ66–67.ȱAtȱcloserȱexaminationȱweȱcanȱfindȱaȱnumber ofȱsignificantȱcirclesȱofȱfriendshipȱamongȱBaroqueȱpoets,ȱseeȱBarbaraȱSturzenegger,ȱKürbishütte undȱCaspischeȱSee:ȱSimonȱDachȱundȱPaulȱFleming,ȱTopoiȱderȱFreundschaftȱimȱ17.ȱJahrhundert.ȱDeutsche LiteraturȱvonȱdenȱAnfängenȱbisȱ1700,ȱ24ȱ(BernȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996).ȱ

120

Introduction

artist,ȱorȱwriterȱwouldȱhaveȱresistedȱtheȱallureȱexertedȱbyȱaȱphenomenonȱthatȱcan bondȱusȱall,ȱevenȱinȱaȱmostȱhostileȱworld,ȱifȱtheȱrightȱcircumstancesȱandȱpersonal configurationsȱexist?300 Weȱhaveȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmind,ȱsortȱofȱasȱanȱafterthought,ȱthatȱfriendshipȱcanȱfind expressionȱinȱaȱmyriadȱofȱmediaȱandȱforms,ȱthatȱis,ȱinȱpersonalȱcontacts,ȱinȱletters, inȱpaintings,ȱinȱmusicalȱcompositions,ȱinȱperformancesȱandȱrituals,ȱinȱgestures,ȱin contracts,ȱinȱtreatises,ȱandȱsoȱforth.301ȱTodayȱtheȱinternet,ȱwithȱeȬmails,ȱFacebook, Twitter,ȱSkype,ȱetc.,ȱhasȱsubstitutedȱforȱmanyȱtraditionalȱmediaȱofȱfriendship,ȱbut theȱattemptȱtoȱfindȱfriendsȱandȱtoȱkeepȱthemȱcontinuesȱtoȱbeȱessentialȱforȱallȱofȱus. Thisȱalsoȱmeansȱthatȱaȱproper,ȱthorough,ȱandȱcomprehensiveȱinvestigationȱofȱthis institutionȱ orȱ sentimentȱ requiresȱ asȱ muchȱ ofȱ anȱ interdisciplinaryȱ approachȱ as possible.ȱWeȱmustȱunderstandȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱdiscourseȱitself,ȱand theȱ modesȱ ofȱ expressionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ sustainȱ thatȱ quasiȬreligious humanȱquestȱforȱaȱfriend. Theȱpresentȱvolumeȱcombinesȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱscholarlyȱapproaches,ȱandȱyet,ȱalas, stillȱlacksȱaȱnumberȱofȱothers,ȱsuchȱasȱsociologyȱorȱmusic.ȱNevertheless,ȱweȱhope thatȱ theȱ subsequentȱ collectionȱ ofȱ articlesȱ willȱ offerȱ aȱ farȬreachingȱ scopeȱ of individualȱ perspectivesȱ extendingȱ fromȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Augustineȱ toȱ theȱ late seventeenthȱcentury.ȱAsȱhasȱbeenȱcustomaryȱinȱallȱpreviousȱvolumesȱpublishedȱin ourȱseriesȱ“FundamentalsȱofȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱCulture,”ȱhereȱIȱwould likeȱtoȱofferȱsubsequentlyȱcriticalȱsummariesȱofȱeachȱindividualȱcontributionȱand toȱexamineȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱhowȱtheȱspecificȱanalysisȱhelpsȱusȱtoȱgraspȱtheȱcentral andȱ decisiveȱ philosophical,ȱ theological,ȱ ethical,ȱ andȱ moralȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ that discourseȱonȱfriendshipȱthroughoutȱtheȱages.ȱ

300

301

Forȱmodernȱexamples,ȱseeȱPeterȱMessent,ȱMarkȱTwainȱandȱMaleȱFriendship:ȱtheȱTwichell,ȱHowells,ȱand RogersȱFriendshipsȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009);ȱChristopherȱRicks,ȱTrue Friendship:ȱGeoffreyȱHill,ȱAnthonyȱHecht,ȱandȱRobertȱLowellȱunderȱtheȱSignȱofȱEliotȱandȱPound.ȱThe AnthonyȱHechtȱLecturesȱinȱtheȱHumanitiesȱ(NewȱHaven,ȱCT:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010);ȱJuan A.ȱHerreroȱBrasas,ȱWaltȱWhitman’sȱMysticalȱEthicsȱofȱComradeship:ȱHomosexualityȱandȱtheȱMarginality ofȱFriendshipȱatȱtheȱCrossroadsȱofȱModernityȱ(Albany,ȱNY:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ2010). SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱRitualeȱderȱFreundschaft,ȱed.ȱKlausȱMangerȱandȱUteȱPott,ȱ2006ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ2); GrahamȱA.ȱAllan,ȱKinshipȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱModernȱBritain.ȱOxfordȱModernȱBritainȱ(Oxfordȱand NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996);ȱid.,ȱFriendship:ȱDevelopingȱaȱSociologicalȱPerspective. StudiesȱinȱSociologyȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHarvesterȱWheatsheaf,ȱ1989);ȱRobertȱBrain,ȱFriendsȱandȱLovers. ApproachesȱtoȱAnthropologyȱ(London:ȱHartȬDavis,ȱMacȱGibbon,ȱ1976);ȱLizȱSpencerȱandȱRayȱPahl, RethinkingȱFriendship:ȱHiddenȱSolidaritiesȱTodayȱ(PrincetonȱandȱOxford:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress, 2006),ȱ210,ȱconclude:ȱ“friendshipȱcanȱactȱasȱaȱvitalȱsafetyȬnetȱprovidingȱmuchȱneededȱsupportȱand intimacy,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ asȱ aȱ safetyȬvalveȱ enablingȱ peopleȱ toȱ relaxȱ andȱ copeȱ withȱ theȱ pressuresȱ of contemporaryȱlife.ȱNotȱonlyȱthis,ȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱwithȱpartnersȱorȱwithȱotherȱmembersȱofȱaȱnatal familyȱasȱwellȱasȱwithȱnonȬkin.ȱItȱcanȱtakeȱmanyȱformsȱbut,ȱatȱitsȱstrongest,ȱitȱisȱbasedȱonȱtrust, commitmentȱandȱloyalty.ȱAsȱsuch,ȱitȱdeservesȱtoȱbeȱnourishedȱandȱcherished.”

Introduction

121

Thereȱisȱnoȱdoubtȱthatȱfriendshipȱitselfȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱequally,ȱifȱnotȱevenȱmore, importantȱasȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱeroticȱlove.ȱOurȱcollectiveȱeffortȱisȱconsequently aimedȱatȱrevealingȱhowȱmuchȱthisȱtopicȱactuallyȱoccupiedȱtheȱintellectuals’ȱminds andȱdominatedȱpublicȱcultureȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱfarȱbeyond.ȱWe canȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱhasȱcontinuedȱtoȱoccupyȱtheȱmindsȱof mostȱ leadingȱ intellectualsȱ andȱ soȱ deservesȱ toȱ beȱ investigatedȱ inȱ aȱ specialized volumeȱ focusingȱ onȱ theȱ premodernȱ world.302ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ onceȱ weȱ turnȱ toȱ the intellectualȱandȱliteraryȱhistoryȱsinceȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱweȱopenȱaȱwhole floodgateȱforȱfurtherȱdiscussionsȱofȱfriendshipȱsinceȱitȱhasȱneverȱlostȱanyȱofȱits criticalȱimpetusȱandȱappeal;ȱinȱfact,ȱitȱseemsȱthatȱfriendshipȱconstitutes,ȱperhaps moreȱthanȱeverȱbefore,ȱaȱcoreȱvalueȱofȱourȱsociety,ȱwhetherȱitȱisȱtrulyȱpracticedȱor not,ȱwhetherȱpeopleȱdistrustȱitȱorȱnot.303 Manyȱofȱtheȱarticlesȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱhaveȱbeenȱoriginallyȱpresentedȱatȱtwoȱsessions atȱ theȱ Congressȱ onȱ Medievalȱ Studiesȱ atȱ theȱ Westernȱ Michiganȱ Universityȱ in Kalamazoo,ȱ MI,ȱ inȱ 2009,ȱ organizedȱ byȱ Albrechtȱ Classen.ȱ Aȱ numberȱ ofȱ these, however,ȱwereȱalsoȱcontributedȱlater,ȱenergeticallyȱsolicitedȱbyȱMarilynȱSandidge, onceȱtheȱvolumeȱtookȱonȱconcreteȱshapeȱandȱthenȱwasȱconsideredȱforȱinclusionȱin ourȱbookȱseries,ȱ“FundamentalsȱofȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱStudies.”ȱOnce again,ȱscholarlyȱauthorsȱfromȱallȱoverȱtheȱworldȱcameȱforwardȱandȱofferedȱtheir insightsȱasȱcontributions,ȱwhichȱmadeȱthisȱvolumeȱintoȱsuchȱanȱinterdisciplinary, andȱhopefullyȱalsoȱfundamental,ȱacademicȱendeavor.ȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱdoubtȱthatȱoneȱcouldȱapproachȱfriendshipȱfromȱyetȱstillȱmanyȱmore perspectives,ȱbutȱweȱareȱtrulyȱdelightedȱtoȱhaveȱcollectedȱalreadyȱsoȱmanyȱdiverse studiesȱaddressingȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱbothȱinȱlateȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱMiddle Ages,ȱbothȱinȱtheȱRenaissanceȱandȱinȱtheȱsubsequentȱcenturies,ȱthoughȱweȱdecided, forȱmanyȱgoodȱreasons,ȱtoȱdrawȱaȱfinalȱlineȱwithȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȱcentury.ȱThis doesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱfriendshipȱhasȱnoȱlongerȱbeenȱdiscussedȱorȱdealtȱwithȱsince then,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary.ȱButȱtheȱsocial,ȱeconomic,ȱcultural,ȱphilosophical,ȱreligious, andȱ artisticȱ conditionsȱ andȱ frameworkȱ reallyȱ changedȱ soȱ profoundlyȱ thatȱ we cannotȱ helpȱ butȱ recognizeȱ aȱ majorȱ paradigmȱ shiftȱ radicallyȱ movingȱ Western

302

303

SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱEntdeckungȱderȱFreundschaft:ȱvonȱPhiliaȱbisȱFacebook,ȱed.ȱGudrunȱKuglerȱand DenisȱBorel,ȱ2010ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ106). TheȱChangingȱFaceȱofȱFriendship,ȱed.ȱLeroyȱS.ȱRouner.ȱBostonȱUniversityȱStudiesȱinȱPhilosophyȱand Religion,ȱ15ȱ(NotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ1994);ȱDianneȱRothleder,ȱTheȱWorkȱof Friendship:ȱRorty,ȱHisȱCritics,ȱandȱtheȱProjectȱofȱSolidarity.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱthe Socialȱ Sciencesȱ (Albany:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Press,ȱ 1999);ȱ Thomsonȱ A.ȱ J.ȱ P., Deconstructionȱ andȱ Democracy:ȱ Derrida’sȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ (London:ȱ Continuum,ȱ 2005);ȱ Joel Backström,ȱ Theȱ Fearȱ ofȱ Openness:ȱ Anȱ Essayȱ onȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ theȱ Rootsȱ ofȱ Moralityȱ (Åbo:ȱ Åbo akademisȱförlag,ȱ2007);ȱEmersonȱ&ȱThoreau:ȱFiguresȱofȱFriendship,ȱed.ȱJohnȱT.ȱLysakerȱandȱWilliam Rossiȱ(Bloomington:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010);ȱBennettȱW.ȱHelm,ȱLove,ȱFriendshipȱandȱtheȱSelf: Intimacy,ȱIdentification,ȱandȱtheȱSocialȱNatureȱofȱPersonsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2010).

122

Introduction

societyȱoutȱofȱtheȱlateȬmedievalȱandȱearlyȬmodernȱworld,ȱfinallyȱconstitutingȱthe basisȱforȱtheȱmodernȱworld.ȱ Itȱjustȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱgoodȱenoughȱtoȱdealȱwithȱthisȱissueȱbyȱpursuingȱaȱnarrow perspectiveȱchronologicallyȱlimited,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱweȱhaveȱcertainlyȱlearned howȱmuchȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱcannotȱbeȱsimplyȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱbetween,ȱsay,ȱthe eighthȱ andȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ fifteenthȱ century.304ȱ Intellectualȱ andȱ culturalȱ history alwaysȱrequiresȱusȱtoȱkeepȱtheȱenormousȱinfluenceȱofȱantiquityȱasȱmuchȱinȱmind asȱtheȱcontinuityȱofȱmedievalȱconceptsȱandȱideasȱasȱshapingȱforcesȱfarȱintoȱthe seventeenthȱandȱmaybeȱevenȱtheȱeighteenthȱcenturies,ȱhenceȱtheȱ‘longȱeighteenth century.’ȱThoseȱwhoȱeverȱexpressedȱinterestȱinȱfriendshipȱwouldȱcertainlyȱhave beenȱopposedȱvehementlyȱtoȱanyȱattemptsȱtoȱlimitȱthatȱdiscourseȱtoȱanyȱspecific age,ȱculture,ȱorȱperiod.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱasȱtheȱsubsequentȱspecializedȱstudiesȱwill illustrate,ȱ theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ shedsȱ mostȱ importantȱ lightȱ onȱ the individualȱ cultures,ȱ peoples,ȱ religions,ȱ ethical,ȱ andȱ moralȱ communitiesȱ with respectȱtoȱtheirȱvalueȱsystems.ȱWeȱmightȱresort,ȱonceȱagain,ȱtoȱtheȱoldȱproverb, adaptingȱitȱslightlyȱforȱourȱpurposes:ȱTellȱmeȱwhoȱyourȱfriendsȱare,ȱandȱIȱwillȱtell youȱwhoȱyouȱare. C.ȱStephenȱJaegerȱ Beginningȱtheȱinvestigationȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱchronologicalȱterms,ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger firstȱexaminesȱhowȱmuchȱworldlyȱfriendshipȱservedȱAugustineȱasȱaȱmediumȱto developȱhumanȱvaluesȱandȱideals.ȱTheȱlaterȱsaintȱdeeplyȱenjoyedȱaȱfriendshipȱwith Alypius,ȱwhoȱwasȱeventuallyȱappointedȱBishopȱofȱThagaste,ȱwhichȱlastedȱallȱhis lifeȱandȱaboutȱwhichȱheȱreflectedȱrepeatedlyȱinȱhisȱwork.ȱBothȱmenȱsharedȱtheir conversionȱ toȱ Christianityȱ andȱ baptism,ȱ andȱ theyȱ engagedȱ inȱ manyȱ different intensiveȱ debatesȱ overȱ time,ȱ butȱ notȱ asȱ opponents;ȱ insteadȱ asȱ friends,ȱ both dreamingȱ ofȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ Christianȱ communityȱ ofȱ likeȬmindedȱ philosophersȱ who wouldȱstriveȱtoȱachieveȱmutuallyȱtheȱsameȱdegreesȱofȱvirtues.ȱAsȱJaegerȱoutlines, Augustineȱandȱhisȱfriendȱhelpedȱeachȱotherȱfightȱagainstȱtheirȱrespectiveȱvices, offeringȱ eachȱ otherȱ complementaryȱ assistance.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ friendshipȱ for Augustineȱemergedȱasȱaȱfundamentalȱtoolȱtoȱhelpȱtheȱotherȱpersonȱandȱtoȱserveȱas theȱrelevantȱteachingȱmechanismȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱimbalanceȱofȱvirtuesȱcouldȱbe restored.ȱ VeryȱmuchȱinȱtheȱAristotelianȱandȱCiceronianȱtradition,ȱAugustineȱandȱAlypius feltȱaȱstrongȱattractionȱtoȱeachȱotherȱbecauseȱtheyȱrecognizedȱtheȱhighȱlevelȱof virtuesȱinȱeachȱotherȱandȱdelightedȱinȱgainingȱsupportȱandȱassistanceȱinȱtheirȱselfȬ

304

Seeȱ nowȱ Klausȱ W.ȱ Hempfer,ȱ “Zurȱ Enthierarchisierungȱ vonȱ ‘religiösem’ȱ undȱ ‘literarischem’ DiskursȱinȱderȱitalienischenȱRenaissance,”ȱLiterarischeȱundȱreligiöseȱKommunikationȱinȱMittelalterȱund FrüherȱNeuzeit:ȱDFGȬSymposionȱ2006,ȱed.ȱPeterȱStrohschneiderȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱde Gruyter,ȱ2009),ȱ183–221.

Introduction

123

improvement.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱasȱJaegerȱemphasizes,ȱforȱSaintȱAugustine,ȱduringȱhis youth,ȱfriendshipȱitselfȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱanȱessentialȱinstrumentȱinȱpersonalȱgrowth inȱ spiritual,ȱ moral,ȱ andȱ ethicalȱ terms.ȱ Itȱ amounted,ȱ inȱ Jaeger’sȱ terms,ȱ toȱ a transferenceȱofȱexcellentȱqualitiesȱrelevantȱforȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱharmonious communitiesȱdeterminedȱbyȱfriendship—aȱconceptȱintriguinglyȱconnectedȱwithȱthe schoolȱ ofȱ theȱ Pythagoreansȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ followersȱ ofȱ Plotinus.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ sense friendshipȱfunctionedȱasȱaȱformȱofȱharmoniousȱcompetitionȱforȱselfȬimprovement upȱtoȱtheȱalmostȱutopianȱpointȱofȱcompleteȱrealizationȱofȱallȱhumanȱvirtues—but notȱforȱAugustine.ȱ Significantly,ȱ asȱ Jaegerȱ emphasizes,ȱ Augustineȱ subsequentlyȱ realized,ȱ asȱ he statesȱinȱtheȱConfessions,ȱtheȱinadequacyȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱpreventȱtheȱindividual fromȱreturningȱtoȱaȱlifeȱofȱvicesȱonȱbothȱsides,ȱAlypiusȱpickingȱupȱhisȱdesireȱfor gladiatorialȱgamesȱagain,ȱandȱAugustineȱforȱsexualȱpleasures.ȱGod,ȱhowever,ȱthen intervenedȱandȱrescuedȱbothȱmen,ȱstrengtheningȱtheirȱfriendshipȱandȱhenceȱtheir driveȱforȱaȱvirtuousȱlife.ȱConversionȱtoȱChristianity,ȱhence,ȱprovidedȱtheȱcritical catalystȱforȱtrueȱfriendship,ȱwhereasȱordinary,ȱsecularȱfriendshipȱamountedȱtoȱlittle moreȱthanȱaȱsocialȱrelationship.ȱHeȱassignedȱitȱaȱmoralȱvalueȱcomparableȱtoȱthe loveȱofȱwomen,ȱtheȱsightȱofȱgoldȱandȱsilver,ȱworldlyȱhonorȱandȱpower,ȱandȱranked itȱamongȱtheȱvanitiesȱofȱhisȱyouth.ȱȱ Boethiusȱcomesȱtoȱmindȱagainȱforȱemphasizingȱthatȱmisfortuneȱaloneȱwould serveȱasȱtheȱdecisiveȱinstrumentȱtoȱdetermineȱwhoȱcanȱreallyȱbeȱtrustedȱasȱaȱfriend. Older,ȱandȱmuchȱcurrent,ȱscholarshipȱassumedȱanȱamalgamȱofȱRomanȱamicitia withȱ Christianȱ caritas,ȱ formingȱ aȱ new,ȱ uniquelyȱ Christianȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendship Jaeger,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ arguesȱ insteadȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ aristocratic traditionsȱinȱwhichȱAugustineȱhadȱgrownȱupȱprovedȱincompatibleȱwithȱaȱlifeȱof asceticȱ Christianȱ spirituality.ȱ Augustineȱ himselfȱ insistedȱ inȱ conversationsȱ with someȱofȱhisȱfriendsȱthatȱtheirȱaffectionateȱrelationshipȱwouldȱonlyȱdevelopȱinto trueȱfriendshipȱifȱitȱwouldȱbeȱsupportedȱbyȱtheirȱloveȱforȱGod.ȱNewȱfriendsȱareȱnot necessarilyȱwarmlyȱwelcomedȱandȱembraced,ȱbutȱinsteadȱexhortedȱtoȱstriveȱfor ChristianȱvaluesȱandȱtoȱbelieveȱinȱGod,ȱwhichȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱultimateȱtest.ȱAmicitia wentȱtheȱwayȱofȱotherȱRomanȱsocialȱandȱculturalȱidealsȱinȱtheȱwatershedȱperiod ofȱtheȱlateȱfourthȱandȱearlyȱfifthȱcentury. JaegerȱfurtherȱobservesȱthatȱAugustineȱdidȱnotȱregardȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱfinalȱsafe havenȱforȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱindividuals,ȱorȱforȱsocietyȱatȱlargeȱbecauseȱfriendsȱcontinue toȱworryȱforȱeachȱotherȱthroughoutȱlife,ȱtoȱexperienceȱtrouble,ȱandȱtoȱbeȱafraidȱthat theȱotherȱoneȱmightȱdieȱbeforeȱoneself.ȱStill,ȱaccordingȱtoȱAugustine,ȱfriendship canȱofferȱcriticalȱconsolationȱforȱallȱtheȱvicissitudesȱandȱvagariesȱthatȱdominateȱand permeateȱlife,ȱespeciallyȱdeath,ȱofferingȱstability,ȱconstancy,ȱandȱvirtue.ȱInȱthis respectȱAugustineȱwasȱnotȱaloneȱinȱthisȱapproachȱtoȱfriendship,ȱasȱJaegerȱobserves inȱ theȱ finalȱ sectionȱ ofȱ hisȱ investigationsȱ withȱ regardȱ toȱ severalȱ contemporary authors,ȱsuchȱasȱBasilȱofȱCaesareaȱandȱGregoryȱofȱNazianzus,ȱwhoȱemphasized,

124

Introduction

perhapsȱevenȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱfamousȱChurchȱFather,ȱtheȱgroundingȱofȱfriendship inȱphilosophy,ȱinȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱvirtue,ȱandȱinȱtheȱquestȱforȱtruth.ȱTheyȱregarded, asȱJaegerȱunderscores,ȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱoneȱcrucialȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱframework inȱman’sȱlifeȱservingȱasȱaȱcriticalȱtoolȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱultimateȱgoalȱofȱselfȬperfection.ȱ Others,ȱ however,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Paulinusȱ ofȱ Nola,ȱ rejectedȱ theȱ classicalȱ conceptȱ of friendshipȱ altogetherȱ andȱ evenȱ wentȱ soȱ farȱ asȱ toȱ endȱ theirȱ previouslyȱ friendly relationshipȱwithȱtheirȱmastersȱorȱteachersȱinȱorderȱtoȱupholdȱtheȱnewȱvalueȱofȱthe Christianȱteachingȱwhichȱappearedȱtoȱbeȱinȱcontradictionȱtoȱtheȱsecular,ȱancient, conceptȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱbasisȱofȱcommunalȱexchanges.ȱAfterȱall,ȱtheȱpiousȱone hadȱtoȱhandleȱtheȱcompetitionȱbetweenȱtheȱloveȱforȱChristȱandȱtheȱloveȱforȱthe friend,ȱputtingȱtheȱlatterȱatȱanȱinsurmountableȱdisadvantage.ȱMoreȱpoignantly,ȱas Jaegerȱcomments,ȱcharity,ȱorȱtheȱloveȱforȱall,ȱisȱpittedȱagainstȱfriendship,ȱtheȱlove forȱtheȱindividualȱfellow.ȱAfterȱall,ȱfriendshipȱunderminedȱcoenobiticȱmonasticism withȱitsȱunavoidableȱhierarchicalȱstructures,ȱandȱsoȱitȱsowedȱtheȱseedȱofȱdiscontent andȱstrifeȱinȱthoseȱcommunities.ȱInȱtheȱfinalȱanalysis,ȱthen,ȱJaegerȱconcludesȱthat theȱrevivalȱofȱclassicalȱfriendshipȱreallyȱhadȱtoȱwaitȱuntilȱtheȱtimeȱofȱAelredȱof Rievaulx,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ ‘Renaissanceȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelfthȱ Century’ȱ (aȱ termȱ heȱ doesȱ no longerȱsubscribeȱto,ȱbutȱforȱmeȱitȱstillȱcapturesȱtheȱessenceȱofȱthatȱage—A.C.).ȱOnly thenȱ didȱ friendshipȱ gainȱ inȱ statusȱ andȱ wasȱ warmlyȱ welcomedȱ evenȱ byȱ the monasticȱcommunitiesȱasȱanȱessentialȱingredientȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱinheritance. StavroulaȱConstantinou Partȱandȱparcelȱofȱfriendshipȱhasȱalsoȱbeen,ȱthroughoutȱtheȱages,ȱtheȱexchangeȱof giftsȱ asȱ representativeȱ andȱ symbolicȱ objectsȱ withȱ whichȱ oneȱ expressesȱ love, respect,ȱ andȱ sympathyȱ toȱ achieveȱ andȱ toȱ maintainȱ mutualityȱ andȱ reciprocity amongȱtheȱfriends.ȱIfȱaȱgiftȱgiverȱdoesȱnotȱreceiveȱanythingȱback,ȱorȱifȱtheȱsituation prohibitsȱit,ȱthenȱhostilityȱthreatensȱtoȱbreakȱoutȱeasily.ȱUnderȱsuchȱcircumstances theȱ giftȱ mightȱ actuallyȱ signalȱ aggressionȱ andȱ theȱ attemptȱ byȱ theȱ giverȱ to subordinateȱ theȱ receiver.ȱ Thisȱ findsȱ extraordinaryȱ expressionȱ inȱ theȱ Oldȱ High Germanȱ epicȱ poemȱ “Hildebrandslied”ȱ (ca.ȱ 810–820)ȱ whereȱ theȱ oldȱ father Hildebrand,ȱsuddenlyȱconfrontedȱbyȱhisȱsonȱHeribrandȱonȱtheȱbattleȱfieldȱafter thirtyȱyearsȱofȱexileȱinȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱHuns,ȱclumsilyȱtriesȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱthe youngȱmanȱandȱtoȱconvinceȱhimȱthatȱheȱisȱhisȱfather,ȱindeed.ȱButȱHeribrandȱdoes notȱacceptȱtheȱgift,ȱfirmlyȱconvincedȱthatȱhisȱfatherȱhadȱdiedȱaȱlongȱtimeȱago,ȱand quicklyȱreadiesȱhimselfȱforȱdeadlyȱcombat.305ȱ

305

ForȱaȱthoroughȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱissueȱwithȱgiftȬgivingȱinȱthisȱpoem,ȱseeȱWilliamȱC.ȱMcDonald, “ȇTooȱSoftlyȱaȱGiftȱofȱTreasureȇ:ȱAȱRereadingȱofȱtheȱOldȱHighȱGermanȱHildebrandslied,”ȱEuphorion 78.1ȱ (1984):ȱ 1–16.ȱ Siegfriedȱ Gutenbrunner’sȱ studyȱ Vonȱ Hildebrandȱ undȱ Hadubrand:ȱ Lied,ȱ Sage, Mythos.ȱGermanischeȱBibliothek.ȱReiheȱ3:ȱUntersuchungenȱundȱEinzeldarstellungenȱ(Heidelberg: Winter,ȱ 1976),ȱ providesȱ anȱ excellentȱ introductionȱ toȱ thisȱ text.ȱ Forȱ theȱ onlineȱ editionȱ ofȱ the “Hildebrandslied,”ȱseeȱabove.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱpoemȱdoesȱnotȱexploreȱfriendshipȱperȱse,ȱtheȱfather’s

Introduction

125

DiscussingȱtheseȱcriticalȱissuesȱfirstȱinȱlightȱofȱMauss’sȱtheoryȱandȱofȱOldȱNorse literature,306ȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱthenȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱmidȱfifthȬcenturyȱGreekȬ ByzantineȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱaȱconsiderablyȱmoreȱdetailedȱandȱfleshedȬ outȱcopyȱofȱwhichȱwasȱproducedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱhalfȱofȱtheȱtenthȱcentury.307ȱThe storyȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱsaintsȱisȱprofoundlyȱpredicatedȱonȱtheȱnotionȱofȱfriendship;ȱnot onlyȱareȱtheyȱfriendsȱwithȱeachȱother,ȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱbothȱfriendsȱwithȱEmperor Maximianus,ȱ who,ȱ deeplyȱ incensedȱ andȱ insultedȱ byȱ theirȱ conversionȱ to Christianity,ȱsendsȱthemȱtoȱhisȱsubservientȱAntiochusȱtoȱbeȱprosecuted,ȱwhoȱis actuallyȱfriendsȱwithȱSergius.ȱTheȱpaganȱfriendsȱtryȱveryȱhardȱtoȱconvinceȱthe futureȱmartyrsȱtoȱrejectȱtheirȱChristianȱfaith,ȱbutȱeveryȱtimeȱinȱvain,ȱsoȱAntiochus isȱ forcedȱ toȱ orderȱ themȱ toȱ beȱ torturedȱ andȱ executedȱ atȱ theȱ end.ȱ But,ȱ putting everythingȱinȱtheȱrelevantȱcontext,ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱsaints andȱGodȱwhichȱsupersedesȱtheȱtwoȱsaints’ȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheirȱformerȱsecular friends.ȱ Constantinouȱ observesȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ alsoȱ playsȱ aȱ certainȱ roleȱ inȱ parallel passionȱnarratives,ȱbutȱneverȱasȱcentrallyȱasȱinȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱalthoughȱthe riftȱ betweenȱ theȱ newȱ Christiansȱ andȱ theirȱ formerȱ friend/sȱ underscoresȱ thatȱ no previousȱ socialȱ bondsȱ wouldȱ beȱ strongȱ enoughȱ toȱ preventȱ theȱ convertsȱ from holdingȱ onȱ toȱ theirȱ newȱ faith.ȱ Moreover,ȱ insofarȱ asȱ Godȱ displaysȱ Hisȱ own friendshipȱtowardȱtheȱmartyrs,ȱtwoȱtypesȱofȱfriendshipȱemerge,ȱtheȱoldȱoneȱbeing unstable,ȱtheȱnewȱoneȱsoȱstrongȱthatȱitȱprovidesȱtheȱsaintsȱwithȱenoughȱcourage andȱsteadfastnessȱtoȱsustainȱevenȱtheȱworstȱtorture.ȱConstantinouȱemphasizesȱthat

306

307

failureȱ toȱ employȱ theȱ giftȱ properlyȱ clearlyȱ indicatesȱ theȱ catastrophicȱ consequencesȱ forȱ all interhumanȱrelationsȱwhenȱsuchȱsymbolicȱobjectsȱareȱfalselyȱcodifiedȱandȱutilizedȱinȱtheȱwrong context.ȱThoughȱnotȱmentionedȱexplicitly,ȱtheȱanonymousȱpoetȱclearlyȱaimedȱforȱaȱdiscussionȱof communicationȱasȱtheȱessentialȱbondȱamongȱpeople,ȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱwhichȱleadsȱtoȱcatastrophes. Similarly,ȱwithoutȱcommunicationȱthereȱisȱnoȱfriendship.ȱReversely,ȱweȱmightȱsay,ȱifȱthereȱis friendship,ȱthereȱalsoȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱgood,ȱharmoniousȱcommunication.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱaȱsociety thatȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱofȱfriendshipȱorȱcommunication,ȱorȱdoesȱnotȱappreciateȱthatȱfundamental modeȱ ofȱ relationshipȱ onȱ aȱ socialȱ level,ȱ mightȱ justȱ asȱ wellȱ beȱ doomed.ȱ Seeȱ Albrechtȱ Classen, VerzweiflungȱundȱHoffnung:ȱDieȱSucheȱnachȱderȱkommunikativenȱGemeinschaftȱinȱderȱdeutschenȱLiteratur desȱMittelalters.ȱBeihefteȱzurȱMediaevistik,ȱ1ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.,ȱBerlin,ȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ2002),ȱ1Ȭ52. SeeȱalsoȱGeraldȱW.ȱPeterman,ȱPaul’sȱGiftȱFromȱPhilippi:ȱConventionsȱofȱGiftȬExchangeȱandȱChristian Giving.ȱ Monographȱ Series:ȱ Societyȱ forȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Studies,ȱ 92ȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ1997);ȱWendyȱDavies,ȱActsȱofȱGiving:ȱIndividual,ȱCommunity,ȱandȱChurchȱinȱTenthȬ CenturyȱChristianȱSpainȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007);ȱA.ȬJ.ȱBujsterveld,ȱDoȱutȱdes:ȱGift Giving,ȱMemoria,ȱandȱConflictȱManagementȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱLowȱCountries.ȱMiddeleeuwseȱstudiesȱen bronnen,ȱ 104ȱ (Hilversum:ȱ Verloren,ȱ 2007);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ contributionsȱ toȱ Charityȱ andȱ Givingȱ in MonotheisticȱReligions,ȱed.ȱMiriamȱFrenkelȱandȱYaacovȱLev.ȱStudienȱzurȱGeschichteȱundȱKulturȱdes islamischenȱOrients,ȱN.F.,ȱ22ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2009). Alfonsȱ Hilka,ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ lateinischenȱ Erzählungsliteraturȱ desȱ Mittelalters.ȱ Abhandlungenȱ der GesellschaftȱderȱWissenschaftenȱzuȱGöttingen.ȱPhilologischȬhistorischeȱKlasse.ȱNeueȱFolge,ȱ21 (Berlin:ȱWeidmannscheȱBuchhandlung,ȱ1928);ȱChristianȱHøgel,ȱSymeonȱMetaphrastes:ȱRewritingȱand Canonizationȱ(Copenhagen:ȱMuseumȱTusculaneumȱPress,ȱ2002).

126

Introduction

theȱgiftsȱexchangedȱamongȱtheȱvariousȱfriendsȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱbothȱasȱ‘gifts’ȱand asȱ‘poison,’ȱifȱweȱkeepȱtheȱdoubleȬmeaningȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱGermanicȱwordȱinȱmind.ȱ SheȱdistancesȱherselfȱclearlyȱfromȱDerrida’sȱcritiqueȱofȱMauss’sȱtheoryȱofȱgiftȬ giving,ȱemphasizing,ȱinstead,ȱthatȱthereȱareȱinstances,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱPassion,ȱof passingȱoutȱgiftsȱtoȱfriendsȱwithoutȱanyȱexpectationsȱofȱreciprocity.ȱInȱfact,ȱthe friendshipȱbetweenȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱemergesȱasȱaȱgiftȬexchangeȱnotȱbasedȱon suchȱexpectationȱbecauseȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱareȱdeeplyȱinspiredȱbyȱtheȱidealȱconcept ofȱfriendshipȱasȱoriginallyȱformulatedȱbyȱAristotle,ȱwhetherȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱtwo versionsȱ(anonymousȱandȱMetaphrastes)ȱwereȱfamiliarȱwithȱhisȱteachingsȱorȱnot.ȱ Constantinouȱ outlinesȱ howȱ muchȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ represented,ȱ indeed,ȱ ideal friends,ȱpursuingȱtheȱsameȱvaluesȱandȱpossessingȱtheȱsameȱcharactersȱandȱbodily skills,ȱneverȱseparatingȱfromȱeachȱother.ȱTheyȱonlyȱsufferȱtheirȱdeathȱatȱdifferent times,ȱbutȱotherwiseȱtheyȱare,ȱsoȱtoȱspeak,ȱtwoȱbodiesȱinȱone,ȱequallyȱsharingȱtheir faithȱinȱtheȱChristianȱGodȱwhoȱalsoȱequallyȱgrantsȱthemȱtheȱsameȱmartyrdom.ȱIn fact,ȱ asȱ Constantinouȱ observes,ȱ theȱ closerȱ theyȱ getȱ toȱ theirȱ death,ȱ theȱ more passionateȱandȱstrongerȱtheirȱfriendshipȱbecomes.ȱTheȱmostȱimportantȱreasonȱfor thisȱphenomenonȱisȱtheirȱearlierȱunionȱwithȱGodȱalreadyȱbeforeȱtheirȱexecution, soȱtheirȱfriendshipȱturnsȱoutȱtoȱbeȱaȱmirrorȱofȱGod’sȱloveȱforȱtheȱfaithful.ȱHence, afterȱ theirȱ deathsȱ theseȱ twoȱ friendsȱ areȱ reunited,ȱ butȱ thenȱ inȱ God,ȱ soȱ their friendshipȱemergesȱasȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱholiness.ȱ AllȱtheȱotherȱfriendshipsȱdescribedȱinȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱrepresentȱdifferent levelsȱandȱconformȱmuchȱmoreȱtoȱtheȱtraditionalȱconceptȱwhereȱfriendsȱhelpȱeach otherȱorȱexchangeȱgiftsȱoutȱofȱaȱutilitarianȱthinking.ȱAntiochus,ȱespecially,ȱwho owesȱmostȱofȱhisȱnewȱpowerfulȱadministrativeȱpositionȱtoȱSergius,ȱunderstandsȱhis relationshipȱwithȱhimȱonlyȱinȱtermsȱofȱpragmatic,ȱorȱprofitȬoriented,ȱgiftȬgiving. ButȱsinceȱSergiusȱneverȱacceptsȱtheȱofferedȱcounterȬgift—freedomȱfromȱprisonȱif heȱrenouncesȱtheȱChristianȱfaith—Antiochusȱcannotȱliberateȱhimselfȱfromȱtheȱlaws ofȱreciprocity,ȱwhileȱthisȱisȱcertainlyȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱSergiusȱwhoȱtrulyȱillustratesȱa fundamentalȱChristianȱteachingȱinȱthisȱregard,ȱthatȱis,ȱofȱgivingȱwithoutȱexpecting anythingȱinȱreturn.ȱForȱAntiochus,ȱhence,ȱthereȱremainsȱonlyȱphysicalȱviolence (tortureȱandȱexecution)ȱtoȱforceȱSergiusȱtoȱacceptȱhisȱcounterȬgift,ȱwhichȱleads, however,ȱtoȱtheȱlatter’sȱdeath.ȱ Byȱalmostȱtheȱsameȱtoken,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetween,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱSergiusȱand Bacchus,ȱandȱtheȱemperorȱonȱtheȱother,ȱisȱbasedȱonȱaȱgiftȱexchange,ȱbutȱbecause ofȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱfaithȱonȱbothȱsidesȱitȱisȱsimplyȱunequalȱandȱboundȱtoȱfailȱwhen theȱfirstȱmajorȱtestȱarrives.ȱTheseȱthreeȱmenȱshareȱmuchȱmoreȱinȱtheȱidealȱconcept ofȱfriendshipȱthanȱSergiusȱwithȱAntiochus,ȱbutȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱhelpȱtheȱmartyrsȱto surviveȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱhugeȱgulfȱthatȱopensȱupȱbetweenȱthem,ȱseparatingȱthese friendsȱforȱgood.ȱ Theȱmartyrsȱhaveȱbasicallyȱreplacedȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱemperorȱwithȱa friendshipȱ withȱ God,ȱ whichȱ makesȱ itȱ impossibleȱ forȱ themȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ old

Introduction

127

worldly,ȱthatȱis,ȱpedestrian,ȱfriendship.ȱNotȱsurprisingly,ȱtheȱemperorȱexpresses hisȱ profoundȱ frustrationȱ throughȱ angerȱ andȱ violentȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ hisȱ former friends,ȱbutȱheȱcannotȱchangeȱtheirȱnewȱfaith,ȱwhichȱthusȱdestroysȱallȱprevious bondsȱofȱfriendship.ȱThis,ȱinȱturn,ȱmakesȱitȱeasierȱforȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱtoȱbond withȱGodȱandȱsoȱstrikeȱaȱnew,ȱeternalȱfriendship. Ultimatelyȱthen,ȱasȱConstantinouȱconcludes,ȱthisȱmartyrdomȱnarrativeȱexplores theȱvariousȱtypesȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱidentifiesȱtheȱdifferentȱcategoriesȱofȱgiftȬgiving andȱreciprocityȱasȱfundamentalȱbenchmarksȱinȱevaluatingȱeachȱparadigm. LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWestonȱ Friendshipȱ mustȱ notȱ beȱ confusedȱ withȱ erotic,ȱ orȱ evenȱ sexual,ȱ relationships, althoughȱtheȱoneȱaspectȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarily,ȱorȱcompletely,ȱexcludeȱtheȱother. Instead,ȱitȱrepresentsȱanȱethicalȱidealȱandȱvalueȱofȱhighȱorder,ȱsoȱthereȱisȱnothing toȱpreventȱmenȱfromȱenjoyingȱfriendshipȱwithȱwomen,ȱandȱviceȱversa.ȱMaybeȱwe couldȱ evenȱ goȱ oneȱ stepȱ furtherȱ andȱ argueȱ thatȱ maleȬfemaleȱ friendshipȱ freeȱ of sexualȱundertonesȱdemonstratesȱtheȱhighestȱperceptionȱofȱtheȱidealsȱdetermining thatȱrelationship.ȱToȱexploreȱthisȱargumentȱfurther,ȱLisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWestonȱanalyzesȱthe correspondenceȱ betweenȱ theȱ eighthȬcenturyȱ Saintȱ Boniface,ȱ theȱ AngloȬSaxon missionaryȱtoȱGermany,ȱandȱhisȱfemaleȱfriendsȱinȱEnglishȱmonasteries.308ȱAsȱwe canȱlearnȱfromȱtheȱlettersȱexchangedȱoverȱaȱlongȱperiodȱofȱtime,ȱbothȱsidesȱwere greatlyȱconcernedȱtoȱsupportȱeachȱotherȱspirituallyȱandȱmaterially,ȱasȱtheȱrequests forȱspecificȱobjectsȱindicate.ȱMoreover,ȱtheseȱmonasticȱfriendsȱalsoȱsentȱtextsȱto eachȱother,ȱi.e.,ȱspecificȱbooks,ȱorȱpoems,ȱwhichȱtheyȱhadȱcomposedȱorȱcopied themselves.ȱ Allȱ participantsȱ inȱ thisȱ correspondenceȱ amongȱ friendsȱ emergeȱ as highlyȱliterateȱandȱwellȱeducatedȱandȱsoȱbelongȱtoȱaȱtextualȱcommunityȱoverȱlong distance.309ȱ Friendshipȱ hereȱ manifestsȱ itselfȱ throughȱ theȱ readingȱ andȱ writing process,ȱespeciallyȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱcorrespondentsȱquicklyȱreferȱtoȱtheȱveryȱtextsȱthat theyȱ haveȱ receivedȱ andȱ thusȱ confirmȱ theȱ relevanceȱ forȱ themȱ andȱ theirȱ own appreciationȱofȱtheseȱliteraryȱgifts.ȱ AsȱWestonȱrecognizes,ȱtheȱwritersȱonȱbothȱsidesȱofȱtheȱChannelȱbeganȱtoȱuse similarȱformulasȱandȱtopoi,ȱandȱdemonstratedȱtherebyȱtheirȱintellectualȱproximity. Inȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱtermȱ“BonifaceȱCircle”ȱfittinglyȱexpressesȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhich

308

309

Stefanȱ Schipperges,ȱ Bonifatiusȱ acȱ sociiȱ eius:ȱ eineȱ sozialgeschichtlicheȱ Untersuchungȱ desȱ WinfridȬ Bonifatiusȱ undȱ seinesȱ Umfeldes.ȱ Quellenȱ undȱ Abhandlungenȱ zurȱ mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte,ȱ 79ȱ (Mainz:ȱ Selbstverlagȱ derȱ Gesellschaftȱ fürȱ Mittelrheinischeȱ KirchenȬ geschichte,ȱ1996);ȱBonifatiusȱ–ȱApostelȱderȱDeutschen:ȱMissionȱundȱChristianisierungȱvomȱ8.ȱbisȱinsȱ20. Jahrhundert.ȱMainzerȱVorträge,ȱ9ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱSteiner,ȱ2004);ȱBonifatius:ȱvomȱangelsächsischenȱMissionar zumȱApostelȱderȱDeutschen,ȱed.ȱMichaelȱImhofȱandȱGregorȱK.ȱStaschȱ(Petersberg:ȱImhof,ȱ2004). Forȱaȱcomparativeȱperspectiveȱonȱthisȱphenomenon,ȱseeȱBrianȱStock,ȱListeningȱforȱtheȱText:ȱOnȱthe UsesȱofȱtheȱPast.ȱParallax:ȱReȬVisionsȱofȱCultureȱandȱSocietyȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱUniversity Press,ȱ1990).

128

Introduction

bothȱtheȱwomenȱinȱEnglandȱandȱBonifaceȱandȱhisȱmaleȱdisciplesȱgrewȱtogether overȱdistanceȱviaȱtheirȱcorrespondence,ȱsharingȱtheȱsameȱvaluesȱandȱideals,ȱand thenȱ alsoȱ theȱ sameȱ educationalȱ conceptsȱ andȱ literaryȱ terms.ȱ Moreȱ important, however,ȱWestonȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱthatȱintellectualȱandȱreligiousȱcommunity wasȱbondedȱthroughȱintenseȱemotionalȱfeelings,ȱalthoughȱtheyȱtendȱtoȱhideȱthose behindȱaȱhighlyȱformulaicȱandȱtraditionalȱlanguage.ȱCertainly,ȱtheȱcorrespondents heavilyȱ reliedȱ onȱ Biblicalȱ imagesȱ andȱ traditionalȱ rhetoricalȱ strategiesȱ inȱ their affectiveȱapproaches;ȱneverthelessȱtheyȱindicatedȱclearlyȱhowȱmuchȱtheyȱcherished theirȱfriendshipȱandȱplacedȱgreatȱrelevanceȱonȱit,ȱasȱwhenȱtheyȱexchangeȱspiritual kissesȱandȱembraces,ȱthusȱassuringȱeachȱotherȱofȱtheirȱardentȱloveȱforȱtheȱrecipient ofȱtheȱlettersȱonȱtheȱrespectivelyȱotherȱsideȱofȱtheȱChannel.ȱ Thisȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱsuddenlyȱgrantedȱtheseȱepistolaryȱauthorsȱaȱnewȱspace, basedȱonȱtheȱliteraryȱdiscourseȱandȱfreeȱofȱallȱpossibleȱsuspicionsȱofȱaȱtooȱclose physicalȱ relationship.ȱ Westonȱ rightlyȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ veryȱ distanceȱ between EnglandȱandȱtheȱContinentȱmadeȱthisȱcorrespondenceȱpossibleȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace, whichȱ thenȱ transformedȱ intoȱ theȱ essentialȱ platformȱ forȱ theseȱ affectionate,ȱ yet purelyȱ spiritualȱ exchanges.ȱ Kinshipȱ wasȱ notȱ farȱ removedȱ inȱ theirȱ minds,ȱ and actuallyȱexistedȱthroughȱmultipleȱlinks,ȱbutȱtheȱtrueȱandȱfundamentalȱlinkȱbetween themȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱwasȱbasedȱonȱtheȱcommonȱdesireȱfor spiritualȱenlightenmentȱandȱtheȱadherenceȱtoȱGod’sȱlaws.ȱIrrespectiveȱofȱBoniface’s actualȱtasksȱandȱresponsibilitiesȱinȱGermany,ȱtheȱnunsȱstillȱreachedȱoutȱtoȱhim askingȱforȱhisȱacknowledgmentȱandȱrecognitionȱasȱfriends,ȱcrossingȱallȱgender linesȱandȱphysicalȱandȱchronologicalȱbarriers.ȱTheȱcommunallyȱsharedȱliterary discourseȱprovidedȱtheȱrelevantȱframeworkȱforȱthisȱgenderȬblind,ȱasȱweȱalsoȱcould callȱ it,ȱ andȱ affectionateȱ circleȱ ofȱ friends.ȱ Itȱ mightȱ beȱ justified,ȱ asȱ Weston underscores,ȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱseaȱwhichȱseparatedȱbothȱsidesȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱas theȱdecisiveȱcatalystȱforȱtheirȱfriendshipȱtoȱmaterializeȱinȱspiritualȱterms.ȱ Theirsȱ isȱ aȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ substitutedȱ forȱ theȱ missingȱ brotherȱ orȱ sister respectivelyȱandȱprovidedȱtheȱsupportȱtheyȱallȱneededȱinȱbodyȱandȱmind.ȱThe femaleȱcorrespondentsȱexpressedȱtheirȱfeelingȱofȱlonelinessȱandȱhardshipȱinȱthis world,ȱemphasizingȱtherebyȱtheirȱurgentȱrequestȱtoȱbeȱcomfortedȱbyȱBonifaceȱin hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ them.ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ consideringȱ theȱ greatȱ degreeȱ of affectionȱpermeatingȱallȱtheseȱletters,ȱweȱalsoȱhearȱofȱardentȱpleasȱtoȱBonifaceȱto returnȱinȱpersonȱandȱtoȱofferȱconsolationȱwhenȱitȱwasȱmostȱneeded—certainlyȱan impossibility,ȱbutȱalsoȱaȱclearȱindicationȱofȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱthisȱcircleȱofȱfriends hadȱgrownȱtogetherȱbyȱwayȱofȱtheirȱcorrespondence.ȱButȱsimilarlyȱasȱinȱtheȱcase ofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱ(seeȱtheȱcontributionȱbyȱConstantinou),ȱtheseȱfriendsȱknew justȱtooȱwellȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱultimatelyȱmeetȱagainȱinȱtheȱfuture,ȱevenȱthoughȱthen beyondȱtheȱphysicalȱlimitations,ȱthatȱis,ȱinȱHeaven.ȱ AlthoughȱthereȱareȱsomeȱrareȱcasesȱofȱfemaleȬfemaleȱfriendshipȱexpressedȱin letters,ȱtheȱnormȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱmaleȬmaleȱandȱfemaleȬmale.ȱButȱevenȱthenȱwhen

Introduction

129

womenȱ exchangedȱ lettersȱ affirmingȱ theirȱ endearmentȱ andȱ affection,ȱ theyȱ also resortedȱtoȱtheȱsameȱlanguageȱofȱfriendshipȱusedȱinȱtheȱBonifaceȱCircle,ȱtrulyȱa textualȱcommunityȱthatȱsharedȱaȱlargeȱsetȱofȱvaluesȱandȱidealsȱandȱcouldȱthus maintainȱ anȱ extraordinaryȱ networkȱ ofȱ writingȱ acrossȱ Europeȱ duringȱ theȱ midȬ eighthȱcentury.ȱ Theȱvariousȱauthorsȱdidȱnotȱrelyȱonȱaȱnaiveȱandȱimpulsiveȱrhetoric;ȱinsteadȱthey createdȱanȱelaborateȱsystemȱofȱliteraryȱstrategiesȱtoȱaffirmȱtheirȱfriendshipȱover suchȱgrandȱdistances,ȱwhich,ȱinȱaȱfascinatingȱfashion,ȱalmostȱentirelyȱremovedȱthe differencesȱ inȱ genderȱ becauseȱ theȱ epistolaryȱ communicationȱ focusedȱ almost exclusivelyȱonȱtheȱidealȱandȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendship. JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson Personalȱcorrespondencesȱoftenȱshedȱimportantȱlightȱonȱwhatȱfriendshipȱreally meantȱ forȱ thoseȱ involved.ȱ Notȱ surprisingly,ȱ theȱ almostȱ notoriousȱ relationship betweenȱAbelardȱandȱHeloiseȱeasilyȱcomesȱtoȱmindȱhereȱasȱwell,ȱwhereȱtheȱtwo personsȱ areȱ mostȱ famousȱ forȱ theirȱ illicitȱ loveȱ affair,ȱ theirȱ marriage,ȱ thenȱ their separation,ȱandȱfinallyȱtheirȱsubsequentȱexchangesȱviaȱlettersȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱprobed theȱ meaningȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ friendshipȱ inȱ aȱ spiritualȬphilosophicalȱ framework. JenniferȱConstantineȬJacksonȱhereȱoffersȱanȱacuteȱanalysisȱofȱtheirȱlettersȱinȱlight ofȱtheȱlargerȱtopicȱpursuedȱinȱthisȱvolume.ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱAbelardȱpresentedȱhimself asȱprimarilyȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱlogic,ȱheȱalsoȱeventuallyȱembracedȱrhetoric asȱtheȱessentialȱinstrumentȱinȱachievingȱhisȱintellectualȱgoals.ȱTheseȱtwoȱdisciplines combinedȱwellȱforȱhim,ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱforȱHeloise,ȱbyȱwayȱofȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendship thatȱ createdȱ theȱ essentialȱ bridgeȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ people,ȱ afterȱ havingȱ been loversȱandȱhusbandȱandȱwife.ȱ AsȱConstantineȬJacksonȱargues,ȱHeloise’sȱexchangesȱwithȱAbelardȱonȱtheȱbasis ofȱfriendshipȱprovidedȱhimȱwithȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱrhetoricalȱlessons,ȱespecially becauseȱ bothȱ peopleȱ were,ȱ followingȱ Etienneȱ Gilson’sȱ observation,ȱ inȱ full agreementȱthatȱphilosophyȱandȱtheologyȱplayedȱeachȱotherȱhandȱinȱhandȱandȱso wereȱessentiallyȱcomplementary.ȱOr,ȱasȱConstantineȬJacksonȱformulatesȱit,ȱrhetoric provedȱtoȱbeȱbothȱaȱphilosophicalȱorientationȱandȱaȱspiritualȱexercise.ȱFriendship, then,ȱ entersȱ theȱ pictureȱ atȱ theȱ veryȱ intersectionȱ ofȱ bothȱ aspects,ȱ whichȱ the correspondenceȱbetweenȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱpowerfullyȱillustrates. Abelardȱ focusedȱ onȱ rhetoricȱ fromȱ earlyȱ onȱ andȱ developedȱ itȱ consistently throughoutȱhisȱlife,ȱincreasinglyȱconnectingȱitȱwithȱtheology,ȱsimilarlyȱtoȱwhat Augustineȱ did.ȱ Heloiseȱ drewȱ inȱ herȱ writingȱ asȱ muchȱ onȱ classicalȱ rhetoric, especiallyȱbyȱCicero,ȱasȱherȱcorrespondentȱdidȱinȱhisȱownȱletters,ȱemphasizingȱits relevanceȱforȱachievingȱwisdom.ȱBothȱincreasinglyȱfoundȱwaysȱtoȱreconcileȱwith eachȱotherȱafterȱyearsȱofȱseparation,ȱandȱembracedȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱwhich bothȱcouldȱenjoyȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱphilosophyȱandȱeloquence,ȱorȱrhetoricȱonȱtheȱsame level.ȱAfterȱall,ȱthroughȱeloquenceȱandȱfriendshipȱtheȱpathwayȱtowardȱGodȱwas

130

Introduction

suddenlyȱopenedȱup,ȱwhichȱConstantineȬJacksonȱconfirmsȱthroughȱherȱreadingȱof theȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium,ȱwhetherȱthoseȱlettersȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱasȱauthentic orȱnot.ȱAbelardȱcreditedȱHeloiseȱwithȱpossessingȱaȱprofoundȱunderstandingȱof friendship,ȱdeeperȱperhapsȱevenȱthanȱCicero’s,ȱbecauseȱofȱherȱstrongȱemphasisȱon virtue,ȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ realizedȱ throughȱ thisȱ bondȱ betweenȱ twoȱ people.ȱ Virtue, however,ȱalmostȱeliminatesȱtheȱeroticȱandȱlaysȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱaȱphilosophical friendship.ȱ Significantly,ȱ asȱ researchȱ byȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaegerȱ andȱ othersȱ has demonstrated,ȱuntilȱatȱleastȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱfriendshipȱandȱitsȱveryȱmodality continuedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱcentralȱcurriculumȱatȱtheȱcathedralȱschoolsȱand thenȱtheȱuniversities.ȱNotȱsurprisingly,ȱthisȱcanȱthenȱalsoȱclaimedȱforȱtheȱintensive intellectualȱexchangesȱbetweenȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise. OneȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱpointsȱinȱHeloise’sȱdifficultȱeffortsȱtoȱconvinceȱAbelardȱofȱthe trueȱvalueȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱherȱrealizationȱthatȱethicsȱandȱeloquenceȱcorrelated withȱeachȱother.ȱThisȱapproachȱtoȱrhetoricȱwas,ȱhowever,ȱgroundedȱinȱtheȱidealȱof friendshipȱ whichȱ sheȱ intimatelyȱ connectedȱ withȱ virtues,ȱ evenȱ atȱ theȱ riskȱ of abandoningȱrhetoricȱagainȱbecauseȱsheȱtreatedȱAbelardȱaboveȱallȱasȱaȱteacherȱwith whomȱsheȱwasȱaffectionatelyȱbondedȱinȱtheȱquestȱforȱvirtue,ȱorȱsapientia,ȱandȱso sheȱ couldȱ forgoȱ eloquenceȱ inȱ herȱ exchangesȱ withȱ him.ȱ Friendship,ȱ however, mediatesȱdivineȱwisdomȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱaȱconceptȱwhichȱwasȱalsoȱembracedȱby AelredȱofȱRievaulxȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱways.ȱ Althoughȱnotȱaddressingȱrhetoricȱexplicitly,ȱHeloiseȱdemonstratedȱinȱherȱLetters theȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱitȱwasȱintimatelyȱtiedȱinȱwithȱwisdom,ȱandȱasȱsuchȱforgedȱa wayȱ towardȱ friendshipȱ throughȱ whichȱ theȱ trueȱ realizationȱ ofȱ Godȱ wasȱ only possibleȱ forȱ them.ȱ Whereasȱ Abelardȱ hadȱ addressedȱ anȱ amicusȱ inȱ hisȱ Historia Calamitatus,ȱHeloiseȱinsistedȱinȱherȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱhimȱonȱtheirȱrelationship asȱ friendsȱ andȱ pushedȱ theȱ philosopherȱ toȱ embraceȱ friendshipȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ a centerpieceȱforȱtheȱloveȱofȱGod.ȱFriendshipȱovercomesȱtheȱmaterial,ȱevenȱsexual, desiresȱandȱaimsȱforȱaȱspiritualȱtransformationȱofȱtheȱindividualȱinȱconjunction withȱ theȱ otherȱ friend.ȱ Atȱ theȱ endȱ Abelardȱ acceptedȱ Heloise’sȱ viewpointsȱ and talkedȱaboutȱChristȱasȱtheȱtrueȱfriend,ȱmeaningȱthatȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwasȱaȱmirror ofȱtheȱdivineȱfriendship.ȱ ProjectingȱChristȱasȱHeloise’sȱlover,ȱAbelardȱcouldȱdistanceȱhimselfȱfromȱherȱand presentȱhimselfȱasȱherȱfriend,ȱconnectedȱwithȱherȱthroughȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱrhetoric andȱwisdom.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱbothȱofȱthemȱbecameȱteacherȱandȱstudentsȱofȱoneȱanother inȱChrist.ȱTheȱlastingȱimpressionȱconfirmsȱtheȱnewlyȱestablishedȱmutualismȱin friendship,ȱlevelingȱbothȱcorrespondentsȱinȱtheirȱquestȱofȱandȱforȱeachȱotherȱand ofȱ theȱ Godheadȱ throughȱ rhetoricȱ inȱ theȱ serviceȱ ofȱ wisdom.ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ Abelard acceptedȱHeloise’sȱchallengeȱandȱembracedȱtheȱnotionȱofȱfriendshipȱforȱhimselfȱas advisorȱandȱsupporterȱofȱtheȱParacleteȱcommunity.ȱ AsȱConstantineȬJacksonȱconcludes,ȱAbelard,ȱunderȱHeloise’sȱinfluence,ȱmerged andȱ incorporatedȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ rhetoricȱ withȱ thatȱ ofȱ charismaticȱ friendship.

Introduction

131

Mostȱsignificantly,ȱthisȱrelationshipȱwasȱrealizedȱthroughȱepistolaryȱconversations inȱwhichȱbothȱwritersȱrevealedȱtheirȱinnerȱthoughts,ȱworries,ȱandȱtroubleȱtoȱeach other,ȱ propellingȱ eachȱ otherȱ toȱ learn,ȱ toȱ expand,ȱ andȱ toȱ transformȱ intoȱ true disciplesȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱhighestȱfriendȱthereȱis. MarcȱSauretteȱ Whenȱweȱtalkȱaboutȱfriendship,ȱweȱmustȱnotȱignoreȱitsȱsignificantȱroleȱwithinȱthe public,ȱpoliticalȱdiscourse,ȱasȱMarcȱSauretteȱobservesȱwithȱregardsȱtoȱtheȱintense andȱ complexȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ wordȱ ‘friendship’ȱ inȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable’sȱ political correspondence.ȱFamousȱClunyȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱaȱmajorȱcenterȱofȱtwelfthȬcentury monasticism,ȱitȱhadȱalsoȱdevelopedȱintoȱaȱhubȱofȱgreatestȱeconomic,ȱmilitary,ȱand spiritualȱimportance.ȱTheȱabbotȱwasȱnaturallyȱselectedȱfromȱamongȱtheȱhighest rankingȱ nobleȱ familiesȱ inȱ theȱ region,ȱ whoȱ then,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ maintainedȱ close connectionsȱwithȱtheȱmajorȱpowerȱplayers.ȱDespiteȱitsȱprimarilyȱreligiousȱfunction, Clunyȱ entertainedȱ multipleȱ politicalȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ regularlyȱ characterized themȱinȱtermsȱofȱfriendship.ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱoriginatedȱfromȱa familyȱonȱaȱratherȱlowerȱsocialȱechelon,ȱwhichȱpanegyristsȱandȱchroniclersȱtried toȱignoreȱinȱtheirȱaccountsȱaboutȱhim,ȱandȱwhoȱinsteadȱalludedȱtoȱhistoricalȱroots associatingȱhimȱwithȱtheȱlineȱofȱtheȱCapetianȱkings.ȱTheȱauthorsȱwereȱparticularly inclinedȱtoȱemphasizeȱhowȱmuchȱPeterȱwasȱadmiredȱandȱlovedȱbyȱhisȱsubjects,ȱif notȱveneratedȱasȱaȱsaint,ȱhenceȱtheȱepithetȱinȱhisȱname. However,ȱtheȱtensionsȱbetweenȱtheȱabbotȱandȱtheȱlocalȱaristocracyȱseemȱtoȱhave runȱ relativelyȱ highȱ andȱ wereȱ playedȱ outȱ inȱ aȱ specificȱ propagandaȱ campaign directedȱagainstȱtheȱlatterȱgroupȱasȱbeingȱcombativeȱandȱdivisive,ȱwhileȱtheȱabbot andȱtheȱmonasteryȱappearȱasȱpeaceȱlovingȱandȱcaring.ȱConsequently,ȱPeterȱandȱhis monksȱmadeȱgreatȱeffortsȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱtheȱpublic,ȱtoȱinterveneȱinȱpoliticalȱand militaryȱ conflicts,ȱ andȱ toȱ offerȱ theirȱ ownȱ servicesȱ inȱ peaceȱ negotiations, increasinglyȱincorporatingȱtheȱlaityȱwithinȱtheȱspiritualȱfoldȱofȱtheȱmonastery.ȱ AlthoughȱPeterȱmostlyȱstayedȱatȱCluny,ȱheȱdevelopedȱanȱextensiveȱnetworkȱof friendshipsȱbyȱwayȱofȱanȱintensiveȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱatȱleastȱseventyȱpeopleȱfar andȱwide.ȱFriendshipȱwasȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱgameȱinȱhisȱdiplomaticȱgambit,ȱandȱit servedȱhimȱwellȱtoȱsettleȱconflicts,ȱtoȱaddressȱrancorȱandȱgrudges,ȱandȱtoȱovercome seriousȱthreatsȱandȱhostilitiesȱinȱsmallerȱandȱlargerȱcontexts.ȱ Weȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ careful,ȱ however,ȱ asȱ Sauretteȱ admonishesȱ us,ȱ toȱ differentiate betweenȱPeter’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱmonksȱinȱhisȱmonastery,ȱregularlyȱexpressed inȱhighlyȱaffectionateȱterms,ȱandȱfriendshipȱwithȱlayȱaristocrats,ȱincludingȱkings andȱ otherȱ highȱ rankingȱ nobles,ȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ endeavoredȱ toȱ establishȱ closer connectionsȱ throughȱ moreȱ formal,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ ritualisticȱ andȱ politicalȱ maneuvers. Nevertheless,ȱweȱstillȱcannotȱsimplyȱdismissȱtheseȱcarefullyȱcraftedȱandȱutilized tropesȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱnothingȱbutȱrhetoricalȱstrategiesȱwithoutȱhavingȱanyȱbasis inȱ anyȱ individual,ȱ honestȱ feelings.ȱ Instead,ȱ Peterȱ achievedȱ hisȱ politicalȱ goals

132

Introduction

preciselyȱbecauseȱheȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱinvestedȱhisȱpoliticalȱandȱdiplomaticȱendeavors withȱtrueȱemotionsȱstronglyȱappealingȱtoȱtheȱoutsideȱworldȱwhereverȱstrifeȱand conflictȱragedȱtoȱestablishȱpeaceȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱidealsȱasȱtheyȱwereȱpracticed behindȱtheȱmonastery’sȱwalls.ȱ Itȱisȱnoȱlongerȱallȱthatȱbelievableȱthatȱemotionsȱdisplayedȱinȱpublicȱwereȱnothing butȱstagedȱgestures,ȱmimicry,ȱandȱritual;ȱinsteadȱweȱwouldȱbeȱwellȱadvisedȱtoȱsee behindȱ thoseȱ ritualsȱ alsoȱ actualȱ feelings;ȱ henceȱ Peter’sȱ concernȱ toȱ extendȱ his friendshipȱasȱabbotȱtoȱtheȱlaityȱasȱwell,ȱcoaxingȱandȱpleadingȱwithȱthemȱtoȱaccept hisȱauthorityȱandȱtoȱsubscribeȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱvalueȱofȱfriendship,ȱcannotȱonlyȱbe regardedȱasȱaȱtheatricalȱoperation.310ȱNotȱassumingȱthatȱeveryoneȱwouldȱsimply followȱhimȱinȱhisȱrecommendations,ȱtheȱabbotȱcoaxinglyȱsuggestedȱoverȱandȱover againȱ thatȱ allȱ humanȱ differencesȱ couldȱ beȱ easilyȱ overcomeȱ byȱ turningȱ toȱ the absoluteȱloveȱofȱandȱbyȱGodȱasȱtheȱultimateȱfriend.ȱWithȱhisȱlettersȱtoȱhisȱmany worldlyȱ‘friends,’ȱPeterȱthusȱdevelopedȱhisȱopinionsȱfromȱaȱreligiousȱpointȱofȱview withȱ theȱ intentȱ ofȱ influencingȱ theȱ politicalȱ worldȱ outsideȱ ofȱ Clunyȱ asȱ well, requestingȱthatȱhisȱaddresseesȱembraceȱcharityȱasȱtheirȱmodusȱoperandiȱbecauseȱthey livedȱinȱaȱworldȱofȱsinfulnessȱandȱneededȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱnewȱapproachȱinȱtheirȱsocial interactionsȱwhichȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱdeterminedȱbyȱChristianȱideals.ȱ However,ȱasȱSauretteȱalsoȱnotices,ȱforȱPeterȱfriendshipȱwasȱnotȱaȱconstantȱand enduringȱphenomenon;ȱinsteadȱitȱcouldȱeasilyȱfadeȱandȱdisappearȱagain,ȱbeing highlyȱfragileȱwithinȱtheȱactualȱpoliticalȱandȱsocialȱcontext,ȱifȱnotȱenoughȱattention andȱ careȱ wereȱ applied.ȱ Thisȱ couldȱ implyȱ gifts,ȱ immaterialȱ support,ȱ adviceȱ or assistance,ȱ whateverȱ itȱ wouldȱ take,ȱ whichȱ Peterȱ himselfȱ triedȱ toȱ carryȱ outȱ in practice.ȱInsofarȱasȱtheȱabbotȱclearlyȱdistinguishedȱbetweenȱfalseȱandȱtrueȱfriends, veryȱmuchȱinȱtheȱveinȱofȱBoethianȱteachingsȱ(ConsolationȱofȱPhilosophy),ȱweȱcan trustȱhisȱstatementsȱinȱhisȱlettersȱasȱsincereȱeffortsȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱtheȱlaityȱandȱto provideȱaȱroadmapȱofȱhowȱtoȱovercomeȱstrifeȱandȱviolenceȱbyȱwayȱofȱfriendship. Combiningȱreligiousȱidealsȱasȱtheyȱwere,ȱsoȱheȱclaimed,ȱalreadyȱrealizedȱinȱthe communityȱofȱClunyȱwithȱattemptsȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱtheȱsecularȱaristocracy,ȱPeter hopedȱtoȱestablishȱaȱnew,ȱbroadȬrangingȱcommunity,ȱintimatelyȱconnectingȱthe monasteryȱasȱitsȱcenter,ȱorȱhub,ȱwithȱallȱoutsideȱmembers,ȱincludingȱkingsȱand bishops,ȱespeciallyȱthoseȱintimatelyȱaffiliatedȱwithȱCluny,ȱbyȱwayȱofȱtheȱbondsȱof friendship.ȱThoseȱwhoȱwereȱfriendsȱofȱCluny,ȱasȱexpressedȱbyȱgiftsȱandȱdonations, receivedȱhighestȱpraiseȱinȱPeter’sȱletters,ȱalthough,ȱasȱSauretteȱfinallyȱunderscores,

310

TheȱoldȱpositionȱwasȱstronglyȱadvocatedȱbyȱGerdȱAlthoff,ȱDieȱMachtȱderȱRituale:ȱSymbolikȱund Herrschaftȱ imȱ Mittelalterȱ (Darmstadt:ȱ Wissenschaftlicherȱ Buchverlag,ȱ 2003);ȱ id.,ȱ Inszenierte Herrschaft:ȱGeschichtsschreibungȱundȱpolitischesȱHandelnȱimȱMittelalterȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftȬ licherȱBuchverlag,ȱ2003);ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱarguingȱenergeticallyȱandȱratherȱconvincinglyȱagainstȱit, PeterȱDinzelbacherȱpleadsȱforȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱcomplexȱapproach,ȱembracingȱbothȱaspects,ȱritualȱand emotionsȱasȱtheȱtwoȱsidesȱofȱtheȱsameȱcoin,ȱWarumȱweintȱderȱKönig?:ȱeineȱKritikȱdesȱmediävistischen Panritualismusȱ(Badenweiler:ȱBachmann,ȱ2009).

Introduction

133

trueȱ friendshipȱ showedȱ itself,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ abbot,ȱ moreȱ throughȱ the demonstrationȱofȱsincereȱlove,ȱi.e.,ȱthroughȱgesturesȱandȱwordsȱcomingȱfromȱthe heart.ȱ Inȱfact,ȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱaȱfriendȱofȱClunyȱsignaledȱaȱparticularȱcharacterȱandȱwasȱa badgeȱofȱhonorȱwithinȱtheȱreligiousȱandȱtheȱpoliticalȱrealm.ȱInȱthisȱsenseȱPeter operatedȱveryȱsuccessfullyȱwithȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱorderȱtoȱsupport individualȱrulers,ȱtoȱcoaxȱthemȱtoȱpursueȱaȱpeacefulȱagenda,ȱandȱtoȱabandonȱtheir formerȱ hostilityȱ againstȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ abbotȱ calledȱ thoseȱ people friendsȱ whoȱ hadȱ demonstratedȱ throughȱ theirȱ benevolentȱ ruleȱ orȱ their foresightednessȱ andȱ circumspectionȱ inȱ dealingȱ withȱ theirȱ peopleȱ toȱ beȱ ideal charactersȱworthyȱtoȱbeȱincludedȱinȱtheȱcircleȱofȱClunyȱfriends.ȱ Consequently,ȱturningȱtoȱtheȱpoliticalȱdimensionȱofȱfriendship,ȱSauretteȱobserves howȱ muchȱ Peterȱ usedȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Clunyȱ asȱ anȱ instrumentȱ to convinceȱ rulersȱ toȱ performȱ inȱ aȱ specific,ȱ Christianȱ wayȱ andȱ toȱ striveȱ forȱ the establishmentȱofȱpeaceȱwithȱtheirȱpreviousȱopponents,ȱforȱinstance.ȱTheȱreward consistedȱof,ȱasȱSauretteȱrecognizes,ȱtheȱpromiseȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱmemberȱofȱthe communityȱofȱfriends,ȱwhichȱheldȱconsiderableȱbenefitsȱforȱtheȱlaity,ȱthatȱis,ȱthe aristocracyȱandȱtheȱworldlyȱrulers.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ asȱ weȱ alsoȱ haveȱ toȱ realize,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ guaranteeȱ thatȱ Peter’s rhetoricalȱ strategiesȱ toȱ pacifyȱ hostileȱ combatantsȱ wouldȱ workȱ sinceȱ muchȱ still dependedȱonȱtheȱaddressee’sȱwillingnessȱorȱreadinessȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱtheȱabbot’s requests.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ asȱ Sauretteȱ concludes,ȱ submittingȱ underȱ theȱ idealȱ of friendshipȱasȱofferedȱbyȱClunyȱentailedȱmanyȱadvantagesȱbothȱforȱtheȱmonastery andȱtheȱlaityȱwithoutȱappearingȱmercenaryȱtoȱtheȱpublic.ȱ Thereȱ isȱ noȱ reasonȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ Peterȱ simplyȱ manipulatedȱ theȱ lordsȱ and ecclesiasticsȱ whomȱ heȱ addressedȱ inȱ hisȱ numerousȱ lettersȱ forȱ selfishȱ reasons, althoughȱheȱcertainlyȱemployedȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱaȱratherȱpoliticalȱand mostȱastuteȱmanner.ȱHeȱfullyȱbelievedȱinȱtheȱidealȱofȱChristianȱfriendship,ȱandȱyet alsoȱoperatedȱwithȱitȱratherȱskillfullyȱonȱtheȱhighestȱdiplomaticȱlevels.ȱThereȱwould notȱbeȱanyȱgoodȱwayȱtoȱdistinguishȱbetweenȱhonestȱembracingȱofȱfriendshipȱand strategicallyȱ utilizingȱ itȱ forȱ politicalȱ purposes.ȱ Heȱ certainlyȱ playedȱ with,ȱ or employed,ȱ ritualsȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ butȱ theyȱ provedȱ toȱ beȱ soȱ effectiveȱ precisely becauseȱ theyȱ wereȱ anchoredȱ inȱ aȱ worldȱ ofȱ convictionsȱ andȱ feelings,ȱ afterȱ all. Shouldȱweȱinferȱfromȱthisȱthatȱnoȱgoodȱactorȱcanȱplayȱhis/herȱroleȱwithoutȱbeing somewhatȱpersonallyȱinvestedȱinȱit?ȱButȱthatȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱcynic’sȱpointȱofȱview. R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie WeȱcouldȱhardlyȱidentifyȱanyȱmajorȱintellectualȱfromȱtheȱlongȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱwho wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ engagedȱ inȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ asȱ St.ȱ Anselmȱ of Canterburyȱ demonstrates,ȱ whoseȱ lettersȱ andȱ Prayersȱ areȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ critical examinationȱbyȱR.ȱJacobȱMcDonie.ȱFriendsȱdoȱnotȱneedȱtoȱbeȱpresentȱtoȱprovide

134

Introduction

theȱsupportȱandȱloveȱexpectedȱfromȱthem.ȱThisȱmysteriousȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbe tantamountȱtoȱaȱtrueȱspiritualȱcommunityȱwithoutȱwhichȱanȱindividualȱwouldȱnot beȱableȱtoȱcopeȱwellȱinȱlife.ȱTheȱhonestȱfriendsȱemergeȱasȱreflectionsȱofȱtheȱownȱself andȱofȱtheȱChristianȱcommunityȱunifiedȱinȱloveȱforȱtheȱothersȱand,ȱaboveȱall,ȱfor God.ȱ Althoughȱ Anselmȱ didȱ notȱ dismissȱ theȱ monasticȱ communityȱ asȱ primary, whereȱnoȱindividualizedȱfriendshipȱwasȱreallyȱtolerated,ȱheȱstillȱadvocatedȱfor friendshipȱasȱaȱmediumȱtoȱgainȱaȱnewȱdegreeȱofȱspiritualityȱandȱlove.ȱThisȱcomes toȱtheȱforeȱinȱAnselm’sȱrelativelyȱlittleȱexaminedȱPrayers,ȱtheȱobjectȱofȱMcDonie’s investigations.ȱ HeȱpointsȱoutȱespeciallyȱAnselm’sȱapproachȱtoȱfriendsȱasȱmetaphysicalȱentities, asȱsoulȬmates,ȱandȱnotȱnecessarilyȱasȱpeopleȱinȱone’sȱimmediateȱphysicalȱpresence. Hence,ȱheȱprimarilyȱlookedȱforȱfriendshipȱwithȱsaintsȱwhoȱcouldȱprovideȱhimȱwith theȱreligiousȱsuccorȱsoȱnecessaryȱforȱaȱChristianȱinȱthisȱworldȱinȱorderȱtoȱgain God’sȱloveȱinȱaȱtriangularȱfashionȱbecauseȱHeȱisȱalreadyȱinȱaȱnarrativeȱdiscourse withȱ themȱ andȱ wouldȱ beȱ willingȱ toȱ extendȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ themȱ toȱ the Christianȱ stillȱ seekingȱ thatȱ connection.ȱ Anselmȱ underscoredȱ inȱ hisȱ Prayersȱ the dramaticȱnatureȱofȱtheȱsinfulȱsoulȱsearchingȱforȱGod’sȱgrace,ȱwhichȱleadsȱdirectly toȱ aȱ newȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ individualȱ willingȱ toȱ submitȱ himselfȱ underȱ selfȬ examination.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱprayers,ȱthen,ȱaddressedȱtoȱsaintsȱasȱintercessorsȱwith God,ȱfriendshipȱtransformsȱintoȱaȱreligiousȱinstrumentȱtoȱliberateȱtheȱabjectȱsoul fromȱitsȱisolationȱandȱpromisesȱtoȱupliftȱitȱintoȱtheȱdivineȱlightȱwhereȱtheȱsinfulness mightȱbeȱforgiven. AtȱAnselm’sȱtime,ȱMcDonieȱremindsȱus,ȱtheȱtransitionȱfromȱtheȱtraditionalȱimage ofȱ theȱ triumphantȱ andȱ somehowȱ inaccessibleȱ Christȱ toȱ theȱ sufferingȱ Christ approachableȱthroughȱpiousȱdevotionȱhadȱnotȱquiteȱyetȱsetȱin.ȱHenceȱreachingȱout toȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱspiritualȱbutȱcloseȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱmetaphysicalȱrealmȱofferedȱmuch hopeȱandȱprovidedȱconfidenceȱthatȱsinfulnessȱcouldȱbeȱovercomeȱandȱforgiven. Christ,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Anselm,ȱ didȱ notȱ quicklyȱ dieȱ aȱ salvificȱ deathȱ onȱ theȱ cross; insteadȱHeȱlivedȱamongȱpeopleȱforȱaȱlongȱtime,ȱbecameȱtheirȱfriends,ȱandȱthen, beyondȱHisȱdeath,ȱextendedȱthatȱfriendshipȱtoȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱwell.ȱThoseȱinȱturn couldȱ bridgeȱ theȱ gapȱ betweenȱ Christȱ andȱ theȱ humanȱ sinner,ȱ meaningȱ that friendshipȱsuddenlyȱassumes,ȱinȱAnselmianȱterms,ȱaȱhealingȱpowerȱthroughȱwhich theȱindividualȱhas,ȱafterȱall,ȱaȱchanceȱtoȱappealȱandȱprayȱtoȱGodȱbecauseȱtheȱsaintly friendsȱinterveneȱonȱhisȱbehalfȱandȱbecomeȱtheȱcrucialȱintermediaries.ȱ Humanȱfriends,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱthreatenȱtoȱobscureȱtheȱquestȱforȱtheȱselfȱinȱtheȱeffort toȱcleanseȱoneselfȱfromȱsinsȱwhichȱproveȱtoȱbeȱmostȱdauntingȱandȱmightȱeven destroyȱtheȱindividualȱonceȱtheyȱhaveȱbeenȱconfessed.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱMcDonie refersȱhereȱtoȱfriendsȱinȱAnselm’sȱimmediateȱphysicalȱpresence,ȱwhereasȱdistant friendsȱemergeȱasȱmajorȱcatalystsȱinȱtheȱstruggleȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱtheȱVirginȱMary andȱChristȱHimself.ȱBothȱsaintsȱandȱsuchȱdistantȱfriendsȱcanȱperformȱtheȱnecessary taskȱ ofȱ helpingȱ theȱ sinfulȱ soulȱ toȱ gainȱ assistanceȱ andȱ forgivenessȱ fromȱ God.

Introduction

135

Imaginingȱ thoseȱ friends,ȱ orȱ invokingȱ theirȱ spiritualȱ presence,ȱ provesȱ toȱ be sufficient,ȱifȱnotȱevenȱbetter,ȱforȱAnselmȱinȱhisȱeffortȱtoȱmeditateȱandȱprayȱandȱthus toȱreachȱoutȱtoȱGod.ȱ Whenȱfriendsȱareȱinȱaȱgeographicȱdistance,ȱlettersȱareȱnotȱreallyȱnecessaryȱto connectȱwithȱthemȱbecauseȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱrestsȱinȱtheȱmind,ȱnotȱinȱthe body,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱexplains,ȱonceȱagain,ȱwhyȱAnselmȱmoreȱorȱlessȱidentified saintsȱasȱfriendsȱandȱhisȱtrueȱfriendsȱinȱthisȱworldȱalmostȱasȱsaints.ȱAfterȱall,ȱfor Anselmȱtheȱultimateȱtruthȱdoesȱnotȱrestȱinȱtheȱbody,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱmind,ȱandȱitȱisȱthere whereȱ theȱ saintsȱ andȱ Godȱ interact,ȱ andȱ soȱ alsoȱ theȱ friends.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ logical conclusionȱforȱhimȱthenȱisȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱtrueȱfriendsȱcanȱonlyȱjoinȱinȱheaven whereȱtheirȱheartsȱcanȱfinallyȱbeȱunified.ȱ ȱ Significantly,ȱ asȱ McDonieȱ highlightsȱ inȱ hisȱ article,ȱ thisȱ kindȱ ofȱ friendship transgressedȱtraditionalȱgenderȱlines,ȱsinceȱAnselmȱexpressedȱhimselfȱsimilarlyȱin lettersȱtoȱfemaleȱfriends.311ȱHenceȱitȱwouldȱbeȱabsurdȱtoȱinsinuate,ȱconsideringȱhis mostȱ affectionateȱ andȱ passionateȱ language,ȱ anyȱ homosexualȱ tendenciesȱ in Anselm’sȱ writingsȱ becauseȱ forȱ himȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ isȱ absoluteȱ spiritualization, thoughȱ friendsȱ stillȱ couldȱ competeȱ againstȱ eachȱ otherȱ inȱ achievingȱ virtuesȱ in worldlyȱterms.ȱNevertheless,ȱsinceȱheȱintendedȱmost,ȱifȱnotȱall,ȱofȱhisȱlettersȱfor publicȱreading,ȱheȱdeliberatelyȱtonedȱdownȱtheȱeroticȱlanguageȱwhenȱwritingȱto aȱfemaleȱcorrespondentȱtoȱavoidȱanyȱsuspicionȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱhisȱaudience. ReturningȱtoȱAnselm’sȱsaintȬfriends,ȱMcDonieȱobservesȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱauthor reliedȱonȱanȱimageȱofȱfriendshipȱalmostȱoppositeȱtoȱthatȱpropoundedȱinȱclassical times,ȱ sinceȱ thatȱ relationshipȱ isȱ hierarchical,ȱ utilitarian,ȱ contingent,ȱ and impenetrable.ȱMostȱimportant,ȱsinceȱtheȱsaintsȱhadȱbeenȱhuman,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbe capableȱofȱunderstandingȱtheȱsinner’sȱfrailtyȱandȱneedȱofȱhelp,ȱandȱthusȱwould intercedeȱonȱhis/herȱbehalfȱwithȱGod.ȱSoȱtheȱsaintsȱareȱdefinitelyȱnotȱalterȬegos; insteadȱtheyȱproveȱtoȱbeȱfarȱremoved,ȱandȱevenȱdifficultȱtoȱreach;ȱthusȱtheȱprayers toȱthemȱaddressȱthemȱasȱfriendsȱofȱhumanȱorigin,ȱnowȱinȱHeavenȱwhereȱtheyȱhave aȱchanceȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱGodȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱsinner.ȱ Afterȱall,ȱasȱMcDonieȱemphasizes—andȱrightlyȱso—Anselmȱevenȱturnedȱtoward theȱsaints’ȱshortcomingsȱandȱfailuresȱinȱtheirȱlifetimeȱtoȱbuildȱaȱbridgeȱtoȱhisȱown humanȱexistenceȱinȱorderȱtoȱevokeȱsympathyȱforȱhimselfȱasȱaȱsinner.ȱ“Sympathetic identification”ȱ emergesȱ asȱ theȱ catalystȱ forȱ spiritualȱ friendship,ȱ asȱ McDonie formulatesȱit,ȱandȱsinceȱAnselmȱprojectedȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱoverflowingȱwithȱgoodness, heȱobviouslyȱimpliedȱthatȱtheyȱcouldȱeasilyȱshareȱsomeȱofȱthatȱforȱtheirȱfriendsȱon earth.ȱInsofarȱasȱGodȱisȱperceivedȱasȱanȱunmovableȱandȱterrifyingȱjudgeȱofȱthe sinner,ȱ theȱ saintsȱ growȱ inȱ valueȱ forȱ theȱ worshipperȱ becauseȱ theyȱ serveȱ inȱ the

311

SeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱLisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWestonȱandȱJenniferȱConstantineȬJackson. Forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱfemaleȱfriendships,ȱseeȱaboveȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱ(bothȱMarilynȱSandidge’sȱandȱmy ownȱparts).

136

Introduction

importantȱfunctionȱofȱcommunicatingȱtheȱlatter’sȱrequestȱtoȱHimȱsinceȱtheyȱare bondedȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱthroughȱfriendshipȱandȱthusȱcanȱintercedeȱbecauseȱtheyȱare mercifulȱ andȱ graciousȱ toȱ theirȱ earthlyȱ friendsȱ andȱ areȱ alsoȱ friendsȱ withȱ God Himselfȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱ(especiallyȱSt.ȱJohnȱandȱChristȱatȱtheȱLastȱSupper).ȱ McDonieȱsubsequentlyȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱlastȱcriticalȱquestionȱregardingȱfriendshipȱin Anselm’sȱlettersȱandȱconsidersȱtheȱproblemȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱhatingȱsinfulnessȱjustȱas muchȱasȱGodȱdoes.ȱAnselmȱfindsȱtheȱsolutionȱinȱtheȱphilosophyȱofȱAtonement,ȱa formȱofȱmetonymicalȱfriendshipȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱsaintȱsimplyȱstandsȱinȱforȱtheȱsinner, whoȱthusȱcanȱsuddenlyȱleanȱonȱGodȱhimselfȱasȱifȱheȱwereȱtheȱsaint.ȱThisȱleadsȱto twoȱformsȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱoneȱbyȱtheȱsaintȱwithȱGod,ȱtheȱotherȱbyȱtheȱsaintȱwith theȱ sinner,ȱ andȱ neitherȱ contradictingȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ philosophicalȱ andȱ religious terms.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱAnselmȱbelievedȱthatȱheȱcouldȱsecureȱGod’sȱmercyȱasȱifȱheȱwere theȱsaintȱhimself,ȱwhichȱisȱallȱmadeȱpossibleȱbecauseȱsaintȱandȱsinnerȱareȱfriends asȱwell.ȱ Inȱsum,ȱasȱMcDonieȱelaborates,ȱAnselmȱpredicatedȱhisȱPrayersȱindeedȱonȱthe notionȱofȱfriendship,ȱbutȱheȱdistancedȱhimselfȱinȱphysicalȱtermsȱfromȱtheȱearthly friendsȱandȱreachedȱoutȱtoȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱtheȱmostȱpotentȱadvocatesȱforȱtheȱsinner inȱtheȱfaceȱofȱGod.ȱAnselmȱwasȱmostȱprobablyȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱclassicalȱmodelȱof friendshipȱasȱdevelopedȱbyȱCicero,ȱbutȱheȱturnedȱagainstȱitȱandȱsuggestedȱaȱrather idiosyncratic,ȱ spiritualȱ one,ȱ indeed,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ toȱ witnessȱ aȱ considerable popularityȱinȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAges. JulianȱHaseldine Insofarȱ asȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ regardedȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ centralȱ topicsȱ intensively discussedȱinȱtheȱlongȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱJulianȱHaseldine’sȱcontributionȱoffersȱaȱmost welcomeȱsweepingȱoverviewȱwithȱaȱfocusȱonȱtheȱdebateȱaboutȱfriendshipȱwithin theȱmonasticȱworld,ȱreflectingȱbothȱonȱSt.ȱAnselmȱandȱonȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱnot toȱforgetȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱandȱmanyȱofȱtheirȱconcernsȱregardingȱtheȱproper interpretationȱofȱTheȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱBenedict.ȱTheȱlearnedȱandȱsophisticatedȱletterȱwas oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ favoriteȱ intellectualȱ weaponsȱ inȱ theȱ globalȱ debateȱ aboutȱ the significanceȱ ofȱ caritasȱ asȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ struggleȱ byȱ the Cisterciansȱtoȱdefendȱthemselvesȱagainstȱpublicȱaccusationsȱofȱanȱextremeȱformȱof austerityȱ andȱ theirȱ attemptȱ thusȱ toȱ establishȱ theirȱ superiorityȱ overȱ theȱ other monasticȱorders.ȱWhateverȱ‘friendship’ȱreallyȱmightȱhaveȱmeant,ȱitȱbecame,ȱas Haseldineȱemphasizes,ȱaȱkeyȱwordȱinȱtheȱplethoraȱofȱepistolaryȱexchangesȱand publicȱdiscourse,ȱservingȱextraordinarilyȱwellȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱcollaborators,ȱtoȱbuild politicalȱalliances,ȱtoȱstrengthenȱcoalitions,ȱandȱtoȱdefendȱtheirȱownȱcase.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ exploreȱ thisȱ thornyȱ issueȱ further,ȱ Haseldineȱ focusesȱ onȱ the correspondenceȱ between,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux,ȱ Peterȱ the Venerable,ȱandȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱandȱhighlyȱappreciatedȱfriendsȱfarȱawayȱwhoȱwere regardedȱ asȱ deservingȱ suchȱ letters,ȱ masterpiecesȱ ofȱ politicalȱ andȱ diplomatic

Introduction

137

endeavors.ȱNotȱsurprisingly,ȱhowever,ȱheȱbeginsȱhisȱstudyȱwithȱanȱanalysisȱofȱSt. Anselm’sȱletters,ȱandȱfromȱthereȱproceedsȱtoȱtheȱlaterȱepistolaryȱauthors.ȱThese lettersȱshedȱimportantȱlightȱonȱhowȱtheȱCisterciansȱdefinedȱandȱutilizedȱtheȱterm ‘friendship,’ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ sensitiveȱ issuesȱ inȱ theȱ acrimoniousȱ tensionsȱ withȱ the Benedictinesȱasȱtheȱolderȱmonasticȱorder.ȱWeȱneedȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmind,ȱhowever,ȱas Haseldineȱalertsȱus,ȱthatȱtheȱexpressionsȱofȱintensiveȱemotions,ȱevenȱofȱpassion, shouldȱnotȱbeȱreadȱnaivelyȱasȱsuch;ȱinsteadȱtheyȱwereȱallȱhighlightsȱofȱepistolary artȱandȱrhetoric,ȱandȱtheseȱwritersȱpursued,ȱthroughȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱemotions, specificȱreligiousȱandȱpoliticalȱgoals.ȱ AsȱmanyȱofȱBernard’sȱlettersȱindicate,ȱfriendshipȱwasȱregardedȱasȱaȱmatterȱof publicȱesteemȱandȱcouldȱstandȱtheȱtestȱofȱpublicȱscrutiny,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱtrue friendshipȱ lastedȱ forȱ ever.ȱ Termsȱ suchȱ asȱ ‘love’ȱ andȱ ‘friendship’ȱ provedȱ toȱ be convenientȱ forȱ theȱ publicȱ discourse,ȱ bondingȱ alliesȱ andȱ collaboratorsȱ together, confirmingȱ theirȱ commitmentȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ soȱ thatȱ theȱ commonȱ goalȱ could assuredlyȱbeȱachieved.ȱWritingȱtoȱfemaleȱaddressees,ȱBernardȱtendedȱtoȱresortȱto highlyȱemotionalȱlanguage,ȱbutȱcertainlyȱnotȱoutȱofȱanyȱeroticȱinterests;ȱinstead,ȱas Haseldineȱunderscores,ȱbecauseȱheȱpresentedȱhimself,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱthereȱwas noȱdirectȱpersonalȱintimacy,ȱhenceȱnoȱgroundȱforȱanyȱsuspicion,ȱasȱtheirȱadvisor whomȱtheyȱcouldȱcompletelyȱtrustȱasȱtheirȱfriend.ȱAtȱaȱcloserȱlookȱweȱcanȱalsoȱnote theȱabsenceȱofȱparticularlyȱsituationsȱwhenȱBernardȱformulatedȱuniqueȱfriendly expressions.ȱTheȱsignificanceȱofȱrhetoricalȱstrategiesȱinȱtheseȱlettersȱcanȱneverȱbe underestimated.ȱ HaseldineȱpointsȱoutȱhowȱmuchȱcontemporariesȱsuchȱasȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱalmost playfullyȱoperatedȱwithȱsuchȱtermsȱofȱendearment,ȱcallingȱaȱvarietyȱofȱaddressees ‘friends’ȱforȱaȱnumberȱofȱpurposes.ȱNevertheless,ȱinȱPeter’sȱcaseȱthereȱisȱsufficient evidenceȱtoȱconfirmȱthatȱheȱtrulyȱcorrespondedȱwithȱgoodȱfriendsȱfromȱtheȱtime ofȱhisȱstudentȱyears;ȱandȱyetȱthisȱdoesȱnotȱtakeȱawayȱtheȱrhetoricalȱpropertiesȱof hisȱ letters—againȱ anȱ interestingȱ caseȱ whereȱ ritual,ȱ orȱ formalisticȱ expressions, clashesȱ withȱ theȱ claimȱ toȱ speakȱ fromȱ theȱ heart.ȱ Theȱ correspondenceȱ between BernardȱandȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱforȱinstance,ȱrevealsȱthatȱdespiteȱtheȱjovial,ȱoften mockingȱtoneȱofȱvoice,ȱdespiteȱtheȱjokes,ȱwit,ȱandȱbanter,ȱtheȱdeliberateȱstrategy toȱachieveȱaȱspecificȱendȱwasȱneverȱignored.ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱfriendshipȱdominated thoseȱexchanges,ȱitȱwasȱaȱtoolȱforȱhighlyȱeducatedȱmenȱtoȱdemonstrateȱinȱpublic withȱwhomȱtheyȱwereȱpoliticallyȱandȱadministrativelyȱcloselyȱassociated,ȱorȱrather bondedȱtogetherȱasȱfriends. Thisȱ argumentȱ allowsȱ usȱ toȱ understandȱ whyȱ soȱ manyȱ seeminglyȱ private,ȱ in realityȱratherȱpublicȱlettersȱwereȱcollectedȱandȱpreservedȱinȱtheȱmonasticȱlibraries. Haseldineȱ underscoresȱ howȱ muchȱ friendship,ȱ asȱ reflectedȱ inȱ these correspondences,ȱ wasȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ intimateȱ relationship; insteadȱitȱservedȱexceedinglyȱwellȱforȱpoliticalȱmaneuvering,ȱthoughȱthisȱstillȱdoes notȱcompletelyȱexcludeȱactualȱemotionalȱrelationshipsȱamongȱthoseȱ‘friends.’ȱNot

138

Introduction

surprisingly,ȱ then,ȱ inȱ someȱ casesȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ extendedȱ evenȱ toȱ strangers becauseȱofȱpoliticalȱconvenienceȱandȱexpedience,ȱorȱtheȱletterȱwriterȱwasȱdriven byȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱconvertȱtheȱaddresseeȱtoȱtheȱmonasticȱlife.ȱUltimately,ȱasȱHasldine comments,ȱ theȱ tropeȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ couldȱ serveȱ aȱ wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ functions,ȱ and wouldȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ employedȱ withȱ greatȱ careȱ whenȱ utilizedȱ inȱ theseȱ monastic correspondences.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ friendshipȱ continuedȱ toȱ beȱ problematicȱ forȱ theȱ Cistercians,ȱ as BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuireȱhasȱpointedȱout.ȱAfterȱall,ȱonceȱtheirȱmonasticȱcommunities hadȱgrownȱinȱsize,ȱtheȱfearȱofȱsexualȱmisconductȱgrewȱconsiderably,ȱhenceȱalsoȱthe fearȱforȱtheȱwellȬbeingȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱmonksȱorȱnuns,ȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱatȱrisk ifȱcliquesȱofȱfriendsȱmightȱform.312ȱButȱtheȱoverwhelmingȱevidenceȱindicates,ȱafter all,ȱthatȱfriendshipȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱofȱsignificantȱimportanceȱandȱwasȱembraced evenȱinȱtheoreticalȱtermsȱasȱaȱkeyȱelementȱofȱbrotherlyȱloveȱforȱtheȱCistercians,ȱas weȱ haveȱ seenȱ aboveȱ inȱ ourȱ discussionȱ ofȱ Aelred’sȱ treatise,ȱ andȱ asȱ Haseldine’s argumentsȱhereȱconvincinglyȱillustrateȱfurther. Literaryȱcirclesȱcarriedȱbyȱlettersȱoftenȱresortedȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ‘friendship’ȱasȱaȱmost convenientȱ oneȱ toȱ expressȱ theȱ intellectual,ȱ religious,ȱ andȱ spiritualȱ connections amongȱthemȱall.ȱEvenȱapparentȱrebuffsȱtoȱfriendlyȱoverturesȱcouldȱbeȱpartȱofȱa literaryȱritualȱforȱentryȱintoȱformalȱorȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbonds,ȱasȱseveralȱcases inȱtheȱcorrespondencesȱofȱPeterȱ ofȱ CelleȱandȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱindicate. Extendingȱfriendshipȱtoȱnewlyȱappointedȱchurchȱadministratorsȱorȱabbotsȱthusȱhas toȱbeȱviewedȱasȱaȱskillfulȱrhetoricalȱstrategyȱallowingȱtheȱletterȱwriterȱtoȱposition himselfȱinȱaȱhumbling,ȱyetȱsomehowȱstillȱdominatingȱposition.ȱInȱanotherȱcontext friendshipȱcouldȱbeȱforgedȱbetweenȱcommunities,ȱorȱbetweenȱanȱindividualȱand aȱcommunity,ȱeachȱtimeȱpredicatedȱonȱpoliticalȱoperations,ȱnotȱnecessarily,ȱifȱatȱall, onȱ explicitȱ emotionalȱ attachments,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ impossibleȱ atȱ anyȱ rateȱ inȱ such cases.ȱInȱallȱofȱtheseȱcontextsȱfriendshipȱisȱexpressedȱinȱtermsȱofȱlaw,ȱallegiance, debt,ȱ obligation,ȱ orȱ privilege,ȱ reflectingȱ theȱ publicȱ natureȱ ofȱ thisȱ relationship. Friendshipȱcould,ȱhowever,ȱendȱwhenȱtheȱcommonlyȱsharedȱsetȱofȱvaluesȱwasȱno longerȱquiteȱinȱplace.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱasȱAnselmȱclearlyȱexpressed,ȱoneȱcould neverȱhaveȱenoughȱfriends,ȱbothȱpersonallyȱandȱpolitically.ȱ Thisȱ doesȱ notȱ mean,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ asȱ Haseldineȱ makesȱ usȱ aware,ȱ friendship, whetherȱprivateȱorȱpublic,ȱwasȱhardlyȱeverȱcompletelyȱfreeȱofȱconflictȱandȱstrife. Andȱitȱalsoȱwasȱrepeatedlyȱusedȱasȱaȱmediumȱtoȱappealȱforȱhelpȱwhenȱlegalȱor economicȱproblemsȱwithȱotherȱpartiesȱandȱindividualsȱarose.ȱTheȱrichȱnetworks amongȱtheȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱintellectualsȱwereȱcommonlyȱestablishedȱonȱtheȱnotion ofȱfriendshipȱwhichȱappearsȱasȱtheȱmostȱflexibleȱandȱmultiȬfunctionalȱglueȱholding thoseȱcommunitiesȱtogetherȱandȱprotectingȱthemȱfromȱexternalȱthreats.ȱ

312

BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱ“TheȱCisterciansȱandȱtheȱTransformationȱofȱMonasticȱFriendship,”ȱAnalecta Cisterciensiaȱ37.1–2ȱ(1983):ȱ3–65.

Introduction

139

Itȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱratherȱdifficultȱtoȱdistinguishȱmoreȱclearlyȱbetweenȱtheȱexpress useȱofȱtheȱtermȱamicitiaȱandȱamor,ȱorȱdilectio,ȱinȱtheȱpolitical,ȱlegal,ȱeconomic,ȱand religiousȱdiscourseȱcarriedȱoutȱbyȱwayȱofȱletters.ȱAppealsȱforȱhelpȱregularlyȱallude toȱfriendship,ȱwhereasȱexpressionsȱofȱaȱpersonalȱstateȱofȱmindȱrelyȱonȱtheȱlatter term.ȱSignificantly,ȱBernard,ȱforȱinstance,ȱresortedȱtoȱfriendshipȱevenȱinȱlettersȱthat addressedȱbitterȱenemiesȱinȱorderȱtoȱunderscoreȱhisȱownȱupholdingȱofȱtheȱvalues thatȱhadȱconnectedȱthemȱuntilȱrecently.ȱ Haseldineȱpointsȱtoȱaȱstrikingȱfeatureȱinȱallȱofȱtheseȱcollections:ȱthoseȱrecipients whoȱwereȱtrulyȱintimatesȱorȱconfidants,ȱandȱwhoȱwereȱaddressedȱwithȱexpressions ofȱloveȱandȱaffectionȱatȱotherȱtimes,ȱareȱexplicitlyȱcalledȱfriendsȱalmostȱexclusively inȱtheȱcontextsȱofȱclashesȱorȱdisputesȱduringȱmomentsȱofȱcrisis.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱsome lettersȱ byȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Celle,ȱ friendshipȱ isȱ invokedȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ rebukeȱ and criticism,ȱprobablyȱtoȱensureȱthatȱnoȱbridgesȱtoȱotherȱpeopleȱwouldȱbeȱtornȱdown inȱtheȱlongȱrun.ȱReferencesȱtoȱfriendshipȱcouldȱalsoȱserveȱtoȱupholdȱtheȱopponent toȱhigherȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱstandards.ȱButȱthenȱtheȱallusionȱtoȱfriendshipȱalso fulfilledȱtheȱimportantȱfunctionȱtoȱameliorateȱandȱhealȱbrokenȱrelationsȱandȱto reestablishȱpeace.ȱThoseȱwhoȱdeclaredȱtoȱbeȱfriends,ȱdespiteȱallȱenmity,ȱrefusedȱto letȱ hostilityȱ andȱ materialȱ conflictsȱ comeȱ betweenȱ thoseȱ whoȱ exchangedȱ those letters.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱthisȱdidȱnotȱnecessarilyȱmeanȱaȱwillingnessȱtoȱletȱgoȱofȱtheȱown positionȱ inȱ aȱ debate;ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ toȱ operateȱ withȱ theȱ termȱ friendship strengthenedȱone’sȱcaseȱinȱfaceȱofȱtheȱother’sȱaggressiveness. Haseldineȱfinallyȱwarnsȱusȱnotȱtoȱreadȱtooȱmanyȱemotionalȱelementsȱintoȱthe expressionsȱofȱfriendshipȱcontainedȱinȱthoseȱletterȱcollections,ȱsinceȱtheseȱregularly servedȱ political,ȱ religious,ȱ orȱ institutionalȱ purposesȱ andȱ wereȱ important instrumentsȱinȱtheȱdiplomaticȱexchanges,ȱparallelȱto,ȱbutȱcertainlyȱquiteȱdistinct from,ȱ theȱ obligationȱ toȱ extendȱ monasticȱ caritas.ȱ Friendshipȱ thusȱ emerges,ȱ as Haseldineȱ concludes,ȱ asȱ aȱ powerfulȱ rhetoricalȱ instrumentȱ inȱ theȱ countless exchangesȱandȱinteractionsȱamongȱtheȱmanyȱhighlyȱinfluentialȱtwelfthȬcentury ecclesiastics.ȱ JohnȱA.ȱDempsey InȱtheȱfollowingȱstudyȱJohnȱA.ȱDempseyȱinvitesȱusȱtoȱconsiderȱfriendshipȱfrom quiteȱaȱdifferentȱperspective,ȱthatȱis,ȱaȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱpursuedȱbyȱmembers ofȱtheȱPatareneȱmovementȱinȱeleventhȬcenturyȱnorthernȱItaly.ȱHisȱmainȱwitness, BishopȱBonizoȱofȱSutri,ȱcomposedȱaȱsignificantȱtreatise,ȱtheȱLiberȱadȱamicumȱofȱca. 1085–1086,ȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ atȱ firstȱ sightȱ primarilyȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ interactionsȱ and tensionsȱ betweenȱ Popeȱ Gregoryȱ VIIȱ andȱ Henryȱ IVȱ ofȱ Germany.ȱ Inȱ reality, however,ȱasȱDempseyȱelaborates,ȱthisȱisȱaȱtreatiseȱaboutȱtheȱPatareneȱmovement andȱitsȱideologicalȱfoundationȱbasedȱonȱtheȱideaȱofȱpoliticoȬreligiousȱfriendship throughȱwhichȱthatȱmovementȱwasȱheldȱtogether,ȱirrespectiveȱofȱtheȱmembers’ socialȱbackground,ȱsinceȱtheyȱbelongedȱbothȱtoȱtheȱclergyȱandȱtheȱlaity.ȱBonizo

140

Introduction

developedȱtheȱideologyȱthatȱevenȱaȱknightȱcouldȱdefendȱwithȱhisȱswordȱorthodox Christianityȱagainstȱaȱhereticalȱemperor,ȱwherebyȱtheyȱwouldȱdemonstrateȱtheir friendshipȱ withȱ theȱ trueȱ religion,ȱ henceȱ wereȱ embracedȱ byȱ theȱ clergyȱ asȱ the intimateȱfriendsȱofȱthatȱmovement.ȱ Previousȱ scholarshipȱ tendedȱ toȱ readȱ hisȱ textȱ asȱ aȱ defenseȱ treatiseȱ forȱ Pope GregoryȱVII,ȱbutȱDempseyȱarguesȱthatȱBonizoȱreallyȱaddressedȱtheȱotherȱPatarenes andȱappealedȱtoȱthemȱtoȱrealizeȱtheȱdreamȱofȱChristianȱfriendshipȱwhichȱformed theȱideologicalȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱmovement.ȱTheȱauthorȱardentlyȱurgedȱhisȱfriendsȱto rememberȱandȱavengeȱtheȱassassinationȱofȱtheirȱleaderȱErlembaldȱCottaȱinȱ1075 andȱhenceȱtoȱtakeȱupȱarmsȱagainstȱtheȱimperialȱforcesȱofȱHenryȱIVȱofȱGermanyȱas anȱassumedȱheretic.ȱTheyȱwould,ȱasȱheȱsuggested,ȱtherebyȱdefendȱtheȱsideȱofȱPope Gregoryȱ andȱ theȱ Countessȱ Matildaȱ ofȱ Canossa,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ arrangedȱ theȱ peace negotiationȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ forces.ȱ Altogether,ȱ however,ȱ forȱ Bonizoȱ these politicalȱ andȱ militaryȱ eventsȱ wereȱ onlyȱ theȱ foilȱ beforeȱ whichȱ heȱ situatedȱ the Pataria,ȱtoȱwhomȱheȱstronglyȱrecommendedȱformingȱbetterȱfriendshipsȱandȱthus aȱmoreȱsolidȱreligiousȱcommunity.313ȱ DempseyȱunderscoresȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱPatarenesȱhadȱfoundȱeachȱotherȱbyȱbeing attractedȱ toȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ aȱ reformedȱ churchȱ strictlyȱ opposedȱ toȱ rampant ecclesiasticalȱabuses.ȱTheyȱderivedȱtheirȱstrongestȱinspirationȱtoȱestablishȱsuchȱa cohesivenessȱamongȱthemselvesȱfromȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtriedȱtoȱliveȱitȱout inȱpracticalȱtermsȱasȱwell,ȱcloselyȱimitatingȱtheȱvitaȱapostolica,ȱknownȱasȱCanonica. Thisȱinȱturnȱfacilitatedȱtheȱenormousȱoutreachȱbothȱtoȱtheȱilliterateȱpoorȱandȱthe knightlyȱclass,ȱwhoȱwereȱallȱinvitedȱtoȱjoinȱtheȱmovementȱcarriedȱbyȱtheȱPatarene literateȱclericsȱwhoȱtried,ȱprimarilyȱrelyingȱonȱtheȱBiblicalȱtextȱandȱtheȱwritingsȱof theȱChurchȱFathers,ȱtoȱreestablishȱman’sȱpureȱrelationshipȱwithȱGodȱinȱcontrastȱto theȱ pervasiveȱ corruptionȱ amongȱ theȱ traditionalȱ clergy.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ Patarenes operatedȱwithinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheyȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱveryȱinclusiveȱand could,ȱindeed,ȱenergizeȱtheȱwiderȱpopulationȱinȱtheirȱfavor,ȱindirectlyȱcallingȱfor militaryȱactionsȱagainstȱthoseȱmembersȱofȱtheȱChurchȱhierarchyȱwhoȱhadȱbecome guiltyȱ ofȱ simony,ȱ Nicolaitism,ȱ andȱ layȱ investiture.ȱ Underȱ theȱ leadershipȱ of ErlembaldȱCottaȱtheȱPatariaȱtookȱviolentȱactionsȱandȱcreatedȱsomethingȱlikeȱan urbanȱmilitiaȱinȱMilanȱandȱnearbyȱcities,ȱbutȱErlembaldȱoverdidȱhisȱrigidȱruleȱand inȱaȱwayȱbroughtȱaboutȱhisȱownȱdeathȱinȱaȱbattleȱbetweenȱaȱstrongȱconservative counterȬmovementȱallȱoverȱLombardyȱandȱtheȱPatarenesȱinȱ1075.ȱ Bonizoȱworkedȱhardȱtoȱconvinceȱhisȱreaders/listenersȱofȱhisȱtreatiseȱadȱamicum thatȱtheȱtimeȱhadȱcomeȱtoȱlaunchȱaȱholyȱcivilȱwarȱagainstȱtheȱarchȬenemyȱofȱthe

313

StevenȱRunciman,ȱTheȱMedievalȱManichee:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱtheȱChristianȱDualistȱHeresyȱ(1947;ȱCambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1982);ȱPietȱF.ȱM.ȱFontaine,ȱGnosticȬDualisticȱTendenciesȱinȱtheȱHistory ofȱMedievalȱEurope.ȱTheȱLightȱandȱtheȱDark:ȱaȱCulturalȱHistoryȱofȱDualism,ȱ20ȱ(Groningen:ȱGopher Publisher,ȱ2004).ȱ

Introduction

141

trueȱChristianȱcommunity,ȱtheȱHenricianȱforces,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱGermanȱKingȱHenryȱIV himselfȱandȱhisȱsupporters,ȱincludingȱthoseȱinȱMilanȱandȱelsewhere.ȱErlembald’s deathȱandȱthatȱofȱotherȱPatareneȱmartyrsȱservedȱBonizoȱtoȱpresentȱabsoluteȱrole modelsȱ forȱ theȱ friendsȱ inȱ theȱ movement.ȱ Mostȱ poignantly,ȱ however,ȱ Bonizo challengedȱhisȱaudienceȱtoȱproveȱtheirȱfriendshipȱbyȱtrulyȱtakingȱsidesȱandȱhence toȱrallyȱtoȱarmsȱinȱorderȱtoȱdefendȱtheirȱreligiousȱcause.ȱWhileȱtheirȱroleȱmodels, theȱ apostlesȱ andȱ martyrs,ȱ didȱ notȱ haveȱ theȱ chanceȱ toȱ defendȱ theirȱ faithȱ with weapons,ȱ theȱ Patareneȱ friendsȱ couldȱ andȱ shouldȱ doȱ soȱ accordingȱ toȱ Bonizo, especiallyȱtoȱavengeȱtheȱmurderȱofȱErlembaldȱandȱtoȱfendȱoffȱtheȱhereticalȱforces threateningȱtheȱwellȬbeingȱofȱtheȱtrueȱChristianȱChurch.ȱ Bonizo’sȱtaskȱinȱhisȱadȱamicumȱwasȱaȱriskyȱandȱheavyȱoneȱbecauseȱheȱwantedȱto raiseȱtheȱrallyingȱcryȱamongȱallȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱtoȱriseȱupȱagainstȱaȱChristian emperor,ȱaȱrulerȱwhoseȱpositionȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱChurchȱmightȱbeȱtheȱcorrectȱone, afterȱall.ȱDempseyȱillustratesȱhowȱtheȱauthorȱskillfullyȱdrewȱfromȱaȱvarietyȱofȱtexts inȱ theȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ toȱ proveȱ hisȱ caseȱ justifyingȱ theȱ militaryȱ defenseȱ against HenryȱIVȱbyȱtheȱPatarenes.ȱBonizoȱemphasizedȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱfriends’ȱsuffering underȱimperialȱoppressionȱhadȱtoȱbeȱreadȱinȱparallelȱtoȱJesus’sȱsuffering,ȱwhich grantedȱtheȱPatarenes,ȱatȱleastȱaccordingȱtoȱhim,ȱaȱspiritualȱ justificationȱ ofȱ the highestȱorder.ȱPlayingȱonȱaȱfamousȱexampleȱfromȱlateȱantiquity,ȱBonizoȱreferred toȱtheȱRomanȱEmperorȱConstantineȱwhoȱhadȱfinallyȱbeenȱconverted,ȱaȱclearȱsign ofȱtheȱultimateȱtriumphȱthatȱtheȱPatariaȱcouldȱexpect,ȱassuming,ȱofȱcourse,ȱthat theyȱwereȱtheȱtrueȱfollowersȱofȱtheȱChristianȱChurchȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱhereticsȱon theȱsideȱofȱtheȱGermanȱEmperorȱHenryȱIV.ȱ Theȱamiciȱthusȱwereȱentitledȱtoȱtakeȱupȱarmsȱandȱ‘toȱcontinue’ȱwithȱtheȱstruggle againstȱtheȱenemiesȱofȱtheȱChristianȱfaithȱwhichȱtheȱmartyrsȱhadȱalreadyȱbegunȱa longȱtimeȱago.ȱQuiteȱnaturallyȱBonizoȱsoughtȱaȱpoliticalȱandȱmilitaryȱallianceȱwith theȱpapacy,ȱtheȱnaturalȱopponentȱtoȱallȱsoȬcalledȱheretics.ȱHence,ȱtheȱpapalȱtroops whoȱfellȱinȱbattleȱwereȱsuddenlyȱportrayedȱasȱtheȱnewȱmartyrsȱinȱtheȱoldȱstruggle.ȱ Pushingȱhisȱagendaȱfurther,ȱBonizoȱglorifiedȱbothȱtheȱ‘martyred’ȱElembrechtȱand PopeȱGregoryȱVIIȱasȱtheȱdecisiveȱroleȱmodelsȱforȱallȱtheȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱPataria, particularlyȱbecauseȱbothȱadvocatedȱtheȱsameȱvalues,ȱsuchȱasȱtheirȱoppositionȱto layȱinvestitureȱandȱsimony.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱDempseyȱillustrates,ȱBonizoȱmadeȱgreat effortsȱtoȱconvinceȱtheȱfriendsȱthatȱGregoryȱindeedȱwasȱtheȱrightȱpersonȱtoȱfight againstȱ theȱ ‘evil’ȱ Germanȱ emperor;ȱ soȱ relyingȱ onȱ theȱ organizationalȱ structure basedȱonȱfriendshipȱtheȱauthorȱmovedȱhisȱaudienceȱintoȱtheȱdesiredȱdirectionȱof supportingȱtheȱpapacyȱwithoutȱanyȱreserveȱandȱfightingȱtheȱHenricianȱfrontȱwith allȱ theirȱ might.ȱ Whetherȱ Bonizoȱ wasȱ fullyȱ awareȱ thatȱ hisȱ friendsȱ hadȱ already wagedȱaȱwarȱagainstȱEmperorȱHenryȱquiteȱaȱwhileȱbefore,ȱweȱcannotȱsay,ȱbutȱhe certainlyȱandȱmostȱenergeticallyȱrequestedȱthemȱtoȱ(re)turnȱtoȱtheȱweaponsȱandȱto continueȱwithȱtheȱfight.ȱ

142

Introduction

Sinceȱheȱidentifiedȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱfriendȱofȱmanyȱfriends,ȱandȱappealedȱtoȱthem allȱtoȱstandȱbehindȱhim,ȱhisȱadȱamicumȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱremarkableȱmanifesto ofȱmilitaryȬreligiousȱfriendship.ȱBonizoȱdidȱnotȱwriteȱasȱaȱnaiveȱchronicler.ȱInstead, heȱ operatedȱ withȱ hisȱ textȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ wideȱ circleȱ ofȱ friendsȱ and appealedȱ toȱ themȱ toȱ keepȱ inȱ mindȱ theȱ idealsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ forȱ theȱ political, religious,ȱandȱmilitaryȱobjectivesȱthatȱwereȱonȱtheȱplateȱatȱthatȱtime.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱas weȱknowȱjustȱtooȱwell,ȱBonizoȱultimatelyȱfailedȱinȱhisȱgoalsȱandȱcouldȱnotȱpreserve theȱPatariaȱeither.ȱLateȱinȱhisȱlifeȱheȱwasȱattacked,ȱbrutallyȱmaltreated,ȱlosingȱnose, ears,ȱeyes,ȱandȱhisȱtongue,ȱbutȱheȱkeptȱwriting,ȱconstantlyȱinsistingȱonȱtheȱvalue ofȱfriendshipȱforȱpoliticalȱandȱreligiousȱpurposesȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱPataria.ȱHis persistenceȱinȱpursingȱhisȱmanyȱdifferentȱgoals,ȱdespiteȱlosingȱtheȱnextȱpope’sȱfull supportȱ (Urban),ȱ hisȱ regularȱ effortsȱ atȱ reachingȱ outȱ toȱ hisȱ friends,ȱ andȱ his idealizationȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ mostȱ foundationalȱ platformȱ forȱ religiousȱ and politicalȱreformȱdeserveȱourȱfullȱattentionȱbecauseȱtheyȱshedȱfarȬreachingȱlightȱon theȱdiscourseȱitself,ȱhenceȱofȱtheȱidealizationȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱsafeȱhavenȱfor trueȱChristians,ȱi.e.,ȱPatarenes,ȱasȱheȱsawȱit. AlbrechtȱClassenȱ Friendship,ȱevenȱmentionedȱbyȱthatȱname,ȱdoesȱnotȱalwaysȱmeanȱtheȱsameȱthing, asȱ weȱ canȱ easilyȱ perceiveȱ inȱ medievalȱ heroicȱ epics.ȱ Asȱ Albrechtȱ Classen emphasizesȱinȱhisȱcontribution,ȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱNibelungenliedȱthe mainȱprotagonistsȱseemȱatȱfirstȱtoȱformȱaȱvarietyȱofȱstrongȱbondsȱofȱfriendship,ȱbut atȱcloserȱanalysisȱweȱhaveȱtoȱrealizeȱthatȱtheseȱbondsȱareȱpoliticalȱandȱmilitaryȱin nature,ȱ notȱ affectionateȱ andȱ passionateȱ bonds.ȱ Friendshipȱ wasȱ aȱ characteristic featureȱ ofȱ theȱ courtlyȱ world,ȱ hereȱ disregardingȱ monasticȱ andȱ otherȱ religious writersȱ(seeȱabove).ȱSoȱitȱdoesȱnotȱcomeȱasȱaȱsurpriseȱthatȱtheȱanonymousȱpoetȱof theȱ Nibelungenliedȱ operatedȱ withȱ theȱ termȱ ‘friendship’ȱ onlyȱ looselyȱ without investingȱmuchȱideologicalȱvalueȱintoȱitȱforȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱhisȱnarrative.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱasȱClassenȱdemonstrates,ȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱoperationȱbyȱoneȱfigure aloneȱweȱsuddenlyȱobserveȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱalmostȱinȱtheȱclassical senseȱ ofȱ theȱ word,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ theȱ heroȱ Rüedegêr.ȱ Althoughȱ heȱ also belongsȱtoȱtheȱlargerȱBurgundianȱfamily,ȱheȱlivesȱasȱanȱexileȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱofȱthe Hunnishȱ courtȱ toȱ theȱ eastȱ ofȱ theȱ Germanicȱ territory,ȱ inȱ Pöchlarnȱ (todayȱ near Vienna)ȱandȱregularlyȱbemoansȱhisȱdestiny,ȱalthoughȱweȱdoȱnotȱlearnȱclearlyȱwhat hadȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ thatȱ exile.ȱ Rüedegêrȱ alwaysȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ highlyȱ skilled diplomaticȱnegotiator,ȱadvisor,ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱallyȱandȱfriend,ȱbutȱheȱis,ȱatȱtheȱend, destroyedȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱinsurmountableȱaporiaȱofȱhisȱownȱexistence,ȱbeingȱcaught betweenȱhisȱpledgeȱofȱloyaltyȱtoȱhisȱqueen,ȱKriemhilt,ȱandȱhisȱcloseȱfamilyȱtiesȱwith theȱ Burgundians.ȱ Afterȱ all,ȱ heȱ evenȱ betrothsȱ hisȱ ownȱ daughterȱ toȱ oneȱ ofȱ their kings,ȱGiselher,ȱbrotherȱofȱKingȱGunther.ȱ

Introduction

143

Familyȱrelationshipsȱclashȱbitterlyȱwithȱfeudalȱconditions,ȱandȱatȱtheȱendȱthe latterȱoverruleȱanyȱattemptȱtoȱmaintainȱfriendshipȱandȱtoȱdevelopȱnewȱmarriage tiesȱinȱorderȱtoȱsecureȱpeaceȱandȱmutualȱrespect.ȱAsȱtheȱheroicȱepicȱillustratesȱjust tooȱclearlyȱandȱpainfully,ȱRüedegêrȱtriesȱtheȱimpossible,ȱbringingȱtogetherȱtwo hostileȱforcesȱallȱbyȱhimselfȱbyȱwayȱofȱmarriageȱarrangements.ȱHeȱisȱresponsible forȱ Kriemhilt’sȱ finalȱ agreementȱ toȱ acceptȱ Etzel’sȱ wooing,ȱ andȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ one initiatingȱtheȱmarriageȱarrangementȱforȱhisȱdaughterȱandȱtheȱyoungȱBurgundian warriorȱ Gishelher.ȱ Butȱ onceȱ theȱ hostilitiesȱ haveȱ eruptedȱ inȱ bitterȱ fighting, Rüedegêrȱsuddenlyȱrealizesȱthatȱevenȱfriendshipȱcanȱfailȱinȱtheȱworldȱofȱheroic conflictsȱandȱtensions.ȱHeȱisȱboundȱbyȱhisȱoathsȱbothȱtoȱhisȱqueenȱandȱhisȱking, thoughȱ swornȱ underȱ separateȱ conditionsȱ andȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ situation,ȱ andȱ he cannot,ȱ asȱ heȱ understandsȱ tooȱ late,ȱ sidestepȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ dilemmaȱ pitting friendshipȱversusȱbrutalȱpoliticalȱandȱmilitaryȱstructuresȱandȱconditions. DespiteȱallȱhisȱattemptsȱtoȱfindȱaȱlastȬminuteȱsolution,ȱheȱisȱpubliclyȱshamedȱinto action,ȱ getsȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ finalȱ battleȱ withȱ theȱ Burgundians,ȱ andȱ then,ȱ after havingȱkilledȱmanyȱofȱthem,ȱsuccumbsȱtoȱdeathȱasȱwell,ȱtogetherȱwithȱoneȱofȱhis futureȱinȬlaws,ȱGernot,ȱanotherȱofȱKingȱGunther’sȱbrothers.ȱ Mostȱamazingly,ȱtheȱliminal,ȱhardlyȱhumanȱfigureȱHagen,ȱtheȱtrueȱleaderȱofȱthe Burgundiansȱ behindȱ theȱ scene,ȱ stepsȱ forthȱ whenȱ Rüedegêrȱ isȱ aboutȱ toȱ throw himselfȱuponȱthem,ȱandȱengagesȱhimȱinȱaȱdiscussion,ȱrevealing,ȱsuddenly,ȱthe deepȬseatedȱdesireȱbyȱthisȱbattleȬexperiencedȱmanȱtoȱreachȱoutȱtoȱtheȱopponent andȱtoȱremindȱhimȱofȱtheirȱfriendship.ȱButȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱtheȱentireȱsceneȱand theȱmutuallyȱexclusiveȱoathsȱtoȱtheirȱvariousȱlordsȱandȱladiesȱmakeȱallȱeffortsȱto restoreȱpeace,ȱorȱatȱleastȱtoȱcontinueȱwithȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱtolerateȱtheȱotherȱside, futile,ȱandȱtheȱslaughterȱresumes,ȱonceȱagain,ȱthisȱtimeȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱfriendsȱwho mowȱeachȱotherȱdownȱinȱscores.ȱ Certainly,ȱtheȱNibelungenliedȱauthorȱidealizesȱtheȱheroicȱworldȱandȱportraysȱthe Burgundians,ȱaboveȱall,ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheȱlastȱquarterȱofȱhisȱepic,ȱasȱmostȱoutstanding andȱaweȬinspiringȱwarriors,ȱfarȱremovedȱfromȱtheirȱpreviouslyȱtreacherousȱand deceptiveȱbehaviorȱinȱfaceȱofȱsuperiorȱpowersȱ(SiegfriedȱandȱBrünhild).ȱButȱthere isȱtheȱnaggingȱfeelingȱthatȱheȱdeeplyȱregretsȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱevents,ȱatȱleastȱas farȱ asȱ Rüedegêrȱ isȱ concerned.ȱ Weȱ hardlyȱ findȱ anyȱ moreȱ movingȱ sceneȱ inȱ this monumentalȱpoemȱthanȱtheȱoneȱwhenȱHagenȱstepsȱforward,ȱremindsȱRüedegêr ofȱtheirȱfriendship,ȱofȱtheȱmanyȱvaluableȱgiftsȱtheyȱallȱhaveȱreceivedȱfromȱhim,ȱand whenȱheȱappealsȱtoȱhimȱoneȱlastȱtimeȱtoȱrememberȱwhoȱtheyȱallȱreallyȱare.ȱ However,ȱ thatȱ isȱ allȱ toȱ noȱ avail,ȱ soȱ Hagenȱ isȱ leftȱ withȱ nothingȱ butȱ toȱ offerȱ a simpleȱ pledgeȱ thatȱ heȱ himselfȱ willȱ neverȱ fightȱ againstȱ theirȱ friendȱ Rüedegêr whateverȱmightȱhappen.ȱWitnessingȱthisȱscene,ȱallȱtheseȱbyȱnowȱtrulyȱdesperate menȱ whoȱ surroundȱ themȱ actuallyȱ beginȱ toȱ cryȱ outȱ ofȱ profoundȱ sorrowȱ that friendshipȱisȱaboutȱtoȱ becomeȱtheȱmostȱpainfulȱvictimȱinȱtheseȱterribleȱbattles,

144

Introduction

causedȱbyȱoneȱwoman’sȱdeadlyȱwrathȱagainstȱHagenȱforȱtheȱmurderȱofȱherȱfirst husband.ȱ WeȱmightȱidentifyȱtheȱNibelungenliedȱasȱtheȱlastȱliteraryȱexampleȱofȱtheȱheroicȱage atȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱtheȱcourtlyȱworldȱhadȱlongȱovertakenȱtheȱpreviousȱculture.ȱCourtly loveȱfindsȱpracticallyȱnoȱreflectionȱhere,ȱandȱlikewiseȱveryȱfewȱtrueȱemotionsȱcome toȱtheȱfore,ȱexceptȱKriemhilt’sȱgriefȱoverȱSiegfried’sȱdeath,ȱwhichȱultimatelyȱleads toȱdeadlyȱfuryȱthatȱdominatesȱandȱfinallyȱevenȱengulfsȱthemȱall,ȱexceptȱKingȱEtzel. Amazingly,ȱ however,ȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ purestȱ possibleȱ formȱ emergesȱ afterȱ all, albeitȱitȱcannotȱbeȱmaintainedȱandȱdoesȱnotȱsucceedȱinȱpreventingȱfurtherȱkilling. InȱtheȱBurgundians’ȱdarkestȱhour,ȱbrieflyȱbeforeȱtheyȱallȱwillȱbeȱslaughtered,ȱalong withȱuncountableȱscoresȱofȱHunnishȱopponents,ȱaȱfriendȱappears,ȱRüedegêr,ȱthe oneȱ manȱ whomȱ theyȱ trustȱ andȱ respectȱ theȱ most.ȱ However,ȱ theirȱ faintȱ hopeȱ to surviveȱ despiteȱ allȱ oddsȱ isȱ quicklyȱ dashedȱ againȱ whenȱ theyȱ realize,ȱ andȱ are explicitlyȱ toldȱ byȱ theȱ Margrave,ȱ howȱ muchȱ heȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ victimȱ ofȱ theȱ feudal structuresȱandȱhenceȱcannotȱextricateȱhimselfȱfromȱtheȱloyaltyȱoathȱtoȱhisȱlordȱand QueenȱKriemhilt.ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱfriendshipȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱanȱidealȱfromȱtheȱpast,ȱsoȱits seems,ȱ stronglyȱ upheldȱ byȱ theȱ Nibelungenliedȱ poet,ȱ itȱ canȱ doȱ nothingȱ toȱ break throughȱtheȱaporiasȱofȱtheȱmilitaryȱandȱpoliticalȱconditions.ȱ Destinyȱisȱagainstȱthemȱallȱbecause,ȱnotȱtoȱforget,ȱHagenȱhadȱkilledȱSiegfriedȱin revengeȱforȱhisȱallegedȱmistreatmentȱofȱBrünhild,ȱbecauseȱGuntherȱhadȱwooedȱthe latter,ȱ andȱbecauseȱbothȱmenȱhadȱcooperatedȱinȱanȱevilȱschemeȱtoȱdeceiveȱthe Icelandicȱqueen.ȱSiegfried’sȱfaultsȱandȱmisbehaviorȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱduringȱhis arrivalȱ atȱ Wormsȱ mustȱ alsoȱ notȱ beȱ forgotten,ȱ soȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ difficult,ȱ ifȱ not impossible,ȱtoȱpointȱaȱfingerȱtowardȱtheȱoneȱandȱonlyȱoneȱculprit.314ȱ Inȱ faceȱ ofȱ theȱ Armageddonȱ inȱ whichȱ thisȱ epicȱ poemȱ culminatesȱ itȱ wouldȱ be almostȱtooȱpecuniaryȱandȱpedestrianȱtoȱcalculateȱpreciselyȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱguiltȱand toȱpointȱoutȱtheȱvariousȱfaults,ȱifȱnotȱcrimesȱcommittedȱbyȱindividualȱheroesȱinȱa mercantileȱ manner.ȱ Humanȱ livesȱ areȱ quicklyȱ intertwinedȱ andȱ easilyȱ find themselvesȱonȱaȱcollisionȱcourseȱfromȱwhichȱthereȱisȱnoȱrealistic,ȱifȱany,ȱescape.ȱBut despiteȱallȱthisȱdoomȱandȱgloom,ȱtheȱshortȱexchangesȱbetweenȱtheȱBurgundians andȱRüedegêrȱsuddenlyȱhighlightȱaȱglimmerȱofȱhope,ȱthoughȱquicklyȱquenched again.ȱAsȱtheȱpoetȱindicates,ȱfriendshipȱrepresentsȱaȱprofound,ȱthoughȱhereȱjustȱtoo evanescent,ȱidealȱthatȱmight—butȱreallyȱonlyȱmight—overcomeȱdeadlyȱhostilities andȱpaveȱtheȱwayȱforȱaȱnewȱharmoniousȱcommunity.ȱ

314

Recentȱattemptsȱtoȱpsychologizeȱtheȱentireȱconfigurationȱofȱtheȱprotagonistsȱmightȱbeȱfruitful,ȱbut theyȱalsoȱborderȱonȱspeculation;ȱseeȱIrmgardȱGephart,ȱ“MythosȱundȱAntimythosȱinȱderȱFigur Siegfrieds,”ȱ Schätzeȱ derȱ Erinnerung:ȱ Geschichte,ȱ Mythosȱ undȱ Literaturȱ inȱ derȱ Überlieferungȱ des Nibelungenlieds.ȱDokumentationȱdesȱ7.ȱwissenschaftlichenȱSymposiumsȱderȱNibelungenliedgesellschaft Wormsȱe.V.ȱundȱderȱStadtȱWormsȱvomȱ17.ȱbisȱ19.ȱOktoberȱ2008,ȱed.ȱVolkerȱGalléȱ(Worm:ȱWorms Verlag,ȱ2009),ȱ61–77.ȱSheȱdoesȱnotȱaddressȱfriendshipȱinȱconcreteȱterms,ȱhowever.

Introduction

145

Ofȱcourse,ȱthatȱisȱnotȱtheȱcaseȱhereȱatȱallȱsinceȱdeathȱawaitsȱeveryone,ȱexceptȱfor KingȱEtzelȱandȱhisȱtwoȱalliedȱwarriorsȱDietrichȱandȱHildebrand,ȱwhoȱlaterȱleave himȱasȱweȱlearnȱinȱtheȱequallyȱanonymousȱDiuȱKlage.ȱUltimately,ȱthen,ȱasȱClassen outlines,ȱtheȱNibelungenliedȱcanȱbeȱidentified,ȱevenȱthoughȱonlyȱinȱthoseȱshortȱand smallȱepisodesȱandȱscenes,ȱasȱaȱliteraryȱpaeanȱonȱfriendship,ȱandȱthis,ȱoddly,ȱinȱa heroicȱcontext.ȱ Butȱ weȱ canȱ alsoȱ recognizeȱ anotherȱ highlyȱ problematicȱ strategyȱ toȱ establish friendship,ȱandȱthisȱbyȱwayȱofȱgiftȬgivingȱtoȱestablishȱnetworksȱofȱfriendsȱandȱloyal supportersȱforȱpoliticalȱandȱmilitaryȱpurposes.ȱTheȱfemaleȱprotagonistȱKriemhilt triesȱtoȱ‘buy’ȱaȱcohortȱofȱtrustworthyȱwarriorsȱwithȱwhoseȱhelpȱsheȱeventually hopesȱtoȱavengeȱtheȱmurderȱofȱherȱhusband,ȱSiegfried.ȱTheȱendȱresultȱis,ȱhowever, totalȱArmageddonȱforȱbothȱsides,ȱandȱonlyȱtheȱfewȱoutsidersȱsurvive.ȱInȱother words,ȱgiftsȱcanȱeasilyȱbeȱdoubleȬedged,ȱbuildingȱfriendshipȱandȱcuttingȱtheȱother badly.ȱLittleȱwonderȱthatȱfriendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱconstitutedȱsuchȱaȱfundamental, yetȱalsoȱdeeplyȱproblematicȱsocialȱinstrumentȱandȱframework.ȱWeȱcannotȱreally liveȱwithoutȱfriends,ȱbutȱthereȱareȱhardlyȱanyȱreallyȱgoodȱfriendsȱoutȱthere,ȱasȱboth Beowulfȱ inȱ theȱ AngloȬSaxonȱ epicȱ poemȱ andȱ Siegfriedȱ andȱ Kriemhiltȱ inȱ the Nibelungenliedȱlearnȱonlyȱtooȱquicklyȱandȱtooȱpainfully.315 AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpoȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ alreadyȱ above,ȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ spannedȱ many centuries,ȱliteraryȱgenres,ȱlanguages,ȱandȱintellectualȱcommunities.ȱMovingȱfrom medievalȱGermanȱheroicȱepicȱliteratureȱ(Classen)ȱtoȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱSpanish religiousȱpoetry,ȱAntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpoȱoffersȱanȱinsightfulȱdiscussionȱofȱthe CantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱbyȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastileȱwhoȱapparentlyȱalsoȱjoinedȱthe discourseȱofȱfriendshipȱforȱhisȱsocioȬreligiousȱpurposes.ȱButȱLiuzzoȱScorpoȱatȱfirst warnsȱusȱnotȱtoȱignoreȱtheȱmultipleȱmeaningsȱandȱusesȱofȱtheȱtermȱamicitiaȱinȱthe highȱMiddleȱAgesȱacrossȱEurope,ȱandȱsoȱalsoȱonȱtheȱIberianȱpeninsula,ȱsinceȱit couldȱserveȱtoȱdescribeȱbothȱpoliticalȱandȱprivateȱrelationships,ȱandȱthoseȱbetween menȱandȱwomen,ȱmenȱandȱmen,ȱorȱwomenȱandȱwomen.ȱInȱtheȱSpanishȱcontext, theȱtermȱamigoȱcarriedȱpolyvalentȱmeaningsȱandȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱlord, aȱcompanion,ȱaȱlover,ȱorȱaȱvassal—aȱphenomenonȱthatȱactuallyȱappliesȱtoȱmost medievalȱ literatures.316ȱ Focusingȱ onȱ theȱ Cantigas,ȱ afterȱ havingȱ succinctly

315 316

Clark,ȱBetweenȱMedievalȱMen,ȱ2009ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ52) ForȱaȱveryȱearlyȱbutȱimpressiveȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱtermȱ‘friunt,’ȱseeȱFerdinand Wachter,ȱ“Freund,”ȱAllgemeineȱEncyclopaedieȱderȱWissenschaftenȱundȱKuenste,ȱ1849,ȱ172–77ȱ(seeȱnote 291);ȱconsultȱalsoȱVerenaȱEpp,ȱAmicitia:ȱzurȱGeschichteȱpersonaler,ȱsozialerȱundȱgeistlicherȱBeziehungen, 1999ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ44);ȱforȱexamplesȱpertainingȱtoȱearlyȬmodernȱHumanistȱliterature,ȱseeȱJohannes KlausȱKipf,ȱ“HumanistischeȱFreundschaftȱimȱBriefȱ:ȱzurȱBedeutungȱvonȱamicus,ȱamicitiaȱund verwandterȱ Begriffeȱ inȱ Briefcorporaȱ deutscherȱ Humanistenȱ 1480Ȭ1520,”ȱ Verwandtschaft, Freundschaft,ȱBruderschaft:ȱsozialeȱLebensȬȱundȱKommunikationsformenȱimȱMittelalter.ȱAktenȱdesȱ12.

146

Introduction

introducedȱbothȱtheȱauthorȱ(Alfonso)ȱandȱtheȱwork,ȱLiuzzoȱScorpoȱexaminesȱhow theȱtermȱ‘friend’ȱfunctionsȱinȱthisȱhugeȱcontext,ȱobserving,ȱaboveȱall,ȱthatȱtheȱkingȬ poetȱregardedȱhimselfȱbothȱasȱGod’sȱfriendȱandȱasȱfriendȱofȱtheȱpeople.ȱAsȱalready inȱtheȱcaseȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱ(seeȱabove)ȱandȱotherȱtheologiansȱinȱtheȱeleventh andȱ twelfthȱ centuries,ȱ theȱ royalȱ poetȱ stronglyȱ aimedȱ forȱ spiritualȱ friendship, connectingȱhimȱasȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱwithȱGod.ȱForȱAlfonsoȱitȱwasȱparticularlyȱeasy toȱ forgeȱ thatȱ connectionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ becauseȱ heȱ regardedȱ himselfȱ alreadyȱ as God’sȱvassalȱhereȱonȱearthȱandȱsoȱonlyȱneededȱtoȱrespondȱtoȱGod’sȱloveȱtoȱrealize theȱidealȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship.ȱ LiuzzoȱScorpoȱemphasizes,ȱinȱaddition,ȱthatȱthisȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱcouldȱalso extendȱ toȱ theȱ Virgin,ȱ theȱ apostle,ȱ theȱ saints,ȱ andȱ manyȱ otherȱ holyȱ figures. Nevertheless,ȱ Godȱ Himselfȱ emergesȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ ideal,ȱ theȱ perfectȱ friend, particularlyȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ classicalȱ definitionsȱ (Cicero),ȱ althoughȱ onlyȱ fewȱ people proveȱ toȱ beȱ holyȱ enoughȱ toȱ beȱ gracedȱ withȱ such,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ God’sȱ friendship. Nevertheless,ȱ itȱ becameȱ aȱ veryȱ commonȱ usageȱ toȱ identifyȱ theȱ trueȱ Christian believersȱasȱGod’sȱfriends,ȱcreatingȱaȱuniversalȱcommunityȱbondedȱtogetherȱbyȱthe sameȱethics,ȱmorals,ȱvalues,ȱandȱreligionȱaboveȱall.ȱFamilyȱtiesȱwere,ȱbyȱcontrast, notȱatȱallȱtheȱsameȱasȱfriendshipȱandȱcouldȱeasilyȱbeȱsevered.ȱAngels,ȱonȱtheȱother hand,ȱespeciallyȱGabriel,ȱalsoȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱmembers,ȱthoughȱsubordinatedȱunder GodȱandȱtheȱVirgin,ȱofȱtheȱcircleȱofȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱspiritualȱdomain.ȱLogically,ȱthe apostlesȱandȱsaints,ȱandȱothersȱamongȱtheȱheavenlyȱhost,ȱalsoȱgainedȱtheȱtitleȱof friendsȱofȱGodȱandȱcouldȱthusȱserveȱevenȱbetterȱasȱintermediariesȱbetweenȱthe humanȱsoulȱandȱtheȱdivineȱbeing.ȱ Eve,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱoriginallyȱalsoȱGod’sȱfriendȱbecauseȱsheȱwasȱlikewiseȱHis creature,ȱ demonstratedȱ theȱ inherentȱ problemȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ especiallyȱ when betrayalȱoccurred,ȱsinceȱitȱalwaysȱrequiredȱaȱcarefulȱexaminationȱandȱselectionȱof thoseȱwhoȱareȱtrulyȱworthyȱofȱthatȱnobleȱtitleȱofȱ‘friend.’ȱSignificantly,ȱasȱLiuzzo Scorpoȱdiscovers,ȱifȱminstrelsȱareȱidentifiedȱasȱfriends,ȱthisȱspecificallyȱreferredȱto theirȱbondingȱonȱaȱspiritualȱlevel,ȱandȱcertainlyȱexcludedȱanyȱhumanȱrelationship. Knightsȱwhoȱfeltȱdeadlyȱtorturedȱbyȱunrequitedȱloveȱwereȱencouragedȱtoȱprayȱto theȱVirginȱMaryȱwhoȱthenȱwouldȱdescendȱfromȱHeavenȱandȱcompeteȱwithȱthe worldlyȱladyȱforȱtheȱknight’sȱheart,ȱassumingȱtheȱcenterȱofȱallȱofȱhisȱattentionȱas theȱtrue,ȱtheȱspiritual,ȱfriend,ȱandȱalsoȱasȱmother,ȱcounselor,ȱandȱcompanion.ȱ LiuzzoȱScorpoȱunearthsȱtheȱrichȱandȱcomplexȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱChristian believersȱandȱtheirȱfriendsȱinȱHeaven,ȱwhichȱisȱoftenȱcontrastedȱbyȱexamplesȱof evil,ȱ untrustworthyȱ friendsȱ hereȱ onȱ earth,ȱ whoȱ oftenȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ devil’s

SymposiumsȱdesȱMediävistenverbandesȱvomȱ19.ȱbisȱ22.ȱMärzȱ2007ȱinȱTrier,ȱed.ȱGerhardȱKriegerȱ(Berlin: Akademie.ȬVerlag,ȱ2009),ȱ491Ȭ509;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱLaȱSociétéȱdesȱamisȱàȱRomeȱetȱdansȱlaȱlittératureȱmédiévale etȱhumaniste,ȱed.ȱPerrineȱGalandȬHallynȱandȱPerrineȱGalandȬHallyn.ȱLatinitates,ȱ2ȱ(Turnhout: Brepols,ȱ2008).ȱ

Introduction

147

servants.ȱTheȱCantigasȱpresentȱtheȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwithȱGodȱasȱaȱprivilegeȱforȱthe believer,ȱwhichȱincluded,ȱultimately,ȱeverybodyȱworthyȱofȱthatȱtitle,ȱdespiteȱthe obviousȱ preferenceȱ forȱ Alfonsoȱ Xȱ asȱ theȱ primaryȱ protagonist,ȱ creator,ȱ and practitionerȱofȱtheseȱreligiousȱsongs.ȱAsȱaȱfriendȱofȱGod,ȱandȱparticularlyȱofȱthe VirginȱMary,ȱAlfonsoȱclaimedȱanȱimportantȱpositionȱasȱanȱintermediaryȱhimself, almostȱlikeȱaȱsaintlyȱfriendȱalreadyȱhereȱonȱearth,ȱor,ȱmoreȱprecisely,ȱasȱMary’s friend,ȱvassal,ȱandȱevenȱlover.ȱNevertheless,ȱheȱcouldȱonlyȱfulfillȱthisȱselfȬselected roleȱifȱtheȱVirginȱcameȱtoȱhisȱassistanceȱandȱprovidedȱhimȱadditionallyȱwithȱthe importantȱinsightȱintoȱhowȱtoȱdifferentiateȱamongȱgoodȱandȱbadȱfriends.ȱ InȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱkingsȱinȱEnglandȱandȱFrance,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱneverȱtriedȱtoȱelevate himselfȱtoȱaȱsacrosanctȱfigureȱwhoȱcouldȱexertȱalmostȱdivineȱpowerȱthroughȱthe toucheȱroyale.317ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱheȱsawȱhimselfȱasȱprivileged,ȱbeingȱtheȱVirgin’sȱchosen friend,ȱheȱstrategicallyȱhumbledȱhimselfȱasȱwell,ȱinsistingȱthatȱwhenȱpeopleȱcame toȱhimȱforȱhelpȱinȱincurableȱcases,ȱheȱdidȱnotȱplayȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱmiraculousȱhealer, butȱreferredȱtheȱsufferingȱperson/sȱtoȱtheȱVirginȱtoȱwhomȱtheyȱallȱcouldȱappeal, askingȱforȱherȱfriendshipȱandȱhenceȱherȱhelp.ȱButȱthatȱisȱnotȱtoȱignore,ȱasȱLiuzzo Scorpoȱfinallyȱobserves,ȱthatȱAlfonsoȱXȱcertainlyȱregardedȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱprimary friendȱofȱMary,ȱandȱthenȱalsoȱasȱherȱloverȱandȱvassalȱinȱexclusionaryȱterms.ȱIn theseȱrolesȱheȱwasȱgrantedȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱcommunicateȱbetweenȱtheȱdivineȱandȱall hisȱpeopleȱbecauseȱheȱhadȱgraspedȱtheȱtrueȱessenceȱandȱsignificanceȱofȱfriendship.ȱ DavidȱF.ȱTinsley Twoȱcentralȱproblemsȱinȱtheȱmedievalȱgenderȱrelationshipsȱprovideȱtheȱframework forȱDavidȱF.ȱTinsley’sȱcontribution.ȱFirst,ȱtoȱformulateȱitȱasȱquestions,ȱhowȱmuch doȱ weȱ reallyȱ knowȱ aboutȱ womenȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ ifȱ mostȱ ofȱ theirȱ texts, particularlyȱ whenȱ theyȱ hadȱ formulatedȱ religious,ȱ mysticalȱ thoughts,ȱ hadȱ been copiedȱdown,ȱtranslated,ȱmaybeȱevenȱedited,ȱbyȱtheirȱmaleȱconfessors?ȱSecond, whatȱwasȱtheȱtrueȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱaȱconfessorȱandȱtheȱnun/disciple?ȱOr,ȱwhat powerȱ differentialȱ determinedȱ theirȱ interactionȱ andȱ henceȱ theȱ ensuingȱ written documents?ȱMoreȱspecificallyȱthen,ȱwithȱtheȱfocusȱonȱtheȱcentralȱthemeȱofȱthis volumeȱinȱmind,ȱcouldȱthereȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱtrueȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱboth?ȱ TinsleyȱturnsȱhisȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱGermanȱDominicanȱpriest andȱ mysticȱ Heinrichȱ Seuseȱ (Henryȱ Suso)ȱ andȱ hisȱ discipleȱ Elsbethȱ Stagelȱ who apparentlyȱenjoyedȱaȱremarkableȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱthemselvesȱwhich wasȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ dominatedȱ byȱ hisȱ patriarchalȱ positionȱ asȱ herȱ confessor. Nevertheless,ȱasȱTinsleyȱcorrectlyȱalertsȱus,ȱCicero’sȱandȱtheȱvariousȱopinionsȱby subsequentȱwritersȱ(seeȱabove)ȱregardingȱfriendshipȱasȱbeingȱtotallyȱdetermined byȱequalityȱandȱmutualityȱwasȱnotȱnecessarilyȱsharedȱbyȱeveryone,ȱespeciallyȱnot

317

Marcȱ Bloch,ȱ Theȱ Royalȱ Touch:ȱ Sacredȱ Monarchyȱ andȱ Scrofulaȱ inȱ Englandȱ andȱ France,ȱ trans.ȱ J.ȱ E. Andersonȱ(1924;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledgeȱandȱKeganȱPaul,ȱ1973).ȱ

148

Introduction

inȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱwhenȱfriendshipȱwasȱoftenȱdefinedȱandȱdescribedȱasȱaȱformȱof guardianship,ȱ orȱ asȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ teacherȱ andȱ disciple,ȱ asȱ already exemplifiedȱ byȱ Jesusȱ andȱ Johnȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ apostles.ȱ Genderȱ differenceȱ was, hence,ȱnoȱbarrierȱtoȱfriendshipȱatȱall,ȱespeciallyȱwithinȱtheȱworldȱofȱmonasticsȱ(see alsoȱtheȱstudyȱbyȱJenniferȱConstantineȬJackson),ȱirrespectiveȱofȱtheȱfactȱthatȱthis seemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱhighlyȱcontestedȱbyȱtheȱpatriarchalȱauthorities.ȱ ForȱtheȱDominicans,ȱAugustine’sȱteachingsȱwereȱofȱparamountȱimportance,ȱand soȱalsoȱhisȱthoughtsȱonȱfriendshipȱandȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱgenders. AlthoughȱStagelȱandȱSusoȱdidȱnot,ȱandȱcouldȱnot,ȱshareȱtheȱsameȱmonastery,ȱthey wereȱinȱconstantȱcontactȱwithȱeachȱotherȱandȱsystematicallyȱcollaborated,ȱdespite beingȱ locatedȱ soȱ farȱ apartȱ (Constanceȱ vs.ȱ Zürich)ȱ onȱ theȱ creationȱ ofȱ hisȱ Vita,ȱ a documentȱ ofȱ significantȱ importanceȱ withȱ respectȱ toȱ theȱ mysticalȱ confessions containedȱtherein.ȱ TheȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱAugustinianȱthinking,ȱadvocating theȱidealȱofȱcommunalȱliving,ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱfoundationalȱconceptȱofȱDominican teachingsȱregardingȱtheȱsocialȱinteractionȱinȱtheirȱmonasteries.ȱNevertheless,ȱthe relationshipȱbetweenȱSeuseȱandȱStagelȱstillȱappearsȱasȱmostȱunusualȱandȱdeserves closerȱanalysisȱbecauseȱtheȱtwoȱreligiousȱfiguresȱoperatedȱoverȱdistance,ȱsimilarȱto parallelȱcases,ȱasȱwhenȱSusoȱexpressesȱhisȱprofoundȱloveȱtoȱaȱdyingȱnunȱtoȱwhom heȱwritesȱinȱaȱletterȱaboutȱhisȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱwithȱher.ȱButȱthatȱfriendshipȱis notȱ basedȱ onȱ equality;ȱ insteadȱ itȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ loveȱ grantedȱ byȱ aȱ superiorȱ toȱ an inferior,ȱasȱAugustineȱhadȱalreadyȱtaught.ȱ Thisȱfindsȱitsȱconfirmationȱinȱ Stagel’sȱ expressȱwishȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱSuso’s spiritualȱdaughterȱsinceȱherȱfriendshipȱwithȱhimȱisȱdeterminedȱbyȱrespectȱand admiration—veryȱdifferentȱthanȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱofȱcourseȱ(see above).ȱ Susoȱ differentiatedȱ subsequently,ȱ veryȱ muchȱ inȱ lineȱ withȱ Augustinian thinking,ȱthatȱsacrificeȱandȱsubmissionȱunderȱtheȱrulesȱhadȱtoȱbeȱaccommodated accordingȱtoȱeachȱindividual’sȱneeds,ȱabilities,ȱandȱevenȱmotivation.ȱAsȱTinsley observes,ȱSusoȱdrewȱmuchȱinspirationȱforȱhisȱconceptȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱas formulatedȱinȱhisȱVita,ȱfromȱtheȱDesertȱFathersȱ(Vitaspatrum),ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱaccount ofȱMariaȱMeretrix.ȱ Trueȱ friends,ȱ then,ȱ findȱ eachȱ otherȱ throughȱ suffering,ȱ whichȱ createsȱ the necessaryȱdegreeȱofȱhumblenessȱwithinȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunity,ȱaȱlessonȱwhich SusoȱenjoinedȱtoȱStagel,ȱrecommendingȱherȱtoȱreadȱtheȱVitaspatrum.ȱInȱfact,ȱthe relationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱabbaȱAbrahamȱandȱhisȱfallenȱnieceȱMariaȱprovesȱtoȱbe analogousȱtoȱtheȱoneȱbetweenȱSusoȱandȱStagel,ȱbothȱpredicatedȱonȱfriendshipȱin aȱspiritualȱsenseȱandȱbothȱpeopleȱinteractingȱwithȱeachȱotherȱthroughȱteaching (maleȱtoȱfemale),ȱlivingȱatȱseparateȱspaces,ȱandȱyetȱvirtuallyȱembracingȱeachȱother inȱtheirȱquestȱforȱGod’sȱgraceȱasȱreligiousȱcompanions,ȱorȱfriends.ȱEvenȱthough thatȱanalogyȱmightȱfaceȱsomeȱcriticism,ȱTinsleyȱrightlyȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱthe actualȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱSusoȱandȱStagelȱasȱfriendsȱresemblesȱtheȱoneȱbetween

Introduction

149

AbrahamȱandȱMaria,ȱbetweenȱolderȱadvisorȱandȱyoungerȱdisciple,ȱbothȱbonded togetherȱviaȱfriendshipȱwithȱandȱloveȱforȱGod. Inȱotherȱwords,ȱfriendshipȱcanȱnotȱonlyȱbeȱpracticedȱinȱconcreteȱterms,ȱitȱcanȱalso beȱimitatedȱandȱthenȱrealizedȱinȱliteraryȱtermsȱoverȱtimeȱandȱspace.ȱToȱwhatȱextent theȱ soȬcalledȱ groupȱ ofȱ “Gottesfreunde”ȱ exertedȱ anȱ influence,ȱ ifȱ theyȱ actually existedȱorȱrepresentedȱonlyȱanȱideaȱbehindȱaȱnetworkȱofȱlikeȬmindedȱclericsȱfirmly committedȱtoȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱaȱreligiousȱcontext,ȱremainsȱanȱelusive question.ȱ Inȱessence,ȱhowever,ȱasȱSusoȱunderscores,ȱtheȱprocessȱofȱfindingȱGodȱhasȱtoȱstart inȱoneself;ȱonlyȱthenȱcanȱthatȱrealizationȱbeȱsharedȱwithȱtheȱspiritualȱfriendȱwho thenȱpursuesȱthatȱpathȱasȱwell,ȱwhichȱalwaysȱinvolvesȱsuffering.ȱTheȱfriendȱof God,ȱtoȱwhomȱSusoȱrefersȱhimself,ȱisȱprivilegedȱtoȱwitnessȱhisȱsuffering,ȱaȱgrace ofȱdivineȱnature,ȱthatȱis,ȱinȱaȱvisionȱ(Stagel).ȱButȱitȱalsoȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱkeptȱinȱmind thatȱevenȱtheȱfriendsȱareȱnotȱperfectȱbeingsȱandȱareȱcalledȱuponȱtoȱcontinueȱwith furtherȱstruggleȱtoȱreachȱGodȱbyȱmeansȱofȱeverȱstrongerȱsuffering,ȱsuchȱasȱlifeȬlong illness.ȱSusoȱultimatelyȱidentifiesȱStagelȱasȱoneȱofȱtheseȱfriends,ȱgivingȱherȱthus highestȱaccoladesȱasȱoneȱprivilegedȱbyȱGod,ȱwhichȱthenȱentirelyȱovercomesȱany genderȱdifferencesȱbecauseȱallȱthatȱmattersȱforȱthisȱfriendshipȱisȱtheȱdivineȱgrace itself,ȱbestȱexpressedȱinȱfriendshipȱwithȱGodȱHimself,ȱorȱcaritas.ȱ RobertȱStretter Alreadyȱinȱantiquity,ȱandȱcertainlyȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱmanyȱmenȱswore brotherhoodȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱforming,ȱasȱRobertȱStretterȱobservesȱinȱhisȱcontribution, intenseȱandȱpolitically,ȱifȱnotȱevenȱmilitarily,ȱstableȱfriendships.ȱButȱtheȱMiddle Agesȱalsoȱexperiencedȱtheȱrevolutionaryȱemergenceȱofȱaȱnewȱcultureȱinȱwhich womenȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱasȱwell,ȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱpowerfulȱandȱpervasive phenomenonȱofȱfin’amors,ȱwhichȱinȱaȱwayȱalmostȱthreatenedȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱsuch aȱ brotherhoodȱ society.318ȱ Asȱ Stretter’sȱ analysisȱ primarilyȱ ofȱ Middleȱ English romancesȱ indicates,ȱ theȱ competitionȱ betweenȱ bothȱ forcesȱ hadȱ significant consequencesȱ forȱ theȱ overarchingȱ developmentȱ ofȱ courtlyȱ societyȱ andȱ courtly literature.319ȱ Whereasȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱservedȱexceedinglyȱwell,ȱsoȱitȱseems,ȱtoȱmaintain andȱdevelopȱfurtherȱtheȱidealsȱofȱheroismȱandȱmilitaryȱideology,ȱwithȱtheȱriseȱof fin’ȱ amorsȱ tensionsȱ andȱ conflictsȱ becameȱ noticeable,ȱ ultimatelyȱ leadingȱ toȱ the considerableȱtransformationȱofȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱincreasinglyȱhad toȱgiveȱwayȱtoȱotherȱmoreȱburningȱissuesȱinȱintergenderȱrelationships,ȱasȱperhaps bestȱillustratedȱinȱChaucer’sȱ“TheȱKnight’sȱTale.”ȱTheȱpanȬEuropeanȱtraditionȱof

318 319

ThisȱisȱbrilliantlyȱilluminatedȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaegerȱinȱhisȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ1999ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ27). Forȱanȱearlyȱstudyȱwithȱaȱfairlyȱbroadȱsweep,ȱseeȱRobȱRoyȱUrdy,ȱ“TheȱFriendshipȱMotifȱinȱMiddle EnglishȱLiterature,”ȱVanderbiltȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHumanitiesȱ1ȱ(1951):ȱ113Ȭ41.

150

Introduction

theȱ Amisȱ andȱ Amilounȱ narrativeȱ stillȱ demonstratedȱ theȱ virtuallyȱ indestructible maleȬmaleȱrelationship,ȱwhichȱmadeȱitȱpossibleȱforȱtheȱtwoȱprotagonistsȱtoȱachieve allȱ theirȱ desiresȱ andȱ toȱ realizeȱ theirȱ dreamsȱ despiteȱ seriousȱ socialȱ andȱ even religiousȱchallenges.ȱTheȱtwoȱmaleȱfriendsȱsupportȱeachȱotherȱevenȱunderȱmost unlikelyȱcircumstances,ȱtriumphȱoverȱallȱchallengers,ȱandȱultimatelyȱgainȱGod’s graceȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱhighȱdegreeȱofȱvirtuosityȱandȱabsoluteȱdedicationȱtoȱeach other.320ȱ InȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAgesȱthatȱkindȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱlostȱitsȱtraction,ȱsoȱto speak,ȱandȱgaveȱwayȱtoȱdangerousȱinternecineȱstrifeȱbecauseȱeroticȱloveȱbeganȱto dominateȱtheȱprotagonists’ȱhearts.ȱHomosocialȱbondingȱwasȱsuddenlyȱreplacedȱby intergender,ȱorȱheterosexual,ȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱhenceȱledȱtoȱaȱwholeȱhostȱof differentȱpersonalȱconflicts.ȱUltimately,ȱtheseȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱhighlyȱproblematicȱand regularlyȱledȱtoȱpsychologicalȱpressure,ȱmelancholy,ȱevenȱdepression,ȱasȱreflected inȱThomasȱMalory’sȱMorteȱd’Arthurȱ(completedȱinȱ1470,ȱfirstȱprintedȱbyȱCaxtonȱin 1485).ȱ Rivalryȱ overȱ womenȱ characterizesȱ lateȬmedievalȱ andȱ earlyȱ modern literature,ȱwhichȱonlyȱfoundȱaȱconstructiveȱsolutionȱwithȱtheȱnewȱemphasisȱon marriageȱ inȱ publicȱ discourseȱ andȱ inȱ practice.321ȱ Butȱ that,ȱ again,ȱ excludedȱ the developmentȱ ofȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ amongȱ men,ȱ orȱ atȱ leastȱ problematizedȱ it considerably.322ȱ AlthoughȱdocumentaryȱevidenceȱforȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱis ratherȱthin,ȱStretterȱconfirmsȱthatȱitȱwasȱofȱgreatȱrelevanceȱatȱleastȱfarȱintoȱthe fifteenthȱcentury.ȱWritersȱtendedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱitȱmostlyȱfleetingly,ȱandȱthenȱwithȱthe assumptionȱthatȱtheȱreadersȱwouldȱbeȱsoȱfamiliarȱwithȱthatȱinstitutionȱthatȱfurther discussionȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱnecessary,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱfourteenthȬcentury romanceȱGuyȱofȱWarwick.ȱInsofarȱasȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱinȱessenceȱimpliedȱmilitary assistanceȱorȱfightingȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱfriend,ȱitȱwasȱquiteȱnaturalȱthatȱtheȱworldȱof theȱearly,ȱandȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱstillȱofȱtheȱhigh,ȱMiddleȱAgesȱshowedȱmoreȱinterest inȱthatȱtopicȱ(seeȱtheȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱchansonȱdeȱgeste,ȱDaurelȱetȱBeton),ȱwhereas inȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱageȱthatȱwasȱnoȱlongerȱquiteȱthe case.323ȱInȱaȱsimplifiedȱmanner,ȱweȱcouldȱsay,ȱwithȱStretter,ȱthatȱatȱaȱcertainȱpoint

320

321

322

323

AmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱRobertȱofȱCisyle,ȱandȱSirȱAmadace,ȱed.ȱEdwardȱE.ȱForster,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱConsortiumȱfor theȱ Teachingȱ ofȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ (Kalamazoo,ȱ MI:ȱ Medievalȱ Instituteȱ Publications,ȱ Western MichiganȱUniversity,ȱ2007). AlbrechtȱClassen,ȱDerȱLiebesȬȱundȱEhediskursȱvomȱhohenȱMittelalterȱbisȱzumȱfrühenȱ17.ȱJahrhundert. VolksliedȬStudien,ȱ5ȱ(Münster,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.:ȱWaxmann,ȱ2005). PaulȱTrio,ȱ“ConfraternitiesȱinȱtheȱLowȱCountriesȱandȱtheȱIncreaseȱinȱWrittenȱSourceȱMaterialȱin theȱ Middleȱ Ages,”ȱ Frühmittelalterlicheȱ Studienȱ 38ȱ (2004):ȱ 415–26;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ contributionsȱ to Verwandtschaft,ȱ Freundschaft,ȱ Bruderschaft,ȱ ed.ȱ Gerhardȱ Krieger,ȱ 2009;ȱ andȱ toȱ Mittelalterliche Bruderschaftenȱ inȱ europäischenȱ Städten:ȱ Funktionen,ȱ Formen,ȱ Akteureȱ =ȱ Medievalȱ Confraternitiesȱ in EuropeanȱTowns,ȱed.ȱMonikaȱEscherȬApsner.ȱInklusion,ȱExklusion,ȱ12ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.ȱandȱNew York:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ2009). Thereȱwereȱexceptions,ȱofȱcourse,ȱbutȱthenȱmostlyȱinȱveryȱdifferentȱcontexts,ȱsuchȱasȱbrotherhoods

Introduction

151

theȱ explorationsȱ ofȱ emotionsȱ tookȱ precedenceȱ overȱ rituals;ȱ henceȱ sworn brotherhoodȱcouldȱnoȱlongerȱserveȱtheȱpublicȱneedsȱandȱwasȱreplacedȱbyȱtheȱtopic ofȱ courtlyȱ love,ȱ meaningȱ thatȱ criticalȱ tensionsȱ wereȱ internalizedȱ andȱ found solution,ȱifȱavailableȱatȱall,ȱinȱintenseȱeffortsȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱemotions.ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Stretterȱ alsoȱ warnsȱ us,ȱ weȱ cannotȱ simplyȱ drawȱ strictȱ historical demarcationsȱasȱtoȱwhenȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱwasȱinȱfashionȱandȱwhenȱitȱfadedȱin popularity.ȱ Muchȱ dependsȱ onȱ theȱ popularityȱ ofȱ aȱ specificȱ genre,ȱ andȱ some narrativeȱmotifsȱwhereȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱplaysȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱsurvivedȱfar intoȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAges,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱoneȱbestȱcapturedȱbyȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun, whichȱappearedȱinȱEnglishȱfirstȱinȱtheȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱAuchinleckȱmanuscript. Thisȱdoesȱnotȱmean,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱhereȱwomenȱdoȱnotȱfunctionȱprominentlyȱatȱall; nevertheless,ȱwhileȱmarriageȱalsoȱensues,ȱitȱisȱalwaysȱsubordinatedȱunderȱtheȱtwo friends’ȱ brotherhoodȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ soȱ significantȱ asȱ toȱ justifyȱ the slaughterȱofȱchildrenȱtoȱsaveȱoneȱofȱtheȱfriends’ȱlivesȱfromȱleprosy,ȱtoȱwhichȱeven theȱmotherȱagreesȱinȱthisȱversion. StretterȱsubsequentlyȱturnsȱtoȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱMiddleȱEnglishȱSirȱAmadace whereȱ heȱ discoversȱ veryȱ similarȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ maleȱ hierarchyȱ andȱ sworn brotherhoodȱ thatȱ takesȱ completeȱ precedenceȱ overȱ marriageȱ andȱ familyȱ life.ȱ In Chaucer’sȱKnight’sȱTale,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱfin’ȱamourȱdecisivelyȱintervenesȱand changesȱ allȱ theȱ rulesȱ ofȱ theȱ game,ȱ nowȱ profoundlyȱ endangeringȱ theȱ male friendshipȱbecauseȱtheȱtwoȱknightlyȱprotagonistsȱcompeteȱforȱtheȱloveȱofȱaȱwoman andȱsoȱturnȱbitterlyȱagainstȱeachȱother.ȱChaucerȱmightȱwellȱhaveȱbeenȱtheȱfirst Europeanȱwriterȱtoȱhaveȱcourtlyȱloveȱclashȱsoȱdrasticallyȱandȱbitterlyȱwithȱsworn brotherhood,ȱwhichȱcompletelyȱbreaksȱdownȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱthe femaleȱprotagonistȱEmelyeȱwhoseȱbeautyȱandȱeroticȱallureȱsucceedȱtoȱdestroyȱthe principlesȱofȱmaleȱbonding.ȱ Stretterȱ observesȱ aȱ generalȱ lamentȱ aboutȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ troutheȱ inȱ lateȬmedieval Englishȱ literature,ȱ andȱ withȱ itȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ swornȱ brotherhood.ȱ Theȱ anonymous masterpieceȱofȱmedievalȱEnglishȱliterature,ȱSirȱGawainȱandȱtheȱGreenȱKnightȱ(late fourteenthȱcentury),ȱmightȱactuallyȱhaveȱbeenȱ,ȱasȱIȱventureȱtoȱsugges,ȱtheȱlastȱtext whereȱtheȱprotagonist,ȱandȱhenceȱalsoȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱmenȱinȱtheȱRoundȱTable, resistsȱtheȱwoman’sȱtemptationsȱandȱseductiveȱforces.ȱTheȱattemptȱtoȱsetȱfemale loveȱ asideȱ andȱ toȱ rememberȱ theȱ primacyȱ ofȱ maleȱ friendshipȱ isȱ powerfully symbolizedȱ byȱ themȱ allȱ puttingȱ onȱ aȱ greenȱ beltȱ asȱ aȱ signȱ ofȱ theirȱ communal humiliationȱandȱhenceȱbrotherhoodȱwithȱGawain.ȱItȱseems,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱbeȱaȱvery fragileȱmaneuverȱtoȱresistȱtheȱoverarchingȱallureȱofȱfemaleȱattractivenessȱandȱto maintainȱtheȱtraditionalȱbondsȱamongȱmen.

amongȱcanons;ȱseeȱDavidȱLepine,ȱAȱBrotherhoodȱofȱCanonsȱServingȱGod:ȱEnglishȱSecularȱCathedrals inȱtheȱLaterȱMiddleȱAges.ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱMedievalȱReligionȱ(Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk:ȱBoydell Press,ȱ1995).

152

Introduction

Finally,ȱStretterȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱthisȱlamentȱfoundȱitsȱmostȱmovingȱexpressionȱin ThomasȱMalory’sȱMorteȱDarthurȱ(completedȱinȱ1470,ȱfirstȱprintedȱbyȱCaxtonȱin 1485)ȱwhereȱKingȱArthurȱbemoansȱtheȱdisappearanceȱofȱhisȱgoodȱ knightsȱand henceȱtheȱdissolutionȱofȱtheȱRoundȱTable,ȱwhereasȱtheȱlossȱofȱhisȱqueenȱtroubles himȱmuchȱless.ȱLancelot,ȱhowever,ȱestablishesȱthisȱdistanceȱbetweenȱhimselfȱand ArthurȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱeroticȱattractionȱtoȱGuinevereȱwhoȱwinsȱoutȱinȱthisȱmaleȬ maleȱcompetition,ȱsimilarlyȱasȱEmelyeȱinȱChaucer’sȱ“Knight’sȱTale.”ȱ Theȱ companyȱ ofȱ theȱ Roundȱ Tableȱ canȱ noȱ longerȱ compensateȱ forȱ theȱ erotic attractionȱofȱtheȱotherȱgender,ȱsoȱtheȱmaleȱbondingȱisȱinȱdangerȱofȱfallingȱapart, whichȱwas,ȱofȱcourse,ȱalreadyȱanticipatedȱbyȱmanyȱcourtlyȱauthorsȱsinceȱtheȱlate twelfthȱcentury.ȱInȱtheȱ‘classical’ȱworldȱofȱKingȱArthurȱ(twelfthȱandȱthirteenth century),ȱhowever,ȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱwasȱnotȱyetȱinȱaȱdeadlyȱclinchȱwithȱthe maleȬfemaleȱloveȱrelationship.ȱByȱcontrast,ȱinȱMalory’sȱworkȱLancelotȱoptsȱfor GuinevereȱoverȱtraditionalȱcompanionshipȱwithȱArthur.ȱUltimately,ȱthen,ȱerotic loveȱ winsȱ overȱ maleȱ friendship,ȱ orȱ swornȱ brotherhood,ȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ theȱ English context.324ȱStretterȱconcludesȱthatȱthisȱphenomenonȱresultedȱfromȱtheȱcollision,ȱand finalȱloss,ȱofȱtheȱpatriarchalȱfolkȱtraditionȱinȱitsȱunsuccessfulȱcompetitionȱwithȱthe cultureȱofȱtheȱcourtlyȱworldȱ(courtlyȱromance)ȱandȱtriumphantȱheterosexualȱeros.ȱ Iȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱadd,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱdiscriminateȱtheȱargumentȱjustȱaȱbitȱfurther,ȱthat byȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱmarriageȱruledȱaboveȱall,ȱtoȱtheȱdisadvantageȱof maleȬmaleȱbonding.ȱFriendsȱdoȱnotȱdisappear,ȱbutȱtheyȱmeetȱinȱtheȱtavern,ȱorȱin moreȱ sophisticatedȱ spaces,ȱ whereasȱ husbandȱ andȱ wifeȱ spendȱ timeȱ togetherȱ at home,ȱ asȱ Iȱ alreadyȱ alludedȱ toȱ inȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ Heinrichȱ Kaufringer’sȱ “The SearchȱforȱtheȱHappilyȱMarriedȱCouple”ȱ(ca.ȱ1400).

324

Onȱ theȱ continentȱ theȱ situationȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ somewhatȱ differentȱ becauseȱ Konradȱ von Würzburg’sȱEngelhardȱfromȱca.ȱ1280ȱorȱ1290,ȱaȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱversionȱofȱthatȱtextȱtradition, hasȱonlyȱsurvivedȱinȱanȱearlyȬmodernȱprintȱfromȱ1573ȱ(fourȱcopies)ȱ,ȱsoȱweȱcanȱbeȱcertainȱthatȱthe motifȱwasȱstillȱattractiveȱenoughȱforȱaȱwiderȱreadershipȱatȱthatȱtime;ȱseeȱKonradȱvonȱWürzburg, Engelhard,ȱed.ȱPaulȱGerekeȱandȱIngoȱReiffenstein.ȱ3rdȱnewlyȱrev.ȱed.ȱAltdeuscheȱTextbibliothek, 17ȱ(1912;ȱTübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1982);ȱseeȱalsoȱEinȱschöneȱHistoriaȱvonȱEngelhartȱaussȱBurgunt:ȱder ‘Engelhard’ȱ Konradsȱ vonȱ Würzburgȱ inȱ Abbildungȱ desȱ Frankfurterȱ Drucksȱ vonȱ 1573,ȱ mitȱ einer bibliographischenȱ Notizȱ zuȱ Kilianȱ Han,ȱ ed.ȱ HansȬHugoȱ Steinhoff.ȱ Litterae,ȱ 107ȱ (Göppingen: Kümmerle,ȱ1987).ȱHowever,ȱtheȱsixteenthȬcenturyȱliteraryȱmarketȱwasȱveryȱdiverseȱandȱoffered printedȱtextsȱofȱvirtuallyȱeveryȱgenreȱandȱwithȱanyȱkindȱofȱmotif.ȱForȱaȱbroaderȱstudyȱofȱKonrad, seeȱWolfgangȱMonecke,ȱStudienȱzurȱepischenȱTechnikȱKonradsȱvonȱWürzburg:ȱDasȱErzählrprinzipȱder wildekeit.ȱMitȱeinemȱGeleitwortȱvonȱUlrichȱPretzel.ȱGermanistischeȱAbhandlungenȱ(Stuttgart:ȱJ. B.ȱMetzler,ȱ1968).ȱForȱanȱexcellentȱcriticalȱintroductionȱtoȱKonrad’sȱcompleteȱœuvre,ȱseeȱHorst Brunner,ȱ“KonradȱvonȱWürzburg,”ȱ272–304;ȱesp.ȱ294–95.ȱForȱaȱgoodȱsummaryȱofȱKonradȱresearch, seeȱ Rüdigerȱ Brandt,ȱ Konradȱ vonȱ Würzburg.ȱ Erträgeȱ derȱ Forschung,ȱ 249ȱ (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheȱBuchgesellschaft,ȱ1987).

Introduction

153

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland InȱherȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱpresentȱvolumeȱSaraȱDeutchȱSchotlandȱallowsȱusȱtoȱgain, indirectly,ȱmoreȱinsightȱintoȱthisȱkindȱofȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfemalesȱthroughȱher criticalȱ examinationȱ ofȱ Chaucer’sȱ “Squire’sȱ Tale,”ȱ whichȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ the ‘friendship’ȱbetweenȱtheȱPrincessȱCanaceeȱandȱaȱfemaleȱfalcon,ȱaȱformel.ȱTheȱlatter bitterlyȱ lamentsȱ havingȱ beenȱ abandonedȱ byȱ herȱ loverȱ andȱ sharesȱ herȱ deep emotionalȱpainȱwithȱtheȱnewlyȱfoundȱfemaleȱfriend.ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱformel,ȱimitating theȱmythical,ȱandȱChristologicalȱmotifȱofȱtheȱpelicanȱwhoȱstabsȱitselfȱtoȱperformȱthe actionȱofȱselfȬsacrificeȱ(forȱmankind),ȱhasȱalreadyȱbadlyȱhurtȱit(her)selfȱwithȱthe beakȱandȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtoȱliveȱanyȱlonger,ȱsoȱtheȱencounterȱwithȱtheȱPrincess provesȱtoȱbeȱmostȱconvenientȱtoȱexpressȱallȱherȱpainȱandȱsufferingȱatȱtheȱhandȱof herȱformerȱlover.ȱThisȱexchangeȱinȱturnȱprovidesȱherȱwithȱenoughȱexternalȱsuccor andȱinternalȱstrengthȱtoȱsurvive.ȱTheseȱtwoȱfemalesȱquicklyȱrealizeȱhowȱmuchȱthey canȱsympathizeȱwithȱeachȱotherȱandȱform,ȱthroughȱtheirȱstrongȱempathy,ȱaȱkind ofȱfemaleȱfriendship.ȱ Whileȱsomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱsuggestedȱthatȱmedievalȱwritersȱmostlyȱignoredȱsuch friendshipsȱoutȱofȱmisogynistȱfear,325ȱDeutchȱSchotlandȱobservesȱinȱChaucer’sȱtext theȱveryȱopposite,ȱwithȱtheȱpoetȱdeliberatelyȱbringingȱoutȱfemaleȱsufferingȱatȱthe handȱofȱunreliableȱandȱuntrustworthyȱmaleȱloversȱandȱsingingȱaȱsongȱofȱpraiseȱon womenȱprotagonistsȱsupportingȱeachȱother,ȱlisteningȱtoȱtheȱlamentsȱvoicedȱbyȱthe other,ȱandȱlookingȱforȱaȱconstructiveȱsolutionȱforȱtheȱnewȱfriend.ȱFirst,ȱhowever, theȱsorrowfulȱvictimȱwarnsȱtheȱyoungȱPrincessȱofȱdeceitfulȱmenȱandȱalertsȱherȱto theȱtrapsȱinȱcourtlyȱloveȱwhichȱnormallyȱhurtȱtheȱwomenȱpartners,ȱthoughȱwithout condemningȱmanhoodȱaltogether.ȱ AlthoughȱmanyȱChaucerȱscholarsȱhaveȱopinedȱthatȱtheȱpoetȱalmostȱfailedȱinȱhis narrativeȱskillȱhere,ȱasȱifȱheȱhadȱofferedȱnothingȱbutȱaȱratherȱpaleȱandȱineffective account,ȱDeutchȱSchotlandȱdisagreesȱandȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱformel’sȱinstructionȱfor Canaceeȱhelpsȱtheȱlatterȱtoȱgainȱforesightfulnessȱandȱinnerȱstrength,ȱandȱtoȱlearn toȱbeȱpreparedȱforȱhandlingȱaȱdangerousȱworldȱoutȱthereȱdeterminedȱbyȱaȱmale, patriarchalȱ society.ȱ Femaleȱ bondingȱ canȱ helpȱ womenȱ toȱ protectȱ themselves communallyȱ againstȱ maleȱ threatsȱ andȱ aggressiveness,ȱ soȱ femaleȱ friendship emergesȱ asȱ aȱ significantȱ defensiveȱ mechanismȱ andȱ proactiveȱ instrumentȱ in women’sȱlivesȱwithinȱaȱdangerousȱcontext.ȱ AsȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱobservedȱwithȱregardȱtoȱStretter’sȱcontribution,ȱChaucer depictsȱmaleȱswornȱbrotherhood,ȱatȱleastȱinȱ“TheȱKnight’sȱTale,”ȱasȱaȱveryȱfragile institutionȱ andȱ asȱ beingȱ easilyȱ subjectȱ toȱ beingȱ undermined,ȱ ifȱ notȱ dissolved, becauseȱofȱtheȱnewȱforceȱofȱeroticȱloveȱbetween,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱtwoȱknights andȱtheȱcourtlyȱladyȱonȱtheȱother.ȱAttractionȱtoȱtheȱfemale,ȱhowever,ȱsuddenly

325

Patȱ O’Connor,ȱ Friendshipȱ Betweenȱ Women,ȱ 1992ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 103);ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ contributionsȱ to CelebratingȱWomen’sȱFriendship,ȱ1999ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ104).

154

Introduction

makesȱtheseȱtwoȱmenȱbitterȱenemiesȱwhoȱcompletelyȱforgetȱtheȱpreviousȱidealsȱof maleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱandȱonlyȱseekȱwaysȱtoȱpushȱandȱdefeatȱtheȱotherȱ(male)ȱin theirȱpursuitȱofȱeroticȱloveȱwithȱEmilye.ȱ WheneverȱChaucerȱintroducesȱwomenȱasȱfriends,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱ“The ManȱofȱLaw’sȱTale,”ȱtheȱoppositeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcase.ȱInȱ“TheȱSquire’sȱTale,”ȱthe maleȱloverȱhasȱbadlyȱmisusedȱhisȱladyȱ(theȱformel),ȱabandoningȱherȱatȱaȱwhim,ȱbut sheȱfinds,ȱinȱturn,ȱaȱgoodȱfemaleȱfriendȱandȱcanȱthusȱconstructivelyȱovercomeȱher sorrowȱandȱpain.ȱInȱthisȱprocessȱbothȱfemaleȱprotagonistsȱgainȱinȱselfȬconfidence andȱidentity,ȱsharingȱinȱtheȱnewȬfoundȱselfȬassuranceȱbasedȱonȱfriendshipȱand collaborationȱbyȱwayȱofȱcomingȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱemotionalȱsuffering.ȱ InȱthisȱprocessȱChaucerȱalsoȱexploresȱtheȱneedȱtoȱlookȱbeyondȱgenderȱspecifics, socialȱdifferences,ȱandȱspeciesȱcharacteristics,ȱalmostȱasȱifȱappealingȱtoȱaȱhumanist andȱ universalȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ otherness,ȱ especiallyȱ whenȱ individualȱ sufferingȱ is involved.ȱDespiteȱtheȱobviousȱdifferencesȱinȱspecies,ȱcommunication,ȱespecially throughȱ theȱ ekphrasticȱ genreȱ Canaceeȱ employsȱ forȱ theȱ muralsȱ inȱ theȱ formel’s mewe,ȱ isȱ possibleȱ andȱ essential.ȱ Asȱ Deutchȱ Schotlandȱ underscores,ȱ Princess Canacee’sȱsympathyȱwithȱtheȱformel,ȱandȱherȱdecisionȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱwoundedȱfriend intoȱherȱprotection,ȱofferingȱaȱmostȱpleasantȱmewe,ȱwhichȱisȱcertainlyȱnotȱaȱcage butȱ aȱ restingȱ place,ȱ alsoȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ femaleȬfemaleȱ sympathyȱ canȱ transcend formalȱ differencesȱ byȱ empathizingȱ withȱ theȱ emotionalȱ distressȱ theȱ otherȱ is experiencing,ȱlendingȱsupportȱevenȱunderȱmostȱunusualȱcircumstancesȱbecause theȱPrincessȱcommandsȱaȱgentleȱheart.ȱ Thisȱrendersȱtheȱprojectedȱpossibilityȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱwomenȱevenȱmore praiseworthy,ȱandȱthisȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱaȱmaleȱpoet.ȱByȱcontrast,ȱlookingȱatȱa ‘classical’ȱcourtlyȱromance,ȱEnite’sȱsufferingȱatȱherȱhusbandȱErec’sȱhandȱisȱdeeply lamentedȱbyȱtheȱcourtlyȱladiesȱduringȱtheȱcouple’sȱshortȱstayȱforȱaȱrespiteȱatȱKing Arthur’sȱ courtȱ (inȱ Chrétienȱ deȱ Troye’sȱ orȱ Hartmannȱ vonȱ Aue’sȱ eponymous romanceȱ(ca.ȱ1160ȱandȱca.ȱ1170ȱrespectively).ȱNevertheless,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱindication ofȱtrueȱorȱintensiveȱfriendshipȱthatȱmightȱdevelopȱfromȱallȱtheȱwomen’sȱcertainly strongȱ empathyȱ withȱ theȱ femaleȱ ‘victim’ȱ whoȱ hasȱ toȱ sufferȱ soȱ muchȱ fromȱ her husbandȱ Weȱ regularlyȱ observeȱ beviesȱ ofȱ nobleȱ ladiesȱ onȱ theȱ imaginaryȱ stageȱ who collaborate,ȱspendȱtimeȱtogether,ȱorȱserveȱinȱtheirȱpublicȱrolesȱasȱwivesȱorȱmaids. Butȱweȱwouldȱbeȱhardȱpressedȱtoȱrecognizeȱamongȱtheirȱthrongsȱspecificȱfriends, confidants,ȱorȱallies.ȱTheȱdearthȱofȱallusionsȱtoȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱhenceȱmakesȱthe evidenceȱunearthedȱbyȱDeutchȱSchotlandȱfocusingȱonȱChaucer’sȱ“Squire’sȱTale” theȱmoreȱremarkable,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱdiscussedȱaboveȱatȱgreaterȱlength.ȱ TheodoreȱF.ȱKaoukȱ Inȱtheȱlateȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱaȱnewȱapproachȱtoȱfriendshipȱemerged,ȱasȱTheodore F.ȱKaoukȱsuggestsȱinȱhisȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume,ȱwhichȱwasȱpredicatedȱonȱthe

Introduction

155

principleȱofȱsovereigntyȱapartȱfromȱtheȱpolis,ȱthatȱis,ȱtheȱpoliticalȱpublicȱwhere strongȱ hierarchiesȱ ruled.ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ thenȱ developed insistedȱonȱfreeȱchoiceȱbasedȱonȱequalityȱalsoȱinȱsocialȱterms,ȱwhichȱsubsequently offeredȱfreedomȱfromȱtheȱpressuresȱexertedȱbyȱcommercialȱandȱpoliticalȱactions. SixteenthȬcenturyȱintellectualsȱandȱessayistsȱsuchȱasȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigneȱ(Essais) formulatedȱalmostȱutopianȱidealsȱofȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱwhichȱdistancedȱitself fromȱpatriarchalȱruleȱandȱtheȱpressuresȱofȱabsolutistȱsocietyȱsubjugatedȱunderȱthe kingȱandȱprojectedȱtheȱrealizationȱofȱindividualȱfreedomȱwithinȱtheȱboundsȱofȱtrue friendship.ȱToȱcontrastȱthisȱnewȱconceptȱwithȱtheȱtraditionalȱnorms,ȱKaoukȱturns toȱ Shakespeare’sȱ Hamletȱ whereȱ theȱ youngȱ princeȱ allowsȱ hisȱ father’sȱ ghostȱ to resumeȱandȱtoȱperpetuateȱtheȱallȬpervasiveȱpaternalȱpowerȱoverȱtheȱyoungȱman, whoȱthusȱlosesȱallȱsovereigntyȱandȱallowsȱtheȱdeadȱfatherȱcontinuedȱruleȱthrough him.ȱMontaigne,ȱhowever,ȱinȱhisȱ“OfȱVanity,”ȱtheȱlastȱcontributionȱtoȱhisȱEssais fromȱ 1588,ȱ whereȱ heȱ alsoȱ reflectsȱ onȱ hisȱ personalȱ relationshipȱ withȱ hisȱ father, establishesȱdistanceȱtoȱtheȱdeadȱfigureȱandȱcreatesȱbreathingȱroomȱforȱhimselfȱby wayȱ ofȱ leisurelyȱ carryingȱ outȱ hisȱ father’sȱ requestsȱ ofȱ translating,ȱ forȱ instance, Sebond’sȱ Theologiaȱ Naturalis,ȱ asȱ heȱ expressesȱ inȱ hisȱ “Apologyȱ forȱ Raymond Sebond,”ȱthusȱresortingȱtoȱaȱstrategicȱdelayȱandȱtoȱcriticismȱofȱSebond’sȱconcept ofȱ‘naturalȱtheology.’ȱ Moreover,ȱinȱhisȱessayȱonȱfriendship,ȱMontaigneȱstronglyȱadvocatesȱaȱmodelȱof socialȱbondingȱthatȱisȱbasedȱonȱcompletelyȱfreeȱchoiceȱandȱmutualȱagreement, respect,ȱ andȱ affection.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ reliesȱ onȱ theȱ termȱ ‘sovereignty’ȱ toȱ describe friendship—henceȱ‘sovereignȱfriendship’—butȱthisȱinȱaȱdeliberateȱreversalȱofȱthe word’sȱtraditionalȱmeaning,ȱexplicitlyȱrejectingȱtheȱpatriarchalȱruleȱofȱaȱkingȱor father.ȱBloodȱrelationshipȱ(e.g.,ȱfatherȱandȱson)ȱcannotȱsubstituteȱtheȱneedȱforȱa trueȱfriendȱwhoȱgivesȱfreelyȱuponȱhis/herȱownȱvolitionȱandȱdemonstratesȱaȱhigher, orȱatȱleastȱequal,ȱlevelȱofȱvirtue.ȱHowever,ȱwhenȱthatȱfriendȱthenȱpassesȱaway,ȱthe writerȱfeelsȱexposedȱtoȱprofoundȱpainȱandȱsufferingȱwithoutȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱcope adequately—aȱphenomenonȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱobservedȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱinȱSaint Augustine’sȱwritingsȱ(seeȱabove).ȱ ReturningȱtoȱShakespeare’sȱHamlet,ȱKaoukȱdiscoversȱsignificantȱparallelsȱinȱthe discourseȱwithȱMontaigneȱinsofarȱasȱHamletȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsoulȱasȱtheȱonlyȱtrue monarch,ȱdeterminingȱtheȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱfriend,ȱwhereasȱtheȱfather,ȱorȱking, tendsȱtoȱruleȱautocraticallyȱandȱsubjectsȱtheȱsonȱorȱcitizen.ȱHowever,ȱinȱHamlet,ȱthe protagonistȱdoesȱnotȱreallyȱpossessȱtheȱfreedomȱtoȱescapeȱfromȱtheȱpoliticalȱsystem andȱ henceȱ cannotȱ simplyȱ pursueȱ theȱ goalȱ ofȱ findingȱ theȱ idealȱ friend,ȱ theȱ role assignedȱ toȱ Horatioȱ inȱ theȱ play,ȱ Hamlet’sȱ modelȱ ofȱ aȱ Stoicȱ selfȱ imperviousȱ to fortuneȱcapableȱofȱachievingȱsovereignȱfriendship.ȱNevertheless,ȱHamletȱhasȱthe opportunity,ȱ asȱ Montaigneȱ outlinesȱ forȱ hisȱ ownȱ purposes,ȱ toȱ replaceȱ the sovereigntyȱ ofȱ theȱ monarchȱ withȱ theȱ sovereigntyȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ theȱ former completelyȱhierarchical,ȱtheȱlatterȱonȱanȱequalȱandȱmutuallyȱsupportingȱlevel.ȱBut

156

Introduction

thatȱrealizationȱappearsȱasȱratherȱlimited,ȱifȱnotȱimpossibleȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱneedȱto distanceȱoneselfȱcompletelyȱfromȱrealityȱinsofarȱasȱthatȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱwould alwaysȱcollideȱwithȱtheȱconcreteȱpoliticalȱandȱeconomicȱconditions.ȱ Moreover,ȱasȱKaoukȱemphasizes,ȱHamletȱisȱboundȱtoȱDenmarkȱandȱcannotȱfree himselfȱfromȱtheȱroleȱtheȱpoliticalȱsystemȱhasȱimposedȱonȱhim.ȱNaturally,ȱthen, friendshipȱasȱdescribedȱaboveȱservesȱasȱanȱidealȱtheȱprotagonistȱcanȱonlyȱdream of,ȱwithoutȱeverȱhavingȱaȱtrueȱchanceȱtoȱrealizeȱit,ȱwhichȱHamletȱhimselfȱseemsȱto recognizeȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱplay.ȱNoȱdoubt,ȱasȱShakespeareȱimplied,ȱtheȱidealȱof friendship,ȱwhichȱisȱsoȱintimatelyȱboundȱwithȱsubjectivityȱandȱselfȬdetermination, provesȱ toȱ beȱ highlyȱ evanescentȱ andȱ mightȱ notȱ haveȱ aȱ concreteȱ chanceȱ inȱ the politicalȱarenaȱofȱgettingȱtrulyȱrealized.ȱ Asȱanȱafterthought,ȱweȱmightȱreturnȱtoȱRobertȱStretter’sȱcommentsȱregardingȱthe replacement,ȱorȱloss,ȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱthroughȱtheȱgrowingȱpowerȱofȱerotic loveȱandȱrelevanceȱofȱmarriageȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.ȱWeȱcouldȱnowȱdraw theȱconclusion,ȱinȱlightȱofȱHamlet’sȱratherȱtragicȱlearningȱprocessȱandȱMontaigne’s somberȱteachingsȱinȱhisȱEssais,ȱthatȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱcertainlyȱcontinuedȱto fosterȱinȱtheȱsixteenthȱcentury,ȱbutȱbyȱthenȱincreasinglyȱinȱtheȱshadowȱofȱbeingȱjust anȱ illusionȱ thatȱ amountsȱ toȱ nothingȱ butȱ anȱ ephemeralȱ dream.ȱ Weȱ mightȱ then actuallyȱrecognizeȱsurprisingȱparallelsȱbetweenȱMalory’sȱstatementsȱfilledȱwith melancholyȱandȱShakespeare’sȱsoberingȱcommentsȱaboutȱsovereignȱfriendship,ȱas voicedȱ throughȱ Hamlet’sȱ mouth,ȱ hopingȱ inȱ vainȱ toȱ liberateȱ himselfȱ fromȱ his father’sȱghost,ȱmetaphoricallyȱandȱliterally,ȱwhichȱwouldȱhaveȱclearedȱaȱpassage towardȱ aȱ newȱ communityȱ ofȱ equallyȱ positionedȱ friends.ȱ That,ȱ however,ȱ is ultimatelyȱnotȱpossibleȱsinceȱtheȱghostȱofȱtheȱpast,ȱtheȱfather,ȱcontinuesȱtoȱrule; henceȱ theȱ deepȱ senseȱ ofȱ frustrationȱ andȱ disappointmentȱ overȱ notȱ gainingȱ the desiredȱfreedomȱthroughȱfriendship.ȱ Theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ mightȱ haveȱ gainedȱ aȱ different frameworkȱ orȱ mightȱ haveȱ beenȱ categorizedȱ onȱ anotherȱ level,ȱ andȱ thisȱ quite dramaticallyȱinȱtheȱseventeenthȱandȱeighteenthȱcenturies,ȱwillȱbeȱtheȱtopicȱofȱthe subsequentȱpages.ȱToȱforeshadowȱL.ȱBelleeȱJones’sȱpaperȱonȱDonne,ȱhowever,ȱwe alsoȱneedȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱtheȱessaysȱonȱfriendshipȱbyȱCiceroȱandȱMontaigne becameȱcentralȱschoolȱtextsȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱworldȱafterȱallȱandȱsoȱestablished thisȱtopicȱasȱcentralȱforȱtheȱvariousȱschoolȱandȱuniversityȱcurricula.326ȱOfȱcourse, thatȱ doesȱ notȱ automaticallyȱ implyȱ thatȱ theȱ publicȱ orȱ theȱ learnedȱ communities embracedȱfriendshipȱcorrespondinglyȱasȱaȱfundamentalȱvalue.ȱRather,ȱasȱVera Keller’sȱarticleȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱdemonstrates,ȱwithinȱtheȱpoliticalȱandȱlearnedȱcircles

326

TheȱBritishȱLibrary,ȱforȱinstance,ȱcontainsȱalmostȱcountlessȱprintedȱcopiesȱofȱCicero’sȱDeȱamicitia inȱLatin,ȱEnglish,ȱCzech,ȱFrench,ȱGreed,ȱPortuguese,ȱHungarian,ȱPolish,ȱandȱSwedishȱfromȱ1478 onwards.ȱSeeȱTheȱBritishȱLibraryȱGeneralȱCatalogueȱofȱPrintedȱBooksȱtoȱ1975.ȱVol.ȱ62ȱ(London:ȱClive Bingley;ȱLondon,ȱMunich,ȱetȱal.:ȱK.ȱG.ȱSaur,ȱ1980),ȱ409–12.

Introduction

157

theȱ entireȱ notionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ experiencedȱ aȱ tremendousȱ inflationȱ andȱ was subsequentlyȱscathinglyȱcriticizedȱandȱbasicallyȱrejectedȱasȱfalseȱandȱdisingenuous, asȱnothingȱbutȱaȱrhetoricalȱdeviceȱforȱdissimulation.ȱ MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzkiȱ Muchȱdepends,ȱofȱcourse,ȱonȱspecificȱconditionsȱandȱcircumstancesȱthroughout time.ȱFriendshipȱasȱanȱidealȱdidȱnotȱsimplyȱdisappear—itȱneverȱhas—andȱinstead morphedȱ intoȱ newȱ manifestationsȱ orȱ beganȱ toȱ serveȱ differentȱ purposesȱ and differentȱ media.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ continuedȱ toȱ exertȱ a tremendousȱinfluence,ȱdespiteȱallȱnegativeȱopinions,ȱandȱevenȱshowedȱupȱalsoȱin significantȱartȱworks,ȱsuchȱasȱaȱfamousȱdrawingȱofȱtwoȱmenȱinȱprofileȱcreatedȱby LeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱsometimeȱbetweenȱ1500ȱand1505,ȱtodayȱhousedȱinȱtheȱGabinetto deiȱDisegniȱeȱdelleȱStampeȱinȱderȱGalleriaȱdegliȱUffiziȱinȱFlorence.ȱTheȱimageȱpresents anȱenigmaȱandȱhasȱsoȱfarȱescapedȱtrulyȱconvincingȱinterpretations.ȱOneȱoption mightȱwellȱbeȱthatȱhereȱweȱfaceȱtheȱportraitȱofȱaȱfatherȱandȱaȱson,ȱconsideringȱthe ageȬdifferenceȱ betweenȱ both;ȱ anotherȱ mightȱ be,ȱ asȱ Marotzkiȱ suggests,ȱ that Leonardoȱportrayedȱtwoȱfriends.ȱSheȱfindsȱsupportȱforȱthatȱclaimȱinȱtheȱentireȱsetȬ up,ȱtheȱbodilyȱposturesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱmen,ȱtheirȱlooks,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱphysical proximityȱofȱoldȱandȱyoungȱman,ȱparticularlyȱbecauseȱonlyȱtheȱolderȱoneȱfocuses onȱtheȱyounger,ȱwhereasȱtheȱlatterȱgazesȱintoȱanȱindeterminableȱdistance,ȱclearly detachedȱfromȱtheȱotherȱman.ȱ Miriamȱ Sarahȱ Marotzkiȱ arguesȱ inȱ herȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ volume—finallyȱ a studyȱonȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱbyȱanȱartȬhistorian,ȱwhichȱmostȱprofitablyȱwidens theȱinterdisciplinaryȱscopeȱofȱourȱcollectiveȱefforts!—thatȱtheseȱtwoȱmenȱmight representȱtwoȱtypesȱofȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱwhichȱLeonardoȱenjoyedȱinȱhisȱlife. TheȱyoungerȱfriendȱwasȱapparentlyȱSalaì,ȱservingȱasȱtheȱpartnerȱforȱLeonardo’s homoeroticȱ needs,ȱ theȱ olderȱ one,ȱ Francescoȱ Melzi,ȱ servingȱ asȱ partnerȱ forȱ his homosocialȱ needs.ȱ Marotzkiȱ offersȱ aȱ painstakingȱ analysisȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ relevant evidenceȱandȱtheȱspecificȱpertinentȱcircumstancesȱinȱLeonardo’sȱlifeȱtoȱsupportȱher claim,ȱwhichȱopensȱmanyȱnewȱperspectivesȱonȱLeonardoȱandȱtheȱphenomenonȱof friendshipȱitselfȱinȱtheȱsixteenthȱcentury.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱdrawingȱcannotȱbeȱtaken asȱportraitsȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱmen,ȱitȱservedȱwellȱtoȱreflectȱtheȱartist’sȱgeneralȱinterests inȱhomosocialȱrelationships.ȱMarotzkiȱisȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱrecognizeȱhere,ȱandȱthisȱwith goodȱreasons,ȱaȱFreundschaftsbildȱ(pictureȱofȱaȱfriendship).327

327

Theȱ termȱ isȱ actuallyȱ moreȱ commonlyȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Romanticȱ period;ȱ seeȱ Klausȱ Lankheit,ȱ Das Freundschaftsbildȱ derȱ Romantik.ȱ Heidelbergerȱ kunstgeschichtlicheȱ Abhandlungen,ȱ N.F.,ȱ 1 (Heidelberg:ȱ Winter,ȱ 1952),ȱ butȱ itȱ alsoȱ appliesȱ veryȱ wellȱ toȱ theȱ Renaissance.ȱ Nowȱ seeȱ the contributionsȱtoȱHumanistȱBiographyȱinȱRenaissanceȱItalyȱandȱReformationȱGermany:ȱFriendshipȱand Rhetoric,ȱ ed.ȱ Jamesȱ Michaelȱ Weiss.ȱ Variorumȱ Collectedȱ Studiesȱ Series,ȱ CS947ȱ (Farnhamȱ and Burlington,ȱVT:ȱAshgate/ȱVariorum:ȱ2010).

158

Introduction

Althoughȱtheseȱtwoȱmenȱinȱtheȱdrawingȱappearȱtoȱbeȱtenȱorȱmoreȱyearsȱapartȱin ageȱ fromȱ eachȱ other,ȱ suchȱ aȱ pairingȱ ofȱ twoȱ charactersȱ appearedȱ toȱ beȱ most attractiveȱtoȱandȱimportantȱforȱLeonardo,ȱsoȱitȱseemsȱmostȱreasonableȱtoȱcategorize themȱasȱintimateȱfriends,ȱdespiteȱtheirȱconsiderableȱdifferencesȱinȱage,ȱcharacter, andȱmanners.ȱTheseȱdifferences,ȱhowever,ȱapparentlyȱdeeplyȱappealedȱtoȱtheȱartist sinceȱ bothȱ menȱ satisfiedȱ specificȱ needsȱ inȱ hisȱ personalȱ life,ȱ bothȱ spiritualȱ and physical,ȱsoȱitȱseems.ȱ Marotzkiȱ movesȱ fromȱ thisȱ intriguingȱ drawingȱ toȱ theȱ artist’sȱ personal relationships,ȱstudying,ȱinȱparticular,ȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱnoblemanȱFrancesco Melziȱandȱwithȱtheȱyoungerȱmanȱasȱtheȱartist’sȱservantȱandȱmanagerȱSalaì,ȱboth laterȱidentifiedȱasȱrecipientsȱofȱmajorȱpartsȱofȱtheȱartist’sȱpropertyȱandȱpaintings afterȱhisȱdeath.ȱMostȱimportantly,ȱbothȱwereȱLeonardo’sȱdisciplesȱandȱbelonged toȱtheȱcloseȱcircleȱofȱfriendsȱaroundȱtheȱmasterȱartist.ȱItȱremainsȱhighlyȱenigmatic whatȱroleȱSalaìȱtrulyȱplayedȱinȱLeonardo’ȱlifeȱbecauseȱheȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱa ratherȱ nastyȱ andȱ arrogantȱ youngȱ personȱ whenȱ heȱ showedȱ upȱ firstȱ inȱ the documents,ȱwhoȱdidȱnotȱevenȱshyȱawayȱfromȱregularȱpettyȱtheft.ȱLater,ȱhowever, heȱgrewȱconsiderablyȱinȱLeonardo’sȱappreciation,ȱperhapsȱevenȱlove,ȱdespiteȱbeing highlyȱdemandingȱandȱeccentricȱwithoutȱeverȱachievingȱtheȱdesiredȱartisticȱskills. Salaìȱ operatedȱ inȱ manyȱ shadyȱ circlesȱ andȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ hadȱ availableȱ large amountsȱofȱmoneyȱthroughȱominousȱchannels,ȱwhereasȱhisȱactualȱsalaryȱalways remainedȱratherȱlow,ȱbeingȱnothingȱbutȱLeonardo’sȱdisciple,ȱservant,ȱandȱlaterȱalso businessȱmanagerȱandȱbutler.ȱMelzi,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱroseȱinȱrankȱasȱanȱartist andȱlaterȱenjoyedȱLeonardo’sȱhighestȱrespect,ȱwithȱwhomȱheȱactuallyȱcarriedȱout significantȱprojectsȱtogetherȱorȱwhoseȱplansȱheȱrealizedȱpreciselyȱinȱtheȱmaster’s style. Marotzkiȱhereȱimpressivelyȱsucceedsȱinȱreadingȱbetweenȱtheȱlinesȱofȱtheȱvarious lettersȱandȱotherȱdocuments,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱLeonardoȱrefrainedȱfromȱfurther commentsȱaboutȱSalaì’sȱnegativeȱcharacteristics,ȱespeciallyȱwithȱregardsȱtoȱmoney, clearlyȱsignalingȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱartistȱwasȱmoreȱafraidȱofȱlosingȱhisȱyoungȱ‘friend’ thanȱtoȱgetȱaȱfairȱdealȱfromȱhim.ȱMostȱsignificantly,ȱinȱoneȱletterȱLeonardoȱwrites toȱSalaìȱhowȱmuchȱheȱconsidersȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱyoungȱman’sȱfosterȬfatherȱandȱalso wetȬnurseȱ (!),ȱ perhapsȱ curiouslyȱ playingȱ onȱ aȱ hermaphroditicȱ inclinationȱ in himself.ȱ Linguisticȱ andȱ mythographicȱ researchȱ hasȱ alreadyȱ confirmed,ȱ asȱ Marotzki underscores,ȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱtrueȱnameȱofȱthisȱSalaì,ȱthatȱis,ȱGianȱGiacomoȱCaprotti, whoȱisȱknownȱasȱLeonardo’sȱearlyȱmaleȱloverȱandȱwhoȱisȱmentionedȱbyȱthisȱname untilȱ 1491;ȱ thereafterȱ weȱ onlyȱ hearȱ ofȱ Salaì.ȱ Theȱ complexȱ setȱ ofȱ circumstances solidifiesȱ theȱ argumentȱ developedȱ here,ȱ whichȱ thenȱ makesȱ understandable Leonardo’sȱ lifeȬlongȱ interestȱ inȱ creatingȱ beautifulȱ imagesȱ ofȱ youngȱ men,ȱ all conformingȱ toȱ theȱ Salaìȱ type,ȱ thoughȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ matterȱ whetherȱ Leonardo portrayedȱthatȱyoungȱmanȱspecificallyȱorȱhadȱonlyȱrecognizedȱinȱhimȱtheȱideal

Introduction

159

typeȱthatȱheȱtriedȱtoȱcaptureȱinȱhisȱdrawingsȱthroughoutȱhisȱcareer,ȱidealizingȱan androgynousȱadolescentȱbeauty,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱLeonardo’sȱlaterȱpaintingsȱofȱtheȱMona Lisa—evenȱthere!—andȱJohnȱtheȱBaptist.ȱ Asȱtoȱtheȱfriendshipȱrelationshipsȱwithȱtheseȱtwoȱmen,ȱMarotzkiȱunderscores thatȱ Melziȱ emergedȱ asȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ trulyȱ tookȱ overȱ theȱ essentialȱ partsȱ of Leonardo’sȱ inheritance,ȱ provingȱ himselfȱ asȱ anȱ idealȱ partnerȱ inȱ theirȱ profound friendship,ȱreflectingȱtheȱtrustȱwhichȱtheȱartistȱhadȱplacedȱinȱhisȱformerȱdisciple andȱsubsequentlyȱcloseȱcollaborator.ȱSalaìȱwasȱnotȱonȱtheȱsameȱlevelȱasȱMelzi;ȱhe didȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱartisticȱskills,ȱandȱcertainlyȱlackedȱtheȱcharacterȱqualities thatȱmadeȱMelziȱstandȱoutȱsoȱmuchȱasȱaȱhighlyȱrespectedȱfriend.ȱLeonardoȱwas apparentlyȱprimarilyȱaestheticallyȱenamoredȱofȱSalaì,ȱwhichȱhelpedȱhimȱtoȱignore inȱtheȱlongȱrunȱtheȱyoungȱman’sȱnumerousȱcharacterȱflawsȱandȱhisȱlackȱofȱabilities asȱaȱpainter.ȱOr,ȱasȱMarotzkiȱemphasizes,ȱtheȱveryȱtransgressions,ȱthenȱalsoȱhis eccentricities,ȱarrogance,ȱandȱofȱcourseȱhisȱphysicalȱbeautyȱmadeȱSalaìȱsoȱattractive toȱ theȱ famousȱ artist,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ veryȱ afraidȱ ofȱ losingȱ thisȱ youngȱ friendȱ atȱ any moment’sȱnotice.ȱConsequently,ȱheȱregularlyȱdroppedȱallȱchargesȱandȱlaterȱeven entrustedȱSalaìȱwithȱsomeȱofȱhisȱownȱfinancialȱbusiness.ȱ WhetherȱallȱthisȱwouldȱjustifyȱidentifyingȱLeonardoȱasȱhomosexualȱcannotȱbe decidedȱ easily,ȱ andȱ Marotzkiȱ alsoȱ prefersȱ toȱ leaveȱ thisȱ issueȱ somewhatȱ open, optingȱ ratherȱ forȱ theȱ approachȱ thatȱ theȱ artistȱ wasȱ greatlyȱ fascinatedȱ byȱ the apparentȱconflictȱbetweenȱbeautifulȱformȱandȱweakȱmoralȱcharacter,ȱorȱtheȱtension betweenȱexternalȱappearanceȱandȱinternalȱcondition.ȱ Melzi,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱwasȱundoubtedlyȱLeonardo’sȱgreatȱadmirerȱandȱcould alsoȱcarryȱonȱhisȱtalentȱthroughȱhisȱownȱworkȱtoȱsomeȱextent.ȱHereȱweȱencounter aȱfriendȱinȱtheȱ‘classical’ȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword,ȱasȱCiceroȱwouldȱhaveȱcharacterized him.ȱSalaì,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱcopiedȱhisȱmaster’sȱpiecesȱwithout gainingȱanyȱindependenceȱorȱdisplayingȱsignificantȱbrillianceȱasȱaȱpainter.ȱPerhaps notȱ surprisingly,ȱ alreadyȱ Leonardo’sȱ earlyȬmodernȱ contemporaryȱ Vasari recognizedȱtheȱremarkableȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱstudents,ȱidentifying MelziȱasȱLeonardo’sȱdisciple,ȱwhoȱultimatelyȱestablishedȱhisȱownȱgroundȱunder hisȱfeetȱinȱartisticȱterms,ȱandȱSalaìȱasȱLeonardo’sȱ‘creation,’ȱwhoȱneverȱmanaged toȱdoȱmoreȱthanȱtoȱimitateȱtheȱmaster;ȱandȱevenȱinȱthatȱregardȱheȱbarelyȱsucceeded.ȱ Someȱ sourcesȱ specificallyȱ identifyȱ Leonardo’sȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Salaìȱ as homosexual,ȱwhileȱMelziȱappearsȱasȱaȱtrueȱfriend,ȱthatȱis,ȱasȱanȱintellectualȱand artisticȱ equal,ȱ andȱ soȱ alsoȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ characterȱ andȱ morality.ȱ Suspicions concerningȱLeonardo’sȱhomosexualȱpreferencesȱwereȱnotȱraisedȱwithȱregardsȱto Melzi,ȱ althoughȱ heȱ asȱ wellȱ emergesȱ asȱ aȱ veryȱ closeȱ friend,ȱ thoughȱ onȱ aȱ very differentȱlevelȱthanȱSalaì,ȱthatȱis,ȱintellectual,ȱcultural,ȱandȱartistic.ȱ MarotzkiȱfinallyȱdiscussesȱatȱlengthȱtheȱquestionȱwhetherȱLeonardoȱcouldȱbe affirmativelyȱ identifiedȱ asȱ aȱ homosexual,ȱ butȱ sheȱ rejectsȱ suchȱ aȱ simpleȱ binary position,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱtheȱartistȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱstruggledȱlongȱandȱhard

160

Introduction

withȱaȱtendencyȱtowardȱandrogyny,ȱforȱwhichȱSalaìȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱidealȱobject. Inȱsum,ȱasȱMarotzkiȱconcludes,ȱLeonardo’sȱrelationship/friendshipȱwithȱSalaìȱwas basedȱ onȱ theȱ olderȱ man’sȱ sexualȱ attractionȱ toȱ theȱ youngerȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ latter’s thinkingȱinȱtermsȱofȱeconomicȱandȱsocialȱadvantages,ȱthatȱis,ȱbasically,ȱinȱtermsȱof financialȱprofit.ȱLeonardo’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱMelzi,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱwasȱbased onȱvirtuesȱandȱartisticȱideals.ȱSalaìȱwasȱaȱdesirableȱobjectȱforȱLeonardo,ȱwhereas Melziȱservedȱasȱanȱactive,ȱselfȬassured,ȱindependentȱsubjectȱwhoȱgreatlyȱadmired theȱmasterȱandȱcollaboratedȱwithȱhimȱtoȱanȱeverȱgrowingȱextentȱuntilȱtheȱlatter’s death.ȱ MelziȱandȱLeonardoȱtreatedȱeachȱotherȱasȱmaleȱfriendsȱonȱanȱequalȱbasis;ȱSalaì, onȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱrepresentedȱtheȱ‘female’ȱcomponent,ȱtoȱwhichȱLeonardoȱcould onlyȱrespond,ȱnotȱinteractȱwithȱmutually.ȱUltimately,ȱthen,ȱforȱLeonardoȱthere wereȱtwoȱtypesȱofȱfriendshipȱpossible,ȱtheȱoneȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱpartnershipȱwithȱa maleȱ inȱ intellectualȱ terms,ȱ theȱ otherȱ focusedȱ onȱ aȱ relationshipȱ withȱ aȱ female characterȱinȱphysical/sexualȱ(?)ȱterms.ȱAsȱMarotzkiȱcanȱdemonstrate,ȱtheȱartist obviouslyȱendeavoredȱtoȱcombineȱbothȱtendenciesȱandȱneedsȱinȱhisȱlife,ȱwhich appealedȱdeeplyȱtoȱhisȱperhapsȱbisexualȱnatureȱandȱwhichȱnowȱharmoniously offersȱtheȱbestȱandȱmostȱreasonableȱexplanationȱofȱhisȱdrawingȱwithȱtheseȱtwo maleȱfigures.328ȱ Severalȱpointsȱasȱtoȱtheȱgenreȱitself,ȱtheȱFreundschaftsbild,ȱdeserveȱtoȱbeȱadded here,ȱwhichȱtranscendȱtheȱsummaryȱofȱMarotzki’sȱcontributionȱandȱmightȱprovide additionalȱmaterialȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱculturalȬhistoricalȱcontextȱbetter.ȱSixteenthȬ centuryȱartistsȱtendedȱtoȱportrayȱfriends,ȱorȱespeciallyȱartistsȱasȱfriends,ȱbutȱthe motifȱitselfȱdidȱnotȱgainȱinȱpreponderanceȱandȱsignificanceȱuntilȱtheȱendȱofȱthe eighteenthȱcenturyȱwithȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱRomanticȱmovement,ȱthatȱis,ȱatȱa timeȱwhenȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱpickedȱupȱinȱintensityȱagain.329ȱInȱoneȱsense,

328

329

Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtȱofȱFriendship,ȱ1994ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ87);ȱRobinȱHodgson,ȱ“TheȱMarriageȱofȱTrueȱMinds: Ofȱ theȱ Riseȱ andȱ Fallȱ ofȱ theȱ Idealizedȱ Conceptionȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Renaissance,”ȱ Ph.D. UniversityȱofȱHannver,ȱ2003;ȱDaleȱV.ȱKent,ȱFriendship,ȱLove,ȱandȱTrustȱinȱRenaissanceȱFlorence.ȱThe BernardȱBerensonȱLecturesȱonȱtheȱItalianȱRenaissanceȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvard UniversityȱPress,ȱ2009).ȱ Marcȱ Lippuner:ȱ “Heinsesȱ Selbstinszenierungȱ inȱ denȱ Briefenȱ anȱ Gleim,”ȱ Männlichkeitenȱ inȱ der FrühenȱNeuzeit,ȱed.ȱWolfgangȱSchmale,ȱonlineȱat: http://www.univie.ac.at/igl.geschichte/maennlichkeiten/Lippuner/index.htmLankheit,ȱ Das FreundschaftsbildȱderȱRomantikȱ23,ȱrefersȱtoȱPaoloȱVeronese’sȱ“WeddingȱofȱCana”ȱandȱseveralȱworks byȱ Titian.ȱ Forȱ theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ lateȱ eighteenthȬcenturyȱ artȱ andȱ literature,ȱ see WolfdietrichȱRasch,ȱDieȱFreundschaftȱbeiȱJeanȱPaul.ȱSpracheȱundȱKulturȱderȱgermanischenȱund romanischenȱVölker.ȱB:ȱGermanistischeȱReihe,ȱ2ȱ(Breslauȱ:ȱPriebatsch,ȱ1929).ȱCf.ȱalsoȱMargaret Doyle,ȱ“SelfȬPortraiture:ȱBritain,”ȱEncyclopediaȱofȱtheȱRomanticȱEra:ȱ1760–1850,ȱed.ȱChristopherȱJohn Murrayȱ(NewȱYork:ȱFitzroyȱDearborn,ȱ2004),ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱ1033–36 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wgS2nYRIuUEC&pg=PA1036&lpg=PA1036&dq=freunds chaftsbild&source=bl&ots=bAȬoxg10BE&sig=hi5Fd9Hmg4EmCi1CGR8MLvX3Gns&hl=en&ei= THNMTPvqCZTP4gbo6fWZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6

Introduction

161

then,ȱLeonardo’sȱdrawingȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱanȱexceptionalȱmotif,ȱbutȱinȱanother weȱ canȱ discoverȱ hereȱ alreadyȱ aȱ remarkablyȱ sensitiveȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ motifȱ of friendshipȱitself,ȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱcriticalȱissuesȱwhichȱMarotzkiȱhasȱcogently exposedȱinȱherȱanalysis.330ȱ StellaȱAchilleosȱ Ifȱtheȱquestionȱhowȱtoȱdefineȱaȱgoodȱandȱtrueȱfriendȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱvexingȱfor Leonardo,ȱ thenȱ theȱ oneȱ whetherȱ oneȱ canȱ trustȱ aȱ friendȱ asȱ aȱ counselorȱ follows immediatelyȱsuitȱasȱwell.ȱWhoȱwasȱaȱtrueȱfriend,ȱwhoȱwasȱonlyȱaȱflatterer?ȱThis issueȱwasȱraisedȱalreadyȱinȱ(late)ȱantiquity,ȱifȱweȱthink,ȱforȱinstance,ȱofȱBoethius’s treatmentȱofȱthisȱproblemȱwithȱfriendsȱ(seeȱabove).ȱThroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAges weȱhearȱmanyȱcommentsȱaboutȱgoodȱcounselors,ȱsomeȱofȱwhomȱcanȱcertainlyȱbe regardedȱasȱtheȱprotagonists’ȱfriends,ȱbothȱmaleȱandȱfemale.331 Theȱfirstȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱageȱtoȱaddressȱthisȱtopicȱofȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱbeing alsoȱ theȱ bestȱ counselor,ȱ however,ȱ andȱ thisȱ notȱ onlyȱ fleetingly,ȱ butȱ inȱ aȱ fully theoreticalȱfashion,ȱwasȱFrancisȱBaconȱ(1561–1626),ȱwhoȱexaminedȱtheȱissueȱclosely inȱ hisȱ essayȱ Theȱ Essayesȱ orȱ Counsels,ȱ Civillȱ andȱ Morallȱ (1597,ȱ rev.ȱ inȱ 1612,ȱ final editionȱinȱ1625).332ȱHeȱemphasized,ȱaboveȱall,ȱtheȱneedȱforȱparrhesia,ȱthatȱis,ȱthe freedomȱtoȱspeakȱopenlyȱtoȱtheȱfriendȱwithoutȱflatteringȱhimȱorȱoneself.ȱOnlyȱfrank

330

331

332

AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=freundschaftsbild&f=falseȱ (lastȱ accessedȱ onȱ Augustȱ 1,ȱ 2010).ȱ The Freundschaftsbildȱ gainedȱ inȱ interestȱ againȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ twentiethȱ century,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Otto Kokoschkasȱpaintingȱ“DieȱFreunde”ȱfromȱ1917/1918;ȱErnstȱLudwigȱKirchner’sȱ“Brücke”ȱfrom 1925,ȱandȱMaxȱErnst’sȱ“RendezȬvousȱderȱFreunde”ȱfromȱ1922.ȱSinceȱthen,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱmotif fadedȱawayȱagain.ȱSeeȱtheȱlectureȱbyȱHaraldȱLemke,ȱ“FreundschaftȱalsȱThema,ȱUrsprungȱund GegenstandȱvonȱKunst,”ȱheldȱinȱtheȱSprengelȱMuseumȱHanover,ȱYearlyȱMeetingȱofȱtheȱDeutsche GesellschaftȱfürȱÄsthetik,ȱMarchȱ1996,ȱavailableȱonlineȱat: http://www.haraldlemke.de/texte/Lemke_Kunst_Freund.pdfȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010); seeȱalsoȱhisȱFreundschaft:ȱeinȱphilosophischerȱEssayȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftlicheȱBuchgesellschaft, 2000).ȱ TheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱemergedȱnotȱreallyȱuntilȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȬcentury artȱ (Classicism,ȱ Romanticism,ȱ andȱ Biedermeier),ȱ isȱ underscoredȱ byȱ Anneȱ Schulten,ȱ “Einerȱ den andernȱgemalt:ȱDasȱFreundschaftsbildȱzwischenȱempfindsamerȱPathosformelȱundȱbildgeworȬ denemȱProgramm,”ȱImȱTempelȱderȱKunst:ȱDieȱKünstlermythenȱderȱDeutschen,ȱed.ȱBernhardȱMaaz (Berlin:ȱSMBȱNationalgalerieȱStaatlicheȱMuseenȱzuȱBerlin,ȱ2009),ȱ86–91.Thisȱobservation,ȱnotȱnew byȱandȱinȱitself,ȱshedsȱfurtherȱlightȱonȱtheȱremarkableȱcaseȱofȱLeonardo’sȱFreundschaftsbildȱasȱan astonishingȱ precursor.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ weȱ canȱ hardlyȱ expectȱ toȱ findȱ suchȱ pictorialȱ motifsȱ in medievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱart. JosephȱM.ȱSullivan,ȱCounselȱinȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱArthurianȱRomance.ȱGöppingerȱArbeitenȱzur Germanistik,ȱ690ȱ(Göppingen:ȱKümmerle,ȱ2001). http://bacon.classicauthors.net/EssaysOrCounselsCivilAndMoral/EssaysOrCounselsCivilAnd Moral21.html.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ surprisinglyȱ wellȱ researchedȱ articleȱ inȱ Wikipediaȱ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essays_%28Francis_Bacon%29;ȱbetterȱevenȱtheȱentryȱonȱBaconȱinȱthe InternetȱEncyclopediaȱofȱPhilosophyȱat:ȱhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/bacon/ȱ(bothȱlastȱaccessedȱonȱAugust 1,ȱ2010).ȱBaconȱchangedȱtheȱtitlesȱofȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱessaysȱfromȱeditionȱtoȱedition.ȱTheȱoriginal titleȱwasȱEssayes:ȱReligiousȱMeditations.ȱPlacesȱofȱperswasionȱandȱdisswasions.ȱSeeneȱandȱallowed.

162

Introduction

exchangesȱofȱopinionsȱwouldȱbeȱethicalȱenoughȱtoȱsustainȱfriendship,ȱevenȱifȱthe oneȱwhoȱwouldȱprovideȱadviceȱmightȱhurtȱtheȱother’sȱvanityȱorȱsensitivity.ȱBacon obviouslyȱpursued,ȱasȱStellaȱAchilleosȱobservesȱinȱherȱcontribution,ȱalsoȱpersonal interestsȱinȱthisȱregardȱsinceȱheȱtriedȱtoȱfindȱemploymentȱfromȱvariousȱpatronsȱof highȱstanding.ȱNevertheless,ȱheȱstillȱaddedȱimportantȱphilosophicalȱandȱethical criteriaȱtoȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱbecauseȱheȱreturnedȱtoȱPlatonicȱideasȱabout theȱ basicȱ natureȱ ofȱ manȱ asȱ aȱ socialȱ beingȱ inȱ needȱ ofȱ company,ȱ andȱ ideallyȱ of friendship,ȱwhich,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱrareȱandȱhardȱtoȱfind,ȱparticularlyȱduringȱBacon’s lifetime,ȱatȱleastȱasȱheȱsawȱit.ȱ Beingȱsoȱfortunateȱtoȱenjoyȱaȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwouldȱcertainlyȱcontributeȱtoȱan individual’sȱ physicalȱ andȱ mentalȱ health.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Bacon,ȱ havingȱ aȱ friend entails,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱ oneȱ canȱ exchangeȱ ideasȱ andȱ thusȱ organizeȱ themȱ inȱ a rationalȱmanner,ȱwhereasȱsolitaryȱmeditationȱandȱruminationȱcouldȱleadȱtoȱthe confusionȱofȱtheȱmind.ȱAsȱAchilleosȱunderscores,ȱBaconȱarguedȱmostȱferventlyȱthat individualsȱwieldingȱpoliticalȱpowerȱwouldȱneedȱmoreȱhelpȱfromȱgoodȱandȱtrue friendsȱthanȱanyoneȱelseȱbelowȱthemȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱnecessityȱtoȱadministerȱandȱto ruleȱinȱanȱobjectiveȱandȱjustȱmanner.ȱWithoutȱgoodȱadvisorsȱmanyȱerrorsȱcouldȱbe committed,ȱbutȱonlyȱadvisorsȱwhoȱalsoȱemergedȱasȱtrustworthyȱfriendsȱcouldȱmeet thatȱrequirementȱandȱexpectation.ȱ Drawingȱfromȱancientȱwisdomȱliteratureȱandȱpopularȱcontemporaryȱapothegms, Baconȱinsistedȱthatȱonlyȱaȱlovingȱfriendȱwouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱkeepȱaȱrulerȱonȱtrackȱand helpȱhimȱtoȱmaintainȱaȱsoberȱandȱclearȱmind.ȱBaconȱwasȱofȱcourseȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱone deeplyȱconcernedȱaboutȱtheȱdangersȱofȱtheȱpoliticalȱcultureȱatȱcourt,ȱasȱErasmus ofȱ Rotterdam’sȱ Theȱ Educationȱ ofȱ aȱ Christianȱ Prince,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ indicates. Nevertheless,ȱ Baconȱ tookȱ aȱ veryȱ strongȱ stanceȱ inȱ thisȱ regard,ȱ tryingȱ hardȱ to combineȱtheȱmoralȬethicalȱaspectȱofȱhonestȱadvisingȱofȱaȱprinceȱwithȱtheȱidealȱof friendship.ȱ SubsequentlyȱAchilleosȱobservesȱthatȱBaconȱdrewȱmanyȱofȱhisȱideasȱpertaining toȱtheȱcombinationȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱhonestȱadvisingȱfromȱPlutarch’sȱ(ca.ȱ46–120 C.E.)ȱMoralia,ȱdevelopingȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱcombinationȱwithȱaȱpractical, personalȱperspective,ȱlookingȱforȱtheȱchanceȱtoȱgainȱemploymentȱatȱcourtȱasȱboth theȱprince’sȱfriendȱandȱadvisor.ȱPlutarchȱhadȱalreadyȱwarnedȱofȱexcessiveȱselfȬlove, whichȱcouldȱleadȱtoȱdevastatingȱselfȬillusionȱandȱtheȱlossȱofȱobjectiveȱjudgments. Theȱhigherȱanȱindividualȱroseȱinȱpoliticalȱranks,ȱtheȱmoreȱtheȱdangerȱofȱselfȬflattery increased.ȱHenceȱtheȱfriendȱwasȱcalledȱupon,ȱaccordingȱBacon,ȱtoȱinterveneȱand serveȱ asȱ theȱ criticalȱ advisor,ȱ anȱ issueȱ ofȱ greatȱ concernȱ forȱ sixteenthȬȱ and seventeenthȬcenturyȱintellectualsȱwhoȱtriedȱhardȱtoȱfindȱpatrons,ȱor,ȱasȱweȱwould sayȱtoday,ȱemployment,ȱandȱreliedȱmuchȱonȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱfacilitate theirȱefforts.ȱBaconȱwasȱnoȱexceptionȱinȱthisȱregard,ȱbutȱheȱwentȱthroughȱmost dramaticȱupsȱandȱdownsȱinȱhisȱpoliticalȱambitions,ȱrisingȱtoȱtheȱpositionȱofȱLord Chancellorȱinȱ1618,ȱandȱlosingȱthatȱagainȱinȱ1621ȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱimpeachedȱby

Introduction

163

Parliamentȱonȱjudicialȱbriberyȱcharges.ȱToȱbeȱanȱadvisorȱinȱhighȱpoliticalȱcircles provedȱtoȱbeȱveryȱprecarious,ȱhenceȱBacon’sȱrepeatedȱbutȱfruitlessȱattempts—see alsoȱhisȱessayȱ“OfȱCounsell”—toȱpresentȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱking’sȱmostȱtrustedȱfriend.ȱ AchilleosȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱphilosopherȬturnedȬpoliticianȱinsistedȱon theȱlibertyȱthatȱaȱgoodȱfriendȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱenjoyȱinȱorderȱtoȱtellȱhisȱpartner—here theȱEnglishȱkingȱorȱqueen—openlyȱandȱfreelyȱhisȱownȱopinion,ȱprovidingȱadvice andȱcorrectives,ȱwithoutȱhavingȱtoȱfearȱnegativeȱramifications.333ȱSuchȱfriendship constitutesȱaȱhealthyȱcommunicationȱandȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱofȱgreatestȱuseȱforȱtheȱruler, asȱBaconȱunderscored,ȱrelyingȱonȱaȱmedicalȱmetaphorȱtoȱmakeȱhisȱpointȱasȱclear asȱpossible,ȱalthough,ȱasȱheȱalsoȱrealized,ȱthatȱkindȱofȱ‘medicine’ȱwouldȱbeȱaȱrarity andȱwasȱhardȱtoȱfindȱinȱtheȱpoliticalȱrealityȱofȱhisȱtime.ȱNevertheless,ȱdisagreement andȱevenȱconflictsȱbetweenȱfriendsȱcanȱalsoȱserveȱasȱsomeȱofȱtheȱbestȱcriteriaȱto verifyȱtheȱsincerityȱofȱtheȱadviceȱgiven.ȱ ComparingȱBacon’sȱapproachȱtoȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱcanȱatȱtimesȱevenȱbeȱbiting andȱhurtful,ȱwithȱaȱvarietyȱofȱancientȱGreekȱsources,ȱAchilleosȱdemonstratesȱhow muchȱtheȱformerȱreadilyȱcombinedȱhisȱclassicalȱlearningȱwithȱhisȱownȱethicalȱand politicalȱ concernsȱ toȱ establishȱ parrhesiaȱ inȱ theȱ politicalȱ assembly,ȱ theȱ ekklesia. Friendshipȱhenceȱfinds,ȱaccordingȱtoȱBacon,ȱtrueȱrealizationȱtoȱtheȱfullestȱextent preciselyȱwhenȱgreatȱpoliticalȱdangerȱloomsȱandȱtheȱwellȬbeingȱofȱaȱcountryȱor peopleȱmightȱbeȱatȱrisk.ȱToȱbeȱaȱgoodȱfriend,ȱandȱthusȱalsoȱtoȱbeȱanȱhonestȱadvisor, requiresȱ strengthȱ andȱ courageȱ inȱ faceȱ ofȱ possibleȱ angerȱ andȱ bitterȱ criticism resultingȱinȱaȱretortȱfromȱtheȱotherȱfriend,ȱhereȱtheȱruler,ȱorȱadvisee.ȱ Inȱ contrastȱ toȱ mostȱ classicalȱ andȱ medievalȱ definitionsȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ Bacon exploredȱfriendshipȱnotȱamongȱequals,ȱbutȱamongȱthoseȱofȱdifferentȱsocialȱclasses andȱ ranks.334ȱ Heȱ found,ȱ asȱ Achilleosȱ alertsȱ us,ȱ numerousȱ examplesȱ forȱ such friendshipsȱ alreadyȱ inȱ Romanȱ antiquity,ȱ andȱ heȱ suggestedȱ toȱ hisȱ potential readers—ideallyȱthoseȱprincesȱstillȱinȱneedȱofȱgoodȱadvisors—thatȱtheyȱmightȱnot evenȱhaveȱaȱchoiceȱinȱthisȱregardȱandȱshouldȱbyȱnecessityȱlookȱforȱsuchȱfriends uponȱwhomȱtheyȱcouldȱrelyȱinȱtheȱeverydayȱpoliticalȱdecisionȱmakingȱprocesses. Theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ trueȱ friendsȱ wouldȱ constituteȱ aȱ graveȱ dangerȱ forȱ theȱ political system,ȱ plantingȱ theȱ seedȱ forȱ irrationalȱ decisionsȱ andȱ theȱ perversionȱ ofȱ the establishedȱandȱharmoniousȱorder.ȱ Lookingȱforȱandȱcooperatingȱwithȱcounselorsȱwouldȱnotȱrepresentȱaȱweakening ofȱtheȱprince’sȱposition;ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱonlyȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱsurroundedȱbyȱgood friendsȱcouldȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱstrongȱandȱwiseȱrulers.ȱNevertheless,ȱasȱAchilleosȱalso bringsȱtoȱlight,ȱBaconȱwasȱfullyȱawareȱofȱtheȱprecariousȱnatureȱofȱthatȱfriendship betweenȱ kingȱ andȱ advisor,ȱ portrayingȱ cannibalisticȱ imagesȱ drawnȱ fromȱ Greek

333 334

Weȱwouldȱcallȱthisȱinstitutionȱ‘tenure’ȱtoday,ȱatȱleastȱinȱanȱacademicȱsetting. IȱhaveȱdiscussedȱaȱparallelȱcaseȱinȱlateȬmedievalȱGermanȱliteratureȱaboveȱinȱthisȱIntroduction,ȱin RuprechtȱvonȱWürzburg’sȱverseȱnarrativeȱ“Vonȱzweinȱkaufman”ȱ(lateȱfourteenthȱcentury).

164

Introduction

mythologyȱtoȱindicateȱhowȱeasilyȱaȱrulerȱcouldȱturnȱtoȱabsolutismȱandȱtyranny, engulfingȱ thenȱ easilyȱ theȱ friendȱ asȱ hisȱ firstȱ victim.ȱ Ultimately,ȱ then,ȱ Bacon indirectlyȱalludesȱtoȱtheȱkingȱbeingȱtemptedȱtoȱabuseȱhisȱadvisorsȱandȱtoȱtakeȱtheir ideasȱandȱstatementsȱasȱhisȱown.ȱ However,ȱasȱAchilleosȱalsoȱrecognizesȱinȱBacon’sȱessay,ȱtheȱauthorȱexplicitly aversȱthatȱtheȱadvisors’ȱbestȱideasȱwouldȱremainȱbarrenȱandȱuselessȱifȱthoseȱcould notȱbeȱtransferredȱtoȱtheȱcenterȱofȱpower.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱthatȱkindȱofȱpolitical friendshipȱfunctionsȱonly,ȱfollowingȱBacon,ȱifȱbothȱsidesȱengageȱinȱaȱsymbiotic relationshipȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱcounselor,ȱorȱfriend,ȱcannotȱrealizeȱhisȱideasȱwithoutȱthe princeȱenactingȱthem.ȱWeȱcouldȱprobablyȱcallȱthisȱaȱutilitarianȱfriendship,ȱwithȱthe proviso,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱBaconȱdidȱnotȱturnȱintoȱaȱMachiavellianȱbecauseȱheȱstill embracedȱtheȱidealȱofȱcharityȱasȱessentialȱforȱ friendshipȱtoȱbecomeȱtrueȱinȱthe highlyȱcontestedȱarenaȱofȱhighȬstakesȱpolitics.335ȱ VeraȱKellerȱ TheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱfoundȱstrongestȱsupportȱbyȱtheȱFlemishȱHumanistȱJustus Lipsiusȱ (1547–1606)ȱ whoȱ claimedȱ inȱ hisȱ highlyȱ popularȱ treatiseȱ Deȱ Constantia (Antwerp:ȱPlantijn,ȱ1584)ȱthatȱintellectualsȱcouldȱfindȱrefugeȱfromȱtheȱturmoilȱof theȱoutsideȱworldȱinȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱgoodȱfriends.336ȱInȱhisȱPoliticaȱandȱMonitaȱet exemplaȱpoliticaȱ(1605)ȱheȱextendedȱthisȱdiscussion,ȱbutȱaddressedȱitȱthenȱtoȱprinces andȱrulers.ȱAtȱtheȱcourts,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱdangerȱwasȱgreatȱthatȱfriendshipsȱcould disintegrateȱintoȱshallow,ȱdeceptive,ȱorȱfalseȱtypesȱofȱfriendship.ȱNevertheless,ȱas VeraȱKellerȱarguesȱinȱherȱcontribution,ȱmuchȱofȱpoliticalȱdataȱcollectionȱonȱbehalf ofȱprincesȱtookȱplaceȱthroughȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱlearnedȱfriendship,ȱinsofarȱasȱmany ofȱ theȱ membersȱ wentȱ onȱ extensiveȱ travelsȱ toȱ acquireȱ asȱ muchȱ informationȱ as possibleȱandȱtoȱtransmitȱthatȱtoȱtheirȱrulers.ȱThisȱmeant,ȱunfortunately,ȱasȱKeller alertsȱus,ȱthatȱtheȱclassicalȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱincreasinglyȱinstrumentalized forȱ theȱ effectiveȱ absolutistȱ rulerȱ whoȱ hadȱ onlyȱ pragmaticȬpoliticalȱ purposesȱ in mind.ȱ

335

336

JohnȱChanningȱBriggs,ȱ“FrancisȱBacon,”ȱBritishȱProseȱWritersȱofȱtheȱEarlyȱSeventeenthȱCentury,ȱed. ClaytonȱB.ȱLein.ȱDictionaryȱofȱLiteraryȱBiography,ȱ151ȱ(Detroit,ȱWashington,ȱDC.,ȱandȱLondon: GaleȱResearch,ȱ1995),ȱ21–39.ȱHeȱemphasizesȱthatȱitȱwasȱratherȱunusualȱforȱBaconȱeverȱtoȱomit anythingȱfromȱpreviousȱeditions;ȱinsteadȱheȱregularlyȱonlyȱexpandedȱandȱelaborated.ȱInȱtheȱcase ofȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendship,ȱhowever,ȱinȱtheȱ1612ȱandȱ1625ȱeditionsȱBaconȱtookȱquiteȱaȱdifferent turnȱandȱdescribedȱfriendshipȱinȱmuchȱmoreȱfavorableȱturns.ȱ“Theȱnewȱversionsȱsuggestȱthatȱthe realȱvalueȱofȱfriendshipȱmightȱlieȱinȱsophisticatedȱcalculationsȱofȱusefulnessȱandȱinȱitsȱreflection ofȱaȱphysicalȱlaw:ȱtheȱattractionȱmanifestedȱbyȱallȱbodiesȱofȱlikeȱtoȱlike”ȱ(30).ȱSeeȱnowȱGregȱMiller, “GeorgeȱHerbert,ȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱandȱTraditionalȱFriendship,”ȱid.,ȱGeorgeȱHerbert’sȱ“HolyȱPatterns”: ReformingȱIndividualsȱinȱCommunityȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱContinuum,ȱ2007),ȱ107–18. Seeȱ nowȱ Karlȱ Beuth,ȱ Weisheitȱ undȱ Geistesstärke:ȱ eineȱ philosophiegeschichtlicheȱ Untersuchungȱ zur ‘Constantia’ȱ desȱ Justusȱ Lipsius.ȱ Europäischeȱ Hochschulschriften.ȱ Reiheȱ XX.ȱ Philosophie,ȱ 297 (Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.,ȱBern,ȱNewȱYork,ȱandȱParis:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1990).

Introduction

165

Thisȱ seemsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ theȱ Humanistȱ Lipsiusȱ asȱ well,ȱ ifȱ we considerȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱpoliticalȱtheoristȱandȱpolemicistȱKasparȱSchoppe (1576–1649).ȱ Theȱ ratherȱ contestedȱ termȱ ‘lateȱ humanism’ȱ mightȱ beȱ usefulȱ in characterizingȱthisȱphenomenon,ȱalthoughȱitȱremainsȱdebatableȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱwe reallyȱcanȱtalkȱaboutȱtrueȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱCiceronianȱvein.ȱOneȱliteraryȱexpression forȱthisȱnewȱtypeȱofȱpoliticallyȱfoundedȱfriendshipȱwasȱtheȱalbumȱamicorum,ȱwhich facilitatedȱ theȱ practicalȱ sideȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ servedȱ explicitlyȱ political purposes.ȱLittleȱwonderȱthenȱthatȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱclassicalȱsenseȱexperienced,ȱas Kellerȱpointsȱout,ȱaȱdisturbingȱcrisisȱbecauseȱitȱbecameȱincreasinglyȱfunctionalized forȱ theȱ wellȬbeingȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȬmodernȱ stateȱ inȱ itsȱ absolutistȱ dimensions. Friendshipȱseemedȱtoȱmorphȱintoȱaȱlearnedȱandȱpoliticalȱinstitution,ȱbothȱofȱwhich wereȱseverelyȱcriticized,ȱwhichȱinȱturnȱacceleratedȱtheȱdeclineȱofȱthoseȱcirclesȱof friends.ȱ TheȱBritishȱambassadorȱThomasȱWotton,ȱforȱinstance,ȱcausedȱaȱscandalȱwhenȱhe jottedȱdownȱinȱhisȱfriendȱChristophȱFleckhammer’sȱalbumȱthatȱaȱdiplomatȱisȱan honestȱmanȱsentȱabroadȱtoȱlieȱaboutȱhisȱownȱcountryȱforȱpoliticalȱreasons.ȱThe polemicistȱSchoppeȱdiscoveredȱtheȱbonȬmotȱandȱpublishedȱit,ȱwhichȱangeredȱmany inȱtheȱhigherȱpoliticalȱcircles.ȱWottonȱtriedȱlaterȱtoȱdefendȱhimself,ȱarguingȱthat Schoppeȱhadȱinappropriatelyȱblurredȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱpublicȱstatements andȱprivateȱcommentsȱamongȱfriends.ȱButȱitȱwasȱtooȱlate,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱthe albumȱ ofȱ friendsȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ gained,ȱ asȱ aȱ genre,ȱ publicȱ functionsȱ andȱ wasȱ no longerȱaȱmediumȱofȱandȱforȱprivateȱexchangesȱorȱreflections.ȱInstead,ȱtheȱalbum amicorumȱ hadȱ turnedȱ intoȱ aȱ toolȱ forȱ learnedȱ andȱ politicallyȱ mindedȱ travelers throughoutȱtheȱseventeenthȱcenturyȱwhoȱsystematicallyȱcollectedȱinformationȱand signaturesȱbyȱwellȬknownȱandȱfamousȱpersons.ȱ Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱasȱKellerȱhighlights,ȱanyȱstatementȱissuedȱinȱtheȱworldȱofȱDe Constantiaȱ immediatelyȱ becameȱ knownȱ inȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ theȱ Politica,ȱ andȱ both actuallyȱ functionedȱ inȱ aȱ complementaryȱ fashion,ȱ oneȱ showingȱ friendshipȱ asȱ a refugeȱandȱtheȱotherȱasȱanȱillusion,ȱalthoughȱthisȱcreatedȱaȱkindȱofȱcrisisȱofȱinterest. Still,ȱfriendshipȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱconvenientȱsegueȱfromȱprivateȱtoȱpublic,ȱwhich ultimatelyȱ eliminatedȱ theȱ formerȱ completely.ȱ Schoppeȱ wasȱ aȱ veryȱ effective ideologizingȱ oratorȱ andȱ propagandistȱ whoȱ operatedȱ highlyȱ successfullyȱ inȱ the politicalȱarena,ȱconvertingȱmanyȱofȱtheȱcontemporaryȱintellectualsȱtoȱtheȱCatholic causeȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱfriendship,ȱLipsiusȱamongȱthem,ȱandȱthisȱatȱaȱtimeȱwhenȱthe religiousȱconflictsȱgainedȱinȱintensity,ȱultimatelyȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar (1618–1648).ȱ Theȱconsequencesȱforȱfriendshipȱitself,ȱparticularlyȱinȱaȱlearnedȱcontext,ȱwere almostȱdevastating,ȱbringingȱmanyȱsatiristsȱontoȱtheȱpoliticalȱstageȱridiculingȱthose whoȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱlearnedȱhumanists,ȱderidingȱthoseȱwhoȱstillȱperformedȱunder theȱguiseȱofȱeducatedȱfriends.ȱKellerȱthusȱcontextualizesȱtheȱvalidityȱofȱLipsius’s ownȱclaimsȱasȱtoȱtheȱrelevanceȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword

166

Introduction

(Cicero)ȱ becauseȱ itȱ hadȱ broadlyȱ turnedȱ intoȱ anȱ effectiveȱ politicalȱ ployȱ toȱ open secretȱ archivesȱ andȱ librariesȱ whichȱ wereȱ otherwiseȱ underȱ theȱ controlȱ ofȱ those ‘friends’ȱinȱforeignȱlands.ȱTheseȱintellectuals,ȱhence,ȱwhoȱtraveledȱinȱtheȱnameȱof friendship,ȱhadȱbecomeȱtravelingȱpoliticalȱspiesȱwhoȱtriedȱtheirȱbestȱtoȱcollectȱany kindȱofȱusefulȱdataȱforȱtheirȱownȱrulersȱbackȱhome.ȱAlmostȱtragically,ȱweȱcould say,ȱ inȱ thisȱ processȱ theyȱ underminedȱ theȱ traditionalȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ and subsumedȱitȱunderȱpoliticalȱideologyȱandȱutilitarianism,ȱleadingȱtoȱquestionsȱabout theȱvalidityȱofȱlearnedȱfriendship.ȱ Inȱthisȱregardȱweȱcanȱreturnȱatȱthisȱpointȱtoȱseveralȱcriticalȱissuesȱraisedȱalready severalȱtimes.ȱTheȱtropeȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱalbumȱamicorumȱproves toȱbeȱmoreȱdeterminedȱbyȱpoliticalȱexpediency,ȱifȱnotȱblatantȱdeception,ȱthanȱby highȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱstandards.ȱRobertȱStretterȱinȱhisȱcontributionȱraisesȱthe questionȱ whetherȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ mightȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ fadingȱ inȱ the fifteenthȱcenturyȱatȱlarge.ȱAndȱmodernȱcriticsȱhaveȱalsoȱsharplyȱarguedȱagainstȱthe ‘pretense’ȱbyȱClassicistȱwritersȱsuchȱasȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱ(seeȱourȱintroductory section),ȱ doubtingȱ theirȱ honestyȱ andȱ theȱ authenticityȱ ofȱ theirȱ dedicationȱ to friendship,ȱwonderingȱaloudȱaboutȱitsȱpossibleȱhollownessȱandȱignoranceȱofȱthe politicalȱ realityȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ century.ȱ Kellerȱ underscoresȱ the problemȱ evenȱ furtherȱ byȱ pointingȱ outȱ howȱ muchȱ alreadyȱ sixteenthȬcentury emblematicȱstatementsȱrevealedȱtheȱextentȱthatȱdissimulationȱwasȱtheȱtrueȱname ofȱtheȱgame,ȱcastingȱtheȱentireȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱintoȱseriousȱdoubt.ȱ Manyȱalbumȱownersȱunabashedlyȱaskedȱtheirȱfriendsȱforȱlaudatoryȱstatements aboutȱthemselves,ȱtreatingȱtheȱentireȱcircleȱofȱfriendsȱasȱaȱcollectiveȱofȱpolitical pragmatistsȱ andȱ utilitarians,ȱ whereasȱ theȱ traditionalȱ Ciceronianȱ conceptȱ of friendshipȱwasȱtransformedȱtoȱmeetȱpragmatic,ȱpoliticalȱneeds,ȱwhichȱseriously problematizedȱit.ȱInȱfact,ȱcriticsȱofȱtheȱmassiveȱexpansionȱofȱtheȱgenreȱofȱtheȱalbum amicorum,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱHerbornȱrectorȱJohannȱHeinrichȱAlsted,ȱstronglyȱvoicedȱtheir oppositionȱ toȱ theȱ wideȬspreadȱ abuseȱ ofȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ of politicalȱexpediency;ȱandȱyetȱheȱasȱwellȱsignedȱotherȱalbums,ȱnotȱableȱtoȱturnȱdown suchȱrequestsȱbyȱhisȱownȱ‘friends.’ȱ Curiously,ȱaȱpostmodernȱparallelȱtoȱthisȱinflationaryȱcollectionȱofȱ‘friends’ȱin thoseȱbooksȱmightȱwellȱbeȱtheȱonlineȱFacebook,ȱwhereȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱalso seemsȱtoȱbeȱnothingȱbutȱaȱfaintȱcryȱfromȱtheȱclassicalȱmeaningȱofȱaȱfriend.337ȱThis begsȱtheȱquestion,ȱofȱcourse,ȱwhetherȱweȱstillȱcanȱtalkȱaboutȱtrueȱfriendship,ȱor whetherȱ thisȱ hasȱ notȱ already,ȱ maybeȱ forȱ aȱ longȱ timeȱ byȱ now,ȱ becomeȱ aȱ faint

337

MartinȱSimons,ȱVomȱZauberȱdesȱPrivatenȱ:ȱwasȱwirȱverlieren,ȱwennȱwirȱallesȱoffenbarenȱ(Frankfurtȱa. M.ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCampusȱVerlag,ȱ2009);ȱDavidȱI.ȱKirkpatrick,ȱTheȱFacebookȱEffect:ȱandȱHowȱItȱIs Changingȱ Ourȱ Livesȱ (London:ȱ Virgin,ȱ 2010);ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ contributionsȱ toȱ Entdeckungȱ der Freundschaft:ȱvonȱPhiliaȱbisȱFacebook,ȱed.ȱGudrunȱKugler,ȱ2010;ȱBernadetteȱKneidigner,ȱFacebookȱund Co.:ȱ eineȱ soziologischeȱ Analyseȱ vonȱ Interaktionsformenȱ inȱ Onlineȱ Socialȱ Networks.ȱ VSȱ Research (Wiesbaden:ȱVSȱVerlagȱfürȱSozialwissenschaften,ȱ2010).

Introduction

167

reflectionȱofȱanȱidealȱthatȱmoreȱorȱlessȱhadȱpeteredȱoutȱinȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAges,ȱas SebastianȱBrantȱhadȱalreadyȱformulatedȱinȱhisȱfamousȱNarrenschiffȱfromȱ1494ȱ(see above). Inȱtheȱseventeenthȱcentury,ȱmoralistsȱsuchȱasȱtheȱMarburgȱ(northȱofȱFrankfurt) preacherȱ Johannȱ Balthasarȱ Schuppȱ (1610–1661),ȱ specificallyȱ attackedȱ theȱ entire fashionȱtoȱsubscribeȱtoȱsuchȱaȱfriendshipȱnetwork,ȱandȱyetȱneitherȱheȱnorȱanyȱother criticȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱalteredȱanythingȱinȱthisȱregard.ȱKellerȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱthese albumsȱprimarilyȱservedȱasȱtheȱnodesȱinȱaȱeverȱgrowingȱcommunicativeȱnetwork inȱ whichȱ quantityȱ tookȱ precedenceȱ overȱ qualityȱ becauseȱ publicȱ andȱ political pressuresȱruledȱsupremeȱtoȱbeȱaheadȱofȱtheȱcrowdȱandȱtoȱgainȱtheȱmostȱinfluence, seeminglyȱsecuredȱthroughȱtheȱlargestȱnumberȱofȱfriendsȱwhoȱhadȱsignedȱone’s album.338ȱ Theȱ almostȱ hectic,ȱ ifȱ notȱ hysterical,ȱ questȱ toȱ accumulateȱ asȱ manyȱ namesȱ as possibleȱcanȱbeȱtracedȱback,ȱaccordingȱKeller,ȱtoȱtheȱpoliticizationȱofȱprivateȱlives andȱtoȱtheȱeverȱgrowingȱimpactȱofȱtheȱstateȱasȱtheȱallȬencompassingȱraisonȱd’êtreȱfor allȱintellectualsȱandȱbureaucrats.ȱFriendship,ȱthoughȱaȱmostȱpopularȱwordȱinȱthe mouthsȱofȱvirtuallyȱeveryoneȱmakingȱpublicȱstatements,ȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱoneȱof theȱmostȱtragicȱvictimsȱofȱthisȱearlyȬmodernȱdevelopment,ȱasȱterriblyȱreflectedȱby theȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar.ȱ Concomitantly,ȱtheȱintelligentsiaȱsoȱdeeplyȱinvestedȱinȱthisȱpoliticallyȱmotivated discourseȱ onȱ friendship,ȱ metȱ withȱ growingȱ criticismȱ againstȱ theirȱ veryȱ own learningȱbecauseȱitȱbecameȱincreasinglyȱunderminedȱbyȱfalseȱpretensesȱandȱlack ofȱtrueȱethics,ȱJohannȱBurkhardȱMencke’sȱCharlatanryȱofȱtheȱLearnedȱ(1713ȱ)ȱbeing oneȱofȱtheȱbest,ȱbutȱlate,ȱexamples,ȱwhileȱTraianoȱBoccalini’sȱAdvertisementsȱfrom Parnassusȱofȱ1612ȱ(RagguagliȱdiȱParnaso)ȱmightȱwellȱbeȱoneȱofȱtheȱearliest,ȱtoȱname justȱtwoȱofȱtheȱmanyȱauthorsȱidentifiedȱbyȱKellerȱwhoȱsignificantlyȱcontributedȱto thatȱ waveȱ ofȱ seriousȱ criticismȱ bothȱ ofȱ officialȱ learningȱ andȱ theȱ pretenseȱ of friendship,ȱnowȱinȱtheȱthroesȱofȱdegenerationȱandȱmockȱappearance.ȱ AsȱmuchȱasȱLipsius,ȱwithȱwhomȱKellerȱbeganȱherȱstudy,ȱstillȱadvocatedȱand glorifiedȱfriendshipȱinȱprivateȱandȱpublic,ȱforȱmostȱcriticsȱthatȱidealȱwasȱalmost nothingȱbutȱanȱemptyȱshell,ȱaȱcontemptibleȱtoolȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱlearnedȱandȱthe politicians,ȱifȱnotȱaȱratherȱconvenientȱpretenseȱforȱtheȱburgeoningȱbureaucracyȱin earlyȱmodernȱEurope.

338

JohannȱLuehmann,ȱJohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp:ȱBeiträgeȱzuȱseinerȱWürdigung.ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱdeutschen Literaturwissenschaft,ȱ4ȱ(1907;ȱNewȱYorkȱ:ȱJohnsonȱReproductions,ȱ1968);ȱHildegardeȱE.ȱWichert, JohannȱBalthasarȱSchuppȱandȱtheȱBaroqueȱSatireȱinȱGermany.ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱGermanic Studies,ȱN.S.ȱ22ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱKing’sȱCrownȱPress,ȱ1952);ȱMaikeȱSchauer,ȱJohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp: Predigerȱ inȱ Hamburgȱ 1649ȱ –ȱ 1661;ȱ eineȱ volkskundlicheȱ Untersuchung.ȱ Volkskundlicheȱ Studien (Hamburg:ȱHamburgerȱMuseumsvereinȱe.ȱV.,ȱ1973).ȱ

168

Introduction

L.ȱBelleeȱJones RecentȱscholarshipȱonȱlateȬRenaissanceȱliteratureȱhasȱopenedȱaȱnewȱwindowȱinȱthe debateȱonȱhowȱmuchȱfriendshipȱtrulyȱfiguredȱasȱanȱimportant,ȱifȱnotȱevenȱcentral, tropeȱofȱpublicȱdiscourse.339ȱL.ȱBelleeȱJonesȱhereȱinvestigatesȱtheȱtestimonyȱofȱJohn Donne’sȱ(1572–1631)ȱSongsȱandȱSonnetsȱwhereȱsheȱdiscovers,ȱcontraryȱtoȱprevious research,ȱ significantȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ homosocialȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ couldȱ serve exceedinglyȱwellȱtoȱcounterbalanceȱdangersȱresultingȱfromȱerotic,ȱheterosexual loveȱrelationshipsȱandȱhelpȱtheȱindividualȱtoȱfindȱaȱsafeȱhavenȱofȱethicalȱandȱmoral idealsȱ andȱvalues.ȱMoreȱspecifically,ȱasȱJonesȱdiscoversȱinȱDonne’sȱpoems,ȱthe conceptualȱ thrustȱ thereȱ consistsȱ ofȱ aimingȱ forȱ aȱ healingȱ ofȱ theȱ soulȱ deeply woundedȱ byȱ theȱ vagariesȱ ofȱ eroticȱ love,ȱ directingȱ itȱ towardȱ theȱ esoteric, philosophicalȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱdeterminedȱprimarilyȱbyȱsocialȱandȱethical valuesȱandȱideals.ȱJonesȱfocuses,ȱaboveȱall,ȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱpoems:ȱ“TheȱBroken Heart,”ȱ“TheȱLegacie,”ȱ“TheȱMessage,”ȱandȱ“TheȱBlossome.”ȱHereȱtheȱexpression ofȱfriendshipȱisȱintimatelyȱconnectedȱwithȱheartfeltȱfeelingsȱthatȱareȱmoreȱanchored inȱprofoundȱhomosocialȱbondsȱthanȱinȱheterosexual,ȱeroticȱrelationships.ȱ Followingȱanȱolderȱpatriarchalȱtraditionȱthatȱcanȱbeȱtracedȱatȱleastȱtoȱclassical antiquity,ȱ Donneȱ relegatedȱ womenȱ toȱ theȱ marginȱ inȱ theȱ entireȱ discourseȱ on friendship,ȱclaiming,ȱasȱmanyȱothersȱbeforeȱhimȱhadȱdoneȱ(suchȱasȱMontaigne), thatȱ womenȱ wereȱ notȱ reallyȱ capableȱ ofȱ developingȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ outȱ ofȱ the ficklenessȱofȱtheirȱheart.ȱSinceȱfriendshipȱwasȱprofoundlyȱpredicatedȱonȱaȱdeep feelingȱ inȱ theȱ soul,ȱ whichȱ againȱ wasȱ somehowȱ locatedȱ inȱ theȱ heart—not uncharacteristicȱforȱearlyȬmodernȱphysiologicalȱtheoriesȱregardingȱtheȱnatureȱof theȱheart,ȱmind,ȱ andȱsoulȱconstellation—onlyȱmenȱcould,ȱaccordingȱtoȱDonne, trulyȱ developȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ requiredȱ spiritualȱ andȱ intellectualȱ strength, confidence,ȱloyalty,ȱandȱaȱhighȱlevelȱofȱethicsȱandȱmorality. Donneȱmakesȱtheȱspeakerȱofȱhisȱpoemsȱaȱteacherȱofȱmaleȱfriendship,ȱinstructing theȱlistenersȱhowȱtoȱcomprehendȱtheȱessencesȱofȱLoveȱ(withȱtheȱcapitalȱL)ȱasȱthe criticalȱ bondȱ amongȱ menȱ inȱ anȱ idealȱ society.ȱ Theseȱ ‘friendship’ȱ poemsȱ hence assumeȱ aȱ criticalȱ pedagogicalȱ functionȱ aimingȱ atȱ theȱ educationȱ ofȱ theȱ courtly audienceȱinȱhomosocialȱmatters,ȱthatȱis,ȱasȱJonesȱrightlyȱemphasizes,ȱinȱvirtues.340 AlthoughȱDonne’sȱpoemsȱwereȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱheterosexualȱlove,ȱJones,

339

340

JeffreyȱMasten,ȱTextualȱIntercourse:ȱCollaboration,ȱAuthorship,ȱandȱSexualitiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱDrama. CambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱLiteratureȱandȱCulture,ȱ14ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity Press,ȱ 1997);ȱ Laurieȱ Shannon,ȱ Sovereignȱ Amity:ȱ Figuresȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Shakespeareanȱ Contexts (ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2002). Atȱcloserȱanalysisȱweȱcanȱdiscoverȱsignificantȱavatarsȱofȱthatȱethicalȱ(andȱaesthetic)ȱapproachȱto friendshipȱ alreadyȱ inȱ theȱ highȱ Middleȱ Ages;ȱ seeȱ Jamesȱ A.ȱ Schultz,ȱ Courtlyȱ Love,ȱ theȱ Loveȱ of Courtliness,ȱandȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱSexualityȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2006); heȱheavilyȱreliesȱonȱtheȱimportantȱstudyȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ1999ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ27); seeȱalsoȱJaeger’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.

Introduction

169

inȱfullȱagreementȱwithȱpreviousȱscholarshipȱonȱthatȱmatter,ȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱcentral concernȱwasȱactuallyȱnotȱtheȱcompetitionȱofȱhomosocialȱversusȱhomosexualȱlove. Byȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ ethicalȱ valuesȱ taughtȱ byȱ Donneȱ allowedȱ theȱ maleȱ audienceȱ to comprehendȱ theȱ centralȱ importanceȱ ofȱ maleȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ complementȱ to heterosexualȱlove.ȱ AlreadyȱCiceroȱhadȱinsistedȱthatȱonlyȱgoodȱmenȱcouldȱaspireȱforȱethicalȱideals, andȱ henceȱ couldȱ formȱ trueȱ friendship.ȱ Montaigneȱ continuedȱ withȱ thatȱ lineȱ of argumentȱandȱfoundȱinȱDonneȱaȱstrongȱfollowerȱasȱwell.ȱAndȱallȱassumedȱthat friendshipȱ provedȱ itselfȱ mostlyȱ inȱ overcomingȱ hardship,ȱ whichȱ requiredȱ the highestȱlevelȱofȱaffection,ȱhenceȱfriendship,ȱsomethingȱwomenȱwereȱallegedlyȱnot capableȱof.ȱTheȱpoet,ȱfollowingȱaȱlongȬmaintainedȱtradition,ȱresortedȱtoȱmedical metaphorsȱ involvingȱ theȱ wounded,ȱ orȱ damagedȱ heart,ȱ associatingȱ thatȱ with women,ȱ whereasȱ menȱ wouldȱ haveȱ aȱ strong,ȱ whole,ȱ andȱ boldȱ heartȱ which empowersȱthemȱtoȱestablishȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwithȱotherȱmales.ȱInȱfact,ȱasȱJones concludes,ȱLoveȱitselfȱisȱattackedȱforȱitsȱinstabilityȱandȱhurtfulȱnature,ȱwhereas homosocialȱ bondsȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ strong,ȱ steady,ȱ andȱ fruitful.ȱ Eroticȱ love,ȱ then, emergesȱ asȱ aȱ dangerȱ forȱ aȱ manȱ whoȱ shouldȱ turnȱ hisȱ fullȱ affectionȱ reallyȱ only towardȱmen,ȱwhichȱDonneȱunderstandsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱvirtuesȱandȱmorality. Fallingȱinȱloveȱwithȱaȱwomenȱwouldȱcarryȱtheȱperilousȱriskȱofȱhurtingȱtheȱheartȱfor goodȱandȱdebilitatingȱtheȱindividual.ȱFriendshipȱwithȱaȱman,ȱhowever,ȱnotȱinȱa homoeroticȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword,ȱwouldȱprovideȱinnerȱstrengthȱandȱhealthȱandȱcould particularlyȱhealȱtheȱwoundedȱheart,ȱbadlyȱhurtȱbyȱaȱfickleȱwoman.ȱ Toȱ whatȱ extent,ȱ however,ȱ Donneȱ mightȱ notȱ reveal,ȱ afterȱ all,ȱ someȱ subtle homosexualȱleanings,ȱdespiteȱJones’sȱconvincingȱargumentȱasȱtoȱtheȱsupremacy ofȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱinȱanȱethicalȱandȱmoralȱcontextȱonly,ȱstillȱmightȱneedȱto beȱexploredȱfurther.341ȱButȱweȱcanȱcertainly,ȱthoughȱstillȱsomewhatȱtentatively, acceptȱherȱcentralȱthesisȱthatȱDonneȱcontinuedȱwithȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendship, nowȱwithȱaȱclearȱdetrimentȱtoȱwomenȱwhomȱheȱdeemedȱunworthyȱofȱthisȱnoble homosocialȱbonding.ȱ JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienenȱ Inȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ theȱ termȱ ‘friendship’ȱ hadȱ almostȱ assumedȱ an inflationaryȱ dimension,ȱ asȱ reflectedȱ byȱ theȱ Anglicanȱ priestȱ andȱ poetȱ George Herbertȱ (1593–1633).ȱ Inȱ hisȱ Englishȱ poemsȱ ofȱ Theȱ Templeȱ (1633),ȱ aboveȱ all,ȱ he describedȱ man’sȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Christȱ mostȱ extensivelyȱ asȱ aȱ friendship,

341

Forȱrecentȱcomparativeȱapproaches,ȱseeȱTheresaȱM.ȱDiPasquale,ȱRefiguringȱtheȱSacredȱFeminine:ȱthe PoemsȱofȱJohnȱDonne,ȱAemiliaȱLanyer,ȱandȱJohnȱMilton.ȱMedievalȱ&ȱRenaissanceȱLiteraryȱStudies (Pittsburgh,ȱPA:ȱDuquesneȱUniv.ȱPress,ȱ2008);ȱcf.ȱalsoȱRamieȱTargoff,ȱJohnȱDonne:ȱBodyȱandȱSoul (2008;ȱ Chicagoȱ andȱ London:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 2009);ȱ Markusȱ Kempf,ȱ Lyrische Liebesgeschichten:ȱnarrativeȱKonstruktionenȱvonȱIdentitätȱundȱIntimitätȱinȱderȱenglischenȱDichtungȱ–ȱJohn Donne,ȱRobertȱBrowning,ȱD.ȱH.ȱLawrence.ȱSchriftenreiheȱNarrare,ȱ2ȱ(Hamburg:ȱKovac,ȱ2010).

170

Introduction

althoughȱmanȱcouldȱneverȱbeȱsimplyȱanȱequalȱtoȱChrist.ȱTheȱveryȱoppositeȱproves toȱbeȱtheȱcase,ȱasȱJeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienenȱemphasizesȱinȱhisȱcontribution,ȱand yetȱHerbertȱreliedȱheavilyȱonȱtheȱhighestȱpossibleȱauthorityȱtoȱjustifyȱhisȱapproach, Christ’sȱownȱstatementsȱinȱJohnȱ15:13–14.ȱMoreover,ȱheȱdrewȱextensivelyȱfrom medievalȱtheologicalȱwritersȱwhoȱhadȱsimilarlyȱprojectedȱChristȱasȱaȱfriendȱwho hadȱ thusȱ becomeȱ approachableȱ andȱ personal.ȱ Thomasȱ àȱ Kempis,ȱ forȱ instance, appearsȱtoȱhaveȱinfluencedȱHerbertȱinȱthisȱregardȱ(seeȱalsoȱabove),ȱbutȱtheȱlatter wentȱbeyondȱhisȱmedievalȱforerunnersȱinȱthatȱheȱaimedȱforȱaȱmodeȱofȱconversation withȱChristȱasȱaȱfriend,ȱwhichȱfindsȱitsȱperhapsȱbestȱexpressionȱinȱhisȱcollectionȱof religiousȱ poems,ȱ Theȱ Temple,ȱ publishedȱ posthumouslyȱ byȱ hisȱ friendȱ Nicholas Ferrarȱinȱ1633.ȱ However,ȱHerbertȱstruggledȱhardȱthroughoutȱhisȱlifeȱtoȱdefineȱhisȱrelationship withȱChristȱasȱaȱkindȱofȱfriendship,ȱalthoughȱheȱsawȱhimselfȱasȱaȱ“crawlingȱworm,” asȱheȱcalledȱhimselfȱinȱ“SighsȱandȱGroanes”ȱ(5–6)ȱȱinȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱLordȱand soȱcouldȱonlyȱbegȱtoȱbeȱacceptedȱbyȱHimȱasȱaȱfriend.ȱOtherȱpoems,ȱsuchȱasȱ“The Pilgrimage,”ȱextendedȱtheseȱeffortsȱfurther,ȱwhichȱsomehowȱresultedȱinȱHerbert’s optimismȱandȱfaithȱthatȱChristȱwouldȱindeedȱextendȱhisȱarmsȱasȱaȱfriendȱtoȱthe poorȱsinnerȱandȱacceptȱhimȱinȱhisȱdivineȱrealm,ȱasȱaȱfriend,ȱcopyingȱthroughȱHis behaviorȱHisȱownȱstatementȱinȱJohn’sȱGospel.ȱ Vanȱ Thienenȱ successfullyȱ correlatesȱ Herbert’sȱ religiousȱ poemsȱ withȱ those composedȱ byȱ medievalȱ mystics,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Heinrichȱ Seuseȱ (Henryȱ Suso),ȱ and recognizesȱhowȱmuchȱbothȱtheȱformerȱandȱtheȱmysticsȱfreelyȱutilizedȱmedieval courtlyȱloveȱpoetryȱtoȱexpressȱtheirȱpassionȱtoȱbecomeȱChrist’sȱfriendsȱandȱtheir hopeȱtoȱbeȱwelcomedȱandȱreceivedȱbyȱtheȱLordȱasȱHisȱfriends.342ȱButȱinȱHerbert’s poemsȱthereȱareȱalsoȱfriendsȱwithȱwhomȱheȱcanȱshareȱtheȱmysteriousȱvisionsȱand theȱsensationsȱofȱbrutalȱphysicalȱpainȱthatȱheȱhasȱexperienced.ȱMoreover,ȱasȱVan Thienenȱexplicates,ȱtheȱpoetȱwasȱindebtedȱtoȱmanyȱdifferentȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȬ modernȱvoicesȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱthoseȱfriendshipȱimages.ȱ HerbertȱsucceededȱthusȱtoȱpresentȱChristȱasȱaȱtrueȱsupporterȱandȱfriendȱofȱman. Accordingȱtoȱtheȱpoet,ȱHeȱwouldȱbeȱeasilyȱswayed,ȱifȱoneȱprayedȱtoȱHimȱproperly, toȱinterveneȱonȱbehalfȱofȱmanȱwhenȱtheȱlatterȱtriedȱtoȱappealȱtoȱGod.ȱTheȱrequest, asȱformulatedȱbyȱHerbert,ȱdidȱnot,ȱhowever,ȱextendȱtoȱtheȱpotentialȱideaȱofȱever askingȱforȱanȱequalȱpositionȱwithȱGod,ȱorȱChrist,ȱdespiteȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendship thatȱwasȱsupposedȱtoȱbondȱbothȱsidesȱtogether.ȱHerbert’sȱpoemsȱratherȱaimed specificallyȱ atȱ supportingȱ Protestantȱ iconoclasmȱ directedȱ radicallyȱ againstȱ the Catholicȱ CounterȬReformationȱ withȱ itsȱ powerfulȱ mediaȱ campaignȱ usingȱ the (pictorial)ȱemblemȱbook.ȱWithȱTheȱTempleȱtheȱpoetȱclearlyȱpromulgatedȱthatȱthe wordȱaloneȱwouldȱsufficeȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱintimateȱfriendshipȱwithȱChrist.ȱHerbert poignantlyȱreliedȱonȱvernacularȱEnglishȱinȱhisȱpoems,ȱcloselyȱfollowingȱtheȱmodel

342

SeeȱalsoȱDavidȱF.ȱTinsley’sȱcontributionȱtoȱhisȱvolume.

Introduction

171

providedȱbyȱtheȱrecentlyȱpublishedȱKingȬJamesȱBibleȱ(1611),ȱprojectingȱEngland asȱtheȱnewȱEdenȱwhereȱtheȱindividualȱwouldȱbeȱempoweredȱtoȱjoinȱChrist’sȱcircle ofȱfriends,ȱthatȱis,ȱalsoȱtheȱnewȱChurchȱofȱEngland.343 VanȱThienenȱestablishesȱgoodȱevidenceȱtoȱsupportȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱHerbertȱheavily drewȱ inspirationȱ fromȱ continentalȱ medievalȱ andȱ earlyȬmodernȱ mysticsȱ forȱ his highlyȱeroticallyȱchargedȱimagesȱofȱdevotionȱtoȱandȱfriendshipȱwithȱChrist.ȱThe poetȱenjoyedȱutilizingȱevenȱmysticalȱconceptsȱofȱpainȱandȱsufferingȱinȱimitationȱof Hisȱpassion,ȱwhichȱsubsequentlyȱstrengthenedȱhisȱeffortsȱtoȱconnectȱwithȱChrist asȱaȱfriendȱbyȱwayȱofȱrejectingȱtheȱcourtȱandȱworldlyȱsocietyȱwithoutȱentering cloisteredȱlife,ȱofȱcourse,ȱconsideringȱhisȱAnglicanȱorientationȱasȱaȱparishȱpriest.ȱIn fact,ȱ asȱ Vanȱ Thienenȱ discovers,ȱ Herbertȱ castȱ himselfȱ asȱ Christ’sȱ bride,ȱ aȱ most intimate,ȱeroticȱalternativeȱtoȱtheȱtermȱ‘friend.’ȱThisȱsteganographyȱinȱTheȱTemple,ȱ asȱtheȱauthorȱcallsȱit,ȱestablishesȱaȱmostȱintenseȱandȱyetȱsecretȱrelationshipȱwith Christȱasȱaȱfriendȱwhoȱenjoysȱtheȱprivateȱconnectionȱwithȱtheȱpoetȱandȱpriest. Creatingȱaȱsecretȱcodeȱinȱhisȱpoems,ȱusingȱanagrams,ȱplayingȱwithȱtheȱreversalȱof lettersȱandȱwords,ȱetc.,ȱmuchȱinȱtheȱveinȱofȱsimilarȱpoetryȱalreadyȱdevelopedȱin lateȱ antiquityȱ andȱ theȱ earlyȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ (e.g.,ȱ Hrabanausȱ Maurus),ȱ Herbert successfullyȱ mystifiedȱ hisȱ privateȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Christ,ȱ yetȱ stillȱ castingȱ itȱ in literaryȱterms.ȱ Theȱattentiveȱreader,ȱhowever,ȱwhoȱcouldȱdecipherȱthoseȱcodes,ȱwouldȱthenȱbe invitedȱtoȱbecomeȱalsoȱoneȱofȱChrist’sȱfriends.ȱTheȱparallelsȱinȱreligiousȱstrategy toȱ contemporaryȱ emblemȱ booksȱ areȱ quiteȱ obvious,ȱ butȱ Vanȱ Thienenȱ certainly uncoversȱ aȱ newȱ dimensionȱ inȱ Herbert’sȱ poemsȱ afterȱ allȱ whereȱ theȱ decoding strategyȱinȱtheȱvernacularȱformsȱtheȱbasisȱofȱaȱtheologicalȱfriendship,ȱinvolvingȱa circleȱofȱfriends,ȱwhichȱtheȱreadersȱareȱultimatelyȱinvitedȱtoȱjoin.ȱInȱthisȱsense, Herbertȱstrategizedȱtoȱestablishȱaȱnewȱreligious,ȱtextȬbasedȱcommunityȱexplicitly opposedȱtoȱtheȱCatholicȱCounterȬReformationȱwithȱitsȱmyriadȱofȱinnovativeȱand alsoȱ traditionalȱ mediaȱ toolsȱ andȱ organizationalȱ elements.ȱ Hisȱ poetryȱ ofȱ tears, accordingȱ toȱ Vanȱ Thienen,ȱ drawingȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ centralȱ strengthsȱ fromȱ lateȬ medievalȱpopularȱreligionȱandȱmysticism,ȱhenceȱfromȱaȱfringeȱmovementȱinȱthe CatholicȱChurch,ȱsuccessfullyȱestablishedȱanȱinnovativeȱpersonalȱapproachȱtoȱthe Godhead,ȱsimilar,ȱperhapsȱtoȱtheȱfifteenthȬcenturyȱDevotioȱmoderna,ȱyetȱnowȱwithin anȱAnglicanȱcontext.

343

GregȱMiller,ȱGeorgeȱHerbert’sȱ“HolyȱPatterns”:ȱReformingȱIndividualsȱinȱCommunityȱ(NewȱYorkȱand London:ȱContinuum,ȱ2007),ȱ115,ȱoffersȱtheȱadditionalȱilluminatingȱpoint:ȱ“Christȱisȱoftenȱtheȱfriend whoȱallowsȱtheȱpoetȱtoȱimagineȱalternativesȱtoȱselfȬcontainmentȱandȱselfȬdefinition.ȱInȱ‘Love’ȱ(III), itȱisȱ‘quickȬeyedȱLove’ȱthatȱknowsȱtheȱspeaker,ȱallowsȱhimȱtoȱsharpenȱhisȱwit,ȱandȱbringsȱhimȱto communion.”

172

Introduction

AndrewȱCromeȱ Inȱ theȱ lastȱ contributionȱ toȱ ourȱ volume,ȱ Andrewȱ Cromeȱ introducesȱ aȱ rather surprisingȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ‘friend’ȱandȱ‘friendship,’ȱthisȱtimeȱinȱaȱreligiousȱand politicalȱcontext.ȱInȱ1290ȱallȱJewsȱhadȱbeenȱexpelledȱfromȱEngland,ȱ 344butȱbyȱthe midȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ pressureȱ hadȱ developedȱ inȱ publicȱ andȱ hadȱ reached criticalȱmassȱtoȱreadmitȱthem.ȱInȱ1655ȱOliverȱCromwellȱconvenedȱaȱconferenceȱof learnedȱdoctorsȱandȱpreachersȱatȱWhitehallȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱquestionȱandȱtoȱreach aȱ politicallyȱastuteȱdecision.ȱInȱthoseȱdeliberationsȱ oneȱofȱtheȱprincipalȱcriteria debatedȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱsocialȱcommunityȱofȱfriends,ȱwhichȱoughtȱtoȱincludeȱJews toȱdoȱjusticeȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱvalueȱsystem.ȱMuchȱliteratureȱpublishedȱinȱEngland before,ȱduring,ȱandȱafterȱtheȱconferenceȱfocusedȱonȱthisȱJewishȱquestion,ȱregularly using,ȱ asȱ itsȱ startingȱ andȱ endingȱ point,ȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ religiouslyȱ determined friendshipȱ acrossȱ theȱ boundariesȱ ofȱ one’sȱ ownȱ faith,ȱ whichȱ allowsȱ Cromeȱ to investigateȱ theȱ centralȱ topicȱ ofȱ ourȱ collectiveȱ effortsȱ yetȱ againȱ fromȱ another perspective.ȱ Atȱfirst,ȱwellȱbeforeȱ1655,ȱtheȱtropeȱofȱ‘friendship’ȱinȱtheȱpreȬconferenceȱliterature targetedȱ onlyȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Jewsȱ andȱ God.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ the AmsterdamȱRabbiȱMenassehȱbenȱIsraelȱstayedȱinȱLondonȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱthe conferenceȱandȱstruckȱaȱconcreteȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱdelegateȱHenryȱJessey,ȱthe issueȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ becameȱ aȱ veryȱ personalȱ andȱ aȱ concreteȱ matterȱ theȱ various politicalȱwritersȱhadȱtoȱdealȱwithȱmostȱspecifically,ȱsomeȱofȱwhomȱcertainlyȱand suddenlyȱrevealedȱlongȬheldȱbutȱprivatelyȱkeptȱantiȬSemiticȱsentiments.ȱ Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱasȱCromeȱuncovers,ȱsinceȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱinterestȱinȱJews andȱaȱfascinationȱwithȱtheirȱfaithȱhadȱgrownȱinȱEngland,ȱinvolvingȱtheȱstudyȱof Hebrewȱ andȱ questionsȱ asȱ toȱ apocalyptic,ȱ orȱ millennial,ȱ conversionsȱ ofȱ Jewsȱ to Christianity,ȱasȱpropounded,ȱaboveȱall,ȱbyȱtheȱCambridgeȱscholarȱJosephȱMede (1586–1638).ȱTheseȱeschatologicalȱperspectivesȱwereȱpredicatedȱonȱtheȱnotionȱthat anyoneȱwhoȱwantedȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱofȱGodȱalsoȱhadȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱJews—in theȱAugustinianȱteachingȱtheyȱwereȱstillȱtheȱlettersȱofȱtheȱlaw345—whichȱfindsȱsome ofȱitsȱmostȱcuriousȱexpressionȱinȱtheȱnotionȱthatȱtheȱJews’ȱreturnȱtoȱEnglandȱwould fulfillȱpropheciesȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱ Crome,ȱ however,ȱ remindsȱ usȱ ofȱ theȱ deeplyȱ antiȬSemiticȱ attitudesȱ thatȱ still influencedȱEnglandȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱ(seeȱShakespeare’sȱMerchant

344

345

Cecilȱ Roth,ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ inȱ England.ȱ 3rd.ȱ ed.ȱ (1941;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Clarendonȱ Press,ȱ 1964); JonathanȱA.ȱRomain,ȱAngloȬJewryȱinȱEvidence:ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱJewsȱinȱEnglandȱThroughȱOriginal SourcesȱandȱIllustrations,ȱwithȱcontributionsȱbyȱJonȱEpsteinȱandȱAmandaȱGolbyȱ(London:ȱMichael GoulstonȱEducationalȱFoundation,ȱ1985);ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱCulturalȱDiversityȱinȱthe BritishȱMiddleȱAges:ȱArchipelago,ȱIsland,ȱEngland,ȱed.ȱJeffreyȱJeromeȱCohen.ȱTheȱNewȱMiddleȱAges (Basingstoke:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2008). Jeremyȱ Cohen,ȱ Livingȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ theȱ Law:ȱ Ideasȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Christianityȱ (Berkeley,ȱ Los Angeles,ȱetȱal.:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1999).

Introduction

173

ofȱ Venice,ȱ ca.ȱ 1596–1598).346ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ soonȱ enoughȱ contactsȱ wereȱ madeȱ by DutchȱBaptistsȱandȱJews,ȱdevelopingȱintoȱfriendshipȬlikeȱlinks,ȱwhichȱthenȱledȱto theȱpoliticalȱmoveȱtoȱappealȱtoȱtheȱEnglishȱgovernmentȱtoȱreadmitȱtheȱlatterȱtoȱthat country.ȱTheȱmotivesȱwereȱaȱmixtureȱofȱsentimentsȱofȱguiltȱregardingȱprevious terribleȱactsȱofȱviolenceȱcommittedȱagainstȱtheȱJewsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱandȱthe hopeȱ thatȱ theȱ readmissionȱ wouldȱ makeȱ possibleȱ theȱ Jews’ȱ conversionȱ to Christianity.ȱThat,ȱinȱturnȱwouldȱhaveȱmeantȱtheȱreturnȱofȱJewsȱtoȱPalestine,ȱhence theȱrestorationȱofȱancientȱpropheciesȱfromȱaȱmillenarianȱperspective.ȱ CromeȱtracesȱtheȱsometimesȱratherȱcontradictoryȱandȱconflictȬriddenȱdebateȱin EnglandȱaboutȱwhatȱtheȱreadmissionȱofȱJewsȱwouldȱentail,ȱwhetherȱtheyȱwould completelyȱ mergeȱ withȱ theȱ Englishȱ populationȱ orȱ would,ȱ afterȱ conversion, emigrateȱ toȱ Palestine.ȱ Atȱ anyȱ rate,ȱ theȱ entireȱ debateȱ wasȱ predicatedȱ onȱ the assumptionȱ thatȱ thereȱ couldȱ be,ȱ orȱ ratherȱ shouldȱ be,ȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ the EnglishȱandȱtheȱJewishȱnation,ȱwhichȱwouldȱbeȱpleasingȱtoȱGod,ȱandȱthisȱinȱclose parallelȱtoȱtheȱdialecticalȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱOldȱandȱtheȱNewȱTestaments. Theȱdetractors,ȱhowever,ȱwereȱnotȱsmallȱinȱnumbers,ȱexpressingȱvisceralȱhatred ofȱallȱJewsȱwhomȱtheyȱdistrustedȱunderȱanyȱcircumstancesȱandȱcouldȱnotȱeven imagineȱasȱpossibleȱfriends.ȱ WhenȱitȱbecameȱapparentȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱnotȱevenȱconsideringȱconversion, criticismȱofȱtheȱreadmissionȱideaȱincreased,ȱmakingȱtheȱMillenariansȱlookȱrather foolish.ȱButȱRabbiȱMenasseh’sȱarrivalȱinȱLondonȱinȱ1655ȱprovedȱtoȱbeȱominous, seeminglyȱ signalingȱ theȱ arrivalȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ age,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ someȱ speculative Biblicalȱchronology.ȱMenassehȱalsoȱreliedȱheavilyȱonȱtheȱfriendshipȱtropeȱinȱhis appealsȱtoȱCromwellȱtoȱallowȱtheȱreturnȱofȱJews,ȱreflectingȱtheȱwidespreadȱinterest inȱthisȱdiscourse—seeȱalsoȱKeller’sȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱpoliticalȱcirclesȱin ourȱ volume.ȱ Theȱ entireȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ theȱ Whitehallȱ conferenceȱ provedȱ toȱ be supportiveȱ ofȱ theȱ request,ȱ bothȱ inȱ religiousȱ andȱ economicȱ terms,ȱ notȱ toȱ forget HenryȱJesse’sȱstrongȱphiloȬSemitismȱwhichȱledȱtoȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱMenasseh.ȱ Cromeȱalsoȱpointsȱoutȱhowȱmanyȱotherȱdelegatesȱwereȱonȱfriendlyȱtermsȱwith theȱRabbi.ȱNevertheless,ȱthisȱdidȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱtheȱnegotiationsȱwentȱsmoothlyȱor quickly,ȱprobablyȱbecauseȱbothȱsidesȱhadȱquiteȱoppositeȱagendasȱandȱideals.ȱThe delegatesȱ onlyȱ agreedȱ quiteȱ easilyȱ toȱ grantȱ Jewsȱ aȱ legalȱ statusȱ inȱ England, particularlyȱ becauseȱ thatȱ helpedȱ theȱ Christiansȱ toȱ escapeȱ fromȱ God’sȱ possible wrathȱaboutȱtheirȱpreviousȱmistreatmentȱofȱtheȱJewishȱnation.ȱInȱotherȱwords, friendshipȱ enjoyedȱ aȱ religiousȱ connotationȱ ofȱ supremeȱ importanceȱ inȱ those deliberations,ȱatȱleastȱforȱaȱfairlyȱshortȱtime. 346

Jamesȱ S.ȱ Shapiro,ȱ Shakespeareȱ andȱ theȱ Jews.ȱ Theȱ Parkesȱ Lectureȱ ([Southampton:]ȱ Universityȱ of Southampton,ȱ1992);ȱLionelȱIfrah,ȱDeȱShylockȱàȱSamons:ȱJuifsȱetȱjudaïsmeȱenȱAngleterreȱauȱtempsȱde Shakespeareȱ etȱ Milton.ȱ Bibliothèqueȱ d’étudesȱ juives,ȱ 8ȱ (Paris:ȱ Honoréȱ Champion,ȱ 1999);ȱ Janet Adelman,ȱ Bloodȱ Relations:ȱ Christianȱ andȱ Jewȱ inȱ theȱ Merchantȱ ofȱ Veniceȱ (Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ of ChicagoȱPress;ȱBristol:ȱUniversityȱPressesȱMarketing,ȱ2008).

174

Introduction

Whileȱ theȱ philoȬSemitists,ȱ orȱ centrists,ȱ wereȱ alsoȱ awareȱ ofȱ theȱ economic advantagesȱofȱreadmittingȱtheȱJews,ȱdespiteȱmanyȱfearsȱbyȱtheȱotherȱsideȱofȱJewish usuryȱbusiness,ȱtheȱRabbiȱemphasizedȱhowȱmuchȱloyaltyȱandȱfriendshipȱEngland stoodȱtoȱgainȱfromȱitsȱnewȱJewishȱcitizens.ȱHowever,ȱheȱwasȱalsoȱveryȱclearȱabout theȱcontinuedȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱChristiansȱandȱtheȱdistinctȱJewishȱidentity. Ultimately,ȱhowever,ȱandȱthisȱdeservesȱtoȱbeȱrepeated,ȱhisȱinsistenceȱthatȱtheȱJews wouldȱ notȱ simplyȱ convertȱ disturbedȱ manyȱ andȱ weakenedȱ theȱ JudeoȬcentrists’ positionȱinȱfavorȱofȱreadmission.ȱ Inȱotherȱwords,ȱfearȱaboutȱtheȱpossibleȱdivisionȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱpopulation,ȱifȱnot mostȱdreadedȱconversionȱofȱChristiansȱtoȱJudaism,ȱquicklyȱunderminedȱtheȱentire friendshipȱ discourseȱ employedȱ byȱ theȱ Millenariansȱ forȱ theirȱ ownȱ religious purposes.ȱEvenȱtheȱstrongestȱproponentsȱbeganȱtoȱdropȱtheirȱfriendshipȱrhetoric, perceivingȱmoreȱtheȱJews’ȱdifferenceȱthanȱtheirȱproximityȱtoȱtheȱEnglishȱpeople. TheȱargumentȱwasȱevenȱraisedȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱfalselyȱusedȱtheirȱclaimȱofȱfriendship forȱ themȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ gainȱ theirȱ readmissionȱ forȱ purelyȱ selfishȱ reasons.ȱ Some opponentsȱevenȱwentȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱdeclareȱJewsȱasȱenemiesȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱnation,ȱas dangerousȱpeople,ȱandȱespeciallyȱasȱenemiesȱofȱGod.ȱTheȱmedievalȱbloodȬlibel tropeȱ (Littleȱ Hughȱ ofȱ Lincoln)ȱ wasȱ revivedȱ againȱ toȱ combatȱ theȱ friendship argument,ȱwhichȱthenȱgenerallyȱlostȱinȱglamourȱandȱrespectȱallȱoverȱEurope,ȱasȱwe haveȱ alreadyȱ seenȱ inȱ Keller’sȱ contribution,ȱ althoughȱ thereȱ forȱ totallyȱ different reasonsȱandȱinȱaȱdifferentȱcontext.ȱ Ultimately,ȱthen,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱargument,ȱnotȱevenȱinȱaȱreligiousȱcontext,ȱdid notȱ proveȱ toȱ beȱ successful,ȱ althoughȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ ferventȱ supportersȱ and actualȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱRabbi,ȱsuchȱasȱJessey,ȱcertainlyȱcontinuedȱwithȱtheirȱefforts, demonstratingȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱstandingȱfirmȱinȱtheirȱcommitmentȱtoȱtheirȱJewish friends.ȱ Theȱ Whitehallȱ conferenceȱ basicallyȱ failed,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ the upcomingȱwarȱwithȱSpain,ȱaȱtinyȱSpanishȬJewishȱcommunityȱinȱLondonȱappealed toȱtheȱstateȱtoȱbeȱacceptedȱasȱJews,ȱnotȱasȱSpaniards.ȱThisȱbecameȱrealityȱinȱ1656, forȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱsinceȱ1290,ȱandȱtheyȱactuallyȱprovedȱeverȱsinceȱtoȱbeȱsomeȱof England’sȱbestȱfriends,ȱasȱCromeȱthenȱconcludes.ȱFriendshipȱwasȱnotȱestablished inȱtheȱwayȱexpectedȱandȱhopedȱforȱbyȱtheȱChristianȱparticipantsȱinȱtheȱWhitehall conference.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ atȱ leastȱ thatȱ smallȱ groupȱ ofȱ Jewsȱ foundȱ aȱ refugeȱ in Londonȱ andȱ soȱ couldȱ survive.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ theyȱ survivedȱ notȱ becauseȱ they foundȱ friendsȱ powerfulȱ enoughȱ toȱ protectȱ them,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ theyȱ didȱ not representȱ aȱ realȱ threatȱ andȱ couldȱ argueȱ convincinglyȱ enoughȱ thatȱ theyȱ would easilyȱadaptȱtoȱEnglishȱsociety,ȱdespiteȱtheirȱreligiousȱdifference.

Introduction

175

Y.ȱTheȱDeclineȱofȱtheȱFriendshipȱIdeal? TheȱTransformationȱofȱaȱTrope SomeȱFinalȱReflections Friendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱveryȱdelicateȱphenomenon,ȱeasilyȱshakeableȱifȱnot wellȱfounded.ȱTheȱmoreȱweȱmoveȱintoȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱage,ȱsoȱitȱseems,ȱtheȱmore theȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱatȱrisk.ȱFriedrichȱSchillerȱstillȱbelievedȱinȱit,ȱasȱhisȱpaean onȱfriendshipȱinȱhisȱfamousȱballadȱ“DieȱBürgschaft”ȱfromȱ1798ȱ(seeȱaboveȱatȱthe beginning).ȱNevertheless,ȱearlyȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱpoets,ȱdealingȱwithȱtheȱvery sameȱmotif,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱGermanȱorganist,ȱteacher,ȱandȱpoetȱErasmusȱWidmannȱin RothenburgȱobȱderȱTauber,ȱrealizedȱalreadyȱhowȱmuchȱitȱwasȱonlyȱaȱdreamȱno longerȱrealizableȱatȱtheirȱtime.ȱInȱhisȱsongȱ“DAmonȱvndȱPythiasȱgutȱfreundȱallzeit bestendigȱgwesenȱseind”ȱ(1613;ȱDamonȱandȱPythiasȱhaveȱbeenȱloyalȱfriendsȱallȱthe time)ȱWidmannȱcommentsȱquiteȱsarcasticallyȱandȱwithȱaȱdeepȱsenseȱofȱfrustration: “Dergleichenȱfreundȱmanȱwenigȱfindȱ/ȱDieȱinȱgefahrȱsoȱbstendigȱsind”ȱ(Youȱfind veryȱfewȱsuchȱfriendsȱwhoȱproveȱtoȱbeȱsoȱloyalȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱdanger).347ȱ Forȱ Widmann,ȱ andȱ probablyȱ manyȱ ofȱ hisȱ contemporaries,ȱ thoseȱ who vociferouslyȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱsomeone’sȱbestȱfriendȱwereȱnothingȱbutȱ“Maulfreund” (stanzaȱ6,ȱ1;ȱchatterȱmouths).ȱInȱmostȱcases,ȱallȱthoseȱpeopleȱwhoȱswarmedȱaround theȱ fortunateȱ oneȱ wouldȱ beȱ immediatelyȱ goneȱ asȱ soonȱ asȱ misfortuneȱ setȱ in: “MaulfreundȱaberȱgenugȱauffȱErdnȱ/ȱJetzungȱgarȱleichtlichȱgfundenȱwerdn/ȱDoch nurȱallweilȱesȱeimȱwolȱgehtȱ/ȱImȱvnglue ckȱaberȱkeinerȱbsteht”ȱ(stanzaȱ6;ȱChatter mouthsȱareȱaplentyȱhereȱonȱearthȱandȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱeasily,ȱbutȱonlyȱasȱlongȱasȱone isȱfortunate.ȱWhenȱmisfortuneȱbefallsȱyou,ȱnoȱoneȱstaysȱbehind).348ȱ WidmannȱandȱotherȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱcriticsȱhadȱalreadyȱturnedȱintoȱstrong misanthropistsȱ becauseȱ theyȱ andȱ theirȱ familiesȱ hadȱ byȱ thenȱ sufferedȱ through

347

348

MusicalischerȱTugendspiegelȱGantzȱnewerȱGesaengȱmitȱschoenenȱHistorischenȱvndȱPoetischenȱTextenȱsehr nutzlichȱzuȱlesenȱvndȱlieblichȱzuȱsingenȱ(Nuremberg:ȱAbrahamȱWagenmann,ȱ1613);ȱhereȱquotedȱfrom theȱfacsimileȱedition,ȱMusicalischerȱTugendspiegelȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱFaksimileȬEditionȱSchermarȬBibliothekȱUlm, 6ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱCornettoȬVerlag,ȱ1999),ȱno.ȱXVI,ȱstanzaȱ5,ȱ3–4.ȱForȱbackgroundȱonȱWidemann,ȱwhose workȱ isȱ practicallyȱ unknownȱ todayȱ exceptȱ amongȱ someȱ musicologists,ȱ seeȱ Martinȱ Loeser, “Widmann,ȱErasmus,”ȱDieȱMusikȱinȱGeschichteȱundȱGegenwart.ȱSec.ȱnewlyȱpreparedȱed.,ȱed.ȱLudwig Finscher.ȱPersonenteil,ȱ17ȱ(Kassel,ȱBasel,ȱetȱal.:ȱBärenreiter,ȱ2007),ȱ867–69.ȱSeeȱalsoȱJocelynȱMackey, “Widmann,ȱErasmus,”ȱTheȱNewȱGrove:ȱDictionaryȱofȱMusicȱandȱMusicians.ȱSec.ȱed.ȱbyȱStanleyȱSadie. Executiveȱed.ȱJohnȱTyrrell.ȱVol.27ȱ(1878;ȱLondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱMacmillan,ȱ2001),ȱ357–58. AsȱfarȱasȱIȱcanȱtell,ȱthisȱisȱtheȱveryȱfirstȱdiscussionȱofȱWidmann’sȱpoems.ȱErnstȱGegenschatz,ȱ“Die ‘pythagoreischeȱBürgschaft’,”ȱ1981ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ8)ȱtracesȱtheȱmotifȱfromȱtheȱGreekȱpoetȱAristoxenos (b.ȱ370ȱB.C.E.)ȱdownȱtoȱCicero,ȱValeriusȱMaximus,ȱLactantiusȱ(ca.ȱ300ȱC.E.),ȱandȱSaintȱAmbrosius (340–397),ȱmentionsȱalsoȱitsȱrevivalȱinȱtheȱLegendaȱaureaȱbyȱJacobusȱdeȱVoragineȱ(d.ȱ1298)ȱandȱin theȱchessȱallegory,ȱSolatiumȱludiȱscacorumȱsiveȱliberȱdeȱmoribusȱhominumȱetȱdeȱofficiisȱnobiliumȱac popularium,ȱbyȱJacobusȱdeȱCessolisȱ(ca.ȱ1275),ȱandȱfromȱthereȱheȱjumpsȱoverȱhundredsȱofȱyearsȱto FriedrichȱSchiller,ȱi.e.,ȱtoȱtheȱlateȱeighteenthȱcentury.ȱ

176

Introduction

decadesȱofȱreligiousȱstrifeȱandȱwarfare,ȱwhichȱfinallyȱeruptedȱintoȱtheȱThirtyȱYears Warȱinȱ1618.ȱTheyȱprobablyȱrememberedȱBoethius’sȱteachingsȱcontainedȱinȱhis famousȱ Deȱ consolationeȱ philosophiae,ȱ andȱ soȱ addressedȱ veryȱ explicitlyȱ the hollownessȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱidealȱofȱfriendship,ȱatȱleastȱinȱtheirȱexistenceȱ(seeȱalso theȱcontributionsȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱTheodoreȱKaouk,ȱStellaȱAchilleos,ȱandȱVera Keller).ȱ Thisȱdidȱnotȱmean,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱthenȱcameȱtoȱa suddenȱend,ȱasȱtheȱrichȱexamplesȱprovidedȱbyȱL.ȱBelleeȱJones,ȱJeanȬChristopheȱVan Thienen,ȱandȱAndrewȱCromeȱinȱtheirȱrespectiveȱarticlesȱindicate.349ȱButȱhopeȱinȱthe restorativeȱandȱbeneficialȱpowerȱofȱfriendshipȱfromȱthenȱonȱrestedȱprimarilyȱinȱthe religiousȱsphere,ȱwhereasȱtheȱsecularȱworldȱseemedȱtoȱbeȱtooȱmaterialisticȱand egocentricȱstillȱtoȱsupportȱsolid,ȱloyal,ȱandȱreliableȱfriendshipȱasȱthisȱappearsȱstill toȱ haveȱ beenȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ asȱ farȱ asȱ weȱ canȱ trustȱ literaryȱ and religiousȱdocumentsȱfromȱthatȱtime. Aȱgoodȱexample,ȱthoughȱatȱfirstȱsightȱalmostȱephemeralȱinȱnature,ȱprovesȱtoȱbe aȱ shortȱ poemȱ byȱ theȱ Anacreonticȱ writerȱ Friedrichȱ Hagedornȱ (1708–1754),ȱ a humorousȱpoetȱfromȱHamburgȱwhoȱwasȱdeeplyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱphilosophies developedȱ byȱ Anthonyȱ Ashleyȱ Cooper,ȱ Thirdȱ Earlȱ ofȱ Shaftesbury.350ȱ Inȱ “Die Freundschaft”ȱ(Friendship),ȱHagedornȱdefinesȱthisȱhumanȱbondȱasȱtheȱmotherȱof gracefulȱurgesȱinȱman.ȱEroticȱloveȱcanȱbeȱdismissed,ȱwhereasȱallȱhumanȱchoirsȱsing choralsȱinȱhonorȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“DirȱFreundschaft,ȱnichtȱderȱLiebe,ȱ/ȱErschallen unsereȱ Choe re.”351ȱ Butȱ then,ȱ inȱ anotherȱ poemȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ eroticȱ loveȱ (“Anȱ die

349

350

351

Forȱ theȱ discourseȱ onȱ friendshipȱ duringȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ century,ȱ seeȱ Wolfdietrichȱ Rasch, FreundschaftskultȱundȱFreundschaftsdichtungȱimȱdeutschenȱSchrifttumȱdesȱ18.ȱJahrhundertsȱvomȱAusgang desȱ Barockȱ bisȱ zuȱ Klopstock.ȱ Deutscheȱ Vierteljahrsschriftȱ fürȱ Literaturwissenschaftȱ und Geistesgeschichte.ȱBuchreihe,ȱ21ȱ(Halleȱa.ȱd.ȱS.:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1936).ȱ Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ “Friedrichȱ vonȱ Hagedorn,”ȱ Germanȱ Baroqueȱ Writers,ȱ 1661–1730,ȱ ed.ȱ James Hardin.ȱ Dictionaryȱ ofȱ Literaryȱ Biography,ȱ 168ȱ (Detroit,ȱ Washington,ȱ DC,ȱ andȱ London:ȱ Gale Research,ȱ 1996),ȱ 162–67;ȱ Eckhardtȱ MeyerȬKrentler,ȱ “Freundschaftȱ imȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhundert:ȱ Zur Einführungȱ inȱ dieȱ Forschungsdiskussion,”ȱ Frauenfreundschaft,ȱ Männerfreundschaft:ȱ Literarische Diskurseȱ imȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhundert,ȱ ed.ȱ Wolframȱ Mauserȱ andȱ Barbaraȱ BeckerȬCantarinoȱ (Tübingen: Niemeyer,ȱ1991),ȱ1–22;ȱid.,ȱDerȱBürgerȱalsȱFreund:ȱEinȱsozialethischesȱProgrammȱundȱseineȱKritikȱinȱder neuerenȱdeutschenȱErzählliteraturȱ(Munich:ȱFink,ȱ1984);ȱWilfriedȱBarner,ȱ“GelehrteȱFreundschaftȱim 18.ȱJahrhundert:ȱZuȱihrenȱtraditionalenȱVoraussetzungen,”ȱFrauenfreundschaft,ȱ23–46.ȱNowȱseeȱalso ReinholdȱMünster,ȱFriedrichȱvonȱHagedorn:ȱDichterȱundȱPhilosophȱderȱfröhlichenȱAufklärungȱ(Munich: iudicium,ȱ 1999),ȱ 333–44;ȱ andȱ Ulrikeȱ Bardt,ȱ Literarischeȱ Wahlverwandtschaftenȱ undȱ poetische Metamorphosen:ȱDieȱFabelȬȱundȱErzähldichtungȱFriedrichsȱvonȱHagedornȱ(StuttgartȱandȱWeimar:ȱJ.ȱB. Metzler,ȱ1999).ȱAsȱmuchȱasȱIȱwouldȱconcurȱwithȱMeyerȬKrentler’sȱandȱMünster’sȱreading,ȱthere isȱaȱcertainȱdangerȱinȱbothȱtheirȱapproachesȱtoȱinterpretȱHagedorn’sȱperspectiveȱtowardȱfriendship andȱthatȱofȱhisȱcontemporariesȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱAristotleȱandȱCicero,ȱmakingȱmoreȱoutȱof Hagedorn’sȱ simple,ȱ sometimesȱ ratherȱ naiveȱ verses,ȱ thanȱ seemsȱ justified.ȱ Hagedornȱ doesȱ not engageȱ withȱ Ciceroȱ atȱ all!ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ thisȱ poet,ȱ likeȱ manyȱ others,ȱ deliberatelyȱ abstainedȱ from theoreticalȱdiscussionsȱandȱaimedȱforȱlight,ȱjoyful,ȱperhapsȱevenȱplayful,ȱliteraryȱentertainment. DesȱHerrnȱFriedrichsȱvonȱHagedornȱsae mmtlicheȱpoetischeȱWerke.ȱPartȱIIIȱ(Hamburg:ȱJohannȱCarlȱBohn,

Introduction

177

Liebe”),ȱHagedornȱcontradictsȱhimselfȱandȱplacesȱexclusiveȱimportanceȱonȱlove (83),ȱasȱaȱconsiderableȱnumberȱofȱhisȱotherȱpoemsȱdoȱasȱwell.ȱNevertheless,ȱforȱhim friendshipȱ constitutedȱ theȱ bondȱ amongȱ equalȱ peopleȱ whoȱ wantȱ toȱ enjoyȱ life together,ȱsingingȱandȱdrinking,ȱabstainingȱfromȱallȱselfishnessȱandȱenvy.ȱOnly friendshipȱmakesȱlifeȱworthȱliving,ȱwhereasȱ politicalȱrankȱandȱmaterialȱpower cannotȱcompeteȱwithȱtrueȱfriendship.ȱAsȱReinholdȱMünsterȱastutelyȱcomments, “DaherȱistȱderȱwahreȱFreundȱderȱBiedermann”ȱ(341;ȱThereforeȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱis theȱBiedermannȱ[aȱsimpleȬmindedȱbutȱhonorableȱman]).ȱHagedorn,ȱhowever,ȱdoes notȱ theoretizeȱ friendship,ȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ pursueȱ aȱ heavyȱ ethicalȱ agendaȱ inȱ his variousȱpoemsȱinȱwhichȱheȱcelebratesȱloveȱandȱfriendship. Inȱ “Dasȱ Gesellschaftliche”ȱ (Companionship;ȱ 99–100)ȱ heȱ raisesȱ aȱ toastȱ toȱ his friendsȱandȱdescribesȱthemȱasȱimportantȱforȱtheȱdrinkingȱfellowship:ȱ“IhrȱFreunde, zechtȱbeyȱfreudenvollenȱChoe ren!ȱ/ȱAuf!ȱstimmtȱeinȱfreyesȱScherzliedȱan.ȱ/ȱTrinkȱich soȱviel,ȱsoȱtrinkȱichȱeuchȱzuȱehren,ȱ/ȱUndȱdaßȱichȱhellerȱsingenkann”ȱ(1–4;ȱFriends, drinkȱalongȱwithȱtheȱjoyfulȱchoirs.ȱGoȱahead,ȱbeginȱwithȱaȱfreeȱsongȱofȱjokes.ȱWhen Iȱdrinkȱaȱlot,ȱIȱdrinkȱonȱyourȱhonorȱsoȱthatȱIȱcanȱsingȱbetter). Whenȱ weȱ probeȱ whatȱ Anthonyȱ Ashleyȱ Cooper,ȱ Thirdȱ Earlȱ ofȱ Shaftesbury (1671–1713)ȱhadȱtoȱsayȱaboutȱfriendship—havingȱbeenȱaȱmajorȱsourceȱofȱinfluence onȱ Hagedorn—weȱ read,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ thatȱ loveȱ forȱ wisdomȱ droveȱ alreadyȱ the ancientsȱtoȱformȱsocialȱunitsȱwithȱotherȱpeope:ȱ“theȱLoveȱofȱVirtueȱinȱtheȱPersons ofȱ thoseȱ Greatȱ Men,ȱ theȱ Foundersȱ andȱ Preserversȱ ofȱ Societys,ȱ theȱ Legislators, Patriots,ȱDeliverers,ȱHeroes,ȱwhoseȱVirtuesȱtheyȱwereȱdesirousȱshou’dȱliveȱandȱbe immortaliz’d.ȱNorȱisȱthereȱatȱthisȱdayȱanyȱthingȱcapableȱofȱmakingȱthisȱBeliefȱmore engagingȱamongȱtheȱGoodȱandȱVirtuousȱthanȱtheȱLoveȱofȱFriendship,ȱwhichȱcreates inȱ‘emȱaȱdesireȱnotȱtoȱbeȱwhollyȱseparatedȱbyȱDeath,ȱbutȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱenjoyȱthe sameȱbless’dȱSocietyȱhereafter.”352ȱ Atȱcloserȱanalysis,ȱhowever,ȱweȱrealizeȱthatȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendshipȱservesȱhim onlyȱasȱaȱspringboardȱforȱbroaderȱphilosophicalȱruminations,ȱasȱwhenȱheȱnotes: “Hardlyȱindeedȱcou’dȱIȱallowȱtheȱNameȱofȱManȱtoȱoneȱwhoȱneverȱcou’dȱcallȱorȱbe call’dȱFriend.ȱButȱheȱwhoȱjustlyȱprovesȱhimselfȱaȱFriend,ȱisȱManȱenough;ȱnorȱisȱhe wantingȱtoȱSociety.ȱAȱsingleȱFriendshipȱmayȱacquitȱhim.ȱHeȱhasȱdeserv’dȱaȱFriend, andȱisȱman’sȱFriend;ȱthoȱnotȱinȱstrictnessȱorȱaccordingȱtoȱyourȱhighȱmoralȱSense,ȱthe FriendȱofȱMankind”ȱ(102).ȱ Friendship,ȱforȱShaftesbury,ȱamountsȱtoȱsociability,ȱtheȱbasicȱhumanȱinstinctȱto haveȱ companyȱ aroundȱ oneself:ȱ “Whatȱ Tyrantȱ isȱ there,ȱ whatȱ Robber,ȱ orȱ open ViolatorȱofȱtheȱLawsȱofȱSociety,ȱwhoȱhasȱnotȱaȱCompanion,ȱorȱsomeȱparticularȱSet,

352

1757;ȱBern:ȱHerbertȱLang,ȱ1968),ȱ80. AnthonyȱAshleyȱCooper,ȱThirdȱEarlȱofȱShaftesbury,ȱMoralȱandȱPoliticalȱPhilosophy.CompleteȱWorks, SelectedȱLettersȱandȱPosthumousȱWritings.ȱInȱEnglishȱwithȱGermanȱTranslation.ȱEd.,ȱtrans.,ȱandȱwith aȱcommentaryȱbyȱWolframȱBenda,ȱGerdȱHemmerich,ȱandȱUlrichȱSchödlbauer.ȱAdvisingȱcoeditor: A.ȱOwenȱAldridgeȱ(Stuttgart:ȱFrommannȬHolzboog,ȱ1987),ȱ155–56.

178

Introduction

eitherȱofȱhisȱownȱKindred,ȱorȱsuchȱasȱheȱcallsȱFriends;ȱwithȱwhomȱheȱgladlyȱshares hisȱGood;ȱinȱwhoseȱWelfareȱheȱdelights;ȱandȱwhoseȱJoyȱandȱSatisfactionȱheȱmakes hisȱown?ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ‘TisȱtoȱthisȱsoothingȱHopeȱandȱExpectationȱofȱFriendship,ȱthatȱalmost allȱourȱActionsȱhaveȱsomeȱreference.”353ȱAgain,ȱweȱmightȱconclude,ȱdespiteȱall attemptsȱbyȱearlyȬmodernistsȱtoȱinsistȱthatȱfriendshipȱwasȱofȱgreatȱconcernȱduring theȱseventeenthȱandȱeighteenthȱcenturies,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱfervorȱwithȱwhichȱitȱhad beenȱdiscussedȱandȱpracticedȱinȱlateȱantiquityȱandȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱseemsȱtoȱhave fadedȱaway. Thisȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ theȱ caseȱ whenȱ scholarsȱ argueȱ thatȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ century rediscoveredȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendship,ȱthenȱapparentlyȱinȱtheȱimplicitȱrealizationȱthat anȱoldȱdreamȱofȱutopianȱsociabilityȱhadȱindeedȱcomeȱtoȱanȱend,ȱmaybeȱbyȱtheȱearly seventeenthȱcentury,ȱasȱIȱhaveȱsuggestedȱabove.354ȱTheȱenormousȱpopularityȱof letterȱwritingȱmightȱhaveȱaddedȱmuchȱtoȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendship,ȱandȱsoȱthe riseȱofȱpublicȱexchangesȱamongȱscholarsȱandȱscientistsȱacrossȱEuropeȱsinceȱthe seventeenthȱcentury.355ȱByȱtheȱsameȱtoken,ȱweȱcouldȱgoȱoneȱstepȱfurtherȱandȱclaim thatȱtheȱRomanticsȱrevivedȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱagainȱtoȱsomeȱextent,ȱbutȱuntil today,ȱsoȱitȱseems,ȱtheȱsameȱdegreeȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱasȱpracticedȱinȱlateȱantiquity andȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱhasȱnotȱeverȱfullyȱregainedȱinȱstrength.356ȱ Perhapsȱ weȱ modernsȱ haveȱ becomeȱ tooȱ cynical,ȱ orȱ tooȱ materialistic,ȱ to understandȱandȱpracticeȱwhatȱfriendshipȱhadȱtraditionallyȱmeant,ȱcombiningȱthe ethicalȱwithȱtheȱspiritual.ȱSurprisingly,ȱhowever,ȱevenȱsuchȱaȱcynic,ȱorȱnihilist,ȱas theȱphilosopherȱFriedrichȱNietzscheȱ(1844–1900)ȱcouldȱargue,ȱatȱleastȱduringȱhis middleȱperiod,ȱfollowingȱRuthȱAbbey,ȱ“thatȱthereȱisȱaȱcloseȱconnectionȱbetween friendshipȱandȱselfhoodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱheȱbelievesȱthatȱfriendshipȱcanȱmakeȱaȱsignificant contributionȱ toȱ selfȬknowledgeȱ andȱ selfȬimprovement,ȱ whichȱ areȱ bothȱ closely associatedȱwithȱhisȱnotionȱofȱselfȬovercoming.”357ȱInȱfact,ȱheȱdealtȱintensivelyȱwith friendship,ȱwritingȱpoemsȱonȱitȱ(“AnȱdieȱFreundschaft,”ȱ1874/1882),ȱlamentingȱthe

353 354

355

356

357

Shaftesbury,ȱMoralȱandȱPoliticalȱPhilosophy,ȱvol.ȱII,ȱ2,ȱ1984,ȱ196. Barner,ȱ “Gelehrteȱ Freundschaftȱ imȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhundert,”ȱ 23ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 350):ȱ “Dieȱ emphatische Neuentdeckungȱderȱ‘Freundschaft’ȱundȱihrȱbisȱinsȱHöchsteȱgesteigerterȱKultȱgehörenȱzuȱden eigentümlichstenȱundȱmeistgenanntenȱZügenȱdesȱdeutschenȱ18.ȱJahrhunderts”ȱ(Theȱemphatic rediscoveryȱofȱ‘friendship’ȱandȱitsȱextremelyȱdevelopedȱcultȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱmostȱidiosyncraticȱand mostȱdiscussedȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱGermanȱeighteenthȱcentury). MonkaȱAmmermann,ȱ“GelehrtenȬBriefeȱdesȱ17.ȱundȱfrühenȱ18.ȱJahrhunderts,”ȱGelehrteȱBücherȱvom Humanismusȱ bisȱ zurȱ Gegenwart:ȱ Referateȱ desȱ 5.ȱ Jahrestreffensȱ desȱ Wolfenbüttelerȱ Arbeitskreisesȱ für GeschichteȱdesȱBuchwesensȱvomȱ6.ȱbisȱ9.ȱMaiȱ1981ȱinȱderȱHerzogȱAugustȱBibliothek,ȱed.ȱBernhardȱFabian andȱPaulȱRaabeȱ(Wiesbaden:ȱHarrassowitz,ȱ1983),ȱ81–96. FelicityȱJames,ȱCharlesȱLamb,ȱColeridgeȱandȱWordsworth:ȱReadingȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱ1790s.ȱ(Basingstoke andȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2008). RuthȱAbbey,ȱ“Circles,ȱLaddersȱandȱStars:ȱNietzscheȱonȱFriendship,”ȱTheȱChallengeȱtoȱFriendshipȱin Modernity,ȱed.ȱPrestonȱKingȱandȱHeatherȱDevereȱ(LondonȱandȱPortland,ȱOR:ȱFrankȱCass,ȱ2000), 50–73;ȱhereȱ51.

Introduction

179

lackȱ ofȱ confidenceȱ andȱ trustȱ amongȱ friends,ȱ analyzingȱ trueȱ friendship,ȱ and discussingȱ aȱ wideȱ varietyȱ ofȱ aspectsȱ pertainingȱ toȱ thatȱ phenomenon.ȱ Toȱ be realistic,ȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ breakȱ offȱ here,ȱ sinceȱ thisȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ our investigations,ȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱperiodȱupȱtoȱtheȱlongȱeighteenthȱcentury.358 However,ȱlet’sȱatȱleastȱtakeȱintoȱconsiderationȱwhatȱpostmodernȱcriticsȱhaveȱto sayȱaboutȱfriendship.ȱWesternȱsocietyȱstillȱprovides,ȱsoȱitȱseems,ȱtheȱnecessary frameworkȱforȱtheȱindividualȱtrulyȱtoȱinvestȱinȱandȱsubscribeȱtoȱtheȱtraditional idealsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ becauseȱ weȱ haveȱ allȱ becomeȱ tooȱ atomisticȱ andȱ liveȱ in ephemeralȱ lives,ȱ henceȱ desperatelyȱ needȱ socialȱ contacts,ȱ orȱ friends.ȱ Asȱ Horst Hutterȱrightlyȱavers,ȱ“friendshipȱcanȱonlyȱflourishȱamongȱthoseȱwhoȱorientȱtheir intentionalitiesȱtoȱsomethingȱhigherȱthanȱandȱ‘beyond’ȱtheȱindividualȱself,ȱinȱa continuousȱstruggleȱforȱselfȬovercoming.ȱForȱusȱmoderns,ȱtheȱbestȱguideȱinȱthis struggleȱisȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱhumanȱwisdomȱofȱEpicurus.ȱHomoȱamicus.ȱMagis amicaȱveritas.”359 Friendshipȱ continuesȱ toȱ exist,ȱ perhapsȱ evenȱ toȱ flourish,ȱ despiteȱ allȱ negative commentsȱ especiallyȱ sinceȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ century.ȱ Butȱ itȱ isȱ changingȱ its properties,ȱoutlook,ȱmeaning,ȱandȱrelevanceȱallȱtheȱtime,ȱasȱweȱdoȱchange.ȱFrom theȱ timeȱ whenȱ Socrates,ȱ Plato,ȱ andȱ Aristotleȱ beganȱ toȱ philosophize,ȱ theyȱ also examinedȱtheȱnatureȱofȱfriendship,ȱandȱitȱhasȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱaȱhighȱcallȱforȱallȱof usȱthroughoutȱtimeȱtoȱpursueȱfriendshipȱbecauseȱitȱamountsȱtoȱbeingȱphilosophy inȱitself.ȱAsȱMarkȱVernonȱconcludesȱinȱhisȱfarȬreachingȱruminationsȱonȱthisȱtopic, “Theȱ veryȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ liesȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ philosophy.ȱ Theyȱ come togetherȱpartlyȱbecauseȱasȱAristotleȱcommented,ȱ‘weȱareȱbetterȱableȱtoȱobserveȱour friendsȱthanȱourselvesȱandȱtheirȱactionsȱthanȱourȱown’.ȱButȱmoreȱsoȱbecauseȱto trulyȱbefriendȱothersȱisȱtoȱstareȱlife’sȱuncertainties,ȱlimitsȱandȱambiguitiesȱinȱthe face.ȱToȱseekȱfriendshipȱisȱtoȱseekȱwisdom.”360ȱ

358

359

360

InȱhisȱMenschliches,ȱAllzumenschliches:ȱEinȱBuchȱfürȱfreieȱGeister,ȱNietzscheȱcommented,ȱforȱinstance: “DieȱguteȱFreundschaftȱentsteht,ȱwennȱmanȱdenȱAnderenȱsehrȱachtetȱundȱzwarȱmehrȱalsȱsich selbst,ȱwennȱmanȱebenfallsȱihnȱliebt,ȱjedochȱnichtȱsoȱsehrȱalsȱsich,ȱundȱwennȱmanȱendlich,ȱzur ErleichterungȱdesȱVerkehs,ȱdenȱzartenȱAnstrichȱundȱFlaumȱderȱIntimitätȱhinzuzuthunȱversteht, zugleichȱaberȱsichȱderȱwirklichenȱundȱeigentlichenȱIntimitätȱundȱderȱVerwechslungȱvonȱIchȱund Duȱ weislichȱ enthält”ȱ (Friedrichȱ Nietzsche,ȱ Gesammelteȱ Werke,ȱ 9ȱ (Munich:ȱ Musarionȱ Verlag, 1923),ȱ126:ȱTheȱgoodȱfriendshipȱcomesȱaboutȱwhenȱoneȱrespectsȱtheȱother,ȱthatȱis,ȱevenȱmoreȱthan oneself,ȱ andȱ whenȱ oneȱ lovesȱ him,ȱ butȱ notȱ asȱ muchȱ asȱ oneself,ȱ andȱ when,ȱ finally,ȱ toȱ easeȱ the relationship,ȱoneȱaddsȱtheȱtenderȱtouchȱandȱglimmerȱofȱintimacy,ȱbutȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱwiselyȱstays awayȱfromȱtheȱtrueȱandȱactualȱintimacyȱandȱfromȱconfusingȱtheȱIȱandȱtheȱYouȱ[myȱtrans.]).ȱFor manyȱmoreȱreferencesȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱNietzsche’sȱwork,ȱseeȱNietzsche,ȱGesammelteȱWerke,ȱvol. 22.1:ȱSachregisterȱ(Munich:ȱMusarionȱVerlag,ȱ1928),ȱ134–36. ȱ Horstȱ Hutter,ȱ “Theȱ Virtueȱ ofȱ Solitudeȱ andȱ theȱ Vicissitudesȱ ofȱ Friendship,”ȱ Theȱ Challengeȱ to FriendshipȱinȱModernity,ȱ131–48;hereȱ146ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ357). MarkȱVernon,ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱFriendshipȱ(Houndmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire,ȱandȱNewȱYork: PalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2005),ȱ164.

180

Introduction

Perhaps,ȱhowever,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱchallengesȱforȱfriendshipȱtoȱthriveȱtoday,ȱas itȱ wasȱ perceivedȱ alreadyȱ inȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ atȱ theȱ latest,ȱ consistsȱ of people’sȱunwillingnessȱorȱinabilityȱtoȱphilosophizeȱandȱtoȱseekȱforȱinnerȱtruthsȱof timelessȱvalue.ȱToȱspeakȱandȱactȱlikeȱaȱphilosopherȱisȱtantamountȱtoȱseekingȱvirtue. Findingȱfriendshipȱinȱthatȱprocessȱmightȱbeȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱgloriousȱexperiences inȱhumanȱlife,ȱandȱthisȱevenȱtoday.ȱToȱquoteȱVernonȱagain,ȱ“Inȱtoday’sȱworld, thereȱisȱaȱmythȱofȱromanticȱloveȱbasedȱuponȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtwoȱloversȱbecomeȱone flesh,ȱaȱtotalisationȱofȱlifeȱinȱtheȱother,ȱsupremelyȱenactedȱinȱsexualȱecstasyȱwhich isȱsymbolicȱofȱthatȱunion.ȱTheȱmythȱorȱidealȱtendsȱtoȱexcludeȱothers,ȱnotȱbecause loversȱ doȱ notȱ wantȱ friends,ȱ butȱ becauseȱ itȱ tellsȱ themȱ thatȱ theirȱ friendsȱ are incidentalȱ–ȱpleasantȱbutȱnonȬessentialȱadornmentsȱtoȱtheȱlover’sȱlifeȱtogether.”361ȱ Ifȱweȱareȱableȱtoȱfindȱfriendsȱandȱdelightȱinȱtheȱcompanyȱwithȱthem,ȱweȱfind ourselvesȱ suddenlyȱ deeplyȱ reconnectedȱ withȱ theȱ Socraticȱ idealsȱ andȱ medieval spirituality.ȱHowever,ȱitȱremainsȱaȱbigȱquestionȱif,ȱorȱwhether,ȱthatȱidealȱcanȱbe sustainedȱinȱtheȱpostmodernȱworld.ȱAsȱweȱhaveȱlearnedȱbyȱnow,ȱtoȱenjoyȱlifeȱwith andȱthroughȱfriendsȱwasȱofȱutmostȱbeautyȱandȱsignificanceȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱsoȱwhy shouldȱthisȱnotȱbeȱtheȱcaseȱinȱtheȱfutureȱasȱwell?ȱNevertheless,ȱatȱtheȱmomentȱthe termsȱ‘friend’ȱandȱ‘friendship’ȱareȱsufferingȱextensivelyȱfromȱtheirȱinflationaryȱuse andȱshallowȱemployment.ȱOurȱsocialȱnetworksȱseemȱtoȱrequireȱvastȱnumbersȱof friends,ȱbutȱtheȱmoreȱweȱcanȱclaim,ȱtheȱlessȱweȱreallyȱseemȱtoȱhave. Theȱ contributorsȱ toȱ ourȱ volumeȱ provideȱ aȱ wealthȱ ofȱ evidenceȱ regardingȱ the growingȱ troubleȱ withȱ friendshipȱ sinceȱ earlyȱ modernity,ȱ andȱ yetȱ theyȱ also complicateȱ theȱ criticalȱ approachȱ toȱ thatȱ phenomenon.ȱ Theȱ interdisciplinary methodȱpursuedȱinȱthisȱvolumeȱwillȱhopefullyȱshedȱfundamentalȱlightȱonȱtheȱissue andȱallowȱusȱtoȱgraspȱsomeȱofȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱandȱtheȱprofoundȱsignificanceȱof friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ mostȱ importantȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ premodernȱ worldȱ inȱ itsȱ cultural, ethical,ȱandȱmoralȱmanifestations.ȱFriendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱstruggleȱandȱyet alsoȱaȱmostȱrewardingȱexperience,ȱdeeplyȱenrichingȱhumanȱlifeȱinȱethical,ȱmoral, philosophical,ȱandȱevenȱreligiousȱterms.ȱThisȱobservationȱwillȱalsoȱindicate,ȱonce again,ȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱstudyȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱhereȱwithȱaȱfocusȱonȱtheȱtopicȱof friendship,ȱoffersȱmostȱfascinatingȱandȱfarȬreachingȱperspectivesȱforȱanȱinnovation ofȱourȱown,ȱpostȬmodernȱworld,ȱorȱasȱaȱmirrorȱofȱourȱownȱexistenceȱwithȱallȱits challengesȱandȱdifficulties.ȱ Whetherȱ Cicero,ȱ Augustine,ȱ Aelred,ȱ Heloise,ȱ Thomasȱ Aquinas,ȱ Christineȱ de Pizan,ȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱorȱanyȱotherȱmajorȱ intellectualȱ andȱ writer/artist,ȱtheyȱall agreedȱonȱtheȱoneȱcriticalȱideal,ȱtheȱdreamȱofȱtrueȱfriendship.ȱS/heȱwhoȱcanȱclaim toȱ haveȱ aȱ goodȱ friendȱ alreadyȱ knowsȱ thatȱ s/heȱ hasȱ transcendedȱ theȱ material limitationsȱofȱthisȱlifeȱandȱhasȱfound,ȱthroughȱtheȱotherȱperson,ȱaȱpassagewayȱto theȱtrueȱessenceȱofȱallȱexistenceȱinȱhumanȱterms.

361

Vernon,ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱFriendship,ȱ49ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ360).

Introduction

181

Thisȱisȱnotȱtoȱsayȱthatȱfriendshipȱwouldȱconstituteȱtheȱcentralȱissueȱuponȱwhich everythingȱ hinges,ȱ butȱ thereȱ canȱ notȱ beȱ anyȱ doubt,ȱ consideringȱ theȱ twenty contributionsȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱandȱtheȱmyriadȱofȱotherȱscholarlyȱstudiesȱpursuing theȱsameȱissueȱfromȱantiquityȱthroughȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱage,ȱhowȱmuchȱfriendship hasȱconstitutedȱaȱcornerstoneȱofȱWesternȱcultureȱeverȱsinceȱclassicalȱtimesȱand shouldȱnotȱbeȱignoredȱnowȱforȱmostȱephemeralȱreasonsȱorȱsimplyȱoutȱofȱneglect.ȱ FriedrichȱSchiller’sȱballadȱmightȱwellȱrepresentȱaȱlate,ȱorȱshouldȱweȱsayȱearly, illusionaryȱdreamȱinȱliteraryȱterms,ȱbutȱweȱmustȱnotȱsimplyȱdismissȱsomeȱofȱthe statementsȱbyȱAristotle,ȱAugustine,ȱAelred,ȱHeloise,ȱThomasȱAquinas,ȱThomasȱà Kempis,ȱDonȱJuanȱManuel,ȱJörgȱWickram,ȱandȱmanyȱothers.ȱTrueȱfriendsȱrepresent someȱofȱtheȱgreatestȱgemsȱinȱhumanȱlife,ȱrightȱnextȱtoȱtrueȱeroticȱloveȱand,ȱnotȱto forget,ȱloveȱforȱGod.ȱAsȱBennettȱHelmȱrightlyȱaversȱinȱherȱrecentȱsurveyȱarticle, “Asȱsuch,ȱfriendshipȱisȱundoubtedlyȱcentralȱtoȱourȱlives,ȱinȱpartȱbecauseȱtheȱspecial concernȱ weȱ haveȱ forȱ ourȱ friendsȱ mustȱ haveȱ aȱ placeȱ withinȱ aȱ broaderȱ setȱ of concerns,ȱ includingȱ moralȱ concerns,ȱ andȱ inȱ partȱ becauseȱ ourȱ friendsȱ canȱ help shapeȱwhoȱweȱareȱasȱpersons.”362ȱWeȱcouldȱaddȱthatȱfriendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱbeen aȱhallmarkȱofȱhighȱculture,ȱofȱidealism,ȱandȱofȱphilosophical,ȱethicalȱapproaches toȱlife,ȱfromȱAristotleȱtoȱFriedrichȱSchiller,ȱfromȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱtoȱMichelȱde Montaigne,ȱandȱthen,ȱmutatisȱmutandis,ȱfromȱtheȱeighteenthȱcenturyȱuntilȱtoday.363ȱ OurȱapproachesȱtoȱthisȱtopicȱfocusȱmostlyȱonȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearly modernȱage,ȱandȱweȱwillȱalsoȱrealizeȱinȱthisȱvolume,ȱasȱcommentedȱalreadyȱabove, thatȱ theȱ valueȱ andȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ experiencedȱ aȱ certainȱ declineȱ sinceȱ the eighteenthȱ century,ȱ ifȱ notȱ earlier,ȱ particularlyȱ whenȱ theȱ termȱ friendshipȱ was increasinglyȱusedȱforȱpoliticalȱalliancesȱandȱdiplomaticȱassociations.364ȱThisȱdoes notȱ mean,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ ofȱ relevanceȱ forȱ usȱ today,ȱ as countlessȱexamplesȱwouldȱconfirm.365ȱInstead,ȱtheȱcontributorsȱwillȱillustrateȱthe particularȱnatureȱofȱtheȱdiscourseȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱpremodernȱworldȱandȱwill examineȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱperspectivesȱrelevantȱforȱfriendshipȱevenȱtoday.ȱ

362

363

364

365

BennettȱHelm,ȱ“Friendship,”ȱStanfordȱEncyclopediaȱofȱFriendshipȱ(firstȱpublishedȱMayȱ17,ȱ2005; substantiveȱrevisionȱJulyȱ9,ȱ2009),ȱhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friendship/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱon Augustȱ1,ȱ2010). SeeȱnowȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱDeȱAmicitia,ȱed.ȱKatariinaȱMustakallioȱandȱChristianȱKrötzl,ȱ2010ȱ(see noteȱ14). MarioȱMüller,ȱBesiegelteȱȱFreundschaft:ȱdieȱbrandenburgischenȱErbeinungenȱundȱErbverbrüderungenȱim spätenȱMittelalter.ȱSchriftenȱzurȱpolitischenȱKommunikation,ȱ8ȱ(Göttingen:ȱVȱ&ȱRȱUnipress,ȱ2010). See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Jostȱ Lemmerich,ȱ Bandeȱ derȱ Freundschaft:ȱ Liseȱ Meitnerȱ –ȱ Elisabethȱ Schiemann (Vienna:ȱVerlagȱderȱÖsterreichischenȱAkademieȱderȱWissenschaften,ȱ2010);ȱDanielȱMaierȬKatkin, StrangerȱfromȱAbroad:ȱHannahȱArendt,ȱMartinȱHeidegger,ȱFriendship,ȱandȱForgivenessȱ(NewȱYork:ȱW. W.ȱNorton,ȱ2010).

182

Introduction

Z.ȱSomeȱDedicatoryȱWordsȱinȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱFriendship Thereȱareȱalwaysȱspecialȱopportunitiesȱtoȱdedicateȱaȱnewȱbookȱtoȱaȱcolleague,ȱto aȱfriend,ȱaȱfamilyȱmember,ȱandȱtheȱlike.ȱIȱfeelȱdeeplyȱindebtedȱtoȱmanyȱofȱthem, butȱhereȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱsaluteȱfirstȱaȱgroupȱofȱundergraduateȱstudentsȱfromȱThe Universityȱ ofȱ Arizonaȱ withȱ whomȱ Iȱ traveledȱ throughȱ medievalȱ Europe,ȱ from Orvietoȱ(northȱofȱRome)ȱtoȱWarsawȱviaȱVenice,ȱInnsbruck,ȱRegensburg,ȱPrague, Torun,ȱandȱGdanskȱinȱMay/Juneȱ2010,ȱteachingȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱearly modernȱ worldȱ bothȱ inȱ theoreticalȱ andȱ practicalȱ terms.ȱ Iȱ workedȱ aȱ lotȱ onȱ this introductionȱduringȱthisȱtravelȱcourse,ȱandȱIȱamȱdeeplyȱindebtedȱtoȱtheseȱstudents whoȱcameȱalongȱwithȱmeȱtoȱexperienceȱsoȱmanyȱwonderfulȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȬ modernȱsitesȱinȱconcreteȱtermsȱinspiringȱmeȱfurtherȱtoȱexploreȱtheȱmeaningȱof friendshipȱinȱhistoricalȱterms:ȱ ShannonȱAllen,ȱAminaȱBaruni,ȱAshleyȱBaum,ȱKevinȱBloom,ȱAbigailȱCochrane,ȱHalilȱFried, EmilyȱGodlove,ȱDanaȱHutchinson,ȱWesleyȱKrafft,ȱChanȱLwin,ȱNicoleȱMallett,ȱRebecca Meyer,ȱCaitlinȱMitchum,ȱAlexandraȱScott,ȱStephenieȱSpringer,ȱNicholasȱTaylor,ȱandȱPeter VanȱPeenen. Subsequently,ȱIȱhadȱtheȱextraordinaryȱopportunityȱonceȱagainȱtoȱteachȱaȱcourseȱon medievalȱliterature,ȱthisȱtimeȱatȱtheȱSookmyungȱInternationalȱSummerȱSchool, Seoul,ȱSȬKoreaȱ(June–Julyȱ2010:ȱMasterpiecesȱofȱMedievalȱLiterature),ȱandȱduring thatȱtimeȱIȱcontinuedȱtoȱexpandȱandȱtoȱreviseȱthisȱintroductionȱconsiderably.ȱI wouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmyȱgratitudeȱtoȱSookmyungȱforȱtheȱinvitationȱtoȱspendȱthree weeksȱinȱtheȱFarȱEastȱwhileȱreflectingȱuponȱtheȱhistoricalȱrootsȱofȱfriendshipȱwithin theȱEuropeanȱcontext.ȱIȱhadȱaȱnumberȱofȱoccasionsȱtoȱdiscussȱtheȱphenomenonȱof friendshipȱinȱmedievalȱliteratureȱwithȱmyȱstudentsȱthereȱasȱwell,ȱforȱwhichȱIȱam gratefulȱbecauseȱthisȱtopicȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱsoȱcentralȱtoȱtheȱentireȱMiddleȱAges. Iȱhadȱtheȱprivilegeȱtoȱteachȱtheȱfollowingȱstudents: WilliamȱBoggs,ȱMigeonȱCho,ȱChoiȱJiHyun,ȱShimȱMinkyung,ȱHyejinȱPark,ȱPuȱWang,ȱand ShinȱBoȱYoung. Finally,ȱroundingȱoffȱoneȱmyȱmostȱintenseȱandȱrewardingȱsummersȱduringȱmy academicȱlife,ȱIȱtaughtȱaȱcourseȱonȱ“CrossingȱBorders:ȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissance Travelersȱ andȱ Travelȱ Narrative”ȱ forȱ fiveȱ weeksȱ atȱ St.ȱ Catharine’sȱ College, Cambridge,ȱ UK,ȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ Arizonaȱ Centerȱ forȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Renaissance Studiesȱ (ACMRS)ȱ 2010ȱ Summerȱ Studyȱ Abroadȱ atȱ Cambridgeȱ University.ȱ This providedȱmeȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱaȱwonderfulȱscholarlyȱframeworkȱtoȱcompleteȱthis introduction,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱgaveȱmeȱtheȱchanceȱtoȱfleshȱitȱoutȱevenȱfurtherȱandȱto

Introduction

183

deepenȱitȱbyȱconsultingȱtheȱseeminglyȱendlessȱresourcesȱatȱtheȱfirstȬrateȱresearch UniversityȱLibrary.ȱIȱamȱveryȱthankfulȱforȱallȱtheȱhelpȱthatȱIȱreceivedȱfromȱthe variousȱlibrarians.ȱWithoutȱmyȱdelightfulȱstudents,ȱwithȱwhomȱtoȱworkȱIȱenjoyed veryȱmuch,ȱIȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱhadȱthatȱuniqueȱchance,ȱsoȱmyȱgratitudeȱextendsȱto themȱasȱwell.ȱIȱwouldȱalsoȱlikeȱtoȱmentionȱthemȱbyȱnameȱinȱtheȱspiritȱofȱscholarly friendship: KristaȱBoone,ȱWinonaȱManrique,ȱJordanȱMcCowen,ȱBrittneyȱMorris,ȱKevinȱNgai,ȱHannah Peevey,ȱNathanȱRioux,ȱKyleȱShearer,ȱandȱAlyssaȱValenzuela. Whoȱ knows,ȱ someȱ ofȱ themȱ mightȱ laterȱ joinȱ theȱ ranksȱ ofȱ medievalȱ andȱ earlyȬ modernȱ scholarship,ȱ beingȱ inspiredȱ byȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ alsoȱ onȱ an intellectual,ȱculturalȱlevel. Aȱspecialȱwordȱofȱthanksȱisȱdeservedlyȱextendedȱtoȱmyȱdearȱcolleague,ȱcoȬeditor, andȱfriendȱMarilynȱSandidge,ȱwhoȱwasȱveryȱinstrumentalȱinȱgettingȱtheȱwhole collectionȱ ofȱ contributionsȱ together,ȱ afterȱ Iȱ hadȱ organizedȱ twoȱ sessionsȱ atȱ the InternationalȱCongressȱonȱMedievalȱStudiesȱatȱtheȱWesternȱMichiganȱUniversity, Kalamazoo,ȱMI,ȱ2009,ȱandȱwhoȱworkedȱhardȱwithȱmeȱduringȱtheȱentireȱeditorial process.ȱIȱdeferȱtoȱherȱownȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱIntroduction,ȱwhichȱsheȱdiscussed withȱmeȱintensively,ȱforȱwhichȱIȱoweȱherȱmyȱgratitude. Finally,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ dedicateȱ thisȱ bookȱ especiallyȱ toȱ myȱ bestȱ friendȱ inȱ this world,ȱmyȱbelovedȱwifeȱCarolyn! Tucson,ȱSeptemberȱ2010

Chapterȱ1 C.ȱStephenȱJaeger (UniversityȱofȱIllinois,ȱUrbana/Champaignȱ[emeritus])

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfectingȱinȱ Augustine’sȱConfessionsȱandȱtheȱFailureȱofȱ Classicalȱamicitiaȱ

Theȱ humanȱ sideȱ ofȱ Augustineȱ clearlyȱ thrivedȱ onȱ friendship.ȱ Theȱ “homo religiosus,”ȱ whichȱ cameȱ toȱ dominateȱ hisȱ postȬconversionȱ attitudesȱ and reminiscences,ȱdisapprovedȱofȱthatȱpenchant,ȱbutȱalwaysȱstungȱbyȱtheȱbitterȬsweet remorseȱthatȱwouldȱnotȱallowȱtheȱpleasuresȱandȱtheȱconsolationsȱofȱfriendshipȱto beȱheapedȱonȱsomeȱbonfireȱofȱtheȱvanitiesȱofȱtheȱkindȱthatȱmoreȱzealousȱandȱless humaneȱChristiansȱkindled.ȱ Augustine’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱAlypius,ȱrevealedȱinȱsuchȱdetailȱinȱtheȱConfessions, isȱillustrativeȱofȱtheȱbestȱhumanȱfriendshipȱcanȱaccomplish,ȱbutȱalsoȱofȱitsȱlimits. TheȱaspectȱonȱwhichȱtheȱpresentȱpaperȱfocusesȱisȱwhatȱAristotleȱhadȱcalledȱ“the friendshipȱ ofȱ mutualȱ perfecting”ȱ (seeȱ noteȱ 10ȱ below).ȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ with AlypiusȱisȱanȱentryȱintoȱthisȱbroaderȱtopicȱinȱtheȱConfessionsȱandȱinȱfourthȬcentury Christianity,ȱandȱitȱshowsȱconsistentlyȱtheȱfailureȱofȱclassicalȱ“amicitia.”ȱ Alypiusȱ wasȱ Augustine’sȱ lifeȬlongȱ friend,ȱ fellowȱ northȱ African,ȱ eventually Bishopȱ ofȱ Thagasteȱ alongsideȱ Augustineȱ asȱ Bishopȱ ofȱ Hippo.1ȱ Alypiusȱ wasȱ a studentȱofȱAugustineȱwhenȱheȱfirstȱbeganȱtoȱteachȱinȱtheȱNorthȱAfricanȱtownȱfrom whichȱbothȱhailed.ȱTheȱstudentȱwasȱattractedȱtoȱtheȱmasterȱbecauseȱheȱsawȱinȱhim

1

Onȱ Alypius,ȱ seeȱ Peterȱ Brown,ȱ Augustineȱ ofȱ Hippo:ȱ Aȱ Biographyȱ (Berkeleyȱ andȱ Losȱ Angeles: UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1969),ȱ67–68,ȱandȱspecificallyȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱfriendship:ȱMarie AquinasȱMcNamara,ȱFriendshipȱinȱSaintȱAugustineȱ(Fribourg,ȱCH:ȱUniversityȱFribourgȱPress,ȱ1958), 53–62;ȱCarolinneȱWhite,ȱChristianȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱFourthȱCenturyȱ(Cambridge,ȱUK:ȱCambridge Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992),ȱ 185–214;ȱ Brianȱ McGuire,ȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Community:ȱ Theȱ Monastic Experienceȱ 350–1250.ȱ Cistercianȱ Studiesȱ Series,ȱ 95ȱ (Kalamazoo:ȱ Cistercianȱ Publications,ȱ 1988), 47–57.ȱ

186

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

“aȱgoodȱandȱlearnedȱman,”ȱandȱtheȱmasterȱtoȱtheȱstudentȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱlatter’s “naturalȱdispositionȱtoȱgoodness”:ȱ“diligebatȱmultum,ȱquodȱeiȱbonusȱetȱdoctus viderer,ȱetȱegoȱillumȱpropterȱmagnamȱvirtutisȱindolemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”2ȱ BothȱmenȱsharedȱanȱimmatureȱadmirationȱofȱManichaeism,ȱwhichȱinȱitsȱstress onȱcontinenceȱhadȱ“theȱappearanceȱofȱvirtue”ȱwithoutȱtheȱdepthȱofȱrealȱvirtue (6.7.12,ȱ65).ȱAlypiusȱfollowedȱAugustineȱfirstȱtoȱCarthage,ȱthenȱRome,ȱthenȱMilan. Heȱwasȱamongȱtheȱfriendsȱwhoȱplannedȱaȱutopianȱcommunityȱofȱphilosophers livingȱaȱcommonȱlifeȱofȱleisureȱandȱstudiesȱinȱsearchȱofȱtruth,ȱaȱlifeȱbasedȱonȱ“the spiritȱofȱtrueȱfriendship”ȱ(“perȱamicitiaeȱsinceritatem”–6.14.24,ȱ70).ȱWithȱNebridius Alypiusȱhadȱfrequentȱdiscussionsȱonȱtheȱnatureȱofȱgoodȱandȱevil.ȱInȱtheȱpresence ofȱAlypius,ȱheȱstillȱfeltȱinȱprivacyȱ(“nequeȱenimȱsecretumȱmeumȱnonȱerat,ȱubiȱille aderat”ȱ 8.8.19,ȱ 97;“nothingȱ wasȱ privateȱ toȱ meȱ whereȱ heȱ wasȱ present”).ȱ The suggestionȱisȱthatȱhisȱfriendȱisȱaȱ“secondȱself”ȱorȱ“theȱotherȱhalfȱofȱhisȱsoul.”3ȱThe twoȱ menȱ sharedȱ conversionȱ andȱ baptism,ȱ andȱ togetherȱ theyȱ broughtȱ up Augustine’sȱson,ȱAdeodatusȱ(9.6).ȱShortlyȱafterȱtheirȱconversionȱtheyȱjoinedȱother friendsȱatȱtheȱvillaȱnearȱMilanȱcalledȱCassiciacum,ȱwhereȱtheyȱachievedȱsomething likeȱaȱChristianȱphilosophicalȱcommunalȱlifeȱandȱwhereȱAugustine’sȱearlyȱworks, theȱsoȬcalledȱCassiciacumȱdialogues,ȱarose.4ȱ Theȱfriendshipȱofȱmutualȱperfectingȱoperatesȱbyȱtheȱreciprocalȱcultivationȱof virtue.ȱLoveȱofȱ“virtue”ȱandȱadmirationȱofȱtheȱgoodȱbroughtȱthemȱtogether.ȱBut eachȱ hadȱ hisȱ individualȱ vice.ȱ Alypiusȱ wasȱ addictedȱ toȱ theȱ violenceȱ ofȱ the gladiatorialȱgames;ȱAugustineȱtoȱsexualȱpleasure.ȱTheȱcomplementaryȱcharacter ofȱ theirȱ virtuesȱ andȱ flawsȱ hasȱ noȱ particularȱ highlightȱ inȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ butȱ the relationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱisȱclearlyȱconceivedȱinȱaȱsystematicȱway,ȱandȱit involvesȱ theirȱ friendshipȱ essentiallyȱ inȱ anȱ enterpriseȱ ofȱ mutualȱ teachingȱ and learning.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱstartsȱinȱtheȱadmirationȱofȱvirtue,ȱandȱitȱadvancesȱthrough theȱexercise/strengtheningȱofȱvirtueȱandȱcurbingȱofȱvice.ȱAlypius’sȱstrengthȱ(sexual restraint)ȱwasȱAugustine’sȱweakness.ȱHeȱsaysȱofȱhisȱfriend:ȱ“stupebatȱenimȱliber abȱilloȱvinculoȱanimusȱservitutemȱmeam”ȱ(6.12;ȱ“Hisȱmindȱbeingȱfreeȱfromȱthe fettersȱbyȱwhichȱmineȱwasȱenchained,ȱheȱmarveledȱatȱmyȱenslavement”).5ȱButȱthe sameȱappliesȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱandȱpredicateȱreversed:ȱAugustine’sȱmindȱwasȱfree ofȱtheȱchainsȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱmindȱofȱAlypiusȱwasȱboundȱ(theȱappetiteȱforȱviolence).ȱ

2

3

4

5

Augustine,ȱConfessions,ȱed.ȱJamesȱJ.ȱO’Donnellȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress, 1992),ȱ64,ȱBk.ȱ6,ȱch.ȱ7.11ȱ(henceforthȱcitedȱfromȱthisȱeditionȱinȱtheȱformȱ6.7.11).ȱ CitedȱinȱMargaretȱR.ȱMiles,ȱDesireȱandȱDelight:ȱAȱNewȱReadingȱofȱAugustine’sȱConfessionsȱ(NewȱYork: Crossroads,ȱ1992),ȱ89.ȱ Seeȱtheȱarticleȱ“CassiciacumȱDialogues”ȱbyȱJoanneȱMcWilliam,ȱAugustineȱthroughȱtheȱAges:ȱAn Encyclopedia,ȱed.ȱAllanȱD.ȱFitzgeraldȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMI:ȱEerdmanns,ȱ1999),ȱ135–43. 6.ȱ12,ȱed.ȱO’Donnell,ȱ70.ȱTheȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱareȱallȱcitedȱfromȱSaintȱAugustine,ȱConfessions, trans.ȱR.ȱS.ȱPineȬCoffinȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1961),ȱ129,ȱhereȱwithȱminorȱchanges.

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

187

Theȱ cureȱ ofȱ Alypius’sȱ “disease”ȱ isȱ Augustineȱ himself,ȱ whomȱ Godȱ used, Augustineȱ claims,ȱ asȱ God’sȱ instrumentȱ toȱ healȱ hisȱ friend.ȱ Almostȱ certainly Augustineȱ meantȱ toȱ representȱ thisȱ relationshipȱ asȱ reciprocalȱ pedagogy.ȱ Itis significantȱthatȱtheȱfirstȱstepȱtoȱtheȱcureȱofȱAlypiusȱhappensȱinȱtheȱclassroomȱof MagisterȱAugustinus,ȱprofessorȱofȱrhetoricȱinȱCarthage.ȱTheȱmasterȱillustratesȱa generalȱ point—notȱ initiallyȱ aimedȱ atȱ Alypius—byȱ anȱ exampleȱ takenȱ fromȱ the games.ȱItȱgivesȱhimȱaȱchanceȱtoȱridiculeȱtheȱaddictionȱtoȱviolenceȱthatȱtheȱgames produce.ȱ Alypiusȱ feelsȱ addressed,ȱ takesȱ itȱ toȱ heart,ȱ feelsȱ noȱ resentmentȱ atȱ the sensedȱrebuke,ȱsinceȱ“theȱwiseȱareȱgratefulȱforȱaȱremonstrance”ȱ(Prov.ȱ9.8),ȱswears offȱtheȱgames,ȱandȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱgottenȱtheȱmonkeyȱoffȱhisȱback.ȱItȱwasȱjustȱin hisȱroleȱasȱteacherȱthatȱAugustineȱaccomplishedȱthisȱtemporaryȱcure.ȱ Butȱviceȱversa,ȱAlypiusȱbecomesȱtheȱteacherȱofȱAugustineȱonȱtheȱscoreȱofȱsexual restraint.ȱLeadingȱaȱ“lifeȱofȱutmostȱchastity”ȱhimselfȱ(6.12),ȱheȱtriesȱtoȱdissuadeȱhis friendȱfromȱmarriage,ȱsinceȱitȱwouldȱdamageȱorȱendȱtheȱphilosophicalȱlifeȱthey share.ȱAlypiusȱisȱ“theȱhandȱthatȱmeantȱtoȱlooseȱmyȱbond.”6ȱAlypiusȱisȱconcerned thatȱaȱmanȱwhoseȱvirtueȱheȱadmiresȱcanȱbeȱ“soȱfirmlyȱcaughtȱinȱtheȱtoilsȱofȱsexual pleasure”—andȱthatȱconcernȱsetsȱanȱagendaȱforȱtheȱcorrectionȱthatȱwillȱbringȱthe relationshipȱbasedȱonȱgoodnessȱandȱvirtueȱbackȱintoȱbalance.ȱ Theȱfriendsȱareȱnowȱteacher,ȱnowȱpupil,ȱtoȱeachȱother—likeȱtheȱrelationshipȱthat Augustineȱhadȱdescribedȱamongȱtheȱfriendsȱofȱhisȱyouth,ȱwhoseȱfriendshipȱhad consoledȱhimȱonȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱunnamedȱfriendȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱtheȱgreatȱloveȱof hisȱyouth.ȱAmongȱtheȱpleasuresȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱteachingȱandȱlearningȱfromȱeach other,ȱtheȱrolesȱcirculatingȱamongȱthem:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdocereȱaliquidȱinvicemȱautȱdiscere abȱ invicemȱ .ȱ .ȱ .”ȱ (4.8;ȱ “Eachȱ ofȱ usȱ hadȱ somethingȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ theȱ othersȱ and somethingȱ toȱ teachȱ inȱ return,”ed.ȱ O’Donnell,ȱ 38;ȱ trans.ȱ PineȬCoffin,ȱ 79). Augustine’sȱ accountȱ ofȱ hisȱ relationȱ withȱ Alypiusȱ isȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ doubleȬentry bookkeepingȱofȱtheȱeconomyȱofȱvirtue—whereȱtwoȱfriendsȱbond,ȱoneȱpossessing creditsȱthatȱbalanceȱtheȱother’sȱdebits,ȱandȱviceȱversa.ȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ beginsȱ inȱ theȱ bestȱ traditionȱ ofȱ GraecoȬRomanȱ aristocratic friendship.ȱThatȱdebtȱisȱmarkedȱstronglyȱbyȱtheȱoriginatingȱforceȱofȱattraction: virtueȱorȱtheȱpromiseȱofȱvirtueȱdrawsȱeachȱtoȱtheȱother.ȱAristotleȱproclaimsȱinȱthe NicomacheanȱEthicsȱthatȱtheȱhighestȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱthatȱinȱwhichȱaȱpartner isȱdrawnȱtoȱtheȱexcellenceȱinȱtheȱother,7ȱdistinctlyȱechoedȱbyȱCicero,ȱforȱwhom friendshipȱisȱtheȱloveȱofȱvirtueȱinȱanotherȱman:ȱ“hocȱprimumȱsentio,ȱnisiȱinȱbonis amicitiamȱesseȱnonȱposse”ȱ(“Friendshipȱcannotȱexistȱexceptȱamongȱgoodȱmen”).8

6

7 8

McNamara,ȱFriendshipȱinȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ53:ȱ“AlypiusȱwasȱamongȱtheȱchiefȱinstrumentsȱwhichȱGod usedȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱandȱmoralȱconversionȱofȱAugustine.” Aristotle,ȱNicomacheanȱEthics,ȱ8.2–4,ȱ1155b–1157a. Cicero,ȱLaeliusȱdeȱAmicitia,ȱ5.18,ȱtrans.ȱW.ȱA.ȱFalconer.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ154ȱ(CambridgeȱMA: Harvardȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1979),ȱ 126;ȱ alsoȱ 6.ȱ 20–21ȱ (“haecȱ ipsaȱ virtusȱ amicitiamȱ etȱ gignitȱ et

188

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

Settingȱ asideȱ theirȱ vices,ȱ Augustineȱ andȱ Alypiusȱ areȱ asȱ aȱ singleȱ beingȱ inȱ their likenessȱofȱcharacter,ȱtheirȱsharedȱpassionȱforȱtruth,ȱtheirȱcommitmentȱinȱtheȱend toȱ Christianity,ȱ joinedȱ byȱ whatȱ Ciceroȱ wouldȱ callȱ “omniumȱ divinarum humanarumqueȱrerumȱcumȱbenevolentiaȱetȱcaritateȱconsensio”ȱ(“agreementȱonȱall thingsȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱwithȱbenevolenceȱandȱaffection”).9ȱTheȱflawsȱinȱtheir characterȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ correctedȱ toȱ maintainȱ theȱ integrityȱ ofȱ theȱ friendship. Augustine’sȱstrengthȱofȱcharacterȱwasȱtoȱanswerȱandȱbalanceȱAlypius’sȱaddiction; Alypius’sȱsexualȱselfȬcontrolȱansweredȱandȱbalancedȱAugustine’sȱlustfulness.ȱThe arrayȱofȱvirtuesȱandȱvicesȱisȱintegratedȱintoȱtheȱphilosophicalȱconceptionȱofȱthe friendship. Inȱtheȱancientȱtraditionsȱofȱphilosophicalȱcommunities,ȱmutuallyȱcompensating weaknessesȱandȱstrengths,ȱareȱaȱfrequentȱelementȱofȱfriendships.ȱAristotleȱspeaks ofȱaȱ“friendshipȱofȱmutualȱperfecting,”ȱwhereȱeachȱpartnerȱ“formsȱinȱhimself,ȱas itȱwere,ȱtheȱexcellentȱqualitiesȱwhichȱpleaseȱhimȱinȱtheȱotherȱbyȱtakingȱeachȱother asȱaȱpattern.”10ȱThisȱidealȱofȱtransferenceȱofȱexcellentȱqualitiesȱhasȱaȱphilosophical contextȱcloselyȱboundȱtoȱcommunitiesȱlikeȱtheȱPythagoreansȱandȱtheȱfollowersȱof Plotinus.ȱJamesȱMcEvoyȱhasȱformulatedȱthisȱcontextȱeloquently:ȱtheȱPythagorean communityȱ restsȱ onȱ “theȱ founder’sȱ intuitionȱ thatȱ noȱ beingȱ carriesȱ itsȱ own intelligibilityȱentirelyȱinȱitselfȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱCommunityȱlifeȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱtheȱsocial embodimentȱofȱtheȱsingle,ȱoverarchingȱdivineȱorderȱofȱreality.”11ȱSeneca,ȱamong others,ȱgaveȱexpressionȱtoȱtheȱStoicȱconceptionȱofȱtheȱphilosophicalȱcommunity. Theȱcontextȱhereȱisȱtheȱdivineȱlogosȱorȱpneumaȱwhichȱfillsȱallȱthingsȱandȱcreates “universalȱsympathyȱofȱnatures.”ȱAllȱmenȱparticipateȱinȱwhatȱMcEvoyȱcallsȱan “impersonalȱformȱofȱ‘amicitia,’”ȱbutȱonlyȱtheȱtrulyȱvirtuousȱcanȱbecomeȱfriends.12 Inȱ friends,ȱ oneȱ man’sȱ plenitudeȱ fillsȱ another’sȱ incompleteness.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ living accordingȱtoȱnature,ȱwhereȱeveryȱlackȱseeksȱanȱexcessȱtoȱbalanceȱitȱandȱviceȱversa.ȱ

9 10 11

12

continet,ȱnecȱsineȱvirtuteȱamicitiaȱesseȱulloȱpactoȱpotest“;ȱ“virtueȱbegetsȱandȱmaintainsȱfriendship; withoutȱvirtueȱfriendshipȱcannotȱexist”);ȱ8.ȱ28ȱ(“Nihilȱestȱenimȱvirtuteȱamabilius,ȱnihilȱquodȱmagis alliciatȱadȱdiligendum”;ȱ“thereȱisȱnothingȱmoreȱlovableȱthanȱvirtue,ȱnothingȱthatȱmoreȱalluresȱus toȱaffection”);ȱ9.ȱ29ȱ(“quidȱmirumȱest,ȱsiȱanimiȱhominumȱmoveantur,ȱcumȱeorum,ȱquibuscumȱusu coniunctiȱesseȱpossunt,ȱvirtutemȱetȱbonitatemȱperspicereȱvideantur?”;ȱ“whatȱwonderȱthatȱmen’s soulsȱareȱstirredȱwhenȱtheyȱthinkȱtheyȱseeȱclearlyȱtheȱvirtueȱandȱgoodnessȱofȱmenȱcloseȱtoȱthem”); 9.ȱ30ȱ(“egoȱadmirationeȱquadamȱvirtutisȱeiusȱ[i.e.,ȱScipioȱAfricanus]ȱ[eumȱdilexi]”;ȱ“Iȱlovedȱ[Scipio] becauseȱofȱmyȱadmirationȱforȱhisȱvirtue”).ȱ Deȱamicitiaȱ6.ȱ20,ȱtrans.ȱFalconer,ȱ130.ȱ Aristotle,ȱNich.ȱEthics,ȱ9.12.3,ȱ1172a.ȱCf.ȱCicero,ȱDeȱamicitiaȱ9.32;ȱ25.91. Jamesȱ McEvoy,ȱ “Theȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Latinȱ Middleȱ Ages:ȱ Hermeneutics, ContextualizationȱandȱtheȱTransmissionȱandȱReceptionȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱandȱIdeas,ȱfromȱc.ȱAD 350ȱtoȱc.ȱ1500,”ȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldineȱ(Stroud,ȱUK:ȱSuttonȱPublishing, 1999),ȱ3–44;ȱhereȱ6. McEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ12.

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

189

Theȱfriendshipȱofȱmutualȱperfectionȱalsoȱtakesȱtheȱformȱofȱanȱ“amicableȱrivalry” (“aemulatioȱ amicalis”),ȱ inȱ whichȱ twoȱ friendsȱ vieȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ toȱ perfect qualitiesȱtheyȱstriveȱfor,ȱandȱtheȱcompetitionȱservesȱasȱaȱgoadȱtoȱselfȬperfection.ȱFor Ciceroȱthisȱstrivingȱisȱtheȱworkingȱofȱtheȱlongingȱforȱvirtue:ȱ quamȱ quiȱ appetiverunt,ȱ applicantȱ seseȱ etȱ propiusȱ admovent,ȱ utȱ etȱ usuȱ eius,ȱ quem diligereȱ coeperunt,ȱ fruanturȱ etȱ moribus,ȱ sintqueȱ paresȱ inȱ amoreȱ etȱ aequales propensioresqueȱadȱbeneȱmerendumȱquamȱadȱreposcendum,ȱatqueȱhaecȱinterȱeosȱsit honestaȱconcertatio. [Whenȱmenȱhaveȱconceivedȱaȱlongingȱforȱthisȱvirtueȱtheyȱbendȱtowardsȱitȱandȱmove closerȱtoȱit,ȱsoȱthat,ȱbyȱfamiliarȱassociationȱwithȱhimȱwhomȱtheyȱhaveȱbegunȱtoȱlove, theyȱmayȱenjoyȱhisȱcharacter,ȱequalȱhimȱinȱaffection,ȱbecomeȱreadierȱtoȱdeserveȱthan toȱdemandȱhisȱfavours,ȱandȱvieȱwithȱhimȱinȱaȱrivalryȱofȱvirtue.13]

Thisȱmotif,ȱidea,ȱorȱpracticeȱhadȱaȱcounterpartȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestamentȱproverb,ȱ“As steelȱsharpensȱsteel,ȱaȱmanȱsharpensȱtheȱwitsȱofȱhisȱfriend.”14ȱAndȱwasȱusableȱin descriptionsȱofȱeducationȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.15ȱTheȱreciprocalȱcultivationȱofȱvirtue

13

14

15

Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitiaȱ9.32.ȱAelred,ȱDeȱspiritualiȱAmicitiaȱ1.ȱ20:ȱ“concertatioȱbenevolentiae.”ȱItȱfollows theȱlogicȱthatȱnatureȱhasȱcreatedȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱaidȱofȱvirtue,ȱsinceȱbyȱitself,ȱinȱaȱsingleȱperson, virtueȱcannotȱ attainȱtheȱhighestȱthings,ȱbutȱonlyȱinȱjointureȱandȱassociationȱwithȱanotherȱ(De spiritualiȱamicitia,ȱ22.83). NRSȱtrans.ȱVulgate,ȱProverbsȱ27.17:ȱ“Ferrumȱferroȱacuiturȱetȱhomoȱexacuitȱfaciemȱamiciȱsui.”ȱKing James:ȱ“Ironȱsharpenethȱiron;ȱsoȱaȱmanȱsharpenethȱtheȱcountenanceȱofȱhisȱfriend.”ȱ SigebertȱofȱGembloux,ȱVitaȱWicberti,ȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱ160,ȱ668D:ȱ“Fiebatȱperindeȱmiroȱmodo,ȱut dumȱipseȱdeȱsingulorumȱvirtutibusȱaliquidȱdecerpitȱquodȱsibiȱsitȱproȱexemplo,ȱipseȱsolusȱomnibus essetȱexemplo.ȱUtȱenimȱsecundumȱSalomonisȱproverbium,ȱferrumȱferroȱacuitur,ȱitaȱalterȱabȱaltero adȱ beneȱ agendumȱ exacuebatur,ȱ etȱ utȱ homoȱ confunditȱ [=ȱ “poursȱ together,”ȱ “mixes”;ȱ not “confounds”]ȱfaciemȱamiciȱsui,ȱitaȱetȱeosȱpiaȱfraternaeȱaemulationisȱmovebatȱconfusio,ȱnisiȱalter alterumȱquiretȱimitari”ȱ(“Itȱthenȱcameȱaboutȱmarvelouslyȱthatȱwhileȱheȱabsorbedȱthisȱandȱthat fromȱtheȱvirtuesȱofȱvariousȱmenȱwhichȱcouldȱserveȱhimȱasȱanȱexample,ȱheȱonȱhisȱownȱactedȱasȱan exampleȱforȱall.ȱȱFor,ȱasȱtheȱproverbȱofȱSolomonȱhasȱitȱ‘steelȱsharpensȱsteel,’ȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱthe oneȱwasȱsharpenedȱforȱgoodȱbehaviorȱbyȱtheȱother,ȱ‘andȱasȱaȱmanȱmoldsȱandȱformsȱtheȱpersonȱof hisȱfriend,’ȱsoȱthisȱmutualȱformingȱmovedȱthemȱinȱaȱhealthyȱconfluenceȱofȱbrotherlyȱrivalryȱto imitateȱeachȱother”).ȱȱAndȱSigebertȱonȱtheȱmaster–studentȱrelationshipȱofȱBrunoȱofȱCologneȱand Dietrichȱ ofȱ Metz,ȱ Patrologiaȱ Latinaȱ 160,ȱ 695Dȱ f.:ȱ “Eratȱ inȱ utroque,ȱ quodȱ uterqueȱ inȱ alterutro amplecteretur;ȱetȱsicutȱferrumȱferroȱacuitur,ȱsicȱalterȱalteriusȱbonaȱaemulationeȱaedificabatur. Primoȱ quidemȱ interȱ eosȱ propinquitatisȱ naturalisȱ necessitudoȱ pepereratȱ amicitiam;ȱ deinde familiaritatisȱconsuetudoȱalueratȱbenivolentiam;ȱquaeȱetsiȱexȱpropinquitateȱtolliȱpotest,ȱexȱamicitia tamenȱnonȱpotest,ȱquiaȱpropinquitasȱsineȱbenivolentiaȱinaneȱnomenȱretinet,ȱamicitiaȱbenivolentiae indiscissaȱcohaeret.ȱSicȱinȱconsobrinisȱistisȱpropinquitatiȱrespondebatȱamicitia;ȱamicitiamȱmutua solidabatȱbenivolentia”ȱ(“Thereȱwereȱinȱeachȱofȱthemȱqualitiesȱthatȱtheȱoneȱembracedȱinȱtheȱother; andȱasȱsteelȱsharpensȱsteel,ȱeachȱlearnedȱbyȱgoodȱimitationȱofȱtheȱother.ȱȱForemostȱofȱcourseȱwas theȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ themȱ generatedȱ byȱ theȱ forceȱ ofȱ familyȱ ties;ȱ butȱ thereȱ wasȱ alsoȱ their accustomedȱintimacy,ȱwhichȱnourishedȱaffection;ȱWhileȱaffectionȱcanȱbeȱseparatedȱfromȱblood relationship,ȱtheȱsameȱisȱnotȱtrueȱofȱfriendship,ȱsinceȱrelatednessȱwithoutȱaffectionȱisȱmeaningless, Butȱfriendshipȱisȱjoinedȱindissolublyȱtoȱaffection.ȱBetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱcousinsȱfriendshipȱresponded

190

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

isȱaȱknownȱrelationshipȱamongȱstudentsȱinȱtheȱageȱofȱAugustine.16ȱAmbroseȱgives Davidȱ andȱ Jonathanȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ rivalryȱ inȱ theȱ imitationȱ ofȱ oneȱ another’s virtues.17ȱ ThisȱbriefȱsurveyȱofȱtheȱwellȱknownȱresonancesȱbetweenȱCiceroȱonȱfriendshipȱand Augustine’sȱnarrativeȱofȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱAlypiusȱhasȱhardlyȱgivenȱaȱhintȱofȱthe hammerȱhangingȱoverȱthem.ȱMaybeȱtheȱbetterȱmetaphorȱis:ȱaȱpallȱthatȱhangsȱover thisȱandȱallȱhisȱearlyȱfriendships,ȱdrapedȱoverȱtheȱcoffinȱasȱeachȱofȱthemȱis,ȱinȱone regardȱorȱanother,ȱlaidȱtoȱrest.ȱInȱfact,ȱAugustineȱgivesȱaȱstrongerȱhighlightȱtoȱthe failureȱofȱthisȱdoubleȱcourseȱofȱmutualȱimprovementȱthanȱtoȱtheȱenterpriseȱitself.ȱ HavingȱestablishedȱhisȱloveȱofȱAlypius,ȱhisȱpleasureȱinȱtheȱfriendship,ȱandȱtheir mutualȱintellectualȱandȱmoralȱbenefit,ȱheȱmakesȱclearȱthatȱinȱneitherȱpartyȱdoesȱit work,ȱreciprocityȱfails,ȱprogressȱinȱvirtueȱgrindsȱtoȱaȱhalt.ȱAlypiusȱreturnsȱtoȱthe gamesȱinȱaȱsceneȱwhoseȱhighȱdramaȱhighlightsȱtheȱfailureȱofȱAugustine’sȱdoctoring. Alypiusȱ isȱ draggedȱ byȱ hisȱ amiciȱ (hereȱ anȱ ironicȱ chillȱ inȱ theȱ word)ȱ backȱ toȱ the amphitheater,ȱ resistingȱ andȱ protestingȱ allȱ theȱ way.ȱ Theȱ “friends”ȱ prevail,ȱ and Alypiusȱ fineȬtunesȱ hisȱ moralȱ resolve,ȱ turningȱ hisȱ capitulationȱ intoȱ aȱ virtue;ȱ his returnȱtoȱtheȱgamesȱisȱaȱtestȱofȱhisȱselfȬcontrol.ȱHeȱclosesȱhisȱeyesȱuntilȱheȱhearsȱa loudȱroarȱofȱtheȱcrowd.ȱThenȱheȱopensȱthemȱforȱaȱlook.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱrealȱtest,ȱheȱsays

16

17

toȱtiesȱofȱblood;ȱandȱmutualȱaffectionȱfirmedȱupȱfriendship”)ȱ.ȱCf.ȱtheȱtrainingȱandȱeducationȱof Radbodȱ ofȱ Utrechtȱ (d.ȱ 917)ȱ atȱ theȱ courtȱ ofȱ Charlesȱ theȱ Bald,ȱ Vitaȱ Radbodiȱ ch.ȱ 1.ȱ Monumenta Germaniaeȱ Historica,ȱ Scriptoresȱ 15:1,ȱ 569:ȱ “Erantȱ etȱ illiȱ sodalesȱ huiusmodiȱ conviviiȱ participes Stephanusȱ etȱ Mancio,ȱ aetateȱ maiores,ȱ nonȱ studioȱ superiores.ȱ Interȱ illosȱ etenimȱ exoriturȱ propere clandestinaȱmorumȱaemulatio,ȱquisȱeorumȱprecelleretȱalium,ȱnonȱhonorisȱambitu,ȱsedȱhumilitatis officio,ȱ nonȱ livorisȱ stimulo,ȱ sedȱ caritatisȱ affectu,ȱ lectionisȱ etȱ ȱ studio”ȱ (“Theseȱ two companions,ȱStephenȱandȱMancio,ȱequalsȱinȱageȱandȱzealȱforȱstudy,ȱsharedȱthisȱsortȱofȱcommonȱtable.ȱ Forȱthereȱquicklyȱaroseȱbetweenȱthemȱanȱunspokenȱrivalryȱinȱtheirȱwayȱofȱbehavingȱwhichȱoneȱcould surpassȱtheȱother,ȱnotȱoutȱofȱambitionȱforȱhonor,ȱbutȱoutȱofȱtheȱdutyȱofȱhumility,ȱnotȱfromȱtheȱgoad ofȱ envy,ȱ butȱ theȱ affectionȱ ofȱ charity,ȱ theȱ zealȱ forȱ readingȱ andȱ learning”).ȱ Onȱ masterȬstudent relationshipsȱbasedȱonȱloveȱandȱemulationȱofȱvirtue,ȱseeȱJaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove:ȱInȱSearchȱofȱaȱLost Sensibility.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ59–81;ȱMia MünsterȬSwendsen,ȱ“TheȱModelȱofȱScholasticȱMasteryȱinȱNorthernȱEurope,”ȱTeachingȱandȱLearning inȱNorthernȱEurope,ȱed.ȱSallyȱN.ȱVaughnȱandȱJayȱRubensteinȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱEarlyȱMiddleȱAges,ȱ8 (Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2006),ȱ307–42. SeeȱWhite,ȱChristianȱFriendshipȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1ȱabove),ȱ116–17.ȱ“Friendshipȱandȱcommunity”ȱisȱtheȱfocal pointȱofȱBrianȱMcGuire’sȱstudyȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1ȱabove). Ambrose,ȱDeȱofficiisȱministrorumȱ1.ȱ33.ȱ171;ȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱ16,ȱ73Aȱ–ȱB:ȱ“Adjuvantȱetiamȱparium studiaȱvirtutum.ȱSiquidemȱbenevolentiaȱetiamȱmorumȱfacitȱsimilitudinem.ȱDeniqueȱJonathasȱfilius regisȱimitabaturȱsanctiȱDavidȱmansuetudinem,ȱpropterȱquodȱdiligebatȱeum”ȱ(“Theȱpursuitȱof comparableȱvirtuesȱwasȱanȱadditionalȱaid.ȱȱInȱthisȱwayȱaffectionȱalsoȱcreatesȱlikenessȱofȱcharacter, justȱasȱJonathan,ȱtheȱking’sȱson,ȱimitatedȱtheȱgentlenessȱofȱDavidȱbecauseȱheȱlovedȱhim”).ȱAlso 3.22.133,ȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱ16,ȱ182B:ȱ“Virtusȱestȱenimȱamicitia,ȱnonȱquaestus;ȱquiaȱnonȱpecunia paritur,ȱsedȱgratia:ȱnecȱlicitationeȱpretiorum,ȱsedȱconcertationeȱbenevolentiae”ȱ(“Friendshipȱisȱa virtue,ȱnotȱaȱsourceȱofȱprofit,ȱbecauseȱitȱearnsȱgoodȱwill,ȱnotȱmoney”).ȱȱGregoryȱofȱNazianzusȱto BasilȱofȱCaesarea,ȱEp.ȱ6:ȱ“Helpȱmeȱandȱstriveȱwithȱmeȱforȱvirtueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,”ȱcitedȱinȱWhite,ȱChristian Friendship,ȱ64ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1).

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

191

toȱhimself,ȱagainȱtrickingȱhisȱmoralȱresolveȱintoȱcapitulating:ȱheȱwillȱjustȱtakeȱa quickȱlookȱtoȱshowȱhowȱcompletelyȱheȱhasȱkickedȱtheȱhabit,ȱlikeȱanȱalcoholicȱgoing backȱtoȱtheȱbottleȱonȱtheȱshelfȱplacedȱthereȱasȱaȱtestȱofȱwill;ȱfirstȱheȱhasȱaȱlook—just aȱtest;ȱthenȱaȱtaste—stillȱjustȱaȱtest.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱAlypiusȱfails.ȱHeȱisȱdrawnȱintoȱthe cruelty,ȱ becomesȱ oneȱ withȱ hisȱ crowdȱ of—asȱ Augustineȱ repeatsȱ pointedly —“friends,”ȱandȱbecomesȱhimselfȱtheȱleaderȱofȱaȱpackȱintoxicatedȱbyȱtheȱfrenzyȱof bloodlustȱ(Confessionsȱ6.ȱ8).ȱ Augustineȱfaresȱnoȱbetterȱinȱtheȱprogramȱofȱimprovementȱthroughȱfriendship. Alypius’sȱargumentsȱdoȱnotȱtakeȱhold.ȱHeȱreturnsȱtoȱ“scratchȱtheȱscabȱofȱlust.”ȱHe nearlyȱsucceedsȱinȱseducingȱAlypiusȱintoȱmarriageȱwithȱtheȱargumentȱthatȱlustȱis notȱasȱbadȱasȱheȱevidentlyȱimaginesȱitȱfromȱoneȱclumsyȱandȱhumiliatingȱexperience inȱhisȱyouth—notȱtheȱwayȱreciprocalȱemulationȱofȱvirtueȱisȱsupposedȱtoȱwork.ȱ InȱtheȱendȱGodȱrescuesȱbothȱfriendsȱwhereȱreciprocalȱemulationȱofȱvirtueȱfailed. FirstȱAlypius:ȱ“indeȱtamenȱmanuȱvalidissimaȱetȱmisericordissimaȱeruistiȱeumȱtu,ȱet docuistiȱnonȱsuiȱhabereȱsedȱtuiȱfiduciam…ȱ”ȱȱ(“Youȱstretchedȱoutȱyourȱalmighty, everȱmercifulȱhand,ȱOȱGod.ȱYouȱtaughtȱhimȱtoȱtrustȱinȱyouȱandȱnotȱinȱhimself”ȱ[6. 8]).ȱ Thenȱ Augustine:ȱ “deȱ vinculoȱ quidemȱ desideriiȱ concubitus,ȱ quoȱ artissimo tenebarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱmeȱexemerisȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdomine,ȱadiutorȱmeusȱetȱredemptorȱmeus”ȱ(“OȱLord, myȱHelperȱandȱmyȱRedeemerȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱyouȱreleasedȱmeȱfromȱtheȱfettersȱofȱlustȱwhich heldȱmeȱsoȱtightlyȱshackledȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ[8.6]).ȱSignificantlyȱitȱisȱnotȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱhisȱfriend, butȱtheȱvoiceȱofȱaȱchildȱwhichȱbecomesȱtheȱinstrumentȱofȱhisȱcure. FriendshipȱfailsȱatȱeveryȱpointȱinȱAugustine’sȱlifeȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱconversion.18ȱIt showsȱitsȱtrueȱcolorsȱasȱearlyȱasȱtheȱpearȱtheft.ȱHisȱassociationȱwithȱtheȱgangȱcalled theȱeversoresȱ(PineȬCoffinȱtranslatesȱtheȱtermȱasȱ“wreckers”)ȱalsoȱisȱcalledȱamicitia. Theirȱraidȱonȱaȱpearȱtreeȱisȱtheȱoccasionȱofȱhisȱfirstȱruminationȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱthe Confessions.ȱHeȱalignsȱfriendshipȱwithȱotherȱearthlyȱpleasures,ȱtheȱsightȱofȱgoldȱand silver,ȱ thingsȱ pleasantȱ toȱ theȱ touch,ȱ worldlyȱ honor,ȱ theȱ exerciseȱ ofȱ power: “Friendshipȱamongȱmenȱisȱaȱdelightfulȱbond,ȱunitingȱmanyȱsoulsȱinȱone”ȱ[againȱthe Greekȱtraditionȱresonates:ȱaȱsentimentȱthatȱgoesȱbackȱtoȱPythagoras],ȱgoodȱthough friendshipȱandȱotherȱworldlyȱpleasuresȱlikeȱitȱare,ȱ“theyȱareȱofȱtheȱlowestȱorderȱof good.”19ȱHisȱlongȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtheftȱbringsȱhimȱtoȱtheȱinsightȱthatȱtheȱrealȱmotive wasȱtheȱcompulsionȱofȱtheȱgroup,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱanȱ“inimicalȱfriendship,”ȱ“inimicalis amicitia”ȱ(2.9).ȱ

18

19

Theȱearlyȱfriendshipsȱareȱcloselyȱanalyzedȱfromȱtheȱpointȱofȱviewȱofȱtheirȱworldlinessȱandȱcupidity byȱGeraldȱSchlabach,ȱ“FriendshipȱasȱAdultery:ȱSocialȱRealityȱandȱSexualȱMetaphorȱinȱAugustine’s DoctrineȱofȱOriginalȱSin,”ȱAugustinianȱStudiesȱ23ȱ(1992):ȱ125–47. Confessionsȱ 2.ȱ 5,ȱ ed.ȱ O’Donnell,ȱ 19:ȱ “amicitiaȱ quoqueȱ hominumȱ caroȱ nodoȱ dulcisȱ estȱ propter unitatemȱdeȱmultisȱanimis.ȱpropterȱuniversaȱhaecȱatqueȱhuiusȱmodiȱpeccatumȱadmittitur,ȱdum immoderataȱinȱistaȱinclinatione,ȱcumȱextremaȱbonaȱsint,ȱmelioraȱetȱsummaȱdeseruntur,ȱtu,ȱdomine deusȱnoster,ȱetȱveritasȱtua,ȱetȱlexȱtua.ȱHabentȱenimȱetȱhaecȱimaȱdelectationes,ȱsedȱnonȱsicutȱdeus meus,ȱquiȱfecitȱomnia,ȱquiaȱinȱipsoȱdelectaturȱiustus,ȱetȱipseȱestȱdeliciaeȱrectorumȱcorde.”

192

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

Onȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱbelovedȱfriendȱ(whoȱremainsȱunnamed)ȱduringȱhisȱearlyȱdays ofȱteachingȱatȱThagasteȱheȱfallsȱintoȱaȱdeepȱdepression.ȱHeȱhasȱlostȱ“hisȱsecondȱself,” “theȱotherȱhalfȱofȱhisȱsoul.”ȱHeȱ graduallyȱrealizesȱthatȱit’sȱ“madness”ȱtoȱloveȱa mortalȱmanȱsoȱpassionately,ȱandȱthatȱevenȱtheȱmostȱpassionateȱloveȱisȱofȱthatȱlower order:ȱ “nonȱ estȱ veraȱ [amicitia]ȱ nisiȱ cumȱ eamȱ tuȱ agglutinasȱ interȱ haerentesȱ tibi caritateȱdiffusaȱinȱcordibusȱnostrisȱperȱspiritumȱsanctum,ȱquiȱdatusȱestȱnobis”ȱ(“no friendsȱareȱtrueȱfriendsȱunlessȱyou,ȱmyȱGod,ȱbindȱthemȱfastȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱthrough thatȱ loveȱ whichȱ isȱ sownȱ inȱ ourȱ heartsȱ byȱ theȱ Holyȱ Ghost”ȱ [Confessionsȱ 4.ȱ 4,ȱ ed. O’Donnell,ȱ35]). Heȱfindsȱconsolationȱinȱtheȱ“otherȱcharmsȱofȱfriendship”ȱtoȱwhichȱheȱdevotesȱa lyricalȱ passage,ȱ oftenȱ quoted:ȱ talkȱ andȱ laughter,ȱ kindnessesȱ shared,ȱ books discussed,ȱsharedȱteachingȱandȱlearning,ȱetc.ȱ(4.8.)ȱButȱtheȱfriendshipsȱthatȱgiveȱhim thisȱ pleasureȱ andȱ consolationȱ rideȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ Manichaeanȱ philosophyȱ that supportedȱthem.ȱTheȱtwoȱareȱcoȬconspiratorsȱagainstȱAugustine’sȱrealȱdestiny.ȱThe friendshipȱmadeȱhimȱclingȱtoȱaȱfalseȱreligion,ȱmadeȱhimȱ“slowerȱtoȱseekȱanother.” Becauseȱofȱthoseȱpleasuresȱsoȱlyricallyȱcelebrated,ȱheȱ“hadȱnoȱhopeȱofȱfindingȱthe truthȱinȱyourȱchurch”ȱ(5.10).ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Alypiusȱ follows.ȱ Itȱ bearsȱ noȱ realȱ fruitȱ untilȱ theirȱ mutual conversion. Thenȱcomesȱaȱmention,ȱremarkablyȱbrief,ȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱfriends,ȱplanned asȱaȱcombinationȱofȱtheȱapostolicȱandȱtheȱphilosophicalȱlife.ȱTheȱplanȱisȱtoȱpoolȱtheir resourcesȱandȱliveȱtogetherȱinȱleisure,ȱfriendshipȱandȱintellectualȱexchange.ȱThey wouldȱrenounceȱprivateȱpropertyȱ“perȱamicitiaeȱsinceritatem”ȱ(“inȱtheȱspiritȱof sincereȱfriendship”[6.14,ȱed.ȱO’Donnell,ȱ70]).ȱTheȱplanȱfallsȱapartȱbeforeȱitȱeven starts.ȱMarriageȱandȱtheȱdisapprovalȱofȱtheȱwivesȱthwartȱit.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ thoseȱ friendshipsȱ andȱ hisȱ ruminationsȱ whichȱ professȱ Augustine’s thoughtsȱonȱfriendshipȱandȱhisȱobligationsȱtoȱtheȱclassicalȱtraditionȱwindȱupȱinȱthe sameȱcategoryȱasȱtheȱmanyȱvanitiesȱofȱhisȱyouth.ȱCertainly,ȱheȱthinks,ȱacts,ȱand writesȱinȱtheȱclassicalȱtradition—butȱheȱdoesȱsoȱultimatelyȱinȱorderȱtoȱrejectȱit.ȱHe realizesȱafterȱhisȱbaptismȱthatȱhisȱearlierȱfriendshipsȱwereȱaȱformȱofȱadultery,ȱaȱlove affairȱinȱabsenceȱofȱhisȱtrueȱspouse.20ȱHeȱdescribesȱhisȱbitterȬsweetȱattitudeȱtoȱthem inȱtheȱcharmingȱimageȱofȱhisȱearlyȱvicesȱclingingȱtoȱtheȱhemȱofȱhisȱrobeȱlikeȱanxious childrenȱasȱheȱpressesȱtowardȱconversion,ȱpullingȱhimȱbackȱandȱcallingȱoutȱtoȱhim, inȱeffect,ȱ“pleaseȱdon’tȱleaveȱusȱbehind”ȱ(8.ȱ11).ȱAmongȱthoseȱhangersȬonȱtryingȱto pullȱhimȱbackȱtoȱhisȱoldȱlifeȱwereȱhisȱfriendships.ȱOneȱquestionȱhasȱgnawedȱatȱhim fromȱ hisȱ youthȱ toȱ hisȱ conversionȱ andȱ baptisms:ȱ heȱ hasȱ friends,ȱ heȱ hasȱ sexual gratification,ȱheȱhasȱprestige,ȱbooksȱandȱstudents,ȱandȱheȱhasȱtheȱsearchȱforȱtruth. Soȱwhyȱisn’tȱheȱhappy?ȱConversionȱandȱbaptismȱanswerȱthatȱquestion.ȱ

20

SeeȱSchlabach,ȱ“FriendshipȱasȱAdultery”ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ18ȱabove).

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

193

Thereȱisȱanȱimportantȱepisodeȱwhereȱfriendshipȱinȱaȱphilosophicalȱcommunity worksȱandȱisȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱnarrativeȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱinadequacyȱofȱfriendship; itȱisȱtheȱCassiciacumȱidyll,ȱwhereȱtheȱfriendsȱleadȱaȱlifeȱofȱphilosophicalȱotium,ȱor “Christianȱotium,”ȱasȱPeterȱBrownȱcallsȱit.21ȱAnȱentryȱinȱtheȱCatholicȱEncyclopedia describesȱitȱasȱ“aȱChristianȱAcademy,ȱofȱmoreȱexaltedȱphilosophyȱthanȱPlato’s.”22 NoȱtroubleȱgreaterȱthanȱtoothacheȱassailsȱAugustineȱhere,ȱthoughȱheȱsaysȱofȱthe worksȱ thatȱ cameȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ stay,ȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ Cassiciacumȱ dialogues,“ibiȱ quid egerimȱ inȱ litterisȱ iamȱ quidemȱ servientibusȱ tibi,ȱ sedȱ adhucȱ superbiaeȱ scholam tamquamȱinȱpausationeȱanhelantibus,ȱtestanturȱlibriȱdisputatiȱcumȱpraesentibusȱet cumȱipsoȱmeȱsoloȱcoramȱte”ȱ(“WhatȱIȱwroteȱthereȱinȱworksȱthatȱlongȱsinceȱhad servedȱyouȱbutȱstillȱseemedȱtoȱexhaleȱtheȱairȱofȱtheȱschoolȱofȱpride,ȱlikeȱ[anȱathlete] takingȱ aȱ spellȱ forȱ breath”[9.4,ȱ ed.ȱ O’Donnell,ȱ 105]).ȱ Theȱ positionȱ ofȱ thisȱ idyllȱ in Augustine’sȱdevelopmentȱisȱwellȱdescribedȱbyȱhisȱownȱimage:ȱheȱhasȱbeenȱrunning oneȱlongȱrace;ȱhisȱeffortsȱatȱCassiciacumȱareȱlikeȱtheȱpantingȱofȱanȱathleteȱwhoȱhas finishedȱtheȱrace. TheȱepisodeȱthatȱfollowsȱtheȱconversionȱofȱAugustineȱandȱAlypiusȱlendsȱitselfȱto theȱargumentȱthatȱaȱfusionȱofȱRomanȱ“amicitia”ȱandȱChristianȱcharityȱtookȱplace there,ȱthatȱitȱrepresentsȱaȱbreakthroughȱtoȱaȱtrueȱChristianȱ“amicitia”ȱ(Seeȱseeȱnote 26,ȱbelow).ȱIȱamȱskepticalȱofȱthatȱidea.ȱTheȱevidenceȱofȱAugustineȱonȱfriendship suggestsȱnotȱtheȱbirthȱofȱaȱnewȱChristianȱconceptionȱofȱfriendship,ȱbutȱtheȱdeathȱof ancientȱamicitia,ȱwhichȱgoesȱoutȱinȱaȱblazeȱofȱgloryȱkindledȱbyȱitsȱbriefȱaffiliation withȱtheȱforceȱthatȱwouldȱsmotherȱit,ȱChristianȱcaritas.ȱIȱthinkȱMarshaȱDuttonȱgot itȱrightȱinȱclaiming,ȱ“ForȱAugustineȱfriendshipȱisȱfundamentallyȱofȱtheȱfleshȱrather thanȱofȱtheȱspirit,ȱsomethingȱtoȱtakeȱpleasureȱinȱforȱaȱtimeȱandȱthenȱtoȱtranscendȱ. .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Forȱ himȱ friendshipȱ isȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ enjoyedȱ inȱ itselfȱ butȱ ratherȱ usedȱ forȱ the enjoymentȱofȱGod.”23ȱ AmicitiaȱjoinedȱcomfortablyȱwithȱGreekȱandȱRomanȱphilosophy,ȱbutȱnotȱwith Christianity,ȱandȱcertainlyȱnotȱwithȱtheȱmonasticȱlife.ȱItȱwasȱelitistȱandȱintellectual. Itȱlivedȱfromȱtheȱpassionate,ȱatȱleastȱloving,ȱattachmentȱofȱfriends,ȱandȱnotȱleastȱof all,ȱ itȱ livedȱ fromȱ theȱ beliefȱ inȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ moralȱ energyȱ calledȱ “virtus,”ȱ aȱ human instantiationȱofȱaȱgreaterȱembracingȱloveȱandȱpneuma,ȱandȱtheȱbeliefȱthatȱthisȱwas accessibleȱbyȱcultivationȱofȱvirtueȱinȱaȱgoodȱman.ȱMostȱofȱthatȱwentȱoverboardȱlike ballastȱinȱtheȱearlyȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱfifthȱcentury. Formidableȱforcesȱlineȱupȱagainstȱthisȱposition:ȱBrianȱMcGuire,ȱJamesȱMcEvoy, andȱCarolinneȱWhite.24ȱAndȱletȱmeȱconcedeȱfromȱtheȱoutsetȱthatȱAugustineȱcertainly

21 22 23

24

AugustineȱofȱHippoȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1ȱabove),ȱ115ff. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01141e.htmȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010). MarshaȱL.ȱDutton,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱtheȱLoveȱofȱGod:ȱAugustine’sȱTeachingȱinȱtheȱConfessionsȱand AelredȱofȱRievaulx’sȱResponseȱinȱSpiritualȱFriendship,”ȱAmericanȱBenedictineȱReviewȱ56ȱ(2005):ȱ3–40. Jamesȱ McEvoy,ȱ “‘Animaȱ Unaȱ etȱ Corȱ Unum’:ȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Spiritualȱ Unityȱ inȱ Augustine,”

194

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

didȱ nurtureȱ aȱ conceptionȱ ofȱ Romanȱ “amicitia”ȱ joinedȱ toȱ Christianȱ “caritas.” McEvoy’sȱformulation,ȱ“aȱtheoryȱofȱfriendship,”ȱisȱperhapsȱtooȱbroadlyȱput;ȱan “ideal”ȱmightȱbetterȱcaptureȱitsȱfragility.ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱexplicit referencesȱtoȱChristianȱ“amicitia”ȱbasedȱonȱCiceroȱcomeȱnotȱasȱanȱideaȱpropounded toȱtheȱChristianȱcommunityȱandȱofferedȱforȱimitation,ȱbutȱasȱaȱdescriptionȱandȱtool forȱanalysisȱofȱparticularȱrelationships.ȱReferringȱtoȱAlypiusȱinȱtheȱtractȱ(amongȱthe Cassiciacumȱworks)ȱContraȱacademicos,ȱAugustineȱstatesȱthatȱonlyȱtheȱrevelationȱof Godȱorȱaȱgodȱcanȱimpartȱtruthȱtoȱhumans,ȱandȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱaccordȱbetweenȱhimself andȱAlypius: Mecumȱ enimȱ familiarissimusȱ amicusȱ meus,ȱ nonȱ solumȱ deȱ probabilitate humanaeȱvitae,ȱverumȱetiamȱdeȱipsaȱreligioneȱconcordat,ȱquodȱestȱveriȱamici manifestissimumȱ indicium.ȱ Siquidemȱ amicitiaȱ rectissimeȱ atqueȱ sanctissime definitaȱest,ȱ“rerumȱhumanarumȱetȱdivinarumȱcumȱbenevolentiaȱetȱcharitate consensio.ȱ“ȱ(Contraȱacademicosȱ3.ȱ6.ȱ13,ȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱ32,ȱ941)ȱȱ [Myȱmostȱintimateȱfriendȱisȱinȱaccordȱwithȱmeȱnotȱonlyȱonȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱtruthȱin humanȱlife,ȱbutȱonȱreligionȱitself,ȱandȱthisȱisȱtheȱmostȱmanifestȱindicationȱofȱaȱtrue friend.ȱIndeedȱtheȱmostȱcorrectȱandȱmostȱsacredȱdefinitionȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱ“agreement onȱthingsȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱwithȱkindnessȱandȱlove.”]

Hisȱlateȱletterȱtoȱanȱoldȱfriend,ȱMartianus,ȱuponȱhisȱconversionȱtoȱChristianity expressesȱthatȱconceptionȱclearly.25ȱInȱitȱheȱcongratulatesȱthisȱ“friend,”whoȱwasȱnot reallyȱaȱfriend,ȱforȱacceptingȱbaptism,ȱsinceȱnowȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱtrueȱfriends,ȱandȱhe givesȱauthorityȱtoȱhisȱwordsȱbyȱquotingȱtheȱdefinitionȱbyȱCicero:ȱ“Amicitiaȱest rerumȱhumanarumȱetȱdivinarumȱcumȱbenivolentiaȱetȱcaritateȱconsensio.”ȱWhat theyȱhadȱinȱearlyȱlifeȱwasȱaȱlimitedȱandȱdubiousȱagreementȱonȱthingsȱhuman;ȱbut humanȱfriendshipȱisȱonlyȱfirmȱwhenȱagreementȱonȱdivineȱthingsȱisȱitsȱfoundation.ȱ TheȱideaȱofȱaȱunionȱofȱCiceronianȱfriendshipȱandȱChristianȱcharityȱisȱcertainly presentȱ inȱ thisȱ letter,ȱ andȱ yet,ȱ readingȱ theȱ textȱ closely,ȱ itȱ appearsȱ fragileȱ and theoretical,ȱ owingȱ moreȱ toȱ itsȱ partlyȱ ironicȱ congratulatoryȱ rhetoricȱ thanȱ toȱ an importantȱconceptionȱofȱfriendshipȱpromulgatedȱhere.ȱ

25

Recherchesȱdeȱthéologieȱancienneȱetȱmédiévaleȱ53ȱ(1986):ȱ80–91;ȱhereȱ73:ȱAfterȱconversionȱAugustine developedȱ“aȱtheoryȱofȱfriendshipȱfoundedȱuponȱfaithȱorȱwisdom,ȱhopeȱofȱimmortalityȱandȱlove ofȱfriendsȱ‘inȱGod,ȱinȱwhomȱallȱareȱdear’;ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱaȱpurificationȱandȱextensionȱofȱamicitia effectedȱthroughȱitsȱinterlacingȱwithȱtheȱcentralȱnotionsȱofȱcharityȱandȱbrotherhood.”ȱAlsoȱibid., 75–76.ȱMcEvoyȱmayȱhaveȱmovedȱsomewhatȱawayȱfromȱthisȱposition.ȱCf.ȱinȱHaseldineȱed.,ȱ8: Christianȱ apostolicȱ friendshipȱ differsȱ fromȱ Hellenicȱ (Pythagoreanȱ communitiesȱ andȱ theȱ like) becauseȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱgiftȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpiritȱgivenȱtoȱallȱalike,ȱmen,ȱwomen,ȱchildren,ȱsimple people—notȱ theȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ humanȱ intellectualȱ striving,ȱ notȱ “anȱ eliteȱ pursuingȱ philosophy”; McGuire,ȱ47–57,ȱ87–90;ȱWhite,ȱChristianȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱFourthȱCentury,ȱ218–23ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1). Epist.ȱ258,ȱCSELȱ57,ȱpp.ȱ605–10ȱ(PatrologiaȱLatinaȱ33,ȱ1071–73).ȱTheȱletterȱisȱcitedȱandȱdiscussedȱin White,ȱChristianȱFriendship,ȱ201–02ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1).

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

195

Martianusȱisȱaȱ“veryȱoldȱfriend”ȱ(“antiquissimusȱamicus”)ȱwhoȱonceȱhadȱ“by yourȱbefriendingȱmeȱunfurledȱmyȱsailsȱtoȱtheȱwind,ȱorȱrather,ȱinȱtheȱforefrontȱof myȱotherȱlovers,ȱfilledȱtheȱsailsȱofȱmyȱlustsȱwithȱtheȱwindȱofȱpraise”: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱmihiȱadȱeaȱcapessenda,ȱquorumȱmeȱpaenitet,ȱfavendoȱuelificabas,ȱimmoȱveroȱvela cupitatumȱmearumȱcumȱceterisȱtuncȱdelectoribusȱmeisȱinterȱpraecipuosȱauraȱlaudis inflabasȱ(606).

ȱ EvenȱafterȱAugustineȱhadȱrenouncedȱworldlyȱthings,ȱMartianusȱhadȱpersisted, “perseveringȱinȱkindness,”ȱcravingȱtoȱmakeȱhimȱ“healthy”ȱwithȱ“aȱlethalȱhealth” (“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtuȱquidemȱperseueranteȱbeniuolentia,ȱsaluumȱmeȱesseȱcupiebasȱsaluteȱmortali .ȱ.ȱ.”).ȱThereȱisȱaȱfurtherȱdropȱinȱtheȱtemperatureȱofȱthisȱalreadyȱchillyȱreminiscence.ȱ Sinceȱagreementȱinȱdivineȱthingsȱmustȱprecedeȱtrueȱcommunityȱinȱhumanȱaffairs, theirsȱwasȱnoȱfriendshipȱonȱeitherȱscore: proindeȱnonȱdico:ȱ“Nuncȱpleniusȱmihiȱamicusȱes,ȱquiȱerasȱexȱparte,ȱ«ȱȱsed,ȱquantum ratioȱindicat,ȱnecȱexȱparteȱeras,ȱquandoȱnecȱinȱrebusȱhumanisȱmecumȱamicitiamȱveram tenebasȱ(607). [Iȱdoȱnotȱsay,ȱ“youȱwhoȱonceȱwereȱaȱpartialȱfriendȱnowȱareȱfullyȱmyȱfriend,”ȱbutȱreason arguesȱthatȱyouȱwereȱnotȱevenȱaȱpartialȱfriend,ȱbecauseȱnotȱevenȱinȱhumanȱthingsȱdid youȱkeepȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwithȱme.]

Withȱtheȱletterȱacceleratingȱtowardȱalienation,ȱAugustineȱputsȱonȱtheȱbrakes:ȱ Noloȱautemȱsuccenseas…quodȱilloȱtempore,ȱcumȱinȱvanaȱhuiusȱmundiȱaestuarem, quamvisȱmeȱmultumȱamareȱvidereris,ȱnondumȱerasȱamicusȱmeus,ȱquandoȱnecȱmihi ipseȱamicusȱeramȱsedȱpotiusȱinimicusȱ(607). [Don’tȱbeȱangry.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱyouȱwereȱnotȱyetȱmyȱfriend,ȱthoughȱyouȱseemedȱtoȱloveȱme greatlyȱwhenȱIȱburnedȱforȱtheȱvanitiesȱofȱthisȱworld.ȱIȱwasȱnotȱmyȱownȱfriendȱthen,ȱbut ratherȱmyȱownȱenemy.ȱ]

Theȱtoneȱnowȱturnsȱupbeat,ȱstillȱretainingȱtheȱearlierȱ“amicitiaȱinimicalis”ȱasȱthe anchoringȱ perspective:ȱ “Gratiasȱ itaqueȱ Domino,ȱ quodȱ teȱ mihiȱ amicumȱ facere tandemȱaliquandoȱdignatur”ȱ(“IȱthankȱGod,ȱthen,ȱthatȱheȱhasȱatȱlongȱlastȱdeigned toȱ makeȱ youȱ aȱ friendȱ toȱ me”ȱ [608]).ȱ ȱ Butȱ itȱ isȱ farȱ fromȱ openingȱ intoȱ aȱ warm embrace.ȱTheȱthreatȱofȱinstabilityȱremains;ȱtheirȱnewȬgrantedȱfriendshipȱwillȱbe trueȱandȱconstantȱifȱMartianusȱcanȱsustainȱagreementȱinȱthingsȱbothȱhumanȱand divine:ȱ haecȱ duoȱ siȱ mecumȱ firmissimeȱ teneas,ȱ amicitiaȱ nostraȱ veraȱ etȱ sempiternaȱ erit…ȱ exhortorȱgravitatemȱetȱprudentiamȱtuam,ȱutȱiamȱetiamȱfideliumȱsacramentaȱpercipias; decetȱenimȱaetatemȱetȱcongruit,ȱquantumȱcredo,ȱmoribusȱtuisȱ(609). [ifȱyouȱcanȱholdȱfirmlyȱtoȱtheseȱtwoȱthingsȱ[agreementȱinȱthingsȱhumanȱandȱdivine]. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱexhortȱyouȱbyȱyourȱgravityȱandȱprudenceȱtoȱreceiveȱtheȱsacramentsȱofȱtheȱfaithful; itȱbefitsȱyourȱage,ȱandȱitȱsuits,ȱIȱbelieve,ȱyourȱwayȱofȱlife.]

196

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

NothingȱthatȱprecedesȱinȱtheȱletterȱleadsȱusȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱMartianusȱisȱaȱmanȱof “gravityȱandȱgoodȱjudgment,”ȱjustȱtheȱcontrary.ȱButȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱwhetherȱthere isȱanȱironicȱdissonanceȱbetweenȱtheȱtermsȱofȱpraiseȱhereȱandȱofȱreproachȱearlier. TheȱrhetoricȱofȱChristianȱLatinȱlettersȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱexcludesȱtheȱpossibilityȱthat falseȱorȱfeignedȱpraiseȱisȱexhortation.ȱȱWhileȱAugustineȱdoesȱnotȱstateȱexplicitly thatȱheȱhasȱdoubtsȱaboutȱhisȱcharacterȱorȱconductȱofȱhisȱlifeȱ(“congruit,ȱquantum credo,ȱmoribusȱtuis”—myȱemphasis),ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱtheȱnewȱandȱtrueȱfriendshipȱis farȱfromȱbeingȱsealedȱandȱisȱyetȱtoȱbeȱtestedȱbyȱhisȱbehavior.ȱTheȱletterȱplacesȱa burdenȱ onȱ thisȱ slightlyȱ uncomfortableȱ newȱ friendȱ toȱ showȱ himselfȱ worthyȱ of friendship.ȱItȱendsȱwarmly,ȱcallingȱhimȱ(twiceȱinȱfiveȱlines)ȱ“inȱChristoȱdilectissime etȱdesiderantissimeȱfrater”ȱ(“mostȱbelovedȱandȱmostȱdesiredȱbrotherȱinȱChrist”), andȱurgingȱhimȱtoȱwriteȱandȱrespondȱtoȱAugustine’sȱletter.ȱItȱseemsȱunlikelyȱthat theȱletterȱmarksȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱaȱcloseȱrelationship.ȱ Itȱisȱaȱremarkablyȱpricklyȱdocumentȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ“veryȱoldȱfriend”ȱwouldȱbe unableȱtoȱfindȱanyȱtraceȱofȱaȱpersonalȱfondnessȱinȱtheȱattachmentȱofȱtheirȱearlier days,ȱnorȱanyȱreasonȱtoȱfeelȱprideȱorȱnostalgiaȱinȱit.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱitȱpositsȱisȱnot markedȱbyȱanyȱadmirationȱforȱtheȱvirtueȱinȱaȱgoodȱman.ȱAndȱoneȱfinalȱelementȱof coolȱdistancingȱshouldȱbeȱmentioned:ȱtheȱletterȱbeginsȱandȱendsȱwithȱitsȱauthor pointingȱtoȱtheȱsmallȱopeningȱinȱhisȱbusyȱcalendarȱwhichȱisȱavailableȱtoȱhimȱto writeȱtoȱMartianus.ȱTheȱbeginningȱisȱemphatic:ȱ“Abripuiȱvelȱpotiusȱsubripuiȱet quodamȱ modoȱ furatusȱ sumȱ memetȱ ipsumȱ multisȱ occupationibusȱ meis,ȱ utȱ tibi scriberem…”ȱ(“Iȱtoreȱmyselfȱaway,ȱorȱratherȱhidȱmyself,ȱIȱmightȱsay,ȱstoleȱmyself, fromȱmyȱmanyȱobligations,ȱtoȱwriteȱtoȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ[605]);ȱandȱendsȱmildlyȱbutȱwith theȱ sameȱ note:ȱ “haecȱ tibi…utcumqueȱ occupatissimusȱ scripsi”ȱ (“Iȱ haveȱ written theseȱthingsȱtoȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.,ȱextremelyȱbusyȱthoughȱIȱam”ȱ[610]).ȱȱItȱmayȱsuggestȱhis eagernessȱtoȱwrite;ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱitȱforcefullyȱputsȱlimitsȱonȱtheȱtimeȱheȱhasȱto devoteȱtoȱthisȱfriendship.ȱ Theȱ letterȱ toȱ Martianusȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ notȱ aȱ letterȱ ofȱ friendship—evenȱ its conciliatoryȱmomentsȱareȱundercutȱbyȱbarbs:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱeumȱquemȱquoquoȱmodoȱhabui diuȱamicum,ȱhabeoȱjamȱuerumȱamicum”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱhimȱwhomȱIȱlongȱheld—inȱwhatever mannerȱitȱmayȱhaveȱbeen—asȱaȱfriend,ȱIȱnowȱhaveȱasȱaȱtrueȱfriend”);ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱquamuis meȱmultumȱamareȱuidererisȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱalthoughȱyouȱseemedȱperhapsȱtoȱloveȱme much…”);ȱ “congruit,ȱ quantumȱ credo,ȱ moribusȱ tuis”ȱ (“itȱ suited,ȱ Iȱ believe,ȱ your mannerȱ ofȱ life”—emphasisȱ added).ȱ Itȱ isȱ essentiallyȱ aȱ letterȱ ofȱ exhortationȱ and admonition.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱthemeȱisȱaȱhandleȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱnewlyȱconvertedȱ“old friend”ȱisȱsteeredȱintoȱaȱrighteousȱlife.ȱAccordinglyȱitȱisȱnotȱaȱconceptualizingȱof aȱgrandȱ“theory”ȱofȱChristianȱamicitia,ȱbutȱratherȱaȱcoolȱacknowledgementȱofȱthe newȱlifeȱofȱanȱoldȱandȱdubiousȱfriend.ȱItȱushersȱMartianusȱnotȱintoȱaȱnewȱand modelȱintimacy,ȱbutȱintoȱtheȱranksȱofȱthoseȱtoȱwhomȱanȱobligatoryȱbenevolenceȱis due.ȱAugustineȱmightȱwellȱhaveȱwelcomedȱaȱformulationȱofȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱto describeȱhisȱrelationȱtoȱMartianus:

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

197

Exȱcaritatisȱperfectioneȱplerosqueȱdiligimus,ȱquiȱnobisȱoneriȱsuntȱetȱdolori;ȱquibusȱlicet honeste,ȱnonȱficte,ȱnonȱsimulate,ȱsedȱvereȱvoluntariequeȱconsulimusȱ;ȱadȱsecretaȱtamen eosȱamicitiaeȱnostraeȱnonȱadmittimus. [Inȱtheȱperfectionȱofȱcharityȱweȱloveȱveryȱmanyȱwhoȱareȱaȱsourceȱofȱburdenȱandȱgrief toȱus,ȱforȱwhoseȱinterestȱweȱconcernȱourselvesȱhonorablyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsincerelyȱandȱvoluntarily, butȱyetȱweȱdoȱnotȱadmitȱtheseȱtoȱtheȱintimacyȱofȱourȱfriendship.]26

Lateȱinȱlife,ȱAugustineȱmadeȱaȱsignificantȱobservationȱonȱfriendshipȱatȱtheȱendȱof theȱCityȱofȱGod.ȱItȱisȱaȱpassageȱthatȱisȱoccasionallyȱcitedȱtoȱshowȱthatȱAugustine clungȱ toȱ anȱ idealȱ ofȱ Christianȱ amicitiaȱ inȱ hisȱ oldȱ age.ȱ Theȱ headingȱ ofȱ Bookȱ 19, chapterȱ8ȱisȱ“Quodȱamicitiaȱbonorumȱsecuraȱesseȱnonȱpossit,ȱdumȱaȱpericulis,ȱ quaeȱinȱhacȱvitaȱsunt,ȱtrepidariȱnecesseȱsit”ȱ(“Theȱfriendshipȱofȱgoodȱmenȱcan neverȱbeȱcarefree,ȱbecauseȱofȱthisȱlife’sȱdangers”).ȱ Inȱtheȱpreviousȱchapterȱheȱhadȱrejectedȱtheȱnotionȱofȱaȱhumanȱsocietyȱunitedȱby loveȱofȱneighbor:ȱhumanȱnatureȱdoesȱnotȱguaranteeȱaȱpeacefulȱsociety;ȱdoȱnotȱrely onȱ theȱ Stoicȱ Pneuma.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ consolationȱ forȱ aȱ societyȱ governedȱ byȱ chaotic, violent,ȱselfȬservingȱimpulses,ȱandȱforȱmenȱbenightedȱenoughȱtoȱthinkȱaȱfriendȱis anȱenemy,ȱisȱfriendship,ȱ“fidesȱnonȱfictaȱetȱmutuaȱdilectioȱverorumȱetȱbonorum amicorum”ȱ(“theȱunfeignedȱfaithȱandȱmutualȱaffectionsȱofȱgenuine,ȱloyalȱfriends”). Butȱ farȱ fromȱ providingȱ untroubledȱ comfort,ȱ friendshipȱ isȱ aȱ sourceȱ ofȱ further anxiety:ȱfearȱatȱtheȱsufferingȱandȱdeathȱofȱfriends,ȱfearȱofȱtreacheryȱbyȱfalseȱfriends: verumȱetiam,ȱubiȱtimorȱestȱmultoȱamarior,ȱneȱinȱperfidiam,ȱmalitiamȱnequitiamque mutentur.ȱEtȱquandoȱistaȱcontinguntȱ(tantoȱutiqueȱplura,ȱquantoȱilliȱsuntȱplures,ȱetȱin pluribusȱlocis)ȱetȱinȱnostramȱnotitiamȱperferuntur,ȱquibusȱcorȱnostrumȱflagisȱuratur, quisȱpotest,ȱnisiȱtaliaȱsentit,ȱadvertere?ȱMortuosȱquippeȱaudireȱmallemusȱ:ȱquamvisȱhoc sineȱdoloreȱnonȱpossimusȱaudire. [Thereȱisȱtheȱmuchȱmoreȱbitterȱfear,ȱthatȱtheirȱfriendshipȱbeȱchangedȱintoȱtreachery, maliceȱandȱbaseness.ȱAndȱwhenȱsuchȱthingsȱdoȱhappenȱ(andȱtheȱmoreȱnumerousȱour friends,ȱtheȱmoreȱoftenȱtheyȱhappen)ȱandȱtheȱnewsȱisȱbroughtȱtoȱourȱears,ȱwho,ȱexcept oneȱwhoȱhasȱthisȱexperience,ȱcanȱbeȱawareȱofȱtheȱburningȱsorrowȱthatȱravagesȱour hearts?ȱCertainlyȱweȱwouldȱratherȱhearȱthatȱourȱfriendsȱwereȱdead,ȱalthoughȱthisȱalso weȱcouldȱnotȱhearȱwithoutȱgrief.]27

Nothingȱ remainsȱ hereȱ ofȱ theȱ idealsȱ ofȱ ancientȱ friendship;ȱ itsȱ moralȱ purposeȱ is altogetherȱmissing;ȱdistanceȱgeneratesȱanxiety,ȱnotȱloveȱheightenedȱthroughȱletters;

26

27

AelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱDeȱspiritaliȱamicitia,ȱ2.ȱ19,ȱinȱAelrediȱRievallensis,ȱOperaȱOmnia,ȱed.ȱA.ȱHoste andȱC.ȱH.ȱTalbot,ȱCorpusȱChristianorumȱContinuatioȱMediaevalisȱ1,ȱ(Turnholt:ȱBrepols,ȱ1971),ȱ 306;ȱȱSpiritualȱFriendship,ȱtrans.ȱMaryȱEugeniaȱLaker.ȱCistercianȱFathersȱSeries,ȱ5ȱ(Kalamazoo,ȱMI: CistercianȱPublications,ȱ1977),ȱ74.ȱ Augustine,ȱConcerningȱtheȱCityȱofȱGodȱagainstȱtheȱPagans,ȱtrans.ȱHenryȱBettensonȱ(Harmondsworth, UK,ȱandȱBaltimore:ȱPenguin,ȱ1976),ȱ862–63ȱ(Bk.ȱ19,ȱch.ȱ8);ȱPLȱ41,ȱ634–35.

198

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

theȱ mainȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ positiveȱ useȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ death.ȱ Itȱ hasȱ becomeȱ a consolationȱ forȱ mortalityȱ andȱ theȱ otherȱ miseriesȱ ofȱ humanȱ life.ȱ Thisȱ narrow endorsementȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ castȱ doubtȱ onȱ bothȱ theȱ elitismȱ of “amicitia”ȱ(evokedȱinȱtheȱchapterȱtitle,ȱ“Quodȱamicitiaȱbonorumȱsecuraȱesseȱnon possit”)ȱandȱtheȱunselectiveȱaffectionȱforȱallȱalikeȱinȱaȱcommunity;ȱtheȱlimitsȱplaced onȱtheȱpositiveȱvalueȱofȱfriendshipȱincorporateȱtheȱinstabilityȱthatȱcharacterizedȱhis humanȱfriendshipsȱsinceȱyouth.ȱ

*** Iȱwillȱendȱbyȱbroadeningȱthisȱgloomyȱperspectiveȱwithȱaȱlookȱatȱotherȱpersonalities whoseȱfriendshipsȱdominateȱtheȱliteratureȱonȱChristianȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱfourth century.28ȱFewȱrelationshipsȱlendȱthemselvesȱtoȱanalysisȱfromȱtheȱpointȱofȱviewȱof Christianȱ“amicitia”ȱasȱthatȱofȱBasilȱofȱCaesareaȱandȱGregoryȱofȱNazianzus.ȱTheir earlyȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱmodelȱofȱmutualȱselfȬperfectingȱinȱtheȱChristianȱlife:ȱ Theirȱdeepestȱdesireȱwasȱforȱaȱlifeȱofȱtheȱspirit,ȱofȱasceticismȱandȱcontemplationȱand evenȱatȱthisȱstage,ȱwhenȱtheyȱwereȱabsorbedȱinȱtheȱstudyȱofȱpaganȱphilosophyȱand rhetoric,ȱtheirȱidealȱwasȱaȱChristianȱone,ȱaimedȱatȱmakingȱthemselvesȱbetterȱfollowers ofȱChrist.ȱ (White,ȱ62)

Theirȱfriendshipȱincludesȱphilosophy,ȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱvirtue,ȱandȱtheȱsearchȱfor truth.ȱGregoryȱinȱfactȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱtrueȱfriendshipȱisȱthatȱwhichȱisȱfounded onȱvirtue,ȱandȱwhileȱhisȱconceptionȱofȱvirtueȱisȱrootedȱinȱdevotionȱtoȱGodȱ(White, 72–73),ȱstillȱtheȱtermȱitselfȱcarriesȱtheȱauraȱofȱelitismȱofȱclassicalȱ“amicitia.”ȱThe gradualȱdeclineȱofȱthisȱparticularȱfriendshipȱdoesȱnotȱargueȱtheȱimpossibilityȱof Christianȱfriendship,ȱsinceȱitȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱtensionsȱandȱconflictsȱresultingȱfrom theȱ friends’ȱ administrativeȱ positionsȱ inȱ theȱ church.ȱ Theseȱ tookȱ placeȱ afterȱ the periodȱofȱcondominium.ȱ Butȱinȱhisȱwritingsȱforȱmonasticȱcommunities,ȱtheȱrealȱproblemȱofȱfriendshipȱas theȱ basisȱ ofȱ communalȱ peaceȱ rearsȱ itsȱ head.ȱ Theȱ mutualȱ interdependenceȱ of membersȱofȱtheȱcommunityȱcommendedȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱbondȱamongȱbrothers. Butȱthisȱrequiresȱequalityȱandȱtheȱwillingnessȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱlegitimacyȱofȱvaried talentsȱbenefitingȱtheȱcommunities,ȱeachȱinȱitsȱownȱway.ȱButȱspecialȱfriendships mustȱbeȱproscribed,ȱsinceȱtheyȱareȱaȱpotentialȱthreatȱtoȱtheȱunityȱandȱequalityȱof theȱcommunityȱ(White,ȱ80–85).ȱThisȱcircumstanceȱmakesȱofȱcaritasȱinȱtheȱcoenobitic communityȱsomethingȱdifferentȱfromȱandȱirreconcilableȱwithȱclassicalȱamicitia. Hereȱtheȱtwoȱconceptsȱmustȱpartȱways.ȱ

28

HereȱIȱamȱleaningȱparticularlyȱonȱCarolinneȱWhite,ȱChristianȱFriendshipȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1)ȱandȱBrian McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunityȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1).

FriendshipȱofȱMutualȱPerfecting

199

Paulinusȱ ofȱ Nolaȱ rejectedȱ amicitiaȱ afterȱ hisȱ conversionȱ (White,ȱ 146–63).ȱ His breechȱwithȱhisȱteacherȱAusoniusȱisȱparadigmaticȱforȱaȱcertainȱsocialȱrealityȱthat PaulinusȱembracedȱandȱAugustineȱresisted.ȱWithȱthisȱturnȱfromȱaȱclose,ȱintimate personalȱfriendshipȱbasedȱonȱintellectualȱexchange,ȱPaulinusȱbreaksȱtheȱmasterȬ studentȱ relation.ȱ Byȱ rejectingȱ hisȱ belovedȱ teacher,ȱ heȱ rejectsȱ theȱ philosophicalȬ pedagogicȱbasisȱofȱancientȱfriendship.ȱIȱtakeȱitȱtoȱbeȱanȱexpressionȱofȱPaulinus’s claimȱofȱtheȱincompatibilityȱofȱChristianȱcommunityȱandȱphilosophical/intellectual community.ȱ Theȱ failureȱ ofȱ Jerome’sȱ friendshipsȱ withȱ hisȱ maleȱ friendsȱ mayȱ beȱ more symptomaticȱ ofȱ hisȱ characterȱ thanȱ exemplaryȱ ofȱ anyȱ problemȱ ofȱ reconciling personal/philosophicalȱfriendshipȱwithȱChristianityȱ(White,ȱ129–45).ȱButȱagain, whateverȱ theȱ reason,ȱ aȱ significantȱ figureȱ inȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Christianityȱ sees personal,ȱphilosophical/intellectualȱfriendshipsȱcollapse. Whileȱ circumstanceȱ damagesȱ theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ Basilȱ andȱ Gregory,ȱ notȱ some conceptualȱaporiaȱseparatingȱ“amicitia”ȱfromȱ“caritas,”ȱinȱtheȱcasesȱofȱPaulinus, Augustine,ȱandȱJeromeȱthereȱisȱaȱpathȱtoȱfailureȱbuiltȱintoȱtheȱfriendshipsȱofȱmen whoȱcombineȱaȱpowerfulȱcommitmentȱtoȱvirtueȱandȱphilosophicalȱtruthȱ(theȱbases ofȱ amicitia)ȱ withȱ aȱ commitmentȱ toȱ Christianȱ spirituality.ȱ Inȱ theȱ casesȱ citedȱ the friendsȱgoȱdownȱthatȱpathȱatȱvaryingȱlengths,ȱtheirȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱvaryingȱin proportionȱtoȱthatȱdistance.ȱButȱtheȱinnerȱtrainȱofȱthoughtȱthatȱgraduallyȱerodes, orȱshowsȱupȱtheȱshortcomingsȱof,ȱpersonalȱfriendshipȱinȱcomparisonȱtoȱloveȱof Christ,ȱwillȱhaveȱbeenȱatȱworkȱinȱtheȱlivesȱofȱmenȱlikeȱPaulinusȱandȱAugustine whoȱ grewȱ upȱ inȱ Romanȱ aristocraticȱ traditionsȱ andȱ experiencedȱ aȱ transferȱ of devotionȱtoȱtheȱGodȱofȱChristianity.ȱ Theȱcommonȱlifeȱisȱtheȱcontextȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfundamentalȱcontradictionȱbetween charityȱandȱfriendshipȱemergesȱsharply.ȱTheȱharmonyȱofȱtheȱcommonȱlifeȱrequires loveȱofȱallȱalikeȱwithoutȱdistinction;ȱitȱpositsȱanȱequalityȱofȱbrothers,ȱanȱimposition onȱtheȱhumanȱpsycheȱnearlyȱasȱdemandingȱasȱtheȱsuppressionȱofȱsexuality.ȱThe levelingȱofȱtheȱemotionalȱlifeȱthatȱmonasticȱcaritasȱcombinedȱwithȱtheȱmarriageȱto Christȱdemandsȱmakesȱpersonalȱfriendshipȱintoȱaȱmildȱformȱofȱadultery,ȱanȱoffense toȱtheȱcommunity,ȱaȱsourceȱofȱdivision.ȱ Charityȱhasȱtwoȱfaces:ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱtheȱecstasyȱofȱgraceȱgivenȱbyȱtheȱholy spirit,ȱtheȱsublime,ȱevenȱgodȬlikeȱcapacityȱtoȱloveȱtheȱenemy,ȱtoȱpreferȱtheȱsinner toȱtheȱrighteous,ȱtheȱprodigalȱtoȱtheȱgoodȱson,ȱasȱaȱdemonstrationȱofȱaȱmercifulness andȱcompassionȱthatȱsurpassȱordinaryȱhumanȱcapacities;ȱandȱonȱtheȱother,ȱthe lukewarm,ȱobligatoryȱloveȱextendedȱtoȱallȱinȱaȱcommunity,ȱfriendȱandȱfoeȱalike. Aȱcommunityȱregulatedȱbyȱaȱmonasticȱruleȱcanȱbeȱofȱoneȱheartȱandȱoneȱmind,ȱbut neverȱofȱequalȱcharacter,ȱneverȱofȱequalȱintellectualȱgiftsȱandȱgoals.ȱCaritasȱasȱan idealȱ ofȱ theȱ sharedȱ religiousȱ lifeȱ loweredȱ theȱ heatȱ onȱ theȱ kindȱ ofȱ passionate friendshipsȱofȱwhichȱAugustineȱwasȱcapableȱinȱhisȱyouth.ȱ

200

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger

Coenobiticȱmonasticismȱrecognizedȱtheȱdivisiveȱqualityȱofȱpassionateȱfriendships byȱforbiddingȱspecialȱrelationships,ȱinȱeffectȱbanishingȱamicitiaȱasȱunderstoodȱby CiceroȱandȱtheȱChristianȱintellectualsȱofȱtheȱfourthȱcenturyȱcaughtȱinȱitsȱspellȱearly inȱlife.29 Passionateȱfriendshipȱofȱexceptionalȱindividualsȱadmiringȱtheȱvirtueȱinȱtheȱother survivedȱ inȱ theȱ Christianȱ West,ȱ butȱ not,ȱ orȱ onlyȱ exceptionally,ȱ inȱ monastic communities.ȱ Itȱ survivedȱ asȱ thatȱ whichȱ itȱ wasȱ originally:ȱ anȱ aristocraticȱ social practiceȱwhichȱtheȱ“best,”ȱtheȱ“aristoi,”ȱreservedȱforȱthemselvesȱinȱpartȱasȱaȱbadge ofȱclassȱstatusȱandȱoccasionallyȱevenȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱpsychologicalȱcorrectnessȱof theȱinsightȱofȱtheȱancients:ȱsharedȱqualitiesȱendearȱandȱgenerateȱlove;ȱtheȱsecond selfȱ andȱ theȱ singleȱ soulȱ sharedȱ betweenȱ twoȱ isȱ aȱ realizableȱ reality.ȱ Ifȱ Iȱ canȱ see myselfȱinȱanotherȱmanȱorȱwoman,ȱIȱloveȱhimȱorȱherȱbyȱtransferringȱloveȱofȱmyȱself ontoȱtheȱotherȱ(Aristotle’sȱshrewdȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱvirtue).ȱItȱsurvived inȱtheȱdualȱcontextȱwhereȱChristianȱaristocraticȱcultureȱflourished,ȱatȱtheȱcourtsȱof kingsȱandȱbishops,ȱbutȱtheȱdiscoveryȱofȱaȱtrueȱChristianȱamicitiaȱhadȱtoȱwaitȱuntil AelredȱofȱRievaulxȱassertedȱitȱ(againstȱpowerfulȱresistance)ȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury andȱ theȱ assertionȱ requiredȱ aȱ conceptualȱ hierarchyȱ onȱ whichȱ “caritas”ȱ ranked beneathȱ“amicitia.”30

29

30

SeeȱJaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLoveȱ(seeȱnoteȱ15ȱabove),ȱ27–35;ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ77–87 (seeȱ noteȱ 1).ȱ Theȱ workȱ ofȱ Claudiaȱ Rappȱ onȱ ritualȱ brotherhoodȱ (forthcomingȱ fromȱ Oxford UniversityȱPress)ȱinȱearlyȱmonasticismȱshowsȱaȱshiftȱawayȱfromȱfriendshipȱtoȱkinshipȱtermsȱin earlyȱmonasticismȱinȱByzantiumȱandȱtheȱWest. Onȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱvirtueȱatȱsecularȱandȱecclesiasticalȱcourts,ȱEnnoblingȱLoveȱpassim;ȱonȱAelred andȱtheȱthemeȱofȱcharityȱvs.ȱfriendship,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ110–14;ȱonȱproblemsȱinȱtheȱcommunityȱof RievaulxȱdueȱtoȱAelred’sȱspecialȱfriendships,ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ333–38.

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Chapterȱ2ȱ ȱ

StavroulaȱConstantinouȱ (UniversityȱofȱCyprus,ȱNicosia)ȱ ȱ ȱ

TheȱGiftȱofȱFriendship:ȱBeneficialȱandȱPoisonousȱ FriendshipsȱinȱtheȱByzantineȱGreekȱPassionȱofȱȱ SergiusȱandȱBacchus1ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

41Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Avecȱdesȱarmesȱetȱdesȱvêtementsȱ lesȱamisȱdoiventȱseȱfaireȱplaisir;ȱ chacunȱleȱsaitȱdeȱparȱluiȬmêmeȱ(parȱsesȱpropresȱexpériences)ȱ Ceuxȱquiȱseȱrendentȱmutuellementȱlesȱcadeauxȱ sontȱlesȱplusȱlongtempsȱamis,ȱ siȱlesȱchosesȱréussissentȱàȱprendreȱbonneȱtournure.ȱ

42Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Onȱdoitȱêtreȱunȱamiȱ pourȱsonȱamiȱ etȱrenderȱcadeauȱpourȱcadeauȱ onȱdoitȱavoirȱ rireȱpourȱrireȱ etȱdolȱpourȱmensonge.ȱ

44Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Tuȱleȱsais,ȱsiȱtuȱasȱunȱamiȱ enȱquiȱtuȱasȱconfianceȱ etȱsiȱtuȱveuxȱobtenirȱunȱbonȱrésultat,ȱ ilȱfautȱmêlerȱtonȱâmeȱàȱlaȱsienneȱ etȱéchangerȱlesȱcadeauxȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 1ȱȱ

Anȱ earlierȱ versionȱ ofȱ thisȱ paperȱ wasȱ presentedȱ inȱ aȱ workshopȱ onȱ medievalȱ friendshipȱ (“RepresentingȱFriendships:ȱNarrativeȱUsesȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges”)ȱorganizedȱatȱ theȱUniversityȱofȱCyprusȱfromȱtheȱsecondȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱofȱNovember,ȱ2007ȱinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱ theȱBritishȱAcademyȱNetworkȱforȱ“MedievalȱFriendshipȱNetworks”ȱ(2004–2010).ȱ

ȱ202ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

etȱluiȱrendreȱsouventȱvisite.ȱ

ȱ (41)Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Withȱweaponsȱandȱclothesȱ Friendsȱmustȱgiveȱpleasureȱtoȱoneȱanother;ȱ Everyoneȱknowsȱthatȱforȱhimselfȱ[throughȱhisȱownȱexperience].ȱ Thoseȱwhoȱexchangeȱpresentsȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱ

ȱ ȱ

Remainȱfriendsȱtheȱlongestȱ Ifȱthingsȱturnȱoutȱsuccessfully.ȱ

(42)Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Oneȱmustȱbeȱaȱfriendȱ Toȱone’sȱfriend,ȱ ȱ ȱ Andȱgiveȱpresentȱforȱpresent;ȱ Oneȱmustȱhaveȱ ȱ Laughterȱforȱlaughterȱ Andȱsorrowȱforȱliesȱ

(44)Ȭȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

Youȱknow,ȱifȱyouȱhaveȱaȱfriendȱ Inȱwhomȱyouȱhaveȱconfidenceȱ Andȱifȱyouȱwishȱtoȱgetȱgoodȱresultsȱ Yourȱsoulȱmustȱblendȱinȱwithȱhisȱ Andȱyouȱmustȱexchangeȱpresentsȱ Andȱfrequentlyȱpayȱhimȱvisits.]ȱ

ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ

TheseȱstanzasȱfromȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱtheȱSayingsȱofȱHarȱ(SayingsȱofȱtheȱHighȱOne),2ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ poemsȱ ofȱ theȱ Elderȱ Edda,3ȱ areȱ usedȱ asȱ anȱ epigraphȱ byȱ theȱ famousȱ FrenchȱanthropologistȱMarcelȱMaussȱ(1872–1950)ȱforȱhisȱseminalȱworkȱTheȱGift:ȱ TheȱFormȱandȱReasonȱforȱExchangeȱinȱArchaicȱSocietiesȱ(“Essaiȱsurȱleȱdon.ȱFormeȱetȱ raisonȱ deȱ l’échangeȱ dansȱ lesȱ sociétésȱ archaïques,”ȱ originallyȱ publishedȱ inȱ theȱ L’AnnéeȱSociologiqueȱinȱ1923–1924).4ȱTheȱfirstȱsectionȱofȱtheȱSayingsȱofȱHar,ȱwhichȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ

TheȱSayingsȱofȱHar,ȱaȱworkȱdatedȱnotȱlaterȱthanȱtheȱyearȱ800ȱandȱcomposedȱmostȱprobablyȱinȱ IcelandȱorȱNorway,ȱconsistsȱofȱaȱnumberȱofȱpoeticȱguidelinesȱforȱwiseȱliving.ȱ

3

ȱȱ

Theȱtitleȱ“Edda”ȱappliesȱtoȱtwoȱdistinctȱworksȱofȱtheȱoldȱNorseȬIcelandicȱliterature:ȱtheȱElderȱ EddaȱorȱPoeticȱEddaȱandȱtheȱYoungerȱEddaȱorȱProseȱEdda.ȱTheȱfirstȱisȱanȱanonymousȱcollectionȱofȱ aboutȱ 35ȱ mythologicalȱ andȱ heroicȱ poemsȱ composedȱ betweenȱ theȱ yearsȱ 800ȱ andȱ 1200.ȱ Forȱ anȱ introductionȱ andȱ aȱ completeȱ Englishȱ translation,ȱ seeȱ Carolyneȱ Larrington,ȱ Theȱ Poeticȱ Edda.ȱ OxfordȱWorld’sȱClassicsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱTheȱsecondȱwasȱwrittenȱbyȱ Snorriȱ Sturlusonȱ (1179–1241),ȱ mostȱ probablyȱ aroundȱ 1222,ȱ asȱ aȱ textbookȱ forȱ youngȱ poetsȱ wishingȱ toȱ praiseȱ kings.ȱ Sturlusonȱ examinesȱ theȱ content,ȱ style,ȱ andȱ metersȱ ofȱ theȱ Scaldicȱ poetryȱ ofȱ Iceland,ȱ andȱ offersȱ theȱ oldestȱ andȱ mostȱ completeȱ accountȱ ofȱ Scandinavianȱ mythologyȱthatȱexists.ȱForȱanȱintroductionȱandȱanȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱJesseȱL.ȱByock,ȱTheȱ ProseȱEdda:ȱNorseȱMythology.ȱPenguinȱClassicsȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ2005).ȱ

4ȱȱ

TheȱfirstȱEnglishȱtranslationȱofȱMauss’sȱessayȱpreparedȱbyȱIanȱCunnisonȱwasȱpublishedȱasȱTheȱ

2

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ203ȱ ȱ focusesȱonȱtheȱfriendlyȱrelationshipsȱcreatedȱbetweenȱhostsȱandȱguestsȱthroughȱ hospitalityȱ andȱ giftȱ exchangeȱ thatȱ wereȱ commonȱ amongȱ theȱ seafaringȱ Scandinavians,ȱ constitutesȱ anȱ eminentlyȱ suitableȱ epigraphȱ forȱ Mauss’sȱ studyȱ whoseȱ goalȱ isȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ theȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ giftsȱ betweenȱ individualsȱ andȱ groupsȱ establishesȱ spiritualȱ andȱ socialȱ bondsȱ betweenȱ them.ȱ Maussȱ seesȱ theȱ gift,ȱ whichȱ canȱ beȱ anyȱ object,ȱ serviceȱ orȱ sacrifice,ȱ asȱ somethingȱ aliveȱ thatȱ possessesȱaȱspecialȱpower,ȱaȱcertainȱspiritȱ(hau)ȱenablingȱitȱbothȱtoȱcreateȱandȱtoȱ renewȱaȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱgivingȱandȱreceivingȱparties.5ȱ Giftȱexchangeȱ bindsȱpeopleȱbecause,ȱasȱMaussȱhimselfȱputsȱit,ȱ ȱ Présenterȱ quelqueȱ choseȱ àȱ quelqu’unȱ c’estȱ présenterȱ quelqueȱ choseȱ deȱ soiȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Onȱ comprendȱclairementȱetȱlogiquement,ȱdansȱceȱsystèmeȱd’idées,ȱqu’ilȱfailleȱrendreȱàȱ autruiȱceȱquiȱestȱenȱréalitéȱparcelleȱdeȱsaȱnatureȱetȱsubstance;ȱcar,ȱaccepterȱquelqueȱ choseȱdeȱquelqu’unȱc’estȱaccepterȱquelqueȱchoseȱdeȱsonȱessenceȱspirituelle,ȱdeȱsonȱ âme.6ȱ

ȱ

[Toȱ makeȱ aȱ giftȱ ofȱ somethingȱ toȱ someoneȱ isȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ presentȱ ofȱ someȱ partȱ ofȱ oneselfȱ.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ .ȱ Oneȱ clearlyȱ andȱlogicallyȱ realizesȱ thatȱ oneȱ mustȱ giveȱ backȱ toȱ anotherȱ personȱwhatȱisȱreallyȱpartȱandȱparcelȱofȱhisȱnatureȱandȱsubstance,ȱbecauseȱtoȱacceptȱ somethingȱ fromȱ somebodyȱ isȱ toȱ acceptȱ someȱ partȱ ofȱ hisȱ spiritualȱ essence,ȱ ofȱ hisȱ soul.]7ȱ

ȱ ThusȱforȱMauss,ȱasȱisȱalsoȱtheȱcaseȱforȱtheȱanonymousȱpoetȱofȱtheȱSayingsȱofȱHar,ȱ humanȱ relationsȱ areȱ almostȱ impossibleȱ withoutȱ theȱ involvementȱ ofȱ things.ȱ Inȱ Mauss’sȱwords,ȱ“Onȱmêleȱlesȱâmesȱdansȱlesȱchoses;ȱonȱmêleȱlesȱchosesȱdansȱlesȱ âmes.ȱ Onȱ mêleȱ lesȱ viesȱ etȱ voilàȱ commentȱ lesȱ personnesȱ etȱ lesȱ chosesȱ mêléesȱ sortentȱ chacuneȱ deȱ saȱ sphèreȱ etȱ seȱ mêlent”8ȱ (“Soulsȱ areȱ mixedȱ withȱ things;ȱ thingsȱwithȱsouls.ȱLivesȱareȱmingledȱtogether,ȱandȱthisȱisȱhowȱamongȱpersonsȱ andȱ thingsȱ soȱ intermingled,ȱ eachȱ emergesȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱ sphereȱ andȱ mixesȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Giftȱ andȱ appearedȱ inȱ 1954.ȱ Cunnison’sȱ translationȱ isȱ nowȱ substitutedȱ byȱ thatȱ ofȱ W.ȱ D.ȱ Halls,ȱ whichȱwasȱpublishedȱ46ȱyearsȱlaterȱ(MarcelȱMauss,ȱTheȱGift:ȱTheȱFormȱandȱReasonȱforȱExchangeȱ inȱArchaicȱSocieties,ȱtrans.ȱW.ȱD.ȱHallsȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1990).ȱ 5ȱ

Mauss’sȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱhauȱhasȱbeenȱcriticizedȱbyȱotherȱanthropologists,ȱsuchȱasȱClaudeȱ LéviȬStrauss,ȱ Prytzȱ Johansen,ȱ andȱ Raymondȱ Firth.ȱ Forȱ aȱ presentationȱ ofȱ andȱ aȱ responseȱ toȱ theseȱanthropologists’ȱcriticisms,ȱseeȱMarshallȱSahlins,ȱStoneȱAgeȱEconomicsȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱ York:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1972),ȱ149–83.ȱ

6ȱ

MarcelȱMauss,ȱ“Essaiȱsurȱleȱdon.ȱFormeȱetȱraisonȱdeȱl’échangeȱdansȱlesȱsociétésȱarchaïques,”ȱ AnnéeȱSociologiqueȱ1.2ȱ(1923–1924):ȱ1–106;ȱrpt.ȱinȱMarcelȱMauss,ȱSociologieȱetȱanthropologieȱ(Paris:ȱ PressesȱUniversitairesȱdeȱFrance,ȱ1950),ȱ145–279;ȱhereȱ161.ȱ

7

Mauss,ȱTheȱGift,ȱ12.ȱ

8

ȱ ȱȱ

Mauss,ȱ“Essaiȱsurȱleȱdon,”ȱ173.ȱ

ȱ204ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ together”).9ȱ Giftsȱ areȱ notȱ impersonalȱ thingsȱ circulatingȱ betweenȱ individuals.ȱ Theyȱare,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱpersonalȱobjectsȱthatȱareȱpartsȱofȱtheȱgiver’sȱownȱself.ȱ Throughȱ gifts,ȱ therefore,ȱ individualsȱ exchangeȱ theirȱ ownȱ selves,ȱ andȱ inȱ soȱ doingȱ theyȱ getȱ closeȱ toȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Evidently,ȱ theȱ moreȱ thingsȱ areȱ exchangedȱ betweenȱ individuals,ȱ theȱ moreȱ theseȱ individualsȱ giveȱ ofȱ themselves,ȱ andȱ theȱ closerȱtheyȱbecome.ȱ Throughoutȱ Theȱ Giftȱ Maussȱ stressesȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ obligation,ȱ whichȱ accordingȱ toȱ himȱ isȱ threefold:ȱ toȱ give,ȱ toȱ receive,ȱ andȱ toȱ reciprocate.ȱ Theȱ bindingȱeffectȱofȱtheȱgiftȱisȱdestroyedȱwhenȱaȱrecipientȱrejectsȱaȱgiftȱorȱwhenȱheȱ orȱ sheȱfailsȱ toȱ reciprocateȱ it,ȱ becauseȱ inȱ soȱ doingȱaȱpersonȱ isȱalsoȱ rejectingȱ theȱ socialȱrelationshipȱenhancedȱandȱreinforcedȱbyȱgiftȱexchange.ȱAsȱformulatedȱbyȱ Mauss,ȱ ȱ Refuserȱ deȱ donner,ȱ négligerȱ d’inviter,ȱ commeȱ refuserȱ deȱ prendre,ȱ équivautȱ àȱ déclarerȱlaȱguerre;ȱc’estȱrefuserȱl’allianceȱetȱlaȱcommunion.ȱEnsuite,ȱonȱdonneȱparceȱ qu’onȱyȱestȱforcé,ȱparceȱqueȱleȱdonataireȱaȱuneȱsorteȱdeȱdroitȱdeȱpropriétéȱsurȱtoutȱceȱ quiȱappartientȱauȱdonateur.10ȱ ȱ

[Toȱ refuseȱ toȱ give,ȱ toȱ failȱ toȱ invite,ȱ justȱ asȱ toȱ refuseȱ toȱ accept,ȱ isȱ tantamountȱ toȱ declaringȱwar;ȱitȱisȱtoȱrejectȱtheȱbondȱofȱallianceȱandȱcommonality.ȱAlso,ȱoneȱgivesȱ becauseȱ oneȱ isȱ compelledȱ toȱ doȱ so,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ recipientȱ possessesȱ someȱ kindȱ ofȱ rightȱofȱpropertyȱoverȱanythingȱthatȱbelongsȱtoȱtheȱdonor.]11ȱ ȱ Thereȱisȱalsoȱanotherȱconsequenceȱifȱoneȱviolatesȱtheȱlawȱofȱreciprocityȱinherentȱ inȱ theȱ gift,ȱ whichȱ isȱ impliedȱ inȱ theȱ veryȱ wordȱ “gift”ȱ that,ȱ asȱ Maussȱ acutelyȱ observes,ȱhasȱaȱtwofoldȱmeaningȱinȱGermanicȱlanguages:ȱitȱmeansȱbothȱpresentȱ

andȱ poison.12ȱ Theȱ gift’sȱ positiveȱ spiritȱ remainsȱ alive,ȱ andȱ isȱ transportedȱ toȱ itsȱ bearerȱ onlyȱ ifȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ offersȱ anotherȱ giftȱ ofȱ equivalentȱ valueȱinȱreturn,ȱ if,ȱinȱ otherȱ words,ȱ heȱ orȱ sheȱ alsoȱ acceptsȱ toȱ shareȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ himȱ orȱ herselfȱ withȱ theȱ giver.ȱIfȱtheȱpersonȱfailsȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱtheȱgift’sȱspiritȱdies,ȱandȱitsȱpositiveȱpowerȱisȱ thenȱ transformedȱ intoȱ aȱ negativeȱ one;ȱ theȱ giftȱ underȱ theseȱ circumstancesȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 9ȱ

Mauss,ȱTheȱGift,ȱ20.ȱ

10ȱ

Mauss,ȱ“Essaiȱsurȱleȱdon,”ȱ162–63.ȱ

11ȱ

Mauss,ȱTheȱGift,ȱ13.ȱ

12ȱ

Marcelȱ Mauss,ȱ “Gift,ȱ Gift,”ȱ trans.ȱ Koenȱ Decoster,ȱ Theȱ Logicȱ ofȱ theȱ Gift:ȱ Towardȱ anȱ Ethicȱ ofȱ Generosity,ȱ ed.ȱ Alanȱ D.ȱ Shriftȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ London:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 1997),ȱ 28–32.ȱ (Originallyȱ publishedȱ inȱ Mélangesȱ offertsȱ àȱ M.ȱ Charlesȱ Andlerȱ parȱ sesȱ amisȱ etȱ sesȱ élèves,ȱ ed.ȱ Julienȱ Rougeȱ (Strasbourg:ȱIstra,ȱ1924);ȱreprintedȱinȱMarcelȱMauss,ȱOeuvres,ȱvol.ȱ3:ȱCohésionȱsocialeȱetȱdivisionsȱ deȱlaȱsociologie,ȱed.ȱViktorȱKarády.ȱLeȱSensȱcommunȱ(Paris:ȱÉditionsȱdeȱMinuit,ȱ1969).ȱSeeȱalsoȱ Mauss,ȱTheȱGift,ȱ61–63.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ205ȱ ȱ becomesȱaȱpoisonȱatȱtheȱrecipient’sȱhands.ȱ Inȱ Theȱ Gift,ȱ Maussȱ doesȱ notȱ analyzeȱ theȱ typesȱ ofȱ humanȱ relationshipsȱ resultingȱ fromȱ giftȱ exchange.ȱ Friendship,ȱ whichȱ isȱ seenȱ byȱ theȱ anonymousȱ Scandinavianȱ poetȱ asȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ giftȱ exchangeȱ parȱ excellence,ȱ isȱ notȱ discussedȱbyȱMauss.ȱForȱtheȱScandinavianȱpoet,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱwhoȱfocusesȱ muchȱonȱfriendship,ȱgiftsȱdoȱnotȱonlyȱcreateȱfriendships,ȱbutȱtheyȱalsoȱsustainȱ themȱ andȱ makeȱ themȱ flourishȱ well:ȱ “Thoseȱ whoȱ exchangeȱ presentsȱ withȱ oneȱ anotherȱ /ȱ Remainȱ friendsȱ theȱ longestȱ /ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ (41)ȱ /ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ifȱ youȱ haveȱ aȱ friendȱ /ȱ Inȱ whomȱyouȱhaveȱconfidenceȱ/ȱAndȱifȱyouȱwishȱtoȱgetȱgoodȱresultsȱ/ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱyouȱmustȱ exchangeȱpresentsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(44).ȱ ȱ TheȱfriendshipȱtheoryȱincorporatedȱinȱtheȱSayingsȱofȱHarȱandȱinȱMauss’sȱnotionȱ ofȱ theȱ giftȱ asȱ theȱ meansȱ ofȱ establishing,ȱ enhancing,ȱ orȱ destroyingȱ humanȱ relationsȱcanȱbeȱalsoȱdetectedȱinȱanotherȱliteraryȱmedievalȱtextȱcomingȱfromȱaȱ completelyȱ differentȱ tradition.ȱ Thisȱ isȱ aȱ Byzantineȱ Greekȱ hagiographicalȱ narrative,13ȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ comeȱ downȱ toȱ usȱ inȱ twoȱversions.14ȱTheȱoldȱversionȱisȱanonymous,ȱandȱisȱpreservedȱinȱanȱeleventhȬ centuryȱmanuscript.15ȱUnfortunately,ȱtheȱdateȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱtext’sȱproduction,ȱ asȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ mostȱ Passions,ȱ cannotȱ beȱ establishedȱ withȱ accuracy.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱEnzoȱLodi,ȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱsufficientȱevidence,ȱitȱwasȱwrittenȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ fourthȱ centuryȱ notȱ longȱ afterȱ theȱ allegedȱ dateȱ ofȱ Sergius’sȱ death,ȱ thatȱisȱOctoberȱ7,ȱ309ȱC.E.16ȱDavidȱWoodsȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱtextȱwasȱwrittenȱinȱ theȱ fifthȱ century.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Woods,ȱ theȱ anonymousȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ Passionȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 13ȱ

Mauss’sȱ giftȱ theoryȱ hasȱ provedȱ aȱ usefulȱ toolȱ atȱ medievalists’ȱ handsȱ inȱ theirȱ attemptȱ toȱ approachȱmedievalȱhagiographyȱandȱitsȱworkings.ȱSee,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱrecentȱmonographȱofȱ Emmaȱ Campbell,ȱ Theȱ Gift:ȱ Kinshipȱ andȱ Communityȱ inȱ Oldȱ Frenchȱ Hagiography,ȱ Gallicaȱ 12ȱ (Cambridge:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ2008).ȱConcerningȱByzantineȱStudies,ȱsoȱfarȱonlyȱartȱhistoriansȱhaveȱ employedȱMauss’sȱwork.ȱSeeȱAnthonyȱCutler,ȱ“SignificantȱGifts:ȱPatternsȱofȱExchangeȱinȱLateȱ Antique,ȱByzantine,ȱandȱEarlyȱIslamicȱDiplomacy,”ȱJournalȱofȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱStudiesȱ 38.1ȱ(2008):ȱ79–101;ȱandȱid.,ȱ“GiftsȱandȱGiftȱExchangeȱasȱAspectsȱofȱtheȱByzantine,ȱArab,ȱandȱ RelatedȱEconomies,”ȱDumbartonȱOaksȱPapersȱ55ȱ(2001):ȱ247–78.ȱ

14ȱ ȱ

Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theȱ Greekȱ textsȱ ofȱ theȱ Passion,ȱ thereȱ areȱ Latinȱ andȱ Easternȱ versions:ȱ Syriac,ȱ Arabic,ȱ Armenianȱ andȱ Coptic,ȱ whichȱ constituteȱ adaptationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Greekȱ original.ȱ Anȱ earlyȱ Latinȱ version,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ publishedȱ inȱ theȱ Actaȱ Sanctorum,ȱ Oct.ȱ III,ȱ 863–70,ȱ andȱ aȱ Syriacȱ versionȱ hasȱ beenȱ publishedȱ inȱ Actaȱ Martyrumȱ etȱ Sanctorumȱ vol.ȱ 3,ȱ ed.ȱ Paulusȱ Bedjanȱ (ParisȱandȱLeipzig:ȱHarrassowitz,ȱ1890–1897),ȱ283–322.ȱ

15ȱ ȱ

VanȱdenȱI.ȱGheyn,ȱ“PassioȱantiquiorȱSS.ȱSergiiȱetȱBacchiȱGraeceȱnuncȱprimumȱedita,”ȱAnalectaȱ Bollandianaȱ14ȱ(1895):ȱ373–95;ȱhereȱ373–75.ȱ

16ȱ ȱ

EnzoȱLodi,ȱEnchiridionȱEuchologicumȱFontiumȱLiturgicorum.ȱBibliothecaȱEphemeridesȱLiturgicae.ȱ Subsidia,ȱ15ȱ(Rome:ȱC.ȱL.ȱV.ȱEdizioniȱLiturgiche,ȱ1979),ȱ227–30.ȱ

ȱ206ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ usedȱ aȱ historicalȱ sourceȱ writtenȱ betweenȱ 363ȱ andȱ 425,ȱ whichȱ referredȱ toȱ theȱ sufferingsȱ ofȱ twoȱ confessorsȱ underȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Julianȱ theȱ Apostateȱ (361–363)ȱ andȱ notȱ thatȱ ofȱ Maximianusȱ (305–311),ȱ asȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ texts.17ȱ Inȱ herȱ moreȱ recentȱ study,ȱ Elizabethȱ Keyȱ Fowdenȱ disagreesȱ withȱ Woods,ȱ andȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ martyrdomȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ shouldȱ beȱ placedȱ neitherȱ inȱ theȱ reignȱofȱMaximianusȱnorȱinȱthatȱofȱJulianȱbutȱinȱtheȱlaterȱphaseȱofȱMaximinus’sȱ (310–313)ȱ persecution.18ȱ Basedȱ onȱ literary,ȱ epigraphic,ȱ andȱ archaeologicalȱ evidence,ȱFowdenȱprovidesȱaȱmoreȱaccurateȱdate;ȱsheȱdatesȱtheȱGreekȱoriginalȱ inȱtheȱmidȬfifthȱcentury.19ȱ ȱ Asȱ forȱ theȱ secondȱ Byzantineȱ Greekȱ version,ȱ itȱ isȱ anȱ adaptationȱ ofȱ theȱ olderȱ version,ȱ andȱ itȱ wasȱ composedȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ tenthȱ centuryȱ inȱ theȱ frameworkȱ ofȱ Symeonȱ Metaphrastes’sȱ hagiographicalȱ project.20ȱ Forȱ theȱ purposesȱ ofȱ theȱ presentȱ chapter,ȱ bothȱ versionsȱ willȱ beȱ used.21ȱ Itȱ hasȱ toȱ beȱ pointedȱ out,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ centralȱ inȱ bothȱ texts,ȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ versionȱ presentsȱ itȱ inȱ evenȱ greaterȱ detail.22ȱ Inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱtext,ȱforȱexample,ȱsomeȱofȱtheȱheroesȱareȱdepictedȱdiscussingȱtheirȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 17ȱ ȱ

DavidȱWoods,ȱ“TheȱEmperorȱJulianȱandȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,”ȱJournalȱofȱEarlyȱ ChristianȱStudiesȱ5.3ȱ(1997):ȱ335–67.ȱ

18ȱȱ

Elizabethȱ Keyȱ Fowden,ȱ Theȱ Barbarianȱ Plain:ȱ Saintȱ Sergiusȱ Betweenȱ Romeȱ andȱ Iran.ȱ TransformationȱofȱtheȱClassicalȱHeritage,ȱ28ȱ(Berkley,ȱLosȱAngeles,ȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱ CaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ12–17.ȱ

19ȱ ȱ

Fowden,ȱTheȱBarbarianȱPlain,ȱ26–28.ȱ

ȱȱ

Symeonȱ andȱ hisȱ teamȱ undertookȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ aȱ multivolumeȱ workȱ thatȱ wasȱ aȱ largeȱ collectionȱofȱsaints’ȱlivesȱforȱtheȱtwelveȱmonthsȱofȱtheȱyear.ȱTheȱsourcesȱforȱtheȱcollectionȱwereȱ previousȱhagiographicalȱworksȱwhichȱwereȱadaptedȱforȱSymeon’sȱnewȱaudiences.ȱForȱSymeonȱ Metaphrastesȱ andȱ hisȱ project,ȱ seeȱ Christianȱ Høgel,ȱ Symeonȱ Metaphrastes:ȱ Rewritingȱ andȱ Canonizationȱ (Copenhagen:ȱ Museumȱ Tusculanumȱ Press,ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Copenhagen,ȱ 2002).ȱ Concerningȱ howȱ Symeonȱ andȱ hisȱ teamȱ reworkȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ inȱ particular,ȱseeȱChristianȱHøgel,ȱ“TheȱReductionȱofȱSymeonȱMetaphrastes:ȱLiteraryȱAspectsȱofȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ Martyria,”ȱ Metaphrasis:ȱ Redactionsȱ andȱ Audiencesȱ inȱ Middleȱ Byzantineȱ Hagiography,ȱed.ȱChristianȱHøgel.ȱKULT,ȱ59ȱ(Oslo:ȱTheȱResearchȱCouncilȱofȱNorway,ȱ1996),ȱ7– 21;ȱhereȱ18–21.ȱ

ȱȱ

Theȱ olderȱ versionȱ isȱ editedȱ byȱ Gheyn,ȱ “Passionȱ antiquiorȱ SS.ȱ Sergiiȱ etȱ Bacchi,”ȱ 375–95.ȱ Forȱ referencesȱ toȱ thisȱ text,ȱ theȱ abbreviationȱ S&Bȱ willȱ beȱ used.ȱ Theȱ editionȱ ofȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ versionȱ usedȱ hereȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ Patrologiaȱ Graecaȱ 115,ȱ 1005–32.ȱ Thisȱ textȱ willȱ beȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ Metaphrastes.ȱ

ȱȱ

InȱhisȱworkȱonȱSymeon,ȱHøgelȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱaȱnumberȱofȱthemes,ȱsuchȱasȱloyalty,ȱlove,ȱandȱ asceticismȱareȱnormallyȱstressedȱandȱelaboratedȱonȱinȱtheȱMetaphrasticȱversionsȱmoreȱthanȱinȱ theȱoriginalȱtexts.ȱSeeȱHøgel,ȱ“TheȱReductionȱofȱSymeonȱMetaphrastes,”ȱ14–15.ȱAȱcomparativeȱ examinationȱofȱS&BȱwithȱitsȱMetaphrasticȱversionȱshowsȱthatȱfriendshipȱisȱanotherȱthemeȱthatȱ shouldȱbeȱaddedȱtoȱHøgel’sȱlist.ȱ

20

21

22

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ207ȱ ȱ relationsȱwithȱtheirȱfriends:ȱtheyȱopenlyȱexpressȱtheirȱthoughtsȱaboutȱandȱtheirȱ expectationsȱfromȱtheirȱfriendshipsȱasȱwellȱasȱtheirȱreluctanceȱorȱindifferenceȱinȱ dissolvingȱ them.ȱ Additionally,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ hasȱ theȱ tendencyȱ toȱ commentȱ onȱ theseȱdiscussions,ȱandȱonȱtheȱfriends’ȱattitudesȱtowardȱtheirȱfriends.ȱTheȱauthorȱ ofȱtheȱolderȱtext,ȱonȱtheȱcontrary,ȱpresentsȱlessȱoftenȱtheȱheroes’ȱviewsȱaboutȱtheȱ relationshipsȱ bindingȱ them.ȱ He,ȱ however,ȱ allowsȱ hisȱ audienceȱ toȱ discernȱ bothȱ theȱheroes’ȱandȱhisȱownȱperspectives,ȱwhichȱinȱmostȱcasesȱtheȱMetaphrasticȱtextȱ stressesȱandȱelaborates.ȱ ȱ ȱ Theȱ storyȱ ofȱ theȱ oldȱ text,ȱ whichȱ isȱ basicallyȱ followedȱ inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ version,ȱ readsȱ asȱ follows.ȱ Theȱ Emperorȱ Maximianus,ȱ anȱ infamousȱ Christianȱ persecutor,ȱhasȱinȱhisȱbodyguardȱtwoȱhighȱofficers,ȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱwhoȱ areȱ secretȱ Christians.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ officersȱ areȱ alsoȱ Maximianus’sȱ friends.ȱ Theȱ prosperityȱ andȱ theȱ privileges,ȱ whichȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ enjoyȱ dueȱ toȱ theirȱ friendshipȱwithȱtheȱemperor,ȱarouseȱtheȱenvyȱofȱotherȱmembersȱofȱtheȱimperialȱ bodyguard,ȱ whoȱ informȱ Maximianusȱ thatȱ hisȱ dearȱ friends,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ areȱ Christians,ȱ doȱ notȱ followȱ hisȱ lawȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ everybodyȱ shouldȱ worshipȱ theȱ officialȱ godsȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ Empireȱ (S&B,ȱ §1–3).ȱ Evenȱ thoughȱ Maximianusȱdoesȱnotȱbelieveȱwhatȱheȱhears,ȱheȱdecidesȱtoȱtestȱtheȱtwoȱmen.ȱHeȱ ordersȱ themȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ wholeȱ bodyguardȱ toȱ followȱ himȱ toȱ theȱ templeȱ ofȱ Zeusȱtoȱofferȱaȱsacrificeȱtoȱtheȱgods.ȱWhileȱinȱtheȱtemple,ȱMaximianusȱnoticesȱ thatȱ everybodyȱ isȱ presentȱ exceptȱ hisȱ officers,ȱandȱ asksȱ forȱ themȱ toȱ beȱ fetched.ȱ Theȱemperor’sȱservantsȱfindȱtheȱsaintsȱoutsideȱtheȱtempleȱprayingȱandȱsingingȱ hymnsȱagainstȱidolatry,ȱandȱtakeȱthemȱbeforeȱMaximianus,ȱwhoȱordersȱthemȱtoȱ sacrificeȱ andȱ partakeȱ inȱ theȱ ritualȱ meal.ȱ Bothȱ ofȱ themȱ refuse,ȱ andȱ startȱ defendingȱtheirȱfaith.ȱFullȱofȱangerȱMaximianusȱtakesȱawayȱfromȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱ theȱtokensȱofȱhisȱfriendship,ȱtheȱhighȱofficesȱheȱofferedȱthem;ȱheȱstripsȱthemȱofȱ theȱ symbolsȱ ofȱ theirȱ powerȱ andȱ highȱ position,ȱ theirȱ belts,ȱ cloaks,ȱ andȱ goldenȱ torquesȱ (maniakia),ȱ andȱ hasȱ themȱ dressedȱ inȱ women’sȱ garmentsȱ andȱ chainedȱ aroundȱ theirȱ necks.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ fashionȱ theyȱ areȱ paradedȱ throughȱ theȱ cityȱ toȱ theȱ palaceȱ (S&B,ȱ §4–8).ȱ Afterȱ aȱ secondȱ unsuccessfulȱ attemptȱ toȱ convinceȱ theȱ twoȱ heroesȱ toȱ renounceȱ Christianity,ȱ Maximianusȱ decidesȱ toȱ bindȱ theirȱ wholeȱ bodiesȱinȱheavyȱchainsȱandȱtoȱsendȱthemȱtoȱtheȱduxȱofȱtheȱprovinceȱofȱAugustaȱ Euphratensis,ȱAntiochus,ȱaȱfriendȱofȱSergius,ȱwhoȱhadȱacquiredȱhisȱpostȱasȱduxȱ throughȱ Sergius’sȱ recommendation.ȱ Alongȱ withȱ theȱ saints,ȱ theȱ emperorȱ sendsȱ toȱAntiochusȱaȱletterȱinȱwhichȱheȱordersȱhimȱtoȱrestoreȱthemȱtoȱtheirȱpreviousȱ status,ȱandȱtoȱofferȱthemȱmoreȱprivilegesȱthanȱtheȱonesȱtheyȱusedȱtoȱhaveȱifȱtheyȱ rejectȱtheirȱfaith.ȱIfȱtheyȱkeepȱinsistingȱonȱtheirȱChristianity,ȱAntiochusȱisȱaskedȱ toȱkillȱthemȱ(S&B,ȱ§8–11).ȱ TheȱsaintsȱtravelȱfromȱcityȱtoȱcityȱuntilȱtheyȱarriveȱinȱBarbalissus,ȱAntiochus’sȱ seat.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ saints’ȱ longȱ journey,ȱ andȱ firstȱ nightȱ inȱ Barbalissus,ȱ anȱ angelȱ

ȱ208ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ visitsȱthemȱwithȱtheȱintentionȱtoȱencourageȱthemȱforȱtheȱdifficultȱdaysȱthatȱwillȱ follow.ȱ Whenȱ theyȱ areȱ broughtȱ beforeȱ Antiochus,ȱ theȱ duxȱ triesȱ withoutȱ anyȱ successȱtoȱmakeȱthemȱsacrificeȱtoȱtheȱgods.ȱHeȱthenȱsendsȱhisȱfriendȱSergiusȱtoȱ prison,ȱ andȱ torturesȱ Bacchusȱ whoȱ diesȱ afterȱ beingȱ severelyȱ beatenȱ forȱ severalȱ hours.ȱAtȱtheȱmomentȱofȱhisȱdeathȱaȱbodilessȱvoiceȱfromȱheavenȱwelcomesȱhimȱ intoȱGod’sȱkingdom.ȱAntiochusȱordersȱhisȱcorpseȱnotȱtoȱbeȱburiedȱbutȱexposedȱ toȱ dogsȱ andȱ wildȱ animals,ȱ whichȱ protectȱ itȱ instead.ȱ Laterȱ someȱ monksȱ collectȱ theȱsaint’sȱcorpseȱandȱburyȱitȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱcavesȱwhereȱtheyȱlive.ȱTheȱnextȱnightȱ BacchusȱappearsȱtoȱaȱgrievingȱSergiusȱwhomȱheȱconsolesȱandȱencouragesȱ(S&B,ȱ §11–20).ȱ Onȱ theȱ followingȱ dayȱ Antiochusȱ goesȱ toȱ theȱ fortressȱ ofȱ Suraȱ andȱ takesȱ hisȱ friendȱ Sergiusȱ withȱ him.ȱ Referringȱ toȱ theirȱ friendship,ȱ heȱ expressesȱ hisȱ reluctanceȱtoȱpunishȱtoȱdeathȱaȱmanȱwhoȱhelpedȱhimȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱSergiusȱtellsȱ himȱthatȱheȱexpectsȱnothingȱfromȱhimȱinȱreturn,ȱandȱthatȱheȱshouldȱgoȱonȱandȱ tortureȱhisȱbody,ȱwhichȱheȱdisregards.ȱFullȱofȱangerȱAntiochusȱmakesȱSergiusȱ wearȱaȱpairȱofȱshoesȱspikedȱinsideȱwithȱlongȱnails,ȱandȱforcesȱhimȱtoȱrunȱnineȱ milesȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱducalȱchariotȱtoȱtheȱnextȱfortress,ȱTetrapyrgium.ȱWhenȱtheyȱ arriveȱinȱTetrapyrgium,ȱSergiusȱisȱsentȱtoȱprisonȱwhereȱhisȱfeetȱareȱhealedȱbyȱanȱ angel.ȱTheȱnextȱday,ȱwhenȱAntiochusȱseesȱthatȱSergiusȱisȱrestoredȱtoȱhealth,ȱheȱ accusesȱ himȱ ofȱ sorceryȱ andȱ retriesȱ toȱ persuadeȱ himȱ toȱ offerȱ sacrificeȱ toȱ theȱ Romanȱ gods.ȱ Realizingȱ thatȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ determinedȱ notȱ toȱ doȱ so,ȱ Antiochusȱ inflictsȱuponȱhimȱtheȱsameȱpunishment.ȱSergiusȱhasȱanotherȱnineȬmileȱjourneyȱ toȱ theȱ fortressȱ ofȱ Rusafaȱ thisȱ time.ȱ Atȱ Rusafaȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ givenȱ aȱ lastȱ chanceȱ toȱ repent,ȱandȱsinceȱheȱrefuses,ȱheȱisȱdecapitatedȱ(S&B,ȱ§20–28).ȱ Atȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ hisȱ deathȱ theȱ sameȱ voiceȱ heardȱ beforeȱ Bacchus’sȱ deathȱ summonsȱ himȱ toȱ heaven,ȱ andȱ aȱ chasmȱ appearsȱ whereȱ theȱ martyr’sȱ bloodȱ isȱ shedȱtoȱpreventȱtheȱpagansȱfromȱapproachingȱandȱsteppingȱonȱit.ȱSomeȱpeopleȱ buryȱ theȱ saint’sȱ corpseȱ atȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ execution.ȱ Aȱ longȱ timeȱ laterȱ Christiansȱ fromȱ Suraȱ attemptȱ toȱ stealȱ theȱ saint’sȱ relics,ȱ andȱ heȱ preventsȱ themȱ throughȱ aȱ hugeȱfireȱcomingȱfromȱhisȱgrave.ȱTheȱsoldiersȱofȱRusaphaȱwhoȱseeȱtheȱfireȱtakeȱ itȱasȱanȱenemyȱattackȱandȱarriveȱarmedȱatȱtheȱspot.ȱEventually,ȱtheȱthievesȱbuildȱ aȱ smallȱ shrineȱ toȱ theȱ saintȱ instead,ȱ andȱ leaveȱ theȱ place.ȱ Laterȱ fifteenȱ bishopsȱ gatherȱ toȱ consecrateȱ aȱ newȱ shrineȱ withinȱ theȱ fortressȱ ofȱ Rusafaȱ toȱ whichȱ theȱ martyr’sȱ remainsȱ areȱ removedȱ onȱ theȱ anniversaryȱ ofȱ hisȱ deathȱ (seventhȱ ofȱ October).ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱhagiographer,ȱupȱuntilȱhisȱtimeȱmanyȱmiraclesȱhaveȱ occurredȱinȱbothȱshrines,ȱandȱwildȱanimalsȱgatherȱatȱtheȱsaint’sȱfirstȱshrineȱonȱ hisȱfeastȬdayȱeveryȱyearȱwithoutȱharmingȱtheȱbystandersȱ(S&B,ȱ§28–30).ȱ InȱtheȱtwoȱversionsȱofȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱfriendshipȱplaysȱanȱ importantȱ roleȱ notȱ onlyȱ onȱ aȱ thematic,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ onȱ aȱ narrativeȱ level.ȱ Inȱ theseȱ texts,ȱfriendshipȱisȱnotȱjustȱaȱrecurrentȱtheme,ȱbutȱitȱbecomesȱaȱwholeȱnetworkȱ connectingȱtheȱstory’sȱprotagonists.ȱTheȱEmperorȱMaximianusȱisȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ209ȱ ȱ twoȱsaintsȱwhoȱareȱfriendsȱwithȱeachȱother.23ȱAntiochus,ȱtheȱfriendȱofȱSergius,ȱ becomesȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ hisȱ friendȱ Bacchus,ȱ andȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ anotherȱ friend,ȱ theȱ emperorȱ whoȱ dueȱ toȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Sergiusȱ offersȱ Antiochusȱ theȱ highȱ officeȱ ofȱ dux.ȱ Inȱ aȱ significantȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ textȱ weȱ alsoȱ seeȱ anotherȱ friendship,ȱ oneȱ thatȱ isȱ developedȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrsȱ andȱ God.24ȱ Asȱ theȱ followingȱ analysisȱ willȱ show,ȱ theȱ saints’ȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ isȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ friendship.ȱ ȱ Onȱaȱnarrativeȱlevel,ȱfriendshipȱdeterminesȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtheȱtextȱasȱitȱisȱtheȱ kernelȱ aroundȱ whichȱ theȱ narrativeȱ develops.ȱ Theȱ mostȱ importantȱ friendshipsȱ representedȱinȱtheȱPassion,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱanalyzedȱhere,ȱareȱtheȱfollowingȱfour:ȱ theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochus,ȱ theȱ commonȱfriendshipȱofȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱwithȱtheȱEmperorȱMaximianus,ȱandȱthatȱ betweenȱ theȱ saintsȱ andȱ God.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ mainȱ protagonists’ȱ friendshipȱ isȱ prominentlyȱ presentȱ throughoutȱ theȱ wholeȱ textȱ asȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ withȱ theȱ saints’ȱ commonȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod,ȱwhich,ȱasȱalreadyȱmentionedȱisȱstronglyȱrelatedȱ toȱ theȱ friendshipȱ theyȱ shareȱ withȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ saintsȱ andȱ theȱ emperorȱ isȱ mainlyȱ representedȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ whereasȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱSergiusȱandȱAntiochusȱisȱmoreȱfullyȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱ Passion’sȱlastȱpart.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 23ȱȱ

JohnȱBoswellȱhasȱerroneouslyȱapproachedȱtheȱcloseȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱ inȱ sexualȱ terms.ȱ Seeȱ Johnȱ Boswell,ȱ Theȱ Marriageȱ ofȱ Likeness:ȱ SameȬSexȱ Unionsȱ inȱ PreȬModernȱ Europeȱ (London:ȱ Harperȱ Collins,ȱ 1994),ȱ 146–61.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Johnȱ Boswell,ȱ Christianity,ȱ Socialȱ ToleranceȱandȱHomosexuality:ȱGayȱPeopleȱinȱWesternȱEuropeȱfromȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱtheȱChristianȱEraȱ toȱtheȱFourteenthȱCenturyȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980).ȱInȱtheȱlatterȱ book,ȱ Boswellȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ “passionate”ȱ friendshipsȱ expressedȱ inȱ theȱ writingsȱ ofȱ ecclesiasticalȱ menȱ functionȱ asȱ proofȱ ofȱ theseȱ men’sȱ homosexuality.ȱ Forȱ criticismȱ ofȱ Boswell’sȱ readingȱ ofȱ maleȱ andȱ femaleȱ friendshipsȱ depictedȱ inȱ lateȱ antiqueȱ andȱ medievalȱ textsȱ asȱ homosexualȱ relations,ȱ see,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Joanȱ Cadden’sȱ reviewȱ ofȱ Theȱ Marriageȱ ofȱ Likenessȱ inȱ Speculumȱ 71.3ȱ (1996):ȱ 693–96,ȱ andȱ Jeremyȱ Duqȱ Adams’ȱ reviewȱ ofȱ Christianity,ȱ Socialȱ Toleranceȱ andȱHomosexuality,ȱSpeculumȱ56.2ȱ(1981):ȱ350–55.ȱ

24ȱ ȱ

Evenȱthoughȱnoneȱofȱtheȱwordsȱmeaningȱfriendsȱorȱfriendshipȱareȱusedȱinȱtheȱexaminedȱtextsȱ toȱdescribeȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱandȱGod,ȱtheȱappearanceȱofȱsuchȱwordsȱ inȱotherȱPassionsȱtoȱreferȱtoȱthisȱparticularȱrelationshipȱlegitimizesȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱSergius’sȱ andȱBacchus’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱGodȱasȱfriendshipȱ(see,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱPassionȱofȱAthanasius,ȱ §6ȱseeȱreferenceȱinȱfootnoteȱ25).ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱnotionȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmartyrsȱandȱGodȱisȱaȱ toposȱinȱearlyȱChristianȱtexts.ȱForȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmartyrsȱandȱGod,ȱseeȱPeterȱBrown,ȱ TheȱMakingȱofȱLateȱAntiquity.ȱTheȱCarlȱNewellȱJacksonȱLecturesȱ(Cambridge,ȱMAȱandȱLondon:ȱ HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱ54–80;ȱDavidȱKonstan,ȱ“ProblemsȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱChristianȱ Friendship,”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Studiesȱ 4.1ȱ (1996):ȱ 87–113;ȱ id.,ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Classicalȱ World,ȱ 167–70,ȱ andȱ Andrewȱ Louth,ȱ “Hagiography,”ȱ Theȱ Cambridgeȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Earlyȱ Christianȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Francesȱ Young,ȱ Lewisȱ Awes,ȱ andȱ Andrewȱ Louthȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ358–61.ȱ

ȱ210ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ ȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱfriendshipsȱareȱdepictedȱalsoȱinȱotherȱPassions,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱPassionȱ ofȱ Athanasius,25ȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Polyeuctus,26ȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Hermylusȱ andȱ StratoniȬ cus,27ȱ andȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Eudoxus.28ȱ Inȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Athanasius,ȱ whichȱ isȱ obviouslyȱinfluencedȱbyȱtheȱpopularȱS&B,ȱitȱisȱstatedȱthatȱAthanasius,ȱaȱsecretȱ Christian,ȱ isȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ theȱ aforementionedȱ Emperorȱ Maximianusȱ andȱ ourȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus.ȱ Asȱ aȱ signȱ ofȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ towardȱ Athanasius,ȱ theȱ Emperorȱ raisesȱ himȱ toȱ theȱ highȱ rankȱ ofȱ eparch:ȱ heȱ appointsȱ himȱ eparchȱ ofȱ Egypt.ȱ Beforeȱ leavingȱ forȱ Egypt,ȱ Athanasiusȱ invitesȱ hisȱ friendsȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ sharesȱ theȱ sameȱ faithȱ toȱ sayȱ goodbye.ȱ Duringȱ Athanasius’sȱ stayȱ inȱ Egypt,ȱ someȱ enviousȱ peopleȱ whoȱ hearȱ aboutȱ hisȱ religionȱ informȱtheȱemperor.ȱAtȱtheȱbeginningȱtheȱemperorȱreactsȱwithȱdisbelief,ȱbutȱasȱ heȱ hearsȱ fromȱ moreȱ peopleȱ aboutȱ Athanasius’sȱ Christianityȱ heȱ ordersȱ theȱ proconsulȱ ofȱ Egyptȱ toȱ arrestȱ hisȱ formerȱ friendȱ andȱ toȱ killȱ himȱ unlessȱ heȱ renouncesȱ hisȱ faith.ȱ Eventually,ȱ theȱ proconsulȱ commandsȱ Athanasius’sȱ decapitation.ȱAsȱisȱobvious,ȱfriendshipȱhereȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱtheȱcomplexȱfunctionȱ itȱ hasȱ inȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ whereȱ friendlyȱ relationsȱ involveȱ moreȱpersons,ȱandȱdominateȱtheȱwholeȱnarrative.ȱAthanasius’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱ bothȱ theȱ emperorȱ andȱ theȱ twoȱ otherȱ martyrs,ȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ isȱ brieflyȱ mentioned,ȱ andȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ influenceȱ toȱ aȱ veryȱ importantȱ degreeȱ theȱ text’sȱ structure.ȱ Friendshipȱ playsȱ aȱ lessȱ significantȱ roleȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ Passionsȱ mentionedȱabove.ȱ Theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Polyeuctusȱ opensȱ withȱ theȱ friendlyȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ aȱ ChristianȱcalledȱNearchusȱandȱaȱpaganȱwhoseȱnameȱisȱPolyeuctus.ȱNearchusȱisȱ afraidȱthatȱtheȱemperor’sȱhostileȱpolicyȱagainstȱtheȱChristiansȱwillȱsetȱhimȱapartȱ fromȱhisȱfriend.ȱWhileȱrevealingȱhisȱfearsȱaboutȱtheirȱfriendshipȱtoȱPolyeuctus,ȱ NearchusȱisȱinformedȱbyȱhisȱfriendȱthatȱheȱhasȱalsoȱbecomeȱaȱfollowerȱofȱChrist.ȱ InȱorderȱtoȱmanifestȱhisȱChristianity,ȱPolyeuctusȱsmashesȱsomeȱstatuesȱofȱpaganȱ gods.ȱHeȱisȱthenȱarrestedȱandȱledȱtoȱmartyrdom.ȱJustȱbeforeȱhisȱdeath,ȱheȱturnsȱ toȱ hisȱ friendȱ Nearchus,ȱ whoȱ witnessesȱ hisȱ lastȱ moments;ȱ heȱ wishesȱ himȱ goodȱ health,ȱ andȱ asksȱ himȱ toȱ rememberȱ him.ȱ Theȱ presentationȱ ofȱ Polyeuctus’sȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 25ȱȱ

SeeȱAnalectaȱhierosolymitikesȱstachiologias,ȱvol.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱAthanasiosȱPapadopoulosȬKerameusȱ(Saintȱ Petersbourg:ȱV.ȱKirsvaoum,ȱ1898),ȱ360–67.ȱ

26ȱ ȱ

SeeȱPatrologiaȱGraecaȱ114,ȱ418–29.ȱ

27ȱ ȱ

SeeȱPatrologiaȱGraecaȱ114,ȱ553–65.ȱ

28ȱ ȱ

Seeȱ Patrologiaȱ Graecaȱ 115,ȱ 617–33.ȱ Apartȱ fromȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Athanasius,ȱ theȱ otherȱ threeȱ areȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ collection.ȱ Theȱ textsȱ referredȱ toȱ hereȱ areȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ versions.ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ211ȱ ȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Nearchusȱ takesȱ upȱ moreȱ narrativeȱ spaceȱ thanȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Athanasius’sȱ friendshipsȱ discussedȱ above.ȱ However,ȱ inȱ Polyeuctus’sȱ Passion,ȱ friendshipȱdoesȱnotȱacquireȱtheȱcomplexityȱitȱhasȱinȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱ Bacchus.ȱ Inȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱtexts,ȱtheȱPassionȱofȱHermylusȱandȱStratonicusȱ andȱtheȱPassionȱofȱ Eudoxus,ȱfriendshipȱisȱevenȱmoreȱbrieflyȱrepresented.ȱInȱtheȱPassionȱofȱHermylusȱ andȱ Stratonicus,ȱ aȱ friendlyȱ relationshipȱ isȱ introducedȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ text.ȱ Hermylus,ȱ whoȱ isȱ arrested,ȱ torturedȱ andȱ enclosedȱ inȱ prison,ȱ hasȱ byȱ coincidenceȱasȱaȱguardianȱhisȱfriendȱStratonicus.ȱSeeingȱhisȱfriend’sȱsufferings,ȱ Stratonicusȱ expressesȱ hisȱ deepȱ sorrow,ȱ whichȱ isȱ noticedȱ byȱ theȱ emperor’sȱ soldiers.ȱInȱwhatȱfollows,ȱStratonicusȱisȱarrestedȱasȱaȱChristianȱandȱtorturedȱlikeȱ hisȱfriend.ȱBothȱfriendsȱareȱkilledȱbyȱdecapitation.ȱInȱtheȱPassionȱofȱEudoxus,ȱtheȱ themeȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ appearsȱ towardȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ justȱ beforeȱ Eudoxus’sȱ execution.ȱ Likeȱ Stratonicus,ȱ Eudoxus’sȱ friendȱ Zenon,ȱ experiencesȱ deepȱ sorrowȱ forȱ theȱ violentȱ deathȱ andȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ hisȱ friend.ȱ Realizingȱ hisȱ friend’sȱsuffering,ȱEudoxusȱturnsȱtoȱZenonȱandȱasksȱhimȱtoȱstopȱcryingȱbecauseȱ Godȱwillȱsoonȱreuniteȱthem.ȱEncouragedȱbyȱhisȱfriend’sȱwords,ȱZenonȱrevealsȱ hisȱChristianȱidentity.ȱAsȱaȱresultȱheȱisȱalsoȱarrested,ȱtorturedȱandȱkilled.ȱSevenȱ daysȱafterȱhisȱdeath,ȱEudoxusȱappearsȱtoȱhisȱwifeȱinȱaȱdreamȱaskingȱherȱtoȱtellȱ anotherȱfriendȱofȱhisȱcalledȱMacariusȱtoȱgoȱtoȱtheȱpraetorium.ȱFollowingȱhisȱdeadȱ friend’sȱ order,ȱ Macariusȱ goesȱ toȱ theȱ praetoriumȱ whereȱ heȱ isȱ arrested,ȱ torturedȱ andȱ executed,ȱ likeȱ hisȱ friendȱ Eudoxusȱ andȱ Eudoxus’sȱ otherȱ friend,ȱ Zenon.ȱ Inȱ bothȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Hermylusȱ andȱ Stratonicusȱ andȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Eudoxus,ȱ friendshipȱisȱaȱratherȱsecondaryȱnarrativeȱelementȱservingȱtheȱsameȱfunction:ȱitȱ isȱtheȱmeansȱthroughȱwhichȱsomeȱofȱtheȱheroes’ȱChristianȱidentityȱisȱrevealed.ȱ Interestingly,ȱtheȱtypesȱofȱfriendshipȱappearingȱinȱallȱtheseȱfourȱPassions,ȱandȱ almostȱ allȱ theȱ elementsȱ characterizingȱ themȱ (friendshipsȱ basedȱ onȱ virtue,ȱ onȱ equality,ȱ onȱ giftȬexchange,ȱ friendshipsȱ betweenȱ dissimilarȱ personalities,ȱ friendshipsȱ betweenȱ menȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ orȱ ofȱ differentȱ religion,ȱ friendshipsȱ characterizedȱbyȱmutualityȱorȱsecrecy,ȱandȱfriendshipsȱthatȱturnȱintoȱenmities)ȱ canȱbeȱdetectedȱinȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱtheȱPassionȱthatȱcouldȱbeȱ describedȱ asȱ aȱ literaryȱ treatiseȱ onȱ friendship.ȱ However,ȱ theȱ friendshipsȱ representedȱinȱtheȱPassionȱdiscussedȱbelowȱareȱmuchȱmoreȱdevelopedȱthanȱinȱ theȱPassionsȱmentionedȱabove.ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ remainingȱ partȱ ofȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ examineȱ eachȱ ofȱ theȱ fourȱ mainȱ friendshipsȱdepictedȱinȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱtheirȱcharacteristics,ȱ theirȱimplications,ȱandȱtheirȱinterrelations.ȱSinceȱmostȱofȱtheseȱfriendshipsȱareȱ

ȱ212ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ stronglyȱassociatedȱwithȱgiftȱgiving,ȱMauss’sȱgiftȱtheoryȱappearsȱatȱfirstȱtoȱofferȱ aȱ suitableȱ theoreticalȱ frameworkȱ forȱ theȱ readingȱ ofȱ thisȱ Passionȱ throughȱ theȱ perspectiveȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱisȱtheȱthemeȱofȱtheȱpresentȱvolume.29ȱInȱaddition,ȱ asȱ alreadyȱ stated,ȱ reciprocityȱ isȱ enormouslyȱ essentialȱ inȱ Mauss’sȱ theory.ȱ Reciprocityȱisȱalsoȱvitalȱinȱaȱfriendlyȱrelationshipȱinȱwhichȱpeopleȱhaveȱmutualȱ feelingsȱofȱloveȱandȱaffection,ȱandȱtheyȱareȱgoodȱandȱpleasantȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱasȱ theȱanonymousȱScandinavianȱpoetȱalsoȱpointsȱout.ȱThroughȱMauss’sȱnotionȱofȱ theȱgiftȱasȱobligatoryȱreciprocity,ȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱformȱofȱgiftȱsharedȱ byȱtwoȱorȱmoreȱpeople.ȱTherefore,ȱinȱthisȱchapterȱfriendshipȱasȱsuchȱisȱtreatedȱ asȱaȱgiftȱorȱpoison,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱasȱaȱrelationshipȱrootedȱinȱgiftȱgiving,ȱ onȱtheȱother.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱthisȱviewȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱbasedȱonȱitsȱtreatmentȱinȱtheȱ Passionȱitself,ȱasȱtheȱfollowingȱanalysisȱwillȱshow.ȱ ȱ Mauss’sȱgiftȱtheory,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱnotȱsufficeȱforȱaȱfullerȱinterpretationȱandȱ betterȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱvariousȱandȱcomplexȱfriendshipsȱdevelopedȱamongȱ theȱ heroesȱ ofȱ theȱ examinedȱ Passionȱ whoȱ operateȱ bothȱ inȱ andȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ economicȱ spheresȱ establishedȱ throughȱ theirȱ gifts.ȱ Whenȱ aȱ hero,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ destroysȱ theȱ economicȱ circleȱ ofȱ giftȱ exchangeȱ byȱ givingȱ withoutȱ expectingȱ somethingȱ inȱ return,ȱ hisȱ behaviorȱ mightȱ beȱ approachedȱ throughȱ Jacquesȱ Derrida’sȱtheoryȱofȱtheȱgiftȱarticulatedȱinȱhisȱreadingȱofȱMauss.ȱ

ȱ Inȱ hisȱ workȱ Givenȱ Time:ȱ I.ȱ Counterfeitȱ Money,30ȱ Derridaȱ criticizesȱ Mauss’sȱ notionȱofȱreciprocation,ȱwhichȱreducesȱtheȱgiftȱtoȱaȱcommodity.ȱForȱDerrida,ȱaȱ realȱ giftȱ isȱ notȱ economic:ȱ “Pourȱ qu’ilȱ yȱ aitȱ don,ȱ ilȱ fautȱ qu’ilȱ n’yȱ aitȱ pasȱ deȱ réciprocité,ȱdeȱretour,ȱd’échange,ȱdeȱcontreȬdonȱniȱdeȱdette”31ȱ(“Forȱthereȱtoȱbeȱ aȱgift,ȱthereȱmustȱbeȱnoȱreciprocity,ȱreturn,ȱexchange,ȱcountergiftȱorȱdebt”).32ȱIfȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 29ȱ ȱ

Theȱstudyȱofȱcultureȱandȱparticularlyȱliteratureȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱrecentȱ trendȱ inȱ Byzantineȱ Studiesȱ resultingȱ fromȱ bothȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ Margaretȱ Mullettȱ andȱ herȱ wideȬ rangingȱ projectȱ “Medievalȱ Friendshipȱ Networks”ȱ sponsoredȱ byȱ theȱ Britishȱ Academyȱ (http://www.univie.ac.at/amicitia/Introduction.htmȱ (lastȱ accessedȱ onȱ Aug.ȱ 10,ȱ 2010).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ MargaretȱMullett,ȱ“Byzantium:ȱAȱFriendlyȱSociety?”ȱPastȱandȱPresentȱ118.1ȱ(1988);ȱ3–24;ȱeadem,ȱ “Friendshipȱ inȱ Byzantium:ȱ Genre,ȱ Toposȱ andȱ Network,”ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Europe,ȱ ed.ȱ Julianȱ Haseldineȱ (Stroud:ȱ Alanȱ Suttonȱ Publishing,ȱ 1999),ȱ 166–84.ȱ Forȱ otherȱ approachesȱ toȱ Byzantineȱfriendship,ȱseeȱFranzȱTinnefeld,ȱ“FreundschaftȱinȱdenȱBriefenȱdesȱMichaelȱPsellos:ȱ Theorieȱ undȱ Wirklichkeit,”ȱ Jahrbuchȱ derȱ Österreichischenȱ Byzantinistikȱ 22ȱ (1973):ȱ 151–68;ȱ andȱ Peterȱ Hatlie,ȱ “Friendshipȱ andȱ theȱ Byzantineȱ Iconoclastȱ Age,”ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Europe,ȱ 137–52.ȱ

30ȱȱ

JacquesȱDerrida,ȱGivenȱTime:ȱI.ȱCounterfeitȱMoney,ȱtrans.ȱ PeggyȱKamufȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱ Theȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 1992),ȱ originallyȱ publishedȱ asȱ Donnerȱ leȱ temps.ȱ Vol.ȱ 1.ȱ Laȱ Fausseȱmonnaieȱ(1991).ȱ

31ȱ ȱ

JacquesȱDerrida,ȱLaȱFausseȱmonnaieȱ(Paris:ȱGalilée,ȱ1991),ȱ24.ȱȱ

32ȱ ȱ

Derrida,ȱGivenȱTime,ȱ12.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ213ȱ ȱ theȱ giftȱ requiresȱ reciprocity,ȱ thenȱ itȱ isȱ impossible;ȱ itȱ ceasesȱ toȱ beȱ aȱ giftȱ andȱ itȱ becomesȱaȱproduct.ȱDerridaȱconcludesȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱpureȱgiftȱbecauseȱthereȱisȱ noȱgift,ȱwhichȱremainsȱoutsideȱtheȱeconomicȱcircleȱofȱexchange.ȱAȱdonorȱandȱaȱ recipientȱ doȱ notȱ failȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ aȱ giftȱ asȱ such,ȱ andȱ inevitablyȱ thisȱ recognitionȱrequiresȱexchange;ȱitȱcreatesȱexpectationsȱandȱobligationsȱofȱreturn.ȱ However,ȱ Derrida’sȱ notionȱ ofȱ theȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ realȱ giftȱ isȱ notȱ alwaysȱ valid.ȱ Asȱ theȱ examinationȱ ofȱ aȱ friend’sȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ giftȱ inȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ SergiusȱandȱBacchusȱwillȱshow,ȱthereȱareȱgifts,ȱwhichȱareȱnotȱseenȱasȱgifts,ȱsinceȱ theyȱareȱofferedȱwithoutȱanyȱdesireȱforȱcountergifts.ȱ ȱ Asȱ alreadyȱ implied,ȱ notȱ allȱ theȱ friendshipsȱ formedȱ amongȱ theȱ heroesȱ ofȱ theȱ examinedȱPassionȱareȱbasedȱonȱgiftȱexchange.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱSergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ whichȱ isȱ singledȱ out,ȱ andȱ functionsȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ idealȱ humanȱ friendshipȱ appears,ȱ asȱ itȱ willȱ beȱ argued,ȱ asȱ aȱ livelyȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ aȱ Christianizedȱ versionȱ ofȱ Aristotle’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ perfectȱ friendshipȱ thatȱ becomesȱ mostȱ fullyȱ articulatedȱ inȱ Booksȱ VIIIȱ andȱ IXȱ ofȱ hisȱ Nicomacheanȱ Ethics.33ȱ Inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ friendshipȱ itselfȱ becomesȱ aȱ veryȱ preciousȱ giftȱ eternallyȱreciprocatedȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱfriends.ȱ ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Aristotle,ȱ perfectȱ friendshipȱ isȱ aȱ mutuallyȱ acceptedȱ reciprocalȱ relationȱofȱgoodȱwillȱandȱaffectionȱbetweenȱtwoȱindividualsȱsharingȱanȱintenseȱ interestȱinȱandȱloveȱforȱeachȱotherȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱvirtueȱ(NEȱVIII.2,ȱ3).ȱSuchȱaȱ friendshipȱ isȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ betweenȱ virtuousȱ individualsȱ whoȱ areȱ equalȱ inȱ allȱ levels:ȱ social,ȱ financial,ȱ educational,ȱ andȱ intellectual.ȱ Perfectȱ friendsȱ haveȱ theȱ sameȱ thoughts,ȱ wishesȱ andȱ goalsȱ inȱ life;ȱ theyȱ haveȱ oneȱ mindȱ andȱ oneȱ soulȱ inȱ twoȱbodies,ȱandȱtheyȱcomeȱtoȱidentifyȱwithȱoneȱanotherȱ(NEȱVIII.5,ȱ6;ȱIX.8).ȱInȱ otherȱwords,ȱtheȱrealȱfriendȱtreatsȱhisȱfriendȱasȱhisȱownȱself,ȱandȱheȱwishesȱandȱ doesȱ whatȱ isȱ goodȱ andȱ pleasantȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ hisȱ friend.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ alwaysȱtoȱactȱforȱhisȱfriend’sȱbenefit,ȱtheȱperfectȱfriendȱspendsȱaȱlotȱofȱtimeȱwithȱ hisȱ friend.ȱ Theȱ oneȱ friendȱ stimulatesȱ theȱ otherȱ byȱ sharingȱ inȱ theȱ commonȱ aspirationȱ towardȱ wisdomȱ throughȱ whichȱ bothȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ andȱ theirȱ friendshipȱareȱperfectedȱ(NEȱIX.9,ȱ10,ȱ12).ȱ ȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱneitherȱtheȱanonymousȱauthorȱofȱS&BȱnorȱtheȱMetaphrastesȱusesȱ theȱ terminologyȱ ofȱ Mauss,ȱ Derrida,ȱ orȱ evenȱ Aristotle.ȱ Mostȱ probablyȱ theȱ twoȱ authorsȱ wereȱ notȱ familiarȱ evenȱ withȱ Aristotle’sȱ friendshipȱ theory.ȱ Itȱ seems,ȱ nevertheless,ȱ thatȱ theȱ Aristotelianȱ traditionȱ wasȱ consciouslyȱ orȱ unconsciouslyȱ incorporatedȱintoȱByzantineȱliterature.34ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱPassionȱofȱSergiusȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 33ȱ ȱ

ȱȱ

34

HenceforthȱNE.ȱ Seeȱ Margaretȱ Mullett,ȱ Theophylactȱ ofȱ Ochrid:ȱ Readingȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ aȱ Byzantineȱ Archbishop.ȱ Birminghamȱ Byzantineȱ andȱ Ottomanȱ Monographs,ȱ 2ȱ (Aldershot:ȱ Ashgateȱ Variorum,ȱ 1997),ȱ

ȱ214ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ providesȱ inȱ bothȱ ofȱ itsȱ Greekȱ versionsȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ aȱ Byzantineȱ literaryȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ classicalȱ friendshipȱ tradition,35ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ itȱ anticipatesȱ modernȱ theoriesȱ ofȱ giftȱ andȱ giftȱ relations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ ofȱ Maussȱ andȱ Derrida.ȱ Beingȱ deeplyȱ concernedȱ withȱ friendship,ȱ thisȱ Passionȱ createsȱ aȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ idealȱ friendshipȱ andȱ friendshipȱ asȱ commodity,ȱ andȱ betweenȱ trueȱgiftȱgivingȱandȱpracticalȱcommodityȱexchange.ȱ ȱ ȱ

SergiusȱandȱBacchusȱ ȱ AccordingȱtoȱAristotle’sȱfriendshipȱtheory,ȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱareȱtheȱperfectȱ friends,ȱsinceȱtheȱoneȱisȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱimageȱofȱtheȱother.ȱTheirȱfriendshipȱisȱ rootedȱonȱvirtueȱandȱequality.ȱBothȱofȱthemȱareȱyoung,ȱtalented,ȱwise,ȱvirtuous,ȱ andȱ special.ȱ Theyȱ haveȱ theȱ sameȱ profession,ȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ soldier,ȱ whichȱ theyȱ practiceȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ competence.ȱ Itȱ isȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ greatȱ abilitiesȱ asȱ soldiersȱandȱofȱtheirȱperfectȱcharacterȱthatȱtheyȱareȱgrantedȱtwoȱofȱtheȱhighestȱ officesȱ inȱ theȱ emperor’sȱ horseȱ guard:ȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ theȱ chiefȱ juniorȱ officerȱ (primiceriusȱscholaeȱgentilium),ȱwhereasȱBacchusȱisȱtheȱsecondȱofficerȱofȱtheȱsameȱ guardȱ(secundoceriusȱscholaeȱgentilium).ȱ TheȱexceptionalȱandȱextraordinaryȱqualitiesȱwhichȱonlyȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱ shareȱareȱpointedȱoutȱatȱtheȱoutset.ȱTheyȱareȱintroducedȱintoȱtheȱnarrativeȱwithȱ theȱ followingȱ words:ȱ “БΗΔνΕȱ Θ΍ΑΉΖȱ ΦΗΘνΕΉΖȱ πΔϟ·Ή΍Γ΍ȱ Κ΅΍ΈΕϲΑȱ πΎΏΣΐΔΓΑΘΉΖȱ ΗνΏ΅Ζ”ȱ (“theyȱ [were]ȱ likeȱ someȱ starsȱ shiningȱ brightlyȱ overȱ theȱ earth”)ȱ (S&B,ȱ §1).36ȱThroughȱtheȱstarȱmetaphor,ȱwhichȱisȱrepeatedȱinȱtheȱMetaphrasticȱversionȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ §I),ȱ theȱ narratorȱ describesȱ theȱ twoȱ men’sȱ perfectȱ likenessȱ inȱ perfectionȱ thatȱ brightensȱ theȱ wholeȱ earth,ȱ andȱ inevitablyȱ provokesȱ otherȱ people’sȱenvyȱ(S&B,ȱ§2;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§I).ȱ ȱ Theȱ twoȱ friendsȱ areȱ extremelyȱ close.ȱ Theyȱ neverȱ separateȱ fromȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Theyȱworkȱtogether,ȱtheyȱmeetȱtheirȱotherȱfriendsȱtogether,ȱandȱtheyȱspendȱallȱ theirȱfreeȱtimeȱwithȱeachȱother.ȱTheȱoneȱalwaysȱwishesȱtoȱbeȱinȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱ theȱ other,ȱ whichȱ isȱ pleasantȱ andȱ beneficialȱ forȱ bothȱ parties.ȱ Asȱ statedȱ inȱ theȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 112,ȱandȱMullett,ȱ“Byzantium:ȱAȱFriendlyȱSociety?”ȱ9.ȱ 35ȱȱȱ

ForȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱfriendshipȱtraditionȱbyȱearlyȱChristianȱwriters,ȱseeȱDavidȱKonstan,ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Classicalȱ World.ȱ Keyȱ Themesȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Historyȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ UniversityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ149–76;ȱRosemaryȱRader,ȱBreakingȱBoundaries:ȱMale/FemaleȱFriendshipȱinȱ EarlyȱChristianȱCommunitiesȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱToronto:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1983),ȱandȱCarolineȱWhite,ȱ ChristianȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱFourthȱCenturyȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992).ȱ

36ȱȱ

Theȱ Englishȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ oldȱ Passionȱ withȱ someȱ improvementsȱ ofȱ myȱ ownȱ isȱ fromȱ Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ375–90;ȱhereȱ376.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ215ȱ ȱ Passion,ȱ“ΜΣΏΏΓΑΘΉΖȱΦΉϠȱΎ΅ϠȱΏν·ΓΑΘΉΖȱϢΈΓϿȱΈχȱΘϟȱΎ΅ΏϲΑȱύȱΘϟȱΘΉΕΔΑϱΑ,ȱΦΏΏ’ȱύȱ Θϲȱ Ύ΅ΘΓ΍ΎΉϧΑȱ ΦΈΉΏΚΓϿΖȱ πΔϠȱ Θϲȱ ΅ЁΘϱ”ȱ (“[Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus]ȱ wereȱ alwaysȱ singingȱ andȱ saying:ȱ ‘Howȱ goodȱ itȱ isȱ andȱ howȱ pleasantȱ forȱ brothersȱ toȱ liveȱ together!’”ȱPs.ȱ132:1;ȱS&B,ȱ§2).37ȱTheȱtwoȱmenȱareȱalwaysȱdepictedȱtogetherȱinȱ theȱ narrative,ȱ unlessȱ theyȱ areȱ forcedȱ byȱ politicalȱ authoritiesȱ toȱ separate.ȱ Thisȱ occursȱ onlyȱ onceȱ towardȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ heroes’ȱ lives,ȱ whenȱ Antiochusȱ imprisonsȱSergiusȱandȱhasȱBacchusȱtorturedȱandȱkilledȱ(S&B,ȱ§18;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ §XIII).ȱ Theȱ omniscientȱ narratorȱ doesȱ notȱ mentionȱ whenȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ becameȱ friends,ȱyetȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheyȱareȱintroducedȱinȱtheȱnarrativeȱtogether,ȱandȱthatȱ theyȱareȱrepresentedȱasȱcloseȱfriendsȱspendingȱallȱtheirȱtimeȱtogetherȱgivesȱtheȱ impressionȱ thatȱ theyȱ wereȱ alwaysȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱsharingȱaȱ commonȱ lifeȱandȱ destiny,ȱtheȱoneȱfriendȱgivingȱhimselfȱtotallyȱtoȱtheȱother.ȱ Theȱtwoȱheroesȱareȱsoȱequalȱandȱsimilarȱbothȱinȱbodyȱandȱspiritȱthatȱtheȱoneȱ blendsȱwithȱtheȱother,ȱandȱtheyȱbecomeȱoneȱpersonȱorȱ“oneȱsoul”ȱinȱAristotle’sȱ terminology.ȱTheyȱspeakȱsimultaneously,ȱandȱtheyȱsayȱtheȱsameȱthings,ȱaȱfactȱ indicatingȱthatȱtheyȱhaveȱaȱcommonȱwayȱofȱtalkingȱandȱthinking.ȱItȱisȱasȱifȱtheyȱ haveȱtheȱsameȱmindȱandȱmouth:ȱ“σΜ΅ΏΏΓΑȱΓϡȱΈϾΓȱϳΐΓІ,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΔΕΓΗ΋ϾΛΓΑΘΓȱБΖȱ πΒȱ οΑϲΖȱ ΗΘϱΐ΅ΘΓΖ”ȱ (“Theȱ twoȱ chantedȱ psalmsȱ togetherȱ andȱ prayedȱ asȱ ifȱ withȱ oneȱ mouth;”ȱ S&B,ȱ §12).38ȱ Duringȱ theirȱ trialȱ ofȱ martyrdom,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theyȱ respondȱtogetherȱtoȱtheȱtorturer’sȱquestionsȱandȱstatementsȱbyȱusingȱtheȱsameȱ wordsȱinȱtheȱsameȱmanner,ȱandȱbyȱbehavingȱinȱexactlyȱtheȱsameȱways.ȱItȱisȱnotȱ onlyȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱwhoȱactȱasȱifȱtheyȱwereȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱperson,ȱbutȱalsoȱ theȱ narratorsȱ andȱ otherȱ personsȱ inȱ theȱ narrative.ȱ Theȱ emperor,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ treatsȱbothȱofȱthemȱinȱtheȱsameȱmannerȱ(S&B,ȱ§6–7;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§III–V).ȱGodȱ sendsȱ toȱ bothȱ ofȱ themȱ theȱ sameȱ dreamȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ (S&B,ȱ §12,ȱ §15;ȱ Metaphrastes,ȱ §IX,ȱ §X).ȱ Beforeȱ theirȱ deaths,ȱ asȱ alreadyȱ stated,ȱ eachȱ martyrȱ isȱ summonedȱ toȱ God’sȱ kingdomȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ divineȱ voiceȱ thatȱ addressesȱ theȱ twoȱofȱthemȱinȱaȱsimilarȱwayȱ(S&B,ȱ§19,ȱ§28;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§XIII).ȱ Theȱ strongestȱ bondȱ ofȱ theȱ twoȱ friends,ȱ whichȱ isȱ alsoȱ theȱ mostȱ essentialȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ theirȱ friendship,ȱ isȱ theirȱ commonȱ secret,ȱ thatȱ isȱ theirȱ illegalȱ faith,ȱ whichȱ setsȱ themȱ apartȱ fromȱ allȱ theirȱ otherȱ friendsȱ andȱ theȱ wholeȱ antiȬ Christianȱworldȱtheyȱliveȱin.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheirȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱfriendshipȱinȱ God;ȱitȱoriginatesȱmainlyȱinȱandȱdevelopsȱthroughȱtheirȱcommonȱloveȱforȱGod:ȱ “̒ϣȱ ·ΤΕȱ ϳΐΓΚΕϱΑΝΖȱ ΎΉΎΘ΋ΐνΑΓ΍ȱ ΉϢΖȱ ̙Ε΍ΗΘϲΑȱ ΘχΑȱ Φ·ΣΔ΋Αȱ ΉϢΎϱΘΝΖȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ΦΏΏφΏΝΑȱ ΓЁΎȱ πΛΝΕϟΊΓΑΘΓ,ȱ ΓЁȱ ΗΛνΗΉ΍ȱ ΚϾΗΉΝΖ,ȱ ΦΏΏΤȱ ΘΕϱΔΝȱ ΔϟΗΘΉΝΖȱ ΗΙΑΈΉΗΐΓϾΐΉΑΓ΍”ȱ(“BeingȱasȱoneȱinȱtheirȱloveȱforȱChrist,ȱtheyȱwereȱundividedȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 37ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ376.ȱ

38ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ382.ȱ

ȱ216ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ fromȱ eachȱ otherȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ,ȱ unitedȱ notȱ byȱ theȱ wayȱ ofȱ nature,ȱ butȱ inȱ theȱ mannerȱ ofȱ faith;”ȱS&B,ȱ§2).39ȱ SergiusȱandȱBacchusȱhaveȱtheȱsameȱgoals:ȱtoȱacquireȱChristianȱwisdomȱandȱtoȱ reachȱGod.ȱTheseȱgoals,ȱwhichȱgovernȱtheirȱwholeȱlives,ȱareȱachievedȱthroughȱ theirȱveryȱfriendship.ȱTheyȱdevoteȱtheirȱfreeȱtimeȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱandȱdiscussionȱofȱ theȱBibleȱandȱtoȱprayerȱ(S&B,ȱ§1;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§I).ȱInȱsoȱdoing,ȱtheȱoneȱfriendȱ assistsȱ andȱ motivatesȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ theȱ attainmentȱ ofȱ spirituality,ȱ andȱ inȱ hisȱ movementȱ towardȱ God.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ men’sȱ friendshipȱ thatȱ providesȱ themȱ withȱ holyȱ wisdom,ȱ andȱ makesȱ themȱ seeȱ Godȱ isȱ inȱ turnȱ perfectedȱ throughȱ eachȱ friend’sȱ selfȬimprovement,ȱ andȱ theirȱ commonȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ divine.ȱ Thisȱ friendship,ȱlikeȱtheȱperfectȱfriendshipȱdefinedȱbyȱAristotle,ȱbenefitsȱeachȱofȱtheȱ twoȱ menȱ andȱ receivesȱ benefitsȱ itselfȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ theȱ virtuesȱ theȱ twoȱ friendsȱ acquireȱthroughȱtheirȱsharedȱlife.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱ theȱ continuousȱ improvementȱ ofȱ bothȱ theȱ twoȱ friendsȱ andȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ isȱ presentedȱinȱChristianȱterms.ȱTheirȱfriendshipȱisȱtheȱperfectȱunionȱandȱlikenessȱ ofȱtwoȱindividualsȱwhoseȱbeingȱisȱtheȱimageȱofȱGod.ȱ Inȱ general,ȱ theȱ Christianȱ friendshipȱ sharedȱ byȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ canȱ beȱ describedȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfamousȱGreekȱChurchȱFatherȱGregoryȱ ofȱNazianzusȱ(329/30–390)ȱportraysȱhisȱownȱfriendshipȱwithȱanotherȱcelebratedȱ ChurchȱFather,ȱBasilȱtheȱGreatȱ(329–379)ȱinȱoneȱofȱhisȱautobiographicalȱpoems.ȱ TheirȱrelationshipȱcanȱbeȱalsoȱseenȱasȱaȱChristianizedȱversionȱofȱtheȱAristotelianȱ friendship:ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

̖ΓІΘΓΑȱΏϱ·ΓΙȱΘΉȱΎ΅ϠȱΗΘν·΋ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΗΎΉΐΐΣΘΝΑȱ ΎΓ΍ΑΝΑϲΑȱΉϨΛΓΑȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ ΘΤȱΔΣΑΘ΅ȱΐξΑȱΈχȱΎΓ΍ΑΣ,ȱΎ΅ϠȱΜΙΛχȱΐϟ΅ȱ ΈΙΓϧΑȱΈΉϱΙΗ΅ȱΗΝΐΣΘΝΑȱΈ΍ΣΗΘ΅Η΍Α.ȱ ϶ȱΈ’ȱΉϢΖȱςΑȱψΐκΖȱΈ΍΅ΚΉΕϱΑΘΝΖȱό·΅·ΉΑ,ȱ ΘΓІΘ’ȱώΑȉȱΌΉϱΖȱΘΉȱΎ΅ϠȱΔϱΌΓΖȱΘЗΑȱΎΕΉ΍ΗΗϱΑΝΑ.ȱ πΒȱΓЈȱ·ΤΕȱΉϢΖȱΘΓΗΓІΘΓȱΌΣΕΗΓΙΖȱόΏΌΓΐΉΑ,ȱ ГΗΘ’ȱπΎΏ΅ΏϛΗ΅΍ȱΎ΅ϠȱΘΤȱΎ΅ΕΈϟ΅ΖȱΆΣΌ΋,ȱ ΔΏνΓΑȱΗΙΑΉΗΚϟ··΋ΐΉΑȱΦΏΏφΏΓ΍ΖȱΔϱΌΝ.ȱ Θϲȱ·ΤΕȱϳΐϱ·ΑΝΐΓΑȱΔ΍ΗΘϲΑȱΉϢΖȱΗΙΐΚΙϬ΅Α.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

[WithȱhimȱIȱsharedȱmyȱstudies,ȱmyȱlodgingsȱandȱ myȱthoughtsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Allȱthingsȱweȱheldȱinȱcommonȱandȱoneȱsoulȱ unitedȱourȱtwoȱseparateȱbodies.ȱ Whatȱparticularlyȱbroughtȱusȱtogetherȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 39ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ376.ȱ

(DeȱVitaȱSua,ȱ226–36)ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ217ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

wasȱthis:ȱGodȱandȱaȱdesireȱforȱhigherȱthings.ȱ Forȱfromȱtheȱmomentȱweȱachievedȱsuchȱaȱdegreeȱofȱconfidenceȱ thatȱweȱdivulgedȱtoȱeachȱotherȱevenȱtheȱdeepȱsecretsȱofȱourȱhearts,ȱ weȱwereȱboundȱtogetherȱallȱtheȱmoreȱcloselyȱbyȱourȱlonging,ȱ forȱsharedȱidealsȱareȱaȱstrongȱincentiveȱtoȱcloseȱfriendship.]40ȱ

ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ becomesȱ evenȱ strongerȱ andȱ closerȱ toȱ perfectionȱ asȱ theyȱ moveȱ toȱ theirȱ completeȱ unionȱ withȱ theȱ divineȱ throughȱ theȱ torturesȱ andȱ theȱ violentȱ deathȱ theyȱ sufferȱ forȱ God’sȱ love.ȱ Theirȱ commonȱ torturesȱbringȱtheȱcloseȱfriendsȱevenȱcloser,ȱandȱmanifestȱtheȱgreatȱpowerȱandȱ theȱ divineȱsourceȱ ofȱ theirȱfriendship.ȱ Theȱ sufferingsȱ ofȱ theȱ oneȱfriendȱ supportȱ andȱ strengthenȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ painsȱ inflictedȱ simultaneously.ȱ Theirȱ friendshipȱ thusȱ makesȱ theirȱ cruelȱ andȱ disgracefulȱ torturesȱ easier,ȱ andȱ evenȱ pleasant:ȱ “̇΍ϲȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ЀΔϲȱ Θϛȱ ΦΏϾΗΉ΍ȱ Θϛȱ Η΍Έ΋Εκȱ Ά΅ϟΑΓΑΘΉΖȱ πΎΉϧΑΓ΍ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ ΈΉΗΐΓϧΖ,ȱ ΦΏϾΔΝΖȱ ΐΉΌ’ȱ ψΈΓΑϛΖȱ σΜ΅ΏΏΓΑȉȱ ̳Αȱ Θϛȱ ϳΈЗȱ ΘЗΑȱ ΐ΅ΕΘΙΕϟΝΑȱ ΗΓΙȱ πΘνΕΚΌ΋ΐΉΑ,ȱ ̍ϾΕ΍Ή,ȱ БΖȱ πΔϠȱ Δ΅ΑΘϠȱ ΔΏΓϾΘΝ”ȱ (“Whileȱ theyȱ wereȱ walkingȱ [bound]ȱ withȱ ironȱ chainsȱ andȱ fettersȱ theyȱ chantedȱ undisturbedȱ andȱ withȱ pleasure:ȱ ‘inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ martyrdom,ȱ weȱ foundȱ moreȱ joy,ȱ ourȱ Lord,ȱ thanȱ inȱ anyȱrichness’”)ȱ(Ps.ȱ118.14;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§IX;ȱS&B,ȱ§12).ȱ Theȱ twoȱ friends’ȱ superhumanȱ courageȱ beforeȱ horrendousȱ pain,ȱ andȱ theirȱ wise,ȱ heroic,ȱandȱ identicalȱ responses—oftenȱ includingȱ excerptsȱ fromȱ theȱ Holyȱ Scriptures—toȱ theȱ torturers’ȱ statementsȱ andȱ questionsȱ proveȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ unitedȱwithȱGod,ȱwhoȱspeaksȱthroughȱthem.ȱInȱoneȱofȱtheirȱprayers,ȱtheȱsaintsȱ sayȱinȱoneȱvoiceȱtheȱfollowing:ȱ ȱ ̕Ͼ,ȱ̍ϾΕ΍Ή,ȱπΑΉΘΉϟΏΝȱψΐϧΑȱΏν·ΝΑȉȱ̳ΔϠȱψ·ΉΐϱΑ΅ΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΆ΅Η΍ΏΉϧΖȱΦΛΌφΗΉΗΌΉȱρΑΉΎΉΑȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

πΐΓІ,ȱ ϵΘ΅Αȱ Έξȱ Δ΅Ε΅ΈЏΗΝΗ΍Αȱ ЀΐκΖ,ȱ ΐχȱ ΐΉΕ΍ΐΑφΗ΋ΘΉȱ ΔЗΖȱ ύȱ Θϟȱ Ώ΅ΏφΗ΋ΘΉ,ȱ ΈΓΌφΗΉΘ΅΍ȱ ·ΤΕȱ ЀΐϧΑȱ πΑȱ πΎΉϟΑ΋ȱ Θϛȱ ГΕ΅ȱ Θϟȱ Ώ΅ΏφΗ΋ΘΉ,ȱ ΓЁȱ ·ΤΕȱ ЀΐΉϧΖȱ πΗΘξȱ Γϡȱ Ώ΅ΏΓІΑΘΉΖ,ȱΦΏΏΤȱΘϲȱΔΑΉІΐ΅ȱΘΓІȱΔ΅ΘΕϲΖȱЀΐЗΑȱΘϲȱΏ΅ΏΓІΑȱπΑȱЀΐϧΑ.ȱ [You,ȱ Lord,ȱ commandedȱ us,ȱ saying,ȱ “Youȱ willȱ beȱ broughtȱ beforeȱ governorsȱ andȱ kings,ȱforȱmyȱsake.ȱWhenȱyouȱareȱdelivered,ȱdoȱnotȱworryȱaboutȱhowȱ[toȱspeak]ȱandȱ whatȱtoȱsay,ȱatȱthatȱtimeȱtheȱwordsȱwillȱbeȱgivenȱtoȱyou;ȱforȱitȱisȱnotȱyouȱwhoȱwillȱbeȱ speaking,ȱbutȱtheȱSpiritȱofȱyourȱFatherȱspeakingȱinȱyou.”]41ȱȱ (Matt.ȱ10:ȱ18–20;ȱS&B,ȱ§7)ȱ

ȱ Thusȱ theȱ twoȱ friends’ȱ representationȱ throughoutȱ theȱ narrativeȱ asȱ oneȱ personȱ pointsȱtoȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtheirȱonenessȱwithȱChrist.ȱTheȱunityȱofȱtheȱtwoȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 40ȱȱ

Gregoryȱ ofȱ Nazianzus,ȱ Autobiographicalȱ Poems,ȱ ed.ȱ andȱ trans.ȱ Carolineȱ White.ȱ Cambridgeȱ MedievalȱClassics,ȱ6ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ27.ȱ

41ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ379.ȱ

ȱ218ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ perfectȱfriendsȱinȱAristotelianȱtheoryȱisȱinȱChristianȱcontextsȱtranslatedȱintoȱtheȱ friends’ȱ simultaneousȱ unificationȱ withȱ eachȱ otherȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ divine.ȱ Christianȱ friends,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ areȱ membersȱ ofȱ oneȱ andȱ theȱ sameȱbody,ȱtheȱbodyȱofȱChrist.ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ oneȱ friendȱ findsȱ theȱ otherȱ inȱ aȱ unionȱ withȱ theȱ divineȱisȱeternal;ȱitȱsurvivesȱdeathȱandȱlivesȱforeverȱinȱheavenȱwhereȱitsȱdivineȱ statusȱisȱfullyȱrealized,ȱsinceȱinȱafterlifeȱtheȱdivineȱmysteriesȱareȱfullyȱrevealedȱ toȱGod’sȱsaints.ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱultimateȱandȱ everlastingȱunionȱofȱtheȱtwoȱfriendsȱinȱheavenȱwhereȱtheyȱwillȱbeȱinȱanȱabsoluteȱ friendshipȱ inȱ andȱ withȱ Godȱ isȱ forȱ aȱ whileȱ postponed.ȱ Theȱ twoȱ friends,ȱ whoȱ spendȱtheirȱlivesȱtogether,ȱareȱforcefullyȱseparatedȱatȱdeath.ȱInȱS&B,ȱBacchus’sȱ deathȱcausesȱSergiusȱgreatȱdistressȱbecauseȱheȱthinksȱthatȱheȱisȱleftȱalone42:ȱ ȱ ȱ ͂ΑȱΈξȱϳȱΐ΅ΎΣΕ΍ΓΖȱ̕νΕ·΍ΓΖȱΗΚϱΈΕ΅ȱΏΙΔΓϾΐΉΑΓΖȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΈ΋ΐΓΑЗΑ,ȱΦΔΓΏΙΚΌΉϠΖȱΘΓІȱ

ȱ ȱ

ΐ΅Ύ΅ΕϟΓΙȱ ̅ΣΎΛΓΙ,ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Έ΅ΎΕϾΝΑȱ σΏΉ·ΉΑȉȱ ̒ϥΐΓ΍,ȱ ΦΈΉΏΚξȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΗΙΗΘΕ΅Θ΍ЗΘΣȱ ΐΓΙȱ ̅ΣΎΛΉ,ȱ ΓЁΎνΘ΍ȱ ΜΣΏΏΓΐΉΑȱ Ών·ΓΑΘΉΖȉȱ ϢΈΓϿȱ Έχȱ Θϟȱ Ύ΅ΏϲΑȱ ύȱ Θϟȱ ΘΉΕΔΑϱΑ,ȱ ΦΏΏ’ȱ ύȱ Θϲȱ Ύ΅ΘΓ΍ΎΉϧΑȱ ΦΈΉΏΚΓϿΖȱ πΔϠȱ Θϲȱ ΅ЁΘϱ.ȱ ̝ΔΉΊΉϾΛΌ΋Ζȱ ·ΣΕȱ ΐΓΙȱ ΦΑ΅ΆΤΖȱ ΉϢΖȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ ΓЁΕ΅ΑΓϾΖ,ȱΎ΅Θ΅ΏΉ΍ΔЏΑȱΐΉȱπΔϠȱΘϛΖȱ·ϛΖȱΐϱΑΓΑȱΐΉΐΓΑΝΐνΑΓΑ,ȱΦΔ΅Ε΅ΐϾΌ΋ΘΓΑ.ȱ [TheȱblessedȱSergiusȱwasȱdeeplyȱdepressedȱandȱdistressedȱforȱtheȱblessedȱBacchusȱ hadȱleftȱhim.ȱHeȱwasȱsayingȱinȱtears:ȱ“Woe’sȱme,ȱnoȱlonger,ȱmyȱbrotherȱandȱfellowȱ soldier,ȱ willȱ weȱ chantȱ together:ȱ ‘Howȱ goodȱ itȱ isȱ andȱ howȱ pleasantȱ forȱ brothersȱ toȱ liveȱ together!’ȱ (Ps.ȱ 132:1).ȱ Forȱ youȱ haveȱ beenȱ unyokedȱ fromȱ meȱ andȱ goneȱ upȱ toȱ heavenȱleavingȱmeȱaloneȱonȱearth,ȱwithoutȱconsolation.”]43ȱ(S&B,ȱ§19)ȱ

ȱ VeryȱsoonȱSergiusȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱwrong;ȱhisȱfriendȱhasȱneverȱleftȱhim,ȱheȱisȱandȱ heȱwillȱalwaysȱbeȱwithȱhim:ȱ ȱ ȱ

̳Αȱ Θϛȱ πΔ΍ΓϾΗ΋ȱ ΑΙΎΘϟȱ ΦΌΕЗΓΑȱ Δ΅ΕϟΗΘ΅Θ΅΍ȱ ΅ЁΘЗȱ ϳȱ ΐ΅ΎΣΕ΍ΓΖȱ ̅ΣΎΛΓΖȱ Ώ΅ΐΔΕϲΑȱ σΛΝΑȱ Θϲȱ ΔΕϱΗΝΔΓΑȱ БΗΉϠȱ Φ··νΏΓΙ,ȱ ΔΉΕ΍ΆΉΆΏ΋ΐνΑΓΑȱ ΘЗȱ ΗΛφΐ΅Θ΍ȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΗΘΕ΅ΘΉϟ΅Ζ,ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ών·Ή΍ȱ ΅ЁΘЗȉȱ ̖ϟȱ ΏΙΔϛΗ΅΍ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΦΈ΅΍ΐΓΑΉϧΖ,ȱ ΦΈΉΏΚνȉȱ ΉϢȱ ·ΤΕȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘЗȱ ΗЏΐ΅Θ΍ȱ ΦΔΉΏΉϟΚΌ΋Αȱ ΗΓΙ,ȱ ΦΏΏΤȱ ΘЗȱ ΘϛΖȱ ϳΐΓΏΓ·ϟ΅Ζȱ ΗΙΑΈνΗΐΝ,ȱ ΗϿΑȱ ΗΓϠȱ ΉϢΐϠȱ ΜΣΏΏΝΑȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ών·ΝΑȉȱ͟ΈϲΑȱπΑΘΓΏЗΑȱΗΓΙȱσΈΕ΅ΐΓΑ,ȱϵΘ΅ΑȱπΔΏΣΘΙΑ΅ΖȱΘχΑȱΎ΅ΕΈϟ΅ΑȱΐΓΙȉȱΗΔΉІΗΓΑȱ ΓЇΑȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅ЁΘϱΖ,ȱ ΦΈΉΏΚν,ȱ Έ΍Τȱ ΘϛΖȱ Ύ΅ΏϛΖȱ Ύ΅΍ȱ ΘΉΏΉϟ΅Ζȱ ϳΐΓΏΓ·ϟ΅Ζȱ Ύ΅Θ΅Έ΍ЗΒ΅΍ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ύ΅Θ΅Ώ΅ΆΉϧΑȱ ΐΉ,ȱ ΘϲΑȱ ΈΕϱΐΓΑȱ ΘΉΏνΗ΅Ζȉȱ ΗϿΑȱ ΗΓϠȱ ·ΤΕȱ ΦΔϱΎΉ΍Θ΅ϟȱ ΐΓ΍ȱ ϳȱ ΘϛΖȱ Έ΍Ύ΅΍ΓΗϾΑ΋ΖȱΗΘνΚ΅ΑΓΖ.ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 42ȱȱ

Inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ version,ȱ Sergiusȱ doesȱ notȱ seeȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ Bacchusȱ asȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theirȱ friendship.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ heȱ isȱ sadȱ becauseȱ heȱ willȱ beȱ spendingȱ someȱ timeȱ withoutȱ hisȱ belovedȱ friend,ȱ butȱ whenȱ heȱ thinksȱ aboutȱ hisȱ reunificationȱ withȱ Bacchusȱ inȱ heavenȱ heȱ isȱ filledȱ withȱ pleasureȱ(Metaphrastes,ȱ§XV).ȱ

43ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ385.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ219ȱ ȱ ȱ

[Theȱ sameȱ nightȱ theȱ blessedȱ Bacchusȱ suddenlyȱ appearedȱ toȱ himȱ withȱ aȱ faceȱ asȱ radiantȱasȱanȱangel’s,ȱwearingȱanȱofficer’sȱuniform,ȱandȱsaidȱtoȱhim:ȱ“Whyȱareȱyouȱ sadȱandȱdistressed,ȱbrother?ȱIfȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱtakenȱfromȱyouȱinȱbody,ȱIȱamȱstillȱwithȱ youȱinȱtheȱbondȱofȱconfessionȱofȱtheȱfaith,ȱandȱIȱchantȱandȱsayȱwithȱyou:ȱ‘Iȱhadȱrunȱ theȱ pathȱ ofȱ yourȱ commandments,ȱ whenȱ youȱ enlargedȱ myȱ heart.’ȱ Hurryȱ then,ȱ yourselfȱbrother,ȱthroughȱbeautifulȱandȱperfectȱconfessionȱofȱtheȱfaithȱtoȱpursueȱandȱ obtainȱmeȱasȱsoonȱasȱyouȱfinishȱtheȱrace.ȱForȱtheȱcrownȱofȱjusticeȱwillȱnotȱbeȱgivenȱtoȱ meȱwithoutȱyou.”]44ȱ(S&B,ȱ§20)ȱ

ȱ Sergius’sȱdeepȱdistressȱgraphicallyȱexpressedȱinȱS&Bȱisȱtheȱhumanȱreactionȱofȱ someoneȱ losingȱ hisȱ belovedȱ friendȱ withȱ whomȱ heȱ usedȱ toȱ haveȱ anȱ intenseȱ lifelongȱ relationship.ȱ Sergius’sȱ differentȱ approachȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ eventȱ inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ versionȱ revealsȱ anȱ attemptȱ onȱ theȱ hagiographer’sȱ partȱ toȱ depictȱ hisȱ heroȱ asȱ lessȱ human,ȱ aȱ representationȱ thatȱ liesȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ portrayalsȱofȱmostȱByzantineȱsaints.ȱWhileȱmourningȱforȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱfriendȱ andȱforȱhisȱownȱsolitude,ȱSergiusȱis,ȱwithoutȱrealizingȱit,ȱbehavingȱasȱifȱBacchusȱ wereȱ withȱ him:ȱ heȱ talksȱ toȱ Bacchus;ȱ hisȱ wordsȱ expressȱ hisȱ feelingsȱ andȱ complaints,ȱ andȱ heȱ chantsȱ theȱ versesȱ theyȱ usedȱ toȱ singȱ whenȱ theyȱ wereȱ together.ȱ ȱ Bacchus’sȱepiphany,ȱwhichȱtakesȱplaceȱaȱfewȱhoursȱlater,ȱcomesȱtoȱshowȱthatȱheȱ wasȱindeedȱpresentȱwhenȱSergiusȱwasȱtalkingȱtoȱhim.ȱBacchusȱrespondsȱtoȱhisȱ friend’sȱ complaints,ȱ andȱ asksȱ himȱ toȱ stopȱ mourning,ȱ sinceȱ heȱ hasȱ neverȱ abandonedȱ him.ȱ Theȱ truthȱ ofȱ Bacchus’sȱ wordsȱ isȱ reinforcedȱ byȱ hisȱ veryȱ appearance,ȱwhichȱisȱveryȱfamiliarȱtoȱSergius:ȱheȱwearsȱtheȱsoldier’sȱattire,ȱtheȱ uniformȱ ofȱ theirȱ commonȱ occupation,ȱ whichȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ symbolȱ ofȱ theirȱ commonȱ life,ȱ andȱ friendship.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ newȱ elementȱ inȱ Bacchus’sȱ lookȱ isȱ hisȱ radiatingȱfaceȱthatȱpointsȱtoȱhisȱnewȱlifeȱasȱaȱsaint,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱsoonȱsharedȱbyȱ bothȱmen.ȱBacchus’sȱlastȱwordsȱexhortȱSergiusȱtoȱmartyrdomȱthroughȱwhichȱheȱ willȱbeȱwhollyȱunitedȱwithȱBacchusȱinȱholiness.ȱAsȱBacchusȱpointsȱout,ȱandȱthisȱ isȱ aȱ furtherȱ realizationȱ ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ proverbȱ repeatedȱ byȱ Aristotle,ȱ “whatȱ friendsȱ haveȱ isȱ common”ȱ (NEȱ IX.8),ȱ theȱ crownȱ ofȱ holinessȱ isȱ preparedȱ forȱ theȱ twoȱofȱthem.ȱBacchus’sȱwords,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱwholeȱnarrative,ȱsuggestȱthatȱitȱisȱ throughȱ theirȱ friendshipȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ areȱ sanctified.ȱ Itȱ isȱ ratherȱ theirȱ friendshipȱinȱGodȱthanȱtheirȱresistanceȱtoȱtheirȱtorturersȱthatȱallowsȱSergiusȱandȱ Bacchusȱ toȱ achieveȱ holiness.ȱ Beingȱ andȱ beingȱ treatedȱ asȱ oneȱ soul,ȱ theȱ twoȱ friendsȱareȱexpectedȱtoȱreceiveȱoneȱandȱtheȱsameȱcrownȱofȱholiness.ȱ Evenȱthoughȱtheȱtwoȱsaintsȱshareȱtheȱsameȱlifeȱandȱafterlife,ȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱshareȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 44ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ385.ȱ

ȱ220ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ theȱ sameȱ tomb.ȱ Theȱ deadȱ bodyȱ ofȱ Bacchusȱ isȱ buriedȱ inȱ aȱ monk’sȱ caveȱ whoseȱ exactȱlocationȱisȱnotȱspecifiedȱwhileȱthatȱofȱSergiusȱisȱburiedȱinȱRusafa.ȱAtȱsomeȱ pointȱaȱsmallȱshrineȱisȱbuiltȱatȱtheȱplaceȱofȱtheȱtomb.ȱSometimeȱlaterȱhisȱrelicsȱ areȱtransferredȱtoȱaȱnewȱshrineȱtakingȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱgreatȱchurchȱerectedȱwithinȱ theȱ fortressȱ ofȱ Rusafa.ȱ Inȱ lateȱ antiquity,ȱ thisȱ churchȱ developsȱ intoȱ aȱ veryȱ importantȱ pilgrimageȱ placeȱ whileȱ Sergiusȱ becomesȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ popularȱ saintsȱofȱtheȱArabianȱandȱSyrianȱChristians.45ȱ Theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrs’ȱ corpsesȱ wereȱ buriedȱ inȱ differentȱ locationsȱ resultedȱ inȱ theȱ separateȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theirȱ cultȱ inȱ someȱ traditions.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Arabicȱ tradition,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ separateȱ feastȱ days.ȱ Evenȱ theȱ greatȱ churchȱthatȱtheȱByzantineȱemperorȱJustinianȱ(527–565)ȱbuiltȱinȱConstantinopleȱ wasȱ originallyȱ devotedȱ toȱ Sergius.ȱ Itȱ comesȱ muchȱ laterȱ thatȱ theȱ churchȱ isȱ ascribedȱ toȱ bothȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus.46ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ theȱ eventualȱ dedicationȱ ofȱ theȱ churchȱ toȱ bothȱ saints,47ȱ theȱ erectionȱ ofȱ laterȱ churches,ȱ bothȱ Byzantineȱ andȱ postȬByzantineȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrs,ȱ andȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theyȱ areȱ commemoratedȱ togetherȱ inȱ theȱ Orthodoxȱ Greekȱ andȱ Latinȱ calendarsȱ indicateȱ thatȱinȱmostȱcasesȱtheȱmartyrs’ȱcultȱremainedȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheirȱlegendȱaccordingȱ toȱwhichȱtheyȱrarelyȱseparatedȱfromȱeachȱother.ȱ ȱ ȱ

SergiusȱandȱAntiochusȱ ȱ Atȱ theȱ antipodeȱ ofȱ Sergius’sȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Bacchusȱ liesȱ theȱ friendlyȱ relationshipȱofȱSergiusȱwithȱAntiochus.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱmenȱ isȱtheȱresultȱofȱaȱserviceȱSergiusȱoffersȱtoȱAntiochus,ȱwhichȱprovesȱparticularlyȱ importantȱ toȱ theȱ latter,ȱ sinceȱ throughȱ Sergius’sȱ helpȱ Antiochusȱ becomesȱ dux,ȱ whichȱ isȱ bothȱ theȱ highestȱ civilȱ officialȱ inȱ theȱ Romanȱ Empireȱ andȱ theȱ commanderȬinȬchiefȱ ofȱ theȱ legionsȱ garrisonedȱ withinȱ theȱ Romanȱ province.48ȱ Thusȱ whatȱ bindsȱ Antiochusȱ withȱ Sergiusȱ areȱ theȱ significantȱ thingsȱ thatȱ heȱ acquiresȱ throughȱ him;ȱ theȱ duxȱ owesȱ toȱ Sergiusȱ hisȱ extremelyȱ importantȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 45ȱȱ

SeeȱFowden,ȱTheȱBarbarianȱPlain.ȱ

46ȱȱ

SeeȱFowden,ȱTheȱBarbarianȱPlain,ȱ130–33.ȱ

47ȱȱ

Forȱtheȱchurch’sȱarchitecture,ȱseeȱCirilȱMango,ȱ“TheȱChurchȱofȱSaintsȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱatȱ Constantinopleȱ andȱ theȱ Allegedȱ Traditionȱ ofȱ Octagonalȱ Palatineȱ Churches,”ȱ Jahrbuchȱ derȱ Österreichischenȱ Byzantinistikȱ 21ȱ (1972):ȱ 189–93,ȱ andȱ id.,ȱ “Theȱ Churchȱ ofȱ Saintsȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ BacchusȱOnceȱAgain,”ȱByzantinischeȱZeitschriftȱ68ȱ(1975):ȱ385–92.ȱ

48ȱȱ

ForȱtheȱRomanȱofficeȱofȱdux,ȱseeȱTheȱOxfordȱDictionaryȱofȱByzantium,ȱed.ȱAlexanderȱKazhdanȱetȱ al.ȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ659.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ221ȱ ȱ position,ȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ hisȱ Majesty,ȱ theȱ Romanȱ emperor,ȱ andȱ hisȱ subsequentȱpoliticalȱandȱsocialȱpower.ȱ Apartȱ fromȱ theirȱ commonȱ friendȱ andȱ master,ȱ theȱ emperor,ȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochusȱhaveȱnothingȱelseȱinȱcommon.ȱSergiusȱisȱaȱChristianȱwhileȱAntiochusȱ isȱ aȱ pagan.ȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ aȱ virtuousȱ man.ȱ Antiochusȱ isȱ aȱ badȱ manȱ dominatedȱ byȱ humanȱpassions:ȱheȱisȱselfȬcentered,ȱheȱlosesȱhisȱtemperȱeasily,ȱheȱisȱrevengeful,ȱ heȱ isȱ aȱ hypocrite,ȱ andȱ heȱ provesȱ ungratefulȱ towardȱ hisȱ benefactor.ȱ Heȱ desiresȱ worldlyȱ gloryȱ andȱ powerȱ whileȱ Sergiusȱ hasȱ rejectedȱ allȱ these,ȱ andȱ aspiresȱ toȱ divineȱglory.ȱSergiusȱisȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱwhoȱlovesȱhisȱfriendsȱunconditionally,ȱandȱ whoȱ doesȱ andȱ wishesȱ goodsȱ toȱ themȱ forȱ theirȱ ownȱ benefit.ȱ Antiochus,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ hasȱ noȱ senseȱ ofȱ realȱ friendship.ȱ Hisȱ friendshipsȱ areȱ routedȱ inȱ hisȱ personalȱ interests.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Aristotle’sȱ friendshipȱ theory,ȱ Antiochus’sȱ relationshipsȱbelongȱtoȱanȱinferiorȱtypeȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱisȱaȱrelationshipȱbasedȱ onȱpersonalȱutilityȱ(NE,ȱVIII.4).ȱ AntiochusȱseesȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱSergiusȱasȱanȱexchangeȱrelationship,ȱandȱ thisȱisȱaȱpointȱwhereȱMauss’sȱnotionȱofȱtheȱgiftȱisȱapplicable.ȱAntiochusȱacceptsȱ forȱ hisȱ ownȱ benefitȱ Sergius’sȱ service,ȱ butȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ heȱ feelsȱ obligedȱ toȱ offerȱ somethingȱ inȱ return.ȱ Whenȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ areȱ broughtȱ inȱ chainsȱ beforeȱhim,ȱAntiochus,ȱremindedȱofȱhisȱobligationȱtowardȱSergius,ȱseesȱthisȱasȱaȱ goodȱ opportunityȱ toȱ repayȱ him.ȱ Heȱ saysȱ toȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrs:ȱ “ΎΦ·Аȱ ΚΉ΍ΗΣΐΉΑΓΖȱЀΐЗΑ,ȱΗΙΐΆΓΙΏΉϾΝȱЀΐϧΑȱΐΉΐΑ΋ΐνΑΓΖȱΚ΍Ώϟ΅ΖȱΘΉȱΎ΅ϠȱΉЁΉ·ΉΕΗϟ΅Ζȱ ЀΐЗΑ,ȱ ΐΣΏ΍ΗΘ΅ȱ ΗΓІ,ȱ ΎϾΕ΍νȱ ΐΓΙȱ ̕νΕ·΍Ήȉȱ ΓЄΘΉȱ ·ΤΕȱ π·Аȱ ΘЗΑȱ ΗЗΑȱ ΩΐΓ΍ΕΓΖȱ ·ν·ΓΑ΅ȱ ΉЁΉΕ·ΉΗ΍ЗΑ”ȱ (§XI;ȱ “Iȱ adviseȱ youȱ [toȱ sacrificeȱ toȱ theȱ gods]ȱ feelingȱ compassionȱforȱyouȱwhenȱIȱthinkȱofȱyourȱfriendshipȱandȱassistance,ȱespeciallyȱ yours,ȱ myȱ Lordȱ Sergius,ȱ sinceȱ norȱ didȱ Iȱ remainȱ withoutȱ aȱ shareȱ inȱ yourȱ generosity”)ȱ(S&B,ȱ§16;ȱseeȱalsoȱMetaphrastes).49ȱAsȱaȱfriend,ȱAntiochusȱoffersȱtoȱ helpȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrsȱ toȱ avoidȱ punishmentȱ andȱ furtherȱ humiliationȱ providedȱ thatȱtheyȱfollowȱhisȱadviceȱandȱsacrificeȱtoȱtheȱgods.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱnarratorȱ ofȱtheȱMetaphrasticȱversion,ȱAntiochusȱisȱpretendingȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱtheȱmartyrsȱasȱ aȱ friendȱ actingȱ forȱ theirȱ benefit,ȱ andȱ wishingȱ toȱ offerȱ aȱ counterȬserviceȱ forȱ Sergius’sȱservice.ȱInȱfactȱthroughȱhisȱ“friendly”ȱbehaviorȱandȱadvice,ȱAntiochusȱ triesȱtoȱconvinceȱtheȱmartyrsȱtoȱrejectȱtheirȱfaithȱnotȱbecauseȱheȱcaresȱforȱthem,ȱ andȱdoesȱnotȱwantȱtoȱseeȱthemȱdestroyed,ȱbutȱbecauseȱheȱwishesȱtoȱpleaseȱtheȱ emperorȱwhoȱdidȱnotȱwantȱtoȱloseȱsuchȱcapableȱmenȱ(Metaphrastes,ȱ§XI).ȱ Realizingȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱpossibilityȱtoȱconvinceȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱwithȱwordsȱtoȱ followȱhisȱadvice—theyȱemphaticallyȱtellȱhim:ȱ“̏χȱΗΙΐΆΓϾΏΉΙΉȱψΐϧΑȱΘΓ΍΅ІΘ΅,ȱ ̝ΑΘϟΓΛΉȉȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ΓЁȱ ΐΉΘ΅ΗΘφΗΉ΍Ζȱ ΘϲΑȱ ΏΓ·΍ΗΐϲΑȱ ψΐЗΑ”ȱ (S&B,ȱ §17;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 49ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ383.ȱ

ȱ222ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ Metaphrastes,ȱ§XII–XIII;ȱ“Doȱnot,ȱadviseȱusȱsuchȱthings,ȱAntiochusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱyouȱwillȱ notȱchangeȱourȱminds”50—AntiochusȱdecidesȱtoȱtortureȱBacchusȱtoȱdeath,ȱandȱ toȱ sendȱ Sergiusȱ toȱ prison.ȱ Theȱ authorȱ ofȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ versionȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ Antiochusȱ sparesȱ Sergiusȱ becauseȱ heȱ wantsȱ toȱ showȱ thatȱ heȱ fulfillsȱ hisȱ obligationȱ towardȱ hisȱ friendȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ §XIII).ȱ Inȱ whatȱ follows,ȱ Antiochusȱ keepsȱ postponingȱ Sergius’sȱ deathȱ becauseȱ hisȱ bondȱ withȱ hisȱ benefactorȱ preventsȱhimȱfromȱkillingȱhim.ȱHeȱthusȱkeepsȱonȱtryingȱtoȱpersuadeȱSergiusȱtoȱ sacrificeȱtoȱtheȱgodsȱbyȱemployingȱfriendlyȱandȱcajolingȱwords:ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

͟ȱ ΐξΑȱ ΈΙΗΗΉΆνΗΘ΅ΘΓΖȱ ̅ΣΎΛΓΖȱ ΐχȱ ΔΉ΍ΗΌΉϠΖȱ ΌІΗ΅΍ȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ ΌΉΓϧΖȱ ΉϣΏ΅ΘΓȱ Ά΍ΝΌ΅ΑχΖȱ ·ΉΑνΗΌ΅΍,ȱΩΒ΍ΓΑȱο΅ΙΘΓІȱΌΣΑ΅ΘΓΑȱΦΔΉΑΉ·ΎΣΐΉΑΓΖ.ȱ̕ϿȱΈν,ȱΎϾΕ΍νȱΐΓΙȱ̕νΕ·΍Ή,ȱϣΑ΅ȱΘϟȱ ΘϛȱΦΔ΅Θ΋ΏϛȱΎ΅ϠȱΈΙΗΗΉΆΉϧȱπΎΉϟΑ΋ȱΌΕ΋ΗΎΉϟ΅ȱπΒ΅ΎΓΏΓΙΌЗΑȱΉϢΖȱΘΓΗ΅ϾΘ΋ΑȱπΒνΈΝΎ΅Ζȱ Θ΅Ώ΅΍ΔΝΕϟ΅Α;ȱ ̄ϢΈΓІΐ΅΍ȱ ·ΣΕȱ ΗΉȱ ΐΉΐΑ΋ΐνΑΓΖȱ ΗΓΙȱ ΘЗΑȱ ΉЁΉΕ·ΉΗ΍ЗΑ,ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΅ϢΗΛϾΑΓΐ΅ϟȱ ΗΉȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΦΕΛϛΖȱ Θ΅ϾΘ΋Ζȱ ΅ϥΘ΍ϱΑȱ ΐΓ΍ȱ ·Ή·ΓΑϱΘ΅,ȱ ϵΘ΍ȱ ΅ЁΘϲΖȱ ΐξΑȱ πΑȱ Θϛȱ ΘΓІȱ πΔΉΕΝΘΝΐνΑΓΙȱ σΗΘ΋Ύ΅Ζȱ ΘΣΒΉ΍,ȱ π·Аȱ Έξȱ πΑȱ ΘЗȱ ΘΓІȱ πΔΉΕΝΘЗΑΘΓΖȱ Ύ΅ΌνΊΓΐ΅΍ȱ Άφΐ΅Θ΍.ȱ [Theȱ mostȱ impiousȱ Bacchusȱ refusedȱ toȱ sacrificeȱ toȱ theȱ godsȱ andȱ choseȱ toȱ dieȱ violentlyȱ receivingȱ theȱ deathȱ heȱ deserved.ȱ Butȱ you,ȱ myȱ lordȱ Sergius,ȱ whyȱ giveȱ yourselfȱoverȱtoȱsuchȱmiseryȱbyȱfollowingȱthatȱdeceptiveȱandȱimpiousȱreligion?ȱForȱ Iȱ amȱ embarrassedȱ whenȱ Iȱ thinkȱ ofȱ yourȱ assistance,ȱ andȱ Iȱ amȱ ashamedȱ byȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱyouȱwereȱtheȱcauseȱofȱmyȱhavingȱobtainedȱthisȱauthority,ȱsinceȱnowȱyouȱstandȱ inȱtheȱdockȱasȱtheȱaccusedȱwhileȱIȱsitȱonȱtheȱbenchȱofȱtheȱinterrogator.]51ȱ(S&B,ȱ§21;ȱ seeȱalsoȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§XV)ȱ

ȱ Sergius,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱdoesȱnotȱfailȱtoȱrepeatȱeachȱtimeȱthatȱheȱwillȱneverȱ renounceȱ hisȱ religion.ȱ Heȱ makesȱ itȱ veryȱ clearȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ notȱ afraidȱ ofȱ punishment.ȱ Heȱ saysȱ toȱ Antiochus:ȱ “Theȱ bodyȱ isȱ subjectȱ toȱ you:ȱ tortureȱ andȱ punishȱ itȱ asȱ youȱ wish”ȱ (S&B,ȱ §22).52ȱ Despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Antiochusȱ isȱ wellȱ awareȱofȱSergius’sȱsteadfastnessȱinȱhisȱfaith,ȱandȱofȱhisȱresolutionȱtoȱgiveȱhisȱlifeȱ forȱit,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱgiveȱupȱadvisingȱSergiusȱotherwise.ȱAntiochus’sȱcontinuousȱ yetȱunsuccessfulȱattemptsȱtoȱpersuadeȱhisȱfriendȱtoȱsacrificeȱtoȱtheȱgodsȱindicateȱ hisȱanxietyȱtowardȱhisȱbenefactor.ȱAntiochusȱfindsȱhimselfȱtrappedȱinȱtheȱlawȱ ofȱreciprocityȱinherentȱinȱtheȱgiftȱheȱreceivedȱfromȱSergius.ȱHisȱonlyȱwayȱoutȱisȱ toȱ offerȱ Sergiusȱ aȱ counterȬgift.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ chanceȱ toȱ repayȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ availableȱtoȱAntiochusȱnow,ȱandȱifȱheȱfailsȱtoȱtakeȱitȱheȱwillȱneverȱbeȱliberatedȱ fromȱhisȱobligationȱtowardȱtheȱmartyr.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 50ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ384.ȱ

51ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ385–86.ȱ

52ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ386.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ223ȱ ȱ Sergius’sȱ perspective,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ isȱ completelyȱ different.ȱ Heȱ doesȱ notȱ seeȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱAntiochusȱasȱaȱcircleȱofȱexchangeȱbecauseȱforȱhimȱtheȱ notionȱofȱgivingȱcannotȱbeȱviewedȱinȱreciprocalȱandȱequivalentȱterms.ȱSergiusȱ helpsȱAntiochusȱtoȱacquireȱaȱhighȱofficeȱandȱpowerȱforȱhisȱfriend’sȱownȱgood.ȱ Heȱ givesȱ becauseȱ heȱ likesȱ giving;ȱ hisȱ goalȱ throughȱ giftȱ givingȱ isȱ toȱ helpȱ Antiochus.ȱ Inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ hisȱ motiveȱ isȱ hisȱ friend’sȱ benefit,ȱ andȱ notȱ theȱ expectationȱ ofȱ aȱ repayment.ȱ Sergius’sȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ theȱ giftȱ revealsȱ itsȱ realȱ essenceȱ asȱ describedȱ byȱ Derrida:ȱ aȱ pureȱ giftȱ requiresȱ noȱ return,ȱ andȱ noȱ obligations.ȱDerrida,ȱhowever,ȱasȱalreadyȱstated,ȱmaintainsȱthatȱtheȱtrueȱgiftȱisȱ impossible;ȱthereȱisȱnoȱgiftȱseparatedȱfromȱresponsibilities.ȱSergius’sȱapproachȱ toȱ theȱ gift,ȱ onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ revealsȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ trueȱ gift.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ anȱ importantȱChristianȱprincipleȱisȱbasedȱonȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱtheȱrealȱgift.ȱChrist’sȱ followersȱ shouldȱalwaysȱ giveȱ toȱ theirȱ fellowȱ humanȱ beingsȱ withoutȱ expectingȱ somethingȱinȱreturn.ȱTheyȱmustȱevenȱgiveȱagainstȱtheirȱinterests,ȱhelpingȱtheirȱ ownȱ enemies:ȱ “Ifȱ youȱ lendȱ toȱ thoseȱ fromȱ whomȱ youȱ hopeȱ toȱ receive,ȱ whatȱ creditȱisȱthatȱtoȱyou?ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱButȱloveȱyourȱenemies,ȱdoȱgoodȱexpectingȱnothingȱinȱ return”ȱ(Lk.ȱ6.35).ȱ Followingȱ theȱ Christianȱ practiceȱ ofȱ philanthropyȱ addressedȱ toȱ bothȱ friendsȱ andȱ enemiesȱ forȱ philanthropy’sȱ ownȱ sake,ȱ Sergiusȱ isȱ thinkingȱ ofȱ offeringȱ Antiochusȱaȱfurtherȱservice,ȱwhichȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱoneȱisȱrejected.ȱSergiusȱ tellsȱhisȱtorturerȱthatȱasȱheȱhasȱpreviouslyȱhelpedȱhimȱtoȱacquireȱworldlyȱgloryȱ heȱcouldȱnowȱassistȱhimȱachieveȱdivineȱglory,ȱwhich,ȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱfirstȱone,ȱ isȱeternal:ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ

ȱ ̝ΑΘϟΓΛΉ,ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ΉϥΌΉȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΑІΑȱ πΔΉϟΌΓΙȱ ΐΓ΍ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ πΔΉ·ϟΑΝΗΎΉΖȱ ΘϲΑȱ πΐϲΑȱ ̋ΉϲΑȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Ά΅Η΍Ών΅ȱ ̙Ε΍ΗΘϱΑ,ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ πΔΕΓΑϱ΋Η΅ȱ ΩΑȱ ΗΓΙȱ ГΗΔΉΕȱ πΔϠȱ ΘΓІȱ πΔ΍·ΉϟΓΙȱ Ά΅Η΍ΏνΝΖ,ȱ ΓЂΘΝΖȱΎ΅ϠȱπΔϠȱΘΓІȱπΔΓΙΕ΅ΑϟΓΙȱΆ΅Η΍ΏνΝΖȱ̙Ε΍ΗΘΓІȱΔ΅Ε΅ΗΛΉΌϛΑ΅ϟȱΗΓ΍ȱ ΦΈ΍ΣΈΓΛΓΑȱ ΦΕΛχΑȱΎ΅ϠȱΦΘΉΏΉϾΘ΋ΘΓΑȱΈϱΒ΅Α.ȱ

[Antiochus,ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ifȱ onlyȱ youȱ wouldȱ listenȱ toȱ meȱ andȱ recognizeȱ myȱ Godȱ andȱ king,ȱ Christ,ȱ asȱ Iȱ providedȱ forȱ youȱ anȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ worldlyȱ kingȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ wayȱ youȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ givenȱ eternalȱ powerȱ andȱ perpetualȱ gloryȱ nextȱ toȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ king.]53ȱ(S&B,ȱ§21;ȱseeȱalsoȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§XV)ȱ

ȱ Sergius’sȱdesireȱtoȱgiveȱwithoutȱreceivingȱhasȱasȱaȱresultȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱ Antiochus’sȱfriendlyȱfeelingsȱtowardȱhimȱintoȱenmity.ȱByȱfailingȱtoȱacceptȱwhatȱ isȱgivenȱtoȱhimȱasȱaȱcounterȬgift,ȱSergiusȱ“declaresȱwar”ȱagainstȱAntiochus,ȱasȱ Maussȱ wouldȱ putȱ it,ȱ andȱ thisȱ isȱ aȱ behaviorȱ thatȱ Antiochusȱ doesȱ notȱ letȱ goȱ unpunished.ȱ Sinceȱ Sergiusȱ declinesȱ toȱ shareȱ withȱ Antiochusȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 53ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ386.ȱ

ȱ224ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ friendshipȱ throughȱ acceptingȱ theȱ latter’sȱ help,ȱ heȱ hasȱ toȱ receiveȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ death.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱonlyȱgiftȱAntiochusȱcanȱofferȱSergiusȱunderȱtheȱcircumstances.ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ Sergiusȱ receivesȱ happilyȱ fromȱ hisȱ formerȱ friendȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ death,ȱ sinceȱthisȱisȱwhatȱheȱlongsȱfor.ȱHisȱearthlyȱdeathȱasȱaȱmartyrȱwillȱreuniteȱhimȱ withȱ hisȱ belovedȱ Bacchus,ȱ andȱ itȱ willȱ provideȱ himȱwithȱ holiness,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ heavenlyȱ powerȱ andȱ gloryȱ thatȱ Antiochusȱ rejects.ȱ Withoutȱ realizingȱ it,ȱ AntiochusȱdoesȱeventuallyȱofferȱaȱcounterȬserviceȱtoȱSergius,ȱwhichȱsolvesȱtheȱ tensionȱ betweenȱ theȱ economicȱ giftȱ asȱ understoodȱ byȱ Antiochusȱ andȱ theȱ uneconomicȱgiftȱasȱexperiencedȱbyȱSergius.ȱAntiochus’sȱcounterȬgift,ȱhowever,ȱ becomesȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ throughȱ horrendousȱ violence.ȱ Itȱ is,ȱ therefore,ȱ onlyȱ violenceȱwhichȱcanȱforceȱuneconomicȱgiftsȱtoȱcancelȱthemselves,ȱandȱtoȱenterȱanȱ economyȱofȱexchange.ȱ Theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochusȱ examinedȱ hereȱ demonsȬ tratesȱveryȱgraphicallyȱthatȱtheȱgiftȱcanȱbeȱbothȱ“pure,”ȱnamelyȱunconditionalȱ andȱnonȬreciprocal,ȱasȱDerridaȱdefinesȱit,ȱandȱ“impure,”ȱthatȱisȱconditionalȱandȱ reciprocal,ȱaccordingȱtoȱMauss’sȱview,ȱasȱlongȱasȱitȱremainsȱaȱgift.ȱThusȱinȱtheȱ giftȱ mightȱ coincideȱ libertyȱ andȱ charity,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ andȱ expectationȱ andȱ exchange,ȱ onȱ theȱ other.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ case,ȱ theȱ giftȱ isȱ aȱ paradoxȱ setȱ upȱ byȱ twoȱ contradictoryȱ elements:ȱ purityȱ andȱ impurity.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ aȱ giftȱ isȱ transformedȱ intoȱ aȱ violentȱ poisonȱ itsȱ elementȱ ofȱ purityȱ disappears;ȱ theȱ giverȱ whoȱrefusesȱreceivingȱisȱviolentlyȱforcedȱtoȱacceptȱaȱpoisonousȱcounterȬgift,ȱandȱ inȱsoȱdoingȱheȱentersȱanȱeconomicȱcircleȱofȱexchange.ȱForcedȱrepaymentȱtakingȱ theȱformȱofȱrevengeȱsustainsȱtheȱeconomyȱofȱexchangeȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱthisȱisȱ achievedȱbyȱaȱpositiveȱgift.ȱ ȱ ȱ

Sergius,ȱBacchusȱandȱMaximianusȱ ȱ Aȱ comparisonȱ betweenȱ theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochusȱ withȱ thatȱ ofȱ Maximianusȱandȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱwhom,ȱasȱpreviouslyȱmentioned,ȱtheȱemperorȱ mostlyȱ seesȱ asȱ oneȱ personȱ showsȱ thatȱ theseȱ twoȱ relationshipsȱ haveȱ bothȱ similaritiesȱ andȱ differences.ȱ Anȱ obviousȱ similarityȱ isȱ theȱ inequalityȱ characterizingȱ theseȱ twoȱ friendships.ȱ Likeȱ Antiochus,ȱ Maximianusȱ hasȱ aȱ differentȱ religionȱ fromȱ thatȱ ofȱ hisȱ twoȱ Christianȱ friends.ȱ Maximianusȱ inȱ particularȱ isȱ aȱ fanaticȱ heathenȱ intolerantȱ ofȱ anyȱ otherȱ religion,ȱ andȱ especiallyȱ Christianity,ȱ whoȱ becomesȱ aȱ greatȱ Christianȱ persecutor.ȱ Byȱ convertingȱ toȱ Christianity,ȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ doȱ inȱ factȱ placeȱ themselvesȱ amongȱ Maximianus’sȱ worstȱ enemies.ȱ Anotherȱ importantȱ elementȱ ofȱ thisȱ friendship’sȱ asymmetryȱisȱtheȱstatusȱofȱitsȱtwoȱparties.ȱMaximianusȱisȱtheȱalmightyȱRomanȱ emperor,ȱ andȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ areȱ hisȱ veryȱ subjects.ȱ Theȱ power,ȱ bothȱ politicalȱandȱsocial,ȱheȱexercisesȱoverȱthemȱisȱabsolute.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ225ȱ ȱ Likeȱ theȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochus,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorȱandȱtheȱtwoȱmainȱprotagonistsȱisȱstronglyȱdependentȱonȱgiftsȱthroughȱ whichȱ itȱ comesȱ intoȱ being,ȱ flourishesȱ andȱ eventuallyȱ declines.ȱ Havingȱ giftsȱ asȱ theirȱsourceȱandȱnotȱequalityȱbasedȱonȱvirtue,ȱtheseȱtwoȱfriendships,ȱinȱcontrastȱ toȱ thatȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ areȱ temporal.ȱ Theyȱ lastȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ theȱ partiesȱ involvedȱ remainȱfaithfulȱ toȱ theȱ obligationsȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ giftȱ asȱdescribedȱ byȱ Mauss.ȱBothȱfriendshipsȱareȱturnedȱintoȱenmitiesȱandȱtheȱgiftsȱsustainingȱthemȱ areȱtransformedȱintoȱpoisonsȱwhenȱtheirȱChristianȱmembersȱfailȱtoȱeitherȱacceptȱ aȱ counterȬgiftȱ (Sergiusȱ inȱ hisȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Antiochus)ȱ orȱ toȱ returnȱ anȱ expectedȱgiftȱ(SergiusȱandȱBacchusȱinȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱemperor).ȱ Whileȱ Sergiusȱ deniesȱ giftȱ reciprocityȱ inȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Antiochus,ȱ heȱ behavesȱdifferentlyȱwithinȱtheȱframeworkȱofȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱemperor.ȱ Inȱthisȱcase,ȱbothȱheȱandȱBacchusȱenterȱaȱcircleȱofȱexchange.ȱTheȱgifts,ȱwhichȱtheȱ emperorȱ givesȱ equallyȱ toȱ hisȱ twoȱ friends,ȱ areȱ signsȱofȱ hisȱ majestyȱ andȱ power.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ inȱ factȱ giftsȱ thatȱ onlyȱ heȱ himselfȱ asȱ theȱ emperorȱ canȱ bestow:ȱ highȱ imperialȱoffices,ȱaȱveryȱesteemedȱstatusȱinȱtheȱpalace,ȱtheȱrightȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱhisȱ Majestyȱfreelyȱandȱopenly,ȱimperialȱhonor,ȱandȱmoney.ȱHeȱalsoȱfulfillsȱallȱtheirȱ wishesȱ andȱ requests.ȱ Antiochus’sȱ appointmentȱ asȱ duxȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ provinces,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ isȱ aȱ grantingȱ ofȱ suchȱ aȱ request.ȱ Inȱ acceptingȱ allȱ theseȱ imperialȱgifts,ȱtheȱtwoȱmartyrsȱreiterateȱtheirȱvowsȱofȱcompleteȱobedienceȱandȱ submission.ȱForȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheirȱlives,ȱtheyȱareȱexpectedȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱemperorȱ theȱ counterȱ giftsȱ heȱ requiresȱ fromȱ them:ȱ competentȱ militaryȱ service,ȱ theirȱ valuableȱadvice,ȱtheirȱtrueȱfriendshipȱandȱtheirȱloyalty.ȱ Theȱmutualȱreciprocityȱcharacterizingȱthisȱfriendshipȱmakesȱitȱstronger,ȱmoreȱ personal,ȱandȱmoreȱemotionalȱthanȱthatȱbetweenȱSergiusȱandȱAntiochusȱwhich,ȱ asȱ shownȱ inȱ theȱ previousȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ analysisȱ presentedȱ here,ȱ isȱ treatedȱ byȱ Antiochusȱ asȱ aȱ bondȱ ofȱ aȱ pureȱ economyȱ ofȱ exchange.ȱ Byȱ exchangingȱ gifts,ȱ Maximianusȱ andȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrsȱ establishȱ betweenȱ themȱ aȱ spiritualȱ union.ȱ Bothȱ partiesȱ giveȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ partsȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ selvesȱ andȱ souls,ȱ asȱ Maussȱ wouldȱputȱit.ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱMaximianusȱfeelsȱsoȱcloseȱandȱattachedȱtoȱSergiusȱandȱ Bacchusȱandȱhasȱsuchȱaȱstrongȱconfidenceȱinȱtheirȱhonestyȱandȱloyaltyȱthatȱheȱ cannotȱ believeȱ theȱ menȱ whoȱ informȱ himȱ thatȱ hisȱ belovedȱ friendsȱ areȱ secretȱ Christians.ȱHeȱsaysȱtoȱthem:ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

̒ЁΎȱΓϨΐ΅΍ȱΘΤȱΦΏ΋ΌϛȱЀΐκΖȱΏν·Ή΍Α,ȱΉϢȱ̕νΕ·΍ΓΖȱΎ΅Ϡȱ̅ΣΎΛΓΖȱΘϛȱΔΉΕϠȱΘΓϿΖȱΌΉΓϿΖȱΘ΍ΐϛȱ ΘΉȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΉЁΗΉΆΉϟ΅ȱ ΓЁȱ ΔΕϱΗΎΉ΍ΑΘ΅΍ȱ πΐΓІȱ ΘχΑȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ ΅ЁΘΓϿΖȱ Κ΍Ώϟ΅Αȱ ΦΎ΋ΏϟΈΝΘΓΑȱ σΛΓΑΘΓΖ,ȱ ϏΖȱ ΓЁΎȱ ΪΑȱ Ύ΅Θ΋Β΍ЏΌ΋Η΅Α,ȱ ΉϢȱ ΐχȱ Θϛȱ ΔΉΕϠȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ ΌΉΓϿΖȱ ΉЁΑΓϟ΅ȱ ·Α΋ΗϟΝΖȱ Έ΍νΎΉ΍ΑΘΓ.ȱ

ȱ226ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ ȱ

[IȱdoȱnotȱthinkȱyouȱspeakȱtheȱtruthȱthatȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱareȱnotȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱ venerationȱ andȱ worshipȱ ofȱ theȱ gods,ȱ sinceȱ Iȱ provideȱ themȱ withȱ suchȱ aȱ pureȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ whichȱ theyȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ beenȱ deemedȱ worthyȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ notȱ trulyȱfaithfulȱinȱtheirȱpietyȱtowardsȱtheȱgods.]54ȱ(S&B,ȱ§3;ȱseeȱalsoȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§II)ȱ

ȱ Maximianus’sȱ wordsȱ suggest—andȱ thisȱ becomesȱ moreȱ obviousȱ throughȱ someȱ ofȱ hisȱ laterȱ statementsȱ concerningȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ (S&B,ȱ §6ȱ andȱ §8)—thatȱ heȱ seesȱ Romanȱ godsȱ asȱ theȱ sourcesȱ ofȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ theȱ twoȱ men.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ Maximianus’sȱ treatmentȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ unionȱ withȱ divineȱ rootsȱ resemblesȱ Sergius’sȱ andȱ Bacchus’sȱ approachȱ towardȱ theirȱownȱfriendshipȱwhoseȱmainȱreasonȱofȱexistenceȱisȱtheirȱcommonȱloveȱforȱ andȱdevotionȱtoȱtheȱChristianȱGod.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱtheȱideaȱthatȱhumanȱfriendshipsȱ areȱ motivatedȱ byȱ aȱ divineȱ forceȱ isȱ novelȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ classicalȱ ideasȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ purelyȱ aȱ humanȱ relationȱ resultingȱ fromȱ loveȱ orȱ erosȱ (Plato,ȱ Lysisȱ 222a)ȱ orȱ fromȱ aȱ naturalȱ humanȱ needȱ (Aristotle,ȱNEȱVIII.1).ȱ Maximianusȱ comesȱ toȱ realizeȱ thatȱ hisȱ friendsȱ haveȱ betrayedȱ himȱ whenȱ heȱ hearsȱfromȱtheirȱownȱmouthsȱthatȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱintendȱtoȱobeyȱhimȱandȱsacrificeȱ toȱtheȱgodsȱbecauseȱtheyȱhaveȱbecomeȱChristiansȱ(S&B,ȱ§6;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§III).ȱ Hisȱ firstȱ reactionȱ isȱ anger.ȱ Hisȱ lossȱ ofȱ temperȱ isȱ hisȱ emotionalȱ responseȱ toȱ theȱ unexpected,ȱ “unjust”ȱ andȱ “ungrateful,”ȱ asȱ heȱ callsȱ itȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ §III),ȱ behaviorȱofȱhisȱfriends,ȱtheȱpersonsȱwhomȱheȱrespectedȱandȱhonoredȱtheȱmost.ȱ Maximianus’sȱ angerȱ beforeȱ hisȱ friends’ȱ failureȱ toȱ repayȱ himȱ withȱ theȱ giftȱ ofȱ loyaltyȱdrivesȱhimȱtoȱtakeȱbackȱforciblyȱtheȱgiftsȱheȱpreviouslyȱhadȱgivenȱthem.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ areȱ notȱ preparedȱ toȱ fulfillȱ anyȱ longerȱ theȱ obligationsȱ derivingȱ fromȱ suchȱ gifts,ȱ theseȱ shouldȱ returnȱ toȱ theȱ donor.ȱ Thusȱ Maximianusȱ publiclyȱ deprivesȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ ofȱ theirȱoffices,ȱ theirȱimperialȱ honor,ȱ andȱ theirȱ esteemedȱplaceȱinȱtheȱpalaceȱbyȱstrippingȱthemȱofȱtheirȱmilitaryȱgarments,ȱandȱ allȱ theȱ emblemsȱ ofȱ theirȱ highȱ rank,ȱ andȱ byȱ havingȱ themȱ dressedȱ inȱ women’sȱ clothes,ȱandȱcoveredȱwithȱchains.ȱTheȱemblemsȱofȱtheirȱimperialȱglory,ȱofȱtheirȱ powerȱ andȱ theirȱ privilegesȱ areȱ nowȱ replacedȱ byȱ symbolsȱ ofȱ disrespect,ȱ servitude,ȱandȱmaleȱhumiliation.ȱSupportedȱbyȱtheirȱownȱfriendshipȱandȱtheirȱ commonȱfaithȱinȱGod,ȱSergiusȱandȱBacchusȱfaceȱtheȱlossȱofȱtheirȱworldlyȱgloryȱ withȱ bravery.ȱ Theirȱ publicȱ humilityȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ spiritualȱ upliftingȱ bringingȱ themȱcloserȱtoȱGodȱ(S&B,ȱ§7;ȱMetaphrastes,ȱ§IV).ȱ Despiteȱtheȱstrongȱfeelingsȱofȱdisappointmentȱandȱbetrayal,ȱwhichȱdevastateȱ him,ȱMaximianusȱisȱreluctantȱtoȱloseȱhisȱfriends.ȱHeȱthusȱdevelopsȱaȱstrategyȱofȱ humiliationȱandȱembarrassmentȱthroughȱwhichȱheȱaimsȱatȱconvincingȱSergiusȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 54ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ377.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ227ȱ ȱ andȱBacchusȱtoȱrenounceȱtheirȱfaithȱandȱinȱsoȱdoingȱtoȱconfirmȱtheirȱfriendshipȱ withȱhim.ȱAsȱmentionedȱbefore,ȱMaximianus’sȱfirstȱmoveȱtowardȱtheȱmartyrs’ȱ degradationȱ isȱ toȱ damageȱ theirȱ socialȱ selvesȱ byȱ deprivingȱ themȱ ofȱ theirȱ privileges,ȱ andȱ byȱ treatingȱ themȱ asȱ effeminateȱ slaves.ȱ Hisȱ secondȱ moveȱ isȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ aȱ publicȱ monologueȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ employsȱ aȱ rhetoricȱ structuredȱ aroundȱ theȱ provocationȱ ofȱ shameȱ feelings.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Metaphrasticȱ version,ȱ thisȱ monologueȱbecomesȱmuchȱlonger,ȱandȱasȱaȱresultȱitȱisȱmoreȱelaborateȱinȱitsȱuseȱ ofȱshameȱasȱanȱinstrumentȱofȱpersuasion.ȱ Theȱ shameȱ structureȱ ofȱ Maximianus’sȱ monologueȱ inȱ theȱ olderȱ versionȱ isȱ ratherȱ simpleȱ (S&B,ȱ §8).ȱ Itȱ canȱ beȱ dividedȱ intoȱ twoȱ parts,ȱ bothȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ martyrs.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ partȱ aimsȱ atȱ embarrassingȱ theȱ martyrsȱ asȱ personsȱ andȱ friendsȱ whileȱ theȱ secondȱ part’sȱ goalȱ isȱ toȱ humiliateȱ themȱ asȱ Christians.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ partȱ beginsȱ withȱ anȱ insult;ȱ Maximianusȱ callsȱ theȱ martyrsȱ theȱ“mostȱwicked”ȱpersonsȱofȱallȱhumans.ȱHeȱthenȱgoesȱonȱtoȱpresentȱthemȱasȱ ungrateful,ȱ impudent,ȱandȱ disrespectfulȱ persons,ȱ sinceȱ theyȱ haveȱ treatedȱ theirȱ friend,ȱ andȱ benefactorȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ isȱ “againstȱ theȱ lawȱ ofȱ obedienceȱ andȱ subjection.”55ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ hisȱ monologue,ȱ theȱ emperorȱ ridiculesȱ theȱ martyrsȱforȱtreatingȱasȱgodȱaȱmanȱwhoȱwasȱbornȱbyȱaȱmortalȱwomanȱwhoȱhadȱ intercourseȱ withȱ aȱ carpenterȱ beforeȱ theirȱ marriage,ȱ andȱ whoȱ diedȱ afterȱ beingȱ crucifiedȱbyȱtheȱJews.ȱWithoutȱbeingȱaffectedȱbyȱtheȱemperor’sȱinsultingȱwords,ȱ theȱtwoȱmartyrsȱengageȱinȱturnȱinȱanotherȱmonologueȱofȱequalȱlengthȱwithȱthatȱ ofȱ theȱ emperorȱ inȱ whichȱ theyȱ refuteȱ onlyȱ theȱ secondȱ partȱ ofȱ Maximianus’sȱ speech,ȱandȱargueȱaboutȱChrist’sȱdivinityȱ(S&B,ȱ§9).ȱ InȱtheȱMetaphrasticȱversion,ȱMaximianus’sȱmonologueȱacquiresȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱ shortȱ treatiseȱ onȱ betrayalȱ andȱ ungratefulnessȱ whoseȱ structureȱ isȱ moreȱ complicatedȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ emperor’sȱ speechȱ inȱ theȱ olderȱ textȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ §IVȱandȱ§V).ȱTheȱMetaphrasticȱmonologueȱhasȱtwoȱbiggerȱparts,ȱeachȱofȱwhichȱ hasȱitsȱinternalȱsubdivisions.ȱTheȱfirstȱpartȱisȱaddressedȱtoȱallȱtheȱbystandersȱtoȱ whomȱ Maximianusȱ offersȱ aȱ lectureȱ onȱ theȱ performanceȱ ofȱ correctȱ behaviorȱ towardȱ one’sȱ friendsȱ andȱ benefactorsȱ byȱ referringȱ toȱ hisȱ personalȱ experience.ȱ Heȱ usesȱ theȱunacceptableȱ mannersȱ ofȱhisȱ ownȱ friendsȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱaȱ badȱ behaviorȱ thatȱ shouldȱ beȱ avoided.ȱ Theȱ monologue’sȱ secondȱ longȱ partȱ isȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ martyrsȱ whomȱ Maximianusȱ furtherȱ triesȱ toȱ embarrassȱ byȱ employingȱfriendlyȱandȱcalmȱwordsȱwithȱwhich,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱheȱasksȱthemȱ toȱfeelȱshameȱandȱtoȱshowȱrespectȱtowardȱtheȱtrueȱfriendshipȱofferedȱtoȱthem,ȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ heȱ describesȱ howȱ heȱ himself,ȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ them,ȱ provedȱ aȱ trueȱfriend.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 55ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ379.ȱ

ȱ228ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ Asȱ isȱ theȱ caseȱ inȱ theȱ olderȱ text,ȱ theȱ martyrsȱ doȱ notȱ experienceȱ anyȱ shameȱ despiteȱ Maximianus’sȱ greatȱ attempts.ȱ Here,ȱ however,ȱ theyȱ doȱ notȱ letȱ anyȱ ofȱ Maximianus’sȱaccusationsȱgoȱunanswered.ȱInȱaȱveryȱlongȱmonologue,ȱwhichȱisȱ twiceȱasȱlongȱasȱthatȱofȱtheȱemperor,ȱtheȱmartyrsȱdefendȱbothȱthemselvesȱandȱ theirȱreligionȱ(Metaphrastes,ȱ§VIȱandȱ§VII).ȱFirst,ȱtheyȱtellȱMaximianusȱthatȱtheyȱ neitherȱeverȱbetrayedȱhisȱfriendshipȱnorȱdidȱtheyȱproveȱungratefulȱforȱwhatȱheȱ hadȱ doneȱ forȱ them.ȱ Onȱ theȱ contrary,ȱ theyȱ alwaysȱ performedȱ theirȱ obligationsȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ zeal.ȱ Theirȱconversionȱ toȱ Christianityȱandȱ theirȱ devotionȱ toȱ theȱ Godȱ ofȱ allȱ areȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ powerfulȱ signȱ ofȱ theirȱ gratefulnessȱ towardȱ theirȱ benefactors.ȱTheyȱdecidedȱtoȱserveȱGodȱwithȱtheȱsameȱfervorȱwithȱwhichȱtheyȱ serveȱ him,ȱ theirȱ “mostȱ philanthropicȱ emperor,”ȱ becauseȱ Godȱ isȱ theȱ greatestȱ benefactorȱ ofȱ humanity,ȱ andȱ asȱ suchȱ heȱ deservesȱ allȱ people’sȱ devotionȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ§VI).ȱ Maximianus’sȱ reactionȱ toȱ theȱ martyrs’ȱ wordsȱ isȱ toȱ getȱ angry.ȱ Thisȱ timeȱ hisȱ angerȱisȱtheȱresultȱofȱhisȱinabilityȱtoȱdisputeȱtheȱmartyrs’ȱconvincingȱarguments.ȱ Sinceȱtheȱmartyrsȱdoȱnotȱintendȱtoȱrenounceȱtheirȱillegalȱreligion,ȱMaximianusȱ hasȱ noȱ otherȱ choiceȱ butȱ toȱ punishȱ them.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ keepsȱ postponingȱ theirȱ execution.ȱTheȱMetaphrasticȱversionȱillustratesȱtheȱemperor’sȱinternalȱstruggle.ȱ Onȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱlawȱandȱhisȱstrongȱfeelingsȱofȱangerȱandȱdisappointmentȱ compelȱtheȱemperorȱtoȱpunishȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus,ȱand,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱ friendshipȱ thatȱ bindsȱ himȱ withȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ andȱ theirȱ qualitiesȱ preventȱ himȱ fromȱ doingȱ soȱ (Metaphrastes,ȱ §VIII).ȱ Eventually,ȱ Maximianusȱ decidesȱ toȱ sendȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ toȱ theirȱ friendȱ Antiochusȱ whoȱ willȱ undertakeȱ theirȱ punishment.ȱ Maximianus’sȱ decisionȱ hasȱ aȱ multipleȱ function:ȱ itȱ releasesȱ theȱ emperorȱ fromȱ hisȱ dilemma;ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ solutionȱ thatȱ enablesȱ Maximianusȱ toȱ avoidȱ killingȱ hisȱ friendsȱ withȱ hisȱ ownȱ hands,ȱ andȱ itȱ servesȱ hisȱ strategyȱ toȱ persuadeȱ theȱ martyrsȱ toȱ renounceȱ theirȱ faithȱ throughȱ theȱ instrumentȱ ofȱ humiliation.ȱ Maximianus,ȱwhoȱhasȱnotȱyetȱlostȱtheȱhopeȱthatȱtheȱmartyrsȱmightȱchangeȱtheirȱ mind,ȱ makesȱ oneȱ lastȱ tryȱ toȱ convinceȱ themȱ byȱ usingȱ Antiochus’sȱ helpȱ inȱ hisȱ strategyȱofȱhumiliation.ȱHeȱsaysȱtoȱtheȱmartyrs:ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

̝ΑΘ΍ϱΛΝȱ ΘЗȱ ΈΓΙΎϠȱ Δ΅Ε΅ΔνΐΜΝȱ ЀΐκΖ,ȱ ΘΕ΍ΗΎ΅ΘΣΕ΅ΘΓ΍,ȱ ΓЈΔΉΕȱ Έ΍Τȱ ΘχΑȱ ΔΕϲΖȱ ΐξȱ Κ΍Ώϟ΅Αȱ ΘΉȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ Δ΅ΕΕ΋Ηϟ΅Αȱ ΔΕΓνΗΘ΋ΘΉȱ πΔϠȱ Θ΅ϾΘ΋Αȱ Φ·΅·ϱΑΘΉΖȱ ΘχΑȱ ΦΕΛφΑ,ȱ ϣΑ΅ȱ ·ΑЗΘΉȱ Γϣ΅Ζȱ Θ΍ΐϛΖȱ πΒΉΔνΗ΅ΘΉȱ ρΑΉΎΉΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΉϢΖȱ ΘΓϿΖȱ ΌΉΓϿΖȱ ΈΙΗΚ΋ΐϟ΅Ζ,ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΓϣΝΑȱ πΏ΅ΛϟΗΘΝΑȱ Έ΍Ύ΅ΗΘ΋ΕϟΝΑȱ ΗϿΑȱ Θ΍ΐΝΕϟ΅΍Ζȱ πΗΛΣΘ΅΍Ζȱ ΩΒ΍Γ΍ȱ ·Ή·ϱΑ΅ΘΉȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΘЗΑȱ ΌΉЗΑȱ ΐΉ·΅ΏΉ΍ϱΘ΋ΘΓΖ,ȱ πΏΉ·ΒΣΗ΋Ζȱ ЀΐЗΑȱ ΘχΑȱ ΈΙΗΗνΆΉ΍΅Αȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΉϢΖȱ ΘχΑȱ ΘϛΖȱ ΎΓΏΣΗΉΝΖȱ Ύ΅Θ΅ΈϟΎ΋ΑȱΦ·΅·ΓϾΗ΋Ζ.ȱ [IȱwillȱsendȱyouȱtoȱduxȱAntiochus,ȱyouȱthriceȬcursedȱones,ȱtheȱveryȱmanȱyouȱwereȱ ableȱtoȱpromoteȱtoȱsuchȱaȱrankȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱfriendshipȱandȱfreedomȱofȱspeechȱyouȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱTheȱGiftȱofȱFriendshipȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ229ȱ ȱ hadȱ withȱ me,ȱ soȱ thatȱ youȱ willȱ realizeȱ howȱ greatȱ isȱ theȱ honorȱ youȱ haveȱ lostȱ byȱ speakingȱ againstȱ theȱ gods,ȱ andȱ howȱ trivialȱ aȱ courtȱ youȱ meritȱ forȱ theȱ worstȱ ofȱ punishments.]56ȱ(S&B,ȱ§10)ȱ

ȱ EvenȱthoughȱMaximianusȱprovesȱmoreȱboundȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱthanȱAntiochusȱis,ȱ whoȱhasȱnoȱrealȱdifficultiesȱkillingȱSergius—heȱevenȱinflictsȱonȱhimȱmoreȱcruelȱ torturesȱ thanȱ theȱ onesȱ heȱ imposesȱ uponȱ Bacchus—heȱ doesȱ eventuallyȱ avengeȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ mostȱ inhumanȱ wayȱ forȱ failingȱ toȱ offerȱ himȱ theirȱ absoluteȱ loyalty.ȱ Maximianus’sȱ giftsȱ areȱ turnedȱ intoȱ chainsȱ tighteningȱ theȱ martyrs’ȱ necksȱ andȱ theirȱ wholeȱ bodies,ȱ and,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ theȱ martyrs’ȱ cruelȱ torturesȱ andȱ theirȱ subsequentȱdeathsȱareȱexecutedȱaccordingȱtoȱMaximianus’sȱveryȱorders.ȱ ȱ

ȱ Sergius,ȱBacchusȱandȱGodȱ ȱ Whatȱ preventsȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrsȱ fromȱ beingȱ fullyȱ obedientȱ toȱ theirȱ earthlyȱ masterȱandȱfriend,ȱMaximianus,ȱisȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod,ȱtheȱmasterȱofȱall.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ remainȱ friendsȱ withȱ God,ȱ theyȱ haveȱ toȱ rejectȱ theirȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Maximianusȱbyȱdisobeyingȱhim,ȱandȱnotȱsacrificingȱtoȱhisȱgods.ȱInȱfact,ȱitȱisȱtheȱ destructionȱ ofȱ theȱ saints’ȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Maximianus,ȱ andȱ itsȱ transformationȱ intoȱdeathlyȱenmityȱthatȱenforcesȱtheȱmartyrs’ȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod.ȱTheȱgiftȱofȱ deathȱ thatȱ Maximianusȱ offersȱ toȱ hisȱ formerȱ friendsȱ withȱ Antiochus’sȱ helpȱ allowsȱthemȱtoȱenterȱGod’sȱkingdom.ȱ Interestingly,ȱ Sergius’sȱ andȱ Bacchus’sȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ appearsȱ toȱ shareȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ featuresȱ ofȱ theȱ friendshipsȱ thatȱ theȱ martyrsȱ usedȱ toȱ haveȱ withȱ Antiochusȱ andȱ Maximianus.ȱ Theȱ centralȱ protagonists’ȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ isȱ alsoȱunequal,ȱsinceȱtheȱoneȱpartyȱisȱdivineȱwhileȱtheȱotherȱhuman.ȱAdditionally,ȱ thisȱisȱanotherȱfriendshipȱinȱwhichȱgiftȱexchangeȱisȱessential.ȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ offerȱ theirȱ ownȱ livesȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ deathsȱ asȱ giftsȱ toȱ God:ȱtheyȱliveȱaccordingȱtoȱHisȱcommandments,ȱandȱthroughȱtheirȱmartyrdom,ȱ theyȱgiveȱtheirȱbodiesȱasȱsacrificeȱtoȱHimȱwithȱtheȱexpectationȱofȱreceivingȱtheȱ crownȱofȱholiness.ȱAsȱtheyȱsayȱtoȱAntiochus,ȱ ȱ ȱȱ

ȱ

̽ΐΉϧΖȱ Έ΍Τȱ ΘΓІΘΓȱ ΔΣΑΘ΅ȱ Ύ΅ΘΉΏϟΔΓΐΉΑȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ωΎΓΏΓΙΌφΗ΅ΐΉΑȱ ΘЗȱ ̙Ε΍ΗΘЗ,ȱ ϣΑ΅ȱ ΘϛΖȱ πΔ΍·ΉϟΓΙȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΔΕΓΗΎ΅ϟΕΓΙȱ ΚΕΓΑφΗ΅ΑΘΉΖȱ Θ΍ΐϛΖ,ȱ ΘЗΑȱ Φ··νΏΝΑȱ πΑȱ ΘΓϧΖȱ ΓЁΕ΅ΑΓϧΖȱ ·ΉΑЏΐΉΌ΅ȱ πΚΣΐ΍ΏΏΓ΍ȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΘЗΑȱ πΔ΍·ΉϟΝΑȱ Ύ΅Ϡȱ ΚΌ΅ΕΘЗΑȱ ЀΔΉΕ΍ΈϱΑΘΉΖȱ ΛΕ΋ΐΣΘΝΑ,ȱ ΘЗΑȱπΑȱΘΓϧΖȱΓЁΕ΅ΑΓϧΖȱΦΔΓΏ΅ϾΗΝΐΉΑȱΌ΋Η΅ΙΕЗΑ.ȱ ȱ ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 56ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ381.ȱ

ȱ230ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱStavroulaȱConstantinouȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

[Weȱ leftȱ behindȱ everythingȱ andȱ followedȱ Christ,ȱ soȱ thatȱ heedlessȱ ofȱ earthlyȱ andȱ temporalȱhonor,ȱweȱmayȱbecomeȱlikeȱtheȱangelsȱinȱheaven,ȱandȱignoringȱterrestrialȱ andȱcorruptibleȱwealth,ȱweȱmayȱenjoyȱtheȱtreasureȱinȱheaven].ȱ(S&B,ȱ§17)57ȱȱ

ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ logicȱ inȱ Luke’sȱ Gospelȱ revertsȱ toȱ anȱ economicȱ rationale.ȱ Sergiusȱ expectsȱnothingȱinȱreturnȱfromȱAntiochus,ȱbutȱheȱdoesȱwantȱaȱdivineȱrewardȱforȱ hisȱearthlyȱsufferingsȱandȱmartyrdom.ȱItȱisȱforȱtheȱveryȱrewardȱofȱsanctityȱwithȱ whichȱnoȱotherȱhumanȱfriendshipȱapartȱfromȱtheirȱownȱcanȱprovideȱthemȱthatȱ theȱ twoȱ menȱ sacrificeȱ theirȱ friendlyȱ relationȱ withȱ bothȱ Maximianusȱ andȱ Antiochus.ȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱanȱimportantȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱtheȱmainȱprotagonists’ȱfriendshipȱ withȱGodȱandȱtheirȱfriendshipsȱwithȱAntiochusȱandȱMaximianusȱisȱthatȱinȱtheȱ divineȱfriendshipȱbothȱpartiesȱremainȱfaithfulȱtoȱtheȱreciprocityȱlawȱinherentȱinȱ theȱ gift.ȱ Asȱ aȱ result,ȱ theȱ divineȱ friendship,ȱ unlikeȱ theȱ otherȱ twoȱ friendships,ȱ neverȱdissolves,ȱbutȱitȱisȱeternal.ȱInȱthisȱrespect,ȱitȱresemblesȱtheȱfriendshipȱthatȱ theȱtwoȱprotagonistsȱshareȱwithȱeachȱother.ȱ ȱ Interestingly,ȱ inȱ theȱ Passionȱ ofȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchusȱ areȱ celebratedȱ asȱ paradigmaticȱ twoȱ veryȱ differentȱ typesȱ ofȱ friendshipsȱ whoseȱ perfectȱ statusȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theirȱ eternityȱ becomesȱ moreȱ prominentȱ throughȱ theȱ depictionȱ ofȱ twoȱ otherȱ friendshipsȱ (Sergiusȱ andȱ Antiochus;ȱ Sergius,ȱ Bacchus,ȱ andȱ Maximianus)ȱwhichȱproveȱproblematic.ȱTheȱfirstȱparadigmaticȱfriendship,ȱthatȱ betweenȱ Sergiusȱ andȱ Bacchus,ȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ Aristotelianȱ model,ȱ theȱ mostȱ importantȱ featureȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ equalityȱ thatȱ trueȱ friendsȱ share.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ idealȱfriendship,ȱ theȱ oneȱbetweenȱ theȱ twoȱ martyrsȱandȱ God,ȱ isȱ formedȱ notȱ byȱ theȱtwoȱparties’ȱequality,ȱbutȱbyȱtheirȱmutualȱsubmissionȱtoȱanȱeconomyȱofȱgiftȱ exchange.ȱTheȱantiȬChristianȱlogicȱofȱexpectation,ȱwhichȱparadoxicallyȱgovernsȱ theȱ Christians’ȱ relationshipȱ withȱ theirȱ God,ȱ isȱ aȱ logicȱ governingȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ archaicȱsocietiesȱstudiedȱbyȱMaussȱorȱtheȱworldȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱSayingsȱofȱHar,ȱ butȱalsoȱourȱglobalizingȱsociety.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 57ȱȱ

Boswell,ȱTheȱMarriageȱofȱLikeness,ȱ381.ȱ

Chapterȱ3 LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston (CaliforniaȱStateȱUniversity,ȱFresno)

WhereȱTextualȱBodiesȱMeet: AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

DuringȱtheȱlateȱseventhȱandȱearlyȱeighthȱcenturiesȱBonifaceȱandȱhisȱmissionary companionsȱonȱtheȱContinentȱremainedȱunitedȱwithȱtheirȱrelativesȱandȱsupporters inȱ AngloȬSaxonȱ Englandȱ inȱ aȱ looseȱ networkȱ ofȱ individualȱ friendshipsȱ and institutionalȱaffiliationsȱforgedȱandȱmaintainedȱthroughȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱlettersȱand gifts.ȱ Whileȱ women’sȱ participationȱ inȱ suchȱ anȱ epistolaryȱ community,ȱ asȱ both correspondentsȱ andȱ patrons,ȱ wasȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ unique—Jeromeȱ earlier,ȱ for example,ȱandȱAlcuinȱlaterȱalsoȱincludedȱwomenȱamongȱtheirȱcorrespondents—the visibilityȱ ofȱ Boniface’sȱ femaleȱ correspondentsȱ hasȱ promptedȱ anȱ especiallyȱ rich discussionȱ ofȱ femaleȱ literacyȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ Middleȱ Ages.1ȱ Theȱ participationȱ of

1

TheȱactiveȱparticipationȱofȱBoniface’sȱfemaleȱcorrespondentsȱhasȱbeen,ȱinȱfact,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmost frequentlyȱdiscussedȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱBonifaceȱCorrespondenceȱcorpus.ȱSee,ȱforȱexample, PeterȱDronke,ȱWomenȱWritersȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱAȱCriticalȱStudyȱofȱTextsȱfromȱPerpetuaȱtoȱMarguerite Poreteȱ(CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1984),ȱespeciallyȱ30–33;ȱUrsula Schaefer,ȱ “Twoȱ Womenȱ inȱ Needȱ ofȱ aȱ Friend,”ȱ Germanicȱ Dialects:ȱ Linguisticȱ andȱ Philological Investigations,ȱ ed.ȱ Belaȱ Brogyaniȱ andȱ Thomasȱ Krommelbeinȱ (Amsterdamȱ andȱ Philadelphia:ȱ J. Benjamins,ȱ1986),ȱ491–524;ȱChristineȱE.ȱFell,ȱ“SomeȱImplicationsȱofȱtheȱBonifaceȱCorrespondence,” NewȱReadingsȱonȱWomenȱinȱOldȱEnglishȱLiterature,ȱed.ȱHelenȱDamico,ȱAlexandraȱHennesseyȱOlsen andȱMarijaneȱOsbornȱ(Bloomington:ȱIndianaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ29–43;ȱAlbrechtȱClassen, “Frauenbriefeȱ inȱ Bonifatius,”ȱ Archivȱ fürȱ Kulturgeschichteȱ 72ȱ (1990):ȱ 251–73;ȱ Janinaȱ Cunnen, “Amicitiaȱ inȱ Oldȱ Englishȱ Letters:ȱ Augustine’sȱ Ideasȱ ofȱ ‘Friendship’ȱ andȱ Theirȱ Receptionȱ in Eangyth’sȱLetterȱtoȱBoniface,”ȱRevistaȱAlicantinaȱdeȱEstudiosȱInglesesȱ10ȱ(1997):ȱ35–46;ȱandȱBarbara Yorke,ȱ“TheȱBonifacianȱMissionȱandȱFemaleȱReligiousȱinȱWessex,”ȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEuropeȱ7ȱ(1998): 145–72.ȱForȱmoreȱgeneralȱdiscussionȱofȱAngloȬSaxonȱwomenȱandȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱtranscending physicalȱseparation,ȱseeȱStephanieȱHollis,ȱAngloȬSaxonȱWomenȱandȱtheȱChurch:ȱSharingȱaȱCommon Fateȱ(WoodbridgeȱandȱRochester:ȱBoydel,ȱ1992),ȱespeciallyȱ113–50.ȱForȱanȱoverviewȱofȱletterȬ

232

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

monasticȱwomenȱinȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱBonifaceȱCircleȱisȱespeciallyȱsuggestive,ȱhowever, ofȱtheirȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱtextualȱcultureȱduringȱthisȱperiod ofȱconversionȱandȱmissionaryȱeffort.ȱAbbessȱHeaburg,ȱforȱexample,ȱsendsȱBoniface notȱonlyȱfiftyȱsolidiȱandȱanȱaltarȱcloth—veryȱpracticalȱgifts—butȱalsoȱpromisesȱhim aȱ copyȱ ofȱ theȱ Sufferingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Martyrs,ȱ andȱ asksȱ thatȱ heȱ sendȱ herȱ inȱ return “congregationesȱ aliquasȱ sanctarumȱ scripturarum”ȱ (someȱ collectionȱ ofȱ sacred writings).2ȱBonifaceȱpromisesȱherȱsuchȱaȱbookȱinȱaȱsubsequentȱletter,ȱandȱoffersȱin theȱmeantimeȱhisȱprayersȱforȱherȱandȱherȱhouseholdȱ(no.ȱ27,ȱ48).ȱAfterȱBoniface thanksȱ anotherȱ abbess,ȱ Eadburga,ȱ forȱ “siveȱ solamineȱ librorumȱ siveȱ vestamenȬ torum”ȱ(theȱsolaceȱofȱtheȱbooksȱandȱtheȱgarments)ȱwithȱwhichȱsheȱhasȱrelievedȱhis distressȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱheȱrequestsȱaȱfurtherȱgift,ȱtheȱEpistlesȱofȱSaintȱPeterȱwrittenȱin lettersȱofȱgoldȱ(no.ȱ35,ȱ60).3ȱBeyondȱexploringȱtheȱhistoricalȱorȱpoliticalȱaspectsȱof women’sȱ participationȱ inȱ theȱ Bonifaceȱ Circle,ȱ moreover,ȱ thisȱ presentȱ essay undertakesȱtoȱraiseȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱdeploymentȱofȱepistolaryȱfriendshipȱas whatȱJeffreyȱJeromeȱCohenȱmightȱcallȱ“aȱtextualȱidentityȱmachineȱthatȱcatalyzes newȱ possibilitiesȱ forȱ theȱ historicalȱ momentȱ intoȱ whichȱ itȱ intervenes.”4ȱ While genderȱandȱsexualityȱareȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱtheȱonlyȱelementȱofȱwhatȱIȱwillȱtermȱthe textualȱ bodiesȱ constructedȱ inȱ theȱ women’sȱ letters,ȱ thisȱ essayȱ willȱ focusȱ most specificallyȱonȱtheȱwayȱAngloȬSaxonȱwomen’sȱepistolaryȱfriendshipȱengagesȱand redefinesȱconceptsȱofȱgenderȱdifference,ȱfemininity,ȱandȱvirginityȱinȱtheirȱcreation ofȱaȱsharedȱliterateȱsubjectivity.ȱ Practicalȱtoolsȱforȱbothȱministryȱtoȱtheȱwiderȱworldȱandȱpersonalȱmonasticȱstudy, theȱmanuscriptsȱexchangedȱwithinȱthisȱgeographicallyȱdispersedȱcommunityȱalso symbolizedȱaȱdramaticallyȱforegroundedȱliteracy.ȱDefiningȱitselfȱpreciselyȱbyȱthe writtenȱ word’sȱ abilityȱ toȱ enableȱ emotionalȱ andȱ intellectualȱ presenceȱ despite physicalȱ absence,ȱ theȱ Bonifaceȱ Circleȱ wasȱ byȱ natureȱ aȱ communityȱ inherently textual,ȱgroundedȱinȱliteracy—moreȱspecificallyȱLatinȱliteracy—withinȱaȱlarger socialȱworldȱofȱvernacularȱoralityȱandȱsocialȱbondsȱbasedȱprimarilyȱandȱcertainly conceptuallyȱinȱkinshipȱandȱcontiguity.ȱIndeed,ȱwhatȱweȱknowȱasȱtheȱBoniface Circleȱis,ȱinȱitself,ȱaȱliteraryȱconstruction:ȱitsȱvisibilityȱtoȱhistoryȱdependsȱuponȱthe subsequentȱselectionȱofȱtheseȱlettersȱforȱwhatȱAndyȱOrchardȱcallsȱanȱ“epistolary

2

3

4

writingȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱwomen’sȱcontributionsȱtoȱmedievalȱtextualȱculture,ȱseeȱJoanȱM.ȱFerrante, ToȱtheȱGloryȱofȱherȱSex:ȱWomen’sȱRolesȱinȱtheȱCompositionȱofȱMedievalȱTextsȱ(Bloomington:ȱIndiana UniversityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱespeciallyȱ10–35.ȱ MichaelȱTangl,ȱDieȱBriefeȱdesȱHeiligenȱBonifatiusȱundȱLullusȱ(Berlin:ȱWeidmann,ȱ1955),ȱno.ȱ15,ȱ27. Hereafterȱallȱcitationsȱwillȱbeȱtakenȱfromȱthisȱedition.ȱAllȱtranslationsȱareȱmyȱown. Bonifaceȱalsoȱthanksȱherȱforȱpastȱgiftsȱofȱotherȱsacredȱbooksȱinȱanotherȱletterȱasȱwell:ȱTangl,ȱBriefe, no.ȱ30,ȱ54. JeffreyȱJ.ȱCohen,ȱMedievalȱIdentityȱMachinesȱ(MinneapolisȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱMinnesota Press,ȱ2003),ȱ120.

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

233

patternȬbookȱ forȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ occasions.”5ȱ Thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ theseȱ letters exhibits—evenȱmodels—aȱdistinctiveȱstyleȱrootedȱinȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱtexts.ȱThus ifȱEadburgaȱgivesȱbooksȱtoȱBoniface,ȱhisȱletterȱofȱthanksȱareȱrepleteȱwithȱcitations ofȱ exactlyȱ theȱ Biblicalȱ manuscriptsȱ exchanged:ȱ inȱ aȱ singleȱ briefȱ paragraph, therefore,ȱBonifaceȱechoesȱPsalmsȱ17,ȱ112ȱandȱ118,ȱEphesiansȱandȱ2ȱThessalonians. Theseȱcommonȱscripturalȱreferencesȱlinkȱandȱdefineȱtheȱtwoȱofȱthemȱ(andȱtheir otherȱfriendsȱandȱcorrespondents)ȱasȱusersȱofȱliteracyȱwithinȱaȱdefinedȱtextual community.6ȱ Moreoverȱandȱmoreȱsignificantly,ȱechoesȱandȱcitationsȱofȱverbalȱformulasȱmined fromȱeachȱother’sȱpreviousȱlettersȱalsoȱaddȱ(asȱAndyȱOrchardȱhasȱargued)ȱtoȱthe productionȱ ofȱ aȱ selfȬconscious,ȱ selfȬreflexive,ȱ sharedȱ aesthetic,ȱ aȱ denseȱ and multipleȱ intertextuality.ȱ Asȱ Christineȱ Fellȱ hasȱ alsoȱ noted,ȱ theȱ ninthȬcentury manuscriptȱViennaȱNationalbibliothekȱLat.ȱ751,ȱaȱmajorȱsourceȱofȱtheȱBoniface Circleȱlettersȱ(includingȱallȱofȱthoseȱtoȱbeȱdiscussedȱhere),ȱcollectsȱthemȱtogether withȱaȱselectionȱofȱAldhelm’sȱlettersȱandȱaȱuniqueȱcopyȱofȱhisȱCarmenȱRhythmicum. Aldhelm’sȱ verseȱ formȱ inȱ thisȱ work—aȱ formȱ ofȱ whichȱ heȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ the inventor—isȱechoedȱandȱimitatedȱwithinȱpoemsȱandȱlettersȱcollectedȱwithinȱthat sameȱmanuscript.ȱInȱfact,ȱFellȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱcompilationȱofȱViennaȱ751ȱcanȱbe associatedȱwithȱBoniface’sȱdiscipleȱandȱsuccessorȱLul,ȱwhoȱinȱoneȱofȱhisȱownȱletters requestedȱthatȱaȱcorrespondentȱinȱEnglandȱsendȱhimȱtheȱworksȱofȱAldhelmȱ“seu prosarumȱseuȱmetrorumȱautȱrithmicorum”ȱ(inȱproseȱorȱmeterȱorȱrhyme).7ȱBeyond this,ȱ too,ȱ Aldhelm’sȱ Deȱ metrisȱ andȱ Deȱ pedumȱ regularisȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ poetic compositions,ȱconstitutedȱaȱsubstantialȱinfluenceȱonȱAngloȬSaxonȱeducationȱand literacy,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱSouthumbriaȱofȱBonifaceȱandȱhisȱcorrespondents.ȱHis understandingȱ ofȱ verseȱ asȱ mathematicallyȱ preciseȱ schema,ȱ andȱ hisȱ useȱ of alliterationȱ andȱ repetitionȱ ofȱ setȱ phrasesȱ inȱ similarȱ metricalȱ environments,ȱ all createȱaȱmodelȱforȱformulaicallyȱreproducible—andȱevenȱreproductive—literary languageȱcapableȱofȱcreatingȱaȱsophisticatedȱliterateȱsubjectivityȱandȱidentity.8ȱ

5

6

7 8

AndyȱOrchard,ȱ“OldȱSources,ȱNewȱResources:ȱFindingȱtheȱRightȱFormulaȱforȱBoniface,”ȱAngloȬ SaxonȱEnglandȱ30ȱ(2001):ȱ15–38. Forȱtextualȱcommunities,ȱseeȱBrianȱStock,ȱTheȱImplicationsȱofȱLiteracy:ȱWrittenȱLanguageȱandȱModels ofȱInterpretationȱinȱtheȱEleventhȱandȱTwelfthȱCenturiesȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983). Fell,ȱ“SomeȱImplicationsȱofȱtheȱBonifaceȱCorrespondence,”ȱ35,ȱcitingȱTangl,ȱBriefe,ȱno.ȱ71. ForȱAldhelm’sȱpoeticȱoriginality,ȱseeȱMichaelȱLapidgeȱandȱJamesȱL.ȱRosier,ȱtrans.,ȱAldhelm:ȱThe PoeticȱWorksȱ(Cambridge:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ1985),ȱ171;ȱandȱAndyȱOrchard,ȱTheȱPoeticȱArtȱofȱAldhelm (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱForȱAldhelm’sȱinfluence,ȱseeȱalso CarinȱRuff,ȱ“TheȱPlaceȱofȱMetricsȱinȱAngloȬSaxonȱLatinȱEducation:ȱAldhelmȱandȱBede,”ȱJournal ofȱEnglishȱandȱGermanicȱPhilologyȱ(Aprilȱ2005):149–70;ȱMichaelȱLapidge,ȱ“Aldhelm’sȱLatinȱPoetry andȱOldȱEnglishȱVerse,”ȱComparativeȱLiteratureȱ31(1979):ȱ209–31.ȱAlsoȱofȱinterestȱisȱtheȱdiscussion ofȱ theȱ formulaicȱ natureȱ ofȱ Aldhelmianȱ andȱ Bonifatianȱ literacyȱ inȱ Matthewȱ T.ȱ Hussey, “Transmarinisȱ litteris:ȱ Southumbriaȱ andȱ theȱ Transmissionȱ ofȱ Isidore’sȱ Synonyma”ȱ Journalȱ of Englishȱ andȱ Germanicȱ Philologyȱ (Aprilȱ 2008):ȱ 141–68,ȱ andȱ Malcolmȱ B.ȱ Parkes,ȱ “Rædan,ȱ areccan,

234

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

Theȱabilityȱtoȱdeployȱthisȱsharedȱliteraryȱlanguageȱsuccessfullyȱconsequently establishesȱaȱwriter’sȱmembershipȱwithinȱanȱextendedȱfamilia—theȱBonifaceȱCircle constitutesȱnotȱonlyȱaȱtextualȱbutȱalsoȱanȱemotionalȱcommunity,ȱasȱdefinedȱby Barbaraȱ Rosenwein,ȱ “inȱ whichȱ peopleȱ adhereȱ toȱ theȱ sameȱ normsȱ ofȱ emotional expressionȱandȱvalue—orȱdevalue—theȱsameȱorȱrelatedȱemotions.”9ȱWithinȱthis familia,ȱforȱexample,ȱdiscoursesȱofȱpatronage,ȱkinship,ȱandȱaffectionȱareȱconflated. BonifaceȱaddressesȱHeaburg,ȱforȱexample,ȱasȱhisȱ“dominaeȱdilectisimaeȱetȱinȱamore Christiȱceterisȱfemininiȱsexusȱpreferendae”ȱ(lady,ȱmostȱbelovedȱandȱmostȱprecious inȱtheȱloveȱofȱChristȱofȱallȱwomen)ȱasȱwellȱasȱhisȱ“sororoemȱcarissimam”ȱ(dearest sister)ȱ (no.ȱ 27,ȱ 48–49).ȱ Heȱ writesȱ toȱ herȱ inȱ anotherȱ letterȱ asȱ hisȱ “venerandeȱ ac dilectissimaeȱsorori”ȱ(venerableȱandȱmuchȱbelovedȱsister),ȱhisȱ“sororȱkarissima” (belovedȱ sister)ȱ andȱ hisȱ “sororȱ veneranda”ȱ (reverendȱ sister)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ his “karisima”(mostȱdearȱone)ȱ(no.ȱ94,ȱ214–15).ȱEadburgaȱisȱsimilarlyȱhisȱ“reverenȬ tissimaeȱacȱdilectissimaeȱsorori”ȱ(mostȱreverendȱandȱbelovedȱsister)ȱandȱhisȱ“soror carissima”ȱ(dearestȱsister)ȱ(no.ȱ35,ȱ60).ȱElsewhereȱsheȱisȱhisȱ“carissimamȱsororem” (mostȱdearȱsister)ȱandȱheȱdirectsȱhisȱletterȱtoȱhisȱ“dilectissimeȱsororiȱetȱiamȱdudum spiritalisȱclienteleȱpropinquitateȱconexe”ȱ(mostȱbelovedȱsister,ȱlongȱlinkedȱtoȱhim byȱ theȱ closeȱ bondsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ patronage)ȱ (no.ȱ 30,ȱ 54).ȱ Egburgaȱ andȱ Leoba,ȱ in return,ȱbothȱsaluteȱBonifaceȱasȱtheirȱ“frater”ȱ(brother)ȱ(no.ȱ13,ȱ19ȱandȱno.ȱ29,ȱ52).ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ monasticȱ amicitia,ȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ friendshipȱ andȱ chasteȱ desire, furtherȱcolorsȱthisȱdiscourse.10ȱBonifaceȱembracesȱEadburgaȱtextuallyȱinȱ“spiritualis amorisȱ vinculo”ȱ (bondsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ love)ȱ thatȱ uniteȱ themȱ inȱ soulȱ thoughȱ far separatedȱinȱphysicalȱspaceȱ(no.ȱ 65,ȱ137).ȱTheȱdistanceȱisȱhereȱquiteȱliteral:ȱthe abbessȱisȱinȱEngland,ȱfarȱfromȱtheȱmissionary—soonȱtoȱbeȱmartyred—bishopȱon theȱ Continent.ȱ Heȱ hasȱ goodȱ reasonȱ toȱ describeȱ hisȱ wanderingȱ asȱ “variis tempestatibusȱinliditur”ȱ(besetȱbyȱtempestsȱofȱmanyȱkinds)—thoughȱtheȱimageȱwill beȱechoedȱbyȱhisȱfemaleȱcorrespondentsȱmoreȱmetaphorically.ȱ Asȱstrikingȱareȱhisȱgesturesȱofȱrhetoricallyȱphysicalizedȱaffection,ȱasȱwhenȱhe offersȱ herȱ hisȱ “divinoȱ acȱ virgineoȱ caritatisȱ osculo”ȱ (holyȱ andȱ virginalȱ kissȱ of affection)ȱ(no.ȱ65,ȱ137).ȱHeaburg,ȱforȱherȱpart,ȱechoesȱ2ȱCorinthiansȱ6.6ȱwhenȱshe writesȱ toȱ Bonifaceȱ “inȱ caritateȱ nonȱ ficta”ȱ (inȱ loveȱ unfeigned)ȱ (no.ȱ 15,ȱ 28).ȱ As Ecgburgaȱ acknowledgesȱ theȱ bondsȱ ofȱ hisȱ affectionȱ forȱ herȱ “quiddamȱ mellitae dulcedinisȱmeisȱvisceribusȱhicȱsaporȱinsidet”ȱ(herȱveryȱinmostȱsoulȱisȱfilledȱwith aȱsweetnessȱasȱofȱhoney)ȱandȱalthoughȱdeniedȱhisȱphysicalȱpresence,ȱembracesȱhim

9

10

smeagan:ȱHowȱtheȱAngloȬSaxonsȱRead,”ȱAngloȬSaxonȱEnglandȱ26ȱ(1997):ȱ1–22.ȱ BarbaraȱRosenwein,ȱEmotionalȱCommunitiesȱinȱtheȱEarlyȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Ithaca,ȱNY:ȱCornellȱUniversity Press,ȱ2006),ȱ2. Cunnen,ȱ“AmicitiaȱinȱOldȱEnglishȱLetters.”ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱamicitiaȱandȱtheȱmedievalȱdiscourse ofȱfriendshipȱespeciallyȱ(andȱperhapsȱnormatively,ȱatȱleastȱforȱmodernȱreaders)ȱamongȱmen,ȱsee alsoȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love:ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lostȱ Sensibility.ȱ Theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Series (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999).

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

235

inȱherȱthoughtsȱ(no.ȱ13,ȱ19).ȱOfferedȱinȱlettersȱratherȱthanȱinȱflesh,ȱthisȱrhetorical presence,ȱtheseȱtextualȱembracesȱareȱparadoxicallyȱrootedȱinȱtheȱdistanceȱbetween theȱfriends,ȱhenceȱtheȱimpossibilityȱofȱtheȱcorrespondingȱphysicalȱgestures.ȱ ForȱBoniface’sȱfemaleȱcorrespondents,ȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱconstructingȱanȱalternate monasticȱ familiaȱ withinȱ epistolaryȱ friendshipȱ andȱ newȱ Latinateȱ textualȱ bodies distinctȱ fromȱ thoseȱ theyȱ inhabitedȱ withinȱ theȱ secular,ȱ vernacularȱ socialȱ order, producesȱ aȱ space—albeitȱ aȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ unproblematicȱ space—forȱ theȱ radical redefinitionȱofȱdesire,ȱgender,ȱandȱidentity.ȱNowhereȱisȱthis,ȱandȱtheȱprocessȱof constructingȱaȱtextualȱbody,ȱsoȱexplicitȱasȱitȱisȱwhenȱtheȱyoungȱAngloȬSaxonȱnun Leofgythȱ(calledȱLeoba)ȱwritesȱtoȱtheȱolderȱmissionaryȱBishopȱBonifaceȱaskingȱfor hisȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱandȱmentoring.ȱLeobaȱdemonstratesȱherȱmasteryȱofȱthe community’sȱsharedȱformulaȬȱandȱimageȬstockȱinȱbothȱherȱletterȱandȱaȱbriefȱpoem: sheȱwritesȱherselfȱ(quiteȱliterally)ȱintoȱthisȱcircleȱofȱfriends.ȱ WhenȱsheȱsalutesȱBonifaceȱasȱ“inȱChristoȱcarrisimo”ȱ(mostȱdearȱinȱChrist),ȱfor example,ȱherȱletterȱreiteratesȱaȱformulaȱBonifaceȱhimselfȱhadȱusedȱinȱaddressing previousȱlettersȱtoȱherȱteacher,ȱEadburga,ȱandȱotherȱAngloȬSaxonȱmonasticȱwomen (no.ȱ29,ȱ52).ȱHerȱphrasing,ȱherȱclaimȱofȱaȱspiritualȱconnectionȱworksȱ(asȱitȱwere)ȱto reproduceȱLeobaȱwithinȱaȱnewȱfamilia.ȱLeobaȱexplicitlyȱcitesȱtheirȱsharedȱlinksȱwith herȱteacherȱEadburga.ȱButȱsheȱappealsȱtoȱBonifaceȱasȱwellȱbyȱinvokingȱotherȱties ofȱ bothȱ bloodȬȱ andȱ syntheticȱ kinship:ȱ sheȱ notesȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ “mihiȱ adfinitatis propinquitateȱconexo”ȱ(boundȱtoȱmeȱbyȱtiesȱofȱkinship),ȱremindingȱhimȱofȱhis previousȱfriendshipȱwithȱLeoba’sȱfatherȱDynneȱandȱhisȱbloodȱkinshipȱwithȱher mother,ȱAebbe.ȱInȱthusȱseekingȱbyȱherȱwrittenȱwordsȱtoȱtakeȱBonifaceȱ“inȱfratris locum”ȱ (inȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ aȱ brother),ȱ Leobaȱ initiallyȱ deploysȱ andȱ elidesȱ multiple existingȱ kinshipȱ relationshipsȱ bothȱ bloodȱ andȱ synthetic.ȱ Allȱ ofȱ thisȱ locatesȱ her body—definedȱ atȱ leastȱ partiallyȱ byȱ genderȱ (female)ȱ andȱ sexualityȱ (monastic virginity)ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ herȱ socialȱ status—primarilyȱ withinȱ traditionalȱ kinship networksȱbasedȱinȱpastȱphysicalȱpresenceȱandȱcontiguity.11 ItȱisȱinȱtheȱlinesȱofȱtheȱverseȱprayerȱLeobaȱappendsȱtoȱshowcaseȱherȱliteraryȱskills andȱearnȱBoniface’sȱfriendshipȱthatȱsheȱreconstructsȱherselfȱmoreȱradically.ȱInȱthe vitaȱwrittenȱbyȱRudolfȱofȱFuldaȱaȱhundredȱyearsȱlater,ȱBonifaceȱcallsȱLeobaȱoutȱof aȱ femaleȱ communityȱ distinguishedȱ byȱ itsȱ oralityȱ andȱ contingency:ȱ Leobaȱ has passedȱfromȱherȱbirthȱmotherȱtoȱherȱspiritualȱmother,ȱaboutȱwhomȱsheȱwillȱlater regaleȱherȱownȱspiritualȱdaughtersȱwithȱaȱseriesȱofȱfolkȱtales.12ȱȱIndeed,ȱRudolf claimsȱtoȱbeȱcreatingȱhisȱwrittenȱtextȱforȱthoseȱdaughtersȱandȱgranddaughters,ȱout

11

12

IȱDeugȬSu,ȱLȇeloquenzaȱdelȱsilenzioȱnelleȱfontiȱmediolatineȱ:ȱilȱcasoȱdiȱLeobaȱȈdilectaȈȱdiȱBonifacioȱVinfredo. Millennioȱmedievaleȱ:ȱStrumentiȱeȱstudi,ȱ47;ȱN.S.,ȱ7ȱ(Tavarnuzzeȱ[Florence]ȱ:ȱSISMEL,ȱEd.ȱdel Galluzzo,ȱ2004). VitaȱLeobaeȱAbbatissaeȱBiscofesheimensisȱauctoreȱRudolfoȱFuldense,ȱed.ȱGeorgȱWaitz.ȱMGHȱSSȱ15.1 (Hanover:ȱHahn,ȱ1887),ȱ118–31.ȱ

236

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

ofȱ theirȱ oralȱ legends.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ theȱ vitaȱ onlyȱ menȱ likeȱ Rudolfȱ himself,ȱ like Boniface,ȱ write.ȱ Women,ȱ includingȱ Leoba,ȱ canȱ read—althoughȱ theȱ vitaȱ also suggestsȱthatȱtheirȱreadingȱmustȱbeȱcloselyȱpoliced—butȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱwrite:ȱnot letters,ȱandȱcertainlyȱnotȱpoetry.ȱ TheȱsignificanceȱofȱLeoba’sȱpoem,ȱthen,ȱliesȱnotȱinȱtheȱoriginalityȱofȱitsȱsentiment, notȱinȱtheȱuniquenessȱofȱitsȱimageryȱandȱdiction.ȱQuiteȱtheȱcontrary—itsȱinvocation ofȱ theȱ selfȬsustainingȱ powerȱ ofȱ theȱ Triuneȱ Godȱ isȱ orthodoxȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ of formularity: Arbiterȱomnipotens,ȱsolusȱquiȱcunctaȱcreavit, Inȱregnoȱpatrisȱsemperȱquiȱlumineȱfulget, QuaȱiugiterȱflagransȱsicȱregentȱGloriaȱChristi, Inlesumȱservetȱsemperȱteȱiureȱperenni.ȱ(no.ȱ29,ȱ53) [MayȱtheȱomnipotentȱRuler,ȱWhoȱaloneȱcreatedȱallȱthings,ȱandȱWhoȱshinesȱforever inȱsplendorȱinȱtheȱFather’sȱkingdom,ȱandȱthroughȱWhoseȱperpetualȱfireȱtheȱglory ofȱChristȱreigns,ȱpreserveȱyouȱforeverȱaccordingȱtoȱperennialȱlaw.]

EachȱofȱitsȱlinesȱrepeatsȱatȱleastȱoneȱphraseȱfromȱAldhelm’sȱpoeticȱcorpus.ȱLeoba’s poeticȱ prayerȱ thusȱ constructsȱ itselfȱ withinȱ aȱ networkȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱ and influences,ȱ associatedȱ withȱ theȱ previousȱ worksȱ ofȱ quasiȬpaternal,ȱ certainly patriarchalȱauthorities.ȱRatherȱthanȱbeingȱappropriatedȱbyȱBonifaceȱfromȱaȱworld ofȱfemaleȱorality,ȱasȱinȱRudolf’sȱvita,ȱLeobaȱappropriatesȱforȱherselfȱaȱplaceȱinȱmale literaryȱauthority.ȱAppropriatingȱimagesȱandȱvocabularyȱfromȱAldhelm,ȱLeoba’s poemȱ locatesȱ herȱ new,ȱ purelyȱ textualȱ bodyȱ withinȱ Latinȱ literacyȱ ratherȱ than existingȱsocialȱties.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱLeobaȱboldlyȱinterposesȱherselfȱwithinȱaȱrealmȱof literateȱsociality,ȱclaimingȱaȱspaceȱinȱtheȱbondsȱofȱinfluenceȱandȱreceptionȱthatȱlink BonifaceȱtoȱAldhelm.13ȱByȱdoingȱso,ȱmoreover,ȱsheȱclothesȱherselfȱinȱtheirȱtextual authorityȱtoȱ“speak”ȱasȱitȱwereȱinȱpublic,ȱtoȱwriteȱandȱtoȱexchangeȱtextsȱandȱtextual bodiesȱinȱtheȱsyntheticȱkinshipȱofȱliteracyȱandȱmonasticism—perhapsȱinȱmuchȱthe wayȱthatȱinȱtheȱtraditionalȱsecularȱworldȱmenȱexchangeȱwomen’sȱbodiesȱwithin networksȱofȱsocialȱkinship.ȱ NorȱisȱLeobaȱtheȱonlyȱwomanȱinȱtheȱBonifaceȱCircleȱwhoseȱtextualȱbodyȱisȱto someȱextentȱorȱotherȱtransgenderedȱbyȱliteracy.ȱWhenȱEcgburgaȱwritesȱtoȱBoniface ofȱ missingȱ bothȱ himȱ andȱ herȱ sisterȱ Wethburga,ȱ theȱ imageȱ sheȱ employsȱ ofȱ the stormȬtossedȱsailorȱmightȱseemȱmoreȱliterallyȱappropriateȱforȱherȱsister,ȱaȱpilgrim inȱRome,ȱorȱherȱfriendȱBonifaceȱinȱGermanyȱthanȱforȱherself—andȱBonifaceȱdoes, inȱ fact,ȱ useȱ thisȱ imageȱ elsewhere.ȱ “Nonȱ sicȱ tempestateȱ iactatusȱ portumȱ nauta

13

OnȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱAldhelm’sȱpoetry,ȱespeciallyȱhisȱEnigmata,ȱhisȱCarmenȱdeȱvirginitate,ȱandȱhis CarminaȱEcclesiastica,ȱonȱBonifaceȱandȱlaterȱAngloȬLatinȱpoetsȱandȱwriters,ȱseeȱAndyȱOrchard,ȱThe PoeticȱArtȱofȱAldhelmȱ(CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱespecially 248–53.

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

237

desiderat”ȱ(noȱlessȱthanȱtheȱstormȬtossedȱsailorȱlongsȱforȱtheȱharbor),ȱEcgburga exclaims,ȱ“nonȱsicȱcurvoȱlitoreȱanxiaȱfiliumȱmaterȱexpectat”ȱ(orȱtheȱanxiousȱmother watchesȱbyȱtheȱshoreȱforȱherȱson)ȱsoȱdoesȱsheȱlongȱforȱtheȱsightȱofȱhimȱ(no.ȱ13,ȱ20). Bothȱtheȱsailorȱandȱtheȱmotherȱwhoȱwaitsȱforȱhim,ȱbothȱactiveȱmaleȱandȱpassive female,ȱinȱherȱletterȱEcgburgaȱcan,ȱevenȱthoughȱstationary,ȱneverthelessȱstillȱtravel inȱherȱtextualȱbodyȱwithȱherȱsisterȱandȱwithȱBoniface.ȱ AȱjointȱletterȱfromȱEangythȱandȱHeaburgȱ(probablyȱherȱbiologicalȱdaughterȱas wellȱasȱherȱdaughterȱinȱmonasticȱvocation)ȱbindsȱthoseȱtwoȱwomenȱinȱoneȱbody evenȱasȱitȱforgesȱtheirȱjointȱbondȱwithȱBoniface.ȱTheȱtextualȱbodiesȱwhichȱappear inȱtheirȱletterȱtoȱ“UuynfridoȱcognmentoȱBonifatio”ȱ(WinfredȱcalledȱBoniface)ȱare marked,ȱlikeȱLeoba’s,ȱbyȱanȱexcess,ȱaȱmultiplicityȱofȱsocialȱconnectionȱ(no.ȱ14,ȱ21). TheȱAngloȬSaxonȱvernacularȱWinfredȱimplicitlyȱbelongsȱtoȱaȱspecificȱsocial/kin group;ȱ theȱ Latinȱ Bonifaceȱ announcesȱ aȱ newȱ kinshipȱ withinȱ monasticȱ and ecclesiasticalȱfamiliae.ȱEvenȱasȱWinfred/Bonifaceȱhasȱtraveledȱinȱphysicalȱspace, acrossȱtheȱseaȱfromȱEnglandȱtoȱtheȱContinent,ȱtheȱwomen’sȱ“amantissimeȱfrater, spiritalisȱmagisȱquamȱcarnalis”ȱ(belovedȱbrotherȱinȱspiritȱratherȱthanȱflesh)ȱhas madeȱtheȱtransitionȱfromȱaȱplaceȱdefinedȱbyȱreferenceȱtoȱsocialȱbondsȱofȱblood kinshipȱandȱsecularȱlordshipȱtoȱaȱnewȱhomelandȱandȱaȱnewȱidentityȱfashioned throughȱmonasticȱpracticeȱandȱChristianȱliteracy.ȱ Forȱtheirȱpartȱtheȱtwoȱwomenȱshareȱinȱtheirȱletterȱanȱevenȱmoreȱproblematically multiple,ȱparadoxicalȱbody.ȱTheirȱtextualȱbodyȱexhibitsȱanȱespeciallyȱriddleȬlike confusionȱofȱsubjectsȱexcessivelyȱdefinedȱbyȱmultipleȱsocialȱidentities.ȱEangythȱis namedȱasȱ abbess:ȱ herȱidentityȱisȱdefinedȱfirstȱofȱallȱbyȱherȱpositionȱwithinȱher monasticȱfamilia:ȱ“HaeaburgȱcognomentoȱBugge”ȱ(HeaburgȱcalledȱBugga)—the doubleȱnamingȱitselfȱjuxtaposesȱpublicȱidentityȱwithȱprivateȱaffection—isȱ“unica filiaȱ eius”ȱ (herȱ onlyȱ daughter),ȱ presumablyȱ herȱ onlyȱ biologicalȱ daughter.ȱ The exceptionȱinherentlyȱprivilegesȱbloodȱrelations,ȱandȱoccludesȱother,ȱanonymous spiritualȱdaughtersȱwithinȱtheȱabbess’sȱmonasticȱhouse.ȱ Eangythȱ isȱ thusȱ caught—orȱ perhapsȱ triangulated—betweenȱ conflicting maternitiesȱofȱspiritȱandȱflesh.ȱAnd,ȱmoreover,ȱsheȱandȱHeaburgȱwriteȱasȱoneȱ“we” throughoutȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ letter:ȱ motherȱ andȱ daughterȱ byȱ biologyȱ andȱ monastic professionȱshareȱaȱcompositeȱtextualȱbodyȱdescribedȱthroughȱriddling,ȱexcessive andȱcontradictoryȱrelationships.ȱItȱis,ȱhowever,ȱalsoȱaȱbodyȱhauntedȱbyȱloss—of friendsȱandȱsupporters,ȱofȱtheȱcrowdȱ ofȱrelativesȱandȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱkinȱthat shouldȱorientȱthemȱinȱsociety.ȱItȱisȱaȱbodyȱwithoutȱ“fratrem,ȱpatremȱautȱpatruum, nisiȱtantumȱunicamȱfiliamȱpenitusȱdestitutamȱomnibusȱcarisȱinȱhocȱsaeculo,ȱpreter unamȱ tantumȱ sororumȱ eiusȱ etȱ matremȱ valideȱ vetulamȱ etȱ filiumȱ fratris earum”—thatȱis,ȱwithoutȱsonȱ(i.e.,ȱEangyth’s)ȱorȱbrotherȱ(i.e.,ȱHeaburg’s),ȱwith neitherȱfatherȱnorȱuncle,ȱandȱonlyȱoneȱdaughterȱ(presumablyȱHeaburg)ȱwhoȱhas lostȱallȱexceptȱoneȱsister,ȱanȱagedȱmotherȱ(Eangyth),ȱandȱtheȱsonȱofȱoneȱbrother (perhapsȱaȱsonȱofȱEangyth’sȱbrother,ȱthatȱis,ȱofȱHeaburg’sȱdeadȱuncle).ȱ

238

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

Forȱ theȱ twoȱ womenȱ Boniface—orȱ atȱ leastȱ hisȱ representationȱ inȱ epistolary text—modelsȱaȱmoreȱconsistentȱandȱhighlyȱdesirableȱsocialȱbody.ȱItȱisȱanȱexplicitly textualȱ bodyȱ asȱ itȱ wereȱ reproducedȱ andȱ reproducingȱ othersȱ inȱ turnȱ through practicesȱ ofȱ literacy—includingȱ theȱ readingȱ andȱ writing,ȱ theȱ exchangeȱ of letters—withinȱ theȱ Bonifaceȱ Circle.ȱ Theȱ letterȱ ofȱ Eangythȱ andȱ Heaburgȱ is characteristicallyȱconstantȱandȱselfȬconsciousȱinȱitsȱdeploymentȱofȱtheȱepistolary styleȱ ofȱ theȱ Bonifaceȱ circle,ȱ andȱ ofȱ quotationsȱ andȱ appropriationsȱ fromȱ the Scripturesȱ(Matthewȱ7,ȱLukeȱ14,ȱWisdomȱ6ȱandȱ4)ȱandȱfromȱcanonicalȱtextsȱsuch asȱ theȱ lettersȱ ofȱ Jeromeȱ (especiallyȱ Nos.ȱ 3ȱ andȱ 14ȱ withȱ theirȱ concernȱ withȱ the crushingȱburdenȱofȱworldlyȱaffairs),ȱandȱtheȱworksȱofȱAldhelmȱ(includingȱhisȱletter toȱ Aldfrith).ȱ Suchȱ textualȱ reproductionȱ underwrites,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ the superscription’sȱseeminglyȱgratuitousȱpraiseȱofȱBoniface’sȱvirginity.ȱ TheȱletterȱspecificallyȱsalutesȱBonifaceȱasȱ“virginalisȱcastimoniaeȱfloribusȱvelud liliarumȱsertisȱcoronato”ȱ(crownedȱwithȱtheȱflowersȱofȱvirginalȱchastityȱasȱwith lilies)ȱandȱrichȱinȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱdoctrine,ȱacclaimingȱhimȱforȱtheȱwayȱhisȱlearning andȱliteracyȱcreateȱaȱnewȱfamily,ȱspiritualȱprogeny,ȱthroughȱtextȱratherȱthanȱsex. Bornȱofȱwords,ȱtheȱtextualȱbodiesȱofȱbothȱBonifaceȱandȱtheȱtwoȱwomenȱenjoyȱa metaphoricȱphysicalityȱthatȱcollapsesȱtheȱboundariesȱbetweenȱbodies,ȱevenȱasȱthe letterȱ formȱ emphasizesȱ theirȱ separationȱ andȱ theȱ literalȱ impossibilityȱ ofȱ touch. Boniface’sȱaffectionateȱandȱconsolingȱwordsȱareȱsweetȱtoȱtheȱtasteȱasȱtheȱwomen pronounceȱthemȱinȱreading.ȱAndȱwhenȱtheseȱ“interlitasȱlacrimis”ȱ(thisȱtearȬstained lines)ȱmournȱtheȱlossȱofȱroyalȱfriendsȱandȱkinsmenȱandȱtheȱconsequentȱlossȱof politicalȱandȱsocialȱsupport,ȱtheȱtearsȱareȱthoseȱofȱEangythȱandȱHeaburgȱfalling uponȱ theȱ pageȱ asȱ theyȱ write,ȱ butȱ theyȱ areȱ alsoȱ tearsȱ producedȱ asȱ theȱ letter’s compoundedȱtextualȱbodyȱisȱperformedȱinȱtheȱactȱofȱreading—theyȱareȱperhaps thoseȱofȱtheȱreader,ȱBoniface,ȱasȱtheȱletterȱpresumesȱhisȱresponseȱandȱclosesȱthe distanceȱbetweenȱwriterȱandȱreaderȱinȱtheȱoneȱemotionalȱgesture. Theȱtribulationsȱwhichȱoccasionȱthoseȱtearsȱareȱmany,ȱsoȱmanyȱtheȱwomenȱclaim, echoingȱAldhelm,ȱthatȱ“utȱdicitur,ȱSextilisȱautȱQuintilisȱtemporeȱprotelentȱaestatis” (evenȱaȱsummerȬlongȱdayȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱlongȱenoughȱtoȱtellȱthemȱall).14ȱTheȱplight ofȱtheirȱnephew/cousin—heȱisȱparticularlyȱunhappyȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱownȱfollyȱas wellȱasȱtheȱhatredȱofȱtheȱking—exemplifiesȱtheȱsocialȱdangersȱwhichȱbesetȱthe womenȱasȱwell.ȱTheȱabbessȱworriesȱaboutȱherȱpastoralȱduties:ȱfromȱtheȱbeginning ofȱtheȱletterȱEangythȱcallsȱherselfȱtheȱhandmaidȱofȱtheȱhandmaidsȱandȱthoseȱothers entrustedȱ toȱ herȱ care.ȱ Sheȱ findsȱ herselfȱ distractedȱ byȱ internalȱ administrative

14

TheȱOldȱEnglishȱWife’sȱLamentȱechoesȱtheȱsameȱlinesȱofȱAldhelm.ȱForȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱAldhelm, andȱ conceivablyȱ theȱ Bonifaceȱ Circle,ȱ onȱ Oldȱ Englishȱ elegiacȱ verse,ȱ seeȱ Michaelȱ Lapidge, “Aldhelm’sȱLatinȱPoetryȱandȱOldȱEnglishȱVerse.”ȱTheȱenigmaticȱmaleȱfigureȱinȱtheȱWife’sȱLament alsoȱsharesȱaȱfateȱveryȱlikeȱthatȱofȱEangyth’sȱnephew.

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

239

struggles,ȱexacerbatedȱbyȱexternalȱproblemsȱlikeȱcropȱfailuresȱandȱtaxation,ȱandȱby theȱeffectsȱofȱenvy,ȱroyalȱillȱwill,ȱandȱsocialȱalienation.ȱ Ofȱtheȱwomen’sȱabsentȱkin,ȱsomeȱhaveȱdiedȱinȱEngland;ȱawaitingȱtheȱDayȱof Judgment,ȱ whenȱ sorrowȱ shallȱ vanish,ȱ theirȱ survivorsȱ sufferȱ lonelinessȱ andȱ the paradoxicallyȱsadnessȱofȱbeingȱnearȱtheirȱtombsȱyetȱdeprivedȱofȱtheirȱsupportȱand consolation.ȱ Othersȱ (includingȱ thatȱ otherȱ daughter/sister)ȱ haveȱ entrusted themselvesȱtoȱtheȱpathwaysȱofȱtheȱsea.ȱIronicallyȱstabilityȱatȱhomeȱisȱexileȱand physicalȱexileȱcanȱbeȱgoingȱhome:ȱthoseȱleftȱbehindȱsufferȱaȱmoreȱunattractive “exile”ȱ thanȱ theȱ pilgrims,ȱ whoȱ mayȱ wellȱ haveȱ foundȱ theȱ shrinesȱ ofȱ and communionȱ withȱ theȱ saintsȱ theyȱ sought.ȱ Pilgrimageȱ is,ȱ indeed,ȱ aȱ particular concernȱ inȱ theȱ letter:ȱ Eangyth’sȱ desireȱ toȱ travelȱ toȱ Rome,ȱ “sicutȱ plurimiȱ ex necessariesȱ nostrisȱ etȱ cognatesȱ siveȱ alienis”ȱ (asȱ otherȱ friends,ȱ bothȱ kinȱ and strangersȱhaveȱdone),ȱisȱofȱlongȬstanding.ȱInȱtheȱonlyȱslippageȱfromȱtheȱcomposite toȱtheȱsingularȱI,ȱEangythȱremindsȱBonifaceȱthatȱherȱdesireȱwasȱwellȱknownȱto Abbessȱ Wala,ȱ herȱ spiritualȱ motherȱ whenȱ Heaburgȱ wasȱ tooȱ youngȱ eitherȱ to understandȱ orȱ toȱ shareȱ theȱ desire.ȱ ȱ Now,ȱ inȱ thisȱ letter,ȱ theyȱ againȱ appealȱ to BonifaceȱtoȱsupportȱthemȱinȱtheirȱprayersȱthatȱtheȱwillȱofȱGodȱmightȱbeȱmade known,ȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱ validateȱ theirȱ (orȱ atȱ leastȱ Engyth’s)ȱ desire.ȱ Deniedȱ asȱ yet permissionȱ toȱ goȱ onȱ pilgrimage,ȱ however,ȱ Eangythȱ andȱ Heaburgȱ inhabitȱ a seascapeȱofȱexile:ȱ Tamquamȱspumosiȱmariaȱvorticesȱverruntȱetȱvelluntȱundarumȱcumulosȱconlisosȱsaxia, quandoȱventorumȱviolentiaȱetȱprocellarumȱtempestatesȱsevissimeȱinormemȱeuripum impelluntȱetȱcymbarumȱcarineȱsursumȱimmutateȱetȱmalusȱnavisȱdeorsumȱduratur,ȱhaut secusȱ animarumȱ nostrarumȱ naviculaeȱ magnisȱ miseriarumȱ machinisȱ etȱ multifaria calamitatumȱquantitateȱquatiantur,ȱetȱveludȱveritatisȱvoceȱȱdeȱevangelicaȱdomoȱdicitur: ‘Descenditȱpluvial,ȱveneruntȱflumina,ȱflaveruntȱventiȱetȱimpingeruntȱinȱdomumȱillam.’ȱ [Asȱ whenȱ whirlpoolsȱ ofȱ theȱ foamingȱ seaȱ sweepȱ andȱ mountainousȱ wavesȱ dashing againstȱ rocksȱ pull,ȱ whenȱ theȱ violenceȱ ofȱ theȱ windȱ andȱ stormȱ driveȱ throughȱ an enormousȱchannelȱtheȱkeelsȱofȱshipsȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱareȱupturnedȱandȱtheirȱmastsȱare shattered,ȱevenȱsoȱtheȱfrailȱvesselsȱofȱourȱsoulsȱareȱshakenȱbyȱtheȱforceȱofȱourȱmiseries andȱ theȱ multitudeȱ ofȱ ourȱ misfortunes,ȱ andȱ asȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Truthȱ says,ȱ “theȱ rain descended,ȱ andȱ theȱ floodsȱ came,ȱ andȱ theȱ windsȱ blew,ȱ andȱ beatȱ uponȱ theȱ house.” (Matthewȱ7.27)]ȱ

Inȱthisȱelaborateȱandȱdetailedȱmetaphorȱwhirlpoolsȱswirlȱaroundȱthemȱasȱtheyȱdo aroundȱEcgburga’sȱsailor,ȱthreateningȱthemȱwithȱshipwreck,ȱasȱtheȱviolentȱstorm ofȱcircumstanceȱdrivesȱtheȱfrailȱvesselȱofȱtheȱwomen’sȱsoul(s)ȱthroughȱtheȱScylla andȱCharybdisȱofȱtheirȱlifeȱinȱwhatȱshouldȱbeȱtheȱrelativelyȱsafeȱenclosureȱofȱtheir monastery,ȱtheȱGospel’sȱhouseȱbuiltȱuponȱFaith.ȱ Moreȱliteralȱvessels,ȱofȱcourse,ȱcrossȱtheȱseasȱsuccessfully,ȱcarryingȱlettersȱback andȱforthȱtoȱtheȱContinent—asȱtheyȱdoȱthatȱunfortunateȱ“fratrumȱsiveȱnecessarium amicumȱ nostrum”ȱ (brother,ȱ relative,ȱ andȱ friend)ȱ Denewald,ȱ whomȱ theyȱ ask

240

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

BonifaceȱtoȱwelcomeȱandȱsendȱonȱhisȱwayȱtoȱanotherȱmissionaryȱnamedȱBerhthere. Butȱ separatedȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ “longoȱ intervalloȱ terreȱ marisqueȱ etȱ multarum proviciarumȱ terminis”ȱ (byȱ aȱ wideȱ expanseȱ ofȱ seaȱ andȱ landȱ andȱ theȱ bordersȱ of manyȱ states)ȱ theȱ oceanȱ isȱ neverthelessȱ alsoȱ theȱ thresholdȱ ofȱ contact.ȱ The “amplitudinisȱetȱdilectionis”ȱ(abundantȱaffection)ȱBonifaceȱhasȱexpressedȱinȱthe pastȱhasȱbeenȱbroughtȱbyȱmessengersȱ“transmarinus”ȱ(fromȱbeyondȱtheȱsea).ȱAnd theȱwomenȱbegȱasȱaȱresponseȱtoȱthisȱletterȱthatȱBonifaceȱonceȱmoreȱsendȱword “transȱpontum”ȱ(acrossȱtheȱsea).ȱTheȱseaȱphysicalizesȱnotȱonlyȱaȱspaceȱofȱexileȱand estrangementȱbutȱalsoȱaȱliminalȱspaceȱthatȱ(likeȱaȱletter)ȱallowsȱfriendship. Thisȱ letterȱ offersȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ sustainedȱ argumentȱ forȱ theȱ solaceȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ in friendship.ȱEangythȱandȱHeaburg,ȱandȱanyoneȱsimilarlyȱbesetȱbyȱworldlyȱtroubles, mustȱseekȱ“amicumȱfidelem,ȱinȱcuiusȱconsiliisȱconfidatȱquiȱinȱsuisȱdiffident,ȱet talemȱfiduciamȱhabeatȱinȱillo,ȱutȱomnemȱsecretumȱsuiȱpectorisȱpandetȱetȱaperiat” (aȱ faithfulȱ friendȱ uponȱ whoseȱ counselȱ oneȱ canȱ dependȱ andȱ inȱ whomȱ oneȱ can confideȱeveryȱsecretȱofȱone’sȱheart).ȱWhat,ȱtheyȱask,ȱcanȱbeȱsweeterȱthanȱtoȱhave suchȱaȱsecondȱselfȱwithȱwhomȱoneȱcanȱspeakȱasȱfreelyȱasȱwithȱoneself?ȱInȱBoniface theyȱhaveȱthatȱfaithfulȱfriend,ȱaȱbrother,ȱwhoȱcanȱandȱwillȱofferȱthemȱconsolation. Hisȱ lettersȱ nourishȱ them:ȱ theyȱ citeȱ theȱ examplesȱ ofȱ Habbakukȱ transportedȱ by angelsȱtoȱfeedȱDanielȱ(Danȱ14.33)ȱandȱofȱPhillipȱsentȱthroughȱtheȱdesertȱtoȱteachȱthe EthiopianȱeunuchȱinȱtheȱActsȱofȱtheȱApostlesȱ8:26–27.ȱ(BothȱDanielȱspecificallyȱand eunuchsȱmoreȱgenerallyȱareȱfiguresȱtraditionallyȱassociatedȱwithȱvirginity;ȱtheir chastityȱisȱcharacteristic,ȱtoo,ȱofȱreformed,ȱmonasticȱbodies.)ȱ Ironically,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱwomenȱareȱtheȱ onesȱ(orȱratherȱtheȱone)ȱtransported acrossȱtheȱseasȱinȱtheȱtransgenderedȱtextualȱbodyȱofȱtheirȱletter,ȱtoȱaȱplaceȱwhere itȱmightȱreceiveȱinȱpersonȱtheȱnurtureȱofȱBoniface’sȱwords.ȱAndȱhisȱwordsȱwould beȱsweetȱindeed,ȱasȱinȱPsalmȱ118:103,ȱ“superȱmelȱetȱfavumȱoriȱnostro”ȱ(sweeter thanȱhoneyȱinȱourȱmouths).ȱAsȱitȱis,ȱtheȱlettersȱbetweenȱtheȱwomenȱandȱBoniface canȱperformȱtheȱworkȱofȱHabbakuk’sȱangelȱonlyȱimperfectly.ȱTheȱletterȱspeaksȱof theȱcontinual,ȱrestlessȱsearchȱfor,ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱstableȱpossessionȱof,ȱtheȱbeloved friend.ȱ Asȱ theirȱ valedictionȱ toȱ theirȱ “fraterȱ spiritualisȱ fidelissimeȱ atque amantissimeȱetȱsinceraȱetȱpuraȱdilectioneȱdilectis”ȱ(brotherȱmostȱfaithfulȱinȱspirit, mostȱdear,ȱmostȱbelovedȱinȱtrueȱandȱpureȱlove)ȱreiterates,ȱquotingȱJerome,ȱthe truthȱthatȱ“amicusȱdiuȱquaeritur,ȱvixȱinvenitur,ȱdifficileȱservatur”ȱ(aȱfriendȱisȱlong toȱ seek,ȱ hardȱ toȱ find,ȱ andȱ difficultȱ toȱ keep).ȱ Theȱ problematicȱ fragilityȱ of friendship—theȱparadoxicalȱpresenceȱinȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱepistolaryȱtext,ȱthrough which,ȱalthoughȱdeprivedȱofȱtheȱimmediacyȱofȱhumanȱcontact,ȱandȱseparatedȱby literalȱ oceans,ȱ friendshipȱ mayȱ thriveȱ betweenȱ bodiesȱ hundredsȱ ofȱ miles apart—findsȱexpressionȱinȱaȱpsychogeographyȱofȱexile,ȱpilgrimage,ȱandȱjourneys especiallyȱacrossȱoceans.ȱ Profoundȱ lackȱ ironicallyȱ andȱ paradoxicallyȱ underwritesȱ theȱ creationȱ of contradictoryȱbodiesȱandȱexcessiveȱdesiresȱevenȱmoreȱmarkedlyȱinȱaȱsequenceȱof

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

241

lettersȱfromȱBerhtgyth,ȱaȱwomanȱofȱtheȱsecondȱgenerationȱofȱtheȱBonifaceȱCircle. Asȱ cousinsȱ ofȱ Boniface’sȱ successorȱ Lulȱ (throughȱ theirȱ motherȱ Cynehild,ȱ alsoȱ a missionaryȱinȱGermany)ȱBerhtgythȱandȱherȱbrotherȱBalthardȱwereȱbothȱarguably wellȬconnectedȱ andȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ literallyȱ alone.ȱ Yetȱ Berhtgyth’sȱ firstȱ letter emphasizesȱ herȱ alienationȱ asȱ itȱ salutesȱ Balthardȱ asȱ herȱ “fratriȱ unicoȱ atque amantissimo”ȱ (onlyȱ andȱ mostȱ belovedȱ brother)ȱ (no.ȱ 143,ȱ 282).ȱ Theȱ oneȱ phrase conflatesȱbothȱtheirȱbloodȱandȱsyntheticȱkinship,ȱandȱperhapsȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱof thisȱconflation—withȱitsȱnecessaryȱselfȬcontradiction—herȱletterȱproblematizesȱthe epistolaryȱexchange.ȱ Herȱcomplaintȱbeginsȱwithȱrhythmicȱproseȱthatȱannouncesȱherȱmasteryȱofȱthe BonifaceȱCircleȱstyle:ȱBerhtgythȱisȱarguablyȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱsophisticatedȱpoetȱand stylistȱthanȱLeoba.ȱWhy,ȱsheȱpleads,ȱ“quidȱest,ȱfraterȱmi,ȱquodȱtamȱlongumȱtempus intermisisti,ȱquodȱvenireȱtardasti”ȱ(whyȱisȱit,ȱmyȱbrother,ȱthatȱyouȱhaveȱletȱsoȱlong aȱtimeȱpass,ȱthatȱyouȱhaveȱdelayedȱcoming)?ȱSheȱisȱaloneȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱsheȱwrites, withȱnoȱotherȱbrotherȱtoȱcomfortȱher,ȱandȱsheȱbegsȱhimȱtoȱvisitȱorȱatȱleastȱprovide theȱ substituteȱ visitȱ ofȱ aȱ letter.ȱ “Caritatisȱ tuaeȱ absentia”ȱ (theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ your love)—orȱevenȱofȱtheȱlovingȱpresenceȱofȱevenȱhisȱtextualȱbody—afflictsȱherȱmind withȱconstantȱgrief,ȱandȱsheȱweepsȱwithȱsorrowȱbothȱdayȱandȱnightȱaboutȱthe apparentȱwithdrawalȱofȱhisȱaffection.ȱButȱevenȱtheseȱtextualȱtearsȱareȱinsufficient. Ultimatelyȱherȱtextualȱbodyȱfailsȱtoȱexpressȱfullyȱwhatȱherȱphysicalȱbodyȱfeels,ȱand herȱletterȱendsȱwithoutȱresolution. Aȱsubsequentȱletterȱtoȱherȱ“dilectissimoȱfratriȱunico”ȱ(mostȱdearȱonlyȱbrother) thanksȱhimȱforȱsendingȱaȱmessengerȱ(namedȱAldraed)ȱwithȱbothȱaȱletterȱandȱgifts (no.148,ȱ 285).ȱ Suchȱ anȱ exchangeȱ shouldȱ workȱ toȱ strengthenȱ theirȱ bondȱ and ameliorateȱherȱlonelinessȱandȱalienation,ȱandȱsheȱreciprocatesȱbyȱsendingȱback otherȱgiftsȱandȱthisȱletterȱofȱherȱown,ȱaȱletterȱbyȱwhichȱandȱinȱwhichȱsheȱmay,ȱin herȱ textualȱ bodyȱ atȱ least,ȱ “cumȱ intimaȱ caritateȱ amplexi”ȱ (embraceȱ youȱ with intimateȱlove).ȱSheȱpromisesȱtoȱtakeȱtoȱheartȱhisȱtextualȱconsolationȱandȱobeyȱhis command—whichȱseemsȱtoȱpertainȱspecificallyȱtoȱherȱwishȱtoȱvisitȱtheȱgravesȱof herȱbloodȱkin—butȱonlyȱifȱheȱwillȱcomeȱtoȱherȱtoȱassuageȱherȱfountainsȱofȱtears (citingȱJeremiahȱ9.1).ȱ Inȱbothȱherȱwishȱandȱherȱinsistenceȱonȱaȱphysicalȱvisitȱsheȱspeaksȱasȱifȱitȱwere fromȱherȱearthly,ȱsocial,ȱphysicalȱbodyȱtoȱherȱbrotherȬinȬblood.ȱThusȱsheȱreiterates theȱincompletenessȱofȱtheȱtextualȱvisitation,ȱinvokingȱinȱanȱimageȱmoreȱfortunate “ituras”ȱ (travelers)ȱ whoȱ mayȱ visitȱ “amicosȱ suos”ȱ (theirȱ friendsȱ andȱ lovers). Recallingȱtheȱdeathsȱofȱherȱparents,ȱsheȱasksȱherȱbrotherȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱsorrowȱfrom herȱsoulȱbyȱaȱvisitȱofȱevenȱaȱsingleȱday.ȱAndȱyet,ȱconversely,ȱthankingȱGodȱforȱhis compassionȱ (Lukeȱ 1.78)ȱ andȱ consolingȱ presence,ȱ sheȱ simultaneouslyȱ assures Balthardȱthatȱinȱherȱ(atȱleast)ȱ“numquamȱfitȱderelictaȱdilectioȱnostra”ȱ(ourȱloveȱwill neverȱbeȱdestitute),ȱherȱwordsȱironicallyȱandȱpunninglyȱjuxtaposingȱderelictaȱand dilectio,ȱherȱalienationȱandȱherȱdesire.ȱHerȱtextualȱbody,ȱasȱherȱbrotherȱevidently

242

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

advises,ȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱfindȱsolaceȱandȱconsolationȱinȱanȱexpectationȱofȱreunion andȱunendingȱjoyȱinȱtheȱheavenlyȱhomeland,ȱbutȱthatȱhappinessȱisȱcompromised byȱtheȱdisquietȱofȱitsȱearthbound,ȱphysicalȱcounterpart. Herȱ hopeȱ andȱ expectationȱ ofȱ heaven—andȱ aȱ textualȱ bodyȱ moreȱ successfully detachedȱ fromȱ secularȱ concernsȱ andȱ identities—areȱ furtherȱ expressed,ȱ more confidentlyȱinȱsomeȱfragmentaryȱversesȱappendedȱtoȱherȱletter’sȱrhythmicȱprose. EchoingȱandȱappropriatingȱAldhelm’sȱmetricalȱstyle,ȱBerhtgyth’sȱlinesȱpromise that,ȱinȱheaven,ȱ utiȱnovaȱacȱvetera,ȱȱȱȱutiȱdiraȱdiscriminiaȱȱ Christusȱaboletȱcriminaȱȱȱȱcumȱimmenseȱclementiaȱ [ChristȱwillȱabolishȱsorrowsȱandȱwashȱawayȱsinsȱbothȱnewȱandȱoldȱwithȱHisȱgreat mercy.]

Theȱsinsȱhere,ȱperhaps,ȱareȱthoseȱespeciallyȱofȱtooȱmuchȱloveȱofȱearthlyȱkin.ȱYetȱthe tensionȱbetweenȱtheȱsorrowȱofȱtheȱletterȱandȱtheȱcertaintyȱofȱtheȱpoemȱisȱinȱitself aȱ poignantȱ reminderȱ andȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ textualȱ body.ȱ Theȱ letterȱ isȱ noȱ moreȱ a substituteȱforȱherȱbrotherȱthanȱAldraedȱis.ȱItȱisȱaȱfailedȱintermediary:ȱitȱoffersȱa textualȱbodyȱtoȱbeȱembraced,ȱperhaps,ȱbutȱoneȱwhichȱcanȱneverȱbeȱfullyȱsatisfied, sinceȱitȱcontinuallyȱexcitesȱaȱdesireȱforȱmore,ȱandȱmoreȱphysical,ȱconnection. So,ȱtoo,ȱinȱaȱthirdȱletterȱandȱanotherȱlongerȱpoemȱtoȱherȱ“dilectissimoȱfratriȱin Dominoȱetȱinȱcarneȱcarissimo”ȱ(brotherȱmostȱbelovedȱinȱtheȱLordȱandȱmostȱdear inȱflesh)ȱtheȱdualityȱofȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱBerhtgythȱandȱherȱbrotherȱcreates aȱtensionȱbetweenȱsecularȱandȱmonastic,ȱliterateȱidentitiesȱ(no.ȱ147,ȱ284).ȱBerhtgyth andȱBalthardȱareȱjoinedȱinȱ“caritate”ȱ(trueȱlove),ȱanȱaffectionȱthatȱisȱnotȱlimitedȱin space.ȱButȱsheȱstillȱknowsȱnoȱrestȱfromȱsadness,ȱevenȱinȱdreams.ȱHerȱproseȱletter locatesȱherȱtextualȱbodyȱwithinȱmultipleȱandȱcontradictoryȱcitationsȱofȱScripture: aȱcongregationȱofȱwatersȱ(Genesisȱ1.10),ȱifȱnotȱaȱstormȬtossedȱsea,ȱseparatesȱtheȱtwo ofȱthem;ȱlikeȱtheȱPsalmistȱsheȱhasȱbeenȱabandonedȱbyȱfatherȱandȱmotherȱ(Psalm 26.10);ȱnoȱwonderȱsheȱfeelsȱJob’sȱwearinessȱofȱsoulȱ(Jobȱ10.1).ȱSheȱalsoȱcitesȱthe SongȱofȱSongs,ȱ“forȱloveȱisȱasȱstrongȱasȱdeath”ȱ(Canticlesȱ8.6),ȱandȱyetȱasksȱher “dilectissimeȱfraterȱmi”ȱ(mostȱbelovedȱbrother)ȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱherȱorȱtoȱallowȱherȱto comeȱtoȱhim,ȱthatȱsheȱmightȱembraceȱhimȱbeforeȱsheȱdies,ȱforȱloveȱforȱhimȱhas neverȱleftȱherȱsoul. Theȱpoemȱwhichȱaccompaniesȱthisȱproseȱletter—likeȱherȱotherȱpoem,ȱrhymed octosyllabicsȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱAldhelm’sȱCarmenȱrhythmicum—assertsȱmuchȱmore confidentlyȱthatȱtheyȱwillȱrestȱtogetherȱinȱheaven: Valeȱvivensȱfeliciter,ȱȱȱȱutȱsisȱsanctusȱsimpliciter, Tibiȱsalusȱperȱsaeculaȱȱȱȱtribuaturȱperȱculmina. VivamusȱsoliȱDominoȱȱȱȱvitamȱsemperȱinȱseculo. Profectoȱipsimȱprecibusȱȱȱȱpetoȱprofusisȱfletibus

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

243

Soloȱtenusȱsepissima,ȱȱȱȱsubrogareȱauxilia: UtȱsimusȱdigniȱGloria,ȱȱȱȱubiȱresonantȱcarmina Angelorumȱlaetissimaȱȱȱȱȱaethraleaȱlaetitia ClaraȱChristiȱclementiaȱȱȱȱcelseȱlaudisȱinȱsecula. Valeamusȱangelicisȱȱȱȱȱvictricesȱiungiȱmilibus, Paradisiȱperpetuisȱȱȱȱȱperdurantesȱinȱgaudiis. [Farewell,ȱlivingȱhappily,ȱsoȱthatȱyouȱbeȱholyȱinȱsimplicity;ȱToȱyouȱmayȱȱhealthȱbe allotedȱforever.ȱLetȱusȱliveȱforȱGodȱaloneȱeternally.ȱIȱpray,ȱwithȱprofuseȱtearsȱpoured outȱ uponȱ theȱ ground,ȱ petitioningȱ forȱ Hisȱ aidȱ mostȱ frequently,ȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱ be worthyȱ ofȱ Hisȱ glory,ȱ whereȱ theȱ mostȱ joyfulȱ songsȱ ofȱ theȱ angelsȱ sound—theȱ joyȱ of Heaven—throughȱtheȱrenownedȱmercyȱofȱChrist,ȱloftyȱpraiseȱforever.ȱMayȱweȱflourish asȱvictorsȱunitedȱwithȱtheȱthousandsȱofȱangelsȱinȱtheȱperpetualȱjoysȱofȱparadise.]ȱ

Thereȱtheȱtwoȱwillȱjoinȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱtheȱangelsȱandȱjoyȱforever:ȱaȱsimilarȱimageȱof HeavenȱisȱexpressedȱinȱBerthgyth’sȱotherȱpoemȱasȱwell,ȱwhereȱChrist’sȱmajestyȱis “armataȱangelicisȱvallataȱlegionibus”ȱ(walledȱaboutȱwithȱlegionsȱofȱangels)ȱ(no. 148,ȱ287).ȱTheȱemphatic,ȱrepeatedȱdesireȱforȱaȱlifeȱamongȱtheȱangelsȱmayȱecho,ȱtoo, Aldhelm’sȱdescription,ȱinȱbothȱhisȱProsaȱandȱCarmenȱdeȱVirginitate,ȱofȱmonastic virginityȱasȱaȱspeciesȱofȱangelicȱlife.ȱHere,ȱasȱinȱBerhtgyth’sȱotherȱletters,ȱheavenly joyȱaccompaniesȱwithȱunityȱandȱpresence,ȱwhileȱearthlyȱsorrowȱattendsȱseparation andȱalienation.ȱTheȱproseȱletterȱcritiquesȱtheȱinsufficienciesȱ(ifȱnotȱtheȱfailures)ȱof theȱtextualȱbodyȱtoȱescapeȱtheȱconstraintsȱofȱtheȱearthlyȱsocialȱworld.ȱNotȱsoȱthe poem,ȱinȱwhichȱitȱisȱjoyȱandȱcommunionȱthatȱcharacterizeȱtheȱtextualȱbody.ȱ LikeȱLeoba,ȱBerhtgythȱconstructsȱthisȱpoeticȱandȱthereforeȱperhapsȱmoreȱpurely textualȱ body,ȱ distinctȱ fromȱ secularȱ genderȱ andȱ kinshipȱ complications,ȱ by appropriatingȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱAldhelmȱandȱBoniface,ȱandȱbyȱsoȱinterveningȱinȱthe chainȱ ofȱ receptionȱ andȱ influenceȱ linkingȱ theȱ olderȱ maleȱ writersȱ andȱ theirȱ later disciples,ȱherȱcontemporariesȱLulȱandȱ(arguably)ȱBalthardȱhimself.ȱ Aȱfurtherȱcomplicationȱofȱthisȱpoeticȱbody,ȱhowever,ȱisȱtheȱshiftingȱgenderȱofȱits addressee.ȱ Asȱ theȱ versesȱ concludeȱ withȱ theȱ prayerȱ thatȱ “weȱ mayȱ flourishȱ as victors”ȱamongȱtheȱangels,ȱtheȱ“we”—nominallyȱBerhtgythȱandȱherȱbrother—are somewhatȱoddlyȱandȱcertainlyȱungrammaticallyȱnotȱvictoresȱbutȱvictrices,ȱinȱthe feminineȱ ratherȱ thanȱ masculineȱ plural.ȱ Itȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ (asȱ Janeȱ Stevensonȱ has argued)ȱthatȱtheȱpoemȱwasȱoriginallyȱwrittenȱnotȱforȱBalthardȱatȱallȱbutȱforȱanother woman.15ȱ Ifȱ so,ȱ itȱ isȱ perhapsȱ interestingȱ thatȱ aȱ femaleȬfemaleȱ bondȱ ofȱ purely syntheticȱ monasticȱ kinshipȱ offersȱ Berhtgythȱ aȱ lessȱ conflictedȱ spaceȱ forȱ the reconstructionȱofȱselfȱthanȱtheȱfemaleȬmaleȱbondsȱsheȱsharesȱwithȱherȱbrotherȱin bloodȱandȱinȱfaith.ȱ

15

JaneȱStevenson,ȱ“AngloȬSaxonȱWomenȱPoets,”ȱLatinȱLearningȱandȱEnglishȱLore:ȱStudiesȱinȱAngloȬ SaxonȱLiteratureȱforȱMichaelȱLapidge,ȱed.ȱKatherineȱO’BrienȱO’KeeffeȱandȱAndyȱOrchardȱ(Toronto andȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱII:ȱ86–107;ȱhereȱ90.

244

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

Becauseȱofȱtheȱcircumstancesȱofȱitsȱcompilationȱasȱaȱliteraryȱdossierȱwithinȱand forȱaȱmen’sȱmonasticȱhouse,ȱtheȱcompoundȱliteraryȱartifactȱthatȱisȱtheȱBoniface Circleȱ corpusȱ notȱ surprisinglyȱ foregroundsȱ friendshipsȱ thatȱ linkȱ menȱ toȱ men (primarily)ȱ andȱ menȱ toȱ women—sometimes,ȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ lettersȱ discussedȱ here, womenȱtoȱmen.ȱLettersȱspecificallyȱlinkingȱwomenȱtoȱwomenȱareȱconspicuously rare,ȱandȱtheȱevidenceȱforȱfemaleȬfemaleȱfriendshipsȱcorrespondinglyȱslightȱand oftenȱproblematic.ȱOneȱexceptionȱtoȱtheȱruleȱisȱtheȱletterȱfromȱÆlflædȱofȱWhitby toȱAdolaȱofȱPfalzelȱinȱGermany,ȱintroducingȱandȱaskingȱassistanceȱforȱanother unnamedȱnunȱwhoȱhasȱembarkedȱuponȱaȱpilgrimageȱtoȱRome.ȱÆlflædȱdescribes thatȱanonymousȱnunȱasȱherȱ“karissimamȱfidelisimmamqueȱfiliamȱnostramȱabȱannis adoliscentiae”ȱ (dearestȱ andȱ mostȱ faithfulȱ daughterȱ fromȱ theȱ yearsȱ ofȱ her adolescence)ȱ (no.ȱ 8,ȱ 3).ȱ Inȱ thisȱ caseȱ Ælflædȱ probablyȱ standsȱ asȱ spiritual,ȱ not biologicalȱmotherȱtoȱthisȱmonasticȱdaughter.ȱThisȱatȱleastȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱsame languageȱofȱsyntheticȱkinshipȱcontributedȱtoȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱwomenȱasȱit didȱbetweenȱmenȱorȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomen.ȱ Moreȱcommon,ȱhowever,ȱareȱlettersȱaddressedȱtoȱorȱfromȱpairsȱorȱgroupsȱof women,ȱoftenȱbloodȱsistersȱorȱmotherȱandȱdaughter,ȱbutȱsomeȱofȱthemȱbound,ȱlike Ælflædȱ andȱ herȱ “daughter,”ȱ byȱ theȱ syntheticȱ kinshipȱ ofȱ aȱ spiritualȱ friendship. WhileȱEangythȱandȱHeaburgȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱbiologicalȱmotherȱandȱdaughter, Eangythȱ describesȱ Walaȱ asȱ herȱ “abbatissaȱ quondamȱ meaȱ etȱ materȱ spirtualis” (formerȱ abbessȱ andȱ spiritualȱ mother)ȱ throughȱ synthetic,ȱ monasticȱ ratherȱ than bloodȱkinshipȱ(no.14,ȱ25).ȱTheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱkinshipȱlinkingȱCneuburgaȱwithȱher “sororȱmeaȱgermana”ȱ(herȱfullȱsister)ȱCoenburgaȱisȱmoreȱambiguousȱ(no.ȱ55,ȱ98). Theȱ twoȱ joinȱ withȱ Aldhunȱ (probablyȱ Abbotȱ ofȱ Glastonbury)ȱ inȱ dispatchingȱ a mortuaryȱrollȱcommemoratingȱtheȱdeaths,ȱonȱtheȱsameȱday,ȱofȱAldhun’sȱmother Edlaȱ andȱ ofȱ Cneuburga’s—butȱ evidentlyȱ notȱ Coenburga’s—biologicalȱ sister Quoengyth.ȱBoniface’sȱletterȱtoȱhisȱ“diligendesȱsororibus”ȱ(belovedȱsisters)ȱȱandȱ “fillabusȱcarissimis”ȱ(dearestȱdaughters)ȱLeoba,ȱTheclaȱandȱBerhtgyth’sȱmother Cynehildȱsimilarlyȱlinksȱthreeȱwomenȱmostȱprobablyȱboundȱbyȱspiritualȱrather thanȱcloseȱbloodȱkinshipȱ(no.ȱ67,ȱ139). Thecla,ȱ atȱ least,ȱ appearsȱ inȱ Rudolfȱ ofȱ Fulda’sȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Leoba,ȱ asȱ bothȱ actorȱ and hagiographicȱsource.ȱWhenȱaȱviolentȱstormȱragesȱoverȱtheȱmonastery,ȱitȱisȱThecla whoȱrousesȱLeobaȱfromȱherȱprayersȱtoȱcalmȱtheȱwindȱandȱthunderȱbyȱinvokingȱthe aidȱofȱMary,ȱMotherȱofȱGod.ȱInȱthisȱinstanceȱTheclaȱaddressesȱherȱOȱdilecteȱDilecta (belovedȱBeloved),ȱaȱLatinȱpunȱonȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱherȱAngloȬSaxonȱcognomen,ȱbut anȱendearmentȱwhichȱechoes,ȱtoo,ȱtheȱBonifatianȱlanguageȱofȱfriendship.ȱBesides Thecla,ȱ Leobaȱ isȱ boundȱ inȱ friendshipȱ asȱ wellȱ toȱ herȱ firstȱ teacherȱ Tettaȱ of Wimbourne.ȱItȱisȱfromȱTetta,ȱandȱevenȱagainstȱtheȱabbess’sȱownȱwishesȱandȱdesires (accordingȱtoȱtheȱVita)ȱthatȱBonifaceȱsummonsȱLeobaȱtoȱGermany.ȱMoreȱprominent inȱ theȱ Life,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ Leoba’sȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Charlemagne’sȱ thirdȱ wife, Hildegard,ȱwhoȱinȱreturnȱpuroȱeamȱvenerabaturȱaffectuȱatqueȱitaȱutȱanimamȱsuam

AngloȬSaxonȱWomen’sȱEpistolaryȱFriendships

245

diligebatȱ(“reveredȱ[Leoba]ȱwithȱchasteȱaffectionȱandȱlovedȱherȱasȱherȱownȱsoul”).16 ItȱisȱtoȱHildegardȱthatȱanȱ agedȱandȱdyingȱLeobaȱaddressesȱaȱparticularlyȱfond farewell:ȱ Valeȱinȱaeternum,ȱdominaȱetȱsororȱdilectissima!ȱVale,ȱanimaeȱmeaeȱportioȱpretiosa! Christusȱ creatorȱ etȱ redemptorȱ nosterȱ tribuat,ȱ utȱ nosȱ inȱ dieȱ iudiciiȱ sineȱ confusione videamus!ȱCeterumȱinȱhacȱlucȱmutuoȱnamquamȱabȱhacȱdieȱfruemurȱaspectu.17 [Farewellȱforȱever,ȱmyȱmostȱbelovedȱladyȱandȱsister;ȱfarewell,ȱpreciousȱhalfȱofȱmyȱsoul. MayȱChristȱourȱCreatorȱandȱRedeemerȱgrantȱthatȱweȱtwoȱmayȱmeetȱagainȱwithout shameȱonȱtheȱDayȱofȱJudgment.ȱNeverȱmoreȱinȱthisȱlightȱshallȱweȱenjoyȱeachȱother’s presence.]ȱ

TheȱlanguageȱhereȱisȱexactlyȱthatȱofȱtheȱBonifaceȱCircle,ȱandȱofȱBerhtgyth’sȱpoem: absenceȱandȱseparationȱcharacterize,ȱbutȱalsoȱironicallyȱgroundȱandȱvalidateȱthe desiresȱwithinȱtheȱdiscourse.ȱTheȱdictionȱofȱendearmentȱandȱaffectionȱrequiresȱa tropeȱofȱemotionalȱpresenceȱdespiteȱphysicalȱabsence.ȱHereȱtheȱtextualȱbodyȱdoes notȱmerelyȱsupplementȱbutȱentirelyȱdisplacesȱtheȱphysical.ȱPerhapsȱthisȱisȱbecause theȱ saintȱ ofȱ theȱ Lifeȱ isȱ definedȱ asȱ aȱ livingȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ Scripturalȱ text.ȱ Or, contrarily,ȱperhapsȱthisȱisȱbecauseȱherȱhagiographerȱ(atȱleastȱaȱgenerationȱafterȱher death)ȱdisplaysȱconsiderableȱanxietyȱaboutȱwomen’sȱliteracy,ȱandȱaboutȱtheȱstrict enclosureȱofȱbothȱtheirȱphysicalȱandȱtextualȱbodies.ȱ InȱLeoba’sȱextantȱletters—asȱinȱthoseȱofȱEcburga,ȱofȱEangythȱandȱHeaburg,ȱand especiallyȱthoseȱofȱBerhtgyth—theȱdisplacementȱisȱlessȱcompleteȱandȱtherefore moreȱexplicitlyȱproblematic.ȱItȱisȱalsoȱconsequentlyȱmoreȱradicallyȱchallengingȱof suchȱenclosure.ȱHolyȱandȱvirginalȱkissesȱafterȱallȱremainȱholyȱandȱvirginalȱbecause theyȱareȱneverȱembodied,ȱcanȱneverȱbeȱexpressedȱphysically.ȱAndȱifȱtheȱlanguage ofȱamicitiaȱandȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱ(reȬ)createsȱkinshipȱamongȱtheȱ“brothers”ȱand “sisters”ȱ ofȱ thisȱ extendedȱ andȱ farȬflungȱ familia,ȱ itȱ mayȱ alsoȱ occasionȱ anxieties. Moreover,ȱthoughȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱsuchȱtextualȱbodiesȱmodelȱgesturalȱand emotionalȱ vocabulariesȱ forȱ friendshipsȱ outsideȱ ofȱ textsȱ presentsȱ aȱ separate interpretiveȱ problem,ȱ Rudolfȱ ofȱ Fulda’sȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ Leobaȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ shared literaryȱdictionȱandȱcommonȱstylisticȱgesturesȱofȱepistolaryȱfriendshipȱcouldȱand didȱescapeȱgenericȱboundaries.18ȱ Capturedȱandȱdescribedȱinȱaȱmomentȱofȱtensionȱbetweenȱlifeȱandȱdeath,ȱbeing andȱnonȬbeing,ȱpresenceȱandȱabsence,ȱimmanenceȱandȱseparation,ȱnoneȱofȱthese epistolaryȱ scenesȱ ofȱ AngloȬSaxonȱ women’sȱ friendshipsȱ isȱ anȱ innocentȱ direct

16 17 18

Vita,ȱed.ȱWaitz,ȱ129. Vita,ȱed.ȱWaitz,ȱ130. Onȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱdetanglingȱliteraryȱusageȱandȱcommonȱpracticesȱandȱgestures,ȱandȱonȱthe possibilitiesȱofȱdisentanglingȱasȱwellȱmodernȱreadingsȱofȱmedievalȱrhetoric,ȱseeȱJaeger,ȱEnnobling Love.

246

LisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston

representation.ȱEachȱis,ȱrather,ȱaȱselfȬconsciousȱliteraryȱconstruction,ȱimplicateȱin aȱcomplexȱandȱsophisticatedȱcommunalȱrhetoric.ȱEachȱoffersȱaȱparticularlyȱand distinctlyȱliterateȱinterventionȱinto—andȱreconstructionȱof—sometimesȱcoincident andȱsometimesȱconflictingȱsecularȱandȱmonasticȱidentities.ȱ

ȱ

Chapterȱ4 JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson (RegisȱCollege,ȱToronto)

“Sapienterȱamareȱpoterimus”1:ȱOnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱin theȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

ReadersȱofȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱneedȱnotȱmoveȱbeyondȱitsȱearliestȱpagesȱtoȱfindȱPeter Abelardȱ (1079–1142)ȱ alreadyȱ emphasizingȱ howȱ hisȱ naturalȱ ability,ȱ education,ȱ and experience2ȱallȱconspiredȱinȱoneȱdirectionȱinȱhisȱearlyȱyears:ȱ“etȱquoniamȱdialecticarum rationumȱarmaturamȱomnibusȱphilosophiaeȱdocumentisȱpraetuli”ȱ(Ofȱallȱtheȱareasȱof philosophy,ȱmyȱprimaryȱinterestȱlayȱinȱtheȱweaponsȱofȱdialecticalȱreasoning).3ȱAndȱthe veryȱ firstȱ sentenceȱ toȱ Heloiseȱ (1090–1163/64)ȱ followingȱ hisȱ greetingȱ toȱ herȱ inȱ the

1

2

3

ConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard:ȱPerceptionsȱofȱDialogueȱinȱTwelfthȬCentury France,ȱtrans.ȱNevilleȱChiavaroliȱandȱConstantȱJ.ȱMewsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱȱSt.ȱMartin’sȱPress,ȱ1999).ȱAbelard’s letterȱ75:ȱ“Sapienterȱamareȱpoterimus,ȱquodȱtamenȱraremȱestȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(Weȱshallȱbeȱableȱtoȱloveȱwisely,ȱwhich admittedlyȱisȱrareȱ.ȱ.ȱ.),ȱ256,ȱ257.ȱȱ Isocratesȱnamesȱexplicitlyȱtheseȱthreeȱelementsȱasȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱsuccessfulȱrhetor.ȱSeeȱ“Antidosis,” Isocrates,ȱ vol.ȱ 2,ȱ ed.ȱ Georgeȱ Norlin.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Libraryȱ (London:ȱ Williamȱ Heinemannȱ Ltd.,ȱ 1962), 187–90. Ep.ȱ1,ȱed.ȱJacquesȱMonfrin,ȱAbelard:ȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱ(Paris:ȱJ.ȱVrin,ȱ1978),ȱ62–109;ȱhere,ȱ62.ȱBothȱthe LatinȱandȱEnglishȱcitationsȱofȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱareȱtakenȱfromȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters, andȱareȱreferencedȱasȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱorȱ“earlyȱletters”ȱthroughoutȱthisȱstudy.ȱCitations fromȱtheȱlaterȱLatinȱcorrespondenceȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱfollowȱJacquesȱPaulȱMigne’sȱnumberingȱof theȱcorrespondenceȱ(seeȱhttp://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/resources/abelard/Epistolae.txt,ȱlastȱaccessed onȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010)ȱandȱincludeȱeditionsȱby:ȱJacquesȱMonfrin,ȱAbelard:ȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱ(Paris:ȱJ.ȱVrin, 1978),ȱ 62–109ȱ [Ep.ȱ 1];ȱ Josephȱ Thomasȱ Muckle,ȱ “Theȱ Personalȱ Lettersȱ Betweenȱ Abelardȱ andȱ Heloise,” MediaevalȱStudiesȱ15ȱ(1953):ȱ68–94ȱ[Ep.ȱ2–5];ȱJosephȱThomasȱMuckle,ȱ“TheȱLetterȱofȱHeloiseȱonȱReligious LifeȱandȱAbelard’sȱFirstȱReply,”ȱMediaevalȱStudiesȱ17ȱ(1955):ȱ240–81ȱ[Ep.ȱ6–7];ȱT.ȱP.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ“Abelard’s RuleȱforȱReligiousȱWomen,”ȱMediaevalȱStudiesȱ18ȱ(1956):ȱ241–92ȱ[Ep.ȱ8];ȱandȱCharlesȱS.ȱF.ȱBurnett,ȱEp.ȱ17, MittelateinischȱJahrbuchȱ21ȱ(1986):ȱ152–53.ȱReferencesȱtoȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱareȱprimarilyȱfromȱAbelard andȱ Heloise:ȱ Theȱ Lettersȱ andȱ Otherȱ Writings,ȱ trans.ȱ andȱ intro.ȱ andȱ notesȱ Williamȱ Levitanȱ (Indianapolis: Hackettȱ Publishing,ȱ 2007);ȱ here,ȱ 2.ȱ Alternately,ȱ Theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Abelardȱ andȱ Heloise,ȱ trans.ȱ Bettyȱ Radice (London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1974)ȱisȱused.

248

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

“ConfessionȱofȱFaith”ȱofȱhisȱlaterȱdaysȱonlyȱconfirmsȱthat,ȱamongȱtheȱbasicȱphilosophical orientationsȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ trivium,ȱ Abelardȱ hadȱ ultimatelyȱ alignedȱ himselfȱ most predominantlyȱasȱtheȱlogician:ȱ“odiosumȱmeȱmundoȱreddiditȱlogica.ȱAiuntȱenimȱperuersi peruertentes,ȱquorumȱsapientiaȱestȱinȱperditione,ȱmeȱinȱlogicaȱprestantissimumȱesse,ȱsed inȱPauloȱnonȱmediocriterȱclaudicare”ȱ(Logicȱhasȱmadeȱmeȱhatefulȱtoȱtheȱworld,ȱforȱthose twistedȱmenȱwhoȱtwistȱallȱthingsȱandȱareȱwiseȱonlyȱtoȱdestroyȱclaimȱthatȱIȱstandȱalone whenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱlogicȱbutȱbadlyȱstumbleȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱPaul).4ȱHowever,ȱasȱscholars overȱtheȱpastȱseveralȱdecadesȱhaveȱemphasized,ȱAbelardȱalsoȱknewȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱaȱmaster ofȱrhetoric.ȱFurthermore,ȱheȱknewȱsuchȱmasteryȱwasȱnotȱatȱoddsȱwithȱaȱcommitmentȱto logic.ȱFinally,ȱandȱmostȱimportantly,ȱheȱknewȱsuchȱmasteryȱtoȱbeȱpreciselyȱthatȱofȱSt.ȱPaul andȱofȱanyȱseriousȱthinkerȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱtheȱwordȱofȱGod.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ studyȱ examinesȱ theȱ rhetoricalȱ expressionȱ ofȱ Abelardȱ asȱ thatȱ which developsȱnotablyȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱhisȱepistolaryȱexchangeȱwithȱHeloise.5ȱTheȱveryȱnatureȱof thisȱ particularȱ exchangeȱ requiresȱ anȱ excursionȱ intoȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ rhetoricȱ bothȱ as philosophicalȱorientationȱandȱasȱspiritualȱexercise.6ȱToȱthisȱend,ȱIȱproposeȱanȱevolving rhetoricalȱprojectȱofȱHeloise,ȱoneȱwhichȱfocusesȱonȱaȱthemeȱneverȱfarȱfromȱtheȱworkȱof rhetoricȱinȱwesternȱthoughtȱfromȱPlatoȱtoȱDerrida—andȱthatȱisȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendship. Inȱthisȱway,ȱamicitiaȱservesȱasȱtheȱmechanismȱforȱaȱrigorousȱrhetoricalȱexchangeȱbetween HeloiseȱandȱAbelard;ȱfriendshipȱevolvesȱasȱtheȱdynamicȱtoposȱofȱtheȱcorrespondence. Ultimately,ȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ thisȱ exchange—withȱ itsȱ basisȱ inȱ theȱ Epistolaeȱ duorum

4

5

6

Ep.ȱ17,ȱed.ȱBurnett,ȱ152.ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ260.ȱTheȱeditorialȱnoteȱreads:ȱ“Thisȱshortȱletterȱwas preservedȱbyȱBerengarȱofȱPoitiers,ȱoneȱofȱAbelard’sȱstudents,ȱinȱhisȱApologeticus,ȱaȱspiritedȱdefenseȱof AbelardȱaddressedȱtoȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱandȱAbelard’sȱotherȱopponentsȱatȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱSensȱinȱ1140, afterȱ whichȱ Abelardȱ wasȱ condemnedȱ forȱ heresyȱ andȱ sentencedȱ toȱ perpetualȱ silence,ȱ allȱ copiesȱ ofȱ his writingsȱorderedȱdestroyed.” Myȱhopeȱisȱthatȱthisȱstudyȱyieldsȱevidenceȱforȱfurtherȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱtheȱmostȱprofound lessonsȱinȱAbelard’sȱrhetoricalȱtrainingȱareȱthoseȱheȱreceivesȱfromȱHeloise,ȱratherȱthanȱfromȱWilliamȱof ChampeauxȱorȱevenȱBoethius. AȱclassicȱtextȱpointingȱtoȱthisȱtraditionȱisȱPierreȱHadot’sȱPhilosophyȱasȱaȱWayȱofȱLife:ȱSpiritualȱExercisesȱfrom SocratesȱtoȱFoucaultȱ(Oxford:ȱBasilȱBlackwell,ȱ1995).ȱTwoȱmoreȱrecentȱstudiesȱfocusedȱexplicitlyȱinȱthe medievalȱtraditionȱareȱthoseȱofȱRobertȱSweetman,ȱ“ThomasȱofȱCantimpré:ȱPerformativeȱReadingȱand PastoralȱCare,”ȱPerformanceȱandȱTransformation:ȱNewȱApproachesȱtoȱLateȱMedievalȱSpirituality,ȱed.ȱMaryȱA SuydamȱandȱJoannaȱE.ȱZieglerȱ(NewȱYork:ȱSt.ȱMartin’sȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ133–67,ȱandȱGillesȱMongeau,ȱS.J., EmbracingȱWisdom:ȱtheȱSpiritualȱPedagogyȱofȱtheȱSummaȱTheologiaeȱ(Toronto:ȱPontificalȱInstituteȱofȱMedieval Studies,ȱforthcoming).ȱSeeȱespeciallyȱSweetman’sȱaccountȱofȱ“devotionalȱreadersȱofȱaȱsacredȱtext”ȱfor whomȱ“sacredȱlocutionȱtranscribesȱitselfȱontoȱtheȱreader’sȱsubsequentȱbody,ȱtongue,ȱandȱheart,”ȱ135,ȱand Mongeau’sȱ pointȱ inȱ hisȱ studyȱ ofȱ Thomasȱ Aquinasȱ thatȱ “theȱ textȱ ofȱ theȱ Summaȱ Theologiaeȱ isȱ notȱ only materiallyȱaȱspiritualȱtheologyȱ(asȱshownȱbyȱTorrell).ȱItȱisȱalsoȱaȱspiritualȱtheologyȱinȱitsȱform,ȱasȱaȱspiritual pedagogy,ȱorȱaȱseriesȱofȱ‘spiritualȱexercises’ȱdesignedȱtoȱengageȱtheȱstudentȱandȱleadȱhimȱorȱherȱtoȱan encounterȱwithȱdivineȱtruthȱinȱChrist,”ȱ“EmbracingȱWisdom:ȱTheȱSummaȱTheologiaeȱasȱaȱChristoform Pedagogyȱ ofȱ Spiritualȱ Exercises,”ȱ Ph.D.ȱ diss.ȱ Toronto,ȱ Regisȱ College,ȱ 2003,ȱ 70.ȱ Suchȱ studiesȱ offer compellingȱ evidenceȱ invitingȱ reȬreadingsȱ ofȱ severalȱ ancientȱ andȱ medievalȱ textsȱ thatȱ areȱ yetȱ toȱ be appreciatedȱforȱtheirȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱofȱrhetoric.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

249

amantiumȱandȱitsȱprogressionȱinȱtheȱLettersȱfollowingȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum7—engages bothȱofȱthemȱmoreȱdeeplyȱintoȱaȱlifeȱofȱongoingȱChristianȱconversion.8ȱ

1.ȱȱScholarlyȱContributionsȱtoȱtheȱTexts TheȱpastȱseventyȱyearsȱorȱsoȱofȱscholarshipȱattendingȱtoȱtheȱworkȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise haveȱcontributedȱtoȱmoreȱcomplexȱreadingsȱofȱtheirȱcorrespondence.ȱRichardȱMcKeon’s 1942ȱSpeculumȱarticleȱ“RhetoricȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges”ȱhasȱbeenȱtrulyȱcomplementedȱand expandedȱthroughȱaȱrichȱwaveȱofȱrecentȱprojectsȱrepresentedȱbyȱsuchȱtitlesȱas:ȱRhetoric Retold:ȱRegenderingȱtheȱTraditionȱfromȱAntiquityȱThroughȱtheȱRenaissanceȱ(1997),ȱListeningȱto Heloise:ȱTheȱVoiceȱofȱaȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱWomanȱ(2000),ȱRhetoricȱandȱRenewalȱinȱtheȱLatinȱWest 1100–1540ȱ(2003),ȱandȱ“CiceroȱandȱtheȱBoundariesȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury” (2007).9ȱ Other,ȱ notȱ unrelatedȱ areasȱ include:ȱ studiesȱ ofȱ theȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ monastic tradition;10ȱissuesȱofȱauthenticityȱandȱcontinuityȱamongȱtheȱworksȱandȱwithinȱtheȱworks themselves;11ȱtheȱcontributionsȱofȱHeloise,ȱincludingȱherȱeducation,ȱresponsibilitiesȱand

7

8

9

10

11

TheȱLettersȱareȱalwaysȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱthroughoutȱthisȱstudy,ȱandȱwill beȱreferencedȱhereinȱasȱtheȱ“laterȱletters”ȱorȱLetters. SeeȱEileenȱC.ȱSweeney,ȱ“Abelard’sȱHistoriaȱCalamitatumȱandȱLetters:ȱSelfȱasȱSearchȱandȱStruggle,”ȱPoetics Todayȱ28ȱ(2007):ȱ303–36,ȱforȱaȱrecentȱtreatmentȱfocusingȱonȱtheȱnatureȱofȱAbelard’sȱconversion.ȱWhileȱthe limitsȱofȱthisȱstudyȱdoȱnotȱallowȱforȱanȱadditionalȱthoroughȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱProblemataȱHeloissae,ȱthisȱtext deservesȱconsiderationȱasȱtheȱfulfillmentȱofȱtheȱrhetoricalȱprojectȱbeingȱproposedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱandȱlater letters.ȱSeeȱEileenȱKearney’sȱchapterȱonȱ“TheȱProblemataȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard:ȱExegesisȱandȱInquiry,” MasterȱPeterȱAbelard,ȱExpositorȱofȱSacredȱScripture:ȱAnȱAnalysisȱOfȱAbelard’sȱApproachȱToȱBiblical ExpositionȱInȱSelectedȱWritingsȱOnȱScripture,”ȱPh.D.ȱdiss.,ȱMarquette,ȱWI,ȱMarquetteȱUniversity,ȱ1980, 149–242. RichardȱMcKeon,ȱ“RhetoricȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,”ȱSpeculumȱ17ȱ(Januaryȱ1942):ȱ1–32;ȱCherylȱGlenn,ȱRhetoric Retold:ȱ Regenderingȱ theȱ Traditionȱ fromȱ Antiquityȱ Throughȱ theȱ Renaissanceȱ (Carbondale:ȱ Southernȱ Illinois UniversityȱPress,ȱ1997);ȱListeningȱtoȱHeloise:ȱTheȱVoiceȱofȱaȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱWoman,ȱed.ȱBonnieȱWheelerȱ(New York:ȱSt.ȱMartin’sȱPress,ȱ2000);ȱRhetoricȱandȱRenewalȱinȱtheȱLatinȱWestȱ1100–1540:ȱEssaysȱinȱHonourȱofȱJohn O.ȱWard,ȱed.ȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱCaryȱJ.ȱNederman,ȱRodneyȱM.ȱThomsonȱ(Turnhout,ȱBelgium:ȱBrepols, 2003);ȱandȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱ“CiceroȱandȱtheȱBoundariesȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,”ȱViator 38.2ȱ(2007):ȱ369–84.ȱ SeeȱforȱinstanceȱMaryȱJaneȱMorrow,ȱ“SharingȱTexts:ȱAnselmianȱPrayers,ȱaȱNunnery’sȱPsalter,ȱandȱtheȱRole ofȱFriendship,”ȱVoicesȱinȱDialogue:ȱReadingȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱLindaȱOlsonȱandȱKathrynȱKerbyȬ Fultonȱ(NotreȱDame,ȱIN:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ97–113. Seeȱforȱinstance,ȱRékaȱForraiȱandȱSylvainȱPiron,ȱ“TheȱDebateȱonȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium.ȱCurrent statusȱquaestionisȱandȱFurtherȱResearch,”ȱMarch,ȱ2007 (http://www.tdtc.unisi.it/digimed/files/PironȬstatus%20quaestionis.pdf,ȱlastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010); Mews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters;ȱPeterȱDronke,ȱWomenȱWritersȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱAȱCriticalȱStudyȱofȱTextsȱfrom Perpetuaȱ(†203)ȱtoȱMargueriteȱPoreteȱ(†1310)ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1984),ȱ107–43;ȱJohn Marenbon,ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱPeterȱAbelardȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱȱȱ

250

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

philosophicalȱingenuity;12ȱandȱreȬexaminationsȱofȱAbelard’sȱownȱtheologicalȱandȱliterary contributions.13ȱȱInȱmanyȱways,ȱsuchȱimportantȱworkȱmightȱbeȱconsideredȱtheȱextended conversationȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱearliestȱinsightsȱintoȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱofȱAbelardȱand HeloiseȱofferedȱbyȱsuchȱscholarsȱasȱJeanȱLeclercq,ȱwhoȱnotedȱinȱ1973ȱthatȱtheȱLetters revealȱanȱHeloiseȱwhoseȱconstantȱdedicationȱtoȱAbelardȱ“doesȱnotȱexcludeȱgreatȱtrustȱin God,”14ȱandȱEtienneȱGilson’sȱastuteȱobservationȱfromȱhisȱ1937ȱlecturesȱthatȱ Theȱtwoȱloversȱwereȱinȱagreementȱaboutȱtheȱidealȱforȱbothȱtheȱphilosopherȱandȱtheȱclericȱ.ȱ. .ȱ.ȱToȱneglectȱasȱsimplyȱaȱcuriousȱaccessoryȱthisȱidealȱitself,ȱtoȱrefuseȱtoȱseeȱinȱitȱtheȱhidden forceȱwhichȱexaltsȱandȱgovernsȱthisȱwholeȱconflictȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱisȱtoȱmissȱtheȱveryȱgatewayȱtoȱtheȱmoral labyrinth.15ȱ

Suchȱinsights,ȱIȱhopeȱtoȱillustrate,ȱlieȱatȱtheȱveryȱheartȱofȱtheȱengagementȱofȱrhetoricȱand friendshipȱinȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱrevealingȱnotȱtheȱconversionȱofȱoneȱof theȱwriters,ȱbutȱofȱboth,ȱandȱrevealingȱasȱwellȱwhatȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱanȱongoingȱconversionȱto theȱend.ȱ

1.1ȱRhetoricȱasȱPhilosophicalȱOrientationȱ andȱSpiritualȱExercise Whenȱ rhetoricȱ isȱ consideredȱ asȱ aȱ basicȱ philosophicalȱ resourceȱ forȱ transformative existentialȱ growth,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ aȱ hermeneuticsȱ ofȱ suspicion,ȱ new considerationsȱandȱreȬreadings,ȱacrossȱmanyȱdisciplines,ȱmayȱemerge.ȱForȱexample,ȱin herȱstudyȱofȱ“womenȱinȱrelationȱtoȱrhetoricȱasȱbelongingȱnotȱtoȱaȱmarginȱbutȱtoȱaȱmatrix,” ChristineȱMasonȱSutherlandȱcitesȱThomasȱMiller’sȱsuggestionȱthatȱ“insteadȱofȱstudying theȱtraditionȱofȱrhetoric,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱstudyȱ‘theȱrhetoricȱofȱtraditions.’”16ȱInȱaȱtributeȱtoȱthe extensiveȱworkȱofȱGeorgeȱKennedyȱinȱ“DefiningȱMedievalȱRhetoric,”ȱMartinȱCamargo hasȱobservedȱthatȱKennedy’sȱownȱreflectionsȱonȱrhetoricȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱhaveȱshifted awayȱ fromȱ aȱ moreȱ pronouncedȱ distinctionȱ “betweenȱ ‘primary’ȱ andȱ ‘secondary’ rhetoric.”17ȱInȱfact,ȱinȱaȱ1998ȱstudyȱentitledȱComparativeȱRhetoric:ȱAnȱHistoricalȱandȱCrossȬ

12

13

14

15 16

17

Seeȱ forȱ instanceȱ Johnȱ Ward,ȱ “Womenȱ andȱ Latinȱ Rhetoricȱ fromȱ Hrotsvitȱ toȱ Hildegard,”ȱ Theȱ Changing Tradition:ȱȱWomenȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱRhetoric,ȱed.ȱChristineȱMasonȱSutherlandȱandȱRebeccaȱSutcliffeȱ(Calgary: UniversityȱofȱCalgaryȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ121–32. See,ȱforȱinstance,ȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloiseȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005);ȱMarenbon, TheȱPhilosophyȱofȱPeterȱAbelard. JeanȱLeclercq,ȱ“ModernȱPsychologyȱandȱtheȱInterpretationȱofȱMedievalȱTexts,”ȱSpeculumȱ48ȱ(Julyȱ1973): 476–90;ȱhereȱ484. EtienneȱGilson,ȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱ(AnnȱArbor:ȱUniversityȱofȱMichiganȱPress,ȱ1960),ȱ21–22. ChristineȱMasonȱSutherland,ȱ“WomenȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱRhetoric:ȱTheȱPastȱandȱtheȱFuture,”ȱTheȱChanging Tradition,ȱ9–31;ȱhereȱ10. MartinȱCamargo,ȱ“DefiningȱMedievalȱRhetoric,”ȱRhetoricȱandȱRenewal,ȱ21–34;ȱhereȱ27–28.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

251

CulturalȱIntroduction,ȱKennedyȱprovidesȱsomeȱsimpleȱdefinitionsȱthatȱAristotleȱhimself mightȱnotȱsoȱeasilyȱdiscount:ȱ“Rhetoricȱisȱnotȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱjustȱaȱconvenientȱconceptȱexistingȱonly inȱtheȱmindȱofȱspeakers,ȱaudiences,ȱwriters,ȱcriticsȱandȱ teachers.ȱItȱhasȱanȱessenceȱor realityȱthatȱhasȱnotȱbeenȱappreciatedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱRhetoric,ȱinȱessence,ȱisȱaȱformȱofȱmentalȱand emotionalȱ energy.”18ȱ Thisȱ “energy,”ȱ notesȱ Kennedy,ȱ “drivesȱ andȱ isȱ impartedȱ to communication,”ȱandȱitsȱ“basicȱfunctionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱisȱdefensiveȱandȱconservative;ȱbutȱtoȱsecure orȱ preserveȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ lifeȱ forȱ oneȱ individualȱ orȱ oneȱ groupȱ mayȱ seemȱ toȱ require offensiveȱactionsȱandȱeffortsȱatȱchange.”19ȱWhatȱisȱsoȱstrikingȱaboutȱKennedy’sȱdefinition ofȱrhetoricȱisȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱitȱresonatesȱwithȱwhatȱPeterȱDronkeȱhasȱidentifiedȱasȱthe drivingȱforceȱofȱwomen’sȱwritingȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.ȱDronkeȱshouldȱbeȱquotedȱhereȱat length: Theȱwomen’sȱmotivationȱforȱwritingȱatȱall,ȱforȱinstance,ȱseemsȱrarelyȱtoȱbeȱpredominantly literary:ȱitȱisȱoftenȱmoreȱurgentlyȱseriousȱthanȱisȱcommonȱamongȱmenȱwriters;ȱitȱisȱaȱresponse springingȱfromȱinnerȱneedsȱ[pathos],ȱmoreȱthanȱfromȱanȱartistic,ȱorȱdidacticȱinclination.ȱThere is,ȱmoreȱoftenȱthanȱinȱmen’sȱwriting,ȱaȱlackȱofȱapriorism,ȱofȱpredeterminedȱpostures:ȱagainȱand againȱ weȱ encounterȱ attemptsȱ toȱ copeȱ withȱ humanȱ problemsȱ inȱ theirȱ singularity—ȱ not imposingȱrulesȱorȱcategoriesȱfromȱwithout,ȱbutȱseekingȱsolutionsȱthatȱareȱaptȱandȱtruthful existentiallyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[showing]ȱexcellinglyȱaȱqualityȱ(literary,ȱbutȱalsoȱ‘metaliterary’)ȱofȱimmediacy: theyȱlookȱatȱthemselvesȱmoreȱconcretelyȱandȱmoreȱsearchinglyȱ[ethos]ȱthanȱmanyȱofȱtheȱhighly accomplishedȱmenȱwritersȱwhoȱwereȱtheirȱcontemporaries.ȱThisȱimmediacyȱcanȱlendȱwomen’s writingȱqualitiesȱbesideȱwhichȱallȱtechnicalȱflawlessnessȱ[logos]ȱisȱpallid.20ȱȱ

Suchȱ anȱ accountȱ seemsȱ toȱ describeȱ Heloise’sȱ writingȱ precisely,ȱ capturingȱ theȱ wayȱ in whichȱ sheȱ takesȱ upȱ againȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ offeredȱ byȱ Abelardȱ inȱ hisȱ Historia calamitatumȱandȱoffersȱitȱbackȱinȱreturnȱalongȱwithȱeveryȱselfȬeffacingȱquestionȱaboutȱlove, virtueȱandȱtruth,ȱwhichȱforȱher,ȱareȱtheȱonlyȱwaysȱofȱrenderingȱamicitiaȱwithȱintegrity. NotȱexcludingȱKennedy’sȱownȱwork,21ȱaȱhostȱofȱmoreȱtechnicalȱstudiesȱprovidesȱfurther dataȱforȱreflectionsȱonȱlateȬmedievalȱunderstandingsȱofȱrhetoricȱandȱtheȱimplicitȱand explicitȱspiritualȱexercisesȱaccompanyingȱthem.ȱItȱisȱworthȱreflectingȱmoreȱdeeply,ȱfor instance,ȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱarsȱdictaminisȱexistedȱalongsideȱtheȱotherȱ“formsȱofȱrhetoric inȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱpreaching,ȱepideicticȱpoetry.”22ȱWhatȱmightȱthisȱmeanȱinȱtermsȱofȱthe

18

19 20

21

22

Georgeȱ Kennedy,ȱ Comparativeȱ Rhetoric:ȱ Anȱ Historicalȱ andȱ CrossȬCulturalȱ Introductionȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxford UniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ3. Kennedy,ȱComparativeȱRhetoric,ȱ216. Dronke,ȱWomenȱWritersȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱx.ȱIȱhaveȱincludedȱinȱbracketsȱwhatȱAristotleȱidentifiesȱasȱthe threeȱmodesȱofȱrhetoric,ȱwhich,ȱasȱKennedyȱnotes,ȱfitȱalongȱwithȱ“topoi,”ȱinȱtheȱcategoryȱidentifiedȱby Ciceroȱasȱ“invention.”ȱSeeȱKennedy,ȱComparativeȱRhetoric,ȱ225. SeeȱalsoȱGeorgeȱKennedy,ȱClassicalȱRhetoricȱandȱItsȱChristianȱandȱSecularȱTraditionȱfromȱAncientȱtoȱModern Timesȱ(ChapelȱHill:ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ1999). Kennedy,ȱClassicalȱRhetoric,ȱ225.ȱInȱTheȱChangingȱTradition,ȱJohnȱWardȱasks:ȱ“Canȱweȱimagineȱaȱrough divideȱbetweenȱwhatȱsheȱlearnedȱfromȱAbelardȱ(logic,ȱtheology,ȱphilosophy,ȱBiblicalȱexegesis?)ȱandȱwhat heȱimbibedȱfromȱherȱ(auctores,ȱcertainȱrhetorical/dictaminial/stylisticȱpractices?)ȱandȱwhatȱtheyȱlearned

252

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

theoryȱofȱtheȱsalutatioȱorȱtheȱancientȱgenreȱofȱtheȱconsolatio,ȱofȱwhichȱ“theȱcoreȱrhetorical strategyȱ wasȱ theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ certainȱ philosophicalȱ ‘topoi’ȱ andȱ theȱ enumerationȱ of consolingȱexemplaȱofȱgreaterȱtragediesȱthanȱthoseȱexperiencedȱbyȱtheȱrecipient”?23ȱWhat shouldȱ weȱ makeȱ ofȱ Malcolmȱ Richardson’sȱ observationȱ inȱ “Theȱ Arsȱ dictaminis,ȱ the Formulary,ȱandȱMedievalȱEpistolaryȱPractice”ȱthatȱalthoughȱ“medievalȱletterȬwriting manualsȱhaveȱnotȱhadȱaȱgoodȱpressȱinȱmodernȱtimesȱandȱareȱoftenȱdisparagedȱforȱthe aridityȱofȱtheirȱtheory,”ȱaȱreviewȱofȱepistolaryȱrhetoricȱfromȱtheȱlateȱeleventhȱtoȱthirteenth centuriesȱrevealsȱaȱnotableȱshiftȱfromȱ“letterȱwritingȱasȱaȱsubfieldȱofȱrhetoric”ȱtoȱ“rhetoric .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ taughtȱ asȱ aȱ subfieldȱ ofȱ letterȱ writing”?24ȱ Asȱ Constantȱ Mewsȱ notes,ȱ Heloise’s indebtednessȱtoȱCiceroȱinȱherȱcorrespondenceȱwasȱaȱtransformationȱofȱCicero’sȱthought throughȱaȱmergingȱofȱ“ovidian,ȱciceronianȱandȱreligiousȱimagery.”25ȱGivenȱsuchȱefforts onȱtheȱpartȱofȱHeloise,ȱherȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱAbelardȱprovidesȱaȱfruitfulȱcontextȱfor consideringȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱrhetoricȱfunctionsȱbothȱasȱphilosophicalȱorientationȱandȱas spiritualȱexercise.ȱȱȱȱ ReconsiderationsȱofȱAbelard’sȱownȱthoughtȱonȱrhetoricȱinȱthisȱcontextȱinclude:ȱwork onȱhisȱ“twelveȬpageȱdigressionȱonȱrhetoricalȱargumentationȱinȱglossesȱtoȱBoethius’ȱDe differentiisȱ topicis;26ȱ hisȱ intentionȱ toȱ writeȱ aȱ “Rhetorica”27;ȱ andȱ hisȱ laterȱ readingsȱ ofȱ the Scripturesȱasȱaȱ“productȱofȱdivineȱeloquence.”28ȱAsȱMcKeonȱnotedȱdecadesȱago:ȱ“Abelard beginsȱhisȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱEpistleȱofȱSt.ȱPaulȱtoȱtheȱRomansȱwithȱtheȱstatement:ȱThe intentionȱ ofȱ allȱ divineȱ Scriptureȱ isȱ toȱ teachȱ orȱ toȱ moveȱ inȱ theȱ mannerȱ ofȱ aȱ rhetorical speech.”29ȱOnlyȱnowȱareȱstudiesȱonȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱAbelard’sȱthoughtȱconcerning rhetoricȱreturningȱtoȱexamineȱhisȱideasȱonȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱlanguage,ȱandȱinȱparticular hisȱreadingsȱofȱAugustineȱandȱofȱcommentariesȱonȱAugustine’sȱthought.ȱInȱthisȱarea,ȱit isȱ strikingȱ howȱ Abelard’sȱ ownȱ growingȱ reflectionsȱ onȱ rhetoricȱ andȱ theȱ Scriptures

23

24

25 26 27

28

29

togetherȱ(sharedȱreadingȱofȱtheȱauctores?)?”ȱHeȱisȱamongȱtheȱmostȱreservedȱofȱscholarsȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱsuch questions,ȱconcludingȱthatȱ“withoutȱmuchȱcloserȱattentionȱtoȱrhetoricalȱteachingȱinȱParisȱaroundȱtheȱtime ofȱherȱearlyȱeducation...weȱcannotȱprofitablyȱadvanceȱanȱinquiryȱintoȱ‘Heloissaȱrhetor,’”ȱ125.ȱPerhaps deeperȱreflectionȱonȱallȱthreeȱformsȱofȱrhetoricȱmightȱyield,ȱonȱoneȱlevel,ȱratherȱthanȱevidenceȱofȱaȱ“rough divide”ȱbetweenȱtheseȱdisciplines,ȱinsteadȱaȱseriesȱofȱspiritualȱexercisesȱengagingȱthemȱallȱthroughȱthe toolsȱofȱrhetoric.ȱȱȱȱ KatharinaȱWilsonȱandȱGlendaȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,” ListeningȱtoȱHeloise,ȱ121–42;ȱhereȱ129. MalcolmȱRichardson,ȱ“TheȱArsȱdictaminis,ȱtheȱFormulary,ȱandȱMedievalȱEpistolaryȱPractice,”ȱLetterȬWriting ManualsȱandȱInstructionȱFromȱAntiquityȱtoȱtheȱPresent:ȱHistoricalȱandȱBibliographicȱStudies,ȱed.ȱCarolȱPoster andȱLindaȱC.ȱMitchellȱ(Columbia:ȱUniversityȱofȱSouthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ2007),ȱ52–66;ȱhereȱ64,ȱ52.ȱSeeȱalso theȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱJulianȱP.ȱHaseldine.ȱ Mews,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ65. KarinȱMargaretaȱFredborg,ȱ“AbelardȱonȱRhetoric,”ȱRhetoricȱandȱRenewal,ȱ55–80. ConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱ“PeterȱAbelardȱonȱDialectic,ȱRhetoric,ȱandȱtheȱPrinciplesȱofȱArgument,”ȱRhetoricȱand Renewal,ȱ37–54. PeterȱvonȱMoos,ȱ“LiteraryȱAestheticsȱinȱtheȱLatinȱMiddleȱAges:ȱTheȱRhetoricalȱTheologyȱofȱPeterȱAbelard,” RhetoricȱandȱRenewal,ȱ81–97;ȱhereȱ87.ȱȱ RichardȱMcKeon,ȱ“RhetoricȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,”ȱSpeculumȱ17ȱ(Januaryȱ1942):ȱ1–32;ȱhereȱ20.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

253

resembleȱAugustine’sȱownȱjourney;ȱJohnȱCavadiniȱhasȱnotedȱofȱAugustine’sȱwritings: “ButȱtheȱChristȱofȱtheseȱearlierȱworks,ȱfromȱtheȱpointȱofȱviewȱofȱDeȱdoctrinaȱchristiana,ȱis naive—heȱ isȱ anȱ oratorȱ whoȱ attemptsȱ merelyȱ toȱ teach,ȱ thinkingȱ thatȱ knowledgeȱ and understandingȱofȱtheȱtruthȱaloneȱwillȱsuffice,ȱnotȱunderstandingȱthatȱteachingȱinȱandȱof itselfȱ cannotȱ persuade;ȱ notȱ understanding,ȱ finally,ȱ theȱ wellȬspringsȱ ofȱ human motivation.”30ȱIsȱthisȱnotȱaȱportraitȱofȱtheȱAbelardȱwhomȱHeloiseȱconfrontsȱinȱtheȱHistoria calamitatum?ȱȱ Anȱimportantȱcomponentȱofȱthisȱexaminationȱisȱtheȱsignificanceȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱbeginning sectionsȱ ofȱ Cicero’sȱ Deȱ inventioneȱ (Rhetoricaȱ Prima)ȱ byȱ Heloiseȱ andȱ Abelardȱ inȱ their Letters.31ȱ Explicitȱ referencesȱ toȱ thisȱ workȱ serveȱ toȱ frameȱ theȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ theȱ Letters, beginningȱ withȱ theȱ exemplumȱ ofȱ Aspasia32ȱ offeredȱ byȱ Heloiseȱ inȱ theȱ Firstȱ Letter,ȱ and concludingȱwithȱtheȱaccountȱofȱZeuxis33ȱofferedȱbyȱAbelardȱinȱtheȱSeventhȱLetter.ȱThe openingȱlinesȱofȱtheȱDeȱinventioneȱareȱnotȱexplicitlyȱquotedȱbyȱeitherȱHeloiseȱorȱAbelard, butȱareȱlinesȱweȱwouldȱdoȱwellȱtoȱconsiderȱasȱprovidingȱanȱinterpretiveȱkeyȱforȱreading theirȱentireȱcorrespondenceȱfromȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱtoȱtheȱwriting ofȱtheȱProblemataȱHeloissae.ȱFromȱtheȱveryȱbeginningȱofȱherȱrhetoricalȱprojectȱinȱtheȱearly letters,ȱ Heloiseȱ callsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ integralȱ relationȱ betweenȱ wisdomȱ and eloquence—withȱeloquenceȱasȱaȱsynonymȱforȱrhetoric—aȱrelationȱputȱforthȱbyȱCiceroȱin theȱDeȱinventione: Saepeȱetȱmultumȱhocȱmecumȱcogitavi,ȱbonineȱanȱmaliȱplusȱattuleritȱhominibusȱetȱcivitatibus copiaȱ dicendiȱ acȱ summumȱ eloquentiaeȱ studiumȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ cumȱ autemȱ resȱ abȱ nostraȱ memoria propterȱ vetustatemȱ remotasȱ exȱ litterarumȱ monumentisȱ repetereȱ instituo,ȱ multasȱ urbes constitutas,ȱplurimaȱbellaȱrestincta,ȱfirmissimasȱsocietates,ȱsanctissimasȱamicitiasȱintellegoȱcum animiȱrationeȱtumȱfaciliusȱeloquentiaȱcomparatas.ȱAcȱmeȱquidemȱdiuȱcogitantemȱratioȱipsaȱin hancȱpotissimumȱsententiamȱducit,ȱutȱexistimemȱsapientiamȱsineȱeloquentiaȱparumȱprodesse civitatibus,ȱeloquentiamȱveroȱsineȱsapientiaȱnimiumȱobesseȱplerumque,ȱprodesseȱnunquam.ȱ [Iȱhaveȱoftenȱseriouslyȱdebatedȱwithȱmyselfȱwhetherȱmenȱandȱcommunitiesȱhaveȱreceived moreȱgoodȱorȱevilȱfromȱoratoryȱandȱaȱconsumingȱdevotionȱtoȱeloquenceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱWhen,ȱonȱthe otherȱhand,ȱIȱbeginȱtoȱsearchȱinȱtheȱrecordsȱofȱliteratureȱforȱeventsȱwhichȱoccurredȱbeforeȱthe periodȱwhichȱourȱgenerationȱcanȱremember,ȱIȱfindȱthatȱmanyȱcitiesȱhaveȱbeenȱfounded,ȱthat theȱflamesȱofȱaȱmultitudeȱofȱwarsȱhaveȱbeenȱextinguished,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱstrongestȱalliancesȱand

30

31

32 33

JohnȱCavadini,ȱ“TheȱSweetnessȱofȱtheȱWord:ȱȱSalvationȱandȱRhetoricȱinȱAugustine’sȱDeȱdoctrinaȱchristiana,” Deȱdoctrinaȱchristiana:ȱȱAȱClassicȱofȱWesternȱCulture,ȱed.ȱDuaneȱArnoldȱandȱPamelaȱBrightȱ(NotreȱDame:ȱ UniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ164–81;ȱhereȱ168.ȱȱAsȱRitaȱCopelandȱhasȱnotedȱofȱtheȱDeȱdoctrina christiana:ȱ“theȱroleȱofȱinventionȱinȱthisȱsystemȱisȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱtermsȱforȱtheȱexegeticalȱactȱitself,”ȱRhetoric, Hermeneuticsȱ andȱ Translationȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages:ȱ Academicȱ Traditionsȱ andȱ Vernacularȱ Textsȱ (Cambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ154. TheȱonlyȱotherȱwritingȱbyȱCiceroȱcitedȱinȱtheȱLettersȱisȱhisȱTusculanaeȱdisputationes.ȱSeeȱLevitan,ȱ340.ȱSee alsoȱtheȱextensiveȱscholarlyȱattentionȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱ influenceȱ ofȱ theȱDeȱinventioneȱuponȱtheȱthoughtȱof HeloiseȱandȱAbelard.ȱȱ Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ57,ȱn.ȱ10:ȱ“Cicero,ȱDeȱInventioneȱ1.31.52.” Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ170,ȱn.ȱ2.ȱSeeȱDeȱInventioneȱ2.1.

254

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson mostȱsacredȱfriendshipsȱhaveȱbeenȱformedȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱreasonȱbutȱalsoȱmore easilyȱbyȱtheȱhelpȱofȱeloquence.ȱForȱmyȱownȱpart,ȱafterȱlongȱthought,ȱIȱhaveȱbeenȱledȱbyȱreason itselfȱtoȱholdȱthisȱopinionȱfirstȱandȱforemost,ȱthatȱwisdomȱwithoutȱeloquenceȱdoesȱtooȱlittleȱfor theȱgoodȱofȱstates,ȱbutȱthatȱeloquenceȱwithoutȱwisdomȱisȱgenerallyȱhighlyȱdisadvantageous andȱisȱneverȱhelpful.]34ȱȱ

Inȱtheirȱearlyȱletters,ȱitȱisȱHeloiseȱtryingȱtoȱworkȱoutȱthisȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱhuman wisdom35ȱandȱeloquenceȱinȱtermsȱofȱfriendship.ȱForȱher,ȱsuchȱaȱrelationshipȱisȱnotȱatȱodds withȱGod’sȱwisdomȱorȱwithȱamor,ȱandȱweȱwitnessȱherȱstrugglingȱwithȱAbelardȱonȱthis point,ȱwithoutȱresolutionȱinȱtheseȱearlyȱletters.36ȱInȱtheȱlaterȱletters,ȱHeloiseȱtakesȱupȱthis relationshipȱ again,ȱ ultimatelyȱ employingȱ anotherȱ synonymȱ forȱ rhetoric—persuasio, Abelard’sȱ ownȱ termȱ fromȱ theȱ Historiaȱ calamitatum,ȱ and,ȱ together,ȱ theyȱ workȱ outȱ a reconciliationȱthroughȱtheirȱrenewedȱcommitmentȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheseȱletters.ȱȱ Theȱ intimate,ȱ integralȱ relationȱ betweenȱ wisdomȱ andȱ eloquenceȱ isȱ arguablyȱ oneȱ to which,ȱmoreȱthanȱanyȱotherȱtheoreticalȱrelation,ȱHeloiseȱdevotesȱmuchȱofȱherȱlife’sȱwork fromȱtheȱtimeȱofȱherȱearlyȱlettersȱwithȱAbelardȱtoȱtheȱquestionȬandȬanswerȱexchangeȱon theȱ Scripturesȱ withȱ Abelardȱ inȱ theȱ Problemata.ȱ Inȱ theȱ Epistolaeȱ duorumȱ amantium,ȱ the relationȱbetweenȱwisdomȱandȱeloquenceȱexpressesȱitselfȱasȱtheȱtensionȱbetweenȱvirtue andȱeloquentia.ȱȱInȱtheȱLetters,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱreconciliationȱthroughȱwisdomȱand persuasio.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ fruitfullyȱ traceȱ thisȱ movementȱ inȱ theȱ rhetoric,ȱ however,ȱ itȱ is necessaryȱtoȱattendȱfirstȱtoȱfriendship.ȱȱ

1.2ȱFriendshipȱasȱToposȱandȱMethod Theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ ofȱ vitalȱ importanceȱ inȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ twelfthȬcentury educational—andȱespeciallyȱethical—endeavors.37ȱAsȱFrederickȱJ.ȱE.ȱRabyȱhasȱnoted,ȱ“the preȬoccupationȱwithȱethicalȱquestionsȱisȱobviousȱinȱwritersȱofȱeveryȱ[cathedral]ȱschool, and,ȱalmostȱinevitably,ȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱcomesȱupȱforȱdiscussion.”38ȱAccordingȱto GerhartȱLadner,ȱdiscussionsȱofȱfriendshipȱcouldȱeasilyȱbeȱfoundȱinȱreflectionsȱonȱboth humanȱandȱdivineȱnatures:ȱȱ

34

35 36

37

38

Cicero,ȱDeȱinventione,ȱDeȱoptimoȱgenereȱoratorum,ȱTopica,ȱtrans.ȱH.ȱM.ȱHubbellȱ(London:ȱWilliamȱHeinemann Ltd.,ȱ1949),ȱI.1. Cicero,ȱDeȱinventione,ȱII.160:ȱ“knowledgeȱofȱwhatȱisȱgoodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱbad.”ȱ JuanitaȱFerosȱRuysȱhasȱclearlyȱshownȱthisȱinȱherȱstudyȱdistinguishingȱHeloise’sȱdictamenȱandȱAbelard’s ethicsȱinȱrelationȱ toȱ eloquence.ȱSeeȱ“Eloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere:ȱEloquenceȱandȱDictamenȱinȱtheȱLove LettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,”ȱRhetoricȱandȱRenewal,ȱ99–112.ȱ “.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Atȱ noȱ otherȱ time,ȱ inȱ theȱ mediaevalȱ west,ȱ didȱ theȱ subjectȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ receiveȱ suchȱ closeȱ and continuousȱattention.”ȱFrederickȱJ.ȱE.ȱRaby,ȱ“AmorȱandȱAmicitia:ȱȱAȱMediaevalȱPoem,”ȱSpeculumȱ40ȱ(October 1965):ȱ599–610. Raby,ȱ“AmorȱandȱAmicitia:ȱAȱMediaevalȱPoem,”ȱ601.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

255

Theȱmentalityȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱalsoȱincludedȱaȱnewȱconceptionȱofȱfriendshipȱbetween Godȱ andȱ man,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ humanityȱ ofȱ Godȱ wasȱ predominant,ȱ andȱ thisȱ contributedȱ to makingȱtheȱwholeȱnaturalȱandȱsupernaturalȱuniverseȱappearȱmoreȱbenign,ȱmoreȱfriendlyȱto man.ȱWeȱhaveȱseenȱinȱAlanȱofȱLille’sȱdreamȱofȱaȱnewȱmanȱandȱaȱnewȱworldȱaȱprofoundȱif utopianȱconcernȱforȱaȱrenewalȱofȱmanȱinȱwhichȱnatureȱandȱGodȱhaveȱanȱalmostȱequalȱshare.39

Heloise’sȱpersistentȱreflectionsȱinȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱattestȱtoȱthisȱrealityȱin whichȱfriendshipȱtakesȱonȱaȱcentralȱfocusȱbeforeȱbothȱmanȱandȱGod.ȱAsȱearlyȱasȱletterȱ9, Heloiseȱwrites:ȱ“Voloȱetȱinhianterȱcupioȱutȱlitterisȱiuxtaȱpreceptumȱtuumȱintercurrentibus precordialisȱinterȱnosȱfirmeturȱamicicia,ȱdonecȱillaȱmichiȱnimiumȱfelixȱdiesȱillucescat,ȱqua votisȱomnibusȱdesideratamȱtuamȱfaciemȱvideamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱValeȱinȱdeo,ȱquoȱvalidiorȱestȱnemo” (Iȱ wishȱ andȱ eagerlyȱ desireȱ thatȱ byȱ exchangingȱ lettersȱ accordingȱ toȱ yourȱ bidding,ȱ the heartfeltȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱusȱmayȱbeȱstrengthenedȱuntilȱthatȱexceedinglyȱhappyȱday shinesȱonȱmeȱwhenȱIȱshallȱseeȱyourȱface,ȱtheȱdesireȱofȱallȱmyȱprayersȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱFarewellȱinȱGod, thanȱ whomȱ noȱ oneȱ isȱ moreȱ strong).40ȱ Here,ȱ herȱ earnestȱ pleadingȱ withȱ Abelardȱ forȱ a steadfastȱhumanȱfriendshipȱisȱgroundedȱinȱanȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱwith Godȱasȱprovidingȱtheȱveryȱfoundationȱforȱthatȱfriendship.ȱByȱletterȱ25,ȱHeloise’sȱpleas adoptȱanȱevenȱbolderȱqualityȱasȱsheȱclosesȱwithȱaȱprayerȱthatȱGod’sȱownȱloveȱforȱher mightȱreflectȱherȱintimateȱdevotionȱtoȱAbelard.41ȱAlthoughȱAbelardȱdoesȱnotȱexplicitly addressȱ Heloise’sȱ daringȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ mutualityȱ withȱ Godȱ thatȱ seemȱ toȱ fuelȱ her treatmentȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ theseȱ earlyȱ letters,ȱ heȱ doesȱ applaudȱ herȱ accountȱ ofȱ the dynamicsȱofȱhumanȱfriendship,ȱproclaimingȱinȱletterȱ50:ȱ“Tuumȱadmirorȱingenium,ȱque tamȱsubtiliterȱdeȱamicicieȱlegibusȱargumentarisȱutȱnonȱTulliumȱlegisse,ȱsedȱipsiȱTullio preceptaȱdedisseȱvidearis”ȱ(Iȱadmireȱyourȱtalent,ȱyouȱwhoȱdiscussȱtheȱrulesȱofȱfriendship soȱsubtlyȱthatȱyouȱseemȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱreadȱTullyȱbutȱtoȱhaveȱgivenȱthoseȱpreceptsȱtoȱTully himself).42ȱȱ Asȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱrhetoric,ȱsoȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱfriendship,ȱCicero’sȱthoughtȱisȱagain ofȱcentralȱimportanceȱinȱtheirȱwritings.43ȱAȱcriticalȱcomponentȱofȱCicero’sȱdiscussionȱof friendship,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱDeȱamicitia—whichȱMewsȱhasȱnotedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmostȱcited Ciceronianȱsourceȱinȱtheȱearlyȱletters—isȱthatȱofȱvirtus,ȱ44ȱwhichȱbothȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

39

40 41

42 43

44

GerhartȱLadner,ȱ“TermsȱandȱIdeasȱofȱRenewal,”ȱRenaissanceȱandȱRenewalȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,ȱed.ȱRobert L.ȱBensonȱandȱGilesȱConstableȱwithȱCarolȱD.ȱLanhamȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1982), 1–33;ȱhereȱ16.ȱ Letterȱ9,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ194,ȱ195. Letterȱ25,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ212,ȱ213:ȱ“Sicutȱtibiȱcupio,ȱitaȱmichiȱfaciatȱdeus”ȱ(MayȱGodȱdoȱfor meȱsuchȱasȱIȱdesireȱforȱyou). Letterȱ50,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ232,ȱ233. MewsȱcitesȱtheȱDeȱamicitia,ȱTusculanaeȱdisputationes,ȱandȱDeȱofficiisȱasȱsourcesȱinȱthisȱexchange.ȱSeeȱTheȱLost LoveȱLetters,ȱ196,ȱn.ȱ12b;ȱ210,ȱn.ȱ25a;ȱ226,ȱn.ȱ49c. Seeȱ alsoȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love:ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lostȱ Sensibility.ȱ Theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Series (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ29.

256

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

interweaveȱthroughoutȱtheirȱreflectionsȱofȱfriendship.ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger’sȱextensiveȱstudy inȱthisȱareaȱisȱinstructive:ȱȱ TheȱconnectionȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱvirtueȱbecameȱtheȱthemeȱofȱCicero’sȱLaeliusȱdeȱamicitiaȱ.ȱ.ȱ. .ȱWhileȱheȱrecognizesȱitsȱpragmaticȱside,ȱheȱrestrictsȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱ“loveȱof virtueȱinȱanotherȱman”:ȱȱ“Friendshipȱcannotȱexistȱexceptȱamongȱgoodȱmen.”ȱWhenȱfriendship consistsȱ inȱ perfectȱ agreementȱ amongȱ menȱ onȱ allȱ thingsȱ humanȱ andȱ divine,ȱ joinedȱ with goodwillȱandȱaffection,ȱthenȱitȱisȱtheȱbestȱgiftȱofȱtheȱgodsȱtoȱman,ȱapartȱfromȱwisdomȱ(6.22). Ciceroȱagreesȱwithȱtheȱ“noble”ȱviewȱthatȱvirtueȱisȱtheȱchiefȱgoodȱofȱman,ȱandȱclaimsȱthat virtueȱaloneȱcreatesȱandȱconservesȱfriendship.ȱVirtueȱisȱtheȱhighestȱobjectȱofȱdesire,ȱthatȱforce inȱaȱpersonȱmostȱableȱtoȱgenerateȱlove.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱItȱassumesȱtheȱchastenessȱandȱspiritualityȱofȱa friendshipȱwhichȱdoesȱnotȱrequireȱtheȱphysicalȱpresence.ȱAȱman’sȱgoodnessȱandȱvirtueȱareȱthe commonȱknowledgeȱofȱhisȱsociety,ȱpassedȱonȱinȱitsȱcommonȱreport.ȱHenceȱabsenceȱisȱtheȱtest ofȱfriendshipȱbasedȱonȱexcellenceȱofȱcharacter:ȱifȱloveȱoriginatesȱinȱtheȱadmirationȱofȱvirtue, thenȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱgeneratedȱwithȱnoȱadmixtureȱofȱsensuality,ȱevenȱwithoutȱtheȱphysical presenceȱofȱtheȱbeloved.45ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

AccordingȱtoȱCicero,ȱwhatȱisȱrequiredȱforȱfriendshipȱisȱpersonsȱ(i.e.,ȱmen)ȱdedicatedȱto aȱlifeȱofȱvirtue,ȱsuchȱthatȱtheirȱdesiresȱareȱdirectedȱtowardȱvirtueȱandȱsuchȱthatȱvirtue itselfȱguidesȱtheirȱlove.46ȱAsȱJaegerȱemphasizes,ȱthisȱ“Ciceronianȱideaȱvirtuallyȱeliminates theȱerotic.”47ȱAsȱJaegerȱalsoȱemphasizes,ȱnotingȱhowȱ“theȱadmiredȱvirtuesȱofȱtheȱother formȱaȱcommonȱmotifȱofȱtheȱ[early]ȱletters,”48ȱHeloise’sȱ“rootingȱaȱpassionateȱandȱcarnalȬ spiritualȱloveȱinȱvirtueȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱemployedȱtheȱtermsȱofȱCiceronianȱfriendshipȱinȱaȱcontextȱto whichȱtheyȱwereȱalien.”49ȱTheyȱwereȱalienȱtoȱCicero’sȱworkȱinȱtheȱDeȱamicitiaȱprecisely becauseȱtheyȱincludeȱwomenȱinȱtheȱequation,ȱtheyȱengageȱtheȱerotic,ȱand,ȱparticularlyȱin theȱlaterȱletters,ȱtheyȱrevealȱaȱcommitmentȱsoȱconfidentlyȱandȱentirelyȱembracedȱthat virtueȱitselfȱisȱsubsumedȱbyȱtheȱwisdomȱidentifiedȱwithȱeloquenceȱinȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱthe Deȱinventione. AȱsecondȱpointȱofȱemphasisȱmadeȱbyȱJaegerȱinȱEnvyȱofȱAngels:ȱCathedralȱSchoolsȱand SocialȱIdealsȱinȱMedievalȱEuropeȱ950–1200ȱandȱhighlightedȱbyȱJohnȱWardȱinȱ“Womenȱand LatinȱRhetoricȱFromȱHrotsvitȱtoȱHildegard”ȱisȱtheȱadditionȱofȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱteacherȱto theȱrelationȱbetweenȱvirtueȱandȱfriendship:ȱȱ Muchȱ ofȱ theȱ humanistȱ thoughtȱ ofȱ theȱ twelfthȱ centuryȱ mustȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ theȱ ideaȱ that scholarsȱofȱthatȱage,ȱconsciousȱofȱlosingȱtheȱcharismaȱofȱtheȱgreatȱteachersȱofȱtheȱimmediate past,ȱwhoseȱpersonalitiesȱwereȱalreadyȱdissolvingȱinȱtheȱemergingȱworldȱofȱwrittenȱculture,

45 46 47 48 49

Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ29. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ29. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ30. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ162. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ168.ȱȱJaegerȱnotesȱfurther:ȱ“Sheȱdoesȱtheȱsameȱbyȱarguingȱtheȱ‘purity’ȱofȱherȱlove inȱherȱlaterȱletters.”ȱIȱwillȱaddressȱthisȱfurtherȱinȱtheȱtextualȱanalysisȱofȱsectionȱ2.1ȱandȱ2.2ȱofȱthisȱpaper.ȱ

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

257

soughtȱtoȱembalmȱtheirȱmemoryȱofȱtheȱpastȱfiguresȱinȱtheȱnewȱliteracyȱofȱtheȱprotoȬuniversity world.ȱTwelfthȬcenturyȱhumanismȱacquiresȱinȱthisȱwayȱaȱdistinctlyȱnostalgicȱtouch.50

Devotingȱanȱentireȱchapterȱtoȱthisȱrichȱconnectionȱofȱteaching,ȱvirtueȱandȱfriendship,51 Jaegerȱpointsȱout:ȱ“Charismaticȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱsubjectȱofȱinstructionȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱa medium,ȱaȱmodalityȱofȱteaching.”52ȱFollowingȱaȱselectionȱfromȱQuintilian’sȱInstitutioȱOratoria (2.9),ȱwhichȱinstructsȱaboutȱtheȱdevotionȱtoȱbeȱbestowedȱbyȱstudentsȱonȱtheirȱmaster, Jaegerȱaddsȱthatȱ“ifȱtheȱteacher’sȱ‘virtue’ȱisȱtheȱcurriculum,ȱthenȱloveȱisȱaȱmajorȱfactorȱin learning.”53ȱAgain,ȱtheȱsourceȱisȱCicero:ȱȱ Theȱlogicȱofȱtheȱconnectionȱisȱobvious:ȱCiceroȱdefinedȱfriendshipȱasȱ“loveȱofȱvirtueȱinȱanother man.”ȱȱIfȱtheȱacquisitionȱofȱvirtueȱisȱaȱgoalȱofȱeducation,ȱthenȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱcannotȱbe absent.ȱToȱteachȱorȱlearnȱwithoutȱloveȱwouldȱamountȱtoȱanȱadmissionȱofȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱvirtue .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheȱabsenceȱofȱloveȱwouldȱdiscreditȱtheȱrelationshipȱinȱoneȱofȱitsȱfundamentalȱpurposes.54

ȱ Throughȱ theȱ incorporationȱ ofȱ women,ȱ theȱ employmentȱ ofȱ eroticȱ imageryȱ andȱ the commitmentȱtoȱaȱlifeȱofȱwisdomȱbeforeȱbothȱGodȱandȱmen,55ȱsuchȱaȱrichȱinterweavingȱof teaching,ȱvirtueȱandȱfriendshipȱbeginsȱtoȱresembleȱHeloise’sȱproject,ȱaȱprojectȱthat,ȱby callingȱtoȱmindȱAspasia’sȱinstructionȱinȱtheȱFirstȱLetterȱofȱtheȱcorrespondence,ȱshouldȱalso callȱtoȱmind56ȱPlato’sȱSymposium,ȱwhereȱPausanias’ȱspeechȱonȱloveȱrevealsȱhowȱ“forȱthe beloved,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ serviceȱ heȱ mayȱ performȱ forȱ theȱ loverȱ withȱ honorȱ isȱ thatȱ whichȱ is directedȱatȱwisdomȱandȱvirtue.ȱOnlyȱthatȱloveȱisȱbeautifulȱwhichȱisȱbasedȱonȱeducation inȱreasonȱandȱvirtue.”57ȱȱ

50 51 52

53 54 55

56 57

Ward,ȱ“WomenȱandȱLatinȱRhetoricȱfromȱHrotsvitȱtoȱHildegard,”ȱ126. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ59–81. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ59.ȱEmphasisȱadded.ȱItȱisȱworthȱnotingȱthatȱwhatȱGillesȱMongeau,ȱS.J,.ȱhasȱobserved aboutȱAquinas’sȱspiritualȱtheologyȱinȱtheȱSummaȱTheologiaeȱwonderfullyȱechoesȱJaeger’sȱfocusȱhere.ȱȱSee n.ȱ6ȱabove.ȱOneȱwayȱofȱreadingȱtheȱSummaȱTheologiaeȱisȱpreciselyȱasȱaȱtheologyȱofȱfriendship,ȱbeginning withȱtheȱquestionȱonȱGod’sȱloveȱinȱI.20.2.ad3,ȱandȱculminatingȱinȱtheȱPersonȱofȱChristȱinȱtheȱTertiaȱpars.ȱSee AlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“TheologicalȱApproachesȱtoȱFriendship:ȱThomasȱAquinas”ȱinȱtheȱ“Introduction”ȱtoȱthis volume. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ59. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ61. Seeȱ BarbaraȱNewman,ȱReviewȱofȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard:ȱPerceptionsȱofȱDialogueȱin TwelfthȬCenturyȱFrance,ȱTheȱMedievalȱReviewȱ(AnnȱArbor:ȱUniversityȱofȱMichiganȱUniversityȱLibrary,ȱ2000) onȱHeloise’sȱstanceȱinȱtheȱearlyȱletters:ȱ“SheȱacknowledgesȱnoȱconflictȱwhatsoeverȱbetweenȱtheȱloveȱofȱGod andȱtheȱloveȱofȱherȱteacher,”ȱ4. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ28. Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ28.

258

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

2.ȱȱ“CharismaticȱFriendship”ȱinȱtheȱCorrespondence Jaegerȱhasȱnotedȱthatȱmedievalȱfriendshipȱ“isȱaȱsubjectȱofȱinstructionȱandȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime aȱ medium,ȱ aȱ modalityȱ ofȱ teaching.”58ȱ Thisȱ identification,ȱ highlightedȱ inȱ theȱ previous sectionȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱcannotȱbeȱoveremphasized;ȱatȱitsȱcore,ȱsuchȱanȱunderstandingȱof friendshipȱconstitutesȱaȱunityȱofȱcontentȱandȱform,ȱofȱsubjectȱmatterȱandȱdelivery,ȱatȱthe heartȱofȱinterpersonalȱandȱintercommunalȱrelations.ȱForȱHeloise,ȱrhetoricȱfacilitatesȱthis “medium,”ȱorȱmethodȱofȱfriendship,ȱandȱherȱwritingȱisȱaȱtestimonyȱtoȱthisȱreality.ȱStated otherwise,ȱfriendshipȱisȱtheȱsubjectȱmatterȱrequiringȱaȱpedagogyȱappropriateȱtoȱteachȱit. Rhetoricȱ providesȱ thatȱ pedagogy.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ theyȱ constituteȱ “charismatic friendship.”ȱThroughoutȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱandȱLetters,ȱandȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱof Abelard,ȱHeloiseȱsustainsȱaȱworkingȱtreatiseȱonȱfriendshipȱbothȱasȱaȱtopos,ȱandȱthrough theȱ“medium”ȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱAbelard.59ȱTheȱdynamicȱkeyȱtoȱthisȱprojectȱisȱfoundȱin herȱFirstȱLetterȱtoȱAbelardȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum.ȱAsȱwillȱbeȱshown,ȱby employingȱ theȱ exemplumȱ ofȱ Aspasiaȱ fromȱ Cicero’sȱ Deȱ inventione,ȱ Heloiseȱ seeksȱ to communicateȱtoȱAbelardȱthatȱrhetoricȱdoesȱindeedȱhaveȱanȱintegralȱplaceȱeven—and perhapsȱespecially—inȱaȱvirtuousȱlife.ȱInȱfact,ȱrhetoricȱisȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdomȱitself.ȱ TheȱchallengeȱforȱHeloiseȱliesȱinȱherȱhonestȱrealizationȱthat,ȱwhileȱsheȱseeksȱtoȱbeȱinȱthe serviceȱ ofȱ theȱ conversionȱ ofȱ herȱ ownȱ teacher,ȱ whoȱ hasȱ notȱ fullyȱ appropriatedȱ the teaching/virtue/friendshipȱdynamicȱinȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱHeloise,ȱsheȱisȱalsoȱseeking herȱownȱconversionȱwhich,ȱsheȱknows,ȱisȱthoroughlyȱintertwinedȱwithȱthatȱofȱAbelard. ByȱperseveringȱwithȱAbelardȱthroughȱthisȱchallenge,ȱHeloise’sȱrhetoricalȱprojectȱfinds fruitionȱ inȱ aȱ complexȱ unionȱ ofȱ wisdomȱ andȱ eloquenceȱ whichȱ Ciceroȱ couldȱ notȱ have imagined.ȱThisȱsectionȱofȱtheȱstudyȱhighlightsȱtheȱmovementȱofȱthisȱprojectȱasȱitȱworks itselfȱoutȱthroughȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱandȱLetters.ȱSinceȱtheȱLettersȱrevealȱthe rigorousȱeffortȱofȱtheȱproject,ȱtheyȱwillȱreceiveȱtheȱmostȱattention.ȱ

2.1ȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium InȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium,ȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱwisdomȱandȱeloquenceȱexpresses itselfȱasȱtheȱtensionȱbetweenȱvirtueȱandȱeloquentia.ȱTheȱcauseȱofȱthisȱtensionȱinvolvesȱa failureȱ onȱ Abelard’sȱ partȱ toȱ trulyȱ engageȱ aȱ Ciceronianȱ idealȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ which incorporatesȱHeloise’sȱownȱcontributionsȱasȱaȱwomanȱunwillingȱtoȱdiscountȱeitherȱamor orȱGodȱinȱherȱattemptȱatȱsynthesis.ȱAbelardȱhasȱcelebratedȱherȱforȱhavingȱputȱforthȱthe “rulesȱofȱfriendship”ȱandȱforȱhavingȱlivedȱthem,60ȱbutȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱhimselfȱwithȱany

58 59

60

Jaeger,ȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱ59. IȱamȱnotȱsuggestingȱthatȱHeloiseȱpossessedȱfullȱintentionalityȱofȱsuchȱaȱproject;ȱrather,ȱIȱholdȱthatȱsheȱwas fulfillingȱtheȱroleȱidentifiedȱbyȱPeterȱDronkeȱinȱPartȱ1.1ȱofȱthisȱpaper. Letterȱ50,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ232,ȱ233.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

259

suchȱrulesȱforȱeloquence.ȱWhenȱheȱproclaimsȱinȱletterȱ113,ȱ“Facundumȱmeȱsolaȱfacis” (Youȱaloneȱmakeȱmeȱeloquent),61ȱheȱisȱappealingȱtoȱOvid,ȱinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱamor,ȱaȱrealm which,ȱ forȱ Abelard,ȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ consonantȱ withȱ theȱ workȱ ofȱ rhetoric,ȱ butȱ isȱ too ambiguousȱaȱhumanȱexperienceȱtoȱhaveȱanyȱintegralȱconnectionȱwithȱlogicȱorȱfriendship orȱvirtue. Juanitaȱ Ruysȱ hasȱ identifiedȱ aȱ “crisisȱ overȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ eloquence”62ȱ inȱ theseȱ early letters,ȱ pointingȱ outȱ aȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ Heloise’sȱ “‘old’ȱ eleventhȬcentury learning”—whichȱincorporatedȱrhetoric,ȱethics,ȱtheȱepistolaryȱgenre,ȱandȱaȱdedicationȱto theȱvirtuousȱteacher—andȱAbelard’sȱ“‘new’ȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱlearningȱinȱwhichȱaȱplain, straightforwardȱstyleȱwasȱfavouredȱandȱethicsȱwasȱthereforeȱdivorcedȱfromȱeloquence.”63 WhatȱthisȱconflictȱforcesȱHeloiseȱtoȱattemptȱinȱherȱpersistentȱreflectionsȱonȱfriendshipȱis aȱsynthesisȱofȱtheirȱlearning.64ȱHerȱconclusionȱinȱtheȱearlyȱletters,ȱobservesȱRuys,ȱisȱthat suchȱaȱsynthesis—toȱwhichȱsheȱisȱdeterminatelyȱcommitted—requiresȱanȱeither/orȱin termsȱofȱvirtueȱandȱeloquence.ȱHeloiseȱwrites:ȱȱ Magneȱtemeritatisȱestȱlitteratorieȱtibiȱverbaȱdirigere,ȱquiaȱcuiqueȱlitteratissimoȱetȱadȱunguem usqueȱperducto,ȱcuiȱomnisȱdisposicioȱartiumȱperȱinveterataȱincrementaȱaffectionumȱtransivit inȱhabitum,ȱnonȱsufficitȱtamȱfloridumȱeloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere,ȱutȱiureȱtantiȱmagistri mereaturȱ conspectuiȱ apparereȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ magistroȱ inquamȱ tanto,ȱ magistroȱ virtutibus,ȱ magistro moribusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. [Itȱisȱveryȱrashȱofȱmeȱtoȱsendȱstudiedȱphrasesȱtoȱyou,ȱbecauseȱevenȱsomeoneȱlearnedȱright downȱtoȱhisȱfingertips,ȱwhoȱhasȱtransformedȱeveryȱartisticȱarrangementȱintoȱhabitȱthrough longȬestablishedȱ practice,ȱ wouldȱ notȱ beȱ capableȱ ofȱ paintingȱ aȱ portraitȱ ofȱ eloquenceȱ florid enoughȱ toȱ justlyȱ deserveȱ beingȱ seenȱ byȱ soȱ greatȱ aȱ teacherȱ (aȱ teacherȱ soȱ great,ȱ Iȱ declare,ȱ a teacherȱofȱvirtue,ȱaȱteacherȱofȱcharacterȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.)]65ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Furtherȱalongȱinȱletterȱ71,ȱsheȱnotes:ȱ“hasȱinornatasȱlitterasȱtibiȱmitto,ȱearumȱprobans indicioȱquamȱdevoteȱinȱomnibusȱmeȱtuisȱpreceptisȱsubicio”ȱ(Iȱsendȱyouȱthisȱunadorned letterȱasȱproofȱofȱhowȱdevotedlyȱIȱsubmitȱmyselfȱtoȱyourȱinstructionsȱinȱallȱmatters).66 Ultimately,ȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ letters,ȱ Heloiseȱ choosesȱ devotionȱ toȱ herȱ teacher,ȱ andȱ the consequencesȱareȱthatȱwhileȱsuchȱdevotionȱallowsȱherȱtoȱcontinueȱherȱworkingȱtreatise onȱfriendshipȱandȱherȱcommitmentȱtoȱtheȱlifeȱofȱvirtue,ȱitȱthreatensȱtheȱveryȱlifeȱofȱthe correspondenceȱreflectingȱtheseȱthings,ȱbecauseȱsuchȱcorrespondenceȱisȱherȱ dictamen,

61 62

63

64

65 66

Letterȱ113,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ288,ȱ289.ȱ Ruys,ȱ“Eloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere:ȱEloquenceȱandȱDictamenȱinȱtheȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,” 100. Ruys,ȱ“Eloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere:ȱEloquenceȱandȱDictamenȱinȱtheȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,” 101.ȱRuysȱisȱparaphrasingȱJaegerȱhere. Ruys,ȱ“Eloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere:ȱEloquenceȱandȱDictamenȱinȱtheȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,” 105. Letterȱ49,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ228,ȱ229. Letterȱ71,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ250–51.

260

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

whichȱisȱinfusedȱwithȱeloquenceȱandȱisȱitselfȱaȱformȱofȱrhetoric:ȱ“Heloiseȱthusȱadopts Abelard’sȱbeliefsȱonȱtheȱdeceitfulȱnatureȱofȱeloquence,ȱbutȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱrefusesȱto yieldȱ onȱ theȱ centralȱ importanceȱ ofȱ theȱ masterȱ ofȱ morals,ȱ inȱ factȱ invertingȱ Abelard’s argumentsȱonȱeloquenceȱtoȱshowȱthatȱitȱisȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱheȱisȱaȱteacherȱofȱvirtueȱthat sheȱwillȱnotȱwriteȱeloquentlyȱtoȱhim.”67ȱȱ Inȱoneȱsense,ȱHeloiseȱhasȱarrivedȱatȱaȱsynthesisȱinȱtheȱearlyȱletters,ȱbutȱitȱclearlyȱremains anȱuneasyȱoneȱforȱher,ȱbecauseȱevenȱsuchȱaȱsynthesisȱwithȱherȱvirtuousȱteacherȱdoesȱnot proveȱtoȱengageȱAbelardȱanyȱfurtherȱinȱherȱinquiriesȱintoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱamicitiaȱandȱamor.68 Still,ȱitȱisȱpreciselyȱherȱdedicationȱtoȱtheseȱinquiriesȱthatȱwillȱguideȱherȱresolutionȱinȱthe Letters.ȱWhileȱsheȱisȱwillingȱtoȱsacrificeȱherȱpositionȱonȱeloquenceȱinȱtheȱearlyȱletters,ȱshe willȱneverȱsacrificeȱherȱconvictionȱaboutȱtheȱrelationȱbetweenȱfriendshipȱandȱvirtueȱasȱthe rootȱofȱherȱentireȱcommitmentȱtoȱAbelard.ȱLetterȱ49ȱisȱagainȱrevealing:ȱȱ Nostiȱoȱmaximaȱparsȱanimeȱmeeȱmultosȱmultisȱseȱexȱcausisȱdiligere,ȱsedȱnullamȱeorumȱtam firmamȱforeȱamiciciamȱquamȱqueȱexȱprobitateȱatqueȱvirtute,ȱetȱexȱintimaȱdilectioneȱproveniat. Namȱ quiȱ obȱ diviciasȱ velȱ voluptatesȱ seseȱ diligereȱ videntur,ȱ eorumȱ nullomodoȱ diuturnam arbitrorȱamiciciamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSedȱmeaȱdilectio,ȱpactoȱlongeȱtibiȱalioȱsociataȱest.ȱNecȱenimȱmeȱignava opumȱponderaȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱteȱdiligereȱcompulerunt,ȱsedȱsolaȱexcellentissimaȱvirtus,ȱpenesȱquamȱomnis honestatis,ȱtociusqueȱprosperitatisȱcausaȱconsistit.ȱIllaȱquidemȱestȱqueȱsibiȱsufficiens,ȱnullius indiga,ȱcupiditatesȱomnesȱrefrenat,ȱamoresȱreprimit,ȱgaudiaȱtemperat,ȱdoloresȱextirpat;ȱque cunctaȱapta,ȱcunctaȱplacentia,ȱcunctaȱjocundissimaȱsumministratȱnichilqueȱseȱmeliusȱreperire valet.ȱ Habeoȱ saneȱ repertumȱ inȱ te,ȱ undeȱ teȱ diligam,ȱ summumȱ scilicetȱ atqueȱ omnium prestantissimumȱbonum.ȱQuodȱcumȱconstetȱesseȱeternum,ȱestȱmichiȱcausaȱproculȱdubio,ȱqua eternoȱmaneasȱinȱmeiȱdilectioneȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱNonȱeritȱvereȱullaȱdiesȱquaȱmeiȱmeminisseȱvaleam,ȱque sineȱtuiȱmemoriaȱpossitȱaȱmeȱtransduci.ȱQuinȱaȱteȱilludȱidemȱsperem,ȱnulloȱmeȱsciasȱscrupulo permoveri.ȱȱ [Youȱknow,ȱgreatestȱpartȱofȱmyȱsoul,ȱthatȱmanyȱpeopleȱloveȱeachȱotherȱforȱmanyȱreasons,ȱbut noȱfriendshipȱofȱtheirsȱwillȱbeȱasȱconstantȱasȱthatȱwhichȱstemsȱfromȱintegrityȱandȱvirtue,ȱand fromȱdeepȱlove.ȱForȱIȱdoȱnotȱconsiderȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱseemȱtoȱloveȱeachȱotherȱfor richesȱandȱpleasuresȱtoȱbeȱdurableȱatȱallȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱButȱmyȱloveȱisȱunitedȱwithȱyouȱbyȱaȱcompletely differentȱpact.ȱAndȱtheȱuselessȱburdensȱofȱwealthȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdidȱnotȱcompelȱmeȱtoȱloveȱyou—onlyȱthe highestȱvirtue,ȱinȱwhichȱliesȱtheȱrootȱofȱallȱhonorsȱandȱeveryȱsuccess.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱisȱthisȱvirtue whichȱisȱselfȬsufficientȱandȱinȱneedȱofȱnothingȱelse,ȱwhichȱrestrainsȱpassion,ȱkeepsȱdesiresȱin check,ȱmoderatesȱjoysȱandȱeradicatesȱsorrows;ȱwhichȱprovidesȱeverythingȱproper,ȱeverything pleasing,ȱeverythingȱdelightful;ȱandȱthanȱwhichȱnothingȱbetterȱcanȱbeȱfound.ȱSurelyȱIȱhave discoveredȱinȱyou—andȱthusȱIȱloveȱyou—undoubtedlyȱtheȱgreatestȱandȱmostȱoutstanding goodȱofȱall.ȱSinceȱitȱisȱestablishedȱthatȱthisȱisȱeternal,ȱitȱisȱforȱmeȱtheȱproofȱbeyondȱdoubtȱthat

67

68

Ruys,ȱ“Eloquencieȱvultumȱdepingere:ȱEloquenceȱandȱDictamenȱinȱtheȱLoveȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,” 106. ConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱ“PhilosophicalȱThemesȱinȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium:ȱȱTheȱFirstȱLettersȱofȱHeloise andȱAbelard,”ȱListeningȱtoȱHeloiseȱ(2000),ȱ35–52;ȱhereȱ49:ȱȱ“Inȱthoseȱearlyȱyearsȱofȱtheirȱrelationship,ȱAbelard hadȱdifficultyȱinȱprovidingȱHeloiseȱwithȱtheȱkindȱofȱphilosophicalȱdialogueȱthatȱsheȱsought.”

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

261

youȱwillȱremainȱinȱmyȱloveȱforȱeternityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTrulyȱthereȱwillȱneverȱbeȱaȱdayȱinȱwhichȱIȱwould beȱ ableȱ toȱ thinkȱ ofȱ myselfȱ andȱ letȱ itȱ passȱ withoutȱ thinkingȱ ofȱ you.ȱ Knowȱ thatȱ Iȱ amȱ not concernedȱbyȱanyȱdoubtȱthatȱIȱmayȱhopeȱtheȱsameȱthingȱfromȱyou.]69ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Here,ȱHeloiseȱidentifiesȱtheȱrootȱofȱherȱfriendshipȱwithȱAbelardȱinȱ“integrityȱandȱvirtue, andȱdeepȱlove,”ȱandȱthenȱproceedsȱtoȱfocusȱonȱvirtueȱandȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ“the highestȱvirtue”ȱnurturesȱfriendship.ȱFurthermore,ȱthisȱ“highestȱvirtue”ȱatȱonceȱorders humanȱlifeȱthroughȱtheȱembraceȱofȱdivineȱlife:ȱ“itȱisȱforȱmeȱtheȱproofȱbeyondȱdoubtȱthat youȱwillȱremainȱinȱmyȱloveȱforȱeternity.”ȱFinally,ȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱthisȱ“highestȱvirtue”ȱthey mayȱbeȱpresentȱtoȱeachȱotherȱinȱthought.ȱȱ AlthoughȱHeloiseȱdoesn’tȱnameȱthisȱvirtueȱinȱherȱletter—andȱAbelardȱdoesn’tȱseekȱto inquireȱ aboutȱ itȱ inȱ hisȱ response70—Iȱ suggestȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ sapiencia.ȱ Heloiseȱ hasȱ been attemptingȱ toȱ getȱ atȱ theȱ sourceȱ ofȱ theȱ richnessȱ ofȱ thisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Abelard,ȱ and identifyingȱvirtueȱisȱnotȱenough;ȱsheȱmustȱidentifyȱ“theȱhighestȱvirtue.”ȱSinceȱAbelard doesȱnotȱappearȱtoȱpursueȱthisȱlineȱofȱthoughtȱwithȱherȱinȱtheseȱearlyȱletters—toȱhim,ȱshe isȱ“theȱonlyȱdiscipleȱofȱphilosophyȱamongȱallȱtheȱyoungȱwomenȱofȱourȱage,ȱtheȱonlyȱone onȱwhomȱfortuneȱhasȱcompletelyȱbestowedȱallȱtheȱgiftsȱofȱtheȱmanifoldȱvirtues”—Heloise mustȱpersevereȱonȱherȱown.ȱHerȱearlyȱlettersȱreflectȱherȱunderstandingȱthatȱauthentic humanȱwisdomȱclearlyȱdrawsȱfromȱdivineȱwisdomȱandȱopensȱupȱtoȱdivineȱwisdom.ȱFor her,ȱtheȱgiftȱofȱfriendshipȱmediatesȱdivineȱwisdomȱinȱtheȱworld.ȱInȱletterȱ53,ȱsheȱaddresses Abelardȱasȱ“Sapiencieȱlumineȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmirabiliterȱprefulgenti,”ȱ(Oneȱshiningȱwonderfullyȱwith theȱlightȱofȱwisdom),ȱandȱbeginsȱbyȱproclaiming:ȱ“Deȱfavoȱsapiencieȱsiȱmichiȱstillaret guttulaȱscibilitatis,71ȱaliquaȱolentiȱnectareȱcumȱomniȱmentisȱconamine,ȱalmeȱdilectioniȱtue litterarumȱnotulisȱconarerȱdepingere”ȱ(Ifȱaȱdropletȱofȱknowabilityȱtrickledȱdownȱtoȱme fromȱtheȱhoneycombȱofȱwisdom,ȱIȱwouldȱtryȱwithȱeveryȱeffortȱofȱmyȱmindȱtoȱportrayȱin theȱjottingsȱofȱmyȱletterȱvariousȱthingsȱwithȱaȱfragrantȱnectarȱforȱyourȱnourishingȱlove).72ȱ Byȱletterȱ60,ȱsheȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱearlierȱdivineȱ“light”ȱofȱhisȱwisdomȱhasȱfaded,ȱsuch thatȱanyȱwisdomȱheȱmayȱnowȱcallȱhisȱownȱisȱnotȱredeeming:ȱ“Omnipotensȱdeusȱqui neminemȱvultȱperireȱquiȱsupraȱpaternumȱamoremȱdiligitȱpeccatores,ȱilluminetȱcorȱtuum gracieȱ sueȱ splendore,ȱ etȱ reducatȱ adȱ viamȱ salutis,ȱ utȱ cognoscasȱ queȱ sitȱ voluntasȱ eius beneplacensȱ etȱ perfecta.ȱ Vale,ȱ sapienciaȱ etȱ scienciaȱ tuaȱ meȱ decepit,ȱ proptereaȱ omnis nostraȱamodoȱpereatȱscriptura”ȱ(MayȱalmightyȱGod,ȱwhoȱwantsȱnoȱoneȱtoȱperishȱand whoȱlovesȱsinnersȱwithȱmoreȱthanȱpaternalȱlove,ȱilluminateȱyourȱheartȱwithȱtheȱsplendor ofȱHisȱgraceȱandȱbringȱyouȱbackȱtoȱtheȱroadȱofȱsalvation,ȱsoȱthatȱyouȱmayȱunderstandȱthat Hisȱwillȱisȱfavorableȱandȱperfect.ȱFarewell;ȱyourȱwisdomȱandȱknowledgeȱhaveȱdeceived me,ȱandȱthereforeȱfromȱnowȱonȱmayȱallȱourȱwritingȱcease).73ȱThroughȱtheseȱclosingȱwords

69 70 71 72 73

Letterȱ49,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ226–29. Instead,ȱheȱsimplyȱrefersȱseveralȱtimesȱtoȱherȱownȱcollectiveȱvirtues. Letterȱ53,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ234,ȱn.ȱ53b. Letterȱ53,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ234,ȱ235. Letterȱ60,ȱMews,ȱTheȱLostȱLoveȱLetters,ȱ240,ȱ241.

262

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

ofȱletterȱ60,ȱHeloiseȱputsȱforthȱtheȱbasicȱconcernsȱwhichȱwillȱoccupyȱherȱinȱtheȱHistoria calamitatumȱandȱtheȱLetters.ȱFirst,ȱAbelard’sȱwisdomȱisȱonlyȱdivinelyȱsanctionedȱwhenȱit doesȱ revealȱ aȱ wisdomȱ involvingȱ theȱ “integrityȱ andȱ deepȱ love”ȱ sheȱ identifiedȱ earlier. Second,ȱsomeoneȱasȱgiftedȱasȱheȱwillȱonlyȱfindȱ“salvation”ȱbyȱbeingȱtrueȱtoȱsuchȱdivinely sanctionedȱ wisdom,ȱ whichȱ heȱ hasȱ knownȱ andȱ hasȱ sharedȱ withȱ Heloise.74ȱ Through Abelard’sȱauthenticȱhumanȱwisdom,ȱHeloiseȱhasȱbeenȱableȱtoȱknowȱandȱloveȱbothȱhim andȱherself.ȱByȱdeceivingȱherȱwithȱanȱinauthenticȱhumanȱwisdom—thatȱisȱoneȱwhich cannotȱreconcileȱdivineȱsapienciaȱandȱamicitiaȱwithȱamor—Abelardȱimposesȱaȱsevereȱthreat atȱtheȱveryȱbasisȱofȱtheirȱfriendship,ȱwithȱpossibilitiesȱofȱfatalityȱonȱhumanȱandȱdivine levels.ȱHere,ȱfacingȱtheȱdevastationȱwroughtȱbyȱAbelard,ȱsheȱrespondsȱbyȱendingȱall writing,ȱthereforeȱendingȱanyȱfurtherȱspeculationȱonȱrhetoricȱwhatsoever.ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱof theȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum,ȱherȱresponseȱwillȱbeȱdifferent.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

2.2ȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱandȱLetters InȱtheȱseriesȱofȱLettersȱwhichȱbeginȱasȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum,ȱtheȱrelation betweenȱwisdomȱandȱeloquenceȱexpressesȱitselfȱasȱaȱreconciliationȱbetweenȱwisdomȱand persuasio.ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱtermȱeloquentiaȱneverȱappears,ȱinȱanyȱofȱitsȱforms,ȱin theȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱorȱinȱtheȱLetters.75ȱInstead,ȱpersuasio,ȱorȱitsȱforms,ȱappearsȱonce inȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum,ȱthreeȱtimesȱinȱtheȱFifthȱLetter,ȱandȱonceȱinȱtheȱSeventhȱLetter.76 ThroughȱtheȱLetters,ȱHeloiseȱtakesȱupȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱresumeȱherȱinquiryȱintoȱthe natureȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Thisȱ time,ȱ however,ȱ insteadȱ ofȱ abandoningȱ herȱ projectȱ dueȱ to Abelard’sȱ falseȱ wisdomȱ whichȱ hadȱ placedȱ rhetoricȱ inȱ tensionȱ withȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ virtue, Heloiseȱbrilliantlyȱandȱconfidentlyȱemploysȱrhetoricȱtoȱencompassȱtheirȱentireȱexchange. Noȱlongerȱwillȱitȱbeȱidentifiedȱwithȱaȱpathosȱthatȱisȱatȱoddsȱwithȱethosȱandȱlogos.ȱInstead, inȱaȱtrulyȱAristotelianȱmanner,ȱthoughȱwithȱnoȱknownȱexplicitȱknowledgeȱofȱAristotle’s works,ȱ Heloiseȱ usesȱ rhetoricȱ thatȱ willȱ encompassȱ theirȱ entireȱ correspondence.ȱ She achievesȱthisȱbyȱshowingȱrhetoricȱtoȱbeȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdomȱitself. AlthoughȱscholarsȱareȱstillȱunclearȱtoȱwhatȱdegreeȱAbelard’sȱ“LetterȱofȱConsolationȱto aȱFriend”ȱwasȱintendedȱforȱHeloise,ȱwhatȱisȱclearȱisȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱsheȱemploysȱthe termsȱofȱhisȱletterȱinȱherȱownȱFirstȱLetterȱtoȱhim.77ȱOnȱtheȱmostȱfundamentalȱlevel,ȱthis

74

75

76

77

Fromȱherȱperspective,ȱthatȱis.ȱHisȱaccountȱinȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱrevealsȱthatȱheȱonlyȱinterpretedȱhis earlyȱcommitmentȱtoȱherȱinȱoneȱlight. Seeȱhttp://individual.utoronto.ca/pking/resources/abelard/Epistolae.txtȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010), whichȱincludesȱaȱscannedȱcompilationȱofȱtheȱeditionsȱnotedȱinȱfootnoteȱ3ȱofȱthisȱpaper.ȱ TheȱnumberingȱofȱtheȱlettersȱemployedȱinȱtheȱbodyȱofȱthisȱpaperȱfollowsȱLevitan’sȱtranslation,ȱsuchȱthat theȱnumberingȱbeginsȱafterȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum,ȱandȱLettersȱ1,ȱ3,ȱandȱ5ȱareȱthoseȱofȱHeloise,ȱandȱLetters 2,ȱ4,ȱ6ȱandȱ7ȱareȱthoseȱofȱAbelard.ȱInȱtheȱLetters,ȱpersuasioȱalwaysȱappearsȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱSt.ȱBenedict’s Rule. WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ122.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

263

moveȱ makesȱ Abelardȱ Heloise’sȱ “crownȱ auctoritas,”ȱ herȱ chiefȱ authority.78ȱ Theȱ double difficultyȱ however,ȱ ofȱ whichȱ Heloiseȱ isȱ keenlyȱ aware,ȱ isȱ thatȱ whileȱ sheȱ herselfȱ seeks consolation,ȱherȱownȱchiefȱauthorityȱisȱalsoȱinȱneedȱofȱdirection;ȱnowhereȱinȱtheȱFirst LetterȱdoesȱHeloiseȱappealȱtoȱAbelardȱforȱhisȱownȱwisdom.ȱHeȱisȱaȱteacherȱwhoȱhasȱnot upheldȱtheȱ“rulesȱofȱfriendship”ȱwithȱtheȱstudentȱwhomȱheȱhadȱpraisedȱforȱherȱown performanceȱofȱsuchȱrules.ȱAndȱsoȱherȱprojectȱmustȱserveȱthemȱboth.ȱForȱHeloise,ȱifȱthey areȱunableȱtoȱmediateȱwiseȱlovingȱtoȱoneȱanother,ȱtheyȱmayȱneverȱknowȱtrueȱfriendship, norȱwillȱtheyȱserveȱoneȱanotherȱinȱChrist.79ȱȱ Heloiseȱachievesȱsuchȱaȱfeatȱbyȱpresentingȱanȱexemplumȱwhichȱexpressesȱtwoȱtruths. First,ȱrhetoricȱisȱequippedȱtoȱdirectȱtheirȱentireȱcorrespondenceȱbecauseȱitȱisȱnotȱopposed toȱvirtue,ȱbutȱratherȱisȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdom,ȱandȱsecond,ȱbothȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard mustȱseekȱoutȱthisȱwisdomȱthroughȱeachȱotherȱifȱtheyȱareȱtoȱknowȱtrueȱfriendshipȱandȱto serveȱoneȱanotherȱinȱChrist.ȱInȱRhetoricȱRetold:ȱRegenderingȱtheȱTraditionȱfromȱAntiquity ThroughȱtheȱRenaissance,ȱCherylȱGlennȱfindsȱAspasiaȱtoȱbeȱHeloise’sȱ“crownȱauctoritas”ȱin theȱFirstȱLetter:ȱ“QuotingȱfromȱtheȱnowȬmissingȱtextȱofȱAeschines,ȱHeloiseȱarguesȱforȱthe excellenceȱofȱaȱgoodȱwifeȱandȱaȱgoodȱhusband.”80ȱAsȱGlennȱnotesȱfurther,ȱCiceroȱwasȱnot theȱonlyȱthinkerȱtoȱgiveȱtributeȱtoȱAspasia: Accordingȱtoȱseveralȱancientȱsourcesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSocratesȱdeeplyȱrespectedȱAspasia’sȱthinkingȱand admiredȱherȱrhetoricalȱprowess,ȱdisregarding,ȱitȱseems,ȱherȱstatusȱasȱaȱwomanȱandȱaȱhetaera. InȱXenophon’sȱMemorabilia,ȱforȱinstance,ȱSocratesȱexplainsȱtoȱCritobulusȱtheȱ“artȱofȱcatching friends”ȱandȱofȱusingȱanȱ“intermediary”:ȱ“IȱcanȱquoteȱAspasiaȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSheȱonceȱtoldȱmeȱthatȱgood matchmakersȱareȱsuccessfulȱonlyȱwhenȱtheȱgoodȱreportsȱtheyȱcarryȱtoȱandȱfroȱareȱtrue;ȱfalse reportsȱsheȱwouldȱnotȱrecommendȱforȱtheȱvictimsȱofȱdeceptionsȱhateȱoneȱanotherȱandȱthe matchmakerȱtooȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱPlutarchȱwrites,ȱ“Socratesȱsometimesȱcameȱtoȱseeȱherȱ[Aspasia]ȱwith hisȱdisciples,ȱandȱhisȱintimateȱfriendsȱbroughtȱtheirȱwivesȱtoȱherȱtoȱhearȱherȱdiscourseȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱas aȱteacherȱofȱrhetoric”ȱ(Livesȱ200);ȱAthenaeusȱcallsȱAspasiaȱ“cleverȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSocrates’ȱteacherȱin rhetoric”ȱ(5.29)ȱandȱgoesȱonȱtoȱaccountȱforȱtheȱextentȱofȱAspasia’sȱinfluenceȱoverȱSocrates.81ȱ

Furthermore,ȱGlennȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱthroughȱtheȱDeȱinventione,ȱ“CiceroȱusesȱAspasia’s lessonȱonȱinductionȱasȱtheȱcenterpieceȱforȱhisȱargumentȱchapter.”82ȱWhenȱHeloiseȱcites thisȱtextȱ(Deȱinventioneȱ1.31.52),ȱhowever,ȱsheȱdoesȱnotȱfollowȱCicero’sȱpresentationȱofȱthe lessonȱasȱnarratedȱbyȱSocrates;ȱinstead,ȱ“Heloiseȱhasȱbypassedȱtheȱmiddlemanȱandȱgone straightȱ toȱ theȱ source,ȱ theȱ originalȱ philosopherȱ herself.”83ȱ Afterȱ explainingȱ Aspasia’s teachingȱaboutȱhowȱ“fortuneȱbelongsȱtoȱoneȱcategoryȱofȱthingsȱandȱvirtueȱtoȱanother,”

78 79

80 81 82 83

Dronke,ȱWomenȱWritersȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱ117. AsȱMarcȱSauretteȱpointsȱoutȱinȱ“PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendship”ȱinȱthisȱvolume,ȱPeterȱemploys theȱlanguageȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱsimilarȱleaningsȱinȱhisȱletters. Glenn,ȱRhetoricȱRetold,ȱ187,ȱn.ȱ25. Glenn,ȱRhetoricȱRetold,ȱ40. Glenn,ȱRhetoricȱRetold,ȱ43. FirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ57,ȱn.ȱ10.

264

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

aȱteachingȱwhichȱLevitanȱnotesȱ“willȱfindȱitsȱwayȱintoȱAbelard’sȱEthicsȱ(Luscombeȱ1971, 48),”84ȱHeloiseȱwrites: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱsicutȱinductioȱillaȱAspasiaeȱphilosophaeȱapudȱSocraticumȱAeschinemȱcumȱXenophonteȱet uxoreȱeiusȱhabitaȱmanifesteȱconuincit.ȱQuamȱquidemȱinductionemȱcumȱpraedictaȱphilosopha adȱ reconciliandosȱ inuicemȱ illosȱ proposuissetȱ taliȱ fineȱ ipsamȱ conclusit:ȱ Quareȱ nisiȱ hoc peregeritisȱutȱnequeȱuirȱmeliorȱnequeȱfeminaȱinȱterrisȱelectiorȱsit,ȱprofectoȱsemperȱidȱquod optimumȱputabitisȱesseȱmultoȱmaximeȱrequiretisȱutȱetȱtuȱmaritusȱsisȱquamȱoptimaeȱetȱhaec quamȱoptimoȱuiroȱnuptaȱsit.ȱSanctaȱprofectoȱhaecȱetȱplusȱquamȱphilosophicaȱestȱsententia ipsiusȱpotiusȱsophiaeȱquamȱphilosophiaeȱdicenda.ȱ [Thisȱ isȱ theȱ argumentȱ theȱ philosopherȱ Aspasiaȱ usedȱ withȱ Xenophonȱ andȱ hisȱ wifeȱ inȱ the dialogueȱofȱAeschinesȱtheȱSocratic.ȱAfterȱsheȱsetȱoutȱherȱargumentȱaimedȱatȱreconcilingȱthe pair,ȱtheȱphilosopherȱcappedȱherȱproofȱwithȱthisȱconclusion:ȱ“Therefore,ȱifȱyouȱtwoȱareȱnot convincedȱthatȱnoȱworthierȱmanȱexistsȱandȱnoȱfinerȱwomanȱexistsȱanywhereȱonȱearth,ȱthen aboveȱallȱelseȱyouȱwillȱalwaysȱbeȱseekingȱthatȱoneȱthingȱyouȱthinkȱisȱbest—toȱhaveȱtheȱbestȱof allȱpossibleȱhusbandsȱorȱtheȱbestȱofȱallȱpossibleȱwives.”ȱThisȱnotionȱgoesȱbeyondȱphilosophy andȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱwisdomȱbutȱwisdomȱitself.]85ȱȱȱ

BettyȱRadiceȱtranslatesȱtheȱconcludingȱsentenceȱofȱthisȱpassage:ȱ“Theseȱareȱsaintlyȱwords whichȱ areȱ moreȱ thanȱ philosophic;ȱ indeed,ȱ theyȱ deserveȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ wisdom,ȱ not philosophy.”86ȱAspasia,ȱtheȱteacherȱofȱrhetoric,ȱpronouncesȱthemȱcharacteristicȱ“ipsius potiusȱsophiae”ȱpreciselyȱthroughȱinductiveȱargument,ȱwhich,ȱGlennȱremindsȱus,ȱisȱ“the centerpieceȱforȱ[Cicero’s]ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱchapter.”87ȱTheȱmatterȱofȱthisȱteachingȱofȱwisdomȱconcerns theȱrelationshipȱofȱaȱhusbandȱandȱwife,ȱbelovedȱtoȱeachȱotherȱandȱseeking,ȱoneȱmightȱsay, “theȱhighestȱvirtue”ȱthroughȱtheirȱlove.ȱFurthermore,ȱthisȱrhetoricȱemploysȱlogicȱinȱthe serviceȱofȱthisȱlove.ȱȱ Heloiseȱ doesȱ introduceȱ theȱ topicȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ herȱ letter,ȱ in responseȱtoȱAbelard’sȱownȱwriting;ȱhoweverȱitȱisȱsimplyȱanȱintroductionȱofȱtheȱterm,ȱnot anȱexplicitȱdefinition.ȱImmediatelyȱfollowingȱtheȱsalutatioȱofȱthisȱFirstȱLetter,ȱsheȱbegins: “Missamȱadȱamicumȱproȱconsolationeȱepistolam,ȱdilectissime,ȱuestrumȱadȱmeȱquidam nuperȱattulit”ȱ(Theȱotherȱday,ȱmyȱmostȱbeloved,ȱoneȱofȱyourȱmenȱbroughtȱmeȱaȱcopyȱof theȱletterȱyouȱwroteȱasȱconsolationȱforȱyourȱfriend).88ȱInsteadȱofȱchallengingȱhimȱhereȱon hisȱnotionȱofȱtheȱnatureȱofȱfriendship,ȱHeloiseȱinsteadȱrepeatsȱtheȱtermȱseveralȱtimes,89 associatingȱitȱinȱitsȱsuperlativeȱwithȱherȱandȱherȱfellowȱnunsȱatȱtheȱParaclete.90ȱWhatȱshe doesȱ offerȱ isȱ anȱ accountȱ ofȱ Abelard’sȱ dutyȱ toȱ herȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ Paraclete,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ an

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

FirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ56,ȱn.ȱ9. Ep.ȱ2,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ71;ȱFirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ56–57. Radice,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ114. Glenn,ȱRhetoricȱRetold,ȱ43. FirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ49,ȱn.ȱ1. Ep.ȱ2,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ68,ȱ69,ȱ71,ȱ72;ȱFirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ49,ȱ50,ȱ51,ȱ52,ȱ56. Ep.ȱ2,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ69;ȱFirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ52.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

265

employmentȱofȱtheȱtermȱamicaȱinȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱamicusȱofȱhisȱownȱaccount.91ȱMartin IrvineȱobservesȱtheȱcrucialȱimportanceȱofȱthisȱmoveȱforȱHeloise’sȱinsistenceȱtoȱAbelard thatȱbothȱwomanȱandȱamorȱmustȱbeȱinvolvedȱinȱanyȱdefinitionȱofȱtheirȱrelationshipȱwhich willȱariseȱfromȱtheirȱexchange.ȱHeȱnotesȱhowȱHeloiseȱ“prefersȱtheȱnameȱ‘lover/mistress’ (amica)ȱoverȱ‘wife’ȱ(uxor),”ȱcitingȱherȱownȱwords,ȱwhichȱheȱobservesȱtoȱbeȱ“muchȱmore rhetoricallyȱ charged”ȱ thanȱ Abelard’sȱ ownȱ accountȱ ofȱ herȱ position.ȱ Irvineȱ citesȱ her proclamation:ȱ“Ifȱtheȱnameȱ‘wife’ȱseemsȱmoreȱsacredȱandȱmoreȱsound,ȱsweeterȱtoȱme alwaysȱisȱtheȱwordȱ‘mistress’ȱ[amica]ȱor,ȱifȱitȱdoesȱnotȱoffendȱyou,ȱconcubineȱorȱwhore,ȱso thatȱtheȱmoreȱIȱhumbledȱmyselfȱforȱyourȱsake,ȱtheȱmoreȱIȱwouldȱwinȱyourȱgratitude.”92 TheȱLatinȱreads:ȱ“Etȱsiȱuxorisȱnomenȱsanctiusȱacȱualidiusȱuidetur,ȱdulciusȱmihiȱsimper exstititȱ amicaeȱ uocabulumȱ aut,ȱ siȱ nonȱ indigneris,ȱ concubinaeȱ uelȱ scortiȱ utȱ quoȱ me uidelicetȱproȱteȱampliusȱhumiliarem,ȱamplioremȱapudȱteȱconsequererȱgratiamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”93 MewsȱalsoȱattestsȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱHeloise’sȱmoveȱhereȱandȱemphasizesȱitsȱsubtlety: “theȱcommonȱtranslationȱofȱamicaȱasȱ‘mistress’ȱhereȱmisleadinglyȱimpliesȱthatȱsheȱwanted toȱofferȱhimȱsexualȱfavors.ȱHerȱargument,ȱhowever,ȱisȱthatȱtheȱfriendshipȱthatȱsheȱwanted, definedȱbothȱbyȱamorȱandȱamicitia,ȱwasȱnotȱdrivenȱbyȱanyȱdesireȱforȱmaterialȱadvantage orȱworldlyȱreputation.ȱSheȱcallsȱGodȱasȱherȱwitnessȱtoȱtheȱpurityȱofȱherȱlove.”94ȱȱȱ Heloise’sȱFirstȱLetterȱtoȱAbelardȱhasȱsetȱforthȱbothȱtheȱpriorityȱofȱrhetoricȱinȱtheȱservice ofȱwisdomȱandȱtheȱtoposȱofȱfriendship.ȱAsȱKatharinaȱWilsonȱandȱGlendaȱMcLeodȱpoint out,ȱ“inȱtheȱliteraryȱgenreȱofȱtheȱconsolatio,ȱanȱancientȱoneȱevenȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱthe coreȱ rhetoricalȱ strategyȱ wasȱ ‘theȱ articulationȱ ofȱ certainȱ topoiȱ andȱ theȱ enumerationȱ of consolingȱexemplaȱofȱgreaterȱtragediesȱthanȱthoseȱexperiencedȱbyȱtheȱrecipient.’”95ȱThese mightȱbeȱconsideredȱtheȱproposedȱmedicineȱinȱherȱtreatmentȱofȱbothȱAbelardȱandȱherself; howeverȱAbelard’sȱconditionȱisȱwhatȱisȱguidingȱeverything.ȱConsequently,ȱaȱfinalȱnote onȱtheȱFirstȱLetterȱmustȱaddressȱHeloise’sȱemphasisȱonȱconsolationȱandȱpresence,ȱboth ofȱ whichȱ areȱ requiredȱ fromȱ Abelardȱ ifȱ thisȱ correspondenceȱ isȱ goingȱ toȱ succeed.ȱ The deficiency—bothȱofȱhisȱconsolationȱandȱpresence—atȱthisȱpointȱreflectsȱnegativelyȱonȱhis virtues,ȱtherebyȱthreateningȱtheȱsourceȱofȱtheirȱfriendship,ȱaȱsituationȱnotedȱinȱtheȱearly letters.ȱHeloiseȱisȱnowȱmuchȱmoreȱpreparedȱthisȱtimeȱaround;ȱhoweverȱsheȱrequiresȱhis intimateȱcooperation,ȱforȱtheȱsituationȱisȱsevere:ȱȱ

91

92 93 94

95

MartinȱIrvine,ȱ“HeloiseȱandȱtheȱGenderingȱofȱtheȱLiterateȱSubject,”ȱCriticismȱandȱDissentȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges, ed.ȱRitaȱCopelandȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ87–114;ȱhereȱ98. Irvine,ȱ“HeloiseȱandȱtheȱGenderingȱofȱtheȱLiterateȱSubject,”ȱ98. Epȱ2,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ71. Mews,ȱ“PhilosophicalȱThemes,”ȱ36.ȱSeeȱalsoȱIrvine:ȱ“First,ȱhere,ȱandȱthroughȱtheȱremainderȱofȱthisȱletter, Heloiseȱ mergesȱ theȱ traditionalȱ discourseȱ ofȱ monasticȱ humilityȱ andȱ submissionȱ toȱ authorityȱ withȱ the languageȱofȱeroticȱsubmissionȱbyȱaȱwillingȱloverȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSheȱdidȱnotȱsubmitȱtoȱhisȱauthorityȱinȱtraditional socialȱterms—asȱaȱwomanȱunderȱmaleȱauthority—butȱasȱhisȱloverȱ(amica),”ȱȱ99.ȱ WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ129.ȱNoteȱhowȱthey challengeȱtheȱnotionȱofȱAbelard’sȱconversionȱinȱtheȱHistoria,ȱ121.ȱ

266

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson Theȱfailureȱtoȱconsoleȱhasȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱrootsȱasȱtheȱfailureȱtoȱlove:ȱprideȱorȱanȱoverzealous devotionȱ toȱ selfȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ [Heloise’s]ȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ seriousnessȱ ofȱ Abelard’sȱ failed consolation—itȱthrowsȱdoubtȱonȱbothȱhisȱconversionȱandȱhisȱlove—andȱherȱattemptȱtoȱredress thisȱproblemȱatȱallȱcostsȱeffectivelyȱprojectȱaȱportraitȱofȱaȱselflessȱloveȱcomparedȱtoȱAbelard’s portraitȱofȱselfȬabsorption.96ȱȱ

Notȱonlyȱwillȱhisȱconsolationȱandȱpresenceȱprovideȱtheȱgroundȱforȱhisȱownȱconversion; itȱ willȱ alsoȱ provideȱ theȱ groundȱ forȱ hers:ȱ “Perȱ ipsumȱ itaqueȱ cuiȱ teȱ obtulistiȱ Deumȱ te obsecroȱutȱquoȱmodoȱpotesȱtuamȱmihiȱpraesentiamȱreddas,ȱconsolationemȱuidelicetȱmihi aliquamȱrescribendoȱhocȱsaltemȱpactoȱutȱsicȱrecreataȱdiuinoȱalacriorȱuacemȱobsequio”ȱ(So, byȱthatȱGodȱwhoȱclaimsȱyourȱdedication,ȱIȱbegȱofȱyou,ȱgrantȱmeȱyourȱpresenceȱinȱtheȱone wayȱyouȱcan—byȱwritingȱmeȱsomeȱwordȱofȱcomfort,ȱsoȱthatȱatȱleastȱinȱthisȱoneȱwayȱIȱmay beȱrestoredȱtoȱlife,ȱreadierȱandȱfitȱforȱmyȱownȱserviceȱtoȱGod).97ȱȱȱȱ Abelard’sȱresponseȱtoȱHeloiseȱinȱtheȱSecondȱLetterȱbeginsȱbyȱappealingȱtoȱherȱ“own wisdom,ȱinȱwhichȱIȱhaveȱalwaysȱhadȱimplicitȱtrust,”98ȱandȱimmediatelyȱthereafterȱciting threeȱ examplesȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ inȱ theȱ Scriptures.99ȱ Knowingȱ wellȱ herȱ own spiritualȱstate—aȱstateȱwhichȱAbelardȱhimselfȱhasȱmadeȱexplicit—Heloiseȱwillȱshowȱin theȱThirdȱLetterȱthatȱanȱappealȱtoȱherȱwisdomȱwasȱcertainlyȱnotȱappropriateȱhere.ȱAfter all,ȱhowȱcanȱheȱwhoseȱpresenceȱandȱconsolationȱareȱlackingȱjudgeȱherȱwisdom?ȱAbelard’s attemptȱatȱfurtheringȱherȱtreatiseȱonȱfriendshipȱalsoȱprovesȱunsuccessful.ȱItȱisȱofferedȱin theȱ contextȱ ofȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ prayersȱ ofȱ womenȱ whoȱ areȱ faithfulȱ inȱ theȱ Lord,ȱ a discussionȱwhichȱmightȱhaveȱprovedȱfruitfulȱexceptȱthatȱHeloiseȱmustȱhaveȱnoticedȱthat noneȱofȱhisȱexamplesȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱGodȱdirectlyȱnameȱwomen.ȱRather,ȱwomen’s prayersȱareȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱtheȱmaleȱfriendsȱofȱGod.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱexample,ȱcitingȱGod’s dealingsȱwithȱMosesȱandȱJeremiah,ȱAbelardȱwrites:ȱ“etȱquemȱadȱuindictamȱiustitiaȱquasi spontaneumȱducit,ȱamicorumȱsupplicatioȱflectatȱetȱtamquamȱinuitumȱquasiȱuiȱquadam retineat.ȱSicȱquippeȱorantiȱuelȱoraturoȱdicitur:ȱDimitteȱmeȱetȱneȱobsistasȱmihi”ȱ(when justiceȱleadsȱhimȱ[God]ȱtoȱtheȱvengeanceȱheȱwouldȱtake,ȱtheȱappealsȱofȱhisȱfriendsȱcan turnȱhimȱasideȱand,ȱalmostȱbyȱsomeȱforce,ȱrestrainȱhim,ȱasȱitȱwere,ȱagainstȱhisȱwill.ȱThis isȱwhyȱbeforeȱorȱduringȱprayerȱaȱmanȱwillȱhear,ȱ“Letȱmeȱaloneȱandȱdoȱnotȱwithstand me”).100ȱ Inȱ theȱ secondȱ example,ȱ Abelardȱ notes,ȱ “Lazarumȱ quoqueȱ amicumȱ suumȱ ad obsecrationemȱsororumȱeius,ȱMariaeȱuidelicetȱacȱMarthae,ȱsuscitauit”ȱ(hisȱfriendȱLazarus, too,ȱheȱbroughtȱtoȱlifeȱatȱtheȱprayersȱofȱhisȱsisters,ȱMaryȱandȱMartha).101ȱ Inȱtheȱthird example,ȱ heȱ citesȱ Lukeȱ 11:8–10,ȱ andȱ providesȱ Mosesȱ asȱ theȱ appropriateȱ illustration. Moreover,ȱtheȱtoneȱofȱhisȱclosingȱsuggestsȱthatȱAbelardȱbelievesȱheȱhasȱaddressedȱher

96 97 98 99 100 101

WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ123. Ep.ȱ2,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ73;ȱFirstȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ62. Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ63.ȱȱSeeȱalso:ȱ“Yes,ȱyourȱwisdomȱsurelyȱknowsȱwhatȱisȱwrittenȱthere,”ȱ66. Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ64,ȱ66,ȱ67. Ep.ȱ3,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ74;ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ64. Ep.ȱ3,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ75;ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ66.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

267

suchȱthatȱtheȱneedȱforȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱhasȱbeenȱfulfilled.ȱSuchȱstancesȱcompelȱHeloise toȱrespond. AbelardȱhasȱnotȱfittinglyȱaddressedȱherȱFirstȱLetter,ȱandȱHeloiseȱsuggestsȱthisȱatȱthe beginningȱofȱherȱThirdȱLetterȱconcerningȱtheȱdisorderȱofȱhisȱsalutation:ȱ“Miror,ȱunice meus,ȱquodȱpraeterȱconsuetudinemȱepistolarum,ȱimmoȱcontraȱipsumȱordinemȱnaturalem rerum,ȱinȱipsaȱfronteȱsalutationisȱepistolarisȱmeȱtibiȱpraeponereȱpraesumpsisti”ȱ(Iȱfindȱit strange,ȱmyȱonlyȱone,ȱthatȱyouȱhaveȱgoneȱsoȱfarȱoutsideȱtheȱwellȬknownȱrulesȱofȱwriting letters—Iȱ shouldȱsay,ȱagainstȱtheȱ orderȱofȱnatureȱitself—thatȱyouȱhaveȱputȱmyȱname aheadȱofȱyoursȱinȱtheȱgreetingȱofȱtheȱletterȱyouȱwroteȱtoȱme).102ȱWhileȱsheȱisȱmodelingȱa stanceȱofȱauthenticȱhumility103ȱforȱAbelardȱhere,ȱsheȱisȱalsoȱemphasizingȱtoȱhimȱthatȱher ownȱgrowthȱinȱwisdomȱisȱintertwinedȱwithȱhis,ȱandȱunlessȱhisȱroleȱasȱherȱ“superior”ȱis restored—signifiedȱbyȱhisȱawarenessȱofȱ“theȱrhetoricȱofȱepistolaryȱpractice,”104ȱwhichȱfor Heloiseȱreflectsȱtheȱvirtueȱofȱtheȱteacher—neitherȱofȱthemȱwillȱgrowȱinȱtheȱlifeȱofȱvirtue. Heȱmustȱlearnȱtoȱconsoleȱherȱandȱbeȱpresentȱtoȱherȱasȱamicusȱtoȱamica.ȱAgain,ȱsheȱwrites: “Noliȱobsecroȱdiuinumȱimpedireȱseruitiumȱcuiȱnosȱmaximeȱmancipasti”ȱ(Iȱbegȱofȱyou,ȱdo notȱimpedeȱthatȱserviceȱtoȱGodȱtoȱwhich,ȱaboveȱall,ȱyouȱhaveȱboundȱus).105ȱStill,ȱinȱspite ofȱ herȱ correctionsȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ hisȱ rhetoric,ȱ sheȱ continuesȱ toȱ pursueȱ herȱ treatiseȱ on friendshipȱinȱresponseȱtoȱhisȱownȱterms.ȱHeȱhadȱwrittenȱthatȱheȱwouldȱaddressȱherȱ“in iisȱetiamȱquaeȱadȱDeumȱpertinentȱmagisterio”ȱ(inȱanyȱmatterȱthatȱpertainsȱtoȱGod),106ȱand soȱsheȱchoosesȱherȱoneȱreferenceȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱThirdȱLetterȱinȱthisȱpreciseȱcontext: “Haecȱteȱgratia,ȱcarissime,ȱpraeuenitȱetȱabȱhisȱtibiȱstimulisȱunaȱcorporisȱplagaȱmedendo multasȱ inȱ animaȱ sanauitȱ etȱ inȱ quoȱ tibiȱ ampliusȱ aduersariȱ Deusȱ creditor,ȱ propitior inueniturȱ(Itȱseems,ȱmyȱdearest,ȱthatȱthisȱgraceȱcameȱearlierȱtoȱyou,ȱwhenȱtheȱinjuryȱto yourȱbodyȱfreedȱyourȱsoulȱfromȱallȱsuchȱtorments,ȱandȱtheȱGodȱwhoȱseemedȱyourȱenemy provedȱyourȱfriend).107ȱHeloiseȱassuresȱhimȱthatȱtheȱconsolationȱsheȱneedsȱisȱnotȱopposed toȱdivineȱconsolation;ȱinȱfact,ȱtheȱScripturesȱonlyȱconfirmȱthatȱAbelardȱmustȱattendȱtoȱthe disordersȱinvolvedȱinȱhisȱapproach.ȱOnlyȱthenȱcanȱheȱtrulyȱinstructȱherȱinȱtheȱwisdom thatȱisȱnotȱonlyȱconsolationȱbutȱsuffering:ȱ“Multisȱfictaȱsuiȱlausȱnocuitȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱPerȱIsaiam Dominusȱ clamat:ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ quiȱ teȱ beatificantȱ ipsiȱ teȱ decipiuntȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Eȱ contraȱ autemȱ per Salomonemȱdicitur:ȱVerbaȱsapientiumȱquasiȱstimuli,ȱetȱquasiȱclauiȱinȱaltumȱdefixiȱqui uidelicetȱ uulneraȱ nesciuntȱ palpare,ȱ sedȱ pungereȱ ȱ (Falseȱ praiseȱ hasȱ doneȱ greatȱ injury before.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAsȱtheȱLordȱcriesȱoutȱthroughȱtheȱmouthȱofȱIsaiah,ȱ“Theyȱthatȱcallȱtheeȱblessed deceiveȱthee.”ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱButȱthen,ȱthroughȱSolomonȱweȱlearn,ȱ“Theȱwordsȱofȱtheȱwiseȱareȱlike

102 103 104 105 106 107

Ep.ȱ4,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ77;ȱThirdȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ71. WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ122. Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ71,ȱȱn.ȱ1. Ep.ȱ4,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ78;ȱThirdȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ73. Ep.ȱ3,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ73;ȱSecondȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ63.ȱ Ep.ȱ4,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ81;ȱThirdȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ80.

268

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

goadsȱandȱasȱnailsȱdeeplyȱfastened,”ȱandȱnailsȱlikeȱtheseȱareȱneverȱgentleȱwithȱaȱwound butȱcanȱonlyȱpierceȱitȱthrough).108ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Abelard’sȱFourthȱLetterȱrepresentsȱtheȱskoposȱofȱtheirȱentireȱcorrespondence.ȱHere,ȱhe celebratesȱ Heloise’sȱ wisdomȱ onceȱ again,109ȱ butȱ suchȱ aȱ moveȱ arrivesȱ inȱ theȱ midstȱ of Abelard’sȱ ownȱ urgentȱ contributionsȱ toȱ herȱ treatiseȱ onȱ friendship.ȱ Here,ȱ aȱ rich interweavingȱofȱdiscussionsȱonȱhumanȱfriendship,110ȱdivineȱfriendship,111ȱdivineȱmercy andȱ wisdom112ȱ andȱ Heloise’sȱ wisdom113ȱ leadsȱ upȱ toȱ whatȱ isȱ arguablyȱ theȱ greatest rhetoricalȱflourish—onȱfriendship—ofȱtheȱcorrespondence:ȱȱ Maiorȱesȱcaelo,ȱmaiorȱesȱmundo,ȱcuiusȱpretiumȱipseȱConditorȱmundiȱfactusȱest.ȱQuidȱinȱte, rogo,ȱuiderit,ȱquiȱnulliusȱeget,ȱutȱproȱteȱacquirendaȱusqueȱadȱagoniasȱtamȱhorrendaeȱatque ignominiosaeȱmortisȱcertauerit?ȱQuidȱinȱte,ȱinquam,ȱquaeritȱnisiȱteipsam?ȱVerusȱestȱamicus quiȱteipsamȱnonȱtuaȱdesiderat.ȱVerusȱestȱamicusȱquiȱproȱteȱmoriturusȱdicebat:ȱMaioremȱhac dilectionemȱnemoȱhabetȱutȱanimamȱsuamȱponatȱquisȱproȱamicisȱsuis.ȱAmabatȱteȱilleȱueraciter, nonȱegoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱMiserasȱinȱteȱmeasȱuoluptatesȱimplebam,ȱetȱhocȱeratȱtotumȱquodȱamabam.ȱPro te,ȱinquis,ȱpassusȱsum,ȱetȱfortassisȱuerumȱest,ȱsedȱmagisȱperȱte,ȱetȱhocȱipsumȱinuitus,ȱnon amoreȱtui,ȱsedȱcoactioneȱmei,ȱnecȱadȱtuamȱsalutem,ȱsedȱadȱdolorem.ȱIlleȱueroȱsalubriter,ȱille proȱ teȱ sponteȱ passusȱ estȱ quiȱ passioneȱ suaȱ omnemȱ curatȱ languorem,ȱ omnemȱ remouet passionem.ȱInȱhoc,ȱobsecro,ȱnonȱinȱmeȱtuaȱtotaȱsitȱdeuotio,ȱtotaȱcompassio,ȱtotaȱcompunctio. [Butȱ youȱ areȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ heavens,ȱ youȱ areȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ world,ȱ whoseȱ priceȱ wasȱ the Creatorȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱWhatȱdidȱheȱseeȱinȱyou,ȱIȱask,ȱwhenȱheȱhimselfȱlackedȱnothing,ȱthatȱhe wouldȱbuyȱyouȱwithȱtheȱagonyȱofȱhisȱdeath?ȱȱWhatȱdoesȱheȱseekȱinȱyouȱexceptȱyourself?ȱHe isȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱwhoȱwantsȱnothingȱofȱwhatȱyouȱown,ȱbutȱyouȱyourself,ȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱwho, whenȱcomingȱtoȱhisȱdeathȱforȱyourȱsake,ȱcouldȱsay,ȱ“Greaterȱloveȱthanȱthisȱnoȱmanȱhath,ȱthat heȱlayȱdownȱhisȱlifeȱforȱhisȱfriends.”ȱItȱwasȱheȱwhoȱtrulyȱlovedȱyou—Iȱdidȱnotȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱYouȱsay Iȱ sufferedȱ forȱ you,ȱ andȱ perhapsȱ thatȱ mayȱ beȱ true;ȱ butȱ more,ȱ Iȱ sufferedȱ throughȱ youȱ and unwillinglyȱatȱthat,ȱandȱnotȱfromȱloveȱofȱyouȱbutȱfromȱmyȱownȱcompulsion,ȱandȱthenȱnotȱfor yourȱ goodȱ butȱ forȱ yourȱ grief.ȱ ȱ Heȱ sufferedȱ forȱ youȱ willinglyȱ toȱ bringȱ yourȱ salvation.ȱ His sufferingȱhealsȱallȱsicknessȱandȱputsȱanȱendȱtoȱsuffering.ȱToȱhim,ȱIȱbegȱofȱyou,ȱandȱnotȱtoȱme doȱyouȱoweȱallȱyourȱdevotion,ȱcompassion,ȱyourȱremorse.]114ȱȱ

Throughȱ thisȱ culminatingȱ rhetoricalȱ flourish,ȱ Abelardȱ beginsȱ hisȱ ownȱ authentic contributionȱtoȱHeloise’sȱproject,ȱoneȱwhichȱcanȱfinallyȱsustainȱtheȱhealingȱsheȱrequires forȱherȱownȱdeeperȱconversionȱinȱChrist.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱthisȱhighȱpointȱofȱrhetoricȱin theȱlettersȱalsoȱreflectsȱAbelard’sȱownȱmoveȱtowardȱauthenticȱconversion.ȱHeȱrevealsȱthis byȱhighlightingȱHeloise’sȱrelationȱtoȱChrist,ȱthenȱidentifyingȱChristȱasȱ“trueȱfriend,”ȱand

108 109 110 111 112 113 114

Ep.ȱ4,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ81–82;ȱThirdȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ82. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ90;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ98. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ86–88;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ91–93. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ87–88;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ93. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ88–89;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ95. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ90;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ98. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ92;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ100.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

269

thenȱproceedingȱtoȱattestȱtoȱhisȱownȱunworthinessȱinȱtermsȱofȱsuchȱfriendship.ȱThisȱisȱthe turningȱpointȱofȱtheirȱentireȱcorrespondence.ȱHere,ȱHeloise’sȱinsightȱfromȱtheȱFirstȱLetter thatȱtheȱteachingȱofȱrhetoricȱisȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdomȱhasȱfoundȱfruition.ȱHerȱteacher hasȱbeenȱrestoredȱtoȱhisȱproperȱplaceȱofȱinstructionȱthroughȱthisȱrhetoric;ȱhisȱauthentic humilityȱhasȱrestoredȱhisȱvirtue.ȱȱ Furthermore,ȱnotȱonlyȱhasȱAbelardȱfullyȱattendedȱtoȱherȱearlyȱofferingȱofȱtheȱtopicȱof friendship;ȱheȱhas,ȱthroughȱhisȱrenewedȱvirtuousȱstance,ȱprovidedȱtheȱmodeȱofȱfriendship asȱwell,ȱwithinȱwhichȱsuchȱaȱtoposȱmightȱbeȱfruitfullyȱexploredȱandȱdiscovered.ȱAndȱhe hasȱdoneȱthisȱpreciselyȱbyȱdirectingȱChristȱasȱlover,ȱtoȱHeloiseȱ(“Amabatȱteȱilleȱueraciter, nonȱego”),115ȱsuchȱthatȱamorȱisȱnoȱlongerȱatȱoddsȱwithȱamicitia:ȱȱ HeȱwishedȱtoȱturnȱherȱdevotionȱfromȱhimselfȱtowardsȱGodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱbutȱheȱdidȱnotȱsimplyȱinsistȱthat theȱselflessȱloveȱwhichȱHeloiseȱdirectedȱtowardsȱhimȱshouldȱbeȱgiven,ȱrather,ȱtoȱGod:ȱheȱfound anȱ emotionallyȱ andȱ rhetoricallyȱ moreȱ powerfulȱ formȱ inȱ whichȱ toȱ counterȱ Heloise’sȱ view, personalizingȱGod’sȱloveȱasȱChrist’sȱloveȱandȱpresentingȱChrist,ȱnotȱhimself,ȱasȱHeloise’sȱtrue lover.116ȱȱ

AlthoughȱWilsonȱandȱMcLeodȱlocateȱonlyȱAbelard’sȱspiritualȱgrowthȱhere—aȱposition withȱ whichȱ Iȱ disagreeȱ evenȱ acknowledgingȱ theȱ complexityȱ ofȱ Heloise’sȱ rhetorical approach117—theyȱ alsoȱ identifyȱ aȱ deeperȱ unionȱ effectedȱ throughȱ thisȱ letter,ȱ whereby Abelardȱacknowledgesȱmostȱconcretelyȱhowȱtheyȱareȱ“boundȱtogether,”ȱnotingȱespecially theȱconcludingȱprayerȱofȱtheȱletter,ȱwhichȱAbelardȱhasȱwrittenȱforȱthemȱboth.118ȱHad AspasiaȱbeenȱaȱChristian,ȱsheȱmightȱhaveȱgivenȱthisȱprayerȱtoȱXenophonȱandȱhisȱwife.ȱȱ Theȱconcludingȱpassagesȱbeforeȱtheȱprayerȱareȱequallyȱrevealing.ȱNowȱthatȱAbelardȱhas onceȱagainȱembracedȱhisȱproperȱplaceȱinȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱHeloise—asȱteacherȱofȱthe lifeȱofȱvirtue,ȱandȱasȱamicusȱtoȱtheȱamicaȱofȱChrist—heȱmayȱrightlyȱassumeȱtheȱplaceȱof studentȱtoȱHeloise.ȱThroughȱthisȱstance,ȱAbelardȱshowsȱhisȱcommitmentȱtoȱaȱradical ChristianȱmutualityȱthroughȱwhichȱbothȱheȱandȱHeloiseȱareȱnowȱteachersȱandȱstudents ofȱoneȱanotherȱinȱChrist:ȱȱ Minusȱ quoqueȱ meritumȱ meumȱ minuiȱ conqueror,ȱ dumȱ tuumȱ crescereȱ nonȱ diffido.ȱ Unum quippeȱ sumusȱ inȱ Christo,ȱ unaȱ perȱ legemȱ matrimoniiȱ caro.ȱ Quidquidȱ estȱ tuum,ȱ mihiȱ non arbitrorȱ alienum.ȱ Tuusȱ autemȱ estȱ Christusȱ quiaȱ factaȱ estȱ sponsaȱ eius.ȱ Etȱ nunc,ȱ utȱ supra memini,ȱmeȱhabesȱseruumȱquemȱolimȱagnoscebasȱdominum,ȱmagisȱtibiȱtamenȱamoreȱnunc

115 116 117

118

Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ92. Marenbon,ȱTheȱPhilosophyȱofȱPeterȱAbelard,ȱ300.ȱ WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ122.ȱTheyȱpointȱoutȱthat “theȱimageȱbecomesȱintegralȱtoȱtheȱdisputation,ȱforȱaȱkeyȱelementȱinȱHeloise’sȱrhetoricalȱposturingȱisȱher assumptionȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱdifferentȱfeminineȱfiguraeȱthatȱactȱnotȱinȱisolationȱbutȱinsteadȱimply,ȱrespondȱto, andȱinteractȱwithȱvariousȱmaleȱpositionsȱinȱsuchȱaȱwayȱasȱtoȱtransvalueȱandȱreconstructȱbothȱthemselves andȱtheȱimagesȱofȱtheȱother.” WilsonȱandȱMcLeod,ȱ“TextualȱStrategiesȱinȱtheȱAbelard/HeloiseȱCorrespondence,”ȱ133–34.

270

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson spiritualiȱconiunctumȱquamȱtimoreȱsubiectum.ȱUndeȱetȱdeȱtuoȱnobisȱapudȱipsumȱpatrocinio ampliusȱconfidimusȱutȱidȱobtineamȱexȱtuaȱquodȱnonȱpossumȱexȱorationeȱpropria. [ButȱIȱdoȱnotȱcomplainȱthatȱmyȱmeritȱisȱdiminishedȱsoȱlongȱasȱIȱcanȱtrustȱthatȱyoursȱisȱgrowing greater.ȱForȱweȱareȱoneȱinȱChrist,ȱoneȱfleshȱthroughȱtheȱlawȱofȱmarriage:ȱwhateverȱisȱyours mustȱthenȱbeȱmineȱasȱwell.ȱȱAndȱChristȱisȱyoursȱbecauseȱyouȱareȱhisȱbride,ȱandȱasȱIȱsaid,ȱIȱam nowȱyourȱservantȱwhoȱwasȱonceȱyourȱlord,ȱbutȱaȱservantȱjoinedȱwithȱyouȱinȱspiritualȱlove,ȱnot boundȱoverȱinȱobsequiousȱfear.ȱIȱplaceȱmyselfȱunderȱyourȱprotection,ȱthen,ȱfullyȱtrustingȱthat throughȱyourȱprayersȱforȱmeȱIȱyetȱmayȱgainȱwhatȱIȱcannotȱgainȱalone.]119ȱȱȱȱȱ

ȱ WhereasȱBrianȱPatrickȱMcGuireȱalsoȱidentifiesȱanȱexplicitȱmovementȱtowardȱunionȱwith Heloiseȱ onȱ Abelard’sȱ partȱ (“asȱ herȱ spiritualȱ lover”),120ȱ Barbaraȱ Newmanȱ providesȱ a differentȱ focus,ȱ offeringȱ thatȱ “Abelardȱ willȱ evenȱ removeȱ himselfȱ fromȱ theȱ scenario entirely.”121ȱHerȱcomparisonȱofȱHeloise’sȱresponseȱwithȱtheȱrenunciationsȱofȱMarguerite Poreteȱisȱtrulyȱworthyȱofȱreflection,ȱparticularly,ȱIȱsuggest,ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱCarmelȱPosa’s reflectionsȱonȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱdesireȱandȱrenunciationȱinȱtheȱLetters.ȱEspeciallyȱifȱwe considerȱaȱmovementȱofȱongoingȱconversionȱtakingȱplaceȱforȱbothȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard, suchȱreadingsȱchallengeȱusȱtoȱmakeȱfurtherȱdistinctionsȱamongȱtheȱcomplexȱintertwining ofȱsuchȱlinguisticȱexpressionsȱofȱrenunciationȱandȱdesire.ȱȱPosa’sȱquestionȱrequiresȱfurther scholarlyȱattentionȱonȱmanyȱlevels:ȱȱ“Isȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱescapeȱthatȱ‘linguisticȱdilemma’ describedȱbyȱ[Albrecht]ȱClassenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱexistsȱbetweenȱ‘bothȱGodheadȱandȱtheȱbeloved, bothȱtheȱreligiousȱandȱtheȱeroticȱexperience?’”122ȱNewman’sȱreadingȱchallengesȱusȱtoȱface theseȱquestions:ȱInȱtheȱlaterȱletters,ȱisȱAbelardȱaskingȱHeloiseȱtoȱ“abandonȱherȱmisplaced mysticismȱ forȱ anȱ ordinaryȱ monasticȱ life”?123ȱ Isȱ Heloise’sȱ responseȱ aȱ “silence”ȱ in “alignmentȱ withȱ acceptedȱ monasticȱ auctoritas,”124ȱ orȱ areȱ weȱ compelledȱ toȱ considerȱ a distinctȱ dynamicȱ takingȱ placeȱ whereby,ȱ amongȱ theȱ experiencesȱ ofȱ Heloiseȱ and Abelard—ofȱconversionȱandȱmysticism,ȱconversationȱandȱtheȱcommonplace—allȱremain, suchȱthatȱtransformation,ȱandȱnotȱannihilation,ȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmostȱfittingȱterm?

119 120 121

122

123 124

Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ93;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ102. BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱ“HeloiseȱandȱtheȱConsolationȱofȱFriendship,”ȱListeningȱtoȱHeloise,ȱ303–22;ȱhereȱ312. Barbaraȱ Newman,ȱ “Authority,ȱ Authenticityȱ andȱ theȱ Repressionȱ ofȱ Heloise,”ȱ Journalȱ ofȱ Medievalȱ and RenaissanceȱStudiesȱ22ȱ(Springȱ1992):ȱ121–57;ȱhereȱ155. CarmelȱPosa,ȱ“‘Desire’:ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱLoveȱinȱtheȱFeminineȱinȱHeloise’sȱLetters,”ȱWordsȱofȱLoveȱandȱLove ofȱWordsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱtheȱRenaissance,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassen.ȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱTextsȱand Studies,ȱ347ȱ(Tempe,ȱAZ:ȱArizonaȱCenterȱforȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱStudies,ȱ2008),ȱ129–48;ȱhereȱ133.ȱ Newman,ȱ“Authority,ȱAuthenticityȱandȱtheȱRepressionȱofȱHeloise,”ȱ153. Newman,ȱ“Authority,ȱAuthenticityȱandȱtheȱRepressionȱofȱHeloise,”ȱ155.ȱForȱfurtherȱstudyȱofȱHeloise’s contributionsȱtoȱlogicȱinȱtheȱLetters,ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱEileenȱKearney,ȱ“Heloise:ȱInquiryȱandȱtheȱSacra Pagina,”ȱAmbiguousȱRealities:ȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱRenaissance,ȱed.ȱCaroleȱLevinȱandȱJeanie Watsonȱ(Detroit,ȱMI:ȱWayneȱStateȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱ66–81.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

271

TheȱsalutationȱofȱtheȱFifthȱLetterȱseemsȱtoȱrevealȱbothȱtheirȱdeeperȱunionȱandȱaȱsignȱthat Heloise’sȱrhetoricalȱprojectȱencompassesȱAbelard’sȱcommitmentȱtoȱlogic125ȱquiteȱwell. Whatȱtheȱintroductionȱtoȱherȱletterȱrevealsȱisȱnotȱaȱdefeatedȱsilence,ȱbutȱratherȱanȱhonest admissionȱtoȱherȱ“inseparabilisȱcomes”ȱ(inseparableȱcompanion)—Abelard’sȱtermȱforȱher inȱLetterȱFour126—thatȱherȱownȱhealingȱandȱconversionȱwillȱnotȱlikelyȱhappenȱquickly. Still,ȱsheȱisȱnowȱconfidentȱtoȱentrustȱherselfȱonceȱagainȱtoȱhisȱcare:ȱȱ Aliquodȱtamenȱdoloriȱremediumȱualesȱconferre.ȱsiȱnonȱhuncȱomninoȱpossisȱauferre.ȱUtȱenim insertumȱclauumȱaliusȱexpellitȱsicȱcogitatioȱnouaȱprioremȱexcluditȱcumȱaliasȱintentusȱanimus priorumȱmemoriamȱdimittereȱcogiturȱautȱintermittere,ȱTantoȱueroȱampliusȱcogitatioȱquaelibet animumȱ occupatȱ etȱ abȱ aliisȱ deducit,ȱ quantoȱ quodȱ cogitaturȱ honestiusȱ aestimaturȱ etȱ quo intendimusȱanimumȱmagisȱuideturȱnecessarium. [Andȱyetȱyouȱhaveȱitȱinȱyourȱpowerȱtoȱpalliateȱmyȱgriefȱtoȱsomeȱextent,ȱevenȱifȱyouȱcannot removeȱitȱall.ȱForȱasȱoneȱnailȱdrivesȱoutȱanother,ȱsoȱaȱnewȱthoughtȱdrivesȱoutȱanȱold,ȱandȱthe heart,ȱwhichȱhadȱbeenȱsetȱinȱoneȱdirection,ȱisȱforcedȱtoȱlayȱasideȱorȱtoȱabandonȱitsȱmemories ofȱwhatȱitȱonceȱwas.ȱAndȱtheȱmoreȱthisȱthought—ofȱanythingȱatȱall—occupiesȱtheȱheartȱand distractsȱ itȱ fromȱ otherȱ things,ȱ theȱ moreȱ weȱ thinkȱ itȱ anȱ honorableȱ thought,ȱ andȱ theȱ new directionȱinȱwhichȱweȱturnȱourȱheartsȱthenȱseemsȱmoreȱnecessaryȱandȱcompelling.]127

Concerningȱ theȱ linesȱ “asȱ oneȱ nailȱ drivesȱ outȱ anotherȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ,”ȱ Levitanȱ citesȱ Ciceroȱ and Jerome.128ȱIfȱweȱalsoȱciteȱHeloise’sȱownȱreferenceȱtoȱEcclesiastesȱ12:11ȱfromȱherȱThird Letterȱ(“throughȱSolomonȱweȱlearn,ȱ‘Theȱwordsȱofȱtheȱwiseȱareȱlikeȱgoadsȱandȱasȱnails deeplyȱfastened’”),129ȱweȱfindȱherȱhereȱsubmittingȱtoȱtheȱveryȱwisdomȱwhichȱsheȱhasȱso ardentlyȱsoughtȱfromȱAbelard.ȱYes,ȱitȱwillȱinvolveȱfurtherȱsufferingȱforȱHeloise,ȱbutȱitȱwill beȱ theȱ sufferingȱ ofȱ conversion,ȱ toȱ whichȱ sheȱ proceedsȱ toȱ devoteȱ herselfȱ throughȱ the concernsȱofȱherȱvocationȱatȱtheȱParaclete. Inȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheseȱconcernsȱforȱherselfȱandȱherȱcommunity,ȱHeloiseȱisȱnowȱreadyȱto takeȱupȱonceȱagainȱaȱsynonymȱforȱtheȱworkȱofȱrhetoric.ȱItȱwillȱnotȱbeȱeloquenceȱthisȱtime, butȱaȱtermȱthatȱAbelardȱhimselfȱputȱforthȱinȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatumȱinȱnarratingȱhow Heloise’sȱ “attemptsȱ toȱ persuadeȱ orȱ dissuadeȱ meȱ wereȱ makingȱ noȱ impressionȱ onȱ my foolishȱobstinacy.”130ȱTheȱtermsȱpersuadensȱseuȱdissuadens131ȱareȱtheȱsameȱtermsȱAbelard employsȱinȱhisȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱRomansȱtoȱindicateȱtheȱsecondȱofȱtwoȱofȱthe

125

126 127 128 129 130 131

“Suoȱspecialiter,ȱsuaȱsingulariter.ȱHeloiseȱisȱusingȱtheȱterminologyȱofȱformalȱdialectic,”ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱand Heloise,ȱ105,ȱn.ȱ1.ȱForȱfurtherȱstudyȱofȱHeloise’sȱcontributionsȱtoȱlogicȱinȱtheȱLetters,ȱseeȱforȱinstanceȱEileenȱ Kearney,ȱ “Heloise:ȱInquiryȱandȱtheȱSacraȱPagina,”ȱAmbiguousȱRealities:ȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱand Renaissance,ȱed.ȱCaroleȱLevinȱandȱJeanieȱWatsonȱ(Detroit,ȱMI:ȱWayneȱStateȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1987),ȱ66–81. Ep.ȱ5,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ90;ȱFourthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ97. Ep.ȱ6,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ241–42;ȱFifthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ106. FifthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ106,ȱn.ȱ4. ThirdȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ82. Radice,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ74. Ep.ȱ1,ȱed.ȱMonfrin.

272

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

modesȱ ofȱ rhetoric,ȱ docereȱ andȱ monere.132ȱ Asȱ Peterȱ vonȱ Moosȱ notesȱ ofȱ Abelard’s Commentary,ȱ“toȱwarnȱ[monere]ȱmeans[,ȱAC]ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtoȱconvinceȱbyȱadmonition (persuadere)ȱand,ȱonȱtheȱother,ȱtoȱadviseȱagainstȱbyȱwarningȱ(dissuadere).”133ȱHeloiseȱuses theȱtermȱ“persuasion”ȱthreeȱtimesȱinȱoneȱsectionȱofȱtheȱFifthȱLetter,ȱfollowingȱuponȱand includingȱSaintȱBenedict’sȱownȱuseȱofȱtheȱword—“SaintȱBenedict,ȱthatȱmostȱspiritualȱof men,ȱisȱobligedȱbyȱtheȱconditionsȱofȱtheȱpresentȱageȱtoȱallowȱitȱ[wine]ȱtoȱmonks.”134ȱ Benedict’sȱwordsȱandȱRadice’sȱtranslationȱareȱasȱfollows:ȱ“Licetȱinquit,ȱlegamusȱuinum monachorumȱomninoȱnonȱesseȱsedȱquiaȱnostrisȱtemporibusȱidȱmonachisȱpersuaderiȱnon potestȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“Although,”ȱheȱsays,ȱ“weȱreadȱthatȱwineȱisȱnoȱdrinkȱforȱmonks,ȱyetȱbecause nowadaysȱmonksȱcannotȱbeȱpersuadedȱofȱthisȱetc.”).135ȱUltimately,ȱHeloise’sȱconclusion concerningȱtheȱemploymentȱofȱpersuasionȱinȱthisȱFifthȱLetterȱisȱthatȱitȱisȱitselfȱlimitedȱin itsȱ force,ȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theȱ dispositionȱ ofȱ theȱ hearers.ȱ Sheȱ emphasizesȱ thatȱ St. Benedictȱhimselfȱ quaȱnecessitateȱRegulamȱtemperetȱinȱeoȱetiamȱquodȱpericulosiusȱestȱmonachis,ȱetȱquodȱeorum nonȱesseȱnouerit,ȱquiaȱuidelicetȱhuiusȱabstinentiaȱtemporibusȱsuisȱmonachisȱiamȱpersuaderi nonȱpoterat.ȱUtinamȱeademȱdispensationeȱetȱinȱhocȱtemporeȱagereturȱutȱuidelicetȱinȱhisȱquae mediaȱ boniȱ etȱ maliȱ atqueȱ indifferentiaȱ dicuntur,ȱ taleȱ temperamentumȱ fieretȱ utȱ quodȱ iam persuaderiȱnonȱualet,ȱprofessioȱnonȱexigeretȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. [hadȱtoȱtemperȱtheȱRuleȱevenȱinȱwhatȱheȱknewȱwasȱperniciousȱandȱnotȱforȱmonks,ȱbecauseȱin hisȱdayȱheȱcouldȱnotȱpersuadeȱthemȱtoȱabstain.ȱInȱourȱday,ȱtoo,ȱIȱwouldȱcallȱforȱaȱsimilar dispensation,ȱthatȱtheȱsameȱmoderationȱapplyȱinȱallȱmattersȱthatȱfallȱbetweenȱgoodȱandȱevil andȱareȱthereforeȱcalledȱindifferent.ȱWhatȱpersuasionȱcannotȱnowȱenforce,ȱourȱvowsȱshould notȱexact.]136ȱȱ

Ifȱ notȱ persuasion,ȱ whatȱ isȱ theȱ appropriateȱ languageȱ forȱ directingȱ suchȱ monks?ȱ ȱ The remainingȱhalfȱofȱtheȱFifthȱLetterȱisȱdedicatedȱtoȱpastoralȱteachingȱonȱcultivatingȱtheȱlife ofȱdevotion,ȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱheart,ȱandȱofȱtheȱ“inwardȱman.”137 TheȱreplyȱofȱAbelard’sȱSixthȱLetterȱisȱrichȱinȱencouragingȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱdevotion138 inȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ Paraclete,ȱ therebyȱ fulfillingȱ theȱ languageȱ prescribedȱ byȱ Heloise.ȱ He

132

133 134 135 136 137 138

Mews,ȱ“PeterȱAbelardȱonȱDialectic,ȱRhetoric,ȱandȱtheȱPrinciplesȱofȱArgument,”ȱ51,ȱn.ȱ80:Commentariaȱin EpistolamȱadȱRomanosȱ[Comm.ȱRom.],ȱProl.ȱlinesȱ5–6,ȱed.ȱbyȱEligiusȬMarieȱBuytaert.ȱCCCM,ȱ11ȱ(Turnhout: Brepols,ȱ1969),ȱ37–54;ȱhereȱ41:ȱ“Omnisȱscripturaȱdiuinaȱmoreȱorationisȱrhetoricaeȱautȱdocereȱintenditȱaut monereȱ[Buytaert:ȱmouere];ȱdocetȱquippeȱdumȱquaeȱfieriȱuelȱuitariȱoportetȱinsuat,ȱmonetȱ[Buytaert:ȱmouet] autemȱ dumȱ sacrisȱ adȬmonitionisȱ suisȱ uoluntatemȱ nostramȱ uelȱ dissauadendoȱ retrahitȱ aȱ malisȱ uel persuadendoȱapplicatȱbonis.” vonȱMoos,ȱ“LiteraryȱAestheticsȱinȱtheȱLatinȱMiddleȱAges:ȱTheȱRhetoricalȱTheologyȱofȱPeterȱAbelard,”ȱ87. FifthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ116. Ep.ȱ6,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ248;ȱRadice,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ169. Ep.ȱ6,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ248;ȱFifthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ117. FifthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ118–26. Isȱthis,ȱperhaps,ȱAbelard’sȱbestȱwayȱofȱengagingȱHeloise’sȱamorȱ–ȱasȱaȱcontributionȱtoȱrhetoric’sȱeloquentia, preciselyȱasȱdevotionalȱlanguage,ȱasȱaȱdistinctȱmodeȱfromȱpersuasio?

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

273

begins:ȱ “Caritatiȱ tuae,ȱ carissimaȱ sororȱ deȱ origineȱ tuaeȱ professionisȱ tamȱ tibiȱ quam spiritualibusȱfiliabusȱtuisȱsciscitanti,ȱundeȱscilicetȱmonialiumȱcoeperitȱreligioȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(Love, myȱdearestȱsister,ȱdivineȱloveȱleadsȱyouȱtoȱaskȱaboutȱtheȱoriginȱofȱyourȱcallingȱandȱhow theȱreligiousȱlifeȱofȱnunsȱbegan).139ȱHisȱselectionsȱfromȱJerome’sȱwritingsȱinȱtheȱclosing sectionsȱofȱtheȱletterȱrevealȱanȱAbelardȱwhoseȱengagementȱinȱaȱradicalȱmutualityȱwith HeloiseȱsignifiesȱanȱacceptanceȱofȱtheȱveryȱvulnerabilityȱandȱselfȬofferingȱsheȱhasȱgiven toȱhim:ȱ“Dulcissimumȱquippeȱuiroȱsanctoȱfueratȱquacumqueȱarteȱuerborumȱfragilem naturamȱadȱarduaȱuirtutisȱstudiaȱpromouere.ȱUtȱautemȱoperaȱnobisȱquamȱuerbaȱinȱhoc certioraȱpraebeantȱargumenta,ȱtantaȱhuiusmodiȱfeminasȱexcoluitȱcaritateȱutȱimmensaȱeius sanctitasȱ naeuumȱ sibiȱ propriaeȱ imprimeretȱ famae”ȱ (Itȱ wasȱ theȱ greatestȱ pleasureȱ for Jeromeȱtoȱuseȱallȱtheȱverbalȱartȱatȱhisȱcommandȱinȱrousingȱaȱweakȱnatureȱtoȱtheȱpursuit ofȱvirtue.ȱButȱinȱtheȱendȱitȱisȱhisȱactions,ȱnotȱhisȱwords,ȱthatȱofferȱtheȱbestȱargumentȱfor theȱloveȱheȱhadȱforȱtheseȱwomen,ȱreachingȱtheȱpointȱwhereȱhisȱveryȱsaintlinessȱimperiled hisȱreputation).140ȱInȱwhatȱtrulyȱreadsȱasȱaȱtributeȱtoȱAbelard’sȱownȱjourneyȱwithȱHeloise, AbelardȱcitesȱJerome’sȱletterȱtoȱAsellaȱconcerningȱPaula:ȱ AntequamȱdomumȱsanctaeȱPaulaeȱnoscerem,ȱtotiusȱinȱmeȱurbisȱstudiaȱconsonabant.ȱOmnium peneȱ iudicioȱ dignusȱ summoȱ sacerdotioȱ decernebar.ȱ Sedȱ postquamȱ eamȱ proȱ suoȱ merito sanctitatisȱuenerari,ȱcolere,ȱsuscipereȱcoepi,ȱomnesȱmeȱillicoȱdeseruereȱuirtutes.ȱEtȱpostȱaliqua: Saluta,ȱinquit,ȱPaulamȱetȱEustochium,ȱuelintȱnolint,ȱinȱChristoȱmeas. [BeforeȱIȱknewȱtheȱhouseȱofȱthatȱsaintlyȱwoman,ȱallȱofȱRomeȱsangȱmyȱpraisesȱandȱthoughtȱI wasȱworthyȱofȱtheȱhighestȱpriestlyȱoffice.ȱButȱsinceȱIȱbeganȱtoȱrevereȱtheȱwoman,ȱtoȱhonorȱher andȱtakeȱherȱinȱmyȱchargeȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱherȱsanctityȱandȱmerit,ȱallȱmyȱvirtuesȱhaveȱdeserted me,ȱitȱseemsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱStill,ȱgreetȱPaulaȱandȱEustochiumȱforȱme:ȱwhetherȱtheyȱwillȱitȱorȱnot,ȱthey areȱmineȱinȱChrist.]141ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

Followingȱthisȱcitation,ȱAbelardȱputsȱforthȱaȱremarkableȱcommentȱaboutȱOrigen.ȱAfter honoringȱ Christ’sȱ ownȱ “incurredȱ suspicionȱ forȱ associatingȱ withȱ Maryȱ Magdalene,” AbelardȱoffersȱthatȱOrigenȱ“riskedȱevenȱmore”ȱforȱwomenȱthanȱanyȱofȱChrist’sȱfollowers. WhatȱisȱsignificantȱinȱthisȱpenultimateȱpresentationȱofȱOrigenȱinȱAbelard’sȱwritings—the finalȱoneȱwillȱtakeȱplaceȱatȱtheȱcloseȱofȱhisȱSeventhȱLetter—isȱthatȱAbelardȱisȱnoȱlonger presentingȱhimselfȱasȱmoreȱworthyȱthanȱOrigen,ȱnorȱisȱheȱcondemningȱOrigenȱasȱheȱdid inȱtheȱHistoriaȱcalamitatum.142ȱȱThisȱmoveȱonlyȱsubstantiatesȱAbelard’sȱauthenticȱhumility andȱvulnerabilityȱtoȱaȱgreaterȱdegree.

139 140 141

142

Ep.ȱ7,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ253;ȱSixthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ127. Ep.ȱ7,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ280;ȱSixthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ167. Ep.ȱ7,ȱed.ȱMuckle,ȱ280;ȱSixthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ168.ȱHereȱAbelardȱisȱconformingȱhimself toȱtheȱtoposȱofȱtheȱprocuratorȱmulierum,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmuchȬcitedȱtitlesȱforȱJeromeȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury. Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ40:ȱ“WhenȱGodȱsetȱmeȱfreeȱforȱaȱsimilarȱwork,ȱheȱwasȱkinderȱtoȱmeȱthanȱto Origen,ȱthough;ȱforȱwhatȱOrigenȱdidȱhimselfȱ–ȱwithoutȱreflection,ȱitȱisȱthought,ȱandȱinȱthatȱheȱincurredȱno smallȱblameȱ–ȱwasȱdoneȱtoȱmeȱbyȱothersȱwithȱnoȱresponsibilityȱofȱmyȱownȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”

274

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

TheȱSeventhȱLetterȱisȱAbelard’sȱmostȱexplicitȱandȱcompleteȱtributeȱtoȱHeloise’sȱproject withȱ whichȱ sheȱ beganȱ theirȱ correspondence.ȱ Thisȱ pastoralȱ letterȱ isȱ atȱ onceȱ an acknowledgmentȱofȱrhetoricȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdom,ȱaȱfurtherȱcontributionȱtoȱaȱworking treatiseȱ onȱ friendship,ȱ andȱ aȱ devotedȱ commitmentȱ toȱ theȱ veryȱ concreteȱ needsȱ ofȱ the religiousȱcommunityȱofȱtheȱParaclete.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱandȱonlyȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱrhetorica itselfȱinȱtheȱLetters,ȱAbelardȱbeginsȱhisȱSeventhȱLetterȱcitingȱtheȱsameȱtextualȱauthority onȱrhetoricȱcitedȱinȱHeloise’sȱFirstȱLetter.ȱHere,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱnotȱAspasiaȱbutȱCicero himselfȱbeingȱreferenced.ȱFollowingȱaȱfewȱopeningȱsentencesȱinȱwhichȱheȱanswersȱtheir requestȱforȱguidanceȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱruleȱofȱtheirȱcommunity,ȱAbelardȱnotesȱthatȱtogether theyȱmustȱbeȱ“itaqueȱpartimȱconsuetudinibusȱbonis,ȱpartimȱscripturarumȱtestimoniisȱuel rationumȱnitentesȱfulcimentis”ȱ(relyingȱinȱpartȱonȱscripture,ȱinȱpartȱonȱreason,ȱandȱinȱpart onȱtheȱbestȱofȱourȱtraditions).143ȱTheȱLatinȱtextȱandȱRadice’sȱtranslationȱareȱasȱfollows: “HuncȱenimȱutȱinȱRhetoricaȱsuaȱTulliusȱmeminitȱCrotoniataeȱasciueruntȱadȱquoddam templumȱquodȱreligiosissimeȱcolebantȱexcellentissimisȱpicturisȱdecorandum”ȱ(For,ȱas TullyȱrecordsȱinȱhisȱRhetoric,ȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱCrotonaȱappointedȱhimȱtoȱdecorateȱwithȱthe bestȱpossibleȱpicturesȱaȱcertainȱtempleȱforȱwhichȱtheyȱhadȱtheȱhighestȱveneration).144ȱThe referenceȱisȱfromȱDeȱinventioneȱ2.1,ȱtheȱsecondȱbookȱofȱCicero’sȱearlyȱworkȱonȱrhetoric. Theȱcontextȱwithinȱwhichȱthisȱpassageȱappearsȱisȱworthyȱofȱnote.ȱCiceroȱproceedsȱto employȱtheȱanalogyȱofȱtheȱpainterȱinȱorderȱtoȱcommunicateȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheȱteacherȱof rhetoricȱ (II.ȱ 4–5),ȱ afterȱ whichȱ heȱ confirmsȱ howȱ laterȱ treatisesȱ onȱ rhetoricȱ have appropriatelyȱunifiedȱtheȱcontributionsȱofȱtheȱschoolsȱofȱAristotleȱandȱIsocratesȱ(II.ȱ7–8), andȱ remindsȱ hisȱ readersȱ thatȱ whereasȱ theȱ firstȱ bookȱ ofȱ hisȱ rhetoricȱ hadȱ focusedȱ on “literaryȱadornment”ȱ(exornatione),ȱthisȱsecondȱbookȱwillȱfocusȱonȱtheȱideasȱthemselves (II.ȱ11).145ȱ Alsoȱ inȱ thisȱ letter,ȱ Abelardȱ citesȱ theȱ sameȱ quoteȱ fromȱ Benedictȱ concerningȱ the persuasionȱ ofȱ monks146ȱ whichȱ Heloiseȱ citedȱ severalȱ timesȱ inȱ theȱ Fifthȱ Letter.ȱ Butȱ his referenceȱhereȱdoesȱnotȱconstituteȱaȱchallengeȱtoȱherȱownȱteachingȱonȱtheȱlimitationsȱof persuasion,ȱnorȱisȱitȱaȱrepetitionȱofȱAbelard’sȱearlyȱdefinitionȱofȱrhetoricȱasȱpersuasionȱin hisȱcommentaryȱonȱtheȱDeȱtopicisȱdifferentiisȱofȱBoethius,ȱaȱdefinitionȱwhichȱMewsȱfinds toȱ beȱ focusedȱ primarilyȱ onȱ theȱ “instrumentality”ȱ ofȱ rhetoric.147ȱ Inȱ hisȱ commentary, Abelardȱhadȱdefinedȱpersuasionȱasȱ“movingȱandȱdrawingȱtheȱdispositionsȱofȱmenȱsoȱthat theyȱdesireȱorȱrejectȱtheȱsameȱthingȱwithȱus.”148ȱInȱtheȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱbyȱcontrast,ȱhis ultimateȱfocusȱisȱnotȱonȱtheȱagendaȱofȱtheȱrhetorȱorȱsuperior,ȱbutȱratherȱonȱtheȱdiscretion andȱhumilityȱofȱtheȱsuperiorȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱtheȱcultivationȱofȱdevoutȱsouls.149ȱȱȱȱ

143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ242;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ170. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ242;ȱRadice,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ183. Cicero,ȱDeȱinventione. Levitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ220. Mews,ȱ“PeterȱAbelardȱonȱDialectic,ȱRhetoric,ȱandȱtheȱPrinciplesȱofȱArgument,”ȱ47. Mews,ȱ“PeterȱAbelardȱonȱDialectic,ȱRhetoric,ȱandȱtheȱPrinciplesȱofȱArgument,”ȱ47–48.ȱ SeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ224.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

275

Abelard’sȱcontributionsȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱthisȱLetterȱareȱtwofold.ȱFirst,ȱheȱoffersȱhimself inȱfriendshipȱthroughȱtheȱcontinuedȱselfȬofferingȱofȱhisȱworkȱtoȱtheȱparticularȱneedsȱof Heloise’sȱcommunity.ȱSecond,ȱheȱcompletesȱtheirȱexchangeȱonȱtheȱtopicȱofȱfriendshipȱby explainingȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ membersȱ ofȱ aȱ communityȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ extend themselvesȱ toȱ eachȱ otherȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ widerȱ community.ȱ Inȱ termsȱ ofȱ hisȱ second contribution,ȱAbelardȱnotesȱhowȱ“enimȱproȱamicoȱsponsionemȱfacimusȱcumȱaliquem caritasȱnostraȱinȱnostraeȱcongregationisȱconuersationemȱsuscipit”ȱ(weȱbecomeȱsuretyȱfor aȱfriendȱwheneverȱourȱcharitableȱloveȱreceivesȱsomeoneȱintoȱtheȱlifeȱofȱourȱcommunity).150 Inȱ hisȱ accountȱ ofȱ “portariamȱ siueȱ ostiariam,ȱ quodȱ idemȱ est,ȱ pertinetȱ deȱ suscipiendis hospitibusȱuelȱquibuslibetȱaduenientibusȱetȱdeȱhisȱnuntiandisȱuelȱadducendisȱubiȱoporteat etȱdeȱcuraȱhospitalitatis”ȱ(theȱportress,ȱorȱgatekeeper,ȱ[who]ȱwillȱhaveȱtheȱresponsibility ofȱ receivingȱ guestsȱ andȱ anyoneȱ elseȱ whoȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ convent,ȱ announcingȱ them, bringingȱthemȱtoȱtheȱappropriateȱplace,ȱandȱtakingȱgeneralȱchargeȱoverȱhospitality),151ȱhe incorporatesȱbothȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱrhetoricȱandȱofȱfriendship:ȱȱ ExȱquaȱmaximeȱtamquamȱexȱuestibuloȱDominiȱreligionemȱmonasteriiȱdecorariȱoportetȱcum abȱipsaȱeiusȱnotitiaȱincipiat.ȱSitȱigiturȱblandisȱuerbis,ȱmitisȱalloquio,ȱutȱinȱhisȱquoqueȱquos excluseritȱconuenientiȱredditaȱrationeȱcaritatemȱstudeatȱaedificare.ȱHincȱenimȱscriptumȱest: Responsioȱ mollisȱ frangitȱ iram;ȱ sermoȱ durusȱ suscitatȱ furorem.ȱ Etȱ alibi:ȱ Verbumȱ dulce multiplicatȱamicosȱetȱmitigatȱinimicos. [Sinceȱ acquaintanceȱ withȱ theȱ conventȱ beginsȱ withȱ her,ȱ sheȱ mustȱ beȱ anȱ adornmentȱ toȱ its religiousȱlife,ȱasȱifȱsheȱherselfȱwereȱtheȱvestibuleȱofȱtheȱLord.ȱSheȱthereforeȱshouldȱbeȱsoftȱin speechȱandȱmildȱinȱaddress,ȱeagerȱtoȱincreaseȱtheȱgoodȱwillȱevenȱofȱthoseȱsheȱturnsȱawayȱby givingȱthemȱaȱsuitableȱreasonȱ–ȱasȱitȱisȱwritten,ȱ“Aȱmildȱanswerȱbreakethȱwrath,ȱbutȱaȱharsh wordȱstirrethȱupȱfury,”ȱandȱ“Aȱsweetȱwordȱmultipliethȱfriendsȱandȱappeasethȱenemies.”]152ȱ

ȱȱ Finally,ȱ throughoutȱ theȱ Letter,ȱ Abelardȱ providesȱ constantȱ remindersȱ ofȱ theȱ absolute necessityȱ ofȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ superiorsȱ inȱ theȱ lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ harkingȱ backȱ to Heloise’sȱpleadingsȱinȱtheȱFirstȱLetterȱofȱtheirȱcorrespondence.ȱTheȱsuperior,ȱAbelard notes,ȱ“cumȱsibiȱcommissoȱgregeȱcunctaȱperegatȱetȱtantoȱeisȱampliusȱprouideat,ȱquanto eisȱampliusȱpraesensȱassistit”ȱ(shouldȱdoȱeverythingȱalongsideȱherȱflock:ȱtheȱmoreȱsheȱis withȱthem,ȱtheȱbetterȱsheȱcanȱlookȱafterȱthem).153ȱHeȱcontinuesȱseveralȱpassagesȱlater: “circaȱsubiectasȱtantoȱsitȱmagisȱsollicitaȱquantoȱmagisȱassidua”ȱ(herȱconstantȱpresence amongȱherȱwomenȱwillȱdemonstrateȱherȱgreaterȱcare).154ȱSaintȱBenedictȱhimselfȱmodeled thisȱexampleȱexcellentlyȱinȱhisȱmonastery,ȱincludingȱhisȱpresenceȱatȱprayerȱandȱmeals.155

150 151 152 153 154 155

Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ255;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ190.ȱȱItalicsȱareȱLevitan’s. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ262;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ203. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ262;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ203. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ257;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ193. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ258;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ195. SeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ241.

276

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

InȱtermsȱofȱAbelard’sȱfirstȱcontributionȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱoneȱneed onlyȱciteȱhisȱchoiceȱofȱOrigen’sȱhomiliesȱasȱtheȱcrownȱauctoritasȱofȱhisȱclosingȱwords.ȱAs oneȱofȱtheȱthreeȱmainȱauctoresȱAbelardȱcelebratesȱinȱtheȱSixthȱLetterȱ(alongsideȱAmbrose andȱJerome156),ȱOrigenȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱmostȱnoteworthyȱforȱhisȱrhetoricalȱability,157ȱanȱability inȱtheȱserviceȱofȱwisdomȱherself:ȱ Illeȱquippeȱspiritualiumȱputeorumȱfossorȱstudiosusȱnonȱsolumȱadȱeorumȱpotum,ȱsedȱetiam effossionemȱ nosȱ uehementerȱ adhortansȱ expositionisȱ praelectaeȱ homeliaȱ XIIȱ itaȱ loquitur: TentemusȱfacereȱetiamȱilludȱquodȱSapientiaȱcommonetȱdicens:ȱ‘Bibeȱaquamȱdeȱtuisȱfontibus etȱdeȱtuisȱputeisȱetȱsitȱtibiȱfonsȱtuusȱproprius’ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSiȱenimȱsuscepistiȱinȱteȱuerbumȱDei,ȱsi acceptistiȱabȱIesuȱaquamȱuiuamȱetȱfideliterȱaccepisti,ȱfietȱinȱteȱfonsȱaquaeȱsalientisȱinȱuitam aeternam. [ForȱOrigenȱworkedȱhardȱtoȱdigȱwellsȱofȱtheȱspiritȱandȱurgedȱusȱbothȱtoȱdrinkȱfromȱthemȱand toȱdigȱothersȱofȱourȱown.ȱAsȱheȱsaysȱinȱhisȱtwelfthȱhomily:ȱ“Letȱusȱtryȱtoȱdoȱwhatȱwisdom advises:ȱ‘Drinkȱwaterȱfromȱthyȱwellsȱandȱfromȱthyȱsprings,ȱandȱletȱthyȱspringȱbeȱthineȱown’ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱForȱifȱyouȱhaveȱtakenȱtheȱwordȱofȱGodȱintoȱyourself,ȱifȱyouȱhaveȱreceivedȱtheȱlivingȱwater fromȱJesusȱandȱhaveȱreceivedȱitȱwithȱfaith,ȱitȱwillȱbecomeȱinȱyouȱaȱspringȱofȱwaterȱflowingȱto eternalȱlife.”]158ȱ

WithȱhisȱsecondȱcontributionȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱthisȱLetter,ȱAbelardȱfollowsȱsuitȱinȱhisȱown rhetoricalȱflourishȱwhichȱappearsȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱfinalȱmovementȱofȱtheȱLetterȱandȱwhich continuesȱhisȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱurgencyȱofȱtheȱstudyȱofȱtheȱScripturesȱforȱaȱcommunityȱof loversȱofȱwisdom—whoseȱloveȱgivesȱtoȱtheȱworldȱasȱintimatelyȱasȱtheyȱreceiveȱfromȱthe Lord:ȱ“Etȱuosȱigiturȱlacteȱlotae,ȱidȱestȱcandoreȱcastimoniaeȱnitentesȱiuxtaȱhaecȱfluenta quasiȱcolumbaeȱresideteȱetȱhincȱsapientiaeȱhaustusȱsumentes,ȱnonȱsolumȱdiscere,ȱsedȱet docereȱ etȱ aliisȱtamquamȱoculiȱuiamȱpossitisȱostendereȱetȱsponsumȱipsumȱnonȱsolum conspicere,ȱsedȱetȱaliisȱualeatisȱdescribere”ȱ(Andȱyouȱasȱwell,ȱwashedȱwithȱtheȱmilkȱthat isȱtheȱwhitenessȱofȱyourȱchastity,ȱmustȱsitȱlikeȱdovesȱbesideȱtheseȱstreamsȱandȱdrinkȱdrafts ofȱwisdomȱfromȱthem—notȱonlyȱtoȱlearnȱbutȱtoȱteach,ȱtoȱshowȱothers,ȱasȱitȱwere,ȱtheȱway toȱturnȱtheirȱeyes;ȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱknowȱtheȱBridegroomȱforȱyourselfȱbutȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱmeans toȱspeakȱofȱhimȱtoȱothers).159ȱWithȱtheseȱwords,ȱAbelardȱprovidesȱforȱtheȱnunsȱofȱthe ParacleteȱaȱrhetoricalȱofferingȱinȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱCiceroȱstroveȱtoȱofferȱhisȱown

156 157

158 159

SixthȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ166. ItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱrecentȱscholarlyȱattentionȱisȱbeingȱgivenȱtoȱOrigen’sȱrhetoric.ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱK. J.ȱ Torjesen,ȱ “Influenceȱ ofȱ Rhetoricȱ onȱ Origen’sȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ Homilies,”ȱ Origenianaȱ Sextaȱ (Leuven:ȱ LeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995):ȱ13–25.ȱȱManyȱofȱTorjesen’sȱinsightsȱonȱtheȱhomiliesȱshouldȱbeȱgivenȱequal attentionȱinȱOrigen’sȱotherȱwritings,ȱsuchȱasȱhisȱCommentaryȱonȱJohn:ȱȱ“theȱmeaningȱofȱwhatȱIȱamȱdoingȱyou areȱnotȱawareȱofȱnow,ȱbutȱlaterȱonȱyouȱwillȱknow.ȱ.ȱ.isȱhavingȱyourȱfeetȱwashedȱbyȱmeȱis.ȱ.ȱ.soȱthatȱthey mayȱbecomeȱbeautiful,ȱbecauseȱyouȱareȱaboutȱtoȱpreachȱgoodȱnewsȱofȱgoodȱthingsȱandȱwalkȱuponȱthe soulsȱ ofȱ menȱ withȱ cleanȱ feet,”ȱ Origen,ȱ trans.ȱ Josephȱ W.ȱ Triggȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Routledge,ȱ 1998), XXXII.VIII.87–88. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ291;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ252–53. Ep.ȱ8,ȱed.ȱMcLaughlin,ȱ292;ȱSeventhȱLetter,ȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ254.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

277

synthesisȱ ofȱ Isocratesȱ andȱ Aristotleȱ andȱ theirȱ commentators.ȱ Moreȱ immediatelyȱ for Abelard,ȱthisȱsynthesisȱrequiredȱhisȱworkingȱoutȱofȱHeloise’sȱcontributionsȱtoȱeloquentia, denotingȱ theȱ devotionalȱ andȱ contemplativeȱ aspectȱ ofȱ spirituality,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ hisȱ own evolvingȱthoughtȱonȱpersuasio,ȱdenotingȱtheȱpractical,ȱactiveȱaspectȱofȱspirituality.160ȱȱȱ

ȱ

3.ȱConclusion

ThisȱstudyȱofȱrhetoricȱandȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱextendedȱcorrespondenceȱofȱHeloiseȱand Abelardȱhasȱconsideredȱtheirȱwritingsȱasȱanȱevolvingȱprojectȱofȱ“charismaticȱfriendship” engineeredȱinitiallyȱandȱchieflyȱbyȱHeloise,ȱandȱengagedȱandȱdevelopedȱbyȱAbelard.ȱBy affirmingȱtheȱascriptionȱofȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantiumȱtoȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,ȱthis studyȱcallsȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱconcludingȱreflectionsȱofȱRékaȱForraiȱandȱSylvainȱPironȱin theirȱ2007ȱarticle,ȱ“TheȱDebateȱonȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium:ȱCurrentȱstatusȱquaestionis andȱFurtherȱResearch.”ȱAsȱForraiȱandȱPironȱpointȱout,ȱ“Whatȱisȱneededȱtoȱtransformȱa ‘highȱ probability’ȱ isȱ anȱ undebatableȱ commonȱ featureȱ thatȱ wouldȱ tieȱ togetherȱ the relationshipȱbetweenȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱasȱweȱknowȱit,ȱandȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱreconstructed outȱofȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium.”161ȱTheirȱinsightȱisȱthatȱHeloise’sȱreflectionsȱabout marriageȱ provideȱ aȱ worthyȱ areaȱ ofȱ inquiryȱ forȱ suchȱ aȱ project.162ȱ Whileȱ Heloise’s reflectionsȱonȱmarriageȱthroughoutȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱhaveȱnotȱreceivedȱanyȱadequate attentionȱinȱtheȱpresentȱstudy,ȱitȱisȱhopedȱthatȱherȱworkȱonȱfriendship—andȱAbelard’s intimateȱ engagementȱ inȱ thisȱ project—provesȱ toȱ beȱ foundȱ anȱ integral,ȱ indispensable complementȱtoȱsuchȱreflections.ȱToȱthisȱend,ȱweȱwouldȱdoȱwellȱtoȱattendȱtoȱsuchȱstudies

160

161

162

Asȱsuggestedȱearlier,ȱitȱisȱworthȱprobingȱwhetherȱaȱreadingȱwhichȱincludesȱtheȱProblemataȱreflectsȱthis reconciliationȱtakingȱplaceȱevenȱmoreȱthoroughly,ȱwithȱwisdomȱandȱrhetoricȱsoȱintimatelyȱandȱintegrally related,ȱbutȱinȱaȱcomplexȱmannerȱonlyȱpossiblyȱconstructedȱbyȱbothȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard,ȱandȱunlikeȱthat acceptedȱbyȱeitherȱCiceroȱorȱAugustine,ȱwhileȱincorporatingȱseveralȱofȱtheȱkeyȱrhetoricalȱcontributionsȱof theseȱauthors.ȱȱAsȱevenȱtheȱearlyȱlinesȱofȱtheȱProblemataȱseemȱtoȱindicate,ȱHeloiseȱcanȱonceȱagainȱtakeȱup herȱcommitmentȱtoȱletters,ȱeloquence,ȱfriendship,ȱloveȱandȱwisdomȱinȱaȱnewȱway.ȱWhereȱonceȱsheȱalone pouredȱoverȱtheȱsweetnessȱofȱherȱearlyȱlettersȱfromȱAbelard,ȱurgentlyȱseekingȱaȱsynthesisȱofȱfriendship, loveȱandȱwisdomȱfromȱherȱteacher,ȱnowȱHeloise,ȱinȱtheȱcompanyȱofȱaȱcommunityȱthatȱincludesȱAbelard, contemplatesȱ theȱ sweetnessȱ ofȱ theȱ Scripturesȱ inȱ searchȱ ofȱ deeperȱ wisdomȱ aboutȱ humanȱ andȱ divine friendship,ȱtherebyȱrevisitingȱtheȱclassroomȱ–ȱ“yourȱstudentsȱtoȱtheirȱteacher”ȱ–ȱwithȱAbelardȱinȱaȱnewȱand profoundȱway.ȱWeȱshouldȱrecallȱagainȱAbelard’sȱownȱopeningȱtoȱhisȱlateȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱEpistleȱtoȱthe Romansȱonȱtheȱmodeȱofȱdivineȱwisdom:ȱ“TheȱintentionȱofȱallȱdivineȱScriptureȱisȱtoȱteachȱorȱtoȱmoveȱinȱthe mannerȱofȱaȱrhetoricalȱspeech,”ȱwhileȱrecallingȱasȱwellȱHeloise’sȱadamantȱcommitmentȱtoȱhumanȱwisdom transformed:ȱ“AllȱthisȱyourȱwisdomȱknowsȱfarȱbetterȱthanȱI.”ȱSuchȱproclamationsȱcouldȱonlyȱhaveȱbeen theȱfruitsȱofȱaȱdivinelyȱinspiredȱcooperativeȱaffair.ȱSeeȱLevitan,ȱ“TheȱQuestionsȱofȱHeloise,”ȱ259,ȱ258.ȱȱȱȱ ForraiȱandȱPiron,ȱ“TheȱDebateȱonȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium.ȱCurrentȱstatusȱquaestionisȱandȱFurther Research.”ȱȱSeeȱConstantȱJ.ȱMews,ȱ“CiceroȱandȱtheȱBoundariesȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,” Viatorȱ38ȱ(2007):ȱ369–84;ȱhere,ȱ374–81,ȱforȱoneȱexampleȱofȱaȱfittingȱresponseȱtoȱthisȱinvitation.ȱȱȱȱ ForraiȱandȱPiron,ȱ“TheȱDebateȱonȱtheȱEpistolaeȱduorumȱamantium.ȱCurrentȱstatusȱquaestionisȱandȱFurther Research.”

278

JenniferȱConstantineȬJackson

asȱCarmelȱPosa’sȱreadingȱofȱHeloiseȱthroughȱaȱ“reȬorientationȱforȱtheȱplaceȱofȱbothȱlove andȱdesireȱinȱmonasticȱandȱChristianȱspirituality,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱEileenȱSweeney’sȱreading ofȱ anȱ “ethicsȱ andȱ hermeneuticsȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ thatȱ governȱ Abelard’sȱ theoreticalȱ andȱ practical writings.”163 Inȱtermsȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱeloquentiaȱandȱpersuasioȱbeingȱmade,ȱitȱhasȱbeen offeredȱprimarilyȱasȱaȱwayȱofȱattendingȱtoȱsomeȱofȱtheȱdistinctȱcontributionsȱofȱHeloise andȱAbelardȱtoȱtheȱrhetoricalȱprojectȱinȱitsȱpastoralȱmode.ȱMostȱsignificantly,ȱIȱbelieve, theirȱcooperativeȱworkȱonȱtheȱnatureȱofȱrhetoricȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱspiritualityȱillustrates howȱ transformedȱ personsȱ canȱ transformȱ rhetoricȱ inȱ theȱ serviceȱ bothȱ ofȱ selfȱ and community.ȱPlato’sȱownȱcriticalȱstanceȱonȱrhetoricȱinȱtheȱPhaedrusȱmayȱbeȱunderstoodȱas layingȱtheȱtheoreticalȱfoundationsȱforȱthisȱenduringȱhistoricalȱproject:ȱ Untilȱsomeoneȱknowsȱtheȱtruthȱofȱeachȱthingȱaboutȱwhichȱheȱspeaksȱorȱwritesȱandȱisȱableȱto defineȱeverythingȱinȱitsȱownȱgenus,ȱandȱhavingȱdefinedȱitȱknowsȱhowȱtoȱbreakȱtheȱgenus downȱintoȱspeciesȱandȱsubspeciesȱtoȱtheȱpointȱȱofȱindivisibility,ȱdiscerningȱtheȱnatureȱofȱthe soulȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱtheȱsameȱmethod,ȱwhileȱdiscoveringȱtheȱlogicalȱcategoryȱwhichȱfits withȱ eachȱ nature,ȱ andȱ untilȱ inȱ aȱ similarȱ wayȱ heȱ composesȱ andȱ adornsȱ speech,ȱ furnishing variegatedȱandȱcomplexȱspeechȱtoȱaȱvariegatedȱsoulȱandȱsimpleȱspeechȱtoȱaȱsimpleȱsoul—not untilȱthenȱwillȱitȱbeȱpossibleȱforȱspeechȱtoȱexistȱinȱanȱartisticȱformȱinȱsoȱfarȱasȱtheȱnatureȱof speechȱisȱcapableȱofȱsuchȱtreatment,ȱneitherȱforȱinstructionȱnorȱforȱpersuasion,ȱasȱhasȱbeen shownȱbyȱourȱentireȱpastȱdiscussion.ȱ(277b5–c6)164ȱȱȱȱ

Theȱurgentȱnatureȱofȱtransformingȱselvesȱforȱsuchȱaȱproject,ȱwas,ȱIȱbelieve,ȱHeloise’s insight,ȱsuchȱthatȱweȱareȱcompelled,ȱasȱreaders,ȱtoȱconsiderȱnotȱjustȱtheȱliteraryȱHeloise orȱevenȱHeloiseȱtheȱphilosopher,ȱbutȱHeloiseȱtheȱtheologian,ȱwhoseȱrigorousȱdedication toȱidentifyingȱandȱlivingȱtheȱnatureȱofȱfriendshipȱmightȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱworthyȱprecursor toȱtheȱSecundaȱParsȱofȱtheȱSummaȱTheologiaeȱofȱSt.ȱThomasȱAquinas.165 Finally,ȱtheȱreconciliationȱdiscernedȱinȱtheȱdistinctȱapproachesȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard throughoutȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱunderestimatedȱforȱitsȱexistentialȱappeal toȱscholarsȱofȱhistory,ȱphilosophy,ȱandȱtheologyȱalike.ȱȱOneȱelementȱofȱthisȱthesisȱisȱthat

163

164

165

Posa,ȱ“‘Desire’:ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱLoveȱinȱtheȱFeminineȱinȱHeloise’sȱLetters,”ȱ146;ȱEileenȱC.ȱSweeney, “Abelard’sȱHistoriaȱCalamitatumȱandȱLetters:ȱSelfȱasȱSearchȱandȱStruggle,”ȱ306. SeeȱKennedy,ȱClassicalȱRhetoric,ȱ74.ȱClassen’sȱemphasisȱonȱfriendshipȱasȱloveȱinȱAquinas’sȱSummaȱTheologiae (“Introduction,”ȱ 35)ȱ showsȱ St.ȱ Thomasȱ toȱ beȱ attendingȱ toȱ friendshipȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ strikinglyȱ reflects Heloise’sȱ ownȱ project.ȱ Forȱ aȱ bibliographyȱ ofȱ criticalȱ treatmentsȱ ofȱ Aquinas’sȱ workȱ onȱ thisȱ relation, includingȱJamesȱMcEvoy’sȱ“TheȱOtherȱasȱOneself:ȱFriendshipȱandȱLoveȱinȱtheȱThoughtȱofȱSt.ȱThomas Aquinas”ȱandȱJosephȱBobik’sȱ“AquinasȱonȱCommunicatio,ȱtheȱFoundationȱofȱFriendshipȱandȱCaritas,”ȱsee theȱbibliographicȱlisting,ȱ“AdditionalȱStudiesȱonȱAquinas’sȱDoctrineȱofȱLove”ȱinȱtheȱonlineȱSupplementȱto OnȱLoveȱandȱCharity:ȱReadingsȱfromȱtheȱCommentaryȱonȱtheȱSentencesȱofȱPeterȱLombard,ȱtrans.ȱbyȱPeterȱA Kwasniewski,ȱThomasȱBolin,ȱO.S.B.,ȱandȱJosephȱBolinȱ(Washington,ȱD.C.:ȱCatholicȱUniversityȱofȱAmerica Press,ȱ2008):ȱhttp://cuapress.cua.edu/books/supplementary/AquinasonLove/LoveSupp.pdfȱ(lastȱaccessed onȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010). Kennedy’sȱstatementȱinȱClassicalȱRhetoricȱthatȱAquinasȱ“canȱhardlyȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱhadȱmuchȱinterestȱin rhetoric”ȱ(219)ȱmustȱbeȱrevisitedȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱworkȱofȱMongeau,ȱSweetmanȱandȱothers.ȱSeeȱn.ȱ6ȱabove.

OnȱRhetoricȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelard

279

theȱentireȱcorpusȱofȱwritingsȱofȱHeloiseȱandȱAbelardȱultimatelyȱrevealsȱanȱexperienceȱof aȱdeepening,ȱyetȱimperfectȱconversionȱforȱeachȱofȱthem;ȱbothȱcontinueȱtoȱindicateȱtheir needȱforȱhealingȱtoȱtheȱend.166ȱAnotherȱelementȱofȱthisȱthesisȱisȱthatȱtheirȱcorpusȱalso revealsȱaȱcriticalȱcontributionȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱeachȱwriterȱthatȱmustȱbeȱreckonedȱwithȱasȱan essentialȱcomponentȱtoȱaȱholistic,ȱintegratedȱspirituality.ȱWhatȱtheyȱhaveȱofferedȱusȱinȱthe historyȱ ofȱ letters,ȱ education,ȱ andȱ spiritualityȱ isȱ theȱ mostȱ personalȱ expressionȱ ofȱ a conversationȱ seekingȱ transformationȱ onȱ individualȱ andȱ communalȱ levels.ȱ Itȱ isȱ a conversationȱthatȱliesȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱquestionsȱaboutȱintellectȱandȱwill,ȱloveȱandȱlanguage, learningȱandȱspirituality.ȱInȱtheȱgreaterȱcontextȱofȱancientȱandȱmedievalȱthought,ȱitȱisȱa conversationȱthatȱmayȱbeȱdiscerned,ȱinȱdifferentȱvariations,ȱinȱtheȱcombinedȱcontributions ofȱAristotleȱandȱIsocrates,ȱHughȱofȱSt.ȱVictorȱandȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱandȱThomas Aquinasȱ andȱ Meisterȱ Eckhart.ȱ Whatȱ continuesȱ toȱ drawȱ usȱ toȱ thisȱ particular correspondenceȱ atȱ hand,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ theȱ veryȱ conversationȱ beingȱ livedȱ out,ȱ inȱ selfȬ offering,ȱbeforeȱourȱeyes.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

166

SeeȱHeloise’sȱownȱexplicitȱwordsȱtoȱthisȱeffectȱasȱcitedȱinȱtheȱLetters.ȱȱSeeȱalsoȱAbelard’sȱversesȱtoȱtheirȱson, Astrolabe,ȱ whichȱ suggestȱ thatȱ Abelardȱ himselfȱ hasȱ notȱ fullyȱ appropriatedȱ theȱ fullȱ potentialȱ ofȱ their exchange.ȱSeeȱStanleyȱLombardo’sȱtranslationȱinȱLevitan,ȱAbelardȱandȱHeloise,ȱ294–301;ȱhereȱ298ȱ(especially linesȱ375–84).

Chapterȱ5 MarcȱSaurette (CarletonȱUniversity,ȱOttawa,ȱCanada)

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

Itȱwasȱtheȱsummerȱofȱ1133.ȱInȱaȱgestureȱofȱfilialȱloyaltyȱtheȱabbotȱofȱCluny,ȱPeter theȱVenerableȱ(r.ȱ1122–1156),ȱwroteȱhisȱspiritualȱfatherȱPopeȱInnocentȱIIȱtoȱpromise whateverȱaidȱandȱsuccorȱheȱcouldȱprovide.ȱTheȱletter,ȱoneȱofȱPeter’sȱearliestȱtoȱhim, likelyȱreceivedȱaȱwarmȱwelcomeȱasȱInnocentȱwasȱembroiledȱinȱaȱstruggleȱwith AnacletusȱIIȱforȱcontrolȱofȱtheȱpapacyȱandȱofȱRome.1ȱInnocentȱhadȱbeenȱableȱto retakeȱpartsȱofȱtheȱpapalȱcityȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱ“thatȱfriendȱofȱjustice”ȱLotharȱIIIȱof Germany,ȱwhoȱwasȱmakingȱmotionsȱtoȱleaveȱafterȱbeingȱcrownedȱemperor.2ȱThe lossȱofȱhisȱtroopsȱwouldȱhaveȱleftȱInnocentȱunsupportedȱagainstȱAnacletus’sȱallies andȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱpledgedȱaidȱinȱresponseȱtoȱthisȱthreatȱinȱthreeȱforms:ȱhis ownȱ diplomaticȱ efforts,ȱ theȱ resourcesȱ ofȱ Cluniacȱ monasteriesȱ (theȱ ecclesia cluniacensis),ȱandȱtheȱassistanceȱofȱtheȱ“friendsȱofȱCluny.”ȱAboutȱthisȱlatterȱgroup heȱpromises: Quoscumqueȱ michiȱ etȱ Cluniacensiȱ aeclesiaeȱ qualibetȱ amicitiaȱ iunctos,ȱ regesȱ et principes,ȱ nobilesȱ etȱ ignobiles,ȱ magnosȱ etȱ pussilosȱ agnoui,ȱ hosȱ maiestatisȱ uestrae

1

2

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱmostȱofȱhisȱmonksȱwereȱstaunchȱsupportersȱofȱandȱatȱtimesȱpropagandists forȱInnocentȱII;ȱonȱthis,ȱseeȱMaryȱStroll,ȱTheȱJewishȱPope:ȱIdeologyȱandȱPoliticsȱinȱtheȱPapalȱSchismȱof 1130.ȱBrill’sȱStudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ8ȱ(LeidenȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱBrill,ȱ1987);ȱseeȱ21–44ȱforȱthe roleȱofȱClunyȱandȱxiii–xvii,ȱ1–9ȱforȱanȱexcellentȱsummaryȱofȱhistoriographyȱonȱtheȱschism. Theȱ Vitaȱ Norbertiȱ archiepiscopiȱ Madgeburgensisȱ givesȱ Lotharȱ aȱ longȱ listȱ ofȱ praiseworthyȱ titles: LotariusȱimperatorȱtimensȱDeum,ȱstrenuusȱbelliȱdoctor,ȱpraecipuusȱinȱarmis,ȱprovidusȱinȱconsilioȱterribilis inimicisȱ Dei,ȱ iusticiaeȱ socius,ȱ inimicusȱ iniusticiae;ȱ editedȱ inȱ theȱ Monumentaȱ Germaniaeȱ Historica, Scriptores,ȱvol.ȱ12,ȱed.ȱRogerȱWilmansȱ(Hanover:ȱHahn,ȱ1856),ȱ663–706;ȱhereȱ702.ȱThisȱanonymous textȱwasȱlikelyȱcomposedȱsoonȱafterȱNorbert’sȱdeathȱinȱ1134ȱbyȱanȱindividualȱwhoȱwasȱinvolved inȱtheȱRomanȱcampaign.

282

MarcȱSaurette pedibusȱ subdereȱ perȱ meȱ ipsumȱ uiseȱ perȱ alios,ȱ loquendo,ȱ scribendo,ȱ mandando, terrendo,ȱmulcendoȱproȱposseȱnonȱdistuli.3 [AsȱmuchȱasȱIȱcan,ȱwhetherȱbyȱtalkȱorȱtext,ȱbyȱcommand,ȱflatteryȱorȱthreat,ȱIȱdoȱnot hesitateȱtoȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱfeetȱofȱYourȱMajesty,ȱthroughȱmyselfȱandȱthroughȱothers, anyone—kingsȱorȱprinces,ȱnoblesȱorȱbaseȬborn,ȱtheȱgreatȱorȱtheȱmeek—whoȱisȱjoined toȱmyselfȱandȱtoȱtheȱecclesiaȱcluniacensisȱinȱanyȱsortȱofȱfriendship.]

Peterȱdoesȱnotȱelaborateȱonȱtheȱspecificsȱofȱthisȱaid,ȱbutȱheȱseemsȱtoȱsuggestȱthat aȱmultitudeȱofȱtheȱlaityȱwereȱreadyingȱthemselvesȱtoȱserveȱunderȱInnocentȱII.ȱ Oneȱmightȱwonderȱifȱthisȱwasȱanȱimpressiveȱsoundingȱbutȱultimatelyȱempty statementȱofȱPeter’sȱpersonalȱsupport.ȱInnocentȱ likelyȱwouldȱhaveȱunderstood Peter’sȱwordsȱasȱaȱclearȱreferenceȱtoȱanȱinformalȱnetworkȱofȱsecularȱelitesȱbound toȱPeterȱandȱtoȱClunyȱthroughȱtiesȱofȱpoliticalȱfriendshipȱ(amicitia).ȱLaterȱinȱthe letter,ȱ Peterȱ assumesȱ Innocent’sȱ familiarityȱ withȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ political friendshipȱbyȱequatingȱfriendsȱwithȱpoliticalȱalliesȱandȱhighlightingȱtheȱimportance ofȱ theirȱ loyaltyȱ inȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ enemiesȱ abound.ȱ Andȱ heȱ asksȱ Innocentȱ to rememberȱSolomon’sȱinjunction,ȱ“RecoliteȱquodȱaitȱSalomon:ȱAmiciȱsintȱtibiȱmulti” (Mayȱyouȱhaveȱmanyȱfriends:ȱEccl.ȱ6.5),ȱandȱthenȱrephrasesȱitȱsaying,ȱ“etȱideo numquamȱtalibusȱuosȱsatisȱabundareȱcredatis”ȱ(Doȱnotȱeverȱthinkȱthatȱyouȱcan haveȱenoughȱofȱthem)—makingȱtheȱcaseȱasȱifȱInnocentȱmightȱhesitateȱtoȱacceptȱhis offer.4ȱ Maybeȱ Innocentȱ didȱ hesitate.ȱ Hisȱ otherȱ greatȱ friend,ȱ Lothar,ȱ was abandoningȱ himȱ afterȱ receivingȱ anȱ imperialȱ coronationȱ andȱ jurisdictional concessions.ȱPerhapsȱInnocentȱwasȱanxiousȱaboutȱwhatȱmoreȱheȱwouldȱneedȱto concedeȱinȱorderȱtoȱgetȱtheȱsupportȱofȱtheseȱotherȱ‘friends’.ȱHeȱknewȱthatȱmonastic friendshipsȱdemandedȱreciprocityȱandȱperhapsȱtheȱfavorsȱheȱwouldȱoweȱwereȱtoo greatȱforȱhimȱtoȱreturn. Inȱthisȱstudy,ȱIȱwishȱtoȱexploreȱwhatȱPeterȱandȱInnocentȱwouldȱhaveȱthoughtȱwas beingȱ offeredȱ inȱ thisȱ letter.ȱ Whatȱ didȱ itȱ meanȱ toȱ beȱ friendsȱ withȱ Cluny?ȱ What purposeȱ didȱ theyȱ serve?ȱ Andȱ whoȱ benefittedȱ fromȱ thisȱ arrangement?ȱ As backgroundȱtoȱtheseȱquestions,ȱmyȱstudyȱwillȱfirstȱoutlineȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’s attitudeȱtowardȱsecularȱsocietyȱandȱhisȱgeneralȱthoughtsȱonȱfriendship,ȱshowing thatȱPeterȱwelcomedȱtheȱlaityȱintoȱtheȱcloisterȱandȱthatȱfriendship—aȱdiscourse usedȱ byȱ Peterȱ predominantlyȱ withȱ otherȱ monksȱ andȱ churchmen—wasȱ alsoȱ a meansȱtoȱassociateȱlayȱpeopleȱwithȱtheȱCluniacȱpath.ȱTheȱmutualȱbenefitsȱofȱthis formȱofȱassociationȱareȱillustratedȱthroughȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱPeter’sȱinteractionȱwith

3

4

Peterȱ theȱ Venerable,ȱ Theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable,ȱ ed.ȱ Gilesȱ Constable,ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ Harvard HistoricalȱStudies,ȱ78ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1967),ȱvol.ȱ1,ȱ132,ȱep.ȱ39.ȱThis workȱ isȱ hereafterȱ abbreviatedȱ asȱ Letters;ȱ allȱ referencesȱ willȱ beȱ toȱ theȱ firstȱ volumeȱ andȱ all translationsȱintoȱEnglishȱareȱmyȱown,ȱunlessȱotherwiseȱnoted. Ibid.,ȱ133.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

283

RaoulȱIȱofȱ Vermandois,ȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱofȱLéonȬCastille,ȱandȱRogerȱIIȱofȱSicily,ȱin whichȱoffersȱofȱfriendshipȱshowȱitsȱpotentialȱtoȱdefineȱandȱbindȱtogetherȱprince, kingȱandȱabbot.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱAristocraticȱSociety PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱclaimedȱaȱspecialȱpositionȱforȱtheȱmonasteryȱofȱClunyȱasȱa celestialȱ citadelȱ andȱ earthlyȱ paradiseȱ unsulliedȱ byȱ contactȱ withȱ theȱ mundane world.ȱDuringȱhisȱabbacy,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱcloistersȱofȱtheȱecclesiaȱcluniacensisȱwere neitherȱsealedȱtoȱtheȱoutsideȱworld,ȱnorȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱwealthȱofȱresourcesȱnobles controlled.5ȱPeterȱhimselfȱshowsȱanȱambivalenceȱtowardsȱaristocraticȱsociety,ȱboth appealingȱ toȱ itsȱ prestigeȱ andȱ alsoȱ decryingȱ itsȱ potentialȱ toȱ abuseȱ itsȱ power. UnderstandingȱhowȱPeterȱrelatedȱtoȱsecularȱmagnatesȱhelpsȱusȱtoȱappreciateȱhow heȱpositionsȱhimselfȱwithȱhisȱsecularȱfriends. EverȱsinceȱGeorgeȱDuby’sȱstudyȱofȱCluny’sȱplaceȱinȱtheȱMâconnais,ȱitȱhasȱbeen commonȱ toȱ speakȱ ofȱ theȱ tiesȱ ofȱ itsȱ monksȱ toȱ Burgundianȱ aristocrats.6ȱ Barbara Rosenweinȱ andȱ othersȱ haveȱ convincinglyȱ arguedȱ thatȱ reciprocalȱ exchanges betweenȱ “theȱ neighborsȱ ofȱ St.ȱ Peter”ȱ andȱ Cluniacȱ monksȱ madeȱ theȱ boundary betweenȱ theȱ monasticȱ andȱ secularȱ worldsȱ porousȱ fromȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ Cluny’s foundation.7ȱ Personalȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ abbots,ȱ monksȱ andȱ layȱ nobles determinedȱ howȱ cloisterȱ andȱ countrysideȱ relatedȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ untilȱ the

5

6

7

See,forȱexample,ȱtheȱglorificationȱofȱClunyȱinȱPeter’sȱDeȱmiraculis,ȱbookȱI,ȱchapterȱ9;ȱeditedȱasȱPetri Cluniacensisȱ abbatis,ȱ Deȱ miraculisȱ libriȱ duo,ȱ ed.ȱ Dominiqueȱ Bouthillier.ȱ Corpusȱ Christianorum ContinuatioȱMedievalis,ȱ83ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ1988). GeorgeȱDuby,ȱLaȱSociétéȱauxȱXIeȱetȱXIIeȱsièclesȱdansȱlaȱrégionȱmâconnaise.ȱBibliothèqueȱgénéraleȱde l’EcoleȱdesȱHautesȱEtudes,ȱ35ȱ(Paris:ȱA.ȱColin,ȱ1953). Forȱ theȱ earlyȱ historyȱ ofȱ Cluny’sȱ implantationȱ withinȱ theȱ aristocracy,ȱ seeȱ Barbaraȱ Rosenwein, RhinocerosȱBound:ȱClunyȱinȱtheȱTenthȱCentury.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱof PennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱandȱeadem,ȱToȱbeȱtheȱNeighborȱofȱSt.ȱPeter:ȱTheȱSocialȱMeaningȱofȱCluny’s Property:ȱ 909–1049ȱ (Ithaca,ȱ NY,ȱ andȱ London:ȱ Cornellȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1989).ȱ Rosenwein’s conclusionsȱareȱbuttressedȱinȱtheȱexhaustiveȱaccountȱofȱOdoȱofȱCluny’sȱlifeȱandȱideasȱbyȱIsabelle Rosé,ȱConstruireȱuneȱsociétéȱseigneuriale:ȱItinéraireȱetȱecclésiologieȱdeȱl’abbéȱOdonȱdeȱClunyȱ(finȱduȱIXe –ȱmilieuȱduȱXeȱsiècle,ȱCollectionȱd’étudesȱmédiévalesȱdeȱNice,ȱ8ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2008).ȱForȱthe twelfthȱandȱthirteenthȱcenturies,ȱseeȱPhilippeȱRacinet,ȱ“L’ExpansionȱdeȱClunyȱsousȱHuguesȱ1er deȱSemur,”ȱȱLeȱGouvernementȱd’HuguesȱdeȱSemurȱàȱCluny.ȱActesȱduȱColloqueȱscientifiqueȱinternational (Cluny,ȱseptembreȱ1988)ȱ(Macon:ȱBuguetȬComptour,ȱ1990):ȱ93–131,ȱandȱ“LeȱPrieuréȱclunisien,ȱune composanteȱ essentialeȱ duȱ mondeȱ aristocratiqueȱ (xie–ȱ xiiieȱ siècle)”,ȱ Dieȱ Cluniazenserȱ inȱ ihrem politischȬsozialenȱUmfeld,ȱed.ȱGilesȱConstable,ȱGertȱMelville,ȱandȱJörgȱOberst.ȱVitaȱRegularis,ȱ7 (Münster:ȱLitȱVerlag,ȱ1998):ȱ189–212.ȱDiderȱMéhuȱprovidesȱanȱexhaustiveȱaccountȱofȱtheȱrelations ofȱtheȱmonksȱandȱburgersȱofȱClunyȱinȱPaixȱetȱcommunautésȱautourȱdeȱl’abbayeȱdeȱClunyȱ(Xe–XVe siècles).ȱCollectionȱd’histoireȱetȱd’archéologieȱmédiévales,ȱ9ȱ(Lyon:ȱPressesȱUniversitairesȱdeȱLyon, 2001).

284

MarcȱSaurette

thirteenthȬcentury.8ȱAbbotsȱwereȱchosenȱfromȱtheȱgreatȱaristocraticȱfamiliesȱlinked toȱCluny,ȱandȱtheȱmonksȱpredominantlyȱcameȱfromȱtheȱnobleȱclass.9ȱ Peter’sȱbackgroundȱandȱtheȱpublicȱimageȱheȱcultivatedȱsuggestȱthatȱheȱwasȱvery typicalȱ inȱ thisȱ respect.ȱ Hisȱ monksȱ widelyȱ acknowledgedȱ thatȱ Peterȱ cameȱ from Cluny’sȱaristocraticȱnetworkȱandȱhighlightedȱthisȱaspectȱwhenȱperpetuatingȱhis reputationȱ and,ȱ later,ȱ hisȱ memory.ȱ Aȱ panegyricȱ poemȱ writtenȱ andȱ circulated duringȱ hisȱ lifetime,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ asksȱ Cluniacȱ monksȱ toȱ revelȱ inȱ Peter’sȱ noble heritage: Plaudite,ȱfelices,ȱhilarescite,ȱCluniacenses, RedditusȱestȱvobisȱmoribusȱalterȱHugo. Nobilisȱilleȱfuit,ȱmagnisqueȱparentibusȱortus: Huncȱquoqueȱpraeclarumȱredditȱorigoȱpatrum. Illeȱsuperȱcunctos,ȱquosȱexcolitȱacȱveneratur GalliaȱLugduni,ȱnobilitateȱnitet. HuncȱLatiaeȱgentesȱregumȱdeȱstirpeȱpotentes, Arverniȱpopuliȱprogenuereȱduces.10 [CelebrateȱandȱrejoiceȱhappyȱCluniacs forȱanotherȱHughȱinȱhisȱmoresȱwasȱgivenȱtoȱyou. Hughȱwasȱnobleȱandȱbornȱofȱpowerfulȱparents; TheȱancestryȱofȱPeter’sȱforefathersȱalsoȱrendersȱhimȱpreeminent. Hugh,ȱwhomȱGaulȱworshipedȱandȱveneratedȱaboveȱall, shinesȱwithȱnobilityȱfromȱLyons. TheȱdukesȱofȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱAuvergne, thatȱpowerfulȱnationȱbornȱofȱtheȱkingsȱofȱRome,ȱbegatȱPeter.]

Theȱauthor,ȱPeterȱofȱPoitiersȱ(whoȱwouldȱlaterȱactȱasȱsecretaryȱandȱarchivistȱforȱhis abbot),ȱidentifiesȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱwithȱaȱpastȱCluniacȱabbot,ȱHughȱofȱSemur (†ȱ1109),ȱwhoseȱaristocraticȱoriginsȱandȱconnectionȱtoȱtheȱCapetianȱdynastyȱwere wellȱpublicizedȱinȱaȱseriesȱofȱvitaeȱwrittenȱafterȱhisȱcanonizationȱinȱ1120.11ȱPeterȱthe Venerable,ȱlikewise,ȱisȱpresentedȱasȱanȱaristocratȱcomingȱfromȱtheȱlineȱofȱkings. Theȱ authorȱ glossesȱ over,ȱ however,ȱ thatȱ hisȱ family,ȱ theȱ Montboissiers,ȱ wereȱ of relativelyȱsecondaryȱstatureȱamongȱtheȱnoblesȱofȱAuvergne.12ȱTheȱclaimȱtoȱroyal

8 9

10

11

12

Racinet,ȱ“LeȱPrieuréȱclunisien,”ȱȱ210–11. Charlesȱ deȱ Miramon,ȱ “Embrasserȱ l’étatȱ monastiqueȱ àȱ l’âgeȱ adulteȱ (1050–1200).ȱ Étudeȱ surȱ la conversionȱtardive,”ȱAnnales:ȱHistoire,ȱSciencesȱSocialesȱ54.4ȱ(1999):ȱ825–49;ȱhereȱ830–32. PeterȱofȱPoitiers,ȱPanegyricus,ȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱȱ(Paris:ȱGarnier,ȱ1844–1864),ȱvol.ȱ189,ȱcol.ȱ48–57;ȱhere 48,ȱ1–7. Adriaanȱ H.ȱ Bredero,ȱ “Laȱ Canonisationȱ deȱ Saintȱ Huguesȱ etȱ celleȱ deȱ sesȱ devanciers,”ȱ Le Gouvernementȱd’HughesȱdeȱSemur,ȱ154,ȱ168;ȱseeȱalsoȱFrankȱBarlow,ȱ“TheȱCanonizationȱandȱtheȱEarly LivesȱofȱHughȱI,ȱAbbotȱofȱCluny,”ȱAnalectaȱBollandianaȱ98ȱ(1980):ȱ297–334. Constableȱ notesȱ thatȱ theȱ Montboissiersȱ ofȱ Peter’sȱ generation,ȱ however,ȱ becameȱ theȱ premier ecclesiasticalȱfamilyȱofȱsouthernȱBurgundy,ȱLyonnaisȱandȱAuvergne—aȱkeyȱsourceȱofȱinfluence

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

285

ancestry,ȱitȱseems,ȱmarksȱanȱinterestȱbyȱtheȱauthorȱinȱplayingȱupȱPeter’sȱnobility; theȱ comparisonȱ toȱ Hughȱ buttressesȱ byȱ associationȱ Peter’sȱ weakȱ claimsȱ toȱ preȬ eminence.ȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ himselfȱ mustȱ haveȱ approvedȱ ofȱ this characterization,ȱsinceȱthisȱdescriptionȱopensȱaȱpoemȱwhichȱtheȱabbotȱapproved andȱlaterȱdefended.13ȱThisȱcollusionȱofȱtheȱtwoȱPetersȱsuggestsȱthatȱfamilyȱand nobleȱstatureȱwereȱkeyȱpartsȱofȱhisȱpublicȱidentity. TheȱChronicleȱofȱGeoffreyȱofȱVigeois,ȱHughȱofȱPoitiers’ȱChronicleȱofȱVézelayȱand theȱlateȬmedievalȱChroniconȱcluniacenseȱallȱhighlightȱtheȱaristocraticȱoriginsȱofȱPeter theȱVenerableȱinȱtheirȱbriefȱcommentsȱonȱhim,ȱsuggestingȱthatȱtheȱinformationȱwas widelyȱknownȱandȱrepeated,ȱbutȱchiefȱamongȱtheȱtextsȱcommemoratingȱPeter’s aristocraticȱbackgroundȱisȱtheȱVitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱwrittenȱduringȱtheȱabbacyȱof Stephenȱ ofȱ Boulogneȱ (r.ȱ 1161–73)ȱ byȱ aȱ Cluniacȱ monkȱ Raoul.ȱ Thisȱ textȱ outlines Peter’sȱlifeȱandȱprovidesȱaȱtraditionalȱcatalogueȱofȱhagiographicȱfeaturesȱ(e.g.,ȱhis virtues,ȱhisȱmiracles).ȱSprinkledȱwithinȱareȱsubtleȱdefensesȱofȱPeter’sȱabbacy—the legitimacyȱofȱhisȱelection,ȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱhisȱsupportȱforȱInnocentȱII,ȱtheȱutility ofȱhisȱmonasticȱreforms—andȱtheȱtextȱalsoȱbringsȱupȱPeter’sȱcontactȱwithȱsecular societyȱseveralȱtimes.ȱItȱhighlightsȱespeciallyȱhowȱheȱwasȱbelovedȱbyȱall,ȱsaying “Huncȱimperatores,ȱregesȱetȱprincipesȱorbisȱpioȱaffectuȱamabant,ȱvenerabanturȱet colebant,ȱetȱquasiȱpatriȱetȱdominoȱadhaerebant”ȱ(Emperors,ȱkingsȱandȱprincesȱof theȱ worldȱ lovedȱ Peterȱ withȱ piousȱ affection,ȱ veneratedȱ andȱ respectedȱ him,ȱ and cleavedȱtoȱhimȱasȱtheyȱwouldȱtoȱaȱlordȱandȱfather).14ȱ Asȱ theȱ Vitaȱ Petriȱ portraysȱ it,ȱ Peterȱ rankedȱ asȱ oneȱ ofȱ theseȱ princes.ȱ Raoul bookendsȱhisȱdescriptionȱofȱPeter’sȱsaintlyȱactsȱwithȱanȱaccountȱofȱhisȱnobleȱbirth atȱtheȱbeginningȱandȱaȱrecordȱofȱhisȱextendedȱfamilyȱinȱtheȱend.ȱTheȱfirstȱbitsȱof informationȱ aboutȱ Peterȱ areȱ theȱ namesȱ ofȱ hisȱ parents,ȱ Mauriceȱ andȱ Raingard, whomȱRaoulȱidentifiesȱvaguelyȱasȱnoblesȱofȱAuvergneȱ(nowȱidentifiedȱbyȱGiles Constableȱ asȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Montboissierȱ family).15ȱ Theȱ advantagesȱ ofȱ this

13

14 15

forȱexpandingȱtheȱfamily’sȱnobleȱpowerȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury;ȱLetters,ȱ2,ȱ234. Itȱisȱevidentȱthatȱthisȱpoemȱcirculatedȱwithȱsomeȱreadership,ȱbecauseȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱfeltȱit necessaryȱtoȱwriteȱaȱdefenseȱofȱit,ȱAdversusȱcalumniatoresȱcarminumȱsuiȱPetriȱPictaviensisȱdefensioȱ(PL 189,ȱcol.ȱ1005–ȱ17)ȱafterȱitsȱpoorȱstyleȱwonȱsufficientȱcriticism.ȱTheȱdedicationȱofȱtheȱPanegyricus toȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ andȱ theȱ sameȱ Peter’sȱ defenseȱ ofȱ theȱ poemȱ ȱ suggestȱ stronglyȱ thatȱ this depictionȱconformedȱtoȱaȱpublicȱimageȱofȱwhichȱtheȱabbotȱapproved.ȱTheseȱtwoȱworksȱdeserve furtherȱstudy—noȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱtwoȱhasȱappearedȱsinceȱJeanȱLeclercq’sȱbriefȱcommentsȱonȱthem inȱhisȱPierreȱleȱVénerable.ȱFiguresȱMonastiquesȱ(Paris:ȱÉditionsȱdeȱFontenelle,ȱ1946). RaoulȱdeȱSully,ȱVitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱPLȱ189,ȱcol.ȱ15–ȱ27;ȱhereȱcol.ȱ19C. ForȱdetailedȱinformationȱonȱPeter’sȱfamily,ȱseeȱLetters,ȱ2,ȱ233–35;ȱConstable’sȱanalysisȱisȱrepeated andȱupdatedȱbyȱDominiqueȱIognaȬPrat,ȱOrdonnerȱetȱexclure:ȱClunyȱetȱlaȱsociétéȱchrétienneȱfaceȱà l’hérésie,ȱauȱjudaïsmeȱetȱàȱl’islam,ȱ1000–1500ȱ(Paris:ȱAubier,ȱ1998),ȱtrans.ȱbyȱGrahamȱRobertȱEdwards, Orderȱ andȱ Exclusion:ȱ Clunyȱ andȱ Christendomȱ Faceȱ Heresy,ȱ Judaism,ȱ andȱ Islamȱ (1000—1150). ConjunctionsȱofȱReligionȱandȱPowerȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱPastȱ(Ithaca,ȱNY:ȱCornellȱUniversityȱPress, 2003),ȱ99–100.

286

MarcȱSaurette

ancestryȱareȱhighlightedȱimmediatelyȱbyȱtheȱauthor.ȱRaoulȱdescribesȱPeterȱasȱbeing speciallyȱ chosenȱ byȱ St.ȱ Peterȱ evenȱ beforeȱ hisȱ birth—somethingȱ revealedȱ toȱ his parentsȱbyȱtheȱaforementionedȱAbbotȱHugh.ȱWhileȱpregnant,ȱRaingardȱhadȱsought theȱblessingȱofȱtheȱAbbotȱHughȱofȱSemur,ȱwhoȱtoldȱherȱthatȱtheȱbabyȱwasȱintended forȱtheȱCluniacȱcloister.16ȱThatȱsheȱwasȱableȱandȱwillingȱtoȱhaveȱaccessȱtoȱHugh indicatesȱtoȱtheȱaudienceȱthatȱherȱfamilyȱhadȱtiesȱtoȱtheȱCluniacȱorbitȱandȱsheȱwas importantȱenoughȱtoȱmeritȱtheȱpersonalȱattentionȱofȱitsȱabbot.ȱTheȱfinalȱchapterȱof theȱvitaȱmakesȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱfamilyȱevenȱmoreȱexplicit,ȱnotingȱthatȱhisȱgreatȬ grandfatherȱhadȱfoundedȱaȱCluniacȱdependency,ȱhisȱmotherȱandȱfatherȱbothȱended theirȱlivesȱinȱCluniacȱhousesȱandȱhisȱbrothersȱwereȱimportantȱecclesiasticalȱand secularȱ lords.17ȱ Butȱ whileȱ theȱ Vitaȱ Petriȱ mayȱ haveȱ underscoredȱ Peterȱ the Venerable’sȱ aristocraticȱ background,ȱ itȱ certainlyȱ didȱ notȱ suggestȱ thatȱ heȱ was beholdenȱtoȱhisȱkinȱorȱhisȱclassȱinȱanyȱway. GregoryȱSmith’sȱstudyȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱconceptȱofȱviolenceȱindicatesȱthat Peterȱwasȱveryȱwaryȱaboutȱtheȱaristocracy’sȱnegativeȱpotential.18ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱthe pictureȱofȱaȱsmoothȱexchangeȱbetweenȱmonasteryȱandȱnobilityȱputȱforthȱbyȱmany historiansȱofȱCluny,ȱSmithȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱnobilityȱwasȱaȱgroupȱwhoseȱinfluence andȱcoerciveȱforceȱPeterȱdisparaged.ȱHeȱrepeatedlyȱdescribesȱtheirȱbehaviorȱtoȱbe baseȱandȱviolent,ȱasȱinȱaȱletterȱ(ca.ȱ1146)ȱtoȱPopeȱEugeniusȱIII: Impugnatȱassidueȱalterȱalterum,ȱacuuntȱpeneȱuniversiȱinȱmutuamȱȱcaedemȱgladiolus, conspiratȱ fraterȱ inȱ fratrisȱ interitum,ȱ castrorumȱ domini,ȱ inferiorisȱ nominisȱ milites, burgenses,ȱrusticiȱpopuli,ȱlaicorumȱomneȱgenus,ȱdeȱilloȱclamant,ȱquodȱprophetaȱdei olimȱpessimoȱregiȱIsraelȱlocutusȱest:ȱVidiȱuniuersumȱIsraelȱdispersumȱinȱmontibus quasiȱouesȱnonȱhabentesȱpastorem.19 [Oneȱisȱconstantlyȱfightingȱagainstȱanother;ȱnearlyȱallȱofȱthemȱsharpenȱtheirȱswordsȱfor mutualȱ slaughter;ȱ brotherȱ conspiresȱ forȱ theȱ deathȱ ofȱ aȱ brother,ȱ allȱ membersȱ ofȱ the laity—whetherȱ lordsȱ ofȱ castles,ȱ knightsȱ ofȱ lesserȱ distinction,ȱ burgers,ȱ or peasants—lamentȱwhatȱtheȱprophetȱofȱGodȱonceȱsaidȱtoȱanȱevilȱkingȱofȱIsrael:ȱ“Iȱsaw allȱIsraelȱscatteredȱinȱtheȱmountainsȱlikeȱsheepȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱshepherd”.]

Thisȱletterȱ(likeȱmanyȱothers)ȱdwellsȱonȱaȱsingleȱtheme:ȱtheȱcombativeȱandȱdivisive natureȱofȱtheȱaristocracyȱmustȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱobeyȱtheȱpacifyingȱauthorityȱofȱthe Church.ȱWhatȱtheȱ“bad”ȱaristocracyȱlackedȱwasȱtheȱmutualȱloveȱandȱcharityȱ(so abundantȱamongȱmonks!)ȱnecessaryȱtoȱuniteȱChristiansȱandȱChristendom.ȱThe solutionȱseemedȱclearȱtoȱPeter.ȱLayȱmagnatesȱneededȱtoȱbeȱdrawnȱevenȱcloserȱinto theȱbosomȱofȱClunyȱtoȱbeȱtaughtȱtoȱpracticeȱitsȱcaritas.

16 17 18

19

RaoulȱdeȱSully,ȱVitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱcol.ȱ17B. Ibid.,ȱcol.ȱ28AB. GregoryȱA.ȱSmith,ȱ“Sineȱrege,ȱSineȱprincipe:ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱonȱViolenceȱinȱTwelfthȬCentury Burgundy,”ȱSpeculumȱ77ȱ(2002):ȱ1–33. Letters,ȱȱ406,ȱep.ȱ171;ȱthisȱtranslationȱmodifiesȱtheȱoneȱofferedȱbyȱSmith,ȱ“Sineȱrege,”ȱȱ15.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

287

Asȱhisȱmonksȱexpected,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱcarefullyȱfulfilledȱhisȱabbatialȱduty toȱmediateȱtheȱinteractionȱofȱtheȱworldȱinsideȱandȱoutsideȱtheȱcloister.20ȱDominique IognaȬPratȱhasȱconvincinglyȱarguedȱthatȱheȱengagedȱevenȱmoreȱdirectlyȱwithȱthe laityȱ thanȱ typicalȱ forȱ previousȱ abbots.ȱ Traditionallyȱ Cluniacȱ ideologyȱ was disseminatedȱtoȱsecularȱsocietyȱthroughȱtheȱgiftȬexchangeȱcycle,ȱwhichȱdrewȱinȱnot onlyȱtheȱdonor,ȱbutȱalsoȱhisȱorȱherȱwiderȱsocialȱnetwork.ȱAȱnobleȱwhoȱentered Clunyȱasȱaȱmonk,ȱforȱexample,ȱwouldȱoftenȱmakeȱaȱdonationȱofȱlandȱatȱtheȱtime ofȱ hisȱ conversion,ȱ whichȱ wouldȱ beȱ agreedȱ toȱ byȱ hisȱ wifeȱ andȱ kin,ȱ wouldȱ be witnessedȱ byȱ hisȱ friendsȱ andȱ couldȱ involveȱ theȱ transferȱ ofȱ serfsȱ toȱ Cluniac authority.21ȱSuchȱexchangesȱwereȱoftenȱrecordedȱinȱwrittenȱcharters,ȱwhichȱwere bothȱ aȱ legalisticȱ recordȱ ofȱ theȱ donationȱ andȱ aȱ writtenȱ statementȱ ofȱ Cluniac eschatologyȱ addressedȱ toȱ aȱ layȱ audience.ȱ Asȱ Sébastienȱ Barretȱ hasȱ shown,ȱ this writtenȱrecordȱwasȱlikelyȱonlyȱoneȱaspectȱofȱaȱlargerȱoralȱandȱritualȱdisplayȱand suchȱoccasionsȱofȱgiftȬgivingȱorȱconversionȱprovidedȱanȱimportantȱopportunityȱfor Cluniacsȱtoȱinvolveȱaȱsegmentȱofȱsecularȱsocietyȱoutsideȱtheirȱwalls.22ȱ SuchȱexchangesȱcontinuedȱduringȱPeter’sȱabbacyȱandȱwereȱsupplementedȱby additionalȱ measures.23ȱ Inȱ IognaȬPrat’sȱ judgment,ȱ Peterȱ advancedȱ aȱ traditional CluniacȱconcernȱwithȱprovidingȱmonasticȱhospitalityȱtoȱanȱeverȬincreasingȱnumber ofȱvisitors.ȱThisȱinfluxȱofȱoutsidersȱwouldȱhaveȱprovidedȱPeterȱandȱhisȱmonksȱwith continuingȱ opportunitiesȱ toȱ meetȱ withȱ layȱ persons.ȱ Peterȱ alsoȱ intervenedȱ with otherȱ churchmen,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ pope,ȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ aȱ growingȱ numberȱ ofȱ lay benefactors.ȱ Thisȱ privilegeȱ wasȱ alsoȱ grantedȱ toȱ theȱ familiesȱ ofȱ deceased benefactors,ȱsinceȱdeathȱdidȱnotȱseverȱaȱconnectionȱwithȱCluny.24

20

21 22

23

24

SeeȱAdalbertȱdeȱVogüé,ȱLaȱcommunautéȱetȱl’abbéȱdansȱlaȱrègleȱdeȱsaintȱBenoitȱ(Paris:ȱDesclée,ȱDe Brouwer,ȱ1961),ȱȱtrans.ȱbyȱCharlesȱPhilippiȱandȱEthelȱRaeȱPerkinsȱasȱCommunityȱandȱAbbotȱinȱthe RuleȱofȱSt.ȱBenedict.ȱCistercianȱStudies,ȱ5,ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ(Kalamazoo:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1979–1985). IognaȬPrat,ȱOrderȱandȱExclusion,ȱ88–89. SébastienȱBarret,ȱ“Élémentsȱd’institutionnalitéȱdansȱlesȱactesȱoriginauxȱduȱ‘fondsȱdeȱCluny’ȱdeȱla Bibliothèqueȱ nationaleȱ deȱ Franceȱ (Xe–XIeȱ siècles)”,ȱ Dieȱ Bettelordenȱ imȱ Aufbau:ȱ Beiträgeȱ zu InstitutionalisierungsprozessenȱimȱmittelalterlichenȱReligiosentum,ȱed.ȱGertȱMelvilleȱandȱJörgȱOberste, VitaȱRegularis,ȱ11ȱ(Münster,ȱHamburg,ȱandȱLondon:ȱLit.ȱVerlag,ȱ1999),ȱȱ557–601.ȱ Theȱ recordsȱ ofȱ theȱ exchangesȱ duringȱ Peter’sȱ abbacyȱ areȱ archivedȱ inȱ Cluny’sȱ cartularies.ȱ For chartersȱ datingȱ toȱ Peter’sȱ abbacy,ȱ seeȱ Recueilȱ desȱ chartesȱ deȱ l’abbayeȱ deȱ Cluny,ȱ ed.ȱ Bernardȱ and Alexandreȱ Bruel.ȱ Collectionȱ deȱ documentsȱ inéditsȱ surȱ l’histoireȱ deȱ Franceȱ –ȱ Premièreȱ série. Histoireȱ politique,ȱ 6ȱ volsȱ (Paris:ȱ Imprimerieȱ nationale,ȱ 1876–1903;ȱ Frankfurtȱ a.ȱ M.:ȱ MinervaȬ GmbH,ȱ1974),ȱvol.ȱ5,ȱ310–538.ȱTheseȱchartersȱandȱotherȱBurgundianȱchartersȱcanȱnowȱbeȱsearched orȱdownloadedȱthroughȱtheȱChartaeȱBurgundiaeȱMediiȱAeviȱproject,ȱat: http://www.artehis.eu/spip.php?article629&var_mode=calculȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010). KingȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱofȱLéonȬCastille,ȱdiscussedȱbelow,ȱprovidesȱanȱexampleȱofȱcrossȬgenerational links.ȱForȱaȱparticularlyȱghoulishȱexampleȱofȱtheȱperceivedȱassociationȱbetweenȱClunyȱandȱdonor afterȱdeath,ȱseeȱRaoulȱdeȱSully’sȱstoryȱ(VitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱcol.ȱ25C)ȱaboutȱanȱunnamedȱEnglish knightȱwhoȱwasȱvisitedȱbyȱtheȱspecterȱofȱKingȱHenryȱofȱEngland.ȱAsȱRaoulȱtellsȱit,ȱHenryȱasked theȱknightȱtoȱwarnȱhisȱ“friendȱandȱfather,ȱPeter”ȱthatȱtheȱmonksȱofȱSt.ȱPancrasȱshouldȱnotȱcease

288

MarcȱSaurette

Underȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable,ȱ Clunyȱ activelyȱ soughtȱ toȱ engageȱ outwardly.ȱ A feelingȱofȱresponsibilityȱforȱtheȱwholeȱChristianȱworldȱveryȱmuchȱunderliesȱPeter theȱVenerable’sȱidealȱofȱauthorship,ȱwhichȱallowedȱhimȱtoȱbeȱaȱ“silentȱpreacher” withoutȱleavingȱtheȱcloister.25ȱIognaȬPratȱseesȱPeter’sȱtheologicalȱtreatisesȱasȱthe codificationȱofȱaȱdesireȱtoȱconsolidateȱChristianȱorthodoxyȱ(andȱthusȱChristendom) inȱaȱCluniacȱworldȬviewȱdemonizingȱtheȱJewish,ȱIslamicȱandȱhereticalȱ‘Others’. Whileȱthisȱargumentȱhasȱbeenȱcriticizedȱsinceȱtheȱmanuscriptsȱofȱhisȱtreatisesȱshow littleȱevidenceȱforȱcirculatingȱoutsideȱtheȱCluniacȱorbit,ȱIognaȬPratȱpersuasively makesȱtheȱcaseȱthatȱitȱwasȱPeter’sȱintention.26ȱ GillianȱKnightȱsuggestsȱthatȱPeter’sȱlettersȱ(andȱlaterȱhisȱletterȱcollection)ȱalso fulfillȱthisȱpreachingȱmission—spreadingȱhisȱCluniacȱmessageȱthroughȱtheȱlong distanceȱ friendshipȱ networksȱ thatȱ Peterȱ cultivated.27ȱ Drawingȱ onȱ Julian Haseldine’sȱcontentionȱthatȱamicitiaȱallowedȱdisagreementsȱtoȱbeȱbroachedȱand discussedȱ byȱ monks,ȱ Knightȱ seesȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ keyȱ strategyȱ ofȱ Peterȱ the Venerable’sȱdiplomaticȱefforts.28ȱWithȱtheȱpapalȱcourt,ȱwithȱrivalȱabbots,ȱandȱwith recalcitrantȱbishops,ȱPeterȱappealedȱtoȱfriendshipȱtoȱresolveȱconflict. ThoughȱKnight’sȱanalysisȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱPeter’sȱcommunicationȱwithȱecclesiastical andȱmonasticȱfigures,ȱherȱconclusionȱseemsȱtoȱholdȱtrueȱforȱsecularȱsocietyȱasȱwell. OfȱPeter’sȱseventyȱcorrespondentsȱ(asȱextantȱinȱhisȱletterȱcollection),ȱthirteenȱare notȱchurchmen,ȱrangingȱinȱstatusȱfromȱlawyersȱtoȱkings.ȱManyȱlettersȱallowed Peterȱtoȱspeakȱdirectlyȱtoȱnoblesȱoutsideȱhisȱnormalȱsphereȱofȱinfluence,ȱsuchȱasȱthe KingȱofȱJerusalemȱ(ep.ȱ82)ȱorȱJohnȱComnenus,ȱtheȱByzantineȱEmperorȱ(ep.ȱ75). Othersȱsimplyȱreinforcedȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱhadȱalreadyȱbeenȱestablished,ȱsuch asȱhisȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱtheȱknightȱHughȱCatulaȱorȱtheȱlawyerȱDulcian,ȱwhom PeterȱremindedȱaboutȱtheirȱunfulfilledȱvowsȱtoȱenterȱCluny.ȱManyȱmoreȱlettersȱto layȱindividualsȱwereȱlikelyȱwritten,ȱbutȱhaveȱsinceȱbeenȱlost.29ȱ

25

26

27

28

29

fromȱsayingȱprayersȱforȱhisȱsoul.ȱPeterȱdidȱsoȱandȱwasȱlaterȱvisitedȱbyȱHenry’sȱghostȱwhoȱthanked himȱforȱhisȱintercession. Dominiqueȱ IognaȬPrat,ȱ “L’Impossibleȱ silence.ȱ Pierreȱ leȱ Vénérable,ȱ neuvièmeȱ abbéȱ deȱ Cluny (1122–1156),ȱetȱlaȱpastoraleȱduȱlivre,”ȱLaȱParoleȱduȱprédicateurȱ(Ve–XVeȱsiècle),ȱed.ȱR.ȱM.ȱDessi,ȱand M.ȱLauwers.ȱCentreȱd’étudesȱmédiévalesȱdeȱNice,ȱ1ȱ(Nice:ȱZ’éditions,ȱ1997),ȱ111–52;ȱheȱalsoȱmakes thisȱclaimȱthroughoutȱOrderȱandȱExclusion. SeeȱforȱexampleȱtheȱreviewsȱinȱaȱspecialȱvolumeȱofȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱinȱparticularȱIsabelle Cochelin’sȱ“OrdersȱandȱExclusions,”ȱEarlyȱMedievalȱEuropeȱ13.4ȱ(2005):ȱ395–403;ȱhereȱ397–98. GillianȱKnight,ȱ“UsesȱandȱAbusesȱofȱamicitia:ȱTheȱCorrespondenceȱbetweenȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable andȱHatoȱofȱTroyes,”ȱReadingȱMedievalȱStudiesȱ23ȱ(1997):ȱ35–67;ȱhereȱ36–37,ȱandȱTheȱCorrespondence betweenȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux:ȱAȱSemanticȱandȱStructuralȱAnalysis.ȱChurch, FaithȱandȱCultureȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱWestȱ(AldershotȱandȱBurlington:ȱAshgate,ȱ2002ȱ),ȱ1–25. SeeȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱRivalry:ȱtheȱRoleȱofȱAmicitiaȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱMonastic Relations,”ȱJournalȱofȱEcclesiasticalȱHistoryȱ44.3ȱ(1993):ȱ390–414;ȱhereȱȱ392–94. Letters,ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱ13–15.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

289

Asȱ Iȱ argueȱ below,ȱ friendshipȱ isȱ oftenȱ referencedȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ diplomatic exchangesȱ containedȱ inȱ theseȱ letters.ȱ Peter’sȱ lettersȱ toȱ layȱ personsȱ usedȱ the discourseȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱbasisȱofȱhisȱepistolaryȱrelationships—whetherȱPeter hadȱmetȱhisȱcorrespondentsȱorȱnot.ȱTheyȱshowȱthatȱPeterȱcountedȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmost influentialȱkingsȱandȱnoblesȱofȱEuropeȱasȱhisȱsoȬcalledȱ‘friends,’ȱwhomȱheȱstrove toȱ drawȱ intoȱ strongerȱ associationȱ withȱ Cluny.ȱ Beforeȱ turningȱ toȱ theseȱ letters, however,ȱ itȱ isȱ necessaryȱ toȱ treatȱ brieflyȱ whatȱ ‘friendship’ȱ meantȱ toȱ Peterȱ the Venerable.

Peter’sȱModelsȱofȱFriendship Accordingȱtoȱhisȱvita,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱwasȱbelovedȱtoȱallȱhisȱmonksȱandȱ“won theȱaffectionȱofȱall”ȱ(omniumȱaffectusȱinȱseȱprovocaret).30ȱTheȱauthorȱfurtherȱnotes, “Dilegebatȱnamqueȱfratresȱintimoȱcordisȱfervore,ȱetȱunumqumqueȱquasiȱseȱipsum” (Heȱlovedȱtheȱbrothersȱwithȱtheȱinnermostȱfervorȱofȱhisȱheartȱandȱtreatedȱthemȱas ifȱ hisȱ veryȱ self).31ȱ Ifȱ weȱ takeȱ Peter’sȱ hagiographerȱ atȱ hisȱ word,ȱ manyȱ ofȱ his relationshipsȱwithȱhisȱmonksȱcouldȱbeȱconsideredȱ friendships—inȱtheȱmodern senseȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱprivateȱemotionalȱbondȱbetweenȱindividuals.ȱUnlikeȱthe modernȱvariety,ȱhowever,ȱfriendshipsȱamongȱmedievalȱaristocratsȱwereȱoftenȱused asȱ publicȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ alliance,ȱ orȱ demonstrationsȱ ofȱ membershipȱ inȱ aȱ “coȬ operativeȱunion”.32ȱLordsȱwouldȱroutinelyȱenterȱintoȱswornȱfriendshipsȱthatȱwere madeȱ concreteȱ throughȱ ritualsȱ or,ȱ beginningȱ inȱ theȱ twelfthȱ century,ȱ through writtenȱcontracts.ȱTheseȱrelationshipsȱwereȱintendedȱtoȱensureȱmutualȱsupportȱand toȱ helpȱ realizeȱ commonȱ goalsȱ inȱ aȱ societyȱ lackingȱ theȱ complexȱ networkȱ of institutionsȱthatȱpermeatesȱtheȱpoliticalȱcultureȱofȱcurrentȱWesternȱsociety. Whileȱ theȱ equationȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ allianceȱ wasȱ atȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ medieval friendshipȱ practices,ȱ aȱ longȱ historyȱ ofȱ relatedȱ customsȱ andȱ ideasȱ hadȱ raised friendshipȱ intoȱ aȱ secularȱ andȱ religiousȱ idealȱ byȱ theȱ twelfthȱ centuryȱ among Europe’sȱlayȱandȱclericalȱelites.ȱClassicalȱconceptionsȱofȱcivicȱvirtueȱandȱChristian modelsȱofȱloveȱhadȱconvergedȱbyȱPeter’sȱtimeȱtoȱestablishȱaȱloftyȱdefinitionȱof friendship,ȱadherenceȱtoȱwhichȱwasȱaȱformȱofȱselfȬvalidationȱforȱthoseȱinȱpower. Byȱthinkingȱandȱactingȱ“friendly”,ȱlordsȱ(bothȱecclesiasticalȱandȱtemporal)ȱengaged inȱspecificȱbehavioralȱpatternsȱandȱwaysȱofȱfeelingȱthatȱdifferentiatedȱthem,ȱasȱC.

30 31 32

RaoulȱdeȱSully,ȱVitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱcol.ȱ19B. Ibid.,ȱcol.ȱ19B. GerdȱAlthoff,ȱVerwandte,ȱFreundeȱundȱGetreue:ȱzumȱpolitischenȱStellenwertȱderȱGruppenbindungenȱim früherenȱMittelalterȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftlicheȱBuchgeselleschaft,ȱ1990),ȱtrans.ȱbyȱChristopher Carrollȱ asȱ Family,ȱ Friendsȱ andȱ Followers:ȱ Politicalȱ andȱ Socialȱ Bondsȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Medievalȱ Europe (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ67.

290

MarcȱSaurette

StephenȱJaegerȱhasȱargued,ȱandȱprovidedȱtangibleȱproofȱofȱtheirȱ“moralȱandȱclass superiority”.33ȱ Jaegerȱ explainsȱ thatȱ thisȱ formȱ ofȱ publicȱ “gesture”ȱ demandedȱ a groundingȱinȱrealȱemotionȱandȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱemptyȱceremonialȱposturing,ȱsinceȱto doȱthatȱwouldȱreverseȱtheȱprestigeȬgivingȱeffect.ȱThatȱisȱtoȱsay,ȱaȱfriendshipȱseen asȱhypocriticalȱwouldȱdiminishȱtheȱstatusȱofȱsomeoneȱclaimingȱprestigeȱthrough it.ȱAsȱJaegerȱargues,ȱthisȱdefinitionȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱequallyȱimportantȱinȱcourtȱor cloister. AsȱaȱsonȱofȱtheȱpowerfulȱMontboissierȱfamily,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱcouldȱhardly haveȱavoidedȱaȱfamiliarityȱwithȱtheȱpoliticalȱfriendshipsȱthatȱaroseȱbetweenȱlay aristocrats.ȱPeterȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱworldȱofȱhis birthȱandȱwellȱunderstoodȱtheȱbondsȱofȱcoȬoperationȱunderlyingȱitsȱorder.ȱHis knowledgeȱofȱaristocraticȱfriendship,ȱforȱexample,ȱcanȱbeȱseenȱclearlyȱinȱaȱletter (ca.ȱ1140)ȱtoȱhisȱbrotherȱPontius,ȱthenȱabbotȱofȱVézelay.34ȱȱInȱitȱheȱdecriesȱPontius’s lackȱofȱconcernȱaboutȱtheirȱfeudingȱbrothersȱHeraclius,ȱaȱprovostȱofȱaȱcollegeȱof secularȱcanonsȱinȱLyons,ȱandȱEustache,ȱaȱknightȱandȱaristocrat.ȱTheseȱtwoȱhad becomeȱlockedȱinȱmutualȱconflictȱ(guerra)ȱofȱsomeȱunspecifiedȱnatureȱwhichȱled PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱtoȱinterveneȱandȱtoȱestablishȱaȱpeacefulȱaccordȱbetweenȱthem. “Byȱ my,ȱ Iȱ repeatȱ my,ȱ effort,ȱ careȱ andȱ constantȱ concern,”ȱ Peterȱ stresses,ȱ “our brothersȱ areȱ nowȱ boundȱ inȱ friendshipȱ andȱ perpetualȱ allianceȱ byȱ unbreakable oaths”ȱ(Meo,ȱmeoȱinquam,ȱstudio,ȱmeaȱcura,ȱmeaȱinquietudineȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]ȱEracliumque etȱ Eustachiumȱ germanos,ȱ sacramentisȱ inuiolabilibusȱ inȱ perpetuumȱ foedus amicitiamqueȱiuratos).35ȱThisȱletterȱnotȱonlyȱshowsȱthatȱPeterȱwasȱwellȱawareȱof aristocraticȱ practicesȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ butȱ thatȱ heȱ sawȱ anȱ importantȱ roleȱ forȱ a churchmanȱinȱdefining,ȱestablishingȱandȱoverseeingȱthem. PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱneverȱdealtȱatȱanyȱlengthȱwithȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱfriendship,ȱnor doesȱheȱdifferentiateȱwhetherȱthereȱareȱmodesȱofȱfriendshipȱsuitableȱonlyȱtoȱthe religiousȱorȱtoȱtheȱsecularȱsphere.ȱLackingȱanyȱexplicitȱevidenceȱofȱthisȱdistinction andȱsinceȱweȱonlyȱhaveȱindicationsȱofȱhisȱthinkingȱonȱtheȱsubject,ȱweȱareȱforcedȱto extrapolateȱ aȱ modelȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ theȱ laityȱ fromȱ hisȱ commentsȱ toȱ other monks,ȱabbotsȱandȱbishops.ȱTheseȱhintsȱare,ȱhowever,ȱsuggestiveȱofȱtheȱgeneral rulesȱ andȱ responsibilitiesȱ thatȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ sawȱ asȱ integralȱ toȱ “true” Christianȱfriendship,ȱandȱseemȱapplicableȱtoȱbothȱtheȱsecularȱandȱsacredȱworld.ȱIf PeterȱwasȱspeakingȱtoȱoutsidersȱwithȱanȱintentȱtoȱintroduceȱhisȱCluniacȱideology, presumablyȱheȱcouldȱnotȱsayȱoneȱthingȱtoȱchurchmenȱandȱanotherȱtoȱtheȱlaity withoutȱ beingȱ seenȱ asȱ hypocriticalȱ (andȱ thusȱ unworthyȱ ofȱ respectȱ andȱ ofȱ true friendship).

33

34 35

C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love.ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lostȱ Sensibility.ȱ Theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Series (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ36. Letters,ȱ232–33,ȱep.ȱ91. Ibid.,ȱ233.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

291

ForȱPeter,ȱfriendshipȱwasȱaȱChristianȱbondȱgroundedȱinȱloveȱandȱcharity,ȱwhich demandedȱ theȱ performanceȱ ofȱ specificȱ dutiesȱ (e.g.,ȱ exchangingȱ favors, reciprocatingȱletters)ȱtoȱprovideȱstabilityȱtoȱwhatȱwasȱaȱfluidȱrelationship.36ȱAlmost withoutȱfail,ȱPeter’sȱlettersȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱemphasizeȱtheȱdeepȱandȱabidingȱlove betweenȱhimȱandȱtheȱrecipient.ȱUsingȱlanguageȱaȱmodernȱreaderȱwouldȱconsider Romantic,ȱPeterȱyearnsȱtoȱspeakȱwithȱhisȱmanyȱ“beloveds”ȱ(“carissime”)ȱandȱtalks ofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱrelationshipȱwhichȱ“knowsȱonlyȱtoȱlove”ȱ(“nichilqueȱnisiȱdiligere sciens”).37ȱThisȱloveȱisȱimaginedȱasȱaȱspiritualȱlove,ȱarisingȱasȱitȱdoesȱfromȱaȱsoul’s recognitionȱ ofȱ aȱ kindredȱ spirit.38ȱ Byȱ thisȱ Peterȱ didȱ notȱ suggestȱ theȱ maximȱ that “likesȱattract”,ȱbutȱratherȱadmittedȱthatȱonlyȱpureȱandȱvirtuousȱsoulsȱareȱableȱto perceiveȱandȱsustainȱtheȱunanimityȱ(“unanimitas”)ȱandȱaccordȱ(“consensio”)ȱthat mustȱ existȱ betweenȱ friends.ȱ Forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ Peter’sȱ lettersȱ describeȱ friendsȱ as sharingȱ“aȱsingleȱheart”ȱ(“simplexȱcor”)ȱorȱasȱ“halfȱmyȱsoul”ȱ(“animaeȱdimidium meae”)ȱandȱconsiderȱtheȱbondȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱbeȱ“aȱloveȱderivedȱfromȱaȱsupernal love”ȱ (“amorȱ illeȱ aȱ supernoȱ amoreȱ diriuatus”)ȱ orȱ “aȱ vestigeȱ ofȱ eternalȱ love” (“uestigiumȱamorisȱeterni”).39ȱPeterȱunderstoodȱcharityȱtoȱbeȱimplicatedȱinȱthe experienceȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱheȱexpectedȱfriendshipȱtoȱactȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱGod andȱinȱpursuitȱofȱtheȱgood.40 Peter’sȱexplanatoryȱframeworkȱforȱfriendshipȱwasȱspiritualȱbutȱweȱshouldȱbe cautiousȱaboutȱbelievingȱthatȱheȱnaivelyȱimaginedȱChristendomȱtoȱbeȱaȱsocietyȱof friends.ȱ Theȱ bondȱ ofȱ charityȱ explainedȱ howȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ possibleȱ between peopleȱinȱaȱworldȱofȱsin,ȱbutȱdidȱnotȱprovideȱanȱindicationȱofȱhowȱpeopleȱwould behave.ȱHowȱpeopleȱmadeȱuseȱofȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱaffordedȱbyȱcharity/friendship definedȱ whatȱ kindȱ ofȱ personsȱ theyȱ wereȱ andȱ determinedȱ theirȱ rewardȱ inȱ the afterlife.ȱInȱthisȱsense,ȱtherefore,ȱPeterȱviewsȱfriendshipȱasȱtheȱproductȱofȱChristian freeȱ will:ȱ theȱ possibilityȱ forȱ friendshipȱ isȱ divinelyȱ mandated,ȱ butȱ peopleȱ must 36

37 38

39 40

Iȱ provideȱ hereȱ onlyȱ aȱ briefȱ summaryȱ ofȱ Peter’sȱ thoughtȱ onȱ friendship,ȱ somethingȱ moreȱ fully describedȱ inȱ myȱ article,ȱ “Thoughtsȱ onȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Lettersȱ ofȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable,” forthcomingȱinȱRevueȱBénédictineȱ120.2ȱ(2010). Letters,ȱ9,ȱep.ȱ5;ȱnichilqueȱnisiȱdiligereȱsciens. Jaegerȱ(EnnoblingȱLove,ȱ14–16)ȱusesȱtheȱtermȱ“nonȬlibidinal”ȱdesireȱtoȱdescribeȱthisȱbond.ȱThough theseȱlettersȱareȱfilledȱwithȱdeclarationsȱofȱloveȱbetweenȱmen,ȱIȱagreeȱwithȱJaeger’sȱassertionȱthat itȱisȱanachronisticȱtoȱseeȱsuchȱlanguageȱasȱevidenceȱofȱhomoȬeroticism. Letters,ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱep.ȱ5ȱandȱep.ȱ55.ȱTheȱsecondȱquotationȱisȱaȱcitationȱofȱHorace,ȱOdes,ȱI,ȱiii,ȱl.ȱ8. HeȱcriticizesȱPeterȱofȱPoitiers,ȱforȱinstance,ȱforȱfailingȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱpublicȱgood:ȱ“Neverȱcaring toȱreciprocateȱanyȱreturnȱforȱourȱgoodwill—whatȱIȱcallȱaȱsalubriousȱrightȱofȱfriendship—ȱyouȱseem toȱliveȱforȱyourself,ȱtoȱtakeȱcareȱforȱyourȱaffairs,ȱbutȱtoȱslightȱthoseȱofȱothersȱand—whatȱisȱeven worse—ȱofȱfriends.”ȱLetters,ȱ49,ȱep.ȱ26:ȱ“[C]umȱteȱmichiȱsemperȱadherereȱdebere,ȱtamȱmultusȱamor quoȱ teȱ amplectebar,ȱ quamȱ multaȱ ultilitasȱ quaȱ teȱ indigebamȱ instanterȱ commonerentȱ subposui tamenȱuelleȱmeumȱuoluntatiȱtuae,ȱpraeposuiȱsalutemȱtuamȱnecessitatiȱmeae,ȱpraetuliȱociumȱtuum negotiisȱmeis.ȱTuȱautemȱnullamȱhuicȱnostraeȱbeniuolentiaeȱuicemȱreddereȱcurans,ȱquodȱsaluo amicitiaeȱpriuilegioȱdixerim,ȱuiderisȱtibiȱuidere,ȱtuaȱcurare,ȱeaȱquaeȱsuntȱaliorumȱetȱquodȱest deteriusȱamicorumȱuilipendere.”

292

MarcȱSaurette

voluntarilyȱ subjectȱ themselvesȱ toȱ itsȱ regimen.ȱ Theyȱ didȱ so,ȱ Peterȱ believes,ȱ by followingȱtheȱobligationsȱandȱperformanceȱofȱfriendship.ȱIfȱfriendsȱactȱwithoutȱfail, longȱestablishedȱfriendshipsȱwillȱendureȱwithoutȱendȱandȱcontinueȱinȱHeaven.ȱ Manyȱ ofȱ Peter’sȱ imagesȱ emphasizeȱ theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ hisȱ relationshipȱ withȱ his dearestȱfriends.ȱItȱisȱanȱunbreakableȱcord,ȱaȱchainȱandȱfettersȱheȱwillȱneverȱremove andȱ anȱ indestructibleȱ shackle.41ȱ Butȱ withȱ theseȱ sameȱ friends,ȱ heȱ alsoȱ uses metaphorsȱ underscoringȱ friendship’sȱ transitoryȱ nature.ȱ Friendshipȱ couldȱ beȱ a risingȱ andȱ settingȱ sun,ȱ finelyȱ agingȱ wine,ȱ orȱ aȱ fire,ȱ sometimesȱ burningȱ bright, sometimesȱ coolingȱ toȱ embers.ȱ Thisȱ lastȱ metaphor—firstȱ usedȱ toȱ warnȱ Hatoȱ of Troyesȱ aboutȱ theȱ necessityȱ ofȱ aȱ constantȱ performanceȱ ofȱ friendship—ȱ is particularlyȱevocativeȱofȱhowȱPeterȱviewsȱtheȱinherentȱinstabilityȱofȱfriendship: Probatioȱdilectionis,ȱexhibitioȱestȱoperas.ȱSiȱignisȱest,ȱcalet.ȱSiȱcalet,ȱnonȱdiuȱflammas continet.ȱSiȱdiuȱcontinuerit,ȱmoxȱignisȱesseȱcessabit.42 [Theȱproofȱofȱloveȱisȱaȱdemonstrationȱinȱworks.ȱIfȱthereȱisȱaȱfire,ȱitȱprovidesȱwarmth.ȱIfȱit providesȱwarmth,ȱthenȱitȱhasȱnotȱburnedȱforȱlong.ȱIfȱitȱhasȱburnedȱforȱsomeȱtime,ȱthen soonȱitȱwillȱburnȱitselfȱout.]

Inȱ friendship,ȱ Peterȱ suggests,ȱ constantȱ attentionȱ isȱ needed.ȱ Itȱ demandsȱ careful stokingȱandȱknowingȱwhenȱtoȱaddȱmoreȱfuelȱforȱtheȱfire.ȱIfȱtooȱmuchȱtimeȱisȱtaken betweenȱdemonstrationsȱofȱfriendship,ȱheȱimplies,ȱtheȱpassionȱofȱfriendshipȱwill die.ȱ Peter’sȱlettersȱincludeȱaȱrangeȱofȱpossibilitiesȱforȱwhatȱconstitutesȱtheȱnecessary practicesȱofȱfriendship.ȱTheyȱareȱgenerallyȱconceivedȱtoȱbeȱtangibleȱfavorsȱ(such asȱassistanceȱinȱepiscopalȱnegotiations,ȱjudicialȱhelp,ȱgiftsȱofȱland,ȱrevenues,ȱor memorialȱ masses)ȱ andȱ moreȱ immaterialȱ supportȱ (suchȱ asȱ discussion,ȱ debate, adviceȱandȱconsolation).ȱTheseȱlatterȱactionsȱdominateȱPeter’sȱlettersȱonȱfriendship whichȱseekȱtoȱexpressȱtheȱpassionȱandȱemotionȱofȱhisȱloveȱthroughȱtheȱwritten word.ȱAȱletterȱtoȱHatoȱdescribesȱthisȱprocess: Moremȱfollisȱhabesȱkarissime,ȱquiȱspirituȱquoȱplenusȱest,ȱemortuamȱfereȱscintillam ignescere,ȱetȱinȱimmensasȱquandoqueȱflammasȱerumpereȱcogit.ȱSicȱspiritusȱtuusȱnon utȱilleȱaeriusȱsedȱutȱcredoȱdiuinusȱnonȱquidemȱergaȱteȱemoruumȱignemȱpectorisȱmei, sedȱdiuȱsilentioȱflandoȱsuscitareȱnititur,ȱetȱadȱuerbaȱsolitaȱreuocareȱmolitur.43 [Youȱhaveȱtheȱmannerȱofȱaȱbellows,ȱmyȱbeloved,ȱwhoseȱbreathȱcausesȱdyingȱembers toȱigniteȱandȱthenȱtoȱeruptȱintoȱenormousȱflames.ȱByȱwritingȱoften,ȱasȱifȱconstantly blowingȱlikeȱaȱbellows,ȱyourȱspiritȱ(notȱtheȱairy,ȱbutȱtheȱdivineȱspiritȱasȱIȱseeȱit)ȱlabors toȱrekindleȱtheȱfireȱofȱmyȱheartȱ(certainlyȱnotȱdeadenedȱtowardsȱyou!),ȱandȱitȱalso

41 42 43

Seeȱep.ȱ5,ȱ14,ȱ49,ȱ55ȱandȱ108. Letters,ȱ10,ȱep.ȱ5. Letters,ȱ223,ȱep.ȱ86.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

293

strugglesȱtoȱrecallȱtoȱitsȱcustomaryȱwordinessȱtheȱbreathȱofȱmyȱspeechȱlongȱhoodedȱin silence.]

Theȱ goodȱ willȱ andȱ pleasantȱ thoughtsȱ thatȱ ariseȱ followingȱ aȱ demonstrationȱ of friendshipȱleadȱtoȱaȱspecificȱwayȱofȱfeelingȱamongȱstrongȱfriends.ȱTheȱmoreȱgifts areȱ exchangedȱ andȱ theȱ moreȱ loveȱ isȱ expressed,ȱ theȱ greaterȱ isȱ theȱ desireȱ to reciprocate,ȱandȱthusȱgreaterȱisȱtheȱmutualȱbondȱbetweenȱfriends.ȱPeterȱassimilates theȱterminologyȱandȱtheoreticalȱobligationsȱofȱamicitia,ȱtherefore,ȱtoȱtheȱmedieval processesȱofȱgiftȬgiving.44 Peterȱgaveȱfriendshipȱbothȱaȱpracticalȱsocialȱroleȱandȱanȱupliftingȱspiritualȱgoal, andȱinȱunderstandingȱitȱasȱsuch,ȱheȱparalleledȱcontemporaryȱlayȱandȱreligious modelsȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Inȱ Peter’sȱ lettersȱ weȱ seeȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ Jaeger’sȱ ideaȱ that medievalȱChristianȱthinkersȱadheredȱtoȱanȱidealizedȱparadigmȱofȱfriendship.ȱTime andȱtimeȱagainȱPeterȱdifferentiatesȱbetweenȱfriendsȱ“inȱname”ȱ(alsoȱcalledȱ“false friends”ȱorȱ“friendsȱofȱMammon”)ȱandȱ“true”ȱorȱ“sincere”ȱfriends.45ȱThisȱlatter type,ȱwhichȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱextolsȱthroughoutȱhisȱletters,ȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱtheȱfew whoȱareȱcapableȱofȱit.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱtoȱsayȱthatȱPeterȱrestrictsȱtheȱtheoreticalȱpotential forȱfriendshipȱtoȱlayȱandȱecclesiasticalȱelites.ȱHeȱdoesȱadmitȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱis conceptuallyȱpossibleȱbetweenȱallȱChristiansȱsinceȱGod’sȱcharityȱhasȱinfusedȱthem withȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱlove.ȱButȱonlyȱtheȱrareȱindividualȱwasȱperceivedȱtoȱsubmit—or wasȱportrayedȱasȱadhering—ȱtoȱfriendship’sȱdemandingȱregimen. DespiteȱtheȱabstractȱtheoreticalȱunderpinningȱtoȱPeter’sȱideas,ȱtheseȱideasȱhad aȱ veryȱ concreteȱ function.ȱ Keyȱ toȱ understandingȱ Peter’sȱ depictionȱ ofȱ ‘true’ friendshipȱ isȱ toȱ beȱ awareȱ ofȱ itsȱ abilityȱ toȱ establishȱ socialȱ differentiation;ȱ his discussionsȱandȱrulesȱforȱhowȱfriendsȱbehaveȱallowȱhimȱtoȱmakeȱdistinctionsȱin statusȱbetweenȱindividuals.ȱTheȱpraiseȱorȱcritiqueȱofȱaȱfriendshipȱwasȱaȱmeansȱfor Peterȱ toȱ rewardȱ orȱ toȱ humiliateȱ andȱ eitherȱ wasȱ intendedȱ toȱ encourageȱ further positiveȱinteraction.ȱWithȱhisȱecclesiasticalȱandȱmonasticȱfriends,ȱPeterȱpraised theirȱgiftsȱofȱdialogue,ȱadviceȱorȱloveȱtoȱfanȱtheȱflamesȱofȱfriendship.ȱWithȱsecular friends,ȱPeterȱsawȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱfavorsȱinȱmoreȱmaterialȱterms—theȱ‘love’ȱwas onlyȱrealȱwhenȱbackedȱupȱbyȱdonationsȱorȱphysicalȱsupportȱforȱtheȱChurch.ȱThis difference,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱPeterȱabandonedȱhisȱupliftingȱidealȱof spiritualȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ soul’sȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ itsȱ like.ȱ Instead,ȱ Peterȱ usedȱ the spiritualȱaspectȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱinvolveȱlayȱmagnatesȱfurtherȱinȱaȱCluniac ideologyȱ alreadyȱ engrainedȱ throughȱ theȱ giftȬexchangeȱ commonȱ inȱ theȱ ecclesia cluniacensis.ȱ Anȱunderstandingȱofȱwhoȱtheseȱpeopleȱwere,ȱandȱwhyȱtheyȱbecameȱfriendsȱwith ClunyȱopensȱaȱwindowȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱandȱsocialȱuseȱthatȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable 44

45

Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ contributionȱ toȱ thisȱ volumeȱ byȱ Stavroulaȱ Constantinouȱ whoȱ offersȱ anȱ extensive discussionȱofȱgiftȬgivingȱwithinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱfriendship. Seeȱep.ȱ6ȱandȱ49,ȱ

294

MarcȱSaurette

madeȱofȱfriendship.ȱHeȱusedȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱcommunicateȱaȱpolitical theoryȱ forȱ properȱ Christianȱ governanceȱ andȱ encouragedȱ noblesȱ toȱ enterȱ into associativeȱfriendshipsȱwithȱClunyȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱmonasticȱfamilyȱandȱcongregationȱof Cluny).ȱIȱnowȱturnȱtoȱconsideringȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱbound Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ inȱ friendshipȱ withȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ powerfulȱ figuresȱ of twelfthȬcenturyȱChristendom.

SecularȱFriendships Theȱpictureȱweȱcanȱrecreateȱofȱtheȱlayȱ‘friendsȱofȱCluny’ȱduringȱPeter’sȱabbacy remainsȱ fragmentary—unsurprisingȱ givenȱ theȱ factorsȱ hinderingȱ any reconstructionȱofȱthisȱamorphousȱnetwork.ȱPeter’sȱcorrespondenceȱshowsȱthatȱa wideȱ rangeȱ ofȱ persons—abbotsȱ andȱ priors,ȱ bishopsȱ andȱ clerics,ȱ kingsȱ and noblemen—ȱwereȱadmittedȱintoȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱfriendshipȱcircle.ȱMoreȱthan fortyȱseparateȱgroupsȱorȱindividualsȱareȱexplicitlyȱnamedȱasȱfriends;ȱlessȱthanȱone fifthȱwereȱlayȱpersons.ȱThisȱnumberȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱusedȱtoȱestimateȱtheȱnumberȱof hisȱlayȱfriendships,ȱhowever,ȱsinceȱtheȱsurvivingȱletterȱcollectionȱdoesȱnotȱprovide aȱ completeȱ recordȱ butȱ onlyȱ aȱ selectionȱ ofȱ lettersȱ designedȱ toȱ promoteȱ Peter’s prestige.ȱLettersȱcitingȱsecularȱfriendships,ȱtherefore,ȱlikelyȱrecordȱonlyȱtheȱmost eliteȱofȱhisȱamicableȱassociations. Theȱnumberȱofȱtheȱ‘friendsȱofȱCluny’ȱduringȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱabbacyȱwas likelyȱconsiderable.ȱMonasticȱnecrologiesȱ(listsȱofȱtheȱdeceasedȱtoȱbeȱmemorialized liturgically)ȱsuggestȱthatȱaȱsizeableȱpopulationȱofȱamiciȱwasȱlinkedȱwithȱCluny.46 WhileȱtheȱnecrologyȱofȱClunyȱitselfȱhasȱbeenȱlost,ȱtheȱnecrologiesȱofȱotherȱhouses withinȱtheȱecclesiaȱcluniancensisȱaccordȱtheȱstatusȱofȱfamilyȱorȱfriendȱ(familiares/amici nostri)ȱtoȱaȱlongȱlistȱofȱnoblesȱandȱotherȱlayȱpersonsȱwithinȱtheȱCluniacȱorbit.47ȱȱThe necrologyȱofȱMarcignyȬsurȬLoireȱ(whereȱPeter’sȱmotherȱRaingardȱendedȱherȱlife) endowsȱsomeȱmenȱandȱmanyȱwomenȱwithȱtheȱstatusȱofȱamicusȱnoster/ȱamicaȱnostra alongsideȱtheirȱnames.48ȱForȱexample,ȱaȱ‘Judith’ȱ(Iulitta),ȱlikelyȱtheȱsisterȱofȱRoger IIȱofȱSicily,ȱisȱmemorializedȱonȱMarchȱ30thȱasȱ“ourȱfriend.”49ȱTheȱreferencesȱto friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ necrologiesȱ (seeȱ theȱ appendixȱ toȱ thisȱ article)ȱ identifyȱ most individualsȱwithȱtheseȱfewȱwordsȱorȱtheȱadditionalȱprovisoȱthatȱanȱofficeȱneeded

46 47

48

49

IognaȬPrat,ȱOrderȱandȱExclusion,ȱ65–67. AȱcompositeȱrecreationȱofȱtheȱCluniacȱnecrologyȱisȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱsideȱbyȱsideȱpresentationȱof severalȱ necrologies,ȱ Synopseȱ derȱ cluniacensischenȱ Necrologien,ȱ ed.ȱ Joachimȱ Wollasch,ȱ 2ȱ vols. MünsterscheȱMittelalterȬSchriften,ȱ39ȱ(Munich:ȱWilhelmȱFink,ȱ1982). Forȱ aȱ historyȱ ofȱ Marcignyȱ andȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ necrology,ȱ seeȱ Elseȱ Mariaȱ Wischermann, MarcignyȬsurȬLoire:ȱGründungsȬȱundȱFrühgeschichteȱdesȱerstenȱCluniacenserinnenpriorates,ȱ1050–1150. MünsterscheȱMittelalterȬSchriften.ȱ42ȱ(Munich:ȱWilhelmȱFink,ȱ1986). Wollasch,ȱSynopseȱderȱcluniacensischenȱNecrologien,ȱ179;ȱIulittaȱamicaȱnostra.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

295

beȱperformedȱforȱthem.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱclearȱcorrelationȱbetweenȱspecialȱofficesȱbeing saidȱandȱfriendship,ȱhowever,ȱsinceȱ“officiumȱfiat”ȱisȱrecordedȱfarȱmoreȱoftenȱthan whetherȱanȱindividualȱwasȱanȱamicus/amica. Beyondȱtheirȱnamesȱrecordedȱinȱaȱbookȱofȱmemory,ȱalmostȱnoȱdetailsȱareȱknown aboutȱ theseȱ individuals’ȱ relationshipsȱ withȱ Cluny.ȱ Forȱ someȱ othersȱ weȱ have slightlyȱ moreȱ evidenceȱ fromȱ Peter’sȱ letters.ȱ Peterȱ writesȱ toȱ Kingȱ Sigardȱ Iȱ of Norway,ȱcalledȱ“nobilissimoȱregumȱetȱnostraeȱamico”ȱ(theȱmostȱnobleȱofȱkingsȱand friendȱofȱourȱsociety)ȱforȱhisȱChristianȱrule,ȱhisȱprotectionȱofȱtheȱChurchȱandȱhis unceasingȱwarȱagainstȱtheȱenemiesȱofȱChrist’sȱcross.50ȱCountȱAmadeusȱIIIȱofȱSavoy (†1148)ȱisȱaddressedȱasȱtheȱ“nobilissimoȱprincipiȱetȱkarissimoȱamicoȱnostroȱdomino Amedeo”ȱ (theȱ mostȱ nobleȱ princeȱ andȱ mostȱ belovedȱ friendȱ ofȱ ours”ȱ inȱ aȱ letter (1137/1138)ȱ urgingȱ himȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ peaceȱ withȱ hisȱ nephewȱ Kingȱ Louisȱ VIIȱ of France.ȱ Thisȱ titleȱ wasȱ likelyȱ earnedȱ byȱ theȱ numberȱ ofȱ monasteriesȱ Amadeus patronized.51ȱWeȱcanȱonlyȱsurmiseȱhowȱSigardȱandȱAmadeusȱcameȱbyȱtheirȱstatus, butȱthreeȱotherȱnobles,ȱRaoulȱIȱofȱVermandois,ȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱofȱLéonȬCastilleȱand RogerȱIIȱofȱSicily,ȱallowȱusȱtoȱestablishȱaȱmoreȱnuancedȱpictureȱofȱPeterȱandȱhis secularȱfriends.

RaoulȱIȱofȱVermandois Sometimeȱafterȱ1152,ȱPeterȱwroteȱtoȱallȱhisȱmonksȱinȱallȱtheȱmonasteriesȱlinkedȱto ClunyȱinȱorderȱtoȱrecordȱhisȱgratitudeȱforȱaȱlifetimeȱofȱgoodȱworksȱdoneȱbyȱCount Raoulȱ(Radulphus)ȱIȱofȱVermandois,ȱaȱmemberȱofȱtheȱroyalȱfamilyȱandȱaȱroyal seneschal.52ȱTheȱfirstȱpartȱofȱthisȱtextȱretellsȱhowȱCountȱRaoulȱmadeȱoneȱfinalȱgrant ofȱlandȱandȱmoneyȱasȱheȱlayȱdying,ȱbeforeȱbringingȱhimself—andȱhisȱdeathbed offering—toȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunityȱofȱCluny.53ȱTheȱsecondȱpartȱofȱtheȱtextȱdraws onȱaȱsourceȱcharterȱnoȱlongerȱextantȱelsewhere,ȱoutliningȱinȱdetailȱtheȱnatureȱof Raoul’sȱgiftsȱandȱtheȱwayȱtheyȱwereȱ toȱ beȱ reciprocatedȱwithȱaȱhostȱofȱCluniac prayersȱ andȱ masses.ȱ Theȱ documentȱ recordsȱ aȱ notȱ unusualȱ occurrence:ȱ the deathbedȱ conversionȱ (adȱ succurendum)ȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ Cluny’sȱ patronsȱ earnedȱ him liturgicalȱremembranceȱasȱaȱfullȱmonk.ȱWhatȱisȱatypical,ȱhowever,ȱisȱthatȱRaoul alsoȱ gainedȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ “magnusȱ amicusȱ etȱ benefactor”ȱ (greatȱ friendȱ and benefactor)ȱofȱCluny.ȱUnderstandingȱwhyȱPeterȱchoseȱtoȱnoteȱthisȱallowsȱusȱto openȱaȱwindowȱonȱaȱsocial,ȱpoliticalȱandȱreligiousȱrelationshipȱexistingȱbetween aȱprominentȱabbotȱandȱaȱpowerfulȱnoble.

50 51 52 53

Letters,ȱ140–41,ȱep.ȱ44. Letters,ȱ199,ȱep.ȱ68. Letters,ȱ2,ȱ312,ȱn.ȱ9. Recueilȱdesȱchartesȱdeȱl’abbayeȱdeȱCluny,ȱ5,ȱ123,ȱno.ȱ4070.

296

MarcȱSaurette

FromȱtheȱfirstȱreferenceȱtoȱRaoulȱasȱaȱ“greatȱfriend”ȱatȱtheȱopeningȱofȱPeter’s letter,ȱ weȱ seeȱ thatȱ hisȱ relationshipȱ toȱ Clunyȱ isȱ presentedȱ asȱ aȱ facetȱ ofȱ Raoul’s identityȱasȱbasicȱasȱhisȱname,ȱstationȱandȱlineage:ȱ EgoȱfraterȱPetrus,ȱhumilisȱCluniacensisȱabbas,ȱnotaȱfacioȱlegentibusȱeaȱquaeȱsequuntur. ComesȱRodulfusȱdeȱPerrona,ȱfiliusȱHugonisȱMagni,ȱfratrisȱPhilippiȱregisȱFrancorum, magnusȱamicusȱetȱbenefactorȱexstititȱhujus,ȱinȱquaȱomnipotentiȱDeoȱservireȱoptamus, sanctaeȱCluniacensisȱEcclesiae.ȱHicȱpostȱreliquaȱbonaȱoperaȱsua,ȱquibusȱDeumȱsibi propitiareȱ dumȱ incolumisȱ viveret,ȱ laborabat,ȱ jamȱ infirmusȱ etȱ mortiȱ proximus praecedentibusȱaliquidȱmajusȱadjunxit.54 [I,ȱbrotherȱPeter,ȱtheȱhumbleȱabbotȱofȱCluny,ȱmakeȱknownȱtheȱfollowingȱmattersȱtoȱthe reader:ȱCountȱRaoulȱofȱPerrone,ȱsonȱofȱHughȱtheȱGreatȱwhoȱhimselfȱwasȱtheȱbrother ofȱPhilip,ȱkingȱofȱtheȱFranks,ȱstandsȱoutȱasȱaȱgreatȱfriendȱandȱbenefactorȱofȱthis,ȱthe HolyȱCluniacȱChurch,ȱinȱwhichȱweȱdesireȱtoȱserveȱGodȱomnipotent.ȱAfterȱallȱhisȱother goodȱworksȱdoneȱtoȱappeaseȱGodȱwhenȱhaleȱandȱhearty,ȱthisȱman,ȱwhenȱsickȱandȱat death’sȱdoor,ȱaddedȱanotherȱgreatȱofferingȱtoȱhisȱpastȱones.]

Peterȱadmitsȱaȱcertainȱparallelȱbetweenȱhimself,ȱwhoȱservesȱGod,ȱandȱRaoul,ȱwho servesȱunderȱHimȱthroughȱhisȱgifts.ȱThisȱequivalenceȱearnsȱtheȱcountȱaȱplaceȱof respectȱwithinȱtheȱCluniacȱpantheonȱandȱnecrology,ȱasȱtheȱdocumentȱsubsequently outlines.ȱTheȱrewardȱforȱRaoul’sȱgoodȱworksȱandȱhisȱmanyȱgiftsȱisȱspelledȱoutȱin detailȱandȱtheȱtextȱenumeratesȱhowȱoftenȱandȱhowȱmanyȱmassesȱwereȱtoȱbeȱsaid forȱ hisȱ soulȱ byȱ eachȱ andȱ everyȱ monkȱ ofȱ theȱ ecclesiaȱ cluniacensis.ȱ Beyondȱ the expectedȱ services,ȱ however,ȱ Peterȱ indicatesȱ thatȱ Raoulȱ shouldȱ beȱ giftedȱ with additionalȱcommemorationsȱwhichȱareȱ“rarely”ȱgrantedȱandȱwhenȱofferedȱareȱonly doneȱsoȱtoȱCluny’sȱotherȱgreatȱfriends,ȱnamelyȱkingsȱandȱemperorȱkeyȱtoȱbecoming aȱ “greatȱ friend”ȱ wasȱ aȱ provenȱ historyȱ ofȱ benefaction:ȱ foundingȱ monasteries, grantingȱrevenuesȱforȱtheirȱupkeep,ȱorȱprovidingȱlargeȱlumpȱsumȱpaymentsȱof silverȱ andȱ goldȱ toȱ aȱ Clunyȱ increasinglyȱ desperateȱ toȱ meetȱ itsȱ expenses.55ȱ ȱ The characterizationȱofȱaȱbenefactorȱasȱaȱfriendȱseemsȱnormalȱtoday,ȱwhenȱtheȱterm commonlyȱidentifiesȱfinancialȱdonorsȱtoȱartsȱgroupsȱ(e.g.,ȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱorchestra56)

54 55

56

Ibid. ForȱindicationsȱofȱtheȱfinancialȱconditionȱofȱClunyȱunderȱPeter’sȱabbacy,ȱseeȱhisȱDispositioȱrei familirisȱ(Recueilȱdesȱchartesȱdeȱl’abbayeȱdeȱCluny,ȱ5,ȱ475–82,ȱno.ȱ4132.ȱOnȱthisȱtext,ȱseeȱGeorgeȱDuby, “Leȱ Budgetȱ deȱ l’abbayeȱ deȱ Clunyȱ entreȱ 1080ȱ etȱ 1155.ȱ Economieȱ domanialeȱ etȱ économie monétaire,”ȱAnnalesȱE.S.C.ȱ7ȱ(1952):ȱ155–71ȱandȱmoreȱrecently,ȱDenyseȱRiche,ȱL’OrdreȱdeȱClunyȱà laȱfinȱduȱMoyenȱÂgeȱ:ȱLeȱvieuxȱpaysȱclunisien,ȱXIIe–XVeȱsiècle.ȱCentreȱEuropéenȱdeȱRecherchesȱsur lesȱCongrégationsȱetȱOrdresȱReligieuxȱTravauxȱetȱRecherches,ȱ13ȱ(SaintȬÉtienne:ȱPublicationsȱde l’UniversitéȱdeȱSaintȬEtienne,ȱ2000),ȱȱ90–93. Forȱexample,ȱtheȱorganizationȱtheȱFriendsȱofȱtheȱNationalȱArtȱCentreȱOrchestraȱ(Ottawa),ȱdefines themselvesȱȱthusly:ȱ“Byȱstatute,ȱFriendsȱofȱNACOȱisȱanȱAssociation;ȱbyȱmembership,ȱFriendsȱisȱa community.ȱThroughȱeventsȱandȱactivities,ȱFriendsȱisȱaȱspaceȱwhereȱmusicȱloversȱmeet,ȱandȱcome toȱ embrace,ȱ shareȱ andȱ developȱ aȱ commonȱ passion.ȱ Foundedȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ theȱ NAC

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

297

andȱatȱfirstȱglance,ȱthisȱconnotationȱofȱfriendȱseemsȱtypicalȱforȱtheȱmedievalȱperiod asȱwell.ȱ Thoughȱ infrequently,ȱ Peterȱ doesȱ useȱ magnusȱ amicusȱ elsewhereȱ toȱ indicate Cluny’sȱmostȱliberalȱbenefactors—suggestingȱthatȱthisȱmeaningȱwasȱunderstood byȱ hisȱ medievalȱ readers.ȱ Forȱ example,ȱ Peter’sȱ bookȱ ofȱ miracleȱ storiesȱ retellsȱ a dreamȱ visionȱ whichȱ outlinesȱ inȱ quasiȬjuridicalȱ languageȱ theȱ specificsȱ ofȱ King AlfonsoȱVI’sȱdonationsȱtoȱClunyȱandȱtheirȱreconfirmationȱbyȱhisȱsuccessors.ȱAtȱthe endȱofȱthisȱstoryȬcharter,ȱPeterȱnotesȱthatȱAlfonsoȱVIȱ(†ȱ1109)ȱwasȱknownȱacross SpainȱandȱFranceȱasȱaȱ“Cluniacensisȱecclesieȱmagnusȱamicus”ȱ(greatȱfriendȱofȱthe Cluniacȱchurch)ȱdueȱtoȱhisȱgenerosity.57ȱInȱaȱletterȱtoȱHenry,ȱBishopȱofȱWinchester, PeterȱpraisesȱhimȱandȱKingȱStephenȱofȱEnglandȱforȱtheirȱcontinuousȱgifts.ȱInȱ1135 heȱdescribesȱthemȱasȱexemplaryȱdonors,ȱsayingȱ“omnesȱpeneȱCluniacensisȱouilisȱ amiciȱ[…]ȱomnesȱprouisores,ȱomnesȱbenefactoresȱinȱuobisȱunoȱconfluxerint”ȱ(all theȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱCluniacȱflock,ȱallȱitsȱproviders,ȱandȱallȱitsȱbenefactorsȱhaveȱcome togetherȱinȱyou)ȱandȱasȱ“superȱuniuersosȱamicosȱetȱbenefactoresȱnostros”ȱ(standing outȱaboveȱallȱofȱCluny’sȱfriendsȱandȱbenefactors).58ȱButȱmanyȱbenefactorsȱdidȱnot earnȱtheȱnameȱamicus.ȱTheȱEmpressȱMatilda,ȱStephen’sȱrivalȱinȱclaimingȱtheȱcrown ofȱEngland,ȱforȱexample,ȱwasȱrewardedȱforȱherȱandȱherȱfather’sȱgenerosityȱwith liturgicalȱ commemorationȱ identicalȱ toȱ Raoul’sȱ (ca.ȱ 1155),ȱ butȱ perhapsȱ outȱ of deferenceȱtoȱStephen’sȱpositionȱsheȱwasȱnotȱraisedȱtoȱtheȱstatusȱofȱfriend.59ȱ Ifȱtheȱtitleȱwasȱunimportant,ȱthough,ȱwhyȱdidȱPeterȱemphasizeȱthatȱRaoulȱwas aȱ “greatȱ friendȱ andȱ benefactor”ȱ notȱ once,ȱ butȱ twiceȱ inȱ thisȱ letter?60ȱ Asȱ argued below,ȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱandȱRogerȱIIȱsuggestȱthatȱPeterȱdoesȱsoȱbecause beingȱaȱfriendȱentailsȱmoreȱthanȱbeingȱaȱbenefactor.ȱFriendsȱneededȱtoȱmeetȱPeter’s standardȱ ofȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ offeringȱ moreȱ fromȱ theȱ heartȱ andȱ lessȱ withȱ the mouth,ȱmoreȱthroughȱactionsȱandȱlessȱwithȱwords.61ȱThoughȱgiftsȱwereȱtheȱmeans

57

58

59

60

61

Orchestraȱ someȱ 40ȱ yearsȱ ago,ȱ Friendsȱ hasȱ beenȱ connectingȱ musicȱ andȱ peopleȱ everȱ since” (http://www.friendsofnaco.ca;ȱlastȱaccessedȱonȱFeb.ȱ19,ȱ2010). Deȱmiraculis,ȱ1:ȱ28,ȱ91.ȱLikeȱRaoul,ȱAlfonsoȱVIȱwasȱcommemoratedȱinȱallȱtheȱmonasteriesȱofȱCluny andȱaȱdirectiveȱsentȱbyȱAbbotȱHughȱ(†ȱ1109)ȱrefersȱtoȱhimȱasȱaȱfidelisȱamicusȱ(Receuilȱdesȱchartes,ȱ4, no.ȱ3442).ȱAlfonsoȱVIȱandȱRaoulȱIȱofȱVermandoisȱareȱgrantedȱanȱidenticalȱlistȱofȱliturgicalȱservices. Letters,ȱ228,ȱep.ȱ88,ȱandȱ178,ȱep.ȱ56.ȱHenryȱlikelyȱpassedȱseveralȱyearsȱatȱClunyȱinȱhisȱearlyȱlife, thoughȱitȱisȱnotȱclearȱwhetherȱheȱprofessedȱasȱaȱmonkȱthereȱbeforeȱtheȱendȱofȱhisȱlife;ȱseeȱIliciaȱJ. Sprey,ȱ “Henryȱ ofȱ Winchesterȱ andȱ theȱ Expansionȱ ofȱ Legatineȱ Authorityȱ inȱ England,”ȱ Revue d’histoireȱecclésiastiqueȱ91ȱ(1996),ȱ785–805;ȱhereȱ790–91. Recueilȱdesȱchartes,ȱ5,ȱ532–33,ȱno.ȱ4183.ȱWithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱaȱmentionȱthatȱheȱexchangedȱ“friendly words”ȱwithȱHeloise,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱextantȱlettersȱdoȱnotȱreferenceȱaȱȱsingleȱ“friendship” withȱaȱwoman.ȱTheȱrepeatedȱcitationȱofȱwomenȱasȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱCluniacȱnecrologiesȱ(notedȱinȱthe appendixȱtoȱthisȱarticle)ȱsuggestsȱthatȱgenderȱwasȱnotȱaȱbarrierȱtoȱofficialȱfriendshipȱwithȱCluny.ȱ TheȱonlyȱotherȱcharterȱIȱhaveȱcomeȱacrossȱwhichȱusedȱaȱsimilarȱexpression,ȱisȱaȱcharterȱgranted andȱ recordedȱ byȱ Bishopȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Saintesȱ inȱ 1149ȱ toȱ Geoffreyȱ ofȱ Leȱ Loroux,ȱ archbishopȱ of Bordeaux,ȱcallingȱhimȱanȱamicusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱecclesiaeȱcluniacensis;ȱibid.,ȱ5,ȱ484,ȱno.ȱ4139. Letters,ȱ 213,ȱ ep.ȱ 79.ȱ Theȱ passageȱ readsȱ asȱ aȱ whole:ȱ Dubitandumȱ eratȱ deȱ uerbis,ȱ nisiȱ eaȱ opera

298

MarcȱSaurette

forȱ powerfulȱ magnatesȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ andȱ supportȱ theȱ goalsȱ ofȱ theȱ ecclesia cluniacensis,ȱ Peterȱ portrayedȱ theseȱ giftsȱ asȱ indicationsȱ ofȱ aȱ sharedȱ visionȱ of Christianȱpoliticalȱorder—sinceȱCluny’sȱfriendshipȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱboughtȱbyȱlucre alone.

AlfonsoȱVII,ȱKingȬEmperorȱofȱLéonȬCastille TheȱimplicationȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱaristocraticȱgiftȬexchangeȱisȱfurtherȱillustrated byȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱ(andȱthereforeȱCluny’s)ȱrelationshipȱwithȱAlfonsoȱVII (†1158),ȱtheȱgrandsonȱofȱAlfonsoȱVIȱ(whomȱPeterȱalsoȱcalledȱaȱ“greatȱfriendȱof Cluny”).ȱFollowingȱtheȱdeathȱofȱAlfonsoȱVIȱinȱ1109,ȱtheȱtiesȱofȱCastilianȱmagnates toȱtheȱecclesiaȱcluniacensisȱhadȱlessenedȱandȱtheȱfrequencyȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱsizeȱof donationsȱhadȱdecreased.62ȱEarlyȱonȱinȱhisȱreignȱ(Septemberȱ7,ȱ1132),ȱhowever, AlfonsoȱVIIȱinvestedȱClunyȱwithȱtheȱsizableȱgiftȱofȱtheȱvenerableȱabbeyȱofȱSahagún (SanctusȱFacundus).ȱAȱcharterȱrecordsȱhisȱrationale: Adȱ hocȱ divinaȱ providentiaȱ imperatoresȱ etȱ regesȱ terreniȱ regniȱ apicemȱ conscendere permittit,ȱ utȱ servorumȱ Deiȱ deȱ suaȱ abundantiaȱ suppleantȱ inopeamȱ etȱ sicȱ per misericordiamȱquamȱimpenderint,ȱæternamȱpostȱtemporalemȱmereanturȱ percipere coronam.63 [Divineȱ providenceȱ allowsȱ emperorsȱ andȱ kingsȱ toȱ riseȱ toȱ theȱ heightȱ ofȱ terrestrial kingshipȱinȱorderȱthatȱtheyȱmightȱsupplementȱtheȱpovertyȱofȱtheȱservantsȱofȱGodȱfrom theirȱabundanceȱandȱthusȱthroughȱtheȱmercyȱwhichȱtheyȱdisburse,ȱtheyȱmeritȱtoȱreceive anȱeternalȱcrownȱafterȱtheȱtemporalȱcrown.]

Thisȱgrantȱgaveȱformalȱjuridicalȱandȱfinancialȱauthorityȱoverȱaȱmonasteryȱwhere ClunyȱhadȱmaintainedȱaȱreformingȱpresenceȱsinceȱtheȱtimeȱofȱAlfonsoȱVI.64ȱTen yearsȱlaterȱaȱsimilarȱdonationȱwasȱmadeȱduringȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱjourneyȱto Spainȱinȱ1142,ȱasȱevidencedȱbyȱaȱcharterȱ(Julyȱ29,ȱ1142)ȱgivingȱtheȱmonasteryȱof SanȬPedroȬdeȬCàrdenaȱ toȱ Clunyȱ byȱ Alfonsoȱ VII.ȱ Itȱ recordsȱ anȱ arrangementȱ of

62

63 64

praevenissent.ȱMercatusȱestȱamicusȱanimusȱnonȱnudoȱaffectuȱamicos,ȱquibusȱminusȱinȱore,ȱplusȱinȱcorde, minusȱinȱuerbis,ȱplusȱinȱrebusȱindulgereȱconueuit. SeeȱCharlesȱJ.ȱBishkoȱ“LiturgicalȱIntercessionȱatȱClunyȱforȱtheȱKingȬEmperorsȱofȱLéon,”ȱStudia Monasticaȱ3ȱ(1961):ȱ53–76. Recueilȱdesȱchartes,ȱ5,ȱ390–91,ȱno.ȱ4038;ȱ(datedȱ7ȱSeptember,ȱ1132). BernardȱReilly,ȱTheȱKingdomȱofȱLéonȬCastillaȱunderȱKingȱAlfonsoȱVI,ȱ1065–1109ȱ(Princeton:ȱPrinceton UniversityȱPress,ȱ1988),ȱ106ȱandȱCharlesȱJ.ȱBishko,ȱ“CountȱHenriqueȱofȱPortugal,ȱCluny,ȱandȱthe antecedentsȱofȱtheȱPactoȱSucessório,”ȱRevistaȱPortuguesaȱdeȱHistoriaȱ13ȱ(1971):ȱ155–88;ȱhereȱ168–70; rpt.ȱinȱSpanishȱandȱPortugueseȱMonasticȱHistoryȱ600–1300ȱ(London:ȱVariorumȱReprints,ȱ1984):ȱart. ix.ȱWeȱcanȱperhapsȱalsoȱseeȱinȱthisȱgrantȱtheȱgrowingȱtendencyȱofȱClunyȱunderȱabbotȱPontiusȱand underȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱtoȱenshrineȱinȱjuridicalȱlanguageȱtheȱlinksȱbetweenȱtheȱAbbotȱofȱCluny andȱtheȱmonasteriesȱconnectedȱtoȱthem.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

299

reciprocityȱidenticalȱinȱnatureȱbetweenȱtheȱspiritualȱauthorityȱofȱClunyȱandȱthe temporalȱpowerȱofȱtheȱkingȬemperorȱofȱLéonȬCastile: Quantoȱdivitiisȱetȱpossessionibusȱhabundantiusȱquisqueȱvideturȱaffluere,ȱtantoȱlargius deȱhisȱqueȱpossidetȱetȱecclesiisȱetȱuerisȱDeiȱcultoribusȱproȱsaluteȱanimæȱsuæȱdebet impendere,ȱ juxtaȱ illudȱ Apostoli:ȱ Faciteȱ bonumȱ adȱ omnes,ȱ maximeȱ autemȱ ad domesticosȱfidei,ȱetȱilludȱSalomonis:ȱDivitiæȱviriȱredemptioȱanimæȱipsiusȱsunt.65 [Theȱmoreȱsomeoneȱisȱseenȱtoȱaboundȱgreatlyȱinȱrichesȱandȱpossessions,ȱtheȱmoreȱhe shouldȱbeȱveryȱgenerousȱwithȱwhatȱheȱpossessesȱtoȱchurchesȱandȱtheȱtrueȱworshippers ofȱGodȱforȱtheȱsalvationȱofȱhisȱsoul,ȱasȱindicatedȱbyȱtheȱwordsȱofȱtheȱApostle,ȱDoȱgood toȱall,ȱbutȱespeciallyȱtoȱtheȱservantsȱofȱfaithȱandȱthoseȱofȱSolomon,ȱAȱman’sȱwealthȱisȱthe redemptionȱofȱhisȱsoul.]

Theȱ religiousȱ preambleȱ seguesȱ intoȱ aȱ recordȱ ofȱ exchangeȱ commonȱ toȱ Cluniac charters:ȱlandsȱandȱmoneyȱforȱCluny,ȱprayersȱforȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱandȱhisȱparents.ȱLess thanȱaȱyearȱandȱaȱhalfȱlater,ȱAlfonsoȱfurtherȱstrengthensȱtheȱbondȱbetweenȱhimself andȱClunyȱbyȱrepeatingȱalmostȱidenticalȱwordsȱandȱveryȱsimilarȱconditionsȱinȱa grantȱofȱtheȱabbeyȱofȱSanȬVicenteȬdeȬSalamancaȱtoȱClunyȱ(Octoberȱ29,ȱ1143).66ȱAll theseȱ donationsȱ repeatȱ theȱ messageȱ thatȱ Alfonsoȱ sharedȱ aȱ similarȱ visionȱ of ChristianȱpoliticalȱsocietyȱwithȱPeterȱandȱwithȱCluny.67ȱTheseȱtextsȱallȱclaimȱthat theȱkingȱmadeȱtheȱdonationsȱbecauseȱheȱalreadyȱconceivedȱofȱhisȱobligationsȱtoȱthe Churchȱalongȱtheseȱlines.ȱOstensiblyȱitȱwasȱAlfonso,ȱnotȱPeter,ȱthatȱrequestedȱsuch exchanges.ȱThisȱcharter,ȱlikeȱtheȱoneȱrecordingȱRaoul’sȱgifts,ȱthereforeȱcontains bothȱlegalȱniceties,ȱbutȱalsoȱcontainsȱanȱideologicalȱmessageȱofȱunionȱbetween monasteryȱandȱmagnate. Theȱ contextȱ forȱ theseȱ grants,ȱ however,ȱ suggestsȱ theȱ nuanceȱ ofȱ Peter’s relationshipȱwithȱCluny’sȱsecularȱfriends.ȱInȱtheȱtimeȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱmajor donations,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱspeaksȱveryȱfavorablyȱofȱAlfonsoȱVIIȱinȱaȱplaintive letterȱ(mid–1143)ȱtoȱInnocentȱII: ImperatorȱHyspanus,ȱmagnusȱChristianiȱpopuliȱprinceps,ȱdevotusȱmaiestatiȱvestrae filius,ȱlicetȱapudȱpietatemȱvestramȱmultumȱpossitȱetȱposseȱdebeat,ȱtamenȱquiaȱinter modernosȱregesȱpraecipuusȱamicusȱetȱbenefactorȱCluniacensisȱecclesiaeȱest,ȱmeȱad praesensȱmediatoremȱetȱapudȱvosȱintercessoremȱelegit.68 [ThoughȱtheȱemperorȱofȱSpain,ȱthatȱgreatȱprinceȱofȱtheȱChristianȱpeople,ȱaȱdevotedȱson ofȱyourȱmajesty,ȱisȱveryȱableȱandȱshouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱcomeȱbeforeȱYourȱPiety,ȱheȱhas

65 66 67

68

Recueilȱdesȱchartes,ȱ5,ȱ423–24,ȱno.ȱ4072;ȱ(datedȱ29ȱJuly,ȱ1142). Recueilȱdesȱchartes,ȱ5,ȱ428–29,ȱno.ȱ4076ȱ(datedȱ29ȱOctober,ȱ1143). CharlesȱJ.ȱBishko,ȱ“PeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱJourneyȱtoȱSpain,”ȱPetrusȱVenerabilis,ȱ1156–1956,ȱStudia Anselmiana,ȱ40ȱ(Rome:ȱHerder,ȱ1956),ȱ163–75;ȱhereȱ170–71;ȱrpt.ȱinȱSpanishȱandȱPortugueseȱMonastic History,ȱart.ȱxii. Letters,ȱ265,ȱep.ȱ103.

300

MarcȱSaurette chosenȱmeȱtoȱcomeȱasȱaȱmediatorȱandȱintercessor,ȱsinceȱheȱisȱaȱfriendȱandȱbenefactor ofȱtheȱCluniacȱChurchȱextraordinaryȱamongȱtoday’sȱkings.]

OnȱAlfonso’sȱbehalf,ȱPeterȱattemptsȱtoȱinfluenceȱInnocentȱII’sȱjudgementȱonȱthe disputedȱelectionȱofȱtheȱarchbishopricȱofȱCompostela.ȱHeȱarguesȱthatȱAlfonso’s candidate,ȱBishopȱBerengarȱofȱSalamanca,ȱwasȱtheȱmostȱworthyȱcandidateȱwho shouldȱ beȱ allowedȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ hisȱ crosier.ȱ Peterȱ begsȱ forȱ hisȱ pope’sȱ favor,ȱ and requestsȱthatȱheȱrespectȱjustice,ȱsinceȱBerengarȱwasȱelectedȱcanonicallyȱandȱwasȱa virtuousȱman,ȱunlikeȱtheȱdisputantȱwho,ȱasȱPeterȱdescribesȱit,ȱwasȱdrivenȱbyȱlucre. GivenȱtheȱtimingȱofȱAlfonso’sȱgrantsȱtoȱCluny,ȱitȱmayȱappearȱthatȱtheȱgrantȱof SanȬPedroȬdeȬCàrdenaȱisȱaȱ‘downȱpayment’ȱforȱPeter’sȱfutureȱintercession.ȱCharles BishkoȱinterpretsȱPeter’sȱtripȱtoȱSpainȱinȱthisȱway—aȱresultȱofȱAlfonso’sȱneedȱto ensureȱthatȱhisȱmanȱwasȱinstalledȱasȱtheȱecclesiasticalȱlordȱinȱanȱareaȱwhereȱheȱwas extendingȱ hisȱ influenceȱ butȱ facedȱ opposition.69ȱ Theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ amicus, however,ȱcautionsȱagainstȱseeingȱthisȱexchangeȱasȱsomeȱsortȱofȱsimpleȱtradeȱof landȱ forȱ diplomacy.ȱ Theȱ termȱ remindsȱ Innocentȱ thatȱ Alfonsoȱ VIIȱ hadȱ already shownȱ himselfȱ wellȱ disposedȱ toȱ Clunyȱ andȱ itsȱ reformȱ program,ȱ andȱ thatȱ his forefathersȱrankedȱamongȱCluny’sȱsupporters.ȱElsewhere,ȱPeter’sȱlettersȱtoȱpopes andȱbishopsȱshowȱthatȱheȱoftenȱusedȱaȱpublicȱdeclarationȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱform ofȱmedievalȱcharacterȱreference.ȱToȱacceptȱtoȱbeȱnamedȱorȱtoȱnameȱoneselfȱasȱa friendȱ ofȱ aȱ manȱ searchingȱ forȱ anȱ ecclesiasticalȱ position,ȱ wasȱ toȱ vouchȱ forȱ his Christianȱnatureȱandȱvirtuousȱbehavior.70ȱȱByȱthisȱstatement,ȱPeterȱmakesȱtheȱclaim thatȱheȱisȱnotȱaȱhiredȱgunȱforȱAlfonso,ȱbutȱratherȱanȱindividualȱtakingȱcareȱforȱthe sakeȱ ofȱ commonȱ charity.ȱ Andȱ sinceȱ Peter’sȱ letter,ȱ buttressedȱ byȱ thatȱ ofȱ other prominentȱchurchmen,ȱconvincedȱInnocentȱthatȱBerengarȱwasȱaȱworthyȱcandidate, heȱmustȱhaveȱbeenȱpersuasive.71 Fromȱthisȱepisode,ȱweȱglimpseȱhowȱPeterȱsubsumesȱAlfonso’sȱbehaviorȱintoȱthe discourseȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Heȱ portraysȱ himȱ toȱ Innocentȱ asȱ oneȱ boundȱ byȱ the obligationsȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱusesȱthisȱimageȱtoȱpersuadeȱInnocentȱthatȱAlfonso wasȱ actingȱ inȱ theȱ interestsȱ ofȱ theȱ Church.ȱ Butȱ Peterȱ didȱ notȱ makeȱ anȱ empty rhetoricalȱ claim.ȱ Heȱ hadȱ strongȱ “proofȱ ofȱ friendship”ȱ thatȱ Alfonsoȱ wasȱ aȱ likeȬ mindedȱsupporterȱofȱtheȱChurch.ȱToȱbeȱthoughtȱtoȱacceptȱAlfonsoȱasȱfriendȱfor selfȬinterestȱ(therebyȱactingȱtheȱ“friendȱofȱMammon”)ȱwouldȱacknowledgeȱPeter’s hypocrisyȱandȱwouldȱdestroyȱhisȱcredibility,ȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱInnocent,ȱbutȱwithȱany learnedȱaudienceȱofȱtheȱletter.

69 70 71

Bishko,ȱ“PeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱJourneyȱtoȱSpain,”ȱ170–71. Seeȱforȱexample,ȱep.ȱ79,ȱ85,ȱ89,ȱandȱ166. BernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱforȱexample,ȱalsoȱwroteȱtoȱInnocentȱIIȱinȱsupportȱofȱBerengarȱ(seeȱBishko, “PeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱJourneyȱtoȱSpain,”ȱ172).

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

301

RogerȱII,ȱKingȱofȱSicily Aȱletterȱ(1139/1141)ȱtoȱPeter’sȱ“dominoȱetȱamicus”ȱ(lordȱandȱfriend)ȱRogerȱII,ȱthe kingȱofȱSicilyȱ(†1154)ȱfurtherȱsuggestsȱhowȱgiftsȱaloneȱdidȱnotȱjustifyȱaȱrankȱamong Cluny’sȱ greatȱ friends.72ȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ concedesȱ thatȱ reportsȱ ofȱ Roger’s benevolentȱruleȱ“firstȱimpelledȱmeȱtoȱloveȱyouȱandȱalsoȱurgedȱmeȱtoȱadmitȱyouȱto theȱranksȱofȱtheȱgreatestȱfriendsȱandȱbenefactorsȱofȱtheȱCluniacȱchurch,ȱthatȱis,ȱthe greatȱRoman,ȱFrench,ȱEnglishȱandȱSpanishȱkings”.73ȱThisȱpraiseȱofȱRogerȱisȱnot unlikeȱwhatȱwasȱofferedȱtoȱStephen,ȱAlfonsoȱorȱRaoul,ȱandȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱoriginȱof friendshipȱinȱaȱcommonȱChristianȱoutlook.ȱButȱhowȱisȱitȱthatȱRogerȱbecameȱoneȱof Cluny’sȱ“greatȱfriends”ȱwhenȱheȱhadȱnotȱmadeȱaȱsingleȱdonationȱtoȱCluny?ȱRoger, itȱshouldȱbeȱremembered,ȱhadȱbeenȱanȱardentȱsupporterȱofȱtheȱantiȬpopeȱAnacletus II,ȱ wasȱ excommunicatedȱ byȱ Innocentȱ IIȱ inȱ Aprilȱ 1139ȱ andȱ hadȱ capturedȱ and imprisonedȱInnocentȱIIȱaȱfewȱmonthsȱlater.ȱTheȱtransformationȱofȱRoger’sȱposition revealsȱthatȱPeter’sȱuseȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱnotȱjustȱaȱrewardȱforȱpastȱbehavior,ȱbut alsoȱaȱprizeȱtoȱbeȱofferedȱwhenȱlookingȱtoȱtheȱfuture. PeterȱopensȱtheȱletterȱdeclaringȱthatȱheȱembracesȱRogerȱwithȱtheȱarmsȱofȱtrue love,ȱevenȱifȱoneȱhadȱneverȱlaidȱeyesȱonȱtheȱother.ȱHeȱannouncesȱthatȱheȱcameȱto knowȱaboutȱRoger’sȱsincereȱloveȱforȱClunyȱfromȱtheȱtestimonyȱofȱaȱCluniacȱmonk GeoffreyȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱpriorȱofȱSanȱMariaȱdeȱGimmara,ȱtheȱonlyȱCluniacȱhouseȱin SicilyȱandȱwhoȱwasȱmakingȱoverturesȱtoȱClunyȱonȱRoger’sȱbehalf.74ȱTheȱnatureȱof Roger’sȱproposalsȱisȱleftȱunstatedȱbyȱPeter,ȱbutȱalmostȱcertainlyȱtheyȱrelatedȱtoȱthe truceȱforcedȱonȱInnocentȱIIȱbyȱRogerȱ(25ȱJuly,ȱ1139).ȱTheȱletterȱisȱfilledȱwithȱpraise forȱ Roger’sȱ peaceȬmakingȱ andȱ communicatesȱ Peter’sȱ anxietyȱ aboutȱ the tenuousnessȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱpeace.ȱThisȱpoliticalȱallianceȱisȱlikelyȱtheȱexplanation forȱ whyȱ Peterȱ extendsȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ toȱ Roger.ȱ Asȱ withȱ Alfonsoȱ VII,ȱ Peter welcomedȱ thisȱ secularȱ leader’sȱ requestȱ forȱ diplomacyȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ cycleȱ of friendship. Theȱ letter’sȱ centralȱ themeȱ repeatsȱ theȱ ideologyȱ recordedȱ inȱ Alfonsoȱ VII’s charters:ȱGodȱpermitsȱtemporalȱkingsȱtoȱruleȱasȱHisȱintermediariesȱsoȱlongȱasȱtheir powerȱisȱmarshaledȱtoȱundertakeȱtheȱwillȱofȱGod.ȱThisȱRogerȱdoes,ȱPeterȱpraises, byȱcreatingȱaȱlastingȱpeaceȱinȱanȱareaȱ(Sicily,ȱApuliaȱandȱCalabria)ȱhistorically wrackedȱ byȱ conflictȱ andȱ disorder.ȱ Rogerȱ isȱ thereforeȱ anȱ exemplarȱ ofȱ Christian kingshipȱ whichȱ evokesȱ Peter’sȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ sharedȱ charity.ȱ Peterȱ offersȱ his friendship,ȱtheȱproofȱofȱwhichȱheȱthenȱoutlinesȱinȱdetail:

72 73

74

Letters,ȱ230,ȱep.ȱ90;ȱdominoȱetȱamicusȱRogerio. Ibid.,ȱ231,ȱep.ȱ90;ȱIstaȱ[…]ȱutȱinterȱmagnosȱregesȱRomanosȱdico,ȱFrancos,ȱAnglos,ȱHyspanos,ȱmaximos Cluniacensisȱaecclesiaeȱamicosȱetȱbenefactores,ȱuosȱquoqueȱadmitteremȱcoegerunt. Thisȱ houseȱ wasȱ foundedȱ byȱ Roger’sȱ sisterȱ Judith.ȱ Forȱ theȱ charterȱ ofȱ donation,ȱ seeȱ Recueilȱ des chartes,ȱ5,ȱ165–71,ȱno.ȱ3815.

302

MarcȱSaurette Eaȱdeȱcausaȱiamȱexȱmultoȱtemporeȱproȱpace,ȱproȱhonore,ȱproȱsaluteȱvestraȱetȱapud deumȱprecatorem,ȱetȱapudȱhominesȱpraedicatoremȱmeȱconstitui,ȱetȱadȱidemȱagendum tamȱdeȱnostrisȱquamȱdeȱalienisȱquosȱpotuiȱattraxi.ȱTestisȱestȱhorumȱconscientiaȱmea, testisȱRomanusȱcancellarius,ȱtestisȱetȱipseȱdominusȱpapa,ȱquemȱPisisȱquamȱRomae quemȱintraȱGalliasȱconstitutum,ȱpraesensȱuerbis,ȱabsensȱlitterisȱdeȱpaceȱuestraȱsepe conueni,ȱetȱneȱinimicisȱuestrisȱuestramȱ pacemȱeiusqueȱperturbatoribusȱcrederet,ȱet rogauiȱetȱmonui.ȱQuodȱlicetȱdiuȱdilatum,ȱsedȱnuncȱtandemȱadȱeffectumȱperductum, nosȱetȱomnesȱquicumqueȱaudireȱpotueruntȱpacisȱamatoresȱlaetificat,ȱetȱadȱgratiarum actionesȱdeoȱpersoluendasȱinuitat.75 [Forȱthisȱreason,ȱalreadyȱnowȱforȱaȱlongȱtimeȱIȱhaveȱprovenȱmyselfȱaȱsupplicantȱbefore Godȱandȱaȱpreacherȱtoȱmenȱoutȱofȱconcernȱforȱpeace,ȱforȱhonor,ȱforȱyourȱsalvation,ȱand Iȱhaveȱmarshaledȱbothȱmyȱcountrymenȱandȱforeignersȱtoȱdoȱtheȱsame.ȱMyȱconscience isȱwitnessȱtoȱthis,ȱasȱisȱtheȱRomanȱchancellorȱ[Haimeric]ȱandȱtheȱlordȱPopeȱ[Innocent II]ȱhimself,ȱrecognizedȱinȱPisa,ȱRomaȱandȱthroughoutȱFrance.ȱIȱoftenȱbringȱupȱyour peaceȱtoȱhim,ȱwithȱwordsȱspokenȱwhenȱtogether,ȱwithȱlettersȱwhenȱapart.ȱIȱhaveȱasked andȱurgedȱhimȱnotȱtoȱbelieveȱyourȱenemiesȱandȱtheȱdisturbersȱofȱyourȱpeace.ȱThis, thoughȱdelayedȱforȱsomeȱtime,ȱhasȱnowȱfinallyȱhadȱanȱeffect.ȱThisȱdelightsȱusȱandȱall loversȱofȱpeace—namely,ȱeveryoneȱwhoȱhearsȱaboutȱthis—ȱandȱincitesȱusȱtoȱmake demonstrationsȱofȱthanksȱtoȱGod.]

Theȱ sincerityȱ ofȱ hisȱ offerȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ demonstrated,ȱ Peterȱ claims,ȱ byȱ his longstandingȱ diplomacyȱ onȱ Roger’sȱ behalf.ȱ Andȱ Peterȱ nextȱ verbalizesȱ his expectationȱofȱaȱreturnȱforȱhisȱbenevolence.ȱFutureȱdonationsȱ(orȱ“demonstrations ofȱthanks”)ȱbyȱRogerȱwouldȱrebalanceȱPeter’sȱfavor.ȱ Peter’sȱletter,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱnotȱofferȱonlyȱaȱsingleȱtitȬforȬtatȱexchange,ȱbutȱa continuingȱrelationship.ȱHeȱexpressesȱhisȱhopeȱthatȱRoger’sȱpotentialȱdonations wouldȱallowȱtheȱspreadȱofȱCluniacȱmonasteriesȱinȱhisȱlands,ȱwhichȱwould,ȱinȱturn, bringȱfurtherȱreturnsȱtoȱRogerȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱsocialȱandȱreligiousȱsolidarity.ȱPeter suggestsȱthatȱincreasingȱtheȱnumberȱofȱCluniacȱmonksȱinȱSicilyȱwouldȱmultiplyȱthe ardorȱforȱreligionȱinȱRoger’sȱkingdom—aȱkingdomȱwhichȱonceȱwasȱaȱsafeȱhaven forȱtheȱSaracens.ȱTheirȱexampleȱwouldȱestablishȱtheȱChristianȱunity,ȱheȱargues,ȱkey toȱaȱfirmȱloyaltyȱtoȱRoger’sȱChristianȱkingship.ȱAnȱallusionȱtoȱtheȱbookȱofȱSirach (4.10)ȱremindsȱRogerȱaboutȱtheȱpoliticalȱvalueȱofȱthisȱstrategy,ȱsinceȱaȱkingȱrelying onȱ hisȱ powerȱ aloneȱ “cumȱ cecederitȱ nonȱ habetȱ subleuantem”ȱ (doesȱ notȱ have someoneȱ toȱ supportȱ himȱ whenȱ heȱ falls).76ȱ Byȱ workingȱ forȱ orthodoxyȱ andȱ by spreadingȱwordȱofȱRoger’sȱrenown,ȱCluny’sȱmonksȱandȱitsȱfriendshipȱprovided

75 76

Letters,ȱ231,ȱep.ȱ90. Letters,ȱ232,ȱep.ȱ90.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

303

avenuesȱforȱRogerȱtoȱstrengthenȱhisȱkingdom.77ȱThroughȱthisȱexchangeȱkingȱand cloisterȱwouldȱbeȱboundȱtogetherȱbyȱeverȱtighterȱbondsȱofȱmutualȱsupport. Peter’sȱletterȱcanȱbeȱviewedȱasȱanȱoutlineȱofȱtheȱconditionsȱforȱPeter/ȱClunyȱto supportȱRogerȱinȱpursuingȱpeaceȱwithȱInnocent.ȱAsȱPeterȱportraysȱtheȱsituation, ifȱRogerȱsincerelyȱwantedȱaȱlastingȱpeaceȱwithȱInnocentȱthroughȱCluny,ȱthenȱhe wouldȱhaveȱtoȱwantȱtoȱbeȱitsȱfriend.ȱPeterȱimplicitlyȱdemandsȱthatȱRogerȱadhere toȱwhatȱwasȱexpectedȱofȱaȱfriendȱandȱexplicitlyȱunderlinesȱthatȱRogerȱcouldȱnotȱbe justȱaȱtypicalȱnoble,ȱbutȱvirtueȱincarnate,ȱanotherȱSolomon,ȱaȱferventȱdefenderȱof theȱpeace.ȱPeterȱalsoȱenjoinsȱRogerȱtoȱengageȱinȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱbenevolenceȱ(e.g. gifts)ȱthatȱcharacterizedȱfriendship.ȱThereȱisȱnothingȱparticularlyȱuniqueȱaboutȱthis depiction,ȱ asȱ Peter’sȱ otherȱ lettersȱ demonstrateȱ thisȱ presentationȱ toȱ beȱ topoic.78 RecallingȱOdoȱofȱCluny’sȱdepictionȱofȱGeraldȱofȱAurillacȱasȱaȱmonkishȱwarrior, RogerȱisȱglorifiedȱforȱhisȱcivilizedȱChristianȱnatureȱandȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱCluny.79 TheȱglorifyingȱportraitȱisȱdesignedȱtoȱaggrandizeȱRoger,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱcommunicate Peter’sȱ civilizingȱ message:ȱ supportȱ Clunyȱ orȱ riskȱ beingȱ publicizedȱ asȱ an uncharitableȱaristocrat. TheȱevidenceȱfromȱRogerȱII’sȱreignȱindicatesȱthatȱPeterȱwasȱcorrectȱinȱidentifying Roger’sȱ deepȱ concernȱ forȱ maintainingȱ anȱ imageȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ leader.ȱ Hubert Houben’sȱaccountȱofȱRogerȱIIȱshowsȱthatȱheȱlaboredȱtoȱenshrineȱandȱpopularize anȱ imageȱ ofȱ himselfȱ asȱ aȱ Christianȱ rulerȱ (e.g.,ȱ governingȱ inȱ accordanceȱ with Christianȱ ideasȱ ofȱ justice,ȱ supportingȱ theȱ Church,ȱ encouragingȱ Christian intellectuals)ȱinȱart,ȱarchitectureȱandȱliterature.80ȱOneȱexampleȱofȱthisȱcampaignȱis aȱhistoryȱofȱhisȱreignȱcommissionedȱbyȱRogerȱfromȱaȱBenedictineȱabbot,ȱAlexander ofȱTeleseȱ(†1143),ȱwhichȱpraisesȱRoger’sȱChristianȱmajestyȱandȱemphasizesȱhis extremeȱ hatredȱ forȱ liars,ȱ hypocritesȱ andȱ flatterers.81ȱ Suchȱ aȱ concernȱ with

77

78

79

80

81

TheȱpracticalȱtoneȱofȱPeter’sȱargumentȱisȱrepeatedȱinȱsubsequentȱletters.ȱTheȱreciprocalȱroleȱofȱking andȱClunyȱisȱagainȱexploredȱinȱep.ȱ131ȱ(Letters,ȱ330–33)ȱwhereȱPeterȱemphasizesȱtheȱutilityȱof donatingȱtoȱCluny,ȱwhereȱgiftsȱwillȱnotȱbeȱspentȱonȱtheȱmonks,ȱbutȱwillȱbeȱmultipliedȱinȱdirect charity.ȱPeterȱunabashedlyȱcharacterizesȱClunyȱasȱplayingȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱtheȱearthlyȱworld andȱactingȱasȱaȱtreasuryȱforȱallȱChristiansȱ(monksȱorȱotherwise). Cf.ȱep.ȱ75ȱtoȱtheȱByzantineȱEmperorȱJohnȱComnenusȱorȱep.ȱ82ȱtoȱtheȱKingȱofȱJerusalem.ȱPeter addressesȱKingȱSigardȱofȱNorwayȱinȱalmostȱidenticalȱterms:ȱ“Soȱgreatlyȱdoȱyouȱsubmitȱtheȱpride ofȱkingsȱmostȱaffectionatelyȱtoȱtheȱsweetȱyokeȱofȱChristȱ....”ȱLetters,ȱep.ȱ44,ȱ141;ȱ[Q]ualiterȱregium fastumȱsuauiȱChristiȱiugoȱaffectuosissimeȱsubieceritis. OnȱtheȱcivilizingȱundertoneȱinȱOdo’sȱVitaȱGerardi,ȱcf.ȱStuartȱAirlie,ȱ“TheȱAnxietyȱofȱSanctity:ȱSt GeraldȱofȱAurillacȱandȱhisȱMaker,”ȱJournalȱofȱEcclesiasticalȱHistoryȱ43ȱ(1992),ȱ372–95. HubertȱHouben,ȱRogerȱIIȱdiȱSicilia:ȱunȱsovranoȱtraȱOrienteȱundȱOccidente.ȱCentroȱeuropeoȱdiȱstudi normanni,ȱ8ȱ(Roma:ȱEditoriȱLaterza,ȱ1999),ȱtrans.ȱbyȱGrahamȱA.ȱLoudȱandȱDianeȱMilburnȱasȱRoger IIȱofȱSicily:ȱAȱRulerȱbetweenȱEastȱandȱWest.ȱCambridgeȱMedievalȱTextbooksȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ113–34. AlexandriȱTelesiniȱabbatisȱYstoriaȱRogeriiȱRegisȱSicilieȱCalabrieȱatqueȱApulie,ȱed.ȱL.ȱDeȱNava.ȱHistorical CommentaryȱbyȱD.ȱClementi.ȱFontiȱperȱlaȱstoriaȱd’Italiaȱpubblicatiȱdall’Istitutoȱstoricoȱitalianoȱper ilȱMedioȱEvo,ȱ112ȱ(Rome:ȱIstitutoȱPalazzoȱBorromini,ȱ1991),ȱIV,ȱ3–4,ȱ82–3,ȱcitedȱinȱHouben,ȱRoger

304

MarcȱSaurette

disseminatingȱaȱpopularȱconceptionȱofȱhimselfȱasȱaboveȱreproachȱisȱwhatȱPeter mayȱhaveȱbeenȱappealingȱtoȱwithȱhisȱofferȱofȱsincereȱfriendship.ȱ PerhapsȱPeterȱwasȱalsoȱencouragedȱbyȱtheȱknowledgeȱthatȱtheȱwomenȱinȱRoger’s lifeȱhadȱalreadyȱshownȱthemselvesȱtoȱbeȱimportantȱsupportersȱofȱCluny.ȱRoger’s firstȱwifeȱElviraȱwasȱtheȱdaughterȱofȱAlfonsoȱVIȱofȱLéonȬCastilleȱandȱmayȱhave playedȱaȱroleȱinȱurgingȱRogerȱtoȱlinkȱhimselfȱtoȱaȱpowerfulȱmonasteryȱtraditionally alliedȱwithȱherȱfamily.ȱJudith,ȱRoger’sȱsister,ȱhadȱalreadyȱlinkedȱherselfȱtoȱCluny byȱgrantingȱthatȱtheȱSicilianȱmonasteryȱofȱSanȱMariaȱdeȱGimmaraȱbeȱfilledȱwith Cluniacȱmonks. Thereȱisȱnoȱindication,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱRogerȱeverȱrespondedȱfavorablyȱtoȱPeter’s suggestions.82ȱTheȱpeaceȱagreementȱbetweenȱInnocentȱandȱRogerȱlanguishedȱdue toȱtheȱoppositionȱofȱRomanȱcardinals,ȱandȱsuccessiveȱpopesȱremainedȱantagonistic toȱ Roger.83ȱ Norȱ doȱ anyȱ lettersȱ fromȱ Rogerȱ surviveȱ toȱ indicateȱ whetherȱ Peter’s strategyȱwasȱsuccessfulȱinȱbindingȱhimȱtoȱCluny.ȱPeterȱdidȱsendȱtwoȱsubsequent lettersȱtoȱhimȱ(theȱfirstȱdatingȱfromȱ1146ȱandȱtheȱsecondȱfromȱsoonȱafter)ȱenjoining Rogerȱtoȱactȱinȱlineȱwithȱtheȱmodelȱofȱkingshipȱoutlinedȱinȱhisȱinitialȱletterȱinȱ1139. Theȱ1146ȱletterȱimploresȱRoger’sȱgenerosityȱandȱoutlinesȱaȱking’sȱresponsibilityȱto dispenseȱhisȱlargesseȱtoȱtheȱpoorȱbrothersȱofȱCluny.ȱTheȱlaterȱepistleȱenjoinsȱRoger toȱreachȱaȱpeaceȱwithȱtheȱEmperorȱConradȱIIIȱandȱoffersȱhimselfȱasȱaȱmediator. Thatȱ Peterȱ couldȱ askȱ orȱ offerȱ suchȱ servicesȱ hintsȱ atȱ aȱ continuedȱ relationship betweenȱRogerȱandȱCluny,ȱwhetherȱrealȱorȱclaimed.ȱWhileȱtheȱfirstȱletterȱnoȱlonger makesȱ mentionȱ ofȱ Rogerȱ asȱ aȱ friend,ȱ theȱ secondȱ remarksȱ thatȱ Clunyȱ still commemoratedȱ Rogerȱ alongsideȱ itsȱ otherȱ “friendsȱ andȱ benefactors”,ȱ allowing Peterȱtoȱcontinueȱtoȱmakeȱrequests,ȱlongȱafterȱCluny’sȱinitialȱutilityȱforȱRogerȱhad fadedȱintoȱtheȱpast.84ȱ

Conclusion Inȱconclusion,ȱIȱreturnȱtoȱPeter’sȱofferȱofȱassistanceȱtoȱInnocentȱII.ȱPeter’sȱletterȱdid notȱbringȱwithȱitȱtheȱnecessaryȱmartialȱforceȱtoȱsustainȱInnocentȱinȱRome.ȱInȱfact, nobodyȱ cameȱ toȱ helpȱ andȱ soonȱ afterȱ receivingȱ Peter’sȱ letter,ȱ heȱ fledȱ Romeȱ for northernȱ Italy—thenȱ travelingȱ onȱ toȱ France—whereȱ secularȱ andȱ ecclesiastical

82

83

84

IIȱofȱSicily,ȱ177. Letters,ȱ2,ȱ160,ȱnoteȱtoȱep.ȱ90;ȱLynnȱWhite,ȱLatinȱMonasticismȱinȱNormanȱSicily,ȱMediaevalȱAcademy ofȱAmericaȱMonographs,ȱ13ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱMedievalȱAcademyȱofȱAmerica,ȱ1938),ȱ56. IanȱS.ȱRobinson,ȱ“TheȱPapacy,ȱ1122–1198,”ȱTheȱNewȱCambridgeȱMedievalȱHistory,ȱed.ȱRosamond McKitterickȱandȱDavidȱAbulafiaȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004),ȱ317–83;ȱhere, 376. Letters,ȱ394–95,ȱep.ȱ162.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships

305

lords,ȱofȱwhomȱPeterȱwasȱone,ȱshelteredȱandȱaidedȱhim.ȱIfȱweȱareȱtoȱtrustȱtheȱVita PetriȱVenerabilis,ȱhowever,ȱPeterȱisȱtheȱheroȱofȱtheȱstory.ȱInȱthisȱaccount,ȱPeterȱhad himselfȱracedȱtoȱRome,ȱbringingȱhorsesȱwithȱhimȱtoȱferryȱInnocentȱtoȱFrance.85ȱNot onlyȱdidȱPeterȱshepherdȱInnocentȱtoȱCluny,ȱbutȱheȱthenȱwelcomedȱandȱcelebrated himȱ withȱ suchȱ solemnityȱ that,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ authorȱ Raoul,ȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ the GallicanȱChurchȱimmediatelyȱrecognizedȱInnocentȱasȱtheȱrightfulȱclaimant.ȱInȱturn, aȱloveȱforȱPeterȱcompelledȱtheȱFrenchȱking,ȱandȱthenȱtheȱkingsȱofȱEngland,ȱSpain andȱGermanyȱtoȱfollowȱsuitȱandȱtoȱensureȱunityȱthroughoutȱChristendom.86ȱPeter theȱVenerableȱwasȱindisputablyȱaȱkeyȱsupporterȱandȱpropagandistȱonȱInnocent’s behalf,ȱbutȱRaoul’sȱdepictionȱalmostȱcomicallyȱoveremphasizesȱPeter’sȱroleȱandȱthe influenceȱheȱhadȱoverȱtheȱlayȱsupportersȱofȱCluny.ȱInnocentȱII,ȱthoughȱelected irregularlyȱ andȱ onlyȱ rarelyȱ inȱ Rome,ȱ didȱ succeedȱ inȱ becomingȱ theȱ universally recognizedȱ claimantȱ toȱ theȱ papacyȱ largelyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ superiorȱ abilityȱ at controllingȱpublicȱopinion.87ȱUltimatelyȱitȱwasȱnotȱlancesȱorȱswordsȱwhichȱsettled theȱpapalȱschism,ȱbutȱtheȱprotractedȱnegotiationsȱbetweenȱtheȱvariousȱcamps,ȱthe successfulȱpropagandaȱcampaignsȱwagedȱbyȱInnocent’sȱsupportersȱandȱtheȱdeath ofȱAnacletusȱII.ȱTheȱ‘softȱpower’ȱwieldedȱbyȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱandȱothersȱlike him,ȱsucceededȱinȱbreakingȱtheȱimpasseȱandȱunifyingȱtheȱRomanȱChurchȱunder aȱsingleȱpontiff.ȱ Thisȱ sortȱ ofȱ diplomaticȱ powerȱ wasȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ Peter’sȱ andȱ Cluny’s friendships:ȱ toȱ helpȱ overcomeȱ divisivenessȱ andȱ toȱ associateȱ everybodyȱ under Christianȱ harmoniousȱ accord.ȱ Toȱ beȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ Clunyȱ wasȱ toȱ participateȱ inȱ a systemȱ ofȱ powerȱ reinforcingȱ theȱ existingȱ collaborationȱ ofȱ theȱ castleȱ andȱ the monastery.ȱ Monksȱ andȱ noblesȱ alikeȱ sawȱ valueȱ inȱ creatingȱ linksȱ betweenȱ their worlds:ȱAlfonsoȱwasȱableȱtoȱlendȱweightȱtoȱhisȱecclesiasticalȱnegotiationsȱbyȱPeter’s interventionȱwhileȱClunyȱwasȱprovidedȱwithȱfurtherȱresourcesȱtoȱcontinueȱtheir monasticȱ mission;ȱ Peterȱ soughtȱ toȱ solidifyȱ theȱ peaceȱ betweenȱ Rogerȱ andȱ the papacy,ȱwhileȱRogerȱcouldȱportrayȱhimselfȱasȱaȱholyȱChristianȱking.ȱFriendship gaveȱlordsȱandȱmonksȱanȱabilityȱtoȱnegotiateȱsuchȱmutuallyȱbeneficialȱexchanges withoutȱappearingȱmercenary.ȱByȱsubsumingȱsuchȱexchangesȱunderȱtheȱmantleȱof friendship,ȱmoreover,ȱbothȱgroupsȱengagedȱinȱaȱformȱofȱpublicȱbehaviorȱwhich reinforcedȱtheirȱeliteȱstatusȱasȱtheȱinheritorsȱofȱtheȱancientȱartȱofȱamicitia.

85 86 87

VitaȱPetriȱVenerabilis,ȱcol.ȱ20. Ibid.,ȱcol.ȱ21A. MaryȱStroll,ȱTheȱJewishȱPope,ȱ169–78.

306

MarcȱSaurette

AppendixȱA.ȱFriendȱcitationsȱinȱtheȱCluniacȱNecrologies† Date

Entry

Necrology

Page

Familiares 1.1 4.1 16.1 21.2 8.3 22.3 23.3 25.3 29.3 30.3 1.4 11.4 16.4 17.4 18.4 19.4 20.4 26.4 3.5

5.5

†

Duranniȱamiciȱnostri,ȱetȱaliorumȱ familiariumȱnostriȱ Marcigny Ottoȱamicusȱnoster Moissac/ȱSt.ȱSaulve Geraldus/ȱGiraldusȱamicusȱnoster Marcigny PatrisȱeiusȱHeinriciȱmilitisȱamiciȱnostriȱ Longpont Euelendisȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny/ȱSMdC 135 Fraselmaȱamicaȱnostra Longpont Agnesȱ[deȱMontȱMorlun]ȱsanctimonialisȱ amicaȱnostra St.ȱMartialȱI,ȱII Adeleidisȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Arrodusȱamicusȱnoster Longpont Iulittaȱ[Judith]ȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Marcigny Ildesendisȱamica Azcicaeȱamica Marcigny Hugoȱamicus Marcigny Martinusȱamicus Marcigny Berneriusȱamicus Marcigny Gilaȱamica Marcigny Rodulfusȱamicus Marcigny Amizaȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Otgisusȱamicusȱnoster Marcigny ObiitȱPetronillaȱdeȱBison,ȱamicaȱnostra,ȱ queȱiacetȱinȱcimiterioȱnostro;ȱofficiumȱ fiatȱproȱipsa,ȱquiaȱnobisȱquamȱplurimaȱ bonaȱfecitȱinȱuitaȱsuaȱetȱinȱultimaȱ uoluntateȱlegauitȱsexagintaȱsolidosȱ Parisiensesȱproȱsuoȱaniuersarioȱ Longpont annuatimȱfaciendo Rotbertusȱamicus Longpont

ȱȱȱ3 ȱȱȱ9 ȱ33 105

163 165 169a 177 179 183 203 213 215a 217 219 221a 233 247

247 251

AsȱreconstructedȱinȱtheȱSynopseȱderȱNecrologien.ȱDatesȱtakeȱtheȱformȱofȱdayȱfollowedȱbyȱmonth.

PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱSecularȱFriendships 6.5

6.6 9.6 10.6 11.6 19.6 21.6 24.6 13.7 22.7 28.7 14.9 20.9 29.10 30.10 1.11 26.11 20.12 27.12

ObiitȱOsannaȱuxorȱMichaelisȱdeȱ Gaurieȱqueȱdeditȱconuentuiȱunamȱ peciamȱuineeȱapudȱCastriisȱinȱterritorio,ȱ quodȱdiciturȱȱconȱproȱseȱetȱproȱ maritoȱsuoȱproȱanniuersariisȱamicorum.ȱ Officiumȱfiat. Longpont UUaldradaȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Eustachiusȱamicusȱnoster SMdC Stephanusȱamicusȱquiȱdeditȱ XIȱsolidos,ȱofficium St.ȱMartialȱII Marcigny Burchardusȱsacerdosȱamicus ObiitȱArenborgaȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Maroardusȱamicus Marcigny Berchardisȱamica Marcigny Alonnusȱsacerdosȱamicus Marcigny Gertrudisȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny UldricusȱtricenariusȱdeȱCreceiȱamicus Marcigny Balfredusȱsacerdosȱamicus Marcigny Ermengardisȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Beatrixȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Dalmatiusȱamicusȱnoster,ȱofficiumȱfiat SMdC,ȱSt.ȱMartialȱI,ȱII Ancillaȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Emmaȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny Emmoȱpresbiterȱamicusȱnoster Marcigny Berchildisȱamicaȱnostra Marcigny

307

253 315 321 323 325 340 345 351 389 407 419 515 527 605 607 611 661 709 723

Monachi 18.1 18.1 22.5

Lizelinusȱamicus Marcigny Margaretaȱamiciȱnostri,ȱofficiumȱ proȱipsis Marcigny HugoȱdeȱLupidomibusȱsuccentorȱ Belvacensisȱmonachusȱadȱsuccurrendum,ȱ quiȱdeditȱprioriȱcentumȱlibrasȱTuronenses inȱutilitatemȱecclesieȱconuertendas.ȱEtȱ conuentuiȱcentumȱlibrasȱTuronensesȱadȱ emendamȱredditusȱproȱpitanciaȱconuentus,ȱ proȱquoȱconcesssimusȱeidemȱmissamȱ

ȱ36 ȱ39

308

MarcȱSaurette specialemȱdeffunctorum,ȱclebrandamȱ proȱremedioȱanimeȱsueȱetȱauunculiȱsuiȱ priorisȱBalduiniȱetȱfratrumȱsuorumȱetȱ patrisȱetȱmatrisȱetȱomniumȱamicorumȱ suorumȱadȱaltareȱSancteȱMargarete,ȱ scribendamȱsingulisȱebdomadis,ȱsabbato,ȱ inȱtabula.ȱOfficiumȱfiat,ȱcapaȱinȱchoro. SMdC

285

Chapterȱ6 R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie (UniversityȱofȱTexas,ȱPanȱAmerican,ȱEdinburg,ȱTX)

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱ AnselmȱofȱCanterbury1

Introduction:ȱAbsentȱFriends Onȱ 20ȱ April,ȱ 2009,ȱ Theȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Timesȱ reportedȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ isȱ salubrious.2 Drawingȱonȱseveralȱempiricalȱstudies,ȱtheȱarticleȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱmoreȱfriends peopleȱhave,ȱtheȱmoreȱlikelyȱtheyȱareȱtoȱpreventȱandȱrecoverȱfromȱseriousȱillnesses. Theȱarticleȱmaintains,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱpositiveȱeffectsȱofȱfriendshipȱdoȱnotȱresult fromȱtheȱphysicalȱpresenceȱofȱfriends;ȱtheȱeffectȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱpsychological,ȱfor theȱproximityȱofȱfriendsȱisȱirrelevant.ȱTheȱmereȱideaȱofȱhavingȱfriends,ȱwherever theyȱare,ȱisȱmoreȱefficaciousȱthanȱanyȱotherȱexternalȱfactorȱincludingȱpartnership, marriage,ȱandȱfamily. Thisȱ studyȱ isȱ aboutȱ mysteriousȱ friendsȱ whoȱ throughȱ theirȱ absenceȱ provide exactlyȱtheȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱAnselmȱofȱCanterburyȱ(1033–1109),ȱabbotȱofȱBec andȱ archbishopȱ ofȱ Canterbury,ȱ findsȱ suitableȱ forȱ theȱ spiritualȱ life.ȱ Readersȱ of Anselm’sȱ largeȱ corpusȱ haveȱ givenȱ muchȱ attentionȱ toȱ hisȱ lettersȱ ofȱ friendship.3

1

2 3

IȱamȱgratefulȱtoȱLindaȱGeorgianna,ȱElizabethȱAllen,ȱandȱJuliaȱReinhardȱLuptonȱforȱreadingȱdrafts ofȱthisȱessayȱandȱprovidingȱthoughtfulȱandȱengagingȱfeedback.ȱIȱalsoȱthankȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱthis volumeȱforȱtheirȱhelpfulȱcomments.ȱThisȱessayȱisȱforȱMarshaȱDutton,ȱinȱgratitudeȱforȱfirstȱgetting meȱinterestedȱinȱmedievalȱliteratureȱandȱfriendship. TaraȱParkerȬPope,ȱ“WhatȱareȱFriendsȱfor?ȱAȱLongerȱLife,”ȱTheȱNewȱYorkȱTimes,ȱAprilȱ20,ȱ2009. ScholarshipȱoverȱtheȱpastȱfiftyȱyearsȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱincludesȱAdeleȱFiske,ȱ“Saint AnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱStudiaȱMonasticaȱ3ȱ(1961):ȱ259–90;ȱRichardȱW.ȱSouthern,ȱSaintȱAnselmȱand hisȱ Biographer:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ ofȱ Monasticȱ Lifeȱ andȱ Thought,ȱ 1059–c.1130ȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ1963),ȱ67–76;ȱJohnȱBoswell,ȱChristianity,ȱSocialȱTolerance,ȱandȱHomosexuality:ȱGay PeopleȱinȱWesternȱEuropeȱfromȱtheȱBeginningȱofȱtheȱChristianȱEraȱtoȱtheȱFourteenthȱCenturyȱ(Chicago andȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980),ȱ215–20;ȱBrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱand

310

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

Payingȱ admirablyȱ carefulȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ Anselm’sȱ lettersȱ of friendship,ȱAdeleȱFiskeȱarguesȱthatȱfriendshipȱforȱAnselmȱisȱaȱreciprocalȱloveȱand consciousnessȱofȱabsentȱfriendsȱwhoȱareȱmostȱrealȱasȱanȱinteriorȱimage—anȱidea impressedȱ onȱ theȱ heartȱ “likeȱ aȱ waxenȱ seal”ȱ (“cordiȱ meoȱ velutȱ sigillumȱ cerae imprimitur”)ȱ(Ep.ȱ4.15:3.104;ȱLetterȱ4:1.81)ȱwhoseȱ“mindsȱtheȱfireȱofȱloveȱwelds together”ȱ(“mentesȱinȱunamȱignisȱdilectionisȱconflat”)ȱ(Ep.ȱ5.7:3.106;ȱLetterȱ5:1.84).4 Sheȱwrites,ȱ“[R]eciprocityȱandȱconsciousȱawarenessȱ[forȱfriends]ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱindicateȱan experienceȱthatȱisȱwhollyȱinterior,ȱandȱthatȱproducesȱanȱinteriorȱpresenceȱofȱthe friendsȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱaȱcertaintyȱofȱlove,ȱandȱaȱmutualȱpossessionȱofȱeachȱother.”5 Inȱsuchȱaȱreading,ȱAnselm,ȱinfluencedȱbyȱAugustinianȱPlatonism,ȱbelievesȱthatȱthe friendȱisȱaȱreflectionȱofȱtheȱselfȱandȱtheȱunityȱofȱallȱChristians,ȱjustȱasȱtheȱsoulȱinȱits purestȱstateȱisȱanȱimageȱofȱGod.ȱImplicitȱinȱsuchȱaȱreadingȱalsoȱisȱthatȱclassical ideasȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ expressedȱ byȱ Aristotle,ȱ Cicero,ȱ andȱ Cassianȱ areȱ perfectly preserved,ȱinsofarȱasȱeachȱfriendȱisȱawareȱofȱtheȱotherȱthroughȱanȱawarenessȱof himself,ȱandȱareȱinȱfactȱreinforcedȱbyȱassumptionsȱofȱChristianȱunity,ȱasȱexpressed inȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱApostlesȱrecordedȱinȱActsȱ4.32ȱ(“multitudinisȱcredentium eratȱcorȱetȱanimaȱuna”ȱ(Ofȱtheȱmultitudeȱofȱbelievers,ȱthereȱwasȱoneȱheartȱand soul))ȱtoȱwhichȱAnselmȱandȱmanyȱotherȱmonasticȱwritersȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱsuch asȱCassian,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱandȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱoftenȱreferȱtoȱauthorize friendshipȱorȱcommunalȱmonasticȱlifeȱinȱgeneral.6ȱ

4

5 6

Community:ȱ Theȱ Monasticȱ Experience,ȱ 350–1250.ȱ Cistercianȱ Studiesȱ Series,ȱ 95ȱ (Kalamazoo,ȱ MI: CistercianȱPublications,ȱ1988),ȱ210–27;ȱMaryȬRoseȱBarral,ȱ“ReflectionsȱonȱAnselm’sȱFriendshipȱand Conversatio,”ȱAnselmȱStudies:ȱAnȱOccasionalȱJournalȱ2ȱ(1988):ȱ165–82;ȱSouthern,ȱSaintȱAnselm:ȱA PortraitȱinȱaȱLandscapeȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990)ȱ(hereafterȱPortrait),ȱ138–65; JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparationȱandȱMaleȱFriendship:ȱWordsȱandȱActionsȱinȱSaintȱAnselm’s LettersȱtoȱHisȱFriends,”ȱMasculinityȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱDawnȱM.ȱHadley.ȱWomenȱandȱMenȱin Historyȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱLongman,ȱ1999),ȱ238–55;ȱandȱHolleȱM.ȱCanatella,ȱ“Friendship inȱ Anselmȱ ofȱ Canterbury’sȱ Correspondence:ȱ Idealsȱ andȱ Experience,”ȱ Viator:ȱ Medievalȱ and RenaissanceȱStudies.ȱTheȱTheoryȱandȱPracticeȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱ38.2ȱ(2007):ȱ351–67. Allȱ Latinȱ quotationsȱ ofȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ Anselmȱ comeȱ fromȱ theȱ standardȱ edition,ȱ S.ȱ Anselmi CantuariensisȱArchiepiscopiȱOperaȱOmnia,ȱed.ȱFranciscusȱSalesiusȱSchmitt,ȱ6ȱvols.ȱ(StuttgartȬBad Cannstatt:ȱFriedrichȱFrommannȱVerlag,ȱ1968),ȱhereafterȱAOO.ȱAllȱquotationsȱofȱAnselm’sȱLatin lettersȱareȱtakenȱfromȱAOO,ȱvols.ȱ4–6.ȱIȱshallȱciteȱEpistleȱ(Ep.),ȱtheȱletterȱnumber,ȱSchmitt’sȱline number(s),ȱtheȱvolumeȱinȱSchmitt’sȱedition,ȱandȱtheȱpageȱnumber(s),ȱinȱthatȱorder.ȱNearlyȱall quotationsȱofȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱtranslatedȱintoȱEnglishȱcomeȱfromȱtheȱstandardȱtranslation,ȱThe LettersȱofȱSaintȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury,ȱtrans.ȱWalterȱFröhlich,ȱ3ȱvols.ȱ(Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercian Publications,ȱ1990–1994).ȱIȱshallȱciteȱLetter,ȱfollowedȱbyȱtheȱletterȱnumber,ȱtheȱvolumeȱnumber, andȱpageȱnumber(s),ȱinȱthatȱorder.ȱIfȱIȱdoȱnotȱencloseȱtheȱtranslationȱinȱquotationsȱmarks,ȱthenȱthe translationȱisȱmyȱown. Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ262.ȱ OnȱclassicalȱideasȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱAnselm’sȱpossibleȱfamiliarityȱwithȱthem,ȱseeȱbelow,ȱn.ȱ18.ȱOn theȱlanguageȱofȱActsȱ4.32ȱasȱaȱreinforcementȱofȱcommunalȱlifeȱandȱfriendship,ȱsee,ȱforȱexample, Cassian,ȱ Collationesȱ (Conferences)ȱ 16.6.4,ȱ Anselm,ȱ Ep.ȱ 48.4–5,ȱ Aelred,ȱ Deȱ spiritaliȱ amicitiaȱ (On SpiritualȱFriendship)ȱ1.28,ȱ2.21,ȱ2.67,ȱ3.99,ȱandȱ3.124,ȱandȱBernard,ȱSermonesȱsuperȱcanticaȱcanticorum

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 311 RichardȱW.ȱSouthern’sȱsensitiveȱscholarshipȱonȱAnselm’sȱtheologyȱofȱfriendship, asȱ expressedȱ inȱ hisȱ letters,ȱ remainsȱ theȱ dominantȱ criticalȱ modelȱ today.ȱ For Southern,ȱAnselm’sȱlanguageȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱecstasyȱservingȱaȱspiritualȱendȱtoȱbe incorporatedȱintoȱstrictȱobedienceȱtoȱGodȱandȱtheȱexactingȱmonasticȱlife.7ȱStressing theȱAugustinianȱPlatonismȱofȱAnselm’sȱthought,ȱSouthernȱarguesȱthatȱAnselm approachesȱfriendshipȱmuchȱlikeȱanyȱotherȱtopicȱinȱhisȱcorpus:ȱ“Heȱturnsȱhisȱmind toȱcontemplateȱanȱidealȱimage,ȱattachesȱhimselfȱtoȱitȱwithȱpassionateȱintensity,ȱand seeksȱitsȱrealizationȱinȱindividuals.”8ȱForȱAnselm,ȱSouthernȱwrites,ȱfriendshipȱis “anȱaidȱto,ȱandȱinȱaȱcertainȱsenseȱaȱculminationȱof,ȱtheȱreligiousȱlife.”9ȱEchoing Fiske,ȱSouthernȱarguesȱthatȱfriendshipȱforȱAnselmȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱindissoluble unionȱofȱsoulsȱinȱtheȱloveȱofȱGod.10ȱ ȱBrianȱPatrickȱMcGuireȱstartsȱfromȱtheȱpremiseȱthatȱfriendshipsȱinȱmedieval monasticȱsettingsȱwereȱformedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱcommunity.ȱBeforeȱAnselm,ȱhe argues,ȱ preferentialȱ friendshipsȱ wereȱ subordinatedȱ toȱ communalȱ harmonyȱ in whichȱallȱwereȱlovedȱequally.ȱPraiseȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱatȱbestȱtepid.ȱFriendship couldȱ occur,ȱ heȱ argues,ȱ onlyȱ ifȱ communalȱ harmonyȱ wasȱ notȱ disrupted.11ȱ The developmentȱofȱfriendshipȱforȱAnselm,ȱMcGuireȱargues,ȱbecameȱ“aȱwayȱtoȱenrich monasticȱlife,ȱwhichȱAnselmȱconsideredȱtheȱbestȱandȱoftenȱtheȱonlyȱwayȱtoȱreach paradise.”12ȱMcGuireȱnicelyȱhistoricizesȱemergingȱdiscussionsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱlight ofȱtheȱincreasedȱexchangeȱofȱknowledgeȱfromȱcathedralȱschools,ȱwithȱtheirȱclassical learning,ȱtoȱmonasticȱschools;ȱtheȱspecialȱattentionȱgivenȱtoȱinnerȱemotionsȱand humanityȱinȱtheȱnewȱformȱofȱdevotionȱthatȱbeganȱtoȱemerge;ȱandȱaȱmoreȱdynamic andȱ mobileȱ societyȱ inȱ whichȱ individualsȱ oftenȱ foundȱ themselvesȱ inȱ newȱ and foreignȱ situations,ȱ promptingȱ themȱ toȱ seekȱ outȱ friendships.13ȱ Likeȱ Fiskeȱ and Southern,ȱheȱviewsȱfriendshipȱforȱAnselmȱasȱaȱspirituallyȱseamlessȱunionȱofȱtwo soulsȱjoinedȱtogetherȱthroughȱaȱcommonȱloveȱandȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱselfȱandȱthe friend.14 Despiteȱ scholarlyȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ ostensibleȱ homogeneityȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ in Anselm’sȱletters,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱonlyȱthroughȱaȱreadingȱofȱAnselm’sȱPrayers,ȱwhose ideasȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ haveȱ receivedȱ littleȱ attentionȱ fromȱ scholars,ȱ butȱ inȱ which AnselmȱinvokesȱcertainȱsaintsȱasȱfriendsȱandȱoffersȱaȱPrayerȱforȱFriends,ȱthatȱthe nuancesȱofȱaȱmoreȱambiguousȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱbecomeȱapparentȱinȱbothȱthe

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(SermonsȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs)ȱ14.2,ȱ26.9,ȱ30.3,ȱandȱ71.9. Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱ146–47.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ155.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ139. Ibid.,ȱ141,ȱ147,ȱ155. McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ134–79.ȱ Ibid.,ȱ214. Ibid.,ȱ227–30. Ibid.,ȱ214–15.

312

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

Prayersȱ andȱ theȱ letters.ȱ Friendship,ȱ asȱ Jacquesȱ Derridaȱ argues,ȱ isȱ aȱ necessary impossibility.ȱItȱoperatesȱthroughȱunstableȱspeechȱactsȱbutȱnonethelessȱstructures politicalȱsocieties.15ȱThoughȱmyȱownȱstudyȱdoesȱnotȱconcernȱsuchȱpoliticalȱaspects, itȱ similarlyȱ examinesȱ friendshipȱ asȱ evidenceȱ notȱ ofȱ historicalȱ reality,ȱ butȱ ofȱ an unstableȱ andȱ imaginedȱ spiritualȱ ideal.16ȱ Assertingȱ whatȱ areȱ inȱ factȱ spiritual advantagesȱofȱvariousȱrupturesȱinȱhumanȱrelations,ȱasȱweȱshallȱsee,ȱIȱargueȱthat Anselmȱpresentsȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱlinguisticȱconstruction,ȱaȱpotentialȱunrealizedȱon earth,ȱ andȱ aȱ usefulȱ fictionȱ developingȱ theȱ medievalȱ Christianȱ byȱ subjecting selfhoodȱtoȱtenuousȱhumanȱrelations.17 ScholarsȱgenerallyȱargueȱthatȱAnselmȱcontinuesȱtheȱclassicalȱdiscourseȱofȱamicitia whileȱaddingȱaȱChristianȱflavorȱtoȱit.18ȱInȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱclassicalȱtradition, equality,ȱunity,ȱreciprocity,ȱvirtue,ȱdisinterestedness,ȱplenitude,ȱopenness,ȱandȱthe physicalȱpresenceȱofȱfriendsȱconstituteȱfriendship.ȱItȱoperatesȱbetweenȱtwoȱequals whoȱloveȱeachȱotherȱsolelyȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱtheȱother;ȱitȱbringsȱpeopleȱtogetherȱto shareȱtheirȱvirtue,ȱnotȱbecauseȱoneȱneedsȱsomethingȱfromȱtheȱother;ȱitȱtakesȱplace inȱ aȱ joint,ȱ seamlessȱ soulȱ thatȱ necessarilyȱ willsȱ theȱ sameȱ things;ȱ andȱ itȱ requires friendsȱtoȱspendȱtimeȱtogether.19ȱHowever,ȱwhatȱtheȱclassicsȱrelegateȱtoȱtheȱnonȬ

15

16

17

18

19

JacquesȱDerrida,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱFriendship,ȱtrans.ȱGeorgeȱCollins.ȱPhronesisȱ(LondonȱandȱNew York:ȱVerso,ȱ1997). Studiesȱ thatȱ treatȱ Anselm’sȱ friendshipsȱ asȱ historicalȱ realitiesȱ includeȱ McGuire,ȱ Friendshipȱ and Community,ȱ210–27;ȱCanatella,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱAnselm”;ȱandȱBarral,ȱ“Reflections.” Haseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparationȱandȱMaleȱFriendship,”ȱnotesȱthatȱtheȱstudyȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱusually dividedȱintoȱtwoȱbroadȱcategories:ȱ“[T]hereȱareȱthoseȱwhichȱregardȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱreflectionȱof theȱ explorationȱ ofȱ individualȱ identityȱ andȱ spirituality,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ whichȱ seeȱ itȱ primarilyȱ asȱ a functionȱofȱpoliticalȱnetworkȬformation,”ȱ245.ȱMyȱownȱstudy,ȱsoonȱtoȱbeȱevident,ȱisȱconcerned withȱtheȱformer. ThoughȱFiskeȱdoesȱnotȱspecificallyȱmentionȱclassicalȱsourcesȱinȱherȱarticle,ȱherȱideasȱconcerning Anselmȱandȱfriendshipȱareȱthoroughlyȱclassical,ȱandȱcouldȱbeȱfoundȱalmostȱanywhereȱinȱAristotle, Cicero,ȱorȱCassian,ȱforȱwhichȱseeȱbelowȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱnote,ȱn.ȱ18.ȱForȱexample,ȱFiske,ȱ“Saint AnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱmentionsȱAnselmianȱfriendships’ȱ“reciprocityȱandȱconsciousȱawareness” (262),ȱ “unionȱ ofȱ will”ȱ (267),ȱ “unity”ȱ andȱ “onenessȱ ofȱ heart”ȱ (269–70),ȱ similarityȱ ofȱ friends inseparablyȱboundȱtogetherȱ(282,ȱ290),ȱequalityȱ(284),ȱandȱimmutabilityȱ(287).ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendship andȱCommunity,ȱusesȱsimilarȱrhetoricȱofȱtheȱperfectȱunityȱandȱclarityȱorȱopennessȱbetweenȱAnselm andȱhisȱfriends,ȱ 214–15.ȱSouthern,ȱPortrait,ȱarguesȱthatȱAnselm,ȱthoughȱinformedȱbyȱclassical modelsȱofȱfriendship,ȱinjectsȱtheȱpassionateȱlanguageȱofȱecstasyȱintoȱhisȱletters,ȱdifferingȱmarkedly fromȱtheȱmoreȱreservedȱStoicȱlanguageȱofȱCicero,ȱSeneca,ȱandȱCassian,ȱ141–43.ȱWhileȱthisȱisȱtrue, Southern,ȱ Portrait,ȱ nonethelessȱ betraysȱ elementsȱ ofȱ classicalȱ friendshipȱ inȱ hisȱ descriptionsȱ of Anselm’sȱexperience,ȱinȱwhichȱfriendshipȱoperatesȱthroughȱtheȱ“unionȱofȱsouls”ȱ(141),ȱandȱthe “fusionȱofȱsouls”ȱ(147),ȱthoughȱnowȱofȱcourseȱforȱaȱheavenlyȱend.ȱHaseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparation andȱMaleȱFriendship,”ȱnotesȱseveralȱofȱtheȱtraitsȱofȱclassicalȱfriendshipȱinheritedȱbyȱtheȱMiddle Ages,ȱwithȱtheȱmajorȱexceptionȱthatȱ“[m]edievalȱthinkersȱsetȱdivineȱloveȱinȱplaceȱofȱnaturalȱvirtue asȱtheȱmotiveȱforceȱbehindȱfriendship,”ȱ241–42;ȱhereȱ242.ȱCanatella,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱAnselm,” commentsȱonȱtheȱseamlessnessȱofȱAnselm’sȱfriendshipsȱ(360),ȱremarkingȱalsoȱonȱtheȱmedieval period’sȱretentionȱofȱequalityȱinȱfriendshipȱ(353). TheseȱclassicalȱcommonplacesȱofȱfriendshipȱlargelyȱcomeȱfromȱAristotle’sȱeighthȱandȱninthȱbooks

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 313 ideal,ȱAnselmȱseesȱasȱaȱconditionȱofȱfallenȱfriendship.ȱAnselm’sȱfriendshipsȱwith theȱsaintsȱinȱprayerȱareȱcontested,ȱcontingent,ȱdeficient,ȱandȱmetonymicȱbecause theȱAtonementȱ(Christ’sȱ“standingȬin”ȱforȱhumankind)ȱstructuresȱallȱrelations. And,ȱwhenȱreadȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱPrayers,ȱfriendshipȱinȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱrestsȱonȱa necessaryȱillusionȱofȱstability,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfriendȱisȱanȱinscrutablyȱabsentȱidea, ratherȱthanȱaȱpresentlyȱclearȱandȱunderstandableȱreality.ȱNonetheless,ȱforȱAnselm, humanȱrelationsȱareȱmoreȱspirituallyȱbeneficialȱthanȱforȱAugustine,ȱwhoȱinȱthe ConfessionsȱhesitatesȱtoȱsanctionȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱtoolȱforȱtheȱChristianȱlife,ȱandȱmore individuatedȱ thanȱ forȱ Cassian,ȱ forȱ whomȱ friendshipȱ mustȱ beȱ integratedȱ into community. SomeȱelementsȱofȱfriendshipȱfromȱtheȱclassicalȱperiodȱdoȱsurviveȱforȱAnselmȱin aȱChristianizedȱform.ȱFriendsȱmustȱstillȱbeȱvirtuous,ȱnowȱdefinedȱasȱunionȱinȱa Christianȱprofessionȱ(theȱmonasticȱlife).ȱAndȱAnselmȱcontinuesȱtheȱAristotelian andȱCiceronianȱattestationȱthatȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱselfȱhingesȱonȱknowledgeȱofȱand relationshipsȱ withȱ others.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ isȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ whenȱ Anselmȱ understands himselfȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱtheȱRedemptionȱasȱaȱpotentialȱself,ȱaȱcapacityȱforȱGod (capaxȱdei),ȱwhich,ȱalthoughȱalwaysȱinȱflux,ȱstrivesȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱitsȱoriginsȱasȱaȱstable imageȱofȱGodȱ(imagoȱdei).20ȱFriendshipȱwithȱtheȱsaintsȱmovesȱAnselmȱbeyondȱthe stalemateȱ ofȱ humanȱ friendshipȱ byȱ allowingȱ himȱ toȱ realizeȱ throughȱ exemplary saintȬfriendsȱhisȱidentityȱinȱrelationȱtoȱGodȱandȱGod’sȱlove.ȱ

20

ofȱ theȱ Nicomacheanȱ Ethics,ȱ Cicero’sȱ Deȱ Amicitia,ȱ andȱ Cassian’sȱ Sixteenthȱ Conference.ȱ Southern, Portrait,ȱremindsȱusȱthatȱAnselm,ȱ“[l]ikeȱeveryȱotherȱseriousȱmonasticȱstudent,”ȱmustȱhaveȱknown Cassian’sȱ writingȱ onȱ friendshipȱ inȱ hisȱ Collationesȱ (Conferences),ȱ 139.ȱ Canatella,ȱ “Friendshipȱ in Anselm”,ȱ convenientlyȱ callsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ “allȱ twentyȬfourȱ booksȱ ofȱ Cassian’s Collationesȱ wereȱ containedȱ inȱ aȱ singleȱ volumeȱ inȱ theȱ Becȱ library,ȱ andȱ thus,ȱ wereȱ availableȱ to Anselm,”ȱ355.ȱSeeȱCatalogusȱlibrorumȱabbatiaeȱBeccensis,ȱPatrologiaȱLatina,ȱed.ȱJacquesȬPaulȱMigne [databaseȱonline]ȱ(AnnȱArbor,ȱMIȱ1996ȱ[lastȱaccessedȱonȱAprilȱ2,ȱ2009])ȱ[hereafterȱPL],ȱvol.ȱ150,ȱcol. 775B.ȱCarolinneȱWhiteȱarguesȱthatȱCassianȱmayȱveryȱwellȱhaveȱbeenȱfamiliarȱwithȱCiceroȱand Aristotleȱ onȱ friendship,ȱ Christianȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Fourthȱ Centuryȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱ175–76.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger.ȱOn theȱpervasiveȱinfluenceȱandȱrevivalȱofȱCicero’sȱDeȱAmicitiaȱinȱtheȱlongȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱinȱmonastic andȱcourtlyȱliterature,ȱseeȱJanȱM.ȱZiolkowski,ȱ“TwelfthȬCenturyȱUnderstandingsȱandȱAdaptations ofȱ Ancientȱ Friendship,”ȱ Mediaevalȱ Antiquity,ȱ ed.ȱ Andriesȱ Welkenhuysen,ȱ Hermanȱ Braet,ȱ and WernerȱVerbeke.ȱMediaevaliaȱLovaniensiaȱSeriesȱ1,ȱ24ȱ(Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995), 59–81;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ Constantȱ J.ȱ Mews,ȱ “Ciceroȱ andȱ theȱ Boundariesȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Twelfth Century,”ȱViator:ȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱStudies.ȱTheȱTheoryȱandȱPracticeȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱthe MiddleȱAgesȱ38.2ȱ(2007):ȱ369–84.ȱThoughȱAnselmȱwasȱalmostȱcertainlyȱnotȱdirectlyȱfamiliarȱwith Aristotleȱonȱfriendship,ȱCiceroȱtransmitsȱAristotelianȱthoughtȱinȱhisȱdialogueȬtreatise.ȱToȱbeȱclear, though,ȱIȱamȱnotȱarguingȱforȱunambiguousȱtransmissionȱofȱfriendshipȱfromȱAristotle,ȱCicero,ȱor CassianȱtoȱAnselm;ȱIȱamȱmerelyȱsuggestingȱthatȱhisȱideasȱareȱdifferentȱfromȱtheirs. Augustineȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱ“capaxȱdei”ȱinȱDeȱtrinitate:ȱ“Eoȱquippeȱipsoȱimagoȱejusȱest,ȱquoȱejusȱcapax est,ȱejusqueȱparticepsȱesseȱpotest”ȱ(TheȱmindȱisȱtheȱimageȱofȱGod,ȱinȱthatȱitȱisȱcapableȱofȱHimȱand canȱbeȱpartakerȱofȱHim).ȱDeȱTrinitate,ȱ14.8,ȱPLȱ[lastȱaccessedȱonȱJulyȱ15,ȱ2009]ȱvol.ȱ42,ȱcol.ȱ1044.

314

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

Forȱloveȱsanctifiesȱallȱrelations.ȱAsȱimpossibleȱasȱAnselmȱfindsȱfriendshipȱwith God,ȱsaintȬfriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱprovideȱtheȱcrucialȱnarrativeȱlinkȱtoȱGod,ȱwhoȱhas demonstratedȱinȱrecordedȱScripturalȱtextsȱHisȱfriendshipȱwithȱthem.ȱAndȱinȱcalling hisȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱsaintsȱintoȱbeing,ȱAnselmȱhopesȱthatȱtheyȱwillȱtriangulate hisȱrelationshipȱwithȱGod,ȱtheirȱfriend.ȱMoreover,ȱif,ȱforȱAnselm,ȱfriendshipȱisȱthe problemȱbecauseȱinȱitsȱclassicalȱformȱitȱisȱimpossibleȱonȱearth,ȱheȱrealizesȱthatȱitȱis alsoȱ theȱ solution.ȱ Forȱ lovingȱ othersȱ andȱ formingȱ friendshipsȱ inȱ theȱ world,ȱ as impenetrablyȱdistantȱasȱfriendsȱmayȱbe,ȱnonethelessȱmimicȱtheȱbehaviorȱofȱGod andȱwinȱmeritȱinȱHisȱeyes.

PrayerȱandȱTextuality:ȱSaintsȱandȱtheȱSelf Historians,ȱwhoȱcompriseȱtheȱlargeȱmajorityȱofȱAnselmȱscholars,ȱtendȱtoȱslightȱthe textualȱnatureȱofȱhisȱfriendships,ȱtreatingȱthemȱasȱunmediatedȱdescriptionsȱofȱpreȬ existingȱ realities.ȱ Asȱ Julianȱ P.ȱ Haseldineȱ correctivelyȱ notes,ȱ though,ȱ Anselm’s lettersȱofȱfriendshipȱareȱ“theȱmediumȱofȱtheȱcultivationȱofȱfriendshipȱitself.”21ȱThe sameȱisȱtrueȱofȱAnselm’sȱPrayers.ȱMitigatingȱtheȱterrorȱofȱGod,ȱandȱtheȱobscurity ofȱtheȱselfȱveiledȱbyȱsin,ȱtheseȱfriendshipsȱwithȱtheȱsaintsȱdoȱnotȱsimplyȱexist,ȱbut areȱ linguisticallyȱ calledȱ intoȱ existence.ȱ SaintȬfriendsȱ becomeȱ forȱ Anselm manifestationsȱofȱhisȱideasȱconcerningȱGod,ȱhumanȱrelations,ȱandȱtheȱAtonement.ȱ Theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ Prayersȱ spansȱ Anselm’sȱ adultȱ life,ȱ beginningȱ shortly beforeȱ1070ȱwhenȱheȱwasȱpriorȱofȱBecȱinȱNormandy,ȱandȱcontinuingȱthroughȱhis abbacyȱatȱBecȱandȱarchbishopricȱatȱCanterbury.22ȱThoughȱmostȱwereȱwrittenȱinȱthe 1070s,ȱcontemporaneouslyȱwithȱmanyȱofȱhisȱlettersȱofȱfriendship,ȱitȱwasȱnotȱuntil 1104ȱasȱarchbishopȱthatȱheȱputȱtheȱfinalȱtouchesȱonȱtheȱcanonicalȱgroupȱofȱnineteen prayersȱ andȱ threeȱ meditations,ȱ withȱ aȱ preface,ȱ inȱ theȱ orderȱ inȱ whichȱ modern editionsȱnowȱpreserveȱthem.23ȱAnselmȱinitiallyȱcomposedȱtheȱPrayersȱforȱnoble

21 22

23

Haseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparationȱandȱMaleȱFriendship,”ȱ243. Onȱ theȱ compositionȱ ofȱ Anselm’sȱ Prayers,ȱ seeȱ Southern,ȱ Portrait,ȱ 91–112,ȱ andȱ Theȱ Prayersȱ and MeditationsȱofȱSaintȱAnselmȱwithȱtheȱProslogion,ȱtrans.ȱBenedictaȱWardȱ(Harmondsworth:ȱPenguin, 1973).ȱSeeȱWard’sȱ“Introduction,”ȱ27–50.ȱSouthernȱandȱWardȱagreeȱthatȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱPrayers grewȱoutȱofȱtheȱliturgy,ȱtheyȱareȱnotȱthemselvesȱliturgicalȱprayers.ȱAllȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱtoȱwhom AnselmȱaddressesȱhisȱPrayersȱappearȱinȱliturgicalȱprayersȱinȱsomeȱform,ȱexceptȱforȱStȱNicholas. AsȱWardȱargues,ȱtheȱtranslationȱofȱhisȱrelicsȱtoȱBariȱonȱ9ȱMayȱ1087ȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱinterestedȱBec andȱprobablyȱoccasionedȱAnselm’sȱPrayerȱtoȱhim,ȱ69. Anselm’sȱPrayersȱappearȱinȱthisȱorder:ȱ1.ȱPrayerȱtoȱGod.ȱ2.ȱPrayerȱtoȱChrist.ȱ3.ȱPrayerȱbeforeȱReceiving theȱBodyȱandȱBloodȱofȱChrist.ȱ4.ȱPrayerȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱCross.ȱ5.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱMaryȱ(1).ȱ6.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱMary (2).ȱ7.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱMaryȱ(3).ȱ8.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱBaptist.ȱ9.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱPeter.ȱ10.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱPaul. 11.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱEvangelistȱ(1).ȱ12.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱEvangelistȱ(2).ȱ13.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱStephen. 14.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱNicholas.ȱ15.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱBenedict.ȱ16.ȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱMaryȱMagdalene.ȱ17.ȱPrayerȱbyȱa BishopȱorȱAbbotȱtoȱtheȱPatronȱSaintȱofȱhisȱChurch.ȱ18.ȱPrayerȱforȱFriends.ȱ19.ȱPrayerȱforȱEnemies.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 315 laywomenȱwhoȱhadȱretiredȱfromȱtheȱworldȱtoȱliveȱaȱsemiȬmonasticȱlife.24ȱThese laywomenȱsuchȱasȱAdelaide,ȱaȱdaughterȱofȱWilliamȱtheȱConqueror,ȱandȱMathilda ofȱTuscanyȱrequiredȱaȱformȱofȱdevotionȱlessȱexactingȱthanȱtheȱrigorousȱliturgical practicesȱ atȱ monasteriesȱ followingȱ theȱ Benedictineȱ Rule,ȱ eachȱ withȱ itsȱ own accretionsȱleavingȱlittleȱtimeȱforȱprivateȱprayer.ȱAnselm’sȱPrayersȱwereȱsoȱpopular, influential,ȱandȱwellȱcirculatedȱthroughoutȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱthatȱmanyȱimitators addedȱtheirȱownȱprayersȱtoȱtheȱcollection,ȱleavingȱmodernȱscholarshipȱinȱaȱstate ofȱdisarray,ȱunableȱtoȱdetermineȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱauthorȱofȱwhichȱPrayers,ȱuntilȱthe 1930sȱ whenȱ theȱ authenticityȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ modestȱ numberȱ ofȱ prayersȱ and meditationsȱthatȱweȱknowȱtodayȱwasȱconfirmed.25 Anȱ honoraryȱ memberȱ ofȱ theȱ longȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ Renaissance,ȱ notedȱ forȱ its emphasisȱonȱloveȱandȱintrospection,ȱAnselmȱrevolutionizesȱtheȱgenreȱofȱprayer. PrecedingȱAnselm,ȱCarolingianȱpietyȱwas,ȱinȱaȱword,ȱsober.26ȱInȱtheirȱrestraint, CarolingianȱprayersȱevadeȱtheȱAnselmianȱgoalsȱofȱprayer:ȱselfȬawareness,ȱanȱutter abhorrenceȱofȱsin,ȱaȱburningȱloveȱforȱGod,ȱandȱonenessȱwithȱGodȱandȱtheȱsaint. Departingȱfromȱaȱcorporateȱandȱanonymousȱtraditionȱofȱdevotionȱlackingȱliterary merit,ȱ Anselm’sȱ Prayersȱ areȱ personal,ȱ emotional,ȱ dramaticȱ (inȱ theȱ mostȱ literal sense),ȱandȱintrospectiveȱworksȱofȱliteraryȱart,27ȱwherein,ȱSouthernȱwrites, Theȱ sinnerȱ standsȱ aloneȱ beforeȱ Godȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Theȱ environmentȱ ofȱ prayerȱ hasȱ shifted decisivelyȱfromȱtheȱchurchȱtoȱtheȱchamber,ȱandȱfromȱcommunalȱeffortȱtoȱsevereȱand lonelyȱintrospection:ȱweȱhaveȱnotȱonlyȱwithdrawnȱfromȱcorporateȱworshipȱintoȱthe privacyȱofȱtheȱchamber;ȱweȱhaveȱwithdrawnȱintoȱtheȱsecrecyȱofȱtheȱsoul.28

24

25 26 27

28

OnȱAnselm’sȱpastoralȱcareȱofȱwomen,ȱseeȱSallyȱVaughn,ȱStȱAnselmȱandȱtheȱHandmaidensȱofȱGod:ȱA StudyȱofȱAnselm’sȱCorrespondenceȱwithȱWomen.ȱUtrechtȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱLiteracy,ȱ7ȱ(Turnhout: Brepols,ȱ2002),ȱandȱMaryȱJaneȱMorrow,ȱ“SharingȱTexts:ȱAnselmianȱPrayers,ȱaȱNunnery’sȱPsalter, andȱtheȱRoleȱofȱFriendship,”ȱVoicesȱinȱDialogue:ȱReadingȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱLindaȱOlson andȱKathrynȱKerbyȬFultonȱ(NotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ97–113.ȱThough aȱcomprehensiveȱconsiderationȱofȱAnselm’sȱfriendshipsȱwithȱwomenȱinȱhisȱrelativelyȱfewȱletters toȱthemȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱoneȱofȱAnselm’sȱimportantȱoppositeȬsexȱfriendshipsȱis analyzedȱbelow.ȱVaughn,ȱHandmaidensȱofȱGod,ȱarguesȱthatȱAnselm’sȱmaleȱandȱfemaleȱfriendships wereȱequallyȱsignificantȱandȱintimate,ȱ134–35.ȱExaminingȱtheȱpresenceȱandȱuseȱofȱaȱcontemporary pairȱofȱAnselm’sȱPrayersȱhousedȱinȱShaftesbury,ȱanȱEnglishȱBenedictineȱnunneryȱledȱbyȱAbbess Eulalia,ȱoneȱofȱAnselm’sȱliteraryȱ“friends,”ȱMorrow,ȱ“SharingȱTexts,”ȱarguesȱthatȱsuchȱdevotional materialsȱ“wereȱsharedȱamongȱmonasticȱandȱquasiȬmonasticȱwomenȱandȱmenȱwhoȱperceived themselvesȱ asȱ havingȱ similarȱ socialȱ standingȱ throughȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ sharedȱ work,ȱ common interests,ȱ andȱ evenȱ friendship,”ȱ 98.ȱ Canatella,ȱ “Friendshipȱ inȱ Anselm,”ȱ discussesȱ Anselm’s friendshipȱwithȱCountessȱIdaȱofȱBoulogneȱandȱconcludesȱthatȱheȱseesȱherȱasȱanȱequal,ȱthoughȱwith moreȱreservedȱlanguageȱthanȱheȱusesȱinȱaddressingȱhisȱmaleȱfriends,ȱ361–67. Forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱdisentanglement,ȱseeȱSouthern,ȱSaintȱAnselmȱandȱHisȱBiographer,ȱ34–35. ForȱaȱdetailedȱanalysisȱofȱCarolingianȱprayer,ȱandȱanȱexampleȱofȱone,ȱseeȱSouthern,ȱPortrait,ȱ93–99. LiteraryȱartȱisȱforȱAnselmȱnotȱshowmanship,ȱbutȱadherenceȱtoȱtheȱlawsȱofȱmedievalȱgrammatica, inȱwhichȱelevatedȱstyleȱsuggestsȱelevatedȱspirituality.ȱ Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱ100,ȱ102.

316

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

AnselmȱconstantlyȱjuxtaposesȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGodȱwithȱtheȱhorrorȱofȱprivateȱhuman sinȱthatȱheȱdiscoversȱinȱtheȱPrayers.ȱForȱAnselm,ȱasȱforȱAugustine,ȱhumansȱwere createdȱinȱtheȱimageȱofȱGodȱ(imagoȱdei),ȱwhichȱhasȱnowȱbeenȱobfuscatedȱbyȱsin. Prayerȱrequiresȱoneȱtoȱexciteȱtheȱmindȱ(excitareȱmentem)ȱtoȱescapeȱtheȱtorporȱofȱthe bodyȱandȱbeholdȱtheȱgloryȱofȱGod.ȱButȱwhenȱAnselmȱattemptsȱthis,ȱheȱcanȱonly remindȱhimselfȱofȱtheȱstenchfulȱshameȱofȱsinȱandȱitsȱimmeasurableȱoffenseȱtoȱGod. Thisȱ selfȬabasementȱ thwartsȱ aȱ beliefȱ inȱ theȱ mercyȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ aȱ measured understandingȱofȱtheȱselfȱasȱaȱformerȱandȱpotentialȱimagoȱdei.ȱAnselmȱneedsȱaȱway outȱ ofȱ hisȱ sinfulȱ selfȱ andȱ thisȱ process,ȱ boundȱ toȱ repeatȱ itselfȱ infinitely;ȱ thus, intercessionȱisȱtheȱsaintȬfriend’sȱprimaryȱfunction,ȱasȱintercessionȱamongȱhuman friendsȱisȱforȱAnselmȱtheȱprincipalȱfeatureȱofȱfriendship.ȱHisȱliteraryȱexamination ofȱtheȱsordidnessȱofȱtheȱselfȱandȱbothȱtheȱnecessityȱandȱnatureȱofȱrelationshipsȱin theȱPrayersȱdepartȱabruptlyȱfromȱCarolingianȱpiety. IfȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱreadersȱconstantlyȱvacillateȱbetweenȱhopeȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱmercy thatȱ theȱ saintȱ canȱ provideȱ andȱ despairȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theirȱ sinfulness,ȱ theyȱ may concedeȱdefeat.ȱThisȱisȱperhapsȱwhyȱAnselmȱwroteȱtheȱfollowingȱpreface: Orationesȱ siveȱ meditationesȱ quaeȱ subscriptaeȱ sunt,ȱ quoniamȱ adȱ excitandamȱ legentis mentemȱadȱdeiȱamoremȱvelȱtimorem,ȱseuȱadȱsuimetȱdiscussionemȱeditaeȱsunt,ȱnon suntȱlegendaeȱinȱtumultu,ȱsedȱinȱquiete,ȱnecȱcursimȱetȱvelociter,ȱsedȱpaulatimȱcum intentaȱetȱmorosaȱmeditatione.ȱNecȱdebetȱintendereȱlectorȱutȱquamlibetȱearumȱtotam perlegat,ȱ sedȱ quantumȱ sentitȱ sibiȱ deoȱ adiuvanteȱ valereȱ adȱ accendendumȱ affectum orandi,ȱvelȱquantumȱillumȱdelectat.ȱNecȱnecesseȱhabetȱaliquamȱsemperȱaȱprincipio incipere,ȱsedȱubiȱmagisȱilliȱplacuerit.ȱAdȱhocȱenimȱipsumȱparagraphisȱsuntȱdistinctae perȱpartes,ȱutȱubiȱelegeritȱincipiatȱautȱdesinat,ȱneȱprolixitasȱautȱfrequensȱeiusdemȱloci repetitioȱgeneretȱfastidium,ȱsedȱpotiusȱaliquemȱindeȱcolligatȱlectorȱpropterȱquodȱfactae suntȱpietatisȱaffectum.ȱ (Prologusȱ2–12)29 [Theȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱprayersȱandȱmeditationsȱthatȱfollowȱisȱtoȱstirȱupȱtheȱmindȱofȱthe readerȱtoȱtheȱloveȱorȱfearȱofȱGod,ȱorȱtoȱselfȬexamination.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱtoȱbeȱreadȱinȱa turmoil,ȱbutȱquietly,ȱnotȱskimmedȱorȱhurriedȱthrough,ȱbutȱtakenȱaȱlittleȱatȱaȱtime,ȱwith deepȱ andȱ thoughtfulȱ meditation.ȱ Theȱ readerȱ shouldȱ notȱ troubleȱ aboutȱ readingȱ the wholeȱofȱanyȱofȱthem,ȱbutȱonlyȱasȱmuchȱas,ȱbyȱGod’sȱhelp,ȱheȱfindsȱusefulȱinȱstirring upȱhisȱspiritȱtoȱpray,ȱorȱasȱmuchȱasȱheȱlikes.ȱNorȱisȱitȱnecessaryȱforȱhimȱalwaysȱtoȱbegin atȱtheȱbeginning,ȱbutȱwhereverȱheȱpleases.ȱ Withȱthisȱinȱmindȱtheȱsectionsȱareȱdividedȱintoȱparagraphs,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱreaderȱcanȱbegin andȱleaveȱoffȱwhereverȱheȱchooses;ȱinȱthisȱwayȱheȱwillȱnotȱgetȱboredȱwithȱtooȱmuch

29

AllȱquotationsȱofȱAnselm’sȱLatinȱprayers,ȱincludingȱtheȱPrologus,ȱcomeȱfromȱAOO,ȱvol.ȱ3.ȱIȱshall citeȱOratioȱ(Or.),ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱprayer,ȱtheȱeditor’sȱlineȱnumber(s),ȱandȱtheȱpageȱnumber(s), inȱthatȱorder.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 317 materialȱbutȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱponderȱmoreȱdeeplyȱthoseȱthingsȱthatȱmakeȱhimȱwantȱto pray.ȱ (Prefaceȱ89)]30

TheȱPrayersȱareȱnotȱintendedȱtoȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱunifiedȱwholeȱorȱinȱoneȱsitting,ȱbut digestedȱslowlyȱandȱrandomly,ȱsoȱthatȱtheȱreaderȱmightȱprivatelyȱponderȱsmall portionsȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱengageȱinȱsubtleȱmeditation,ȱwithȱlocalȱmeaningȱtrumping overallȱ logicalȱ chronologyȱ orȱ coherence.ȱ Inȱ this,ȱ Anselmȱ isȱ againȱ aȱ direct descendantȱofȱAugustineȱwhoȱalsoȱbelievesȱinȱtheȱvalueȱofȱrandomȱdevotional reading—“tolleȱlege,ȱtolleȱlege”ȱ(“Pickȱupȱandȱread,ȱpickȱupȱandȱread”),ȱasȱthe apparitionȱ famouslyȱ instructsȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ precedingȱ hisȱ conversion.31ȱ The Christianȱreaderȱchoosesȱwhatȱisȱmostȱapplicable,ȱexcitingȱtheȱmindȱ(“excitandam mentem”),ȱstirringȱupȱtheȱspiritȱtoȱprayȱ(“accendendumȱaffectumȱorandi”),ȱand producingȱcompunctionȱandȱloveȱofȱGod.ȱTheȱreaderȱandȱnotȱtheȱauthorȱcreates meaning.ȱ ReadingsȱthatȱcharacterizeȱtheȱPrayersȱasȱtooȱobsessedȱwithȱtheȱabjectȱhuman conditionȱ toȱ beȱ spirituallyȱ efficaciousȱ mustȱ beȱ temperedȱ byȱ Anselm’sȱ reading instructions,ȱ whichȱ inviteȱ audienceȱ selectivityȱ andȱ imagination.32ȱ PostȬ structuralismȱhasȱtaughtȱusȱtheȱprimacyȱofȱtheȱtextȱandȱaudienceȱoverȱtheȱauthor; asȱThomasȱH.ȱBestulȱwritesȱofȱtheȱPrayers,ȱ Anselmȱshowsȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱmuchȱlessȱconcernedȱwithȱmaintainingȱtheȱintegrityȱor inviolabilityȱofȱanȱauthorȬdeterminedȱtextȱ(theȱusualȱstanceȱtakenȱinȱsuchȱprefaces, envoys,ȱandȱepistles)ȱthanȱheȱisȱwithȱencouragingȱtheȱpossibilityȱthatȱhisȱtextȱorȱparts ofȱ hisȱ textȱ mightȱ beȱ incorporatedȱ in,ȱ orȱ becomeȱ theȱ occasionȱ for,ȱ anotherȱ text,ȱ the prayerȱofȱtheȱreader.33

30

31 32 33

EnglishȱtranslationsȱofȱtheȱPrayers,ȱincludingȱtheȱPrefaceȱareȱinȱWard,ȱPrayersȱandȱMeditations.ȱI shallȱciteȱPrayer,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱprayer,ȱtheȱeditor’sȱlineȱnumber(s)ȱofȱherȱpoeticȱrendition,ȱand theȱpageȱnumber(s),ȱinȱthatȱorder.ȱWardȱtranslatesȱfromȱaȱvarietyȱofȱmanuscriptsȱandȱnotȱalways fromȱSchmitt’sȱedition.ȱHerȱtranslationsȱareȱusuallyȱconsistentȱwithȱSchmitt’sȱLatinȱedition,ȱbut inȱinstancesȱwhereȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱmatch,ȱIȱhaveȱalteredȱherȱtranslationȱtoȱmatchȱSchmitt.ȱWhenȱIȱdo this,ȱIȱindicateȱsoȱinȱaȱnoteȱandȱencloseȱtheȱemendationsȱinȱsquareȱbrackets.ȱDavidȱN.ȱBellȱseesȱin Anselm’sȱPrologusȱtheȱbasicȱcomponentsȱofȱtheȱmonasticȱlife:ȱlectio,ȱmeditatio,ȱandȱoratio,ȱgrounded inȱ Gregoryȱ theȱ Great,ȱ theȱ Venerableȱ Bede,ȱ andȱ Isidoreȱ ofȱ Seville,ȱ “Aȱ Tokenȱ ofȱ Friendship? AnselmianȱPrayersȱandȱaȱNunnery’sȱPsalter:ȱResponseȱtoȱMaryȱJaneȱMorrow:ȱWhereȱdoȱWeȱGo fromȱHere?”ȱVoicesȱinȱDialogue:ȱReadingȱWomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱLindaȱOlsonȱandȱKathryn KerbyȬFultonȱ(NotreȱDame:ȱUniversityȱofȱNotreȱDameȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ114–23;ȱhereȱ115. Augustine,ȱConfessions,ȱed.ȱJamesȱJ.ȱO’Donnellȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱ8.12.29:1.101. Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱforȱexample,ȱreadsȱtheȱPrayersȱratherȱpessimistically,ȱ99–106. ThomasȱH.ȱBestul,ȱ“SelfȱandȱSubjectivityȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱMeditationsȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury,” SaintȱAnselm:ȱBishopȱandȱThinker:ȱPapersȱReadȱatȱaȱConferenceȱHeldȱinȱtheȱCatholicȱUniversityȱofȱLublin onȱ24–26ȱSeptemberȱ1996,ȱed.ȱRomanȱMajeranȱandȱEdwardȱIwoȱZieliÚskiȱ(Lublin:ȱUniversityȱPress ofȱtheȱCatholicȱUniversityȱofȱLublin,ȱ1999),ȱ147–55;ȱhereȱ152–53.

318

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

ThisȱpossibilityȱofȱendlessȱmultiplicationȱdoesȱnotȱdiluteȱbutȱamplifiesȱAnselm’s Prayersȱforȱanȱaudienceȱinstructedȱtoȱengageȱinȱmultipleȱperspectivesȱofȱtheȱtext.34 Thisȱisȱhowȱfriendshipȱbecomesȱrelevant.ȱDespiteȱtheȱbleakȱpictureȱofȱtheȱhuman conditionȱthatȱAnselmȱseemsȱtoȱpaint,ȱfissuresȱoccurȱinȱtheȱtext—oneȱcouldȱsay glimpsesȱofȱhope—inȱtheȱformȱofȱsaintȬfriends.ȱTheyȱassumeȱcharacteristicsȱforeign toȱ scholarlyȱ understandingȱ ofȱ Anselmianȱ friendshipsȱ butȱ nonethelessȱ allow Anselmȱ andȱ hisȱ readers,ȱ authorizedȱ byȱ theȱ narrativeȱ logicȱ ofȱ forgivenessȱ that Anselmȱdevelops,ȱtoȱunderstandȱthemselvesȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱsaints,ȱandȱtoȱinvoke themȱtoȱintercedeȱmercifullyȱforȱallȱsinners.ȱ Byȱ Anselm’sȱ time,ȱ prayersȱ toȱ theȱ saintsȱ wereȱ aȱ burgeoningȱ genre,ȱ though Anselmȱincreasesȱtheȱactivityȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱinȱeffectingȱforgivenessȱtoȱnewȱlevels. Godȱstillȱseemedȱaloofȱinȱtheȱmindsȱofȱmonasticȱwriters,ȱandȱoneȱwasȱneverȱquite sureȱwhatȱtoȱsayȱtoȱHimȱinȱprayer,ȱasȱinȱAnselm’sȱownȱperfunctoryȱPrayerȱtoȱGod. Affectiveȱpiety,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱimageȱofȱaȱvictoriousȱChristȱwasȱsubordinatedȱtoȱa pitiful,ȱsufferingȱoneȱwhoȱcouldȱbeȱworshippedȱsympathetically,ȱhadȱbegunȱto bridgeȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱhumankind,ȱbutȱitȱhadȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱreachedȱthe heydayȱthatȱitȱwouldȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury.ȱSaints,ȱhowever,ȱofferedȱanȱaccessible alternative:ȱtheyȱhadȱonceȱbeenȱhuman,ȱproneȱtoȱsin,ȱandȱsubjectȱtoȱGod’sȱgreat mercy.ȱ Ifȱ speakingȱ toȱ anȱ omniscientȱ Godȱ directlyȱ aboutȱ one’sȱ sinsȱ wasȱ too frightening,ȱprayersȱtoȱsaintsȱprovidedȱtheȱpetitionerȱwithȱintercessorsȱwhoȱwere moreȱlikelyȱtoȱempathizeȱwithȱtheȱsituationȱandȱuseȱtheirȱcloseȱrelationshipȱwith Godȱ toȱ effectȱ reconciliation.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ saintȱ becomesȱ theȱ perfectȱ friendȱ in Anselm’sȱPrayersȱbecauseȱheȱorȱsheȱtheoreticallyȱdoesȱnotȱknowȱtheȱpetitioner’s sinsȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ Godȱ doesȱ andȱ doesȱ notȱ judgeȱ theȱ sinner.ȱ Forȱ Anselm,ȱ theȱ best friend,ȱhumanȱandȱdivine,ȱknowsȱasȱlittleȱasȱpossibleȱaboutȱAnselm.ȱ AsȱMcGuireȱargues,ȱunderstandingȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱfriendsȱofȱGod,ȱ“amiciȱdei,”ȱin medievalȱdevotionȱfosteredȱbeliefȱinȱ“theȱworthȱofȱhumanȱbondsȱasȱpartȱofȱthe schemeȱofȱsalvation.”35ȱInȱtheȱculminationȱofȱAnselm’sȱmagisterialȱCurȱdeusȱhomo (Whyȱ Godȱ Becameȱ Man)ȱ (ca.ȱ 1098),ȱ Anselmȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Christȱ deservedȱ toȱ be rewardedȱforȱsacrificingȱHisȱlifeȱbecauseȱHe,ȱbeingȱsinless,ȱowedȱnothingȱtoȱGod, butȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ couldȱ notȱ beȱ rewardedȱ because,ȱ beingȱ Godȱ Himself,ȱ He neitherȱneededȱnorȱcouldȱacceptȱanything.ȱTheȱsolution,ȱasȱAnselmȱsuggests,ȱwas toȱconferȱHisȱrewardȱuponȱthoseȱtoȱwhomȱHeȱwasȱmostȱcloselyȱbondedȱonȱEarth, thoseȱwhoȱneededȱitȱtheȱmost:ȱ Quibusȱ convenientiusȱ fructumȱ etȱ retributionemȱ suaeȱ mortisȱ attribuetȱ quamȱ illis, propterȱquosȱsalvandos,ȱsicutȱratioȱveritatisȱnosȱdocuit,ȱhominemȱseȱfecit,ȱetȱquibus, utȱ diximus,ȱ moriendoȱ exemplumȱ moriendiȱ propterȱ iustitiamȱ dedit?ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Autȱ quos iustiusȱ facietȱ haeredesȱ debitiȱ quoȱ ipseȱ nonȱ eget,ȱ etȱ exundantiaeȱ suaeȱ plenitudinis,

34 35

Ibid.,ȱ151. McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ228.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 319 quamȱ parentesȱ etȱ fratresȱ suos,ȱ quosȱ aspicitȱ totȱ etȱ tantisȱ debitisȱ obligatosȱ egestate tabescereȱinȱprofundoȱmiseriarum?ȱ (Curȱdeusȱhomoȱ2.19:2.130–131)36 [Onȱwhomȱisȱitȱmoreȱappropriateȱforȱhimȱtoȱbestowȱtheȱrewardȱandȱrecompenseȱforȱhis deathȱthanȱonȱthoseȱforȱwhoseȱsalvation,ȱasȱtheȱlogicȱofȱtruthȱteachesȱus,ȱheȱmade himselfȱaȱman,ȱandȱforȱwhom,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱsaid,ȱheȱsetȱanȱexample,ȱbyȱhisȱdeath,ȱof dyingȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱrighteousness?ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAgain,ȱwhomȱisȱheȱwithȱgreaterȱjusticeȱtoȱmake heirsȱofȱtheȱrecompenseȱdueȱtoȱhim,ȱandȱofȱtheȱoverflowingȱofȱhisȱbounty,ȱthanȱthose whoȱareȱparentsȱandȱbrothersȱtoȱhim,ȱwhomȱheȱsees,ȱboundȱbyȱsoȱmanyȱandȱsuch enormousȱdebts,ȱwastingȱawayȱwithȱdeprivationȱinȱtheȱdepthsȱofȱmisery?ȱ (WhyȱGodȱBecameȱMan,ȱ353)]37

Anselm’sȱGod,ȱpreȬeminentlyȱabidingȱbyȱtheȱ“logicȱofȱtruth”ȱ(“ratioȱveritatis”), alwaysȱactingȱfittinglyȱ(“convenientius”),ȱsanctifiesȱallȱhumanȱrelationshipsȱoutȱof theȱ overflowingȱ ofȱ Hisȱ bountyȱ (“exundantiaeȱ suaeȱ plenitudinis”).ȱ Heȱ didȱ not appearȱonȱEarthȱtoȱdieȱimmediatelyȱforȱhumankind’sȱsins,ȱbutȱlivedȱamongȱpeople, wasȱ familiarȱ withȱ them,ȱ befriendedȱ them,ȱ and,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ Hisȱ loveȱ forȱ them, ultimatelyȱ diedȱ forȱ them.ȱ Andȱ noȱ humansȱ wereȱ everȱ closerȱ toȱ Godȱ thanȱ the charactersȱ ofȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament,ȱ manyȱ ofȱ whomȱ Anselmȱ invokesȱ inȱ prayer. Anselmȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱhisȱfriendsȱwhoȱhaveȱanotherȱfriend,ȱGod,ȱwhose rupturedȱrelationshipȱwithȱAnselmȱtheȱsaintsȱcanȱtriangulateȱandȱheal.ȱȱInȱthe ChristianȱpostȬlapsarianȱworld,ȱoneȱisȱnoȱlongerȱtheȱStoicȱmanȱofȱplenitudeȱand perfectȱvirtue,ȱwhoȱneedsȱnothingȱoutȱofȱfriendship.ȱFriendshipȱisȱruptured,ȱand oneȱ mustȱ makeȱ demandsȱ ofȱ theȱ saintȬfriend.ȱ Whileȱ theȱ bestȱ humanȱ friendȱ for Anselmȱisȱmonolithic,ȱanȱideaȱfixedȱinȱtimeȱandȱspace,ȱwhoseȱstabilityȱprovides Anselmȱwithȱanȱillusorilyȱstableȱunderstandingȱofȱhimself,ȱsaints,ȱauthorizedȱby theȱ Scripturalȱ narrativeȱ contingenciesȱ ofȱ theirȱ humanȱ livesȱ interminglingȱ with Christȱ onȱ earth,ȱ areȱ dynamic,ȱ changingȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ vicissitudesȱ ofȱ the individualȱsinner’sȱneeds.ȱ Anselmȱ writesȱ hisȱ Prayersȱ inȱ aȱ periodȱ creditedȱ withȱ theȱ “discoveryȱ ofȱ the individual,”ȱasȱauthor,ȱspeaker,ȱprotagonist,ȱandȱaudience.38ȱColinȱMorrisȱcites

36

37

38

AllȱquotationsȱofȱAnselm’sȱmajorȱtheologicalȱtreatisesȱcomeȱfromȱAOO,ȱvols.ȱ1–2.ȱIȱshallȱciteȱthe nameȱofȱtheȱworkȱfollowedȱbyȱtheȱbookȱnumberȱ(ifȱapplicable),ȱchapterȱnumber,ȱtheȱvolume number,ȱandȱtheȱpageȱnumber(s)ȱinȱthatȱorder. AllȱquotationsȱofȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱofȱAnselm’sȱmajorȱtheologicalȱtreatisesȱcomeȱfromȱAnselm ofȱCanterbury:ȱTheȱMajorȱWorks,ȱed.ȱBrianȱDaviesȱandȱG.ȱR.ȱEvansȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress, 1998).ȱIȱshallȱlistȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱworkȱandȱpageȱnumber. WalterȱUllman,ȱTheȱIndividualȱandȱSocietyȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱPress,ȱ1966); Southern,ȱ Medievalȱ Humanismȱ andȱ Otherȱ Studiesȱ (1970;ȱ Oxford:ȱ Basilȱ Blackwell,ȱ 1984);ȱ Peter Dronke,ȱ Poeticȱ Individualityȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages:ȱ Newȱ Departuresȱ inȱ Poetry,ȱ 1000–1150.ȱ (Oxford: ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1970);ȱColinȱMorris,ȱTheȱDiscoveryȱofȱtheȱIndividualȱ1050–1200ȱ(London:ȱSociety forȱPromotingȱChristianȱKnowledge,ȱ1972;ȱrpt.ȱToronto:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ1987);ȱRobert Hanning,ȱTheȱIndividualȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱRomanceȱ(NewȱHaven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1977); LindaȱGeorgianna,ȱTheȱSolitaryȱSelf:ȱIndividualityȱinȱtheȱAncreneȱWisseȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvard

320

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

amongȱ otherȱ featuresȱ aȱ renewedȱ interestȱ inȱ classicalȱ literatureȱ emphasizing individualȱthoughtsȱandȱdesires,ȱnewȱeducationalȱstructuresȱthatȱfavoredȱhuman reasoningȱ ratherȱ thanȱ sacredȱ authoritiesȱ asȱ aȱ methodȱ ofȱ understanding Christianity,ȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱbiographyȱandȱautobiographyȱasȱliteraryȱformsȱthat examinedȱtheȱpeculiaritiesȱofȱindividuals,ȱandȱincreasedȱattentionȱtoȱconfessionȱas aȱmeansȱofȱexploringȱone’sȱintentionsȱandȱtheȱpsychologyȱofȱsin,ȱuniqueȱtoȱeach individual.39ȱ Theȱ twelfthȱ century,ȱ Robertȱ N.ȱ Swansonȱ argues,ȱ producedȱ a heightenedȱ senseȱ ofȱ selfȬawarenessȱ asȱ monksȱ andȱ laypersonsȱ alikeȱ discoverȱ a versionȱofȱChristianityȱthatȱemphasizesȱhumanȱchoiceȱandȱaccountabilityȱinȱthe storyȱofȱsalvation.40ȱ Suchȱcriticalȱinsightsȱhaveȱbeenȱtempered,ȱhowever.ȱCarolineȱWalkerȱBynum remindsȱusȱthatȱnoȱLatinȱwordȱcorrelatingȱtoȱourȱmodernȱindividualȱexistsȱinȱthe twelfthȱcentury,ȱandȱthatȱwhileȱwritersȱexamineȱtheirȱinnerȱthoughts,ȱdesires,ȱsin, andȱholiness,ȱtheyȱdoȱsoȱonlyȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱcommunalȱroles.41ȱMoreover, identityȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱisȱnotȱonlyȱsocialized,ȱbutȱalsoȱprovisional.ȱBernard ofȱClairvauxȱdiscussesȱselfȬknowledgeȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱself asȱgreatȱbecauseȱitȱisȱmadeȱinȱtheȱimageȱofȱGod,ȱbutȱalsoȱhumbleȱinȱtheȱknowledge thatȱitsȱgreatnessȱcomesȱfromȱGodȱalone.42ȱBecauseȱofȱsin,ȱoneȱwillȱneverȱfully achieveȱtheȱoriginalȱstatusȱofȱtheȱimagoȱdeiȱinȱthisȱlife,ȱforȱthisȱmustȱbeȱdeferred untilȱheaven.ȱ Theȱselfȱisȱnotȱautonomousȱandȱunchangingȱ(aȱstatic,ȱsinfulȱsoul),ȱbutȱrather beginsȱtoȱunderstandȱitselfȱinȱdynamic,ȱredemptive,ȱandȱpotentialȱtermsȱinȱlight ofȱ others.ȱ Humanȱ friendsȱ inȱ Anselm’sȱ lettersȱ andȱ saintȬfriendsȱ inȱ theȱ Prayers remainȱ impenetrable,ȱ unequal,ȱ distant,ȱ abstract,ȱ andȱ separated,ȱ both geographicallyȱandȱpsychologically.ȱButȱAnselmȱfindsȱaȱsolutionȱtoȱabsentȱfriends thatȱmayȱnotȱbridgeȱtheȱdisconnectȱbetweenȱthem,ȱbutȱnonethelessȱdignifiesȱthem

39

40

41

42

Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1981);ȱ andȱ Johnȱ F.ȱ Benton,ȱ “Consciousnessȱ ofȱ Selfȱ andȱ Perceptionsȱ of Individuality,”ȱRenaissanceȱandȱRenewalȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,ȱed.ȱRobertȱL.ȱBensonȱandȱGiles Constableȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱ263–95. ThisȱisȱtheȱgeneralȱargumentȱofȱMorris’sȱTheȱDiscoveryȱofȱtheȱIndividualȱ1050–1200,ȱcitedȱaboveȱin n.ȱ37.ȱ RobertȱN.ȱSwanson,ȱTheȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱRenaissanceȱ(ManchesterȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱManchester UniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ148–49. CarolineȱWalkerȱBynum,ȱJesusȱasȱMother:ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱSpiritualityȱofȱtheȱHighȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Berkeley, LosȱAngeles,ȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱ85–90. “Siȱignorasȱte,ȱegredereȱetȱpasceȱhaedosȱtuos”ȱ(Ifȱyouȱdoȱnotȱknowȱyourself,ȱgoȱoutȱandȱpasture yourȱ herds),ȱ Bernardȱ isȱ fondȱ ofȱ sayingȱ inȱ variousȱ works,ȱ referringȱ toȱ theȱ potentialȱ mystical encounterȱparȱexcellenceȱinȱTheȱSongȱofȱSongsȱ1.3.ȱSeeȱDeȱgradibusȱhumilitatisȱetȱsuperbiaeȱ(OnȱtheȱSteps ofȱHumilityȱandȱPride),ȱ7.21:32,ȱDeȱdiligendoȱdeoȱ(OnȱLovingȱGod),ȱ2.4:122,ȱSermonesȱsuperȱcantica canticorum,ȱ34–38:1:245–55,ȱ2:3–18.ȱForȱtheȱexplanationȱofȱhumans’ȱobligationȱtoȱunderstandȱtheir greatnessȱtemperedȱbyȱhumility,ȱseeȱDeȱdiligendoȱdeo,ȱ2.4:122–23.ȱReferencesȱareȱtoȱtheȱstandard Latinȱedition:ȱSanctiȱBernardiȱOpera,ȱed.ȱJeanȱLeclercq,ȱC.ȱH.ȱTalbot,ȱandȱHenriȱM.ȱRochais,ȱ8ȱvols. (Rome:ȱCistercianȱEditions,ȱ1957–1977).

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 321 inȱ theȱ schemeȱ ofȱ humanȱ redemptionȱ andȱ illuminatesȱ theȱ selfȱ viaȱ one’s subjectivity—one’sȱbeingȱsubjectȱtoȱothers.

TheȱImpenetrableȱFriend Humanȱfriends,ȱforȱAnselm,ȱareȱmoreȱthanȱoftenȱinadequateȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱlife, obscuring,ȱratherȱthanȱclarifyingȱselfȬawareness.ȱInȱoneȱofȱthreeȱPrayersȱtoȱMary, Anselmȱ accentuatesȱ theȱ fracturesȱ thatȱ sinȱ createsȱ amongȱ allȱ humans,ȱ between himselfȱandȱMary,ȱandȱwithinȱhimself: Sicȱenim,ȱpiaȱdomina,ȱ[meaȱanima]ȱalienataȱestȱaȱseȱimmanitateȱstuporis,ȱutȱvixȱsensum habeatȱ enormisȱ languoris.ȱ Sicȱ sordibusȱ etȱ foetoreȱ foedatur,ȱ utȱ timeatȱ neȱ abȱ ipsa misericorsȱvultusȱtuusȱavertatur.ȱSicȱtabescitȱdesperandoȱrespectusȱtuiȱconversionem, utȱetiamȱosȱobmutescatȱadȱorationem.ȱ Peccataȱmea,ȱnequitiaeȱmeae,ȱsiȱhabetisȱanimamȱmeamȱvestroȱvenenoȱperemptam:ȱvel curȱsicȱfacitisȱeamȱvestraȱfoeditateȱhorrendam,ȱutȱmiseratioȱnonȱpossitȱaspicereȱillam? .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Oȱperturbata,ȱoȱconfusaȱpeccandiȱconditio!ȱEnȱquippeȱvos,ȱpeccataȱmea,ȱquomodo discerpendoȱdistrahitis,ȱdistrahendoȱcorroditis,ȱcorrodendoȱtorquetisȱpraecordiaȱmea. Eademȱenimȱpeccataȱmea,ȱoȱdomina,ȱcognosciȱaȱteȱcupiuntȱpropterȱcurationem,ȱparere tibiȱfugiuntȱpropterȱexecrationem.ȱNonȱsananturȱsineȱconfessione,ȱnecȱprodunturȱsine confusione.ȱ Siȱ celantur,ȱ suntȱ insanabilia;ȱ siȱ videntur,ȱ suntȱ detestabilia.ȱ Uruntȱ me dolore,ȱ terrentȱ meȱ timore.ȱ Moleȱ meȱ obruunt,ȱ pondereȱ meȱ premunt,ȱ pudoreȱ me confundunt.ȱ (Or.ȱ5.12–19,ȱ31–37:13–14) [GoodȱLady,ȱ (myȱsoulȱhasȱbeenȱalienatedȱfromȱitselfȱbyȱaȱhugeȱdullness)ȱ soȱȱthatȱ(itȱis)ȱscarcelyȱawareȱofȱtheȱextentȱofȱ(its)ȱsickness.ȱ (Itȱis)soȱfilthyȱandȱstinkingȱ thatȱ(itȱis)ȱafraidȱyouȱwillȱturnȱyourȱmercifulȱfaceȱfromȱ(it).ȱ Soȱ(itȱlooks)ȱtoȱyouȱtoȱconvertȱ(it),ȱ but(ȱis)ȱheldȱbackȱbyȱdespair,ȱ andȱevenȱmyȱlipsȱareȱshutȱagainstȱprayer.ȱ Myȱsins,ȱmyȱwickedȱdeeds,ȱ sinceȱyouȱhaveȱdestroyedȱmyȱsoulȱwithȱyourȱpoison,ȱ whyȱdoȱyouȱmakeȱitȱaȱhorrorȱwithȱyourȱfilth,ȱ (soȱthatȱpityȱcannotȱlookȱuponȱit)? ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱHowȱdisturbedȱandȱconfusedȱisȱtheȱstateȱofȱsin!ȱ Howȱmyȱsinsȱtearȱmyȱheartȱinȱpiecesȱandȱdivideȱit,ȱ gnawȱatȱitȱandȱtormentȱit.ȱ Andȱso,ȱLady,ȱmyȱsinsȱ longȱtoȱbeȱknownȱbyȱyouȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱcanȱbeȱcuredȱ butȱfleeȱfromȱyouȱforȱfearȱofȱbeingȱcursed.ȱ Myȱsinsȱcannotȱbeȱcuredȱunlessȱtheyȱareȱconfessed,ȱ

322

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie butȱtoȱacknowledgeȱthemȱthrowsȱmeȱintoȱconfusion.ȱ Ifȱtheyȱareȱconcealedȱtheyȱcannotȱbeȱhealed,ȱ ifȱtheyȱareȱseenȱtheyȱareȱdetestable.ȱ Theyȱchafeȱmeȱwithȱsorrow,ȱtheyȱterrifyȱmeȱwithȱfear, ȱtheyȱburyȱmeȱwithȱtheirȱweight,ȱtheyȱpressȱuponȱmeȱheavily,ȱ andȱconfoundȱmeȱwithȱshame.ȱ (Prayers,ȱ5.20–31,ȱ53–66:107–09)]43

InȱthisȱquintessentiallyȱAnselmianȱprayer,ȱAnselmȱaddsȱinȱlineȱafterȱlineȱlanguage andȱimagesȱtoȱexpressȱtheȱhorrorȱofȱsinȱinfectingȱhisȱsoul.ȱUnlikeȱotherȱsaintsȱto whomȱheȱprays,ȱMaryȱoffersȱnoȱnarrativeȱhookȱforȱAnselm—noȱmomentȱinȱherȱlife, heȱ believes,ȱ thatȱ wouldȱ allowȱ himȱ toȱ invokeȱ herȱ humanȱ frailtyȱ andȱ compare himselfȱ toȱ her,ȱ forȱ Mary,ȱ asȱ Anselmȱ arguesȱ elsewhere,ȱ wasȱ withoutȱ sin.44 Awestruck,ȱallȱheȱcanȱdoȱisȱtoȱworryȱoverȱtheȱunbridgeableȱgapȱbetweenȱMaryȱand himself,ȱasȱheȱdiscoversȱtheȱpainfulȱparadoxȱofȱconfession.ȱAnselmȱnoȱfewerȱthan fiveȱtimesȱdespairsȱthatȱtheȱrevelationȱofȱhisȱsinȱtoȱMaryȱwillȱmakeȱhisȱsoulȱappear soȱfoulȱ(“sordibusȱetȱfoetoreȱfoedatur,”ȱ14;ȱ“venenoȱperemptam,”ȱ17–18;ȱ“foeditate horrendam,”ȱ18;ȱ“detestabilia,”ȱ36)ȱinȱherȱeyesȱthatȱsheȱwillȱturnȱherȱmercifulȱface fromȱhimȱ(“misericorsȱvultusȱtuusȱavertatur,”ȱ15)ȱandȱdenyȱhimȱtheȱintercession thatȱheȱneeds.ȱAndȱyet,ȱifȱheȱdoesȱnotȱconfessȱhisȱsin,ȱtheȱrevelationȱofȱwhich,ȱtoȱhis mind,ȱmakesȱhimȱappearȱunworthyȱofȱbeingȱhealed,ȱheȱwillȱneverȱbeȱcleanȱofȱsin (“nonȱsanantur,”ȱ34–35).ȱ ButȱAnselmȱisȱalsoȱalienatedȱfromȱhimself:ȱ“[Meaȱanima]ȱalienataȱestȱaȱse”ȱ(My soulȱhasȱbecomeȱalienatedȱfromȱitself)ȱ(13),ȱheȱwrites,ȱponderingȱtheȱopacityȱthat sinȱcauses.ȱAnselmȱspeaksȱofȱdullnessȱ(“stuporis,”ȱ13),ȱsicknessȱ(“languoris,”ȱ14), confusionȱ(“confusione,”ȱ35),ȱsorrowȱ(“dolore,”ȱ36),ȱfearȱ(“timore,”ȱ36),ȱandȱshame (“pudore,”ȱ 37),ȱ resultingȱ fromȱ anȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ sinsȱ thatȱ precludesȱ selfȬ knowledge.45ȱ Anselmȱ isȱ awareȱ ofȱ himselfȱ insofarȱ asȱ heȱ feelsȱ theseȱ variegated emotions,ȱbutȱnotȱinȱtheȱmedievalȱsenseȱinȱwhichȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱtrueȱselfȱis knowledgeȱofȱtheȱselfȱasȱanȱimagoȱdei.ȱSinȱobscuresȱtheȱself.ȱInȱtheȱAnselmianȱrubric ofȱprayer,ȱclarityȱofȱmindȱandȱforgivenessȱcomeȱnotȱwhenȱheȱconfesses,ȱclearsȱhis

43

44 45

TheȱroundȱbracketsȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱindicateȱthatȱIȱhaveȱalteredȱWard’sȱtranslationȱand insertedȱmyȱownȱtranslation.ȱWardȱturnsȱtheȱgrammaticalȱsubjectsȱ“anima,”ȱ“soul”ȱ(impliedȱfrom aȱpreviousȱLatinȱsentenceȱnotȱquotedȱabove)ȱandȱ“peccata,”ȱ“sins,”ȱintoȱtheȱfirstȬpersonȱpronoun “I,”ȱwhereȱthereȱisȱnoȱexplicitȱorȱimplicitȱ“ego.”ȱTheȱpoint,ȱworthȱnoting,ȱisȱthatȱinȱtheȱLatin, Anselmȱmakesȱsinȱandȱconfessionȱimpersonalȱbyȱattributingȱagencyȱtoȱtheȱsoul,ȱalienatedȱfrom itself,ȱandȱhisȱsins,ȱlongingȱtoȱbeȱknown.ȱItȱisȱasȱthoughȱheȱisȱsoȱashamedȱofȱhisȱsinsȱthatȱheȱtries toȱdisassociateȱhimselfȱfromȱhisȱsinfulȱsoul.ȱ AnselmȱarguesȱthisȱinȱDeȱconceptuȱvirginaliȱetȱdeȱoriginaliȱpeccato. Theȱ horribleȱ confusionȱ Anselmȱ experiencesȱ inȱ confessionȱ runsȱ contraryȱ toȱ trendsȱ inȱ modern scholarshipȱsuggestingȱthatȱmedievalȱconfessionȱwasȱconduciveȱtoȱliberatingȱselfȬknowledge;ȱsee, forȱexample,ȱGeorgianna,ȱTheȱSolitaryȱSelf,ȱ79–119,ȱandȱLeonardȱE.ȱBoyle,ȱ“TheȱFourthȱLateran CouncilȱandȱManualsȱofȱPopularȱTheology,”ȱPopularȱLiteratureȱofȱMedievalȱEngland,ȱed.ȱThomasȱJ. Heffernanȱ(Knoxville:ȱUniversityȱofȱTennesseeȱPress,ȱ1985),ȱ30–43.ȱ

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 323 mindȱofȱsin,ȱandȱpreservesȱrectitudeȱallȱonȱhisȱown—forȱthisȱisȱimpossible—but onlyȱbyȱanȱactȱofȱsuprarationalȱmercyȱfromȱtheȱsaintȱandȱGod. Inȱ ca.ȱ 1072,ȱ Anselmȱ sentȱ hisȱ threeȱ Marianȱ Prayersȱ alongȱ withȱ aȱ letterȱ toȱ his greatestȱabsentȱfriendȱandȱmonasticȱbrotherȱGundulf,ȱwhom,ȱAnselmȱwrites,ȱhe hadȱinȱmindȱ(“tuaȱintentione”)ȱwhileȱcomposingȱthem.46ȱAnselmȱwritesȱtoȱGundulf asȱ hisȱ “otherȱ heartȱ inȱ mutualȱ affection”ȱ (“inȱ mutuaȱ dilectioneȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ alterumȱ cor meum”)ȱandȱoffersȱhimȱaȱguideȱforȱpersonalȱdevotionȱtoȱbeȱusedȱfreelyȱ(Letter 28:1.121;ȱ Ep.ȱ 28.4:3.135).ȱ Butȱ Anselm’sȱ depictionȱ ofȱ theȱ hypothesizedȱ “other” (“alterum”)ȱinȱtheȱMarianȱprayerȱthatȱheȱsendsȱhimȱcallsȱintoȱquestionȱtheȱefficacy ofȱ hisȱ writingȱ forȱ Gundulf’sȱ “intentione.”ȱ Sinȱ hasȱ besmirchedȱ Anselmȱ so thoroughlyȱthatȱnoȱone’sȱmercyȱcanȱseeȱ hisȱ soulȱclearly:ȱ“miseratioȱnonȱpossit aspicereȱ illamȱ [meamȱ animam],”ȱ (18–19).ȱ Sinȱ alienatesȱ Anselmȱ fromȱ friends. Humanȱfriendsȱcanȱseeȱneitherȱtheȱtrueȱ(imagoȱdei)ȱnorȱtheȱsinfulȱconditionȱofȱthe soul;ȱitȱisȱsufficientlyȱfoulȱtoȱrepulseȱtheȱpityȱofȱanyone. ThatȱAnselmȱwouldȱcallȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱdistanceȱbetweenȱfriendsȱinȱaȱPrayer writtenȱforȱGundulfȱisȱshocking.ȱAnselmȱwritesȱtoȱGundulfȱwithȱsweetness,ȱusing rhetoricȱthatȱsupposedlyȱresonatesȱwithȱclassicalȱidealsȱofȱseamlessnessȱbetween friends.47ȱNowȱthatȱquestionsȱofȱartificialityȱinȱtheȱlettersȱhaveȱbeenȱthoughtfully deliberatedȱandȱdismissed,ȱweȱcanȱreadȱtheȱlettersȱtoȱGundulfȱandȱsimilarȱonesȱto otherȱrecipientsȱinȱtheirȱgenuineȱspiritualȱsense.48ȱTheȱfirstȱexcerpt,ȱfromȱca.ȱ1071, apparentlyȱ respondsȱ toȱ Gundulf’sȱ complaintȱ thatȱ Anselmȱ doesȱ notȱ writeȱ him frequentlyȱenough:

46

47

48

AnselmȱandȱGundulfȱhadȱknownȱeachȱotherȱatȱBec,ȱbutȱwhenȱLanfrancȱbecameȱArchbishopȱof Canterbury,ȱheȱtookȱGundulfȱwithȱhim,ȱthusȱresultingȱinȱAnselmȱandȱGundulf’sȱparting.ȱThis migrationȱofȱmonksȱfromȱBecȱtoȱCanterburyȱprovidesȱtheȱoccasionȱforȱmanyȱofȱAnselm’sȱletters toȱabsentȱfriends. Fiske,ȱ “Saintȱ Anselmȱ andȱ Friendship,”ȱ 269–70,ȱ 282,ȱ 290;ȱ McGuire,ȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Community, 214–15;ȱSouthern,ȱPortrait,ȱ147,ȱ155–56. InterpretingȱtheȱstyleȱofȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱofȱamicitiaȱhasȱprovenȱcontroversial,ȱforȱtheȱlanguage seemsȱexaggeratedȱtoȱtheȱpointȱofȱinsincerity.ȱSwanson,ȱTheȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱRenaissance,ȱgoesȱso farȱasȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱemotionsȱbehindȱtheȱlettersȱareȱsterile,ȱandȱthatȱwritersȱemployȱsuch hyperboleȱtoȱidentifyȱthemselvesȱasȱwritingȱwithinȱaȱcertainȱrhetoricalȱtradition,ȱtheȱepistolaȱad amicum,ȱ modeledȱ onȱ theȱ lettersȱ ofȱ Senecaȱ andȱ carriedȱ onȱ byȱ suchȱ twelfthȬcenturyȱ writersȱ as Anselm,ȱPeterȱofȱBlois,ȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱandȱHeloise, 146.ȱJeanȱLeclercq,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱoffersȱaȱlessȱdrasticȱreadingȱofȱsuchȱeffusionȱinȱTheȱLoveȱof LearningȱandȱtheȱDesireȱforȱGod:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱMonasticȱCulture,ȱtrans.ȱCatharineȱMisrahiȱ(NewȱYork: FordhamȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1961).ȱLiteratureȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱdismissedȱasȱfictitiousȱorȱinsincere,ȱhe argues,ȱsimplyȱbecauseȱitȱemploysȱaȱhighȱstyleȱofȱrhetoric,ȱwhichȱmonksȱoftenȱuseȱtoȱsuggestȱan elevatedȱsenseȱofȱspirituality:ȱ“Ifȱthereȱisȱart,ȱorȱevenȱartifice,ȱinȱmonasticȱlettersȱjustȱasȱinȱthe others,ȱtheyȱareȱinȱnoȱwayȱfictitious.ȱTheyȱareȱmerelyȱfineȱlettersȱinȱwhichȱspontaneousȱfeelings areȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱformsȱfixedȱbyȱliterature.ȱInȱreadingȱthemȱweȱmustȱalwaysȱmakeȱallowance forȱtheȱpartȱplayedȱbyȱthisȱliteraryȱattitude.ȱOnceȱagain,ȱweȱmustȱrepeatȱthatȱtakingȱaȱmedievalȱtext seriouslyȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱmeanȱtakingȱallȱitsȱexpressionsȱliterally,”ȱ178–79.ȱ

324

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie 1.ȱPraetereaȱcur—sicutȱaudio—tantoȱmaeroreȱquererisȱquodȱnumquamȱlitterasȱmeas videas,ȱetȱtantoȱamoreȱquaerisȱutȱeasȱsaepeȱaccipias,ȱcumȱmeamȱconscientiamȱtecum semperȱhabeas?ȱTeȱquippeȱsilenteȱegoȱnoviȱquiaȱdiligisȱme;ȱetȱmeȱtacenteȱ“tuȱscisȱquia amoȱte.”ȱTuȱmihiȱconsciusȱesȱquiaȱegoȱnonȱdubitoȱdeȱte;ȱetȱegoȱtibiȱtestisȱsumȱquiaȱtu certusȱesȱdeȱme.ȱQuoniamȱigiturȱnobisȱnostrarumȱconsciiȱsumusȱconscientiarumȱde invicem,ȱhocȱtantumȱrestat,ȱutȱeaȱquaeȱergaȱnosȱsuntȱmandemusȱadȱinvicem,ȱutȱpariter velȱgaudeamusȱvelȱsollicitiȱsimusȱproȱinvicem.ȱ (Ep.ȱ4.16–23:3.104) [Moreover,ȱwhyȱdoȱyouȱcomplainȱsoȱsorrowfully,ȱasȱIȱhear,ȱthatȱyouȱneverȱseeȱany lettersȱofȱmine,ȱandȱwhyȱdoȱyouȱbegȱmeȱsoȱlovinglyȱthatȱyouȱmayȱoftenȱreceiveȱthem whenȱyouȱhaveȱmyȱthoughtsȱwithȱyouȱallȱtheȱtime?ȱEvenȱwhenȱyouȱareȱsilentȱIȱknow youȱloveȱme;ȱandȱifȱIȱamȱsilentȱ“youȱknowȱthatȱIȱloveȱyou”ȱ(Jnȱ21.16).ȱYouȱareȱaware thatȱIȱhaveȱnoȱdoubtsȱaboutȱyou,ȱandȱIȱamȱyourȱwitnessȱthatȱyouȱareȱsureȱofȱme.ȱSince weȱareȱawareȱthatȱweȱareȱinȱeachȱother’sȱminds,ȱtherefore,ȱitȱonlyȱremainsȱforȱusȱtoȱtell eachȱotherȱaboutȱourȱaffairsȱsoȱthatȱweȱmayȱeitherȱrejoiceȱtogetherȱorȱbeȱconcernedȱfor eachȱother.ȱ (Letterȱ4:1.81)]

TheȱnextȱexcerptȱtoȱGundulf,ȱfromȱca.ȱ1070–1077,ȱagainȱsuggestsȱthatȱlettersȱto absentȱfriendsȱareȱunnecessaryȱbecauseȱeachȱoneȱhasȱanȱimageȱofȱtheȱotherȱinside ofȱ him,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ echoingȱ Anselm’sȱ Proslogion,ȱ guidingȱ theȱ readerȱ toȱ arouse sufficientȱ devotionȱ toȱ meditate,ȱ suggesting,ȱ asȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ argued,ȱ thatȱ the processȱofȱimaginingȱtheȱfriendȱinȱtheȱmindȱisȱsimilarȱtoȱexperiencingȱGodȱinȱthe mind:49 2.ȱSedȱquidȱteȱdocebitȱepistolaȱmeaȱquodȱignores,ȱoȱtuȱalteraȱanimaȱmea?ȱ“Intraȱin cubiculum”ȱcordisȱtuiȱetȱconsideraȱaffectumȱveriȱamorisȱtui,ȱetȱcognoscesȱamoremȱveri amiciȱtui.ȱ (Ep.16.5–7:3.121) [Butȱwhatȱwillȱmyȱletterȱtellȱyouȱthatȱyouȱdoȱnotȱknow,ȱyou,ȱmyȱsecondȱsoul?ȱ“Goȱinto theȱsecretȱplace”ȱ(Mtȱ6.6)ȱofȱyourȱheartȱandȱconsiderȱtheȱaffectionȱofȱyourȱtrueȱloveȱand youȱwillȱlearnȱtheȱloveȱofȱyourȱtrueȱfriend.ȱ (Letterȱ16:1.103)]

AnotherȱexcerptȱtoȱGundulf,ȱca.ȱ1076,ȱalludesȱtoȱtheȱaccountȱinȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱ2.9 ofȱtheȱmysteryȱofȱtheȱRaptureȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱmystical—andȱthereforeȱapparently seamless—relationshipȱbetweenȱfriends: 3.ȱ Sedȱ quid,ȱ siȱ necȱ “oculusȱ vidit,ȱ necȱ aurisȱ audivit,”ȱ sedȱ solumȱ “inȱ corȱ hominis ascendit,”ȱquemȱaffectumȱpraeparentȱdiligentiaȱcordaȱdiligentibusȱse?ȱTestisȱenimȱmihi estȱexpertaȱconscientiaȱtua,ȱquiaȱnecȱvisuȱnecȱaudituȱsaporȱhuiusȱaffectusȱaȱquoquam percipitur,ȱnisiȱquantumȱmenteȱabȱunoquoqueȱconcipitur.ȱCumȱigiturȱsciasȱquiaȱsapor dilectionisȱnecȱoculisȱnecȱauribusȱagnoscitur,ȱsedȱsoloȱcordisȱoreȱdelactabiliterȱgustatur: quibusȱverbisȱautȱquibusȱlitterisȱmeusȱetȱtuusȱamorȱdescribetur?ȱEtȱtamenȱtuȱinstas mihiȱimportune,ȱutȱfaciamȱquodȱfieriȱnonȱpotest.ȱSufficiantȱnobisȱconscientiaeȱnostrae, quibusȱnobisȱinvicemȱconsciiȱsumusȱquantumȱnosȱdiligamus.ȱ(Ep.ȱ59.12–20:3.174)

49

Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ270–72,ȱ290;ȱSouthern,ȱPortrait,ȱ147,ȱ158.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 325 [Butȱwhatȱifȱneitherȱ“eyeȱhasȱseenȱnorȱearȱhasȱheard”ȱtheȱaffectionȱlovingȱheartsȱhave laidȱupȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱthem,ȱbutȱitȱ“hasȱentered”ȱonlyȱ“intoȱtheȱhumanȱheart?”ȱ(1 Corȱ 2.9)ȱ Yourȱ experiencedȱ conscienceȱ isȱ myȱ witnessȱ that,ȱ exceptȱ insofarȱ asȱ itȱ is conceivedȱ inȱ theȱ mind,ȱ thisȱ savorȱ ofȱ affectionȱ isȱ notȱ perceivedȱ byȱ anyoneȱ through eitherȱ sightȱ orȱ hearing.ȱ Sinceȱ thereforeȱ youȱ knowȱ thatȱ theȱ savorȱ ofȱ loveȱ cannotȱ be discernedȱ eitherȱ byȱ theȱ eyesȱ orȱ theȱ earsȱ butȱ canȱ beȱ delightfullyȱ tastedȱ onlyȱ byȱ the heart’sȱmouth,ȱinȱwhatȱwordsȱorȱbyȱwhatȱletterȱcanȱyourȱloveȱandȱmineȱbeȱdescribed? Andȱyetȱyouȱpressȱmeȱinsistentlyȱtoȱdoȱwhatȱcannotȱbeȱdone.ȱMayȱourȱconsciences,ȱby whichȱweȱareȱawareȱofȱhowȱmuchȱweȱloveȱeachȱother,ȱbeȱ(proof)ȱenoughȱforȱus.ȱ (Letterȱ59:1.171–72)]

Toȱ Gilbertȱ Crispin,ȱ whoseȱ promotionȱ toȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ abbotȱ atȱ Westminster separatedȱhimȱfromȱAnselm,ȱAnselmȱwritesȱoneȱpeculiarȱletter,ȱca.ȱ1086–1089,ȱof manyȱ thatȱ haveȱ promptedȱ someȱ scholarsȱ toȱ interpretȱ himȱ asȱ gay,ȱ orȱ inclined towardȱhomoeroticȱfeelings,ȱasȱweȱshallȱsoonȱsee:ȱ 4.ȱQuiȱaffectusȱquantusȱetȱquamȱverusȱsitȱcumȱmultumȱcognoscerem,ȱquandoȱsese oculoȱadȱoculum,ȱosculoȱadȱosculum,ȱamplexuȱadȱamplexumȱostenderet:ȱnuncȱmulto magisȱexperior,ȱcumȱabesseȱillumȱirrecuperabiliter,ȱinȱquoȱtantaȱiucunditateȱdelectabar, intueorȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[O]roȱvobiscum,ȱutȱaliquandoȱnosȱinvicemȱvidentesȱoculoȱadȱoculum, osculoȱadȱosculum,ȱamplexuȱadȱamplexumȱnonȱoblitumȱamoremȱrecolamus.ȱ (Ep.ȱ130.6–15:3.272–73) [Iȱoftenȱperceivedȱhowȱgreatȱandȱhowȱtrueȱ(our)ȱaffectionȱwasȱwhenȱitȱdisplayedȱitself faceȱtoȱface,ȱlipȱtoȱlip,ȱembraceȱtoȱembrace:ȱnowȱwhenȱIȱcontemplateȱhowȱheȱinȱwhom Iȱdelightedȱwithȱsuchȱjoyȱisȱirretrievablyȱlost,ȱIȱrealizeȱitȱmoreȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱprayȱwithȱyouȱthat whenȱweȱseeȱeachȱotherȱagainȱweȱshouldȱonceȱmoreȱrevive,ȱfaceȱtoȱface,ȱlipȱtoȱlip, embraceȱtoȱembrace,ȱourȱunforgottenȱlove.ȱ (Letterȱ130:1.305)]

Theȱ finalȱ excerpt,ȱ ca.ȱ 1074,ȱ addressesȱ Frodelina,ȱ apparentlyȱ aȱ womanȱ ofȱ some socialȱstatusȱwhoȱenjoyedȱaȱreputationȱforȱholinessȱinȱNormandy.ȱWhenȱAnselm wroteȱthisȱletterȱheȱhadȱneverȱmetȱher: 5.ȱ Postquamȱ odoremȱ vestraeȱ bonaeȱ famae,ȱ quaeȱ longeȱ latequeȱ suaviterȱ redolens circumvolat,ȱ persensi,ȱ semperȱ desideraviȱ adȱ vestramȱ notitiamȱ aliquaȱ commoda occasioneȱpervenire,ȱutȱperȱnotitiamȱmerererȱaliquatenusȱadȱamicitiamȱpertingere.ȱUt quiȱbonisȱmeisȱmeritisȱmeȱvideoȱvaldeȱindigere,ȱvestrisȱmeȱpossemȱaliquantulumȱper caritatisȱ communionemȱ miscere.ȱ Sedȱ gratiasȱ agoȱ deoȱ quia,ȱ dumȱ hancȱ voluntatem gereremȱ etȱ voluntatisȱ effectumȱ cupidusȱ exspectarem,ȱ intimatumȱ estȱ mihiȱ per communemȱinȱChristoȱfratremȱetȱamicumȱnostrum,ȱdomnumȱHugonem,ȱinclusum Cadumensem,ȱ quiaȱ sanctitasȱ vestraȱ nonȱ dissimiliȱ affectuȱ similemȱ deȱ seȱ apudȱ me praestolareturȱ eventumȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Quoniamȱ tamenȱ vestrisȱ maioribusȱ bonisȱ desidero participare,ȱ nescioȱ quaȱ fronteȱ possimȱ vobisȱ participationemȱ meorumȱ bonorum, qualiacumqueȱsint,ȱcumȱeamȱdesideretis,ȱnegareȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Petoȱetiam,ȱlicetȱmeaȱmerita nequaquamȱ vestrisȱ possintȱ aequari,ȱ utȱ vestraȱ beatitudoȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ suorumȱ meritorum communioniȱaliquatenusȱdigneturȱadmittere.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(Ep.ȱ45.6–10,ȱ23–30:3.158–59)

326

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie [EverȱsinceȱIȱbecameȱawareȱofȱtheȱodorȱofȱyourȱgoodȱreputationȱwhichȱhasȱspreadȱfar andȱwideȱlikeȱaȱsweetȱperfume,ȱIȱhaveȱlongedȱtoȱmakeȱmyselfȱknownȱtoȱyouȱatȱsome favorableȱopportunity,ȱthatȱIȱmightȱdeserveȱthroughȱthisȱacquaintanceshipȱtoȱgainȱyour friendshipȱ(“amicitiam”).ȱButȱsinceȱIȱseeȱmyselfȱtotallyȱlackingȱinȱmeritȱperhapsȱIȱmight somehowȱshareȱyoursȱbyȱaȱcommunionȱofȱcharity.ȱSoȱIȱthankȱGodȱthat,ȱwhileȱIȱwas harboringȱthisȱwishȱandȱwasȱeagerlyȱlookingȱforȱaȱwayȱofȱexecutingȱit,ȱDomȱHugh,ȱthe hermitȱ ofȱ Caen,ȱ ourȱ mutualȱ brotherȱ andȱ friendȱ inȱ Christ,ȱ informedȱ meȱ thatȱ your holiness,ȱwithȱsentimentsȱnotȱunlikeȱmyȱown,ȱwasȱlookingȱforȱaȱsimilarȱopportunity inȱmyȱregardȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ(S)inceȱIȱdesireȱtoȱshareȱinȱyourȱgoodȱqualitiesȱwhichȱareȱgreaterȱthan mine,ȱIȱdoȱnotȱknowȱonȱwhatȱpretextȱIȱcanȱrefuseȱtoȱletȱyouȱshare,ȱasȱyouȱdesire,ȱin mine,ȱ whateverȱ theyȱ mayȱ beȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Moreover,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ myȱ meritsȱ canȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ be comparedȱtoȱyours,ȱIȱbegȱthatȱyourȱholinessȱmayȱdeignȱtoȱadmitȱmeȱinȱsomeȱwayȱtoȱthe communionȱofȱyourȱmerits.ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(Letterȱ45:1.151–52)]

Anselmȱ doesȱ notȱ writeȱ toȱ friendsȱ aboutȱ businessȱ orȱ gossip;ȱ hisȱ lettersȱ concern nothingȱbutȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱfriendshipȱitself.50ȱInȱAnselm’sȱPlatonicȱmind,ȱtheȱfriend existsȱ throughȱ absenceȱ asȱ anȱ imageȱ inȱ theȱ mind,ȱ andȱ Anselmȱ expectsȱ thatȱ he similarlyȱexistsȱinȱhisȱfriend’sȱmindȱȱ(“menteȱconcipitur,”ȱ59.15–16).ȱThisȱisȱwhy “conscientia,”ȱ“knowingȱtogether”ȱorȱ“consciousness,”ȱandȱitsȱcognatesȱplayȱa significantȱroleȱespeciallyȱinȱtheȱfirstȱandȱthirdȱlettersȱ(Ep.ȱ4ȱandȱEp.ȱ59)ȱquoted aboveȱ(4.18,ȱ19,ȱ21;ȱ59.14,ȱ19,ȱ20).51ȱ TheȱstandardȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱthreeȱlettersȱtoȱGundulfȱisȱthatȱAnselmȱand Gundulfȱareȱsoȱmysticallyȱboundȱtogetherȱinȱaȱunityȱofȱpurposeȱ(theȱmonasticȱlife andȱtheȱloveȱofȱChrist)ȱthatȱtheirȱmindsȱbecomeȱfused:ȱeachȱoneȱknowsȱandȱfeels whatȱtheȱotherȱknowsȱandȱfeelsȱbyȱexaminingȱhisȱownȱthoughtsȱandȱfeelings.52ȱThe friendȱliesȱinsideȱoneself,ȱandȱthis,ȱsomeȱsuggest,ȱisȱaȱsuitableȱalternativeȱtoȱhaving theȱfriendȱpresent.53ȱButȱwhenȱtheseȱthreeȱlettersȱareȱjuxtaposedȱtoȱtheȱPrayers, problemsȱ withȱ thisȱ traditionalȱ argumentȱ arise.ȱ Ifȱ Anselmȱ cannotȱ evenȱ know himselfȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱsinȱthatȱcloudsȱhisȱmind,ȱthenȱheȱcannotȱknowȱtheȱfriend’s trueȱselfȱeither;ȱandȱifȱtheȱfriendȱcanȱseeȱneitherȱtheȱtrueȱAnselmȱ(imagoȱdei)ȱnorȱthe sinfulȱone,ȱhavingȱavertedȱhisȱfaceȱsinceȱnoȱpityȱcanȱseeȱAnselmȱ(“miseratioȱnon possitȱaspicereȱillam,ȱOr.ȱ5.18–19),ȱthenȱtheȱfriendȱcannotȱknowȱAnselmȱeither.ȱThe

50

51

52 53

Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱdividesȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱintoȱtwoȱgroups:ȱtheȱroughlyȱoneȱhundredȱandȱforty lettersȱbetweenȱ1070ȱandȱ1093,ȱwhichȱcompriseȱalmostȱallȱofȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱofȱfriendship,ȱand theȱ lettersȱ afterȱ 1093,ȱ theȱ yearȱ heȱ becameȱ archbishop,ȱ whichȱ dealȱ mostlyȱ withȱ ecclesiastical businessȱandȱpastoralȱcare,ȱ138–39.ȱAllȱofȱtheȱlettersȱquotedȱaboveȱareȱfromȱAnselm’sȱpreȬ1093 collection.ȱ Fiske,ȱ “Saintȱ Anselmȱ andȱ Friendship,”ȱ writesȱ atȱ lengthȱ onȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ conscientiaȱ inȱ Anselm’s letters,ȱofferingȱmanyȱinsightsȱ(269–75),ȱbutȱnonethelessȱslightsȱtheȱrupturesȱofȱconsciousness aboutȱwhichȱIȱwrite.ȱ Fiskeȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ272;ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ214–15. Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ264.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 327 friendȱisȱaȱlinguisticȱartificeȱonȱwhichȱtheȱmindȱmeditates.ȱScholarsȱargueȱthat medievalȱauthorsȱfearȱtheȱdamageȱthatȱabsenceȱmightȱcauseȱtoȱfriendship.54ȱBut evenȱthoughȱAnselmȱfeelsȱtheȱpainȱofȱseparation,55ȱnotȱonlyȱisȱtheȱfriendȱabsent;ȱhe mustȱbeȱabsentȱinȱorderȱforȱfriendshipȱtoȱwork,ȱforȱAnselm’sȱcreationȱofȱtheȱabsent friendȱcreatesȱaȱmodelȱofȱstability.56ȱBelievingȱthatȱheȱknowsȱtheȱfriendȱandȱthatȱthe friendȱknowsȱhimȱcomfortsȱAnselm.ȱIfȱheȱcanȱpositionȱtheȱfriendȱtoȱbeȱaȱsteadfast exemplarȱofȱhisȱinnerȱlife,ȱwhichȱisȱalwaysȱinȱflux,ȱandȱtherebyȱcreateȱunityȱoutȱof chaosȱ viaȱ theȱ friend,ȱ thenȱ heȱ canȱ knowȱ aȱ moreȱ appealingȱ versionȱ ofȱ himself throughȱ hisȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ theȱ absentȱ friend’sȱ unchangingȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ him, (“[q]uoniamȱigiturȱnobisȱnostrarumȱconsciiȱsumusȱconscientiarumȱdeȱinvicem,” Ep.ȱ 4.20–21;ȱ “sinceȱ weȱ areȱ awareȱ thatȱ weȱ areȱ inȱ eachȱ other’sȱ minds”).ȱ This awarenessȱ ofȱ himselfȱ rarelyȱ changesȱ preciselyȱ becauseȱ theȱ friendsȱ doȱ not personallyȱinteractȱandȱtheȱdynamicȱofȱtheirȱrelationshipȱrarelyȱchanges,ȱasȱtheir onlyȱcontactȱwithȱeachȱotherȱinvolvesȱwritingȱaboutȱfriendship.ȱTheȱmoreȱletters thatȱGundulfȱwantsȱtoȱlearnȱaboutȱAnselm’sȱfeelingsȱforȱandȱthoughtsȱaboutȱhim, theȱmoreȱtenuousȱtheȱrelationshipȱbecomes,ȱandȱtheȱmoreȱhesitantȱAnselmȱisȱto acquiesce,ȱ acknowledgingȱ insteadȱ thatȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ isȱ seamless,ȱ thus requiringȱfewer,ȱnotȱmoreȱletters.ȱFiskeȱwritesȱofȱtheseȱletters:ȱ [I]tȱisȱaȱgreaterȱjoyȱtoȱknowȱthatȱone’sȱfriendȱisȱgrowingȱinȱvirtueȱthanȱtoȱhaveȱhim present,ȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱpresenceȱofȱfriendsȱwithinȱeachȱotherȱisȱinȱthatȱsimilitudeȱof virtue.57

However,ȱthisȱ“similitudeȱofȱvirtue”ȱrestsȱonȱanȱillusionȱofȱtheȱfriendȱsuspended inȱspaceȱandȱtime,ȱanȱexemplarȱofȱfalseȱstability,ȱandȱresultsȱinȱselfȬknowledgeȱby

54

55

56

57

CarolinneȱWhite,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱAbsence:ȱSomeȱPatristicȱViews,”ȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope, ed.ȱJulianȱP.ȱHaseldineȱ(Stroud,ȱUK:ȱSuttonȱPublishing,ȱ1999),ȱ72. OnȱtheȱpainȱofȱseparationȱthatȱAnselmȱrevealsȱtoȱabsentȱfriends,ȱsee:ȱEp.ȱ75.3:ȱ“taedet”;ȱEp.ȱ75.5: “cordisȱ meiȱ angoremȱ deȱ vestraȱ absentia”;ȱ Ep.ȱ 76.5:ȱ “vexat”;ȱ Ep.ȱ 76.6:ȱ “torquet”;ȱ Ep.ȱ 84.8–10: “Testisȱestȱangorȱcordisȱmeiȱhocȱipsumȱcogitantis,ȱtestesȱlacrimaeȱobtenebrantesȱoculosȱetȱrigantes faciemȱ etȱ digitosȱ idȱ ipsumȱ scribentis”ȱ (Theȱ witnessesȱ [toȱ theȱ painȱ ofȱ ourȱ separation]ȱ areȱ the anguishȱofȱmyȱheartȱwhileȱthinkingȱaboutȱitȱandȱtheȱtearsȱcloudingȱtheȱeyesȱandȱmoisteningȱthe faceȱandȱfingersȱofȱtheȱoneȱwritingȱthis);ȱEp.ȱ178.15:ȱ“tabescere.” McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱrightlyȱacknowledgesȱsomeȱofȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱthatȱnoteȱthe historicalȱandȱspiritualȱreasonsȱwhyȱAnselmȱmustȱbeȱabsentȱfromȱhisȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱGod, soȱthatȱtheyȱcanȱassumeȱtheirȱproperȱrolesȱonȱearth,ȱwhereverȱGod’sȱwillȱmayȱtakeȱthem,ȱ216–17. Inȱtheȱsameȱspirit,ȱHaseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparationȱandȱMaleȱFriendship,”ȱremindsȱusȱthatȱAnselm’s lettersȱareȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱmonasticȱobedienceȱthatȱoftenȱdictatedȱone’sȱstationȱinȱlifeȱand precludedȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱfriends,ȱ250.ȱToȱdisobeyȱwouldȱvitiateȱtheȱveryȱfoundationȱofȱtheȱlove ofȱ Godȱ andȱ serviceȱ toȱ Hisȱ willȱ onȱ whichȱ monasticȱ friendshipsȱ wereȱ grounded.ȱ Iȱ contend, nonetheless,ȱthatȱfriendsȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱabsentȱforȱpsychologicalȱreasonsȱinȱorderȱforȱAnselmȱto buildȱaȱstableȱviewȱofȱhimselfȱbasedȱonȱhisȱfriends’ȱfixedȱvisionsȱofȱhimself.ȱ Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ264.

328

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

proxyȱthatȱrestsȱalsoȱonȱanȱillusion.58ȱThatȱAnselmȱwritesȱseveralȱlettersȱofȱsimilar contentȱandȱtoneȱtoȱpeopleȱwhomȱheȱhadȱneverȱpersonallyȱmet,ȱthoughȱaddressing themȱasȱfriends,ȱonlyȱreinforcesȱsuchȱanȱargumentȱthatȱfriendsȱforȱAnselmȱoften functionȱasȱspeechȱactsȱthatȱprovideȱhimȱwithȱanȱotherwiseȱelusivelyȱstableȱimage ofȱhimself.59ȱ Anselm’sȱuseȱofȱtextualityȱisȱnotablyȱabsentȱfromȱscholarlyȱdiscussion.ȱAnselm usesȱlanguageȱtoȱcreateȱfriendships,ȱattemptingȱtoȱuncoverȱtheirȱmysteries,ȱjustȱas heȱtriesȱtoȱreadȱGodȱthroughȱtheȱsaints.ȱButȱwhenȱheȱquotesȱScriptureȱandȱhisȱown Proslogion,ȱattemptingȱtoȱshowȱtheȱostensibleȱclarityȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱtextsȱseem toȱtakeȱover,ȱconveyingȱtheȱoppositeȱofȱwhatȱAnselmȱseemsȱtoȱintend,ȱtheȱeffectȱof whichȱisȱfurtherȱobfuscation,ȱnotȱclarity. Theȱ firstȱ wordsȱ ofȱ theȱ Proslogion,ȱ whichȱ Anselmȱ quotesȱ aboveȱ inȱ theȱ second letter,ȱinviteȱtheȱreaderȱtoȱenterȱaȱframeȱofȱmindȱsuitableȱforȱunderstandingȱthe natureȱofȱGod: Eiaȱ nunc,ȱ homuncio,ȱ fugeȱ paululumȱ occupationesȱ tuas,ȱ abscondeȱ teȱ modicumȱ a tumultuosisȱcogitationibusȱtuis.ȱAbiceȱnuncȱonerosasȱcuras,ȱetȱpostponeȱlaboriosas distentionesȱtuas.ȱVacaȱaliquantulumȱdeo,ȱetȱrequiesceȱaliquantulumȱinȱeo.ȱ“Intraȱin cubiculum”ȱmentisȱtuæ,ȱexcludeȱomniaȱpræterȱdeumȱetȱquæȱteȱiuventȱadȱquærendum eum,ȱetȱ“clausoȱostio”ȱquæreȱeum.ȱ (Pros.1:1.97) [Comeȱnow,ȱinsignificantȱman,ȱflyȱforȱaȱmomentȱfromȱyourȱaffairs,ȱescapeȱforȱaȱlittle whileȱfromȱtheȱtumultȱofȱyourȱthoughts.ȱPutȱasideȱnowȱyourȱweightyȱcaresȱandȱleave yourȱwearisomeȱtoils.ȱAbandonȱyourselfȱforȱaȱlittleȱtoȱGodȱandȱrestȱforȱaȱlittleȱinȱHim. “Enterȱintoȱtheȱinnerȱchamber”ȱofȱyourȱ(mind)ȱ(“mentis”),ȱshutȱoutȱeverythingȱsave GodȱandȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱofȱhelpȱinȱyourȱquestȱforȱHimȱandȱhavingȱlockedȱtheȱdoorȱseek Himȱoutȱ(Mtȱ6.6).ȱ (Pros.ȱ84)]

Muchȱlikeȱtheȱlettersȱofȱfriendship,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱtakesȱrefugeȱinȱtheȱabsentȱfriend, Anselmȱ hereȱ fleesȱ (“fuge”)ȱ fromȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ change,ȱ unsteadiness,ȱ tumult (“tumultuosis”),ȱ burdensȱ (“onerosas”),ȱ andȱ toilsȱ (“laboriosas”).ȱ Heȱ seeksȱ total isolationȱfromȱtheȱworldȱinȱorderȱtoȱfindȱrestfulnessȱinȱtheȱsoulȱsoȱthatȱheȱcan meditate.ȱ Heȱ positsȱ anȱ abstractȱ Godȱ who,ȱ inȱ hisȱ nowȱ famousȱ “ontological argument,”ȱexistsȱinȱrealityȱbecauseȱheȱexistsȱinȱtheȱmind.ȱAnselmȱechoesȱbothȱthe ideaȱandȱtheȱlanguageȱtoȱGundulf:ȱ“Goȱintoȱtheȱsecretȱplaceȱofȱyourȱheartȱand 58

59

Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱalsoȱacknowledgesȱtheȱinsecurityȱofȱphysicallyȱpresent friendsȱforȱAnselm,ȱsuggestingȱthatȱabsentȱfriendsȱprovideȱtheȱrightȱkindȱofȱsecurityȱ(278),ȱthough, Iȱ argue,ȱ whollyȱ illusory.ȱ McGuire,ȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Community,ȱ concludesȱ thatȱ absentȱ friends provideȱcompleteȱopennessȱofȱtheȱselfȱandȱtheȱfriendȱtoȱeachȱotherȱ(214–15),ȱalthough,ȱagain,ȱI argueȱthatȱthisȱopennessȱisȱillusory. Haseldine,ȱ“Love,ȱSeparationȱandȱMaleȱFriendship,”ȱlikewiseȱalludesȱtoȱtheȱperformativeȱnature ofȱfriendship:ȱ“Byȱusingȱfriendshipȱandȱloveȱtoȱarticulateȱsocialȱbonds,ȱallegiancesȱandȱsolidarities theȱ correspondentsȱ wereȱ advertisingȱ theirȱ adherenceȱ toȱ aȱ definedȱ bodyȱ ofȱ ideasȱ whichȱ they shared,ȱandȱsoȱtoȱanȱideologyȱwhichȱunitedȱthem,”ȱ246.ȱ

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 329 considerȱtheȱaffectionȱofȱyourȱtrueȱloveȱandȱyouȱwillȱlearnȱtheȱloveȱofȱyourȱtrue friend”ȱ(Letterȱ16)ȱ(“Intraȱinȱcubiculumȱcordisȱtuiȱetȱconsideraȱaffectumȱveriȱamoris tui,ȱetȱcognoscesȱamoremȱveriȱamiciȱtui,”ȱEp.ȱ16.6–7).ȱ Anselmȱfindsȱrestȱinȱtheȱideaȱofȱanotherȱpersonȱorȱdivinity,ȱwhichȱprecedesȱa discoveryȱ ofȱ theȱ other.ȱ Butȱ findingȱ peacefulnessȱ inȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ anotherȱ failsȱ to translateȱintoȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱother.ȱGodȱremainsȱabstractȱasȱeverȱtoȱAnselm throughoutȱ theȱ Proslogion,ȱ andȱ theȱ friendȱ remainsȱ inscrutableȱ unlessȱ Anselm removesȱhimȱfromȱtheȱvicissitudesȱofȱtime,ȱspace,ȱand,ȱultimately,ȱlife,ȱtoȱproject theȱimageȱofȱhimselfȱontoȱhim,ȱprovidingȱAnselmȱwithȱtheȱcalmȱthatȱheȱcanȱnever achieveȱinȱtheȱtumultuousȱdiscourseȱofȱhisȱownȱspiritualȱlife.60 Anselm’sȱeschatologicalȱallusionȱtoȱ1ȱCorinthiansȱalsoȱlaysȱbareȱtheȱdisconnect betweenȱ friendsȱ unableȱ toȱ beȱ reconciledȱ inȱ thisȱ life.ȱ Fiskeȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Anselm quotesȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱraptureȱinȱthisȱletter—“Sedȱquid,ȱsiȱnecȱoculusȱvidit,ȱnec aurisȱaudivit”ȱ(Ep.ȱ59.12;ȱButȱwhatȱifȱneitherȱeyeȱhasȱseenȱnorȱearȱhasȱheard)—to expressȱtheȱmysticalȱnatureȱofȱfriendship,ȱsuggestingȱthatȱfriendsȱknowȱeachȱother throughȱ theȱ joiningȱ togetherȱ ofȱ souls,ȱ justȱ asȱ oneȱ triesȱ toȱ approachȱ God.61ȱ But Anselm’sȱappropriationȱofȱthisȱeschatologicalȱlanguageȱfailsȱtoȱproduceȱmystical knowledgeȱofȱtheȱfriendȱsimilarȱtoȱtheȱmysticalȱknowledgeȱofȱGod.ȱAnselmȱwrites inȱtheȱthirdȱletterȱtoȱGundulf:ȱ Sedȱquid,ȱsiȱnecȱoculusȱvidit,ȱnecȱaurisȱaudivit,ȱsedȱsolumȱinȱcorȱhominisȱascendit, quemȱaffectumȱpraeparentȱdiligentiaȱcordaȱdiligentibusȱse?ȱ (Ep.ȱ59.12–13) [Butȱwhatȱifȱneitherȱeyeȱhasȱseenȱnorȱearȱhasȱheardȱtheȱaffectionȱlovingȱheartsȱhaveȱlaid upȱ(“praeparent”)ȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱthem,ȱbutȱitȱhasȱenteredȱonlyȱintoȱtheȱhuman heart?ȱ (Letterȱ59)]

1ȱCorinthiansȱ2.9ȱreadsȱasȱfollows: Sedȱ sicutȱ scriptumȱ estȱ quodȱ oculusȱ nonȱ viditȱ necȱ aurisȱ audivitȱ necȱ inȱ corȱ hominis ascenditȱquaeȱpraeparavitȱDeusȱhisȱquiȱdiliguntȱillum. [But,ȱasȱitȱisȱwritten:ȱThatȱeyeȱhathȱnotȱseen,ȱnorȱearȱheard:ȱneitherȱhathȱitȱenteredȱinto theȱheartȱofȱman,ȱwhatȱthingsȱGodȱhathȱpreparedȱ(“praeparavit”)ȱforȱthemȱthatȱlove him.]

Inȱfact,ȱAnselmȱgrantsȱaȱknowledgeȱandȱaffectionȱtoȱtheȱfriend,ȱviaȱtheȱheart,ȱto whichȱ Scriptureȱ deniesȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ theȱ mysteriesȱ ofȱ God.ȱ However,ȱ this knowledgeȱofȱandȱaffectionȱforȱtheȱfriend,ȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱGod,ȱis deferredȱ untilȱ theȱ raptureȱ inȱ whichȱ friendsȱ willȱ finallyȱ beȱ “gluedȱ together”

60

61

Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱnotesȱtheȱuniversalȱapplicabilityȱofȱAnselm’sȱletters;ȱmuchȱlikeȱtheȱPrayers,ȱ“the lettersȱwhichȱglowȱwithȱsuchȱunexpectedȱpassionȱcanȱbeȱappropriatedȱbyȱanyȱreaderȱwhoȱisȱin, orȱseeks,ȱaȱsimilarȱstateȱofȱdevotion,”ȱ147.ȱ Fiske,ȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ270–71.

330

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

(“conglutinare”).62ȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱonȱearthȱitȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱpreparedȱ(“praeparere”), andȱtheȱinscrutabilityȱofȱtheȱfriendȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱclearedȱaway,ȱresultingȱinȱaȱperfect clarityȱ ofȱ affectionateȱ mutualȱ understanding,ȱ onceȱ friendsȱ haveȱ reachedȱ the summitȱofȱunityȱinȱheaven,ȱasȱAnselmȱwrites.63 Theȱapparentlyȱeroticizedȱfourthȱletter,ȱtoȱGilbert,ȱisȱaȱconundrum.ȱJohnȱBoswell famouslyȱfindsȱinȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱaȱ“gay”ȱsensibility,ȱexaminingȱAnselm’sȱdesires forȱintimacy,ȱkisses,ȱandȱembraces.64ȱUsuallyȱtheȱonlyȱapproximateȱrecognitionȱof “homosexuality”ȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ however,ȱ isȱ recognitionȱ notȱ ofȱ human identity,ȱ butȱ ofȱ sinfulȱ activityȱ (sodomy),ȱ whichȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ lifestyleȱ orȱ orientation suggesting,ȱ inȱ theȱ modernȱ sense,ȱ thatȱ peopleȱ areȱ individuatedȱ byȱ theirȱ sexual desires.65ȱAnselmȱexplicitlyȱopposesȱsodomyȱlikeȱanyȱotherȱsin.66ȱTheȱlavishȱsigns ofȱ affectionȱ thatȱ Anselmȱ imaginesȱ bestowingȱ onȱ friends,ȱ Southernȱ argues,ȱ are spiritualȱsignsȱofȱtwoȱsoulsȱfusedȱtogether.67ȱTheyȱallegorizeȱtheȱfriend,ȱasȱmany CisterciansȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱeroticizeȱtheirȱloveȱforȱChristȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱSong ofȱ Songs.ȱ Moreover,ȱ Anselmȱ collectedȱ hisȱ lettersȱ forȱ publicȱ reading,ȱ andȱ often addressedȱoneȱletterȱtoȱseveralȱdifferentȱpeople.ȱThus,ȱthisȱaffectionȱisȱprobably neitherȱ repressedȱ sexualȱ desireȱ seepingȱ through,ȱ norȱ anythingȱ ofȱ whichȱ the characteristicallyȱ hyperȱ selfȬconsciousȱ Anselmȱ wouldȱ beȱ embarrassed.

62

63 64 65 66 67

ToȱtheȱmonksȱofȱBec,ȱafterȱhisȱdepartureȱtoȱCanterbury,ȱAnselmȱwritesȱeffusivelyȱthatȱhisȱsoulȱis gluedȱ(“conglutinata”)ȱtoȱtheirs,ȱbutȱworriesȱaboutȱtheȱwoundsȱ(“vulneratione”)ȱcausedȱbyȱthe painsȱofȱseparation,ȱEp.ȱ166.10–11.ȱToȱHughȱtheȱhermit,ȱAnselmȱwritesȱofȱtheȱconsummationȱof friendshipȱandȱunityȱinȱheaven,ȱinȱwhichȱeachȱpersonȱwillȱbeȱlikeȱaȱkingȱwithȱaȱsovereignȱwill becauseȱthatȱwillȱwillȱbeȱsharedȱbyȱall,ȱincludingȱGodȱfromȱwhomȱitȱemanates,ȱEp.ȱ112.26–31. EchoingȱtheȱProslogion,ȱ25:1.119,ȱAnselmȱwritesȱtoȱHugh:ȱ“Tantaȱenimȱeritȱdilectioȱinterȱdeumȱet eosȱquiȱibiȱeruntȱetȱinterȱseȱipsosȱinvicem,ȱutȱomnesȱseȱinvicemȱdiligantȱsicutȱseȱipsos,ȱsedȱomnes plusȱamentȱdeumȱquamȱseȱipsos.ȱEtȱpropterȱhocȱnullusȱibiȱvoletȱnisiȱquodȱdeus;ȱetȱquodȱunus volet,ȱhocȱvolentȱomnes;ȱetȱquodȱunusȱvelȱomnes,ȱhocȱipsumȱvoletȱdeus.ȱQuapropterȱquidquid unusquisqueȱvolet,ȱhocȱeritȱetȱdeȱseȱipsoȱetȱdeȱomnibusȱaliisȱetȱdeȱtotaȱcreaturaȱetȱdeȱipsoȱdeo.ȱEt sicȱsinguliȱeruntȱperfectiȱreges,ȱquiaȱquodȱsinguliȱvolent,ȱhocȱerit;ȱetȱomnesȱsimulȱcumȱdeoȱunus rexȱetȱquasiȱunusȱhomo,ȱquiaȱomnesȱunumȱvolent,ȱetȱquodȱvolentȱerit,”ȱEp.ȱ112.26–34:3.245ȱ(“For soȱgreatȱshallȱbeȱtheȱloveȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱshallȱbeȱthere,ȱandȱbetweenȱthemselves,ȱthat theyȱshallȱallȱloveȱeachȱotherȱasȱtheyȱloveȱthemselvesȱbutȱallȱshallȱloveȱGodȱmoreȱthanȱthemselves. Andȱbecauseȱofȱthis,ȱnoȱoneȱthereȱshallȱwillȱanythingȱbutȱwhatȱGodȱwills;ȱandȱwhatȱoneȱwills,ȱall shallȱwill;ȱandȱwhatȱoneȱorȱallȱwill,ȱthisȱshallȱGodȱhimselfȱwill.ȱWherefore,ȱwhateverȱanyone individuallyȱwills,ȱshallȱcomeȱaboutȱforȱhimselfȱandȱforȱallȱtheȱothers,ȱforȱtheȱwholeȱofȱcreation, andȱ forȱ Godȱ himself.ȱ Andȱ thusȱ theyȱ shallȱ eachȱ beȱ perfectȱ kings,ȱ becauseȱ whatȱ theyȱ will individually,ȱshallȱcomeȱabout;ȱandȱallȱofȱthemȱshallȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱbeȱoneȱkingȱwithȱGodȱand, asȱitȱwere,ȱoneȱperson,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱshallȱallȱwillȱoneȱthing,ȱandȱwhatȱtheyȱwillȱshallȱcomeȱabout,” Letterȱ112:1.269).ȱ Ibid.ȱȱ Boswell,ȱChristianity,ȱSocialȱTolerance,ȱandȱHomosexuality,ȱ215–20ȱ(citedȱaboveȱinȱn.ȱ2). Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱ149. Ibid.,ȱ150–52. Southern,ȱPortrait,ȱ150–55;ȱFiskeȱ“SaintȱAnselmȱandȱFriendship,”ȱ270–82.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 331 Nonetheless,ȱthroughȱimaginedȱeroticȱsameness,ȱtheseȱsignsȱofȱaffectionȱlayȱbareȱthe disconnectȱbetweenȱfriends,ȱforȱtheseȱartifices,ȱlikeȱAnselm’sȱletterȱtoȱGilbertȱitself, areȱrequiredȱtoȱ“revive”ȱ(“recolamus,”ȱEp.ȱ130.15)ȱtheȱfriendship,ȱifȱonlyȱinȱthe mind,ȱjustȱasȱdevotionȱforȱAnselmȱrequiresȱanȱexternal,ȱifȱimagined,ȱstimulant, suchȱasȱmusic,ȱtexts,ȱorȱtheȱaccidentsȱofȱtheȱEucharist,ȱtoȱinitiateȱaccessȱintoȱthe mysteriesȱofȱGod.ȱȱBridgingȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱBoswellȱandȱSouthern,ȱIȱsuggestȱthat AnselmianȱmaleȬmaleȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱanȱeroticizedȱstateȱofȱmind,ȱproppedȱup byȱ imaginedȱ artificesȱ toȱ reviveȱ theȱ friendshipȱ throughȱ signsȱ ofȱ samenessȱ and symmetry,ȱregisteredȱhereȱthroughȱeyesȱ(“oculoȱadȱoculum,”ȱEp.ȱ130.13–14)ȱand lipsȱ(“osculoȱadȱosculum,”ȱEp.ȱ130.14)ȱembracingȱeachȱother.ȱ Theȱfinalȱletter,ȱtoȱFrodelina,ȱisȱoneȱofȱAnselm’sȱfewȱlettersȱtoȱwomen,ȱtoȱwhom heȱ generallyȱ writesȱ withȱ moreȱ emotionallyȱ reservedȱ languageȱ thanȱ toȱ men, althoughȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ womenȱ thatȱ Anselmȱ initiallyȱ writesȱ hisȱ Prayersȱ asȱ aȱ tokenȱ of friendship.ȱItȱcouldȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱheȱsometimesȱtreatsȱwomenȱasȱmoreȱdocileȱthan men,ȱ providingȱ themȱ moreȱ oftenȱ withȱ explicitȱ pastoralȱ care;ȱ butȱ spiritual encouragementȱappearsȱequallyȱinȱlettersȱtoȱmenȱandȱwomen.ȱMoreover,ȱwhen Anselmȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱfriendshipȱ(“amicitiam,”ȱEp.ȱ45.8–9)ȱthatȱheȱhopesȱtoȱshare withȱFrodelina,ȱaȱwomanȱwhomȱheȱhadȱneverȱmet,ȱheȱtreatsȱherȱnotȱonlyȱasȱan equalȱatȱtimesȱbutȱalsoȱasȱhisȱimaginedȱsuperiorȱinȱvirtue.68ȱInȱhisȱletters,ȱAnselm believesȱthatȱfriendsȱofȱanyȱgenderȱmayȱequalȱeachȱotherȱinȱtheirȱloveȱofȱGod,ȱbut thatȱoneȱmayȱ(nonȬclassically)ȱsurpassȱtheȱotherȱinȱvirtue,ȱwhichȱshouldȱbeȱtaught throughȱtheirȱfriendship.ȱInsteadȱofȱmeetingȱFrodelinaȱinȱperson,ȱAnselmȱhere retainsȱherȱasȱaȱstateȱofȱmindȱperhapsȱtoȱlessenȱsexualȱtemptation,ȱtheȱultimate causeȱ forȱ genderȱ divisionȱ andȱ hierarchyȱ inȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ medievalȱ religious literature.69 Whileȱ Boswellȱ understandsȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ homoeroticismȱ inȱ medieval literatureȱtoȱimplyȱsocialȱtolerance,ȱitȱseemsȱmoreȱlikelyȱthat,ȱforȱAnselm,ȱwho sternlyȱopposedȱsodomy,ȱsameȬsexȱintimacyȱbetweenȱmen,ȱasȱpresentedȱinȱthe letterȱ toȱ Gilbert,ȱ impliesȱ innocentȱ affectionȱ thatȱ intendedȱ publicȱ readersȱ of Anselm’sȱpublicȱlettersȱwouldȱnotȱsuspectȱtoȱbeȱinclinedȱtowardȱsexualȱdesire. However,ȱwithȱwomen,ȱAnselmȱoffersȱaȱslightlyȱdifferentȱversionȱofȱfriendship andȱ backsȱ offȱ ofȱ suchȱ languageȱ preciselyȱ because,ȱ Anselmȱ seemsȱ toȱ believe,ȱ it couldȱmoreȱeasilyȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱerotic.ȱWhile,ȱ forȱAnselm,ȱtheȱlanguageȱof physicalȱ intimacyȱ mayȱ beȱ spiritualizedȱ forȱ men,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ appearȱ possible betweenȱhimselfȱandȱhisȱfemaleȱaddressees,ȱandȱisȱthereforeȱavoided,ȱprobably becauseȱ inȱ Anselm’sȱ mindȱ theȱ suspicionȱ ofȱ oppositeȬsexȱ sexualȱ desireȱ isȱ more

68

69

DescribingȱanȱoppositeȬsexȱrelationshipȱinȱLatinȱasȱ“amicitia”ȱisȱextremelyȱrareȱbeforeȱandȱafter Anselm’sȱtime. Seeȱ Barbaraȱ Newman,ȱ Fromȱ Virileȱ Womanȱ toȱ WomanChrist:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Religionȱ and Literature.ȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ1–45.

332

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

salientȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ sameȬsexȱ sexualȱ desire,ȱ asȱ itȱ oftenȱ isȱ inȱ medievalȱ religious literature.ȱButȱtheȱsimilarȱandȱusefulȱdistanceȱbetweenȱbothȱAnselmȱandȱGilbert andȱ Anselmȱ andȱ Frodelinaȱ remains,ȱ ifȱ forȱ differentȱ purposes.ȱ Ratherȱ than attemptingȱtoȱbridgeȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱhimselfȱandȱFrodelinaȱwithȱimaginedȱsigns ofȱphysicalȱaffection,ȱasȱheȱtriesȱwithȱGilbert,ȱAnselmȱhereȱkeepsȱherȱatȱaȱdistance andȱcreatesȱaȱreversedȱandȱusefulȱhierarchyȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱwhichȱFrodelina,ȱas aȱfriend,ȱoperatesȱasȱaȱpatronȱofȱvirtue—muchȱlikeȱtheȱsaintsȱtoȱwhomȱheȱprays. ȱ

TheȱSaintȬFriend Inȱ hisȱ Prayers,ȱ Anselmȱ takesȱ refugeȱ inȱ theȱ saintsȱ constructedȱ asȱ friendsȱ who provideȱintercession;ȱheȱconsistentlyȱrefersȱtoȱmostȱsaintsȱasȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱ(“amici dei”)ȱandȱofȱhimself.ȱȱThoughȱclassicalȱrhetoricȱofȱfriendshipȱeschewsȱfriendship basedȱonȱutility,ȱAnselmȱvaluesȱsaintȬfriendsȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱuseful. Moreover,ȱ Anselm’sȱ friendshipsȱ withȱ theȱ saintsȱ areȱ fractured,ȱ contingent, impenetrable,ȱ hierarchical,ȱ deprived,ȱ andȱ everythingȱ elseȱ thatȱ theȱ classical traditionȱrelegatesȱtoȱtheȱnonȬideal.ȱButȱwhenȱAnselmȱtriangulatesȱtheȱsaintsȱwith himselfȱ andȱ God,ȱ heȱ findsȱ thatȱ saintȬfriendsȱ provideȱ himȱ withȱ aȱ levelȱ ofȱ selfȬ awareness,ȱaȱpotentialȱvisionȱofȱhimselfȱasȱanȱimagoȱdei,ȱunavailableȱtoȱhimȱthrough humanȱfriends.ȱIdentityȱbecomesȱsubjectȱtoȱsaintlyȱsocialȱrelations.ȱ Anselmȱanxiouslyȱbelievesȱthatȱhisȱsoulȱisȱtooȱsordidȱtoȱbeȱviewedȱfavorablyȱby anyone,ȱbutȱsaintsȱhaveȱexemplaryȱstoriesȱrecordedȱinȱScriptureȱtoȱauthorizeȱtheir humanity,ȱ empathy,ȱ andȱ mercy,ȱ andȱ knowȱ lessȱ aboutȱ Anselm’sȱ sinsȱ thanȱ an omniscientȱGodȱdoes.ȱInȱhisȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱStephen,ȱusingȱaȱnarrativeȱhook,ȱAnselm remindsȱStephenȱthatȱheȱwhoȱhadȱpityȱonȱandȱintercededȱforȱtheȱveryȱmenȱwho stonedȱhimȱtoȱdeathȱshouldȱlogicallyȱshowȱtheȱsameȱkindȱofȱmercyȱtoȱAnselm,ȱone ofȱhisȱfriends: Acceleraȱergo,ȱpie,ȱprecor,ȱacceleraȱantequamȱdamner,ȱantequamȱmeȱrapiantȱtortores hostesȱ humaniȱ generis;ȱ priusquamȱ meȱ absorbeatȱ carcerȱ infernalis,ȱ priusquamȱ me consumantȱtormentaȱgehennaeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Virȱbeate,ȱquantamȱspemȱdonasȱpeccatoribusȱamicisȱtuis,ȱcumȱaudiuntȱ teȱsicȱfuisseȱsollicitumȱproȱimpiisȱinimicisȱtuis!ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ(Or.ȱ13.44–47,ȱ74–76:51–52) [SoȱIȱprayȱyou,ȱStephen,ȱmakeȱhaste beforeȱIȱamȱcondemned, beforeȱtheȱenemiesȱofȱtheȱhumanȱrace snatchȱmeȱawayȱtoȱtorment, beforeȱtheȱprisonȱofȱhellȱswallowsȱmeȱup, beforeȱtheȱtormentsȱofȱgehennaȱconsumeȱmeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Blessedȱman,ȱ whatȱhopeȱyouȱgiveȱtoȱsinnersȱwhoȱareȱyourȱfriendsȱ(“amicisȱtuis”)

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 333 whenȱtheyȱhearȱthatȱyouȱwereȱsoȱconcernedȱ aboutȱtheȱwickedȱmenȱwhoȱwereȱyourȱenemiesȱ(“inimicisȱtuis”)!ȱ (Prayerȱ13.88–93,ȱ148–51:176,ȱ178)]

Anselmȱemphasizesȱtheȱhasteȱ(“acceleraȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱaccelera”)ȱwithȱwhichȱStephenȱmust grantȱmercyȱbeforeȱ(“antequamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱantequamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpriusquamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpriusquam”)ȱhe isȱdamned,ȱbutȱperhapsȱalso,ȱasȱinȱtheȱMarianȱPrayer,ȱbeforeȱheȱhasȱrevealedȱhis sinsȱandȱspoiledȱhisȱchanceȱforȱmercifulȱintercession,ȱwhichȱStephen,ȱoneȱofȱhis friendsȱ (“amicisȱ tuis”),ȱ shouldȱ provideȱ sinceȱ heȱ providedȱ itȱ forȱ hisȱ enemies (“inimicisȱ tuis”),ȱ asȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ theȱ parallelȱ structure,ȱ rhyme,ȱ andȱ internal alliterationȱofȱtheȱtwoȱLatinȱphrases.ȱ Anselmȱwantsȱeachȱsaintȱtoȱknowȱasȱlittleȱasȱpossibleȱaboutȱhisȱsins.ȱTheȱsaintȬ friendȱisȱnot,ȱinȱtheȱclassicalȱsense,ȱintimateȱenoughȱtoȱbeȱanȱ“alterȱidem,”ȱ(another self)ȱasȱCiceroȱwrites.70ȱThisȱisȱimpossibleȱ(becauseȱheȱisȱaȱsaint)ȱandȱundesirable (becauseȱ Anselmȱ isȱ aȱ sinner).ȱ Derridaȱ arguesȱ thatȱ friendshipȱ mustȱ restȱ onȱ the illusionȱ thatȱ friendsȱ knowȱ eachȱ otherȱ openlyȱ ifȱ theirȱ relationshipȱ isȱ toȱ persist unproblematically.71ȱItȱisȱaȱnecessaryȱfiction.ȱAnselmȱkeepsȱhumanȱfriendsȱatȱa comfortableȱdistanceȱsoȱasȱnotȱtoȱintroduceȱ“misunderstandings,”ȱ“ruptures,”ȱand “hostileȱfeelings.”72ȱTheȱmoreȱourȱfriendsȱknowȱaboutȱusȱtheȱmoreȱlikelyȱweȱareȱto introduceȱfracturesȱintoȱtheȱrelationship,ȱrevealȱunappealingȱpartsȱofȱourselves, andȱshatterȱtheȱillusionȱofȱunityȱandȱequality.ȱAnselmȱalsoȱapproachesȱtheȱsaints alooflyȱbyȱarticulatingȱdisdainȱforȱbutȱnotȱtheȱspecificȱnatureȱofȱtheȱsinfulȱsideȱof himself.ȱOfȱcourseȱAnselmȱprobablyȱevadesȱreferenceȱtoȱhisȱspecificȱsinsȱbecause heȱcomposesȱforȱaȱpublicȱaudience;ȱnonetheless,ȱdistanceȱstructuresȱallȱofȱAnselm’s friendships.ȱAlthoughȱDerridaȱdoesȱnotȱwriteȱfromȱaȱChristianȱpointȱofȱview,ȱwith sinȱinȱmindȱasȱaȱfactorȱ causingȱseparation,ȱforȱAnselm,ȱbecauseȱofȱsin,ȱitȱisȱno longerȱpossibleȱorȱevenȱdesirableȱforȱfriendsȱtoȱshareȱknowledgeȱofȱeachȱotherȱin theȱclassicalȱsense,ȱasȱDerridaȱsuggests.ȱ ButȱAnselmȱstretchesȱtheȱpossibilitiesȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱsaintsȱtoȱtheirȱlimits. Whileȱ prayingȱ toȱ theȱ “amiciȱ dei”ȱ Anselmȱ addressesȱ noneȱ ofȱ theirȱ miracles, appearances,ȱ orȱ glory,ȱ butȱ findsȱ momentsȱ inȱ theirȱ humanȱ lives,ȱ recordedȱ in Scripture,ȱ whenȱ Godȱ showedȱ themȱ mercy,ȱ orȱ whenȱ theyȱ showedȱ mercyȱ toȱ an abjectȱperson,ȱand,ȱthen,ȱauthorizedȱbyȱhisȱownȱcorrosiveȱsin,ȱinsistsȱthatȱthey showȱhimȱtheȱsameȱmercy.73ȱSoȱAnselmȱremindsȱJohnȱtheȱBaptistȱofȱGod’sȱgrace

70

71 72

73

Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibraryȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001), 21.80:188–89. Derrida,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ53.ȱ IȱquoteȱDerrida,ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ53,ȱwhoȱisȱactuallyȱquotingȱparagraphȱ376,ȱonȱfriendship, ofȱNietzsche’sȱHumanȱAllȱTooȱHuman. Ward,ȱTheȱPrayersȱandȱMeditations,ȱ58,ȱnotes,ȱ“Whenȱ[Anselm]ȱaddressesȱtheȱsaintsȱheȱisȱinterested onlyȱinȱtwoȱthings,ȱwhatȱGodȱhasȱdoneȱinȱthemȱandȱhowȱtheyȱhaveȱexperiencedȱhisȱwork.”ȱ

334

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

inȱallowingȱhimȱtoȱbaptizeȱhimȱ(“Mementoȱergo,ȱdomine,ȱutȱsicutȱgratiaȱdeiȱteȱsic sublimavit,ȱsicȱmisericordiaȱtuaȱerigatȱquemȱculpaȱsuaȱsicȱhumiliavit,”ȱOr.8.17Ȭ 18:26;ȱ“Soȱremember,ȱsir,ȱ/ȱthatȱasȱtheȱgraceȱofȱGodȱmadeȱyouȱsoȱhighȱ/ȱsoȱyour mercyȱcanȱraiseȱhimȱupȱ/ȱwhoȱisȱlaidȱsoȱlowȱbyȱhisȱguilt,”ȱPrayerȱ8.36Ȭ39:128);ȱPeter, ofȱtheȱmercyȱthatȱGodȱshowedȱhimȱevenȱafterȱheȱdeniedȱHimȱthreeȱtimesȱ(“Pastor fidelis,ȱconverteȱoculosȱtuosȱadȱeamȱetȱrecognosceȱtibiȱcommissam.ȱSiȱenimȱerravit, tamenȱdominumȱetȱpastoremȱnonȱnegavit,”ȱOr.ȱ9.35Ȭ37:31;ȱ“Faithfulȱshepherd,ȱlook uponȱhim,ȱ/ȱandȱrecognizeȱthatȱheȱhasȱbeenȱcommittedȱtoȱyou.ȱ/ȱHeȱmayȱhave strayedȱbutȱatȱleastȱitȱisȱnotȱheȱ/ȱwhoȱhasȱdeniedȱhisȱLordȱandȱShepherd,”ȱPrayer 9.73Ȭ76:137);ȱPaul,ȱofȱhisȱownȱwords,ȱtoȱwhichȱAnselmȱholdsȱhimȱaccountable, concerningȱtheȱgraceȱheȱwasȱsentȱtoȱbringȱallȱChristians;ȱJohnȱtheȱEvangelist,ȱofȱthe “wellȬknownȱfriendship”ȱ(“famosaȱfamiliaritas,”74ȱOr.ȱ11.12:42)ȱthatȱheȱsharedȱwith Christȱonȱearth,ȱwhichȱheȱnowȱcallsȱuponȱasȱaȱplaceȱofȱrefuge;ȱStephen,ȱofȱhis obligationȱtoȱtreatȱhisȱhumanȱfriendsȱatȱleastȱasȱwellȱasȱheȱtreatedȱhisȱenemies;ȱand St.ȱNicholas,ȱofȱtheȱpowerȱheȱhasȱtoȱletȱmercyȱtrickleȱdownȱthroughȱhimȱbecause ofȱtheȱmeritsȱofȱhisȱfriend,ȱGodȱ(“tuiȱfamiliarisȱmerita,”ȱOr.ȱ14.34:56). Anselmȱ meditatesȱ onȱ theseȱ moments,ȱ forȱ narrativeȱ andȱ theȱ vicissitudesȱ of humanȱ activityȱ openȱ upȱ redemptiveȱ possibilities.ȱ Whereasȱ Godȱ andȱ Anselm’s PrayerȱtoȱGodȱresembleȱallȱthatȱisȱstatic,ȱAnselmȱlooksȱtoȱhumanȱmutabilityȱtoȱfind narrativeȱhooksȱthatȱmandateȱmercy.ȱIfȱAnselmȱmustȱpleadȱwithȱimmaculateȱMary notȱtoȱ“vultusȱtuusȱavertere”ȱ(Or.ȱ5.15;ȱavertȱyourȱface),ȱheȱcanȱboldlyȱaskȱPeterȱto “convertereȱoculosȱtuos”ȱ(Or.ȱ9.35–36;ȱturnȱyourȱeyes)ȱtowardȱhimȱbecauseȱhe understandsȱtheȱneedȱforȱmercyȱafterȱsin.ȱIndeed,ȱAnselmȱdwellsȱonȱPeter’sȱsinful incredulityȱatȱlength,ȱalmostȱtoȱtheȱpointȱofȱinsultingȱhimȱandȱsurelyȱtoȱtheȱpoint ofȱtellingȱhimȱthatȱhisȱownȱsinsȱdoȱnotȱexceedȱPeter’s.ȱSympatheticȱidentification isȱtheȱlogicȱofȱfriendshipȱforȱAnselm,ȱalthoughȱitȱcannotȱbeȱreciprocal.ȱHeȱneeds eachȱsaintȱtoȱidentifyȱwithȱhisȱneedȱforȱgraceȱandȱtoȱinitiateȱtheȱprocessȱwhereby heȱmightȱreceiveȱit.ȱ Anselmȱboldlyȱdemonstratesȱhisȱdeficiencyȱandȱneed,ȱwhichȱsaturateȱhisȱPrayers. EveryȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱsaintȱisȱhierarchicalȱandȱnonȬreciprocal,ȱandȱAnselm’s onlyȱ hopeȱ isȱ receivingȱ fromȱ theȱ saintȱ whatȱ heȱ lacks.ȱ Heȱ praysȱ toȱ Peter,ȱ his “amicus,”ȱinȱhisȱroleȱasȱshepherd:

74

Anselmȱconsistentlyȱusesȱtwoȱwordsȱinterchangeablyȱtoȱmeanȱ“friend”:ȱamicusȱandȱfamiliaris. Amicusȱhasȱalwaysȱmeantȱ“(aȱmale)ȱfriend”ȱfromȱitsȱoriginsȱinȱclassicalȱLatin.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand, familiarisȱinȱclassicalȱLatinȱusuallyȱmeantȱ“slave”ȱorȱ“domesticȱservant,”ȱbutȱgraduallyȱgrewȱto meanȱoneȱwithȱwhomȱanotherȱwasȱ“familiar.”ȱHowever,ȱtheȱuseȱofȱfamiliarisȱasȱ“friend”ȱinȱthe eleventhȱ centuryȱ isȱ wellȱ attestedȱ inȱ medievalȱ Latinȱ dictionaries.ȱ McGuire,ȱ “Friendshipȱ and Community,”ȱ206,ȱhasȱalsoȱanalyzedȱtheȱuseȱofȱfamiliarisȱ inȱ literatureȱcontemporaneousȱwith Anselmȱandȱconcludedȱthatȱitȱisȱidenticalȱtoȱamicus.

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 335 Ecceȱenimȱanteȱfidelemȱpastoremȱiacetȱetȱgemitȱmorbidaȱovis,ȱcoramȱdominoȱpastoris etȱovis.ȱFugitivaȱredit,ȱerrorisȱetȱinoboedientiaeȱveniamȱpetit.ȱPioȱetȱmedicoȱpastori morsusȱluporumȱetȱscissurasȱvulnerumȱquaeȱerrandoȱincurritȱetȱulceraȱquaeȱlonga incuriaȱnutrivitȱrevelat;ȱetȱmisereriȱsibi,ȱdumȱadhucȱspiritumȱtrahit,ȱplusȱmiseriam suamȱcoramȱmisericordeȱpastoreȱexpandendoȱquamȱobsecrandoȱexorat.ȱ (Or.ȱ9.23–28:30–31) [Seeȱnow,ȱtheȱsicklyȱsheep,ȱ liesȱgroaningȱatȱtheȱshepherd’sȱfeet; heȱcomesȱbeforeȱtheȱLordȱofȱtheȱshepherdȱandȱtheȱsheep.ȱ Theȱrunawayȱreturnsȱ andȱasksȱforgivenessȱforȱhisȱerrorsȱandȱdisobedience.ȱ Heȱshowsȱtoȱtheȱgoodȱandȱhealingȱshepherd theȱgashesȱofȱwounds,ȱandȱtheȱbitesȱofȱwolves, whichȱheȱranȱintoȱwhenȱheȱstrayed, andȱtheȱneglectedȱsoreȱplacesȱ thatȱheȱhasȱhadȱforȱaȱlongȱtime.ȱ Heȱbegsȱhimȱtoȱhaveȱmercyȱwhileȱthereȱisȱstillȱlifeȱinȱhim, andȱheȱpraysȱmoreȱbyȱshowingȱhisȱneedȱ toȱtheȱmercifulȱshepherdȱ thanȱbyȱanyȱbeseeching.ȱ (Prayerȱ9.43–56:136)]

Anselmȱmagnifiesȱhisȱabjectȱcondition:ȱheȱisȱtheȱsicklyȱsheepȱ(“morbidaȱovis”)ȱand runawayȱ(“fugitiva”)ȱwhoȱgroansȱ(“gemit”)ȱoverȱhisȱviscerallyȱdepictedȱwounds (“scissurasȱvulnerum”),ȱbitesȱofȱwolvesȱ(“morsusȱluporum”),ȱandȱulcersȱ(“ulcera”), allȱ causedȱ byȱ sin.ȱ Forȱ Anselm,ȱ prayerȱ becomesȱ aȱ psychologicalȱ expositionȱ of deprivation,ȱmisery,ȱandȱillnessȱ(“expandendoȱmiseriam”)ȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱrequest (“osbsecrando”)ȱtoȱbeȱhealedȱitself,ȱforȱtheȱmoreȱheȱmeditatesȱonȱPeter’sȱroleȱas shepherdȱandȱamicusȱdeiȱinȱtheȱprayer,ȱtheȱmoreȱheȱcomesȱtoȱunderstandȱhimself inȱtermsȱofȱPeter,ȱhisȱfriend.ȱIfȱPeterȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhomȱGodȱhasȱchosenȱtoȱsafeguard hisȱ sheep,ȱ thenȱ Anselmȱ findsȱ aȱ perfectȱ opportunityȱ toȱ insertȱ himselfȱ intoȱ the subjectȱ positionȱ ofȱ oneȱ whoȱ needsȱ tendingȱ to.ȱ Anselm’sȱ selfhoodȱ becomes contingentȱ uponȱ theȱ saint’sȱ persona,ȱ aȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ receivesȱ constant reinforcementȱ inȱ thisȱ Prayerȱ asȱ Anselmȱ changesȱ hisȱ rhetoricalȱ strategiesȱ and himselfȱeveryȱtimeȱthatȱheȱhasȱPeterȱchangeȱidentities.ȱ WhenȱPeterȱisȱtheȱshepherd,ȱAnselmȱemphasizesȱhisȱvulnerabilityȱasȱaȱhelpless animal.ȱButȱifȱtheȱimageȱofȱaȱdamagedȱsheepȱdoesȱnotȱmoveȱPeter,ȱthenȱAnselm asksȱhimȱtoȱleaveȱtheȱrealmȱofȱmetaphor,ȱandȱasȱtheȱgatekeeperȱofȱheavenȱandȱan ApostleȱofȱChristȱconsiderȱhimȱaȱlostȱsoul.ȱHeȱbelievesȱthatȱheȱhasȱnotȱreceivedȱa favorableȱ hearingȱ fromȱ Peterȱ inȱ hisȱ roleȱ asȱ shepherd,ȱ andȱ evenȱ saysȱ thatȱ the subsequentȱshiftȱinȱidentityȱisȱofȱsuchȱaȱmagnitudeȱthatȱheȱmustȱrepeatȱhisȱentire storyȱ again,ȱ fromȱ theȱ beginning—whichȱ heȱ does!ȱ Onlyȱ thisȱ time,ȱ heȱ refersȱ to himselfȱasȱaȱsoulȱ(“anima,”ȱOr.ȱ9.50)ȱinsteadȱofȱaȱsheep,ȱandȱtheȱurgencyȱofȱhis

336

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

requestsȱincreasesȱasȱheȱperceivesȱimpendingȱdamnationȱandȱinvokesȱPeterȱwho onceȱhadȱaȱbodyȱandȱsoul,ȱwhichȱsinnedȱandȱreceivedȱmercyȱfromȱGod.ȱInȱthe varietyȱofȱsubjectȱpositionsȱAnselmȱoccupiesȱthroughoutȱtheȱPrayers,ȱhowever,ȱhe definesȱeachȱoneȱbyȱaȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱsaintȱfoundedȱonȱneed.ȱ AndȱAnselmȱfindsȱthatȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱhaveȱplentyȱtoȱofferȱhim.ȱIn hisȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱNicholas,ȱheȱexaltsȱNicholas’sȱplenitude,ȱwhichȱheȱhopesȱwillȱflow intoȱhimȱasȱanȱactȱofȱfriendship: Illorumȱperȱteȱsentiamusȱindigentesȱexundantiam,ȱquorumȱperpetuamȱplenusȱsuscipis inundantiam. Oȱ bonorumȱ tuorumȱ inundantiaȱ etȱ malorumȱ meorumȱ abundantia;ȱ quantaȱ estȱ eorumȱdistantia!ȱQuamȱvehementerȱillaȱteȱfacitȱfelicem,ȱquamȱnimisȱistaȱmeȱinfelicem! Illaȱexȱplenitudineȱdeiȱdescendit,ȱistaȱexȱindigentiaȱmeaȱascendit.ȱIllaȱfluitȱexȱdeiȱcopia, istaȱ surgitȱ exȱ meaȱ inopia.ȱ Oȱ siȱ illiusȱ inundantiaeȱ exundantiaȱ inundabit,ȱ utȱ diluat malorumȱmeorumȱabundantiam!ȱOȱsiȱplenitudoȱilliusȱsatietatisȱreplebitȱvacuitatem meaeȱegestatis!ȱNonȱdubito,ȱdomine,ȱteȱhocȱmihiȱimpetrare,ȱsiȱtantumȱvelisȱproȱme iudicemȱmeum,ȱdilectumȱdilectoremȱtuum,ȱexorare.ȱ (Or.ȱ14.57–66:57) [Throughȱyouȱweȱneedyȱonesȱcomeȱtoȱknowȱthatȱabundanceȱ whichȱyouȱreceiveȱfullyȱinȱaȱperpetualȱstream. Oȱyourȱplenitudeȱofȱgoodness, andȱmyȱabundanceȱofȱbadness! Howȱfarȱtheyȱareȱfromȱeachȱother! Howȱvehementlyȱtheȱfirstȱmakesȱyouȱhappy, howȱgreatlyȱdoesȱtheȱlatterȱmakeȱmeȱunhappy. TheȱfirstȱcomesȱdownȱfromȱtheȱplenitudeȱofȱGod,ȱ theȱlatterȱgoesȱupȱfromȱtheȱneedȱofȱmyself; theȱfirstȱflowsȱfromȱtheȱabundanceȱofȱGod, theȱlatterȱsurgesȱupȱfromȱmyȱpoverty. OȱifȱonlyȱthatȱsuperȬabundanceȱwouldȱoverflowȱ andȱfloodȱintoȱmyȱabundantȱills! Oȱifȱonlyȱthatȱfullȱplenitudeȱwouldȱfillȱ theȱemptinessȱofȱmyȱneed! Iȱdoȱnotȱdoubt,ȱsir,ȱthatȱyouȱcanȱdoȱthisȱforȱme,ȱ ifȱyouȱareȱwillingȱtoȱaskȱthatȱmuchȱforȱmeȱofȱmyȱjudgeȱ whoȱisȱyourȱbelovedȱfriendȱ(“dilectumȱdilectoremȱtuum”).ȱ (Prayerȱ14.106–121:187–88)]

ThroughȱGod,ȱtheȱsaintȱhasȱaȱ“superȬabundance”ȱ(“inundantiaeȱexundantia”)ȱof goodnessȱ andȱ mercyȱ withȱ whichȱ heȱ canȱ causeȱ Anselm’sȱ soulȱ toȱ overflow (“inundabit”),ȱasȱthoughȱtheȱtwoȱwereȱseamlesslyȱjoined.ȱTheȱpureȱpoetryȱAnselm usesȱinȱthisȱpassageȱdeservesȱattention;ȱheȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱthoughtȱofȱeveryȱpossible wordȱtoȱconnoteȱanȱoverflowingȱfullnessȱthatȱtheȱsaintȱpossessesȱ(“exundantiam,” “perpetuamȱplenusȱinundantiam,”ȱ“abundantia,”ȱ“plenitudine,”ȱ“copia,”ȱ“exunȬ dantia”)ȱmanyȱofȱwhich,ȱwhenȱcoupledȱwithȱtheirȱverbs,ȱfurtherȱsuggestȱflowing,

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 337 flooding,ȱandȱfillingȱupȱ(“fluit,”ȱ“diluat,”ȱ“replebit”)—asȱthoughȱtheȱactivityȱwere naturalȱ andȱ inevitableȱ onȱ theȱ saint’sȱ part.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ isȱ notȱ theȱ confluenceȱ ofȱ a tributaryȱandȱaȱriver.ȱItȱisȱaȱfloodȱpouringȱintoȱaȱdesert.ȱTheȱsaintȱisȱasȱabundantly goodȱ (“bonorumȱ tuorumȱ inundantia”)ȱ asȱ Anselmȱ isȱ badȱ (“malorumȱ meorum abundantia”),ȱasȱexpressedȱinȱparallelȱphrases.ȱAnselm,ȱtheȱsinner,ȱisȱemptyȱand indigentȱ (“vacuitatem,”ȱ “indigentia,”ȱ “egestatis”),ȱ inȱ utterȱ needȱ ofȱ theȱ saintȱ to shareȱhisȱgoodness. TheȱfriendshipsȱinȱtheseȱtwoȱPrayersȱareȱinherentlyȱunequal,ȱhierarchical,ȱand nonȬreciprocal,ȱwhichȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱmoreȱstarklyȱopposedȱtoȱclassicalȱmodelsȱof friendshipȱ thatȱ Anselmȱ inheritedȱ throughȱ Cassian,ȱ ifȱ notȱ directlyȱ fromȱ Cicero himself.ȱInȱsuchȱmodels,ȱfriendshipȱmustȱoperateȱbetweenȱtwoȱpeopleȱofȱequal virtueȱandȱplenitude,ȱsoȱthatȱfriendshipȱderivesȱnotȱfromȱneedȱbutȱaȱdesireȱtoȱshare one’sȱgoodnessȱwithȱtheȱfriend,ȱwhichȱcreatesȱfurtherȱvirtuousȱactivity.ȱAllȱmajor philosophersȱ afterȱ Plato,ȱ includingȱ Aristotle,ȱ Cicero,ȱ Seneca,ȱ Augustine,ȱ and Cassianȱvociferouslyȱdenyȱthatȱoneȱwhoȱneedsȱsomethingȱfromȱtheȱpotentialȱfriend canȱ everȱ reachȱ theȱ highestȱ summitȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Theȱ virtuousȱ manȱ inȱ preȬ ChristianȱliteratureȱisȱtheȱStoic,ȱselfȬsufficientȱone.ȱInȱfriendshipsȱbasedȱonȱneed, onceȱthatȱisȱmet,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱdissipatesȱalongȱwithȱtheȱgroundsȱonȱwhichȱthe friendshipȱisȱbased.ȱButȱinȱtransferringȱfriendshipȱtoȱtheȱsaints,ȱAnselmȱensures thatȱtheȱfoundationȱofȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwillȱneverȱfalterȱbecauseȱtheȱsinner’sȱneed forȱdivineȱgraceȱisȱnotȱtransitory,ȱasȱisȱaȱneedȱforȱmaterialȱgoodsȱorȱaffection,ȱwhich preȬAnselmianȱ authorsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ frownȱ upon.ȱ Theȱ saintȱ isȱ theȱ friendȱ for Anselmȱpreciselyȱbecauseȱheȱisȱtheȱstorehouseȱofȱgoodness,ȱderivedȱfromȱGod, whichȱAnselmȱbelievesȱcanȱandȱshouldȱbeȱtransferredȱtoȱtheȱpetitionerȱwhoȱwill neverȱnotȱneedȱit.ȱFriendshipȱinȱitsȱChristianȱdiscourseȱwithȱsaintsȱisȱnecessarily unequalȱbecauseȱtheȱneedȱforȱtheȱother’sȱabundanceȱofȱgraceȱandȱvirtueȱwillȱnever evaporateȱasȱlongȱasȱoneȱsins.ȱ Friendshipsȱofȱtimelessȱvirtueȱinȱtheȱclassicsȱhaveȱyieldedȱtoȱcontingency,ȱasȱin theȱ Prayerȱ toȱ Stȱ Peter,ȱ inȱ whichȱ bothȱ Peter’sȱ andȱ Anselm’sȱ identitiesȱ change accordingȱtoȱAnselm’sȱneeds.ȱContingentȱsaintsȱcomeȱbetweenȱtheȱsinnerȱandȱa nonȬcontingentȱGodȱwhoȱis,ȱasȱAnselmȱexclaimsȱtwentyȬfourȱtimesȱinȱnineteen prayers,ȱaȱterrifyingȱJudgeȱ(“iudex”ȱorȱ“accusator”),ȱasȱinȱhisȱPrayerȱtoȱStȱStephen: Ecceȱenimȱastatȱreusȱanteȱtremendumȱiudicem.ȱAccusaturȱmultisȱetȱmagnisȱoffensis. Convinciturȱtesteȱpropriaȱconscientiaȱetȱtestibusȱoculisȱipsiusȱiudicis.ȱBonaȱnonȱegit quaeȱ maleȱ actisȱ compenset.ȱ Nullumȱ familiaremȱ iudicisȱ aliquoȱ praeteritoȱ obsequio meruitȱ intercessorem,ȱ omnesȱ offendendoȱ meruitȱ accusatores.ȱ Iudexȱ terribiliter districtus,ȱintolerabiliterȱseverus,ȱimmoderateȱoffensus,ȱvehementerȱiratus;ȱsententia eiusȱsemelȱprolataȱimmutabilis.ȱ (Or.ȱ13.19–24:50) [Forȱsee,ȱtheȱaccusedȱstandsȱbeforeȱtheȱtremendousȱJudge.ȱ Heȱisȱaccusedȱofȱmanyȱandȱgreatȱoffenses.ȱ Heȱhasȱdoneȱnoȱgoodȱdeeds

338

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie thatȱcanȱbeȱweighedȱagainstȱtheȱbadȱones. HeȱhasȱnotȱdeservedȱtoȱhaveȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱJudgeȱ toȱactȱasȱhisȱadvocateȱbecauseȱofȱsomeȱformerȱservice;ȱ havingȱoffendedȱeveryone,ȱheȱdeservesȱtoȱbeȱaccused.ȱ TerribleȱisȱtheȱseverityȱofȱtheȱJudge, intolerablyȱstrict,ȱforȱtheȱoffenceȱagainstȱhimȱisȱhuge,ȱ andȱheȱisȱexceedinglyȱwrathful.ȱ Onceȱgiven,ȱhisȱsentenceȱcannotȱbeȱchanged.ȱ

(Prayerȱ13.34–46:175)]

Unlikeȱtheȱloving,ȱhumanȱGodȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱandȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱin theȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱAnselm’sȱGodȱisȱaȱterrifyingȱarbiterȱofȱjustice,ȱunsympathetic towardȱpersonalȱcircumstances,ȱintolerablyȱstrictȱ(“intolerabiliterȱseverus”),ȱand exceedinglyȱ wrathfulȱ (“vehementerȱ iratus”);ȱ Heȱ is,ȱ inȱ aȱ word,ȱ “immutabilis.” AnselmȱisȱutterlyȱterrifiedȱofȱtheȱGodȬjudgeȱofȱwhomȱheȱisȱnoȱfriendȱ(“nullum familiaremȱiudicis”).ȱButȱAnselmȱfindsȱinȱtheȱsaintsȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱjudgeȱlikeȱPaul toȱwhomȱheȱdeclares: Domine,ȱtuȱquoqueȱdicisȱteȱipsumȱ“omnibusȱomniaȱfactum,”ȱ“utȱomnes”ȱlucrifacias. Amiceȱdei,ȱexemplaȱaliorumȱmeȱfaciuntȱpraesumere,ȱdictaȱtuaȱmeȱhortanturȱconfidere.ȱ (Or.ȱ10.135–37:38) [Sir,ȱyouȱonceȱsaidȱyourselfȱthatȱyouȱ“wereȱmadeȱallȱthingsȱ toȱallȱmen,ȱthatȱyouȱmightȱgainȱall”ȱ(Cf.ȱ1ȱCorȱ9.22).ȱ FriendȱofȱGodȱ(“Amiceȱdei”),ȱtheȱexampleȱofȱothersȱmakesȱmeȱbold, yourȱwordsȱdrawȱmeȱtoȱhaveȱconfidence.ȱ (Prayerȱ10.278–81:149)]

AnselmȱholdsȱPaulȱtoȱhisȱwordsȱandȱremindsȱhimȱthatȱheȱmustȱbeȱasȱelasticȱinȱhis dispensationȱofȱmercyȱasȱtheȱsinnerȱisȱmutable,ȱeverȱchangingȱandȱsinningȱanew. Understandingȱtheȱnuancesȱofȱtheȱsinner’sȱmind,ȱPaulȱmustȱchangeȱhisȱidentity andȱmeetȱAnselm,ȱstupefiedȱbyȱsin,ȱwhereverȱheȱis.ȱ Intercessionȱisȱtheȱultimateȱfriendlyȱactivity.ȱAnselmȱhopesȱthatȱtheȱsaints,ȱas friendsȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ ofȱ himself,ȱ willȱ amicablyȱ triangulateȱ theȱ threeȱ parties.ȱ Sin producesȱ sufficientȱ shameȱ toȱ preventȱ theȱ sinnerȱ fromȱ talkingȱ toȱ Godȱ directly, leavingȱAnselmȱtrappedȱinsideȱofȱhimselfȱinȱaȱstateȱofȱaphasia,ȱunableȱtoȱarticulate himselfȱtoȱGodȱunlessȱoneȱwhoȱunderstandsȱhisȱlanguageȱintercedes;ȱinȱhisȱPrayer toȱStȱNicholasȱheȱthusȱexplainsȱhisȱmoral,ȱlinguistic,ȱandȱdevotionalȱdeficiencies: Sedȱaltissimusȱestȱetȱinfirmusȱsum:ȱquomodoȱattingetȱvoxȱmeaȱadȱillum?ȱLevaboȱsuper meȱanimamȱmeam,ȱutȱintendatȱinȱeumȱquiȱestȱsuperȱeam,ȱsiȱforteȱvocatusȱaudiatȱeam. Sedȱutiqueȱiustissimusȱestȱetȱnimisȱiniquusȱsum:ȱquomodoȱaudietȱclamoremȱmeum? Intraboȱ intraȱ meȱ ipsum,ȱ excludamȱ omniaȱ praeterȱ illumȱ etȱ meȱ ipsum,ȱ etȱ effundam animamȱ meamȱ etȱ quaeȱ intraȱ meȱ suntȱ anteȱ ipsum.ȱ Excitaboȱ utȱ dolensȱ etȱ dolendus affectumȱmeum,ȱexpandamȱaerumnasȱmeasȱanteȱeum,ȱsiȱforteȱillaȱsuaȱmagnaȱpietas moveatȱeum.ȱ

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 339 Sedȱnimisȱimmensa,ȱnimisȱinfinitaȱsuntȱdelictaȱmea;ȱnonȱsufficitȱsineȱintercessore, necȱsusceptibilisȱestȱoratioȱmea.ȱRogaboȱaliquemȱdeȱillisȱmagnisȱfamiliaribusȱdei,ȱsi forteȱillumȱaudiatȱproȱmeȱdeus.ȱVocaboȱNicolaum,ȱillumȱmagnumȱconfessorem.ȱ (Or.ȱ14.8–18:55) [ButȱheȱisȱMostȱHigh,ȱandȱIȱamȱweak; howȱcanȱmyȱvoiceȱreachȱupȱtoȱhim? Iȱwillȱliftȱupȱmyȱsoulȱaboveȱmyselfȱ thatȱitȱmayȱcomeȱbeforeȱhimȱwhoȱisȱaboveȱit,ȱ perhapsȱheȱwillȱhearȱmeȱwhenȱIȱcall. ButȱthenȱheȱisȱMostȱJust,ȱandȱIȱhaveȱgreatlyȱsinned;ȱ howȱshouldȱheȱhearȱmyȱcry?ȱ Iȱwillȱenterȱintoȱmyȱinmostȱbeing,ȱ excludeȱeverythingȱexceptȱhimȱandȱmyself,ȱ andȱbeforeȱhimȱIȱwillȱpourȱoutȱmyȱsoulȱandȱallȱthatȱisȱinȱme. Iȱwillȱstirȱupȱmyȱmindȱtoȱgrieve,ȱ andȱwithȱgrievingȱlove Iȱwillȱspreadȱoutȱmyȱhardshipȱbeforeȱhim andȱperhapsȱhisȱgreatȱgoodnessȱmayȱmoveȱhim.ȱ Butȱmyȱsinsȱareȱwithoutȱboundsȱorȱlimits,ȱ myȱprayerȱwillȱnotȱbeȱheard, allȱthisȱisȱnotȱenoughȱwithoutȱanȱintercessor.ȱ IȱwillȱprayȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱgreatȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱ(“familiaribusȱdei”)ȱ andȱperhapsȱGodȱwillȱhearȱhimȱonȱmyȱbehalf.ȱ IȱwillȱcallȱuponȱNicholas,ȱthatȱgreatȱconfessor.ȱ (Prayerȱ14.9–28:184–85)]

AnselmȱattemptsȱaȱmysticalȱexperienceȱwithȱGodȱbyȱhimselfȱbutȱfailsȱmiserably. HeȱfloodsȱhisȱPrayerȱwithȱpotentialȱmysticalȱlanguage,ȱspeakingȱofȱrisingȱabove himselfȱandȱhisȱsinsȱ(“Levaboȱsuperȱmeȱanimamȱmeam”),ȱmeetingȱGodȱwhereȱHe isȱinȱHisȱholiness,ȱandȱenteringȱintoȱhisȱmindȱandȱexcludingȱeverythingȱinȱthe worldȱexceptȱhimselfȱandȱGodȱ(“Intraboȱintraȱmeȱipsum,ȱexcludamȱomniaȱpraeter illumȱetȱmeȱipsum”).ȱEngagingȱinȱnegative,ȱorȱapophatic,ȱmysticism,ȱAnselmȱhopes toȱapproachȱGodȱbyȱtranscendingȱtheȱworld.75ȱHeȱechoesȱtheȱProslogion:ȱ“Intraȱin cubiculumȱ mentisȱ tuæ,ȱ excludeȱ omniaȱ præterȱ deumȱ etȱ quæȱ teȱ iuventȱ ad quærendumȱeum”ȱ(Pros.ȱ1:1.97)ȱ(“Enterȱintoȱtheȱinnerȱchamberȱofȱyourȱmind,ȱand leaveȱbehindȱallȱthingsȱexceptȱforȱGodȱandȱthoseȱthingsȱthatȱhelpȱyouȱseekȱhim”). But,ȱasȱweȱsee,ȱwhileȱmysticalȱexperienceȱinȱtheȱPrayerȱincludesȱonlyȱGodȱand Anselm,ȱ theȱ oneȱ inȱ theȱ Proslogionȱ includesȱ others;ȱ onlyȱ ifȱ Anselmȱ convertsȱ to positiveȱmysticismȱandȱbringsȱthoseȱwhoȱaidȱhimȱinȱseekingȱGodȱcanȱheȱsucceed.

75

“Negativeȱmysticism”ȱisȱunderstoodȱtoȱbeȱunionȱwithȱGodȱproducedȱbyȱnegatingȱeverything outsideȱofȱone’sȱownȱsoulȱandȱGod.ȱ“Positiveȱmysticism,”ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱusesȱtheȱthingsȱof theȱworldȱtoȱunderstandȱandȱachieveȱunionȱwithȱGod.

340

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

Finally,ȱtheȱsaintȬfriendȱoffersȱanȱopportunityȱforȱselfȬexamination,ȱwhichȱhinges onȱtheȱpotentialȱpurificationȱofȱtheȱsinnerȱforȱtheȱkingdomȱofȱheaven.ȱForȱAnselm, fruitfulȱselfȬexplorationȱinvolvesȱmeditatingȱnotȱonȱone’sȱcurrentȱstate—indeed, asȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱthisȱleadsȱonlyȱtoȱconfusionȱandȱdread—butȱonȱwhatȱoneȱcanȱbe viaȱtheȱsaint.ȱAnselmȱpraysȱtoȱJohnȱtheȱBaptist,ȱ“quemȱgratiaȱfecitȱtamȱamicum dei”ȱ (Prayerȱ 8.27:127;ȱ “whomȱ graceȱ hasȱ madeȱ suchȱ aȱ friendȱ ofȱ God,”ȱ Or. 8.13–14:26): Vere,ȱdomine,ȱfateor:ȱiniquitasȱmeaȱmeȱfecitȱtalem,ȱsedȱteȱtalemȱnonȱtu,ȱsedȱgratiaȱdei tecum.ȱMementoȱergo,ȱdomine,ȱutȱsicutȱgratiaȱdeiȱteȱsicȱsublimavit,ȱsicȱmisericordiaȱtu erigatȱquemȱculpaȱsuaȱsicȱhumiliavit.ȱ (Or.ȱ8.16–18:26) [Truly,ȱsir,ȱIȱadmitȱthis: myȱsinsȱhaveȱmadeȱmeȱwhatȱIȱam, butȱyouȱhaveȱnotȱmadeȱyourselfȱwhatȱyouȱare,ȱ butȱtheȱgraceȱofȱGodȱwithȱyou.ȱ Soȱremember,ȱsir,ȱ thatȱasȱtheȱgraceȱofȱGodȱmadeȱyouȱsoȱhigh,ȱ soȱyourȱmercyȱcanȱraiseȱhimȱup whoȱisȱlaidȱsoȱlowȱbyȱhisȱguilt.ȱ

(Prayerȱ8.33–39:128)]

Anselmȱunderstandsȱthatȱwithoutȱmercy,ȱhisȱonlyȱidentityȱisȱthatȱofȱaȱsinner.ȱAnd soȱheȱremindsȱJohnȱthatȱGod’sȱgraceȱ(“gratiaȱdei”)ȱhasȱmadeȱJohnȱwhoȱheȱis,ȱnot anyȱactionȱtakenȱbyȱhimself.ȱSalvationȱoccursȱnotȱbyȱourȱownȱworks,ȱorȱattempts toȱexamineȱtheȱself,ȱorȱcommunicationȱwithȱGodȱdirectly,ȱbutȱonlyȱthroughȱtheȱaid ofȱaȱfriendȱwhoȱcanȱspeakȱtoȱGodȱandȱintercedeȱonȱourȱbehalf.ȱAnselmȱseesȱhimself forȱwhatȱheȱhasȱtheȱpotentialȱtoȱbecomeȱthroughȱJohn’sȱintercession,ȱjustȱasȱJohn beforeȱhimȱwasȱtransformedȱthroughȱgrace.ȱTheȱtrueȱself,ȱunderstoodȱasȱtheȱimago dei,ȱcannotȱbeȱseparatedȱfromȱtheȱtermsȱofȱredemptionȱandȱmercy,ȱforȱtheyȱareȱthe lensȱthroughȱwhichȱAnselmȱunderstandsȱhimself,ȱinȱhisȱpotentialȱform,ȱbecoming onceȱagainȱtheȱimagoȱdei.ȱKnowledgeȱofȱtheȱselfȱinȱAnselmianȱtermsȱrequiresȱnot anȱenteringȱintoȱtheȱself,ȱwhichȱAnselmȱneverȱsucceedsȱatȱdoing,ȱbutȱanȱescape fromȱ theȱ torporȱ ofȱ theȱ selfȱ andȱ anȱ understandingȱ ofȱ one’sȱ identityȱ through relationships,ȱwithȱfriends,ȱparticularlyȱsaints.ȱ

TheȱMetonymicȱFriend Anselm’sȱPrayersȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱEvangelistȱmarkȱtheȱculminationȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱhis collection.ȱ Anselmȱ exaltsȱ John’sȱ famousȱ friendshipȱ (“famosaȱ familiaritas,”ȱ Or. 11.12:42)ȱwithȱChristȱonȱearthȱandȱGodȱinȱheaven,ȱwhichȱhereȱformsȱAnselm’s masterȱnarrative,ȱallowingȱhimȱtoȱrequestȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱbothȱJohn,ȱsinceȱGod graciouslyȱgaveȱHisȱtoȱJohn,ȱandȱChrist,ȱsinceȱheȱisȱJohn’sȱfriend.ȱAccordingȱto

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 341 Anselm’sȱlogicȱofȱfriendship,ȱneitherȱcanȱexcludeȱhimȱfromȱfriendship.ȱOnlyȱby acknowledgingȱtheȱrupturesȱinȱthisȱtriangulatedȱfriendship,ȱhowever,ȱcanȱAnselm negotiateȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱallȱthree.ȱ Here,ȱ friendshipȱ changesȱ fromȱ metaphorȱ toȱ metonymy.ȱ Whileȱ Anselmȱ has understoodȱfriendshipȱmetaphoricallyȱ(theȱotherȱself,ȱtheȱshepherdȱandȱhisȱsheep, plenitudeȱcomplementingȱindigence,ȱetc.),ȱheȱnowȱinvokesȱhisȱphilosophyȱofȱthe Atonement,ȱ theȱ abilityȱ ofȱ oneȱ manȱ toȱ standȱ inȱ forȱ another—orȱ allȱ of humankind—toȱassumeȱtheȱpunishmentȱforȱsin.ȱInȱthisȱmetonymicȱframework,ȱthe sinnerȱbecomesȱsoȱsubsumedȱinȱtheȱidentityȱofȱtheȱsaintȱthatȱGodȱcannotȱdamn him.ȱForȱsuchȱaȱfriendshipȱtoȱwork,ȱhowever,ȱitȱmustȱfirstȱbeȱhierarchicalȱandȱnonȬ reciprocal.ȱ AnselmȱinitiallyȱcontemplatesȱtheȱapparentlyȱseamlessȱfriendshipȱofȱJohnȱand Christȱonȱearth.ȱInȱtheirȱintimacy,ȱJohnȱwasȱtheȱ“bestȱbelovedȱofȱtheȱapostlesȱof God”ȱ(“dilectissimeȱapostolorumȱdei”),ȱ“preȬeminentȱinȱtheȱloveȱofȱGodȱ/ȱamong soȱmanyȱwhoȱwereȱeminentlyȱloved”ȱ(“praecipueȱdilecteȱdeoȱinterȱtamȱpraecipue dilectosȱeius”),ȱwhoȱ“reclinedȱfamiliarlyȱ/ȱonȱtheȱgloriousȱbreastȱofȱtheȱMostȱHigh” (“cuiȱ familiareȱ fuitȱ recumbereȱ supraȱ illudȱ gloriosumȱ pectusȱ altissimi,”ȱ Prayer 11.3–5,ȱ8–9:157;ȱOr.ȱ11.4–7:42).ȱAnselmȱisȱtheȱfirstȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱtoȱstressȱthe friendshipȱ ofȱ Johnȱ andȱ Christȱ atȱ theȱ Lastȱ Supper.ȱ Earlierȱ writersȱ express reservationsȱaboutȱthisȱapostolicȱmoment,ȱprivilegingȱtheȱharmonyȱofȱcommunity instead,ȱincludingȱCassian,ȱAnselm’sȱprincipalȱsourceȱonȱfriendship.76ȱForȱifȱChrist lovedȱJohnȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱotherȱapostles,ȱthenȱtheȱapostolicȱcommunity,ȱwithȱ“cor etȱ animaȱ una”ȱ (Actsȱ 4.32),ȱ exaltedȱ asȱ theȱ paradigmȱ ofȱ medievalȱ monasticȱ life, fractures.ȱAnselmȱconsidersȱfriendshipȱvaluableȱenoughȱtoȱtakeȱthisȱrisk,ȱsoȱlong asȱitȱgrowsȱoutȱofȱandȱsymbolicallyȱreflectsȱcommunalȱunity.77 AnselmȱestablishesȱtheȱmetonymyȱofȱChristȱandȱJohn’sȱfriendship,ȱonly,ȱinitially, toȱ beȱ terrifiedȱ atȱ theȱ implications.ȱ Heȱ remindsȱ Johnȱ thatȱ Godȱ gaveȱ himȱ toȱ His motherȱ(“substituit”)ȱasȱherȱsonȱinȱplaceȱofȱhimselfȱ(“proȱse”),ȱandȱsoȱJohnȱliterally tookȱtheȱplaceȱofȱChristȱ(Or.ȱ11.8:42).ȱButȱheȱdiscoversȱaȱdisconcertingȱproblem withȱprayingȱtoȱJohnȱasȱtheȱfriendȱofȱGod:

76

77

OnȱtheȱpotentialȱrupturesȱthatȱfriendshipȱcouldȱcauseȱwithinȱtheȱcommunityȱseeȱSouthern,ȱPortrait, 140,ȱandȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ134–79.ȱMcGuireȱnotesȱthat,ȱbeforeȱAnselm,ȱPeter DamianȱusedȱthisȱmomentȱbetweenȱJohnȱandȱChristȱtoȱsymbolizeȱJohn’sȱwisdomȱandȱpurity,ȱnot friendship.ȱ Cassianȱ arguesȱ thatȱ Christȱ showedȱ affectionȱ toȱ Johnȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ virginity: Collationes,ȱed.ȱMichaelȱPetschenig.ȱCorpusȱscriptorumȱecclesiasticorumȱLatinorum,ȱ13ȱ(Vienna: VerlagȱderȱÖsterreichischenȱAkademieȱderȱWissenschaften,ȱ2004),ȱ16.14.3:449.ȱWard,ȱTheȱPrayers andȱMeditations,ȱwrites,ȱ“PerhapsȱthisȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱearliestȱinstancesȱofȱthisȱpictureȱofȱChristȱwith theȱbelovedȱdiscipleȱbeingȱdetachedȱfromȱtheȱwholeȱsettingȱofȱtheȱLastȱSupper,ȱandȱusedȱasȱan instanceȱofȱfriendship,”ȱ67. McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ214–15,ȱ219.

342

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie Ecceȱenimȱdumȱconorȱconfortariȱperȱtuamȱapudȱdeumȱfamiliaritatem,ȱplusȱcogorȱper eandemȱdeterreriȱpropterȱmeamȱcontraȱdeumȱpravitatem.ȱEtenim,ȱoȱdilecteȱdei,ȱcum peccaviȱinȱdilectoremȱtuum,ȱcertusȱsumȱmeruisseȱmeȱodiumȱquoqueȱtuum.ȱOȱreatus immoderatus,ȱ reatusȱ contraȱ deum,ȱ quiȱ nonȱ solumȱ ipsumȱ offendit,ȱ sedȱ etȱ illosȱ qui intercedereȱpossuntȱapudȱeum!ȱVerumȱenimȱestȱquiaȱcriminosusȱdeiȱdigneȱodiosusȱest amicisȱdei.ȱNecȱsolumȱamicisȱeius,ȱsedȱcerteȱetȱsibimetȱetȱomniȱcreaturaeȱeius.ȱ (Or.ȱ11.19–27:42–43) [Forȱlo,ȱwhenȱIȱtryȱtoȱfindȱcomfortȱ inȱyourȱfriendshipȱ(“familiaritatem”)ȱwithȱGod,ȱ Iȱamȱcompelledȱtoȱholdȱbackȱfromȱthatȱveryȱfriendship becauseȱofȱmyȱsinȱagainstȱGod.ȱ BelovedȱofȱGod,ȱ becauseȱIȱhaveȱsinnedȱagainstȱyourȱbeloved,ȱ IȱamȱcertainȱthatȱIȱhaveȱdeservedȱyourȱhatredȱalso.ȱ Oȱimmoderateȱoffence,ȱoffenceȱagainstȱGod,ȱ thatȱoffendsȱnotȱonlyȱhim, butȱalsoȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱableȱtoȱintercedeȱbeforeȱhim. IndeedȱanȱoffenceȱagainstȱGodȱdeservesȱtoȱbeȱhatedȱ byȱtheȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱ(“amicisȱdei”),ȱ andȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱhisȱfriendsȱ(“amicisȱeius”),ȱ butȱbyȱhimselfȱandȱallȱhisȱcreatures.ȱȱ

(Prayerȱ11.42–51:158)]

Thisȱisȱtheȱterrifyingȱflipȱsideȱofȱclassicalȱplatitudesȱonȱtheȱseamlessȱunanimityȱof friends.ȱIfȱAnselmȱhasȱoffendedȱGod,ȱthen,ȱmetonymically,ȱheȱhasȱalsoȱangeredȱHis likeȬmindedȱ friendȱ John,ȱ andȱ shouldȱ expectȱ noȱ helpȱ fromȱ aȱ willȱ unilaterally alignedȱagainstȱhim.ȱIfȱoneȱlovesȱGod,ȱasȱJohnȱdoes,ȱthenȱheȱmustȱhateȱsin,ȱasȱGod does.ȱHeȱmustȱshunȱAnselmȱwhoȱisȱcompletelyȱdefinedȱbyȱsin.ȱJustȱasȱAnselmȱin hisȱ Prayerȱ toȱ Stȱ Paulȱ blushesȱ (“erubescere,”ȱ Or.ȱ 10.29:34)ȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ God’s creatures,ȱ becauseȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ sinfulȱ condition,ȱ heȱ reenactsȱ thisȱ momentȱ of abjurationȱ withȱ John.ȱ Theȱ moreȱ Anselmȱ thinksȱ aboutȱ sinȱ andȱ theȱ humanȱ and divineȱrelationshipsȱthatȱitȱinfects,ȱtheȱmoreȱhopelessȱheȱfeelsȱasȱeveryȱpotential friendȱbecomesȱanȱenemy.ȱ Anselm’sȱonlyȱchoice,ȱitȱseems,ȱisȱtoȱdriveȱaȱwedgeȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱJohn.ȱIt appearsȱimpossibleȱforȱallȱthreeȱtoȱbeȱfriends.ȱParadoxically,ȱheȱneedsȱtoȱconvince Johnȱ bothȱ toȱ putȱ asideȱ hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ toȱ haveȱ hisȱ ownȱ separateȱ and mercifulȱwillȱandȱtoȱmaintainȱhisȱpowerfulȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod,ȱsoȱthatȱGodȱwill stillȱlistenȱtoȱhimȱasȱheȱasksȱhimȱtoȱspareȱAnselmȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱJohn,ȱaȱfriend. JohnȱmustȱsimultaneouslyȱbeȱandȱnotȱbeȱtheȱfriendȱofȱGod.ȱButȱAnselmȱsolvesȱthis problemȱbyȱclarifyingȱtheȱdistinctionsȱofȱhisȱrequestȱandȱemployingȱtheȱlogicȱof metonymy: Siȱtibiȱgloriosumȱpectusȱilludȱfuitȱfamiliareȱreclinatorium,ȱrogoȱsitȱidemȱmihiȱperȱte salutareȱpropitiatorium.ȱFateor,ȱdomineȱmi,ȱdilecteȱdei,ȱquiaȱiusteȱtuȱquoqueȱiratusȱes inȱdeumȱdilectoremȱtuumȱpeccanti,ȱsedȱcerteȱsoletȱdominusȱperȱamicumȱpacariȱservo

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 343 supplicantiȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱNonȱest,ȱdilecteȱdei,ȱnonȱestȱcontraȱdeiȱdilectionem,ȱsiȱsubvenisȱreo eius,ȱ nonȱ defendendoȱ sedȱ perȱ intercessionem.ȱ Nonȱ obtendoȱ iniquitatisȱ meae defensionemȱ necȱ optoȱ defendentem,ȱ sedȱ prodoȱ confessionemȱ etȱ quaeroȱ interȬ venientem.ȱAmiceȱdei,ȱneȱdeputesȱillumȱdeiȱvelȱtuumȱesseȱinimicum,ȱquiȱquantum potestȱamandoȱcreditȱetȱconfiteturȱdeumȱtuumȱesseȱamicum.ȱSiȱcredo,ȱsiȱconfiteor,ȱsi voloȱamareȱtibiȱconcessumȱtantumȱamoremȱdei.ȱ (Or.ȱ11.55–65:44) [Ifȱthatȱgloriousȱbreast wasȱaȱfamiliarȱplaceȱforȱyouȱtoȱleanȱupon, Iȱaskȱthatȱthroughȱyouȱitȱmayȱbecomeȱtoȱme aȱplaceȱofȱsalvation.ȱ Iȱconfess,ȱsir,ȱbelovedȱofȱGod,ȱthatȱyouȱareȱrightȱtoȱbeȱangryȱ withȱoneȱwhoȱhasȱsinnedȱagainstȱyourȱbelovedȱGod, butȱitȱisȱcertainȱthatȱtheȱLordȱwillȱspareȱaȱsuppliantȱservant forȱtheȱsakeȱofȱhisȱfriendȱ(“perȱamicum”)ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. BelovedȱofȱGod,ȱitȱisȱnotȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱloveȱofȱGod ifȱyouȱhelpȱoneȱofȱhisȱaccused, notȱbyȱdefendingȱhim,ȱbutȱbyȱintercedingȱforȱhim.ȱ Iȱdoȱnotȱaskȱyouȱtoȱdefendȱmyȱiniquity, norȱdoȱIȱwantȱitȱdefended, butȱIȱmakeȱconfessionȱofȱitȱandȱseekȱforȱintervention.ȱ FriendȱofȱGodȱ(“Amiceȱdei”)ȱ doȱnotȱcountȱhimȱGod’sȱenemyȱorȱyours who,ȱwithȱasȱmuchȱloveȱasȱheȱcan,ȱconfessesȱandȱbelieves Godȱtoȱbeȱyourȱfriendȱ(“tuumȱamicum”).ȱ (Prayerȱ11.108–25:160–61)]

Inȱgoodȱmonasticȱform,ȱAnselmȱmeditatesȱonȱtheȱgloriousȱbreastȱuponȱwhichȱJohn reclinedȱ atȱ theȱ Lastȱ Supper,ȱ butȱ imaginesȱ himselfȱ takingȱ John’sȱ place.ȱ He metonymicallyȱ insertsȱ himselfȱ intoȱ theȱ redemptionȱ narrative,ȱ turningȱ John’s “familiarȱplaceȱforȱreclining”ȱ(“familiareȱreclinatorium”)ȱintoȱtheȱintimateȱcontact pointȱforȱhimselfȱtoȱshareȱinȱGod’sȱlove.ȱThoughȱJohn,ȱlikeȱGod,ȱmayȱbeȱobliged toȱturnȱhisȱfavorableȱeyeȱfromȱAnselm,ȱAnselmȱboldlyȱremindsȱJohnȱthatȱAnselm’s friendshipȱ withȱ Godȱ viaȱ Johnȱ canȱ itselfȱ activateȱ God’sȱ mercy.ȱ Asȱ Anselm emphasizesȱtheȱinterchangeabilityȱofȱhumans,ȱitȱisȱasȱthoughȱAnselmȱhasȱbecome John,ȱassumingȱhisȱpersonhood,ȱandȱshouldȱthusȱbeȱforgivenȱbyȱGodȱbecauseȱof thisȱmergingȱofȱidentities.ȱGodȱwillȱforgiveȱnotȱbecauseȱAnselmȱquaȱAnselmȱisȱa friendȱofȱGod,ȱbutȱbecauseȱAnselmȱquaȱJohnȱis.ȱBriefly,ȱJohn’sȱagencyȱisȱminimized; heȱmustȱmerelyȱletȱAnselmȱloveȱhimȱandȱbeȱhisȱfriend,ȱwithȱnoȱreciprocity,ȱsoȱthat JohnȱcanȱstayȱonȱgoodȱtermsȱwithȱGodȱwhoȱdespisesȱsin.ȱOnceȱAnselmȱhasȱnonȬ reciprocallyȱbecomeȱfriendsȱwithȱJohn,ȱheȱmetonymicallyȱbecomesȱfriendsȱwith God.ȱ Andȱ anyȱ friendȱ ofȱ Godȱ willȱ beȱ aȱ trueȱ friendȱ ofȱ John,ȱ completingȱ the triangulation.ȱ AnselmȱbelievesȱinȱGodȱnotȱbecauseȱHeȱisȱomnipotent,ȱmerciful,ȱorȱevenȱreal, butȱbecauseȱHeȱisȱaȱfriend.ȱTheȱchiasmusȱofȱtheȱLatinȱ(“Amiceȱdeiȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcreditȱet

344

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

confiteturȱdeumȱtuumȱesseȱamicum”)ȱsuggestsȱthatȱAnselm’sȱbeliefȱinȱfriendship asȱaȱmeansȱtoȱsalvationȱisȱgrammaticallyȱembeddedȱinȱhisȱthought:ȱheȱaddresses Johnȱthroughȱaȱspeechȱactȱasȱtheȱ“amicusȱdei”ȱpreciselyȱtoȱtellȱhimȱthatȱheȱbelieves thatȱ Johnȱ isȱ theȱ “amicusȱ dei.”ȱ Theȱ transformationalȱ roleȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ atonement fundamentallyȱ structuresȱ thisȱ friendship:ȱ Anselmȱ believesȱ thatȱ everyȱ person whomȱ Christȱ befriendedȱ onȱ earthȱ wasȱ metonymicallyȱ madeȱ recipientȱ and dispenserȱofȱHisȱpowerȱandȱlove.ȱAnselmȱsanctifiesȱallȱfriendshipsȱbyȱcreatingȱthe conditionsȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱfriendȱtransformsȱourȱrelationshipȱwithȱGod.ȱ ButȱevenȱafterȱAnselmȱhasȱlogicallyȱarguedȱhisȱwayȱintoȱthisȱfriendshipȱofȱthree, heȱmustȱcontinueȱtoȱassertȱitsȱexistenceȱandȱefficacy.ȱHeȱonceȱagainȱinvokesȱthe metonymicȱchainȱatȱwork: Domine,ȱproȱcuiusȱnomineȱmisererisȱpeccatorisȱtui,ȱsiȱdamnasȱorantemȱperȱnomen dilectiȱtui?ȱDomine,ȱsubȱquoȱtegmineȱprotegitur,ȱsiȱsubȱnomineȱdilectiȱtuiȱpercutitur? Ubiȱestȱrefugium,ȱsiȱsubȱdilectoȱtuoȱestȱpericulum?ȱNonȱsentiat,ȱdomine,ȱnonȱsentiat odiumȱtuumȱquiȱfugitȱadȱdilectumȱtuum.ȱ (Or.ȱ11.76–80:44) [Lord,ȱbyȱwhatȱnameȱwillȱyouȱhaveȱmercyȱuponȱsinners ifȱyouȱcondemnȱsomeoneȱwhoȱprays byȱtheȱnameȱofȱyourȱbeloved? Lord,ȱunderȱwhatȱcoverȱisȱthereȱprotection, ifȱunderȱtheȱnameȱofȱyourȱbelovedȱthereȱisȱpunishment?ȱ Whereȱisȱthereȱrefugeȱifȱwithȱyourȱbelovedȱthereȱisȱperil?ȱ Lord,ȱdoȱnotȱfeelȱhatredȱforȱhimȱwhoȱfleesȱtoȱyourȱbeloved. (Prayerȱ11.153–59:161)]

Pilingȱupȱprepositionsȱ(“per,ȱsub,ȱad”)ȱtoȱexpressȱhisȱmetonymicȱrelationshipȱto God’sȱbelovedȱorȱtoȱmerelyȱtheȱnameȱofȱJohn,ȱAnselmȱsecuresȱGod’sȱmercyȱthrough John.ȱBecauseȱofȱAnselm’sȱpervasiveȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱabilityȱofȱoneȱmanȱtoȱstandȱinȱfor another,ȱheȱcleverlyȱnotesȱthatȱGod’sȱdamningȱhimȱwouldȱbeȱlikeȱdamningȱJohn who,ȱ followingȱ theȱ metonymicȱ chain,ȱ wasȱ aȱ standȬinȱ forȱ Christȱ afterȱ the Crucifixion,ȱasȱAnselmȱhasȱearlierȱremindedȱJohn.ȱThatȱisȱontologicallyȱimpossible, forȱ Godȱ wouldȱ beȱ damningȱ himself.ȱ John’sȱ veryȱ nameȱ andȱ identityȱ provide protectionȱtoȱanyoneȱinvokingȱhimȱasȱaȱfriend.ȱ InȱtheȱmanyȱlettersȱinȱwhichȱAnselmȱoffersȱintercessionȱonȱbehalfȱofȱaȱfriend,ȱone especiallyȱdemonstratesȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱpowerȱofȱmetonymy.ȱAsȱabbotȱofȱBec,ȱAnselm writesȱtoȱPriorȱHenryȱandȱtheȱmonksȱatȱCanterburyȱonȱbehalfȱofȱoneȱMoses,ȱan embezzlingȱmonkȱwhoȱdesertedȱCanterbury,ȱfleeingȱtoȱBec.ȱHeȱsendsȱtheȱletterȱto CanterburyȱwithȱMoses,ȱwho,ȱtheȱletterȱinsists,ȱisȱ“fromȱtheȱsolesȱofȱhisȱfeetȱtoȱthe crownȱofȱhisȱheadȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱallȱoverȱcladȱinȱtheȱskinȱofȱyourȱservant,ȱbrotherȱAnselm” (“[A]ȱplantaȱpedisȱusqueȱadȱverticemȱinȱcircuituȱpelleȱserviȱvestriȱfratrisȱAnselmi indutum”)ȱ(Ep.140.32–33):

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 345 Siȱ quisȱ ergoȱ vestrumȱ est,ȱ inȱ quemȱ aliquandoȱ sponteȱ peccavi,ȱ primusȱ inȱ illoȱ pro praedictaȱculpaȱpellemȱmeamȱpercutiat,ȱetȱosȱmeumȱaȱciboȱprohibeat.ȱPostȱhancȱvero culpamȱpellemȱmeamȱfratriȱMoysiȱstudiosissimeȱcommendo,ȱsicutȱsuamȱdiligit,ȱad custodiendum,ȱvobisȱautemȱnonȱadeoȱadȱparcendum.ȱNamȱsiȱeiusȱculpaȱpellisȱmea laesaȱautȱgraviusȱexcussaȱfuerit,ȱabȱilloȱexigam;ȱsiȱquisȱautemȱeiȱpepercerit,ȱilliȱgratias agam.ȱ (Ep.ȱ140.34–39:3.286–87) [If,ȱtherefore,ȱthereȱisȱanyoneȱamongȱyouȱagainstȱwhomȱIȱwilfullyȱsinnedȱatȱanyȱtime, letȱhimȱfirstȱhitȱmyȱskinȱinȱhisȱplaceȱforȱthatȱaforeȬmentionedȱsin,ȱandȱkeepȱmyȱmouth fromȱfood.ȱAfterȱthisȱsin,ȱIȱcommendȱmyȱskinȱmostȱdiligentlyȱtoȱbrotherȱMosesȱtoȱbe takenȱcareȱofȱandȱlovedȱasȱhisȱown,ȱandȱtoȱyou,ȱhowever,ȱnotȱexactlyȱtoȱbeȱspared.ȱIf, however,ȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱsin,ȱmyȱskinȱisȱhurtȱorȱgravelyȱbeatenȱIȱshallȱdemandȱitȱofȱhim; butȱifȱanyoneȱsparesȱitȱIȱshallȱthankȱhim.ȱ (Letterȱ140:1.323)]

ClothedȱinȱAnselm’sȱskin,ȱMosesȱassumesȱtheȱpunishmentȱnotȱforȱhisȱactions,ȱbut forȱAnselm,ȱifȱheȱhasȱcommittedȱanyȱsin.ȱThisȱmustȱhaveȱgivenȱanyȱmonkȱpause inȱpunishingȱMoses,ȱknowingȱthatȱheȱwasȱactuallyȱharmingȱAnselm,ȱhisȱbeloved brother.ȱSimilarly,ȱinȱhisȱPrayerȱtoȱJohn,ȱAnselmȱaimsȱtoȱpersuadeȱGodȱandȱJohn thatȱtheȱdamnationȱofȱoneȱwhoȱpraysȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱGod’sȱbelovedȱisȱeffectively aȱdamnationȱofȱJohnȱhimself.ȱOnȱtheȱhumanȱandȱdivineȱlevel,ȱAnselm,ȱbuttressed byȱhisȱAtonementȱtheology,ȱdemonstratesȱthatȱinȱtheȱunityȱofȱGod’sȱcreationȱone personȱcanȱstandȱinȱforȱanother,ȱandȱthatȱheȱcanȱuseȱthisȱinterchangeabilityȱasȱa bargainingȱchipȱtoȱgainȱtheȱgoodwillȱofȱGodȱandȱotherȱfriendsȱalike.ȱLoveȱand friendshipȱinitiallyȱlackȱtheȱreciprocityȱlaudedȱbyȱclassicalȱauthorsȱ(inȱtheȱcaseȱof AnselmȱwhoȱmustȱfirstȱbefriendȱJohnȱwithoutȱJohn’sȱbefriendingȱhim,ȱandȱMoses whoȱreceivesȱAnselm’sȱskinȱasȱaȱgift),ȱbutȱbothȱhaveȱnoȱlimits,ȱasȱtheȱbenefactors andȱ beneficiariesȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ friendshipȱ endlesslyȱ deflectȱ themȱ ontoȱ others, eternallyȱtriangulatingȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱsignȱofȱunity.ȱ

TheȱLovingȱFriend Despiteȱ theȱ humanȱ friend’sȱ physicalȱ andȱ psychologicalȱ distance,ȱ or,ȱ perhaps, becauseȱofȱthem,ȱAnselmȱstillȱfindsȱvalueȱinȱfriendshipȱforȱreasonsȱsimilarȱtoȱthose ofȱ Aristotle,ȱ Cicero,ȱ Seneca,ȱ andȱ Cassian.ȱ Oneȱ mayȱ neverȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ knowȱ the friendȱclearly,ȱtoȱknowȱoneselfȱthroughȱtheȱfriend,ȱorȱtoȱengageȱinȱreciprocity,ȱbut, asȱAnselmȱdiscoversȱinȱhisȱOratioȱproȱamicisȱ(PrayerȱforȱFriends),ȱtheȱactȱofȱloving friendsȱactivatesȱvirtueȱwithinȱoneselfȱthatȱpleasesȱGod.ȱWhileȱAnselmȱbeseeches Godȱtoȱshowȱmercyȱtoȱallȱpeopleȱ(“omnibus”),ȱheȱadmitsȱthatȱheȱpraysȱespecially forȱcloseȱfriendsȱbecauseȱGod’sȱloveȱhasȱimpressedȱthemȱuponȱhisȱheartȱ(“sicut specialiterȱ etȱ familiariusȱ cordiȱ meoȱ impressitȱ amorȱ tuus”)ȱ (Or.ȱ 18.25–26:72).ȱ In Anselm’sȱ mind,ȱ metonymyȱ allowsȱ oneȱ toȱ loveȱ theȱ entireȱ communityȱ through friends,ȱ asȱ heȱ writesȱ lettersȱ toȱ severalȱ friendsȱ directingȱ themȱ toȱ passȱ onȱ the

346

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

messageȱtoȱotherȱfriends,ȱbecauseȱheȱwritesȱtoȱallȱofȱthemȱinȱaddressingȱone.ȱThe addresseeȱmustȱsimplyȱexchangeȱnamesȱonȱtheȱletter.78 Anselmȱinitiallyȱhesitatesȱtoȱprayȱforȱfriendsȱforȱtheȱsameȱreasonȱthatȱheȱfelt disconnectedȱfromȱthemȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱAlthoughȱheȱwantsȱtoȱintercedeȱand prayȱforȱfriends,ȱheȱfearsȱthatȱhisȱownȱsinȱmustȱbeȱforgivenȱandȱmentallyȱresolved beforeȱheȱcanȱbeȱanȱefficaciousȱintercessorȱforȱfriends: Vult,ȱvult,ȱpieȱdomine,ȱvultȱservusȱtuusȱorareȱteȱproȱamicisȱsuis,ȱsedȱrevocaturȱreus tuusȱaȱdelictisȱsuis.ȱQuiȱenimȱmihiȱveniamȱexorareȱnonȱsufficio:ȱquaȱfronteȱgratiam tuamȱaliisȱrogareȱpraesumo?ȱEtȱquiȱanxiusȱintercessoresȱquaero:ȱquaȱfiduciaȱproȱaliis intercedo?ȱ (Or.ȱ18.28–32:72) [MyȱgoodȱLord, asȱyourȱservantȱIȱlongȱtoȱprayȱtoȱyouȱforȱmyȱfriendsȱ(“amicis”),ȱ butȱasȱyourȱdebtorȱIȱamȱheldȱbackȱbyȱmyȱsins.ȱ ForȱIȱamȱnotȱableȱtoȱprayȱforȱmyȱownȱpardon, howȱthenȱcanȱIȱdareȱtoȱaskȱopenlyȱ forȱyourȱgraceȱforȱothers?ȱ Iȱanxiouslyȱseekȱintercessorsȱonȱmyȱownȱbehalf, howȱthenȱshallȱIȱbeȱsoȱboldȱasȱtoȱintercedeȱforȱothers?ȱ (Prayerȱ18.48–55:213)]

ȱ Inȱhisȱclearestȱstatementȱthatȱintercessionȱisȱfriendlyȱactivity,ȱAnselmȱtellsȱGodȱthat heȱwantsȱtoȱbeȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱwhatȱallȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱhaveȱbeenȱtoȱhim,ȱbutȱdiscovers theȱlimitsȱofȱthisȱanalogy.ȱAnselmȱemphaticallyȱdesiresȱ(“vult,ȱvultȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱvult”)ȱto prayȱforȱfriendsȱbutȱfearsȱthatȱheȱisȱunworthyȱtoȱintercedeȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱwould onlyȱdistractȱhimȱfromȱtheȱsolicitudeȱ(“sollicitus”)ȱheȱshouldȱfeelȱforȱhisȱownȱsins.ȱ ButȱAnselmȱdoesȱnotȱsuccumbȱtoȱhisȱparalysis: Dimittamȱergoȱquodȱiubes,ȱquiaȱfeciȱquodȱprohibes?ȱImmoȱquiaȱpraesumpsiȱprohibita, amplectarȱ imperata,ȱ siȱ forteȱ oboedientiaȱ sanetȱ praesumptionem,ȱ siȱ forteȱ “caritas” operiatȱ“multitudinemȱpeccatorum”ȱmeorum.ȱ (Or.ȱ18.34–36:72) [ShallȱIȱthenȱleaveȱoffȱfromȱdoingȱwhatȱyouȱcommand becauseȱIȱhaveȱdoneȱwhatȱyouȱhaveȱforbidden?

78

Anselmȱ endsȱ hisȱ letterȱ toȱ Gundulfȱ byȱ writingȱ “Domnoȱ Henricoȱ misiȱ alteramȱ epistolam;ȱ sed commutatisȱvestrisȱnominibusȱperȱomnia,ȱetȱtuaȱsitȱsuaȱetȱsuaȱsitȱtua,”ȱEp.ȱ4.41–42:105ȱ(“Iȱsent anotherȱletterȱtoȱDomȱHenry,ȱbutȱonlyȱexchangeȱyourȱnamesȱinȱeverythingȱIȱhaveȱsaid,ȱandȱyours mayȱbeȱhisȱandȱhisȱmayȱbeȱyours”),ȱLetterȱ4:1.82;ȱandȱwritesȱtoȱHenryȱtheȱmonk,ȱ“Litterasȱquas domnoȱGondulfoȱmisi,ȱmutatoȱnomineȱtuas,ȱetȱtuasȱilliusȱputa.ȱQuidquidȱenimȱdilectioȱnostraȱaut seseȱintimandoȱautȱaliquidȱrogandoȱscribitȱautȱtibiȱautȱilli,ȱhocȱipsumȱdicitȱetȱtibiȱ etȱ illi,”ȱEp. 5.28–30:107ȱ(“ConsiderȱasȱyourȱownȱtheȱletterȱIȱsentȱtoȱDomȱGundulf,ȱbyȱchangingȱhisȱnameȱto yoursȱandȱyoursȱtoȱhis.ȱForȱanythingȱourȱlove,ȱwhetherȱrevealingȱitselfȱorȱrequestingȱsomething, writesȱeitherȱtoȱyouȱorȱtoȱhim,ȱitȱsaysȱtheȱveryȱsameȱbothȱtoȱyouȱandȱtoȱhim”),ȱLetterȱ5:1.84.ȱOnȱthe remarkableȱmultiplicityȱofȱrecipientsȱofȱidenticalȱlettersȱfromȱAnselm,ȱSouthern,ȱPortrait,ȱwrites, “Weȱmustȱȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱenvisageȱaȱsystemȱinȱwhichȱtheȱparticularȱisȱgeneralized,ȱbutȱlosesȱnothingȱofȱits particularityȱinȱtheȱprocess,”ȱ158.ȱ

MysteriousȱFriendsȱinȱtheȱPrayersȱandȱLettersȱofȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury 347 No,ȱratherȱsinceȱIȱhaveȱpresumedȱsoȱgreatlyȱ inȱwhatȱisȱforbidden, allȱtheȱmoreȱwillȱIȱembraceȱwhatȱisȱcommanded.ȱ Soȱperhapsȱobedienceȱmayȱhealȱpresumption, andȱcharityȱmayȱcoverȱtheȱmultitudeȱofȱmyȱsinsȱ(Cf.ȱ1ȱPet.ȱ4.8). (Prayerȱ18.62–68:214)]

Prayingȱforȱandȱlovingȱfriendsȱisȱtheȱwayȱtoȱtakeȱcareȱofȱoneselfȱbyȱearningȱmerit throughȱcharity,ȱwhichȱfulfillsȱGod’sȱcommandment.ȱAnselmȱsubmitsȱthatȱselfȬ healingȱinvolvesȱlookingȱnotȱinward,ȱbutȱoutwardȱtoȱothersȱwithȱlove.ȱAuthorizing himselfȱasȱanȱintercessor,ȱAnselmȱsuggestsȱthatȱifȱsinȱmakesȱhisȱPrayerȱunworthy toȱbeȱheard,ȱitȱshouldȱbeȱheard,ȱnonetheless,ȱbecauseȱitȱisȱtheȱcommandmentȱof God.ȱThisȱmayȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱinstanceȱinȱallȱofȱAnselm’sȱworksȱinȱwhichȱheȱsuggests thatȱweȱmightȱbeȱableȱtoȱwinȱfavorȱinȱGod’sȱeyesȱthroughȱworks.ȱPinningȱGodȱinto aȱcorner,ȱAnselmȱhasȱfoundȱhisȱnarrativeȱhookȱtoȱpersuadeȱHim.ȱGodȱshouldȱnot onlyȱacceptȱhisȱprayersȱbutȱmagnifyȱthemȱbeyondȱAnselm’sȱmeekȱabilityȱtoȱlove, soȱthatȱloveȱagainȱbecomesȱendlesslyȱabsorbed.ȱWithȱGodȱasȱtheȱintercessorȱfor humanȱfriendships,ȱfriendshipȱisȱnowȱproperlyȱarticulatedȱonlyȱthroughȱGod.ȱIf friendshipȱhasȱbeenȱtheȱproblemȱforȱAnselm,ȱheȱfindsȱthat,ȱinsofarȱasȱoneȱloves,ȱit isȱalsoȱtheȱsolution.

Conclusion Inȱexpressingȱidealsȱofȱfriendship,ȱAnselmȱworksȱroughlyȱwithinȱtheȱparameters ofȱ traditionalȱ medievalȱ genres.ȱ Hisȱ Prayersȱ followȱ theȱ basicȱ structureȱ thatȱ he inherited,ȱwithȱtheȱaddressȱtoȱtheȱsaintȱandȱtheȱpetitionȱforȱmercyȱbasedȱonȱan eventȱinȱtheȱsaint’sȱlife,ȱincliningȱhimȱtowardȱmercy.ȱAnd,ȱinȱaȱmonasticȱmode, Anselmȱ meditatesȱ onȱ humanȱ friendship,ȱ consideringȱ itsȱ valueȱ andȱ sweetness, thoughȱkeepingȱitȱstrangelyȱimperviousȱtoȱtemporalȱandȱspatialȱchangesȱasȱthough itȱwereȱanȱillusion,ȱwhileȱponderingȱtheȱsplendorȱofȱsaintȬfriendsȱwhoȱrescueȱhim fromȱtheȱhideousnessȱofȱsinȱthatȱburdensȱhim. Andȱyet,ȱinȱinvokingȱtheȱsaintsȱasȱfriendsȱinȱhisȱPrayers,ȱAnselmȱrevolutionizes bothȱfriendshipȱandȱprayer.ȱGoingȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱuseȱtheȱsaintsȱtoȱbypassȱtheȱpainful selfȬexaminationȱofȱcontritionȱandȱconversion,ȱbyȱperformingȱlinguisticȱtricksȱto effectȱmercy,ȱAnselm,ȱaȱlogicianȱasȱwellȱasȱaȱmonk,ȱcannotȱfeelȱsecureȱwithȱjustȱone traditionalȱpathȱtoȱredemption,ȱandȱsoȱexploresȱeveryȱlogicalȱroute.ȱHeȱanalyzes everyȱaspectȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱstretchesȱitsȱredemptiveȱandȱlovingȱpossibilities wellȱbeyondȱtheȱlimitsȱthatȱheȱinherited,ȱviewingȱeveryȱfriendshipȱasȱtransformed byȱ andȱ transformativeȱ throughȱ theȱ loveȱ ofȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ Redemption.ȱ Indeed, ChristȱdiedȱforȱfriendsȱHeȱmadeȱonȱEarthȱwhoȱwouldȱlaterȱgoȱonȱtoȱbecomeȱthe

348

R.ȱJacobȱMcDonie

saintsȱtoȱwhomȱAnselmȱprays.ȱSelfȬawarenessȱoccursȱinȱtheȱvisionȱofȱaȱpotential self,ȱ transformedȱ throughȱ grace,ȱ asȱ Anselmȱ manipulatesȱ theȱ principlesȱ of friendshipȱinȱorderȱtoȱsecureȱpsychologicallyȱhisȱsalvationȱandȱintercedeȱforȱand loveȱothers.ȱHere,ȱasȱeverywhereȱwithȱAnselm,ȱtheȱanswerȱliesȱwithinȱtheȱself,ȱbut itȱisȱonlyȱaȱselfȱthatȱcomesȱintoȱbeingȱthroughȱanȱawarenessȱofȱothers.

Chapterȱ7 JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine (UniversityȱofȱHull,ȱUK)

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱActionȱinȱthe TwelfthȱCentury

Friendshipȱandȱloveȱareȱrecurrentȱmotifsȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury. Courtlyȱ loveȱ givesȱ theȱ poetryȱ ofȱ theȱ ageȱ itsȱ characteristicȱ voice.ȱ Newȱ ideasȱ of sublime,ȱdivineȱloveȱinspiredȱaȱgrowingȱliteratureȱofȱaffectiveȱspiritualityȱandȱalso transformedȱ theȱ theologyȱ ofȱ theȱ Christianȱ West.ȱ Definingȱ andȱ layingȱ claimȱ to caritas,ȱthatȱformȱofȱloveȱrenderedȱsoȱuncomfortablyȱinȱmodernȱidiomȱasȱ“charity,” becameȱtheȱbattlegroundȱofȱaȱreligiousȱrevolutionȱdrivenȱbyȱtheȱnewȱmonastic ordersȱwithȱtheirȱemphasisȱonȱaȱpersonalȱrelationshipȱtoȱaȱlovingȱGod.ȱTheȱtiesȱof friendship,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ longȱ boundȱ rulersȱ andȱ followers,ȱ patronsȱ andȱ clients, communitiesȱ andȱ corporationsȱ inȱ networksȱ ofȱ allegianceȱ andȱ mutualȱ support foundȱnewȱtheoristsȱandȱnewȱformulationsȱandȱcameȱtoȱbeȱarticulatedȱasȱoneȱofȱthe organizingȱȱprinciplesȱofȱpoliticalȱthought.ȱ Celebrationȱandȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱclosestȱofȱhumanȱbondsȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱunifying themesȱofȱtheȱliterateȱcultureȱofȱwhatȱhasȱbecomeȱknownȱasȱtheȱtwelfthȬcentury Renaissance.ȱInȱaȱsocietyȱwhoseȱintellectualȱendeavorsȱwereȱdrivenȱincreasingly byȱreasonȱandȱtheȱsystematicȱorganizationȱofȱknowledge,ȱtheȱintellectualȱheritage ofȱAristotelianȱandȱCiceronianȱfriendshipȱwasȱrefashionedȱbyȱnewȱattemptsȱtoȱgive definitiveȱ formulationȱ toȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ loveȱ andȱ toȱ understand humanȱsocietyȱthroughȱthem.1ȱThisȱrediscoveryȱofȱfriendshipȱnotȱonlyȱcoincided 1

Thereȱisȱaȱveryȱextensiveȱliteratureȱonȱtheseȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱcultureȱofȱtheȱeleventhȱtoȱthirteenth centuries;ȱrecentȱstudiesȱdealingȱspecificallyȱwithȱfriendshipȱincludeȱHuguetteȱLegros,ȱL’Amitié dansȱlesȱchansonsȱdeȱgesteȱàȱl’époqueȱromaneȱȱ(Provence:ȱPublicationsȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱdeȱProvence, 2001);ȱMarthaȱG.ȱNewman,ȱTheȱBoundariesȱofȱCharity:ȱCistercianȱCultureȱandȱEcclesiasticalȱReform 1098–1180ȱ ȱ (Stanford,ȱ CA:ȱ Stanfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1995);ȱ Bénédicteȱ Sère,ȱ Penserȱ l’amitiéȱ au Moyenȱ Âge:ȱ Étudeȱ historiqueȱ desȱ commentairesȱ surȱ lesȱ livresȱ VIIIȱ etȱ IXȱ deȱ l’Éthiqueȱ àȱ Nicomaque (XIIIè–XVèȱsiècle).ȱȱBibliothèqueȱd’histoireȱculturelleȱduȱMoyenȱÂgeȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2007);

350

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

withȱbutȱwasȱinȱpartȱengenderedȱbyȱanȱextraordinaryȱresurgenceȱofȱletterȬwriting. TheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱwasȱoneȱofȱthoseȱperiodsȱinȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱwhenȱtheȱarts ofȱepistolaryȱcompositionȱandȱtheȱcompilationȱforȱposterityȱofȱcollectionsȱofȱletters wereȱ regardedȱ asȱ theȱ highestȱ ofȱ literaryȱ accomplishments.2ȱ Lettersȱ wereȱ both vehiclesȱ forȱ theȱ eruditeȱ expressionȱ ofȱ idealȱ loveȱ andȱ theȱ mediumȱ ofȱ friendly exchange,ȱ connectingȱ bothȱ intellectualsȱ andȱ ideasȱ inȱ aȱ cultureȱ whereȱ mutual professionsȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ friendshipȱ becameȱ theȱ standardȱ currencyȱ ofȱ civilized discourse. Monasticȱ writersȱ madeȱ importantȱ contributionsȱ toȱ thisȱ cultureȱ ofȱ loveȱ and friendship.3ȱ Theȱ Cistercians’ȱ Cartaȱ Caritatisȱ (“Charterȱ ofȱ Love”),ȱ theȱ document whichȱsetȱoutȱtheȱorganizationalȱstructureȱofȱtheȱorder,ȱexpressedȱaȱnewȱvisionȱof monasticȱcommunitiesȱunited,ȱwhereverȱtheyȱwere,ȱbyȱpermanentȱtiesȱofȱlove.4 Loveȱ wasȱ thusȱ accordedȱ aȱ placeȱ evenȱ inȱ administrativeȱ dispositions.ȱ The CisterciansȱproclaimedȱthemselvesȱrestorersȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱpurityȱofȱtheȱRuleȱof SaintȱBenedict,ȱbutȱtheirȱarticulationȱofȱanȱasceticȱpietyȱgivenȱformȱbyȱloveȱwithin theȱ communityȱ isȱ profoundlyȱ differentȱ fromȱ theȱ toneȱ ofȱ impersonalȱ equality, withdrawal,ȱandȱselfȬabnegationȱofȱtheȱRule.5ȱStȱAnselm,ȱtheȱBenedictineȱabbotȱof BecȱandȱlaterȱarchbishopȱofȱCanterbury,ȱandȱoneȱofȱtheȱfewȱmedievalȱmonastic thinkersȱ generallyȱ accordedȱ aȱ centralȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ Western philosophicalȱthought,ȱmadeȱfriendshipȱintegralȱtoȱhisȱtheologyȱandȱhisȱmonastic philosophy,ȱdeveloping,ȱinȱaȱseriesȱofȱlettersȱtoȱhisȱmonks,ȱaȱnewȱidealȱofȱspiritual friendshipȱinȱwhichȱhumanȱrelationshipsȱwereȱtranscendedȱandȱbecameȱpartȱofȱthe

2

3

4

5

ClaudiaȱGarnier,ȱAmicusȱAmicisȱInimicusȱInimicis:ȱPolitischeȱFreundschaftȱundȱfürstlicheȱNetzwerkeȱim 13.ȱJahrhundert.ȱMonographienȱzurȱGeschichteȱdesȱMittelaltersȱ(Stuttgart:ȱAntonȱHiersemann, 2000);ȱseeȱalsoȱtheȱpapersȱcollectedȱinȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ(Stroud: Suttonȱ Publishing,ȱ 1999),ȱ andȱ theȱ bibliographyȱ inȱ progressȱ atȱ www.univie.ac.at/amicitiaȱ (last accessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010)ȱinȱassociationȱwithȱtheȱBritishȱAcademyȬsponsoredȱMedievalȱFriendship Networksȱproject.ȱTheȱclassicȱworkȱonȱreasonȱisȱAlexanderȱMurray,ȱReasonȱandȱSocietyȱinȱtheȱMiddle Agesȱȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱandȱnowȱRichardȱW.ȱSouthern,ȱScholasticȱHumanismȱandȱthe UnificationȱofȱEurope,ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ(OxfordȱandȱCambridgeȱMA:ȱBlackwell,ȱ1995,ȱ2001);ȱseeȱalsoȱthe overviewȱ ofȱ theȱ widerȱ literatureȱ inȱ Robertȱ N.ȱ Swanson,ȱ Theȱ TwelfthȬCenturyȱ Renaissanceȱ (ManchesterȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱManchesterȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999). SeeȱGilesȱConstable,ȱLettersȱandȱLetterȬCollections.ȱTypologieȱdesȱsourcesȱduȱMoyenȱÂgeȱoccidental, 17ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ1976);ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“Epistolography,”ȱȱMedievalȱLatin:ȱAnȱIntroduction andȱBibliographicalȱGuide,ȱed.ȱFrankȱA.ȱC.ȱMantelloȱandȱArthurȱG.ȱRiggȱ(Washington,ȱDC:ȱCatholic UniversityȱofȱAmericaȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ650–58. Theȱtwoȱmostȱinfluentialȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱthisȱaspectȱofȱmonasticȱcultureȱhaveȱbeen JeanȱLeclercq,ȱMonksȱandȱLoveȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱFranceȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱandȱBrian PatrickȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity:ȱTheȱMonasticȱExperienceȱ350–1250.ȱCistercianȱStudies Series,ȱ95ȱ(Kalamazoo:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1988). ForȱtheȱCartaȱCartitatis,seeȱLesȱPlusȱanciensȱtextesȱdeȱCîteaux,ȱed.ȱJeanȱdeȱlaȱCroixȱBoutonȱandȱJeanȬ Baptisteȱ Vanȱ Dammeȱ (Achel:ȱ Abbayeȱ Cistercienne,ȱ 1974),ȱ 132–42ȱ (cf.ȱ 107–25ȱ forȱ theȱ earlier recensionsȱandȱrelatedȱdocuments). SeeȱNewman,ȱTheȱBoundariesȱofȱCharity,ȱ42–66ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1).

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

351

ascentȱtoȱGod.6ȱAroundȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱtheȱEnglishȱCistercian abbotȱ Aelredȱ ofȱ Rievaulx,ȱ inȱ twoȱ treatises,ȱ gaveȱ definitiveȱ articulationȱ toȱ the monasticȱ idealȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ friendship.7ȱ Ifȱ caritasȱ wasȱ nowȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ the religiousȱ vocation,ȱ Aelred’sȱ Deȱ Speculoȱ Caritatisȱ (Theȱ Mirrorȱ ofȱ Charity)ȱ set friendshipȱinȱturnȱatȱtheȱheartȱofȱmonasticȱcaritas.8ȱInȱdoingȱso,ȱheȱoverturnedȱthe Rule’sȱprohibitionȱonȱspecialȱpersonalȱrelationshipsȱandȱsuspicionȱofȱfriendship.9ȱ Aroundȱtwoȱdecadesȱlater,ȱinȱaȱtreatiseȱoftenȱregardedȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱgreatȱearly contributionsȱtoȱEuropeanȱhumanisticȱliterature,ȱDeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitiaȱ(OnȱSpiritual Friendship),ȱ heȱ raisedȱ friendshipȱ toȱ aȱ newȱ levelȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ andȱ theological importance.ȱInȱtheȱprologueȱtoȱthisȱtreatiseȱAelredȱrelatedȱhowȱinȱhisȱyouthȱasȱa courtierȱheȱhadȱbeenȱbothȱinspiredȱandȱtroubledȱbyȱhisȱreadingȱofȱCicero’sȱtreatise DeȱAmicitiaȱ(OnȱFriendship),ȱandȱnowȱwishedȱtoȱformulateȱaȱChristianȱexpression ofȱthisȱattractiveȱyetȱdangerousȱpaganȱideal.10ȱCentralȱtoȱAelred’sȱsolutionȱwas againȱhisȱformulationȱofȱtheȱcriticalȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱChristianȱcaritasȱandȱthe friendshipȱtoȱwhichȱheȱwasȱsoȱattracted: Nonȱ enimȱ amicosȱ solum,ȱ sedȱ etȱ inimicosȱ sinuȱ dilectionisȱ excipere,ȱ caritatisȱ lege compellimur.ȱAmicosȱautemȱeosȱsolosȱdicimus,ȱquibusȱcorȱnostrum,ȱetȱquidquidȱinȱillo est,ȱcommittereȱnonȱformidamus;11 [Forȱweȱareȱcompelledȱbyȱtheȱlawȱofȱcharityȱtoȱreceiveȱinȱtheȱembraceȱofȱloveȱnotȱonly ourȱfriendsȱbutȱalsoȱourȱenemiesȱ[cf.ȱMatt.ȱ5:44;ȱLukeȱ6:27].ȱButȱonlyȱthoseȱdoȱweȱcall friendsȱtoȱwhomȱweȱcanȱfearlesslyȱentrustȱourȱheartȱandȱallȱitsȱsecrets.]12

6

7

8

9

10

11 12

SeeȱRichardȱW.ȱSouthern,ȱSaintȱAnselmȱandȱhisȱBiographer:ȱAȱStudyȱofȱMonasticȱLifeȱandȱThought 1059–c.1130ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1963),ȱ67–76,ȱid.,ȱSaintȱAnselm:ȱAȱPortrait inȱaȱLandscapeȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ138–65. Theȱtwoȱtreatises,ȱDeȱSpeculoȱCaritatisȱandȱDeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitia,ȱareȱbothȱed.ȱinȱAelrediȱRievallensis OperaȱOmniaȱ1.,ȱoperaȱascetica,ȱed.ȱA.ȱHosteȱandȱC.ȱH.ȱTalbot.ȱCorpusȱChristianorumȱContinuatio Medievalis,ȱ1ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ1971),ȱ2–161,ȱ279–350;ȱEnglishȱtranslations:ȱElizabethȱConnor, Aelredȱ ofȱ Rievaulx:ȱ Theȱ Mirrorȱ ofȱ Charity.ȱ Cistercianȱ Fathersȱ Series,ȱ 17ȱ (Kalamazoo:ȱ Cistercian Publications,ȱ1990);ȱMaryȱE.ȱLaker,ȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx:ȱSpiritualȱFriendship.ȱCistercianȱFathersȱSeries, 5ȱ(Kalamazoo:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1977). Theȱtreatiseȱhasȱthreeȱparts:ȱtheȱfirstȱtakesȱasȱitsȱstartingȱpointȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱselfȬlove andȱ theȱ loveȱ ofȱ Godȱ (theȱ traditionalȱ startingȱ pointȱ forȱ spiritualȱ ascentȱ literature,ȱ deriving ultimatelyȱfromȱtheȱRuleȱofȱSaintȱBenedict’sȱstepsȱofȱhumility),ȱtheȱsecondȱwithȱtheȱphysicalȱworks andȱ disciplineȱ ofȱ monasticȱ life,ȱ andȱ theȱ third,ȱ culminating,ȱ partȱ withȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ human relationshipsȱinȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱmonasticȱideals. Theȱ Ruleȱ doesȱ notȱ explicitlyȱ forbidȱ amicitia,ȱ butȱ itȱ placesȱ restrictionsȱ onȱ differentȱ aspectsȱ of personalȱrelationshipsȱ(especiallyȱinȱchaptersȱ2,ȱ54,ȱ63,ȱ69,ȱandȱ71)ȱandȱgivesȱfriendshipȱnoȱplace inȱmonasticȱlifeȱ(cf.ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱxivȱ[seeȱnoteȱ3]).ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱIntroduction toȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱAlbrechtȱClassen AelrediȱRievallensisȱOperaȱOmniaȱ1,ȱ287–88;ȱseeȱalsoȱPhilippeȱDelhaye,ȱ“DeuxȱadaptationsȱduȱDe AmicitiaȱdeȱCicéronȱauȱxiièȱsiècle,”ȱRecherchesȱdeȱThéologieȱancienneȱetȱmédiévaleȱ15ȱ(1948):ȱ304–31. DeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitiaȱI.ȱ32:ȱAelrediȱRievallensisȱOperaȱOmniaȱ1,ȱ294. Laker,ȱSpiritualȱFriendship,ȱ58ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ7).

352

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

ForȱAelred,ȱcaritas,ȱtheȱuniversalȱloveȱenjoinedȱasȱaȱdutyȱonȱallȱChristians,ȱwas requiredȱinȱtheȱfallenȱstateȱofȱhumanity,ȱbutȱamicitiaȱ(friendship)ȱwasȱtheȱoriginal bondȱwhichȱAdamȱandȱEveȱhadȱenjoyedȱwithȱGodȱandȱwhichȱtheȱangelsȱcontinued toȱenjoy;ȱandȱitȱisȱtoȱthisȱpureȱandȱoriginalȱfriendshipȱwhichȱallȱwhoȱareȱsavedȱwill ultimatelyȱ returnȱ “cumȱ haecȱ amicitiaȱ adȱ quamȱ hicȱ paucosȱ admittimus, transfundeturȱ inȱ omnes,ȱ etȱ abȱ omnibusȱ refundeturȱ inȱ Deum,ȱ cumȱ Deusȱ fuerit omniaȱinȱomnibusȱ[cf.ȱ1ȱCor.ȱ15:ȱ28]”ȱ(“whenȱthisȱfriendship,ȱtoȱwhichȱhereȱwe admitȱbutȱfew,ȱwillȱbeȱoutpouredȱuponȱall,ȱandȱbyȱallȱoutpouredȱuponȱGod,ȱand Godȱ shallȱ beȱ allȱ inȱ all”).13ȱ Inȱ theseȱ twoȱ worksȱ Aelredȱ thusȱ resolvedȱ the contradictionsȱbetweenȱtheȱhumanȱneedȱforȱfriendshipȱandȱtheȱRule’sȱprohibition ofȱ specialȱ personalȱ ties,ȱ andȱ betweenȱ Ciceronianȱ amicitiaȱ andȱ Christianȱ caritas, whileȱalsoȱtacklingȱtheȱpracticalȱproblemsȱofȱfriendshipȱwithinȱtheȱcommunity,ȱof abbatialȱauthority,ȱfavoritism,ȱandȱtheȱdangerȱofȱcliques,ȱwhichȱwereȱtheȱoriginal concernsȱ behindȱ theȱ Rule’sȱ prohibitions.ȱ Friendshipȱ nowȱ hadȱ anȱ ethically respectableȱandȱtheologicallyȱjustifiedȱplaceȱinȱmonasticȱphilosophy. ButȱAelred’sȱworkȱdoesȱnotȱconcludeȱtheȱquestionȱofȱmonasticȱloveȱandȱfriendship. Heȱpurportedlyȱcomposedȱhisȱfirstȱtreatiseȱonȱtheȱsubject,ȱsometimeȱaroundȱ1142, inȱresponseȱtoȱaȱletterȱfromȱhisȱ“mostȱlovingȱandȱbelovedȱfriend,”ȱ theȱ famous Abbotȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ askedȱ hisȱ “belovedȱ brother”ȱ Aelredȱ to composeȱ aȱ workȱ onȱ loveȱ toȱ answerȱ theȱ complaintsȱ ofȱ someȱ recentȱ converts strugglingȱwithȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱtheȱCistercianȱlife.14ȱThis,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱnotȱaȱreal request;ȱitȱwasȱaȱconventionalȱcontrivanceȱtoȱofferȱaȱdedicatoryȱletter,ȱandȱsoȱa publicȱsealȱofȱapproval,ȱforȱaȱworkȱwhichȱBernardȱknewȱwasȱwellȱadvanced.ȱThe letterȱwasȱtoȱstandȱatȱtheȱheadȱofȱtheȱtreatise,ȱbeforeȱAelred’sȱpreface.ȱWeȱdoȱnot knowȱ whatȱ theȱ personalȱ relationshipȱ wasȱ betweenȱ theȱ youngȱ Aelredȱ andȱ the greatestȱ Cistercianȱ leaderȱ thenȱ atȱ theȱ heightȱ ofȱ hisȱ influenceȱ andȱ international

13

14

DeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitiaȱIII.ȱ134;ȱtrans.ȱLaker,ȱSpiritualȱFriendship,ȱ132ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ7);ȱseeȱJulianȱHaseldine, “Friendship,ȱEqualityȱandȱUniversalȱHarmony:ȱTheȱUniversalȱandȱtheȱParticularȱinȱAelredȱof Rievaulx’sȱDeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitia,”ȱȱFriendshipȱEastȱandȱWest:ȱPhilosophicalȱPerspectives,ȱed.ȱȱOliver Leamanȱ(Richmond,ȱUK:ȱCurzon,ȱ1996),ȱ192–214. “Rogaviȱfraternitatemȱtuamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱutȱmihiȱpaucaȱquaedamȱscriberes,ȱinterȱquaeȱetiamȱquorumdam querimoniis,ȱquiȱdeȱremissioribusȱadȱartioraȱnituntur,ȱobviares”ȱ(“Iȱaskedȱyou,ȱmyȱbrother,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱto writeȱaȱlittleȱsomethingȱforȱmeȱinȱreplyȱtoȱtheȱcomplaintsȱofȱcertainȱ[monks]ȱwhoȱareȱstruggling fromȱmoreȱremissȱtoȱstricterȱways”).ȱTheȱletterȱprefacesȱtheȱDeȱSpeculoȱCaritatisȱ(AelrediȱRievallensis OperaȱOmniaȱ1,ȱ3–4)ȱandȱisȱalsoȱno.ȱ523ȱinȱtheȱmodernȱedn.ȱofȱtheȱlettersȱofȱStȱBernard:ȱSancti Bernardiȱ Opera,ȱ ed.ȱ Jeanȱ Leclercq,ȱ Henriȱ Rochais,ȱ Charlesȱ H.ȱ Talbot,ȱ 8ȱ vols.ȱ (Rome:ȱ Editiones Cistercineses,ȱ1957–1977)ȱ[hereafterȱSBO],ȱvols.ȱ7–8;ȱhereȱ8,ȱ486–89.ȱBernardȱsignsȱoffȱ“Valeȱin Christo,ȱdilecteȱfrater”ȱ(“FarewellȱinȱChrist,ȱdearȱbrother”),ȱandȱAelredȱaddressesȱBernardȱasȱ“mi amantissimeȱetȱdesideratissime”ȱ(“myȱmostȱlovingȱandȱbelovedȱfriend”)ȱinȱtheȱtreatiseȱitselfȱ(De SpeculoȱCaritatisȱI.26.76:ȱAelrediȱRievallensisȱOperaȱOmniaȱ1,ȱ45);ȱtranslationsȱConnor,ȱTheȱMirrorȱof Charity,ȱ69,ȱ72,ȱ131.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

353

prestige,ȱbutȱtheyȱhadȱonlyȱrecentlyȱmetȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱwhenȱAelredȱpassedȱby ClairvauxȱonȱhisȱwayȱtoȱRomeȱonȱhisȱabbot’sȱbusiness.15ȱ Bernardȱalsoȱhadȱotherȱconcernsȱthanȱstrugglingȱconverts:ȱheȱwasȱkeenȱtoȱdeflect criticismsȱofȱtheȱexcessiveȱausterityȱofȱtheȱCistercians.ȱThisȱwasȱpartȱofȱaȱwider seriesȱ ofȱ debatesȱ andȱ disputesȱ betweenȱ theȱ newȱ orders,ȱ particularlyȱ the Cistercians,ȱandȱtraditionalȱmonksȱoverȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱmonasticȱlifeȱandȱtheȱtrue interpretationȱ ofȱ theȱ Ruleȱ ofȱ Saintȱ Benedict.ȱ Theseȱ disputesȱ wereȱ veryȱ often formulatedȱinȱtermsȱofȱcaritas,ȱeachȱsideȱclaimingȱthatȱitsȱlifeȱbestȱembodiedȱthe idealsȱofȱmonasticȱcharity.ȱTheyȱwereȱalsoȱfuelledȱbyȱtheȱCistercians’ȱacceptingȱof monksȱfromȱotherȱorders.ȱTransitus,ȱorȱtransfer,ȱwasȱonlyȱpermittedȱifȱaȱmonk wishedȱ toȱ changeȱ toȱ aȱ stricterȱ observance;ȱ byȱ acceptingȱ suchȱ transfers,ȱ the Cisterciansȱwereȱlayingȱclaimȱtoȱaȱstricter,ȱandȱsoȱimplicitlyȱaȱsuperior,ȱlife,ȱand wereȱoftenȱaccusedȱinȱreturnȱofȱexcessiveȱausterityȱwhich,ȱinȱtheȱdemandsȱitȱplaced onȱmonks,ȱexceededȱtrueȱcaritas.16ȱBernardȱregularlyȱcalledȱuponȱhisȱfriendsȱand correspondentsȱ toȱ contributeȱ writingsȱ andȱ toȱ collaborateȱ withȱ himȱ inȱ the propagationȱofȱCistercianȱideals,ȱandȱAelred’sȱworkȱwasȱpartȱofȱhisȱweaponry.ȱWe knowȱalsoȱthatȱBernard,ȱlikeȱallȱmonasticȱletterȱwriters,ȱfrequentlyȱcalledȱfriends thoseȱtoȱwhomȱheȱcouldȱnot,ȱinȱAelred’sȱwords,ȱ“fearlesslyȱentrustȱ[his]ȱheartȱand allȱ itsȱ secrets,”ȱ oftenȱ addressingȱ strangersȱ andȱ evenȱ opponentsȱ inȱ apparently intimateȱterms.17ȱ Friendshipȱ wasȱ neverȱ restrictedȱ toȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ union,ȱ butȱ was routinelyȱinvokedȱinȱappeals,ȱpetitionsȱandȱdisputes;ȱbothȱAnselmȱandȱAelredȱhad themselvesȱ toȱ engageȱ constantlyȱ withȱ theȱ politicalȱ realitiesȱ ofȱ cultivatingȱ the friendshipsȱofȱtheȱalliesȱandȱpatronsȱofȱtheirȱinstitutions.18ȱAȱrangeȱofȱpolitical relationships,ȱallegiances,ȱandȱmutualȱunderstandingsȱcoexistedȱwithȱtheȱpersonal andȱtheȱspiritualȱunderȱtheȱnameȱofȱfriendship.ȱWhatȱthenȱwasȱtheȱrelationship betweenȱ theȱ “dearȱ brother”ȱ Aelredȱ andȱ hisȱ “mostȱ lovingȱ andȱ belovedȱ friend” 15

16

17 18

Theȱ(first)ȱabbotȱofȱRievaulxȱatȱtheȱtime,ȱWilliam,ȱwasȱBernard’sȱformerȱsecretary;ȱAelredȱwasȱpart ofȱaȱdelegationȱtoȱtheȱcuriaȱduringȱtheȱdisputeȱoverȱtheȱelectionȱtoȱtheȱseeȱofȱYorkȱinȱwhichȱthe Englishȱ Cisterciansȱ hadȱ aȱ strongȱ interestȱ andȱ wereȱ supportedȱ byȱ Bernardȱ (onȱ theȱ caseȱ and Bernard’sȱinvolvementȱseeȱSBOȱ8,ȱ491,ȱnoteȱtoȱl.ȱ3;ȱtheȱdisputeȱlastedȱfromȱ1140ȱtoȱ1147);ȱAelred himselfȱbecameȱabbotȱofȱRevesbyȱinȱ1143ȱandȱofȱRievaulxȱinȱ1147:ȱTheȱHeadsȱofȱReligiousȱHouses: EnglandȱandȱWales,ȱI.ȱ940–1216,ȱed.ȱDavidȱKnowles,ȱChristopherȱN.ȱL.ȱBrookeȱandȱVeraȱC.ȱM. London.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(1972;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ140. ThisȱisȱtheȱcontextȱforȱBernard’s,ȱthereforeȱratherȱpointed,ȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermsȱ“remissioribus”ȱand “artiora”ȱinȱhisȱletterȱtoȱAelredȱ(seeȱaboveȱnoteȱ14);ȱonȱtheȱdisputes,ȱseeȱDavidȱKnowles,ȱCistercians andȱCluniacs:ȱtheȱControversyȱbetweenȱStȱBernardȱandȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ 1955);ȱ A.ȱ H.ȱ Bredero,ȱ Clunyȱ etȱ Cîteauxȱ auȱ douzièmeȱ siècleȱ (Amsterdam:ȱ APAȬHolland UniversityȱPress,ȱ1985). Forȱfurtherȱdiscussions,ȱseeȱbelow. OnȱAnselmȱandȱpoliticalȱfriendship,ȱseeȱbelow;ȱAelred’sȱletterȱcollectionȱhasȱnotȱsurvived,ȱbutȱon hisȱpoliticalȱactivitiesȱseeȱPaulȱDalton,ȱ“ChurchmenȱandȱtheȱPromotionȱofȱPeaceȱinȱKingȱStephen’s Reign,”ȱViatorȱ31ȱ(2000):ȱ79–119.

354

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

Bernardȱwhichȱlayȱbehindȱtheȱproductionȱofȱtheȱgreatestȱtheoreticalȱexpressionȱof monasticȱfriendship,ȱandȱwhatȱdoesȱitȱtellȱusȱaboutȱtheȱwiderȱworldȱofȱfriendship inȱwhichȱitȱwasȱreceived? Aelred’sȱconcernsȱinȱtheȱDeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitiaȱwereȱprimarilyȱinternal:ȱtheȱtreatise dealsȱwithȱtheȱinnerȱlifeȱofȱtheȱmonasticȱcommunity.ȱTheyȱwereȱalsoȱinternalȱin another,ȱmoreȱpersonalȱsenseȱtoo,ȱasȱheȱstroveȱtoȱresolveȱhisȱyouthfulȱattractions toȱCiceroȱandȱtoȱhumanȱfriendshipȱwithȱhisȱmonasticȱvocation.ȱBernard’sȱconcerns wereȱexternal,ȱwithȱtheȱorder,ȱitsȱimage,ȱitsȱappeal,ȱandȱitsȱrelationsȱwithȱother monasticȱhousesȱandȱorders.ȱTheȱcircumstancesȱofȱhisȱletterȱtoȱAelredȱopenȱup differentȱ vistasȱ onȱ friendshipȱ allowingȱ usȱ toȱ seeȱ somethingȱ ofȱ theȱ mechanics behindȱtheȱtransmissionȱofȱideas,ȱsomethingȱperhapsȱofȱaȱpropagandaȱnetwork, butȱalsoȱofȱtheȱwiderȱcontextȱinȱwhichȱideasȱofȱfriendshipȱcouldȱbeȱrelevant.ȱThat AelredȱbeganȱtoȱcirculateȱhisȱideasȱunderȱBernard’sȱauspicesȱshowsȱthatȱtheyȱhad aȱwiderȱresonance;ȱnorȱwereȱtheseȱinternalȱandȱexternalȱconcernsȱantipatheticȱor simplyȱseparate.ȱ Theȱ Cisterciansȱ hadȱ rejectedȱ childȱ oblation,ȱ theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ acceptingȱ young childrenȱ toȱ beȱ broughtȱ upȱ asȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ andȱ reliedȱ forȱ their survivalȱandȱgrowthȱonȱadultȱconverts;ȱmoreȱfundamentally,ȱtheyȱbelievedȱinȱtheir visionȱofȱmonasticismȱasȱaȱnecessaryȱrevivalȱofȱtheȱhighestȱChristianȱvocation. Promotingȱtheȱidealsȱofȱtheȱorderȱandȱdefendingȱitsȱimageȱwasȱnotȱaȱcynicalȱactȱof partisanȱrivalry.19ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱideaȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱdrewȱitsȱpower fromȱtheȱfactȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱaȱremoteȱtheologicalȱabstractionȱbutȱaȱhighlyȱidealized versionȱofȱwhatȱwasȱaȱrealȱandȱpervasiveȱsocialȱbondȱandȱthusȱdrewȱonȱnotionsȱof societyȱandȱhumanȱrelationsȱtoȱwhichȱmostȱpeopleȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱrelate, andȱwhichȱwereȱpartȱofȱtheȱsharedȱworldȬviewȱandȱsocialȱexperienceȱofȱmonks enteringȱ theȱ cloister.ȱ Weȱ knowȱ aȱ lotȱ aboutȱ theȱ theoryȱ andȱ idealsȱ ofȱ spiritual friendshipȱfromȱtheȱrichȱliteratureȱwhichȱhasȱsurvivedȱbutȱlessȱaboutȱtheȱsocial realityȱtoȱwhichȱitȱwasȱpartlyȱaȱresponse.20 Lettersȱ areȱ theȱ keyȱ toȱ understandingȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ monastic theoryȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtheȱsocialȱpracticesȱthatȱgaveȱitȱbirthȱandȱmeaning.ȱThey wereȱtheȱmediumȱofȱliterateȱfriendlyȱexchange,ȱoftenȱthemselvesȱtreatedȱasȱtokens ofȱfriendship,ȱwhileȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtheyȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱvehiclesȱforȱtheȱerudite expressionȱofȱideasȱaboutȱfriendship.ȱLettersȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱhighlyȱconventionalȱin theirȱformsȱandȱexpressions,ȱandȱalmostȱallȱofȱthoseȱthatȱsurviveȱdoȱsoȱinȱletter 19

20

Forȱ aȱ reȬappraisalȱ ofȱ Cistercianȱ ideals,ȱ includingȱ aȱ reȬassessmentȱ ofȱ theȱ traditionalȱ pictureȱ of successȱbringingȱmoralȱdecline,ȱseeȱNewman,ȱTheȱBoundariesȱofȱCharityȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1). GerdȱAlthoff,ȱVerwandte,ȱFreundeȱundȱGetreue:ȱZumȱpolitischenȱStellenwertȱderȱGruppenbindungenȱim früherenȱMittelalterȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftlicheȱBuchgesellschaft,ȱ1990)ȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱmodern studyȱtoȱmoveȱbeyondȱtraditionalȱnotionsȱofȱtheȱPersonenverbandsstaatȱandȱtoȱexamineȱfriendship asȱanȱintegralȱaspectȱofȱmoreȱcomplexȱpoliticalȱstructures;ȱforȱlaterȱworkȱrelatingȱspecificallyȱto monasticȱpolitics,ȱseeȱbelowȱ(noteȱ157).

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

355

collections,ȱhighlyȱselectiveȱcompilationsȱpreserved,ȱandȱoftenȱedited,ȱtoȱpresent aȱcarefullyȱcontrolledȱimageȱofȱtheȱauthorȱforȱposterity.ȱTheyȱareȱnotȱspontaneous outpouringsȱofȱemotionȱandȱwereȱnormallyȱintendedȱforȱaȱwiderȱaudienceȱthanȱthe recipientȱalone.21ȱWhenȱconsideringȱtheȱindividualȱrelationshipsȱforȱwhichȱletters provideȱevidence,ȱandȱtheȱexpressionsȱofȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱtheyȱcontain,ȱitȱis necessaryȱ toȱ considerȱ carefullyȱ theȱ balanceȱ whichȱ theyȱ necessarilyȱ embody betweenȱconventionȱandȱaffection.ȱLettersȱalsoȱofferȱanotherȱperspectiveȱonȱthe formulationȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtraditionalȱmonasticȱcaritasȱandȱtheȱmore selectiveȱ loveȱ andȱ friendshipȱ withȱ theirȱ widerȱ layȱ contextȱ andȱ preȬChristian history,ȱparticularlyȱwhereȱexternalȱrelations,ȱwithȱotherȱcommunitiesȱandȱwithȱthe nonȬmonasticȱworld,ȱareȱconcerned.22 Letterȱ collectionsȱ wereȱ producedȱ inȱ unprecedentedȱ numbersȱ inȱ theȱ twelfth century.ȱ Theseȱ wereȱ mostlyȱ byȱ monasticȱ andȱ ecclesiasticalȱ authors,ȱ butȱ very substantialȱcollectionsȱofȱpapalȱandȱroyalȱcorrespondenceȱsurviveȱandȱthereȱisȱalso evidenceȱofȱwiderȱlayȱparticipationȱinȱepistolaryȱculture.23ȱTheȱcontentsȱofȱthese collectionsȱrangedȱfromȱeruditeȱdiscoursesȱonȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱandȱlengthy spiritualȱexhortationsȱorȱmeditationsȱtoȱtheologicalȱdisputes,ȱpoliticalȱpropaganda, legalȱbusiness,ȱandȱappealsȱandȱpetitions.ȱInȱwhatȱfollows,ȱIȱwillȱlookȱatȱtheȱculture ofȱ friendshipȱ asȱ reflectedȱ inȱ threeȱ ofȱ theȱ greatestȱ monasticȱ letterȱ collections producedȱatȱtheȱheightȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱrenaissanceȱinȱtheȱgenerationsȱafter AnselmȱandȱbroadlyȱcontemporaneousȱwithȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱthoseȱofȱBernard ofȱClairvaux,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱandȱPeterȱofȱCelle.24 Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ wasȱ theȱ dominantȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ monasticism;ȱ his politicalȱinfluenceȱacrossȱEuropeȱbecameȱproverbialȱandȱhisȱnameȱsynonymous withȱtheȱgreatestȱperiodȱofȱCistercianȱexpansion.ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱabbotȱof Cluny,ȱ Bernard’sȱ contemporary,ȱ correspondent,ȱ andȱ opponentȱ inȱ theȱ famous 21

22 23

24

Seeȱ Constable,ȱ Lettersȱ andȱ Letterȱ Collections;ȱ Julianȱ Haseldine,ȱ “Theȱ Creationȱ ofȱ aȱ Literary Memorial:ȱTheȱLetterȱCollectionȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle,”ȱSacrisȱErudiriȱ37ȱ(1997):ȱ333–79. Seeȱbelowȱpp. SeeȱConstable,ȱLettersȱandȱLetterȱCollections,ȱ31–38;ȱonȱlayȱparticipationȱinȱepistolaryȱculture,ȱsee DavidȱCrouch,ȱ“BetweenȱThreeȱRealms:ȱTheȱActsȱofȱWaleranȱII,ȱCountȱofȱMeulanȱandȱWorcester,” Records,ȱAdministrationȱandȱAristocraticȱSocietyȱinȱtheȱAngloȬNormanȱRealm,ȱed.ȱDavidȱCrookȱand NicholasȱVincentȱ(Woodbridge,ȱUK:ȱBoydell,ȱ2009),ȱ75–90. TheȱlettersȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱareȱed.ȱinȱSBOȱ7–8;ȱmostȱareȱtrans.ȱinȱBrunoȱScottȱJames,ȱThe LettersȱofȱStȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱintroductionȱ[andȱwithȱadditionalȱmaterial]ȱbyȱBeverly M.ȱKienzleȱ(Stroud:ȱSutton,ȱ1998)ȱ[hereafterȱBSJ];ȱadditionalȱandȱupdatedȱannotationȱisȱprovided inȱ Opereȱ diȱ Sanȱ Bernardoȱ VIȱ 1/2ȱ (Lettere),ȱ ed.ȱ Ferruccioȱ Gastaldelliȱ (Milan:ȱ Scriptorium Claravallense,ȱFondazioneȱdiȱStudiȱCisterciensi,ȱ1986–1987).ȱForȱtheȱlettersȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable, seeȱTheȱLettersȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱed.ȱGilesȱConstable,ȱ2ȱvols.ȱHarvardȱHistoricalȱStudies,ȱ78 (Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1967)ȱ[hereafterȱLPV]ȱ(thereȱisȱcurrentlyȱnoȱcomplete Englishȱtrans.);ȱandȱforȱtheȱlettersȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldine. OxfordȱMedievalȱTextsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001)ȱ[hereafterȱLPC]ȱ(withȱfacingȬpage trans.).ȱȱOrthographyȱofȱquotationsȱfollowsȱtheseȱeditions;ȱtranslationsȱnotȱacknowledgedȱareȱmy own.

356

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

CistercianȬCluniacȱ disputes,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ hisȱ professedȱ friend,ȱ wasȱ theȱ headȱ of Europe’sȱ largestȱ monasticȱ congregationȱ andȱ theȱ leadingȱ figureȱ ofȱ traditional monasticism,ȱandȱperhapsȱtheȱonlyȱmonasticȱfigureȱofȱaȱcomparableȱstatureȱand influenceȱtoȱBernard.ȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱBenedictineȱabbotȱsuccessivelyȱofȱMontierȬlaȬ CelleȱandȱSaintȬRémi,ȱReims,ȱinȱtheȱnextȱgeneration,ȱandȱaȱcorrespondentȱinȱhis earlyȱyearsȱofȱbothȱolderȱmen,ȱwasȱfamousȱforȱhisȱcultivationȱofȱrelationsȱwith differentȱmonasticȱordersȱandȱhisȱpromotionȱofȱtheȱidealsȱofȱmonasticȱharmony; hisȱlettersȱexemplifyȱmoreȱthanȱanyȱothersȱtheȱeruditeȱandȱenlightenedȱpursuitȱof loveȱandȱfriendship.25ȱTheseȱcollectionsȱareȱdirectlyȱcomparableȱinȱaȱnumberȱof ways:ȱtheyȱareȱeachȱsender’sȱcollections,ȱcontainingȱmostlyȱlettersȱbyȱtheȱauthor withȱveryȱfewȱrepliesȱorȱlettersȱreceived;ȱtheyȱwereȱallȱcompiledȱduringȱorȱshortly afterȱ theȱ authors’ȱ lifetimesȱ byȱ theirȱ ownȱ closestȱ followers,ȱ andȱ allȱ areȱ highly selective,ȱshowingȱaȱclearȱbiasȱtowardsȱreligiousȱcorrespondents.26 Suchȱcollectionsȱofferȱtheȱmostȱimportantȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱmonasticȱcultureȱof friendshipȱbeyondȱthatȱofȱtheȱtreatises,ȱwithȱtheirȱconcernȱforȱtheȱinnerȱlifeȱofȱthe monasticȱcommunity.ȱThis,ȱhowever,ȱisȱemphaticallyȱnotȱevidenceȱsimplyȱofȱreal relationshipsȱtoȱbeȱsetȱagainstȱidealȱorȱtheoreticalȱformulations;ȱletters,ȱasȱweȱhave seen,ȱ wereȱ alwaysȱ toȱ someȱ degreeȱ literaryȱ andȱ publicȱ inȱ theirȱ originsȱ and conception.ȱRatherȱletterȱcollectionsȱofferȱevidence,ȱfirstly,ȱforȱtheȱprofessionȱof friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ stylizedȱ andȱ publicȱ exchangesȱ inȱ whichȱ monasticȱ leaders routinelyȱ participated,ȱ secondlyȱ forȱ theȱ activeȱ cultivationȱ andȱ maintenanceȱ of formalȱfriendshipȱbonds,ȱandȱthirdlyȱforȱtheȱpracticalȱconsequencesȱorȱusesȱofȱsuch bondsȱinȱdiplomacy,ȱpolitics,ȱpatronage,ȱallegiance,ȱorȱdisputeȱresolution,ȱandȱin theȱpromotionȱofȱwiderȱinstitutionalȱinterests.

TheȱProfessionȱofȱFriendship St.ȱAnselm’sȱoriginalȱlettersȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱcomposedȱmostlyȱinȱtheȱlater yearsȱofȱtheȱeleventhȱcentury,ȱwereȱcharacterizedȱbyȱRichardȱW.ȱSouthern,ȱtheir mostȱ acuteȱ andȱ rigorousȱ modernȱ commentator,ȱ asȱ ecstaticȱ evocationsȱ of inexpressibleȱfeeling.27ȱTheyȱwereȱaddressedȱtoȱhisȱformerȱmonks,ȱbothȱthoseȱwho 25

26

27

Bernard,ȱabbotȱofȱClairvauxȱ1115–1153;ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱabbotȱofȱClunyȱ1122–1156ȱ(LPVȱȱ2, 258–69);ȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Celle,ȱ abbotȱ ofȱ MontierȬlaȬCelleȱ 1145–1162,ȱ abbotȱ ofȱ SaintȬRémi,ȱ Reims 1162–1181,ȱbishopȱofȱChartresȱ1181–1203ȱ(LPC,ȱxxxi). Seeȱ SBOȱ 7,ȱ ix–xxiv,ȱ andȱ 8,ȱ 233–38,ȱ 451–52;ȱ Jeanȱ Leclercq,ȱ “Lettresȱ deȱ S.ȱ Bernard:ȱ Histoireȱ ou littérature?”ȱid.,ȱRecueilȱd’étudesȱsurȱsaintȱBernardȱetȱsesȱécrits,ȱ4ȱvols.ȱ(Rome:ȱEdizioniȱdiȱStoriaȱe letterature,ȱ1962–1987),ȱ4,ȱ125–225;ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ45–80;ȱGilesȱConstable,ȱ“OnȱEditingȱtheȱLettersȱofȱPeter theȱ Venerable,”ȱ Quellenȱ undȱ Forschungenȱ ausȱ italienischenȱ Archivenȱ undȱ Bibliothekenȱ 54ȱ (1974): 483–508;ȱLPCȱxxxiv–liii;ȱHaseldine,ȱ“TheȱCreationȱofȱaȱLiteraryȱMemorial”ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ21).ȱ Southern,ȱSaintȱAnselmȱandȱhisȱBiographer,ȱ67–76ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ6);ȱid,ȱSaintȱAnselm:ȱAȱȱPortraitȱinȱa Landscapeȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ138–65.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

357

hadȱ leftȱ toȱ takeȱ upȱ positionsȱ elsewhereȱ andȱ laterȱ thoseȱ whomȱ heȱ himselfȱ left behindȱ whenȱ heȱ becameȱ archbishopȱ ofȱ Canterbury,ȱ andȱ mostlyȱ tookȱ asȱ their startingȱpointȱtheȱpainȱofȱseparation.ȱAnȱextractȱfromȱaȱletterȱtoȱoneȱsuchȱformer monk,ȱ Gilbertȱ Crispin,ȱ thenȱ abbotȱ ofȱ Westminster,ȱ illustratesȱ theȱ toneȱ andȱ the intenseȱphysicalȱimageryȱofȱtheseȱletters: Siȱ velimȱ scribereȱ mutuaeȱ nostraeȱ dilectionisȱ affectum,ȱ timeoȱ neȱ autȱ videarȱ ab ignorantibusȱ veritatemȱ excedere,ȱ autȱ necesseȱ sitȱ aliquidȱ veritatiȱ subtrahere.ȱ Qui affectusȱquantusȱetȱquamȱverusȱsitȱcumȱmultumȱcognoscerem,ȱquandoȱseseȱoculoȱad oculum,ȱosculoȱadȱosculum,ȱamplexusȱadȱamplexumȱostenderet:ȱnuncȱmultoȱmagis experior,ȱ cumȱ abesseȱ illumȱ irrecuperabiliter,ȱ inȱ quoȱ tantaȱ iucunditateȱ delectabar, intueorȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱQuoniamȱergoȱnecȱscribiȱsufficienterȱpotestȱquidȱnobisȱinvicemȱsit,ȱnec ignorantiȱloquor,ȱhisȱinterimȱomissisȱoroȱvobiscum,ȱutȱaliquandoȱnosȱinvicemȱvidentes oculoȱadȱoculum,ȱosculoȱadȱosculum,ȱamplexuȱadȱamplexumȱnonȱoblitumȱamorem recolamus.28 [IfȱIȱwishedȱtoȱwriteȱaboutȱtheȱaffectionȱofȱourȱmutualȱloveȱIȱwouldȱbeȱafraidȱeitherȱof appearingȱtoȱthoseȱignorantȱofȱitȱtoȱoverstepȱtheȱtruth,ȱorȱofȱbeingȱforcedȱtoȱdetract somethingȱfromȱtruth.ȱIȱoftenȱperceivedȱhowȱgreatȱandȱhowȱtrueȱthisȱaffectionȱwas whenȱ itȱ displayedȱ itselfȱ faceȱ toȱ face,ȱ lipȱ toȱ lip,ȱ embraceȱ toȱ embrace:ȱ nowȱ whenȱ I contemplateȱhowȱheȱinȱwhomȱIȱdelightedȱwithȱsuchȱjoyȱisȱirretrievablyȱlost,ȱIȱrealize itȱmore.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSince,ȱtherefore,ȱitȱisȱnotȱpossibleȱtoȱexpressȱadequatelyȱinȱwritingȱwhatȱwe meanȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱandȱsinceȱIȱamȱnotȱspeakingȱtoȱsomeoneȱwhoȱisȱignorantȱofȱthis, leavingȱallȱthisȱasideȱforȱtheȱmoment,ȱIȱprayȱwithȱyouȱthatȱwhenȱweȱseeȱeachȱother againȱweȱshouldȱonceȱmoreȱrevive,ȱfaceȱtoȱface,ȱlipȱtoȱlip,ȱembraceȱtoȱembrace,ȱour unforgottenȱlove.]29

Theȱdisconcertingȱproblemȱwhenȱtryingȱtoȱunderstandȱtheȱsentimentsȱexpressed inȱtheseȱletters,ȱhowever,ȱasȱSouthernȱnoted,ȱwasȱthatȱAnselmȱdirectedȱexactlyȱthe sameȱsortȱofȱlanguageȱtoȱotherȱrecipientsȱwhomȱheȱknewȱfarȱlessȱwellȱpersonally, includingȱthoseȱheȱhadȱneverȱmet,ȱandȱalsoȱonȱoccasionȱtoȱtheȱentireȱcommunity. ForȱAnselmȱthisȱecstaticȱloveȱwasȱanȱintellectualȱconceptȱarticulatingȱtheȱuniversal divineȱloveȱwhichȱultimatelyȱtranscendedȱtheȱindividualȱhumanȱrelationshipsȱof theȱmonasticȱcommunityȱandȱwasȱrealizedȱinȱ theȱ ascentȱtoȱGod;ȱitȱwasȱnotȱan expressionȱofȱaȱparticularȱorȱuniqueȱloveȱforȱanyȱoneȱperson.30ȱAnselm’sȱlettersȱof spiritualȱ friendship,ȱ likeȱ Aelred’sȱ treatises,ȱ wereȱ alsoȱ concernedȱ withȱ internal problems;ȱtheseȱwereȱlettersȱtoȱhisȱformerȱcompanionsȱinȱreligionȱwhichȱsoughtȱto resolveȱtheȱtensionsȱbetweenȱpersonalȱhumanȱfeelings,ȱlifeȱinȱaȱcommunity,ȱand theȱidealsȱofȱtheȱmonasticȱvocation.ȱTheyȱareȱdifferentȱfromȱmostȱofȱtheȱletters 28

29

30

StȱAnselm,ȱletterȱ130,ȱS.ȱAnselmiȱCantuariensisȱArchiepiscopiȱOperaȱOmnia,ȱ6ȱvols.,ȱed.ȱFranciscusȱS. Schmittȱ(Edinburgh:ȱNelson,ȱ1946–1961);ȱhereȱ3,ȱ272–73. TheȱLettersȱofȱSaintȱAnselmȱofȱCanterbury,ȱ3ȱvols.,ȱtrans.ȱWalterȱFröhlich.ȱCistercianȱStudiesȱSeries, 96,ȱ97,ȱ142,ȱ(Kalamazoo:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1990–1994),ȱ1,ȱ305. Southern,ȱSaintȱAnselm:ȱAȱPortraitȱinȱaȱLandscapeȱ(seeȱnoteȱ6),ȱ143–47,ȱ161–65.

358

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

foundȱinȱotherȱcollections,ȱandȱareȱindeedȱinȱtheȱminorityȱinȱhisȱownȱcollection.31 ButȱtheȱimplicationȱofȱSouthern’sȱobservationsȱandȱconclusions,ȱthatȱemotionalȬ soundingȱlanguageȱcannotȱonȱitsȱownȱbeȱtakenȱasȱevidenceȱofȱstrongȱpersonal feelings,ȱappliesȱtoȱallȱtypesȱofȱlettersȱofȱfriendship.ȱ Laterȱmonasticȱletterȱcollectionsȱcontainȱrelativelyȱfewȱpassagesȱofȱtheȱsustained emotionalȱ intensityȱ ofȱ Anselm’sȱ spiritualȱ letters,ȱ evenȱ inȱ lettersȱ ofȱ loveȱ and friendshipȱ toȱ absentȱ friends,ȱ butȱ theyȱ doȱ containȱ veryȱ manyȱ declarationsȱ of friendshipȱ oftenȱ couchedȱ inȱ termsȱ thatȱ seemȱ extravagantȱ andȱ sentimentalȱ to modernȱ tastes,ȱ andȱ theseȱ areȱ likewiseȱ addressedȱ toȱ manyȱ differentȱ typesȱ of acquaintance.ȱTheirȱtypicalȱexpressionsȱofȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱareȱlessȱcharged, moreȱ measuredȱ reassurancesȱ ofȱ continuedȱ friendship.ȱ Inȱ oneȱ letterȱ toȱ an anonymousȱfriendȱwhoȱhadȱevidentlyȱfearedȱestrangement,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux wrote: Cumȱomniȱfiduciaȱamicumȱmeumȱnonȱreposcoȱutique,ȱsedȱteneo,ȱnecȱrecipio,ȱquiaȱnon amisi.ȱStringoȱbrachiisȱmedullisȱinfixumȱcordisȱetȱnonȱestȱquiȱdeȱsinuȱmeoȱpossitȱeruere [cf.ȱ Deut.ȱ 32:39].ȱ Novumȱ exȱ antiquoȱ amplectorȱ amicum,ȱ quiaȱ veraeȱ amicitiaeȱ non veterascunt,ȱautȱveraeȱnonȱfuerunt.ȱTenebamȱeumȱnecȱdimittam,ȱdonecȱintroducam illumȱinȱdomumȱmatrisȱmeaeȱetȱinȱcubiculumȱgenitricisȱmeaeȱ[Cant.ȱ3:ȱ4].ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱvester sumȱetȱeroȱquamdiuȱero.32 [Iȱdoȱnotȱaskȱforȱmyȱfriendȱback,ȱbecauseȱIȱamȱconfidentȱthatȱIȱholdȱhim;ȱIȱdoȱnot receiveȱhimȱbackȱbecauseȱIȱhaveȱneverȱlostȱhim.ȱIȱclingȱtoȱhim,ȱandȱthereȱisȱnoȱoneȱwho canȱtakeȱhimȱfromȱme.ȱIȱembraceȱagainȱasȱofȱoldȱmyȱfriendȱbecauseȱtrueȱfriendships neverȱgrowȱold,ȱelseȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱtrueȱfriendships.ȱIȱshallȱholdȱonȱtoȱhimȱandȱ“Iȱshall notȱsufferȱhimȱtoȱgoȱuntilȱIȱbringȱhimȱintoȱmyȱmother’sȱhouseȱandȱintoȱtheȱchamberȱof herȱthatȱboreȱme.”ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱȱIȱamȱyoursȱandȱshallȱbeȱyoursȱasȱlongȱasȱIȱlive.]33

Theȱbondȱholdingȱthemȱtogetherȱisȱtrueȱfriendshipȱ(veraȱamicitia),ȱwhichȱnever growsȱold.ȱTheȱconceptȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱasȱanȱeternal,ȱunchangingȱbondȱgoes backȱ toȱ ancientȱ theory,ȱ whereȱ itȱ wasȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ aspectȱ ofȱ naturalȱ virtue,ȱ a phenomenonȱexternalȱtoȱtheȱindividualȱandȱunderstoodȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱnatural forcesȱofȱuniversalȱharmony,ȱandȱwhichȱatȱtheȱhumanȱlevelȱunitedȱtheȱvirtuousȱto theȱpublicȱgood.ȱThisȱwasȱwellȬknownȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱfromȱCicero’sȱportrayal ofȱdisinterestedȱfriendshipȱwhichȱbenefittedȱtheȱresȱpublica,ȱandȱwasȱappropriated byȱChristianȱwritersȱasȱanȱextensionȱofȱdivineȱgrace.ȱItȱwasȱnaturalȱvirtueȱorȱdivine graceȱwhichȱdistinguishedȱtrueȱfromȱfalseȱfriendship,ȱnotȱprivateȱinnerȱfeelingsȱor strongȱemotions,ȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱtheȱmarkȱofȱeither.34ȱ 31 32 33 34

OnȱAnselm’sȱattitudeȱtoȱpoliticalȱorȱpragmaticȱfriendships,ȱseeȱbelow. Letterȱ506:ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ464. Trans.ȱadaptedȱfromȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ89),ȱ128. Forȱmedievalȱadaptationsȱofȱclassicalȱideasȱofȱfriendshipȱseeȱe.g.ȱJamesȱMcEvoy,ȱ“TheȱTheoryȱof FriendshipȱinȱtheȱLatinȱMiddleȱAges:ȱHermeneutics,ȱContextualizationȱandȱtheȱTransmissionȱand ReceptionȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱandȱIdeas,ȱfromȱc.ȱADȱ350ȱtoȱc.ȱ1500,”ȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

359

Trueȱfriendshipȱoperatedȱforȱtheȱgeneralȱgood,ȱfalseȱfriendshipȱforȱprivateȱgain, andȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwasȱsubjectȱtoȱlaws,ȱoneȱofȱwhichȱwas,ȱasȱBernardȱrepeatsȱhere, thatȱitȱcouldȱneverȱfail,ȱorȱifȱitȱdidȱtheȱfailureȱrevealedȱthatȱtheȱfriendshipȱhadȱnever beenȱ true.ȱ Thisȱ analytical,ȱ almostȱ technicalȱ reassuranceȱ contrastsȱ sharplyȱ with Anselm’sȱ evocationȱ ofȱ anȱ inexpressibleȱ emotionȱ andȱ hisȱ appealȱ toȱ shared experienceȱwhereȱlanguageȱfallsȱshort.ȱWhenȱBernardȱgoesȱonȱtoȱtalkȱofȱbringing hisȱfriendȱintoȱtheȱbedchamberȱofȱhisȱmotherȱheȱisȱquotingȱfromȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs, theȱbookȱtoȱwhichȱheȱdevotedȱtheȱcycleȱofȱeightyȬsixȱsermonsȱwhichȱwasȱoneȱofȱthe greatȱlaborsȱofȱhisȱlife.35ȱHeȱhimselfȱinterpretedȱthisȱpassageȱinȱtermsȱofȱuniversal, shared,ȱunselfishȱlove:ȱtheȱwordsȱareȱthoseȱofȱtheȱChurch,ȱwhoȱholdsȱandȱisȱheld byȱChristȱinȱlove;ȱtheȱmotherȱisȱtheȱSynagogue,ȱorȱtheȱJews,ȱtoȱwhoseȱhouseȱthe ChurchȱwillȱleadȱChrist,ȱtherebyȱextendingȱtoȱthemȱsalvation;ȱbutȱsheȱwillȱlead Christȱnotȱjustȱtoȱtheȱhouseȱbutȱtoȱtheȱbedchamber,ȱwhichȱdenotesȱspecialȱgrace, thusȱ sharingȱ universallyȱ notȱ justȱ salvationȱ butȱ theȱ loveȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ sharingȱ her BridegroomȱwithȱthoseȱnowȱoutsideȱtheȱChurch.36ȱThusȱwhileȱtheȱvocabularyȱof theseȱ lettersȱ resemblesȱ theȱ modernȱ lexiconȱ ofȱ intimacy,ȱ privacy,ȱ andȱ torrid emotion,ȱtheȱtermsȱofȱreferenceȱareȱthoseȱofȱcoolȱreassurance,ȱsharedȱlove,ȱand universalȱdivineȱgrace. ItȱhasȱbeenȱsuggestedȱthatȱthisȱletterȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱaddressedȱtoȱWilliamȱof SaintȬThierry,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ Bernard’sȱ mostȱ ardentȱ admirers,ȱ aȱ frequentȱ visitorȱ to Clairvauxȱ andȱ eventuallyȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ biographers.37ȱ Otherȱ lettersȱ certainly addressedȱtoȱWilliamȱfurtherȱillustrateȱtheȱtoneȱofȱepistolaryȱexchangesȱbetween closeȱ friends.ȱ Inȱ oneȱ suchȱ letterȱ Bernardȱ isȱ evidentlyȱ replyingȱ toȱ William’s accusationȱ(William’sȱletterȱdoesȱnotȱsurvive)ȱthatȱBernardȱlovesȱhimȱlessȱthanȱhe lovesȱBernardȱandȱdoesȱnotȱreplyȱtoȱhisȱletters.ȱSuchȱcomplaintsȱaboutȱtheȱfailures ofȱfriendsȱtoȱwriteȱorȱvisitȱrecurȱagainȱandȱagainȱinȱletterȱcollectionsȱofȱthisȱperiod

35 36

37

ed.ȱHaseldine,ȱ3–44;ȱJanȱM.ȱZiolkowski,ȱ“TwelfthȬCenturyȱUnderstandingsȱandȱAdaptationsȱof Ancientȱ Friendship,”ȱ Mediaevalȱ Antiquity,ȱ ed.ȱ Wernerȱ Verbeke,ȱ Hermanȱ Braetȱ andȱ Andries Welkenhuysen.ȱMedievaliaȱLovaniensia,ȱser.ȱ1,ȱstud.ȱ24ȱ(Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995), 59–81;ȱtheȱfoundationalȱstudyȱofȱclassicalȱamicitiaȱremainsȱPeterȱA.ȱBrunt,ȱ“AmicitiaȱinȱtheȱLate RomanȱRepublic,”ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱCambridgeȱPhilologicalȱSociety,ȱn.s.ȱ2,ȱ191ȱ(1965):ȱ1–20. SermonesȱsuperȱCanticaȱCanticorum,ȱSBOȱvols.ȱ1–2. Serm.ȱsuperȱCant.ȱ79:ȱ4–7;ȱtheȱbedroomȱalsoȱrepresentsȱtheȱmysteryȱofȱdivineȱcontemplationȱin Serm.ȱ23:3. Onȱtheȱidentificationȱofȱthisȱrecipient,ȱseeȱGastaldelli,ȱOpereȱdiȱSanȱBernardo,ȱVI/2,ȱ668,ȱn.ȱ1,ȱandȱthe discussionȱinȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱandȱNetworksȱinȱtheȱLettersȱofȱBernardȱof Clairvaux,”ȱCîteaux:ȱCommentariiȱCisterciensesȱ57ȱ(2006):ȱ243–80;ȱhereȱ271,ȱn.ȱ151.ȱWilliamȱofȱSaintȬ ThierryȱwasȱaȱcommittedȱreformerȱandȱproȬCistercianȱwhoȱwantedȱtoȱleaveȱhisȱabbacyȱandȱenter ClairvauxȱafterȱhisȱfirstȱmeetingȱwithȱBernardȱca.1120,ȱaȱmoveȱwhichȱBernardȱopposed;ȱheȱfinally joinedȱtheȱorderȱ15ȱyearsȱlater;ȱheȱwasȱtheȱauthor,ȱamongȱmanyȱotherȱworks,ȱofȱtheȱfirstȱpartȱof theȱVitaȱPrimaȱofȱBernard;ȱseeȱJeanȬMarieȱDéchanet,ȱGuillaumeȱdeȱSaintȬThierry:ȱl’Hommeȱetȱson oeuvre.ȱBibliotheъqueȱmeыdieыvale,ȱspirituelsȱpreыscolastiques,ȱ1,ȱ(Bruges:ȱCharlesȱBeyaert,ȱ1942).

360

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

andȱwereȱpartȱofȱaȱlanguageȱofȱjokingȱandȱbanterȱwhichȱwasȱfarȱmoreȱcommon thanȱexpressionsȱofȱemotionalȱintensity.38ȱ Bernard’sȱreplyȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱseriesȱofȱlegalȱmetaphors,ȱquestioningȱWilliam’s groundsȱforȱhisȱchargeȱandȱaskingȱforȱproof.ȱSuchȱcleverȱconceitsȱareȱagainȱvery commonȱinȱlettersȱofȱfriendship.39ȱBernardȱthenȱmakesȱaȱkeyȱchangeȱtoȱaȱmore seriousȱ spiritualȱ tone,ȱ butȱ againȱ articulatesȱ hisȱ loveȱ notȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ powerful personalȱemotionsȱbutȱofȱrationalȱanalysisȱofȱitsȱdivineȱbasis,ȱaddressingȱtoȱGod notȱWilliamȱhisȱdoubtsȱaboutȱwhetherȱheȱlovesȱWilliamȱenough—onlyȱGodȱcan enlightenȱhimȱonȱthisȱpoint;ȱhisȱownȱfeelingsȱareȱnoȱguide.ȱBernard’sȱultimate professionȱ ofȱ loveȱ combinesȱ carefulȱ scholasticȱ reasoningȱ andȱ conventional monasticȱhumility: Vaeȱetenimȱmihi,ȱsi,ȱquodȱvaldeȱvereor,ȱautȱegoȱplusȱabȱilloȱquamȱmerui,ȱautȱilleȱaȱme minusȱquamȱdignusȱsitȱdiligatur.ȱVerumtamenȱsiȱmelioresȱmagisȱdiligendiȱsunt—sunt autemȱmelioresȱquiȱmagisȱdiligunt—quidȱaliudȱdixerimȱquamȱillumȱplusȱmeȱdiligere, quemȱmelioremȱesseȱnonȱdubito,ȱmeȱveroȱminusȱillumȱquamȱdebeo,ȱquiaȱminusȱvaleo? Sedȱquantoȱinȱte—tibi,ȱpater,ȱdico—maiorȱestȱcaritas,ȱtantoȱminusȱcontemnendaȱestȱa teȱnostraȱpossibilitas,ȱquiaȱetsiȱplusȱdiligis,ȱquoniamȱplusȱvales,ȱnonȱtamenȱplusȱdiligis quamȱ vales.ȱ Nosȱ autem,ȱ etsiȱ minusȱ diligimusȱ quamȱ debemus,ȱ diligimusȱ tamen quantumȱvalemus;ȱtantumȱautemȱvalemus,ȱquantumȱaccepimus.40 [Woeȱisȱme,ȱifȱ(asȱIȱgreatlyȱfear)ȱIȱamȱeitherȱlovedȱbyȱthisȱmanȱmoreȱthanȱIȱdeserveȱor loveȱhimȱlessȱthanȱheȱdeserves.ȱIfȱtheȱbetterȱaȱmanȱisȱtheȱmoreȱheȱshouldȱbeȱloved,ȱbut theyȱareȱtheȱbetterȱwhoȱloveȱtheȱmore,ȱwhatȱelseȱcanȱIȱsayȱthanȱthatȱIȱmustȱloveȱhim moreȱthanȱmyself,ȱbecauseȱIȱhaveȱnoȱdoubtȱthatȱheȱisȱbetterȱthanȱmyself,ȱbutȱlessȱthan Iȱshould,ȱbecauseȱIȱamȱcapableȱofȱless?ȱButȱ(itȱisȱyouȱIȱnowȱaddress,ȱmyȱfatherȱ[i.e. William])ȱthatȱyourȱcharityȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱmineȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱreasonȱwhyȱyouȱshould notȱdespiseȱmyȱsmallerȱcapacity,ȱbecauseȱalthoughȱyouȱloveȱmoreȱthanȱIȱdo,ȱyouȱdoȱnot loveȱmoreȱthanȱyouȱareȱable.ȱAndȱIȱtoo,ȱalthoughȱIȱloveȱyouȱlessȱthanȱIȱshould,ȱyetȱI loveȱyouȱasȱmuchȱasȱIȱcanȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱpowerȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱgivenȱme.]41

Williamȱ wasȱ alsoȱ oneȱ ofȱ Bernard’sȱ literaryȱ collaborators;ȱ heȱ effectively commissionedȱ Bernard’sȱ greatȱ defenceȱ ofȱ theȱ Cistercianȱ life,ȱ theȱ Apologiaȱ ad Guillelmumȱ abbatam,ȱ andȱ evidentlyȱ readȱ draftsȱ ofȱ theȱ workȱ inȱ preparation.42 Bernardȱfrequentlyȱaddressedȱexpressionsȱofȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱtoȱthoseȱwith 38

39 40 41 42

SeeȱRonaldȱE.ȱPepin,ȱ“Amicitiaȱiocosa:ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱandȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,”ȱFlorilegiumȱ5ȱ(1983): 140–56;ȱChristopherȱBrookeȱalsoȱcharacterizedȱsomeȱofȱGilbertȱFoliot’sȱlettersȱasȱ“aȱpasticheȱof elaborateȱandȱallusiveȱbanterȱ[which]ȱtheȱrulesȱ[ofȱletterȱwriting]ȱmadeȱfashionableȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱwhich wasȱappropriateȱbetweenȱoldȱorȱcloseȱfriends”:ȱGilbertȱFoliotȱandȱhisȱLetters,ȱed.ȱAdrianȱMoreyȱand ChristopherȱN.ȱL.ȱBrookeȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1965),ȱ13. Seeȱbelow. Letterȱ85,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ222. BSJȱ(no.ȱ87),ȱ126–27. Apologiaȱ adȱ Guillelmumȱ abbatamȱ (Anȱ Apologiaȱ forȱ Abbotȱ William),ȱ SBOȱ 3,ȱ 61–108;ȱ onȱ William’s involvement,ȱseeȱlettersȱ84bis,ȱ85,ȱ88–89ȱ(SBOȱ7,ȱ219–23,ȱ232–27).

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

361

whomȱheȱcollaboratedȱinȱthisȱwayȱorȱexchangedȱtexts.ȱNotȱallȱofȱtheseȱwereȱas closeȱ toȱ himȱ personallyȱ asȱ William,ȱ forȱ whom,ȱ Bernardȱ toldȱ another correspondent,ȱheȱwouldȱ“gladlyȱlayȱbareȱ[his]ȱwholeȱsoul.”43ȱForȱexample,ȱasȱwe haveȱseen,ȱheȱknewȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱonlyȱfleetingly.ȱHeȱalsoȱcorrespondedȱand exchangedȱbooksȱwithȱanotherȱfriend,ȱPeter,ȱcardinalȱdeaconȱofȱS.ȱMariaȱinȱVia Lata,ȱbeforeȱtheyȱhadȱmetȱinȱperson.ȱInȱtheseȱlettersȱBernardȱdevelopedȱtheȱsame themes,ȱfromȱaȱslightlyȱdifferentȱperspective,ȱofȱdueȱbalanceȱinȱreciprocalȱloveȱand loveȱinȱproportionȱtoȱmerit: Cumȱ totumȱ meȱ dederoȱ vobis,ȱ parumȱ estȱ utȱ digneȱ mihiȱ videarȱ recompensasseȱ vel dimidiumȱ benevolentiae,ȱ quamȱ ergaȱ nostramȱ humilitatemȱ habereȱ vosȱ aiuntȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ . Probate,ȱ siȱ placet,ȱ etȱ aestimate,ȱ quatenusȱ amorȱ velȱ favorȱ vesterȱ etȱ iustus,ȱ etȱ eoȱ sit ampliusȱamicoȱgratus,ȱquoȱproȱmeritisȱmoderatusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.44 [EvenȱwereȱIȱableȱtoȱgiveȱmyselfȱwhollyȱtoȱyou,ȱitȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱmeȱaȱlittleȱenough returnȱforȱevenȱaȱsmallȱpartȱofȱtheȱfavorȱwithȱwhich,ȱIȱamȱtold,ȱyouȱregardȱmeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Judgeȱforȱyourself,ȱIȱbegȱyou,ȱandȱconsiderȱhowȱfarȱyourȱloveȱandȱfavorȱareȱdeserved. Iȱ assureȱ youȱ thatȱ theyȱ willȱ beȱ moreȱ pleasingȱ toȱ me,ȱ yourȱ friend,ȱ ifȱ theyȱ areȱ in proportionȱtoȱmyȱmeritsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]45

Forȱlettersȱwrittenȱtoȱaȱcloseȱacquaintanceȱandȱtoȱaȱcompleteȱstrangerȱtheȱtoneȱis remarkablyȱsimilar,ȱandȱmanyȱofȱBernard’sȱlettersȱtoȱhisȱotherȱliteraryȱcontacts developȱtheȱsameȱthemes.46ȱTheȱcommonȱfactorȱhereȱbehindȱtheseȱexpressionsȱof friendshipȱwasȱevidentlyȱnotȱpersonalȱclosenessȱbutȱliteraryȱcollaboration. Bernard’sȱlettersȱtoȱformerȱmonksȱnowȱseparatedȱfromȱhimȱseemȱalsoȱratherȱcool. WhenȱtheȱmonkȱRainaldȱwasȱsentȱfromȱClairvauxȱtoȱbeȱtheȱfirstȱabbotȱofȱFoigny, heȱevidentlyȱwroteȱbackȱaȱnumberȱofȱlettersȱtoȱBernardȱgrievingȱatȱtheirȱseparation andȱtellingȱhisȱtroubles.ȱBernard’sȱfirstȱreplyȱconsistsȱofȱaȱlengthyȱrefutationȱofȱthe honorableȱtitlesȱandȱpraiseȱwhichȱRainaldȱhasȱaddressedȱtoȱhimȱfollowedȱbyȱthe ratherȱterseȱpostscript: Iamȱveroȱutȱadȱreliquaȱepistolaeȱtuaeȱrespondeam,ȱeamdem,ȱquamȱtuȱdeȱmei,ȱpossem etȱegoȱvicissimȱdeȱtuiȱabsentiaȱnonȱimmeritoȱfacereȱquerimoniam:ȱnisiȱquiaȱnostris, quodȱ ipseȱ nonȱ negas,ȱ etȱ affectibusȱ etȱ profectibusȱ Deiȱ estȱ praeponendaȱ voluntas.

43

44 45 46

“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱabbasȱdeȱSanctoȱTheoderocoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcuiȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱanimusȱquoqueȱmeusȱtotum,ȱsiȱposset,ȱexpanderetȱ. .ȱ.”:ȱletterȱ88ȱ(SBOȱ7,ȱ234),ȱtoȱOgerȱofȱMontȬSaintȬÉloi;ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ91),ȱ136. Letterȱ18,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ66,ȱ68;ȱtheȱlettersȱtoȱPeterȱareȱnos.ȱ16–19. BSJȱ(no.ȱ19),ȱ52,ȱ54. Cf.,ȱe.g.,ȱletterȱ90ȱtoȱOgerȱofȱMontȬSaintȬÉloi,ȱtoȱwhomȱBernardȱalsoȱsentȱaȱdraftȱofȱhisȱApologia;ȱon Bernard’sȱexceptionallyȱconsistentȱuseȱofȱfriendlyȱlanguageȱtoȱhisȱliteraryȱcollaborators,ȱandȱon theȱevidenceȱforȱhisȱrelationsȱwithȱPeter,ȱcardinalȱdeaconȱofȱS.ȱMariaȱinȱViaȱLataȱ(1126–1127/1128), andȱlaterȱcardinalȱpriestȱofȱS.ȱAnastasiaȱ(1127/1128–1131),ȱseeȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱand Networks,”ȱ266,ȱ271–72ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ37);ȱseeȱalsoȱlettersȱ84bis,ȱ87–90,ȱ153–54,ȱ398.

362

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine Alioquinȱquandoȱegoȱteȱcomitemȱmihiȱcarissimumȱvaldequeȱnecessariumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpaterer longeȱfieriȱaȱme,ȱsiȱnonȱessetȱChristusȱinȱcausa?47 [Toȱanswerȱtheȱrestȱofȱyourȱletter.ȱIȱcouldȱmakeȱjustȱasȱwellȱtheȱsameȱcomplaintȱabout yourȱabsenceȱasȱyouȱdoȱaboutȱmine,ȱunlessȱ(whichȱyouȱyourselfȱwillȱnotȱdeny)ȱtheȱwill ofȱGodȱmustȱbeȱpreferredȱtoȱourȱownȱfeelingsȱandȱneed.ȱHow,ȱwereȱitȱnotȱforȱChrist’s sake,ȱcouldȱIȱsufferȱyouȱtoȱbeȱsoȱfarȱawayȱfromȱme,ȱyouȱwhoȱareȱmyȱdearestȱandȱmost necessaryȱcompanionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ?]48

ItȱisȱnotȱthatȱBernardȱdoesȱnotȱacknowledgeȱtheȱfriendshipȱandȱpain,ȱhereȱandȱin hisȱotherȱlettersȱtoȱRainald,ȱbutȱheȱseemsȱtoȱdoȱlittleȱmoreȱandȱtheȱrealȱemphasis isȱonȱtheȱdutyȱwhichȱhasȱdrawnȱthemȱapart;ȱhisȱlastȱpreservedȱletterȱtoȱRainald endsȱwithȱaȱcurtȱrequestȱthatȱheȱreturnȱaȱbook.49ȱWhereȱBernardȱdoesȱwriteȱwith apparentȱemotionalȱintensityȱisȱinȱlettersȱtoȱnobleȱladies.ȱHere,ȱhowever,ȱinȱsuch prominentȱinclusionsȱinȱtheȱofficialȱcollection,ȱthereȱcanȱbeȱnoȱquestionȱofȱintimate personalȱrelations;ȱratherȱBernardȱwasȱpresentingȱhimselfȱasȱaȱspiritualȱadvisor.50 TheȱfirstȱofȱhisȱlettersȱtoȱErmengarde,ȱtheȱformerȱcountessȱofȱBrittanyȱwhoȱhad enteredȱreligiousȱlife,ȱechoesȱsomethingȱofȱtheȱecstaticȱlanguageȱofȱAnselmȱwhile alsoȱmakingȱclearȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱneverȱme Utinamȱsicutȱchartamȱnuncȱpraesentem,ȱitaȱetȱmeamȱtibiȱmentemȱexpandereȱpossem! Oȱ siȱ legereȱ possesȱ inȱ cordeȱ meo,ȱ quodȱ ibiȱ deȱ amoreȱ tuoȱ suoȱ digitoȱ Deusȱ scribere dignatusȱest!ȱCerteȱagnosceresȱquamȱnullaȱlinguaȱvelȱpennaȱsufficiatȱexprimere,ȱquod inȱintimisȱmihiȱmedullisȱDeiȱspiritusȱimprimereȱpotuit.ȱEtȱnuncȱquidemȱpraesensȱsum spiritu,ȱlicetȱcorporeȱabsens;ȱsedȱnecȱmihi,ȱnecȱtibiȱestȱundeȱappaream.ȱEstȱtamenȱpenes te,ȱundeȱpossisȱdeȱmeȱutcumqueȱconicere,ȱestiȱnondumȱcognoscere,ȱquodȱdico.ȱIntra ergoȱcorȱtuumȱetȱinspiceȱmeum,ȱetȱvelȱtantumȱmihiȱtribueȱamorisȱergaȱte,ȱquantumȱtibi ergaȱmeȱinesseȱsentis,ȱneȱsiȱnosȱquidemȱminus,ȱteȱveroȱampliusȱamareȱpraesumpseris, eoȱteȱnobisȱpraeferreȱputeris,ȱquoȱetȱvincereȱnosȱcaritateȱputaveris.51 [IȱwishȱIȱcouldȱfindȱwordsȱtoȱexpressȱwhatȱIȱfeelȱtowardsȱyou!ȱIfȱyouȱcouldȱbutȱreadȱin myȱheartȱhowȱgreatȱanȱaffectionȱforȱyouȱtheȱfingerȱofȱGodȱhasȱthereȱinscribed,ȱthenȱyou wouldȱsurelyȱseeȱhowȱnoȱtongueȱcouldȱexpressȱandȱnoȱpenȱdescribeȱwhatȱtheȱspiritȱof Godȱhasȱbeenȱableȱtoȱinscribeȱthere.ȱAbsentȱfromȱyouȱinȱbody,ȱIȱamȱalwaysȱpresentȱto youȱinȱspiritȱand,ȱalthoughȱneitherȱofȱusȱcanȱcomeȱtoȱtheȱother,ȱyetȱyouȱhaveȱitȱwithin yourȱpower,ȱnotȱyetȱindeedȱtoȱknowȱme,ȱbutȱatȱanyȱrateȱtoȱguessȱsomethingȱofȱwhatȱI feel.ȱDoȱnotȱeverȱsupposeȱthatȱyourȱaffectionȱforȱmeȱisȱgreaterȱthanȱmineȱforȱyou,ȱand soȱbelieveȱyourselfȱsuperiorȱtoȱmeȱinasmuchȱasȱyouȱthinkȱyourȱloveȱsurpassesȱmine.

47 48 49

50

51

Letterȱ72ȱ(SBOȱ7,ȱ178). BSJȱ(no.ȱ75),ȱ106. Letterȱ74ȱ(SBOȱ7,ȱ181);ȱcf.ȱalsoȱtheȱlettersȱtoȱformerȱmonksȱnos.ȱ201ȱtoȱBaldwinȱofȱRieti,ȱ324ȱto RobertȱofȱDunes,ȱandȱ505ȱtoȱBaldwin,ȱarchbishopȱofȱPisa. StȱJeromeȱprovidedȱtheȱbestȬknownȱPatristicȱmodelȱofȱaȱmaleȱreligiousȱfigureȱwritingȱtoȱpious womenȱasȱaȱspiritualȱadvisorȱorȱdirector. Letterȱ116:ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ296;ȱtheȱotherȱletterȱtoȱErmengardeȱisȱno.ȱ117.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

363

Searchȱyourȱheartȱandȱyouȱwillȱfindȱmineȱthereȱtooȱandȱascribeȱtoȱmeȱatȱleastȱasȱgreat anȱaffectionȱforȱyouȱasȱyouȱfindȱthereȱforȱme.]52

Bernardȱisȱableȱtoȱexpressȱsuchȱwarmth,ȱitȱseems,ȱwhenȱtheȱepistolaryȱcontextȱand socialȱsituationȱprecludeȱanyȱintimationȱofȱstrongȱpersonalȱfeelings.53 Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ professionsȱ ofȱ loveȱ inȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerable’sȱ correspondenceȱ are likewiseȱemotionallyȱratherȱcool,ȱmainlyȱagainȱreassurancesȱofȱcontinuingȱlove mixedȱwithȱtheȱubiquitousȱmockȱcomplaintsȱoverȱfailuresȱtoȱwriteȱorȱvisit.ȱInȱsome casesȱtheyȱseemȱdistinctlyȱimpersonal.ȱWhenȱPeterȱwroteȱtoȱexpressȱhisȱgriefȱatȱthe imminentȱdepartureȱforȱtheȱHolyȱLandȱofȱtheȱCluniacȱcardinalȱAlbericȱofȱOstia,ȱa manȱheȱdescribedȱasȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtamȱintimoȱfratreȱetȱamico”54ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsoȱintimateȱaȱbrother andȱ friend”),ȱ heȱ lamented,ȱ inȱ termsȱ thatȱ hardlyȱ suggestȱ aȱ uniquelyȱ intimate relationshipȱwithȱAlberic,ȱthatȱtheȱlossȱwouldȱleaveȱClunyȱpracticallyȱfriendlessȱin theȱcuria—personalȱandȱcorporateȱfriendshipȱareȱbarelyȱdistinguished:ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱdolemusȱtamen,ȱquodȱeumȱ[Alberic]ȱquemȱsolumȱordinisȱetȱcordisȱnostriȱsolatium postȱ illumȱ magnaeȱ etȱ piaeȱ memoriaeȱ Matheumȱ episcopumȱ inȱ Romanoȱ palatio habebamus,ȱquasiȱamisimus.55 [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱyetȱweȱgrieveȱthatȱweȱhaveȱasȱitȱwereȱlostȱhimȱ[Alberic],ȱwhoȱwas,ȱafterȱbishop Matthewȱ[ofȱAlbano]ȱofȱgreatȱandȱpiousȱmemory,ȱtheȱonlyȱsolaceȱofȱourȱorderȱandȱof ourȱheartȱinȱtheȱRomanȱcuria.]

AȱletterȱtoȱtheȱformerȱCluniac,ȱandȱaȱpersonalȱacquaintanceȱofȱlongȱstanding,ȱBasil, priorȱ ofȱ Laȱ Grandeȱ Chartreuse,ȱ isȱ similarlyȱ hardlyȱ expressiveȱ ofȱ aȱ uniquely intimateȱrelationship;ȱPeterȱsaysȱthatȱheȱwishesȱtoȱtakeȱupȱwithȱBasil, .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ antiquasȱ illasȱ etȱ sanctasȱ felicisȱ memoriaeȱ dominiȱ Guigonisȱ praedecessorisȱ tui mecumȱ sepeȱ habitasȱ collationes,ȱ quibusȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ omniumȱ peneȱ humanarumȱ rerumȱ [cf. Cicero,ȱdeȱAmicitia,ȱvi.ȱ20]ȱoblivisciȱcogebar.56 [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthoseȱformerȱandȱblessedȱdiscussionsȱwhichȱIȱwasȱaccustomedȱtoȱhaveȱwithȱyour predecessorȱofȱhappyȱmemoryȱlordȱGuigo,ȱbyȱwhichȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱwasȱinducedȱtoȱforgetȱalmost allȱhumanȱcares.]

52 53 54 55

56

BSJȱ(no.ȱ119),ȱ181. Cf.ȱalsoȱletterȱ118ȱtoȱBeatriceȱofȱVilleȬsousȬLaȬFerté,ȱaȱlocalȱnoblewomanȱandȱbenefactor. Letterȱ84,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ221. LPVȱ1,ȱ221.ȱMatthewȱofȱAlbanoȱdiedȱinȱ1135;ȱAlbericȱwasȱinȱtheȱHolyȱLandȱMayȱ1140–Sept.ȱ1141; whenȱthisȱletterȱwasȱwritten,ȱonlyȱoneȱotherȱCluniacȱcardinal,ȱAdenulfȱofȱFarfa,ȱremained;ȱonȱthe CluniacȱcardinalsȱduringȱPeter’sȱabbacy,ȱseeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ293–95.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱoccasionȱwhere Peterȱrefersȱtoȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱorder;ȱonȱcorporateȱandȱcollectiveȱfriendships,ȱseeȱbelow. Letterȱ186;ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ435ȱ(citationȱofȱCiceroȱmyȱown.)ȱOnȱcollationes,ȱM.ȱTeeuwen,ȱTheȱVocabularyȱof IntellectualȱLifeȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ2003),ȱ232–34.ȱSeeȱalsoȱlettersȱ186–87ȱ(LPV 1,ȱ434–36),ȱandȱonȱBasilȱ(priorȱ1151–1173/1174),ȱibid.ȱ2,ȱ221.

364

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

AȱnotableȱexceptionȱhoweverȱisȱhisȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱBishopȱHatoȱofȱTroyes. Aȱ largeȱ numberȱ ofȱ lettersȱ toȱ Hatoȱ areȱ preservedȱ along,ȱ unusually,ȱ withȱ three replies.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theseȱ areȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ friendlyȱ sentimentsȱ withȱ veryȱ few referencesȱtoȱbusinessȱandȱinȱmostȱthereȱareȱlengthyȱpassagesȱdevotedȱexplicitly toȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendship;ȱtogetherȱtheyȱrepresentȱoneȱofȱtheȱrichestȱexamples ofȱaȱpurelyȱfriendlyȱcorrespondenceȱinȱaȱletterȱcollectionȱofȱthisȱperiod.57ȱWhileȱthe premiseȱofȱtheȱopeningȱletterȱisȱtheȱconventionalȱoneȱofȱHato’sȱfailureȱtoȱwriteȱand maintainȱfriendship,ȱthisȱleadsȱonȱtoȱsomeȱmoreȱthanȱconventionallyȱemotional evocationsȱ ofȱ griefȱ andȱ love.ȱ Inȱ placeȱ ofȱ theȱ coolȱ reassurancesȱ andȱ scholastic conceitsȱofȱmanyȱotherȱletters,ȱthereȱisȱhereȱsomethingȱcloseȱtoȱAnselm’sȱintense, rhythmical,ȱ repetitiveȱ language,ȱ andȱ crescendosȱ ofȱ imageryȱ evocativeȱ of inexpressibleȱfeelings.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱpreservedȱletter,ȱPeterȱlaments: Rerumȱnaturaȱmutataȱest;ȱoriensȱinȱoccasumȱconversusȱest;ȱignisȱpraevalidusȱsubito extinctusȱest;ȱfunisȱargenteusȱruptusȱestȱ[cf.ȱEccles.ȱ12:6];ȱamicusȱabȱamicoȱdisiunctus est.ȱOȱamicitia,ȱresȱinterȱmortalesȱadmodumȱpreciosa,ȱsedȱquantoȱcarior,ȱtantoȱrarior, quoȱabisti?ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[afterȱaȱseriesȱofȱimagesȱofȱunnaturalȱseparationȱandȱdiscord,ȱheȱasks rhetoricallyȱwhatȱhisȱcomplaintsȱreferȱto:]ȱSedȱquorsumȱista?ȱTe,ȱteȱinquamȱrespiciunt olimȱunanimisȱamice,ȱaliquandoȱkarissime,ȱetȱiuxtaȱFlaccumȱnonȱquidemȱnunc,ȱsed quondamȱ“amimaeȱdimidiumȱmeae”ȱ[Horace,ȱCarmina,ȱI,ȱiii,ȱ8.].58 [Theȱnatureȱofȱthingsȱhasȱbeenȱchanged;ȱtheȱrisingȱsunȱhasȱfallenȱfromȱtheȱsky;ȱthe strongȱflameȱisȱsuddenlyȱextinguished;ȱ“theȱsilverȱchainȱhasȱbeenȱbroken;”ȱaȱfriendȱhas beenȱ separatedȱ fromȱ aȱ friend.ȱ Oȱ friendship,ȱ youȱ whoȱ areȱ soȱ veryȱ preciousȱ among mortals,ȱbutȱtheȱmoreȱpreciousȱtheȱrarerȱyouȱare,ȱwhereȱhaveȱyouȱgone?ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱButȱwhere isȱthisȱleading?ȱItȱconcernsȱyou,ȱyouȱIȱsay,ȱonceȱaȱsingleȬsouledȱfriend,ȱonceȱmostȱdear, and,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱHorace,ȱnotȱindeedȱnowȱbutȱonce,ȱ“theȱhalfȱofȱmyȱsoul”.]59

Butȱagainȱthisȱlanguageȱhasȱaȱwiderȱcontext.ȱWeȱdoȱnotȱknowȱhowȱHatoȱandȱPeter becameȱacquainted,ȱhowȱfrequentlyȱtheyȱmet,ȱorȱindeedȱhowȱwellȱtheyȱknewȱone another;ȱasȱsoȱoftenȱweȱhaveȱonlyȱtheȱinconclusiveȱguideȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱitself.60 Butȱtheseȱlettersȱdoȱtellȱaȱstory.ȱHatoȱeventuallyȱretiredȱtoȱCluny,ȱandȱso,ȱwhatever theȱ personalȱ relationshipȱ behindȱ them,ȱ theyȱ mayȱ wellȱ haveȱ beenȱ chosenȱ for inclusionȱinȱtheȱcollectionȱasȱmemorialsȱofȱaȱCluniacȱtriumph,ȱtheȱrecruitmentȱto theȱorderȱofȱaȱfamouslyȱpiousȱbishop.ȱIndeedȱKnightȱhasȱinterpretedȱthisȱentire exchangeȱ asȱ anȱ exemplaryȱ andȱ extendedȱ formȱ ofȱ recruitmentȱ orȱ conversion correspondence.61ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ aȱ recognizedȱ andȱ relativelyȱ commonȱ typeȱ ofȱ letter 57 58 59

60

61

Lettersȱ5–7,ȱ18,ȱ22,ȱ69,ȱ70,ȱ81,ȱ86,ȱ95,ȱ121;ȱrepliesȱ71,ȱ85ȱ&ȱ96. Letterȱ5ȱ(LPVȱ1,ȱ9–10). TranslationȱbasedȱinȱpartȱonȱGillianȱR.ȱKnight,ȱ“UsesȱandȱAbusesȱofȱamicitia:ȱtheȱCorrespondence BetweenȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱHatoȱofȱTroyes,”ȱReadingȱMedievalȱStudiesȱ33ȱ(1997):ȱ35–67;ȱhere 39–41,ȱwhereȱtheȱimageryȱandȱallusionsȱareȱdiscussedȱinȱdetail. HatoȱwasȱnotȱaȱformerȱCluniacȱmonkȱasȱwasȱonceȱbelieved;ȱonȱhisȱlifeȱandȱrelationsȱwithȱCluny, seeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ97–98. Knight,ȱ“UsesȱandȱAbuses”ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ59).

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

365

foundȱ inȱ manyȱ monasticȱ collections,ȱ writtenȱ toȱ persuadeȱ potentialȱ convertsȱ to enterȱanȱorderȱorȱtoȱholdȱthemȱtoȱearlierȱpromisesȱtoȱdoȱso.62ȱ Furthermore,ȱinȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱcollectionȱsuchȱlettersȱareȱalmostȱalways associatedȱwithȱfriendlyȱlanguage,ȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱthatȱinȱBernard’sȱcaseȱmost literaryȱcollaborators,ȱwhateverȱtheirȱdegreeȱofȱpersonalȱacquaintanceȱtoȱhim,ȱare calledȱfriends.63ȱRecruitmentȱlettersȱareȱnotȱincludedȱinȱletterȱcollectionsȱbyȱchance, anyȱmoreȱthanȱanyȱotherȱtypeȱofȱletter;ȱbeyondȱtheȱmessageȱtoȱtheȱrecipient,ȱthey areȱ alsoȱ aȱ vehicleȱ forȱ theȱ promotionȱ ofȱ theȱ idealsȱ ofȱ theȱ order.ȱ Theȱ friendly languageȱwhichȱbothȱBernardȱandȱPeterȱusedȱinȱtheseȱdifferentȱcontexts,ȱthen, seemsȱ notȱ toȱ pointȱ toȱ privateȱ attachmentsȱ butȱ toȱ serveȱ toȱ advertiseȱ common adherenceȱtoȱsharedȱidealsȱorȱcooperationȱinȱpromotingȱthoseȱideals.ȱWhatever communicationsȱwereȱoriginallyȱexchangedȱbetweenȱPeterȱandȱHato,ȱandȱwhy, Knight’sȱargumentsȱofferȱaȱcredibleȱexplanationȱforȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱlettersȱto himȱinȱtheȱofficialȱcollection,ȱandȱthusȱforȱtheirȱsurvivalȱandȱforȱtheirȱfinalȱform andȱ content.ȱ Evenȱ ifȱ oneȱ didȱ notȱ acceptȱ herȱ specificȱ argument,ȱ anȱ equivalent explanationȱ wouldȱ stillȱ beȱ neededȱ toȱ account,ȱ notȱ necessarilyȱ forȱ theȱ original compositionȱofȱtheseȱletters,ȱbutȱforȱtheirȱselectionȱandȱsurvivalȱandȱsoȱforȱtheir widerȱfunction.64 Peterȱ ofȱ Celleȱ wasȱ muchȱ moreȱ prolificȱ inȱ hisȱ invocationsȱ ofȱ amicitia,ȱ andȱ his collectionȱincludesȱmanyȱmoreȱexchangesȱwithȱthoseȱwhomȱweȱknowȱtoȱhaveȱbeen hisȱ closeȱ personalȱ friendsȱ overȱ manyȱ years.ȱ Butȱ theseȱ exchangesȱ areȱ still characterizedȱnotȱbyȱemotionallyȱintenseȱlanguageȱbutȱbyȱcleverȱconceits,ȱwitty banter,ȱandȱelaborateȱmetaphors,ȱandȱdevelopȱmanyȱofȱtheȱsameȱthemesȱwhichȱwe haveȱseenȱinȱtheȱearlierȱcollections—theȱlawsȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱbalancesȱandȱjust limitsȱinȱreciprocalȱfriendship,ȱassurancesȱofȱfriendshipȱenduringȱinȱabsence,ȱand, asȱever,ȱtheȱfamiliarȱmockȱrebukesȱforȱfailingȱinȱtheȱdutiesȱofȱfriendship.65ȱThisȱis wellȱillustratedȱinȱaȱlongȱseriesȱofȱpreservedȱlettersȱtoȱBishopȱJohnȱofȱSaintȬMalo.66 Theȱlastȱinȱthisȱsequenceȱisȱaȱtypicalȱexampleȱofȱerudite,ȱallusiveȱwit,ȱandȱeven

62

63

64

65

66

SeeȱJeanȱLeclercq,ȱ“LettresȱdeȱvocationȱàȱlaȱVieȱMonastique,”ȱStudiaȱAnselmianaȱ37ȱ(1955):ȱ169–97; LPVȱ2,ȱ169. FiveȱoutȱofȱtheȱotherȱsixȱsuchȱlettersȱinȱPeter’sȱcollectionȱcallȱtheȱrecipientsȱfriendsȱ(nos.ȱ19,ȱ51,ȱ105, 139,ȱ 140);ȱ recruitmentȱ lettersȱ alsoȱ accountȱ forȱ aboutȱ aȱ tenthȱ ofȱ theȱ usesȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ the collection. Cf.ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux’sȱlettersȱofȱadviceȱtoȱBrunoȱdeȱBergȱbeforeȱandȱimmediatelyȱafterȱhis electionȱtoȱtheȱseeȱofȱCologne,ȱostensiblyȱprivateȱfriendlyȱlettersȱwhoseȱpurposeȱmustȱsimilarly beȱunderstoodȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱpositionȱinȱtheȱcollection:ȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱand Networks,”ȱ273–74ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ37). Cf.ȱ e.g.ȱ lawsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ lettersȱ 18ȱ (toȱ Johnȱ ofȱ SaintȬMalo)ȱ andȱ 74ȱ (recipientȱ anon.); comparisonsȱofȱdegreesȱofȱreciprocalȱloveȱinȱletterȱ45ȱ(toȱvariousȱrecipientsȱatȱClairvaux);ȱdebtȱis alsoȱusedȱasȱaȱmetaphorȱforȱtheȱobligationsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱletterȱ28ȱ(toȱHardouinȱofȱLarrivour). Lettersȱ14–19;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱtheȱlongȱsequenceȱofȱlettersȱtoȱBerneredusȱofȱSaintȬCrépin,ȱnos.ȱ128–35.

366

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

includesȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ currentȱ eventsȱ thatȱ mightȱ beȱ takenȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ somewhat questionableȱtaste: Caritasȱ patiens,ȱ quodȱ mirumȱ dictuȱ est,ȱ peneȱ adȱ impatientiamȱ meȱ impellit.ȱ Vidi nuntiumȱuestrumȱlitterisȱuacuum.ȱQuidȱhocȱest?ȱEstneȱtantaȱpenesȱuosȱcartarumȱraritas anȱsicȱuestraȱabbreviataȱestȱcaritas?ȱQueȱtamȱimportuniȱsilentiiȱcausa?ȱQueȱratioȱtam muteȱetȱsilentisȱdilectionis?ȱEstne,ȱinquam,ȱinȱBrittaniaȱconsecutiuumȱutȱubiȱsterilitas panis,ȱsequaturȱetȱdefectioȱcordis?ȱEtȱpanisȱquidemȱinopiamȱaudiebam,ȱsedȱfamamȱex hocȱuirtutumȱsuccedereȱnonȱcredideram. [Patientȱ loveȱ [cf.ȱ 1ȱ Cor.ȱ 13:4],ȱ amazingȱ asȱ itȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ it,ȱ isȱ drivingȱ meȱ almostȱ to impatience.ȱIȱsawȱyourȱmessengerȱwithoutȱaȱletter.ȱWhatȱisȱthis?ȱIsȱthereȱsoȱgreatȱa scarcityȱofȱwritingȱmaterialsȱinȱyourȱpartȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱorȱisȱyourȱloveȱsoȱabridged?ȱ[Cf. Micahȱ2:7]ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱcauseȱofȱsoȱuncivilȱaȱsilence?ȱWhatȱisȱtheȱexplanationȱforȱsuch muteȱ andȱ silentȱ love?ȱ Doesȱ itȱ followȱ inȱ Brittany,ȱ Iȱ askȱ you,ȱ thatȱ whenȱ thereȱ isȱ a shortageȱofȱbreadȱthereȱthenȱfollowsȱaȱfailingȱofȱtheȱheart?ȱForȱIȱhaveȱindeedȱbeen hearingȱaboutȱaȱscarcityȱofȱbreadȱyetȱIȱhadȱnotȱbelievedȱthatȱaȱfamineȱofȱtheȱvirtues wouldȱfollowȱfromȱthis.]67

TheȱlanguageȱandȱwordȬplayȱhereȱareȱrunȱthroughȱwithȱscholasticȱimagery,ȱof formalȱargumentsȱandȱofȱlogicalȱconsequences.ȱThisȱisȱaȱparticularȱfeatureȱofȱPeter ofȱCelle’sȱwriting,ȱreflectingȱtheȱfactȱthatȱmanyȱofȱhisȱmostȱfrequentȱcorrespondents wereȱoldȱfriendsȱfromȱhisȱstudentȱdaysȱatȱtheȱParisȱschools;ȱindeedȱthisȱdeliberate evocationȱofȱtheȱschoolsȱprovidesȱtheȱonlyȱclueȱtoȱtheȱoriginȱofȱhisȱacquaintance withȱJohnȱofȱSaintȬMalo.68ȱAnotherȱstudentȱfriendȱwasȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury;ȱthisȱisȱan exceptionallyȱwellȬdocumentedȱrelationshipȱasȱJohnȱleftȱhisȱownȱletterȱcollection.69 Theȱtwoȱwereȱcloselyȱinvolvedȱinȱoneȱanother’sȱaffairsȱthroughoutȱtheirȱlives:ȱPeter providedȱcriticalȱsupportȱforȱJohnȱatȱtheȱoutsetȱofȱhisȱcareerȱinȱtheȱ1140sȱandȱagain forȱhimȱandȱhisȱfellowȬexilesȱinȱFranceȱduringȱtheȱBecketȱaffairȱ(1163–70),ȱandȱwas stillȱinvolvedȱinȱhisȱaffairsȱupȱuntilȱhisȱfriend’sȱdeath,ȱasȱbishopȱofȱChartres,ȱin 1181;ȱ Johnȱ conductedȱ businessȱ forȱ Peterȱ atȱ theȱ papalȱ curia,ȱ whichȱ heȱ visited frequentlyȱasȱtheȱrepresentativeȱofȱArchbishopȱTheobaldȱofȱCanterbury,ȱandȱwas frequentlyȱ involvedȱ inȱ overseeingȱ Peter’sȱ interestsȱ inȱ England.70ȱ Theseȱ letters 67 68

69

70

Letterȱ19,ȱLPC,ȱ52–53. TheȱcollectionȱalsoȱincludesȱaȱnumberȱofȱtreatiseȬlengthȱlettersȱonȱtheologicalȱorȱlogicalȱpoints, eitherȱinȱresponseȱtoȱquestionsȱ(nos.ȱ54,ȱ115)ȱorȱasȱpartȱofȱdebatesȱwithȱrecipients,ȱwhich,ȱeven whenȱtheȱdisagreementsȱwereȱevidentlyȱheatedȱ(nos.ȱ49–51)ȱorȱconductedȱwithȱstrangersȱ(nos. 158–60),ȱwereȱcouchedȱinȱtermsȱofȱwarmȱfriendship. TheȱLettersȱofȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,ȱvol.ȱ1ȱTheȱEarlyȱLettersȱ(1153–1161),ȱȱed.ȱWilliamȱJ.ȱMillor,ȱHaroldȱE. ButlerȱandȱChristopherȱN.ȱL.ȱBrooke.ȱNelson’sȱMedievalȱTextsȱ(Edinburgh:ȱNelson,ȱ1955),ȱreȬ issued,ȱOxfordȱMedievalȱTextsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱvol.ȱ2,ȱTheȱLaterȱLetters (1163–1180),ȱed.ȱMillorȱandȱBrooke.ȱOxfordȱMedievalȱTextsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress, 1979). LettersȱofȱJohnȱofȱSalisburyȱȱ1,ȱxii–xxiv;ȱLPC,ȱ712–18;ȱPeterȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱbehindȱJohn’sȱobtaining fromȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱaȱletterȱofȱrecommendationȱtoȱtheȱarchbishopȱofȱCanterbury;ȱSaintȬ RémiȱhadȱdependenciesȱinȱEngland.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

367

includeȱmoreȱnews,ȱrequests,ȱandȱbusinessȱmattersȱthanȱthoseȱtoȱJohnȱofȱSaintȬ Malo;ȱ whereȱ theyȱ takeȱ onȱ aȱ moreȱ intimateȱ toneȱ itȱ isȱ throughȱ theȱ evocationȱ of laughterȱandȱjoy,ȱasȱPeter’sȱresponseȱtoȱreceivingȱoneȱletterȱfromȱJohnȱillustrates: Vtȱuidiȱlitterasȱtuasȱcorȱmeumȱiubilo,ȱosȱmeumȱimpletumȱestȱrisu.ȱMiscuistiȱsiquidem iocosȱseriis,ȱsedȱtemperatosȱetȱsineȱdetrimentoȱdignationisȱetȱuerecundie.ȱSalesȱtuiȱsine denteȱsunt,ȱiociȱnonȱuilitate.ȱSicȱdecurritȱoratioȱtuaȱtanquamȱillaȱqueȱaliquandoȱnubes capiteȱtangitȱaliquandoȱuultumȱinȱterraȱdemittit.ȱInuenitȱhocȱgratiamȱinȱoculisȱmeis, mecumȱmanebitȱetȱapudȱmeȱtotaȱnocteȱerit. [WhenȱIȱsawȱyourȱletterȱmyȱheartȱwasȱfilledȱwithȱrejoicing,ȱmyȱmouthȱwithȱlaughter. Youȱhaveȱindeedȱmixedȱjokesȱwithȱseriousȱmatters,ȱbutȱmoderateȱonesȱandȱwithout detrimentȱ toȱ dignityȱ andȱ modesty.ȱ Yourȱ witticismsȱ areȱ notȱ fanged,ȱ yourȱ jokesȱ not cheap.ȱYourȱspeechȱrunsȱalongȱlikeȱthatȱwhichȱoneȱminuteȱtouchesȱtheȱcloudsȱwithȱits head,ȱtheȱnextȱlowersȱitsȱfaceȱtoȱtheȱearth.ȱThisȱfindsȱfavorȱinȱmyȱeyes,ȱitȱwillȱstayȱwith meȱandȱwillȱbeȱbyȱmeȱtheȱwholeȱnight.]71

ThisȱclearlyȱmeantȱmuchȱtoȱPeter,ȱandȱyearsȱlater,ȱinȱtheȱaftermathȱofȱtheȱdangers ofȱtheȱBecketȱaffair,ȱheȱrecalledȱwithȱfondȱnostalgiaȱearlierȱdaysȱwhenȱtheyȱcould jokeȱaboutȱBecket:ȱ“Siȱbeneȱrecoloȱiocosȱpriorisȱseculiȱdumȱsimulȱessemusȱetȱad inuicemȱpluraȱiocandoȱsereremusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“IfȱIȱrecallȱrightlyȱtheȱjokesȱofȱanȱearlier timeȱwhenȱweȱwereȱtogetherȱandȱweȱtookȱitȱinȱturnsȱtoȱweaveȱmanyȱtopicsȱinȱour jokingȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ“).72ȱSomeȱexamplesȱofȱJohn’sȱjokingȱsurviveȱinȱhisȱlettersȱtoȱPeter,ȱletters occasionallyȱ soȱ wrappedȱ upȱ inȱ allusionsȱ andȱ inȬjokesȱ asȱ toȱ beȱ scarcely comprehensibleȱ now,ȱ andȱ whichȱ Christopherȱ Brookeȱ describedȱ asȱ “theȱ sortȱ of nonsenseȱwhichȱ‘theȱlunatic,ȱtheȱloverȱandȱtheȱpoet’ȱhaveȱpouredȱforthȱinȱevery age,ȱ butȱ hasȱ onlyȱ rarelyȱ beenȱ usedȱ asȱ aȱ normalȱ modeȱ ofȱ expressionȱ between intimateȱfriends.”73 Butȱjestingȱcouldȱbeȱusedȱinȱotherȱcontextsȱtoo.ȱInȱtheirȱfamousȱcorrespondence, whichȱcontinuedȱonȱandȱoffȱforȱmanyȱyearsȱandȱwhichȱhasȱperhapsȱbeenȱstudied moreȱ exhaustivelyȱ thanȱ anyȱ otherȱ singleȱ epistolaryȱ relationship,ȱ Bernardȱ of ClairvauxȱandȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱfrequentlyȱindulgedȱinȱelaborateȱexchangesȱof wit,ȱbanter,ȱandȱmockȱreproach.74ȱAȱnotableȱexampleȱcomesȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱ1143,ȱor earlyȱinȱ1144,ȱwhenȱtheirȱcorrespondenceȱwasȱrenewed,ȱafterȱaȱparticularlyȱbitter disputeȱ fiveȱ yearsȱ earlier,ȱ withȱ anȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ lettersȱ ofȱ reconciliationȱ and 71 72

73 74

Letterȱ63,ȱLPC,ȱ300–01. Letterȱ174,ȱLPC,ȱ668–69;ȱtheȱparticularȱjokeȱheȱrecallsȱhadȱapparentlyȱbeenȱthatȱwereȱBecketȱto perishȱtheyȱwouldȱneverȱfindȱaȱshrineȱbigȱenoughȱtoȱholdȱhim. LettersȱofȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,ȱ1,ȱxlvii,ȱwithȱparticularȱreferenceȱtoȱJohn’sȱletterȱ112. Aȱ totalȱ ofȱ 22ȱ lettersȱ areȱ preservedȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ collections;ȱ theȱ chronologicalȱ orderȱ is reconstructedȱmostȱconvenientlyȱinȱGillianȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondenceȱbetweenȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable andȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux:ȱ Aȱ Semanticȱ andȱ Structuralȱ Analysis.ȱ Church,ȱ Faithȱ andȱ Cultureȱ inȱ the MedievalȱWestȱ(Aldershot:ȱAshgate,ȱ2002),ȱx–xi;ȱforȱstudiesȱofȱthisȱcorrespondence,ȱseeȱbelow notesȱ187–88.

368

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

friendship.75ȱTheseȱareȱsetȱinȱaȱdeliberatelyȱjocularȱtoneȱwithȱrepeatedȱreferences toȱjokingȱthroughout;ȱinȱparticularȱtheyȱsparȱoverȱwhoȱcanȱtrulyȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱthe woundedȱfriend,ȱwhoseȱfriendlyȱoverturesȱhaveȱbeenȱignored.ȱ Bernardȱ professesȱ ungrudgingȱ graciousȱ humility:ȱ “Gaudeoȱ quodȱ recaluistis priscaeȱamicitiaeȱrecordari,ȱetȱvelȱlaesumȱrevocareȱamicum”ȱ(“Iȱrejoiceȱthatȱyou haveȱgrownȱwarmȱagainȱtoȱrememberȱaȱformerȱfriendship,ȱandȱtoȱrecallȱaȱfriend, albeitȱwounded”).76ȱPeterȱretorts:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱetȱlesumȱquodȱdeȱvobisȱdixistisȱamicumȱme vocareȱpotuissemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱIȱcouldȱhaveȱcalledȱmyselfȱtheȱwoundedȱfriend, asȱyouȱdidȱyourselfȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ“).77ȱThisȱjokingȱclearlyȱservesȱtoȱeaseȱtheȱtensionȱofȱthe situationȱ andȱ toȱ avoidȱ whatȱ mightȱ otherwiseȱ haveȱ beenȱ anȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ sharp reproaches—aȱparticularlyȱeruditeȱandȱrefinedȱversionȱofȱwhatȱisȱaȱrecognizable andȱcommonȱstrategyȱinȱanyȱperiodȱorȱcontext.78 Theȱexpressionsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱletters,ȱthen,ȱraiseȱproblemsȱbeyondȱthoseȱwhich Southernȱnotedȱconcerningȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱlanguageȱandȱemotion.ȱItȱisȱnot justȱthatȱsuchȱexpressionsȱareȱdirectedȱtoȱmanyȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱacquaintanceȱbut thatȱthereȱareȱotherȱcontextsȱwhichȱcanȱaffectȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱlanguage,ȱsuchȱas,ȱas weȱhaveȱseen,ȱliteraryȱcollaboration,ȱmonasticȱrecruitment,ȱorȱdisputeȱresolution. Thusȱtheȱfunctionȱofȱtheȱletterȱratherȱthanȱtheȱdegreeȱofȱpersonalȱfeelingȱbetween theȱcorrespondentsȱcanȱexplainȱtheȱuseȱofȱapparentlyȱpersonalȱlanguage,ȱwhether emotionallyȱintenseȱorȱfamiliarȱandȱjocular.ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱboundȱupȱwithȱtheȱkey questionȱofȱwhyȱlettersȱwereȱchosenȱforȱinclusionȱinȱcollections,ȱandȱthusȱwhat theyȱwereȱintendedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱaboutȱtheȱauthor.ȱWhateverȱconcernsȱmayȱhave motivatedȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱlettersȱwhichȱwereȱsent,ȱtheyȱoweȱtheir survivalȱ andȱ possiblyȱ theirȱ finalȱ formȱ toȱ widerȱ functionsȱ whichȱ theyȱ served, demonstratingȱforȱexampleȱnotȱwhoȱtheȱauthorȱhappenedȱtoȱlikeȱbutȱwithȱwhom heȱwasȱpreparedȱtoȱbeȱpubliclyȱassociated.79ȱ Brederoȱsparkedȱaȱcontroversyȱbyȱdemonstratingȱthatȱtheȱletterȱwhichȱtheȱdying Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ purportedlyȱ dictatedȱ fromȱ hisȱ deathbedȱ toȱ Arnoldȱ of Bonnevalȱ wasȱ aȱ laterȱ Cistercianȱ forgeryȱ intendedȱ toȱ createȱ evidenceȱ forȱ a friendshipȱinȱorderȱtoȱaddȱcredibilityȱtoȱArnold’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱthe officialȱLifeȱofȱBernard.80ȱAlthoughȱthisȱprovedȱcontroversial,ȱitȱinȱfactȱtouchesȱon 75

76

77 78

79

80

Bernard’sȱletterȱ228ȱandȱPeter’sȱno.ȱ111;ȱonȱtheȱdispute,ȱoverȱtheȱelectionȱtoȱtheȱseeȱofȱLangres,ȱsee GilesȱConstable,ȱ“TheȱDisputedȱElectionȱatȱLangresȱinȱ1138,”ȱTraditioȱ13ȱ(1957):ȱ119–52. Letterȱ228,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ99;ȱtrans.ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ107;ȱthisȱis,ȱonȱinternalȱevidence,ȱaȱreply toȱaȱlostȱletterȱofȱPeter’s. Letterȱ111,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ276;ȱtrans.ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ119,ȱn.ȱ148. Inȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheseȱexchanges,ȱKnightȱreȬinterpretedȱPepin’sȱamicitiaȱjocosaȱ(seeȱaboveȱnoteȱ38) asȱaȱrhetoricalȱmeansȱtoȱbroachȱdifficultȱmatters:ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ16–23. Almostȱallȱlettersȱfromȱthisȱperiodȱsurviveȱonlyȱinȱcollections,ȱnotȱasȱoriginalȱmissives:ȱConstable, LettersȱandȱLetterȱCollections,ȱ56–62. Letterȱ310,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ230;ȱAdriaanȱBredero,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux:ȱBetweenȱCultȱandȱHistoryȱȱ(Edinburgh:

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

369

somethingȱwhichȱappliesȱinȱsomeȱdegreeȱtoȱallȱsurvivingȱletters.ȱEvenȱwhereȱthere wasȱaȱgenuinelyȱemotionalȱbond,ȱthisȱaloneȱisȱnotȱenoughȱtoȱexplainȱwhyȱthat relationshipȱshouldȱbeȱpreservedȱinȱanȱofficialȱletterȱcollection.ȱAsȱweȱshallȱsee, correspondingȱ withȱ lowerȬȱ statusȱ butȱ piousȱ individualsȱ couldȱ demonstrateȱ an author’sȱhumility,ȱconcernȱforȱvirtueȱaboveȱworldlyȱstatus,ȱorȱlaudableȱdesireȱto escapeȱworldlyȱcaresȱandȱembraceȱspiritualȱdiscourseȰallȱrespectableȱmonastic virtues.ȱWhatȱgivesȱcoherenceȱtoȱallȱofȱtheseȱprofessionsȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱnotȱthe degreeȱofȱpersonalȱacquaintanceȱbetweenȱtheȱwriters,ȱwhichȱwasȱdifferentȱinȱthe manyȱdifferentȱcases,ȱbutȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱthemȱallȱinȱopenlyȱacknowledgedȱbonds ofȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱwhichȱwereȱunderstoodȱnotȱasȱprivateȱbondsȱinȱcontrastȱto publicȱrelationshipsȱbutȱratherȱasȱstrongȱandȱparticularȱpublicȱbondsȱinȱcontrast toȱtheȱuniversalȱtiesȱofȱmonasticȱcaritas.81ȱMostȱresearchȱonȱmedievalȱlettersȱhas focusedȱonȱuncoveringȱtheȱhumanȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱlayȱbehindȱtheseȱexchanges andȱpaidȱlessȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱwiderȱpurposesȱwhichȱmightȱexplainȱtheirȱexpression inȱepistolaryȱform.

Forming,ȱMaintainingȱandȱBreakingȱFriendships Ifȱ professionsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ lettersȱ wereȱ alwaysȱ toȱ someȱ degreeȱ public statements,ȱthenȱtheȱevidenceȱwhichȱtheyȱoftenȱprovideȱaboutȱtheȱformationȱof bondsȱofȱfriendship,ȱaboutȱtheȱbehaviorȱexpectedȱofȱfriendsȱandȱtheȱmaintenance ofȱfriendlyȱrelations,ȱand,ȱinȱveryȱrareȱcases,ȱaboutȱtheȱterminationȱofȱfriendships, mustȱ alsoȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ thisȱ light.ȱ Oneȱ ofȱ theȱ featuresȱ ofȱ letterȱ collectionsȱ often commentedȱonȱisȱtheȱdeclarationȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱstrangers.ȱInȱfact,ȱalthoughȱthere areȱmanyȱinstancesȱwhereȱweȱhaveȱnoȱconclusiveȱevidenceȱforȱdegreesȱofȱpersonal acquaintance,ȱ thereȱ areȱ onlyȱ veryȱ fewȱ casesȱ whereȱ theȱ recipientȱ isȱ explicitly declaredȱtoȱbeȱbothȱaȱfriendȱandȱaȱstranger.82ȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux’sȱletterȱ103, addressedȱ toȱ theȱ brotherȱ ofȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ monks,ȱ urgingȱ conversionȱ toȱ the religiousȱlife,ȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱbetterȱknown;ȱitȱopens:

81

82

Tȱ&ȱTȱClark,ȱ1996),ȱ98;ȱforȱtheȱsubsequentȱdebate,ȱseeȱtheȱdiscussionȱandȱreferencesȱinȱOpereȱdiȱSan BernardoȱVI/2,ȱ310–15,ȱn.ȱ1. Cf.ȱalsoȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ121,ȱ155–200,ȱwhereȱitȱisȱarguedȱthatȱinȱtheȱcorrespondence betweenȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ andȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ certainȱ lettersȱ showȱ aȱ clearȱ division betweenȱtheȱopenings,ȱwhichȱmakeȱ“private”ȱappealsȱtoȱamicitia,ȱinȱtheȱsenseȱnotȱofȱexpressions ofȱdeepȱpersonalȱemotionsȱbutȱofȱdiplomaticȱoverturesȱpreparingȱtheȱwayȱfor,ȱandȱmediating,ȱthe disputesȱorȱgrievancesȱtoȱbeȱraised,ȱandȱtheȱsubsequentȱpassagesȱwhichȱareȱ“public”ȱdisputesȱand castȱinȱtermsȱofȱcaritas. Anselmȱaskedȱrecipientsȱtoȱshareȱhisȱfriendlyȱsentimentsȱwithȱothersȱwhomȱheȱdidȱnotȱknowȱ(see Southern,ȱSaintȱAnselm:ȱAȱPortraitȱinȱaȱLandscape,ȱ143–47ȱ[ȱseeȱnoteȱ6]),ȱbutȱdidȱnotȱdirectlyȱaddress strangersȱasȱfriends.

370

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine Etsiȱfacieȱignotus,ȱetsiȱcorporeȱremotusȱaȱnobis,ȱamicusȱtamenȱes,ȱetȱamicitiaȱnotumȱiam nobis,ȱetȱpraesentemȱteȱfacit.ȱHancȱtibi,ȱteȱnesciente,ȱcomparavitȱnonȱcaroȱetȱsanguis, sedȱspiritusȱDei,ȱquiȱWillelmumȱfratremȱtuumȱaeternaȱnobisȱ societateȱetȱspirituale caritateȱdevinxit,ȱacȱperȱeumȱteȱquoque,ȱsiȱdignumȱiudicas.83 [AlthoughȱIȱhaveȱnotȱmetȱyouȱandȱalthough,ȱasȱregardsȱtheȱbody,ȱyouȱliveȱaȱlongȱway fromȱme,ȱyetȱyouȱareȱaȱfriend,ȱandȱmyȱfriendshipȱforȱyouȱrendersȱyouȱpresentȱandȱwell knownȱtoȱme.ȱThisȱfriendshipȱhasȱbeenȱgivenȱyouȱwithoutȱyourȱknowledge:ȱaȱgiftȱnot ofȱfleshȱandȱblood,ȱbutȱofȱtheȱspiritȱofȱGodȱwhichȱhasȱunitedȱyourȱbrotherȱWilliamȱto meȱinȱtheȱbondsȱofȱspiritualȱloveȱandȱeverlastingȱfriendship,ȱandȱyouȱthroughȱhimȱto me,ȱifȱyouȱthinkȱitȱworthȱyourȱwhile.]84

Thisȱ isȱ aȱ declarationȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ friendshipȱ butȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ anotherȱ exampleȱ ofȱ a recruitmentȱletter,ȱaȱtype,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱcommonlyȱassociatedȱwithȱfriendship.85 Norȱisȱtheȱcontactȱaȱrandomȱone.ȱTheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱman’sȱbrotherȱinȱClairvaux wasȱ notȱ mereȱ chance;ȱ heȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ connectionȱ ofȱ Henryȱ Murdac,ȱ the Yorkshiremanȱ andȱ oneȬtimeȱ monkȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ whoȱ hadȱ returnedȱ andȱ been electedȱabbotȱofȱFountainsȱinȱ1144.ȱMurdacȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱEnglish CisterciansȱandȱoneȱofȱBernard’sȱchiefȱcontactsȱthere.86ȱInȱanotherȱcaseȱBernard wroteȱtoȱrebukeȱaȱlaymanȱforȱhisȱattemptsȱtoȱdissuadeȱaȱpotentialȱconvertȱfromȱhis vocation,ȱopeningȱwithȱtheȱalmostȱidenticalȱformulation,ȱ“Etsiȱignotusȱnobisȱfacie, sedȱ nonȱ fama”ȱ (“Althoughȱ Iȱ haveȱ notȱ metȱ you,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ heardȱ ofȱ you”).ȱ He concludesȱ aȱ bitterȱ andȱ reproachfulȱ letterȱ withȱ theȱ hopeȱ thatȱ theȱ recipientȱ will himselfȱconvert,ȱandȱsoȱbecomeȱaȱfriend:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱnonȱadiciamȱultra,ȱneȱfiamȱonerosus, cuiȱdeȱceteroȱvoloȱesseȱamicus,ȱetȱadiutor,ȱsiȱvolueris,ȱadȱsalutem”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱwill refrainȱfromȱaddingȱanythingȱmore.ȱIȱdoȱnotȱwishȱtoȱbecomeȱburdensomeȱtoȱone withȱwhomȱIȱhopeȱtoȱbeȱonȱfriendlyȱtermsȱinȱfuture,ȱandȱwhomȱIȱwouldȱgladly helpȱtoȱsalvationȱifȱheȱwouldȱpermitȱme”).87ȱTheȱfriendshipȱhereȱagainȱisȱclearly equatedȱwithȱconversion. Bernard’sȱotherȱprofessionsȱofȱfriendshipȱtoȱstrangersȱwereȱmadeȱmostlyȱinȱthe contextȱofȱdisputes.ȱInȱoneȱofȱtheȱmanyȱclashesȱoverȱtransitusȱinȱwhichȱheȱwas involvedȱheȱusedȱitȱasȱpartȱofȱaȱtechnicalȱdefenceȱofȱhisȱposition.ȱTheȱRuleȱforbade abbotsȱfromȱacceptingȱmonksȱfromȱmonasteriesȱknownȱtoȱthemȱwithoutȱtheirȱown abbot’sȱpermission,ȱandȱinȱthisȱcaseȱBernardȱclaimedȱthatȱalthoughȱheȱmightȱhave heardȱofȱthemȱheȱdidȱnotȱpersonallyȱknowȱtheȱcommunityȱinȱquestion.ȱAtȱtheȱsame 83 84 85 86

87

SBOȱ7,ȱ259.ȱ BSJȱ(no.ȱ104),ȱ151. Seeȱaboveȱnoteȱ15. SeeȱSBOȱ7,ȱ259,ȱn.ȱ2;ȱBernardȱoriginallyȱsentȱMurdac,ȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱabbotȱofȱVauclair,ȱbackȱto YorkshireȱtoȱsupportȱtheȱEnglishȱCisterciansȱinȱtheȱYorkȱelectionȱdispute;ȱheȱwasȱelectedȱabbotȱof FountainsȱonȱRichardȱofȱFountains’ȱdeathȱandȱwasȱlaterȱelectedȱarchbishopȱofȱYork:ȱonȱtheȱYork dispute,ȱseeȱabove. Letterȱ292,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ209–10;ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ357),ȱ433–34.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

371

time,ȱandȱseeminglyȱunfairly,ȱheȱheldȱthemȱboundȱbyȱtheȱmoreȱgeneralȱdutyȱtoȱact towardsȱallȱfellowȱmonksȱasȱbrothersȱandȱevenȱfriends,ȱexpressingȱshock: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱutȱnos,ȱetsiȱvobisȱignotos,ȱfratresȱtamenȱvestrosȱet,ȱsiȱplacet,ȱamicos,ȱquosȱnecdum velȱpraesentesȱverboȱconveneratis,ȱvelȱabsentesȱscriptoȱpraemonueratis,ȱhacȱprimaȱvice tamȱsubito,ȱtamȱacriterȱargueretis.88 [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱyouȱwouldȱhaveȱreproachedȱusȱsoȱbitterlyȱwithoutȱknowingȱanythingȱabout usȱalthough,ȱindeed,ȱweȱareȱyourȱbrothersȱandȱcouldȱbe,ȱifȱyouȱwishedȱit,ȱyourȱfriends; orȱwithoutȱeverȱhavingȱmetȱusȱorȱheldȱanyȱcommunicationȱwithȱusȱeitherȱbyȱletterȱor wordȱofȱmouth.]89

HisȱownȱactionsȱdidȱnotȱcontraveneȱtheȱRuleȱandȱsoȱwereȱpermissibleȱinȱrespectȱof strangers;ȱtheirȱreaction,ȱhowever,ȱdidȱcontraveneȱtheȱrulesȱofȱfriendlyȱbehavior whichȱwereȱnotȱdependentȱonȱacquaintance.90ȱInȱonlyȱoneȱcaseȱdoesȱBernardȱof Clairvauxȱsimplyȱprofessȱloveȱforȱaȱstrangerȱknownȱonlyȱbyȱreputation: Etsiȱfacieȱignotusȱesȱmihi,ȱsedȱnonȱfama,ȱnecȱparumȱautȱvileȱquidȱtuiȱgratulorȱmeȱtenere munereȱillius.ȱNamȱtalisȱfateorȱperȱeamȱinsinuatusȱesȱmeoȱpectori,ȱut,ȱlicetȱinȱmultis occupatum,ȱ ipsaȱ tamenȱ serenissimaȱ recordatioȱ tui,ȱ miȱ dulcissimeȱ frater,ȱ facileȱ me plerumqueȱ exȱ omnibusȱ vindicetȱ sibi,ȱ itaȱ utȱ inȱ eaȱ libenterȱ immorerȱ etȱ suaviter requiescam.91 [AlthoughȱIȱhaveȱneverȱmetȱyou,ȱIȱhaveȱheardȱofȱyou;ȱandȱevenȱfromȱthisȱIȱderiveȱno smallȱorȱinsignificantȱpleasure.ȱByȱmeansȱofȱitȱyouȱhaveȱstolenȱmyȱheartȱsoȱthat,ȱamidst myȱmanyȱoccupations,ȱIȱamȱeasilyȱcarriedȱawayȱbyȱtheȱpeaceȬgivingȱthoughtȱofȱyou, andȱveryȱwillinglyȱdwellȱuponȱitȱandȱrefreshȱmyselfȱwithȱit.]92

Againȱthisȱletterȱraisesȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhyȱitȱwasȱincludedȱinȱtheȱcollection.ȱIt developsȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱofȱepistolaryȱtopoi,ȱtheȱdesireȱforȱretreatȱfrom theȱworldȱtoȱquietȱleisureȱandȱspiritualȱcontemplation,ȱandȱforȱtheȱcompanionship ofȱtheȱpious.ȱAuthorityȱandȱhighȱofficeȱwereȱconventionallyȱpresentedȱinȱmonastic literatureȱasȱdutiesȱtoȱbeȱborneȱnotȱhonorsȱtoȱbeȱcoveted,ȱandȱsuchȱlettersȱcould demonstrateȱ anȱ author’sȱ unworldlyȱ characterȱ andȱ spiritualȱ priorities.ȱ ȱ These declarationsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ toȱ strangers,ȱ then,ȱ canȱ beȱ explainedȱ inȱ termsȱ of 88 89 90

91

92

Letterȱ67,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ163. BSJȱ(no.ȱ70),ȱ95. Seeȱ alsoȱ MarieȬAnselmeȱ Dimier,ȱ “Saintȱ Bernardȱ etȱ leȱ droitȱ enȱ matièreȱ deȱ ‘transitus,ȱ ”ȱ Revue Mabillonȱ 43ȱ (1953):ȱ 48–82;ȱ hereȱ 51–54;ȱ Gilesȱ Constable,ȱ Theȱ Reformationȱ ofȱ theȱ Twelfthȱ Century (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ103–04.ȱSlightlyȱdifferently,ȱinȱletterȱ253ȱtoȱthe abbotȱofȱPrémontréȱ(seeȱalsoȱbelow),ȱBernardȱdeflectedȱhisȱopponent’sȱchargesȱbyȱarguingȱthatȱit wasȱnotȱhisȱtechnicalȱbreachesȱofȱanȱagreementȱwhichȱwereȱatȱfaultȱbutȱtheirȱcomplaints,ȱwhich contravenedȱloveȱandȱfriendship:ȱseeȱNewman,ȱBoundariesȱofȱCharity,ȱ132ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1). Letterȱ204,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ63,ȱtoȱAbbotȱRobertȱofȱSaintȬAubin,ȱAngers;ȱheȱalsoȱexpressedȱloveȱtoȱtheȱmonks ofȱTreȱFontaneȱ(letterȱ345),ȱbutȱthisȱwasȱonȱaccountȱofȱtheirȱabbot,ȱBernardȱPaganelli,ȱtheȱlaterȱPope EugeniusȱIII,ȱwhomȱheȱdidȱknow. BSJȱ(no.ȱ270),ȱ344.

372

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

recognizableȱepistolaryȱconventionsȱandȱsituationsȱorȱofȱtheȱspecificȱarguments beingȱmade. Moreȱ commonȱ thanȱ simpleȱ declarationsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ toȱ strangers,ȱ butȱ often associatedȱwithȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱsimilarȱthemes,ȱareȱstatementsȱofȱloveȱhaving precededȱpersonalȱacquaintance.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱclearestȱsuchȱstatementsȱisȱthatȱof NicholasȱofȱClairvauxȱtoȱPeterȱofȱCelle:ȱ“Antequamȱvosȱviderem,ȱdilexiȱvos,ȱetȱfuit principiumȱ dilectionisȱ testimoniumȱ religionis,ȱ quodȱ aȱ religiosisȱ deȱ vobis audieram”ȱ(“BeforeȱIȱsetȱeyesȱuponȱyou,ȱIȱlovedȱyou,ȱandȱtheȱbasisȱofȱtheȱloveȱwas theȱtestimonyȱtoȱyourȱpietyȱwhichȱIȱheardȱofȱfromȱreligiousȱmen”).93ȱPeterȱofȱCelle himselfȱmadeȱaȱsimilarȱdeclarationȱtoȱaȱpriestȱofȱProvinsȱwhomȱheȱbarelyȱknew.94 Aȱreputationȱforȱpietyȱwasȱnotȱtheȱonlyȱoccasionȱforȱsuchȱlove.ȱPeterȱalsoȱwroteȱto NicholasȱofȱStȱAlbans,ȱanȱEnglishȱwriterȱwhomȱheȱneverȱmetȱandȱwithȱwhomȱhe disagreedȱ bitterlyȱ inȱ anȱ epistolaryȱ disputeȱ onȱ theȱ Conceptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Virgin: “Equidemȱdeȱnumeroȱamicorumȱnostrorumȱexȱeoȱhabereȱteȱcensuiȱexȱquoȱscripta tuaȱlegi”ȱ(“Iȱreckonedȱyouȱamongȱtheȱnumberȱofȱourȱfriendsȱfromȱtheȱmomentȱthat Iȱreadȱyourȱworks”).95ȱButȱperhapsȱtheȱmostȱcelebratedȱreferenceȱtoȱloveȱpreceding acquaintanceȱcomesȱinȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱfirstȱletterȱtoȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱno. 65,ȱdeclaringȱthatȱhisȱloveȱforȱBernard,ȱformerlyȱbasedȱonȱhisȱreputation,ȱhasȱbeen enhancedȱandȱtransformedȱbyȱmeetingȱhimȱinȱperson: Quantumȱreverentiae,ȱquantumȱamorisȱtibiȱanimaȱmeaȱinȱpenetralibusȱsuisȱconservet, novitȱilleȱquemȱinȱteȱvenerorȱetȱamplector.ȱFeciȱhoc,ȱetiamȱdumȱadhucȱabsentiaȱtua vultumȱcorporisȱtuiȱmihiȱinvidensȱabscondebat,ȱquiaȱiamȱfamaȱvelociorȱcorporeȱbeatae animaeȱtuaeȱfaciemȱoculisȱmentisȱmeaeȱmodoȱquoȱpoteratȱinferebat.ȱAtȱubiȱquodȱdiu negatumȱfueratȱtandemȱsumȱassecutus,ȱetȱphantasmataȱsomniorumȱveritateȱsuccedente evanuerunt,ȱadhaesitȱanimaȱmeaȱtibi,ȱnecȱabȱamoreȱtuoȱultraȱdivelliȱpotuit.96

93

94

95

96

NicolasȱofȱClairvauxȱletterȱ62ȱ(PatrologiaȱLatinaȱ202,ȱcol.ȱ490);ȱonȱNicholasȱ(alsoȱknownȱasȱNicholas ofȱMontiéramey),ȱoneȬtimeȱsecretaryȱtoȱStȱBernardȱandȱfriendȱalsoȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱseeȱLPV 2,ȱ316–30. Letterȱ61:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱquemȱvelȱrarissimaȱvisioneȱcognoscoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ[“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwhomȱIȱonlyȱknowȱfromȱtheȱmost fleetingȱsightȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ“],ȱLPC,ȱ292–93;ȱagainȱtheȱcontextȱpartlyȱexplainsȱthis:ȱMontierȬlaȬCelleȱhadȱtwo dependentȱprioriesȱandȱotherȱinterestsȱinȱProvinsȱsoȱPeterȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱmanyȱacquaintances andȱconnectionsȱthere. Letterȱ157,ȱLPC,ȱ574–75;ȱsometimesȱaȱreputationȱforȱpietyȱwasȱcitedȱasȱtheȱreasonȱforȱfriendship withoutȱitȱbeingȱmadeȱclearȱwhetherȱtheȱfriendsȱwereȱalsoȱpersonallyȱacquaintedȱorȱnot,ȱe.g., BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱletterȱ54ȱappealingȱtoȱtheȱpapalȱchancellorȱonȱbehalfȱofȱAbbotȱVivianȱof Hautecombe:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmihiȱobȱsuamȱreligiositatemȱadmodumȱfamiliarisȱamicus”ȱ[“ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwithȱwhomȱI amȱonȱtermsȱofȱintimateȱfriendshipȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱpiety”]:ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ146,ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ57),ȱ85.ȱThis wasȱaȱyearȱafterȱtheȱhouse’sȱaffiliationȱtoȱClairvaux,ȱwhichȱmayȱhaveȱaccountedȱinȱpartȱforȱhis pietyȱinȱBernard’sȱeyes. Letterȱ 65,ȱ LPV,ȱ 194.ȱ Letterȱ 28ȱ (1127),ȱ addressedȱ toȱ Bernardȱ inȱ defenseȱ ofȱ theȱ Cluniacsȱ almost certainlyȱpredatesȱtheirȱpersonalȱacquaintance;ȱseeȱbelowȱnoteȱ188.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

373

[Howȱ muchȱ reverence,ȱ howȱ muchȱ loveȱ forȱ youȱ myȱ soulȱ maintainsȱ inȱ itsȱ inner chambers,ȱisȱknownȱtoȱHimȱwhomȱIȱvenerateȱandȱembraceȱinȱyou.ȱIȱdidȱthis,ȱeven whileȱ yourȱ absenceȱ stillȱ grudginglyȱ hidȱ fromȱ meȱ yourȱ corporealȱ face,ȱ because reputation,ȱswifterȱthanȱtheȱbody,ȱalreadyȱbroughtȱinȱtheȱwayȱitȱcouldȱtoȱtheȱeyesȱofȱmy mindȱtheȱfaceȱofȱyourȱblessedȱsoul.ȱButȱwhenȱIȱatȱlastȱattainedȱwhatȱhadȱlongȱbeen denied,ȱ andȱ theȱ phantasmsȱ ofȱ dreamsȱ vanishedȱ asȱ truthȱ tookȱ theirȱ place,ȱ myȱ soul adheredȱtoȱyou,ȱnorȱcouldȱitȱbeȱtornȱthereafterȱfromȱlovingȱyou.]97

LaterȱinȱtheȱletterȱPeterȱcomplainedȱthatȱwhileȱBernardȱhadȱsentȱhimȱmessages indicatingȱthatȱheȱhadȱnotȱforgottenȱhisȱfriend,ȱheȱhadȱnotȱsentȱhimȱ“moreȱcertain proofsȱinȱaȱletter”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcertioraȱperȱlitterasȱindiciaȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).98ȱNevertheless,ȱheȱwent onȱ toȱ entrustȱ hisȱ businessȱ withȱ theȱ popeȱ toȱ Bernard’sȱ provenȱ friendship:ȱ “.ȱ .ȱ . nuntiosȱmeosȱquosȱdominoȱpapaeȱdirigo,ȱexpertaeȱamicitiaeȱtuaeȱsecureȱcomitto .ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“Iȱentrustȱwithoutȱfearȱmyȱmessengers,ȱwhomȱIȱamȱdirectingȱtoȱtheȱlordȱPope, toȱ yourȱ triedȱ friendship”).99ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ newȱ andȱ thereȱ hadȱ beenȱ little personalȱcontactȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱsoȱtheȱsenseȱinȱwhichȱPeterȱmeansȱ“tried” isȱnotȱwhatȱweȱmightȱexpect.ȱHisȱappealȱwasȱtoȱtheȱformalȱbondȱofȱfriendshipȱwith itsȱscantȱbasisȱinȱpriorȱacquaintance,ȱnotȱtoȱpastȱactionsȱorȱpersonalȱloyalty.100 Letterȱcollectionsȱalsoȱcontainȱevidenceȱofȱdirectȱapplicationsȱforȱfriendship.ȱInȱone ofȱmanyȱlettersȱtoȱtheȱpapalȱchancellorȱHaimeric,ȱoneȱofȱhisȱchiefȱalliesȱatȱtheȱcuria, BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱrecalledȱhowȱHaimericȱhadȱinitiallyȱsolicitedȱtheȱfriendship ofȱBernardȱandȱofȱhisȱfellowȱCistercianȱabbotȱHughȱofȱPontignyȱwithȱgifts:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ. vestraȱ munera,ȱ quibusȱ apudȱ nostramȱ humilitatemȱ dignanterȱ satisȱ amicitiarum foresȱanticipareȱcurastis”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱgiftsȱbyȱwhichȱyouȱwereȱtheȱfirstȱkindlyȱtoȱsolicit ourȱ friendship”).101ȱ Anotherȱ formallyȱ requestedȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ wasȱ toȱ have importantȱ politicalȱ implicationsȱ appearsȱ atȱ firstȱ sightȱ toȱ haveȱ gotȱ offȱ toȱ aȱ less successfulȱstart.ȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱapproachȱofȱThomasȱBecket,ȱatȱthe timeȱ royalȱ chancellor,ȱ wasȱ describedȱ byȱ Berylȱ Smalleyȱ asȱ aȱ “politeȱ andȱ cruel snub.”102ȱPeterȱprotestedȱhumility: Rogastisȱdeȱfamiliaritateȱetȱamicitia.ȱQuodȱrogastisȱsiȱadmitteretisȱadmirationiȱprocul dubioȱ habendumȱ essetȱ proȱ inequaliȱ rogantisȱ etȱ rogatiȱ fortuna.ȱ Queȱ enim proportionalitatisȱhabitudoȱinterȱabbatemȱCellensemȱetȱcancellariumȱregisȱAnglie?ȱ.ȱ. .ȱ Nulloȱ igiturȱ modoȱ adȱ ingressumȱ amcitieȱ manumȱ porrigo,ȱ sedȱ siȱ uelȱ deȱ grege accidentaliumȱamicorumȱfuero,ȱbeneȱmecumȱfecisseȱdignationemȱuestramȱestimabo. 97 98 99 100

101

102

Trans.ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ57–58. Letterȱ65,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ194–95;ȱtrans.ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ58. Ibid. AnotherȱexampleȱofȱaȱletterȱreferringȱtoȱfriendshipȱreinforcedȱbyȱmeetingȱisȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’s no.ȱ109ȱtoȱSugerȱofȱSaintȬDenis:ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ271–72. Letterȱ311,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ241;ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ374),ȱ447;ȱBernard’sȱletterȱ368ȱrecallsȱanotherȱrequestȱfor friendshipȱfromȱaȱcardinalȱassociatedȱwithȱaȱgift.ȱOnȱgiftȱexchange,ȱseeȱalsoȱbelow.. BerylȱSmalley,ȱTheȱBecketȱConflictȱandȱtheȱSchoolsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1973),ȱ113.

374

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

[Youȱhaveȱaskedȱaboutȱintimacyȱandȱfriendship.ȱIfȱyouȱwereȱtoȱallowȱthatȱwhichȱyou haveȱaskedȱfor,ȱthisȱwouldȱbeyondȱdoubtȱbeȱaȱcauseȱforȱastonishmentȱowingȱtoȱthe unequalȱfortuneȱofȱtheȱpetitionerȱandȱtheȱpetitioned.ȱForȱwhatȱsemblanceȱofȱparityȱis thereȱbetweenȱtheȱabbotȱofȱMontierȬlaȬCelleȱandȱtheȱchancellorȱofȱtheȱkingȱofȱEngland? .ȱ.ȱ.ȱThereforeȱinȱnoȱwayȱamȱIȱextendingȱmyȱhandȱtoȱenterȱintoȱfriendship,ȱbutȱifȱIȱshall beȱevenȱamongȱtheȱflockȱofȱyourȱcasualȱfriendsȱIȱshallȱreckonȱthatȱyourȱworthinessȱhas treatedȱmeȱwell.]103

YetȱthisȱandȱaȱlaterȱletterȱtoȱThomasȱnotȱincludedȱinȱtheȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱedition andȱunknownȱtoȱSmalleyȱwereȱaddressedȱ“Dominoȱetȱamicoȱsuoȱkarissimo”ȱ(“To hisȱdearestȱlordȱandȱfriend”).ȱThomasȱisȱagainȱcalledȱaȱfriendȱlaterȱinȱthisȱsecond letter,ȱ andȱ inȱ bothȱ Peterȱ refersȱ toȱ worksȱ beingȱ copiedȱ andȱ sentȱ toȱ himȱ atȱ his request,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱThomas’ȱgenerosity.ȱInȱlaterȱyearsȱPeterȱbecameȱanȱactive supporterȱofȱBecketȱinȱhisȱdisputeȱwithȱHenryȱIIȱandȱaȱkeyȱallyȱofȱtheȱexiles;ȱafter Becket’sȱmurderȱheȱdeclaredȱhimselfȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱhisȱfriend,ȱevenȱstickingȱhisȱneck outȱandȱdeclaringȱhimȱtoȱbeȱaȱmartyrȱbeforeȱtheȱofficialȱcanonization.ȱThisȱwasȱnot aȱ casualȱ orȱ trivialȱ connection.ȱ Asȱ weȱ haveȱ seen,ȱ inclusionȱ inȱ circlesȱ ofȱ literary exchangeȱwasȱcloselyȱassociatedȱwithȱfriendship;ȱPeter’sȱlaterȱpoliticalȱstance,ȱeven forȱaȱchurchmanȱbasedȱinȱChampagne,ȱwasȱnotȱwithoutȱpoliticalȱriskȱandȱcertainly involvedȱtheȱcommitmentȱofȱresources.ȱTheȱmostȱlikelyȱpointȱofȱcontactȱbetween theȱtwoȱwasȱPeter’sȱoldȱfriendȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,ȱwhoȱhadȱbecomeȱoneȱofȱBecket’s clerks.ȱRatherȱthanȱaȱsnub,ȱtheȱevidenceȱpointsȱtoȱaȱrecognizedȱtypeȱofȱfriendship relationshipȱformallyȱcultivatedȱthroughȱliteraryȱexchangesȱandȱleadingȱtoȱpolitical supportȱandȱcooperation,ȱwhichȱcameȱaboutȱnotȱthroughȱpersonalȱacquaintance orȱaffectionȱbutȱthroughȱaȱtrustedȱintermediary.104 BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱalsoȱonȱoneȱoccasionȱprofessedȱhumblyȱtoȱdeclineȱanȱofferȱof friendshipȱfromȱaȱlayman,ȱRorgoȱofȱAbbeville.ȱBernardȱhadȱbeenȱtoldȱthatȱRorgo wantedȱtoȱmeetȱhimȱonȱaccountȱofȱhisȱpiousȱreputation,ȱandȱsaidȱthatȱheȱwould likeȱtoȱoblige, Sedȱlicetȱhocȱinȱnosȱhumanaeȱpietatisȱbonumȱlaudabileȱsit,ȱnonȱtamenȱperfectum.ȱNam haecȱ corporalisȱ quidemȱ estȱ visio,ȱ etȱ brevis,ȱ etȱ nobisȱ cumȱ ceterisȱ animantibus

103 104

Letterȱ72,ȱLPC,ȱ328–29. Theȱlettersȱconcernedȱareȱnos.ȱ73ȱ(toȱBecket),ȱ109,ȱ141ȱ&ȱ143ȱ(LPCȱpp.ȱ330–33,ȱ434–35,ȱ520–21, 524–29;ȱtheȱpreviousȱed.ȱisȱinȱPatrologiaȱLatinaȱ202);ȱonȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱBecket affair,ȱseeȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“ThomasȱBecket:ȱMartyr,ȱSaint—andȱFriend?”ȱBeliefȱandȱCultureȱinȱthe MiddleȱAges:ȱStudiesȱpresentedȱtoȱHenryȱMayrȬHarting,ȱed.ȱRichardȱGamesonȱandȱHenriettaȱLeyserȱ (Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2001),ȱ305–17.ȱLetterȱcollectionsȱoccasionallyȱincludeȱreferences toȱintermediariesȱthroughȱwhomȱcontactsȱandȱfriendshipsȱwereȱmade:ȱe.g.ȱBernardȱletterȱ11,ȱPeter theȱVenerableȱletterȱ31,ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱlettersȱ91,ȱ117.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

375

communis.ȱMagisȱergoȱadȱillamȱaeternaeȱsocietatisȱiucundissimamȱvisionemȱsuspirare debemusȱetȱbonisȱoperibusȱinsistere,ȱutȱadȱillumȱperveniamus.105 [Butȱalthoughȱthisȱhumanȱaffectionȱinȱusȱisȱsomethingȱgoodȱandȱpraiseworthy,ȱitȱisȱnot perfect.ȱForȱwhatȱweȱdesireȱisȱmerelyȱtheȱsightȱofȱeachȱother,ȱaȱfleetingȱbodilyȱthing whichȱweȱpossessȱinȱcommonȱwithȱtheȱanimals.ȱWeȱwouldȱdoȱbetterȱtoȱsighȱforȱthat mostȱjoyfulȱsightȱofȱanȱeverlastingȱfellowship,ȱandȱstriveȱbyȱgoodȱworksȱtoȱarriveȱat it.]106

ThisȱhoweverȱdidȱnotȱstopȱBernardȱfromȱaskingȱforȱaȱsubstantialȱfavor,ȱaȱgrantȱof landȱforȱanotherȱabbot,ȱinȱtheȱveryȱnextȱline.ȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱwasȱanȱeffective politicalȱ operatorȱ whoȱ isȱ unlikelyȱ toȱ haveȱ madeȱ gaucheȱ orȱ embarrassing diplomaticȱblundersȱinȱformalȱcommunications.107ȱWhatȱmightȱinitiallyȱseemȱlike aȱpersonalȱrebuffȱwas,ȱonceȱagain,ȱclearlyȱnot.ȱWhatȱBernardȱhadȱdoneȱwasȱto includeȱRorgoȱinȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱasȱanȱabsentȱfriendȱunited byȱspiritualȱendeavor,ȱwhileȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱperhapsȱmaintainingȱaȱproperȱdegree ofȱremoveȱfromȱaȱlaymanȱinȱaȱletter.ȱWhatȱRorgoȱhas,ȱandȱpresumablyȱvalued,ȱwas thisȱinclusionȱandȱrecognition,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱcosyȱchatȱwithȱBernardȱaboutȱspiritual mattersȱ byȱ theȱ fireside.ȱ Professingȱ toȱ declineȱ friendshipȱ isȱ clearlyȱ inȱ noȱ sense decliningȱ toȱ enterȱ aȱ formal,ȱ openlyȱ avowedȱ relationshipȱ withȱ material consequences;ȱitȱisȱratherȱpartȱofȱtheȱcomplexȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱcultivationȱofȱsuch relationships.108 Peterȱ ofȱ Celle’sȱ collectionȱ alsoȱ preservesȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ attemptsȱ toȱ continue friendshipȱwithȱtheȱsuccessorsȱinȱofficeȱofȱfriendsȱwhoȱhadȱdiedȱorȱmovedȱon. Peterȱ wasȱ heavilyȱ involvedȱ inȱ promotingȱ theȱ expansionȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ orders, particularlyȱtheȱCarthusians,ȱinȱDenmark,ȱandȱhadȱfoundȱinȱArchbishopȱEskilȱof Lund,ȱaȱnotedȱproponentȱofȱreformȱandȱcloseȱallyȱofȱClairvaux,ȱaȱkeyȱally.ȱWhen EskilȱretiredȱtoȱClairvauxȱcertainȱofȱhisȱrelativesȱandȱalliesȱhadȱevidentlyȱbecome involvedȱinȱaȱfailedȱrebellionȱinȱDenmark;ȱPeterȱwroteȱtoȱEskil’sȱsuccessorȱAbsalon toȱapplyȱtoȱcontinueȱtheȱfriendshipȱheȱhadȱhadȱwithȱEskilȱandȱsoȱtoȱalignȱhimself withȱtheȱnewȱregimeȱandȱsecureȱhisȱownȱcontactsȱandȱinterestsȱinȱtheȱregion:

105 106 107

108

Letterȱ409,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ390. BSJȱ(no.ȱ441),ȱ507–08. Althoughȱinȱone,ȱfrequentlyȬquotedȱletterȱ(no.ȱ387)ȱheȱblamedȱhisȱscribes,ȱwhoȱheȱclaimedȱwould addȱtoȱhisȱdictatedȱtext,ȱforȱanȱoffenceȱwhichȱaȱpreviousȱ(nowȱlost)ȱletterȱhadȱcausedȱPeterȱthe Venerable,ȱthisȱwasȱclearlyȱpartȱofȱaȱveryȱdifferentȱandȱcalculatedȱepistolaryȱstrategy. Cf.ȱBernard’sȱ“declining”ȱofȱHildebertȱofȱLavardin’sȱofferȱofȱfriendshipȱ(lettersȱ122–23)ȱfollowed byȱaȱrequestȱforȱsupportȱ(letterȱ124).ȱWithȱecclesiasticalȱcorrespondentsȱresponsesȱtoȱapproaches, eitherȱdirectȱorȱviaȱintermediaries,ȱwereȱoftenȱmoreȱstraightforwardlyȱpositive;ȱsee,ȱe.g.,ȱBernard letterȱ175,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱletterȱ31.

376

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine Proȱhisȱqueȱagunturȱinȱpartibusȱuestrisȱergaȱnepotesȱetȱamicosȱpredecessorisȱuestri, utinamȱ eaȱ michiȱ essetȱ apudȱ uosȱ gratiaȱ etȱ amicitiaȱ queȱ apudȱ illumȱ est,ȱ etȱ sicutȱ illi honoreȱsicȱdilectioneȱsuccedatis. [Regardingȱthoseȱthingsȱwhichȱareȱbeingȱdoneȱinȱyourȱlandsȱinȱrespectȱofȱtheȱnephews andȱfriendsȱofȱyourȱpredecessor,ȱIȱwouldȱthatȱyouȱextendȱtoȱmeȱtheȱsameȱgraceȱand friendshipȱasȱheȱ[Eskil]ȱdoes,ȱandȱasȱyouȱareȱhisȱsuccessorȱinȱhonorȱsoȱmayȱyouȱbeȱin love.]109

Indeed,ȱoneȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱfavoriteȱepistolaryȱtechniquesȱwasȱtoȱsendȱgreetings toȱnewlyȱelectedȱabbotsȱorȱbishopsȱofferingȱspiritualȱadviceȱandȱexhortationȱand veryȱoftenȱprofessingȱfriendship.ȱThisȱwasȱoftenȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱprotectionȱof hisȱsuccessiveȱabbeys’ȱinterestsȱinȱtheȱregionsȱconcerned.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱlongestȱand mostȱsustainedȱreflectionsȱonȱamicitiaȱinȱhisȱcollectionȱisȱaddressedȱtoȱtheȱnewly electedȱAbbotȱVillainȱofȱMolesme.ȱAlmostȱhalfȱofȱtheȱletterȱconsistsȱofȱaȱrichly metaphoricalȱandȱallusiveȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendship,ȱwithȱsomeȱtwentyȱreferences toȱfriendsȱorȱfriendshipȱandȱconcludingȱwithȱtheȱofferȱofȱaȱ“pactumȱcoagulande societatis”ȱ(“pactȱofȱjointȱfriendship”).110ȱPeterȱthenȱanticipatesȱVillain’sȱacceptance, continuing:ȱ“Iamȱergoȱamicoȱloquarȱutȱamico”ȱ(“Nowȱthereforeȱletȱmeȱspeakȱtoȱa friendȱ asȱ aȱ friend”),ȱ andȱ immediatelyȱ beginningȱ theȱ secondȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ letter: “Amiceȱ karissime”ȱ (“Dearestȱ friend”).111ȱ Theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ letterȱ comprisesȱ an exhortationȱ onȱ theȱ themeȱ ofȱ beingȱ aȱ goodȱ abbot.ȱ Noȱ personalȱ correspondence survivesȱwithȱVillain’sȱpredecessor,ȱStephen,ȱbutȱheȱknewȱPeterȱandȱisȱassociated withȱhimȱinȱsurvivingȱcharters.ȱPeterȱalsoȱmaintainedȱrelationsȱwithȱMolesmeȱafter Villain’sȱtime.112ȱSuchȱcommunicationsȱwereȱclearlyȱintendedȱtoȱmaintainȱregional allegiancesȱandȱsupportȱnetworks.ȱ Conversely,ȱwhenȱPeterȱhimselfȱwasȱelectedȱbishopȱofȱChartresȱinȱ1181,ȱheȱwrote toȱ theȱ Cistercianȱ Generalȱ Chapterȱ askingȱ forȱ theȱ continuationȱ ofȱ theȱ loveȱ and friendshipȱ whichȱ heȱ hadȱ hithertoȱ enjoyedȱ withȱ them:ȱ “Vesterȱ fui,ȱ vesterȱ sum, vesterȱsemperȱeroȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱCellensemȱenutristis,ȱRemensemȱamastis,ȱCarnotensem proicietis?”ȱ (“Iȱ wasȱ yours,ȱ Iȱ amȱ yoursȱ andȱ Iȱ shallȱ alwaysȱ beȱ yoursȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ You nourishedȱtheȱmanȱofȱCelle,ȱyouȱlovedȱtheȱmanȱofȱReims,ȱwillȱyouȱcastȱoutȱtheȱman ofȱChartres?”)113ȱHeȱstressedȱinȱparticularȱhisȱrelationshipȱtoȱBernard,ȱnowȱdead forȱnearlyȱtwoȱdecades,ȱcallingȱhimselfȱ“oneȱofȱBernard’sȱdisciples”ȱ(“unumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱde alumnisȱbeatissimiȱBernardi”),114ȱbutȱhisȱcontactsȱwithȱClairvauxȱwere,ȱonceȱagain, moreȱcomplexȱandȱlongerȬlasting:ȱheȱcorrespondedȱandȱmaintainedȱfriendships 109 110 111 112

113 114

Letterȱ104,ȱLPC,ȱ424–25;ȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱdetails,ȱseeȱibid.,ȱ424,ȱn.ȱ8. Letterȱ30,ȱLPC,ȱ108–09. Ibid. OnȱPeterȱandȱStephen,ȱseeȱLPC,ȱ106,ȱn.ȱ1;ȱonȱhisȱotherȱrelationsȱwithȱMolesme,ȱseeȱlettersȱ37, 138–39,ȱ156. Letterȱ147,ȱLPC,ȱ540–41. Ibid.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

377

withȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ hadȱ evidentlyȱ receivedȱ crucial supportȱfromȱthemȱatȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱhisȱfirstȱabbacyȱwhenȱfacingȱchallengesȱto hisȱauthority,ȱandȱlaterȱactedȱasȱanȱintermediaryȱforȱBernardȱinȱtransitusȱdisputes andȱotherȱmatters.115ȱFriendshipsȱwereȱclearlyȱconsideredȱtoȱextendȱbeyondȱthe individualsȱconcernedȱandȱcouldȱbeȱinheritedȱthroughȱinstitutionalȱcontacts.ȱPeter ofȱCelleȱalsoȱmaintained,ȱforȱexample,ȱaȱcloseȱinvolvementȱinȱtheȱaffairsȱofȱthe abbeyȱofȱSaintȬCrépin,ȱSoissons,ȱafterȱtheȱdepartureȱforȱRomeȱofȱhisȱoldȱfriendȱand correspondentȱAbbotȱBerneredus.116 Indeedȱmanyȱfriendshipsȱcouldȱbeȱregardedȱasȱcollectiveȱorȱinstitutionalȱrather thanȱ individual,ȱ contractedȱ eitherȱ betweenȱ individualsȱ andȱ communitiesȱ or betweenȱtwoȱcommunities.ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱinȱparticularȱcallsȱaȱnumberȱofȱhis correspondentsȱ andȱ alliesȱ friendsȱ ofȱ theȱ order.117ȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvauxȱ once referredȱtoȱtheȱarchbishopȱofȱCanterburyȱasȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱCistercianȱbrethrenȱin anȱ appealȱ onȱ hisȱ behalfȱ toȱ theȱ pope,118ȱ andȱ alsoȱ addressedȱ wholeȱ urban communitiesȱ asȱ friends.119ȱ Spiritualȱ friendshipsȱ couldȱ alsoȱ beȱ cultivated collectively.ȱAllȱthreeȱofȱtheȱauthorsȱconsideredȱhereȱhadȱestablishedȱrelationsȱwith Carthusianȱcommunitiesȱwhichȱtheyȱregularlyȱvisitedȱforȱspiritualȱretreatsȱandȱto whomȱtheyȱaddressedȱlettersȱpraisingȱtheȱpeaceȱandȱspiritualȱsuperiorityȱofȱthe Carthusians.ȱTheseȱlettersȱwereȱaddressedȱcollectively,ȱtoȱpriorsȱandȱcommunities, oftenȱwithoutȱgivingȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtheȱpriorsȱevenȱwhenȱtheȱpriorsȱconcernedȱhad writtenȱorȱrepliedȱindividuallyȱinȱtheirȱownȱnames.120ȱ Theȱpresenceȱofȱsuchȱsimilarȱtypesȱofȱletterȱinȱeachȱcollectionȱagainȱraisesȱthe questionȱofȱtheȱreasonsȱforȱtheirȱselectionȱandȱinclusion.ȱTheȱCarthusiansȱwereȱthe 115

116

117 118 119

120

SeeȱG.ȱWellstein,ȱ“DieȱfreundschaftlichenȱBeziehungenȱdesȱBenediktinersȱPetrusȱCellensisȱzuȱden Cisterziensern,”ȱCistercienserȱChronikȱ38ȱ(1926):ȱ213–18;ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱRivalry: TheȱRoleȱofȱAmicitiaȱinȱTwelfthȬCenturyȱMonasticȱRelations,”ȱJournalȱofȱEcclesiasticalȱHistoryȱ44 (1993):ȱ390–414;ȱhere.ȱ404. Seeȱ lettersȱ 135ȱ (onȱ Peter’sȱ roleȱ inȱ theȱ appointmentȱ ofȱ Berneredus’ȱ successor)ȱ andȱ 145ȱ (onȱ his attemptsȱtoȱresolveȱaȱdisputeȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcommunityȱwasȱinvolved).ȱȱLettersȱofȱgreetingȱtoȱthe newlyȱ electedȱ areȱ notȱ soȱ prominentȱ aȱ featureȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ letterȱ collectionsȱ beingȱ considered (althoughȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱtheyȱwereȱnotȱwritten),ȱbutȱitȱisȱnotableȱthatȱtheȱonlyȱoccasionȱwhen Bernardȱcalledȱaȱwomanȱaȱfriendȱwasȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱtheȱgreatȱpatronȱofȱmonasticȱordersȱinȱtheȱeast, QueenȱMelisendeȱofȱJerusalem,ȱinȱaȱletterȱofȱadviceȱandȱconsolationȱwhenȱsheȱbecameȱregentȱon herȱhusband’sȱdeathȱ(letterȱ354). Seeȱe.g.ȱlettersȱ31,ȱ56,ȱ79,ȱ84,ȱ88,ȱ106.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱMarcȱSaurette. Letterȱ239. Letterȱ242ȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱofȱToulouse,ȱagainstȱheresy;ȱletterȱ243ȱtoȱtheȱRomansȱwhenȱtheyȱrebelled againstȱtheȱCistercianȱpope,ȱEugeniusȱIII. BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱlettersȱ11ȱandȱ12ȱtoȱPriorȱGuyȱandȱtheȱcommunityȱofȱLaȱGrandeȱChartreuse; PeterȱtheȱVenerableȱlettersȱ24ȱandȱ48ȱtoȱtheȱsame,ȱandȱ132ȱtoȱanȱunnamedȱsuccessorȱ(identifiedȱas Anthelm,ȱ LPVȱ 2,ȱ 186)ȱ andȱ theȱ community,ȱ andȱ 169–70,ȱ anȱ exchangeȱ withȱ theȱ Carthusiansȱ of Meyriat;ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱlettersȱ52–60ȱtoȱtheȱCarthusiansȱofȱMontȬDieuȱ(onlyȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱnameȱthe priorȱ[Simon]).

378

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

mostȱ reclusiveȱ andȱ austereȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ ordersȱ andȱ theirȱ harshȱ lifeȱ attracted relativelyȱfewȱconverts.ȱCultivatingȱandȱproclaimingȱspecialȱrelationshipsȱwith theseȱ unimpeachablyȱ piousȱ yetȱ institutionallyȱ unthreateningȱ monksȱ mayȱ have beenȱregardedȱasȱanȱeffectiveȱwayȱtoȱestablishȱtheȱpiousȱcredentialsȱofȱtheȱwriters, allȱofȱwhomȱwereȱinvolvedȱtoȱsomeȱdegreeȱinȱconflictsȱwithȱotherȱordersȱoverȱthe natureȱofȱtheȱmonasticȱvocationȱorȱhadȱlevelledȱcriticismsȱatȱotherȱcommunities.121 Whereȱ theȱ formationȱ orȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ bondsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ mentionedȱ in letters,ȱtheȱimageryȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱitȱisȱoftenȱthatȱofȱallegiance,ȱprivilege,ȱlaw, debt,ȱorȱobligation.ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱwroteȱtoȱtheȱpapalȱlegateȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Pavia,ȱfor example:ȱ “Placuitȱ dignationiȱ uestreȱ meȱ annumerareȱ inȱ amicorumȱ uestrorum collegio”ȱ(“Itȱpleasedȱyourȱworthinessȱtoȱnumberȱmeȱamongȱtheȱcollegeȱofȱyour friends”),122ȱ andȱ withȱ Mathildaȱ ofȱ Fontevraultȱ heȱ spokeȱ ofȱ enteringȱ a “confederationemȱmutuiȱamoris”ȱ(“anȱallianceȱofȱmutualȱlove”)ȱandȱgainingȱher “familiaritatem”,123ȱ whileȱ withȱ Hughȱ ofȱ Clunyȱ heȱ enteredȱ theȱ “uestibulum familiaritatisȱ tue”ȱ (“forecourtȱ ofȱ yourȱ familiarity”),ȱ aȱ phraseȱ evocativeȱ ofȱ the approachȱofȱaȱhumbleȱsupplicantȱtoȱwhomȱhisȱlord’sȱinnerȱcourtȱisȱnotȱaccessible.124ȱ BetrayedȱbyȱAbbotȱTheobaldȱofȱMolesmeȱoverȱaȱfinancialȱmatter,ȱPeterȱappealed toȱ theȱ “privilegiumȱ amicitie”ȱ (“privilegeȱ ofȱ friendship”)ȱ whichȱ heȱ reminded Theobaldȱthatȱheȱhimselfȱhadȱproclaimedȱinȱanȱearlierȱletter.125ȱLegalȱmetaphors wereȱalsoȱveryȱcommon.ȱTheseȱmostlyȱamountedȱtoȱlittleȱmoreȱthanȱconventional referencesȱtoȱtheȱ“lawsȱofȱfriendship,”126ȱbutȱwereȱoccasionallyȱmoreȱelaborate,ȱas inȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱdeclarationȱtoȱHenryȱofȱFranceȱthatȱheȱwas:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱnonȱcontra legemȱmeȱliberumȱinȱseruitutemȱdistrahendoȱsedȱseruumȱamicitieȱtueȱinȱlibertatem vindicando”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱnotȱdistrainingȱmyself,ȱaȱfreeȱman,ȱintoȱservitudeȱcontraryȱtoȱthe lawȱbutȱvindicatingȱmyself,ȱaȱslave,ȱintoȱtheȱfreedomȱofȱyourȱfriendship”).127ȱAnd Peter’sȱletterȱtoȱtheȱCistercianȱabbotȱHardouinȱofȱLarrivourȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱfinest examplesȱofȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱfriendlyȱmessagesȱbeingȱexpressedȱinȱtheȱimageryȱof creditȱandȱdebt;ȱitȱopens: Deȱ statuȱ suoȱ amicoȱ scribereȱ soluereȱ estȱ debitum,ȱ etȱ creditorȱ siȱ aȱ debitoreȱ debitum receperitȱdebitorȱliberabitur.ȱSiȱampliusȱdonumȱestȱiamȱdatorisȱnonȱcreditorisȱdebitum. Debetȱitaqueȱproȱbeneficioȱhuiusmodiȱgratiarumȱactionemȱnonȱproȱsolutioneȱdebiti liberationem.ȱNonȱdispariȱformaȱdebitoremȱquidemȱmeȱuestrumȱfateor,ȱproȱamicitia queȱcircaȱamiciȱstatumȱsemperȱsollicitaȱest,ȱquomodoȱmeȱhabeamȱuobisȱinsinuare. 121 122 123

124 125 126 127

SeeȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱandȱNetworks,”ȱ260ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ37). Letterȱ89,ȱLPC,ȱ378–79. Letterȱ 27,ȱ LPC,ȱ 86–87ȱ (whichȱ suggestsȱ theyȱ mayȱ notȱ haveȱ met);ȱ cf.,ȱ e.g.,ȱ “compactiȱ amoris” [“compactȱofȱlove”]ȱinȱletterȱ163ȱtoȱRichardȱofȱSalisburyȱ(ibid.,ȱ636–37). Letterȱ31,ȱLPC,ȱ116–17. Letterȱ138,ȱLPC,ȱ512–13. E.g.,ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱlettersȱ18,ȱ65,ȱ66;ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱletterȱ12. Letterȱ21,ȱLPC,ȱ58–59.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

379

[Toȱwriteȱtoȱaȱfriendȱaboutȱone’sȱownȱconditionȱisȱtoȱpayȱaȱdebt,ȱandȱifȱtheȱcreditor receivesȱtheȱdebtȱfromȱtheȱdebtorȱtheȱdebtorȱshallȱbeȱfreed.ȱIfȱmore,ȱitȱisȱnowȱaȱgiftȱfrom theȱgiver,ȱnotȱtheȱcreditor’sȱdue.ȱHeȱoughtȱthereforeȱtoȱofferȱthanksȱforȱaȱkindnessȱof thisȱsortȱratherȱthanȱanȱacquittalȱforȱtheȱpaymentȱofȱaȱdebt.ȱInȱaȱsimilarȱwayȱitȱisȱas yourȱ debtorȱ thatȱ I,ȱ forȱ theȱ sakeȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ whichȱ isȱ alwaysȱ concernedȱ forȱ the conditionȱofȱaȱfriend,ȱconfessȱthatȱIȱamȱconfidingȱtoȱyouȱhowȱIȱam.]128

Whileȱ lettersȱ displayȱ thisȱ richȱ metaphoricalȱ languageȱ ofȱ reciprocationȱ and obligation,ȱ evidenceȱ ofȱ moreȱ materialȱ meansȱ forȱ theȱ maintenanceȱ ofȱ friendly relations,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱgifts,ȱisȱfarȱrarer.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱasȱletters wereȱconcernedȱtoȱpresentȱanȱidealized,ȱspiritualȱviewȱofȱtheseȱrelationships,ȱand, asȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱtoȱunderlineȱtheirȱauthors’ȱfreedomȱfromȱmaterialȱorȱworldly concerns.ȱIndeed,ȱbyȱfarȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱcommodityȱrequestedȱandȱpromised inȱreciprocalȱexchangesȱisȱprayer.129ȱNevertheless,ȱthereȱareȱenoughȱreferencesȱto giftsȱtoȱshowȱthatȱgiftȱexchangeȱwasȱpracticedȱtoȱsomeȱextent.ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱoffers theȱmostȱdirectȱaffirmationȱofȱthis,ȱdeclaring:ȱ“Resȱsiquidemȱestȱfamiliarisȱamicitia, cotidianisȱrefricandaȱsalutationibus,ȱimmoȱirrigandaȱmutuisȱcollocutionibus,ȱet forteȱ renouandaȱ munerumȱ compensationibus”ȱ (“Forȱ friendshipȱ isȱ indeedȱ a familiarȱ thing,ȱ toȱ beȱ refreshedȱ byȱ dailyȱ greetings,ȱ nayȱ wateredȱ byȱ mutual conversation,ȱandȱperhapsȱtoȱbeȱrenewedȱwithȱreciprocationȱofȱgifts”).130ȱWeȱhave alreadyȱseenȱhowȱtheȱpapalȱchancellorȱHaimericȱcultivatedȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱthe Cisterciansȱwithȱgifts,131ȱandȱthereȱareȱaȱnumberȱofȱreferencesȱtoȱgiftsȱgivenȱor received,ȱoftenȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱlettersȱorȱinȱpostscripts,132ȱsometimesȱstressingȱthatȱthe giftȱisȱworthȱlessȱthanȱtheȱaffectionȱwhichȱmotivatesȱit.133 Anȱ aspectȱ ofȱ friendlyȱ relationsȱ aboutȱ whichȱ letterȱ collectionsȱ areȱ evenȱ less forthcomingȱisȱtheȱterminationȱofȱfriendships.134ȱAgainȱthisȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱsince 128 129

130 131 132

133 134

Letterȱ28,ȱLPC,ȱ92–95. Thisȱcouldȱbeȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱconfraternityȱpacts,ȱalthoughȱveryȱfewȱofȱtheȱreferencesȱexplicitly makeȱthatȱconnectionȱandȱtheȱlinksȱbetweenȱconfraternityȱpactsȱandȱepistolaryȱfriendshipȱare notoriouslyȱhardȱtoȱmakeȱ(seeȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“UnderstandingȱtheȱLanguageȱofȱamicitia:ȱThe FriendshipȱCircleȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱ(c.1115–1183),”ȱJournalȱofȱMedievalȱHistoryȱ20ȱ(1994):ȱ237–60;ȱhere 259ȱandȱn.ȱ49.ȱȱInȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux’sȱcollectionȱthereȱareȱ112ȱreferencesȱtoȱprayersȱrequested orȱofferedȱandȱonlyȱ6ȱspecificallyȱtoȱconfraternities;ȱforȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱtheȱfiguresȱareȱ25ȱand 2,ȱandȱforȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱ51ȱandȱ5. Letterȱ89,ȱLPC,ȱ378–79. Forȱfurtherȱdiscussions,ȱseeȱabove. Bernardȱlettersȱ100,ȱ119,ȱ120,ȱ175,ȱ310,ȱ311,ȱ341,ȱ368,ȱ389,ȱ409;ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱnos.ȱ54,ȱ60,ȱ66, 89,ȱ111,ȱ115;ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱnos.ȱ16,ȱ21,ȱ69,ȱ74,ȱ89,ȱ115,ȱ135,ȱ163,ȱ174,ȱ183;ȱthereȱisȱalsoȱoneȱexample ofȱ aȱ giftȱ rejectedȱ andȱ returnedȱ byȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux,ȱ onȱ behalfȱ ofȱ theȱ community,ȱ toȱ an unworthyȱ(unnamed)ȱdonor:ȱBernardȱletterȱ540. E.g.ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱletterȱ16. Thereȱisȱampleȱevidenceȱofȱbreachesȱandȱcrisesȱinȱfriendships,ȱoftenȱinȱlettersȱofȱreconciliationȱ(see below),ȱbutȱnotȱofȱtheirȱfinalȱending.

380

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

trueȱfriendship,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱwasȱheldȱideallyȱtoȱbeȱeternalȱandȱunchanging andȱwhatȱletterȱcollectionsȱpresentȱisȱnotȱunmediatedȱevidenceȱofȱsocialȱorȱpolitical relationsȱbutȱpicturesȱofȱselectedȱbondsȱrefractedȱthroughȱtheȱlensȱofȱidealized friendship.ȱ Bernardȱ ofȱ Clairvaux’sȱ collectionȱ providesȱ usȱ withȱ theȱ onlyȱ direct evidenceȱofȱaȱthreatȱtoȱbreakȱoffȱaȱfriendship.ȱTheȱletterȱisȱevidentlyȱtoȱaȱpotential convertȱwhoȱhadȱgoneȱbackȱonȱhisȱwordȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱClairvaux,ȱandȱsoȱagainȱthe friendshipȱisȱintegrallyȱboundȱupȱwithȱreligiousȱvocation,ȱloyaltyȱandȱinstitutional bonds.ȱ Bernardȱ begsȱ himȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ the communityȱtoȱcome,ȱadding:ȱ“Alioquinȱexȱhocȱiamȱnoverisȱteȱaȱnostraeȱfraternitatis familiaritateȱprorsusȱexpositum,ȱnecȱpoterisȱultra,ȱnisiȱfrustra,ȱblandiriȱdeȱsocietate bonorumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”135ȱ(“Otherwiseȱknowȱyouȱthatȱfromȱnowȱonȱyouȱareȱcutȱoffȱfromȱthe fellowshipȱofȱourȱbrotherhood,ȱandȱwillȱneverȱbeȱable,ȱexceptȱinȱvain,ȱtoȱflatter yourselfȱonȱyourȱfriendshipȱwithȱgoodȱmenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).136ȱ Butȱ aȱ threatȱ toȱ aȱ potentialȱ convertȱ inȱ aȱ commonȱ enoughȱ genreȱ ofȱ letter,ȱ the recruitmentȱletter,ȱisȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱbreakingȱoffȱofȱestablishedȱor importantȱrelationships.ȱPerhapsȱmoreȱtypicalȱofȱrealȱsituationsȱisȱPeterȱofȱCelle’s apparentlyȱbreakingȱoffȱrelationsȱwithȱHughȱofȱClunyȱafterȱHughȱhadȱtakenȱthe imperialȱsideȱinȱtheȱpapalȱschismȱofȱ1159:ȱtheȱlettersȱsimplyȱstop.ȱThisȱwasȱaȱreal betrayal.ȱPeterȱhad,ȱinȱanotherȱcontext,ȱcalledȱHughȱ“amic[us]ȱnost[er],ȱueritatis immoȱamic[us]”ȱ(“ourȱfriend,ȱnayȱtheȱfriendȱofȱtruth”).137ȱThisȱcoupling,ȱevoking theȱCiceronianȱideaȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwasȱcontingentȱnotȱonȱpersonalȱaffections butȱonȱadherenceȱtoȱsharedȱvalues,ȱwasȱcommonplace;ȱHugh’sȱstanceȱonȱtheȱpapal schismȱthusȱexcludedȱhimȱfromȱboth.138

FriendshipsȱinȱAction Whileȱtheȱeruditeȱandȱallusiveȱprofessionsȱofȱspiritualȱorȱtrueȱfriendshipȱinȱthese lettersȱ canȱ beȱ complexȱ andȱ difficultȱ toȱ interpret,ȱ andȱ whileȱ theȱ evidenceȱ they provideȱforȱtheȱoriginsȱandȱmaintenanceȱofȱrelationships,ȱintimateȱorȱformal,ȱcan beȱelusiveȱandȱindirect,ȱletterȱcollectionsȱallȱofferȱcopiousȱevidenceȱforȱtheȱpractical usesȱ toȱ whichȱ bondsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ wereȱ put.ȱ Monasticȱ writersȱ didȱ notȱ liveȱ in isolationȱfromȱtheȱwiderȱworldȱofȱpoliticalȬȱorȱallegianceȬȱfriendshipȱaroundȱthem. Anselmȱ himselfȱ hadȱ beenȱ quiteȱ clearȱ aboutȱ theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ thisȱ sortȱ of friendship,ȱwritingȱtoȱhisȱformerȱcommunityȱofȱBecȱinȱ1093:

135 136 137 138

Letterȱ415,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ399. BSJȱ(no.ȱ446),ȱ511. Letterȱ34,ȱLPC,ȱ130–31. Onȱtheȱphraseȱitself,ȱcf.ȱCicero,ȱDeȱofficiis,ȱi.ȱ19.ȱ63;ȱonȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱrelationsȱwithȱHughȱof Cluny,ȱseeȱLPC,ȱ128,ȱn.ȱ1.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

381

Memoresȱ etiamȱ estoteȱ quaȱ rationeȱ semperȱ ecclesiaeȱ Beccensiȱ amicosȱ acquirere consuevi;ȱetȱhocȱexemploȱamicosȱvobisȱundecumqueȱacquirereȱfestinate,ȱhospitalitatis bonumȱsectando,ȱbenignitatemȱomnibusȱimpendendo,ȱet,ȱubiȱfacultasȱoperisȱdefuerit, affabilisȱsermonisȱgratiamȱporrigendo.ȱNecȱumquamȱsatisȱvosȱhabereȱamicosȱcredatis, sedȱ siveȱ divitesȱ siveȱ pauperes,ȱ omnesȱ vobisȱ inȱ amoreȱ fraternitatisȱ conglutinate, quatenusȱhocȱetȱadȱvestraeȱecclesiaeȱutilitatemȱproficereȱetȱadȱeorumȱquosȱdiligitis salutemȱvaleatȱpertingere.139 [Rememberȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱhowȱIȱalwaysȱusedȱtoȱgainȱfriendsȱforȱtheȱchurchȱofȱBec:ȱfollowingȱthis example,ȱhastenȱtoȱgainȱfriendsȱforȱyourselvesȱfromȱallȱsidesȱbyȱexercisingȱtheȱgood deedȱofȱhospitality,ȱdispensingȱgenerosityȱtoȱallȱmen,ȱandȱwhenȱyouȱdoȱnotȱhaveȱthe opportunityȱofȱdoingȱgoodȱworks,ȱbyȱaccordingȱatȱleastȱtheȱgiftȱofȱaȱkindȱword.ȱNever considerȱthatȱyouȱhaveȱenoughȱfriends,ȱbutȱwhetherȱrichȱorȱpoor,ȱletȱthemȱallȱbeȱbound toȱyouȱbyȱbrotherlyȱlove.ȱThisȱwillȱbeȱtoȱtheȱadvantageȱofȱyourȱchurchȱandȱpromoteȱthe welfareȱofȱthoseȱyouȱlove.]140

BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱpointedȱoutȱtheȱdangersȱofȱfriendlessnessȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱan unidentifiedȱbishop,ȱasking:ȱ“PlaceatȱvobisȱquodȱpauperȱecclesiaȱSanctiȱMartini collatumȱsibiȱaȱDeoȱpaupertatisȱlevamenȱmagisȱfortasseȱamicorumȱquamȱiustitiae inopiaȱperdit?”ȱ(“AreȱyouȱsatisfiedȱthatȱtheȱpoorȱchurchȱofȱSaintȬMartin,ȱmoreȱfor lackȱofȱfriendsȱthanȱforȱwantȱofȱjustice,ȱshouldȱloseȱtheȱreliefȱofȱherȱpovertyȱwhich hasȱbeenȱgrantedȱtoȱherȱbyȱGod’sȱmercy?”)141ȱHeȱalsoȱonceȱcomplainedȱaboutȱhis opponentsȱbeingȱ“amiciȱCluniacenses”ȱ(“friendsȱofȱCluny”).142ȱOnȱanotherȱoccasion heȱadvisedȱOdoȱofȱMarmoutierȱtoȱstopȱcomplainingȱaboutȱtheȱoutcomeȱofȱaȱcase becauseȱtheȱarbitratorsȱwereȱmenȱ“deȱquorumȱsatisȱnonȱsolumȱprobataȱaequitate, sedȱetȱprivata,ȱutȱbeneȱnovimus,ȱfamiliaritateȱconfiditis”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱnotȱonlyȱinȱwhose provenȱjusticeȱbutȱalsoȱinȱwhoseȱprivateȱfriendshipȱyouȱcould,ȱasȱweȱwellȱknow, haveȱeveryȱconfidence”).143ȱ Indeed,ȱ asȱ weȱ haveȱ alreadyȱ seen,ȱ farȱ fromȱ treatingȱ friendshipȱ asȱ potentially corruptingȱ ofȱ justice,ȱ lettersȱ oftenȱ declaredȱ friendsȱ toȱ beȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ the friendsȱ ofȱ truth,ȱ ofȱ God,ȱ ofȱ theȱ Church,ȱ orȱ ofȱ Christ.ȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Celle,ȱ again,ȱ for example,ȱwritingȱtoȱtheȱpopeȱinȱsupportȱofȱaȱrequestȱforȱprefermentȱintroduced thoseȱ bringingȱ theȱ caseȱ asȱ “Amiciȱ nostri,ȱ immoȱ ueritatisȱ etȱ honestatis”ȱ (“Our friends,ȱnayȱtheȱfriendsȱofȱtruthȱandȱhonesty”).144 139 140 141 142

143 144

Letterȱ165,ȱS.ȱAnselmiȱCantuariensisȱArchiepiscopiȱ4,ȱ39;ȱcf.ȱletterȱ185. Fröhlich,ȱTheȱLettersȱofȱSaintȱAnselm,ȱ58–59ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ29). Letterȱ423,ȱSBOȱ8.,ȱ407;ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ454),ȱ515;ȱcf.ȱletterȱ429ȱonȱhavingȱfriends. Letterȱ166,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ377;ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ181),ȱ253ȱ(moreȱliterallyȱ“Cluniacȱfriends”—thoseȱnamedȱin theȱletterȱwereȱnotȱCluniacsȱbutȱtheȱphrasingȱperhapsȱsuggestsȱaȱtighterȱrelationship,ȱthatȱtheyȱare notȱjustȱseparatelyȱorȱindividuallyȱfriendsȱofȱClunyȱbutȱunitedȱinȱaȱjointȱbondȱwhichȱembraces themȱall);ȱcf.ȱalsoȱletterȱ205.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱMarcȱSaurette. Letterȱ397,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ375;ȱtrans.ȱadaptedȱfromȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ429),ȱ500. Letterȱ4,ȱLPC,ȱ10–11;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱabove,ȱandȱlettersȱ34,ȱ44,ȱbutȱsuchȱphrasesȱareȱcommonplaceȱinȱall collections.

382

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

Friendshipȱisȱinȱfactȱcommonlyȱassociatedȱwithȱpoliticalȱallegiance.145ȱAtȱtheȱheight ofȱ theȱ bitterȱ disputeȱ overȱ theȱ episcopalȱ electionȱ atȱ Langresȱ inȱ 1138,ȱ Peterȱ the Venerable,ȱwritingȱtoȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱlinkedȱamicitiaȱdirectlyȱtoȱloyaltyȱand toȱpoliticalȱrelationsȱbetweenȱtheȱorders,ȱappealingȱtoȱBernard’sȱrelationsȱwithȱthe CluniacsȱandȱaccusingȱBernardȱofȱfailingȱtoȱheedȱandȱtrustȱhisȱfriends:ȱ“Credite magisȱ domesticisȱ quamȱ extraneis,ȱ notisȱ quamȱ ignotis,ȱ amicisȱ veridicisȱ quam inimicisȱmaledicis”146ȱ(“Trustȱmembersȱofȱyourȱhouseholdȱmoreȱthanȱoutsiders, acquaintancesȱmoreȱthanȱstrangers,ȱfriendsȱspeakingȱtruthȱmoreȱthanȱslandering enemies”).ȱPeterȱalsoȱaccusedȱhisȱbrotherȱPontius,ȱabbotȱofȱVézelay,ȱofȱfailingȱto helpȱhimȱbrokerȱaȱpeaceȱbetweenȱtheirȱtwoȱotherȱbrothers,ȱHeracliusȱandȱEustace, whoȱhadȱnowȱswornȱfriendship: Dormientiȱ itaqueȱ fratri,ȱ necȱ proȱ fratreȱ necȱ proȱ fratribusȱ aȱ somnoȱ diutinoȱ evigilare volentiȱindico,ȱtantamȱtamqueȱdiuturnamȱfratrumȱguerram,ȱmeoȱmeoȱinquamȱstudio, meaȱcura,ȱmeaȱinquietudine,ȱpraeviaȱetȱadiutriceȱdeiȱgratiaȱconsopitam,ȱEracliumque etȱEustachiumȱgermanos,ȱsacramentisȱinviolabilibusȱinȱperpetuamȱfoedusȱamcitiamque iuratos.147 [AndȱsoȱIȱproclaimȱtoȱaȱsleepingȱbrother,ȱoneȱwillingȱtoȱstirȱhimselfȱfromȱaȱlongȱsleep neitherȱforȱoneȱbrotherȱnorȱforȱall,ȱthatȱsoȱgreatȱandȱprotractedȱaȱfraternalȱconflictȱhas beenȱsettledȱbyȱmy,ȱmyȱIȱsay,ȱefforts,ȱthroughȱmyȱtrouble,ȱmyȱconcern,ȱwithȱtheȱhelp ofȱGod’sȱprovidentialȱgrace,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱbrothersȱHeracliusȱandȱEustaceȱhaveȱsworn aȱperpetualȱpactȱandȱfriendshipȱwithȱinviolableȱoaths.]

AȱletterȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱtoȱStephenȱofȱPalestrinaȱconcerningȱtheȱconflict betweenȱ Louisȱ VIIȱ andȱ Theobaldȱ ofȱ Champagne,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ Clairvaux’sȱ greatest patronsȱ andȱ supporters,ȱ makesȱ clearȱ Bernard’sȱ directȱ involvementȱ inȱ the negotiationȱofȱaȱpactȱofȱfriendshipȱ148: PraetereaȱRex,ȱnobisȱquidemȱnonȱparumȱlaborantibus,ȱpacemȱcumȱcomiteȱTheobalde fecerat,ȱ firmae,ȱ utȱ putavimus,ȱ amicitiaeȱ foedusȱ inierat;ȱ etȱ ecceȱ occasionesȱ quaerit quomodoȱrecedatȱabȱamicoȱ[cf.ȱProv.ȱ18:ȱ1].149

145 146

147

148

149

SeeȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱJohnȱA.ȱDempsey. Letterȱ29,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ102–03;ȱonȱtheȱdispute,ȱseeȱConstable,ȱ“TheȱDisputedȱElectionȱatȱLangres”;ȱcf. alsoȱletterȱ66ȱtoȱCardinalȱGiloȱofȱTusculumȱsimilarlyȱlinkingȱamicitiaȱtoȱpoliticalȱallegianceȱinȱthe papalȱschism. Letterȱ91,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ232–33ȱ(1138/56);ȱonȱtheȱbrothersȱandȱtheirȱconflictȱseeȱibid.ȱ2,ȱ241–42;ȱcf.ȱalso letterȱ116. Seeȱalsoȱlettersȱ45,ȱrecordingȱaȱpactȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheȱkingȱandȱtheȱCistercians,ȱandȱ466, onȱClairvaux’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱking. Letterȱ224,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ92;ȱTheobaldȱwasȱalsoȱaȱconfraterȱ(letterȱ517);ȱseeȱalsoȱNewman,ȱBoundariesȱof Charity,ȱ147,ȱ173ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ1);ȱletterȱ222,ȱinȱdefenceȱofȱTheobald,ȱalsoȱrefersȱtoȱtheȱking’sȱ“homines .ȱ.ȱ.ȱetȱamici”ȱ(“vassalsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱfriends”),ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ87;ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ298),ȱ367.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

383

[Theȱ king,ȱ whenȱ weȱ hadȱ takenȱ someȱ littleȱ troubleȱ inȱ theȱ matter,ȱ madeȱ peaceȱ with CountȱTheobaldȱandȱwhatȱweȱbelievedȱtoȱbeȱaȱfirmȱpactȱofȱfriendship.ȱButȱheȱisȱnow seekingȱexcusesȱtoȱbeȱridȱofȱhisȱfriend.]150

Thereȱareȱalsoȱaȱnumberȱofȱinstancesȱinȱtheseȱcollectionsȱwhereȱweȱcanȱgetȱan insightȱ intoȱ theȱ possibleȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ publiclyȱ avowedȱ friendships.ȱ When Hugh,ȱtheȱabbotȱofȱTroisȬFontaines,ȱClairvaux’sȱfirstȱdaughterȱhouse,ȱwasȱmade aȱ cardinalȱ inȱ 1150ȱ heȱ becameȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ bitterȱ disputeȱ withȱ Bernardȱ of Clairvauxȱoverȱtheȱelectionȱofȱaȱsuccessor,ȱduringȱtheȱcourseȱofȱwhichȱBernard warnedȱhimȱthatȱanyȱslurȱheȱmightȱmakeȱagainstȱBernardȱwouldȱreflectȱbackȱon himselfȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱknownȱfriendship: Siȱ itaȱ deȱ meȱ sentitis,ȱ videteȱ neȱ vestramȱ quoqueȱ excellentiamȱ pariterȱ involvatȱ hoc nubilum.ȱ Quippeȱ quiȱ cumȱ eiusmodiȱ tamȱ notamȱ omnibusȱ familiaritatemȱ atque amicitiamȱsemelȱinitam,ȱtantoȱstudioȱhucusqueȱfovistis.151 [Ifȱyouȱdoȱbelieveȱthisȱofȱmeȱ[i.e.ȱthatȱBernardȱwouldȱsupportȱaȱdishonorableȱcause], haveȱaȱcareȱthatȱtheȱslurȱdoesȱnotȱfastenȱitselfȱonȱyouȱtoo,ȱforȱitȱisȱwellȱknownȱthatȱyou haveȱbeenȱmyȱintimateȱfriendȱandȱthatȱupȱtillȱnowȱyouȱhaveȱvaluedȱourȱfriendship.]152

Moreȱcommonlyȱthereȱisȱevidenceȱofȱcomplainantsȱappealingȱtoȱknownȱfriends ofȱtheirȱopponentsȱorȱofȱtheirȱjudgesȱtoȱbringȱtheirȱinfluenceȱtoȱbearȱevenȱwhere theyȱhadȱnoȱofficialȱjurisdiction.ȱBernard,ȱforȱexample,ȱtoldȱAbbotȱOdoȱofȱBeaulieu thatȱaȱpoorȱmanȱhadȱbroughtȱtoȱhimȱhisȱcaseȱagainstȱOdoȱ“propterȱfamiliarem specialemqueȱ amicitiamȱ quamȱ interȱ meȱ etȱ vosȱ esseȱ audivit”ȱ (“becauseȱ heȱ had heardȱofȱtheȱspecialȱandȱintimateȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ“);ȱandȱBernard,ȱ“de quaȱ etiamȱ ipseȱ praesumens”ȱ (“presumingȱ onȱ thatȱ veryȱ friendshipȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ “),ȱ was takingȱupȱtheȱman’sȱcase.153ȱWhenȱJohnȱofȱSalisburyȱbecameȱbishopȱofȱChartres, PeterȱofȱCelleȱfoundȱdissatisfiedȱplaintiffsȱcomingȱtoȱhim,ȱasȱheȱtoldȱJohn,ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ. propterȱantiquamȱnostramȱamicitiamȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱonȱaccountȱofȱourȱlongȬstanding friendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”),ȱandȱaskingȱhimȱtoȱactȱ“ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱquasiȱmagistrumȱetȱiudicemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(“. .ȱ.ȱasȱifȱmasterȱandȱjudgeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”).154ȱTheȱobligationsȱofȱfriendshipȱwereȱnotȱalways welcome;ȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱtwoȱrecipients,ȱdescribedȱasȱaȱrelativeȱandȱaȱfriend,ȱBernard complains: Feciȱquodȱvoluistisȱetȱquodȱadȱmeȱomninoȱnonȱpertinebat,ȱnisiȱquiaȱvosȱvoluistis.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Deindeȱetiamȱhominemȱillum,ȱproȱquoȱmeȱprecantes,ȱducissamȱmeȱprecariȱcompulistis,

150 151 152 153 154

BSJȱ(no.ȱ300),ȱ370. Letterȱ306,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ223. BSJȱ(no.ȱ373)ȱ444. Letterȱ407,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ388;ȱtrans.ȱadaptedȱfromȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ439),ȱ507. Letterȱ176,ȱLPC,ȱ674–77;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱlettersȱ177–78ȱandȱ151.

384

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine itaȱ semperȱ cognovimusȱ aȱ iuventuteȱ suaȱ malisȱ fuisseȱ intentumȱ etȱ abȱ omniȱ bono elongatumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.155 [Iȱhaveȱdoneȱwhatȱyouȱwanted.ȱItȱwasȱnoȱconcernȱofȱmineȱexceptȱthatȱitȱwasȱyourȱwish thatȱIȱshouldȱdoȱit.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱhaveȱalwaysȱknownȱthatȱthisȱman,ȱonȱbehalfȱofȱwhomȱyou persuadedȱ meȱ toȱ intercedeȱ withȱ theȱ duke’sȱ lady,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ intentȱ onȱ evilȱ andȱ far removedȱfromȱgoodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]156

Theseȱoccasionalȱdetailsȱareȱilluminatingȱbutȱmoreȱstrikingȱisȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhich allȱ ofȱ theseȱ letterȱ collectionsȱ aboundȱ withȱ appeals,ȱ petitions,ȱ interventionsȱ in disputes,ȱandȱrecommendationsȱforȱsupportȱorȱpatronage,ȱmanyȱofȱwhichȱinvoke loveȱorȱfriendship.ȱAppealsȱandȱpetitionsȱaloneȱaccountȱforȱaboutȱ40ȱperȱcentȱofȱthe survivingȱlettersȱofȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱandȱofȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱandȱ30ȱper centȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle’s,ȱandȱwhileȱBernardȱinvokesȱloveȱorȱfriendshipȱinȱjustȱunder halfȱofȱthese,ȱtheȱothersȱdoȱsoȱinȱoverȱ80ȱperȱcentȱofȱtheirȱappeals.ȱThisȱfeatureȱof letterȱcollectionsȱhasȱgivenȱriseȱtoȱaȱsecondȱmajorȱstrandȱinȱtheȱhistoriographyȱof friendshipȱ whichȱ hasȱ movedȱ theȱ focusȱ awayȱ fromȱ theȱ concernȱ toȱ identifyȱ and exploreȱtheȱindividualȱpersonalȱrelationshipsȱunderlyingȱepistolaryȱprofessionsȱof friendshipȱandȱtowardsȱtheȱtracingȱofȱcirclesȱorȱnetworksȱofȱfriends.ȱThisȱapproach wasȱbasedȱoriginallyȱonȱtheȱconceptȱofȱinstrumentalȱfriendships,ȱaȱrangeȱofȱtiesȱand obligationsȱ whichȱ wereȱ contractedȱ beyondȱ theȱ sphereȱ ofȱ closeȱ emotionalȱ ties (whichȱ wereȱ nowȱ termedȱ affectiveȱ friendships)ȱ andȱ wereȱ theȱ basisȱ forȱ the formationȱofȱextensiveȱnetworksȱofȱmutualȱsupportȱandȱcooperationȱoperatingȱat aȱrangeȱofȱlevelsȱfromȱlocalȱdisputesȱoverȱlandȱorȱmoneyȱtoȱmajorȱpoliticalȱaffairs. Moreȱ recentlyȱ theȱ sharpȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ affectiveȱ andȱ instrumental relationshipsȱ hasȱ beenȱ nuancedȱ andȱ historiansȱ haveȱ alsoȱ begunȱ toȱ lookȱ toȱ the newerȱ modelsȱ ofȱ trustȱ buildingȱ andȱ socialȱ capitalȱ toȱ describeȱ networksȱ which incorporate,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseenȱabove,ȱaȱrangeȱofȱdifferentȱrelationshipsȱandȱdegrees ofȱacquaintanceȱunderȱaȱcommonȱlanguageȱofȱfriendship.157ȱThisȱisȱcurrentlyȱa

155 156 157

Letterȱ443,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ421;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱletterȱ274. BSJȱ(no.ȱ462),ȱ518. SeeȱforȱexampleȱIanȱS.ȱRobinson,ȱ“TheȱFriendshipȱNetworkȱofȱGregoryȱVII,”ȱHistoryȱ63ȱ(1978): 1–22;ȱHelmutȱFeld,ȱ“DieȱeuropäischeȱPolitikȱGerbertsȱvonȱAurillac:ȱFreundschaftȱundȱTreueȱals politischeȱTugenden,”ȱGerberto,ȱscienza,ȱstoriaȱeȱmito,ȱed.ȱMicheleȱTosi.ȱArchivumȱBobiense,ȱStudia IIȱ(Bobbio/Piacenza:ȱEd.ȱdegliȱA.S.B.,ȱ1985),ȱ695–731;ȱJohnȱMcLoughlin,ȱ“AmicitiaȱinȱPractice:ȱJohn ofȱSalisburyȱ(c.1120–1180)ȱandȱhisȱCircle,”ȱEnglandȱinȱtheȱTwelfthȱCentury,ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱ1988 HarlaxtonȱSymposium,ȱed.ȱDanielȱWilliamsȱ (Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk,ȱandȱWolfeboro,ȱNH:ȱBoydell Press,ȱ1990),ȱ165–81;ȱJulianȱHaseldine,ȱ“UnderstandingȱtheȱLanguageȱofȱamicitia.ȱTheȱFriendship CircleȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱ(c.1115–1183),”ȱJournalȱofȱMedievalȱHistoryȱ20ȱ(1994):ȱ237–60;ȱMargaretȱE. Mullett,ȱTheophylactȱofȱOchrid:ȱReadingȱtheȱLettersȱofȱaȱByzantineȱArchbishopȱȱ(Aldershot:ȱAshgate, 1997)ȱ;ȱandȱWalterȱYsebaert,ȱ“Ami,ȱclientȱetȱintermédiaire:ȱÉtienneȱdeȱTournaiȱetȱsesȱréseauxȱde relationsȱ (1167–1192),”ȱ Sacrisȱ Erudiriȱ 40ȱ (2001):ȱ 415–67;ȱ onȱ thisȱ “newȱ agenda”ȱ inȱ Friendship Studies,ȱ seeȱ Margaretȱ E.ȱ Mullett,ȱ “Power,ȱ Relationsȱ andȱ Networksȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Europe: Introduction,”ȱRevueȱBelgeȱdeȱphilologieȱetȱd’histoireȱ83ȱ(2005):ȱ255–59;ȱhereȱ257.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

385

rapidlyȱdevelopingȱareaȱofȱresearchȱwithȱaȱnumberȱofȱresearchȱgroupsȱandȱprojects activeȱinȱtheȱfield.158 Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱwhileȱhistorians,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱalreadyȱseen,ȱhaveȱexaminedȱthe distinctionsȱbetweenȱmonasticȱcaritasȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱandȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱon theȱother,ȱlessȱattentionȱhasȱbeenȱpaidȱtoȱtheȱdistinctionsȱinȱusageȱbetweenȱlove andȱfriendshipȱthemselves,ȱwhen,ȱforȱexample,ȱwritersȱusedȱtermsȱlikeȱamorȱor dilectio,ȱwhichȱdescribeȱfeelingsȱorȱstates,ȱandȱwhenȱamicitiaȱ(friendship),ȱwhich describesȱaȱrelationship.ȱThisȱisȱanȱareaȱwhichȱmeritsȱfurtherȱstudy,ȱbutȱasȱwe moveȱfromȱelaborateȱandȱidealizedȱprofessionsȱofȱaffectionȱtoȱmoreȱpragmatic invocationsȱofȱobligationsȱandȱreciprocalȱbondsȱaȱgreaterȱconcentrationȱonȱamicitia itselfȱcanȱbeȱobservedȱinȱsomeȱcontexts.159ȱOverȱtwoȱthirdsȱofȱtheȱlettersȱinȱwhich Bernardȱexpressesȱloveȱorȱfriendshipȱareȱappeals,ȱpetitions,ȱdisputesȱofȱsomeȱsort, orȱrecommendations,ȱbutȱoverȱthreeȱquartersȱofȱtheȱlettersȱinȱwhichȱheȱspecifically callsȱtheȱrecipientsȱfriendsȱfallȱintoȱtheseȱcategories.ȱInȱtheȱcasesȱofȱbothȱPeterȱthe VenerableȱandȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱhowever,ȱwhileȱagainȱaboutȱtwoȱthirdsȱofȱtheȱletters whichȱ expressȱ loveȱ orȱ friendshipȱ areȱ likewiseȱ appeals,ȱ petitions,ȱ disputes,ȱ or recommendations,ȱ onlyȱ somethingȱ overȱ halfȱ ofȱ thoseȱ whereȱ theȱ recipientsȱ are calledȱfriendsȱfallȱintoȱtheseȱcategories.160ȱȱTheȱpictureȱbecomesȱmoreȱcomplexȱifȱwe lookȱatȱtheseȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱlettersȱseparately.ȱTakingȱappealsȱfirst,ȱPeterȱof Celleȱexplicitlyȱinvokesȱamicitiaȱorȱaddressesȱtheȱrecipientȱasȱaȱfriendȱinȱonlyȱabout oneȱthirdȱofȱinstances,ȱandȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱinȱaboutȱaȱquarter,ȱwhileȱBernard doesȱsoȱinȱonlyȱ10ȱperȱcent.161ȱThoseȱappealsȱwhichȱdoȱinvokeȱfriendshipȱcanȱbe 158

159

160

161

CurrentȱprojectsȱincludeȱtheȱBritishȱAcademyȬsponsoredȱFriendshipȱNetworksȱgroupȱ(seeȱabove) andȱtheȱGraduiertenkolleg,ȱFreunde,ȱGönner,ȱGetreueȱatȱtheȱAlbertȬLudwigsȬUniversitätȱFreiburg (www.grkȬfreundschaft.uniȬfreiburg.de,ȱlastȱaccessedȱonȱAugustȱ1,ȱ2010). Thisȱ distinctionȱ isȱ exploredȱ inȱ McLoughlin,ȱ “Amicitiaȱ inȱ Practice,”ȱ andȱ Haseldine,ȱ “Friends, FriendshipȱandȱNetworks.” BernardȱofȱClairvauxȱcallsȱtheȱrecipientȱaȱfriendȱinȱ69ȱlettersȱ(13.6%ȱofȱtheȱcollection);ȱofȱthese,ȱ22 areȱappealsȱorȱpetitions,ȱ24ȱaddressedȱtoȱopponentsȱinȱdisputesȱorȱenemiesȱofȱsomeȱsort,ȱandȱ10 includeȱrecommendationsȱ(3ȱinȱlettersȱwithȱnoȱotherȱappeal);ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱcallsȱrecipients friendȱ inȱ 65ȱ lettersȱ (38.5%),ȱ ofȱ whichȱ 13ȱ areȱ appeals,ȱ 13ȱ toȱ opponents,ȱ andȱ 4ȱ include recommendationsȱ(2ȱinȱlettersȱwithȱnoȱotherȱappeal);ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱcallsȱrecipientsȱfriendsȱinȱ92 lettersȱ(50.5%),ȱofȱwhichȱ17ȱareȱappeals,ȱ18ȱtoȱopponents,ȱandȱ13ȱrecommendationsȱ(7ȱinȱletters withȱnoȱotherȱappeal).ȱBernardȱexpressesȱloveȱorȱfriendshipȱinȱ254ȱlettersȱ(50%ȱofȱtheȱcollection), ofȱwhichȱ96ȱareȱappeals,ȱ48ȱtoȱopponents,ȱandȱ25ȱincludeȱrecommendationsȱ(11ȱofȱwhichȱare recommendationȱonly);ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱdoesȱsoȱinȱ152ȱlettersȱ(89.9%),ȱofȱwhichȱ50ȱareȱappeals, 23ȱtoȱopponents,ȱandȱ12ȱrecommendationsȱ(5ȱrecommendationȱonly),ȱandȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱinȱ156 lettersȱ (85.7%),ȱ ofȱ whichȱ 44ȱ areȱ appeals,ȱ 27ȱ toȱ opponents,ȱ andȱ 13ȱ recommendationsȱ (7 recommendationȱonly). Bernard’sȱ collectionȱ includesȱ 207ȱ appeals,ȱ 96ȱ appealingȱ toȱ loveȱ orȱ friendship,ȱ includingȱ 22 invokingȱ friendshipȱ explicitly;ȱ Peterȱ theȱ Venerableȱ hasȱ 69ȱ appeals,ȱ 61ȱ invokingȱ loveȱ and friendship,ȱincludingȱ18ȱinvokingȱfriendshipȱexplicitly;ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱ50ȱappeals,ȱ41ȱloveȱand friendship,ȱincludingȱ17ȱfriendshipȱexplicitly.

386

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

quiteȱelaborate.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱlongestȱdiscussionsȱofȱamicitiaȱinȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’s lettersȱintroducesȱanȱappealȱtoȱoneȱofȱCluny’sȱstaunchestȱallies,ȱGeoffreyȱofȱLoreto, archbishopȱofȱBordeaux,ȱwhoȱhadȱactedȱasȱoverseerȱofȱCluniacȱhousesȱinȱPeter’s absence,ȱandȱwhoȱisȱdeclaredȱtoȱbeȱtheȱchiefȱofȱPeter’sȱfriendsȱandȱinvitedȱtoȱact withȱfullȱpowersȱagainȱinȱanotherȱmatter.162ȱ PeterȱofȱCelleȱalsoȱintroducesȱaȱcoupleȱofȱhisȱappealsȱwithȱelaborateȱmeditations onȱtheȱnatureȱofȱfriendship.163ȱMoreȱoften,ȱhowever,ȱtheseȱcommunicationsȱareȱfar simpler.ȱInȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux’sȱcase,ȱwhileȱsomeȱofȱhisȱappealsȱareȱdetailedȱand elaborate,ȱmost,ȱandȱpracticallyȱallȱofȱthoseȱwhichȱappealȱdirectlyȱtoȱfriendshipȱor addressȱtheȱrecipientȱasȱamicus,ȱareȱbriefȱandȱoftenȱquiteȱdirectȱandȱunadorned appealsȱtoȱfriendship,ȱcertainlyȱnotȱevenȱapproachingȱtheȱtheoreticalȱepistolary modelȱofȱcaptatio,ȱnarration,ȱandȱpetition.164ȱThisȱexample,ȱaddressedȱtoȱHaimeric theȱ papalȱ chancellor,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ letterȱ itselfȱ isȱ barelyȱ twiceȱ theȱ lengthȱ ofȱ its salutation,ȱisȱtypical: Nonȱlatetȱamicosȱnostrosȱquodȱmeȱfamiliariȱaffectuȱdiligitis,ȱetȱtantaeȱmihiȱfelicitatis fructumȱinvident,ȱsiȱsolusȱhabereȱvoluero.ȱMonachiȱDivionensesȱobȱantiquamȱillius ecclesiaeȱreligionemȱmihiȱcarissimiȱsunt.ȱSentiant,ȱsiȱplacet,ȱquodȱnonȱsitȱamorȱotiosus, siveȱvesterȱadȱnos,ȱsiveȱnosterȱadȱillos,ȱsalvaȱtamenȱinȱomnibusȱiustitia,ȱcontraȱquam neȱamicumȱquidemȱrespicereȱfasȱest.165 [Yourȱaffectionȱforȱmeȱisȱnotȱhiddenȱfromȱourȱfriendsȱand,ȱwereȱIȱtoȱkeepȱtheȱfruitȱof soȱgreatȱaȱhappinessȱtoȱmyself,ȱtheyȱwouldȱbeȱenviousȱofȱme.ȱTheȱmonksȱofȱDijonȱare veryȱ dearȱ toȱ me,ȱ becauseȱ theirsȱ isȱ soȱ venerableȱ aȱ foundation.ȱ Mayȱ theyȱ learn,ȱ ifȱ it pleaseȱyou,ȱthatȱneitherȱyourȱloveȱforȱmeȱnorȱmyȱloveȱforȱthemȱisȱfruitless,ȱsavingȱin allȱthingsȱjustice,ȱagainstȱwhichȱitȱwouldȱnotȱbeȱrightȱtoȱinvokeȱtheȱhelpȱevenȱofȱa friend.]166

MostȱsuchȱappealsȱsurviveȱoutsideȱBernard’sȱofficialȱcollection,ȱinȱtheȱepistolae extraȱ corpus,ȱ forȱ whichȱ weȱ haveȱ noȱ realȱ equivalentȱ inȱ theȱ otherȱ writers,ȱ and suggestingȱthatȱwhatȱweȱdoȱhaveȱinȱtheȱofficialȱcollectionsȱmayȱbeȱaȱsmallȱsample ofȱwhatȱwasȱaȱroutineȱtypeȱofȱlobbying.167ȱInȱsomeȱcasesȱdossiersȱofȱsuchȱappeals 162 163 164

165 166 167

Letterȱ106;ȱforȱtheȱdetails,ȱseeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ169–70. Lettersȱ18ȱandȱ89. Seeȱlettersȱ15,ȱ19,ȱ66,ȱ157,ȱ160,ȱ333,ȱ338,ȱ383,ȱ406,ȱ434,ȱ439,ȱ501,ȱ509,ȱ516,ȱ518,ȱ525,ȱ526,ȱ527,ȱ532,ȱ543, 545;ȱappealsȱareȱoccasionallyȱappendedȱtoȱlettersȱasȱpostscripts,ȱe.g.ȱletterȱ35;ȱsomeȱareȱlonger,ȱe.g. nos.ȱ66ȱorȱ509,ȱbutȱmostȱofȱtheȱmoreȱdetailedȱandȱelaborateȱappealȱletters,ȱandȱthoseȱdealingȱwith majorȱpoliticalȱcases,ȱdoȱnotȱinvokeȱamicitia. Letterȱ15,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ64. BSJȱ(no.ȱ16),ȱ50. Lettersȱtransmittedȱoutsideȱofficialȱcollectionsȱexistȱforȱallȱthreeȱofȱtheȱauthorsȱconsideredȱhere, butȱnotȱinȱtheȱsameȱnumbers:ȱagainstȱtheȱ190ȱforȱBernardȱ(SBOȱ8,ȱ233–38,ȱ451–52),ȱonlyȱnineȱare knownȱforȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱeightȱofȱwhichȱareȱversionsȱofȱlettersȱalsoȱinȱtheȱcollectionȱ(LPV 2,ȱ63–80;ȱGilesȱConstable,ȱ“AnȱUnpublishedȱLetterȱbyȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱtoȱtheȱPriorȱofȱParayȬleȬ Monial,ȱMesvres,ȱandȱLuzyȱinȱ1147,”ȱStudiaȱAnselmianaȱ85ȱ[1982]:ȱ207–16)ȱandȱtwelveȱforȱPeterȱof

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

387

surviveȱforȱaȱsingleȱcase.ȱSixȱlettersȱtoȱInnocentȱIIȱsurviveȱappealingȱforȱHatoȱof Troyesȱwhoȱhadȱrunȱintoȱdisputesȱoverȱtheȱreformȱofȱtheȱclergyȱinȱhisȱdiocese. Onlyȱone,ȱtheȱfirst,ȱrunsȱtoȱmoreȱthanȱsixȱlinesȱinȱtheȱmodernȱedition,ȱandȱgives someȱ detailsȱ aboutȱ theȱ case;ȱ theȱ restȱ areȱ shorterȱ andȱ compriseȱ repeatedȱ direct appealsȱtoȱfriendships.ȱTheseȱincludeȱappealsȱtoȱBernard’sȱfriendshipȱforȱHatoȱ– “Secureȱvovisȱutrumqueȱcupioȱesseȱcommendatum,ȱetȱiustumȱscilicet,ȱetȱamicum” (“Iȱcommendȱhimȱtoȱyouȱwithȱconfidenceȱonȱtwoȱaccounts:ȱbothȱasȱaȱjustȱmanȱand asȱmyȱfriend”)168—toȱInnocent’sȱfriendshipȱforȱBernard—”Augetisȱmihiȱgratiam etȱgloriamȱmultiplicatis,ȱcum,ȱgratiaȱmei,ȱamiciȱmeiȱgratiamȱinveniuntȱinȱoculis vestris”ȱ(“When,ȱforȱmyȱsake,ȱmyȱfriendsȱfindȱfavorȱinȱyourȱsight,ȱyouȱincrease yourȱfavorsȱtoȱmeȱandȱmultiplyȱmyȱhonors”),169—andȱtoȱBernard’sȱfriendshipȱfor thoseȱtransactingȱtheȱbusiness—”Oportetȱvosȱesseȱamicumȱamicorumȱnostrorum etȱfratriȱN.ȱassistereȱinȱcausaȱquamȱportat”ȱ(“Itȱbehovesȱyouȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱofȱmy friends,ȱandȱhelpȱbrotherȱN.,ȱinȱtheȱcauseȱwhichȱheȱbringsȱtoȱyou”).170ȱAnother letterȱofȱBernard’sȱillustratesȱtheȱreciprocalȱtiesȱandȱobligationsȱwhichȱmustȱhave beenȱcommonȱbutȱofȱwhichȱweȱonlyȱoccasionallyȱgetȱglimpsesȱinȱtheȱcollections. ItȱisȱaddressedȱtoȱFulk,ȱwhoseȱelectionȱtoȱtheȱseeȱofȱLyonsȱBernardȱhadȱwrittenȱto theȱpopeȱtoȱsupport: ScripsimusȱadȱdominumȱPapamȱdominusȱEpiscopusȱetȱegoȱproȱvobis,ȱproutȱoportere putavimus,ȱetȱhabetisȱexemplarȱlitterarum.ȱHabemusȱautemȱinȱvoluntateȱinȱaeternum nonȱ deficereȱ vobisȱ proȱ viribus,ȱ propterȱ bonumȱ quodȱ deȱ vobisȱ confidimus.ȱ Vestra autemȱinterestȱfacere,ȱutȱnonȱconfundamurȱsicȱconfidentes.ȱDeȱceteroȱsiȱinveniȱgratiam inȱoculisȱvestrisȱ[cf.ȱGen.ȱ18:ȱ3,ȱPs.ȱ40:ȱ2],ȱintelligiteȱsuperȱegenosȱetȱpauperesȱillosȱqui suntȱapudȱBenedictionemȱDei.ȱQuodȱenimȱuniȱexȱillisȱfeceritis,ȱmihi,ȱimmoȱChristo, facietis.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Hocȱ praecipueȱ obsecramusȱ utȱ Saviniacensesȱ monachosȱ prohibeatisȱ ab infestationeȱeorumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.171 [TheȱlordȱBishopȱ[ofȱLangres]ȱandȱmyselfȱhaveȱbothȱwrittenȱonȱyourȱbehalf,ȱasȱwe thoughtȱweȱoughtȱtoȱdo,ȱtoȱtheȱlordȱPope,ȱandȱyouȱhaveȱaȱcopyȱofȱbothȱletters.ȱWeȱare resolvedȱalwaysȱtoȱstandȱbyȱyouȱasȱfarȱasȱweȱcan,ȱbecauseȱweȱhopeȱforȱmuchȱgood fromȱyou.ȱItȱisȱinȱyourȱinterestȱtoȱseeȱthatȱourȱhopesȱareȱnotȱdisappointed.ȱIfȱIȱhave foundȱanyȱfavorȱinȱyourȱsight,ȱIȱbegȱyouȱtoȱbearȱinȱmindȱthoseȱpoorȱandȱneedyȱmonks

168 169 170

171

Celle,ȱ fiveȱ ofȱ whichȱ areȱ versionsȱ ofȱ lettersȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ collection.ȱ (Seeȱ LPC,ȱ xlviii–liii;ȱ ȱ Julian Haseldine,ȱ“AȱLostȱLetterȱofȱPeterȱofȱCelle,”ȱMonasticȱResearchȱBulletinȱ13ȱ[2007]:ȱ1–8).ȱSuchȱletters areȱbyȱnoȱmeansȱarchivalȱsurvivalsȱofȱoriginalȱletters,ȱbutȱselected,ȱpreserved,ȱandȱtransmitted equallyȱdeliberatelyȱbutȱseparately,ȱandȱoftenȱinȱotherȱcollections,ȱandȱmustȱbeȱreadȱasȱsuchȱ(see Haseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱandȱNetworks,”ȱ248). Letterȱ438,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ416,ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ268),ȱ344;ȱcf.ȱletterȱ437. Ibid. Letterȱ434,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ414,ȱtrans.ȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ266),ȱ343;ȱcf.ȱletterȱ439;ȱanotherȱsuchȱsequenceȱisȱletters 158–63. Letterȱ173,ȱSBOȱ7,ȱ387.

388

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine atȱBénissonsȬDieu.ȱWhatȱyouȱdoȱforȱoneȱofȱtheseȱyouȱdoȱforȱme,ȱorȱratherȱforȱChrist.ȱ. .ȱ.ȱIȱespeciallyȱbegȱyouȱtoȱpreventȱtheȱmonksȱofȱSavignyȱfromȱmolestingȱthemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]172

Theȱ letterȱ evenȱ concludesȱ withȱ aȱ recommendation.ȱ Recommendationsȱ ofȱ third parties,ȱ eitherȱ forȱ thoseȱ involvedȱ inȱ particularȱ disputesȱ orȱ forȱ patronageȱ more generally,ȱareȱanotherȱcontextȱwhereȱweȱseeȱdirectȱappealsȱtoȱfriendship;ȱthese occurȱ mostlyȱ asȱ briefȱ postscriptsȱ butȱ sometimesȱ asȱ theȱ soleȱ reasonȱ forȱ aȱ letter. Oftenȱ thoseȱ commendedȱ areȱ theȱ bearersȱ ofȱ theȱ letters;ȱ sometimesȱ theyȱ are commendedȱ notȱ onȱ theirȱ ownȱ accountȱ butȱ asȱ reliableȱ andȱ confidential messengers.173ȱTheseȱlettersȱagainȱ occasionallyȱgiveȱevidenceȱofȱwiderȱsupport networks.ȱInȱaȱletterȱtoȱGilduinȱofȱSaintȬVictor,ȱBernardȱexplainedȱthatȱhisȱfriend theȱbishopȱofȱLuccaȱhadȱrecommendedȱPeterȱLombardȱtoȱhim,ȱwhomȱheȱisȱnowȱin turnȱrecommendingȱtoȱGilduinȱasȱheȱ(Peter)ȱtravelsȱtoȱParis.ȱThisȱlittleȱvignette fromȱ theȱ earlyȱ careerȱ ofȱ theȱ greatȱ scholasticȱ alsoȱ castsȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱ lightȱ the traditionalȱpictureȱofȱBernardȱtheȱchampionȱofȱmonasticȱspiritualityȱagainstȱthe schools.174ȱ Johnȱ ofȱ Salisburyȱ wasȱ anotherȱ famousȱ figureȱ whoȱ benefittedȱ from Bernard’sȱrecommendationȱatȱaȱcriticalȱjunctureȱinȱhisȱearlyȱcareer,ȱinȱthisȱcase whenȱheȱreturnedȱtoȱEnglandȱtoȱbeginȱhisȱclericalȱcareerȱinȱtheȱcuriaȱofȱArchbishop TheobaldȱofȱCanterbury.ȱBernard’sȱletterȱtoȱTheobaldȱisȱoneȱofȱhisȱmoreȱfulsome recommendations,ȱbutȱisȱcertainlyȱnotȱuniqueȱinȱtheȱnatureȱofȱitsȱappeal:ȱ“Unde factumȱestȱutȱpreasentiumȱlatoremȱIoannem,ȱamicumȱmeumȱetȱamicumȱamicorum meorum,ȱ mittamȱ adȱ sublimitatemȱ vestram,ȱ adȱ liberalitatemȱ vestram,ȱ ad familiaritatemȱvestram,ȱquamȱinȱvobisȱetȱdeȱvobisȱhabereȱpraesumo”ȱ(“Andȱsoȱit isȱthatȱIȱamȱsendingȱyourȱHighnessȱJohn,ȱtheȱbearerȱofȱthisȱletter,ȱaȱfriendȱofȱmine andȱofȱmyȱfriends,ȱprevailingȱuponȱtheȱgenerosityȱandȱtheȱfriendshipȱwhichȱIȱenjoy fromȱyou”).175ȱ WeȱdoȱnotȱknowȱhowȱwellȱJohnȱknewȱBernard,ȱandȱBernardȱhadȱprobablyȱonly metȱTheobaldȱonce;ȱtheȱconnectionȱhere,ȱhiddenȱbehindȱtheȱreferenceȱtoȱ“aȱfriend .ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱofȱmyȱfriends,”ȱisȱalmostȱcertainlyȱPeterȱofȱCelle,ȱwhoȱgotȱBernardȱtoȱuseȱhis highȬlevelȱ politicalȱ contactȱ toȱ benefitȱ John.176ȱ Sometimesȱ theȱ requestȱ isȱ for friendshipȱitself,ȱasȱforȱexampleȱwhenȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱcommendedȱaȱCluniac priorȱ toȱ Bishopȱ Alberoȱ ofȱ Liège;ȱ commendingȱ prioriesȱ orȱ dependenciesȱ toȱ the protectionȱorȱpatronageȱofȱlocalȱbishopsȱisȱnotȱunusual,ȱandȱhereȱfriendshipȱis apparentlyȱ usedȱ asȱ synonymȱ forȱ patronage:ȱ “Specialiterȱ autemȱ proȱ domino GerardoȱprioreȱdeȱBertreisȱetȱdomoȱsibiȱcommissaȱvestramȱamicitiamȱdeprecamur” 172 173

174 175 176

BSJȱ(no.ȱ212),ȱ287. E.g.,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱlettersȱ393,ȱ412,ȱ435,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱno.ȱ51;ȱoccasionallyȱadditional lettersȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ bearersȱ themselves,ȱ askingȱ themȱ toȱ carryȱ theȱ otherȱ lettersȱ orȱ adding furtherȱinformation,ȱsurvive:ȱe.g.ȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱno.ȱ518,ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱno.ȱ151. Letterȱ410. Letterȱ361,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ307–08;ȱtrans.ȱadaptedȱfromȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ389),ȱ459. LettersȱofȱJohnȱofȱSalisburyȱ1,ȱxvi–xxiv.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

389

(“ButȱweȱparticularlyȱaskȱforȱyourȱfriendshipȱforȱlordȱGerard,ȱpriorȱofȱBertrée,ȱand theȱhouseȱcommittedȱtoȱhim”ȱ[cf.ȱReg.ȱS.ȱBen.ȱc.ȱii]).177 If,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱappealsȱandȱrecommendationsȱinvokingȱfriendshipȱmayȱbe underȬrepresentedȱinȱtheȱofficialȱcollections,ȱtheȱstressȱonȱtheȱbondȱofȱfriendship itselfȱ isȱ moreȱ apparentȱ whenȱ weȱ moveȱ fromȱ theseȱ lettersȱ toȱ thoseȱ writtenȱ to opponentsȱ inȱ disputes.ȱ Inȱ halfȱ ofȱ theȱ lettersȱ whereȱ Bernardȱ isȱ addressingȱ an opponent,ȱ rebukingȱ aȱ recipient,ȱ orȱ defendingȱ himselfȱ againstȱ aȱ chargeȱ or accusationȱofȱsomeȱsort,ȱheȱinvokesȱloveȱorȱfriendship,ȱandȱinȱaȱquarterȱofȱtheȱcases friendshipȱexplicitly.ȱButȱwithȱPeterȱtheȱVenerableȱandȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱpractically everyȱ suchȱ letterȱ invokesȱ loveȱ orȱ friendship,ȱ andȱ moreȱ thanȱ halfȱ friendship specifically.178ȱTheseȱlettersȱwereȱrarelyȱwrittenȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱdisputesȱorȱclashes withȱ strangersȱ orȱ confirmedȱ enemies;ȱ mostȱ wereȱ addressedȱ toȱ alliesȱ or acquaintancesȱ ofȱ someȱ sort.179ȱ Sometimeȱ aroundȱ 1150ȱ Bernardȱ launchedȱ a blisteringȱattackȱonȱtheȱPremonstratensians,ȱaȱcommunityȱwithȱwhichȱheȱhadȱbeen closelyȱinvolvedȱforȱmanyȱyears,ȱafterȱaȱnumberȱofȱsmallerȱdisputesȱhadȱevidently escalatedȱ intoȱ anȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ mutualȱ accusationsȱ andȱ recriminations.ȱ The bitternessȱofȱtheȱexchangeȱreflectsȱtheȱyearsȱofȱcooperationȱandȱaccordȱwhichȱhad precededȱit,ȱmanyȱinstancesȱofȱwhichȱtheȱletterȱdetails,ȱandȱtheȱeventualȱriftȱlasted untilȱ Bernard’sȱ death,ȱ butȱ theȱ letterȱ endsȱ withȱ anȱ extraordinaryȱ declarationȱ of friendship: Egoȱ autem,ȱ fratres,ȱ quidquidȱ vosȱ faciatis,ȱ decreviȱ semperȱ diligereȱ vos,ȱ etiamȱ non dilectus.ȱOccasionesȱquaerat,ȱquiȱvultȱrecedereȱabȱamicoȱ[cf.ȱProv.ȱ18:ȱ1];ȱmihiȱstudii est,ȱetȱerit,ȱnecȱcuiquamȱamicorumȱiustamȱinȱmeȱdiscessionisȱcausamȱdare,ȱnecȱscrutari inȱalio:ȱquodȱhocȱquidemȱfictae,ȱilludȱveroȱneglectaeȱamicitiaeȱsit.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAdhaereboȱvobis, etsiȱnolitis;ȱadhaerebo,ȱetsiȱnolimȱipse.180 [Forȱmyȱpart,ȱbrothers,ȱIȱamȱdeterminedȱtoȱloveȱyouȱwhateverȱyouȱdo,ȱevenȱifȱyouȱdo notȱreturnȱmyȱlove.ȱHeȱwhoȱwantsȱtoȱpartȱwithȱaȱfriendȱsearchesȱforȱpretexts.ȱItȱisȱmy concernȱandȱwishȱneverȱtoȱgiveȱanyȱfriendȱofȱmineȱaȱpretextȱforȱpartingȱwithȱmeȱnor toȱsearchȱforȱitȱinȱanother,ȱforȱtheȱfirstȱisȱtheȱmarkȱofȱaȱfalseȱfriendshipȱandȱtheȱsecond

177

178

179

180

Letterȱ89,ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ230;ȱcf.ȱPeterȱofȱCelleȱletterȱ143;ȱPeterȱofȱCelle’sȱrecommendationsȱofȱaȱyoung scholarȱtoȱPeterȱofȱPaviaȱalsoȱrequestedȱthatȱfriendshipȱbeȱconferredȱ(lettersȱ89–90). Bernard’sȱcollectionȱincludesȱ96ȱsuchȱletters,ȱ48ȱinvokingȱloveȱorȱfriendship,ȱincludingȱ24ȱinvoking friendshipȱspecifically;ȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱincludesȱ24,ȱ23ȱinvokingȱloveȱorȱfriendshipȱincluding 13ȱ friendshipȱ specifically;ȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Celle’sȱ 28,ȱ 27ȱ invokingȱ loveȱ orȱ friendshipȱ includingȱ 18 friendshipȱspecifically. E.g.,ȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱlettersȱ4,ȱ32,ȱ35,ȱ48,ȱ67,ȱ75,ȱ127,ȱ228,ȱ250,ȱ271,ȱ306,ȱ381,ȱ382,ȱ387,ȱ395,ȱ399, 407,ȱ505;ȱsomeȱunidentified:ȱ292,ȱ443;ȱsomeȱmoreȱdistantȱorȱevidentlyȱtoȱstrangers:ȱ197,ȱ253,ȱ45ȱ(to theȱkingȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱwholeȱorder),ȱandȱ319ȱ(toȱtheȱRomanȱpeople). Letterȱ253,ȱSBOȱ8,ȱ155;ȱcf.ȱalsoȱletterȱ68.

390

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine ofȱaȱneglectedȱoneȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱshallȱclingȱtoȱyou,ȱevenȱagainstȱyourȱwill;ȱIȱshallȱclingȱtoȱyou, evenȱagainstȱmyȱownȱwill.]181

Whileȱthisȱmightȱseemȱatȱfirstȱsightȱtoȱillustrateȱaȱpsychologicallyȱcuriousȱattitude toȱ personalȱ relationships,ȱ itȱ isȱ inȱ factȱ aȱ perfectlyȱ conventional,ȱ ifȱ strongly expressed,ȱ appealȱ toȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ eternalȱ unchangingȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ through whichȱalliancesȱandȱaccordsȱwereȱnormallyȱarticulated.ȱIndeedȱitȱwasȱquiteȱnormal toȱappealȱtoȱfriendshipȱinȱdisputesȱorȱclashes;ȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱhowever—and thisȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱmoreȱstrikingȱfeaturesȱofȱallȱofȱtheseȱcollections—thoseȱrecipients weȱ knowȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ closestȱ toȱ theȱ writers,ȱ eitherȱ asȱ longȬstandingȱ alliesȱ or personalȱacquaintances,ȱintimatesȱorȱconfidants,ȱareȱexplicitlyȱcalledȱfriendsȱalmost exclusivelyȱ inȱ theȱ contextsȱ ofȱ clashesȱ orȱ disputes.ȱ Inȱ manyȱ casesȱ relatively extensiveȱcorrespondencesȱareȱpreservedȱwithȱsuchȱacquaintances,ȱandȱwhileȱthese areȱ fullȱ ofȱ expressionsȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ affection,ȱ friendshipȱ itselfȱ isȱ usuallyȱ only invokedȱatȱmomentsȱofȱcrisis.ȱInȱtheȱrelativelyȱlargeȱnumberȱofȱlettersȱinȱPeterȱof Celle’sȱcollectionȱtoȱtwoȱofȱhisȱclosestȱfriendsȱandȱmostȱfrequentȱcorrespondents, BerneredusȱofȱSaintȬCrépinȱandȱJohnȱofȱSalisbury,ȱforȱexample,ȱamicitiaȱisȱinvoked mostȱurgentlyȱandȱdirectlyȱinȱlettersȱofȱrebukeȱorȱwarning.182ȱ AnotherȱexampleȱcomesȱinȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable’sȱcorrespondenceȱwithȱHenryȱof Blois.183ȱHenryȱhadȱbeenȱbroughtȱupȱandȱeducatedȱatȱClunyȱuntilȱ1126,ȱandȱsoȱfor someȱ timeȱ underȱ Peter’sȱ abbacy,ȱ andȱ remainedȱ oneȱ ofȱ hisȱ closestȱ alliesȱ andȱ a frequentȱvisitor.184ȱNineȱlettersȱtoȱhimȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱcollection,ȱbutȱheȱisȱonly addressedȱpersonallyȱasȱaȱfriendȱthreeȱtimes.ȱTheȱmostȱelaborateȱinvocationȱof friendshipȱcomesȱinȱaȱletterȱaccusingȱhimȱofȱdeceivingȱPeterȱandȱbetrayingȱCluny’s interestsȱ inȱ aȱ dispute;ȱ itȱ twiceȱ invokesȱ “theȱ faithȱ ofȱ aȱ trueȱ friend”ȱ andȱ makes repeatedȱandȱstressedȱreferenceȱtoȱfriendship.185ȱ ElsewhereȱinȱthisȱlongȱandȱmostlyȱamicableȱcorrespondenceȱHenryȱisȱonlyȱtwice moreȱ addressedȱ asȱ aȱ friend,ȱ once,ȱ again,ȱ inȱ aȱ lessȱ criticalȱ butȱ stillȱ potentially 181 182

183

184

185

Trans.ȱadaptedȱfromȱBSJȱ(no.ȱ328),ȱ407–08. Lettersȱ132ȱandȱ176–77;ȱotherȱlettersȱinȱdisputesȱorȱrebukesȱinvokingȱfriendshipȱareȱnos.ȱ23,ȱ32–33, 37–39,ȱ111,ȱ118–19,ȱ138,ȱ155;ȱalsoȱ50–51,ȱ158,ȱandȱ160ȱinȱtheologicalȱdisputesȱ(includingȱlettersȱto NicholasȱofȱClairvaux,ȱanotherȱcloseȱfriend). Lettersȱ49,ȱ55;ȱotherȱlettersȱofȱoppositionȱorȱrebukeȱinvokingȱfriendshipȱareȱnos.ȱ35–36,ȱ39,ȱ51, 66–67,ȱ102,ȱandȱ29,ȱ111,ȱ149,ȱandȱ192ȱtoȱBernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱseeȱbelowȱnoteȱ189. HenryȱofȱBloisȱwasȱabbotȱofȱGlastonburyȱ(1126–1171)ȱandȱbishopȱofȱWinchesterȱ(1129–1171);ȱsee LenaȱVoss,ȱHeinrichȱvonȱBlois,ȱBischoffȱvonȱWinchester.ȱ(Berlin:ȱEbering,ȱ1932);ȱEnglishȱEpiscopalȱActa VIII:ȱ Winchesterȱ 1070–1204,ȱ ed.ȱ Michaelȱ J.ȱ Franklinȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1993), xxxv–xlix,ȱ15–102.ȱHeȱmayȱhaveȱspentȱsomeȱtimeȱbeforeȱ1126ȱasȱpriorȱofȱMontacuteȱinȱSomerset (TheȱHeadsȱofȱReligiousȱHouses,ȱ121,ȱandȱtheȱcorrigendumȱatȱ269),ȱsoȱitȱisȱuncertainȱforȱexactlyȱwhat periodsȱtheyȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱtogetherȱatȱCluny;ȱonȱhisȱrelationsȱwithȱCluny,ȱseeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ130–31. Letterȱ49:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsedȱveriȱfidemȱamiciȱaȱmeȱvobisȱservariȱmandastis.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱFidemȱveriȱamiciȱmeȱvobis servareȱpromisi”ȱ(LPVȱ1,ȱ149)ȱ(“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱbutȱyouȱenjoinedȱmeȱtoȱkeepȱtowardsȱyouȱtheȱfaithȱofȱaȱtrue friend.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱpromisedȱtoȱkeepȱtowardsȱyouȱtheȱfaithȱofȱaȱtrueȱfriend”).ȱLetterȱ55,ȱwrittenȱlater apparentlyȱinȱaȱspiritȱofȱreconciliation,ȱalludesȱtoȱfriendshipȱindirectly.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

391

difficultȱ contextȱ whenȱ Peterȱ hadȱ toȱ apologizeȱ forȱ havingȱ missedȱ hisȱ visitȱ to Cluny.186ȱThisȱisȱevenȱmoreȱstrikingȱinȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱBernardȱof ClairvauxȱandȱPeterȱtheȱVenerable,ȱthoseȱexchangesȱwhichȱhaveȱbeenȱporedȱover moreȱ exhaustivelyȱ thanȱ anyȱ othersȱ forȱ cluesȱ toȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ theȱ feelingsȱ and emotionsȱ theȱ twoȱ supposedlyȱ feltȱ forȱ oneȱ another.ȱ Theȱ vicissitudesȱ ofȱ their purportedȱstormyȱemotionalȱencounterȱhaveȱevenȱcoloredȱtheȱhistoriographyȱof theȱrelationsȱbetweenȱtheirȱordersȱandȱbeenȱseenȱasȱdeterminingȱtheȱcourseȱofȱthe greatȱCluniacȬCistercianȱdebates.187ȱYet,ȱapartȱfromȱPeter’sȱletterȱ65,ȱwhichȱwasȱthe firstȱdirectȱcontactȱbetweenȱthemȱandȱwhichȱreferred,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱtoȱaȱrecent firstȱ meetingȱ atȱ whichȱ aȱ formalȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ apparentlyȱ enteredȱ into,188 practicallyȱ allȱ subsequentȱ invocationsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ comeȱ inȱ theȱ contextsȱ of conflictsȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱandȱtheirȱordersȱandȱwereȱattemptsȱtoȱameliorate tensionsȱorȱresolveȱdisputes.189ȱItȱwasȱnotȱthatȱtheirȱpersonalȱrelationsȱdroveȱthe courseȱofȱmonasticȱrelations,ȱbutȱrather,ȱitȱwouldȱseem,ȱthatȱtheirȱinvocationsȱof amicitiaȱwereȱconventionalȱandȱnecessaryȱresponsesȱtoȱavertȱcrisesȱinȱaȱchanging politicalȱandȱdiplomaticȱsituation.190

186

187

188

189

190

No.ȱ59ȱ(1134/1135):ȱLPVȱ1,ȱ190;ȱ2,ȱ138;ȱtheȱotherȱoccasionȱisȱinȱletterȱ60,ȱrequestingȱthatȱHenryȱbe buriedȱatȱClunyȱ(seeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ138).ȱInȱletterȱ56ȱHenryȱisȱreferredȱtoȱasȱaȱfriendȱandȱconfraterȱofȱthe order,ȱandȱinȱletterȱ88ȱagainȱasȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱorder,ȱbutȱtheseȱare,ȱonceȱmore,ȱinstitutionalȱnot personalȱties. See,ȱe.g.,ȱKnowles,ȱCisterciansȱandȱCluniacsȱ(seeȱnoteȱ16);ȱBredero,ȱClunyȱetȱCîteauxȱ(seeȱnoteȱ16);ȱid., BernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱ227–39ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ80);ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱ253–70ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ3). Seeȱaboveȱxx;ȱPeter’sȱletterȱ28ȱ(1127),ȱhisȱearlierȱepistolaryȱtreatiseȱinȱdefenceȱofȱtheȱCluniacs, almostȱcertainlyȱpredatesȱanyȱpersonalȱcontactȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmen;ȱitȱisȱuncertainȱwhyȱitȱwas addressedȱtoȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱandȱthereȱhasȱbeenȱextensiveȱdebateȱaboutȱitsȱrelation,ȱorȱlack ofȱrelation,ȱtoȱBernard’sȱApologiaȱ(seeȱLPVȱ2,ȱ270–74;ȱKnight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱȱ26–27).ȱThe prevalentȱviewȱthatȱletterȱ65ȱwasȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱaȱcloseȱpersonalȱfriendshipȱwasȱfirstȱchallenged byȱAmbrogioȱM.ȱPiazzoni,ȱ“Unȱfalsoȱproblemaȱstoriografico.ȱNoteȱaȱpropositoȱdellaȱ‘amicizia’ȱtra PietroȱilȱvenerabileȱdiȱClunyȱeȱBernardoȱdiȱClairvaux,”ȱBullettinoȱdell’IstitutoȱStoricoȱItalianoȱperȱil MedioȱEvoȱeȱArchivioȱMuratorianoȱ89ȱ(1981):ȱ443–87;ȱtheȱletterȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱreadȱasȱconnectedȱto theȱprotractedȱtitheȱdisputeȱbetweenȱLeȱMiroirȱandȱGigny,ȱeitherȱasȱaȱpleaȱforȱmediationȱ(Bredero, BernardȱofȱClairvaux,ȱ232),ȱorȱaȱveiledȱreproachȱ(Knight,ȱTheȱCorrespondence,ȱ86). PeterȱonlyȱcallsȱBernardȱaȱfriendȱfiveȱmoreȱtimes,ȱallȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱdisputesȱ(lettersȱ29,ȱ111,ȱ149, 181,ȱandȱ192);ȱBernardȱonlyȱcallsȱPeterȱaȱfriendȱfourȱtimes,ȱtwiceȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱdisputesȱ(letters 228ȱandȱ387),ȱonceȱinȱaȱcollectiveȱcontextȱofȱtheȱsortȱweȱhaveȱseenȱbefore,ȱreferringȱtoȱPeterȱasȱa friendȱandȱconfraterȱofȱtheȱCisterciansȱ(letterȱ389,ȱalthoughȱthisȱtooȱisȱjuxtaposedȱwithȱaȱreportȱof theȱresolutionȱofȱaȱdisputeȱbetweenȱClunyȱandȱClairvaux),ȱandȱonceȱmoreȱpublicly,ȱrequesting Peter’sȱattendanceȱatȱtheȱcouncilȱofȱCompiègneȱ(letterȱ521). SeeȱHaseldine,ȱ“Friends,ȱFriendshipȱandȱNetworks,”ȱ261–63.

392

JulianȱP.ȱHaseldine

Conclusions Theȱ studyȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ inȱ monasticȱ lettersȱ hasȱ beenȱ guidedȱ mainlyȱ byȱ two concerns.ȱTheȱfirstȱhasȱbeenȱtoȱidentifyȱandȱexamineȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱindividual personalȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱlayȱbehindȱtheȱoftenȱelaborateȱprofessionsȱofȱloveȱand friendshipȱfoundȱinȱsomeȱletters.ȱThisȱapproachȱhasȱsoughtȱtoȱrecoverȱevidenceȱof thoseȱhumanȱexperiencesȱfromȱoftenȱhighlyȱselfȬconsciousȱandȱrhetoricallyȱcrafted sources,ȱ andȱ alsoȱ toȱ traceȱ developmentsȱ inȱ culturalȱ valuesȱ inȱ areasȱ suchȱ as individualism,ȱwhichȱareȱseenȱasȱimplicitȱinȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtheȱarticulationȱof personalȱrelationsȱchanged.191ȱTheȱsecondȱapproachȱhasȱbeenȱconcernedȱtoȱtrace widerȱpatternsȱofȱcooperation,ȱallegiance,ȱandȱnetworkȱformationȱexpressedȱas friendships.ȱ Hereȱ historiansȱ haveȱ lookedȱ toȱ conceptsȱ suchȱ asȱ instrumental friendship,ȱorȱmoreȱrecentlyȱtrustȱbuilding,ȱtoȱexplainȱtheȱcultivationȱofȱamicable orȱpseudoȬfriendlyȱrelationsȱbeyondȱaȱsupposedȱinnerȱcoreȱofȱcloseȱaffectionate personalȱrelationships.ȱWhileȱbothȱofȱtheseȱapproachesȱhaveȱbeenȱveryȱfruitful, theyȱ eachȱ restȱ ultimatelyȱ onȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ genuineȱ affectionate relationshipsȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱandȱartificial,ȱpragmatic,ȱorȱinstrumentalȱbondsȱon theȱotherȱwhichȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱletterȱcollections themselves. Theȱproblemȱwhichȱallȱofȱtheseȱapproachesȱencounterȱis,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱthatȱthe languageȱusedȱinȱlettersȱdoesȱnotȱembodyȱsuchȱdistinctions.ȱHoweverȱinteresting itȱmightȱbeȱtoȱknowȱwhetherȱaȱgivenȱrelationshipȱwasȱbasedȱonȱwarmȱaffectionȱor onȱcalculationsȱofȱmutualȱinterest,ȱwithoutȱcorroborativeȱevidenceȱexternalȱtoȱthe lettersȱ(theȱsortȱofȱevidenceȱwhichȱisȱlackingȱforȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱrelationships),ȱwe cannotȱanswerȱthisȱquestion.ȱButȱthisȱisȱnotȱjustȱaȱregrettableȱgapȱinȱtheȱevidence; theȱ problemȱ reflectsȱ inȱ partȱ traditionalȱ assumptionsȱ aboutȱ theȱ natureȱ ofȱ the evidenceȱofȱepistolaryȱfriendship.ȱTheȱdifficultiesȱofȱinterpretingȱfriendlyȱlanguage inȱtheseȱȱlettersȱariseȱnotȱfromȱtheirȱindiscriminateȱuseȱofȱthatȱlanguageȱinȱdiverse contextsȱbutȱratherȱfromȱaȱconceptionȱofȱfriendshipȱwhichȱwasȱnotȱconstructed aroundȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱaffectionȱandȱpragmatism.192ȱPersonalȱaffectionȱwas evidentlyȱ onlyȱ oneȱ routeȱ intoȱ formalȱ andȱ publiclyȱ acknowledgedȱ bondsȱ of friendship;ȱsharedȱidealsȱandȱmutualȱselfȬinterestȱwereȱothers,ȱandȱapproaches negotiatedȱthroughȱintermediariesȱwereȱcommon.ȱOnceȱtheȱbondȱwasȱacceptedȱthe sameȱrules,ȱbehaviors,ȱandȱobligationsȱwereȱexpectedȱtoȱapply.

191 192

NotablyȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunityȱ(seeȱnoteȱ3). Norȱdoesȱsuchȱaȱdistinctionȱfeatureȱinȱancientȱorȱmedievalȱtheory,ȱforȱwhileȱfalseȱfriendshipȱwas definedȱasȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱselfishȱgainȱorȱutility,ȱtrueȱfriendshipȱwasȱcharacterizedȱnotȱbyȱprivate affectionȱ(whichȱbothȱtrueȱandȱfalseȱfriendshipsȱcouldȱexhibit)ȱbutȱbyȱvirtue;ȱseeȱaboveȱp.ȱandȱnote 34.

MonasticȱFriendshipȱinȱTheoryȱandȱinȱAction

393

ȱFurthermore,ȱwhenȱlettersȱwereȱselectedȱandȱpossiblyȱeditedȱforȱinclusionȱin collections,ȱtheȱrelationshipsȱwhichȱtheyȱreflectedȱcameȱtoȱserveȱanotherȱpurpose again,ȱ toȱ presentȱ theȱ authorȱ inȱ aȱ particularȱ light:ȱ thusȱ correspondenceȱ withȱ a recipientȱdeemedȱtoȱrepresentȱpiety,ȱforȱexample,ȱmightȱreflectȱonlyȱthoseȱaspects ofȱtheȱrelationship,ȱandȱofȱanyȱoriginalȱcorrespondence,ȱrelevantȱtoȱthatȱaim.ȱThe relationshipȱbetweenȱAelredȱofȱRievaulxȱandȱBernardȱofȱClairvauxȱwithȱwhichȱwe began,ȱhadȱitself,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱaȱspecificȱcontextȱ(asȱaȱliteraryȱcollaboration expressedȱasȱaȱfriendship),ȱaȱtraceableȱintermediaryȱ(theȱabbotȱWilliam,ȱBernard’s formerȱ monk),ȱ andȱ aȱ recognizableȱ purposeȱ (inȱ theȱ propagationȱ ofȱ Cistercian ideals).ȱAboveȱall,ȱtheȱrelationshipsȱpresentedȱinȱletterȱcollectionsȱwereȱthoseȱof loveȱorȱfriendshipȱunderstoodȱnotȱasȱprivateȱbondsȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱthoseȱofȱaȱpublic sphere,ȱbutȱratherȱasȱparticularȱbondsȱconceivedȱasȱdistinctȱfromȱtheȱuniversal obligationsȱofȱmonasticȱcaritasȱandȱasȱhavingȱaȱrangeȱofȱpolitical,ȱdiplomatic,ȱand institutionalȱfunctions.ȱAȱfocusȱonȱtheȱunderlyingȱgenuinenessȱorȱotherwiseȱof relationships,ȱorȱonȱcategorisationsȱofȱrelationshipȱtypes,ȱareȱvalidȱandȱinteresting concerns,ȱ butȱ theseȱ areȱ phenomenaȱ forȱ whichȱ lettersȱ provideȱ evidenceȱ only incidentallyȱandȱthisȱcanȱleadȱusȱtoȱoverlookȱtheȱbonds,ȱrelationships,ȱandȱideals whichȱ wereȱ activelyȱ cultivatedȱ orȱ promotedȱ andȱ forȱ whichȱ letterȱ collections provideȱ directȱ evidence.ȱ Givingȱ equalȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ functionsȱ andȱ usesȱ of friendshipȱbondsȱandȱtheirȱpresentationȱinȱcollectionsȱcanȱshedȱvaluableȱnewȱlight onȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheseȱimportantȱspheresȱofȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱinteraction.

Chapterȱ8 JohnȱA.ȱDempsey (WestfieldȱStateȱUniversity,ȱWestfield,ȱMA)

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱ BonizoȱofȱSutriȱandȱHisȱLiberȱAdȱAmicum ȱȱȱȱ

I.ȱTheȱLiberȱAdȱAmicumȱasȱaȱPatareneȱText1 Inȱ hisȱ Liberȱ adȱ amicumȱ ofȱ ca.ȱ 1085–1086,ȱ Bishopȱ Bonizoȱ ofȱ Sutri,ȱ theȱ Patarene activist,ȱsurveysȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱpapalȬimperialȱrelationsȱfromȱtheȱageȱofȱConstantine toȱtheȱconflictȱbetweenȱPopeȱGregoryȱVIIȱandȱHenryȱIVȱofȱGermany.ȱEvenȱthough Bonizo’sȱdefenseȱofȱGregory’sȱpontificateȱfiguresȱprominentlyȱinȱhisȱnarrative,ȱhis textȱisȱnotȱaȱGregorianȱoneȱthatȱisȱprincipallyȱconcernedȱwithȱtheȱpopeȱandȱhis dealingsȱwithȱtheȱGermanȱemperor.ȱRather,ȱBonizo’sȱhistoryȱisȱfundamentallyȱa PatareneȱtextȱaddressedȱtoȱaȱPatareneȱfriendȱaboutȱtheirȱmovement’sȱrelationship withȱtheȱcontroversialȱpontiff,ȱtheȱreformȱpapacyȱinȱgeneral,ȱandȱtheȱHouseȱof Canossa.ȱForȱBonizo,ȱfriendshipȱwasȱrootedȱinȱaȱcommonȱideology.ȱAnȱamicusȱor friendȱ wasȱ oneȱ whoȱ hadȱ sharedȱ Bonizo’sȱ ideologicalȱ andȱ spiritualȱ formation withinȱaȱPatareneȱcommunityȱandȱadheredȱtoȱthatȱcommunity’sȱecclesioȬpolitical agendaȱandȱspiritualȱnorms.ȱEvidenceȱexistsȱwithinȱBonizo’sȱtextȱthatȱindicatesȱthat hisȱprimaryȱaudienceȱwasȱhisȱownȱPatareneȱcommunityȱofȱhisȱnativeȱCremona.ȱ2 1

2

Bonizo’sȱmovement,ȱtheȱPataria,ȱhadȱitsȱoriginȱinȱtheȱreformistȱpreachingȱofȱtheȱdeaconȱArialdȱof VareseȱinȱMilanȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1050s.ȱArialdȱassailedȱtheȱdeeplyȱentrenchedȱpracticesȱofȱsimony,ȱlay investiture,ȱ andȱ nicolaitismȱ (i.e.,ȱ aȱ marriedȱ clergy)ȱ inȱ theȱ Milaneseȱ church.ȱ Theȱ oftenȱ violent movementȱspreadȱacrossȱLombardyȱinȱtheȱ1060sȱtoȱotherȱcitiesȱwhereȱtheseȱsameȱecclesiastical practicesȱflourished.ȱBonizoȱlikelyȱencounteredȱtheȱPatariaȱasȱaȱyoungȱmanȱinȱhisȱnativeȱCremona. WhileȱtheȱLombardȱecclesiasticalȱestablishmentȱloathedȱtheȱPatariaȱandȱitsȱconfrontationalȱtactics, theȱpapalȱreformersȱinȱRomeȱsawȱtheȱpopularȱmovementȱasȱaȱvaluableȱallyȱinȱtheirȱownȱeffortsȱto reformȱtheȱLombardȱchurches.ȱ WalterȱBerschinȱhasȱconvincinglyȱassertedȱthatȱBonizoȱcameȱfromȱCremona.ȱSeeȱWalterȱBerschin, BonizoȱvonȱSutri:ȱLebenȱundȱWerk.ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱGeschichteȱundȱQuellenkundeȱdesȱMittelalters,ȱ2 (BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyterȱ1972),ȱ5–6.

396

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

ThereȱisȱgoodȱreasonȱtoȱbelieveȱthatȱhisȱfriendȱwasȱinȱfactȱaȱPatareneȱclericȱwith whomȱheȱhadȱlivedȱandȱstudiedȱinȱCremona.3 Bonizo’sȱcircleȱofȱfriendsȱextendedȱbeyondȱtheȱclergyȱtoȱencompassȱtheȱlaity, particularlyȱmembersȱofȱtheȱknightlyȱclassȱwhoȱwouldȱhaveȱreceivedȱaȱPatarene formationȱfromȱtheȱgroup’sȱclericalȱrepresentatives.ȱBrianȱStockȱnotedȱsomeȱtime agoȱthatȱtheȱPatariaȱbroughtȱtogetherȱitsȱclericalȱandȱlayȱmembersȱtogetherȱinȱthe commonȱcauseȱofȱecclesiasticalȱreform.4ȱWithoutȱabolishingȱtheȱnotionȱofȱaȱclerical hierarchyȱandȱwhileȱmaintainingȱtheȱcanonicalȱboundariesȱbetweenȱclergyȱand laity,ȱtheȱPatariaȱmadeȱitsȱlayȱmembersȱfullȱpartnersȱinȱitsȱenterpriseȱofȱreforming theȱLombardȱchurches.ȱBonizo’sȱcentralȱassertionȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum,ȱwhichȱhadȱits originsȱinȱtheȱPatareneȱexperience,ȱthatȱaȱknightȱcouldȱmeritoriouslyȱwieldȱthe swordȱ inȱ defenseȱ ofȱ orthodoxȱ doctrineȱ againstȱ aȱ hereticalȱ Christianȱ emperor representsȱaȱmilestoneȱinȱmedievalȱChristianity’sȱattitudeȱtowardȱholyȱviolence andȱlayȱspirituality.ȱHolyȱviolenceȱconstitutedȱtheȱuniqueȱcontributionȱofȱBonizo’s layȱamiciȱtoȱtheirȱjointȱeffortȱtoȱcleanseȱGod’sȱchurch.ȱHolyȱviolenceȱwasȱthusȱanȱact ofȱfriendship.ȱȱ TheȱdramaticȱhighȱpointȱofȱBonizo’sȱpapalȬimperialȱhistoryȱdoesȱnotȱdirectly involveȱeitherȱGregoryȱVIIȱorȱHenryȱIV.ȱInstead,ȱitȱconcernsȱaȱdiabolicalȱactȱof violenceȱthatȱconstitutedȱtheȱdarkestȱmomentȱinȱPatareneȱhistoryȱandȱoneȱwith whichȱ hisȱ friendȱ wasȱ allȱ tooȱ familiar.ȱ Inȱ Bookȱ VIIȱ ofȱ theȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ Bonizo graphicallyȱrecountsȱtheȱmurderȱinȱ1075ȱofȱtheȱlayȱleaderȱofȱtheȱPataria,ȱtheȱknight Erlembaldȱ Cotta,ȱ inȱ Milan.ȱ Heȱ recallsȱ theȱ dayȱ whenȱ theȱ Pataria’sȱ demonically inspiredȱenemiesȱinȱtheȱcityȱcorneredȱanȱunsuspectingȱErlembaldȱinȱtheȱmiddleȱof aȱstreetȱandȱkilledȱhim.ȱErlembald’sȱmurderersȱignominiouslyȱleftȱhisȱnakedȱcorpse inȱtheȱstreetȱforȱanȱentireȱdayȱtoȱtheȱgreatȱshameȱofȱallȱofȱChristianity.5ȱInȱaȱgloss 3

4

5

ThereȱisȱanȱimportantȱclueȱinȱtheȱfinalȱlineȱofȱBonizo’sȱhistoryȱthatȱindicatesȱthatȱBonizo’sȱamicus wasȱindeedȱaȱcleric.ȱHeȱwritesȱhereȱthatȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱsoldiersȱofȱtheȱmostȱgloriousȱGod,ȱwho shouldȱjoinȱMatildaȱofȱTuscanyȱinȱmilitaryȱcombatȱagainstȱtheȱheresyȱthenȱsowingȱitsȱseedȱinȱthe church,ȱheȱandȱhisȱfriendȱbothȱshouldȱprayȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheirȱsharedȱofficeȱthatȱthis heresyȱshouldȱperishȱmostȱquicklyȱfromȱtheȱrebukeȱofȱGod’sȱcountenance.ȱClerics,ȱofȱcourse,ȱwere forbiddenȱbyȱecclesiasticalȱlawȱtoȱbearȱarms.ȱItȱwouldȱseem,ȱthen,ȱthatȱitȱwasȱtheȱdutyȱofȱBonizo andȱhisȱfellowȱPatareneȱclericȱtoȱprayȱforȱtheȱsuccessȱofȱtheȱarmedȱconflictȱofȱtheirȱlayȱPatarene amici.ȱ Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VIIIIȱ 620:ȱ “Nosȱ autemȱ secundumȱ officiiȱ nostriȱ tenoremȱ oremus,ȱ ut, incensaȱigniȱetȱsuffossaȱabȱincrepationeȱvultusȱtui,ȱcitissimeȱpereat”ȱ(Thisȱandȱallȱsubsequent translationsȱareȱmyȱownȱoriginalȱtranslations:ȱHowever,ȱasȱisȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱourȱoffice, letȱusȱprayȱthatȱitȱ(theȱvineȱofȱGod)ȱhavingȱbeenȱsetȱablazeȱbyȱfireȱandȱuprootedȱthatȱitȱ(heresy) mightȱperishȱmostȱquicklyȱfromȱtheȱrebukeȱofȱYourȱ(i.e.,ȱGod’s)ȱcountenance.). BrianȱStock,ȱTheȱImplicationsȱofȱLiteracy:ȱWrittenȱLanguageȱandȱModelsȱofȱInterpretationȱinȱtheȱEleventh andȱTwelfthȱCenturiesȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1983),ȱ226. BonizoȱofȱSutri,ȱLiberȱadȱamicum,ȱed.ȱErnstȱDummler,ȱMGHȱLibelliȱdeȱLite,ȱIȱ(Hanover:ȱHahnȱ1891), VII,ȱ605ȱ(pageȱreferencesȱareȱtoȱreprintȱedition):ȱ“eumqueȱignominioseȱnudatum,ȱoblitiȱgeneris eiusȱetȱdignitatis,ȱadȱignominiamȱtotiusȱchristianitatisȱperȱtotemȱdiemȱrelinquuntȱinhumatum” (andȱthatȱmanȱmostȱignominiouslyȱnaked,ȱtheyȱwereȱforgetfulȱofȱhisȱhumanityȱandȱdignity,ȱtoȱthe ignominyȱofȱallȱChristianityȱforȱtheȱwholeȱdayȱtheyȱleftȱhimȱunburied).

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

397

ofȱ1ȱMaccabeesȱ9:21,ȱBonizoȱrecollectsȱthatȱuponȱErlembald’sȱdeathȱallȱCatholics fromȱRomeȱtoȱtheȱBritishȱseaȱwereȱsaddenedȱandȱcriedȱout:ȱ“Howȱourȱchampion hasȱfallen,ȱwhoȱusedȱtoȱfightȱtheȱwarȱofȱtheȱLord.”6ȱ Bonizoȱ vaguelyȱ alludesȱ toȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ Erlembald’sȱ murderȱ triggeredȱ a conservativeȱreȬactionȱagainstȱtheȱpopularȱreformȱmovementȱacrossȱnorthernȱItaly. Byȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ adȱ amicum’sȱ composition,ȱ theȱ Patariaȱ wasȱ lingeringȱ onȱ the fringesȱ ofȱ Lombardy’sȱ ecclesioȬpoliticalȱ establishment,ȱ pushedȱ thereȱ byȱ its opponentsȱinȱtheȱsocialȱandȱecclesiasticalȱhierarchiesȱofȱtheȱregion.ȱBonizoȱhimself wasȱlivingȱinȱexileȱatȱtheȱcourtȱofȱCountessȱMatildaȱofȱTuscany,ȱtheȱheiressȱofȱthe HouseȱofȱCanossa.ȱOnȱtheirȱwayȱtoȱRomeȱinȱ1081ȱorȱ1082,ȱtheȱforcesȱofȱHenryȱIV ofȱGermanyȱhadȱearlierȱdislodgedȱtheȱPatareneȱbishopȱfromȱhisȱSeeȱinȱSutriȱand theseȱsameȱHenricianȱforcesȱsubsequentlyȱcapturedȱhimȱoutsideȱofȱRomeȱinȱ1082. HeȱremainedȱinȱHenry’sȱcustodyȱuntilȱhisȱreleaseȱinȱtheȱmidȱ1080s.ȱLikeȱseveral otherȱ exiledȱ reformistȱ bishops,ȱ Bonizoȱ thenȱ madeȱ hisȱ wayȱ toȱ theȱ territoryȱ of MatildaȱofȱTuscany,ȱtheȱpapalȱally. ȱȱȱ Bonizoȱvigorouslyȱdefendsȱtheȱlateȱpope’sȱcontroversialȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱGerman monarchȱandȱcallsȱforȱarmedȱresistanceȱagainstȱtheȱimperialȱpartyȱinȱimitationȱof Matilda,ȱwhoȱwasȱthenȱwagingȱaȱdesperateȱmilitaryȱstruggleȱagainstȱHenryȱand hisȱItalianȱallies.ȱScholarsȱhaveȱthusȱclassifiedȱtheȱadȱamicumȱasȱaȱpieceȱofȱGregorian polemicȱinȱtheȱwarȱofȱwordsȱthatȱeruptedȱbetweenȱtheȱpapalȱandȱimperialȱcamps inȱtheȱ1070sȱandȱ1080s.ȱSomeȱhaveȱgoneȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱadȱamicumȱasȱa biographyȱ ofȱ Gregory.7ȱ Inȱ categorizingȱ Bonizo’sȱ historyȱ asȱ aȱ Gregorianȱ text, however,ȱ scholarsȱ haveȱ neglectedȱ toȱ exploreȱ fullyȱ theȱ connectionȱ betweenȱ the author’sȱideologicalȱbackgroundȱandȱtheȱorientationȱandȱprimaryȱmeaningȱofȱhis work.ȱBonizoȱwasȱalwaysȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱaȱPatareneȱoperative.ȱWhenȱoneȱreads theȱadȱamicumȱwithȱthisȱinȱmind,ȱtheȱPatareneȱcharacterȱandȱorientationȱofȱBonizo’s historyȱcomeȱintoȱfocus.ȱTheȱmanyȱepisodesȱrelatingȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱPataria inȱBonizo’sȱtext,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱvividȱrecollectionȱofȱErlembaldȱCotta’sȱmurder,ȱno longerȱappearȱtoȱbeȱofȱsecondaryȱimportanceȱtoȱtheȱauthor’sȱpurpose,ȱbutȱinstead takeȱonȱgreatȱsignificance.ȱȱ BonizoȱwritesȱaȱgoodȱdealȱaboutȱGregoryȱVIIȱandȱhisȱclashȱwithȱtheȱemperor,ȱbut withȱsomethingȱofȱanȱulteriorȱmotive.ȱHisȱhistoryȱcontainsȱanȱimportantȱmultiȬpart messageȱforȱhisȱideologicalȱfriends.ȱTheȱmessageȱisȱthatȱtheȱcauseȱofȱtheȱGregorian partyȱisȱnotȱonlyȱjustȱandȱitsȱwarȱagainstȱtheȱHenriciansȱlicitȱbutȱthatȱtheȱconflict representsȱaȱcontinuationȱofȱtheirȱownȱearlierȱstruggle.ȱByȱjoiningȱtogetherȱwithȱthe 6

7

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIȱ605:”UtȱautemȱauditumȱestȱdeȱmorteȱErlimbaldi,ȱnonȱsolumȱRome,ȱsed usqueȱ adȱ Brittannicumȱ mareȱ omnesȱ catholiciȱ contristatiȱ suntȱ flentesqueȱ dicebant:ȱ Quomodo ceciditȱpotens,ȱquiȱpugnabatȱbellumȱDomini”ȱ(SoȱthatȱwhenȱaboutȱtheȱdeathȱofȱErlembaldȱitȱwas heard,ȱnotȱonlyȱinȱRomeȱbutȱallȱtheȱwayȱtoȱBritain’sȱseaȱallȱCatholicsȱareȱsaddenedȱandȱcryingȱthey usedȱtoȱsay:ȱHowȱtheȱchampionȱisȱfallen,ȱwhoȱusedȱtoȱfightȱtheȱwarȱofȱtheȱLord).ȱ I.ȱS.ȱRobinson,ȱ“TheȱFriendshipȱNetworkȱOfȱGregoryȱVII,”ȱHistoryȱ63ȱ(1978):ȱ1–22;ȱhereȱ14.

398

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

reformȱpapacy’sȱgreatȱchampion,ȱMatildaȱofȱTuscany,ȱhisȱamiciȱcanȱreviveȱtheir ownȱmovement.ȱTheyȱhaveȱaȱchanceȱtoȱavengeȱtheȱmurderȱofȱErlembaldȱandȱthe otherȱ terribleȱ eventsȱ ofȱ 1075.ȱ Theȱ oldȱ causeȱ isȱ notȱ yetȱ completelyȱ lost.ȱ In justificationȱofȱhisȱboldȱproposalȱthatȱhisȱfriendsȱwageȱwarȱagainstȱaȱChristian emperor,ȱBonizoȱtheȱPatareneȱdoctorȱandȱtheologicalȱarchaeologistȱwillȱpresent themȱwithȱtheȱ“ancient”ȱChristianȱdoctrineȱofȱholyȱcivilȱwarȱagainstȱbelligerent heretics.ȱȱȱ Bonizoȱweavesȱtogetherȱinȱhisȱhistoricalȱnarrativeȱtheȱindividualȱhistoriesȱofȱthe reformȱpapacy,ȱtheȱPataria,ȱandȱtheȱHouseȱofȱCanossa.ȱHeȱinformsȱhisȱfriendsȱthat theȱendeavorsȱofȱallȱthreeȱentitiesȱonȱbehalfȱofȱecclesiasticalȱrenewalȱhelpedȱform aȱseamlessȱgarmentȱofȱrighteousȱactivityȱthatȱextendedȱbackȱtoȱtheȱapostolicȱera. Inȱparticular,ȱheȱromanticizesȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱreformȱpapacyȱandȱthe Pataria.ȱHeȱinaccuratelyȱportraysȱtheseȱalliedȱmovementsȱasȱperfectlyȱunitedȱin theirȱpurposesȱandȱobjectives,ȱexaggeratingȱtheȱlinkȱbetweenȱGregoryȱVIIȱandȱthe Pataria.ȱ Bonizoȱ probablyȱ hadȱ aȱ veryȱ personalȱ reasonȱ forȱ closelyȱ associating Gregoryȱ withȱ hisȱ movement.ȱ Gregoryȱ inȱ allȱ likelihoodȱ raisedȱ theȱ commoner activistȱBonizoȱtoȱtheȱepiscopateȱsometimeȱbeforeȱ1078.8ȱBonizoȱportraysȱGregory asȱtheȱPatareneȱpopeȱforȱhisȱfriends.ȱHisȱvaluesȱandȱconcernsȱwereȱtheȱsameȱas thoseȱofȱtheȱPataria.ȱHeȱwasȱaȱPatareneȱwithoutȱhavingȱformallyȱbelongedȱtoȱthe movement.ȱ Bonizoȱ furtherȱ explainsȱ thatȱ theȱ sharedȱ commitmentȱ ofȱ popeȱ and Patariaȱtoȱecclesiasticalȱreformȱarousedȱtheȱenmityȱofȱtheȱsameȱagentsȱofȱtheȱdevil: theȱLombardȱaristocracyȱ(especiallyȱtheȱLombardȱbishops)ȱandȱHenryȱIV.ȱItȱwas thereforeȱabsolutelyȱnecessaryȱforȱBonizoȱtoȱacquitȱGregoryȱsuccessfullyȱofȱthe variousȱchargesȱleveledȱbyȱtheȱHenricianȱpolemicȱofȱtheȱday.ȱFor,ȱifȱGregoryȱhad beenȱ inȱ theȱ wrongȱ inȱ someȱ way,ȱ howȱ couldȱ Bonizoȱ askȱ hisȱ friendsȱ toȱ make commonȱcauseȱwithȱhisȱparty?ȱTheȱbishopȱofȱSutriȱpainstakinglyȱdefendsȱGregory againstȱaȱnumberȱofȱaccusationsȱandȱinȱsoȱdoingȱheȱclearsȱtheȱwayȱforȱhisȱcomrades toȱjoinȱtogetherȱwithȱMatildaȱandȱtheȱpapalȱpartyȱthatȱhadȱsurvivedȱtheȱpope’s deathȱinȱMayȱofȱ1085ȱinȱtheirȱholyȱwarȱagainstȱtheȱGermanȱcrown.ȱȱȱ

II.ȱTheȱPataria:ȱForgeȱOfȱIdeologicalȱFriendship InȱTheȱImplicationsȱofȱLiteracy,ȱBrianȱStockȱpersuasivelyȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱPatariaȱwas oneȱofȱseveralȱreformistȱandȱhereticalȱreligiousȱgroupsȱofȱtheȱeleventhȱcentury whoseȱemergenceȱreflectedȱtheȱreȬbirthȱofȱliteracyȱinȱwesternȱEurope.9ȱStockȱhas describedȱtheseȱgroupsȱasȱtextualȱcommunities.ȱHeȱdefinesȱaȱtextualȱcommunity asȱ aȱ movementȱ foundedȱ onȱ aȱ coreȱ ofȱ literateȱ membersȱ thatȱ producedȱ written 8 9

Berschin,ȱBonizo,ȱ9ȱn.ȱ28.ȱ BrianȱStock,ȱImplicationsȱofȱLiteracy,ȱ88.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

399

legislationȱ derivedȱ fromȱ literaryȱ ressourcementȱ thatȱ inȱ turnȱ attractedȱ aȱ wider unletteredȱfollowingȱunitedȱtoȱtheȱmovement’sȱvaluesȱthroughȱoralȱdiscourse.10 Twoȱ ofȱ theȱ bestȱ medievalȱ sourcesȱ onȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Pataria,ȱ Andrewȱ of Strumi’sȱ Vitaȱ sanctiȱ Arialdiȱ andȱ Arnulfȱ ofȱ Milan’sȱ Gestaȱ archiepiscoporum mediolanensium,ȱattestȱthatȱBonizo’sȱmovementȱhadȱitsȱoriginsȱinȱtheȱtheological ressourcementȱofȱtheȱdeaconȱArialdȱofȱVarese.11ȱAriald’sȱnativeȱtownȱofȱVareseȱlay severalȱmilesȱoutsideȱofȱMilan.ȱLikeȱmanyȱofȱtheȱfoundersȱofȱtheȱnewȱreligious communitiesȱofȱtheȱeleventhȱcentury,ȱArialdȱexperiencedȱcognitiveȱdissonance whenȱheȱcomparedȱtheȱidealȱecclesiasticalȱorder,ȱwhichȱheȱfoundȱinȱhisȱsources (e.g.,ȱtheȱBible,ȱconciliarȱlegislation,ȱandȱpatristicȱliterature),ȱwithȱtheȱcontemporary stateȱofȱecclesiasticalȱaffairs.ȱHeȱfoundȱcondemnedȱinȱhisȱsourcesȱtheȱubiquitous contemporaryȱ practicesȱ ofȱ simony,ȱ nicolaitismȱ (i.e.,ȱ aȱ marriedȱ clergy),ȱ andȱ lay investiture.ȱToȱeliminateȱthisȱdissonance,ȱArialdȱlaunchedȱaȱprotestȱmovement againstȱtheȱecclesiasticalȱstatusȱquo.ȱȱ AtȱnoȱotherȱlocationȱwereȱtheseȱpracticesȱmoreȱentrenchedȱthanȱinȱMilan.ȱWhen Arialdȱcameȱintoȱtheȱcityȱfromȱtheȱcontadoȱpreachingȱagainstȱecclesiasticalȱabuses, heȱquicklyȱattractedȱbothȱcriticsȱandȱfollowers.ȱHisȱmostȱimportantȱearlyȱdevotee wasȱLandulfȱCotta,ȱaȱclericȱfromȱtheȱcity’sȱupperȱnobility,ȱtheȱcapitanei,ȱwhoȱwas theȱbrotherȱofȱtheȱaforementionedȱErlembald.ȱTogetherȱArialdȱandȱLandulfȱformed theȱoriginalȱliterateȱcoreȱofȱtheȱPataria,ȱwhichȱotherȱliterateȱclericsȱsoonȱexpanded. Withinȱ theirȱ textualȱ community,ȱ theȱ literateȱ Patarenesȱ engagedȱ inȱ anȱ intense explorationȱofȱtheȱtruthȱasȱitȱexistedȱinȱtheirȱwrittenȱsources.ȱStockȱbelievesȱthatȱthe establishmentȱ ofȱ aȱ commonȱ ideologicalȱ frameworkȱ greatlyȱ facilitatedȱ debate withinȱ aȱ groupȱ likeȱ theȱ Pataria,ȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ individual perspectives,ȱ andȱ fosteredȱ personalȱ reflectionȱ uponȱ theȱ commonȱ bodyȱ of knowledge.ȱTheȱmembersȱnotȱonlyȱdevelopedȱasȱindividuals,ȱhoweverȱtheyȱalso formedȱstrongȱbondsȱwithȱthoseȱaroundȱthem.ȱTheyȱdidȱnotȱjustȱlearnȱtheȱtruth abstractly;ȱtheyȱlivedȱitȱwithȱothers.ȱTheirȱfellowȱmembersȱbecameȱtheirȱamici,ȱtheir friends.ȱTheȱPatarenes,ȱindeed,ȱestablishedȱaȱcommunityȱforȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱtheȱvita apostolicaȱknownȱasȱtheȱCanonica,ȱwhichȱevolvedȱintoȱtheȱspiritualȱheadquartersȱof theȱmovementȱinȱtheȱcity.12ȱ

10 11

12

Stock,ȱImplications,ȱ238. AndrewȱofȱStrumi,ȱVitaȱsanctiȱArialdi,ȱed.ȱF.ȱBaethgen,ȱMGHȱSS,ȱXXXȱPars.ȱIIȱ(Hanover:ȱAnton Hiersemann,ȱ1934;ȱrpt.ȱStuttgartȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱKrausȱReprintȱCorporation,ȱ1964),ȱch.ȱ4ȱ1051. ArnulfȱofȱMilan,ȱGestaȱarchiepiscoporumȱMediolanensium,ȱed.ȱL.C.ȱBethmanȱandȱW.ȱWattenbach. MGHȱSS,ȱVIIIȱ(Hanover:ȱAntonȱHiersemann,1848;ȱrpt.ȱStuttgartȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱKrausȱReprint Corporation,ȱ1963),ȱIII,ȱch.ȱ10,ȱ18–19. InȱrecallingȱtheȱoriginsȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱinȱCremona,ȱBonizoȱstatesȱthatȱtwelveȱmenȱcameȱtogether inȱ protestȱ ofȱ nicolaitismȱ inȱ theȱ localȱ church.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ twelveȱ stronglyȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ these Patarenesȱ alsoȱ formedȱ aȱ groupȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ commonȱ lifeȱ inȱ imitationȱ ofȱ Jesus’sȱ apostles. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ597.ȱ

400

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

WhatȱmadeȱtheȱPatariaȱsuchȱaȱforceȱwasȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱmovement’sȱliterate coreȱreachedȱoutȱinȱdynamicȱfashionȱtoȱtheȱunletteredȱpopulationȱofȱMilanȱandȱthe otherȱLombardȱtowns.ȱLaymenȱthusȱcouldȱenterȱintoȱideologicalȱfriendshipȱwith thisȱPatareneȱliterateȱclericalȱcore.ȱTheȱPatariaȱattractedȱaȱlargeȱfollowingȱamong Lombardy’sȱ urbanȱ poorȱ whileȱ stillȱ winningȱ theȱ supportȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ the knightlyȱclassȱasȱwell.13ȱBonizo’sȱmovementȱissuedȱaȱuniversalȱcallȱtoȱholiness.ȱAll Christiansȱwereȱcalledȱtoȱspiritualȱperfection,ȱandȱtheȱgospelȱwasȱeveryȱChristian’s concern.ȱ Whenȱ theȱ clericalȱ establishmentȱ rejectedȱ itsȱ reformistȱ program,ȱ the Patareneȱleadership,ȱtherefore,ȱdirectedȱitsȱmessageȱtoȱtheȱunletteredȱlayȱfaithful directly.ȱTheȱbasicȱPatareneȱmessageȱinȱMilanȱ(andȱelsewhere)ȱwasȱthatȱtheȱclerical hierarchyȱuponȱwhomȱtheȱlaityȱdependedȱtoȱmediateȱtheȱsourcesȱofȱsalvationȱ(e.g., theȱsacramentsȱandȱtheȱBible)ȱwasȱcorrupt.ȱTheȱclericalȱabusesȱtheȱPatariaȱsought toȱeliminateȱhadȱcontaminatedȱtheȱwholeȱcommunity’sȱrelationshipȱwithȱGod,ȱand theȱsalvationȱofȱtheȱentireȱcorpusȱchristianorumȱwasȱconsequentlyȱimperiled.14ȱThe Patareneȱprogramȱwasȱthusȱofȱvitalȱconcernȱtoȱtheȱlayȱfaithful.ȱAgain,ȱwhileȱthe Patareneȱleadershipȱmaintainedȱtheȱcanonicalȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱtheȱclergyȱand theȱlaity,ȱitȱneverthelessȱmadeȱtheȱlaityȱfullȱpartnersȱinȱitsȱideologicalȱenterprise.15ȱ Theȱ Patariaȱ invitedȱ theȱ laityȱ toȱ sitȱ inȱ judgmentȱ ofȱ itsȱ clericalȱ leaders.ȱ It summonedȱtheȱunlettered,ȱbothȱcommonersȱandȱaristocrats,ȱtoȱevaluateȱcritically 13

14

15

BonizoȱrecallsȱthatȱtheȱpoorȱreadilyȱembracedȱAriald’sȱandȱLandulfȱCotta’sȱreformistȱmessage.ȱHe explainsȱthatȱoutȱofȱfrustrationȱwithȱtheȱPatarenes’ȱsuccessȱMilan’sȱ“simoniacs”ȱderisivelyȱlabeled Ariald,ȱLandulfȱandȱtheirȱfollowersȱ“Patarenes,”ȱthatȱis,ȱ“pannosos”ȱorȱragȱwearers.ȱBonizo,ȱad amicum,ȱVI,ȱ591.ȱThereȱwasȱcertainlyȱaȱstrongȱelementȱofȱsocioȬeconomicȱprotestȱinȱtheȱPataria’s popularityȱwithȱtheȱurbanȱproletariat.ȱLombardy’sȱnobilityȱdominatedȱtheȱupperȱranksȱofȱthe variousȱlocalȱchurchesȱandȱcontrolledȱtheȱsubstantialȱeconomicȱresourcesȱofȱthoseȱchurches.ȱOne mustȱbearȱinȱmind,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱurbanȱturbaeȱofȱeleventhȱcenturyȱItalyȱwereȱpoliticallyȱfickle. TheȱconservativeȱecclesiasticalȱestablishmentȱinȱMilanȱandȱbeyondȱwasȱcapableȱofȱstirringȱthe workingȱclassesȱtoȱactionȱonȱtheirȱownȱbehalf.ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱofȱErlembaldȱCotta’sȱmurderȱinȱ1075, Milan’sȱurbanȱclassesȱhadȱalreadyȱlostȱaȱgoodȱdealȱofȱenthusiasmȱforȱtheȱPataria.ȱBonizoȱintimates asȱmuchȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum.ȱSeeȱBonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ604–05.ȱBesidesȱErlembald,ȱtheȱnamesȱofȱtwo otherȱPatareneȱknightsȱhaveȱcomeȱdownȱtoȱus.ȱTheȱknightȱAzzoȱisȱmentionedȱinȱAndrew’sȱVita sanctiȱArialdiȱch.ȱ11ȱandȱGregoryȱVIIȱwroteȱtoȱtheȱknightȱWilfridȱinȱtheȱwakeȱofȱtheȱmurderȱof Erlembald.ȱ Seeȱ Gregoriiȱ VII,ȱ Registrum,ȱ ed.ȱ Erichȱ Caspar,ȱ MGHȱ Epistolaeȱ Selectaeȱ (Munich: MonumentaȱGermaniaeȱHistorica,ȱ1978),ȱLiberȱIII,ȱ15,ȱ276.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ AmyȱG.ȱRemensnyderȱhasȱdiscussedȱtheȱbeliefȱofȱmanyȱeleventhȱcenturyȱreformersȱthatȱclerical impurityȱposedȱaȱuniversalȱthreatȱtoȱChristendom.ȱAmyȱG.ȱRemensnyder,ȱ“Pollution,ȱPurity,ȱand Peace:ȱAnȱAspectȱofȱSocialȱReformȱbetweenȱtheȱLateȱTenthȱCenturyȱandȱ1076,”ȱTheȱPeaceȱofȱGod: Socialȱ Violenceȱ andȱ religiousȱ responsesȱ inȱ Franceȱ aroundȱ theȱ Yearȱ 1000,ȱ ed.ȱ byȱ Thomasȱ Headȱ and RichardȱLandesȱ(Ithaca,ȱNY:ȱCornellȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992),ȱ280–307. ArnulfȱofȱMilanȱangrilyȱdenouncesȱLandulfȱCottaȱatȱoneȱpointȱinȱhisȱhistoryȱbecauseȱwhileȱthe clericȱLandulfȱharshlyȱjudgedȱArchbishopȱGuidoȱandȱhisȱsuffraganȱbishops,ȱheȱlovedȱlaymenȱlike theyȱwereȱhisȱbrothers.ȱArnulf,ȱGesta,ȱIIIȱch.ȱ13,ȱ20:ȱ“furensȱsolosȱsaevitȱinȱclericos,ȱarguensȱillos suaeȱsuorumqueȱperditionis;ȱlaicosȱveroȱfovebatȱutȱfratres.”(ravingȱheȱragesȱamongȱtheȱforsaken clergy,ȱaccusingȱthoseȱmenȱofȱbeingȱtheȱ(cause)ȱofȱLandulf’sȱandȱofȱtheȱclergy’sȱdamnation;ȱbut heȱlovedȱtheȱlaymenȱlikeȱbrothers).

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

401

theȱconditionȱofȱtheirȱchurchesȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheȱdocumentaȱandȱexemplaȱofȱtheȱBible andȱofȱancientȱChristianȱtradition.ȱOurȱsourcesȱrevealȱthatȱAriald,ȱLandulf,ȱand theirȱsurrogatesȱevidentlyȱappealedȱtoȱtheȱunletteredȱlaityȱofȱallȱclassesȱthrough textuallyȱ basedȱ sermons.ȱ Patareneȱ preachersȱ letȱ theirȱ audiencesȱ knowȱ that authoritativeȱtextsȱlayȱbehindȱtheirȱwords.ȱInȱAriald’sȱsecondȱsampleȱsermonȱinȱthe Vitaȱ sanctiȱ Arialdi,ȱ theȱ Patareneȱ founderȱ quotesȱ fromȱ aȱ textȱ attributedȱ toȱ Pope GregoryȱtheȱGreatȱtoȱtheȱeffectȱthatȱallȱChristiansȱareȱtoȱfightȱsimonyȱaccordingȱto theirȱstationȱinȱlifeȱorȱelseȱendureȱtheȱsameȱpunishmentȱasȱSimonȱMagusȱhimself.16 ItȱwasȱapparentlyȱaȱfavoriteȱPatareneȱpassage:ȱBonizoȱcitesȱitȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum.17ȱ TheȱPatareneȱpreacherȱcitedȱtheȱdocumentaȱandȱexemplaȱofȱtheȱBibleȱorȱofȱthe ancientȱ fathersȱ ofȱ theȱ churchȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ createȱ cognitiveȱ dissonanceȱ inȱ his audience.ȱCognitiveȱdissonanceȱwasȱaȱkeyȱpedagogicalȱtoolȱforȱtheȱPatarenes.ȱThe preacherȱledȱhisȱaudienceȱtoȱtheȱrealizationȱthatȱtheȱcontemporaryȱsituationȱdid notȱmirrorȱtheȱdivinelyȱordainedȱorderȱasȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱdocumentaȱandȱexempla ofȱChristianȱhistory.ȱTheȱPatareneȱsermon,ȱthus,ȱconstitutedȱaȱtheologicalȬhistorical meditationȱthatȱcastȱtheȱpresentȱsituationȱinȱtheȱlightȱofȱtheȱsacredȱpast.ȱAtȱtheȱend ofȱtheȱsermon,ȱcameȱtheȱcallȱtoȱactionȱtoȱendȱtheȱdissonance.ȱThereȱwasȱtheȱappeal toȱtheȱaudience’sȱcollectiveȱconscienceȱtoȱcorrectȱtheȱabusesȱpresentedȱtoȱitȱbyȱthe preacher,ȱevenȱifȱthisȱmeantȱconflictȱwithȱtheȱlocalȱecclesiasticalȱhierarchy,ȱandȱto restoreȱtheȱproperȱorder.ȱ Theȱ Patareneȱ summonsȱ ofȱ theȱ layȱ faithfulȱ toȱ actionȱ included,ȱ amongȱ other things,ȱaȱsummonsȱtoȱholyȱwar.ȱInȱitsȱzealȱtoȱstampȱoutȱsimony,ȱnicolaitism,ȱand layȱinvestiture,ȱtheȱPatariaȱplacedȱtheȱmaterialȱswordȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱitsȱlayȱfriends. Violenceȱhadȱsurroundedȱtheȱmovementȱfromȱitsȱearliestȱdays.ȱOnȱtheȱfeastȱofȱSt. Nazario,ȱ10ȱMayȱ1057,ȱArialdȱandȱLandulfȱCottaȱsparkedȱaȱproȬPatareneȱriotȱwhen theyȱappearedȱinȱMilan’sȱoldȱRomanȱmarketplaceȱwithȱaȱconventionȱforȱtheȱclergy toȱsignȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱpromisedȱtoȱabandonȱtheirȱwivesȱandȱliveȱcelibately.18ȱThe riotersȱ pillagedȱ theȱ homesȱ ofȱ theȱ nicolaiteȱ clergyȱ forȱ days.ȱ Andrewȱ ofȱ Strumi relatesȱthatȱwhenȱtheȱconservativeȱArchbishopȱGuidoȱofȱMilanȱimprisonedȱtwo clericsȱsympatheticȱtoȱtheȱPataria,ȱArialdȱdeclaredȱtoȱaȱgroupȱofȱPatarenesȱthatȱthe faithfulȱshouldȱonlyȱwieldȱtheȱswordȱinȱdefenseȱofȱtheȱCatholicȱfaith.19ȱAriald’s audienceȱthenȱproceededȱtoȱliberateȱforciblyȱtheȱtwoȱdetainedȱclerics.20 TheȱPatareneȱfigureȱmostȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱmovement’sȱholyȱwarȱwasȱthe knightȱErlembaldȱCotta,ȱtheȱbrotherȱofȱLandulf.ȱErlembaldȱisȱaȱmajorȱfigureȱin Bonizo’sȱhistory.ȱHeȱisȱoneȱofȱthreeȱcontemporaryȱmartyredȱholyȱwarriorsȱthat Bonizoȱholdsȱupȱforȱhisȱcompatriots’ȱemulation.ȱAndrewȱofȱStrumiȱrecountsȱthat 16 17 18 19 20

ȱ

Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ10,ȱ1056.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618. Arnulf,ȱGesta,ȱIIIȱch.ȱ12,ȱ20. Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ19,ȱ1063. Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ19,ȱ1063.

402

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

uponȱLandulf’sȱdeathȱ(sometimeȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1060s),ȱArialdȱhadȱaskedȱErlembald toȱ forgoȱ enteringȱ theȱ monasticȱ lifeȱ andȱ toȱ takeȱ Landulf’sȱ placeȱ toȱ defendȱ the CatholicȱfaithȱandȱtoȱopposeȱhereticsȱandȱtheȱenemiesȱofȱChristȱinȱMilan.21ȱWhile Arialdȱlived,ȱErlembaldȱwasȱsomethingȱofȱaȱmilitaryȱattachéȱtoȱAriald.ȱWhenȱPope AlexanderȱIIȱbestowedȱtheȱvexillumȱsanctiȱPetriȱonȱErlembaldȱinȱ1065,ȱtheȱreform papacyȱsetȱitsȱsealȱofȱapprovalȱonȱhisȱmartialȱactivities.ȱ ErlembaldȱtookȱcommandȱofȱtheȱmovementȱinȱMilanȱafterȱAriald’sȱmurderȱin 1066ȱandȱfurtherȱmilitarizedȱit.ȱSomeȱhaveȱsaidȱthatȱheȱturnedȱtheȱMilaneseȱPataria intoȱaȱquasiȱurbanȱmilitia.22ȱErlembaldȱalsoȱpromotedȱtheȱexportȱofȱtheȱPatarene causeȱtoȱnearbyȱCremonaȱandȱPiacenza.23ȱItȱwasȱthenȱasȱaȱyoungȱmanȱthatȱBonizo probablyȱfirstȱmetȱtheȱPatariaȱinȱhisȱnativeȱCremona.ȱItȱisȱnoȱwonderȱthenȱthat Erlembaldȱisȱoneȱofȱtheȱheroesȱofȱtheȱadȱamicum.ȱBonizoȱrecallsȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum thatȱ Erlembaldȱ foughtȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ engagementsȱ againstȱ Milan’sȱ aristocratic factionȱ inȱ theȱ lateȱ 1060sȱ andȱ earlyȱ 1070s.ȱ Heȱ mostȱ famouslyȱ thwartedȱ the conservativeȱnobility’sȱattemptȱtoȱreplaceȱArchbishopȱGuidoȱwithȱaȱcandidateȱof theirȱown,ȱtheȱclericȱGodfrey.ȱWhenȱtheȱPatareneȱleaderȱlearnedȱthatȱGodfreyȱhad traveledȱtoȱGermanyȱforȱhisȱepiscopalȱinvestmentȱbyȱHenryȱIV,ȱheȱorderedȱhis PatareneȱfightersȱtoȱseizeȱallȱtheȱfortificationsȱofȱtheȱMilaneseȱchurch.24ȱHeȱthen engineeredȱtheȱrumpȱepiscopalȱelectionȱofȱaȱPatareneȱcandidateȱtoȱsucceedȱGuido inȱ 1072.ȱ Neitherȱ candidate,ȱ however,ȱ wasȱ ableȱ toȱ secureȱ theȱ See.ȱ Erlembald, nevertheless,ȱ wasȱ theȱ deȱ factoȱ seigneurȱ ofȱ Milanȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1070s.ȱ Theȱ city’s populaceȱeventuallyȱbeganȱtoȱchaffȱunderȱhisȱstridentȱleadership.ȱHeȱscandalized manyȱMilaneseȱwhenȱheȱsmashedȱaȱvesselȱofȱholyȱchrismȱsentȱtoȱtheȱcityȱbyȱone ofȱtheȱantiȬPatareneȱLombardȱbishopsȱforȱtheȱEasterȱcelebrationsȱofȱ1074.ȱEven Bonizoȱadmitsȱthatȱonȱtheȱeveȱofȱhisȱdeathȱinȱaȱstreetȱbattleȱinȱ1075ȱErlembald’s factionȱwasȱsteadilyȱlosingȱtheȱsupportȱofȱMilan’sȱcitizens.ȱCotta’sȱdemiseȱignited aȱconservativeȱreȬactionȱacrossȱLombardyȱagainstȱtheȱPatarenes. ErlembaldȱbecameȱinȱdeathȱaȱmartyrȱforȱtheȱPatareneȱremnantȱthatȱsurvived him.ȱThisȱisȱonlyȱappropriateȱbecauseȱbesidesȱsermonsȱandȱtheȱmoralȱwitnessȱof itsȱrepresentatives,ȱtheȱPatariaȱalsoȱappealedȱtoȱtheȱunletteredȱforȱitsȱfriendshipȱby associatingȱitselfȱwithȱtheȱlocalȱcultsȱofȱtheȱsaints.ȱTheȱPatarenesȱbelievedȱvery stronglyȱinȱtheȱpedagogicalȱvalueȱofȱtheȱvitaȱsanctorum.ȱStockȱhasȱdrawnȱattention toȱtheȱeighteenthȱchapterȱofȱtheȱVitaȱsanctiȱArialdi.ȱAndrewȱofȱStrumiȱrecollects thereȱthatȱheȱheardȱtheȱnamesȱofȱmoreȱsaintsȱfallȱfromȱtheȱlipsȱofȱArialdȱinȱoneȱday

21 22

23 24

Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ15,ȱ1059.ȱ H.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱCowdrey,ȱ“TheȱPapacy.ȱTheȱPatarenes,ȱAndȱTheȱChurchȱofȱMilan,”ȱTransactionsȱofȱtheȱRoyal HistoricalȱSociety,ȱ5thȱser.ȱxviiiȱ(London:ȱPrintedȱforȱtheȱSociety,1968),ȱ25–48,ȱ35. Cowdrey,ȱ“TheȱPapacy,ȱTheȱPatarenes,ȱAndȱTheȱChurchȱOfȱMilan,”ȱ36. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598–99.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

403

thanȱheȱhadȱeverȱreadȱinȱbooks.25ȱAndrewȱalsoȱrecountsȱthatȱonȱaȱdailyȱbasisȱAriald wentȱoutȱwithȱhisȱbrethrenȱtoȱvisitȱtheȱtombsȱofȱvariousȱsaints.26 Stockȱ positsȱ thatȱ suchȱ publicȱ ritualȱ activityȱ wasȱ aȱ mostȱ effectiveȱ nonȬverbal meansȱforȱtheȱPatariaȱtoȱcommunicateȱitsȱmessageȱtoȱtheȱunlettered.ȱThroughȱsuch activity,ȱtheȱPatariaȱassociatedȱitselfȱwithȱMilan’sȱantiqueȱChristianȱsaintsȱwhose legendsȱ formedȱ anȱ importantȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ city’sȱ ethos.27ȱ Theȱ movementȱ thus portrayedȱitselfȱasȱstandingȱinȱapostolicȱsuccessionȱtoȱtheȱcity’sȱearlyȱChristian community.28ȱSuchȱnonȬverbalȱritualisticȱactivityȱreȬenforcedȱtheȱexampleȱofȱthe vitaȱapostolicaȱlivedȱbyȱtheȱresidentsȱofȱtheȱCanonicaȱcomplex.ȱȱȱ CloselyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱPataria’sȱassociationȱofȱitselfȱwithȱtheȱageȱofȱtheȱapostles andȱmartyrsȱisȱtheȱmovement’sȱcultivationȱofȱwhatȱcanȱbeȱtermedȱaȱtheologyȱof heroicȱsacrifice.ȱAriald’sȱdramaticȱdeclarationȱinȱtheȱVitaȱsanctiȱArialdiȱthatȱheȱwas determinedȱtoȱleadȱtheȱMilaneseȱpeopleȱbackȱtoȱtheȱlightȱofȱChristȱorȱelseȱdieȱtrying toȱdoȱsoȱrevealsȱtheȱaudaciousȱspiritȱwithȱwhichȱtheȱPatariaȱpursuedȱitsȱagenda.29 AndrewȱremembersȱelsewhereȱthatȱArialdȱsoȱassiduouslyȱpreachedȱtoȱtheȱlayȱfolk whoȱgatheredȱatȱtheȱCanonicaȱthatȱheȱoftenȱlostȱhisȱvoiceȱtoȱtheȱpointȱthatȱthose nextȱtoȱhimȱcouldȱhardlyȱhearȱwhatȱheȱwasȱsaying.30ȱArialdȱandȱLandulfȱCotta displayedȱonȱnumerousȱoccasionsȱconsiderableȱcourageȱandȱanȱapparentȱdisregard forȱtheirȱownȱphysicalȱsafety.ȱBonizoȱcallsȱthemȱtheȱ“athletesȱofȱGod.”31ȱUltimately, ofȱcourse,ȱArialdȱdidȱdieȱasȱaȱmartyrȱtoȱhisȱcause.32

III.ȱFriendsȱCalledȱToȱArmsȱ WhenȱoneȱreadsȱtheȱadȱamicumȱthroughȱaȱPatareneȱlens,ȱitȱbecomesȱapparentȱthat itȱisȱsomethingȱmoreȱthanȱaȱpieceȱofȱproseȱhistoriography.ȱItȱisȱanȱextendedȱtheoȬ historicalȱ meditationȱ inȱ theȱ fashionȱ ofȱ aȱ Patareneȱ sermon.ȱ Bonizo,ȱ alternately describesȱhisȱworkȱasȱaȱsermonȱandȱaȱhistory.33ȱHeȱemploysȱtheȱdocumentaȱand exemplaȱofȱimperialȱandȱChristianȱhistoryȱtoȱcreateȱaȱstateȱofȱcognitiveȱdissonance 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 32

33

Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ18,ȱ1062.ȱSeeȱȱStock,ȱImplications,ȱ226. Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.18,ȱ1062. Stock,ȱImplications,ȱ231.ȱ Stock,ȱImplications,ȱ231. Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ4,ȱ1052. Andrew,ȱ Vita,ȱ ch.ȱ 12,ȱ 1058:ȱ “Quosȱ tamȱ constantiȱ assiduaqueȱ doctrinaȱ virȱ Deiȱ docebat,ȱ ut plerumqueȱvocemȱsicȱamitteret,ȱquatenusȱabȱaliquibusȱiuxtaȱseȱpositisȱvixȱaudiriȱposset”ȱ(Whom theȱmanȱofȱGodȱusedȱtoȱteachȱwithȱsuchȱconstantȱandȱcontinuousȱdoctrineȱthatȱheȱthusȱlostȱaȱvery greatȱpartȱofȱhisȱvoiceȱtoȱsuchȱanȱextentȱthatȱheȱcouldȱscarcelyȱbeȱheardȱbyȱthoseȱrightȱnextȱtoȱhim). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ591. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ591:ȱ“Arialdus,ȱexȱequestriȱprogenieȱtrahensȱortum,ȱvirȱliberalibusȱstudiis adprimeȱeruditus,ȱquiȱposteaȱmartirioȱcoronatusȱest”ȱ(Ariald,ȱbornȱofȱtheȱequestrianȱclass,ȱheȱwas especiallyȱwellȱversedȱinȱtheȱliberalȱstudies,ȱwhoȱsubsequentlyȱwasȱcrownedȱaȱmartyr). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱ571ȱandȱ618.

404

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

inȱhisȱaudienceȱinȱtheȱmannerȱofȱaȱPatareneȱpreacher.ȱThisȱdissonanceȱisȱmultiȬ faceted.ȱ Heȱ wantsȱ hisȱ friendsȱ toȱ recognizeȱ thatȱ Henryȱ IVȱ hasȱ egregiously contravenedȱtheȱdivineȱorderȱasȱlaidȱdownȱinȱtheȱancientȱsourcesȱthatȱgoverns relationsȱ betweenȱ theȱ Romanȱ pontiffȱ andȱ Christianȱ emperors.ȱ Henryȱ has attemptedȱ toȱ supplantȱ Godȱ himselfȱ byȱ wagingȱ warȱ onȱ aȱ legitimateȱ popeȱ and attemptingȱtoȱreplaceȱhimȱwithȱaȱcandidateȱofȱhisȱownȱchoosing.ȱTheȱHenrician partyȱisȱthereforeȱguiltyȱofȱtheȱmotherȱofȱallȱheresies.34ȱTheseȱsameȱmalefactors, moreover,ȱwereȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱearlierȱassaultȱonȱtheȱPataria.ȱTheyȱopposedȱthe holyȱprogramȱrootedȱinȱscriptureȱandȱChristianȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱandȱofȱthe reformȱpopes,ȱespeciallyȱofȱtheȱPatareneȱamicus,ȱGregoryȱVII.ȱ HisȱPatareneȱfriends’ȱinactionȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheseȱoutragesȱcommittedȱagainst Christianȱtruthȱis,ȱmostȱimportantly,ȱequallyȱdiscordantȱwithȱtheȱdivineȱorderȱas spelledȱoutȱbyȱtheȱancientȱsources.ȱHeȱpresentsȱhisȱconfreresȱwithȱtheȱdocumenta andȱexemplaȱthatȱdemandȱtheyȱtakeȱupȱtheȱ swordȱagainstȱtheȱHenriciansȱ(orȱas Bonizoȱcallsȱthem,ȱtheȱGuibertistas.)35ȱHeȱpresentsȱhisȱfriendsȱinȱBookȱIȱwithȱthe supposedlyȱ ancientȱ doctrineȱ ofȱ holyȱ civilȱ warȱ againstȱ belligerentȱ heretics. Throughoutȱhisȱtext,ȱheȱplacesȱtheȱvitaȱsanctorumȱbeforeȱhisȱfriendsȱinȱhisȱeffortȱto rouseȱthemȱtoȱaction.ȱHeȱholdsȱupȱforȱemulationȱinȱparticularȱthreeȱcontemporary martyredȱholyȱwarriors:ȱtheȱpapalȱtroopsȱwhoȱfellȱatȱtheȱBattleȱofȱCivitateȱagainst theȱNormansȱ(1053),ȱtheȱRomanȱnobleȱandȱGregorianȱally,ȱCenciusȱIohannis,ȱand mostȱsignificantlyȱtheȱPataria’sȱownȱErlembaldȱCotta.ȱBonizoȱexplainsȱnearȱtheȱend ofȱ hisȱ perorationȱ thatȱ hisȱ friends’ȱ inactionȱ mustȱ beȱ correctedȱ byȱ theirȱ joining togetherȱ withȱ Matildaȱ ofȱ Tuscany.ȱ Theyȱ shouldȱ emulateȱ theȱ countess,ȱ whom BonizoȱportraysȱasȱaȱpractitionerȱofȱtheȱPataria’sȱownȱidealȱofȱheroicȱsacrifice.ȱShe hasȱlaidȱasideȱallȱworldlyȱconcernsȱandȱisȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱratherȱthanȱbreakȱGod’s lawȱandȱsheȱfightsȱtheȱheresyȱnowȱsowingȱitsȱseedȱinȱtheȱchurchȱinȱeveryȱway possible.36ȱGodȱwillsȱthatȱhisȱfellowȱPatarenesȱwageȱholyȱcivilȱwarȱwithȱherȱagainst theȱ emperorȱ andȱ hisȱ Italianȱ allies;ȱ echoingȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ perorationȱ isȱ the sentimentȱhocȱdeusȱvult!.ȱ Bonizoȱexplainsȱatȱtheȱveryȱstartȱofȱhisȱhistoryȱthatȱtwoȱquestionsȱofȱhisȱamicus wereȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱhisȱwork.ȱTheȱfirstȱquestionȱrelatesȱto theodicy.ȱHisȱfriendȱaskedȱwhyȱGodȱseemsȱtoȱignoreȱtheȱcryȱofȱMotherȱchurchȱin theȱ midstȱ ofȱ thisȱ storm.37ȱ Theȱ stormȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ refersȱ wasȱ undoubtedlyȱ the ongoingȱclashȱbetweenȱpapacyȱandȱempire,ȱwhichȱonȱtheȱwholeȱseemedȱ toȱ be goingȱ againstȱ theȱ reformers.ȱ Theȱ friendȱ furtherȱ askedȱ whyȱ isȱ Motherȱ church

34 35

36 37

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618. TheȱtermȱGuibertistasȱwasȱaȱcommonȱtermȱforȱtheȱsupportersȱofȱtheȱantiȬPopeȱGuibertȱofȱRavenna, whoȱwasȱraisedȱupȱbyȱHenryȱIVȱtoȱopposeȱGregoryȱVII.ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ620. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ571.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

405

oppressedȱ ratherȱ thanȱ deliveredȱ fromȱ theȱ dangerȱ byȱ God?38ȱ Thenȱ heȱ posesȱ a loadedȱquestion:ȱwhyȱisȱitȱthatȱtheȱsonsȱofȱobedienceȱandȱpeaceȱlayȱprostrate,ȱbut theȱsonsȱofȱBaalȱexultȱwithȱtheirȱking?39ȱTheȱfriendȱofȱtheȱBishopȱofȱSutriȱputȱhis fingerȱhereȱonȱtheȱtaskȱsetȱbeforeȱBonizoȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum:ȱtoȱrouseȱtheȱsonsȱof obedienceȱ andȱ peace,ȱ i.e.,ȱ hisȱ fellowȱ Patarenesȱ outȱ ofȱ theirȱ inactionȱ andȱ to challengeȱmilitarilyȱtheȱGuibertistasȱandȱtheirȱking,ȱHenryȱIV. Bonizo’sȱamicusȱthenȱaskedȱhimȱaȱsecond,ȱmostȱpertinentȱquestionȱforȱhisȱtaskȱat hand:ȱisȱthereȱanyȱwarrantȱinȱtheȱancientȱlessonsȱofȱtheȱholyȱfathersȱforȱaȱChristian inȱtheȱpastȱorȱinȱtheȱpresentȱtoȱfightȱforȱreligiousȱtruthȱwithȱmilitaryȱarms?40ȱThe questionȱisȱaȱclassicȱinvitationȱtoȱtheologicalȱressourcementȱa’ȱlaȱtheȱPataria.ȱItȱisȱalso aȱrhetoricalȱquestion.ȱHisȱfriend,ȱaȱfellowȱPatarene,ȱalreadyȱknewȱthatȱtheȱanswer wasȱyes.ȱHeȱlikelyȱknewȱAriald’sȱdictum,ȱmentionedȱabove,ȱthatȱtheȱswordȱcanȱbe wieldedȱinȱdefenseȱofȱtheȱCatholicȱfaith.ȱTheȱPatarenes,ȱafterȱall,ȱhadȱbeenȱwielding theȱswordȱinȱdefenseȱofȱtheirȱtheologicalȱprogramȱforȱyears.ȱBonizoȱalludesȱtoȱthe factȱthatȱhisȱfriendȱalreadyȱknewȱtheȱanswerȱtoȱhisȱownȱquestionȱwhenȱheȱinvites himȱtoȱdwellȱonȱtheȱquestionȱinȱhisȱheartȱandȱwaitȱforȱtheȱanswerȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱhim.41 Bonizo,ȱhowever,ȱstillȱhadȱtheȱformidableȱtaskȱofȱconvincingȱtheȱPataria’sȱknights thatȱtheyȱwereȱpermittedȱtoȱfightȱaȱChristianȱemperor,ȱandȱanȱemperorȱwhose causeȱagainstȱtheȱpapacyȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱjust.ȱLaterȱonȱinȱhisȱhistoryȱBonizoȱwill relayȱhistoricalȱeventsȱthatȱproveȱHenryȱhadȱalwaysȱbeenȱanȱadversaryȱofȱtrue religionȱandȱthatȱhisȱgrievancesȱagainstȱtheȱpapacyȱwereȱgroundless;ȱbutȱinȱBook Iȱheȱconcernsȱhimselfȱwithȱgeneralȱprinciplesȱderivedȱfromȱscripturalȱexegesisȱand aȱveryȱimportantȱhistoricalȱexemplum.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Bonizoȱfirstȱproducesȱaȱscripturalȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱallegedlyȱancientȱdogma ofȱholyȱcivilȱwar.ȱHeȱobservesȱthatȱAbrahamȱhadȱtwoȱsons:ȱoneȱbyȱhisȱslaveȱHagar andȱanotherȱbyȱhisȱfreebornȱwife,ȱSarah.ȱInȱanȱallusionȱtoȱSt.ȱPaul’sȱreasoningȱin Romansȱ 9ȱ thatȱ notȱ allȱ descendentsȱ ofȱ Abrahamȱ byȱ birthȱ areȱ hisȱ trueȱ spiritual children,ȱ Bonizoȱ writesȱ thatȱ Hagar’sȱ sonȱ Ishmaelȱ representsȱ allȱ thoseȱ whoȱ are descendentsȱofȱAbrahamȱbyȱtheȱfleshȱaloneȱandȱSarah’sȱsonȱIsaacȱrepresentsȱthe trueȱ spiritualȱ descendentsȱ ofȱ Abraham.42ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Bonizo,ȱ whereasȱ the freebornȱsonȱIsaacȱrepresentsȱtheȱCatholicȱpeoples,ȱtheȱconcubine’sȱsonȱrepresents

38 39

40

41 42

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ571. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ571:ȱ“filiiqueȱobedientieȱetȱpacisȱiacentȱpostrati,ȱfiliiȱautemȱBelialȱexultant cumȱregeȱsuo”ȱ(withȱtheȱsonsȱofȱobedienceȱandȱpeaceȱlyingȱprostrate,ȱtheȱsonsȱofȱBelial,ȱhowever, rejoiceȱwithȱtheirȱking). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,571:ȱ“Estȱetȱaliud,ȱundeȱdeȱveteribusȱsanctorumȱpatrumȱexemplisȱaȱmeȱpetis auctoritatem:ȱ Siȱ licuitȱ velȱ licetȱ christianoȱ proȱ dogmateȱ armisȱ decertare”ȱ (Thereȱ is,ȱ however, anotherȱ[question],ȱyouȱseekȱfromȱmeȱverificationȱfromȱtheȱancientȱlessonsȱofȱtheȱholyȱfathers:ȱif itȱwasȱlawfulȱorȱisȱnowȱlawfulȱforȱaȱChristianȱtoȱfightȱforȱdoctrineȱwithȱweapons). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ571. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572.

406

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

allȱ heretics.43ȱ Inȱ Abraham’sȱ banishmentȱ andȱ disinheritanceȱ ofȱ Ishmaelȱ andȱ his motherȱatȱSarah’sȱrequestȱinȱGenesisȱ21ȱforȱtheirȱtauntingȱofȱlittleȱIsaac,ȱBonizo findsȱtheȱwarrantȱforȱtheȱphysicalȱsuppressionȱofȱbelligerentȱheretics.44ȱInȱIsaac’s subsequentȱpatientȱenduranceȱofȱhisȱmistreatmentȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱhisȱPhilistine neighborsȱinȱGenesisȱ26,ȱheȱfindsȱtheȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱpassiveȱenduranceȱby ChristiansȱofȱtheȱpersecutionsȱofȱnonȬChristians.45ȱTheseȱtwoȱepisodesȱdemonstrate clearlyȱtoȱBonizoȱthatȱwhenȱpersecutionȱcomesȱfromȱthoseȱoutsideȱtheȱChristian community,ȱ itȱ mustȱ beȱ overcomeȱ byȱ patientȱ endurance;ȱ butȱ whenȱ belligerent fellowȱ Christiansȱ ignoreȱ theȱ evangelicalȱ scytheȱ ofȱ preaching,ȱ theyȱ mustȱ be overcomeȱbyȱarms.46ȱ ȱAfterȱunveilingȱtheȱancientȱteachingȱofȱholyȱcivilȱwar,ȱBonizoȱturnsȱinȱtheȱfinal sectionȱofȱBookȱIȱbackȱtoȱtheȱthemeȱofȱsuffering.ȱHisȱfaction,ȱasȱexplainedȱabove, hadȱsufferedȱaȱlotȱleadingȱupȱtoȱtheȱcompositionȱofȱhisȱhistoryȱandȱsurelyȱhisȱamici hadȱ begunȱ toȱ questionȱ theȱ senseȱ ofȱ itȱ all.ȱ Howȱ couldȱ Godȱ allowȱ theȱ corrupt Lombardȱ establishment,ȱ whichȱ hadȱ violentlyȱ rejectedȱ theȱ Pataria’sȱ ideological agenda,ȱandȱtheȱGermanȱkingȱtoȱenjoyȱsoȱmuchȱsuccess?ȱBonizo,ȱtheȱPatarene pastor,ȱexplainsȱthatȱsufferingȱisȱaȱsignȱofȱdivineȱelection.ȱHeȱconnectsȱhisȱfriends’ experienceȱofȱsufferingȱtoȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱJesusȱhimselfȱandȱofȱtheȱancientȱchurch ofȱtheȱapostlesȱandȱmartyrs.ȱJustȱasȱJesusȱsufferedȱinȱtheȱworldȱbecauseȱheȱwasȱnot ofȱtheȱworld,ȱsoȱtooȱmustȱhisȱdisciplesȱsuffer.47ȱPatientȱenduranceȱofȱthisȱworld’s persecution,ȱhowever,ȱleadsȱtoȱvictory.ȱTheȱgreatestȱexampleȱofȱsufferingȱleading 43 44

45 46

47

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572. Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ I,ȱ 572.ȱ Bonizoȱ wasȱ hardlyȱ theȱ firstȱ churchmanȱ toȱ findȱ aȱ rationaleȱ forȱ the punishmentȱofȱoneȱgroupȱofȱChristiansȱbyȱanotherȱinȱtheȱantagonismȱbetweenȱIsaacȱandȱIshmael. InȱGalatiansȱ4:21–5:1,ȱPaulȱemploysȱtheȱbanishmentȱofȱIshamelȱinȱGenesisȱ21ȱasȱaȱrationaleȱforȱthe GalatianȱChristiansȱtoȱcutȱoffȱrelationsȱwithȱJudaizingȱChristians,ȱwhoȱinsistedȱthatȱportionsȱofȱthe MosaicȱLawȱwereȱobligatoryȱforȱChristians.ȱMuchȱlaterȱinȱtime,ȱinȱhisȱLetterȱ185,ȱAugustineȱof HippoȱfoundȱinȱtheȱbanishmentȱofȱIshmaelȱandȱhisȱmotherȱaȱjustificationȱforȱtheȱRomanȱstate’s suppressionȱofȱtheȱDonatistȱheretics.ȱSeeȱAugustineȱLettersȱVol.ȱIVȱ(163–203),ȱtrans.ȱWifridȱParsons S.N.D.ȱTheȱFathersȱofȱtheȱChurch:ȱAȱNewȱTranslation,ȱed.ȱbyȱRoyȱJosephȱDeferrariȱVol.ȱ12ȱ(New York:ȱFathersȱOfȱTheȱChurchȱInc.,ȱ1955),ȱ152.ȱSinceȱheȱcitesȱaȱfewȱlinesȱfromȱthisȱLetterȱinȱBook VIIIIȱofȱtheȱadȱamicum,ȱBonizoȱwasȱobviouslyȱsomewhatȱfamiliarȱwithȱitsȱcontents.ȱSeeȱBonizo,ȱad amicum,ȱVIIIIȱ619.ȱAnselmȱIIȱofȱLuccaȱalsoȱcitedȱportionsȱofȱthisȱAugustinianȱtextȱinȱBookȱXIIIȱof hisȱCollectioȱcanonum.ȱLikeȱAugustine,ȱAnselmȱasȱwellȱemployedȱSarah’sȱbanishmentȱofȱHagarȱas aȱrationaleȱforȱmilitaryȱactionȱagainstȱdeviantȱChristians.ȱSeeȱAnselmȱofȱLucca,ȱCollectioȱcanonum unaȱ cumȱ collectioneȱ minore,ȱ ed.ȱ Friedrichȱ Thaner,ȱ vol.ȱ Iȱ (Innsbruck:ȱ Librariaeȱ Academicae Wagnerianae,ȱ1906–1915). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572:ȱ“luceȱclariusȱdemonstrans:ȱcumȱpersecutioȱabȱhisȱquiȱforisȱsuntȱnobis infertur,ȱ tolerandoȱ devincendam,ȱ cumȱ veroȱ abȱ hisȱ quiȱ intusȱ sunt,ȱ evangelicaȱ falceȱ prius succidendamȱetȱposteaȱomnibusȱviribusȱetȱarmisȱdebellandam”ȱ(Thisȱprovesȱmoreȱclearlyȱthan light:ȱwhenȱpersecutionȱcomesȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱforeignȱtoȱus,ȱitȱmustȱbeȱovercomeȱbyȱenduring it,ȱbutȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱfromȱthoseȱlikeȱus,ȱitȱmustȱfirstȱbeȱcutȱdownȱbyȱtheȱscytheȱofȱpreachingȱand thereafterȱitȱmustȱbeȱvanquishedȱwithȱallȱvigorȱandȱarms). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

407

toȱ victoryȱ wasȱ ofȱ courseȱ theȱ passion,ȱ death,ȱ andȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ Jesus.ȱ Theȱ ad amicum’sȱauthorȱalsoȱholdsȱupȱforȱhisȱaudience’sȱ edification,ȱinȱgoodȱPatarene form,ȱtheȱvitaȱsanctorumȱofȱancientȱChristianity.ȱHeȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱtheȱapostlesȱand martyrsȱtooȱtriumphedȱafterȱexperiencingȱtheȱmostȱgruesomeȱformsȱofȱsuffering. Theȱmartyrsȱenduredȱhanging,ȱdecapitation,ȱcannibalism,ȱburningȱandȱaȱmyriad ofȱotherȱhorribleȱdeaths.48ȱTheirȱcause,ȱnevertheless,ȱtriumphedȱinȱtheȱend.ȱHis fellowȱpartisansȱneedȱnotȱdespair.ȱTheȱfinalȱverdictȱonȱtheirȱcauseȱhadȱyetȱtoȱbe rendered.ȱ Bonizo,ȱmostȱsignificantly,ȱfurtherȱexplainsȱthatȱtheȱbestȱhistoricalȱexampleȱof Christianȱsufferingȱleadingȱtoȱvictory,ȱbesidesȱtheȱresurrectionȱofȱJesus,ȱwasȱthe conversionȱofȱtheȱemperorȱConstantine.ȱHeȱteachesȱthatȱtheȱpreȬConstantinian church,ȱandȱespeciallyȱtheȱRomanȱSee,ȱhadȱfoughtȱtheȱdevilȱthroughȱtheȱpatient enduranceȱ ofȱ persecutionȱ andȱ finallyȱ triumphedȱ overȱ theȱ ancientȱ Enemyȱ when Constantineȱ receivedȱ baptismȱ atȱ Popeȱ Sylvester’sȱ hands.ȱ Withȱ theȱ Roman emperor’sȱ baptism,ȱ theȱ Romanȱ Seeȱ hadȱ subjectedȱ theȱ imperialȱ officeȱ toȱ its authority.49ȱTheȱemperorȱwasȱthenceforthȱaȱmemberȱofȱJesus’sȱflockȱandȱsubjectȱto theȱRomanȱpontiff.ȱTheȱRomanȱpontiff,ȱthen,ȱneedȱnoȱlongerȱsimplyȱendureȱthe hostilityȱofȱanȱincorrigibleȱhereticalȱemperor.ȱSuchȱanȱemperor,ȱwhoȱpersecutesȱthe Romanȱpontiffȱandȱtheȱtrueȱfaith,ȱwarrantsȱcorrectionȱbyȱtheȱCatholicȱfaithfulȱwith theȱmaterialȱswordȱasȱwouldȱanyȱbelligerentȱheretic.ȱThisȱisȱpreciselyȱhowȱinȱthe restȱofȱhisȱworkȱBonizoȱwillȱportrayȱtheȱsituationȱbetweenȱHenryȱIV,ȱGregoryȱVII, andȱtheȱlayȱ(i.e.,ȱtheȱPatarene)ȱfaithful.ȱBonizo’sȱamici,ȱthen,ȱtheȱsuccessorsȱofȱthe apostlesȱandȱmartyrs,ȱpossessedȱtheȱlicenseȱtoȱdoȱwhatȱtheirȱforerunnersȱcouldȱnot do:ȱpunishȱaȱsuccessorȱofȱCaesarȱwithȱmilitaryȱarms.50 Bonizo’sȱindictmentȱofȱHenryȱasȱaȱwickedȱprinceȱbeginsȱinȱearnestȱinȱBooksȱII–V. TheȱbishopȱofȱSutriȱpresentsȱhereȱtheȱdocumentaȱandȱexemplaȱofȱvariousȱ“good” ChristianȱemperorsȱandȱkingsȱfromȱtheȱageȱofȱConstantineȱupȱtoȱthatȱofȱHenryȱIV’s father,ȱ Henryȱ III.ȱ Heȱ alsoȱ discussesȱ theȱ poorȱ exampleȱ setȱ byȱ differentȱ wicked 48 49

50

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱI,ȱ572. Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ I,ȱ 573:ȱ “Quiȱ aȱ beatoȱ [Petro]ȱ apostolorumȱ principeȱ sumensȱ exordiumȱ per ducentosȱfermeȱannosȱusqueȱadȱpiiȱConstantiniȱtemporaȱcontinuisȱbellorumȱsuccessibusȱdiebus noctibusqueȱ cumȱ antiqueȱ hosteȱ decertans,ȱ XXXIIIȱ vicibusȱ deȱ eodemȱ veternosoȱ serpente triumphans,ȱnonȱanteȱdesiitȱtolerandoȱcertare,ȱsubiciensȱsibiȱprincipatusȱetȱpotestates,ȱquamȱipsum Romaniȱimperiiȱducemȱchristianaeȱsubiceretȱreligioni,.”ȱ(Whichȱ(theȱRomanȱSee)ȱfromȱtheȱtime ofȱBlessedȱPeterȱtheȱPrinceȱofȱtheȱApostlesȱandȱforȱnearlyȱtwoȱhundredȱyearsȱupȱtoȱtheȱtimesȱof piousȱConstantineȱfoughtȱinȱaȱcontinuousȱsuccessionȱofȱwarsȱforȱdaysȱandȱnightsȱwithȱtheȱAncient Enemy,ȱ afterȱ thirtyȱ threeȱ successionsȱ (toȱ theȱ Romanȱ See)ȱ itȱ triumphsȱ overȱ thatȱ veryȱ Ancient Enemy,ȱ notȱ beforeȱ itȱ ceasedȱ toȱ contendȱ throughȱ toleratingȱ (abuse)ȱ itȱ subjectedȱ toȱ itselfȱ the principateȱandȱtheȱmagistratesȱtoȱitselfȱwhenȱitȱsubjectedȱtheȱveryȱleaderȱofȱtheȱRomanȱEmpireȱto theȱChristianȱreligion). WalterȱBerschinȱhasȱarguedȱthatȱBonizoȱonlyȱsinglesȱoutȱtheȱantiȬpopeȱGuibertȱofȱRavennaȱfor punishmentȱinȱtheȱadȱamicumȱandȱnotȱHenry.ȱTheȱevidence,ȱhowever,ȱisȱoverwhelmingȱthatȱthe bishopȱofȱSutriȱwantedȱbothȱmenȱpunished.ȱSeeȱBerschin,ȱBonizo,ȱ110ȱn.ȱ502.

408

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

Christianȱprincesȱinȱthisȱsameȱtimeȱperiod.ȱThereȱisȱplentyȱofȱmaterialȱhereȱforȱthe textuallyȱbasedȱsermonsȱofȱaȱPatareneȱpreacher.51ȱAtȱcertainȱpoints,ȱheȱprefacesȱthe citationȱofȱaȱdocumentȱwithȱanȱinstructionȱsuchȱasȱ“payȱattention”52ȱorȱ“notice.”53 Itȱ isȱ asȱ ifȱ heȱ isȱ leadingȱ hisȱ friendȱ byȱ theȱ handȱ throughȱ thisȱ treasureȱ troveȱ of imperialȱdocumenta,ȱpointingȱoutȱtheȱparticularlyȱimportantȱones.ȱBonizoȱneatly summarizesȱ forȱ hisȱ audienceȱ theȱ qualitiesȱ ofȱ aȱ goodȱ Christianȱ prince:ȱ namely, deferenceȱtoȱtheȱadviceȱofȱbishops,ȱobedienceȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱpontiff,ȱprotectionȱof churches,ȱesteemȱforȱtheȱclergy,ȱhonoringȱofȱpriests,ȱandȱtheȱgovernanceȱofȱtheȱres publicaȱinȱpeace.54ȱConversely,ȱtheȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱclergy,ȱtheȱspreadȱofȱheresy, andȱmilitaryȱdisastersȱareȱtheȱchiefȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱreignsȱofȱBonizo’sȱbad princes.ȱItȱisȱallȱtooȱclearȱintoȱwhatȱcolumnȱBonizoȱwantedȱhisȱfriendsȱtoȱplace Henry.ȱToȱborrowȱanȱexpressionȱfromȱKarlȱMorrison,ȱoneȱcouldȱsayȱthatȱinȱthese booksȱBonizoȱemploysȱbothȱaȱmethodȱofȱassociationȱbyȱcontrastȱ(visȱa’ȱvisȱHenry andȱtheȱgoodȱrulers)ȱandȱbyȱlikenessȱ(visȬàȬvisȱHenryȱandȱtheȱwickedȱprinces).55 IfȱhisȱaudienceȱstillȱhadȱanyȱdoubtsȱaboutȱHenry’sȱwickednessȱafterȱhearingȱBooks II–V,ȱthen,ȱhisȱsubsequentȱnarrativeȱofȱHenry’sȱreignȱinȱBooksȱVI–IXȱmakesȱitȱclear thatȱtheȱGermanȱemperorȱqualifiedȱasȱaȱbadȱChristianȱprince.ȱPerhapsȱtheȱmost damningȱ chargeȱ thatȱ heȱ levelsȱ atȱ Henryȱ hereȱ isȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ complicitȱ inȱ the Lombardȱaristocracy’sȱcampaignȱagainstȱtheȱPatariaȱandȱtheȱmurderȱofȱErlembald.ȱ ItȱshouldȱalsoȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱinȱBookȱIIȱBonizoȱalsoȱadvancesȱhisȱargumentȱon holyȱ violence.ȱ Heȱ citesȱ hereȱ severalȱ episodesȱ ofȱ ancientȱ popularȱ holyȱ violence takenȱ fromȱ Cassiodorus’ȱ Tripartiteȱ History.ȱ Heȱ applaudsȱ theȱ Catholicsȱ of Constantinople,ȱwhoȱoutȱofȱzealȱforȱtheȱdivineȱlaw,ȱburnedȱtoȱdeathȱtheȱimperial prefectȱHermogenesȱandȱhisȱentireȱhouseholdȱwhenȱtheȱlatterȱattemptedȱtoȱexpel 51

52

53

54 55

TheȱcontentsȱofȱBooksȱII–VȱmayȱalsoȱreflectȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱaȱpieceȱofȱHenricianȱpolemicȱasȱwell. SimultaneousȱtoȱtheȱantiȬpopeȱGuibertȱofȱRavenna’sȱenthronementȱandȱimperialȱcoronationȱof HenryȱinȱMarchȱofȱ1084,ȱaȱrevisedȱeditionȱofȱtheȱDefensioȱHeinriciȱIVȱRegisȱapparentlyȱcirculated inȱItaly.ȱOriginallyȱcomposedȱinȱtheȱlateȱSpringȱofȱ1080,ȱtheȱpieceȱwasȱuniqueȱinȱitsȱcitationȱof Romanȱ imperialȱ lawȱ toȱ defendȱ Henryȱ againstȱ Gregory’sȱ sentencesȱ ofȱ excommunicationȱ and deposition.ȱTheȱauthorȱemployedȱhisȱmaterialȱtoȱestablishȱHenry’sȱhereditaryȱrightȱtoȱtheȱGerman crownȱandȱhisȱdivinelyȱordainedȱroleȱasȱtheȱguarantorȱofȱpeaceȱandȱunityȱinȱbothȱtheȱempireȱand church.ȱSeeȱI.ȱS.ȱRobinson,ȱHenryȱIVȱofȱGermanyȱ1056–1106ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity Press,ȱ1999),ȱ197ȱandȱ229.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱIIȱ576:”QualiterȱautemȱConstantinus,ȱnonȱilleȱprimus,ȱsetȱalterȱcognominaȱpius imperatorȱscripseritȱdomnoȱpapeȱadvertite.”ȱ(Payȱattentionȱtoȱhow,ȱthusȱConstantius,ȱnotȱtheȱfirst one,ȱbutȱanotherȱpiousȱemperorȱofȱtheȱsameȱnameȱwroteȱtoȱtheȱlordȱpope.). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱIIȱ576–77:ȱ“QuidȱveroȱalterȱConstantinusȱetȱHyreneȱaugustiȱadȱAdrianum papamȱscribant,ȱadtendite.”ȱ(Notice,ȱhowever,ȱwhatȱtheȱAugusti,ȱtheȱotherȱConstantiusȱandȱIrene wroteȱtoȱPopeȱHadrian.). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱIIȱ575. KarlȱF.ȱMorrison,ȱ“PeterȱDamianȱonȱKingȱandȱPope:ȱAnȱExerciseȱinȱAssociationȱbyȱContrast,” KingsȱAndȱKingship,ȱed.ȱJoelȱRosenthal.ȱActaȱofȱTheȱCenterȱforȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱRenaissance StudiesȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱatȱBinghamton,ȱXIȱ(Binghamton,ȱNY:ȱSUNYȱBinghamton, 1984),ȱ89–112,ȱ90.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

409

BishopȱPaulȱofȱConstantinopleȱatȱtheȱbehestȱofȱtheȱwickedȱemperorȱConstantius.56 HeȱlaudsȱtheȱAlexandriansȱforȱfightingȱtheȱAriansȱforȱSt.ȱAthanasiusȱoutȱofȱaȱlove forȱtheȱorthodoxȱfaith.57ȱBonizoȱalsoȱpraisesȱtheȱMilaneseȱfaithfulȱforȱtheirȱarmed resistanceȱagainstȱtheȱemperorȱConstantiusȱwhenȱheȱattemptedȱtoȱarrestȱaȱgroup ofȱorthodoxȱbishopsȱwhoȱlayȱhiddenȱinȱaȱchurch.58ȱTheseȱancientȱexemplaȱserveȱas aȱbridgeȱbetweenȱtheȱageȱofȱtheȱancientȱfathersȱofȱtheȱchurchȱandȱtheȱageȱofȱthe Pataria’sȱholyȱviolence.ȱȱȱ

IV.ȱTheȱPapalȬPatareneȱRomance TheȱpapalȬPatareneȱromanceȱstandsȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱBonizo’sȱhistory.ȱHisȱargument isȱ thatȱ aȱ completeȱ unityȱ ofȱ belief,ȱ purpose,ȱ andȱ objectivesȱ existedȱ betweenȱ the reformȱpapacyȱandȱtheȱPataria.ȱBonizoȱcouldȱnotȱhaveȱexpectedȱtoȱsucceedȱinȱhis ultimateȱ purposeȱ ofȱ reȬstartingȱ theȱ Patariaȱ withoutȱ convincingȱ hisȱ ideological friendsȱofȱtheȱtruthȱofȱthisȱassertion.ȱBonizo’sȱnarrative,ȱhowever,ȱwhollyȱignores theȱroughȱspotsȱandȱambiguitiesȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱmovements. ToȱborrowȱanȱanalogyȱformulatedȱbyȱH.ȱE.ȱJ.ȱCowdreyȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱrelationship betweenȱClunyȱandȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱGregorianȱReform,ȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱthe reformȱ papacyȱ andȱ theȱ Patariaȱ resembledȱ thatȱ whichȱ existedȱ betweenȱ Peter DamianȱandȱHildebrand/GregoryȱVII.59ȱForȱjustȱasȱtheȱolderȱcontemporary,ȱPeter Damian,ȱandȱhisȱyoungerȱassociate,ȱHildebrand/Gregory,ȱinformedȱandȱinfluenced oneȱanother’sȱperspectives,ȱsoȱtooȱtheȱslightlyȱolderȱpapalȱreformȱmovementȱand theȱ youngerȱ Patareneȱ movementȱ informedȱ andȱ influencedȱ oneȱ another’s perspectivesȱonȱaȱvarietyȱofȱsubjects.ȱMoreover,ȱjustȱasȱaȱfundamentalȱunityȱof purposeȱ coȬexistedȱ withȱ aȱ diversionȱ ofȱ objectivesȱ inȱ theȱ twoȱ churchmen’s relationship,ȱsoȱtooȱtheȱreformȱpapacyȱandȱtheȱPatariaȱwereȱinȱbasicȱagreementȱon theȱissuesȱofȱtheȱRomanȱprimacy,ȱclericalȱcelibacy,ȱandȱtheȱevilȱofȱsimony,ȱbutȱthey alsoȱhadȱtheirȱownȱecclesioȬpoliticalȱagendasȱinȱMilanȱandȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱLombardy. Bonizo’sȱaccountȱomitsȱthisȱimportantȱtruth.ȱȱȱȱȱȱ TheȱpapalȱreformȱmovementȱbeginsȱforȱBonizoȱwithȱtheȱsuccessionȱofȱtheȱ“most nobleȱ andȱ upright”60ȱ Brunoȱ ofȱ Toulȱ toȱ theȱ papacyȱ asȱ Leoȱ IXȱ inȱ 1049.ȱ Leo’s pontificateȱmarksȱaȱturningȱofȱtheȱtideȱinȱtheȱstruggleȱagainstȱtheȱvicesȱthatȱhad allegedlyȱinfiltratedȱtheȱwesternȱchurchȱafterȱtheȱcollapseȱofȱtheȱCarolingianȱorder. Bonizo’sȱ narrativeȱ makesȱ itȱ clearȱ thatȱ Leo’sȱ papacyȱ embodiedȱ manyȱ ofȱ the principalȱreligiousȱvaluesȱofȱhisȱPatareneȱfriends.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ 56 57 58 59 60

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱII,ȱ574. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱII,ȱ574. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱII,ȱ574. H.ȱȱE.ȱJ.ȱCowdrey,ȱTheȱCluniacsȱandȱtheȱGregorianȱReformȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1970). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱv,ȱ587.

410

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

Bonizoȱfinds,ȱmoreover,ȱinȱLeo’sȱpontificateȱdivineȱaffirmationȱofȱtheȱancient doctrineȱofȱholyȱviolenceȱagainstȱhereticsȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱtheȱmilitaryȱcampaignȱthat theȱpopeȱlaunchedȱagainstȱtheȱNormansȱofȱsouthernȱItalyȱinȱ1053.ȱHeȱexplainsȱthat theȱ violenceȱ ofȱ theseȱ Normansȱ hadȱ forcedȱ theȱ residentsȱ ofȱ Beneventoȱ toȱ seek physicalȱprotectionȱfromȱtheȱpope;ȱthus,ȱtheyȱsubmittedȱthemselvesȱtoȱtheȱpapal ban.61ȱBonizoȱassuresȱhisȱaudienceȱthatȱtheȱpopeȱfirstȱstruckȱtheȱNormansȱwithȱthe swordȱofȱexcommunicationȱforȱtheirȱharassmentȱofȱaȱChristianȱpopulation,ȱand onlyȱafterwardsȱdidȱheȱthenȱorderȱthemȱstruckȱwithȱtheȱmaterialȱsword.62ȱLeoȱhad thusȱfollowedȱtheȱmethodȱofȱproceedingȱagainstȱincorrigibleȱwickedȱChristians thatȱBonizoȱpresentsȱinȱBookȱI.ȱWhileȱheȱacknowledgesȱthatȱtheȱpope’sȱmilitary operationȱagainstȱtheȱNormanȱprincesȱfailed,ȱheȱinsistsȱthatȱGodȱdemonstratedȱhis approvalȱofȱtheȱjustȱwarfareȱwagedȱbyȱLeo’sȱfallenȱtroops,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheirȱstatus asȱsaints,ȱbyȱtheȱmiraclesȱthatȱoccurredȱatȱtheirȱgraves.ȱLeo’sȱfallenȱtroopsȱareȱthe firstȱcontemporaryȱmartyredȱholyȱwarriorsȱthatȱBonizoȱholdsȱupȱforȱhisȱfriends’ emulation.ȱTheȱsignsȱandȱmiraclesȱatȱtheirȱtombsȱwereȱintendedȱtoȱstrengthenȱthe resolveȱofȱfutureȱgenerationsȱtoȱfightȱinȱaȱsimilarȱfashionȱforȱrighteousness.63ȱ InȱBookȱVI,ȱBonizoȱbeginsȱhisȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱonȱaȱdecidedlyȱRomanȱnote. HeȱreportsȱatȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱBookȱthatȱafterȱtwoȱhundredȱyearsȱofȱdisobedienceȱthe MilaneseȱchurchȱfinallyȱacknowledgedȱitsȱsubordinationȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱchurch.64 Asȱ heȱ subsequentlyȱ explains,ȱ itȱ wasȱ theȱ upheavalȱ generatedȱ byȱ theȱ Pataria’s emergenceȱthatȱledȱtoȱMilan’sȱacceptanceȱofȱRome’sȱjurisdictionalȱauthority.ȱThe “recovery”ȱofȱtheȱRomanȱchurch’sȱauthorityȱinȱtheȱwesternȱchurchȱconstitutesȱthe prismȱthroughȱwhichȱheȱinvitesȱhisȱcompatriotsȱtoȱlookȱbackȱuponȱtheȱhistoryȱof theirȱ endeavor.ȱ Thisȱ characteristicȱ ofȱ Bonizo’sȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ Patariaȱ certainly distinguishesȱitȱfromȱAndrewȱofȱStrumi’s,ȱwhoseȱearlierȱaccountȱpossessesȱfarȱless Romanitas.65ȱ Bonizo’sȱrenditionȱofȱtheȱmovement’sȱemergenceȱnotȱonlyȱtelescopesȱtheȱcourse ofȱ events,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ itsȱ ideologicalȱ development.ȱ Hisȱ accountȱ has 61 62 63

64

65

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ589. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ589.ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ589:ȱ“Quiȱproȱiusticiaȱdimicantesȱbelloȱprostratiȱfuerunt,ȱhosȱdeusȱsignisȱet miraculisȱ sibiȱ valdeȱ placuisseȱ demonstravit,ȱ magnamȱ proȱ iusticiaȱ posterisȱ dimicandiȱ dans fiduciam,ȱ quandoȱ hosȱ inȱ numeroȱ sanctorumȱ connumerareȱ dignatusȱ est”ȱ (Godȱ demonstrated throughȱsignsȱandȱmiraclesȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱdiedȱfightingȱinȱaȱrighteousȱwarȱpleasedȱhimȱgreatly. Whenȱheȱdeignedȱtoȱcountȱthoseȱsoldiersȱamongȱtheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱsaints,ȱGodȱprovidedȱgreat assuranceȱtoȱfutureȱgenerationsȱwhoȱfightȱforȱrighteousness).ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ590–91:ȱ“EodemȱtemporeȱMediolanensisȱecclesia,ȱquaeȱfereȱperȱCCȱannos superbiaeȱ fastuȱ Romanaeȱ ecclesiaeȱ seȱ subtraxeratȱ dicione,ȱ primumȱ seȱ interȱ aliasȱ ecclesias subiectamȱesseȱcognovit”ȱ(Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱchurchȱofȱMilan,ȱwhichȱforȱnearlyȱtwoȱhundred yearsȱ hadȱ arrogantlyȱ removedȱ itselfȱ fromȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ church,ȱ firstȱ cameȱ to recognizeȱthatȱitȱwasȱsubjectȱlikeȱtheȱotherȱchurchesȱtoȱRomanȱauthority).ȱ OnȱtheȱpapalȬPatareneȱallianceȱinȱAndrew’sȱVita,ȱseeȱch.ȱ7,ȱ1054ȱandȱch.ȱ15,ȱ1059.ȱAndrewȱwrote theȱVitaȱinȱtheȱwakeȱofȱErlembald’sȱmurder.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

411

LandulfȱandȱArialdȱcoȬfoundingȱtheȱgroupȱsimultaneouslyȱandȱplacingȱitȱfromȱthe veryȱstartȱunderȱtheȱpatronageȱofȱtheȱprincesȱofȱtheȱapostles.66ȱMoreover,ȱwhereas AndrewȱindicatesȱthatȱArialdȱfirstȱtargetedȱnicolaitismȱandȱsimonyȱforȱcensureȱin Milan,ȱBonizoȱhasȱArialdȱandȱLandulfȱfromȱtheȱoutsetȱpreachingȱsimultaneously againstȱnicolaitism,ȱsimony,ȱandȱdisobedienceȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱchurch.67ȱContraryȱto fact,ȱBonizoȱalsoȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱPatarenesȱwereȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱcallȱuponȱtheȱRoman SeeȱtoȱinterveneȱinȱMilaneseȱaffairs.68ȱTheȱMilaneseȱclericalȱestablishmentȱironically firstȱaskedȱPopeȱStephenȱIXȱtoȱhelpȱrefereeȱitsȱinitialȱdisputeȱwithȱtheȱPatarenes.69 Bonizo’sȱnarrativeȱinȱBookȱVIȱandȱtheȱfirstȱhalfȱofȱBookȱVIIȱswingsȱbackȱand forthȱbetweenȱeventsȱinvolvingȱtheȱpapalȱreformersȱinȱRomeȱandȱtheȱPatarenesȱin Lombardy.ȱHeȱhighlightsȱepisodesȱthatȱreȬenforceȱhisȱthesisȱthatȱaȱcompleteȱunity ofȱpurposeȱexistedȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱgroupsȱofȱecclesiasticalȱreformers.ȱTheȱpapal legationsȱ toȱ Milanȱ undertakenȱ byȱ Hildebrand/Gregoryȱ inȱ 1057ȱ andȱ byȱ Peter Damianȱinȱ1059ȱareȱtwoȱsuchȱepisodes.ȱPerhapsȱtheȱmostȱtellingȱepisodeȱofȱthe entireȱhistory,ȱhowever,ȱconcernsȱBonizo’sȱpresentationȱofȱPopeȱAlexanderȱII’s letterȱtoȱCremona’sȱPatarenesȱinȱBookȱVI.ȱTheȱpapalȱletterȱwasȱoccasionedȱbyȱthe violentȱconflictȱthatȱhadȱrecentlyȱeruptedȱbetweenȱtheȱPatarenesȱandȱtheirȱbishop, Arnulf.ȱBonizoȱprefacesȱtheȱtextȱofȱtheȱletterȱwithȱaȱcuriousȱpromiseȱnotȱtoȱdelve intoȱallȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱtheȱblossomingȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱinȱCremona.ȱHeȱwrites: However,ȱIȱwillȱnotȱbotherȱtoȱdescribeȱhowȱtwelveȱmenȱforȱtheȱloveȱofȱGodȱsworeȱtoȱexpel onȱ theȱ adviceȱ ofȱ theȱ lordȱ abbotȱ Christopherȱ allȱ priestsȱ andȱ deaconsȱ whoȱ kept concubinesȱandȱhowȱtheȱentireȱpopulationȱofȱCremonaȱimitatedȱthemȱandȱhowȱthe bishopȱ(i.e.,ȱArnulf)ȱarrestedȱaȱwonderfulȱPatareneȱpriestȱonȱGoodȱFridayȱandȱhadȱhim scourgedȱandȱhowȱafterȱEasterȱdistinguishedȱmenȱwereȱsentȱasȱmessengersȱtoȱtheȱpope. Nevertheless,ȱIȱhaveȱdecidedȱtoȱinsertȱintoȱthisȱlittleȱworkȱtheȱshieldȱthatȱtheȱvenerable popeȱpassedȱonȱtoȱtheȱCremoneseȱthroughȱthoseȱsameȱmessengers.70 66

67

68 69 70

Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VI,ȱ 591.ȱ Bonizoȱ actuallyȱ mentionsȱ Landulfȱ beforeȱ Arialdȱ inȱ decribingȱ the Pataria’sȱorigins.ȱThisȱmayȱreflectȱtheȱfactȱthatȱBonizoȱcameȱtoȱtheȱPatariaȱduringȱtheȱascendancy ofȱLandulf’sȱbrother,ȱErlembald.ȱHeȱmayȱwantȱtoȱaccentuateȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱCottasȱinȱhis movement’sȱfounding. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ591:ȱ“quadamȱdieȱdivinaȱiuvanteȱgratiaȱverbumȱpraedicationisȱfaciuntȱad populum;ȱinȱquaȱfraudesȱsymoniaceȱvenalitatisȱpopuloȱpropalavere,ȱetȱquamȱturpissimumȱesset sacerdotesȱ etȱ levitasȱ concubinatosȱ sacramentaȱ celebrare,ȱ luceȱ clariusȱ demonstravere,ȱ etȱ quia hereticumȱessetȱRomanaeȱecclesiaeȱnonȱobedire,ȱbeatoȱAmbrosioȱtesteȱdeclaravere..”ȱ(onȱaȱcertain dayȱwithȱtheȱaidȱofȱdivineȱgraceȱtheyȱpreachedȱtheȱWordȱtoȱtheȱpeople.ȱOnȱthatȱday,ȱtheyȱdivulged toȱtheȱpeopleȱtheȱharmsȱofȱSimonyȱandȱhowȱawfulȱitȱwasȱthatȱconcubineȬkeepingȱpriestsȱand deaconsȱcelebratedȱtheȱsacraments.ȱTheyȱdemonstratedȱclearerȱthanȱdayȱthatȱheȱwhoȱdisobeyed theȱRomanȱchurchȱwasȱaȱheretic,ȱtheyȱprovedȱitȱwithȱblessedȱAmbroseȱasȱ(their)ȱwitness.). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ592. Arnulf,ȱGesta,ȱIII,ȱch.ȱ12,ȱ20. Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VI,ȱ 597:ȱ “Qualiterȱ veroȱ XIIȱ viriȱ zeloȱ Deiȱ ductiȱ consilioȱ domniȱ Christofori abbatisȱ iuravere,ȱ etȱ quomodoȱ universusȱ Cremonensisȱ populusȱ hosȱ imitatusȱ est,ȱ etȱ quomodo universosȱsacerdotesȱetȱlevitasȱconcubinatosȱeiecere,ȱetȱqualiterȱipsumȱepiscopumȱinȱipsoȱdie passionisȱDominiȱsacerdotemȱPaterinorumȱcomprehendereȱnitentemȱverberavere,ȱetȱquomodo

412

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

Bonizoȱthenȱ“bothers”ȱtoȱreproduceȱtheȱpapalȱmessageȱoverȱtheȱnextȱthirtyȬfour linesȱofȱhisȱhistory.ȱSinceȱthisȱisȱtheȱonlyȱextantȱcopyȱofȱAlexanderȇsȱletter,ȱweȱdo notȱknowȱifȱBonizoȱhasȱreproducedȱtheȱwholeȱletterȱorȱifȱheȱhasȱtamperedȱwithȱits contents.71ȱHisȱpossessionȱofȱtheȱletterȱinȱsomeȱformȱorȱanotherȱcertainlyȱindicates aȱstrongȱconnectionȱwithȱCremonaȇsȱPatarenes.ȱThisȱisȱquiteȱsignificantȱbecause Walterȱ Berschinȱ hasȱ demonstratedȱ thatȱ Bonizoȱ almostȱ certainlyȱ cameȱ from Cremona.72ȱItȱmayȱwellȱbeȱthatȱBonizo’sȱprimaryȱaudienceȱinȱtheȱadȱamicumȱisȱhis homeȱ Patareneȱ cell.ȱ Cremona’sȱ Patarenes,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ needed Bonizoȱtoȱrehearseȱinȱfullȱdetailȱtheȱstoryȱofȱwhatȱledȱupȱtoȱtheȱpope’sȱletter.ȱThey alreadyȱknewȱtheȱstory.ȱHisȱamicus,ȱthen,ȱasȱsuggestedȱearlier,ȱmayȱwellȱhaveȱbeen aȱPatareneȱclericȱwithȱwhomȱheȱhadȱstudiedȱandȱlivedȱinȱCremona.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Ifȱ theseȱ suppositionsȱ areȱ true,ȱ then,ȱ Bonizo’sȱ reproductionȱ ofȱ Alexanderȱ II’s messageȱwasȱsurelyȱaȱfarȱmoreȱpowerfulȱtestamentȱtoȱRome’sȱsolidarityȱwithȱhis friend’sȱmovementȱthanȱsayȱhisȱrecollectionsȱofȱtheȱpapalȱlegationsȱtoȱMilan.ȱThe papalȱmessageȱwasȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱinquiriesȱofȱtheȱcity’sȱreformȱfaction,ȱwhich hadȱearlierȱdispatchedȱaȱdelegationȱtoȱRome.ȱInȱhisȱletter,ȱtheȱpopeȱgivesȱthanks toȱGodȱforȱhavingȱarmedȱtheȱdevoutȱclergyȱandȱlayȱfaithfulȱofȱCremonaȱwithȱthe “weaponsȱofȱHisȱownȱstrength”ȱagainstȱtheȱenemyȱofȱtheȱhumanȱraceȱandȱ for bringingȱ toȱ lightȱ theȱ obscenitiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Cremoneseȱ clergyȱ soȱ thatȱ simonyȱ and nicolaitismȱmightȱbeȱdestroyedȱthere.73ȱHeȱassuresȱCremona’sȱPatarenesȱthatȱGod himselfȱhasȱincitedȱthemȱagainstȱtheȱmodernȱcunningȱofȱtheȱdevilȱ(i.e.,ȱagainst simonyȱandȱnicolaitism).74ȱHeȱfurtherȱurgesȱthemȱtoȱguaranteeȱtheȱholyȱapostolic See’sȱsupportȱforȱtheirȱholyȱendeavorsȱbyȱobservingȱtheȱcanonicalȱstipulationȱthat simoniacȱ andȱ nicolaiteȱ priests,ȱ deacons,ȱ andȱ subdeaconsȱ beȱ strippedȱ ofȱ their offices,ȱbutȱthatȱlawfullyȱmarriedȱclericsȱinȱminorȱordersȱnotȱloseȱtheirȱofficesȱorȱall

71 72 73

74

postȱsanctumȱpaschaȱhonestosȱvirosȱnunciosȱadȱpapamȱmisere,ȱdicereȱnonȱcurabo.”ȱ Berschin,ȱBonizo,ȱ7. Berschin,ȱBonizo,ȱ5–6ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ597:ȱ“InspiratoriȱomniumȱbonorumȱDeoȱetȱbonaeȱvoluntatisȱauctoriȱuberes referimusȱgratias,ȱquiȱvosȱadversusȱhostemȱhumaniȱgenerisȱvirtutumȱsuarumȱtelisȱarmavitȱetȱad destruendamȱsymoniacamȱheresimȱacȱfornicatorumȱspurciciasȱclericorumȱferventerȱaccendit”ȱ(We giveȱmuchȱthanksȱagainȱtoȱGodȱtheȱInspirerȱofȱallȱgoodȱthingsȱandȱtheȱAuthorȱofȱgoodȱwill,ȱwho hasȱarmedȱyouȱagainstȱtheȱEnemyȱofȱtheȱhumanȱraceȱ(with)ȱtheȱweaponsȱofȱallȱhisȱstrengthȱand heȱhotlyȱilluminatedȱtheȱobscenitiesȱofȱtheȱclergyȱforȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱdestroyingȱtheȱheresyȱof Simonyȱandȱfornication). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ597:ȱ“Planeȱquiȱserpentiȱdudumȱinȱparadisoȱdamnationisȱaeternaeȱiudicium intulit,ȱipseȱvosȱadversusȱmodernamȱoccultiȱdraconisȱastutiamȱunanimiterȱincitavit”ȱ(Clearly,ȱHe whoȱpassedȱtheȱjudgmentȱinȱParadiseȱofȱeternalȱdamnationȱtoȱtheȱSerpentȱaȱlittleȱwhileȱago,ȱHe himselfȱhasȱincitedȱyouȱunanimouslyȱagainstȱtheȱmodernȱcunningȱofȱtheȱsecretiveȱSerpent).ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

413

ofȱtheirȱincome.75ȱAfterȱinvitingȱtheȱCremoneseȱPatariaȱtoȱsendȱrepresentativesȱto anȱ upcomingȱ Romanȱ Easterȱ synodȱ forȱ faceȬtoȬfaceȱ discussionsȱ aboutȱ other importantȱbusiness,ȱAlexanderȱclosesȱhisȱcommuniquéȱwithȱtheȱassurancesȱthatȱthe RomanȱSeeȱhastensȱtoȱtheȱwarȱthatȱtheȱCremoneseȱreformersȱhaveȱundertakenȱwith divineȱfervor,ȱthatȱitȱextendsȱanȱarmȱofȱprotection,ȱaȱshieldȱofȱdefense,ȱandȱthatȱit encouragesȱthemȱtoȱriseȱnotȱinȱaȱfeebleȱmannerȱagainstȱtheȱdevil’sȱmembers.76ȱHe urgesȱ themȱ inȱ aȱ spiritualȱ mannerȱ toȱ imitateȱ Mosesȱ inȱ Exodusȱ 32:26–29,ȱ where standingȱatȱtheȱgateȱofȱtheȱIsraelites’ȱcampȱheȱordersȱtheȱLevitesȱtoȱslayȱallȱthose whoȱhadȱworshippedȱtheȱgoldenȱcalf,ȱbyȱblockingȱupȱtheȱgatesȱofȱsimonyȱand nicolaitismȱinȱtheirȱchurchȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱdevilȱhasȱenteredȱit.77ȱ Althoughȱtheȱpopeȱgivesȱaȱspiritualȱmeaningȱtoȱtheȱmartialȱterminologyȱand allusionsȱ inȱ hisȱ letterȱ above,ȱ theȱ originalȱ effectȱ ofȱ theȱ papalȱ messageȱ onȱ its recipientsȱledȱtoȱanȱaccelerationȱofȱtheirȱaggressiveȱcampaignȱagainstȱecclesiastical abuses.ȱBonizoȱremindsȱhisȱfriendsȱthatȱAlexander’sȱ“wholesomeȱadmonitions”

75

76

77

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ597:ȱ“Quamȱobȱrem,ȱ[ut]ȱsanctisȱconatibusȱvestriesȱetiamȱhuiusȱsanctae sedisȱapostolicaeȱaccedatȱvigor,ȱhocȱipsumȱapudȱvosȱperȱomniaȱdecernimusȱobservandum,ȱ… videlicetȱutȱtamȱsubdiaconiȱquamȱdiaconi,ȱsedȱetȱpermaximeȱsacerdotes,ȱquiȱmulieribusȱcarnali commercioȱadmiscenturȱvelȱsymoniacaȱsordeȱpollutiȱsunt,ȱetȱecclesiasticisȱcareantȱbeneficiisȱet perceptaeȱ priventurȱ officioȱ dignitatisȱ .…ȱ Ceterosȱ autemȱ clericos,ȱ quiȱ videlicetȱ inferioribus pociunturȱoffices,ȱsiȱlegalibusȱconiugiisȱsuntȱobligati,ȱinȱsuisȱgradibusȱmanereȱprecipimusȱetȱ[eis] compententiaȱecclesiasticiȱsumptusȱbeneficiaȱnonȱnegamus”ȱ(Accordingly,ȱtheȱstrengthȱofȱthisȱholy apostolicȱchairȱagreesȱwithȱyourȱholyȱendeavors,ȱweȱdecreeȱthatȱthisȱtraditionȱmustȱbeȱobserved amongȱyouȱinȱallȱmatters…namelyȱthatȱsuchȱsubdeaconsȱorȱdeaconsȱandȱinȱfactȱmostlyȱpriests, whoȱareȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱcommerceȱofȱtheȱfleshȱwithȱwomenȱorȱhaveȱbeenȱpollutedȱbyȱtheȱstainȱof Simonyȱ andȱ areȱ absentȱ fromȱ theirȱ churchesȱ theyȱ areȱ deprievedȱ ofȱ theirȱ beneficesȱ andȱ office …Moreover,ȱsomeȱclerics,ȱwhoȱevidentlyȱareȱstrippedȱofȱinferiorȱoffices,ȱifȱtheyȱhaveȱbeenȱjoined toȱlawfulȱspouses,ȱweȱinstructȱthatȱtheyȱremainȱinȱtheirȱownȱgradesȱandȱweȱdoȱnotȱdenyȱtoȱthose menȱtheirȱbenefices). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIȱ598:ȱ“Huicȱenimȱbelloȱquodȱzeloȱdiviniȱfervorisȱestisȱaggressi,ȱnonȱsegniter, sedȱomniȱvirtutisȱinstantiaȱRomanaȱsedesȱaccurrit,ȱbrachiumȱporrigit,ȱclipeumȱdefensionisȱobponit etȱvos,ȱutȱmagisȱacȱmagisȱcontraȱmembraȱdiaboliȱnonȱenerviterȱinsurgereȱdebeatis,ȱaccendit.”ȱ(For toȱ thisȱ war,ȱ whichȱ youȱ haveȱ undertakenȱ withȱ theȱ zealȱ ofȱ divineȱ fervor,ȱ notȱ lazily,ȱ butȱ inȱ all vehemenceȱofȱstrengthȱtheȱRomanȱSeeȱattendsȱtoȱ,ȱitȱholdsȱoutȱanȱarm,ȱitȱpresentsȱaȱshieldȱof defenseȱandȱitȱenflamesȱyou,ȱsoȱthatȱmoreȱandȱmoreȱyouȱoughtȱtoȱriseȱnotȱfeeblyȱagainstȱthe membersȱofȱtheȱDevil.).ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598:ȱ“Igiturȱunusquisqueȱvestrumȱdivinaeȱvirtutisȱmucroneȱprecinctus dicat:ȱ ‘Siȱ quisȱ estȱ Domini,ȱ iungaturȱ mecum’;ȱ sicqueȱ cumȱ Moyseȱ quasiȱ deȱ portaȱ inȱ portam castrorumȱtanquamȱfervidusȱbellatorȱinȱsacrilegosȱirruat,ȱutȱsymoniaceȱvenalitatisȱetȱclericalis adulteriiȱ ianuas,ȱ perȱ quasȱ diabolusȱ inȱ vestramȱ fueratȱ ingressusȱ ecclesiam,ȱ cesisȱ cadaveribus claudat”ȱ(Therefore,ȱletȱeveryȱsingleȱoneȱofȱyouȱhavingȱbeenȱgirdedȱwithȱtheȱswordȱofȱdivine strengthȱsay:ȱ‘WhoȱisȱonȱtheȱLord’sȱside,ȱcomeȱhereȱtoȱme’;ȱandȱsoȱthusȱasȱMosesȱasȱifȱaȱraging warriorȱfromȱgateȱtoȱgateȱofȱtheȱcampȱattacksȱtheȱsacriligiousȱones,ȱsoȱtheȱdoorsȱofȱsimoniacalȱsale andȱofȱclericalȱadultery,ȱthroughȱwhichȱtheȱDevilȱhadȱenteredȱintoȱyourȱchurch,ȱletȱeachȱoneȱofȱyou closeȱ([heȱdoors]ȱwithȱdismemberedȱcorpses).ȱȱȱȱ

414

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

inspiredȱtheȱCremoneseȱtoȱexpelȱsimoniacsȱandȱfornicatorsȱfromȱtheirȱchurch.78ȱThe Piacenzans,ȱfurthermore,ȱinȱimitationȱofȱtheirȱneighbors,ȱsubmittedȱthemselvesȱto Romanȱauthority,ȱabandonedȱtheirȱpreviouslyȱexcommunicatedȱbishop,ȱDenis,ȱand strengthenedȱtheȱPatariaȱwithȱtheirȱoaths.79ȱByȱputtingȱAlexander’sȱencouraging messageȱbeforeȱthemȱagainȱsomeȱtwentyȱorȱsoȱyearsȱlater,ȱBonizoȱundoubtedly hopedȱthatȱitȱwouldȱelicitȱaȱsimilarȱburstȱofȱactivityȱfromȱhisȱfriendsȱagainstȱthe newȱstandardȬbearersȱofȱheresy,ȱHenryȱIVȱandȱhisȱallies.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

V.ȱTheȱPriestȱAndȱTheȱWarrior Gregoryȱ VII,ȱ theȱ formerȱ Hildebrand,ȱ andȱ Erlembaldȱ Cottaȱ areȱ theȱ chief protagonistsȱ ofȱ theȱ papalȬPatareneȱ romanceȱ inȱ theȱ adȱ amicum.ȱ Theyȱ areȱ the paradigmsȱofȱtheȱidealȱpriestȱandȱidealȱknightȱrespectively.ȱBonizoȱconsistently bestowsȱhisȱmostȱfavorableȱsobriquetsȱuponȱthem.ȱForȱexample,ȱpriorȱtoȱhisȱpapal election,ȱBonizoȱrefersȱtoȱGregoryȱsevenȱtimesȱasȱ“HildebrandȱtheȱloverȱofȱGod.”80 Onceȱpope,ȱheȱbecomesȱtheȱvenerableȱGregory81ȱandȱtheȱ“mostȱblessedȱGregory.”82 BonizoȱdescribesȱErlembaldȱasȱtheȱ“oneȱprotectedȱbyȱGod”83ȱfourȱtimesȱandȱasȱthe “soldierȱofȱGod”84ȱthreeȱtimes.ȱHeȱcomparesȱErlembaldȱinȱthreeȱplacesȱtoȱJudas Maccabaeus.85ȱ Itȱisȱnoȱaccidentȱthatȱtheȱtwoȱchiefȱheroesȱofȱtheȱadȱamicumȱwereȱalsoȱtheȱtwo mostȱprominentȱfiguresȱinȱtheȱpapalȬPatareneȱallianceȱinȱtheȱperiodȱ1065–1075. TheyȱwereȱlikelyȱtheȱheroesȱofȱBonizo’sȱownȱyoungȱadulthood.ȱAsȱstatedȱearlier, Hildebrand/Gregoryȱ alsoȱ probablyȱ raisedȱ Bonizoȱ toȱ theȱ episcopateȱ sometime beforeȱ 1078.ȱ Hildebrand/Gregoryȱ hadȱ forgedȱ closeȱ tiesȱ withȱ theȱ Patarene leadershipȱ longȱ beforeȱ hisȱ papalȱ electionȱ inȱ 1073.ȱ Asȱ earlyȱ asȱ 1057,ȱ heȱ had accompaniedȱtheȱfutureȱPopeȱAlexanderȱII,ȱBishopȱAnselmȱdaȱBaggioȱofȱLucca,ȱon 78

79

80

81 82 83 84 85

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598:ȱ“HisȱsalutiferisȱammonicionibusȱaccensiȱCremonensesȱplacitumȱDei moxȱ incipiunt,ȱ symoniacosȱ etȱ fornicatoresȱ abȱ ecclesiaȱ suaȱ expellunt..”ȱ (Arousedȱ byȱ these wholesomeȱadmonitions,ȱtheȱCremoneseȱsoonȱbeginȱtheȱprogramȱofȱGod,ȱtheyȱexpelȱtheȱsimoniacs andȱfornicatorsȱfromȱtheirȱchurch.). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598:ȱ“QuosȱimitantesȱPlacentiniȱRomanaeȱseȱcontinuoȱsubiciuntȱobedientiae etȱDionisiumȱeorumȱepiscoporumȱaȱbeatoȱpapaȱexcommunicatumȱabiciuntȱetȱomnesȱPatareamȱper sacramentaȱ confirmant..”ȱ (Imitatingȱ theȱ Cremonese,ȱ theȱ Piacenzansȱ submitȱ themselves immediatelyȱtoȱtheȱobedienceȱofȱRomeȱandȱtheyȱabandonȱtheirȱbishop,ȱDenis,ȱwhoȱhadȱbeen excommunicatedȱbyȱtheȱblessedȱpopeȱandȱallȱstrengthenȱtheȱPatariaȱthroughȱoaths.). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ587:ȱ“quemȱsecutusȱestȱDeoȱamabilisȱHildebrandus”ȱ(whomȱHildebrandȱthe loverȱofȱGodȱfollowed).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ602. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ606. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ599. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ599ȱandȱVII,ȱ604ȱandȱ605.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

415

theȱfirstȱpapalȱlegationȱtoȱMilanȱduringȱ theȱ Patareneȱcrisis.ȱOverȱtheȱyears,ȱhe remainedȱinȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱPataria’sȱleadership,ȱforgingȱespeciallyȱcloseȱtiesȱwith Erlembaldȱ Cotta.ȱ I.S.ȱ Robinsonȱ hasȱ surmisedȱ thatȱ Erlembaldȱ belongedȱ to Hildebrand’sȱ networkȱ ofȱ friendsȱ wellȱ beforeȱ theȱ latter’sȱ papalȱ election.86 HildebrandȱwasȱaȱmostȱeffectiveȱadvocateȱforȱtheȱpopularȱreformersȱatȱAlexander II’sȱcourt. Bonizo’sȱ pictureȱ ofȱ perfectȱ agreementȱ betweenȱ theȱ reformȱ papacyȱ andȱ the PatariaȱcameȱnearestȱtoȱbeingȱtrueȱduringȱHildebrand/Gregory’sȱpontificate.ȱHe wasȱmuchȱmoreȱsympatheticȱtowardȱErlembald’sȱincreasinglyȱmilitantȱpostureȱin MilanȱthanȱAlexanderȱIIȱhadȱbeen.ȱHeȱwasȱeverȱtheȱfaithfulȱpatronȱofȱErlembald andȱofȱhisȱmovement.ȱInȱfact,ȱevenȱafterȱErlembald’sȱviolentȱdeathȱinȱ1075,ȱthe popeȱremainedȱveryȱmindfulȱofȱhisȱmostȱfavoriteȱknight.ȱAtȱhisȱLentenȱsynodȱof 1078,ȱtheȱpopeȱreportedȱthatȱmiraclesȱwereȱtakingȱplaceȱatȱErlembald’sȱtombȱin Milan.ȱ87ȱPerhapsȱevenȱmoreȱsoȱthanȱAlexanderȱII’sȱletterȱtoȱCremona’sȱPatarenes, Hildebrand/Gregory’sȱministryȱtoȱtheȱPatariaȱconvincedȱBonizoȱthatȱaȱunityȱof purposeȱandȱobjectivesȱexistedȱbetweenȱtheȱRomanȱandȱLombardȱreformers.ȱHe wasȱwrong.ȱHeȱmissedȱtheȱnuancesȱevenȱinȱHildebrand/Gregory’sȱrelationship withȱtheȱPataria.ȱBonizo’sȱfailureȱorȱunwillingnessȱtoȱrecognizeȱtheȱambiguitiesȱin theȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwoȱgroupsȱofȱreformersȱcausedȱhimȱgreatȱpersonal painȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ fewȱ yearsȱ ofȱ hisȱ life.ȱ Itȱ directlyȱ contributedȱ toȱ hisȱ bitter disenchantmentȱwithȱPopeȱUrbanȱIIȱ(1088–1099),ȱwhoȱforȱstrategicȱandȱpersonal reasonsȱ tookȱ aȱ moreȱ moderateȱ approachȱ towardȱ theȱ reformȱ ofȱ theȱ Lombard churchesȱthanȱhadȱHildebrand/GregoryȱandȱtheȱPataria. Regardless,ȱinȱBooksȱV–VIIȱofȱtheȱadȱamicum,ȱBonizoȱpresentsȱaȱlargeȱbodyȱof evidenceȱthatȱestablishesȱHildebrand/Gregory’sȱideologicalȱagreementȱwithȱhis Patareneȱfriendsȱonȱtheȱkeyȱissuesȱofȱlayȱinvestiture,ȱsimony,ȱandȱclericalȱmarriage. TheȱbishopȱofȱSutriȱfurnishesȱfourȱepisodesȱfromȱHildebrand/Gregory’sȱcareerȱthat demonstrateȱ hisȱ oppositionȱ toȱ layȱ investiture,ȱ theȱ mostȱ significantȱ ofȱ which involvesȱtheȱallegedȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱHenryȱIII’sȱpapalȱdesignee,ȱBrunoȱofȱToul, assumedȱtheȱpapacyȱasȱLeoȱIX.ȱȱBonizoȱassertsȱthatȱHildebrandȱmetȱwithȱBrunoȱat Vienneȱonȱtheȱlatter’sȱwayȱtoȱRomeȱandȱconvincedȱhimȱtoȱrefrainȱfromȱdisplaying theȱpapalȱinsigniaȱuntilȱafterȱhisȱformalȱelectionȱbyȱtheȱRomanȱclergyȱandȱpeople.88ȱ Moreȱ specifically,ȱ Bonizoȱ relatesȱ thatȱ whenȱ heȱ learnedȱ fromȱ Abbotȱ Hughȱ of Cluny,ȱinȱwhoseȱretinueȱheȱwasȱtraveling,ȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱheadedȱtoȱVienneȱtoȱmeet withȱHenryȱIII’sȱpapalȱdesigneeȱtheȱvenerableȱHildebrandȱurgedȱtheȱabbotȱnotȱto meetȱwithȱsuchȱanȱapostate,ȱwhoȱwouldȱdareȱtoȱseizeȱtheȱpapacyȱatȱtheȱcommand 86 87

88

I.ȱS.ȱRobinson,ȱ“TheȱFriendshipȱNetworkȱofȱGregoryȱVII,”ȱHistoryȱ63ȱ(1978):ȱ1–22;ȱhere12–13. Theȱpope’sȱfondnessȱforȱErlembaldȱdidȱnotȱpreventȱhimȱfromȱcanvassingȱamongȱMilan’sȱknights forȱaȱsuccessorȱtoȱhim.ȱSeeȱGregoryȱVII,ȱRegistrum,ȱed.ȱErichȱCaspar,ȱMGHȱEpistolaeȱSelectae,ȱIII (Munich:ȱMonumentaȱGermaniaeȱHistorica,ȱ1978)ȱ,15,ȱ276–77.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ587.ȱ

416

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

ofȱanȱemperor.89ȱAtȱVienne,ȱHughȱrelatedȱHildebrand’sȱstatementȱtoȱBruno,ȱwho thenȱaskedȱtoȱseeȱtheȱRomanȱcleric.90ȱBonizoȱexplainsȱthatȱsinceȱGodȱisȱpresent wheneverȱthreeȱgatherȱinȱhisȱnameȱ(Matthewȱ18:20),ȱBrunoȱheededȱHildebrand’s counselȱafterȱmeetingȱwithȱhimȱandȱHughȱandȱheȱsetȱasideȱtheȱpapalȱinsignia.91 Later,ȱ Bonizoȱ disclosesȱ toȱ hisȱ friendsȱ thatȱ afterȱ Bruno/Leo’sȱ deathȱ inȱ 1054, HildebrandȱtraveledȱacrossȱtheȱAlpsȱtoȱmeetȱwithȱHenryȱIIIȱandȱexplainedȱtoȱthe emperorȱ howȱ wrongȱ hisȱ previousȱ interventionsȱ inȱ papalȱ electionsȱ were.92ȱ In accordanceȱwithȱHildebrand’sȱ“salubrious”ȱadvice,ȱHenryȱthenȱrelinquishedȱhis tyrannyȱasȱRomanȱpatricianȱandȱconcededȱtheȱnextȱpapalȱelectionȱtoȱtheȱRoman clergyȱandȱpeopleȱaccordingȱtoȱtheirȱancientȱprivileges.93ȱ Bonizoȱ isȱ equallyȱ dutifulȱ inȱ pointingȱ outȱ toȱ hisȱ fellowȱ Patarenes Hildebrand/Gregory’sȱlongstandingȱoppositionȱtoȱsimonyȱandȱclericalȱmarriage. HeȱrevealsȱthatȱHildebrandȱwasȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱcounseledȱLeoȱIXȱtoȱholdȱtheȱRoman synodȱshortlyȱafterȱhisȱpapalȱelectionȱthatȱprohibitedȱsimonyȱandȱnicolaitism.94ȱHe 89

90

91

92 93

94

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ587:ȱ“Quiȱcumȱcausasȱitinerisȱaȱquodamȱnarranteȱaudisset,ȱcepitȱrogare patrem,ȱ neȱ illoȱ tenderet,ȱ dicensȱ eumȱ nonȱ apostolicum,ȱ sedȱ apostaticum,ȱ quiȱ issuȱ imperatoris Romanumȱconareturȱarripereȱpontificatum”ȱ(Whoȱ(Hildebrand)ȱwhenȱheȱhadȱheardȱtheȱreason forȱhisȱ(HughȱofȱCluny’s)ȱjourneyȱfromȱaȱcertainȱmessenger,ȱheȱbeganȱtoȱpleadȱwithȱtheȱfather (Hugh)ȱlestȱheȱshouldȱgoȱtoȱVienneȱsayingȱthatȱthatȱmanȱwhoȱwasȱattemptingȱtoȱseizeȱtheȱpapacy onȱtheȱorderȱofȱanȱemperorȱwasȱnotȱanȱapostleȱbutȱanȱapostate). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ587:ȱ“Vesuntiumȱvenitȱacceptaqueȱoccasioneȱquantociusȱhaecȱvenerabili episcopoȱintimavit,ȱadiecensȱsimulȱetȱmorumȱprobitatemȱetȱintegerrimeȱeiusȱvitaeȱconversationem. Quidȱplura?ȱRogavitȱpontifex,ȱutȱeiusȱpotireturȱcolloquio..”ȱ(Heȱ(Hugh)ȱproceededȱtoȱVienneȱand whenȱgivenȱtheȱopportunity,ȱheȱrelatedȱwhatȱheȱ[Hildebrand]ȱhadȱsaidȱasȱsoonȱasȱpossibleȱtoȱthe venerableȱbishopȱ(Bruno),ȱaddingȱaȱfewȱwordsȱaboutȱtheȱhonestyȱofȱhisȱ([ildebrand’sȱ]ȱcharacter andȱtheȱtenorȱofȱhisȱ[Hildebrand’s]ȱmostȱvirtuousȱlife.ȱWhatȱmoreȱ[canȱIȱsay]?ȱTheȱpopeȱaskedȱto meetȱwithȱhimȱ[Hildebrand]).ȱ Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ V,ȱ 587:ȱ “congregatesȱ tribusȱ inȱ nomineeȱ Dominiȱ secundumȱ evangelicum verbumȱibiȱfuitȱDeusȱinȱmedioȱeorum.ȱNamȱeiusȱconsilioȱacquiescensȱpapaliaȱdeposuitȱinsignia, quaeȱgestabat,ȱsummensqueȱscarsellamȱusqueȱadȱapostolorumȱliminaȱproperavit”ȱ(whenȱtheȱthree menȱ gatheredȱ togetherȱ inȱ theȱ Lord’sȱ nameȱ Godȱ wasȱ asȱ theȱ Gospelȱ saysȱ thereȱ inȱ theirȱ midst. Indeed,ȱacquiescingȱtoȱhisȱ[Hildebrand’s]ȱcounsel,ȱheȱ[Bruno]ȱlaidȱasideȱtheȱpapalȱattireȱthatȱhe wasȱwearingȱandȱassumingȱaȱcloakȱheȱhastenedȱtoȱtheȱthresholdsȱofȱtheȱApostles). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ589. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ589:ȱ“Quiȱeiusȱsalubriȱacquiescensȱconsilioȱtyrannidemȱpatriciatusȱdeposuit cleroqueȱRomanoȱetȱpopuloȱsecundumȱantiquaȱprivilegiaȱelectionemȱsummiȱpontificisȱconcessit” (Whoȱ [Henryȱ III]ȱ acquiescingȱ toȱ hisȱ [Hildebrand’s]ȱ wholesomeȱ counsel,ȱ heȱ relinquishedȱ his despoticȱruleȱasȱPatricianȱandȱheȱconcededȱtheȱelectionȱofȱtheȱsupremeȱpontiffȱtoȱtheȱRomanȱclergy andȱ peopleȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ theirȱ ancientȱ prerogatives).ȱ Throughoutȱ Booksȱ V–VII,ȱ Bonizo repeatedlyȱrefersȱtoȱHildebrand/Gregoryȱasȱaȱmanȱofȱgreatȱcounsel.ȱNoȱdoubt,ȱthisȱwasȱintended toȱhelpȱdispelȱinȱhisȱreaders’/listeners’ȱmindsȱtheȱnotionȱcurrentȱinȱ1085–1086ȱthatȱtheȱpopeȱwas intemperateȱandȱlackedȱsoundȱjudgment. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ588:ȱ“Postquamȱpapalemȱadeptusȱestȱdignitatem,ȱvenerabilemȱIldebrandum, donatoremȱtamȱsalubrisȱconsilii,ȱquemȱabateȱ(HughȱofȱCluny)ȱmultisȱprecibusȱvixȱimpetraverat, adȱsubdiaconatusȱprovexitȱhonorem,ȱquemȱetȱeconomumȱsanctaeȱRomaneȱecclesiaeȱconstituit. Cuiusȱconsilioȱsynodumȱmoxȱcongregavit,ȱinȱquaȱdiversarumȱregionumȱepiscopiȱconvenerunt,ȱin quaȱ etiamȱ subȱ anathemateȱ interdictumȱ estȱ nonȱ licereȱ alicuiȱ episcopoȱ archidiaconatusȱ et

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

417

alsoȱ relatesȱ thatȱ onȱ Hildebrand’sȱ advice,ȱ aȱ jointȱ papalȬimperialȱ synodȱ heldȱ in Florenceȱ ca.ȱ 1055ȱ condemnedȱ simonyȱ andȱ “priestlyȱ fornication.”95ȱ Bonizoȱ also passesȱ onȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ howȱ Hildebrandȱ performedȱ aȱ miracleȱ atȱ theȱ synodȱ of ChalonȬsurȬSaone,ȱwhichȱfoundȱitsȱwayȱintoȱJacobusȱdeȱVoraigne’sȱLegendaȱaurea. HildebrandȱproceededȱtoȱaȱcouncilȱnearȱLyonsȱfollowingȱhisȱmissionȱtoȱMilanȱin lateȱ1059.96ȱOneȱnightȱduringȱtheȱcouncil’sȱproceedings,ȱtheȱsimoniacȱArchbishop HughȱofȱEbrionȱbribedȱhisȱaccusersȱtoȱwithdrawȱtheirȱaccusationsȱagainstȱhim. When,ȱonȱtheȱfollowingȱday,ȱHughȱboastedȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱoneȱtoȱaccuseȱhim ofȱwrongdoing,ȱHildebrandȱaskedȱhimȱtoȱreciteȱtheȱGloryȱBe.ȱWhenȱheȱgotȱtoȱthe partȱofȱtheȱprayerȱthatȱrequiredȱhimȱtoȱpronounceȱtheȱnameȱofȱtheȱHolyȱSpirit, Hughȱlostȱhisȱpowerȱofȱspeech.ȱThen,ȱfallingȱonȱhisȱknees,ȱHughȱadmittedȱthatȱhe wasȱaȱsimoniac,ȱandȱonlyȱafterȱhisȱdepositionȱfromȱoffice,ȱwasȱheȱableȱtoȱreciteȱthe prayerȱ inȱ full.ȱ Hildebrand’sȱ miracleȱ terrifiedȱ theȱ simoniacsȱ gatheredȱ forȱ the council,ȱandȱeightȱbishopsȱpromptlyȱconfessedȱtheirȱguiltȱandȱrenouncedȱtheir Sees.ȱ Bonizoȱ furtherȱ relatesȱ howȱ asȱ popeȱ Hildebrand/Gregoryȱ directlyȱ confronted corruptȱclergyȱinȱRomeȱitself.ȱHeȱrecountsȱfirstȱthatȱatȱtheȱstartȱofȱhisȱpontificate, theȱ popeȱ gaveȱ theȱ Romanȱ clergyȱ anȱ ultimatum:ȱ eitherȱ liveȱ theȱ canonicalȱ life accordingȱtoȱtheȱRuleȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱandȱpossessȱnoȱindividualȱpropertyȱorȱvacate theirȱecclesiasticalȱresidencesȱandȱliveȱinȱprivate.97ȱBonizoȱaddsȱthatȱmanyȱofȱthese clericsȱpreferredȱtoȱliveȱinȱprivateȱratherȱthanȱbearȱtheȱyokeȱofȱtheȱLord.98ȱTheȱpope alsoȱtookȱonȱtheȱancientȱandȱevilȱcustomȱofȱlayȱcustodyȱofȱSt.ȱPeter’sȱBasilica.ȱIt seemsȱthatȱtraditionallyȱsixtyȱorȱmoreȱresidentȱlayȱsextonsȱwereȱresponsibleȱfor

95

96

97 98

prepositurasȱvelȱabbatiasȱseuȱbeneficiaȱecclesiarumȱvelȱprebendasȱvelȱecclesiarumȱvelȱaltarium commendationesȱvendere,ȱetȱutȱsacerdotesȱetȱlevitaeȱetȱsubdiaconiȱcumȱuxoribusȱnonȱcoeant” (Afterȱheȱ[Leo]ȱobtainedȱtheȱpapalȱoffice,ȱheȱraisedȱtheȱvenerableȱHildebrand,ȱthatȱdispenserȱof suchȱwholesomeȱadviceȱwhomȱheȱhadȱbarelyȱbeenȱableȱwithȱmanyȱentreatiesȱtoȱprocureȱfromȱthe abbotȱ[Hugh]ȱtoȱtheȱrankȱofȱsubdeaconȱandȱmadeȱhimȱtheȱtreasurerȱofȱtheȱholyȱRomanȱchurch.ȱOn whoseȱadvice,ȱheȱ[Leo]ȱsoonȱconvokedȱaȱsynodȱinȱwhichȱbishopsȱfromȱdiverseȱregionsȱgathered. Inȱthisȱsynod,ȱitȱwasȱforbiddenȱunderȱpainȱofȱanathemaȱforȱanyȱbishopȱtoȱputȱaȱpriceȱ onȱthe archdiaconateȱorȱtoȱputȱupȱforȱsaleȱtheȱabbeysȱorȱtheȱbeneficesȱofȱtheȱchurchesȱorȱprebendsȱorȱthe commendationsȱofȱtheȱchurchesȱorȱofȱtheȱaltars.ȱItȱwasȱalsoȱforbiddenȱforȱpriests,ȱdeacons,ȱor subdeaconsȱtoȱtakeȱspouses).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱV,ȱ590:ȱ“inȱquaȱsynodoȱconsilioȱvenerabilisȱIldebrandiȱsymonicaȱheresisȱet turpissimaȱfornicatioȱsacerdotumȱdivinoȱmucroneȱpercussaȱest”ȱ(inȱwhichȱsynodȱtheȱheresyȱof Simonyȱandȱtheȱobscenityȱofȱfornicatingȱpriestsȱwereȱsmittenȱwithȱtheȱspiritualȱswordȱonȱthe adviceȱofȱtheȱvenerableȱHildebrand). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ592:ȱ“HisȱitaȱgestisȱDeoȱamabilisȱIldebrandusȱadȱLugdunensemȱGalliam usqueȱpervenitȱibiqueȱmagnoȱcelebratoȱconcilioȱsymoniacamȱheresimȱetȱdetestabilemȱclericorum fornicationemȱusqueȱadȱPyreneosȱmontesȱetȱadȱBritannicumȱmareȱpersecutusȱest”ȱ(Withȱthisȱtask accomplished,ȱHildebrandȱtheȱloverȱofȱGodȱtraveledȱupȱtoȱLyons.ȱAfterȱaȱgreatȱcouncilȱhadȱbeen celebratedȱthere,ȱheȱ(Hildebrand)ȱprosecutedȱtheȱheresyȱofȱSimonyȱandȱtheȱabominationȱofȱclerical fornicationȱallȱtheȱwayȱtoȱtheȱPyreneesȱandȱthenȱtoȱtheȱBritishȱSea).ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603.

418

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

maintainingȱtheȱbasilica.99ȱBonizoȱclaimsȱthatȱtheseȱsextonsȱcommittedȱallȱkindsȱof horribleȱ actsȱ atȱ nightȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ popeȱ finallyȱ expelledȱ themȱ withȱ great difficulty.100ȱGregoryȱalsoȱendedȱtheȱevilȱcustomȱofȱovernightȱvigilsȱatȱSt.ȱPeter’s, duringȱwhichȱmanyȱtheftsȱandȱimpureȱactsȱusedȱtoȱoccur,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱcelebration ofȱmassȱonȱtheȱaltarȱofȱSt.ȱPeterȱbyȱ theȱ “cardinalsȱofȱavarice”ȱinȱtheȱpreȬdawn hours.101ȱ Notȱ unexpectedly,ȱ suchȱ measuresȱ earnedȱ theȱ popeȱ theȱ enmityȱ ofȱ the unreformedȱRomanȱclergyȱandȱtheirȱrelatives,ȱparticularlyȱtheȱRomanȱcapitanei.102 Bonizoȱundoubtedlyȱalsoȱhopedȱthatȱtheȱrecitationȱofȱtheseȱsameȱmeasuresȱwould earnȱtheȱpopeȱtheȱadmirationȱofȱtheȱadȱamicum’sȱPatareneȱaudience. Mostȱ significantly,ȱ Bonizoȱ apparentlyȱ drawsȱ uponȱ Patareneȱ hagiographical traditionsȱfamiliarȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱaboutȱArialdȱofȱVareseȱinȱconstructingȱhisȱpicture ofȱtheȱpope.ȱAndrewȱofȱStrumiȱ describesȱArialdȱatȱoneȱpointȱinȱtheȱVitaȱsancti Arialdiȱasȱtheȱ“goodȱdiscipleȱwhoȱimitatesȱtheȱholyȱmasterȱ(i.e.,ȱJesus).”103ȱBonizo twiceȱemploysȱveryȱsimilarȱphrasesȱtoȱdescribeȱtheȱpope.ȱHeȱisȱtheȱ“discipleȱofȱthe goodȱ master”104ȱ andȱ heȱ isȱ theȱ oneȱ whoȱ imitatesȱ “theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ good master.”105ȱ Bonizoȱ usesȱ theseȱ phrasesȱ inȱ connectionȱ withȱ episodesȱ inȱ which Gregoryȱshowsȱmercyȱtowardȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱharmedȱhimȱinȱsomeȱway.ȱAndrew tooȱportraysȱArialdȱasȱforgivingȱofȱhisȱenemies.106ȱBonizoȱrelatesȱtheȱstoryȱofȱthe RomanȱnobleȱCenciusȱStephani’sȱkidnappingȱofȱtheȱpopeȱfromȱtheȱhighȱaltarȱof SantaȱMariaȱMaggiore’sȱonȱChristmasȱEveȱ1075.ȱCenciusȱandȱhisȱcoȬconspirators snatchedȱGregoryȱfromȱtheȱaltarȱduringȱmassȱandȱcarriedȱoffȱtheȱwoundedȱpope toȱaȱtower,ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱmostȱformidableȱinȱtheȱcity.107ȱTheȱRomansȱlaidȱsiegeȱto 99

100 101 102 103

104

105

106 107

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603:ȱ“EratȱpretereaȱRomaeȱantiquaȱetȱpessimaȱconsuetudo,ȱquamȱbeatus papaȱsuoȱtemporeȱfunditusȱabȱeademȱecclesiaȱextirpavit.ȱNamȱinȱbeatiȱapostolorumȱprincipis ecclesiaȱerantȱsexagintaȱetȱeoȱampliusȱmansionarii,ȱlaiciȱconiugatiȱetȱpleriqueȱconcubinati,ȱqui eandemȱecclesiamȱperȱvicesȱsuasȱdieȱnoctuqueȱcustodiebant”ȱ(ThereȱwasȱalsoȱatȱRomeȱanȱoldȱand mostȱevilȱcustom,ȱwhichȱtheȱblessedȱpopeȱinȱhisȱownȱdayȱutterlyȱremovedȱfromȱthatȱsameȱchurch. Forȱinȱtheȱchurchȱofȱtheȱblessedȱprinceȱofȱtheȱapostlesȱthereȱwereȱsixtyȱresidentsȱwhoȱwereȱmore likeȱtempleȱkeepers,ȱmarriedȱlayȱpeopleȱandȱmanyȱconcubines,ȱwhoȱusedȱtoȱhaveȱcustodyȱofȱthat sameȱchurchȱforȱtheirȱownȱfunctionsȱdayȱandȱnight).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ603.ȱ Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ14,ȱ1059:ȱ“Atȱbonusȱdiscipulusȱpiumȱimitansȱmagistrum”ȱ(Likeȱtheȱgoodȱdisciple whoȱimitatesȱtheȱpiousȱMaster).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VII:ȱ “beatissimusȱ Gregorius,ȱ boniȱ magistriȱ discipulus”ȱ (theȱ mostȱ blessed Gregory,ȱtheȱdiscipleȱofȱtheȱgoodȱMaster). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ607:ȱ“VenerabilisȱveroȱGregoriusȱsecundumȱboniȱmagistriȱexemplum” (But,ȱtheȱvenerableȱGregoryȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱexampleȱofȱtheȱgoodȱMaster). Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ20,ȱ1065.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ606:ȱ“NamȱDeoȱodibilisȱCenciusȱconiurationeȱfactaȱinȱipsaȱnocteȱnativitatis ChristiȱpapamȱsacramentaȱcelebrantemȱabȱaltareȱsanctaeȱDeiȱgenitricisȱMariae,ȱquodȱdiciturȱad Presepe,ȱrapuitȱetȱvulneratumȱadȱturrim,ȱquamȱRomaeȱhabebatȱmiraeȱfortitudinis,ȱviolenterȱusque perduxit”ȱ(ForȱCencius,ȱtheȱoneȱhatefulȱtoȱGod,ȱwithȱaȱplotȱformed,ȱonȱtheȱveryȱnightȱofȱChristmas heȱseizedȱtheȱpopeȱwhileȱheȱcelebratedȱtheȱsacramentsȱfromȱtheȱaltarȱofȱtheȱchurchȱofȱSaintȱMary

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

419

theȱtowerȱandȱbyȱtheȱmorningȱtheyȱhadȱcapturedȱCencius.ȱTheyȱwereȱintentȱon killingȱtheȱauthorȱofȱthisȱcrime,ȱbutȱtheȱtearsȱandȱentreatiesȱofȱthatȱdiscipleȱofȱ“the goodȱmaster”ȱ(i.e.,ȱJesus),ȱtheȱblessedȱGregory,ȱsavedȱCencius’ȱlife.108ȱTheȱnextȱday, however,ȱ theȱ Romansȱ expelledȱ Cenciusȱ andȱ hisȱ cohortsȱ fromȱ theȱ cityȱ and destroyedȱtheirȱfortifications.109 SomeȱtwentyȱlinesȱlaterȱinȱBookȱVII,ȱBonizoȱfurnishesȱaȱsecondȱexampleȱofȱthe popeȱforgivingȱanȱenemy.ȱHeȱrecallsȱhereȱtheȱembassyȱofȱtheȱclericȱRolandȱtoȱRome onȱbehalfȱofȱHenryȱIVȱinȱFebruaryȱofȱ1076.ȱInȱtheȱmiddleȱofȱGregory’sȱLenten synod,ȱRolandȱconveyedȱtheȱGermanȱking’sȱdemandȱthatȱGregoryȱstepȱdownȱfrom theȱpapacyȱtoȱmakeȱwayȱforȱtheȱelectionȱofȱaȱnewȱpopeȱbyȱtheȱRomanȱcardinal clergyȱinȱGermany.110ȱRoland’sȱinterjectionȱevidentlyȱstirredȱtheȱsynodȱfathersȱinto aȱrageȱagainstȱhim.ȱBonizoȱreportsȱthatȱinȱkeepingȱwithȱtheȱexampleȱofȱ“theȱgood master,”ȱtheȱvenerableȱGregoryȱfirstȱsavedȱhisȱaccuser’sȱlife,ȱandȱthenȱbroughtȱthe tumultuousȱsynodȱtoȱaȱhastyȱconclusion.111ȱ Bonizo’sȱGregory,ȱlikeȱAndrew’sȱAriald,ȱisȱnotȱonlyȱmerciful,ȱbutȱalsoȱwillingȱto layȱdownȱhisȱlifeȱforȱtheȱcauseȱofȱecclesiasticalȱreform.ȱRecallȱthatȱAndrewȱwrites thatȱArialdȱonceȱpledgedȱtoȱleadȱtheȱMilaneseȱpeopleȱtoȱtheȱlightȱofȱChristȱorȱelse dieȱ tryingȱ toȱ doȱ so.112ȱ Bonizo’sȱ Gregoryȱ tooȱ isȱ willingȱ toȱ practiceȱ heroicȱ selfȬ sacrifice.ȱTheȱpope,ȱ“whoȱwasȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱhisȱsheep,”113ȱdidȱnot shrinkȱfromȱexcommunicatingȱHenryȱandȱjudgingȱhimȱanȱalienȱfromȱtheȱKingdom ofȱGod,ȱbecauseȱheȱhadȱinsultedȱtheȱRomanȱchurchȱthroughȱtheȱaforementioned embassyȱofȱRoland.ȱSimilarly,ȱtheȱvenerableȱpopeȱ“wasȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱforȱthe truth”ȱ whenȱ heȱ excommunicatedȱ Henryȱ aȱ secondȱ timeȱ afterȱ theȱ Germanȱ king threatenedȱtoȱreplaceȱGregoryȱifȱheȱdidȱnotȱexcommunicateȱhisȱrivalȱRudolphȱof Rheinfelden.114ȱBonizoȱassuresȱhisȱfriendsȱthatȱGregoryȱwasȱagainȱpreparedȱtoȱdie

108

109 110 111

112 113

114

Majorȱandȱbroughtȱtheȱwoundedȱ(pope)ȱtoȱtheȱtower,ȱwhichȱwasȱconsideredȱofȱmarvelousȱstrength violentlyȱheȱ(Cencius)ȱledȱ(theȱpope)ȱtoȱit).ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ606:ȱ“ipsumqueȱscelestumȱinterfecissent,ȱnisiȱeumȱbeatissimusȱGregorius, boniȱmagistriȱdiscipulus,ȱprecibusȱetȱsuplicationibusȱaȱmorteȱliberasset”ȱ(andȱtheyȱwouldȱhave killedȱthatȱcriminal,ȱexceptȱBlessedȱGregory,ȱtheȱdiscipleȱofȱtheȱgoodȱMaster,ȱthroughȱhisȱprayers andȱentreatiesȱsavedȱhimȱ[Cencius]ȱfromȱdeath).ȱȱInȱtheȱVitaȱsanctiȱArialdi,ȱAndrewȱdescribesȱhis subjectȱasȱtheȱgoodȱdiscipleȱofȱtheȱholyȱmasterȱJesus.ȱSeeȱAndrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ14,ȱ1059.ȱȱȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ606.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ606–07. Bȱonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ607:ȱ“VenerabilisȱveroȱGregoriusȱsecundumȱboniȱmagistriȱexemplum conviciatoremȱsuumȱpriusȱaȱmorteȱliberavit,ȱdehinc,ȱvixȱsedatoȱtumultu,ȱsynodumȱcumȱalacritate celebravit”ȱ (But,ȱ theȱ venerableȱ Gregoryȱ accordingȱ toȱ theȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ goodȱ Master,ȱ first liberatedȱhisȱrevilerȱfromȱdeath,ȱthenȱafterȱaȱtumultȱwasȱbarelyȱsuppressed,ȱheȱcelebratedȱthe synodȱwithȱhaste).ȱȱȱ Andrew,ȱVita,ȱch.ȱ4,ȱ1052. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ607:ȱ“venerabilisȱGregorius,ȱquiȱproȱovibusȱsuisȱmoriȱparatusȱest”ȱ(the venerableȱGregory,ȱwhoȱwasȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱforȱhisȱsheep). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ612:ȱ“quiȱproȱveritateȱmoriȱparatusȱest”ȱ(whoȱwasȱpreparedȱtoȱdieȱforȱthe truth).ȱ

420

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

forȱ theȱ truthȱ whenȱ heȱ rejectedȱ theȱ pleasȱ ofȱ theȱ warȬwearyȱ Romans,ȱ whoȱ had enduredȱaȱthreeȱyearȱsiegeȱofȱtheirȱcity,ȱtoȱacceptȱanȱunrepentantȱHenry’sȱofferȱto receiveȱtheȱimperialȱcrownȱfromȱhim.115ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱhowever,ȱalsoȱclearlyȱbelievedȱthatȱheȱneededȱtoȱallayȱcertainȱdoubtsȱin theȱmindsȱofȱhisȱPatareneȱjuryȱaboutȱhowȱtheȱPatareneȱpopeȱhadȱdealtȱwithȱHenry IV.ȱBecauseȱBonizoȱwasȱaskingȱhisȱfriendsȱtoȱmakeȱwarȱagainstȱhim,ȱheȱhadȱto establishȱclearlyȱthatȱHenryȱnotȱGregoryȱwasȱinȱtheȱwrong.ȱBonizoȱfirstȱfindsȱit necessaryȱtoȱexplainȱinȱgoodȱPatareneȱfashionȱwithȱdocumentaȱandȱexemplaȱthat Gregory’sȱ excommunicationȱ andȱ quasiȱ depositionȱ ofȱ Henryȱ inȱ 1076,ȱ which followedȱtheȱpope’sȱcondemnationȱbyȱtheȱGermanȱbishopsȱatȱtheȱSynodȱofȱWorms (Januaryȱ 1076),ȱ wasȱ neitherȱ newȱ norȱ reprehensible.116ȱ Bonizoȱ furtherȱ judgedȱ it necessaryȱtoȱexplainȱtoȱhisȱcolleaguesȱhowȱandȱwhyȱGregoryȱabsolvedȱHenryȱat Canossa.117ȱHeȱalsoȱmakesȱitȱclearȱthatȱtheȱpopeȱwasȱnotȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱcivil warȱthatȱbrokeȱoutȱinȱHenry’sȱGermanȱkingdomȱinȱ1077.ȱQuiteȱcorrectly,ȱheȱdoes notȱassociateȱtheȱpopeȱwithȱtheȱelectionȱofȱRudolphȱofȱRheinfeldenȱasȱantiȬkingȱby theȱrebelliousȱGermanȱprincesȱatȱForchheim.ȱHeȱaccuratelyȱportraysȱGregoryȱas aȱ frustratedȱ wouldȬbeȱ peacemakerȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ claimantsȱ toȱ theȱ German throneȱandȱtoȱtheȱimperialȱtitleȱthatȱwentȱwithȱit.ȱInȱtheȱperiodȱ1077–1080,ȱboth sidesȱofȱtheȱGermanȱcivilȱwarȱwereȱvexedȱbyȱtheȱpope’sȱrefusalȱtoȱdeclareȱinȱfavor ofȱoneȱofȱtheȱcandidatesȱuntilȱheȱwasȱabsolutelyȱcertainȱofȱwhichȱclaimantȱwasȱthe moreȱrighteouslyȱobedientȱtoȱecclesiasticalȱauthorityȱandȱthusȱmoreȱworthyȱofȱthe titleȱ ofȱ Christianȱ prince.ȱ Theȱ acceptanceȱ ofȱ papalȱ arbitrationȱ ofȱ theȱ dispute constitutedȱaȱnecessaryȱpreȬconditionȱforȱeachȱclaimant’sȱeligibilityȱtoȱwinȱpapal approbation. TheȱbishopȱofȱSutriȱalsoȱhadȱtoȱexplainȱGregory’sȱsecondȱexcommunicationȱand depositionȱ ofȱ Henryȱ inȱ 1080.ȱ Thisȱ papalȱ judgmentȱ tookȱ almostȱ everyoneȱ by surpriseȱasȱitȱseeminglyȱcameȱoutȱofȱnowhere.ȱBonizo’sȱpresentationȱofȱthisȱfinal breachȱ betweenȱ popeȱ andȱ kingȱ isȱ keyȱ toȱ hisȱ argumentȱ toȱ hisȱ friendsȱ thatȱ they shouldȱriseȱupȱagainstȱHenryȱandȱhisȱantiȬpope,ȱGuibertȱofȱRavenna.ȱBonizo’s narrativeȱlaysȱtheȱblameȱforȱthisȱbreachȱatȱHenry’sȱdoorstep.ȱHeȱisȱtheȱarchitectȱof aȱviolentȱrebellionȱagainstȱhisȱdivinelyȱappointedȱpastor.ȱTheȱadȱamicum’sȱauthor explainsȱ thatȱ Henryȱ initiatedȱ theȱ finalȱ conflict.ȱ Heȱ writesȱ thatȱ byȱ “deliberate design”ȱ (deliberatoȱ consilio)ȱ Henryȱ sentȱ representativesȱ toȱ Gregoryȱ withȱ an unprecedentedȱultimatum:ȱifȱtheȱpopeȱexcommunicatedȱRudolph,ȱHenryȱwould obeyȱhim.ȱOtherwiseȱHenryȱwouldȱacquireȱaȱpopeȱofȱhisȱownȱtoȱexcommunicate 115 116

117

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ612.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ607.ȱBonizo’sȱevidenceȱhereȱisȱnotȱveryȱconvincing.ȱOfȱtheȱeightȱexempla ofȱpopesȱexcommunicatingȱandȱevenȱdeposingȱkingsȱthatȱheȱproduces,ȱfiveȱofȱthemȱareȱficticious. AnotherȱoneȱconcernsȱAmbrose’sȱexcommunicationȱofȱTheodosius.ȱInterestingly,ȱfourȱofȱBonizo’s exemplaȱappearȱasȱwellȱinȱGregoryȱVII’sȱfamousȱdefenseȱofȱhisȱactionsȱinȱhisȱletterȱtoȱHermannȱof Metz. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIII,ȱ610.

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

421

hisȱrival.118ȱTheȱpope,ȱofȱcourse,ȱrefusedȱtoȱexcommunicateȱRudolphȱandȱinstead excommunicatedȱtheȱarrogantȱHenry.119ȱȱ Theȱ adȱ amicum’sȱ authorȱ concludesȱ hisȱ apologiaȱ forȱ Gregoryȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ his historicalȱnarrativeȱinȱBookȱIX.ȱHere,ȱheȱacquitsȱtheȱpopeȱofȱseveralȱchargesȱbeing leveledȱbyȱHenry’sȱsupporters.ȱHeȱrefutesȱtheȱchargesȱthatȱGregoryȱwasȱillegally electedȱpope,120ȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱfalseȱprophet,121ȱandȱthatȱheȱexcommunicatedȱHenry uncanonically.122ȱItȱisȱinstructiveȱthatȱevenȱthoughȱGregoryȱwasȱaȱstrongȱallyȱofȱthe PatariaȱandȱthatȱBonizoȱclearlyȱdepictsȱHenryȱinȱhisȱhistoryȱasȱanȱenemyȱofȱthe PatariaȱandȱcloselyȱalignedȱwithȱtheȱLombardȱaristocracy,ȱtheȱbishopȱofȱSutriȱstill believedȱitȱnecessaryȱtoȱconvinceȱhisȱfellowȱPatarenesȱthatȱthisȱmostȱPatareneȱof popesȱhadȱnotȱbeenȱseriouslyȱatȱfaultȱinȱhisȱrelationsȱwithȱHenry.ȱItȱisȱaȱtestament toȱ howȱ controversialȱ aȱ figureȱ Gregoryȱ becameȱ evenȱ amongȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ most ardentȱreformers. Bonizo,ȱ however,ȱ feltȱ noȱ needȱ toȱ composeȱ anȱ apologiaȱ forȱ theȱ deedsȱ ofȱ the Patareneȱ knight,ȱ Erlembaldȱ Cotta.ȱ Asȱ statedȱ earlier,ȱ Erlembaldȱ isȱ oneȱ ofȱ three contemporaryȱmartyredȱholyȱwarriorsȱwhomȱBonizoȱholdsȱupȱforȱhisȱaudience’s imitation.ȱ Ofȱ theseȱ threeȱ exemplars,ȱ theȱ Patareneȱ knightȱ isȱ byȱ farȱ theȱ most important.ȱHeȱisȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱwhomȱBonizoȱdiscussesȱinȱanyȱdetail.ȱTheȱbishopȱof Sutri’sȱErlembaldȱisȱtheȱresoluteȱopponentȱofȱtheȱevilȱmachinationsȱofȱ“theȱsellers ofȱ theȱ churches,”ȱ theȱ Milaneseȱ capitaneiȱ andȱ vavasours.ȱ Heȱ wieldsȱ theȱ material swordȱ inȱ heroicȱ defenseȱ ofȱ theȱ libertyȱ ofȱ theȱ Milaneseȱ church.ȱ Bonizo,ȱ most significantly,ȱrevealsȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱthatȱErlembald’sȱheroicsȱandȱthoseȱofȱhisȱfellow PatarenesȱearnedȱthemȱtheȱenmityȱnotȱonlyȱofȱtheȱMilaneseȱaristocracy,ȱbutȱalso ofȱtheȱGermanȱking.ȱHenryȱwasȱaȱpartnerȱinȱtheȱcrimesȱofȱtheȱPataria’sȱinveterate foesȱinȱMilan.ȱHeȱwasȱaȱpartnerȱinȱtheȱmurderȱofȱErlembald.ȱPerhapsȱunbeknownst toȱ them,ȱ Bonizo’sȱ friendsȱ hadȱ beenȱ atȱ warȱ withȱ Henryȱ yearsȱ beforeȱ the compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ adȱ amicum.ȱ Bonizoȱ wasȱ notȱ askingȱ anythingȱ novelȱ ofȱ his comradesȱinȱhisȱhistory.ȱHeȱwasȱaskingȱthemȱtoȱresumeȱandȱsuccessfullyȱconclude aȱwarȱthatȱHenryȱhadȱbeenȱwagingȱagainstȱthemȱbyȱproxy.ȱHeȱframesȱthisȱappeal toȱhisȱalliesȱinȱaȱmannerȱquiteȱfamiliarȱtoȱeleventhȱcenturyȱknights:ȱheȱasksȱthem toȱwageȱaȱholyȱvendettaȱagainstȱtheȱkillersȱofȱErlembaldȱCotta,ȱtheirȱmartyredȱlord.ȱ ȱ Bonizoȱrecallsȱforȱhisȱideologicalȱfriendsȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmostȱfamousȱepisodesȱofȱtheir movement’sȱ militaryȱ history.ȱ Erlembaldȱ burstsȱ uponȱ theȱ sceneȱ inȱ Bonizo’s narrativeȱ whenȱ theȱ bodyȱ ofȱ theȱ murderedȱ Arialdȱ ofȱ Vareseȱ emergesȱ fromȱ its wateryȱgraveȱonȱtheȱestateȱofȱhisȱkillers,ȱtheȱrelativesȱofȱArchbishopȱGuido.ȱWhen 118 119 120 121 122

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ612. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ612. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ615–16. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ616. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ617–18.

422

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

newsȱofȱtheȱlocationȱofȱAriald’sȱbodyȱreachedȱhim,ȱErlembaldȱgatheredȱtogether aȱ wholeȱ multitudeȱ ofȱ Patarenesȱ andȱ besiegedȱ theȱ castleȱ ofȱ theȱ archbishop’s relativesȱuntilȱtheyȱhandedȱoverȱAriald’sȱremains.123ȱNext,ȱErlembaldȱleapedȱinto actionȱ toȱ thwartȱ theȱ nefariousȱ plansȱ ofȱ theȱ Milaneseȱ aristocracyȱ andȱ theirȱ ally HenryȱforȱtheȱMilaneseȱSee.ȱBonizoȱrelatesȱthatȱtheȱ“sellersȱofȱtheȱchurches”ȱ(i.e., theȱMilaneseȱnobility)ȱconvincedȱArchbishopȱGuidoȱtoȱstepȱasideȱinȱfavorȱofȱthe nobleȱcleric,ȱGodfrey.ȱ Onȱtheȱadviceȱofȱsimoniacs,ȱtheȱMilaneseȱcapitaneiȱandȱtheȱLombardȱbishops, GodfreyȱthenȱtraveledȱacrossȱtheȱAlpsȱtoȱHenryȱseekingȱinvestitutre.124ȱGodfrey promisedȱtheȱGermanȱkingȱthatȱifȱheȱwouldȱinvestȱhimȱwithȱtheȱMilaneseȱSee,ȱthe PatariaȱwouldȱbeȱdestroyedȱandȱErlembaldȱwouldȱbeȱsentȱbackȱacrossȱtheȱAlpsȱas Henry’sȱprisoner.125ȱAfterȱmoneyȱhadȱbeenȱexchanged,ȱHenryȱinvestedȱGodfrey withȱtheȱarcbishopric.126ȱGodfreyȱwasȱnotȱableȱtoȱsecureȱhisȱSee,ȱhowever,ȱbecause onceȱheȱlearnedȱofȱwhatȱhadȱtranspired,ȱErlembald,ȱ“theȱoneȱprotectedȱbyȱGod,” broughtȱtogetherȱaȱmultitudeȱofȱtheȱarmyȱofȱGod.127ȱTheȱPatareneȱknightȱhadȱthe castlesȱofȱtheȱarchdioceseȱseizedȱbyȱhisȱownȱmenȱandȱheȱproceededȱtoȱbesiege Godfreyȱatȱhisȱfamily’sȱfortificationȱatȱCastiglione.128ȱGodfreyȱeventuallyȱwasȱable toȱescapeȱtheȱsiege,ȱbutȱtheȱmostȱstrongȱsoldierȱofȱGod,ȱErlembaldȱCotta,ȱpossessed aȱgreatȱvictory.129 BecauseȱheȱwishedȱtoȱliberateȱtheȱMilaneseȱchurchȱfromȱtheȱservitudeȱofȱsimony, ErlembaldȱarrangedȱforȱtheȱelectionȱofȱaȱnewȱarchbishopȱonȱtheȱadviceȱofȱPope Alexanderȱ IIȱ andȱ theȱ “loverȱ ofȱ God,”ȱ Hildebrand.130ȱ Theȱ clergyȱ andȱ peopleȱ of Milanȱelectedȱtheȱyoungȱnobleȱcleric,ȱAtto,ȱasȱtheȱnewȱarchbishop.ȱInȱreality,ȱthe electionȱwasȱaȱrumpȱelection.ȱAsȱBonizo’sȱtextȱreveals,ȱErlembaldȱhadȱtoȱbringȱin clergyȱ fromȱ Cremonaȱ toȱ provideȱ enoughȱ electorsȱ forȱ theȱ process.ȱ Aȱ further indicationȱofȱtheȱdubiousȱnatureȱofȱAtto’sȱelectionȱcameȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱanȱuprising againstȱ it.ȱ Aȱ mobȱ attackedȱ Attoȱ andȱ draggedȱ himȱ toȱ theȱ altarȱ ofȱ Saintȱ Mary’s churchȱandȱmadeȱhimȱrenounceȱtheȱMilaneseȱSee.ȱTheȱnextȱmorningȱ“theȱsoldier ofȱGod”ȱcounterȬattackedȱandȱchasedȱtheȱenemiesȱofȱGodȱoutȱofȱtheȱcity.131 BonizoȱinformsȱhisȱfriendsȱthatȱtheȱPataria’sȱenemiesȱdidȱnotȱgiveȱupȱtheȱfight. Heȱ relatesȱ thatȱ theȱ Milaneseȱ capitaneiȱ heldȱ aȱ conferenceȱ withȱ Henryȱ andȱ they

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ597. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ598. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ599. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ599. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVI,ȱ599.ȱ

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

423

promisedȱhimȱthatȱtheȱPatariaȱwasȱgoingȱtoȱbeȱdestroyedȱandȱErlembaldȱkilled.132 HeȱaddsȱthatȱtheȱGermanȱkingȱgladlyȱlistenedȱtoȱhisȱguestsȱandȱheȱpromisedȱthem whateverȱ theyȱ wanted.133ȱ Theȱ Milaneseȱ aristocraticȱ factionȱ madeȱ goodȱ onȱ its promiseȱtoȱHenryȱbyȱassassinatingȱtheȱPatareneȱchiefȱandȱcrackingȱdownȱonȱhis followers.ȱBonizoȱremembersȱthatȱthoseȱwhoȱfledȱMilanȱafterȱErlembald’sȱmurder wereȱreceivedȱhonorablyȱbyȱtheirȱbrothersȱinȱCremona.134ȱ Bonizoȱclearlyȱwantedȱhisȱfriendsȱtoȱavengeȱtheirȱgreatȱchampion’sȱdisgraceful murderȱinȱtheȱstreetsȱofȱMilanȱandȱresumeȱtheȱ“warȱofȱtheȱLord”ȱagainstȱnotȱonly theȱMilaneseȱnobilityȱbutȱagainstȱHenryȱasȱwell.ȱBonizoȱfurtherȱrevealsȱthatȱafter Henryȱ learnedȱ ofȱ Erlembald’sȱ martyrdom,ȱ heȱ rememberedȱ hisȱ promiseȱ toȱ the Milaneseȱ capitaneiȱ andȱ sentȱ hisȱ excommunicatedȱ councilorȱ Countȱ Eberhardȱ to Italy.135ȱAtȱRoncaliaȱinȱLombardy,ȱEberhardȱpresidedȱoverȱaȱgatheringȱofȱantiȬ reformersȱandȱthankedȱtheȱMilaneseȱforȱErlembald’sȱdeathȱandȱinvitedȱthemȱto comeȱoverȱtheȱAlpsȱtoȱchooseȱanȱarchbishop.136ȱTheȱcount,ȱthen,ȱdeclaredȱthatȱall Patarenesȱwereȱpublicȱenemiesȱofȱtheȱking.ȱHeȱapparentlyȱproceededȱtoȱapprehend aȱnumberȱofȱPatarenesȱfromȱPiacenza,ȱwhomȱheȱonlyȱreleasedȱatȱtheȱrequestȱof Countessȱ Matilda’sȱ mother,ȱ Beatrice.137ȱ Bonizoȱ remindsȱ hisȱ comradesȱ thatȱ the countȱdidȱnotȱdareȱattemptȱtoȱharassȱtheȱCremoneseȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱreputationȱfor aȱstrongȱfaithȱandȱbravery.138ȱAsȱfarȱasȱBonizoȱwasȱconcerned,ȱitȱwasȱnowȱtimeȱfor hisȱPatareneȱfriendsȱofȱCremonaȱtoȱliveȱupȱtoȱtheirȱreputationȱandȱjoinȱforcesȱwith Beatrice’sȱdaughterȱandȱpunishȱtheȱmurderersȱofȱaȱsaintlyȱwarrior.ȱ

VI.ȱBonizo’sȱClosingȱArguments AfterȱhisȱdefenseȱofȱGregoryȱVII’sȱsecondȱexcommunicationȱandȱdepositionȱof HenryȱIVȱinȱBookȱIX,ȱBonizoȱbeginsȱhisȱextendedȱperoration.ȱHeȱattemptsȱhereȱto defendȱhisȱideaȱofȱholyȱcivilȱwarȱagainstȱaȱwickedȱChristianȱprinceȱinȱaȱmanner thatȱ wouldȱ resonateȱ withȱ hisȱ ideologicalȱ friends.ȱ Heȱ presentsȱ anȱ armadaȱ of patristicȱdocumentaȱinȱgoodȱPatareneȱfashionȱandȱheȱrehearsesȱtheȱhistoricalȱexempla ofȱ theȱ ancientȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ righteousȱ practitionersȱ ofȱ holyȱ violence (includingȱErlembaldȱCotta)ȱmentionedȱearlierȱinȱotherȱplacesȱinȱtheȱadȱamicum. 132

133

134 135 136 137 138

Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VII,ȱ 602:ȱ “namȱ eiȱ promittuntȱ etȱ Patareamȱ destructurosȱ etȱ Herlimbaldum occisuros”ȱ(forȱtheyȱpromiseȱtoȱhimȱ(HenryȱIV)ȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱgoingȱtoȱdestroyȱtheȱPatariaȱand killȱErlembald). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ602:ȱ“Quodȱrexȱlibenterȱaudivit,ȱetȱvoluntarieȱquicquidȱpetieruntȱpromisit” (Whichȱtheȱkingȱgladlyȱlistenedȱtoȱandȱheȱpromisedȱ(them)ȱfreelyȱwhateverȱtheyȱasked). Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ605. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ605.ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ605. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ605. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVII,ȱ605.

424

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

Thisȱparticularȱtaskȱleadsȱhimȱtoȱtheȱbroaderȱtaskȱofȱjustifyingȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱthe warriorȱinȱtheȱranksȱofȱChristians.ȱHeȱreasonsȱaȱfortioriȱthatȱifȱitȱhasȱbeenȱlawfulȱfor aȱChristianȱtoȱbeȱaȱsoldierȱforȱanyȱcause,ȱitȱisȱlawfulȱtoȱfightȱagainstȱtheȱGuibertistas (i.e.,ȱtheȱHenricianȱparty)ȱinȱeveryȱpossibleȱway.139ȱHeȱfollowsȱthisȱstatementȱup withȱaȱpowerfulȱcitationȱforȱanyȱPatareneȱaudience:ȱGregoryȱtheȱGreat’sȱinjunction thatȱeveryȱChristianȱfightȱsimonyȱandȱtheȱheresyȱofȱtheȱneophytesȱaccordingȱtoȱhis rankȱ orȱ station.140ȱ Ifȱ itȱ wasȱ legitimateȱ inȱ theȱ pastȱ toȱ haveȱ foughtȱ simonyȱ with weaponsȱasȱhisȱamiciȱhad,ȱhowȱmuchȱmoreȱsoȱwasȱitȱnowȱlegitimateȱtoȱfightȱthe “motherȱofȱallȱheresies.”141ȱȱHeȱstatesȱthatȱweȱshouldȱnotȱjudgeȱthatȱsoldiersȱare aliensȱfromȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱGod.ȱAlthoughȱheȱdoesȱnotȱopenlyȱacknowledgeȱthe fact,ȱthisȱlastȱstatementȱcomesȱfromȱAugustine’sȱLetterȱ189ȱtoȱBoniface,ȱtheȱRoman commander.ȱTheȱBiblicalȱproofsȱthatȱBonizoȱcitesȱinȱsupportȱofȱthisȱassertionȱalso firstȱappearedȱinȱAugustine’sȱLetterȱ189.ȱLikeȱtheȱbishopȱofȱHippo,ȱBonizoȱcites Jesus’ȱhealingȱofȱtheȱcenturion’sȱservantȱ(Matthewȱ8:8–10),ȱSt.ȱPeter’sȱbaptismȱofȱthe centurionȱCorneliusȱ(Actsȱ10:30–33),ȱandȱJohnȱtheȱBaptist’sȱadmonitionȱtoȱaȱgroup ofȱ soldiersȱ toȱ harassȱ noȱ man,ȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ contentȱ withȱ theirȱ payȱ (Lukeȱ 3:14),ȱ as evidenceȱthatȱoneȱcanȱbeȱaȱsoldierȱandȱaȱChristian.142ȱIfȱitȱwasȱlawfulȱtoȱfightȱforȱan earthlyȱking,ȱheȱasksȱwillȱitȱnotȱbeȱlawfulȱtoȱfightȱforȱaȱcelestialȱone?143ȱSimilarly: ifȱ itȱ wasȱ lawfulȱ toȱ fightȱ forȱ aȱ republic,ȱ willȱ itȱ notȱ beȱ lawfulȱ toȱ fightȱ for righteousness?144ȱIfȱitȱwasȱlawfulȱtoȱfightȱagainstȱbarbarians,ȱwillȱitȱnotȱbeȱlawful toȱfightȱagainstȱheretics?145ȱ Bonizoȱnextȱpresentsȱhisȱarmadaȱofȱpatristicȱproofsȱforȱhisȱideaȱofȱholyȱcivilȱwar. HeȱproducesȱbriefȱstatementsȱculledȱfromȱtheȱworksȱofȱGregoryȱofȱTours,ȱPope GregoryȱtheȱGreat,ȱAugustine,ȱpseudoȬAugustine,ȱJerome,ȱandȱAmbrose.ȱWhile noneȱofȱtheseȱsnippetsȱprovideȱanyȱrealȱjustificationȱforȱBonizo’sȱproposition,ȱhis useȱofȱ someȱofȱthemȱbordersȱonȱtheȱludicrous.ȱAnȱexaminationȱ ofȱtheȱoriginal contextȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱstatementsȱrevealsȱthatȱtheyȱreallyȱdoȱnotȱaddressȱthe issueȱatȱhandȱatȱall.ȱThisȱcreatesȱtheȱimpressionȱthatȱBonizo’sȱarrayȱofȱpatristic sententiaeȱfunctionsȱmoreȱasȱaȱgarnishȱtoȱhisȱhistoricalȱargumentȱthanȱanythingȱelse.

139

140 141 142 143

144

145

Bonizo,ȱ adȱ amicum,ȱ VIIII,ȱ 618:ȱ “siȱ licuitȱ umquamȱ christianoȱ proȱ aliquaȱ militare,ȱ licetȱ contra Guibertistas,ȱomnibusȱmodisȱbellare”ȱ(ifȱitȱwasȱeverȱlicitȱforȱaȱChristianȱtoȱfightȱforȱsomeȱ(reason), itȱisȱlicitȱtoȱfightȱagainstȱtheȱGuibertistasȱinȱeveryȱway).ȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618. Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618.ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618:ȱ“quaeȱsiȱlicuitȱproȱterrenoȱregeȱ(militasse),ȱnonȱlicebitȱproȱcelesti?” (whichȱifȱitȱwasȱlicitȱ (toȱ fight)ȱforȱanȱearthlyȱking,ȱwillȱitȱnotȱbeȱlicitȱ(toȱfight)ȱforȱaȱheavenly (king)?).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618:ȱ“siȱlicuitȱproȱreȱpublica,ȱnonȱlicebitȱproȱiusticia?”ȱ(ifȱitȱwasȱlicitȱ(to fight)ȱforȱaȱrepublic,ȱwillȱitȱnotȱbeȱlicitȱ(toȱfight)ȱforȱrighteousness?).ȱȱ Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ618:ȱ“siȱlicuitȱcontraȱbarbaros,ȱnonȱlicebitȱcontraȱhereticos?”ȱ(ifȱitȱwasȱlicit (toȱfight)ȱagainstȱbarbarians,ȱwillȱitȱnotȱbeȱlicitȱ(toȱfight)ȱagainstȱheretics?).ȱ

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

425

Theȱgreatȱdefenderȱofȱecclesiasticalȱlawȱironicallyȱcouldȱnotȱproduceȱaȱsingleȱcanon inȱdefenseȱofȱhisȱproposal.ȱ Afterȱhisȱfriendsȱhaveȱheardȱtheȱdocumentaȱofȱtheȱholyȱfathers,ȱheȱenjoinsȱthem toȱ“payȱattention”ȱtoȱtheȱexemplaȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱfoughtȱforȱtruth.146ȱHeȱpresents hereȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱrighteousȱholyȱviolenceȱtakenȱfromȱCassiodorus’ȱTripartite HistoryȱthatȱappearȱinȱBookȱII.147ȱHeȱalsoȱbringsȱbeforeȱhisȱaudienceȱonceȱmoreȱthe modernȱexempla.ȱTheȱrealȱproofȱforȱhisȱproposal,ȱofȱcourse,ȱlayȱinȱtheȱexemplumȱof ErlembaldȱCottaȱandȱhisȱfriends’ȱownȱpastȱexperienceȱofȱhavingȱalreadyȱfoughtȱthe Pataria’sȱ“warȱofȱtheȱLord”ȱonȱtheȱstreetsȱofȱCremonaȱyearsȱearlier.ȱOntoȱthisȱpast experienceȱ ofȱ hisȱ friends,ȱ whichȱ heȱ resurrectsȱ inȱ theȱ pagesȱ ofȱ hisȱ history,ȱ he attemptsȱtoȱgraftȱtheȱideaȱofȱfightingȱaȱChristianȱemperor.ȱȱ

VII.ȱAȱFriendȱToȱTheȱEnd Bonizo’sȱ commitmentȱ toȱ hisȱ amiciȱ andȱ theirȱ causeȱ wasȱ farȱ moreȱ thanȱ just intellectualȱorȱliterary.ȱSomeȱthreeȱorȱfourȱyearsȱafterȱtheȱadȱamicum’sȱcomposition, heȱappearedȱinȱPiacenza.ȱHeȱevidentlyȱhadȱarrivedȱthereȱatȱtheȱinvitationȱofȱthe city’sȱPatareneȱfaction,ȱwhichȱengineeredȱhisȱrumpȱelectionȱtoȱPiacenza’sȱvacant episcopalȱSee.ȱHisȱelectionȱtoȱPiacenza’sȱbishopricȱwasȱreminiscentȱofȱtheȱepiscopal electionȱmentionedȱaboveȱstagedȱbyȱErlembaldȱCottaȱinȱMilanȱinȱ1072.ȱWeȱknow fromȱtheȱcorrespondenceȱofȱPopeȱUrbanȱIIȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱCollectioȱBritannicaȱthat theȱ“betterȱclergyȱandȱlaity”ȱofȱtheȱcityȱhadȱopposedȱhisȱelectionȱandȱhadȱsworn anȱoathȱagainstȱhim.148ȱTheȱconservativeȱaristocratsȱofȱPiacenzaȱdidȱnotȱwantȱa rabbleȱrousingȱPatareneȱcommonerȱforȱbishop.ȱBonizo’sȱmaneuverȱwasȱindeedȱa brazen,ȱfoolhardyȱgambitȱdesignedȱtoȱaccomplishȱwhatȱheȱcallsȱforȱinȱtheȱpagesȱof theȱadȱamicum:ȱtheȱreȬemergenceȱofȱtheȱPatariaȱasȱaȱforceȱinȱtheȱecclesiasticalȱlifeȱof Lombardy.ȱItȱwasȱhisȱpersonalȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱrenewedȱPatareneȱoffensive againstȱoldȱnemesesȱthatȱheȱhopedȱhisȱpresentationȱofȱChristianȱhistoryȱwould spark.ȱReadingȱtheȱadȱamicumȱasȱaȱPatareneȱcallȱtoȱarmsȱbestȱexplainsȱbothȱthe tapestryȱwhichȱheȱweavesȱthereȱoutȱofȱtheȱhistoriesȱofȱtheȱpapacy,ȱtheȱPataria,ȱand theȱ Houseȱ ofȱ Canossaȱ andȱ hisȱ subsequentȱ behavior.ȱ Likeȱ hisȱ heroesȱ Arialdȱ of VareseȱandȱErlembaldȱCottaȱbeforeȱhim,ȱBonizoȱtooȱwasȱheroicallyȱcommittedȱto

146

147

148

Bonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ619:ȱ“Audistisȱsanctorumȱpatrumȱdocumenta,ȱadvertiteȱetȱproȱveritate pugnantiumȱexempla”ȱ(Youȱhaveȱheardȱtheȱdocumentsȱofȱtheȱholyȱfathers,ȱnowȱpayȱattentionȱto theȱexamplesȱofȱthoseȱfightingȱforȱrighteousness).ȱȱ Heȱdoesȱaddȱoneȱepisode.ȱHeȱapprovinglyȱcitesȱtheȱstoningȱofȱtheȱprefectȱOrestesȱbyȱtheȱmonk Amonius.ȱBonizo,ȱadȱamicum,ȱVIIII,ȱ619. RobertȱSomervilleȱinȱcollaborationȱwithȱStephanȱKuttner,ȱPopeȱUrbanȱII,ȱtheȱCollectioȱBritannica,ȱand theȱCouncilȱofȱMelfiȱ(1089)ȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ50ȱandȱ51.

426

JohnȱA.ȱDempsey

theȱPatareneȱenterpriseȱandȱwasȱwillingȱandȱmaybeȱevenȱeagerȱtoȱlayȱhisȱlifeȱdown forȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱtheirȱcause.ȱ Bonizo’sȱadventureȱinȱPiacenza,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱnotȱwelcomeȱnewsȱtoȱUrbanȱII. WhenȱBonizoȱsoughtȱpapalȱconfirmationȱofȱhisȱelection,ȱtheȱpopeȱlentȱhimȱonlyȱthe mostȱtepidȱsupport.ȱHeȱofferedȱthisȱsupportȱonȱtheȱnearlyȱimpossibleȱcondition thatȱtheȱPatareneȱbishopȬelectȱsatisfyȱtheȱobjectionsȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱopposedȱhis election.149ȱForȱbothȱstrategicȱandȱpersonalȱreasons,ȱUrbanȱhadȱdecidedȱtoȱadjust papalȱpolicyȱinȱLombardyȱbyȱreachingȱoutȱtoȱelementsȱinȱtheȱregion’sȱecclesiastical establishmentȱwhoȱhadȱearlierȱfiercelyȱopposedȱtheȱPatariaȱandȱhadȱinitiallyȱsided withȱtheȱemperorȱandȱhisȱantiȬpopeȱagainstȱtheȱpapacyȱbutȱwhoȱcameȱtoȱhave secondȱthoughtsȱaboutȱtheȱrectitudeȱofȱtheȱHenricianȱcause.ȱToȱthisȱend,ȱUrban relaxedȱaȱnumberȱofȱGregoryȱVII’sȱpoliciesȱandȱwelcomedȱintoȱtheȱpapalȱcamp clericsȱwhoȱhadȱopposedȱhisȱpredecessor.ȱ Bonizo’sȱstuntȱriskedȱalienatingȱtheseȱnewȱpapalȱalliesȱinȱPiacenzaȱandȱelsewhere inȱ Lombardy.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ Pataria’sȱ stridentȱ andȱ confrontationalȱ approachȱ to ecclesiasticalȱreformȱofȱtheȱ1060sȱandȱ70s,ȱwhichȱBonizo’sȱmaneuverȱexemplified, didȱnotȱsuitȱtheȱpope’sȱpurposesȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1080s.ȱInȱreality,ȱitȱneverȱperfectly suitedȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱearlierȱreformȱpopesȱeither:ȱincludingȱthoseȱofȱtheȱPatarene favorite,ȱGregoryȱVII.ȱUrbanȱsawȱnoȱbenefitȱinȱavengingȱtheȱdecadesȱoldȱlossesȱand setbacksȱdealtȱtoȱBonizoȱandȱhisȱideologicalȱfriendsȱbyȱtheȱLombardȱestablishment. Onȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtheȱsupportȱofȱthatȱestablishmentȱwasȱvitalȱinȱtheȱreformȱpapacy’s lifeȱ andȱ deathȱ struggleȱ withȱ theȱ Henricianȱ party.ȱ Necessityȱ requiredȱ thatȱ preȬ existingȱideologicalȱdisputesȱbetweenȱoldȱandȱnewȱpapalȱalliesȱbeȱputȱtoȱrest.ȱThe disconnectȱbetweenȱBonizoȱandȱUrbanȱmakesȱtheȱveryȱimportantȱpointȱthatȱthe ecclesiasticalȱ reformȱ movementȱ ofȱ theȱ eleventhȱ centuryȱ wasȱ aȱ heterogeneous movement.ȱItȱsprangȱfromȱmanyȱdifferentȱindependentȱsourcesȱandȱconstitutedȱa fragileȱmultiȬpartyȱcoalitionȱwhoseȱindividualȱelementsȱsharedȱaȱbasicȱunityȱof purposeȱbutȱsometimesȱdivergedȱinȱtheirȱstrategicȱobjectives.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Bonizo’sȱ enemiesȱ inȱ Piacenzaȱ eventuallyȱ madeȱ goodȱ onȱ theirȱ pledge.ȱ They brutallyȱassaultedȱhimȱperhapsȱcuttingȱoffȱhisȱnoseȱandȱears,ȱblindingȱhimȱand cuttingȱoutȱhisȱtongueȱasȱwell.150ȱAmazingly,ȱheȱsurvivedȱhisȱdisastrousȱexperience inȱPiacenza.ȱInȱexile,ȱonceȱagain,ȱthisȱtimeȱasȱaȱhorriblyȱwoundedȱ man,ȱtheȱad amicum’sȱauthorȱremainedȱcommittedȱtoȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱtheirȱideologicalȱagenda. Heȱ continuedȱ toȱ writeȱ producingȱ theȱ longestȱ ofȱ hisȱ nineȱ knownȱ works,ȱ the

149 150

Somerville,ȱPopeȱUrbanȱII,ȱ50. RangeriusȱVitaȱmetricaȱAnselmiȱLucensisȱepiscopi,ȱed.ȱErnstȱSackur,ȱGerhardȱSchwartz,ȱandȱBernhard Schmeidler,ȱMGHȱSS,ȱXXX,ȱParsȱIIȱ(Hanover:ȱAntonȱHiersemann,ȱ1934;ȱrpt.ȱStuttgartȱandȱNew York:ȱKrausȱReprintȱCorporation,ȱ1964),ȱ1299.ȱBernoldȱofȱSt.ȱBlaisen,ȱChronicon,ȱed.ȱG.ȱPertz,ȱMGH SS,ȱVȱ(Hanover:ȱHahn,ȱ1894),ȱa.ȱ1089ȱ449.ȱ

IdeologicalȱFriendshipȱInȱTheȱMiddleȱAges

427

canonicalȱtreatiseȱtheȱLiberȱdeȱvitaȱchristiana.151ȱInȱthisȱtome,ȱBonizoȱpresentsȱthe canonicalȱ justificationsȱ forȱ theȱ variousȱ elementsȱ ofȱ theȱ Pataria’sȱ program.ȱ It constitutesȱ aȱ treasureȱ chestȱ ofȱ sortsȱ intoȱ whichȱ theȱ Patareneȱ doctorȱ placesȱ the principlesȱofȱtrueȱreligionȱasȱunderstoodȱbyȱhimȱandȱhisȱfriends.ȱWhileȱBonizo undoubtedlyȱ hadȱ theȱ assistanceȱ ofȱ anotherȱ inȱ hisȱ literaryȱ labors,ȱ suchȱ activity requiredȱheroicȱpsychologicalȱandȱspiritualȱeffortȱonȱhisȱpart.ȱHeȱcarriedȱonȱasȱbest heȱcouldȱinȱhisȱforcedȱretirementȱinȱtheȱhopeȱthatȱtheȱreligiousȱvisionȱheȱshared withȱhisȱfriendsȱmightȱendureȱandȱperhapsȱevenȱstillȱtriumphȱsomehow.ȱ

ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ

151

Inȱthisȱwork,ȱBonizoȱesotericallyȱcensuresȱUrbanȱIIȱatȱaȱnumberȱofȱpointsȱforȱhisȱdétenteȱpolicy withȱerstwhileȱHenricians.ȱSeeȱPaulȱFournier,ȱ“BonizoȱdeȱSutri,ȱUrbainȱIIȱetȱlaȱcomtesseȱMathilde d’ȱaprèsȱleȱLiberȱdeȱvitaȱchristianaȱdeȱBonizo,”ȱBibliothèqueȱdeȱl‘EcoleȱdesȱChartresȱ76ȱ(1915): 265–98;ȱhere,ȱ283–86.

Chapterȱ9 AlbrechtȱClassen (TheȱUniversityȱofȱArizona,ȱTucson)

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic:ȱ RuedegêrȱinȱtheȱNibelungenlied1

Althoughȱmedievalȱliteratureȱknowsȱofȱmanyȱfriendsȱandȱfriendships,ȱespecially inȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ courtlyȱ literature,ȱ andȱ thenȱ alsoȱ withinȱ theȱ monasticȱ sphere,2 friendshipȱamongȱheroesȱhasȱnotȱattractedȱtooȱmuchȱinterestȱonȱtheȱsideȱofȱmodern scholarship,ȱperhapsȱbecauseȱtheȱindividualȱprotagonistȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtooȱisolated andȱselfȬcontainedȱtoȱbeȱinȱneedȱofȱaȱfriend.ȱBeowulfȱbasicallyȱdiesȱaȱlonelyȱdeath inȱhisȱlastȱbattleȱagainstȱtheȱdragon.ȱRolandȱinȱtheȱOldȱFrenchȱChansonȱdeȱRoland andȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱRolandsliedȱisȱsurroundedȱbyȱtheȱotherȱpaladins, butȱitȱwouldȱbeȱinappropriateȱtoȱidentifyȱthemȱasȱhisȱ‘friends’ȱinȱanȱaffectionate wayȱasȱweȱknow,ȱforȱinstance,ȱfromȱhowȱCiceroȱinȱantiquityȱorȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx inȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱdiscussedȱfriendship.ȱ SiegfriedȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱNibelungenliedȱisȱmurderedȱwhileȱdrinking fromȱaȱfountain,ȱandȱnoȱone,ȱexceptȱforȱhisȱwifeȱKriemhilt,ȱtrulyȱlamentsȱhisȱdeath sinceȱheȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱanyȱfriends.ȱParallelȱtoȱhim,ȱthoughȱ stillȱonȱaȱdifferent plane,ȱ theȱ somberȱ Hagenȱ (alsoȱ inȱ theȱ Nibelungenlied)ȱ fightsȱ mostlyȱ forȱ andȱ by himself,ȱabsolutelyȱloyalȱtoȱhisȱlords,ȱbut,ȱapartȱfromȱtheȱminstrelȱwarriorȱVolker, thereȱ areȱ noȱ friendsȱ inȱ hisȱ life.ȱ Andȱ weȱ doȱ notȱ evenȱ knowȱ muchȱ aboutȱ that homosocialȱbond,ȱexceptȱthatȱtheyȱareȱbothȱveryȱloyalȱfightersȱtoȱtheȱveryȱbitter end.ȱMyȱCidȱ(ElȱCampeador)ȱinȱTheȱSongȱofȱtheȱCidȱisȱsurroundedȱbyȱmostȱloyal compatriotsȱandȱwarriorsȱuponȱwhomȱheȱcanȱrelyȱthroughoutȱhisȱlife,ȱbutȱthereȱis

1

2

IȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmyȱgratitudeȱtoȱmyȱdearȱcolleagueȱMarilynȱSandidge,ȱWestfieldȱState University,ȱWestfield,ȱMA,ȱforȱherȱcriticalȱreadingȱofȱmyȱarticle. AdeleȱM.ȱFiske,ȱFriendsȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMonasticȱTradition.ȱCidocȱCuaderno,ȱ51ȱ(Cuernavaca, Mexico:ȱCentroȱInterculturalȱdeȱDocumentacion,ȱ1970).ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱpresent volumeȱbyȱLisaȱM.ȱC.ȱWeston,ȱMarcȱSaurette,ȱR.ȱJacobȱMcDonie,ȱandȱJulianȱP.ȱHaseldine.ȱ

430

AlbrechtȱClassen

noȱ clearȱ referenceȱ toȱ friendsȱ inȱ theȱ specificȱ senseȱ outlinedȱ byȱ theȱ famous theoreticiansȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱantiquity,ȱwhichȱwasȱthenȱadoptedȱbyȱphilosophers, theologians,ȱ andȱ poetsȱ throughoutȱ theȱ centuriesȱ andȱ subsequentlyȱ enjoyedȱ a tremendousȱimpactȱonȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱbeyond.3ȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱheroicȱepicsȱregularlyȱreferȱtoȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱcloselyȱassociated withȱfriendship,ȱbutȱtheseȱbasicallyȱimplyȱmilitaryȱvalues,ȱsuchȱasȱtrust,ȱconstancy, reliability,ȱ etc.,ȱ andȱ theyȱ areȱ moreȱ associatedȱ withȱ vassaliticȱ loyaltyȱ thanȱ with emotionalȱrelationships.ȱ Byȱcontrast,ȱtheȱcourtlyȱworldȱknowsȱofȱmanyȱfriends,ȱwhetherȱweȱthinkȱofȱȱErec andȱGawainȱinȱChrétienȱdeȱTroyes’sȱYvainȱorȱofȱParzivalȱandȱGawainȱinȱWolfram vonȱ Eschenbach’sȱ Parzival.ȱ Theȱ probablyȱ bestȱ knownȱ figuresȱ ofȱ friendsȱ canȱ be foundȱinȱtheȱpanȬEuropeanȱnarrativeȱAmisȱetȱAmiloun,ȱrenderedȱintoȱGerman,ȱfor instance,ȱ byȱ Konradȱ vonȱ Würzburgȱ inȱ hisȱ wellȬknownȱ Engelhardȱ (ca.ȱ 1280).4 Indeed,ȱasȱsoonȱasȱweȱexploreȱtheȱbroadȱdiscourseȱonȱloveȱandȱfriendship,ȱwe comeȱ acrossȱ aȱ plethoraȱ ofȱ relevantȱ texts,ȱ andȱ weȱ canȱ easilyȱ confirmȱ theȱ great significanceȱofȱtheȱthemeȱofȱfriendsȱthroughoutȱtheȱentireȱMiddleȱAgesȱandȱthe Renaissance,ȱasȱReginaldȱHyatteȱandȱothersȱhaveȱamplyȱdemonstrated.5ȱ However,ȱwithȱregardȱtoȱheroicȱpoetry,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱfriendshipȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱto emergeȱasȱanȱaspectȱofȱtrueȱsignificance;ȱinsteadȱweȱareȱcommonlyȱfacedȱwith feudalȱrelationships,ȱbondageȱamongȱmenȱbasedȱonȱtheirȱmutualȱwarȱexperiences, andȱvassalage.ȱThisȱalsoȱappliesȱtoȱtheȱanonymousȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱNibelunȬ genliedȱ(ca.ȱ1200),ȱcertainlyȱaȱworldȱclassicȱmuchȱdiscussedȱforȱmoreȱthanȱ250ȱyears fromȱmanyȱdifferentȱperspectives.6ȱInȱhisȱrecentȱcontributionȱtoȱTheȱNibelungen

3

4

5

6

Forȱ Cicero’sȱ text,ȱ seeȱ onlineȱ at:ȱ http://www.bartleby.com/9/1/1.html,ȱ orȱ alternativelyȱ at: http://books.google.com/books?id=72a91yubVuMC&dq=Cicero%27s+On+Friendship&printsec =frontcover&source=bl&ots=Qy8k7lbx7H&sig=FG3gCn9VBhnTdu31ZVizlp6o_RU&hl=en&ei= rmL4SYyKPJWNtgfx9JWjDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA9,M1ȱ(bothȱlast accessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010);ȱcf.ȱJanȱZiolkowski,ȱ“TwelfthȬCenturyȱUnderstandingsȱandȱAdaptations ofȱ Ancientȱ Friendship,”ȱ Mediaevalȱ Antiquity,ȱ ed.ȱ Andriesȱ Welkenhuysen,ȱ Hermanȱ Braet,ȱ and WernerȱVerbeke.ȱMediaevaliaȱLovaniensia,ȱI,ȱ24ȱ(Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ59–81; seeȱalsoȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges:ȱAȱCiceronianȱConceptȱinȱKonradȱvon Würzburg’sȱEngelhardȱ(ca.ȱ1280),”ȱMittellateinischesȱJahrbuchȱ41.2ȱ(2006):ȱ227–46;ȱid.,ȱ“DasȱMotiv desȱaufopferndenȱFreundesȱvonȱderȱAntikeȱüberȱdasȱMittelalterȱbisȱzurȱNeuzeit,”ȱFabulaȱ47.1–2 (2006):ȱ17–32. KatalinȱHorn,ȱ“FreundschaftȱundȱFeindschaft,”ȱEnzyklopädieȱdesȱMärchens,ȱed.ȱKurtȱRanke.ȱȱVol. 5,ȱ2–3ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ1986),ȱ293–315;ȱNicoleȱClifton,ȱ“TheȱFunctionȱof ChildhoodȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,”ȱMediaevaliaȱ22.1ȱ(1998):ȱ35–57.ȱ Reginaldȱ Hyatte,ȱ Theȱ Artsȱ ofȱ Friendship:ȱ theȱ Idealizationȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Early Renaissanceȱ Literatureȱ (Leidenȱ andȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Brill,ȱ 1994);ȱ Huguetteȱ Legros,ȱ L’Amitiéȱ dansȱ les chansonsȱdeȱgesteȱàȱl’époqueȱromaneȱ(AixȬenȬProvence:ȱPublicationsȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱdeȱProvence, 2001).ȱSeeȱalsoȱmyȱIntroductionȱtoȱthisȱvolume. WernerȱHoffmann,ȱNibelungenlied.ȱ6thȱrev.ȱandȱexpandedȱed.ȱoriginallyȱauthoredȱbyȱGottfried Weberȱ andȱ Wernerȱ Hoffmann.ȱ Sammlungȱ Metzler,ȱ 7ȱ (1982;ȱ Stuttgart:ȱ Metzler,ȱ 1992);ȱ Lutz Mackensen,ȱ Dieȱ Nibelungen:ȱ Sage,ȱ Geschichte,ȱ ihrȱ Liedȱ undȱ seinȱ Dichterȱ (Stuttgart;ȱ Dr.ȱ Ernst

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

431

Tradition,ȱErnstȱHintzȱreflectsȱuponȱfriendshipȱinȱthisȱepic,ȱbutȱheȱcharacterizesȱit asȱaȱphenomenonȱthatȱ“leadsȱtoȱdisaster.”ȱAsȱheȱelaboratesȱfurther,ȱ“Theȱbasic Nibelungenȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱthatȱitȱalwaysȱturnsȱoutȱbadly.”7ȱIndeed,ȱat firstȱsightȱHintz,ȱandȱsoȱmanyȱpreviousȱscholars,ȱseemȱtoȱbeȱright,ȱconsideringȱthe highlyȱdubiousȱandȱambivalentȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheȱBurgundianȱKing GuntherȱandȱtheȱNetherlandishȱusurperȱSiegfried,ȱtheȱlatterȱcertainlyȱaȱdominating figure,ȱ virtuallyȱ invulnerableȱ andȱ simplyȱ imposingȱ inȱ manyȱ regards.ȱ Allȱ the referencesȱ toȱ friendshipȱ inȱ thatȱ relationshipȱ quicklyȱ revealȱ themselvesȱ toȱ be deceptiveȱploysȱforȱdiplomaticȱandȱmilitaryȱpurposes;ȱhenceȱnotȱtrustworthyȱin idealisticȱorȱemotionalȱterms.8ȱ Theȱearlyȱdevelopmentȱinȱtheȱepicȱseemsȱtoȱindicateȱaȱgrowthȱinȱtheirȱpersonal relationshipȱandȱaffectionȱforȱeachȱother,ȱandȱtheȱwordȱ‘friend’ȱisȱusedȱincreasingly afterȱtheȱheroicȱoutsiderȱhasȱbeenȱmoreȱfullyȱintegratedȱintoȱtheȱWormsȱsociety. Butȱthisȱsituationȱeasilyȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱillusionary,ȱifȱnotȱtreacherous,ȱandȱHagen’s finalȱdecisionȱtoȱplotȱtheȱmurderȱofȱSiegfriedȱdoesȱnotȱreallyȱcomeȱasȱaȱsurprise consideringȱtheȱdeepȬseatedȱhatredȱbetweenȱthemȱandȱtheȱentireȱcourt’sȱfearȱofȱthis seeminglyȱindefatigableȱandȱpracticallyȱinvulnerableȱman.ȱRevealingly,ȱGunther opposesȱthisȱplanȱonlyȱmeekly,ȱandȱinȱessenceȱisȱinȱagreementȱwithȱtheȱplan,ȱwhich entirelyȱ shattersȱ theȱ pretenseȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ deconstructsȱ theȱ Burgundians’ theaterȱofȱmanlyȱcompanionship.ȱInȱHintz’sȱwords,ȱ“Siegfried’sȱtrustȱinȱGunther’s friendshipȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Burgundiansȱ provesȱ toȱ beȱ illȬfounded”ȱ (152).ȱ This, however,ȱultimatelyȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱutterȱeliminationȱofȱtheȱBurgundiansȱbecause Kriemhiltȱ canȱ onlyȱ thinkȱ ofȱ revenge,ȱ whichȱ resultsȱ inȱ aȱ totalȱ Armageddonȱ for everyoneȱinvolved,ȱincludingȱtheȱHunnishȱcourtȱandȱpracticallyȱallȱofȱitsȱallied forces.ȱEvenȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱHagenȱandȱRüedegêr,ȱpowerfullyȱprofiled, evenȱifȱonlyȱfleetingly,ȱinȱtheȱlastȱpartȱofȱtheȱepicȱpoem,ȱshortlyȱbeforeȱtheȱgoryȱand fulminatingȱconclusionȱwhichȱnoȱoneȱexceptȱDietrichȱandȱHildebrandȱsurvives, doesȱ notȱ liveȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ expectations,ȱ asȱ Hintzȱ seesȱ it:ȱ “Friendshipȱ provesȱ no deterrentȱtoȱtheȱimpendingȱdoom”ȱ(152).ȱ Onlyȱ theȱ emotionalȱ bondsȱ betweenȱ Hagenȱ andȱ theȱ minstrelȱ warriorȱ Volker surviveȱuntilȱtheyȱbothȱdieȱinȱthisȱbattleȱorȱareȱkilledȱafterwardsȱasȱaȱconsequence

7

8

Hauswedell,ȱ 1984);ȱ Edwardȱ R.ȱ Haymes,ȱ Theȱ Nibelungenlied:ȱ Historyȱ andȱ Interpretation.ȱ Illinois MedievalȱMonographs,ȱIIȱ(UrbanaȱandȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱIllinoisȱPress,ȱ1986);ȱAȱCompanion toȱ theȱ Nibelungenlied,ȱ ed.ȱ Winderȱ McConnell.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Germanȱ Literature,ȱ Linguistics,ȱ and Cultureȱ (Columbia,ȱ SC:ȱ Camdenȱ House,ȱ 1998).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ importantȱ collectionȱ ofȱ studies dedicatedȱtoȱtheȱmanuscriptȱtraditionȱandȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱreception,ȱDieȱNibelungen:ȱSageȱ–ȱEposȱ– Mythos,ȱed.ȱJoachimȱHeinzle,ȱKlausȱKlein,ȱandȱUteȱObhofȱ(Wiesbaden:ȱReichertȱVerlag,ȱ2003). Ernstȱ Hintz,ȱ “Friendship,”ȱ Theȱ Nibelungenȱ Tradition:ȱ Anȱ Encyclopedia,ȱ ed.ȱ Francisȱ G.ȱ Gentry, WinderȱMcConnell,ȱUlrichȱMüller,ȱandȱWernerȱWunderlichȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱRoutledge, 2002),ȱ151–52. Francisȱ G.ȱ Gentry,ȱ Triuweȱ andȱ Vriuntȱ inȱ theȱ Nibelungenlied.ȱ Amsterdamerȱ Publikationenȱ zur SpracheȱundȱLiteratur,ȱ19ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱEditionsȱRodopi,ȱ1975),ȱ45–85.

432

AlbrechtȱClassen

ofȱhavingȱbeenȱtakenȱprisonersȱ(GuntherȱandȱHagen).ȱJanȬDirkȱMüller,ȱinȱhisȱmost recentȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱtext,ȱaffirmsȱtheȱsocialȱconstraintsȱthatȱlimitȱRüedegêr’s behaviorȱ andȱ determineȱ theȱ extentȱ toȱ whichȱ heȱ canȱ reallyȱ developȱ emotional elements.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ Rüedegêr’sȱ conflictȱ arises,ȱ asȱ Müllerȱ seesȱ it,ȱ fromȱ the aporiasȱofȱtheȱsocialȱconstructs,ȱinsofarȱasȱtheȱheroȱisȱobliged,ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱto hisȱ feudalȱ lordȱ Etzelȱ (Attila),ȱ thenȱ toȱ Kriemhilt,ȱ toȱ whomȱ heȱ hadȱ pledgedȱ his absoluteȱloyaltyȱunderȱanyȱcircumstancesȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱweddingȱnegotiations,ȱand, onȱtheȱother,ȱtoȱtheȱBurgundiansȱwithȱwhomȱheȱisȱsoȱintimatelyȱconnectedȱthrough familyȱties.ȱ Afterȱall,ȱwhileȱtheȱlatterȱhadȱtakenȱaȱbreakȱonȱtheirȱjourneyȱtoȱtheȱHunnish landsȱatȱRüedegêr’sȱcourt,ȱheȱhadȱofferedȱaȱmarriageȱarrangementȱbetweenȱhis ownȱdaughterȱandȱGunther’sȱyoungerȱbrother,ȱGiselher.ȱWhenȱRüedegêrȱisȱfinally forcedȱ toȱ enterȱ theȱ frayȱ inȱ theȱ ultimateȱ battleȱ againstȱ theȱ Burgundians,ȱ those attackedȱatȱfirstȱcannotȱbelieveȱthisȱhorrendousȱdevelopment,ȱseeingȱtheirȱown friendȱattackingȱthemȱasȱwell,ȱbutȱtheyȱmustȱdefendȱtheirȱlivesȱandȱthatȱofȱtheir comrades,ȱwhichȱultimatelyȱleadsȱtoȱRüedegêr’sȱandȱGernôt’sȱdeath,ȱbothȱkilling eachȱotherȱtoȱtheȱutmostȱgriefȱofȱeveryoneȱstillȱpresent.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱforȱMüller thereȱ isȱ noȱ realȱ senseȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ asȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ romancesȱ andȱ other narratives;ȱinsteadȱtheȱNibelungenȱpoetȱoperatesȱonlyȱwithȱvasallicȱrelationships.9 AsȱmuchȱasȱHintzȱandȱmanyȱotherȱscholarsȱhaveȱperceptivelyȱdiscussedȱthe issueȱofȱnegativelyȱcharacterizedȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱNibelungenlied,ȱhereȱIȱwouldȱlike toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ atȱ leastȱ inȱ theȱ caseȱ ofȱ Rüedegêrȱ andȱ Hagenȱ weȱ areȱ forcedȱ to perceiveȱaȱdifferentȱdimensionȱthatȱdeservesȱcloserȱanalysisȱthatȱmightȱcontradict someȱofȱtheȱbasicȱfeaturesȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱheroicȱgenreȱitself.ȱStudyingȱthe Nibelungenliedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtheȱphilosophicalȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱmightȱalso addȱaȱcomponentȱthatȱhasȱnotȱyetȱbeenȱfullyȱconsideredȱbecauseȱtheȱheroicȱworld doesȱnotȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱlentȱanȱearȱtoȱtheȱmoreȱcourtlyȱidealȱofȱfriendship.10ȱOur poet,ȱ however,ȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ inȱ tuneȱ withȱ theȱ broadȱ discourseȱ on friendshipȱwhichȱdeterminedȱtheȱlongȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱandȱwhichȱmightȱhaveȱhad aȱ directȱ impactȱ onȱ himȱ asȱ well,ȱ especiallyȱ becauseȱ theȱ Nibelungenliedȱ was composedȱatȱtheȱcourtȱofȱBishopȱWolfgerȱofȱErlaȱofȱPassau—certainlyȱaȱcenterȱof highlyȱsophisticatedȱcourtlyȱculture.11ȱ 9

10

11

JanȬDirkȱ Müller,ȱ Dasȱ Nibelungenlied.ȱ Klassikerȱ Lektüren,ȱ 5.ȱ 3rd,ȱ rev.ȱ andȱ expandedȱ ed.ȱ (2001; Berlin:ȱErichȱSchmidt,ȱ2009),ȱ107–09. NoneȱofȱtheȱcontributorsȱtoȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldineȱ(Thrupp,ȱStroud, Gloucestershire:ȱSuttonȱPublishing,ȱ1999),ȱconsidersȱanȱexampleȱfromȱtheȱheroicȱtradition.ȱSeeȱalso WalterȱYsebaert,ȱ“MedievalȱFriendshipȱandȱNetworks,”ȱHandbookȱofȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱed.ȱAlbrecht Classenȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱforthcoming).ȱTheȱtermsȱ“vriunt”ȱ(friend), “vriuntlîch”ȱ(friendly),ȱandȱ“vriuntshaft”ȱ(friendship)ȱareȱusedȱquiteȱfrequentlyȱthroughoutȱthe Nibelungenlied;ȱseeȱKonkordanzȱzumȱNibelungenliedȱnachȱderȱSt.ȱGallerȱHandschrift,ȱed.ȱHermann Reichert.ȱVol.ȱ2:ȱNȬZȱ(Vienna:ȱFassbaender,ȱ2006),ȱ986–87. Wolfgerȱ vonȱ Erla:ȱ Bischofȱ vonȱ Passauȱ (1191ȱ Ȭȱ 1204)ȱ undȱ Patriarchȱ vonȱ Aquilejaȱ (1204ȱ Ȭȱ 1218)ȱ als

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

433

Whenȱ theȱ Burgundiansȱ arriveȱ inȱ Rüedegêr’sȱ land,ȱ theȱ margraveȱ happily welcomesȱthemȱandȱopenlyȱexpressesȱhisȱdeeplyȱfeltȱjoyȱoverȱseeingȱtheseȱhighly honoredȱguestsȱ(1656).12ȱHagenȱandȱRüedegêrȱseemȱtoȱhaveȱknownȱeachȱother fromȱpreviousȱtimesȱ(1657,ȱ3),ȱbutȱtheȱcrucialȱaspectȱatȱtheȱmomentȱprovesȱtoȱbe theȱhost’sȱextraordinaryȱhospitality,ȱaȱclearȱmarkerȱofȱaȱmajorȱleaderȱofȱpeopleȱand ofȱaȱmightyȱruler,ȱasȱweȱfindȱitȱsimilarlyȱexpressedȱinȱmostȱotherȱheroicȱepics, especially,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱTheȱSongȱofȱtheȱCid.13ȱButȱsoonȱenoughȱtheȱgeneralȱfocus restsȱonȱtheȱextraordinaryȱbeautyȱofȱRüedegêr’sȱdaughterȱ(hereȱnotȱnamed),ȱwho isȱ betrothedȱ toȱ Giselher,ȱ andȱ thisȱ uponȱ theȱ king’sȱ closestȱ adviserȱ Hagen’s recommendation,ȱ whomȱ theȱ narratorȱ characterizesȱ inȱ thisȱ sceneȱ “vilȱ harte güetlîchen”ȱ(1677,ȱ4;ȱveryȱkind),ȱaȱmostȱunusualȱepithetȱforȱaȱmanȱwhoȱisȱrather fearedȱthanȱloved,ȱandȱwhomȱtheȱprincessȱherselfȱhadȱdreadedȱsoȱmuchȱthatȱshe didȱnotȱevenȱwantȱtoȱkissȱhimȱ(1665).ȱNotȱsurprisingly,ȱherȱparentsȱareȱdelighted aboutȱthisȱprospect,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱtheyȱregardȱthemselvesȱasȱforlornȱexilesȱin foreignȱlandsȱwhoȱcannotȱhopeȱforȱanyȱgoodȱmatchȱforȱtheirȱdaughterȱ(1676).ȱ Subsequently,ȱinȱpreparationȱforȱtheȱfutureȱweddingȱplans,ȱRüedegêrȱholdsȱhis guestsȱbackȱforȱaȱfortnightȱandȱfeedsȱandȱentertainsȱthemȱinȱaȱsplendidȱfashion, thusȱ publiclyȱ displayingȱ hisȱ ownȱ powerȱ andȱ wealthȱ despiteȱ hisȱ precarious existenceȱasȱEtzel’sȱvassalȱfarȱawayȱfromȱhisȱancestralȱhome.14ȱToȱcomplementȱher husband’sȱmunificence,ȱtheȱmargravineȱshowersȱtheȱguestsȱwithȱextraordinary gifts,ȱsomeȱofȱwhichȱcarryȱstrongȱemotionalȱvaluesȱforȱher,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱshieldȱofȱa relative,ȱperhapsȱherȱson,ȱorȱperhapsȱthatȱofȱherȱdeceasedȱbrotherȱ(1699).15ȱThis shield,ȱhowever,ȱwillȱbeȱtheȱveryȱobjectȱHagenȱwillȱlaterȱrequestȱfromȱRüedegêr inȱtheȱfinalȱbattleȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱlatter’sȱdeath. Butȱtheȱdepartureȱsceneȱclearlyȱconfirmsȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱentireȱcompany, hostȱandȱguests,ȱareȱcloselyȱattachedȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱevenȱonȱanȱemotionalȱlevel, irrespectiveȱofȱallȱtheȱformalitiesȱofȱtheȱceremonialȱgesturesȱandȱrituals.ȱOtfrid

12

13

14 15

KirchenfürstȱundȱLiteraturmäzen,ȱed.ȱEgonȱBoshofȱandȱFritzȱPeterȱKnapp.ȱGermanischeȱBibliothek: Reiheȱ3,ȱUntersuchungen,ȱNeueȱFolge,ȱ20ȱ(Heidelberg:ȱWinter,ȱ1994).ȱ HereȱIȱwillȱquoteȱfromȱDasȱNibelungenlied.ȱNachȱderȱAusgabeȱvonȱKarlȱBartschȱherausgegebenȱvon HelmutȱdeȱBoor.ȱ13th,ȱnewlyȱed.ȱDeutscheȱKlassikerȱdesȱMittelaltersȱ(Wiesbaden:ȱF.ȱA.ȱBrockhaus, 1956).ȱ Ifȱ notȱ otherwiseȱ stated,ȱ theȱ referencesȱ pertainȱ toȱ stanzas.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Dasȱ Nibelungenlied: Mittelhochdeutschȱ/ȱNeuhochdeutsch.ȱNachȱdemȱTextȱvonȱKarlȱBartschȱundȱHelmutȱdeȱBoorȱins NeuhochdeutscheȱübersetztȱundȱkommentiertȱvonȱSiegfriedȱGrosse.ȱForȱtheȱstandardȱEnglish translation,ȱseeȱTheȱNibelungenlied.ȱAȱNewȱTranslationȱbyȱA.ȱE.ȱHattoȱ(1965;ȱHarmondsworth: Penguin,ȱ1979).ȱHowever,ȱsinceȱIȱneedȱtoȱbeȱasȱpreciseȱasȱpossibleȱwithȱtheȱexactȱrenderingȱofȱthe words,ȱIȱuseȱmyȱownȱtranslations. MaríaȱRosaȱMenocal,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱTheȱSongȱofȱtheȱCid,ȱix–xxv;ȱhereȱxvi–xix.ȱSeeȱalsoȱClaudette Perrus,ȱLibéralitéȱetȱmunificenceȱdansȱlaȱlittératureȱitalienneȱduȱMoyenȱAgeȱ(Pisa:ȱPacini,ȱ1984). WinderȱMcConnell,ȱ“Rüdiger,”ȱTheȱNibelungenȱTradition,ȱ112–13. Theȱpoetȱdoesȱnotȱmakeȱthisȱclearȱenough;ȱseeȱtheȱexplanatoryȱnoteȱtoȱthisȱstanzaȱbyȱHelmutȱde Boor,ȱ1956,ȱ268.

434

AlbrechtȱClassen

Ehrismannȱ notesȱ inȱ thisȱ contextȱ thatȱ theȱ textȱ offersȱ aȱ newȱ levelȱ ofȱ personal relationships,ȱthoughȱtheȱultimateȱmeaningȱmightȱnotȱbeȱfullyȱfathomable:ȱ“der MarkgrafȱhatȱsichȱdenȱNibelungenȱengȱverbunden.ȱDieȱBandeȱsindȱvonȱkaumȱzu definierenderȱQualität,ȱanzusiedelnȱinȱderȱZoneȱzwischenȱBrauchtumȱundȱRecht .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ”16ȱ (Theȱ Margraveȱ hasȱ associatedȱ himselfȱ intimatelyȱ withȱ theȱ Nibelungs [Burgundians].ȱTheseȱbondsȱareȱofȱaȱqualityȱthatȱcanȱhardlyȱbeȱdefined,ȱlocated somewhereȱbetweenȱcustomȱandȱlaw).ȱRüedegêrȱemphasizesȱhowȱmuchȱheȱcares aboutȱtheȱguests’ȱwellȬbeingȱonȱtheirȱrouteȱtoȱtheȱHunnishȱcourt,ȱandȱweȱdoȱnot needȱ toȱ decideȱ whetherȱ thisȱ isȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ customaryȱ ritualȱ orȱ whetherȱ itȱ also carriesȱ aȱ considerableȱ degreeȱ ofȱ affectionȱ forȱ hisȱ newȱ inȬlawsȱ andȱ ‘friends.’ Particularlyȱtheȱdeliberateȱdisregardȱofȱfeudalȱnormsȱandȱvassalicȱconditionsȱin thisȱsituationȱofȱextraordinaryȱgiftȬgiving,ȱasȱJochenȱSplettȱhasȱobserved,ȱsuggests thatȱ theȱ affectionateȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ margraveȱ andȱ theȱ Burgundians amountsȱ toȱ whatȱ weȱ wouldȱ callȱ ‘friendship,’ȱ evenȱ inȱ theȱ classicalȱ senseȱ ofȱ the word.17ȱSo,ȱwhenȱitȱisȱtimeȱtoȱpartȱfromȱoneȱanother,ȱtheȱnarratorȱunderscoresȱhow strongȱ theseȱ affectionateȱ bondsȱ haveȱ actuallyȱ grown,ȱ asȱ expressedȱ byȱ intense kissingȱ(1710)ȱthatȱareȱqualifiedȱasȱ“minneclîche”ȱ(1710,ȱ1;ȱlovingȱkisses).ȱAllȱthese ceremoniesȱare,ȱofȱcourse,ȱwellȬknownȱritualȱgesturesȱcommonȱinȱheroicȱsociety andȱelsewhere,ȱbutȱweȱwouldȱgoȱtooȱfarȱtoȱdiscardȱanyȱpossibilityȱofȱemotional relationshipsȱexpressedȱbyȱkisses,ȱatȱleastȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱfriendship.18ȱAfterȱall, onceȱtheyȱdepartȱfromȱeachȱother,ȱRüedegêrȱandȱhisȱmen,ȱandȱsoȱalsoȱtheirȱwomen, cannotȱquiteȱwithholdȱtheirȱfeelingsȱandȱshedȱtears,ȱsomehowȱanticipatingȱthe tragedyȱ awaitingȱ theȱ Burgundiansȱ (1711).ȱ Theȱ narratorȱ evenȱ resortsȱ toȱ the importantȱtermȱ“irȱliebenȱfriunden”ȱ(1712,ȱ1;ȱyourȱdearȱfriends),ȱinȱthisȱcontextȱto underscoreȱtheȱdeepȱsorrowȱtheyȱallȱfeltȱbecauseȱtheyȱsecretlyȱsenseȱthatȱtheyȱwill neverȱ seeȱ theirȱ guestsȱ againȱ (1712,ȱ 2).ȱ Thereȱ isȱ clearly,ȱ asȱ Splettȱ hasȱ already uncovered,ȱaȱclearȱreferenceȱtoȱcourtlyȱvalues,ȱoneȱofȱwhichȱprovesȱtoȱbe,ȱasȱwe willȱsee,ȱfriendship.19ȱ

16

17

18

19

OtfridȱEhrismann,ȱNibelungenlied:ȱEpocheȱ–ȱWerkȱ–ȱWirkung.ȱArbeitsbücherȱzurȱLiteraturgeschichte (Munich:ȱC.ȱH.ȱBeck,ȱ1987),ȱ173. JochenȱSplett,ȱRüdigerȱvonȱBechelaren:ȱStudienȱzumȱzweitenȱTeilȱdesȱNibelungenlieds.ȱGermanische Bibliothek.ȱ3.ȱReihe:ȱUntersuchungenȱundȱEinzeldarstellungenȱ(Heidelberg:ȱC.ȱWinter,ȱ 1968), 65–66. Seeȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love:ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lostȱ Sensibility.ȱ Theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Series (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ17–24;ȱSiegfriedȱGrosse,ȱed.,ȱ889–90,ȱsees hereȱonlyȱtheȱceremonialȱandȱpoliticalȱactȱrequiredȱfromȱtheȱperfectȱhost.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱstudyȱby KlausȱSchreiner,ȱ“‘ErȱküsseȱmichȱmitȱdemȱKußȱseinesȱMundes’ȱ(Osculeturȱmeȱosculoȱorisȱsui,ȱCant 1,1):ȱMetaphorik,ȱkommunikativeȱundȱherrschaftlicheȱFunktionenȱeinerȱsymbolischenȱHandlung,” HöfischeȱRepräsentation:ȱDasȱZeremoniellȱundȱdieȱZeichen,ȱed.ȱHeddaȱRagotzkyȱandȱHorstȱWenzel (Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1990),ȱ89–132. Splett,ȱRüdigerȱvonȱBechelaren,ȱ68–69.

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

435

FromȱhereȱweȱmustȱmakeȱaȱhugeȱleapȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱlastȱscenesȱinȱtheȱNibelungenlied whenȱ Rüedegêrȱ isȱ forcedȱ byȱ Kriemhiltȱ andȱ Etzelȱ toȱ liveȱ upȱ toȱ hisȱ vassalic obligationsȱandȱtoȱjoinȱtheȱfightingȱagainstȱtheȱBurgundians,ȱandȱthisȱveryȱmuch againstȱhisȱownȱwishes.ȱAsȱLutzȱMackensenȱobservedȱsomeȱtimeȱago,ȱthisȱwarrior provesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱauthor’sȱmostȱfavoriteȱfigure,ȱandȱheȱmightȱhaveȱknownȱofȱa historicalȱpersonȱwithȱtheȱsameȱnameȱofȱwhomȱheȱwasȱdeeplyȱfond.20ȱTheȱpoet Herger,ȱwhoseȱworkȱisȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱMinnesangsȱFrühlingȱandȱwhoȱflourished afterȱ1173,ȱalsoȱreferredȱtoȱRüedegêr,ȱextollingȱhisȱvirtuesȱinȱtheȱhighestȱterms, thoughȱwithoutȱgivingȱusȱaȱsenseȱofȱhisȱpersonalȱcharacter.21ȱButȱthereȱcannotȱbe anyȱdoubtȱaboutȱtheȱgreatestȱrespectȱthatȱheȱenjoysȱeverywhere,ȱespeciallyȱamong hisȱnewȱinȬlaws,ȱtheȱBurgundians.ȱ Whenȱ weȱ encounterȱ Rüedegêrȱ onceȱ again,ȱ theȱ brutalȱ andȱ bloodyȱ battleȱ has progressedȱalreadyȱbeyondȱanyȱpossibleȱpointȱatȱwhichȱnegotiationsȱstillȱmight haveȱanyȱchance,ȱsoȱtheȱpoorȱmanȱviewsȱtheȱtragicȱsceneȱwithȱdeepȱemotions, profoundlyȱlamentingȱhisȱinabilityȱtoȱestablishȱpeaceȱ(2136).ȱHisȱlastȱattemptȱto solicitȱDietrich’sȱhelpȱalsoȱfailsȱbecauseȱtheȱlatterȱexplicitlyȱinformsȱhimȱthatȱthe kingȱwillȱnoȱlongerȱacceptȱanythingȱlessȱthanȱabsoluteȱrevengeȱforȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhis ownȱ childȱ andȱ ofȱ scoresȱ ofȱ hisȱ menȱ (2137).ȱ Then,ȱ however,ȱ aȱ Hunnishȱ soldier voicesȱ severeȱ criticismȱ ofȱ Rüedegêr,ȱ accusingȱ himȱ ofȱ havingȱ recusedȱ himself cowardlyȱfromȱallȱfightingȱoutȱofȱaȱlackȱofȱconcernȱdespiteȱhavingȱreceivedȱendless munificenceȱfromȱKingȱEtzelȱthroughoutȱhisȱlifeȱasȱanȱexiledȱmanȱ(2138–2139).ȱThis insinuationȱincensesȱtheȱheroȱsoȱmuchȱthatȱheȱrushesȱupȱtoȱtheȱaccuserȱandȱkills himȱ(2142).ȱOnlyȱthenȱdoesȱheȱemphasizeȱthatȱinsteadȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱcertainly foughtȱagainstȱtheȱBurgundiansȱwithȱallȱhisȱmightȱifȱheȱhadȱfeltȱanyȱhatredȱagainst themȱ(2143,ȱ4).ȱThat,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnotȱatȱallȱtheȱcase,ȱwhichȱunderscores,ȱonceȱmore, Rüedegêr’sȱ intimateȱ andȱ emotionalȱ relationshipȱ withȱ hisȱ friendsȱ fromȱ Worms. Instead,ȱasȱheȱalsoȱexclaims,ȱheȱhadȱbeenȱtheirȱguideȱandȱprotectorȱonȱtheirȱjourney toȱtheȱHunnishȱcourtȱ(2144,ȱ2–3).ȱ UponȱKriemhilt’sȱreproachȱthatȱheȱhadȱnotȱlivedȱupȱtoȱhisȱownȱoathȱtoȱherȱgiven inȱprivateȱjustȱbeforeȱsheȱhadȱfinallyȱagreedȱtoȱacceptȱKingȱEtzelȱasȱherȱsecond husbandȱtoȱfightȱforȱherȱevenȱtoȱhisȱdeathȱ(2149),ȱRüedegêrȱtriesȱtoȱfindȱaȱsmall crackȱforȱhisȱdefense,ȱinsistingȱthatȱheȱhadȱcertainlyȱswornȱtoȱhelpȱherȱwithȱallȱhis honorȱandȱevenȱhisȱlife,ȱyetȱnotȱwithȱhisȱsoul:ȱ“dazȱichȱdieȱsêleȱvliese,ȱȱȱdesȱenhan ichȱnihtȱgesworn”ȱ(2150,ȱ3;ȱIȱdidȱnotȱswearȱthatȱIȱwouldȱotherwiseȱloseȱmyȱsoul). Significantly,ȱwithȱthisȱcommentȱheȱinjectsȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱdeeperȱemotionsȱthat determineȱ himȱ asȱ well,ȱ andȱ soȱ toȱ theȱ Christianȱ ethicsȱ dominatingȱ medieval

20

21

LutzȱMackensen,ȱDieȱNibelungen:ȱSage,ȱGeschichte,ȱihrȱLiedȱundȱseinȱDichterȱ(Stuttgart:ȱDr.ȱErnst Hauswedell,ȱ1984),ȱ164–67. DesȱMinnesangsȱFrühling,ȱed.ȱHugoȱMoserȱandȱHelmutȱTervooren.ȱVol.ȱ1:ȱTexte.ȱ38th,ȱnewlyȱrev. ed.ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱS.ȱHirzel,ȱ1988),ȱVII,ȱI,ȱ4,ȱ4–7ȱ(L.ȱ26,ȱ2–5).

436

AlbrechtȱClassen

thinking.22ȱIrmgardȱGephartȱhasȱalertedȱusȱtoȱtheȱambivalentȱpositionȱassumedȱby Rüedegêrȱwhoȱcannotȱbeȱeasilyȱassociatedȱwithȱoneȱcampȱversusȱanother,ȱand henceȱharborsȱaȱfreeȱspaceȱinȱhisȱinterior,ȱ“derȱeineȱemotiveȱTeilnahmeȱfürȱbeide Seitenȱermöglicht”ȱ(whichȱmakesȱpossibleȱanȱemotiveȱsympathyȱforȱbothȱsides).23ȱ AlthoughȱitȱwouldȱgoȱtooȱfarȱtoȱidentifyȱRüedegêrȱasȱaȱChristianȱknight,ȱasȱBert Nagelȱhadȱsuggestedȱearlier,ȱNagelȱisȱcertainlyȱcorrectȱinȱcharacterizingȱhimȱasȱan individualȱwhoȱconformsȱdeeplyȱwithȱtheȱcontemporaryȱidealȱofȱaȱcourtlyȱknight andȱespousesȱfullȬheartedlyȱtheȱvaluesȱofȱcourtlyȱmores,ȱincludingȱgenerosityȱand, asȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱaddȱhere,ȱfriendship.24ȱ NotȱsurprisinglyȱtheȱentireȱensuingȱdiscussionȱbetweenȱRüedegêr,ȱonȱtheȱone hand,ȱ andȱ Etzelȱ andȱ Kriemhiltȱ onȱ theȱ other,ȱ isȱ determinedȱ byȱ theȱ keyȱ words borrowedȱfromȱtheȱcourtlyȱworld,ȱthoughȱtheȱprotagonists’ȱlanguageȱcontinuesȱto beȱheavilyȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱlexiconȱtypicalȱofȱheroicȱepics:ȱ“êre”ȱ(2150,ȱ2;ȱhonor), “stæte”ȱ(2151,ȱ2;ȱconstancy),ȱ“triuwen”ȱ(2153,ȱ3;ȱloyalty),ȱandȱ“zühte”ȱ(2153,ȱ3; education).25ȱ Theȱ poorȱ manȱ isȱ badlyȱ caughtȱ inȱ anȱ ethicalȱ aporiaȱ andȱ bitterly lamentsȱhisȱdestinyȱforcingȱhimȱtoȱfollowȱhisȱvassalicȱoathȱandȱthusȱtoȱdestroyȱall hisȱpersonalȱcommitmentsȱandȱidealsȱregardingȱfriends,ȱinȬlaws,ȱandȱguests.26ȱHis lastȬditchȱ effortȱ toȱ returnȱ allȱ theȱ giftsȱ thatȱ Etzelȱ hadȱ everȱ givenȱ himȱ alsoȱ fails because,ȱ asȱ theȱ kingȱ emphasizes,ȱ otherwiseȱ thoseȱ giftsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ been meaninglessȱ(2158).ȱThenȱoneȱmoreȱtimeȱRüedegêrȱvoicesȱhisȱprofoundȱdilemma, andȱhereȱheȱindicatesȱhowȱmuchȱheȱfeelsȱbondedȱtoȱtheȱBurgundians,ȱwhetherȱas friendsȱ orȱ simplyȱ asȱ highlyȱ respectedȱ warriors:ȱ “heimȱ zeȱ mînemȱ hûseȱ ȱ ȱ ichȱ si geladenȱhân,ȱ/ȱtrinkenȱundeȱspîseȱȱȱichȱinȱgüetlîchenȱbôt,ȱundȱgapȱinȱmîneȱgâbe:ȱȱ

22

23

24

25

26

JochenȱSplett,ȱRüdigerȱvonȱBechelaren:ȱStudienȱzumȱzweitenȱTeilȱdesȱNibelungenlieds.ȱGermanische Bibliothek.ȱ3.ȱReihe:ȱUntersuchungenȱundȱEinzeldarstellungenȱ(Heidelberg:ȱC.ȱWinter,ȱ1968),ȱ80. Grosse,ȱtrans.,ȱ919,ȱobservesȱthatȱthisȱstanzaȱclearlyȱevokesȱtheȱpreviousȱsceneȱwithȱRüedegêrȱand hisȱ wifeȱ givingȱ awayȱ toȱ theȱ Burgundianȱ heroesȱ allȱ thoseȱ valuableȱ weaponsȱ asȱ signsȱ ofȱ their personalȱcommitmentȱasȱsupportersȱandȱ‘friends.’ Irmgardȱ Gephart,ȱ Derȱ Zornȱ derȱ Nibelungen:ȱ Rivalitätȱ undȱ Racheȱ imȱ “Nibelungenlied”ȱ (Cologne, Weimar,ȱandȱVienna:ȱBöhlau,ȱ2005),ȱ170.ȱThisȱstudyȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinsightfulȱones recentlyȱpublishedȱonȱtheȱNibelungenlied;ȱseeȱmyȱreviewȱinȱGermanȱQuarterlyȱ79.3ȱ(2006):ȱ386–88. BertȱNagel,ȱDasȱNibelungenlied:ȱStoffȱ–ȱFormȱ–ȱEthosȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱHirschgrabenȬVerlag,ȱ1965), 228–49;ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ hisȱ “Heidnischesȱ undȱ Christlichesȱ imȱ Nibelungenlied,”ȱ RupertoȬCarolaȱ 10.24 (1958):ȱ61–81. SeeȱtheȱrespectiveȱentriesȱinȱEhreȱundȱMut,ȱÂventiureȱundȱMinne:ȱHöfischeȱWortgeschichteȱausȱdem Mittelalter,ȱbyȱOtfridȱEhrismann,ȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱWinderȱMcConnell,ȱetȱal.ȱ(Munich:ȱC.ȱH.ȱBeck, 1995). Forȱanȱinsightfulȱstudyȱofȱtheȱheroicȱvaluesȱconflictingȱwithȱeachȱotherȱinȱthisȱscene,ȱseeȱGeorge FenwickȱJones,ȱ“RüdigersȱDilemma,”ȱStudiesȱinȱPhilologyȱ57ȱ(1960):ȱ7–21.ȱItȱseemsȱquestionable, however,ȱtoȱargue,ȱasȱJonesȱdoes,ȱtoȱidentifyȱRüedegêr’sȱconflictȱasȱbeingȱcaughtȱinȱaȱdialecticsȱof heroicȱvalues;ȱhenceȱthatȱonlyȱdeathȱcanȱhelpȱhimȱfromȱwitnessingȱhisȱownȱdishonorȱ(20–21).ȱOn theȱcontrary,ȱthisȱveryȱaporiaȱrevealsȱtheȱconflictȱofȱdifferentȱvalueȱsystems,ȱperhapsȱidentifiable asȱheroicȱversusȱcourtly,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱtheȱelementȱofȱfriendshipȱcomplicatesȱtheȱentireȱsetȬup here.

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

437

wieȱsolȱichȱrâtenȱinȱdenȱtôt?”ȱ(2159,ȱ2–4;ȱIȱinvitedȱthemȱintoȱmyȱhouseȱatȱhome,ȱI gaveȱthemȱfoodȱandȱdrinkȱinȱaȱfriendlyȱmanner,ȱandȱIȱofferedȱthemȱmyȱgifts.ȱHow couldȱIȱwishȱthemȱtheirȱdeath?).ȱ Undoubtedly,ȱallȱtheseȱpreviousȱgesturesȱrepresentedȱordinaryȱritualsȱinȱthe contextȱofȱheroicȱandȱcourtlyȱmanners,ȱbutȱweȱcanȱalsoȱperceiveȱRüedegêr’sȱdeep griefȱoverȱtheȱinevitabilityȱthatȱheȱhasȱtoȱdestroyȱeverythingȱheȱhasȱbelievedȱin becauseȱofȱhisȱfeudalȱbondageȱandȱtheȱweightȱofȱhisȱoaths.ȱHeȱconcludesȱwithȱthe lamentingȱ exclamation:ȱ “ouchȱ riuwetȱ michȱ diuȱ vriuntschaft,ȱ ȱ ȱ dieȱ ichȱ mitȱ in geworbenȱhân”ȱ(2160,ȱ4;ȱIȱregretȱ[orȱrather:ȱlament]ȱtheȱfriendshipȱthatȱIȱdeveloped withȱthem).27ȱAsȱheȱthenȱemphasizes,ȱheȱhadȱhandedȱoverȱhisȱdaughterȱtoȱGiselher, whomȱheȱappreciates,ȱasȱheȱcorroboratesȱexplicitly,ȱasȱtheȱbestȱhusbandȱheȱcould haveȱimaginedȱ(2161),ȱunderscoringȱnotȱonlyȱhisȱwarriorȱqualities,ȱbutȱalsoȱhis ethicalȱvaluesȱ(“tugentlîchȱgemuot,”ȱ2161,ȱ4;ȱwithȱaȱvirtuousȱmind).ȱSubsequently, however,ȱheȱisȱresignedȱtoȱhisȱdestiny,ȱhenceȱhisȱcertainȱdeath,ȱyetȱheȱlamentsȱonce moreȱtheȱtragedyȱthatȱwillȱbefallȱbothȱhimselfȱandȱhisȱfriend:ȱ“owêȱderȱmînen friunde,ȱȱȱdieȱichȱvilȱungerneȱbestân”ȱ(2166,ȱ4;ȱalasȱforȱmyȱfriendsȱwhomȱIȱdoȱnot likeȱtoȱfight).ȱ MartenȱBrandtȱarguesȱthatȱRüedegêr’sȱultimateȱdecisionȱtoȱsubmitȱunderȱEtzel’s andȱKriemhilt’sȱrequest,ȱwhichȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱvassalicȱrelationshipȱthatȱhe hadȱ enjoyedȱ overȱ decadesȱ asȱ anȱ exiledȱ manȱ inȱ theȱ king’sȱ service,ȱ reflectsȱ the importanceȱofȱsocialȱprestigeȱandȱpublicȱrecognitionȱ(honor).28ȱThisȱisȱundoubtedly trueȱandȱfollowsȱtheȱoverallȱapproachȱpursuedȱbyȱtheȱanonymousȱpoetȱ(orȱpoets).29 However,ȱtheȱprotagonist’sȱobviouslyȱpsychologicalȱsufferingȱalsoȱdeservesȱtoȱbe

27

28

29

AsȱmuchȱasȱIȱadmireȱGephart’sȱoverallȱreadingȱofȱtheȱNibelungenlied,ȱhereȱsheȱgetsȱcaughtȱinȱrather speculativeȱ interpretations,ȱ erroneouslyȱ accusingȱ Rüedegêrȱ ofȱ masochisticȱ tendenciesȱ andȱ of lackingȱinȱselfȬconsciousnessȱ(DerȱZornȱderȱNibelungen,ȱ171–73). MartenȱBrandt,ȱGesellschaftsthematikȱundȱihreȱDarstellungȱimȱNibelungenliedȱundȱseinenȱhochmittelȬ alterlichenȱAdaptationen.ȱEuropäischeȱHochschulschriften.ȱReiheȱI:ȱDeutscheȱSpracheȱundȱLiteratur, 1643ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.,ȱBerlin,ȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1997),ȱ129–30.ȱSheȱsummarizesȱalsoȱprevious scholarship,ȱ seeȱ especiallyȱ Peterȱ Wapnewski,ȱ “Rüdigersȱ Schild:ȱ Zurȱ 37.ȱ Aventiureȱ des Nibelungenliedes,”ȱEuphorionȱ54ȱ(1960):ȱ380–410;ȱrpt.ȱinȱNibelungenliedȱundȱKudrun,ȱed.ȱHeinz Rupp.ȱWegeȱderȱForschung,ȱ54ȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftlicheȱBuchgesellschaft,ȱ1976),ȱ134–78. Wapnewskiȱunderscoresȱmostȱrigidlyȱtheȱlegalȱconstraints;ȱhenceȱtheȱvassalicȱconditionsȱwithin whichȱRüedegêrȱoperates.ȱButȱtheȱpointȱhereȱcannotȱbeȱtoȱconsiderȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱtheȱpoetȱofȱthe Nibelungenliedȱreflectedȱuponȱhisȱtimeȱinȱsocial,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱlegalȱterms;ȱinsteadȱweȱmustȱkeep inȱmindȱtheȱintricateȱdiscursiveȱnatureȱeven,ȱifȱnotȱespecially,ȱofȱthisȱepicȱpoemȱthatȱtriesȱtoȱcarve aȱ nicheȱ forȱ itselfȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ courtlyȱ valuesȱ dominateȱ everywhere.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ even WapnewskiȱperceivesȱRüedegêr’sȱambivalentȱposition,ȱbeingȱtheȱonlyȱwarriorȱwhoseȱdeathȱtruly representsȱaȱhumanȱtragedy,ȱmournedȱwithȱtearsȱandȱwithȱfeelingsȱofȱloveȱ(inȱNibelungenliedȱund Kudrun,ȱ174). Brandt,ȱGesellschaftsthematik,ȱ131,ȱoveremphasizesȱtheȱconflictȱbetweenȱRüedegêr’sȱworriesȱabout hisȱpublicȱreputationȱandȱtheȱlossȱofȱhisȱsoul.ȱMuchȱmoreȱimportantȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱtheȱprotagonist’s emotionalȱbondageȱtoȱtheȱBurgundians,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱheȱhasȱentrustedȱtoȱthemȱhisȱoneȱand onlyȱdaughterȱandȱthusȱhasȱexpressedȱhisȱhopeȱofȱfindingȱanȱescapeȱfromȱhisȱexileȱandȱloneliness.ȱ

438

AlbrechtȱClassen

keptȱinȱmindȱinsofarȱasȱheȱtriesȱtoȱachieveȱtheȱimpossible,ȱthatȱis,ȱtoȱmaintainȱthe idealsȱofȱheroicȱsociety,ȱwhileȱalsoȱsubscribingȱtoȱtheȱnewȱvaluesȱofȱtheȱcourtly worldȱwhereȱfriendshipȱandȱloveȱhaveȱgainedȱsupremeȱdominance.30ȱ WhenȱRüedegêr,ȱfullyȱarmedȱandȱaccompaniedȱbyȱfiveȱhundredȱknights,ȱfinally approachesȱtheȱhallȱwhereȱtheȱBurgundiansȱholdȱoutȱagainstȱallȱattacks,ȱhisȱfuture sonȬinȬlawȱGiselherȱcompletelyȱmisunderstandsȱtheȱsceneȱunfoldingȱbeforeȱhis eyes,ȱbelievingȱthatȱallȱtheirȱsorrowȱwillȱbeȱoverȱsoonȱandȱthatȱtheyȱcanȱhopeȱto survive,ȱhenceȱtoȱreturnȱhomeȱsafely:ȱ“Mirȱistȱliepȱûfȱmîneȱtriuweȱȱȱdazȱieȱderȱhîrât ergie”ȱ(2172,ȱ4;ȱByȱmyȱloyalty,ȱIȱamȱgladȱthatȱtheȱmarriageȱwasȱeverȱarranged).ȱThe minstrelȱ warriorȱ Volker,ȱ however,ȱ immediatelyȱ correctsȱ hisȱ erroneous interpretation,ȱpointingȱoutȱtheȱweaponsȱandȱarmorȱcarriedȱbyȱtheȱmargraveȱand hisȱ men.ȱ Andȱ indeed,ȱ asȱ soonȱ asȱ Rüedegêrȱ hasȱ enteredȱ andȱ announcedȱ his intentionȱtoȱfightȱthem,ȱallȱtheirȱjoyȱdisappearsȱquickly,ȱandȱtheyȱareȱhorrifiedȱthat theirȱownȱfriendȱhasȱemergedȱasȱtheirȱdeadlyȱopponent:ȱ“dazȱmitȱinȱwoldeȱstritenȱ ȱdemȱsiȱdâȱwârenȱholt”ȱ(2176,ȱ3;ȱthatȱheȱwantedȱtoȱfightȱwithȱthemȱwithȱwhomȱthey enjoyedȱfriendship).ȱ Ofȱcourse,ȱtheȱmargraveȱexcusesȱhimself,ȱrefersȱtoȱKriemhiltȱwhoȱforcedȱhimȱinto thisȱterribleȱdecisionȱ(2178,ȱ4),ȱbutȱGuntherȱbrusquelyȱannouncesȱhisȱownȱhostility, thoughȱheȱstillȱrefersȱtoȱtheirȱpreviousȱfriendshipȱthatȱRüedegêrȱhadȱdemonstrated toȱthem:ȱ“‘nuȱmüez’ȱiuȱgotȱvergelten,ȱȱȱvilȱedelȱRüedegêr,ȱ/ȱtriuweȱundeȱminne,ȱȱ dieȱirȱunsȱhabtȱgetân,ȱ/ȱobȱirzȱanȱdemȱendeȱȱȱwoldetȱgüetlîchenȱlân”ȱ(2179,ȱ2–4; “nowȱGodȱwouldȱrewardȱyou,ȱmostȱhonorableȱRüedegêr,ȱforȱtheȱloyaltyȱandȱlove thatȱ youȱ displayedȱ towardȱ us,ȱ ifȱ youȱ wereȱ toȱ letȱ itȱ goȱ kindly”).ȱ Tragically, however,ȱthatȱisȱtheȱveryȱidealȱthatȱcanȱnoȱlongerȱbeȱaimedȱfor,ȱandȱbattleȱeven amongȱfriendsȱisȱtheȱonlyȱdeadlyȱconsequenceȱforȱthemȱall.ȱInȱaȱfutileȱattempt,ȱthe Burgundianȱ kingȱ pleadsȱ withȱ theȱ margraveȱ toȱ spareȱ theirȱ lives,ȱ offeringȱ him eternalȱ loyaltyȱ andȱ serviceȱ (2180,ȱ 1–2),ȱ remindingȱ him,ȱ onceȱ more,ȱ ofȱ the unmatchedȱ giftsȱ thatȱ theyȱ hadȱ receivedȱ fromȱ him,ȱ andȱ soȱ alsoȱ appealsȱ toȱ hisȱ opponent’sȱoriginalȱloyaltyȱandȱnobleȱcharacterȱ(2180,ȱ4).ȱ Gunther’sȱbrotherȱGernotȱalsoȱtriesȱhisȱrhetoricalȱskills,ȱinsistingȱthatȱRüedegêr’s incredibleȱgiftsȱtoȱthemȱmustȱsurelyȱhaveȱbeenȱaȱsignȱofȱdeepȱfriendship,ȱcasting theȱgiftȬgivingȱevenȱinȱtermsȱofȱcourtlyȱlove:ȱ“minneclîchen”ȱ(2182,ȱ3).ȱTragically, theyȱ allȱ wishȱ theȱ sameȱ forȱ eachȱ other,ȱ noȱ oneȱ wantsȱ toȱ die,ȱ andȱ theȱ margrave

30

C.ȱStephenȱJaeger,ȱ“MarkȱandȱTristan:ȱTheȱLoveȱofȱMedievalȱKingsȱandȱtheirȱCourts,”ȱinȱhôhem prîse:ȱAȱFestschriftȱinȱHonorȱofȱErnstȱS.ȱDick,ȱed.ȱWinderȱMcConnell.ȱGöppingerȱArbeitenȱzur Germanistik,ȱ480ȱ(Göppingen:ȱKümmerle,ȱ1989),ȱ183–97;ȱinȱhisȱextendedȱstudyȱonȱtheȱsameȱtopic, EnnoblingȱLove,ȱJaegerȱidentifiesȱthisȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱ“charismatic,”ȱ“nonlibidinous,”ȱand virtuousȱasȱdescribedȱbyȱCiceroȱinȱhisȱOnȱFriendship;ȱseeȱalsoȱAlbrechtȱDiem,ȱ“nuȱsulnȱouchȱwir gesellenȱsînȱ–ȱÜberȱSchönheit,ȱFreundschaftȱundȱmannȬmännlicheȱLiebeȱimȱTristanȱGottfriedsȱvon Straßburg,”ȱTristaniaȱXIXȱ(1999):ȱ45–96.ȱForȱtheȱearlyȬmodernȱworld,ȱseeȱAlanȱBray,ȱTheȱFriend (ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2003).

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

439

wouldȱbeȱhappy,ȱasȱheȱemphasizes,ȱtoȱseeȱtheȱBurgundiansȱreturnȱhomeȱalive, evenȱatȱtheȱcostȱofȱhisȱownȱlifeȱ(2183,ȱ1–2).ȱInȱfact,ȱRüedegêrȱadmitsȱthatȱwhatȱhe isȱaboutȱtoȱdoȱwouldȱrepresentȱtheȱworstȱactȱofȱfriendship:ȱ“ezȱenwartȱnochȱnieȱan heldenȱȱȱwirsȱvonȱfriundenȱgetân”ȱ(2183,ȱ4;ȱheroesȱhaveȱneverȱbeforeȱexperienced aȱ worseȱ actȱ byȱ theirȱ friends).ȱ Compoundingȱ theȱ emotionalȱ emphasis,ȱ Gernot underscoresȱhisȱownȱutmostȱwishȱtoȱseeȱhisȱnewȱinȬlawȱstayȱalive,ȱwhileȱatȱthe sameȱtimeȱRüedegêr’sȱdeathȱwouldȱbeȱmostȱgrievousȱtoȱhim,ȱespeciallyȱinȱlightȱof theȱweaponsȱthatȱtheyȱallȱhadȱreceivedȱfromȱhimȱasȱgiftsȱ(2184).ȱ However,ȱtheȱtragedyȱcannotȱbeȱpreventedȱanyȱlonger,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱheroes appealȱtoȱeachȱotherȱnotȱtoȱuseȱthoseȱswordsȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱexchangedȱasȱgifts againstȱeachȱanotherȱ(2186).ȱRüedegêrȱevenȱrefersȱtoȱhisȱownȱwifeȱandȱdaughter inȱthisȱdesperateȱsituation,ȱexpressingȱhisȱhopeȱthatȱtheȱlatterȱwouldȱbeȱableȱto enjoyȱherȱmarriageȱwithȱtheȱBurgundianȱkingȱsometimeȱinȱtheȱfutureȱ(2187),ȱyet withoutȱ signalingȱ hisȱ willingnessȱ toȱ refrainȱ fromȱ fighting.31ȱ Thenȱ Giselher intervenesȱasȱwell,ȱappealingȱtoȱtheȱnewȱopponentȱtoȱkeepȱinȱmindȱthatȱtheyȱare friends:ȱ “Swennȱ irȱ undȱ iuwerȱ reckenȱ ȱ ȱ mitȱ strîteȱ michȱ bestât,ȱ /ȱ wieȱ rehte unvriuntlîcheȱȱȱirȱdazȱschînenȱlât”ȱ(2189,ȱ1–2;ȱIfȱyouȱandȱyourȱwarriorsȱenterȱaȱfight withȱme,ȱyouȱwillȱdisplayȱaȱveryȱunfriendlyȱmannerȱtowardȱme).ȱMoreover,ȱasȱhe underscores,ȱ heȱ hadȱ givenȱ hisȱ fullȱ trustȱ toȱ Rüedegêrȱ whenȱ heȱ acceptedȱ the margrave’sȱdaughter’sȱhandȱasȱhisȱfutureȱbride,ȱthusȱarguingȱnowȱwithȱtheȱmost forcefullyȱ emotionalȱ strategy,ȱ yetȱ withoutȱ achievingȱ theȱ desiredȱ goalȱ because fightingȱwillȱsetȱinȱsoonȱenough,ȱandȱdeathȱofȱmostȱofȱthemȱalreadyȱlurksȱaround theȱ cornerȱ becauseȱ ofȱ theȱ feudalȱ constraintsȱ theyȱ areȱ allȱ caughtȱ in.ȱ Insofarȱ as Rüedegêrȱdoesȱnotȱchangeȱhisȱmindȱandȱstandsȱpreparedȱtoȱenterȱtheȱbattle,ȱeven Giselherȱfindsȱhimselfȱforcedȱtoȱendȱtheirȱbondȱofȱfriendshipȱsinceȱheȱmustȱprotect hisȱownȱrelativesȱandȱmen:ȱ“sulnȱdieȱvonȱiuȱersterben,ȱȱȱsôȱmuozȱgescheidenȱsîn /ȱdiuȱvilȱstæteȱvriuntschaftȱȱȱzuoȱdirȱundȱouchȱderȱtohterȱdîn”ȱ(2191,ȱ3–4;ȱifȱthey haveȱtoȱdie,ȱthenȱourȱreallyȱstableȱfriendshipȱbothȱwithȱyouȱandȱyourȱdaughter mustȱbeȱdissolved).ȱ

31

ItȱdeservesȱmentionȱthatȱKingȱEtzelȱhadȱtriedȱtoȱappealȱtoȱHagen’sȱfriendshipȱandȱcourtlyȱvalues asȱwellȱwhenȱheȱhadȱemphasizedȱhowȱmuchȱheȱwasȱlookingȱforwardȱtoȱhisȱownȱsonȱOrtlieb receivingȱaȱsolidȱeducationȱatȱtheȱBurgundianȱcourtȱafterȱtheȱheroes’ȱreturnȱtoȱWormsȱ(thisȱbefore theȱ outbreakȱ ofȱ theȱ battle).ȱ Apparentlyȱ quiteȱ naivelyȱ andȱ inȱ utterȱ disregardȱ ofȱ theȱ political situationȱwithȱhisȱownȱwifeȱinȱrelentlessȱ‘war’ȱwithȱHagen,ȱtheȱmurdererȱofȱherȱfirstȱhusband, Etzelȱwentȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱguestsȱasȱhisȱfriends:ȱ“‘nuȱsehtȱir,ȱfriundeȱmîne,ȱȱȱȱdazȱistȱmîn einecȱsun,ȱ/ȱundȱouchȱiwerȱswester:ȱȱȱdazȱmacȱiuȱallenȱwesenȱfrumȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱDarȱumbeȱbit’ȱichȱgerne,ȱ ȱiuch,ȱliebenȱfriundeȱmîn,ȱ/ȱswennȱirȱzeȱlandeȱrîtetȱȱȱwiderȱanȱdenȱRîn,ȱ/ȱsôȱsultȱirȱmitȱiuȱfüerenȱȱ iuwerȱswesterȱsun,ȱ/ȱundȱultȱouchȱanȱdemȱkindeȱvilȱgenædeclîchenȱtuon”ȱ(1914,ȱ3–1916,ȱ4;ȱ“now see,ȱmyȱfriends,ȱthisȱisȱmyȱonlyȱson,ȱandȱheȱisȱyourȱsister’sȱchild.ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱofȱgreatȱadvantage forȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱbegȱyouȱkindly,ȱmyȱdearȱfriends,ȱwhenȱyouȱrideȱbackȱhomeȱtoȱtheȱRhine,ȱtakeȱmy sonȱwithȱyou,ȱyourȱsister’sȱson,ȱandȱtreatȱhimȱgraciously).

440

AlbrechtȱClassen

Mostȱsignificantly,ȱatȱthisȱveryȱmomentȱwhenȱfriendȱisȱaboutȱtoȱslaughterȱfriend, ominousȱHagen,ȱtheȱtrueȱleaderȱofȱthemȱall,ȱintervenes,ȱurgingȱthemȱtoȱpauseȱfor aȱwhileȱinȱorderȱtoȱhaveȱanȱopportunityȱforȱmoreȱdiscussions.ȱThisȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱthe onlyȱ timeȱ inȱ theȱ entireȱ epicȱ poemȱ whenȱ thisȱ trulyȱ liminalȱ figureȱ revealsȱ an emotionalȱ sideȱ toȱ himselfȱ asȱ well,32ȱ sinceȱ heȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ preserveȱ bothȱ the Burgundians’ȱ andȱ Rüedegêr’sȱ livesȱ andȱ soȱ also,ȱ asȱ weȱ canȱ nowȱ argue,ȱ their friendship.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱHagenȱknowsȱthatȱtheȱgreatestȱdangerȱforȱtheȱfewȱsurvivors resultsȱ fromȱ theȱ margrave,ȱ andȱ yet,ȱ whenȱ theȱ latterȱ suddenlyȱ performsȱ the ultimateȱgestureȱofȱgenerosityȱandȱselflessnessȱbyȱhandingȱoverȱhisȱownȱshieldȱto Hagen,ȱtheȱentireȱcompanyȱfeelsȱdeeplyȱmoved,ȱandȱtearsȱbeginȱtoȱwellȱup.ȱHagen hadȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱtheȱshieldȱthatȱheȱhadȱreceivedȱfromȱRüedegêr’sȱwifeȱasȱaȱgift whenȱtheyȱdepartedȱfromȱPöchlarnȱwasȱhackedȱdownȱtoȱpieces,ȱandȱthisȱagain servesȱtoȱremindȱtheȱmargraveȱofȱtheȱsymbolicȱimportanceȱofȱgiftsȱsinceȱtheseȱcan buildȱfriendshipsȱandȱpowerfulȱbondsȱamongȱpeopleȱonȱanȱethicalȱandȱpolitical level.33ȱ Forȱ Rüedegêr,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ thisȱ providesȱ himȱ withȱ another opportunityȱtoȱannounceȱpubliclyȱthatȱheȱhasȱnotȱenteredȱtheȱfrayȱvoluntarilyȱand insteadȱwasȱobligatedȱtoȱdoȱsoȱbecauseȱhisȱoriginalȱoathȱtoȱKriemhiltȱgivenȱduring theȱwooingȱforȱherȱhandȱonȱbehalfȱofȱEtzelȱhadȱforcedȱhimȱtoȱtakeȱthisȱfatefulȱstep. Altogether,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱmargraveȱestablishes,ȱdespiteȱtheȱdeadlyȱsituation,ȱone moreȱtimeȱaȱsenseȱofȱcommunity,ȱperhapsȱevenȱofȱfriendship,ȱasȱtheȱreactionȱof evenȱbattleȬhardenedȱHagenȱindicates:ȱ SwieȱgrimmeȱHageneȱwæreȱȱȱundȱswiȱherteȱgemuot, jaȱerbarmteȱinȱdiuȱgâbe,ȱȱȱdieȱderȱheltȱguot bîȱsînenȱlestenȱzîtenȱȱȱsôȱnâhenȱhetȱgetân. vilȱmanecȱritterȱedeleȱȱȱmitȱimȱtrurenȱbegan. (2198) [HoweverȱharshȱHagenȱmightȱhaveȱbeen,ȱandȱhowȱmuchȱheȱhadȱaȱtoughȱmind,ȱtheȱgift, whichȱtheȱgoodȱheroȱhadȱhandedȱoverȱinȱhisȱlastȱmomentȱofȱlife,ȱshortlyȱbeforeȱhis death,ȱevokedȱpityȱinȱhim.ȱManyȱaȱnobleȱknightȱbeganȱtoȱmournȱwithȱhim.]

SubsequentlyȱHagenȱpraisesȱhisȱopponentȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱnobleȱwarriorsȱwho everȱlived,ȱconsideringȱhisȱunparalleledȱgenerosityȱandȱhospitality.ȱButȱheȱalso lamentsȱtheȱabsurdityȱofȱtheȱsituationȱinȱwhichȱtheȱBurgundiansȱhaveȱtoȱfightȱfor theirȱlives,ȱandȱyetȱalsoȱfindȱthemselvesȱpittedȱinȱaȱmortalȱbattleȱfriendȱagainst friendȱ(2200,ȱ3),ȱrevealingȱanȱimportantȱandȱheretoforeȱnotȱvisibleȱsoftnessȱofȱhis heart,ȱespeciallyȱbecauseȱtheȱbestȱwarriors,ȱwhoȱareȱevenȱfriends,ȱhaveȱtoȱfaceȱeach

32

33

SeeȱEdwardȱR.ȱHaymes,ȱ“Preface,”ȱTheȱDarkȱFigureȱinȱMedievalȱGermanicȱLiterature,ȱed.ȱid.ȱand StephanieȱCainȱVanȱD’Elden.ȱGöppingerȱArbeitenȱzurȱGermanistik,ȱ448ȱ(Göppingen:ȱKümmerle, 1986),ȱiii–vi;ȱhereȱiv. Forȱaȱbroadȱdiscussionȱofȱgiftȱgivingȱfromȱanȱanthropologicalȱperspective,ȱseeȱMarcelȱMauss,ȱThe Gift:ȱ theȱ Formȱ andȱ Reasonȱ forȱ Exchangeȱ inȱ Archaicȱ Societies,ȱ withȱ aȱ forewordȱ byȱ Maryȱ Douglas. RoutledgeȱClassicsȱ(1990;ȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2001).

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

441

otherȱandȱkillȱtheȱopponentȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheirȱlordsȱtoȱwhomȱtheyȱareȱobligated.34 Mostȱamazingly,ȱHagenȱthenȱtakesȱtheȱunprecedentedȱstepȱofȱpromisingȱRüedegêr notȱtoȱtouchȱorȱtoȱfightȱwithȱhim,ȱwhateverȱmightȱhappen,ȱaȱmostȱsymbolicȱpledge forȱaȱmanȱlikeȱHagenȱwhoȱhasȱconsistentlyȱdemonstratedȱthroughoutȱtheȱepicȱthat absoluteȱloyaltyȱtoȱhisȱlordȱGuntherȱdeterminesȱhisȱthinking.ȱNothingȱhasȱever stoppedȱhimȱfromȱpursuingȱhisȱgoals,ȱexceptȱhereȱinȱthisȱsmallȱincidence,ȱwhich mightȱevenȱendangerȱtheȱBurgundiansȱaltogether.ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱminstrelȱwarrior Volkerȱoffersȱtheȱsameȱpledge,ȱreflectingȱtheȱprofoundȱrespectȱallȱthreeȱmenȱhave forȱeachȱotherȱ(2203).ȱIntriguingly,ȱtheȱlatterȱgoesȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱdisplayȱtheȱringsȱthat theȱmargravineȱhadȱgivenȱhimȱasȱgifts,ȱexpressingȱtherebyȱthatȱheȱfeelsȱdeeply committedȱ toȱ Rüedegêrȱ andȱ wouldȱ notȱ dareȱ toȱ breakȱ theȱ ultimateȱ bondȱ of friendship,ȱnotȱevenȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱdeath.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱonceȱthisȱexchangeȱofȱwordsȱhasȱcomeȱtoȱitsȱend,ȱtheȱmargrave picksȱ upȱ hisȱ shieldȱ andȱ stormsȱ intoȱ battle,ȱ killingȱ scoresȱ ofȱ Burgundians,ȱ and finally,ȱinȱtheȱultimateȱencounterȱwithȱGernot,ȱslaysȱhisȱopponentȱandȱsuffersȱthe sameȱfateȱatȱhisȱhandȱ(2220–2221).ȱThisȱlossȱgrievesȱtheȱfewȱsurvivorsȱmoreȱthan anythingȱelse,ȱbutȱtheyȱcanȱonlyȱtakeȱaȱshortȱrespite,ȱuntilȱtheyȱalsoȱwillȱbeȱkilled. TheȱtragicȱoutcomeȱofȱtheȱNibelungenliedȱisȱwellȱknown,ȱsoȱtheȱsubsequentȱevents involvingȱevenȱDietrich,ȱHildebrant,ȱandȱtheirȱmen,ȱwhoȱallȱdieȱexceptȱforȱtheȱfirst two,ȱdoȱnotȱconcernȱusȱhereȱanyȱfurther. Ofȱcourse,ȱasȱscholarshipȱhasȱcommentedȱmanyȱtimes,ȱthereȱisȱtheȱdangerȱofȱ stretchingȱtheȱevidenceȱtooȱthinȱandȱtoȱreadȱmoreȱemotionalȱaspectsȱintoȱtheȱtext thanȱmightȱhaveȱbeenȱintendedȱbyȱtheȱanonymousȱpoet/author.ȱForȱinstance,ȱcan weȱjustifiablyȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱtrulyȱconnectedȱRüedegêrȱand theȱ Burgundians,ȱ especiallyȱ Hagen?ȱ Doȱ theseȱ warriorsȱ fullyȱ displayȱ allȱ those courtlyȱemotions,ȱoneȱofȱwhichȱespeciallyȱculminatesȱintoȱtheȱfeelingȱofȱfriendship? Whereȱareȱtheȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱceremonyȱandȱritualȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱtrue emotionsȱ onȱ theȱ other?35ȱ Toȱ absolutizeȱ theȱ relevanceȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ toȱ the disadvantageȱtoȱtheȱlatter,ȱandȱthisȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱheroicȱpoetry,ȱi.e.,ȱtoȱclaim thatȱbecauseȱofȱritualȱbehaviorȱthereȱwereȱnoȱemotions,ȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱwarranted,

34

35

Peterȱ Göhler,ȱ Nibelungenlied:ȱ Erzählweise,ȱ Figuren,ȱ Weltanschauung,ȱ literaturgeschichtesȱ Umfeld. LiteraturȱundȱGesellschaftȱ(Berlin:ȱAkademieȬVerlag,ȱ1989),ȱ66–67,ȱerroneouslyȱdeniesȱthatȱthe Nibelungenliedȱpoetȱeverȱallowsȱusȱtoȱperceiveȱtheȱemotionalȱdimensionȱofȱhisȱprotagonists.ȱLosing aȱfriendȱobviouslyȱtriggersȱaȱfloodȱofȱemotionsȱevenȱamongȱtheȱprotagonistsȱinȱheroicȱepics. SeeȱtheȱcontributionsȱtoȱEmotionsȱandȱSensibilitiesȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaegerȱand IngridȱKasten.ȱTrendsȱinȱMedievalȱPhilology,ȱ1ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2003), whereȱtheȱdelicateȱbalanceȱofȱritualsȱandȱemotionsȱandȱtheirȱeverȱchangingȱandȱyetȱintermingling correlationsȱisȱexaminedȱfromȱmanyȱdifferentȱperspectivesȱ(thoughȱwithoutȱregardȱforȱtheȱpeculiar questionȱ regardingȱ friendship).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Elkeȱ Koch,ȱ Trauerȱ undȱ Identität:ȱ Inszenierungenȱ von EmotionenȱinȱderȱdeutschenȱLiteraturȱdesȱMittelalters.ȱTrendsȱinȱMedievalȱPhilology,ȱ8ȱ(Berlinȱand NewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2006),ȱthoughȱsheȱseemsȱtoȱgiveȱtooȱmuchȱevidentiaryȱweightȱto performancesȱandȱignoresȱtheȱinnerȱconnectionsȱtoȱtheȱemotionsȱreflectedȱbyȱperformance.

442

AlbrechtȱClassen

especiallyȱifȱweȱconsiderȱtheȱenormousȱoutburstȱofȱaggressiveȱemotionsȱduringȱthe finalȱ battleȱ inȱ whichȱ evenȱ suchȱ peaceȱ lovingȱ individualsȱ asȱ Rüedegêrȱ and Hildebrandȱ succumbȱ toȱ fundamental,ȱ almostȱ freneticȱ instinctsȱ andȱ turnȱ into irrepressibleȱfightingȱmachinesȱboundȱforȱtheirȱownȱdeath.36 Theȱmargrave,ȱhowever,ȱstandsȱatȱaȱcuriousȱjunctureȱalmostȱthroughoutȱthe entireȱepicȱbecauseȱheȱoperatesȱbothȱonȱtheȱstageȱofȱtheȱcourts,ȱasȱreflectedȱbyȱhis individualȱcharacterizationȱandȱhisȱroleȱasȱmarriageȱsuitorȱforȱEtzel,ȱandȱbyȱhisȱrole asȱ hostȱ backȱ homeȱ welcomingȱ theȱ Burgundiansȱ andȱ makingȱ theȱ marriage arrangementȱforȱhisȱdaughterȱandȱGiselher.37ȱEdwardȱR.ȱHaymesȱhasȱquestioned theȱ repeatedlyȱ assertedȱ claimȱ ofȱ Rüedegêrȱ representingȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ typical valuesȱexpressedȱinȱheroicȱepicsȱbecauseȱhisȱroleȱasȱhostȱandȱhisȱenormousȱgift givingȱdoȱnotȱdifferȱessentiallyȱfromȱwhatȱweȱcanȱobserveȱinȱmanyȱheroicȱepics.38 Butȱifȱweȱcombineȱallȱtheseȱelementsȱwithȱtheȱparticularȱfocusȱonȱtheȱexpressions ofȱfriendshipȱutteredȱmanyȱtimesȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱtheȱmargrave,ȱweȱseemȱtoȱbe onȱfirmerȱgroundȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱspecificallyȱcourtlyȱfeaturesȱeven inȱtheȱNibelungenlied.ȱ NotȱsurprisinglyȱRüedegêrȱutilizesȱdefinitelyȱcourtlyȱlanguageȱinȱhisȱwooing ofȱKriemhilt’sȱhandȱonȱbehalfȱofȱKingȱEtzelȱ(1232),ȱandȱ heȱ alsoȱ knowsȱhowȱto counterȱ Kriemhilt’sȱ sharpȱ wordsȱ regardingȱ herȱ infiniteȱ painȱ resultingȱ from Siegfried’sȱdeath:ȱ“‘Wazȱmacȱergetzenȱleides,’ȱsprachȱderȱvilȱküeneȱman,ȱ/ȱ‘wan friuntlicheȱliebe,ȱȱȱswerȱdieȱkanȱbegân,ȱ/ȱuntȱderȱdanȱeinenȱkiusetȱȱȱderȱimȱzeȱrehte kumt?ȱ/ȱvorȱherzenlîcherȱleideȱȱȱnihtȱsôȱgrœzlîchenȱfrumtȱ.ȱ.ȱ.’”ȱ(1234,ȱ1–4;ȱ“What isȱ betterȱ inȱ soothingȱ pain,”ȱ saidȱ theȱ mightyȱ man,ȱ “ȱ butȱ aȱ friend’sȱ love.ȱ When someoneȱfindsȱitȱandȱchoosesȱoneȱwhoȱhelpsȱhimȱproperly,ȱthenȱthereȱisȱnothing thatȱoffersȱbetterȱconsolationȱforȱtheȱpainȱinȱtheȱheart”).ȱNoȱwonderȱthenȱthatȱthe Burgundianȱcourtȱhadȱwelcomedȱtheȱmargraveȱwithȱsuchȱhonorȱandȱgreatȱrespect,

36

37

38

JanȬDirkȱMüller,ȱSpielregelnȱfürȱdenȱUntergang:ȱDieȱWeltȱdesȱNibelungenliedesȱ(Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer, 1998),ȱ203–08,ȱatȱfirstȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱpsychologicalȱreactionsȱandȱaffectsȱareȱtheȱfunctionsȱofȱthe plotȱconfigurations.ȱLater,ȱhowever,ȱturningȱtoȱtheȱendingȱofȱtheȱepic,ȱheȱobservesȱanȱepidemic ofȱviolenceȱ(443–47)ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱwarriorsȱturnȱintoȱaȱbloodȬthirstyȱpackȱofȱhounds.ȱTheȱquestion reallyȱremainsȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱweȱthenȱstillȱcanȱtalkȱofȱritual,ȱorȱceremonial,ȱperformance.ȱGerd Althoff,ȱDieȱMachtȱderȱRituale:ȱSymbolikȱundȱHerrschaftȱimȱMittelalterȱ(Darmstadt:ȱWissenschaftlicher Buchverlag,ȱ 2003);ȱ id.,ȱ Inszenierteȱ Herrschaft:ȱ Geschichtsschreibungȱ undȱ politischesȱ Handelnȱ im Mittelalterȱ (Darmstadt:ȱ Wissenschaftlicherȱ Buchverlag,ȱ 2003),ȱ arguedȱ forcefullyȱ forȱ aȱ broad readingȱofȱallȱexpressionsȱofȱemotionsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱasȱbeingȱplainȱgesturesȱandȱritualsȱfree ofȱanyȱaffectionateȱgrounding.ȱTheȱcounterȱpositionȱisȱnowȱenergeticallyȱandȱratherȱconvincingly elaboratedȱbyȱPeterȱDinzelbacher,ȱWarumȱweintȱderȱKönig?:ȱeineȱKritikȱdesȱmediävistischenȱPanrituaȬ lismusȱ(Badenweiler:ȱBachmann,ȱ2009). AndrásȱVizkelety,ȱ“Rüdigerȱ–ȱBoteȱundȱBrautwerberȱinȱBedrängnis,”ȱPöchlarnerȱHeldenliedgespräch: DasȱNibelungenliedȱundȱderȱmittlereȱDonauraum,ȱed.ȱKlausȱZatloukal.ȱPhilologicaȱGermanica,ȱ12 (Vienna:ȱFassbaender,ȱ1990),ȱ131–37. EdwardȱR.ȱHaymes,ȱ“Heroic,ȱChivalric,ȱandȱAristocraticȱEthosȱinȱtheȱNibelungenlied,”ȱAȱCompanion toȱtheȱNibelungenlied,ȱ94–104;ȱhereȱ102–03.

FriendshipȱinȱtheȱHeroicȱEpic

443

asȱbestȱexpressedȱbyȱOrtwînȱofȱMetzeȱasȱaȱforemostȱspeakerȱatȱtheȱcourtȱinȱWorms: “‘wirȱhabenȱinȱallerȱwîleȱȱȱmêreȱnieȱgesehenȱ/ȱgesteȱhieȱsôȱgerne,ȱȱȱdesȱwilȱich wærlîchȱjehen’”ȱ(1184,ȱ3–4;ȱ“Weȱhaveȱhardlyȱeverȱseenȱguestsȱwithȱmoreȱjoy,ȱI mustȱhonestlyȱsayȱso”).ȱ Takingȱ allȱ theȱ variousȱ cluesȱ together,ȱ itȱ seemsȱ mostȱ likelyȱ thatȱ the Nibelungenliedȱ poetȱ drewȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ fromȱ theȱ classicalȱ andȱ contemporaryȬ medievalȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱfriendshipȱdiscourseȱandȱcreatedȱaȱliteraryȱmonument dedicatedȱtoȱthisȱidealȱbestȱrepresentedȱbyȱRüedegêr,ȱatȱleastȱwithinȱtheȱframework ofȱtheȱheroicȱworld.ȱTheȱwarriorsȱdoȱnotȱreallyȱgushȱforthȱwithȱtheirȱaffections regardingȱtheirȱfriend,ȱtheȱmargrave,ȱbutȱtheȱnarrativeȱdoesȱnotȱleaveȱanyȱdoubt thatȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱevenȱamongȱtheseȱheroes,ȱnotȱreallyȱdistantȱfromȱthat oneȱasȱprojectedȱinȱcourtlyȱromancesȱandȱelsewhere,ȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱroleȱin thisȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱepicȱasȱwell.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱtheȱoutcomeȱofȱtheȱbattleȱalso engulfsȱtheȱvariousȱfriends.ȱNevertheless,ȱtheȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱexpressedȱhere surprisinglyȱsurvivesȱthisȱArmageddonȱandȱsignals,ȱevenȱinȱtheȱdarkestȱhourȱof theȱ tragedy,ȱ someȱ hopeȱ forȱ theȱ futureȱ becauseȱ theȱ memoryȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ as encapsulatedȱinȱthisȱheroicȱpoem,ȱlivesȱon,ȱsignalingȱthatȱevenȱbehindȱtheȱmost hardenedȱfighterȱthereȱisȱaȱhumanȱbeing.ȱ Notȱsurprisingly,ȱthen,ȱmodernȱscholarshipȱhasȱseriouslyȱstruggledȱwithȱthe questionȱ ofȱ whetherȱ theȱ Nibelungenliedȱ fallsȱ fullyȱ intoȱ theȱ categoryȱ ofȱ theȱ epic poem,ȱorȱwhetherȱitȱalsoȱcontainsȱcourtlyȱelements,ȱwhetherȱitȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱbe definedȱasȱaȱtragedyȱinȱheroicȱtermsȱorȱasȱaȱcourtlyȱepic.39ȱWeȱmightȱnotȱbeȱableȱto answerȱsuchȱglobalȱquestionsȱeasily,ȱifȱatȱall,ȱbutȱweȱcanȱcertainlyȱaffirmȱthatȱthe poetȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱbentȱonȱpresentingȱaȱmostȱsomberȱpictureȱofȱmurder,ȱwar,ȱand massiveȱslaughter.ȱHeȱalsoȱrevealsȱaȱconsiderableȱinterestȱinȱtheȱuniqueȱandȱmost powerfulȱ valueȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Butȱ heȱ sorrowfullyȱ reflectsȱ uponȱ theȱ socialȱ and politicalȱ constraintsȱ thatȱ canȱ destroyȱ evenȱ theȱ strongestȱ bondsȱ ofȱ loveȱ and friendship.ȱThat,ȱinȱfact,ȱrepresentsȱtheȱtrueȱtragedyȱofȱtheȱNibelungenlied,ȱifȱnotȱof theȱheroicȱageȱatȱlarge.ȱWeȱwouldȱfindȱmanyȱparallelsȱtoȱthisȱphenomenonȱalready inȱ Homer’sȱ Iliadȱ orȱ inȱ Virgil’sȱ Aeneid,ȱ butȱ thatȱ isȱ beyondȱ theȱ paleȱ ofȱ our investigationȱhere.ȱ

39

WernerȱHoffmann,ȱ“DasȱNibelungenliedȱ–ȱEposȱoderȱRoman?ȱPositionenȱundȱPerspektivenȱder Forschung,”ȱ Nibelungenliedȱ undȱ Klage:ȱ Sageȱ undȱ Geschichte,ȱ Strukturȱ undȱ Gattung.ȱ Passauer Nibelungengesprächeȱ1985,ȱed.ȱFritzȱPeterȱKnappȱ(Heidelberg:ȱCarlȱWinter,ȱ1987),ȱ124–51;ȱseeȱalso Fritzȱ Peterȱ Knapp,ȱ “Tragoediaȱ undȱ Planctus:ȱ Derȱ Eintrittȱ desȱ Nibelungenliedesȱ inȱ dieȱ Weltȱ der litterati,”ȱibid.,ȱ152–70.

Chapterȱ10 AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo (UniversityȱofȱExeter)

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱof Castile:ȱImagesȱofȱInteractionȱBetweenȱtheȱSacredȱand SpiritualȱWorldsȱofȱThirteenthȬCenturyȱIberia1

Friendshipȱhasȱalwaysȱbeenȱaȱmultifacetedȱsubjectȱaffectingȱseveralȱspheresȱof humanȱlife,ȱtheȱinterpretationȱandȱvalueȱofȱwhichȱhaveȱevolvedȱandȱtransformed inȱtimeȱandȱspaces.ȱDuringȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱtheȱpredominantȱChristianȱmentality playedȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ roleȱ inȱ establishingȱ theȱ rulesȱ accordingȱ toȱ whichȱ both personalȱandȱemotionalȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱindividuals,ȱandȱtheȱlinksȱbetween humansȱandȱtheȱsupernatural,ȱwereȱforged.2ȱConsideringȱthis,ȱtheȱpresentȱstudy willȱfocusȱonȱaȱtopicȱlargelyȱunexplored,ȱtheȱmedievalȱIberianȱinterpretationȱof friendship,ȱwhichȱwillȱbeȱexaminedȱthroughȱtheȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱthirteenthȬcentury productionȱascribedȱtoȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile’sȱscriptorium.ȱInȱparticular,ȱspecial emphasisȱwillȱbeȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱMarianȱcollectionȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría

1

2

ThisȱchapterȱhasȱbeenȱelaboratedȱwithinȱtheȱtheoreticalȱframeȱofȱtheȱresearchȱprojectȱElȱejercicio delȱpoderȱenȱlosȱreinosȱdeȱLeónȱyȱCastillaȱenȱlaȱEdadȱMedia:ȱideología,ȱdiscursoȱyȱestructurasȱpolíticas (siglosȱXI–XIII)ȱ(JuntaȱdeȱCastillaȱyȱLeón,ȱSA085A08). FriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldineȱ(Stroud:ȱSutton,ȱ1999);ȱTheȱOldeȱDaunce:ȱLove, Friendship,ȱSexȱandȱMarriageȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱWorld,ȱed.ȱRobertȱEdwardsȱandȱStephenȱSpector.ȱSuny SeriesȱinȱMedievalȱStudiesȱ(Albany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYork,ȱ1991);ȱReginaldȱHyatte,ȱThe ArtsȱofȱFriendship:ȱTheȱIdealizationȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱRenaissanceȱLiterature.ȱBrillȇs StudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ50ȱ(LeidenȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱE.J.ȱBrill,ȱ1994);ȱGerdȱAlthoff,ȱFamily, Friendsȱ andȱ Followers:ȱ Theȱ Politicalȱ Importanceȱ ofȱ Groupȱ Bondsȱ inȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ trans. ChristopherȱCarrollȱ(WissenschaftlicheȱBuchgesellschaft:ȱDarmstadt,ȱ1990;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ2004).

446

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

(henceforthȱCSM),ȱtogetherȱwithȱseveralȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱlegalȱcorpusȱofȱtheȱSiete Partidasȱ(henceforthȱSP).3 Significantly,ȱinȱtheȱCSMȱtheȱtypeȱofȱfriendshipȱexperiencedȱbetweenȱsecularȱand sacredȱfiguresȱclearlyȱresemblesȱmoreȱpragmaticȱagreementsȱandȱitȱgoesȱbeyond theȱparametersȱandȱformulaeȱinheritedȱfromȱbothȱclassicalȱeasternȱandȱwestern traditionsȱ presenting,ȱ instead,ȱ someȱ undeniableȱ Alfonsineȱ peculiarities. Nonetheless,ȱitȱcannotȱbeȱdeniedȱthatȱsomeȱofȱtheseȱideasȱbearȱtheȱunmistakable markȱofȱtheseȱclassicalȱphilosophicalȱtraditions.4ȱAristotle’sȱ(384ȱB.C.E.–322ȱB.C.E.) EthicaȱEudemeaȱandȱEthicaȱNicomachea,ȱwhichȱreachedȱtheȱIberianȱPeninsulaȱinȱ1240, whenȱHermanȱelȱAlemánȱtranslatedȱAverroes’sȱcommentaryȱfromȱArabicȱtoȱLatin, wereȱparticularlyȱinfluentialȱinȱshapingȱtheȱAlfonsineȱinterpretationȱofȱfriendship.5 AccordingȱtoȱAristotle,ȱfriendshipȱasȱphiliaȱwasȱrelatedȱwithȱΚϾΗ΍Ζȱ(physis,ȱnature), sinceȱmanȱwasȱconsideredȱtoȱbeȱnaturallyȱendowedȱwithȱhumanȱgenerosityȱwhich spontaneouslyȱcompelledȱhimȱtoȱloveȱothers.6ȱTherefore,ȱfriendshipȱwasȱregarded asȱaȱnecessity,ȱwithoutȱwhichȱmanȱcouldȱnotȱachieveȱanyȱhappiness.7ȱAȱfriendȱwas 3

4

5

6

7

Alfonsoȱ X,ȱ Cantigasȱ deȱ Santaȱ María,ȱ ed.ȱ Walterȱ Mettman.ȱ Clásicosȱ Castalia,ȱ 3ȱ vols.ȱ (Madrid: Castalia,ȱ1986–1988);ȱLasȱsieteȱpartidasȱdelȱReyȱdonȱAlfonsoȱelȱSabio:ȱcotejadasȱconȱvariosȱcodicesȱantiguos porȱlaȱRealȱAcademiaȱdeȱlaȱHistoriaȱ(Madrid:ȱImprentaȱReal,ȱ1807);ȱTheȱSieteȱPartidas,ȱed.ȱRobertȱI. Burns,ȱtrans.ȱSamuelȱParsonsȱScott.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeries,ȱ5ȱvols.ȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱof PennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ2000);ȱSongsȱofȱHolyȱMaryȱofȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱtheȱWise:ȱAȱTranslationȱofȱtheȱCantigas deȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱKathleenȱKulpȬHill,ȱwithȱanȱintroductionȱbyȱConnieȱL.ȱScarborough.ȱMedieval &ȱRenaissanceȱTextsȱ&ȱStudies,ȱ173ȱ(Tempe,ȱAZ:ȱArizonaȱCenterȱforȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissance Studies,ȱ2000). DavidȱKonstan,ȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱClassicalȱWorld.ȱKeyȱThemesȱinȱAncientȱHistoryȱ(Cambridge: Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1997),ȱ 5–6,ȱ 28–31;ȱ “Greekȱ Friendship,”ȱ Theȱ Americanȱ Journalȱ of Philologyȱ117.1ȱ(1996):ȱ71–94;ȱGabrielȱHerman,ȱRitualizedȱFriendshipȱandȱtheȱGreekȱCityȱ(Cambridge: Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1987),ȱ 38;ȱ Paulȱ Millett,ȱ Lendingȱ andȱ Borrowingȱ inȱ Ancientȱ Athens (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ120–21;ȱHellenisticȱPhilosophy: Introductoryȱ Readings,ȱ ed.ȱ Bradȱ Inwoodȱ andȱ Lloydȱ P.ȱ Gerson,ȱ 2ndȱ ed.ȱ (Indianapolis:ȱ Hackett Publishing,ȱ1988;ȱIndianapolisȱandȱCambridgeȱHackettȱPublishing,ȱ1997);ȱLynetteȱG.ȱMitchell, Greeksȱ Bearingȱ Gifts:ȱ Theȱ Publicȱ Useȱ ofȱ Privateȱ Relationshipsȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ World,ȱ 435–323ȱ B.C. (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997);ȱAspectsȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱGrecoȬ Romanȱ World:ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ aȱ Conferenceȱ Heldȱ atȱ theȱ Seminarȱ Fürȱ Alteȱ Geschichte,ȱ Heidelberg,ȱ on 10–11thȱJune,ȱ2000,ȱed.ȱMichaelȱPeachin.ȱJournalȱofȱRomanȱArchaeology,ȱSupplementaryȱSeries, 43ȱ(Portsmouth,ȱRI:ȱJournalȱofȱRomanȱArchaeology,ȱ2001). Aristotle,ȱEthicaȱEudemea,ȱtrans.ȱM.ȱWoods,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992);ȱEthica Nicomachea,ȱ trans.ȱ Davidȱ Rossȱ (Oxford:ȱ Oxfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1980).ȱ Hermanȱ elȱ Alemán probablyȱtranslatedȱAverroes’ȱcommentaryȱinȱtheȱmonasteryȱofȱtheȱSantísimaȱTrinidad,ȱasȱstated inȱtheȱfifteenthȬcenturyȱItinerariumȱHispanicumȱbyȱJerónimoȱMonetarius:ȱ“deȱmonasterioȱsancte Trinitatisȱ[ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱinȱhocȱlocoȱtraductusȱestȱliberȱethicorumȱetȱaddicioȱAverrois,ȱ utȱ inȱ fineȱlibri ethicorumȱ Averroisȱ scriptumȱ est.”ȱ Hieronymusȱ Münzer,ȱ Itinerariumȱ Hispanicum,ȱ ed.ȱ Ludwig Pfandl,ȱRevueȱHispaniqueȱ48ȱ(1920):ȱ1–178;ȱhereȱ121. PaulȱSchollmeier,ȱOtherȱSelves:ȱAristotleȱonȱPersonalȱandȱPoliticalȱFriendship.ȱSunyȱSeriesȱinȱEthical Theoryȱ(Albany,ȱNY:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress,ȱ1994).ȱ Nancyȱ Sherman,ȱ “Aristotleȱ onȱ Friendshipȱ andȱ Sharedȱ Life,”ȱ Philosophyȱ andȱ Phenomenological Researchȱ 47ȱ (1987):ȱ 589–613;ȱ Lorraineȱ Smithȱ Pangle,ȱ Aristotleȱ andȱ theȱ Philosophyȱ ofȱ Friendship (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003).

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

447

“theȱotherȱself,”ȱaȱphysicallyȱautonomousȱindividualȱwhoȱwasȱconnectedȱtoȱhis friendȱbyȱsharingȱwithȱhimȱaȱsingleȱsoul.8ȱ SuchȱinterpretationȱgraduallyȱchangedȱwithȱtheȱearlyȱStoics,ȱSenecaȱ(4ȱB.C.E.–65 C.E.),ȱ Ciceroȱ (ca.ȱ 106ȱ B.C.E.–43ȱ B.C.E.),ȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ transitionȱ fromȱ theȱ Roman Republicȱ(509ȱB.C.E.–27ȱB.C.E.)ȱtoȱtheȱEmpire,ȱwhenȱfriendshipȱcoincidedȱwith patronage.9ȱWithȱtheȱadventȱofȱChristianity,ȱtheȱFathersȱofȱtheȱChurchȱelaborated newȱ theoriesȱ aimedȱ atȱ providingȱ aȱ divineȱ justificationȱ forȱ theȱ worldȱ andȱ for nature.10ȱ Interestingly,ȱ afterȱ aȱ substantialȱ chronologicalȱ gap,ȱ thisȱ topicȱ was readdressedȱonlyȱinȱtheȱsixthȱcentury,ȱwhenȱIsidoreȱofȱSevilleȱ(ca.ȱ562–636)ȱtried toȱcombineȱtheȱpaganȱandȱChristianȱthoughtsȱbyȱdefiningȱaȱfriendȱasȱtheȱguardian ofȱtheȱsoul.11ȱFurtherȱreflectionsȱonȱfriendshipȱappearedȱinȱEuropeȱinȱtheȱeleventh andȱtwelfthȱcenturies,ȱwhen,ȱwithȱtheȱdisclosureȱofȱtheȱparadigmȱofȱsignsȱand representationsȱattributedȱtoȱfriendship,ȱitȱwasȱbelievedȱthatȱbetweenȱtheȱpure feelingȱ andȱ itsȱ publicȱ accomplishmentȱ thereȱ wasȱ onlyȱ anȱ apparentȱ separation, whichȱwasȱovercomeȱinȱpractice.12 8

9

10

11

12

Aristotle,ȱEthica.ȱNicomachea,ȱ1166a:ȱ31;ȱEthicaȱEudemea,ȱ1245a:ȱ30.ȱMoreover,ȱAristotleȱcreatedȱa threefoldȱ analyticalȱ framework–theȱ good,ȱ theȱ usefulȱ andȱ theȱ pleasant–toȱ catalogueȱ allȱ the potentialȱoutcomesȱofȱphilia.ȱInȱtheȱRhetoricȱ(1359b:2–17)ȱAristotleȱalsoȱlistedȱallȱtheȱcharacteristics thatȱaȱmanȱshouldȱpossessȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱregardedȱasȱaȱfriend,ȱwhichȱcontingenciesȱdroveȱmenȱto joinȱtogetherȱandȱwhich,ȱinstead,ȱturnedȱthemȱintoȱenemies.ȱHeȱalsoȱpresentedȱaȱsortȱofȱtransitive ruleȱofȱfriendshipȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱaȱfriend’sȱfriendȱisȱone’sȱownȱally,ȱasȱwellȱasȱaȱfriend’s enemyȱisȱinevitablyȱone’sȱownȱfoe.ȱHisȱmeditationȱonȱtheȱsubjectȱwentȱfurtherȱandȱitȱdrewȱupon theȱcharacteristicsȱwhichȱindividualsȱshouldȱpossessȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱfriends,ȱwhich featuresȱtheyȱshouldȱhaveȱinȱcommonȱandȱhowȱmanyȱofȱthemȱcouldȱclaimȱthatȱposition. DiogenesȱLaërtius,ȱTheȱLivesȱandȱOpinionsȱofȱEminentȱPhilosophers,ȱtrans.ȱCharles.ȱD.ȱYonge.ȱBohnȇs ClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ43ȱ(London:ȱHenryȱG.ȱBohn,ȱ1853),ȱ7–33;ȱTopicsȱinȱStoicȱPhilosophy,ȱed.ȱKaterina Ierodiakonouȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ181;ȱSeneca,ȱAdȱLuciliumȱepistulaeȱmorales (Oxford:ȱClarendon,ȱ1965),ȱ9.5–6;ȱKarlȱJuliusȱHolzknecht,ȱLiteraryȱPatronageȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges (NewȱYork:ȱOctagonȱBooks,ȱ1966);ȱBarbaraȱK.ȱGold,ȱLiteraryȱPatronageȱinȱGreeceȱandȱRomeȱ(Chapel HillȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱNorthȱCarolinaȱPress,ȱ1987);ȱRichardȱP.ȱSeller,ȱPersonalȱPatronage Underȱ theȱ Earlyȱ Empireȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1989);ȱ Miguelȱ RodríguezȬ Pantoja,ȱ“ConȱCicerónȱporȱlosȱcaminosȱ(zigzagieantes)ȱdeȱlaȱamistad,”ȱAnuarioȱFilosóficoȱ34ȱ(2001): 433–62. PhilippeȱDelhaye,ȱChristianȱPhilosophyȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱtrans.ȱS.ȱJ.ȱTesterȱ(London:ȱBurnsȱ& Oates,ȱ1960);ȱMaryȱDorothea,ȱ“CiceroȱandȱSaintȱAmbroseȱonȱFriendship,”ȱTheȱClassicalȱJournalȱ43 (1948):ȱ 219–22;ȱ Eoinȱ G.ȱ Cassidy,ȱ “Heȱ Whoȱ Hasȱ Friendsȱ Canȱ Haveȱ Noȱ Friend:ȱ Classicalȱ and Christianȱ Perspectivesȱ onȱ theȱ Limitsȱ toȱ Friendship,”ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Europe,ȱ ed.ȱ Julian Haseldine,ȱ45–67;ȱMarieȱAquinasȱMcNamara,ȱFriendshipȱinȱSaintȱAugustine.ȱStudiaȱFriburgensia, Newȱ Series,ȱ 20ȱ (Fribourg,ȱ Switzerland:ȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1958);ȱ Carolinneȱ White,ȱ Christian FriendshipȱinȱtheȱFourthȱCenturyȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1992);ȱDonaldȱX.ȱBurt, FriendshipȱandȱSociety:ȱAnȱIntroductionȱtoȱAugustine’sȱPracticalȱPhilosophyȱ(GrandȱRapids,ȱMI:ȱW.ȱB. Eerdmans,ȱ1999). IsidoriȱHispalensisȱSententiae,ȱed.ȱPierreȱCazierȱ(Turnholti:ȱBrepols,ȱ1998);ȱhereȱSententiarumȱLibri III,ȱXXX,ȱ30.2b. JeanȱClaudeȱSchmitt,ȱLaȱRaisonȱdesȱgestesȱdansȱl’occidentȱmédiéval.ȱBibliotheъqueȱdesȱHistoiresȱ(Paris: Gallimard,ȱ1990);ȱJohnȱA.ȱBurrow,ȱGesturesȱandȱLooksȱinȱMedievalȱNarrativeȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ2009);ȱBenedicteȱSère,ȱ“Deȱlaȱvéritéȱenȱamitié.ȱUneȱphénoménologieȱmédiévale

448

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

FriendshipsȱinȱMedievalȱEurope:ȱExploringȱtheȱCaseȱofȱtheȱ IberianȱPeninsula InȱtheȱIberianȱmedievalȱcontextȱtheȱtermȱamistadȱ(friendship)ȱwasȱrecurrentlyȱused asȱaȱsynecdocheȱtoȱindicateȱnumerousȱandȱdifferentȱrelationships,ȱamongȱwhich wereȱspiritualȱandȱsensualȱlove,ȱkinshipȱandȱcompanionship,ȱformalȱandȱprivate alliances,ȱpactsȱofȱmutualȱsupport,ȱasȱwellȱasȱanyȱritualizedȱformȱofȱbrotherhood. Oneȱofȱtheȱearliestȱscholarsȱtoȱadoptȱanȱhistoricalȱandȱsociologicalȱapproachȱto defineȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱwasȱEduardoȱdeȱHinojosa,ȱwhoȱpointedȱoutȱtheȱstrict connectionȱ existingȱ betweenȱ friendship,ȱ peace,ȱ securityȱ andȱ treaty,ȱ whichȱ he regardedȱasȱpartsȱofȱaȱwiderȱrangeȱofȱagreementsȱincludingȱhermandades,ȱamizdades andȱfraternitas.13ȱMostȱofȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱwereȱestablishedȱinȱorderȱtoȱachieve materialȱ andȱ commercialȱ profits.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ onȱ severalȱ occasions,ȱ theyȱ also representedȱaȱsocialȱtoolȱofȱintegrationȱandȱprotection.ȱWithȱthisȱinȱmind,ȱitȱmay beȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ theȱ alliancesȱ signedȱ inȱ medievalȱ Iberiaȱ rotated aroundȱ twoȱ mainȱ points:ȱ first,ȱ theȱ communityȱ ofȱ properties,ȱ profitsȱ and inheritances;ȱ secondly,ȱ theȱ moralȱ andȱ pragmaticȱ dutyȱ ofȱ mutualȱ defenceȱ and protection.14ȱConsideringȱthis,ȱitȱmightȱbeȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱIberianȱsituationȱdidȱnot differȱexcessivelyȱfromȱthatȱexperiencedȱelsewhereȱinȱEurope,ȱsinceȱfriendshipȱwas perceivedȱ asȱ aȱ pactumȱ amiciarum,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ aȱ socialȱ agreementȱ aimedȱ at protectingȱbothȱpublicȱpeaceȱandȱtheȱconstitutedȱorder.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ historical,ȱ juridical,ȱ religiousȱ andȱ literaryȱ sources proceedingȱ fromȱ medievalȱ centralȱ Europeȱ (mainlyȱ Franceȱ andȱ Germany) friendshipȱwasȱregardedȱasȱaȱcontractualȱlinkȱendowedȱwithȱutilitarianȱgoals.15ȱIt

13

14 15

duȱ sentimentȱ dansȱ lesȱ commentairesȱ deȱ l’Éthiqueȱ àȱ Nicomaque:ȱ (XIIIe–XVeȱ siècle),”ȱ Revue Historiqueȱ636ȱ(2005):ȱ793–848;ȱhereȱ800.ȱAboutȱtheȱscholasticȱperiod:ȱJohnȱM.ȱFinnis,ȱAquinas: Moral,ȱPolitical,ȱandȱLegalȱTheory.ȱFoundersȱofȱModernȱPoliticalȱandȱSocialȱThoughtȱ(NewȱYork:ȱOxford UniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ227;ȱThomasȱAquinas,ȱSummaȱTheologiae:ȱLatinȱTextȱandȱEnglishȱTranslation, Introductions,ȱNotes,ȱAppendicesȱandȱGlossariesȱ(London:ȱBlackfriarsȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱEyreȱ& Spottiswoode,ȱ1964–1981),ȱI–IIȱq.ȱ99ȱa.ȱ2c. EduardoȱdeȱHinojosaȱyȱNaveros,ȱ“LaȱfraternidadȱartificialȱenȱEspaña,”ȱRevistaȱdeȱArchivos,ȱMuseos yȱ Bibliotecasȱ 13ȱ (1905):ȱ 1–18;ȱ publishedȱ alsoȱ inȱ Obras.ȱ T.ȱ I.ȱ Estudiosȱ deȱ investigaciónȱ (Madrid: Ministerioȱ deȱ Justiciaȱ yȱ CSIC,ȱ 1948),ȱ 259–78.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Eduardoȱ deȱ Hinojosaȱ yȱ Naverosȱ and FranciscoȱTomaыsȱValiente,ȱElȱelementoȱgermánicoȱenȱelȱderechoȱespañolȱ(Madrid:ȱMarcialȱPons,ȱ1993), 380.ȱTermsȱsuchȱasȱfides,ȱpax,ȱfoedusȱandȱotherȱvariantsȱalsoȱappeared,ȱsinceȱfriendshipȱwasȱnot alwaysȱstrictlyȱdefinedȱasȱsuch.ȱHuguetteȱLegros,ȱ“Leȱvocabulaireȱdeȱl’amitiéȱetȱsonȱévolution sémantiqueȱauȱcoursȱduȱXIIȱsiècle,”ȱCahiersȱdeȱLinguistiqueȱHispaniqueȱMédiévaleȱ23ȱ(1980):ȱ131–39. Hinojosa,ȱObras,ȱ257–66. MarcȱBloch,ȱFeudalȱSociety,ȱtrans.ȱL.ȱA.ȱManyon,ȱ2ȱvols.,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(London:ȱRoutledgeȱ&ȱKeganȱPaul, 1965);ȱ Georgeȱ Duby,ȱ Theȱ Threeȱ Orders:ȱ Feudalȱ Societyȱ Imagined,ȱ trans.ȱ byȱ Arthurȱ Goldhammer (ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1980);ȱLoveȱandȱMarriageȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges (Chicago:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 1994);ȱ Adamȱ Kosto,ȱ Makingȱ Agreementsȱ inȱ Medieval Catalonia:ȱPower,ȱOrder,ȱandȱtheȱWrittenȱWord,ȱ1000–1200ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress, 2001);ȱMedievalȱConceptsȱofȱtheȱPast:ȱRitual,ȱMemory,ȱHistoriography,ȱed.ȱGerdȱAlthoff,ȱJohannes

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

449

wasȱ consideredȱ toȱ beȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ privilegedȱ andȱ strongestȱ socialȱ bonds togetherȱwithȱkinship,ȱconsanguinitas,ȱgodfatherhoodȱandȱfeudalȱrelationships,ȱand itȱwasȱdefinedȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱcertainȱpreȬexistingȱcompanionshipsȱofȱarms.16 Asȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ fact,ȱ kinshipȱ andȱ familyȱ providedȱ theȱ protectionȱ universally requiredȱagainstȱhostilityȱandȱviolence;ȱtherefore,ȱfriendship,ȱaȱsimilarȱsocialȱbond, alsoȱassumedȱanȱenormousȱimportanceȱbothȱasȱaȱprivateȱandȱaȱpoliticalȱlink.17ȱ However,ȱ asȱ Prietoȱ Bancesȱ suggests,ȱ aȱ distinctionȱ betweenȱ theȱ conceptsȱ of friendshipȱandȱallianceȱshouldȱbeȱmade,ȱsinceȱtheyȱwereȱstringentlyȱdependent althoughȱnotȱperfectlyȱcoincident:ȱ ȱ

.ȱ.ȱ.ȱperoȱlaȱpazȱesȱdiversaȱsegúnȱsuȱorigen;ȱhayȱpazȱnacidaȱdelȱamorȱyȱpazȱnacidaȱdel interésȱ mutuoȱ oȱ deȱ laȱ violencia,ȱ yȱ aȱ estasȱ distintasȱ pacesȱ correspondenȱ amistades distintas;ȱenȱelȱprimerȱcasoȱtendremosȱlaȱamistadȱnatural,ȱaristotélica;ȱenȱelȱsegundo, laȱamistadȱpactada,ȱyȱenȱelȱterceroȱlaȱamistadȱimpuesta.18 [ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱbutȱpeaceȱisȱdifferentȱaccordingȱtoȱitsȱorigin;ȱthereȱisȱpeaceȱbornȱfromȱlove,ȱpeace originatedȱfromȱmutualȱinterestȱandȱpeaceȱcreatedȱbyȱviolence;ȱandȱdifferentȱkindsȱof friendshipȱcorrespondȱtoȱtheseȱdifferentȱkindsȱofȱpeace;ȱinȱtheȱfirstȱcase,ȱweȱwillȱhave naturalȱfriendship,ȱtheȱAristotelianȱone;ȱinȱtheȱsecondȱcase,ȱanȱagreedȱfriendship,ȱand inȱtheȱthirdȱcase,ȱanȱimposedȱfriendship.]

TwoȱotherȱcrucialȱaspectsȱofȱtheȱIberianȱinterpretationȱwhichȱconformedȱtoȱaȱmore generalȱ Europeanȱ perspectiveȱ areȱ theȱ adoptionȱ ofȱ theȱ vocabularyȱ andȱ codeȱ of friendshipȱ toȱ describeȱ vassalicȱ relationships,ȱ andȱ theȱ semanticȱ coincidence betweenȱtheȱtermsȱamorȱ(love)ȱandȱamicitiaȱ(friendship).ȱTheȱfirstȱpointȱwillȱbe exemplifiedȱ byȱ theȱ followingȱ example,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ beenȱ extrapolatedȱ fromȱ a thirteenthȬcenturyȱpoemȱdepictingȱCharlemagne’sȱmourningȱforȱhisȱfriendȱand vassalȱRoland’sȱdemise: Tantoȱbuenoȱamjgoȱuosȱmeȱsoljadesȱganare, Porȱuuestraȱamorȱariba,ȱmuychosȱmeȱsoljanȱamare.19 [ThanksȱtoȱyouȱIȱgainedȱveryȱgoodȱfriends, becauseȱbyȱlovingȱyouȱfirst,ȱtheyȱalsoȱlovedȱme.]

16

17 18

19

Fried,ȱPatrickȱJ.ȱGeary.ȱPublicationsȱofȱtheȱGermanȱHistoricalȱInstituteȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge UniversityȱPress;ȱWashington,ȱDC:ȱGermanȱHistoricalȱInstitute,ȱ2002);ȱAlthoff,ȱFamily,ȱFriendsȱand Followers. GeorgeȱFenwickȱJones,ȱTheȱEthosȱofȱtheȱ“SongȱofȱRoland”ȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱPressȱ1963), 143. MedievalȱConceptsȱofȱtheȱPast,ȱed.ȱAlthoff,ȱ71–88. PrietoȱBances,ȱ“LosȱamigosȱenȱelȱfueroȱdeȱOviedo,”ȱAnuarioȱdeȱHistoriaȱdelȱDerechoȱEspañolȱ23 (1963):ȱ203–46. Textosȱlingüísticosȱdelȱmedioevoȱespañol,ȱed.ȱDouglasȱJ.ȱGiffordȱandȱFredrickȱW.ȱHodcroft,ȱ2ndȱed. (Oxford:ȱDolphinȱBookȱCo.,ȱ1966),ȱ147.

450

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

Evidently,ȱalongsideȱtheȱemotionalȱexperienceȱsuggestedȱbyȱtheȱwordȱamor,ȱsome traditionalȱclichésȱpersisted,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱinheritanceȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱtheȱkingȱhas gainedȱ throughȱ hisȱ friend’sȱ deeds,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ companionȱ ofȱ his friend’sȱfriendsȱandȱenemyȱofȱhisȱfriend’sȱfoes. Asȱ farȱ asȱ theȱ secondȱ aspectȱ isȱ concerned,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ generalȱ medieval perspectiveȱtheȱrelationshipsȱofȱamorȱandȱamistadȱhadȱveryȱlooselyȬdefinedȱborders, atȱleastȱfromȱaȱpurelyȱlexicalȱpointȱofȱview.ȱThisȱrenderedȱanyȱattemptȱatȱaȱclear definitionȱandȱclassificationȱveryȱdifficultȱtoȱundertakeȱsinceȱ“loveȱbetweenȱman andȱwomanȱwasȱexpressedȱinȱtermsȱofȱfriendship,ȱandȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱman andȱmanȱwasȱexpressedȱinȱtermsȱofȱlove.”20ȱInȱmedievalȱFrench,ȱforȱinstance,ȱamor signifiedȱbothȱ“amour”ȱandȱ“amitié.”21ȱTheȱsameȱpolyvalentȱconnotationsȱofȱamare areȱ noticeableȱ alsoȱ inȱ theȱ vernacularȱ Italian.22ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ aȱ neaterȱ separation mightȱ beȱ envisagedȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ medievalȱ Latinȱ productionȱ inȱ whichȱ amicitia, thoughȱdefinedȱasȱbothȱaȱpersonalȱandȱprivateȱlink,ȱwasȱregardedȱasȱaȱbondȱmuch strongerȱthanȱlove,ȱsinceȱ“itaqueȱamicitiaȱsemperȱprodest,ȱamorȱetiamȱaliquando noce”ȱ(whereasȱfriendshipȱisȱalwaysȱworthy,ȱloveȱcanȱsometimesȱcauseȱharm).23 Similarly,ȱinȱmedievalȱCastilianȱamigoȱandȱamigaȱwereȱfrequentlyȱadoptedȱtoȱdefine thoseȱwhoȱwereȱlinkedȱinȱaȱsexualȱorȱamorousȱrelationship.ȱ However,ȱasȱPadenȱhasȱclaimedȱexaminingȱtheȱversesȱofȱtheȱcantigasȱdeȱamor, cantigasȱ deȱ amigo,ȱ andȱ cantigasȱ d’escarnhoȱ eȱ deȱ maldizer,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ the courtlyȱ formulaeȱ hadȱ aȱ strikingȱ correspondenceȱ inȱ theirȱ mirrorȬlikeȱ vassalatic rituals,ȱtheȱwideȱrangeȱofȱsemanticȱconnotationsȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱtermȱamigoȱwent beyondȱ theȱ politicalȱ andȱ amorousȱ implicationsȱ whichȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ lordȱ usedȱ to 20

21 22

23

GarvaseȱMathew,ȱ“IdealsȱofȱFriendship,”ȱPatternsȱofȱLoveȱandȱCourtesy,ȱEssaysȱinȱMemoryȱofȱC.ȱS. Lewis,ȱ ed.ȱ Johnȱ Lawlorȱ (London:ȱ Edwardȱ Arnold,ȱ 1966),ȱ 45–53;ȱ hereȱ 46;ȱ Klausȱ Oschema, “ReflectionsȱonȱLoveȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,”ȱLove,ȱFriendshipȱandȱFaithȱinȱEurope, 1300–1800,ȱ ed.ȱ Lauraȱ Gowing,ȱ Michaelȱ Hunterȱ andȱ Miriȱ Rubinȱ (Basingstokeȱ andȱ Newȱ York: PalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2005),ȱ43–65;ȱAmiȱetȱAmile:ȱchansonȱdeȱgeste,ȱed.ȱPeterȱF.ȱDembowskiȱ(Paris: Champion,ȱ 1969);ȱ Alexanderȱ H.ȱ Krappeȱ “Theȱ Legendȱ ofȱ Amicusȱ andȱ Amelius,”ȱ Theȱ Modern LanguageȱReviewȱ18ȱ(1923):ȱ152–61;ȱEmmaȱHerránȱAlonso,ȱ“«Amicus»ȱoȱlaȱhistoriaȱdeȱlaȱamistad verdadera.ȱOtroȱtestimonioȱpeninsular,”ȱHispanicȱReviewȱ71ȱ(2003):ȱ549–63;ȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx, Operaȱ Omnia,ȱ ed.ȱ Anselmȱ Hosteȱ andȱ Charlesȱ H.ȱ Talbot.ȱ Corpusȱ Christianorumȱ Continuatio Mediaevalis,ȱ1ȱ(Turnhout:ȱBrepols,ȱ1971),ȱPLȱ195;ȱSpiritualȱFriendship:ȱAȱNewȱTranslation,ȱtrans.ȱMark F.ȱWilliamȱ(Londonȱ&ȱToronto:ȱAssociatedȱUniversityȱPresses,ȱ1994);ȱPeterȱdeȱBlois,ȱUnȱTraiteыȱde l’amourȱduȱXIIeȱsieъcle:ȱ(DeȱamicitiaȱchristianaȱetȱdeȱdilectioneȱDeiȱetȱproximi),ȱtrans.ȱMariaȱM.ȱDavy (Paris:ȱBoccard,ȱ1932). Legros,ȱ“Leȱvocabulaireȱdeȱl’amitié,”ȱ131–39. TheȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱDivineȱComedyȱbyȱDanteȱAlighieriȱisȱaȱcaseȱinȱpoint.ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱexamples ofȱfriendshipȱwhichȱappearȱinȱthisȱworkȱlackȱaȱproperȱdefinitionȱandȱtheyȱareȱexplained,ȱinstead, byȱadoptingȱtheȱwordsȱamoreȱandȱamare.ȱForȱaȱdefinitionȱofȱ“amistade”ȱorȱ“amistate”ȱandȱ“amico,” seeȱEnciclopediaȱDantesca,ȱed.ȱAldoȱFerrabino,ȱ5ȱvols.ȱ(Roma:ȱIstitutoȱdellaȱEnciclopediaȱitaliana, 1970–1976),ȱ1:ȱ202–12. FredericȱJ.ȱE.ȱRaby,ȱ“AmorȱandȱAmicitia:ȱAȱMediaevalȱPoem,”ȱSpeculumȱ40ȱ(1965):ȱ599–610;ȱhere 601.ȱTheȱquotationȱisȱattributedȱtoȱSeneca,ȱEpistulaeȱmorales,ȱVIȱ(35).

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

451

bear.24ȱPadenȱarguesȱthatȱinȱtheȱcantigasȱd’amor,ȱtheȱpoeticȱmaleȱvoiceȱaddressesȱhis loverȱusingȱtheȱtitleȱofȱsenhor,ȱwhichȱwasȱaȱfemaleȱappellationȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱlady whoȱ ownedȱ theȱ poet’sȱ heart.ȱ Conversely,ȱ inȱ theȱ cantigasȱ d’amigoȱ theȱ keyȬword whichȱidentifiesȱtheȱgenreȱandȱwhichȱmostȱfrequentlyȱrecursȱisȱamigo,ȱanȱepithet whichȱ theȱ femaleȱ poeticȱ voice—whichȱ isȱ theȱ protagonistȱ inȱ thisȱ case—usesȱ to addressȱherȱcounterpart.ȱWhatȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱremarkedȱuponȱisȱthatȱtheȱtermȱamigo wasȱ used,ȱ inȱ thisȱ context,ȱ asȱ aȱ surrogateȱ forȱ “lord,”ȱ aȱ titleȱ thatȱ theȱ female protagonistȱ wasȱ unableȱ toȱ useȱ toȱ defineȱ herȱ lover,ȱ sinceȱ itȱ wasȱ alreadyȱ the appellationȱ adoptedȱ toȱ nameȱ theȱ king.ȱ Therefore,ȱ amigoȱ wasȱ aȱ polyvalent expression,ȱusedȱtoȱindicateȱtheȱlover,ȱtheȱcompanion,ȱtheȱvassalȱboundedȱbyȱaȱfief, andȱ alsoȱ “aȱ freemanȱ whoȱ hadȱ committedȱ himselfȱ toȱ aȱ lord,ȱ whoȱ enjoysȱ his protectionȱandȱservesȱhimȱasȱhisȱdependent.”25ȱ

AlfonsineȱPerspectives Beforeȱ continuingȱ withȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ variousȱ typologiesȱ ofȱ friendship recognizableȱinȱmedievalȱIberia,ȱandȱinȱparticularȱinȱtheȱworksȱproducedȱinȱthe Alfonsineȱscriptorium,ȱaȱfewȱnotesȱonȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱ(1221–1284)ȱbiographyȱandȱhis productionȱwouldȱbeȱhelpful.26ȱAfterȱinheritingȱtheȱthroneȱofȱCastileȱandȱLeónȱin 1252ȱfromȱhisȱfatherȱFerdinandȱIIIȱ(1199–1252),ȱAlfonso’sȱpoliticalȱactivityȱwas markedȱbyȱtheȱfailureȱofȱhisȱimperialisticȱambitions,ȱtheȱrebellionȱofȱtheȱCastilian noblesȱ inȱ 1272ȱ andȱ theȱ depositionȱ byȱ hisȱ sonȱ Sanchoȱ IVȱ (1258–1295)ȱ inȱ 1282. 24

25

26

WilliamȱD.ȱPaden,ȱ“PrinciplesȱofȱGenericȱClassificationȱinȱtheȱMedievalȱEuropeanȱLyric:ȱTheȱCase ofȱGalicianȬPortuguese,”ȱSpeculumȱ81ȱ(2006):ȱ76–97. JanȱF.ȱNiermeyerȱandȱCoȱvanȱdeȱKieft,ȱMediaeȱLatinitatisȱlexiconȱminus,ȱrev.ȱbyȱJohannesȱW.ȱJ. Burgers,ȱ 2ȱ vols.ȱ (Darmstadt:ȱ Wissenschaftlicheȱ Buchgesellschaft,ȱ 2002),ȱ 1,ȱ 53;ȱ citedȱ inȱ Paden, “PrinciplesȱofȱGenericȱClassification,”ȱ91. ForȱanȱintroductionȱtoȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱbiography,ȱseeȱEvelynȱS.ȱProcter,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile,ȱPatronȱof LiteratureȱandȱLearningȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1951;ȱWestport,ȱCT.:ȱGreenwoodȱPress,ȱ[1980]); AntonioȱBallesterosȬBeretta,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱelȱSabioȱ(Barcelona:ȱSalvat,ȱ1963);ȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱAlfonsoȱX, elȱSabio.ȱTwayneȇsȱWorldȱAuthorsȱSeries,ȱ12:ȱSpainȱ(NewȱYork:ȱTwayneȱPublishers,ȱ1967);ȱAlfonso X,ȱelȱSabio,ȱvida,ȱobraȱyȱépoca,ȱed.ȱJuanȱCarlosȱdeȱMiguelȱRodríguez,ȱAngelaȱMuñozȱFernández, CristinaȱSeguraȱGraiñoȱ(Madrid:ȱSociedadȱEspañolaȱdeȱEstudiosȱMedievales,ȱ1989);ȱEmperorȱof Culture:ȱAlfonsoȱXȱtheȱLearnedȱofȱCastileȱandȱhisȱThirteenthȬCenturyȱRenaissance,ȱed.ȱRobertȱI.ȱBurns. Middleȱ Agesȱ Seriesȱ (Philadelphia:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Pennsylvaniaȱ Pressȱ 1990);ȱ Manuelȱ González Jiménez,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱelȱSabio,ȱ1252–1284.ȱCoronaȱdeȱEspanьa,ȱ2,ȱSerieȱdeȱReyesȱdeȱCastillaȱyȱLeoыn (Palencia:ȱ Editorialȱ Laȱ Olmeda,ȱ 1993);ȱ Alfonsoȱ Xȱ elȱ Sabioȱ (Barcelona:ȱ Ariel,ȱ 2004);ȱ Josephȱ F. O’Callaghan,ȱTheȱLearnedȱKing:ȱTheȱReignȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile.ȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia: UniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1993);ȱid.,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱandȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría:ȱAȱPoetic Biography.ȱTheȱMedievalȱMediterranean,ȱ16ȱ(LeidenȱandȱBoston:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1998);ȱH.ȱSalvador Martínez,ȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱelȱSabio:ȱunaȱbiografía.ȱCroыnicasȱyȱmemoriasȱ(Madrid:ȱEdicionesȱPolifemo, 2003);ȱPeterȱLinehan,ȱSpain,ȱ1157–1300:ȱAȱPartibleȱInheritance.ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱSpainȱ(Malden,ȱMA,ȱand Oxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ2008),ȱ106–214.

452

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

Despiteȱ hisȱ politicalȱ failures,ȱ heȱ was,ȱ byȱ contrast,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ mostȱ activeȱ and notableȱpatronsȱofȱartsȱandȱsciences,ȱdubbedȱforȱthisȱreasonȱ“theȱWise”ȱandȱ“the Learned”ȱ king.ȱ Heȱ supervisedȱ aȱ significantȱ numberȱ ofȱ scientificȱ andȱ literary translationsȱ fromȱ theȱ Arabicȱ intoȱ theȱ vernacularȱ languageȱ ofȱ Castileȱ and patronizedȱ theȱ productionȱ ofȱ otherȱ originalȱ worksȱ ofȱ history,ȱ poetry,ȱ lawȱ and leisure.27ȱAmongȱthemȱtheȱaforementionedȱCSMȱdeserveȱspecialȱattention.ȱThis poeticȱcollection,ȱcomposedȱinȱtheȱvernacularȱGalicianȬPortuguese,ȱisȱestimatedȱto includeȱaboutȱ420ȱcanticles,ȱalbeitȱaȱnumberȱproneȱtoȱvariationȱwithinȱtheȱfour differentȱmanuscriptȱversions.28ȱTheȱCSM,ȱconsideredȱbyȱmanyȱtheȱexpressionȱof Alfonso’sȱ personalȱ devotion,ȱ areȱ admiredȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ exhaustiveȱ exampleȱ of Iberianȱ narrativeȱ andȱ lyricȱ productionȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ theȱ Virgin,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ a milestoneȱinȱmedievalȱmonophonicȱproduction.29ȱItsȱharmoniousȱunicumȱofȱverses, musicȱandȱminiaturesȱgeneratesȱaȱcompleteȱartisticȱandȱreligiousȱproductȱwhich Marcelinoȱ Menéndezȱ yȱ Pelayoȱ definedȱ asȱ theȱ aestheticȱ Bibleȱ ofȱ theȱ thirteenth century,ȱ inȱ whichȱ allȱ theȱ elementsȱ ofȱ medievalȱ art—visual,ȱ melodicȱ and verbal—appearȱtoȱbeȱencyclopaedicallyȱcollected.30 27

28

29

30

Forȱanȱintroduction,ȱseeȱElȱscriptoriumȱalfonsí:ȱ deȱlosȱLibrosȱdeȱastrologíaȱaȱlasȱ‘CantigasȱdeȱSanta María,’ȱ ed.ȱ Jesúsȱ Montoyaȱ Martínezȱ andȱ Anaȱ Domínguezȱ Rodríguezȱ (Madrid:ȱ Complutense Editorial,ȱ1999). Theȱ fourȱ survivingȱ manuscriptsȱ ofȱ theȱ CSMȱ areȱ theȱ following:ȱ Toȱ knownȱ asȱ “Toledoȱ Ms,”ȱ T knownȱasȱ“CódiceȱRico;”ȱFȱknownȱasȱ“FlorenceȱCodex;”ȱandȱEȱ(Escorial)ȱknownȱasȱ“Códiceȱdeȱlos músicos.”ȱForȱaȱclarifyingȱoverviewȱonȱtheȱeditionsȱofȱtheȱCSMȱseeȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed. WalterȱMettman,ȱ3ȱvols.ȱ(Madrid:ȱCastalia,ȱ1986–1988),ȱ1,ȱ7–42;ȱStephenȱParkinson,ȱ“TheȱFirst ReorganizationȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱBulletinȱofȱtheȱCantigueirosȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱ1ȱ(1988): 91–97;ȱValeriaȱBertolucciȱPizzorusso,ȱ“Primoȱcontributoȱall’analisiȱdelleȱvariantiȱredazionaliȱnelle CantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱCobrasȱeȱSon:ȱPapersȱonȱtheȱText,ȱMusicȱandȱManuscriptsȱofȱtheȱ‘Cantigasȱde Santaȱ María,’ȱ ed.ȱ Stephenȱ Parkinsonȱ (Oxford:ȱ Europeanȱ Humanitiesȱ Researchȱ Centreȱ ofȱ the UniversityȱofȱOxford,ȱ2001),ȱ106–18;ȱMarthaȱE.ȱSchaffer,ȱ“Theȱ‘Evolution’ȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSanta María:ȱTheȱRelationshipsȱBetweenȱMSSȱT,ȱFȱandȱE,”ȱCobrasȱeȱSon,ȱ106–18;ȱhereȱ186–213. SeeȱGerardoȱV.ȱHuseby,ȱ“MusicalȱAnalysisȱandȱPoeticȱStructureȱinȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,” FlorilegiumȱHispanicum:ȱMedievalȱandȱGoldenȱAgeȱStudiesȱPresentedȱtoȱDorothyȱClotelleȱClarke,ȱed.ȱJohn S.ȱGearyȱetȱal.ȱ(Madison,ȱWI.:ȱHispanicȱSeminaryȱofȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱ1983),ȱ81–101;ȱHiginio Anglés,ȱLaȱmúsicaȱdeȱlasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱdelȱReyȱAlfonsoȱelȱSabio.ȱ1,ȱFasímilȱdelȱcódiceȱj.b.2ȱde ElȱEscorialȱ(Barcelona:ȱDiputaciónȱProvincialȱdeȱBarcelona,ȱ1964);ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatz,ȱ“HiginioȱAnglés andȱtheȱMelodicȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría:ȱAȱCriticalȱView,”ȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile,ȱthe LearnedȱKingȱ(1221–1284):ȱAnȱInternationalȱSymposium,ȱHarvardȱUniversity,ȱ17ȱNovemberȱ1984,ȱed. FranciscoȱMárquezȬVillanuevaȱandȱCarlosȱAlbertoȱVega.ȱHarvardȱStudiesȱinȱRomanceȱLanguages, 43ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversity,ȱ1990),ȱ46–75;ȱIsmaelȱFernándezȱdeȱlaȱCuesta,ȱ“Claves deȱretóricaȱmusicalȱparaȱlaȱinterpretaciónȱyȱtranscripciónȱdelȱritmoȱdeȱlasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,” Literaturaȱyȱcristiandad:ȱhomenajeȱalȱprofesorȱJesúsȱMontoya,ȱcoord.ȱAntonioȱRafaelȱRubioȱFlores, Maríaȱ Luisaȱ Dañobeitiaȱ Fernández,ȱ Manuelȱ Joséȱ Alonsoȱ Garcíaȱ (Granada:ȱ Universidadȱ de Granada,ȱ 2001),ȱ 685–718;ȱ “Lasȱ Cantigasȱ deȱ Santaȱ María.ȱ Laȱ músicaȱ yȱ suȱ interpretación,”ȱ El scriptoriumȱalfonsí,ȱ347–59;ȱDavidȱWulstan,ȱ“TheȱRhythmicȱOrganizationȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSanta María,”ȱCobrasȱeȱSon,ȱed.ȱStephenȱParkinson,ȱ31–65. RichardȱP.ȱKinkade,ȱ“ScholasticȱPhilosophyȱandȱtheȱArtȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱStudiesȱon theȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱ95–109.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

453

Aȱ degreeȱ ofȱ scholarlyȱ attentionȱ hasȱ beenȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ thornyȱ issuesȱ of authorship,ȱdating,ȱsubjectȱmatters,ȱsourcesȱandȱdiffusionȱofȱtheȱCSM,ȱquestions whichȱinȱpartȱstillȱremainȱunsolved.31ȱTheȱfirstȱproblemȱarisesȱfromȱtheȱattemptȱto dateȱtheȱcollection,ȱforȱwhichȱtheȱadmittedlyȱratherȱtentativeȱdatesȱ1257–1283ȱhave beenȱ acceptedȱ asȱ twoȱ validȱ postȱ andȱ anteȱ quemȱ limits.32ȱ Secondly,ȱ neitherȱ the possibilityȱthatȱAlfonsoȱXȱwasȱtheȱmaterialȱauthorȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱloorsȱ(religious hymnsȱ inȱ praiseȱ ofȱ theȱ Virginȱ insertedȱ everyȱ tenthȱ song),ȱ norȱ thatȱ heȱ was supportedȱbyȱoneȱorȱmoreȱprofessionalȱwritersȱcanȱbeȱexcluded.ȱWhatȱneedsȱtoȱbe borneȱ inȱ mindȱ isȱ thatȱ authorshipȱ andȱ directȱ compositionȱ ofȱ theȱ bookȱ didȱ not necessarilyȱcoincide;ȱinȱfact,ȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱtheȱsovereignȱsupervisedȱthoseȱwho wereȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱmaterialȱcompositionȱofȱtheȱtexts.33ȱTheȱkingȱisȱportrayed inȱpreciselyȱthisȱ“editorial”ȱpositionȱfromȱtheȱoutset,ȱasȱtheȱfirstȱilluminationȱofȱthe CSMȱproves,ȱbyȱdepictingȱhimȱonȱhisȱthrone,ȱdictatingȱtheȱworkȱtoȱaȱgroupȱof scriba,ȱsurroundedȱbyȱmusiciansȱandȱcantorsȱwhoȱseemȱinȱallȱlikelihoodȱaboutȱto performȱ theȱ pieces.34ȱ Alfonsoȱ Xȱ builtȱ upȱ hisȱ troubadourȱ personaȱ throughȱ the personalȱelaborationȱofȱMarianȱhymnsȱandȱtheȱaccountȱofȱeventsȱfromȱwhichȱhe wasȱ rescuedȱ thanksȱ toȱ theȱ Virgin’sȱ aid.35ȱ Theȱ “poetȬking”ȱ usedȱ secular versification,ȱmetricalȱandȱsemanticȱstructuresȱofȱtheȱartȱofȱtroubarȱtoȱworshipȱthe 31

32

33

34

35

WalterȱMettmannȱproposedȱthreeȱlikelyȱconclusions:ȱfirst,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱcantigasȱwereȱwrittenȱbyȱa certainȱ Airasȱ Nunesȱ (whoseȱ nameȱ appearsȱ inȱ MSȱ E,ȱ betweenȱ twoȱ columnsȱ ofȱ CSMȱ 223), collaboratorȬpoetȱ andȱ coordinatorȱ ofȱ theȱ Alfonsineȱ scriptorium.ȱ Aboutȱ theȱ identityȱ ofȱ other possibleȱcollaboratorsȱworkingȱinȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱscriptoriumȱseeȱAntonioȱBallesteros,ȱ“Sevillaȱenȱel sigloȱXIII,”ȱBoletínȱdeȱlaȱRealȱAcademiaȱdeȱlaȱHistoriaȱ66ȱ(1915):ȱ50–53.ȱSeeȱalsoȱWalterȱMettmann, “AlgunasȱobservacionesȱsobreȱlaȱgénesisȱdeȱlaȱcolecciónȱdeȱlasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱyȱsobreȱel problemaȱdelȱautor,”ȱStudiesȱonȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller, 355–66.ȱ Mettman’sȱ secondȱ hypothesisȱ wasȱ thatȱ otherȱ poetsȱ contributedȱ toȱ theȱ elaborationȱ or translationȱ ofȱ theȱ miraclesȱ toȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ overshadowingȱ Nunes’sȱ eminentȱ role.ȱ Third,ȱ the authorshipȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱcannotȱbeȱruledȱoutȱforȱatȱleastȱaȱgroupȱofȱcantigas,ȱnarratedȱinȱtheȱfirst personȱandȱrecountingȱepisodesȱpersonallyȱexperiencedȱbyȱtheȱsovereign,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱeasily highlightedȱbyȱtheirȱstyleȱandȱthemesȱ(CSMȱ169,ȱ180,ȱ200,ȱ209,ȱ279,ȱ300,ȱ360,ȱ401,ȱ406).ȱSeeȱCantigas deȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱWalterȱMettman,ȱ17–20;ȱAnthonyȱJ.ȱCárdenas,ȱ“AȱStudyȱofȱAlfonso’sȱRoleȱin SelectedȱCantigasȱandȱtheȱCastilianȱProsificationȱofȱEscorialȱCodexȱT.I.1,”ȱStudiesȱonȱtheȱCantigas deȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱ253–68;ȱAntonioȱG.ȱSolalinde,ȱ“Intervención deȱAlfonsoȱXȱenȱlaȱredacciónȱdeȱsusȱobras,”ȱRevistaȱdeȱFilologíaȱEspañolaȱ2ȱ(1915):ȱ283–88;ȱJoseph Snow,ȱ“AȱChapterȱinȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱPersonalȱNarrative:ȱTheȱPuertoȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱPoemsȱinȱthe CantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱLaȱCorónicaȱ8ȱ(1979):ȱ10–21. JesúsȱMontoyaȱMartínez,ȱ“AlgunasȱprecisacionesȱacercaȱdeȱlasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱStudies onȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱ374–78. RogerȱD.ȱTinnell,ȱ“AuthorshipȱandȱComposition:ȱMusicȱandȱPoetryȱinȱLasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,” KentuckyȱRomanceȱQuarterlyȱ28ȱ(1981):ȱ189–98;ȱDavidȱWulstan,ȱ“TheȱCompilationȱofȱtheȱCantigas ofȱAlfonsoȱelȱSabio,”ȱCobrasȱyȱSon,ȱed.ȱStephenȱParkinson,ȱ154–85;ȱMontoyaȱMartínez,ȱ“Algunas precisacionesȱacercaȱdeȱlasȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,”ȱ355–86.ȱ MartinȱG.ȱCunningham,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱElȱSabio,ȱCantigasȱdeȱLoorȱ(Dublin:ȱUniversityȱCollegeȱDublin Press,ȱ2000),ȱ17–18. JosephȱSnow,ȱ“TheȱCentralȱRoleȱofȱtheȱTroubadourȱPersonaȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱinȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSanta María,”ȱBulletinȱofȱHispanicȱStudiesȱ56ȱ(1979):ȱ305–16.

454

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

worthiestȱlover–theȱVirginȱMary—whoȱwasȱalsoȱ“theȱexemplificationȱofȱtheȱperfect qualitiesȱ ofȱ womanhood.”36ȱ Theȱ resultȱ isȱ aȱ collectionȱ whichȱ isȱ reveredȱ asȱ the sovereign’sȱspiritualȱandȱ“poeticȱbiography”—asȱO’Callaghanȱhasȱdefinedȱit—as wellȱasȱaȱmodelȱofȱChristianȱandȱmoralȱdevotionȱforȱtheȱreaders.ȱInȱfact,ȱasȱKeller hasȱargued,ȱtheȱAlfonsineȱscriptoriumȱwasȱorientatedȱtowardȱtheȱproductionȱof worksȱ aimedȱ atȱ generatingȱ pleasureȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ spreadingȱ erudition—utileȱ et dulce—toȱbothȱtheȱcourt’sȱmembersȱandȱtheȱlowerȱclasses.37ȱ Significantly,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱmiraclesȱcontainedȱinȱtheȱfirstȱ100ȱsongsȱofȱtheȱCSM wereȱ notȱ newȱ toȱ theȱ Iberianȱ people,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ acknowledgedȱ otherȱ European MarianȱlegendsȱpreviouslyȱdiffusedȱthroughoutȱtheȱPeninsula.ȱWithȱtheȱexpansion ofȱtheȱplanȱofȱtheȱwork—fromȱitsȱoriginalȱ100ȱsongsȱtoȱtheȱfinalȱ400ȱorȱso—which theȱ monarchȱ isȱ believedȱ toȱ haveȱ personallyȱ devised,ȱ theȱ collectionȱ assumedȱ a progressivelyȱincreasingȱIberianȱdimension.38ȱMoreover,ȱelementsȱfromȱtheȱFrench, German,ȱ English,ȱ Portugueseȱ andȱ Islamicȱ traditions—importedȱ byȱ theȱ artists gatheredȱatȱtheȱAlfonsineȱcourt—areȱidentifiableȱthroughoutȱtheȱentireȱcollection.39 TheȱconsiderableȱnumberȱofȱexamplesȱproceedingȱfromȱBiblicalȱreferencesȱandȱthe presenceȱofȱabundantȱhistorical,ȱgeographical,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱfolkloristicȱelements alsoȱcontributedȱtoȱenhanceȱtheȱnarrationȱwithȱaȱrealisticȱtoneȱwhichȱhasȱbeen consideredȱbyȱmodernȱcriticsȱtoȱbeȱaȱpowerfulȱcontributionȱtoȱmodernȱreaders’ abilityȱtoȱunderstand,ȱorȱatȱleastȱtoȱimagine,ȱIberianȱmedievalȱlife.40ȱInterestingly, inȱtheȱCSMȱthereȱisȱnoȱpictureȱofȱtheȱunearthlyȱreality.ȱUnlikeȱtheȱinflamedȱsinful abyssȱandȱtheȱHeavenlyȱcirclesȱexperiencedȱbyȱDanteȱAlighieri,ȱforȱexample,ȱinȱhis metaphysicalȱjourneyȱdescribedȱinȱhisȱDivinaȱCommedia,ȱinȱtheȱCSMȱthereȱisȱno Pindaricȱfly,ȱandȱnoȱaccessȱforȱtheȱreaders/listenersȱtoȱtheȱupperȱspheres;ȱtherefore, theȱinteractionȱofȱtheȱtwoȱworldsȱhasȱonlyȱoneȱwayȬaccess,ȱthatȱisȱtowardȱtheȱlower world.ȱItȱdoesȱnotȱmean,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱsecularȱdimensionȱwasȱtheȱonlyȱone experienced,ȱdreamedȱorȱdescribedȱbyȱmedievalȱsubjects.ȱWithinȱtheȱChristian contextȱ apparitionsȱ ofȱ celestialȱ figuresȱ inȱ theȱ eyesȱ ofȱ humansȱ wereȱ notȱ suchȱ a rarity.ȱTheȱonlyȱsineȱquaȱnonȱelementȱtoȱconnectȱtheȱtwoȱspheresȱwasȱtheȱpresence ofȱsomeȱintermediaryȱcharacters,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱVirgin,ȱtheȱsaintsȱandȱtheȱangels,ȱwho wereȱveryȱoftenȱlabelledȱasȱfriends.

36 37

38

39 40

Keller,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱelȱSabio,ȱ79. Keller,ȱ“TheȱThreefoldȱImpactȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría:ȱVisual,ȱVerbal,ȱandȱMusical,”ȱStudies onȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱ7–33. JosephȱSnow,ȱ“SelfȬConsciousȱReferencesȱandȱtheȱOrganicȱNarrativeȱPatternȱofȱtheȱCantigasȱde SantaȱMaríaȱofȱAlfonsoȱX,”ȱMedievalȱRenaissanceȱandȱFolkloreȱStudiesȱinȱHonourȱofȱJohnȱEstenȱKeller, ed.ȱJosephȱR.ȱJones.ȱHispanicȱMonographs.ȱSerieȱhomenajes,ȱ1ȱ(Newark,ȱDE:ȱJuanȱdeȱlaȱCuesta, 1980),ȱ53–66. Keller,ȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱelȱSabio,ȱ73–74. JohnȱE.ȱKellerȱandȱAnnetteȱGrantȱCash,ȱDailyȱLifeȱDepictedȱinȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría.ȱStudies inȱRomanceȱLanguages,ȱ44ȱ(Lexington,ȱKY:ȱUniversityȱPressȱofȱKentucky,ȱ1998).ȱ

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

455

AlfonsoȱXȱputȱhimselfȱatȱtheȱcentreȱofȱsuchȱconnections;ȱinȱfact,ȱwhileȱbeing regardedȱasȱfriendȱandȱvicarȱofȱGodȱforȱhisȱroyalȱ status,ȱ heȱalsoȱwantedȱtoȱbe regardedȱasȱaȱfriendȱofȱhisȱpeople,ȱwithoutȱdenyingȱtheȱunbridgeableȱgapȱwhich existedȱ betweenȱ them.ȱ Hisȱ works,ȱ withoutȱ omittingȱ theȱ differencesȱ existing betweenȱtheȱvariousȱtypologiesȱofȱrelationships,ȱasȱwellȱasȱbetweenȱtheȱindividuals involved,ȱ outlineȱ aȱ perfectlyȬbalancedȱ systemȱ withinȱ whichȱ theȱ generalȱ and untouchableȱrulesȱofȱfriendshipȱpredominated,ȱalthoughȱinȱsomeȱ casesȱcertain exceptionsȱwereȱallowed.ȱRelyingȱonȱtheseȱpremises,ȱtheȱpresentȱstudyȱseeksȱto demonstrate,ȱmainlyȱthroughȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱtheȱCSM,ȱhowȱtheȱsecularȱtypologies ofȱ friendship,ȱ includingȱ politicalȱ agreements,ȱ vassalicȱ bondsȱ andȱ sensual relationships,ȱfoundȱtheirȱparallelsȱinȱaȱspiritualȱdimensionȱwhereȱevenȱperfectȱand idealȱconnections,ȱhereȱdefinedȱasȱ“spiritualȱfriendships,”ȱwereȱsubjectedȱtoȱthe formulaeȱandȱpragmaticȱrulesȱofȱamicitia.

SpiritualȱFriendship:ȱAȱDefinition FromȱitsȱfirstȱrecordedȱLatinȱuse—spiritualisȱamicitia—foundȱinȱtheȱVenerableȱBede (ca.ȱ672–735),ȱuntilȱitsȱadoptionȱinȱtheȱlaterȱmedievalȱcontext,ȱ“spiritualȱfriendship” hasȱ beenȱ usedȱ toȱ defineȱ theȱ mostȱ desirableȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ humansȱ and God.41ȱInȱmedievalȱIberia,ȱbeyondȱtheȱmoralȱandȱtheologicalȱjustificationsȱforȱthe creationȱofȱsuchȱlinks,ȱthereȱwereȱalsoȱpoliticalȱandȱsocialȱmotivations.ȱSinceȱforȱa longȱperiodȱethnic,ȱlinguisticȱandȱsocialȱboundariesȱwereȱnotȱrigidlyȱenforced, Christianȱbelieversȱtriedȱtoȱsafeguardȱandȱlegitimizeȱtheirȱpositionȱinȱsocietyȱby forgingȱtheirȱidentitiesȱasȱ“amigosȱdeȱDios”ȱandȱantagonistsȱ ofȱtheȱinfidels.ȱIn orderȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱasȱalsoȱconfirmedȱbyȱtheȱlaw,ȱtheyȱresortedȱtoȱtheȱstandardized sacramentalȱritualsȱwhichȱ“facenȱayuntarȱamorȱdeȱhomeȱconȱDios”ȱ(connected God’sȱandȱhumanȱlove;ȱSP,ȱI:IV:VI): ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ todoȱ cristianoȱ debeȱ saberȱ etȱ creerȱ ciertamenteȱ queȱ estaȱ esȱ laȱ creenciaȱ deȱ Dios uerdaderaȱqueȱayuntaȱalȱhomeȱconȱDiosȱporȱamor.ȱEtȱelȱqueȱloȱasiȱcreyereȱesȱverdadero cristiano,ȱetȱelȱqueȱnonȱcreyereȱnonȱpuedeȱserȱsalvoȱninȱamigoȱdeȱDios.ȱ(SPȱI:III:Iȱ) [ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱeveryȱChristianȱshouldȱknowȱandȱtrulyȱbelieveȱthatȱthisȱisȱtheȱgenuineȱCreedȱof GodȱwhichȱunitesȱmanȱandȱGodȱbyȱmeansȱofȱlove.ȱAndȱheȱwhoȱdoesȱsoȱbelieve,ȱisȱa trueȱChristian,ȱandȱheȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱsoȱbelieve,ȱcannotȱbeȱsaved,ȱnorȱisȱheȱaȱfriendȱof God.]

Christianȱ theologyȱ preachedȱ thatȱ humankindȱ couldȱ enterȱ inȱ contactȱ withȱ God thanksȱtoȱtheȱsupportȱgivenȱbyȱsacredȱorȱhumanȱintermediariesȱwhoȱbehavedȱas 41

BrianȱP.ȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity:ȱTheȱMonasticȱExperienceȱ350–1250.ȱCistercianȱStudies Series,ȱ95ȱ(Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1988),ȱ94.

456

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

ministersȱ andȱ performersȱ ofȱ theȱ conventionalȱ rituals.ȱ Atȱ thisȱ pointȱ itȱ is fundamentalȱtoȱclarifyȱwhoȱthoseȱintermediariesȱwereȱandȱtoȱwhatȱextentȱthey mightȱbeȱdefinedȱasȱfriends.ȱThereȱisȱaȱpyramidalȱsegmentationȱwhichȱgoesȱfrom theȱ lowestȱ level,ȱ occupiedȱ byȱ individualsȱ ofȱ differentȱ socialȱ statuses,ȱ toȱ an intermediateȱpositionȱwhereȱtheȱkingȱandȱtheȱPope—vicarsȱofȱGodȱeachȱinȱhisȱown sphere—dwell.ȱAtȱtheȱtopȱtheȱVirginȱstandsȱoutȱfromȱtheȱothers,ȱsubordinatedȱto theȱDivineȱFatherȱonly.ȱAlthoughȱthisȱpatternȱsuggestsȱthatȱitsȱconstituentsȱare rigidlyȱentrenched,ȱinȱfactȱthereȱwasȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱmovingȱfromȱoneȱlevelȱtoȱthe otherȱofȱthisȱhierarchy.ȱForȱexample,ȱitȱwasȱnotȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱhighestȱlocated figuresȱtoȱgoȱthroughȱallȱthoseȱ“steps”ȱofȱintermediation.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱtheȱking’s statusȱisȱemblematic:ȱheȱisȱrepresentedȱsimultaneouslyȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱVirgin’sȱand theȱsaints’ȱclosestȱfriends,ȱbutȱheȱisȱalsoȱconnectedȱtoȱtheȱFatherȱdirectlyȱsinceȱhe isȱHisȱvassalȱandȱenvoy.

GodȱandȱMankind:ȱ“ChristianosȱdeȱDiosȱAmigos” Theȱdefinitionȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱamongȱitsȱvariousȱpolysemousȱimplications, alsoȱincludesȱtheȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱGod,ȱtheȱVirgin,ȱtheȱsaints,ȱtheȱapostlesȱand theȱ angels,ȱ eitherȱ amongȱ themȱ orȱ withȱ theirȱ subordinatedȱ fellows.ȱ Stȱ Thomas Aquinasȱ hadȱ alreadyȱ elaboratedȱ onȱ theȱ definitionȱ ofȱ amicitiaȱ Christianaȱ inȱ his SummaȱTheologiaeȱbyȱstatingȱthatȱ“caritasȱnonȱestȱsimplexȱamor,ȱsedȱhabetȱrationem amicitiaeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(charityȱisȱnotȱmerelyȱlove,ȱbutȱfriendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ).42ȱSuchȱaȱconnection betweenȱ manȱ andȱ Godȱ implied,ȱ besidesȱ pureȱ love,ȱ certainȱ mutualityȱ since “praetereaȱamicitiaȱnonȱestȱsineȱreamatione”ȱ(thereȱisȱnoȱfriendshipȱwithoutȱreturn ofȱ love).43ȱ Clearlyȱ thisȱ statementȱ representsȱ theȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ theȱ previous philosophicalȱtheoriesȱofȱhumanȱunidirectionalȱloveȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱmanȱcould showerȱhisȱaffectionȱonȱworthlessȱorȱinadequateȱsubjectsȱwithoutȱbeingȱrewarded equally.44ȱ Alfonsineȱ lawȱ aboundsȱ withȱ examplesȱ conformingȱ toȱ theseȱ parametersȱ of spiritualȱfriendship.ȱFromȱtheȱoutsetȱofȱBookȱIȱofȱtheȱSP,ȱforȱexample,ȱbothȱthe abstractȱ loveȱ forȱ Godȱ andȱ theȱ farȱ moreȱ pragmaticȱ relationshipsȱ involvingȱ the Churchȱandȱitsȱrepresentativesȱareȱpresentedȱasȱfollows:ȱ“ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdemostróȱDiosȱáȱlos queȱeranȱsusȱamigosȱmuchasȱdeȱsusȱporidadesȱporȱfechoȱetȱporȱsemejanza”ȱ(ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. GodȱrevealedȱmanyȱofȱHisȱsecretsȱdirectlyȱorȱmetaphoricallyȱtoȱHisȱfriends;ȱSP, prologue).ȱGodȱisȱfrequentlyȱdescribedȱasȱtheȱstereotypedȱimageȱofȱtheȱperfect 42

43 44

ThomasȱAquinas,ȱSummaȱTheologiae,ȱed.ȱFathersȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱDominicanȱProvinceȱ(London: Burns,ȱOatesȱ&ȱWashburn,ȱ1920–1924),ȱQ.ȱXXV,ȱart.ȱ2,ȱ310. Aquinas,ȱSummaȱTheologiae,ȱQ.XXIII,ȱart.ȱ1,ȱ262. Theȱ completeȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ charityȱ andȱ friendshipȱ isȱ carriedȱ outȱ inȱ Aquinas,ȱ Summae Theologiae,ȱQQ.XXIII–XLIV,ȱ262–553.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

457

friend,ȱendowedȱwithȱallȱofȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱwhichȱaȱcounterpartȱshouldȱhaveȱin orderȱtoȱmeritȱsuchȱanȱappellation.ȱInȱfact,ȱHeȱisȱloyal,ȱcareful,ȱrespectful,ȱdriven byȱtheȱother’sȱgoodȱandȱprotection,ȱreadyȱtoȱdieȱforȱaȱfriend’sȱsake,ȱasȱHeȱdid throughȱ Christ,ȱ whoseȱ crucifixionȱ wasȱ aȱ manifestationȱ ofȱ Hisȱ loveȱ toward mankind.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱaforementionedȱruleȱofȱmutuality,ȱmanȱshouldȱbehave inȱ aȱ faithfulȱ andȱ charitableȱ mannerȱ towardȱ Godȱ asȱ well.ȱ However,ȱ aȱ careful analysisȱofȱtheȱAlfonsineȱworksȱshowsȱaȱcompellingȱparadox:ȱsinceȱsuchȱanȱideal friendshipȱisȱsoȱrareȱtoȱfulfil,ȱonlyȱfewȱareȱallowedȱtoȱenterȱinȱcontactȱwithȱGod directly,ȱbut—andȱhereȱisȱtheȱimpasse—theirȱprivilegedȱstatusȱisȱaȱgiftȱthatȱthey receivedȱfromȱdivineȱGrace,ȱwhichȱendowsȱthemȱwithȱuncorruptedȱsouls. Theȱtitleȱ“ChristianosȱdeȱDiosȱamigos”ȱ(God’sȱfriends),ȱwhichȱfrequentlyȱappears inȱtheȱAlfonsineȱworks,ȱwasȱrecurrentlyȱusedȱtoȱaddressȱallȱtheȱprofessedȱChristian believersȱperformingȱtheirȱfaith,ȱandȱtoȱcreateȱaȱsignȱofȱidentificationȱforȱthoseȱwho madeȱalliancesȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱGodȱorȱinȱdefenceȱofȱHisȱpeople.ȱInȱtheȱwarsȱfought inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ orthodoxyȱ againstȱ theȱ infidelsȱ theȱ titleȱ ofȱ “God’sȱ friends”ȱ was assumedȱbyȱwarriorsȱinȱorderȱtoȱlegitimizeȱtheirȱrolesȱandȱmissions.ȱInȱthatȱcontext Godȱwasȱoftenȱportrayedȱasȱaȱfeudalȱlord,ȱwhoseȱsubordinatesȱwereȱregardedȱas vassalsȱ andȱ servantsȱ ratherȱ thanȱ asȱ realȱ friends.45ȱ Despiteȱ God’sȱ divineȱ and eminentȱ position,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ whichȱ Heȱ tookȱ partȱ couldȱ not escapeȱtheȱsineȱquaȱnonȱconditionsȱofȱmutuality,ȱloveȱandȱrespect.ȱTheȱsameȱfeudal modelȱ alsoȱ emergesȱ fromȱ theȱ SP,ȱ whoseȱ titleȱ IVȱ ofȱ Bookȱ Iȱ remarksȱ thatȱ God “demuestraȱ grantȱ amorioȱ deȱ amigoȱ etȱ mayormenteȱ deȱ señorȱ áȱ vasallos”ȱ (he demonstratesȱaȱfriendlyȱaffectionȱwhichȱresemblesȱmoreȱtheȱbenevolenceȱofȱaȱlord toȱhisȱvassal)ȱtowardȱHisȱbelievers.ȱMoreover,ȱinȱmostȱofȱthoseȱcases,ȱdirectlyȱor indirectly,ȱtheȱgiftȱofȱdivineȱadviceȱoccurredȱthroughȱtheȱintermediationȱofȱGod’s ministers. TheȱabundanceȱofȱlexicalȱdevicesȱdepictingȱChristianȱbelieversȱasȱGod’sȱfriends orȱ“compannaȱdeȱcristianos”ȱsuggestsȱthatȱspiritualȱamityȱwasȱanȱessentialȱelement toȱstrengthenȱtheȱsenseȱofȱaȱcommonȱreligiousȱbackgroundȱwhichȱcouldȱalsoȱhave ledȱ toȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ aȱ solidȱ socialȱ identity.ȱ However,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ extremely simplisticȱ andȱ reductiveȱ toȱ approachȱ theȱ subjectȱ fromȱ aȱ Christianȱ perspective exclusively,ȱunderestimatingȱinȱthisȱwayȱtheȱthreefoldȱcontextȱofȱtheȱmedieval Iberianȱ Peninsula,ȱ whereȱ Muslimsȱ andȱ Jewsȱ heldȱ strategicȱ positionsȱ from demographic,ȱsocialȱandȱeconomicȱpointsȱofȱview.46ȱ 45 46

O’Callaghan,ȱAlfonsoȱX:ȱAȱPoeticȱBiography,ȱ16–17. SeveralȱstudiesȱhaveȱbeenȱcarriedȱoutȱonȱtheȱimageȱofȱJewsȱandȱMuslimsȱasȱpresentedȱinȱthe Alfonsineȱworks,ȱseeȱAlbertȱI.ȱBagbyȱJr,ȱ“TheȱFigureȱofȱtheȱJewȱinȱtheȱCantigasȱofȱAlfonsoȱX,” StudiesȱonȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱ235–46;ȱ“TheȱMoslem inȱtheȱCantigasȱofȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱElȱSabio,”ȱKentuckyȱRomanceȱQuarterlyȱ20ȱ(1973):ȱ173–207;ȱ“Alfonso X,ȱ elȱ sabioȱ comparaȱ morosȱ yȱ judíos,”ȱ Romanischeȱ Forschungenȱ 82ȱ (1970):ȱ 578–83;ȱ Dwayne Carpenter,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱandȱtheȱJews:ȱAnȱEditionȱofȱandȱCommentaryȱonȱSieteȱPartidasȱ7.24ȱ‘DeȱlosȱJudíos.’ UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPublicationsȱinȱModernȱPhilology,ȱ115ȱ(Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCalifornia

458

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

Atȱthisȱstage,ȱoneȱmightȱwonderȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱdeclaringȱthemselvesȱChristians constitutedȱ aȱ mechanicalȱ guaranteeȱ whichȱ allowedȱ thoseȱ whoȱ professedȱ itȱ to achieveȱaȱblessedȱcompanionshipȱwithȱGodȱbyȱavoidingȱanyȱfurtherȱmediation.ȱIn fact,ȱitȱwasȱbelievedȱthatȱGodȱrevealedȱhisȱpowerȱthroughȱtheȱsaints’ȱintervention andȱ they,ȱ similarly,ȱ receivedȱ theirȱ holyȱ giftsȱ throughȱ theȱ Virgin’sȱ intercession. Onlyȱ twoȱ figuresȱ ofȱ theȱ humanȱ raceȱ wereȱ directlyȱ touchedȱ byȱ divineȱ Grace, becomingȱthemselvesȱ“vicarsȱofȱGod”:ȱtheȱkingȱandȱtheȱPope.ȱHowever,ȱmoments ofȱcrisisȱwereȱnotȱinfrequentȱbetweenȱtheseȱtwoȱpowers,ȱeruptingȱwheneverȱtheir spheresȱofȱinfluenceȱoverlapped.ȱForȱthisȱreasonȱAlfonsoȱXȱtriedȱtoȱkeepȱthem separated,ȱasȱSPȱII:I:Iȱclearlyȱstates: CaȱelȱseñorȱáȱquienȱDiosȱtalȱhonraȱdaȱesȱreyȱetȱemperador,ȱetȱáȱélȱpertenesceȱsegunt derechoȱetȱelȱortogamientoȱquelȱficieronȱlasȱgentesȱantiguamenteȱdeȱgobernarȱetȱde mantenerȱelȱimperioȱenȱjusticia,ȱetȱporȱesoȱesȱllamadoȱemperador,ȱqueȱquierȱtantoȱdecir comoȱmandador,ȱporqueȱalȱsuȱmandamientoȱdebenȱobedescerȱtodosȱlosȱdelȱimperio: etȱ élȱ noȱ esȱ tenudoȱ deȱ obedescerȱ áȱ ninguno,ȱ fuerasȱ endeȱ alȱ papaȱ enȱ lasȱ cosas espirituales.ȱ(SPȱII:I:I) [ForȱtheȱlordȱonȱwhomȱGodȱconfersȱsuchȱanȱhonorȱisȱbothȱkingȱandȱemperor,ȱandȱto himȱbelongs,ȱaccordingȱtoȱlaw,ȱtheȱpowerȱgrantedȱbyȱtheȱpeopleȱinȱformerȱtimesȱto governȱandȱmaintainȱtheȱempireȱwithȱjustice.ȱForȱthisȱreasonȱheȱisȱstyledȱemperor, whichȱmeansȱcommander,ȱbecauseȱallȱpersonsȱofȱtheȱempireȱobeyȱhisȱcommands,ȱand heȱisȱnotȱboundȱtoȱobeyȱanyoneȱexceptȱtheȱPope,ȱandȱthatȱonlyȱinȱspiritualȱmatters.]

FriendshipsȱBetweenȱSacredȱFigures Inȱtheȱimaginaryȱdescentȱdownȱtheȱhierarchicalȱpyramidalȱsegmentationȱpresented before,ȱtheȱnextȱstepȱisȱoccupiedȱbyȱtheȱVirginȱMary.ȱTheȱconnectionsȱestablished withȱ herȱ areȱ regardedȱ asȱ theȱ mostȱ profitable,ȱ atȱ leastȱ asȱ farȱ asȱ theȱ CSMȱ are concerned,ȱandȱforȱthisȱreasonȱtheyȱoccupyȱaȱcentralȱpositionȱinȱsuchȱaȱnetwork Press,ȱ1986);ȱCarpenter,ȱ“ChristianȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱtheȱJewishȱSabbathȱinȱtheȱLightȱofȱMedieval SpanishȱLegalȱTexts,”ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱPatristic,ȱMedievalȱandȱRenaissanceȱConference,ȱed.ȱVillanova University,ȱAugustinianȱHistoricalȱInstitute.ȱAnnualȱPublicationȱofȱtheȱPatristic,ȱMedievalȱand RenaissanceȱConferenceȱ(Villanova,ȱPa.:ȱAugustinianȱHistoricalȱInstitute,ȱVillanovaȱUniversity, 1979),ȱ51–62;ȱCarpenter,ȱ“JewishȬChristianȱSocialȱRelationsȱinȱAlphonsineȱSpain:ȱAȱCommentary onȱSieteȱPartidas,ȱBookȱVII,ȱTitleȱXXIV,ȱLawȱ8,”ȱFlorilegiumȱHispanicum,ȱed.ȱJohnȱS.ȱGearyȱetȱal., 61–70;ȱCarpenter,ȱ“ToleranceȱandȱIntolerance:ȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱAttitudesȱTowardsȱtheȱSynagogueȱas ReflectedȱinȱtheȱSieteȱPartidas,”ȱKentuckyȱRomanceȱQuarterlyȱ31ȱ(1984):ȱ31–39;ȱDavidȱRomano,ȱ“Los JudíosȱyȱAlfonsoȱX,”ȱRevistaȱdeȱOccidenteȱ43ȱ(1984):ȱ203–17;ȱhereȱ204–05;ȱRobertȱI.ȱBurns,ȱ“Jewsȱand MoorsȱinȱtheȱSieteȱPartidasȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱtheȱLearned:ȱAȱBackgroundȱPerspective,”ȱMedievalȱSpain: Culture,ȱ Conflict,ȱ andȱ Coexistence,ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Honourȱ ofȱ Angusȱ MacKay,ȱ ed.ȱ Rogerȱ Collinsȱ and AnthonyȱGoodmanȱ(Houndmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire;ȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgrave/Macmillan,ȱ2002), 46–62.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

459

connectingȱ spiritualȱ andȱ secularȱ spheres.ȱ Toȱ quoteȱ onlyȱ aȱ fewȱ ofȱ theȱ manifold examples,ȱoneȱcouldȱmentionȱCSMȱ360,ȱwhereȱtheȱVirginȱisȱnamedȱ“deȱDeusȱfilla |ȱeȱcriadȱeȱamiga”ȱ(God’sȱdaughter,ȱservantȱandȱfriend)ȱandȱCSMȱ399ȱwhereȱshe isȱdefinedȱ“deȱDeusȱMadreȱ|ȱfalarȱeȱamiga”ȱ(God’sȱmother,ȱcompanyȱandȱfriend). Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ invocationsȱ andȱ prayersȱ thatȱ theȱ believersȱ devoteȱ toȱ Maryȱ areȱ on behalfȱofȱtheȱsupremeȱLord,ȱwhoȱisȱdefinedȱsimultaneouslyȱasȱherȱfather,ȱsonȱand friend.ȱInȱthisȱcase,ȱsinceȱfriendshipȱisȱlistedȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱfamiliarȱbondsȱof childhoodȱandȱmotherhood,ȱthereȱareȱgroundsȱtoȱsupposingȱthatȱtheȱperfectȱamity occupyȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ highestȱ levelsȱ amongȱ theȱ otherȱ socialȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ the Alfonsineȱperception,ȱasȱtheyȱalsoȱdidȱinȱclassicalȱandȱreligiousȱthought.ȱInȱfact, thisȱideaȱrecallsȱtheȱAristotelianȱthoughtȱofȱparentalȱconnections,ȱconsideredȱas formsȱofȱaffectusȱnaturalisȱ(naturalȱlove),ȱtheȱsameȱnaturalȱloveȱwhichȱincludesȱpure friendship.ȱInȱtheȱaforementionedȱcaseȱtheȱaffectusȱnaturalisȱexperiencedȱbyȱthe Virginȱ isȱ inevitable,ȱ inȱ whicheverȱ wayȱ God’sȱ positionȱ towardȱ herȱ wouldȱ be interpreted,ȱsinceȱHeȱdeservesȱtoȱbeȱtheȱobjectȱofȱloveȱandȱrespect,ȱbothȱasȱher creator,ȱfatherȱandȱoriginalȱmasterȱofȱlove.ȱ Thus,ȱtheȱaffectionȱthatȱMaryȱfeelsȱforȱGodȱresemblesȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱspiritualis inȱallȱitsȱaspects,ȱsinceȱitȱinvolvesȱherȱmostȱintimateȱandȱtrueȱessence,ȱitȱlacksȱany secularȱimplications,ȱitȱisȱmutual,ȱand,ȱlastȱbutȱnotȱleast,ȱitȱisȱanȱimmaterialȱchain connectingȱherȱoriginallyȱearthlyȱessenceȱwithȱtheȱsupernaturalȱworld.ȱHowever, whereasȱfamilyȱtiesȱwereȱconsideredȱeitherȱgeneticallyȱorȱdivinelyȱcreated,ȱtheȱtitle ofȱ“friend”ȱcouldȱbeȱachievedȱonlyȱbyȱprovingȱvirtues,ȱloyaltyȱandȱhonesty.ȱThis visionȱalsoȱcontrastsȱtheȱevangelicalȱideaȱofȱbestowingȱloveȱindiscriminatelyȱtoȱany humanȱ beingsȱ asȱ God’sȱ creaturesȱ whoȱ are,ȱ forȱ thisȱ reason,ȱ subjectsȱ ofȱ agapé (Christianȱlove).ȱTheȱspecificȱcaseȱofȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱshowsȱatȱleastȱtwoȱpersonal valuesȱwhichȱmakeȱherȱeligibleȱasȱGod’sȱcompanion:ȱherȱinnateȱvirtuesȱandȱher loyalȱandȱtrustfulȱbehavior.ȱAllȱtheseȱpositiveȱcharacteristicsȱallowȱherȱtoȱmediate betweenȱ theȱ saintsȱ andȱ God,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ betweenȱ theȱ humanȱ believersȱ andȱ the celestialȱcourt.ȱ Herȱpositionȱtowardȱtheȱbelievers,ȱbelongingȱtoȱbothȱtheȱhighestȱandȱtheȱlowest spheresȱofȱtheȱphysicalȱandȱmetaphysicalȱworlds,ȱisȱcharacterizedȱbyȱplentifulȱand differentȱaspects.ȱInȱtheȱCSMȱtheȱfactȱthatȱsheȱembodiesȱtheȱclosestȱrelationships manȱcouldȱestablishȱinȱhisȱlifeȱisȱhighlightedȱinȱversesȱsuchȱas:ȱ Talȱfoiȱelȱmeterȱentreȱnosȱeȱssi eȱdeuȱporȱavogada, queȱmadr’,ȱamigaȱll’é,ȱcreed’aȱmi, eȱfillaȱeȱcriada.ȱ

(CSMȱ30,ȱlinesȱ16–19)

[HeȱplacedȱHerȱbetweenȱusȱandȱHimself andȱgaveȱHerȱasȱadvocate, for,ȱbelieveȱmyȱwords,ȱtoȱHimȱsheȱisȱmother,ȱfriend, daughter,ȱandȱhandmaiden.]

460

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

BesidesȱbeingȱChrist’sȱmother,ȱtheȱVirginȱisȱalsoȱendowedȱwithȱnumerousȱvirtues andȱvaluesȱwhichȱmakeȱherȱtheȱiconȱofȱaȱperfectȱfriend,ȱanȱuncorruptedȱlover,ȱa wiseȱcounselorȱandȱaȱsuccessfulȱintermediaryȱbetweenȱGodȱandȱhumankind.ȱAll theseȱrolesȱareȱfrequentlyȱcombinedȱunderȱtheȱuniqueȱdefinitionȱofȱ“amiga.”ȱThis appellationȱincorporatesȱaȱwideȱrangeȱofȱ semanticȱsubtletiesȱincludingȱmutual help,ȱadviceȱandȱaffection,ȱasȱwellȱasȱmarital,ȱsensualȱandȱparentalȱconnections.ȱIn fact,ȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱisȱfrequentlyȱportrayedȱasȱ“amigaȱeȱamadaȱ|ȱdeȱmuiȱsanta compannia”ȱ(friendȱandȱlovedȱoneȱ|ȱholyȱcompanion;ȱCSMȱ70,ȱlinesȱ12–13).ȱShe isȱdefinedȱasȱ“amigaȱcompanneyra”ȱ(friendȱandȱcompanion)47ȱofȱindividualsȱwho haveȱtheȱprivilegeȱtoȱenterȱinȱcontactȱwithȱher,ȱwithoutȱreachingȱeverȱanȱabsolute stateȱofȱequality.ȱAsȱQueenȱofȱtheȱHeaven,ȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱisȱsurroundedȱand accompaniedȱinȱherȱapparitionsȱbyȱaȱcelestialȱcourtȱwhoseȱmembersȱareȱsaints, apostlesȱandȱangels.48ȱTheȱsaintsȱareȱelevatedȱtoȱtheȱpositionȱofȱherȱfriends,ȱwhich theyȱachievedȱthanksȱtoȱtheirȱholyȱlivesȱandȱtheȱunconditionalȱaffectionȱwithȱwhich theyȱshowerȱtheȱBlessedȱwoman.ȱTheȱholyȱcharacters,ȱendowedȱwithȱmiraculous skillsȱandȱsometimesȱextraordinaryȱabilities,ȱheldȱtheȱpositionsȱofȱprimiȱinterȱpares sinceȱnotȱonlyȱdidȱtheyȱachieveȱdivineȱGrace,ȱbutȱtheyȱalsoȱreceivedȱsacredȱgifts, signsȱofȱGod’sȱrewardȱforȱtheirȱexemplaryȱbehaviorȱandȱfaith.ȱ Itȱ isȱ importantȱ toȱ highlightȱ thatȱ theȱ Holyȱ Ladyȱ andȱ theȱ saintsȱ wouldȱ be positionedȱ underȱ theȱ sameȱ categoryȱ ofȱ intermediaries.ȱ However,ȱ whereasȱ the saints’ȱintercessionsȱconstituteȱtheȱmeansȱforȱcommonȱpeople’sȱpleasȱtoȱreachȱthe Virgin,ȱtheȱLadyȱrepresentsȱtheȱfinalȱmediatorȱbeforeȱGod.ȱDueȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱof suchȱaȱhierarchy,ȱtheȱholyȱfiguresȱinevitablyȱhaveȱtoȱworshipȱMaryȱandȱstimulate theȱrestȱofȱtheȱChristianȱcommunityȱtoȱdoȱtheȱsame.ȱThisȱisȱwhatȱhappensȱinȱCSM 368ȱinȱwhichȱaȱwoman,ȱaffectedȱbyȱaȱheavyȱillness,ȱisȱadvisedȱinȱherȱdreamȱby SaintȱDomingoȱdeȱSilosȱtoȱgoȱonȱaȱpilgrimageȱtoȱtheȱVirgin,ȱsinceȱtheȱpleaȱforȱher divineȱaidȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱprincipal,ȱandȱprobablyȱonly,ȱwayȱforȱtheȱsupplicantȱtoȱbe rescued.ȱ Equallyȱ revealingȱ isȱ CSMȱ 278ȱ inȱ whichȱ aȱ believerȱ remarksȱ uponȱ the superiorityȱofȱMary’sȱpowerȱoverȱtheȱsaints.ȱTheȱmiracleȱisȱaboutȱtheȱadviceȱgiven byȱ aȱ womanȱ toȱ herȱ blindȱ companionȱ duringȱ theirȱ pilgrimageȱ toȱ Santiagoȱ de Compostela.ȱSheȱsuggestsȱthatȱheȱshouldȱchangeȱhisȱrouteȱandȱwalkȱtoȱtheȱVirgin ofȱVillasirgaȱ(nowȱVillalcázarȱdeȱSirga,ȱinȱtheȱprovinceȱofȱPalencia)ȱbecauseȱonly forȱ theȱ Virgin’sȱ sakeȱ andȱ thanksȱ toȱ herȱ mediationȱ couldȱ heȱ gainȱ aȱ miraculous recovery.ȱ Significantly,ȱ ifȱ weȱ leaveȱ asideȱ theȱ devotionalȱ message,ȱ weȱ mightȱ question whetherȱtheȱversesȱofȱCSMȱ278ȱcontainȱanotherȱandȱmoreȱpragmaticȱmeaning:ȱthe attemptȱ toȱ deflectȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ pilgrimsȱ towardȱ Villasirgaȱ onȱ theirȱ routeȱ to

47 48

CSMȱ70,ȱ213ȱandȱ231ȱamongȱothers. SeeȱCSMȱ28,ȱ132,ȱ419,ȱ420,ȱ421,ȱ422.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

461

Compostela.49ȱThisȱwouldȱhaveȱgeneratedȱprestigeȱforȱAlfonsoȱX’sȱkingdom,ȱbut itȱwouldȱhaveȱalsoȱbroughtȱinevitableȱeconomicȱandȱfinancialȱbenefitsȱsuppliedȱby theȱpilgrimageȱandȱallȱitsȱconnectedȱactivities.ȱItȱisȱworthȱmentioningȱtheȱfactȱthat, evenȱ ifȱ theȱ existenceȱ ofȱ numerousȱ pilgrimagesȱ inȱ honorȱ ofȱ saintsȱ wasȱ widely spread,ȱMarianismȱinȱtheȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱacquiredȱrenewedȱprestigeȱwhileȱthe otherȱcultsȱlostȱgroundȱandȱadherents.ȱInȱfact,ȱmanyȱofȱtheseȱreveredȱsaintsȱwere themselvesȱ devoteesȱ ofȱ theȱ Virgin.ȱ Theyȱ hadȱ acquiredȱ theirȱ celestialȱ positions throughȱherȱintercessionȱbeforeȱGodȱandȱtheyȱhadȱfrequentlyȱ spentȱ theirȱlives preachingȱandȱworshippingȱtheȱHolyȱLady,ȱcontributingȱinȱthisȱwayȱtoȱspreadȱthe acknowledgmentȱofȱherȱpowerȱamongȱtheȱbelievers.ȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱtheȱfocusȱshouldȱturnȱagainȱtoȱtheȱportraitsȱofȱtheȱsaintsȱgivenȱin theȱAlfonsineȱproduction,ȱwhoseȱpositionsȱtowardȱtheȱVirginȱvaryȱaccordingȱtoȱthe worksȱtakenȱintoȱaccount.ȱTheirȱrepresentationsȱsometimesȱevenȱcontradictȱthe previousȱstatementȱaboutȱtheȱVirgin’sȱuncontestedȱsuperiorityȱinȱcommonȱbeliefs. Onȱaȱfewȱoccasions,ȱinȱbothȱtheȱSPȱandȱtheȱEstoriaȱdeȱEspaña,ȱforȱexample,ȱ the Virgin’sȱ roleȱ isȱ underminedȱ byȱ theȱ saints’ȱ positions,ȱ sinceȱ theyȱ holdȱ the uncontestedȱ titlesȱ ofȱ God’sȱ friendsȱ andȱ uniqueȱ intermediariesȱ betweenȱ the HeavensȱandȱChristendom.ȱAnȱinterestingȱpassageȱfromȱBookȱIȱofȱtheȱSPȱinforms usȱaboutȱtheȱsaints’ȱrolesȱinȱbothȱtheȱcelestialȱandȱhumanȱcosmos:ȱ ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱondeȱpuesȱqueȱDiosȱlosȱhonraȱenȱesteȱmundoȱasi,ȱmostrandoȱqueȱlosȱtieneȱpor amigosȱetȱfaciendoȱmuchoȱetȱmaravillososȱmiraglosȱporȱellosȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱderechoȱesȱqueȱlos homesȱloȱhonrenȱetȱmayormienteȱlosȱcristianos.ȱ(SPȱI:XXIII) [ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwherefore,ȱsinceȱGodȱhonorsȱthemȱinȱthisȱworldȱbyȱshowingȱthatȱHeȱconsiders themȱHisȱfriends,ȱandȱbyȱperformingȱmanyȱandȱmarvellousȱmiraclesȱthroughȱthemȱ. .ȱ.ȱ;ȱitȱisȱjustȱthatȱallȱmenȱandȱespeciallyȱChristians,ȱshouldȱhonorȱthem.]

Withȱregardȱtoȱthisȱpointȱoneȱmightȱquestionȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱrole ofȱ theȱ Virginȱ isȱ partiallyȱ debilitatedȱ inȱ theȱ SPȱ wasȱ influencedȱ byȱ theȱ earlier Visigothicȱlaw,ȱwhichȱwasȱlaterȱfilteredȱandȱreshapedȱthroughȱtheȱnewȱAlfonsine perspective.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ theȱ Visigothicȱ Fueroȱ Juzgoȱ wasȱ deeplyȱ permeatedȱ with misogynousȱelementsȱwhichȱmightȱhaveȱalsoȱinfluencedȱtheȱsubsequentȱAlfonsine orientationȱ andȱ legalȱ enactments.ȱ Similarly,ȱ inȱ theȱ Estoriaȱ deȱ Españaȱ theȱ Virgin Maryȱisȱsimplyȱinvokedȱthroughȱstandardizedȱformulaeȱandȱsheȱneitherȱshinesȱnor predominates,ȱasȱsheȱdoes,ȱinstead,ȱinȱtheȱCSM. Whileȱ acknowledgingȱ allȱ this,ȱ anotherȱ categoryȱ toȱ beȱ examinedȱ withinȱ this supernaturalȱ systemȱ ofȱ relationshipsȱ isȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ angels,ȱ whoȱ alsoȱ occupyȱ a privilegedȱpositionȱinȱsuchȱaȱpyramidalȱstructure.ȱTheyȱareȱdefinedȱasȱaȱuniform andȱindistinctȱmassȱlackingȱindividualȱidentity,ȱwithȱtheȱexceptionȱofȱGabriel.ȱThe 49

Connieȱ L.ȱ Scarborough,ȱ Aȱ Holyȱ Alliance:ȱ Alfonsoȱ X’sȱ Useȱ ofȱ Marianȱ Poetry.ȱ Juanȱ deȱ laȱ Cuesta HispanicȱMonographs.ȱEstudiosȱdeȱliteraturaȱmedievalȱ“JohnȱE.ȱKeller,”ȱ6ȱ(Newark,ȱDE:ȱJuanȱde laȱCuesta,ȱ2009),ȱ127.

462

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

archangelȱgainedȱaȱdefiniteȱpositionȱbyȱactingȱasȱGod’sȱmessenger,ȱfulfillingȱinȱthis wayȱtheȱoriginalȱgapȱseparatingȱChrist’sȱmother—stillȱunawareȱofȱherȱfuture—and God.ȱGabrielȱwasȱtheȱinitialȱintermediaryȱwhichȱtheȱVirginȱherselfȱwouldȱbecome onceȱ sheȱ consciouslyȱ recognizedȱ herȱ roleȱ andȱ missionȱ inȱ supportingȱ human redemption.ȱ Moreover,ȱ thanksȱ toȱ hisȱ actionsȱ andȱ attitudes,ȱ heȱ embodiesȱ an incomparableȱandȱnonȱplusȱultraȱmodelȱofȱfriendship: Eȱnuncaȱnonȱpodiaȱ|ȱjaȱmayorȱamizade mostrarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Quenȱviuȱnunc’amizadeȱ|ȱqueȱestaȱsemellasseȱ (CSMȱ210,ȱlinesȱ10–15) [Andȱneverȱcouldȱheȱshowȱusȱgreaterȱ friendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ whoȱeverȱsawȱgreaterȱfriendshipȱthanȱthis]

Toȱcompleteȱthisȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱpossibleȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱsacredȱfigures,ȱthe positionȱofȱtheȱapostlesȱcannotȱbeȱforgottenȱeither,ȱsinceȱtheyȱconstituteȱtheȱfirst modelȱofȱChristianȱcommunityȱwhichȱreliesȱonȱconcordȱamongȱitsȱmembers.ȱTheir associationȱmayȱbeȱdescribed,ȱusingȱStȱAugustine’sȱdefinition,ȱasȱaȱformȱofȱsocietas amicalisȱ(similarȱtoȱmonasticȱcorporations),ȱwhoseȱmembersȱareȱlinkedȱbyȱtheirȱlove forȱGodȱandȱbyȱChristianȱcharity.ȱTheȱfiguresȱofȱtheȱapostlesȱappearȱinȱbothȱtheȱSP andȱtheȱCSM,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱlegalȱcodeȱtheyȱareȱpresentedȱasȱtheȱhighestȱpositioned membersȱinȱtheȱecclesiasticalȱhierarchy,ȱregardedȱforȱtheirȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱHoly Wordȱnoȱlongerȱasȱ“siervos,ȱmasȱamigos”ȱ(servants,ȱbutȱratherȱfriends;ȱSPȱI:V:I)ȱof God.50ȱ Byȱ acceptingȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ “transitiveȱ rule”ȱ ofȱ friendship—accordingȱ to whichȱanyȱrelationshipȱgeneratedȱbyȱpureȱloveȱcanȱbeȱinheritedȱandȱtransmitted fromȱfatherȱtoȱsonsȱandȱviceȱversa—theȱapostles,ȱasȱGod’sȱfriends,ȱareȱlegitimized toȱbecomeȱalsoȱChrist’sȱfriendsȱand,ȱfollowingȱtheȱsameȱtransactionalȱpassage, friendsȱofȱChrist’sȱmother.ȱThisȱtheory,ȱhowever,ȱdoesȱnotȱexcludeȱtheȱassumption thatȱ theyȱ managedȱ toȱ reachȱ suchȱ anȱ elevatedȱ positionȱ mainlyȱ becauseȱ ofȱ their genuineȱbeliefsȱandȱperformancesȱasȱgoodȱChristians.ȱMoreover,ȱtheirȱmeritsȱalso justifyȱtheirȱbecomingȱexemplaryȱmodelsȱforȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱreligiousȱcommunity.ȱ

TheȱVirginȱandȱherȱDevotees InȱtheȱCSMȱtheȱHolyȱLady’sȱnobleȱandȱappreciableȱqualitiesȱofȱmotherhoodȱand friendshipȱ areȱ complementedȱ byȱ herȱ portraitȱ asȱ aȱ womanȱ andȱ aȱ lover,ȱ whose characteristicsȱreceivedȱrenewedȱemphasis,ȱaboveȱallȱonceȱtheyȱareȱcomparedȱwith thoseȱofȱherȱBiblicalȱantagonist:ȱEve.ȱTheȱlatter,ȱunlikeȱMary,ȱdeservesȱaȱderogatory 50

TheȱsameȱkindȱofȱreferenceȱisȱalsoȱinȱCSMȱ187.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

463

descriptionȱdueȱtoȱherȱsinfulȱandȱtreacherousȱbehavior.ȱItȱisȱnotȱunreasonableȱto assertȱthatȱtheȱVirginȱrepresentsȱEve’sȱpurifiedȱalterȱego,ȱwhoȱmightȱevenȱredeem theȱvalueȱofȱtheȱhumanȱfemaleȱfigure.ȱWithȱregardȱtoȱthisȱpointȱitȱisȱsignificantȱto quoteȱtheȱlinesȱfromȱCSMȱ320: OȱbenȱqueȱperdeuȱEva aȱnossaȱmadr’antiga. cobrouȱSantaȱMaria uȱfoiȱdeȱDeusȱamiga.ȱ

(Linesȱ14–17)

[TheȱgoodȱwhichȱEve,ȱ ourȱancientȱmother,ȱlost, HolyȱMaryȱrecoveredȱ whenȱSheȱbefriendedȱGod.]

BothȱwomenȱareȱGod’sȱoffspring,ȱgeneratedȱfromȱHisȱactȱofȱlove,ȱalthoughȱonly oneȱ ofȱ themȱ adoptedȱ herȱ freeȱ willȱ properlyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ keepȱ thatȱ linkȱ andȱ to consolidateȱherȱroleȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱAlmighty’sȱfriends.ȱTheȱmessageȱconveyedȱby thisȱbiblicalȱepisodeȱhasȱaȱdoubleȱmeaning;ȱonȱtheȱoneȱhandȱtheȱfocusȱisȱonȱEve, theȱfirstȱwomanȱcreatedȱbyȱGodȱinȱorderȱtoȱbeȱtheȱcomplementaryȱpartȱofȱman, whoȱinȱfactȱbecameȱhisȱworstȱenemy.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱreproachȱisȱaddressed toȱAdam,ȱrepresentativeȱofȱeveryman,ȱwhoȱtrustedȱhisȱwifeȱasȱaȱloyalȱfriendȱand whoseȱ blindȱ relianceȱ causedȱ hisȱ damnation.ȱ Theȱ metaphorȱ andȱ theȱ didactic warningȱ areȱ quiteȱ clear:ȱ manȱ shouldȱ proveȱ whoȱ hisȱ realȱ friendsȱ areȱ andȱ only afterwardsȱshouldȱheȱtrustȱthemȱcompletely.ȱTheȱriskȱheȱtakesȱinȱnotȱrespecting thisȱtestȱ(whichȱalsoȱincludesȱaȱdeepȱacknowledgmentȱacquiredȱoverȱtime)ȱleads toȱtheȱendȱofȱfriendshipȱor,ȱevenȱworse,ȱtoȱirreparableȱdamageȱinȱhisȱownȱlife.51ȱ Atȱthisȱstage,ȱtheȱlexiconȱadoptedȱtoȱdefineȱtheȱrelationshipsȱinvolvingȱtheȱVirgin andȱherȱdevoteesȱshouldȱalsoȱbeȱconsidered.ȱAȱsignificantȱcaseȱinȱpointȱisȱCSMȱ259, whoseȱ protagonistsȱ areȱ twoȱ minstrelsȱ linkedȱ byȱ aȱ manifestȱ affectionȱ whichȱ is, however,ȱneverȱalludedȱtoȱasȱaȱ“friendship”ȱinȱtheȱentireȱpoem.ȱContrarily,ȱthe descriptionȱofȱtheirȱrelationshipȱisȱlimitedȱtoȱ“deȱdosȱjoglaresȱqueȱfezȱbenȱquerer” (forȱ twoȱ minstrelsȱ whomȱ Sheȱ causedȱ toȱ loveȱ eachȱ other;ȱ lineȱ 8)ȱ andȱ “foronȬs’ ambosȱdaliȱenȱgrand’amor”ȱ(theyȱbothȱwentȱfromȱthereȱinȱgreatȱlove;ȱlineȱ36).ȱA radicalȱchangeȱwasȱexperiencedȱonceȱtheȱVirginȱenteredȱtheirȱrelationshipȱand addressedȱthemȱasȱ“amigos.”ȱNotȱonlyȱdidȱthatȱtitleȱennobleȱtheirȱpersonaeȱand theȱbondȱlinkingȱthem,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱmadeȱtheȱappellationȱofȱfriendshipȱimpossible toȱbeȱusedȱ(almostȱinȱtheȱsameȱsentence)ȱinȱreferringȱtoȱtheȱtwoȱmen’sȱemotional, butȱentirelyȱworldly,ȱrelationship.ȱTheirȱcaseȱalsoȱdemonstratesȱthatȱtheȱbelievers’ proofȱofȱamityȱtowardȱtheȱVirginȱoftenȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱshapedȱonȱtheȱmodelȱofȱan opportunisticȱlove,ȱaimedȱatȱachievingȱpersonalȱbenefitsȱandȱadvantages,ȱsuchȱas 51

Carlosȱ Heusch,ȱ “Laȱ Philosophieȱ deȱ lȇamourȱ dansȱ l’Espagneȱ duȱ XVeȱ siècle,”ȱ Atalayaȱ 4ȱ (1993): 233–39.

464

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

recoveryȱ fromȱ mortalȱ illnesses,ȱ rescueȱ fromȱ imprisonmentȱ andȱ dangerous situations,ȱ protectionȱ forȱ relativesȱ andȱ lovedȱ ones,ȱ andȱ theȱ claimȱ forȱ eternal salvation.ȱAdmittedly,ȱthisȱpointȱpromptsȱotherȱquestionsȱaboutȱtheȱrealȱpossibility ofȱassociatingȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱwithȱpureȱlove.ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱhypothesisȱthatȱman mightȱloveȱtheȱVirginȱunselfishlyȱandȱwithoutȱthinkingȱofȱherȱasȱtheȱintermediary beforeȱGodȱisȱhighlyȱquestionable.ȱ Anotherȱaspectȱwhichȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱobservedȱisȱtheȱsensualȱrepresentationȱofȱthe VirginȱMaryȱandȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱamorousȱbondsȱthatȱsheȱestablishedȱwith herȱbelievers.ȱThisȱrepresentationȱisȱprobablyȱdueȱtoȱtheȱprocessȱofȱhumanization toȱwhichȱtheȱVirginȱwasȱsubjected:ȱaȱmetamorphosisȱwhichȱdidȱnotȱexcludeȱthe acquisitionȱofȱsomeȱworldlyȱimperfections.ȱAsȱpointedȱoutȱbyȱCatherineȱGuzmán inȱherȱarticleȱaboutȱantifeminismȱinȱtheȱCSM,ȱtheȱVirginȱisȱoftenȱdisplayedȱasȱa “jiltedȱlover”ȱ(referȱtoȱCSMȱ42,ȱlinesȱ77–80),ȱpleasedȱbyȱanyoneȱwhoȱwritesȱaȱpoem inȱpraiseȱofȱherȱorȱsimplyȱwhoȱchoosesȱherȱratherȱthanȱanotherȱhumanȱlover.52ȱThe counterpartȱisȱusuallyȱaȱknightȱandȱtheirȱrelationshipȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱforgedȱonȱthe codeȱofȱcourtlyȱloveȱandȱchivalricȱmanners.ȱAȱclarifyingȱexampleȱisȱCSMȱ16,ȱwhich tellsȱtheȱstoryȱofȱaȱtormentedȱhandsomeȱandȱgenerousȱknightȱwhoȱwasȱgoingȱto loseȱhisȱsensesȱandȱevenȱtoȱdieȱforȱaȱladyȱwhoȱopenlyȱrefusedȱhim.ȱTheȱunbearable sufferingȱ ledȱ himȱ toȱ openȱ hisȱ soulȱ toȱ anȱ abbotȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ reachȱ God’sȱ piety throughȱhisȱspiritualȱaid.ȱTheȱmediatorȬclergyman,ȱwhoȱaddressedȱtheȱknightȱwith theȱappellationȱofȱ“amigo”ȱ(lineȱ40),ȱwiselyȱsuggestedȱthatȱheȱshouldȱprayȱforȱthe Virgin’sȱintercession.ȱInasmuchȱasȱtheȱHolyȱMaryȱisȱconcerned,ȱsheȱactedȱasȱifȱshe wereȱtheȱdirectȱantagonistȱofȱtheȱhumanȱladyȱwithȱwhomȱsheȱwasȱcontendingȱfor theȱknight’sȱheart.ȱWhenȱsheȱappearedȱinȱherȱmajesticȱsplendourȱinȱfrontȱofȱthe man’sȱeyesȱsheȱaskedȱhimȱtoȱchooseȱbetweenȱherȱandȱtheȱotherȱearthlyȱwoman. TheȱloveȬgameȱinvolvedȱaȱchoiceȱthatȱtheȱknightȱhadȱtoȱmakeȱ“seȱmeȱporȱamiga queresȱaver”ȱ(ifȱyouȱwishȱmeȱforȱyourȱbeloved;ȱCSMȱ16,ȱlineȱ76),ȱtheȱrulesȱofȱwhich forcedȱhimȱtoȱpickȱtheȱrightȱoptionȱinȱorderȱtoȱdeserveȱtheȱVirgin’sȱpricelessȱlove. Needlessȱ toȱ say,ȱ inȱ thisȱ caseȱ theȱ titleȱ “amiga”ȱ doesȱ notȱ implyȱ anyȱ sexual connotation,ȱalthoughȱtheȱatmosphereȱandȱtheȱadoptedȱvocabularyȱareȱmanifestly sensual.ȱInȱfact,ȱtheȱVirgin’sȱrolesȱofȱmotherȱandȱdaughterȱareȱhereȱsubordinated toȱ theȱ otherȱ sideȱ ofȱ herȱ profile,ȱ thatȱ isȱ toȱ sayȱ theȱ passionate,ȱ emotionalȱ and sometimesȱfickleȱwoman.53ȱAsȱfarȱasȱtheȱvolubleȱandȱimpulsiveȱVirgin’sȱbehavior 52

53

CatherineȱGuzmán,ȱ“AntifeminismȱinȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱandȱtheȱDialogoȱdeȱmujeresȱof CristóbalȱdeȱCastillejo,”ȱStudiesȱonȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría,ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatzȱandȱJohnȱE.ȱKeller, 279–86. ThereȱisȱaȱstrikingȱcoincidenceȱbetweenȱthisȱmiracleȱtaleȱandȱoneȱrecountedȱinȱGautierȱdeȱCoincy, Miraclesȱ deȱ laȱ Sainteȱ Vérge,ȱ ed.ȱ byȱ Abbéȱ Poquetȱ (Paris:ȱ Parmantierȱ :ȱ Didron,ȱ 1857),ȱ 637;ȱ inȱ the introductionȱofȱJohannesȱHerolt,ȱcalledȱDiscipulus,ȱMiraclesȱofȱtheȱBlessedȱVirginȱMary,ȱtrans.ȱC.ȱȱC. SwintonȱBland.ȱBroadwayȱMedievalȱLibraryȱ(London:ȱGeorgeȱRoutledgeȱ&ȱSons,ȱ1928),ȱxvii.ȱTheir plotsȱareȱidenticalȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱvocabularyȱandȱapproachesȱadoptedȱbyȱtheȱVirginȱtoȱaddressȱher loverȬknight.ȱ

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

465

isȱconcerned,ȱitȱisȱalsoȱinterestingȱtoȱrecallȱtheȱexampleȱofȱCSMȱ132,ȱinȱwhichȱshe reproachesȱ oneȱ ofȱ herȱ devotees,ȱ whoȱ wasȱ pressuredȱ byȱ hisȱ familyȱ toȱ marryȱ a wealthyȱwoman,ȱasȱfollows: Porquéȱoutraȱfillarȱyas amigaȱeȱdesdennavas aȱmi,ȱqueȱporȱamorȱtiȱavia?ȱ

(CSMȱ132,ȱlinesȱ105–07)

[Whyȱareȱyouȱgoingȱtoȱtake anotherȱloveȱandȱspurnȱme, whoȱlovedȱyou?]

Theseȱwordsȱwouldȱhardlyȱtellȱusȱthatȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱnotȱanȱoutragedȱhumanȱlover disappointedȱbyȱherȱpartner.ȱ TheȱVirginȱMaryȱoccupiesȱaȱcentralȱpositionȱnotȱsolelyȱinȱtheȱaforementioned amorousȱperformances,ȱinȱmotherhoodȱandȱfriendship,ȱbutȱalsoȱinȱcompanionship andȱcounselorship.ȱInȱfact,ȱitȱwasȱbelievedȱthatȱtheȱbestȱandȱwisestȱadviceȱthatȱman couldȱreceiveȱduringȱhisȱlifeȱcameȱfromȱtheȱVirginȱorȱfromȱherȱministers.ȱThereȱis evidenceȱtoȱillustrateȱthisȱinȱCSMȱ155,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱstoryȱofȱaȱwickedȱandȱproud knightȱofȱAlexandriaȱwho,ȱonceȱheȱrealizedȱhowȱmiserableȱhisȱsinfulȱlifeȱhadȱbeen, decidedȱtoȱfindȱsomeȱrescueȱinȱconfessionȱandȱpenitence.ȱHeȱvisitedȱaȱholyȱhermit whoȱ suggestedȱ aȱ pilgrimageȱ toȱ theȱ Holyȱ Land.ȱ Unfortunately,ȱ theȱ knightȱ was unableȱtoȱundertakeȱsuchȱaȱlongȱandȱriskyȱjourney;ȱtherefore,ȱtheȱhermitȱchanged hisȱadviceȱandȱaskedȱtheȱknightȱtoȱbringȱhimȱaȱtankardȱofȱwater,ȱwhichȱwould haveȱbeenȱconsideredȱtheȱsignȱofȱhisȱredemption.ȱTheȱapparentlyȱeasyȱtaskȱturned toȱbe,ȱinȱfact,ȱimpossibleȱtoȱaccomplishȱbecauseȱtheȱwaterȱdrainedȱawayȱfromȱhim. Theȱturningȱpointȱwasȱexperiencedȱonlyȱwhenȱtheȱknightȱaddressedȱhisȱpleasȱto theȱVirgin,ȱwithoutȱwhoseȱsuccourȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱneverȱsucceeded.ȱNonetheless, theȱmiracleȱhappenedȱwithoutȱtheȱdirectȱinterventionȱofȱtheȱBlessedȱLadyȱonȱthe scene;ȱinȱfact,ȱsheȱdidȱnotȱappearȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱsupplicant,ȱwhoȱmanagedȱtoȱfillȱthe tankardȱwithȱtheȱtearsȱshedȱduringȱhisȱinvocationsȱtoȱher.ȱHowever,ȱoneȱshould notȱdrawȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱhermit,ȱwhoȱhadȱfirstȱadvisedȱhim,ȱrepresented aȱmalevolentȱguide;ȱheȱwas,ȱratherȱandȱsimplyȱpowerless,ȱaboveȱallȱifȱcompared withȱtheȱHolyȱLadyȱwhoȱwasȱtheȱperfectȱcounselorȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱbehavedȱasȱGod’s friends: Duȱoȱpecadorȱprometeȱ|ȱdeȱseerȱamigoȱdeȱDeus eȱseȱpartirȱdeȱpecadoȱ|ȱeȱenmendarȱtortosȱseusȱ

(CSMȱ155,ȱlinesȱ7–8)

[WhenȱtheȱsinnerȱpromisesȱtoȱbeȱGod’sȱfriend andȱamendȱhisȱmisdeeds]

NotȱonlyȱwasȱtheȱVirginȱMary’sȱadviceȱmoreȱvaluableȱthanȱanyȱhumanȱguidance, butȱitȱwasȱalsoȱtheȱmostȱpowerfulȱweaponȱagainstȱtheȱdevil’sȱtemptations.ȱThe latterȱwasȱdepictedȱasȱtheȱbadȱadvisorȱperȱantonomasia,ȱsinceȱheȱhadȱtheȱpowerȱto

466

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

dragȱmanȱtoȱdamnation;ȱmoreover,ȱhisȱcorruptionȱrepresentedȱtheȱhardestȱobstacle toȱ overcomeȱ alongȱ theȱ journeyȱ towardȱ redemption.ȱ Theȱ examplesȱ ofȱ devils temptingȱreligiousȱandȱlayȱcharactersȱaboundȱinȱtheȱCSMȱwhereȱatȱleastȱ47ȱsongs depictȱ suchȱ situations.54ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ themȱ describeȱ theȱ devil’sȱ performances, transformationȱandȱhisȱtakingȱpossessionȱofȱminds,ȱsoulsȱandȱbodies,ȱasȱwellȱasȱhis deftȱabilityȱtoȱtransmorphȱintoȱanȱapparentlyȱreliableȱshapeȱinȱorderȱtoȱdragȱthose whoȱfollowedȱhimȱtowardȱgreatȱpainsȱand,ȱfinally,ȱdamnation.ȱTheȱmostȱpowerful remediesȱareȱMary’sȱaidȱandȱadvice,ȱasȱtheȱinvocationȱofȱCSMȱ350ȱsuggests: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. eȱporend’,ȱai,ȱpiadosa,ȱ taȱmerceeȱnosȱescude contraȱaȱcompann’ȱastrosaȱ doȱdemo,ȱeȱnosȱajude; caȱtuȱnaȱcoitaȱmayor valesȱaoȱpeccador.ȱ

(CSMȱ350,ȱlinesȱ19–24)

[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. therefore,ȱohȱGentleȱLady, mayȱyourȱmercyȱshieldȱus againstȱtheȱhorridȱilk ofȱtheȱdevilȱandȱcomeȱtoȱourȱaid, forȱyourȱhelpȱtheȱsinnerȱ inȱtimesȱofȱgreatestȱtrouble.]

WithȱregardȱtoȱthisȱsubjectȱtheȱcomparisonȱwithȱanotherȱcontemporaryȱMarian collection,ȱtheȱMilagrosȱdeȱnuestraȱSeñoraȱbyȱBerceo,ȱcomesȱtoȱmind.ȱMiracleȱXXIV ofȱ Berceo’sȱ workȱ narratesȱ theȱ storyȱ ofȱ aȱ generousȱ andȱ charitableȱ manȱ named Theophilus,ȱrespectedȱandȱappreciatedȱbyȱhisȱentireȱreligiousȱcommunityȱsinceȱhe wasȱtheȱfactotumȱofȱtheȱbishopric.55ȱAfterȱtheȱbishop’sȱdeathȱandȱtheȱelectionȱofȱhis successor,ȱjealousyȱandȱfrustrationȱledȱTheophilusȱtoȱbeȱeasilyȱdeceivedȱbyȱaȱJew whoȱwasȱinȱfactȱaȱdevil’sȱvassal.ȱHeȱfellȱintoȱaȱmiserableȱstateȱbecauseȱofȱsuchȱan evilȱcounselor:ȱ“esteȱnuestroȱcanonigoȱeȱnuestroȱcompanneroȱ/ȱmovióloȱsuȱlocura, unȱ falsoȱ conseiero”ȱ (thisȱ churchmanȱ andȱ companionȱ ofȱ oursȱ wasȱ drivenȱ to madnessȱbyȱaȱdeceitfulȱadvisor;ȱlineȱ840).ȱTheseȱaccountsȱunderlineȱtheȱfactȱthat evenȱMary’sȱdevotees,ȱincludingȱchurchmen,ȱcouldȱbeȱtempted.ȱTheȱSPȱalsoȱgive aȱseriesȱofȱcommandmentsȱagainstȱthoseȱ“queȱparescenȱamigosȱdeȱfueraȱetȱson falaguerosȱdeȱpalabraȱqueȱhanȱlaȱvoluntadȱcontrariaȱdeȱloȱqueȱmuestran”ȱ(who appearȱtoȱbeȱfriendȱbutȱareȱmerelyȱflatterers,ȱandȱwhoseȱcharactersȱareȱtheȱopposite 54

55

CSMȱ11,ȱ14,ȱ17,ȱ26,ȱ38,ȱ41,ȱ45,ȱ47,ȱ58,ȱ67,ȱ72,ȱ74,ȱ75,ȱ82,ȱ85,ȱ96,ȱ109,ȱ111,ȱ115,ȱ119,ȱ123,ȱ125,ȱ154,ȱ157, 182,ȱ192,ȱ197,ȱ201,ȱ213,ȱ216,ȱ238,ȱ241,ȱ254,ȱ259,ȱ267,ȱ272,ȱ273,ȱ274,ȱ284,ȱ298,ȱ311,ȱ343,ȱ365,ȱ378,ȱ392, 404,ȱ409. GonzaloȱdeȱBerceo,ȱMilagrosȱdeȱNuestraȱSeñora,ȱed.ȱFernandoȱBañosȱVallejo.ȱBibliotecaȱClaыsica (Barcelona,ȱSpain),ȱ3ȱ(Barcelona:ȱCrítica,ȱ1997),ȱ157–87.

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

467

ofȱ whatȱ theyȱ seemȱ toȱ be;ȱ SPȱ IV:XXVII:III),ȱ inȱ otherȱ wordsȱ againstȱ falseȱ and treacherousȱfriends.ȱHowever,ȱthisȱdidȱnotȱdenyȱtheȱpossibilityȱforȱmanȱtoȱfind humble,ȱhonestȱandȱwiseȱfriends,ȱendowedȱwithȱexemplaryȱvirtuesȱwhichȱwould enableȱthemȱtoȱactȱoutȱofȱpureȱbenevolence. Consideringȱallȱofȱthis,ȱtheȱconclusionȱoneȱmayȱdrawȱisȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱdirect dependenceȱ betweenȱ goodȱ adviceȱ andȱ theȱ advisor’sȱ personalȱ wisdomȱ and acknowledgedȱfame.ȱThisȱassumptionȱwouldȱexplainȱtheȱimpossibilityȱforȱwicked menȱ toȱ beȱ chosenȱ asȱ reliableȱ guides,ȱ whileȱ alsoȱ suggestingȱ furtherȱ reasonsȱ for whichȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱmeritsȱtheȱtitleȱofȱperfectȱfriendȱandȱcounselor.ȱInȱfact,ȱshe appearsȱinȱsuchȱaȱroleȱinȱseveralȱofȱtheȱcantigasȱ(forȱinstanceȱCSMȱ64,ȱ119,ȱ140,ȱ248, 273,ȱ275,ȱ291,ȱ313,ȱ355),ȱandȱinȱparticularȱCSMȱ418ȱexplicitlyȱtellsȱusȱthatȱherȱtask ofȱcounselorshipȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱsevenȱgiftsȱthatȱChristȱdonatedȱtoȱher:ȱ“Oȱterceyro deȱconselloȱ|ȱéstȱ,ȱeȱconȱmuiȱgranȱrazonȱoȱouveȱSantaȱMaria”ȱ(theȱthirdȱ[gift]ȱwas goodȱadvice,ȱwhichȱHolyȱMaryȱutterlyȱdeserved;ȱlinesȱ18–19).ȱBeyondȱherȱroleȱof exemplaryȱadvisorȱandȱguideȱtowardȱsalvation,ȱweȱshouldȱnotȱunderestimateȱthe degreeȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱalsoȱhelpedȱmanȱinȱcopingȱwithȱpersonalȱand dailyȱconcernsȱandȱdifficulties.ȱ

TheȱVirginȱandȱtheȱKing:ȱBetweenȱFriendshipȱandȱVasallic Relationships Amongȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱperfectȱfriendsȱandȱdevoteesȱtheȱkingȱemergesȱfromȱthe linesȱofȱtheȱCSMȱasȱanȱidealizedȱfigureȱcharacterizedȱbyȱhisȱuncorruptedȱloveȱand hisȱsubmissionȱtoȱtheȱsupremeȱauthorityȱofȱGod,ȱthoughȱnotȱtoȱthatȱofȱtheȱChurch. Despiteȱhisȱportraitȱasȱaȱmodelȱforȱhisȱsubjectsȱtoȱemulate,ȱheȱwasȱfarȱfromȱbeing consideredȱaȱsuperiorȱcreatureȱ(asȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱchristomim¾t¾sȱrequired),ȱandȱhe wasȱratherȱregardedȱasȱaȱtrueȱbelieverȱendowedȱwithȱtheȱgiftȱofȱHolyȱGrace.56ȱThe CSM,ȱ asȱ bothȱ aȱ productȱ ofȱ Alfonsoȱ X’sȱ personalȱ spiritualȱ experienceȱ andȱ a collectionȱaddressedȱtoȱeverybody,ȱevenȱifȱatȱdifferentȱreadingȱlevels,ȱcontributed toȱmakeȱhisȱsubjectsȱbelieveȱthatȱeverybodyȱcouldȱachieveȱsuchȱaȱstatusȱofȱgrace, asȱaȱrewardȱforȱnobleȱactions.ȱAdditionally,ȱtheȱvernacularȱlanguage,ȱinȱwhichȱthe collectionȱwasȱwritten,ȱplayedȱaȱfundamentalȱrole,ȱsinceȱitȱcorroboratedȱtheȱidea ofȱ aȱ sharedȱ religiousȱ experienceȱ andȱ supportedȱ theȱ royalȱ projectȱ ofȱ transition towardȱaȱnationwideȱidentity.57ȱTheȱCSMȱshowȱanȱidealizedȱpictureȱofȱAlfonsoȱX, submissiveȱtoȱtheȱsupremeȱauthorityȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱVirginȱandȱtheȱsaints.ȱButȱthe 56

57

Ernstȱ H.ȱ Kantorowicz,ȱ Theȱ Kingȇsȱ Twoȱ Bodies:ȱ Aȱ Studyȱ inȱ Mediaevalȱ Politicalȱ Theologyȱ (1957; Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1981),ȱ61–78. DavidȱRojinsky,ȱ“TheȱRuleȱofȱLawȱandȱtheȱWrittenȱWordȱinȱAlfonsineȱCastile:ȱDemistifyingȱa ConsecratedȱVernacular,”ȱBulletinȱofȱHispanicȱStudiesȱ80ȱ(2003):ȱ287–305.

468

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

paradoxȱisȱthatȱthanksȱtoȱsuchȱreverentialȱbehavior,ȱtheȱsovereignȱgainedȱsufficient prestigeȱtoȱbeȱrecognisedȱasȱaȱmoralȱauthority.58ȱ Theȱ“Reconquest”ȱalsoȱcontributedȱtoȱstrengthenȱtheȱideaȱofȱhisȱuncontested superiority;ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ byȱ fightingȱ againstȱ theȱ enemiesȱ ofȱ theȱ faith,ȱ regainingȱ the MuslimȱterritoriesȱandȱreconvertingȱthemȱintoȱChristianȱspaces,ȱAlfonsoȱXȱgained theȱepithetȱofȱchampionȱofȱChristianityȱandȱdefenderȱofȱorthodoxy.ȱComplemenȬ tarily,ȱ theȱ majorȱ tasksȱ ofȱ hisȱ law,ȱ policyȱ andȱ administration—allȱ depictedȱ as divinelyȱbestowedȱtools—wereȱtoȱaccomplishȱGod’sȱwillȱandȱtoȱguideȱpeopleȱin livingȱanȱhonestȱlifeȱwhichȱwouldȱconstituteȱtheirȱpassportȱtoȱHeaven.ȱItȱhasȱtoȱbe noted,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱtheȱkingȱneverȱtriedȱtoȱusurpȱtheȱsacredȱroleȱofȱmediatorȱheld byȱtheȱVirgin.ȱContrarily,ȱsheȱcontinuedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmainȱaddresseeȱofȱhisȱclaimsȱand toȱ embodyȱ aȱ perfectȱ companionȱ whichȱ noȱ otherȱ humanȱ figureȱ couldȱ have equalled.ȱForȱallȱtheseȱreasons,ȱitȱisȱnotȱunusualȱtoȱcomeȱacrossȱimagesȱofȱtheȱLiege Queenȱprovidingȱsupportȱinȱtheȱbattlefieldȱorȱrescuingȱdevotedȱsovereignsȱinȱneed. TheȱCSMȱpresentȱsomeȱcasesȱofȱmonarchsȱimploringȱtheȱVirginȱforȱpoliticalȱand militaryȱaidȱandȱitȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱtoȱfindȱliteraryȱaccountsȱofȱtheȱsupportȱthey receivedȱinȱtheirȱcampaignsȱagainstȱtheȱMuslimȱarmies.ȱCasesȱinȱpointȱareȱCSMȱ28, describingȱ theȱ conquestȱ ofȱ Constantinople,ȱ andȱ CSMȱ 181,ȱ whichȱ tellsȱ ofȱ the AlmohadȱrulerȱofȱMarrakech,ȱUmarȱalȬMurtadaȱ(1248–1266),ȱwhoȱwasȱsupported byȱtheȱVirgin’sȱinterventionȱagainstȱAbuȱYusufȱofȱtheȱMerinidsȱwhenȱheȱallowed aȱ groupȱ ofȱ Christianȱ mercenariesȱ toȱ goȱ outȱ ofȱ theȱ cityȱ carryingȱ withȱ themȱ the bannerȱofȱtheȱHolyȱMary: EȱassiȱSantaȱMariaȱ|ȱajudouȱaȱseusȱamigos,ȱ peroȱqueȱd’ȱoutraȱleiȱeran,ȱ|ȱaȱbritarȱseusȱe~ emigosȱ que,ȱmacarȱqueȱeranȱmuitos,ȱ|ȱnonosȱpreçaronȱdousȱfigos,ȱ eȱassiȱfoiȱssaȱmerceeȱ|ȱdeȱtodosȱmuiȱconnoçuda.ȱ (CSMȱ181,ȱlinesȱ40–43) [ThusȱHolyȱMaryȱhelpedȱHerȱfriends, althoughȱtheyȱwereȱofȱanotherȱfaith,ȱtoȱdefeatȱtheirȱenemies, forȱalthoughȱtheyȱwereȱmany,ȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱgiveȱtwoȱfigs aboutȱthem.ȱInȱthisȱwayȱwasȱHerȱmercyȱmadeȱmanifestȱtoȱall.]

Aȱ closerȱ lookȱ atȱ CSMȱ 348,ȱ whichȱ tellsȱ ofȱ aȱ treasureȱ ofȱ goldȱ andȱ silverȱ which AlfonsoȱXȱfoundȱthanksȱtoȱMary’sȱadvice,ȱisȱalsoȱrevealing: BenȱparteȱSantaȱMariaȱ|ȱsasȱgraçasȱeȱseusȱtesourosȱ aosȱqueȱservenȱseuȱFilloȱ|ȱbenȱeȱelaȱcontraȱmouros.ȱ Destoȱdireiȱunȱmiragreȱ|ȱqueȱave~ eoȱenȱEspanna,ȱ 58

Forȱ example,ȱ Alfonsoȱ Xȱ avoidedȱ ritualsȱ ofȱ anointingȱ andȱ coronation,ȱ unlikeȱ otherȱ European sovereigns.ȱReadȱmoreȱinȱmyȱforthcomingȱarticleȱ“TheȱKingȱasȱSubject,ȱMasterȱandȱFigureȱof Authority,”ȱEveryȱInchȱaȱKing:ȱComparativeȱStudiesȱinȱKingsȱandȱKingshipȱinȱtheȱAncientȱandȱMediaeval Worlds,ȱed.ȱLynetteȱMitchellȱandȱCharlesȱMelvilleȱ(Leiden:ȱBrill,ȱforthcomingȱ2010).

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

469

queȱmostrouȱSantaȱMaria,ȱ|ȱaȱpiadosaȱsenȱsanna,ȱ contraȱunȱreiȱqueȱdeȱgenteȱ|ȱlevavaȱmuiȱgranȱcompannaȱ porȱonrrarȱaȱfeȱdeȱCristoȱ|ȱeȱdestroyrȱaȱdosȱmouros.ȱ (CSMȱ348,ȱlinesȱ3–8) [HolyȱMaryȱgenerouslyȱsharesȱHerȱblessing andȱHerȱtreasuresȱwithȱthoseȱwhoȱserveȱHerȱandȱHerȱSonȱwellȱ againstȱtheȱMoors. Concerningȱthis,ȱIȱshallȱtellȱaȱmiracleȱwhichȱhappenedȱinȱSpain whichȱHolyȱMary,ȱtheȱgentleȱandȱcompassionateȱOne, performedȱforȱaȱkingȱwhoȱledȱaȱgreatȱarmy toȱhonorȱtheȱfaithȱofȱChristȱandȱdestroyȱthatȱofȱtheȱMoors.]

Theȱ kingȱ isȱ depictedȱ asȱ aȱ valorousȱ knightȱ fightingȱ againstȱ theȱ enemiesȱ of orthodoxyȱ inȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ hisȱ loveȱ forȱ Godȱ and,ȱ inȱ particular,ȱ forȱ Castile, emblematicallyȱ representedȱ byȱ theȱ Virginȱ Mary.ȱ Theȱ divineȱ supportȱ thatȱ the sovereignȱ receivedȱbyȱtheȱHolyȱLadyȱwasȱalsoȱinterpretedȱasȱaȱformȱofȱdivine consensusȱwhichȱauthorizedȱhisȱexpansionisticȱplansȱandȱjustifiedȱhisȱinheritance ofȱtheȱthrone.ȱThisȱassumptionȱisȱalsoȱexemplifiedȱbyȱCSMȱ200: Caȱaȱmiȱdeȱbõaȱgente fezȱvirȱdereitamente eȱquisȱqueȱmuiȱchãamente reinass’ȱeȱqueȱfosseȱrei. ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Caȱmiȱfezȱdeȱbõaȱterraȱ sennor,ȱeȱenȱtodaȱguerraȱ m’ajudouȱaȱqueȱnonȱerra nenȱerrou,ȱuȱaȱchamei.ȱ

ȱ

(Linesȱ9–12;ȱ29–32)

[Sheȱcausedȱmeȱ toȱdescendȱfromȱgoodȱlineage andȱwilledȱthatȱIȱshouldȱjustlyȱreign andȱbeȱking.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ ForȱSheȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱerrȱmadeȱme lordȱofȱaȱfineȱland andȱhelpedȱmeȱinȱeveryȱwar whenȱIȱcalledȱonȱHer.]

Similarly,ȱaȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱsupposedȱdivineȱoriginȱofȱroyalȱpowerȱrecursȱinȱCSM 409: Reisȱeȱemperadores,ȱ todosȱcomËalmenteȱ aȱtodoȱseuȱciente

470

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo devenȱdeȱbõaȱmenteȱ darȬlleȱgrandesȱloores, caȱperȱelaȱsennores sonȱdeȱtodaȱaȱgente, eȱcadaȱËuȱsente delaȱcompridamente merceesȱeȱamores; eȱmacarȱpeccadores sejan,ȱaȱVirgenȱbõa muiȱtosteȱosȱperdõa, senȱnullaȱdovidança.ȱ

(CSMȱ409,ȱlinesȱ36–49)

[Kingsȱandȱemperors shouldȱoneȱandȱall, toȱtheȱbestȱofȱtheirȱability, joyfullyȱrender Herȱgreatȱpraise, forȱbecauseȱofȱHer theyȱareȱlords ofȱallȱtheȱpeople, andȱeachȱoneȱreceives signsȱofȱmercyȱandȱlove generouslyȱfromȱHer. Althoughȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱsinners, theȱgentleȱVirgin quicklyȱpardonsȱthem withoutȱhesitation.]

Notȱonlyȱwasȱtheȱsovereignȱendowedȱwithȱfullȱauthority,ȱbutȱheȱwasȱevenȱforgiven inȱcaseȱofȱanyȱmistake.ȱAmyȱG.ȱRemensnyderȱhasȱdiscussedȱthisȱpointȱfurtherȱby arguingȱthatȱAlfonsoȱXȱwasȱengagedȱinȱaȱprocessȱofȱidentificationȱwithȱtheȱVirgin, supportedȱalsoȱbyȱtheȱvisualȱcoincidence—evidentȱinȱtheȱCSM’sȱpanels—between hisȱandȱtheȱHolyȱLady’sȱgestures,ȱpositions,ȱcrownsȱandȱthrones;ȱcoincidences whichȱstrengthenedȱandȱvouchsafedȱhisȱpositionȱandȱmissionȱinȱtheȱaudience’s eye.59ȱInȱsuchȱanȱemulativeȱattitudeȱAlfonsoȱXȱdistancedȱhimselfȱfromȱtheȱformer highȱmedievalȱChristologicalȱtheories,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱtheȱsovereignȱretained anȱontologicalȱstatusȱofȱiconȱforȱChrist,ȱandȱheȱratherȱacquiredȱtheȱfunctionalȱrole ofȱfriendȱandȱintermediary.ȱInȱtheȱfootstepsȱofȱhisȱfather,ȱFerdinandȱIII,ȱAlfonsoȱX stressedȱ hisȱ dependenceȱ andȱ cooperationȱ withȱ theȱ Holyȱ Motherȱ byȱ declaring himselfȱherȱlover,ȱfriend,ȱvassalȱandȱfirstȱofȱherȱdevotees. 59

AmyȱG.ȱRemensnyder,ȱ“MarianȱMonarchyȱinȱThirteenthȬCenturyȱCastile,”ȱTheȱExperienceȱofȱPower inȱMedievalȱEurope:ȱ950–1350,ȱed.ȱRobertȱF.ȱBerkhofer,ȱAlanȱCooper,ȱandȱAdamȱJ.ȱKostoȱ(Aldershot, Hampshire,ȱEnglandȱ,ȱandȱBurlington,ȱVT:ȱAshgate,ȱ2005),ȱ253–70.ȱSeeȱalsoȱmyȱarticleȱ“TheȱKing asȱSubject,ȱMasterȱandȱFigureȱofȱAuthority,”ȱEveryȱInchȱaȱKing,ȱed.ȱLynetteȱMitchellȱ(forthcoming 2010).

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

471

Anotherȱaspectȱtoȱbeȱborneȱinȱmindȱisȱthatȱtheȱsovereignȱdidȱnotȱinvokeȱthe supernaturalȱ interventionȱ forȱ mattersȱ ofȱ governmentalȱ policyȱ andȱ stateȱ affairs only.ȱPhysicalȱhandicaps,ȱmomentsȱofȱcrisisȱandȱsenseȱofȱdefeatȱwereȱsomeȱofȱthe mainȱreasonsȱforȱinvokingȱtheȱLady’sȱmercyȱandȱassistance.ȱOneȱexampleȱisȱCSM 209,ȱwhichȱreportsȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱillnessȱsufferedȱbyȱAlfonsoȱX,ȱhisȱrecoveryȱin VitoriaȱandȱhisȱrequestȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱbookȱofȱtheȱCSMȱbroughtȱtoȱhimȱinȱorderȱtoȱbe rescuedȱbyȱitsȱmiraculousȱcontact.ȱTheȱcollection,ȱasȱaȱphysicalȱobject,ȱwasȱthought toȱhaveȱtheȱcapabilityȱ toȱgiveȱreliefȱtoȱtheȱbody,ȱjustȱasȱitsȱcontentsȱandȱmoral adviceȱcouldȱbeȱhelpfulȱinȱcuringȱhumanȱsoulsȱandȱinȱguidingȱmanȱtoȱeverlasting salvation.ȱInȱthisȱcaseȱaȱmaterialȱobject,ȱaȱbook,ȱturnedȱintoȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱaccessȱthe supernaturalȱlife.ȱItȱisȱnotȱthereforeȱunreasonableȱtoȱstateȱthatȱtheȱunselfishȱideas ofȱpureȱloveȱandȱfriendshipȱwereȱsometimesȱeclipsedȱbyȱpersonalȱinterestsȱand materialȱ goals,ȱ additionalȱ reasonsȱ whichȱ ledȱ theȱ kingȱ toȱ callȱ forȱ supernatural intervention.60 Amongȱ theȱ mostȱ commonȱ demandsȱ madeȱ byȱ Alfonsoȱ X,ȱ thereȱ wasȱ alsoȱ the requestȱtoȱbeȱdelightedȱbyȱfriendsȱandȱtoȱdiscernȱtheȱtrueȱsignsȱofȱamityȱinȱpeople whoȱsurroundedȱhim.ȱCSMȱ401ȱisȱrevealing:ȱtheȱsovereignȱimploresȱtheȱVirgin Maryȱ toȱ makeȱ himȱ ableȱ toȱ selectȱ goodȱ friendsȱ andȱ toȱ beȱ preservedȱ from treacherousȱcounselors:ȱ

ȱ

ȱ

Outrosȱrogosȱsenȱestesȱ|ȱteȱquer’oraȱfazer: queȱroguesȱaȱteuȱFilloȱ|ȱqueȱmeȱfaçaȱviver,ȱ perȱqueȱserviȬloȱpossa,ȱ|ȱeȱqueȱmeȱdéȱpoder contraȱseusȱe~ emigosȱ|ȱeȱllesȱfaçaȱperder oȱqueȱte~ enȱforçado,ȱ|ȱqueȱnonȱdevenȱaver,ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ eȱqueȱdeȱmeusȱamigosȱ|ȱvejaȱsenpreȱprazer,ȱ[ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ].ȱ

(Linesȱ32–38)

[OtherȱrequestsȱbesidesȱtheseȱIȱwishȱtoȱmakeȱofȱyouȱnow. PrayȱtoȱyourȱSonȱtoȱletȱmeȱlive soȱthatȱIȱmayȱserveȱyouȱandȱtoȱgiveȱmeȱpower againstȱHisȱenemiesȱandȱmakeȱthemȱlose whatȱtheyȱholdȱbyȱforceȱandȱshouldȱnotȱkeep.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ andȱmayȱIȱknowȱonlyȱpleasureȱfromȱmyȱfriends.]

Theseȱlinesȱevokeȱtheȱimageȱofȱaȱcorruptedȱcourtȱinȱwhichȱtheȱruler’sȱpowerȱand missionȱneededȱtoȱbeȱprotectedȱagainstȱtheȱnobles’ȱthreateningȱambition,ȱlackȱof loyaltyȱandȱsinfulȱbehavior:ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. e,ȱpoisȱReyȱmeȱfez,ȱqueiraȱ|ȱqueȱreyn’ȱaȱseuȱsabor, eȱdeȱmiȱeȱdosȱreynosȱ|ȱsejaȱelȱguardador,ȱ 60

SeeȱalsoȱCSMȱ221,ȱwhichȱnarratesȱtheȱillnessȱsufferedȱbyȱtheȱyoungȱKingȱFerdinandȱIII.ȱ

472

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo queȱmeȱdeuȱeȱdarȱpodeȱ|ȱquandoȱll’enȱprazerȱfor; eȱqueȱelȱmeȱdeffendaȱ|ȱdeȱfals’ȱeȱtraedor, eȱoutrossiȱmeȱguardeȱ|ȱdeȱmalȱconsellador eȱd’omeȱqueȱmalȱserveȱ|ȱeȱéȱmuiȱpedidor. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ eȱdosȱqueȱlealdadeȱ|ȱnonȱpreçanȱquant’ȱunȱpan,ȱ peroȱqueȱsempr’ȱenȱelaȱ|ȱmuitoȱfaland’ȱestan. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. eȱmeȱguardeȱmeuȱcorpoȱ|ȱd’ocajonȱeȱdeȱmalȱ eȱd’amigoȱencuberto,ȱ|ȱqueȱaȱgranȱcoitaȱfal,ȱ eȱdeȱquenȱtenȱenȱpoucoȱ|ȱdeȱseerȱdesleal, eȱdaquelȱqueȱseȱpreçaȱ|ȱmuit’ȱeȱmuiȱpoucoȱval,ȱ eȱdeȱquenȱenȱseusȱfeitosȱ|ȱsempr’éȱdescomunal.ȱ (CSMȱ401,ȱlinesȱ46–51;ȱ70–71;ȱ76–80) [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ andȱmayȱHeȱbeȱguardianȱofȱme andȱtheȱkingdomsȱheȱgaveȱme andȱhasȱpowerȱtoȱgiveȱmeȱwhenȱHeȱsoȱchooses. MayȱHeȱdefendȱmeȱfromȱfalseȱandȱtreacherousȱmen andȱalsoȱprotectȱmeȱfromȱbadȱadvisors andȱmenȱwhoȱserveȱunwillinglyȱandȱareȱneverȱsatisfied. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ andȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱcareȱnotȱaȱcrumbȱforȱloyalty, althoughȱtheyȱalwaysȱspeakȱofȱit.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ mayȱSheȱpreserveȱmyȱpersonȱfromȱanyȱdamages andȱadversitiesȱandȱfromȱfalseȱfriends, whoȱdoȱnotȱhelpȱinȱcaseȱofȱnecessity, andȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱcareȱaboutȱbeingȱdisloyal, andȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱestimateȱthemselvesȱbutȱtheyȱareȱunworthyȱinȱfact, andȱfromȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱalwaysȱextremeȱinȱtheirȱdeeds.]

Suchȱaȱderogatoryȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱcourtlyȱconnectionsȱandȱtheȱcomparisonȱwith otherȱformsȱofȱworldlyȱlinksȱseemsȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱvalueȱofȱspiritualȱrelations overȱ anyȱ otherȱ connection,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ establishedȱ withinȱ theȱ royalȱ circle. AnotherȱinterestingȱcaseȱtoȱanalyseȱisȱCSMȱ292,ȱtheȱprotagonistȱofȱwhichȱisȱAlfonso X’sȱfather,ȱKingȱFerdinandȱIII,ȱwhoseȱrelationshipȱwithȱtheȱVirginȱisȱdescribedȱas follows:ȱ Seȱelȱlealȱcontraȱelaȱ|ȱfoi,ȱtanȱlealȱaȱachou, queȱenȱtodoȬlosȱseusȱfeitosȱ|ȱatanȱbenȱoȱajudou, queȱquantoȱcomeçarȱquisoȱ|ȱeȱacabar,ȱacabou; eȱseȱbenȱobrouȱporȱela,ȱbenȱll’arȱpagouȱseuȱjor[nal]. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Assiȱestesȱdousȱleaesȱ|ȱlealdadeȱfezȱamar,

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile caȱelȱsempreȱeȱserviaȱ|ȱeȱaȱsabiaȱloarȱ; eȱquand’ȱalgËaȱcidadeȱ|ȱdeȱmourosȱyaȱgãar, ssaȱomagenȱnaȱmezquitaȱ|ȱpõyaȱenoȱportal.ȱ

473

(Linesȱ16–19;ȱ26–29)

[IfȱheȱboreȱloyaltyȱtowardȱHer,ȱheȱfoundȱHerȱtoȱbeȱequallyȱloyal, forȱinȱallȱhisȱdeedsȱSheȱaidedȱhimȱsoȱwellȱ thatȱallȱheȱchoseȱtoȱbeginȱandȱcarryȱout,ȱheȱachieved. IfȱheȱperformedȱgoodȱserviceȱforȱHer,ȱSheȱgenerouslyȱpaidȱhimȱhisȱ wagesȱinȱreturn.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Thusȱtheȱbondȱofȱloyaltyȱmadeȱtheseȱtwoȱloyalȱheartsȱloveȱeachȱother, forȱheȱalwaysȱservedȱHerȱandȱrenderedȱHerȱpraise. WhenȱheȱconqueredȱsomeȱcityȱfromȱtheȱMoors, heȱplacedȱHerȱstatueȱinȱtheȱporticoȱofȱtheȱmosque.]

Asȱ forȱ anyȱ otherȱ formȱ ofȱ pureȱ friendshipȱ theȱ keyȱ wordsȱ remainȱ mutualȱ love, goodness,ȱloyaltyȱandȱrespect.ȱAlthoughȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱkingȱandȱthe VirginȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱimpossibleȱaccordingȱtoȱAristotle’sȱtheoryȱofȱequality,ȱin factȱitȱwasȱestablishedȱthanksȱtoȱtheȱprivilegedȱandȱmoralȱpositionȱofȱtheȱking, whichȱallowedȱhimȱtoȱbridgeȱtheȱgapȱexistingȱbetweenȱthem,ȱwithoutȱreaching everȱ aȱ perfectlyȱ symmetricalȱ position.ȱ Inȱ fact,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ theȱ sovereign’sȱ social prestige,ȱbutȱalsoȱhisȱpersonalȱvaluesȱandȱvirtues,ȱallowedȱhimȱtoȱbeȱelevatedȱto theȱroleȱofȱoneȱofȱtheȱHolyȱLady’sȱfriends.ȱ Similarly,ȱCSMȱ321ȱattestsȱtheȱking’sȱvirtuousȱandȱloyalȱbehaviorȱbyȱshowing howȱ heȱ neverȱ triedȱ toȱ takeȱ advantageȱ fromȱ hisȱ privilegedȱ status.ȱ Inȱ aȱ largely superstitiousȱcontext,ȱwhereȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱpeopleȱwereȱuneducated,ȱtheȱmonarch couldȱhaveȱbeenȱeasilyȱtemptedȱtoȱoveruseȱhisȱpower.ȱThisȱhappened,ȱforȱinstance, inȱ theȱ medievalȱ Englishȱ andȱ Frenchȱ courts,ȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ rulersȱ claimedȱ the miraculousȱthaumaturgicalȱpowerȱofȱcuringȱillnessesȱassociatedȱwithȱtuberculosis, creatingȱinȱthisȱwayȱtheȱmythȱofȱtheȱroyalȱtouch.ȱAsȱpointedȱoutȱbyȱO’Callaghan, inȱtheȱIberianȱPeninsulaȱthereȱwasȱneitherȱliteraryȱnorȱhistoricȱevidenceȱofȱthe existenceȱofȱtheȱroyalȱhealingȱphenomenon.61ȱTheȱaboveȬmentionedȱCSMȱ321ȱisȱa validȱdemonstration:ȱaȱyoungȱgirlȱsufferingȱfromȱanȱincurableȱthroatȱdisease,ȱafter manyȱyearsȱofȱmedicalȱtreatmentsȱgivenȱbyȱdoctorsȱandȱphysicians,ȱwasȱbrought byȱherȱmother—whoȱfollowedȱaȱgoodȱman’sȱadvice—inȱfrontȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱasȱthe lastȱ attemptȱ toȱ rescueȱ her.ȱ Wisely,ȱ Alfonsoȱ Xȱ didȱ notȱ claimȱ anyȱ divineȱ gift, althoughȱ theȱ devotee’sȱ invocationȱ offeredȱ himȱ theȱ easyȱ opportunityȱ toȱ make peopleȱbelieveȱinȱsuchȱaȱpretentiousȱability.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱheȱaddressedȱthe 61

JosephȱF.ȱO’Callaghan,ȱ“TheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaríaȱasȱaȱHistoricalȱSource:ȱTwoȱExamplesȱ(nos. 321ȱandȱ386),”ȱ StudiesȱonȱtheȱCantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría:ȱArt,ȱMusic,ȱandȱPoetry:ȱProceedingsȱofȱthe Internationalȱ Symposiumȱ onȱ theȱ Cantigasȱ deȱ Santaȱ Mariaȱ ofȱ Alfonsoȱ X,ȱ elȱ Sabioȱ (1221–1284)ȱ in CommemorationȱofȱItsȱ700thȱAnniversaryȱYear—198lȱ(NewȱYork,ȱNovemberȱ19–21),ȱed.ȱIsraelȱJ.ȱKatz, JohnȱE.ȱKeller,ȱSamuelȱG.ȱArmistead,ȱandȱJosephȱThomasȱSnow.ȱHispanicȱSeminaryȱofȱMedieval Studiesȱ(Madison,ȱWI:ȱHispanicȱSeminaryȱofȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱ1987),ȱ387–402.

474

AntonellaȱLiuzzoȱScorpo

devotee’sȱ pleasȱ toȱ theȱ Virgin,ȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ whoȱ couldȱ haveȱ curedȱ herȱ sick daughter.ȱInȱtermsȱofȱlove,ȱrespectȱandȱtrustȱtheȱkingȱearnedȱmoreȱbyȱbehavingȱin suchȱaȱwayȱthanȱbyȱenteringȱintoȱanȱambitiousȱcompetitionȱwithȱtheȱHolyȱLady whichȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱasȱaȱresultȱhisȱbeingȱregardedȱasȱaȱbetrayer. AlfonsoȱX,ȱasȱrevealedȱinȱsomeȱofȱhisȱworks,ȱaimedȱatȱgarneringȱbothȱrespectȱas aȱlordȱandȱloveȱasȱaȱfriendȱfromȱhisȱsubjects.ȱObviously,ȱhadȱheȱtakenȱonȱtheȱrole ofȱMary’sȱantagonist,ȱbyȱpromotingȱhimselfȱasȱherȱworldlyȱpeer,ȱheȱwouldȱnot haveȱ receivedȱ supernaturalȱ aid.ȱ Therefore,ȱ weȱ canȱ inferȱ thatȱ theȱ necessityȱ of equalityȱbetweenȱfriends,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱatȱleast,ȱhasȱtoȱbeȱrejectedȱinȱorderȱtoȱallow suchȱ connectionsȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ worldsȱ toȱ persist.ȱ Theȱ reasonȱ forȱ suchȱ a statementȱappearsȱquiteȱclear:ȱhadȱtheȱsovereignȱclaimedȱsupernaturalȱpowers arrogantlyȱandȱunfairly,ȱorȱprofessedȱanȱundifferentiatedȱpositionȱwithȱtheȱVirgin, heȱwouldȱhaveȱlostȱtheȱprivilegeȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱherȱfriend.ȱAlthoughȱitȱcould appearȱ contradictory,ȱ trueȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ possibleȱ onlyȱ ifȱ theȱ kingȱ actedȱ inȱ a respectfulȱattitudeȱofȱloveȱandȱvassalageȱtowardȱtheȱVirgin.ȱNeedlessȱtoȱsay,ȱthe AlfonsineȱMarianȱproductionȱillustratesȱthisȱpoint:ȱtheȱpoemsȱdedicatedȱtoȱthe Virginȱrepresentȱtheȱhomageȱofȱaȱmanȱwhoȱwasȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱherȱlover,ȱvassal, friendȱandȱservantȱandȱwhoȱwasȱalwaysȱpositioned,ȱdespiteȱhisȱroyaltyȱandȱhisȱrole ofȱ“vicarȱofȱGod,”ȱaȱstepȱlowerȱthanȱherȱgoldenȱthrone.ȱ Toȱ conclude,ȱ anȱ interestingȱ considerationȱ emergesȱ fromȱ theȱ analysisȱ ofȱ the differentȱtypologiesȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱhithertoȱexamined,ȱwhichȱisȱhowȱthe ideaȱofȱmutualityȱchallengedȱtheȱinnateȱantithesisȱexistingȱbetweenȱunequalȱparties and,ȱinȱparticular,ȱbetweenȱsecularȱandȱsupernaturalȱfigures.ȱInȱfact,ȱalsoȱinȱcases ofȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱrepresentativesȱofȱtheȱtwoȱworlds,ȱloveȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱgiven univocally.ȱHumanȱbelieversȱhadȱtoȱshowȱtheirȱpureȱaffectionȱandȱbenevolence onlyȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ respectedȱ andȱ awardedȱ withȱ mutualȱ favoursȱ byȱ theirȱ holy counterparts.ȱ Nevertheless,ȱ theseȱ connectionsȱ couldȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ formsȱ of mutual,ȱbutȱnotȱequal,ȱloveȱsinceȱtheȱgapȱexistingȱbetweenȱtheȱinvolvedȱparties wasȱunbridgeable.ȱForȱthisȱreason,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱholyȱfigures andȱ humans,ȱ evenȱ ifȱ describedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ presentedȱ signsȱ and peculiaritiesȱ typicalȱ ofȱ theȱ bondsȱ linkingȱ theȱ highestȱ figuresȱ withȱ their subordinatesȱand,ȱinȱparticular,ȱtheyȱrecalledȱtheȱstructureȱandȱritualsȱofȱvassalic relationshipsȱand,ȱsimilarly,ȱthatȱofȱcourtlyȱlove.ȱMoreover,ȱunselfishȱpureȱlove andȱfriendshipȱwereȱusuallyȱeclipsedȱbyȱpersonalȱinterestsȱandȱmaterialȱgoals.ȱOn theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ mostȱ commonȱ claimsȱ whichȱ theȱ believersȱ addressedȱ toȱ the Virginȱandȱtheȱsaintsȱwereȱfinalȱsalvation,ȱredemptionȱfromȱtheirȱsins,ȱandȱrescue fromȱdangersȱandȱillnesses.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱtheȱsovereignȱinvokedȱtheȱHoly powersȱandȱclaimed,ȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱthem,ȱtoȱbeȱsupportedȱin theȱChristianȱwarsȱagainstȱtheȱinfidels,ȱtoȱbeȱdelightedȱbyȱfriendshipȱandȱtoȱdiscern theȱtrueȱsignsȱofȱamityȱinȱthoseȱwhoȱsurroundedȱhim.ȱWithȱtheȱCSMȱAlfonsoȱXȱand

SpiritualȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱWorksȱofȱAlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile

475

hisȱ scriptoriumȱ managedȱ toȱ createȱ aȱ workȱ whichȱ exploredȱ suchȱ “spiritual connections,”ȱ evenȱ ifȱ theyȱ wereȱ clearlyȱ presentedȱ asȱ metaphorsȱ ofȱ theȱ most pragmaticȱandȱsecularȱbondsȱestablishedȱwithȱandȱbetweenȱmen.ȱWhetherȱthese twoȱworlds,ȱtheȱsecularȱandȱtheȱspiritual,ȱwereȱfactuallyȱconnectedȱorȱnot,ȱAlfonso Xȱdeclaredȱhimselfȱtoȱbeȱlinkedȱtoȱbothȱtheseȱdimensionsȱinȱaȱsacredȱamityȱchain and,ȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ way,ȱ heȱ managedȱ toȱ holdȱ theȱ wideȱ consensusȱ ofȱ hisȱ subjects, withoutȱ denyingȱ orȱ usurpingȱ theȱ rolesȱ andȱ positionsȱ attributedȱ toȱ theȱ Holy powers.

Chapterȱ14 DavidȱF.ȱTinsley (UniversityȱofȱPugetȱSound,ȱTacoma,ȱWA)

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱ ElsbethȱStagel

Theȱsearchȱforȱauthenticȱwomen’sȱvoicesȱinȱreligiousȱliteratureȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges hasȱbeenȱfrustratedȱandȱfrequentlyȱfoiledȱbyȱtheȱgenderingȱofȱtextualȱtransmission. AsȱCatherineȱMooneyȱnotes:ȱ“Women’sȱwordsȱalmostȱinvariablyȱreachȱusȱonly afterȱ havingȱ passedȱ throughȱ theȱ filtersȱ ofȱ theirȱ maleȱ confessors,ȱ patrons,ȱ and scribes.”1ȱ Thisȱ realizationȱ hasȱ sparkedȱ threeȱ productiveȱ decadesȱ ofȱ feminist research,ȱinȱwhichȱscholarsȱsubjectedȱmedievalȱattitudesȱtowardȱgender,ȱpower, andȱhierarchyȱtoȱcriticalȱanalysis.2ȱWhenȱexaminingȱinteractionsȱbetweenȱconfessor andȱfemaleȱdisciple,ȱsuchȱasȱbetweenȱRaymondȱofȱCapuaȱandȱCatherineȱofȱSiena, mostȱofȱtheseȱcommentatorsȱassumeȱanȱadversarialȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱwill ofȱ theȱ confessorȱ andȱ hisȱ femaleȱ disciple’sȱ desireȱ forȱ God,ȱ withȱ theȱ goalȱ of unmaskingȱtheȱconfessor’sȱprimaryȱmotivationȱtoȱbeȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱmaleȱand ecclesiasticalȱpower.3ȱSimilarȱassumptionsȱhaveȱshapedȱstudiesȱofȱtheȱrelationship

1

2

3

GenderedȱVoices:ȱMedievalȱSaintsȱandȱtheirȱInterpreters,ȱed.ȱCatherineȱM.ȱMooney.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAges Seriesȱ(Philadelphia,ȱPA:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ7. Forȱinsightfulȱstudiesȱofȱthisȱphenomenon,ȱseeȱUrsulaȱPeters,ȱReligiöseȱErfahrungȱalsȱliterarisches Faktum:ȱZurȱVorgeschichteȱundȱGeneseȱfrauenmystischerȱTexteȱdesȱ13.undȱ14.ȱJahrhunderts.ȱHermaea, NeueȱFolge,ȱ56ȱ(Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1988);ȱGenderedȱVoices,ȱed.ȱMooney;ȱandȱJohnȱWayland Coakley,ȱWomen,ȱMen,ȱandȱSpiritualȱPower:ȱFemaleȱSaintsȱandȱtheirȱMaleȱCollaboratorsȱ(NewȱYork: ColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2006). InȱtheȱcaseȱofȱRaymondȱandȱCatherine,ȱKarenȱScottȱandȱThomasȱLuongoȱrightlyȱquestionȱwhether prominentȱeventsȱinȱRaymond’sȱhagiographicalȱaccount,ȱsuchȱasȱCatherine’sȱextremeȱasceticism, reflectȱCatherine’sȱlifeȱasȱportrayedȱinȱherȱmeditationsȱandȱletters,ȱRaymond’sȱspiritualȱagenda, theȱgenreȱrequirementsȱofȱhagiography,ȱorȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱcontrolȱaȱbloodȱmysticismȱthatȱRaymond wasȱincapableȱofȱcomprehending.ȱSeeȱKarenȱScott,ȱ“MysticalȱDeath,ȱBodilyȱDeath:ȱCatherineȱof SienaȱandȱRaymondȱofȱCapuaȱonȱtheȱMystic’sȱEncounterȱwithȱGod,”ȱGenderedȱVoices,ȱ136–67;ȱand ThomasȱLuongo,ȱ“CatherineȱofȱSiena:ȱRewritingȱFemaleȱHolyȱAuthority,”ȱWomen,ȱtheȱBook,ȱand theȱGodly:ȱSelectedȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱSt.ȱHildaȇsȱConference,ȱ1993,ȱed.ȱLesleyȱSmithȱandȱJaneȱH.ȱM.

478

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

betweenȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱDominicanȱmysticȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱhisȱspiritual daughter,ȱElsbethȱStagel,ȱasȱdepictedȱinȱtheirȱlettersȱandȱinȱSuso’sȱVita.4ȱUlrike Wiethausȱconcludes,ȱforȱexample,ȱthatȱSusoȱ“usedȱtheȱvernacularȱtoȱdisciplineȱand containȱwomenȱunderȱhisȱpastoralȱcareȱandȱtoȱdemarcateȱfemaleȱspiritualityȱas inferiorȱtoȱhisȱown.”5ȱScholarsȱofȱtheȱcuraȱmonialiumȱhaveȱexploredȱtheȱimplications ofȱsuchȱexploitationȱforȱtheȱnun/disciple’sȱspiritualȱdevelopmentȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱof Wiethaus,ȱevenȱifȱtheyȱreachȱlessȱcriticalȱconclusions.ȱ InȱthisȱarticleȱIȱproposeȱtoȱreȬexamineȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱSusoȱandȱStagel usingȱmedievalȱnotionsȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱthatȱis,ȱusingȱidealsȱofȱamicitiaȱand caritasȱ asȱ prescribedȱ andȱ depictedȱ inȱ didacticȱ textsȱ thatȱ wereȱ recommended readingȱinȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱDominicanȱconvents.6ȱAtȱfirstȱglanceȱthisȱapproach seemsȱtoȱraiseȱmoreȱquestionsȱthanȱitȱanswers.ȱGivenȱtheȱbiological,ȱpsychological, andȱspiritualȱdifferencesȱthatȱwereȱunderstoodȱtoȱexistȱbetweenȱtheȱsexesȱinȱthe Middleȱ Ages,ȱ wasȱ itȱ possibleȱ forȱ friarsȱ andȱ nunsȱ inȱ theȱ Orderȱ ofȱ Preachersȱ to imagineȱaȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱaȱreligiousȱmanȱandȱaȱreligiousȱwomanȱinȱterms ofȱ spiritualȱ friendship?ȱ Couldȱ theȱ expectationsȱ governingȱ theȱ hierarchical relationshipȱofȱconfessorȱandȱdiscipulaȱwithinȱtheȱcuraȱmonialiumȱincludeȱanyȱnotion ofȱ spiritualȱ friendship?ȱ Andȱ perhapsȱ mostȱ centralȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ medieval mentalities:ȱifȱweȱseeȱElsbethȱStagelȱasȱanȱexemplaryȱnun,ȱwhichȱisȱhowȱsheȱis presentedȱinȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱhowȱcouldȱanyȱnotionȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbridgeȱthe

4

5

6

Taylorȱ(Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk,ȱUK,ȱandȱRochester,ȱNY:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ1995),ȱ89–111. AsȱBernardȱMcGinnȱnotes:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱItȱisȱsafeȱtoȱsayȱthatȱnoȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱmysticȱwasȱmoreȱwidely readȱandȱnoneȱwasȱmoreȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱmanyȱstrandsȱofȱtheȱmysticismȱofȱtheȱcenturyȱthan thisȱDominicanȱfriar.”ȱSeeȱBernardȱMcGinn,ȱ“HenryȱSuso’sȱSpiritualȱPhilosophy,”ȱTheȱHarvestȱof MysticismȱinȱMedievalȱGermanyȱ(1300–1500).ȱTheȱPresenceȱofȱGod:ȱAȱHistoryȱofȱWesternȱChristian Mysticismȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHerderȱ&ȱHerder,ȱ2005),ȱ407–31;ȱhereȱ195.ȱAllȱreferencesȱtoȱSuso’sȱVitaȱare takenȱfromȱKarlȱBihlmeyer,ȱed.,ȱDeutscheȱSchriftenȱvonȱHeinrichȱSeuseȱ(FrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱMinerva, 1961).ȱ Theȱ Englishȱ translationȱ isȱ fromȱ Frankȱ J.ȱ Tobin,ȱ ed.,ȱ Henryȱ Suso:ȱ theȱ Exemplar,ȱ withȱ two GermanȱSermons.ȱTheȱClassicsȱofȱWesternȱSpiritualityȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPaulistȱPress,ȱ1989).ȱForȱuseful studiesȱofȱmajorȱthemesȱinȱtheȱVitaȱitself,ȱseeȱWalterȱBlank,ȱ“HeinrichȱSeusesȱ‘Vita’:ȱLiterarische Gestaltungȱ undȱ pastoraleȱ Funktionȱ seinesȱ Schrifttums,”ȱ Zeitschriftȱ fürȱ deutschesȱ Altertumȱ und deutscheȱLiteraturȱ122ȱ(1993):ȱ285–311;ȱChristineȱPleuser,ȱ“TraditionȱundȱUrsprünglichkeitȱinȱder VitaȱSeuses,”ȱHeinrichȱSeuse;ȱStudienȱzumȱ600.ȱTodestag,ȱ1366–1966,ȱed.ȱEphremȱFilthautȱ(Cologne: AlbertusȱMagnusȱVerlag,ȱ1966),ȱ135–60;ȱandȱFrankȱTobin,ȱ“HenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel:ȱWas theȱVitaȱaȱCooperativeȱEffort?”ȱGenderedȱVoices,ȱ118–35. Ulrikeȱ Wiethaus,ȱ “Thievesȱ andȱ Carnivals:ȱ Genderȱ inȱ Germanȱ Dominicanȱ Literatureȱ ofȱ the Fourteenthȱ Century,”ȱ Theȱ Vernacularȱ Spirit:ȱ Essaysȱ onȱ Medievalȱ Religiousȱ Literature,ȱ ed.ȱ Renate BlumenfeldȬKosinski,ȱDuncanȱRobertsonȱandȱNancyȱBradleyȱWarrenȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱHoundmills, Basingstoke,ȱHampshire,ȱEngland:ȱPalgraveȱMacMillan,ȱ2002),ȱ209–38;ȱhereȱ226. Someȱofȱtheȱideasȱexpressedȱinȱthisȱarticleȱwereȱpresentedȱatȱaȱseriesȱofȱsessionsȱonȱamicitiaȱinȱthe MiddleȱAgesȱatȱtheȱ44thȱInternationalȱCongressȱonȱMedievalȱStudiesȱinȱKalamazoo,ȱMI,ȱinȱthe Springȱofȱ2009.ȱTheȱsessionsȱwereȱorganizedȱbyȱAlbrechtȱClassenȱofȱTheȱUniversityȱofȱArizona, Tucson.

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

479

gulfȱ createdȱ byȱ theȱ successfulȱ estrangementȱ fromȱ theȱ worldlyȱ thatȱ definesȱ the saintlyȱlife?7ȱAllȱofȱtheseȱquestionsȱariseȱinȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱcan emergeȱonlyȱunderȱconditionsȱofȱequalityȱandȱunanimityȱbetweenȱtwoȱhuman beings. Yetȱevenȱtheȱbriefestȱsurveyȱofȱtreatisesȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱcoenobiticȱlifeȱthroughout theȱMiddleȱAgesȱputsȱintoȱquestionȱtheȱassumptionȱthatȱfriendshipȱcanȱonlyȱbe definedȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱCiceronianȱidealȱofȱ“completeȱidentityȱofȱfeelingȱaboutȱall thingsȱdivineȱandȱhuman,ȱasȱstrengthenedȱbyȱmutualȱgoodȱwillȱandȱaffection.”8 Indeed,ȱtheȱearlyȱChristianȱreceptionȱofȱclassicalȱidealsȱofȱamicitiaȱnotȱonlyȱincluded butȱalsoȱtranscendedȱCiceronianȱprinciplesȱofȱmutuality,ȱequality,ȱandȱreciprocity thatȱalsoȱunderlieȱmostȱmodernȱassumptionsȱaboutȱfriendship.9ȱThisȱbeginsȱwith theȱmostȱbasicȱdefinitionȱofȱaȱfriend,ȱwhichȱfirstȱappearsȱinȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱGregory theȱGreatȱandȱeventuallyȱfindsȱitsȱwayȱintoȱIsidoreȱofȱSeville’sȱEtymologiae:ȱthe friendȱasȱcustosȱanimi,ȱsomeoneȱwhoȱacceptsȱresponsibilityȱforȱanotherȱperson’s wellȬbeingȱandȱsalvation,ȱwhoȱcultivatesȱaȱknowledgeȱofȱthisȱperson’sȱinnerȱlife, andȱwhoseȱrelationshipȱexhibitsȱaȱspiritualȱdimension.ȱAsȱBrianȱMcGuireȱpoints out,ȱthisȱbond,ȱasȱdefinedȱbyȱGregoryȱandȱIsidore,ȱ“doesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱimply equalityȱorȱevenȱmutuality.”10ȱAsȱaȱmatterȱofȱfact,ȱfriendshipȱwasȱoftenȱdescribed inȱ termsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ guardianshipȱ andȱ wasȱ portrayedȱ asȱ theȱ bondȱ ofȱ spiritual fatherȱtoȱson,ȱregardlessȱofȱtheȱageȱorȱstandingȱofȱtheȱtwoȱmonasticsȱinvolved.ȱ

7

8

9

10

ForȱusefulȱintroductionsȱtoȱtheȱlifeȱandȱworksȱofȱElsbethȱStagel,ȱseeȱBibliographieȱzurȱdeutschen FrauenmystikȱdesȱMittelalters,ȱed.ȱGertrudȱJaronȱLewis,ȱFrankȱWillaert,ȱandȱMarieȬJoséȱGovers. Bibliographienȱ zurȱ deutschenȱ Literaturȱ desȱ Mittelalters,ȱ 10ȱ (Berlin:ȱ Schmidt,ȱ 1989),ȱ 304–10; GertrudȱJaronȱLewis,ȱByȱWomen,ȱforȱWomen,ȱaboutȱWomen:ȱTheȱSisterȬBooksȱofȱFourteenthȬCentury Germanyȱ(Toronto,ȱOntario:ȱPontificalȱInstituteȱofȱMediaevalȱStudies,ȱ1996),ȱ21–26;ȱAloisȱHaas, “Stagel,ȱElsbeth,ȱOP.”ȱDieȱdeutscheȱLiteraturȱdesȱMittelalters:ȱVerfasserlexikon,ȱed.ȱKurtȱRuh,ȱetȱal.ȱ2nd completelyȱrevisedȱed.ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱDeȱGruyter,ȱ1977),ȱVol.ȱ9,ȱcols.ȱ219–25.ȱForȱtheȱmost convincingȱrefutationȱofȱtheȱhistoricityȱofȱStagelȱasȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱTößȱSisterbook,ȱseeȱKlaus Grubmüller,ȱ“DieȱVitenȱderȱSchwesternȱvonȱTößȱundȱ ElsbethȱStagel,”ȱZeitschriftȱfürȱdeutsches AltertumȱundȱdeutscheȱLiteraturȱ98ȱ(1969):ȱ171–204.ȱ BrianȱPatrickȱMcGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity:ȱTheȱMonasticȱExperience,ȱ350–1250.ȱCistercian StudiesȱSeries,ȱ95ȱ(Kalamazoo,ȱMI:ȱCistercianȱPublications,ȱ1988),ȱxv. McEvoy’sȱinsight,ȱalthoughȱpolemicallyȱstated,ȱseemsȱfittingȱinȱthisȱcase:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[Modern]ȱculture whichȱ prizesȱ individualȱ autonomyȱ aboveȱ virtueȱ andȱ community,ȱ anȱ attitudeȱ whichȱ regards equalityȱasȱaȱdemocraticȱnormȱandȱwhichȱviewsȱauthorityȱessentiallyȱasȱsomethingȱintrusive,ȱand aȱmentalityȱforȱwhichȱsinȱandȱsalvationȱareȱatȱbestȱonlyȱabstractȱnotions,ȱcannotȱbeȱexpectedȱto interpretȱ theȱ historicalȱ realityȱ ofȱ thisȱ sortȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ withȱ anyȱ trueȱ empathy.”ȱ Seeȱ James McEvoy,ȱ“TheȱTheoryȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱLatinȱMiddleȱAges:ȱHermeneutics,ȱContextualization andȱtheȱTransmissionȱ andȱReceptionȱofȱAncientȱTextsȱandȱIdeas,ȱfromȱc.ȱADȱ350ȱtoȱc.ȱ1500,” FriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱEurope,ȱed.ȱJulianȱHaseldineȱ(Stroud:ȱSutton,ȱ1999),ȱ3–44;ȱhereȱ10. McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱxv.

480

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

Biblicalȱ modelsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ asȱ caritasȱ alsoȱ serveȱ toȱ refuteȱ theȱ accompanying assumptionȱthatȱinequalityȱinȱpowerȱorȱknowledgeȱmustȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱbarrierȱto friendshipȱinȱexemplaryȱtextsȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.ȱTheȱmostȱfamousȱpassageȱon friendshipȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱ teachingsȱofȱJesusȱhimself,ȱasȱdescribedȱinȱthe GospelȱofȱJohn.ȱHereȱloveȱforȱoneȱanotherȱisȱmodeledȱsolelyȱonȱJesus’ȱloveȱforȱhis disciples,ȱandȱfriendshipȱisȱpresentedȱasȱunconditionalȱandȱmadeȱpossibleȱonly throughȱobedience.11ȱSoȱidealȱfriendshipȱactuallyȱpresupposesȱanȱimbalanceȱof powerȱ andȱ knowledgeȱ betweenȱ theȱ loverȱ andȱ theȱ beloved.ȱ Obedienceȱ isȱ the principalȱbasisȱforȱdiscipleship,ȱnotȱonlyȱinȱthisȱgospelȱpassage,ȱbutȱalsoȱamongȱthe DesertȱFathers,ȱasȱweȱshallȱseeȱbelow.ȱObedienceȱandȱinteractionȱbringȱgreater insightȱ andȱ discernment;ȱ theȱ loveȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ andȱ theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ hisȱ wisdom accompanyȱtheȱtransitionȱfromȱslaveryȱtoȱfriendship.ȱ“Knowledgeȱandȱawareness ofȱtheȱFather’sȱnatureȱ(whichȱisȱagape)ȱandȱofȱhisȱwill,ȱisȱnowȱheldȱinȱcommonȱby theȱteacherȱandȱhisȱdisciples;ȱitȱformsȱtheȱfoundationȱforȱtheirȱcommunion.”12ȱ Genderȱlinesȱalsoȱseemȱtoȱblurȱwhenȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱbecomesȱtheȱfocus.ȱThe exemplaryȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱmostȱoftenȱcitedȱfromȱtheȱScripturesȱinȱtheȱMiddle Ages,ȱthatȱofȱDavidȱandȱJonathan,ȱisȱnoteworthyȱinȱtheȱdegreeȱthatȱitȱplaysȱwith genderȱexpectationsȱinȱorderȱtoȱmodelȱamicitia.ȱInȱtheȱVulgate,ȱDavidȱdescribesȱhis loveȱforȱJonathanȱasȱsurpassingȱthatȱofȱaȱwoman,ȱasȱcomparableȱtoȱtheȱloveȱofȱa motherȱforȱherȱonlyȱson.13ȱMonasticȱreaders/listenersȱwouldȱthereforeȱhaveȱfelt quiteȱatȱhomeȱwithȱdescriptionsȱofȱloveȱbeingȱsoȱstrongȱbetweenȱtheȱflawedȱyet greatestȱKingȱofȱIsraelȱandȱhisȱfavoriteȱwarriorȱthatȱitȱonlyȱcouldȱbeȱdescribedȱby fracturingȱgenderȱlines.ȱSuchȱdepthȱofȱfeelingȱwasȱfeltȱtoȱbeȱaȱprincipalȱprovince ofȱfeminineȱlove,ȱandȱtheȱmedievalȱreaderȱtrainedȱinȱallegoricalȱexegesisȱwould haveȱbeenȱremindedȱofȱMary’sȱloveȱforȱherȱson,ȱasȱdepictedȱinȱtheȱiconographyȱof theȱMadonnaȱand,ȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury,ȱinȱthatȱofȱtheȱpietà.14 TheȱcommunalȱidealȱofȱfriendshipȱenvisionedȱinȱtheȱRuleȱofȱAugustine,ȱasȱadapted forȱDominicanȱfriarsȱandȱnuns,ȱisȱunthinkableȱwithoutȱtheȱprincipleȱofȱuniversal sharingȱasȱdescribedȱinȱActsȱ4:ȱ32–35.ȱThisȱextendedȱfromȱmaterialȱpossessions —”Notȱaȱmanȱofȱthemȱclaimedȱanyȱofȱhisȱpossessionsȱasȱhisȱown,ȱbutȱeverything

11 12

13 14

McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱxxv.ȱ McEvoy,ȱ“TheȱTheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ30.ȱSeeȱalsoȱCarolineȱWalkerȱBynum,ȱJesusȱasȱMother:ȱStudies inȱtheȱSpiritualityȱofȱtheȱHighȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱ129–69. McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱxvii–xviii. Forȱmedievalȱnotionsȱofȱtranscendentȱlove,ȱseeȱtheȱchaptersȱ“SublimeȱLove,”ȱandȱ“Loveȱbeyond theȱBody,”ȱC.ȱStephenȱJaeger,ȱEnoblingȱLove.ȱInȱSearchȱofȱaȱLostȱSensibility.ȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeries (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ109–27.ȱAȱgoodȱsourceȱonȱtheȱpietàȱis MarinaȱWarner,ȱAloneȱofȱAllȱHerȱSex.ȱTheȱMythȱandȱtheȱCultȱofȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱ(London:ȱWeidenfeld andȱNicholson,ȱ1977).

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

481

wasȱ heldȱ inȱ common”—toȱ communalȱ spiritualȱ existence—theȱ wholeȱ bodyȱ of believersȱwasȱunitedȱinȱheartȱandȱsoul.”15ȱMcEvoyȱstressesȱthatȱthisȱincludedȱ“the moralȱandȱspiritualȱgoodsȱofȱcharacter,ȱofȱthoughtȱandȱideas,ȱofȱfaithȱandȱhope,ȱof prayerȱandȱlove.”16ȱHereȱAugustineȱevokedȱtheȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱofȱtheȱideal community,ȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱApostleȱPaulȱasȱaȱspiritualȱbodyȱinȱChrist:ȱ“soȱallȱofȱus, unitedȱwithȱChrist,ȱformȱoneȱbody,ȱservingȱindividuallyȱasȱlimbsȱandȱorgansȱtoȱone another.”17ȱ Augustineȱ sawȱ suchȱ spiritualȱ sharingȱ manifestingȱ itselfȱ inȱ “the philosophicalȱ searchȱ forȱ truth;ȱ theȱ mentalȱ andȱ spiritualȱ unityȱ whichȱ that pilgrimageȱcreatesȱbetweenȱandȱamongȱfriends;ȱtheȱtrustȱandȱfreedomȱofȱspeech thatȱresult;ȱ[and]ȱtheȱrealizationȱofȱhappyȱlivingȱinȱtrueȱfriendship.”18 Ourȱbriefȱsurveyȱofȱmedievalȱmodelsȱforȱamicitiaȱandȱcaritasȱyieldsȱtwoȱpremises thatȱwillȱunderlieȱtheȱfollowingȱinvestigations.ȱFirst,ȱweȱhaveȱseenȱhowȱspiritual friendshipȱ didȱ notȱ haveȱ toȱ beȱ definedȱ byȱ mutualityȱ andȱ equality.ȱ Second, discrepanciesȱ inȱ powerȱ orȱ differencesȱ inȱ genderȱ wereȱ notȱ seenȱ asȱ barriersȱ to spiritualȱ friendshipȱ inȱ monasticȱ communities.ȱ Soȱ theȱ questionȱ isȱ notȱ whether medievalȱ notionsȱ ofȱ amicitiaȱ andȱ caritasȱ couldȱ beȱ appliedȱ toȱ theȱ relationship betweenȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagelȱasȱideallyȱdepictedȱinȱSuso’sȱ Vita,ȱbut ratherȱ howȱ theseȱ notionsȱ wereȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ applied.ȱ Theȱ criticalȱ contextȱ for discussionȱ isȱ comparative;ȱ theȱ narrativeȱ divisionȱ ofȱ Suso’sȱ Vitaȱ intoȱ twoȱ lives encouragedȱtheȱintendedȱaudience,ȱidentifiedȱasȱbeginnersȱofȱbothȱgendersȱwithin theȱOrderȱofȱPreachers,ȱtoȱponderȱhowȱStagel’sȱspiritualȱprogressȱrelatedȱtoȱthatȱof herȱmentor.19ȱ Inȱkeepingȱwithȱrecentȱtrendsȱinȱmedievalȱscholarshipȱthatȱseekȱtoȱmoveȱbeyond generalizationsȱ concerningȱ theȱ entireȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ theȱ initialȱ discussionȱ of “medieval”ȱnotionsȱofȱfriendshipȱnowȱshiftsȱtoȱthreeȱdidacticȱmodelsȱcentralȱtoȱthe OrderȱofȱPreachersȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury:ȱfirst,ȱtheȱcommunalȱidealȱofȱspiritual

15

16 17 18

19

Necȱ quisquamȱ eorumȱ quaeȱ possidebantȱ aliquidȱ suumȱ esseȱ dicebatȱ sedȱ errantȱ illisȱ omnia communiaȱ[and]ȱitaȱmultiȱunumȱcorpusȱsumusȱinȱChristoȱsinguliȱautemȱalterȱalteriusȱmembra. QuotedȱinȱMcEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ8–9.ȱAllȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱVulgateȱareȱfromȱthe Bibliaȱsacra:ȱiuxtaȱVulgatamȱversionem,ȱed.ȱBonifatiusȱFischer,ȱRobertȱWeber,ȱandȱRogerȱGryson (Stuttgart:ȱDeutscheȱBibelgesellschaft,ȱ1994). WheneverȱtheȱVulgateȱandȱmodernȱeditionsȱcoincide,ȱtheȱtranslationȱisȱfromȱTheȱNewȱEnglishȱBible withȱtheȱApocrypha.ȱOxfordȱStudyȱEdition,ȱed.ȱSamuelȱSandmel,ȱM.ȱJackȱSuggs,ȱandȱArnoldȱJ.ȱTkacik (NewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1976). McEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ9.ȱ Romansȱ12:5.ȱ McEvoy,ȱȈTheoryȱofȱFriendship,Ȉȱ20.ȱTheȱmostȱeloquentȱmedievalȱdescriptionȱofȱsuchȱprinciples atȱworkȱinȱtheȱmonasticȱsettingȱisȱtheȱtreatiseȱOnȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱbyȱAelredȱofȱRievaulx,ȱwhich modelsȱtheȱcompleteȱcoȬdependenceȱinȱChristȱwhileȱmaintainingȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱAelredȱtoȱ“teach, lead,ȱrule,ȱandȱguide”ȱhisȱspiritualȱdisciples.ȱSeeȱMcEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ11. “Einȱrechtȱanvahenderȱmensch”ȱ(aȱbeginner),ȱBihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ3,ȱ4–5ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ57).ȱ

482

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

friendshipȱasȱexemplifiedȱinȱtheȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustineȱandȱmodifiedȱforȱbothȱmale andȱ femaleȱ Dominicanȱ communities;ȱ second,ȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ abbasȱ and femaleȱdisciplesȱasȱdepictedȱinȱvernacularȱadaptationsȱofȱtheȱlivesȱofȱtheȱDesert Fathers;ȱand,ȱfinally,ȱtheȱidealȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱasȱdescribedȱinȱreferencesȱto theȱamiciȱdei,ȱorȱFriendsȱofȱGod,ȱprominentlyȱcitedȱinȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱSusoȱandȱsome ofȱhisȱcontemporaries.ȱLetȱusȱnowȱexamineȱhowȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱSusoȱandȱStagel wasȱunderstoodȱtoȱreflectȱtheȱAugustinianȱidealȱofȱmonos,ȱasȱmodifiedȱtoȱpromote theȱgoalsȱofȱreformersȱwithinȱtheȱOrderȱofȱPreachersȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱandȱfifteenth centuries.

TheȱIdealȱofȱCommunalȱFriendshipȱinȱ theȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine SinceȱtheȱAugustinianȱRuleȱwasȱtheȱbasisȱforȱcommunalȱlifeȱamongȱbothȱmenȱand womenȱinȱtheȱOrderȱofȱPreachers,ȱAugustine’sȱnotionȱofȱloveȱinȱcommunityȱasȱit relatesȱ toȱ friendshipȱ willȱ requireȱ particularȱ attention.20ȱ Althoughȱ itȱ wasȱ not possibleȱforȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagelȱtoȱbeȱmembersȱofȱtheȱsameȱmonastery, theirȱ relationshipȱ wasȱ shapedȱ byȱ theirȱ membershipȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ order,ȱ in exemplaryȱ figuresȱ likeȱ St.ȱ Dominicȱ andȱ St.ȱ Catherine;ȱ andȱ byȱ responsibilities demandedȱofȱbothȱpartiesȱinȱtheȱcuraȱmonialium.ȱInȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱtheirȱrelationship isȱ depictedȱ asȱ developingȱ throughȱ infrequentȱ contact,ȱ correspondence,ȱ and collaborationȱonȱtheȱproductionȱofȱSuso’sȱwritings.ȱTheirȱidealsȱofȱfriendshipȱwere shapedȱ inȱ partȱ byȱ Augustinianȱ notionsȱ andȱ principlesȱ andȱ areȱ particularly germaneȱregardingȱissuesȱofȱpowerȱandȱauthority.ȱAsȱIȱmentionedȱbrieflyȱinȱmy introduction,ȱtheȱBiblicalȱbasisȱforȱAugustinianȱcommunalȱrelationshipȱwasȱthe descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jerusalemȱ communityȱ inȱ Acts.ȱ Membersȱ ofȱ aȱ community foundedȱinȱdivineȱloveȱwereȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱmonos,ȱorȱoneȱsingleȱpersonȱorȱbeing underȱtheȱmotto,ȱ“Togetherȱone,ȱinȱtheȱoneȱChrist,ȱonȱtheȱwayȱtoȱtheȱoneȱFather.”21 Thisȱcommunalȱloveȱencompassedȱallȱdimensionsȱofȱlife,ȱfromȱtheȱpurelyȱmaterial toȱtheȱmoralȱtoȱtheȱspiritual.ȱFurthermore,ȱitsȱmostȱmeaningfulȱaspectȱtranscends distanceȱandȱspace:ȱ“NotȱonlyȱeachȱindividualȱbecameȱGod’sȱtemple,”ȱAugustine writesȱinȱhisȱsermonȱonȱPsalmȱ131,ȱ“butȱallȱofȱthemȱtogether.”22 Nowhereȱisȱtheȱtriumphȱofȱfriendshipȱoverȱdistanceȱmoreȱapparentȱthanȱinȱthe letterȱthatȱSusoȱwritesȱtoȱaȱspiritualȱdaughterȱonȱherȱdeathbed.ȱTheȱdyingȱnunȱis

20

21 22

AllȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱAugustinianȱRuleȱinȱthisȱsectionȱareȱtoȱTheȱRuleȱofȱSaintȱAugustine:ȱMasculine andȱFeminineȱVersions,ȱed.ȱTarsiciusȱJ.ȱvanȱBavelȱ(London:ȱDarton,ȱLongmanȱ&ȱTodd,ȱ1984). Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ45. Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ59.ȱ

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

483

calledȱ “sinerȱ liepstenȱ geischlichenȱ kindenȱ eins”ȱ (oneȱ ofȱ theȱ servant’sȱ dearest spiritualȱchildren).23ȱTheȱmottoȱofȱtheȱletterȱisȱaȱparaphraseȱfromȱIIȱSamuel,ȱwhere KingȱDavidȱisȱsoȱdistraughtȱatȱtheȱnewsȱofȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱrebelliousȱsonȱAbsalom thatȱheȱendangersȱtheȱcoalitionȱheȱbuiltȱinȱorderȱtoȱsaveȱhisȱthroneȱandȱmustȱbe reprovedȱ byȱ hisȱ ownȱ general,ȱ Joab.ȱ Forȱ Suso’sȱ audienceȱ ofȱ beginners,ȱ aȱ direct connectionȱ isȱ establishedȱ betweenȱ theȱ fatherlyȱ devotionȱ ofȱ Davidȱ andȱ Suso’s devotionȱtoȱhisȱspiritualȱdaughter:ȱ“Kindȱmins,ȱwerȱgitȱeinemȱgetruwenȱvatter,ȱdaz ichȱfurȱminȱliebesȱwolgeratenȱkindȱsterbe?ȱStirbȱichȱnitȱliplich,ȱsoȱstirbȱichȱaber herzeklichȱmitȱdemȱgemintenȱkindȱmeinesȱherzen”ȱ(Myȱchild,ȱwhoȱwillȱallowȱme, aȱdevotedȱfather,ȱtoȱdieȱinȱplaceȱofȱmyȱdearȱdaughterȱwhoȱturnedȱoutȱsoȱwell?ȱIf Iȱdoȱnotȱdieȱphysically,ȱIȱcertainlyȱdieȱinȱspiritȱalongȱwithȱtheȱbelovedȱchildȱofȱmy heart).24ȱHereȱtheȱconstraintsȱofȱgenderȱareȱshatteredȱbyȱlove.ȱThatȱdistanceȱand enclosureȱareȱovercomeȱbyȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱisȱevidentȱwhenȱSusoȱwrites,ȱ“Ich binȱliplichȱverrȱvonȱdir,ȱaberȱminȱherzȱstatȱvorȱdinemȱtodbeteȱmitȱbitrenȱtrehenȱund getruwerȱklage”ȱ(Iȱamȱphysicallyȱfarȱawayȱfromȱyou,ȱbutȱmyȱheartȱisȱpresentȱat yourȱdeathȬbedȱwithȱbitterȱtearsȱandȱloyalȱlament).25 Theȱ joiningȱ ofȱ diverseȱ spiritualȱ destiniesȱ isȱ onlyȱ possible,ȱ accordingȱ to Augustine,ȱthroughȱtrueȱreciprocityȱofȱdivineȱgifts.ȱAndȱhereȱitȱisȱessentialȱtoȱgrasp thatȱreciprocityȱisȱinȱnoȱwayȱequalȱtoȱuniformity.ȱEachȱbrotherȱorȱsisterȱisȱexpected toȱcontributeȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱtalentsȱandȱlimitationsȱthatȱGodȱhasȱbestowedȱon himȱ orȱ her.ȱ “Uniformityȱ reducesȱ peopleȱ toȱ ciphersȱ andȱ effectivelyȱ meansȱ the destructionȱ ofȱ aȱ personality.ȱ Love,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ respectsȱ whatȱ is characteristicȱ ofȱ eachȱ personȱ withȱ hisȱ differentȱ needsȱ andȱ gifts,ȱ hisȱ own irreplaceableȱtemperamentȱandȱcharacter.”26ȱAlongȱwithȱrespectȱforȱtheȱdiffering giftsȱofȱone’sȱsistersȱandȱbrothersȱcomeȱexpectationsȱofȱsincerity,ȱindeed,ȱmerciless franknessȱ inȱ regardȱ toȱ theȱ failureȱ toȱ liveȱ properly.ȱ Asȱ Augustineȱ writesȱ inȱ his sermonȱonȱtheȱFirstȱLetterȱofȱJohn,ȱ“Doȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱyouȱloveȱyourȱservantȱjust becauseȱyouȱrefrainȱfromȱstrikingȱhim,ȱorȱthatȱyouȱloveȱyourȱchildȱifȱyouȱdoȱnot botherȱtoȱteachȱhimȱdisciplineȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱThisȱisȱnotȱlove,ȱbutȱweakness.”27ȱ Weȱfind preciselyȱthisȱcombinationȱofȱfranknessȱandȱmutualȱrespectȱinȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱwhen theȱ beginnerȱ Elsbethȱ Stagelȱ engagesȱ inȱ extremeȱ asceticismȱ inȱ emulationȱ ofȱ the DesertȱFathersȱandȱSusoȱhimself.28ȱSusoȱforbidsȱit,ȱsaying,ȱ“Liebuȱtohter,ȱwiltȱdu

23 24 25 26 27 28

Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ378,ȱ22ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ349). Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ378,ȱ25–27ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ349).ȱ Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ378,ȱ27–29ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ349). Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ53.ȱ Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ60.ȱ OnȱtheȱquestionȱofȱgenderȱandȱasceticismȱinȱtheȱVita,ȱseeȱmyȱchapter,ȱ“TheȱSpiritualȱJourneysȱof HenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel,”ȱinȱDavidȱF.ȱTinsley,ȱTheȱScourgeȱandȱtheȱCross:ȱAsceticȱMentalities ofȱtheȱLaterȱMiddleȱAges.ȱMedievaliaȱGroningana,ȱ14ȱ(Paris,ȱLeuven,ȱandȱWalpole,ȱMA:ȱPeeters, 2010),ȱ103–32.ȱ

484

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

dinȱgeischlichesȱlebenȱnahȱminerȱlereȱrihten,ȱalsȱduȱesȱanȱmichȱhastȱgevordret,ȱso lasseȱsoelichȱubrigȱstrenkheitȱunderwegen,ȱwanȱesȱdinerȱfroewlichenȱkrankheit undȱwolȱgeordnetenȱnatureȱnitȱzuoȱgehoeret”ȱ(Dearȱdaughter,ȱifȱyouȱintendȱto orderȱyourȱspiritualȱlifeȱaccordingȱtoȱmyȱteachings,ȱasȱyouȱhadȱrequestedȱofȱme, thenȱputȱasideȱsuchȱexaggeratedȱseverityȱbecauseȱitȱisȱoutȱofȱkeepingȱwithȱyour weaknessȱasȱaȱwomanȱandȱyourȱphysicalȱwellȬbeing).29ȱStagelȱisȱnotȱsatisfiedȱwith thisȱexplanation.ȱ“Sieȱbegerteȱvonȱimȱzeȱwussene,ȱwarȱumbeȱerȱsoȱstrengȱuebung hetiȱgehabt,ȱundȱerȱdazȱselbȱwederȱirȱnohȱandrenȱmenschenȱwoeltiȱraten”ȱ(She askedȱhimȱtoȱtellȱherȱwhyȱheȱhadȱpracticedȱsuchȱsevereȱausteritiesȱandȱyetȱdidȱnot wantȱ toȱ adviseȱ themȱ forȱ herȱ orȱ others).30ȱ Stagelȱ isȱ thenȱ persuadedȱ byȱ Susoȱ to abandonȱ“extremeȱdiscipline”ȱinȱfavorȱofȱGodȬgivenȱillnessȱforȱtheȱrestȱofȱherȱlife. Theȱdidacticȱmessageȱhereȱisȱnot,ȱasȱsomeȱhaveȱclaimed,ȱthatȱwomenȱareȱincapable ofȱusingȱextremeȱdisciplineȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱspiritȱascendȱbeyondȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱthe body,ȱbutȱrather,ȱasȱSusoȱillustratesȱthroughȱtheȱexamplesȱofȱPeterȱandȱJohn,ȱthat GodȇsȱchoiceȱisȱappropriateȱtoȱStagelȇsȱindividualȱnature. Reciprocityȱ isȱ alsoȱ definedȱ inȱ theȱ Ruleȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ wayȱ asȱ toȱ takeȱ differencesȱ in authority,ȱworldlyȱpossessionsȱandȱspiritualȱdevelopmentȱintoȱaccount.ȱStagelȱis Suso’sȱ “spiritualȱ daughter.”ȱ Whenȱ heȱ agreesȱ toȱ assumeȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Fatherȱ and whenȱsheȱassentsȱtoȱbecomingȱhisȱspiritualȱdaughter,ȱanȱinterestingȱreciprocity emergesȱbetweenȱobedienceȱandȱobligation.ȱTheȱsuperiorȱcanȱexpectȱobedience, butȱheȱhimselfȱmustȱacknowledgeȱhisȱroleȱasȱservantȱofȱthoseȱheȱserves:ȱ“Because ofȱyourȱesteemȱforȱhimȱheȱshallȱbeȱsuperiorȱtoȱyou;ȱbecauseȱofȱhisȱresponsibilityȱto Godȱheȱshallȱrealizeȱthatȱheȱisȱtheȱveryȱleastȱofȱallȱtheȱbrethren.”31ȱAugustineȱuses theȱdichotomyȱofȱwealthȱandȱpovertyȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱmutualȱobligationȱheȱhasȱin mind,ȱwithȱanȱemphasisȱthatȱisȱcounterintuitiveȱtoȱourȱmodernȱsensibilities.ȱFor example,ȱthoseȱaccustomedȱtoȱwealthȱandȱprivilegeȱbeforeȱenteringȱtheȱmonastery, Augustineȱ writes,ȱ haveȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ receiveȱ aȱ greaterȱ shareȱ ofȱ goodsȱ heldȱ in commonȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱmoreȱeasilyȱadjust;ȱtheȱphysicallyȱmoreȱvigorousȱshould expectȱtoȱreceiveȱlessȱbecauseȱtheyȱareȱbetterȱableȱtoȱcope;ȱwhereasȱtheȱformer slavesȱorȱpoorȱpeopleȱshouldȱnotȱdemandȱtooȱmuchȱandȱshouldȱsimplyȱbeȱgrateful forȱwhatȱtheyȱhave.32ȱAugustineȱregardsȱbrotherhoodsȱwhereȱtheȱformerlyȱwealthy areȱalwaysȱexpectedȱtoȱsacrificeȱasȱillustratingȱaȱlackȱofȱcommunity;ȱsacrificeȱmust beȱpracticedȱbyȱall.

29 30

31 32

Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuchȱ107,ȱ7–11ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ139–40). Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuchȱ107,ȱ18–20ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ140).ȱThisȱinterpretationȱfollowsȱlogicallyȱfrom theȱtoposȱofȱtheȱweakȱwomanȱinȱmedievalȱreligiousȱwriting.ȱSeeȱtheȱchapterȱ“FlawsȱinȱtheȱGolden Bowl,”ȱ Barbaraȱ Newman,ȱ Fromȱ Virileȱ Womanȱ toȱ WomanChrist:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Religionȱ and Literature.ȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱ18–45.ȱ Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ23. Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ14–15.

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

485

Theȱ reciprocityȱ inȱ relationshipsȱ isȱ furtherȱ governedȱ byȱ eachȱ individual’s motivation.ȱInȱtheȱoriginalȱAugustinianȱrule,ȱtheȱmotivatingȱprincipleȱisȱhumility: “Inȱ loveȱ oneȱ becomes,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱ alienatedȱ fromȱ oneselfȱ throughȱ the acknowledgementȱ ofȱ theȱ otherȱ withȱ whomȱ oneȱ isȱ faceȱ toȱ face.”33ȱ Itȱ isȱ inȱ the constantȱreadinessȱtoȱacknowledgeȱone’sȱownȱshortcomingsȱthatȱtheȱpotentialȱfor monosȱarises.ȱUnderȱtwoȱmajorȱreformȱmovementsȱinȱtheȱOrderȱofȱPreachers,ȱfirst inȱ theȱ fourteenthȱ andȱ thenȱ inȱ theȱ fifteenthȱ century,ȱ thisȱ Augustinianȱ idealȱ of humilityȱslowlyȱyieldedȱtoȱaȱgreaterȱemphasisȱonȱrenunciationȱandȱasceticism. Philosophicalȱmodelsȱforȱreciprocalȱrenunciationȱwereȱfoundȱinȱtheȱwritingsȱof JohnȱCassian,ȱwhoȱinsistedȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱ“consistsȱofȱcontemptȱforȱworldly substanceȱandȱscornȱforȱallȱweȱpossess.”34ȱ Susoȱ himselfȱ lookedȱ toȱ theȱ Desertȱ Fathersȱ forȱ modelsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ bornȱ in austerity.ȱKeyȱanecdotesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱparableȱofȱtheȱdoormatȱillustrateȱtheȱabsolute asceticismȱ whichȱ inextricablyȱ linkedȱ theȱ Desertȱ Fathersȱ withȱ theirȱ Dominican brothersȱandȱsisters.35ȱ Moysesȱwartȱvonȱbrudernȱgebettenȱdasȱerȱsiȱetwasȱlerte.ȱDoȱhiesȱerȱZachariamȱseinen jvngernȱetwasȱsagen.ȱDerȱleiteȱsinenȱmantelȱniderȱvndȱtratȱdarȱvfȱvndȱknatȱinȱvnder denȱfvessenȱundȱsprach:ȱWerȱsichȱalsoȱnvtȱzertrettenȱlat,ȱderȱmagȱeinȱmvnichȱnvtȱsin.36ȱ [Mosesȱwasȱaskedȱbyȱtheȱbrothersȱtoȱinstructȱthemȱinȱsomething.ȱHeȱbadeȱhisȱdisciple Zachariasȱtoȱspeak.ȱZachariasȱlaidȱhisȱrobeȱonȱtheȱgroundȱandȱtrampledȱandȱscuffed itȱwithȱhisȱfeetȱandȱsaid:ȱ“Whoeverȱisȱnotȱpreparedȱtoȱletȱhimselfȱbeȱabusedȱinȱthis fashion,ȱisȱnotȱfitȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱmonk.”]

Susoȱsubtlyȱmanipulatesȱtheȱcentralȱallegoryȱofȱtheȱdesertȱsourceȱbyȱchangingȱthe identityȱofȱtheȱdefacingȱsubject.ȱ Doȱsahȱerȱeinenȱhund,ȱderȱlúfȱenmittenȱinȱdemȱkrúzgangȱundȱtruogȱeinȱverschlissen fuosstuochȱumbeȱinȱdemȱmunde,ȱundȱhatȱwunderlichȱgeberdeȱmitȱdemȱfuostuoch;ȱer

33 34 35

36

Bavel,ȱed.,ȱRuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine,ȱ55. McEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ19–20. Wernerȱ WilliamsȬKrapp,ȱ “‘Nucleusȱ totiusȱ perfectionis.’ȱ Dieȱ Altväterspiritualitätȱ inȱ derȱ ȇvitaȇ HeinrichȱSeuses,”ȱFestschriftȱWalterȱHaugȱundȱBurghartȱWachinger,ȱed.ȱJohannesȱJanota,ȱWalter Haug,ȱandȱBurghartȱWachinger,ȱvol.ȱ2ȱ(Tübingen:ȱNiemeyer,ȱ1992),ȱ402–41;ȱhereȱ414–15,ȱconfirms thisȱconnection.ȱSeeȱalsoȱMarieȱHolensteinȬHasler,ȱ“StudienȱzurȱVitaȱHeinrichȱSeuses,”ȱZeitschrift fürȱschweizerischeȱKirchengeschichte.ȱSonderdruckȱ62ȱ(1968):ȱ13–163;ȱespeciallyȱtheȱsectionȱ“DerȱHund mitȱdemȱFußtuch”ȱ(125–27).ȱSeeȱalsoȱJeffreyȱF.ȱHamburger,ȱ“FathersȱandȱDaughters:ȱImagesȱinȱthe curaȱmonialium,”ȱTheȱVisualȱandȱtheȱVisionary.ȱArtȱandȱFemaleȱSpiritualityȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱGermany (NewȱYork:ȱZoneȱBooks,ȱ1998),ȱ227–32. (20/VII,ȱ9:2).ȱAllȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱadaptationȱofȱtheȱVitaspatrumȱareȱfrom Dieȱ “Alemannischenȱ Vitaspatrum”:ȱ Untersuchungenȱ undȱ Edition,ȱ ed.ȱ Ullaȱ Williams.ȱ Texteȱ und Textgeschichte,ȱ 45ȱ (Tübingen:ȱ Niemeyer,ȱ 1996),ȱ 217.ȱ Theȱ translationsȱ areȱ myȱ own,ȱ unless otherwiseȱindicated.

486

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley warfȱesȱuf,ȱerȱwarfȱesȱnider,ȱundȱzarteȱloecherȱdarinȱin.ȱAlsoȱsahȱerȱaufȱundȱersufzet inneklich,ȱundȱwardȱinȱimeȱgesprochen:ȱ‘rehtȱalsoȱwirstȱduȱinȱdinerȱbruoderȱmunde.’37 [Thereȱheȱsawȱaȱdogȱrunningȱaroundȱinȱtheȱcloisters,ȱdraggingȱaȱtatteredȱdoormatȱin hisȱmouth.ȱHeȱhadȱaȱstrangeȱwayȱofȱplayingȱwithȱtheȱmat.ȱHeȱwouldȱthrowȱitȱinȱtheȱair andȱthenȱtoȱtheȱground,ȱtearingȱholesȱinȱit.ȱThenȱtheȱservantȱlookedȱupwardȱandȱsighed withinȱhimself,ȱandȱitȱwasȱsaidȱtoȱhim:ȱ“Exactlyȱthisȱshallȱhappenȱtoȱyouȱinȱtheȱmouths ofȱyourȱfellowȱfriars.”]

Tobinȱreadsȱ“bruoder”ȱtoȱmeanȱSuso’sȱfellowȱfriars;ȱsinceȱtheȱdogȱwasȱtheȱsymbol ofȱtheȱDominicans,ȱthisȱmakesȱsense.ȱIȱpreferȱtoȱseeȱitȱinȱaȱbroaderȱsenseȱasȱwell, meaningȱthoseȱdearestȱtoȱtheȱservant.ȱInȱeitherȱcaseȱamicitiaȱisȱengenderedȱthrough eachȱbrother’sȱorȱsister’sȱwillingnessȱtoȱendureȱpatientlyȱwhateverȱsufferingȱGod brings. .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Sidȱ esȱ andersȱ nutȱ magȱ gesin,ȱ soȱ gibȱ dichȱ darȱ in,ȱ undȱ luogȱ eben,ȱ wieȱ sichȱ daz fuosstuochȱswigendeȱubelȱlatȱhandlen:ȱdazȱtuoȱochȱdu!38 [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSinceȱitȱcannotȱbeȱanyȱotherȱway,ȱdedicateȱyourselfȱcompletelyȱtoȱthisȱandȱbehold exactlyȱhowȱtheȱfootȬclothȱallowsȱitselfȱtoȱbeȱtheȱobjectȱofȱevil,ȱallȱwithoutȱmakingȱa sound.ȱThisȱyou,ȱtoo,ȱmustȱdo.]

Inȱtheȱthirdȱletter,ȱSusoȱlinksȱthisȱbondȱofȱamicitiaȱcreatedȱthroughȱsufferingȱwith theȱ loveȱ ofȱ Kingȱ Solomonȱ forȱ theȱ Queenȱ ofȱ Sheba,ȱ whoȱ despiteȱ herȱ black countenanceȱbecameȱSolomon’sȱfavoriteȱamongȱallȱofȱhisȱwives.ȱHereȱtheȱlinkȱis notȱtoȱStagelȱdirectly,ȱbutȱratherȱtoȱtheȱspiritualȱroleȱthatȱSusoȱandȱStagelȱshare: “Duȱswerzuȱlutseliguȱmoerin,ȱdieȱgotȱvorȱandrenȱwolȱgevellet,ȱistȱeinȱgotlidender mensch,ȱ denȱ gotȱ mitȱ emzigmȱ lideneȱ uebetȱ undȱ inȱ mitȱ gedultigerȱ gelazsenheit begabet”ȱ(TheȱcharmingȱblackȱMoorishȱgirlȱwhoȱpleasesȱGodȱmoreȱthanȱallȱothers isȱaȱGodȬsufferingȱpersonȱwhomȱGodȱtriesȱwithȱconstantȱsufferingsȱandȱendows withȱpatientȱdetachment).39ȱTheȱessentialȱqualitiesȱareȱtwo:ȱfirst,ȱthatȱtheȱperson undergoȱincessantȱsufferingȱthroughȱtheȱwillȱandȱhandȱofȱGod,ȱand,ȱsecond,ȱthat theȱpersonȱhaveȱdevelopedȱspirituallyȱinȱorderȱtoȱachieveȱaȱstateȱofȱdetachment thatȱtranscendsȱtheȱfallenȱstateȱofȱtheȱsoulȱinȱtheȱdepravityȱofȱtheȱworld.ȱItȱisȱno accident,ȱthen,ȱthatȱSusoȱconfidesȱtoȱStagelȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱthirdȱletterȱthatȱheȱhad consideredȱsendingȱherȱtheȱdoormatȱasȱaȱgift,ȱtheȱveryȱsameȱdoormatȱthatȱisȱthe symbolȱofȱsufferingȱinȱtheȱVita.ȱHeȱconfessesȱthatȱheȱisȱtooȱattachedȱtoȱitȱandȱhas decidedȱtoȱkeepȱit.ȱ SoȱweȱhaveȱseenȱhowȱtheȱAugustinianȱidealȱofȱmonosȱcreatedȱinȱhumilityȱhasȱbeen transformedȱ intoȱ aȱ monosȱ createdȱ throughȱ suffering,ȱ andȱ howȱ suchȱ suffering 37 38 39

Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ59,ȱ6–11ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ101). Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ59,ȱ11–13ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ101).ȱ Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ367,ȱ11–14ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ340).

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

487

underliesȱtheȱamicitiaȱthatȱdevelopsȱbetweenȱtheȱconfessorȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱhis spiritualȱ daughterȱ Elsbethȱ Stagel.ȱ Itȱ isȱ nowȱ timeȱ toȱ exploreȱ whichȱ further dimensionsȱofȱtheirȱrelationshipȱareȱrevealedȱinȱaȱcomparativeȱstudyȱofȱtheȱVita withȱtheȱlifeȱofȱMariaȱMeretrix,ȱasȱrecountedȱinȱvernacularȱadaptationsȱofȱtheȱLives ofȱtheȱDesertȱFathers.ȱȱ

DesertȱFathersȱandȱtheirȱDaughters Relationshipsȱbetweenȱabbasȱandȱdisciples,ȱasȱportrayedȱinȱtheȱVitaspatrum,ȱalmost certainlyȱprovidedȱadditionalȱmodelsȱofȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱforȱtheȱinteractionsȱof Henryȱ Susoȱ andȱ Elsbethȱ Stagel.40ȱ Althoughȱ uniqueȱ toȱ theȱ desertȱ tradition,ȱ the relationshipȱbetweenȱabbaȱandȱdiscipleȱhadȱinȱcommonȱwithȱGregoryȱandȱIsidore “theȱ directionȱ ofȱ theȱ innerȱ lifeȱ ofȱ disciplesȱ byȱ aȱ spiritualȱ fatherȱ whoȱ exercised prayerfulȱcounselȱandȱpastoralȱcareȱinȱtheirȱregard,ȱandȱwhoȱwasȱtheirȱguideȱinȱthe discernmentȱofȱspirits.”41ȱWeȱmayȱassumeȱthatȱbothȱfriarsȱandȱnunsȱwouldȱhave beenȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱlivesȱofȱtheȱDesertȱFathersȱbecauseȱtheyȱ“vonȱAnfangȱan eineȱherausragendeȱBedeutungȱfürȱdasȱSelbstverständnisȱdesȱDominikanerordens gehabtȱ hatten”ȱ (hadȱ fromȱ theȱ beginningȱ anȱ extraordinaryȱ significanceȱ forȱ the identityȱ ofȱ theȱ Dominicanȱ order).42ȱ Vernacularȱ adaptationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Vitaspatrum “gehörtenȱzumȱLektürekanonȱfürȱdieȱzurȱMystikȱneigendenȱDominikanerinnen desȱSüdwestens”ȱ(wereȱpartȱofȱtheȱreadingȱregimenȱforȱthoseȱDominicanȱnunsȱof theȱsouthwesternȱregionsȱwhoȱfeltȱdrawnȱtoȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱmysticism).43ȱAndȱwe haveȱnotedȱthatȱSusoȱrecommendsȱtheȱlivesȱofȱtheȱDesertȱFathersȱtoȱStagelȱasȱthe bestȱ possibleȱ readingȱ forȱ aȱ spiritualȱ beginnerȱ whoȱ wishesȱ toȱ learnȱ true discernment.ȱ

40

41

42 43

AllȱquotationsȱfromȱtheȱVitaȱofȱMariaȱMeretrixȱareȱfromȱWilliams,ȱed.,ȱAVP,ȱ(SeeȱNoteȱ36).ȱFor helpfulȱ introductionsȱ toȱ theȱ medievalȱ receptionȱ ofȱ theȱ Vitaspatrum,ȱ seeȱ theȱ articleȱ byȱ Kunze, Williams,ȱandȱKaiser,ȱ“InformationȱundȱinnereȱFormung,”ȱasȱwellȱasȱUllaȱWilliams’ȱsȱintroduction toȱherȱedition.ȱForȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱDesertȱFathersȱonȱDominicanȱspirituality,ȱseeȱWilliamsȬ Krapp,ȱ“Altväterspiritulität,”ȱ402–41.ȱSeeȱalsoȱJeffreyȱF.ȱHamburger,ȱ“TheȱIllustrationsȱinȱtheȱVitae Patrum,”ȱTheȱRothschildȱCanticles:ȱArtȱandȱMysticismȱinȱFlandersȱandȱtheȱRhinelandȱcircaȱ1300ȱ(New Haven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ144–54.ȱAȱusefulȱstandardȱworkȱonȱtheȱLatinȱtraditionȱis Columbaȱ M.ȱ Batlle,ȱ Dieȱ “Adhortationesȱ sanctorumȱ patrum”ȱ (“Verbaȱ seniorum”)ȱ imȱ lateinischen Mittelalter;ȱÜberlieferung,ȱFortlebenȱundȱWirkung.ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱGeschichteȱdesȱaltenȱMönchtumsȱund desȱBenediktinerordens,ȱ31ȱ(Münster:ȱAschendorff,ȱ1972). McEvoy,ȱ “Theoryȱ ofȱ Friendship,”ȱ 10.ȱ Seeȱ Grahamȱ Gould,ȱ Theȱ Desertȱ Fathersȱ onȱ Monastic Community.ȱOxfordȱEarlyȱChristianȱStudiesȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress, ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱforȱtheȱextremeȱnatureȱofȱtheȱdemandsȱthatȱcouldȱbyȱimposedȱbyȱtheȱabba. WilliamsȬKrapp,ȱ“Altväterspiritualität,”ȱ410.ȱ WilliamsȬKrapp,ȱ“Altväterspiritualität,”ȱ410.ȱSeeȱalsoȱWilliams,ȱed.,ȱAVP,ȱ4.

488

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

Asȱaȱtaleȱofȱaȱholyȱwomanȇsȱfallȱandȱredemption,ȱtheȱVitaȱofȱMariaȱMeretrixȱfound aȱ placeȱ amongȱ theȱ initialȱ vitaeȱ ofȱ theȱ VitaspatrumȬcorpus,ȱ aȱ compilationȱ which remainsȱ relativelyȱ intactȱ throughoutȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages.44ȱ Unlikeȱ theȱ brief Gnadenvitenȱ ofȱ holyȱ penitentsȱ likeȱ Thaïs,ȱ Pelagia,ȱ andȱ Mariaȱ Aegyptiacaȱ that appearȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱAVP,ȱMariaȇsȱVita,ȱbeginningȱatȱageȱsevenȱandȱcontinuing untilȱherȱdeath,ȱresemblesȱinȱitsȱscopeȱthatȱofȱtheȱgreatestȱpenitentȱsaint,ȱMary Magdalen.45ȱTheȱinteractionȱofȱfemaleȱdiscipleȱandȱmaleȱconfessorȱstructuresȱthe narrative,ȱjustȱasȱitȱdoesȱinȱSusoȇsȱVita,ȱalthoughȱtheȱMeretrixȱVitaȱrelatesȱMaria’s fallȱandȱredemption,ȱwhereasȱElsbethȱStagelȱexperiencesȱsteadyȱspiritualȱprogress followingȱherȱreceivingȱfromȱGodȱtheȱgiftȱofȱlifeȬlong,ȱseriousȱillness.46ȱInȱaȱreversal ofȱtheȱconclusionȱtoȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱMariaȱoutlivesȱAbraham,ȱbutȱvisionsȱconfirmȱthat bothȱpairsȱendȱupȱinȱheaven.ȱ Twoȱ keyȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ Suso’sȱ andȱ Stagel’sȱ spiritualȱ friendshipȱ resonateȱ inȱ the relationshipȱofȱMariaȱMeretrixȱwithȱtheȱabbaȱAbraham:ȱtheȱtiesȱthatȱuniteȱthemȱand theȱspaceȱthatȱseparatesȱthem.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱinstance,ȱtheȱloveȱthatȱSusoȱexpressesȱfor hisȱ spiritualȱ daughterȱ reflectsȱ littleȱ ofȱ theȱ overtȱ misogynyȱ oftenȱ voicedȱ inȱ the teachingsȱofȱtheȱdesertȱhermits,ȱwhereȱtheȱrealmȱofȱdarknessȱandȱdamnationȱisȱthe cityȱandȱvirtueȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱwomen.47ȱThisȱisȱalsoȱtrueȱofȱAbraham, whoȱshowsȱnoȱhesitationȱinȱadoptingȱMariaȱandȱprovidingȱforȱher.ȱWhereasȱfamily obligationsȱdefineȱanȱacceptableȱcontextȱforȱtheȱspiritualȱrelationshipȱofȱAbraham andȱMariaȱtoȱdevelop—Abrahamȱisȱherȱuncleȱandȱtakesȱherȱinȱuponȱherȱfather’s death—Suso’sȱpastoralȱobligationsȱareȱsetȱforthȱinȱtheȱrulesȱgoverningȱtheȱcura monialiumȱwithinȱtheȱOrderȱofȱPreachers,ȱwhichȱallowȱcontactsȱinȱwhichȱamicitia mightȱflourish.ȱInȱtheȱsecondȱinstance,ȱtheȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱofȱSusoȱandȱStagel

44

45

46

47

MariaȇsȱVitaȱwasȱeitherȱtransmittedȱasȱaȱseparateȱtextȱfollowingȱtheȱlifeȱofȱAbraham,ȱasȱisȱtheȱcase inȱtheȱLatinȱversionȱandȱinȱtheȱWilliamsȱedition,ȱorȱitȱwasȱmadeȱaȱpartȱofȱAbrahamȇsȱVita,ȱasȱinȱthe Väterbuch.ȱSeeȱWilliams,ȱed.,ȱAVP,ȱ43–44. ForȱhelpfulȱintroductionsȱtoȱtheȱmedievalȱtraditionsȱsurroundingȱMaryȱMagdalen,ȱseeȱMadeleine Boxler,ȱ ‘Ichȱ binȱ einȱ predigerinȱ undȱ appostlorin’:ȱ Dieȱ deutschenȱ Mariaȱ MagdalenaȬLegendenȱ des Mittelaltersȱ(1300–1550):ȱUntersuchungenȱundȱText.ȱDeutscheȱLiteraturȱvonȱdenȱAnfängenȱbisȱ1700, 22ȱ(BernȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1996);ȱWiltrudȱausȱderȱFünten,ȱMariaȱMagdalenaȱinȱderȱLyrik desȱMittelalters.ȱWirkendesȱWortȱSchriftenreihe,ȱ3ȱ(Düsseldorf:ȱSchwann,ȱ1966);ȱCorneliaȱElizabeth Catharinaȱ Mariaȱ vanȱ denȱ WildenbergȬdeȱ Kroon,ȱ Dasȱ Weltlebenȱ undȱ dieȱ Bekehrungȱ derȱ Maria MagdalenaȱimȱdeutschenȱreligiösenȱDramaȱundȱinȱderȱbildendenȱKunstȱdesȱMittelalters.ȱAmsterdamer PublikationenȱzurȱSpracheȱundȱLiteratur,ȱ39ȱ(Amsterdam:ȱRodopi,ȱ1979);ȱandȱWernerȱWilliamsȬ Krapp,ȱ“MariaȱMagdalena,”ȱDieȱdeutscheȱLiteraturȱdesȱMittelalters:ȱVerfasserlexikon,ȱed.ȱKurtȱRuh etȱal.ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱDeȱGruyter,ȱ1977),ȱVol.ȱ5,ȱcols.ȱ1258–59. LeonardȱPatrickȱHindsley,ȱTheȱMysticsȱofȱEngelthal:ȱWritingsȱfromȱaȱMedievalȱMonastery.ȱTheȱClassics ofȱWesternȱSpiritualityȱ(NewȱYork:ȱSt.ȱMartinȇsȱPress,ȱ1998). AsȱIȱhaveȱshownȱelsewhere,ȱseveralȱanecdotesȱandȱlegendsȱamongȱtheȱDesertȱaccountsȱmakeȱthe spiritualȱascensionȱofȱsaintlyȱwomenȱunderȱtheȱdirectionȱofȱanȱabbaȱintoȱtheȱcentralȱtheme.ȱSeeȱmy chapterȱ“ExemplaryȱWomenȱinȱtheȱAlemannischeȱVitaspatrum,”ȱTinsley,ȱScourgeȱandȱCross,ȱ77–102.

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

489

developsȱoverȱdistance.48ȱTheirȱcontactsȱareȱdepictedȱasȱinfrequentȱatȱbest;ȱStagel residesȱwithinȱherȱcloisteredȱspaceȱnearȱZürich.ȱSusoȱisȱbasedȱinȱConstance.ȱYet SusoȱandȱStagelȱareȱbothȱportrayedȱasȱvoraciousȱreadersȱandȱprolificȱwriters,ȱwith muchȱofȱtheirȱinteractionȱoccurringȱthroughȱcorrespondence.49ȱWhenȱMariaȱcomes toȱ Abraham,ȱ heȱ hasȱ aȱ separateȱ cellȱ constructedȱ forȱ herȱ nextȱ toȱ hisȱ withȱ an interveningȱ window,ȱ therebyȱ allowingȱ forȱ oversightȱ whileȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time restrictingȱ accessȱ withinȱ acceptableȱ boundsȱ (AVP,ȱ 165,ȱ 30–31).50ȱ Bothȱ theȱ abba AbrahamȱandȱtheȱconfessorȱSusoȱprovideȱinstruction:ȱtheȱformerȱhasȱMariaȱstudy theȱpsalterȱandȱreadȱexcerptsȱfromȱscripturesȱ(AVP,ȱ165,ȱ31–32),ȱwhereasȱtheȱlatter asksȱStagelȱtoȱputȱoffȱherȱstudyȱofȱMeisterȱEckhartȱuntilȱsheȱisȱreadyȱandȱprovides theȱlivesȱofȱtheȱDesertȱFathersȱasȱmoreȱsuitableȱforȱaȱnovice.ȱAbraham’sȱproximity doesȱ notȱ implyȱ dailyȱ contact;ȱ inȱ fact,ȱ heȱ isȱ focusedȱ predominantlyȱ onȱ hisȱ own spiritualȱ pathȱ andȱ onlyȱ learnsȱ ofȱ herȱ seductionȱ andȱ flightȱ throughȱ aȱ seriesȱ of visions.ȱSuso’sȱdistanceȱdoesȱnotȱimplyȱspiritualȱseparation,ȱasȱtheȱwarmthȱofȱtheir lettersȱattests. ThereȱcanȱbeȱnoȱdoubtȱthatȱAbrahamȱtakesȱonȱtheȱexemplaryȱroleȱofȱcustosȱanimi withinȱtheȱChristianȱtraditionȱofȱamicitia.ȱButȱtheȱMeretrixȱVitaȱdescribesȱaȱgrowing spiritualȱclosenessȱthatȱenablesȱconfessorȱandȱdaughterȱtoȱbecomeȱ“unumȱcorpus inȱChristo.”ȱThisȱisȱexpressedȱindirectlyȱinȱtheȱMeretrixȱVitaȱinȱthreeȱways.ȱFirst, theȱ twoȱ approachȱ oneȱ anotherȱ inȱ spiritualȱ development.ȱ Throughȱ herȱ studies Mariaȱachievesȱsuchȱaȱspiritualȱstateȱthatȱ“siȱmitȱimȱalleȱheiligenȱzitȱbegieng,ȱvnd anȱ vastenneȱ vndȱ anȱ wachenne,ȱ vndȱ allenȱ geistlichenȱ dingenȱ sichȱ imȱ mocht gelichen”ȱ(sheȱtookȱpartȱwithȱhimȱinȱexercisesȱsuitableȱforȱtheȱholyȱhours,ȱandȱeven

48

49

50

Theȱobjectionȱthatȱtheȱlackȱofȱdailyȱinteractionȱsoȱtypicalȱinȱtheȱdesertȱaccountsȱwouldȱpreclude theȱ developmentȱ ofȱ amicitiaȱ isȱ easilyȱ dispelledȱ byȱ modelsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ friendshipȱ through correspondenceȱthroughoutȱtheȱChristianȱtradition,ȱbeginningȱwithȱPaulinusȱofȱNolaȱinȱtheȱ4th century,ȱ particularlyȱ ubiquitousȱ inȱ theȱ Carolingianȱ monasticȱ traditionȱ andȱ findingȱ frequent mentionȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury.ȱTheȱgoverningȱprincipleȱwasȱ“thatȱthoseȱwhoseȱsoulsȱareȱfused byȱfriendshipȱorȱcaritasȱcanȱsufferȱnoȱdivisionȱthroughȱbodilyȱabsenceȱorȱlocalȱseparation.”ȱSee McEvoy,ȱ“TheoryȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ12–13. Forȱ aȱ closeȱ lookȱ atȱ Elsbethȱ Stagelȱ asȱ aȱ writer,ȱ seeȱ Albrechtȱ Classen,ȱ “Fromȱ Nonnenbuchȱ to Epistolarity:ȱ Elsbethȱ Stagelȱ asȱ aȱ Lateȱ Medievalȱ Womanȱ Writer.”ȱ Medievalȱ Germanȱ Literature: Proceedingsȱfromȱtheȱ23rdȱInternationalȱCongressȱonȱMedievalȱStudies,ȱKalamazoo,ȱMichigan,ȱMayȱ5–8, 1988,ȱed.ȱAlbrechtȱClassen.ȱGöppingerȱArbeitenȱzurȱGermanistik,ȱ507ȱ(Göppingen:ȱKümmerle, 1989),ȱ 147–80.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Davidȱ F.ȱ Tinsley,ȱ “Genderȱ andȱ ‘auctoritas,’”ȱ Theȱ Scourgeȱ andȱ theȱ Cross, 106–10. Editor’sȱ note:ȱ Thisȱ isȱ exactlyȱ theȱ sameȱ narrativeȱ motifȱ asȱ inȱ Hrotsvitȱ ofȱ Gandersheim’sȱ play Abraham;ȱ seeȱ myȱ articleȱ “Sexȱ onȱ theȱ Stageȱ inȱ anȱ Earlyȱ Medievalȱ Convent:ȱ Hrotsvitaȱ of Gandersheim.ȱAȱTenthȬCenturyȱConventȱPlaywrightȱ‘sȱSuccessfulȱStruggleȱAgainstȱtheȱRoman Terence,”ȱ toȱ appearȱ in:ȱ Orbisȱ Litterarum.ȱ Forȱ aȱ convenientȱ andȱ solidȱ Englishȱ translation,ȱ see HrotsvitȱofȱGandersheim,ȱAȱFlorilegiumȱofȱHerȱWorks.ȱTrans.ȱwithȱIntroduction,ȱInterpretiveȱEssay andȱNotesȱbyȱKatharinaȱM.ȱWilson.ȱLibraryȱofȱMedievalȱWomenȱ(Cambridge:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ1998).

490

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

beganȱtoȱequalȱhimȱinȱfastingȱandȱinȱwakingȱandȱinȱallȱspiritualȱthings).51ȱSecond, theȱtwoȱemulateȱtheȱapostlesȱinȱtheirȱlackȱofȱconcernȱforȱworldlyȱgoods.ȱAbraham arrangesȱforȱhisȱbrother’sȱconsiderableȱwealthȱtoȱbeȱdistributedȱamongȱtheȱpoor, andȱMariaȱconcursȱinȱtheȱdecisionȱwholeheartedlyȱandȱwithoutȱhesitationȱ(AVP 166,ȱ4–8).ȱThird,ȱtheirȱgrowingȱspiritualȱbondȱmakesȱthemȱaȱparticularlyȱattractive targetȱforȱtheȱmachinationsȱofȱtheȱDevil,ȱwhoȱschemes,ȱ“wieȱerȱsiȱvervalteȱvonȱir reinemȱlebenne,ȱvndȱwieȱerȱochȱdenȱguotenȱAbrahamȱsinȱheiligȱherzeȱverserte, wanȱerȱimȱinȱallenȱsinenȱtagenȱnieȱkondeȱzuoȱkomen”ȱ(howȱheȱcouldȱbringȱabout Maria’sȱ fallȱ fromȱ herȱ purityȱ ofȱ heartȱ andȱ howȱ heȱ couldȱ ripȱ apartȱ theȱ heartȱ of Abraham,ȱasȱwell,ȱsinceȱheȱhadȱbeenȱunableȱtoȱgetȱtoȱhimȱatȱanyȱtimeȱduringȱhis life).52 Althoughȱ Maria’sȱ seductionȱ andȱ fallȱ occupyȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ Vita,ȱ theȱ unknown authorȱdoesȱnotȱgenderȱtheȱsusceptibilityȱtoȱsin.ȱInȱtheȱMeretrixȱVitaȱtheȱseducer isȱaȱ“falseȱmonk,”ȱwhoseȱheartȱtheȱDevilȱinflamesȱwithȱtheȱfireȱofȱlust.ȱThus,ȱMaria isȱportrayedȱasȱtakingȱonȱAdam’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱFall,ȱwithȱtheȱmonkȱtakingȱonȱEve’s instigatorȬrole.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱauthorȱofȱtheȱVitaȱassertsȱthatȱtheȱseductionȱnever wouldȱhaveȱhappenedȱhadȱitȱnotȱbeenȱforȱtheȱabbaȱAbraham’sȱgullibility:ȱ“Doȱwas sinȱheiligesȱherzeȱalsȱeinualtig,ȱdasȱesȱdesȱkunftigenȱschadenȱnitȱkondeȱversechen, vndȱsoȱerȱwandeȱdasȱderȱmunchȱinȱheiligerȱmeinungeȱdarȱkeme”ȱ(Hereȱhisȱsaintly heartȱwasȱsoȱgullibleȱthatȱitȱcouldȱnotȱforeseeȱtheȱfutureȱthreatȱandȱthusȱheȱbelieved thatȱtheȱmonkȱhadȱcomeȱtoȱhimȱforȱsaintlyȱpurposes).53ȱWhereȱweȱmightȱhave expectedȱ anȱ appealȱ toȱ genderȱ asȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ Maria’sȱ fall,ȱ weȱ getȱ insteadȱ a vulnerableȱmaleȱseducerȱandȱaȱgullibleȱspiritualȱmentor.ȱSimilarȱsurprisesȱawait theȱreaderȱinȱtheȱparallelȱfatesȱthatȱformȱtheȱcenterpieceȱofȱSuso’sȱVita.ȱDespiteȱthe genderȱdifferenceȱandȱSuso’sȱpositionȱofȱpowerȱasȱStagel’sȱconfessorȱandȱmentor, theȱspiritualȱbeginnerȱStagelȱisȱportrayedȱasȱbeingȱsuperiorȱtoȱtheȱyouthfulȱSuso inȱ herȱ abilityȱ toȱ sufferȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ herȱ abilityȱ toȱ discernȱ theȱ properȱ path.54 Furthermore,ȱSuso’sȱspiritualȱguidesȱandȱguardiansȱalongȱhisȱlongȱandȱtwisted pathȱtoȱGodȱareȱnotȱeldersȱofȱtheȱOrderȱitself,ȱbutȱalmostȱexclusivelyȱwiseȱwomen orȱfemaleȱanchorites,ȱsomeȱofȱwhomȱareȱdescribedȱasȱfriendsȱofȱGod. TheȱspiritualȱstateȱofȱtheȱprotagonistsȱisȱsignaledȱthroughoutȱtheȱMeretrixȱVita byȱ extendedȱ firstȬpersonȱ laments,ȱ whichȱ notȱ onlyȱ structureȱ butȱ alsoȱ provide commentariesȱonȱevents.ȱMaria’sȱheartfeltȱlamentȱfollowsȱherȱseductionȱandȱfall. Firstȱsheȱregretsȱtheȱtwentyȱyearsȱofȱspiritualȱexercises,ȱtheȱeffectȱofȱwhichȱwas

51 52 53 54

AVPȱ165,32–166,ȱ2. AVPȱ166,ȱ11–13. AVPȱ166,ȱ18–20. Tinsley,ȱScourgeȱandȱCross,ȱ131–33.

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

491

overcomeȱinȱaȱmomentȱofȱweakness.ȱButȱsheȱreservesȱherȱgreatestȱregretȱforȱthe injuriesȱsheȱhasȱinflictedȱonȱherȱsoulmate:ȱ Oweȱ nuȱ habȱ ichȱ michȱ selberȱ nitȱ alleinȱ ertoetet,ȱ ichȱ hanȱ dasȱ reinȱ herzeȱ vndȱ das tugenthafterȱherzeȱminesȱlibenȱvertternȱufȱdenȱtotȱochȱverwunt!...Oweȱwasȱsineȱzarten getruwenȱougenȱvndȱliebenȱwerdentȱgesechentȱtrechen,ȱdurȱroetetȱmitȱsinesȱherzen bluot! [Ohȱwoe,ȱnowȱIȱhaveȱkilledȱnotȱonlyȱmyself,ȱIȱhaveȱwoundedȱtoȱtheȱdeathȱtheȱpure heartȱandȱvirtuousȱheartȱofȱmyȱdearȱcousin!ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱOhȱwoe,ȱwhatȱsortȱofȱtearsȱwillȱfillȱhis tender,ȱfaithfulȱeyesȱsoȱdear,ȱrunningȱredȱwithȱtheȱbloodȱofȱhisȱheart!]55ȱ

AfterȱbemoaningȱherȱfallȱintoȱtheȱabyssȱawayȱfromȱGod,ȱtheȱVirginȱMaryȱandȱthe heavenlyȱ host,ȱ sheȱ concludesȱ herȱ lamentȱ byȱ invokingȱ theȱ windowȱ ofȱ wisdom throughȱwhichȱsheȱhadȱbeenȱinstructedȱallȱherȱyoungȱyears.ȱWithȱthisȱsheȱfallsȱinto despair,ȱtheȱgreatestȱdistanceȱfromȱGodȱthatȱoneȱcanȱreach.ȱ Whenȱ Abrahamȱ finallyȱ learnsȱ ofȱ hisȱ niece’sȱ fate,ȱ hisȱ lamentȱ drawsȱ uponȱ the parableȱofȱtheȱgoodȱshepherd.ȱMariaȱisȱtheȱdearȱlittleȱsheepȱwhomȱtheȱwolfȱhas stolenȱaway.ȱTheȱdepthȱofȱhisȱattachmentȱisȱexpressedȱthroughȱaȱseriesȱofȱnames invokingȱ theirȱ relationship:ȱ “Meinȱ herzeȱ liebesȱ kint”ȱ (theȱ childȱ soȱ dearȱ toȱ my heart),ȱ“minȱzarteȱtochter”ȱ(myȱsweetȱyoungȱdaughter),ȱandȱstressingȱtheirȱactual genealogicalȱties:ȱ“minȱusȱerwelteȱmuome”ȱ(myȱchosenȱsister’sȱdaughter).56ȱHis devotionȱisȱsoȱgreatȱthatȱheȱleavesȱhisȱcell,ȱacquiresȱarmor,ȱand,ȱdisguisedȱasȱa knight,ȱ ridesȱ outȱ inȱ searchȱ ofȱ Maria,ȱ hisȱ lostȱ sheep.ȱ (Theȱ knightȱ personaȱ also dominatesȱtheȱsecondȱstageȱofȱSuso’sȱspiritualȱjourney,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱisȱcalledȱto sufferȱspirituallyȱthroughȱtheȱlossȱofȱeveryoneȱandȱeverythingȱheȱholdsȱdear.57)ȱThe thirdȱgreatȱlamentȱisȱdeliveredȱbyȱAbrahamȱtoȱMariaȱasȱheȱunmasksȱhimselfȱinȱthe brothelȱwhereȱheȱhasȱfoundȱher.ȱHeȱaddressesȱherȱ“Oweȱliebeȱminȱtochter”ȱ(Alas, myȱdearȱdaughter),ȱechoesȱherȱwordsȱofȱlamentȱconcerningȱtheȱspiritualȱprogress sheȱhadȱforfeited,ȱandȱthenȱconcludesȱwithȱtheȱconsolingȱwordsȱappropriateȱtoȱthe

55 56

57

AVPȱ166,36–167,2. AVPȱ168,ȱ1–2.ȱLexerȱdefinesȱmuomeȱasȱtheȱsisterȱofȱone’sȱmother,ȱbutȱitȱcouldȱalsoȱdenoteȱaȱchild relatedȱthroughȱone’sȱsister.ȱSeeȱtheȱdictionariesȱbyȱGeorgȱFriedrichȱBenecke,ȱWilhelmȱMüller, Friedrichȱ Zarncke,ȱ Matthiasȱ Lexer,ȱ andȱ Kurtȱ Gärtner,ȱ ed.,ȱ Mittelhochdeutscheȱ Wörterbücher online.http://urts55.uniȬtrier.de:8080/Projekte/MWV/wbb,ȱVol.ȱ2,ȱ240–42ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug. 1,2010). TheȱclassicȱstudyȱofȱthisȱmotifȱinȱSuso’sȱVitaȱisȱJuliusȱSchwietering,ȱ“ZurȱAutorschaftȱvonȱSeuses ‘Vita’,”ȱAltdeutscheȱundȱaltniederländischeȱMystik,ȱed.ȱKurtȱRuhȱ(1953;ȱrpt.ȱDarmstadt:ȱWissenschaftȬ licheȱBuchgesellschaft,ȱ1964),ȱ309–23;ȱandȱisȱmodifiedȱandȱupdatedȱinȱMariaȱBindschedler,ȱ“Seuses BegriffȱderȱRitterschaft,”ȱHeinrichȱSeuse;ȱStudienȱzumȱ600.ȱTodestag,ȱ1366–1966,ȱed.ȱEphremȱFilthaut (Cologne:ȱAlbertusȱMagnusȱVerlag,ȱ1966),ȱ233–39.ȱIȱargueȱinȱmyȱScourgeȱandȱtheȱCross,ȱ135–39,ȱthat theȱ motifȱ ofȱ theȱ questingȱ knightȱ wasȱ meantȱ toȱ beȱ appliedȱ onlyȱ toȱ theȱ secondȱ stageȱ ofȱ Suso’s spiritualȱjourneyȱonȱtheȱviaȱtriplex.

492

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

returnȱofȱaȱpenitentȱandȱwhichȱwouldȱtranscendȱgenderȱandȱpowerȱtoȱmakeȱa universalȱstatementȱaboutȱtheȱhumanȱconditionȱinȱaȱfallenȱworld:ȱ“Esȱistȱdoch niemanȱohneȱsunde,ȱwanȱgotȱallein”ȱ(ThereȱisȱnoȱoneȱwithoutȱsinȱexceptȱforȱGod alone).58 Fallenȱ womenȱ doȱ appearȱ prominentlyȱ inȱ Suso’sȱ Vita,ȱ especiallyȱ Suso’sȱ sister, whoseȱ flightȱ fromȱ theȱ convent,ȱ fall,ȱ andȱ rescueȱ fromȱ damnationȱ areȱ almost certainlyȱmodeledȱonȱtheȱstoryȱofȱMariaȱMeretrix.59ȱAsȱwithȱMariaȱMeretrix,ȱSuso’s sister’sȱ fallȱ beginsȱ withȱ herȱ decisionȱ toȱ leaveȱ herȱ convent.ȱ Sheȱ fallsȱ intoȱ bad company,ȱcommitsȱunnamedȱbutȱgrievousȱsinsȱandȱrunsȱawayȱinȱdisgrace.ȱThe emphasisȱinȱSuso’sȱVitaȱisȱveryȱmuchȱonȱtheȱdamageȱsheȱcausesȱtoȱhisȱreputation. HeȱisȱostracizedȱandȱshunnedȱbyȱmanyȱinȱhisȱOrder.ȱButȱtheȱmoralȱlessonȱthatȱthe episodeȱteachesȱisȱconveyedȱthroughȱmodelsȱofȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱespeciallyȱin Suso’sȱdecisionȱtoȱsearchȱforȱhisȱsisterȱwhenȱeveryoneȱwantsȱhimȱtoȱabandonȱher: “dazȱirȱgotȱnieneȱmeȱtrúwenȱmugentȱgeleistenȱnochȱimȱglicherȱgewuerken,ȱdenn anȱeinerȱverworfenenȱsúnderinȱundȱeinemȱúberladenȱherzen”ȱ(.ȱ.ȱ.ȱYouȱcanȱnever showȱGodȱmoreȱtrueȱdevotion,ȱnorȱactȱmoreȱasȱheȱdoes,ȱthanȱinȱyourȱrelationsȱwith anȱoutcastȱsinnerȱandȱanȱoverburdenedȱheart).60ȱ Hereȱ Suso’sȱ friendshipȱ withȱ God,ȱ definedȱ throughȱ devotionȱ (trúwe),ȱ is demonstratedȱbyȱhisȱdevotionȱtoȱhisȱoutcastȱsisterȱasȱherȱcustosȱanimi.ȱWhenȱhis sisterȱconfessesȱherȱsinsȱsheȱdescribesȱ themȱasȱanȱoffenseȱagainstȱherȱstatusȱas geswistergitȱ(sister’sȱdaughter)61ȱandȱoffersȱasȱpenanceȱtoȱseverȱallȱtiesȱofȱfriendship withȱhim:ȱ“Undȱanderȱgemeinsamiȱensolȱnochȱenmagȱichȱniemerȱmeȱvonȱúȱnoch mitȱúȱgehaben,ȱwanȱdazȱsichȱúwrúȱogenȱundȱorenȱminȱerschamenȱundȱerschrekn muessent”ȱ(FromȱnowȱonȱIȱshallȱnotȱandȱcannotȱhaveȱanyȱotherȱrelationshipȱwith youȱexceptȱthatȱyouȱfeelȱshameȱandȱfrightȱatȱtheȱsightȱorȱsoundȱofȱme).62ȱSuso’s responseȱdemonstratesȱtheȱloveȱofȱGodȱthatȱoffersȱforgiveness:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsoȱwilȱichȱ.ȱ.ȱ. dichȱhútȱenphahenȱinȱderȱgnadȱundȱerbaermde,ȱalsȱichȱbeger,ȱdazȱmichȱsúndigen menschenȱderȱerbarmherzigȱgoȱenphahȱanȱminerȱjungstenȱhinvart”ȱ(Iȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱshall receiveȱyouȱtodayȱinȱgraceȱandȱmercy,ȱjustȱasȱIȱwantȱourȱmercifulȱGodȱtoȱreceive me,ȱaȱsinner,ȱatȱmyȱfinalȱdeparture).63

58 59

60 61

62 63

AVP,ȱ171,1ȱandȱ171,ȱ3. TheȱpertinentȱchapterȱinȱSuso’sȱVitaȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱBihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ70,17–74,10ȱ(Tobin, Exemplar,ȱ110–13). Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ72,ȱ6–8ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ112).ȱ Bihlmeyerȱ72,29.ȱLexerȱdefinesȱthisȱasȱaȱsynonymȱforȱ“geswisterkint”ȱorȱ“muome.”ȱSeeȱLexer, MittelhochdeutschesȱWörterbuch,ȱVol.ȱ1,ȱ941–43. Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ73,ȱ3–5ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ112).ȱ Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ73,ȱ21–23ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ113).ȱ

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

493

Theȱ“womanȱwithȱtheȱheartȱofȱaȱwolfȱ“ȱservesȱasȱaȱnegativeȱcounterȬexemplarȱto theȱsteadyȱspiritualȱprogressȱmadeȱbyȱStagelȱandȱasȱaȱreminderȱthatȱnotȱevery womanȱwhoȱfallsȱintoȱevilȱcanȱbeȱrescuedȱandȱredeemed.64ȱInȱaȱmotifȱcommonȱto hagiography,ȱsheȱbecomesȱpregnantȱandȱaccusesȱSusoȱofȱbeingȱtheȱfather,ȱthereby destroyingȱhisȱreputationȱandȱcausingȱhimȱgreatȱdistressȱandȱspiritualȱsuffering. AlthoughȱthisȱisȱjustȱoneȱofȱGod’sȱgiftsȱwhich,ȱasȱpromised,ȱdestroyȱeverythingȱhe holdsȱdearȱinȱthisȱlife,ȱhisȱsteadfastnessȱinȱsufferingȱandȱwillingnessȱtoȱbecomeȱthe footȬclothȱforȱtheȱdiabolicalȱcursȱthatȱheȱmeetsȱresultȱinȱGodȱtakingȱpityȱonȱhim. Susoȱshowsȱmercyȱtoȱtheȱbastardȱchild,ȱsalvagingȱitsȱsoul,ȱandȱtheȱwolfȬhearted womanȱisȱstruckȱdeadȱbyȱanȱunknownȱillness.ȱ NeitherȱtheȱpenitentȱsisterȱnorȱtheȱwolfȬheartedȱwoman,ȱthen,ȱisȱmeantȱtoȱbe exemplaryȱforȱElsbethȱStagel,ȱbutȱherȱgiftȱofȱseriousȱillnessȱandȱsteadyȱspiritual progressȱ areȱ setȱ againstȱ positiveȱ andȱ negativeȱ desertȱ modelsȱ ofȱ theȱ penitent. Elsbeth’sȱ spiritualȱ journeyȱ exemplifiesȱ thatȱ ofȱ anȱ eagerȱ servantȱ whoȱ simply requiresȱ instructionȱ inȱ theȱ properȱ pathȱ toȱ trueȱ discernment.ȱ Butȱ theȱ spiritual friendshipȱthatȱdevelopsȱbetweenȱabbaȱandȱdisciple,ȱbetweenȱDesertȱFatherȱand spiritualȱdaughterȱinȱtheȱVitaȱofȱMariaȱMeretrix,ȱisȱtheȱprincipalȱmodelȱforȱthe spiritualȱrelationshipȱexemplifiedȱbyȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagelȱinȱSuso’sȱVita.

TheȱSpiritualȱIdealȱofȱtheȱFriendsȱofȱGod TheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱFriendsȱofȱGodȱwouldȱappearȱatȱfirstȱglanceȱtoȱbeȱtheȱmost promisingȱmodelȱforȱSusoȱandȱStagel’sȱspiritualȱfriendship.ȱNotȱonlyȱdoȱ these gotesvrúndeȱ seemȱ toȱ provideȱ anȱ historicalȱ realizationȱ ofȱ theȱ prescriptiveȱ and exemplaryȱidealsȱthatȱhaveȱoccupiedȱmyȱanalysisȱthusȱfar;ȱtheȱwordȱ“vrúnd”ȱin someȱvariantȱfindsȱmentionȱfortyȬoneȱtimesȱinȱSuso’sȱGermanȱwritings.65ȱButȱthe statusȱofȱtheȱgroupȱitselfȱremainsȱproblematical,ȱnotȱleastȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱglaring discrepancyȱbetweenȱtheȱnumberȱofȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱluminariesȱthatȱmention amiciȱdeiȱinȱtheirȱwritingsȱandȱtheȱfailureȱofȱrepeatedȱattemptsȱtoȱdocumentȱthe historicalȱexistenceȱofȱanyȱsuchȱcommunity.ȱInȱtheȱwordsȱofȱFrancisȱRapp:ȱ DieȱAnsicht,ȱdassȱdieseȱGottesfreundeȱeineȱArtȱKircheȱinnerhalbȱderȱKircheȱwaren,ȱdie einȱverborgenerȱOberhirteȱgeleitetȱhätte,ȱwirdȱheuteȱkaumȱnochȱvertreten.ȱAuchȱeinen

64

65

TheȱwolfȬwomanȱepisodeȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱBihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ119,ȱ1–130,ȱ14ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar, 148–57).ȱ Forȱaȱnuancedȱintroduction,ȱespeciallyȱtoȱMerswin’sȱlifeȱandȱtimes,ȱseeȱBernardȱGorceix,ȱAmisȱde DieuȱenȱAllemagneȱauȱsiècleȱdeȱMaîtreȱEckhartȱ(Paris:ȱAlbinȱMichel,ȱ1984).ȱBernardȱMcGinn,ȱ“The FriendsȱofȱGod,”ȱTheȱHarvestȱofȱMysticismȱinȱMedievalȱGermanyȱ(1300–1500).ȱTheȱPresenceȱofȱGod: Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Westernȱ Christianȱ Mysticism,ȱ 4ȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Herderȱ &ȱ Herder,ȱ 2005),ȱ 407–31, providesȱaȱthoroughȱsurveyȱofȱmajorȱthemesȱdepictedȱinȱkeyȱtexts.ȱ

494

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley losenȱ Verband,ȱ eineȱ Artȱ Bruderschaft,ȱ habenȱ sieȱ nichtȱ gebildetȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Ihre Lebensauffassungȱ warȱ dasȱ starkeȱ Band,ȱ dasȱ dieȱ geographischenȱ undȱ sozialen Abständeȱüberwindet.66 [TheȱviewȱthatȱtheseȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱwereȱaȱkindȱofȱchurchȱwithinȱtheȱchurchȱledȱbyȱa secretȱ pastorȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ takenȱ seriously.ȱ Theyȱ didȱ notȱ constituteȱ evenȱ aȱ loose confederationȱorȱaȱkindȱofȱbrotherhoodȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheirȱviewȱofȱlifeȱisȱtheȱstrongȱtieȱthat overcomesȱtheirȱgeographicalȱandȱsocialȱdiversity.]ȱ

Bernardȱ McGinnȱ callsȱ themȱ anȱ “amorphousȱ andȱ toȱ someȱ extentȱ mysterious group,”ȱ preferringȱ toȱ illuminateȱ theirȱ receptionȱ ofȱ mysticalȱ experienceȱ asȱ an expressionȱofȱtheȱriseȱofȱtheȱ“newlyȱdevout”ȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱ century.67ȱMost recently,ȱReginaȱSchiewerȱsubjectsȱtheȱconceptȱitselfȱalongȱwithȱtheȱpreconceptions ofȱpreviousȱscholarshipȱtoȱaȱrigorousȱandȱproductiveȱreȬevaluation.68ȱSheȱnotȱonly succeedsȱinȱdebunkingȱlongȬheldȱscholarlyȱmyths,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱaȱclose friendshipȱ betweenȱ Heinrichȱ vonȱ Nördlingenȱ andȱ Rulmanȱ Merswin,ȱ sheȱ also arguesȱforȱunderstandingȱgotesvrúndeȱasȱaȱspiritualȱidealȱwithȱgreatȱappealȱfor reformȬmindedȱclericsȱandȱlayȱpeopleȱinȱaȱtimeȱofȱextremeȱpolitical,ȱsocial,ȱand spiritualȱupheaval.ȱ WhenȱSchiewerȱdefinesȱtheȱconceptȱ“Gottesfreundschaft”ȱasȱ“friendshipȱtoȱGod” andȱfocusesȱonȱtheȱ“relationshipȱtoȱGod”ȱasȱitsȱfoundation,ȱsheȱtouchesȱuponȱa centralȱparadoxȱofȱ“Friends”Ȭscholarship:ȱmanyȱscholarsȱuseȱimplicitȱmodelsȱof amicitia,ȱinȱsomeȱcasesȱanachronistically,ȱtoȱrecreateȱaȱhorizontalȱnetworkȱofȱclerics andȱ laypersonsȱ inȱ theȱ upperȬGermanȱ provinces,ȱ whereasȱ theȱ Dominicansȱ and otherȱ monasticsȱ wouldȱ haveȱ definedȱ Gottesfreundschaftȱ accordingȱ toȱ modelsȱ of caritas,ȱorȱdivineȱlove,ȱwhichȱpresupposeȱGod’sȱgraceȱandȱobedienceȱtoȱtheȱwillȱof Christȱ operatingȱ independentȱ ofȱ humanȱ interaction.69ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Christ’s teachingsȱasȱputȱforthȱinȱtheȱGospelȱofȱJohn,ȱhumanȱvolitionȱhasȱnoȱroleȱtoȱplayȱin establishingȱfriendship;ȱtheȱchoiceȱisȱGod’sȱalone.ȱAndȱtheȱmovementȱthatȱChrist proclaimsȱfromȱslaveȱtoȱfriendȱisȱdependentȱonȱunquestioningȱobedience.ȱSchiewer doesȱgoȱtooȱfar,ȱinȱmyȱopinion,ȱwhenȱsheȱrulesȱoutȱtheȱamicitiaȬbasedȱmodelȱof “FreundȱinȱGott,”ȱwhichȱfindsȱfrequentȱmentionȱinȱNördlingen’sȱcorrespondence.70 BrianȱMcGuireȱremindsȱusȱthatȱtheȱprincipalȱconcernȱaboutȱmonasticȱrelationships

66

67 68

69 70

FrancisȱRapp,ȱ“DieȱGottesfreundeȱamȱOberrhein,”ȱDasȱElsaßȱundȱTirolȱanȱderȱWendeȱvomȱMittelalter zurȱNeuzeit:ȱSiebenȱVorträge,ȱed.ȱEugenȱThurnher.ȱSchlernȬSchriften,ȱ295ȱ(Innsbruck:ȱWagner,ȱ1994), 55–62;ȱhereȱ58.ȱ McGinn,ȱ“HarvestȱofȱMysticism,”ȱ407.ȱ ReginaȱD.ȱSchiewer,ȱ“‘VosȱamiciȱDeiȱestis’:ȱDieȱ‘Gottesfreunde’ȱdesȱ14.ȱJahrhundertsȱbeiȱSeuse, Taulerȱundȱinȱdenȱ‘EngelbergerȱPredigten’:ȱReligiöseȱElite,ȱVereinȱoderȱLiteraturzirkel?”ȱOxford GermanȱStudiesȱ36ȱ(2007):ȱ227–46. Schiewer,ȱ“Gottesfreunde,”ȱ232–33.ȱ Schiewer,ȱ“Gottesfreunde,”ȱ232.

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

495

foundȱexpressionȱinȱtheȱtensionȱbetweenȱamicitia,ȱorȱparticularizedȱlove,ȱandȱcaritas orȱ dilectio,ȱ generalizedȱ love.71ȱ Soȱ aȱ moreȱ usefulȱ approachȱ wouldȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ a dialecticȱthatȱencompassesȱtheȱdynamicȱinherentȱinȱtheȱtwoȱgreatȱcommandments, inȱ otherȱ words,ȱ howȱ divine,ȱ absoluteȱ loveȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ loveȱ of neighborȱasȱoneself.ȱ Asȱ weȱ alreadyȱ sawȱ inȱ Partȱ I,ȱ theȱ Augustinianȱ Ruleȱ makesȱ humilityȱ intoȱ the definingȱprincipleȱofȱamicitiaȱinȱcaritas.ȱSusoȱletsȱsufferingȱbeȱtheȱessentialȱlinkȱin theȱdialecticȱbetweenȱtheȱwaysȱofȱlovingȱGodȱandȱneighbor.ȱForȱSuso,ȱeachȱperson freelyȱacceptsȱtheȱobligationȱtoȱbecomeȱtheȱdoormatȱtornȱapartȱbyȱtheȱrabidȱdogs ofȱearthlyȱexistence.72ȱThisȱexpectationȱfindsȱarticulationȱinȱtheȱfirstȱmentionȱinȱthe VitaȱofȱGottesfreundschaft,ȱasȱSchiewerȱshows.73ȱHereȱSusoȱreceivesȱanȱauditioȱin whichȱheȱisȱexhortedȱtoȱbecomeȱoneȱofȱtheȱgotesfrúndeȱwhoȱwillȱachieveȱrechter selikeitȱ(trueȱbliss)ȱbyȱmeansȱofȱGod’sȱgelitnenȱmenschheitȱ(sufferingȱhumanity).ȱAs aȱbeginner,ȱGodȱexplains,ȱheȱhasȱsinnedȱinȱwantingȱtoȱenjoyȱdivineȱconsolation withoutȱbeingȱwillingȱtoȱemulateȱJesusȱandȱtheȱmartyrs.ȱThisȱsendsȱaȱstrongȱsignal that,ȱinȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱtheȱpathȱofȱtheȱerringȱbeginnerȱfromȱsuchȱselfȬindulgenceȱto trueȱdiscernmentȱwillȱbeȱpavedȱbyȱsuffering,ȱmakingȱdeathȱonȱtheȱcrossȱintoȱa modelȱ forȱ dailyȱ existence.ȱ Andȱ justȱ asȱ Mariaȱ Meretrix’sȱ spiritualȱ journeyȱ was definedȱthroughȱsufferingȱandȱloss,ȱinȱherȱcase,ȱtheȱlossȱofȱherȱcustosȱanimi,ȱtheȱgift ofȱ intensifiedȱ sufferingȱ bestowedȱ onȱ Susoȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ phaseȱ ofȱ hisȱ soul’s developmentȱinvolvesȱtheȱlossȱofȱallȱfriendsȱandȱtheȱapparentȱdisappearanceȱof amicitiaȱinȱanyȱformȱfromȱhisȱlife.ȱ WhetherȱtheirȱsourceȱwasȱBonaventure’sȱviaȱtriplex74ȱorȱtheȱpopularȱsevenȬstepȱway ofȱAugustine,ȱ“spiritualȱauthorsȱusedȱstepsȱorȱturnsȱtoȱstructureȱanȱorderedȱsetȱof

71 72

73 74

McGuire,ȱFriendshipȱandȱCommunity,ȱxxxiv. GorceixȱstressesȱjustȱhowȱdiverseȱtheȱwaysȱofȱGottesfreundschaftȱwereȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury: “PourȱMaîtreȱEckhart,ȱl’AmiȱdeȱDieuȱestȱleȱspirituelȱquiȱseȱtransformeȱenȱDieu;ȱpourȱRuysbroeck, ilȱestȱl’hommeȱintérieurȱquiȱn’aȱpasȱencoreȱdépasséȱtousȱlesȱmodes;ȱpourȱTaulerȱilȱs’unitȱàȱDieu dansȱlaȱrenonciationȱtotale,ȱpourȱSuso,ȱilȱsouffreȱavecȱJésusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(ForȱMeisterȱEckhart,ȱaȱfriendȱof GodȱisȱaȱspiritȱwhoȱisȱtransformedȱinȱGod;ȱforȱRuysbroeck,ȱheȱisȱanȱinteriorȱmanȱwhoȱhasȱnever beforeȱtranscendedȱallȱofȱtheȱstages;ȱforȱTaulerȱheȱbecomesȱoneȱwithȱGodȱinȱtotalȱrenunciation,ȱfor SusoȱheȱsuffersȱwithȱChristȱ.ȱ.ȱ.).ȱSeeȱGorceix,ȱAmisȱdeȱDieu,ȱ75. Schiewer,ȱ“Gottesfreunde,”ȱ233–34.ȱSeeȱBihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ34,ȱ5–12ȱandȱTobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ83–84. Forȱaȱusefulȱintroductionȱtoȱtheȱviaȱtriplex,ȱseeȱKurtȱRuh,ȱGeschichteȱderȱabendländischenȱMystik,ȱVol. 1ȱ(Munich:ȱBeck,ȱ1990),ȱ53–71ȱandȱ104–13.ȱSeeȱalsoȱOttoȱLanger,ȱMystischeȱErfahrungȱundȱspirituelle Theologie:ȱZuȱMeisterȱEckhartsȱAuseinandersetzungȱmitȱderȱFrauenfrömmigkeitȱseinerȱZeit.ȱMünchener TexteȱundȱUntersuchungenȱzurȱdeutschenȱLiteraturȱdesȱMittelalters,ȱ91ȱ(Munich:ȱArtemis,ȱ1987), 156–74.ȱ

496

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

principlesȱcorrespondingȱtoȱtheȱstagesȱofȱtheȱ‘itinerariumȱmentisȱinȱDeum.’”75ȱFor Suso,ȱ sufferingȱ isȱ one’sȱ constantȱ companionȱ onȱ theȱ soul’sȱ arduousȱ journeyȱ to God.76ȱAfterȱyearsȱofȱextremeȱasceticism,ȱtheȱservantȱbegsȱGod’sȱyouthfulȱavatar, “herr,ȱzoegȱmir,ȱwieȱmengȱlidenȱichȱnochȱvorȱmirȱhabe”ȱ(Lord,ȱshowȱmeȱhow muchȱsufferingȱIȱstillȱhaveȱbeforeȱme).77ȱGodȱanswers:ȱ“mahstȱduȱdieȱunzallichen mengiȱderȱsternenȱgezellen,ȱsoȱmahtȱduȱochȱdinúȱlidenȱgezellenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(ifȱyouȱcan countȱtheȱlimitlessȱnumbersȱofȱtheȱstars,ȱyouȱcanȱalsoȱcountȱtheȱsufferingsȱstillȱin yourȱ future).78ȱ Itȱ turnsȱ outȱ thatȱ Susoȱ mustȱ nowȱ endureȱ muchȱ moreȱ horrific sufferingȱimposedȱbyȱGod,ȱinvolvingȱthreeȱphases:ȱtoȱbeȱhandedȱoverȱdefenseless toȱabuseȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱothersȱ(Bihlmeyerȱ57,ȱ3–4;ȱTobinȱ100);ȱtoȱhaveȱhisȱtender, lovingȱ natureȱ hardenedȱ byȱ betrayalsȱ atȱ theȱ handsȱ ofȱ thoseȱ heȱ trustsȱ theȱ most (Bihlmeyerȱ57,ȱ14–16;ȱTobinȱ101);ȱand,ȱmostȱpainfully,ȱtoȱbeȱexiledȱfromȱallȱdivine loveȱinȱhisȱlife,ȱtheȱloveȱofȱGod,ȱandȱtheȱloveȱofȱneighborȱ(Bihlmeyerȱ57,ȱ19–21; Tobinȱ101).ȱWeȱhaveȱalreadyȱseenȱhowȱmuchȱtheȱallegoriesȱofȱknighthoodȱandȱthe doormat,ȱ drawnȱ fromȱ theȱ Vitaȱ ofȱ Mariaȱ Meretrixȱ andȱ theȱ livesȱ ofȱ theȱ Desert Fathers,ȱdominateȱthisȱsecondȱphaseȱofȱtheȱtrifoldȱwayȱofȱsuffering.ȱ Theȱsoul’sȱprogressȱtoȱtheȱthirdȱstageȱisȱimpossibleȱwithoutȱtheȱdiscernmentȱthat developsȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱrelationshipsȱbornȱinȱsuffering.ȱLikeȱSuso,ȱeachȱindividual movesȱ fromȱ exteriorȱ sufferingȱ broughtȱ aboutȱ byȱ extremeȱ asceticismȱ through interiorȱsufferingȱthroughȱtheȱlossȱofȱallȱspiritualȱtiesȱtoȱtheȱworldȱtoȱaȱfinalȱstage ofȱ transcendentȱ sufferingȱ inȱ whichȱ allȱ individuals,ȱ regardlessȱ ofȱ stationȱ and separation,ȱ formȱ aȱ monosȱ ofȱ sufferersȱ willingȱ toȱ followȱ Christȱ inȱ becomingȱ a doormatȱ toȱ theȱ world.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ finalȱ stageȱ ofȱ universalȱ sufferingȱ theȱ individual suffererȱisȱcalledȱtoȱaȱlegionȱofȱuniversalȱsufferersȱwhoseȱanguishȱ(andȱsin)ȱare washedȱawayȱinȱtheȱbloodȱofȱChrist.79ȱ 75

76

77 78 79

Jeffreyȱ F.ȱ Hamburger,ȱ Nunsȱ asȱ Artists:ȱ Theȱ Visualȱ Cultureȱ ofȱ aȱ Medievalȱ Conventȱ (Berkeley: UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ109. Schiewer,ȱ“Gottesfreunde,”ȱ234–37,ȱrecognizesȱthisȱand,ȱfollowingȱHaas,ȱcharacterizesȱtheȱvia triplexȱ asȱ theȱ soul’sȱ movementȱ fromȱ sufferingȱ throughȱ serenityȱ (Gelassenheit)ȱ toȱ eternalȱ bliss (jubilus).ȱAsȱIȱargueȱelsewhere,ȱtheȱentireȱviaȱtriplexȱisȱaccompaniedȱinȱSusoȱbyȱsuffering,ȱwith jubilusȱbeingȱdefinedȱinȱpartȱasȱaȱcommunityȱofȱuniversalȱsufferers.ȱCompareȱAloisȱM.ȱHaas,ȱKunst rechterȱGelassenheit:ȱThemenȱundȱSchwerpunkteȱvonȱHeinrichȱSeusesȱMystikȱ(Bern,ȱNewȱYork:ȱPeter Lang,ȱ1996),ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱwithȱ“GenderȱandȱSuffering,”ȱTinsley,ȱScourgeȱandȱCross,ȱ115–25. Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ56,ȱ20–21ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ100). Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ56,ȱ21–22ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ100).ȱ “.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱderȱNachfolgeȱChristiȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱstehtȱderȱchristusförmigeȱMensch,ȱderȱstellvertretendȱfürȱandere lebt,ȱ leidetȱ undȱ stirbt,ȱ weilȱ inȱ ihmȱ undȱ durchȱ ihn...Gottesȱ universellȱ einheitsȬȱ undȱ damit heilsstiftendesȱWirkenȱzurȱEntfaltungȱkommtȱ(.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱtheȱimitationȱofȱChristȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱstandsȱtheȱhuman beingȱ formedȱ inȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ Christ,ȱ whoȱ lives,ȱ suffers,ȱ andȱ diesȱ forȱ others,ȱ becauseȱ Godȇs universallyȱencompassingȱandȱtherebyȱhealingȱpowerȱcomesȱinȱhimȱ[theȱsufferer]ȱtoȱfruition”). MarkusȱEnders,ȱ“DasȱmystischeȱWissenȱSeuses.ȱEinȱBeitragȱzuȱseinerȱRelevanz,”ȱHeinrichȱSeuses Philosophiaȱspiritualis.ȱQuellen,ȱKonzept,ȱFormenȱundȱRezeption,ȱed.ȱRüdigerȱBlumrichȱandȱPhilipp

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

497

Hierȱumbeȱsoȱsezzenȱwirȱuns,ȱichȱmeineȱelluȱduȱlidendenȱmenschen,ȱduȱieȱgeliten,ȱzuo einemȱgrossenȱwitenȱringeȱumbȱundȱumb,ȱundȱsezzenȱdich,ȱzarterȱtruterȱunschuldiger buole,ȱenmitenȱunderȱunsȱinȱdenȱringȱderoȱselbenȱlidendenȱmenschenȱundȱzerspreiten unserȱturstigenȱadrenȱwitȱufȱginendeȱvonȱgrosserȱbegirdeȱgenȱdir...wemȱlieb,ȱwemȱleid, durȱdinȱlidendenȱhintrieffendenȱwundenȱgeweschenȱundȱallerȱdingȱunschuldigȱwerden allerȱmissetat.80 [Therefore,ȱallȱofȱusȱwhoȱhaveȱeverȱsuffered,ȱletȱusȱallȱsitȱdownȱinȱaȱgiganticȱcircleȱall around.ȱAndȱyou,ȱgentle,ȱintimate,ȱinnocentȱBeloved,ȱsitȱdownȱinȱourȱmidstȱinȱthis circleȱofȱsufferingȱpeople.ȱOurȱthirstingȱinteriorsȱshallȱburstȱwideȱopenȱoutȱofȱdeep desireȱforȱyou...inȱjoyȱorȱinȱsorrow,ȱwashingȱinȱyourȱpainfulȱbleedingȱwoundsȱand madeȱinnocentȱofȱallȱevilȱinȱallȱthings.]

InȱtheȱmidstȱofȱthisȱmonosȱofȱuniversalȱsufferersȱinȱAugustine’sȱsenseȱsitsȱtheȱlamb whoȱ hasȱ sufferedȱ ultimatelyȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ payȱ Satan’sȱ ransomȱ andȱ toȱ bring redemptionȱ toȱ allȱ humankind.ȱ Theȱ communityȱ alsoȱ stretchesȱ acrossȱ time;ȱ St. Elizabeth,ȱtheȱApostleȱPaul,ȱJob,ȱTobias,ȱandȱAthanasiusȱcompleteȱtheȱcatalogue thatȱbeginsȱwithȱtheȱQueenȱofȱSheba. ButȱhowȱdidȱsuchȱcomradeshipȱinȱsufferingȱfunctionȱforȱaȱDominican,ȱifȱthe focusȱhadȱtoȱremainȱonȱGod?ȱTheȱmostȱmemorableȱexampleȱcomesȱjustȱbeforeȱSuso isȱ sentȱ forthȱ asȱ aȱ knightȱ ofȱ Christȱ intoȱ hisȱ secondȱ stageȱ ofȱ suffering.ȱ Yearsȱ of extremeȱasceticismȱworeȱhimȱdown,ȱandȱheȱhasȱfallenȱill.ȱInȱaȱvisionȱGodȱappears toȱaȱ“gotesfrúnd”ȱwithȱaȱboxȱofȱChrist’sȱbloodȱinȱhisȱhand.ȱWhenȱaskedȱbyȱthe friendȱofȱGodȱwhatȱtheȱboxȱisȱfor,ȱGodȱexplains,ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱichȱwilȱsinȱherzȱundȱalleȱsin natureȱmitȱlidenneȱminneklichenȱzeichnen,ȱundȱwillȱinȱdenneȱarznenȱundȱgesunt gemachen,ȱichȱwilȱeinenȱmenschenȱusȱimȱmachenȱnahȱallemȱminemȱherzen”ȱ(.ȱ.ȱ. Iȱwantȱtoȱmarkȱhisȱheartȱandȱwholeȱbeingȱlovinglyȱwithȱsuffering,ȱandȱthenȱIȱshall treatȱhimȱandȱmakeȱhimȱhealthy.ȱIȱwantȱtoȱmakeȱoutȱofȱhimȱaȱmanȱafterȱmyȱown heart).81ȱ Theȱ gotesfrúndȱ isȱ privilegedȱ toȱ witnessȱ Suso’sȱ stigmatization,ȱ one presumes,ȱasȱaȱrewardȱforȱherȱownȱsuffering.ȱAȱsecondȱexampleȱoccursȱearlier duringȱSuso’sȱselfȬimposedȱsuffering.ȱAȱholyȱwomanȱAnna,ȱwhileȱprayingȱinȱa castleȱ atȱ aȱ distanceȱ fromȱ Suso’sȱ cloister,ȱ hasȱ aȱ visionȱ inȱ whichȱ sheȱ seesȱ him mortifyingȱhimself.82ȱConcernedȱthatȱheȱmightȱharmȱhimself,ȱsheȱthrowsȱherself betweenȱhisȱscourgeȱandȱhisȱfleshȱandȱtakesȱtheȱblow.ȱWhenȱsheȱcomesȱbackȱto consciousnessȱafterȱtheȱvision,ȱherȱarmȱbearsȱtheȱbloodyȱscarȱofȱtheȱblow.ȱHereȱone gotesfrúndȱ stepsȱ inȱ toȱ shieldȱ anotherȱ fromȱ hisȱ ownȱ zeal,ȱ usingȱ theȱ powerȱ of

80 81 82

Kaiser.ȱWissensliteraturȱimȱMittelalter,ȱ17ȱ(Wiesbaden,ȱReichert,ȱ1994),ȱ139–72;ȱhereȱ163. Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ92,ȱ14–16ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ128).ȱ Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ52,ȱ2–5ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ97).ȱ AlthoughȱnotȱspecificallyȱcalledȱaȱfriendȱofȱGod,ȱAnnaȱisȱaȱheiligúȱjungfrowȱwhoseȱpiousȱlifeȱand accessȱtoȱdivineȱrevelationȱmirrorȱthoseȱcalledȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱVita.ȱSeeȱBihlmeyer, Seusebuch,ȱ44,ȱ15–24ȱandȱTobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ91.ȱ

498

DavidȱF.ȱTinsley

revelation.ȱInȱbothȱcases,ȱdistanceȱisȱnoȱbarrierȱandȱgenderȱisȱnoȱfactor.ȱTheȱbonds ofȱfriendshipȱreachȱacrossȱearthlyȱlinesȱtoȱbringȱvalidationȱandȱaccessȱtoȱdivine truth. Atȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱasȱSchiewerȱremindsȱus,ȱgotesfrúndeȱareȱnotȱperfect.ȱ“Theyȱstill requireȱpastoralȱcareȱandȱareȱnotȱinfallibleȱinȱtheȱchangeabilityȱinevitableȱinȱlifeȱ. .ȱ .ȱ .”83ȱ Susoȱ instructsȱ Stagelȱ atȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ Partȱ IIȱ thatȱ eachȱ individualȱ is blessedȱbyȱGodȱwithȱuniqueȱgiftsȱandȱalsoȱuniqueȱchallenges.ȱSoȱGottesfreundschaft isȱdeterminedȱbyȱGodȱandȱconfirmedȱthroughȱtheȱpowerȱofȱrevelation.ȱWeȱseeȱthis followingȱStagel’sȱascendanceȱandȱredemptionȱatȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱtheȱVita.ȱBefore theȱconclusionȱandȱinȱtheȱsurvivingȱletters,ȱmotifsȱofȱtheȱcustosȱanimiȱdominateȱthe appellationsȱusedȱbyȱSusoȱduringȱhisȱmentoringȱofȱStagel.ȱHisȱfavoriteȱappellation isȱ “spiritualȱ daughter,”ȱ butȱ heȱ alsoȱ frequentlyȱ addressesȱ herȱ asȱ “myȱ child.”84 ConfirmationȱthatȱElsbethȱStagelȱisȱaȱfriendȱofȱGodȱdoesȱnotȱoccurȱuntilȱtheȱfinal linesȱofȱtheȱVitaȱwhen,ȱafterȱherȱdeath,ȱsheȱappearsȱtoȱSusoȱinȱaȱvisionȱandȱcomforts him.ȱSusoȱdeclares: Gotȱhelfȱúns,ȱdazȱwirȱdiserȱheiligenȱtohterȱundȱallerȱsinerȱliebenȱfrúndenȱgeniessen, dazȱwirȱeweklichȱsinȱgoetlichesȱantlútȱwerdenȱniessende! [MayȱGodȱhelpȱusȱtoȱprofitȱfromȱthisȱholyȱdaughterȱandȱfromȱallȱhisȱdearȱfriends,ȱso thatȱweȱmayȱenjoyȱeternallyȱtheȱsightȱofȱhisȱdivineȱcountenance.]85

Stagel’sȱdeathȱisȱtheȱculminationȱofȱherȱsaintlyȱlife.ȱAllȱhierarchiesȱareȱreversed. Genderȱisȱnoȱlongerȱrelevant.ȱAllȱofȱtheseȱreversalsȱhaveȱbeenȱachievedȱwithin modelsȱofȱGottesfreundschaft.

Conclusion Theȱanalysisȱofȱthreeȱprincipalȱmodelsȱforȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱthatȱinspiredȱfriars andȱnunsȱwithinȱtheȱOrderȱofȱPreachersȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȱcenturyȱhasȱprovided definitiveȱresponsesȱtoȱtheȱthreeȱquestionsȱposedȱinȱtheȱintroduction.ȱ1)ȱItȱwasȱnot onlyȱpossibleȱbutȱalsoȱdesirableȱtoȱimagineȱaȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱaȱreligiousȱman andȱ aȱ religiousȱ womanȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ friendship.ȱ 2)ȱ Theȱ hierarchical relationshipȱofȱconfessorȱandȱdiscipulaȱwithinȱtheȱcuraȱmonialiumȱwasȱnotȱviewed asȱaȱbarrierȱtoȱspiritualȱfriendship,ȱbutȱratherȱasȱaȱprerequisiteȱforȱit.ȱ3)ȱSuso’s 83

84

85

“SieȱbedürfenȱseelsorgerlicherȱBetreuungȱundȱsindȱinȱihremȱLebenswandelȱnichtȱunfehlbarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ (Theyȱ needȱ pastoralȱ careȱ andȱ areȱ notȱ withoutȱ faultsȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theirȱ livesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ȱ ”).ȱ See Schiewer,ȱ“Gottesfreunde,”ȱ237–38.ȱ Theȱformer,ȱasȱinȱtheȱprologueȱtoȱtheȱBriefbüchleinȱ(Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ360,ȱ3;ȱTobin,ȱExemplar, 335);ȱtheȱlatter,ȱasȱinȱtheȱthirdȱletterȱ(Bihlmeyer,ȱSeusebuch,ȱ368,ȱ18;ȱTobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ341).ȱInȱthe Vitaȱ suchȱ referencesȱ areȱ frequent,ȱ beginningȱ withȱ Partȱ IIȱ (Bihlmeyer,ȱ Seusebuch,ȱ 96;ȱ Tobin, Exemplar,ȱ132). Bihlmeyerȱ195,ȱ2–4ȱ(Tobin,ȱExemplar,ȱ204).ȱ

TheȱSpiritualȱFriendshipȱofȱHenryȱSusoȱandȱElsbethȱStagel

499

modelȱofȱamicitiaȱgroundedȱinȱuniversalȱsufferingȱdependedȱuponȱtheȱextreme estrangementȱfromȱtheȱworldȱthatȱsaintlinessȱwasȱalsoȱmeantȱtoȱillustrate.ȱ TheȱprincipalȱconcernȱsurroundingȱspiritualȱfriendshipȱamongȱDominicansȱhas turnedȱ outȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ potentialȱ conflictȱ betweenȱ universalȱ loveȱ (caritas)ȱ and particularȱloveȱ(amicitia).ȱTheȱquestionȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱhowȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱfriend ofȱGodȱwhileȱnurturingȱtheȱloveȱforȱoneȱanotherȱthatȱwasȱsupposedȱtoȱbeȱachieved inȱ aȱ monasticȱ community.ȱ Inȱ theȱ modelȱ articulatedȱ inȱ theȱ Augustinianȱ Rule, humility,ȱ asȱ expressedȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ frankȱ acknowledgmentȱ ofȱ human shortcomingsȱbutȱalsoȱinȱtheȱrealizationȱofȱactsȱofȱrepentance,ȱbecomesȱtheȱmeans ofȱachievingȱtheȱidealȱofȱmonos,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱcommunityȱembodiesȱtheȱprinciple ofȱuniversalȱsharingȱfirstȱachievedȱbyȱtheȱApostlesȱandȱdescribedȱinȱActs.ȱWeȱsaw howȱSusoȱtransformedȱthisȱidealȱbyȱtakingȱtheȱbridgingȱmetaphorȱofȱtheȱdoormat fromȱtheȱVitaspatrumȱandȱusingȱitȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱnecessity,ȱnotȱjustȱofȱhumility, butȱalsoȱofȱtranscendentȱsuffering.ȱTheȱjourneyȱofȱtheȱsoulȱtoȱGodȱisȱimpossible withoutȱtheȱdiscernmentȱachievedȱinȱsuffering’sȱabilityȱtoȱseverȱtiesȱtoȱtheȱworld. InȱbothȱAugustine’sȱandȱSuso’sȱideal,ȱtheȱfocusȱremainsȱonȱGod:ȱGottesfreundschaft hasȱitsȱrootsȱinȱtotalȱobedienceȱtoȱdivineȱgraceȱauthenticatedȱbyȱrevelation. Theȱ idealȱ ofȱ spiritualȱ friendshipȱ takesȱ bothȱ genderȱ differenceȱ andȱ power imbalanceȱintoȱaccountȱwithinȱtheȱuniquenessȱofȱeachȱsoul’sȱburdenȱofȱsuffering onȱitsȱjourneyȱtoȱGod.ȱSusoȱreceivesȱtheȱgiftȱofȱselfȬmortification,ȱtotalȱalienation fromȱGodȱandȱhisȱlovedȱones,ȱand,ȱfinally,ȱtheȱdestinyȱofȱsufferingȱwithȱothersȱfor others.ȱStagelȱreceivesȱtheȱgiftȱofȱlifeȬlongȱillness.ȱAlthoughȱmuchȱofȱtheirȱspiritual friendshipȱoperatesȱwithinȱtheȱdictatesȱofȱtheȱcustosȱanimiȱandȱtheȱcuraȱmonialium, atȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱVitaȱStagelȱexperiencesȱsalvationȱandȱfunctionsȱasȱSuso’sȱmentor andȱaȱuniversalȱexemplar.ȱHeȱremainsȱtheȱservant,ȱsheȱremainsȱaȱfaithfulȱdaughter andȱbecomesȱaȱfriendȱofȱGod.ȱȱ ForȱtheȱexemplaryȱfiguresȱofȱSuso’sȱVita,ȱeachȱofȱtheȱthreeȱmodelsȱjustȱdiscussed takesȱonȱaȱkeyȱfunction.ȱSusoȱutilizesȱtheȱidealȱofȱtheȱmonosȱbornȱinȱreciprocity fromȱAugustine,ȱtheȱasceticȱethosȱofȱtheȱdog’sȱdoormatȱfromȱtheȱDesertȱFathers, andȱtheȱprerequisitesȱofȱobedienceȱandȱhierarchyȱfromȱtheȱteachingsȱofȱChristȱas recordedȱ inȱ theȱ Gospelȱ ofȱ Johnȱ andȱ adaptedȱ forȱ theȱ Friendsȱ ofȱ God.ȱ Spiritual friendshipȱthusȱdefinesȱtheȱimperfectionȱofȱamicitiaȱthatȱleadsȱthroughȱdarknessȱto theȱlight.ȱOneȱcanȱlookȱtoȱfriendsȱofȱGodȱforȱguidance,ȱbutȱfriendshipȱwithȱGod bornȱinȱcaritasȱisȱtheȱwellspringȱofȱhopeȱforȱDominicanȱexemplarsȱofȱtheȱfourteenth andȱfifteenthȱcenturies.

Chapterȱ12 RobertȱStretter (ProvidenceȱCollege,ȱProvidence,ȱRI)

EngenderingȱObligation:ȱSwornȱBrotherhoodȱandȱLove RivalryȱinȱMedievalȱEnglishȱRomance

ItȱisȱaȱstrikingȱironyȱthatȱPalamonȱandȱArcite,ȱtwoȱofȱtheȱmostȱfamousȱfriendsȱin medievalȱliterature,ȱareȱknownȱnotȱforȱtheȱconstancyȱofȱtheirȱfriendshipȱbutȱforȱits spectacularȱ rupture.ȱ Theȱ fatalȱ rivalryȱ ofȱ theȱ youngȱ knightsȱ overȱ theȱ beautiful princessȱEmiliaȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱglanceȱoutȱofȱaȱprisonȱwindow.ȱGiovanniȱBoccaccio, whoȱmakesȱtheirȱstoryȱtheȱcenterȱofȱhisȱTeseidaȱ(ca.ȱ1340),ȱinitiallyȱtellsȱusȱlittle aboutȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱknightsȱotherȱthanȱthatȱtheyȱareȱkinsmen.ȱThey fallȱinȱloveȱwithȱEmiliaȱbeforeȱBoccaccioȱeverȱshowsȱthemȱspeakingȱtoȱoneȱanother, and,ȱonceȱsmitten,ȱtheyȱdoȱnotȱimmediatelyȱfallȱintoȱrivalry,ȱbutȱratherȱlanguish poeticallyȱwithȱloveȬsickness.ȱInȱadaptingȱthisȱstoryȱseveralȱdecadesȱlaterȱasȱThe Knight’sȱTale,ȱtheȱfirstȱofȱTheȱCanterburyȱTales,ȱGeoffreyȱChaucerȱnotȱonlyȱmakesȱthe enmityȱdramaticallyȱsuddenȱbutȱalsoȱaddsȱaȱveryȱimportantȱnewȱdetail:ȱPalamon andȱArciteȱareȱnotȱsimplyȱkinsmen,ȱbutȱ“brother[s]ȱ/ȱYswornȱfulȱdepe”ȱ(Iȱ1131–32), swornȱ brothersȱ boundȱ toȱ oneȱ anotherȱ byȱ solemnȱ oath.1ȱ Swornȱ brotherhood constitutesȱtheȱmostȱhighlyȱformalizedȱmodeȱofȱmaleȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddle Ages.ȱSoȱwhatȱwouldȱitȱhaveȱmeantȱforȱtwoȱsuchȱoathȬboundȱmenȱtoȱfallȱoutȱover aȱwomanȱandȱtoȱignoreȱtheirȱdutiesȱtoȱoneȱanotherȱforȱtheȱsakeȱofȱeroticȱpassion?ȱ Thisȱessayȱexaminesȱtheȱchangingȱliteraryȱrepresentationȱofȱswornȱbrotherhood inȱ medievalȱ literature.ȱ Theȱ practiceȱ ofȱ swornȱ brotherhood,ȱ whichȱ ritually transformedȱmen,ȱusuallyȱofȱaristocraticȱstation,ȱintoȱ“wedȱbrothers”ȱwithȱanȱarray ofȱlegal,ȱsocial,ȱandȱmoralȱobligations,ȱappearsȱfrequentlyȱinȱmedievalȱromance

1

AllȱChaucerȱcitationsȱareȱfromȱTheȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱed.ȱLarryȱD.ȱBenson,ȱ3rdȱed.ȱ(BostonȱandȱNew York:ȱHoughtonȱMifflin,ȱ1987),ȱcitedȱbyȱfragmentȱandȱlineȱnumberȱinȱtheȱtext.

502

RobertȱStretter

fromȱtheȱeleventhȱtoȱtheȱfifteenthȱcenturies.ȱInsofarȱasȱbrotherhoodȱreinforcesȱthe dutiesȱandȱobligationsȱbetweenȱmenȱthatȱserveȱasȱtheȱbedrockȱofȱchivalricȱculture, itȱisȱunsurprisingȱtoȱfindȱitȱinȱtheȱmedievalȱcourtlyȱromancesȱthatȱpromotedȱhonor, fidelity,ȱandȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱknights.ȱWhatȱisȱsurprising,ȱhowever,ȱisȱtheȱshift thatȱbrotherhoodȱundergoesȱinȱsomeȱmedievalȱromancesȱfromȱbeingȱcelebratedȱas theȱnoblestȱformȱofȱlovingȱfriendshipȱtoȱbeingȱaȱsiteȱofȱanxietyȱandȱpessimism aboutȱ maleȱ integrity.ȱ Mostȱ ofȱ theȱ followingȱ discussionȱ willȱ centerȱ onȱ Middle Englishȱromance,ȱwhereȱtheȱtransformationȱisȱparticularlyȱvisible. Oneȱcauseȱofȱthisȱrepresentationalȱshift,ȱIȱsuggest,ȱisȱtheȱdramaticȱpotentialȱthat writersȱ sawȱ inȱ placingȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ inȱ conflictȱ withȱ fin’amorsȱ (“courtly love”)ȱandȱmarriage.ȱSwornȱbrotherhoodȱcreatesȱaȱworldȱofȱmasculineȱpriorities inȱwhichȱwomenȱareȱmarginalized,ȱoftenȱradically.ȱWhenȱbrotherhoodȱappearsȱin courtlyȱromance,ȱhowever,ȱweȱfindȱitȱmostȱoftenȱsetȱinȱtensionȱwithȱaȱcompeting setȱofȱgenderȬspecificȱobligations,ȱnamelyȱdutiesȱtoȱloversȱorȱwives.ȱBrotherhood oathsȱproveȱremarkablyȱfragileȱwhenȱbrothersȱareȱconfrontedȱwithȱtheȱdemands ofȱlove.ȱWeȱcanȱseeȱthisȱinȱtheȱstarkȱcontrastȱbetweenȱtheȱindestructibleȱmaleȱbonds foundȱinȱbrotherhoodȱliterature,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱpopularȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱlegends, andȱtheȱfriendshipȬdestroyingȱrivalryȱinȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale,ȱwhichȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱa rebuttalȱ toȱ theȱ idealizingȱ tendenciesȱ ofȱ earlierȱ maleȱ friendshipȱ literature.ȱ The discrepancyȱinȱtheȱrepresentationsȱofȱbrotherhoodȱinȱtheseȱstoriesȱisȱemblematic ofȱaȱlargerȱshiftȱinȱattitudeȱamongȱmedievalȱromanceȱwriters,ȱoneȱthatȱculminates inȱtheȱfifteenthȱcenturyȱinȱThomasȱMalory’sȱnostalgicȱandȱultimatelyȱpessimistic retellingȱ ofȱ Arthurianȱ legend.ȱ Inȱ theȱ complexȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Arthur, Lancelot,ȱandȱGuinevere,ȱrivalryȱoverȱaȱwomanȱdestroysȱoathȬsealedȱobligationȱas surelyȱasȱinȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale.ȱLancelot,ȱinȱtheȱend,ȱbetraysȱnotȱonlyȱArthurȱbutȱalso theȱ publicȱ homosocialȱ idealsȱ heȱ representsȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ theȱ privateȱ emotional demandsȱofȱromanticȱlove.ȱ

I.ȱTheȱPracticeȱofȱBrotherhood TheȱtraditionȱofȱswornȱorȱritualȱbrotherhoodȱinȱWesternȱEuropeȱhasȱancientȱand obscureȱorigins.ȱItȱwasȱpracticedȱwithinȱtheȱRomanȱEmpire,ȱasȱwellȱasȱbyȱtheȱCeltic andȱ Germanicȱ peoplesȱ atȱ theȱ empire’sȱ fringes,ȱ andȱ itȱ likelyȱ wasȱ common throughoutȱtheȱearlyȱMiddleȱAges,ȱespeciallyȱamongȱmenȱofȱhighȱrank.2ȱOneȱofȱthe

2

ElizabethȱA.ȱR.ȱBrown,ȱ“RitualȱBrotherhoodȱinȱWesternȱMedievalȱEurope,”ȱTraditioȱ52ȱ(1997): 357–81.ȱOnȱWesternȱEuropeanȱswornȱbrotherhood,ȱseeȱalsoȱAlanȱBray,ȱTheȱFriendȱ(Chicagoȱand London:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 2003);ȱ Mauriceȱ Keen,ȱ “BrotherhoodȬinȬArms,”ȱ Nobles, KnightsȱandȱMenȬatȬArmsȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱed.ȱid.ȱ(LondonȱandȱRioȱGrande,ȱOH:ȱHambledon Press,ȱ 1996),ȱ 43–62;ȱ firstȱ printedȱ inȱ Historyȱ 47.159ȱ (Jan.ȱ 1962):ȱ 1–17;ȱ MacEdwardȱ Leach,

EngenderingȱObligation

503

earliestȱpostȬRomanȱdescriptionsȱofȱGermanicȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱcomesȱinȱ587 fromȱ Gregoryȱ ofȱ Tours,ȱ whoȱ describesȱ twoȱ menȱ whoȱ “formedȱ aȱ pactȱ ofȱ great friendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[T]heyȱlovedȱeachȱotherȱwithȱsuchȱaffectionȱthatȱtheyȱoftenȱtook theirȱmealsȱtogetherȱandȱsleptȱtogetherȱinȱtheȱsameȱbed.”3ȱDocumentaryȱevidence isȱ scarce,ȱ however,ȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ eleventhȱ century,ȱ whenȱ numerousȱ chronicle referencesȱ(especiallyȱinȱEnglandȱandȱScotland)ȱtoȱfratresȱadjuratiȱandȱfederatiȱand adoptiviȱappear.4ȱAsȱPierreȱChaplaisȱhasȱshown,ȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱEdward IIȱofȱEnglandȱandȱPiersȱGaveston,ȱnotoriouslyȱcontroversialȱinȱlaterȱyears,ȱwas treatedȱ byȱ contemporariesȱ asȱ aȱ caseȱ ofȱ “adoptive”ȱ brotherhoodȱ sealedȱ byȱ a “compact”ȱ(“fraternitatisȱfedus”).ȱ5ȱBrotherhoodȱwasȱmostȱcommonlyȱestablished betweenȱtwoȱmen,ȱthoughȱitȱcouldȱincludeȱmore,ȱasȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱfourȱsworn brothersȱ atȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ theȱ Middleȱ Englishȱ romanceȱ Athelston.ȱ Theȱ many medievalȱhistoricalȱandȱliteraryȱreferencesȱtoȱbrotherhoodȱareȱoftenȱfrustratingȱin theirȱlackȱofȱdetailȱaboutȱtheȱnatureȱofȱtheȱbond,ȱbutȱtheȱproliferationȱofȱthese descriptionsȱofȱbrotherhood,ȱhoweverȱcursory,ȱoffersȱaȱtestamentȱtoȱtheȱfrequency ofȱ theȱ practice.ȱ Writersȱ mentionȱ brotherhoodȱ withȱ theȱ sortȱ ofȱ casualnessȱ that bespeaksȱeasyȱfamiliarityȱonȱtheȱpartȱofȱbothȱauthorȱandȱaudienceȱwithȱaȱwellȬ establishedȱculturalȱtradition. Thoughȱtheȱdetailsȱvariedȱbyȱtimeȱandȱplace,ȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱwasȱtypically basedȱ onȱ trothȬplightȱ (literally,ȱ “truthȬpledge”),ȱ aȱ ritualȱ ofȱ unionȱ thatȱ became increasinglyȱcodifiedȱafterȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury.ȱHistorianȱMauriceȱKeenȱarguesȱthat brotherhoodȱagreementsȱwouldȱhaveȱconsistedȱofȱverbalȱoaths,ȱtheȱexchangeȱof writtenȱdocuments,ȱorȱboth,ȱcreatingȱ“aȱlegalȱbondȱtoȱwhichȱenforceableȱlawȱgave reality.”6ȱ Whileȱ suchȱ writtenȱ agreementsȱ haveȱ rarelyȱ survived,ȱ oneȱ notable brotherhoodȱaboutȱwhichȱweȱdoȱhaveȱrelativelyȱdetailedȱinformationȱisȱthatȱforged inȱ1412ȱbetweenȱCharles,ȱDukeȱofȱOrléans,ȱandȱThomas,ȱDukeȱofȱClarence.ȱThe documentȱreads: I,ȱThomas,ȱtheȱking’sȱson,ȱdukeȱofȱClarence,ȱswearȱandȱpromiseȱonȱtheȱfaithȱofȱmy body,ȱandȱbyȱallȱtheȱoathsȱwhichȱaȱpreudhommeȱcanȱmake,ȱthatȱIȱwillȱbeȱgoodȱandȱtrue

3

4 5

6

“Introduction,”ȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱed.ȱMacEdwardȱLeach.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSocietyȱ(o.s.),ȱ203 (London:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1937);ȱandȱAllanȱMcIntyreȱTrounce,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱAthelston: AȱMiddleȱEnglishȱRomance,ȱed.ȱAllanȱM.ȱTrounce.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSocietyȱ(o.s.),ȱ224ȱ(London: OxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1951). QuotedȱinȱBrentȱD.ȱShaw,ȱ“RitualȱBrotherhoodȱinȱRomanȱandȱPostȬRomanȱSocieties,”ȱTraditioȱ52 (1997):ȱ 327–55;ȱ hereȱ 336–37.ȱ Shawȱ notesȱ thatȱ Gregoryȱ andȱ otherȱ postȬRomanȱ commentators generallyȱtreatȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmanyȱ“barbaric”ȱpracticesȱofȱunȬRomanized GaulsȱandȱGermans. Brown,ȱ“RitualȱBrotherhood,”ȱ359–60. PierreȱChaplais,ȱPiersȱGaveston:ȱEdwardȱII’sȱAdoptiveȱBrotherȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱClarendon, 1994),ȱ11–13. Keen,ȱ“BrotherhoodȬinȬArms,”ȱ45.

504

RobertȱStretter kinsman,ȱbrotherȱandȱcompanionȬinȬarmsȱtoȱmyȱveryȱdearȱandȱveryȱbelovedȱcousin, CharlesȱdukeȱofȱOrléans,ȱandȱthatȱIȱwillȱserveȱhim,ȱaidȱhim,ȱcounselȱhim,ȱandȱprotect hisȱ honourȱ andȱ wellȬbeingȱ inȱ allȱ waysȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ bestȱ ofȱ myȱ powers,ȱ savingȱ and exceptingȱ myȱ allegianceȱ reservedȱ toȱ myȱ sovereignȱ lordȱ theȱ king.ȱ Andȱ thisȱ oathȱ I promiseȱtoȱkeepȱloyallyȱandȱfulfilȱtoȱtheȱutmostȱofȱmyȱability,ȱandȱnever,ȱwhateverȱmay happen,ȱwillȱIȱgoȱagainstȱit.ȱAndȱinȱwitnessȱhereofȱIȱhaveȱwrittenȱthisȱletter,ȱandȱsigned itȱwithȱmyȱhandȱandȱsealedȱitȱwithȱmyȱseal,ȱthisȱtwelfthȱdayȱofȱNovember,ȱtheȱyear 1412.7

Thisȱ languageȱ parallelsȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ detailedȱ literaryȱ descriptionsȱ of brotherhoodȱoaths,ȱsuchȱasȱthisȱoneȱfromȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱromanceȱGuyȱof WarwickȱofȱtheȱtrothȬplightȱbetweenȱGuyȱandȱhisȱswornȱbrotherȱTirry: GijȱseydȱtoȱTirry,ȱwiþȬoutenȱlesing: “IchȱwilȱþatȱweȱbeȱtreuþeȬpli9t &ȱswornȱbreþerȱanonȱri9tȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Þatȱnoiþerȱoþerȱafterȱþis Noȱfaileȱoþerȱwhileȱheȱliuesȱis.” WiþȱþatȱanswerdȱþerlȱTirri, &ȱseyd,ȱ“welȱbleþelich,ȱsirȱGij. Nowȱþouȱlouestȱsoȱmicheȱme, Þatȱtowȱmiȱswornȱbroþerȱwilȱbe, Noȱwilleȱichȱneuerȱfeyleȱþe Forȱnou9tȱþatȱmaiȱbiȬfalleȱme. Gretȱworþschipȱþouȱhastȱdonȱmeȱ:” .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Treuþeȱbitvenȱhemȱisȱpli9t, &ȱafterȱkistȱanonȱri9t.8ȱ [GuyȱsaidȱtoȱTirry,ȱtruthfully: “IȱdesireȱthatȱweȱbeȱtrothȬplight Andȱ(become)ȱswornȱbrothersȱimmediately, .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Thatȱneitherȱofȱusȱafterȱthis Willȱfailȱtheȱotherȱwhileȱheȱisȱliving.” Withȱthat,ȱtheȱearlȱTirryȱanswered Andȱsaid,ȱ“Veryȱgladly,ȱSirȱGuy. Nowȱyouȱloveȱmeȱsoȱmuch Thatȱyouȱdesireȱtoȱbeȱswornȱbrotherȱtoȱme, NorȱwillȱIȱeverȱfailȱyou,

7 8

QuotedȱinȱKeen,ȱ“BrotherhoodȬinȬArms,”ȱ49. TheȱRomanceȱofȱGuyȱofȱWarwick,ȱed.ȱJuliusȱZupitza.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSocietyȱ(o.s.),ȱ49ȱ(London: OxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1887),ȱ4906–08,ȱ4911–19,ȱ4927–28.ȱThisȱcoupletȬformȱGuyȱappearsȱinȱthe Auchinleckȱmanuscript,ȱalongȱwithȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun.

EngenderingȱObligation

505

Forȱanythingȱthatȱmightȱbefallȱme. Youȱhaveȱdoneȱmeȱgreatȱhonorȱ:” .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Truthȱisȱpledgedȱbetweenȱthem Andȱafterwardsȱ(they)ȱimmediatelyȱkissed.]9

Beyondȱ theȱ generalȱpromiseȱofȱlifeȬlongȱaidȱandȱsupport,ȱaȱstandardȱclauseȱin trothȬplights,ȱ brotherhoodȱ carriedȱ withȱ itȱ aȱ specificȱ setȱ ofȱ obligations,ȱ which includedȱfightingȱalongsideȱtheȱbrother,ȱsharingȱpossessions,ȱfightingȱduelsȱon behalfȱofȱtheȱbrother,ȱclaimingȱhisȱwerȬgildȱor,ȱifȱnecessary,ȱavengingȱhisȱdeath. Swornȱ brothersȱ wouldȱ oftenȱ wearȱ eachȱ other’sȱ arms,ȱ orȱ evenȱ combineȱ their individualȱcoatsȱofȱarmsȱintoȱaȱnewȱheraldicȱicon.ȱTheȱdutiesȱofȱswornȱbrothers mightȱalsoȱextendȱtoȱtheȱwomenȱinȱtheirȱlives.ȱMacEdwardȱLeachȱpointsȱoutȱthat aȱmanȱmightȱrequireȱhisȱswornȱbrother’sȱpermissionȱtoȱmarryȱandȱthat,ȱ“atȱthe deathȱofȱoneȱbrother,ȱtheȱother,ȱifȱfree,ȱoftenȱmarriedȱtheȱwidow”;ȱlikewise,ȱA.ȱM. TrounceȱnotesȱthatȱinȱDaurelȱetȱBeton,ȱaȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱchansonȱdeȱgeste,ȱtheȱterms ofȱaȱbrotherhoodȱoathȱspecifyȱthatȱifȱoneȱbrotherȱdiesȱwithoutȱissue,ȱheȱwillȱleave “allȱofȱhisȱpossessions,ȱincludingȱhisȱwife”ȱtoȱhisȱcomrade.10ȱAnd,ȱsinceȱtheȱbond thatȱjoinedȱbrothersȱinȱlifeȱwasȱimaginedȱasȱlastingȱevenȱbeyondȱdeath,ȱitȱwasȱnot uncommonȱforȱswornȱbrothersȱtoȱbeȱburiedȱtogetherȱinȱaȱsingleȱtomb.11ȱ Formalȱelementsȱsuchȱasȱswearingȱonȱanȱobjectȱ(oftenȱaȱBibleȱorȱaȱsword),ȱorȱthe kissȱthatȱsealsȱGuyȱandȱTirry’sȱfriendship,ȱandȱwhichȱhasȱhistoricalȱprecedentȱin HenryȱofȱHuntingdon’sȱdescriptionȱofȱCnutȱandȱEdmundȱIronside’sȱbrotherhood pactȱinȱtheȱHistoriaȱAnglorumȱ(ca.ȱ1130),12ȱsuggestȱtheȱextentȱtoȱwhichȱbrotherhood wasȱ embeddedȱ inȱ theȱ ritualisticȱ practicesȱ ofȱ medievalȱ society.ȱ Alanȱ Brayȱ has marshaledȱconsiderableȱevidenceȱthatȱbrotherhoodȱwasȱinȱfactȱanȱacceptedȱpartȱof ecclesiasticalȱritual,ȱarguingȱthat inȱtheȱchurchesȱofȱCatholicȱEuropeȱfromȱatȱleastȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱuntilȱthe beginningȱofȱtheȱfifteenth,ȱtheȱmassȱprovidedȱaȱfamiliarȱculminationȱforȱtheȱcreation ofȱritualȱ“brothers,”ȱaȱritualȱcompletedȱinȱtheirȱtakingȱHolyȱCommunionȱtogether.13

Theȱreasonsȱforȱenteringȱintoȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱwereȱasȱvariedȱasȱtheȱmenȱwho practicedȱit.ȱElizabethȱBrownȱwritesȱthatȱ

9

10 11

12 13

Unlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱallȱMiddleȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱareȱmyȱown.ȱIȱhaveȱtakenȱoccasional libertiesȱwithȱgrammarȱandȱphrasingȱinȱtheȱinterestȱofȱclarity. Leach,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱlxx;ȱTrounce,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱ12. BrayȱdiscussesȱseveralȱinstancesȱofȱdualȱburialsȱinȱTheȱFriend,ȱwithȱspecialȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱlate fourteenthȬcenturyȱcaseȱofȱtheȱknightsȱWilliamȱNevilleȱandȱJohnȱClanvowe,ȱswornȱbrothersȱwhose 1391ȱtombȱslabȱfeaturesȱtheirȱtwoȱcoatsȱofȱarmsȱcombinedȱ(“impaled”)ȱlikeȱthoseȱofȱaȱmarried coupleȱ(15–16).ȱ Brown,ȱ“RitualȱBrotherhood,”ȱ360–61. Bray,ȱTheȱFriend,ȱ25.

506

RobertȱStretter theȱ relationshipȱ hasȱ fulfilledȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ differentȱ functions:ȱ solemnizingȱ and reinforcingȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱtheȱparticipantsȱwantȱtheȱcommunityȱtoȱrecognize; securingȱsocial,ȱfinancial,ȱandȱpoliticalȱadvancementȱforȱoneȱorȱbothȱofȱtheȱparticipants; establishingȱpeaceȱbetweenȱformerȱenemies;ȱinauguratingȱpactsȱofȱnonȬaggression; formingȱalliancesȱbothȱoffensiveȱandȱdefensive.14

Butȱ whateverȱ theȱ motivationsȱ forȱ formingȱ swornȱ relationships,ȱ itȱ isȱ clearȱ that brotherhoodȱcreatedȱaȱsystemȱofȱ maleȱobligationȱandȱdutyȱthatȱprioritizedȱthe publicȱdisplayȱofȱmaleȱfidelity.ȱItȱreinforcedȱtheȱfeudalȱhierarchyȱinȱwhichȱaȱman’s primaryȱallegianceȱwasȱtoȱanotherȱman—andȱobligationsȱtoȱwomenȱcameȱsecond. Moreover,ȱifȱtheȱauthorityȱofȱtheȱchurchȱplayedȱaȱroleȱinȱcodifyingȱandȱformalizing relationshipsȱbetweenȱmen,ȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱservedȱtoȱreinforceȱpatriarchyȱin anȱespeciallyȱpowerfulȱandȱsystematicȱway.ȱ

II.ȱBrotherhoodȱTriumphant:ȱTheȱMasculineȱWorldȱofȱ Amisȱ&ȱAmiloun Asȱoneȱmightȱexpectȱofȱsuchȱaȱwidespreadȱculturalȱpractice,ȱswornȱbrotherhood appearsȱfrequentlyȱinȱmedievalȱliterature.ȱForȱinstance,ȱRolandȱandȱOlivier,ȱinȱthe ChansonȱdeȱRoland,ȱembodyȱbrotherhoodȱonȱanȱepicȱscale;15ȱinȱtheȱearliestȱEnglish romance,ȱtheȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱKingȱHorn,ȱweȱfindȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱbetween HornȱandȱhisȱfriendȱAyol;ȱlikewise,ȱTristremȱandȱGanhardinȱpledgeȱbrotherhood inȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱSirȱTristrem;ȱswornȱbrothersȱappearȱinȱLayamon’sȱBrut,ȱin Florisȱ andȱ Blancheflour,ȱ andȱ inȱ Athelston;ȱ and,ȱ inȱ additionȱ toȱ Theȱ Knight’sȱ Tale, brotherhoodȱfiguresȱinȱseveralȱotherȱofȱChaucer’sȱCanterburyȱTales.16ȱ Literaryȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ differsȱ fromȱ historicalȱ brotherhoodȱ inȱ two interestingȱways.ȱFirst,ȱbrotherhoodȱinȱmedievalȱliteratureȱtendsȱtoȱappearȱinȱits mostȱ idealizedȱ form.ȱ Literaryȱ swornȱ brothersȱ areȱ usuallyȱ motivatedȱ notȱ by questionsȱofȱpolitical,ȱsocial,ȱorȱeconomicȱadvantageȱ(asȱmanyȱactualȱmedieval

14

15 16

Brown,ȱ“Introduction—RitualȱBrotherhoodȱinȱAncientȱandȱMedievalȱEurope:ȱAȱSymposium,” Traditioȱ 52ȱ (1997):ȱ 261–83;ȱ hereȱ 281.ȱ Inȱ additionȱ toȱ theseȱ motivations,ȱ Johnȱ Boswellȱ famously arguedȱthatȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱfunctioned,ȱatȱleastȱinȱByzantium,ȱasȱaȱformȱofȱinstitutionalized gayȱmarriage—seeȱBoswell,ȱSameȬSexȱUnionsȱinȱPremodernȱEuropeȱ(NewȱYork:ȱVillardȱBooks,ȱ1994). OnȱheroicȱfriendshipȱinȱGermanȱliterature,ȱseeȱAlbrechtȱClassen’sȱessayȱinȱthisȱvolume. Thisȱlistȱisȱrepresentative,ȱnotȱcomprehensive.ȱForȱusefulȱoverviewsȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱin EnglishȱandȱAngloȬNormanȱliterature,ȱseeȱLaurensȱJ.ȱMills,ȱ“TheȱFriendshipȱThemeȱinȱtheȱMiddle Ages,”ȱOneȱSoulȱinȱBodiesȱTwain:ȱFriendshipȱinȱTudorȱLiteratureȱandȱStuartȱDramaȱ(Bloomington,ȱIN: PrincipiaȱPress,ȱ1937),ȱ16–75;ȱandȱP.ȱJ.ȱHeathers,ȱ“SwornȬBrotherhood,”ȱFolkloreȱ63.3ȱ(1952):ȱ158–72. ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱmaleȱfriendshipȱinȱmedievalȱFrenchȱliterature,ȱseeȱReginaldȱHyatte,ȱTheȱArts ofȱFriendship:ȱTheȱIdealizationȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱRenaissanceȱLiterature.ȱBrill’sȱStudies inȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ50ȱ(Leiden,ȱNewȱYork,ȱandȱCologne:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1994),ȱ87–135.

EngenderingȱObligation

507

swornȱ brothersȱ clearlyȱ were),ȱ butȱ byȱ pureȱ affectionȱ andȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ honor. Brotherhoodȱinȱliterature,ȱinȱshort,ȱfunctionsȱasȱtheȱepitomeȱofȱaȱvirtuousȱmale friendship.ȱTheȱsecondȱimportantȱfeatureȱofȱtheȱliteratureȱofȱbrotherhoodȱisȱthat itȱputsȱswornȱbrothersȱinȱcontactȱwithȱwomen,ȱwhoȱareȱalmostȱentirelyȱabsentȱfrom historicalȱrecordsȱpertainingȱtoȱbrotherhood.ȱWomenȱprovideȱvitalȱfoilsȱforȱsworn brothers,ȱ variouslyȱ aidingȱ orȱ threateningȱ maleȱ friendship,ȱ andȱ offeringȱ a fascinatingȱwayȱtoȱstudyȱhowȱtheȱmaleȱmicrocosmȱofȱbrotherhoodȱfunctionsȱwithin aȱlargerȱfamilialȱandȱsocialȱsetting. Inȱmanyȱliteraryȱworks,ȱasȱinȱtheȱhistoricalȱsourcesȱalreadyȱmentioned,ȱsworn brotherhoodȱisȱreferredȱtoȱinȱpassing,ȱwithȱlittleȱorȱnoȱexplanation,ȱexistingȱsimply asȱ aȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ fabricȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ inhabitedȱ byȱ theȱ characters.ȱ Butȱ thereȱ isȱ a subgenreȱofȱmedievalȱliteratureȱinȱwhichȱbrotherhoodȱtakesȱcenterȱstage.ȱThese literaryȱworksȱappearȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱinspiredȱbyȱtheȱidealȱofȱbrotherhood,ȱbyȱthe perfectȱunityȱandȱfidelityȱbetweenȱmenȱthatȱtheȱcodeȱofȱbrotherhoodȱclaimedȱto achieve.ȱLeachȱsuccinctlyȱarticulatesȱtheȱcentralȱfantasyȱofȱthisȱfraternalȱideology: “[s]uchȱ brotherhoodȱ meantȱ faithfulnessȱ toȱ death;ȱ itȱ couldȱ neverȱ beȱ brokenȱ or repudiated.”17ȱThat,ȱatȱleast,ȱwasȱtheȱtheory.ȱInȱfact,ȱhistoricalȱbrotherhoodsȱwere farȱfromȱunbreakable.ȱTheȱbrotherhoodȱthatȱGregoryȱofȱToursȱdescribedȱinȱ587,ȱfor instance,ȱwasȱnotablyȱunsuccessful:ȱinitiatedȱtoȱendȱaȱbloodȱfeudȱbetweenȱtwo families,ȱitȱresultedȱinȱoneȱ“brother”ȱkillingȱtheȱotherȱforȱrevenge,ȱstrippingȱthe body,ȱandȱ“[hanging]ȱtheȱcorpseȱonȱaȱstake.”18ȱBut,ȱbyȱtheȱlateȱMiddleȱAges,ȱsworn brotherhoodȱhadȱcomeȱtoȱassertȱaȱstrongȱimaginativeȱpowerȱlargelyȱindependent ofȱtheȱvicissitudesȱofȱitsȱsocialȱpractice.ȱAsȱBrayȱputsȱit,ȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱhadȱthe “abilityȱtoȱarticulateȱaȱworldȱofȱfantasiesȱandȱfears”ȱlongȱafterȱitȱceasedȱtoȱbeȱa livingȱsocialȱinstitution.19ȱȱ Thereȱisȱnoȱbetterȱexampleȱofȱtheȱfantasyȱworldȱofȱunassailableȱbrotherhoodȱthan theȱlegendȱofȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱwhichȱwasȱwellȱknownȱthroughoutȱEuropeȱfrom atȱ leastȱ theȱ eleventhȱ centuryȱ untilȱ wellȱ intoȱ theȱ Renaissance.20ȱ Originatingȱ in folktales,ȱmainlyȱthoseȱcategorizedȱbyȱfolkloristsȱunderȱtheȱmotifsȱofȱtheȱ“Two Brothers”ȱ andȱ theȱ “Faithfulȱ Servitor,”ȱ theȱ legendȱ developedȱ intoȱ aȱ storyȱ of brotherhoodȱtriumphant,ȱasȱtwoȱoathȬboundȱknightsȱfindȱtheirȱfriendshipȱtested inȱ oftenȱ shockingȱ ways.ȱ Inȱ aȱ testamentȱ toȱ itsȱ popularity,ȱ theȱ taleȱ ofȱ Amisȱ and Amilounȱsurvivesȱinȱdozensȱofȱversionsȱrepresentingȱaȱwideȱvarietyȱofȱmedieval Europeanȱliteratures,ȱincludingȱLatin,ȱOldȱFrench,ȱAngloȬNorman,ȱMiddleȱEnglish,

17 18 19 20

Leach,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱlxx.ȱ QuotedȱinȱShaw,ȱ“RitualȱBrotherhood,”ȱ337. Bray,ȱTheȱFriend,ȱ33. ForȱaȱdetailedȱstudyȱofȱtheȱGermanȱtradition,ȱseeȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddle Ages:ȱAȱCiceronianȱConceptȱinȱKonradȱvonȱWürzburg’sȱEngelhardȱ(ca.ȱ1280),”ȱMittellateinisches Jahrbuchȱ41.2ȱ(2006):ȱ227–46.

508

RobertȱStretter

Welsh,ȱDutch,ȱOldȱNorse,ȱandȱGerman.21ȱThisȱstory,ȱwhichȱarguesȱpowerfullyȱthat idealizedȱbrotherhoodȱtakesȱprecedenceȱoverȱotherȱsocialȱinstitutionsȱsuchȱasȱlaw, religion,ȱandȱespeciallyȱmarriage,ȱcanȱprovideȱimportantȱinsightȱintoȱwhatȱkindȱof relationshipȱ medievalȱ audiencesȱ mightȱ haveȱ expectedȱ whenȱ theyȱ encountered literaryȱ charactersȱ describedȱ asȱ swornȱ brothers—andȱ itȱ canȱ helpȱ usȱ better understandȱwhatȱisȱatȱstakeȱinȱtheȱdissolutionȱofȱsuchȱaȱbrotherhoodȱinȱChaucer’s Knight’sȱTale.ȱInȱwhatȱfollows,ȱIȱwillȱfocusȱonȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun. AȱcopyȱofȱthisȱanonymousȱlateȱthirteenthȬcenturyȱtailȬrhymedȱromanceȱappears inȱtheȱAuchinleckȱmanuscript,ȱwhichȱChaucerȱmayȱhaveȱknown.ȱWhetherȱorȱnot heȱknewȱthisȱparticularȱversion,ȱitȱisȱveryȱlikelyȱthatȱheȱandȱhisȱaudienceȱwould haveȱbeenȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱstoryȱofȱtheȱfamousȱknightsȱinȱsomeȱform. BecauseȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱitsȱmedievalȱpopularity,ȱisȱnotȱwellȱknown today,ȱaȱbriefȱsynopsisȱisȱinȱorder.ȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱareȱbothȱconceivedȱonȱthe sameȱnightȱandȱbornȱonȱtheȱsameȱday—likeȱtwins,ȱbutȱtoȱdifferentȱmothers.ȱThey growȱupȱtogetherȱandȱbecomeȱsoȱalikeȱthatȱothersȱ(includingȱtheirȱparents)ȱhave difficultyȱtellingȱthemȱapart.ȱTheȱyoungȱmenȱexcelȱatȱtheȱcourtȱofȱaȱpowerfulȱduke, whereȱtheyȱareȱknighted,ȱandȱtheirȱfriendshipȱgrowsȱuntilȱtheyȱswearȱaȱformal oathȱofȱbrotherhood.ȱAfterȱAmilounȱleavesȱcourtȱtoȱinheritȱhisȱfather’sȱlands,ȱa jealousȱ steward,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ beenȱ rejectedȱ asȱ aȱ swornȱ brotherȱ byȱ Amis,ȱ getsȱ his revengeȱ byȱ revealingȱ aȱ preȬmaritalȱ affairȱ betweenȱ Amisȱ andȱ Belisaunt,ȱ the daughterȱofȱtheȱduke.ȱAmis,ȱthoughȱguilty,ȱdeniesȱtheȱaccusationȱandȱchallenges theȱstewardȱtoȱjudicialȱcombat,ȱbutȱthenȱheȱbecomesȱfearfulȱofȱperjuringȱhimself. WhenȱAmilounȱhearsȱofȱhisȱfriend’sȱdilemma,ȱheȱswitchesȱplacesȱwithȱhisȱlookȬ alikeȱandȱundertakesȱtheȱcombat,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱaȱvoiceȱfromȱheavenȱwarningȱofȱdire consequences.ȱ Meanwhile,ȱAmisȱimpersonatesȱAmilounȱforȱaȱfortnightȱatȱhisȱfriend’sȱcourt. AmilounȱkillsȱtheȱstewardȱinȱcombatȱandȱwinsȱBelisauntȱforȱAmis,ȱwhoȱmarries her.ȱ Butȱ soonȱ Amilounȱ isȱ strickenȱ withȱ leprosy—aȱ divineȱ punishmentȱ forȱ his deceptionȱinȱcombat.ȱAmiloun’sȱleprosyȱisȱtheȱfinalȱstrawȱforȱhisȱwife,ȱwhoȱwas alreadyȱunhappyȱtoȱlearnȱthatȱsheȱhadȱbeenȱdupedȱbyȱtheȱfriendsȱduringȱtheir mutualȱsubstitution.ȱSheȱcastsȱ Amilounȱoutȱofȱtheȱhouseȱandȱheȱwandersȱasȱa beggarȱuntilȱheȱhappensȱuponȱtheȱcourtȱofȱAmisȱandȱBelisaunt,ȱwhoȱtakeȱhimȱin andȱcareȱforȱhim.ȱ

21

Leach,ȱ ix–xiv.ȱ Followingȱ Leach,ȱ scholarsȱ typicallyȱ distinguishȱ betweenȱ theȱ “romantic”ȱ and “hagiographic”ȱversionsȱofȱtheȱlegend,ȱwhichȱappearsȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱgenericȱforms:ȱromanceȱ(both poetryȱandȱprose),ȱaȱchansonȱdeȱgeste,ȱaȱmiracleȱplay,ȱdidacticȱworksȱandȱexempla,ȱetc.ȱWhileȱthe MiddleȱEnglishȱversionsȱareȱusuallyȱseenȱasȱ“romantic,”ȱOjarsȱKratinsȱquestionsȱthisȱviewȱinȱ“The MiddleȱEnglishȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun:ȱChivalricȱRomanceȱorȱSecularȱHagiography?”ȱPublicationsȱof theȱModernȱLanguageȱAssociationȱȱ81ȱ(1966):ȱ347–54.

EngenderingȱObligation

509

Aȱyearȱlater,ȱbothȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱareȱshownȱinȱaȱdreamȱhowȱAmiloun’s leprosyȱmayȱbeȱhealed.ȱTheȱcure,ȱhowever,ȱisȱnoȱlessȱthanȱtheȱbloodȱofȱAmis’s infantȱchildren.ȱReluctantȱtoȱkillȱhisȱchildrenȱbutȱwillingȱtoȱdoȱanythingȱforȱhis swornȱbrother,ȱAmisȱcutsȱhisȱbabes’ȱthroatsȱinȱtheȱnurseryȱandȱbathesȱAmilounȱin theirȱblood.ȱTheȱnextȱmorning,ȱAmiloun’sȱleprosyȱisȱgoneȱandȱtheȱchildrenȱare foundȱmiraculouslyȱrestoredȱtoȱlife.ȱAfterȱaȱbriefȱexcursionȱtoȱpunishȱAmiloun’s cruelȱwife,ȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱliveȱtogetherȱforȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheirȱlives—presumably withȱ Belisaunt,ȱ thoughȱ sheȱ isȱ notȱ mentionedȱ atȱ theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ Middle Englishȱversion.22ȱTheȱtwoȱfriendsȱdieȱonȱtheȱsameȱdayȱandȱareȱburiedȱtogether. Asȱthisȱsummaryȱshows,ȱtheȱplotȱisȱcloselyȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱthe friends.ȱTheyȱareȱalwaysȱtheȱcenterȱaroundȱwhichȱtheȱfictionalȱworldȱrotates.ȱOne ofȱtheȱmostȱstrikingȱaspectsȱofȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱisȱtheȱcompleteȱsimilarityȱofȱthe friends,ȱwhoȱcanȱbeȱdistinguishedȱonlyȱbyȱtheirȱclothes.ȱSwornȱbrothersȱareȱoften describedȱ asȱ identicalȱ onȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ spirit,ȱ courage,ȱ orȱ virtue,ȱ butȱ Amisȱ and Amiloun’sȱsamenessȱextendsȱtoȱtheȱphysical.23ȱTheȱabsoluteȱmutualityȱrequiredȱby medievalȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ wasȱ usuallyȱ imaginedȱ asȱ achievableȱ onlyȱ by membersȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ sex,ȱ andȱ ideallyȱ onlyȱ betweenȱ men,ȱ sinceȱ womenȱ were traditionallyȱseenȱnotȱonlyȱasȱsocialȱandȱlegalȱinferiors,ȱbutȱintellectually,ȱsexually, andȱ morallyȱ lackingȱ asȱ well.24ȱ SameȬsexȱ bondsȱ wereȱ seenȱ asȱ “natural”ȱ byȱ the principleȱofȱ“likeȬtoȬlike.”ȱInȱtheȱFabulaȱduorumȱmercatorum,ȱaȱfifteenthȬcentury celebrationȱofȱmaleȱfriendship,ȱJohnȱLydgateȱexplains:ȱ Tweyneȱofȱoȱkyndeȱtogidreȱdraweȱneere, Soȱstrongȱofȱnatureȱisȱtheȱmyhtyȱcordeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Vntoȱhisȱsemblableȱthusȱeueryȱthingȱcanȱdrawe,ȱ Andȱnothingȱbyndeȱhem,ȱbutȱnaturȱbyȱhirȱlawe.25 [Twoȱofȱaȱkindȱdrawȱnearȱtogether, (For)ȱtheȱmightyȱcordȱofȱnatureȱisȱsoȱstrongȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Everyȱthingȱknowsȱtoȱdrawȱthusȱtoȱitsȱlikeness, Andȱnothingȱbindsȱthemȱexceptȱnature’sȱlaw.]

22

23

24

25

InȱtheȱOldȱFrenchȱchansonȱdeȱgeste,ȱtheȱtwoȱfriends,ȱhavingȱleftȱBelisauntȱinȱchargeȱofȱtheirȱlands, journeyȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱSepulcher,ȱkissȱtheȱTrueȱCross,ȱandȱdieȱpeacefullyȱonȱtheirȱwayȱhomeȱfrom theȱHolyȱLand.ȱSeeȱAmiȱandȱAmile:ȱAȱMedievalȱTaleȱofȱFriendship,ȱTranslatedȱfromȱtheȱOldȱFrench, trans.ȱSamuelȱN.ȱRosenbergȱandȱSamuelȱDanon.ȱStylus:ȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱCultureȱ(AnnȱArbor: UniversityȱofȱMichiganȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ129–30. Theȱfriends’ȱmaterial,ȱcorporealȱresemblanceȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱtheȱmatchingȱgoldȱcupsȱwhichȱthey exchangeȱasȱtokensȱofȱtheirȱbrotherhoodȱandȱwhichȱtheȱpoetȱdescribesȱasȱ“asȱliche,ȱywis,ȱ/ȱAsȱwas SirȱAmilounȱ&ȱ[S]irȱAmis”ȱ(250–51;ȱasȱsimilar,ȱindeed,ȱ/ȱAsȱwasȱSirȱAmilounȱandȱSirȱAmis).ȱ Onȱfemaleȱfriendship,ȱandȱonȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmenȱandȱwomen,ȱseeȱtheȱIntroductionȱtoȱthis volumeȱandȱtheȱessayȱbyȱSaraȱDeutchȱSchotland. JohnȱLydgate,ȱFabulaȱduorumȱmercatorumȱinȱTheȱMinorȱPoemsȱofȱJohnȱLydgate,ȱvol.ȱ2ȱ(SecularȱPoems), ed.ȱHenryȱNobleȱMacCracken.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱTextȱSocietyȱ(o.s),ȱ192ȱ(London:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ1934),ȱ73–74,ȱ83–84.ȱ

510

RobertȱStretter

AmisȱandȱAmiloun’sȱcelebrationȱofȱsimilitudeȱisȱequallyȱaȱcelebrationȱofȱmaleness. Asȱanȱintenseȱmaleȱfriendshipȱpresentedȱasȱbringingȱoutȱtheȱnoblestȱbehaviorȱin eachȱfriend,ȱtheȱbrotherhoodȱofȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱprovidesȱanȱexampleȱofȱwhat C.ȱStephenȱJaegerȱcallsȱ“ennoblingȱlove,”ȱtheȱpassionateȱbutȱnonȬeroticȱloveȱthat aȱloverȱformsȱasȱaȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱexcellenceȱandȱvirtueȱofȱtheȱbeloved.26ȱInȱJaeger’s account,ȱ ennoblingȱ love,ȱ theȱ exclusiveȱ provinceȱ ofȱ menȱ priorȱ toȱ theȱ eleventh century,ȱ isȱ anȱ elaborateȱ publicȱ performanceȱ ofȱ affectionȱ ratherȱ thanȱ aȱ private feeling.ȱ Theȱ openȱ displayȱ ofȱ suchȱ love,ȱ noȱ lessȱ meaningfulȱ orȱ sincereȱ forȱ its theatricality,ȱ honorsȱ bothȱ theȱ loverȱ andȱ theȱ beloved.ȱ Theȱ poetȱ ofȱ theȱ Middle EnglishȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱunquestionablyȱseesȱbrotherhoodȱasȱanȱennoblingȱform ofȱmaleȱlove.ȱAlthoughȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun’sȱfriendshipȱhasȱanȱelementȱofȱpublic performance,ȱthereȱisȱaȱfascinatingȱtwist:ȱbecauseȱtheȱmen’sȱphysicalȱsimilarity confusesȱtheirȱidentityȱinȱtheȱeyesȱofȱonlookers,ȱweȱfindȱtheȱfriendsȱmoreȱoften impersonatingȱratherȱthanȱdisplayingȱaffectionȱforȱoneȱanotherȱinȱtheȱpresenceȱof others.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱinsteadȱofȱperformingȱbrotherhood,ȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun performȱ eachȱ other.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ performanceȱ occursȱ notȱ onlyȱ inȱ theȱ public sphere,ȱbutȱextendsȱevenȱtoȱtheȱprivateȱdomesticȱworld.ȱ Whileȱtheȱstoryȱfocusesȱsquarelyȱonȱtheȱmen,ȱwomenȱalsoȱhaveȱaȱkeyȱroleȱto play—but,ȱsignificantly,ȱatȱnoȱpointȱdoȱtheyȱinterfereȱwithȱswornȱbrotherhood. BothȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱmarry,ȱbutȱinȱaȱveryȱrealȱsenseȱtheyȱareȱmarriedȱbefore eitherȱ meetsȱ hisȱ wife.ȱ Anotherȱ termȱ forȱ swornȱ brothersȱ inȱ Middleȱ Englishȱ is “weddedȱ bretheryn,”ȱ andȱ theȱ linguisticȱ connectionȱ toȱ matrimonyȱ isȱ not coincidentalȱ sinceȱ bothȱ brotherhoodȱ andȱ marriageȱ involveȱ theȱ exchangeȱ ofȱ a “wed”ȱorȱpledge.ȱInȱstoriesȱsuchȱasȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱbrotherhoodȱfunctionsȱasȱa kindȱofȱmaleȱmarriage:ȱitȱoffersȱaȱvisionȱofȱunionȱthatȱwouldȱbeȱtheȱenvyȱofȱany husbandȱ andȱ wife.ȱ Theȱ languageȱ ofȱ brotherhoodȱ andȱ nuptialȱ loveȱ becomesȱ as interchangeableȱasȱtheȱbrothersȱthemselves.ȱJohnȱFordȱnotesȱtheȱsimilarityȱbetween Amisȱ andȱ Amiloun’sȱ trothȬplightȱ andȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ fourteenthȬcenturyȱ wedding liturgy,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱphrasesȱfamiliarȱfromȱmanyȱChristianȱweddingȱceremonies evenȱtoday: Yȱ.N.ȱ[nomen]ȱtakeȱtheȱ.N.ȱtoȱmynȱweddedȱwyf, toȱhaueȱandȱtoȱholdeȱfromȱþisȱdayȱforward, forȱbeter,ȱforȱwers,ȱforȱricher,ȱforȱporere, forȱfayrere,ȱforȱfowlere,ȱinȱseknesȱandȱinȱhelthe, tilȱdethȱvsȱdeparte,ȱ9ifȱholyȱchircheȱitȱwilȱordeyne: andȱthertoȱIȱplitheȱþeȱmynȱtrewthe.27

26

27

C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love:ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lostȱ Sensibility.ȱ Theȱ Middleȱ Agesȱ Series (Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ6–7. SeeȱJohnȱC.ȱFord,ȱ“MerryȱMarriedȱBrothers:ȱWeddedȱFriendship,ȱLovers’ȱLanguageȱandȱMale MatrimonialsȱinȱTwoȱMiddleȱEnglishȱRomances,”ȱMedievalȱForumȱ(onȬline),ȱ2003ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱon

EngenderingȱObligation

511

[Iȱ(name)ȱtakeȱtheeȱ(name)ȱasȱmyȱweddedȱwife, Toȱhaveȱandȱtoȱholdȱfromȱthisȱdayȱforward, Forȱbetter,ȱforȱworse,ȱforȱricher,ȱforȱpoorer, Forȱfairer,ȱforȱfouler,ȱinȱsicknessȱandȱinȱhealth, ’Tilȱdeathȱseverȱus,ȱifȱholyȱchurchȱwillȱordainȱit. AndȱtheretoȱIȱpledgeȱtheeȱmyȱfaith.]

NowȱcompareȱtheȱlanguageȱusedȱtoȱdescribeȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun’sȱbond: Onȱaȱdayȱþeȱchilderȱwarȱ&ȱwi9t TreweþesȱtoȬgiderȱþaiȱgunȱpli9t Whileȱþaiȱmi9tȱliueȱ&ȱstond Þatȱboþeȱbiȱdayȱ&ȱbiȱni9t, Inȱweleȱ&ȱwo,ȱinȱwrongȱ&ȱri9t, Þatȱþaiȱschuldȱfreelyȱfond ToȱholdȱtoȬgiderȱatȱeueriȱneed, Inȱword,ȱinȱwerk,ȱinȱwille,ȱinȱdede, Whereȱþatȱþaiȱwereȱinȱlond, Froȱþatȱdayȱforwardȱneuerȱmo Failenȱoþerȱforȱweleȱnoȱwoȱ: ÞerȬtoȱþaiȱheldȱvpȱherȱhond.ȱ

(145–56)

[Oneȱdayȱtheȱyoungȱmen,ȱshrewdȱandȱstrong, Pledgedȱfaithȱtoȱoneȱanother Forȱasȱlongȱasȱtheyȱshouldȱlive, Thatȱbothȱdayȱandȱnight, Inȱgoodȱandȱill,ȱinȱwrongȱandȱright, Theyȱshouldȱstriveȱcompletely Toȱsupportȱeachȱotherȱinȱeveryȱnecessity, Inȱword,ȱinȱaction,ȱinȱwill,ȱinȱdeed, Whereverȱtheyȱmightȱbeȱonȱearth,ȱ(and) Fromȱthatȱdayȱforwardȱneverȱagain Toȱfailȱtheȱotherȱforȱgoodȱnorȱill: Toȱthisȱtheyȱheldȱupȱtheirȱhandsȱ(inȱpledge).]

TheȱtrothȬplightȱbetweenȱtheseȱidenticalȱmenȱbecomesȱtheȱmodelȱforȱsubsequent oathsȱinȱtheȱpoem,ȱincludingȱtheȱoneȱbetweenȱAmisȱandȱhisȱwifeȱBelisaunt.ȱWhile AmisȱandȱAmilounȱeachȱmakeȱtwoȱtrothȬplights—oneȱtoȱeachȱother,ȱoneȱtoȱtheir wives—itȱ isȱ clearȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ moreȱ important.ȱ Asȱ Fordȱ writes,ȱ “Despiteȱ any matrimonialȱvowsȱofȱloyalty,ȱtheȱrelationshipsȱwithȱaȱ‘weddedȱwife’ȱareȱuniformly

Aug.ȱ1,ȱ2010ȱat:ȱhttp://www.sfsu.edu/~medieval/Volume3/Brothers.html).ȱTheȱquotationȱcomes fromȱEnglishȱFragmentsȱfromȱLatinȱMedievalȱServiceȬBooks,ȱed.ȱHenryȱLittlehales.ȱEarlyȱEnglishȱText Societyȱ(e.s.),ȱ90ȱ(London:ȱKeganȱPaul,ȱTrench,ȱTrübnerȱ&ȱCo.,ȱ1903),ȱ6.

512

RobertȱStretter

portrayedȱasȱsecondaryȱinȱimportanceȱtoȱthoseȱwithȱ‘weddedȱbrethren.’”28ȱItȱisȱhere thatȱtheȱquestionȱofȱsamenessȱisȱagainȱimportant.ȱAmis,ȱwhoȱrejectsȱanȱofferȱof swornȱbrotherhoodȱfromȱtheȱstewardȱwhoȱattemptsȱtoȱreplaceȱAmiloun,ȱisȱableȱto pledgeȱhimselfȱtoȱBelisauntȱonlyȱbecauseȱtheȱpoemȱconsidersȱaȱmarriageȱtoȱbeȱa relationshipȱofȱaȱlesserȱorderȱthanȱsameȬsexȱfriendship.ȱThisȱinferiorȱpositionȱto whichȱbrotherhoodȱrelegatesȱevenȱpowerfulȱwomenȱisȱunderscoredȱinȱAthelston, aȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱromanceȱofȱbrotherhood,ȱwhenȱaȱqueenȱsays,ȱofȱoneȱofȱthe king’sȱswornȱbrothers,ȱthatȱherȱhusbandȱ“woleȱdooȱmoreȱforȱhym,ȱIȱwene,ȱ/ȱÞanne forȱme,ȱþou9ȱIȱbeȱqwene”ȱ(willȱdoȱmoreȱforȱhim,ȱIȱknow,ȱ/ȱThanȱforȱme,ȱthoughȱI beȱqueen).29 Theȱmasculineȱethicȱofȱsamenessȱandȱmutualityȱalsoȱcontributesȱtoȱtheȱvexed placeȱofȱsexualityȱinȱbrotherhoodȱromances.ȱByȱextensionȱofȱtheȱlogicȱofȱlikeȬtoȬ like,ȱsexualȱrelationsȱbetweenȱmenȱshouldȱbeȱtheoreticallyȱpreferableȱtoȱmarital relations.ȱButȱtheȱmedievalȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱnaturalnessȱofȱsameȬsexȱbondsȱstopped shortȱwhenȱitȱcameȱtoȱhomosexuality,ȱtheȱillȬdefinedȱbutȱofficiallyȱabhorredȱsin contraȱnaturam.ȱLicit,ȱ“natural”ȱsexȱcouldȱtakeȱplaceȱonlyȱbetweenȱhusbandȱand wifeȱ(andȱevenȱthenȱwithȱstrictȱregulation).ȱSinceȱwivesȱcouldȱneverȱbeȱfullyȱequal toȱtheirȱhusbands,ȱsexualityȱnecessarilyȱsignifiedȱasȱtheȱrealmȱofȱinequalityȱand,ȱas aȱresult,ȱfitȱpoorlyȱintoȱtheȱegalitarianȱidyllȱofȱbrotherhood.ȱIȱwouldȱargueȱthat AmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱforȱinstance,ȱhaveȱnoȱlegibleȱsexualȱdesire,ȱeitherȱforȱeach otherȱ orȱ forȱ theirȱ wives—andȱ thisȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ theȱ moreȱ thanȱ 300ȱ linesȱ theȱ poet devotesȱ toȱ theȱ affairȱ betweenȱ Belisauntȱ andȱ Amis.ȱ Theȱ onlyȱ realȱ sexualȱ desire expressedȱinȱtheȱpoemȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱwomen,ȱandȱitȱisȱuniformlyȱproblematic. ItȱisȱBelisauntȱwhoȱfallsȱinȱloveȱwithȱAmisȱandȱbluntlyȱoffersȱherself.ȱAmis,ȱwho worriesȱthatȱ“noȱþingȱbotȱwoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwilȱcomȱofȱþisȱdede”ȱ(612,ȱ611;ȱnothingȱbutȱwoe .ȱ.ȱ.ȱwillȱcomeȱofȱthisȱdeed),ȱactuallyȱrequiresȱblackmailȱbeforeȱheȱwillȱsleepȱwith Belisaunt.ȱAndȱtheȱsexualȱencounterȱdoesȱindeedȱleadȱtoȱwoeȱasȱitȱprovidesȱthe vengefulȱstewardȱwithȱanȱopportunityȱtoȱmakeȱtrouble.ȱTheȱonlyȱotherȱarticulation ofȱsexualȱdesireȱcomesȱfromȱAmiloun’sȱwifeȱafterȱtheȱsubstitutionȱepisode,ȱwhen sheȱtakesȱissueȱwithȱwhatȱsheȱthinksȱisȱherȱhusband’sȱrefusalȱtoȱmakeȱloveȱtoȱher (herȱbedmateȱhadȱreallyȱbeenȱAmis,ȱofȱcourse).ȱByȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱpoem,ȱsheȱis clearlyȱ markedȱ asȱ anȱ evilȱ characterȱ whoseȱ desiresȱ areȱ suspect.ȱ Theȱ sexual componentȱofȱmarriage,ȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱatȱleast,ȱservesȱasȱyetȱanotherȱmark ofȱmarriage’sȱinferiorityȱtoȱsameȬsexȱbrotherhood.

28 29

Ford,ȱ“MerryȱMarriedȱBrothers.” Athelston,ȱed.ȱTrounce,ȱ306–07.

EngenderingȱObligation

513

III.ȱWomenȱandȱChildrenȱFirst: AmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱSirȱAmadace,ȱandȱtheȱVexedȱEthicȱofȱBrotherhood InȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱthen,ȱbrotherhoodȱandȱmarriageȱcanȱcoexistȱonlyȱbecause theyȱareȱunequal.ȱAnd,ȱasȱtheȱmajorȱepisodesȱofȱtheȱstoryȱshow,ȱtheȱfriendsȱare fullyȱpreparedȱtoȱsacrificeȱtheirȱmaritalȱ(andȱparental)ȱobligationsȱforȱoneȱanother. WhileȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱisȱclearlyȱmeantȱasȱaȱhymnȱtoȱexemplaryȱbrotherhood,ȱthe ethicȱofȱthatȱbrotherhoodȱisȱtroubling.ȱWhatȱhappensȱwhenȱtheȱdutyȱtoȱaidȱand comfortȱaȱbrotherȱconflictsȱwithȱotherȱimportantȱobligations?ȱCanȱoneȱcommitȱevil inȱtheȱnameȱofȱbrotherhood?ȱOrȱdoesȱbrotherhoodȱreframeȱtraditionalȱquestions ofȱmorality?ȱAsȱpartȱofȱtheirȱformalȱoath,ȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱswearȱtoȱstandȱby eachȱotherȱ“boþeȱbiȱdayȱ&ȱbiȱni9t,ȱ/ȱInȱweleȱ&ȱwo,ȱinȱwrongȱ&ȱri9t”ȱ(148–49).ȱ“In wrongȱ&ȱri9t”—thisȱphraseȱisȱkeyȱtoȱunderstandingȱtheȱethicalȱsystemȱthatȱgoverns theȱmasculineȱworldȱofȱswornȱbrothers.ȱThoughȱtheȱphrase,ȱversionsȱofȱwhich appearȱfrequentlyȱinȱmedievalȱromance,ȱcanȱmeanȱsimplyȱ“inȱallȱthings,”ȱtheȱliteral senseȱhasȱspecialȱresonanceȱinȱthisȱtaleȱwhereȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱcommitȱseveral actsȱthatȱareȱhardȱtoȱdescribeȱasȱanythingȱotherȱthanȱ“wrong.”ȱTheȱriggedȱjudicial combat,ȱtheȱdefianceȱofȱaȱdivineȱwarning,ȱtheȱdeceptionȱofȱAmiloun’sȱwife,ȱand, finally,ȱtheȱinfanticideȱallȱhappenȱinȱtheȱnameȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtogetherȱserveȱto createȱaȱsenseȱofȱaȱselfȬjustifyingȱandȱselfȬreferentialȱmoralityȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun. Theȱveryȱcategoriesȱofȱ“right”ȱandȱ“wrong”ȱbecomeȱredefinedȱwithȱrespectȱtoȱthe friendshipȬdrivenȱmotivationsȱofȱtheȱprotagonists.ȱAndȱwhileȱthisȱhasȱobvious benefitsȱforȱtheȱmenȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱtheȱstory,ȱtheȱcodeȱofȱbrotherhoodȱsupports menȱatȱtheȱconsiderableȱexpenseȱofȱwomen,ȱvalidatingȱfemaleȱcharactersȱonlyȱto theȱextentȱtheyȱvalidateȱmasculineȱethics.ȱ Inȱ philosophicalȱ terms,ȱ brotherhoodȱ ethicsȱ areȱ teleologicalȱ ratherȱ than deontological.ȱThatȱis,ȱbrotherhoodȱdefinesȱrightȱbehaviorȱwithȱanȱeyeȱtowardȱthe goodnessȱ orȱ valueȱ ofȱ theȱ endsȱ ofȱ anyȱ actionȱ (teleologicalȱ ethics)ȱ ratherȱ than treatingȱrightȱactionȱasȱanȱabsoluteȱdutyȱindependentȱofȱtheȱaction’sȱmotivesȱorȱthe desirabilityȱofȱitsȱendsȱ(asȱinȱdeontologicalȱethics).ȱBrotherhoodȱprivilegesȱcertain ends—namelyȱ “aidingȱ aȱ friend,”ȱ howeverȱ broadlyȱ thatȱ endȱ mayȱ be conceived—aboveȱspecificȱactionsȱthatȱwouldȱnormallyȱbeȱconstruedȱasȱalways “wrong”ȱ (e.g.,ȱ manipulatingȱ aȱ trialȱ byȱ combat,ȱ disobeyingȱ God,ȱ killingȱ one’s children).ȱTheȱpowerfulȱexculpatoryȱfunctionȱofȱbrotherhoodȱcanȱbeȱclearlyȱseen inȱ theȱ confrontationȱ betweenȱ Amilounȱ andȱ hisȱ wifeȱ afterȱ sheȱ learnsȱ ofȱ the substitutionȱandȱjudicialȱcombat.ȱAmiloun’sȱwifeȱaccusesȱhimȱofȱ“wrongȱ&ȱmichel vnri9t”ȱ(1492;ȱwrongȱandȱgreatȱinjustice)ȱforȱkillingȱtheȱsteward,ȱwho,ȱweȱshould remember,ȱ wasȱ inȱ factȱ tellingȱ theȱ truthȱ aboutȱ Amisȱ andȱ Belisaunt’sȱ affair. Completelyȱunruffled,ȱAmilounȱrepliesȱwithȱalmostȱchildȬlikeȱinnocence:ȱ“Yȱno dedeȱitȱforȱnonȱoþerȱþingȱ/ȱBotȱtoȱsaueȱmiȱbroþerȱfroȱwo”ȱ(1496–97;ȱIȱdidȱitȱforȱno otherȱ thingȱ /ȱ Butȱ toȱ saveȱ myȱ brotherȱ fromȱ woe).ȱ Savingȱ aȱ brotherȱ fromȱ woe

514

RobertȱStretter

becomesȱ aȱ universalȱ justification,ȱ regardlessȱ ofȱ theȱ particularȱ circumstances. Notably,ȱAmiloun’sȱwifeȱisȱtheȱsoleȱproponentȱofȱdeontologicalȱethicsȱinȱtheȱpoem; sheȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ oneȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ brotherhoodȱ doesȱ notȱ provideȱ moralȱ carte blanche,ȱandȱherȱrefusalȱtoȱsubscribeȱtoȱtheȱpoem’sȱguidingȱethicȱmarksȱherȱasȱan obstacleȱtoȱbeȱovercomeȱinȱtheȱtale’sȱconclusion.ȱ Byȱ contrast,ȱ theȱ mostȱ powerful—andȱ surprising—voiceȱ forȱ masculine teleologicalȱethicsȱisȱBelisaunt,ȱwhoseȱreactionȱtoȱtheȱmurderȱofȱherȱchildrenȱshows herȱtoȱbeȱconsiderablyȱmoreȱopenȬmindedȱaboutȱ“vnri9t”ȱdoneȱinȱtheȱnameȱof friendship.ȱ Whenȱ Amisȱ tellsȱ hisȱ wifeȱ thatȱ heȱ slewȱ theirȱ childrenȱ soȱ thatȱ “[his] broþerȱschuldȱpasseȱoutȱofȱhisȱwo”ȱ(2386),ȱBelisauntsȱresponds:ȱ Godȱmayȱsendeȱousȱchilderȱmo, Ofȱhemȱhaueȱþouȱnoȱcare. 9ifȱitȱwareȱatȱminȱhertȱrote, Forȱtoȱbringȱþiȱbroþerȱbote, Myȱlyfȱyȱwoldȱnotȱspare.ȱ

(2393–97)

[Godȱmayȱsendȱusȱmoreȱchildren, Haveȱnoȱconcernȱoverȱthem. Ifȱitȱwereȱatȱmyȱheart’sȱroot, Inȱorderȱtoȱbringȱyourȱbrotherȱaid, Iȱwouldȱnotȱspareȱmyȱlife.]

SuchȱaȱblaséȱattitudeȱaboutȱtheȱlivesȱofȱherȱjustȬmurderedȱchildren,ȱasȱwellȱasȱher ownȱlife,ȱmayȱseemȱastonishing,ȱbutȱBelisaunt’sȱwordsȱareȱnotȱherȱown.ȱSheȱisȱin factȱunwittinglyȱechoingȱherȱhusband’sȱwordsȱtoȱAmiloun,ȱjustȱfiveȱstanzasȱearlier, whenȱAmisȱpresentedȱtheȱbasinȱofȱfreshȱbloodȱasȱaȱcureȱforȱhisȱbrother’sȱleprosy. Amilounȱreactedȱinȱhorror,ȱbutȱAmisȱreassuredȱhim: Beȱnowȱstille; Ihesu,ȱwhenȱitȱisȱhisȱwille, Mayȱsendȱmeȱchilderȱmo. Forȱmeȱofȱblisȱþouȱartȱalȱbare; Ywis,ȱmiȱliifȱwilȱyȱnou9tȱspare, ToȱhelpȱþeȱnowȱþerȬfro.ȱ

(2335–40)ȱ

[Hushȱnow; Jesus,ȱwhenȱitȱisȱHisȱwill, Mayȱsendȱmeȱmoreȱchildren. Youȱareȱcompletelyȱstrippedȱofȱjoyȱbecauseȱofȱme; Indeed,ȱmyȱlifeȱIȱwillȱnotȱspare Toȱhelpȱyouȱnowȱoutȱofȱ(yourȱmisery).]

Belisauntȱservesȱasȱaȱmouthpieceȱforȱthisȱsameȱreasoning,ȱandȱtheȱpoemȱholdsȱher upȱasȱtheȱidealȱwomanȱandȱwife.ȱItȱisȱclear,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱmutual bondȱbetweenȱswornȱbrothers,ȱtheȱmaritalȱbondȱisȱcharacterizedȱbyȱdifferenceȱand

EngenderingȱObligation

515

inferiority.ȱ Withinȱ suchȱ aȱ rigidȱ genderȱ hierarchy,ȱ women’sȱ worthȱ comesȱ from sustainingȱmaleȱbonds. Belisauntȱisȱnotȱaȱuniqueȱcase.ȱAnotherȱwifeȱreadyȱtoȱdieȱinȱorderȱtoȱpreventȱher husbandȱfromȱbreakingȱanȱoathȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱMiddle EnglishȱromanceȱSirȱAmadace.ȱLikeȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱSirȱAmadaceȱhasȱitsȱrootsȱin folklore,ȱinȱthisȱcaseȱtheȱwidespreadȱEuropeanȱtraditionȱofȱ“gratefulȱdead”ȱstories. G.ȱH.ȱGerould’sȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱgratefulȱdeadȱarchetypeȱessentiallyȱsummarizes theȱplotȱofȱSirȱAmadace: [Theȱ hero]ȱ findsȱ aȱ corpseȱ lyingȱ unburied,ȱ andȱ outȱ ofȱ pureȱ philanthropyȱ procures intermentȱforȱitȱatȱgreatȱpersonalȱinconvenience.ȱLaterȱheȱisȱmetȱbyȱtheȱghostȱofȱthe deadȱman,ȱwhoȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱpromisesȱhimȱhelpȱonȱtheȱconditionȱofȱreceiving,ȱin return,ȱhalfȱofȱwhateverȱheȱgets.ȱTheȱheroȱobtainsȱaȱwifeȱ(orȱsomeȱotherȱreward),ȱand, whenȱcalledȱupon,ȱisȱreadyȱtoȱfulfillȱhisȱbargainȱasȱtoȱsharingȱhisȱpossessions.30

InȱSirȱAmadace,ȱtheȱheroȱisȱaȱknightȱwhoȱbecomesȱdestituteȱafterȱarrangingȱforȱthe burialȱofȱaȱdebtȬplaguedȱmerchant.ȱHeȱencountersȱtheȱghostȱofȱtheȱdeadȱmanȱinȱthe formȱ ofȱ aȱ mysteriousȱ whiteȱ knightȱ whoȱ providesȱ Amadaceȱ withȱ everything necessaryȱ toȱ winȱ aȱ princessȱ inȱ aȱ tournamentȱ andȱ becomeȱ aȱ wealthyȱ man.ȱ Sir Amadaceȱandȱtheȱwhiteȱknightȱareȱnotȱfriendsȱinȱanyȱtraditionalȱsense,ȱbutȱthey haveȱaȱ“covenant”ȱ(745,ȱ755,ȱ761)ȱbetweenȱthemȱwhichȱisȱput,ȱlikeȱtheȱfriendship oathȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱtoȱtheȱtest.ȱ31ȱHereȱagain,ȱwhatȱisȱatȱstakeȱincludesȱnot onlyȱone’sȱmaterialȱgoods,ȱbutȱalsoȱone’sȱwifeȱandȱchildren.ȱWhenȱtheȱwhiteȱknight comesȱ toȱ claimȱ hisȱ shareȱ ofȱ theȱ wealth,ȱ heȱ demandsȱ thatȱ Amadaceȱ physically divideȱ allȱ hisȱ possessions—includingȱ hisȱ wifeȱ andȱ onlyȱ son,ȱ whoȱ areȱ toȱ be ritualisticallyȱcutȱinȱtwo.ȱBecauseȱAmadaceȱidentifiesȱhisȱwifeȱasȱhisȱgreatestȱobject ofȱaffection,ȱsheȱisȱtoȱbeȱvivisectedȱfirst.ȱLikeȱBelisaunt,ȱAmadace’sȱladyȱsubscribes toȱaȱvalueȱsystemȱinȱwhichȱtheȱintegrityȱofȱmaleȱoathsȱtakesȱprecedenceȱoverȱall else,ȱandȱsoȱsheȱcheerfullyȱinsistsȱthatȱherȱhusbandȱkillȱherȱratherȱthanȱbreakȱhis word:ȱ “Lokeȱ yaureȱ covandusȱ holdunȱ be,”ȱ sheȱ says,ȱ “Goddesȱ forbotteȱ yeȱ me spare!”ȱ(755–56;ȱSeeȱthatȱyouȱupholdȱyourȱcovenantsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱGodȱforbidȱthatȱyou spareȱme!).ȱTheȱwifeȱisȱinȱfactȱspared,ȱinȱtheȱend,ȱbutȱtheȱpoetȱapplaudsȱherȱfor beingȱ“meke”ȱ(790,ȱ821)ȱandȱ“myld”ȱ(771,ȱ791)ȱand,ȱunderscoringȱtheȱcoalescence ofȱherȱwillȱandȱherȱhusband’s,ȱcommentsȱpointedlyȱthatȱsheȱ

30

31

G.ȱH.ȱGerould,ȱTheȱGratefulȱDeadȱ(London:ȱPublicationsȱofȱtheȱFolkȬLoreȱSociety,ȱ1908),ȱx.ȱOnȱSir Amadaceȱ andȱ theȱ gratefulȱ deadȱ tradition,ȱ seeȱ Elizabethȱ Williams,ȱ “Sirȱ Amadaceȱ andȱ the UndisenchantedȱBride:ȱtheȱRelationȱofȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱRomanceȱtoȱtheȱFolktaleȱTraditionȱof ‘Theȱ Gratefulȱ Dead,’”ȱ Traditionȱ andȱ Transformationȱ inȱ Medievalȱ Romance,ȱ ed.ȱ Rosalindȱ Field (Woodbridge,ȱUK:ȱD.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ1999),ȱ57–70. LineȱnumbersȱreferȱtoȱSirȱAmadaceȱ inȱ Amisȱ andȱAmiloun,ȱRobertȱofȱCisyle,ȱandȱSirȱAmadace,ȱed. Edwardȱ E.ȱ Foster.ȱ TEAMSȱ Middleȱ Englishȱ Textsȱ Seriesȱ (Kalamazoo,ȱ MI:ȱ Medievalȱ Institute Publications,ȱ1997).

516

RobertȱStretter didȱweleȱthatȱhurȱaghteȱtoȱdo; Allȱthatȱhurȱlordȱlufdȱwurschipputȱho;ȱ Allȱsucheȱwemenȱweleȱmyghteȱbe.ȱ

(694–96)

[didȱwellȱwhatȱsheȱoughtȱtoȱdo; Sheȱworshippedȱallȱthatȱherȱlordȱloved; Allȱsuchȱwomenȱwellȱmightȱbeȱ(likeȱher).]ȱ

Sirȱ Amadaceȱ andȱ Amisȱ andȱ Amiloun,ȱ then,ȱ establishȱ identicallyȱ prioritized hierarchiesȱ ofȱ relationships:ȱ obligationsȱ betweenȱ menȱ comeȱ first,ȱ followedȱ by dutiesȱofȱwivesȱtoȱhusbands,ȱandȱfinallyȱofȱchildrenȱtoȱparents.ȱ

IV.ȱBrotherhoodȱDethroned:ȱChaucer’sȱKnight’sȱTale Chaucer’sȱ swornȱ brothers,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ subscribeȱ toȱ aȱ veryȱ different hierarchy.ȱIfȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱrepresentsȱtheȱstrongestȱvoluntaryȱbondȱbetween menȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱandȱif,ȱbyȱmakingȱPalamonȱandȱArciteȱswornȱbrothersȱin TheȱKnight’sȱTale,ȱChaucerȱisȱinvokingȱtheȱkindȱofȱindestructibleȱmaleȱloyaltyȱfound inȱstoriesȱsuchȱasȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱandȱSirȱAmadace,ȱwhatȱshouldȱweȱmakeȱofȱthe suddennessȱwithȱwhichȱbrotherhoodȱdisintegratesȱinȱChaucer’sȱtale?ȱInȱpopular storiesȱofȱbrotherhoodȱfromȱKingȱHornȱtoȱGuyȱofȱWarwickȱtoȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun, weddedȱbrothersȱsimplyȱdoȱnotȱsacrificeȱtheirȱfriendshipȱforȱwomen.ȱTheȱkeyȱto PalamonȱandȱArcite’sȱbehaviorȱliesȱinȱtheȱpowerfulȱcodeȱofȱcourtlyȱfin’amorsȱthat ChaucerȱsetsȱagainstȱtheȱcodeȱofȱbrotherhoodȱinȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale.ȱ Theȱ momentȱ whenȱ Palamonȱ andȱ Arciteȱ firstȱ seeȱ Emelyeȱ isȱ chargedȱ with languageȱreflectingȱtheȱconventionsȱofȱaristocraticȱlove:ȱtheyȱfallȱinȱloveȱwithȱher beautyȱ atȱ firstȱ sight;ȱ theirȱ loveȱ causesȱ themȱ intenseȱ emotionalȱ suffering;ȱ they immediatelyȱadoptȱtheȱconventionalȱlanguageȱofȱservice,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱthe knightȱfiguresȱhimselfȱasȱtheȱhumbleȱ“servant”ȱofȱhisȱlady.ȱSinceȱheȱsawȱherȱfirst, Palamonȱclaimsȱprecedenceȱinȱlove;ȱArcite,ȱhowever,ȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱPalamonȱfirst mistookȱEmelyeȱforȱtheȱgoddessȱVenusȱandȱthatȱthereforeȱheȱmayȱbeȱentitledȱto worshipȱher,ȱbutȱthatȱArciteȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱloveȱherȱ“asȱtoȱaȱcreature”ȱ(inȱother words,ȱerotically).ȱThisȱpromptsȱPalamonȱtoȱchargeȱArciteȱwithȱinfidelity: “Itȱnere,”ȱquodȱhe,ȱ“toȱtheeȱnoȱgreetȱhonour Forȱtoȱbeȱfals,ȱneȱforȱtoȱbeȱtraitour Toȱme,ȱthatȱamȱthyȱcosynȱandȱthyȱbrother Yswornȱfulȱdepe,ȱandȱechȱofȱusȱtilȱoother, Thatȱnevere,ȱforȱtoȱdyenȱinȱtheȱpeyne, Tilȱthatȱtheȱdeethȱdeparteȱshalȱusȱtweyne, Neitherȱofȱusȱinȱloveȱtoȱhyndreȱoother, Neȱinȱnoonȱootherȱcas,ȱmyȱleeveȱbrother,

EngenderingȱObligation Butȱthatȱthouȱsholdestȱtrewelyȱforthrenȱme Inȱeveryȱcas,ȱasȱIȱshalȱforthrenȱtheeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ

517

(Iȱ1129–38)

[“Itȱwere,”ȱheȱsaid,ȱ“noȱgreatȱhonorȱtoȱyou Toȱbeȱfalse,ȱnorȱtoȱbeȱtraitor Toȱme,ȱwhoȱamȱyourȱkinsmenȱandȱyourȱbrother Swornȱveryȱsolemnly,ȱandȱeachȱofȱusȱtoȱtheȱother (Pledged)ȱthatȱnever,ȱthoughȱweȱwereȱtoȱdieȱofȱtorture, Untilȱdeathȱshallȱseverȱtheȱtwoȱofȱus, Neitherȱofȱusȱshouldȱhinderȱtheȱotherȱinȱlove, Norȱinȱanyȱotherȱthing,ȱmyȱdearȱbrother, Butȱ(rather)ȱthatȱyouȱshouldȱtrulyȱaidȱme Inȱeveryȱsituation,ȱasȱIȱshallȱaidȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”]

ThisȱpassageȱisȱtheȱveryȱfirstȱmentionȱthatȱPalamonȱandȱArciteȱareȱswornȱbrothers, immediatelyȱconjuringȱupȱforȱChaucer’sȱaudienceȱtheȱhostȱofȱdutiesȱentailedȱbyȱthe brotherhoodȱoath.ȱTheȱlegendaryȱbrotherhoodȱofȱknightsȱsuchȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun suggestsȱwhatȱisȱtrulyȱatȱstakeȱinȱtheȱloveȱtriangleȱofȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale—andȱit makesȱtheȱtriumphȱofȱfin’amorsȱallȱtheȱmoreȱsignificant.ȱPalamonȱappealsȱtoȱthe solemnȱobligationsȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱtoȱaccuseȱArciteȱofȱpersonalȱbetrayal, expressedȱhereȱinȱtheȱstrongestȱpossibleȱterms:ȱfalse,ȱtraitor—absolutelyȱdamning epithetsȱwithinȱtheȱchivalricȱcontextȱofȱoathȱandȱhonor.ȱUnlikeȱBoccaccio,ȱChaucer carefullyȱstructuresȱthisȱsceneȱasȱaȱclashȱofȱopposingȱmodelsȱofȱdesireȱandȱduty,ȱfor inȱvirtuallyȱtheȱsameȱbreathȱPalamonȱappealsȱtoȱtheȱdiscourseȱofȱbrotherhoodȱand injectsȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱfin’ȱamors,ȱdescribingȱEmelyeȱasȱ“myȱlady,ȱwhomȱIȱloveȱand serve”ȱ(Iȱ1143).ȱ ChaucerȱisȱclearlyȱlessȱinterestedȱinȱPalamonȱandȱArciteȱasȱbrothersȱperȱseȱthan heȱ isȱ inȱ enlistingȱ theȱ conventionsȱ ofȱ supposedlyȱ indissolubleȱ brotherhoodȱ to commentȱonȱtheȱpowerȱofȱeroticȱlove.ȱTheȱpoetȱachievesȱmaximumȱdramaticȱeffect byȱrevealingȱPalamonȱandȱArcite’sȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱonlyȱafterȱtheȱkinsmenȱhave spiedȱEmelye—atȱtheȱveryȱmoment,ȱinȱfact,ȱwhenȱtheȱmasculineȱbondȱisȱshattered byȱ maleȬfemaleȱ love.ȱ Arciteȱ countersȱ Palamon’sȱ claimsȱ uponȱ hisȱ dutyȱ withȱ an appealȱtoȱtheȱprimacyȱofȱlove: Loveȱisȱaȱgretterȱlawe,ȱbyȱmyȱpan, Thanȱmayȱbeȱyeveȱtoȱanyȱerthelyȱmanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Aȱmanȱmootȱnedesȱlove,ȱmaugreeȱhisȱheed; Heȱmayȱnatȱfleenȱit,ȱthoghȱheȱsholdeȱbeȱdeed.ȱ [Loveȱisȱaȱgreaterȱlaw,ȱbyȱmyȱhead, Thanȱmayȱbeȱgivenȱtoȱanyȱmortalȱmanȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Aȱmanȱmustȱlove,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱhimself; Heȱmayȱnotȱavoidȱit,ȱevenȱifȱitȱshouldȱbeȱmortal.]

(Iȱ1165–66,ȱ1169–70)

518

RobertȱStretter

ButȱtheȱprimacyȱofȱmaleȬfemaleȱlove,ȱgivenȱtheȱcontextȱofȱswornȱbrotherhood,ȱis (atȱleastȱbriefly)ȱanȱopenȱquestionȱinȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale.ȱToȱmyȱknowledge,ȱArcite isȱ theȱ firstȱ swornȱ brotherȱ inȱ medievalȱ literatureȱ toȱ makeȱ suchȱ aȱ claim.ȱ By presentingȱaȱloveȱrivalryȱbetweenȱformallyȱswornȱbrothers,ȱChaucerȱcrystallizes theȱmoreȱgeneralȱatmosphereȱofȱtensionȱbetweenȱtheȱpublicȱworldȱofȱmaleȱaction andȱtheȱprivateȱworldȱofȱmaleȬfemaleȱloveȱthatȱfascinatedȱearlyȱromanceȱwriters suchȱasȱMarieȱdeȱFranceȱandȱChrétienȱdeȱTroyes.ȱWhatȱmakesȱChaucerȱuniqueȱis hisȱputtingȱtheȱmostȱextremeȱformȱofȱmaleȱobligationȱ(ritualȱbrotherhood)ȱintoȱthe mostȱvolatileȱamatoryȱsettingȱ(loveȱrivalry).ȱArcite’sȱappealȱtoȱtheȱ“lawe”ȱofȱlove, aȱfamiliarȱmoveȱinȱcourtlyȱliterature,ȱhasȱaȱhollowȱringȱinȱtheȱmouthȱofȱaȱknight whoȱhasȱalreadyȱdevotedȱhimselfȱtoȱaȱhighlyȱcodifiedȱlifeȬlongȱbrotherhood.ȱThe supremeȱironyȱofȱArcite’sȱlegalisticȱdefenseȱisȱthatȱitȱremindsȱusȱthatȱheȱisȱcasually dismissingȱ theȱ lawsȱ ofȱ brotherhoodȱ underȱ whichȱ heȱ hasȱ beenȱ indicted.32ȱ Itȱ is importantȱtoȱrecognizeȱthatȱwhileȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱandȱfin’amorsȱwereȱbothȱvery popularȱsubjectsȱofȱmedievalȱromance,ȱtheyȱareȱlargelyȱparallelȱliteraryȱtraditions priorȱtoȱtheȱfourteenthȱcentury.ȱNotȱuntilȱChaucerȱdoȱtheyȱcomeȱintoȱconflictȱin suchȱ explicitȱ fashion.ȱ Consequently,ȱ theȱ failureȱ ofȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ inȱ The Knight’sȱTale,ȱfarȱfromȱbeingȱinevitable,ȱwouldȱlikelyȱhaveȱbeenȱshockingȱtoȱmany inȱChaucer’sȱaudience.ȱ33 InȱtheȱworldȱofȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun,ȱwhereȱwomenȱhaveȱnoȱpowerȱtoȱdestroyȱmale oaths,ȱtheȱclimaxȱofȱPalamonȱandȱArcite’sȱfirstȱargumentȱoverȱEmelyeȱwouldȱbe absolutelyȱ unthinkable.ȱ Afterȱ repeatedlyȱ callingȱ Palamonȱ hisȱ “brother”ȱ inȱ the courseȱofȱhisȱselfȬjustifyingȱspeech,ȱArciteȱconcludes: Echȱmanȱforȱhimself,ȱtherȱisȱnoonȱoother. Love,ȱifȱtheeȱlist,ȱforȱIȱloveȱandȱayȱshal; Andȱsoothly,ȱleeveȱbrother,ȱthisȱisȱal.ȱ

(Iȱ1182–84)

[Eachȱmanȱforȱhimself,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱotherȱ(way). Love,ȱifȱyouȱlike,ȱforȱIȱloveȱandȱalwaysȱshall; Andȱtruly,ȱdearȱbrother,ȱthisȱisȱall.]

Thatȱ finalȱ “leeveȱ brother”ȱ isȱ aȱ bitterȱ jab,ȱ remindingȱ Palamonȱ (andȱ Chaucer’s audience)ȱonceȱagainȱofȱtheȱdutiesȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱatȱtheȱveryȱmomentȱwhen Arciteȱabandonsȱthem. TheȱeaseȱwithȱwhichȱEmelye’sȱpresenceȱdestroysȱtheȱbondȱofȱbrotherhoodȱpoints eitherȱtoȱaȱdebasementȱofȱthatȱbondȱorȱanȱelevationȱofȱtheȱideologicalȱpowerȱof women—orȱaȱcombinationȱofȱboth.ȱThatȱChaucerȱhadȱaȱfarȬfromȬidealisticȱviewȱof

32

33

OnȱArcite’sȱbetrayalȱofȱtheȱcodeȱofȱbrotherhood,ȱseeȱCatherineȱA.ȱRock,ȱ“ForswornȱandȱFordone: ArciteȱasȱOathȬBreakerȱinȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale,”ȱTheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ40.4ȱ(2006):ȱ416–32.ȱ IȱexploreȱthisȱissueȱinȱgreaterȱdetailȱinȱRobertȱStretter,ȱ“RewritingȱPerfectȱFriendshipȱinȱChaucer’s Knight’sȱTaleȱandȱLydgate’sȱFabulaȱduorumȱmercatorum,”ȱTheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ37.3ȱ(2003):ȱ234–52.

EngenderingȱObligation

519

theȱpowerȱofȱmaleȱoathsȱcanȱbeȱseenȱfromȱtheȱotherȱinstancesȱofȱdysfunctional brotherhoodȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTales.ȱTheȱswornȱrelationshipsȱofȱTheȱShipman’sȱTale, TheȱFriar’sȱTale,ȱandȱTheȱSummoner’sȱTaleȱallȱinvolveȱdeceptionȱandȱbetrayal,ȱand inȱtheȱcaseȱofȱTheȱPardoner’sȱTale,ȱtheȱbetrayalȱextendsȱtoȱmurder.34ȱTellingly,ȱthe onlyȱinstanceȱofȱlastingȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTalesȱisȱthatȱbetween theȱsummonerȱandȱtheȱdevilȱinȱTheȱFriar’sȱTale.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱforȱChaucer,ȱ“true brotherhood”ȱisȱpossibleȱonlyȱinȱHell.ȱThisȱmercilessȱundercuttingȱofȱtheȱauthority ofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTalesȱhasȱledȱPaulȱStrohmȱtoȱassertȱthat Chaucerȱ seesȱ “swornȱ tiesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ asȱ whollyȱ subjectȱ toȱ negotiationȱ inȱ theȱ questȱ for personalȱaggrandizement.”35ȱ

V.ȱMalory,ȱtheȱCrisisȱofȱ“Trouthe,”ȱandȱtheȱRiseȱofȱRomance Chaucer’sȱcynicalȱtakeȱonȱtheȱdurabilityȱofȱmaleȱoathsȱisȱofȱaȱpieceȱwithȱtheȱmany lamentsȱoneȱfindsȱinȱfourteenthȬȱandȱfifteenthȬcenturyȱEnglishȱliteratureȱforȱthe perceivedȱ lossȱ ofȱ truthȱ andȱ honor.ȱ Oneȱ anonymousȱ fourteenthȬcenturyȱ writer complains,ȱ Menȱhemȱbimeninȱofȱlitelȱtrewthe,ȱ Itȱisȱdedȱandȱ9atȱisȱrewthe; Lesingȱlivet,ȱandȱisȱabove,ȱ Andȱnowȱisȱbiriedȱtrewtheȱandȱlove!36 [Menȱmournȱtheȱscarcityȱofȱtruth, Itȱisȱdeadȱandȱthatȱisȱaȱpity: Lyingȱlivesȱandȱisȱaboveȱ(all), Andȱnowȱisȱburiedȱtruthȱandȱlove!]

TheȱpoetȱofȱtheȱanonymousȱMiddleȱEnglishȱromanceȱYwainȱandȱGawainȱechoes theseȱsentiments:ȱ“[T]rowth,ȱandȱluf,ȱesȱalȱbylaftȱ—ȱ/ȱMenȱusesȱnowȱanotherȱcraft” (Truthȱandȱloveȱareȱentirelyȱabandonedȱ—ȱ/ȱMenȱnowȱuseȱanotherȱcraft).ȱ37ȱByȱthe fifteenthȱcentury,ȱweȱfindȱMalory’sȱMorteȱDarthurȱshotȱthroughȱwithȱthisȱelegiac tone,ȱwhichȱexpressesȱitselfȱprimarilyȱinȱMalory’sȱconcernȱaboutȱwhatȱheȱcalls

34

35 36

37

SurprisinglyȱlittleȱworkȱhasȱbeenȱdoneȱonȱbrotherhoodȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTalesȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱAn exceptionȱisȱtheȱinterestingȱrecentȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱtopic,ȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱsexualityȱstudies, byȱTisonȱPugh,ȱ“‘ForȱtoȱBeȱSworneȱBretherenȱtilȱTheyȱDeye’:ȱSatirizingȱQueerȱBrotherhoodȱinȱthe ChaucerianȱCorpus,”ȱTheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ43.3ȱ(2008):ȱ282–310. PaulȱStrohm,ȱSocialȱChaucerȱ(Cambridge,ȱMAȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱ100. QuotedȱinȱRichardȱFirthȱGreen,ȱAȱCrisisȱofȱTruth:ȱLiteratureȱandȱLawȱinȱRicardianȱEngland.ȱThe MiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ6–7. YwainȱandȱGawainȱinȱMiddleȱEnglishȱRomances:ȱAȱNortonȱCriticalȱEdition,ȱed.ȱStephenȱA.ȱShepherd (NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱW.ȱW.ȱNorton,ȱ1995),ȱ35–36.

520

RobertȱStretter

“unstableȱlove.”ȱ“[I]nȱmanyȱpersonesȱthereȱysȱnoȱstabylitéȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱMaloryȱlaments. “Butȱtheȱoldeȱloveȱwasȱnatȱso”ȱ(649).38ȱ Someȱscholarsȱhaveȱlinkedȱtheseȱpessimisticȱassessmentsȱofȱfidelity,ȱhonor,ȱand swornȱ brotherhoodȱ toȱ whatȱ R.ȱ F.ȱ Greenȱ hasȱ calledȱ aȱ “crisisȱ ofȱ trouthe”ȱ inȱ late medievalȱEngland,ȱaȱwidespreadȱculturalȱanxietyȱaboutȱpersonalȱintegrityȱasȱoathȬ basedȱ oralȱ traditionsȱ increasinglyȱ gaveȱ wayȱ toȱ documentȬbasedȱ legalȱ systems. Greenȱ examinesȱ theȱ semanticȱ shiftȱ inȱ theȱ ubiquitousȱ andȱ ambiguousȱ Middle Englishȱ wordȱ “trouthe”ȱ fromȱ aȱ meaningȱ alongȱ theȱ linesȱ ofȱ “fidelity,ȱ integrity, dependability,”ȱtoȱtheȱmoreȱmodernȱsenseȱofȱ“conformityȱtoȱfact.”ȱAroundȱthe sameȱtime,ȱGreenȱpointsȱout,ȱ“treason”(ȱtheȱantonymȱofȱ“trouthe”),ȱ“wasȱshifting itsȱsemanticȱfocusȱfromȱpersonalȱbetrayal”—theȱsenseȱinȱwhichȱPalamonȱusesȱit whenȱheȱcallsȱArciteȱ“traitour”ȱforȱlovingȱEmelye—“toȱaȱcrimeȱagainstȱtheȱstate”; Greenȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱshiftȱinȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱtheseȱwordsȱcoincidesȱwithȱtheȱsocial shiftȱ“fromȱtheȱcommunallyȱauthenticatedȱtrothȬplightȱtoȱtheȱjudiciallyȱenforced writtenȱcontract,ȱfromȱaȱtruthȱthatȱresidesȱinȱpeopleȱtoȱoneȱlocatedȱinȱdocuments.”39 Fromȱthisȱpointȱofȱview,ȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱPalamon’sȱandȱArcite’sȱbondȱwithȱeach otherȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱsignȱofȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱageȱofȱbrotherhood,ȱasȱaȱChaucerian commentȱonȱtheȱsocialȱrealitiesȱofȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱEngland.ȱTheȱsameȱmightȱbe saidȱaboutȱtheȱtraitorousȱswornȱbrotherȱinȱAthelston,ȱorȱaboutȱMalory’sȱpoignant ifȱclearlyȱnaïveȱnostalgiaȱforȱtheȱtimeȱwhenȱloveȱmeantȱ“troutheȱandȱfaythefulnes” (649). Theȱhistoricalȱcrisisȱofȱtroutheȱunquestionablyȱhelpsȱexplainȱtheȱdebasedȱstateȱof swornȱrelationshipsȱinȱmuchȱmedievalȱEnglishȱliterature.ȱButȱI’dȱlikeȱtoȱsuggestȱan additionalȱ explanation—aȱ literaryȱ one—forȱ brotherhood’sȱ lossȱ ofȱ prestige:ȱ the breakingȱofȱanȱoathȱtypicallyȱhasȱmoreȱnarrativeȱinterestȱthanȱtheȱkeepingȱofȱan oath.ȱWritersȱlikeȱChaucerȱsawȱpotentialȱinȱtheȱdiscrepancyȱbetweenȱtheȱkindȱof superhumanȱ behaviorȱ celebratedȱ byȱ storiesȱ ofȱ brotherhoodȱ suchȱ asȱ Amisȱ and Amilounȱandȱtheȱrealityȱofȱhumanȱimperfection.ȱThisȱgapȱcreatesȱaȱdramatically interestingȱ tensionȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ swornȱ relationships;ȱ itȱ isȱ aȱ tensionȱ thatȱ can manifestȱitselfȱasȱanxietyȱaboutȱtheȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱmakingȱofȱanȱoathȱand itsȱfulfillment,ȱbetweenȱtheȱrhetoricȱandȱtheȱperformanceȱofȱfidelity.ȱ Aȱ bondȱ asȱ strongȱ asȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ canȱ beȱ brokenȱ onlyȱ byȱ something equallyȱpowerful.ȱForȱChaucerȱandȱMalory,ȱasȱforȱMarieȱdeȱFranceȱandȱChrétien deȱTroyesȱbeforeȱthem,ȱtheȱascendancyȱofȱanȱintergenderȱsensibilityȱinȱcourtly romance—thatȱ is,ȱ theȱ privilegingȱ ofȱ maleȬfemaleȱ affectiveȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ as forcefulȱaȱwayȱasȱhomosocialȱmaleȱrelationshipsȱareȱprivilegedȱinȱbrotherhood

38

39

AllȱMaloryȱquotationsȱareȱfromȱMalory:ȱWorks,ȱed.ȱEugèneȱVinaver,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(London:ȱOxford UniversityȱPress,ȱ1954;ȱOxford,ȱNewȱYork,ȱandȱToronto:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1971),ȱcitedȱby pageȱnumberȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱ Green,ȱCrisisȱofȱTruth,ȱxiv.

EngenderingȱObligation

521

romances—providedȱaȱwayȱtoȱstageȱanȱideologicalȱbattle,ȱaȱclashȱbetweenȱtwoȱvery differentȱ waysȱ ofȱ understandingȱ relationshipsȱ betweenȱ theȱ sexesȱ andȱ between publicȱandȱprivateȱduties.40ȱTheseȱwritersȱplayȱwithȱaȱtensionȱthatȱisȱimplicitȱin chivalricȱromanceȱasȱaȱgenre.ȱDefiningȱmedievalȱromanceȱisȱaȱnotoriouslyȱdicey business,ȱbutȱasȱaȱworkingȱdefinition,ȱweȱmightȱsayȱthatȱaȱchivalricȱromanceȱisȱa taleȱthatȱ“discoursethȱofȱtheȱdeedsȱofȱArmesȱandȱtheȱloveȱofȱLadies,”ȱwhichȱisȱhow ThomasȱSpeghtȱdescribedȱTheȱKnight’sȱTaleȱinȱhisȱ1602ȱeditionȱofȱTheȱCanterbury Tales.41ȱTheȱtwinȱconcernsȱofȱromance—“deedsȱofȱarms”ȱandȱ“loveȱofȱladies,”ȱone martial,ȱtheȱotherȱerotic—canȱplaceȱaȱknightȱinȱaȱconflictȱofȱduty.ȱHisȱresponsibility toȱexhibitȱmilitaryȱprowess,ȱtoȱmaintainȱhisȱreputation,ȱtoȱwinȱ“worship,”ȱplaces himȱunderȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱaȱhighlyȱpublicȱworldȱofȱmaleȱaction.ȱ“Loveȱofȱladies” isȱnotȱinherentlyȱincompatibleȱwithȱthisȱworld—afterȱall,ȱimpressiveȱ“deedsȱof arms”ȱareȱanȱimportantȱaspectȱofȱtheȱwooingȱofȱladies.ȱAnd,ȱinȱmedievalȱromance, loveȱisȱregularlyȱconceivedȱofȱasȱaȱritualized,ȱpublicȱaffair.ȱButȱthereȱisȱalsoȱaȱsense inȱ whichȱ loveȱ functionsȱ asȱ aȱ private,ȱ individualized,ȱ secretȱ worldȱ ofȱ manȱ and woman.ȱThisȱcanȱbeȱseenȱfromȱtheȱearliestȱdaysȱofȱromance—forȱinstance,ȱMarie deȱFrance’sȱLanvalȱcanȱbeȱreadȱasȱaȱvalidationȱofȱtheȱsecretȱloveȱofȱLanvalȱandȱhis faerieȱmistressȱoverȱtheȱcomradeshipȱofȱtheȱRoundȱTable,ȱwhichȱisȱportrayedȱas deeplyȱcorrupted.ȱByȱtheȱtimeȱMaloryȱwritesȱtheȱMorteȱDarthur,ȱthisȱmoreȱinterior typeȱofȱloveȱisȱwellȱestablished;ȱweȱareȱstillȱfarȱfromȱpsychologicalȱrealism,ȱbutȱlove neverthelessȱfiguresȱasȱaȱlargelyȱprivateȱworldȱsetȱagainstȱtheȱpublicȱmasculine worldȱofȱarms.42 TheȱLancelotȬGuinevereȬArthurȱloveȱtriangleȱinȱMorteȱDarthurȱcanȱbeȱreadȱas enactingȱaȱcrisisȱofȱgenderedȱobligationsȱsimilarȱtoȱthatȱofȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale.ȱWhile LancelotȱandȱArthurȱareȱnotȱspecificallyȱswornȱbrothers,ȱtheyȱareȱtwoȱmenȱbound byȱoath,ȱandȱTheȱKnightsȱofȱtheȱRoundȱTableȱasȱaȱgroupȱrepresentȱanȱextensionȱof theȱkindȱofȱmasculine,ȱhomosocial,ȱpublicȱbondȱthatȱunitesȱritualȱbrothers.43ȱOf

40

41

42

43

OneȱofȱtheȱbestȱinȬdepthȱexplorationsȱofȱthisȱtensionȱisȱJaeger’sȱEnnoblingȱLove,ȱwhichȱseesȱthe clashȱbetweenȱpublicȱandȱprivateȱspheres,ȱandȱbetweenȱmaleȬfocusedȱandȱfemaleȬfocusedȱlove, asȱpartȱofȱwhatȱJaegerȱcallsȱ“theȱromanticȱdilemma,”ȱaȱsituationȱpromptedȱbyȱtheȱ“attemptȱto reconcileȱvirtueȱwithȱsex”ȱ(7). GeoffreyȱChaucer,ȱTheȱvvorksȱofȱourȱancientȱandȱlearnedȱEnglishȱpoet,ȱGeffreyȱChaucer,ȱnewlyȱimprinted .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.,ȱed.ȱThomasȱSpeghtȱ(London:ȱPrintedȱbyȱAdamȱIslip,ȱ1602),ȱSig.ȱB1r. Theȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱprivate,ȱpsychologicalȱworldȱofȱloveȱasȱaȱmeansȱforȱmedievalȱromance writersȱ toȱ exploreȱ newȱ notionsȱ ofȱ genderȱ andȱ individualityȱ hasȱ beenȱ wellȱ established.ȱ Forȱ a particularlyȱgoodȱaccountȱofȱtheȱphenomenonȱinȱFrance,ȱseeȱColinȱMorris,ȱTheȱDiscoveryȱofȱthe Individualȱ1050–1200ȱ(NewȱYork,ȱEvanston,ȱSanȱFrancisco,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarperȱ&ȱRow,ȱ1972), especiallyȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱChrétienȱdeȱTroyes,ȱ133–38.ȱȱ MauriceȱKeenȱnotesȱthatȱ“theȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱmembersȱofȱanȱorderȱofȱchivalry”ȱisȱ“ofȱthe sameȱclose,ȱfamilialȱtypeȱasȱthatȱbetweenȱbrothersȬinȬarms”ȱ(“BrotherhoodȱinȱArms,”ȱ58),ȱand LeachȱdiscussesȱtheȱlegacyȱofȱtheȱGermanicȱwarriorȱbandȱ(comitatus),ȱwhichȱincludesȱEnglishȱandȱ

522

RobertȱStretter

course,ȱ theȱ asymmetryȱ inȱ rankȱ betweenȱ Lancelotȱ andȱ Arthurȱ makesȱ their relationshipȱ significantlyȱ differentȱ thanȱ thatȱ betweenȱ Amisȱ andȱ Amilounȱ or Palamonȱ andȱ Arcite,ȱ butȱ allȱ ofȱ theseȱ menȱ operateȱ withinȱ aȱ chivalricȱ world ostensiblyȱorderedȱbyȱmasculineȱpriorities,ȱallȱinhabitȱaȱsocietyȱknitȱtogetherȱby maleȱ“trouthe.”ȱInȱtheȱintroductionȱtoȱ“TheȱKnightȱofȱtheȱCart”ȱepisodeȱinȱthe Morteȱ Darthur,ȱ Maloryȱ establishesȱ aȱ hierarchyȱ ofȱ obligationsȱ thatȱ shouldȱ be observedȱbyȱ“everyȱmanȱofȱworshyp”:ȱheȱsaysȱthatȱaȱknightȱisȱboundȱ“firsteȱunto God,ȱandȱnexteȱuntoȱtheȱjoyȱofȱthemȱthatȱheȱpromysedȱhysȱfeytheȱunto”(649).ȱBut whatȱhappensȱwhenȱoneȱhasȱengagedȱone’sȱfaithȱtoȱseveralȱindividualsȱandȱthe dutiesȱ toȱ thoseȱ individualsȱ comeȱ intoȱ conflict?ȱ Thisȱ isȱ preciselyȱ Lancelot’s dilemma.ȱLancelotȱisȱbothȱtheȱ“hedeȱofȱalȱCrystenȱknyghtes”ȱandȱtheȱ“trewest loverȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthatȱeverȱlovedȱwoman”ȱ(725),ȱaȱdualȱidentityȱthatȱSirȱEctorȱemphasizes inȱ hisȱ speechȱ afterȱ Lancelot’sȱ death.ȱ Lancelotȱ isȱ doublyȱ obligated,ȱ andȱ thisȱ is ultimatelyȱtheȱsourceȱofȱhisȱtragedy.ȱHeȱisȱhonorȬboundȱtoȱArthur,ȱbutȱheȱisȱalso honorȬboundȱtoȱGuinevere—asȱhisȱfellowȱknightsȱunderstand.ȱForȱinstance,ȱwhen GuinevereȱhasȱbanishedȱLancelotȱinȱ“TheȱPoisonedȱApple”ȱepisode,ȱSirȱBorsȱtells theȱqueenȱthatȱLancelotȱwillȱnotȱ“[fail]ȱyouȱinȱyoureȱryghtȱnotherȱinȱyoureȱwronge” (616)—aȱphraseȱwhich,ȱincidentally,ȱechoesȱmanyȱbrotherhoodȱoaths,ȱincludingȱthe oneȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun.ȱLikewise,ȱGawainȱknowsȱthatȱLancelotȱisȱobligatedȱtoȱtry toȱrescueȱGuinevereȱwhenȱsheȱisȱaccusedȱofȱadultery:ȱ“[T]oȱsayȱtheȱtrouthȱheȱwere natȱofȱworshypȱbutȱifȱheȱhadȱrescowedȱtheȱquene”ȱ(686).ȱ TheȱfactȱthatȱLancelotȱisȱableȱtoȱmaintainȱwhatȱseemsȱanȱinherentlyȱuntenable situationȱ forȱ asȱ longȱ asȱ heȱ doesȱ canȱ beȱ explainedȱ byȱ theȱ complexȱ natureȱ of medievalȱ“trouthe”ȱthatȱR.ȱF.ȱGreenȱexplores.ȱLancelotȱcanȱmaintainȱhisȱ“trouthe” toȱ Arthur—thatȱ is,ȱ heȱ canȱ remainȱ loyalȱ andȱ trustworthyȱ inȱ aȱ public capacity—whileȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱhidingȱtheȱtruthȱ(inȱtheȱmodernȱsenseȱofȱ“the facts”)ȱofȱhisȱprivateȱrelationshipȱwithȱGuinevere.ȱTheȱspecificallyȱpersonalȱsense ofȱ“trouthe”ȱalsoȱexplainsȱwhyȱAgravainȱandȱMordredȱareȱconsistentlyȱlabeled “traitors,”ȱevenȱthoughȱtheyȱareȱ“tellingȱtheȱtruth”ȱinȱaȱmodernȱsense.ȱMalory suggestsȱthat,ȱinȱspiteȱofȱArthur’sȱsuspicions,ȱhisȱ“demyng”ȱofȱtheȱaffairȱ(674), LancelotȱandȱGuinevere’sȱloveȱwouldȱhaveȱposedȱnoȱthreatȱtoȱtheȱRoundȱTable hadȱitȱnotȱbeenȱforȱtheȱmaliciousȱtruthȬtellingȱofȱMordredȱandȱAgravain.ȱTheir crimeȱconsistsȱofȱmakingȱtheȱprivateȱpublic. Whenȱ theȱ bordersȱ betweenȱ Camelot’sȱ privateȱ andȱ publicȱ worldsȱ collapse, Lancelotȱisȱforcedȱtoȱmakeȱaȱchoice—andȱheȱchoosesȱGuinevereȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱof theȱcommunityȱofȱtheȱRoundȱTable.ȱInȱshort,ȱheȱchoosesȱtheȱloveȱofȱaȱladyȱover comradeshipȬinȬarms,ȱ anȱ expressionȱ ofȱ prioritiesȱ thatȱ contrastsȱ sharplyȱ with Arthur’s.ȱInȱaȱparticularlyȱtellingȱpassage,ȱArthurȱdeclares:ȱ“AndȱmuchȱmoreȱIȱam

Frenchȱchivalricȱorders,ȱasȱanȱanalogueȱofȱswornȱbrotherhoodȱ(“Introduction,”ȱAmisȱandȱAmiloun, lxviii–lxx).

EngenderingȱObligation

523

soryarȱforȱmyȱgoodȱknyghtesȱlosseȱthanȱforȱtheȱlosseȱofȱmyȱfayreȱquene;ȱforȱquenys Iȱmyghtȱhaveȱinow,ȱbutȱsuchȱaȱfelyshipȱofȱgoodȱknyghtesȱshallȱneverȱbeȱtogydirs inȱnoȱcompanyȱ(685;ȱ“AndȱmuchȱmoreȱIȱamȱsorrierȱforȱmyȱgoodȱknights’ȱlossȱthan forȱ theȱ lossȱ ofȱ myȱ fairȱ queen;ȱ forȱ queensȱ Iȱ mightȱ haveȱ enough,ȱ butȱ suchȱ a fellowshipȱofȱgoodȱknightsȱshallȱneverȱbeȱtogetherȱinȱnoȱcompany,”ȱ173–74).44ȱHere Arthurȱshowsȱhimselfȱaȱspokespersonȱforȱtheȱmasculineȱethicȱofȱbrotherhoodȱthat placesȱ maleȱ fellowshipȱ andȱ dutyȱ aboveȱ allȱ else,ȱ asȱ inȱ Amisȱ andȱ Amiloun,ȱ Sir Amadace,ȱandȱAthelston,ȱwhereȱtheȱqueenȱknewȱthatȱtheȱkingȱwouldȱdoȱmoreȱfor aȱ swornȱ brotherȱ thanȱ forȱ her.ȱ Lancelot’sȱ attitudeȱ mightȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ beȱ more “Chaucerian”—inȱtheȱsenseȱthat,ȱlikeȱPalamonȱandȱArcite,ȱLancelotȱelevatesȱhis identityȱ asȱ “lover”ȱ aboveȱ hisȱ obligationsȱ asȱ aȱ “comradeȬinȬarms.”45ȱ Although MaloryȱpresentsȱtheȱdestructionȱofȱtheȱRoundȱTableȱasȱaȱtragedy,ȱitȱisȱsignificant thatȱheȱdoesȱnotȱuseȱthisȱasȱaȱcriticismȱofȱLancelotȱandȱGuinevere’sȱlove,ȱwhichȱin spiteȱofȱeverythingȱremainsȱaȱmodelȱofȱ“virtuousȱlove.”ȱIȱwouldȱsuggestȱthenȱthat theȱ loveȱ triangleȱ inȱ theȱ Morteȱ Darthurȱ shouldȱ beȱ seenȱ lessȱ asȱ anȱ instanceȱ of fracturedȱbrotherhoodȱthanȱasȱanȱelevationȱinȱtheȱstatusȱofȱcommitmentsȱbetween theȱsexes.ȱComparedȱtoȱtheȱwomenȱinȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱandȱAthelston,ȱGuinevere wieldsȱaȱformidableȱpowerȱwithinȱherȱnarrativeȱworld.ȱThisȱdoesȱnotȱmeanȱthatȱwe oughtȱtoȱconsiderȱMaloryȱaȱkindȱofȱprotoȬfeminist;ȱbut,ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtraditions ofȱsameȬsexȱobligations,ȱMalory’sȱcharacterizationȱofȱtheȱloveȱbetweenȱLancelot andȱ Guinevereȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ anȱ importantȱ wayȬstationȱ enȱ routeȱ toȱ the increasinglyȱintersubjectiveȱandȱcompanionateȱvisionsȱofȱgenderȱofȱtheȱsixteenth andȱseventeenthȱcenturies. Theȱ shiftingȱ fortunesȱ ofȱ brotherhoodȱ inȱ medievalȱ Englishȱ literatureȱ reflectȱ a complexȱinteractionȱbetweenȱtheȱhistoricalȱdecayȱofȱswornȱrelationshipsȱandȱthe literaryȱriseȱofȱcourtlyȱromance.ȱTheȱincreasingȱvalueȱattachedȱtoȱwomenȱinȱcourtly literature,ȱhoweverȱincommensurateȱthisȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱwithȱactualȱchangesȱinȱthe socialȱstatusȱofȱmedievalȱwomen,ȱnecessarilyȱcomplicatesȱand,ȱinȱmanyȱinstances, displacesȱ theȱ longȬstandingȱ idealȱ ofȱ sameȬsexȱ friendshipȱ thatȱ givesȱ sworn brotherhoodȱitsȱideologicalȱpower.ȱAmisȱandȱAmilounȱandȱSirȱAmadace,ȱthough romancesȱwithȱstrongȱcourtlyȱelements,ȱareȱthoroughlyȱinvestedȱinȱtheȱpatriarchal hierarchiesȱofȱtheȱfolkȱtraditionsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱoriginate,ȱdeeplyȱmasculineȱworlds thatȱstructureȱthemselvesȱaroundȱtheȱvaluesȱofȱtheirȱmaleȱprotagonists.ȱWhenȱthe folktaleȱ worldȱ ofȱ swornȱ brotherhoodȱ collidesȱ withȱ theȱ romanceȱ worldȱ of

44

45

TheȱmodernizedȱquotationȱisȱfromȱKingȱArthurȱandȱHisȱKnights:ȱSelectedȱTalesȱbyȱSirȱThomasȱMalory, ed.ȱEugèneȱVinaver.ȱAȱGalaxyȱBook,ȱ434ȱ(London,ȱOxford,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ1975). MaloryȱisȱofȱcourseȱdrawingȱfromȱaȱlargeȱbodyȱofȱprimarilyȱFrenchȱsourceȱmaterial,ȱbutȱheȱcrafts MorteȱDarthurȱinȱaȱwayȱthatȱthrowsȱtheȱgenderedȱnatureȱofȱLancelot’sȱdilemmaȱintoȱparticularly sharpȱrelief,ȱmadeȱallȱtheȱsharperȱbyȱtheȱtreatmentȱofȱlove,ȱgender,ȱandȱobligationȱinȱhisȱnative Englishȱliteraryȱtradition.

524

RobertȱStretter

courtliness,ȱ asȱ inȱ Chaucerȱ orȱ inȱ Arthurianȱ romance,ȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ everlasting fellowshipȱbetweenȱoathȬboundȱmenȱrarelyȱfindsȱitselfȱaȱmatchȱforȱtheȱprinciple ofȱloveȱenforcedȱbyȱCupid,ȱaȱtyrannicalȱfigure,ȱinȱtheȱwordsȱofȱChaucer’sȱTheseus, “outȱofȱalleȱchariteeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ/ȱ[T]hatȱwoltȱnoȱfelaweȱhaveȱwithȱthee!”ȱ(withoutȱany charityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ/ȱȱWhoȱwillȱhaveȱnoȱequalȱpartnerȱwithȱthee!).46

46

Chaucer,ȱTheȱKnight’sȱTale,ȱIȱ1623–24.

Chapterȱ13 SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland (UniversityȱofȱMaryland,ȱCollegeȱPark)

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart:ȱFemaleȱHomosocial BondingȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale

PrincessȱCanacee’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱaȱfemaleȱfalcon1ȱinȱtheȱfragmentaryȱSquire’sȱTale providesȱaȱrareȱportrayalȱofȱfemaleȱhomosocialȱbonding.2ȱTheȱformelȱhasȱbeen deceivedȱ byȱ aȱ faithlessȱ terceletȱ whoȱ leftȱ herȱ forȱ aȱ “newfangeled”ȱ loveȱ (610). Althoughȱtheȱformelȱhasȱtheȱplumageȱofȱtheȱbird,ȱsheȱfeelsȱaȱwoman’sȱpain.ȱAs LesleyȱKordeckiȱwrites:ȱ“Weȱdoȱnotȱseriouslyȱentertainȱthisȱstoryȱasȱoneȱofȱbirds.”3 Iȱexamineȱthisȱfantasticȱfriendshipȱbyȱconsideringȱwhyȱtheȱbondȱwasȱestablished andȱwhyȱitȱmatters.ȱChaucerȱshowsȱaȱdeepȱsympathyȱforȱwomenȱbetrayedȱbyȱmale infidelityȱ andȱ aȱ profoundȱ appreciationȱ ofȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ femaleȱ friendshipȱ asȱ a defensiveȱstrategy.4ȱWhileȱsomeȱscholarsȱhaveȱdismissedȱCanaceeȱasȱ“passive”5 andȱevenȱ“disappointing,”6ȱIȱargueȱthatȱCanaceeȱexpressesȱconsiderableȱagencyȱin

1

2

3

4

5 6

AccordingȱtoȱtheȱOEDȱdefinitionȱofȱ“falcon,”ȱtheȱmaleȱisȱcalledȱaȱtercelȱandȱisȱlessȱadaptedȱtoȱthe chaseȱthanȱtheȱfemale.ȱInȱmostȱofȱtheȱscholarshipȱonȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale,ȱtheȱfemaleȱfalconȱwhom Canaceeȱbefriendsȱisȱcalledȱ“aȱformel,”ȱwhichȱtheȱOEDȱdefinesȱasȱaȱfemaleȱofȱtheȱeagleȱorȱhawk species. ForȱaȱusefulȱrecentȱcollectionȱofȱessaysȱonȱwomenȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,ȱseeȱMaryȱC.ȱErlerȱand MaryanneȱKowaleski,ȱGenderingȱtheȱMasterȱNarrative:ȱWomenȱandȱPowerȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Ithaca NY:ȱCornell,ȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003).ȱErlerȱandȱKowaleskiȱalsoȱeditedȱaȱpriorȱcollection,ȱWomen andȱPowerȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAgesȱ(Athens,ȱGA:ȱUniversityȱofȱGeorgiaȱPress,ȱ1988). LesleyȱCatherineȱKordecki,ȱ“Chaucer’sȱSquire’sȱTale:ȱAnimalȱDiscourse,ȱWomen,ȱandȱSubjectivity,” TheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ36.3ȱ(2002):ȱ277–97;ȱhereȱ289. ChristineȱdeȱPizanȱadvocatesȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱdefensiveȱstrategyȱforȱwomenȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱtheȱCity ofȱLadiesȱ(1405);ȱhereȱwomenȱseekȱeachȱother’sȱcompanyȱasȱaȱrefugeȱagainstȱtheȱvariousȱattacksȱon theirȱvirtueȱandȱhonorȱtoȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱsubject.ȱSeeȱalsoȱtheȱIntroductionȱtoȱthisȱvolume. Kordecki,ȱ“AnimalȱDiscourse,”ȱ291. KathrynȱL.ȱLynch,ȱ“EastȱMeetsȱWestȱinȱChaucer’sȱSquire’sȱandȱFranklin’sȱTales,”ȱSpeculumȱ70.3 (1995ȱJuly):ȱ530–51;ȱhereȱ542.

526

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

herȱresponseȱtoȱtheȱformel’sȱtragicȱtaleȱofȱtreachery.ȱInȱbroaderȱterms,ȱtheȱbond betweenȱ Canaceeȱ andȱ theȱ birdȱ suggestsȱ anȱ idealȱ ifȱ notȱ utopianȱ world,ȱ where communicationȱisȱpossibleȱacrossȱbordersȱofȱspecies,ȱnationality,ȱandȱstatus. Fromȱstartȱtoȱfinish,ȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱbristlesȱwithȱtheȱdangersȱofȱtreacheryȱand betrayal.ȱInȱtheȱfirstȱPartȱofȱtheȱtale,ȱaȱforeignȱknightȱcomesȱtoȱtheȱMongolȱcourt whileȱtheȱkingȱisȱcelebratingȱhisȱbirthday.ȱTheȱknightȱbringsȱwithȱhimȱmagicalȱgifts fromȱ theȱ kingȱ ofȱ Indiaȱ andȱ Arabia:ȱ aȱ flyingȱ horseȱ thatȱ allowsȱ instantaneous transport,ȱaȱswordȱthatȱsimultaneouslyȱgivesȱdeadlyȱwoundsȱandȱhealsȱwithȱa touch,ȱaȱmirrorȱthatȱallowsȱtheȱgazerȱtoȱperceiveȱfalsehood,ȱandȱaȱmagicȱringȱthat enablesȱtheȱbearerȱtoȱtalkȱwithȱbirds.ȱTheȱmirrorȱisȱanȱespeciallyȱappropriateȱgift sinceȱtheȱMongolȱcourtȱisȱaȱsiteȱofȱpoliticalȱandȱamatoryȱtreacheryȱ(283–87).ȱThe mirrorȱandȱtheȱringȱareȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱMongolȱking’sȱdaughter,ȱPrincessȱCanacee, whoȱisȱatȱanȱageȱwhenȱsheȱisȱvulnerableȱtoȱmaleȱperfidyȱ(139–40). Onȱtheȱdayȱafterȱtheȱcelebration,ȱPrincessȱCanaceeȱcomesȱuponȱaȱhorrifyingȱsight whileȱtakingȱherȱmorningȱwalk.ȱCanaceeȱencountersȱaȱformelȱinȱaȱwitheredȱtree, cryingȱ inȱ aȱ piteousȱ voice,ȱ herȱ bodyȱ coveredȱ inȱ blood.ȱ Theȱ beautifulȱ birdȱ has stabbedȱherselfȱwithȱherȱbeak.ȱItȱisȱaȱsightȱsoȱdistressingȱthatȱitȱwouldȱmakeȱaȱtiger weep: Therȱnysȱtygre,ȱneȱnoonȱsoȱcrueelȱbeest Thatȱdwellethȱoutherȱinȱwodeȱorȱinȱforest, Thatȱnoldeȱhanȱwept,ȱifȱheȱthatȱheȱwepeȱkoude, Forȱsorweȱofȱhire,ȱsheȱshrighteȱalweyȱsoȱloude.7 [Thereȱisȱnoȱtiger,ȱno,ȱnorȱcruelȱbeast Thatȱdwellsȱinȱwoodȱorȱforest,ȱwestȱorȱeast, Butȱwouldȱhaveȱweptȱifȱweepȱindeedȱitȱcould Inȱpityȱofȱher,ȱshriekingȱasȱsheȱstood.]ȱ

(419–22)8

Theȱformel,ȱrespondingȱtoȱCanacee’sȱquestionȱwhetherȱitȱweepsȱfromȱsorrowȱof deathȱ orȱ lossȱ ofȱ loveȱ (450–53),ȱ tellsȱ aȱ storyȱ ofȱ seduction.ȱ Sheȱ wasȱ luredȱ byȱ a seeminglyȱdevotedȱterceletȱ(aȱmaleȱhawk)ȱintoȱsurrenderingȱherȱbodyȱandȱher heart. Alȱwereȱheȱfulȱofȱtresounȱandȱfalsenesse; Itȱwasȱsoȱwrappedȱunderȱhumbleȱcheere, Andȱunderȱheweȱofȱtroutheȱinȱswichȱmanere Underȱpleasance,ȱandȱunderȱbisyȱpeyne, ThatȱIȱneȱkoudeȱhanȱwendȱheȱkoudeȱfeyneȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.

7

8

AllȱcitationsȱtoȱTheȱCanterburyȱTalesȱandȱTroilusȱandȱCriseydeȱreferȱtoȱTheȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱ3rdȱed., ed.ȱLarryȱD.ȱBensonȱ(Boston:ȱHoughtonȱMifflinȱCompany,ȱ1987). Translationsȱ comeȱ fromȱ Nevillȱ Coghill’sȱ modernȱ translationsȱ ofȱ Theȱ Canterburyȱ Tales (Harmondsworth:ȱPenguin,ȱ1997).

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart [Yetȱheȱwasȱfilledȱwithȱtreachery,ȱexceedingȱ Inȱallȱthat’sȱfalse. Heȱworeȱtheȱhumbleȱcloak Andȱcolourȱofȱtrueȱfaithȱinȱallȱheȱspoke, Anȱeagernessȱtoȱpleaseȱmeȱandȱtoȱserve. Whoȱcouldȱthinkȱsuchȱaȱhawkȱhadȱpowerȱtoȱswerve?]ȱ

527

(506–10)

However,ȱ theȱ faithlessȱ terceletȱ leftȱ herȱ forȱ aȱ kite,ȱ aȱ “newfangled”ȱ loveȱ (610). Canaceeȱ immediatelyȱ tendsȱ toȱ theȱ swooningȱ formel’sȱ wounds,ȱ administering medicinalȱherbsȱandȱconstructingȱanȱinfirmaryȱ“mewe.”9ȱTheȱtaleȱendsȱwithȱthe suggestionȱthatȱCanacee’sȱbrotherȱCambaloȱachievesȱaȱreconciliationȱofȱtheȱformel andȱ theȱ terceletȱ (654–56).ȱ Howeverȱ thereȱ isȱ alsoȱ anȱ ambiguousȱ andȱ terrible suggestionȱ ofȱ incest:ȱ thatȱ aȱ manȱ namedȱ Cambaloȱ “faughtȱ inȱ lystesȱ withȱ the brethrenȱtwoȱ/ȱForȱCanaceeȱerȱthatȱheȱmyghteȱhireȱwynne”ȱ(668–69).ȱ KarmaȱLochrieȱwritesȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱ“MiddleȱAgesȱisȱpositivelyȱverboseȱonȱthe topicsȱofȱmaleȱfriendshipȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱitȱwasȱrelativelyȱsilentȱaboutȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱand love.”10ȱThisȱneglectȱofȱexchangeȱamongȱfemalesȱmightȱreflectȱmisogynisticȱerasure ofȱtheȱagencyȱofȱwomen,ȱbutȱthereȱareȱadditionalȱexplanations:ȱanxietyȱaboutȱthe potentialȱthatȱfemaleȬfemaleȱrelationsȱmightȱtrespassȱonȱtaboo,ȱeroticȱsubjects,ȱand evenȱpotentiallyȱleadȱtoȱprotoȬlesbianȱrelations.11ȱThereȱwasȱaȱtraditionȱamong classicalȱ writersȱ thatȱ womenȱ cannotȱ beȱ trueȱ friends.12ȱ Joanneȱ Findonȱ explores femaleȱhomosocialityȱinȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱromanceȱYwainȱandȱGawain,ȱan instanceȱwhereȱanȱaristocraticȱwomanȱformsȱaȱbondȱwithȱherȱservant,ȱaȱfriendship thatȱarisesȱinȱspiteȱof,ȱorȱperhapsȱbecauseȱof,ȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱtheirȱsocialȱstatus.13 Betweenȱmasterȱandȱservantȱthereȱisȱnoȱcompetition;ȱthusȱtheȱinequalityȱremoves aȱsourceȱofȱtensionȱthatȱvexedȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtwoȱfeudingȱsistersȱwho competedȱwithȱeachȱotherȱinȱtheȱromance.14 Ifȱtheȱrarityȱofȱportrayalsȱofȱfemaleȱbondingȱreflectsȱtheȱanxietyȱofȱmedievalȱman aboutȱtheȱdangersȱofȱfemaleȱfriendship,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱisȱthe

9 10

11 12

13

14

TheȱOEDȱdefinesȱ“mew”ȱasȱaȱplaceȱofȱconfinement,ȱsuchȱasȱaȱcoop,ȱcageȱorȱprison. KarmaȱLochrie,ȱ“BetweenȱWomen,”ȱTheȱCambridgeȱCompanionȱtoȱMedievalȱWomen’sȱWriting,ȱed. Carolynȱ Dinshawȱ andȱ Davidȱ Wallaceȱ (Cambridge,ȱ U.K.:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 2003), 70–90;ȱhereȱ70. Ibid.,ȱ73,ȱ78–80. InȱCicero’sȱDeȱAmicitiaȱ(Bookȱxiii),ȱwomenȱareȱweakȱandȱinȱneedȱofȱprotectionȱbutȱtheyȱareȱnot consideredȱcapableȱofȱtheȱelevatedȱexchangeȱthatȱexemplifiesȱtheȱidealȱfriendshipȱfoundȱbetween men.ȱUllrichȱLangerȱsuggestsȱthatȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱisȱrarelyȱportrayedȱinȱclassicalȱsourcesȱgiven thatȱfriendshipȱoftenȱhasȱaȱmartialȱcharacter.ȱFriendshipȱisȱalsoȱassociatedȱwithȱphilosophical discourseȱandȱreflectsȱvirtueȱdevelopedȱthroughȱcivicȱduties.ȱPerfectȱFriendship:ȱStudiesȱinȱLiterature andȱMoralȱPhilosophyȱfromȱBoccaccioȱtoȱCorneilleȱ(Geneva:ȱDroz,ȱ1994);ȱhere,ȱ115.ȱ JoanneȱFindon,ȱ“TheȱOtherȱStory:ȱFemaleȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱEnglishȱYwainȱandȱGawain,” Parergonȱ22.1ȱ(2005):ȱ71–94;ȱhereȱ77–78. Id.,ȱ94.

528

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

exceptionȱthatȱsavesȱtheȱrule.ȱAssumingȱthatȱfemaleȱfriendshipȱisȱmoreȱacceptable orȱatȱleastȱmoreȱcommonȱwhenȱthereȱisȱaȱgapȱinȱstatus,ȱtheȱdifferenceȱinȱspecies betweenȱPrincessȱCanaceeȱandȱtheȱformelȱprovidesȱaȱsuitableȱspaceȱforȱfriendship toȱform.ȱTheȱfalconȱwasȱaȱspeciesȱassociatedȱwithȱroyalty.ȱAsȱaȱbirdȱofȱnobleȱrank andȱ withȱ beautifulȱ “plumage”ȱ andȱ “gentillesse”ȱ (426),ȱ theȱ formelȱ isȱ aȱ suitable companionȱforȱaȱprincess.ȱFalconryȱwasȱaȱsociallyȬapprovedȱpastimeȱforȱwomen ofȱ nobleȱ classȱ inȱ contrastȱ toȱ otherȱ formsȱ ofȱ huntingȱ thatȱ requireȱ weapons.15 Moreover,ȱtheȱnursingȱcareȱthatȱCanaceeȱprovidesȱtoȱtheȱformelȱrepresentsȱthe prototypical,ȱunthreateningȱfemaleȱrole;ȱthereȱisȱnoȱsuggestionȱofȱindecencyȱinȱthe relationship.

FemaleȱFriendship:ȱWhyȱItȱMatters TheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱshouldȱdispelȱanyȱmisconceptionȱthatȱfemaleȱbondingȱisȱofȱlittle consequenceȱtoȱChaucer.ȱTheȱformelȱwarnsȱCanaceeȱaboutȱtheȱdangerousȱtrapȱof maleȱdeceit;ȱinȱeffect,ȱtheȱformelȱrepresentsȱanȱexperiencedȱwomanȱwarningȱthe youngȱCanaceeȱtoȱbewareȱofȱmen.ȱ(Itȱisȱcertainȱthatȱtheȱterceletȱsymbolizesȱthe perfidiousȱmaleȱsinceȱtheȱfalconȱlapsesȱintoȱdescribingȱhimȱasȱaȱ“man”)ȱ(609–10). Afterȱ twoȱ yearsȱ ofȱ bliss,ȱ theȱ terceletȱ betrayedȱ theȱ formel’sȱ love,ȱ fleeingȱ the confinementȱofȱaȱmonogamousȱrelationshipȱtoȱpursueȱaȱkite: Menȱlovenȱofȱpropreȱkyndeȱnewfangelnesse Asȱbriddesȱdoonȱthatȱmenȱinȱcagesȱfede. [ManȱbyȱhisȱnatureȱseeksȱnewȬfangledness, Asȱdoȱthoseȱbirdsȱthatȱpeopleȱkeepȱinȱcages.]ȱ

(610–11)

Howeverȱfairȱandȱsilkyȱisȱhisȱcage,ȱtheȱmaleȱbird,ȱlikeȱotherȱhumanȱlovers,ȱseizes theȱopportunityȱtoȱfleeȱasȱsoonȱasȱtheȱopportunityȱpresentsȱitself.16

15

16

MedievalȱtapestriesȱinȱtheȱcollectionsȱofȱtheȱMetropolitanȱMuseumȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱMuséeȱdeȱCluny showȱaristocraticȱwomenȱwithȱtheirȱfalcons.ȱWilliamȱH.ȱForsyth,ȱ“TheȱNoblestȱofȱSports:ȱFalconry inȱtheȱMiddleȱAges,”ȱMetropolitanȱMuseumȱofȱArtȱBulletin,ȱNewȱSeriesȱ2.9ȱ(1944ȱMay):ȱ253–59;ȱhere 257–58. InȱaȱtwelfthȬcenturyȱpoemȱbyȱtheȱMiddleȱHighȱGermanȱpoetȱDerȱVonȱKürenberg,ȱaȱwomanȱnurses aȱmaleȱfalconȱandȱtriesȱtoȱsecureȱhimȱwithȱgoldenȱfetters.ȱUnwillingȱtoȱbeȱconfined,ȱtheȱfalconȱflies awayȱtoȱanotherȱland.ȱTheȱpoemȱendsȱwithȱtheȱpleaȱthatȱGodȱbringȱtogetherȱthoseȱwhoȱloveȱeach otherȱ (“Gotȱ sendeȱ sîȱ zesameneȱ dieȱ geliepȱ gerneȱ wellenȱ sîn!”),ȱ II,ȱ II,ȱ stanzaȱ 7,ȱ 4ȱ (L.ȱ 9,ȱ 8),ȱ Des MinnesangsȱFrühling.ȱUnterȱBenutzungȱderȱAusgabenȱvonȱKarlȱLachmannȱundȱMorizȱHaupt,ȱ FriedrichȱVogtȱundȱCarlȱvonȱKrausȱbearbeitetȱvonȱHugoȱMoserȱundȱHelmutȱTervooren.ȱVol.ȱI: Texte.ȱ38th,ȱagainȱrev.ȱed.ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱS.ȱHirzel,ȱ1988).

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

529

Forȱthoughȱthouȱnyghtȱandȱdayȱtakeȱofȱhemȱhede, Andȱstrawȱhirȱcageȱfaireȱandȱsofteȱasȱsilke, Andȱyeveȱhemȱsugre,ȱhony,ȱbreedȱandȱmilk, Yetȱrightȱanonȱasȱthatȱhisȱdoorȱisȱuppe Heȱwithȱhisȱfeetȱwolȱspurneȱadounȱhisȱcuppe Andȱtoȱtheȱwodeȱheȱwoleȱandȱwormesȱete; Soȱnewefangelȱbeenȱtheyȱofȱhireȱmete, Andȱlovenȱnovelriesȱofȱproperȱkynde, Noȱgentillesseȱofȱbloodȱneȱmayȱhemȱbynde.ȱ [OneȱcaresȱforȱthemȱdayȬlongȱandȱoneȱengages Toȱgetȱthemȱstrawȱasȱfairȱandȱsoftȱasȱsilk Andȱgiftsȱofȱsugar,ȱhoney,ȱbreadȱandȱmilk, Yetȱonȱtheȱinstantȱthatȱtheȱslideȱisȱup, Theȱfootȱwillȱspurnȱawayȱtheȱprofferedȱcup Andȱtoȱtheȱwoodsȱtheyȱflyȱforȱwormsȱtoȱeat, SuchȱisȱtheirȱlongingȱforȱnewȬfangledȱmeat. Theȱloveȱforȱnoveltyȱtheirȱnaturesȱgaveȱthem; Noȱroyaltyȱofȱbloodȱhasȱpowerȱtoȱsaveȱthem.]ȱ

(612–20)

Evenȱasȱtheȱformelȱbleeds,ȱourȱheartsȱareȱmeantȱtoȱ“bleed”ȱinȱsympatheticȱresponse toȱ theȱtercelet’sȱbetrayalȱofȱhisȱmate.ȱForȱSusanȱCrane,ȱtheȱfalcon’sȱpitifulȱselfȬ woundingȱ signifiesȱ “aȱ profoundȱ helplessnessȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ events”;ȱ because “externallyȱdirectedȱactionȱisȱimpossible,”ȱsheȱturnsȱtoȱselfȬdestructiveȱviolence.17 Surelyȱtheȱfalcon’sȱselfȬwoundingȱwouldȱhaveȱresonatedȱwithȱChaucer’sȱreaders whoȱwereȱfamiliarȱwithȱtheȱpelicanȱasȱaȱChristianȱsymbolȱandȱwithȱtheȱPhilomela myth.ȱTheȱpelicanȱthatȱdrawsȱbloodȱfromȱherȱbreastȱtoȱnourishȱherȱyoungȱrecalls theȱ sacrificeȱ ofȱ Jesusȱ atȱ theȱ crucifixion.18ȱ Berylȱ Rowlandȱ quotesȱ aȱ hymnȱ byȱ St. ThomasȱAquinasȱ(translatedȱbyȱRichardȱCrashaw),ȱinȱwhichȱChristȱisȱaddressed asȱtheȱpelican: OhȱsoftȱselfȬwoundingȱpelican, Whoseȱbreastȱweepsȱbalmȱforȱwoundedȱman! Ah,ȱthisȱwayȱbendȱthyȱbenignȱflood Toȱaȱbleedingȱheartȱthatȱgaspsȱforȱblood.19

Dante’sȱBeatriceȱrefersȱtoȱChristȱasȱ“ilȱnostroȱPelicano”ȱinȱcantoȱ25ȱofȱIlȱParadiso. Usingȱ slightlyȱ differentȱ imagery,ȱ Ovidȱ comparesȱ Philomelaȱ afterȱ sheȱ hasȱ been

17

18 19

SusanȱCrane,ȱGenderȱandȱRomanceȱinȱChaucer’sȱCanterburyȱTalesȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversity Press,ȱ1994),ȱ76–77. GeorgeȱFerguson,ȱSignsȱandȱSymbolsȱinȱChristianȱArtȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1961),ȱ23.ȱ Berylȱ Rowland,ȱ Birdsȱ withȱ Humanȱ Souls:ȱ Aȱ Guideȱ toȱ Birdȱ Symbolismȱ (Knoxville:ȱ Universityȱ of TennesseeȱPress,ȱ1978),ȱ131.

530

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

rapedȱtoȱaȱdoveȱwhoseȱbreastȱhasȱbeenȱbloodiedȱbyȱtheȱclawsȱofȱtheȱpredatory eagleȱ(Metamorphosesȱvv.VI.528–290).20 Theȱformelȱisȱoneȱofȱaȱlongȱlineȱofȱwomenȱwhoȱareȱtheȱvictimsȱofȱmaleȱabuseȱin theȱ Canterburyȱ Tales.ȱ Jillȱ Mannȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ similarityȱ betweenȱ “Suffering Womanȱ/ȱSufferingȱGod,”ȱdiscussingȱasȱherȱprincipalȱexampleȱGriseldaȱwhoȱis triedȱbeyondȱallȱreasonableȱlimitsȱbyȱherȱhusbandȱinȱtheȱClerk’sȱTale.21ȱMannȱwrites, “Humanȱsufferingȱandȱdivineȱpatienceȱareȱunitedȱinȱoneȱperson,ȱasȱChristȱunited manhoodȱandȱtheȱGodhead.ȱAndȱitȱisȱ[Griselda’s]ȱ‘wommanede’ȱthatȱisȱtheȱground ofȱ theȱ union.”22ȱ Mann’sȱ commentȱ thatȱ “[p]atience,ȱ likeȱ pity,ȱ isȱ aȱ womanly quality,”23ȱisȱspotȬonȱasȱaȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱfemalesȱinȱSquire’sȱTale:ȱCanaceeȱisȱthe epitomeȱ ofȱ pityȱ andȱ theȱ formelȱ isȱ theȱ embodimentȱ ofȱ patienceȱ inȱ itsȱ original etymologicalȱsense,ȱtheȱactȱofȱenduringȱsuffering.ȱCharlesȱOwen,ȱJr.ȱsuggestsȱthat throughȱ theȱ processȱ ofȱ complainingȱ theȱ formelȱ “experiencesȱ anȱ emotional purgationȱthroughȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱherȱsuffering,ȱemergingȱsomewhatȱpurified becauseȱsheȱhasȱindulgedȱinȱherȱbitterness.”24ȱTheȱtext,ȱhowever,ȱgivesȱfewȱclues toȱsupportȱtheȱconclusionȱthatȱtheȱformelȱhasȱsoothedȱherȱanger;ȱratherȱherȱinjuries areȱpalliatedȱbyȱCanacee’sȱphysicalȱaidȱandȱemotionalȱsupport. Forȱsomeȱscholars,ȱCanacee’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱimprobableȱtalkingȱbirdȱseems pointlessȱorȱlackingȱinȱseriousȱpurpose.ȱCharlesȱMuscatineȱwasȱdisparagingȱabout theȱtaleȱandȱcriticizedȱ“theȱclumsiness”ȱwithȱwhichȱChaucerȱhandledȱaȱreturnȱto theȱmagicalȱrealmȱandȱpriorȱtreatmentsȱofȱinfidelityȱsuchȱasȱDido’sȱcomplaintȱin theȱLegendsȱofȱGoodȱWomenȱandȱAnelia’sȱcomplaintȱinȱtheȱHouseȱofȱFame.25ȱE.ȱTalbot DonaldsonȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱOrientalismȱofȱtheȱtale,ȱwhileȱcharming,ȱwouldȱnot haveȱengagedȱtheȱpoetȱinȱhisȱmatureȱyears.26ȱDerekȱBrewerȱpraisedȱtheȱopeningȱof theȱtaleȱbutȱfoundȱtheȱencounterȱbetweenȱtheȱPrincessȱandȱtheȱformelȱasȱ“paleȱand thin.”ȱ 27ȱ Moreȱ recentlyȱ Kathrynȱ Lynchȱ comparesȱ Canaceeȱ unfavorablyȱ toȱ “the headstrong,ȱresourceful,ȱandȱlibidinous”ȱShahrazadȱwhoȱfamouslyȱstayedȱaliveȱby

20 21

22 23 24

25

26

27

Ovid,ȱMetamorphoses,ȱtrans.ȱA.D.ȱMelvilleȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1986). JillȱMann,ȱFeminizingȱChaucer,ȱChaucerȱStudiesȱ30ȱ(Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk,ȱU.K.;ȱRochester,ȱNY:ȱD.S. Brewer,ȱ2002),ȱ100–28. Mann,ȱFeminizingȱChaucer,ȱ125. Ibid. CharlesȱA.ȱOwen,ȱJr.,ȱ“TheȱFalcon’sȱComplaintȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale,”ȱRebelsȱandȱRivals:ȱTheȱContestive SpiritȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTales,ȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱCulture,ȱed.ȱSusannaȱGreerȱFein,ȱDavidȱRaybin, andȱPeterȱBraegerȱ(Kalamazoo:ȱWesternȱMichiganȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ173–88;ȱhereȱ185. CharlesȱMuscatine,ȱPoetryȱandȱCrisisȱinȱtheȱAgeȱofȱChaucerȱ(Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress, 1972),ȱ127–28. E.ȱT.ȱDonaldson,ȱChaucer’sȱPoetry:ȱAnȱAnthologyȱforȱtheȱModernȱReader,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱRonald, 1975),ȱ1086.ȱNevillȱCoghillȱsimilarlyȱassociatesȱtheȱtaleȱwithȱyouthfulȱvisionȱinȱhisȱTheȱPoetȱChaucer, 2ndȱed.ȱ(London:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1967),ȱ124. DerekȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱChaucer,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(1953;ȱLondon:ȱLongman,ȱ1962),ȱ168.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

531

regalingȱtheȱrulerȱwithȱenchantingȱtalesȱinȱtheȱArabianȱNights.28ȱLynchȱcharacterizes Canaceeȱasȱ“disappointingȱinȱcomparisonȱwithȱtheȱwomenȱofȱEasternȱlegend.”29 Granted,ȱ Shahrazadȱ isȱ amazingȱ inȱ herȱ courageȱ andȱ inventiveness;ȱ inȱ keeping herselfȱaliveȱthroughȱcaptivatingȱtalesȱsheȱperformsȱtheȱultimateȱbedȱtrick.ȱButȱI amȱunableȱtoȱagreeȱwithȱLynchȱthatȱCanaceeȱisȱ“disappointing.”ȱChaucerȱtellsȱan entirelyȱdifferentȱtaleȱwithȱanȱentirelyȱdifferentȱpurpose.ȱAgainstȱtheȱthreatȱofȱmale perfidy,ȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱsuggests,ȱwomenȱhaveȱavailableȱaȱdefensiveȱstrategy: becomingȱ forewarnedȱ andȱ thusȱ forearmedȱ aboutȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ treachery. Friendshipsȱbetweenȱwomenȱprovideȱprotectionȱinȱaȱdangerousȱworld. Chaucerȱalsoȱdisplaysȱfemaleȱbondingȱasȱanȱantidoteȱtoȱtheȱpoisonȱofȱbetrayal inȱtheȱManȱofȱLaw’sȱTale.ȱHere,ȱQueenȱConstanceȱformsȱaȱdeepȱfriendshipȱwithȱthe constable’sȱ daughterȱ Hermengyldȱ whenȱ Constanceȱ arrivesȱ inȱ Northumbria, escapingȱfromȱtheȱvengeanceȱofȱherȱhusband’sȱmother.ȱTheȱfriendshipȱflourishes despiteȱ aȱ disparityȱ inȱ status,ȱ nationality,ȱ andȱ initiallyȱ inȱ religion.ȱ Hermengyld “takesȱaȱlikingȱtoȱConstanceȱinȱspiteȱofȱherȱreligionȱnotȱbecauseȱofȱit”:30 TheȱconstableȱandȱdameȱHermengyldȱhisȱwyf Wereȱpayens,ȱandȱthatȱcontreeȱeverywhere ButȱHermengyldȱlovedȱ[Constance]ȱrightȱasȱherȱlyf.ȱ [ThisȱConstableȱandȱHermengildȱhisȱwife Wereȱpagansȱlikeȱtheirȱneighboursȱeverywhere; Hermengildȱcameȱtoȱloveȱherȱasȱherȱlife.]ȱ (II.533–35)

AsȱwithȱCanaceeȱandȱtheȱ“fremde”ȱfalcon,ȱforeignnessȱandȱotherȱdifferencesȱdoȱnot precludeȱfriendship;ȱdifferenceȱallowsȱclosenessȱtoȱflourish.ȱUnderȱConstance’s influence,ȱHermengyldȱconvertsȱtoȱChristianity.ȱTheȱtwoȱwomenȱbecomeȱsoȱclose asȱtoȱspendȱtheȱnightȱtogetherȱinȱbedȱinȱprayer.31ȱTheirȱfriendshipȱisȱsundered whenȱaȱknightȱwhoseȱamatoryȱadvancesȱConstanceȱhasȱrejectedȱkillsȱHermengyld andȱ thenȱ falselyȱ accusesȱ Constanceȱ ofȱ murder.ȱ Knowingȱ ofȱ theȱ loveȱ between HermengyldȱandȱConstance,ȱbothȱtheȱconstableȱandȱtheȱpopulaceȱareȱskeptical aboutȱ theȱ knight’sȱ charge.ȱ Hermengyld’sȱ posthumousȱ friendshipȱ continuesȱ to protectȱ Constanceȱ whenȱ sheȱ standsȱ aloneȱ accusedȱ ofȱ murderȱ andȱ hasȱ “no

28 29 30

31

Lynch,ȱ“EastȱMeetsȱWest,”ȱ542. Id.,ȱ541. SusanȱSchibanoff,ȱ“WorldsȱApart:ȱOrientalism,ȱAntifeminism,ȱandȱHeresyȱinȱChaucer’sȱManȱof Law’sȱ Tale,”ȱ Chaucer’sȱ Culturalȱ Geography,ȱ ed.ȱ Kathrynȱ L.ȱ Lynchȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ andȱ London: Routledge,ȱ2002),ȱ248–80;ȱhereȱ262. FindonȱcommentsȱthatȱtheȱfriendshipȱwasȱnonȬsexualȱandȱnotesȱprecedentȱforȱwomenȱsharingȱa bedȱinȱaȱnonȬsexualȱway.ȱ“TheȱOtherȱStory,”ȱ78,ȱnoteȱ25.

532

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

champioun”ȱ(631).ȱAsȱsoonȱasȱtheȱknightȱisȱcalledȱuponȱtoȱswearȱonȱholyȱbooks thatȱheȱisȱtellingȱtheȱtruthȱheȱfallsȱdead,ȱgivingȱtheȱlieȱtoȱhisȱtestimony.32 Itȱisȱinstructiveȱtoȱcompareȱtheseȱtwoȱinstancesȱofȱfemaleȱbondingȱwithȱtheȱfar moreȱfragileȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmenȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱKnight’sȱTale,ȱwhereȱArcite andȱPalamon,ȱswornȱbloodȱbrothers,ȱbecomeȱbitterȱenemiesȱwhenȱtheyȱfallȱinȱlove withȱtheȱsameȱwoman.ȱAsȱRobertȱStretterȱcomments,ȱ“theȱdisintegrationȱofȱsworn brotherhood,ȱandȱallȱitȱrepresents,ȱunderscoresȱtheȱoverwhelmingȱandȱdestructive powerȱofȱeroticȱloveȱinȱtheȱworldȱofȱtheȱtale.”33ȱWhenȱChaucerȱportraysȱfemale friendship,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱthreatȱtoȱtheȱbondȱinȱthatȱPrincessȱCanaceeȱandȱtheȱformel cannotȱcompeteȱforȱtheȱsameȱlover.ȱConstanceȱandȱHermengyldȱareȱseparatedȱby death,ȱbutȱHermengyld’sȱloveȱasȱweȱhaveȱseenȱcontinuesȱtoȱprotectȱtheȱQueen. Friendsȱareȱnotȱonlyȱaȱprotectionȱagainstȱbetrayalȱbutȱalsoȱaȱbulwarkȱagainstȱthe temptationȱtoȱinstigateȱbetrayal.ȱConsiderȱtheȱprecariousȱsituationȱofȱCriseydeȱafter sheȱisȱbarteredȱawayȱfromȱTroyȱinȱanȱexchangeȱofȱprisoners.ȱSheȱisȱ“withȱwommen fewe,ȱamongȱtheȱGrekisȱstrongeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(TroilusȱandȱCriseyde,ȱV.688);ȱ“Therȱwasȱno wightȱtoȱwhomȱsheȱdorsteȱhireȱpleyn”ȱ(V.728);ȱ“sheȱwasȱalloneȱandȱhaddeȱneedȱ/ Ofȱfrendesȱhelpȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(ȱV.1026–27).ȱAsȱDavidȱAersȱcomments,ȱ“WhereasȱTroilusȱat leastȱhasȱPandarusȱtoȱtalkȱwithȱandȱisȱinȱhisȱownȱcustomaryȱmilieu,ȱaȱpowerful figureȱ withȱ friendsȱ andȱ publicȱ identity,ȱ Criseydeȱ isȱ frighteninglyȱ alone.”34ȱ ȱ In contrastȱtoȱCriseyde,ȱtheȱfalconȱhasȱsomeoneȱtoȱwhomȱsheȱcanȱ“pleyne”ȱasȱshe lamentsȱherȱanguishȱtoȱCanacee.ȱTheȱformelȱhasȱbeenȱunluckyȱinȱloveȱbutȱisȱmost fortunateȱinȱfriendship. Femaleȱfriendshipȱisȱsoȱimportantȱbecauseȱbetrayalȱisȱsoȱcommon.ȱThroughout theȱCanterburyȱTales—asȱillustratedȱbyȱtheȱwifeȱinȱtheȱManciple’sȱTale,ȱAlisounȱin theȱMiller’sȱTale,ȱandȱtheȱterceletȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale—thoseȱwhoȱareȱcagedȱseekȱto escapeȱconfinement.ȱAsȱtheȱnarratorȱcommentsȱinȱtheȱManciple’sȱTale,ȱnoȱoneȱwants toȱbeȱdeprivedȱofȱliberty: Taakȱanyȱbryd,ȱandȱputȱitȱinȱaȱcage, Andȱdoȱalȱthynȱententeȱandȱthyȱcorage Toȱfostreȱitȱtendrelyȱwithȱmeteȱandȱdrynke,

32

33

34

AlcuinȱBlamires,ȱ“FellowshipȱandȱDetractionȱinȱtheȱArchitectureȱofȱtheȱCanterburyȱTales:ȱfromȱ‘The GeneralȱPrologue’ȱandȱ‘TheȱKnight’sȱTale’ȱtoȱ‘TheȱParson’sȱPrologue,’”ȱid.,ȱChaucerȱEthicsȱand Genderȱ(Oxford,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2006),ȱ36–37,ȱdismissesȱtheȱfriendship: “TheȱintimacyȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱisȱrequiredȱbyȱtheȱplotȱinȱorderȱthatȱConstanceȱcanȱbeȱheldȱsuspectȱfor Hermengyld’sȱ murderȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .”.ȱ Althoughȱ anyȱ passageȱ canȱ beȱ explainedȱ asȱ requiredȱ byȱ the necessitiesȱofȱplot,ȱsuchȱanȱexplanationȱobfuscatesȱChaucer’sȱchoice. RobertȱStretter,ȱ“RewritingȱPerfectȱFriendshipȱinȱChaucer’sȱKnight’sȱTaleȱandȱLydgate’sȱFabula DuorumȱMercatorum,”ȱTheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ37.3ȱ(2003):ȱ234–52;ȱhereȱ239.ȱSeeȱalsoȱhisȱcontribution toȱthisȱvolume. DavidȱAers,ȱ“Criseyde:ȱWomanȱinȱMedievalȱSociety,”ȱChaucerȱReviewȱ13.3ȱ(1979):ȱ177–200;ȱhere 194.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

533

Ofȱalleȱdeynteesȱthatȱthouȱkanstȱbithynke; Andȱkeepeȱitȱalȱsoȱclenlyȱasȱthouȱmay, Althoughȱhisȱcageȱofȱgoldȱbeȱnevereȱsoȱgay, Yetȱhathȱthisȱbryd,ȱbyȱtwentyȱthousandȱfoold, Levereȱinȱaȱforestȱthatȱisȱrudeȱandȱcoold Goonȱeteȱwormes,ȱandȱswichȱwrecchednesse; Forȱevereȱthisȱbrydȱwolȱdoonȱhisȱbisynesse Toȱescapeȱoutȱofȱhisȱcage,ȱwhanȱheȱmay. Hisȱliberteeȱthisȱbridȱdesirethȱay. [Takeȱanyȱbirdȱandȱputȱitȱinȱaȱcage Andȱletȱyourȱheartȇsȱintentionȱthenȱengage Toȱfosterȱitȱtenderlyȱwithȱfoodȱandȱdrink, Withȱeveryȱdaintyȱmessȱthatȱthoughtȱcanȱthink, Andȱkeepȱitȱcleanȱasȱnearlyȱasȱyouȱmay, Cagedȱinȱaȱcageȱofȱgoldȱhoweverȱgay, Thatȱbirdȱwouldȱratherȱtwentyȱthousandȱfold Beȱinȱaȱforestȱwhichȱisȱroughȱandȱcold, Feedingȱonȱwormsȱandȱotherȱwretchedȱtrash. Itȇsȱonȱtheȱwatch,ȱandȱreadyȱinȱaȱflash Toȱescapeȱoutȱofȱtheȱcageȱandȱtoȱbeȱgone. Freedomȱisȱwhatȱitȱsetsȱitsȱheartȱupon.]ȱ

(163–74)

Butȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱescapeȱconfinementȱdoesȱnotȱjustifyȱinfidelityȱregardlessȱofȱthe gender.ȱTheȱnarratorȱinȱtheȱManciple’sȱTaleȱimmediatelyȱfollowsȱhisȱdescriptionȱof theȱwife’sȱadulteryȱwithȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱlecherousȱappetiteȱofȱmenȱwhoȱareȱtoo readyȱtoȱforsakeȱtheirȱwivesȱ(189).ȱInȱTroilusȱandȱCriseyde,ȱtheȱpoetȱrebukesȱthe womanȱwhoȱbetraysȱherȱlover;ȱbutȱinȱtheȱfinalȱlinesȱremindsȱtheȱwomenȱinȱthe audienceȱ“Bethȱwarȱofȱmen,ȱandȱherkenethȱwhatȱIȱseye”ȱ(V.1785). JohnȱFylerȱarguesȱthatȱwhileȱtheȱSquireȱpurportsȱtoȱcondemnȱtheȱtreacheryȱof men,ȱyetȱperhapsȱweȱshouldȱnotȱtrustȱtheȱnarrator,ȱsinceȱdiscourseȱthatȱpraises womenȱ mayȱ provideȱ anȱ entryȱ intoȱ women’sȱ favor,ȱ andȱ mayȱ reflectȱ ulterior motives.35ȱFromȱtheȱGeneralȱPrologue,ȱweȱknowȱtheȱSquireȱtoȱbeȱaȱlady’sȱmanȱwho delightsȱinȱlove,ȱandȱsleepsȱnoȱmoreȱthanȱdoesȱaȱnightingaleȱ(I.97–98).ȱHowever, Iȱ disagreeȱ withȱ Fyler’sȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ weȱ shouldȱ notȱ trustȱ him:ȱ thereȱ isȱ no indicationȱthatȱheȱwouldȱdesireȱanyȱwomanȱamongȱtheȱCanterburyȱPilgrimsȱor gainȱsocialȱadvancementȱbyȱflatteryȱorȱduplicity.ȱThroughoutȱhisȱœuvre,ȱChaucer attacksȱthoseȱwhoȱbetrayȱtheȱtrustȱofȱlove:ȱhereȱtheȱSquireȱspeaksȱwithȱtheȱpoet’s voice.

35

JohnȱM.ȱFyler,ȱ“DomesticatingȱtheȱExoticȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale,”ȱELHȱ55.1ȱ(1988ȱSpring):ȱ1–26;ȱhere 18–19.

534

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

BeyondȱWords:ȱExpressingȱOutrageȱThroughȱArt HowȱdoesȱChaucerȱportrayȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱPrincessȱandȱformel?ȱDoes Canaceeȱhaveȱaȱvoice?ȱKordeckiȱidentifiesȱseveralȱinstancesȱofȱmarginalizationȱin theȱtale:ȱtheȱOrientalȱother,ȱtheȱmagicalȱother,ȱtheȱfeminineȱother,ȱandȱtheȱanimal other.36ȱ“Theȱwomanȱisȱalignedȱwithȱtheȱanimalȱasȱother”ȱinȱaȱ“realmȱofȱmagic whereȱtalkingȱanimalsȱareȱveryȱcomfortable,ȱbecauseȱofȱtheirȱfreedomȱofȱvoiceȱ.ȱ. .ȱ .”37ȱ Kordeckiȱ readsȱ thisȱ asȱ aȱ veryȱ negativeȱ story:ȱ theȱ taleȱ endsȱ withȱ aȱ “silent woman”ȱ andȱ aȱ “tragicȱ birdcage,”ȱ aȱ taleȱ ofȱ “discoursesȱ abbreviatedȱ and circumscribed.”38ȱTheȱfalconȱ“cannotȱbeȱallowedȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱaȱwomanȱandȱthe womanȱmustȱconformȱtoȱtheȱpassiveȱmarginalityȱofȱtheȱladyȱofȱromance.”39ȱAsȱI readȱtheȱtale,ȱthereȱisȱmoreȱgoingȱonȱthanȱtheȱmarginalizationȱofȱtheȱPrincessȱthat Kordeckiȱsuggests.ȱCanaceeȱisȱpraisedȱforȱherȱ“pitee,”ȱ“compassion,”ȱ“gentillesse” andȱ “benignytee.”ȱ Farȱ fromȱ subordinatingȱ women,ȱ theȱ taleȱ celebratesȱ the Princess’sȱquickȱsympathyȱandȱgenerousȱresponse. Theȱ terceletȱ deceivedȱ theȱ formelȱ withȱ artȱ andȱ artifice.ȱ Byȱ falselyȱ depicting himselfȱ asȱ aȱ devotedȱ lover,ȱ theȱ terceletȱ concealedȱ hisȱ trueȱ indifferenceȱ justȱ as cosmeticsȱconcealȱaȱblemish.ȱWhileȱtheȱterceletȱ“seemedȱwelleȱofȱalleȱgentillesseȱ/ alȱwereȱheȱfulȱofȱtresonȱandȱfalsenessȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱSoȱdepeȱinȱgreynȱheȱdyedȱhisȱcoloures /ȱ Rightȱ asȱ aȱ serpentȱ hitȱ hymȱ underȱ floures”ȱ [“seemedȱ aȱ veryȱ wellȱ ofȱ gentle breeding;ȱ/ȱYetȱheȱwasȱfilledȱwithȱtreacheryȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱDyedȱinȱtheȱgrainȱtheyȱwere,ȱthose treacherousȱpowersȱ/ȱJustȱasȱaȱserpentȱhidesȱitselfȱinȱflowers”]ȱ(505–06,ȱ511–12). Notȱonlyȱdidȱheȱdyeȱhisȱcolors,ȱheȱ“painted”ȱhisȱwordsȱandȱhisȱcountenance: Hisȱmanereȱwasȱanȱheveneȱforȱtoȱsee Tilȱanyȱwommanȱwereȱsheȱneverȱsoȱwys, SoȱpeyntedȱheȱandȱkembdeȱatȱpointȬdevys Asȱwelȱhisȱwordesȱasȱhisȱcoutenaunce. [Andȱyetȱhisȱmannerȱwasȱaȱheavenȱtoȱsee Forȱanyȱwoman,ȱbeȱsheȱne’erȱsoȱwise, Paintedȱandȱtrimȱandȱbarberedȱtoȱtheȱeyes Bothȱinȱhisȱwordsȱandȱinȱhisȱcountenance.]ȱ (558–61)

Farȱfromȱbeingȱsilenced,ȱCanaceeȱspeaksȱtoȱtheȱformelȱthroughȱbothȱwordsȱand art.ȱCanaceeȱimmediatelyȱrespondsȱtoȱtheȱformelȱbyȱsympathizingȱwithȱherȱplight: “Yeȱ sleȱ meȱ withȱ youreȱ sorweȱ verraily,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ ofȱ yowȱ soȱ greatȱ compassioun” (462–63).ȱTheȱPrincessȱinvokesȱdivineȱaideȱtoȱhelpȱtheȱformelȱ“asȱwislyȱhelpȱme

36 37 38 39

Kordecki,ȱ“AnimalȱDiscourse,”ȱ278. Id.,ȱ281. Id.,ȱ294. Id.,ȱ293.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

535

greteȱGodȱofȱkynde”ȱ(469),ȱtherebyȱ appealingȱtoȱaȱGodȱthatȱoverseesȱrelations betweenȱspeciesȱandȱactsȱkindlyȱtoȱthoseȱinȱneed.ȱCanaceeȱweepsȱ“asȱsheȱtoȱwater wolde”ȱ(496);ȱ“Greetȱwasȱtheȱsorweȱfroȱtheȱhaukesȱharm,ȱ/ȱThatȱCanaceeȱandȱalle hirȱwomenȱmadeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ”ȱ(632–33).ȱInȱPartȱOneȱofȱtheȱtale,ȱthereȱareȱnotableȱinstances ofȱoccupatio,ȱmostȱfamously,ȱtheȱnarrator’sȱinabilityȱtoȱdescribeȱCanacee’sȱbeauty: “Toȱtelleȱyowȱalȱhirȱbeautee,ȱ/ȱItȱlythȱnatȱinȱmyȱtongeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(34–35).40ȱInȱPartȱTwoȱon theȱotherȱhand,ȱthereȱisȱanȱopenȱchannelȱofȱclearȱcommunicationȱbetweenȱPrincess andȱbird. ButȱCanacee’sȱmostȱpowerfulȱexpressionȱofȱherȱsympathyȱisȱpictorialȱratherȱthan verbal.ȱCanaceeȱrepliesȱtoȱtheȱtercelet’sȱabuseȱofȱartȱandȱartifice—hisȱdyedȱcolors andȱpaintedȱwordsȱandȱcountenance—byȱcreatingȱherȱownȱlanguageȱthroughȱart. TheȱpaintedȱmeweȱrepresentsȱanȱalternativeȱdiscourseȱbyȱwhichȱCanaceeȱvoices herȱoutrageȱatȱtheȱsufferingȱofȱherȱfriendȱtheȱformel.ȱOnȱtheȱwallsȱofȱtheȱinfirmary mewe,ȱCanaceeȱcreatesȱaȱdamningȱcounternarrativeȱofȱtheȱfaithlessnessȱshownȱby falseȱmaleȱfowls: Andȱbyȱhireȱbeddesȱheedȱsheȱmadeȱaȱmewe Andȱcoveredȱitȱwithȱveluettesȱblewe, Inȱsigneȱofȱtroutheȱthatȱisȱinȱwommenȱsene Andȱallȱwithoute,ȱtheȱmeweȱisȱpeyntedȱgrene, Inȱwhichȱwereȱpeyntedȱallȱthiseȱfalseȱfowles, Asȱbenȱthisȱtidyves,ȱtercelettesȱandȱowls; Rightȱforȱdespitȱwereȱpeyntedȱhimȱbisyde Pyes,ȱonȱhemȱforȱtoȱcrieȱandȱchide.ȱ [Besideȱherȱbedȱsheȱmadeȱaȱlittleȱmew Toȱhouseȱtheȱfalcon,ȱhungȱwithȱvelvetȱblue Toȱsignifyȱfairȱfaith,ȱsoȱoftenȱseen Inȱwomen,ȱandȱtheȱmewȱwasȱpaintedȱgreen Without,ȱwithȱpicturesȱofȱtheseȱtreacherousȱfowls Likeȱtytyfersȱandȱterceletsȱandȱowls, Andȱthereȱwereȱmagpiesȱpaintedȱtoo,ȱtoȱchide Themȱspitefully,ȱtoȱchatterȱandȱderide.]ȱ

(643–50)

TheȱpaintingsȱinȱCanacee’sȱmeweȱdepictȱdeception,ȱtheȱultimateȱcommunication gap,ȱwhereȱavianȱmalesȱhaveȱfalselyȱpromisedȱloveȱtoȱtheirȱfemaleȱpartners.41ȱI

40

41

Forȱaȱthoroughȱdescriptionȱofȱoccupatio,ȱseeȱAlanȱS.ȱAmbrisco,ȱ“‘ItȱLythȱNatȱinȱmyȱTong,’ȱOccupatio andȱOthernessȱinȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale,”ȱTheȱChaucerȱReviewȱ38.3ȱ(2004):ȱ205–28. DonaldȱC.ȱBakerȱhasȱidentifiedȱasȱlikelyȱsourcesȱforȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱmedievalȱbeastȱfables,ȱtheȱOwl andȱtheȱNightingale,ȱandȱtheȱArabianȱKnights.ȱTheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱ(Norman:ȱUniversityȱofȱOklahoma Press,ȱ1990);ȱhereȱ15–20.ȱOfȱspecialȱinterestȱisȱtheȱtaleȱofȱPrincessȱDunyaȱwhoȱcomesȱacrossȱpigeons caughtȱ inȱ aȱ trap.ȱ Theȱ femaleȱ birdȱ helpsȱ toȱ rescueȱ theȱ male.ȱ Laterȱ whenȱ theȱ malesȱ areȱ again ensnared,ȱtheȱmaleȱbirdȱfliesȱoffȱwithoutȱmakingȱ anyȱ effortȱtoȱhelpȱhisȱmateȱescape.ȱLestȱthe Princessȱassumeȱfromȱthisȱexperienceȱthatȱmenȱareȱinevitablyȱperfidious,ȱherȱsuitorȱshowsȱherȱa

536

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

suggestȱthatȱthoseȱcriticsȱwhoȱreadȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱasȱaȱslight,ȱjuvenileȱworkȱthat lacksȱtheȱseriousnessȱofȱpurposeȱofȱChaucer’sȱlaterȱworkȱhaveȱfailedȱtoȱconsiderȱthe messageȱofȱCanacee’sȱmewe.ȱEkphrasisȱfunctionsȱhereȱtoȱillustrateȱaȱmoralȱlesson.42 Ekphrasticȱwritingȱrepresentsȱbyȱitsȱnatureȱaȱcontestȱbetweenȱtheȱpowerȱofȱimage andȱtheȱrivalȱpowerȱofȱlanguage.43ȱInevitablyȱtheȱekphrasticȱnarrationȱisȱoneȱof verbalȱsilenceȱbecauseȱtheȱpicturesȱdoȱtheȱtalking.ȱTheȱekphrasticȱmediumȱbyȱits natureȱliberatesȱtheȱsilentȱpaintingȱorȱsculptureȱbecauseȱthroughȱtheȱauthor,ȱthe writtenȱwordȱgivesȱaȱvoiceȱtoȱvisualȱrepresentation.ȱFromȱearlyȱOvidianȱmyth, womenȱ turnedȱ toȱ artȱ toȱ speakȱ whenȱ thereȱ wasȱ noȱ otherȱ wayȱ toȱ expressȱ their outrageȱ atȱ maleȱ treachery;ȱ thusȱ Philomela,ȱ afterȱ herȱ ravisherȱ hasȱ cutȱ outȱ her tongue,ȱweavesȱaȱtapestryȱtoȱcommunicateȱthatȱherȱbrotherȬinȬlawȱhasȱrapedȱher.44 InȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale,ȱCanaceeȱ“speaks”ȱherȱgriefȱandȱoutrageȱagainstȱfaithlessȱmales throughȱmeansȱofȱvisualȱrepresentation.ȱTheȱekphrasticȱformȱisȱinherentlyȱunstable andȱelidesȱboundariesȱbetweenȱtheȱwrittenȱwordȱandȱtheȱpictorialȱmedium.ȱHow appropriateȱ thatȱ Chaucerȱ invokesȱ thisȱ genreȱ toȱ recountȱ crossȬspecies communicationȱbetweenȱwomanȱandȱfeminizedȱbird.ȱ Theȱprogramȱofȱmuralsȱonȱtheȱwallsȱofȱtheȱformel’sȱmeweȱcanȱbeȱcomparedȱto anotherȱekphrasticȱdisplay,ȱtheȱTempleȱofȱDianaȱinȱtheȱKnight’sȱTale.ȱ45ȱAsȱJames Heffernanȱobserves,ȱoftenȱekphrasisȱinvolvesȱaȱgenderedȱcontest,ȱwhereȱthereȱis conflictȱbetweenȱtheȱmaleȱgazerȱandȱtheȱbeautiful,ȱdesiredȱfemaleȱobject.46ȱThe muralsȱinȱtheȱTempleȱofȱDianaȱdisplayȱscenesȱfromȱOvid’sȱMetamorphosesȱinȱwhich

42

43

44 45

46

pavilionȱwhereȱthreeȱscenesȱareȱdepicted:ȱoneȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfemaleȱrescuesȱherȱmate,ȱanotherȱin whichȱtheȱmaleȱdesertsȱher,ȱandȱaȱthirdȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmaleȱattemptedȱtoȱrescueȱhisȱmateȱbutȱwas preventedȱbyȱaȱhugeȱraptorȱthatȱseizesȱhimȱinȱhisȱtalons.ȱIbid,ȱ16.ȱThusȱthisȱpotentialȱsourceȱfor theȱpaintingsȱonȱtheȱwallȱofȱCanacee’sȱmeweȱalsoȱemployedȱekphrasisȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱaȱdiscourse onȱfidelity. AsȱHaikoȱWandhoffȱnotes,ȱtheȱtechniqueȱofȱBiledensatzȱoperatesȱasȱaȱprolepticȱdevice,ȱpresenting theȱreaderȱwithȱaȱpictureȱthatȱanticipatesȱtheȱmoralizingȱmaximȱthatȱwillȱbeȱdevelopedȱbyȱtheȱtext. Wandhoff,ȱ“FoundedȱinȱaȱPicture:ȱEkphrasticȱFramingȱinȱAncient,ȱMedieval,ȱandȱContemporary Literature,”ȱFramingȱBordersȱinȱLiteratureȱandȱOtherȱMedia,ȱed.ȱWernerȱWolfȱandȱWalterȱBernhart. StudiesȱinȱIntermediality,ȱ1ȱ(AmsterdamȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRodolpi,ȱ2006),ȱ209–28;ȱHaikoȱWandhoff, Ekphrasis:ȱ Kunstbeschreibungenȱ undȱ virtuelleȱ Räumeȱ inȱ derȱ Literaturȱ desȱ Mittelalters.ȱ Trendsȱ in MedievalȱPhilology,ȱ3ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalterȱdeȱGruyter,ȱ2003). JamesȱA.W.ȱHeffernan,ȱMuseumȱofȱWords:ȱTheȱPoeticsȱofȱEkphrasisȱfromȱHomerȱtoȱAshberyȱ(Chicago andȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱ1. Met.,ȱVI.ȱ573–87. Otherȱmedievalȱauthorsȱutilizedȱekphrasis.ȱInȱ“Guigemar,”ȱoneȱofȱtheȱlaisȱofȱMarieȱdeȱFranceȱ(ca. 1165),ȱaȱwomanȱisȱlockedȱinȱaȱtowerȱbyȱherȱjealousȱhusband.ȱOnȱtheȱwallsȱofȱherȱchamber,ȱthere isȱaȱmuralȱdepictingȱVenusȱthrowingȱintoȱtheȱfireȱOvid’sȱMetamorphoses.ȱInȱaȱreversalȱofȱtheȱusual meaningȱ ofȱ excommunication,ȱ Venusȱ threatensȱ toȱ excommunicateȱ anyȱ oneȱ whoȱ considers repressingȱloveȱinȱfavorȱofȱengagingȱinȱtheȱartificial,ȱprotractedȱdanceȱofȱcourtship.ȱSeeȱLesȱLaisȱde MarieȱdeȱFrance,ȱed.ȱJeanȱRychnerȱ(Paris:ȱChampion,ȱ1983).ȱForȱanȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱTheȱLais ofȱMarieȱdeȱFrance,ȱtrans.ȱGlenȱS.ȱBurgessȱandȱKeithȱBusbyȱ(London:ȱPenguin,ȱ1999),ȱȱ46.ȱ Heffernan,ȱMuseumȱofȱWords,ȱ1.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

537

menȱpursueȱwomenȱwhoȱwereȱdevotedȱtoȱtheȱcultȱofȱtheȱvirginȱDianaȱwithȱthe intentȱtoȱravishȱthemȱ(Knight’sȱTaleȱIV.2056–66).ȱJupiter,ȱwhoȱhasȱdisguisedȱhimself asȱDiana,ȱpursuesȱCallisto.ȱAfterȱCallisto’sȱfutileȱstruggleȱtoȱescapeȱhisȱviolence, sheȱ isȱ overpoweredȱ andȱ rapedȱ (Met.ȱ II.453–90).ȱ Asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ Juno’sȱ jealousy, Callistoȱ isȱ turnedȱ intoȱ aȱ bearȱ andȱ setȱ amongȱ theȱ heavensȱ withȱ theȱ sonȱ whom Jupiterȱ engendered.ȱ Inȱ anotherȱ wellȬknownȱ myth,ȱ Apolloȱ pursuesȱ Daphneȱ as relentlesslyȱasȱaȱhunterȱtracksȱaȱhare.ȱDaphneȱmakesȱherȱescapeȱbyȱappealingȱto herȱfather,ȱtheȱriverȱgodȱPenneus,ȱtoȱtransformȱherȱintoȱaȱlaurelȱtreeȱ(Met.ȱI.531–63), literallyȱsurrenderingȱherȱpersonhoodȱtoȱsaveȱherȱvirginity.ȱ Heffernanȱ drawsȱ aȱ convincingȱ parallelȱ betweenȱ Emelye’sȱ initialȱ devotionȱ to virginityȱandȱCallistoȱandȱDaphne,ȱwhoȱareȱpursuedȱbyȱmenȱagainstȱtheirȱwishes. EmelyeȱisȱdirectedȱbyȱherȱbrotherȬinȬlawȱTheseusȱtoȱmarryȱArciteȱorȱPalamon, whicheverȱknightȱwinsȱtheȱduel.47ȱEmelyeȱdutifullyȱcompliesȱwithȱTheseus’sȱorder, firstȱagreeingȱtoȱmarryȱtheȱapparentȱvictorȱArcite,ȱthenȱacceptingȱPalamonȱafter Arciteȱ isȱ killedȱ asȱ aȱ resultȱ ofȱ divineȱ intervention.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ obviousȱ parallels betweenȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱviolenceȱonȱtheȱmuralsȱofȱtheȱtemplesȱinȱtheȱKnight’sȱTale andȱtheȱplotȱofȱtheȱSquire’sȱTale.ȱGivenȱthatȱtheȱformelȱtalksȱlikeȱaȱwoman,ȱcriesȱlike aȱwoman,ȱandȱbeatsȱherȱbreastȱlikeȱaȱwoman,ȱweȱcanȱcompareȱherȱtoȱanȱOvidian heroine,ȱaȱwomanȱtransformedȱintoȱanȱanimalȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱmaleȱviolence.ȱPrincess Canacee,ȱlikeȱEmelye,ȱisȱvulnerableȱtoȱtheȱmarriageȱarrangementsȱimposedȱonȱher byȱtheȱpatriarchy,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱkingȱshouldȱorderȱthatȱsheȱmarryȱherȱownȱbrother. WhileȱTheseusȱcontrolsȱtheȱconstructionȱandȱdecorationȱofȱtheȱTemplesȱofȱVenus, Diana,ȱandȱMars,ȱapparentlyȱwithoutȱconsultingȱEmelye,ȱCanaceeȱisȱtheȱartistȱwho designsȱ theȱ formel’sȱ mewe.ȱ Inȱ fashioningȱ theȱ mewe,ȱ Canaceeȱ decidesȱ onȱ its structure,ȱselectsȱtheȱcolorsȱ(forȱexampleȱtheȱblueȱofȱfidelity),ȱandȱsuppliesȱsoft velvetȱbedding.ȱAsȱartist,ȱCanaceeȱexercisesȱcreativeȱagencyȱnotȱsoȱdifferentȱfrom thatȱofȱtheȱpoetȱhimself.

BeyondȱWords:ȱCanacee’sȱCaregiving Canacee’sȱkindnessȱprovidesȱbalmȱthatȱsoothesȱtheȱwoundedȱformelȱbothȱinȱher statusȱasȱfemaleȱandȱinȱherȱstatusȱasȱbird.ȱTheȱformelȱmovinglyȱthanksȱCanaceeȱfor herȱ“gentillesse,”ȱ“compassion,”ȱandȱ“benignytee”: Thatȱpiteeȱrennethȱsooneȱinȱgentleȱheretȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Isȱprovedȱalȱdayȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ Forȱgentilȱherteȱkithethȱgentillesse. Iȱseȱwelȱthatȱyeȱhanȱofȱmyȱdistresse

47

Id.,ȱ63–64.

538

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland Compassioun,ȱmyȱfaireȱCanacee, Ofȱverrayȱwommanlyȱbenignytee ThatȱNatureȱinȱyoureȱprinciplesȱhathȱset. [Thatȱpityȱisȱswiftȱtoȱcourseȱinȱnobleȱheart, Feelingȱtheȱlikenessȱofȱanotherȇsȱsmart, Isȱdailyȱproved,ȱasȱanyoneȱcanȱsee, Bothȱbyȱexperienceȱandȱauthority, Forȱgentlenessȱofȱbirthȱandȱbreedingȱshows Itselfȱinȱgentleness;ȱyouȱfeelȱmyȱwoes AsȱIȱcanȱsee,ȱandȱsureȱitȱisȱaȱfashion Wellȱfittingȱaȱprincessȱtoȱshowȱcompassion Asȱyouȱhaveȱdone,ȱmyȱlovelyȱCanace, Inȱtrueȱandȱwomanlyȱbenignity Thatȱnatureȱplantedȱinȱyourȱdisposition.]ȱ

(479,ȱ481,ȱ483–87)

CarolynnȱVanȱDykeȱraisesȱtheȱquestionȱofȱwhetherȱtheȱmeweȱthatȱCanaceeȱoffers theȱ injuredȱ birdȱ isȱ aȱ cageȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ formelȱ “isȱ definedȱ asȱ aȱ pet.”48ȱ Chaucer followedȱ Boethiusȱ inȱ hisȱ disapprovalȱ ofȱ keepingȱ birdsȱ inȱ aȱ cageȱ againstȱ their nature.ȱIȱagreeȱwithȱCrane’sȱvisualizationȱofȱtheȱmeweȱnotȱasȱaȱcageȱwithȱaȱdoor butȱratherȱasȱaȱbreezyȱnest,ȱaȱ“wonderfullyȱcomplexȱattemptȱatȱhostingȱwithout takingȱ hostage.”49ȱ Thusȱ weȱ canȱ hopeȱ thatȱ theȱ formel,ȱ onceȱ sheȱ hasȱ recovered physicallyȱandȱpsychologically,ȱmayȱexerciseȱtheȱfreedomȱdesiredȱbyȱallȱliving thingsȱtoȱflyȱaway. TheȱcareȱthatȱCanaceeȱprovidesȱherȱinjuredȱfriendȱremainsȱanȱidealȱofȱbehavior forȱethicistsȱtoday.ȱCarolȱGilliganȱdescribesȱaȱwoman’sȱ“conceptionȱofȱmorality” asȱ oneȱ thatȱ isȱ “concernedȱ withȱ theȱ activityȱ ofȱ careȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ responsibilityȱ and relationships,”ȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱaȱmaleȱ“conceptionȱofȱmoralityȱasȱfairness,”ȱoneȱthat isȱmoreȱconcernedȱwithȱ“rightsȱandȱrules.”50ȱGilligan’sȱEthicsȱofȱCareȱhasȱbeen criticizedȱonȱseveralȱgrounds,ȱincludingȱwhetherȱtheȱconceptȱappliesȱoutsideȱofȱthe domainȱ ofȱ familyȱ careȱ relationshipsȱ andȱ whetherȱ itȱ isȱ essentialist,ȱ confining womenȱtoȱsubordinateȱdomesticȱroles.51ȱHowever,ȱasȱEvaȱKittayȱargues,ȱsomeone mustȱcareȱforȱdisabledȱdependents:ȱ“ifȱmenȱdoȱnotȱtakeȱupȱtheȱrole,ȱwomenȱwill

48

49

50

51

CarolynnȱVanȱDyke,ȱChaucer’sȱAgents:ȱCauseȱandȱRepresentationȱinȱChaucerianȱNarrativeȱ(Madison, NJ:ȱFarleighȱDickinsonȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ85. SusanȱCrane,ȱ“ForȱtheȱBirds,”ȱTheȱBiennialȱChaucerȱLecture.ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱAgeȱofȱChaucer:ȱThe YearbookȱofȱtheȱNewȱChaucerȱSocietyȱ29ȱ(2007):ȱ23–41;ȱhereȱ38.ȱCagedȱbirdsȱbyȱtheirȱnatureȱdesireȱto returnȱtoȱnature.ȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱBoece,ȱBookȱIII,ȱMetrumȱ2,ȱ423. CarolȱGilligan,ȱInȱaȱDifferentȱVoice:ȱPsychologicalȱTheoryȱandȱWomen’sȱDevelopmentȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA: HarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1982),ȱ13. AnnȱDiller,ȱ“Review:ȱTheȱEthicsȱofȱCareȱandȱEducation:ȱAȱNewȱParadigm,ȱitsȱCriticsȱ andȱits EducationalȱSignificance,”ȱCurriculumȱInquiryȱ18.3ȱ(1988ȱAutumn):ȱ325–42;ȱhereȱ331–33.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

539

notȱ simplyȱ abandonȱ it.”52ȱ Toȱ theȱ extentȱ thatȱ weȱ seeȱ theȱ formelȱ asȱ aȱ disabled woman,ȱthereȱisȱaȱmodernityȱtoȱthisȱtale,ȱwithȱoneȱwomanȱgivingȱcareȱtoȱanother inȱneed. Feministȱadvocatesȱofȱanimalȱrightsȱsuggestȱthatȱhumanȱbeingsȱhaveȱaȱmoral responsibilityȱtoȱcareȱforȱallȱcreaturesȱwithȱwhichȱweȱcanȱcommunicate.53ȱWeȱare urgedȱ toȱ struggleȱ againstȱ abuseȱ ofȱ allȱ lifeȱ formsȱ andȱ toȱ improveȱ theȱ statusȱ of animalsȱasȱwellȱasȱhumanȱbeings.ȱMarthaȱNussbaumȱhasȱarticulatedȱaȱvisionȱofȱa world,ȱperhapsȱutopian,ȱwhichȱfullyȱempowersȱtheȱdisabled,ȱextendsȱcitizenship toȱallȱindividualsȱregardlessȱofȱnationality,ȱandȱincorporatesȱanimalsȱintoȱnotions ofȱsocialȱjustice.54ȱCanacee’sȱcareȱofȱtheȱformelȱanticipatesȱthisȱcallȱtoȱattendȱto thoseȱwhoȱareȱimpaired,ȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱforeign,ȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱnonȬhuman. Inȱ recentȱ years,ȱ anthropomorphosisȱ hasȱ receivedȱ badȱ press,ȱ asȱ aȱ simplisticȱ or excessivelyȱ sentimentalȱ genre.ȱ Lynchȱ complainsȱ thatȱ theȱ “talkingȱ bird,ȱ which oughtȱtoȱseemȱaȱstrangeȱandȱexoticȱthing,ȱbecomesȱcomicallyȱindistinguishable fromȱanyȱswooningȱcourtlyȱmaiden.”55ȱHowever,ȱasȱOnnoȱDagȱOerlemansȱpoints out,ȱitȱisȱdifficultȱtoȱescapeȱportrayingȱanimalsȱasȱhavingȱhumanȱcharacteristics: ȱAbstractlyȱconsidered,ȱtheȱproblemȱofȱhowȱweȱareȱtoȱviewȱanimalsȱneutrally,ȱtoȱsee themȱasȱtheyȱareȱandȱnotȱasȱtheyȱareȱlikeȱus,ȱprobablyȱhasȱnoȱsolution.ȱWeȱcannot, finally,ȱdistinguishȱthoseȱfeaturesȱofȱtheirȱbeingȱ(emotions,ȱdesires,ȱetc.)ȱwhichȱareȱtruly theirsȱfromȱthoseȱwithȱwhichȱweȱareȱfamiliarȱbecauseȱweȱexperienceȱthemȱourselves.56

VanȱDykeȱreadsȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱasȱanthropomorphizingȱtoȱaȱgreaterȱextentȱthan otherȱstoriesȱthatȱChaucerȱpopulatesȱwithȱbirdsȱandȱbeasts.ȱSheȱseesȱtheȱformels asȱ “virtualȱ people”ȱ andȱ arguesȱ thatȱ inȱ otherȱ textsȱ whereȱ Chaucerȱ placesȱ more emphasisȱonȱzoologicalȱreality,ȱheȱbreaksȱdownȱdifferencesȱbetweenȱspecies.57ȱI disagreeȱwithȱVanȱDyke’sȱsuggestionȱthatȱweȱareȱestrangedȱfromȱtheȱformelȱby virtueȱofȱtheȱanthropomorphosis;ȱrather,ȱChaucerȱusesȱtheȱanthropomorphosisȱto inviteȱusȱtoȱsympathizeȱwithȱ“theȱother,”ȱwhetherȱspecies,ȱnationality,ȱorȱgender.58

52

53

54

55 56

57 58

Evaȱ Kittay,ȱ “Love’sȱ Laborȱ Revisited,”ȱ Hypatiaȱ 17.3.ȱ Feminismȱ andȱ Disability,ȱ Partȱ 2ȱ (2002 Summer):ȱ237–50;ȱhereȱ238. JosephineȱDonovanȱandȱCarolȱJ.ȱAdams,ȱTheȱFeministȱTraditionȱinȱAnimalȱEthics:ȱAȱReaderȱ(New York:ȱColumbiaȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007),ȱ3. MarthaȱC.ȱNussbaum,ȱFrontiersȱofȱJustice:ȱDisability,ȱNationality,ȱandȱSpeciesȱMembership.ȱTheȱTanner LecturesȱonȱHumanȱValuesȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱTheȱBelknapȱPressȱofȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress, 2006),ȱ17–18. Lynch,ȱ“EastȱMeetsȱWest,”ȱ542. OnnoȱDagȱOerlemans,ȱRomanticismȱandȱtheȱMaterialityȱofȱNatureȱ(Toronto,ȱBuffalo,ȱandȱLondon: UniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ68. VanȱDyke,ȱChaucer’sȱAgents,ȱ106.ȱ SeeȱAlbrechtȱClassen,ȱTheȱPowerȱofȱaȱWoman’sȱVoiceȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱModernȱLiteratures:ȱNew ApproachesȱtoȱGermanȱEuropeanȱWomenȱWritersȱandȱtoȱViolenceȱAgainstȱWomenȱinȱPremodernȱTimes. Fundamentalsȱ ofȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Culture,ȱ 1ȱ (Berlinȱ andȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Walterȱ de

540

SaraȱDeutchȱSchotland

AsȱJohnȱFylerȱobserves,ȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱaddressesȱ“threeȱinterrelatedȱattemptsȱto imagineȱtheȱother:ȱaȱmanȱimaginingȱaȱwoman,ȱaȱChristianȱEuropeanȱimaginingȱa heathenȱTartar,ȱandȱaȱhumanȱbeingȱimaginingȱaȱformel.”59ȱ Bothȱtheȱ“strangeȱknightȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱofȱArabeȱandȱofȱInde”ȱandȱtheȱ“fauconȱpergrynȱ… ofȱ fremdeȱ land”ȱ areȱ foreignȱ (89,ȱ 110,ȱ 428–29).ȱ Asȱ Fylerȱ notes,ȱ theseȱ effortsȱ at imaginationȱinvolveȱcomparisonȱofȱsimilaritiesȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱdifferences.60ȱHerbert LeicesterȱcommentsȱthatȱtheȱCanterburyȱTalesȱinvolveȱtheȱ“attempt,ȱcontinually repeated,ȱ toȱ seeȱ fromȱ anotherȱ person’sȱ view,ȱ toȱ stretchȱ andȱ extendȱ theȱ selfȱ by learningȱ toȱ speakȱ inȱ theȱ voicesȱ ofȱ others.”61ȱ Becauseȱ thisȱ formelȱ isȱ aȱ peregrine “wandering”ȱ falcon,ȱ sheȱ isȱ alsoȱ aȱ pilgrim.62ȱ Ofȱ courseȱ Chaucer’sȱ projectȱ isȱ not aboutȱaȱfictionalȱpilgrimageȱtoȱCanterbury,ȱitȱisȱaboutȱtheȱpilgrimageȱofȱlifeȱthat representsȱtheȱhumanȱcondition.ȱWeȱcanȱreadȱtheȱSquire’sȱTaleȱasȱaȱdiscussionȱof theȱchallengesȱinȱcommunicationȱamongȱthoseȱofȱdifferentȱstatus.63 EvenȱifȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱCanaceeȱandȱtheȱformelȱseemsȱtoȱrepresentȱan idealȱinȱcommunication,ȱweȱcannotȱreadȱtheȱtaleȱasȱanȱidyll.ȱTheȱexchangeȱbetween theȱPrincessȱandȱtheȱformelȱlastsȱonlyȱaȱbriefȱshiningȱmoment.ȱTheȱnarratorȱdoes notȱ lingerȱ onȱ theȱ movingȱ story,ȱ butȱ returnsȱ abruptlyȱ toȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ chivalry, whichȱweȱsurmiseȱattractsȱtheȱSquireȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱworldȱofȱwomen’sȱcomplaints. TheȱSquireȱleavesȱ“Canceeȱhirȱhaukȱkepyng”ȱtoȱrejoinȱtheȱnarrativeȱofȱ“aventures andȱ ofȱ batailes”ȱ (vv.651,ȱ 658–59).64ȱ Moreȱ seriously,ȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ thereȱ isȱ anxiety whetherȱtheȱPrincess,ȱtheȱepitomeȱofȱbeauty,ȱmeasure,ȱandȱ“gentillesse,”ȱmayȱend

59 60 61

62

63

64

Gruyter,ȱ2007).ȱChapterȱ6,ȱ187–230,ȱprovidesȱanȱextensiveȱdiscussionȱofȱviolenceȱagainstȱwomen andȱfemaleȱsuffering. Fyler,ȱ“DomesticatingȱtheȱExotic,”ȱ12. Ibid. H.ȱMarshallȱLeicester,ȱJr.,ȱ“TheȱArtȱofȱImpersonation:ȱAȱGeneralȱPrologueȱtoȱtheȱCanterburyȱTales,” PMLAȱ95.2ȱ(1980ȱMarch):ȱ213–24;ȱhereȱ221. BernieȱWitliebȱsuggestsȱinȱaȱJulyȱ23,ȱ2009ȱentryȱonȱtheȱChaucerȱListServȱthatȱthereȱisȱaȱconnection betweenȱMongols,ȱGenghisȱKhan,ȱandȱtheȱfalcon.ȱTheȱMongolsȱhadȱhawksȱandȱfalconsȱinȱgreat numbers.ȱAccordingȱtoȱlegend,ȱoneȱofȱGenghis’sȱancestorsȱhadȱsurvivedȱinȱaȱmountainȱmassif becauseȱofȱheavenȬsentȱfoodȱbroughtȱbyȱaȱfalcon.ȱWitliebȱcitesȱHaroldȱLamb,ȱTheȱMarchȱofȱthe Barbariansȱ(NewȱYork:ȱDoubleday,ȱ1940),ȱ70,ȱandȱMichaelȱPrawdin,ȱTheȱMongolȱEmpire:ȱItsȱRiseȱand Legacyȱ(London:ȱAllenȱ&ȱUnwin,ȱ1963),ȱ33;ȱseeȱalsoȱAnttiȱRuotsala,ȱEuropeansȱandȱMongolsȱinȱthe Middleȱ ofȱ theȱ Thirteenthȱ Century:ȱ Encounteringȱ theȱ Other.ȱ Theȱ Finnishȱ Academyȱ ofȱ Scienceȱ and Letters.ȱHumaniora,ȱ314ȱ(Helsinki:ȱTheȱFinnishȱAcademyȱofȱScienceȱandȱLetters,ȱ2001. ForȱrecentȱanimalȬrelatedȱcriticismȱofȱinterestȱtoȱscholarsȱofȱtheȱmedievalȱandȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod, seeȱLaurieȱShannon,ȱ“TheȱEightȱAnimalsȱinȱShakespeare;ȱor,ȱBeforeȱtheȱHuman,”ȱPMLAȱ124.2 (Marchȱ2009):ȱ472–79;ȱandȱBruceȱHolsinger,ȱ“OfȱPigsȱandȱParchment:ȱMedievalȱStudiesȱandȱthe ComingȱofȱtheȱAnimal,”ȱPMLAȱ124.2ȱ(Marchȱ2009):ȱ616–23. CarolȱF.ȱHeffernanȱcommentsȱthatȱ“toȱtheȱsquireȬnarrator,ȱtheȱmaleȱworldȱofȱchivalryȱisȱmoreȱfull ofȱmarvelsȱthanȱtheȱoneȱweȱhaveȱjustȱleft,”ȱevenȱthoughȱ“itȱwasȱprovidedȱwithȱaȱwomanȱwho couldȱspeakȱwithȱbirds.”ȱ“Chaucer’sȱSquire’sȱTale:ȱContentȱandȱStructure,”ȱTheȱOrientȱinȱChaucer andȱMedievalȱRomance.ȱStudiesȱinȱMedievalȱRomanceȱ(Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk,ȱU.K.;ȱRochester,ȱNY: D.ȱS.ȱBrewer,ȱ2003),ȱ63–82;ȱhereȱ74.

TalkingȱBirdȱandȱGentleȱHeart

541

upȱinȱanȱincestuousȱunionȱwithȱherȱbrother.ȱTheȱevidenceȱisȱinconclusiveȱbecause Chaucer’sȱendingȱisȱsoȱelliptical.65ȱPerhapsȱourȱfearȱforȱCanacee’sȱfutureȱrenders herȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱformelȱallȱtheȱmoreȱpoignantȱandȱprecious. Canaceeȱ isȱ capableȱ ofȱ aȱ friendshipȱ withȱ aȱ birdȱ becauseȱ sheȱ canȱ transcend differences.ȱItȱisȱnotȱonlyȱherȱmagicȱringȱbutȱalsoȱherȱ“gentilȱherte”ȱ(479)ȱthatȱgives herȱtheȱabilityȱtoȱlistenȱto,ȱandȱempathizeȱwith,ȱoneȱwhoȱisȱdifferentȱfromȱherself, literallyȱ“other.”ȱPerhapsȱapparentlyȱinsurmountableȱdifferencesȱinȱgender,ȱrace, species,ȱclass,ȱandȱnationalȱoriginȱareȱnotȱinsuperableȱifȱoneȱhasȱtheȱheartȱtoȱtryȱto communicate.

65

Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ question,ȱ seeȱ Ambrisco,ȱ Occupatio,ȱ 221,ȱ andȱ Elizabethȱ Scala,ȱ Absent Narratives,ȱManuscriptȱTextuality,ȱandȱLiteraryȱStructureȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱEngland.ȱTheȱNewȱMiddle Agesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPalgrave,ȱ2002),ȱ71–96.ȱ

Chapterȱ14 TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk (UniversityȱofȱMaryland,ȱCollegeȱPark)

TheȱLureȱofȱMastery: SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriendsȱ inȱHamletȱandȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne’sȱ“OfȱFriendship”1

Ifȱitȱwereȱtrueȱthatȱsovereigntyȱandȱfreedomȱareȱtheȱsame,ȱthenȱindeedȱnoȱmanȱcould beȱ free,ȱ becauseȱ sovereignty,ȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ uncompromisingȱ selfȬsufficiencyȱ and mastership,ȱ isȱ contradictoryȱ toȱ theȱ veryȱ conditionȱ ofȱ plurality.ȱ Noȱ manȱ canȱ be sovereignȱbecauseȱnotȱoneȱman,ȱbutȱmen,ȱinhabitȱtheȱearth—andȱnot,ȱasȱtheȱtradition sinceȱPlatoȱholds,ȱbecauseȱofȱman’sȱlimitedȱstrength,ȱwhichȱmakesȱhimȱdependȱupon theȱhelpȱofȱothers.ȱAllȱtheȱrecommendationsȱtheȱtraditionȱhasȱtoȱofferȱtoȱovercomeȱthe conditionȱofȱnonȬsovereigntyȱandȱwinȱanȱuntouchableȱintegrityȱofȱtheȱhumanȱperson amountȱ toȱ aȱ compensationȱ forȱ theȱ intrinsicȱ “weakness”ȱ ofȱ plurality.ȱ Yet,ȱ ifȱ these recommendationsȱwereȱfollowedȱandȱthisȱattemptȱtoȱovercomeȱtheȱconsequencesȱof pluralityȱwereȱsuccessful,ȱtheȱresultȱwouldȱbeȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱsovereignȱdominationȱof one’sȱselfȱasȱarbitraryȱdominationȱofȱallȱothers,ȱor,ȱasȱinȱStoicism,ȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱthe realȱworldȱforȱanȱimaginaryȱoneȱwhereȱtheseȱothersȱwouldȱsimplyȱnotȱexist.ȱ —HannahȱArendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition2

DrawingȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱdiscoursesȱofȱidealȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱRenaissanceȱand theirȱ articulationȱ ofȱ anȱ alternativeȱ formȱ ofȱ sovereigntyȱ toȱ monarchicȱ ruleȱ and patriarchalȱ authority,ȱ recentȱ scholarshipȱ implicatesȱ aȱ notionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ that emergedȱtowardȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱinȱaȱbroaderȱculturalȱmovement thatȱ attemptedȱ toȱ establishȱ stableȱ boundariesȱ betweenȱ publicȱ andȱ private

1

2

Forȱtheirȱwillingnessȱtoȱreadȱthisȱessayȱandȱtoȱofferȱsuggestionsȱtowardȱitsȱcompletion,ȱIȱwould likeȱtoȱthankȱTheodoreȱLeinwandȱandȱJonathanȱAuerbachȱofȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱMaryland. HannahȱArendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱConditionȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicago,ȱ1958),ȱ234.

544

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

identities.3ȱȱEarlyȱmodernȱwritersȱutilizedȱtheȱtermȱ“sovereign”ȱwhenȱdescribing theȱdomainȱofȱfriendship,ȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱreferȱtoȱwhatȱatȱleastȱsinceȱPlatoȱhadȱbeen consideredȱtheȱsuperlativeȱqualityȱofȱhomosocialȱrelationshipsȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱhighlight theȱpossibilityȱforȱfriendshipȱtoȱestablishȱaȱnonȬhierarchicalȱpolisȱinsulatedȱand independentȱ fromȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ theȱ politicalȱ economy.4ȱ Asȱ anȱ alternativeȱ toȱ the compulsoryȱbondsȱofȱkinshipȱandȱkingdom,ȱfriendshipȱrepresentedȱanȱarenaȱof freeȱchoice.5 Followingȱ classicalȱ formulations,ȱ theȱ humanistȱ visionȱ ofȱ idealȱ friendship imaginedȱ theȱ friendȱ asȱ “anotherȱ self.”6ȱ Thomasȱ Elyot,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ described friendshipȱasȱ“aȱblessedȱandȱstableȱconnexyonȱofȱsondryȱwylles,ȱmakyngeȱofȱtwo personsȱone,ȱinȱhauyngeȱandȱsuffrynge.”7ȱThisȱimageȱofȱoneȱsoulȱinȱtwoȱbodies correspondedȱtoȱaȱdesireȱforȱanȱabsoluteȱidentificationȱbetweenȱpartnersȱthatȱcould serveȱ asȱ aȱ potentialȱ shieldȱ againstȱ theȱ sullyingȱ interactionsȱ ofȱ commercialȱ and politicalȱaction.8ȱInȱanȱearlyȱmodernȱworldȱofȱclassȱhierarchies,ȱitȱisȱnotȱdifficultȱto imagineȱ howȱ suchȱ anȱ idealization—oneȱ thatȱ attemptedȱ “toȱ makeȱ menȱ the same”9—wouldȱ haveȱ encouragedȱ theȱ resurrectionȱ ofȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ individual 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SeeȱTomȱMacfaul,ȱMaleȱFriendshipȱinȱShakespeareȱandȱhisȱContemporariesȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge University,ȱ2007),ȱ1–29,ȱandȱespeciallyȱLaurieȱShannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity:ȱFiguresȱofȱFriendshipȱin ShakespeareanȱContextsȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicago,ȱ2002),ȱ1–53.ȱȱThoughȱIȱdepend heavilyȱonȱtheȱworkȱofȱmanyȱotherȱscholarsȱinȱtheȱwritingȱofȱthisȱpaper,ȱtheȱtitleȱofȱmyȱessay conveysȱaȱparticularȱindebtednessȱtoȱShannon’sȱbook.ȱ Thisȱdoesȱnotȱinȱanyȱwayȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱdiscoursesȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱfriendshipȱwereȱnotȱoften deeplyȱ boundȱ upȱ withȱ notionsȱ ofȱ publicȱ politicalȱ life.ȱ ȱ Butȱ ifȱ weȱ acceptȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger’s assertionȱthatȱ“[m]edievalȱpoetsȱandȱhistoriansȱwereȱlargelyȱindifferentȱtoȱwhatȱweȱcallȱprivate life,”ȱthenȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱaffectiveȱpossibilityȱofȱbracketingȱpublicȱandȱprivateȱlifeȱwithȱregard toȱfriendshipȱrevealsȱaȱquiteȱdifferentȱpoliticalȱandȱemotionalȱtopography;ȱindeed,ȱJaegerȱhimself findsȱShakespeare’sȱKingȱLearȱsymptomaticȱofȱaȱwesternȱcultureȱthatȱhadȱ“increasinglyȱprivatized” theȱ experienceȱ ofȱ loveȱ andȱ friendship.ȱ C.ȱ Stephenȱ Jaeger,ȱ Ennoblingȱ Love:ȱ Inȱ Searchȱ ofȱ aȱ Lost Sensibility.ȱTheȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvania,ȱ1999),ȱ4.ȱ AsȱMacfaul,ȱMaleȱFriendship,ȱ5,ȱargues,ȱbyȱtheȱtimeȱShakespeareȱwasȱwritingȱtowardȱtheȱendȱofȱthe sixteenthȱcentury,ȱ“theȱProtestantȱChurchȱofȱEnglandȱwasȱclearlyȱbeginningȱtoȱimposeȱideasȱofȱthe nuclearȱ familyȱ asȱ theȱ foundationalȱ unitȱ ofȱ society.ȱ Withȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ otherȱ modesȱ of allegiance,ȱtheȱfamilyȱbecameȱanȱincreasinglyȱmonolithicȱcommitmentȱforȱtheȱindividual—and friendship,ȱtheȱoneȱremainingȱalternativeȱmodeȱofȱallegiance,ȱthereforeȱcameȱtoȱbeȱpresentedȱin starkȱoppositionȱtoȱfamily.” LaurieȱShannon,ȱ“Monarchs,ȱMinions,ȱandȱ‘Soveraigne’ȱFriendship,”ȱFriendship,ȱspecialȱissue, SouthȱAtlanticȱQuarterlyȱ97.1ȱ(1998):ȱ91–112;ȱhereȱ92. Thomasȱ Elyot,ȱ Theȱ Bokeȱ Namedȱ theȱ Governourȱ (London:ȱ Thomasȱ Berthelet,ȱ 1537),ȱ 135. http://eebo.chadwyck.com/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱJanuaryȱ30,ȱ2010). Macfaul,ȱMaleȱFriendship,ȱ5,ȱsuggestsȱthatȱShakespeare’sȱplaysȱwereȱperformedȱatȱaȱcrucialȱmoment inȱtheȱwesternȱhistoryȱofȱfriendship,ȱ“asȱolderȱfeudalȱmodesȱofȱallegianceȱgaveȱwayȱtoȱmodern friendshipȱofȱaffection.”ȱWithoutȱcompletelyȱdisappearing,ȱtheȱmedievalȱconceptionȱofȱfriendsȱas thoseȱwhoȱwereȱmateriallyȱattachedȱtoȱoneȱasȱneighborsȱandȱasȱfamilyȱmembersȱbeganȱtoȱcompete withȱ anȱ emergingȱ formȱ ofȱ “noninstrumentalȱ friendship,ȱ basedȱ inȱ afWnity,ȱ thatȱ d[id]ȱ notȱ (and shouldȱnot)ȱobtrudeȱonȱaȱwiderȱworldȱofȱpublicȱaffairs.”ȱ Ibid,ȱ83.

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

545

sovereignty,ȱhoweverȱparadoxicallyȱdependentȱitȱwasȱuponȱmutualȱsupport;ȱthe constantȱfriendȱimperviousȱtoȱfortuneȱcouldȱbolsterȱtheȱStoic’sȱfantasyȱofȱanȱ“inner citadel”ȱofȱthought.10ȱAndȱevenȱwhenȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱsovereignȱfriendship,ȱwherein identityȱ isȱ “anȱ antidoteȱ toȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ hierarchicalȱ difference,”ȱ wasȱ selfȬ consciouslyȱrecognizedȱasȱaȱfantasy,ȱitȱcouldȱstillȱremainȱinȱplaceȱasȱanȱidealȱfor earlyȱmodernersȱtoȱpursue.11ȱThus,ȱLaurieȱShannonȱcorrectlyȱdiagnosesȱsovereign friendshipȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiodȱasȱaȱmanifestationȱofȱ“theȱprivateȱsubject’s sovereignȱaspirations.”12ȱ Asȱ myȱ epigraphȱ suggests,ȱ toȱ Hannahȱ Arendtȱ allȱ formsȱ ofȱ sovereigntyȱ are foundedȱonȱescapistȱfantasiesȱthatȱattemptȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱfundamentalȱpluralityȱof publicȱlife,ȱtheȱnonȬsovereigntyȱofȱallȱhumanȱactionȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱboundless languageȱandȱanȱinevitableȱdependenceȱonȱtheȱunpredictableȱreactionsȱofȱothers.13 ItȱmayȱatȱfirstȱseemȱcounterintuitiveȱtoȱapplyȱArendt’sȱconceptȱofȱnonȬsovereignty toȱ aȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ earlyȱ modernȱ sovereignȱ friendship—aȱ relationshipȱ of interdependenceȱbetweenȱtwoȱpersonsȱmightȱappearȱtoȱnecessitateȱabandoningȱthe notionȱofȱindividualȱsovereignty.ȱAndȱyet,ȱifȱtheȱfigureȱofȱtheȱmonarchȱsymbolizes 10

11 12 13

TheȱseventeenthȱcenturyȱNeostoicȱreflectionsȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱclergymanȱJosephȱHallȱreproduceȱin aȱProtestantȱcontextȱtheȱearlyȱRomanȱStoicȱconceptionȱofȱtheȱmindȱasȱanotherȱpolis:ȱ“Everieȱman hathȱaȱkingdomeȱwithinȱhimselfe:ȱReasonȱasȱtheȱPrincesseȱdwelsȱinȱtheȱhighestȱandȱinwardest roomȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱviolentȱpassionsȱareȱasȱrebelsȱtoȱdisturbȱtheȱcommonȱpeace.”ȱJosephȱHall,ȱMeditations andȱVowesȱ(London:ȱHumfreyȱLownes,ȱ1605),ȱ97–98.ȱhttp://eebo.chadwyck.com/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱon Januaryȱ30,ȱ2010).ȱItȱshouldȱbeȱnoted,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱChristianȱNeostoicismȱinȱtheȱsixteenthȱcentury oftenȱtransformedȱtheȱearlyȱRomanȱStoicalȱbeliefȱinȱreflectionȱasȱaȱretreatȱfromȱtheȱuncertaintyȱof worldlyȱ affairsȱ intoȱ programsȱ forȱ practicalȱ politicalȱ action,ȱ temperingȱ whereȱ necessaryȱ the “pagan”ȱbeliefȱinȱselfȬsufficiencyȱasȱaȱdoctrineȱantitheticalȱtoȱdependencyȱonȱaȱChristianȱGod.ȱSee AdrianaȱMcCrea,ȱConstantȱMinds:ȱPoliticalȱVirtueȱandȱtheȱLipsianȱParadigmȱinȱEngland,ȱ1584–1650, TheȱMentalȱandȱCulturalȱWorldȱofȱTudorȱandȱStuartȱEnglandȱ(Toronto,ȱBuffalo,ȱandȱLondon: UniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ3–39.ȱPerhapsȱbestȱexemplifiedȱbyȱtheȱlifeȱofȱJustiusȱLipsius, friendshipȱinȱthisȱcontextȱmoreȱcloselyȱresemblesȱtheȱlaterȱRomanȱStoicismȱofȱCicero,ȱwhichȱwas “adaptedȱ toȱ theȱ practicalȱ requirementsȱ ofȱ theȱ Romanȱ senatorialȱ class,”ȱ andȱ oftenȱ extended friendshipȱ“beyondȱtheȱinnerȱcircleȱofȱtwoȱorȱaȱfewȱfriendsȱtoȱwideningȱcirclesȱofȱhumanityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.” MarkȱMorford,ȱStoicsȱandȱNeostoics:ȱRubensȱandȱtheȱCircleȱofȱLipsiusȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversity, 1991),ȱ 14–51;ȱ hereȱ 15,ȱ 25.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Jacquelineȱ Lagrée,ȱ “Constancyȱ andȱ Coherence,”ȱ Stoicism: TransitionsȱandȱTransformations,ȱed.ȱStevenȱK.ȱStrangeȱandȱJackȱZupkoȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge University,ȱ2004),ȱ148–76.ȱForȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱessay,ȱthough,ȱtheȱtermȱ“Stoicism”ȱwillȱnotȱbe explicitlyȱlinkedȱwithȱanyȱparticularȱoffshootȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱNeostoicȱphilosophy.ȱRather,ȱitȱwill beȱdeployedȱasȱaȱwayȱofȱharnessingȱArendt’sȱconceptionȱofȱtheȱtermȱandȱitsȱhistoryȱinȱtheȱwestȱin orderȱtoȱsuggestȱsimilaritiesȱwithȱtheȱprivatizedȱfriendshipsȱarticulatedȱbyȱMontaigne’sȱEssaisȱand Shakespeare’sȱHamlet.ȱOneȱfinalȱnote:ȱMontaigneȱisȱoftenȱviewedȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱearlyȱmodern Neostoicȱ thoughtȱ onlyȱ afterȱ aȱ considerableȱ numberȱ ofȱ qualificationsȱ areȱ madeȱ aboutȱ his idiosyncrasiesȱ asȱ anȱ individualȱ thinker.ȱ Ifȱ analysisȱ isȱ limitedȱ toȱ Montaigne’sȱ discussionȱ of friendship,ȱthough,ȱtheȱtermȱ“Stoic”ȱasȱArendtȱdefinesȱitȱwillȱproveȱanȱappropriateȱlabel.ȱForȱmore onȱArendtȱandȱStoicism,ȱseeȱnoteȱ14.ȱ Shannon,ȱ“Monarchs,ȱMinions,”ȱ92. Ibid,ȱ93. HannahȱArendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition,ȱ234.

546

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

whatȱArendtȱoutlinesȱasȱtheȱfirstȱmodeȱofȱsovereignty—“theȱarbitraryȱdomination ofȱ allȱ others”—sovereignȱ friendshipȱ occupiesȱ theȱ modeȱ ofȱ “Stoicism”ȱ withȱ a minimalȱdifference:ȱitȱisȱindeedȱ“theȱexchangeȱofȱtheȱrealȱworldȱforȱanȱimaginary oneȱwhereȱtheseȱothers”—withȱtheȱsoleȱexceptionȱofȱtheȱidealȱfriend—“would simplyȱnotȱexist.”14ȱ Whatȱ Iȱ wantȱ toȱ suggestȱ isȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ somethingȱ ofȱ aȱ sharedȱ assumption betweenȱtheȱotherwiseȱdistinctȱmodesȱofȱthoughtȱthatȱIȱwillȱbeȱcallingȱ“sovereign fathers”ȱandȱ“sovereignȱfriends,”ȱandȱitȱcanȱbeȱlocatedȱinȱtheirȱmutualȱrefusalȱto acknowledgeȱ plurality,ȱ vulnerability,ȱ andȱ inevitableȱ dependence,ȱ andȱ inȱ their collaborationȱasȱaȱScyllaȱandȱCharybdisȱofȱsovereigntyȱbetweenȱwhichȱtheȱearly modernȱ(masculine)ȱsubjectȱoscillates.ȱByȱreadingȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne’sȱessayȱ“Of Friendship”ȱalongsideȱHamlet,ȱthisȱexploratoryȱessayȱwillȱexamineȱtwoȱdifferent earlyȱmodernȱarticulationsȱofȱtheȱmovementȱawayȱfromȱsovereignȱ fathersȱand towardȱ sovereignȱ friends.ȱ Theȱ questionȱ Iȱ willȱ poseȱ isȱ whetherȱ orȱ notȱ Hamlet, havingȱ thoroughlyȱ consideredȱ bothȱ notionsȱ ofȱ sovereignty,ȱ finallyȱ adoptsȱ a postureȱofȱnonȬsovereigntyȱbyȱriskingȱaȱfurtherȱshiftȱtoȱwhatȱweȱcouldȱcallȱnonȬ sovereignȱfriendship.

14

Ibid,ȱ234.ȱThoughȱitȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱpaperȱtoȱgiveȱaȱfullȱaccountȱofȱArendt’sȱreflections onȱwhatȱsheȱconsideredȱtheȱwesternȱtradition’sȱtendencyȱtoȱembraceȱStoicȱformsȱofȱthoughtȱand itsȱperniciousȱeffectsȱonȱtheȱviabilityȱofȱaȱpublicȱpoliticalȱsphere,ȱaȱfewȱsummaryȱremarksȱseem appropriate.ȱ First,ȱ Arendtȱ locatesȱ aȱ linkȱ betweenȱ twoȱ westernȱ conceptsȱ ofȱ sovereigntyȱ inȱ the emergenceȱofȱStoicȱphilosophyȱduringȱtheȱlateȱRomanȱEmpire.ȱAgainstȱaȱnotionȱofȱpoliticalȱlife inȱwhichȱmenȱcouldȱparticipateȱasȱcitizensȱonlyȱthroughȱtheȱmasteryȱofȱothers,ȱStoicismȱraised thoughtȱitselfȱtoȱtheȱpositionȱofȱtheȱsovereign:ȱ“Epictetusȱtransposedȱtheseȱworldlyȱrelationships intoȱrelationshipsȱwithinȱman’sȱownȱself,ȱwherebyȱheȱdiscoveredȱthatȱnoȱpowerȱisȱsoȱabsoluteȱas thatȱwhichȱmanȱwieldsȱoverȱhimself,ȱandȱthatȱtheȱinwardȱspaceȱwhereȱmanȱstrugglesȱandȱsubdues himselfȱisȱmoreȱentirelyȱhisȱown,ȱnamely,ȱmoreȱsecurelyȱshieldedȱfromȱinterference,ȱthanȱany worldȱhomeȱcouldȱeverȱbe.”ȱHannahȱArendt,ȱ“WhatȱisȱFreedom?”ȱTheȱPortableȱHannahȱArendt,ȱed. PeterȱBaehrȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPenguin,ȱ2000),ȱ438–61;ȱhereȱ442.ȱThus,ȱforȱArendt,ȱfreedomȱasȱaȱpolitical conceptȱisȱlogicallyȱpriorȱtoȱtheȱmetaphoricȱtranslationȱofȱfreedomȱtoȱanȱinner,ȱnonȬpoliticalȱrealm andȱitsȱunderstandingȱinȱChristianȱthoughtȱasȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱfreedomȱofȱtheȱwill.ȱForȱfurther evidence,ȱ seeȱ Arendt’sȱ posthumouslyȱ publishedȱ Theȱ Lifeȱ ofȱ theȱ Mind,ȱ inȱ whichȱ sheȱ provides examplesȱofȱtheȱrecurrentȱinfluenceȱofȱStoicalȱthought;ȱHannahȱArendt,ȱTheȱLifeȱofȱtheȱMindȱ(New YorkȱandȱLondon:ȱHarcourtȱBraceȱJovanovich,ȱ1977),ȱ151–66.ȱAlsoȱseeȱSerenaȱParekh,ȱHannah ArendtȱandȱtheȱChallengeȱofȱModernityȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱAbingdon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2008),ȱ111–15.ȱBecause thisȱ paperȱ drawsȱ heavilyȱ uponȱ bothȱ Arendtȱ andȱ Hegel,ȱ itȱ isȱ alsoȱ importantȱ toȱ pointȱ outȱ that Arendt’sȱinterpretationȱofȱStoicismȱisȱbeingȱreadȱhereȱasȱaȱrearticulationȱofȱHegel’sȱwellȬknown accountȱofȱtheȱmasterȬslaveȱdialecticȱandȱofȱtheȱunhappyȱconsciousness,ȱwhichȱalsoȱtreatȱStoicism asȱaȱformȱofȱrevoltȱagainstȱtheȱmaterialȱconditionsȱofȱslavery.ȱSeeȱGeorgȱWilhelmȱFriedrichȱHegel, TheȱPhenomenologyȱofȱSpirit,ȱtrans.ȱA.V.ȱMillerȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversity,ȱ1977),ȱ119–23.ȱFinally, forȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱsimilaritiesȱbetweenȱHegel’sȱandȱArendt’sȱdiagnosesȱofȱStoicismȱasȱ“an innerȱ withdrawalȱ fromȱ politicalȱ conflict,”ȱ seeȱ Andrewȱ Shanks,ȱ Hegel’sȱ Politicalȱ Theology (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ155–60.ȱ

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

547

MontaigneȱandȱLaȱBoétie WellȱbeforeȱHamletȱbelievesȱheȱhasȱsufficientlyȱdemonstratedȱtheȱlegitimacyȱofȱthe ghostȱthatȱresemblesȱhisȱfather,ȱtheȱprinceȱalreadyȱappearsȱguiltyȱtoȱhimselfȱfor havingȱ delayedȱ revenge.ȱ Havingȱ failedȱ toȱ restoreȱ theȱ imageȱ ofȱ theȱ absolute authorityȱofȱhisȱfather—anȱimageȱtarnishedȱfirstȱandȱforemostȱbyȱOldȱHamlet’s ownȱmortalityȱbutȱalsoȱthroughȱGertrude’sȱsubsequentȱinfidelityȱandȱitsȱthreatȱto youngȱHamlet’sȱinheritance—theȱdemandsȱofȱtheȱpaternalȱsovereignȱreturnȱto Hamletȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱanȱemasculatingȱinsult:ȱ“Whoȱcallsȱmeȱvillain,ȱbreaksȱmy pateȱacross,ȱ/ȱPlucksȱoffȱmyȱbeardȱandȱblowsȱitȱinȱmyȱface.”ȱ(2.2.567–68).15ȱThat nowȱtheȱreappearanceȱofȱtheȱinjunctionȱtoȱ“Rememberȱme”ȱ(1.5.91)ȱissuesȱfromȱa “who”ȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ forȱ Hamlet,ȱ moralȱ lawȱ isȱ itselfȱ aȱ sortȱ ofȱ deadȱ father perpetuallyȱremindingȱhimȱofȱhisȱpromiseȱtoȱ“wipeȱawayȱallȱtrivialȱfondȱrecords” fromȱtheȱ“table”ȱofȱhisȱmemoryȱ(1.5.98–99).ȱAȱworldȱwhereȱmemoryȱseemsȱalmost universallyȱtoȱhaveȱfailedȱmakesȱitȱintoȱanȱ“unweededȱgarden,”ȱunderȱClaudius’ ruleȱ(1.2.135).ȱAsȱtheȱagentȱofȱhisȱfather’sȱwill,ȱHamletȱisȱleftȱtoȱrememberȱonȱbehalf ofȱsovereigntyȱitself.ȱCastȱasȱaȱhendiadysȱembodied,ȱbothȱ“scourgeȱandȱminister,” Hamletȱ findsȱ himselfȱ inȱ theȱ kinglyȱ roleȱ ofȱ pursuingȱ justiceȱ andȱ reformation (4.3.177).ȱButȱwhileȱupholdingȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱpatriarchalȱauthority,ȱaȱfantasyȱof lostȱsovereignty’sȱreturnȱisȱpreserved.16ȱThisȱquestȱforȱtheȱrestorationȱofȱanȱideal 15

16

AllȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱplayȱareȱfromȱHamlet,ȱed.ȱHaroldȱJenkins,ȱTheȱArdenȱShakespeare,ȱ2ndȱser. (WaltonȬonȬThames:ȱMethuenȱandȱCo.,ȱ1997). Theȱaboveȱsummaryȱdrawsȱuponȱtheȱworkȱofȱaȱhostȱofȱcritics,ȱbutȱmostȱnotablyȱonȱJohnȱKerrigan, RevengeȱTragedy:ȱAeschylusȱtoȱArmageddonȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1996),ȱ170–92,ȱwhoȱidentifies theȱroleȱofȱmemoryȱinȱHamletȱandȱitsȱproblematicȱrelationȱtoȱrevenge,ȱobservingȱthatȱ“AnȱOrestesȬ figure,”ȱ likeȱ Hamlet,ȱ “soȱ devotedȱ toȱ theȱ pastȱ willȱ findȱ itȱ hardȱ toȱ avenge”ȱ (182);ȱ “Evenȱ when comfortȱisȱfoundȱinȱtheȱpast,ȱthatȱonlyȱmakesȱtheȱpresentȱmoreȱdesolate,ȱ‘anȱunweededȱgarden’” (183).ȱ Onȱ Hamlet’sȱ internalizationȱ ofȱ hisȱ father’sȱ desireȱ forȱ revengeȱ see,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ Joanna MontgomeryȱByles,ȱ“TragicȱAlternatives:ȱErosȱandȱSuperegoȱRevengeȱinȱHamlet,”ȱNewȱEssaysȱon Hamlet,ȱed.ȱMarkȱThorntonȱBurnettȱandȱJohnȱManning.ȱTheȱHamletȱCollection,ȱ1(NewȱYork:ȱAMS Press,ȱ1994),ȱ117–34,ȱwhoȱsuggests:ȱ“Theȱsuperego,ȱthen,ȱisȱaȱrevengefulȱforceȱwhichȱseeksȱto punish.ȱHamletȱtriesȱtoȱbecomeȱhisȱfather’sȱsuperego,ȱbutȱbecauseȱheȱcannotȱactȱonȱit,ȱhisȱown superegoȱtakesȱrevengeȱonȱhim—torturesȱhim,ȱkillsȱhimȱeventually”ȱ(129).ȱThoughȱthisȱpaperȱwill attemptȱtoȱestablishȱaȱfundamentalȱconnectionȱbetweenȱtheȱsovereigntyȱofȱpatriarchalȱhierarchies andȱ theȱ sovereigntyȱ ofȱ private,ȱ idealȱ friendships,ȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Hamlet’sȱ motherȱ shouldȱ notȱ be obscured.ȱ Forȱ instance,ȱ Janetȱ Adelman,ȱ Suffocatingȱ Mothers:ȱ Fantasiesȱ ofȱ Maternalȱ Originȱ in Shakespeare’sȱPlays,ȱHamletȱtoȱTheȱTempestȱ(NewȱYork:ȱRoutledgeȱandȱLondon,ȱ1992),ȱ11–37, makesȱuseȱofȱpsychoanalyticȱperspectivesȱinȱanȱattemptȱtoȱrestoreȱtheȱroleȱofȱHamlet’sȱmotherȱto theȱcenterȱofȱtheȱdrama:ȱ“[T]heȱfathersȱinȱHamletȱkeepȱthreateningȱtoȱcollapseȱintoȱoneȱanother, annihilatingȱinȱtheirȱcollapseȱtheȱson’sȱeasyȱassumptionȱofȱhisȱfather’sȱidentity.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheȱinitiating causeȱofȱthisȱcollapseȱisȱHamlet’sȱmother:ȱherȱfailureȱtoȱserveȱherȱsonȱasȱtheȱrepositoryȱofȱhis father’sȱidealȱimageȱ byȱmourningȱhimȱappropriatelyȱisȱtheȱsymptomȱofȱherȱdeeperȱfailureȱto distinguishȱbetweenȱhisȱfatherȱandȱhisȱfather’sȱbrother.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱasȱsheȱforgets,ȱheȱinheritsȱtheȱburden ofȱ differentiating,ȱ ofȱ idealizingȱ andȱ makingȱ staticȱ theȱ past;ȱ henceȱ theȱ ghost’sȱ insistenceȱ on rememberingȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱtheȱdegreeȱtoȱwhichȱHamletȱregistersȱhisȱfailureȱtoȱavengeȱhisȱfatherȱasȱa failureȱ ofȱ memory”ȱ (13).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Jacquesȱ Lacan,ȱ “Desireȱ andȱ theȱ Interpretationȱ ofȱ Desireȱ in

548

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

worldȱ ofȱ deadȱ fathersȱ resemblesȱ whatȱ Nietzscheȱ wouldȱ laterȱ identifyȱ asȱ the potentialȱ forȱ politicalȱ violenceȱ inȱ whatȱ heȱ callsȱ monumentalȱ history,ȱ wherein, “HassȱgegenȱdieȱMächtigenȱundȱGrossenȱihrerȱZeitȱfürȱgesättigteȱBewunderung derȱMächtigenȱundȱGrossenȱvergangenerȱZeitenȱausgiebtȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱobȱsieȱesȱdeutlich wissenȱoderȱnicht,ȱsieȱhandelnȱjedenfallsȱso,ȱalsȱobȱihrȱWahlspruchȱwäre:ȱlasstȱdie TodtenȱdieȱLebendigenȱbegraben”ȱ(302;ȱ“hatredȱofȱpresentȱpowerȱandȱgreatness masqueradesȱasȱanȱextremeȱadmirationȱofȱtheȱpastȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwhetherȱtheyȱwishȱitȱorȱno, theyȱareȱactingȱasȱthoughȱtheirȱmottoȱwere:ȱ‘Letȱtheȱdeadȱburyȱtheȱliving.’”17 Beforeȱexploringȱanyȱpossibleȱalternativesȱtoȱrevengeȱthatȱfriendshipȱmightȱoffer Hamlet,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱcaseȱofȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigneȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱaȱlate sixteenthȱcenturyȱshiftȱawayȱfromȱtheȱsovereignȱcommandsȱofȱtheȱfatherȱtoȱthe sovereigntyȱofȱprivateȱfriendship.ȱInȱ“OfȱVanity,”ȱMontaigneȱrelatesȱtheȱregretȱhe experiencesȱwhenȱobservingȱtheȱdiminishedȱqualityȱofȱtheȱplotȱofȱgroundȱthatȱhis ownȱdeadȱfatherȱhadȱcultivatedȱandȱthatȱheȱhasȱinherited,ȱtheȱFrenchȱestateȱwhich bearsȱ theȱ familyȱ name.ȱ Publishedȱ withȱ theȱ finalȱ volumeȱ ofȱ theȱ Essaisȱ inȱ 1588, twentyȱyearsȱafterȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱfather,ȱtheȱessayȱrecordsȱaȱsortȱofȱconfession:ȱ“Et accuseȱmaȱfaineanceȱdeȱn’avoirȱpasséȱoutreȱàȱparfaireȱlesȱbeauxȱcommencements qu’ilȱaȱlaissezȱenȱsaȱmaison;ȱd’autantȱplusȱqueȱjeȱsuisȱenȱgransȱtermesȱd’enȱestreȱle dernierȱpossesseurȱdeȱmaȱraceȱetȱd’yȱporterȱlaȱderniereȱmain”ȱ(3.9.419;ȱ“AndȱI blameȱmyȱindolenceȱthatȱIȱhaveȱnotȱgoneȱfurtherȱtowardȱcompletingȱtheȱthingsȱhe beganȱsoȱhandsomelyȱinȱhisȱhouse;ȱallȱtheȱmoreȱbecauseȱIȱhaveȱaȱgoodȱchanceȱof beingȱtheȱlastȱofȱmyȱraceȱtoȱpossessȱit,ȱandȱtheȱlastȱtoȱputȱaȱhandȱtoȱit,”ȱ3.9.726).18 EvenȱwhileȱMontaigneȱwrites,ȱ“Jeȱmeȱglorifieȱqueȱsaȱvolontéȱs’exerceȱencoresȱet agisseȱparȱmoy”ȱ(“Iȱgloryȱinȱtheȱfactȱthatȱhisȱwillȱstillȱoperatesȱandȱactsȱthrough me”),ȱheȱalsoȱsuggests,ȱtoȱborrowȱHamlet’sȱwords,ȱ“whatȱaȱfallingȱoffȱthereȱwas”

17

18

Hamlet,”ȱLiteratureȱandȱPsychoanalysis,ȱed.ȱShoshanaȱFelmanȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnȱHopkinsȱUniversity, 1982),ȱ11–52.ȱAsȱIȱmoveȱtoȱdiscussȱidealȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱplay,ȱIȱwantȱtoȱpreserveȱtheȱlinkȱthat Adelmanȱestablishesȱbetweenȱtheȱactȱofȱavengingȱtheȱfatherȱandȱtheȱattemptȱtoȱreformȱtheȱmother, butȱIȱwillȱnotȱtakeȱaȱsideȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheirȱpriorityȱinȱpsychoanalyticȱterms.ȱTheȱimportant matterȱhereȱwillȱbeȱthatȱifȱtheȱmotherȬfatherȱdynamicȱisȱsuturedȱtogetherȱinȱtheȱplayȱbyȱHamlet’s desireȱ forȱ revenge,ȱ idealȱ friendshipȱ emergesȱ asȱ aȱ possibilityȱ opposedȱ toȱ thatȱ vexedȱ familial dynamicȱinȱitsȱtotality. Friedrichȱ Nietzsche,ȱ Unzeitgemässeȱ Betrachtungen,ȱ volȱ 1.,ȱ Nietzsche’sȱ Werkeȱ (Leipzig:ȱ C.ȱ G. Naumann,ȱ1905);ȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱisȱtakenȱfromȱFriedrichȱNietzsche,ȱTheȱUseȱandȱAbuseȱof History,ȱ trans.ȱ Adrianȱ Collinsȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Liberalȱ Artsȱ Press,ȱ 1957),ȱ 17.ȱ Editor’sȱ note:ȱ the translation,ȱtoȱbeȱmoreȱprecise,ȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱread:ȱhatredȱagainstȱtheȱpowerfulȱandȱgreatȱonesȱ ofȱtheȱownȱtimeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmasqueradesȱasȱaȱcomplacentȱadmirationȱofȱtheȱpowerfulȱandȱgreatȱonesȱof theȱpastȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. AllȱMontaigneȱcitationsȱareȱtakenȱfromȱtheȱauthorȇsȱ1588ȱBourdeauxȱCopy,ȱmadeȱavailableȱas digitalȱimagesȱbyȱTheȱMontaigneȱProject, ȱhttp://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/ARTFL/projects/montaigne/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱJanuaryȱ30,ȱ2010). TheȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱareȱfromȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne,ȱTheȱCompleteȱWorksȱofȱMontaigne:ȱEssays, Travelȱ Journal,ȱ Letters,ȱ trans.ȱ Donaldȱ Frameȱ (1958;ȱ Stanford:ȱ Stanfordȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1967). Citationsȱareȱlistedȱinȱmyȱtextȱbyȱbook,ȱessay,ȱandȱpageȱnumber.

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

549

fromȱ hisȱ fatherȱ toȱ himself.ȱ Deficientȱ inȱ twoȱ filialȱ responsibilities,ȱ heȱ hasȱ both neglectedȱtheȱupkeepȱofȱtheȱestateȱandȱfailedȱtoȱproduceȱaȱmaleȱheirȱwhoȱwill inheritȱhisȱfather’sȱland.ȱ Butȱ whereȱ Hamlet’sȱ ethicalȱ relationshipȱ toȱ theȱ deadȱ isȱ dominatedȱ byȱ the commandsȱofȱhisȱfather,ȱMontaigneȱtransmutesȱfidelityȱtoȱhisȱdeadȱfatherȱintoȱan ethicsȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Inȱ theȱ prefaceȱ toȱ hisȱ “Apologyȱ forȱ Raymondȱ Sebond,” Montaigneȱ relatesȱ thatȱ hisȱ earlierȱ vernacularȱ translationȱ ofȱ Sebond’sȱ Theologia Naturalisȱ wasȱ carriedȱ outȱ atȱ theȱ requestȱ ofȱ hisȱ dyingȱ father:ȱ “C’estoitȱ une occupationȱbienȱestrangeȱetȱnouvelleȱpourȱmoy;ȱmais,ȱestantȱdeȱfortuneȱpourȱlors deȱloisir,ȱetȱneȱpouvantȱrienȱrefuserȱauȱcommandementȱduȱmeilleurȱpereȱquiȱfut onques,ȱj’enȱvinsȱàȱboutȱcommeȱjeȱpeusȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(2.12.177;ȱ“Itȱwasȱaȱveryȱstrangeȱand aȱnewȱoccupationȱforȱme;ȱbutȱbeingȱbyȱchanceȱatȱleisureȱatȱtheȱtime,ȱandȱbeing unableȱtoȱdisobeyȱanyȱcommandȱofȱtheȱbestȱfatherȱthatȱeverȱwas,ȱIȱgotȱthroughȱit asȱbestȱIȱcouldȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ2.12.320).ȱAsȱforȱHamlet,ȱtheȱmemoryȱofȱhisȱownȱdeadȱfather isȱfashionedȱintoȱanȱidealȱimageȱwhoseȱcommandsȱcannotȱbeȱresisted.ȱButȱifȱthe passageȱofȱtimeȱlaceratesȱtheȱguiltyȱconscienceȱofȱtheȱPrinceȱofȱDenmarkȱ(“Iȱdoȱnot knowȱ/ȱWhyȱyetȱIȱliveȱtoȱsayȱthisȱthing’sȱtoȱdo,”ȱ4.4.43–44),ȱMontaigneȱleisurely createsȱspaceȱbetweenȱhimselfȱandȱtheȱwillȱofȱhisȱfatherȱbyȱmeansȱofȱaȱstrategic delay.ȱFurther,ȱtheȱ“Apology,”ȱasȱreadersȱofȱMontaigneȱhaveȱlongȱnoted,ȱdoesȱnot liveȱupȱtoȱitsȱname;ȱdefendingȱSebondȱfromȱtheȱcriticalȱattacksȱofȱotherȱwriters doesȱnotȱpreventȱMontaigneȱfromȱcriticizingȱtheȱpresumptionsȱofȱnaturalȱtheology asȱanȱintellectualȱoverreachingȱthatȱcannotȱbeȱsustained.19ȱInȱmoreȱwaysȱthanȱone, then,ȱMontaigneȱunderminesȱtheȱwillȱofȱhisȱfatherȱbyȱperpetuatingȱtheȱmemoryȱof Sebondȱonȱhisȱownȱterms. Inȱ“OfȱFriendship,”ȱMontaigneȱshiftsȱattentionȱawayȱfromȱaȱsovereignȱpatriarchy thatȱ isȱ subservientȱ toȱ theȱ modelȱ ofȱ theȱ (e)stateȱ andȱ towardȱ theȱ “souveraineȱ et maistresseȱamitié”ȱ(1.28.72;ȱ“sovereignȱandȱmasterfulȱfriendship,”ȱ1.28.140),ȱthat, inȱitsȱutterȱparticularity,ȱisȱsubservientȱtoȱnoȱmodel.ȱ“[P]arfaicteȱamitié”ȱ(1.28.72; “perfectȱfriendship,”ȱ1.28.141),ȱasȱheȱalsoȱtermsȱit,ȱisȱinȱnoȱwayȱtoȱbeȱconfusedȱwith moreȱ commonȱ typesȱ ofȱ friendship;ȱ whetherȱ “naturelle,ȱ sociale,ȱ hospitaliere, venerienne”ȱ(“natural,ȱsocial,ȱhospitable,ȱerotic”),ȱthoseȱforgedȱbyȱ“laȱvoluptéȱou leȱprofit”ȱ(“pleasureȱorȱprofit”),ȱorȱforȱ“leȱbesoinȱpubliqueȱouȱprivé”ȱ(“publicȱor privateȱneeds”),ȱcannotȱequalȱit.ȱ(1.28.70;ȱ1.28.136).ȱFriendshipsȱ“siȱentiereȱetȱsi parfaite”ȱ(1.28.70;ȱ“soȱentireȱandȱsoȱperfect,”ȱ1.28.136)ȱemergeȱfromȱaȱfreeȱchoice andȱbestowalȱofȱaffection,ȱandȱareȱbestȱconceivedȱofȱinȱoppositionȱtoȱtheȱaffections dueȱtoȱbloodȱrelations:ȱ“Leȱpereȱetȱleȱfilsȱpeuventȱestreȱdeȱcomplexionȱentierement eslongnée,ȱ etȱ lesȱ freresȱ aussiȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ àȱ mesureȱ queȱ ceȱ sontȱ amitiezȱ queȱ laȱ loyȱ et l’obligationȱnaturelleȱnousȱcommande,ȱilȱyȱaȱd’autantȱmoinsȱdeȱnostreȱchoisȱet libertéȱ volontaire”ȱ (1.28.70;ȱ “Fatherȱ andȱ sonȱ mayȱ beȱ ofȱ entirelyȱ different 19

SeeȱHugoȱFriedrich,ȱMontaigne.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(1949;ȱBernȱandȱMunich:ȱFrancke,ȱ1967),ȱ91–103,ȱandȱJean Starobinski,ȱMontaigneȱenȱMouvement.ȱBibliothèqueȱdesȱIdéesȱ(Paris:ȱGallimard,ȱ1982),ȱ88–90.

550

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

dispositions,ȱandȱbrothersȱalsoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱmoreȱtheyȱareȱfriendshipsȱwhichȱlawȱand naturalȱobligationȱimposeȱonȱus,ȱtheȱlessȱofȱourȱchoiceȱandȱfreeȱwillȱthereȱisȱin them,”ȱ1.28.137).ȱAndȱsinceȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱmustȱbeȱgovernedȱbyȱtwoȱequal partners,ȱ theȱ “tropȱ grandeȱ disparité”ȱ (1.28.70;ȱ “tooȱ greatȱ inequality,”ȱ 1.28.136) betweenȱfathersȱandȱsonsȱinhibitsȱitsȱcultivation.ȱ Despiteȱ Montaigne’sȱ politicalȱ conservatismȱ andȱ hisȱ desireȱ toȱ containȱ the revolutionaryȱpotentialȱofȱfriendship,ȱhisȱessayȱrevealsȱtheȱimpossibilityȱofȱanȱideal harmonyȱbetweenȱpatriarchalȱsovereigntyȱandȱmutualȱsovereigntyȱand,ȱindeed, theȱ potentialȱ forȱ outrightȱ antagonismȱ betweenȱ theȱ two.ȱ Asȱ Montaigneȱ notes: “L’uniqueȱ etȱ principaleȱ amitiéȱ descoustȱ toutesȱ autresȱ obligations”ȱ (1.28.73;ȱ “A singleȱdominantȱfriendshipȱdissolvesȱallȱotherȱobligations,”ȱ1.128.142).ȱDeparting significantlyȱfromȱhisȱsourceȱmaterialȱinȱCicero’sȱDeȱamicitia,ȱMontaigneȱoffersȱthe Romanȱ pairȱ Tiberiusȱ Gracchusȱ andȱ Gaiusȱ Blossiusȱ asȱ theȱ primeȱ exampleȱ ofȱ a sovereignȱfriendship.ȱInȱCicero,ȱforȱwhomȱfriendshipȱisȱvirtuousȱonlyȱinsofarȱasȱit isȱcompatibleȱwithȱtheȱdutiesȱofȱRomanȱcitizenship,ȱtheȱtwoȱmenȱareȱanȱexample ofȱaȱfriendshipȱthatȱextendedȱwellȱbeyondȱitsȱproperȱbounds.ȱ Inȱtheȱdialogue,ȱLaeliusȱinformsȱhisȱinterlocutorsȱaboutȱtheȱtimeȱwhenȱGaius Blossiusȱ hadȱ comeȱ toȱ himȱ toȱ receiveȱ pardonȱ forȱ actionsȱ disloyalȱ toȱ theȱ state. Attemptingȱtoȱjustifyȱwhatȱheȱhadȱdone,ȱBlossiusȱclaimedȱheȱhadȱbeenȱboundȱby loyaltyȱ toȱ hisȱ friendȱ Tiberiusȱ Gracchus.ȱ Hearingȱ this,ȱ Laeliusȱ proceededȱ to investigateȱjustȱhowȱfarȱtheseȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱmightȱhaveȱextended: “EtiamneȱsiȱteȱinȱCapitoliumȱfacesȱferreȱvellet?”ȱ“Numquam,”ȱinquit,ȱ“voluissetȱid quidem;ȱsedȱsiȱvoluisset,ȱparuissem.”ȱVidetisȱquamȱnefariaȱvox!ȱEtȱherculeȱitaȱfecit,ȱvel plusȱetiamȱquamȱdixit;ȱnonȱenimȱparuitȱilleȱTiberiiȱGracchiȱtemeritati,ȱsedȱpraefuit,ȱnec seȱcomitemȱilliusȱfurorisȱsedȱducemȱpraebuitȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱNullaȱestȱigiturȱexcusatioȱpeccatiȱsi amiciȱcausaȱpeccaveris;ȱnamȱcumȱconciliatrixȱamicitiaeȱvirtutisȱopinioȱfuerit,ȱdifficile estȱamicitiamȱmanereȱsiȱaȱvirtuteȱdefeceris. [“Even,”ȱIȱsaid,ȱ“ifȱheȱwantedȱyouȱtoȱsetȱtheȱCapitolȱonȱfire?”ȱ“Heȱwouldȱneverȱhave wantedȱthat,”ȱheȱansweredȱ“butȱifȱheȱhad,ȱIȱwouldȱhaveȱcomplied.”ȱYouȱcanȱseeȱwhat aȱperniciousȱthingȱtoȱsayȱthatȱwas;ȱand,ȱinȱfact,ȱheȱputȱitȱintoȱpractice,ȱorȱevenȱdidȱmore thanȱwhatȱheȱsaid:ȱheȱdidȱnotȱsimplyȱfollowȱtheȱrashȱdesignsȱofȱTiberiusȱGracchus,ȱbut wasȱtheȱauthorȱofȱthemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱitȱisȱnoȱexcuseȱforȱwrongdoingȱifȱoneȱdoesȱwrongȱforȱthe sakeȱofȱaȱfriend,ȱfor,ȱsinceȱtheȱbeliefȱinȱeachȱother’sȱgoodȱcharacterȱwasȱtheȱagentȱthat broughtȱtheȱfriendsȱtogetherȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace,ȱitȱisȱdifficultȱforȱfriendshipȱtoȱremainȱif oneȱleavesȱtheȱpathȱofȱgoodness.]20

ThatȱBlossiusȱremainedȱloyalȱtoȱGracchusȱduringȱtheȱrevolutionaryȱactivityȱhe undertookȱ forȱ popularȱ landȱ reformsȱ isȱ unequivocallyȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ of wickedness.ȱWhileȱMontaigneȱmentionsȱthatȱBlossiusȱadmittedȱheȱwouldȱhave 20

ȱTheȱoriginalȱLatinȱandȱEnglishȱtranslationȱareȱfromȱCicero,ȱLaelius:ȱOnȱFriendship,ȱtrans.ȱJ.ȱG.ȱF. Powellȱ(Warminster:ȱArisȱandȱPhillips,ȱ1990),ȱ45–47.ȱ

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

551

burnedȱRomanȱtemplesȱifȱGracchusȱhadȱrequestedȱit,ȱheȱsoftensȱtheȱstatementȱby claimingȱ thatȱ Blossiusȱ hadȱ “laȱ volontéȱ deȱ Gracchusȱ enȱ saȱ manche”ȱ (1.28.71; “Gracchus’ȱwillȱupȱhisȱsleeve,”ȱ1.28.140)ȱandȱcompletelyȱomitsȱtheirȱrevolutionary solidarity.ȱInȱCicero,ȱnoȱfriendshipȱisȱsoȱperfectȱthatȱitȱcannotȱbeȱbroken:ȱ“they oughtȱnotȱtoȱconsiderȱthemselvesȱunderȱanyȱobligationȱtoȱstandȱbyȱfriendsȱwhoȱare disloyalȱ toȱ theȱ republic.”ȱ Inȱ Montaigne,ȱ though,ȱ sovereignȱ friendshipȱ exceeds citizenship:ȱ“Ilsȱestoientȱplusȱamisȱqueȱcitoyens,ȱplusȱamisȱqu’amisȱetȱqu’ennemis deȱleurȱpaïsȱ(1.28.71;ȱ“Theyȱwereȱfriendsȱmoreȱthanȱcitizens,ȱfriendsȱmoreȱthan friendsȱorȱenemiesȱofȱtheirȱcountry,”ȱ1.28.140).21ȱAllȱthatȱkeepsȱMontaigne’sȱnotion ofȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱpoliticallyȱconservativeȱisȱhisȱassertionȱofȱitsȱperfectionȱand rarity.22ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱGracchusȱandȱBlossius,ȱforȱexample,ȱtheȱPlatonicȱunionȱofȱthe twoȱmen’sȱwillsȱensuresȱthatȱ“ilsȱtenoientȱparfaittementȱlesȱrenesȱdeȱl’inclination l’unȱ deȱ l’autre”ȱ (1.28.71;ȱ “theyȱ heldȱ absolutelyȱ theȱ reignsȱ ofȱ eachȱ other’s inclinations,”ȱ1.28.140).ȱȱ Soȱrareȱisȱsovereignȱfriendship,ȱinȱfact,ȱthatȱMontaigneȱcanȱciteȱnoȱcontemporary exampleȱthatȱevenȱapproachesȱit:ȱ“entreȱnosȱhommes,ȱilȱneȱs’enȱvoitȱaucuneȱtrace enȱ usage”ȱ (1.28.69;ȱ “amongȱ menȱ ofȱ todayȱ youȱ seeȱ noȱ traceȱ ofȱ itȱ inȱ practice,” 1.28.136).ȱTheȱimpossibilityȱofȱanȱincarnationȱofȱfraternalȱmutualityȱthatȱescapes privateȱinterestsȱabsolutely—inȱwhichȱ“ilȱn’yȱaȱaffaireȱnyȱcommerce,ȱqueȱd’elle mesme”ȱ (1.28.71;ȱ “thereȱ areȱ noȱ dealingsȱ orȱ businessȱ exceptȱ withȱ itself,” 1.28.138)—isȱ occludedȱ byȱ theȱ fantasyȱ givenȱ fleshȱ byȱ theȱ essayȱ itselfȱ andȱ byȱ its nostalgiaȱ forȱ theȱ relationshipȱ Montaigneȱ claimsȱ toȱ haveȱ sharedȱ withȱ theȱ late EtienneȱdeȱLaȱBoétie.ȱPerhaps,ȱasȱTomȱMacfaulȱargues:ȱ“Deathȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱprovidesȱaȱform ofȱreconciliation,ȱbyȱsublimatingȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpastȱfeelingȱintoȱanȱidealȱwhichȱcanȱnoȱlonger beȱ altered.”23ȱ Unlikeȱ familialȱ andȱ commercialȱ bondsȱ ofȱ obligationȱ thatȱ yoke individualsȱtogetherȱbutȱpreserveȱtheirȱseparateȱidentities,ȱtheȱidealȱfriendshipȱthat MontaigneȱandȱLaȱBoétieȱexperiencedȱeffacedȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱselfȱand other:ȱ Enȱ l’amitiéȱ dequoyȱ jeȱ parle,ȱ ellesȱ seȱ meslentȱ etȱ confondentȱ l’uneȱ enȱ l’autre,ȱ d’un melangeȱsiȱuniversel,ȱqu’ellesȱeffacentȱetȱneȱretrouventȱplusȱlaȱcoutureȱquiȱlesȱaȱjointes. 21

22

23

Powellȱnotesȱinȱhisȱcommentaryȱthatȱ“Montaigne,ȱEssaiȱ1.28,ȱtakesȱissueȱwithȱCiceroȱoverȱhis judgmentȱ onȱ Blossius”ȱ (98).ȱ Butȱ Montaigne’sȱ changesȱ areȱ betterȱ categorizedȱ asȱ muted,ȱ even surreptitious,ȱalterationsȱthatȱareȱrepresentativeȱofȱanȱearlyȱmodernȱtensionȱbetweenȱmonarchical andȱamityȬbasedȱformsȱofȱsovereignty.ȱAtȱonceȱdeclaringȱtheȱpriorityȱofȱfriendshipȱoverȱevery otherȱ obligationȱ andȱ concealingȱ theȱ potentialȱ forȱ politicalȱ ruptureȱ byȱ denyingȱ theȱ radical possibilitiesȱmadeȱexplicitȱinȱCicero,ȱMontaigneȱpresentsȱtheȱprivateȱsphereȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱan innocuousȱretreatȱfromȱpublicȱlife. ForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱwiderȱRenaissanceȱculturalȱbeliefȱinȱtrueȱfriendshipȱasȱanȱanomaly,ȱsee Ulrichȱ Langer,ȱ Perfectȱ Friendship:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Moralȱ Philosophyȱ fromȱ Boccaccioȱ to Corneille,ȱHistoireȱdesȱIdéesȱetȱCritiqueȱLittéraire,ȱ331ȱ(Geneva:ȱLibrairieȱDroz,ȱ1994);ȱforȱrelevant discussionȱofȱMontaigneȱinȱthisȱcontext,ȱ14–20. Macfaul,ȱMaleȱFriendship,ȱ65.

552

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk Siȱonȱmeȱpresseȱdeȱdireȱpourquoyȱjeȱl’aymois,ȱjeȱsensȱqueȱcelaȱneȱseȱpeutȱexprimer, qu’enȱrespondant:ȱParȱceȱqueȱc’estoitȱluy;ȱparȱceȱqueȱc’estoitȱmoy.ȱ(1.28.71) [InȱtheȱfriendshipȱIȱspeakȱof,ȱourȱsoulsȱmingleȱandȱblendȱwithȱeachȱotherȱsoȱcompletely thatȱtheyȱeffaceȱtheȱseamȱthatȱjoinedȱthem,ȱandȱcannotȱfindȱitȱagain.ȱIfȱyouȱpressȱmeȱto tellȱwhyȱIȱlovedȱhim,ȱIȱfeelȱthatȱthisȱcannotȱbeȱexpressed,ȱexceptȱbyȱanswering:ȱBecause itȱwasȱhe,ȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱI.]ȱ(1.28.139)ȱ

Ifȱ theȱpraiseȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱaȱpraiseȱthatȱincludesȱtheȱformerȱself,ȱitȱturnsȱ the presentȱselfȱintoȱanȱuncannyȱthing—neitherȱhereȱnorȱthere,ȱneitherȱnowȱnorȱthen. Theȱpersistenceȱofȱtheȱselfȱinȱtheȱabsenceȱofȱtheȱotherȱgivesȱtheȱlieȱtoȱanyȱabsolute intersubjectiveȱunionȱandȱlowersȱtheȱselfȱevenȱasȱitȱidealizesȱtheȱother:ȱ“Car,ȱde mesmeȱqu’ilȱmeȱsurpassoitȱd’uneȱdistanceȱinfinieȱenȱtouteȱautreȱsuffisanceȱetȱvertu, aussiȱ faisoitȬilȱ auȱ devoirȱ deȱ l’amitié”ȱ (1.28.73;ȱ “Forȱ justȱ asȱ heȱ surpassedȱ me infinitelyȱinȱeveryȱotherȱabilityȱandȱvirtue,ȱsoȱheȱdidȱinȱtheȱdutyȱofȱfriendship,” 1.28.143).ȱ Theȱ inadequacyȱ ofȱ languageȱ toȱ representȱ textuallyȱ thisȱ friendship nonpareilȱ emergesȱ asȱ anotherȱ formȱ ofȱ guiltȱ forȱ spectralȱ imagesȱ inadequately memorialized;ȱshiftingȱsovereigntyȱfromȱdeadȱfathersȱtoȱdeadȱfriendsȱdoesȱnot purgeȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱsuperego.ȱMontaigneȱremarksȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱPaulȱdeȱFoix thatȱheȱpossessesȱ“peuȱdeȱmoienȱetȱdeȱsuffisanceȱpourȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱrender”ȱ(1368;ȱ“little meansȱ andȱ abilityȱ toȱ render,”ȱ 1063)ȱ faithfullyȱ theȱ memoryȱ ofȱ Laȱ Boétie.24 Shortcomingsȱappearȱhereȱasȱanȱindividual’sȱlimitedȱcapacityȱforȱexpression,ȱrather than,ȱasȱinȱHamlet,ȱexternalȱ“maimedȱrites”ȱofȱremembrance.25ȱ ThoughȱMontaigneȱisȱcommittedȱelsewhereȱinȱtheȱEssaisȱtoȱaȱdepictionȱofȱthe ephemeralȱandȱeverȬshiftingȱqualitiesȱofȱaȱmutuallyȱconstitutingȱworldȱandȱself, inȱ“OfȱFriendship”ȱheȱproducesȱaȱuniqueȱmemoryȱofȱwholeness.ȱAndȱyet,ȱeven thoughȱhisȱtoneȱcanȱbeȱcategorizedȱasȱnostalgic,ȱinȱgraspingȱforȱaȱtypeȱofȱstabilizing forceȱinȱaȱsingularȱfriendshipȱratherȱthanȱinȱfamilyȱcoatsȱofȱarmsȱthatȱ“n’ontȱde seurtéȱ nonȱ plusȱ queȱ lesȱ surnoms”ȱ (1.46.116;ȱ “haveȱ noȱ moreȱ securityȱ than 24

25

Michelȱ deȱ Montaigne,ȱ Oeuvresȱ Complètesȱ deȱ Montaigne,ȱ Bibliothèqueȱ deȱ laȱ Pléiade,ȱ 14ȱ (Paris: Gallimard,ȱ1962).ȱTheȱEnglishȱtranslationȱisȱDonaldȱFrame’s;ȱseeȱMontaigne,ȱTheȱCompleteȱWorks ofȱMontaigne. “[M]aimedȱrites”ȱrefersȱtoȱHamlet’sȱreactionȱtoȱwitnessingȱaȱbody—aȱbodyȱthatȱheȱsoonȱafter discoversȱisȱOphelia’s—beingȱbroughtȱtoȱtheȱgraveyardȱwithoutȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱproperȱChristian burialȱ(“Whoȱisȱthisȱtheyȱfollow?ȱ/ȱAndȱwithȱsuchȱmaimedȱrites?ȱThisȱdothȱbetokenȱ/ȱTheȱcorse theyȱfollowȱdidȱwithȱdesp’rateȱhandȱ/ȱFordoȱitsȱownȱlife.ȱ‘Twasȱofȱsomeȱestate,”ȱ5.1.11–14).ȱAs DavidȱBevingtonȱhasȱargued,ȱHamletȱpresentsȱaȱseriesȱofȱuncompletedȱorȱimproperlyȱperformed ceremoniesȱthatȱdeserveȱtheȱsameȱtitle:ȱ“Theȱ‘o’erhastyȱmarriage’ȱofȱGertrudeȱandȱClaudiusȱbefore theȱplayȱbeginsȱisȱaȱmaimedȱrite;ȱsoȱisȱtheȱawkwardȱpublicȱsceneȱatȱcourtȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmarriage isȱ announcedȱ inȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Gertrude’sȱ inconsolableȱ son,ȱ theȱ dramaticȱ entertainment presentedȱbyȱtheȱplayersȱtoȱClaudiusȱbutȱbrokenȱoffȱbyȱhisȱsuddenȱrising,ȱClaudius’ȱabortive attemptȱatȱprayer,ȱtheȱ‘obscureȱfuneral’ȱofȱoldȱPolonius,ȱtheȱsubstitutingȱofȱaȱforgedȱdeathȱwarrant sentȱbyȱClaudiusȱtoȱtheȱKingȱofȱEngland,ȱandȱtheȱburialȱofȱOpheliaȱwithoutȱtheȱsingingȱofȱthe ‘serviceȱ ofȱ theȱ dead.’”ȱ Seeȱ “‘Maimedȱ Rites’:ȱ Violatedȱ Ceremonyȱ inȱ Hamlet,”ȱ Criticalȱ Essaysȱ in Shakespeare’sȱHamlet,ȱed.ȱDavidȱScottȱKastanȱ(NewȱYork:ȱG.ȱK.ȱHall,ȱ1995),ȱ126–38;ȱhereȱ127.

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

553

surnames,”ȱ 1.46.203)ȱ Montaigneȱ idealizesȱ theȱ pastȱ inȱ aȱ wayȱ thatȱ exceedsȱ the parametersȱofȱNietzsche’sȱnotionȱofȱmonumentalȱhistory.ȱMonumentalȱhistory,ȱlike revenge,ȱseeksȱtheȱrestorationȱofȱanȱidealȱpast:ȱ“Erȱentnimmtȱdaraus,ȱdassȱdas Grosse,ȱdasȱeinmalȱdaȱwar,ȱjedenfallsȱeinmalȱmöglichȱwarȱundȱdeshalbȱauchȱwohl wiederȱeinmalȱmöglichȱseinȱwirdȱ(297;ȱ“Itȱisȱtheȱknowledgeȱthatȱtheȱgreatȱthing existedȱ andȱ wasȱ thereforeȱ possible,ȱ andȱ soȱ mayȱ beȱ possibleȱ again,”14).26ȱ Asȱ a culturalȱanomaly,ȱsomethingȱthatȱhappensȱonlyȱ“uneȱfoisȱenȱtroisȱsiecles”ȱ(1.28.70; “onceȱinȱthreeȱcenturies,”ȱ1.28.136)—andȱevenȱthenȱonlyȱthroughȱmereȱfortuneȱor coincidence—sovereignȱfriendshipȱisȱanȱabsenceȱtoȱbeȱmourned,ȱnotȱaȱpolitical projectȱ thatȱ canȱ activelyȱ beȱ pursued.27ȱ Forȱ Montaigne,ȱ ifȱ notȱ forȱ Hamlet,ȱ the “unweededȱgarden”ȱcanȱneverȱagainȱbeȱcultivated.ȱ Suchȱaȱrelationȱtoȱtheȱpast,ȱthough,ȱproducesȱaȱmalaiseȱinȱtheȱpresent.ȱWithȱthe deathȱ ofȱ Laȱ Boétie,ȱ theȱ “amitiéȱ quiȱ possedeȱ l’ameȱ etȱ laȱ regenteȱ enȱ toute souveraineté”ȱ (1.28.73;ȱ “friendshipȱ thatȱ possessesȱ theȱ soulȱ andȱ rulesȱ itȱ with absoluteȱsovereignty,”ȱ1.28.143)ȱpersistsȱonlyȱtoȱcastȱaȱpallȱoverȱtheȱpresent:ȱ“ce n’estȱqueȱfumée,ȱceȱn’estȱqu’uneȱnuitȱobscureȱetȱennuyeuse”ȱ(1.28.73;ȱ“itȱisȱnothing butȱsmoke,ȱnothingȱbutȱdarkȱandȱdrearyȱnight,”ȱ1.28.143).ȱAllȱtheȱpleasuresȱofȱlife, Montaigneȱwrites,ȱ“auȱlieuȱdeȱmeȱconsoler,ȱmeȱredoublentȱleȱregretȱdeȱsaȱperte” (1.28.73;ȱ “insteadȱ ofȱ consolingȱ me,ȱ redoubleȱ myȱ griefȱ forȱ hisȱ loss,”ȱ 1.28.143). BecauseȱtheȱPlatonicȱunionȱofȱMontaigneȱandȱLaȱBoétieȱmeantȱthatȱtheyȱwentȱ“à moitiéȱdeȱtout”ȱ(“halvesȱinȱeverything”),ȱitȱthusȱnowȱseemsȱtoȱMontaigneȱasȱifȱhe isȱ“luyȱdesrobeȱsaȱpart”ȱ(1.28.73;ȱ“robbingȱhimȱofȱhisȱshare,”ȱ1.28.143).ȱPreserving forȱ theȱ readerȱ theȱ ideaȱ ofȱ aȱ sovereigntyȱ andȱ plenitudeȱ achievedȱ through friendshipsȱ ofȱ theȱ past,ȱ theȱ essayȱ passesȱ onȱ asȱ itsȱ ownȱ legacyȱ aȱ feelingȱ of dispossession.

HamletȱandȱHoratio AsȱdoesȱMontaigne,ȱThomasȱChurchyardȱascribesȱpriorityȱtoȱtheȱfreeȱchoiceȱof friendshipȱoverȱtheȱgivennessȱofȱfamilyȱrelationsȱinȱhisȱAȱSparkeȱofȱFrendshipȱ(1588), describingȱitȱasȱchoosingȱ“byȱelectionȱandȱprivyȱliking.”28ȱHamletȱusesȱtheȱsame languageȱ toȱ describeȱ theȱ freeȱ actȱ ofȱ determiningȱ hisȱ ownȱ sovereignȱ friendship whenȱheȱconfessesȱtoȱHoratio:ȱ“Sinceȱmyȱdearȱsoulȱwasȱmistressȱofȱherȱchoice,ȱand 26 27

28

Nietzsche,ȱUnzeitgemässeȱBetrachtungen. ItȱshouldȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱArendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition,ȱ242,ȱidentifiesȱthatȱdiscussionsȱofȱtheȱrarity ofȱidealȱloveȱhaveȱaȱtendencyȱtoȱobfuscateȱtheȱpoliticalȱproblemsȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱofȱidealȱlove itselfȱintroduces:ȱ“Love,ȱbyȱitsȱveryȱnature,ȱisȱunworldly,ȱandȱitȱisȱforȱthisȱreasonȱratherȱthanȱits rarityȱthatȱitȱisȱnotȱonlyȱapoliticalȱbutȱantipolitical,ȱperhapsȱtheȱmostȱpowerfulȱofȱallȱantipolitical humanȱforces.” Thomasȱ Churchyard,ȱ Aȱ Sparkeȱ ofȱ Frendshipȱ (London:ȱ T.ȱ Orwin,ȱ 1588),ȱ D2,ȱ seeȱ onlineȱ at: http://eebo.chadwyck.com/ȱ(lastȱaccessedȱonȱAug.ȱ1,ȱ2010).

554

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

couldȱ ofȱ menȱ distinguishȱ herȱ electionȱ /ȱ Sh’hathȱ seal’dȱ theeȱ forȱ herselfȱ .ȱ .ȱ .” (3.2.63–65).ȱEscapingȱtheȱconstraintsȱHamletȱmightȱexperienceȱshouldȱheȱselectȱa brideȱwhere,ȱasȱLaertesȱremarks,ȱ“hisȱgreatnessȱweigh’d,ȱhisȱwillȱisȱnotȱhisȱown” (1.3.17),ȱtheȱprivateȱelectionȱofȱaȱsingularȱandȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱoperatesȱin pronouncedȱoppositionȱtoȱaȱpolityȱgovernedȱbyȱaȱsovereignȱmonarch,ȱparticularly becauseȱ theȱ monarchyȱ Shakespeareȱ hasȱ producedȱ isȱ itselfȱ anȱ electiveȱ one; Claudius,ȱHamletȱlaterȱclaims,ȱhasȱ“popp’dȱinȱbetweenȱth’election,”ȱandȱhisȱown opportunityȱforȱtheȱcrownȱ(5.2.65).ȱButȱwithȱregardȱtoȱfriendshipȱHamletȱidentifies theȱ soulȱ asȱ monarch.ȱ Byȱ “havingȱ seal’dȱ forȱ herself,”ȱ theȱ soulȱ producesȱ an obligationȱthatȱcompetesȱforȱpriorityȱwithȱtheȱKing’sȱsignetȱring,ȱtheȱringȱwhich itselfȱwillȱ“seal”ȱtheȱdeathȱofȱtheȱfalseȱfriendsȱRosencrantzȱandȱGuildensternȱinȱthe nameȱofȱtheȱfatherȱ(5.2.48).29ȱȱȱ UnlikeȱMontaigne’sȱ“OfȱFriendship,”ȱthough,ȱtheȱplayȱgesturesȱtowardȱaȱform ofȱfriendshipȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱblockedȱbyȱHamlet’sȱdestinyȱasȱtheȱnamesakeȱofȱaȱdead king.ȱWhenȱClaudiusȱinformsȱtheȱprinceȱthatȱheȱisȱheirȱtoȱtheȱthrone,ȱheȱalsoȱmakes clearȱthatȱtheȱpoliticalȱworldȱisȱnotȱoneȱfromȱwhichȱHamletȱcanȱattemptȱaȱretreat: Youȱareȱtheȱmostȱimmediateȱtoȱourȱthrone,ȱ Andȱwithȱnoȱlessȱnobilityȱofȱlove Thanȱthatȱwhichȱdearestȱfatherȱbearsȱhisȱson DoȱIȱimpartȱtowardȱyou.ȱForȱyourȱintent InȱgoingȱbackȱtoȱschoolȱinȱWittenberg, Itȱisȱmostȱretrogradeȱtoȱourȱdesire. ȱ(1.2.109–14)ȱ

Priorȱ toȱ theȱ actionȱ ofȱ theȱ play,ȱ then,ȱ Hamletȱ hasȱ expressedȱ aȱ desireȱ toȱ leave DenmarkȱforȱWittenbergȱinȱGermany;ȱisȱitȱmerelyȱcoincidenceȱthatȱthisȱwould meanȱescapingȱfromȱtheȱrealmȱofȱhisȱfatherȱandȱofȱpublicȱelectionȱtoȱreachȱthe placeȱ whereȱ theȱ objectȱ ofȱ hisȱ privateȱ electionȱ happensȱ toȱ reside?ȱ Margretaȱ de Graziaȱhasȱarguedȱpersuasivelyȱthatȱ“theȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱplayȱitselfȱupholdsȱthe attachmentȱ ofȱ personsȱ toȱ land,”ȱ ratherȱ than,ȱ asȱ muchȱ criticismȱ afterȱ Hegel 29

Evenȱ thoughȱ Hamletȱ isȱ amongȱ theȱ mostȱ thoroughlyȱ minedȱ literaryȱ artifactsȱ inȱ theȱ English language,ȱtheȱplay’sȱconcernȱwithȱfriendshipȱhasȱbeenȱmuchȱlessȱofȱaȱcriticalȱfocusȱthanȱmightȱbe expected.ȱAsȱRobertȱC.ȱEvansȱremarks,ȱ“friendship—aȱcrucialȱconcernȱofȱclassicalȱandȱRenaissance thinkers—hasȱnotȱreceivedȱmuchȱexplicitȱorȱsystematicȱattentionȱasȱanȱimportantȱandȱpervasive themeȱinȱShakespeare’sȱgreatȱtragedy.”ȱSeeȱRobertȱC.ȱEvans,ȱ“FriendshipȱinȱHamlet,”ȱComparative Dramaȱ 33.1ȱ (Springȱ 1999):ȱ 88–124;ȱ hereȱ 88,ȱ forȱ aȱ detailedȱ analysisȱ ofȱ theȱ play’sȱ treatmentȱ of friendship,ȱandȱinȱwhichȱHoratioȱappearsȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱplay’sȱ“bestȱexamplesȱofȱfriendship.”ȱThe bestȱrecentȱaccountȱisȱMichaelȱNeill,ȱ“’Heȱthatȱthouȱknowestȱthine’:ȱFriendshipȱandȱServiceȱin Hamlet,”ȱ Aȱ Companionȱ toȱ Shakespeare’sȱ Works:ȱ Theȱ Tragedies,ȱ ed.ȱ Richardȱ Duttonȱ andȱ Jeanȱ E. Howard,ȱBlackwellȱCompanionsȱtoȱLiteratureȱandȱCulture,ȱ17ȱ(Oxford:ȱBlackwell,ȱ2003),ȱ319–38; seeȱalsoȱMacfaul,ȱMaleȱFriendship,ȱ141–68,ȱandȱKeithȱDoubt,ȱ“HamletȱandȱFriendship,”ȱHamlet Studiesȱ17ȱ(1995):ȱ54–62.ȱForȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱclassicalȱnotionsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱHamlet,ȱseeȱJames I.ȱWimsatt,ȱ“TheȱPlayerȬKingȱonȱFriendship,”ȱTheȱModernȱLanguageȱReviewȱ65.1ȱ(1970):ȱ1–6.ȱ

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

555

supposes,ȱproducesȱanȱinteriorizedȱconsciousnessȱrepresentativeȱofȱmodernityȱthat isȱ strivingȱ toȱ beȱ independentȱ fromȱ theȱ landȱ inȱ theȱ wakeȱ ofȱ aȱ disinheritance: “Framedȱbyȱterritorialȱconflict,ȱ[Hamlet]ȱstagesȱoneȱcontestȱoverȱlandȱafterȱanother .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱplayȱitselfȱupholdsȱtheȱattachmentȱofȱpersonsȱtoȱland, humansȱ toȱ humus.”30ȱ Butȱ evenȱ if,ȱ asȱ sheȱ argues,ȱ “itȱ isȱ notȱ clearȱ thatȱ personal identityȱcanȱsurviveȱderacinationȱorȱdisentitlement,”ȱthisȱisȱpreciselyȱtheȱcrisisȱwith whichȱHamletȱisȱforcedȱtoȱcope.31ȱAndȱwhileȱrevenge,ȱtheȱdominantȱlogicȱofȱthe play,ȱseemsȱtoȱofferȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱclingingȱtoȱanȱidentityȱthatȱisȱbasedȱonȱland andȱinheritance,ȱtheȱimageȱofȱHoratioȱservesȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱaȱStoicȱresolveȱthat mightȱstaveȱoffȱtheȱlossȱofȱidentityȱinȱaȱdifferentȱregister32: forȱthouȱhastȱbeen Asȱone,ȱinȱsuff’ringȱall,ȱthatȱsuffersȱnothing, AȱmanȱthatȱFortune’sȱbuffetsȱandȱrewards Hastȱta’enȱwithȱequalȱthanks;ȱandȱblestȱareȱthose Whoseȱbloodȱandȱjudgmentȱareȱsoȱwellȱcommeddled ThatȱtheyȱareȱnotȱaȱpipeȱforȱFortune’sȱfinger Toȱsoundȱwhatȱstopȱsheȱplease.ȱGiveȱmeȱthatȱman Thatȱisȱnotȱpassion’sȱslave,ȱandȱIȱwillȱwearȱhim Inȱmyȱheart’sȱcore,ȱay,ȱinȱmyȱheartȱofȱheart, AsȱIȱdoȱthee.ȱ ȱȱȱȱ (3.2.65–74)

WeȱdoȱnotȱlearnȱexactlyȱwhatȱitȱisȱthatȱHoratioȱhasȱenduredȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱfortune but,ȱasȱwithȱalmostȱeverythingȱthatȱHamletȱsays,ȱhisȱencomiumȱoffersȱcluesȱabout hisȱownȱinnerȱconflicts.ȱIfȱfilialȱidentityȱisȱboundȱtoȱlandȱandȱinheritance,ȱsovereign friendshipȱattemptsȱtoȱfashionȱanȱidentityȱoutȱofȱitselfȱbyȱmakingȱtheȱimpossible breakȱfromȱlandȱandȱfromȱsubjectionȱtoȱfortuneȱthatȱisȱtheȱStoic’sȱfantasy.ȱHereȱI wantȱtoȱsuggestȱthat,ȱpaceȱdeȱGrazia,ȱaȱfullyȱhistoricizedȱHegelianȱreadingȱremains availableȱ asȱ aȱ wayȱ ofȱ diagnosingȱ Hamlet’sȱ conflictedȱ stanceȱ towardȱ hisȱ own situation,ȱ notȱ asȱ aȱ symptomȱ ofȱ anȱ emergingȱ teleologicalȱ movementȱ toward modernityȱandȱabsoluteȱspirit,ȱbutȱratherȱofȱaȱspecificȱearlyȱmodernȱpreoccupation withȱtwoȱmodesȱofȱsovereignty.ȱWhatȱthisȱmoreȱmodestȱreadingȱwouldȱsuggestȱis 30 31 32

MargretaȱdeȱGrazia,ȱHamletȱwithoutȱHamletȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity,ȱ2007),ȱ2–3.ȱ Ibid,ȱ43.ȱ PerhapsȱanotherȱreasonȱthatȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱHoratioȱandȱHamletȱisȱnotȱexploredȱinȱcriticismȱas oftenȱasȱitȱmightȱbeȱisȱthatȱHoratioȱisȱnearlyȱalwaysȱreadȱasȱaȱcharacterȱwhoseȱmainȱfunctionȱisȱto serveȱasȱanȱobjectiveȱarbiterȱofȱtheȱeventsȱinȱquestionȱduringȱtheȱplay.ȱBertȱStates,ȱHamletȱandȱthe ConceptȱofȱCharacterȱ(Baltimore:ȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱUniversity,ȱ1992),ȱ147–56ȱcallsȱhimȱ“Ourȱmanȱin Elsinore,”ȱandȱcomparesȱhisȱroleȱinȱtheȱplayȱtoȱthatȱofȱaȱGreekȱchorus,ȱaȱspeciesȱofȱidealȱspectator; Johnȱ Halverson,ȱ inȱ “Theȱ Importanceȱ ofȱ Horatio,”ȱ Hamletȱ Studiesȱ 16ȱ (1994):ȱ 57–70,ȱ makesȱ the somewhatȱ dubiousȱ claimȱ thatȱ “[i]tȱ isȱ Horatio’sȱ unimpeachableȱ witnessȱ that,ȱ virtuallyȱ alone, confirmsȱ Hamlet’sȱ essentialȱ integrityȱ andȱ nobilityȱ ofȱ soul;ȱ withoutȱ thisȱ confirmation,ȱ Hamlet wouldȱ beȱ anȱ almostȱ intolerablyȱ ambiguousȱ figure”ȱ (57).ȱ Christopherȱ Warley,ȱ “Spectersȱ of Horatio,”ȱEnglishȱLiteraryȱHistoryȱ75ȱ(2008):ȱ1023–50,ȱhasȱrecentlyȱusedȱtheseȱcriticalȱassumptions aboutȱHoratioȱtoȱexploreȱtheȱgeneralȱproblemȱofȱallȱclaimsȱofȱimpartiality.ȱ

556

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

onlyȱ thatȱ sovereignȱ friendshipȱ asȱ aȱ culturalȱ phenomenonȱ mustȱ beȱ readȱ asȱ a developmentȱ thatȱ arisesȱ inȱ oppositionȱ toȱ aȱ preexistingȱ formȱ ofȱ political sovereignty.ȱAsȱdeȱGraziaȱsuggests,ȱtheȱfirstȱmodeȱofȱsovereigntyȱisȱconcerned withȱtheȱmasteryȱofȱlandȱandȱtheȱmasteryȱofȱothers;ȱtheȱotherȱmode,ȱtheȱfantasyȱof Stoicȱ selfȬsufficiency,ȱ emergesȱ asȱ aȱ reactionȱ toȱ thisȱ firstȱ modeȱ inȱ theȱ guiseȱ of sovereignȱfriendship.33ȱ Indeed,ȱitȱisȱHegelȱhimselfȱwhoȱstillȱprovidesȱtheȱbestȱanalysisȱofȱtheȱStoicȱmode ofȱconsciousnessȱasȱaȱfantasy:ȱwhatȱconstitutesȱStoicismȱisȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwederȱeinȱAnderes alsȱes,ȱnochȱdieȱreineȱAbstraktionȱdesȱIchȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsondernȱIch,ȱwelchesȱdasȱAnderssein, aberȱ alsȱ gedachtenȱ Unterschiedȱ anȱ ihmȱ hat,ȱ soȱ daßȱ esȱ inȱ seinemȱ Anderssein unmittelbarȱinȱsichȱzurückgekehrtȱistȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(134;ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱneitherȱanȱotherȱthanȱitself,ȱnor theȱpureȱabstractionȱofȱtheȱ‘I,’ȱbutȱanȱ‘I’ȱwhichȱhasȱothernessȱwithinȱitself,ȱthough inȱtheȱformȱofȱthought,ȱsoȱthatȱinȱitsȱothernessȱitȱhasȱdirectlyȱreturnedȱtoȱitself,” 121–22).34ȱIsȱthisȱnotȱpreciselyȱwhatȱHamletȱarticulatesȱwhen,ȱseeingȱinȱHoratioȱhis modelȱofȱaȱStoicȱselfȱimperviousȱtoȱfortuneȱ(“thouȱhasȱbeenȱasȱone,ȱinȱsuffering all”),ȱheȱinternalizesȱhimȱ(“Iȱwillȱwearȱhimȱinȱmyȱheart’sȱcore”)ȱasȱanȱidealȱfriend? TheȱideaȱofȱsovereigntyȱreemergesȱforȱHamlet,ȱthen,ȱasȱaȱcontradictoryȱpartnership thatȱassertsȱeachȱmember’sȱabsoluteȱindependenceȱfromȱtheȱexternalȱworld—from theȱ“thousandȱnaturalȱshocksȱ/ȱThatȱfleshȱisȱheirȱto”ȱ(3.1.62–63)—whileȱatȱtheȱsame timeȱitȱdependsȱonȱtheȱimageȱofȱtheȱother.ȱTheȱStoicȱfriendȱwhoȱisȱ“notȱpassion’s slave”ȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱmasterȱofȱhimself,ȱaȱprojectionȱthatȱprovidesȱanȱalternativeȱto theȱ revengerȱ whoseȱ preȬscriptedȱ identityȱ suppliesȱ “theȱ motiveȱ andȱ cueȱ for passion”ȱ inȱ abundanceȱ (2.2.555).ȱ Asȱ Hamlet’sȱ representationȱ ofȱ absoluteȱ selfȬ mastery,ȱhereȱHoratioȱmerelyȱseemsȱtoȱserveȱasȱanȱexemplarȱofȱtheȱprince’sȱown desiresȱforȱindividualȱsovereignty. Andȱ yet,ȱ Hamletȱ himselfȱ seemsȱ toȱ rehearseȱ thisȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ anȱ alternate sovereigntyȱfromȱanȱironicȱdistance,ȱasȱifȱpainfullyȱawareȱthat—inȱcontrastȱwith theȱ demandsȱ ofȱ Hamlet’sȱ father—hisȱ visionȱ ofȱ idealȱ friendshipȱ isȱ aȱ sortȱ of tautologyȱthat,ȱinȱitsȱabsoluteȱseparationȱfromȱmaterialȱreality,ȱisȱanȱunsustainable fantasy.ȱ“Somethingȱtooȱmuchȱofȱthis,”ȱHamletȱtellsȱHoratio,ȱabruptlyȱshiftingȱthe conversationȱbackȱtoȱtheȱtopicȱofȱrevengeȱ(3.2.74).ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱprevailingȱmodelȱof friendshipȱ foregroundedȱ inȱ Hamletȱ moreȱ closelyȱ correspondsȱ withȱ thoseȱ less 33

34

TheȱimportantȱimplicationsȱthatȱdeȱGrazia’sȱgroundbreakingȱstudyȱhasȱforȱmyȱownȱreadingȱofȱthe playȱshouldȱnotȱignored.ȱAsȱifȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtime,ȱherȱbookȱshowsȱusȱhowȱtheȱlongȬstandingȱgeneric categorizationȱofȱHamletȱasȱaȱ“pureȱtragedy”ȱobscuresȱitsȱproximityȱtoȱShakespeareanȱhistory plays:ȱ“TheȱcriticalȱtraditionȱthatȱhasȱidentifiedȱHamletȱwithȱtheȱonsetȱofȱtheȱmodernȱperiodȱhas ignoredȱtheȱcentralityȱofȱland.ȱForȱthisȱtradition,ȱitȱmakesȱlittleȱorȱnoȱdifferenceȱthatȱClaudius,ȱ‘a cutpurseȱofȱtheȱempire’ȱ(3.4.99),ȱhasȱdispossessedȱHamletȱofȱtheȱrealmȱtoȱwhichȱhisȱbirthȱallȱbut entitledȱhim”ȱ(43). Georgȱ Wilhelmȱ Friedrichȱ Hegel,ȱ Phänomenologieȱ desȱ Geistes,ȱ Philosophischeȱ Bibliothek,ȱ 114 (Leipzig:ȱDürr’scheȱBuchhandlung,ȱ1907);ȱforȱtheȱEnglishȱtranslation,ȱseeȱGeorgȱWilhelmȱFriedrich Hegel,ȱPhenomenologyȱofȱSpirit.

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

557

exaltedȱtypesȱthatȱMontaigneȱwritesȱ“mixȱintoȱfriendshipȱanotherȱcauseȱandȱobject ofȱrewardȱthanȱfriendshipȱitself”ȱ(1.128.136).ȱWhenȱHamletȱasksȱRosencrantzȱand Guildenstern,ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱtheȱbeatenȱwayȱofȱfriendship,ȱwhatȱmakeȱyouȱatȱElsinore?” theirȱresponse,ȱ“Toȱvisitȱyou,ȱmyȱlord,ȱnoȱotherȱoccasion”ȱ(2.2.269–71),ȱmight,ȱif true,ȱappearȱtoȱfulfillȱtheȱconditionȱofȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱthatȱitȱ“haveȱnoȱother dealingsȱexceptȱwithȱitself”ȱ(1.128.138).ȱButȱtheȱaudienceȱ(andȱHamlet,ȱtoo,ȱasȱit turnsȱ out)ȱ knowsȱ thatȱ itȱ isȱ “theȱ sovereignȱ power”ȱ ofȱ Claudius,ȱ notȱ sovereign friendship,ȱthatȱhasȱbroughtȱthemȱtoȱDenmarkȱ(2.2.26).ȱ Sinceȱweȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhichȱ“dozenȱorȱsixteenȱlines”ȱ(2.2.535)ȱinsertedȱintoȱthe TheȱMousetrapȱareȱHamlet’s,ȱheȱmayȱhimselfȱbeȱauthorȱofȱtheȱPlayerȱKing’sȱspeech thatȱarticulates—andȱanticipates—aȱbetrayalȱofȱloveȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱfragilityȱof friendshipsȱinȱtheȱpoliticalȱworld:ȱ Thisȱworldȱisȱnotȱforȱaye,ȱnorȱ’tisȱnotȱstrange Thatȱevenȱourȱlovesȱshouldȱwithȱourȱfortunesȱchangeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. Theȱgreatȱmanȱdown,ȱyouȱmarkȱhisȱfavoriteȱflies; Theȱpoorȱadvanc’dȱmakesȱfriendsȱofȱenemies; Andȱhithertoȱdothȱloveȱonȱfortuneȱtend: Forȱwhoȱnotȱneedsȱshallȱneverȱlackȱaȱfriend, Andȱwhoȱinȱwantȱaȱhollowȱfriendȱdothȱtry Directlyȱseasonsȱhimȱhisȱenemy.ȱ ȱ (3.2.195–204)

ReadȱalongsideȱtheȱlinesȱspokenȱtoȱHoratioȱearlierȱinȱtheȱveryȱsameȱscene,ȱthe imageȱofȱtheȱStoicȱfriendȱbeginsȱtoȱappearȱaȱridiculousȱandȱnaïveȱexceptionȱthat hasȱ neverthelessȱ beenȱ retainedȱ asȱ anȱ idealȱ toȱ beȱ achieved.ȱ Asȱ Michaelȱ Neil observes:ȱ“forȱallȱitsȱrhetoricȱofȱequalityȱandȱtheȱintenseȱemotionȱHamletȱinvests inȱit,ȱroyalȱfriendshipȱremainsȱaȱpainfullyȱoneȬsidedȱthing:ȱHamletȱmayȱgarland Horatioȱwithȱtheȱpronounsȱofȱintimacy,ȱ‘thee’ȱandȱ‘thou,’ȱbutȱHoratioȱcanȱnever useȱtheȱsameȱintimateȱvoiceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”35ȱThus,ȱifȱtheȱnotionȱofȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱnow seemsȱunsustainable,ȱitȱisȱnotȱyetȱbecauseȱaȱrealizationȱaboutȱtheȱinevitableȱnonȬ sovereigntyȱofȱallȱhumanȱactionȱhasȱtakenȱplace,ȱbutȱratherȱbecauseȱtheȱmaterial realityȱdominatedȱbyȱtheȱsovereigntyȱofȱkingshipȱandȱhierarchyȱappearsȱtoȱprevent itsȱfulfillment. Recallȱthatȱearlier,ȱinȱactȱ2,ȱHamletȱdisclosesȱtoȱRosencrantzȱandȱGuildenstern hisȱconvictionȱthatȱ“Denmark’sȱaȱprison”ȱ(2.2.243).ȱEvenȱthoughȱbyȱthisȱpointȱin theȱ playȱ Hamlet’sȱ desireȱ toȱ leaveȱ theȱ countryȱ hasȱ beenȱ complicatedȱ byȱ the appearanceȱofȱtheȱghostȱandȱtheȱcommandȱtoȱrememberȱhisȱfather,ȱweȱshouldȱnot entirelyȱ loseȱ trackȱ ofȱ hisȱ earlierȱ “intent”ȱ toȱ returnȱ toȱ Wittenbergȱ (1.2.113). ConsistentȱwithȱMargaretȱFerguson’sȱobservationȱthatȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱHamletȱhas theȱ“curiousȱeffectȱofȱmaterializingȱtheȱword”ȱsuchȱthatȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetween literalȱandȱfigurativeȱmeaningȱbecomesȱunclear,ȱbothȱ“Denmark”ȱandȱ“prison” 35

MichaelȱNeill,ȱ“‘Heȱthatȱthouȱknowestȱthine,’”ȱ333.ȱ

558

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk

becomeȱunstableȱinȱpreciselyȱthisȱwayȱwhenȱweȱrecallȱtwoȱsetsȱofȱdetails:ȱDenmark isȱbothȱaȱplaceȱHamletȱhasȱbeenȱpreventedȱfromȱleavingȱandȱ aȱ wordȱthatȱalso functionsȱasȱaȱsynecdocheȱinȱtheȱplay,ȱwithȱtheȱfatherȬkingȱstandingȱinȱforȱthe nation.36ȱ Inȱ theȱ openingȱ scene,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ theȱ ghostȱ takesȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ “the majestyȱofȱburiedȱDenmark”ȱ(1.1.51).ȱNotȱlongȱafter,ȱGertrudeȱurgesȱHamletȱto concealȱanyȱenmityȱheȱharbors—bothȱforȱtheȱrealmȱheȱwishesȱtoȱdepartȱfromȱand forȱtheȱpersonȱofȱhisȱuncle—byȱappearingȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriend:ȱ“letȱthineȱeyeȱlookȱlikeȱa friendȱ onȱ Denmark”ȱ (1.2.69).ȱ Denmarkȱ isȱ aȱ placeȱ whereȱ oneȱ canȱ “lookȱ likeȱ a friend”ȱratherȱthanȱactuallyȱbecomeȱone.ȱThisȱcorrespondsȱwithȱLaurieȱShannon’s suggestionȱthat:ȱ“Forȱtheȱroyalȱsubject,ȱfriendshipȱproposesȱanȱidealizedȱworld apart,ȱ aȱ worldȱ magnifyingȱ thatȱ subject’sȱ ‘sovereignȱ prerogative’ȱ asȱ an individual.”37ȱ Andȱ asȱ Hamletȱ demonstrates,ȱ prohibitionsȱ oftenȱ maximizeȱ the idealizationȱofȱdesires:ȱescapingȱbackȱtoȱWittenbergȱrepresentsȱanȱescapeȱfrom Denmarkȱandȱfromȱfathersȱtoȱfriends,ȱfromȱanȱeconomyȱofȱtheȱsovereignȱpatriarch thatȱ demandsȱ anȱ impossibleȱ revengeȱ forȱ loveȱ toȱ anȱ economyȱ ofȱ sovereign friendshipȱ whoseȱ requirementȱ forȱ love—mereȱ arrival—is,ȱ perhaps,ȱ equally impossible.ȱȱ WhenȱHamletȱclaims,ȱ“Iȱcouldȱbeȱboundedȱinȱaȱnutshellȱandȱcountȱmyselfȱking ofȱ infiniteȱ space,”ȱ weȱ againȱ witnessȱ theȱ Stoicȱ illusionȱ ofȱ sovereigntyȱ thatȱ is salvagedȱbyȱaȱrefusalȱtoȱacknowledgeȱaȱdependencyȱonȱothersȱ(2.2.254–55).ȱAs Arendtȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ theȱ desireȱ toȱ denyȱ theȱ fundamentalȱ conditionȱ ofȱ nonȬ sovereigntyȱmayȱveryȱwellȱresultȱinȱanȱ“abstentionȱfromȱtheȱwholeȱrealmȱofȱhuman affairs.”38ȱAȱlossȱofȱkingshipȱinȱHamletȱgeneratesȱStoicȱthoughtȱasȱanȱalternateȱform ofȱselfȬmastery.ȱHereȱweȱcanȱreadȱtheȱmutuallyȱreinforcingȱdialecticȱbetweenȱthe competingȱnotionsȱofȱsovereigntyȱthatȱHamletȱis,ȱthatȱweȱareȱallȱtoȱsomeȱextent, caughtȱbetween—betweenȱAlexanderȱandȱPlato,ȱbetweenȱmasteryȱofȱothersȱand masteryȱofȱself.ȱHamletȱcannotȱchooseȱbutȱbeȱheirȱtoȱtheȱthrone;ȱheȱdesiresȱtoȱelect butȱ hasȱ beenȱ elected.ȱ Asȱ theȱ sonȱ ofȱ Denmark,ȱ Hamletȱ isȱ aȱ psycheȱ boundȱ byȱ a materialȱworldȱofȱpoliticalȱsovereigntyȱandȱpatriarchalȱlove,ȱyetȱheȱstillȱclaimsȱhe wouldȱbeȱfree,ȱ“wereȱitȱnotȱthatȱIȱhaveȱbadȱdreams”ȱ(2.2.256).ȱButȱexactlyȱwhatȱit isȱthatȱrestrictsȱtheȱachievementȱofȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱhasȱbecomeȱuncertain.ȱThe languageȱofȱtheȱprisonȱoutlinesȱaȱmomentȱofȱaporiaȱasȱHamletȱoscillatesȱbetween twoȱformsȱofȱsovereignty;ȱinȱcondemningȱbothȱClaudius’sȱexternalȱprohibition againstȱhisȱphysicalȱfreedomȱasȱwellȱasȱhisȱownȱinabilityȱtoȱwillȱaȱmasteryȱover himselfȱ thatȱ wouldȱ makeȱ himȱ resembleȱ Horatio,ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ suggestȱ thatȱ Hamlet remainsȱunableȱtoȱconfrontȱtheȱnonȬsovereignȱqualityȱofȱtheȱhumanȱcondition.ȱ

36

37 38

MargaretȱFerguson,ȱ“Hamlet:ȱLettersȱandȱSpirit,”ȱShakespeareȱandȱtheȱQuestionȱofȱTheory,ȱed.ȱPatricia ParkerȱandȱGeoffreyȱHartmanȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1990),ȱ292–309;ȱhereȱ292. LaurieȱShannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ125. Arendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition,ȱ234.

SovereignȱFathersȱandȱSovereignȱFriends

559

TheȱAbdicationȱofȱSovereignty Ifȱ deflectingȱ theȱ sovereignȱ willȱ ofȱ fathersȱ means,ȱ forȱ Montaigne,ȱ maintaining fidelityȱ toȱ aȱ sovereignȱ friendshipȱ onceȱ possessedȱ inȱ anȱ Edenicȱ past,ȱ andȱ for Hamlet,ȱfutilelyȱgesturingȱtowardȱanȱimpossible,ȱStoicȱidentificationȱwithȱHoratio, whatȱmightȱanȱabdicationȱofȱsovereigntyȱlookȱlike?ȱIsȱsuchȱanȱachievementȱeven possibleȱforȱselfȬconsciousȱlife?ȱIsȱitȱdesirable?ȱOrȱareȱweȱforeverȱdestined,ȱtoȱsome extentȱatȱleast,ȱtoȱignoreȱourȱownȱvulnerabilityȱandȱdependenceȱuponȱothers?ȱTo theseȱmostȱdifficultȱofȱquestions,ȱIȱcanȱonlyȱofferȱtwoȱinconclusiveȱsuggestions, eachȱ ofȱ whichȱ isȱ suppliedȱ byȱ theȱ fifthȱ actȱ ofȱ Hamlet.ȱ First,ȱ anotherȱ deadȱ end. Knowledgeȱofȱtheȱfinitudeȱinherentȱinȱmortalityȱisȱnotȱaȱsufficientȱconditionȱto compelȱ Hamletȱ toȱ relinquishȱ theȱ aspirationȱ towardȱ selfȬmastery.ȱ Evenȱ after Hamlet’sȱ imaginationȱ discoversȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ tracingȱ “theȱ nobleȱ dustȱ of AlexanderȱtillȱaȱfindȱitȱstoppingȱaȱbungȬhole”ȱ(5.1.197–98),ȱheȱisȱstillȱcompelledȱto demandȱ publicȱ recognitionȱ forȱ hisȱ ownȱ nobilityȱ andȱ stakesȱ thisȱ claimȱ inȱ a willingnessȱtoȱdie:ȱ Dostȱcomeȱhereȱtoȱwhine,ȱ toȱoutfaceȱmeȱwithȱleapingȱinȱherȱgrave? Beȱburiedȱquickȱwithȱher,ȱandȱsoȱwillȱI.ȱ

(5.1.272–74)

Butȱthisȱofferȱtoȱsacrificeȱtheȱselfȱbyȱriskingȱdeathȱisȱmerelyȱtheȱlast,ȱdesperate standȱofȱanȱindividualȱconsciousnessȱthat,ȱtryȱasȱitȱmight,ȱcannotȱcompletelyȱisolate itselfȱfromȱpublicȱlife.ȱIdentityȱcannotȱultimatelyȱbeȱfoundedȱonȱanȱinnerȱworld thatȱprecedesȱallȱformsȱofȱsocialȱengagement;ȱatȱtheȱmostȱbasicȱlevel,ȱthough,ȱthis isȱtheȱtrapȱsetȱbyȱeveryȱdreamȱofȱabsoluteȱmastery.ȱNo,ȱifȱHamletȱfinallyȱrealizes theȱfutilityȱlodgedȱwithinȱeveryȱclaimȱtoȱsovereignty,ȱitȱisȱnotȱbecauseȱheȱaccepts finitudeȱasȱmortality,ȱbutȱfinitudeȱasȱintersubjectivity.ȱAsȱArendtȱargues,ȱsuchȱan acceptanceȱ wouldȱ entailȱ aȱ person’sȱ acknowledgmentȱ ofȱ “theȱ impossibilityȱ of remainingȱ uniqueȱ mastersȱ ofȱ whatȱ theyȱ doȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ [this]ȱ isȱ theȱ priceȱ theyȱ payȱ for pluralityȱandȱreality,ȱforȱtheȱjoyȱofȱinhabitingȱtogetherȱwithȱothersȱaȱworldȱwhose realityȱisȱguaranteedȱforȱeachȱbyȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱall.”39ȱInȱorderȱforȱHamletȱtoȱgive upȱtheȱillusionsȱofȱselfȬmasteryȱinȱwhichȱsovereignȱfriendshipȱparticipates,ȱheȱmust realizeȱthatȱothersȱareȱalwaysȱinvolvedȱinȱdefiningȱtheȱmeaningȱofȱanȱindividual’s life.ȱ HavingȱkilledȱClaudiusȱandȱhavingȱsaidȱfarewellȱtoȱLaertes,ȱHamletȱturnsȱtoȱthe audienceȱinȱoneȱlastȱdesperateȱattemptȱatȱsovereignȱselfȬrepresentation:ȱ Youȱthatȱlookȱpaleȱandȱtrembleȱatȱtheȱchance,ȱ Thatȱareȱbutȱmutesȱorȱaudienceȱtoȱthisȱact, HadȱIȱbutȱtime—asȱthisȱfellȱsergeant,ȱDeath, 39

Arendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition,ȱ244.

560

TheodoreȱF.ȱKaouk Isȱstrictȱinȱhisȱarrest—O,ȱIȱcouldȱtellȱyou— Butȱletȱitȱbe.ȱ

ȱ(5.2.340–44)

Theȱbreathȱbetween,ȱ“O,ȱIȱcouldȱtellȱyou,”ȱand,ȱ“Butȱletȱitȱbe,”ȱpresentsȱwhatȱIȱtake toȱbeȱaȱcrucialȱinterpretiveȱcrux.ȱDoesȱHamletȱmeanȱtoȱsayȱheȱreallyȱcouldȱtellȱus, tellȱusȱall,ȱonlyȱtoȱpassȱtheȱresponsibilityȱonȱtoȱHoratioȱbecauseȱthereȱisȱnotȱenough lifeȱ leftȱ inȱ him,ȱ notȱ enoughȱ time,ȱ inȱ whichȱ toȱ doȱ so?ȱ Ifȱ thisȱ isȱ our,ȱ theȱ play’s, expectation,ȱthenȱJohnȱKerriganȱisȱrightȱtoȱask,ȱwithȱnoȱsmallȱdegreeȱofȱskepticism, howȱ “canȱ Horatioȱ reportȱ eitherȱ Hamletȱ orȱ hisȱ causeȱ aright?”ȱ aȱ concernȱ thatȱ is reminiscentȱ ofȱ Montaigne’sȱ anxietyȱ aboutȱ hisȱ inabilityȱ toȱ renderȱ anȱ adequate representationȱofȱLaȱBoétie.40ȱWhatȱofȱallȱtheȱsoliloquiesȱtoȱwhichȱHoratioȱhasȱnot beenȱprivy,ȱtheȱtheatricallyȱconsciousȱHamletȱmightȱwonder?ȱButȱif,ȱ“letȱitȱbe,” signalsȱaȱrealization,ȱnotȱthatȱthereȱaren’tȱenoughȱwordsȱleftȱinȱhim,ȱbutȱthatȱthere couldȱ neverȱ beȱ enoughȱ words,ȱ thenȱ theȱ instructionsȱ toȱ Horatioȱ takeȱ aȱ very differentȱform.ȱAfterȱall,ȱinȱhisȱnotoriouslyȱprotractedȱdeathȱthroes,ȱHamletȱspeaks forȱ anotherȱ twentyȱ linesȱ orȱ so.ȱ Inȱ whatȱ weȱ witness,ȱ then,ȱ perhapsȱ thereȱ isȱ a movementȱtowardȱtheȱabdicationȱofȱsovereignȱfriendship,ȱaȱgivingȱupȱofȱtheȱdesire toȱassertȱmasteryȱoverȱtheȱselfȱandȱitsȱidentity;ȱHamletȱmayȱnowȱwillinglyȱembrace whatȱweȱareȱallȱalwaysȱcompelledȱtoȱdoȱanyway:ȱweȱmustȱplaceȱourȱstory,ȱnotȱin theȱhandsȱofȱ“anotherȱself,”ȱbutȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱanȱother. AndȱperhapsȱthisȱisȱalsoȱwhatȱHamletȱmeansȱtoȱsayȱwhenȱheȱclaimsȱthat,ȱ“there isȱaȱspecialȱprovidenceȱinȱtheȱfallȱofȱaȱsparrow”ȱ(5.2.215–16),ȱ aȱrealizationȱthat wouldȱaccordȱwithȱArendt’sȱownȱobservationȱthatȱ“Providence”ȱisȱjustȱoneȱmore attemptȱtoȱ“solveȱtheȱperplexingȱproblemȱthatȱalthoughȱhistoryȱowesȱitsȱexistence toȱmen,ȱitȱisȱstillȱobviouslyȱnotȱmadeȱbyȱthem.”41ȱIfȱweȱcreditȱHamletȱwithȱthisȱsort ofȱknowledgeȱnearȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱplay,ȱthenȱtheȱ“readinessȱisȱall”ȱ(5.2.218)ȱisȱnot merelyȱ aȱ readinessȱ forȱ deathȱ butȱ alsoȱ aȱ readinessȱ forȱ hisȱ “play”ȱ toȱ beȱ readȱ by others,ȱ byȱ Horatioȱ andȱ byȱ theȱ audience.ȱ Weȱ mightȱ riskȱ callingȱ theȱ friendship invokedȱatȱHamlet’sȱendȱaȱnonȬsovereignȱone,ȱthen,ȱifȱweȱacceptȱtheȱpossibility thatȱtheȱrequestȱforȱhisȱfriendȱtoȱ“tellȱmyȱstory”ȱ(5.2.354)ȱisȱnotȱaȱreplicationȱofȱthe ghost’sȱ sovereignȱ injunctionȱ toȱ “Rememberȱ me.”ȱ Instead,ȱ itȱ representsȱ the paradoxicalȱ freedomȱ thatȱ emergesȱ fromȱ theȱ subjectionȱ ofȱ one’sȱ actionsȱ toȱ the mythosȱofȱanotherȱwhoȱwillȱspeak,ȱnotȱasȱyouȱwouldȱhaveȱhim,ȱbutȱonlyȱasȱheȱwill.

40 41

JohnȱKerrigan,ȱRevengeȱTragedy,ȱ189. Arendt,ȱTheȱHumanȱCondition,ȱ185.

Chapterȱ15 MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki (RuhrȬUniversitätȱBochumȱundȱUniversitätȱHamburg)

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci.ȱ EineȱkunsthistorischeȱFallstudie

Abstract BasedȱonȱLeonardo’sȱdrawingȱofȱanȱoldȱandȱaȱyoungȱmanȱfromȱ1500–1503ȱinȱthe GabinettoȱdeiȱDisegniȱeȱdelleȱStampeȱinȱtheȱGalleriaȱdelleȱUffizieȱ(Florence),ȱthis articleȱraisesȱtheȱquestionȱofȱLeonardo’sȱrelationsȱ(maybeȱfriendships)ȱwithȱmen. Weȱcanȱviewȱtheȱdepictedȱsceneȱasȱaȱrepresentationȱofȱaȱhomoeroticallyȱinspired ‘forbiddenȱ friendship’ȱ (Michaelȱ Rocke)ȱ andȱ theȱ drawingȱ thereforeȱ asȱ whatȱ is knownȱ inȱ artȱ historyȱ asȱ ‘Freundschaftsbildnis.’ȱ Unfortunatelyȱ thisȱ isȱ theȱ only exampleȱofȱthisȱgenreȱinȱLeonardo’sȱœuvre.ȱThereforeȱinȱthisȱpaperȱIȱworkȱwith heuristicȱ analogiesȱ andȱ deductions,ȱ firstȱ ofȱ allȱ identifyingȱ twoȱ ofȱ Leonardo’s companionsȱasȱhisȱ‘friends’—FrancescoȱMelziȱandȱtheȱsoȬcalledȱSalaì.ȱWithȱthe helpȱofȱwrittenȱandȱvisualȱsourcesȱpertainingȱtoȱLeonardoȱasȱwellȱasȱtoȱtheȱtwo ‘friends,’ȱ aȱ differentiatedȱ approachȱ toȱ theseȱ relationsȱ isȱ reconstructed.ȱ Iȱ also considerȱ furtherȱ historicalȱ sourcesȱ thatȱ informȱ usȱ aboutȱ theȱ twoȱ persons.ȱ My leadingȱquestionsȱwillȱbeȱhowȱLeonardoȱdescribes,ȱvisualizes,ȱandȱdefinesȱthese ‘friendships’ȱandȱhowȱtheseȱrelationshipsȱareȱviewedȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱMelziȱandȱSalaì, butȱalsoȱbyȱotherȱcontemporaries.ȱTheȱstudyȱwillȱalsoȱanalyzeȱtheȱstructuresȱand behaviorsȱ thatȱ markȱ themȱ andȱ theȱ motivationsȱ behindȱ theirȱ relationsȱ and behaviors.ȱOnȱtheȱbasisȱofȱthisȱexaminationȱitȱisȱpossibleȱtoȱdrawȱconclusionsȱabout Leonardo’sȱconceptȱofȱtheȱabstractȱtermȱ‘friendship.’ȱ Asȱ scholarshipȱ hasȱ confirmed,ȱ theȱ termsȱ ofȱ ‘friendship’ȱ andȱ ‘love’ were—especiallyȱinȱtheȱhomosocialȱCinquecentoȱItaly—closelyȱrelated,ȱyetȱalsoȱnot unproblematicȱandȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱinȱconflictȱwithȱeachȱother.1ȱInȱlightȱofȱthis 1

Editor’sȱNote:ȱSeeȱtheȱcommentsȱonȱthisȱissueȱbyȱRobertȱStretterȱinȱhisȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.ȱ

562

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

observationȱtheȱquestionȱregardingȱLeonardo’sȱ’friendships’ȱmustȱalsoȱincludeȱa discussionȱofȱloveȱandȱ(homoȬ)sexualityȱasȱwell.ȱForȱthisȱreasonȱinȱthisȱpaperȱI additionallyȱanalyzeȱLeonardo’sȱeroticallyȱchargedȱpicturesȱfromȱhisȱlaterȱperiod, suchȱ asȱ Johnȱ theȱ Baptist,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ thoseȱ thatȱ displayȱ topoiȱ ofȱ androgynous elements.ȱ Iȱwillȱconcludeȱbyȱsuggestingȱthatȱweȱcanȱrecognizeȱtheseȱpersonalȱrelationships asȱtwoȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱfriendships.ȱFollowingȱtheȱAristotelianȱtermȱofȱphilia,ȱthe relationȱtoȱSalaìȱwasȱaȱfriendshipȱbasedȱonȱpleasure,ȱmoreȱspecificallyȱreciprocally predicatedȱ onȱ mutualȱ advantages.ȱ Theȱ friendshipȱ betweenȱ Leonardoȱ and FrancescoȱMelzi,ȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱwasȱbasedȱonȱgoodness,ȱorȱvirtues,ȱwhichȱboth developedȱasȱaȱconsequenceȱofȱtheirȱrelationship,ȱandȱespeciallyȱintellectualȱand artisticȱrespectȱforȱeachȱother.ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱtoȱSalaìȱisȱcharacterized asȱpassiveȱandȱ‘female,’ȱwhileȱtheȱoneȱtoȱMelziȱasȱactiveȱandȱ‘male,’ȱifȱweȱcanȱuse theseȱtraditionalȱgenderȱtermsȱforȱpersonalityȱroles.ȱThisȱgenderingȱofȱattributes correspondsȱwithȱtheȱsexualizationȱofȱliteratureȱandȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱartȱthatȱbecame widelyȱ acceptedȱ inȱ sixteenthȬcenturyȱ Italy;ȱ accordinglyȱ theȱ intellect,ȱ the procreativeȱideaȱofȱaȱconcept,ȱisȱmale;ȱtheȱexecutingȱmaterial,ȱhowever,ȱfemale. Thus,ȱoneȱcanȱdifferentiateȱbetweenȱaȱmaleȬȱandȱaȱfemaleȬconstructedȱfriendship embracedȱ byȱ Leonardoȱ andȱ hisȱ friends.ȱ Definitiveȱ andȱ contrastingȱ gender attributionsȱwereȱnotȱyetȱdeterminedȱduringȱtheȱsixteenthȱcentury.ȱ Asȱscholarshipȱhasȱdemonstrated,ȱtheȱidealȱCinquecentoȱartistȱusuallyȱunites maleȱandȱfemaleȱqualitiesȱinȱoneȱperson,ȱevenȱthoughȱtheȱfemaleȱpartȱisȱultimately subsumedȱunderȱtheȱmale.ȱJustȱasȱLeonardoȱcouldȱbeȱmaleȱandȱfemaleȱatȱtheȱsame timeȱduringȱtheȱgenesisȱofȱaȱpieceȱofȱart,ȱwithoutȱbeingȱaccusedȱofȱaȱcontradiction, heȱcouldȱcultivateȱtwoȱkindsȱofȱfriendship,ȱoneȱconceivedȱofȱasȱmale;ȱtheȱotherȱas female.ȱAsȱmuchȱinȱtheȱproductionȱofȱartȱasȱinȱtheȱtypesȱofȱfriendship,ȱtheȱ‘male’ oneȱenjoysȱpriority.ȱTheȱabstractȱnounȱofȱ‘friendship’ȱisȱnotȱchosenȱinȱaȱrandomȱor detachedȱmannerȱasȱaȱtopos,ȱbutȱprovesȱtoȱbeȱoneȱthatȱwasȱactuallyȱlivedȱoutȱby Leonardoȱinȱtheseȱtwoȱdifferentȱtypesȱofȱfriends.

Aug’ȱinȱAugeȱzeichnetȱLeonardoȱumȱ1500–1505ȱdieȱProfilfigurenȱeinesȱaltenȱund einesȱjungenȱMannesȱaufȱeinemȱBlatt,ȱwelchesȱsichȱheuteȱimȱGabinettoȱdeiȱDisegni eȱ delleȱ Stampeȱ inȱ derȱ Galleriaȱ degliȱ Uffiziȱ inȱ Florenzȱ befindetȱ (Abb.ȱ 1).ȱ Der glatzköpfigeȱ undȱ runzligeȱ Alte,ȱ derȱ durchȱ eineȱ großeȱ Hakennaseȱ undȱ ein ausgeprägtesȱKinnȱauffällt,ȱscheintȱeinȱwenigȱkleinerȱalsȱseinȱGegenüberȱzuȱsein. Erȱ mussȱ denȱ Blickȱ einȱ wenigȱ anheben,ȱ umȱ denȱ jungenȱ Mannȱ wohlgefälligȱ zu mustern.ȱDessenȱBlickȱschweiftȱjedochȱinȱdieȱFerneȱundȱblicktȱdurchȱdenȱÄlteren hindurchȱoderȱaberȱlinkerȱHandȱanȱihmȱvorbei.ȱErȱhatȱebeneȱGesichtszüge.ȱDie zarte,ȱ geradeȱ Nase,ȱ dieȱ wohlgeformteȱ MundȬȱ undȱ Kinnpartieȱ sowieȱ der träumerischeȱ Blickȱ unterȱ denȱ langenȱ Wimpernȱ wirkenȱ fastȱ feminin.ȱ Dieser

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

563

Eindruckȱwirdȱvonȱderȱfastȱschulterlangen,ȱmitȱeinemȱdünnenȱReifȱgeschmückten Lockenprachtȱunterstützt.ȱBeideȱMännerȱstehenȱsehrȱnahȱvoreinander,ȱfastȱBrust anȱ Brust.ȱ Währendȱ Leonardoȱ dieȱ Gesichter—besondersȱ dasȱ desȱ Jüngeren —detailliertȱzeichnete,ȱskizzierteȱerȱdieȱGewänderȱderȱMännerȱnurȱgrob.2ȱDerȱbloß nochȱ angedeuteteȱ rechteȱ Armȱ desȱ Jungenȱ scheintȱ imȱ Ärmelȱ desȱ Älterenȱ zu verschwinden.ȱImȱVergleichȱdesȱBlattesȱmitȱanderenȱZeichnungenȱdieserȱSerie konnteȱJohannesȱNathanȱfeststellen,ȱdassȱesȱsehrȱsorgfältigȱgearbeitetȱwurde.ȱSo vermutetȱerȱauch,ȱdassȱdieȱZeichnungȱfürȱ“eineȱbesondereȱGelegenheit,ȱvielleicht alsȱGeschenkȱoderȱPräsentationszeichnung”3ȱgefertigtȱwurde.ȱDurchȱdieȱGegenȬ überstellungȱvonȱaltȱundȱjungȱversucheȱLeonardoȱdieȱBildwirkungȱzuȱsteigern.ȱSo habeȱ erȱ Malernȱ zuȱ diesemȱ Zweckȱ zurȱ Kombinationȱ vonȱ altenȱ undȱ jungen Menschenȱgeraten.ȱDieȱZeichnungȱstelleȱalsoȱlediglichȱeineȱ“nüchterneȱÜberlegung zurȱBildwirkung”ȱdar.4ȱZweifelsohneȱhandeltȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdieserȱSzeneȱjedochȱum eineȱvertraute,ȱintimeȱSituation,ȱderenȱZeugeȱLeonardoȱdenȱBetrachterȱwerden lässt.ȱDieȱBlickregieȱundȱdasȱIneinanderȱderȱArmeȱverratenȱdieses.ȱSoȱkönnteȱes sichȱ umȱ eineȱ Darstellungȱ vonȱ Vaterȱ undȱ Sohnȱ oderȱ umȱ dieȱ zweierȱ Freunde unterschiedlichenȱAltersȱhandeln.ȱDieȱbeidenȱMännerȱstehenȱfastȱBrustȱanȱBrust, eineȱvielleichtȱzuȱkörperlichȬintimeȱBegegnungȱfürȱeinenȱstolzenȱVaterȱmitȱseinem Sohn.ȱDieȱBlickkommunikationȱscheintȱeinseitigȱzuȱverlaufen.ȱDerȱÄltereȱmustert denȱ Jüngeren,ȱ begutachtetȱ ihn,ȱ währendȱ dieserȱ seinenȱ Blickȱ nichtȱ erwidert, sondernȱgleichgültigȱdurchȱihnȱhindurchȱsieht.ȱ DieȱDarstellungȱzweierȱMännerȱinȱkörperlichȬintimerȱSituationȱverweistȱsoȱauf denȱToposȱvonȱMännerfreundschaft.ȱDieseȱkannȱbeiȱgenauererȱBetrachtungȱder Zeichnungȱdifferenziertȱgesehenȱwerden.ȱDieȱintimeȱBegegnungȱzwischenȱaltem undȱ jungemȱ Mannȱ undȱ dasȱ aktiveȱ Verhaltenȱ desȱ Altenȱ undȱ passive Geschehenlassenȱ desȱ Jüngerenȱ zählenȱ zuȱ denȱ Kriterienȱ einerȱ ‘verbotenen Freundschaft,’5ȱ einerȱ mannȬmännlichenȱ sexuellenȱ Begegnungȱ oderȱ zumindest einesȱdergestaltȱmotiviertenȱInteressesȱdesȱAltenȱanȱdemȱJüngling.ȱDerȱAlteȱweist eineȱ erstaunlicheȱ Ähnlichkeitȱ mitȱ einerȱ Reiheȱ groteskerȱ Köpfeȱ wieȱ z.B.ȱ der mittlerenȱFigurȱmitȱdemȱBlätterkranzȱaufȱdemȱBlattȱFünfȱgroteskeȱKöpfeȱ(umȱ1494)

2

3

4 5

DerȱMantelüberwurfȱ(undȱdieȱLockenfülle)ȱsprechenȱEmilȱMöllerȱfolgendȱ“fürȱeineȱidealisierte Bildung”;ȱEmilȱMöller,ȱ“SalaiȱundȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,”ȱJahrbuchȱderȱkunsthistorischenȱSammlungen inȱWienȱn.s.ȱ2ȱ(1928):ȱ139–61;ȱhierȱ147. Johannesȱ Nathan,ȱ “Profilstudien,ȱ Charakterköpfeȱ undȱ groteskeȱ Köpfe,”ȱ Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinci. 1452–1519.ȱ Sämtlicheȱ Gemäldeȱ undȱ Zeichnungen,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Frankȱ Zöllnerȱ (Hongȱ Kong,ȱ Köln,ȱ etȱ al.: Taschen,ȱ2007),ȱ362. Ibid. Derȱ Terminusȱ istȱ Michaelȱ Rockesȱ gleichnamigerȱ Dissertationsschrift,ȱ dieȱ 1996ȱ erschien, entnommen.ȱ Erȱ bezeichnet—wieȱ bereitsȱ derȱ Untertitelȱ spezifiziert—‘homosexuelle’ȱ mannȬ männlicheȱBeziehungen;ȱvgl.ȱMichaelȱRocke,ȱForbiddenȱFriendships:ȱHomosexualityȱandȱMaleȱCulture inȱ Renaissanceȱ Florence.ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Sexualityȱ (Newȱ Yorkȱ undȱ Oxford:ȱ Oxford UniversityȱPress,ȱ1996).

564

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

inȱ derȱ Royalȱ Libraryȱ inȱ Windsorȱ Castle6ȱ auf.ȱ Bezüglichȱ desȱ Jünglingsȱ wird gerätselt,ȱobȱeventuellȱeinȱjungerȱMann,ȱdenȱLeonardoȱmitȱdemȱSpitznamenȱSalaì bedachte,ȱfürȱihnȱModellȱgestandenȱhabe.7ȱDieȱZeichnungȱkönnteȱdemnachȱeine ‘verbotene,’ȱgleichgeschlechtlichȬsexuellȱmotivierteȱ‘Freundschaft’ȱzwischenȱeinem groteskenȱAltenȱundȱdemȱJünglingȱSalaìȱdarstellen,ȱesȱwürdeȱsichȱalsoȱumȱein ‘Freundschaftsbildnis’ȱhandeln.ȱ DiesenȱBegriffȱentwickelteȱdieȱkunsthistorischeȱForschungȱfürȱdieȱDarstellung vonȱ befreundetenȱ Personen.ȱ Erȱ umfasstȱ DoppelȬȱ oderȱ Gruppenporträtsȱ von Künstlernȱ undȱ Gelehrten,ȱ inȱ letzterȱ Zeitȱ wurdeȱ erȱ jedochȱ auchȱ fürȱ die DarstellungenȱAngehörigerȱweitererȱsozialerȱGruppenȱangewandt.8ȱSoȱdefiniert dasȱLexikonȱderȱKunstȱdenȱBegriffȱ1989ȱwieȱfolgt: Freundschaftsbildnis.ȱ Darstellungenȱ miteinanderȱ befreundeterȱ Personen,ȱ meist KünstlerȱoderȱWissenschaftler,ȱgabȱesȱschonȱinȱderȱKunstȱderȱRenaissanceȱundȱdes Barocks.ȱVonȱeinemȱF[reundschaftsbildnis]ȱkannȱnurȱgesprochenȱwerden,ȱwennȱdie freundschaftl[iche]ȱVerbundenheitȱvorherrschendesȱMotivȱderȱDarstellungȱist,ȱumȱes vonȱ anderenȱ Formenȱ desȱ DoppelȬȱ oderȱ Gruppenbildnissesȱ zuȱ unterscheiden.ȱ Das humanist[ische]ȱFreundschaftsidealȱhatȱzuȱderartigenȱBildernȱjedochȱkaumȱvorȱdem 16.ȱ Jh.ȱ geführt.ȱ Auchȱ dannȱ kannȱ nochȱ nichtȱ vonȱ einerȱ geläufigenȱ Bildgattung gesprochenȱwerden.9

DieȱZeichnungȱstellteȱsomitȱLeonardosȱeinzigenȱBeitragȱzuȱdenȱFreundschaftsȬ bildnissenȱderȱRenaissanceȱdar.ȱAusȱdiesemȱGrundȱmussȱfürȱeineȱUntersuchung mannȬmännlicherȱ Freundschaftenȱ beiȱ Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinciȱ aufȱ heuristische Hilfsmittelȱ zurückgegriffenȱ undȱ dieȱ Herangehensweiseȱ erweitertȱ werden. Zunächstȱ ermitteleȱ ichȱ deshalb,ȱ welcheȱ Personenȱ ausȱ Leonardosȱ Umkreis geeigneteȱKandidatenȱfürȱdasȱPrädikatȱ‘Freund’ȱdarstellen,ȱumȱdannȱanȱHandȱvon schriftlichenȱ Äußerungenȱ überȱ undȱ vonȱ visuellenȱ Darstellungenȱ vonȱ diesen ‘Freunden’ȱ einȱ differenziertesȱ Bildȱ desȱ jeweiligenȱ Verhältnissesȱ zuȱ gewinnen. ZunächstȱunternehmeȱichȱdenȱVersuch,ȱdieȱBeziehungenȱobjektivȱzuȱbestimmen. Wannȱ undȱ wieȱ kamȱ derȱ Kontaktȱ dieserȱ ‘Freunde’ȱ zuȱ Leonardoȱ zustandeȱ und 6

7

8

9

Abb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱ1452–1519:ȱSämtlicheȱGemäldeȱundȱZeichnungen,ȱHrsg.ȱFrankȱZöllner (HongȱKong,ȱKöln,ȱetȱal.:ȱTaschen,ȱ2007),ȱAbb.ȱ221. Z.B.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ147ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱRoyȱMcMullen,ȱMonaȱLisa:ȱTheȱPictureȱandȱtheȱMythȱ(New York:ȱDaȱCapoȱPress,ȱ1977),ȱ16.ȱ Dazuȱu.a.ȱEstherȱP.ȱWipfler,ȱ“AmicitiaȱinȱderȱKunstȱdesȱMittelalters—DieȱPersonifikationȱundȱihre Rezeption,”ȱFreundschaft:ȱMotiveȱundȱBedeutungen,ȱHrsg.ȱSibylleȱAppuhnȬRadtkeȱundȱEstherȱP. Wipfler.ȱ Veröffentlichungenȱ desȱ Zentralinstitutsȱ fürȱ Kunstgeschichte,ȱ 19ȱ (München: ZentralinstitutȱfürȱKunstgeschichte,ȱ2006),ȱ155–79;ȱhierȱ155.ȱZumȱFreundschaftsbildȱsieheȱvor allemȱ Klausȱ Lankheit,ȱ Dasȱ Freundschaftsbildȱ derȱ Romantik.ȱ Heidelbergerȱ Kunstgeschichtliche Abhandlungen,ȱN.ȱF.ȱ1ȱ(Heidelberg:ȱCarlȱWinterȱUniversitätsverlag,ȱ1952). “Freundschaftsbildnis,”ȱLexikonȱderȱKunst:ȱArchitektur,ȱbildendeȱKunst,ȱangewandteȱKunst, Industrieformgestaltung,ȱKunsttheorie,ȱ2,ȱHrsg.ȱHaraldȱOlbrichȱundȱGerhardȱStraussȱ(Leipzig: Seemann,ȱ1989),ȱ595–96;ȱhierȱ595.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

565

welcheȱ‘Funktionen’ȱ(alsoȱSchüler,ȱDiener,ȱModellȱo.ä.)ȱübernahmenȱsie?ȱInȱeinem zweitenȱSchrittȱuntersucheȱichȱdasȱQuellenmaterialȱaufȱdieȱPerspektiveȱLeonardos aufȱdieseȱ‘Freunde’ȱundȱihrȱVerhältnisȱzuȱihm.ȱDurchȱeinenȱweiterenȱWechselȱdes BlickwinkelsȱstrebeȱichȱeineȱBestimmungȱdesȱCharaktersȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱausȱder Sichtȱderȱ‘Freunde’ȱan.ȱDazuȱwerteȱich—wennȱvorhanden—Äußerungenȱdieser sowieȱihrȱŒuvreȱbezüglichȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱzuȱdemȱKünstlerȱaus.ȱLeitendȱsollen Fragen,ȱ wieȱ Leonardoȱ dieseȱ zuȱ untersuchendenȱ ‘Freundschaften’ȱ beschreibt, darstelltȱ undȱ definiertȱ undȱ wieȱ sieȱ wiederumȱ nichtȱ nurȱ vonȱ denȱ jeweiligen ‘Freunden,’ȱsondernȱauchȱvonȱZeitgenossenȱrezipiertȱundȱbeurteiltȱwurden,ȱsein. WelcheȱStrukturenȱundȱwelchesȱVerhaltenȱzeichneteȱdieseȱBeziehungenȱausȱund wieȱwarenȱsieȱmotiviert?ȱDieȱinȱdieserȱFormȱanalysiertenȱBeziehungenȱerlauben dannȱ wiederumȱ induktivȱ Rückschlüsseȱ aufȱ Leonardosȱ Auffassungȱ des Abstraktumsȱ‘Freundschaft.’ȱ Gleichzeitigȱ arbeiteȱ ichȱ einenȱ bestimmtenȱ Typȱ desȱ Konzeptesȱ von (homoerotischen)ȱ Künstlerfreundschaftenȱ heraus.ȱ Darüberȱ hinausȱ sollȱ diese FallstudieȱeinenȱBeitragȱzurȱKlärungȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱundȱgegebenenfallsȱzur Differenzierungȱ derȱ Konzepteȱ vonȱ ‘Freundschaft,’ȱ ‘Liebe’ȱ undȱ ‘Sexualität’ȱ im ItalienȱanȱderȱSchwelleȱvomȱQuattroȬȱzumȱCinquecentoȱleisten.ȱBisherigeȱStudien habenȱnämlichȱgezeigt,ȱdassȱdieȱBegriffeȱ‘Freundschaft’ȱundȱ‘Liebe’ȱbesondersȱim starkȱhomosozialȱausgerichtetenȱItalienȱdesȱCinquecentoȱengȱbeieinanderȱlagen.10 SoȱmussȱhinsichtlichȱderȱFrageȱnachȱ‘Freundschaft’ȱbeiȱLeonardoȱauchȱzugleich stetsȱjeneȱnachȱLiebeȱundȱ(HomoȬ)Sexualitätȱgestelltȱwerden.ȱSoȱwerdeȱichȱauch erotischȱaufgeladeneȱSpätdarstellungenȱLeonardosȱwieȱz.B.ȱJohannesȱderȱTäuferȱ(um 1513–1516?)ȱ undȱ damitȱ einhergehendȱ derȱ Toposȱ desȱ Androgynenȱ betrachten. Abschließendȱüberprüfeȱich,ȱobȱüberȱdieȱErweiterungȱderȱheuristischenȱGrundlage nichtȱdochȱ‘Freundschaftsbilder’ȱimȱAnschlussȱanȱdieȱerweiterteȱDefinitionȱUlrich Pfisterersȱgefundenȱwerdenȱkönnten.ȱPfisterersȱUntersuchungȱvonȱ2006ȱveränderte dieȱbislangȱgültigeȱDefinitionȱvonȱFreundschaftsbildernȱalsȱDarstellungȱvonȱzwei oderȱmehrȱFreunden.ȱErȱstuftȱdieseȱsogarȱalsȱSonderfallȱderȱBildgattungȱein.ȱInȱden meistenȱFällenȱhandleȱesȱsichȱumȱPorträts,ȱdieȱoftȱnichtȱeinmalȱdurchȱAttributeȱauf ihreȱ Funktionȱ alsȱ Freundschaftsbildȱ verwiesen,ȱ sondernȱ lediglichȱ durch Berücksichtigungȱ ihresȱ performativenȱ Kontextesȱ diesemȱ Bereichȱ zugeordnet werdenȱkönnten.11 10

11

DazuȱzuletztȱinȱderȱKunstgeschichteȱUlrichȱPfisterer,ȱ“Freundschaftsbilder—Liebesbilder:ȱZum visuellenȱCodeȱmännlicherȱPassionenȱinȱderȱRenaissance,”ȱFreundschaft:ȱMotiveȱundȱBedeutungen, Hrsg.ȱSibylleȱAppuhnȬRadtkeȱundȱEstherȱP.ȱWipfler.ȱVeröffentlichungenȱdesȱZentralinstitutsȱfür Kunstgeschichte,ȱ19ȱ(München:ȱZentralinstitutȱfürȱKunstgeschichte,ȱ2006),ȱ239–59;ȱhierȱ240. Vgl.ȱ ibid.,ȱ 240–41.ȱ Bereitsȱ 1992ȱ hatteȱ Wolfgangȱ Kempȱ durchȱ dieȱ Analyseȱ derȱ inneren RezeptionsvorgabenȱdesȱSelbstporträtsȱNicolasȱPoussinsȱvonȱ1650,ȱdasȱsichȱheuteȱimȱMuséeȱdu LouvreȱinȱParisȱbefindetȱundȱfürȱseinenȱFreundȱundȱGönnerȱPaulȱFréartȱdeȱChantelouȱgefertigt wurde,ȱ gezeigt,ȱ dassȱ Auftraggeberȱ undȱ Adressatȱ diesesȱ Tafelbildesȱ hierȱ alsȱ ‘Freund’ȱ eine Personalunionȱ bilden.ȱ Derȱ Freundȱ außerhalbȱ desȱ Bildesȱ stelleȱ eineȱ Leerstelleȱ dar,ȱ dieȱ der

566

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

DieȱSucheȱnachȱ‘Freunden’ȱbeginneȱichȱinȱLeonardosȱTestament,12ȱdennȱinȱder RegelȱberücksichtigtȱderȱVerstorbeneȱalsȱErbenȱsolcheȱVerwandteȱundȱPersonen, denenȱerȱsichȱzuȱDankȱverpflichtetȱoderȱdenenȱerȱsichȱinȱandererȱWeiseȱverbunden fühlte.ȱ Inȱ Leonardosȱ ‘letztemȱ Willen’ȱ werdenȱ Messerȱ Francescoȱ Melzi,13ȱ einȱ

12

13

Betrachterȱselbstȱergänzenȱmüsse.ȱSeineȱAnwesenheitȱwerdeȱdurchȱseineȱmehrfacheȱAnsprache durchȱdasȱBildȱevoziert:ȱ“Wasȱkönnteȱmanȱmehrȱverlangen,”ȱsoȱschlußfolgertȱKemp,ȱ“einȱPartner, derȱinȱseinerȱSituationȱ(Bilderwand,ȱSammlung),ȱinȱeinerȱPersonȱ(AdressierungȱdurchȱdenȱBlick) undȱinȱseinerȱhervorstechendenȱEigenschaftȱ(LiebhaberȱderȱMalerei)ȱformuliertȱist—undȱdies durchȱeinȱSelbstporträt:ȱHabenȱwirȱdaȱnichtȱdasȱwahre,ȱkompletteȱFreundschaftsbild?”ȱWolfgang Kemp,ȱ“TeleologieȱderȱMalerei:ȱSelbstporträtȱundȱZukunftsreflexionȱbeiȱPoussinȱundȱVelázquez,” DerȱKünstlerȱüberȱsichȱinȱseinemȱWerk:ȱinternationalesȱSymposionȱderȱBibliothecaȱHertzianaȱRomȱ1989, Hrsg.ȱMatthiasȱWinnerȱ(Weinheim:ȱVCH,ȱActaȱHumaniora,ȱ1992),ȱ407–33;ȱhierȱ423. Vgl.ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorksȱofȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱinȱ2ȱVols.,ȱ3.ȱAusg.,ȱübers.ȱundȱhrsg.ȱvonȱJeanȬPaul Richter,ȱ2ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱPhaidon,ȱ1970),ȱNr.ȱ1566,ȱ388–91. ZuȱFrancescoȱMelzi:ȱGiorgioȱVasari,ȱViteȱde’ȱpiùȱeccellentiȱpittori,ȱscultoriȱedȱarchitettoriȱconȱnuove annotazioniȱ eȱ commentiȱ diȱ Gaetanoȱ Milanesi,ȱ 4ȱ (Florenz:ȱ Sansoni,ȱ 1879),ȱ 17–86,ȱ dt.ȱ Lebenȱ der ausgezeichnetstenȱMaler,ȱBildhauerȱundȱBaumeister:ȱvonȱCimabueȱbisȱzumȱJahreȱ1567ȱbeschriebenȱvon GiorgioȱVasari,ȱMalerȱundȱBaumeister,ȱ3,1ȱHrsg.ȱLudwigȱSchornȱundȱErnstȱFörster,ȱneuȱhrsg.ȱund eingeleitetȱvonȱJulianȱKliemannȱ(Worms:ȱWernerscheȱVerlagsgesellschaft,ȱ1983),ȱ1–48;ȱLaȱmemoria suȱ Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinciȱ diȱ Donȱ Ambrogioȱ Mazenta,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ D.ȱ Luigiȱ Gramaticaȱ (Mailand:ȱ Alfieriȱ & Lacroix,ȱ 1919ȱ [zuerstȱ 1635]);ȱ Antonioȱ Francescoȱ etȱ al.ȱ Albuzzi,ȱ Memorieȱ perȱ servireȱ allaȱ storia de’pittori,ȱscultoriȱeȱarchitettiȱmilanesi:ȱviȱsiȱaggiungeȱunaȱcopiosaȱraccoltaȱdiȱantichiȱdocumentiȱinediti relativiȱallaȱdettaȱstoriaȱcavatiȱdalȱcorpoȱdelleȱordinazioniȱcapitolariȱesistentiȱnellȇarchivioȱdellȱveneranda fabbricaȱ delȱ duomoȱ diȱ Milano,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Giorgioȱ Nicodemiȱ (Mailand:ȱ Industrieȱ graphicheȱ italiane Stucchi,ȱ1956);ȱFeliceȱCalvi,ȱ“StoriaȱdellaȱfamigliaȱMelzi,”ȱFamiglieȱnotabiliȱmilanesi:ȱcenniȱstoriciȱe genealogici,ȱ 2,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ ders.ȱ etȱ al.ȱ (Mailand:ȱ A.ȱ Vallardi,ȱ 1879),ȱ 10;ȱ Giulioȱ Carotti,ȱ Capiȱ d’arte appartenentiȱaȱS.E.ȱlaȱDuchessaȱJoséphineȱMelziȱd’ErilȱBarbòȱ(Bergamo:ȱIstitutoȱd’artiȱgrafiche,ȱ1901); LucaȱBeltrami,ȱDocumentiȱeȱMemorieȱriguardantiȱlaȱvitaȱeȱleȱopereȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(Mailand: Treves,ȱ1919);ȱMarioȱSalmi,ȱ„Unaȱmostraȱdiȱanticaȱpitturaȱlombarda,”ȱL’Arteȱ26ȱ(1923):ȱ149–60;ȱhier 158;ȱPrimaȱMostraȱdegliȱAntichiȱPittoriȱLombardiȱ(Mailand:ȱCircoloȱd’Arteȱeȱd’altaȱColture,ȱ1923); WilhelmȱSuida,ȱLeonardoȱundȱseinȱKreisȱ(München:ȱBruckmann,ȱ1929);ȱLionelloȱVenturi,ȱItalian PaintingsȱinȱAmerica,ȱ3,ȱ(NewȱYorkȱundȱMailand:ȱE.ȱWeyheȱundȱU.ȱHoepli,ȱ1933);ȱKennethȱClark, TheȱDrawingsȱofȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱinȱtheȱCollectionȱofȱHisȱMajestyȱtheȱKingȱatȱWindsorȱCastleȱ(London: Phaidon,ȱ1935),ȱ2ȱBände;ȱWilhelmȱR.ȱValentiner,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱLoanȱExhibition,ȱ1452–1519ȱ(Los Angeles:ȱLosȱAngelesȱCountyȱMuseum,ȱ1949);ȱAndréȱdeȱHévésy,ȱ“UnȱcompagnoȱdiȱLeonardo: FrancescoȱMelzi,”ȱEmporiumȱ116ȱ(1952),ȱ243–57;ȱCarloȱPedretti,ȱStudiȱVinciani:ȱdocumenti,ȱanalisi eȱ ineditiȱ leonardeschiȱ (Genf:ȱ Droz,ȱ 1957);ȱ M.ȱ A.ȱ Gukovsky,ȱ Kolumbinaȱ ȱ (Leningrad:ȱ Izdatelstvo GosudarstvennogoȱErmitazha,ȱ1963);ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱonȱpainting:ȱAȱLostȱBookȱ‘LibroȱA,’ȱHrsg. Carloȱ Pedrettiȱ etȱ al.ȱ Californiaȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Artȱ 3ȱ (Berkeleyȱ undȱ Losȱ Angeles: UniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1964);ȱKennethȱClark,ȱ„FrancescoȱMelziȱasȱPreserverȱofȱLeonardo daȱVinci’sȱDrawings,”ȱStudiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱandȱBaroqueȱArtȱPresentedȱtoȱ[Sir]ȱAnthonyȱBluntȱonȱhis 60thȱbirthday,ȱHrsg.ȱMichaelȱKitsonȱundȱJohnȱShearmanȱetȱal.ȱ(LondonȱundȱNewȱYork:ȱPhaidon, 1967),ȱ24–25;ȱKennethȱClark,ȱTheȱDrawingsȱofȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱinȱtheȱCollectionȱofȱHerȱMajestyȱthe QueenȱatȱWindsorȱCastle,ȱ2.ȱAusg.ȱüberarbeitetȱmitȱderȱHilfeȱvonȱCarloȱPedretti,ȱ(London:ȱPhaidon, 1968–1969),ȱ2ȱBände;ȱAnnaȱMariaȱBrizio,ȱ“ReviewȱofȱK.ȱClarkȱandȱC.ȱPedretti,”ȱTheȱArtȱBulletinȱ53, 4ȱ(1971),ȱ529;ȱSidneyȱJosephȱFreedberg,ȱPaintingȱinȱItaly:ȱ1500ȱtoȱ1600ȱ(HarmondsworthȱMiddlesex, et.ȱal.:ȱPenguinȱBooks,ȱ1971);ȱGiulioȱBora,ȱIȱdisegniȱdelȱCodiceȱRestaȱ(Mailand:ȱCreditoȱitaliano,ȱ1976); MirellaȱLeviȱd’Ancona,ȱTheȱGardenȱofȱtheȱRenaissance:ȱBotanicalȱSymbolismȱinȱItalianȱPainting.ȱArte eȱarcheologiaȱ10ȱ(Florenz:ȱOlschki,ȱ1977);ȱEverettȱFahyȱundȱAdrianȱButash,ȱTheȱLegacyȱofȱLeonardo:

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

567

“GentilomoȱdaȱMilano,”ȱseineȱDienerȱ(servitore)ȱBattistaȱdeȱVilanisȱundȱSalaì,14ȱ

14

Italianȱ Renaissanceȱ Paintingsȱ fromȱ Leningradȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ Knoedler,ȱ 1979);ȱ Fernȱ Ruskȱ Shapley, CataloqueȱofȱtheȱItalianȱPaintings,ȱ2ȱBde.ȱ(Washington,ȱDC:ȱNationalȱGalleryȱofȱArt,ȱ1979);ȱGiulio Bora,ȱ Iȱ disegniȱ lombardiȱ eȱ genovesiȱ delȱ Cinquecento.ȱ Ilȱ disegnoȱ italiano:ȱ serieȱ sodalizioȱ delȱ libro (Treviso:ȱLibreriaȱed.ȱCanova,ȱ1980);ȱIȱleonardeschiȱinȱLombardia,ȱHrsg.ȱMariaȱTeresaȱFiorioȱund RenzoȱdiȱCagnoȱ(Mailand:ȱn.p.,ȱ1982);ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱ“GirolamoȱFigino,”ȱDisegniȱlombardiȱdel CinqueȱeȱdelȱSeicentoȱdellaȱPinacotecaȱdiȱBreraȱeȱdell’ArcivescovadoȱdiȱMilanoȱHrsg.ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani (Florenz:ȱCantiniȱedizioniȱd’arte,ȱ1986),ȱ56–57;ȱFedericoȱZeriȱundȱElisabethȱE.ȱGardner,ȱItalian Paintings:ȱAȱCataloqueȱofȱtheȱCollectionȱofȱtheȱMetropolitanȱMuseumȱofȱArt,ȱNorthȱItalianȱSchools,ȱ4 (NewȱYork:ȱNewȱYorkȱGraphicȱSociety,ȱ1986);ȱMariaȱTeresaȱFiorio,ȱ“Unaȱtracciaȱperȱlaȱsezioneȱdi pitturaȱeȱqualcheȱproposta,”ȱDisegniȱeȱdipintiȱleonardeschiȱdalleȱcollezioniȱmilanesi,ȱHrsg.ȱGiulioȱBora etȱal.ȱ(Mailand:ȱElecta,ȱ1987),ȱ20–27;ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱ“AttribuitoȱaȱFrancescoȱMelzi,”ȱDisegniȱe dipinti,ȱ94–95;ȱDavidȱAlanȱBrown,ȱ“SomeȱObservationsȱaboutȱtheȱExhibitionȱ‚Disegniȱeȱdipinti leonardeschiȱdalleȱcollezioniȱmilanesi’,”ȱRaccoltaȱVincianaȱfasc.ȱ23ȱ(1989):ȱ27–32;ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani, “AȱNewȱDateȱforȱFrancescoȱMelzi’sȱYoungȱManȱwithȱtheȱParrot,”ȱTheȱBurlingtonȱMagazineȱ(1989): 479–81;ȱ Giovanniȱ Agosti,ȱ Bambaiaȱ eȱ classicismoȱ lombardoȱ (Turin:ȱ Einaudi,ȱ 1990);ȱ Hannlore Nützmann,ȱStaatlicheȱMuseenȱinȱBerlin.ȱGemäldegalerie.ȱMalereiȱ13.–18.ȱJahrhundertȱimȱBodemuseum, 4.ȱ Aufl.ȱ (Berlin:ȱ Henschelȱ Verlag,ȱ 1990),ȱ 115;ȱ Janiceȱ Shellȱ undȱ Graziosoȱ Sironi,ȱ “Salaìȱ and Leonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱTheȱBurlingtonȱMagazineȱ133ȱ(1991):ȱ95–108;ȱMarcoȱCarminati,ȱCesareȱdaȱSesto: 1477–1523ȱ(MailandȱundȱRom:ȱJandiȱSapiȱEditori,ȱ1994);ȱTatyanaȱK.ȱKustodieva,ȱTheȱHermitage. CataloqueȱofȱWesternȱEuropeanȱPainting.ȱItalianȱPaintingȱThirteenthȱtoȱSixteenthȱCenturiesȱ(Moskau undȱ Florenz:ȱ Giunti,ȱ 1994);ȱ Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinci:ȱ Libroȱ daȱ Pittura,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Carloȱ Pedretti,ȱ kritische ÜbersetzungȱvonȱCarloȱVecceȱ(Florenz:ȱGiunti,ȱ1995);ȱJaniceȱShell,ȱPittoriȱinȱbottega:ȱRinascimento aȱMilano.ȱStudiȱsull’arteȱinȱItaliaȱ(Turin:ȱAllemandi,ȱ1995);ȱFrancescoȱFrangi,ȱ“MaestroȱdellaȱPala Solomon,ȱmetàȱsec.ȱXVI,”ȱDallaȱBancaȱalȱMuseo.ȱLaȱcollezioneȱd’arteȱdelȱCreditoȱBergamasco,ȱHrsg. Francescoȱ Rossiȱ (Mailand:ȱ Skira,ȱ 1996),ȱ 21–31;ȱ Gemäldegalerieȱ Berlin:ȱ Gesamtverzeichnis,ȱ Hrsg. HenningȱBockȱundȱGesineȱAsmusȱ(Berlin:ȱNicolai,ȱ1996);ȱFrancescoȱFrangi,ȱ“GirolamoȱFigino ritrovato,”ȱNuoviȱStudiȱ3ȱ(1997),ȱ31–40;ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱ“FrancescoȱMelzi,”ȱTheȱLegacyȱofȱLeonardo: Paintersȱ inȱ Lombardyȱ 1490–1530,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Giulioȱ Bora,ȱ Davidȱ Alanȱ Brownȱ undȱ Marcoȱ Carminati (Mailand:ȱSkira,ȱ1998),ȱ371–84. GianȱGiacomoȱCaprottiȱdaȱOreno.ȱLeonardoȱerwähntȱihnȱinȱseinenȱspäterenȱAufzeichnungen jedochȱ stetsȱ mitȱ demȱ Spitznamenȱ ‚Salaì.’ȱ Alternativeȱ Schreibweisenȱ sindȱ ‚Salay,’ȱ (u.ȱ a.ȱ im Testament;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1566,ȱ388–91ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ12];ȱaberȱauchȱbeiȱLuigiȱPulci)ȱoder ‚Salaij’ȱ (inȱ Dokumentenȱ vgl.ȱ Möller,ȱ “Salai,”ȱ 139ȱ ([sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 2]).ȱ Soȱ verwendeȱ ichȱ hierȱ und folgendȱzurȱBezeichnungȱCaprottisȱseinenȱSpitzname.ȱWarȱSalaìȱGiorgioȱVasari,ȱGiovanniȱPaolo Lomazzoȱ undȱ anderenȱ Schriftstellernȱ desȱ Cinquecentoȱ nochȱ bekannt,ȱ verschwandȱ erȱ inȱ den nächstenȱvierȱJahrhunderten.ȱInȱdieserȱZeitȱwurdeȱangenommen,ȱdassȱseinȱrichtigerȱNameȱAndrea Salainoȱgewesenȱsei.ȱPaoloȱMorigiaȱwarȱfürȱdieseȱAnnahmeȱverantwortlich.ȱErȱverbandȱdenȱin LeonardosȱPapierenȱgefundenenȱBeinamenȱSalaìȱmitȱderȱPersonȱdesȱAndreaȱSalimbeniȱdaȱSalerno, einesȱSchülersȱCesareȱdaȱSestosȱ(PaoloȱMorigia,ȱLaȱnobiltàȱdiȱMilano:ȱdiuisaȱinȱseiȱlibriȱ(Mailand: nellaȱstampaȱdelȱquon.ȱPacificoȱPontio,ȱ1595),ȱ277).ȱErstȱzuȱBeginnȱdesȱ20.ȱJahrhundertsȱwurdeȱdie IdentitätȱSalaìsȱdurchȱdieȱForschungenȱGerolamoȱCalvisȱundȱLucaȱBeltramisȱwiederȱrekonstruiert undȱvonȱweiterenȱForschernȱbestätigtȱundȱaktualisiertȱ(“Giov.ȱGiacomoȱCaprotti,ȱdettoȱSalai: 1480–1524.ȱConȱquestoȱnomeȱeȱquesteȱdate,ȱintendoȱdesignareȱperȱlaȱprimaȱvolta,ȱeȱsenzaȱalcuna riserva,ȱlȇallievoȱcheȱtrascorseȱlaȱvitaȱalȱfiancoȱdiȱLeonardoȱ(Giov.ȱGiacomoȱCaprotti,ȱgenanntȱSalai: 1480–1524.ȱ Mitȱ diesemȱ Namenȱ undȱ diesenȱ Datenȱ beabsichtigeȱ ichȱ dasȱ ersteȱ Malȱ undȱ ohne jeglichenȱ Vorbehaltȱ denȱ Schüler,ȱ derȱ dasȱ Lebenȱ anȱ derȱ Seiteȱ Leonardosȱ verbrachte,ȱ zu bezeichnen))”ȱ schreibtȱ Beltramiȱ 1919.ȱ Damitȱ nimmtȱ erȱ dieȱ Theseȱ Calvis,ȱ dassȱ Salaìȱ der DrittgeboreneȱvonȱPietroȱdaȱOrenoȱundȱCaterinaȱScottiȱsei,ȱaufȱundȱentwickeltȱdieseȱweiter),ȱvgl. GerolamoȱCalvi,ȱ“ContributiȱallaȱBiografiaȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(periodoȱsforzesco),”ȱArchivio

568

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

seineȱDienstmagdȱ(fantescha)ȱMaturinaȱundȱseineȱBrüderȱbesondersȱbedacht.ȱAls ersterȱ Erbeȱ wirdȱ inȱ demȱ amȱ 23.ȱ Aprilȱ 1519ȱ inȱ Clouxȱ inȱ Amboiseȱ aufgesetzten TestamentȱFrancescoȱMelziȱgenannt.ȱErȱsolleȱ“tuttiȱetȱciaschadunoȱliȱlibri,ȱcheȱil dictoȱTestatoreȱhaȱdeȱpresenteȱetȱaltriȱInstrumentiȱetȱPortractiȱcircaȱl’arteȱsuaȱet industriaȱdeȱPictoriȱ(alleȱübrigenȱWerkzeugeȱundȱEntwürfe,ȱwelcheȱseineȱKunst undȱ dieȱ Kunstschöpfungenȱ derȱ Malerȱ betreffen)”15ȱ erhalten,ȱ d.h.ȱ die Werkstattmaterialien,ȱZeichnungen,16ȱManuskripteȱundȱvielleichtȱdieȱMaschinen undȱmodelliȱ(dieȱGemälde,ȱdieȱLeonardoȱmitȱnachȱFrankreichȱbrachte,ȱwerdenȱim

15

16

Storicoȱ Lombardoȱ 43,3ȱ (1916):ȱ 417–508;ȱ ders.,ȱ “Ilȱ veroȱ nomeȱ diȱ unȱ allievoȱ diȱ Leonardo:ȱ Gian GiacomoȱdeȱCaprottiȱdettoȱ‘Salaj’,”ȱRassegnaȱd’Arteȱ(1919);ȱders.,ȱIȱManoscrittiȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci dalȱ puntoȱ diȱ vistaȱ cronologico,ȱ storicoȱ eȱ biografico.ȱ Publicazioniȱ dellȇIstitutoȱ Vincianoȱ inȱ Roma,ȱ 6 (Bologna:ȱ1925);ȱLucaȱBeltrami,ȱ“LȇenigmaȱdiȱAndreaȱSalaiȱrisolto,”ȱIlȱmarzoccoȱ14ȱ(7.ȱSeptember 1919);ȱDers.ȱLaȱvignaȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(Mailand:ȱAllegretti,ȱ1920);ȱPioȱRajna,ȱ“Appendiceȱalla soluzioneȱdiȱunȱenigmaȱvinciano,”ȱIlȱmarzoccoȱ20ȱ(14.ȱJuniȱ1925).ȱDieȱTheseȱwurdeȱz.B.ȱvonȱMöller aufgenommen,ȱerweitertȱundȱdurchȱweitereȱQuellenȱbestätigt;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ139–44ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 2);ȱvgl.ȱauchȱJaniceȱShell,ȱ“GianȱGiacomoȱCaprotti,ȱdettoȱSalaì,”ȱLegacy,ȱ397–406;ȱhierȱ397ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ13).ȱZuȱSalaì:ȱVasari/Milanesi,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ29ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13); Morigia,ȱLaȱnobiltàȱ(sieheȱoben);ȱAlbuzzi,ȱMemorieȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱGerolamoȱCalvi,ȱ“Contributi” (sieheȱoben);ȱBeltrami.,ȱDocumentiȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱBeltrami,ȱ“L’enigma”ȱ(sieheȱoben);ȱCalvi,ȱ“Il veroȱnome”ȱ(sieheȱoben);ȱBeltrami,ȱLaȱvignaȱ(sieheȱoben);ȱRajna,ȱ“Appendice”ȱ(sieheȱoben);ȱPascal Bonetti,ȱ“Unȱgrandȱmaîtreȱoublié:ȱAndréȱSalaino.ȱLeȱplusȱgrandȱélèveȱdeȱLéonardȱdeȱVinci,”ȱLe Figaroȱartistiqueȱ(21.ȱOktoberȱ1926):ȱ19–22;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱSuida,ȱLeonardoȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ 13);ȱ Mauriceȱ H.ȱ Goldblatt,ȱ Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinci:ȱ Aȱ Newlyȱ Identifiedȱ Headȱ ofȱ Leda.ȱ Aȱ Newly Identifiedȱ Designȱ forȱ aȱ Standingȱ Leda.ȱ Howȱ theȱ Paintingsȱ ofȱ Salaiȱ Wereȱ Identifiedȱ (Newȱ York:ȱ The Citadelȱ Press,ȱ 1961);ȱ Costantinoȱ Baroni,ȱ Documentiȱ perȱ laȱ storiaȱ dell’Architetturaȱ aȱ Milanoȱ nel RinascimentoȱeȱnelȱBarocco,ȱ2,ȱ(Rom:ȱAccademiaȱnazionaleȱdeiȱLincei,ȱ1968),ȱNr.ȱ2,ȱ39–40;ȱMichele Caffi,ȱ“DiȱalcuniȱmaestriȱdiȱarteȱnelȱsecoloȱXVȱinȱMilanoȱpocoȱnotiȱoȱmaleȱindicati,”ȱArchivioȱStorico Lombardoȱ5ȱ(1878):ȱ82–85;ȱAngelaȱOttinoȱDellaȱChiesa,ȱL’operaȱcompletaȱdiȱLeonardoȱpittoreȱ(Mailand: Rizzoli,ȱ1978);ȱMarioȱMotta,ȱGianȱGiacomoȱCaprottiȱdettoȱIlȱSalaino,ȱ(Oreno:ȱn.p.,ȱ1979);ȱGrazioso Sironi,ȱNuoviȱdocumentiȱriguardantiȱlaȱ‚VergineȱdelleȱRocce’ȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(Florenz:ȱ Giunti Barbèra,ȱ 1981);ȱ Andréȱ Chastel,ȱ Paoloȱ Galluzziȱ undȱ Carloȱ Pedretti,ȱ Leonardoȱ (Florenz:ȱ Giunti Editore,ȱ1987);ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱLeonardoȱeȱiȱleonardeschiȱaȱBreraȱ(Florenz:ȱCantini,ȱ1987);ȱJanice ShellȱundȱGraziosoȱSironi,ȱ“BernardinusȱdictusȱBarnazanusȱdeȱMarchixelisȱdictusȱdeȱQuagisȱde Inzago,”ȱArteȱChristianaȱ78ȱ(1990):ȱ363–66;ȱDies.,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱLeonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱDies.,ȱ“Salaìȱand theȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱRaccoltaȱVinciana,ȱfasc.ȱ24ȱ(1992):ȱ109–53;ȱMichelȱTournier,ȱIlȱvento Paracletoȱ(Mailand:ȱGarzantiȱLibri,ȱ1992);ȱMichelȱTournier,ȱ“L’altraȱmetàȱdiȱLeonardo,”ȱIlȱMessagero (1992);ȱ Carloȱ Vecce,ȱ Leonardoȱ (Rom:ȱ Salerno,ȱ 1998);ȱ Ilȱ Cinquecentoȱ lombardo:ȱ daȱ Leonardoȱ a Caravaggio,ȱrealisiertȱundȱkuratiertȱvonȱFlavioȱCaroliȱ(Mailand:ȱSkiraȱu.a.,ȱ2000);ȱMicheleȱMauri, Tritticoȱvimervatese:ȱGianȱGiacomoȱCaprottiȱdettoȱSalaì.ȱGaspareȱdaȱVimercate.ȱGianȱGiacomoȱGallarati Scottiȱ(Missaglia:ȱBellavite,ȱ2002);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti”ȱ(sieheȱoben). TheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1566,ȱ389ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12),ȱdt.ȱHugoȱGrafȱvonȱGallenberg,ȱLeonardoȱda Vinci:ȱmitȱLeonardosȱBildnißȱundȱvierȱSteintafelnȱ(Leipzig:ȱFriedrichȱFleischer,ȱ1834),ȱ151. DurchȱdieȱAufzeichnungenȱVasarisȱistȱbekannt,ȱdassȱMelziȱanatomischeȱZeichnungenȱerbte;ȱdazu S.ȱ7.ȱAuchȱAlbertoȱBendidio,ȱeinȱKorrespondentȱAlfonsoȱd’Estes,ȱberichtet,ȱdassȱMelziȱ1523ȱdie Aufzeichnungenȱ Leonardosȱ mitȱ denȱ anatomischenȱ Studienȱ undȱ “molteȱ altreȱ belleȱ coseȱ (viele andereȱvortrefflicheȱDinge)”ȱinȱseinemȱBesitzȱhatte;ȱBeltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ251ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13), 160;ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

569

Testamentȱnichtȱerwähnt17).ȱEinȱWeingartenȱvorȱPortaȱVercellinaȱ(vorȱdenȱToren Mailands)ȱ wirdȱ zwischenȱ Leonardosȱ Dienernȱ Baptistȱ deȱ Vilanisȱ undȱ Salaì aufgeteilt.ȱEsȱwirdȱjedochȱangenommen,ȱdassȱSalaìȱdarüberȱhinausȱdieȱGemälde Leonardosȱüberlassenȱwurden,ȱdieȱerȱmitȱnachȱMailandȱzurücknahm,ȱwoȱsieȱauch nachȱ seinemȱ Todȱ 1524ȱ zunächstȱ blieben.18ȱ Dieȱ Magdȱ Maturinaȱ erhält—dem Testamentȱweiterȱfolgend—einȱKleid,ȱTuchȱundȱetwasȱGeld.ȱDarüberȱhinausȱsollen dieȱ Halbbrüderȱ Leonardosȱ inȱ Italienȱ Geldȱ erben.ȱ Melzi—soȱ verfügt Leonardo—solleȱweiterȱseinȱGehaltȱundȱdesȱKünstlersȱKleiderȱerhalten.ȱMelziȱwird außerdemȱalsȱTestamentsvollstreckerȱeingesetzt.ȱZudemȱmussȱerȱbeimȱAufsetzen desȱSchriftstückesȱzugegenȱgewesenȱsein,ȱwirdȱerȱdochȱimȱDokumentȱalsȱZeuge genannt.ȱDasȱTestamentȱschließtȱmitȱzweiȱweiteren,ȱdenȱDienerȱBattistaȱdeȱVilanis bedenkendenȱPunkten:ȱerȱsolleȱaußerdemȱdieȱWasserrechte,ȱdieȱLeonardoȱfürȱden KanalȱSantoȱCristoforoȱinȱderȱGrafschaftȱMailandȱbesaß,ȱsowieȱseineȱMöbelȱund seinenȱHausratȱerben.19ȱ DerȱAdeligeȱausȱMailandȱnimmtȱzweifelsohneȱeineȱherausragendeȱStellungȱin demȱDokumentȱein.ȱErȱwirdȱnichtȱnurȱalsȱVollstreckerȱdesȱletztenȱWillens,ȱsondern auchȱalsȱersterȱderȱErbenȱgenannt,ȱohneȱdassȱausȱdemȱTestamentȱhervorgeht,ȱin welchemȱVerhältnisȱerȱzuȱLeonardoȱsteht.ȱErȱerbtȱnebenȱGeldȱundȱKleidungsȬ stückenȱ dieȱ ‘beruflichen’ȱ Hinterlassenschaftenȱ undȱ zwarȱ sowohlȱ ausȱ dem künstlerischenȱ wieȱ auchȱ ausȱ demȱ ‘wissenschaftlichen’ȱ Bereich.ȱ Leonardo begründetȱdieȱErbschaftȱmitȱdenȱWortenȱ“perȱremunerationeȱde’ȱservitiiȱadȱepso gratiȱaȱluiȱfactiȱperȱilȱpassatoȱ(alsȱLohnȱfürȱDiensteȱundȱGefälligkeitenȱanȱihmȱ[dem Testator—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki]ȱinȱderȱVergangenheit).”ȱDieseȱZeilenȱgebenȱjedochȱnicht nurȱkeineȱAuskunftȱüberȱdasȱVerhältnisȱzwischenȱLeonardoȱundȱMelzi,ȱsondern ähnelnȱauchȱdenȱBegründungen,ȱdieȱLeonardoȱfürȱdieȱErbschaftȱderȱDienerȱund derȱMagdȱanführt.20ȱDieȱgenaueȱRolleȱMelzisȱbleibtȱalsoȱunklarȱundȱgibtȱsoȱAnlass zuȱ derȱ Vermutung,ȱ dassȱ esȱ sichȱ (auch)ȱ umȱ einenȱ ‘Freund’ȱ handelnȱ könne.ȱ Im 17 18

19 20

Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Dasȱ Inventarȱ vonȱ Salaìsȱ Besitzȱ wurdeȱ erstmalsȱ publiziertȱ in:ȱ Shellȱ undȱ Sironi,ȱ “Salaìȱ and Leonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱ106–08ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱvgl.ȱauchȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventory ofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ141–51ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).ȱInȱdiesemȱwirdȱeineȱReiheȱvonȱWerkenȱmitȱPreisȱgelistet. DerȱextremȱhoheȱWert,ȱderȱdenȱerstenȱfünfȱWerkenȱzugemessenȱwird,ȱlässtȱdenȱSchlussȱzu,ȱdass diesesȱOriginaleȱLeonardosȱundȱkeineȱKopienȱSalaísȱwaren.ȱEsȱhandeltȱsichȱumȱ“Quadroȱdictoȱuna Ledda,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ200,ȱlibreȱ1010ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱdeȱSantaȱAnna,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ100; libreȱ505[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱdiȱunaȱdonnaȱaretrata,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscuti—;ȱlibre—ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱ[am Rand:]ȱdictoȱlaȱJocondaȱ[gestrichen:ȱdictoȱlaȱhondaȱC°]ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ100;ȱlibreȱ505ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ] Quadroȱ cumȱ unoȱ Santoȱ Johanneȱ grando,ȱ numeroȱ 1.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ scutiȱ 80;ȱ libreȱ 404ȱ [.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ].”ȱ Esȱ ist anzunehmen,ȱdassȱSalaìȱdieȱGemäldeȱnachȱLeonardosȱTodȱausȱFrankreichȱzurückȱnachȱMailand brachte;ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ402ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). TheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1566,ȱ388–91ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12). Vgl.ȱzuȱBattistaȱdeȱVilanisȱundȱSalaìȱ“inȱremunerationeȱdiȱboniȱetȱgratiȱservitii”ȱ(TheȱLiteraryȱWorks, 2,ȱNr.ȱ1566,ȱ389ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ12])ȱundȱMaturinaȱ“inȱremunerationeȱsimilmenteȱdeȱboniȱservitii” (Ibid.,ȱ390).

570

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

VergleichȱmitȱdenȱvielenȱschriftlichenȱAufzeichnungenȱLeonardosȱfälltȱauf,ȱdass derȱ inȱ demȱ Testamentȱ alsȱ Dienerȱ geführteȱ undȱ lediglichȱ mitȱ derȱ Hälfteȱ eines WeinbergesȱbedachteȱSalaìȱinȱdiesenȱsehrȱoftȱundȱsehrȱausführlichȱErwähnung findet.ȱDieseȱVergleicheȱverweisenȱebensoȱdarauf,ȱdassȱerȱnichtȱnurȱeinȱDiener Leonardosȱgewesenȱseinȱmuss,ȱsondernȱebenfallsȱalsȱKandidatȱfürȱdieȱKategorie FreundȱinȱFrageȱkommt.ȱ ZeitgenössischeȱQuellenȱgebenȱaußerdemȱAnlassȱzuȱderȱVermutung,ȱdassȱbeide LeonardosȱSchülerȱgewesenȱwaren.21ȱWegweisendȱzuȱdemȱThemaȱderȱkünstleriȬ schenȱLeonardonachfolgeȱistȱdieȱUntersuchungȱWilhelmȱSuidasȱLeonardoȱundȱsein Kreisȱvonȱ1929.ȱSofortȱnachdemȱsieȱerschienenȱwar,ȱwurdeȱderȱPublikationȱgroße Tragweiteȱ attestiert.ȱ Nebenȱ denȱ präzisenȱ Zuschreibungenȱ warȱ dieȱ Idee,ȱ die sogenanntenȱ Lombardischenȱ Schüler—zuȱ denenȱ auchȱ Melziȱ undȱ Salaìȱ gezählt werden—alsȱeigeneȱGruppeȱzuȱsehen,ȱneu.22ȱInȱdemȱKapitelȱ“LeonardosȱSchule undȱbreitereȱWirkung”ȱzähltȱSuidaȱüberȱ30ȱKünstlerȱauf,ȱunterȱihnenȱauchȱSalaì undȱMelzi,ȱdenenȱerȱjeweilsȱeinȱkurzesȱeigenesȱKapitelȱwidmet.ȱImȱVergleichȱzu denȱUntersuchungenȱüberȱdieȱanderenȱSchülerȱhebtȱerȱsieȱnichtȱbesondersȱhervor. EherȱgegenteiligȱbezeichnetȱSuidaȱz.B.ȱdieȱGeschichteȱvonȱSalaìȱalsȱ“kleineȱNovelle ohneȱIllustrationen.”23ȱLeonardoȱselbst—esȱfindenȱsichȱhäufigȱAnmerkungenȱüber Schülerȱ undȱ Gehilfenȱ inȱ seinenȱ Tagebüchern24—sprichtȱ ihnenȱ jedochȱ eine prominenteȱ Stellungȱ zu.ȱ Diesesȱ zeigenȱ nebenȱ demȱ Testamentȱ z.B.ȱ TagebuchȬ einträge,ȱ Briefeȱ undȱ nichtȱ zuletztȱ visuelleȱ Evidenzenȱ (bereitsȱ dasȱ eingangs untersuchteȱFreundschaftsbildnisȱscheintȱSalaìȱzuȱzeigen).ȱ AuchȱdieȱBeschreibungenȱVasarisȱbestätigenȱdieses.ȱInȱderȱerstenȱFassungȱseiner VitaȱdiȱLeonardoȱvonȱ1550ȱerwähntȱerȱalsȱerstenȱderȱSchülerȱSalaìȱ(imȱÜbrigenȱauch lediglichȱunterȱdiesemȱNamen).ȱVasariȱbeschreibtȱihnȱals,ȱ“vaghissimoȱinȱgrazia eȱdiȱbellezza,ȱavendoȱbegliȱcapegliȱricciȱeȱinanellati,ȱde’qualiȱLionardoȱsiȱdilettò moltoȱ(anmutigȱschönȱgebildetenȱJünglingȱmitȱkrausenȱlockigenȱHaaren,ȱanȱdenen LeonardoȱabsonderlichesȱVergnügenȱfand).”25ȱZudemȱerwähntȱer,ȱdassȱLeonardo Salaìȱetwasȱlehrte.ȱGenaueresȱüberȱdenȱInhaltȱkannȱVasarisȱÄußerungenȱjedoch nichtȱentnommenȱwerden:ȱ“[E]dȱaȱluiȱinsegnòȱmolteȱcoseȱdell’arte;ȱeȱcertiȱlavori, cheȱinȱMilanoȱsiȱdiconoȱessereȱdiȱSalai,ȱfuronoȱritocchiȱdaȱLionardoȱ(Erȱlehrteȱihn 21 22

23 24 25

AusführlichȱausgewertetȱzuȱSalaìȱS.ȱ657–70,ȱzuȱMelziȱS.ȱ574–76. InȱdemȱTeilȱderȱUntersuchung,ȱdieȱsichȱmitȱLeonardosȱSchülernȱundȱNachfolgernȱbeschäftigt, revidiertȱSuidaȱnichtȱnurȱdieȱfalschenȱZuschreibungenȱseinerȱVorgänger,ȱsondernȱunterzogȱauch dieȱeinzelnenȱŒuvreȱeinerȱstrengenȱRevision.ȱZuvorȱwarenȱlediglichȱSolario,ȱMarcoȱd’Oggiono undȱ Cesareȱ Sestoȱ mitȱ Monographienȱ gewürdigtȱ worden.ȱ Suidaȱ verargumentiertȱ seine ZuschreibungenȱzeittypischȱüberȱdenȱStil.ȱMittlerweileȱistȱesȱüblich,ȱsichȱbeiȱZuschreibungen weitererȱErkenntnismittelȱundȱȬmethodenȱzuȱbedienen;ȱvgl.ȱLegacy,ȱPrefaceȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱZum aktuellenȱStandȱderȱLeonardoȬNachfolgeȬForschungȱvgl.ȱebenfallsȱLegacyȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ227ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Dazuȱibid.,ȱ167–68. Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4,ȱ38ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ29ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

571

vieleȱ Dinge,ȱ undȱ mehrereȱ Bilder,ȱ dieȱ manȱ inȱ Mailandȱ demȱ Salaiȱ beimißt,ȱ hat Lionardoȱüberarbeitet).”26ȱJedochȱdieȱnochȱimȱselbenȱSatzȱerwähntenȱBilderȱSalais, dieȱLeonardoȱnachȱAussageȱVasarisȱüberarbeitete,ȱweisenȱdaraufȱhin,ȱdassȱesȱsich unterȱanderemȱumȱInhalteȱdieȱKünstlerausbildungȱbetreffendȱhandelte.ȱDieȱerste FassungȱderȱVitaȱdiȱLeonardoȱschließtȱmitȱderȱErwähnungȱzweierȱweitererȱSchüler. Zunächstȱ Giovanniȱ Antonioȱ Boltraffio,ȱ derȱ alsȱ “personaȱ moltoȱ praticaȱ ed intendenteȱ (sehrȱ geübterȱ undȱ verständigerȱ Meister)”27ȱ beschriebenȱ wird.ȱ Des WeiterenȱerwähntȱderȱAutorȱMarcoȱd’OggioneȱundȱzweiȱseinerȱWerke.28ȱInȱder zweitenȱ Ausgabeȱ seinerȱ Vitenȱ vonȱ 1568ȱ fügtȱ Vasariȱ denȱ Verweisȱ aufȱ einesȱ der WerkeȱBoltraffiosȱein.ȱGleichzeitigȱerläutertȱer,ȱdieȱErwähnungȱdiesesȱeinenȱsei ausreichend,ȱdaȱesȱdasȱBesteȱsei.29ȱ FrancescoȱMelziȱfindetȱerstȱinȱderȱzweitenȱAusgabeȱvonȱ1568ȱBerücksichtigung, jedochȱ nichtȱ alsȱ Schüler,ȱ sondernȱ alsȱ Erbeȱ einesȱ großenȱ Teilsȱ derȱ sogenannten ‘anatomischenȱZeichnungen.’ȱDesȱWeiterenȱcharakterisiertȱVasariȱihnȱanȱdieser StelleȱdurchȱseineȱSchönheit,ȱdieȱerȱalsȱKindȱundȱauchȱnunȱalsȱGreisȱnochȱbesäße undȱhältȱaußerdemȱfest,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱMelziȱsehrȱgeliebtȱhabe.ȱErȱbeschreibt,ȱdass MelziȱdieȱgeerbtenȱSchriftenȱ“comeȱperȱreliquieȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱinsiemeȱconȱilȱritrattoȱdella feliceȱ memoriaȱ diȱ Lionardoȱ (wieȱ theureȱ Reliquien,ȱ zugleichȱ mitȱ demȱ Bildniß Lionardo’sȱglückseligenȱAndenkens)”30ȱverwahrte.ȱDerȱToteȱwirdȱalsoȱdurchȱsein PorträtȱwieȱauchȱdurchȱseinȱWerkȱvergegenwärtigt.ȱVasariȱberichtetȱinȱderȱVitaȱdes LeonardoȱlediglichȱvonȱdiesenȱvierȱSchülern,31ȱwobeiȱdieȱBerichteȱüberȱBoltraffio undȱd’OggioneȱdenȱLebensberichtȱLeonardosȱabschließen.ȱZudemȱnenntȱerȱsie lediglichȱinȱihrerȱFunktionȱalsȱSchülerȱundȱunterȱBezugnahmeȱaufȱihreȱWerke. Dieserȱ Aufbauȱ einerȱ Künstlervitaȱ istȱ inȱ vielenȱ Schilderungenȱ Vasarisȱ zu beobachten.ȱErȱführtȱdieȱSchülerȱamȱEndeȱderȱSchilderungȱvonȱLebenȱundȱWirken desȱ Meistersȱ unterȱ Bezugȱ aufȱ ihreȱ Werkeȱ auf.32ȱ Dieȱ Einführungenȱ Salaìsȱ und MelzisȱinȱderȱLeonardovitaȱsindȱhingegenȱinȱdenȱTextkorpusȱeingebunden.ȱZu ihnenȱgibtȱVasariȱweiterführendeȱInformationenȱ(imȱFallȱMelzisȱerwähntȱerȱdiesen hierȱ garȱ nichtȱ alsȱ Schüler);ȱ nämlich,ȱ wasȱ Leonardoȱ anȱ ihnenȱ schätzte,ȱ ihre Schönheit.ȱDerȱPassusȱüberȱMelziȱverrätȱdarüberȱhinausȱdurchȱdenȱHinweisȱauf dieȱErbschaftȱderȱZeichnungenȱ(dieȱVasariȱbeiȱdemȱgreisenȱMelziȱeinsah),ȱwieȱhoch 26 27 28 29 30 31

32

Ibid. Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4,ȱ51ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1ȱ47ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ48ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱȱ47–48ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4,ȱ35–36ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ28ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱ LudwigȱSchornȱundȱErnstȱFörsterȱverweisenȱdarauf,ȱdassȱVasariȱinȱderȱVitaȱdesȱLorenzettoȱund desȱBoccacinoȱauchȱBernardinoȱLuiniȱalsȱSchülerȱdesȱLeonardoȱerwähne;ȱVasari/ȱKliemann,ȱ3,1, 48ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Z.B.ȱinȱderȱVitaȱdesȱPieroȱdiȱCosimoȱ(Vasari/ȱMilanesiȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ13];ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ88 [sieheȱAnm.ȱ13])ȱoderȱdesȱFilippinoȱLippiȱ(Vasari/ȱMilanesiȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ13];Vasari/Kliemann,ȱ2, 315ȱsieheȱAnm.ȱ13]).

572

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Leonardoȱihnȱschätzenȱmochte.ȱAuchȱistȱzuȱerfahren,ȱwieȱMelziȱLeonardosȱErbe undȱ Andenkenȱ pflegte.ȱ Dieseȱ Informationenȱ greifeȱ ichȱ jedochȱ imȱ Verlaufȱ der vorliegendenȱArgumentationȱnochȱeinmalȱaufȱundȱwerteȱsieȱaus.33ȱ VasarisȱRezeptionȱdieserȱVerhältnisseȱbestätigtȱalsoȱdieȱAusnahmestellungȱSalaìs undȱMelzisȱunterȱdenȱSchülernȱundȱnährtȱzudemȱweiterȱdieȱVermutung,ȱdassȱsie sichȱdurchȱeineȱklassischeȱSchülerȬLehrerȬBeziehungȱnichtȱausreichendȱerfassen lassen.ȱAusȱdiesenȱGründenȱscheintȱeineȱUntersuchungȱderȱBeziehungȱLeonardos zuȱdiesenȱbeidenȱSchülernȱunterȱBerücksichtigungȱdesȱErkenntnisinteressesȱan Leonardosȱ mannȬmännlichenȱ ‘Freundschaften’ȱ besondersȱ vielversprechend. NebenȱdenȱschriftlichenȱDokumenten,ȱinȱdenenȱLeonardoȱüberȱSalaìȱundȱMelzi berichtetȱ wieȱ seinenȱ Tagebucheinträgenȱ undȱ Briefen,ȱ zieheȱ ichȱ weitere (kunsttheoretischȬ)historischeȱQuellenȱwieȱVasarisȱVitenȱoderȱLomazzosȱwenig bekanntesȱLibroȱdelȱsognoȱheran.ȱBesondereȱAufmerksamkeitȱwidmeȱichȱdabeiȱdem MediumȱderȱMalereiȱundȱZeichnung.ȱSoȱuntersucheȱichȱBilderȱundȱZeichnungen Leonardos,ȱdieȱAufschlussȱüberȱseinȱVerhältnisȱzuȱSalaìȱundȱMelziȱgebenȱkönnten. Nichtȱ zuȱ vernachlässigenȱ istȱ dabeiȱ dasȱ Werkȱ derȱ Schüler,ȱ gibtȱ esȱ dochȱ ebenso RückschlussȱaufȱihreȱBeziehungȱzumȱMeister.ȱZudemȱistȱdavonȱauszugehen,ȱdass LeonardoȱvieleȱIdeenȱnichtȱselbstȱverwirklichte,ȱsondernȱunterȱAnleitungȱdurch dieȱHandȱseinerȱSchülerȱausführenȱließ.34ȱAlsȱSchwierigkeitȱerweistȱsichȱdabei,ȱdie oftȱ unsichereȱ undȱ wechselndeȱ Zuschreibungȱ derȱ Werkeȱ anȱ Leonardoȱ oder verschiedeneȱSchüler. Imȱ Folgendenȱ betrachteȱ ichȱ Salaìȱ undȱ Francescoȱ Melziȱ komparativȱ unter verschiedenenȱ Aspektenȱ ihrerȱ Beziehungȱ zuȱ Leonardo.ȱ Derȱ Frageȱ nachȱ ihrer Einführungȱ beiȱ Leonardo,ȱ ihrerȱ ‘Initiation,’ȱ folgtȱ dieȱ nachȱ ihrerȱ ‘Funktion.’ AnschließendȱstehenȱdieȱPerspektivenȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱimȱFokus.ȱSoȱuntersuche ichȱzunächst,ȱwieȱsichȱdiesesȱausȱSichtȱdesȱMeistersȱdarstellte,ȱumȱnachfolgendȱden Versuchȱzuȱunternehmen,ȱdieȱRezeptionȱLeonardosȱundȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱzuȱihm durchȱ dieȱ beidenȱ jungenȱ Männerȱ herauszuarbeiten.ȱ Aufȱ derȱ erstenȱ Seiteȱ des Manoscrittoȱ C,ȱ welchesȱ heuteȱ imȱ Institutȱ deȱ Franceȱ inȱ Parisȱ aufbewahrtȱ wird, schreibtȱLeonardoȱ“JacomoȱvenneȱaȱstareȱȉȱconȱmecoȱjlȱdìȱdellaȱMaddalenaȱnelȱmille 490,ȱdȇetàȱdȇanniȱ10ȱ(JacomoȱzogȱamȱMagdalenentagȱ1490ȱzuȱmir,ȱimȱAlterȱvon zehnȱ Jahren)”35ȱ Endeȱ Januarȱ 1491ȱ notierteȱ erȱ aufȱ dieserȱ Seite,ȱ aufȱ derȱ sich 33

34

35

GenerellȱerstauntȱdieȱgeringeȱQuantität,ȱdieȱdieȱInformationenȱüberȱdieȱ‘Schüler’ȱimȱGesamttext einnehmen.ȱSoȱsindȱjedemȱderȱvierȱSchülerȱnichtȱmehrȱalsȱzweiȱSätzeȱgewidmet.ȱ Suida,ȱ Leonardo,ȱ 9ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 13).ȱ Vgl.ȱ auchȱ ibid.,ȱ 10:ȱ “Beiȱ Leonardoȱ aberȱ bleibenȱ nichtȱ nur UmfangȱundȱBedeutungȱseinesȱWirkensȱunerkannt,ȱsondernȱauchȱseineȱkünstlerischeȱEntwicklung unverständlich,ȱseineȱhistorischeȱRolleȱeinfachȱunerklärlich,ȱwennȱnichtȱdieȱerstaunlicheȱZahl seinerȱinȱdenȱWerkenȱandererȱfortlebendenȱkünstlerischenȱErfindungenȱfestgestelltȱwird.ȱVon intensivenȱundȱsehrȱverschiedenartigenȱStudienȱerfüllt,ȱzuȱZeitenȱderȱMalereiȱganzȱabgewandt “impazientissimoȱ alȱ pennello”ȱ sagenȱ Augenzeugen,ȱ überläßtȱ erȱ ganzȱ oderȱ teilweiseȱ die AusführungȱkünstlerischerȱIdeenȱjüngerenȱMalernȱseinerȱUmgebung.” MS.ȱC.ȱ15ȱverso;ȱital.ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1458,ȱ363ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

573

ansonstenȱhauptsächlichȱAnmerkungenȱüberȱdieȱMalereiȱundȱdasȱStudiumȱdes Wassersȱ befinden,ȱ weitereȱ Begebenheitenȱ ausȱ demȱ täglichenȱ Lebenȱ und insbesondereȱdieȱVergehenȱdesȱKnaben: Ilȱsecondoȱdìȱliȱfeciȱtagliareȱ2ȱcamicie,ȱunoȱpajoȱdiȱcalzeȱeȱvnȱgiubbone,ȱeȱqu—a—doȱmi posiȱiȱdinariȱalȱlatoȱperȱpagareȱdetteȱcoseȱluiȱmiȱrubòȱlireȱ4ȱdettiȱdinariȱdallaȱscarsella, eȱmaiȱfuȱpossibileȱfarliȱleȱconfessare,ȱbenchȇȱioȱnȇavessiȱveraȱciertezza—ladro,ȱbugiardo, ostinato,ȱ ghiotto.—[dieseȱ Bezeichnungenȱ wurdenȱ späterȱ vonȱ Leonardoȱ amȱ Rand hinzugefügt—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki].ȱ IlȱdìȱseguenteȱandaiȱaȱcienaȱconȱIacomoȱAndrea,ȱeȱdettoȱIacomoȱȉȱcienòȱperȱ2ȱeȱfece maleȱperȱ4,ȱinperochèȱrupeȱ3ȱampolline,ȱversòȱilȱuino,ȱeȱdopoȱquestoȱvenneȱaȱciena doueȱmeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. [AmȱzweitenȱTagȱdaraufȱließȱichȱihmȱzweiȱHemden,ȱeinȱpaarȱHosenȱundȱeinȱWams zuschneiden,ȱundȱalsȱichȱmirȱdasȱGeldȱzumȱBezahlenȱdieserȱSachenȱbeiseitelegte,ȱstahl erȱmirȱdiesesȱGeldȱausȱdemȱBeutel,ȱundȱesȱgelangȱmirȱnie,ȱihnȱzuȱeinemȱGeständnisȱzu bewegen,ȱobwohlȱichȱfestȱdavonȱüberzeugtȱwar.ȱ(4ȱLire.)ȱ(Diebisch,ȱverlogen,ȱtrotzig, gefräßig.) AmȱdarauffolgendenȱTagȱgingȱichȱzuȱeinemȱAbendessenȱbeiȱGiacomoȱAndrea,ȱundȱder bezeichneteȱGiacomoȱaßȱindesȱfürȱzweiȱundȱmachteȱSchadenȱfürȱvier;ȱdennȱerȱzerbrach dreiȱ Krüge,ȱ verschütteteȱ denȱ Weinȱ undȱ kamȱ danachȱ zuȱ demȱ Abendessen,ȱ woȱ ich war.]36

Mitȱ diesenȱ Zeilenȱ schildertȱ Leonardoȱ einenȱ denkbarȱ schlechtenȱ Einstandȱ des Knaben.ȱ Dieȱ kurzeȱ Episodeȱ ausȱ seinemȱ Tagebuchȱ skizziertȱ jedochȱ schonȱ das Spannungsfeld,ȱinȱdemȱsichȱdieȱBeziehungȱSalaìsȱzumȱKünstlerȱverortet.ȱOffenbar nimmtȱ Leonardoȱ ihnȱ beiȱ sichȱ auf,ȱ derȱ Grundȱ hierfürȱ klärtȱ sichȱ ausȱ dem Tagebucheintragȱ nicht.ȱ Umsoȱ wenigerȱ istȱ verständlich,ȱ warumȱ erȱ ihmȱ sofort Kleidungȱanfertigenȱlässt.37ȱAlsȱderȱJungeȱLeonardoȱauchȱnochȱbestiehlt,ȱhatȱdie RatlosigkeitȱdesȱLesers,ȱwarumȱderȱKünstlerȱdenȱKnabenȱnichtȱsofortȱwiederȱvor dieȱTürȱsetzt,ȱsondernȱihnȱgegenteiligȱauchȱnochȱzuȱeinemȱAbendessenȱmitnimmt, ihrenȱ Höhepunktȱ erreicht.ȱ Dassȱ Salaìȱ sichȱ beiȱ diesemȱ schonȱ wiederȱ denkbar ungünstigȱ verhält,ȱ erstauntȱ indesȱ mittlerweileȱ nichtȱ mehr.ȱ Vasariȱ bietetȱ eine Erklärungȱan,ȱwonachȱLeonardoȱdenȱJungenȱalsȱSchülerȱannahm,ȱweilȱihmȱdessen “AnmutȱundȱSchönheit,”ȱsowieȱdessenȱ“gekräuseltesȱLockenhaar”ȱgefielen:ȱ“Prese

36 37

TagebücherȱundȱAufzeichnungen,ȱ3.ȱAufl.,ȱübers.ȱundȱhrsg.vonȱTheodorȱLückeȱ(Leipzig:ȱList,ȱ1953), 892ȱ. Ibid. Möllerȱ schließt—hochspekulativ—ausȱ derȱ ‘Kleiderepisode,’ȱ dassȱ derȱ Knabeȱ inȱ abgerissener Kleidungȱkam;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ140ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).ȱZurȱBewertungȱdesȱinȱdiesemȱBeitragȱviel zitiertenȱAufsatzesȱvonȱEmilȱMöllerȱmöchteȱichȱanmerken,ȱdassȱdieȱUntersuchungȱzwarȱwertvolle Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Personȱ undȱ insbesondereȱ zurȱ ȱ ‘Ikonographie’ȱ Salaìsȱ beiträgtȱ sowieȱ einȱ erstes Werkverzeichnisȱaufstellt,ȱjedochȱoftȱsehrȱspekulativȱundȱinȱderȱInterpretationȱstarkȱdemȱZeitgeist verhaftetȱist.ȱDiesesȱzeigtȱsichȱinsbesondereȱinȱMöllersȱVersuchȱeinerȱȱ“Schilderungȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.]ȱseines [Salaìs—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki]ȱCharakters”;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ139ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).

574

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

inȱMilanoȱSalaìȱMilaneseȱperȱsuoȱcreato,ȱilȱqualeȱeraȱvaghissimoȱinȱgraziaȱeȱdi belleza,ȱavendoȱbegliȱcapegliȱricciȱeȱinanellati,ȱde’ȱqualiȱLionardoȱsiȱdilettòȱmolto (ZuȱMailandȱnahmȱerȱdenȱMailänderȱSalaiȱinȱseineȱSchuleȱauf,ȱeinenȱanmuthigen undȱschönȱgebildetenȱJünglingȱmitȱkrausenȱlockigenȱHaaren,ȱanȱdenenȱLionardo absonderlichesȱVergnügenȱfand).”38ȱSalaìsȱVaterȱPietroȱdiȱGiovanniȱwarȱPächter desȱ Weingutsȱ Leonardosȱ vorȱ Portaȱ Vercellina,ȱ welchesȱ Salaìȱ späterȱ erbte,ȱ und AndréȱChastelȱfolgendȱeinȱFreundȱdesȱKünstlers.39ȱAufȱdiesemȱWegȱalsoȱkönnte derȱKontaktȱzuȱdemȱKnabenȱentstandenȱsein.ȱEsȱfälltȱauf,ȱdassȱSalaìȱimȱVergleich zuȱanderenȱSchülernȱLeonardosȱbeiȱseinemȱ‘Eintritt’ȱmitȱzehnȱJahrenȱnochȱrelativ jungȱistȱundȱLeonardoȱsichȱso,ȱwieȱGiuseppinaȱFumagalliȱanmerkt,ȱeineȱfürȱeinen Malerȱ seinerȱ Zeitȱ ungewöhnlicheȱ Verantwortungȱ aufbürdet.40ȱ Dassȱ dieser gleichwohlȱvonȱeinigerȱBedeutungȱfürȱdenȱMeisterȱgewesenȱseinȱmuss,ȱlässtȱsich ausȱderȱexaktȱfestgehaltenenȱundȱdatiertenȱChronologieȱderȱEreignisseȱderȱersten Tageȱschließen. GiovanȱFrancescoȱMelziȱwarȱetwaȱzehnȱJahreȱjüngerȱ(erȱwurdeȱumȱ1491–1493ȱin Mailandȱ geboren41).ȱ Leonardoȱ kannteȱ denȱ Sprösslingȱ einerȱ lombardischen Adelsfamilieȱ wahrscheinlichȱ schonȱ seitȱ Sommerȱ 1507.ȱ Einenȱ erstenȱ Beweis persönlicherȱBeziehungenȱliefertȱeinȱBriefȱvonȱ1508,ȱdenȱLeonardoȱdurchȱSalaìȱan Melziȱüberbringenȱließ.ȱInȱdiesemȱtadeltȱerȱihnȱlaunig,ȱdassȱerȱihmȱdochȱschon einigeȱ Briefantwortenȱ schuldigȱ sei.42ȱ Alsȱ sichȱ dieȱ politischenȱ Verhältnisseȱ in Mailandȱ 1511ȱ erneutȱ verändertenȱ gewährtenȱ dieȱ Melzisȱ Leonardoȱ inȱ Vaprio d’AddaȱGastfreundschaft.ȱInȱeinerȱNotizȱvomȱ24.ȱSeptemberȱ1513ȱvermerktȱder Maler,ȱdassȱerȱinȱderȱBegleitungȱvonȱSalaì,ȱeinemȱLorenzo,ȱdesȱDienersȱilȱFanfoja undȱFrancescoȱMelziȱnachȱRomȱaufgebrochenȱsei.43ȱMöllerȱmisstȱderȱvonȱLeonardo gewähltenȱ Reihenfolgeȱ derȱ Begleiterȱ (Melzi,ȱ Salaì,ȱ Lorenzo,ȱ Fanfoja)ȱ wertende

38 39

40 41

42

43

Vasari/Milanesi,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ29ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Andréȱ Chastel,ȱ Artȱ etȱ humanismeȱ àȱ Florenceȱ auȱ tempsȱ deȱ Laurentȱ leȱ Magnifique:ȱ étudesȱ surȱ la Renaissanceȱetȱl’Humanismeȱplatonicien,ȱ2.ȱAusg.ȱPublicationȱdeȱl’Institutȱd’Artȱetȱd’Archéologieȱde l’UniversitéȱdeȱParis,ȱ4ȱ(Paris:ȱPressesȱUniversitairesȱdeȱFrance,ȱ1961),ȱ291. GiuseppinaȱFumagalli,ȱErosȱdiȱLeonardoȱ(Mailand:ȱGarzanti,ȱ1952),ȱ83–84. DasȱGeburtsdatumȱMelzisȱkannȱdurchȱeinenȱAutographenȱaufȱeinerȱZeichnungȱinȱderȱAmbrosiana inȱMailandȱbelegtȱwerden.ȱDieserȱbezeichnetȱihnȱalsȱ17Ȭjährig.ȱWeiterȱuntenȱaufȱderȱZeichnung findetȱsichȱeinȱzweiterȱAutograph,ȱderȱwahrscheinlichȱspäterȱhinzugefügtȱwurde,ȱdemzufolge Melziȱ“anniȱ19”ȱaltȱist;ȱCod.ȱFȱ274ȱinf.ȱ8;ȱAbb.ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱAbb.ȱ301ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱvgl.ȱibid., 231;ȱBora,ȱDisegniȱlombardi,ȱNr.ȱ1213ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“AttribuitoȱaȱFrancescoȱMelzi,” 92–93ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ371ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). C.ȱA.,ȱ372ȱversoȱa;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1350,ȱ335ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12).ȱDazuȱauchȱSuida,ȱLeonardo, 230ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). MS.ȱ Eȱ 1ȱ recto;ȱ Theȱ Literaryȱ Works,ȱ 2,ȱ Nr.ȱ 1465,ȱ 365ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 12).ȱ Inȱ einerȱ Namenslisteȱ von 1509/1510ȱ sindȱ bereitsȱ dieȱ Namenȱ “Cecho”ȱ undȱ “Cechino”—Koseformenȱ vonȱ Francesco—zu finden.ȱEventuellȱhandeltȱesȱsichȱhierbeiȱbereitsȱumȱFrancescoȱMelzi;ȱvgl.ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ12280 recto;ȱC.ȱA.ȱ65ȱversoȱb;ȱ20ȱversoȱb.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

575

Bedeutungȱ beiȱ undȱ schließtȱ daraus,ȱ “daßȱ derȱ jungeȱ Edelmannȱ Melziȱ jetztȱ den erstenȱPlatzȱbeiȱLeonardoȱeinnimmt.”44 Vergleichendȱ lässtȱ sichȱ festhalten,ȱ dassȱ derȱ Einstandȱ Salaìsȱ sehrȱ gutȱ durch Leonardoȱ selbstȱ dokumentiertȱ ist.ȱ Dagegenȱ istȱ unklar,ȱ wieȱ derȱ Kontaktȱ zu FrancescoȱMelziȱzustandeȱkamȱundȱwarumȱerȱLeonardoȱabȱ1513ȱfolgte.ȱSalaìȱistȱmit seinenȱzehnȱJahrenȱnochȱerstaunlichȱjung.ȱMelziȱvergleichsweiseȱistȱetwaȱ17,ȱalsȱer LeonardoȱkennenȱlernteȱundȱAnfangȱ20,ȱalsȱerȱsichȱihmȱanschloss.ȱAuchȱistȱschwer nachvollziehbar,ȱwarumȱLeonardoȱSalaìȱtrotzȱseinesȱschlechtenȱVerhaltensȱbeiȱsich behielt.ȱDieȱInterpretationȱVasaris,ȱesȱgingeȱLeonardoȱumȱdasȱÄußereȱdesȱKnaben, wirdȱzuȱüberprüfenȱsein.ȱDieseȱInformationenȱwerfenȱFragenȱnachȱderȱ‘Funktion’ undȱdemȱ‘Status’ȱderȱjungenȱMännerȱbeiȱLeonardoȱauf.ȱSeinȱTagebucheintragȱdes ManoscrittoȱCȱgibtȱdarüberȱimȱFallȱSalaìsȱkeinenȱAufschluss,ȱVasariȱvermutetȱdie AufnahmeȱalsȱSchüler.ȱSoȱenthältȱdieȱPaletteȱmöglicherȱFunktionenȱaußerdemȱdie OptionenȱGehilfe,ȱgelegentlichesȱModell,ȱLiebhaber,ȱHausdienerȱ(oderȱauchȱim fortgeschrittenenȱAlterȱHausverwalter)ȱundȱAdoptivsohn.ȱKamȱerȱalsȱKammerȬ diener,ȱ derȱ einesȱ Tagesȱ Schülerȱ gewordenȱ warȱ oderȱ alsȱ Hausjungeȱ mitȱ der Bestimmung,ȱLeonardoȱdenȱSohnȱzuȱersetzen?ȱEsȱschienenȱschonȱderȱPhantasie FumagallisȱinȱErosȱdiȱLeonardoȱbezüglichȱdiesesȱThemasȱkeineȱGrenzenȱgesetzt. Vielleicht,ȱsoȱfährtȱsieȱfort,ȱhandelteȱesȱsichȱbeiȱderȱFunktionȱdesȱKammerdieners undȱHausjungenȱumȱdieȱabgesprochenenȱBedingungen,ȱbeiȱderȱRolleȱdesȱSohnes umȱgeheimeȱWünscheȱLeonardos,ȱdieȱihmȱvielleichtȱselbstȱnichtȱganzȱbewusst waren.45ȱJaniceȱShellȱhältȱesȱfürȱwahrscheinlich,ȱdassȱSalaìȱalsȱ“apprenticeȬcumȬ householdȱhelp”ȱzuȱdemȱMalerȱgesandtȱwordenȱwarȱundȱseinenȱSchülernȱundȱihm späterȱoftȱalsȱModellȱdiente.46 Eineȱ Notizȱ vonȱ 1494ȱ lässtȱ vermuten,ȱ dassȱ Salaiȱ sichȱ alsȱ Gehilfeȱ Leonardos nützlichȱerwiesenȱhatte.47ȱErȱbegleiteteȱdenȱMeisterȱvonȱMailand,ȱüberȱMantua nachȱVenedigȱundȱFlorenz.ȱPietroȱdaȱNovellaraȱbeschreibtȱihnȱ1501ȱalsȱLeonardos discepoloȱ(Schüler)ȱundȱgarzoneȱ(Geselle),ȱundȱvielleichtȱwarȱerȱeinerȱderȱ“duiȱsuoi garzoniȱ[che]ȱfanoȱretratiȱ(beidenȱGesellen,ȱdieȱBilderȱanfertigten)”ȱinȱdenenȱ“lui [Leonardo]ȱaȱleȱvolteȱinȱalcunoȱmetteȱmanoȱ(erȱ[Leonardo]ȱbeiȱeinigenȱselbstȱHand anlegte).”48ȱDerȱmantuanischeȱGesandteȱLuigiȱCioccaȱbeschreibtȱSalaìȱinȱeinem Briefȱ vomȱ 22.ȱ Januarȱ 1505ȱ anȱ Isabellaȱ d’Esteȱ alsȱ einenȱ fürȱ seinȱ Alterȱ tüchtigen Schüler:ȱ “unoȱ alevoȱ deȱ Leonardoȱ Vinci,ȱ zovaneȱ perȱ laȱ suaȱ etàȱ assaiȱ valente nominatoȱSalaiȱ(einȱSchülerȱLeonardos,ȱjungȱundȱfürȱseinȱAlterȱsehrȱtüchtig,ȱSalai

44 45 46 47 48

Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ143ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ84ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ397–98ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). MS.ȱH.,ȱ64ȱverso;ȱ142ȱverso;ȱvgl.ȱCalvi,ȱ“Contributi,”ȱ55ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Beltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ107,ȱ66ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱdt.—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ2);ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ127ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell, “Caprotti,”ȱ398ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).

576

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

genannt).”49ȱDerȱjungeȱMannȱbotȱsichȱdurchȱdenȱGesandtenȱIsabellaȱalsȱMalerȱan: “EssoȱSalaiȱhaveriaȱgranȱdesiderioȱdiȱfareȱqualcheȱcosaȱgalanteȱperȱV.ȱEx.ȱ(Dieser SalaiȱhätteȱgroßesȱVerlangen,ȱirgendȱeinȱgalantesȱStückȱfürȱIhreȱExcellenzȱ[sic!]ȱzu malen).”50ȱIsabellaȱgingȱjedochȱnichtȱaufȱdiesesȱAngebotȱein.ȱDaȱsieȱSalaìȱundȱsein Könnenȱbereitsȱ1499ȱkennenȱgelerntȱhatte,ȱkannȱihremȱSchweigenȱentnommen werden,ȱdassȱsieȱdiesesȱnichtȱbesondersȱschätzteȱund/ȱoderȱsichȱausschließlichȱfür einenȱ ‘echten’ȱ Leonardoȱ interessierteȱ (soȱ bemühteȱ sieȱ sichȱ inȱ denȱ Folgejahren intensivȱumȱeinȱBildȱdesȱMeisters).51ȱ Anȱ dieserȱ Stelleȱ kannȱ bereitsȱ geschlossenȱ werden,ȱ dassȱ Salaìȱ tatsächlichȱ ein malerischesȱ Œuvreȱ beiȱ Leonardoȱ geschaffenȱ hatte.ȱ Vasarisȱ Aufzeichnungen bestätigenȱdieses.ȱEbensoȱlässtȱderȱPassus,ȱLeonardoȱlehreȱSalaìȱ“vieleȱDingeȱinȱder Kunst,”ȱdaraufȱschließen,ȱdassȱerȱalsoȱtatsächlichȱalsȱdessenȱSchülerȱbezeichnet werdenȱ darf.ȱ Desȱ Weiterenȱ verweistȱ dieȱ Informationȱ Vasaris,ȱ dassȱ Leonardo WerkeȱdesȱSalaìȱüberarbeiteteȱaufȱeinȱLehrerȬSchülerȬVerhältnis.ȱLomazzoȱnennt ihnȱ nebenȱ Cesareȱ daȱ Sestoȱ undȱ Boltraffioȱ alsȱ einenȱ derȱ dreiȱ charakteristischen SchülerȱLeonardos,ȱdieȱihrenȱMeisterȱjedochȱnichtȱerreichenȱkonnten.52ȱInȱeinem Briefȱ vonȱ 1508ȱ bezeichnetȱ Leonardoȱ Salaì,ȱ derȱ dieȱ Nachrichtȱ überbringenȱ soll, selbstȱalsȱseinenȱSchülerȱ(discepolo).53ȱ DerȱjungeȱMannȱkehrteȱmitȱseinemȱMeisterȱnachȱMailandȱzurück.ȱHierȱlebteȱer nachweislichȱinȱeinemȱHaushaltȱmitȱihm,ȱobwohlȱseineȱElternȱundȱSchwestern bereitsȱaufȱLeonardosȱGrundstückȱinȱPortaȱVercellinaȱlebtenȱundȱerȱauchȱdortȱhätte unterkommenȱkönnen.54ȱLautȱShellȱscheintȱerȱabȱdiesemȱZeitpunkt,ȱnebenȱeiner TätigkeitȱalsȱWerkstattgehilfe,ȱalsȱeineȱArtȱmajorȱdomoȱLeonardosȱHaushaltȱgeführt zuȱhaben—eineȱTätigkeit,ȱdieȱfürȱMelziȱwohlȱnichtȱfeinȱgenugȱgewesenȱsei,ȱwieȱsie mutmaßt.55ȱ 1507/1508ȱ begleitetȱ Salaìȱ denȱ Meisterȱ zuȱ einemȱ Prozessȱ mitȱ dessen HalbbrüdernȱnachȱFlorenz.ȱErȱfungiertȱalsȱBriefkurierȱanȱCharlesȱd’Amboiseȱund 49

50 51 52

53 54

55

Beltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ157,ȱ96ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱdt.—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki.ȱDieseȱAussageȱüberȱSalaìs Fähigkeitenȱ fußtȱ inȱ derȱ Anekdote,ȱ erȱ habeȱ Peruginoȱ mitȱ fachlichemȱ Ratȱ zurȱ Seiteȱ gestanden. Möllerȱ hältȱ dieses—meinesȱ Erachtensȱ zuȱ recht—fürȱ unwahrscheinlich.ȱ Perugino—zuȱ diesem Zeitpunktȱ einȱ gestandenerȱ Meister—wirdȱ kaumȱ dieȱ fachlichenȱ Fähigkeitenȱ einesȱ 25Ȭjährigen berücksichtigtȱhaben.ȱAusȱdiesemȱGrundȱhältȱMöllerȱesȱfürȱwahrscheinlich,ȱSalaìȱhabeȱsichȱdie Geschichteȱausgedacht,ȱumȱseinenȱ‚Marktwert’ȱvorȱdemȱGesandtenȱzuȱsteigern;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,” 142–43ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).;ȱdazuȱauchȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ228ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“Salaì andȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ129ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ398ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Beltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ157,ȱ96–97ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱdt.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ143ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Vgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ143ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). GianȱPaoloȱLomazzo,ȱTrattatoȱdell’arteȱdeȱlaȱpittura,ȱ6,ȱKap.ȱ50ȱ(Hildesheim:ȱGeorgȱOlms,ȱ1968), 437ȱ(dieȱAusgabeȱGianȱPaoloȱLomazzo:ȱScrittiȱsulleȱarti,ȱ2,ȱHrsg.ȱRobertoȱPaoloȱCiardiȱ(Pisa:ȱMarchi &ȱ Bertolli,ȱ 1974),ȱ 381,ȱ istȱ zumȱ Nachweisȱ ungeeignet,ȱ daȱ dieȱ entsprechendeȱ Zeileȱ ausgelassen wurde);ȱvgl.ȱauchȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). C.ȱA.ȱ372ȱversoȱa,ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1350,ȱ333ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12). Sironi,ȱNouviȱdocumenti,ȱ23–25ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHis Estate,”ȱ131ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ398ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ398ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

577

FrancescoȱMelzi.ȱAlsȱLeonardoȱnachȱFrankreichȱging,ȱbliebȱSalaìȱjedochȱaufȱdem WeingutȱLeonardosȱvorȱPortaȱVercellina.ȱSomitȱfolgteȱerȱseinemȱMeisterȱaufȱallen seinenȱReisen,ȱnurȱaufȱseinerȱletztenȱnachȱClouxȱ(heuteȱClosȱLucé)ȱinȱAmboise nicht.56ȱ Allerdingsȱ belegenȱ neuereȱ Forschungen,ȱ dassȱ erȱ alsȱ Mitgliedȱ von Leonardosȱ Haushaltȱ nachȱ Frankreichȱ reiste.57ȱ Dieȱ königlicheȱ Staatskasseȱ des französischenȱ Hofesȱ führteȱ ihnȱ alsȱ Dienerȱ Leonardos.58ȱ Eventuellȱ warȱ erȱ zum ZeitpunktȱvonȱLeonardosȱTodȱinȱCloux.ȱHierzuȱkönnenȱjedochȱnurȱVermutungen geäußertȱwerden,ȱdaȱdieȱQuellenȱkeineȱgenauenȱInformationenȱenthalten.59ȱSicher scheintȱlediglich,ȱdassȱerȱnichtȱbeiȱLeonardosȱTestamentserrichtungȱzugegenȱwar, daȱ erȱ nichtȱ alsȱ Zeugeȱ erwähntȱ wird.ȱ Inȱ demȱ letztenȱ Abschnittȱ vonȱ Leonardos LebenȱschienȱSalaìȱalsȱSchülerȱoderȱkünstlerischerȱGehilfeȱkeineȱRolleȱzuȱspielen. HatteȱerȱschonȱvorherȱDiensteȱwieȱdasȱÜberbringenȱvonȱKorrespondenzȱu.ȱä.ȱfür Leonardoȱ übernommen,ȱ wirdȱ erȱ auchȱ imȱ Testamentȱ alsȱ Dienerȱ (servitore) bezeichnet.ȱDennochȱgehörtȱerȱzuȱdenȱErben.ȱErȱkehrteȱwohlȱnochȱimȱJahrȱvon LeonardosȱTodȱnachȱMailandȱzurück,ȱeventuellȱeinigeȱWerkeȱdesȱMeistersȱmitȱsich führend.ȱ1524ȱstarbȱerȱanȱeinemȱBüchsenschuss.ȱEinigeȱQuellenȱbehaupten,ȱerȱsei imȱUmgangȱmitȱseinerȱFeuerwaffeȱunvorsichtigȱgewesen,ȱandereȱwiederum,ȱdass erȱ beiȱ einerȱ Auseinandersetzungȱ umgekommenȱ sei—wieȱ auchȱ immerȱ sichȱ die genauenȱUmständeȱverhaltenȱhabenȱmögen,ȱesȱistȱbelegt,ȱdassȱerȱvorȱdemȱ10.ȱMärz 1524ȱumkam,ȱderȱgenaueȱAnlassȱseinesȱ“morteȱviolenta”60ȱbleibtȱimȱDunkeln.61ȱDie Quellenȱ lassenȱ keinenȱ Zweifelȱ daran,ȱ dassȱ Salaìȱ inȱ einemȱ LehrerȬSchülerȬ VerhältnisȱzuȱLeonardoȱstand,ȱwelchesȱauchȱDritteȱalsȱsolchesȱrezipierten.ȱInȱden Beschreibungenȱistȱerȱderjenige,ȱdemȱetwasȱbeigebrachtȱwird,ȱderȱkorrigiertȱwird, aberȱdennochȱdenȱMeisterȱnichtȱerreichenȱkann.ȱGegenteiligȱwirdȱerȱspäterȱnicht mehrȱalsȱSchülerȱoderȱkünstlerischerȱGehilfeȱerwähnt,ȱsondernȱmitȱdenȱAufgaben einesȱDienersȱbetraut.ȱErȱbegleiteteȱseinenȱMeisterȱfastȱ30ȱJahreȱlangȱundȱblieb offenbarȱ engȱ beiȱ ihm.ȱ Auchȱ alsȱ erȱ dieȱ Möglichkeitȱ hatte,ȱ z.B.ȱ beiȱ derȱ eigenen Familieȱzuȱwohnen,ȱzogȱerȱdieȱUnterkunftȱbeiȱLeonardoȱvor. Einȱ beiȱ derȱ Lektüreȱ derȱ LeonardoȬAufzeichnungenȱ auffälliger,ȱ aberȱ selten ausgewerteterȱ Aspektȱ desȱ Verhältnissesȱ LeonardoȬSalaìȱ sindȱ dieȱ z.B.ȱ von Fumagalliȱ thematisiertenȱ ökonomischenȱ Verflechtungen.62ȱ Esȱ gibtȱ keine AufzeichnungenȱüberȱeineȱökonomischeȱÜbereinkunftȱzwischenȱbeiden,ȱLeonardo 56

57 58

59 60

61 62

Vgl.ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ228ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱBeltramiȱhingegenȱnimmtȱan,ȱdassȱSalaìȱnachȱFrankreich ging,ȱaberȱAnfangȱ1518ȱzurückkehrte;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ143ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). DazuȱetwaȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱLeonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱ95ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Paris,ȱArchivesȱNation.,ȱdossierȱKKȱ289;ȱBeltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ241,ȱ150ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱShell undȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ134ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱLeonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱ96ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Shellȱ undȱ Sironi,ȱ “Salaìȱ andȱ Leonardo’sȱ Legacy,”ȱ 106ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 14);ȱ Dies.,ȱ “Salaìȱ andȱ the InventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ141ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Möllerȱ“Salai,”ȱ143–44ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ228ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ87–89ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40).

578

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

übernahmȱjedochȱdieȱKostenȱfürȱSalaìsȱLebensunterhalt.ȱDiesesȱerstaunt,ȱdaȱder Vaterȱ desȱ Knabenȱ ihnȱ eigentlichȱ mitȱ Geldȱ versorgte.63ȱ dassȱ dieserȱ wiederum teilweiseȱ Leonardoȱ lieh.ȱ Dieserȱ Punktȱ bleibtȱ rätselhaft.64ȱ Teilweiseȱ erhieltȱ Salaì Geld,ȱ umȱ damitȱ Ausgabenȱ seinesȱ Meistersȱ zuȱ begleichen.65ȱ Fürȱ dasȱ Amtȱ eines Hausverwaltersȱ warȱ erȱ aber,ȱ wieȱ Möllerȱ zuȱ bedenkenȱ gibt,ȱ nichtȱ zuverlässig genug.66ȱNachȱdemȱTodȱseinesȱVatersȱzwischenȱ1510ȱundȱ1513ȱübernahmȱSalaìȱdie Pachtungȱ vonȱ Leonardosȱ Weinberg.ȱ Diesenȱ vermieteteȱ erȱ jedochȱ weiterȱ und engagierteȱdenȱmagisterȱaȱmuroȱPaoloȱdaȱMozate,ȱihmȱaufȱdemȱLandȱeinȱneues Hausȱzuȱbauen.ȱOffenbarȱzahlteȱerȱjedochȱnicht,ȱdaȱMozateȱihmȱmitȱeinerȱKlage drohte.ȱ Alsȱ Salaìȱ mitȱ Leonardoȱ inȱ Romȱ undȱ Frankreichȱ weilte,ȱ kamȱ erȱ nur gelegentlichȱnachȱMailand.ȱInȱseinenȱGeschäftenȱließȱerȱsichȱvonȱdemȱGattenȱseiner SchwesterȱLorenziolaȱTommasoȱMapelloȱvertreten.ȱ Alsȱerȱ1519ȱnachȱMailandȱzurückkehrteȱlebteȱerȱtatsächlichȱinȱdemȱvonȱMozate errichtetenȱHaus.ȱ1523ȱkaufteȱerȱeinȱweiteresȱWohnhausȱfürȱ1100ȱlireȱimperialiȱan.67 Währendȱ Salaìsȱ Familieȱ sichȱ nachȱ demȱ Todȱ desȱ Vatersȱ inȱ finanziellen Schwierigkeitenȱ befand,ȱ warȱ erȱ Endeȱ derȱ 1510erȱ Jahreȱ soȱ liquide,ȱ dassȱ erȱ am französischenȱ Hofȱ Geldȱ verleihenȱ konnte.68ȱ Esȱ istȱ unklar,ȱ wieȱ Salaìȱ diese SteigerungȱseinesȱVermögensȱerreichenȱkonnte.ȱDasȱGehaltȱeinesȱGehilfenȱeiner Malerwerkstattȱwarȱnichtȱhoch.ȱAuchȱdurchȱdenȱVerkaufȱvonȱWerkenȱwarȱesȱnicht möglich,ȱ solcheȱ Summenȱ zuȱ erzielen,ȱ undȱ dieȱ Kleidungȱ undȱ andere Luxusgegenstände,ȱdieȱLeonardoȱihmȱschenkte,ȱermöglichtenȱalleinȱnichtȱseinen Lebensstil.ȱWieȱShellȱüberzeugendȱdarlegt,ȱkonntenȱsichȱselbstȱdieȱerfolgreichsten MalerȱdieserȱZeitȱnichtȱdenȱLebensstandardȱdesȱjungenȱMannesȱleisten.69ȱSalaì mussȱseinȱGeldȱalsoȱausȱanderenȱQuellenȱerhaltenȱhaben,ȱwelcheȱdiesesȱjedoch seinȱkönnten,ȱistȱunklar.ȱShellȱvermutetȱaufȱGrundȱvonȱDokumenten,ȱdassȱerȱeine ArtȱDienstleistungȱfürȱdenȱehemaligenȱHerzogȱMassimilianoȱSforzaȱerbrachte.ȱIn einemȱ Vertragȱ istȱ vonȱ einerȱ sehrȱ hohenȱ Summeȱ dieȱ Rede.ȱ Umȱ welche Dienstleistungȱesȱsichȱhandelnȱkönne,ȱgehtȱausȱdenȱPapierenȱnichtȱhervor.ȱShell mutmaßt—auchȱinȱVerbindungȱmitȱseinemȱunnatürlichenȱTod—obȱSalaìȱSforzas 63

64 65 66 67

68

69

Dieȱ Meinungenȱ überȱ denȱ Vermögenstandȱ Salaìsȱ undȱ seinerȱ Familieȱ gehenȱ inȱ derȱ Forschung auseinander.ȱWährendȱz.B.ȱBeltramiȱsichȱfürȱeineȱwohlhabendeȱFamilieȱausspricht,ȱdeutetȱMöller vieleȱUmständeȱalsȱIndizienȱfürȱbescheideneȱVerhältnisse;ȱBeltrami,ȱLaȱVigna,ȱ23ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14); Möller,ȱ “Salai,”ȱ 144ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 2).ȱ Inȱ neuerenȱ Forschungenȱ wirdȱ eherȱ vonȱ bescheideneren finanziellenȱVerhältnissenȱderȱFamilieȱausgegangen,ȱwährendȱSalaìȱsichȱoffenbarȱimȱLaufeȱseines Lebensȱmonetärȱetablierte;ȱvglȱdieȱfolgendenȱDarlegungenȱdesȱFließtextes. Vgl.ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ83–84ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Z.B.ȱC.ȱA.ȱ257ȱversoȱbȱundȱ71ȱversoȱb. Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ131–38ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,” 399ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ146ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,” 399ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ399ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

579

Spionȱ gewesenȱ seinȱ könnte.70ȱ Teilweiseȱ liehȱ sichȱ derȱ jungeȱ Mannȱ Geldȱ von FreundenȱundȱKollegen,71ȱwahrscheinlich,ȱwieȱShellȱannimmt,ȱdaȱerȱProblemeȱmit demȱ Bargeldumlaufȱ hatte.ȱ Daȱ erȱ beiȱ seinemȱ Todȱ eineȱ beträchtlicheȱ Anzahlȱ an Krediten,ȱaberȱkeineȱSchuldenȱhatte,ȱkannȱnichtȱdavonȱausgegangenȱwerden,ȱdass erȱarmȱwar.72ȱDieseȱausführlicheȱDarstellungȱbelegtȱeinȱaußerordentlichesȱTalent SalaìsȱfürȱerfolgreicheȱGeldgeschäfte.ȱZudemȱschienȱerȱumȱdesȱGeldesȱwillenȱauch nichtȱ vorȱ unbekannten,ȱ aberȱ äußerstȱ gutȱ entlohntenȱ Nebentätigkeiten zurückzuschrecken.ȱAuchȱdieȱBeziehungȱzuȱLeonardoȱspartȱdieserȱThemenkreis nichtȱ aus:ȱ soȱ istȱ erȱ zunächstȱ Geldgeberȱ fürȱ Salaì,ȱ späterȱ aberȱ wohlȱ auch Anlaufstelleȱ fürȱ Bargeldproblemeȱ oderȱ selbstȱ Leihenderȱ beiȱ eigenen Geldproblemen.ȱTrotzȱderȱsonstigenȱUnzuverlässigkeitenȱvertrauteȱLeonardoȱihm offenbarȱpartiellȱGeldgeschäfteȱan. Immerȱwiederȱwirdȱberichtet,ȱdassȱSalaìȱLeonardoȱ(undȱauchȱseinerȱWerkstatt) Modellȱgestandenȱhabe.73ȱSoȱistȱinȱderȱTatȱinȱdenȱZeichnungenȱundȱNotizenȱdes MeistersȱeinȱbestimmterȱTypusȱeinesȱjungen,ȱfastȱgeschlechtslosenȱMannesȱoder Knaben,ȱdenȱerȱimȱProfilȱdarstellt,ȱimmerȱwiederȱzuȱfinden.ȱDiesenȱjungenȱMann zeichnetȱerȱseinȱganzesȱLebenȱlangȱinȱgeringenȱVariationen,ȱzuletztȱtauchtȱerȱinȱder anatomischenȱ Zeichnungȱ 19093ȱ rectoȱ derȱ Royalȱ Libraryȱ aufȱ (Abb.ȱ 2).74ȱ Die Identifikationȱ Möllers,ȱ derȱ diesenȱ Typȱ mitȱ einemȱ einzigenȱ Modell—Salaì—in Zusammenhangȱbringt,75ȱseiȱnachȱKennethȱClarkȱundȱCarloȱPedrettiȱchronologisch unhaltbarȱ undȱ “displaysȱ theȱ sameȱ materialismȱ asȱ theȱ attemptȱ toȱ identifyȱ all Botticelli’sȱMadonnasȱwithȱSimonettaȱVespucci.”76ȱDabeiȱmissverstehenȱdieȱbeiden LeonardoȬForscherȱjedochȱMöllersȱAusführungenȱinȱletzterȱKonsequenz.ȱAuchȱer gehtȱnichtȱdavonȱaus,ȱdassȱSalaìȱdasȱModellȱallerȱDarstellungenȱdiesesȱTypsȱwar, sondernȱ“daßȱaufȱdesȱMeistersȱidealeȱfrühflorentinischeȱJünglingsgestaltenȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]

70

71 72 73 74

75

76

ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ134–36ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,” 399–400ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ136,ȱ139ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ400ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Z.B.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). MS.ȱC.ȱII,ȱ23;ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ3,ȱ36–37ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱFrühereȱZeichnungenȱs.ȱibid., 1,ȱz.B.ȱ12276ȱrectoȱundȱverso,ȱ3–4;ȱ12282ȱrecto,ȱ8;ȱ12432ȱrecto,ȱ69;ȱ12446,ȱ73;ȱ12554,ȱ103;ȱ12557,ȱ104; alleȱAbb.ȱs.ȱBandȱ2.ȱ Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ144–56ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).ȱLeiderȱwirdȱausȱMöllersȱDarlegungenȱnichtȱersichtlich, warumȱ esȱ sichȱ beiȱ derȱ vonȱ ihmȱ herausgearbeitetenȱ Ikonographieȱ umȱ Salaìȱ handelnȱ solle. Begründungenȱwieȱ“[a]lsȱdieȱbildnismäßisteȱDarstellungȱseheȱichȱseitȱ17ȱJahrenȱeineȱwohlbekannte ZeichnungȱimȱLouvreȱan”ȱundȱ“[j]edenfallsȱhabenȱwirȱhierȱeinȱBildnisȱdesȱetwaȱsechzehnjährigen Salai.”ȱdominieren.ȱAmȱEndeȱseinerȱVorstellungȱderȱIkonographieȱführtȱerȱnochȱan,ȱdassȱsich dieseȱ mitȱ derȱ Beschreibungȱ Vasarisȱ deckeȱ undȱ auchȱ dieȱ Eigenschaftenȱ Salaìs,ȱ dieȱ Leonardos AufzeichnungenȱundȱdemȱSpitznamenȱzuȱentnehmenȱseien,ȱwürdenȱsichȱinȱdenȱDarstellungen findenȱ(Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ2]). ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

580

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

derȱTypȱdesȱSalaiȱseitȱdenȱNeunzigerjahrenȱeinenȱgewissenȱverweichlichenden Einflußȱausübte,ȱwennȱLeonardoȱJünglingeȱgestaltete.”77ȱ Dasȱ einzigeȱ Gemäldeȱ Leonardosȱ fürȱ welchesȱ derȱ Schülerȱ direktȱ Modell gestandenȱ habe,ȱ seiȱ dasȱ vonȱ Vasariȱ beschriebeneȱ desȱ Verkündigungsengels gewesen,ȱwelchesȱnurȱinȱKopienȱvonȱSchülernȱerhaltenȱseiȱ(Abb.ȱ3).78ȱSuidaȱsieht diesenȱTypȱdirektȱdurchȱdieȱgriechischeȱSkulpturȱinspiriert.ȱDieseȱAnnahmeȱist sicherȱnichtȱfalsch,ȱstelltȱjedochȱkeineȱspezifischeȱAussageȱzurȱGeneseȱdiesesȱTyps dar,ȱdaȱdiesesȱaufȱalleȱRenaissancekünstlerȱzutrifft,ȱdieȱsichȱmitȱdemȱantikenȱIdeal derȱ Schönheitȱ desȱ menschlichenȱ Körpersȱ auseinandersetzten.ȱ Jensȱ Peterȱ Thiis hingegenȱerkenntȱinȱdiesenȱProfilen—undȱfindetȱdarinȱdieȱZustimmungȱvonȱClark undȱPedretti—einenȱexplizitȱFlorentinischenȱTyp,ȱderȱdurchȱdenȱVergleichȱmit PorträtsȱundȱidealisiertenȱKöpfenȱDesiderioȱdaȱSettignanos,ȱAndreaȱdellaȱRobbias undȱVerrocchiosȱermitteltȱwerdenȱkönne.79ȱ DennochȱbleibtȱdieȱÄhnlichkeitȱmitȱdenȱauchȱvonȱClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱmitȱder PersonȱSalaìsȱinȱZusammenhangȱgebrachtenȱDarstellungenȱaufȱdenȱZeichnungen 12557ȱ (Abb.ȱ 4)80ȱ undȱ 1255481ȱ derȱ Royalȱ Libraryȱ bestehen.ȱ Dieseȱ Profilköpfe unterscheidenȱ sichȱ lediglichȱ vonȱ denȱ anderenȱ Darstellungenȱ wieȱ z.B.ȱ aufȱ den Zeichnungenȱ12276ȱ(Abb.ȱ5)82ȱundȱ12432ȱ(Abb.ȱ6)83ȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱdurchȱeine rundlichereȱ Kinnpartieȱ undȱ dasȱ kurze,ȱ sehrȱ lockigeȱ Haar.ȱ Dieȱ Darstellungen stimmenȱ mitȱ Vasarisȱ Beschreibungȱ ȱ “avendoȱ belliȱ capegliȱ ricciȱ edȱ inanellati” überein.ȱClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱschätzenȱdenȱKnabenȱaufȱderȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱder RoyalȱLibraryȱaufȱeinȱAlterȱzwischenȱ15–18ȱJahren.84ȱDieȱZeichnungȱ12554ȱder Royalȱ Libraryȱ istȱ künstlerischȱ wenigerȱ gutȱ ausgeführt.ȱ Sieȱ wirdȱ derȱ Schule Leonardos,ȱvielleichtȱBoltraffioȱzugeschrieben.ȱDerȱIkonographieȱ(jungerȱSalaì, nichtȱälterȱalsȱ25ȱJahre)ȱnachȱdürfteȱsieȱnichtȱspäterȱalsȱ1505,ȱdemȱStilȱnachȱmüsste sieȱ jedochȱ nachȱ 1510ȱ entstandenȱ sein.ȱ Clarkȱ undȱ Pedrettiȱ bevorzugenȱ hierȱ die DatierungȱnachȱStil.ȱ Anȱ dieserȱ Stelleȱ formulierenȱ sieȱ dieȱ These,ȱ dassȱ esȱ keinenȱ Anlassȱ gäbe anzunehmen,ȱdieȱPorträtsȱseienȱ‘nachȱdemȱLeben’ȱgezeichnet.85ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti vermuten,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱauchȱweiterȱidealeȱDarstellungenȱdesȱSalaìȱanfertigteȱals dieserȱseineȱhierȱdargestellteȱJugendȱschonȱverlorenȱhatte.86ȱDassȱesȱnurȱderȱ‘ideale 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

86

Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Ibid. ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12557;ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ104ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12554;ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ103ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12276;ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ3ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12432;ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ69ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ104ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). AuchȱMöllerȱmerktȱan,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱschonȱseitȱlangemȱkeinesȱModellsȱmehrȱbedürfe;ȱMöller, “Salai,”ȱ152ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ103ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

581

Salaì’ȱundȱkeinȱPorträtȱ‘nachȱdemȱLeben’ȱseinȱkann,ȱwelchesȱLeonardoȱimmerȱund immerȱwiederȱzeichneteȱscheintȱangesichtsȱdesȱProfiles,ȱwelchesȱinnerhalbȱvonȱ30 Jahrenȱnichtȱaltert,ȱschlüssig.ȱProblematischȱwäreȱdieȱVermutungȱeinerȱInspiration diesesȱTypsȱdurchȱSalaìȱjedoch,ȱgäbeȱesȱDarstellungen,ȱdieȱvorȱderȱBekanntschaft desȱKnabenȱmitȱdemȱKünstlerȱentstandenȱwären.ȱSoȱvermutenȱClarkȱundȱPedretti beispielsweise,ȱdassȱdieȱZeichnungȱ12276ȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱunterȱanderemȱaus stilistischenȱGründenȱaufȱdieȱZeitȱumȱ1478–80ȱdatiertȱwerdenȱmüsse,87ȱundȱzu diesemȱZeitpunktȱwarȱSalaìȱnochȱnichtȱoderȱgeradeȱebenȱgeboren.ȱEntkräftenȱließe sichȱdiesesȱ‘Problem’ȱdurchȱeineȱspätereȱDatierungȱderȱZeichnung,88ȱjedochȱauch durchȱdieȱHypothese,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱinȱeinemȱbestimmtenȱgeschlechtslosenȱTyp seinȱSchönheitsidealȱ(dieȱZeichnungȱzeige,ȱsoȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱLeonardosȱerste Versuche,ȱIdealeȱderȱSchönheitȱzuȱentwickeln89)ȱverkörpertȱfandȱundȱinȱSalaìȱnun eineȱfrappierendȱähnlicheȱInkarnationȱdesȱvonȱihmȱschonȱzuvorȱfavorisiertenȱTyps getroffenȱhatte.ȱDennȱeineȱstarkeȱÜbereinstimmungȱderȱDarstellungen,ȱdieȱauch ClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱalsȱSalaìȱakzeptierenȱundȱdenenȱdesȱ‘geschlechstlosenȱTyps’ sindȱ zweifelsohneȱ gegeben.ȱ Auchȱ sind—inȱ einemȱ genauenȱ Vergleichȱ der Physiognomienȱ aufȱ denȱ Entwürfenȱ 12276ȱ versoȱ undȱ 19093ȱ derȱ Royal Library—VeränderungenȱimȱProfilȱzuȱbemerken,ȱdieȱaufȱeinenȱEinflussȱdurchȱden TypȱvonȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱschließenȱlassen.ȱDaraufȱseiȱjedochȱanȱspätererȱStelle detailliertȱeingegangen.ȱ Verschiedentlichȱ wird,ȱ geradeȱ vonȱ kunsthistorischenȱ Laien,ȱ auchȱ dieȱ These verfolgt,ȱ dassȱ Leonardoȱ beiȱ seinerȱ Monaȱ Lisaȱ undȱ Johannesȱ demȱ Täuferȱ die PhysiognomieȱSalaisȱdargestelltȱhabe.ȱSoȱstelltȱz.B.ȱderȱSchriftstellerȱGianniȱClerici inȱUnaȱnotteȱconȱlaȱGiocondaȱdieȱHypotheseȱauf,ȱdieȱdargestellteȱFrauȱaufȱdemȱunter demȱTitelȱMonaȱLisaȱbekanntenȱGemäldeȱseiȱinȱWirklichkeitȱeinȱMannȱundȱzwar jenerȱGianȱGiacomoȱCaprotti,ȱder,ȱsoȱClerici,ȱnichtȱnurȱLieblingsschüler,ȱsondern auchȱderȱGeliebteȱLeonardosȱgewesenȱseinȱsoll.ȱDarüberȱhinausȱkönneȱeineȱgroße Ähnlichkeitȱ mitȱ Johannesȱ demȱ Täuferȱ undȱ demȱ sog.ȱ angeloȱ incarnatoȱ (Abb.ȱ 7) beobachtetȱ werden.ȱ Zudemȱ spieleȱ derȱ hierȱ angeblichȱ dargestellteȱ Caprottiȱ als MalerȱselberȱmitȱdemȱThemaȱderȱMonaȱLisa,ȱindemȱerȱeineȱandrogyneȱVersion,ȱdie sog.ȱ Monnaȱ Vannaȱ (Abb.ȱ 8),ȱ produziere.90ȱ Soȱ phantastischȱ dieseȱ Behauptungen 87 88

89 90

ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ3–4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Entgegenȱz.B.ȱBernardȱBerensonȱundȱClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱdatierenȱMöllerȱundȱSuidaȱaufȱetwaȱ1490, vgl.ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ3–4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ4ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Gianniȱ Clerici,ȱ Unaȱ notteȱ conȱ laȱ Giocondaȱ (Mailand:ȱ Rizzoli,ȱ 2008).ȱ Einȱ Beispiel laienwissenschaftlicherȱVermutungenȱzuȱdiesemȱThemenkomplexȱstelltȱderȱArtikelȱ„MonaȱLisa orȱMonȱSalai?”ȱvonȱLouieȱParsonsȱdar,ȱOviȱmagazine,ȱ17.ȱNovemberȱ2006: ȱhttp://www.ovimagazine.com/art/1046ȱdarȱ(letzterȱZugriffȱamȱ1.ȱAug.ȱ2010).ȱZurȱÄhnlichkeitȱdes JohannesȱmitȱderȱMonaȱLisa:ȱThéophileȱGautierȱbeschreibtȱihnȱalsȱ“unȱsecondȱportraitȱdeȱMona Lisa”ȱ(ThéophileȱGautier,ȱGuideȱdeȱl’amateurȱauȱmuséeȱduȱLouvreȱ(Paris:ȱCharpentier,ȱ1893),ȱ67)ȱund auchȱHansȱOstȱbemerktȱ“DieȱJohannesbilderȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.]ȱsindȱgeradeȱinȱHinsichtȱaufȱdenȱschwebend gehaltenenȱ Ausdruckȱ mehrȱ mitȱ derȱ ‚Monaȱ Lisa’ȱ alsȱ mitȱ irgendeinerȱ religiösenȱ Darstellung

582

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

auchȱanmutenȱundȱsoȱwenigȱwissenschaftlichȱwertvollȱdieȱhierȱzitierteȱQuelleȱist, lässtȱsichȱdieseȱAnnahmeȱnichtȱganzȱverwerfen.ȱSoȱbeziehtȱsichȱauchȱSylvieȱBéguin aufȱRöntgenanalysen,ȱdieȱgezeigtȱhaben,ȱdassȱderȱMonaȱLisaȱeinȱmännlichesȱPorträt unterlegtȱ ist.91ȱ Aufȱ denȱ Themenkomplexȱ derȱ JohannesȬȱ undȱ Monnaȱ VannaȬ DarstellungenȱgeheȱichȱjedochȱanȱspätererȱStelleȱein.ȱSoȱhabeȱLeonardo,ȱjedenfalls JamesȱSaslowȱfolgend,ȱeineȱSchwächeȱfürȱgutȱaussehendeȱGehilfenȱundȱModelle entwickelt.92ȱSchonȱSigmundȱFreudȱmerkteȱan,ȱdassȱsichȱderȱKünstlerȱimmerȱmit schönenȱKnabenȱundȱJünglingenȱalsȱSchülerȱumgab,ȱerȱhabeȱnurȱauffallendȱschöne Jünglingeȱbeiȱsichȱaufgenommen.ȱDieseȱseienȱalsoȱnachȱihremȱÄußerenȱundȱnicht nachȱihremȱTalentȱausgewähltȱwordenȱundȱseienȱsoȱnachȱFreudȱauchȱkeineȱgroßen Malerȱgeworden.ȱBeispielhaftȱnenntȱerȱanȱdieserȱStelleȱCesareȱdaȱSesto,ȱGiovanni AntonioȱBoltraffio,ȱAndreaȱSalaino—alsoȱSalaìȱundȱFrancescoȱMelzi.93 EineȱReiheȱvonȱTagebucheinträgenȱLeonardosȱbehandeltȱimmerȱwiederȱsehr detailliertȱdasȱThemaȱteilweiseȱsehrȱprächtigerȱundȱausgefallenerȱKleidung,ȱdieȱer fürȱSalaìȱanfertigenȱließ.94ȱFreudȱvermutetȱhinterȱdiesenȱBemerkungenȱLeonardos einȱamourösesȱInteresseȱanȱdemȱKnaben;ȱFumagalliȱhingegenȱkannȱdieȱDeutung nichtȱteilen.ȱSieȱsiehtȱinȱdiesenȱAufzeichnungenȱalltäglicheȱBeobachtungen,ȱdieȱfür nichtsȱalsȱsichȱselbstȱstünden.ȱ EsȱhandeleȱsichȱumȱkeineȱplatonischeȱLiebeȱwie zwischenȱ Michelangeloȱ undȱ Tommasoȱ de’ȱ Cavalieri,ȱ Leonardoȱ hegeȱ lediglich keineȱfalschenȱHoffnungen,ȱwasȱdieȱmoralischeȱDispositionȱundȱdasȱmittelmäßige künstlerischeȱTalentȱdesȱKnabenȱanginge,ȱwürdeȱjedochȱnichtȱmüdeȱwerden,ȱihn zuȱlieben,ȱihmȱzuȱhelfenȱundȱihnȱzuȱbeschützen.ȱWieȱeineȱRechnung,ȱdieȱetwa siebenȱJahreȱspäterȱdatiertȱwerdenȱkann,ȱzeigt,ȱwurdeȱSalaìȱimmerȱeitlerȱundȱfiel durchȱdasȱTragenȱaußergewöhnlicherȱKleidungȱauf.ȱFumagalliȱbeobachtet,ȱdass Leonardoȱ offenbarȱ lieberȱ seinȱ Geldȱ verlorenȱ habeȱ (durchȱ Diebstahl,ȱ dem Finanzierenȱ vonȱ Kleidungȱ undȱ Leihgaben),ȱ alsȱ denȱ Knaben.ȱ Soȱ vermutetȱ sie weiter,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱwohlȱnurȱschlechtȱarbeitenȱkonnte,ȱwennȱerȱSalaìȱnichtȱbei sichȱhatte,ȱerȱseiȱdannȱeherȱmitȱdemȱFüllenȱdieserȱLeerstelleȱalsȱmitȱderȱVollendung desȱAuftragesȱbeschäftigtȱgewesen.95ȱAnstattȱjedochȱdieseȱoffensichtlichȱungesunde Abhängigkeitȱ desȱ Meistersȱ vonȱ demȱ jungenȱ Mannȱ weiterȱ zuȱ verfolgen,ȱ sieht

91

92

93

94

95

verbunden”ȱ(HansȱOst,ȱLeonardoȬStudienȱ[BerlinȱundȱNewȱYork:ȱ1975],ȱ88);ȱvgl.ȱAndreasȱKreul, Leonardoȱ daȱ Vinci,ȱ Hl.ȱ Johannesȱ derȱ Täufer:ȱ sinnlicheȱ Gelehrsamkeitȱ oderȱ androgynesȱ Ärgernis? (OsterholzȬScharmbeck:ȱVerlagȱSaade,ȱ1992);ȱhierȱ9,ȱ13. SylvieȱBéguin,ȱLéonardȱdeȱVinciȱauȱLouvreȱ(Paris:ȱEds.ȱdeȱlaȱRéunionȱdesȱmuséesȱnationaux,ȱ1983), 75. JamesȱM.ȱSaslow,ȱPicturesȱandȱPassions:ȱaȱHistoryȱofȱHomosexualityȱinȱtheȱVisualȱArtsȱ(NewȱYork: Viking,ȱ1999),ȱ89. SigmundȱFreud,ȱEineȱKindheitserinnerungȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,ȱEinleitungȱvonȱJanineȱChasseguetȬ Smirgelȱ(FrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱFischerȬTaschenbuchȬVerlag,ȱ1995),ȱ41,ȱ71. H2ȱ64ȱverso;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1517,ȱ378ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱMS.ȱLȱ94ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks, 2,ȱNr.ȱ1523,ȱ379ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱArundelȬMS.ȱ263,ȱ229ȱverso;ȱvgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ141ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 2);ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ85–87ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ89ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

583

Fumagalliȱdieȱ‘Funktion’ȱSalaìsȱinȱderȱeinesȱ‘Ersatzsohnes.’ȱAlsȱNachweisȱzitiert sieȱ einenȱ Brief,ȱ denȱ Leonardoȱ anȱ Salaìȱ gerichtetȱ habe.96ȱ Leonardoȱ sprichtȱ den Empfängerȱ mitȱ “figliuolo”ȱ anȱ undȱ erinnertȱ ihnȱ daran,ȱ dassȱ erȱ ihnȱ mitȱ Milch aufgezogenȱ habeȱ (“loȱ taleuajȱ dilatteȱ pmioȱ figliuolo”97).ȱ Fumagalliȱ interpretiert dieseȱZeilenȱalsȱAusdruckȱechterȱVaterliebe.ȱUndȱsoȱfährtȱsieȱfort,ȱeinȱletztesȱMal liebeȱundȱbeschützeȱLeonardoȱseinenȱ‘Ersatzsohn’ȱdurchȱseinȱTestament—erȱwird “diȱboniȱetȱgratiȱservitii”ȱbedacht.98 Überȱ dieȱ Funktionȱ Francescoȱ Melzisȱ bestehenȱ wenigerȱ Zweifelȱ und Spekulationen.ȱSoȱberichtetȱderȱSchreiberȱdesȱKardinalsȱLuigiȱvonȱAragon,ȱder Leonardoȱamȱ10.ȱOktoberȱ1517ȱeinenȱBesuchȱabstattete,ȱdassȱeinȱMailänderȱSchüler (“unȱ creatoȱ Milanese”)ȱ Leonardosȱ nachȱ derȱ Anleitungȱ desȱ Meistersȱ malte,ȱ da dieserȱaufȱGrundȱeinerȱParalyseȱseineȱHandȱnichtȱmehrȱgebrauchenȱkonnte.ȱDer Schülerȱsolleȱdabeiȱsoȱgutȱgewesenȱsein,ȱdassȱseineȱArbeitȱnichtȱvonȱderȱLeonardos zuȱunterscheidenȱgewesenȱsei.99ȱLautȱSuidaȱkönneȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdiesemȱSchülerȱnur umȱFrancescoȱMelziȱhandeln.ȱErȱhabe—anȱdieserȱStelleȱzitiertȱSuidaȱGianambrogio Mazzentaȱ alsȱ Kronzeugen—sichȱ stärkerȱ alsȱ andereȱ Schülerȱ Leonardosȱ Stil angenähert.ȱMelziȱsolleȱwenigȱgearbeitetȱhaben,ȱdaȱerȱreichȱgewesenȱsei.ȱJedoch seienȱ seineȱ Werkeȱ feinȱ durchgeführtȱ undȱ würdenȱ oftȱ mitȱ denenȱ Leonardos verwechselt.100ȱ Esȱwirdȱberichtet,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱvonȱdenȱFertigkeitenȱMelzisȱsoȱbeeindruckt war,ȱdassȱerȱmitȱihmȱgemeinsamȱseineȱspäterenȱWerkeȱentwickelte.ȱSoȱsindȱeinige Werkeȱwieȱz.B.ȱdieȱColumbinaȱinȱderȱEremitageȱinȱSanktȱPetersburg,ȱdieȱfrüher Leonardoȱ zugeschriebenȱ wurden,ȱ mittlerweileȱ Melziȱ zugeordnetȱ worden.ȱ Die NotizȱaufȱderȱProfilzeichnungȱdesȱbartlosenȱKahlkopfes,ȱMelziȱhätteȱdieseȱmit siebzehn,ȱ respektiveȱ neunzehnȱ Jahrenȱ gezeichnetȱ undȱ dasȱ ebenfallsȱ aufȱ der RötelzeichnungȱvermerkteȱDatumȱ14.ȱAugustȱ1510ȱlassenȱdenȱSchlussȱzu,ȱdass Melziȱ bereitsȱ inȱ jungenȱ Jahrenȱ dasȱ Zeichnenȱ geübtȱ undȱ gutȱ beherrschtȱ hat. GirolamoȱFigino,ȱderȱeventuellȱeinȱSchülerȱMelzisȱwar,101ȱführtȱaufȱderȱRückseite einerȱ seinerȱ Zeichnungenȱ (aufȱ 1562ȱ datiert,ȱ Pinacotecaȱ diȱ Brera)ȱ eineȱ Art genealogischenȱStammbaumȱauf.ȱDirektȱnachȱLeonardosȱNamenȱfolgenȱderȱMelzis undȱ anschließendȱ derȱ Figinos.102ȱ Dieȱ Quellenȱ zeichnenȱ somitȱ dasȱ Bildȱ eines künstlerischȱ begabtenȱ Schülers,ȱ derȱ aufȱ Grundȱ seinesȱ Talentesȱ zuȱ Leonardos 96

97 98 99 100 101 102

C.ȱA.ȱ220ȱversoȱc.ȱEsȱgibtȱkeinenȱNachweis,ȱdassȱderȱBriefȱtatsächlichȱanȱSalaìȱgerichtetȱwar.ȱDer Empfängerȱwirdȱnichtȱnamentlichȱangesprochen.ȱMöllerȱkannȱsichȱjedochȱaufȱGrundȱdesȱTonfalls keinenȱanderenȱAdressatenȱvorstellen,ȱvgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱauchȱFumagalli, Eros,ȱ90–91ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). C.ȱA.ȱ220ȱversoȱc.,ȱzitiertȱnachȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ141ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ92ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Beltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ238,ȱ149ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ231ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Albuzzi,ȱMemorie,ȱ111ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Marani,ȱ“GirolamoȱFigino,”ȱ56–57ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱvgl.ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

584

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Lieblingȱ avancierteȱ undȱ sogarȱ seineȱ ausführendeȱ Handȱ werdenȱ durfte.ȱ Der Umstand,ȱ dassȱ erȱ gegebenenfallsȱ späterȱ anȱ denȱ concettiȱ desȱ Meistersȱ teilhatte, verweistȱaufȱeineȱWertschätzungȱauchȱseinesȱIntellektes.ȱErȱhatteȱoffenbarȱselbst Schüler,ȱdieȱihnȱinȱeinerȱdirektenȱLinieȱmitȱseinemȱMeisterȱsahenȱundȱversuchten, sichȱdurchȱihnȱnochȱimȱAbglanzeȱLeonardosȱzuȱsonnen. DieȱSchriftȱMelzisȱkannȱinȱvielenȱPapierenȱLeonardosȱausgemachtȱwerdenȱ(die Salaìsȱhingegenȱnicht).103ȱDieserȱUmstandȱverweistȱebensoȱdarauf,ȱdassȱMelziȱfür LeonardoȱwohlȱauchȱeineȱArtȱintellektuellerȱVertrauter,ȱevtl.ȱSekretärȱgewesenȱsein könnte.ȱSoȱweistȱauchȱeinȱPassusȱdesȱBriefesȱLeonardosȱanȱMelziȱvonȱ1508ȱdarauf hin,ȱdassȱderȱjungeȱMannȱbereitsȱSchreibarbeitenȱfürȱihnȱerledigte:ȱ“ch’ioȱviȱfarò tantoȱscrivereȱcheȱforseȱviȱrincresceràȱ(daȱwerdeȱichȱSieȱsoȱvielȱschreibenȱlassen, dassȱesȱSieȱvielleichtȱverdrießenȱwird).”104ȱDieȱscheinbareȱEntwicklungȱMelzisȱvom Schülerȱ(undȱvielleichtȱSekretär)ȱzumȱkünstlerischenȱundȱintellektuellenȱPartner aufȱAugenhöheȱspiegeltȱsichȱauchȱinȱseinerȱFunktionȱalsȱErbeȱdesȱzeichnerischen undȱwissenschaftlichenȱNachlassesȱwieder.ȱEinȱfranzösischerȱBuchhaltungseintrag bestätigtȱdiesesȱBild:ȱ“Aȱmes.ȱFrancisqueȱdeȱMelce,ȱytalien,ȱgentilhomme,ȱquiȱse tientȱavecȱleȱditȱM.eȱLyenard:ȱ800ȱécusȱ(pourȱdeuxȱans).”105ȱMelziȱwirdȱalsȱAdeliger undȱBegleiterȱdesȱMeisters,ȱnichtȱalsȱihmȱuntergeordneteȱPersonȱbeschriebenȱund beziehtȱeinȱhohesȱGehalt.ȱSalaìȱhingegenȱmussȱsichȱmitȱeinemȱLohnȱvonȱ100ȱEcus imȱJahrȱzufriedenȱgebenȱundȱwirdȱalsȱDienerȱgelistetȱ(“AȱSalay,ȱserviteurȱdeȱM.c LyenardȱdeȱVince,ȱpeintreȱduȱRoy,ȱpourȱsesȱservices,ȱcentȱécusȱd’or”).106 Dieȱ Gestaltȱ Salaìsȱ undȱ seineȱ Tätigkeit(en)ȱ imȱ Hauseȱ Leonardosȱ bleibenȱ trotz vielerȱQuellenȱrätselhaftȱundȱteilweiseȱwidersprüchlich.ȱVielȱeindeutigerȱistȱdas Bild,ȱwelchesȱvonȱderȱTätigkeitȱMelzisȱbeiȱLeonardoȱgezeichnetȱwerdenȱkann.ȱSalaì istȱ derȱ Schüler,ȱ derȱ lernenȱ muss,ȱ vonȱ Leonardoȱ korrigiertȱ wirdȱ undȱ sich künstlerischȱ offenbarȱ nichtȱ emanzipierenȱ kann.ȱ Trotzdemȱ bleibtȱ erȱ engȱ bei LeonardoȱundȱübernimmtȱspäterȱwohlȱdieȱFunktionȱeinesȱDieners,ȱwahrscheinlich spätestensȱ alsȱ Francescoȱ Melziȱ beiȱ Leonardoȱ antritt.ȱ Dieserȱ schwingtȱ sich anscheinendȱinȱkürzesterȱZeitȱzumȱ‘Meisterschüler’ȱauf,ȱderȱnichtȱnurȱkünstlerisch soȱnahȱanȱLeonardosȱNiveauȱherantritt,ȱdassȱerȱseineȱKonzepteȱvisualisierenȱdarf, sondernȱ auchȱ seineȱ intellektuellenȱ Aktivitätenȱ teilenȱ kann.ȱ Ungeklärtȱ bleibt 103

104

105

106

DieȱBesitzerinschriftȱ“JoannesȱFranciscusȱMeltiusȱhicȱscripsitȱdieȱxiijȱmensisȱJunijȱ1546”ȱistȱin einemȱinȱderȱBibliotecaȱTrivulzianaȱaufbewahrtenȱManuskriptȱ(MSȱTrivulzianaȱMȱ39),ȱwelches hauptsächlichȱeineȱSammlungȱspanischerȱDichtungȱenthält,ȱinȱdreifacherȱAusführungȱzuȱfinden. DieseȱSchriftȱerscheintȱauchȱaufȱvielenȱBlätternȱderȱManuskripteȱundȱaufȱZeichnungenȱLeonardos; Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱ C.ȱA.ȱ372ȱversoȱa;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1350,ȱ335ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ888 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ35);ȱvgl.ȱCharlesȱNicholl,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱdieȱBiographieȱ(FrankfurtȱamȱMain:ȱFischer TaschenbuchȱVerlag,ȱ2009),ȱ518–20. Paris,ȱArchivesȱNation.,ȱdossierȱKKȱ289;ȱBeltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ241,ȱ150ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱShell undȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ134ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Ibid.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

585

vorerst,ȱwelcheȱRolleȱdarüberȱhinausȱdieȱökonomischenȱBeziehungenȱzwischen SalaìȱundȱLeonardoȱspielen,ȱwelchesȱseineȱFunktionȱinȱdiesemȱThemenkreisȱist. DassȱSalaìȱhingegenȱimȱGegensatzȱzuȱMelziȱauchȱfürȱLeonardoȱundȱeventuellȱauch fürȱseineȱSchülerȱModellȱstand,ȱbzw.ȱseinȱÄußeresȱ(künstlerischȱundȱprivat)ȱfür LeonardoȱvonȱgroßerȱBedeutungȱwar,ȱkannȱfestgehaltenȱwerden.ȱ DerȱVollständigkeitȱhalberȱseiȱauchȱdieȱOptionȱdesȱ‘Sohnes’ȱerwähnt.ȱAusȱdem Versuch,ȱdieȱ‘Funktion’ȱderȱjungenȱMännerȱimȱHauseȱdaȱVinciȱzuȱklären,ȱwird offenbar,ȱ dassȱ sichȱ dieseȱ inȱ harte,ȱ objektiveȱ (esȱ istȱ wohlȱ unumstritten,ȱ dassȱ sie beideȱ Schülerȱ waren)ȱ aberȱ auchȱ weiche,ȱ subjektiveȱ (alsȱ wasȱ sahȱ sieȱ Leonardo noch?)ȱunterteilen.ȱAusȱdiesemȱGrundȱuntersucheȱichȱimȱFolgendenȱdieȱQuellen aufȱdieȱPerspektiveȱLeonardos.ȱDabeiȱgiltȱdasȱErkenntnisinteresseȱdenȱParametern, dieȱseineȱSichtȱaufȱdieȱbeidenȱjungenȱMännerȱbestimmten.ȱIchȱuntersuche,ȱwelche ihrerȱCharakteristikaȱfürȱihnȱinteressantȱundȱwichtigȱgewesen,ȱundȱinwiefernȱund inwieweitȱdieseȱdieȱBeziehungȱdefiniertenȱundȱwelcheȱParameterȱwiederumȱdiese beidenȱBeziehungenȱseparierten. BereitsȱMöllerȱwiesȱdaraufȱhin,ȱdassȱniemandȱinȱLeonardosȱAufzeichnungenȱseit denȱ1490erȱJahrenȱsoȱoftȱerwähntȱwerdeȱwieȱSalaì.107ȱWieȱauchȱSuidaȱbemerkte, sindȱ dieȱ Notizenȱ desȱ Künstlersȱ überȱ denȱ Einstandȱ desȱ Knabenȱ ungewöhnlich ausführlich.ȱ Sieȱ berichtenȱ nichtȱ nurȱ überȱ dieȱ ‘Initiation,’ȱ sondernȱ führenȱ auch sogleichȱdasȱ‘Kleidungsthema’ȱein.ȱLeonardoȱlässtȱihmȱzweiȱHemden,ȱStrümpfe undȱeineȱHoseȱschneidern.ȱDochȱnochȱvorȱFertigstellungȱhatteȱderȱKnabeȱihmȱdas Geldȱgestohlen.ȱZudemȱleugneteȱerȱdenȱRaub.ȱDieȱNotizȱdenȱFolgetagȱbetreffend schildertȱdasȱschlechteȱBenehmenȱdesȱJungenȱalsȱGast.ȱErȱesseȱzuviel,ȱschrecke nichtȱvorȱStreichenȱzurück,ȱzerbrecheȱFlaschenȱundȱverschütteȱWein—kurz,ȱer weiseȱ keinȱ sozialkompatiblesȱ Verhaltenȱ auf.ȱ Dieȱ weiterenȱ dasȱ Verhältnis LeonardoȬSalaìȱbestimmendenȱThemenȱsindȱanȱdieserȱStelleȱalsoȱeingeführtȱund werdenȱmitȱdenȱspäterȱamȱRandȱdiesesȱBlattesȱvermerktenȱBezeichnungenȱ“Dieb, Lügner,ȱTrotzkopf”ȱundȱ“Leckermaul”ȱaufȱdenȱPunktȱgebracht.ȱWeiterȱberichtet Leonardo,ȱ dassȱ Salaìȱ wenigȱ späterȱ Marcoȱ (d’Oggione)ȱ undȱ Giovanȱ Antonio (Boltraffio)ȱ Silberstifteȱ stiehltȱ undȱ hältȱ diverseȱ weitereȱ Begebenheitenȱ fest,ȱ an denenȱ derȱ Knabeȱ andereȱ bestiehlt.ȱ Auchȱ 1497—siebenȱ Jahreȱ später—stellt Leonardoȱimmerȱnochȱfest:ȱ“Salaiȱrubaȱliȱsoldiȱ(SalaiȱstahlȱdasȱGeld).”108ȱBisȱaufȱdie anȱdenȱerstenȱEinträgenȱspäterȱeingefügtenȱBeschimpfungenȱschildertȱderȱMaler dieȱ ‘Vergehen’ȱ desȱ Knabenȱ reinȱ deskriptivȱ undȱ ohneȱ Emotionen.ȱ Genauȱ listet LeonardoȱauchȱimmerȱwiederȱdieȱKleidungsstückeȱundȱSchmuckȱauf,ȱdieȱerȱfür SalaìȱerwirbtȱoderȱanfertigenȱlässtȱundȱnotiertȱderenȱKosten.109ȱSoȱlistetȱerȱz.B.ȱeine rosafarbene,ȱknielangeȱTrikothose.ȱEnȱvogueȱwarenȱzuȱdieserȱZeitȱjedochȱgerade 107 108

109

Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ139ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). MS.ȱL.ȱ94ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1523,ȱ379ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ894ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ35). Vgl.ȱAnm.ȱ93.

586

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

langeȱ Gewänder.110ȱ Auchȱ Armbrust,ȱ Halsketteȱ undȱ einenȱ Fingerringȱ schenkte LeonardoȱdemȱjungenȱMann.111ȱUndȱauchȱtrotzȱnachweislichȱschlechterȱfinanzieller SituationȱkaufteȱerȱdemȱKnabenȱ1497ȱeinenȱStutzermantelȱausȱSilberbrokatȱmit grünemȱ Samtbesatzȱ undȱ Zubehör.112ȱ Dieȱ Aufzeichnungenȱ dokumentierenȱ die ausgefalleneȱ Modeȱ desȱ jungenȱ Mannesȱ undȱ lassenȱ aufȱ einenȱ exzentrischen Geschmackȱschließen.113ȱLeonardoȱgibtȱgenauȱdieȱArtȱderȱKleidungȱan,ȱundȱebenso akribischȱ führtȱ erȱ überȱ dieȱ Kostenȱ Buch.ȱ Stellungnahmenȱ Leonardosȱ zu dieser—offenbarȱ starkȱ aufȱ seinemȱ Geldbeutelȱ ausgetragenen—Vorliebeȱ des Knaben,ȱ fehlen.ȱ Immerȱ wiederȱ sindȱ auchȱ kurzeȱ Notizenȱ überȱ Geldleihenȱ zu finden,ȱ dieȱ Leonardoȱ undȱ Salaìȱ sichȱ untereinanderȱ gewährten.ȱ Inȱ denȱ meisten FällenȱborgtȱLeonardoȱdemȱjungenȱMannȱetwas,114ȱvereinzeltȱjedochȱleihtȱauchȱer sichȱGeldȱbeiȱdemȱKnaben.115ȱObwohlȱLeonardoȱbeiȱdiesenȱLeihgeschäftenȱoftȱden Kürzerenȱzieht,ȱsindȱauchȱdieseȱEinträgeȱsachlichȱundȱemotionslos.ȱLediglichȱunter einerȱNotizȱvomȱOktoberȱ1508,ȱinȱderȱderȱMalerȱvermerkt,ȱdassȱerȱSalaìȱ13ȱScudi d’oroȱfürȱdieȱMitgiftȱseinerȱSchwesterȱgeliehenȱhabe,ȱschließtȱerȱmitȱlateinischen Sentenzen,ȱinȱdenenȱerȱüberȱdasȱVerleihenȱ(vonȱGeld)ȱundȱderȱGefahr,ȱdabeiȱden Freundȱzuȱverlierenȱ(“perdesȱamicum”)ȱlamentiert.116ȱDerȱKünstlerȱenthältȱsichȱin seinenȱ persönlichenȱ Aufzeichnungenȱ alsoȱ bisȱ aufȱ dieȱ soebenȱ geschilderte AusnahmeȱdesȱKommentarsȱzuȱdenȱausnahmslosȱnegativenȱEigenschaftenȱSalaìs. EinȱandererȱTonfallȱistȱinȱdemȱzuerstȱvonȱMöller,ȱdannȱvonȱFumagalliȱzitierten Brieffragmentȱanȱdenȱ‘Sohn’ȱzuȱfinden:ȱ qvȱqvȱqvantoȱfigliuoȱloȱLoȱqȱcheȱeȱeglieȱpiutenpoȱchioȱnontoȱscrittoȱecchosjȱafattoȱtu pureȱquelloȱcheȱsisieȱtifaroȱȱleȱquestjȱpochjȱȱ)sjȱloȱtaleuajȱdilatteȱȱmioȱfigliuolo.ȱ [Gewissermaßenȱ Sohnȱ /ȱ diesenȱ (Brief)ȱ weilȱ esȱ längereȱ Zeitȱ ist,ȱ daßȱ ichȱ Dirȱ nicht geschriebenȱhabeȱ/ȱundȱsoȱhastȱDuȱauchȱjenesȱgetan,ȱwasȱauchȱimmerȱesȱseinȱmagȱ/ȱich werdeȱDichȱ(erkennen?)ȱmachenȱdurchȱdieseȱwenigenȱZeilenȱ/ȱichȱzogȱDichȱmitȱMilch aufȱwieȱmeinenȱSohnȱ(=ȱichȱzogȱDichȱaufsȱliebevollsteȱauf,ȱwieȱwennȱDuȱmeinȱSohn wärest)].117ȱ

110 111 112

113

114 115 116 117

ArundelȬMS,ȱ263,ȱ229ȱȱverso;ȱvgl.ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ87ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). MS.ȱIIȱ142ȱverso. MS.ȱLȱ94ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1523,ȱ379ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱvgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ141ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ2). DieseȱVorliebeȱfürȱausgefalleneȱundȱteureȱKleidungȱscheintȱSalaìȱseinȱLebenȱlangȱgepflegtȱzu haben.ȱSoȱbesaßȱerȱauchȱspäterȱnochȱeineȱteureȱGarderobe,ȱz.B.ȱeinȱschwarzes,ȱmitȱSamtȱgefüttertes DamastgewandȱundȱweitereȱedleȱschwarzeȱKleidungsstücke.ȱEsȱscheintȱso,ȱalsȱhätteȱerȱzuȱdiesem ZeitpunktȱdieȱneueȱspanischeȱMode,ȱsichȱschwarzȱzuȱkleiden,ȱübernommen;ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ402 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). BritishȱMuseumȱ229ȱverso;ȱC.ȱA.ȱ18ȱversoȱb;ȱMS.ȱF,ȱUmschlag. ArundelȬMS.ȱ198ȱverso;ȱC.ȱA.ȱ77ȱrectoȱb;ȱC.ȱA.ȱ112ȱversoȱa.ȱ MS.ȱF,ȱUmschlag;ȱvgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ141ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ89ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). C.ȱA.ȱ220ȱversoȱc;ȱzitiertȱnachȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ141ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

587

Dieȱ zwarȱ etwasȱ holprige,ȱ damitȱ aberȱ nahȱ amȱ fragmentarischenȱ Charakterȱ der unklarenȱSätzeȱbleibendeȱdeutscheȱWiedergabeȱMöllersȱverzichtetȱbewusstȱaufȱdie Übersetzungȱ “zuȱ meinemȱ Sohn.”ȱ Dieseȱ würdeȱ nämlichȱ eineȱ beabsichtigte AdoptionȱandeutenȱundȱeineȱsolcheȱInterpretationȱschienȱMöllerȱzuȱgewagt.ȱEr belässtȱesȱbeiȱderȱDeutung,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱdieȱVaterstelleȱvertrete.ȱZuvorȱverweist erȱdarauf,ȱdassȱeineȱAmmeȱdenȱvonȱihrȱgesäugtenȱKnabenȱ‘figlioȱdiȱlatte’ȱnenne.118 SowohlȱMöllerȱwieȱauchȱFumagalliȱziehenȱnichtȱdieȱinhaltlichenȱKonsequenzen, dieȱ eineȱ solcheȱ Aussageȱ undȱ Selbstbeschreibungȱ implizieren.ȱ Dasȱ Milchgeben ist—wieȱMöllerȱmitȱdemȱVerweisȱaufȱdieȱMilchammeȱbereitsȱandeutet—weiblich konnotiert.ȱ Biologischȱ istȱ esȱ fürȱ einenȱ Vaterȱ unmöglichȱ Muttermilchȱ zu produzieren.ȱMitȱdieserȱungewöhnlichenȱMetapherȱschreibtȱsichȱLeonardoȱdie RolleȱderȱMutterȱoderȱAmme,ȱnichtȱdieȱdesȱVatersȱzu.ȱEbenfallsȱeineȱzentraleȱRolle spieltȱ dieȱ Figurȱ derȱ Mutterȱ inȱ Freudsȱ Deutungȱ einerȱ Kindheitserinnerung Leonardos: Questoȱ scriuersiȱ distintam—e—teȱ delȱ nibbioȱ parȱ cheȱ siaȱ mioȱ destino,ȱ perchéȱ nelle primaȱricordationeȱdellaȱmiaȱinfantiaȱe’ȱmiȱpareaȱche,ȱessendoȱioȱinȱculla,ȱcheȱvnȱnibbio venisseȱaȱmeȱeȱmiȱaprisseȱlaȱboccaȱcollaȱsuaȱcoda,ȱeȱmoltoȱvolteȱmiȱpercuotesseȱc—o— talȱcodaȱdentroȱalleȱlabbra.ȱ [DenȱWeihȱsoȱklarȱzuȱbeschreiben,ȱscheintȱmeineȱBestimmungȱzuȱsein;ȱdennȱinȱder frühestenȱErinnerungȱanȱmeineȱKindheitȱwarȱmirȱimmerȱso,ȱalsȱseiȱzuȱderȱZeit,ȱdaȱich nochȱ inȱ derȱ Wiegeȱ lag,ȱ einȱ Weihȱ zuȱ mirȱ gekommenȱ undȱ habeȱ mirȱ denȱ Mundȱ mit seinemȱSchwanzȱgeöffnetȱundȱmichȱdannȱmehrereȱMaleȱmitȱdemȱSchwanzȱaufȱdie Lippenȱgeschlagen].119

Dieseȱ Zeilenȱ seienȱ lautȱ Freudȱ eineȱ Reminiszenzȱ aufȱ dasȱ Saugenȱ anȱ der Mutterbrust.ȱDerȱSchwanzȱdesȱVogelsȱkönneȱjedochȱnurȱalsȱmännlichesȱGenital gedeutetȱwerden.120ȱDassȱLeonardoȱdieȱMutterȱinȱseinerȱPhantasieȱdamitȱausstatte, erklärtȱFreudȱfolgendermaßen:

118 119

120

Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). C.ȱA.ȱ66ȱversoȱb;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1363,ȱ342ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ909ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ35). Bereitsȱinȱz.B.ȱAristophanesȱDieȱVögelȱwirdȱderȱTierȱdirektȱmitȱPäderastieȱinȱVerbindungȱgebracht; zumȱ Vogelȱ alsȱ gängigesȱ Symbolȱ fürȱ Sexualitätȱ Andreasȱ Sternweiler,ȱ Dieȱ Lustȱ derȱ Götter: HomosexualitätȱinȱderȱitalienischenȱKunst;ȱvonȱDonatelloȱzuȱCaravaggioȱ(Berlin:ȱVerlagȱRosaȱWinkel, 1993),ȱ138.ȱImȱerotischenȱVokabularȱbezeichnetȱuccelloȱdasȱGliedȱdesȱMannes;ȱvgl.ȱDanielȱArasse, LeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(Köln:ȱDuMont,ȱ2002),ȱ493.

588

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki DieȱHervorbringungȱdesȱGeierschwanzes121ȱinȱderȱPhantasieȱLeonardosȱkönnenȱwir nunȱsoȱübersetzen:ȱDamals,ȱalsȱsichȱmeineȱzärtlicheȱNeugierdeȱaufȱdieȱMutterȱrichtete undȱichȱihrȱnochȱeinȱGenitalȱwieȱmeinȱeigenesȱzuschrieb.122

Dieȱ aktiveȱ Situationȱ desȱ Saugensȱ wirdȱ inȱ eineȱ passiveȱ Fellatiophantasie umgewandelt.ȱSoȱverdrängeȱLeonardo—Freudȱfolgend—dieȱLiebeȱzurȱMutterȱund setzteȱ sichȱ selbstȱ anȱ dieseȱ Stelle.ȱ Erȱ nehmeȱ sichȱ selbstȱ alsȱ Vorbildȱ nachȱ dessen ÄhnlichkeitȱdasȱObjektȱderȱBegierdeȱausgewähltȱwerde.ȱDieȱKnaben,ȱdieȱerȱliebt, stelltenȱseinȱeigenesȱkindlichesȱSelbstȱdar.ȱInȱeinemȱderartigenȱAutoerotismus’ “findetȱ[er]ȱseineȱLiebesobjekteȱaufȱdemȱWegeȱdesȱNarzissmus.”123ȱAusgehendȱvon diesenȱ Zeilenȱ imȱ Codexȱ Atlanticusȱ schließtȱ Freudȱ 1910ȱ alsoȱ aufȱ eineȱ ‘passive Homosexualität’124ȱ Leonardos,ȱ vonȱ derȱ jedochȱ fraglichȱ sei,ȱ obȱ dieseȱ jemals ausgelebtȱ worden,ȱ alsoȱ nachȱ Freudȱ vielleichtȱ lediglichȱ eineȱ “ideelle Homosexualität”ȱ gewesenȱ sei.ȱ Emotionalȱ gehemmtȱ habeȱ Leonardo—so Freud—seineȱSexualitätȱdoppeltȱinȱkünstlerischesȱSchaffenȱundȱwissenschaftliche Forschungenȱsublimiert,ȱwobeiȱsichȱeineȱEntwicklungȱvomȱkünstlerischenȱSchaffen zumȱForschenȱimȱVerlaufȱseinerȱVitaȱkonstatierenȱlasse.125ȱ FreudsȱUntersuchungȱriefȱinȱderȱFachweltȱgrößtenteilsȱEntsetzenȱhervor,ȱund besondersȱ Kunsthistorikerȱ verweigertenȱ dieȱ Rezeption;ȱ Freudȱ galtȱ als Nestzbeschmutzer.126ȱMeyerȱSchapirosȱArtikelȱLeonardoȱandȱFreud:ȱAnȱArtȬHistorical 121

122 123 124

125 126

Übersetzungsfehler:ȱ‘nibio’ȱ(alt,ȱneu:ȱnibbio)ȱbedeutetȱnichtȱ‘Geier,’ȱsondernȱ‘Gabelweihe,’ȱauch RoterȱMilanȱoderȱRotmilanȱgenannt.ȱDieseȱfehlerhafteȱÜbersetzungȱwirdȱFreudȱinȱderȱRezension wiederholtȱzumȱVorwurfȱgemacht,ȱdaȱ erȱ seineȱInterpretationȱdurchȱeinenȱRekursȱaufȱdieȱfür ‚Mutter’ȱstehendeȱägyptischeȱHieroglyphe,ȱdieȱeinenȱGeierȱzeigt,ȱzuȱstützenȱsucht.ȱZuȱrechtȱwird jedochȱ ebensoȱ daraufȱ hingewiesen,ȱ dassȱ Freudsȱ Interpretationȱ auchȱ ohneȱ denȱ Bezugȱ aufȱ das ägyptischeȱMuttersymbolȱfunktioniere;ȱvgl.ȱFreud,ȱKindheitserinnerung,ȱ13–14ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ93); ausführlichȱdargelegtȱvonȱKurtȱR.ȱEissler,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱPsychoanalyticalȱNotesȱonȱtheȱEnigma (NewȱYork:ȱInternationalȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1961). Freud,ȱKindheitserinnerung,ȱ67ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ93). Freud,ȱKindheitserinnerung,ȱ69ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ93). IchȱverwendeȱdenȱBegriffȱ‘Homosexualität’ȱundȱ dasȱ dazugehörigeȱAdjektivȱ‘homosexuell’ȱin einfachenȱAnführungszeichen,ȱdaȱesȱsichȱumȱeineȱWortschöpfungȱdesȱȱspätenȱ19.ȱJahrhunderts handelt.ȱSieȱbeinhaltetȱzumȱeinenȱinhaltlichȱeineȱpathologischeȱDimensionȱdesȱAndersseins,ȱzum anderenȱartikuliertȱderȱBegriffȱaberȱauchȱdasȱBewusstseinȱderȱmitȱihmȱbezeichnetenȱGruppeȱals ‘anderes’ȱ Geschlecht.ȱ Derȱ zeitgenössischȱ korrekteȱ Quellenbegriffȱ fürȱ gleichgeschlechtlich handelndeȱMännerȱistȱsodomitaȱoderȱsodomiticus.ȱInȱderȱeinschlägigenȱForschungȱwirdȱdiskutiert, obȱderȱBegriffȱ‘Homosexualität’ȱauchȱaufȱGruppenȱvorȱdemȱ19.ȱJahrhundertȱangewendetȱwerden kannȱundȱmitȱwelcherȱBegründung,ȱoderȱobȱstattdessenȱderȱjeweiligeȱQuellenbegriffȱverwendet werdenȱsolle.ȱBeiȱdiesemȱstelltȱsichȱjedochȱdasȱProblem,ȱdassȱdieserȱhistorischȱoftȱdiskriminierend verwendetȱwurde;ȱdazuȱMiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki,ȱ“Voluptaȱundȱdispiacere:ȱgenderȬAspekteȱin LeonardoȱdaȱVincisȱZeichnungȱ‚AristotelesȱundȱPhyllis’,”ȱgender:ȱPerspektive(n)—Medium—Macht. InterdisziplinäreȱBeiträgeȱzurȱkulturwissenschaftlichenȱGeschlechterforschungȱ(Tagungsband), Hrsg.ȱ AnnȬKristinȱ Düber/ȱ Falkoȱ Schnickeȱ (Würzburg:ȱ Königshausenȱ &ȱ Neumann,ȱ 2010)ȱ [im Druck].ȱDortȱistȱauchȱdieȱgrundlegendeȱLiteraturȱzuȱdieserȱDiskussionȱzuȱfinden. Vgl.ȱFreud,ȱKindheitserinnerung,ȱpassimȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ93). StellvertretendȱfürȱdieȱkunsthistorischeȱRezeptionȱvonȱFreudsȱInterpretationȱgebeȱichȱhierȱdie

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

589

Studyȱ wurdeȱ alsȱ Befreiungsschlagȱ aufgefasst.ȱ Inȱ diesemȱ decktȱ Schapiroȱ den ÜbersetzungsfehlerȱundȱzweiȱNachlässigkeitenȱinȱderȱRechercheȱhistorischerȱund kunsthistorischerȱ Quellenȱ auf,127ȱ undȱ versuchtȱ mitȱ dieserȱ Argumentation,ȱ die TheseȱvonȱLeonardosȱ‘Homosexualität’ȱzuȱentkräften.128ȱAuchȱwennȱseineȱKritik kunsthistorischȱ(zumeist)ȱrichtigȱist,ȱsoȱistȱdieȱSchlussfolgerungȱzuȱeinseitigȱund verflachtȱ dieȱ Untersuchungȱ Freudsȱ stark.129ȱ Soȱ bemerkteȱ bereitsȱ Chastel,ȱ dass Freud—trotzȱderȱfachlichenȱFehler—mitȱseinenȱIntuitionenȱrichtigȱliegenȱkönnte:ȱ [E]llesȱ[dieȱIntuitionen—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki]ȱleȱseraientȱencoreȱdavantageȱsiȱellesȱtenaient compteȱduȱclimatȱdeȱl’epoqueȱetȱdesȱmultiplesȱ notesȱ ouȱdessinsȱquiȱprouventȱque Léonardȱabordaitȱsansȱembarrasȱtoutesȱformesȱdeȱl’amour.130

DerȱhermeneutischeȱZirkelȱschließtȱsichȱbeiȱgenauerȱBetrachtungȱdesȱBlattesȱmit denȱBrieffragmentenȱanȱ(wahrscheinlich)ȱSalaì.ȱAufȱdiesemȱbefindetȱsich—nach Möllerȱwurdeȱsieȱerstȱspäterȱhinzugefügt131—dieȱSkizzeȱeinesȱVogelsȱimȱGleitflug. VergleichbareȱSkizzenȱvonȱVögelnȱimȱGleitflugȱsindȱz.B.ȱaufȱeinemȱBlattȱimȱCodice

127

128

129

130

131

entsprechendeȱPassageȱvonȱMöllerȱwieder.ȱSieȱgibtȱgleichzeitigȱeinenȱwissenschaftshistorischen EinblickȱinȱdenȱUmgangȱmitȱderȱKategorieȱ‘Geschlecht’ȱinȱderȱKunstgeschichteȱderȱ1920erȱundȱȬ 30erȱ Jahreȱ undȱ inȱ denȱ Geniekultȱ umȱ Leonardo:ȱ “Aberȱ auchȱ inȱ unserenȱ Tagenȱ [1928—M.ȱ S. Marotzki]ȱistȱdasȱAndenkenȱdiesesȱreinen,ȱedlenȱMenschenȱvielfachȱverunglimpftȱworden,ȱbald vonȱ einigenȱ jenerȱ nieȱ aussterbendenȱ Schriftsteller,ȱ wieȱ R.ȱ Muther,ȱ dieȱ mittelsȱ erotischer “Verwitterung”ȱdesȱStoffesȱeinenȱweitenȱLeserkreisȱzuȱgewinnenȱwissen,ȱbaldȱvonȱWerbernȱfür eineȱsexuelleȱAnormalität,ȱdieȱjenenȱgroßenȱNamenȱfürȱihreȱdunklenȱKreiseȱbeanspruchenȱzu dürfenȱwähnen;ȱschließlichȱhatȱderȱFührerȱderȱpsychoanalytischenȱSchuleȱesȱgewagt,ȱLeonardo offenȱ derȱ Homosexuellenȱ zuzurechnen,ȱ ohneȱ allerdingsȱ seineȱ Betätigungȱ alsȱ solcherȱ zu behaupten.ȱ Beiȱ dieserȱ Gelegenheitȱ darfȱ manȱ wohlȱ imȱ Namenȱ derȱ LeonardoȬForschungȱ einen dringendenȱWunschȱaussprechen:ȱSollteȱdiesesȱernste,ȱschwierigeȱGebietȱwiederumȱbehandelt werden,ȱsoȱmögeȱesȱmitȱgründlicherȱKenntnisȱdesȱMaterialsȱgeschehenȱundȱunterȱVerzichtȱaufȱdie PhantasienȱvonȱRomanschreibernȱundȱaufȱallzuweitȱhergeholteȱundȱunberechtigteȱDeutungen, Dinge,ȱ dieȱ beiȱ derȱ bekanntenȱ Schriftȱ desȱ Professorsȱ Siegmundȱ [sic!]ȱ Freudȱ schmerzlichstȱ zu bedauernȱsind.”ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ157ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). AufȱdieȱFehlerȱweistȱbereitsȱBeltramiȱhin;ȱLucaȱBeltrami,ȱMiscellaneaȱVincianaȱ(Mailand:ȱAllegretti, 1923). Vgl.ȱMeyerȱSchapiro,ȱ“LeonardoȱandȱFreud:ȱAnȱArtȬHistoricalȱStudy,”ȱJournalȱofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱIdeas 17,2ȱ(1956),ȱ147–78;ȱsoȱauchȱRaymondȱSomersȱStites,ȱ“AȱCriticismȱofȱFreud’sȱLeonardo,”ȱCollege ArtȱJournalȱ7ȱ(1948),ȱ257–67ȱu.a.ȱAuchȱFumagalliȱkritisiertȱFreudsȱDeutung.ȱSieȱinterpretiertȱdie Kindheitserinnerungȱ alsȱ Vorahnungȱ Leonardosȱ seineȱ Studienȱ denȱ Vogelflugȱ betreffend. AußerdemȱseiȱderȱnibbioȱLeonardosȱSymbolȱfürȱdieȱNatur;ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ7–17ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). DazuȱauchȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ488–99ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121);ȱders.,ȱ“Léonardȱetȱlaȱcullaȱdelȱnibbio:ȱpour uneȱapprocheȱhistoriqueȱduȱ‚souvenirȱd’enfance’,”ȱSymbolesȱdeȱlaȱRenaissance,ȱ2:ȱArtȱetȱlangage (Paris:ȱPressesȱdeȱl’écoleȱnormaleȱsuperieure,ȱȱ1982),ȱ59–69.ȱVgl.ȱebenfallsȱundȱzurȱHomosexualität Leonardos:ȱMarotzki,ȱ“Volupta,”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ125). Chastel,ȱ Art,ȱ 291ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 39).ȱ Eineȱ homosexuelleȱ Orientierungȱ Leonardosȱ wirdȱ unter KunsthistorikernȱmittlerweileȱalsȱwahrscheinlichsteȱOptionȱgehandelt;ȱs.ȱz.B.ȱMargotȱundȱRudolf Wittkower,ȱKünstler—AußenseiterȱderȱGesellschaft,ȱ2.ȱdt.ȱAusg.ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱKlettȬCotta,ȱ1989),ȱ187–89; Arasse,ȱLeonardoȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ142ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2).

590

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Eȱzuȱfinden.132ȱDieȱVögelȱsindȱmitȱtiefȱgegabeltenȱSchwänzenȱdargestellt.ȱEsȱkann alsoȱdavonȱausgegangenȱwerden,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱwiederȱumȱLeonardosȱnibbioȱhandelt. Fumagalliȱbelegt,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱdurchȱseineȱFlugstudienȱsoȱguteȱKenntnisseȱvon Vögelnȱhatte,ȱdassȱerȱdieȱverschiedenenȱArtenȱzuȱunterscheidenȱwusste.ȱSpeziell denȱFlugȱdesȱnibbioȱbeschreibtȱerȱimȱCodiceȱsulȱvoloȱdegliȱuccelliȱgenau133,ȱDaniel ArasseȱfolgendȱmachteȱerȱihnȱzumȱSinnbildȱderȱVögelȱimȱFluge.134ȱSoȱtauchtȱdieser VogelȱoftȱinȱseinenȱBeschreibungenȱundȱZeichnungenȱauf.ȱInȱseinemȱBestiarium identifiziertȱLeonardoȱdenȱnibbioȱalsȱSymbolȱderȱinvidia:ȱ“INVIDIA.ȱDelȱnibbioȱȉȱsi leggieȱȉȱ,ȱcheȱqu—a—doȱessoȱuedeȱiȱsuaȱfiglioliȱnelȱnidoȱesserȱdiȱtroppaȱgrassezza, cheȱperȱinvidiaȱegliȱbeccaȱloroȱleȱcosteȱeȱti—e—gliȱsanzaȱm—a—giareȱ(Neid.ȱVom Weihȱliestȱman,ȱdassȱerȱseineȱJungen,ȱwennȱerȱsieȱimȱNestȱzuȱdickȱwerdenȱsieht, inȱdieȱRippenȱpicktȱundȱsieȱohneȱNahrungȱhält).”135ȱDieȱGabelweiheȱwirdȱalsoȱder negativenȱSymboltraditionȱentsprechendȱalsȱneidischeȱMutterȱbeschrieben,ȱsoȱgilt sieȱ alsȱ Vogel,ȱ derȱ fürȱ seineȱ Jungenȱ eineȱ Bedrohungȱ darstellt.136ȱ Zuȱ dem Brieffragmentȱzurückkehrendȱlässtȱsichȱfesthalten,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱdenȱAdressaten quasiȱalsȱSohnȱbezeichnet,ȱsichȱselbstȱjedochȱmitȱderȱMutterȱoderȱAmmenrolle identifiziert.ȱWieȱschonȱinȱderȱKindheitserinnerungȱistȱderȱAktȱdesȱSaugensȱ(Milch zuȱ sichȱ nehmen)ȱ vonȱ zentralerȱ Bedeutung.ȱ Derȱ Tonȱ desȱ Briefesȱ istȱ ungleich emotionalerȱalsȱinȱdenȱvorherigenȱAufzeichnungenȱLeonardos,ȱundȱzwischenȱden ZeilenȱgelesenȱentstehtȱfastȱderȱEindruck,ȱalsȱfühleȱsichȱderȱKünstlerȱvonȱdem Adressatenȱeinȱwenigȱgekränktȱundȱzurückgesetzt. Bisȱ 1491ȱ istȱ inȱ denȱ Notizenȱ Leonardosȱ vonȱ einemȱ ‘Jacomo’ȱ dieȱ Rede.ȱ Nach diesemȱDatumȱerwähntȱderȱKünstlerȱdenȱNamenȱGiacomoȱnichtȱmehr.ȱStattdessen istȱabȱ1494ȱderȱNameȱSalaìȱzuȱfinden.137ȱDiesenȱsetztȱLeonardoȱfürȱeineȱPersonȱmit denȱEigenschaften,ȱdurchȱdieȱerȱvorabȱGiacomoȱcharakterisierte,ȱein.138ȱEsȱkann alsoȱdavonȱausgegangenȱwerden,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱGiacomoȱvonȱnunȱanȱmitȱdem SpitznamenȱSalaìȱbezeichnete.ȱFumagalliȱfolgendȱhandeleȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdemȱNamen umȱ eineȱ alteȱ Vokabelȱ ausȱ Abessinienȱ (Äthiopien),ȱ dieȱ wahrscheinlichȱ durch magischeȱLiteraturȱüberliefertȱwurde139ȱundȱimȱMorganteȱMaggioreȱ(XXIȱ47ȱ7),ȱeiner höfischenȱDichtung,ȱdieȱinȱderȱZeitȱamȱMedicihofȱentstandȱalsȱLeonardoȱnochȱin Florenzȱwar,ȱwiederȱaufgenommenȱwurde.ȱPioȱRajnaȱverwiesȱalsȱersterȱaufȱdas 132 133

134 135

136 137 138 139

Eȱ38ȱverso. IȱmanoscrittiȱdiȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱCodiceȱsulȱvoloȱdegliȱuccelliȱeȱvarieȱaltreȱmaterie,ȱHrsg.ȱTeodoro Sabachnikoff,ȱtranskribiertȱundȱkommentiertȱvonȱGiovanniȱPiumatiȱ(Paris:ȱRouveyre,ȱ1893),ȱ6(5) verso. Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ490ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). CodiceȱHȱ5ȱverso;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1221,ȱ261ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ837 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ35).ȱDazuȱauchȱFumagalliȱ13–15ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ490,ȱ491ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Vgl.ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ167ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ42ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Rajna,ȱ“Appendice”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ140–41ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ83ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40}.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

591

EposȱLuigiȱ Pulcis.140ȱAuchȱinȱseinenȱBriefenȱanȱLorenzoȱde’ȱMediciȱverwendet Pulciȱ diesenȱ Namenȱ öfter.ȱ Derȱ Ausdruckȱ bezeichnetȱ zweifelsohneȱ denȱ vom HimmelȱgestürztenȱLuzifer.ȱDaȱPulciȱsichȱmitȱMagieȱundȱGeisterbeschwörung befasstȱhabe,ȱmutmaßteȱbereitsȱMöller,ȱderȱNameȱseiȱihmȱdurchȱmagischeȱLiteratur ausȱ demȱ Morgenlandȱ geläufig.ȱ Leonardoȱ verkehrteȱ amȱ MediciȬHofȱ undȱ besaß auchȱ einȱ Exemplarȱ desȱ Morganteȱ inȱ seinerȱ Bibliothek.141ȱ Dieȱ vonȱ Möller wiedergegebeneȱ Deutungȱ Rajnas,ȱ dassȱ Leonardoȱ diesemȱ Namenȱ bewusstȱ den Vorzugȱvorȱdemȱeinfachenȱ‘Teufelchen’ȱ(diavoletto)ȱgab,ȱdaȱerȱdieȱinȱderȱPersonȱdes LuzifersȱambivalenteȱBedeutungsdimensionȱdesȱgefallenenȱEngelsȱalsȱgeeigneter fürȱ einenȱ Vergleichȱ mitȱ demȱ Knabenȱ sah,ȱ istȱ überzeugend.ȱ “Diavoloȱ inȱ veste d’angeloȱ(TeufelȱinȱderȱGestaltȱeinesȱEngels)”—soȱbeschreibtȱauchȱFumagalliȱan einerȱ Stelleȱ denȱ Knaben.142ȱ Undȱ inȱ derȱ Tatȱ stelltȱ Leonardoȱ ihnȱ verschieden ausführlichȱ dasȱ Profilȱ wiederholend,ȱ dabeiȱ stetsȱ zweiȱ Typenȱ repetierendȱ (die charakteristischenȱkurzenȱLockenȱwieȱaufȱderȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱderȱRoyalȱLibrary undȱeineȱlängereȱFrisurenvarianteȱwieȱz.B.ȱaufȱdemȱBlattȱ19093ȱrectoȱderȱRoyal Libraryȱ wiedergebend)ȱ stetsȱ makellosȱ schönȱ undȱ mitȱ emotionslosen, ausgeglichenenȱ Gesichtszügenȱ dar.ȱ Derȱ Jünglingȱ altertȱ nicht.ȱ Wieȱ eineȱ schöne Form,ȱeinȱschönesȱGehäuseȱkehrtȱerȱstetsȱwieder.143ȱ Inȱ seinerȱ Zeitȱ alsȱ Hofkünstlerȱ inȱ Mailandȱ entwarfȱ Leonardoȱ verschiedene ImpresenȱoderȱEmbleme.144ȱAufȱdemȱSkizzenblattȱ12282ȱrectoȱderȱRoyalȱLibrary vonȱetwaȱ1508,145ȱaufȱdemȱerȱdieseȱausprobiert,ȱbefindetȱsichȱebenfallsȱeinȱProfil desȱSalaìtyps146ȱ(Abb.ȱ9).ȱLinksȱobenȱinȱderȱEckeȱsindȱzweiȱDrachen,ȱdieȱsichȱum gekreuzteȱ Stäbeȱ windenȱ aufȱ einerȱ Artȱ Schildȱ dargestellt,147ȱ danebenȱ skizzierte LeonardoȱeineȱArchitektur.ȱRechtsȱunterȱdenȱSchlangenȱbefindetȱsichȱeinȱKreis,ȱin demȱsichȱeineȱArtȱWindlicht,ȱinȱdemȱeineȱFlammeȱbrennt,ȱaufgestelltȱist.ȱWinde blasenȱ ausȱ allenȱ Windrichtungenȱ derȱ Windroseȱ ohneȱ dassȱ dieȱ Kerzeȱ erlischt. Darunter—durchȱeinȱliegendesȱOvalȱumrandet—durchbrichtȱeinȱPflugȱdenȱAcker. UnterȱihmȱistȱdasȱMottoȱ“inpedimentoȱn—o—ȱmiȱpiegaȱ([k]einȱHindernisȱbeugt 140 141

142 143

144

145 146

147

Rajna,ȱ“Appendice”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ144ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2),ȱC.ȱA.ȱ210ȱrectoȱa;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1469,ȱ368ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ12).ȱ Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ83ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40);ȱdt.—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki. Alsȱ“LeonardosȱlovesickȱsketchingȱofȱSalai”ȱoderȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱobsessivelyȱdrawingȱhisȱ[Salaìs—M.ȱS. Marotzki]ȱsoftȱfeaturesȱandȱblondȱcurls.”ȱbeschreibtȱSaslowȱdasȱPhänomen,ȱsieheȱSaslow,ȱPictures, 100ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ92).ȱ Z.B.ȱZeichnungenȱverschiedenerȱImpresenȱ(Pflug,ȱKompassȱundȱLampe),ȱumȱ1508/09,ȱRoyalȱLibrary 12701ȱrecto. ZurȱDatierungȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ9ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). ClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱbringenȱesȱmitȱdemȱProfilȱaufȱdemȱBlattȱimȱCodexȱArundel,ȱ136ȱverso–137 rectoȱȱinȱZusammenhang;ȱdazuȱ(auchȱzurȱDatierungȱdesȱBlattes)ȱibid. Wieȱ inȱ Raccoltaȱ Vincianaȱ 19,ȱ 278–82ȱ gezeigtȱ wurde,ȱ stammtȱ diesesȱ Fragmentȱ ausȱ demȱ Codex Atlanticusȱ31ȱverso–aȱundȱwirdȱaufȱcircaȱ1494ȱvorȱdenȱTodȱGaleazzoȱMariaȱSforzas,ȱaufȱdenȱsich dieȱBuchstabenȱGȱMȱ[S]ȱinȱderȱNäheȱdesȱFragmentesȱbeziehen,ȱdatiert;ȱibid.,ȱ8.

592

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

mich)”148ȱzuȱfindenȱ(alleȱInschriftenȱdesȱBlattesȱschriebȱLeonardoȱinȱSpiegelschrift), unterȱdemȱOvalȱdesȱWeiterenȱdieȱWorteȱ“ogniȱ—i—pedimetoȱèȱdistruttoȱdalȱrigore ([j]edesȱHindernisȱwirdȱbezwungenȱdurchȱdieȱHärte).”149ȱ Rechtsȱ unterȱ demȱ Emblemȱ istȱ einȱ weitererȱ Pflugȱ angedeutet,ȱ unterȱ ihmȱ das Mottoȱ“nonȱusscireȱdelȱsolchoȱ([i]mmerȱderȱSpurȱnach).”150ȱDarunterȱistȱinȱeinem Kreisȱ einȱ Kompass,ȱ denȱ einȱ Wasserradȱ betreibt,ȱ dargestellt.ȱ Rechtsȱ darüber zeichneteȱderȱKünstlerȱeinenȱStern,ȱderȱeinȱLiliensymbol—derȱSternȱsteheȱalsoȱfür denȱfranzösischenȱKönig151—trägt.ȱDieserȱwirftȱeinenȱStrahlȱaufȱdenȱKompass. UnterȱdemȱKompassȱstehtȱ“n—o—ȱsiȱȉȱuoltaȱchiȱaȱstellaȱèȱfissoȱ([w]erȱaufȱeinen Sternȱeingestelltȱist,ȱderȱwendetȱsichȱnicht)”152ȱgeschrieben.ȱNebenȱeinemȱvegetativȬ ornamentalenȱ Geflechtȱ vonȱ Efeublätternȱ istȱ ein—imȱ Vergleichȱ zuȱ den Impresen—überdimensionalȱgroßesȱProfilȱdargestellt.ȱLeonardoȱarbeiteteȱindes nurȱdieȱcharakteristischenȱZügeȱdesȱSalaìtypsȱausȱundȱdeuteteȱdasȱHaarȱan,ȱden Hinterkopfȱführteȱerȱnichtȱmehrȱaus.ȱ DasȱAugeȱdesȱProfilkopfesȱbefindetȱsichȱaufȱeinerȱHöheȱmitȱderȱFlammeȱdes Windlichtesȱundȱscheintȱdieseȱanzusehen.ȱDasȱKinnȱbefindetȱsichȱaufȱHöheȱdes Pfluges.ȱClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱverweisenȱdarauf,ȱdassȱsichȱaufȱeinerȱultravioletten Photographieȱ desȱ Blattesȱ weitereȱ Beischriftenȱ erkennenȱ lassen.ȱ Amȱ rechten unterenȱRandȱsindȱdieȱAnmerkungen destinatoȱrigore hostinatoȱrigore n—o—ȱsiȱvoltaȱchiȱaȱste llaȱeffisso invanoȱsifrt—e—taȱrevo lutioneȱalȱdestinato rigore. [Beharrlichkeit Bestimmtheit WerȱaufȱeinenȱSternȱeingestelltȱist, derȱwendetȱsichȱnicht umsonstȱ(sifrt—e—ta:ȱkeinȱÜbersetzungsvorschlag) derȱUmsturzȱderȱBeharrlichkeit].153ȱ 148

149 150

151 152

153

RoyalȱLibraryȱ12282ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ682,ȱ388ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke, Leonardo,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). Ibid. RoyalȱLibraryȱ12282ȱrecto;ȱzitiertȱnachȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ12282,ȱ8ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 13);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). ClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱ179ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12282ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ682,ȱ388ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke, Leonardo,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). RoyalȱLibraryȱ12282ȱrecto;ȱital.ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ12282,ȱ8ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13); dt.—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

593

zuȱfinden.ȱOberhalbȱdesȱkleinerenȱPflugesȱ“elȱpegioȱsettarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ/ȱpercheȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ(das schlechtesteȱEinsetzenȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱ/ȱweilȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ),”154ȱlinksȱnebenȱdemȱKompassȱ“nonȱvalȱuolta chiȱ/ȱaȱstellaȱeffissoȱ(esȱistȱnichtȱrichtig,ȱdass,ȱwerȱaufȱeinenȱSternȱeingestelltȱist,ȱsich wendet?)”155ȱundȱrechts destinato rigoreȱ(eȱin mutabil)ȱfaticaȱeȱvoltareȱ(lo inmobile)ȱilȱfisso. [Beharrlichkeit (und unveränderliche)ȱMüheȱundȱ(dasȱ Bewegungslose),ȱdasȱFeststehendeȱwenden].156

DieȱVokabelȱ‘rigore’ȱbedeuteȱbeiȱLeonardoȱnachȱFumagalliȱstetsȱ‘Strenge.’157ȱSo könnenȱdieȱMottiȱ(h)ostinatoȱrigoreȱundȱdestinatoȱrigoreȱfreiȱmitȱ‘Beharrlichkeit’ȱ(des Pflugesȱ derȱ dieȱ harteȱ Scholleȱ aufreißt)ȱ undȱ ‘Bestimmtheit’ȱ (desȱ Kompasses) übersetztȱwerden.ȱDasȱWindlichtȱistȱwederȱinȱdieserȱnochȱinȱderȱZeichnungȱ12701 rectoȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱmitȱeinemȱMottoȱversehen.ȱAufȱeinerȱanderenȱZeichnung Leonardos,ȱdieȱWindȱerzeugendeȱBlasebälgeȱzeigt,ȱstehtȱjedochȱ“[t]aleȱèȱ’lȱmalȱche n—o—ȱmiȱnoceȱqualȱèȱilȱbeneȱcheȱnonȱmiȱgiovaȱ(DasȱBöse,ȱdasȱmirȱnichtȱschadet, istȱwieȱdasȱGute,ȱdasȱmirȱnichtsȱnützt).”158ȱSoȱfindetȱsichȱauchȱdieȱBedeutungȱfrustra (Vergebens)ȱbeiȱeinemȱähnlichenȱEmblemȱinȱGirolamoȱRuscellisȱEmblemataȱvon 1583.ȱSoȱkönnteȱdieȱHypotheseȱaufgestelltȱwerden,ȱdassȱesȱkeinȱZufallȱwar,ȱdas LeonardoȱbeiȱderȱkünstlerischenȱundȱgedanklichenȱEntwicklungȱdieserȱImpresen schonȱwiederȱeinenȱsalaìähnlichenȱJünglingȱinȱdieȱNäheȱdieserȱzeichnete.ȱSeiȱes, dassȱ erȱ sichȱ Beharrlichkeitȱ undȱ Bestimmtheitȱ alsȱ Charaktereigenschaftenȱ des Knabenȱ wünschteȱ oderȱ sieȱ selbstȱ gernȱ imȱ Umgangȱ mitȱ diesemȱ durchgehalten hätte.ȱ Dasȱ Windlichtȱ befindetȱ sichȱ aufȱ Augenhöhe,ȱ derȱ Pflugȱ imȱ Ovalȱ etwas unterhalbȱ desȱ Kinnsȱ desȱ Profilkopfes.ȱ Inȱ derȱ Verbindungȱ derȱ angenommenen Bedeutungenȱ derȱ Emblemeȱ ergibtȱ sichȱ einȱ Gedankeȱ wieȱ etwaȱ ‘Vergebliche Beharrlichkeit,’ȱ derȱ aufȱ einȱ langȱ gehegtes,ȱ nichtȱ erfülltesȱ Anliegenȱ Leonardos gegenüberȱdemȱKnabenȱverweisenȱkönnte.ȱDieserȱAnsatzȱbedürfteȱjedochȱeiner intensiverenȱ Auseinandersetzungȱ mitȱ Leonardosȱ Impresenȱ undȱ einer gründlicherenȱDeutungȱderȱZeichnungȱundȱihrerȱBeischriften.ȱEineȱsolcheȱsteht

154 155 156 157 158

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Fumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ16ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Mȱ4ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ699,ȱ391ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ852ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ35).

594

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

nochȱ aus,ȱ istȱ jedochȱ auchȱ imȱ Rahmenȱ diesesȱ Beitragesȱ nichtȱ zuȱ leistenȱ und entfernteȱsichȱzudemȱauchȱzuȱweitȱvonȱdemȱeigentlichenȱThemaȱdesȱBandes. DieselbeȱPhysiognomieȱistȱauchȱaufȱeinerȱZeichnungȱLeonardos,ȱdieȱaufȱetwa 1492/1493ȱdatiertȱwirdȱundȱmitȱPiacereȱeȱdispiacereȱüberschriebenȱist,ȱdargestellt (Abb.ȱ 10).159ȱ Zweiȱ Torsi—derȱ einesȱ Jünglingsȱ undȱ derȱ einesȱ älteren Mannes—entwachsenȱRückenȱanȱRückenȱeinemȱgemeinsamenȱLeib.ȱDerȱJüngling lässtȱGeldstückeȱausȱseinerȱlinkenȱHandȱgleiten.ȱDiese—sowieȱdieȱPlatte,ȱaufȱder derȱ linkeȱ Fußȱ derȱ Aktfigurȱ steht—sindȱ aufȱ demȱ Bodenȱ mitȱ derȱ Notizȱ oro bezeichnet.ȱ Inȱ derȱ anderenȱ Handȱ hältȱ derȱ jungeȱ Mannȱ einȱ bisȱ aufȱ denȱ Boden reichendesȱ Schilfrohr.ȱ Frisurȱ undȱ Profilzügeȱ erinnernȱ deutlichȱ anȱ dieȱ bislang besprochenenȱJünglingsdarstellungen.ȱDerȱältereȱMannȱträgtȱinȱderȱHand,ȱwelche sichȱüberȱderȱ‘Goldhand’ȱdesȱJünglingsȱbefindetȱeineȱPflanze.ȱEsȱhandeleȱsichȱlaut MöllerȱumȱPfennigkrautȱ(Thlaspiȱarvense).160ȱInȱderȱrechtenȱHand,ȱdieȱsichȱunterȱder denȱ Bambuszweigȱ fassendenȱ Handȱ desȱ Jünglingsȱ befindet,ȱ hältȱ derȱ Mann dreieckigeȱDornen,ȱdieȱseinemȱGriffȱebenfallsȱentgleitenȱundȱnebenȱdenȱrechten FußȱderȱFigurȱfallen.ȱDieserȱstehtȱinȱeinerȱArtȱPfütze,ȱdieȱmitȱfangoȱ(Schlamm)161 beschriftetȱist.ȱBeiȱdenȱmerkwürdigenȱDornenȱhandeltȱesȱsichȱMöllerȱfolgendȱum vierkantigeȱFußangeln,ȱsog.ȱtriboli,ȱeinȱKampfmittel,ȱwelchesȱLeonardoȱschonȱim CodexȱTrivulzianusȱgezeichnetȱhatte.162ȱ NebenȱderȱZeichnungȱfindetȱsichȱeineȱlängereȱschriftlicheȱErklärungȱLeonardos. Inȱdieserȱerläutertȱer,ȱdassȱVergnügenȱ(piacere)ȱundȱVerdrussȱ(dispiacere)ȱdargestellt seien.ȱDasȱeineȱkommeȱnieȱohneȱdasȱandereȱvor,ȱausȱdiesemȱGrundȱseienȱsieȱals Zwillingeȱdargestellt.ȱRückenȱanȱRückenȱzeigeȱerȱsie,ȱdaȱsieȱGegensätzeȱdarstellten. UnterȱderȱZeichnungȱschreibtȱerȱmahnend,ȱdassȱbeiȱderȱWahlȱdesȱVergnügens bedachtȱ werdenȱ müsse,ȱ dassȱ diesesȱ jemandenȱ hinterȱ sichȱ habe,ȱ derȱ Trübsal (tribolatione)ȱundȱReueȱausteile.ȱ AufȱderȱgegenüberliegendenȱSeiteȱerklärtȱLeonardoȱsichȱnochȱeinmalȱgenauer. ErȱwiederholtȱanȱdieserȱStelleȱdasȱbereitsȱzuvorȱErklärteȱundȱführtȱdannȱaus,ȱdass VergnügenȱundȱVerdrussȱalsȱGegenteileȱinȱdemselbenȱKörperȱvorkämen,ȱdaȱsie dieselbeȱBasisȱhätten:ȱderȱUrsprungȱdesȱVergnügensȱkämeȱausȱdemȱÜberdruß,ȱden derȱSchmerzȱverursacht,ȱderȱUrsprungȱdesȱVerdrussesȱseienȱeitleȱundȱunzüchtige Vergnügungen.ȱ Ausȱ diesemȱ Grundȱ halteȱ piacereȱ einȱ Schilfrohrȱ inȱ derȱ Rechten. DiesesȱseiȱunnützȱundȱohneȱKraftȱundȱdieȱWunden,ȱdieȱesȱschlage,ȱseienȱvergiftet. Leonardoȱverweistȱdarauf,ȱdassȱSchilfrohrȱinȱderȱToskanaȱinȱBettenȱmitȱverarbeitet 159

160 161 162

OxfordȱA.ȱ29ȱrecto;ȱTextȱinȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ1,ȱNr.ȱ676,ȱ385ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdazuȱauchȱMöller, “Salai,”ȱ145–46ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ144–46ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40);ȱCarmenȱC.ȱBambach, “LeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱ54.ȱTwoȱAllegoriesȱofȱEnvyȱ(recto).ȱTwoȱAllegoriesȱ(verso),”ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci: MasterȱDraftsman,ȱHrsg.ȱdies.,ȱAlessandroȱCecchiȱetȱal.ȱ(NewȱHaven,ȱLondon:ȱYaleȱUniversity Press,ȱ2003),ȱ400–03;ȱhierȱistȱauchȱweitereȱLiteraturȱzuȱderȱZeichnungȱgelistet. Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ146ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). MöllerȱsiehtȱdarinȱdenȱSchmutzȱdesȱLasters;ȱibid. CodexȱTrivulzianus,ȱ53ȱverso;ȱvgl.ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ146.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

595

werdeȱ undȱ hierȱ dafürȱ stehe,ȱ dassȱ esȱ derȱ Ortȱ desȱ Bettesȱ sei,ȱ woȱ eitleȱ undȱ leere TräumeȱentstündenȱundȱeinȱgroßerȱTeilȱdesȱLebensȱaufgebrauchtȱundȱkostbare Zeitȱverschwendetȱwerde.ȱAmȱmorgenȱwennȱderȱGeistȱruhigȱundȱerholtȱundȱder KörperȱbeiȱguterȱKonditionȱsei,ȱumȱeineȱneueȱArbeitȱzuȱbeginnen,ȱwürdenȱdort vieleȱleereȱVergnügenȱstattfinden:ȱderȱGeistȱwürdeȱunmöglicheȱDingeȱerdenken undȱderȱKörperȱsolchenȱVergnügungenȱfrönen,ȱdieȱoftȱUrsacheȱfürȱeinȱverfehltes Lebensȱseien. Möllerȱ liestȱ Zeichnungȱ undȱ Textȱ alsȱ einenȱ “Seitenblickȱ aufȱ den vergnügungssüchtigen,ȱ Geldȱ erjagendenȱ Salai.”ȱ Derȱ Jüngling,ȱ ilȱ piacere,ȱ sieht lächelndȱaufȱeinȱschwankendesȱSchilfrohrȱdemȱVergnügenȱentgegen,ȱhinterrücks verstreueȱerȱdasȱGeld,ȱwelchesȱdiesesȱkoste.ȱDerȱältereȱMannȱistȱverhärmtȱund halteȱdasȱPfennigkraut,ȱnachȱMöllerȱ“SinnbildȱdesȱteuerȱerkauftenȱVergnügens, dasȱ nachȱ demȱ Genusseȱ zuȱ nichtsȱ zerrinne”ȱ undȱ welchesȱ derȱ Alteȱ enttäuscht ansehe.ȱDanebenȱerkenntȱMöllerȱeinȱGinsterreisȱ“alsoȱeineȱRute,ȱdieȱsichȱdieȱLust selbstȱzurȱStrafeȱbindet.”ȱDieȱtriboliȱseienȱeineȱVerbildlichungȱderȱangedrohten tribolatione,ȱdieȱnachȱderȱLustȱfolgt.163ȱGemäßȱderȱKompositionȱderȱArmeȱundȱihrer AttributeȱkannȱzudemȱdieȱfolgendeȱLesartȱergänztȱwerden:ȱdasȱSchilfrohrȱlinks, LeonardosȱAusführungenȱnachȱSinnbildȱfürȱdieȱvergänglichenȱFreudenȱdesȱBettes, inȱdemȱesȱverarbeitetȱist,ȱwirdȱvonȱpiacereȱangeboten.ȱDieȱFolgeȱistȱalsȱStrafeȱin Formȱ derȱ triboli,ȱ dieȱ dispiacereȱ hält,ȱ dargestellt.ȱ Aufȱ derȱ rechtenȱ Seiteȱ erhält dispiacereȱdieȱangeboteneȱGabe,ȱdasȱVergnügen,ȱhierȱaberȱmitȱderȱKonnotationȱdes Pfennigkrautes,ȱ esȱ seiȱ teuerȱ erkauftȱ undȱ ‘stinke’ȱ (AckerȬHellerkrautȱ hatȱ einen widrigenȱGeruch).ȱDafürȱerhältȱpiacereȱGoldstücke.ȱ Werdenȱ dieȱ Attributeȱ diagonalȱ gelesen,ȱ bietetȱ piacereȱ dieȱ Vergnügungenȱ des BettesȱundȱwirdȱdurchȱGoldȱentlohnt,ȱdispiacereȱerhältȱdieseȱFreudenȱinȱFormȱdes schnöden,ȱwidrigȱriechendenȱPfennigkrautesȱundȱzudemȱnochȱStrafenȱdurchȱdie triboli.ȱDerȱanbietendeȱpiacereȱträgtȱdieȱZügeȱdesȱSalaìtyps,ȱdieȱPhysiognomieȱdes älterenȱ Mannesȱ (eingefalleneȱ Gesichtszüge,ȱ prägnanteȱ Nase,ȱ ‘hängende’ Augenpartie),ȱsowieȱseineȱwildeȱHaarȬȱundȱBarttrachtȱerinnernȱauffälligȱanȱdieȱdes AristotelesȱinȱderȱMitteȱbisȱEndeȱderȱsiebzigerȱJahreȱdesȱ15.ȱJahrhundertsȱdatierten Zeichnungȱ Aristotelesȱ undȱ Phyllis,ȱ dieȱ sichȱ heuteȱ inȱ derȱ Hamburgerȱ Kunsthalle befindet.164ȱ Ebensoȱ stelltȱ dieȱ Beschriftungȱ Piacereȱ eȱ dispiacereȱ einenȱ expliziten inhaltlichenȱZusammenhangȱzuȱdenȱNotizenȱaufȱderȱRückseiteȱdesȱkleinenȱBlattes 163 164

Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ145–46;ȱhier:ȱ146ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). VonȱWilhelmȱR.ȱValentinerȱaufȱ1478ȱdatiert;ȱWilhelmȱR.ȱValentiner,ȱ“LeonardoȱasȱVerrocchio’s Coworker,”ȱArtȱBulletinȱ12ȱ(1930):ȱ43–89;ȱhierȱ74–87;ȱzurȱDatierungȱvgl.ȱauch:ȱCarmenȱC.ȱBambach, “LeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱ25.ȱPhyllisȱ(orȱCampaspe)ȱRidingȱAristotleȱ(recto),”ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱMaster draftsman,ȱ312ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ159);ȱVonȱLeonardoȱbisȱPiranesi:ȱItalienischeȱZeichnungenȱvonȱ1450ȱbisȱ1800 ausȱdemȱKupferstichkabinettȱderȱHamburgerȱKunsthalle,ȱHrsg.ȱHubertusȱGaßner,ȱDavidȱKlemmȱund AndreasȱStolzenburgȱ(Hamburg:ȱHamburgerȱKunsthalle,ȱ2008),ȱ22.ȱDieȱZeichnungȱwurdeȱbereits imȱ19.ȱJahrhundertȱLeonardoȱzugeschriebenȱundȱistȱseitdemȱinȱihrerȱEchtheitȱnichtȱbezweifelt wordenȱ(vgl.ȱibid.).ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱ23.

596

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

her.165ȱGenauȱdort,ȱwoȱsichȱaufȱrectoȱdieȱFigurengruppeȱbefindet,ȱschriebȱLeonardo dieȱNotizen: co[m]pagnje voluptaȱ.ȱdispiacere amoreȱ.ȱgielosia felicitaȱ.ȱI[n]vidia fortunaȱ.ȱpenjte[n]za sospetto

ȱ

[Gesellschaften/ȱUmgänge Wollustȱ.ȱMißfallen Liebeȱ.ȱEifersucht Freudeȱ.ȱNeid Glückȱ.ȱBuße Verdacht].166

WährendȱdasȱaufȱderȱZeichnungȱdargestellteȱThemaȱeinȱimȱMittelalterȱbeliebtes ‘heterosexuelles’ȱ‘VerkehrteȬWelt’ȬMotiv167ȱaufgreiftȱundȱinȱdiesemȱKontextȱinȱder Forschungȱ bislangȱ auchȱ gedeutetȱ wurde,ȱ kannȱ dieȱ Zeichnungȱ auchȱ als AuseinandersetzungȱLeonardosȱmitȱseinerȱ(‘Homo’Ȭ)Sexualitätȱgelesenȱwerden.168 LeonardosȱAllegorieȱvonȱpiacereȱundȱdispiacereȱkönnte—wieȱMöllerȱvorschlägt—als ErmahnungȱSalaìsȱgelesenȱwerden,ȱdannȱistȱjedochȱfraglich,ȱwarumȱerȱnichtȱpiacere, sondernȱdispiacereȱfrontalȱabbildet.ȱDerȱSchwerpunktȱliegtȱalsoȱeindeutigȱaufȱden

165

166 167

168

BereitsȱMöllerȱwiesȱaufȱeinenȱZusammenhangȱzwischenȱdenȱBeschriftungenȱhin;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,” 145ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). ZitiertȱnachLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱMasterdraftsman,ȱ312ȱ(wieȱAnm.ȱ159);ȱdt.—Marotzki. DenȱToposȱderȱ‘VerkehrtenȱWelt’ȱvariiertȱLeonardoȱinȱdiesemȱZusammenhang.ȱDasȱThemaȱder LiebeȱvonȱAltenȱzuȱJungen,ȱwelchesȱnebenȱdemȱ‘aufȱdenȱKopfȱgestellten’ȱGeschlechterverhältnis auchȱinȱdemȱ‘AristotelesȱundȱPhyllis’ȬMotivȱthematisiertȱwird,ȱistȱschonȱinȱeinerȱZeichnung,ȱdie durchȱzweiȱKopienȱvonȱHufnagelȱundȱHollorȱbekanntȱist,ȱzuȱfindenȱ(Abb.ȱz.B.ȱJacobȱHufnagel ZeichnungȱKopieȱnachȱLeonardosȱAlteȱundȱbuhlenderȱJünglingȱinȱderȱAlbertinaȱinȱWien,ȱin:ȱMöller, “Salai,”ȱAbb.ȱ214ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ2]).ȱHierȱwirdȱinȱumgekehrterȱWeise,ȱdieȱLiebeȱalterȱ(häßlicher) Frauenȱzuȱjungenȱ(schönen)ȱMännernȱdargestellt;ȱzumȱToposȱderȱLiebeȱzwischenȱaltȱundȱjung RaimondȱvanȱMarle,ȱIconographieȱdeȱl’ArtȱProfaneȱauȱMoyenȬAgeȱetȱàȱlaȱRenaissance,ȱ2:ȱAllégoriesȱet Symbolesȱ(NewȱYork:ȱHackerȱArtȱBooks,ȱ1971)ȱ476–79.ȱMöllerȱerkenntȱinȱdemȱJünglingȱwieder SalaìȱundȱinterpretiertȱdieȱZeichnungȱalsȱVorwurfȱLeonardosȱanȱSalaìsȱLebenswandel:ȱ“Alsȱich 1921ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱdiesesȱBlattȱsah,ȱwarȱichȱgeradezuȱerschüttertȱvonȱderȱAnklage,ȱdieȱnachȱmeinem Empfindenȱ Leonardoȱ durchȱ dieseȱ Darstellungȱ gegenȱ seinenȱ Schülerȱ erhebt!ȱ Dessenȱ Geldgier schrecktȱnichtȱeinmalȱdavorȱzurück,ȱbeiȱeinemȱaltenȱWeibeȱdenȱVerliebtenȱzuȱspielen,ȱumȱsichȱin denȱBesitzȱihresȱGeldesȱzuȱsetzen!”;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ151–55;ȱhierȱ152ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). SieheȱauchȱzumȱZusammenhangȱzwischenȱdenȱbeidenȱZeichnungenȱundȱdemȱRectoȱdesȱBlattes OxfordȱA.ȱ29ȱ(hierȱistȱauchȱnochȱeinmalȱdieselbeȱJünglingsphysiognomieȱzuȱfinden):ȱMarotzki, “Volupta,”ȱausführlicherȱin:ȱMiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki:ȱ»Siȱpingeȱcolȱcervello,ȱnonȱcollaȱmano«: Stilisierungenȱ alsȱ antikeȱ Philosophen.ȱ Beiträgeȱ zurȱ Figurȱ desȱ pictorȱ doctusȱ undȱ ȱ der GeschlechtergeschichteȱderȱitalienischenȱRenaissanceȱ[Dissertation,ȱinȱVorbereitung].ȱȱ

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

597

FolgenȱundȱStrafen,ȱdieȱdasȱTreibenȱdesȱJünglingsȱmitȱsichȱbringtȱundȱdem,ȱderȱsie erleidenȱmuss. WieȱdieseȱBeispieleȱzeigen,ȱlassenȱsichȱdieȱKontexte,ȱinȱdieȱdieȱProfilzeichnungen eingepasstȱsind,ȱdurchausȱalsȱKommentarȱLeonardosȱzuȱdemȱKnabenȱlesen.ȱAn dieserȱ Stelleȱ seiȱ nochȱ einmalȱ aufȱ dieȱ weiterȱ obenȱ geäußerteȱ These,ȱ das geschlechtsloseȱ Knabenprofilȱ z.B.ȱ vonȱ derȱ Zeichnungȱ 12276ȱ versoȱ derȱ Royal LibraryȱhabeȱsichȱunterȱdemȱEinflussȱdesȱTypusȱderȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱderȱRoyal Libraryȱverändert,ȱeingegangen.ȱDazuȱbetrachteȱichȱvergleichendȱdasȱProfilȱder Zeichnungȱ19093ȱderȱRoyalȱLibrary.ȱEsȱistȱzuȱerkennen,ȱdassȱdieȱNaseȱderȱspäten Zeichnungȱprägnanterȱausfällt,ȱsieȱistȱetwasȱlängerȱundȱderȱNasenrückenȱgeht direktȱinȱdieȱhoheȱundȱgeradeȱStirnȱüber,ȱwährendȱdieȱProfillinieȱinȱderȱfrühen ZeichnungȱaufȱHöheȱderȱAugenȱkonkavȱverläuftȱundȱsoȱNasenȬȱundȱStirnpartie deutlichȱvonȱeinanderȱsepariert.ȱAuchȱkannȱaufȱderȱspätenȱZeichnungȱderȱAnsatz einesȱDoppelkinnsȱerkanntȱwerden.ȱBeideȱMerkmaleȱlassenȱsichȱauchȱinȱdemȱProfil derȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱfinden.ȱSoȱwerdenȱMerkmale,ȱdieȱerstmals inȱ derȱ Zeichnungȱ 12557ȱ derȱ Royalȱ Libraryȱ auftauchen,ȱ inȱ denȱ üblichen Jünglingstypusȱ Leonardosȱ integriertȱ undȱ verändernȱ ihnȱ minimal.ȱ Diese BeobachtungȱstütztȱdieȱzuvorȱformulierteȱÜberlegung:ȱLeonardoȱzeigteȱsichȱaffin gegenüberȱ einemȱ bestimmtenȱ Typȱ adoleszenter,ȱ androgynerȱ Schönheit,ȱ der ikonographischȱimȱFlorenzȱdesȱ15.ȱJahrhundertsȱdurchausȱgeläufigȱwarȱundȱden erȱimmerȱwiederȱzeichnete.ȱKonformȱmitȱderȱbisherigenȱForschung,ȱdieȱdavon ausgeht,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdemȱProfilȱaufȱderȱZeichnungȱ12557ȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱum eineȱDarstellungȱSalaìsȱhandelt,ȱkönnenȱwirȱzuȱdemȱSchlussȱgelangen,ȱdassȱ er diesemȱzuvorȱgezeichnetenȱIdealȱoptischȱsehrȱnaheȱkam.ȱSpäterȱistȱdieȱDarstellung desȱ‘idealenȱJünglings’ȱdannȱumȱseineȱ‘Merkmale’ȱ‘angereichert.’ȱLediglichȱseine Frisurȱ wirdȱ ‘aussortiert’;ȱ hierȱ behältȱ Leonardoȱ dieȱ bisherigeȱ Darstellungȱ eines längerenȱSchopfesȱbei.169ȱDasȱSchemaȱdesȱSalaìtypsȱistȱauchȱinȱWerkenȱwieȱder MonaȱLisaȱundȱJohannesȱdemȱTäuferȱzuȱfinden.ȱAufȱdiesenȱZusammenhangȱgeheȱich jedochȱanȱspätererȱStelleȱein. InȱseinemȱTestamentȱbedachteȱLeonardoȱSalaìȱletztendlichȱrechtȱpragmatisch undȱ emotionslosȱ mitȱ derȱ Hälfteȱ seinesȱ Weinbergesȱ “fürȱ dieȱ vielenȱ treuenȱ und wertvollenȱDienste.”ȱUnklarȱist,ȱwieȱSalaìȱinȱdenȱBesitzȱderȱGemäldeȱLeonardos gekommenȱ ist,ȱ dieȱ inȱ seinemȱ Inventarȱ aufgelistetȱ sind.170ȱ Imȱ Testamentȱ des KünstlersȱfindenȱsieȱkeineȱErwähnung.ȱJaniceȱShellȱundȱGraziosoȱSironiȱvermuten, dassȱLeonardoȱSalaìȱdieȱGemäldeȱbereitsȱvorȱseinemȱTodȱpersönlichȱvermacht hatte. Eineȱ ganzȱ andereȱ Wertschätzungȱ kannȱ ausȱ derȱ ‘Erbmasse’ȱ Francescoȱ Melzis abgeleitetȱ werden.ȱ Erȱ wurdeȱ nichtȱ nurȱ monetärȱ durchȱ dieȱ verbleibendeȱ Rente 169

170

Vgl.ȱdazuȱMöllersȱbereitsȱzuvorȱzitierteȱBeobachtung,ȱdassȱderȱSalaìtypȱdieȱJünglingsgestalten Leonardosȱseitȱdenȱ1490erȱJahrenȱbeeinflusste;ȱMöller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). GelistetȱinȱAnm.ȱ17.

598

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

bedachtȱ undȱ somitȱ vomȱ Meisterȱ wohlwollendȱ versorgt,ȱ sondernȱ erbteȱ die ZeichnungenȱdesȱMalers,ȱseineȱManuskripte,ȱBücher,ȱseineȱWerkstattausstattung undȱMaterialien—umȱesȱzusammenzufassen,ȱalles,ȱwasȱLeonardoȱliebȱundȱteuer gewesenȱseinȱmuss,ȱworanȱalsoȱseinȱHerzȱgehangenȱhabenȱmag.ȱNichtȱbeiȱSalaì, sondernȱbeiȱMelziȱsahȱLeonardoȱseinȱintellektuellesȱundȱkünstlerischesȱErbeȱgut bewahrt.ȱDassȱerȱdieȱWerkstattausstattungȱundȱdieȱMaterialienȱerbte,ȱverrät,ȱdass Leonardoȱwohlȱdavonȱausging,ȱMelziȱwerdeȱweiterȱalsȱMalerȱtätigȱseinȱundȱdiese somitȱgutȱgebrauchenȱkönnen,ȱaberȱauch,ȱdassȱerȱseineȱkünstlerischenȱFähigkeiten schätzteȱundȱihmȱdasȱgrößteȱTalentȱinȱderȱGruppeȱseinerȱSchülerȱzusprach.ȱWie dieȱFunktionȱalsȱvonȱLeonardoȱeingesetzterȱTestamentsvollstreckerȱzeigt,ȱgenoss derȱjungeȱGrafȱoffenbarȱdasȱvollsteȱVertrauenȱdesȱKünstlers.ȱ MelzisȱintellektuelleȱundȱkünstlerischeȱBefähigungenȱwarenȱoffenbarȱAusschlag gebendȱ fürȱ Leonardosȱ Wertschätzung.ȱ Wenngleichȱ Vasariȱ auchȱ vonȱ Melzi berichtet,ȱ dassȱ erȱ sehrȱ gutȱ ausgesehenȱ habe,ȱ schienȱ seineȱ ‘Form’ȱ nichtȱ inȱ dem gleichenȱMaßeȱwieȱdieȱSalaìsȱfürȱdenȱMeisterȱrelevantȱgewesenȱzuȱsein,ȱsoȱdassȱer sieȱ darstellte—soȱ istȱ dochȱ inȱ derȱ Forschungȱ soȱ gutȱ wieȱ nieȱ dieȱ Redeȱ von PorträtdarstellungenȱMelzis.171 JedochȱsindȱzweiȱdirektȱanȱMelziȱgerichteteȱBriefeȱLeonardosȱerhalten.ȱDerȱerste vonȱ1408ȱsprichtȱvonȱeinerȱneckischenȱLeichtigkeitȱdesȱVerhältnisses.ȱDerȱTonȱist persönlichȱundȱherzlich.ȱDenȱVorwurf,ȱtrotzȱvielerȱBriefeȱnieȱeineȱAntwortȱvon demȱKnabenȱerhaltenȱzuȱhaben,ȱträgtȱLeonardoȱschelmischȱvor.ȱZwischenȱden Zeilenȱ istȱ jedochȱ auchȱ herauslesbar,ȱ dassȱ Leonardoȱ aufȱ Grundȱ derȱ fehlenden Antwortenȱetwasȱverletztȱgewesenȱseinȱkönnte.ȱInȱdemȱzweitenȱSchreibenȱvon etwaȱ 1510–1511ȱ bittetȱ erȱ denȱ jungenȱ Grafen,ȱ derȱ offenbarȱ vorȱ Ortȱ war,ȱ ihn bezüglichȱlaufenderȱKanalarbeitenȱzuȱinformierenȱundȱdieȱVerantwortlichenȱzu drängen,ȱLeonardoȱmitȱweiterenȱInformationenȱzuȱversorgen.ȱDiesesȱsolleȱerȱfür LeonardoȱausȱdemȱGrundȱ“perȱmioȱamoreȱ(mirȱzuliebe)”172ȱtun.ȱDieseȱPassageȱwie auchȱdieȱAnredeȱ“Caroȱmio,ȱmesserȱFrancescoȱ(MeinȱlieberȱMesserȱFrancesco)”173 zeugenȱvonȱeinemȱherzlichen,ȱwennȱauchȱrespektvollenȱVerhältnis—soȱspricht LeonardoȱMelziȱaufȱGrundȱseinerȱadeligenȱHerkunftȱstetsȱmitȱ“Messer”ȱan.174 171

172

173 174

Eineȱ Ausnahmeȱ stelltȱ dieȱ offenbarȱ vonȱ Johannȱ Davidȱ Passavantȱ übernommeneȱ Vermutung SchornsȱundȱFörsters,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdemȱPorträtȱeinesȱjungenȱMannesȱmitȱlockigemȱHaarȱund schwarzerȱMützeȱ(Tafelȱ4)ȱinȱeinerȱvonȱSerliȱherausgegebenenȱSammlungȱnachȱZeichnungen Leonardosȱ umȱ Melziȱ handelt,ȱ dar;ȱ vgl.ȱ Vasari/Kliemann,ȱ 3,1,ȱ 27ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 13).ȱ Auchȱ Roy McMullenȱbildetȱinȱseinerȱPublikationȱMonaȱLisa:ȱTheȱPictureȱandȱtheȱMythȱdasȱPorträtȱeinesȱjungen MannesȱvonȱGiovanȱAntonioȱBoltraffio,ȱheuteȱinȱderȱPinacotecaȱAmbrosiana,ȱab,ȱdasȱerȱalsȱBildnis Melzisȱausgibtȱ(soȱdatiertȱMcMullenȱdasȱBildnisȱpassendȱzumȱAlterȱMelzisȱaufȱetwaȱ1510,ȱSuida hingegenȱaufȱetwaȱ1496–98;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ191ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ13]).ȱEineȱBegründungȱfürȱseine IdentifikationȱliefertȱMcȱMullenȱhingegenȱnicht;ȱMcMullen,ȱMonaȱLisa,ȱAbb.ȱ5ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ7).ȱ C.ȱA.ȱ372ȱversoȱa;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1350,ȱ335ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ889 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). Ibid.;ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ888ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). C.ȱA.ȱ372ȱversoȱa.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

599

Dieȱ Einschätzungȱ Hugoȱ Grafȱ vonȱ Gallenbergs,ȱ dassȱ Salaìȱ “nichtȱ alleinȱ der Regelmäßigkeitȱ seinerȱ schönenȱ Gesichtsbildungȱ undȱ desȱ Körperbaus,ȱ sondern auchȱ seinerȱ Seelengüteȱ undȱ Talenteȱ wegenȱ sichȱ derȱ Liebeȱ seinesȱ Lehrers erfreute”175ȱkannȱsomitȱnichtȱgeteiltȱwerdenȱundȱlegtȱnahe,ȱdassȱGallenbergȱdie zahlreichenȱTagebucheinträgeȱLeonardosȱüberȱdieȱDiebstähleȱundȱStreicheȱSalaìs offensichtlichȱ nichtȱ zurȱ Kenntnisȱ genommenȱ hat.ȱ Weiterhinȱ schienȱ das künstlerischeȱTalentȱdesȱKnabenȱnichtȱsehrȱausgeprägtȱwieȱdieȱUntersuchungen zuȱseinerȱ‘Funktion’ȱzeigenȱundȱfürȱLeonardoȱauchȱnichtȱrelevant—erwähntȱerȱes dochȱnichtȱeinȱeinzigesȱMal.ȱGeradeȱgegenteiligȱsindȱesȱandereȱThemenfelder,ȱdie imȱ Mittelpunktȱ seinesȱ Interessesȱ stehen.ȱ Seineȱ genaueȱ Dokumentationȱ der EntgleisungenȱSalaìsȱgehtȱüberȱeinenȱkonstatierendenȱCharakterȱhinausȱundȱzeigt eineȱgewisseȱFaszination.ȱEbensoȱzeigenȱdieȱfestgehaltenenȱEinzelheitenȱüberȱdie KleidungȱundȱdieȱdamitȱverbundenenȱAusgabenȱeinȱInteresseȱanȱdenȱEitelkeiten desȱ Knaben,ȱ alsoȱ sowohlȱ anȱ seinerȱ Vorliebeȱ fürȱ Modeȱ wieȱ auchȱ anȱ seinem Äußeren.ȱ DieȱeigenenȱAusgabenȱfürȱSalaìȱscheinenȱLeonardoȱsehrȱwichtig,ȱwieȱalsȱwolle erȱdamitȱbelegen,ȱdassȱerȱauchȱAnspruchȱaufȱeineȱentsprechendeȱGegenleistung fürȱdieseȱhabe.ȱDieseȱGedankenȱzeigenȱsichȱauchȱinȱseinenȱZeichnungen,ȱinȱdiesem FallȱinȱbesonderemȱMaßȱinȱderȱPiacereȱeȱdispiacereȬZeichnung.ȱInȱdieserȱformuliert erȱeinenȱAnspruch,ȱderȱausȱdemȱbereitsȱinvestiertenȱGeldȱentstündeȱundȱebenso wieȱerȱsichȱdiesenȱvorstelle—wohlȱalsȱsexuellesȱVergnügen.ȱDassȱsichȱdieseȱAllianz fürȱ Leonardoȱ wahrscheinlichȱ eherȱ enttäuschendȱ gestaltete,ȱ zeigtȱ nichtȱ nurȱ die unmittelbareȱ Verknüpfungȱ desȱ piacereȱ mitȱ demȱ dispiacere,ȱ sondernȱ auchȱ seine zunehmendeȱEnerviertheitȱbezüglichȱdesȱThemasȱ‘SalaìȱundȱGeld.’ȱNichtȱnur,ȱdass Salaìȱ diesesȱ inȱ seinerȱ Jugendȱ gernȱ stahl,ȱ auchȱ scheinenȱ dieȱ Ausgabenȱ fürȱ ihn Leonardoȱzunehmendȱzuȱverstimmen.ȱWieȱdenȱlateinischenȱSentenzenȱüberȱdas Verleihenȱ vonȱ Geldȱ zuȱ entnehmenȱ ist,ȱ beteiligteȱ erȱ sichȱ lediglichȱ anȱ dessen Geldgeschäften,ȱdaȱerȱAngstȱhatte,ȱdenȱFreundȱansonstenȱzuȱverlieren.ȱDiesesȱmag auchȱderȱGrundȱsein,ȱwarumȱerȱihn—trotzȱseinerȱUnzuverlässigkeit—vonȱZeitȱzu ZeitȱseineȱeigenenȱGeldgeschäfteȱanvertraute.ȱ Dasȱ Einnehmenȱ derȱ MutterȬȱ oderȱ Ammenrolleȱ undȱ derȱ damitȱ verbundene WechselȱderȱGeschlechterȱeröffnetȱdasȱweiteȱFeldȱderȱAndrogynitätȱbeiȱLeonardo, undȱ damitȱ verbundenȱ auchȱ dieȱ Debatteȱ umȱ seineȱ (HomoȬ)Sexualität.ȱ Möller distanziertȱ Leonardosȱ Beziehungȱ zuȱ Salaìȱ undȱ Melziȱ vonȱ Michelangelos “leidenschaftlicherȱ Verehrungȱ gewisserȱ schönerȱ Jünglinge.”176ȱ “Heikle[.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ] Themen”ȱ behandleȱ erȱ mitȱ Humorȱ undȱ esȱ gebeȱ keinenȱ Hinweisȱ aufȱ sinnliche Neigungenȱ undȱ Leidenschaftenȱ und—wieȱ Möllerȱ sichȱ verhaltenȱ ausdrückt— “leichteȱ Lebensauffassung.”177ȱ Alsȱ Belegȱ dafürȱ zitiertȱ erȱ eineȱ Stelleȱ ausȱ dem 175 176 177

Gallenberg,ȱLeonardo,ȱ236ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ15). Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Ibid.,ȱ157.

600

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

NotizbuchȱH3,ȱFoglioȱ119ȱrectoȱ“Chiȱn—ȱo—ȱȱrafrenaȱlaȱuoluttàȱȉ,ȱcolleȱbestieȱs’ac— o—ȱ pagni;ȱ /ȱ N—o—ȱ siȱ puòȱ avereȱ maggiorȱ nèȱ minorȱ signioriaȱ cheȱ quellaȱ diȱ sé medesimoȱ (Werȱ dieȱ Wollustȱ nichtȱ zügelt,ȱ derȱ kommtȱ denȱ Tierenȱ gleich.ȱ /ȱ Du kannstȱkeineȱgrößereȱoderȱgeringereȱHerrschaftȱhaben,ȱalsȱduȱüberȱdichȱselbst hast).”178ȱ undȱ vonȱ Blattȱ 358ȱ versoȱ desȱ Codiceȱ Atlanticoȱ “Laȱ passioneȱ dellȇanimo cacciaȱviaȱlaȱlussuriaȱ(DieȱLeidenschaftȱdesȱGeistesȱtreibtȱdieȱSinnenlustȱaus).”179 DerȱVorwurfȱderȱ‘männlichen’ȱMutterȱundȱderȱKontext,ȱderȱdurchȱdieseȱRolle evoziertȱ wird,ȱ verweistȱ wohlȱ dochȱ eherȱ wiederȱ aufȱ eineȱ Interpretation gleichgeschlechtlichen,ȱamourösenȱInteressesȱanȱdemȱKnabenȱalsȱaufȱeinȱVaterȬ SohnȬVerhältnis.ȱMöllerȱbegründeteȱdenȱUmstand,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱdenȱKnaben trotzȱschlechterȱVeranlagungȱundȱwenigȱkünstlerischemȱTalentȱbeiȱsichȱbehielt,ȱmit seinerȱ Affinitätȱ zuȱ Schönheitȱ undȱ einemȱ besonderenȱ Faibleȱ fürȱ schönesȱ Haar. Zudemȱ seiȱ erȱ einfachȱ zuȱ gutmütigȱ gewesenȱ undȱ hätteȱ sichȱ fürȱ denȱ Knaben verantwortlichȱ gefühlt.180ȱ Shellȱ vermutet,ȱ dassȱ erȱ denȱ Jungen,ȱ derȱ wohlȱ auch einigenȱCharmeȱbesessenȱhabenȱmuss,ȱmochteȱundȱwohlȱaufȱBesserungȱhoffte.ȱEr sei—außerȱdassȱLeonardoȱsichȱanȱseinemȱhübschenȱÄußerenȱerfreute,ȱwelchesȱer durchȱteureȱundȱausgefalleneȱKleidungȱherausputzte—aberȱauchȱLehrling,ȱModell undȱGehilfeȱgewesen.181ȱLeonardosȱZeichnungenȱundȱdieȱinhaltlicheȱDimension, dieȱderȱvonȱihmȱvergebeneȱSpitznameȱ‘Salaì’ȱimpliziert,ȱverweisenȱaufȱseinȱgroßes Interesse,ȱseineȱFaszinationȱnichtȱnurȱanȱdemȱÄußeren,ȱderȱ‘Form’ȱdesȱKnaben, sondernȱgeradeȱanȱdemȱWiderspruch,ȱderȱAmbivalenzȱzwischenȱschönerȱForm undȱschlechtemȱCharakter,ȱdieȱderȱFigurȱdesȱKnabenȱinnewohnten.ȱ GanzȱandereȱThemenȱbestimmenȱdasȱVerhältnisȱzuȱFrancescoȱMelzi.ȱWieȱdie Testamentsverfügungenȱ belegenȱ siehtȱ Leonardoȱ inȱ ihmȱ denȱ geeigneten Kandidaten,ȱ seinȱ künstlerischesȱ undȱ intellektuellesȱ Erbeȱ anzutreten.ȱ Auchȱ die ÜbertragungȱdesȱVollzugsȱdesȱTestamentsȱzeugtȱvonȱvollemȱVertrauenȱinȱden jungenȱGrafen.ȱDieȱBriefeȱbezeugenȱeinenȱpersönlichenȱundȱherzlichen,ȱaberȱauch respektvollenȱUmgang.ȱ‘BöseȱWorte’ȱsindȱüberȱFrancescoȱMelziȱnichtȱinȱLeonardos Aufzeichnungenȱzuȱfinden.ȱEineȱBeziehungȱzwischenȱzweiȱPersonenȱkannȱjedoch immerȱausȱmindestensȱdreiȱBlickwinkelnȱbetrachtetȱwerden:ȱdieȱPerspektivenȱder beidenȱinȱKontaktȱstehendenȱPersonenȱstellenȱzweiȱPositionenȱdar,ȱwährendȱeine weitereȱ(undȱdieseȱPositionȱkannȱgegebenenfallsȱauchȱnochȱmehrfachȱunterteilt sein)ȱ durchȱ dieȱ Ansichtenȱ Dritterȱ aufȱ dieseȱ Beziehungȱ markiertȱ ist.ȱ Mitȱ einem erneutenȱPerspektivenwechselȱbetrachteȱichȱnunȱdieȱalsȱ‘Freundschaften’ȱinȱFrage kommendenȱBeziehungenȱzuȱSalaìȱundȱMelziȱausȱihremȱBlickwinkel.ȱDazuȱwerte 178

179

180 181

H3ȱ119ȱrecto;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1192,ȱ247ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12);ȱdt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ25ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ35). C.ȱA.ȱ358ȱversoȱa;ȱScrittiȱletterari,ȱHrsg.ȱAugustoȱMarinoniȱ(Mailand:ȱRizzoliȱ2001),ȱNr.ȱ93,ȱ74; dt.ȱLücke,ȱLeonardo,ȱ23ȱȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ35). Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ398ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

601

ichȱInformationenȱausȱihrenȱBiographien,ȱschriftlichenȱDokumentenȱsowieȱden künstlerischenȱundȱimȱFalleȱMelzisȱauchȱdenȱwissenschaftlichenȱWerkenȱaus.ȱDie SichtȱDritterȱaufȱdieseȱBeziehungenȱberücksichtigeȱichȱdabeiȱebenso. Francescoȱ Melziȱ warȱ etwaȱ 17ȱ Jahreȱ altȱ alsȱ erȱ Leonardoȱ kennenȱ lernte.ȱ 1513 verließȱerȱseinenȱFamiliensitzȱinȱVaprioȱd’AddaȱundȱbegleiteteȱLeonardoȱnach Rom.ȱ Seitdemȱ verließȱ er—wieȱ sichȱ ausȱ denȱ Quellenȱ rekonstruierenȱ lässt—den MeisterȱbisȱzuȱdessenȱTodȱamȱ2.ȱMaiȱ1519ȱinȱClouxȱnichtȱmehr.ȱInȱFrankreichȱblieb er—gemäßȱdenȱAufzeichnungenȱdeȱVilanisȱvomȱ10.ȱAugustȱ1519—nochȱeinigeȱZeit inȱdenȱDienstenȱdesȱfranzösischenȱKönigs,ȱbevorȱerȱnachȱMailandȱzurückkehrte. NochȱinȱFrankreichȱerhieltȱerȱ1520ȱdasȱPrivilegȱdesȱFamiliarisȱundȱGentilomoȱdi Cameraȱ Königȱ Franzȱ I.182ȱ 1523ȱ versuchteȱ derȱ Ferraresischeȱ Geschäftsträgerȱ in MailandȱMelziȱfürȱdieȱDiensteȱbeiȱAlfonsoȱd’Esteȱzuȱgewinnen.ȱErȱempfahlȱMelzi mitȱderȱBegründung,ȱdassȱdieserȱdieȱGeheimnisseȱLeonardosȱbesitzeȱundȱauchȱgut male.183ȱDerȱmaterielleȱ ErbeȱLeonardosȱwurdeȱalsoȱauchȱalsȱseinȱgeistigerȱund künstlerischerȱ angesehenȱ undȱ schienȱ großesȱ Ansehenȱ zuȱ genießen.ȱ Nachȱ der RückkehrȱnachȱItalienȱscheintȱerȱaberȱnurȱnochȱvereinzeltȱalsȱMalerȱtätigȱgewesen zuȱsein.184ȱHierȱheirateteȱerȱAngiolaȱausȱderȱadeligenȱFamilieȱderȱLandriani,ȱmitȱder erȱachtȱKinderȱhatte.185ȱUmȱ1570ȱstarbȱerȱinȱVaprioȱd’Adda. Inȱeinemȱaufȱdenȱ01.ȱJuniȱ1519ȱdatiertenȱBriefȱbestätigtȱMelziȱdenȱHalbbrüdern LeonardosȱdessenȱTod.ȱInȱdiesemȱDokumentȱschildertȱerȱseineȱGefühleȱüberȱden Todȱ seinesȱ Meisters.ȱ Erȱ nenntȱ ihnȱ “mioȱ quantoȱ optimoȱ padreȱ (meinȱ achȱ so vortrefflicherȱVater),”186ȱüberȱdessenȱTodȱseinȱSchmerzȱsoȱgroßȱsei,ȱdassȱerȱihm keinenȱ Ausdruckȱ verleihenȱ könne.ȱ Folgerichtigȱ unterschreibtȱ Melziȱ auchȱ mit “[t]anquamȱ fratriȱ vestroȱ Franciscusȱ Mentiusȱ (Ihrȱ sozusagenȱ Neffeȱ Francesco Melzi).”187ȱFumagalliȱinterpretiertȱdiesesȱVerhältnis—genauȱwieȱdasȱzuȱSalaì—als VaterȬSohnȬBeziehung.188ȱImȱFolgendenȱbefrageȱichȱnunȱMelzisȱŒuvreȱaufȱweitere Anhaltspunkteȱ bezüglichȱ derȱ Beschaffenheitȱ desȱ Verhältnissesȱ zuȱ Leonardo. LomazzoȱundȱPaoloȱMorigiaȱbezeichnenȱMelziȱalsȱ“grandissimiȱminiatore,”ȱd.h. einenȱ Maler,ȱ derȱ seineȱ Arbeitȱ “feinȱ säuberlichȱ bisȱ inȱ dieȱ kleinstenȱ Details durchführt.”189ȱAuchȱMazzentaȱbescheinigteȱihmȱeineȱfeineȱAusführungȱseiner Gemäldeȱ undȱ eineȱ großeȱ stilistischeȱ Näheȱ zuȱ Leonardo.190ȱ Ersteȱ Versuche,ȱ ein 182

183 184 185 186

187 188 189 190

Vgl.ȱVollmachtȱvonȱBattistaȱdeȱVilanisȱanȱMelziȱvomȱ20.ȱAugustȱ1519;ȱvgl.ȱCalvi,ȱ“Storia” (sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ231ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Calviȱ“Storia”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). BeiȱGrafȱPasserini,ȱFlorenzȱ(abgeschriebenȱaus:)ȱRitrattiȱedȱElogiȱdiȱUominiȱillustriȱtoscani,ȱ2, Hrsg.ȱAntonȱGiuseppeȱPaganiȱ(Lucca:ȱPagani,ȱ1771);ȱBeltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr.ȱ245,ȱ155ȱ(siehe Anm.ȱ13). Ibid. Vgl.ȱFumagalli,ȱEros,ȱ94ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ40). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ231ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱS.ȱ15.

602

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Werkverzeichnisȱ Melzisȱ zuȱ erstellen,ȱ wurdenȱ bereitsȱ imȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhundert unternommen.191ȱ AufȱGrundȱeinerȱInschriftȱwirdȱihmȱdasȱGemäldeȱVertumnusȱundȱPomona,ȱheute inȱ derȱ Gemäldegalerieȱ derȱ Staatlichenȱ Museenȱ zuȱ Berlinȱ (Preußischer Kulturbesitz),ȱzugeschrieben.192ȱDieseȱbefindetȱsichȱaufȱdemȱFelsenȱinȱderȱNäheȱdes FußesȱdesȱVertumnusȱ(heuteȱsindȱnurȱnochȱdieȱgriechischenȱBuchstabenȱSȱund eventuellȱHȱzuȱerkennen).193ȱDieȱLandschaftȱmitȱdenȱhohenȱBergenȱundȱderȱBrücke imȱlinkenȱHintergrundȱderȱdargestelltenȱSzeneȱähnelnȱdemȱHintergrundȱaufȱder rechtenȱ Seiteȱ vonȱ Leonardosȱ Monaȱ Lisa,ȱ währendȱ dieȱ düstereȱ Farbgebungȱ mit LeonardosȱHeiligerȱAnnaȱSelbdrittȱimȱLouvreȱkorrespondiert.ȱSomitȱzeigtȱdieses GemäldeȱexpliziteȱAnleihenȱausȱdemȱWerkȱLeonardosȱvorȱ1513.ȱAufȱGrundȱgroßer stilistischerȱundȱkompositorischerȱÄhnlichkeitȱzuȱdiesemȱWerkȱschreibtȱPietroȱC. Maraniȱ auchȱ dasȱ Gemäldeȱ Nympheȱ imȱ Frühlingȱ (Nationalȱ Galleryȱ ofȱ Art, Washington,ȱDC)ȱMelziȱȱzu.194ȱ DieȱFloraȱ(auchȱColumbineȱgenannt)ȱinȱderȱStaatlichenȱEremitageȱinȱSt.ȱPetersburg giltȱseitȱEndeȱdesȱ19.ȱJahrhundertsȱalsȱWerkȱMelzisȱ(Abb.ȱ11).195ȱErstȱ1963ȱwurden amȱunterenȱlinkenȱRandȱSpurenȱderȱgriechischenȱInschriftȱMLEȱgefunden,ȱdie Mateyȱ A.ȱ Gukovskiȱ alsȱ Melzisȱ Signaturȱ identifizierteȱ undȱ somitȱ endlichȱ die Zuschreibungȱbestätigenȱkonnte.196ȱUmstrittenȱistȱhingegenȱdieȱZuschreibungȱeiner SacraȱFamigliaȱinȱderȱNemesȱSammlungȱinȱMünchen,ȱheuteȱinȱderȱNárodniȱGalerie inȱPrag.197ȱDesȱWeiterenȱführtȱSuidaȱeineȱunvollendeteȱMadonnaȱmitȱKindȱundȱLamm unterȱ“vielleichtȱvonȱMelzi”ȱauf.198ȱDieseȱwirdȱheuteȱeinemȱGiampietrinoȱnahe stehendenȱKünstlerȱzugeschrieben.199ȱWohlȱnichtȱwahrscheinlichȱistȱhingegenȱdie Zuschreibungȱ einerȱ Wandmalereiȱ inȱ Melzisȱ Villa,ȱ dieȱ eineȱ Madonnaȱ mitȱ Kind zeigt.200 Dasȱ zeichnerischeȱ Gesamtwerkȱ Melzisȱ umfasstȱ dieȱ Rötelzeichnungȱ eines Frauenkopfes201ȱundȱdieȱbereitsȱerwähnteȱProfilzeichnungȱeinesȱaltenȱMannesȱin 191 192

193 194

195 196 197

198 199

200 201

Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ373ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). BeschreibendesȱVerzeichnisȱderȱGemäldeȱimȱKaiserȬFriedrichȬMuseum,ȱ8.ȱAufl.ȱ(BerlinȱundȱLeipzig: VereinigungȱwissenschaftlicherȱVerleger,ȱ1921),ȱ291;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ232ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱAbb. z.B.ȱinȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱAbb.ȱ262ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ373–74ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱZurȱDatierungȱsieheȱibid.,ȱ378–80. VorherȱBernardinoȱLuiniȱzugeschrieben;ȱibid.,ȱ380–82.ȱZurȱDatierungȱibid.,ȱȱ382.ȱ Abb.ȱz.B.ȱin Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ264ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). ZurȱZuschreibungsgeschichteȱibid.,ȱ374.ȱZurȱDatierungȱibid.,ȱ378. Ibid.,ȱ374. VonȱSuidaȱzugeschrieben;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ232ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱvonȱMaraniȱbezweifelt;ȱMarani, “Melzi,”ȱ378ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ265. Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ306ȱȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). PietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱPinacotecaȱdiȱBrera:ȱscuoleȱlombardaȱeȱPiemonteseȱ1300–1535ȱ(Mailand:ȱElecta,ȱ1988), 184–88;ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ374ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Ibid.ȱ372.ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ259. Abb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱAbb.ȱ300ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

603

derȱMailänderȱAmbrosianaȱvonȱ1510,ȱdieȱseineȱzweifacheȱSignaturȱträgt.202ȱEine weitereȱZeichnungȱmitȱdemȱKopfȱeinesȱaltenȱMannesȱschreibtȱMaraniȱMelziȱauf Grundȱ derȱ stilistischenȱ Ausführungȱ undȱ historischerȱ Koinzidenzenȱ zu.ȱ Der InschriftȱaufȱderȱRückseiteȱdesȱBlattesȱgemäßȱzeigeȱesȱdenȱ“maestroȱdiȱcameraȱdel reȱ Franc.oȱ p.o”ȱ Artusȱ Boysi.203ȱ Mittlerweileȱ wurdeȱ dasȱ Corpusȱ derȱ Melzi zugeschriebenenȱZeichnungenȱerweitert,204ȱundȱClarkȱkonnteȱ1967ȱzeigen,ȱdass MelziȱKopienȱvonȱLeonardosȱZeichnungenȱanfertigte.ȱVermutlichȱwarenȱdieses ‘Ersatzzeichnungen’ȱderȱOriginale.205ȱAuchȱwirdȱihmȱdieȱZeichnungȱeinesȱFußes zugeschrieben..ȱDieserȱbefindetȱsichȱaufȱeinemȱBlatt,ȱaufȱdemȱLeonardoȱebenfalls LandschaftenȱgezeichnetȱundȱNotizenȱhinterlassenȱhat.ȱDerȱFußȱwirdȱmitȱdem rechtenȱFußȱderȱPomonaȱinȱVerbindungȱgebracht.206ȱObȱzuerstȱMelziȱdasȱBlatt nutzteȱundȱdannȱLeonardoȱoderȱumgekehrt,ȱistȱschwerȱzuȱklären.ȱEsȱistȱjedoch nichtȱanzunehmen,ȱdassȱeinȱSchülerȱeinȱBlatt,ȱwelchesȱseinȱMeisterȱschonȱbenutzt hatte,ȱ alsȱ ‘Schmierpapier’ȱ weiterȱ verwendete,ȱ umgekehrtȱ istȱ diesesȱ Verfahren wiederumȱdenkbar.ȱEsȱistȱalsoȱdavonȱauszugehen,ȱdassȱLeonardoȱdasȱBlattȱmit demȱ Versuchȱ Melzisȱ weiterȱ verwendete.207ȱ Zweifelȱ bekundetȱ schonȱ Suida bezüglichȱderȱZuschreibungȱeinesȱLedaȬKopfesȱinȱderȱGalleriaȱBorghese.208ȱ EineȱweitereȱLedaȬZeichnung,ȱfrüherȱinȱderȱSpiridonȱSammlungȱundȱheuteȱin denȱ Uffizien,ȱ istȱ ebenfallsȱ zweifelhaft.209ȱ Zudemȱ wirdȱ Melziȱ oftȱ dieȱ Zeichnung 12726ȱinȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱinȱWindsorȱCastleȱzuerkanntȱ(Abb.ȱ12).ȱDieseȱwirdȱauf dieȱ Zeitȱ zwischenȱ 1510–1515ȱ datiertȱ undȱ zeigtȱ dasȱ Profilȱ einesȱ Mannesȱ mit auffallenderȱ HaarȬȱ undȱ Barttracht.ȱ Eineȱ Inschriftȱ bezeichnetȱ ihnȱ inȱ zeitgenösȬ sischenȱGroßbuchstabenȱalsȱLEONARDOȱVINCI210.ȱDieȱDarstellungȱgiltȱalsȱdas “theȱmostȱobjectiveȱandȱaccurateȱportraitȱofȱtheȱmasterȱtoȱsurvive.”211ȱAusȱdiesem GrundȱdienteȱesȱwohlȱauchȱalsȱVorlageȱfürȱdieȱHolzschnitte,ȱdieȱz.B.ȱVasariȱund PaoloȱGiovioȱnutzten,ȱundȱetablierteȱsichȱalsȱ‘Standardporträt’ȱLeonardos.212ȱDas 202 203

204

205 206

207 208

209 210

211

212

Abb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱ301. Cod.ȱFȱ263,ȱ35;ȱvgl.ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ377(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱOriginaltextȱinȱBeltrami,ȱDocumenti,ȱNr. 233,ȱ147ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). ZeichnungenȱinȱderȱWindsorȱCastleȱSammlungȱs.ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawingsȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13); inȱderȱAmbrosianaȱs.ȱMarani,ȱ“AttribuitoȱaȱFrancescoȱMelzi,”ȱNr.ȱ37,ȱ38ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱ Vgl.ȱClarkȱ“FrancescoȱMelzi”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ374ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Pedretti,ȱStudiȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ374–75ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱDieȱZuschreibung wiesȱGiulioȱBoraȱ1976ȱzurück. Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ377ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). DieseȱwirdȱauchȱGiulianoȱBugiardiniȱzugeschrieben.ȱVgl.ȱibid.,ȱ374.ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱSuida,ȱLeonardo, Abb.ȱ168ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ378ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱAbb.ȱ163ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Abb.ȱ sieheȱ z.B.ȱ Zöllner,ȱ Leonardo,ȱ 10ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 6).ȱ Esȱ existiertȱ außerdemȱ eineȱ Kopieȱ inȱ der Mailänderȱ Bibliotecaȱ Ambrosiana,ȱ dazuȱ Lucaȱ Beltrami,ȱ “Ilȱ voltoȱ diȱ Leonardo:ȱ saggioȱ di iconografiaȱvinciana,”ȱEmporiumȱ48ȱ(1919):ȱ3–17;ȱhierȱ5.ȱ MartinȱClayton,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱTheȱDivineȱandȱtheȱGrotesqueȱ(London:ȱRoyalȱCollection,ȱ2002), 110. Vgl.ȱdieȱHolzschnitteȱinȱdenȱVitenȱVasarisȱ(Ausgabeȱvonȱ1568)ȱundȱGioviosȱImaginesȱclarorum

604

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Blattȱwurdeȱbeschnittenȱ(ungewöhnlichȱfürȱeinȱBlattȱinȱderȱWindsorȱSammlung), undȱ esȱ gibtȱ aufȱ derȱ Rückseiteȱ Anzeichenȱ dafür,ȱ dassȱ esȱ aufȱ einenȱ Träger aufgezogenȱwar.ȱSoȱmutmaßenȱbereitsȱSchornȱundȱFörsterȱinȱihremȱKommentar zuȱVasarisȱViten,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱumȱdasȱPorträtȱhandelnȱkönne,ȱwelchesȱVasariȱ1565 beiȱMelziȱinȱVaprioȱd’Addaȱsah.213ȱ ImȱAlterȱarbeiteteȱMelziȱnurȱnochȱwenig,ȱvielleichtȱweilȱerȱvermögendȱwar.ȱSo fertigteȱ erȱ z.B.ȱ dasȱ Porträtȱ einesȱ jungenȱ Mannesȱ mitȱ Papageiȱ (Abb.ȱ 13).214ȱ Das GemäldeȱbefindetȱsichȱheuteȱinȱderȱCollezioneȱGalleratiȱScottiȱinȱMailandȱundȱist mitȱ“OpusȱF.ȱMelziusȱ1525”ȱsigniert.215ȱStilistischȱunterscheidetȱesȱsichȱstarkȱvon denȱvorherigenȱWerken,ȱdieȱsichȱanȱLeonardoȱorientierten.ȱEsȱerinnertȱmehrȱanȱdie römischeȱSchuleȱinȱderȱNachfolgeȱRaffaels.216ȱSoweitȱbekanntȱist,ȱhandeltȱesȱsich umȱdasȱletzteȱWerkȱMelzis.217ȱMaraniȱleitetȱausȱdemȱUmstand,ȱdassȱdreiȱderȱvier alsȱ sicherȱ identifiziertenȱ Gemäldeȱ Melzisȱ aufȱ griechisch,ȱ respektiveȱ lateinisch signiertȱsind,ȱab,ȱdassȱMelziȱsichȱoffenbarȱvonȱdemȱSelbstverständnisȱdesȱMalers alsȱ reinȱ technischȬhandwerklichȱ ausführenderȱ Kraftȱ absetzenȱ wollte.ȱ Inȱ der AuffassungȱvonȱderȱsozialenȱRolleȱdesȱMalersȱalsȱIntellektuellemȱfolgteȱerȱdabei unzweifelhaftȱdenȱVorstellungenȱLeonardos.ȱDieseȱVorliebeȱzurȱ‘humanistischen Signatur’ȱfindetȱsichȱauchȱinȱdemȱBriefȱanȱLeonardosȱBrüderȱvonȱ1519ȱwieder;ȱden ansonstenȱ inȱ italienischerȱ Spracheȱ verfasstenȱ Briefȱ unterschreibtȱ Melziȱ mit lateinischerȱGrußfloskelȱundȱlatinisiertemȱNamen.ȱDieseȱTendenzȱistȱauchȱinȱder WahlȱderȱdargestelltenȱThemenȱzuȱfinden.ȱVertumnusȱundȱPomonaȱgehörenȱzum PersonalȱderȱMetamorphosenȱOvidsȱ(XIV,ȱ623–700),ȱdieȱFloraȱoderȱColumbineȱist eineȱ symbolischeȱ Repräsentationȱ derȱ ‘Mutterȱ Natur.’ȱ Dieȱ Interpretationȱ und IdentifikationȱdesȱjungenȱMannesȱmitȱdemȱPapageiȱistȱunsicher.ȱErȱträgtȱeinen Ring,ȱ dessenȱ Steinȱ (evtl.ȱ einȱ Carneol)ȱ einenȱ Löwenkopfȱ imȱ Profilȱ undȱ eine Figur—vielleichtȱ eineȱ antikeȱ Gottheit—zeigt.ȱ Derȱ Papageiȱ stehtȱ inȱ Bezugȱ zum logos,ȱnachȱCesareȱRipaȱfürȱ‘Eloquenz.’ȱEsȱmussȱsichȱbeiȱdieserȱDarstellungȱalsoȱum eineȱ humanistischȬklassischȱ gebildeteȱ Personȱ handeln,ȱ dieȱ sichȱ inȱ besonderer WeiseȱdurchȱEloquenzȱauszeichnetȱoderȱsichȱdieserȱverbundenȱfühlt.218ȱMarani schlägtȱvor,ȱdenȱjungenȱMannȱalsȱeineȱArtȱidealisiertesȱSelbstporträtȱMelzisȱzu sehen,ȱwobeiȱesȱkeinesȱimȱklassischenȱSinneȱseinȱkönne,ȱdaȱderȱMalerȱbereitsȱviel

213 214 215

216 217 218

virorumȱ(1589).ȱAußerdemȱexistierenȱauchȱgemalteȱPorträts,ȱvgl.ȱNicholl,ȱLeonardo,ȱ696ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 105). AllerdingsȱschreibenȱsieȱesȱLeonardoȱselbstȱzu;ȱvgl.ȱVasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ28ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). SuidaȱbezeichnetȱdieȱFigurȱalsȱMädchen;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ232;ȱ305ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Maraniȱerkenntȱhierȱ1523;ȱvgl.ȱZuschreibungshistoireȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ374ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).ȱDie beidenȱletztenȱZiffernȱsindȱübermaltȱworden.ȱDarunterȱbefandenȱsichȱwahrscheinlichȱdieȱZahlen 51.ȱZurȱDatierung:ȱMarani,ȱ“AttribuitoȱaȱFrancescoȱMelzi,”ȱ158–61ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“A NewȱDate”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ382ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ232–33ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱWerkverzeichnis:ȱibid,ȱ305–06. Vgl.ȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ382ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱibid.,ȱ377–78.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

605

älterȱwar,ȱsondernȱeineȱArtȱsymbolischesȱPorträt.219ȱMelziȱstellteȱalsoȱmitȱVorliebe mythologischeȱ Themenȱ ausȱ demȱ humanistischenȱ Umfeldȱ dar.ȱ Mitȱ BerücksichȬ tigungȱdesȱvonȱMaraniȱzugeschriebenenȱWerkesȱNympheȱimȱFrühlingȱwäreȱhierȱein weiteresȱ Beispielȱ fürȱ dieseȱ Tendenzȱ zuȱ verzeichnen.ȱ Oftȱ wurdeȱ behauptet,ȱ die Nympheȱ seiȱ einȱ Porträtȱ derȱ Gräfinȱ Challant,ȱ dieȱ dieȱ Sforzaȱ 1528ȱ inȱ Mailand gefangenȱ hielten.ȱ Esȱ kannȱ aberȱ auchȱ vermutetȱ werden,ȱ dassȱ erȱ sichȱ umȱ ein idealisiertesȱPorträtȱvonȱMelzisȱFrauȱAngiolaȱLandriani,ȱvonȱderȱZeitgenossen berichten,ȱsieȱseiȱeineȱderȱschönstenȱFrauenȱdieserȱZeitȱgewesen,ȱhandelte.220 Vielfachȱwirdȱberichtet,ȱdassȱMelziȱinȱLeonardosȱletztenȱJahren,ȱalsȱdieserȱauf Grundȱ einesȱ Schlaganfallsȱ keineȱ ruhigeȱ Handȱ mehrȱ hatte,ȱ nachȱ seinen Anweisungenȱ Gemäldeȱ undȱ Zeichnungenȱ ausführte.221ȱ Nachȱ neueren ErkenntnissenȱhatȱMelziȱganzȱoderȱwesentlichȱWerkeȱselbstȱhergestellt,ȱdieȱbislang Leonardoȱzugeschriebenȱwurden,ȱdazuȱkönnteȱetwaȱJohannesȱderȱTäuferȱgehören.222 Erȱ übernahmȱ alsoȱ demzufolgeȱ dieȱ handwerklicheȱ Ausführungȱ derȱ Ideenȱ des Meisters.ȱ Wieȱ Fiorioȱ feststellte,ȱ warȱ Melziȱ eineȱ bequemeȱ Lösungȱ fürȱ die Zuschreibungȱ vonȱ Werkenȱ geworden,ȱ dieȱ zwarȱ leonardesk,ȱ aberȱ alsȱ zu minderwertigȱfürȱdenȱMeisterȱangesehenȱwurden.223 Nebenȱ demȱ künstlerischenȱ Œuvreȱ hinterließȱ Francescoȱ Melziȱ auchȱ ein intellektuelles.ȱ Erȱ erbteȱ denȱ wissenschaftlichenȱ undȱ künstlerischenȱ Nachlass LeonardosȱundȱbrachteȱihnȱinȱseinenȱFamiliensitzȱnachȱVaprioȱd’Adda,ȱwoȱerȱihn alsȱKostbarkeitȱhütete.224ȱErȱengagierteȱsichȱinȱderȱPflegeȱundȱderȱErhaltungȱdes Nachlasses.ȱ Ausȱ denȱ Manuskriptenȱ sammelteȱ erȱ alleȱ Notizenȱ überȱ Kunstȱ und brachteȱsieȱunterȱdemȱTitelȱTrattatoȱdellaȱPitturaȱheraus.225ȱLeiderȱverkauftenȱseine ErbenȱdenȱNachlass,ȱwodurchȱvielesȱwohlȱfürȱimmerȱverlorenȱging.ȱAlsȱVasari 1565ȱdenȱgreisenȱMelziȱbesuchteȱumȱdenȱLeonardoȬNachlassȱ(erȱerwähntȱihnȱals ErbeȱderȱanatomischenȱZeichnungenȱundȱdieseȱscheintȱerȱauchȱgesichtetȱzuȱhaben) einzusehen226,ȱ berichtetȱ er,ȱ dassȱ Melziȱ dieȱ Papiereȱ ‘wieȱ Reliquien’ȱ verwahrte. Gemeinsamȱ mitȱ einemȱ Porträtȱ seienȱ sieȱ fürȱ ihnȱ Objekteȱ desȱ ‘glückseligen Andenkens’ȱ anȱ denȱ Meister.ȱ Bereitsȱ Petrarcaȱ berichtetȱ umȱ 1350,ȱ dassȱ ein GoldschmiedȱausȱBrescia,ȱnachdemȱerȱihnȱendlichȱalsȱFreundȱgewonnenȱhatte,ȱsein Hausȱmitȱdemȱ“Abzeichen,ȱNamenȱundȱBildnisȱdesȱneuenȱFreundes”ȱschmückte. ZudemȱstatteteȱerȱsichȱmitȱallenȱSchriftenȱPetrarcasȱaus.227ȱMelziȱfolgtȱhierȱalso 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

Vgl.ȱibid.,ȱ384. Vgl.ȱibid.,ȱ382. Vgl.ȱAnm.ȱ99. Vgl.ȱibid.,ȱ378. Fiorio,ȱIȱleonardeschi,ȱ36ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ231ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). DazuȱgenauȱMarani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ372–73ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ231ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). FrancescoȱPetrarca,ȱLeȱFamiliari,ȱ4ȱ,ȱhrsg.ȱVittorioȱRossiȱ(Florenz:ȱCasaȱEd.ȱleȱLettere,ȱ1968),ȱ79–82 (21,11);ȱvgl.ȱPfisterer,ȱ“Freundschaftsbilder,”ȱ245–46ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ10).

606

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

einerȱgängigenȱkulturellenȱPraxis,ȱdenȱverehrtenȱFreundȱdurchȱseinȱWerkȱsowie seinȱ Bildȱ zuȱ vergegenwärtigen.ȱ Vasarisȱ Beschreibungȱ legtȱ nahe,ȱ dassȱ die MotivationȱdieserȱFreundschaftȱfürȱMelziȱseinesȱErachtensȱwohlȱinȱderȱVerehrung fürȱ denȱ Meisterȱ undȱ seineȱ intellektuelleȱ Betätigungȱ lag.ȱ Soȱ rezipiertȱ Vasari FrancescoȱMelziȱauchȱwesentlichȱalsȱErbeȱderȱanatomischenȱZeichnungen.ȱInȱder erstenȱ Ausgabeȱ seinerȱ Vitenȱ erwähntȱ erȱ dieseȱ nicht,ȱ inȱ derȱ zweitenȱ Edition, nachdemȱ erȱ sieȱ beiȱ demȱ greisenȱ Grafenȱ eingesehenȱ hatte,ȱ fügtȱ erȱ kurzȱ vorȱ die ZeilenȱüberȱSalaìȱeinenȱlängerenȱPassusȱein.ȱInȱdiesemȱschildertȱerȱunterȱanderem Leonardosȱ Beschäftigungȱ mitȱ derȱ Anatomieȱ desȱ Menschenȱ undȱ berichtetȱ von einemȱBuchȱmitȱZeichnungenȱvonȱdieser.ȱÜberȱdenȱNexusȱderȱZeichnungenȱwird Melziȱerwähnt.ȱDanebenȱscheintȱVasariȱdieȱ“seltne[...]ȱSchönheit”228ȱdesȱKnaben (“bellissimoȱfanciullo”229)ȱwesentlichesȱMerkmal,ȱwelchesȱseinesȱErachtensȱwohl auchȱ Ausschlagȱ gebendȱ fürȱ Leonardosȱ Zuneigungȱ zuȱ Melziȱ war.ȱ Auchȱ die Formulierungȱ‘moltoȱamatoȱdaȱ(sehrȱgeliebtȱvon)’ȱkannȱaufȱhomoerotischeȱGefühle verweisen,ȱzumindestȱkannȱsieȱAuskunftȱdarüberȱgeben,ȱdassȱVasariȱdiesesȱüber Leonardoȱdachte.ȱ WieȱausȱLeonardosȱNotizȱüberȱSalaìsȱEinstandȱzuȱrekonstruierenȱist,ȱmussȱerȱum dasȱJahrȱ1480ȱherumȱgeborenȱwordenȱsein.ȱErȱwarȱdasȱdritteȱKindȱvonȱPietroȱde Orenoȱ undȱ Caterinaȱ Scottiȱ undȱ hatteȱ zweiȱ ältereȱ Schwestern,ȱ Angelinaȱ und Lorenziola.ȱNachȱLeonardosȱTodȱkehrteȱerȱnachȱMailandȱzurückȱundȱarbeitete weiterȱalsȱMaler.ȱDortȱheirateteȱerȱBiancaȱColdiroliȱdiȱAnonno.230ȱSalaìȱsollȱauch nachȱLeonardosȱTodȱKontaktȱmitȱseinenȱaltenȱKollegenȱausȱLeonardosȱWerkstatt gehaltenȱhaben,ȱteilsȱausȱNotwendigkeit,ȱteilsȱaberȱauchȱausȱFreundschaft.ȱLeider istȱdarüberȱwenigȱbekannt,ȱaußerȱdassȱAndreaȱManieriȱeinȱFreundȱderȱFamilie war.231ȱEventuellȱwarȱseinȱNeffeȱPolicretoȱinȱdieserȱZeitȱseinȱSchüler.232ȱ Soȱ zahlreichȱ dieȱ Notizenȱ Leonardosȱ überȱ Salaìȱ sind,ȱ soȱ vergeblichȱ wird umgekehrtȱnachȱeinerȱschriftlichenȱNotizȱausȱderȱHandȱSalaìsȱgesucht.ȱSoȱbleiben nur—oderȱgerade—seineȱWerkeȱalsȱQuelleȱseinerȱSichtȱaufȱLeonardo.ȱJedochȱgab esȱ erstȱ spätȱ ersteȱ Zuschreibungen233ȱ undȱ bisȱ heuteȱ istȱ esȱ schwierig,ȱ ihm eigenhändigeȱ Werkeȱ zuzuordnen,ȱ dennȱ esȱ existiertȱ keinȱ ihmȱ unbestritten zugeschriebenesȱkünstlerischesȱObjekt.ȱDaȱSalaìȱseineȱWerkeȱnichtȱsignierteȱund esȱ keineȱ Dokumenteȱ überȱ Verkäufeȱ gibt,ȱ istȱ alsoȱ jedeȱ Identifizierung problematisch.ȱEsȱwirdȱjedochȱdavonȱausgegangen,ȱdassȱerȱeinȱbeachtlichesȱŒuvre geschaffenȱhatȱundȱihmȱseineȱBeziehungȱzuȱLeonardoȱhalf,ȱseineȱWerkeȱgutȱzu verkaufen.ȱ Obȱ erȱ jeȱ eigeneȱ Kompositionenȱ schufȱ oderȱ obȱ seinȱ Gesamtwerk 228 229 230 231

232 233

Vasari/Kliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vasari/ȱMilanesi,ȱ4,ȱ35ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ400,ȱ399ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Vgl.ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ134,ȱ139ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell, “Caprotti,”ȱ400ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Vgl.ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ115ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

607

komplettȱausȱKopienȱLeonardosȱbestand,ȱlässtȱsichȱnichtȱeindeutigȱfeststellen.234 EsȱwirdȱihmȱheuteȱeineȱGruppeȱvonȱBildernȱzugeschrieben,ȱdieȱausȱdemȱLeonardoȬ Umkreisȱ stammenȱ undȱ inȱ dieȱ Jahreȱ 1500–1520ȱ datiertȱ werden.ȱ Dieseȱ zeigen Motive,ȱvonȱdenenȱdurchȱDokumenteȱbekanntȱist,ȱdassȱSalaìȱsieȱausführteȱoderȱfür dieȱ durchȱ dasȱ Inventarȱ belegtȱ ist,ȱ dassȱ erȱ sieȱ inȱ seinemȱ Besitzȱ hatte.235ȱ Weitere Werke,ȱbeiȱdenenȱdieȱgleicheȱausführendeȱHandȱvermutetȱwurde,ȱkamenȱhinzu. Soȱ bemerktȱ schonȱ Suida,ȱ dassȱ esȱ nichtȱ möglichȱ sei,ȱ dieȱ Werkeȱ explizitȱ Salaì zuzuweisen,ȱsondernȱdassȱesȱsichȱumȱdasȱWerkȱeinesȱLeonardoschülersȱausȱdem erstenȱ Viertelȱ desȱ 16.ȱ Jahrhundertsȱ handele.ȱ Diesesȱ könneȱ Salaìȱ sein,ȱ undȱ aus diesemȱ Grundȱ schlägtȱ Suidaȱ auchȱ vor,ȱ denȱ Urheberȱ diesesȱ Œuvresȱ alsȱ ‘den sogenanntenȱSalaì’ȱzuȱbezeichnen.236ȱ EinȱersterȱVersuch,ȱdasȱGesamtwerkȱSalaìsȱzuȱrekonstruierenȱwurdeȱ1928ȱvon Möllerȱ undȱ imȱ daraufȱ folgendenȱ Jahrȱ vonȱ Suidaȱ unternommen.237ȱ Lautȱ Suida entbehrtenȱ dieȱ Zuschreibungenȱ Möllersȱ jedochȱ jeglichenȱ Beweises.238ȱ Dieȱ erste Zuschreibungȱ istȱ inȱ Lattuadasȱ Descrizioneȱ diȱ Milanoȱ vonȱ 1737ȱ zuȱ finden.ȱ Er attribuiertȱ Salaìȱ eineȱ Heiligeȱ Familieȱ mitȱ demȱ kleinenȱ Johannesȱ imȱ Palazzo Arcivescovile,239ȱ dieȱ sichȱ heuteȱ inȱ derȱ Breraȱ befindetȱ undȱ Cesareȱ Magni zugeschriebenȱ wird.ȱ 1809ȱ istȱ vonȱ einemȱ Altarbildȱ ausȱ S.ȱ Andreaȱ allaȱ Pusterla, welchesȱsichȱheuteȱebenfallsȱinȱderȱBreraȱbefindet,ȱdieȱRede.240ȱSuidaȱschreibtȱihm eineȱGruppeȱvonȱJohannesȬDarstellungenȱzu,ȱdieȱerȱnachȱLeonardoȱkopiertȱund ihnenȱdannȱeineȱLandschaftȱbeigefügtȱhabe.ȱErȱbeziehtȱsichȱaufȱdieȱGemälde,ȱdie sichȱzuȱseinerȱZeitȱinȱderȱMailänderȱPinacotecaȱAmbrosianaȱ(Abb.ȱ14)ȱundȱinȱder Ho[l—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki]meȱPierrepontȱbeiȱReverendȱW.ȱF.ȱSawardȱinȱNottingham (diesesȱseiȱeineȱKopieȱnachȱdemȱBacchusȱimȱLouvre)ȱbefinden.241ȱ DieȱMailänderȱVersionȱSalaìsȱgibtȱdenȱJohannesȱLeonardosȱfastȱoriginalgetreu wieder,ȱ erȱ ersetztȱ jedochȱ denȱ dunklenȱ Hintergrundȱ durchȱ eineȱ AlpenvorlandȬ 234 235

236 237

238 239

240 241

Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ398,ȱ402ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Nebenȱ denȱ inȱ Anm.ȱ 18ȱ aufgeführtenȱ Gemäldenȱ handeltȱ esȱ sichȱ umȱ “Quadroȱ cumȱ unoȱ Santo Hieronimoȱgrando,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ40;ȱlibreȱ202ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱcumȱunaȱmezaȱnuda,ȱnumero 1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ25,ȱlibreȱ126ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱcumȱunoȱSantoȱHieronymoȱmezoȱnudo,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscuti 25;ȱlibreȱ126ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱQuadroȱcumȱunoȱSantoȱJohanneȱpizininoȱzoveno,ȱnumeroȱ1.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ25;ȱlibre 126ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱUnoȱCristoȱinȱmodoȱdeȱunoȱDioȱPadre.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ25;ȱlibreȱ126ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱMadonaȱcumȱuno filioloȱinȱbrazo.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ20;ȱlibreȱ101ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]ȱUnoȱCristoȱalaȱcolonaȱ[unlesbaresȱWort]ȱnonȱfornido. .ȱ.ȱ.ȱscutiȱ5;ȱlibreȱ25ȱ[.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ]”ȱShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱLeonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱ106ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14); ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱtheȱInventoryȱofȱHisȱEstate,”ȱ143–44ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,” 402ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14).ȱ Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ230ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Möller,ȱ“Salaì”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2);ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229–30ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱvgl.ȱWerkverzeichnis: ibid.,ȱ306. Ibid.,ȱ230.ȱZurȱHistorieȱderȱSalaìzuschreibungenȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ397ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). ServilianoȱLattuada,ȱDescrizioneȱdiȱMilanoȱornataȱconȱmultiȱdisegniȱinȱrameȱdelleȱfabbricheȱpiùȱcospicue, queȱsiȱtrovanoȱinȱquelliȱMetropoli,ȱ2ȱ(Mailand:ȱCairoli,ȱ1737),ȱ75. DazuȱdetailliertȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Ibid.ȱundȱ306.

608

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

schaft,ȱdieȱsichȱähnlichȱauchȱinȱderȱDarstellungȱvonȱLeonardosȱAnnaȱSelbdrittȱim Louvreȱ findet.242ȱ Dazuȱ zählenȱ außerdemȱ dieȱ Darstellungen,ȱ dieȱ sichȱ inȱ der SammlungȱW.ȱG.ȱWalters243ȱundȱbeiȱMr.ȱHewetsonȱinȱLondonȱbefinden.244ȱEbenso rechnetȱ Suidaȱ denȱ Bacchusȱ (Abb.ȱ 15)ȱ imȱ Louvreȱ zuȱ Salaìsȱ Œuvre,ȱ allerdings lediglichȱdieȱFigur,ȱanȱderȱLandschaftȱseiȱerȱnichtȱbeteiligtȱgewesen.245ȱShellȱund anderenȱfolgendȱkannȱderȱBacchusȱjedochȱnichtȱSalaìȱzugeschriebenȱwerden,ȱerȱsei größtenteilsȱvonȱLeonardoȱselbst.246ȱAußerdemȱführtȱSuidaȱeinȱBrustbildȱChristi enȱ faceȱ (1511ȱ datiert,ȱ Galerieȱ desȱ Grafenȱ Czernin,ȱ Wien—nachȱ Suidaȱ sein selbstständigstesȱWerk)247ȱundȱzweiȱKopienȱvonȱLeonardosȱHeiligerȱAnnaȱSelbdritt auf.248ȱEinȱGemäldeȱgehörteȱCarloȱBorromeoȱundȱgingȱdannȱüberȱdasȱOspedale MaggioreȱinȱdenȱBesitzȱderȱSakristeiȱderȱKircheȱSanȱCelsoȱinȱMailandȱüber.ȱHeute befindetȱesȱsichȱimȱArmandȱHammerȱMuseumȱderȱUniversitätȱvonȱCalifornienȱin LosȱAngelesȱundȱistȱTeilȱderȱWillittsȱJ.ȱHoleȱCollection.249ȱOhneȱFrageȱkopierteȱSalaì hierȱ dasȱ Originalȱ Leonardos.ȱ Lediglichȱ inȱ derȱ Gestaltungȱ des LandschaftshintergrundesȱweichtȱerȱvomȱOriginalȱab.ȱEineȱKopieȱdesȱGemäldes, dessenȱlandschaftlicherȱHintergrundȱerneutȱvariiert,ȱbefindetȱsichȱinȱderȱGalleria degliȱUffiziȱinȱFlorenz.250ȱAußerdemȱscheintȱesȱnochȱeineȱweitereȱKopie,ȱehemals inȱderȱSammlungȱdesȱEarlȱofȱYarborough,ȱzuȱgeben.251ȱ DesȱWeiterenȱsollenȱeinȱFacekopfȱinȱRötelȱinȱderȱAmbrosiana252ȱundȱdieȱBildnisse derȱsogenanntenȱGiocondaȱnudaȱoderȱMonnaȱVannaȱausȱSalaìsȱHandȱstammen.ȱDiese GruppeȱanȱGemäldenȱzeigtȱeineȱFrauȱmitȱentblößtemȱOberkörper,ȱderenȱPorträt undȱ Poseȱ anȱ Leonardosȱ Monaȱ Lisaȱ erinnern.ȱ Esȱ istȱ sicher,ȱ dassȱ keineȱ dieser DarstellungenȱvonȱLeonardoȱselbstȱstammt,ȱArasseȱgehtȱjedochȱdavonȱaus,ȱdass esȱsichȱumȱeineȱseinerȱKompositionȱhandele.ȱSieȱstelleȱwahrscheinlichȱeineȱGeliebte Giulianoȱde’ȱMedicisȱdarȱundȱseiȱ1513–1515ȱinȱRomȱbegonnen,ȱaberȱnieȱvollendet worden.ȱDasȱunfertigeȱGemäldeȱseiȱdannȱmitȱnachȱFrankreichȱgekommen.253ȱAls besteȱVersionȱgiltȱdasȱGemäldeȱinȱderȱEremitageȱ(Abb.ȱ8).ȱEsȱzeigtȱebensoȱwieȱdie 242 243

244 245 246 247 248 249

250 251 252 253

Vgl.ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ404ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). NachȱSuidaȱeineȱ“freieȱKopieȱnachȱLeonardosȱEngel”;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ306ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱAbb. in:ȱ Heinrichȱ Bodmer,ȱ Leonardo:ȱ desȱ Meistersȱ Gemäldeȱ undȱ Zeichnungenȱ (Stuttgartȱ undȱ Berlin: DeutscheȱVerlagsȬAnstalt,ȱ1931),ȱ60. Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱAbb.ȱinȱBodmer,ȱLeonardo,ȱ57ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ243). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ230ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱz.B.ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ404ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Abb.ȱinȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱAbb.ȱ249ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Ibid.,ȱ229–30. BezugnehmendȱaufȱeinenȱBriefȱdesȱPadreȱSebastianoȱRestaȱschriebȱFrancescoȱAntonioȱAlbuzzi diesesȱWerkȱSalaìȱzu;ȱvgl.ȱAlbuzzi,ȱMemorie,ȱ32ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ402ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 14).ȱAbb.ȱs.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ286. Abb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ287. Sieheȱibid.,ȱ404.ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱGoldblatt,ȱLeonardo,ȱ111ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ230ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Vgl.ȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ465ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

609

MonaȱLisaȱeineȱLoggia,ȱzitiertȱdenȱSesselȱundȱdenȱBlickȱaufȱdieȱBerge.ȱDasȱGesicht undȱ dasȱ Haarȱ istȱ allerdingsȱ eherȱ mitȱ demȱ derȱ Ledaȱ vergleichbar.ȱ Weiterhin befindetȱ sichȱ dasȱ Motivȱ aufȱ einemȱ Kartonȱ inȱ Chantilly.ȱ Dieserȱ istȱ perforiert, wahrscheinlichȱfürȱeineȱÜbertragung.254ȱ Eineȱ Versionȱ diesesȱ Themas,ȱ dasȱ sichȱ heuteȱ inȱ derȱ Accademiaȱ Carraraȱ in Bergamoȱbefindet,ȱwurdeȱzunächstȱLeonardoȱzugeschriebenȱundȱ1664ȱalsȱ“mulier crediturȱmeretrixȱ(Weib,ȱwahrscheinlichȱeinȱFreudenmädchen)”255ȱkatalogisiert.256 InȱdieserȱistȱdieȱDargestellteȱvonȱBlumenȱumgeben.ȱAuchȱwennȱsieȱeineȱandere Poseȱeinnimmt,ȱbezeichnetȱsieȱMcMullenȱinteressanterweiseȱalsȱ‘Cousine’ȱderȱFlora Melzis.257ȱ Dieȱ Kopieȱ derȱ Ledaȱ Leonardos,ȱ dieȱ bereitsȱ alsȱ Vorschlagȱ fürȱ Melzis Œuvreȱgenanntȱwurde,ȱziehtȱSuidaȱalsȱWerkȱSalaìsȱinȱBetracht.258ȱShellȱfolgend kannȱesȱjedochȱnichtȱmitȱihmȱinȱVerbindungȱgebrachtȱwerden.ȱEineȱ“Ledda”ȱwird zwarȱ inȱ seinemȱ Inventarȱ aufgeführt,ȱ dieȱ Qualitätȱ seiȱ aberȱ zuȱ hochwertig.259 Außerdemȱ wirdȱ eineȱ weitereȱ Darstellungȱ Mariasȱ mitȱ demȱ Kindeȱ undȱ dem Johannesknaben,ȱheuteȱimȱSzépmüvészetiȱMúzeumȱinȱBudapest,ȱundȱeineȱweitere MariaȱmitȱdemȱKindeȱundȱdenȱHeiligenȱPetrusȱundȱPaulusȱsowieȱeineȱDarstellung derȱ Mariaȱ mitȱ demȱ Kindȱ mitȱ Paulusȱ undȱ Johannesȱ demȱ Täufer,ȱ beideȱ inȱ der PinacotecaȱBrera,ȱerwähnt.260ȱDieȱDarstellungȱmitȱPetrusȱundȱPaulusȱschreibtȱShell Salaìȱzu,ȱdasȱzweiteȱWerkȱhingegenȱeinemȱanonymenȱKünstlerȱderȱerstenȱDekade desȱCinquecento.261 SalaìsȱmangelndesȱGespürȱfürȱKompositionenȱzeigtȱsichȱinȱseinenȱLandschaften, mitȱdenenȱerȱdieȱAnnaȱSelbdrittȬKopienȱundȱseinemȱTäuferȱhinterlegte.ȱDieȱBalance zwischenȱFigurengruppeȱundȱHintergrund,ȱdieȱLeonardoȱerreichtȱhatte,ȱzerstört erȱdurchȱdieȱinȱdenȱMittelgrundȱeingefügtenȱBäume.ȱSeineȱFarbenȱsindȱschriller undȱesȱgelingtȱihmȱnicht,ȱLeonardosȱsfumatoȱzuȱimitieren.262ȱGleichwohl—undȱder schwierigenȱ Zuschreibungssituationȱ zumȱ Trotz—wirdȱ Salaìȱ alsȱ einerȱ der wichtigstenȱSchülerȱLeonardosȱeingeschätzt.ȱErȱgiltȱalsȱeinerȱderȱHauptverbreiter 254

255

256 257 258 259 260

261 262

McMullen,ȱMonaȱLisa,ȱ66–67ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ7).ȱAbb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱAbb.ȱ144ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 13). PaoloȱMariaȱTerzago,ȱMuseumȱSeptalianum:ȱManfrediȱSeptalæȱPatritiiȱMediolanensisȱIndvstrioso LaboreȱConstrvctvm;ȱPavliȱMariæȱTerzagiȱMediolanensisȱPhysiciȱCollegiatiȱGenialiȱLaconismo Descriptvm;ȱ Politiorisȱ Literatvræȱ Professoribvsȱ Ervditaȱ Hvmanitateȱ Adapertvm;ȱ Cum Logocentronibus,ȱ siuèȱ Centonibusȱ eiusdemȱ Terzagiȱ deȱ naturaȱ Crystalli,ȱ Coralij,ȱ Testaceorum Montanorum,ȱ&ȱLapidificatorum,ȱAchatis,ȱSuccini,ȱAmbari,ȱ&ȱMagnetisȱ(Tortona:ȱViola,ȱ1664), Nr.ȱ33;ȱdt.—M.ȱS.ȱMarotzki. Abb.ȱsieheȱz.B.ȱinȱMcMullen,ȱMonaȱLisa,ȱAbb.ȱ97. Ibid.,ȱ156.ȱWeitereȱVariantenȱdesȱThemasȱbeiȱBodmer,ȱLeonardo,ȱ85–87ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ243). Suida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ229–30ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ404ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Marani,ȱLeonardoȱeȱiȱleonardeschiȱaȱBrera,ȱ160–65,ȱ225–27;ȱShell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ404ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Abb.ȱz.B.ȱinȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ289ȱundȱ290. Ibid.,ȱ404. Vgl.ȱibid.

610

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

desȱ leonardeskenȱ Stilsȱ undȱ derȱ Kompositionenȱ inȱ derȱ erstenȱ Hälfteȱ desȱ 16. Jahrhunderts.ȱ Währendȱ andereȱ Malerȱ jedochȱ vomȱ Meisterȱ lerntenȱ undȱ einen eigenenȱStilȱundȱKompositionenȱentwickelten,ȱbliebȱSalaìȱgetreuerȱReplikatorȱder VorlagenȱdesȱMeistersȱund—nachȱdesȱSchülersȱEmpfinden—ausführendeȱKraft derȱ Ideenȱ desȱ Meisters.ȱ Erȱ magȱ alsoȱ alsȱ einflussreicherȱ Kopistȱ undȱ Interpret gelten.263 BereitsȱimȱCinquecentoȱschienȱdieȱArtȱdesȱVerhältnissesȱLeonardosȱundȱSalaìs Anlassȱ zuȱ Spekulationenȱ gegebenȱ zuȱ haben.ȱ Soȱ istȱ auffällig,ȱ dassȱ Vasaris Beschreibungȱ desȱ Jungenȱ sichȱ zunächst—wieȱ beiȱ Melzi—aufȱ dasȱ ästhetische Äußereȱbezieht.ȱAuchȱderȱAusdruckȱprendereȱperȱsuoȱcreatoȱalsȱUmschreibungȱfür ‘zuȱ seinemȱ Schülerȱ nehmen’ȱ istȱ ungewöhnlich,ȱ bedeutetȱ creatoȱ dochȱ eigentlich ‘Schöpfung.’ȱLeonardoȱselberȱbezeichneteȱSalaìȱalsȱdiscepolo,ȱauchȱZeitgenossen wähltenȱ Vokabelnȱ wieȱ discepoloȱ oderȱ alevoȱ (Novellara).264ȱ Vasariȱ selberȱ setzt ebenfallsȱzurȱBezeichnungȱvonȱBoltraffioȱundȱd’OggioneȱdasȱWortȱdiscepoloȱein.ȱEs wäreȱalsoȱdurchausȱmöglich,ȱdassȱVasariȱmitȱBedachtȱeinenȱanderenȱAusdruckȱzur Beschreibungȱ desȱ Verhältnissesȱ LeonardoȬSalaìȱ wählte.ȱ Derȱ Schülerȱ wirdȱ vom Meisterȱgeformt,ȱinsofernȱistȱerȱgewissermaßenȱseineȱSchöpfung.ȱDerȱAusdruck creatoȱistȱjedochȱnichtȱderȱBeschreibungȱdieserȱBeziehungȱvorbehalten.ȱErȱistȱrelativ geläufigȱbeiȱVasariȱundȱbezeichnetȱdieȱbetreffendeȱPersonȱalsȱ‘seinȱGeschöpf.’ȱMit diesemȱAusdruckȱscheintȱeinȱLehrerȬSchülerȬVerhältnisȱbezeichnetȱzuȱwerden,ȱbei demȱderȱSchülerȱallesȱseinemȱLehrerȱverdanke,ȱalsoȱinȱallenȱAspektenȱlediglich seinȱGeschöpfȱdarstelle.ȱDerȱdiscepoloȱhingegenȱseiȱeigenständiger,ȱerȱlerneȱvom Meister,ȱseiȱjedochȱalsoȱnichtȱinȱjeglicherȱHinsichtȱlediglichȱ‘seineȱSchöpfung.’265 Soȱ kannȱ derȱ Unterschiedȱ zwischenȱ denȱ beidenȱ Terminiȱ wohlȱ inȱ der EigenständigkeitȱdesȱSchülersȱausgemachtȱwerden.ȱDieseȱDeutungȱbestätigtȱder GebrauchȱdesȱAusdrucksȱdurchȱdenȱSchreiberȱdesȱKardinalsȱLuigiȱvonȱAragon.ȱEr benutztȱdenȱTerminus—allerdingsȱinȱBezugȱaufȱMelzi—inȱeinemȱZusammenhang, inȱ demȱ esȱ ihmȱ darumȱ geht,ȱ denȱ Künstlerȱ Melziȱ alsȱ ‘Produkt’ȱ Leonardosȱ zu beschreibenȱ(erȱmaltȱunterȱAnleitungȱdesȱMeisters,ȱseineȱArbeitȱistȱnichtȱvonȱder Leonardosȱunterscheidbarȱusw.).ȱ ImȱFallȱSalaìsȱtrifftȱdieȱvonȱVasariȱgewählteȱVokabelȱsomitȱzweiȱAussagen:ȱzum einenȱspezifiziertȱsieȱdieȱArtȱvonȱSalaìsȱSchülerschaft.ȱSieȱbringtȱzumȱAusdruck, dassȱSalaìȱinȱkünstlerischerȱHinsichtȱsoȱgutȱwieȱkeineȱEigenständigkeitȱerlangte, sondernȱseineȱinȱdiesemȱBereichȱerzieltenȱErfolgeȱlediglichȱaufȱdieȱVermittlung undȱdenȱgutenȱRufȱseinesȱMeistersȱzurückzuführenȱseien.ȱZumȱanderenȱeröffnet derȱTerminusȱjedochȱauchȱdieȱBeziehungsdimension.ȱDieȱSemantikȱdesȱBegriffs verweistȱ aufȱ einȱ passives,ȱ geformtesȱ mehrȱ Objektȱ dennȱ Subjekt.ȱ Analogȱ zum ‘moltoȱamatoȱdaȱLeonardo’ȱinȱBezugȱaufȱMelziȱschreibtȱderȱBegriffȱderȱBeziehung 263 264 265

Ibid.,ȱ406. AusführlichȱdazuȱS.ȱ568–69. FürȱdieseȱHinweiseȱdankeȱichȱUlrichȱPfistererȱundȱMatteoȱBurioni,ȱEmailȱvomȱ09.ȱNovemberȱ2009.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

611

gleichzeitigȱeineȱbestimmteȱInterpretationȱein.ȱVasariȱexpliziertȱdieseȱaberȱnicht weiter,ȱwährendȱhingegenȱLomazzoȱinȱeinerȱSchriftȱausȱdenȱfrühenȱ1560erȱJahren rechtȱdeutlicheȱWorteȱfindetȱundȱsieȱalsȱ‘homosexuell’ȱdarstellt.ȱInȱeinemȱwenig bekanntenȱ Dialogȱ lässtȱ erȱ denȱ antikenȱ Bildhauerȱ Phidiasȱ mitȱ Leonardoȱ über männlicheȱ Liebeȱ plaudern.ȱ Nachȱ derȱ Erwähnungȱ Salaìs,ȱ überȱ denȱ Lomazzo Leonardoȱsagenȱlässt,ȱdassȱerȱihnȱmehrȱalsȱalleȱanderenȱSchülerȱliebe,ȱfragtȱPhidias: Fid.ȱGliȱfacestiȱforsiȱilȱgioco,ȱcheȱtantoȱamenoȱiȱfiorentini,ȱdiȱdretto? Leo.ȱEȱquanteȱvolte!ȱConsideraȱcheȱegliȱeraȱunoȱbellissimoȱgiovane,ȱesȱmassimeȱne’ ȱquindiciȱanni. Fid.ȱNonȱhaiȱvergognaȱaȱdirȱquesto? Leo.ȱComeȱvergogna?ȱNonȱèȱcosaȱdiȱmaggiorȱlode,ȱappressoȱaȱvirtuosi,ȱdiȱquesto:ȱeȱche egliȱsiȱsiailȱveroȱteȱloȱdimostreròȱconȱbonissimeȱragioni. [PHIDIAS:ȱHastȱDuȱmitȱihmȱjemalsȱdasȱ‘Hinternspiel’ȱgespielt,ȱdasȱdieȱFlorentinerȱso sehrȱlieben? LEONARDO:ȱVieleȱMale.ȱDuȱmusstȱwissen,ȱdassȱerȱeinȱsehrȱschönerȱJünglingȱwar,ȱvor allemȱimȱAlterȱvonȱfünfzehnȱJahren. PHIDIAS:ȱUndȱschämstȱDuȱDichȱnicht,ȱdasȱzuȱsagen? LEONARDO:ȱNein.ȱWarumȱsollteȱichȱmichȱdafürȱschämen?ȱUnterȱverdienstvollen MännernȱgibtȱesȱkeinenȱbesserenȱGrund,ȱstolzȱzuȱseinȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]266ȱ

AnschließendȱlässtȱLomazzoȱLeonardoȱeinȱLobliedȱaufȱdieȱmann–männlicheȱLiebe singen,ȱinȱdemȱerȱdieseȱnichtȱnurȱkonzeptionellȱrechtfertigt,ȱsondernȱsogarȱüberȱdie heterosexuelleȱ stellt.ȱ Auchȱ wennȱ Lomazzosȱ Darstellungȱ vonȱ Leonardos LiebeslebenȱsicherȱmitȱVorsichtȱzuȱgenießenȱist,ȱsoȱgibtȱsieȱdochȱwieder,ȱwieȱdie ZeitgenossenȱdieȱBeziehungȱzuȱSalaìȱrezipierten.ȱOffenbarȱmutmaßtenȱdieseȱeine gleichgeschlechtlicheȱBeziehung.ȱZudemȱverrätȱdieȱSchilderungȱLomazzos,ȱdass LeonardoȱwohlȱalsȱeloquenterȱRednerȱzuȱdiesemȱThemaȱgalt.267ȱEsȱmussȱzumindest inȱderȱLombardeiȱeineȱTraditionȱgegebenȱhaben,ȱsichȱfürȱdieȱspeziellenȱerotischen NeigungenȱLeonardosȱzuȱinteressieren.ȱDiesesȱkönnteȱaufȱdieȱSodomieȬAnklage ausȱdemȱJahreȱ1476ȱzurückgeführtȱwerden,ȱandererseitsȱlagȱdieseȱauchȱschonȱlange zurück,ȱ soȱ dassȱ eherȱ davonȱ ausgegangenȱ werdenȱ kann,ȱ dassȱ diesesȱ Interesse geradeȱauchȱimȱZusammenhangȱmitȱSalaìȱdurchȱstetigesȱGeredeȱgeschürtȱwurde.268 Dieȱ Zügeȱ desȱ Salaìtypsȱ (oderȱ nachȱ Möllerȱ Salaìs)ȱ sindȱ auchȱ aufȱ den DarstellungenȱvonȱSchülernȱLeonardosȱzuȱfinden.ȱDabeiȱistȱauffällig,ȱdassȱerȱstets alsȱ Modellȱ fürȱ entwederȱ denȱ Heiligenȱ Sebastianȱ oderȱ Narzissȱ dient.269ȱ “Der 266

267 268 269

GianȱPaoloȱLomazzo,ȱIlȱlibroȱdeiȱSogni,ȱBritishȱLibrary,ȱAdd.ȱMSȱ12196,ȱf.ȱ132ȱverso;ȱzitiertȱnach it.ȱLomazzo:ȱScritti,ȱ1ȱ(1973),ȱ104ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ52);ȱdt.ȱNicholl,ȱLeonardo,ȱ156Ȭ57ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ105).Vgl. auchȱCarloȱPedretti,ȱ“TheȱAngelȱinȱtheȱFlesh,”ȱAchademiaȱLeonardiȱVinciȱ4ȱ(1991):ȱ34–48;ȱhierȱ36. Vgl.ȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ469–70ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Vgl.ȱLomazzo,ȱ104ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ52). Beispieleȱ hierfürȱ sindȱ derȱ Sanktȱ Sebastianȱ desȱ PseudoȬBoltraffioȱ inȱ derȱ Sammlungȱ ScaglioniȬ Frizzoni;ȱ Möller,ȱ “Salaì,”ȱ Abb.ȱ 210ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 2).ȱ Dasȱ Profilȱ wurdeȱ angeblichȱ nachȱ der RötelzeichnungȱvonȱBoltraffioȱimȱLouvre,ȱNr.ȱ2251ȱangefertigt;ȱvgl.ȱibid.,ȱ149,ȱAbb.ȱ208.ȱFrancesco

612

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

NarzissusȱistȱübrigensȱeineȱsehrȱpassendeȱRolleȱfürȱdenȱeitlen,ȱhübschenȱJungen,” urteiltȱMöller.270ȱDiesesȱThemaȱlässtȱnichtȱnur—zumȱwiederholtenȱMal—anȱFreuds DeutungȱvonȱLeonardosȱKindheitserinnerungȱundȱdieȱRolle,ȱdieȱerȱdarinȱdem NarzissmussȱbeiȱderȱAuswahlȱderȱLiebesobjekteȱzuspricht,ȱdenken,ȱsondernȱdie Themenȱ desȱ Sebastianȱ undȱ desȱ Narzissȱ wurdenȱ inȱ derȱ Renaissanceȱ mit HomoerotikȱundȱmannȬmännlicherȱLiebeȱinȱZusammenhangȱgebracht.271ȱSoȱergibt dieȱBetrachtungȱderȱDarstellungenȱVasaris,ȱLomazzosȱundȱinȱvisuellerȱFormȱder SchülerȱLeonardosȱeinȱeindeutigesȱBildȱbezüglichȱderȱzeitgenössischenȱRezeption desȱ Verhältnissesȱ LeonardoȬSalaì.ȱ Offenbarȱ wurdeȱ vonȱ einerȱ gleichgeschlechtȬ lichenȱBeziehungȱausgegangen,ȱdieȱfürȱLeonardoȱaufȱGrundȱvonȱSalaìsȱhübschem Äußerenȱinteressantȱwar. Auchȱ wennȱ Vasariȱ bezüglichȱ derȱ Beziehungȱ LeonardoȬMelziȱ vielleichtȱ nicht ganzȱdenȱVerdacht,ȱdassȱHomoerotikȱfürȱLeonardoȱauchȱhierȱeineȱRolleȱspielte, aufgibt,ȱ zeichnetȱ erȱ durchȱ seineȱ Schilderungȱ einȱ differenziertesȱ Bildȱ des Verhältnisses.ȱErȱbeschreibt,ȱwieȱMelziȱdesȱMeistersȱgedachteȱundȱdokumentiert dadurch,ȱdassȱdieȱZuneigungȱoffenbarȱbeidseitigȱwarȱundȱauch,ȱdassȱderȱGrund hierfürȱ beiȱ Melziȱ wohlȱ inȱ derȱ Bewunderungȱ fürȱ Leonardosȱ künstlerischeȱ und intellektuelleȱFähigkeitenȱlag.ȱDieseȱEinschätzungȱderȱMotivationȱundȱQualitätȱder BeziehungȱzuȱLeonardoȱausȱMelzisȱSicht,ȱkannȱbestätigtȱwerden.ȱErȱfolgteȱihmȱtreu bisȱ zuȱ seinemȱ Tod—allerdingsȱ erstȱ nachdemȱ Leonardoȱ längereȱ Zeitȱ inȱ Vaprio d’Addaȱweilteȱundȱerȱihnȱsomitȱwohlȱbesserȱkennenȱgelerntȱhatte.ȱErȱverheiratete sichȱerstȱnachȱdemȱTodȱLeonardos.ȱAusȱseinemȱBrief,ȱinȱdemȱerȱdieȱBrüderȱdes MeistersȱüberȱdessenȱTodȱinformiert,ȱsprichtȱtiefeȱZuneigung.ȱDasȱWerkȱMelzis zeigtȱ zwarȱ Anleihenȱ anȱ Leonardo,ȱ erȱ istȱ aberȱ gutȱ inȱ derȱ Lage,ȱ selbstständig ThemenȱzuȱwählenȱundȱKompositionenȱzuȱentwerfen.ȱErȱgingȱkünstlerischȱalso durchausȱeigenständigeȱWegeȱundȱemanzipierteȱsichȱvonȱLeonardo,ȱwasȱsichȱnicht zuletztȱ inȱ seinemȱ spätenȱ Gemäldeȱ desȱ jungenȱ Mannesȱ mitȱ demȱ Papageiȱ zeigt. AuchȱwählteȱerȱhumanistischȬklassischeȱIkonographienȱundȱsignierteȱinȱGriechisch undȱ Lateinisch.ȱ Erȱ folgteȱ Leonardoȱ alsoȱ inȱ seinerȱ Auffassungȱ derȱ sozialen EmanzipationȱdesȱKünstlersȱvonȱderȱRolleȱdesȱausführendenȱHandwerkers.ȱ SollteȱsichȱeineȱZuschreibungȱderȱPorträtzeichnungȱLeonardosȱausȱWindsorȱan Melziȱ bestätigen,ȱ kannȱ dieserȱ entnommenȱ werden,ȱ dassȱ derȱ Schülerȱ ihmȱ das Aussehenȱeinesȱhübschen,ȱintellektuellȱdurchgeistigtenȱMannesȱverlieh.ȱSoȱscheint dennȱauchȱüberhauptȱdasȱIntellektuelleȱdasȱBindegliedȱinȱdemȱVerhältnisȱMelzis

270 271

NapolitanosȱMadonnaȱmitȱHeiligenȱimȱKunsthausȱZürichȱ(HeiligerȱSebastianȱmitȱdenȱZügenȱdes Salaì);ȱLegacy,ȱAbb.ȱ200ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱPseudoȬBoltraffiosȱNarzissȱimȱFrühlingȱinȱdenȱUffizienȱin Florenz;ȱ ibid.,ȱ Abb.ȱ 25ȱ undȱ seinȱ Narzissȱ imȱ Frühlingȱ vonȱ umȱ 1493ȱ inȱ derȱ Nationalȱ Galleryȱ in London;ȱibid.,ȱAbb.ȱ24. Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ149ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). ZurȱhomoerotischenȱBedeutungȱdesȱHeiligenȱSebastianȱsieheȱz.B.ȱSaslow,ȱPictures,ȱ99ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 92).ȱZuȱNarziss:ȱL’amourȱbleu:ȱdieȱhomosexuelleȱLiebeȱinȱKunstȱundȱLiteraturȱdesȱAbendlandes,ȱHrsg. CécileȱBeurdeleyȱ(Köln:ȱDuMont,ȱ1977),ȱ50.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

613

zuȱ Leonardoȱ zuȱ sein,ȱ daȱ seineȱ Selbstwahrnehmung—wieȱ seineȱ Werke,ȱ seine Signaturȱ undȱ seinȱ Selbstporträtȱ zeigen—dieȱ einesȱ klassischȬhumanistisch, gebildetenȱ Mannesȱ ist.ȱ Soȱ verwundertȱ esȱ dennȱ auchȱ nichtȱ mehr,ȱ dassȱ erȱ nach LeonardosȱTodȱnichtȱmehrȱkünstlerischȱtätigȱgewesenȱzuȱseinȱscheint,ȱsondernȱsich demȱschriftlichenȱNachlassȱzuwendete,ȱdenȱerȱdennȱauchȱstellvertretendȱfürȱden totenȱMeisterȱwieȱeinenȱSchatzȱhütete.ȱAuchȱdieȱVermutung,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱbeiȱdem Porträt,ȱ welchesȱ Vasariȱ inȱ Vaprioȱ d’Addaȱ zurȱ ‘Vergegenwärtigung’ȱ desȱ toten Leonardoȱ sah,ȱ umȱ dieȱ Zeichnungȱ Melzisȱ handelnȱ könnteȱ vermagȱ durchȱ diese Ergebnisseȱgestütztȱwerden.ȱSoȱistȱesȱdennȱnichtȱunwahrscheinlich,ȱdassȱerȱein Porträtȱ ausȱ eigenerȱ Handȱ wählte,ȱ welchesȱ dieȱ ausȱ seinerȱ Sichtȱ herausragende EigenschaftȱdesȱMeisters,ȱseinenȱIntellekt,ȱwiedergibt.ȱ VielleichtȱistȱdieȱBenennungȱalsȱ‘Vater,’ȱdieȱsichȱimȱBriefȱanȱdieȱBrüderȱfindet,ȱin diesemȱSinneȱalsȱ‘geistigerȱVater’ȱrespektiveȱVorbildȱundȱMentorȱundȱnichtȱals VaterȬSohnȬVerhältnisȱzuȱlesen.ȱSeinȱpraktiziertesȱGedenken,ȱdenȱVerstorbenen durchȱPorträtȱundȱWerkȱzuȱvergegenwärtigenȱnimmtȱfastȱhagiographischeȱZüge an;ȱeinȱGrundsteinȱfürȱdenȱGeniekultȱspätererȱJahrhunderteȱumȱLeonardoȱwird sicherȱauchȱanȱdieserȱStelleȱgelegt.ȱWennȱVasariȱsoȱauchȱMelzisȱMotivationȱder Beziehungȱ zuȱ Leonardoȱ weitȱ gehendȱ richtigȱ wiedergibt,ȱ soȱ mussȱ ihmȱ dochȱ in diesemȱ Fall,ȱ wasȱ dieȱ vorsichtigȱ vorgetragenenȱ Vermutungenȱ homoerotischer Beweggründeȱangeht,ȱwidersprochenȱwerden.ȱAuchȱwennȱLeonardoȱeineȱhübsche, männlicheȱErscheinungȱsicherȱnichtȱunangenehmȱwar,ȱgibtȱesȱkeinenȱAnlass,ȱim Falleȱ Melzisȱ vonȱ einerȱ homoerotischenȱ Motivationȱ fürȱ diesesȱ Verhältnis auszugehen.ȱ Beiȱ derȱ Deutungȱ derȱ Beziehungȱ LeonardoȬSalaìȱ alsȱ vonȱ homoerotischem VerlangenȱbestimmteȱkönntenȱdieȱZeitgenossenȱallerdingsȱnichtȱganzȱfalschȱliegen. Salaìȱbliebȱetwaȱ30ȱJahreȱbeiȱLeonardoȱundȱheiratetȱerstȱdanach.ȱImȱGegensatzȱzu Melziȱhatȱerȱmitȱwohlȱüberȱ40ȱdasȱtypischeȱHeiratsalterȱschonȱfastȱüberschritten.272 Zudemȱistȱbelegt,ȱdassȱerȱsichȱGewinnȱbringendȱverheiratenȱkonnte,ȱdieȱBraut brachteȱeineȱbeträchtlicheȱMitgiftȱein.273ȱErȱbliebȱweiterȱalsȱMalerȱtätigȱundȱhielt auchȱ Kontaktȱ mitȱ anderenȱ Mitgliedernȱ ausȱ Leonardosȱ Werkstatt.ȱ Allerdings konnteȱerȱsich,ȱwieȱdieȱAnalyseȱdesȱŒuvresȱgezeigtȱhat,ȱkünstlerischȱoffenbarȱnicht vonȱLeonardoȱemanzipierenȱundȱbliebȱeineȱArtȱKopist.ȱSeinȱUnvermögenȱwird besondersȱ anȱ denȱ Stellen,ȱ anȱ denenȱ erȱ Leonardosȱ Kompositionenȱ variierte, offenbar.ȱ Mitȱ denȱ AnnaȬSelbdrittȬȱ undȱ JohannesȬDarstellungenȱ undȱ derȱ Monna Vannaȱimitiertȱerȱ‘erfolgreiche’ȱThemenȱdesȱMeisters,ȱdieȱerȱwohlȱgutȱverkaufen konnte.ȱ Besondersȱ dieȱ letztgenanntenȱ Darstellungenȱ sindȱ erotischȱ aufgeladen, verratenȱaberȱkeinȱhomoerotischesȱInteresseȱSalaìsȱanȱLeonardo.ȱSieȱweisenȱeher aufȱdasȱtypischeȱVerhaltenȱeinesȱhomoerotischenȱObjektes,ȱeinesȱcinaedus.274 272 273 274

Z.B.ȱRocke,ȱForbiddenȱFriendships,ȱ14;ȱ246ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ5). Shell,ȱ“Caprotti,”ȱ399ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Cinaedusȱ(cinedus)ȱistȱeineȱseitȱderȱAntikeȱbekannteȱBezeichnungȱfürȱdenȱpassiven,ȱrezipierenden

614

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Eineȱ genauereȱ Betrachtungȱ desȱ Androgynenȱ beiȱ Leonardoȱ versprichtȱ eine differenzierteȱPerspektiveȱaufȱeinȱsolchesȱVerhältnis.275ȱImȱŒuvreȱLeonardosȱstellt seinȱJohannes276ȱquasiȱdasȱ‘Paradebeispiel’ȱdiesesȱTopos’ȱdar.ȱÜberȱdasȱGemälde wurdeȱlangeȱgemutmaßt,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱumȱseinȱletztesȱhandelte.ȱSoȱwurdeȱesȱauf etwaȱ1513–1516ȱdatiert,ȱheuteȱwirdȱjedochȱeherȱdavonȱausgegangen,ȱdassȱesȱum 1509ȱentstandenȱist.277ȱEbensoȱsindȱinȱderȱForschungȱVermutungenȱzuȱfinden,ȱdass LeonardoȱesȱaufȱGrundȱseinesȱSchlaganfallsȱnichtȱmehrȱselbstȱfertigte,ȱsondern seineȱUrheberschaftȱlediglichȱkonzeptionellerȱNaturȱundȱdieȱausführendeȱKraft Francescoȱ Melziȱ gewesenȱ sei.ȱ Diesenȱ habeȱ erȱ beiȱ derȱ Ausführungȱ jedoch angeleitet.278ȱ DesȱWeiterenȱexistierenȱdiverseȱVariantenȱoderȱKopienȱdiesesȱMotivs,ȱinȱdenen jedochȱ teilweiseȱ eineȱ Transformationȱ derȱ Ikonographieȱ (Bacchus, Verkündigungsengel)ȱzuȱverzeichnenȱistȱundȱinȱderenȱZusammenhangȱimmer wiederȱ Zuschreibungenȱ auchȱ anȱ Salaìȱ zuȱ findenȱ sind.279ȱ Zudemȱ wirdȱ oftȱ die physiognomischeȱÄhnlichkeitȱzwischenȱdemȱTäuferȱundȱderȱMonaȱLisaȱangemerkt sowieȱ dieȱ ausgesprocheneȱ Androgynitätȱ derȱ Figurenȱ betont.ȱ Inȱ diesem Zusammenhangȱ wirdȱ wiederumȱ dieȱ Frageȱ aufgeworfen,ȱ inȱ wieweitȱ die dargestelltenȱ Zügeȱ mitȱ denenȱ desȱ Salaìȱ korrespondieren,ȱ zumalȱ sichȱ offenbar sowohlȱ dieȱ Monaȱ Lisa,ȱ wieȱ auchȱ Johannesȱ derȱ Täufer280ȱ nachȱ Leonardosȱ Todȱ in seinemȱBesitzȱbefanden.ȱAuchȱvariierteȱderȱMalerȱoffenbarȱnichtȱnurȱdasȱMotivȱdes Täufers,ȱ sondernȱ auchȱ dasȱ derȱ Monaȱ Lisaȱ inȱ erotischeȱ Porträts,ȱ eineȱ Gruppeȱ an Darstellungen,ȱdieȱunterȱderȱBezeichnungȱMonnaȱVannaȱkursieren.

275

276

277 278

279 280

PartȱinȱeinerȱmannȬmännlichenȱSexualbeziehung.ȱFürȱdieȱitalienischeȱRenaissanceȱistȱderȱBegriff zumȱ Beispielȱ durchȱ seineȱ Verwendungȱ inȱ Panormitasȱ (Antonioȱ Beccadelli) Hermaphroditusȱ(1425)ȱbelegt;ȱvgl.ȱdazuȱBerndȬUlrichȱHergemöller,ȱ„Zumȱgleichgeschlechtlichen Verhaltenȱ imȱ spätenȱ Mittelalter,”ȱ Männerliebeȱ imȱ altenȱ Deutschland:ȱ Sozialgeschichtliche Abhandlungen,ȱHrsg.ȱRüdigerȱLautmannȱundȱAngelaȱTaeger.ȱSozialwissenschaftlicheȱStudienȱzur Homosexualität,ȱ5ȱ(Berlin:ȱVerlagȱrosaȱWinkel,ȱ1992),ȱ9–38;ȱhierȱ22. Zumȱ Toposȱ desȱ Androgynenȱ beiȱ Leonardo:ȱ Lucianoȱ Bottoni,ȱ Leonardoȱ eȱ lȇAndrogino:ȱ lȇeros transsessualeȱnellaȱcultura,ȱnellaȱpitturaȱeȱnelȱteatroȱdelȱrinascimentoȱ(Mailand:ȱFrancoAngeliȱ2002). EineȱListungȱderȱLiteraturȱzuȱdiesemȱWerkȱistȱz.B.ȱbeiȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ248ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6)ȱzu finden. ZurȱDatierungshistorieȱvgl.ȱibid. Marani,ȱ“Melzi,”ȱ378ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱdazuȱauchȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ27–28ȱ(sieheȱAnm. 13).ȱInȱderȱzweitenȱHälfteȱdesȱ20.ȱJahrhundertsȱzeichnetȱsichȱzunehmendȱdieȱTendenzȱab,ȱdas WerkȱalsȱvollständigȱausȱLeonardosȱHandȱstammendesȱzuȱakzeptieren,ȱs.ȱz.B.ȱAngelaȱOttinoȱdella Chiesa,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(Mailand:ȱRizzoli,ȱ1967);ȱMartinȱKemp,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱTheȱMarvellous WorksȱofȱNatureȱandȱManȱ(London:ȱDent,ȱ1981);ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱLeonardo:ȱCatalogoȱcompletoȱdei dipintiȱ (Florenz:ȱ Cantini,ȱ 1989);ȱ ders.,ȱ Unaȱ carrieraȱ diȱ pittoreȱ (Mailand:ȱ Federicoȱ Motta,ȱ 1999); Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ461ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).ȱ Beispieleȱvgl.ȱS.ȱ596–97. Entwederȱ kamȱ dasȱ Gemäldeȱ mitȱ Salaìȱ nachȱ Mailandȱ zurückȱ (Shellȱ undȱ Sironi,ȱ “Salaìȱ and Leonardo’sȱLegacy”ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ14])ȱoderȱwurdeȱbereitsȱ1518ȱanȱeinenȱAgentenȱdesȱfranzösichen Königsȱverkauftȱ(BertrandȱJestaz,ȱ“FrançoisȱIer,ȱSalaìȱetȱlesȱtableauxȱdeȱLéonard,”ȱRevueȱdeȱl’Art 126ȱ(1999):ȱ68–72).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

615

Inȱ derȱ kunsthistorischenȱ Forschungȱ wirdȱ davonȱ ausgegangen,ȱ dassȱ die IkonographieȱfürȱdieȱspäteȱJohannesȬDarstellungȱLeonardosȱsichȱausȱdemȱMotiv einesȱVerkündigungsengelsȱentwickelte.ȱDerȱfrühesteȱEntwurfȱfürȱdenȱEngelȱist aufȱdemȱBlattȱ12328ȱrectoȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱmitȱStudienȱfürȱdieȱAnghiarischlacht zuȱ findenȱ (Abb.ȱ 16).ȱ Ausȱ diesemȱ Grundȱ wirdȱ esȱ aufȱ dieȱ Zeitȱ umȱ 1503–1506 datiert.281ȱAufȱdiesemȱfindetȱsichȱdieȱSkizzeȱ(wahrscheinlichȱeinesȱSchülers,ȱder jedochȱ nachȱ einerȱ Zeichnungȱ Leonardos,ȱ nichtȱ nachȱ demȱ fertigenȱ Gemälde arbeitete282)ȱeinesȱVerkündigungsengels,ȱderȱbereitsȱdieselbeȱPose—einȱArmȱist angewinkeltȱ undȱ weistȱ nachȱ oben,ȱ denȱ anderenȱ legtȱ erȱ anȱ dieȱ Brust—wieȱ der Täuferȱeinnimmt.ȱClarkȱundȱPedrettiȱvermuten,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱumȱdieȱSkizzeȱfürȱdas GemäldeȱdesȱEngelsȱhandele,ȱvonȱdemȱVasariȱinȱseinerȱVitaȱdiȱLeonardoȱberichtet, esȱ habeȱ sichȱ imȱ Kabinettȱ vonȱ Cosimoȱ de’ȱ Mediciȱ befunden.283ȱ Dasȱ Original Leonardosȱgingȱverloren,ȱesȱexistierenȱjedochȱdreiȱSchülerkopienȱinȱBasel,ȱinȱder EremitageȱinȱSt.ȱPetersburgȱundȱimȱAshmoleanȱMuseumȱinȱOxford.284ȱDieȱBaseler Varianteȱ giltȱ alsȱ dieȱ Besteȱ undȱ wurdeȱ zunächstȱ fürȱ dasȱ Originalȱ Leonardos gehaltenȱ(Abb.ȱ3).285ȱDieȱFigurȱnimmtȱexaktȱdieȱPoseȱdesȱEngelsȱderȱWindsorskizze ein.ȱ Sieȱ hatȱ jedochȱ keineȱ Flügelȱ undȱ hältȱ inȱ derȱ Rechtenȱ denȱ Kreuzstabȱ des Johannes.ȱ Auchȱ trägtȱ sieȱ denȱ gleichenȱ geflecktenȱ Fellüberwurfȱ wieȱ Leonardos Täufer.ȱ Derȱ Schülerȱ hatȱ dieȱ Figurȱ vorȱ demȱ gleichenȱ dunklenȱ Hintergrund wiedergegebenȱundȱdasȱGesichtȱundȱdieȱHaareȱkopiert.ȱFastȱwieȱeineȱKopieȱdes BaselerȱGemäldesȱwirktȱdieȱbereitsȱerwähnteȱDarstellung,ȱdieȱsichȱzuȱSuidasȱZeiten inȱ derȱ Sammlungȱ W.ȱ G.ȱ Watersȱ inȱ Londonȱ befand.ȱ Dassȱ lediglichȱ ein Umschwenkenȱ desȱ linkenȱ Armesȱ zurȱ rechtenȱ Seiteȱ nötigȱ istȱ umȱ dieȱ Poseȱ des Johannesȱzuȱerreichen,ȱzeigtȱderȱVergleichȱmitȱderȱDarstellungȱausȱderȱSammlung H.ȱBendelackȱHewetson,ȱebenfallsȱinȱLondon.ȱ EineȱkleineȱZeichnungȱaufȱblauemȱPapier,ȱerstȱ1991ȱwiederȱentdeckt—sieȱwurde erstmalsȱinȱNewȱYorkȱaufȱdemȱKongressȱ“RenaissanceȱandȱAntiquity:ȱVisionȱand Revision:ȱ Aȱ Psychoanalyticalȱ Perspective”ȱ ausgestellt,ȱ zuvorȱ befandȱ sieȱ sich ‘unentdeckt’ȱinȱderȱPrivatsammlungȱeinerȱdeutschenȱAdelsfamilie286—ȱ,ȱstelltȱeinen 281

282 283

284 285 286

ZurȱDatierungȱsieheȱu.a.ȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ248ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6);ȱDomenicoȱLaurenza,ȱ“Leonardo nellaȱRomaȱdiȱLeoneȱX:ȱGliȱstudiȱanatomici,ȱlaȱvita,ȱl’arte,”ȱLetturaȱVincianaȱ53ȱ(2004),ȱ33–34;ȱdort istȱweitereȱLiteraturȱangegeben. Vgl.ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). Ibid.ȱVasari/ȱMilanesi,ȱ4,ȱ26ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13);ȱVasari/ȱKliemann,ȱ3,1,ȱ15ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13):ȱ“testa d’unoȱ angelo,ȱ cheȱ alzaȱ unȱ bracioȱ inȱ aria,ȱ cheȱ scortaȱ dallaȱ spallaȱ alȱ gomitoȱ venendoȱ innanzi (Brustbildȱ einesȱ Engels,ȱ mitȱ erhobenemȱ Arm,ȱ derȱ vonȱ derȱ Schulterȱ zumȱ Daumenȱ verkürzt gezeichnetȱist,ȱsoȱdaßȱerȱihnȱnachȱvorneȱstreckt)”;ȱdazuȱauchȱOttinoȱdellaȱChiesa,ȱLeonardo,ȱ110 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ274).ȱ Vgl.ȱMarani,ȱLeonardo:ȱCatalogoȱcompletoȱdeiȱdipinti,ȱ145–47. Vgl.ȱClarkȱundȱPedretti,ȱDrawings,ȱ27ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). EinerȱTheseȱdesȱbritischenȱKunstkritikersȱBrianȱSewellȱfolgendȱbefandȱsichȱdieȱZeichnungȱbisȱzum 19.ȱJahrhundertȱinȱderȱWindsorȱSammlung.ȱAusȱdieserȱseiȱsieȱdannȱgestohlenȱworden.ȱErȱberichtet vonȱderȱAnekdote,ȱdassȱesȱinȱWindsorȱfrüherȱeineȱSammlungȱmitȱpornographischenȱZeichnungen

616

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

weiterenȱ Zwischenschrittȱ aufȱ Leonardosȱ Wegȱ vonȱ demȱ Motivȱ des VerkündigungsengelsȱzuȱJohannesȱdemȱTäuferȱdar.287ȱDieȱmitȱderȱBezeichnung angeloȱincarnatoȱbelegteȱFigurȱnimmtȱdieȱPoseȱdesȱVerkündigungsengelsȱein,ȱhat aberȱebenfallsȱkeineȱFlügelȱmehr.ȱSieȱzeigtȱbereitsȱdasȱGesichtȱausȱdemȱLouvreȬ Gemälde.ȱ Imȱ Vergleichȱ z.B.ȱ mitȱ demȱ Verkündigungsengelȱ ausȱ Baselȱ sindȱ die Rundungȱ derȱ Brustȱ undȱ dieȱ Brustwarzeȱ deutlichȱ alsȱ weiblicheȱ Merkmale erkennbar.ȱMitȱderȱlinkenȱHandȱhältȱdieȱFigurȱeinenȱdurchsichtigenȱSchleier,ȱunter demȱdeutlichȱeinȱerigierterȱPenisȱzuȱerkennenȱist.288ȱDieȱZeichnungȱwirdȱaufȱetwa 1513–1515ȱdatiert.ȱWieȱvielȱdesȱangeloȱincarnatoȱinȱJohannesȱdemȱTäuferȱzuȱfinden seinȱmag,ȱistȱschwerȱzuȱsagen.ȱDieȱFigurȱwirdȱlediglichȱbisȱzurȱHüfteȱdargestellt undȱderȱdurchsichtigeȱSchleierȱdurchȱdasȱgefleckteȱFellȱersetzt.ȱDerȱweisendeȱArm wandertȱvorȱdieȱBrust,ȱsoȱdassȱihreȱmännlicheȱoderȱweiblicheȱGestaltungȱnicht mehrȱerkennbarȱist.ȱDerȱandrogyneȱCharakterȱwirdȱdadurchȱreduziert,ȱistȱaber immerȱnochȱerkennbar.ȱDieȱAmbivalenzȱderȱFigurȱistȱinfolgedessenȱzwarȱimmer nochȱdeutlichȱspürbar,ȱaberȱschwererȱzuȱfassen.ȱFürȱdieȱprägnanteȱDarstellungȱder ErektionȱlägenȱnachȱArasseȱprivateȱGründeȱvor,ȱsoȱzeugeȱdieȱZeichnungȱ“von intimenȱGedankenȱLeonardos.”289ȱ DieȱFigurȱvereintȱbeideȱGeschlechter.ȱArasseȱinterpretiertȱdiesesȱPhänomenȱals AusdruckȱvonȱLeonardosȱVerlangen,ȱbeideȱGeschlechterȱannehmenȱbzw.ȱinȱsich vereinenȱ zuȱ können.ȱ Soȱ läßtȱ Lomazzoȱ inȱ seinemȱ Libroȱ delȱ Sogniȱ imȱ ersten RagionamentoȱLeonardoȱeineȱFabelȱerzählen.ȱErȱseiȱvonȱeinerȱgewissenȱDrusilla abgewiesenȱworden,ȱhabeȱdaraufhinȱMailandȱverlassenȱundȱsichȱimȱWaldȱverirrt. Hierȱ habeȱ erȱ vonȱ Früchtenȱ gegessenȱ undȱ daraufhinȱ mehrmalsȱ dasȱ Geschlecht gewechselt,ȱ wobeiȱ erȱ sichȱ alsȱ Frauȱ Drusillaȱ alsȱ Mannȱ gewünschtȱ habe.ȱ Dieser PassusȱLomazzosȱzeugtȱdavon,ȱdassȱLeonardosȱSexualitätȱnichtȱnurȱAnlassȱzu GeredeȱgabȱundȱerȱinȱdemȱRufȱstand,ȱeinȱeloquenterȱKnabenliebhaberȱzuȱsein, sondernȱ auch,ȱ dassȱ ihmȱ derȱ Wunschȱ nachȱ einerȱ Artȱ androgynerȱ Bisexualität unterstelltȱ wurde.ȱ Nachȱ Arasseȱ spiegeleȱ sichȱ diesesȱ Verlangenȱ inȱ Leonardos Fähigkeit,ȱ“derȱ(heterosexuellen)ȱErotikȱdesȱweiblichenȱKörpersȱinȱderȱMalerei

287

288

289

Leonardosȱgegebenȱhabe.ȱDieseȱhabeȱsichȱeinstȱeinȱbedeutenderȱdeutscherȱGelehrterȱansehen wollenȱundȱerstȱeinigeȱZeitȱspäterȱseiȱbemerktȱworden,ȱdassȱdieȱZeichnungenȱverschwunden waren.ȱ Hierüberȱ seiȱ manȱ jedochȱ aufȱ Grundȱ ihrerȱ ‚delikaten’ȱ Darstellungenȱ eherȱ erleichtert gewesen.ȱSewellȱunterstelltȱClarkȱundȱAnthoyȱBlunt,ȱdassȱsieȱinȱihrenȱStudienȱüberȱdieȱSammlung dieȱZeichnungenȱbewusstȱnichtȱerwähnten;ȱvgl.ȱBrianȱSewell,ȱSundayȱTelegraph,ȱ5.ȱAprilȱ1992. DazuȱPedretti,ȱ“Angel”ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ245);ȱAndréȱGreen,ȱ“AngelȱorȱDemon?”ȱ(1996);ȱLeonardoȱin Casentino:ȱl’“angeloȱincarnato”ȱtraȱarcheologiaȱeȱleggenda,ȱHrsg.ȱCarloȱPedrettiȱ(Florenz:ȱGrantour, 2001),ȱ91–94;ȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ467–70ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). DieȱVerfärbungȱüberȱdiesemȱresultiertȱnichtȱetwaȱdaraus,ȱdassȱerȱimȱNachhineinȱhinzugefügt, sondernȱgegenteilig,ȱdassȱversuchtȱwurdeȱihnȱauszuradieren.ȱSoȱwurdeȱdieȱursprünglicheȱFarbe desȱPapiersȱunterȱderȱblauenȱGrundierungȱsichtbar;ȱPedretti,ȱ“Angel,”ȱ39ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ245). Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ469ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

617

Ausdruckȱ zuȱ verleihen,”ȱ imȱ Übrigenȱ imȱ Gegensatzȱ zuȱ seinemȱ Rivalen Michelangelo,ȱderȱdiesesȱnichtȱbeherrschtȱhätte.290ȱ Aufȱ derȱ Rückseiteȱ derȱ Zeichnungȱ schriebȱ Leonardoȱ dieȱ Worteȱ “astrapenȱ / brontenȱ/ȱceraunobolian.”ȱDieseȱUmschriftȱderȱgriechischenȱWorteȱfürȱ“Blitzeȱ/ Stürmeȱ/ȱDonnerschläge”ȱbeziehtȱsichȱaufȱeineȱbeiȱPliniusȱdemȱÄlterenȱzuȱfindende BeschreibungȱderȱFähigkeitenȱdesȱantikenȱMalersȱApelles,ȱderȱauchȱdasȱabbilden konnte,ȱwasȱnichtȱdarstellbarȱsei.291ȱInȱLeonardosȱBücherlistenȱwirdȱPliniusȱder Ältereȱgeführt.292ȱLeonardoȱbildeteȱalsoȱetwasȱab,ȱwasȱsichȱnichtȱabbildenȱlässt, weilȱ esȱ nichtȱ existieren,ȱ gewünschtȱ oderȱ gedachtȱ werdenȱ soll.ȱ Der fleischgewordeneȱEngelȱzeigtȱbeideȱGeschlechter.ȱDieȱPhysiognomieȱdesȱangelo incarnatoȱweistȱwiederȱÄhnlichkeitenȱmitȱdemȱsog.ȱSalaìtypȱauf.ȱAuchȱistȱnichtȱnur inȱderȱBedeutungȱdesȱSpitznamensȱSalaìȱdasȱMiteinanderȱvonȱEngelȱundȱTeufelȱzu finden,ȱsondernȱauchȱinȱdemȱKnabenȱselber,ȱderȱdasȱAussehenȱeinesȱEngels,ȱdie schlechtenȱVeranlagungenȱeinesȱTeufelsȱgehabtȱhabenȱsoll.ȱSoȱkonstatiertȱauch AndréȱGreen:ȱ“Thereȱis,ȱperhaps,ȱsomethingȱsatanicȱbehindȱthisȱangelicȱbeeing.”293 Soȱwäreȱesȱebenfallsȱdenkbar,ȱdassȱdieȱBlitze,ȱStürmeȱundȱDonnerschlägeȱdasȱnicht immerȱeinfacheȱVerhältnisȱzuȱdemȱKnabenȱbeschrieben.ȱAberȱdieseȱVermutung mussȱanȱdieserȱStelleȱreineȱSpekulationȱbleiben. ImȱKontextȱdieserȱDarstellungenȱistȱauchȱdasȱGemäldeȱDerȱheiligeȱJohannesȱder TäuferȱoderȱBacchusȱzuȱnennen.ȱEsȱwirdȱumȱ1515–1520ȱdatiertȱundȱbefindetȱsichȱim Muséeȱ Nationalȱ duȱ Louvreȱ inȱ Paris.294ȱ Dieȱ Zuschreibungȱ istȱ umstritten,ȱ einige ForscherȱschreibenȱesȱLeonardoȱzu,ȱandereȱSchülern,ȱoftȱCesareȱdaȱSesto,ȱderȱes allerdingsȱ nachȱ einerȱ Zeichnungȱ Leonardosȱ gefertigtȱ habe.295ȱ Francescoȱ Melzi wurdeȱinȱdiesemȱZusammenhangȱebensoȱalsȱAutorȱgenanntȱwieȱSalaì.ȱNeuerdings glaubenȱ einigeȱ Forscher,ȱ auchȱ Hinweiseȱ aufȱ dieȱ Autorschaftȱ Leonardosȱ zu erkennen.296ȱ Ebensoȱ umstrittenȱ ist,ȱ obȱ esȱ eineȱ Johannesdarstellung,ȱ dieȱ imȱ 17. 290 291

292 293 294 295

296

Ibid.,ȱ469–70;ȱhierȱ470. “[P]inxitȱ et,ȱ quaeȱ pingiȱ nonȱ possunt,ȱ tonitrua,ȱ fulgetraȱ fulgura;ȱ quaeȱ Bronten,ȱ Astrapenȱ et Ceraunobolianȱappellantȱ(Erȱmalteȱauchȱdas,ȱwasȱaußerhalbȱdesȱBereichsȱderȱMalereiȱliegt,ȱBilder wieȱDonner,ȱWetterleuchtenȱundȱBlitze,ȱwasȱȱBronte,ȱAstrapeȱundȱKeraunobolia heißen).ȱ”ȱȱC.ȱPliniusȱSecundusȱd.ȱÄ.,ȱNaturkunde:ȱBuchȱ35,ȱFarben.ȱMalerei.ȱPlastikȱlat.Ȭdt.,ȱhrsg.ȱund übersetztȱ vonȱ Roderichȱ Königȱ undȱ Gerhartȱ Winklerȱ (Darmstadt:ȱ Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,ȱ1978)ȱKap.ȱ36,ȱ74–75. Z.B.ȱC.ȱA.ȱ210ȱrectoȱa;ȱTheȱLiteraryȱWorks,ȱ2,ȱNr.ȱ1469,ȱ366ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ12). Green,ȱ“Angel,”ȱ92ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ283). FürȱeineȱBibliographieȱsieheȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ249ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6). KennethȱClark,ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱinȱSelbstzeugnissenȱundȱBilddokumentenȱ(ReinbekȱbeiȱHamburg: Rowohlt,ȱ1969),ȱ165.ȱSuidaȱschreibtȱdieȱFigurenȱCesareȱdaȱSesto,ȱdieȱLandschaftȱBernazzano undȱdenȱEntwurfȱLeonardoȱselbstȱzu;ȱSuida,ȱLeonardo,ȱ218–19ȱundȱ274ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ13). JeanȱRudel,ȱ“BaccoȱeȱSanȱGiovanniȱBattista,”ȱLeonardo:ȱlaȱpittura,ȱhg.ȱGiulioȱCarloȱArgan,ȱLuciano Berti,ȱGiuseppeȱMarchiniȱetȱal.ȱ(Florenz:ȱMartelloȬGiunti,ȱ1977),ȱ175–86;ȱMarani,ȱLeonardo:ȱCatalogo completoȱdeiȱdipinti,ȱ119.ȱEineȱmöglicheȱZuschreibungȱanȱLeonardoȱsehenȱMarani,ȱCarriera,ȱ330,ȱ340 (sieheȱAnm.ȱ274);ȱundȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ470–47—allerdingsȱbestenfallsȱMitwirkungȱLeonardos; 461—(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121);ȱȱzurȱZuschreibungsdiskussionȱsieheȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ248ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6).ȱ

618

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

JahrhundertȱmitȱdenȱAttributenȱdesȱBacchusȱ(Pantherfell,ȱKranzȱausȱWeinlaub, Trauben,ȱBacchantenstab)ȱversehenȱwurde,ȱoderȱJohannesȱalsȱBacchusȱgezeichnet sei,297ȱ alsoȱ somitȱ eineȱ Vermischungȱ ausȱ christlicherȱ undȱ heidnischȬpaganer Ikonographieȱ markierenȱ könnte.ȱ Wirdȱ vonȱ einerȱ späterenȱ Hinzufügungȱ der Attributeȱausgegangen,ȱkönnteȱesȱsichȱmöglicherweiseȱumȱdenȱimȱInventarȱSalaìs beschriebenenȱgroßformatigenȱJohannesȱhandeln.298 EineȱVarianteȱdesȱGemäldesȱvonȱCesareȱdaȱSestoȱzeigtȱdieȱvorȱeinerȱLandschaft sitzendeȱVollfigurȱalsȱJohannes.299ȱDasȱGewandȱsowieȱdieȱtiefliegendenȱAugen erinnernȱanȱdieȱZeichnungȱdesȱangeloȱincarnato.ȱUmȱdenȱKreuzstabȱringeltȱsichȱeine SchlangeȱundȱerinnertȱsomitȱanȱdenȱStabȱdesȱGötterbotenȱHermes,ȱderȱheidnischen ParallelleȱzuȱJohannes.300ȱSoȱgehenȱauchȱdieȱVertreterȱderȱThese,ȱdassȱdieȱBacchusȬ Attributeȱ späterȱ hinzugefügtȱ wurden,ȱ vonȱ einerȱ bacchantischenȱ Anlageȱ des Johannesȱaus.ȱArasseȱformuliertȱesȱfolgendermaßen:ȱ“Wennȱmanȱesȱrechtȱbedenkt, habenȱdieȱfrommenȱKritikerȱdesȱJohannesȱhierȱerstaunlichenȱWeitblickȱbewiesen. IndemȱsieȱihnȱnachträglichȱzumȱBacchusȱmachten,ȱbefördertenȱsieȱdiejenigeȱFigur wiederȱansȱTageslicht,ȱderenȱverborgeneȱGegenwartȱdasȱBildȱdurchwirkteȱundȱdie WahrnehmungȱdesȱDargestelltenȱalsȱHeiligenȱstörte.”301ȱErȱgehtȱdavonȱaus,ȱdass dieȱ Figurȱ dieȱ pagane,ȱ dionysischeȱ Auffassungȱ amȱ Hofȱ Leoȱ X.ȱ wiedergäbe,302 währendȱ nochȱ Rolfȱ FritzȱvonȱeinerȱgenuinȱchristlichenȱDeutungȱausging.303ȱSo betrachtetȱPedrettiȱdenȱangeloȱincarnatoȱauchȱalsȱStudieȱfürȱeinenȱBacchus.304ȱEs wirdȱvermutet,ȱdassȱeinȱweiteresȱ(nichtȱerhaltenes)ȱBacchusȬGemäldeȱLeonardos existierte,ȱ erwähntȱ dochȱ derȱ Herzogȱ vonȱ Ferraraȱ umȱ 1505ȱ einenȱ Bacchus 297

298 299

300

301 302 303

304

DasȱGemäldeȱwurdeȱ1625ȱerstmalsȱinȱderȱköniglichenȱSammlungȱinȱFontainebleauȱdokumentiert. PèreȱDanȱ(1642)ȱundȱLeȱBrunȱ(1683)ȱführtenȱesȱunterȱdemȱTitelȱStȱJeanȱauȱdésertȱ(wobeiȱdésertȱin diesemȱKontextȱ‚verlassenerȱOrt’ȱoderȱ‚Wildnis’ȱbedeutet;ȱs.ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱLeonardo:ȱDasȱWerk desȱMalersȱ(München:ȱSchirmer/ȱMosel,ȱ2001),ȱNr.ȱ25;ȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ249ȱ[sieheȱAnm.ȱ6]).ȱIm Katalogȱvonȱ1695ȱistȱderȱTitelȱdurchgestrichenȱundȱdurchȱBaccusȱdansȱunȱPaysageȱersetzt.ȱErstmals beschreibtȱCassianoȱdalȱPozzoȱdasȱGemäldeȱ(Vatikan,ȱBarberinianoȱLatinoȱ5688);ȱZöllnerȱLeonardo, 249ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6).ȱFürȱeineȱJohannesdarstellung,ȱdieȱimȱNachhineinȱmitȱdenȱAttributenȱdes Bacchusȱ versehenȱ wurde,ȱ plädierenȱ z.B.ȱ Arasse,ȱ Leonardo,ȱ 471–73ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 121);ȱ Zöllner, Leonardo,ȱ249ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6). ShellȱundȱSironi,ȱ“SalaìȱandȱLeonardo’sȱLegacy,”ȱ104ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ14). Vgl.ȱauchȱAbb.:ȱOttinoȱdellaȱChiesa,ȱLeonardo,ȱ109ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ274).ȱOttinoȱdellaȱChiesaȱbenennt zudemȱweitereȱKopienȱdesȱBacchus;ȱibid. SoȱverweistȱauchȱArasseȱdarauf,ȱdassȱdieȱParalleleȱBacchusȬJohannesȱinȱderȱRenaissanceȱzwar nichtȱgeläufigȱwarȱ(imȱGegensatzȱzuȱderȱParallelisierungȱvonȱBacchusȱundȱChristus),ȱihre GemeinsamkeitȱsichȱjedochȱinȱderȱVorläuferschaftȱChristiȱbeiderȱFigurenȱfindet;ȱArasse, Leonardo,ȱ468ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).ȱ Ibid.,ȱ473. Ibid.,ȱ470–71. RolfȱFritz,ȱ“ZurȱIkonographieȱvonȱLeonardosȱBacchusȬJohannes,”ȱMouseion:ȱStudienȱausȱKunstȱund Geschichteȱ fürȱ Ottoȱ H.ȱ Förster,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Heinzȱ Ladendorfȱ ȱ undȱ Horstȱ Veyȱ (Köln:ȱ DuMont,ȱ 1960), 98–101. CarloȱPedretti,ȱLeonardo:ȱIlȱdisegnoȱ(Florenz:ȱGiunti,ȱ1996),ȱ33.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

619

Leonardos,ȱderȱsichȱimȱBesitzȱvonȱAntonȱMariaȱPallavicinoȱbefindeȱundȱdenȱer gernȱerworbenȱhätte.305 EinȱVorläuferȱinȱderȱEntwicklungȱvonȱLeonardosȱJohannesverständnisȱistȱsicher auchȱ dieȱ Skizzeȱ 12572ȱ derȱ Royalȱ Libraryȱ (Abb.ȱ 17).ȱ Dieseȱ seiȱ lautȱ Wilhelmȱ R. ValentinerȱeineȱStudieȱfürȱdenȱJohannesȱdenȱTäuferȱdesȱAltargemäldesȱfürȱdie KathedraleȱinȱPistoia.306ȱDiesesȱwirdȱaufȱ1470–1472ȱundȱ1475ȱdatiertȱundȱLeonardo undȱVerrocchioȱzugeschriebenȱ(heuteȱbefindetȱesȱsichȱinȱderȱGalleriaȱdegliȱUffizi inȱFlorenz).307ȱImȱGegensatzȱzurȱletztendlichenȱAusführungȱdesȱTäufersȱistȱerȱin LeonardosȱGemäldeȱkomplettȱnacktȱdargestellt.ȱErȱwendetȱsichȱdemȱBetrachterȱfast frontalȱzu,ȱseineȱHaltungȱistȱsomitȱvergleichbarȱmitȱdemȱspätenȱJohannes.ȱSein KopfȱneigtȱsichȱhingegenȱzurȱlinkenȱSeite.ȱWieȱderȱspäteȱJohannesȱhältȱerȱinȱder rechtenȱeinenȱKreuzstab,ȱwährendȱdieȱlinkeȱmitȱdemȱtypischenȱFingerzeigȱnach linksȱweist,ȱallerdingsȱnachȱuntenȱundȱnichtȱnachȱoben.ȱSchonȱinȱdieserȱSkizze deutetȱsichȱdieȱEntwicklungȱeinerȱJohannesikonographieȱan,ȱdieȱdenȱgestandenen Wüstenbewohnerȱ alsȱ zartenȱ undȱ nacktenȱ oderȱ wenigȱ bekleidetenȱ Jüngling darstellt.ȱDieseȱfrüheȱIdeeȱfindetȱihrenȱHöhepunktȱdannȱinȱdemȱBacchusȬJohannesȬ Gemäldeȱ(folgtȱderȱInterpretȱderȱAuffassung,ȱdassȱdieȱAttributeȱspäterȱhinzugefügt wurden)ȱundȱstelltȱsomitȱeinȱNovumȱinȱderȱDarstellungstraditionȱdesȱJohannes Battistaȱdar.308ȱWieȱinȱderȱForschungȱimmerȱwiederȱkonstatiertȱwurde,ȱentwickelte LeonardoȱeineȱneueȱJohannesikonographie,ȱdieȱvonȱderȱvorherigenȱDarstellungsȬ weiseȱundȱauchȱvonȱdenȱSchilderungenȱdesȱJohannesȱstarkȱabweicht.309ȱ

305

306

307 308 309

Vgl.ȱdazuȱLeonardoȱeȱilȱleonardismoȱaȱNapoliȱeȱRoma,ȱHrsg.ȱAlessandroȱVezzosiȱ(Florenz:ȱGiunti Barbera,ȱ1983),ȱ146–50;ȱPietroȱC.ȱMarani,ȱLéonardȱdeȱVinci:ȱCataloqueȱcompletȱdesȱpeinturesȱ(Paris: Bordas,ȱ1991),ȱ140–41,ȱ145–48;ȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ461ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Valentiner,ȱ “Leonardoȱ asȱ Verrocchio’sȱ Coworker,”58ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 165).ȱ Vgl.ȱ dazuȱ Clarkȱ und Pedretti,ȱ Drawings,ȱ 111ȱ (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 13).ȱ Hierȱ istȱ auchȱ weitereȱ Literaturȱ zuȱ dieserȱ Zeichnung gelistet. Abb.ȱs.ȱz.B.ȱinȱZöllner,ȱLeonardo,ȱ215ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ6). Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ470ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Zurȱ Deutungȱ s.ȱ v.a.ȱ Paulȱ Barolsky.ȱ Dasȱ Gemäldeȱ veranschaulicheȱ dieȱ erstenȱ Verseȱ des Johannesevangeliums,ȱinȱdenenȱdieȱZeugenschaftȱdesȱgöttlichenȱLichtesȱgeschildertȱwerde;ȱPaul Barolsky,ȱ“TheȱMysteriousȱMeaningȱofȱLeonardo’sȱSaintȱJohnȱtheȱBabtist,”ȱSourceȱ8ȱ(1989),ȱ11Ȭ15. ElaboriertereȱDeutungenȱliegenȱz.B.ȱvonȱAndreasȱKreulȱundȱEdoardoȱVillataȱvor;ȱKreul,ȱLeonardo (sieheȱ Anm.ȱ 90);ȱ Edoardoȱ Villata,ȱ “Ancoraȱ sulȱ Sanȱ Giovanniȱ Battistaȱ diȱ Leonardo,”ȱ Raccolta Vincianaȱ 28ȱ (1999),ȱ 123–58;ȱ hierȱ 148–58.ȱ Pedrettiȱ schlägtȱ unterȱ Berücksichtigungȱ des Verkündigungsengelsȱ eineȱ neoplatonischeȱ Deutungȱ vorȱ (Carloȱ Pedretti,ȱ Leonardo:ȱ aȱ Studyȱ in ChronologyȱandȱStyleȱ[NewȱYorkȱundȱLondon:ȱThamesȱ&ȱHudson,ȱ1973],ȱ167),ȱdieȱArasseȱablehnt. Eineȱ Auseinandersetzungȱ mitȱ demȱ sokratischenȱ Erosȱ seiȱ beiȱ Leonardoȱ nichtȱ zuȱ finden, Beeinflussungenȱ könntenȱ höchstensȱ ausȱ demȱ kulturellenȱ undȱ sozialenȱ Kontextȱ stammen, “[z]weifellosȱ verliehȱ Leonardoȱ inȱ seinenȱ zweideutigenȱ Spätwerkenȱ einemȱ intimenȱ Wunsch Ausdruck.ȱ Inȱ ihnenȱ bietetȱ sichȱ dieȱ Liebeȱ zumȱ unsichtbaren,ȱ geistigenȱ Schönenȱ inȱ Gestalt verwirrenderȱ doppelgeschlechtlicherȱ Schönheitȱ demȱ Blickȱ dar.ȱ Zugleichȱ feierteȱ Leonardoȱ in diesenȱ Werkenȱ dieȱ Erotikȱ derȱ Kunstȱ undȱ dieȱ Machtȱ derȱ Malerei,ȱ denȱ Betrachterȱ ‚inȱ Liebeȱ zu entflammen’.”ȱArasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ467,ȱ473ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).

620

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

DieȱnichtȱeindeutigȱaufȱeinȱGeschlechtȱfestgelegteȱFigurȱsowieȱihreȱerotische KonnotationȱwurdenȱoftȱalsȱunpassendȱzurȱDarstellungȱdesȱchristlichenȱGehaltes empfundenȱundȱsogarȱalsȱ“eineȱArtȱEngelȱdesȱBösen”ȱgesehen.310ȱDassȱdemȱThema desȱ Johannesȱ bzw.ȱ derȱ Beziehungȱ zwischenȱ Jesusȱ undȱ Johannesȱ einȱ gewisses erotischesȱ Potentialȱinnewohnt,ȱzeigtȱauchȱeinȱMotiv,ȱwelchesȱvieleȱLeonardoȬ Schülerȱdarstellten.ȱEsȱzeigtȱentwederȱimȱZusammenhangȱmitȱanderenȱFigurenȱdie KnabenȱoderȱauchȱalleineȱJesusȱundȱJohannes,ȱdieȱsichȱaufȱdenȱMundȱküssen.311 GemäßȱArasseȱhabeȱLeonardoȱdiesesȱMotivȱebenfallsȱdargestellt.312 Soȱ scheintȱ dieȱ Entwicklungȱ einerȱ eigenenȱ undȱ neuenȱ Johannesikonographie Leonardoȱlangeȱzuȱbegleiten.ȱVonȱeinemȱnacktenȱJünglingȱüberȱeinenȱEngel,ȱder zumȱangeloȱincarnatoȱwirdȱbisȱhinȱzumȱbacchischenȱJohannesȱentwickeltȱLeonardo einenȱganzȱeigenenȱTäufertypus.ȱAndrogyn,ȱd.h.ȱohneȱeindeutigesȱGeschlecht, bzw.ȱMerkmaleȱauchȱdesȱanderenȱGeschlechtsȱtragend,ȱwirktȱschonȱdieȱFigurȱauf derȱerstenȱZeichnungȱ12572ȱderȱRoyalȱLibrary.ȱDerȱangeloȱincarnatoȱstelltȱeinen bemerkenswertȱ explizitenȱ Versuchȱ dar,ȱ beideȱ Geschlechterȱ inȱ einerȱ Figurȱ zu vereinen.ȱInȱdieserȱZeichnungȱkommtȱauchȱdieȱ‘Salaìform’ȱhinzuȱundȱwirdȱmit demȱ ‘gefallenen’ȱ (daȱ sexualisierten)ȱ Engelȱ assoziiert.ȱ Esȱ istȱ inȱ diesemȱ Beispiel wiederȱdieȱFaszinationȱdesȱWiderspruchs,ȱfürȱdieȱLeonardoȱversuchtȱeineȱFormȱzu finden.ȱSchonȱMöllerȱäußerteȱsichȱbezüglichȱderȱErörterungȱderȱFrage,ȱwieȱviel SalaìȱinȱJohannesȱstecke:ȱ [E]sȱistȱwohlȱanzunehmen,ȱdaßȱdieȱWeichlichkeitȱderȱAuffassung,ȱumȱnichtȱzuȱsagen dieȱ Vermischungȱ derȱ Geschlechter,ȱ dieȱ sichȱ inȱ diesemȱ Bildȱ unliebsamȱ bemerklich macht,ȱdurchȱdieȱEigenartȱjenesȱSchülersȱbefördertȱwurde,ȱdenȱLeonardoȱ26ȱJahreȱum sichȱhatte.313ȱ

MöllerȱmachtȱalsoȱdasȱseinerȱEinsichtȱnachȱtatsächlicheȱAussehenȱdesȱ‘Modells’ Salaìȱ dafürȱ verantwortlich,ȱ dassȱ Leonardoȱ denȱ Johannesȱ androgynȱ gestaltete. Dabeiȱverkenntȱerȱjedoch,ȱdassȱderȱBegleiterȱLeonardosȱinȱdenȱBildernȱewigȱjung bleibenȱmuss,ȱdaȱerȱsichȱinȱderȱRolleȱdesȱcinaedusȱbefindetȱundȱdieseȱnurȱbisȱzu einemȱAlterȱvonȱetwaȱ18ȱsozioȬkulturellȱakzeptiertȱwurde.314ȱUndȱdassȱerȱvielleicht mehr,ȱ alsȱ esȱ seinerȱ natürlichenȱ Anlageȱ entsprach,ȱ effeminiertȱ wurde,ȱ daȱ erȱ als cinaedusȱdenȱpassivenȱPartȱinneȱhatte.ȱDaȱerȱziemlichȱschnellȱdemȱfürȱseineȱsozioȬ kulturelleȱRolleȱschicklichenȱAlterȱentwuchs,ȱwarȱesȱfürȱLeonardoȱvielleichtȱvon doppelterȱNotwendigkeit,ȱihnȱoptischȱinȱdieȱNäheȱeinerȱFrauȱzuȱrücken.ȱSalaìȱwird 310 311 312 313 314

Marani,ȱLéonardȱdeȱVinci,ȱ118ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ301). Sieheȱz.B.ȱBodmer,ȱLeonardo,ȱ80–83ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ243). Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ461ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121). Möller,ȱ“Salai,”ȱ156ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ2). Rocke,ȱForbiddenȱFriendships,ȱ12ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ5);ȱMichaelȱRocke,ȱ“SodomitesȱinȱFifteenthȬCentury Tuscany:ȱTheȱViewsȱofȱBernardinoȱofȱSiena,”ȱTheȱPursuitȱofȱSodomy:ȱMaleȱHomosexualityȱin RenaissanceȱandȱEnlightenmentȱEurope,ȱKentȱGerardȱundȱGertȱHekmaȱ(NewȱYorkȱundȱLondon: HarringtonȱParkȱPress,ȱ1989),ȱ7–31;ȱhierȱ27.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

621

sichȱinȱseineȱRolleȱnichtȱoderȱvielleichtȱspäterȱgarȱnichtȱmehrȱgefügtȱhaben,ȱwie LeonardosȱständigeȱUnzufriedenheitȱüberȱihnȱzeigt.ȱErȱscheintȱaber—pragmatisch undȱgeschäftstüchtig—darausȱNutzenȱgezogenȱzuȱhaben,ȱindemȱerȱdieȱerotischen Variationen,ȱ dieȱ Leonardoȱ mitȱ seinerȱ ‘Form’ȱ anstellte,ȱ kopierteȱ undȱ wohlȱ gut verkaufenȱkonnte.ȱDaȱLeonardoȱmitȱdenȱJohannesȬȱundȱMonnaȱVannaȱBildernȱquasi alsȱ‘Erfinder’ȱdesȱerotischenȱPorträtsȱgalt,ȱkonnteȱerȱmitȱdiesenȱDarstellungenȱwohl einigenȱGewinnȱmachen.ȱAußerdemȱhatteȱerȱjaȱoffenbar—wieȱseinemȱAngebotȱan Isabellaȱ d’Esteȱ zuȱ entnehmenȱ ist—einȱ Händchenȱ undȱ einenȱ Faibleȱ fürȱ ‘cose galante.’ ZusammenfassendȱsindȱzweiȱAntwortenȱaufȱdieȱFrage,ȱwarumȱSalaìȱundȱLeonardo etwaȱ 30ȱ Jahreȱ miteinanderȱ verbrachten,ȱ denkbar:ȱ esȱ kannȱ wohlȱ davon ausgegangenȱwerden,ȱdassȱerȱdesȱMeisterȱcinaedus’ȱwarȱ(zumindestȱeineȱZeitlang, oderȱ Leonardoȱ versuchteȱ esȱ lange,ȱ ihnȱ alsȱ solchenȱ zuȱ gewinnen)ȱ undȱ dass Leonardoȱ vonȱ demȱ gegenȱ jeglicheȱ Regelnȱ derȱ kalokagathiaȱ verstoßenden Widerspruchȱ zwischenȱ schlechterȱ charakterlicherȱ Dispositionȱ undȱ hübschem ÄußerenȱinȱderȱFigurȱdesȱjungenȱMannesȱzutiefstȱfasziniertȱwar.ȱSalaìȱkamȱjungȱin Leonardosȱbottegaȱundȱsahȱansprechendȱaus.ȱErȱverhieltȱsichȱaberȱgesellschaftlich inakzeptabelȱ undȱ warȱ künstlerisch—auchȱ späterȱ noch—nurȱ zuȱ Kopienȱ des MeistersȱinȱderȱLage.ȱEsȱkannȱjedochȱnichtȱnurȱseinȱÄußeresȱgewesenȱsein,ȱwelches Leonardoȱdazuȱbrachte,ȱmitȱihmȱJahrzehnteȱzuȱverbringen.ȱAuchȱhätteȱsichȱgewiss einȱandererȱhübscherȱKnabeȱgefunden,ȱwäreȱesȱalleinȱumȱdieȱRolleȱeinesȱGeliebten gegangen.ȱ Dieȱ zweiȱ Gesichterȱ desȱ Knaben,ȱ dasȱ ästhetischeȱ Äußereȱ fastȱ eines EngelsȱundȱderȱschlechteȱCharakter,ȱdieȱihnȱwohlȱauchȱdazuȱbrachten,ȱdenȱjungen Mannȱ mitȱ demȱ altenȱ Begriffȱ fürȱ denȱ gefallenenȱ Engel—Salaì—zuȱ benennen, müssenȱihnȱzutiefstȱberührtȱhaben,ȱsoȱdassȱerȱüberȱeinȱhomoerotischesȱInteresse anȱ demȱ jungenȱ Mannȱ offenbarȱ inȱ einȱ psychischeȱ Abhängigkeitȱ geriet,ȱ dieȱ ihn zunächstȱ Salaìsȱ Streiche,ȱ späterȱ ihnȱ enervierendeȱ Dingeȱ wieȱ seineȱ ominösen Geldgeschäfte,ȱertragenȱließen.ȱDennochȱsindȱstetsȱBestrebungenȱLeonardosȱzu erkennen,ȱ sichȱ vonȱ derȱ Wollustȱ undȱ derenȱ Objektȱ zuȱ emanzipieren.ȱ Obȱ er tatsächlichȱ eineȱ praktizierteȱ gleichgeschlechtlicheȱ Beziehungȱ mitȱ demȱ Knaben hatte,ȱ wieȱ esȱ offenbarȱ dieȱ Zeitgenossenȱ imaginierten,ȱ oderȱ obȱ esȱ einȱ reines Begehrenȱwar,ȱmussȱoffenȱbleiben.ȱ NochȱFreudȱhieltȱdenȱKünstlerȱfürȱzuȱprüde,ȱalsȱdassȱerȱeineȱsexuelleȱBeziehung ausgelebtȱhätte.315ȱHingegenȱlässtȱsichȱmittlerweileȱdurchȱz.B.ȱrechtȱhumorvolle Äußerungenȱ Leonardosȱ überȱ denȱ Penisȱ belegen,ȱ dassȱ dieseȱ Vermutung wohl—zumindestȱnichtȱinȱdemȱvonȱFreudȱangenommenenȱAusmaß—zutraf.316 VielȱeherȱkönnteȱdieȱdochȱwohlȱsehrȱunbestimmteȱSexualitätȱLeonardos,ȱseine Schwierigkeit,ȱ sichȱ inȱ dieȱ vorherrschendenȱ Rollenȱ ausȱ männlich/aktivȱ und 315 316

Freud,ȱKindheitserinnerung,ȱ38–42ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ93). Arasse,ȱLeonardo,ȱ525ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ121).

622

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

weiblich/passivȱeinzuordnen,317ȱAusschlagȱgebendȱgewesenȱsein.ȱDieȱFrageȱdes direktenȱ Vollzugesȱ desȱ Sexualaktesȱ istȱ fürȱ dieȱ Frageȱ nachȱ demȱ Charakterȱ der Beziehungȱjedochȱzweitrangig.ȱVielȱwichtigerȱistȱesȱfestzuhalten,ȱdassȱesȱsichȱum demȱaristotelischenȱphiliaȬBegriffȱ(NikomachischeȱEthik,ȱBuchȱ8ȱundȱ9)ȱzuȱfolgen,ȱfür LeonardoȱwohlȱumȱeineȱLustȬ,ȱfürȱSalaìȱumȱeineȱNutzenfreundschaftȱhandelte,ȱin derȱderȱjüngereȱMannȱdieȱpassiveȱRolleȱeinesȱLeonardoȱfaszinierendenȱObjektes einnimmt.318ȱ Ganzȱ andersȱ stelltȱ sichȱ dasȱ Verhältnisȱ zuȱ Francescoȱ Melziȱ dar.ȱ Erȱ kannȱ die künstlerischeȱFormȱdesȱMeistersȱnahezuȱhundertprozentigȱimitierenȱundȱdarfȱso seineȱausführendeȱHandȱwerden.ȱDarüberȱhinausȱistȱerȱaberȱauchȱinȱderȱLage, eigeneȱKonzepteȱzuȱentwerfen.ȱSeinesȱErachtensȱ magȱdasȱIntellektuelleȱseinen Meisterȱ undȱ ihnȱ verbundenȱ haben—fastȱ imȱ Sinneȱ einerȱ aristotelischen Tugendfreundschaft.ȱFürȱLeonardoȱmögenȱdieȱFähigkeitenȱdesȱjungenȱMannes dochȱ eherȱ praktischenȱ Nutzenȱ gehabtȱ habenȱ (Gemäldeȱ undȱ wissenschaftliche Hilfsarbeitenȱ ausführen),ȱ soȱ dassȱ erȱ dieȱ Beziehungȱ wohlȱ inȱ dieȱ Näheȱ einer Nutzenfreundschaftȱgerücktȱhätte,ȱohneȱaberȱdieȱZügeȱeinerȱTugendfreundschaft, dieȱsieȱfürȱihnȱsicherȱauchȱhatte,ȱzuȱleugnen.ȱWichtigesȱElementȱdabeiȱist,ȱdass MelziȱinȱdieserȱFreundschaftȱebensoȱaktiverȱTeilȱundȱSubjektȱwieȱLeonardoȱselber ist.ȱ Soȱ istȱ inȱ derȱ komparativenȱ Betrachtungȱ derȱ LustȬȱ undȱ Nutzenfreundschaft LeonardoȬSalaìȱundȱderȱTugendȬȱundȱNutzenfreundschaftȱMelziȬLeonardoȱeine eindeutigeȱVerteilungȱderȱDichotomienȱaktiv/passivȱundȱmännlich/weiblichȱzu finden.ȱSalaìȱistȱpassivesȱObjekt,ȱesȱistȱseineȱeffeminierteȱ‘Form,’ȱdieȱinteressiert. Melziȱ hingegenȱ istȱ aktivesȱ Subjekt.ȱ Dieseȱ Vergeschlechtlichungȱ bestimmter Eigenschaftenȱ korrespondiertȱ mitȱ derȱ Sexualisierungȱ derȱ Kunstliteraturȱ undȱ Ȭ theorieȱderȱFrühenȱNeuzeit,ȱnachȱderȱderȱGeist,ȱdieȱzeugendeȱIdeeȱeinesȱKonzeptes (disegno)ȱ männlich,ȱ dasȱ Material,ȱ inȱ demȱ undȱ durchȱ dasȱ esȱ erschaffenȱ wird, 317

318

SoȱgehtȱauchȱClarkȱdavonȱaus,ȱdassȱLeonardosȱDenkenȱdurchȱdieȱDichotomieȱvonȱaktivȱund passivȱgeprägtȱwar.ȱAlsȱSymboleȱdieserȱbeidenȱElementeȱidentifiziertȱerȱinteressanterweiseȱden altenȱ undȱ denȱ jungenȱ Profiltyp,ȱ dieȱ auchȱ aufȱ demȱ Eingangsȱ vonȱ mir behandeltenȱ‘Freundschaftsbildnis’ȱ(Abb.ȱ1)ȱdargestelltȱsind.ȱErstmalsȱseienȱdieseȱbeidenȱTypen aufȱdemȱBlattȱ12276ȱversoȱderȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(Abb.ȱ5)ȱgemeinsamȱdargestellt,ȱihreȱBedeutungȱals Symboleȱ desȱ Aktivenȱ undȱ Passivenȱ würdenȱ sieȱ seitdemȱ nahezuȱ unverändertȱ 40ȱ Jahreȱ lang beibehalten.ȱBeideȱProfiltypenȱentsprächenȱIdealtypen,ȱderenȱWurzelnȱinȱderȱAntikeȱlägen.ȱDer jungeȱ Profiltyp,ȱ derȱ bereitsȱ beiȱ Verrocchioȱ zuȱ findenȱ sei,ȱ orientiereȱ sichȱ anȱ hellenistischȬ griechischenȱVorbildernȱ(hierȱfolgtȱClarkȱunzweifelhaftȱSuida;ȱvgl.ȱS.ȱ572)ȱundȱsteheȱfürȱLeonardos “feminineȱspiritȱofȱmysteryȱandȱgrace,”ȱwährendȱderȱTypȱdesȱaltenȱMannesȱdurchȱdieȱrömische Antikeȱinspiriertȱseiȱundȱ“theȱvirileȱspiritȱofȱenergy”ȱverkörpere;ȱvgl.ȱKennethȱClark,ȱ“Leonardo andȱtheȱAntique,”ȱLeonardoȇsȱLegacy:ȱAnȱInternationalȱSymposion,ȱhg.ȱCharlesȱDonaldȱO’Malley (BerkeleyȱundȱLosȱAngeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1969),ȱ1–34;ȱhierȱ4–6.ȱ StrengȱgenommenȱkönnteȱinȱderȱProvokationȱundȱdemȱEinflussȱSalaìsȱaufȱLeonardoȱauchȱein aktivesȱMomentȱdesȱSchülersȱmitgedachtȱwerden;ȱhierzuȱmüssteȱjedochȱeineȱAbsichtȱSalaìs—diese WirkungȱbeiȱLeonardoȱhervorrufenȱzuȱwollen—vorliegen.ȱFürȱdieseȱAnmerkungȱdankeȱichȱFalko Schnickeȱ(GKȱGeschlechtȱalsȱWissenskategorie,ȱBerlin).

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

623

weiblichȱkonnotiertȱist.319ȱInteressanterweiseȱistȱdieseȱTendenzȱjedochȱinȱgroßem Stilȱ erstȱ inȱ denȱ Folgejahren—alsȱ entscheidendesȱ Momentȱ desȱ Umbruchsȱ führt PfistererȱMarcantonioȱRaimondisȱnachȱZeichnungenȱGiulioȱRomanosȱgestochene Serieȱ Iȱ modiȱ an,ȱ dieȱ erstmalsȱ 1524ȱ inȱ Romȱ veröffentlichtȱ wurdeȱ undȱ sechzehn StellungenȱdesȱGeschlechtsaktesȱzeigt—zuȱbeobachten.320ȱMelziȱistȱgemeinsamȱmit LeonardoȱideenentwickelndeȱKraft,ȱihreȱFreundschaftȱistȱintellektuellȱmotiviert undȱvonȱbeidenȱSeitenȱaktiv,ȱdenȱzeitgenössischenȱGeschlechtszuschreibungen folgendȱ alsoȱ männlich.ȱ Salaìȱ hingegenȱ istȱ dieȱ passiveȱ ‘Form,’ȱ dieȱ Materie,ȱ der Begleiter,ȱaufȱdessenȱKörperlichkeitȱLeonardoȱesȱabgesehenȱhat—dieȱBeziehung stelltȱ alsoȱ eineȱ weiblichȱ konnotierteȱ Varianteȱ frühneuzeitlicherȱ MännerfreundȬ schaftenȱ dar.ȱ Diesesȱ erklärtȱ imȱ Übrigenȱ auch,ȱ warumȱ esȱ keineȱ Darstellungen MelzisȱausȱLeonardosȱHandȱgibt—imȱKontextȱihrerȱBeziehungȱwarȱseineȱ‘Form’ fürȱ Leonardoȱ nichtȱ relevant,ȱ wurdeȱ alsoȱ auchȱ nichtȱ visuellȱ rezipiert. Dementsprechendȱkönnteȱzwischenȱeinemȱalsȱweiblichȱundȱeinemȱalsȱmännlich zuȱ denkendenȱ Freundschaftskonzeptȱ Leonardosȱ unterschiedenȱ werden.ȱ Das DenkenȱinȱkonträrenȱGeschlechtskategorienȱundȱȬzuordnungenȱwirdȱjedochȱauch imȱ Verlaufȱ desȱ 16.ȱ Jahrhundertsȱ nichtȱ eindeutigȱ festgelegt.ȱ Soȱ konnteȱ gezeigt werden,ȱ dassȱ derȱ idealeȱ Künstlerȱ sichȱ geradeȱ dadurchȱ definierte,ȱ dassȱ er männlicheȱundȱweiblicheȱEigenschaftenȱinȱsichȱvereinte:ȱ undȱ zuȱ verschiedenenȱ Stadienȱ Erzeuger,ȱ Schwangereȱ undȱ Nährmutter321ȱ seiner Kunstprodukteȱ seinȱ musste.ȱ [.ȱ .ȱ .]ȱ Beiȱ alledemȱ entwickelteȱ dasȱ frühneuzeitliche genderingȱkünstlerischȬästhetischerȱVorstellungenȱkeineȱpolarenȱGegensätzeȱzwischen denȱ Kategorienȱ ‘Mann’ȱ undȱ ‘Frau,’ȱ sondernȱ ermöglichtȱ es,ȱ dasȱ künstlerische Hervorbringenȱ einȱ undȱ derselbenȱ Person—desȱ ‘autonomenȱ Superkünstlers’—als komplexesȱWechselȬȱundȱZusammenspielȱbeiderȱGeschlechtskategorienȱzuȱbeschreiȬ ben,ȱalsȱhöchsteȱFormȱderȱSubsummierungȱdesȱWeiblichenȱunterȱdasȱMännliche.322ȱ

319

320 321

322

Vgl.ȱzumȱBeispielȱdenȱStichȱvonȱGiulioȱBonasone,ȱPicturaȱundȱApolloȱ(ausȱdenȱAmorosiȱDilettiȱdegli Dei),ȱumȱ1545,ȱRadierung,ȱIstitutoȱNazionaleȱperȱlaȱGraficaȬCalcografia,ȱRom.ȱAbb.ȱinȱundȱdazu UlrichȱPfisterer,ȱ“ZeugungȱderȱIdee—SchwangerschaftȱdesȱGeistes.ȱSexualisierteȱMetaphernȱund TheorienȱzurȱWerkgeneseȱinȱderȱRenaissance,”ȱAnimationen/Transgressionen.ȱDasȱKunstwerkȱals Lebewesen,ȱ Hrsg.ȱ Ulrichȱ Pfistererȱ undȱ Anjaȱ Zimmermann.ȱ Hamburgerȱ Forschungenȱ zur Kunstgeschichteȱ(Berlin:ȱAkademieȬVerlag,ȱ2005),ȱ41–72;ȱhierȱ46–48ȱundȱAbb.ȱ3.ȱȱPfistererȱverweist ebenfallsȱ aufȱ sprachlicheȱ Sexualmetaphern,ȱ dieȱ denȱ Penisȱ alsȱ disegno,ȱ dieȱ Vulvaȱ alsȱ figura bezeichneten;ȱvgl.ȱibid.,ȱ68. Ibid.,ȱ43,ȱ62. DieseȱSelbstbeschreibungȱkonnteȱinȱLeonardosȱBrieffragmentȱanȱSalaìȱbeobachtetȱwerdenȱund bestätigtȱdieȱerarbeitetenȱDeutungen.ȱAnalogȱzurȱKunstproduktionȱsiehtȱLeonardoȱdenȱKnaben alsȱseinȱKunstwerk,ȱseineȱSchöpfungȱundȱseinȱGeschöpfȱanȱundȱbezeichnetȱsichȱausȱdiesemȱGrund alsȱ seineȱ Amme.ȱ Währendȱ Leonardoȱ denȱ jungenȱ Mannȱ alsȱ discepoloȱ oderȱ späterȱ servitore bezeichnet,ȱbringtȱVasariȱdasȱVerhältnisȱdurchȱdieȱVerwendungȱdesȱAusdruckesȱcreatoȱtreffender zumȱAusdruck. Pfisterer,ȱ“Zeugung,”ȱ44,ȱ62–63ȱ(sieheȱAnm.ȱ314).

624

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

GenausoȱwieȱLeonardoȱinȱderȱWerkgeneseȱgleichzeitigȱmännlichȱundȱweiblichȱsein konnteȱohneȱeinenȱWiderspruchȱzuȱprovozieren,ȱvermochteȱerȱeinenȱmännlichen undȱ einenȱ weiblichenȱ Freundschaftstypȱ zuȱ pflegen.ȱ Genausoȱ wieȱ beiȱ der SchöpfungȱdesȱWerkesȱsetztȱsichȱauchȱbeiȱdenȱFreundschaftstypenȱletztendlichȱder ‘männliche’ȱanȱdieȱSpitzeȱderȱHierarchie.ȱDasȱAbstraktumȱ‘Freundschaft’ȱwirdȱvon Leonardoȱ jedochȱ nichtȱ explizitȱ alsȱ Toposȱ besprochen,ȱ sondernȱ inȱ diesen unterschiedlichenȱTypenȱgelebt.ȱDasȱeingangsȱzitierteȱ‘Freundschaftsbild’ȱkannȱals eineȱweitereȱVisualisierungȱderȱ‘Form’ȱSalaìȱundȱdesȱmitȱihnȱgelebtenȱ‘weiblichen’ Freundschaftstypsȱgelten.ȱDarüberȱhinausȱhatȱdieȱFallstudieȱgezeigt,ȱdass—wenn wirȱderȱAnnahmeȱPfisterersȱzustimmenȱwollen—auchȱandereȱDarstellungenȱals dieȱ Porträtsȱ zweierȱ oderȱ mehrererȱ befreundeterȱ Personenȱ eineȱ Aussageȱ über Freundschaftȱ ermöglichenȱ würden,ȱ wennȱ manȱ nurȱ ihrenȱ Kontextȱ zurȱ Genüge beachtet.ȱ Dieȱ Sexualisierungȱ derȱ Geneseȱ desȱ Kunstwerksȱ sowieȱ auchȱ die FormulierungȱeinesȱdieȱGeschlechterȱvereinendenȱ‘Genies’ȱistȱeinȱPhänomen,ȱdas chronologischȱ erstȱ kurzȱ nachȱ Leonardosȱ Todȱ belegtȱ werdenȱ konnte.ȱ Die Untersuchungenȱ derȱ inȱ diesemȱ Beitragȱ ausgewähltenȱ zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungenȱ zuȱ Salaìȱ undȱ Melziȱ habenȱ jedochȱ gezeigt,ȱ dassȱ sichȱ sowohlȱ die TendenzȱzurȱVergeschlechtlichungȱüberhauptȱsowieȱauchȱzuȱihrerȱTransgression bereitsȱbeiȱLeonardoȱzeigt.ȱ ObȱdieseȱKategorisierungȱvonȱFreundschaftenȱnachȱMerkmalenȱdesȱGeschlechts einenȱspeziellenȱTypȱvonȱ‘Künstlerfreundschaften’ȱinȱderȱFrühenȱNeuzeitȱmarkiert oderȱgenauȱsoȱinȱanderenȱsozialenȱGruppenȱanzutreffenȱist,ȱmüssteȱdurchȱeinen Vergleichȱ mitȱ Beziehungenȱ zwischenȱ Personenȱ ausȱ demȱ ‘nichtkünstlerischen’ UmfeldȱsowieȱanderenȱEpochenȱvergleichendȱherausgearbeitetȱwerdenȱundȱwürde somitȱeineȱsinnvolleȱinȱdiesemȱKontextȱweiterȱzuȱverfolgendeȱFrageȱdarstellen.

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

625

Abb.ȱ1:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱProfilstudienȱeinesȱaltenȱundȱeinesȱjungenȱMannes (Salaì?),ȱdieȱsichȱgegenüberȱstehen,ȱ1500–1505,ȱRötel,ȱ21ȱxȱ15ȱcm,ȱFlorenz, GalleriaȱdegliȱUffizi,ȱGabinettoȱdeiȱDisegniȱeȱdelleȱStampe

626

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ2:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱStudieȱzuȱdenȱHerzklappenȱundȱzurȱMuskeltätigkeit desȱHerzens,ȱumȱ1513,ȱFederȱundȱbrauneȱTuscheȱaufȱblauemȱPapier,ȱ26ȱxȱ20ȱcm, WindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(RLȱ19093ȱrecto)

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

627

Abb.ȱ3:ȱNachȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱJohannesȱderȱTäufer,ȱumȱ1505–1507, Pappelholz,ȱ71ȱxȱ51ȱcm,ȱBasel,ȱKunstmuseumȱBasel,ȱVermächtnisȱDr.ȱFritz Sarasinȱ1942ȱ(Inv.ȱNr.ȱ1879)

628

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ4:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱKopfȱundȱSchulternȱeinesȱjungenȱMannesȱimȱProfil (Salaì?),ȱumȱ1510,ȱschwarzeȱKreide,ȱ19,3ȱxȱ14,9ȱcm,ȱWindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyal Libraryȱ(RLȱ12557ȱrecto)

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

629

Abb.ȱ5:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱBrustbildȱeinesȱMannesȱundȱeinerȱjungenȱFrauȱim Profil,ȱumȱ1478–1490,ȱFederȱundȱTinteȱaufȱweißemȱPapier,ȱ40,5ȱxȱ29ȱcm, WindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(12276ȱverso)

630

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ6:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱKopfȱundȱSchulternȱeinesȱjungenȱMannesȱimȱProfil, FederȱundȱTinteȱaufȱweißemȱPapier,ȱ13,7ȱxȱ8,2ȱcm,ȱWindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyal Libraryȱ(12432ȱrecto)

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

631

Abb.ȱ7:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,ȱAngeloȱincarnato,ȱumȱ1513–1514,ȱschwarzeȱKreide oderȱKohleȱaufȱblauemȱPapier,ȱ26,8ȱxȱ19,7ȱcm,ȱDeutschland,ȱPrivatsammlung

632

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ8:ȱNachȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱMonnaȱVannaȱoderȱGiocondaȱnuda,ȱca.ȱ1515, St.ȱPetersburg,ȱEremitage

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

633

Abb.ȱ9:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci:ȱZeichnungenȱverschiedenerȱImpresenȱ(Lampe, PflugȱundȱKompass)ȱundȱProfilstudieȱeinesȱjungenȱMannes,ȱetwaȱ1508,ȱFeder, TinteȱundȱschwarzeȱKreide,ȱ37,2ȱxȱ28,1ȱcm,ȱ WindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(RLȱ12282ȱrecto)

Abb.ȱ10:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,ȱAllegorienȱderȱFreude,ȱdesȱKummersȱundȱder Missgunst,ȱumȱ1490–1494,ȱFederȱundȱTinte,ȱ21ȱxȱ29ȱcm,ȱOxford,ȱGoverning Body,ȱChristȱChurchȱ(InvȱJBSȱ17ȱverso)

634 MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

635

Abb.ȱ11:ȱFrancescoȱMelzi,ȱFloraȱ(oderȱColumbine),ȱ1517–21,ȱÖlȱaufȱLeinwand (transferiertȱvonȱHolz),ȱ76ȱxȱ63ȱcm,ȱSt.ȱPetersburg,ȱEremitage

636

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ12:ȱFrancescoȱMelziȱ(?),ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,ȱ1510–1515,ȱRötel,ȱ27,4ȱxȱ19ȱcm, WindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(RLȱ12726ȱrecto)

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

637

Abb.ȱ13:ȱFrancescoȱMelzi,ȱPorträtȱeinesȱjungenȱMannesȱmitȱPapagei,ȱumȱ1550, Mailand,ȱCollezioneȱGalleratiȱScotti

638

MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

Abb.ȱ14:ȱGianȱGiacomoȱCaprottiȱ(genanntȱSalaì),ȱJohannesȱderȱTäufer, ȱ Mailand,ȱPinacotecaȱAmbrosiana

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

639

Abb.ȱ

15:ȱNachȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱ(?),ȱJohannesȱderȱTäuferȱ(mitȱAttributenȱdes Bacchus),ȱumȱ1513–1519ȱ(?),ȱÖlȱaufȱHolz,ȱaufȱLeinwandȱübertragen,ȱ17,7ȱxȱ11,5 cm,ȱParis,ȱMuséeȱduȱLouvreȱ(Inv.ȱ780)

Abb.ȱ16:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinciȱundȱSchüler,ȱStudienblattȱmitȱeinemȱEngelȱder Verkündigung,ȱumȱ1503–1506,ȱFederȱundȱSepiaȱaufȱgrauemȱPapier,ȱ 21ȱxȱ28,3ȱcm,ȱWindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(RLȱ12328ȱrecto)

640 MiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki

DieȱzweiȱFreundeȱdesȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci

641

Abb.ȱ17:ȱLeonardoȱdaȱVinci,ȱStudieȱeinesȱnackten,ȱjungenȱMannesȱ(Johannesȱder Täufer?),ȱca.ȱ1476,ȱSilberstift,ȱerhöhtȱmitȱoxidiertemȱWeißȱaufȱblauemȱPapier, 17,8ȱxȱ12,2ȱcm,ȱWindsorȱCastle,ȱRoyalȱLibraryȱ(RLȱ12572)

Chapterȱ16 StellaȱAchilleos (UniversityȱofȱCyprus,ȱNicosia)

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel:ȱ TheȱDiscoursesȱofȱFriendshipȱandȱParrhesiaȱinȱ FrancisȱBacon’sȱTheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall

Variousȱtreatmentsȱofȱfriendship,ȱfromȱtheȱantiquityȱtoȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod, drawȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱaȱcounselor:ȱaȱtrueȱfriend,ȱitȱisȱrepeatedly held,ȱisȱheȱwhoȱgivesȱhonestȱandȱfaithfulȱadvice.ȱExamplesȱmayȱindeedȱbeȱfound inȱaȱbroadȱrangeȱofȱtexts,ȱfromȱCicero’sȱLaeliusȱdeȱAmicitiaȱandȱPlutarch’sȱtreatise onȱ “Howȱ toȱ Tellȱ aȱ Flattererȱ fromȱ aȱ Friend”ȱ inȱ Romanȱ andȱ Greekȱ antiquity,ȱ to Erasmus’sȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱSirȱThomasȱElyot’sȱTheȱBokeȱNamed theȱGovernour,ȱandȱFrancisȱBacon’sȱTheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorallȱinȱthe earlyȱmodernȱera.ȱThisȱpaperȱaimsȱtoȱprovideȱaȱcloseȱreadingȱofȱFrancisȱBacon’s (1561–1626)ȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱdiscoursesȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱadmonition,ȱfocusingȱin particularȱonȱhisȱessaysȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱandȱ“OfȱCounsell.”1ȱSituatingȱtheseȱessays withinȱ aȱ muchȱ broaderȱ setȱ ofȱ ideasȱ thatȱ influencedȱ theȱ humanistȱ rhetoricȱ of friendship,ȱmyȱdiscussionȱwillȱhereȱconcentrateȱonȱtheȱvariousȱramificationsȱof Bacon’sȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱaȱcounselor.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ willȱ beȱ pointingȱ out,ȱ turningȱ hisȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ dangersȱ posedȱ byȱ the possibleȱinsincerityȱofȱfriendship,ȱandȱtheȱinterconnectedȱvicesȱofȱflatteryȱandȱselfȬ flattery,ȱBaconȱextolsȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱaȱcounselor,ȱascribingȱtrueȱfriendship withȱ theȱ practiceȱ definedȱ inȱ ancientȱ Greeceȱ asȱ parrhesiaȱ (freeȱ speech).ȱ This

1

Versionsȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱessaysȱfirstȱappearedȱinȱprintȱinȱtheȱ1612ȱeditionȱofȱBacon’sȱEssayes.ȱUnless otherwiseȱnoted,ȱthisȱpaperȱdiscussesȱtheȱfinalȱversionsȱthatȱappearedȱinȱtheȱexpandedȱeditionȱof 1625.

644

StellaȱAchilleos

discussionȱ carriesȱ aȱ trulyȱ fascinatingȱ setȱ ofȱ politicalȱ connotations,ȱ as Bacon—challengingȱtheȱegalitarianȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱstemmedȱfromȱthe classicalȱ figureȱ ofȱ theȱ friendȱ asȱ “anotherȱ self”—situatesȱ hisȱ examinationȱ of friendshipȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ hierarchicalȱ relationshipsȱ ofȱ patronage, concentrating,ȱinȱparticular,ȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱcounselorȱandȱking.ȱHis valorizationȱ ofȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ friendȱ asȱ anȱ advisorȱ mayȱ wellȱ beȱ read,ȱ asȱ Iȱ will illustrate,ȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱhisȱownȱattemptsȱtoȱgainȱaristocraticȱandȱroyal patronage,ȱbyȱestablishingȱhimselfȱasȱaȱcounselorȱtoȱvariousȱinfluentialȱfigures.ȱYet, moreȱ importantly,ȱ asȱ Iȱ willȱ furtherȱ beȱ arguing,ȱ whileȱ emphasizingȱ theȱ vital significanceȱofȱtheȱfriendȬasȬcounselorȱforȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱsovereignȱpower, Bacon’sȱ discussionȱ ofȱ thisȱ figureȱ mayȱ alsoȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ intriguinglyȱ registerȱ the possibleȱ disruptionȱ ofȱ thatȱ establishedȱ order,ȱ thatȱ Baconȱ himselfȱ soughtȱ so earnestlyȱ toȱ serve—hingingȱ perhapsȱ atȱ whatȱ Markkuȱ Peltonen,ȱ amongȱ other scholars,ȱhasȱreadȱasȱtheȱ“republicanȱinclinations”ȱofȱBaconianȱthought.2 Bacon’sȱessayȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱstartsȱbyȱaddressingȱtheȱwellȬknownȱAristotelian dictumȱ thatȱ “Whosoeverȱ isȱ delightedȱ inȱ solitude,ȱ isȱ eitherȱ aȱ wildeȱ Beastȱ orȱ aȱ God.”3 Indeed,ȱasȱAristotleȱ(384–322ȱB.C.E.)ȱfamouslyȱassertsȱinȱPolitics,ȱbeingȱpolitical animals,ȱmenȱareȱdrawnȱbyȱnatureȱtoȱtheȱformationȱofȱpoliticalȱcommunities.ȱHe whoȱexcludesȱhimselfȱfromȱhumanȱcommunityȱisȱthereforeȱseenȱasȱeitherȱsubȬ humanȱorȱsuperȬhuman:ȱ“aȱmanȱwhoȱisȱincapableȱofȱenteringȱintoȱpartnership,ȱor whoȱisȱsoȱselfȬsufficingȱthatȱheȱhasȱnoȱneedȱtoȱdoȱso,”ȱitȱisȱheld,ȱ“isȱnoȱpartȱofȱa state,ȱsoȱthatȱheȱmustȱbeȱeitherȱaȱlowerȱanimalȱorȱaȱgod.”4ȱFindingȱhimselfȱinȱonly partialȱ agreementȱ withȱ theȱ Aristotelianȱ dictum,ȱ Baconȱ assertsȱ inȱ hisȱ opening remarkȱthatȱ“Itȱhadȱbeeneȱhardȱforȱhimȱthatȱspakeȱit,ȱtoȱhaveȱputȱmorȱTruthȱand untruthȱtogether,ȱinȱfewȱWords,ȱthenȱinȱthatȱSpeech.”ȱFor,ȱasȱheȱsuggests,ȱ“itȱis mostȱtrue,ȱthatȱaȱNaturallȱandȱSecretȱHatred,ȱandȱAversationȱtowardsȱSociety,ȱin anyȱMan,ȱhathȱsomewhatȱofȱtheȱSavageȱBeast;ȱButȱitȱisȱmostȱUntrue,”ȱthatȱthis delightȱ inȱ solitudeȱ “shouldȱ haveȱ anyȱ Character,ȱ atȱ all,ȱ ofȱ theȱ Divineȱ Nature” (80)—anȱexceptionȱonlyȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱasceticȱwithdrawalȱfromȱcommunityȱof religiousȱfiguresȱlikeȱtheȱholyȱfathers,ȱasȱtheirȱisolationȱwouldȱproceed,ȱ“notȱout

2

3

4

MarkkuȱPeltonen,ȱ“Bacon’sȱPoliticalȱPhilosophy,”ȱTheȱCambridgeȱCompanionȱtoȱBacon,ȱed.ȱMarkku Peltonen.ȱCambridgeȱCompanionsȱtoȱPhilosophyȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1996), 283–310;ȱhereȱ299. TheȱdictumȱisȱprovidedȱhereȱasȱitȱappearsȱinȱBacon’sȱessay.ȱSeeȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱTheȱEssayesȱor Counsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall,ȱed.ȱMichaelȱKiernan.ȱTheȱOxfordȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱ25ȱ(1985;ȱOxford: ClarendonȱPress,ȱ2006),ȱ80.ȱUnlessȱotherwiseȱnoted,ȱallȱreferencesȱtoȱBacon’sȱessaysȱwillȱhereafter beȱcitedȱfromȱthisȱeditionȱandȱpageȱnumbersȱwillȱbeȱprovidedȱparentheticallyȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱȱ AsȱtheȱpointȱisȱexpressedȱelsewhereȱinȱPolitics,ȱ“manȱisȱbyȱnatureȱaȱpoliticalȱanimal,ȱandȱaȱmanȱthat isȱbyȱnatureȱandȱnotȱmerelyȱbyȱfortuneȱcitilessȱisȱeitherȱlowȱinȱtheȱscaleȱofȱhumanityȱorȱaboveȱit.” TheȱtranslationȱisȱhereȱcitedȱfromȱAristotle,ȱPolitics,ȱtrans.ȱH.ȱRackham.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ264 (1932;ȱCambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ13ȱ(BookȱI.ȱi.ȱ12)ȱandȱ9 (BookȱI.ȱi.ȱ9).

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

645

ofȱaȱPleasureȱinȱSolitude,ȱbutȱoutȱofȱaȱLoveȱandȱdesire,ȱtoȱsequesterȱaȱMansȱSelfe, forȱaȱHigherȱConversation”ȱ(81).5ȱThusȱmarkingȱproclivityȱforȱsolitudeȱratherȱthan companionshipȱasȱtheȱsignȱofȱbeastlyȱnature,ȱBaconȱhighlightsȱtheȱindispensable roleȱofȱfriendshipȱforȱhumanȱexistence:ȱȱ itȱisȱaȱmeere,ȱandȱmiserableȱSolitude,ȱtoȱwantȱtrueȱFrends;ȱwithoutȱwhichȱtheȱWorldȱis butȱaȱWildernesse:ȱAndȱevenȱinȱthisȱsenseȱalsoȱofȱSolitude,ȱwhosoeverȱinȱtheȱFrameȱof hisȱNatureȱandȱAffections,ȱisȱunfitȱforȱFrendship,ȱheȱtakethȱitȱofȱtheȱBeast,ȱandȱnotȱfrom Humanityȱ(81).

Bacon’sȱemphasisȱonȱtrueȱfriendshipȱisȱqualifiedȱinȱthisȱopeningȱparagraphȱbyȱhis referenceȱtoȱitsȱscarcityȱandȱitsȱdistinctionȱfromȱmereȱsociability:ȱ“ForȱaȱCrowdȱis notȱCompany;ȱAndȱFacesȱareȱbutȱaȱGalleryȱofȱPictures;ȱAndȱTalkeȱbutȱaȱTinckling Cymball,ȱwhereȱthereȱisȱnoȱLove”ȱ(81).6ȱIndeed,ȱreflectingȱonȱtheȱLatinȱsayingȱfound inȱErasmus’sȱAdages,ȱ“Magnaȱcivitas,ȱmagnaȱsolitudo”—inȱEnglish,ȱ“Aȱgreatȱcity,ȱa greatȱ solitude”7—Baconȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ thisȱ dearthȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ rather paradoxicallyȱevenȱmoreȱprominentȱinȱlargeȱcities,ȱasȱthereȱpeopleȱfindȱthemselves scatteredȱandȱunableȱtoȱformȱandȱsustainȱtheȱclose,ȱcompanionateȱrelationships thatȱmoreȱoftenȱcharacterizeȱsmallerȱcommunities. Similarȱstressȱonȱtheȱrarityȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱisȱlaidȱofȱcourseȱinȱvariousȱother treatmentsȱofȱtheȱconceptȱfromȱtheȱclassicalȱperiodȱonwards.ȱForȱinstance,ȱinȱone ofȱ theȱ earliestȱ philosophicalȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ ideaȱ inȱ classicalȱ Greece,ȱ inȱ the NicomacheanȱEthics,ȱAristotleȱtermsȱfriendshipȱasȱ“oneȱofȱtheȱmostȱindispensable requirementsȱofȱlife,”ȱbutȱpointsȱoutȱthatȱwhatȱheȱdefinesȱasȱperfectȱfriendshipȱis markedȱbyȱbeingȱexceptionallyȱrare.8ȱSuchȱaȱfriendship,ȱheȱsuggests,ȱcanȱonlyȱbe 5

6

7

8

Bacon’sȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱAristotelianȱdictumȱhasȱreceivedȱveryȱlittleȱconsideration.ȱInȱhisȱedition ofȱBacon’sȱmajorȱworks,ȱBrianȱVickersȱnotesȱthatȱBacon’sȱinterpretationȱhereȱ“isȱunfair,”ȱwithout yetȱexplainingȱwhy.ȱSeeȱFrancisȱBacon.ȱTheȱMajorȱWorks,ȱincludingȱNewȱAtlantisȱandȱtheȱEssays,ȱed. BrianȱVickers.ȱOxfordȱWorldȱClassicsȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ745ȱ(notesȱtoȱ391). AsȱIȱwouldȱargue,ȱBacon’sȱdiscussionȱoverlooksȱtheȱimplicitȱconnectionȱdrawnȱbetweenȱbestiality andȱdivinityȱinȱAristotle’sȱtext.ȱThoughȱseeminglyȱirreconcilable,ȱtheȱtwoȱstatesȱareȱintricately associatedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱneitherȱofȱtheȱtwoȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱtheȱlaw.ȱContrarily,ȱplacedȱinȬbetween bestialityȱandȱdivinity,ȱman’sȱexistenceȱasȱaȱpoliticalȱanimalȱisȱdefinedȱbyȱhisȱsubjectionȱtoȱlawȱand justice.ȱ“Forȱasȱmanȱisȱtheȱbestȱofȱtheȱanimalsȱwhenȱperfected,”ȱAristotleȱcomments,ȱ“soȱheȱisȱthe worstȱofȱallȱwhenȱsunderedȱfromȱlawȱandȱjustice.”ȱAristotle,ȱPolitics,ȱ13ȱ(BookȱI.ȱi.ȱ13).ȱAȱsimilar kindȱofȱconnectionȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱdrawnȱinȱvariousȱotherȱtextsȱbetweenȱbestialityȱorȱanimalityȱand sovereignty.ȱForȱaȱcompellingȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱsubject,ȱseeȱJacquesȱDerrida,ȱTheȱBeastȱandȱthe Sovereign.ȱVolumeȱI,ȱtrans.ȱGeoffreyȱBenningtonȱ(ChicagoȱandȱLondon:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress, 2009). Thisȱpointȱisȱalsoȱmadeȱinȱtheȱ1612ȱversionȱofȱthisȱessay,ȱwhereȱBaconȱremarksȱthatȱ“without friendship,ȱsocietyȱisȱbutȱmeeting.”ȱTheȱ1612ȱversionȱisȱhereȱcitedȱfromȱBrianȱVickers’sȱeditionȱof FrancisȱBacon.ȱTheȱMajorȱWorks,ȱ301. SeeȱErasmus,ȱAdagesȱIIȱiȱ1ȱtoȱIIȱviȱ100,ȱed.ȱR.ȱA.ȱB.ȱMynors.ȱTheȱCollectedȱWorksȱofȱErasmus,ȱ33 (Toronto:ȱUniversityȱofȱTorontoȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ219.ȱ Aristotle’sȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱBooksȱVIIIȱandȱIXȱofȱtheȱNicomacheanȱEthics.

646

StellaȱAchilleos

saidȱtoȱexistȱwhereȱtheȱrelationshipȱhasȱenduredȱtheȱtestȱofȱtime,ȱandȱwhereȱfriends haveȱacquiredȱtheȱappropriateȱlevelȱofȱintimacyȱandȱprovedȱtoȱeachȱotherȱthatȱthey areȱworthyȱofȱthatȱbond.ȱFor,ȱheȱsays,ȱ asȱ theȱ sayingȱ goes,ȱ youȱ cannotȱ getȱ toȱ knowȱ aȱ manȱ tillȱ youȱ haveȱ consumedȱ the proverbialȱamountȱofȱsaltȱinȱhisȱcompany;ȱandȱsoȱyouȱcannotȱadmitȱtoȱfriendshipȱor reallyȱbeȱfriends,ȱbeforeȱeachȱhasȱshownȱtheȱotherȱthatȱheȱisȱworthyȱofȱfriendshipȱand hasȱwonȱhisȱconfidence.9

Further,ȱforȱAristotle,ȱperfectȱfriendshipȱisȱrareȱbecauseȱitȱmayȱonlyȱbeȱestablished “betweenȱtheȱgood,ȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱresembleȱeachȱotherȱinȱvirtue,”ȱaȱcategoryȱof whichȱthereȱareȱbutȱfew,ȱasȱheȱpointsȱout.10ȱThisȱperfectȱtypeȱofȱfriendshipȱneeds toȱbeȱdistinguished,ȱAristotleȱargues,ȱfromȱother,ȱdefectiveȱformsȱofȱfriendship whichȱ areȱ groundedȱ onȱ utilityȱ orȱ pleasure.ȱ Perfectȱ friends,ȱ heȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ are drawnȱtogetherȱbyȱtheirȱcommonȱloveȱofȱvirtue,ȱandȱnotȱbyȱtheȱhopeȱofȱhavingȱany personalȱ gain.11ȱ Thus,ȱ whileȱ suchȱ friendsȱ enjoyȱ andȱ benefitȱ fromȱ eachȱ other’s company,ȱpleasureȱandȱprofitȱdoȱnotȱformȱtheȱgoverningȱprinciplesȱbehindȱthe formationȱofȱtheirȱrelationship.12ȱUltimately,ȱtheȱspiritualȱbondingȱenvisionedȱin thisȱidealȱformȱofȱfriendshipȱisȱsoȱcompleteȱthat,ȱasȱAristotleȱmemorablyȱremarks, aȱperfectȱfriendȱ“feelsȱtowardsȱhisȱfriendȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱasȱtowardsȱhimselfȱ(for

9 10 11

12

Theȱ translationȱ ofȱ theȱ textȱ isȱ hereafterȱ citedȱ fromȱ Aristotle,ȱ Nicomacheanȱ Ethics,ȱ trans.ȱ Horace Rackham,ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ73ȱ(1926;ȱCambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1934);ȱhere 451ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱi.ȱ1).ȱForȱmoreȱextensiveȱconsiderationȱofȱAristotle’sȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱconceptȱof friendship,ȱseeȱA.ȱW.ȱPrice,ȱLoveȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱPlatoȱandȱAristotleȱ(Oxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ1989),ȱesp.ȱChapterȱ4,ȱ“PerfectȱFriendshipȱinȱAristotle,”ȱ103–30,ȱandȱChapterȱ5,ȱ“Aristotle onȱtheȱVarietiesȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ131–61;ȱPaulȱSchollmeier,ȱOtherȱSelves:ȱAristotleȱonȱPersonalȱand PoliticalȱFriendship.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱEthicalȱTheoryȱ(Albany:ȱStateȱUniversityȱofȱNewȱYorkȱPress, 1994);ȱSuzanneȱSternȬGillet,ȱAristotle’sȱPhilosophyȱofȱFriendship.ȱSUNYȱSeriesȱinȱAncientȱGreek Philosophyȱ (Albany:ȱ Stateȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Newȱ Yorkȱ Press,ȱ 1995);ȱ andȱ Lorraineȱ Smithȱ Pangle, AristotleȱandȱtheȱPhilosophyȱofȱFriendshipȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003).ȱ Aristotle,ȱNicomacheanȱEthics,ȱ463ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱiii.ȱ8–9).ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ461ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱiii.ȱ6)ȱandȱ463ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱiii.ȱ8). Perfectȱfriends,ȱaccordingȱtoȱAristotle,ȱwishȱtoȱbenefitȱeachȱotherȱforȱtheirȱfriend’sȱsake,ȱandȱnot theirȱown.ȱAsȱmentionedȱinȱtheȱtext,ȱ“itȱisȱthoseȱwhoȱwishȱtheȱgoodȱofȱtheirȱfriendsȱforȱtheir friends’ȱsakeȱwhoȱareȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱfullestȱsense,ȱsinceȱtheyȱloveȱeachȱotherȱforȱthemselvesȱandȱnot accidentally.”ȱSeeȱibid.,ȱ461ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱiii.ȱ6).ȱ Whileȱthisȱdescriptionȱofȱperfectȱfriendshipȱisȱoftenȱthoughtȱtoȱexcludeȱwomen,ȱAristotleȱdoesȱnot altogetherȱ precludeȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ maleȬfemaleȱ friendshipȱ beingȱ “basedȱ onȱ virtue,ȱ ifȱ the partnersȱbeȱofȱhighȱmoralȱcharacter.”ȱHowever,ȱheȱdiscussesȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmanȱand womanȱprimarilyȱonȱtheȱlevelȱofȱutilityȱandȱpleasure,ȱdefiningȱitȱasȱaȱ“naturalȱinstinct”ȱthatȱserves theȱpurposesȱofȱprocreation,ȱwhileȱalsoȱ“provid[ing]ȱtheȱneedsȱofȱlife.”ȱSeeȱibid.,ȱ503ȱ(BookȱVIII. xii.ȱ7).ȱ

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

647

aȱfriendȱisȱanotherȱself).”13ȱSuchȱperfectȱunion,ȱheȱobserves,ȱmayȱbestȱbeȱachieved whenȱfriendsȱareȱequalȱandȱalike,ȱforȱ“amityȱconsistsȱinȱequalityȱandȱsimilarity.”14 AccordingȱtoȱtheȱNicomacheanȱEthics,ȱbyȱAristotle’sȱownȱtimeȱvariantsȱofȱthis concept,ȱofȱtheȱidealȱfriendȱasȱ“anotherȱself,”ȱwereȱalreadyȱinȱcirculationȱinȱthe formȱofȱproverbs,ȱsuchȱasȱ“Friendsȱhaveȱoneȱsoulȱbetweenȱthem”ȱandȱ“Amityȱis equality.”15ȱHowever,ȱAristotleȱhasȱoftenȱcomeȱtoȱbeȱcreditedȱwithȱtheȱcodification ofȱthisȱideaȱwhich,ȱasȱvariousȱstudiesȱhaveȱobserved,ȱwouldȱlaterȱbeȱreproduced andȱreappropriatedȱinȱtheȱrhetoricȱofȱaȱgreatȱmanyȱdiscussionsȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱfrom theȱclassicalȱantiquityȱtoȱtheȱRenaissance,ȱgivingȱshapeȱtoȱwhatȱRobertȱStretterȱhas rightlyȱtermedȱ“aȱhighlyȱtheorizedȱtraditionȱofȱidealȱmaleȱfriendshipȱstretching fromȱAristotleȱtoȱMontaigne.”ȱAsȱStretter,ȱamongȱothers,ȱhasȱfurtherȱnoted,ȱthe tenetsȱ ofȱ thisȱ classicalȱ traditionȱ wereȱ mainlyȱ madeȱ availableȱ toȱ earlyȱ modern audiencesȱthroughȱtheȱcirculationȱofȱCicero’sȱ(106–43ȱB.C.E.)ȱfamousȱtreatiseȱon friendship,ȱLaeliusȱdeȱAmicitia,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱbroadlyȬdisseminatedȱLatinȱtextsȱin earlyȱmodernȱEurope.16ȱInȱEngland,ȱDeȱAmicitiaȱwasȱfirstȱtranslatedȱbyȱJohnȱTiptoft andȱ printedȱ byȱ Johnȱ Caxtonȱ inȱ 1481ȱ inȱ aȱ veryȱ influentialȱ edition,ȱ theȱ wide circulationȱ ofȱ whichȱ cameȱ toȱ placeȱ theȱ textȱ “atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ aȱ secularȱ public culture,”ȱandȱpointsȱtoȱ“anȱexpandingȱreadershipȱdeemedȱtoȱbeȱactivelyȱinterested inȱconsumingȱclassicalȱexamplesȱbyȱputtingȱthemȱtoȱuseȱtoȱdetectȱandȱtoȱpractice ‘true’ȱfriendship”—aȱprocessȱthatȱwasȱfurtheredȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱtextȱcameȱto holdȱaȱpivotalȱroleȱinȱhumanistȱeducation,ȱprovidingȱoneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱtextsȱused inȱgrammarȱschoolȱcurriculaȱforȱtheȱteachingȱofȱLatin.17ȱ LikeȱAristotle’sȱdiscussion,ȱCicero’sȱtreatiseȱemphasizesȱtheȱindispensableȱrole ofȱfriendship,ȱwithȱLaeliusȱ(theȱmainȱinterlocutorȱinȱtheȱdialogueȱprovidedȱinȱthe

13

14

15 16

17

Ibid.,ȱ535ȱ(BookȱIX.ȱiv.ȱ5).ȱThoughȱoftenȱcreditedȱtoȱAristotle,ȱtheȱdictumȱthatȱ“aȱfriendȱisȱanother self”ȱhasȱinȱfactȱbeenȱtracedȱbackȱtoȱanotherȱancientȱGreekȱphilosopher,ȱPythagorasȱ(ca.ȱ531–ca. 490ȱB.C.E.).ȱSeeȱRobertȱStretter,ȱ“CiceroȱonȱStage:ȱDamonȱandȱPithiasȱandȱtheȱFateȱofȱClassical FriendshipȱinȱEnglishȱRenaissanceȱDrama,”ȱTexasȱStudiesȱinȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguage,ȱ47.4ȱ(2005): 345–65ȱ(347).ȱ Acknowledgingȱtheȱdifficultiesȱinvolvedȱinȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱfriendsȱwhoȱareȱnotȱequals, Aristotleȱ arguesȱ thatȱ suchȱ friendsȱ mayȱ stillȱ manageȱ toȱ comeȱ closeȱ toȱ perfectȱ friendshipȱ “by renderingȱaffectionȱinȱproportion.”ȱAsȱheȱexplainsȱit,ȱ“theȱaffectionȱrenderedȱinȱtheseȱvarious unequalȱfriendshipsȱshouldȱ…ȱbeȱproportionate:ȱtheȱbetterȱofȱtheȱtwoȱparties,ȱforȱinstance,ȱorȱthe moreȱusefulȱorȱotherwiseȱsuperiorȱasȱtheȱcaseȱmayȱbe,ȱshouldȱreceiveȱmoreȱaffectionȱthanȱhe bestows.”ȱ This,ȱ heȱ suggests,ȱ mayȱ produceȱ equalityȱ betweenȱ theȱ twoȱ parties.ȱ Seeȱ Aristotle, NicomacheanȱEthics,ȱ483ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱviii.ȱ5)ȱandȱ479ȱ(BookȱVIII.ȱvii.ȱ2). Ibid.,ȱ549ȱ(BookȱIX.ȱviii.ȱ2)ȱandȱ551ȱ(BookȱIX.ȱviii.ȱ2).ȱ Stretter,ȱ“CiceroȱonȱStage,”ȱ345.ȱOnȱtheȱCiceronianȱinfluenceȱinȱEurope,ȱseeȱBarryȱWeller,ȱ“The RhetoricȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱMontaigne’sȱEssais,”ȱNewȱLiteraryȱHistoryȱ9.3ȱ(1978):ȱ503–23;ȱhereȱ504. SeeȱLaurieȱShannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity.ȱFiguresȱofȱFriendshipȱinȱShakespeareanȱContextsȱ(Chicagoȱand London:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Chicagoȱ Press,ȱ 2002),ȱ 23–30;ȱ hereȱ 25.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ theȱ bibliographicalȱ data compiledȱ byȱ Albrechtȱ Classenȱ andȱ Marilynȱ Sandidgeȱ inȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ sectionsȱ ofȱ the Introductionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.

648

StellaȱAchilleos

text)ȱurgingȱthatȱitȱbeȱputȱ“aboveȱallȱthingsȱhuman.”18ȱPointingȱtoȱtheȱrarityȱofȱtrue friendshipȱ(amicitiaȱperfecta)ȱbyȱremarkingȱthatȱ“inȱtheȱwholeȱrangeȱofȱhistoryȱonly threeȱ orȱ fourȱ pairsȱ ofȱ friendsȱ areȱ mentioned”ȱ (presumablyȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ the exemplaryȱpairsȱofȱTheseusȱandȱPirithous,ȱAchillesȱandȱPatroclus,ȱOrestesȱand Pylades,ȱandȱDamonȱandȱPythias),ȱLaeliusȱfurtherȱreȬiteratesȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱtrue friendȱisȱ“anotherȱself”ȱ(“alterȱidem”).19ȱ Michelȱ deȱ Montaigne’sȱ wellȬknownȱ essayȱ “Deȱ l’amitié”ȱ (firstȱ publishedȱ in Frenchȱinȱ1580ȱandȱinȱanȱEnglishȱtranslationȱbyȱJohnȱFlorioȱinȱ1603)ȱexemplifiesȱthe significantȱ impactȱ ofȱ thisȱ classicalȱ codificationȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ withȱ itsȱ special emphasisȱonȱtheȱelementsȱofȱsimilarityȱandȱequalityȱbetweenȱfriends,ȱonȱhumanist treatmentsȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod.ȱAsȱMontaigneȱassertsȱinȱthis text,ȱ theȱ relationshipȱ ofȱ perfectȱ friendsȱ isȱ “thatȱ ofȱ oneȱ soulȱ inȱ bodiesȱ twain, accordingȱ toȱ thatȱ mostȱ aptȱ definitionȱ ofȱ Aristotle’s.”ȱ Thisȱ “unique,ȱ highest friendshipȱloosensȱallȱotherȱbonds,”ȱheȱsays,ȱallowingȱoneȱtoȱshareȱevenȱtheȱmost intimateȱ ofȱ secretsȱ withoutȱ havingȱ toȱ worryȱ aboutȱ anyȱ possibleȱ breachȱ of confidentiality,ȱasȱthatȱisȱlikeȱmakingȱaȱconfessionȱtoȱone’sȱownȱself:ȱ“Thatȱsecret whichȱIȱhaveȱswornȱtoȱrevealȱtoȱnoȱother,ȱIȱcanȱrevealȱwithoutȱperjuryȱtoȱhimȱwho isȱnotȱanother:ȱheȱisȱme.”20ȱSoȱabsoluteȱisȱtheȱunionȱofȱfriendsȱinȱthisȱvisionȱofȱideal friendshipȱthatȱindividualȱidentitiesȱcollapse,ȱbecomingȱvirtuallyȱindistinguishable.ȱ Scholarsȱhaveȱlongȱremarkedȱuponȱtheȱconsiderableȱimpactȱofȱthisȱideaȱonȱthe literatureȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱEngland.ȱAsȱshownȱbyȱLaurensȱJ.ȱMills’sȱseminalȱstudy, OneȱSoulȱinȱBodiesȱTwain—publishedȱinȱ1937,ȱbutȱstillȱanȱindispensableȱsurveyȱof theȱliteraryȱrepresentationsȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱRenaissance—theȱtropes ofȱidealȱfriendshipȱfoundȱanȱalmostȱubiquitousȱpresenceȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱofȱthis period.21ȱInȱoneȱofȱtheȱmoreȱrecentȱandȱmostȱincisiveȱcontributionsȱtoȱtheȱfield,

18

19

20

21

Cicero’sȱtreatiseȱisȱhereafterȱcitedȱfromȱCicero,ȱDeȱSenectute,ȱDeȱAmicitia,ȱDeȱDivinatione,ȱtrans. WilliamȱArmisteadȱFalconer.ȱLoebȱClassicalȱLibrary,ȱ154ȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversity Press,ȱ1923),ȱ108–211;ȱhereȱ127. Ibid.,ȱ125ȱandȱ188–89.ȱSimilarȱcodificationsȱofȱtheȱidealȱfriendȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱvariousȱother classicalȱtexts,ȱsuchȱasȱSeneca’sȱEpistulaeȱMoralesȱadȱLuciliumȱandȱPlutarch’sȱMoralia.ȱAȱuseful surveyȱofȱclassicalȱtheoriesȱofȱfriendshipȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱReginaldȱHyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship: Theȱ Idealizationȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Medievalȱ andȱ Earlyȱ Renaissanceȱ Literature.ȱ Brill’sȱ Studiesȱ in IntellectualȱHistory,ȱ50 ȱ(Leiden:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1994),ȱChapterȱ1,ȱ“TheȱPreȬChristianȱPolemicȱaboutȱthe TheoryȱandȱPraxisȱofȱFriendship,”ȱ1–42.ȱAȱmoreȱextensiveȱconsiderationȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱisȱprovided byȱDavidȱKonstan,ȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱClassicalȱWorld.ȱKeyȱThemesȱinȱAncientȱHistoryȱ(Cambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997).ȱ Theȱ essayȱ isȱ hereȱ citedȱ fromȱ Michelȱ deȱ Montaigne,ȱ Theȱ Completeȱ Essays,ȱ trans.ȱ andȱ ed.ȱ M.ȱ A. Screechȱ(1987;ȱLondon:ȱPenguinȱBooks,ȱ2003),ȱ205–19;ȱhereȱ214–15.ȱTheȱtitleȱ“Deȱl’amitié,”ȱmore oftenȱtranslatedȱinȱEnglishȱasȱ“Onȱfriendship,”ȱisȱrenderedȱinȱthisȱeditionȱasȱ“Onȱaffectionate relationships”ȱsince,ȱaccordingȱtoȱScreech,ȱtheȱwordȱfriendshipȱdoesȱnotȱsufficientlyȱcoverȱtheȱbroad rangeȱofȱaffectionateȱrelationshipsȱsuggestedȱbyȱtheȱtermȱamitiéȱinȱRenaissanceȱFrench.ȱȱ Laurensȱ J.ȱ Mills,ȱ Oneȱ Soulȱ inȱ Bodiesȱ Twain:ȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Tudorȱ Literatureȱ andȱ Stuartȱ Drama (Bloomington,ȱIN:ȱPrincipiaȱPress,ȱ1937).ȱ

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

649

LaurieȱShannonȱalsoȱdemonstratesȱtheȱamazinglyȱbroadȱrangeȱofȱtextsȱinȱwhichȱthe classicalȱfiguresȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱ“anotherȱself”ȱandȱtheȱpairȱasȱ“oneȱsoulȱinȱtwo bodies”ȱmadeȱtheirȱappearanceȱduringȱthisȱperiodȱinȱEngland.22ȱFromȱhumanist adviceȬbooks,ȱ likeȱ Sirȱ Thomasȱ Elyot’sȱ Theȱ Bokeȱ Namedȱ theȱ Governourȱ (1531),ȱ to poems,ȱsuchȱasȱNicolasȱGrimald’sȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱ(publishedȱinȱTottel’sȱMiscellany inȱ1557),ȱandȱplays,ȱsuchȱasȱRichardȱEdwards’sȱDamonȱandȱPithiasȱ(firstȱperformed atȱWhitehallȱinȱ1564),ȱtheȱclassicalȱconceptȱofȱperfectȱfriendshipȱisȱelevatedȱtoȱa veneratedȱideal,ȱvalorizedȱevenȱmoreȱforȱitsȱrarityȱandȱapparentȱunattainability.ȱ Inȱ Elyot’sȱ Theȱ Governour,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ whileȱ beingȱ offeredȱ asȱ aȱ modelȱ for emulation,ȱ“TheȱwonderfullȱhistoryȱofȱTitusȱandȱGisippus”ȱisȱalsoȱpraisedȱforȱits unique,ȱoneȱwouldȱsayȱunmatchableȱnature.ȱAsȱLaurensȱJ.ȱMillsȱnotes,ȱwhileȱthis idealȱkindȱofȱfriendshipȱwasȱ“madeȱhigh”ȱinȱhumanistȱrhetoric,ȱandȱ“theȱlonging forȱitȱbecameȱwidespread,ȱthereȱwasȱfrequentlyȱaȱsenseȱofȱfailure,”ȱwithȱnumerous complaintsȱbeingȱvoicedȱthatȱfriendshipsȱlikeȱthoseȱfoundȱinȱsuchȱexemplaryȱpairs ofȱfriendsȱasȱTitusȱandȱGysippus,ȱorȱinȱthoseȱotherȱlegendaryȱpairsȱfromȱclassical antiquity,ȱwereȱnotȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱanymore.23ȱ

22

23

Shannon,ȱ Sovereignȱ Amity.ȱ Variousȱ otherȱ studiesȱ inȱ theȱ lastȱ coupleȱ ofȱ decadesȱ haveȱ also contributedȱsignificantlyȱtoȱtheȱstudyȱofȱtheȱdiscoursesȱandȱpracticesȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱearlyȱmodern England,ȱgivingȱnewȱimpetusȱtoȱtheȱfieldȱbyȱexploringȱitȱinȱrelationȱtoȱissuesȱlikeȱpatronage, kinship,ȱmarriage,ȱgenderȱandȱsexuality.ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱBruceȱR.ȱSmith,ȱHomosexualȱDesireȱin Shakespeare’sȱEngland:ȱAȱCulturalȱPoeticsȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1991);ȱRenaissance DiscoursesȱofȱDesire,ȱed.ȱClaudeȱJ.ȱSummersȱandȱTedȬLarryȱPebworthȱ(ColumbiaȱandȱLondon: UniversityȱofȱMissouriȱPress,ȱ1993);ȱLornaȱHutson,ȱTheȱUsurer’sȱDaughter:ȱMaleȱFriendshipȱand FictionsȱofȱWomenȱinȱSixteenthȬCenturyȱEnglandȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ1994);ȱJeffrey Masten,ȱ Textualȱ Intercourse:ȱ Collaboration,ȱ Authorship,ȱ andȱ Sexualitiesȱ inȱ Renaissanceȱ Drama. CambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱLiteratureȱandȱCulture,ȱ14ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity Press,ȱ 1997);ȱ Alanȱ Stewart,ȱ Closeȱ Readers:ȱ Humanismȱ andȱ Sodomyȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ England (Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997);ȱHarrietteȱAndreadis,ȱSapphoȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEngland: FemaleȱSameȬSexȱLiteraryȱErotics,ȱ1550–1714.ȱTheȱChicagoȱSeriesȱonȱSexuality,ȱHistory,ȱandȱSociety (Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2001);ȱGregoryȱChaplin,ȱ“‘OneȱFlesh,ȱOneȱHeart,ȱOneȱSoul’: RenaissanceȱFriendshipȱandȱMiltonicȱMarriage,”ȱModernȱPhilologyȱ99.2ȱ(2001):ȱ266–92;ȱLove,ȱSex, Intimacy,ȱandȱFriendshipȱBetweenȱMen,ȱ1550–1800,ȱed.ȱKatherineȱO’DonnellȱandȱMichaelȱO’Rourke (Houndmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2003);ȱTomȱMacFaul, MaleȱFriendshipȱinȱShakespeareȱandȱhisȱContemporariesȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress, 2007);ȱPenelopeȱAnderson,ȱ“TheȱAbsentȱFemaleȱFriend:ȱRecentȱStudiesȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱWomen’s Friendship,”ȱLiteratureȱCompassȱ7.4ȱ(2010):ȱ243–53;ȱAllisonȱJohnson,ȱ“‘Virtue’sȱFriends’:ȱTheȱPolitics ofȱFriendshipȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEnglishȱWomen’sȱWriting,”ȱPh.ȱD.ȱdiss.,ȱUniversityȱofȱMiami,ȱ2010. SeeȱalsoȱtheȱarticlesȱonȱEnglishȱRenaissanceȱfriendshipȱincludedȱinȱtheȱspecialȱissueȱofȱTexasȱStudies inȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱonȱ“TheȱCultureȱofȱEarlyȱModernȱFriendship,”ȱvol.ȱ47,ȱno.ȱ4ȱ(Winter 2005),ȱunderȱtheȱguestȱeditorshipȱofȱGregoryȱChaplin:ȱRobertȱStretter,ȱ“CiceroȱonȱStage”;ȱJohn Gouws,ȱ“NicholasȱOldisworth,ȱRichardȱBacon,ȱandȱtheȱPracticesȱofȱCarolineȱFriendship,”ȱ366–401; RachelȱWarburton,ȱ“‘TheȱLordȱhathȱjoinedȱusȱtogether,ȱandȱwoȱbeȱtoȱthemȱthatȱshouldȱpartȱus’: KatharineȱEvansȱandȱSarahȱCheeversȱasȱTravelingȱFriends,”ȱ402–24. Mills,ȱOneȱSoulȱinȱBodiesȱTwain,ȱ112.ȱ

650

StellaȱAchilleos

Indeed,ȱ asȱ scholarsȱ suchȱ asȱ Tomȱ MacFaulȱ andȱ Robertȱ Stretterȱ haveȱ further pointedȱout,ȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱidealȱfriendshipȱoftenȱcameȱtoȱbeȱtreatedȱwithȱdirect skepticism,ȱitsȱrhetoricȱfrequentlyȱexposedȱasȱaȱmereȱillusionȱthatȱfailedȱtoȱtakeȱinto accountȱtheȱcomplexitiesȱofȱrealȬlifeȱsocialȱinteractions.ȱEarlyȱmodernȱdramatists inȱparticularȱfoundȱfertileȱgroundȱinȱtheȱgapȱbetweenȱtheȱtheoryȱofȱidealȱfriendship andȱitsȱpractice,ȱbringingȱonȱstageȱanȱarrayȱofȱimperfectȱfriendsȱwhoȱdeviatedȱfrom theȱmodelȱcelebratedȱbyȱclassicalȱauthorsȱandȱhumanistsȱalike.24 Forȱ Francisȱ Bacon,ȱ asȱ forȱ variousȱ otherȱ classicalȱ andȱ humanistȱ writers,ȱ the argumentȱaboutȱtheȱrarityȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱprovidedȱbothȱaȱcauseȱofȱlamentȱand anȱopportunityȱtoȱvalorizeȱitsȱsignificance.ȱYet,ȱquiteȱimportantly,ȱhisȱdiscussion ofȱtheȱsubjectȱmayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱchallengeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱmainȱpreceptsȱofȱthatȱidealized typeȱofȱfriendshipȱfoundȱinȱtheȱAristotelianȱandȱCiceronianȱtradition.ȱBacon,ȱin particular,ȱ castsȱ doubtȱ onȱ thatȱ tradition’sȱ emphasisȱ onȱ theȱ elementȱ ofȱ likeness betweenȱ friends,ȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ theȱ elementȱ ofȱ equalityȱ in friendshipȱhasȱbeenȱundulyȱexaggerated.ȱAsȱheȱfamouslyȱconcludesȱinȱhisȱessay “OfȱFollowersȱandȱFrends,”ȱ“ThereȱisȱLittleȱFrendshipȱinȱtheȱWorld,ȱandȱLeastȱof allȱ betweenȱ Equals,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ wontȱ toȱ beȱ Magnified.ȱ Thatȱ thatȱ is,ȱ isȱ between SuperiourȱandȱInferiour,ȱwhoseȱFortunesȱmayȱComprehend,ȱtheȱOneȱtheȱOther” (149).25ȱ BenȱLaBrecheȱhasȱrightlyȱobservedȱthatȱ“thisȱconclusionȱdepartsȱfromȱaȱlong classicalȱandȱhumanistȱtraditionȱofȱidealistic,ȱegalitarianȱfriendshipȱandȱinstead emphasizesȱtheȱpatronageȱrelationshipsȱthatȱBaconȱexaminesȱearlierȱinȱhisȱessay.”26 Indeed,ȱ treatingȱ theȱ termsȱ “follower”ȱ andȱ “frend”ȱ asȱ interchangeable,ȱ Bacon’s discussionȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱthisȱtextȱturnsȱattentionȱtoȱhierarchicalȱrelationships,ȱas itȱconcentratesȱonȱgivingȱadviceȱconcerningȱtheȱproperȱchoiceȱofȱfollowersȱand friends—orȱclients,ȱasȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱpatronageȱwouldȱhaveȱit—byȱgreatȱmen. Thisȱincludesȱcaveatsȱagainstȱ“Costly,”ȱ“Factious,”ȱandȱ“Glorious”ȱ(i.e.ȱboastful) followers,ȱandȱaȱspecialȱwarningȱaboutȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱ“Espials;ȱwhichȱenquireȱthe SecretsȱofȱtheȱHouse,ȱandȱbeareȱTalesȱofȱthemȱtoȱOthers”ȱ(148–49).ȱȱ

24

25

26

Romanticȱrivalriesȱespecially—suchȱasȱthatȱbetweenȱPalamonȱandȱArcite,ȱtheȱtwoȱswornȱfriends whoseȱrelationshipȱisȱbroughtȱtoȱaȱtestȱwhenȱtheyȱbothȱfallȱinȱloveȱwithȱtheȱsameȱwoman,ȱEmilia, inȱShakespeareȱandȱFletcher’sȱTheȱTwoȱNobleȱKinsmen—oftenȱservedȱtoȱparodyȱtheȱconventional termsȱofȱidealȱfriendship.ȱMacFaul’sȱMaleȱFriendshipȱinȱShakespeareȱandȱhisȱContemporariesȱprovides aȱcompellingȱexplorationȱofȱnumerousȱsuchȱfriendshipsȱinȱearlyȱmodernȱEnglishȱliteratureȱthat failȱ toȱ matchȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ idealȱ ofȱ amicitiaȱ perfecta.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Stretter,ȱ “Ciceroȱ onȱ Stage,”ȱ 349–51; moreover,ȱcf.ȱhisȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolume.ȱ Versionsȱofȱthisȱessayȱhadȱalsoȱappearedȱinȱtheȱeditionsȱofȱ1597ȱandȱ1612.ȱLikeȱtheȱessaysȱ“Of Frendship”ȱandȱ“OfȱCounsell”ȱitȱisȱhereȱcitedȱfromȱMichaelȱKiernan’sȱeditionȱofȱtheȱ1625ȱEssayes.ȱ BenȱLaBreche,ȱ“Patronage,ȱFriendship,ȱandȱSincerityȱinȱBaconȱandȱSpenser,”ȱStudiesȱinȱEnglish Literatureȱ1500–1900ȱ50.1ȱ(2010):ȱ83–108;ȱhereȱ83.ȱ

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

651

Asȱtheȱfollowingȱdiscussionȱwillȱshow,ȱtheȱdangersȱposedȱbyȱfriends’ȱpotential insincerityȱ orȱ lackȱ ofȱ fidelityȱ inȱ suchȱ hierarchicalȱ relationshipsȱ alsoȱ provideȱ a constantȱpreoccupationȱforȱBaconȱinȱthoseȱtwoȱlongerȱtreatmentsȱofȱtheȱsubjectȱin hisȱessaysȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱandȱ“OfȱCounsell.”ȱAddressingȱtheȱ“Inconveniencesȱof Counsell”ȱ inȱ theȱ latterȱ essay,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Baconȱ commentsȱ onȱ theȱ potential betrayalȱ ofȱ theȱ patron’sȱ confidence—“theȱ Revealingȱ ofȱ Affaires,ȱ wherebyȱ they becomeȱlesseȱSecret,”ȱasȱheȱsays—butȱalsoȱonȱ“theȱDangerȱofȱbeingȱunfaithfully counselled,ȱ andȱ moreȱ forȱ theȱ goodȱ ofȱ themȱ thatȱ counsell,ȱ thenȱ ofȱ himȱ thatȱ is counselled”ȱ(64–65).ȱTimeȱandȱagainȱinȱsuchȱpassages,ȱBaconȱacknowledgesȱthatȱthe languageȱofȱfriendshipȱmayȱbeȱskillfullyȱusedȱtoȱdisguiseȱselfȬinterestȱandȱthatȱtrue friendshipȱ mayȱ beȱ hypocriticallyȱ simulatedȱ toȱ serveȱ theȱ purposesȱ ofȱ social aspiration.ȱAttentionȱtoȱthisȱutilitarianȱuseȱofȱfriendshipȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱdrawnȱin recentȱ yearsȱ byȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ scholars,ȱ whoȱ haveȱ convincinglyȱ arguedȱ thatȱ the humanistȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ oughtȱ notȱ toȱ beȱ takenȱ atȱ faceȱ valueȱ asȱ itȱ often providesȱ aȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ socialȱ advancementȱ andȱ aȱ meansȱ byȱ whichȱ toȱ gain patronage.27ȱ Withinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱsuchȱhierarchicalȱandȱpotentiallyȱtreacherousȱrelationships, Bacon’sȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱrarityȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱgainsȱaȱspecialȱedgeȱas,ȱbesides valorizingȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱwhenȱheȱisȱfound,ȱitȱalsoȱhighlights theȱsignificanceȱofȱtheȱgoodȱcounselorȱinȱmattersȱconcerningȱtheȱchoiceȱofȱfriends. Theȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ counselorȱ toȱ variousȱ influentialȱ figuresȱ isȱ oneȱ that,ȱ asȱ Michael Kiernanȱnotes,ȱBaconȱhimself cravedȱfromȱhisȱearliestȱdaysȱandȱoneȱwhichȱheȱperformed,ȱoftenȱunbiddenȱandȱstill moreȱ oftenȱ unhearkenedȱ toȱ throughoutȱ hisȱ adultȱ life,ȱ whenȱ heȱ wroteȱ numerous advices,ȱ memoranda,ȱ draftsȱ ofȱ proclamations,ȱ andȱ suggestedȱ speechesȱ forȱ the King—offeredȱeitherȱdirectlyȱorȱthroughȱtheȱreigningȱfavorite.28ȱ

Asȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱremarked,ȱBacon’sȱsocialȱandȱpoliticalȱaspirationsȱwereȱthwarted atȱ variousȱ pointsȱ inȱ hisȱ careerȱ byȱ setbacksȱ thatȱ promptedȱ himȱ toȱ launch particularlyȱurgentȱpleasȱforȱpatronage.ȱTheȱfirstȱofȱthoseȱoccurredȱinȱ1579ȱwhen hisȱfatherȱNicholas—anȱimmenselyȱsuccessfulȱstatesmanȱinȱtheȱserviceȱofȱQueen Elizabethȱwhoȱhadȱalsoȱrisenȱtoȱconsiderableȱeconomicȱaffluenceȱasȱmemberȱofȱa newȱ administrativeȱ elite—died,ȱ without,ȱ however,ȱ havingȱ madeȱ anyȱ financial provisionsȱforȱFrancis,ȱtheȱyoungestȱofȱsixȱsons.ȱThis,ȱasȱoneȱscholarȱhasȱnoted,ȱleft Bacon,ȱatȱtheȱageȱofȱeighteen,ȱ“intoȱtheȱunfortunateȱpositionȱinȱwhichȱsoȱmany youngerȱ sonsȱ ofȱ theȱ aristocracyȱ foundȱ themselves:ȱ deprivedȱ ofȱ patrimonyȱ yet

27

28

See,ȱforȱinstance,ȱHutson,ȱTheȱUsurer’sȱDaughter;ȱStewart,ȱCloseȱReaders;ȱJohnȱHuntington,ȱAmbition, Rank,ȱandȱPoetryȱinȱ1590sȱEnglandȱ(UrbanaȱandȱChicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱIllinoisȱPress,ȱ2001).ȱ SeeȱKiernan’sȱ“GeneralȱIntroduction”ȱtoȱhisȱeditionȱofȱBacon,ȱTheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱand Morall,ȱxxvi.ȱ

652

StellaȱAchilleos

raisedȱwithȱaȱtasteȱforȱtheȱprivilegesȱandȱlifestyleȱthatȱonlyȱaȱgenerousȱsettlement couldȱsecure.”29ȱ Hisȱlackȱofȱmeansȱandȱthirstȱforȱadvancementȱwouldȱleadȱhimȱtoȱmakeȱconstant appealsȱtoȱfiguresȱsuchȱasȱWilliamȱCecil,ȱLordȱBurghleyȱ(hisȱuncleȱbyȱmarriage), asȱwellȱasȱtoȱQueenȱElizabethȱdirectly.ȱHisȱearnestȱdesireȱtoȱpromoteȱhimselfȱas royalȱcounselorȱisȱmanifestedȱasȱearlyȱasȱ1584ȱwhen,ȱstillȱinȱhisȱtwenties,ȱheȱwrote aȱletterȱtoȱtheȱQueenȱofferingȱhisȱadviceȱonȱdomesticȱandȱforeignȱaffairs.30ȱToȱhis greatȱdismay,ȱsuchȱattemptsȱprovedȱineffectualȱandȱhisȱhopesȱforȱadvancement wereȱlargelyȱfrustratedȱduringȱthatȱdecade.ȱ Likewiseȱinȱtheȱ1590s,ȱdespiteȱthatȱheȱmanagedȱtoȱformȱaȱsignificantȱconnection withȱ suchȱ aȱ prominentȱ figureȱ asȱ theȱ Earlȱ ofȱ Essex,ȱ whoȱ triedȱ hard,ȱ albeit unsuccessfully,ȱtoȱconvinceȱtheȱQueenȱtoȱappointȱBaconȱtoȱtheȱpositionȱofȱAttorney Generalȱwhenȱthatȱbecameȱvacantȱinȱ1593.ȱHowever,ȱBacon’sȱvigorousȱpursuitȱfor royalȱ patronageȱ continuedȱ tirelesslyȱ duringȱ theȱ reignȱ ofȱ Jamesȱ I,ȱ whenȱ he eventuallyȱ sawȱ hisȱ careerȱ getȱ inȱ aȱ trackȱ ofȱ remarkableȱ ascendanceȱ withȱ his appointmentȱasȱSolicitorȱGeneralȱinȱ1607,ȱAttorneyȱGeneralȱinȱ1613,ȱLordȱKeeper inȱ1617,ȱandȱLordȱChancellorȱinȱ1618.31 AsȱIȱwillȱbeȱpointingȱoutȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱpartȱofȱthisȱpaper,ȱtheȱdifferentȱeditions inȱwhichȱBacon’sȱessaysȱappearedȱmayȱwellȱbeȱreadȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthese constantȱattemptsȱtoȱsecureȱaristocraticȱandȱroyalȱpatronage,ȱasȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱsaid toȱadvertiseȱtheirȱauthor’sȱskillsȱinȱcounseling.ȱTheȱtitleȱunderȱwhichȱtheseȱtexts wereȱpublishedȱinȱtheȱexpandedȱeditionȱofȱ1625,ȱEssayesȱ orȱ Counsels,ȱCivillȱand Morall,ȱnotablyȱservesȱtoȱintroduceȱcounselingȱasȱoneȱofȱtheirȱprimaryȱpurposes. Asȱmyȱdiscussionȱwillȱshow,ȱBacon’sȱneedȱtoȱadvertiseȱhisȱadvisoryȱskillsȱacquired aȱparticularlyȱgreatȱdegreeȱofȱurgencyȱfollowingȱhisȱunexpectedȱfallȱinȱ1621,ȱafter whichȱheȱtriedȱhardȱtoȱreȬingratiateȱhimselfȱwithȱtheȱking.ȱ 29

30

31

JulieȱRobinȱSolomon,ȱObjectivityȱinȱtheȱMaking:ȱFrancisȱBaconȱandȱtheȱPoliticsȱofȱInquiryȱ(Baltimore andȱLondon:ȱJohnsȱHopkinsȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ113.ȱ Thisȱ letter,ȱ accordingȱ toȱ Perezȱ Zagorin,ȱ providedȱ “anȱ acute,ȱ wellȬinformedȱ politicalȱ analysis coveringȱvariousȱfeaturesȱofȱEngland’sȱinternationalȱandȱinternalȱsituation.”ȱAsȱZagorinȱfurther notes,ȱ anotherȱ paperȱ thatȱ lookedȱ atȱ theȱ religiousȱ controversiesȱ betweenȱ theȱ ecclesiastical authoritiesȱandȱPuritanȱnonȬconformists,ȱwrittenȱbyȱBaconȱaroundȱ1589,ȱalsoȱpointsȱtoȱhisȱattempt toȱ catchȱ theȱ eyeȱ ofȱ theȱ Queenȱ andȱ herȱ council.ȱ Seeȱ Perezȱ Zagorin,ȱ Francisȱ Baconȱ (Princeton: PrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1998),ȱ6.ȱ MoreȱdetailedȱinformationȱaboutȱBacon’sȱlifeȱandȱtheȱconstantȱbidsȱforȱpatronageȱthatȱinformed hisȱpoliticalȱcareerȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱJamesȱSpedding’sȱmonumentalȱeditionȱofȱTheȱLettersȱandȱLife ofȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱincludingȱallȱhisȱOccasionalȱWorks,ȱ7ȱvols.ȱ(London:ȱLongman,ȱGreen,ȱLongman, andȱRoberts,ȱ1861–74).ȱForȱmoreȱrecentȱbiographies,ȱseeȱalsoȱFultonȱH.ȱAnderson,ȱFrancisȱBacon: HisȱCareerȱandȱhisȱThoughtȱ(BerkeleyȱandȱLosȱAngeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱSouthernȱCaliforniaȱPress, 1962);ȱCatherineȱDrinkerȱBowen,ȱFrancisȱBacon:ȱTheȱTemperȱofȱaȱManȱ(London:ȱHamishȱHamilton, 1963);ȱJoelȱJ.ȱEpstein,ȱFrancisȱBacon:ȱAȱPoliticalȱBiographyȱ(Athens,ȱOH:ȱOhioȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1977); LisaȱJardineȱandȱAlanȱStewart,ȱHostageȱtoȱFortune:ȱTheȱTroubledȱLifeȱofȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱ1561–1626 (London:ȱVictorȱGollancz,ȱ1998).

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

653

Inȱthisȱ light,ȱdrawingȱaȱcloseȱlinkȱbetweenȱfriendshipȱandȱgoodȱcounsel,ȱthe essaysȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱandȱ“OfȱCounsell”—bothȱofȱwhichȱappearedȱinȱexpanded versionsȱ inȱ theȱ editionȱ ofȱ 1625—areȱ investedȱ withȱ aȱ distinctlyȱ poignantȱ edge, especiallyȱasȱtheȱfigureȱofȱtheȱcounselorȬfriendȱisȱmainlyȱexaminedȱwithȱregards toȱitsȱhierarchicalȱrelationshipȱtoȱthoseȱ“ofȱtheȱgreaterȱSort”ȱ(“OfȱFrendship,”ȱ85). Indeed,ȱ asȱ Iȱ willȱ beȱ demonstrating,ȱ muchȱ ofȱ Bacon’sȱ discussionȱ highlightsȱ the overarchingȱsignificanceȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱgoodȱcounselȱforȱkingsȱandȱmonarchs, andȱmayȱbeȱplacedȱwithinȱaȱmuchȱlargerȱtraditionȱofȱtextsȱthatȱ soughtȱtoȱgive adviceȱtoȱrulers,ȱpromotingȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱtheȱauthor’sȱownȱsocialȱaspirations. TheȱbenefitsȱofȱhavingȱaȱtrueȱandȱfaithfulȱfriendȱareȱoutlinedȱbyȱBaconȱinȱhis discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ soȬcalledȱ “Fruit[s]ȱ ofȱ Frendship”ȱ (inȱ “Ofȱ Frendship”).ȱ His valorizationȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱdescriptionȱofȱtheseȱfruitsȱisȱlargelyȱbasedȱonȱthe greatȱimportanceȱattributedȱtoȱitȱbyȱkingsȱandȱmonarchs,ȱwhoȱoftenȱ“purchaseȱit, manyȱ times,ȱ atȱ theȱ hazardȱ ofȱ theirȱ owneȱ Safety,ȱ andȱ Greatnesse.”ȱ Princes,ȱ he suggests,ȱareȱunfortunate,ȱ“inȱregardȱofȱtheȱdistanceȱofȱtheirȱFortune,ȱfromȱthatȱof theirȱSubjectsȱandȱServants”ȱ(81),ȱsinceȱthatȱrendersȱthemȱunableȱtoȱenjoyȱtheȱfruits ofȱfriendship.ȱ“Except,”ȱheȱcomments,ȱ“(toȱmakeȱThemselvesȱcapableȱthereof)ȱthey raiseȱsomeȱPersonsȱtoȱbeȱasȱitȱwereȱCompanions,ȱandȱalmostȱEqualsȱtoȱthemselves, whichȱmanyȱtimes,”ȱheȱadmits,ȱ“sortethȱtoȱInconvenience”ȱ(81–2).ȱThisȱhasȱbeen done,ȱheȱpointsȱout,ȱnotȱonlyȱbyȱ“WeakeȱandȱPassionateȱPrinces”ȱ(82),ȱbutȱalsoȱby theȱwisestȱandȱstrongestȱonesȱwhoȱfoundȱthemselvesȱincomplete—“butȱasȱanȱHalfe Peece”ȱ(83)—withoutȱaȱfriend,ȱandȱchoseȱmenȱofȱlowerȱstatusȱtoȱgiveȱthemȱ“the Comfortȱ ofȱ Frendship”ȱ (83),ȱ asȱ thatȱ mightȱ notȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ maritalȱ orȱ familial relations.ȱSuchȱcompanions,ȱheȱsays,ȱoftenȱcalledȱbyȱ“theȱNameȱofȱFavorites,ȱor Privadoes;ȱAsȱifȱitȱwereȱMatterȱofȱGrace,ȱorȱConversation,”ȱareȱbestȱdescribedȱbyȱthe Romanȱtermȱ“ParticipesȱCurarum”ȱ(82),ȱorȱpartnersȱinȱcares.ȱToȱproveȱhisȱpoint, Baconȱmakesȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱnumberȱofȱsuchȱcloseȱfriendshipsȱbetweenȱemperors andȱmenȱofȱlowerȱstatusȱinȱRomanȱhistory.ȱ Withinȱ thisȱ context,ȱ Bacon’sȱ discussionȱ ofȱ theȱ fruitsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ gainsȱ an intriguingȱsetȱofȱpoliticalȱconnotations.ȱInȱtheȱthirdȱandȱfinalȱofȱtheseȱfruits,ȱ“which isȱlikeȱtheȱPomgranat,ȱfullȱofȱmanyȱkernels,”ȱheȱinvitesȱhisȱreaderȱtoȱconsiderȱ“how manyȱThingsȱthereȱare,ȱwhichȱaȱManȱcannotȱdoeȱHimselfe.”ȱItȱisȱeverȱsoȱcommon, forȱinstance,ȱforȱmenȱtoȱdieȱwithoutȱhavingȱmanagedȱtoȱfulfillȱvariousȱdesires,ȱsuch asȱtheȱcompletionȱofȱaȱwork,ȱorȱasȱheȱsays,ȱinȱaȱreferenceȱthatȱnoȱdoubtȱreflectsȱon hisȱownȱpersonalȱplightȱafterȱtheȱdeathȱofȱhisȱfather,ȱ“TheȱBestowingȱofȱaȱChild.” Yet,ȱ“IfȱaȱManȱhaveȱaȱtrueȱFrend,”ȱheȱpointsȱout,ȱ“heȱmayȱrestȱalmostȱsecure,ȱthat theȱCareȱofȱthoseȱThings,ȱwillȱcontinueȱafterȱHim.”ȱLikewise,ȱevenȱwhileȱliving, “HowȱmanyȱThingsȱareȱthere,”ȱheȱwonders,ȱ“whichȱaȱManȱcannot,ȱwithȱanyȱFace orȱComelines,ȱsayȱorȱdoeȱHimself?”—fromȱpraisingȱone’sȱownȱmeritsȱtoȱimploring othersȱforȱvariousȱissues.ȱ“ButȱallȱtheseȱThings,”ȱheȱargues,ȱ“areȱGracefullȱinȱa FrendsȱMouth,ȱwhichȱareȱBlushingȱinȱaȱMansȱOwne”ȱ(86).ȱ

654

StellaȱAchilleos

Thusȱenablingȱtheȱfriendȱtoȱhaveȱhisȱpurposesȱservedȱwithoutȱviolatingȱsocial decorum,ȱ theȱ friendȱ mayȱ furtherȱ beȱ usedȱ toȱ deliverȱ messagesȱ inȱ casesȱ where affectiveȱ bondsȱ ofȱ kinshipȱ (asȱ withȱ wifeȱ andȱ children),ȱ orȱ politicalȱ termsȱ and agendasȱ(asȱwithȱenemies),ȱrestrictȱone’sȱcapacityȱtoȱdoȱso,ȱforȱ“aȱFrendȱmayȱspeak, asȱtheȱCaseȱrequires,ȱandȱnotȱasȱitȱsortethȱwithȱtheȱPerson”ȱ(87).ȱThisȱway,ȱBacon suggests,ȱ“aȱManȱhathȱasȱitȱwereȱtwoȱLivesȱinȱhisȱdesires.”ȱLayingȱemphasisȱonȱthe corporealȱredoublingȱofȱtheȱselfȱthatȱisȱmeantȱtoȱtakeȱplace,ȱthisȱstatementȱradically extendsȱandȱredefinesȱtheȱconventionalȱtropeȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱ“anotherȱself.”ȱAs Baconȱfurtherȱcomments,ȱ“itȱwasȱaȱSparingȱSpeechȱofȱtheȱAncients,ȱtoȱsay,ȱThatȱa FrendȱisȱanotherȱHimselfe:ȱForȱthatȱaȱFrendȱisȱfarreȱmoreȱthenȱHimselfe”ȱ(86).ȱInȱthis cloneȬlikeȱconfigurationȱthatȱdrasticallyȱexpandsȱtheȱself,ȱtheȱfriendȱexecutesȱthe friend’sȱdesiresȱandȱdesigns,ȱenablingȱhimȱtoȱtranscendȱtheȱlimitationsȱimposedȱby timeȱandȱspaceȱuponȱhisȱownȱnaturalȱbody: AȱManȱhathȱaȱBody,ȱandȱthatȱBodyȱisȱconfinedȱtoȱaȱPlace;ȱButȱwhereȱFrendshipȱis,ȱall OfficesȱofȱLife,ȱareȱasȱitȱwereȱgrantedȱtoȱHim,ȱandȱhisȱDeputy.ȱForȱheȱmayȱexercise themȱbyȱhisȱFrendȱȱ(86).ȱȱ

Thisȱisȱaȱstructure,ȱasȱLaurieȱShannonȱacutelyȱobserves,ȱthat echo[es]ȱnotȱonlyȱtheoriesȱofȱkingshipȱandȱofȱpoliticalȱorganizationȱinȱgeneralȱbutȱeven thoseȱofȱmodernȱcorporationȱlaws:ȱaȱsupercessionȱofȱtheȱnaturalȱbody’sȱspatialȱand temporalȱlimitations,ȱanȱexpansionȱofȱimplementableȱ“OfficesȱofȱLife,”ȱandȱaȱprotocol ofȱdeputation,ȱproxy,ȱorȱagencyȱbyȱwhichȱthisȱlargerȱbodyȱmayȱenactȱ“desires.”32

Theȱ politicalȱ ramificationsȱ ofȱ thisȱ configurationȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ areȱ indeed particularlyȱhardȱtoȱmiss,ȱasȱtheȱfriend,ȱasȱdeputorialȱagentȱinȱfullȱconformityȱwith theȱfriend’sȱdesires,ȱmayȱserveȱinȱtheȱexercisingȱofȱpowerȱandȱkinglyȱrule. Yet,ȱquiteȱimportantly,ȱasȱthisȱpaperȱwillȱlaterȱillustrate,ȱBacon’sȱdiscussionȱdoes notȱalwaysȱcastȱtheȱfriendȱwithinȱtheȱmodelȱofȱfullȱconformity,ȱespeciallyȱasȱhe addressesȱtheȱfigureȱofȱtheȱfriendȬasȬcounselor.ȱTheȱsignificanceȱofȱthisȱfigureȱis moreȱ clearlyȱ outlinedȱ inȱ Bacon’sȱ firstȱ twoȱ fruitsȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Stressingȱ the overarchingȱimportȱofȱhavingȱtrueȱfriends,ȱtheȱfirstȱfruitȱascribesȱfriendshipȱwith aȱ certainȱ medicinalȱ valueȱ thatȱ servesȱ asȱ aȱ determinantȱ ofȱ mentalȱ health.ȱ “A principallȱFruitȱofȱFrendship,”ȱBaconȱargues,ȱ isȱtheȱEaseȱandȱDischargeȱofȱtheȱFulnesseȱandȱSwellingsȱofȱtheȱHeart,ȱwhichȱȱPassions ofȱallȱkindsȱdoeȱcauseȱandȱinduce.ȱWeȱknowȱDiseasesȱofȱStoppings,ȱandȱSuffocations, areȱtheȱmostȱdangerousȱinȱtheȱbody;ȱAndȱitȱisȱnotȱmuchȱotherwiseȱinȱtheȱMindeȱ(81).

32

Shannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ196–97.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

655

Listingȱsarza,ȱsteel,ȱflowersȱofȱsulphurȱandȱcastoreumȱasȱelementsȱthatȱmayȱserve toȱrelieveȱsuffocatingȱorgansȱlikeȱtheȱliver,ȱtheȱspleen,ȱtheȱlungs,ȱandȱtheȱbrain, Baconȱthenȱpointsȱoutȱthat: ȱ

noȱReceiptȱopenethȱtheȱHeart,ȱbutȱaȱtrueȱFrend;ȱToȱwhomȱyouȱmayȱimpart,ȱGriefes, Joyes,ȱFeares,ȱHopes,ȱSuspicions,ȱCounsels,ȱandȱwhatsoeverȱliethȱuponȱtheȱHeart,ȱto oppresseȱit,ȱinȱaȱkindȱofȱCivillȱShriftȱorȱConfessionȱ(81).ȱȱȱ

Whileȱthisȱfirstȱfruitȱofȱfriendshipȱensuresȱtheȱbalancingȱofȱaffections,ȱtheȱsecond one,ȱaccordingȱtheȱBacon,ȱ“isȱHealthfullȱandȱSoveraigneȱforȱtheȱUnderstanding” (84),ȱforȱtheȱactȱofȱcommunicatingȱone’sȱthoughtsȱtoȱsomeoneȱelseȱisȱseenȱasȱa processȱtheȱenablesȱtheȱindividualȱtoȱclarifyȱandȱorderȱthoseȱthoughtsȱinȱaȱmuch moreȱefficientȱwayȱthanȱtoȱindulgeȱinȱsilentȱmeditation: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱcertaineȱitȱis,ȱthatȱwhosoeverȱhathȱhisȱMindeȱfraught,ȱwithȱmanyȱThoughts,ȱhis WitsȱandȱUnderstandingȱdoeȱclarifieȱandȱbreakeȱup,ȱinȱtheȱCommunicatingȱand discoursingȱwithȱAnother:ȱHeȱtossethȱhisȱThoughts,ȱmoreȱeasily;ȱHeȱmarshalleth themȱmoreȱorderly;ȱHeȱseethȱhowȱtheyȱlookeȱwhenȱtheyȱareȱturnedȱintoȱWords; Finally,ȱHeȱwaxethȱwiserȱthanȱHimselfe;ȱAndȱthatȱmoreȱbyȱanȱHouresȱdiscourse, thenȱbyȱaȱDayesȱMeditationȱ(84).

Soȱimportantȱisȱthisȱprocessȱofȱgivingȱvoiceȱtoȱone’sȱthoughtsȱconsideredȱtoȱbe,ȱthat itȱisȱsuggestedȱthatȱevenȱtheȱactȱofȱtalkingȱaboutȱone’sȱpreoccupationsȱtoȱinanimate objects,ȱlikeȱaȱstatueȱorȱaȱpicture,ȱwouldȱbeȱmuchȱpreferableȱthanȱtoȱallowȱthoughts toȱbeȱsmotheredȱinȱsilence.ȱYet,ȱitȱisȱonlyȱwhenȱitȱmeetsȱwithȱtheȱresponseȱofȱaȱtrue friend,ȱwhoȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱprovideȱsoundȱandȱfaithfulȱadvice,ȱthatȱtheȱprocess findsȱcompletion,ȱtherebyȱbecomingȱmoreȱfruitfulȱandȱbeneficial.ȱȱ Indeed,ȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱfriendȬasȬcounselorȱisȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱvalorizedȱinȱthis essayȱ“OfȱFrendship.”ȱCounselȱfallsȱinȱtwoȱcategories,ȱBaconȱsuggestsȱhere:ȱ“the oneȱ concerningȱ Manners,ȱ theȱ otherȱ concerningȱ Businesse”.ȱ Commentingȱ onȱ the latter,ȱheȱpointsȱoutȱthat,ȱwhileȱoneȱmayȱconsiderȱhimselfȱableȱtoȱmanageȱsituations singleȬhandedly,ȱ“think[ing]ȱHimselfeȱAllȱinȱAll,”ȱultimatelyȱbusinessȱmayȱonly beȱeffectivelyȱconductedȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱaȱgoodȱcounselor.ȱTheȱideaȱthatȱ“two Eyesȱseeȱnoȱmoreȱthenȱone;ȱOrȱthatȱaȱGamesterȱseethȱalwaiesȱmoreȱthenȱaȱLooker on;ȱOrȱthatȱaȱManȱinȱAnger,ȱisȱasȱWiseȱasȱhe,ȱthatȱhathȱsaidȱoverȱtheȱfoureȱand twentyȱLetters;ȱOrȱthatȱaȱMusketȱmayȱbeȱshotȱoff,ȱaswellȱuponȱtheȱArme,ȱasȱupon aȱ Rest,”ȱ isȱ therebyȱ exposedȱ asȱ nothingȱ moreȱ thanȱ aȱ foolishȱ illusion.ȱ Oneȱ may indulgeȱhimself,ȱBaconȱsuggests,ȱinȱsuchȱ“fondȱandȱhighȱImaginations,”ȱbutȱ“when allȱisȱdone,ȱtheȱHelpeȱofȱgoodȱCounsell,ȱisȱthat,ȱwhichȱsettethȱBusinesseȱstraight.” Likewise,ȱ theȱ friend’sȱ faithfulȱ counselȱ inȱ issuesȱ thatȱ concernȱ one’sȱ manners,ȱ is presentedȱasȱ“theȱbestȱPreservativeȱtoȱkeepȱtheȱMindeȱinȱHealth,”ȱaȱmedicineȱthat isȱmuchȱmoreȱeffectiveȱthanȱanyȱotherȱmethodȱthatȱmayȱbeȱusedȱforȱtheȱcorrection ofȱmorals,ȱsuchȱasȱ“readingȱgoodȱBookesȱofȱMorality”ȱorȱ“observingȱourȱFaultsȱin Others.”ȱIndeed,ȱmanyȱareȱtheȱcases,ȱBaconȱsuggests,ȱofȱindividuals,ȱ“especially

656

StellaȱAchilleos

ofȱ theȱ greaterȱ Sort,”ȱ whoȱ endȱ upȱ committingȱ “grosseȱ Errours,ȱ andȱ extreme Absurdities,”ȱtherebyȱdamagingȱtheirȱfameȱandȱfortune,ȱdueȱtoȱlackȱofȱaȱfriend whoȱmightȱgiveȱthemȱfaithfulȱadmonition:ȱ“For,ȱasȱS.ȱJamesȱsaith,ȱtheyȱareȱasȱMen, thatȱlookeȱsometimesȱintoȱaȱGlasse,ȱandȱpresentlyȱforgetȱtheirȱownȱShape,ȱandȱFavour” (85). Quiteȱintriguingly,ȱthisȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱdistortionȱofȱone’sȱimageȱinȱtheȱmirror pointsȱtoȱtheȱinabilityȱtoȱseeȱandȱclearlyȱevaluateȱorȱjudgeȱone’sȱownȱselfȱwithout bias.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ theȱ friend’sȱ goodȱ counselȱ enablesȱ oneȱ toȱ acquireȱ aȱ better understandingȱofȱone’sȱbehaviorȱandȱactions.ȱEvokingȱanȱapophthegmȱfromȱthe ancientȱGreekȱphilosopherȱHeraclitusȱ(ca.ȱ535–ca.ȱ475ȱB.C.E.)ȱthatȱ“DryȱLightȱisȱever theȱ best,”33ȱ Baconȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ lightȱ receivedȱ fromȱ aȱ goodȱ friend’sȱ faithful counselȱ isȱ “Drier,ȱ andȱ purer”ȱ thanȱ thatȱ whichȱ comesȱ fromȱ one’sȱ own understanding,ȱasȱpersonalȱjudgmentȱisȱlikelyȱtoȱbeȱunreliable,ȱ“everȱinfusedȱand drenched”ȱ(84)ȱinȱone’sȱownȱ“AffectionsȱandȱCustoms”ȱ(85).ȱThisȱideaȱisȱreiterated inȱ hisȱ Novumȱ Organum,ȱ whereȱ heȱ statesȱ thatȱ “humanȱ understandingȱ isȱ not composedȱofȱdryȱlight,ȱbutȱisȱsubjectȱtoȱinfluenceȱfromȱtheȱwillȱandȱtheȱemotions, aȱfactȱthatȱcreatesȱfancifulȱknowledge.”34ȱ Largelyȱimpairedȱbyȱtheȱdistortingȱinfluenceȱofȱfeelingsȱandȱemotions,ȱhuman understandingȱisȱthusȱproneȱtoȱerrorsȱandȱmiscalculations,ȱBaconȱargues,ȱasȱman isȱoftenȱinclinedȱtoȱbelieveȱwhatȱheȱwishesȱtoȱbeȱtrue,ȱratherȱthanȱwhatȱisȱactually true.ȱByȱtheȱsameȱtoken,ȱtheȱmindȱoftenȱturnsȱawayȱfromȱtheȱexperimentalȱkindȱof researchȱheȱsoȱearnestlyȱadvocatesȱinȱNovumȱOrganumȱandȱelsewhere,ȱasȱmanȱ rejectsȱwhatȱisȱdifficultȱbecauseȱheȱisȱtooȱimpatientȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱinvestigation;ȱheȱrejects sensibleȱ ideas,ȱ becauseȱ theyȱ limitȱ hisȱ hopes;ȱ heȱ rejectsȱ theȱ deeperȱ truthsȱ ofȱ nature becauseȱofȱsuperstition;ȱheȱrejectsȱtheȱlightȱofȱexperience,ȱbecauseȱheȱisȱarrogantȱand fastidious,ȱbelievingȱthatȱtheȱmindȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱseenȱtoȱbeȱspendingȱitsȱtimeȱonȱmean, unstableȱthings;ȱandȱheȱrejectsȱanythingȱunorthodoxȱbecauseȱofȱcommonȱopinion.ȱIn

33

34

Baconȱrevisitsȱthisȱconceptȱinȱvariousȱplaces,ȱasȱinȱTheȱAdvancementȱofȱLearning,ȱwhereȱheȱobserves thatȱ“Heraclitusȱtheȱprofoundȱsaid,ȱLumenȱsiccumȱoptimaȱanima.”ȱAccordingȱtoȱHeraclitus,ȱthe constitutionȱofȱtheȱsoulȱwasȱbasedȱonȱaȱmixtureȱofȱfireȱandȱwater,ȱtheȱformerȱprovidingȱtheȱnoble part,ȱwhileȱtheȱlatterȱtheȱignobleȱpart.ȱAsȱArthurȱJohnstonȱnotesȱinȱhisȱeditionȱofȱBacon’sȱThe AdvancementȱofȱLearning,ȱHeraclitusȱ“isȱreportedȱtoȱhaveȱsaidȱthatȱ‘theȱdryȱsoulȱisȱtheȱwisestȱand best’.”ȱHowever,ȱ“byȱaȱcorruptionȱinȱtheȱGreekȱtheȱsentenceȱbecameȱ‘theȱdryȱlightȱ(lumenȱsiccum) isȱtheȱwisestȱsoul’.”ȱSee,ȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱTheȱAdvancementȱofȱLearning,ȱandȱNewȱAtlantis,ȱed.ȱArthur Johnstonȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1974),ȱ251.ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱofȱHeraclitus’sȱapophthegmȱand itsȱsubsequentȱcorruption,ȱseeȱalsoȱTheȱArtȱandȱThoughtȱofȱHeraclitus:ȱanȱEditionȱofȱtheȱFragmentsȱwith TranslationȱandȱCommentary,ȱed.ȱandȱtrans.ȱCharlesȱH.ȱKahnȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity Press,ȱ1979),ȱ245–54. BookȱI,ȱAphorismȱXLIX.ȱHereȱcitedȱfromȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱTheȱNewȱOrganon,ȱed.ȱLisaȱJardineȱand MichaelȱSilverthorne.ȱCambridgeȱTextsȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱPhilosophyȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridge UniversityȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱ44.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

657

short,ȱ emotionȱ marksȱ andȱ stainsȱ theȱ understandingȱ inȱ countlessȱ waysȱ whichȱ are sometimesȱimpossibleȱtoȱperceive.35

Whileȱ theȱ Novumȱ Organumȱ turnsȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ experimental researchȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ acquiringȱ pureȱ knowledgeȱ andȱ understanding,ȱ “Of Frendship”ȱsimilarlyȱemphasizesȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱfriend’sȱgoodȱcounselȱas aȱmeansȱofȱacquiringȱaȱbetterȱandȱclearerȱperspectiveȱonȱanyȱgivenȱsituation.ȱFor, “thereȱisȱasȱmuchȱdifference,ȱbetweeneȱtheȱCounsellȱthatȱaȱFrendȱgiveth,ȱandȱthat aȱ Manȱ givethȱ himselfe,ȱ asȱ thereȱ isȱ betweenȱ theȱ Counsellȱ ofȱ aȱ Frend,ȱ andȱ ofȱ a Flatterer,”ȱ Baconȱ pointsȱ out.ȱ ȱ Ultimately,ȱ faithfulȱ counselȱ isȱ whatȱ servesȱ to distinguishȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱfromȱaȱflatterer,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱprotectȱwhoeverȱreceivesȱit fromȱflatteryȱtoȱhimself,ȱforȱ“thereȱisȱnoȱsuchȱFlatterer,ȱasȱisȱaȱMansȱSelfe”ȱ(85).ȱȱ Similarȱcommentaryȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱrelationȱtoȱtheseȱformsȱofȱflatteryȱmayȱbe foundȱ inȱ variousȱ otherȱ treatisesȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ modernȱ period.ȱ Earlyȱ modern commentatorsȱonȱtheȱcourt,ȱinȱparticular,ȱoftenȱpointedȱtoȱtheȱdangersȱposedȱby selfȬflatteryȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱbutȱalso,ȱonȱtheȱother,ȱbyȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱthoseȱwho useȱpraiseȱtoȱsimulateȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱfriendship,ȱsoȱasȱtoȱingratiateȱthemselves withȱthoseȱinȱpowerȱandȱpromoteȱtheirȱselfȬinterests.ȱ Aȱ directȱ linkȱ betweenȱ theseȱ twoȱ formsȱ ofȱ flatteryȱ isȱ drawn,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ by ErasmusȱinȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱ(firstȱpublishedȱinȱLatinȱinȱ1516, underȱtheȱtitleȱInstitutio principis Christiani, whenȱinȱtheȱsecondȱpartȱtitledȱ“The princeȱmustȱavoidȱflatterers,”ȱheȱsuggestsȱthatȱ“[Y]outhfulȱinnocenceȱinȱitselfȱis particularlyȱexposedȱtoȱthisȱevilȱ[flattery],ȱpartlyȱbecauseȱofȱtheȱnaturalȱinclination toȱenjoyȱcomplimentsȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱtruth,ȱandȱpartlyȱbecauseȱofȱinexperience.”36 Erasmus,ȱtherefore,ȱadvisesȱtheȱprinceȱtoȱbeȱconstantlyȱalertȱtoȱtheȱpossibilityȱthat heȱmayȱbeȱflatteredȱand,ȱfurther,ȱpromptsȱhimȱtoȱtakeȱallȱnecessaryȱprecautionsȱso asȱtoȱeliminateȱthatȱpossibility.ȱAȱsimilarȱpointȱisȱmadeȱinȱCastiglione’sȱTheȱBook ofȱtheȱCourtierȱ(firstȱpublishedȱinȱItalianȱinȱ1528,ȱunderȱtheȱtitleȱIlȱCortegiano,ȱandȱin anȱ Englishȱ translationȱ byȱ Sirȱ Thomasȱ Hobyȱ inȱ 1561),ȱ byȱ Countȱ Lodovicoȱ da Canossa,ȱwhoȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱcourtierȱshouldȱalwaysȱbeȱonȱhisȱguard,ȱsinceȱthe deceptiveȱwordsȱofȱdissemblingȱflatterersȱareȱallȱtheȱmoreȱdangerousȱbecauseȱof aȱnaturalȱthirstȱweȱallȱhaveȱforȱpraise: ȱ Forȱweȱareȱinstinctivelyȱallȱtooȱgreedyȱforȱpraise,ȱandȱthereȱisȱnoȱsoundȱorȱsongȱthat comesȱsweeterȱtoȱourȱears;ȱpraise,ȱlikeȱSirens’ȱvoices,ȱisȱtheȱkindȱofȱmusicȱthatȱcauses shipwreckȱtoȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱdoesȱnotȱstopȱhisȱearsȱtoȱitsȱdeceptiveȱharmony.37

35 36

37

Ibid.,ȱ44–45. Erasmus,ȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱtrans.ȱNeilȱM.ȱCheshireȱandȱMichaelȱJ.ȱHeath,ȱwithȱthe PanegyricȱforȱArchdukeȱPhilipȱofȱAustria,ȱtrans.ȱLisaȱJardine,ȱed.ȱeadem.ȱCambridgeȱTextsȱinȱthe HistoryȱofȱPoliticalȱThoughtȱ(1997;ȱCambridge,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress, 2008). HereȱcitedȱfromȱBaldesarȱCastiglione,ȱTheȱBookȱofȱtheȱCourtier,ȱed.ȱGeorgeȱBull,ȱtrans.ȱwithȱan

658

StellaȱAchilleos

Acknowledgingȱ theȱ importantȱ dangerȱ posedȱ byȱ flattery,ȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ ancient philosophers,ȱtheȱCountȱfurtherȱpointsȱoutȱinȱTheȱCourtier,ȱturnedȱthemselvesȱto theȱwritingȱofȱbooksȱofferingȱadviceȱonȱhowȱtoȱdiscernȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱfromȱaȱmere flatterer.ȱ Indeed,ȱvariousȱauthorsȱinȱantiquityȱengagedȱthemselvesȱwithȱthisȱquestion.ȱAs Davidȱ Konstanȱ hasȱ noted,ȱ flatteryȱ inȱ itsȱ relationȱ toȱ friendship,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ more specificallyȱtoȱpatronage,ȱprovidedȱaȱparticularlyȱimportantȱpointȱofȱconsideration forȱ philosophersȱ duringȱ theȱ Hellenisticȱ period,ȱ asȱ theȱ ideaȱ largelyȱ heldȱ inȱ the classicalȱeraȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱindividualsȱofȱaȱroughlyȱequal socialȱstation,ȱwasȱgraduallyȱreplacedȱduringȱtheȱHellenisticȱyearsȱbyȱaȱdiscourse ofȱfriendshipȱthatȱlaidȱgreaterȱemphasisȱonȱrelationsȱthatȱinvolvedȱinequalitiesȱof statusȱandȱpower.ȱThus,ȱ“insteadȱofȱattendingȱtoȱtheȱbondȱbetweenȱindependent and,ȱatȱleastȱinȱprinciple,ȱautarkicȱindividuals,”ȱKonstanȱpointsȱout,ȱ“writersȱinȱthe Hellenisticȱepochȱtendedȱtoȱfocusȱratherȱonȱmonarchsȱorȱwealthyȱmenȱandȱtheir retinues,ȱwhoȱwereȱconceivedȱofȱasȱboundȱtoȱtheirȱpatronȱbyȱamicableȱties.”38ȱ Quiteȱ importantly,ȱ variousȱ treatisesȱ givingȱ adviceȱ onȱ howȱ toȱ distinguishȱ a flattererȱfromȱaȱfriendȱproducedȱduringȱthisȱperiodȱmayȱbeȱreadȱwithinȱtheȱcontext ofȱtheirȱauthors’ȱownȱattemptsȱtoȱestablishȱthemselvesȱasȱtrueȱfriendsȱandȱfrank counselors,ȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ ultimatelyȱ secureȱ theȱ patronageȱ ofȱ influentialȱ figures.ȱ An exampleȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱEpicureanȱphilosopherȱPhilodemusȱ(ca.ȱ110–ca.ȱ40/35 B.C.E.),ȱ whoseȱ worksȱ showȱ considerableȱ preoccupationȱ withȱ flatteryȱ andȱ its connectionsȱtoȱfriendshipȱandȱpatronage.39ȱHisȱworkȱOnȱVicesȱandȱtheȱOpposing VirtuesȱnotablyȱcontainsȱthreeȱbooksȱOnȱFlattery.ȱInterestingly,ȱasȱClarenceȱE.ȱGlad hasȱremarked,ȱinȱtheseȱwritingsȱPhilodemusȱ“contrastsȱflatteryȱwithȱfriendshipȱas heȱdefensivelyȱjustifiesȱhisȱrelationshipȱwithȱhisȱpatronȱPiso.”40ȱTheȱneedȱtoȱdiscuss theȱissue,ȱGladȱfurtherȱnotes,ȱ“wasȱincumbentȱonȱPhilodemus,ȱnotȱonlyȱinȱviewȱof hisȱ relationshipȱ withȱ Pisoȱ butȱ alsoȱ becauseȱ flatteryȱ wasȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ chargeȱ of servilityȱinȱantiȬEpicureanȱphilosophy.”ȱInȱsuchȱinvectives,ȱEpicurusȱhimselfȱwas chargedȱ withȱ flatteryȱ asȱ heȱ wasȱ thoughtȱ toȱ haveȱ usedȱ thatȱ practiceȱ inȱ his relationshipsȱwithȱMithrasȱandȱIdomeneus,ȱwhileȱhisȱsymposiaȱwereȱconsidered asȱ“assembliesȱofȱflatterers,ȱexcessivelyȱpraisingȱeachȱother.”41ȱ

38

39

40 41

Introductionȱbyȱid.ȱ(London:ȱPenguinȱBooks,ȱ1967),ȱ91.ȱ DavidȱKonstan,ȱ“Friendship,ȱFrankness,ȱandȱFlattery,”ȱFriendship,ȱFlatteryȱandȱFranknessȱofȱSpeech: Studiesȱ onȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ World,ȱ ed.ȱ J.ȱ T.ȱ Fitzgerald.ȱ Supplementsȱ toȱ Novum Testamentum,ȱ82ȱ(LeidenȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1996),ȱ7–20;ȱhereȱ9–10.ȱSeeȱalsoȱKonstan’s discussionȱinȱhisȱbookȱFriendshipȱinȱtheȱClassicalȱWorld,ȱesp.ȱChapterȱ3,ȱ“TheȱHellenisticȱWorld,” 93–121. Onȱ theȱ philosopher’sȱ viewsȱ onȱ flattery,ȱ seeȱ Clarenceȱ E.ȱ Glad,ȱ “Frankȱ Speech,ȱ Flattery,ȱ and FriendshipȱinȱPhilodemus,”ȱFriendship,ȱFlatteryȱandȱFranknessȱofȱSpeech,ȱ21–59.ȱȱ Ibid.,ȱ22. Ibid.,ȱ25.ȱAsȱClarenceȱE.ȱGladȱalsoȱnotesȱhere,ȱaȱdisparagingȱaccountȱofȱPhilodemusȱhimselfȱasȱa

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

659

Ofȱcourse,ȱdiscoveredȱasȱlateȱasȱtheȱmidȬeighteenthȱcentury,ȱPhilodemus’sȱtexts wouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱavailableȱtoȱeitherȱCastiglioneȱorȱhisȱreadingȱpublic.42ȱEarly modernȱaudiencesȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱtheȱopportunity,ȱhowever,ȱtoȱreadȱvarious otherȱ treatmentsȱ ofȱ flatteryȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ friendshipȱ producedȱ byȱ someȱ ofȱ the philosopher’sȱ contemporaries.ȱ Inȱ Deȱ Amicitia,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Ciceroȱ castigates flatteryȱasȱ“theȱhandmaidȱofȱvice”ȱthatȱhasȱnoȱplaceȱinȱrelationshipsȱofȱfriendship.43 “Nothingȱisȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱaȱgreaterȱbaneȱofȱfriendshipȱthanȱfawning,ȱcajolery, orȱflattery,”ȱheȱaffirms.44ȱAndȱyet,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱitȱisȱsuggestedȱthatȱ“however deadly”ȱtheȱviceȱofȱflatteryȱmayȱbe,ȱitȱ“canȱharmȱnoȱoneȱexceptȱhimȱwhoȱreceives andȱdelightsȱinȱit.”ȱFor,ȱ“itȱfollowsȱthatȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱlendsȱtheȱreadiestȱearȱto flatterersȱisȱtheȱoneȱwhoȱisȱmostȱgivenȱtoȱselfȬflatteryȱandȱisȱmostȱsatisfiedȱwith himself.”45 However,ȱaȱmuchȱmoreȱextensiveȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱproblemȱofȱflatteryȱinȱrelation toȱfriendshipȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱessayȱonȱ“HowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlattererȱfromȱaȱFriend,” fromȱtheȱMoralia,ȱbyȱtheȱGreekȱhistorian,ȱessayistȱandȱbiographerȱPlutarchȱ(ca. 46–120ȱ C.E.).ȱ Perhapsȱ thisȱ textȱ didȱ notȱ haveȱ suchȱ aȱ wideȬrangingȱ impactȱ in humanistȱ educationȱ asȱ Deȱ Amicitia.ȱ Likeȱ Cicero’sȱ treatiseȱ though,ȱ itȱ followed variousȱlinesȱofȱtransmissionȱthatȱmadeȱitȱlargelyȱavailableȱtoȱaudiencesȱacross Europe.ȱTheȱtextȱwasȱtranslatedȱbyȱErasmusȱintoȱLatinȱandȱprintedȱinȱanȱedition thatȱappearedȱinȱBaselȱinȱ1514,ȱtoȱbeȱsubsequentlyȱalsoȱincludedȱinȱtheȱeditionȱof TheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrinceȱinȱ1516.46ȱAtȱtheȱrequestȱofȱKingȱHenryȱVIII, Erasmus’sȱLatinȱtranslationȱwasȱthenȱturnedȱintoȱEnglishȱbyȱSirȱThomasȱElyot,47 whileȱPlutarch’sȱtextȱwasȱalsoȱmadeȱavailableȱinȱanotherȱEnglishȱtranslationȱby PhilemonȱHollandȱinȱ1603.48ȱ Asȱhasȱbeenȱnoted,ȱ“HowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlattererȱfromȱaȱFriend”ȱprovidedȱtheȱlocus classicusȱforȱaȱnumberȱofȱearlyȱmodernȱtextsȱthatȱconcernedȱthemselvesȱwithȱthe

42

43 44 45 46 47 48

flattererȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱwritingsȱofȱhisȱcontemporaryȱCicero,ȱwhoseȱviewsȱonȱflatteryȱas thoseȱareȱexpressedȱinȱhisȱessayȱDeȱAmicitiaȱareȱcitedȱinȱtheȱfollowingȱparagraph.ȱȱ ThirtyȬsixȱtreatisesȱthatȱareȱthoughtȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱwrittenȱbyȱPhilodemus,ȱincludingȱtheȱtextsȱon flattery,ȱwereȱdiscoveredȱinȱtheȱmidȬeighteenthȱcenturyȱduringȱexcavationsȱatȱPiso’sȱVillaȱofȱthe PapyriȱatȱHerculaneum.ȱUpȱuntilȱthatȱtime,ȱPhilodemusȱwasȱknownȱmainlyȱforȱhisȱepigrams, thirtyȬfourȱ ofȱ whichȱ wereȱ preservedȱ inȱ theȱ Greekȱ Anthology.ȱ Forȱ aȱ surveyȱ discussionȱ ofȱ the Herculaneanȱpapyri,ȱseeȱMarcelloȱGigante,ȱPhilodemusȱinȱItaly.ȱTheȱBooksȱfromȱHerculaneum,ȱtrans. DirkȱObbink.ȱTheȱBodyȱinȱTheory:ȱHistoriesȱofȱCulturalȱMaterialismȱ(AnnȱArbor:ȱUniversityȱof MichiganȱPress,ȱ1995).ȱ Cicero,ȱDeȱAmicitia,ȱ197. Ibid.,ȱ199. Ibid.,ȱ203. SeeȱLisaȱJardine’sȱIntroductionȱtoȱherȱeditionȱofȱErasmus,ȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱxiv. Ibid.,ȱxxiii. Plutarch,ȱTheȱphilosophieȱcommonlieȱcalled,ȱtheȱmorals,ȱwrittenȱbyȱtheȱlearnedȱphilosopherȱPlutarchȱof Charonea.ȱTranslatedȱoutȱofȱGreekeȱintoȱEnglish,ȱandȱconferredȱwithȱtheȱlatineȱtranslationsȱandȱtheȱFrench, byȱPhilemonȱHollandȱ(London:ȱArnoldȱHatfield,ȱ1603).

660

StellaȱAchilleos

variousȱ problemsȱ posedȱ byȱ flattery.49ȱ Indeed,ȱ Bacon’sȱ discussionȱ inȱ “Of Frendship,”ȱ Erasmus’sȱ “Theȱ princeȱ mustȱ avoidȱ flatterers,”ȱ andȱ Castiglione’s treatmentȱofȱflatteryȱinȱTheȱCourtier,ȱallȱseemȱtoȱdrawȱextensivelyȱonȱthisȱsource.50 Itselfȱ drawingȱ onȱ Plato’sȱ Laws,ȱ Plutarch’sȱ essayȱ notablyȱ beginsȱ byȱ making referenceȱtoȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱselfȬloveȱeliminatesȱone’sȱcapacityȱtoȱprovideȱhonest judgmentȱofȱhimself:ȱ Platoȱsays,ȱmyȱdearȱAntiochusȱPhilopappus,ȱthatȱeveryoneȱgrantsȱforgivenessȱtoȱthe manȱwhoȱavowsȱthatȱheȱdearlyȱlovesȱhimself,ȱbutȱheȱalsoȱsaysȱthatȱalongȱwithȱmany otherȱfaultsȱwhichȱareȱengenderedȱtherebyȱtheȱmostȱseriousȱisȱthatȱwhichȱmakesȱit impossibleȱforȱsuchȱaȱmanȱtoȱbeȱanȱhonestȱandȱunbiasedȱjudgeȱofȱhimself.51

Causingȱblindnessȱtoȱone’sȱownȱfaults,ȱselfȬloveȱultimatelyȱgeneratesȱselfȬflattery, accordingȱtoȱPlutarch’sȱdiscussion.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱanȱintriguingȱlinkȱisȱdrawn betweenȱflatteryȱtoȱoneselfȱandȱflatteryȱfromȱothers,ȱwhoȱmayȱuseȱtheirȱwordsȱof praiseȱtoȱpresentȱthemselvesȱasȱfriends.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱisȱtheȱtendencyȱtoȱindulgeȱone’s selfȱinȱselfȬflatteryȱthatȱopensȱupȱtheȱgroundȱforȱflatteryȱfromȱothers,ȱasȱtheȱneed toȱ findȱ confirmationȱ forȱ theȱ selfȬaggrandizingȱ imageȱ oneȱ hasȱ constructedȱ for himselfȱrendersȱwordsȱofȱflatteryȱfromȱothersȱparticularlyȱwelcome:ȱȱ Thisȱfactȱaffordsȱtoȱtheȱflattererȱaȱveryȱwideȱfieldȱwithinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱfriendship,ȱsince inȱourȱloveȱofȱselfȱheȱhasȱanȱexcellentȱbaseȱofȱoperationsȱagainstȱus.ȱItȱisȱbecauseȱofȱthis selfȬloveȱthatȱeverybodyȱisȱhimselfȱhisȱownȱforemostȱandȱgreatestȱflatterer,ȱandȱhence findsȱnoȱdifficultyȱinȱadmittingȱtheȱoutsiderȱtoȱwitnessȱwithȱhimȱandȱtoȱconfirmȱhis ownȱconceitsȱandȱdesiresȱ(265).ȱ

Justȱ likeȱ selfȬflattery,ȱ flatteryȱ fromȱ othersȱ countersȱ theȱ processȱ towardsȱ selfȬ knowledge,ȱsinceȱ“theȱflattererȱalwaysȱtakesȱaȱpositionȱoverȱagainstȱtheȱMaxim ‘Knowȱ thyself’”ȱ (267),ȱ causingȱ oneȱ toȱ haveȱ aȱ distortedȱ viewȱ ofȱ himselfȱ andȱ a dangerouslyȱselfȬdeceivingȱunderstandingȱorȱignoranceȱofȱissuesȱthatȱconcernȱhim, bothȱgoodȱandȱevil:ȱ“theȱgoodȱheȱrendersȱdefectiveȱandȱincomplete,ȱandȱtheȱevil whollyȱimpossibleȱtoȱamend”ȱ(267).ȱ Quiteȱ importantly,ȱ Plutarchȱ furtherȱ pointsȱ outȱ thatȱ theȱ problemȱ ofȱ flattery primarilyȱconcernsȱthoseȱinȱpowerfulȱorȱprivilegedȱpositions,ȱsinceȱtheȱhopeȱof financialȱ orȱ otherȱ profitȱ attractsȱ manyȱ whoȱ doȱ notȱ hesitateȱ toȱ merelyȱ simulate friendship.ȱTheȱevilȱofȱflattery,ȱheȱobserves,ȱ“doesȱnotȱattendȱuponȱpoor,ȱobscure,

49 50

51

SeeȱShannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ47.ȱ TheȱinfluenceȱofȱPlutarch’sȱtreatiseȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱtracedȱinȱotherȱtexts.ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱanȱessay byȱRobertȱC.ȱEvansȱthatȱconcentratesȱonȱtheȱlinesȱofȱconnectionȱbetweenȱ“HowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlatterer fromȱaȱFriend”ȱandȱShakespeare’sȱOthello:ȱ“FlatteryȱinȱShakespeare’sȱOthello:ȱtheȱRelevanceȱof PlutarchȱandȱSirȱThomasȱElyot,”ȱComparativeȱDramaȱ35.1ȱ(2001):ȱ1–41. Translationȱ citedȱ fromȱ Plutarch,ȱ Moralia:ȱ Volumeȱ I,ȱ trans.ȱ Frankȱ Coleȱ Babbitt.ȱ Loebȱ Classical Library,ȱ197ȱ(1927;ȱCambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ261–395;ȱhere 265.ȱPageȱnumbersȱareȱhereafterȱcitedȱparentheticallyȱinȱtheȱtext.ȱ

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

661

orȱunimportantȱpersons”ȱ(267).ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱitȱ“makesȱitselfȱaȱstumblingȬblock andȱ aȱ pestilenceȱ inȱ greatȱ housesȱ andȱ greatȱ affairs,ȱ andȱ oftentimesȱ overturns kingdomsȱandȱprincipalities”ȱ(267).ȱLikenedȱtoȱverminȱthatȱparasiticallyȱfeedȱon theȱbody’sȱbloodȱforȱasȱlongȱasȱitȱmaintainsȱitsȱstrengthȱandȱvitality,ȱflatterers,ȱwe areȱtold,ȱ“areȱneverȱsoȱmuchȱasȱtoȱbeȱseenȱcomingȱnearȱwhereȱsucculenceȱand warmthȱareȱlacking,ȱbutȱwhereȱrenownȱandȱpowerȱattend,ȱthereȱdoȱtheyȱthrong andȱthrive”ȱ(267,ȱ269).52 Intriguingly,ȱasȱwithȱPhilodemus’sȱworksȱonȱflattery,ȱPlutarch’sȱtreatiseȱmayȱbe placedȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱhisȱownȱattemptsȱtoȱestablishȱhisȱownȱcredentialsȱas aȱgenuineȱfriendȱandȱadvisorȱtoȱanȱimportantȱfigureȱofȱhisȱday.ȱAsȱmentionedȱin theȱ extractȱ quotedȱ above,ȱ theȱ treatiseȱ isȱ addressedȱ toȱ Princeȱ Antiochus Philopappus,ȱwhoȱisȱadmonishedȱhowȱtoȱchooseȱhisȱfriendsȱcarefullyȱandȱavoid theȱ flatteringȱ parasitesȱ thatȱ usuallyȱ swarmȱ aroundȱ powerfulȱ figuresȱ likeȱ him. “Thoughȱstandingȱinȱaȱlongȱandȱvariegatedȱmoralȱphilosophicalȱtradition,”ȱTroels EngbergȬPedersenȱcomments,ȱPlutarch’sȱessayȱ“isȱtopicalȱandȱdirectlyȱconcerned withȱanȱissueȱofȱimmediateȱrelevanceȱtoȱitsȱauthorȱandȱaddressee.”ȱUltimately,ȱthe textȱ mayȱ beȱ saidȱ toȱ expressȱ Plutarch’sȱ ownȱ desireȱ toȱ presentȱ himselfȱ asȱ aȱ true friendȱwhoȱtakesȱinterestȱinȱwarningȱhisȱpowerfulȱpatronȱagainstȱtheȱdangersȱof flattery.ȱItȱmayȱbeȱseen,ȱtoȱuseȱEngbergȬPedersen’sȱwordsȱagain,ȱasȱ“aȱdirectȱappeal clothedȱinȱgeneral,ȱphilosophicalȱdress.”53ȱ Itȱshouldȱbeȱnoȱsurpriseȱthatȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiodȱasȱwell,ȱtheȱsimulation ofȱfriendshipȱbyȱflatterersȱisȱoftenȱdiscussedȱasȱaȱproblemȱattendingȱspecificallyȱto thoseȱ inȱ power.ȱ Asȱ Erasmusȱ emphasizesȱ inȱ Theȱ Educationȱ ofȱ aȱ Christianȱ Prince, echoingȱPlutarch,ȱ“theȱwellȬbeingȱofȱgreatȱprincesȱisȱextremelyȱvulnerableȱtoȱthis particularȱ plague,”ȱ toȱ furtherȱ giveȱ aȱ warningȱ concerningȱ theȱ potentially destructiveȱconsequencesȱofȱflattery,ȱwhenȱthatȱisȱallowedȱtoȱhaveȱinfluenceȱover theȱ prince:ȱ “theȱ mostȱ flourishingȱ empiresȱ ofȱ theȱ greatestȱ kingsȱ haveȱ been overthrownȱbyȱtheȱflatterer’sȱtongue.”54ȱ Followingȱ theȱ sameȱ logic,ȱ Sirȱ Thomasȱ Elyot’sȱ adviceȬbookȱ forȱ princes,ȱ The Governour,ȱalsoȱdevotesȱaȱchapterȱtoȱ“Theȱelectionȱofȱfrendesȱandȱtheȱdiuersitieȱof flaterars.”55ȱAnȱexampleȱmayȱfurtherȱbeȱfoundȱinȱthatȱotherȱwellȬknownȱadviceȬ

52

53 54 55

ForȱaȱmoreȱcomprehensiveȱdiscussionȱofȱPlutarch’sȱviewsȱonȱflattery,ȱseeȱT.ȱWhitmarsh,ȱ“The SincerestȱFormȱofȱFlattery:ȱPlutarchȱonȱFlattery,”ȱGreeksȱonȱGreekness:ȱViewingȱtheȱGreekȱPastȱunder theȱ Romanȱ Empire,ȱ ed.ȱ Davidȱ Konstanȱ andȱ Suzanneȱ Saïd.ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ Cambridge PhilologicalȱSociety,ȱSupplement,ȱ29ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱPhilologicalȱSociety,ȱ2006),ȱ93–111.ȱ SeeȱalsoȱTroelsȱEngbergȬPedersen,ȱ“PlutarchȱtoȱPrinceȱPhilopappusȱonȱHowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlatterer fromȱaȱFriend,”ȱFriendship,ȱFlatteryȱandȱFranknessȱofȱSpeech,ȱ61–79.ȱ EngbergȬPedersen,ȱ“PlutarchȱtoȱPrinceȱPhilopappusȱonȱHowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlattererȱfromȱaȱFriend,”ȱ64. Erasmus,ȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱ54. ThomasȱElyot,ȱTheȱBokeȱNamedȱtheȱGovernour,ȱed.ȱFosterȱWatson.ȱEveryman’sȱLibrary,ȱ227ȱ(1907; London:ȱJ.ȱM.ȱDentȱandȱSons;ȱNewȱYork:ȱE.ȱP.ȱDuttonȱandȱCo.,ȱ1937),ȱ189–94.

662

StellaȱAchilleos

bookȱproducedȱduringȱthisȱperiod,ȱNiccolòȱMachiavelli’sȱTheȱPrinceȱ(inȱitsȱoriginal titleȱIlȱPrincipe;ȱwrittenȱinȱ1513,ȱbutȱfirstȱpublishedȱinȱ1532,ȱfiveȱyearsȱafterȱthe author’sȱ death).ȱ Asȱ Machiavelliȱ pointsȱ outȱ inȱ aȱ chapterȱ titledȱ “Howȱ flatterers shouldȱ beȱ shunned,”ȱ flatteryȱ providesȱ anȱ importantȱ pointȱ toȱ consider,ȱ “about whichȱ rulersȱ easilyȱmakeȱmistakes,ȱunlessȱtheyȱareȱveryȱshrewdȱandȱskilfulȱat choosingȱmen.”ȱFlatterers,ȱheȱfurtherȱremarks,ȱ“areȱfoundȱeverywhereȱinȱcourts; forȱmenȱareȱsoȱwrappedȱupȱinȱtheirȱownȱaffairs,ȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱsoȱliableȱtoȱmake mistakes,ȱthatȱitȱisȱhardȱtoȱdefendȱoneselfȱfromȱthisȱplague.”56ȱ Suchȱdiscussionsȱmayȱofȱcourseȱbeȱsituatedȱwithinȱtheȱmuchȱlargerȱtraditionȱof theȱ soȬcalledȱ “mirrorsȱ forȱ princes”ȱ (inȱ Latin,ȱ “speculaȱ principum”),ȱ textsȱ that aimedȱatȱinstructingȱrulersȱonȱmattersȱofȱgovernmentȱandȱbehavior,ȱeitherȱdirectly (asȱisȱtheȱcaseȱwithȱvariousȱadviceȱmanualsȱdedicatedȱtoȱkings)ȱorȱindirectly,ȱby creatingȱ moreȱ broadlyȱ modelsȱ forȱ emulationȱ orȱ avoidance.ȱ Aȱ numberȱ ofȱ texts belongingȱtoȱthisȱgenreȱwereȱnotablyȱproducedȱinȱContinentalȱEuropeȱasȱwellȱas inȱEnglandȱinȱtheȱMiddleȱAges.57ȱAsȱJudithȱFersterȱhasȱnoted,ȱtheȱissueȱconcerning theȱadvisingȱofȱkingsȱcameȱtoȱbeȱconsideredȱparticularlyȱimportantȱinȱEngland duringȱ thisȱ period,ȱ especiallyȱ inȱ casesȱ ofȱ kingsȱ whoȱ wereȱ inexperiencedȱ in governingȱor,ȱforȱwhateverȱreason,ȱincapableȱofȱdoingȱso.ȱ ExamplesȱlikeȱthatȱofȱEdwardȱIIIȱwhoȱwasȱweakenedȱbyȱoldȱageȱinȱtheȱfinalȱyears ofȱhisȱrule,ȱRichardȱIIȱwhoȱascendedȱtheȱthroneȱatȱtheȱearlyȱageȱofȱten,ȱHenryȱIV whoȱfacedȱperiodsȱofȱseriousȱillnessȱduringȱhisȱrule,ȱandȱHenryȱVIȱwhoȱwasȱstill anȱinfantȱ(agedȱjustȱone)ȱwhenȱheȱascendedȱtheȱthrone,ȱandȱsufferedȱperiodsȱof mentalȱbreakdownȱlaterȱinȱadulthood,ȱledȱtoȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱking’sȱcouncil intoȱanȱimportantȱinstitutionȱthatȱoftenȱcameȱtoȱacquireȱconsiderableȱpowerȱin royalȱadministration.58ȱ Indeed,ȱinȱsuchȱcontexts,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱadviceȱgivenȱtoȱrulersȱbyȱtheirȱcouncils,ȱas wellȱasȱbyȱtheirȱpersonalȱfriendsȱandȱadvisors,ȱcameȱtoȱprovideȱaȱveryȱcentralȱpoint ofȱconsideration.ȱTextsȱlikeȱChaucer’sȱTheȱTaleȱofȱMelibee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱpayȱspecial emphasisȱtoȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱcounselȱfromȱone’sȱcircle.ȱReadȱbyȱaȱnumberȱof

56

57

58

NiccolòȱMachiavelli,ȱTheȱPrince,ȱed.ȱQuentinȱSkinnerȱandȱRussellȱPrice.ȱCambridgeȱTextsȱinȱthe HistoryȱofȱPoliticalȱThoughtȱ(1988;ȱCambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991), 81–82;ȱhereȱ81. Forȱ examplesȱ ofȱ mirrorsȱ forȱ princesȱ producedȱ inȱ Englandȱ duringȱ theȱ Middleȱ Ages,ȱ seeȱ John Gower’sȱ Confessioȱ Amantisȱ (Bookȱ VII),ȱ Thomasȱ Hoccleve’sȱ Regementȱ ofȱ Princes,ȱ andȱ Geoffrey Chaucer’sȱTheȱTaleȱofȱMelibeeȱinȱTheȱCanterburyȱTales.ȱForȱaȱdiscussionȱthatȱhistoricizesȱvarious Englishȱmirrorsȱforȱprincesȱwrittenȱduringȱthisȱperiod,ȱincludingȱtheȱtextsȱbyȱGower,ȱHoccleve, andȱChaucer,ȱseeȱJudithȱFerster,ȱFictionsȱofȱAdvice.ȱTheȱLiteratureȱ andȱPoliticsȱofȱCounselȱinȱLate MedievalȱEngland.ȱMiddleȱAgesȱSeriesȱ(Philadelphia:ȱUniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1996).ȱAs Fersterȱnotes,ȱanȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱcompleteȱrangeȱofȱtextsȱinȱtheȱmirrorsȬforȬprincesȱtraditionȱis offeredȱinȱWilhelmȱBerges,ȱDieȱFürstenspiegelȱdesȱhohenȱundȱspätenȱMittelaltersȱ(Leipzig:ȱVerlagȱKarl W.ȱHiersemann,ȱ1938). Ferster,ȱFictionsȱofȱAdvice,ȱ2.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

663

scholarsȱasȱaȱpointed,ȱalbeitȱindirect,ȱcommentȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱsituationȱinȱEngland inȱ theȱ midȬȱ toȱ lateȱ 1380s59—whenȱ growingȱ discontentȱ withȱ theȱ roleȱ playedȱ by youngȱRichardȱII’sȱinnerȱcircleȱofȱadvisorsȱinȱvariousȱmattersȱandȱwithȱwhatȱwas perceivedȱasȱtheȱking’sȱoverwhelmingȱdependenceȱonȱthisȱsetȱofȱpeople,ȱledȱtoȱa rebellionȱbyȱaȱgroupȱofȱpowerfulȱnoblemenȱ(theȱsoȬcalledȱ“LordsȱAppellant”ȱof 1387)—Chaucer’sȱMelibeeȱprovidesȱanȱexplorationȱofȱtheȱprocessȱwherebyȱfriends andȱcounselorsȱoughtȱtoȱbeȱchosen.ȱAsȱPrudenceȱproposes,ȱcallingȱonȱherȱhusband Melibeusȱtoȱbeȱgovernedȱbyȱherȱadvice,ȱ“Iȱwolȱenformeȱyowȱhowȱyeȱshulȱgoverne yourselfȱinȱchesyngeȱofȱyoureȱconseillours.”60ȱ Highlightingȱtheȱruler’sȱownȱresponsibilityȱinȱmakingȱaȱcarefulȱchoiceȱofȱfriends andȱadvisors,61ȱPrudence’sȱadmonitionȱtoȱherȱhusbandȱincludes,ȱlikeȱsoȱmanyȱof theȱotherȱtextsȱexaminedȱinȱthisȱessay,ȱaȱspecialȱcaveatȱaboutȱflatteryȱasȱoneȱofȱthe principalȱvicesȱtheȱrulerȱ“oghteȱtoȱeschewe.”ȱAsȱsheȱpointsȱoutȱtoȱMelibeus,ȱ Thouȱshaltȱeekȱeschueȱtheȱconseillyngȱofȱalleȱflattereres,ȱswicheȱasȱenforcenȱhemȱrather toȱpreiseȱyoureȱpersoneȱbyȱflateryeȱthanȱforȱtoȱtelleȱyowȱtheȱsoothfastnesseȱofȱthynges. WherforeȱTulliusȱseith,ȱ‘Amongesȱalleȱtheȱpestilencesȱthatȱbeenȱinȱfreendshipeȱthe grettesteȱ isȱ flaterie.’ȱ Andȱ therforeȱ isȱ itȱ mooreȱ needȱ thatȱ thouȱ eschueȱ andȱ drede flatereresȱthanȱanyȱootherȱpeple.62

Asȱoneȱwouldȱprobablyȱexpect,ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱhowȱtoȱdiscernȱtrueȱfriendshipȱfrom mereȱflatteryȱprovidedȱaȱtopicȱofȱacuteȱinterestȱforȱearlyȱmodernȱauthorsȱasȱwell, andȱnumerousȱtextsȱwereȱwrittenȱduringȱthisȱperiodȱwithȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱadvising rulersȱ onȱ howȱ toȱ avoidȱ flatterersȱ and,ȱ thereby,ȱ howȱ toȱ makeȱ aȱ goodȱ choiceȱ of friendsȱwhoȱwillȱbeȱableȱtoȱgiveȱthemȱhonestȱandȱfaithfulȱcounsel.ȱInterestingly, likeȱtheȱworksȱdiscussedȱearlierȱonȱbyȱPhilodemusȱandȱPlutarch,ȱsuchȱprojects wereȱoftenȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱauthor’sȱownȱattemptsȱtoȱestablishȱhimselfȱasȱaȱfaithful counselorȱandȱmakeȱaȱbidȱforȱpatronage.ȱAsȱLaurieȱShannonȱhighlights,ȱ“theȱtexts ofȱfriendshipȱandȱflatteryȱproducedȱduringȱtheȱRenaissanceȱsubstantiallyȱoverlap

59

60

61

62

ForȱdiscussionsȱthatȱanalyzeȱtheȱtaleȱasȱaȱcommentȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱsceneȱinȱEnglandȱduringȱthis periodȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱLynnȱStaleyȱJohnson,ȱ“InverseȱCounsel:ȱContextsȱforȱtheȱMelibee,”ȱStudies inȱPhilologyȱ87.2ȱ(1990):ȱ137–55;ȱDavidȱAersȱandȱLynnȱStaley,ȱTheȱPowerȱofȱtheȱHoly:ȱReligion,ȱPolitics, andȱGenderȱinȱLateȱMedievalȱEnglishȱCultureȱ(UniversityȱPark,ȱPA:ȱPennsylvaniaȱStateȱUniversity Press,ȱ 1996),ȱ 217–33;ȱ Ferster,ȱ Fictionsȱ ofȱ Advice,ȱ 89–107;ȱ andȱ Davidȱ Wallace,ȱ Chaucerianȱ Polity: AbsolutistȱLineagesȱandȱAssociationalȱFormsȱinȱEnglandȱandȱItalyȱ(Stanford,ȱCA:ȱStanfordȱUniversity Press;ȱCambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ212–46. CitedȱfromȱTheȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱed.ȱLarryȱD.ȱBenson,ȱ3rdȱed.ȱ(1988;ȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ1992),ȱ217–39;ȱhereȱ222.ȱ InȱLynnȱStaleyȱJohnson’sȱwords,ȱ“Chaucer’sȱTaleȱofȱMelibeeȱexploresȱtheȱresponsibilityȱaȱrulerȱhas forȱtheȱbadȱadviceȱheȱreceivesȱandȱtakes.”ȱAsȱStaleyȱJohnsonȱfurtherȱsuggests,ȱ“ifȱweȱchooseȱto lookȱatȱtheȱTaleȱofȱMelibeeȱasȱdirectedȱatȱtheȱdomesticȱcrisisȱofȱtheȱlateȱ1380’s,ȱitȱemergesȱasȱaȱstrong, ifȱcarefullyȱcrafted,ȱstatementȱaboutȱtheȱnatureȱofȱregalȱresponsibility.”ȱSeeȱherȱarticle,ȱ“Inverse Counsel:ȱContextsȱforȱtheȱMelibee,”ȱ150.ȱ TheȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱ223.

664

StellaȱAchilleos

withȱthisȱcomplicatedȱgenreȱinvolvingȱbothȱadviceȱtoȱprincesȱand,ȱoftenȱenough, theȱsolicitationȱofȱaȱpost.”63ȱ AȱtellingȱexampleȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱErasmus’sȱpublicationȱofȱTheȱEducationȱofȱa ChristianȱPrince,ȱasȱitȱtestifiesȱtoȱtheȱauthor’sȱzealous,ȱthoughȱlargelyȱunsuccessful, attemptsȱtoȱsecureȱroyalȱpatronage.ȱInȱLisaȱJardine’sȱwords,ȱtheȱvolumeȱ“draws attentionȱtoȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱgenreȱofȱ‘adviceȱtoȱprinces’ȱisȱpragmaticallyȱlinkedȱto theȱ practicalȱ projectȱ ofȱ findingȱ aȱ generousȱ andȱ committedȱ patron.”64ȱ The publicationȱofȱtheȱbookȱinȱ1516ȱwasȱnotablyȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱyoungȱCharlesȱV, whoȱ hadȱ recentlyȱ accededȱ toȱ theȱ throneȱ ofȱ Aragon.ȱ Erasmus’sȱ translationȱ of Plutarch’sȱ“HowȱtoȱTellȱaȱFlattererȱfromȱFriend”ȱwasȱfurtherȱmarkedȱinȱtheȱtitleȬ pageȱofȱthisȱeditionȱasȱ“addressedȱtoȱhisȱSereneȱHighness,ȱHenryȱtheȱEight,ȱKing ofȱEngland.”ȱItȱisȱtoȱHenryȱVIIIȱthatȱErasmusȱturnedȱtheȱfollowingȱyear,ȱsending himȱaȱcopyȱofȱtheȱ1516ȱedition,ȱwhenȱhisȱhopesȱofȱprocuringȱaȱpositionȱatȱtheȱcourt ofȱCharles,ȱthatȱwouldȱgiveȱhimȱsubstantialȱandȱregularȱincome,ȱwereȱfrustrated. Thisȱepisode,ȱJardineȱcomments,ȱprovidesȱanȱexampleȱofȱtheȱkindȱofȱpoliticalȱuse suchȱadviceȬtoȬprincesȱvolumesȱwereȱoftenȱexpectedȱtoȱserveȱforȱtheirȱauthors: “thatȱofȱliterallyȱadvertisingȱtheȱauthor’sȱcompetences,ȱinȱtheȱhopeȱofȱgettingȱhim aȱjobȱasȱadviserȱorȱsecretaryȱinȱtheȱadministrationȱofȱaȱpowerfulȱprince.”65 AsȱIȱmentionedȱearlierȱinȱthisȱpaper,ȱBacon’sȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall mayȱalsoȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱtargetedȱ toȱaȱsimilarȱsetȱofȱpoliticalȱfunctionsȱforȱthe author,ȱasȱtheyȱmayȱbeȱread,ȱtoȱuseȱDavidȱWootton’sȱwords,ȱasȱ“giftsȱexchanged withinȱnetworksȱofȱpatronageȱandȱfriendship.”66ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱvariousȱeditionsȱofȱthe essaysȱthatȱappearedȱduringȱBacon’sȱlifetimeȱ(fromȱtheȱfirstȱoneȱinȱ1597,ȱtoȱthe expandedȱversionȱofȱ1612,ȱandȱthenȱtheȱfurtherȱexpandedȱversionȱofȱ1625),ȱhave allȱbeenȱseenȱasȱattemptsȱtoȱpromoteȱhimselfȱasȱaȱcounselorȱtoȱvariousȱinfluential figures.ȱDedicatedȱtoȱBacon’sȱbrotherȱAnthony,ȱtheȱfirstȱeditionȱofȱ1597ȱisȱperhaps aȱ moreȱ indirectȱ attemptȱ toȱ catchȱ theȱ eyeȱ ofȱ potentialȱ patrons.ȱ Theȱ latterȱ two editionsȱ thoughȱ carryȱ muchȱ clearerȱ signsȱ ofȱ Bacon’sȱ earnestȱ desireȱ toȱ gain aristocraticȱandȱroyalȱpatronage.ȱAȱmanuscriptȱcopyȱofȱtheȱ1612ȱedition—inȱwhich versionsȱ ofȱ theȱ essaysȱ “Ofȱ Frendship”ȱ andȱ “Ofȱ Counsell”ȱ firstȱ appeared—was notablyȱpreparedȱforȱpresentationȱtoȱtheȱyoungȱPrinceȱHenry,ȱwhoseȱfavorȱBacon wasȱapparentlyȱhopingȱtoȱearn.ȱAsȱhasȱbeenȱnoted,ȱBacon’sȱexpectationsȱwere,ȱin

63 64 65

66

TheȱRiversideȱChaucer,ȱ48. Erasmus,ȱTheȱEducationȱofȱaȱChristianȱPrince,ȱ“Introduction,”ȱxviii. Ibid.,ȱxxi.ȱForȱfurtherȱdetailsȱconcerningȱErasmus’sȱvariousȱattemptsȱtoȱmakeȱuseȱofȱthisȱvolume soȱasȱtoȱbidȱforȱroyalȱpatronage,ȱseeȱthisȱIntroduction,ȱxvi–xxiv.ȱJardineȱnotesȱthatȱErasmus’s attemptȱ toȱ receiveȱ Henryȱ VIII’sȱ patronageȱ andȱ toȱ becomeȱ hisȱ Latinȱ secretaryȱ wasȱ also unsuccessful.ȱSeeȱalsoȱLisaȱJardine,ȱErasmus:ȱManȱofȱLetters:ȱTheȱConstructionȱofȱCharismaȱinȱPrintȱ (Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1993).ȱ DavidȱWootton,ȱ“FrancisȱBacon:ȱYourȱFlexibleȱFriend,”ȱTheȱWorldȱofȱtheȱFavourite,ȱed.ȱJ.ȱH.ȱElliott andȱL.ȱW.ȱB.ȱBrocklissȱ(NewȱHavenȱandȱLondon:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1999),ȱ184–204;ȱhereȱ184.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

665

thisȱinstance,ȱthwartedȱdueȱtoȱPrinceȱHenry’sȱdeathȱonȱ6ȱNovemberȱ1612,ȱanȱevent thatȱledȱtheȱauthorȱtoȱcancelȱtheȱdedicationȱheȱwasȱplanningȱtoȱmakeȱtoȱtheȱprince andȱhastilyȱdraftȱaȱnewȱoneȱtoȱhisȱbrotherȬinȬlawȱSirȱJohnȱConstable.67ȱ Theȱ1625ȱedition,ȱtheȱtitleȱofȱwhichȱalsoȱdemonstratesȱaȱrenewedȱemphasisȱon counseling,ȱ carriesȱ aȱ dedicationȱ toȱ theȱ royalȱ favorite,ȱ Georgeȱ Villiers,ȱ Dukeȱ of Buckingham,ȱandȱmayȱnoȱdoubtȱbeȱreadȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱBacon’sȱdesperate attemptsȱ toȱ reestablishȱ himselfȱ inȱ theȱ yearsȱ thatȱ followedȱ hisȱ impeachmentȱ in Parliamentȱ forȱ judicialȱ briberyȱ inȱ 1621—anȱ eventȱ thatȱ ledȱ notȱ onlyȱ toȱ his imprisonment,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ toȱ hisȱ removalȱ fromȱ theȱ prestigiousȱ positionȱ ofȱ Lord Chancellor,ȱhisȱbanishmentȱfromȱCourt,ȱand,ȱadditionally,ȱtoȱaȱsentenceȱbanning himȱ fromȱ sittingȱ againȱ inȱ Parliamentȱ orȱ holdingȱ anyȱ otherȱ officeȱ inȱ the Commonwealth.68ȱ Asȱ Michaelȱ Kiernanȱ notes,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ thisȱ prohibitionȱ wasȱ subsequently repealedȱandȱBaconȱwasȱallowedȱtoȱreturnȱtoȱhisȱlodgings,ȱ“heȱneverȱenjoyedȱthe accessȱofȱcounselorȱagain.ȱHisȱlettersȱofȱthisȱperiodȱareȱfilledȱwithȱanguishȱatȱthe lossȱofȱhisȱadvisoryȱroleȱandȱwithȱhisȱfruitlessȱeffortsȱtoȱregainȱtheȱKing’sȱear.”69 ThisȱpoignantȱsenseȱofȱlossȱandȱhisȱearnestȱdesireȱtoȱreȬingratiateȱhimselfȱwithȱthe Kingȱisȱregistered,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱaȱletterȱofȱpetitionȱheȱdraftedȱ(butȱapparently neverȱsent)ȱinȱ1622,ȱthatȱcontemplates,ȱaccordingȱtoȱKiernan,ȱon hisȱsixteenȱyearsȱofȱ‘prosperity’ȱunderȱKingȱJamesȱ(whoȱ‘raisedȱandȱadvancedȱmeȱnine times;ȱthriceȱinȱdignity,ȱandȱsixȱtimesȱinȱoffice’)ȱandȱrecallsȱthatȱheȱhadȱbeenȱ‘evenȱthe primeȱ officerȱ ofȱ yourȱ kingdom.ȱ Yourȱ Majesty’sȱ armȱ hathȱ beenȱ oftenȱ overȱ mineȱ in council,ȱwhenȱyouȱpresidedȱatȱtheȱtable;ȱsoȱnearȱIȱwas.’70

ȱ Inȱ yetȱ anotherȱ letterȱ addressedȱ toȱ theȱ Dukeȱ ofȱ Buckingham,ȱ onȱ 18ȱ Aprilȱ 1623, Baconȱ“insistsȱuponȱhisȱexpertise:ȱ‘MyȱgoodȱLord,ȱsomewhatȱIȱhaveȱbeen,ȱand muchȱhaveȱIȱread;ȱsoȱthatȱfewȱthingsȱwhichȱconcernȱstatesȱorȱgreatness,ȱareȱnew casesȱuntoȱme’.”71ȱ Inȱ circumstancesȱ likeȱ this,ȱ Baconȱ mightȱ indeedȱ haveȱ triedȱ withȱ vigorȱ what, accordingȱ toȱ Davidȱ Wootton,ȱ characterizedȱ hisȱ entireȱ career:ȱ “toȱ adaptȱ the languageȱ andȱ sentimentsȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ toȱ theȱ demandsȱ ofȱ courtȱ life,ȱ where friendshipȱ wasȱ inseparableȱ fromȱ flattery,ȱ patronageȱ andȱ favouritism.”72ȱ The

67 68

69 70 71 72

SeeȱBacon,ȱTheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall,ȱ“GeneralȱIntroduction,”ȱxxiii–xxiv. AnȱaccountȱofȱtheȱparliamentaryȱmeetingsȱthatȱledȱtoȱBacon’sȱimpeachmentȱisȱprovidedȱbyȱRobert ZallerȱinȱTheȱParliamentȱofȱ1621ȱ(BerkeleyȱandȱLosȱAngeles:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1971), chapterȱ2.ȱSeeȱalsoȱConradȱRussell,ȱParliamentsȱandȱEnglishȱPoliticsȱ1621–1629ȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendon Press,ȱ1979),ȱ111–13. Bacon,ȱTheȱEssayesȱorȱCounsels,ȱCivillȱandȱMorall,ȱ“GeneralȱIntroduction,”ȱxxvi. Ibid.,ȱxxvi–xxvii. Ibid.,ȱxxvii. Wootton,ȱ“FrancisȱBacon:ȱYourȱFlexibleȱFriend,”ȱ201.ȱ

666

StellaȱAchilleos

emphasisȱheȱpaysȱtoȱheȱroleȱofȱtheȱfriendȱasȱaȱcounselorȱinȱhisȱessays,ȱespeciallyȱin theȱ expandedȱ editionȱ ofȱ 1625,ȱ mayȱ alsoȱ acquireȱ aȱ particularlyȱ sharpenedȱ edge withinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱhisȱtirelessȱattemptsȱtoȱgainȱaristocraticȱandȱroyalȱpatronage. However,ȱasȱIȱwillȱbeȱarguingȱinȱtheȱrestȱofȱthisȱpaper,ȱwhileȱaimingȱtoȱadvertise theȱ importanceȱ ofȱ counselȱ andȱ itsȱ contributionȱ toȱ theȱ preservationȱ ofȱ the sovereign’sȱpowerȱandȱauthority,ȱBacon’sȱessaysȱinȱfactȱinsistentlyȱpointȱtoȱthe possibilityȱofȱinversionȱofȱthatȱestablishedȱorder,ȱthatȱheȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱwanted toȱserveȱsoȱearnestly.ȱȱȱ Quiteȱimportantly,ȱwhatȱdefinesȱtrueȱfriendshipȱforȱBaconȱmayȱbeȱfoundȱinȱwhat heȱcalls,ȱinȱhisȱessayȱ“OfȱFrendship,”ȱ“theȱLibertyȱofȱaȱFrend.”ȱThisȱelementȱmay beȱsaidȱtoȱdistinguishȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱfromȱtheȱflatterer,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱprovideȱthe appropriateȱ measuresȱ againstȱ theȱ dangersȱ ofȱ selfȬflattery.ȱ “Thereȱ isȱ noȱ such Remedy,ȱagainstȱFlatteryȱofȱaȱMansȱSelfe,”ȱheȱasserts,ȱasȱtheȱlibertyȱthatȱaȱfriend takesȱtoȱobserveȱhisȱfriend’sȱfaultsȱandȱtoȱuseȱfaithfulȱadmonitionȱasȱaȱcorrective measure.ȱJustȱlikeȱBacon’sȱfirstȱfruitȱofȱfriendship,ȱthisȱisȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱaȱmedicinal quality:ȱ “Theȱ Callingȱ ofȱ aȱ Mansȱ Selfe,ȱ toȱ aȱ Strictȱ Account,”ȱ heȱ observes,ȱ “isȱ a Medicine,ȱsometime,ȱtooȱPiercingȱandȱCorrosive,”ȱbutȱitsȱvalueȱisȱundeniableȱas itȱcanȱhelpȱoneȱacknowledgeȱhisȱerrorsȱandȱtherebyȱpreventȱhisȱownȱruin.ȱInȱthis respect,ȱtheȱadmonitionȱofȱaȱfriendȱisȱregardedȱasȱ“theȱbestȱReceipt,”ȱtheȱvalueȱof whichȱisȱfurtherȱhighlightedȱbyȱBacon’sȱreferenceȱtoȱitsȱrarity.ȱTheȱmedicineȱmay onlyȱ beȱ administered,ȱ heȱ suggests,ȱ byȱ “aȱ perfectȱ andȱ entireȱ friend,”ȱ forȱ itȱ is otherwiseȱextraordinarilyȱrareȱ“toȱhaveȱCounsellȱgiven,ȱbutȱsuchȱasȱshalbeȱbowed andȱcrookedȱtoȱsomeȱends,ȱwhichȱheȱhathȱthatȱgivethȱit”ȱ(85). Onceȱ again,ȱ Bacon’sȱ discussionȱ seemsȱ toȱ drawȱ onȱ classicalȱ discoursesȱ of friendship,ȱevokingȱinȱparticularȱtheȱancientȱGreekȱconceptȱofȱparrhesia.ȱThisȱidea notablyȱformsȱpartȱofȱPlutarch’sȱdiscussionȱofȱflatteryȱandȱfriendshipȱinȱ“Howȱto TellȱaȱFlattererȱfromȱaȱFriend.”ȱEmphasizingȱtheȱfriends’ȱlikenessȱinȱcharacterȱand conduct,ȱ Plutarch’sȱ textȱ evokesȱ theȱ conventionalȱ definitionȱ ofȱ theȱ friendȱ as “anotherȱself”:ȱ thatȱwhichȱmostȱespeciallyȱcementsȱaȱfriendshipȱbegunȱisȱaȱlikenessȱofȱpursuitsȱand charactersȱ…ȱtoȱtakeȱdelightȱinȱtheȱsameȱthingsȱandȱavoidȱtheȱsameȱthingsȱisȱwhat generallyȱbringsȱpeopleȱtogetherȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplaceȱ(51).ȱ

Also,ȱasȱPhilemonȱHolland’sȱtranslationȱofȱPlutarch’sȱtextȱreads,ȱ Theȱoriginallȱofȱfriendshipȱamongȱmenȱ(forȱtheȱmostȱpart)ȱisȱourȱconformitieȱofȱnature andȱinclination,ȱembracingȱtheȱsameȱcustomsȱandȱmaners,ȱlovingȱtheȱsameȱexercises, affectingȱtheȱsameȱstudies,ȱandȱdelightingȱinȱtheȱsameȱactionsȱandȱimploiments.73

ȱ

73

Plutarch,ȱTheȱphilosophieȱcommonlieȱcalled,ȱtheȱmorals,ȱ87.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

667

Andȱ yet,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ aȱ friendȱ whoȱ isȱ alwaysȱ pleasantȱ andȱ agreesȱ in everythingȱisȱtoȱbeȱsuspected.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱelementȱthatȱbestȱservesȱtoȱdiscernȱa friendȱfromȱaȱflattererȱwhoȱmayȱmerelyȱpretendȱtoȱhaveȱcommonȱinterestsȱand ideas,ȱ isȱ oneȱ thatȱ actuallyȱ pointsȱ toȱ theȱ breakȱ fromȱ thatȱ conformity.ȱ Inȱ Laurie Shannon’sȱwords,ȱ“speechȱcanȱultimatelyȱbeȱdiscernedȱasȱthatȱofȱaȱtrueȱfriend, intriguingly,ȱbyȱitsȱacidityȱinȱaȱconflictȱsituation.”ȱAsȱShannonȱfurtherȱhighlights, “Plutarch’sȱchapterȱonȱtheȱdiscernmentȱofȱtrueȱfromȱfalseȱfriendsȱsubstantially entailsȱaȱveryȱpracticalȱprotocolȱforȱtheȱproperȱusesȱofȱcandorȱandȱrebuke.”74ȱ Theȱ distinctiveȱ markȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ isȱ whatȱ theȱ Greekȱ textȱ refersȱ toȱ as parrhesia—inȱHolland’sȱtranslation,ȱjustȱasȱinȱBacon’sȱessay,ȱ“libertieȱofȱspeech” (87).ȱ Derivingȱ etymologicallyȱ fromȱ theȱ wordsȱ pasȱ (all,ȱ theȱ whole)ȱ andȱ rhesis (speech),ȱ theȱ termȱ couldȱ ordinarilyȱ beȱ translatedȱ inȱ Englishȱ asȱ freeȱ speech, opennessȱorȱfrankness.ȱAccordingly,ȱtheȱwordȱparrhesiastesȱwouldȱreferȱtoȱtheȱone whoȱexpressesȱhisȱfeelingsȱandȱopinionsȱfrankly.ȱ“Theȱoneȱwhoȱusesȱparrhesia,ȱthe parrhesiastes,”ȱMichelȱFoucaultȱhighlightsȱinȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱancientȱGreek practice,ȱ “isȱ someoneȱ whoȱ saysȱ everythingȱ heȱ hasȱ inȱ mind:ȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ hide anything,ȱbutȱopensȱhisȱheartȱandȱmindȱcompletelyȱtoȱotherȱpeopleȱthroughȱhis discourse.”75ȱInȱPlutarch’sȱtext,ȱtheȱtrueȱfriendȱisȱaȱparrhesiastes,ȱoneȱwhoȱopensȱhis heartȱandȱmindȱtoȱspeakȱtheȱtruth,ȱevenȱwhenȱhisȱopinionȱdepartsȱfromȱthatȱofȱhis friend.ȱ“Insomuch,ȱasȱwhereȱthereȱisȱnotȱthisȱfreedomeȱofȱspeakingȱfrankely,ȱthere isȱnoȱtrueȱfriendshipȱorȱgenerosityȱindeed,”ȱHolland’sȱtranslationȱmentions.ȱThus whileȱaȱflattererȱmayȱpraiseȱindiscriminately,ȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱonlyȱpraisesȱwhatȱis worthyȱinȱhisȱfriend,ȱandȱmayȱfurtherȱ“frankelyȱfindeȱfaultȱwithȱourȱdoings,ȱand reproveȱus.”76ȱHeȱmay,ȱinȱaddition,ȱuseȱsharpȱorȱvehementȱlanguageȱtoȱrebukeȱhis friend,ȱ whenȱ heȱ believesȱ thatȱ heȱ isȱ onȱ anȱ errantȱ courseȱ thatȱ requiresȱ remedial action.ȱ Yet,ȱ “theȱ admonitionȱ andȱ reprehensionȱ ofȱ aȱ friend,ȱ beingȱ sincereȱ and cleansedȱ pureȱ fromȱ allȱ privateȱ affection,ȱ oughtȱ toȱ beȱ reverenced.”ȱ Indeed,ȱ the friendȱisȱpromptedȱtoȱuseȱthatȱkindȱofȱlanguageȱwhenȱneedȱarises: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱthen,ȱspareȱhimȱnot,ȱbutȱpierceȱandȱbiteȱtoȱtheȱquick:ȱvehemencyȱofȱsuchȱfreeȱspeech isȱ invincibleȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ȱ forȱ theȱ mildnessȱ andȱ goodȱ willȱ ofȱ theȱ chastiserȱ dothȱ fortifieȱ the austerityȱandȱbitternessȱofȱtheȱchastisement.77

Referencesȱtoȱtheȱelementȱofȱparrhesia—whatȱwouldȱlaterȱbeȱtermedȱinȱLatinȱtexts asȱ licentia—mayȱ ofȱ courseȱ beȱ foundȱ inȱ variousȱ otherȱ classicalȱ sources.ȱ David

74 75

76 77

Shannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ49. Foucaultȱprovidedȱanȱextensiveȱconsiderationȱofȱparrhesiaȱinȱaȱseriesȱofȱsixȱlecturesȱheȱdelivered atȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱatȱBerkeleyȱinȱ1983.ȱTheȱtranscribedȱrecordingsȱofȱtheseȱlectures haveȱ beenȱ publishedȱ underȱ theȱ titleȱ Fearlessȱ Speechȱ (Losȱ Angeles:ȱ Semiotext(e),ȱ 2001).ȱ Also availableȱonlineȱat:ȱ Plutarch,ȱTheȱphilosophieȱȱcommonlieȱcalled,ȱtheȱmorals,ȱ87. Ibid.,ȱ88.

668

StellaȱAchilleos

ColcloughȱnotesȱthatȱinȱancientȱGreekȱliteratureȱtheȱtermȱparrhesiaȱfirstȱappearsȱin textsȱthatȱcelebrateȱtheȱAthenianȱdemocracyȱasȱaȱconstitutionȱthatȱgaveȱitsȱcitizens theȱprivilegeȱtoȱparticipateȱandȱspeakȱfreelyȱamongȱtheirȱequalsȱinȱtheȱproceedings ofȱtheȱpoliticalȱassemblyȱ(ekklesia).78ȱ AnȱexampleȱmayȱbeȱseenȱinȱEuripides’sȱHippolytusȱ(firstȱperformedȱinȱ428ȱBCE), whereȱ Phaedraȱ wishesȱ thatȱ “Godȱ grantȱ [herȱ husbandȱ andȱ children]ȱ richȱ and gloriousȱlifeȱinȱAthensȱ–ȱ/ȱfamousȱAthensȱ–ȱfreedomȱinȱwordȱandȱdeed”ȱ(lines 422–23).79ȱ Beyondȱ thisȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ Athenianȱ ekklesiaȱ though,ȱ theȱ conceptȱ of parrhesiaȱsubsequentlyȱacquiredȱmuchȱgreaterȱcurrencyȱinȱsituationsȱthatȱinvolved socialȱinequalityȱandȱwhereȱtheȱsocialȱinferiorityȱofȱtheȱparrhesiastesȱintroducedȱan elementȱofȱriskȱorȱdangerȱinȱtheȱutteranceȱofȱhisȱopinion.ȱSoȱthereȱisȱanȱapparent shiftȱinȱtheȱuseȱofȱtheȱtermȱwhenȱthatȱisȱappliedȱtoȱrelationsȱofȱpatronage,ȱorȱto situationsȱwhereȱaȱphilosopherȱaddressesȱhimselfȱtoȱaȱtyrantȱtoȱpointȱoutȱissues thatȱmayȱbeȱunpleasantȱforȱhimȱtoȱhear,ȱthusȱriskingȱtoȱbeȱpunished.ȱDrawingȱan inseparableȱlinkȱbetweenȱparrhesiaȱandȱdanger,ȱFoucaultȱarguesȱthatȱ“someoneȱis saidȱtoȱuseȱparrhesiaȱandȱmeritsȱconsiderationȱasȱaȱparrhesiastesȱonlyȱifȱthereȱisȱa riskȱorȱdangerȱforȱhimȱorȱherȱinȱtellingȱtheȱtruth.”ȱThus, whenȱaȱphilosopherȱaddressesȱhimselfȱtoȱaȱsovereign,ȱtoȱaȱtyrant,ȱandȱtellsȱhimȱthatȱhis tyrannyȱisȱdisturbingȱandȱunpleasantȱbecauseȱtyrannyȱisȱincompatibleȱwithȱjustice, thenȱtheȱphilosopherȱspeaksȱtheȱtruth,ȱbelievesȱheȱisȱspeakingȱtheȱtruth,ȱandȱmoreȱthan that,ȱalsoȱtakesȱaȱriskȱ(sinceȱtheȱtyrantȱmayȱbecomeȱangry,ȱmayȱpunishȱhim,ȱmayȱexile him,ȱmayȱkillȱhim).ȱAndȱthatȱwasȱexactlyȱPlato’sȱsituationȱwithȱDionysusȱinȱSyracuse.

Inȱ effect,ȱ forȱ Foucault,ȱ parrhesiaȱ isȱ “linkedȱ toȱ courageȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ danger:ȱ it demandsȱ theȱ courageȱ toȱ speakȱ theȱ truthȱ inȱ spiteȱ ofȱ someȱ danger.ȱ Andȱ inȱ its extremeȱform,ȱtellingȱtheȱtruthȱtakesȱplaceȱinȱtheȱ‘game’ȱofȱlifeȱorȱdeath.”80ȱ NoȱdoubtȱBacon’sȱlongȱcareerȱasȱaȱpoliticianȱandȱaȱstatesmanȱatȱtheȱcourtsȱof ElizabethȱIȱandȱJamesȱIȱmadeȱhimȱwellȱawareȱofȱtheȱpossibleȱrisksȱinvolvedȱin displeasingȱtheȱsovereign.ȱSurelyȱhisȱownȱfrankȱspeechȱinȱtheȱParliamentȱofȱ1593, whenȱheȱopposedȱtheȱimpositionȱofȱheavyȱtaxationȱover,ȱwhatȱseemedȱtoȱhim,ȱtoo shortȱaȱperiodȱofȱtime,ȱdidȱnotȱcostȱhimȱhisȱlife.ȱYetȱtheȱincident,ȱthatȱcausedȱQueen Elizabeth’sȱfury,ȱstillȱmadeȱhimȱrealizeȱtheȱpossibleȱdangersȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱactȱof

78

79

80

DavidȱColclough,ȱ FreedomȱofȱSpeechȱinȱEarlyȱStuartȱEngland.ȱIdeasȱinȱContext,ȱ72ȱ(Cambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2005),ȱ16.ȱItȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱekklesiaȱexcludedȱcategories likeȱ womenȱ andȱ slaves.ȱ However,ȱ allȱ thoseȱ whoȱ tookȱ partȱ inȱ itȱ were,ȱ theoreticallyȱ atȱ least, consideredȱtoȱbeȱequal.ȱForȱanotherȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱparrhesiaȱinȱtheȱancientȱworld,ȱsee ArnaldoȱMomigliano,ȱ“FreedomȱofȱSpeechȱinȱAntiquity,”ȱDictionaryȱofȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱIdeas,ȱ6ȱvols., ed.ȱPhilipȱWienerȱ(NewȱYork:ȱCharlesȱScribner’sȱSons,ȱ1973),ȱvol.ȱII,ȱ252–63. Euripides,ȱEuripidesȱI:ȱFourȱTragedies,ȱtrans.ȱDavidȱGreneȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress, 1955),ȱ181;ȱexampleȱhereȱcitedȱfromȱColclough,ȱFreedomȱofȱSpeechȱinȱEarlyȱStuartȱEngland,ȱ17. Foucault,ȱFearlessȱSpeech,ȱ16.

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

669

speakingȱfrankly,ȱdeprivingȱhimȱofȱhisȱhopesȱforȱprefermentȱasȱtheȱqueenȱwas thereafterȱunwillingȱtoȱappointȱhimȱtoȱanyȱofȱtheȱleadingȱofficesȱheȱsuedȱfor.ȱThis mightȱwellȱhaveȱbeen,ȱasȱPerezȱZagorinȱobserves,ȱtheȱlastȱinstanceȱwhenȱBacon “everȱtookȱanȱindependentȱstandȱinȱdisagreementȱwithȱauthorityȱorȱallowedȱhis conscienceȱtoȱhaveȱprecedenceȱoverȱhisȱpoliticalȱinterests.”81ȱ However,ȱhisȱessaysȱclearlyȱadvocateȱtheȱmodelȱofȱtheȱ friendȬcounselorȱasȱa parrhesiastes,ȱ whoȱ courageouslyȱ speaksȱ theȱ truthȱ inȱ theȱ faceȱ ofȱ authority,ȱ even whenȱ hisȱ frankȱ speechȱ isȱ boundȱ notȱ toȱ please.ȱ Itȱ isȱ withinȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ this tradition,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ aȱ “traditionȱ thatȱ emphasizesȱ theȱ honestyȱ and disinterestȱthatȱcanȱexistȱwithinȱegalitarianȱfriendship,”ȱasȱBenȱLaBrecheȱhasȱtried toȱsuggestȱinȱhisȱrecentȱarticleȱonȱBaconȱandȱSpenser,ȱthatȱBacon’sȱdiscussionȱof friendshipȱmoreȱfirmlyȱsituatesȱtheȱideaȱofȱfranknessȱandȱtruth.82ȱ Takingȱtheȱargumentȱoneȱstepȱfurther,ȱBaconȱalsoȱmovesȱonȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱkings shouldȱ ratherȱ embraceȱ andȱ lookȱ for,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ punish,ȱ theȱ franknessȱ ofȱ the counselorȬfriend.ȱIndeed,ȱhisȱessayȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱmakesȱtheȱimplicitȱsuggestion thatȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱshouldȱnotȱsimplyȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱmatterȱofȱchoice, butȱasȱaȱmatterȱofȱduty,ȱforȱrulers.ȱHisȱdiscussionȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱmedicinal elementȱ thatȱ ensuresȱ theȱ healthȱ andȱ wellȬbeingȱ ofȱ theȱ mindȱ andȱ heartȱ findsȱ a compellingȱsetȱofȱconnotationsȱwhenȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱbodyȱofȱtheȱking.ȱInȱthisȱlight, aȱsovereign’sȱfailureȱorȱrefusalȱtoȱfindȱcomfortȱinȱfriendshipȱsuggestsȱaȱpotentially destructiveȱsetȱofȱimplicationsȱthatȱextendsȱwellȱbeyondȱhisȱbodyȱnatural,ȱtoȱthe bodyȱpolitic.ȱ Thisȱdangerȱisȱregisteredȱinȱanȱintriguingȱimageȱofȱautophagy,ȱusedȱbyȱBaconȱto referȱtoȱthoseȱthatȱdoȱnotȱopenȱthemselvesȱtoȱfriendship.ȱThisȱisȱdrawnȱfromȱa sayingȱofȱPythagorasȱthatȱisȱrecordedȱinȱPlutarch’sȱ“TheȱEducationȱofȱChildren” (inȱtheȱMoralia).ȱ“TheȱParableȱofȱPythagorasȱisȱdarke,ȱbutȱtrue,”ȱBaconȱcomments: “Corȱneȱedito,ȱEatȱnotȱtheȱHeart.ȱCertainly,ȱifȱaȱManȱwouldȱgiveȱitȱaȱhardȱPhrase, Thoseȱ thatȱ wantȱ Frendsȱ toȱ openȱ themselvesȱ untoȱ areȱ cannibalsȱ ofȱ theirȱ owne Hearts”ȱ(83).ȱInȱhisȱdiscussionȱofȱthisȱextract,ȱMiladȱDoueihiȱcogentlyȱcomments that,ȱ “theȱ absenceȱ ofȱ friendsȱ necessitatesȱ aȱ dangerousȱ turnȱ within,ȱ aȱ turnȱ that eliminatesȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ anyȱ discursiveȱ communicationȱ andȱ therefore contaminatesȱtheȱbodyȱandȱdevoursȱtheȱself.”83ȱ AsȱIȱwouldȱfurtherȱlikeȱtoȱargueȱhere,ȱthisȱimageȱofȱselfȬcannibalismȱcarriesȱan implicitȱ warningȱ toȱ theȱ sovereignȱ whoseȱ lackȱ ofȱ friendsȱ suggestsȱ anȱ actȱ that violatesȱtheȱbodyȱpolitic,ȱultimatelyȱsubvertingȱhisȱownȱpowerȱandȱauthorityȱand throwingȱtheȱcountryȱintoȱconfusion.ȱTheȱsovereignȱthereforeȱhasȱaȱduty,ȱasȱwell

81 82 83

Zagorin,ȱFrancisȱBacon,ȱ9. LaBreche,ȱ“Patronage,ȱFriendship,ȱandȱSincerityȱinȱBaconȱandȱSpenser,”ȱ87. MiladȱDoueihi,ȱAȱPerverseȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱHumanȱHeartȱ(Cambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvard UniversityȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ63.

670

StellaȱAchilleos

asȱaȱvestedȱinterest,ȱinȱtheȱpursuitȱfriendship—butȱalso,ȱbyȱextent,ȱinȱtheȱpursuit ofȱfaithfulȱcounselȱfromȱtrueȱfriends.ȱ Inȱthisȱrespect,ȱtheȱfriendȱasȱaȱgoodȱcounselorȱbecomesȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱgood governance,ȱoneȱthatȱisȱindispensableȱforȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱtheȱestablishedȱorder andȱtheȱsovereign’sȱpowerȱandȱauthority.ȱThisȱisȱfurtherȱhighlightedȱinȱBacon’s “Ofȱ Counsell.”ȱ “Theȱ wisestȱ Princes,”ȱ heȱ affirmsȱ there,ȱ “needȱ notȱ thinkeȱ itȱ any diminutionȱtoȱtheirȱGreatnesse,ȱorȱderogationȱtoȱtheirȱSufficiency,ȱtoȱrelyȱupon Counsell.”ȱThisȱisȱsupportedȱbyȱaȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱfigureȱofȱChristȱandȱhisȱroleȱas counselorȱ toȱ God,ȱ anȱ imageȱ thatȱ suggestsȱ theȱ significanceȱ ofȱ counselȱ asȱ a constituentȱpartȱofȱanȱindivisibleȱformȱofȱpower:ȱ“Godȱhimselfeȱisȱnotȱwithout:ȱBut hathȱmadeȱitȱoneȱofȱtheȱgreatȱNames,ȱofȱhisȱblessedȱSonne;ȱtheȱCounsellour,”ȱtoȱadd that,ȱ“Salomonȱhathȱpronounced,ȱthatȱInȱCounsellȱisȱStability.”ȱToȱrunȱaffairsȱwithout heedingȱtoȱcounselȱisȱlikenedȱtoȱtheȱ“Reelingȱofȱaȱdrunkenȱman,”ȱfullȱofȱinstability andȱdanger,ȱasȱwhenȱoneȱisȱ“tossedȱuponȱtheȱWavesȱofȱFortune”ȱ(63).ȱInȱthisȱessay, justȱasȱinȱ“OfȱFrendship,”ȱtheȱcounselorȱisȱcastȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱparrhesiastesȱand theȱsovereignȱisȱgivenȱpracticalȱadviceȱasȱtoȱhowȱtoȱensureȱthatȱhisȱadvisorsȱwill deliverȱ theirȱ mindsȱ freely,ȱ withoutȱ beingȱ influencedȱ eitherȱ byȱ theȱ opinionsȱ of othersȱorȱbyȱtheȱdispositionȱofȱtheȱsovereignȱhimself.ȱWhenȱpresidingȱinȱcouncil, forȱinstance,ȱtheȱkingȱisȱadvisedȱtoȱrefrainȱfromȱexpressingȱhimselfȱtooȱopenly beforeȱ hearingȱ outȱ hisȱ counselors,ȱ otherwiseȱ theyȱ “willȱ butȱ takeȱ theȱ Windeȱ of him,”ȱrealizeȱinȱotherȱwordsȱhisȱownȱdisposition,ȱandȱ“inȱsteadȱofȱgivingȱFree Counsell,ȱsingȱhimȱaȱSongȱofȱPlacebo”ȱ(68)ȱthatȱwillȱsimplyȱconformȱwithȱhisȱown wishes. Yet,ȱquiteȱintriguingly,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱtheyȱadvertiseȱtheȱvitalȱimportance ofȱgoodȱcounselȱandȱitsȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱpreservationȱofȱtheȱsovereign’sȱpower andȱ authority,ȱ theȱ Essayesȱ seemȱ toȱ pointȱ insistentlyȱ towardȱ theȱ possibilityȱ of disruptionȱforȱthatȱestablishedȱorder,ȱthatȱBaconȱhimselfȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱso desirousȱtoȱserve.ȱAsȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱargue,ȱBacon’sȱconfigurationȱofȱtheȱfriendship betweenȱ kingȱ andȱ counselorȱ registersȱ aȱ largelyȱ ambivalentȱ andȱ strained relationship,ȱoneȱofȱdiscomfitingȱharmonyȱthatȱconstantlyȱthreatensȱthemȱboth withȱdislocation.ȱ Theȱ followingȱ exampleȱ fromȱ theȱ essayȱ “Ofȱ Counsell”ȱ isȱ highlyȱ suggestive,ȱ I believe,ȱofȱthisȱfragileȱandȱdiscomfitingȱbalanceȱinȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱking andȱcounselor.ȱThisȱisȱtheȱstoryȱofȱJupiterȱandȱMetis,ȱvariousȱdimensionsȱofȱwhich pointȱ toȱ aȱ profoundȱ senseȱ ofȱ ideologicalȱ ambivalenceȱ thatȱ disruptsȱ theȱ very purposeȱseeminglyȱservedȱbyȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱtheȱmythȱinȱthisȱessayȱEssayes.84ȱThis

84

Bacon’sȱinterpretationȱofȱthisȱmythȱhadȱfirstȱappearedȱinȱprintȱinȱ1609ȱinȱDeȱSapientaȱVeterumȱ(The WisdomȱofȱtheȱAncients),ȱaȱbookȱthatȱprovidedȱinȱLatinȱhisȱreadingȱofȱtheȱallegoricalȱconnotations ofȱthirtyȬoneȱclassicalȱmyths.ȱForȱdiscussionsȱthatȱcogentlyȱanalyzeȱsomeȱofȱtheȱconceptualȱand politicalȱramificationsȱofȱBacon’sȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱstoryȱofȱJupiterȱandȱMetis,ȱseeȱChristopher

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

671

powerfulȱ mythologicalȱ templateȱ thatȱ introducesȱ yetȱ anotherȱ instanceȱ of cannibalisticȱindulgence,ȱregisters,ȱaccordingȱtoȱBacon,ȱ bothȱtheȱIncorporation,ȱandȱinseparableȱConjunctionȱofȱCounselȱwithȱKings;ȱAndȱthe wiseȱandȱPolitiqueȱuseȱofȱCounsellȱbyȱKings:ȱTheȱone,ȱinȱthatȱtheyȱsay,ȱJupiterȱdidȱmarry Metis,ȱwhichȱsignifiethȱCounsell:ȱWherebyȱtheyȱintend,ȱthatȱSoveraigntyȱisȱmarriedȱto Counsell:ȱTheȱother,ȱinȱthatȱwhichȱfolloweth,ȱwhichȱwasȱthus:ȱTheyȱsay,ȱafterȱJupiterȱwas marriedȱtoȱMetis,ȱsheȱconceivedȱbyȱhim,ȱandȱwasȱwithȱChilde;ȱbutȱJupiterȱsufferedȱher notȱtoȱstay,ȱtillȱsheȱbroughtȱforth,ȱbutȱeatȱherȱup;ȱWherebyȱheȱbecameȱhimselfȱwith Child,ȱandȱwasȱdeliveredȱofȱPallasȱArmed,ȱoutȱofȱhisȱheadȱ(64).ȱȱȱȱ

Scholarsȱhaveȱalreadyȱcommentedȱonȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱgenderȱconfigurationsȱin thisȱextract.85ȱCastingȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱkingȱandȱcounselorȱinȱtermsȱofȱthe maritalȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱJupiterȱandȱtheȱgoddessȱofȱwisdom,ȱMetis,ȱservesȱto notȱonlyȱdrawȱaȱlinkȱbetweenȱsovereignȱpowerȱandȱcounsel,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱpointȱtoȱa distributionȱofȱpowerȱthat,ȱinȱtheȱfirstȱinstance,ȱappearsȱtoȱaffirmȱtheȱauthorityȱof kings.ȱWhileȱtheȱgenderȱconfigurationȱsuggestsȱtheȱfeminizationȱofȱtheȱcounselor whoȱisȱpresentedȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱfigureȱofȱMetis,ȱsovereigntyȱisȱascribedȱwithȱthe masculineȱpowerȱofȱJupiter,ȱwhoȱdemonstratesȱhisȱpotencyȱbyȱimpregnatingȱthe goddess.ȱJupiter’sȱsupremeȱcontrolȱisȱfurtherȱtestifiedȱbyȱhisȱcannibalisticȱingestion ofȱ Metis,ȱ aȱ violentȱ actȱ ofȱ incorporationȱ thatȱ signifiesȱ theȱ absoluteȱ natureȱ of sovereignȱpowerȱandȱitsȱpotentialȱtoȱcontrolȱeverythingȱinȱitsȱterritory.ȱ Ratherȱsurprisingly,ȱlittleȱattentionȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱpaidȱtoȱBacon’sȱchoiceȱto makeȱnoȱreferenceȱtoȱtheȱreasonsȱwhyȱJupiterȱdoesȱnotȱallowȱMetisȱtoȱgiveȱbirth, butȱdecidesȱtoȱeatȱherȱupȱinstead.ȱThisȱmayȱbeȱsaidȱtoȱpointȱtoȱBacon’sȱattemptȱto exciseȱanyȱpotentiallyȱunsettlingȱelementsȱfoundȱinȱtheȱmyth:ȱaȱreaderȱfamiliar withȱtheȱoriginalȱstoryȱinȱHesiod’sȱTheogonyȱwouldȱknowȱthatȱJupiterȱhadȱreceived aȱprophecyȱthatȱMetisȱwouldȱgiveȱbirthȱtoȱextremelyȱpowerfulȱchildrenȱthatȱwould eventuallyȱoverthrowȱJupiterȱhimself.ȱThusȱhisȱcannibalisticȱactȱcomesȱasȱaȱresult ofȱhisȱanxietyȱtoȱsecureȱhisȱpowerȱandȱauthority.ȱ Quiteȱ importantly,ȱ whileȱ thisȱ elementȱ isȱ carefullyȱ excisedȱ byȱ Bacon,ȱ the possibilityȱofȱJupiter’sȱoverthrowȱultimatelyȱremainsȱpresentȱinȱhisȱretellingȱofȱthe narrative.ȱIndeed,ȱtheȱformerȱdistributionȱofȱpowerȱisȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱchallengedȱas theȱ narrativeȱ unfolds.ȱ Quiteȱ intriguingly,ȱ followingȱ hisȱ cannibalisticȱ act,ȱ itȱ is Jupiterȱ himselfȱ whoȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ feminizedȱ byȱ havingȱ toȱ carryȱ Pallasȱ and subsequentlyȱsufferȱtheȱpainsȱofȱchildbirth.ȱTheȱpotentialȱinversionȱofȱJupiter’s powerȱisȱfurtherȱsignifiedȱbyȱtheȱfigureȱofȱPallasȱherself.ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱsheȱis bornȱprovidesȱaȱdistortionȱofȱtheȱnormativeȱbiologicalȱaccountȱofȱchildbirth,ȱnot

85

Holcomb,ȱ“KingsȱandȱCounselors:ȱtheȱPoliticsȱofȱFrancisȱBacon’sȱRhetoricalȱTheory,”ȱPhilological Quarterlyȱ74.3ȱ(1995):ȱ227–47,ȱandȱSolomon,ȱObjectivityȱinȱtheȱMaking,ȱChapterȱ4,ȱ“Bacon’sȱMyth ofȱMetis.ȱTheȱFabricationȱofȱConsensus,”ȱ103–60. Ibid.ȱSee,ȱalso,ȱLaurieȱShannon’sȱdiscussionȱinȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ198–99.

672

StellaȱAchilleos

onlyȱbecauseȱsheȱcomesȱoutȱofȱhisȱhead,ȱbut,ȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱbecauseȱsheȱis paradoxicallyȱbornȱarmed,ȱembodyingȱinȱaȱcertainȱsenseȱherȱfather’sȱpriorȱactȱof violence.ȱ Aȱ femaleȱ figureȱ withȱ masculineȱ power,ȱ Pallasȱ ultimatelyȱ renewsȱ the possibilityȱ ofȱ herȱ father’sȱ overthrowȱ thatȱ heȱ triedȱ toȱ extinguishȱ throughȱ his cannibalisticȱactȱandȱtheȱviolentȱincorporationȱofȱMetis. Theȱ sovereign’sȱ incorporationȱ ofȱ theȱ counselor’sȱ adviceȱ hasȱ aȱ similarly enervatingȱeffectȱthatȱthreatensȱtoȱundermineȱhisȱpowerȱandȱauthority.ȱThisȱis suggestedȱbyȱBacon’sȱexplicationȱofȱtheȱmyth,ȱdespiteȱhisȱattemptȱtoȱconvinceȱthe readerȱtoȱtheȱcontrary.ȱThisȱ“monstrousȱFable,”ȱheȱsuggests, containethȱaȱSecretȱofȱEmpire;ȱHowȱKingsȱareȱtoȱmakeȱuseȱofȱtheirȱCouncellȱofȱState.ȱThat first,ȱ theyȱ oughtȱ toȱ referreȱ mattersȱ untoȱ them,ȱ whichȱ isȱ theȱ firstȱ Begettingȱ or Impregnation;ȱButȱwhenȱtheyȱareȱelaborate,ȱmoulded,ȱandȱshapedȱinȱtheȱWombeȱof theirȱCouncell,ȱandȱgrowȱripe,ȱandȱreadyȱtoȱbeȱbroughtȱforth;ȱThatȱthen,ȱtheyȱsufferȱnot theirȱCouncellȱtoȱgoeȱthroughȱwithȱtheȱResolution,ȱandȱdirection,ȱasȱifȱitȱdependedȱon them;ȱButȱtakeȱtheȱmatterȱbackeȱintoȱtheirȱowneȱHands,ȱandȱmakeȱitȱappeareȱtoȱthe world,ȱthatȱtheȱDecrees,ȱandȱfinallȱDirections,ȱ(which,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱcomeȱforthȱwith Prudence,ȱandȱPower,ȱareȱresembledȱtoȱPallasȱArmed)ȱproceededȱfromȱthemselves:ȱAnd notȱonelyȱfromȱtheirȱAuthority,ȱbutȱ(theȱmoreȱtoȱaddeȱReputationȱtoȱThemselves)ȱfrom theirȱHeadȱandȱDeviceȱ(64).ȱ

AsȱChristopherȱHolcombȱcommentsȱinȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱthisȱextract,ȱ“atȱtheȱvery momentȱ Baconȱ affirmsȱ theȱ authorityȱ ofȱ theȱ kings,ȱ heȱ underminesȱ it,ȱ firstȱ by showingȱtheirȱdependenceȱonȱcounselors,ȱandȱsecond,ȱbyȱexposingȱtheȱbasisȱof theirȱ authorityȱ asȱ trickery.”86ȱ Inȱ effect,ȱ farȱ fromȱ pointingȱ toȱ theȱ affirmationȱ of kinglyȱ authorityȱ asȱ itȱ purportsȱ toȱ do,ȱ Bacon’sȱ explicationȱ ratherȱ exposesȱ that authorityȱasȱaȱmereȱtrickȱplayedȱbyȱtheȱkingȱwhoȱappropriatesȱtheȱmatterȱshaped andȱgrownȱripeȱinȱhisȱcounselors’ȱwombs,ȱtoȱpresentȱitȱtoȱhisȱsubjectsȱasȱhisȱvery own.ȱTheȱprocessȱultimatelyȱrevealsȱtheȱking’sȱdependencyȱandȱpartlyȱhisȱown incapacity,ȱasȱheȱhasȱtoȱrelyȱonȱtheȱgenerativeȱpowersȱofȱhisȱcounselors.ȱ Aȱ similarȱ interplayȱ betweenȱ capacityȱ andȱ incapacity,ȱ powerfulnessȱ and powerlessnessȱmayȱofȱcourseȱbeȱfoundȱinȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱcounselorȱasȱwell.ȱWhile havingȱtheȱgenerativeȱpowersȱtoȱ“mould”ȱandȱ“shape”ȱinȱhisȱwombȱtheȱmatter providedȱbyȱtheȱking,ȱtheȱcounselorȱthenȱlacksȱtheȱmeansȱorȱtheȱpowerȱtoȱbring thatȱmatterȱtoȱlife.ȱOrȱtoȱcontinueȱthatȱmetaphorȱusedȱbyȱBacon,ȱwithoutȱkingly powerȱ toȱ bringȱ theȱ counselor’sȱ ideasȱ toȱ fruition,ȱ theȱ matterȱ grownȱ ripeȱ inȱ the counselor’sȱwombȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱstillȬborn.ȱ Finally,ȱtheȱpresentationȱ ofȱthe king’sȱ incorporativeȱ powersȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ cannibalisticȱ actȱ suggestsȱ aȱ fragile balanceȱofȱterrorȱinȱtheȱexchangeȱbetweenȱkingȱandȱcounselor—whoseȱdesireȱto serveȱtheȱkingȱandȱtherebyȱachieveȱadvancementȱisȱconstantlyȱweighedȱagainstȱthe

86

Holcomb,ȱ“KingsȱandȱCounselors:ȱtheȱPoliticsȱofȱFrancisȱBacon’sȱRhetoricalȱTheory.”

FriendshipȱandȱGoodȱCounsel

673

dangerȱ ofȱ beingȱ eatenȱ upȱ byȱ theȱ absoluteȱ powerȱ ofȱ theȱ manȱ heȱ serves.ȱ Inȱ this relationȱofȱinterdependence,ȱthereȱisȱaȱconstantȱreminderȱofȱhowȱone’sȱbestȱfriend mayȱpotentiallyȱbeȱone’sȱworstȱenemy.ȱ Thisȱ dangerousȱ balanceȱ isȱ ironicallyȱ alsoȱ illustratedȱ byȱ thoseȱ examplesȱ from Romanȱhistory,ȱusedȱbyȱBaconȱinȱhisȱessayȱ“OfȱFrendship”ȱtoȱshowȱtheȱimportance historicallyȱlaidȱbyȱrulersȱonȱfriendship.ȱAmongȱthemȱisȱtheȱstoryȱofȱTiberiusȱand Sejanus,ȱtoȱwhoseȱputativeȱfriendshipȱ“theȱwholeȱSenate,ȱdedicatedȱanȱAltarȱ…ȱas toȱ aȱ Goddesse”ȱ (83).ȱ But,ȱ asȱ Bacon’sȱ readersȱ wouldȱ haveȱ known—from,ȱ among otherȱsources,ȱperhapsȱBenȱJonson’sȱdramatizationȱofȱtheȱstoryȱinȱhisȱ1603ȱplay, Sejanus,ȱ hisȱ Fall—despiteȱ theȱ immenseȱ powerȱ accumulatedȱ byȱ Sejanusȱ asȱ the emperor’sȱfavorite,ȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱTiberiusȱendedȱwithȱhisȱfallȱfromȱpower andȱhisȱeventualȱexecution.ȱ ThisȱunsettlingȱpieceȱofȱinformationȱisȱhereȱaltogetherȱsilencedȱbyȱBacon,ȱbutȱthe potentiallyȱ disturbingȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ suchȱ friendshipsȱ isȱ registeredȱ inȱ his referenceȱtoȱanotherȱexample,ȱthatȱofȱJuliusȱCaesarȱandȱBrutus—thatȱhisȱaudience wouldȱ alsoȱ haveȱ beenȱ familiarȱ withȱ fromȱ another,ȱ thisȱ timeȱ moreȱ popular dramatization,ȱWilliamȱShakespeare’sȱ1599ȱplay,ȱJuliusȱCaesar.ȱInȱaȱreverseȱscenario toȱthatȱofȱTiberiusȱandȱCaesar,ȱtheȱbreakȱofȱfriendshipȱis,ȱinȱthisȱinstance,ȱmarked byȱtheȱruler’sȱdireȱend.ȱAsȱBaconȱnotes,ȱBrutusȱwasȱ“theȱMan,ȱthatȱhadȱpowerȱwith [Juliusȱ Caesar],ȱ toȱ drawȱ himȱ forthȱ toȱ hisȱ death,”ȱ convincingȱ him,ȱ despiteȱ his inclinationȱtoȱpayȱheedȱtoȱtheȱillȱforebodedȱbyȱtheȱdreamȱofȱhisȱwifeȱCalpurnia,ȱto goȱtoȱtheȱSenate,ȱwhereȱheȱwouldȱbeȱattackedȱandȱkilledȱ(82). Inȱ effect,ȱ despiteȱ itsȱ constantȱ valorization,ȱ Bacon’sȱ configurationȱ ofȱ the friendshipȱbetweenȱkingȱandȱcounselorȱregistersȱaȱlargelyȱambivalentȱandȱstrained relationshipȱ thatȱ isȱ potentiallyȱ enervatingȱ forȱ both.ȱ Thisȱ perhapsȱ suggestsȱ a broaderȱ ambivalenceȱ concerningȱ theȱ limitsȱ ofȱ sovereignȱ power,ȱ pointing,ȱ asȱ I mentionedȱinȱmyȱintroductionȱtoȱthisȱpaper,ȱtoȱwhatȱMarkkuȱPeltonen,ȱamong others,ȱhasȱcalledȱtheȱ“republicanȱinclinations”ȱofȱBacon’sȱthought.87ȱDeparting fromȱtheȱviewȱofȱBaconȱasȱanȱunambiguouslyȱroyalistȱfigure,ȱthisȱreadingȱexplores thoseȱelementsȱinȱhisȱworkȱthatȱsuggestȱthat,ȱdespiteȱhisȱlongȱcareerȱasȱaȱstatesman inȱ theȱ serviceȱ ofȱ Queenȱ Elizabethȱ Iȱ andȱ Kingȱ Jamesȱ I,ȱ duringȱ whichȱ heȱ often defendedȱtheȱsovereign’sȱinherentȱprerogatives,ȱBaconȱmightȱinȱfactȱhaveȱbeen closerȱtoȱantiȬabsolutismȱthanȱabsolutism.ȱ

87

Seeȱnoteȱ2.ȱForȱotherȱreadingsȱthatȱalsoȱchallengeȱtheȱimageȱofȱBaconȱasȱanȱunwaveringlyȱroyalist figure,ȱseeȱChristopherȱHill,ȱIntellectualȱOriginsȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱRevolutionȱ–ȱRevisitedȱ(1965;ȱOxford: ClarendonȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱesp.ȱ77–117;ȱRichardȱTuck,ȱPhilosophyȱandȱGovernmentȱ1572–1651.ȱIdeas inȱContext,ȱ26ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1993),ȱesp.ȱ108–114;ȱDianaȱB.ȱAltegoer, Reckoningȱ Worlds:ȱ Baconianȱ Scienceȱ andȱ theȱ Constructionȱ ofȱ Truthȱ inȱ Englishȱ Renaissanceȱ Culture (Madison,ȱNJ:ȱFairleighȱDickinsonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000).

674

StellaȱAchilleos

InȱPeltonen’sȱwords,ȱitȱisȱ“arguableȱthatȱalthoughȱBaconȱdefendedȱtheȱking’s prerogativeȱinȱgeneralȱandȱhisȱrightȱofȱimpositionȱinȱparticular,ȱandȱalthoughȱhe sometimesȱ employedȱ absolutistȱ arguments,ȱ heȱ cannotȱ beȱ classifiedȱ asȱ an absolutist”—anȱargumentȱthatȱisȱlargelyȱbasedȱonȱtheȱidea,ȱoftenȱreȬiteratedȱin Bacon’sȱwritings,ȱthatȱsovereignȱpowerȱderived,ȱandȱwasȱtherebyȱlimited,ȱbyȱthe commonȱ law,ȱ andȱ thatȱ “everyȱ timeȱ heȱ definedȱ sovereigntyȱ asȱ lawȬmaking authority,ȱheȱattachedȱitȱtoȱtheȱParliament.”88ȱBut,ȱasȱhasȱbeenȱfurtherȱsuggested, Bacon’sȱrepublicanȱleaningsȱmayȱalsoȱbeȱtracedȱinȱhisȱpassionateȱcommitmentȱto theȱCiceronianȱideaȱofȱtheȱvitaȱactiva,ȱandȱtheȱcitizen’sȱright,ȱandȱduty,ȱtoȱhaveȱan activeȱengagementȱinȱpublicȱaffairsȱforȱtheȱgoodȱofȱtheȱcommonwealth.ȱ Bacon’sȱpersistentȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱcounselor,ȱandȱtheȱfreedomȱof speechȱheȱshouldȱbeȱallowedȱtoȱenjoy,ȱmayȱnoȱdoubtȱbeȱreadȱwithinȱtheȱbroader contextȱ ofȱ theseȱ ideas.ȱ Powerlessȱ andȱ powerfulȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ thisȱ figure fascinatinglyȱregistersȱbothȱtheȱallȬincorporatingȱpowerȱofȱtheȱsovereignȱpower, butȱalsoȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱitsȱradicalȱsubversion.ȱIndeed,ȱif,ȱasȱRichardȱTuckȱhas alsoȱputȱit,ȱBacon’sȱpoliticalȱthoughtȱ“hadȱmoreȱofȱaȱrepublicanȱthanȱaȱprincely spiritȱtoȱit,”89ȱthisȱspiritȱisȱperhapsȱnowhereȱmoreȱintriguinglyȱregisteredȱthanȱin Bacon’sȱcompellingȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱfriendȬasȬcounselorȱand ruler.

88 89

Peltonen,ȱ“Bacon’sȱPoliticalȱPhilosophy,”ȱ290. Tuck,ȱPhilosophyȱandȱGovernment,ȱ112.

Chapterȱ17 VeraȱKeller (UniversityȱofȱSouthernȱCalifornia,ȱLosȱAngeles)

PaintedȱFriends:ȱPoliticalȱInterestȱandȱthe TransformationȱofȱInternationalȱLearnedȱSociability

IntimacyȱandȱPoliticsȱ InȱhisȱbestȬseller,ȱDeȱconstantiaȱ(OnȱConstancy,ȱ1584),ȱtheȱFlemishȱhumanistȱJustus Lipsiusȱ (1547–1606)ȱ painted,ȱ asȱ itȱ were,ȱ anȱ alluringȱ portraitȱ ofȱ intellectual friendship.ȱAȱyoungȱLipsiusȱpacedȱthroughȱaȱbeautiful,ȱenclosedȱgardenȱinȱthe companyȱofȱhisȱelderȱfriendȱandȱmentor,ȱLangius.ȱTheirȱlearnedȱcompanionship flourishedȱinȱaȱsecludedȱnook,ȱshieldedȱfromȱtheȱharshȱwindsȱandȱtempestsȱofȱa worldȱshakenȱbyȱrebellionȱandȱreligiousȱwars.ȱLipsiusȱsuggestedȱthatȱthroughȱthe ruleȱofȱone’sȱownȱmindȱandȱtheȱsupportȱofȱlikeȬmindedȱfriends,ȱoneȱmightȱfind shelterȱfromȱtheȱchaosȱofȱaȱwiderȱworldȱoutȱofȱtheȱindividual’sȱcontrol.ȱTheȱpainter Rubensȱ lushlyȱ allegorizedȱ Lipsius’sȱ intimateȱ neoȬStoicȱ friendshipsȱ inȱ hisȱ Four Philosophersȱ(Fig.ȱ1)ȱasȱaȱvaseȱofȱpreciousȱtulipsȱsnuglyȱlodgedȱinȱaȱnicheȱbeneath aȱbustȱofȱSenecaȱandȱbehindȱtheȱfurȬwrappedȱphilosopherȱandȱhisȱfriends.ȱLipsian constancyȱhasȱprofoundlyȱshapedȱourȱviewȱofȱlearnedȱfriendshipsȱatȱtheȱturnȱof theȱseventeenthȱcentury.1

1

MarkȱMorford,ȱStoicsȱandȱNeostoics:ȱRubensȱandȱtheȱCircleȱofȱLipsiusȱ(Princeton:ȱPrincetonȱUniversity Press,ȱ 1991).ȱ Anotherȱ exemplaryȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ thatȱ betweenȱ Lipsiusȱ andȱ Welser.ȱ Janȱ Papy, “LipsiusȱandȱMarcusȱWelser:ȱtheȱAntiquarian’sȱLifeȱasȱviaȱmedia,”ȱTheȱWorldȱofȱJustusȱLipsius:ȱa ContributionȱTowardȱHisȱIntellectualȱBiography,ȱed.ȱMarcȱLaureysȱwithȱtheȱassistanceȱofȱChristoph Bräunl,ȱSilvanȱMertens,ȱandȱReimarȱSeibertȬKemp.ȱBulletinȱdeȱl’InstitutȱHistoriqueȱBelgeȱdeȱRomeȱ68 (1998):ȱ 173–90.ȱ Theȱ numberȱ ofȱ contributionsȱ toȱ thisȱ volumeȱ focusingȱ onȱ smallȱ circlesȱ or relationshipsȱ(LipsiusȱandȱCausabon,ȱLipsiusȱandȱtheȱDousaȱfamily,ȱLipsiusȱandȱClusius,ȱLipsius andȱPighius,ȱLipsiusȱandȱDelrio)ȱpointsȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱsmallȱintellectual

676

VeraȱKeller

Lipsius,ȱhowever,ȱdidȱnotȱintendȱthisȱportraitȱofȱintellectualȱfriendshipȱtoȱstand onȱitsȱown.ȱDeȱconstantiaȱwasȱbutȱoneȱwingȱofȱaȱtriptychȱwhichȱeventuallyȱincluded Lipsius’sȱ Politicorumȱ siveȱ civilisȱ doctrinaeȱ libriȱ sexȱ (Sixȱ Booksȱ onȱ Politicsȱ orȱ Civil Doctrine,ȱ hereafterȱ Politica)ȱ ofȱ 1589ȱ andȱ hisȱ Monitaȱ etȱ exemplaȱ politicaȱ (Political adviceȱ andȱ examples)ȱ ofȱ 1605ȱ asȱ well.ȱ Whileȱ Lipsiusȱ aimedȱ theȱ NeoȬStoicȱ De constantiaȱatȱsubjects,ȱheȱcomposedȱtheȱTacitistȱPoliticaȱandȱMonitaȱforȱrulers.2ȱIn sharpȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱwarm,ȱenvelopingȱtonesȱofȱtheȱDeȱconstantia,ȱtheȱPoliticaȱand Monitaȱ wereȱ panelsȱ paintedȱ inȱ theȱ unforgivingȱ grisailleȱ ofȱ realpolitik.ȱ Theȱ cold worldȱ ofȱ politicsȱ necessitatedȱ theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ state,ȱ thatȱ is,ȱ thoseȱ calculationsȱ of interestȱoverȱaffectionȱwhichȱcouldȱbeȱlearnedȱfromȱancientȱhistorians,ȱprimarily Tacitus.ȱTacitistsȰthoseȱcuttingȬedgeȱpoliticalȱcommentatorsȱsuchȱasȱLipsiusȱwho drewȱlessonsȱinȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱfromȱtheȱannalsȱofȱancientȱhistoryȰrevealedȱa worldȱwhereȱhonestyȱwasȱnotȱtheȱbestȱpolicy,ȱandȱpoliticalȱinterest,ȱratherȱthan justice,ȱwasȱserved.3 Inȱsuchȱaȱworld,ȱtheȱprudentȱrulerȱcouldȱnotȱtrustȱinȱfriendship.ȱAsȱLipsiusȱsaid inȱ theȱ Politica,ȱ quotingȱ Pliny,ȱ “inȱ theȱ palaceȱ ofȱ theȱ Prince,ȱ onlyȱ theȱ nameȱ of Friendshipȱhasȱsurvived,ȱaȱworthlessȱandȱemptyȱshell.”4ȱTheȱcontrastȱbetweenȱthe falseȱfriendshipsȱportrayedȱinȱtheȱPoliticaȱandȱtheȱshelteringȱembraceȱofȱtheȱlearned friendȱinȱDeȱconstantiaȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱgreater.ȱSuchȱaȱcontrastȱmightȱserveȱaȱpolitical design.ȱFlingingȱopenȱtheȱtriptychȱofȱConstantia,ȱPolitica,ȱandȱMonita,ȱweȱrealizeȱthe artfulȱcompositionȱofȱDeȱconstantia’sȱjewelȬlikeȱscene.ȱIfȱprivateȱmenȱembraced constancyȱinȱtheȱfaceȱofȱhardship,ȱtheyȱwereȱlessȱlikelyȱtoȱrebel.ȱWhileȱsubjects respondedȱtoȱtheȱtroublesȱofȱtheȱtimesȱthroughȱimmersionȱinȱlearning,ȱintellectual companionship,ȱandȱgardens,ȱtheyȱleftȱprincesȱfreeȱreinȱtoȱconstructȱtheirȱcourtly hallsȱ ofȱ mirrors.ȱ Asȱ Peterȱ Burkeȱ hasȱ suggested,ȱ forȱ Lipsiusȱ NeoȬStoicismȱ and Tacitismȱfunctionedȱtogetherȱasȱ“complementaryȱopposites”ȱ“likeȱyinȱandȱyang,” theȱformerȱshowingȱsubjectsȱhowȱtoȱobeyȱthroughȱvirtueȱandȱendurance,ȱandȱthe latterȱteachingȱprincesȱhowȱtoȱruleȱthroughȱskillȱandȱdissimulation.5

2

3 4 5

sodalityȱ inȱ studiesȱ ofȱ Lipsius.ȱ Iȱ wouldȱ likeȱ toȱ expressȱ myȱ thanksȱ toȱ Hanaȱ Takusagawa,ȱ John Gagné,ȱKevinȱPask,ȱAnthonyȱGrafton,ȱandȱtheȱeditorsȱofȱthisȱvolumeȱforȱreadingȱthisȱessay.ȱAll errorsȱare,ȱofȱcourse,ȱmyȱown. JustusȱLipsius,ȱPolitica:ȱSixȱBooksȱofȱPoliticsȱorȱPoliticalȱInstruction,ȱtrans.,ȱintro.ȱandȱed.ȱJanȱWaszink (Assen:ȱRoyalȱvanȱGorcum,ȱ2004),ȱIntroduction,ȱ28. Ibid,ȱIntroduction,ȱ88. Ibid,ȱBookȱIV,ȱChapterȱ14,ȱ515.ȱ PeterȱBurke,ȱ“Tacitism,ȱScepticism,ȱandȱReasonȱofȱState,”ȱTheȱCambridgeȱHistoryȱofȱPoliticalȱThought 1450–1700,ȱ ed.ȱ Jamesȱ Hendersonȱ Burnsȱ withȱ theȱ assistanceȱ ofȱ Markȱ Goldieȱ (Cambridge: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1991),ȱ479–98;ȱhereȱ492.

PaintedȱFriends

677

Lipsius,ȱlikeȱmanyȱothersȱwhoȱattemptedȱtoȱharmonizeȱreligionȱandȱnewȱtheories ofȱ theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ state,ȱ defendedȱ theȱ moralityȱ ofȱ hisȱ politicalȱ theory.6ȱ The applicationȱofȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱmightȱviolateȱmoralȱnorms,ȱbutȱitȱservedȱaȱhigher goodȱbyȱmaintainingȱstability.7ȱItȱwasȱnotȱmerelyȱtheȱprerogativeȱofȱpower,ȱbut wasȱgroundedȱuponȱlearningȱandȱskill,ȱratherȱthanȱmilitaryȱviolenceȱalone,ȱorȱon arsȱ (skill)ȱ togetherȱ withȱ marsȱ (war).ȱ Suchȱ politicalȱ calculationsȱ requiredȱ both informationȱandȱindividualsȱskilledȱinȱcollecting,ȱanalyzing,ȱandȱorganizingȱthat information.ȱ Thus,ȱ theȱ twoȱ worldsȱ ofȱ intellectualȱ andȱ politicalȱ friendshipsȱ represented respectivelyȱbyȱ”DeȱconstantiaȱandȱtheȱPolitica,”ȱwereȱnotȱasȱseparateȱasȱtheyȱmight atȱfirstȱappear.ȱInȱearlyȱmodernȱEurope,ȱinformationȱcollectionȱwasȱperformed throughȱtheȱinstitutionȱofȱlearnedȱfriendship.ȱPragmaticȱreadersȱandȱinternational agentsȱgatheredȱtheȱlearningȱneededȱforȱaȱnewȱinformationȬbasedȱpoliticalȱpractice throughȱ learnedȱ travelȱ (theȱ arsȱ apodemica)ȱ acrossȱ theȱ internationalȱ Republicȱ of Letters.8ȱSuchȱinformationȱgatherersȱcastȱtheirȱ“knowledgeȱtransactions”ȱinȱthe languageȱ ofȱ friendship,ȱ drawingȱ uponȱ theȱ humanistȱ idealȱ ofȱ amicitiaȱ basedȱ on Aristotle’sȱ andȱ Cicero’sȱ teachingsȱ toȱ gainȱ informationȱ forȱ politicalȱ ends.9ȱ The beautifullyȱrenderedȱimageȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱDeȱconstantiaȱthusȱmightȱbeȱstripped awayȱtoȱrevealȱaȱdesignȱasȱcoldȱasȱtheȱPolitica.ȱRisingȱabsolutism,ȱwhichȱLipsius’s Politicaȱandȱevenȱ(oneȱmightȱargue)ȱhisȱConstantiaȱserved,ȱopenedȱfriendlyȱintimacy upȱtoȱtheȱsuspicionsȱofȱpolitics.ȱ Politicallyȱmotivatedȱmethodicalȱtravelȱmadeȱtheȱutilitarianȱnatureȱofȱlearned friendshipȱ manifestȱ andȱ precipitatedȱ aȱ crisisȱ forȱ theȱ ancientȱ modelsȱ ofȱ amicitia (friendship)ȱ centralȱ toȱ practicesȱ ofȱ learning.ȱ SeventeenthȬcenturyȱ learned friendshipȱ wasȱ notȱ theȱ shelteredȱ refugeȱ itȱ appearsȱ toȱ beȱ inȱ Rubens’sȱ painting.

6

7 8

9

Interȱalia,ȱRobertȱBireley,ȱTheȱCounterȬReformationȱPrince:ȱAntiȬMachiavellianismȱorȱCatholicȱStatecraft inȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Europeȱ (Chapelȱ Hill:ȱ Universityȱ ofȱ Northȱ Carolinaȱ Press,ȱ 1990),ȱ andȱ Michel Senellart,ȱ Machiavélismeȱ etȱ raisonȱ d’état:ȱ XIIeȱ –ȱ XVIIIeȱ siècle.ȱ Philosophies,ȱ 21ȱ (Paris:ȱ Presses UniversitairesȱdeȱFrance,ȱ1989). Lipsius,ȱ102. Onȱ methodicalȱ travel,ȱ seeȱ Justinȱ Stagl,ȱ Aȱ Historyȱ ofȱ Curiosity:ȱ Theȱ Theoryȱ ofȱ Travel,ȱ 1500–1800. StudiesȱinȱAnthropologyȱandȱHistory,ȱ13ȱ(Chur,ȱSwitzerland:ȱHarwoodȱAcademicȱPublishers, 1995). AnthonyȱGraftonȱandȱLisaȱJardine,ȱ“ȱ‘StudiedȱforȱAction’:ȱHowȱGabrielȱHarveyȱReadȱhisȱLivy,” Pastȱ andȱ Presentȱ 129ȱ (1990):ȱ 3–50;.ȱ Lisaȱ Jardineȱ andȱ Williamȱ Sherman,ȱ “Pragmaticȱ Readers: KnowledgeȱTransactionsȱandȱScholarlyȱServicesȱinȱLateȱElizabethanȱEngland,”ȱReligion,ȱCulture andȱSocietyȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱBritain:ȱEssaysȱinȱHonorȱofȱPatrickȱCollinson,ȱed.ȱAnthonyȱFletcherȱand Peterȱ Roberts.ȱ (Cambridge:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1994),ȱ 102–24.ȱ Hansȱ Cools,ȱ Marika Keblusek,ȱandȱBadelochȱNoldus,ȱYourȱHumbleȱServant:ȱAgentsȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEuropeȱ(Hilversum: UitgeverijȱVerloren,ȱ2006);ȱDavidȱJ.ȱBaker,ȱ“ȱ‘Idiote’:ȱPoliticsȱandȱFriendshipȱinȱThomasȱCoryate,” BordersȱandȱTravellersȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope,ȱed.ȱThomasȱBetteridgeȱ(Aldershot,ȱEngland,ȱand Burlington,ȱVT:ȱAshgate,ȱ2007),ȱ129–46.ȱCf.ȱLaurieȱShannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity:ȱFiguresȱofȱFriendship inȱShakespeareanȱContextsȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2002).

678

VeraȱKeller

Contemporaryȱ criticsȱ pointedȱ toȱ theȱ waysȱ statistȱ thinkingȱ hadȱ invadedȱ allȱ of sociability.10ȱ Proponentsȱ ofȱ rivalȱ politicalȱ viewsȱ preparedȱ guidesȱ toȱ “civil conversation,”ȱ findingȱ inȱ theȱ minutiaeȱ ofȱ properȱ dinnerȱ tableȱ behaviorȱ an importantȱgroundingȱforȱanȱalternativeȱpolitics.11ȱOthersȱrecommendedȱaȱprudent retreatȱ intoȱ silenceȱ asȱ aȱ reactionȱ toȱ theȱ Tacitistȱ politicsȱ ofȱ theȱ day.12ȱ Seemingly intimateȱsociabilityȱbecameȱaȱmatterȱofȱgreatȱpoliticalȱmoment,ȱbecauseȱlearned friendshipsȱwereȱboundȱbyȱchainsȱofȱpoliticalȱinterest. Historiansȱhaveȱtracedȱaȱnetȱofȱquidȱproȱquoȱexchangesȱfastenedȱontoȱapparently secludedȱintellectualȱfriendships.ȱDisruptionsȱinȱanyȱoneȱrelationship,ȱasȱtheȱstory ofȱLipsius’sȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱpoliticalȱtheoristȱandȱpolemicistȱKasparȱSchoppe (1576–1649)ȱ attests,ȱ ignitedȱ aȱ “chainȱ reaction”ȱ amidȱ allȱ theseȱ contacts.13ȱ Such congeriesȱofȱfriendshipȱnotȱonlyȱaccomplishedȱtheȱintellectualȱworkȱofȱcollecting, editing,ȱ translating,ȱ andȱ publishingȱ knowledge,ȱ butȱ recruitedȱ participantsȱ in personal,ȱconfessional,ȱandȱevenȱnationalȱrivalries.14ȱ TheȱpoliticizedȱhistoriansȱwhoȱfollowedȱLipsiusȱinȱcollectingȱinformationȱforȱthe serviceȱ ofȱ theȱ stateȱ criticizedȱ theȱ waysȱ theirȱ ownȱ practicesȱ hadȱ transformed scholarshipȱ intoȱ learnedȱ statism.ȱ Theȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ learnedȱ charlatansȱ and MachiavelliansȱoperatingȱsecretlyȱwithinȱaȱpurportedȱRepublicȱofȱLettersȱhasȱbeen seenȱasȱanȱattackȱlaunchedȱbyȱeighteenthȬcenturyȱenlightenedȱmenȱofȱbellesȱlettres

10

11

12

13

14

Horstȱ Dreitzel,ȱ “Reasonȱ ofȱ Stateȱ andȱ theȱ Crisisȱ ofȱ Politicalȱ Aristotelianism:ȱ Anȱ Essayȱ onȱ the Developmentȱofȱ17thȱcenturyȱPoliticalȱPhilosophy,”ȱHistoryȱofȱEuropeanȱIdeasȱ28ȱ(2002):ȱ163–87; hereȱ178,ȱn.ȱ32. PeterȱN.ȱMiller,ȱ“FriendshipȱandȱConversationȱinȱSeventeenthȬCenturyȱVenice,”ȱTheȱJournalȱof ModernȱHistoryȱ73ȱ(2001):ȱ1–31.ȱMartinȱvanȱGelderen,ȱ“TheȱStateȱandȱitsȱRivalsȱinȱEarlyȱModern Europe,”ȱ Statesȱ andȱ Citizens:ȱ History,ȱ Theory,ȱ Prospects,ȱ ed.ȱ Boȱ Strathȱ andȱ Quentinȱ Skinner. (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2003),ȱ79–97;ȱhereȱ87. Martinȱ Mulsow,ȱ “Harpocratism:ȱ Gesturesȱ ofȱ Retreatȱ inȱ Earlyȱ Modernȱ Germany,”ȱ Pamelaȱ E. Selwyn,ȱtrans.ȱCommonȱKnowledgeȱ16.1ȱ(2010):ȱ110–27;ȱhereȱ116–17. JanȱPapy,ȱ“Manusȱmanumȱlavat:ȱDieȱBriefkontakteȱzwischenȱKasparȱSchoppeȱundȱJustusȱLipsius alsȱQuelleȱfürȱdieȱKenntnisȱderȱsozialenȱVerhältnisseȱinȱderȱRespublicaȱlitteraria,”ȱKasparȱSchoppe (1576–1649):ȱPhilologeȱimȱDiensteȱderȱGegenreformation:ȱBeiträgeȱzurȱGelehrtenkulturȱdesȱeuropäischen Späthumanismus,ȱ ed.ȱ Herbertȱ Jaumann.ȱ Zeitsprünge.ȱ Forschungenȱ zurȱ Frühenȱ Neuzeit,ȱ 2.3.4 (Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱVittorioȱKlostermann,ȱ1998),ȱ276–97.ȱForȱSchoppe’sȱinfluentialȱpoliticalȱwritings, seeȱinterȱaliaȱhisȱElementaȱPhilosophiaeȱStoicaeȱMoralisȱ(Maintz:ȱAlbinus,ȱ1606),ȱandȱPaediaȱPolitices, ed.ȱHermannȱConringȱ(Helmstadt:ȱMuller,ȱ1663). AnneȱGoldgar,ȱImpoliteȱLearning:ȱConductȱandȱCommunityȱinȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters,ȱ1680–1750ȱ(New Haven:ȱYaleȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1995),ȱFrancoiseȱWaquet,ȱ“LaȱRépubliqueȱdesȱLettres:ȱunȱunivers deȱconflits,”ȱPouvoirs,ȱcontestationsȱetȱcomportementsȱdansȱl’Europeȱmoderne,ȱed.ȱBernardȱBarbiche, JeanȬPierreȱPoussou,ȱandȱAlainȱTallon.ȱ(Paris:ȱPressesȱUniversitairesȱdeȱl’UniversitéȱParisȬSorbonne, 2005),ȱandȱMartinȱMulsow,ȱDieȱUnanständigeȱGelehrtenrepublik:ȱWissen,ȱLibertinageȱundȱKommuniȬ kationȱ inȱ derȱ Frühenȱ Neuzeitȱ (Stuttgart:ȱ J.ȱ B.ȱ Metzler,ȱ 2007).ȱ Forȱ aȱ moreȱ sympatheticȱ viewȱ of intellectualȱfriendshipsȱinȱtheȱRepublic,ȱseeȱAnthonyȱGrafton,ȱ“AȱSketchȱMapȱofȱaȱLostȱContinent: TheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters,”ȱWorldsȱMadeȱbyȱWords:ȱScholarshipȱandȱCommunityȱinȱtheȱModernȱWest (Cambridge,ȱMA,ȱandȱLondon:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2009),ȱ9–34.

PaintedȱFriends

679

uponȱantiquatedȱandȱpedanticȱmenȱofȱlearning.15ȱHowever,ȱtheȱTacitistȱhistorian andȱmasterȱofȱinformationȱcollection,ȱJohannȱHeinrichȱBoecklerȱ(1611–1672),ȱmade thisȱcriticismȱalreadyȱinȱtheȱmidȬseventeenthȱcenturyȱfromȱdeepȱwithinȱtheȱranks ofȱlearnedȱmen.ȱWhatȱBoecklerȱcriticizedȱasȱaȱlearnedȱstatistȱwasȱnotȱtheȱoutmoded pedantȱwhoȱcouldȱnotȱevolveȱintoȱaȱsociableȱandȱworldlyȱhonnêteȱhomme,ȱbutȱthe allȱtooȱpoliticallyȱsavvyȱandȱinnovativeȱscholar.16ȱ Inȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱthatȱcritiquesȱofȱtheȱnewȱpoliticalȱnatureȱofȱlearning wereȱmadeȱinȱtheȱseventeenthȱcenturyȱbyȱscholarsȱthemselves,ȱthatȱsuchȱcritiques wereȱlinkedȱtoȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱmethodicalȱtravelȱandȱitsȱnewȱapparatus,ȱtheȱalbum amicorumȱ(bookȱofȱfriends),ȱandȱthatȱthisȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱperceptionȱofȱthe changedȱ natureȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ soȱ fundamentalȱ thatȱ itȱ mightȱ informȱ our historicalȱcategoryȱofȱ“lateȱhumanism.”ȱInȱ1931,ȱErichȱTrunzȱdevisedȱtheȱtermȱ“late humanism”ȱtoȱreferȱtoȱaȱperceivedȱshiftȱinȱlearnedȱcultureȱaroundȱ1600,ȱatȱaȱtime whenȱaȱnewȱliteraryȱnobilityȱadvancedȱtheȱstatusȱofȱhumanistsȱasȱaȱgroup.17ȱThe meaningȱofȱthisȱtermȱhasȱbeenȱhotlyȱdebatedȱsinceȱthen.ȱ Forȱsome,ȱtheȱstylisticȱandȱpoliticalȱchangesȱintroducedȱbyȱLipsiusȱandȱother TacitistsȱforeverȱchangedȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters.18ȱRichardȱTuckȱsawȱTacitismȱas aȱ“newȱhumanism.”19ȱForȱWilhelmȱKühlmann,ȱlateȱhumanismȱreferredȱtoȱaȱfeeling ofȱ“lateness”ȱexpressedȱbyȱhumanistsȱthemselves,ȱproddedȱbyȱtheȱcomplicated

15

16

17

18

19

Wilhelmȱ Kühlmann,ȱ Gelehrtenrepublikȱ undȱ Fürstenstaat:ȱ Entwicklungȱ undȱ Kritikȱ desȱ deutschen SpäthumanismusȱinȱderȱLiteraturȱdesȱBarockzeitalters.ȱStudienȱundȱTexteȱzurȱSozialgeschichteȱder Literatur,ȱ3ȱ(Tübingen:MaxȱNiemeyer,ȱ1982),ȱ320–21.ȱCf.ȱJosephȱM.ȱLevine,ȱ“StrifeȱinȱtheȱRepublic ofȱLetters,”ȱCommerciumȱLitterarium:ȱFormsȱofȱCommunicationȱinȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters,ȱ1600–1750, ed.ȱHansȱBotsȱandȱFrançoiseȱWaquet.ȱStudiesȱvanȱhetȱInstituutȱvoorȱintellectueleȱbetrekkingen tussenȱdeȱWesteuropeseȱLandenȱinȱdeȱzeventiendeȱeeuw,ȱ25ȱ(AmsterdamȱandȱMaarssen:ȱAPAȬ HollandȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱ301–19;ȱhereȱ315–16.ȱLevineȱcastsȱJ.ȱB.ȱMenckeȱamongȱtheȱmen ofȱlettersȱmockingȱtheȱlearned. JohannȱHeinrichȱBoeckler,ȱC.ȱVelleiiȱPaterculiȱLibriȱDuoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcumȱannotatisȱJoannisȱHenriciȱBoecleri (Strasbourg:ȱ Mülbe,ȱ 1642),ȱ 90–101,ȱ discussedȱ furtherȱ below.ȱ Onȱ Boeckler,ȱ seeȱ Neueȱ Deutsche Biographie,ȱvol.ȱ2ȱ(1955),ȱ372–73;ȱvol.ȱ19ȱ(1999),ȱ404;ȱvol.ȱ24ȱ(2010),ȱ117.. ErichȱTrunz,ȱ“DeutscherȱSpäthumanismusȱumȱ1600ȱalsȱStandeskultur,”ȱoriginallyȱinȱZeitschriftȱfür GeschichteȱderȱErziehungȱundȱdesȱUnterrichtsȱ21(1931:ȱ17–53,ȱrpt.ȱinȱDeutscheȱBarockforschung:ȱDokuȬ mentationȱeinerȱEpoche,ȱed.ȱRichardȱAlewyn.ȱNeueȱwissenschaftlicheȱBibliothek,ȱ7ȱ(Cologneȱand Berlin:ȱKiepenheuerȱandȱWitsch,ȱ1965),ȱ147–81;ȱhereȱ165. ThisȱpointȱwasȱdebatedȱinȱUlrichȱMuhlack,ȱ“DerȱTacitismusȱȬȱeinȱSpäthumanistischesȱPhänomen?” Späthumanismus:ȱStudienȱüberȱdasȱEndeȱeinerȱkulturhistorischenȱEpoche,ȱed.ȱNotkerȱHammersteinȱand GerritȱWaltherȱ(Göttingen:ȱWallstein,ȱ2000),ȱ160–82,ȱandȱConradȱWiedemann,ȱ“Fortifikationȱdes Geistes:.ȱLipsius,ȱderȱCentoȱundȱdieȱprudentiaȱcivilis,”ȱinȱibid,ȱ183–207. RichardȱTuck,ȱPhilosophyȱandȱGovernment,ȱ1572–1651.ȱIdeasȱinȱContext,ȱ26ȱ(Cambridge,ȱandȱNew York:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1993).

680

VeraȱKeller

relationsȱbetweenȱanȱinternationalȱrepublicȱofȱlettersȱandȱcompetitiveȱterritories.20 Forȱothers,ȱreligiousȱpolemicsȱintroducedȱbyȱtheȱReformationȱchangedȱtheȱpolitics, tenor,ȱandȱdynamicsȱofȱlearning.21ȱAntjeȱStannekȱpointedȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱof methodicalȱtravelȱandȱtheȱwayȱitȱtransformedȱbothȱtheȱeducationȱofȱnoblesȱand humanismȱbyȱemphasizingȱanȱempirical,ȱpragmaticȱpoliticsȱandȱtheȱcollectionȱof usefulȱideasȱandȱinventionsȱwhileȱabroadȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱaȱparticularȱterritory.22 Likeȱmostȱperiodizations,ȱtheȱtermȱ“lateȱhumanism”ȱisȱvagueȱandȱcontested.ȱBy referringȱ toȱ “humanists,”ȱ itȱ doesȱ not,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ accountȱ forȱ theȱ majorityȱ of learnedȱmenȱinȱtheȱvariousȱprofessionsȱofȱtheȱperiod.23ȱJohannȱHeinrichȱBoeckler hadȱexplicitlyȱcriticizedȱtheȱwayȱpoliticalȱpracticesȱhadȱaffectedȱnotȱonlyȱhumanists (“Philologi”),ȱbutȱalsoȱtheologians,ȱlawyers,ȱdoctors,ȱandȱphilosophers.24ȱDespite suchȱdifficultiesȱwithȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱlateȱhumanism,ȱitȱisȱclearȱthatȱtheȱtermȱrefers toȱaȱperiodȱofȱgreatȱexpansionȱinȱtheȱextentȱofȱlearningȱandȱlearnedȱsociability.ȱ Trunzȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱtheȱnumberȱofȱtheȱacademicallyȱeducatedȱcontinually increasedȱ asȱ newȱ schoolsȱ wereȱ founded,ȱ whileȱ theȱ sizeȱ ofȱ personalȱ libraries mushroomed.25ȱCorrespondenceȱandȱexpressionsȱofȱ“friendship”ȱexplodedȱasȱwell. Newȱmedia,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱalbumȱamicorumȱ(bookȱofȱfriends)ȱfacilitatedȱtheȱpractice ofȱ friendship.ȱ Trunzȱ sawȱ theȱ cold,ȱ formulaicȱ friendshipȱ ofȱ theȱ periodȱ asȱ a particularityȱofȱlateȱhumanism.ȱ“AlsȱGelehrterȱwarȱmanȱamicusȱundȱamicissimus einerȱ Vielzahlȱ andererȱ Gelehrterȱ (Asȱ aȱ learnedȱ man,ȱ oneȱ wasȱ amicusȱ and amicissimusȱwithȱmanyȱotherȱlearnedȱmen),”ȱheȱwrote,ȱandȱitȱwasȱnotȱunusualȱto listȱ thirtyȱ orȱ fiftyȱ individualsȱ asȱ one’sȱ friends.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ inȱ letters,ȱ albaȱ amicorum, poems,ȱandȱprintedȱcollaborativeȱworksȱcelebratingȱfriendshipȱcirclesȱthatȱsuch relationshipsȱfoundȱexpression.ȱAsȱTrunzȱsaid,ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱmancherȱliebteȱschließlich

20

21

22

23

24 25

WilhelmȱKühlmann,ȱGelehrtenrepublik,ȱ(1982)ȱandȱMartinȱOpitz:ȱDeutscheȱLiteraturȱundȱDeutsche Nation,ȱed.ȱKühlmannȱ(Heidelberg:ȱManutius,ȱ2001),ȱandȱGerhardȱOestreich,ȱGeistȱundȱGestaltȱdes frühmodernenȱStaates:ȱausgewählteȱAufsätzeȱ(Berlin:ȱDunckerȱ&ȱHumbolt,ȱ1969).ȱSeeȱtheȱdiscussion ofȱOestreichȱinȱKühlmannȱ(1982),ȱ6–7.ȱ AxelȱE.ȱWalter,ȱSpäthumanismusȱundȱKonfessionspolitik:ȱDieȱeuropäischeȱGelehrtenrepublikȱumȱ1600 imȱ Spiegelȱ derȱ Korrespondenzenȱ Georgȱ Michaelȱ Lingelsheims.ȱ Früheȱ Neuzeit,ȱ 95ȱ (Tübingen:ȱ Max Neimeyer,ȱ2004). AntjeȱStannek,ȱ“Peregrinemurȱnonȱutȱaranaeȱsedȱutȱapes:ȱAuslandserfahrungenȱimȱKontextȱadeliger StandeserziehungȱanȱderȱWendeȱvomȱ16.ȱzumȱ17.ȱJahrhundert,”ȱSpäthumanismus.ȱStudienȱüberȱdas Endeȱ einerȱ kulturhistorischenȱ Epoche,ȱ ed.ȱ Notkerȱ Hammersteinȱ andȱ Gerritȱ Waltherȱ (Göttingen: Wallstein,ȱ2000),ȱ208–26. AnthonyȱGraftonȱmadeȱthisȱpointȱinȱaȱtalk,ȱ“WhatȱwasȱLateȱaboutȱLateȱHumanism?”ȱpresented atȱtheȱCentreȱforȱResearchȱinȱtheȱArts,ȱSocialȱSciencesȱandȱHumanitiesȱConference,ȱCambridge, UK,ȱ10–11ȱJulyȱ2007.ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmyȱthanksȱtoȱAnthonyȱGraftonȱforȱsharingȱthisȱpiece withȱmeȱbeforeȱitsȱpublication. Boeckler,ȱC.ȱVelleii,ȱ97. Trunz,ȱ“DeutscherȱSpäthumanismus,”ȱ163ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ17).

PaintedȱFriends

681

dieseȱFormenȱmehrȱalsȱdieȱFreundeȱundȱdieȱFreundschaftȱselbstȱ(manyȱfinally lovedȱtheseȱformsȱmoreȱthanȱfriendsȱandȱfriendshipȱitself).”26ȱ Theȱclassicalȱpatronageȱnetworkȱofȱamicitiaȱhadȱmadeȱfriendshipȱaȱutilitarian institutionȱsinceȱancientȱRome.ȱHowever,ȱwhileȱhistoriansȱdescribeȱtwelfthȬcentury amicitiaȱasȱ“veryȱmuchȱaȱpragmaticȱactivityȱfoundedȱonȱmutualȱselfȱinterest,”ȱthe truthȱremainsȱthatȱinȱtheȱtwelfthȱcenturyȱthereȱwasȱnoȱdiscourseȱofȱselfȱinterestȱlike theȱ oneȱ whichȱ developedȱ overȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ century.27ȱ The ambiguityȱofȱamicitiaȱbetweenȱaffectionȱandȱaȱquidȱproȱquoȱrelationshipȱhadȱallowed friendshipȱ toȱ flourishȱ forȱ centuriesȱ asȱ aȱ centralȱ mechanismȱ forȱ interpersonal relationshipȱinȱeverythingȱfromȱinternationalȱpoliticsȱtoȱchurchȱadministrationȱto learnedȱexchange.28ȱInȱtheȱlateȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱanȱexplicitȱdiscourseȱofȱreasonȱof stateȱandȱtheȱ“reasonȱofȱstateȱofȱtheȱself”ȱorȱselfȱinterestȱgeneratedȱaȱcrisisȱforȱthe institutionȱofȱamicitia. Theȱpoliticalȱusefulnessȱofȱlearnedȱfriendshipȱgeneratedȱatȱfirstȱanȱescalationȱin utilitarianȱ friendshipsȱ supportedȱ byȱ relativelyȱ newȱ media,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ album amicorum.ȱInȱtheȱmidȬseventeenthȱcentury,ȱthisȱescalationȱstimulatedȱaȱcritiqueȱof theȱ stateȱ ofȱ learningȱ whichȱ expandedȱ throughȱ theȱ eighteenthȱ century. Simultaneously,ȱtheȱprofessionalȱdeploymentȱofȱtheȱalbumȱbyȱmenȱofȱlearningȱand politiciansȱ declined.ȱ Takenȱ atȱ faceȱ value,ȱ theȱ outpouringȱ ofȱ expressionsȱ of friendshipȱofȱtheȱperiod,ȱfromȱtheȱenormousȱpopularityȱofȱLipsianȱconstancyȱtoȱthe expansionȱ ofȱ theȱ albumȱ amicorum,ȱ mightȱ pointȱ toȱ aȱ goldenȱ ageȱ ofȱ intellectual fellowship.ȱViewedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱpoliticalȱdiscussionsȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱan emergingȱcriticismȱofȱtheȱlinksȱbetweenȱlearningȱandȱpolitics,ȱsuchȱportrayalsȱof learnedȱfriendshipȱtakeȱonȱaȱdifferentȱhue.ȱTracingȱtheȱchangingȱformȱofȱtheȱalbum amicorumȱalongsideȱpoliticalȱviewsȱofȱlearnedȱsociabilityȱandȱmethodicalȱtravelȱwill throwȱthisȱcontextȱintoȱrelief.ȱSuchȱaȱstudyȱwillȱhelpȱtoȱshowȱhowȱnewȱpolitical theoriesȱ transformedȱ theȱ longȬlivedȱ institutionȱ ofȱ learnedȱ amicitiaȱ andȱ thus learningȱitself,ȱwhileȱlearnedȱfriendshipȱinȱturnȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱemergenceȱof newȱpoliticalȱpracticesȱofȱinformationȱcollection.ȱ

26 27

28

Ibid,ȱ167. JohnȱMcLoughlin,ȱ“AmicitiaȱinȱPractice:ȱJohnȱofȱSalisburyȱ(c.ȱ1120–1180)ȱandȱHisȱCircle,”ȱEngland inȱ theȱ Twelfthȱ Century,ȱ ed.ȱ D.ȱ Williams.ȱ Proceedingsȱ ofȱ theȱ 1988ȱ Harlaxtonȱ Symposium (Woodbridge,ȱSuffolk,ȱandȱWolfeboro,ȱNH:ȱBoydellȱPress,ȱ1990),ȱ165–81;ȱhereȱ167.ȱTheȱuseȱofȱthe termȱ“interest”ȱincreasedȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱcentury,ȱreplacingȱorȱcomplementingȱtheȱterm “reasonȱofȱstate,”ȱwhichȱhadȱachievedȱcurrencyȱearlier.ȱSeeȱBurkeȱ(seeȱnoteȱ5).ȱ Onȱamicitiaȱasȱanȱexpressionȱofȱsolidarityȱbeyondȱbothȱneedȱandȱpersonalȱaffection,ȱseeȱJulian Haseldine,ȱ “Understandingȱ theȱ Languageȱ ofȱ Amicitia:ȱ theȱ Friendshipȱ Circleȱ ofȱ Peterȱ ofȱ Celle (1115–1183),”ȱJournalȱofȱMedievalȱHistoryȱ20ȱ(1994):ȱ237–60.ȱSeeȱalsoȱhisȱcontributionȱtoȱtheȱpresent volume.

682

VeraȱKeller

AnȱHonestȱManȱSentȱtoȱLieȱAbroadȱforȱhisȱCountry:ȱ PoliticsȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱFriends Itȱwasȱvitalȱforȱaȱpoliticianȱtoȱrecognizeȱthatȱtheȱdivisionȱbetweenȱtheȱintimate friendshipsȱofȱDeȱconstantiaȱandȱtheȱutilitarianȱcalculationsȱofȱtheȱPoliticaȱwasȱa mirage.ȱTheȱimplosionȱofȱtheȱcareerȱofȱHenryȱWottonȱ(1568–1639),ȱtheȱEnglish ambassadorȱ toȱ Venice,ȱ dramatizedȱ theȱ dangersȱ ofȱ turningȱ aȱ blindȱ eyeȱ toȱ the politicalȱnatureȱofȱlateȱhumanistȱfriendships.ȱTheȱseedsȱofȱscandalȱwereȱplantedȱon aȱjourneyȱinȱ1604,ȱwhenȱWottonȱpausedȱatȱtheȱhomeȱofȱhisȱoldȱfriendȱChristoph Fleckhammer.ȱThereȱheȱinscribedȱinȱFleckhammer’sȱalbumȱamicorumȱtheȱfollowing bonȱmotȱconcerningȱtheȱpoliticalȱimportanceȱofȱinternationalȱdeception:ȱ“Legatusȱest virȱbonus,ȱperegrèȱmissus,ȱadȱmentiendumȱReipublicaeȱcausa,”ȱthatȱis,ȱ“Aȱdiplomatȱis anȱhonestȱmanȱsentȱtoȱlieȱabroadȱforȱhisȱcountry.”29ȱ Theȱ albumȱ amicorum,ȱ althoughȱ ostensiblyȱ memorializingȱ theȱ relationship betweenȱjustȱtwoȱpeopleȰtheȱinscriberȱandȱtheȱbook’sȱownerȰinȱfactȱwasȱread andȱ usedȱ (bothȱ toȱ establishȱ contactsȱ andȱ toȱ defameȱ enemies)ȱ withinȱ farȬflung networks.ȱThisȱmeantȱthatȱWotton’sȱjokeȱwasȱfarȱfromȱprivate.ȱYearsȱafterȱWotton wroteȱit,ȱKasparȱSchoppeȱsawȱWotton’sȱjokeȱinȱFleckhammer’sȱalbumȱandȱseized uponȱitȱtoȱattackȱbothȱWottonȱandȱhisȱmasterȱKingȱJames,ȱinȱaȱworkȱofȱpoliticalȱand religiousȱpolemicȱaimedȱatȱJames,ȱhisȱEcclesiasticvsȱauctoritatiȱserenissimiȱd.ȱIacobi MagnaeȱBritanniaeȱregisȱoppositvsȱofȱ1611. Schoppeȱ madeȱ theȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ SitzȬimȬLebenȱ inȱ whichȱ Wotton’sȱ gaffeȱ had appeared.ȱHeȱcitedȱWotton’sȱalbumȱinscriptionȱwordȱforȱword.ȱHeȱevenȱhadȱthe typeȱlaidȱoutȱonȱtheȱprintedȱpageȱinȱexactlyȱtheȱsameȱformȱinȱwhichȱitȱwouldȱhave appearedȱinȱtheȱalbum,ȱsignedȱandȱdated,ȱwithȱtheȱfullȱtitleȱofȱbothȱWottonȱand Kingȱ James.ȱ Theȱ typographicallyȱ simulatedȱ albumȱ inscriptionȱ transportsȱ the readerȱinstantlyȱfromȱreligiousȱpolemicȱtoȱaȱsocialȱsettingȱandȱbackȱagain.ȱ“Haec multiȱprimariiȱviriȱAugustaeȱnonȱsineȱadmirationeȱviderunt,ȱquorumȱestȱIllustris MarcusȱVelserus,ȱreipub.ȱAugustanaeȱPraefectus,ȱvirȱacrimoniaȱiudicii,ȱliterarum elegantiaȱ &ȱ morumȱ suavitateȱ neminiȱ secundusȱ (Manyȱ ofȱ theȱ foremostȱ menȱ of Augsburgȱsawȱthisȱinscription,ȱnotȱwithoutȱamazement,ȱandȱamongȱthemȱwasȱthe illustriousȱ Marcȱ Welser,ȱ mayorȱ ofȱ Augsburg,ȱ aȱ manȱ secondȱ toȱ noneȱ inȱ the sharpnessȱ ofȱ hisȱ judgment,ȱ theȱ eleganceȱ ofȱ hisȱ writing,ȱ andȱ theȱ charmȱ ofȱ his manners),”ȱwroteȱSchoppe.30ȱSchoppeȱstagedȱWotton’sȱinscriptionȱasȱaȱshocking blunderȱ committedȱ withinȱ aȱ suaveȱ andȱ wellȬconnectedȱ socialȱ networkȱ which stretched,ȱviaȱMarcȱWelserȱ(1558–1614),ȱtoȱSchoppeȱhimself.ȱ

29

30

TheȱinscriptionȱwasȱfirstȱreprintedȱbyȱKasparȱSchoppeȱinȱEcclesiasticvsȱauctoritatiȱserenissimiȱd. IacobiȱMagnaeȱBritanniaeȱregisȱoppositvsȱ(Hartbergȱ[inȱreality:ȱMeitbingen]:ȱn.p.,ȱ1611),ȱ13. Ibid.

PaintedȱFriends

683

Wottonȱattemptedȱtoȱdefendȱhimselfȱinȱ1613ȱbyȱprintingȱanȱopenȱletterȱtoȱthis sameȱMarcȱWelser,ȱaȱmutualȱfriendȱofȱhisȱandȱofȱLipsiusȱandȱSchoppe.ȱInȱwriting toȱWelser,ȱheȱattackedȱSchoppeȱforȱdraggingȱanȱintimateȱinscriptionȱintoȱaȱpolitical andȱ religiousȱ polemic.ȱ Heȱ “hadȱ chancedȱ toȱ setȱ downȱ atȱ myȱ Friend’sȱ Mr. ChristopherȱFleckamor,ȱinȱhisȱAlbumȱofȱFriends,ȱafterȱtheȱGermanȱcustome,ȱ(a whiteȱPaperȰBookȱusedȱbyȱtheȱDutchȱforȱsuchȱkindȱofȱMottos)”ȱhisȱlittleȱpunȱon ambassadors.ȱ“Now,ȱwhat,ȱIȱpray,ȱthinkȱyouȱdothȱthisȱScioppiusȱhereupon?”ȱwrote anȱaggrievedȱWotton.ȱSchoppeȱthrewȱ“openȱtheȱCabinetȱofȱfamiliarity,ȱafterȱso manyȱyears”ȱandȱdraggedȱaȱprivateȱjokeȱintoȱaȱpublicȱbattle.ȱ Wottonȱ distinguishedȱ sharplyȱ betweenȱ public,ȱ politicalȱ organsȱ of communicationȱandȱtheȱintimate,ȱmanuscriptȱcultureȱofȱtheȱalbumȱamicorum.ȱWhile heȱhadȱmadeȱaȱharmlessȱjokeȱinȱprivateȱaboutȱpolitics,ȱCatholicȱpolemicistsȱlike SchoppeȱroutinelyȱtwistedȱtheȱwordsȱofȱsacredȱScriptureȱitself,ȱ“notȱbyȱtheȱby,ȱnor inȱjest,ȱorȱinȱtheȱAlbumȱofȱFriends,ȱwhereȱidleȱthingsȱandȱtruthsȱus’dȱtoȱbeȱset downȱwithȱequalȱsecurity,ȱbutȱonȱsetȱpurpose,ȱandȱfromȱtheȱPulpit.”ȱThereȱwasȱa majorȱdifference,ȱWottonȱcontended,ȱbetweenȱhisȱownȱplayful,ȱamicableȱalbum amicorumȱinscriptionȱandȱwhatȱheȱcastȱasȱtheȱprinted,ȱpolemical,ȱandȱaboveȱall pedanticȱEcclesiasticusȱSchoppeȱhadȱcomposed.ȱThisȱ“newȱEcclesiastick,ȱnotȱinȱthe AlbumȱofȱFriends,ȱbutȱinȱtheȱ485thȱPageȱofȱhisȱfineȱSyntagma”ȱpronouncedȱwords contraryȱ toȱ Scriptureȱ “withȱ aȱ blasphemousȱ andȱ shamelessȱ mouth.”ȱ Wotton contrastedȱ theȱ unimpeachableȱ albumȱ withȱ Schoppe’sȱ flagrantȱ Papistȱ polemics, averringȱthatȱheȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱfaultedȱforȱwordsȱspokenȱinȱtheȱprivacyȱofȱfriends.31 Thisȱ wasȱ hardlyȱ persuasive.ȱ Theȱ albumȱ amicorum,ȱ althoughȱ containing deceptivelyȱ intimateȱ inscriptions,ȱ hadȱ longȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ toolȱ forȱ international networkingȱonȱaȱgrandȱscale.ȱByȱ1604,ȱthereȱwasȱlittleȱthatȱwasȱintimateȱaboutȱit. TheȱalbumȱwasȱaȱtoolȱyoungȱwouldȬbeȱpoliticiansȱusedȱtoȱsurveyȱdistantȱlands,ȱas theyȱsystematicallyȱtravelledȱwithȱdiaries,ȱitineraria,ȱmaps,ȱandȱalbaȱamicorumȱin hand.32ȱ Theȱ methodizationȱ ofȱ travelȱ madeȱ internationalȱ friendshipȱ explicitly political.ȱAȱcentralȱpartȱofȱaȱnewȱpoliticalȱpracticeȱwasȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱinformation bothȱthroughȱtheȱstudyȱofȱhistoryȱ(aboveȱallȱancientȱRomanȱhistoriansȱsuchȱas Tacitus)ȱandȱmethodicalȱtravel.ȱ

31

32

HenryȱWotton,ȱ“LetterȱtoȱWelser,”ȱReliquiaeȱWottonianaeȱ(London:ȱRoycroft,ȱ1672),ȱe6v–f2r.ȱHenry Wotton,ȱEpistolaȱ(Amberg:ȱSchönfeld,ȱ1613).ȱOnȱthisȱincident,ȱsee,ȱinterȱalia,ȱWinfriedȱSchleiner, “Scioppius’ȱ Penȱ againstȱ theȱ Englishȱ King’sȱ Sword:ȱ Theȱ Politicalȱ Functionȱ ofȱ Ambiguityȱ and Anonymityȱ inȱ Earlyȱ SeventeenthȬCenturyȱ Literature,”ȱ Renaissanceȱ andȱ Reformationȱ 26ȱ (1990): 271–84,ȱandȱLoganȱPearsallȱSmith,ȱTheȱLifeȱandȱLettersȱofȱSirȱHenryȱWottonȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendon Press,ȱ1966). PietroȱCanoniero,ȱforȱexample,ȱcitedȱMeierȱandȱRantzau’sȱlistȱatȱlengthȱinȱhisȱDell’Introduzioneȱall’ Politicaȱ(Antwerp:ȱTrognesius,ȱ1614),ȱ142–43.

684

VeraȱKeller

MethodicalȱtravelȱthroughȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLettersȱwasȱaȱdifferentȱaffairȱfrom travelȱtoȱlandsȱlargelyȱuninhabitedȱbyȱEuropeans.33ȱLearnedȱcontactsȱprovided passportsȱtoȱtheȱhomesȱandȱdinnerȱtablesȱofȱforeignȱscholars,ȱmakingȱmethodical travelȱaȱseriesȱofȱsocialȱencounters.ȱNewȱgenresȱsuchȱasȱtheȱalbumȱamicorumȱwere designedȱtoȱfoster,ȱcollect,ȱandȱrecordȱsuchȱmomentsȱofȱintimacyȱinȱtheȱcourseȱof methodicalȱ travel.ȱ However,ȱ travelers’sȱ reȬenactmentsȱ ofȱ theȱ intenseȱ amicality exemplifiedȱ byȱ Lipsiusȱ andȱ Langiusȱ inȱ Deȱ constantiaȱ occurredȱ inȱ passingȱ and betweenȱindividualsȱwhoȱwereȱlargelyȱstrangers.ȱSuchȱfacileȱfriendships,ȱhowever eloquentlyȱtheyȱwereȱcelebratedȱwithinȱtheȱalbumȱamicorum,ȱwereȱnotȱsheltersȱfrom theȱworldȱofȱpolitics,ȱbutȱpointsȱofȱencounterȱonȱaȱpurposefulȱsurveyȱofȱforeign lands.34 TheodoreȱZwinger,ȱwhoȱmethodizedȱtravelȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱimportȱcompetitively informationȱ homeȱ justȱ “Utȱ ergoȱ èȱ totoȱ terrarumȱ orbeȱ preciosaeȱ mercesȱ in celeberrimaȱconvehunturȱemporia”ȱ(“asȱpreciousȱgoodsȱareȱtransportedȱfromȱthe wholeȱworldȱtoȱtheȱmostȱfamousȱemporia”),ȱbrokeȱtheȱexperienceȱofȱtravelȱdown toȱthatȱofȱcollectingȱdesirableȱobjects,ȱincludingȱpeople.35ȱZwingerȱpublishedȱlists ofȱmenȱnotableȱforȱletters,ȱmechanicalȱarts,ȱarms,ȱandȱsoȱforth,ȱandȱmethodical travelersȱthereafterȱapproachedȱaȱforeignȱdestinationȱwithȱaȱlistȱofȱindividualsȱin mindȱ whomȱ theyȱ wishedȱ toȱ collectȱ withinȱ aȱ bookȱ ofȱ friends.36ȱ Thereȱ wasȱ thus nothingȱatȱallȱunusualȱinȱtheȱutilitarianȱcollectionȱofȱfriendsȱthroughȱtravel.ȱInȱfact, itȱwasȱpartȱofȱtheȱdefinitionȱofȱmethodicalȱtravel.ȱOnlyȱthoseȱwhoȱtravelledȱwith politicallyȱutilitarianȱmotivesȱcouldȱaspireȱtoȱtheȱtitleȱofȱ“peregrinator.”37 33

34

35

36

37

FrançoiseȱWaquet,ȱ“L’EspaceȱdeȱlaȱRépubliqueȱdesȱLettres,”ȱCommerciumȱLitterarium:ȱFormsȱof CommunicationȱinȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters,ȱ1600–1750,ȱed.ȱHansȱBotsȱandȱFrançoiseȱWaquet.ȱÉtudes deȱl’InstitutȱPierreȱBayle,ȱNimègue,ȱ25ȱ(AmsterdamȱandȱMaarssen:ȱAPAȬHollandȱUniversityȱPress, 1994),ȱ175–89. PaulȱDibonȱetȱFrançoiseȱWaquet,ȱJohannesȱFridericusȱGronovius,ȱPèlerinȱdeȱlaȱRépubliqueȱdesȱLettres: RecherchesȱsurȱleȱVoyageȱSavantȱauȱXVIIeȱSiècle.ȱHautesȱétudesȱmédiévalesȱetȱmoderns,ȱ53ȱ(Geneva: Droz,ȱ1984). TheodoreȱZwinger,ȱMethodusȱApodemicaȱ(Basle:ȱEpiscopius,ȱ1577),ȱpreface,ȱtranslatedȱbyȱStagl,ȱA HistoryȱofȱCuriosity,ȱ122. ForȱPadua,ȱforȱinstance,ȱZwingerȱlistedȱfourȱtheologians,ȱtwentyȬfiveȱlawyersȱandȱjudges,ȱtwentyȬ fourȱ philosophersȱ andȱ doctors,ȱ fifteenȱ rhetoricians,ȱ fiveȱ warriors,ȱ fifteenȱ painters,ȱ sculptors, engraversȱandȱscribesȱ(withȱtheȱlocationsȱofȱtheirȱworks),ȱetc.ȱZwinger,ȱ275–76.ȱ GeorgȱLoysius,ȱPervigiliumȱMercuriiȱ(1598;ȱLeiden:ȱVerbiest,ȱ1667),ȱ220.ȱ“Estȱautemȱperegrinatio nihilȱaliudȱquamȱstudiumȱperlustrandiȱterrasȱexoticas,ȱ&ȱinsulas,ȱabȱhomineȱidoneoȱsuscipiendum,ȱad artemȱ velȱ eaȱ acquirenda,ȱ quaeȱ usuiȱ &ȱ emolumentoȱ patriaeȱ velȱ Reiȱ esseȱ publicaeȱ possunt.ȱ Talem peregrinarumȱ regionumȱ perlustratoremȱ &ȱ diligentemȱ earumȱ rerumȱ observatorem,ȱ quiȱ suam peregrinationemȱ nonȱ temeritate,ȱ sedȱ utilitateȱ motusȱ instituit,ȱ Peregrinantemȱ appellareȱ licebit (Peregrinationȱisȱnothingȱotherȱthanȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱsurveyingȱforeignȱlandsȱandȱislands,ȱtoȱbeȱtaken upȱbyȱaȱfitȱman,ȱforȱtheȱacquiringȱofȱartȱorȱthoseȱthingsȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱofȱuseȱandȱprofitȱtoȱthe fatherlandȱorȱtheȱrepublic.ȱOneȱmayȱcallȱtheȱsortȱofȱdiligentȱobserverȱofȱthoseȱthingsȱandȱsurveyor ofȱforeignȱlandsȱwhoȱsetȱupȱhisȱjourneyȱnotȱmovedȱbyȱrashness,ȱbutȱbyȱutility,ȱaȱ“Peregrinator”) [italicsȱoriginal].”

PaintedȱFriends

685

Acrossȱ largeȱ swathesȱ ofȱ Northern,ȱ Central,ȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ determined collectorsȱofȱmenȱandȱthingsȱpreparedȱluxuriouslyȱboundȱblankȱvolumesȱtoȱtake onȱtheirȱjourney.ȱWhenȱtheyȱsucceededȱinȱmakingȱtheȱpassingȱacquaintanceȱof targetedȱindividuals,ȱtheyȱaskedȱthemȱtoȱsignȱtheȱusuallyȱhierarchicallyȱarranged bookȱonȱtheȱpageȱwhichȱrepresentedȱtheȱperceivedȱvalueȱofȱtheȱinscriber.ȱThis valueȱwasȱdeterminedȱrelativeȱtoȱanyoneȱelseȱtheȱbook’sȱownerȱwasȱlikelyȱtoȱmeet. Theȱownerȱofȱtheȱalbumȱhadȱtoȱhaveȱaȱveryȱlucidȱideaȱofȱhisȱownȱsocialȱplaceȱin orderȱtoȱjudgeȱhowȱmanyȱfamousȱpeopleȱheȱcouldȱpersuadeȱtoȱsignȱhisȱbookȱand onȱwhatȱpageȱinȱthatȱbookȱheȱshouldȱaskȱthemȱtoȱsign.ȱBooksȱwithȱmanyȱblank pagesȱ toȱ theȱ foreȱ andȱ theȱ inscriptionsȱ clusteredȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ giveȱ awayȱ highly ambitiousȱalbumȱownersȱwhoȱanticipated,ȱbutȱdidȱnotȱsucceed,ȱinȱcollectingȱmany veryȱvaluableȱprotestationsȱofȱfriendship. Theȱencounterȱwithȱpeopleȱofȱdiverseȱranksȱandȱtheȱpracticeȱofȱalbumȱinscription helpedȱtoȱclarifyȱsocialȱhierarchiesȱinȱculturally,ȱpolitically,ȱandȱgeographically complexȱ regionsȱ ofȱ Europeȱ andȱ beyond.ȱ Fromȱ theȱ beginning,ȱ therefore,ȱ the inscriptionȱwasȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱaȱletterȱwrittenȱfromȱoneȱpersonȱtoȱanother,ȱas publicȱasȱlettersȱwereȱinȱtheȱperiod.ȱRather,ȱtheȱpageȱofȱtheȱinscriptionȱrepresented aȱ carefullyȱ defendedȱ andȱ eagerlyȱ observedȱ statusȱ defined,ȱ likeȱ pricesȱ inȱ the emporium,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ betweenȱ buyerȱ andȱ sellerȱ butȱ inȱ relationȱ toȱ allȱ theȱ other availableȱgoods.ȱTheȱresultingȱinscriptions,ȱasȱsaccharineȱasȱtheyȱoftenȱare,ȱshould certainlyȱ notȱ beȱ readȱ atȱ faceȱ valueȱ asȱ aȱ refugeȱ fromȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ competitive natureȱofȱlearnedȱfriendships.38 ThisȱwasȱHenryȱWotton’sȱmistake.ȱWotton’sȱflimsyȱdefenseȱofȱfriendlyȱintimacy asȱsacredȱgroundȱnotȱtoȱbeȱtroubledȱbyȱpoliticsȱonlyȱsucceededȱinȱmakingȱhimȱan objectȱlessonȱinȱimprudenceȱbackȱhome.39ȱAnythingȱutteredȱwithinȱtheȱgardenȱof Deȱ constantiaȱ wouldȱ beȱ instantlyȱ reportedȱ backȱ toȱ theȱ courtȱ ofȱ theȱ Politica, especiallyȱ whenȱ theȱ strollȱ inȱ theȱ gardenȱ wasȱ butȱ aȱ stopȱ onȱ anȱ informationȬ gatheringȱtour.ȱForȱhisȱpart,ȱSchoppeȱhighlightedȱhisȱawarenessȱofȱtheȱpolitical natureȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ byȱ entitlingȱ theȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ hisȱ careerȱ asȱ aȱ statistȱ and polemicistȱ theȱ Philotheca,ȱ orȱ “treasuryȱ ofȱ friends”ȱ (anotherȱ termȱ forȱ theȱ album amicorum).40

38

39

40

Cf.ȱJasonȱHarris,ȱ“TheȱPracticeȱofȱCommunity:ȱHumanistȱFriendshipȱduringȱtheȱDutchȱRevolt,” TexasȱStudiesȱinȱLiteratureȱandȱLanguageȱ47.4ȱ(2005):ȱ299–325. Onȱ Wottonȱ asȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ imprudence,ȱ seeȱ Davidȱ Lloyd,ȱ Theȱ StatesȬMenȱ andȱ Favouritesȱ of Englandȱ(London:ȱSpeed,ȱ1665),ȱ1032,ȱandȱNathanielȱWanley,ȱTheȱWondersȱofȱtheȱLittleȱWorld,ȱor,ȱA GeneralȱHistoryȱofȱManȱinȱSixȱBooksȱ(London:ȱBasset,ȱ1673),ȱChapterȱXX,ȱ“Ofȱtheȱoversightsȱofȱsome Personsȱofȱgreatȱabilities:ȱandȱtheirȱimprudenceȱinȱtheirȱspeeches,ȱorȱaffairs,”ȱ398.ȱ Kasparȱ Schoppe,ȱ Philothecaȱ Scioppianaȱ siveȱ Gasparisȱ Scioppi,ȱ Comitesȱ aȱ Claravalle,ȱ narratioȱ annis distinctaȱdeȱbenefactoribus,ȱamicisȱetȱfamiliaribusȱsuis,ȱquosȱinȱomniȱvitaȱhabuit:ȱquidqueȱapudȱillos,ȱper illos,ȱacȱpropterȱillosȱinȱDeiȱgloriamȱetȱutilitatemȱpublicamȱinterȱannosȱquinquagintaȱmolitusȱetȱemolitus fuerit.ȱBibliothecaȱMediceaȬLaurenziana,ȱCod.ȱS.N.ȱ243.ȱReproducedȱinȱMarioȱd’Addio,ȱIlȱPensiero

686

VeraȱKeller

TheȱstoryȱofȱWottonȱandȱSchoppeȱrevealsȱtheȱwayȱtheȱbookȱofȱfriendsȱwasȱlinked toȱvast,ȱcombativeȱnetworksȱwithȱanȱelectricȱintensityȱwhichȱatȱanyȱmomentȱmight turnȱandȱstrikeȱbackȱatȱaȱhaplessȱinscriberȱoutȱofȱaȱseeminglyȱblueȱsky.ȱThisȱenergy sprangȱfromȱtheȱcracklingȱreligiousȱandȱpoliticalȱtensionsȱinvadingȱpracticesȱof learnedȱ sociabilityȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ seventeenthȱ century,ȱ evenȱ duringȱ aȱ periodȱ of relativeȱ peaceȱ followingȱ theȱ bloodyȱ religiousȱ warsȱ ofȱ theȱ previousȱ century. SchoppeȱhimselfȱhadȱconvertedȱtoȱCatholicism,ȱasȱdidȱJustusȱLipsius.ȱAsȱlinchpins ofȱlearnedȱnetworksȱturnedȱtoȱRome,ȱtheirȱformerȱcoȬreligionistsȱoftenȱcorrectly surmisedȱ thatȱ intellectualȱ andȱ socialȱ networksȱ hadȱ guidedȱ themȱ toȱ theirȱ new faiths.41ȱ WhenȱsmolderingȱhostilitiesȱeruptedȱagainȱintoȱtheȱfullȬblownȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar, theȱmanyȱsuddenȱdefectionsȱtoȱCatholicismȱseemedȱtoȱstrikeȱstaggeringȱblowsȱto theȱProtestantȱcause.42ȱTheseȱconvertsȱwereȱnotȱonlyȱimportantȱnodesȱofȱlearned correspondence.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ alsoȱ keyȱ politicalȱ expertsȱ atȱ aȱ timeȱ whenȱ the knowledgeȱ ofȱ ancientȱ andȱ modernȱ historyȱ wasȱ believedȱ toȱ conferȱ distinct advantagesȱinȱtheatersȱofȱbothȱwarȱandȱpeace.ȱTheirȱconversionsȱrepresentedȱa surrenderȱofȱmassiveȱintellectualȱfirepowerȱtoȱCatholicȱarmories. Tacitism,ȱorȱtheȱeruditeȱstudyȱofȱreasonȱofȱstate,ȱneededȱlearnedȱmenȱtoȱfeedȱthe growingȱinformationȱstate.ȱHumanistsȱnowȱwereȱnotȱonlyȱvaluableȱasȱoratorsȱwho couldȱfulfillȱdiplomaticȱmissions,ȱcomposeȱelegantȱoccasionalȱpoetry,ȱorȱgently admonishȱrulersȱasȱtoȱtheȱidealȱstate.ȱ Theyȱwereȱ sophisticatedȱoperativesȱwho scouredȱtheȱpagesȱofȱhistoryȱasȱwellȱasȱdomesticȱandȱforeignȱlandsȱinȱsearchȱof informationȱ usefulȱ asȱ preciousȱ “secretsȱ ofȱ state.”43ȱ Aȱ newȱ politicalȱ culture heightenedȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ internationalȱ networks,ȱ atȱ onceȱ expandingȱ and methodizingȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱsuchȱnetworksȱwithinȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLettersȱand openingȱupȱsuchȱrelationshipsȱtoȱsuspicionsȱofȱpoliticalȱutilitarianism.ȱTheȱtactic ofȱusingȱinternationalȱnetworksȱtoȱgainȱtheȱupperȱhandȱinȱbloodyȱpoliticalȱand confessionalȱconflictsȱbyȱwinningȱconvertsȱofferedȱevidenceȱinȱsupportȱofȱsuch suspicions.

41

42

43

politicoȱdiȱGaspareȱScioppioȱeȱilȱMachiavellismoȱdelȱSeicento.ȱIstitutoȱdiȱstudiȱstoricoȬpolitici,ȱUniversità diȱRoma,ȱFacoltàȱdiȱscienzeȱpolitiche,ȱPubblicazioni,ȱ4ȱ(Milan:ȱGiuffreъ,ȱ1962),ȱ609–725. Silviaȱ deȱ Renzi,ȱ “Courtsȱ andȱ Conversions:ȱ Intellectualȱ andȱ Naturalȱ Knowledgeȱ inȱ CounterȬ ReformationȱRome,”ȱStudiesȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱandȱPhilosophyȱofȱScienceȱ21.4ȱ(1996):ȱ429–49;ȱhereȱ432. RobertȱJohnȱWestonȱEvans,ȱTheȱMakingȱofȱtheȱHabsburgȱMonarchy,ȱ1550–1700:ȱanȱInterpretation (OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ41–116. JessicaȱWolfeȱdrewȱelegantȱlinksȱbetweenȱtheȱsophisticatedȱneedsȱofȱinternationalȱdiplomacyȱand espionageȱ andȱ theȱ literaryȱ artificeȱ deployedȱ toȱ meetȱ suchȱ needsȱ inȱ Humanism,ȱ Machineryȱ and RenaissanceȱLiteratureȱ(CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004).

PaintedȱFriends

687

TheȱConstantȱTraveler,ȱorȱHowȱtoȱuseȱFriendsȱ toȱCollectȱInformation Throughȱtheȱseventeenthȱcentury,ȱmethodizersȱ ofȱtravelȱandȱhistoricoȬpolitical writersȱofferedȱexplicitȱadviceȱonȱtheȱutilitarianȱcultivationȱofȱfriendship.ȱThey recommendedȱ toȱ travelersȱ howȱ theyȱ mightȱ useȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ scholarly exchange—learnedȱfriendship—toȱcollectȱmaterialsȱforȱaȱnewȱinformationȬbased politicalȱpractice.ȱTheȱcosmopolitanȱmoresȱofȱinternationalȱlearnedȱfriendshipȱwere encouragedȱandȱexploitedȱasȱmeansȱofȱacquiringȱadvantagesȱforȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱa particularȱ territory.44ȱ Asȱ Johannȱ Heinrichȱ Boecklerȱ advised,ȱ friendsȱ granted travelersȱinformationȱwhichȱwasȱotherwiseȱcarefullyȱguardedȱinȱarchives.45ȱThey offeredȱ accessȱ toȱ theȱ arcanaȱ (secretsȱ ofȱ state)ȱ andȱ notitiaȱ (information)ȱ which methodicalȱtravelersȱwithȱaȱpoliticalȱagendaȱsought.ȱ Afterȱtheȱreturnȱhome,ȱinternationalȱfriendsȱcontinuedȱtoȱremainȱaȱcrucialȱsource ofȱinformationȱforȱtheȱpolitician.ȱTheȱbodyȱofȱknowledgeȱgatheredȱinȱtravelȱcould continueȱtoȱproduceȱfruitsȱusefulȱforȱtheȱstateȱonlyȱifȱitȱwasȱconstantlyȱupdated. Travelersȱwereȱadvisedȱtoȱ“plotȱtoȱhaveȱdaylyȱintelligence”ȱaboutȱdomesticȱand foreignȱaffairs.ȱByȱtheseȱmeans,ȱ“theȱobservationsȱmadeȱinȱtravaile,ȱshalȱbeȱkeptȱin continuallȱtilthe.”46ȱTheȱtravelerȱoughtȱtoȱfindȱfriendsȱwhoȱcouldȱaccuratelyȱinform theȱtravelerȱaboutȱpoliticalȱsecretsȱ(arcanaȱReipublicaeȱacȱaulae)ȱfromȱabroad.ȱThe bestȱwayȱtoȱkeepȱinformationȱflowingȱthroughȱtheȱfieldsȱ ofȱknowledgeȱwasȱto cultivateȱ carefullyȱ thoseȱ friendsȱ madeȱ whileȱ travellingȱ abroad,ȱ evenȱ afterȱ the returnȱ home.47ȱ Thisȱ mustȱ beȱ done,ȱ stressedȱ theȱ Tacitistȱ Johannȱ Andreasȱ Bose (1626–1674),ȱnotȱonlyȱwithȱemptyȱwordsȱandȱgreetings,ȱbutȱthroughȱtheȱexchange ofȱfavorsȱandȱbenefices.ȱWithoutȱthisȱitȱwouldȱbeȱimpossibleȱforȱtheȱtravelerȱto

44

45

46

47

ThereȱwasȱthusȱnotȱonlyȱaȱconflictȱbetweenȱtheȱinternationalityȱofȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLettersȱandȱthe chauvinismȱofȱpatriotism.ȱOnȱpatriotismȱandȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters,ȱseeȱWaquetȱ(1994),ȱ176ȱand 188ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ34). Johannȱ Heinrichȱ Boeckler,ȱ “Deȱ Peregrinationeȱ Germaniciȱ Caesaris,”ȱ Dissertationesȱ Academicae (Strasbourg:ȱBockenhofer,ȱ1658),ȱ42–43.ȱ“Nonȱpacebuntȱ[sic,ȱreadȱasȱ“patebunt’]ȱtibiȱdurae,ȱsed praesertimȱ peregrinisȱ Archiviȱ foresȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Sedȱ reperiunturȱ fortasseȱ ubiqueȱ viri,ȱ omnemȱ suae reipublicaeȱ aulaeueȱ conditionemȱ ingenioȱ usuqueȱ complexi:ȱ quiȱ nefasȱ nonȱ putabunt,ȱ cum Peregrinatoreȱ dignoȱ &ȱ capace,ȱ conciliandisqueȱ illustribusȱ amicitiisȱ perȱ virtutisȱ indolemȱ apto, sermonesȱdeȱrepublicaȱaccuratioresȱ&ȱsecretioreȱsapientiaȱplenosȱcaedereȱ(Theȱunyieldingȱdoors ofȱtheȱArchiveȱwillȱnotȱopenȱforȱyou,ȱespeciallyȱasȱaȱforeignerȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱButȱperchanceȱsomewhereȱmen whoȱhaveȱskillfullyȱgraspedȱtheȱentireȱconditionȱofȱtheirȱrepublicȱorȱcourtȱareȱfoundȱwhoȱwillȱnot thinkȱitȱwrongȱtoȱconverseȱaboutȱtheȱrepublicȱinȱaȱveryȱaccurateȱandȱinformedȱwayȱwithȱaȱTraveler whoȱisȱworthyȱandȱcompetentȱandȱaptȱbyȱnatureȱatȱacquiringȱdistinguishedȱfriendships).” ThomasȱPalmer,ȱAnȱEssayȱofȱtheȱMeanesȱHowȱtoȱMakeȱOurȱTravailes,ȱintoȱForraineȱCountries,ȱtheȱMore ProfitableȱandȱHonourableȱ(London:ȱLownes,ȱ1606),ȱ131. JohannȱAndreasȱBose,ȱIntroductioȱGeneralisȱinȱNotitiamȱRerumpublicarumȱOrbisȱUniversiȱ(Jena:ȱKrebs, 1676),ȱ75.

688

VeraȱKeller

maintainȱ hisȱ knowledgeȱ ofȱ foreignȱ affairs,ȱ sinceȱ politicalȱ mattersȱ wereȱ always changing.48 Travelȱ wasȱ essentialȱ toȱ aȱ newȱ informationȬbasedȱ politicalȱ practice,ȱ andȱ the gatheringȱ ofȱ politicalȱ knowledgeȱ throughȱ travelȱ wasȱ doneȱ inȱ theȱ companyȱ of friends.ȱ Theȱ formȱ ofȱ theȱ resultingȱ politicalȱ worksȱ reflectedȱ theȱ importanceȱ of sociabilityȱ toȱ empiricalȱ politics.ȱ Writersȱ whoȱ advocatedȱ travelȱ asȱ theȱ basisȱ of gatheringȱinformationȱcastȱtheirȱpoliticalȱtreatisesȱasȱintimateȱconversations.ȱSuch writersȱmixedȱtheȱaffectiveȱregisterȱofȱLipsius’sȱConstantiaȱwithȱtheȱpoliticalȱlessons ofȱ hisȱ Politica.ȱ Jakobȱ Bornitz,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ whoȱ introducedȱ aȱ discussionȱ ofȱ the reasonȱofȱstateȱtoȱGermanȬspeakingȱlandsȱinȱhisȱDiscursusȱpoliticusȱdeȱprudentia politicaȱcomparandaȱ(OnȱAcquiringȱPoliticalȱPrudence,ȱ1602),ȱstressedȱthatȱhisȱwork wasȱnotȱaȱstrictlyȱtheoreticalȱtreatise,ȱbutȱanȱinformalȱ“discourseȱamongȱfriends.”49 Writersȱ onȱ theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ stressedȱ thatȱ theyȱ didȱ notȱ composeȱ closed, systematicȱtreatises,ȱbutȱinformalȱdiscorsiȱandȱconversationsȱdevelopedȱinȱamicable company.50 Theȱintertwiningȱofȱintellectualȱintimacyȱandȱvastȱinformationȱgatheringȱtours explainsȱ suchȱ seeminglyȱ contradictionsȱ asȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ Catholicȱ convert Hieronymusȱ Elverȱ (1584–1624),ȱ agentȱ toȱ Habsburgȱ Emperorsȱ Matthiasȱ and Ferdinandȱ II.ȱ Elverȱ couldȱ publish,ȱ onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ aȱ collectionȱ ofȱ political discoursesȱ gatheredȱ fromȱ hisȱ travelsȱ toȱ Italy,ȱ France,ȱ theȱ Netherlands,ȱ Britain, Germany,ȱandȱPoland,ȱandȱonȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱhisȱSpringȱWalks,ȱpraisingȱintimate gardensȱandȱLipsianȱconstancy.ȱTheseȱtwoȱworldsȱconvergedȱinȱaȱthirdȱwork,ȱhis Consualia,ȱ Hocȱ est:ȱ deȱ Conciliis,ȱ Consiliariisȱ etȱ Consiliis,ȱ Doctrinaȱ Politicaȱ (Feastȱ of Consus,ȱorȱtheȱPoliticalȱDoctrineȱofȱCouncils,ȱCounsellorsȱandȱCounsels),ȱsetȱatȱaȱcozy dinnerȱpartyȱinȱtheȱhouseȱofȱaȱfriend,ȱwhereȱElverȱpausedȱonȱhisȱwayȱhomeȱfrom

48

49

50

Ibid,ȱ76.ȱ“ReversoȱeȱPeregrinationeȱamicitiaȱcumȱexterisȱsacitaȱ[sic]ȱsolliciteȱ&ȱstudioseȱobservanda alendaqueȱ est,ȱ crebrisȱ nonȱ litterisȱ tantum,ȱ &ȱ salutationibus,ȱ sedȱ etiamȱ officiisȱ &ȱ beneficiis,ȱ si maximeȱidȱinterdumȱcumȱaliquoȱfacultatum,ȱtemporis,ȱnegotiorumqueȱimpendioȱfieriȱnecesseȱsit. Namȱ absqueȱ hocȱ adiumentoȱ resȱ Imperiorum,ȱ quaeȱ saepeȱ intraȱ exiguumȱ tempusȱ magnam mutationemȱsubeunt,ȱrecteȱplenequeȱcognosciȱnonȱpossuntȱ(Uponȱtheȱreturnȱfromȱaȱjourney, friendshipȱwithȱforeignersȱshouldȱbeȱassiduouslyȱcultivatedȱandȱmaintained,ȱnotȱonlyȱthrough frequentȱlettersȱandȱgreetings,ȱbutȱalsoȱthroughȱservicesȱandȱfavors,ȱevenȱifȱitȱrequiresȱnowȱand thenȱtheȱexpenditureȱofȱmanyȱresourcesȱandȱmuchȱtimeȱandȱtrouble.ȱForȱwithoutȱthis,ȱtheȱaffairs ofȱempires,ȱwhichȱoftenȱundergoȱaȱgreatȱchangeȱinȱanȱextremelyȱshortȱtime,ȱcannotȱbeȱknown properly).” JakobȱBornitz,ȱDiscursusȱPoliticusȱdeȱPrudentiaȱPoliticaȱComparandaȱ(Erfurt:ȱBirnstilius,ȱ1602).ȱOn Bornitz,ȱseeȱMichaelȱStolleis,ȱPecuniaȱNervusȱRerum:ȱzurȱStaatsfinanzierungȱinȱderȱfrühenȱNeuzeit (Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱKlostermann,ȱ1983);ȱandȱMichelȱSenellart,ȱ“LaȱCritiqueȱallemandeȱdeȱlaȱraison d’étatȱmachiavélienneȱdansȱlaȱpremièreȱmoitiéȱduȱXVIIeȱsiècle:ȱJacobȱBornitz,”ȱCorpus:ȱrevueȱde philosophieȱ31ȱ(1997):ȱ175–87. MerioȱScattola,ȱDallaȱvirtùȱallaȱscienza:ȱlaȱfondazioneȱeȱlaȱtrasformationeȱdellaȱdisciplinaȱpoliticaȱnell’età moderna.ȱPerȱlaȱstoriaȱdellaȱfilosofiaȱpolitica,ȱ11ȱ(Milan:ȱAngeli,ȱ2003),ȱ427–28.

PaintedȱFriends

689

hisȱEnglishȱvoyage.51ȱViewedȱfromȱtheȱperspectiveȱofȱtheȱmethodicalȱtravelerȱand politicalȱwriter,ȱevenȱtheȱmostȱfriendlyȱdinnerȱparty,ȱwalledȱgarden,ȱorȱsheltered studyȱwasȱbutȱoneȱstopȱinȱanȱinformationȬgatheringȱtour.

ArsȱandȱMarsȱinȱtheȱBookȱofȱFriends TheȱalbumȱamicorumȱheldȱanȱimportantȱplaceȱinȱtheȱNorthernȱEuropeanȱpolitician’s informationȬcollectingȱtoolȱkit.ȱTheȱalbumȱbeganȱinȱtheȱlastȱdecadesȱofȱtheȱfirstȱhalf ofȱtheȱsixteenthȱcenturyȱasȱanȱaidȱtoȱReformedȱsociabilityȱinȱWittenbergȱbutȱsoon spreadȱ acrossȱ severalȱ confessionsȱ andȱ countriesȱ fromȱ Hungaryȱ toȱ Scotland.52 DespiteȱitsȱpopularityȱinȱearlyȱmodernȱEurope,ȱonlyȱinȱtheȱpastȱfewȱdecadesȱhas thisȱ largelyȱ overlookedȱ genreȱ begunȱ toȱ beȱ analyzedȱ asȱ aȱ sourceȱ forȱ social, educational,ȱandȱintellectualȱhistory.53ȱ Inȱtheȱfourȱandȱaȱhalfȱcenturiesȱofȱitsȱexistence,ȱtheȱalbumȱhasȱevolvedȱinȱdramatic ways,ȱ pointingȱ toȱ criticalȱ changesȱ inȱ theȱ institutionȱ itȱ served–friendship.ȱ The learnedȱalbumȱofȱrefinedȱclassical,ȱBiblicalȱandȱpatristicȱinscriptionsȱoriginallyȱcoȬ existedȱalongsideȱaȱquiteȱdistinctȱgenreȱofȱtheȱnobleman’sȱheraldicȱStammbuch.ȱIn theȱlateȱsixteenthȱcentury,ȱtheseȱtwoȱgenresȱmerged,ȱpointingȱtoȱtheȱriseȱofȱthe nobilityȱofȱtheȱrobeȱandȱtheȱintegrationȱofȱarsȱandȱmars.54ȱOverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱthe eighteenthȱcentury,ȱtheȱalbumȱsplitȱawayȱfromȱpoliticsȱagain,ȱmorphingȱintoȱthe poetryȱ albumȱ associatedȱ withȱ womenȱ andȱ eventuallyȱ girls.ȱ Distinctȱ women’s

51

52

53

54

HieronymusȱElver,ȱDeliciaeȱApodemicae:ȱHocȱest,ȱSelectiorumȱdiscursuumȱEthicoȬPoliticorumȱSylloge Epistolica:ȱ Nataȱ Inȱ peregrinationeȱ Italica,ȱ Gallica,ȱ BelgicoȬBritannica,ȱ Germanica,ȱ Polonicaȱ (Leipzig: Apelius,ȱ1611),ȱDeambulationesȱVernaeȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱJennis,ȱ1620),ȱandȱConsualia,ȱHocȱest:ȱde Conciliis,ȱConsiliariisȱetȱConsiliis,ȱDoctrinaȱPoliticaȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱSchönwetter,ȱ1620).ȱOnȱElver, seeȱOswaldȱvonȱGschliesser,ȱNeueȱDeutscheȱBiographie,ȱvol.ȱ4ȱ(Berlin:ȱDunckerȱ&ȱHumblot,ȱ1959), 471. Butȱnotȱincluding,ȱoddly,ȱEngland.ȱForȱScottishȱalbums,ȱseeȱJamesȱFowlerȱKellasȱJohnstone,ȱThe AlbaȱamicorumȱofȱGeorgeȱStrachan,ȱGeorgeȱCraig,ȱThomasȱCumming.ȱAberdeenȱUniversityȱStudies,ȱ95 (Aberdeen:ȱUniversityȱofȱAberdeen,ȱ1924),ȱandȱJanȱPapy,ȱ“TheȱScottishȱDoctorȱWilliamȱBarclay, hisȱAlbumȱAmicorum,ȱandȱHisȱCorrespondenceȱwithȱJustusȱLipsius,”ȱMyricae:ȱEssaysȱonȱneoȬLatin LiteratureȱinȱMemoryȱofȱJozefȱIjsewijn,ȱed.ȱDirkȱSacréȱandȱGilbertȱTournoy.ȱSupplementaȱhumanistica Lovaniensia,ȱ16ȱ(Leuven:ȱLeuvenȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2000),ȱ333–96.ȱTheȱalbumȱofȱtheȱScotȱThomas SeghetusȱisȱnowȱCodexȱvaticanusȱlatinusȱ9385.ȱSeeȱBaumgarten,ȱ“EinȱschottischesȱStammbuch,” ZeitschriftȱfürȱVergleichendeȱLitteraturgeschichteȱ(1892):ȱ88–95. Waltherȱ Ludwig,ȱ Dasȱ Stammbuchȱ alsȱ Bestandteilȱ humanistischerȱ Kultur:ȱ Dasȱ Albumȱ desȱ Heinrich CarlhackȱHermelingȱ(1587–1592).ȱAbhandlungenȱderȱAkademieȱderȱWissenschaftenȱzuȱGöttingen, PhilologischȬHistorischeȱKlasse,ȱ274ȱ(Göttingen:ȱVanedenhoeckȱ&ȱRuprecht,ȱ2006).ȱ Seeȱ theȱ albumȱ ofȱ notableȱ agentsȱ andȱ diplomatsȱ suchȱ asȱ Philipȱ Hainhoferȱ (Herzogȱ August Bibliothek,ȱCod.ȱGuelf.ȱ210ȱExtrav),ȱandȱAxelȱOxenstierna.ȱLotteȱKurras,ȱandȱWernerȱTaegert,ȱAxel OxenstiernasȱalbumȱamicorumȱundȱseineȱeigenenȱStammbucheinträgeȱ(Stockholm:ȱAlmqvistȱ&ȱWiksell, 2004).

690

VeraȱKeller

albumsȱ hadȱ existedȱ throughoutȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ theȱ albumȱ amicorum,ȱ butȱ asȱ the politicalȱandȱlearnedȱversionsȱofȱtheȱalbumȱdeclined,ȱwomen’sȱalbumsȱemerged asȱtheȱdominantȱformȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱandȱthroughȱtheȱnineteenth centuries.55ȱTheȱevolvingȱalbumȱoffersȱaȱmeansȱtoȱinterrogateȱtheȱintersectionȱof sociabilityȱandȱpoliticsȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiod.ȱ Inȱ itsȱ veryȱ structureȱ andȱ genre,ȱ theȱ albumȱ amicorumȱ fitsȱ aȱ politicalȱ culture encouragingȱclevernessȱthroughȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱsharplyȱpointedȱobservations, cleverȱ emblems,ȱ andȱ sophisticatedȱ argutiaeȱ (jestsȱ orȱ verbalȱ cunning).ȱ Several scholarsȱhaveȱpointedȱtoȱtheȱnexusȱofȱnewȱpoliticalȱculturesȱandȱtheȱalbumȱgenre. WaltherȱLudwigȱsuggestedȱtheȱuseȱofȱLipsius’sȱPoliticaȱinȱtheȱalbumȱasȱaȱtopic worthyȱofȱstudy.ȱTheȱPolitica,ȱasȱaȱlooseȱpatchworkȱofȱpoliticallyȱusefulȱsentences gatheredȱ outȱ ofȱ ancientȱ historians,ȱ servedȱ asȱ aȱ particularlyȱ popularȱ sourceȱ for albumȱinscriptions.ȱWernerȱWilhelmȱSchnabelȱtooȱhasȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱcharacter ofȱtheȱalbumȱasȱaȱgatheringȱofȱsententiaeȱandȱepigramsȱmightȱbeȱseenȱinȱaȱLipsian context,ȱ particularlyȱ amongȱ theȱ manyȱ studentsȱ ofȱ theȱ Tacitistȱ historianȱ atȱ the UniversityȱofȱStrasbourgȱandȱauthorityȱonȱmethodicalȱtravel,ȱMatthiasȱBernegger (1582–1640).56ȱLikeȱepigrams,ȱemblemsȱtooȱwereȱconsideredȱexcellentȱexercisesȱin politicalȱ cleverness.57ȱ Emblemȱ booksȱ wereȱ popularȱ supportsȱ forȱ albums,ȱ and severalȱ collectionsȱ ofȱ politicalȱ emblemsȱ inȱ particularȱ wereȱ printedȱ forȱ useȱ as albums,ȱpointingȱtoȱtheȱalbum’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱtrainingȱofȱpoliticians.58

55

56

57 58

JohanȱOosterman,ȱ“Women’sȱAlbums:ȱMirrorsȱofȱInternationalȱLyricalȱPoetry,”ȱIȱHaveȱHeardȱAbout You:ȱForeignȱWomen’sȱWritingȱCrossingȱtheȱDutchȱBorder:ȱFromȱSapphoȱtoȱSelmaȱLagerlöf,ȱed.ȱSuzan vanȱ Dijk,ȱ Petraȱ Broomans,ȱ Janetȱ F.ȱ vanȱ derȱ Meulen,ȱ andȱ Pimȱ vanȱ Oostrum,ȱ trans.ȱ Joȱ Nesbitt (Hilversum:ȱUitgeverijȱVerloren,ȱ2004),ȱ94–99,ȱAlfredȱFiedler,ȱVomȱStammbuchȱzumȱPoesiealbum: eineȱvolkskundlicheȱStudie.ȱKleineȱBeiträgeȱzurȱVolkskunstforschung,ȱ7ȱ(Weimar:ȱBöhlau,ȱ1960),ȱand KeesȱThomassen,ȱAlbaȱAmicorum:ȱVijfȱEeuwenȱVriendschapȱopȱPapierȱgezet:ȱHetȱAlbumȱAmicorumȱen hetȱ Poeziealbumȱ inȱ deȱ Nederlandenȱ (s’Gravenhage:ȱ Maarssen,ȱ 1990),ȱ andȱ Gertrudeȱ Angermann, StammbücherȱundȱPoesiealbenȱalsȱSpiegelȱihrerȱZeit:ȱNachȱQuellenȱdesȱ18.–20.ȱJahrhundertsȱausȱMindenȬ Ravensberg.ȱSchriftenȱderȱVolkskundlichenȱKommissionȱdesȱLandschaftsverbandesȱWestfalenȬ Lippe,ȱ20ȱ(Münster:ȱAschendorffȱVerlag,ȱ1971). Ludwig,ȱ Dasȱ Stammbuch,ȱ 70.ȱ Wernerȱ Wilhelmȱ Schnabel,ȱ Dasȱ Stammbuch:ȱ Konstitutionȱ und Geschichteȱ einerȱ textsortenbezogenenȱ Sammelformȱ bisȱ insȱ ersteȱ Drittelȱ desȱ 18.ȱ Jahrhunderts,ȱ Frühe Neuzeit,ȱ 78ȱ (Tübingen:ȱ Maxȱ Niemeyer,ȱ 2003),ȱ 514.ȱ Onȱ Bernegger,ȱ seeȱ Wilhelmȱ Kühlmann, “Paradigmenwechsel:ȱMatthiasȱBerneggerȱ(1582–1640)ȱalsȱVertreterȱderȱpolitischȬhistorischen PhilologieȱdesȱFrühbarock,”ȱGelehrtenrepublikȱundȱFürstenstaat:ȱEntwicklungȱundȱKritikȱdesȱdeutschen SpäthumanismusȱinȱderȱLiteraturȱdesȱBarockzeitaltersȱ(Tübingen:ȱMaxȱNiemeyer,ȱ1982),ȱ44–63,ȱand Wilhelmȱ Kühlmannȱ andȱ Walterȱ E.ȱ Schäfer,ȱ Frühbarockeȱ Stadtkulturȱ amȱ Oberrhein:ȱ Studienȱ zum literarischenȱWerdegangȱJ.ȱM.ȱMoscheroschsȱ(1601–1669).ȱPhilologischeȱStudienȱundȱQuellen,ȱ109 (Berlin:ȱE.ȱSchmidt,ȱ1983). JohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp,ȱSalomo,ȱoderȱRegentenȬSpiegelȱ(Hamburg:ȱPfeiffern,ȱ1657),ȱGiiȱ–ȱGiii. GeorgetteȱdeȱMontenay,ȱMonumentaȱEmblematumȱChristianorumȱVirtutum,ȱTumȱPoliticarum,ȱtum OeconomicarumȱchorumȱCenturaȱUna.ȱ.ȱ.ȱadȱinstarȱAlbiȱAmicorumȱexhibitaȱ(Frankfurt:ȱUnckel,ȱ1619). DanielȱMeisner,ȱThesaurusȱPhiloȬPoliticus,ȱHocȱest,ȱEmblemataȱsiveȱMoraliaȱPoliticaȱFigurisȱAeneis IncisaȱetȱadȱInstarȱAlbiȱAmicorumȱexhibitaȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱKieser,ȱ1623).ȱTheȱMeisnerȱemblemȱbook

PaintedȱFriends

691

Theȱ collisionȱ withinȱ theȱ albumȱ betweenȱ aȱ newȱ politicsȱ ofȱ cunningȱ andȱ the celebrationȱofȱfriendship,ȱhowever,ȱraisedȱseriousȱqueriesȱconcerningȱtheȱhonesty ofȱaffection.ȱInȱtheȱseventeenthȱcentury,ȱrulersȱandȱpoliticiansȱdidȱnotȱhideȱtheȱfact thatȱ dissimulationȱ hadȱ becomeȱ theȱ newȱ foundationȱ ofȱ politics.ȱ Dukeȱ Heinrich JuliusȱofȱBraunschweigȬLüneburgȱevenȱselectedȱtheȱaphorismȱofȱLouisȱXI,ȱ“qui nescitȱdissimulare,ȱnescitȱregnareȱ(Heȱwhoȱcannotȱdissimulate,ȱcannotȱrule)”ȱasȱhis inscriptionȱwithinȱtheȱalbumȱamicorum,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱwithinȱaȱvolumeȱdedicated toȱmemorializingȱandȱdilatingȱuponȱfriendship.59ȱSuchȱoddȱjuxtapositionsȱbetween deceitȱandȱaffectionȱposedȱanȱimmenseȱproblemȱforȱearlyȱmodernȱfriendship.ȱWho couldȱbeȱcalledȱaȱtrueȱfriendȱinȱaȱworldȱwhereȱfriendshipȱwasȱaȱpoliticalȱmatterȱand dissimulationȱaȱmatterȱofȱcourse?ȱThisȱwasȱaȱquestionȱraisedȱbyȱmanyȱinȱtheir writingsȱwithinȱandȱaboutȱbooksȱofȱfriends.ȱ Explicitȱ viewsȱ ofȱ theȱ albumȱ areȱ difficultȱ toȱ trace,ȱ sinceȱ theȱ albumȱ wasȱ notȱ a heavilyȱtheorizedȱorȱcodifiedȱgenre.ȱTheȱfirstȱsystematicȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱgenre,ȱa dissertationȱentitledȱSchediasmaȱcriticoȬliterariumȱdeȱphiliothecisȱvarioqueȱearundum usuȱ etȱ abusuȱ (Aȱ criticoȬliteraryȱ Accountȱ ofȱ Albumsȱ andȱ theirȱ Useȱ andȱ Abuse)ȱ was defendedȱbyȱMichaelȱLilienthalȱatȱKönigsbergȱonlyȱinȱ1711ȱandȱprintedȱinȱ1712.60 Someȱ albumȱ ownersȱ did,ȱ however,ȱ prefaceȱ theirȱ volumesȱ withȱ theirȱ own preferencesȱforȱtheirȱalbum,ȱandȱsuchȱprescriptiveȱprefacesȱmightȱalsoȱbeȱprinted separately.ȱ OneȱsuchȱwriterȱwasȱPeterȱAilber,ȱwhoȱprintedȱseveralȱpagesȱofȱdirectionsȱforȱhis albumȱwithinȱaȱcollectionȱofȱhisȱpoetry.61ȱAilberȱemphasizedȱtheȱpopularȱthemeȱof arsȱetȱmars,ȱaȱnewȱpoliticalȱidealȱmergingȱskillȱandȱwar.ȱSinceȱmarsȱwasȱtheȱdeȱfacto requirementȱ forȱ politicalȱ leadership,ȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ thisȱ idealȱ oftenȱ servedȱ as defencesȱofȱtheȱnewerȱvirtueȱofȱarsȱandȱitsȱequalityȱwithȱorȱevenȱsuperiorityȱto mars.62ȱThisȱwasȱaȱdebateȱillustratingȱtheȱriseȱofȱtheȱnobilityȱofȱtheȱrobeȱandȱthe newȱ emphasisȱ onȱ politicalȱ knowledgeȱ ratherȱ feudalȱ hierarchyȱ alone,ȱ two phenomenaȱwhichȱbrokeȱdownȱtheȱdistinctionsȱbetweenȱtheȱnobleȱStammbuchȱand theȱlearnedȱalbum.ȱ“Arsȱetȱmars”ȱjustifiedȱtheȱpoliticalȱuseȱofȱtheȱlearnedȱalbumȱas theȱfulfillmentȱofȱanȱideal.ȱ

59

60

61

62

appearedȱinȱmoreȱthanȱfiveȱversionsȱuntilȱ1631,ȱalwaysȱbyȱtheȱsameȱpublisherȱinȱFrankfurtȱa.ȱM., 1628ȱevenȱinȱtwoȱGermanȱtranslationsȱasȱPolitischesȱSchatzKästlein. ChristianeȱSchwarz,ȱStudienȱzurȱStammbuchpraxisȱderȱFrühenȱNeuzeit:ȱGestaltungȱundȱNutzungȱdes AlbumȱamicorumȱamȱBeispielȱeinesȱHofbeamtenȱundȱDichters,ȱeinesȱPolitikersȱundȱeinesȱGoldschmieds (etwaȱ1550ȱbisȱ1650).ȱMikrokosmos,ȱ66ȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.,ȱBerlin,ȱetȱal.:ȱPeterȱLang,ȱ1999),ȱ106. MichaelȱLilienthal,ȱSchediasmaȱcriticoȬliterariumȱdeȱphiliothecisȱvarioqueȱearundumȱusuȱetȱabusu,ȱvulgo vonȱStammȬBüchernȱ(KönigsbergȱandȱLeipzig:ȱHallervordius;ȱKönigsberg:ȱZäncker,ȱ1712). PeterȱAilber,ȱCenturiaȱanagrammatumȱprimaȱcumȱgenioȱmensae,ȱgratiarumȱtheculis,ȱ&ȱcarminucȱac epigrammatumȱprimitiis;ȱadditaeȱsuntȱorationesȱsolennesȱdeȱdeoȱ&ȱintelligentiis:ȱItemȱdeȱeloquentiaȱcum praescriptionesȱphilothecaeȱ&ȱtrophaeoȱ(Leipzig:ȱLantzenberger,ȱ1611),ȱ537–ȱ44. Asȱwasȱtheȱcaseȱinȱaȱdissertationȱonȱtheȱtopic,ȱJacobȱvonȱBruckȬAngermundt,ȱArsȱetȱMars,ȱsive discurusȱpoliticusȱdeȱliterisȱetȱarmisȱ(Brieg:ȱSigfried,ȱ1612).

692

VeraȱKeller

Ailberȱwasȱanȱimperialȱpoetȱlaureate,ȱaȱLutheranȱpreacher,ȱaȱclientȱofȱtheȱSaxon court,ȱ andȱ aȱ teacherȱ inȱ theȱ newlyȱ foundedȱ Lutheranȱ schoolȱ inȱ theȱ oldȱ cityȱ of Prague.63ȱ Heȱ stressedȱ thatȱ hisȱ volumeȱ welcomedȱ “Magni,ȱ minuti,ȱ maximi, medioximi,ȱ/ȱVeraeȱpietatisȱsanctitateȱnobiles,ȱ/ȱVirtutisȱaltaeȱclaritateȱnobiles,ȱ/ Avitaȱvelȱpatritaȱsit,ȱSudoreȱmultoȱvelȱlaboreȱpartaȱsit,ȱ/ȱArmataȱvelȱtogataȱsitȱ(The great,ȱtheȱleast,ȱtheȱgreatest,ȱandȱtheȱmiddlingȱsort,ȱnoblesȱthroughȱtheȱsanctityȱof trueȱpiety,ȱnoblesȱthroughȱtheȱloftyȱrenownȱofȱvirtue,ȱwhetherȱancestralȱorȱfrom one’sȱfather,ȱwhetherȱbornȱfromȱmuchȱsweatȱorȱlabor,ȱwhetherȱarmedȱorȱwearing theȱ toga).”64ȱ Thisȱ endorsementȱ ofȱ allȱ sorts,ȱ includingȱ theȱ learnedȱ whoȱ gained nobilityȱthroughȱtheȱtrialsȱofȱscholarshipȱratherȱthanȱtheȱfieldsȱofȱwarȱpermitted Ailberȱshamelessȱreferencesȱtoȱhisȱownȱcareeristȱaspirationsȱandȱpotentialȱquidȱpro quoȱexchanges.ȱHeȱunabashedlyȱrequestedȱinscriptionsȱwhichȱwouldȱcommend himȱ andȱ commandedȱ hisȱ inscribers,ȱ “Manuȱ Clientemȱ auxiliiȱ /ȱ Sublevate, promoveteȱ(Liftȱandȱpromoteȱ[your]ȱclientȱwithȱaȱhelpingȱhand).”65ȱSuchȱfavors wouldȱobligeȱhimȱtoȱserveȱthemȱinȱreturn,ȱ“nodoqueȱstrictoȱmeȱvobisȱsicȱobligo (andȱthusȱIȱbindȱmyselfȱtoȱyouȱwithȱaȱtightȱknot).”66 ManyȱotherȱalbumȱownersȱandȱinscribersȱechoedȱAilber’sȱstressȱonȱtheȱpolitical usefulnessȱofȱbothȱarsȱandȱmars.ȱChristianeȱSchwarzȱhasȱstudiedȱtheȱalbumȱofȱthe politicianȱNicolausȱvonȱVicken,ȱwhoȱprefacedȱhisȱvolumeȱwithȱextensiveȱremarks preferringȱarsȱtoȱmars,ȱaȱpreferenceȱreflectedȱthereafterȱinȱmanyȱofȱtheȱinscriptions inȱtheȱalbum.ȱ“Suntȱduoȱquaeȱfaciuntȱutȱquisȱsitȱnobilis,ȱArs,ȱMars:ȱ/ȱMaiorȱabȱarte venitȱgloria,ȱMarteȱminorȱ(Thereȱareȱtwoȱqualitiesȱwhichȱennobleȱanȱindividual, arsȱandȱmars,ȱyetȱmoreȱgloryȱcomesȱfromȱarsȱandȱlessȱfromȱmars),”ȱwroteȱVicken.67 Ars,ȱespeciallyȱtheȱarsȱapodemicaȱ(theȱartȱofȱmethodicalȱtravel),ȱofferedȱaȱsurerȱpath toȱpoliticalȱfortuneȱthanȱmars;ȱ“Homoȱveròȱinȱmultisȱregionibusȱversatus,ȱastutiam acquiritȱ(aȱmanȱwhoȱtravelsȱinȱmanyȱlandsȱacquiresȱcleverness).”68ȱ

63

64 65 66 67

68

ChristianȱAdolphȱPescheck,ȱTheȱReformationȱandȱAntiȬReformationȱinȱBohemia,ȱtrans.ȱDanielȱBenham (1844;ȱLondon:ȱHoulstonȱandȱStoneman,ȱ1845),ȱ238. Ailber,ȱCenturiaȱanagrammatum,ȱ1611,ȱ538ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ61) Ibid,ȱ539. Ibid,ȱ539–40. Schwarz,ȱStudienȱzurȱStammbuchpraxis,ȱ79ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ59).ȱNicholasȱReusnerȱandȱAlbertȱFriedrich Mellemannȱ hadȱ saidȱ theȱ sameȱ inȱ aȱ poemȱ onȱ theȱ mottoȱ ofȱ Heinrichȱ Rantzauȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ chief proponentsȱofȱmethodicalȱtravel,ȱandȱtheȱcoupletȱappearedȱinȱotherȱalbumȱinscriptions.ȱAlbert Friedrichȱ Mellemann,ȱ “Inȱ armaȱ Ranzoviorumȱ equitumȱ Cimbrorum,”ȱ Delitiaeȱ Poetarum Germanorum,ȱ Vol.ȱ 4ȱ (Frankfurtȱ a.ȱ M.:ȱ Jacobȱ Fischer,ȱ 1612),ȱ 500.ȱ Waltherȱ Ludwig,ȱ “‘Nonȱ cedit umbraȱsoli’:ȱJoachimȱGrafȱzuȱOrtenburgȱalsȱHumanistȱundȱLeserȱvonȱJustusȱLipsius,”ȱHumanistica Lovaniensiaȱ51ȱ(2002):ȱ207–43;ȱhereȱ224.ȱTheȱphraseȱappearedȱinȱtheȱalbumȱofȱEberhardȱAvercamp. J.ȱNanningaȱUitterdijk,ȱ“HetȱAlbumȱAmicorumȱvanȱDr.ȱEverhardusȱAvercamp,ȱ1619,”ȱBijdragen totȱdeȱGeschiedenisȱvanȱOverijsselȱ6ȱ(1880):ȱ219–64;ȱhereȱ258. Schwartz,ȱ80.ȱ

PaintedȱFriends

693

VonȱVicken’sȱremarksȱonȱtheȱgreaterȱgloryȱaccruingȱtoȱarsȱthanȱtoȱmars,ȱcould, likeȱ Wotton’sȱ inscriptionȱ inȱ theȱ albumȱ ofȱ Fleckhammer,ȱ beȱ understoodȱ inȱ an innocentȱandȱaȱlessȱthanȱinnocentȱfashion.ȱWhatȱpreciselyȱdidȱarsȱmeanȱinȱthese verses?ȱ Learning?ȱ Skill?ȱ Art?ȱ Orȱ cleverness?ȱ Tricks?ȱ Deception?ȱ Theȱ emphasis uponȱcleverness,ȱdissimulation,ȱandȱnetworkingȱwithinȱpoliticsȱraisedȱquestions aboutȱtheȱoftenȱoverwroughtȱdeclarationsȱofȱundyingȱloveȱfillingȱmanyȱanȱalbum page.ȱAȱpopularȱalbumȱillustrationȱofȱtheȱidealȱofȱ“arsȱetȱmars”ȱshowedȱaȱmanȱsplit downȱtheȱmiddle,ȱhalfȱarrayedȱforȱbattleȱandȱhalfȱdressedȱinȱscholarlyȱrobesȱfitȱfor theȱlibrary.69ȱWhileȱheraldedȱasȱaȱnewȱpoliticalȱideal,ȱsuchȱaȱsplitȱbetweenȱscholar andȱ soldierȱ couldȱ alsoȱ beȱ interpretedȱ asȱ aȱ formȱ ofȱ hypocrisy.ȱ Theȱ same,ȱ very strikingȱimageȱwasȱdeployedȱinȱaȱbookȱofȱpoliticalȱemblemsȱbyȱJakobȱBornitzȱnot toȱsymbolizeȱarsȱandȱmars,ȱbutȱtoȱconveyȱtheȱideaȱthatȱlearningȱorȱtheologyȱmight serveȱtoȱjustifyȱpoliticalȱorȱmilitaryȱends.ȱTheȱmanȱdividedȱbetweenȱsoldierȱand scholarȱ heldȱ anȱ openȱ bookȱ uponȱ whichȱ wereȱ writtenȱ theȱ wordsȱ “Re(li)gionis Amor”ȱ(“LoveȱofȱRe(li)gion”)ȱtoȱshowȱthatȱ“DerȱSoldatȱlistȱReligionȱ/ȱUndȱdochȱnur meintȱdieȱRegion”ȱ(“Theȱsoldierȱreadsȱreligionȱ/ȱandȱyetȱmeansȱonlyȱtheȱregion”).70 Menȱdividedȱbetweenȱarsȱandȱmarsȱmightȱsayȱoneȱthingȱandȱmeanȱanother. Theȱmassiveȱexpansionȱofȱtheȱalbumȱalsoȱencouragedȱdoubtsȱaboutȱtheȱsincerity andȱmotivationsȱofȱalbumȱowners.ȱThoseȱwhoȱvaluedȱtheȱintimacyȱofȱhumanist sodalitiesȱ criticizedȱ thisȱ escalationȱ inȱ learnedȱ friendship.ȱ Asȱ earlyȱ asȱ 1613,ȱ the rectorȱ ofȱ theȱ Herbornȱ academyȱ andȱ encyclopedistȱ Johannȱ Heinrichȱ Alsted (1588–1638)ȱdeploredȱtheȱrapidȱmushroomingȱofȱbooksȱofȱfriends.ȱInȱaȱdissertation onȱtheȱethicsȱofȱfriendship,ȱAlsteadȱarguedȱthatȱtrueȱfriendshipȱtookȱtimeȱandȱcare toȱcultivate.ȱHeȱcriticizedȱthoseȱwhoȱcollectedȱtooȱmanyȱnamesȱwithinȱtheirȱalba amicorum,ȱforȱheȱwhoȱwasȱatȱtheȱbeckȱandȱcallȱofȱtooȱmanyȱfriendsȱmustȱconstantly eitherȱdissimulateȱhisȱtrueȱintentionsȱorȱconformȱhimselfȱtoȱtheirȱwills.ȱWithȱso manyȱ friends,ȱ itȱ wouldȱ beȱ practicallyȱ impossibleȱ toȱ beȱ trueȱ toȱ everyone.ȱ Such advice,ȱhowever,ȱdidȱnotȱpreventȱAlstedȱfromȱsigningȱtheȱshockinglyȱenormous albumȱ amicorumȱ ofȱ Joachimȱ Morsiusȱ (onȱ pageȱ 774!)ȱ asȱ aȱ tokenȱ ofȱ hisȱ “sincere friendship”ȱinȱ1619.71ȱAlstead’sȱtreatmentȱofȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱtopicȱinȱethicsȱwasȱa farȱcryȱbothȱfromȱhisȱownȱpracticeȱofȱalbumȱinscriptionsȱandȱfromȱtheȱinstrumental viewȱofȱfriendshipsȱfoundȱamongȱpoliticalȱwriters.

69

70

71

MarieȱRyantováȱselectedȱthisȱimageȱforȱtheȱcoverȱofȱherȱbook,ȱPamátníkyȱanebȱštambuchy,ȱtoȱjestȱalba amicorum:ȱ kulturn»ȱ historickýȱ fenoménȱ ranéhoȱ (+eskéȱ Bud»jovice:ȱ Historickýȱ Ústavȱ Filozofické FakultyȱJiho²eskéȱUniverzity.,ȱ2007).ȱWaszinkȱincludedȱanotherȱversionȱofȱitȱinȱhisȱeditionȱof Lipsius’sȱPolitica. JakobȱBornitz,ȱEmblematumȱsacrorumȱetȱciviliumȱmiscellaneorumȱsyllogeȱIȱmiscellaneaȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM. andȱHamburg:ȱZetter,ȱ1638),ȱ30. JohannȱHeinrichȱAlsted,ȱDisputatioȱethicaȱdeȱamicitiaȱ(Herborn:ȱJohannesȱPortmann,ȱ1613),ȱ36–37 andȱtheȱAlbumȱofȱJoachimȱMorsius,ȱStaatsbibliothekȱLübeckȱMs.ȱ4aȱ25,ȱ774.

694

VeraȱKeller

Thoseȱ whoȱ signedȱ suchȱ massiveȱ booksȱ ofȱ friendsȱ wereȱ transparentlyȱ not generallyȱ onȱ intimateȱ termsȱ withȱ theȱ book’sȱ ownerȱ andȱ curator.ȱ Rather,ȱ they soughtȱtoȱjoinȱaȱbroadȱnetworkȱofȱcontactsȱcollectedȱinȱtheȱalbum.ȱThisȱisȱclear fromȱaȱstoryȱoneȱBerneggerȱstudent,ȱtheȱpoetȱDanielȱCzepko,ȱrecountedȱtoȱanother, theȱpoetȱChristophȱColer,ȱinȱ1626: Adiitȱ meȱ Praestantissimusȱ isteȱ Virȱ Iuvenis,ȱ etȱ unaȱ manuȱ albumȱ porrigebat,ȱ alterâ commendatitiasȱ petebat.ȱ Persuadebatȱ illeȱ sibiȱ amicosȱ ibiȱ vivereȱ nonȱ deȱ vulgo, quibuscumȱnecessitudoȱetȱfamiliaritasȱmihiȱintercederetȱmaxima,ȱetȱofficiumȱamicitiae tantum,ȱut,ȱquodȱpeterem,ȱfacilèȱconsequarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. [Anȱ outstandingȱ youngȱ manȱ cameȱ toȱ me,ȱ holdingȱ outȱ inȱ oneȱ handȱ anȱ albumȱ and beggingȱwithȱtheȱotherȱaȱletterȱofȱrecommendation.ȱHeȱwasȱconvincedȱthatȱinȱaȱcertain placeȱIȱhadȱfriends,ȱwithȱwhomȱIȱwasȱconnectedȱwithȱsuchȱaȱstrongȱbond,ȱintimacy, andȱobligationsȱofȱfriendshipȱthatȱwhateverȱIȱasked,ȱIȱwouldȱeasilyȱobtainȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.]72

Throughȱtheȱalbumȱinscription,ȱoneȱsoughtȱtoȱallyȱone’sȱselfȱtoȱaȱnetworkȱofȱwellȬ connectedȱ peopleȱ throughȱ aȱ publicȱ letterȱ ofȱ recommendation,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ to developȱanȱintimateȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱtheȱalbumȱinscriberȱandȱownerȱalone.ȱ Manyȱreadȱalbumsȱseekingȱtoȱtraceȱnetworksȱandȱuncoverȱconnections.ȱKnowing whoȱhadȱbefriendedȱwhomȱfellȱamongȱtheȱ“arcanaȱNotitiaeȱAuthorum”ȱ(“secrets ofȱ informationȱ aboutȱ writers”),ȱ and,ȱ pointedȱ outȱ Michaelȱ Lilienthal,ȱ album inscriptionsȱwereȱoftenȱaȱmeansȱtoȱdiscoverȱthisȱusefulȱinformation.ȱThoseȱwho wishedȱtoȱdemonstrateȱ(orȱperhapsȱclaim)ȱaȱparticularlyȱcloseȱfriendshipȱwithȱan individualȱwouldȱinscribeȱanȱalbumȱonȱtheȱpageȱfollowing,ȱorȱevenȱonȱtheȱsame pageȱasȱtheȱinscriptionȱofȱtheirȱfriend.73ȱTheȱalbumȱwasȱnotȱtheȱintimate,ȱsecluded genreȱwhichȱWottonȱclaimedȱitȱtoȱbe,ȱbutȱaȱnodeȱconnectingȱfarȬflungȱnetworks oftenȱ composedȱ ofȱ nearȱ orȱ totalȱ strangersȱ seekingȱ information,ȱ contacts,ȱ and favors.

72

73

30ȱ Decemberȱ 1626,ȱ Danielȱ Czepkoȱ toȱ Christophȱ Colerȱ inȱ Danielȱ Czepko,ȱ Sämtlicheȱ Werke: BriefwechselȱundȱDokumenteȱzuȱLebenȱundȱWerk,ȱvol.ȱVI,ȱed.ȱLotharȱMundtȱandȱUlrichȱSeelbach. AusgabenȱdeutscherȱLiteraturȱdesȱXV.ȱbisȱXVIII.ȱJahrhunderts,ȱ146ȱ(BerlinȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱWalter deȱGruyter,ȱ1995),ȱ10–11.ȱ Lilienthal,ȱSchediasmaȱcriticoȬliterarium,ȱ6ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ60):ȱ“InterȱarcanaȱNotitiaeȱAuthorumȱmerito refertur,ȱnosseȱquinquamȱexȱVirisȱdoctisȱarctoȱamicitiaeȱ&ȱfamiliaritatisȱvinculoȱinvicemȱfuerint conjuncitȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱFacileȱveroȱistaȱeȱPhilothecisȱcognoscereȱpossumusȱutpoteȱinȱquibusȱobservareȱlicet, Doctorumȱ quosdam,ȱ adȱ testandamȱ suamȱ animorumȱ &ȱ sententiarumȱ harmoniam,ȱ velȱ inȱ una eademqueȱlibriȱpaginaȱnominaȱsuaȱscripsisse,ȱvelȱcerteȱinȱvincinoȱfolio”ȱ(Amongȱtheȱsecretsȱof informationȱconcerningȱauthorsȱrightlyȱbelongsȱknowingȱwhichȱlearnedȱmenȱareȱjoinedȱbyȱaȱtight bondȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱfamiliarityȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.Weȱcanȱlearnȱthisȱeasilyȱfromȱfriendshipȱbooksȱinȱwhich oneȱmayȱobserveȱthatȱcertainȱlearnedȱmenȱhaveȱwrittenȱtheirȱnamesȱeitherȱonȱtheȱsameȱpageȱor onȱtheȱnextȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ).

PaintedȱFriends

695

ArsȱandȱMarsȱinȱaȱTimeȱofȱWar Theȱtheaterȱofȱwarȱraisedȱtheȱstakesȱforȱtheȱmachinationsȱofȱpoliticsȱwithinȱthe worldȱofȱlearning.ȱMatthiasȱBernegger,ȱinȱhisȱ1620ȱProauliumȱtubaeȱpacis,ȱoccentae Scioppianoȱbelliȱsacriȱ(ClarionȱofȱPeaceȱSoundedȱagainstȱtheȱSchoppeanȱTrumpetȱofȱHoly War),ȱwarnedȱagainstȱtheȱTaciteanȱartsȱthreateningȱmankind.ȱBerneggerȱaccused notȱonlyȱSchoppeȱbutȱalsoȱtheȱJesuitsȱofȱfomentingȱinterȬconfessionalȱstrifeȱfor politicalȱ ends.ȱ Theirȱ politicalȱ artsȱ hidȱ beneathȱ aȱ sanctimoniousȱ façade.ȱ Such duplicityȱthreatenedȱtheȱbondsȱofȱhumanȱsocietyȱwhichȱwereȱwovenȱofȱtrust.74ȱThe Jesuits,ȱ expertsȱ inȱ theȱ studyȱ ofȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ andȱ theȱ arcanaȱ imperii,ȱ were suspectedȱofȱinfiltratingȱandȱmanipulatingȱinternationalȱlearnedȱnetworksȱthrough theirȱsuperiorȱcoffers,ȱorganization,ȱandȱcollectionsȱofȱbooksȱandȱcuriosities.75ȱ Whileȱ Jacobȱ Sollȱ hasȱ arguedȱ thatȱ theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ stateȱ servedȱ toȱ “masterȱ the passionsȱ ofȱ theȱ religiousȱ wars,”ȱ manyȱ inȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ heldȱ such calculationsȱofȱinterestȱaccountableȱforȱtheȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar,ȱasȱdidȱtheȱeirenic BohemianȱJanȱAmosȱComeniusȱ(1592–1670).76ȱForȱotherȱlikeȬmindedȱProtestants suchȱasȱJohnȱDuryȱ(1596–1680)ȱandȱSamuelȱHartlibȱ(1600–1662),ȱtheȱdissensionsȱof theȱThirtyȱYearȱWarȱwereȱaȱsignȱofȱtheȱimpendingȱapocalypseȱbroughtȱonȱbyȱthe reasonȱofȱstate.ȱAccordingȱtoȱDuryȱandȱHartlib,ȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱspilledȱoutȱof theȱsecondȱvialȱofȱRevelationsȱasȱitȱpouredȱdestructionȱandȱmayhemȱoverȱtheȱfourth monarchyȱ(theȱHolyȱRomanȱEmpire).77ȱForȱthem,ȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱtriggeredȱa massiveȱshiftȱinȱhumanȱrelations,ȱsendingȱshockwavesȱacrossȱCentralȱEurope,ȱand initiatingȱtheȱfinalȱdownwardȱslideȱofȱcivilization. Theȱreasonȱofȱstateȱdistilled,ȱasȱitȱwere,ȱtheȱessenceȱofȱdiscord.ȱAccordingȱto DuryȱandȱHartlib,ȱtheȱselfȬservingȱstatistsȱwhoȱpouredȱtheȱacidȱofȱinterestȱupon

74

75

76

77

MatthiasȱBerneggerȱ[publishedȱunderȱtheȱpseudonym,ȱTheodosiusȱBerenicus],ȱProauliumȱTubae Pacis,ȱOccentaeȱScioppianoȱBelliȱSacriȱ(Strasbourg:ȱWyriot,ȱ1620),ȱA3v. OnȱJesuitȱreasonȱofȱstate,ȱseeȱRobertȱBireley,ȱTheȱCounterȬReformationȱPrinceȱ(seeȱnoteȱ6),ȱandȱHarro Höpfl,ȱJesuitȱPoliticalȱThought:ȱTheȱSocietyȱofȱJesusȱandȱtheȱState,ȱc.ȱ1540–1630.ȱIdeasȱinȱContext,ȱ70 (CambridgeȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2004). JacobȱSoll,ȱPublishingȱtheȱPrince:ȱHistory,ȱReading,ȱandȱtheȱBirthȱofȱPoliticalȱCriticismȱ(AnnȱArbor: Universityȱ ofȱ Michiganȱ Press,ȱ 2005),ȱ 27.ȱ Janȱ Amosȱ Comenius,ȱ Historiaȱ Persecutionumȱ Ecclesiae Bohemicae.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱquaȱinauditaȱhactenusȱArcanaȱPolitica,ȱconsilia,ȱartes,ȱpraesentiumȱbellorumȱveraeȱcausae &ȱjudiciaȱhorrendaȱexhibenturȱ(S.l.:ȱn.p.,ȱ1648).ȱComeniusȱidentifiedȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱasȱoneȱofȱthe greatestȱthreatsȱtoȱmankindȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱdays.ȱJ.ȱA.ȱComenius,ȱUnumȱNecessariumȱ(Amsterdam: n.p.,ȱ 1668),ȱ 51.ȱ See,ȱ asȱ aȱ particularlyȱ fineȱ exampleȱ ofȱ theȱ “Raisonȱ d’estat”ȱ asȱ theȱ causeȱ ofȱ the imbalanceȱ inȱ theȱ Holyȱ Romanȱ Empire,ȱ theȱ “Grosseȱ Weldtȱ Uhr,”ȱ inȱ Peterȱ Schmidt,ȱ Spanische Universalmonarchieȱ oderȱ ‘teutscheȱ Libertet’:ȱ dasȱ spanischeȱ Imperiumȱ inȱ derȱ Propagandaȱ des DreissigjährigenȱKrieges.ȱStudienȱzurȱmodernenȱGeschichte,ȱ54ȱ(Stuttgart:ȱFranzȱSteiner,ȱ2001),ȱ367. SamuelȱHartlibȱandȱJohnȱDury,ȱTheȱRevelationȱRevealedȱ(London:ȱWilliamȱDuȬGard,ȱ1651),ȱ101. CompareȱHartlibȱandȱDuryȱtoȱtheȱpamphletȱinȱHartlib’sȱpapers,ȱErkäntnüszȱDerȱZergehungȱoder undergangsȱdieserȱvierdtenȱMonarchiaeȱ(s.l.:ȱn.p.,ȱ1641),ȱ5,ȱonȱtheȱ“TeuffelslarvenȱRatioȱstatus.”

696

VeraȱKeller

mankindȱdissolvedȱtheȱtiesȱthatȱboundȱsocietyȱandȱunleashedȱtheȱendȱofȱdays. “Politiqueȱreasoningsȱofȱmen”ȱformedȱ“theȱbeast”ȱwhichȱtheȱfalseȱchurchȱ“rideth upon,”ȱtheyȱwroteȱinȱtheirȱpoliticalȱinterpretationȱofȱRevelations.78ȱDuryȱblamed theȱdifficultiesȱofȱmakingȱpeaceȱamongȱChristiansȱinȱpartȱuponȱtheȱ“reasonȱofȱstate asȱsomeȱPoliticansȱ[sic]ȱwhoȱfindȱoutȱandȱfomentȱdifferencesȱbetwixtȱpartiesȱthat theyȱmayȱriseȱorȱstandȱinȱtheȱmidstȱofȱtheirȱdivisions.”79ȱ ReasonȱofȱstateȱthreatenedȱtheȱfoundationsȱofȱChristianȱfellowshipȱandȱthusȱthe world.ȱTheȱparanoiaȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱinducedȱinȱsuchȱwritersȱcanȱbeȱlinkedȱto theȱveryȱrealȱviolenceȱwreakingȱhavocȱinȱtheirȱlivesȱandȱhometowns.ȱLipsiusȱand otherȱpoliticalȱwritersȱoftenȱadvocatedȱpursuingȱaȱmilitaryȱprudenceȱinȱtimesȱof warȱandȱaȱlearned,ȱcivilȱprudenceȱinȱtimesȱofȱpeace.80ȱWithȱtheȱincreasingȱpolitical urgencyȱaccordedȱtoȱmenȱofȱletters,ȱhowever,ȱprudentiaȱtogataȱ(togaȬwearing,ȱor civil)ȱ andȱ sagataȱ (cloakȬwearing,ȱ orȱ military)ȱ merged,ȱ withȱ destabilizing consequencesȱforȱinternationalȱscholarlyȱnetworks,ȱespeciallyȱwhenȱintellectual friendshipsȱwereȱtheȱmeansȱbyȱwhichȱopposingȱsidesȱsoughtȱconvertsȱinȱaȱpoliticoȬ religiousȱwar. JohannȱBalthasarȱSchuppȱ(1610–1661),ȱaȱpreacher,ȱsatirist,ȱUniversityȱofȱMarburg professorȱandȱagentȱofȱtheȱSwedishȱcrown,ȱframedȱaȱbookȱofȱpoliticalȱadviceȱasȱa guidebookȱintendedȱforȱaȱyoungȱmanȱaboutȱtoȱsetȱoffȱonȱhisȱmethodicalȱtravels.81 HeȱadvisedȱPhilandersonȱthatȱoneȱcanȱsometimesȱserveȱtheȱstateȱmoreȱwithȱaȱquill thanȱwithȱaȱsword,ȱevenȱinȱaȱtimeȱofȱwar.ȱHeȱgaveȱtheȱexampleȱofȱaȱmemberȱofȱthe Swedishȱarmyȱwhoȱsaid,ȱ DerȱRaubȱdenȱichȱinȱTeutschȬlandȱgethanȱhabeȱ/ȱistȱeinȱBriefeȱRaub.ȱWannȱwirȱmitȱder ArmeeȱanȱeinenȱOrtȱ/ȱsonderlichȱinȱeinȱKlosterȱoderȱJesuiterȬCollegȱkamenȱ/ȱhabeȱich alsobaldȱgeeiletȱnachȱdemȱArchiveȱzuȱ/ȱundȱhabeȱalleȱBriefȱeingepacket.ȱWannȱichȱdann Zeitȱgehabtȱ/ȱhabeȱichȱsieȱdurchȱgelesenȱ/dadurchȱbinȱichȱhinterȱsoȱvielȱarcana,ȱhinter soȱvielȱStückleinȱkommenȱ/ȱdassȱihrȱesȱnichtȱwolȱglaubenȱkönnet.ȱ [TheȱpillageȱIȱpracticeȱinȱGermanyȱisȱaȱpillageȱofȱletters.ȱWheneverȱtheȱarmyȱreaches aȱtownȱwithȱaȱcloisterȱorȱaȱJesuitȱcollege,ȱIȱgoȱimmediatelyȱtoȱtheirȱarchiveȱandȱtakeȱall theirȱletters.ȱWhenȱIȱhaveȱtime,ȱIȱreadȱthemȱthrough,ȱandȱIȱfindȱsoȱmanyȱsecretsȱthere, thatȱyouȱwouldȱnotȱbelieveȱit].ȱ82

78

79 80 81

82

CopyȱofȱaȱLetterȱonȱ“MercyȱandȱTruth,”ȱSamuelȱHartlibȱandȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱSheffield,ȱTheȱHartlib PapersȱCD.ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(1995;ȱSheffield,ȱ2002),ȱ4ȱNovemberȱ1637,ȱ26/19/4B. Ibid,ȱDury,ȱ31ȱMarch,ȱ1634,ȱ1/9/1B. Lipsius,ȱPolitica,ȱ387ȱandȱHippolytusȱàȱCollibus,ȱPrincepsȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.:ȱCorner,ȱ1658),ȱ370. OnȱSchuppȱseeȱHildegardeȱE.ȱWichert,ȱJohannȱBalthasarȱSchuppȱandȱtheȱBaroqueȱSatireȱinȱGermany. ColumbiaȱUniversityȱGermanicȱStudies,ȱ22ȱ(NewȱYork:ȱKing’sȱCrownȱPress,ȱ1952),ȱandȱKühlmann, GelehrtenrepublikȱundȱFürstenstaatȱ(1982),ȱpassimȱ(seeȱnoteȱ56). JohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp,ȱSalomoȱ(Hamburg:ȱPfeiffern,ȱ1657),ȱEvȬEvi.ȱForȱtheȱSwedishȱtakeover ofȱtheȱpostalȱsystemȱandȱthusȱtheȱcontrolȱofȱpoliticalȱinformationȱduringȱtheȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar,ȱsee Paulȱ Ries,ȱ “Theȱ Politicsȱ ofȱ Informationȱ inȱ SeventeenthȬcenturyȱ Scandinavia,”ȱ Theȱ Politicsȱ of

PaintedȱFriends

697

Whetherȱorȱnotȱstatists,ȱJesuits,ȱorȱotherȱsecretȱmanipulatorsȱwereȱinȱfactȱabusing learnedȱnetworksȱtoȱtheȱextentȱfearedȱisȱbesideȱtheȱpoint.ȱTheȱdistrustȱaloneȱof internationalȱlearnedȱfriendshipȱgeneratedȱbyȱaȱpoliticalȱpracticeȱfoundedȱupon scholarlyȱ dissimulationȱ wouldȱ haveȱ profoundȱ consequencesȱ forȱ theȱ futureȱ of learning.

ScholarsȱBehavingȱBadly:ȱtheȱCritiqueȱofȱLearnedȱStatism JohannȱBalthasarȱSchuppȱcontinuedȱtoȱtraceȱtheȱadventuresȱofȱhisȱyoungȱwouldȬbe politicianȱ inȱ hisȱ 1657ȱ Derȱ Freundȱ inȱ derȱ Notȱ (Aȱ Friendȱ inȱ Need).ȱ Setȱ againstȱ the backdropȱofȱwarȱbetweenȱDenmarkȱandȱSweden,ȱtheȱworkȱbeganȱasȱPhilanderȱsent hisȱsonȱAscaniusȱoffȱonȱhisȱtravels.ȱBeforeȱheȱdeparted,ȱAscaniusȱvisitedȱtheȱfriends ofȱhisȱfatherȱandȱaskedȱthemȱtoȱsignȱhisȱalbumȱamicorum.ȱTheyȱfilledȱtheȱvolume withȱbombasticȱexpressionsȱofȱfriendship,ȱclaimingȱtoȱbeȱhisȱfriendsȱandȱpatrons “amore,ȱmore,ȱore,ȱre,ȱadȱultumimȱaeternitatisȱpunctum,ȱundȱnochȱ25ȱJahrȱdrüber (inȱlove,ȱinȱbehavior,ȱinȱspeech,ȱandȱinȱfact,ȱuntilȱtheȱendȱofȱtime,ȱandȱforȱ25ȱyears afterȱthat).”ȱAscaniusȱwasȱveryȱpleasedȱtoȱbeȱenrichedȱwithȱsoȱmanyȱpromisesȱand thoughtȱheȱwasȱnowȱsuppliedȱwithȱaȱgreatȱdealȱofȱ“Capital.”ȱ“Sohn,ȱduȱbistȱnicht klugȱ(Youȱareȱnotȱclever,ȱmyȱson),”ȱsaidȱhisȱfather,ȱshakingȱhisȱhead.ȱ“Duȱweist nochȱ nicht,ȱ wasȱ fürȱ einȱ Unterscheidȱ sey,ȱ zwischenȱ einemȱ Freund,ȱ undȱ einem Auffschneider,ȱoderȱComplementȬmacherȱ(Youȱdoȱnotȱyetȱknowȱtheȱdifference betweenȱaȱfriendȱandȱaȱfibberȱorȱaȱbrownȬnoser).”ȱPhilanderȱwentȱonȱtoȱrecount toȱAscaniusȱstoriesȱofȱtheȱmanyȱfalseȱfriendshipsȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱcitingȱtoȱhimȱthe principle,ȱ“RatioȱStatus,ȱnonȱagnoscitȱpatremȱautȱmatrem,ȱnonȱfratresȱautȱsorores” (reasonȱofȱstateȱdoesȱnotȱrecognizeȱmothersȱorȱfathers,ȱsistersȱorȱbrothers).83ȱThe calculationȱofȱinterestȱhadȱrenderedȱtheȱbondsȱofȱaffectionȱnotȱonlyȱnegligibleȱbut downrightȱdetrimentalȱtoȱtheȱnewȱpolitics.84 Theȱ backȬstabbingȱ deceptionsȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ politicalȱ cultureȱ infiltratedȱ ancient learnedȱ practicesȱ andȱ calledȱ intoȱ questionȱ protestationsȱ ofȱ friendships.ȱ The recommendationȱletter,ȱforȱinstance,ȱwasȱandȱremainsȱtheȱomnipotentȱvoiceȱof authorityȱwithinȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLetters.85ȱWithinȱtheȱalbum,ȱsuchȱlettersȱwereȱnot

83

84

85

InformationȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope,ȱed.ȱBrendanȱDooleyȱandȱSabrinaȱA.ȱBaron.ȱRoutledgeȱStudies inȱCulturalȱHistory,ȱ1ȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2001),ȱ237–72. Johannȱ Schupp,ȱ Derȱ Freundȱ inȱ derȱ Not.ȱ Neudruckeȱ deutscherȱ Literaturwerkeȱ desȱ 16.ȱ undȱ 17. Jahrhunderts,ȱ9ȱ(1657;ȱHalleȱa.ȱd.ȱS.:ȱMaxȱNiemeyer,ȱ1878),ȱ3–4,ȱandȱ20.ȱ SeeȱalsoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱtheȱfourteenthȬcenturyȱSpanishȱwriterȱDonȱJuanȱManuelȱbyȱAlbrechtȱvan Classenȱinȱtheȱintroductionȱtoȱthisȱvolume. Onȱtheȱancientȱletterȱofȱrecommendation,ȱseeȱRogerȱRees,ȱ“LettersȱofȱRecommendationȱandȱthe RhetoricȱofȱPraise,”ȱAncientȱLetters:ȱClassicalȱandȱLateȱAntiqueȱEpistolography,ȱed.ȱRuthȱMorelloȱand A.ȱD.ȱMorrisonȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2007),ȱ149–68.

698

VeraȱKeller

signedȱ andȱ sealed,ȱ butȱ appearedȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ anȱ openȱ claimȱ toȱ friendship. However,ȱasȱChristianȱGeorgȱBessel,ȱtheȱwriterȱofȱaȱpoliticalȱguidebook,ȱwarned, falseȱ friendshipȱ andȱ deceptionȱ flourishedȱ inȱ thisȱ genre.ȱ Manyȱ couldȱ cleverly composeȱaȱletterȱthatȱatȱfirstȱglanceȱappearedȱtoȱbeȱaȱrecommendation,ȱbutȱwasȱin factȱ aȱ condemnation.ȱ Besselȱ devotedȱ anȱ entireȱ chapterȱ ofȱ hisȱ Schmiedeȱ des polititschenȱ Glücksȱ (Smithȱ ofȱ Politicalȱ Fortune)ȱ toȱ theȱ falseȱ recommendationȱ and profferedȱseveralȱunsavoryȱexamples.ȱ86 Suchȱcleverlyȱdamningȱprotestationsȱofȱfriendshipȱgeneratedȱmanyȱcriticismsȱof theȱlearnedȱMachiavellismȱinfestingȱtheȱworldȱofȱlearning.ȱTheȱmostȱfamousȱof theseȱ critiquesȱ isȱ Johannȱ Burckhardȱ Mencke’sȱ Deȱ charlataneriaȱ eruditorum declamationesȱduaeȱ(TwoȱOrationsȱonȱtheȱCharlatanryȱofȱtheȱLearned)ȱofȱ1713ȱandȱ1715, yetȱ theȱ themeȱ wasȱ byȱ noȱ meansȱ originalȱ toȱ Mencke.ȱ Satiresȱ uponȱ political charlatansȱ hadȱ aboundedȱ sinceȱ Traianoȱ Boccalini’sȱ De’Raggaugliȱ diȱ Parnaso (AdvertisementsȱfromȱParnassus)ȱofȱ1612,ȱconsideredȱtheȱapotheosisȱofȱreasonȱofȱstate literature.87ȱBoccaliniȱcastȱhisȱnovelȱworkȱasȱaȱseriesȱofȱjournalisticȱreportsȱfromȱa mythicalȱstateȱofȱtheȱlearned.ȱThereȱ“Letterati”ȱandȱ“Vertuosi”ȱsuchȱasȱTacitusȱand LipsiusȱstoodȱtrialȱinȱtheȱcourtȱofȱApolloȱforȱtheirȱvariousȱfaults,ȱdeceptions,ȱand trespasses.ȱTheȱAdvertisementsȱattackedȱreasonȱofȱstateȱandȱtheȱworldȱofȱlearning asȱoneȱofȱaȱkind.ȱSubsequentȱcriticsȱofȱlearnedȱmoeursȱwouldȱcontinueȱtoȱbringȱa politicalȱperspectiveȱtoȱtheirȱsatires. JohannȱHeinrichȱBoecklerȱ(1611–1672),ȱaȱstudentȱandȱtheȱsuccessorȱofȱMatthias Berneggerȱ atȱ Strasbourg,ȱ wroteȱ onȱ thisȱ themeȱ longȱ beforeȱ theȱ moreȱ famous eighteenthȬcenturyȱcritiquesȱofȱlearnedȱmoeurs.ȱBoecklerȱhimselfȱwouldȱsuggest thatȱtheȱtravelerȱshouldȱattemptȱtoȱwheedleȱsecretsȱofȱstateȱfromȱtheirȱinfluential, foreignȱfriendsȱ(discussedȱabove).ȱNoȱdoubtȱhisȱownȱintimacyȱwithȱpracticesȱof informationȱcollectionȱthroughȱfriendshipȱinformedȱhisȱaccountȱofȱlearnedȱstatism. Boeckler’sȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ learnedȱ sociabilityȱ mayȱ haveȱ evadedȱ modernȱ scholarly attentionȱ dueȱ toȱ itsȱ location;ȱ Boecklerȱ embeddedȱ hisȱ tenȱ pageȱ diatribeȱ upon “learnedȱ statists”ȱ (“litterariosȱ statistas”)ȱ deepȱ withinȱ hisȱ 1642ȱ commentaryȱ on VelleiusȱPaterculus’sȱRomanȱhistory.ȱTheȱseeminglyȱobscureȱlocationȱofȱthisȱvery

86 87

ChristianȱGeorgȱBessel,ȱSchmiedeȱdesȱpolitischenȱGlücksȱ(Hamburg:ȱNaumann,ȱ1669),ȱ91–98. TraianoȱBoccalini,ȱDe’RaggaugliȱdiȱParnasoȱ(Venice:ȱFarri,ȱ1612).ȱMaurizioȱViroli,ȱFromȱPoliticsȱto ReasonȱofȱState:ȱTheȱAcquisitionȱandȱTransformationȱofȱtheȱLanguageȱofȱPolitics,ȱ1250–1600.ȱIdeasȱin Context,ȱ 22ȱ (Cambridgeȱ andȱ Newȱ York:ȱ Cambridgeȱ Universityȱ Press,ȱ 1992),ȱ 258.ȱ Cf.ȱ István Gombocz,ȱwhoȱarguesȱforȱMencke’sȱstylisticȱnoveltyȱinȱ“DeȱCharlataneriaȱeruditorum:ȱJohann BurckhardȱMenckeȱasȱaȱForerunnerȱofȱtheȱEnlightenedȱSatire,”ȱDaphnisȱ28.1ȱ(1999):ȱ187–200.ȱFor Boccaliniȱandȱtheȱskepticismȱconcerningȱinformationȱwhichȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstateȱunleashed,ȱsee BrendanȱDooley,ȱ“NewsȱandȱDoubtȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱCulture,ȱor,ȱAreȱweȱhavingȱaȱPublicȱSphere Yet?”ȱTheȱPoliticsȱofȱInformationȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope,ȱed.ȱBrendanȱDooleyȱandȱSabrinaȱA.ȱBaron. RoutledgeȱStudiesȱinȱCulturalȱHistory,ȱ1ȱ(LondonȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱRoutledge,ȱ2001),ȱ275–90;ȱhere 281–83.ȱ

PaintedȱFriends

699

topicalȱ digression,ȱ however,ȱ wasȱ noȱ accident.ȱ Theȱ practicesȱ ofȱ information collectionȱ fosteredȱ byȱ Berneggerȱ throughȱ bothȱ travelȱ andȱ commentariesȱ upon ancientȱhistoryȱtrainedȱtheȱwouldȬbeȱpoliticianȱtoȱdigȱthroughȱtheȱparticularsȱof experienceȱandȱhistoryȱinȱorderȱtoȱlearnȱlessonsȱofȱpoliticalȱprudence.ȱTacitists routinelyȱ incorporatedȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ politicallyȱ pertinentȱ contemporary phenomenaȱinȱtheirȱfineȬprintȱcommentariesȱuponȱtheȱclassicsȱofȱRomanȱhistory, andȱwellȬtrainedȱreadersȱknewȱtoȱlookȱtoȱtheȱcommentaryȱforȱengagingȱdiscussions ofȱtheȱtopicsȱofȱtheȱday.88ȱ WritingȱduringȱtheȱonȬgoingȱhostilitiesȱofȱtheȱThirtyȱYearsȱWar,ȱBoecklerȱblamed selfȬloveȱinȱtheȱrepublicȱofȱlettersȱuponȱtheȱnewȱstatistȱpoliticsȱwreakingȱhavoc acrossȱEuropeȱinȱallȱarenas.ȱHisȱdigressionȱwasȱtriggeredȱbyȱtheȱRomanȱhistorian’s suggestionȱ thatȱ sometimesȱ theȱ envyȱ ofȱ scholarsȱ canȱ advanceȱ learningȱ by promotingȱ competition.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ true,ȱ Boecklerȱ conceded,ȱ thatȱ learningȱ had progressedȱtoȱitsȱacmeȱthroughoutȱEurope.ȱHeȱreviewedȱtheȱstateȱofȱlearningȱin Spain,ȱItaly,ȱFrance,ȱEngland,ȱScotland,ȱDenmark,ȱNorway,ȱSweden,ȱPoland,ȱthe Netherlands,ȱandȱGermany,ȱwhereȱinȱparticularȱlearningȱhadȱmiraculouslyȱsprung forthȱfromȱtheȱashesȱofȱwar.ȱLibrariesȱhadȱflourishedȱeverywhere. Despiteȱ theȱ advancementȱ ofȱ learning,ȱ hiddenȱ politicalȱ maneuveringȱ had dissolvedȱtheȱbondsȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱlearnedȱmenȱofȱdifferentȱnationsȱand professions,ȱ asȱ partyȱ politicsȱ invadedȱ theȱ Republicȱ ofȱ Letters.ȱ “Theologi, Jurisconsulti,ȱMedici,ȱPhilosophi,ȱPhilologi,ȱnominaȱsuntȱnonȱtamȱartisȱ&ȱscientiae, quamȱsaluberrimaeȱsocietatisȱ&ȱamicaeȱproȱrep.ȱconjunctionis:ȱsedȱratioȱillaȱstatus, quaeȱ cumȱ ambitioneȱ inȱ studiaȱ irrepsit,ȱ factionumȱ &ȱ partiumȱ titulosȱ facit (Theologians,ȱDoctors,ȱPhilosophers,ȱandȱPhilologistsȱareȱnotȱsoȱmuchȱtheȱnames ofȱ differentȱ artsȱ andȱ sciencesȱ asȱ ofȱ aȱ benevolentȱ jointȱ pursuitȱ andȱ aȱ friendly associationȱonȱbehalfȱofȱtheȱresȱpublica,ȱbutȱthatȱratioȱstatus,ȱwhichȱhasȱinsinuated itselfȱintoȱstudies,ȱhasȱmadeȱthemȱintoȱtheȱnamesȱofȱfactionsȱandȱparties).”89 Byȱfightingȱwithȱeachȱother,ȱtheseȱfactionsȱweakenedȱtheȱwhole,ȱdegenerating theȱnaturalȱlinksȱandȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱpartsȱofȱstudy.ȱ“Studiaȱinȱmutuasȱoperas nexuȱ naturaliȱ deuincta,ȱ inȱ amicitiamȱ proprioȱ institutoȱ ordinata;ȱ inȱ consensum salutisȱpublicaeȱChristianaȱreligioneȱconsecrata,ȱtantumȱàȱseȱipsisȱdegenerare,ȱut inȱdiffidiorum,ȱaemulationum,ȱcaussasȱ&ȱartificiaȱnonȱraroȱvaleantȱ(Studiesȱbound toȱeachȱother’sȱcareȱthroughȱaȱnaturalȱtie,ȱarrangedȱforȱfriendshipȱaccordingȱtoȱits ownȱ principle,ȱ andȱ consecratedȱ forȱ theȱ harmonyȱ ofȱ theȱ publicȱ goodȱ byȱ the Christianȱreligion,ȱhaveȱdegeneratedȱsoȱmuchȱfromȱthoseȱveryȱthings,ȱthatȱnot

88

89

ForȱBoeckler’sȱviewsȱonȱtravel,ȱincludingȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱlearnedȱsociabilityȱinȱtravel,ȱseeȱhis deȱPeregrinatione,ȱcitedȱabove. JohannȱHeinrichȱBoeckler,ȱC.ȱVelleiiȱPaterculiȱLibriȱDuoȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱcumȱannotatisȱJoannisȱHenriciȱBoecleri (Strasbourg:ȱMülbe,ȱ1642),ȱ97.

700

VeraȱKeller

infrequentlyȱtheyȱserveȱasȱtheȱoriginsȱandȱtoolsȱofȱsuspicionsȱandȱrivalries).”90ȱA newȱspiritȱofȱselfȬservingȱambitionȱsplinteredȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱallȱlearnedȱmenȱinto jealousȱcliquesȱandȱantagonisticȱspecialties.ȱBoecklerȱwantedȱtoȱseeȱlessȱcourtly politickingȱandȱmoreȱrepublicanismȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱgovernanceȱofȱtheȱRepublicȱof Letters.91 ToȱBoeckler,ȱtheȱthreatȱtoȱknowledgeȱlayȱnotȱinȱtheȱactionsȱofȱmilitaryȱmen,ȱbut inȱ theȱ underminingȱ ofȱ Germanȱ learningȱ byȱ scholarsȱ themselves.ȱ Despiteȱ the ravagesȱ ofȱ theȱ Thirtyȱ Yearsȱ War,ȱ Boecklerȱ believedȱ thatȱ learningȱ hadȱ reached previouslyȱ unscaledȱ heights.ȱ Heȱ didȱ notȱ observeȱ thatȱ scholarshipȱ hadȱ been decimatedȱbyȱtheȱviolence,ȱasȱoneȱmightȱexpect,ȱbutȱratherȱthatȱsocialȱrelationships amongȱtheȱlearnedȱhadȱbecomeȱhopelesslyȱpoliticized.ȱ Boecklerȱwasȱfarȱfromȱaloneȱinȱthisȱambivalentȱview.ȱInȱ1639ȱJohannȱBalthasar Schuppȱhadȱdeliveredȱanȱorationȱ“Onȱtheȱhappinessȱofȱtheȱage”ȱatȱtheȱUniversity ofȱ Marburg,ȱ althoughȱ hisȱ viewȱ ofȱ seventeenthȬcenturyȱ felicityȱ wasȱ notably equivocal.92ȱTwoȱdecadesȱlaterȱinȱaȱ“melancolischerȱDiscurs”ȱonȱreasonȱofȱstate withinȱtheȱchurchȱinȱ1662,ȱSchuppȱadmittedȱthatȱlearningȱhadȱneverȱprogressed asȱfarȱasȱatȱtheȱpresentȱtime,ȱespeciallyȱinȱtheology.ȱTheȱuniversitiesȱwereȱteeming withȱyoungȱMagistri.ȱAndȱyet,ȱdespiteȱtheȱintellectualȱboom,ȱbeingȱanȱexcellent scholarȱ wasȱ noȱ longerȱ sufficient.ȱ Oneȱ hadȱ toȱ learnȱ aȱ “ratioȱ status”ȱ inȱ orderȱ to achieveȱaȱpositionȱinȱtheȱchurch.93ȱ Scholarshipȱmightȱwellȱhaveȱbecomeȱmoreȱsophisticatedȱandȱcleverȱoverȱthe sixteenthȱandȱseventeenthȱcenturies,ȱyetȱsuchȱsophisticationȱmightȱalsoȱbeȱaȱsign ofȱ moralȱ decline,ȱ asȱ aȱ virtuousȱ simplicityȱ gaveȱ wayȱ toȱ newȱ techniquesȱ of informationȱ collection.ȱ Tacitistsȱ suchȱ asȱ Matthiasȱ Bernegger,ȱ andȱ hisȱ students Boecklerȱ andȱ Boseȱ wereȱ notableȱ inȱ theirȱ timeȱ asȱ indexers,ȱ bibliographersȱ and collectorsȱ ofȱ notitiaȱ (information)ȱ concerningȱ learning,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ expertsȱ on methodicalȱtravelȱandȱcriticsȱofȱcharacter.94ȱWeȱhaveȱalreadyȱheardȱtheȱadviceȱof BoecklerȱandȱBoseȱonȱhowȱtoȱuseȱfriendsȱtoȱgainȱinformation.ȱTheseȱstudentsȱof MatthiasȱBerneggerȱturnedȱtheirȱcriticalȱgaze,ȱhonedȱbyȱtheȱutilitarianȱstudyȱof

90 91 92

93

94

Ibid,ȱ98.ȱ Ibid,ȱ101. JohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp,ȱDeȱFelicitateȱHuiusȱSeculiȱXVIIȱ(Marburg:ȱChemlin,ȱ1639).ȱSeeȱKühlmann (1982),ȱ150–51ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ56). JohannȱBalthasarȱSchupp,ȱRatioȱStatusȱinȱPromotioneȱMinistrorumȱEcclesiaeȱLutheranaeȱ(s.l.:ȱn.p.., 1662),ȱ3. Johannȱ Heinrichȱ Boeckler,ȱ Bibliographiaȱ HistoricoȬPoliticoȬPhilologicaȱ Curiosaȱ (Frankfurtȱ a.ȱ M.: Schreyȱ andȱ Hamm,ȱ 1677)ȱ andȱ Characteresȱ Politiciȱ Velleianiȱ siveȱ Notitiaȱ ingeniorumȱ (Strasbourg: Mulbius,ȱ1642).ȱJohannȱAndreasȱBose,ȱNotitiaȱScriptorumȱHistoriaeȱUniversalisȱ(Jena:ȱNisius,ȱ1699), andȱCharacteresȱBeataeȱReipublicae,ȱeȱprooemioȱvitaeȱAgricolaeȱaȱCornelioȱTacitoȱscriptaeȱ(Jena:ȱKrebs, 1658).ȱOnȱMatthiasȱBerneggerȱandȱJohannȱHeinrichȱBoeclerȱasȱindexers,ȱseeȱNoelȱMalcolm,ȱ“Thomas Harrisonȱandȱhisȱ‘ArkȱofȱStudies’:ȱAnȱEpisodeȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱtheȱOrganizationȱofȱKnowledge,”ȱThe SeventeenthȱCenturyȱ19.2ȱ(Octoberȱ2004):ȱ196–232;ȱhereȱ215.

PaintedȱFriends

701

humanȱnature,ȱontoȱhistoriaȱliterariaȱ(theȱhistoryȱofȱlearning)ȱasȱwellȱasȱontoȱthe worldȱofȱpolitics.ȱPragmaticȱinformationȱcollection,ȱbornȱoutȱofȱTacitism,ȱwent handȱinȱhandȱwithȱaȱcritical,ȱpoliticizedȱviewȱofȱlearning.ȱThisȱwasȱwhyȱtheȱlate seventeenthȬcenturyȱ bibliographersȱ discussedȱ byȱ Martinȱ Gierlȱ castȱ theirȱ new manualsȱofȱlearnedȱsociabilityȱasȱguidesȱtoȱpoliticalȱandȱcourtlyȱbehavior.95ȱSuch writersȱ simultaneouslyȱ suggestedȱ howȱ toȱ actȱ politicallyȱ andȱ decriedȱ the politicizationȱofȱlearning. TheȱcritiqueȱofȱlearnedȱmoresȱwasȱnotȱanȱEnlightment,ȱbellesȬlettresȱriposteȱtoȱan outmodedȱworldȱofȱlearning,ȱbutȱaȱpartȱofȱtheȱveryȱerudite,ȱyetȱalsoȱveryȱpolitically informedȱgenreȱofȱhistoriaȱliteraria.ȱItȱwasȱinȱthisȱcontextȱthatȱtheȱpoliticalȱroleȱofȱthe albumȱamicorumȱfirstȱattractedȱaȱsystematic,ȱcriticalȱtreatment.ȱWeȱhaveȱalready encounteredȱMichaelȱLilienthal’sȱSchediasmaȱcriticoȬliterariumȱdeȱphiliothecisȱvarioque earundumȱusuȱetȱabusuȱofȱ1711.ȱThisȱworkȱhadȱfollowedȱcloseȱonȱtheȱheelsȱofȱaȱwork onȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱlearningȱofȱ1710,ȱandȱLilienthalȱplacedȱhisȱcriticalȱsurveyȱofȱthe albumȱamicorumȱsquarelyȱinȱtheȱdisciplineȱofȱhistoriaȱliterariaȱinȱhisȱintroduction.96 Heȱ alsoȱ lookedȱ forwardȱ toȱ hisȱ nextȱ work.ȱ Whenȱ describingȱ howȱ inscribersȱ of albumsȱ writeȱ inȱ manyȱ foreignȱ languages,ȱ whichȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ doȱ notȱ even understand,ȱ heȱ commentedȱ thatȱ “Sedȱ haecȱ &ȱ similiaȱ adȱ Machiavellismum Literarium.ȱ.ȱ.ȱpertinent,ȱquodȱdeȱforteȱalioȱtemporeȱscribendiȱdabiturȱoccasioȱ(but theseȱandȱsimilarȱthingsȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱMachiavellismȱofȱtheȱLearned.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱan opportunityȱforȱwritingȱaboutȱthisȱwillȱariseȱperhapsȱatȱanotherȱtime).”97 Theȱ yearȱ afterȱ publishingȱ hisȱ criticalȱ surveyȱ ofȱ theȱ album,ȱ Lilienthalȱ indeed foundȱoccasionȱtoȱprintȱhisȱDeȱMachiavellismoȱliterarioȱ(OnȱLearnedȱMachiavellism) ofȱ 1713.ȱ Lilienthalȱ pointedȱ outȱ inȱ hisȱ introductionȱ thatȱ heȱ hadȱ turnedȱ toȱ his systematicȱstudyȱofȱlearnedȱtricksȱafterȱfinishingȱhisȱstudyȱonȱtheȱalbumȱamicorum inȱ1711,ȱandȱhisȱstudyȱofȱtheȱabusesȱofȱtheȱalbumȱcontributedȱtoȱhisȱcritiqueȱof learnedȱbehavior.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱ“secretsȱofȱstate”ȱdeployedȱbyȱtheȱlearnedȱwasȱthe advertisementȱofȱfalseȱfriendship.ȱAsȱLilienthalȱwrote,ȱthoseȱwhoȱwishedȱtoȱglorify themselvesȱwouldȱrattleȱonȱaboutȱtheirȱfriendshipsȱwithȱfamousȱmenȱwhomȱthey hadȱinȱtruthȱbarelyȱmetȱonce.ȱTheseȱboastersȱofȱfriendshipȱwouldȱpublishȱ(without permission)ȱtheirȱlettersȱwithȱfamousȱmenȱasȱaȱwayȱtoȱpublicizeȱtheirȱrelationship

95

96

97

ChristophȱAugustȱHeumann,ȱDerȱpolitischeȱPhilosophusȱ(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.ȱandȱLeipzig,ȱRenger,ȱ1724) andȱChristianȱThomasius,ȱIntroductioȱadȱPhilosophiamȱAulicam,ȱseuȱLineaeȱPrimaeȱLibriȱdeȱPrudentia Cogitandiȱ etȱ Ratiocinandiȱ (Leipzig:ȱ Thomasius,ȱ 1688).ȱ Martinȱ Gierl,ȱ Pietismusȱ undȱ Aufklärung: TheologischeȱPolemikȱundȱdieȱKommunikationsreformȱderȱWissenschaftȱamȱEmdeȱdesȱ17.ȱJahrhunderts. VeröffentlichungenȱdesȱMaxȬPlanckȬInstitutsȱfürȱGeschichte,ȱ129ȱ(Göttingen:ȱ Vandenhoeckȱ& Ruprecht,ȱ1997),ȱ559.ȱIȱwouldȱlikeȱtoȱexpressȱmyȱthanksȱtoȱAnthonyȱGraftonȱforȱthisȱreference. MichaelȱLilienthal,ȱDeȱHistoriaȱLiterariaȱcertaeȱcujusdamȱgentisȱscribendaȱconsultatioȱ(Leipzigȱand Rostock:ȱJohannȱHeinrichȱRussworm,ȱ1710).ȱSeeȱSchediasmaȱcriticoȬliterariumȱdeȱphiliothecisȱvarioque earundumȱusuȱetȱabusu,ȱvulgoȱvonȱStammȬBüchernȱ(Königsberg:ȱZäncker,ȱ1712),ȱ“Prodromus,”ȱA. Ibid,ȱ23.

702

VeraȱKeller

toȱtheȱentireȱworld.ȱThisȱwasȱaȱtopic,ȱLilienthalȱpointedȱout,ȱwithȱwhichȱheȱhad alreadyȱdealtȱinȱhisȱbookȱonȱtheȱalbum.98ȱLilienthals’sȱDeȱMachiavellismoȱliterario, whichȱ grewȱ fromȱ hisȱ criticalȱ surveyȱ ofȱ allȱ learningȱ andȱ theȱ albumȱ amicorumȱ in particular,ȱ wasȱ theȱ immediateȱ precursorȱ toȱ Johannȱ Burckhardȱ Mencke’sȱ more famousȱ Deȱ charlataneriaȱ eruditorumȱ declamationesȱ duaeȱ (Twoȱ Orationsȱ onȱ the Charlatanryȱ ofȱ theȱ Learned)ȱ deliveredȱ inȱ 1713ȱ andȱ 1715,ȱ asȱ Menckeȱ himself acknowledged.99 Theȱalbumȱcontinuedȱasȱaȱthemeȱinȱtheȱcontinuingȱcriticismȱofȱacademicȱmoeurs. Inȱ1728,ȱJohannȱChristophȱKoechnerȱquotedȱLilienthalȱonȱabusesȱofȱtheȱalbumȱin hisȱOnȱLearnedȱSuperstition.100ȱFromȱZachariasȱConradȱUffenbach’sȱperspectiveȱin 1713,ȱtheȱvenerableȱpracticeȱofȱalbumȱinscription,ȱalthoughȱstillȱuseful,ȱhadȱmostly degeneratedȱtoȱcollectionsȱofȱscurrilousȱsayingsȱandȱobsceneȱpictures.ȱInȱaȱpastoral goldenȱage,ȱtheȱancientsȱhadȱsimplyȱcarvedȱtheȱnamesȱofȱfriendsȱinȱtheȱbarksȱof trees;ȱ theȱ sophisticationȱ ofȱ modernȱ timesȱ hadȱ debauchedȱ evenȱ theȱ memoryȱ of friends.101ȱ Scholarlyȱ criticsȱ ofȱ learningȱ sawȱ themselvesȱ asȱ degeneratesȱ who advancedȱthemselvesȱandȱlearningȱatȱtheȱexpenseȱofȱsocialȱmores.

Conclusion Despiteȱtheȱriseȱofȱscholarshipȱandȱtheȱexpansionȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱseventeenth century,ȱ learnedȱ menȱ comparedȱ theirȱ ownȱ ageȱ unfavorablyȱ withȱ anȱ earlier generation.ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ theȱ obverseȱ ofȱ earlyȱ humanists’ȱ flatteringȱ comparisons betweenȱ themselvesȱ andȱ theȱ generationsȱ precedingȱ them.ȱ Learnedȱ menȱ ofȱ the seventeenthȱ centuryȱ oftenȱ expressedȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ theirsȱ wasȱ aȱ timeȱ of degeneration,ȱratherȱthanȱrenaissance.102ȱ Theȱdeclineȱwasȱnotȱperceivedȱtoȱbeȱinȱlearning,ȱbutȱinȱmores.ȱItȱwasȱclearȱto Boeckler,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱduringȱtheȱperiodȱofȱ“learnedȱstatists,”ȱlearningȱofȱall kindsȱ(notȱonlyȱphilological,ȱorȱhumanist)ȱhadȱreachedȱitsȱacme.ȱWhileȱmodern learningȱhadȱachievedȱaȱlevelȱofȱsophisticationȱasȱneverȱbefore,ȱtheȱdegeneration ofȱmoralsȱthreatenedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱfirstȱsignȱofȱtheȱdownwardȱswingȱofȱknowledge

98

99

100

101

102

MichaelȱLilienthal,ȱDeȱMachiavellismoȱliterario,ȱsiveȱdeȱperversisȱquorundamȱinȱRepublicaȱLiteraria inclarescendiȱartibusȱDissertatioȱhistoricoȬmoralisȱ(Leipzig:ȱHeinrichȱBoye,ȱ1713),ȱ45. JohannȱBurckhardtȱMencke,ȱDeȱcharlataneriaȱeruditorumȱdeclamationesȱduaeȱ(Amsterdam:ȱn.p.,[1715] 1725),ȱprefaceȱ(n.p.). JohannȱChristophȱKoecherȱ(GratianusȱAschpanius),ȱDeȱsuperstitioneȱeruditaȱseuȱlitterariaȱlibellus (Cologne:ȱn.p.,ȱ1728),ȱ30–33.ȱ ZachariasȱConradȱUffenbach,ȱCommerciiȱEpistolarisȱUffenbachianiȱ(UlmȱandȱMemmingen:ȱGaum, 1753),ȱ280–81.ȱTheȱletterȱtoȱJohannȱC.ȱLangiusȱwasȱdatedȱ7ȱDec.,ȱ1713.ȱ Kühlmannȱ(1982),ȱ17ȱ(seeȱnoteȱ56).

PaintedȱFriends

703

too.103ȱTacitistsȱtackledȱtheȱideaȱthatȱ“nonȱfidem,ȱnonȱamicitiamȱinterȱhomines,ȱnon rebusȱintegritatemȱesseȱ(thereȱisȱnoȱfaith,ȱnoȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱmen,ȱnoȱintegrity inȱaffairs)”ȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmajorȱargumentsȱforȱtheȱdeclineȱofȱman.104ȱTheyȱoften arguedȱthatȱsocialȱlifeȱamongȱtheȱancientȱRomansȱhadȱbeenȱjustȱasȱcorrupt,ȱmaking Tacitusȱaȱparticularlyȱusefulȱguideȱtoȱtheirȱownȱtimes.ȱModernȱmanȱhadȱsucceeded inȱrevivingȱancientȱculture,ȱandȱitȱwasȱnotȱaȱprettyȱsight. ScholarlyȱwritersȱonȱlearnedȱMachiavellismȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱriseȱofȱlearning andȱ theȱ declineȱ ofȱ moresȱ wereȱ connected.ȱ Aȱ newȱ emphasisȱ onȱ information collectionȱinȱpoliticsȱencouragedȱtheȱexpansionȱofȱlearnedȱfriendship,ȱthusȱthinning theȱ strengthȱ ofȱ affectiveȱ bondsȱ andȱ suggestingȱ aȱ coldlyȱ utilitarianȱ viewȱ ofȱ all relationships.ȱAsȱgoodȱpolicyȱencouragedȱtheȱcollectionȱofȱarchivesȱandȱlibraries, politicalȱwritersȱdiscussedȱhowȱtoȱcurryȱfavorsȱwithȱlearnedȱfriendsȱasȱsourcesȱof information.ȱDeceptionȱwasȱnotȱonlyȱcondonedȱbutȱtoȱsomeȱextentȱrecommended byȱ manyȱ politicalȱ writers,ȱ includingȱ Lipsius.105ȱ Bloodyȱ religiousȱ war,ȱ sudden defectionsȱ andȱ conversions,ȱ andȱ aȱ shockinglyȱ overtȱ defenseȱ ofȱ deceptionȱ and dissimulationȱ inȱ politicsȱ madeȱ theȱ politicizationȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ aȱ matterȱ ofȱ the utmostȱ concern.ȱ Watchingȱ inȱ horrorȱ asȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ capitulatedȱ toȱ the politicizationȱ ofȱ learning,ȱ seventeenthȬcenturyȱ observersȱ blamedȱ theȱ reasonȱ of stateȱforȱanȱirrevocableȱbreakȱwithȱtheȱpast.ȱ Asȱlearnedȱandȱpoliticalȱnetworksȱintersected,ȱpoliticalȱpracticesȱchallengedȱthe ideaȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ not,ȱ ofȱ course,ȱ theȱ caseȱ thatȱ falseȱ friendsȱ hadȱ never existed,ȱthatȱtheȱRepublicȱofȱLearningȱhadȱbeenȱpreviouslyȱundisturbedȱbyȱstrife, orȱthatȱlearnedȱmenȱdidȱnotȱtoadyȱtoȱpatronsȱbeforeȱtheȱreasonȱofȱstate.ȱRather,ȱa politicalȱpracticeȱgroundedȱuponȱbothȱdeceptionȱandȱtheȱsystematicȱcaptureȱof informationȱraisedȱnewȱconcernsȱaboutȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱsociabilityȱand politics.ȱThisȱtensionȱexplainsȱtheȱexpansionȱofȱtheȱlanguageȱofȱloveȱpreciselyȱin theȱperiodȱwhenȱtheȱsheerȱnumbersȱofȱcontactsȱcollectedȱthroughȱmethodicalȱtravel underminedȱtheȱaffectivenessȱofȱsuchȱrelationships.ȱSometimesȱconsiderationsȱof theȱ reasonȱ ofȱ state,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ pureȱ pursuitȱ ofȱ neoȬStoicȱ rightȱ reason, motivatedȱtheȱmaintenanceȱofȱlearnedȱfriendships.ȱ

103

104

105

Suchȱcriticsȱofȱmodernȱtimesȱdidȱnotȱnecessarilyȱchampionȱancientȱoverȱmodernȱlearning.ȱThey opposedȱtheȱentireȱpracticeȱofȱtakingȱaȱpartyȱline,ȱandȱtheȱdebateȱofȱtheȱancientsȱandȱmodernsȱwas butȱoneȱmoreȱexampleȱofȱtheȱpartyȱpoliticsȱinvadingȱtheȱworldȱofȱlearning.ȱLilienthalȱ(1713),ȱ18–35. Pietroȱ Canoniero,ȱ Dissertationesȱ Politicae,ȱ acȱ Discursusȱ variiȱ inȱ C.ȱ Corneliiȱ Tacitiȱ Annaliumȱ libros (Frankfurtȱa.M.:ȱBecker,ȱ1610),ȱ114,ȱ“Utrumȱseculaȱnostraȱantiquisȱsintȱpeiora,”ȱwhichȱisȱquoted andȱdiscussedȱfurtherȱinȱMathiasȱBernegger,ȱExȱC.ȱCorneliiȱTacitiȱGermaniaȱetȱAgricola,ȱQuaestiones miscellaneaeȱ(Strasbourg:ȱn.p.,ȱ1640),ȱQuaestioȱ108. SeeȱJohannȱHeinrichȱBoeckler’sȱcriticismȱofȱLipsiusȱforȱsupportingȱwithinȱtheȱPoliticaȱaȱ“perverse” reasonȱofȱstate,ȱwhileȱclaimingȱtoȱopposeȱit.ȱJohannȱHeinrichȱBoeckler,ȱDeȱPoliticisȱJustiȱLipsii (Strasbourg:ȱn.p.,ȱ1642),ȱ62.

704

VeraȱKeller

Theȱ popularityȱ ofȱ Lipsianȱ constancyȱ throughȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ centuryȱ is undeniable.ȱ Yetȱ whatȱ didȱ constancyȱ reallyȱ mean?106ȱ Ifȱ weȱ takeȱ theȱ beautiful portraitȱofȱfriendshipȱpaintedȱbyȱLipsiusȱinȱOnȱConstancyȱatȱfaceȱvalue,ȱthenȱwe willȱbelieveȱthatȱtheȱrich,ȱintimateȱfriendshipsȱofȱlateȱhumanistsȱprotectedȱthem fromȱtheȱviolenceȱandȱstrifeȱofȱpoliticsȱinȱtheȱworldȱoutside.ȱWeȱmightȱthink,ȱas HenryȱWottonȱdid,ȱthatȱwhatȱwasȱwrittenȱinȱanȱalbumȱamicorumȱstaysȱinȱtheȱalbum amicorum.ȱ Inȱ reality,ȱ theȱ languageȱ ofȱ affectionȱ oftenȱ concealedȱ andȱ mediated literaryȱandȱpoliticalȱespionageȱwithinȱtheȱpaintedȱworldȱofȱseventeenthȬcentury intellectualȱlife.

106

Davidȱ G.ȱ Halstedȱ inȱ Poetryȱ andȱ Politicsȱ inȱ theȱ Silesianȱ Baroque:ȱ NeoȬStoicismȱ inȱ theȱ Workȱ of ChristophorusȱColerusȱandȱhisȱCircle.ȱWolfenbüttelerȱArbeitenȱzurȱBarockforschung,ȱ26ȱ(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,ȱ1996)ȱarguesȱthatȱconstancyȱwasȱflexibleȱenoughȱtoȱreferȱtoȱalmostȱanyȱsocialȱand politicalȱdynamic,ȱincludingȱtheȱfarȬflungȱnetworksȱofȱexchangeȱoperatingȱinȱCentralȱandȱEastern Europe.ȱBothȱBerneggerȱandȱSchoppeȱpromotedȱStoicȱconstancy,ȱforȱinstance.ȱSeeȱalsoȱHarris, “TheȱPracticeȱofȱCommunity,”ȱ316.ȱ

PaintedȱFriends

705

Fig.ȱ1:ȱPeterȱPaulȱRubens,ȱ“PeterȱPaulȱRubens,ȱPhilipȱRubens,ȱJustusȱLipsiusand JohannesȱWoverius”(“TheȱFourȱPhilosophers”),ȱ1611–1612,ȱ Florence,ȱPalazzoȱPittiȱ

Chapterȱ18 L.ȱBelleeȱJones (EmoryȱUniversity,ȱAtlanta,ȱGeorgia)

“IfȱIȱmustȱexampleȱbee”:ȱDonne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱas SpeculumȱAmicitiae1ȱ

InȱtheȱsecondȱchapterȱofȱTextualȱIntercourse,ȱJeffreyȱMastenȱdiscussesȱtheȱvarious discoursesȱonȱfriendship,ȱwhichȱheȱallegesȱproduceȱaȱ“contextȱofȱaȱcollaborative homoerotics,”2ȱ mostȱ significantȱ toȱ collaborativeȱ writingȱ relationshipsȱ inȱ late sixteenthȬȱandȱearlyȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱdramaticȱwriting.ȱTheȱparticularsȱofȱthe homoerotic,ȱ collaborativeȱ exchangesȱ Mastenȱ exploresȱ areȱ notȱ ofȱ immediate importanceȱforȱtheȱpurposesȱofȱthisȱpaper.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱtextȱMasten discussesȱmost,ȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne’sȱ“Deȱl’Amitié”ȱ(inȱhisȱEssais)ȱandȱtheȱallȬ encompassingȱeffectsȱwhichȱMastenȱassertsȱthatȱtextȱhasȱonȱbothȱtheȱcomposition processȱandȱourȱsubsequentȱreadingsȱofȱthoseȱdramaticȱtextsȱareȱsignificantȱforȱthe precedentsȱtheyȱsetȱforȱscholarshipȱconcerningȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱtexts.3ȱLaurie ShannonȱexpandsȱMasten’sȱbriefȱtreatmentȱofȱfriendshipȱtextsȱandȱtheirȱpervasive effectsȱ onȱ earlyȱ modernȱ literatureȱ inȱ Sovereignȱ Amity:ȱ Figuresȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ in ShakespeareanȱContexts,ȱwhereinȱsheȱwidensȱtheȱscopeȱofȱfriendshipȱtextsȱtoȱinclude examplesȱwhichȱantedateȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiodȱandȱincludesȱlyricȱpoetryȱfrom

1

2

3

IȱamȱgratefulȱforȱtheȱinsightsȱandȱsuggestionsȱofȱRichardȱRambussȱ(EmoryȱUniversity),ȱwhoȱread anȱ earlyȱ versionȱ ofȱ thisȱ paperȱ andȱ encouragedȱ meȱ toȱ pursueȱ itȱ further.ȱ Iȱ alsoȱ appreciateȱ the supportȱandȱcarefulȱfeedbackȱIȱreceivedȱfromȱCecileȱGrayȱ(UniversityȱCatholicȱCenter,ȱUCLA), DavidȱMasteyȱ(CarletonȱUniversity),ȱandȱJuliaȱBorekȱ(UniversityȱofȱAlabama). JeffreyȱMasten,ȱTextualȱIntercourse:ȱCollaboration,ȱAuthorship,ȱandȱSexualitiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱDrama. CambridgeȱStudiesȱinȱRenaissanceȱLiteratureȱandȱCulture,ȱ14ȱ(Cambridge:ȱCambridgeȱUniversity Press,ȱ1997),ȱ37.ȱ ReginaldȱHyatteȱalsoȱaddressesȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱfriendshipȱtextsȱonȱliteratureȱinȱLatin,ȱFrench,ȱand ItalianȱfromȱtheȱtwelfthȱthroughȱmidȬfifteenthȱcenturiesȱinȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship:ȱTheȱIdealization ofȱFriendshipȱinȱMedievalȱandȱEarlyȱRenaissanceȱLiterature.ȱBrill’sȱStudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ50 (LeidenȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1994),ȱandȱsetsȱimportantȱprecedentsȱinȱthisȱfieldȱofȱstudy.ȱ

708

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

theȱ sixteenthȬȱ andȱ seventeenthȬcenturiesȱ alongsideȱ dramaticȱ works.ȱ The rhetoricianȱofȱfriendshipȱShannonȱmostȱoftenȱmentionsȱisȱCicero,ȱthoughȱheȱis closelyȱfollowedȱbyȱMontaigneȱinȱbothȱtheȱnumberȱofȱparticularȱcitationsȱShannon givesȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ herȱ discussionsȱ ofȱ theirȱ texts,ȱ style,ȱ andȱ contentȱ inȱ general. Shannonȱtakesȱcareȱtoȱprovideȱaȱwiderȱculturalȱcontextȱandȱreceptionȱinformation concerningȱtheseȱfriendshipȱtexts.ȱCicero’sȱDeȱamicitia,ȱforȱexample,ȱ playsȱanȱastonishinglyȱkeyȱroleȱinȱtheȱschoolȱcurriculaȱformulatedȱbyȱhumanistȱand educationȱwriters,ȱwhereȱitȱappearsȱasȱaȱgatewayȱtextȱintoȱLatinȱlearning.ȱItsȱspecial placeȱderivedȱfromȱitsȱdoubleȱserviceȱasȱaȱmodelȱforȱbothȱgrammaticalȱandȱ‘moral’ imitation.4ȱ

AccordingȱtoȱShannon,ȱeducationalȱpracticesȱlikeȱthoseȱdescribedȱinȱAscham’sȱThe Scholemaster5ȱ andȱ Englishȱ translationsȱ ofȱ Deȱ amicitiaȱ “distributeȱ [friendship’s] tropesȱ fartherȱ afieldȱ andȱ locateȱ itȱ atȱ theȱ heartȱ ofȱ aȱ secularȱ publicȱ culture”ȱ and “ma[d]eȱavailableȱaȱdiscourseȱofȱ(doubled)ȱselfȬformationȱbyȱtakingȱfriendship tropesȱ‘outȱofȱLatinȱintoȱEnglish.’”ȱFurther,ȱtheȱtext’sȱwideȱdisseminationȱpointsȱto “anȱexpandingȱreadershipȱdeemedȱtoȱbeȱactivelyȱinterestedȱinȱconsumingȱclassical examplesȱbyȱputtingȱthemȱtoȱuseȱtoȱdetectȱandȱtoȱpracticeȱ‘true’ȱfriendship”ȱand “attestsȱtoȱaȱquotidianȱpresenceȱforȱCicero’sȱtext”ȱandȱothers.6ȱ MastenȱandȱShannonȱprovideȱkeyȱobservationsȱonȱwhichȱsubsequentȱscholarship concerningȱearlyȱmodernȱtextsȱshouldȱbeȱbased:ȱfirst,ȱfriendshipȱtexts—especially Deȱamicitiaȱandȱ“Deȱl’Amitié”—andȱtheirȱvariousȱtropesȱwereȱkeyȱcomponentsȱof literaryȱ cultureȱ duringȱ theȱ sixteenthȱ andȱ seventeenthȱ centuries,ȱ whetherȱ their specificȱinclusionȱinȱaȱparticularȱliteraryȱproductionȱwasȱconsciousȱonȱtheȱauthor’s partȱorȱnot;ȱsecond,ȱasȱShannonȱassertsȱbest,ȱearlyȱmodernȱwritersȱ“celebrated friendshipȱinȱaȱveryȱspecificȱform”ȱandȱ“soȱextensivelyȱengagedȱtheȱtropesȱofȱamity thatȱ theȱ expressionȱ ‘Renaissanceȱ friendship’ȱ nowȱ routinelyȱ namesȱ theȱ entire discursiveȱphenomenon;”7ȱfinally,ȱevenȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱfriendshipȱtropesȱcould easily,ȱandȱoftenȱdid,ȱshiftȱtowardȱtheȱsexualȱorȱamorous.ȱMastenȱandȱShannon seekȱtoȱexplainȱandȱexploreȱspecificȱconnectionsȱbetweenȱprimaryȱfriendshipȱtexts andȱsecondaryȱliteraryȱtexts.ȱ Mastenȱ“seeksȱbothȱtoȱrewriteȱtheȱnormativeȱcriticalȱviewȱofȱRenaissanceȱmale friendship,ȱinȱwhichȱfriendshipȱisȱtakenȱtoȱoccludeȱhomoeroticism,ȱandȱtoȱprovide

4

5

6 7

Laurieȱ Shannon,ȱ Sovereignȱ Amity:ȱ Figuresȱ ofȱ Friendshipȱ inȱ Shakespeareanȱ Contextsȱ (Chicagoȱ and London:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ2002),ȱ26–27.ȱ Theȱ foremostȱ ofȱ these,ȱ inȱ Shannon’sȱ estimation,ȱ isȱ Ascham’sȱ “celebratedȱ ‘doubleȱ translation’ technique,”ȱwhereinȱstudentsȱtranslatedȱCicero’sȱDeȱamicitiaȱandȱotherȱtextsȱfromȱLatinȱtoȱEnglish, andȱbackȱagain,ȱrepeatedly.ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ23–25. Shannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ23–25.ȱSeeȱalsoȱAlbrechtȱClassen’sȱIntroductionȱtoȱthisȱvolume Shannon,ȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ1.

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

709

aȱculturalȱperspectiveȱonȱcollaborationȱasȱaȱtextualȱpractice,”8ȱandȱheȱusesȱTheȱTwo GentlemenȱofȱVeronaȱandȱTheȱTwoȱNobleȱKinsmen,ȱtextsȱtraditionallyȱassociatedȱwith maleȬmaleȱfriendship,ȱtoȱtroubleȱtheseȱconcepts.ȱShannon,ȱtoo,ȱseeksȱtoȱtrouble friendshipȱinȱTheȱTwoȱNobleȱKinsmen,ȱTheȱHenriad,ȱandȱElizabethȱCary’sȱTragedyȱof Mariam,ȱallȱtextsȱwhichȱemployȱfriendshipȱasȱaȱplotȱdevice.ȱTheȱworkȱMastenȱand Shannonȱ accomplishȱ inȱ theirȱ respectiveȱ booksȱ isȱ seminalȱ forȱ theȱ studyȱ of friendshipȱ itselfȱ andȱ ofȱ paramountȱ importanceȱ toȱ ourȱ understandingȱ ofȱ and approachesȱtoȱearlyȱmodernȱliterature.ȱHowever,ȱMastenȱandȱShannonȱworkȱwith textsȱinȱwhichȱfriendshipȱplaysȱanȱobviousȱpart;ȱtheȱworkȱofȱtheseȱtwoȱscholars, therefore,ȱfocusesȱitselfȱnotȱonȱestablishingȱfriendship’sȱroleȱinȱtheȱtextȱbutȱonȱthe reassessmentȱofȱthoseȱfriendshipsȱandȱtheȱfunctionsȱofȱthoseȱfriendships.9ȱ ThisȱpaperȱwillȱdeviateȱfromȱMasten’sȱandȱShannon’sȱapproachesȱinsofarȱasȱit willȱexploreȱportionsȱofȱaȱsetȱofȱtexts—JohnȱDonne’sȱSongsȱandȱSonnets—which haveȱnotȱbeenȱpreviouslyȱassociatedȱbyȱscholarsȱwithȱfriendship.ȱThoughȱDonne doesȱ writeȱ theȱ sortsȱ ofȱ textsȱ Mastenȱ andȱ Shannonȱ mightȱ reassess10—including poemsȱsuchȱasȱ“Sir,ȱmoreȱthanȱkisses”ȱandȱ“Allȱhaile,ȱsweetȱPoet”11—inȱwhich friendshipȱ playsȱ aȱ pronouncedȱ roleȱ andȱ deservesȱ aȱ second,ȱ perhapsȱ queering glanceȱ fromȱ modernȱ scholars,ȱ theȱ Songsȱ andȱ Sonnetsȱ haveȱ notȱ receivedȱ such attention.ȱPerhapsȱthisȱisȱdueȱtoȱaȱprevailingȱtendencyȱinȱscholarshipȱtoȱsurround thoseȱ particularȱpoemsȱwithȱtermsȱwhich,ȱtoȱourȱmodernȱears,ȱwouldȱseemȱto precludeȱfriendship.ȱDameȱHelenȱGardner’sȱ“GeneralȱIntroduction”ȱtoȱTheȱElegies andȱtheȱSongsȱandȱSonnets,ȱanȱimportantȱandȱhighlyȱinfluentialȱmodernȱeditionȱof Donne’sȱwork,ȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱfourteenȬpageȱpieceȱconcerningȱ“TheȱLoveȬPoetryȱof JohnȱDonne.”12ȱ Manyȱ editionsȱ ofȱ Donne’sȱ workȱ surroundȱ theȱ poemsȱ withȱ theȱ termsȱ love, amorous,ȱandȱPetrarchanȱorȱPetrarchist,ȱasȱdoȱmostȱofȱtheȱscholarlyȱarticlesȱwritten onȱDonneȱeachȱyear.ȱTheseȱtermsȱareȱcertainlyȱvaluableȱtoȱtheȱwaysȱweȱreadȱand thinkȱofȱDonne’sȱwork.ȱTheȱpossibilityȱremains,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱmodernȱassociations withȱloveȱandȱPetrarchanȱmayȱcauseȱscholarsȱtoȱoverlookȱorȱignoreȱspecificȱallusions

8 9 10

11

12

Masten,ȱTextualȱIntercourse,ȱ37. SeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱMiriamȱSarahȱMarotzki. Indeed,ȱShannonȱdoesȱrevisitȱDonne’sȱuseȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱpoemsȱ“ElegieȱtoȱtheȱLadyȱBedford” andȱ“SaphoȱtoȱPhilaenis.”ȱSeeȱChaptersȱTwoȱandȱThreeȱofȱSovereignȱAmity,ȱ86–89ȱandȱ94–95.ȱ Forȱanȱexampleȱofȱsimilarȱscholarlyȱattentionȱpaidȱtoȱ“Allȱhaile,ȱsweetȱPoet,”ȱseeȱGeorgeȱKlawitter, “VerseȱLettersȱtoȱT.ȱW.ȱfromȱJohnȱDonne:ȱ‘ByȱYouȱMyȱLoveȱIsȱSent,’”ȱHomosexualityȱinȱRenaissance andȱEnlightenmentȱEngland:ȱLiteraryȱRepresentationsȱinȱHistoricalȱContext,ȱed.ȱClaudeȱJ.ȱSummers (Binghamton,ȱNY:ȱHaworth,ȱ1992),ȱ87–102. TheȱElegiesȱandȱtheȱSongsȱandȱSonnets,ȱed.ȱHelenȱGardnerȱ(Oxford:ȱClarendonȱPress,ȱ1965),ȱxvii–xxx. Workingȱtextsȱforȱpoemsȱexaminedȱinȱthisȱpaperȱcomeȱfromȱthisȱeditionȱandȱwillȱbeȱsignaledȱvia lineȱnumbersȱinȬtext.

710

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

toȱ friendshipȱ textsȱ andȱ otherȱ commonȱ tropesȱ surroundingȱ maleȱ friendship,ȱ a relationshipȱintegralȱtoȱearlyȱmodernȱsociety.ȱ Withȱthisȱinȱmind,ȱthisȱpaperȱwillȱexamineȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱfriendshipȱinȱthe SongsȱandȱSonnetsȱthroughȱaȱparticularȱsetȱofȱpoems:ȱ“TheȱBrokenȱHeart,”ȱ“The Legacie,”ȱ“TheȱMessage,”ȱandȱ“TheȱBlossome.”ȱTheseȱpoemsȱhaveȱbeenȱchosen overȱothersȱbecauseȱtheyȱemployȱimagesȱofȱtheȱheart,ȱparticularlyȱthoseȱhavingȱto doȱwithȱtheȱPetrarchanȱtropeȱofȱexchangedȱhearts.ȱFocusingȱonȱaȱquartetȱofȱlittleȬ attendedȱpoemsȱwhichȱseemȱtoȱrestȱfirmlyȱinȱtheȱrealmȱofȱ“loveȬpoetry.”13ȱIȱintend toȱdepartȱfromȱpreviousȱscholarship,ȱwhichȱlargelyȱignoresȱfriendshipȱinȱDonne’s work,ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ establishȱ andȱ examineȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ maleȱ friendshipȱ in Donne’sȱamorousȱverseȱandȱtoȱencourageȱaȱrereadingȱofȱtheȱSongsȱandȱSonnetsȱwith bothȱpedagogyȱandȱfriendshipȱinȱmind.ȱTheȱexchangeȱofȱheartsȱsuchȱluminary intellectualsȱasȱPetrarch,ȱCicero,ȱMontaigne,ȱandȱDonneȱaddressȱisȱmoreȱproperly completedȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱmaleȱfriendship,ȱaȱmutualȱhomosocialȱbond,ȱthan inȱamorousȱheterosexualȱrelationships.ȱ Accordingȱtoȱclassicalȱandȱearlyȱmodernȱfriendshipȱtexts,ȱwomenȱeitherȱdoȱnot haveȱproperȱhearts,ȱorȱdoȱnotȱunderstandȱtheȱproperȱworkingsȱofȱtheȱheart,ȱor both.ȱTherefore,ȱmenȱandȱtheirȱheartsȱwouldȱbeȱbetterȱservedȱthroughȱfriendships withȱotherȱmen,ȱleavingȱoffȱamorousȱpursuitsȱentirely.ȱThoughȱtheȱpossibilityȱof abandoningȱ suchȱ pursuitsȱ isȱ slight,ȱ Donne’sȱ poemsȱ nonethelessȱ serveȱ as pedagogicalȱ textsȱ inȱ twoȱ keyȱ ways:ȱ first,ȱ theȱ textsȱ concernȱ themselvesȱ with amorousȱloveȱandȱitsȱpitfalls,ȱandȱteachȱtheirȱaudiencesȱhowȱtoȱavoidȱtheseȱfates; second,ȱfriendshipȱtextsȱcomplicateȱtheȱPetrarchanȱloveȱconceitsȱDonneȱemploys, therebyȱenablingȱtheseȱpoemsȱtoȱinstructȱtheirȱreadersȱonȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱproper friendshipȱasȱaȱsortȱofȱspeculumȱamicitiae,ȱorȱmirrorȱofȱfriendship.ȱ SomeȱgroundworkȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱdisplayȱtheȱpedagogicalȱtendencyȱofȱDonne’s “love”ȱpoetryȱandȱmoveȱusȱintoȱaȱconsiderationȱofȱtheȱheartȱpoemsȱasȱfriendship texts.ȱTheȱpedagogicalȱcomponentȱofȱ“TheȱExtasie”ȱisȱplain,ȱandȱweȱmayȱbeginȱour explorationȱofȱDonne’sȱpoeticȱpedagogyȱhere.ȱTheȱthirdȬpartyȱwhoȱfirstȱappears inȱlineȱtwentyȬoneȱnotȱonlyȱwitnessesȱtheȱinteranimationȱofȱtheȱtwoȱlovers’ȱsouls, butȱ“Might,”ȱtheȱspeakerȱpostulates,ȱ“thenceȱaȱnewȱconcoctionȱtake,ȱ/ȱAndȱpart farreȱpurerȱthanȱheȱcame”ȱ(27–28)ȱifȱheȱcouldȱonlyȱunderstandȱ“soulesȱlanguage” (22).ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱ“someȱlover,”ȱthoughȱ“heȱshallȱseeȱ/ȱsmallȱchange”ȱonceȱthe loversȱhaveȱreassumedȱtheirȱbodiesȱ(72–76),ȱmightȱfindȱhimselfȱchangedȱthrough hisȱvoyeuristicȱexperience.ȱTheȱloversȱ“turne”ȱbackȱtoȱtheirȱphysicalȱbodies,ȱ“that soȱ/ȱWeakeȱmenȱonȱloveȱreveal’dȱmayȱlooke,”ȱaȱpedagogicalȱmoveȱnecessitatedȱby

13

Gardner,ȱforȱinstance,ȱspeaksȱparticularlyȱaboutȱthreeȱofȱtheseȱpoems—“TheȱBrokenȱHeart,”ȱ“The Message,”ȱandȱ“TheȱLegacie”—identifyingȱthemȱasȱversesȱinȱwhichȱDonneȱ“play[s]ȱtheȱdespairing loverȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱallȱmadeȱofȱtearsȱandȱsighsȱandȱgroans,ȱfaithfulȱtoȱaȱmistressȱwhoȱdeniesȱorȱbetraysȱhim” (xx).

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

711

theȱfactȱthat,ȱwhileȱ“Lovesȱmysteriesȱinȱsoulesȱdoeȱgrow,ȱ/ȱButȱyetȱtheȱbodyȱisȱhis booke”ȱ(69–70).ȱTheȱloversȱreturnȱtoȱtheirȱphysicalȱbodiesȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱfurther serveȱasȱpedagogicalȱinstruments—explicitlyȱtexts,ȱhere,ȱbutȱalsoȱvisualȱaides—for observersȱ whoȱ haveȱ notȱ experiencedȱ suchȱ rareȱ heightsȱ ofȱ love.ȱ Notably,ȱ such observersȱareȱmen. Still,ȱtheȱpedagogicalȱelementȱofȱ“TheȱExtasie”ȱisȱwrappedȱupȱinȱtheȱthirdȬparty’s experienceȱofȱtheȱPlatonicȱminglingȱofȱtheȱlovers’ȱsouls.ȱInȱaȱmoreȱPetrarchanȱtext, thoseȱsoulsȱwouldȱlikelyȱbeȱhearts;ȱthus,ȱ“TheȱExtasie”ȱmayȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱsuccessful exchangeȱ ofȱ heartsȱ presentedȱ inȱ Donne’sȱ Songsȱ andȱ Sonnets.ȱ Theȱ termsȱ “soul,” “heart,”ȱandȱ“mind”ȱwereȱnotȱentirelyȱseparateȱinȱtheȱearlyȱmodernȱperiodȱdueȱto heavyȱrelianceȱuponȱandȱbeliefȱinȱclassicalȱideasȱconcerningȱtheȱorgansȱtoȱwhich theȱ termsȱ connect.ȱ Platoȱ separatedȱ theȱ “immortalȱ soul”ȱ andȱ reasonȱ fromȱ the emotionsȱ andȱ theȱ “mortalȱ soul,”ȱ placingȱ themȱ inȱ theȱ headȱ andȱ breast respectively.14ȱ However,ȱ Aristotelianȱ interpretationsȱ ofȱ bodilyȱ functionsȱ and propertiesȱfigureȱbothȱtheȱheartȱandȱbrainȱasȱrespiratoryȱorgans,ȱwhereȱtheȱbrain’s functionȱisȱtoȱcool,ȱthroughȱphlegm,ȱ“theȱgreatȱheatȱgeneratedȱbyȱtheȱheart.”15ȱThe heart,ȱaccordingȱtoȱGalen,ȱproducedȱpneuma,ȱ“whichȱisȱcontinuallyȱcreatedȱand renewedȱinsideȱtheȱbodyȱsoȱlongȱasȱthereȱisȱheatȱandȱlife.ȱItȱisȱtheȱvehicleȱofȱtheȱsoul, andȱasȱsuchȱisȱresponsibleȱforȱreproductionȱandȱmovement.”16ȱ Theȱ Hippocraticȱ heartȱ wasȱ dividedȱ intoȱ twoȱ chambers,ȱ theȱ leftȱ ofȱ which “containedȱ humanȱ intelligence,ȱ theȱ principleȱ whichȱ rulesȱ overȱ theȱ restȱ ofȱ the soul.”17ȱTheseȱclassicalȱfigurationsȱofȱtheȱheart,ȱmind,ȱandȱsoul18ȱextendedȱtoȱthe earlyȱmodernȱperiod.ȱTheȱmindȱandȱsoul,ȱwhichȱweȱthinkȱofȱasȱnonȬphysicalȱor ethereal,ȱareȱoftenȱfigured,ȱtherefore,ȱasȱphysicalȱentities.ȱScottȱManningȱStevens explainsȱthatȱ“seventeenthȬcenturyȱphysiologyȱwasȱonlyȱbeginningȱtoȱquestionȱthe functionȱofȱtheȱheartȱasȱaȱmuscleȱandȱnotȱasȱanȱorganȱofȱthought,ȱorȱatȱleastȱnotȱthe centerȱ ofȱ ourȱ emotionalȱ life.ȱ Theseȱ categoriesȱ wereȱ inȱ noȱ wayȱ rigidlyȱ defined. Thus,”ȱStevensȱcontinues,ȱ“Donneȱcanȱreferȱtoȱhisȱ‘nakedȱthinkingȱHeart’ȱinȱ‘The Blossom.’”19ȱ

14

15 16 17 18

19

RobertȱA.ȱErickson,ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750.ȱNewȱCulturalȱStudiesȱ(Philadelphia: UniversityȱofȱPennsylvaniaȱPress,ȱ1997),ȱ1. Erickson,ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750,ȱ3–4. Erickson,ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750,ȱ4,ȱemphasisȱmine. Hippocrates,ȱDeȱcorde,ȱquotedȱinȱErickson,ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750,ȱ3. Forȱmoreȱinformationȱonȱtheseȱfigurationsȱandȱtheirȱextensionsȱintoȱtheȱperiod,ȱseeȱErickson’s “Introduction:ȱWritingȱtheȱHeartȱfromȱPlatoȱtoȱHobbes,”ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750, 1–24,ȱandȱWilliamȱW.ȱE.ȱSlights,ȱTheȱHeartȱinȱtheȱAgeȱofȱShakespeareȱ(Cambridge,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.: CambridgeȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ2008). Scottȱ Manningȱ Stevens,ȱ “Sacredȱ Heartȱ andȱ Secularȱ Brain,”ȱ Theȱ Bodyȱ inȱ Parts:ȱ Fantasiesȱ of CorporealityȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEurope,ȱed.ȱDavidȱHillmanȱandȱCarlaȱMazzioȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱLondon: Routledge,ȱ1997),ȱ263–83;ȱhere,ȱ267.

712

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

“Theȱ Blossome,”ȱ likeȱ theȱ otherȱ poemsȱ underȱ considerationȱ here,ȱ treatsȱ the heart/mind/soulȱasȱaȱparticularȱphysicalȱentity—theȱheart,ȱaȱmaterialȱentityȱtoȱbe manipulatedȱ andȱ exchanged—ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ mostlyȬetherealȱ versionȱ ofȱ the heart/mind/soulȱ onȱ whichȱ “Theȱ Extasie”ȱ turns.ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ viewȱ Donne’s pedagogicalȱpoeticsȱinȱmoreȱphysicalȱterms,ȱthen,ȱletȱusȱturnȱtoȱ“LovesȱExchange,” aȱpoemȱwhichȱusesȱtheȱtermȱsouleȱbutȱendowsȱthatȱsoulȱwithȱphysicalȱattributesȱnot unlikeȱthoseȱbelongingȱtoȱtheȱheartȱinȱDonne’sȱmoreȱPetrarchanȱ“loveȬpoetry.” CriticsȱunderstandablyȱplaceȱemphasisȱonȱtheȱPetrarchanȱimagesȱpresentȱinȱthe poem,ȱwhichȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱseeminglyȱtypicalȱlover’sȱcomplaint:ȱ“Love,ȱanyȱdevill elseȱ butȱ youȱ /ȱ Wouldȱ forȱ aȱ givenȱ Souleȱ giveȱ somethingȱ too”ȱ (1–2).ȱ “Loves Exchange”ȱdepends,ȱlikeȱmanyȱotherȱpoemsȱinȱtheȱPetrarchanȱcorpus,ȱuponȱan actualȱexchangeȱofȱgoods—inȱthisȱcaseȱsouls—andȱtheȱspeaker’sȱnotionȱthatȱhe suffersȱmoreȱthanȱanyoneȱelse.20ȱTheȱspeakerȱinvokesȱnotȱonlyȱotherȱmenȱatȱCourt butȱotherȱgods—Love’sȱ“fellowes,”ȱwhoȱ“Giveȱth’artȱofȱRiming,ȱHuntsmanship, orȱ Play,ȱ /ȱ Forȱ themȱ whichȱ wereȱ theirȱ owneȱ before”ȱ (3–6)—toȱ emphasizeȱ the injusticeȱpresentȱinȱLove’sȱeconomy.ȱTheȱspeaker,ȱ“whichȱgaveȱmore,”ȱpossesses “nothing”ȱ andȱ findsȱ himself,ȱ “byȱ beingȱ lowly,ȱ lower”ȱ (6–7).ȱ Allȱ ofȱ thisȱ is commonplace,ȱtheȱusualȱstuffȱofȱ“loveȬpoetry.”ȱ “LovesȱExchange”ȱturns,ȱthough,ȱonȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱspeaker’sȱlowlyȱpositionȱin Love’sȱgracesȱplacesȱhimȱinȱanȱidealȱpedagogicalȱpositionȱforȱinstructingȱnotȱonly Loveȱhimselfȱbutȱalsoȱotherȱpotentialȱlovers,ȱthoseȱmenȱatȱCourtȱwhoȱreceiveȱthe “something”ȱtheyȱoughtȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱrulesȱofȱexchange.ȱThoughȱLoveȱwould seemȱtoȱthinkȱhisȱangerȱtowardȱandȱmistreatmentȱofȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱenoughȱtoȱset anȱexampleȱforȱotherȱerrantȱmen,ȱtheȱspeakerȱhasȱotherȱideas,ȱandȱsuggestsȱhis ownȱ deathȱ andȱ subsequentȱ medicalȱ dissectionȱ asȱ aȱ moreȱ fruitfulȱ pedagogical exercise: IfȱIȱmustȱexampleȱbeeȱ ToȱfutureȱRebells;ȱIfȱth’unborneȱ Mustȱlearne,ȱbyȱmyȱbeingȱcutȱup,ȱandȱtorne:ȱ Kill,ȱandȱdissectȱme,ȱLove;ȱforȱthisȱ Tortureȱagainstȱthineȱowneȱendȱis,ȱ Rack’tȱcarcassesȱmakeȱillȱAnatomies.ȱ

(37–42)

However,ȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱnotȱalwaysȱaȱwillingȱpedagogicalȱdevice.ȱPreviously,ȱthe speakerȱhasȱexpressedȱanxietyȱandȱconcernedȱhimselfȱwithȱbothȱpublicȱpropriety andȱobfuscation.ȱInȱtheȱthirdȱstanzaȱespecially,ȱtheȱspeakerȱwishesȱtoȱconcealȱhis

20

Theȱ poetryȱ ofȱ Robertȱ Herrick,ȱ especially,ȱ worksȱ alongȱ theseȱ sameȱ axes.ȱ Forȱ aȱ discussionȱ of Herrick’sȱexchangeȱpoetry,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱmaleȱspeakerȱoftenȱ“becomesȱabsorbedȱintoȱtheȱgifted object,”ȱandȱinsightȱintoȱtheȱsignificanceȱofȱloveȱtokensȱinȱearlyȱmodernȱEnglishȱcultureȱinȱgeneral, seeȱ Pamelaȱ Hammons,ȱ “Robertȱ Herrick’sȱ Giftȱ Trouble:ȱ Maleȱ Subjectsȱ ‘TransȬshifting’ȱ into Objects,”ȱCriticismȱ47.1ȱ(Winterȱ2005):ȱ31–64.

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

713

menialȱpositionȱinȱLove’sȱcourt,ȱandȱevenȱtoȱunlearnȱtheȱthingsȱheȱknows.ȱHeȱbegs Loveȱto: Giveȱmeeȱthyȱweaknesse,ȱmakeȱmeeȱblinde,ȱ Bothȱways,ȱasȱthouȱandȱthine,ȱinȱeiesȱandȱminde; Love,ȱletȱmeȱneverȱknowȱthatȱthis Isȱlove,ȱor,ȱthatȱloveȱchildishȱis.

ȱ(15–18)

TheȱspeakerȱmakesȱaȱclearȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱLoveȱandȱlove,ȱechoingȱtheȱtwo typesȱofȱblindnessȱheȱdesires.ȱAnd,ȱsinceȱtheȱspeakerȱcannotȱblindȱothersȱtoȱhis fate,ȱheȱasks: Letȱmeȱnotȱknowȱthatȱothersȱknow Thatȱsheȱknowsȱmyȱpaines,ȱleastȱthatȱso Aȱtenderȱshameȱmakeȱmeȱmineȱowneȱnewȱwoe.ȱ (19–21, ȱemphasisȱmine)

Aȱ lackȱ ofȱ selfȬawarenessȱ andȱ disclosureȱ willȱ serve,ȱ apparently,ȱ toȱ easeȱ the speaker’sȱpain.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱspeaker’sȱshiftȱtoȱaȱpedagogicalȱdeviceȱ inȱstanza six—theȱexampleȱorȱ“Anatomie”ȱnecessaryȱforȱothersȱtoȱ“learne”—isȱmadeȱviable throughȱ painȱ andȱ theȱ visibilityȱ ofȱ thatȱ painȱ toȱ others.ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ speakerȱ is concernedȱwithȱconcealmentȱandȱexposure,ȱtheȱpoem’sȱlastȱlinesȱserveȱasȱaȱvolta ofȱsorts,ȱwhereinȱheȱisȱwillingȱtoȱbeȱdisplayedȱforȱtheȱgoodȱofȱothersȱsinceȱheȱmust sufferȱanyway.ȱTheȱshiftȱinȱtheȱspeaker’sȱconcernsȱisȱmarkedȱbyȱhisȱmetamorphosis intoȱ“anȱobjectȱofȱstudy,ȱworship,ȱorȱlove,”ȱwhichȱisȱaȱ“crucialȱfantasyȱinȱDonne,” accordingȱtoȱKennethȱGross:ȱ Sometimesȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱconvertedȱintoȱaȱpatternȱofȱtranscendentȱsurvival,ȱatȱothers heȱemergesȱasȱaȱtypeȱofȱradicalȱfailure.ȱThisȱfantasyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱputsȱtheȱspeakerȱinȱaȱposition whereȱheȱcanȱcontrolȱtheȱtermsȱbyȱwhichȱheȱandȱothersȱmeasureȱthings,ȱbecomingȱa groundȱ orȱ sourceȱ ofȱ faith—howeverȱ tenuous—ratherȱ thanȱ victimȱ ofȱ hisȱ ownȱ and others’ȱdoubt.21

However,ȱtheȱspeakerȱisȱnotȱonlyȱaȱpedagogicalȱdeviceȱorȱobject,ȱbutȱaȱpedagogue. Heȱisȱtheȱinstrumentȱthatȱfacilitatesȱinstructionȱ(betweenȱLoveȱandȱotherȱmen),ȱbut heȱisȱalsoȱaȱspeakerȱwhoȱengagesȱLoveȱdirectly,ȱteachingȱtheȱteacher. Thisȱturnȱtoȱpedagogy,ȱandȱtheȱconcurrentȱfigurationȱofȱspeakerȬasȬpedagogue, isȱaȱtraitȱparticularȱtoȱDonne’sȱPetrarchanȱpoemsȱwhichȱseemsȱnotȱtoȱhaveȱbeen

21

KennethȱGross,ȱ“JohnȱDonneȇsȱLyricȱSkepticism:ȱInȱStrangeȱWay,”ȱModernȱPhilologyȱ101.3ȱ(2004): 371–99;ȱ hereȱ 393.ȱ Thisȱ “fantasy”ȱ alsoȱ appearsȱ inȱ variousȱ guisesȱ inȱ “Theȱ Canonization,” “TwickenhamȱGarden,”ȱ“TheȱDampe,”ȱ“AȱNocturnallȱuponȱS.ȱLuciesȱDay,”ȱandȱ“TheȱFunerall.” Grossȱattributesȱtheȱfantasyȱhereȱtoȱ“aȱkindȱofȱdreamlikeȱinversionȱofȱequallyȱcommonȱbutȱmore anxiousȱimagesȱinȱDonneȱofȱtheȱselfȱbeingȱspiedȱon,ȱaccused,ȱslandered,ȱandȱexposedȱtoȱjudgment” (393).

714

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

examinedȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱpedagogicalȱtextsȱpopularȱduringȱtheȱseventeenth century.ȱThoughȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱconductȱmanuals,ȱmoralȱexempla,ȱandȱtheȱhighly allegoricalȱpoetryȱoftenȱsurroundingȱcourtlyȱloveȱmayȱhaveȱinfluencedȱDonne’s SongsȱandȱSonnets,ȱasȱtheyȱinfluencedȱotherȱtextsȱofȱthisȱtime,ȱIȱargueȱthat,ȱoutside ofȱtheȱPetrarchanȱtradition,ȱfriendshipȱtextsȱsuchȱasȱDeȱamicitiaȱandȱ“Deȱl’Amitié” hadȱtheȱmostȱinfluenceȱonȱtheȱparticularȱpedagogicalȱimageryȱcontainedȱinȱthese poems.ȱ “Enȱ l’amitéȱ deȱ quoiȱ jeȱ parle,”ȱ Montaigneȱ asserts,ȱ “ellesȱ seȱ mêlentȱ et confondentȱ l’uneȱ enȱ l’autre,ȱ d’unȱ mélangeȱ siȱ universel,ȱ qu’ellesȱ effacentȱ etȱ ne retrouventȱplusȱlaȱcoutureȱquiȱlesȱaȱjointes”ȱ(Inȱtheȱfriendship/amityȱofȱwhichȱI speak,ȱtheyȱmixȱandȱconfoundȱthemselvesȱtheȱoneȱinȱtheȱother,ȱwithȱaȱmixtureȱso universal,ȱ[that]ȱtheyȱeraseȱtheirȱ[separate]ȱselvesȱandȱcannotȱfindȱtheȱseamȱwhich joinsȱthem).22ȱ Thisȱ action,ȱ characterizedȱ inȱ Englishȱ termsȱ equivalentȱ toȱ Montaigne’s diction—mêlent,ȱconfondent,ȱandȱmelangeȱespecially—certainlyȱtakesȱplaceȱinȱ“The Extasie”ȱandȱfacilitatesȱtheȱeducationȱofȱtheȱpoem’sȱvoyeur.ȱForȱCicero,ȱitȱisȱVirtue whichȱmakesȱpossibleȱtheȱharmonyȱnecessaryȱforȱtheȱmélange,ȱorȱmixture,ȱwhich Montaigneȱattributesȱtoȱfriendship:ȱ Inȱ[Virtus]ȱestȱenimȱconvenientiaȱrerum,ȱinȱeaȱstabilitas,ȱinȱeaȱconstantia;ȱquaeȱcumȱse extulitȱetȱostenditȱsuumȱlumenȱetȱidemȱaspexitȱadgnovitqueȱinȱalio,ȱadȱidȱseȱadmovet vicissimqueȱaccipitȱillud,ȱquodȱinȱalteroȱest;ȱexȱquoȱexardescitȱsiveȱamorȱsiveȱamicitia. [ForȱinȱVirtueȱisȱcompleteȱharmony,ȱinȱherȱisȱpermanence,ȱinȱherȱisȱfidelity;ȱandȱwhat sheȱhasȱraisedȱherȱheadȱandȱshownȱherȱownȱlightȱandȱhasȱseenȱandȱrecognizedȱthe sameȱlightȱinȱanother,ȱsheȱmovesȱtowardȱitȱandȱinȱturnȱreceivesȱitsȱbeams;ȱasȱaȱresult loveȱorȱfriendshipȱleapsȱintoȱflame;ȱforȱbothȱwordsȱareȱderivedȱfromȱaȱwordȱmeaning “toȱlove.”]23ȱ

Light,ȱandȱthereforeȱbeamsȱofȱlight,ȱisȱinvolvedȱinȱCicero’sȱmetaphor,ȱandȱitȱisȱnot tooȱmuchȱofȱaȱstretchȱtoȱextendȱtheȱharmonyȱandȱlightȱpresentȱinȱDeȱamicitiaȱtoȱthe lovers’ȱ“eyeȬbeamsȱtwisted”ȱinȱ“TheȱExtasie”ȱ(7).ȱCiceroȱalsoȱgivesȱusȱinsightȱinto theȱheartȱasȱpedagogicalȱdevice:ȱ“Inȱquaȱnisi,ȱutȱdicitur,ȱapertumȱpectusȱvideas tuumqueȱostendas,ȱnihilȱfidum,ȱnihilȱexploratumȱhabeas,ȱneȱamareȱquidemȱaut

22

23

MichelȱdeȱMontaigne,ȱ“Deȱl’Amitié,”ȱ318.12–15.ȱTranslationsȱofȱMontaigne’sȱDeȱl’amitieȱprovided inȱtheseȱfootnotesȱareȱmyȱown,ȱthoughȱtheyȱareȱcertainlyȱcoloredȱbyȱJohnȱFlorio’sȱ1603ȱEnglish translationȱofȱMontaigne’sȱEssaies.ȱIȱprovideȱmyȱownȱtranslationȱnotȱbecauseȱIȱfindȱfaultȱinȱFlorio’s translationȱbut,ȱrather,ȱbecauseȱmyȱownȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱFrenchȱlanguageȱmostȱlikelyȱinfluences theȱwayȱIȱseeȱMontaigne’sȱimagesȱrecurȱinȱDonne’sȱpoetry.ȱFurther,ȱIȱcanȱfindȱnoȱdefiniteȱevidence thatȱDonneȱwouldȱhaveȱreadȱFlorio’sȱtranslation,ȱorȱanyȱother.ȱTheȱFrenchȱtextȱcomesȱfromȱEssais deȱMichelȱdeȱMontaigne,ȱLivreȱI,ȱed.ȱandȱtrans.ȱAndréȱTournon.ȱLaȱSalamandreȱ(Paris:ȱImprimerie NationaleȱÉditions,ȱ1998). Cicero,ȱ Deȱ amicitia,ȱ xxvi.100.ȱ Translationsȱ ofȱ Ciceroȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theȱ Latinȱ textȱ comeȱ fromȱ De senectute,ȱ Deȱ amicitia,ȱ Deȱ devinatione,ȱ transl.ȱ Williamȱ A.ȱ Falconer.ȱ Loebȱ Classicalȱ Library,ȱ 154 (Cambridge,ȱMA:ȱHarvardȱUniversityȱPress;ȱLondon:ȱW.ȱHeinemann,ȱ1979).ȱ

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

715

amari,ȱcum,ȱidȱquamȱvereȱfiat,ȱignores”ȱ(Forȱinȱfriendshipȱunless,ȱasȱtheȱsayingȱis, youȱbeholdȱandȱshowȱanȱopenȱheart,ȱyouȱcanȱhaveȱnoȱloyaltyȱorȱcertaintyȱandȱnot evenȱtheȱsatisfactionȱofȱlovingȱandȱofȱbeingȱloved,ȱsinceȱyouȱdoȱnotȱknowȱwhat trueȱ loveȱ is).24ȱ Trueȱ toȱ Donne’sȱ usualȱ heighteningȱ ofȱ aȱ metaphor,ȱ “Loves Exchange”ȱ suggestsȱ notȱ onlyȱ anȱ openȱ heartȱ orȱ chestȱ (apertumȱ pectus),ȱ butȱ the speaker’sȱdissectedȱbodyȱasȱaȱfittingȱdeviceȱthroughȱwhichȱtoȱteachȱtheȱtrueȱnature ofȱlove—andȱevenȱLoveȱhimself,ȱasȱtheȱcaseȱmayȱbe. OneȱargumentȱagainstȱtheȱinfluenceȱofȱCiceroȱandȱMontaigneȱonȱDonne,ȱorȱa generalȱobjectionȱtoȱtheȱuseȱofȱsuchȱfriendshipȱtextsȱinȱinterpretingȱtheȱSongsȱand Sonnets,ȱisȱthatȱtheseȱpoemsȱpertainȱtoȱamorous,ȱheterosexualȱloveȱratherȱthanȱthe loveȱ inherentȱ inȱ friendship.ȱ Inȱ short,ȱ theseȱ poemsȱ wereȱ writtenȱ aboutȱ ladies. However,ȱ asȱ Mastenȱ pointsȱ out,ȱ “theȱ circulationȱ ofȱ Petrarchanȱ verseȱ inȱ late sixteenthȬȱandȱearlyȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱculture”ȱ(43)ȱconstitutedȱ“aȱnetworkȱof homosociality”ȱ(45).ȱMasten,ȱworkingȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱShakespeare’sȱTheȱTwo GentlemenȱofȱVerona,ȱexplainsȱthisȱhomosocialȱnetworkȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheȱsonnet: Theȱsonnetȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱwasȱinȱparticularȱaȱpublic,ȱcourtlyȱgenre,ȱcirculatingȱwidely,ȱexpressing, inȱArthurȱMarotti’sȱfamiliarȱformulation,ȱ“social,ȱpolitical,ȱandȱeconomicȱsuitsȱinȱthe languageȱofȱlove”;ȱfurthermore,ȱthisȱpoeticȱpracticeȱwasȱoftenȱspecificallyȱgendered; Petrarchanȱ sonnets,ȱ thoughȱ oftenȱ writtenȱ toȱ andȱ aboutȱ women,ȱ wereȱ circulating betweenȱmenȱandȱregisteringȱmaleȱ“suits”:ȱcourtiershipȱasȱcourtship.25

MastenȱgoesȱonȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱTheȱTwoȱGentlemenȱofȱVeronaȱdoesȱnotȱactuallyȱpit maleȱfriendshipȱagainstȱPetrarchanȱcourtship.ȱRather,ȱtheȱplay’sȱproblemsȱcanȱbe solvedȱforȱmodernȱaudiencesȱbyȱ“theȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱultimateȱcollaborationȱofȱmaleȱfriendship andȱitsȱincorporationȱofȱtheȱplotȱweȱwouldȱlabelȱ‘heterosexual.’”ȱThus,ȱfriendship isȱ“noȱlongerȱseenȱtoȱbeȱinȱcompetitionȱwithȱPetrarchanȱlove,ȱbutȱunderwrit[es] it.”26ȱClassicalȱtextsȱexplainȱtheȱprocessȱofȱfriendshipȱsimilarly.ȱTrueȱfriendship (veraȱamicitia)ȱisȱ“theȱmeansȱbyȱwhichȱtheȱvirtuousȱmanȱimprovesȱhisȱcharacterȱand approachesȱperfectȱwisdom.”27ȱItȱfollowsȱthatȱtheȱpursuitȱofȱsuchȱtrueȱfriendship andȱwisdomȱwouldȱregisterȱasȱ“suits”ȱinȱtheȱpoetryȱcirculatedȱamongȱmenȱwho wouldȱimagineȱthemselvesȱasȱvirtuous.ȱAnd,ȱasȱCiceroȱsays,ȱ“Utȱigiturȱetȱmonere etȱmoneriȱpropiumȱestȱveraeȱamicitiae”ȱ(Itȱisȱcharacteristicȱofȱtrueȱfriendshipȱboth toȱgiveȱandȱtoȱreceiveȱadvice).28ȱTheȱpedagogicalȱcomponentȱofȱDonne’sȱverse, then,ȱisȱnotȱsurprisingȱandȱfitsȱneatlyȱintoȱseventeenthȬcenturyȱmanuscriptȱculture

24 25 26 27 28

Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱxxvi.97.ȱ Masten,ȱTextualȱIntercourse,ȱ43–44.ȱ Masten,ȱTextualȱIntercourse,ȱ46–48. Hyatte,ȱTheȱArtsȱofȱFriendship,ȱ5. Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱxxv.91.ȱ

716

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

andȱ dialogueȱ concerningȱ friendshipȱ andȱ theȱ homosocialȱ despiteȱ itsȱ usual associationȱwithȱwomenȱandȱheteroeroticȱrelationships. Inȱfact,ȱtheȱmaltreatmentȱofȱheartsȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱLoveȱandȱwomenȱinȱ“The Message,”ȱ“TheȱLegacie,”ȱ“TheȱBrokenȱHeart,”ȱandȱ“TheȱBlossome”ȱmayȱserveȱto placeȱ theseȱ poemsȱ evenȱ furtherȱ withinȱ theȱ realmȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ texts.ȱ Though Ciceroȱneverȱexplicitlyȱstatesȱthatȱwomenȱmayȱnotȱtakeȱpartȱinȱfriendship,ȱheȱsays, “nisiȱinȱbonisȱamicitiamȱesseȱnonȱposse,”ȱandȱagainȱlater,ȱ“amicitiamȱnisiȱinter bonosȱesseȱnonȱposse.”ȱBothȱofȱtheseȱinstancesȱareȱtranslatedȱasȱ“Friendshipȱcannot existȱexceptȱamongȱgoodȱmen.”29ȱThoughȱbonisȱandȱbonosȱareȱusedȱasȱsubstantive adjectives,ȱliterallyȱ“theȱgood,”ȱandȱcouldȱthereforeȱdenoteȱmixedȱpopulations evenȱthoughȱtheȱmasculineȱformȱofȱtheȱadjectiveȱisȱemployed,ȱCiceroȱlaterȱdefines “theȱgood”ȱinȱtermsȱwhichȱareȱmasculine,ȱasȱfollows:ȱ Quiȱitaȱseȱgerunt,ȱitaȱvivunt,ȱutȱeorumȱprobeturȱfides,ȱintegritas,ȱaequitas,ȱliberalitas, necȱsitȱinȱeisȱullaȱcupiditas,ȱlibido,ȱaudacia,ȱsintqueȱmagnaȱconstantia,ȱutȱiiȱfuerunt, modoȱquosȱnominavi,ȱhosȱvirosȱbonos,ȱutȱhabitiȱsunt,ȱsicȱetiamȱappellandosȱputemus, quiȱsequantur,ȱquantumȱhominesȱpossunt,ȱnaturamȱoptimamȱbeneȱvivendiȱducem. [Thoseȱwhoȱsoȱactȱandȱsoȱliveȱasȱtoȱgiveȱproofȱofȱloyaltyȱandȱuprightness,ȱofȱfairness andȱgenerosity;ȱwhoȱareȱfreeȱfromȱallȱpassion,ȱcaprice,ȱandȱinsolence,ȱandȱhaveȱgreat strengthȱofȱcharacter—menȱlikeȱthoseȱjustȱmentioned—suchȱmenȱletȱusȱconsiderȱgood, asȱtheyȱwereȱaccountedȱgoodȱinȱlife,ȱandȱalsoȱentitledȱtoȱbeȱcalledȱbyȱthatȱtermȱbecause, inȱasȱfarȱasȱthatȱisȱpossibleȱforȱman,ȱtheyȱfollowȱNature,ȱwhoȱisȱtheȱbestȱguideȱtoȱgood living.]30ȱ

Montaigne,ȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ hand,ȱ isȱ explicitȱ inȱ hisȱ exclusionȱ ofȱ womenȱ from friendship:ȱ Quantȱ auxȱ mariagesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ ilȱ yȱ survientȱ milleȱ fuséesȱ éstrangèresȱ àȱ démêlerȱ parmi, suffisantesȱàȱrompreȱleȱfilȱetȱtroublerȱlesȱcoursȱd’uneȱviveȱaffection.ȱLàȱoù,ȱenȱl’amitié, ilȱn’yȱaȱaffaireȱnyȱcommerceȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱlaȱsuffisanceȱordinaireȱdesȱfemmesȱn’estȱpasȱpour réspondreȱàȱcetteȱconférenceȱetȱcommunication,ȱnourriceȱdeȱcetteȱsaincteȱcouture.ȱNi leurȱ âmeȱ neȱ sembleȱ assezȱ fermeȱ pourȱ soutenirȱ l’étreinteȱ d’unȱ nœudȱ siȱ presséȱ etȱ si durable.ȱ Etȱ certesȱ sansȱ cela,ȱ s’ilȱ seȱ pouvaitȱ dresserȱ uneȱ telleȱ accointance,ȱ libreȱ et volontaire,ȱoù,ȱnonȱseulementȱlesȱamesȱeussentȱcetteȱentièreȱjouissance,ȱmaisȱencores oùȱlesȱcorpsȱeussentȱpartȱàȱl’alliance,ȱoùȱl’hommeȱfûtȱengagéȱtoutȱentier:ȱilȱestȱcertain queȱl’amitiéȱenȱseraitȱplusȱpleineȱetȱplusȱcomble.ȱMaisȱceȱsexeȱparȱnulȱexempleȱn’yȱest encoreȱpuȱarriver,ȱetȱparȱleȱcommunȱconsentementȱdesȱécolesȱanciennesȱenȱestȱrejeté. [Regardingȱmarriagesȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱthereȱareȱaȱthousandȱstrangeȱknotsȱtoȱbeȱundone,ȱsufficient toȱ breakȱ theȱ threadȱ andȱ troubleȱ theȱ course/courtȱ ofȱ aȱ vivaciousȱ affection;ȱ butȱ in friendshipȱthereȱisȱnoȱ(such)ȱcommerceȱorȱaffairȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱordinaryȱsufficiencyȱofȱwomen

29 30

Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱv.18ȱandȱxviii.65.ȱ Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱv.19.ȱ

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

717

isȱ unableȱ toȱ answerȱ thisȱ conferenceȱ andȱ communication,ȱ (necessaryȱ to)ȱ to nourish[ment]ȱofȱthisȱsacredȱseam/bond;ȱneitherȱdoȱtheirȱmindsȱseemȱstrongȱenough toȱ withstandȱ theȱ pullingȱ ofȱ aȱ knotȱ soȱ quicklyȱ andȱ soȱ hard.ȱ Andȱ certainlyȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ an acquaintance,ȱfreeȱandȱvoluntary,ȱmightȱbeȱ(constructed),ȱwhereȱnotȱonlyȱmindsȱhad thisȱentireȱjouissance,ȱbutȱbodiesȱtooȱhadȱaȱpartȱinȱtheȱalliance,ȱandȱwhereȱaȱmanȱmight engageȱfully:ȱitȱisȱcertainȱthatȱfriendshipȱwouldȱbeȱmoreȱfullȱandȱcompleteȱ(ifȱthisȱwere theȱcase).ȱButȱthisȱsex,ȱbyȱanyȱexample,ȱisȱnotȱeverȱtoȱattainȱsuch,ȱandȱbyȱtheȱcommon consentȱofȱtheȱancientȱschoolsȱisȱrejectedȱ(fromȱfriendship).]31ȱ

Putȱsimply,ȱwomenȱareȱincapableȱofȱtheȱaffectionȱnecessaryȱtoȱkeepȱaȱfriendship aliveȱthroughȱhardship,ȱaȱbeliefȱMontaigneȱassertsȱbasedȱonȱtheȱexamplesȱgiven byȱdesȱécolesȱanciennes.ȱWithoutȱnamingȱnames,ȱheȱrefersȱtoȱCiceroȱandȱAristotle. ThoughȱtheȱbooksȱonȱfriendshipȱinȱtheȱNicomacheanȱEthicsȱdoȱnotȱemployȱimages ofȱtheȱheartȱorȱotherȱtropesȱcommonȱtoȱPetrarchanȱverse,ȱAristotle’sȱcontribution toȱtheȱrejectionȱofȱwomenȱfromȱfriendshipȱisȱofȱobviousȱimportanceȱtoȱMontaigne andȱdeservesȱsomeȱdiscussionȱhere.ȱ UnlikeȱMontaigneȱandȱCicero,ȱAristotleȱincludesȱmanyȱrelationshipsȱunderȱthe aegisȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱtakesȱcareȱtoȱspecifyȱtheȱcomponentsȱparticularȱtoȱeach situation.ȱAristotleȱwrites:ȱ“Telei&a d'esti_n h( tw~n a)gaqw~n fili&a kai_ kat' a)reth_n o(moi&wn: ou{toi ga_r ta)gaqa_ o(moi&wv bou&lontai a_llh&loiv h{| a0gaqoi&; a)gaqoi_ d'ei)si_ kaq' au(tou&v”ȱ(Butȱcompleteȱfriendshipȱisȱtheȱfriendshipȱofȱgoodȱpeopleȱsimilarȱin virtue;ȱforȱtheyȱwishȱgoodȱinȱtheȱsameȱwayȱtoȱeachȱotherȱinsofarȱasȱtheyȱareȱgood, andȱ theyȱ areȱ goodȱ inȱ theirȱ ownȱ right).32ȱ Ofȱ course,ȱ theȱ candidatesȱ forȱ perfect friendshipȱareȱmen.ȱThoughȱAristotleȱincludesȱmarriedȱcouplesȱinȱhisȱdiscussion onȱfriendship,ȱheȱtakesȱcareȱtoȱdifferentiateȱtheȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱaȱhusbandȱand wifeȱfromȱperfectȱfriendship.ȱItȱisȱbasedȱonȱinequalityȱandȱthereforeȱimperfect,ȱfor equalityȱ andȱ similarityȱ areȱ prerequisiteȱ conditionsȱ ofȱ friendship.ȱ Imbalanced friendshipsȱrequireȱspecialȱconsiderationȱandȱaction: a)na&logon d' e)n pa&saij tai~j kaq' u(peroxh_n ou!saij fili&aij kai_ th_n fi&lhsin dei~ gi&nesqai, oi{on to_n a)mei&nw ma~llon filei~sqai h@ filei~n, kai_ to_n w)felimw&teron, kai_ tw~n a!llwn e#kaston o(moi&wj: o#tan ga_r kat' a)ci&an h( fi&lhsij gi&gnhtai, to&te gi&gnetai& pwj i)so&thj o$ dh_ th~j filia&j ei}nai dokei~. [Inȱallȱtheȱfriendshipsȱthatȱrestȱonȱsuperiority,ȱtheȱlovingȱmustȱalsoȱbeȱproportional;ȱfor instance,ȱtheȱbetterȱperson,ȱandȱtheȱmoreȱbeneficial,ȱandȱeachȱofȱtheȱothersȱlikewise, mustȱbeȱlovedȱmoreȱthanȱheȱloves;ȱforȱwhenȱtheȱlovingȱaccordsȱwithȱtheȱcomparative

31 32

Montaigne,ȱ“Deȱl’Amitié,”ȱ315.33–52.ȱ Aristotle,ȱ Nicomacheanȱ Ethics,ȱ 8.3.6.ȱ Forȱ theȱ Greekȱ original,ȱ seeȱ Theȱ Ethicsȱ ofȱ Aristotle,ȱ ed.ȱ Sir AlexanderȱGrant.ȱVols.ȱ1ȱandȱ2.ȱPhilosophyȱofȱPlatoȱandȱAristotle,ȱadvisoryȱed.ȱGregoryȱVlastos. Reprintȱofȱtheȱ4thȱed.ȱ(1885;ȱNewȱYork:ȱArnoȱPress,ȱ1973;).ȱEnglishȱtranslationsȱoriginateȱfrom NicomacheanȱEthics.ȱ2ndȱed.,ȱed.ȱandȱtrans.ȱTerenceȱIrwinȱ(IndianapolisȱandȱCambridge:ȱHackett Publishing,ȱ1999)

718

L.ȱBelleeȱJones worthȱofȱtheȱfriends,ȱequalityȱisȱachievedȱinȱaȱway,ȱandȱthisȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱproperȱto friendship.33]

InȱtheȱNicomacheanȱEthics,ȱthoughȱwomenȱandȱotherȱinferiorsȱcannotȱtakeȱpartȱin perfectȱ friendship,ȱ theyȱ mayȱ striveȱ toȱ loveȱ theirȱ superiorsȱ inȱ suchȱ aȱ wayȱ that, eventually,ȱ theyȱ mayȱ beginȱ toȱ perfectȱ theirȱ relationships.ȱ Whileȱ Montaigne introducesȱviolenceȱtoȱhisȱassertionȱthatȱ“l’affectionȱenversȱlesȱfemmes”ȱ(affection towardȱwomen)ȱdiffersȱfromȱfriendshipȱandȱrejectsȱwomenȱentirelyȱfromȱtheȱrealm ofȱfriendship,ȱheȱstillȱspeaksȱinȱtermsȱsimilarȱtoȱthoseȱemployedȱbyȱAristotleȱand Cicero:ȱ c’estȱunȱfeuȱtéméraireȱetȱvolage,ȱondoyantȱetȱdivers,ȱfeuȱdeȱfièvreȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱEnȱl’amitié,ȱc’est uneȱchaleurȱgénéraleȱetȱuniverselleȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱuneȱchaleurȱconstanteȱetȱraissise,ȱtouteȱdouceur etȱpolissure,ȱquiȱn’aȱrienȱd’âpreȱetȱdeȱpoignant. [Itȱisȱaȱrashȱandȱwaveringȱfire,ȱwavingȱandȱdiverse:ȱtheȱfireȱofȱaȱfeverȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱInȱfriendȬ ship/amity,ȱthereȱisȱaȱheatȱbothȱgeneralȱandȱuniversalȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱaȱconstantȱandȱrareȱheat,ȱall gentlenessȱandȱsmoothness,ȱthatȱhasȱnoȱstingȱorȱheartȬrendingȱinȱit.]34ȱ

Donne’sȱexchangedȬheartsȱpoetryȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱfollowȱcloselyȱMontaigne’sȱand Cicero’sȱmoreȱexclusionaryȱlineȱofȱreasoningȱconcerningȱwomenȱandȱfriendship, thoughȱheȱalsoȱutilizesȱAristotle’sȱadviceȱregardingȱproportionateȱrelationshipsȱas aȱpedagogicalȱtool.ȱ “TheȱMessage”ȱincludesȱharmȱtoȱtheȱspeakerȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱhisȱfemaleȱlover,ȱa physicalȱexchange,ȱclearȱtiesȱtoȱbothȱPetrarchanȱlyricȱpoetryȱandȱtheȱrhetoricȱof friendship,ȱandȱexplicitȱreferencesȱtoȱpedagogy.ȱTherefore,ȱtheȱpoemȱservesȱasȱa goodȱplaceȱtoȱbeginȱtheȱmappingȱofȱtheseȱcomponentsȱinȱthoseȱpoemsȱofȱDonne’s whichȱincludeȱPetrarchanȱheartȱexchange.ȱTheȱoccasionȱforȱtheȱpoemȱisȱaȱlove affairȱ goneȱ sour,ȱ andȱ thoughȱ theȱ senseȱ hereȱ isȱ differentȱ fromȱ Montaigne’s, neverthelessȱ“ilȱyȱsurvientȱmilleȱfuséesȱéstrangèresȱàȱdémêlerȱparmi”ȱ(thereȱareȱa thousandȱ strangeȱknotsȱtoȱbeȱundone).35ȱTheȱerstwhileȱloversȱmustȱundoȱtheir previousȱexchangesȱandȱrecollectȱthemselves—literally—inȱorderȱtoȱmoveȱon.ȱThe tokensȱonceȱexchangedȱinȱpassionȱnowȱmustȱbeȱreturned,ȱandȱMontaigne’sȱknots undone.ȱ Toȱthatȱend,ȱeachȱofȱtheȱpoem’sȱthreeȱstanzasȱbeginsȱwithȱaȱcommandȱissued fromȱtheȱspeakerȱtoȱhisȱlover:ȱsend.ȱWeȱfindȱimmediately,ȱthough,ȱthatȱtheȱspeaker hasȱnotȱgivenȱhisȱloveȱjustȱanyȱtrinketȱofȱhisȱaffection;ȱheȱhasȱsentȱhisȱeyesȱand heart.ȱAtȱfirstȱtheȱspeakerȱasksȱforȱtheseȱobjects—hisȱ“longȱstraydȱeyes,”ȱ(1)ȱhis “harmlesseȱheart”ȱ(9)—toȱbeȱsentȱ“home”ȱ(1,ȱ9),ȱbut,ȱasȱoftenȱhappensȱinȱDonne’s

33 34 35

Aristotle,ȱNicomacheanȱEthics,ȱ8.7.2. Montaigne,ȱ“Deȱl’Amitié,”ȱ314.3–14.ȱ Montaigne,ȱ“Deȱl’Amitié,”ȱ315.33–34.

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

719

verse,ȱtheȱspeakerȱthinksȱagain,ȱorȱbetter.ȱHisȱeyes,ȱsinceȱtheyȱ“haveȱlearn’dȱsuch ill”ȱ(3)ȱfromȱhisȱlover,ȱareȱ“fitȱforȱnoȱgoodȱsight”ȱ(8).ȱHisȱheart,ȱformerlyȱwithout “staine”ȱ(10),ȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱ“taught”ȱbyȱtheȱlover’sȱheart Toȱmakeȱjestings Ofȱprotestings, Andȱcrosseȱboth Wordȱandȱoathȱ

(12–15)

Soȱtheȱspeakerȱbidsȱhisȱloverȱ“keep”ȱbothȱgifts,ȱnegatingȱhisȱpreviousȱcommands toȱsend,ȱforȱheȱisȱbetterȱoffȱwithoutȱeyesȱandȱheartȱaltogetherȱthanȱwithȱversions ofȱ theseȱ organsȱ pervertedȱ byȱ hisȱ lover’sȱ instruction.ȱ Heȱ cannotȱ participateȱ in relationshipsȱaccordingȱtoȱtheȱcommonȱprovisionsȱofȱfriendshipȱtextsȱsoȱlongȱasȱhe isȱdamaged.ȱTheȱthirdȱstanza’sȱvolta,ȱhowever,ȱbringsȱyetȱanotherȱchangeȱinȱthe speaker’sȱ mind:ȱ “Yetȱ sendȱ meȱ backȱ myȱ heartȱ andȱ eyes,”ȱ heȱ says,ȱ “Thatȱ Iȱ may know,ȱ andȱ see,ȱ thyȱ lyes”ȱ (17–18).ȱ Hereȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ commandȱ toȱ sendȱ isȱ not negatedȱbyȱtheȱperversionȱintroducedȱbyȱhisȱlover’sȱinstructionȱbutȱstrengthened byȱtheȱpossibleȱgainsȱitȱhasȱintroduced.ȱPossessingȱaȱdamagedȱheartȱgivesȱDonne’s speakerȱinsight—evenȱhappiness,ȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱ“laughȱandȱjoy”ȱ(19)—and, asȱinȱ“LovesȱExchange,”ȱtheȱspeakerȱhasȱtheȱopportunityȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱteacher. Therefore,ȱheȱwantsȱhisȱdamagedȱheartȱreturnedȱtoȱhim. Inȱ “TheȱLegacie,”ȱtheȱspeakerȱwishesȱtoȱleaveȱhisȱheartȱtoȱhisȱbeloved,ȱ even thoughȱherȱlackȱofȱaffectionȱhasȱkilledȱhim.ȱTheȱclaspedȬhandsȱformatȱofȱtheȱfinal twoȱlinesȱ(endingȱwithȱ“mine”ȱandȱ“thine,”ȱrespectively),ȱwouldȱseemȱtoȱpoint towardȱtheȱlovers’ȱmutuality.ȱHowever,ȱmutualityȱisȱimpossibleȱforȱtheseȱlovers, andȱsoȱisȱproperȱexchange.ȱEvenȱwhenȱDonneȱinvokesȱwhatȱisȱperhapsȱtheȱmost commonȱtropeȱofȱfriendship—aȱfriendȱasȱalterȱidemȱ(anotherȱself)—inȱlineȱten,ȱit requiresȱqualificationȱandȱdistinction:ȱ Iȱheardȱmeȱsay,ȱTellȱherȱanon, Thatȱmyȱselfe,ȱthat’sȱyou,ȱnotȱI, Didȱkillȱme,ȱandȱwhenȱIȱfeltȱmeȱdye, Iȱbidȱmeeȱsendȱmyȱheart,ȱwhenȱIȱwasȱgone; ButȱIȱalasȱcouldȱthereȱfindeȱnone, WhenȱIȱhadȱripp’dȱme,ȱandȱsearch’dȱwhereȱheartsȱshouldȱlye.ȱ (9–14,ȱ emphasisȱmine)

ȱ Theseȱloversȱhaveȱnotȱmixedȱbeyondȱallȱrecognitionȱasȱtheȱtwoȱloversȱinȱ“The Extasie”ȱandȱLaeliusȱandȱScipioȱinȱDeȱamicitiaȱhaveȱdone.ȱTheȱproposedȱexchange ofȱheartsȱinȱthisȱpoemȱisȱaddressedȱsemiȬposthumously—forȱtheȱspeakerȱbothȱdies andȱactsȱcontinually,ȱasȱaȱsortȱofȱdoubleȱofȱhimself—andȱweȱshouldȱrecallȱbothȱthe oneȬsidedȱexchangeȱandȱtheȱ“Anatomie”ȱpresentȱinȱ“LovesȱExchange.”ȱPamela Hammonsȱcallsȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱ“anxietyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱassociatedȱwithȱloveȱtokens”ȱpresent

720

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

inȱ“TheȱLegacie”ȱasȱ“theȱprospectȱofȱunfairȱexchange.”36ȱHowever,ȱfairȱexchange isȱnotȱatȱstakeȱinȱthisȱpoem,ȱforȱexchangeȱitselfȱisȱentirelyȱimpossible.ȱTwoȱstarkly physicalȱreasonsȱareȱatȱtheȱcore—orȱcorȱ(heart)—ofȱthisȱimpossibility:ȱfirst,ȱthe speakerȱripsȱopenȱhisȱchest—signalingȱtheȱapertumȱpectusȱfoundȱinȱbothȱCiceroȱand “Lovesȱ Exchange”—andȱ cannotȱ findȱ hisȱ ownȱ heart;ȱ then—indeed,ȱ asȱ an afterthoughtȱ ofȱ sorts—theȱ speakerȱ findsȱ aȱ defectiveȱ organȱ inȱ itsȱ stead.ȱ The “somethingȱlikeȱaȱheart”ȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱdiscoversȱinȱlineȱseventeenȱbelonged previouslyȱtoȱtheȱwoman;ȱitȱhasȱ“colours”ȱandȱ“corners,”ȱisȱneitherȱ“good”ȱnor “bad,”ȱandȱisȱ“intireȱtoȱnone”ȱ(18–20).ȱ Asȱsuch,ȱtheȱ“somethingȱlikeȱaȱheart”ȱisȱnotȱfitȱforȱaȱproperȱexchangeȱbecauseȱit isȱinconstant,ȱfickle,ȱmalformed,ȱandȱonlyȱlikeȱaȱheart:ȱ“noȱmanȱcouldȱholdȱit,”ȱthe speakerȱsays,ȱ“forȱ’twasȱthine”ȱ(24).ȱ“AȱJeatȱRingȱSent”ȱisȱcertainlyȱmoreȱ“loveȬ poetry”ȱthanȱfriendshipȱpoem,ȱbutȱinȱitsȱfirstȱtwoȱlinesȱitsȱspeakerȱalsoȱtakesȱcare toȱestablishȱtheȱwomanȱasȱfaithlessȱandȱherȱheartȱasȱdefective—“brittle”—whereas theȱspeaker’sȱheartȱisȱconstant,ȱorȱ“black.”37ȱMoreover,ȱtheȱexchangeȱinȱthatȱpoem involvesȱaȱcheapȱmetalȱringȱratherȱthanȱtheȱhearts—theȱsoulsȱandȱselves—present inȱCiceronianȱandȱPetrarchanȱexchange.ȱTheȱimplicationȱpresentȱinȱ“TheȱLegacie” andȱ“AȱJeatȱRingȱSent,”ȱandȱ“TheȱMessage”ȱasȱwell,ȱisȱthatȱwomenȱdoȱnotȱpossess goodȱheartsȱandȱthereforeȱcannotȱtreatȱotherȱheartsȱproperly.ȱAccordingly,ȱmen wouldȱ doȱ betterȱ toȱ leaveȱ womenȱ andȱ theirȱ defectiveȱ heartsȱ asideȱ andȱ seek constancyȱwhereȱitȱcanȱbeȱfound:ȱinȱmaleȱfriendship.ȱ “TheȱBrokenȱHeart”ȱbeginsȱinȱaȱmannerȱsimilarȱtoȱ“TheȱLegacie”ȱandȱ“AȱJeat RingȱSent.”ȱHowever,ȱweȱfindȱinȱstanzaȱtwoȱthatȱLoveȱhimself,ȱandȱnotȱaȱwoman, hasȱmistreatedȱtheȱheart.ȱInȱfact,ȱweȱlearnȱinȱstanzaȱthreeȱthatȱtheȱspeaker’sȱheart hasȱ notȱ beenȱ exchangedȱ asȱ heȱ originallyȱ intended;ȱ theȱ exchangeȱ hasȱ been preventedȱbyȱLove,ȱwhoȱ“atȱoneȱfirstȱblowȱdidȱshiverȱ[theȱheart]ȱasȱglasse”ȱ(24), turningȱitȱintoȱsomethingȱwhichȱtheȱspeakerȱnoȱlongerȱconsidersȱtoȱbeȱaȱheartȱat allȱ(“Iȱcarriedȱnoneȱwithȱmee”ȱ[20]).ȱ“Ifȱitȱhadȱgoneȱtoȱthee,ȱIȱknow,”ȱtheȱspeaker says,ȱ“Mineȱwouldȱhaveȱtaughtȱthyȱheartȱtoȱshowȱ/ȱMoreȱpittyȱuntoȱmee”ȱ(21–23), butȱ theȱ poem’sȱ femaleȱ addresseeȱ doesȱ notȱ getȱ theȱ chanceȱ toȱ learnȱ fromȱ the speaker’sȱheart.ȱ Itȱ remains,ȱ thoughȱ brokenȱ intoȱ “peeces,”ȱ withinȱ theȱ poet’sȱ “breast”ȱ (27–29). Thus,ȱtheȱcomplaintȱwhichȱreadersȱmightȱexpectȱtoȱbeȱmadeȱagainstȱaȱfemaleȱlover isȱinsteadȱdirectedȱtowardȱLove.ȱAsȱinȱ“LovesȱExchange,”ȱLoveȱdoesȱnotȱplayȱfair:ȱ

36

37

Hammons,ȱ“RobertȱHerrick’sȱGiftȱTrouble:ȱMaleȱSubjectsȱ‘TransȬshifting’ȱintoȱObjects,”ȱCriticism 47.1ȱ(Winterȱ2005):ȱ31–64;ȱhereȱ27,ȱn.ȱ16. Theȱusualȱconnotationsȱofȱblackȱasȱsomethingȱnegativeȱdoȱnotȱapplyȱhere,ȱaccordingȱtoȱTheodore Redpath,ȱ“becauseȱblackȱhasȱnoȱshades;ȱthisȱwouldȱbeȱaȱboldȱstrokeȱofȱwit,ȱinȱviewȱofȱtheȱusually sinisterȱfigurativeȱimplicationsȱofȱ‘black.’”ȱForȱfurtherȱinformation,ȱseeȱRedpath’sȱTheȱSongsȱand SonnetsȱofȱJohnȱDonneȱ,ȱ2ndȱed.ȱ(1956;ȱLondon:ȱMethuen,ȱ1983),ȱ113.ȱAllȱsubsequentȱquotationsȱare takenȱfromȱthisȱeditionȱandȱwillȱbeȱsignaledȱinȬtext.

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

721

Allȱotherȱgriefesȱallowȱaȱpart Toȱotherȱgriefs,ȱandȱaskeȱthemselvesȱbutȱsome; Theyȱcomeȱtoȱus,ȱbutȱusȱLoveȱdraws, Heȱswallowsȱus,ȱandȱneverȱchawes: Byȱhim,ȱasȱbyȱchainȬshot,ȱwholeȱrankesȱdoeȱdye, HeȱisȱtheȱtyranȱPike,ȱourȱheartsȱtheȱFrye.ȱ

(11–16)

Love’sȱactionsȱinȱtheseȱlinesȱareȱnotȱonlyȱunfair;ȱtheyȱareȱalsoȱrenderedȱbyȱthe speakerȱ withȱ imagesȱ farȱ moreȱ brutalȱ thanȱ thoseȱ whichȱ usuallyȱ surroundȱ the Petrarchanȱheart.ȱThoughȱtheȱspeakerȱaddressesȱhisȱfemaleȱbelovedȱdirectlyȱin stanzaȱthree,ȱhisȱfocusȱisȱstillȱonȱtheȱillȬeffectsȱofȱLove’sȱactions.ȱTheȱpoemȱisȱan exampleȱofȱcoupȱdeȱfoudreȱ(strokeȱofȱlightning,ȱorȱloveȱatȱfirstȱsight).ȱThisȱpoetic genre,ȱcoupledȱwithȱviolentȱimagery,ȱrecallsȱCicero’sȱadmonitionȱagainstȱloving tooȱquickly:ȱ“Omninoȱomniumȱhorumȱvitiorumȱatqueȱincommodorumȱunaȱcautio estȱatqueȱunaȱprovisio,ȱutȱneȱnimisȱcitoȱdiligereȱincipiantȱneveȱnonȱdignos”ȱ(In short,ȱ thereȱ isȱ butȱ oneȱ securityȱ andȱ oneȱ provisionȱ againstȱ theseȱ illsȱ and annoyances,ȱandȱthatȱis,ȱneitherȱtoȱenlistȱyourȱloveȱtooȱquicklyȱnorȱtoȱfixȱitȱon unworthyȱ men).38ȱ Thoughȱ faultȱ forȱ theȱ suddenȱ burstȱ ofȱ affectionȱ theȱ speaker experiencedȱcannotȱlieȱsolelyȱwithȱhim,ȱtheȱfactȱremainsȱthatȱheȱhasȱactedȱonȱhis loveȱ tooȱ quicklyȱ andȱ chosenȱ toȱ investȱ hisȱ heartȱ withȱ hisȱ lover—who,ȱ beingȱ a woman,ȱisȱtheȱveryȱpictureȱofȱunworthiness—ratherȱthanȱinȱaȱmoreȱappropriate homosocialȱrelationship.ȱThus,ȱheȱhasȱbeenȱharmed.ȱ Montaigneȱwarnsȱagainstȱsuchȱaȱfateȱwhenȱmenȱbendȱtheirȱaffectionsȱ“enversȱles femmes”ȱ(towardȱwomen):ȱsuchȱaȱ“feu,”ȱheȱsays,ȱ“estȱplusȱactif,ȱplusȱcuisantȱet plusȱâpre”ȱ(fireȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱisȱmoreȱactive,ȱmoreȱstinging/crushing,ȱandȱmoreȱbitter)ȱthan anyȱother.39ȱDonne’sȱspeaker,ȱburnedȱbyȱtheȱ“flaskeȱofȱpowder”ȱheȱmentionsȱin lineȱeight,ȱknowsȱthisȱbetterȱthanȱmost.ȱThus,ȱmuchȱasȱinȱ“TheȱLegacie,”ȱaȱbroken heartȱ makesȱ Donne’sȱ speakerȱ bothȱ aȱ pedagogicalȱ instrumentȱ andȱ anȱ ideal pedagogue.ȱ Inȱ stanzaȱ three,ȱ however,ȱ theȱ speaker’sȱ heartȱ failsȱ toȱ instructȱ his beloved,ȱbothȱbecauseȱitȱhasȱbeenȱsoȱdamagedȱbyȱLoveȱandȱbecause,ȱasȱaȱwoman, sheȱwouldȱnotȱunderstandȱtheȱlessonȱanyway. Whom,ȱ then,ȱ doesȱ theȱ poemȱ instruct?ȱ Theȱ imagesȱ ofȱ theȱ secondȱ stanza, interestinglyȱplural,ȱprovideȱusȱwithȱsomeȱclue.ȱWeȱareȱpresentedȱfirstȱwithȱ“whole rankes”ȱperishing,ȱtornȱapartȱbyȱLove’sȱwarȱmachinery,ȱandȱthenȱwithȱ“Frye,”ȱa schoolȱofȱsmallȱfishȱeatenȱbyȱtheȱundiscriminating,ȱpredatoryȱ“Pike.”ȱTheȱplural, martialȱimagesȱinȱtheseȱlines,ȱalongsideȱtheȱpluralȱpronounsȱwhichȱdominateȱthat stanzaȱandȱtheȱmasculineȱpronounsȱofȱtheȱfirst,ȱserveȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱintended

38 39

Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱxxi.78.ȱ Montaigne,ȱ“Deȱl’Amitié,”ȱ314.3,ȱ8.ȱ

722

L.ȱBelleeȱJones

generalȱaudienceȱwhoȱwouldȱbeȱbestȱservedȱbyȱtheȱpoem’sȱpedagogy:ȱthoseȱmen whoȱwouldȱhaveȱreadȱ“TheȱBrokenȱHeart”ȱinȱmanuscript.ȱ Donne’sȱspeakerȱopensȱwithȱanȱinstructionalȱproclamationȱtoȱthisȱend,ȱcalling anyȱmanȱwhoȱwouldȱdenyȱlove’sȱsimultaneousȱfleetingȱnatureȱandȱconsuming powerȱ“starkeȱmad”ȱ(1).ȱYet,ȱheȱseemsȱdoubtfulȱofȱhisȱabilityȱtoȱinstructȱsuchȱa man: Whoȱwillȱbeleeveȱmee,ȱifȱIȱsweare ThatȱIȱhaveȱhadȱtheȱplagueȱaȱyeare? Whoȱwouldȱnotȱlaughȱatȱmee,ȱifȱIȱshouldȱsay, Iȱsawȱaȱflaskeȱofȱpowderȱburneȱaȱday?ȱ

(5–8,ȱ emphasisȱoriginal)

Donne’sȱspeakerȱneverthelessȱattemptsȱtoȱinstructȱhisȱmaleȱaudienceȱinȱtheȱsecond stanzaȱbyȱinvokingȱtheȱplural—ourȱhearts—asȱifȱtoȱsay,ȱtakeȱmeȱasȱanȱexample,ȱforȱyou couldȱmeetȱtheȱsameȱfate.ȱDonne’sȱreferencesȱtoȱphysicsȱtheȱpoem’sȱfourthȱstanzaȱare aȱreminderȱofȱhisȱpedagogicalȱintent.ȱAlongȱwithȱcopiousȱreferencesȱDonneȱmakes toȱvariousȱsciencesȱandȱphilosophies,ȱincludingȱbotany,ȱalchemy,ȱandȱscholastic philosophy,ȱRedpathȱsuggestsȱDonne’sȱuseȱofȱphysicsȱ“ledȱDrydenȱtoȱcensureȱhim forȱaffectingȱmetaphysicsȱevenȱ‘inȱhisȱamorousȱverses,ȱwhereȱnatureȱonlyȱshould reign’”ȱ(29). ȱRedpathȱgoesȱonȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtheȱtermȱmetaphysicalȱ“soonȱacquiredȱaȱmoreȱgeneral senseȱthanȱDrydenȱprobablyȱintended,ȱandȱcameȱtoȱconnoteȱtheȱemploymentȱof learningȱasȱtheȱstuffȱofȱpoetry”ȱ(29–30).ȱ“Natureȱonly”ȱwouldȱseem,ȱforȱDonne’s maleȱ audience,ȱ aȱ pitfallȱ toȱ beȱ avoidedȱ atȱ allȱ costs,ȱ whichȱ returnsȱ theȱ readerȱ to Cicero’sȱwarningȱagainstȱoverhastyȱlove.ȱAsȱtheȱlastȱlinesȱofȱ“TheȱBrokenȱHeart” stateȱclearly,ȱoneȱcannotȱloveȱagainȱafterȱhavingȱlovedȱsoȱcarelessly.ȱMoreȱtoȱthe point,ȱsuchȱaȱoneȱcannotȱloveȱperfectly;ȱthus,ȱcorrectȱhomosocialȱfriendshipȱisȱmade impossibleȱthroughȱsuchȱwaste. Havingȱexaminedȱtheȱtropesȱcommonȱtoȱfriendshipȱandȱexchangedȱheartsȱin “Theȱ Message,”ȱ “Theȱ Legacie,”ȱ andȱ “Theȱ Brokenȱ Heart,”ȱ weȱ canȱ moreȱ fully exploreȱtheȱeffectsȱofȱeachȱinȱ“TheȱBlossome,”ȱwhichȱisȱperhapsȱtheȱfinestȱexample inȱ Donne’sȱ poeticȱ corpusȱ ofȱ theȱ combinedȱ sensesȱ ofȱ amorȱ (love)ȱ foundȱ inȱ both amicitiaȱ(friendship)ȱandȱamorous.ȱ“TheȱBlossome”ȱisȱpresentedȱasȱanȱimagined, argumentativeȱdialogueȱbetweenȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhisȱheart,ȱaȱcommonplaceȱin Petrarchanȱpoetry.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱdialogueȱalsoȱfollowsȱtheȱrhetoricalȱsituationȱin whichȱ Ciceroȱ placesȱ Laelius,ȱ theȱ mainȱ speakerȱ inȱ Deȱ amicitia,ȱ andȱ thusȱ “what startedȱasȱaȱPetrarchanȱlamentȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱendsȱasȱanȱantiȬPetrarchanȱtriumph”ȱ(Redpath 278).ȱDonneȱplacesȱhisȱspeakerȱasȱanȱolder,ȱmoreȱworldlyȬwiseȱcreatureȱinȱdialogue withȱhisȱinexperiencedȱandȱrecklessȱheart,ȱtheȱ“pooreȱflower”ȱheȱaddresses: Littleȱthink’stȱthou,ȱpooreȱflower, WhomȱIȱhaveȱwatch’dȱsixeȱorȱseavenȱdayes,

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

723

Andȱseeneȱthyȱbirth,ȱandȱseeneȱwhatȱeveryȱhoure Gaveȱtoȱthyȱgrowth,ȱtheeȱtoȱthisȱheightȱtoȱraise, Andȱnowȱdostȱlaughȱandȱtriumphȱonȱthisȱbough, Littleȱthink’stȱthou Thatȱitȱwillȱfreezeȱanon,ȱandȱthatȱIȱshallȱ Toȱmorrowȱfindeȱtheeȱfalne,ȱorȱnotȱatȱall.ȱ

(1–8)

Theȱspeakerȱaddressesȱtheȱheart,ȱaȱseparateȱandȱmaleȬgenderedȱentity,ȱmuchȱinȱthe sameȱwayȱthatȱLaeliusȱaddressesȱFanniusȱandȱScaevola.ȱHeȱisȱanȱauthorityȱfigure, aȱdispenserȱofȱadviceȱandȱwarnings.ȱ However,ȱtheȱheartȱisȱalsoȱaȱpartȱofȱhim—possiblyȱmoreȱthanȱoneȱpart—and thereforeȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhisȱheartȱshareȱtheȱalterȱidemȱqualityȱofȱfriendship.ȱThe speakerȱhasȱtakenȱgreatȱcareȱtoȱobserveȱtheȱheartȱandȱhowȱitȱhasȱchanged:ȱthe speakerȱ watchesȱ forȱ “sixeȱ orȱ seavenȱ dayes”ȱ (2),ȱ theȱ spanȱ ofȱ Creation,ȱ andȱ has “seeneȱwhatȱeveryȱhoureȱ/ȱGaveȱtoȱthyȱgrowth,ȱtheeȱtoȱthisȱheightȱtoȱraise”ȱ(3–4). Donne’sȱ constantȱ concernȱ withȱ changeȱ andȱ waste,ȱ alongȱ withȱ theȱ practicesȱ of properȱfriendship,ȱinformȱtheȱspeaker’sȱconcernȱforȱtheȱ“flower”ȱofȱhisȱheartȱinȱthis stanza.ȱ Notȱ onlyȱ hasȱ theȱ heartȱ grown,ȱ signalingȱ theȱ heart’sȱ sometimesȱ phallic natureȱandȱthereforeȱitsȱreadinessȱtoȱwasteȱseed,40ȱtheȱheartȱ“Littleȱthink’st”ȱabout itsȱcertain,ȱfreezingȱfateȱatȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱspeaker’sȱinattentiveȱlover.ȱ Theȱpoem’sȱsecondȱstanzaȱreemphasizesȱtheȱ“freeze”ȱofȱtheȱfirst.ȱThoughȱthe heartȱ“hop’stȱherȱstiffenesseȱbyȱlongȱsiegeȱtoȱbow”ȱ(13),ȱtheȱspeakerȱasȱpersuader andȱpedagogueȱcontinues: Littleȱthink’stȱthou Thatȱthouȱtomorrow,ȱereȱthatȱSunneȱdothȱwake, MustȱwithȱthisȱSunne,ȱandȱmeeȱaȱjourneyȱtake.ȱ

(14–16)ȱ

Invokingȱtimeȱandȱtheȱsun,ȱtheȱspeakerȱimploresȱhisȱheartȱtoȱtakeȱactionȱwhich wouldȱpreserveȱthemȱboth.41ȱ Whenȱtheȱspeakerȱimaginesȱtheȱanswerȱofȱhisȱheart,ȱitȱisȱprimarilyȱdismissiveȱof theȱspeaker’sȱconcerns:ȱ“Ifȱyouȱmustȱgoe,”ȱtheȱheartȱreplies,ȱ“what’sȱthatȱtoȱmee? /ȱHereȱlyesȱmyȱbusinesse,ȱandȱhereȱIȱwillȱstay”ȱ(19–20).ȱTheȱheart’sȱsecondȱtactic isȱtoȱquestionȱtheȱspeaker’sȱpriorities:

40

41

Forȱaȱcompleteȱexplanationȱofȱtheȱphallicȱheart,ȱseeȱErickson,ȱTheȱLanguageȱofȱtheȱHeart:ȱ1600–1750, 8–10. Thoughȱ imageryȱ equatingȱ aȱ loverȱ withȱ theȱ sunȱ isȱ commonȱ toȱ theȱ Petrarchanȱ tradition,ȱ a connectionȱtoȱDeȱamicitia,ȱxiii.47,ȱisȱpossible:ȱ“Solemȱenimȱeȱmundoȱtollereȱvidentur,ȱquiȱamicitiam eȱvitaȱtollunt,ȱquaȱnihilȱaȱdisȱinmortalibusȱmeliusȱhabemus,ȱnihilȱiucundius”ȱ(“Why,ȱtheyȱ[stoics] seemȱtoȱtakeȱtheȱsunȱoutȱofȱtheȱuniverseȱwhenȱtheyȱdepriveȱlifeȱofȱfriendship,ȱthanȱwhichȱweȱhave fromȱtheȱimmortalȱgodsȱnoȱbetter,ȱnoȱmoreȱdelightfulȱboon”).

724

L.ȱBelleeȱJones Youȱgoeȱtoȱfriends,ȱwhoseȱlove42ȱandȱmeanesȱpresent Variousȱcontent Toȱyourȱeyes,ȱeares,ȱandȱtongue,ȱandȱeveryȱpart. Ifȱthenȱyourȱbodyȱgoe,ȱwhatȱneedȱyou’aȱheart?ȱ (21–24)

Theȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱheartȱcertainlyȱdeservesȱunpacking.ȱItsȱuseȱofȱtheȱwordȱfriends isȱunclear.ȱAccordingȱtoȱtheȱOxfordȱEnglishȱDictionary,ȱaȱsenseȱofȱtheȱtermȱfriend contemporaryȱ withȱDonneȱdenotesȱ“aȱloverȱorȱparamour,ȱofȱeitherȱsex.”43ȱThe heartȱ seemsȱ toȱ employȱ thisȱ sense,ȱ suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ speakerȱ seeksȱ sexual satisfaction,ȱandȱthatȱthroughȱpromiscuity.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱrebuttalȱfromȱtheȱspeaker stressesȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱknowingȱtheȱheart,ȱanȱattributeȱofȱperfectȱfriendship, overȱsexualȱpleasure.ȱAgain,ȱsinceȱtheȱheart’sȱbelovedȱpossessesȱnoȱheartȱofȱher own,ȱsheȱisȱunableȱtoȱ“know,”ȱinȱanyȱsense,ȱ“myȱheart”ȱorȱ“thee”ȱ(29–30).ȱInȱorder toȱstressȱtheȱpoint,ȱlinesȱthirtyȬoneȱandȱthirtyȬtwoȱareȱaȱpedagogicalȱrestatement, doublingȱtheȱlinesȱthatȱcameȱbefore.ȱ Theȱspeakerȱturns,ȱinȱtheȱlastȱstanza,ȱfromȱrebuttalȱtoȱacceptance,ȱurgingȱhis heartȱtoȱcatchȱupȱwithȱhimȱlater,ȱwhenȱheȱwillȱbeȱ“fresher,ȱandȱmoreȱfat,ȱbyȱbeing withȱmen”ȱ(35).ȱTheȱspeakerȱclosesȱbyȱtellingȱhisȱheartȱthat,ȱifȱheȱcould,ȱheȱwould “give”ȱitȱ“toȱanotherȱfriend,”ȱpointedlyȱmale,ȱ“whomȱweeȱshallȱfindȱ/ȱAsȱgladȱto haveȱmyȱbody,ȱasȱmyȱminde”ȱ(38–40).ȱ SilviaȱRuffoȬFioreȱarguesȱthatȱ“theȱlastȱlinesȱofȱtheȱpoemȱprofferȱtheȱhopeȱforȱa moreȱfruitfulȱrelationshipȱinȱtheȱfuture,ȱoneȱbalancingȱtheȱdemandsȱofȱtheȱbody withȱthoseȱofȱtheȱmind”44ȱIfȱtheȱ“moreȱfruitfulȱrelationship”ȱRuffoȬFioreȱsuggests isȱheterosexual,ȱthisȱideaȱisȱatȱoddsȱwithȱMontaigne’sȱconceptȱofȱfriendship,ȱforȱno womanȱ canȱ understandȱ bothȱ theȱ bodyȱ andȱ theȱ mind,ȱ orȱ heart.ȱ Scholarsȱ seem reluctantȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱ“TheȱBlossome”ȱasȱaȱtextȱwhichȱdealsȱwithȱmaleȬmale relationshipsȱbecauseȱtheȱpoemsȱexpresslyȱinvolveȱtheȱspeaker’sȱbody,ȱandȱsome scholarshipȱveersȱwideȱofȱanyȱhomosocialȱorȱhomoeroticȱconnotation.ȱRedpath,ȱfor example,ȱisȱcarefulȱtoȱglossȱmenȱasȱ“peopleȱ(notȱnecessarilyȱmales)”ȱ(279)ȱinȱthe speaker’sȱlastȱlines.ȱHowever,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱglossȱfriend.ȱSinceȱtheȱtermȱfriendȱwas applicableȱtoȱbothȱsexes—andȱbothȱtypesȱofȱrelationship—itȱseemsȱcarelessȱtoȱthink thatȱ Donne,ȱ aȱ poetȱ capableȱ ofȱ delicateȱ nuancesȱ andȱ intricateȱ layersȱ ofȱ images, wouldȱ neglectȱ theȱ homosocialȱ senseȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ allȱ togetherȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ the amorous.ȱ

42

43 44

Redpathȱchoosesȱ“loves”ȱhere,ȱforȱitȱhasȱ“somewhatȱstrongerȱMSȱsupport,ȱandȱsuggestsȱmore vividlyȱtheȱpluralityȱandȱvarietyȱofȱhisȱLondonȱfriends.”ȱTheȱSongsȱandȱSonnetsȱofȱJohnȱDonne,ȱ279. OEDȱn.ȱ“friend”ȱA.ȱ4. SilviaȱRuffoȬFiore,ȱ“TheȱUnwantedȱHeartȱinȱPetrarchȱandȱDonne,”ȱComparativeȱLiteratureȱ24.4 (1972):ȱ319–27;ȱhereȱ324.ȱRuffoȬFiore’sȱessayȱprovidesȱaȱcompellingȱreadingȱofȱ“TheȱBlossome”ȱand “TheȱBrokenȱHeart”ȱwithinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱPetrarchȱhimself,ȱratherȱthanȱtheȱgeneralizedȱPetrarchan Tradition.

Donne’sȱPetrarchanȱHeartȱasȱSpeculumȱAmicitiae

725

Givenȱtheȱspeaker’sȱuseȱofȱmen,ȱitȱdoesȱnotȱseemȱoutȱofȱboundsȱtoȱsuggestȱthat Donneȱusesȱfriendȱinȱtheȱmostȱcommonȱsenseȱandȱmeansȱtheȱtermȱtoȱbeȱtakenȱas suchȱbyȱhisȱfellows.ȱMaleȱfriendsȱwould,ȱindeed,ȱrefreshȱtheȱspeakerȱandȱhisȱheart. Accordingȱtoȱfriendshipȱtexts,ȱtheyȱareȱtheȱonlyȱsortȱofȱpeopleȱwhoȱareȱcapableȱof providingȱsuchȱrefreshmentȱorȱnourrieȱ(nourishment).45ȱFurther,ȱtheȱspeakerȱwishes toȱgiveȱhisȱheartȱtoȱsomeoneȱwhoȱwouldȱappreciateȱbothȱhisȱbodyȱandȱhisȱmind. Butȱtheȱmind—figuredȱasȱtheȱheartȱthroughoutȱtheȱ poem—isȱmoreȱimportant. Thoughȱoftenȱusedȱinȱcontrastȱtoȱtheȱmindȱand/orȱsoul,ȱtheȱtermȱbodyȱneedȱnot denoteȱsimplyȱthoseȱphysicalȱattributesȱhavingȱtoȱdoȱwithȱsexualȱpleasure.ȱThe speakerȱhasȱalreadyȱmadeȱaȱlewdȱcommentȱconcerningȱ“someȱotherȱpart”ȱ(31);ȱ Donne,ȱwhoȱhasȱnoȱqualmsȱwithȱdoubledȱterms,ȱmightȱjustȱasȱeasilyȱhaveȱused theȱ sameȱ termȱ againȱ inȱ theȱ poem’sȱ finalȱ lineȱ hadȱ thatȱ beenȱ hisȱ onlyȱ intended meaning.ȱ Therefore,ȱ readersȱ shouldȱ recallȱ theȱ otherȱ sensesȱ embeddedȱ inȱ the Englishȱtermȱbody46ȱasȱwellȱasȱitsȱLatinȱequivalent:ȱcorpusȱ(body)ȱis,ȱafterȱall,ȱrelated toȱcorȱ(heart).ȱ Justȱasȱtheȱspeakerȱofȱ“TheȱBlossome”ȱadvisesȱhisȱownȱheart,ȱDonneȱadvises thoseȱmenȱwhoȱwouldȱhaveȱreadȱ“TheȱBlossome”—andȱheȱmayȱevenȱaddressȱthem directly.ȱHeartȱdoesȱnotȱonlyȱdenoteȱtheȱphysicalȱorganȱorȱseatȱofȱemotion;ȱduring theȱ seventeenthȱ century,ȱ itȱ wasȱ alsoȱ aȱ commonȱ termȱ ofȱ endearmentȱ and compassion.47ȱ “Egoȱ vosȱ hortariȱ tantumȱ possum,”ȱ Laeliusȱ saysȱ toȱ Fanniusȱ and Scaevola,ȱ“utȱamicitiamȱomnibusȱrebusȱhumanisȱanteponatis”ȱ(AllȱthatȱIȱcanȱdoȱis toȱurgeȱyouȱtoȱputȱfriendshipȱbeforeȱallȱthingsȱhuman).48ȱInȱputtingȱfriendshipȱfirst, menȱ putȱ theirȱ ownȱ wellȱ beingȱ first.ȱ Donneȱ saysȱ asȱ muchȱ toȱ hisȱ heartȱ inȱ “The Blossome,”ȱandȱimploresȱhisȱreaders,ȱthoughȱtheȱimagesȱofȱexchangedȬheartsȱin thatȱpoemȱasȱwellȱasȱinȱ“TheȱMessage,”ȱ“TheȱLegacie,”ȱandȱ“TheȱBrokenȱHeart” andȱotherȱPetrarchanȱimageryȱinȱtheȱSongsȱandȱSonnets,ȱtoȱdoȱtheȱsame.

45 46

47 48

Montaigne’sȱterm. Particularlyȱbeguilingȱsensesȱincludeȱ“Theȱmain,ȱcentral,ȱorȱprincipalȱpart,ȱasȱdistinguishedȱfrom partsȱsubordinateȱorȱlessȱimportant;ȱtheȱpartȱroundȱwhichȱtheȱothersȱareȱgrouped,ȱorȱtoȱwhichȱthey areȱattachedȱasȱappendages”ȱandȱ“Personalȱbeing,ȱindividual”ȱ(OEDȱn.ȱ“body”ȱII.ȱ7.ȱa.ȱandȱIII.).ȱ OEDȱn.ȱ“heart”ȱI.ȱ14.ȱa.;ȱI.ȱ16.ȱ Cicero,ȱDeȱamicitia,ȱv.17.ȱ

Chapterȱ19 JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen (UniversitéȱCharlesȬdeȬGaulleȬLilleȱ3,ȱLille)

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱ TheȱTempleȱ(1633)

InȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱauthorsȱofȱtheȱmedievalȱImitationȱofȱChristȱandȱLifeȱofȱSoul,ȱthe AnglicanȱpriestȱandȱpoetȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱ(1593–1633)ȱusedȱaȱsubstantialȱnumber ofȱ friendshipȱ metaphorsȱ toȱ describeȱ hisȱ Christianȱ experienceȱ ofȱ aȱ manifold relationshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple,ȱhisȱcollectionȱofȱreligiousȱpoemsȱinȱEnglish publishedȱposthumouslyȱinȱ1633ȱwhoseȱpiousȱandȱpoeticȱtoneȱdeeplyȱimpressed numerousȱliteraryȱfiguresȱoverȱtheȱages.1ȱInȱtheȱbook,ȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ“friendship withȱChrist”ȱcanȱsurprisinglyȱstretchȱfromȱanȱaffableȱexchangeȱtoȱaȱmasterȱand servantȱ bondȱ whenȱ notȱ takingȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ aȱ Platonicȱ fusionȱ embarrassingly reminiscentȱofȱcourtlyȱlove.ȱHerbertȱnoȱdoubtȱturnedȱtheȱconceptȱintoȱanȱextremely flexibleȱandȱfluctuatingȱoneȱwhileȱcopiouslyȱrecyclingȱmedievalȱorȱearlierȱChristian sourcesȱasȱwellȱasȱcontemporaryȱprofaneȱpoetryȱandȱliterature.ȱLastȱbutȱnotȱleast, heȱresortedȱtoȱaȱuniqueȱanagrammaticȱlinguisticȱstrategyȱsoȱasȱtoȱAnglicanizeȱthe toposȱandȱpromoteȱtheȱsupremacyȱofȱtheȱAnglicanȱcultȱoverȱitsȱrivals. Asȱweȱwillȱseeȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱtheȱveryȱideaȱofȱaȱpotentialȱfriendship withȱChrist,ȱnotwithstandingȱtimeȱandȱdistance,ȱechoesȱHisȱwordsȱinȱJohnȱ15ȱinȱthe episodeȱimmediatelyȱprecedingȱtheȱarrest,ȱwhereȱtheȱonlyȱtwoȱoccurrencesȱofȱthe wordȱareȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱinȱHisȱmouth,ȱnamelyȱJohnȱ15:13—“Greaterȱloveȱhathȱnoȱman thanȱthis,ȱthatȱaȱmanȱlayȱdownȱhisȱlifeȱforȱhisȱfriends”—andȱ15:14—“Yeȱareȱmy friends,ȱifȱyeȱdoȱwhatsoeverȱIȱcommandȱyou.”

1

WeȱcanȱlistȱamongȱthemȱwritersȱasȱdiverseȱasȱRichardȱCrashawȱ(1613–1649),ȱHenryȱVaughan (1621–1695),ȱJohnȱRuskinȱ(1819–1900),ȱEmilyȱDickinsonȱ(1830–1886),ȱAldousȱHuxleyȱ(1894–1963), JorgeȱLuisȱBorgesȱ(1889–1986)ȱorȱphilosopherȱSimoneȱWeilȱ(1909–1943).

728

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

Theȱratherȱnumerousȱoccurrencesȱofȱtheȱ“friend”ȱtropeȱnotedȱinȱTheȱTempleȱby MarioȱA.ȱDiȱCesareȱandȱRigoȱMignaniȱinȱtheirȱConcordanceȱtoȱtheȱCompleteȱWritings ofȱGeorgeȱHerbert2ȱcouldȱbeȱproofȱenoughȱthatȱtheȱconceptȱwasȱatȱtheȱveryȱheartȱof Herbert’sȱ poetics.ȱ Amongȱ them,ȱ noȱ fewerȱ thanȱ twentyȬeightȱ appearȱ toȱ have religiousȱconnotations,ȱandȱmoreȱoftenȱthanȱnotȱtheȱtermsȱexclusivelyȱreferȱtoȱthe narrator’sȱrelationshipȱtoȱtheȱdivine,ȱandȱmoreȱspecificallyȱtoȱChrist,ȱwhomȱthe poemsȱfrequentlyȱaddress,ȱasȱhereȱinȱ“Unkindnesse”: Lord,ȱmakeȱmeȱcoyȱandȱtenderȱtoȱoffend: Inȱfriendship,ȱfirstȱIȱthink,ȱifȱthatȱagree, WhichȱIȱintend, Untoȱmyȱfriendsȱintentȱandȱend. Iȱwouldȱnotȱuseȱaȱfriend,ȱasȱIȱuseȱThee. Ifȱanyȱtouchȱmyȱfriend,ȱorȱhisȱgoodȱname, Itȱisȱmyȱhonourȱandȱmyȱloveȱtoȱfree Hisȱblastedȱfame Fromȱtheȱleastȱspotȱorȱthoughtȱofȱblame. Iȱcouldȱnotȱuseȱaȱfriend,ȱasȱIȱuseȱThee. Myȱfriendȱmayȱspitȱuponȱmyȱcuriousȱfloore: Wouldȱheȱhaveȱgold?ȱIȱlendȱitȱinstantly; Butȱletȱtheȱpoore, Andȱthouȱwithinȱthem,ȱstarveȱatȱdoore. Iȱcannotȱuseȱaȱfriend,ȱasȱIȱuseȱThee. Whenȱthatȱmyȱfriendȱpretendethȱtoȱaȱplace, Iȱquitȱmyȱinterest,ȱandȱleaveȱitȱfree: Butȱwhenȱthyȱgrace Suesȱforȱmyȱheart,ȱIȱtheeȱdisplace, NorȱwouldȱIȱuseȱaȱfriend,ȱasȱIȱuseȱThee. Yetȱcanȱaȱfriendȱwhatȱthouȱhastȱdoneȱfulfill? Oȱwriteȱinȱbrass,ȱMyȱGodȱuponȱaȱtree Hisȱbloudȱdidȱspill OnelyȱtoȱpurchaseȱmyȱgoodȬwill. YetȱuseȱIȱnotȱmyȱfoes,ȱasȱIȱuseȱThee. 3

Evenȱthoughȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱ“Lord”ȱandȱ“friend”ȱstillȱisȱrelevant,ȱtheȱfact thatȱtheȱnarratorȱisȱconsideringȱtheȱissueȱisȱatȱtheȱveryȱcoreȱofȱtheȱconfession.ȱThis notionȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ ofȱ theȱ inherentȱ reciprocityȱ itȱ impliesȱ isȱ alsoȱ greatly

2

3

Marioȱ A.ȱ Diȱ Cesareȱ andȱ Rigoȱ Mignani,ȱ Concordanceȱ toȱ theȱ Completeȱ Writingsȱ ofȱ Georgeȱ Herbert (Ithaca,ȱNY,ȱandȱLondon:ȱCornellȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1977). Theȱ spellingȱ ofȱ allȱ theȱ poemsȱ reproducedȱ inȱ thisȱ paperȱ isȱ takenȱ fromȱ theȱ nineteenthȬcentury editionȱTheȱWorksȱofȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱInȱProseȱandȱVerse,ȱed.ȱRev.ȱRobertȱArisȱWillmottȱ(London: RoutledgeȱandȱSons,ȱ1854)ȱthatȱrespectsȱthatȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱWilliamsȱmanuscript.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

729

indebtedȱ toȱ theȱ earlierȱ writingsȱ ofȱ Thomasȱ àȱ Kempisȱ (ca.ȱ 1379–1471)ȱ whoȱ had declared QuiȱinvenitȱIesumȱinvenitȱthesaurumȱbonum:ȱimmoȱbonumȱsuperȱomneȱbonum.ȱEtȱqui perditȱIesumȱperditȱnimisȱmultum:ȱetȱplusȱquamȱtotumȱmundum.ȱPauperrimusȱestȱqui vivitȱsineȱIesu:ȱetȱditissimusȱquiȱbeneȱestȱcumȱIesu. Majoraȱarsȱest,ȱscriveȱcumȱIesuȱconversari:ȱetȱscriveȱIesumȱtenereȱmagnaȱprudentia. Esteȱhumilisȱetȱpacificus:ȱetȱeritȱtecumȱIesus.ȱSisȱdevotusȱetȱquietus:ȱetȱmanebitȱtecum Iesus.ȱ Potesȱ citeȱ fugareȱ Iesumȱ etȱ gratiamȱ eiusȱ perdere:ȱ siȱ volverisȱ adȱ exteriora declinare.ȱEtȱsiȱillumȱeffugaverisȱetȱperdideris;ȱadȱquemȱfugiesȱetȱquemȱtuncȱquaeres amicum?ȱSineȱamicoȱnonȱpotesȱbeneȱvivere;ȱetȱsiȱIesusȱnonȱfueritȱtibiȱpraeȱomnibus amicus:ȱerisȱnimisȱtristisȱetȱdesolatus.ȱFatueȱigiturȱagisȱ:ȱsinȱaliquoȱalteroȱconfidisȱaut laetaris.ȱ Eligendumȱ estȱ imagisȱ totumȱ mundumȱ habereȱ contrarium:ȱ quamȱ Iesum offensum.ȱExȱomnibusȱergoȱcaris:ȱsitȱIesusȱsolusȱdilectusȱspecialis.4 [HeȱwhoȱfindsȱJesusȱfindsȱaȱrareȱtreasure,ȱindeed,ȱaȱgoodȱaboveȱeveryȱgood,ȱwhereas heȱwhoȱlosesȱHimȱlosesȱmoreȱthanȱtheȱwholeȱworld.ȱTheȱmanȱwhoȱlivesȱwithoutȱJesus isȱtheȱpoorestȱofȱtheȱpoor,ȱwhereasȱnoȱoneȱisȱsoȱrichȱasȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱlivesȱinȱHisȱgrace. ItȱisȱaȱgreatȱartȱtoȱknowȱhowȱtoȱconverseȱwithȱJesus,ȱandȱgreatȱwisdomȱtoȱknow howȱtoȱkeepȱHim.ȱBeȱhumbleȱandȱpeaceful,ȱandȱJesusȱwillȱbeȱwithȱyou.ȱBeȱdevoutȱand calm,ȱandȱHeȱwillȱremainȱwithȱyou.ȱYouȱmayȱquicklyȱdriveȱHimȱawayȱandȱloseȱHis grace,ȱifȱyouȱturnȱbackȱtoȱtheȱoutsideȱworld.ȱAnd,ȱifȱyouȱdriveȱHimȱawayȱandȱlose Him,ȱtoȱwhomȱwillȱyouȱgoȱandȱwhomȱwillȱyouȱthenȱseekȱasȱaȱfriend?ȱYouȱcannotȱlive wellȱwithoutȱaȱfriend,ȱandȱifȱJesusȱbeȱnotȱyourȱfriendȱaboveȱallȱelse,ȱyouȱwillȱbeȱvery sadȱandȱdesolate.ȱThus,ȱyouȱareȱactingȱfoolishlyȱifȱyouȱtrustȱorȱrejoiceȱinȱanyȱother. ChooseȱtheȱoppositionȱofȱtheȱwholeȱworldȱratherȱthanȱoffendȱJesus.ȱOfȱallȱthoseȱwho areȱdearȱtoȱyou,ȱletȱHimȱbeȱyourȱspecialȱlove.ȱLetȱallȱthingsȱbeȱlovedȱforȱtheȱsakeȱof Jesus,ȱbutȱJesusȱforȱHisȱownȱsake.]

Herbertȱseemsȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱmostȱconcernedȱwithȱcreatingȱanȱ“artȱtoȱknowȱhowȱto converseȱwithȱJesus”ȱandȱwithȱfindingȱaȱsatisfyingȱwayȱtoȱharmonizeȱhisȱmore spiritualȱ publicȱ priestȱ personaȱ withȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ earthlyȱ privateȱ poetȱ inȱ orderȱ to

4

ThomaeȱHemerkenȱAkempisȱ(ThomasȱàȱKempis),ȱDeȱImitatioȱChristiȱ(1441?),ȱLiberȱSecundus,ȱCap. VIII,ȱ“DeȱfamiliariȱamicitiaȱIesu”ȱ[“TheȱIntimateȱFriendshipȱofȱJesus”],ȱinȱOperaȱOmnia,ȱed.ȱM.ȱJ. Pohlȱ (Freiburg:ȱ Sumptibusȱ Herder,ȱ 1904),ȱ 72.ȱ Herbertȱ neverȱ mentionsȱ àȱ Kempisȱ althoughȱ he expresslyȱrefersȱtoȱTertullianȱandȱChrysostomȱinȱhisȱproseȱworksȱofȱAȱPriestȱtoȱtheȱTempleȱorȱThe CountryȱParson,ȱinȱGeorgeȱHerbert,ȱTheȱCompleteȱEnglishȱWorks,ȱed.ȱAnnȱPasternakȱSlaterȱ(1908, London:ȱEveryman’sȱLibrary,ȱ1995),ȱ249ȱ(fromȱnowȱonȱabbreviatedȱasȱC.ȱE.ȱW.).ȱNevertheless,ȱin theȱsameȱbookȱheȱcitesȱJeanȱCharlierȱdeȱGersonȱ(1363–1429)ȱtoȱwhomȱTheȱImitationȱwasȱfrequently attributedȱ(ibid.,ȱ“TheȱParson’sȱEye,”ȱChapterȱXXVI,ȱ235).ȱFurthermore,ȱtheȱnarrator’sȱoutcryȱ“But howȱthenȱshallȱIȱimitateȱthee,ȱandȱ/ȱCopieȱthyȱfaire,ȱthoughȱbloodieȱhand?”ȱ(italicsȱmine)ȱinȱ“The Thanksgiving”ȱ(15)ȱisȱquiteȱtellingȱofȱhisȱindebtednessȱtoȱtheȱbook.ȱTheȱsimilitudesȱareȱsuchȱthat A.ȱJ.ȱFestugièreȱevenȱdeclaredȱ“TheȱTempleȱisȱTheȱImitationȱinȱverse”ȱinȱhisȱGeorgeȱHerbert,ȱpoète, saintȱanglicanȱ(1593–1633).ȱÉtudesȱdeȱthéologieȱetȱd’ȱhistoireȱdeȱlaȱspiritualité,ȱ18;ȱȱ(Paris:ȱLibrairie philosophiqueȱJ.ȱVrin,ȱ1971),ȱ11ȱ(myȱtranslation).

730

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

reconcileȱhisȱtwoȱselves.ȱInȱthisȱregard,ȱheȱisȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱintroducedȱTheȱTemple fromȱhisȱdeathbedȱtoȱhisȱattendingȱfriendsȱasȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱaȱpictureȱofȱtheȱmanyȱspiritualȱconflictsȱthatȱhaveȱpassedȱbetwixtȱGodȱandȱmyȱsoul, beforeȱIȱcouldȱsubjectȱmineȱtoȱtheȱwillȱofȱJesusȱmyȱMaster,ȱinȱwhoseȱserviceȱIȱhaveȱnow foundȱperfectȱfreedom.5

Inȱtheirȱrespectiveȱspheres,ȱtheȱpriestȱandȱtheȱpoetȱdefineȱthemselvesȱasȱservants, butȱwhereasȱtheȱfirstȱcanȱfollowȱtheȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱChurchȱofȱEngland,ȱtheȱsecond selfȱdecidesȱtoȱreȬinventȱhimselfȱthroughȱhisȱpoetryȱandȱhaveȱtheȱtwoȱpersonas merge.ȱTheȱmedievalȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱandȱallegianceȱisȱechoedȱinȱtheȱLordȬ tenantȱmetaphorȱofȱ“Redemption”:ȱ HavingȱbeenȱtenantȱlongȱtoȱaȱrichȱLord, Notȱthriving,ȱIȱresolvedȱtoȱbeȱbold, Andȱmakeȱaȱsuitȱuntoȱhim,ȱtoȱafford AȱnewȱsmallȬrentedȱlease,ȱandȱcancellȱth’ȱold. InȱheavenȱatȱhisȱmanourȱIȱhimȱsought: Theyȱtoldȱmeȱthere,ȱthatȱheȱwasȱlatelyȱgone Aboutȱsomeȱland,ȱwhichȱheȱhadȱdearlyȱbought Longȱsinceȱonȱearth,ȱtoȱtakeȱpossession. Iȱstraightȱreturn’d,ȱandȱknowingȱhisȱgreatȱbirth, Soughtȱhimȱaccordinglyȱinȱgreatȱresorts; Inȱcities,ȱtheatres,ȱgardens,ȱparks,ȱandȱcourts: AtȱlengthȱIȱheardȱaȱraggedȱnoiseȱandȱmirth Ofȱtheevesȱandȱmurderers:ȱthereȱIȱhimȱespied, Whoȱstraight,ȱYourȱsuitȱisȱgranted,ȱsaid,ȱandȱdied.

Byȱtheȱclosureȱofȱ“LoveȱIII,”ȱtheȱlastȱpoemȱofȱTheȱTemple,ȱthough,ȱandȱafterȱmany ebbsȱ andȱ flows,ȱ bothȱ protagonists—i.e.,ȱ theȱ narratorȱ andȱ “Love,”ȱ anȱ avatarȱ of Christ—endȱupȱonȱanȱequalȱfooting: Loveȱbadeȱmeȱwelcome,ȱyetȱmyȱsoulȱdrewȱback, Guiltieȱofȱdustȱandȱsinne. ButȱquickȬeyȇdȱLove,ȱobservingȱmeȱgrowȱslack Fromȱmyȱfirstȱentranceȱin, Drewȱnearerȱtoȱme,ȱsweetlyȱquestioning IfȱIȱlackȇdȱanything. Aȱguest,ȱIȱanswerȇd,ȱworthyȱtoȱbeȱhere; Loveȱsaid,ȱYouȱshallȱbeȱhe. Iȱtheȱunkinde,ȱungratefull?ȱAhȱmyȱdeare, Iȱcannotȱlookȱonȱthee.

5

IzaacȱWalton,ȱAppendixȱ3,ȱTheȱLifeȱofȱMr.ȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱbyȱIzaakȱWalton,ȱC.E.W.,ȱ380.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

731

Loveȱtookȱmyȱhandȱandȱsmilingȱdidȱreply, WhoȱmadeȱtheȱeyesȱbutȱI? Truth,ȱLord,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱmarrȇdȱthem:ȱletȱmyȱshame Goȱwhereȱitȱdothȱdeserve Andȱknowȱyouȱnot,ȱsayesȱLove,ȱwhoȱboreȱtheȱblame? Myȱdeare,ȱthenȱIȱwillȱserve. Youȱmustȱsitȱdown,ȱsayesȱLove,ȱandȱtasteȱmyȱmeat. SoȱIȱdidȱsitȱandȱeat.

Theȱ narratorȱ hasȱ nowȱ beenȱ raisedȱ byȱ Christȱ whereasȱ heȱ depictedȱ himselfȱ as crawlingȱlikeȱaȱwormȱinȱ“SighsȱandȱGroanes”ȱ(5),ȱmaroonedȱ“betwixtȱthisȱworld andȱ thatȱ ofȱ grace”ȱ inȱ “Afflictionȱ IV”ȱ (6)ȱ or,ȱ atȱ best,ȱ onȱ bendedȱ kneesȱ inȱ “The Search”ȱ(1–8),ȱlamenting:

ȱ

Whither,ȱO,ȱwhitherȱartȱthouȱfled, MyȱLord,ȱmyȱLove? Myȱsearchesȱareȱmyȱdailyȱbread, Yetȱneverȱprove. Myȱkneesȱpierceȱth’ȱearth,ȱmineȱeiesȱtheȱskie;ȱ Andȱyetȱtheȱsphereȱ Andȱcentreȱbothȱtoȱmeȱdenieȱ Thatȱthouȱartȱthere.

Theȱgenuflexionȱposeȱdescribedȱwithȱ“Myȱkneesȱpierceȱtheȱearth”ȱ(5)ȱmayȱexpress theȱ tensionȱ ofȱ theȱ poetȱ imprisonedȱ withinȱ hisȱ ownȱ “corpoȬreality”ȱ [sic]ȱ and aspiringȱtoȱtheȱheavensȱandȱsanctity,ȱbutȱitȱalsoȱformulatesȱhisȱvassalicȱpositionȱin accordanceȱwithȱaȱcodificationȱdirectlyȱinheritedȱfromȱmedievalȱiconographyȱand illuminatedȱbooks.ȱSimilarlyȱborrowedȱfromȱsuchȱsourcesȱareȱtheȱ“takingȱofȱthe hand”ȱandȱ“holdingȱofȱhands”ȱsolicitedȱfromȱGodȱinȱ“Easter”ȱ(3),ȱ“Lent”ȱ(41), “Paradise”ȱ(9),ȱ“Assurance”ȱ(30)ȱandȱfinallyȱachievedȱinȱ“Loveȱ(III),”ȱinȱwhich Christȱinitiatesȱtheȱgesture.ȱAsȱFrançoisȱGarnierȱnotesȱwhenȱdiscussingȱmedieval pictorialȱsymbolism,ȱtheȱmoveȱisȱstillȱambivalentȱandȱmayȱalludeȱtoȱvassality:ȱ Holdingȱanotherȱman’sȱwristȱisȱaȱgestureȱthroughȱwhichȱoneȱassertsȱhisȱdomination orȱthatȱwhichȱheȱintendsȱtoȱhaveȱoverȱhim.ȱItȱisȱnotȱtoȱbeȱseenȱasȱaȱmarkȱofȱfriendship orȱsympathy.ȱTheȱnatureȱofȱthisȱgenuineȱformȱofȱpossessionȱdependsȱonȱtheȱstatusȱof eachȱ ofȱ theȱ personsȱ impliedȱ inȱ theȱ relationshipȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ otherȱ gestures accompanyingȱitȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.6

Nevertheless,ȱChrist’sȱhospitalityȱandȱhisȱinvitationȱtoȱsitȱatȱtheȱbanquetȱtableȱisȱa clearȱ signȱ ofȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ electionȱ justȱ asȱ itȱ revealsȱ theȱ evolutionȱ ofȱ their

6

FrançoisȱGarnier,ȱLeȱLangageȱdeȱl’imageȱauȱmoyenȱâge:ȱSignificationȱetȱSymboliqueȱ(Paris:ȱLeȱLéopard d’Or,ȱ1982),ȱ,ȱChap.ȱIX,ȱ“Gestesȱdeȱlaȱmainȱetȱduȱbras,”ȱ199.ȱMyȱtranslation.

732

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

relationshipȱ intoȱ oneȱ ofȱ reciprocalȱ friendshipȱ andȱ aȱ newlyȱ retrievedȱ senseȱ of communionȱ expressedȱ byȱ theȱ ratherȱ disturbingȱ “tasteȱ myȱ meat”ȱ (17),ȱ the ambiguityȱofȱtheȱlastȱtermȱbeingȱpartlyȱalleviatedȱbyȱitsȱmedievalȱsenseȱofȱ“food.” TheȱwholeȱprocessȱisȱorchestratedȱbyȱGodȱandȱisȱbutȱaȱvariationȱonȱJohnȱ15–15ȱand 16: 15ȱ HenceforthȱIȱcallȱ youȱ notȱ servants;ȱforȱtheȱservantȱknowethȱnotȱwhatȱhisȱlord doeth:ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱcalledȱyouȱfriends;ȱforȱallȱthingsȱthatȱIȱhaveȱheardȱofȱmyȱFather Iȱhaveȱmadeȱknownȱuntoȱyou. 16 Yeȱhaveȱnotȱchosenȱme,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱyou,ȱandȱordainedȱyou,ȱthatȱyeȱshould goȱandȱbringȱforthȱfruit,ȱandȱthatȱyourȱfruitȱshouldȱremain;ȱthatȱwhatsoeverȱye shallȱaskȱofȱtheȱFatherȱinȱmyȱname,ȱheȱmayȱgiveȱitȱyouȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.

Likewise,ȱwhileȱtheȱCreatorȱmayȱmoreȱoftenȱthanȱnotȱbeȱpresentedȱasȱcruelȱtoȱbe kind,ȱ theȱ redeemingȱ Newȱ Testamentȱ Christȱ systematicallyȱ appearsȱ asȱ a straightforwardlyȱ andȱ evenȱ disconcertinglyȱ benevolentȱ friendȱ toȱ theȱ imperfect guiltȬriddenȱnarrator.ȱSuchȱisȱtheȱcaseȱinȱtheȱallegoricalȱpoemȱ“TheȱPilgrimage” when,ȱ afterȱ havingȱ narrowlyȱ escapedȱ theȱ dangersȱ ofȱ aȱ reformedȱ versionȱ of CharybisȱandȱScyllaȱnowȱembodyingȱtheȱChurchȱofȱRomeȱandȱProtestantȱGeneva, theȱnarratorȱfindsȱhimselfȱstrandedȱin .ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱwildeȱofȱpassion,ȱwhich Someȱcallȱtheȱwold; Aȱwastedȱplace,ȱbutȱsometimesȱrich. HereȱIȱwasȱrobbȇdȱofȱallȱmyȱgold, SaveȱoneȱgoodȱAngell,ȱwhichȱaȱfriendȱhadȱtiȇd Closeȱtoȱmyȱside.ȱ

(13–18)

ThisȱisȱrenderedȱpossibleȱbyȱtheȱHerbertianȱpunȱonȱ“angel,”7ȱwhichȱsimultaneousȬ lyȱalludesȱtoȱaȱgoldenȱcoinȱofȱtheȱtimeȱorȱaȱdivineȱemissary.ȱThisȱdivineȱprovidence isȱbutȱoneȱaspectȱofȱtheȱfriendship,ȱsinceȱinȱbothȱ“Assurance”ȱ(30)ȱandȱ“JordanȱII” anotherȱ“friend”ȱisȱpresentedȱalmostȱasȱaȱmuseȱgentlyȱinspiringȱandȱguidingȱthe poet:ȱ ButȱwhileȱIȱbustled,ȱIȱmightȱheareȱaȱfriend Whisper,ȱHowȱwideȱisȱallȱthisȱlongȱpretence! Thereȱisȱinȱloveȱaȱsweetnesseȱreadieȱpennȇd: Copieȱoutȱonlyȱthat,ȱandȱsaveȱexpense.ȱ

(15–18)

Writingȱisȱthereforeȱclearlyȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱtheȱ vehicleȱ ofȱdivineȱfriendship.ȱAsȱis stated,ȱ itsȱ relevanceȱ dependsȱ onȱ aȱ ChristȬlikeȱ unpretentiousness,ȱ humilityȱ and sweetnessȱ(16–17),ȱthusȱ“savingȱexpense”ȱ(18)ȱwhileȱtheȱnumerousȱpunsȱartfully scatteredȱinȱhisȱproductionȱenableȱtheȱauthorȱtoȱperformȱaȱliteraryȱimitationȱof

7

ErasmusȱhadȱusedȱaȱsimilarȱpunȱinȱaȱletterȱtoȱHolbeinȱinȱ1526.ȱSeeȱJamesȱLawson,ȱVanȱDyck, PaintingsȱandȱDrawingsȱ(Munich,ȱLondon,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPrestel,ȱ1999),ȱ7.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

733

Christȱbyȱeconomicallyȱcompactingȱsenseȱandȱconvertingȱartificialȱcourtlyȱlove poetryȱintoȱvirtuousȱreligiousȱverse.ȱ TheȱreciprocityȱthatȱpervadesȱtheȱrelationshipȱisȱfurtherȱevidencedȱwhenȱThe SaviorȱaddressesȱmankindȱfromȱtheȱCrossȱasȱ“friends”ȱinȱ“TheȱSacrifice,”ȱaȱlong poemȱ onȱ theȱ Passionȱ inspiredȱ byȱ numerousȱ medievalȱ religiousȱ poems,ȱ as RosemondȱTuveȱexpertlyȱdemonstrated.8ȱSimilarly,ȱinȱ“theȱBag”ȱ(13),ȱonceȱthe sacrificeȱhasȱtakenȱplace,ȱHeȱproposesȱtoȱcarryȱtheirȱpetitionsȱtoȱGodȱviaȱhisȱwound inȱanȱobviousȱverbalȱrecyclingȱofȱearlierȱilluminatedȱbooks9ȱorȱtheȱmuralsȱadorning medievalȱGermanȱmonasteries:10ȱ Ifȱyeȱhaveȱanyȱthingȱtoȱsendȱorȱwrite, (Iȱhaveȱnoȱbag,ȱbutȱhereȱisȱroom) Untoȱmyȱfather’sȱhandsȱandȱsight (Beleeveȱme)ȱitȱshallȱsafelyȱcome.ȱ

(31–34)

Simultaneously,ȱ “Loveȱ Unknown”ȱ blursȱ sexualȱ identitiesȱ whenȱ theȱ devotee’s relationshipȱtoȱGodȱisȱlikenedȱtoȱcourtlyȱloveȱandȱbecomesȱquiteȱreminiscentȱofȱthe writingsȱofȱtheȱGermanȱDominicanȱmysticȱHenryȱSusoȱ(1295ȱ(?)ȱ–1366)ȱcomparing himselfȱtoȱaȱdivineȱminnesänger—i.e.,ȱminstrel—andȱpilferingȱthatȱliteraryȱgenreȱto ChristianizeȱitȱandȱputȱintoȱwordsȱhisȱownȱChristianȱdevotion.ȱAccordingȱtoȱhis biographerȱJ.ȱA.ȱBizet,ȱSuso’sȱrelationshipȱtoȱChristȱbearsȱstrikingȱresemblances withȱ thatȱofȱminstrelsȱandȱtheirȱbelovedȱorȱthatȱofȱtheȱvassalȱandȱtheirȱlord.ȱTheȱfeudal systemȱ isȱ indeedȱ basedȱ onȱ reciprocalȱ fidelityȱ andȱ dependentȱ feelingsȱ betweenȱ the sovereignȱ andȱ hisȱ vassals,ȱ theirȱ legalȱ bondsȱ beingȱ doubledȱ withȱ oneȱ ofȱ personal affectionȱthatȱreinforcesȱandȱsurpassesȱit.11

Toȱproveȱhisȱlove,ȱtheȱprotagonistȱinȱ“Loveȱunknown”ȱisȱharshlyȱputȱtoȱtheȱtest likeȱ theȱ pretenderȱ repeatedlyȱ rejectedȱ byȱ hisȱ Dameȱ inȱ medievalȱ courtlyȱ love

8 9

10

11

SeeȱRosemondȱTuve,ȱAȱReadingȱofȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱ(Chicago:ȱUniversityȱofȱChicagoȱPress,ȱ1952). TheȱimageȱmayȱhaveȱbeenȱinfluencedȱbyȱearlierȱrepresentationsȱsuchȱasȱthatȱofȱaȱTrinitéȱinȱThe HoursȱofȱMarechalȱBoucicautȱ(f°ȱ118ȱv°)ȱinȱwhichȱGod,ȱinȱanȱapparentȱtrompeȬl’œilȱeffect,ȱisȱshown insertingȱHisȱhandȱinȱChrist’sȱsideȱ(MuséeȱJacquemarsȬAndré,ȱInstitutȱdeȱFrance,ȱParis). InȱtheȱBenedictineȱAbbeyȱofȱSanktȱWalburg,ȱinȱtheȱGermanȱcityȱofȱEichstätt,ȱaroundȱ1500,ȱaȱnun representedȱChrist’sȱhypertrophiedȱheartȱopeningȱupȱonȱtheȱRoodȱtoȱwelcomeȱpiousȱChristians. TheirȱprogressionȱhasȱbeenȱeasedȱbyȱaȱladderȱsetȱthereȱwhichȱdirectlyȱentersȱHisȱsideȱinȱThéodore Galle’sȱ “Apertioȱ Lateris”ȱ [“Theȱ Openingȱ ofȱ Christ’sȱ side,”ȱ myȱ translation],ȱ alsoȱ titledȱ “L’âme montantȱauȱcœurȱdeȱJésus”ȱ[“TheȱSoulȱascendingȱtoȱJesus’ȱheart,”ȱmyȱtranslation],ȱinȱJanȱDavid’s Paradisusȱsponsiȱetȱsponsæȱ(emblemȱ45,ȱNetherlands,ȱca.ȱ1607–11).ȱSeeȱJeffreyȱF.ȱHamburger,ȱNuns asȱArtists,ȱTheȱVisualȱCultureȱofȱaȱMedievalȱConventȱ(Berkeley:ȱUniversityȱofȱCaliforniaȱPress,ȱ1997), Christianȱ Heck,ȱ L’Échelleȱ célesteȱ dansȱ l’artȱ duȱ Moyenȱ Âge,ȱ Uneȱ histoireȱ deȱ laȱ quêteȱ duȱ cielȱ (Paris: Flammarion,ȱ 1997).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Johnȱ B.ȱ Knipping,ȱ Iconographyȱ ofȱ theȱ CounterȬReformationȱ inȱ the Netherlands:ȱHeavenȱonȱEarth,ȱ2ȱvols.ȱ(Nieuwkoop:ȱB.ȱdeȱGraaf,ȱ1974). J.ȬA.ȱBizet,ȱSusoȱetȱleȱMinnesangȱ(Paris:ȱAubier,ȱ1944),ȱ33.ȱMyȱtranslation.

734

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

poetry,ȱwhereasȱ“Miserie”ȱandȱ“LoveȱIII”ȱseemȱtoȱinferȱthatȱtheȱepiphanyȱuniting Christȱandȱmanȱasȱfriendsȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱperformedȱthroughȱdeathȱtoȱwhichȱheȱhas toȱsubmitȱbyȱgoingȱthroughȱaȱseriesȱofȱoperationsȱthatȱwillȱregenerateȱandȱpurify him.ȱMoreȱoftenȱthanȱnotȱtheȱpoemȱhintsȱatȱtheȱactualȱalchemicalȱseparationȱof drossȱandȱpureȱgoldȱandȱIsaiahȱ1:22–7.ȱ IfȱtheȱpainfulȱrefiningȱofȱtheȱChristian’sȱheartȱrelatedȱinȱ“LoveȱUnknown”ȱrecalls theȱ torturesȱ “Frauȱ Minne”ȱ subjectsȱ herȱ ownȱ loverȱ toȱ inȱ medievalȱ German woodcuts,12ȱ itȱ neverthelessȱ callsȱ forthȱ moreȱ piousȱ images,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Saint Augustine’sȱownȱofferingȱofȱtheȱheartȱtoȱGod,ȱandȱtheȱratherȱgrotesqueȱemblems ofȱtheȱJesuitȱAmorisȱdiviniȱetȱhumaniȱantipathia,13ȱBenedictusȱVanȱHaeften’sȱSchola cordis,14ȱDanielȱCramer’sȱEmblemataȱsacra,15ȱorȱGeorgetteȱdeȱMontenay’sȱSicȱdemum purgabitur,ȱinȱwhichȱChristȱhimselfȱblowsȱtheȱbellowsȱonȱaȱsteamingȱcauldronȱin aȱChristianizedȱversionȱofȱearlierȱalchemicalȱtreatises.16 Inȱ“Loveȱunknown,”ȱHerbertȱinnovatesȱbyȱgraftingȱaȱlivelyȱconversationȱwith aȱmysteriousȱ“friend”ȱ(1)ȱtoȱhisȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱrefiningȱoperation.ȱAtȱfirstȱthe narratorȱlistsȱaȱseriesȱofȱapparentȱpersecutionsȱleadingȱtoȱtheȱsofteningȱofȱhisȱheart throughȱitsȱbeingȱseizedȱ(12),ȱbeingȱthrownȱinȱaȱfontȱ(13),ȱdippingȱandȱdyeingȱ(16), washingȱ andȱ wringingȱ (17)ȱ andȱ scaldingȱ (35).ȱ Whileȱ heȱ doesȱ so,ȱ hisȱ friend progressivelyȱ influencesȱ ourȱ readingȱ andȱ turnsȱ hisȱ sorryȱ taleȱ intoȱ oneȱ of redemptionȱ andȱ aȱ promiseȱ ofȱ lifeȱ thanksȱ toȱ threeȱ terseȱ yetȱ relevant comments—namelyȱ“Yourȱheartȱwasȱfoul,ȱIȱfear”ȱ(18),ȱ“Yourȱheartȱwasȱhard,ȱIȱfear” (37)ȱandȱ“YourȱheartȱwasȱdullȱIȱfear”ȱ(56)—toȱfinallyȱshedȱlightȱonȱhisȱpersisting misunderstandingȱandȱconclude: .ȱ.ȱ.ȱTruly,ȱFriend, ForȱoughtȱIȱheare,ȱourȱMasterȱshowsȱtoȱyou Moreȱfavourȱthenȱyouȱwotȱof.ȱMarkȱtheȱend. TheȱFontȱdidȱonely,ȱwhatȱwasȱold,ȱrenew:

12

13

14 15 16

ThisȱisȱparticularlyȱobviousȱinȱMasterȱCasparȱvonȱRegensburg’sȱFrauȱMinne’sȱpowerȱoverȱmen’s heartsȱ(1479)ȱfromȱtheȱStaatlicheȱMuseenȱPreussischerȱKulturbesitz,ȱKupferstichkabinett,ȱBerlin. Theȱsymbolismȱofȱtheȱprofaneȱofferingȱofȱtheȱheart,ȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱvariousȱordealsȱtheȱLady’s pretenderȱisȱsubjectedȱto,ȱhasȱbeenȱanalyzedȱbyȱMichaelȱCamille,ȱTheȱMedievalȱArtȱofȱLove,ȱObjects andȱ Subjectsȱ ofȱ Desireȱ (London:ȱ Laurenceȱ Kingȱ Publishing,ȱ 1998),ȱ Chapterȱ IV,ȱ “Love’sȱ Signs”, 94–119. Theȱanonymousȱartist’sȱemblemȱ69—SacrificiumȱAmoris—bearsȱmoreȱthanȱaȱpassingȱresemblance toȱHerbert’sȱtale.ȱSeeȱalsoȱemblemsȱ53—Expoliatioȱamoris—,ȱ55—Biscoctumȱamoris—,ȱandȱ79—Unio amorisȱ(Antwerp,ȱ1628). Seeȱemblemȱ47,ȱCordisȱhumiliatioȱ(Antwerp,ȱ1629). Seeȱemblemȱ1—Mollesco—orȱemblemȱ24—Probor—(Frankfurtȱa.ȱM.,ȱ1624). Georgetteȱ deȱ Montenay,ȱ emblem.ȱ 82ȱ (Emblemataȱ Christiana,ȱ Frankfurtȱ a.ȱ M,ȱ 1619).ȱ Forȱ earlier alchemicalȱrepresentationsȱthatȱundoubtedlyȱinfluencedȱherȱseeȱprintȱ11,ȱLaȱSeptièmeȱparabole,ȱin SolomonȱTrismosin’sȱ1582ȱEnglishȱeditionȱofȱSplendorȱSolisȱ(Ms.ȱHarveyȱ3469,ȱBritishȱMuseum, London).

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple TheȱCaldronȱsuppled,ȱwhatȱwasȱgrownȱtooȱhard: TheȱThornsȱdidȱquicken,ȱwhatȱwasȱgrownȱtooȱdull: Allȱdidȱbutȱstriveȱtoȱmend,ȱwhatȱyouȱhadȱmarr’d. Whereforeȱbeȱcheer’d,ȱandȱpraiseȱhimȱtoȱtheȱfull Eachȱday,ȱeachȱhoure,ȱeachȱmomentȱofȱtheȱweek, Whoȱfainȱwouldȱhaveȱyouȱbeȱnew,ȱtender,ȱquick.

735

(61–70)

Inȱ theȱ presentȱ case,ȱ Herbert’sȱ indebtednessȱ toȱ theȱ dialoguesȱ ofȱ Anselmȱ of Canterburyȱ(1033–1109)ȱandȱhisȱinterlocutorȱBosoȱdeȱMontivilliersȱ(1065–1136)ȱin Curȱ deusȱ homoȱ (Whyȱ Godȱ becameȱ Man)ȱ isȱ manifest.17ȱ Bothȱ areȱ alsoȱ rather inconspicuouslyȱhintedȱatȱinȱ“TheȱThanksgiving”ȱviaȱtheȱveryȱsubjectȱmatterȱofȱthe poem,ȱi.e.,ȱman’sȱatonementȱforȱtheȱsacrificeȱofȱChrist,ȱhisȱonlyȱtrueȱfriendȱand mediatorȱwithȱGod,ȱandȱtheȱmentioningȱofȱaȱ“bosomeȱfriend”ȱwhoȱmayȱalternately beȱChristȱor,ȱinȱaȱpun,ȱBosoȱhimself.ȱ SuchȱpunsȱaboundȱinȱTheȱTempleȱandȱareȱnotȱaȱdemonstrationȱofȱcourtlyȱwit althoughȱinȱHerbert’sȱcaseȱtheirȱoriginȱmayȱundoubtedlyȱbeȱlinked,ȱforȱaȱgoodȱpart atȱleast,ȱtoȱthatȱprofaneȱtradition.ȱButȱwhereasȱcourtiersȱgenerallyȱusedȱthemȱinȱa gratuitousȱor,ȱatȱbest,ȱpedanticȱway,ȱunderȱHerbert’sȱquillȱeachȱandȱeveryȱoneȱof thoseȱ cunningȱ literaryȱ devicesȱ wasȱ meantȱ toȱ serveȱ aȱ religiousȱ purpose.ȱ When musteredȱbyȱourȱpoet,ȱsuchȱtechniquesȱillustrateȱhisȱvowȱofȱhumilityȱsoȱasȱtoȱcreate aȱfeelingȱofȱ“homeliness”ȱthatȱwillȱfinallyȱamountȱtoȱoneȱofȱ“holinessȱaroundȱme.” Hisȱ desireȱ forȱ friendshipȱ withȱ Christȱ isȱ thereforeȱ formulatedȱ throughoutȱ The Templeȱ byȱ meansȱ ofȱ aȱ constantȱ recyclingȱ ofȱ courtlyȱ artificesȱ whichȱ theȱ former PublicȱOratorȱofȱCambridgeȱUniversityȱandȱcourtierȱnoȱdoubtȱconsideredȱasȱthe veryȱemblemsȱofȱvacuityȱandȱvanity,ȱasȱisȱclearlyȱimpliedȱinȱ“TheȱQuidditie”ȱorȱas heȱshowsȱhereȱinȱ“Dotage”:ȱ Falseȱglozingȱpleasures,ȱcasksȱofȱhappinesse, FoolishȱnightȬfires,ȱwomensȱandȱchildrensȱwishes, ChasesȱinȱArras,ȱguildedȱemptinesse, ShadowsȱwellȬmounted,ȱdreamsȱinȱaȱcareer, Embroider’dȱlyes,ȱnothingȱbetweenȱtwoȱdishes; Theseȱareȱtheȱpleasuresȱhere. Trueȱearnestȱsorrows,ȱrootedȱmiseries, Anguishȱinȱgrain,ȱvexationsȱripeȱandȱblown, SureȬfootedȱgriefs,ȱsolidȱcalamities, Plainȱdemonstrations,ȱevidentȱandȱcleare, Fetchingȱtheirȱproofsȱev’nȱfromȱtheȱveryȱbone; Theseȱareȱtheȱsorrowsȱhere.

17

SeeȱalsoȱtheȱcontributionȱtoȱthisȱvolumeȱbyȱR.ȱJacobȱMcȱDonie.

736

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen Butȱohȱtheȱfollyȱofȱdistractedȱmen, Whoȱgriefsȱinȱearnest,ȱjoyesȱinȱjestȱpursue; Preferring,ȱlikeȱbruteȱbeasts,ȱaȱloathsomeȱden Beforeȱaȱcourt,ȱev’nȱthatȱaboveȱsoȱcleare, Whereȱareȱnoȱsorrows,ȱbutȱdelightsȱmoreȱtrue, Thanȱmiseriesȱareȱhere!

Theȱsameȱappliesȱtoȱ“Miserie,”ȱwhoseȱclosureȱridiculesȱtheȱcourtierȱbangingȱinto hisȱ “shelf,”ȱ i.e.,ȱ hisȱ ownȱ “flesh.”ȱ Bothȱ stanzasȱ thriveȱ onȱ theȱ metaphorȱ ofȱ the CollectionȱandȱevokeȱtheȱconnoisseurȱfrenziesȱofȱBuckingham,ȱDudleyȱCarleton, andȱCharlesȱI.ȱInȱtheȱfirst,ȱtheȱlostȱEdenȱisȱcomparedȱtoȱaȱCuriosityȱCabinetȱ(67–72) whichȱisȱitselfȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱcorruptionȱofȱtheȱCourt,ȱsymbolizedȱasȱitȱisȱbyȱa renewedȱ and,ȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ instance,ȱ negativeȱ allusionȱ toȱ collectorsȱ viaȱ their shelvesȱinȱtheȱsecondȱstanzaȱ(77): IndeedȱatȱfirstȱManȱwasȱaȱtreasure, Aȱboxȱofȱjewels,ȱshopȱofȱrarities, Aȱring,ȱwhoseȱposieȱwas,ȱMyȱPleasure: HeȱwasȱaȱgardenȱinȱaȱParadise: ȱ ȱGlorieȱandȱgrace Didȱcrownȱhisȱheartȱandȱface. Butȱsinneȱhathȱfool’dȱhim.ȱNowȱheȱis Aȱlumpȱofȱflesh,ȱwithoutȱaȱfootȱorȱwing Toȱraiseȱhimȱtoȱtheȱglimpseȱofȱblisse: Aȱsickȱtoss’dȱvessel,ȱdashingȱonȱeachȱthing; ȱȱ Nay,ȱhisȱownȱshelf: MyȱGod,ȱIȱmeanȱmyȱself.ȱ

(67–78)

Theȱ maritimeȱ senseȱ ofȱ “shelf”ȱ getsȱ activatedȱ togetherȱ withȱ thatȱ ofȱ “vessel”ȱ to triggerȱ aȱ metaphorȱ reminiscentȱ ofȱ Exȱ 15:10ȱ orȱ Mattȱ 8:24–27.ȱ Enhancedȱ byȱ the potentialȱpermutationȱofȱ“shelf”ȱintoȱ“flesh”ȱitȱsimultaneouslyȱcondemnsȱboth contemporaryȱ Cabinetsȱ ofȱ Curiosityȱ andȱ theȱ sexualȱ depravationȱ ofȱ theȱ king’s vassals/vesselsȱ (76)ȱ inȱ accordanceȱ withȱ yetȱ anotherȱ Herbertianȱ punȱ andȱ the enduringȱpermutationsȱ ofȱ“e’s”ȱintoȱ“a’s”ȱatȱtheȱtime.ȱThisȱsuddenȱpolyphony conciselyȱ rephrases,ȱ amongȱ others,ȱ Hermannȱ Hugo’sȱ contemporaryȱ Jesuit representationsȱ ofȱ theȱ conceptȱ inȱ hisȱ Piaȱ Desideriaȱ (Antwerp,ȱ 1624),ȱ andȱ more specificallyȱhisȱemblemsȱ29ȱandȱ30ȱshowingȱaȱshipwreckedȱanimaȱbeingȱrescued fromȱaȱstormyȱseaȱbyȱamorȱdivinusȱcarryingȱanȱanchor,ȱanotherȱsymbolȱofȱhope throughȱfaithȱinȱChrist.18

18

JohnȱDonneȱisȱsaidȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱfondȱofȱthatȱemblem,ȱasȱstatedȱbyȱKarlȱJosefȱHöltgenȱinȱAspects ofȱ theȱ Emblem:ȱ Studiesȱ inȱ theȱ Englishȱ Emblemȱ Traditionȱ andȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Contextȱ (Kassel: Reichenberger,ȱ1986),ȱ77.ȱAnnȱPasternakȱSlaterȱadds:ȱ“InȱhisȱLifeȱofȱDonneȱWaltonȱreportsȱthat Donneȱhadȱseveralȱsealsȱengravedȱwithȱ‘ChristȱcrucifiedȱonȱanȱAnchor,ȱwhichȱisȱtheȱemblemȱof

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

737

Inȱveryȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱway,ȱtheȱclosingȱlinesȱofȱ“Dotage”ȱassertȱthatȱtheȱCourt isȱcorruptȱandȱfarȱinferiorȱtoȱtheȱKingdomȱofȱHeavenȱ whileȱ theȱfirstȱlinesȱhad denouncedȱaȱfascinationȱwithȱtrinkets,ȱmasqueȱperformances,ȱartificialȱlightings, andȱ fireworksȱ orȱ foppishȱ talkȱ (1–5).ȱ Whileȱ thusȱ castigatingȱ hisȱ formerȱ fellowȬ courtiersȱandȱtheȱCrownȱunbeknownȱtoȱroyalȱcensors,ȱtheȱBemertonȱpriestȱand poetȱventedȱhisȱangerȱandȱsolicitedȱChrist’sȱfriendshipȱwhileȱrejectingȱthatȱofȱhis peersȱinȱpassagesȱthatȱhadȱobviouslyȱbeenȱinspiredȱbyȱJohnȱ15:18–19: 18ȱ Ifȱtheȱworldȱhateȱyou,ȱyeȱknowȱthatȱitȱhatedȱmeȱbeforeȱitȱhatedȱyou. 19 Ifȱyeȱwereȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱtheȱworldȱwouldȱloveȱhisȱown;ȱbutȱbecauseȱyeȱareȱnotȱof theȱworld,ȱbutȱIȱhaveȱchosenȱyouȱoutȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱthereforeȱtheȱworldȱhatethȱyou. 20 .ȱ.ȱ.ȱTheȱservantȱisȱnotȱgreaterȱthanȱhisȱLord.ȱIfȱtheyȱhaveȱpersecutedȱme,ȱtheyȱwill alsoȱpersecuteȱyou;ȱifȱtheyȱhaveȱkeptȱmyȱsaying,ȱtheyȱwillȱkeepȱyoursȱalso.

Inȱthisȱway,ȱtheȱfriendshipȱrelationshipȱclearlyȱinvolvesȱimitationȱandȱdependence asȱ“Dotage”ȱandȱ“Miserie”ȱonceȱagainȱechoȱtheȱpreceptsȱdevelopedȱbyȱThomasȱà Kempis:ȱ“.ȱ.ȱ.ȱEligendumȱestȱimagisȱtotumȱmundumȱhabereȱcontrarium:ȱquam Iesumȱoffensum”19ȱ“(.ȱ.ȱ.ȱChooseȱtheȱoppositionȱofȱtheȱwholeȱworldȱratherȱthan offendȱJesusȱ).”ȱ Theȱensuingȱfeelingȱofȱpersecutionȱwillȱprovideȱtheȱveryȱmarrowȱofȱ“TheȱQuip” inȱwhichȱtheȱnarratorȱreenactsȱtheȱAgonyȱinȱtheȱGardenȱasȱheȱliesȱprostrateȱinȱa typicalȱproskynesisȱposeȱheȱhadȱalsoȱtakenȱwhenȱfirstȱordainedȱinȱBemerton:20 Theȱmerrieȱworldȱdidȱonȱaȱday WithȱhisȱtrainȬbandsȱandȱmatesȱagree Toȱmeetȱtogether,ȱwhereȱIȱlay, Andȱallȱinȱsportȱtoȱgeereȱatȱme.ȱ

(1–4)

AfterȱremainingȱsilentȱallȱtheȱtimeȱheȱwasȱjeeredȱatȱbyȱfourȱallegoriesȱofȱtheȱCourt, i.e.,ȱ“Beauty”ȱ(5),ȱ“Money”ȱ(9),ȱ“Glory”ȱ(13),ȱandȱ“WitȱandȱConversation”ȱ(17),ȱthe protagonistȱcallsȱChristȱtoȱhisȱrescueȱinȱexplicitȱwordsȱindicatingȱthatȱtheȱimitation hasȱledȱtoȱfusionȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo:ȱ

19 20

hope’ȱwhichȱheȱsentȱtoȱHerbertȱandȱotherȱfriendsȱshortlyȱbeforeȱhisȱdeath,”ȱC.ȱE.ȱW.,ȱ451.ȱThe metaphorȱofȱtheȱfoolȱtossedȱatȱseaȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱearlierȱinȱDürer’sȱillustrationsȱforȱSebastianȱBrant’s ShipȱofȱFoolsȱ(printȱ104,ȱBasel,ȱ1494).ȱProtestantȱemblematistȱGeorgetteȱdeȱMontenayȱfusedȱitȱwith theȱCelestialȱLadderȱinȱAȱquoȱtrepibadoȱ(emblemȱ13,ȱEmblemataȱChristiana,ȱFrankfurtȱa.ȱM,ȱ1619). Earlier,ȱ Tertullianȱ hadȱ urgedȱ menȱ “sunkȱ inȱ theȱ wavesȱ ofȱ sin”—“itaȱ inuade,ȱ itaȱ amplexae,ȱ ut naufragusȱalicuiusȱtablaeȱfidem”—toȱgrabȱtheȱ“plankȱofȱrepentance”—“duabusȱhumanaeȱsalutis quasiȱplanis”—inȱDeȱPaenitentiaeȱIVȱandȱXIIȱ(Tertullien,ȱLaȱpénitenceȱ(Paris:ȱSourcesȱChrétiennes, Cerf,ȱ1984),ȱ156,ȱ190ȱrespectively,ȱmyȱtranslation). ThomasȱàȱKempis,ȱDeȱimitatioȱChristi,ȱLiberȱSecundus,ȱCap.ȱVIII,ȱ72. IzaacȱWaltonȱreportsȱtheȱepisodeȱinȱhisȱLifeȱofȱMRȱGeorgeȱHerbert:ȱ“Whenȱatȱhisȱinductionȱheȱwas shutȱinȱBemertonȱchurch,ȱbeingȱleftȱthereȱaloneȱtoȱtollȱtheȱbellȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ,ȱheȱstayedȱmuchȱlongerȱthanȱan ordinaryȱtime,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱȱhisȱfriendsȱMrȱWoodnothȱlookedȱinȱatȱtheȱchurchȱwindowȱandȱsawȱhimȱlie prostrateȱonȱtheȱgroundȱbeforeȱtheȱaltarȱ.ȱ.ȱ.”ȱ(C.ȱE.ȱW.,ȱ361).

738

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen Butȱthouȱshaltȱanswer,ȱLord,ȱforȱme. Yetȱwhenȱtheȱhoureȱofȱthyȱdesigne Toȱanswerȱtheseȱfineȱthingsȱshallȱcome; Speakȱnotȱatȱlarge,ȱsay,ȱIȱamȱthine, Andȱthenȱtheyȱhaveȱtheirȱanswerȱhome.ȱ

(20–24)

Johnȱ15ȱhasȱevidentlyȱbeenȱtranslatedȱintoȱtheȱpoet’sȱownȱenvironmentȱandȱthe Courtȱisȱusedȱasȱaȱfoilȱorȱaȱtypeȱofȱnegativeȱexemplum,ȱtheȱ“HerbertȱScriptures” thusȱachievingȱaȱratherȱuniqueȱrewritingȱofȱtheȱScripturesȱthemselves.ȱInȱfact,ȱa similarȱrejectionȱofȱtheȱCourtȱwasȱactuallyȱperformedȱbyȱHerbertȱinȱhisȱlifetimeȱfor ratherȱobscureȱreasonsȱwhenȱheȱbecameȱaȱrectorȱinȱtheȱtinyȱparishȱofȱBemertonȱjust offȱSalisburyȱwhereȱheȱappearsȱtoȱhaveȱledȱaȱmoreȱthanȱexemplaryȱlifeȱifȱweȱareȱto believeȱhisȱbiographerȱIzaacȱWalton’sȱconclusionȱofȱhisȱLifeȱofȱMRȱGeorgeȱHerbert: “Thusȱheȱlived,ȱandȱthusȱheȱdiedȱlikeȱaȱsaint.”21 After,ȱorȱalongside,ȱtheȱrelationȱbuiltȱonȱimitationȱthisȱexclusiveȱrelationship withȱChristȱbecomesȱoneȱofȱmysticȱloveȱinȱ“ChurchȬMusick”ȱwhereȱitȱisȱapparently depictedȱinȱsexualȱterms,ȱinȱaȱprefigurationȱofȱ“LoveȱIII’s”ȱaforementionedȱ“taste myȱmeat”ȱ(17): Sweetestȱofȱsweets,ȱIȱthankȱyou:ȱwhenȱdispleasure Didȱthroughȱmyȱbodieȱwoundȱmyȱminde, Youȱtookȱmeȱthence,ȱandȱinȱyourȱhouseȱofȱpleasure Aȱdaintieȱlodgingȱmeȱassign’d. NowȱIȱinȱyouȱwithoutȱaȱbodieȱmove, Risingȱandȱfallingȱwithȱyourȱwings: Weȱbothȱtogetherȱsweetlyȱliveȱandȱlove, Yetȱsayȱsometimes,ȱGodȱhelpȱpooreȱKings. Comfort,ȱ‘Ileȱdie;ȱforȱifȱyouȱposteȱfromȱme, ȱSureȱIȱshallȱdoȱso,ȱandȱmuchȱmore: ButȱifȱIȱtravellȱinȱyourȱcompanie, ȱYouȱknowȱtheȱwayȱtoȱheavensȱdoore.

Similarly,ȱ “Frailtie”ȱ expressesȱ theȱ narrator’sȱ longingȱ “toȱ conquerȱ heav’nȱ and [Christ]ȱ/ȱPlantedȱinȱ[him]”ȱ(23–24).ȱAlthoughȱinȱtheȱpastȱtheȱFreudianȱschoolȱof criticsȱ mustȱ haveȱ rejoicedȱ atȱ thatȱ mereȱ thought,ȱ itȱ isȱ quiteȱ clearȱ thatȱ aȱ literal interpretationȱwouldȱbeȱaȱgrossȱmisconceptionȱbothȱofȱtheȱwriter’sȱintentionsȱand theȱculturalȱbackgroundȱofȱhisȱtime,ȱandȱtheȱlinesȱshouldȱmuchȱratherȱbeȱread bearingȱinȱmindȱSaintȱTeresa’sȱ“transverberationȱofȱtheȱheart”:ȱ

21

Walton,ȱLife,ȱC.E.W.,ȱ338–85;ȱhereȱ384.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

739

Vialeȱenȱlasȱmanosȱunȱdardoȱdeȱoroȱlargo,ȱyȱalȱfinȱdeȱelȱhierroȱmeȱpareciaȱtenerȱunȱpoco deȱ fuego;ȱ esteȱ meȱ pareciaȱ meterȱ porȱ elȱ corazonȱ algunsȱ vecesȱ yȱ queȱ llegavaȱ aȱ las entranas.ȱAlȱsacarleȱmeȱpareciaȱlasȱllevavaȱconȱsigo,ȱyȱmeȱdejavaȱtodaȱabrasadaȱen amorȱgrandeȱdeȱDios.ȱEraȱtanȱgrandeȱelȱdolorȱqueȱmeȱhaciaȱdarȱaquellosȱquezidosȱyȱtan excesivaȱlaȱsuavidadȱqueȱmeȱponeȱesteȱgrandisimoȱdolor,ȱqueȱnoȱhayȱdesearȱqueȱse quite,ȱniȱseȱcontentaȱelȱalmaȱconȱmenosȱqueȱDios.ȱ22 [Iȱsawȱanȱangelȱbesideȱmeȱtowardȱtheȱleftȱside,ȱinȱbodilyȱformȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱIȱsawȱinȱhisȱhands aȱlongȱdartȱofȱgold,ȱandȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱironȱthereȱseemedȱtoȱmeȱtoȱbeȱaȱlittleȱfire.ȱThis Iȱ thoughtȱ heȱ thrustȱ throughȱ myȱ heartȱ severalȱ times,ȱ andȱ thatȱ itȱ reachedȱ myȱ very entrails.ȱAsȱheȱwithdrewȱit,ȱIȱthoughtȱitȱbroughtȱthemȱwithȱit,ȱandȱleftȱmeȱallȱburning withȱaȱgreatȱloveȱofȱGod.ȱSoȱgreatȱwasȱtheȱpain,ȱthatȱitȱmadeȱmeȱgiveȱthoseȱmoans;ȱand soȱutterȱtheȱsweetnessȱthatȱthisȱsharpestȱofȱpainsȱgaveȱme,ȱthatȱthereȱwasȱnoȱwanting itȱtoȱstop,ȱnorȱisȱthereȱanyȱcontentingȱofȱtheȱsoulȱwithȱlessȱthanȱGod.]

ThisȱconfirmsȱtheȱbeliefȱthatȱthroughoutȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱhisȱAnglicanȱTemple GeorgeȱHerbertȱdutifullyȱrephrasedȱearlierȱcontinentalȱCatholicȱmysticȱdeeds,ȱVitas andȱotherȱliteraryȱtexts,ȱfromȱtheȱcomplacentȱdepictionȱofȱtheȱengravingȱofȱthe heartȱpracticedȱbyȱsuchȱeminentȱfiguresȱasȱChiaraȱdeȱMontefalcoȱ(1268–1308)ȱor Henryȱ Susoȱ toȱ Cardinalȱ Bellarmine’sȱ artȱ ofȱ crying23ȱ andȱ fifteenthȬcentury Franciscanȱ poetȱ Jacoponeȱ daȱ Todi’sȱ Laudi.ȱ Theȱ reformedȱ poetȱ transcendsȱ the friendshipȱrelationshipȱandȱpositionsȱhimselfȱasȱ“theȱbrideȱofȱChrist”ȱinȱ“DoomsȬ day”ȱthanksȱtoȱaȱmusicalȱpunȱonȱ“brokenȱconsort”ȱwhichȱexpertlyȱforbidsȱany distinctionȱ toȱ beȱ madeȱ betweenȱ theȱ assemblyȱ orȱ hisȱ parsonȱ persona—whose awkwardȱyetȱsincereȱsinging/versingȱgetsȱconvertedȱintoȱpraise—andȱChrist: Manȱisȱoutȱofȱorderȱhurl’d Parcel’dȱoutȱtoȱallȱtheȱworld. Lord,ȱthyȱbrokenȱconsortȱraise, Andȱtheȱmusickȱshallȱbeȱpraise.ȱ

(27–30)

Toȱveryȱmuchȱtheȱsameȱextent,ȱtheȱfruitfulȱmetatextualȱredistributionȱofȱtheȱletters composingȱ“rose”ȱinȱtheȱeponymousȱpoemȱmayȱbeȱredevelopedȱintoȱ“rose/eros/ sore/rose/Rose”ȱinȱaȱsecondȱreading.ȱIndeed,ȱfromȱoneȱstanzaȱtoȱanother,ȱtheȱpoem successivelyȱalludesȱtoȱcarnalȱlove,ȱvenerealȱdiseasesȱandȱtheirȱillusoryȱcuresȱwith roseȱpetalȱdecoctionsȱor,ȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱourȱfirstȱreading,ȱtheȱcomfortȱand safetyȱ thatȱ wouldȱ muchȱ preferablyȱ beȱ providedȱ byȱ theȱ Church—orȱ Rose—of Englandȱ soȱ asȱ toȱ proveȱ itsȱ supremacyȱ asȱ theȱ ultimateȱ remedyȱ againstȱ sinȱ and confirmȱtheȱtriumphȱofȱChristusȱmedicusȱandȱPlatonicȱdivineȱloveȱoverȱlust:

22

23

SaintȱTeresaȱofȱAvilaȱ(SantaȱTeresaȱdeȱJesus),ȱLibroȱdeȱlaȱVida,ȱChap.ȱXXIX.ȱ(ElȱEscorial,ȱ1563–1565 [?]).ȱSeeȱtheȱmodernȱeditionȱbyȱOtgerȱStegginkȱ(Madrid:ȱClasicosȱCastilia,ȱ1986),ȱ384.ȱ RobertȱBellarminȱ(1542–1621),ȱLeȱGémissementȱdeȱlaȱcolombeȱouȱdeȱl’utilitéȱdesȱlarmesȱ(Lyons,ȱ1617).

740

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen Presseȱmeȱnotȱtoȱtakeȱmoreȱpleasure Inȱthisȱworldȱofȱsugredȱlies, Andȱtoȱuseȱaȱlargerȱmeasure Thenȱmyȱstrict,ȱyetȱwelcomeȱsize. First,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱpleasureȱhere: Colour’dȱgriefsȱindeedȱthereȱare, Blushingȱwoes,ȱthatȱlookȱasȱcleare Asȱifȱtheyȱcouldȱbeautieȱspare. Oȱifȱsuchȱdeceitsȱthereȱbe, ȱSuchȱdelightsȱIȱmeantȱtoȱsay; Thereȱareȱnoȱsuchȱthingsȱtoȱme, ȱWhoȱhaveȱpass’dȱmyȱrightȱaway. ButȱIȱwillȱnotȱmuchȱoppose ȱUntoȱwhatȱyouȱnowȱadvise: Onelyȱtakeȱthisȱgentleȱrose, ȱAndȱthereinȱmyȱanswerȱlies. Whatȱisȱfairerȱthenȱaȱrose? ȱWhatȱisȱsweeter?ȱyetȱitȱpurgeth. Purgingsȱenmitieȱdisclose, ȱEnmitieȱforbearanceȱurgeth. Ifȱthenȱallȱthatȱworldlingsȱprize ȱBeȱcontractedȱtoȱaȱrose; Sweetlyȱthereȱindeedȱitȱlies, ȱButȱitȱbitethȱinȱtheȱclose. Soȱthisȱflowerȱdothȱjudgeȱandȱsentence ȱWorldlyȱjoyesȱtoȱbeȱaȱscourge: Forȱtheyȱallȱproduceȱrepentance, ȱAndȱrepentanceȱisȱaȱpurge. ButȱIȱhealth,ȱnotȱphysickȱchoose: OnelyȱthoughȱIȱyouȱoppose, SayȱthatȱfairlyȱIȱrefuse, Forȱmyȱanswerȱisȱaȱrose.

Entertainingȱ asȱ itȱ mayȱ seem,ȱ thisȱ steganographyȱ wasȱ meantȱ toȱ serveȱ aȱ divine plan.24ȱAȱdeeperȱreadingȱofȱTheȱTempleȱrevealsȱaȱwholeȱarrayȱofȱhiddenȱallusions whichȱ turnȱ theȱ collectionȱ ofȱ poemsȱ intoȱ someȱ sortȱ ofȱ Christianȱ riddleȱ clearly indebtedȱtoȱtheȱFourȱSensesȱofȱScriptures,ȱasȱHerbertȱsuggestsȱmoreȱexplicitlyȱin theȱ“TheȱH.ȱScripturesȱII”ȱwhoseȱ“H”ȱcouldȱmeanȱeitherȱ“Holy”ȱorȱ“Herbert”: 24

Steganographyȱisȱtheȱancientȱartȱofȱsendingȱhiddenȱmessages,ȱasȱdescribedȱbyȱHerodotusȱ(486–525 B.C.)ȱinȱhisȱNaturalȱHistories,ȱBookȱV,ȱch..ȱ35ȱ(Paris:ȱLesȱBellesȱLettres,ȱ1968),ȱ89–90.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

741

OhȱthatȱIȱknewȱhowȱallȱthyȱlightsȱcombine, ȱAndȱtheȱconfigurationsȱofȱtheirȱglorie! ȱSeeingȱnotȱonelyȱhowȱeachȱverseȱdothȱshine, Butȱallȱtheȱconstellationsȱofȱtheȱstorie. Thisȱverseȱmarksȱthat,ȱandȱbothȱdoȱmakeȱaȱmotion Untoȱaȱthird,ȱthatȱtenȱleavesȱoffȱdothȱlie: Thenȱasȱdispersedȱherbsȱdoȱwatchȱaȱpotion, TheseȱthreeȱmakeȱupȱsomeȱChristiansȱdestinie: Suchȱareȱthyȱsecrets,ȱwhichȱmyȱlifeȱmakesȱgood, Andȱcommentsȱonȱthee:ȱforȱinȱev’ryȱthing Thyȱwordsȱdoȱfindeȱmeȱout,ȱ&ȱparallelsȱbring, Andȱinȱanotherȱmakeȱmeȱunderstood. Starresȱareȱpooreȱbooks,ȱ&ȱoftentimesȱdoȱmisse: Thisȱbookȱofȱstarresȱlightsȱtoȱeternallȱblisse.

TheȱprocessȱwasȱnoȱdoubtȱpartlyȱinspiredȱbyȱearlyȱChristianȱacronyms,ȱHrabanus Maurus’sȱ (d.ȱ 856)ȱ Deȱ Laudibusȱ Sanctaeȱ Crucisȱ orȱ evenȱ earlierȱ paganȱ Roman palindromes.ȱ Itȱ isȱ alsoȱ generallyȱ viewedȱ asȱ aȱ Christianizedȱ rewordingȱ ofȱ the hieroglyphicȱtraditionȱofȱtheȱRenaissanceȱbyȱmostȱcriticsȱandȱisȱtoȱbeȱfoundȱmost conspicuouslyȱinȱtheȱmostȱrenownedȱandȱanalyzedȱpatternȬpoemsȱofȱTheȱTemple suchȱ asȱ “Theȱ Altar”ȱ orȱ “EasterȬWings.”25ȱ Butȱ oneȱ mayȱ alsoȱ considerȱ this indisputableȱaspectȱofȱHerbert’sȱpoetryȱtoȱhaveȱbeenȱgeneratedȱbyȱaȱmuchȱdeeper concernȱandȱtoȱhaveȱaimedȱatȱAnglicanizingȱtheȱfoundingȱpreceptsȱofȱtheȱChristian KabbalahȱthatȱhadȱbeenȱexpressedȱbyȱBlaiseȱdeȱVigenèreȱ(1523–96)ȱhalfȱaȱcentury earlierȱ whenȱ theȱ latterȱ listedȱ variousȱ methodsȱ ofȱ “transposing”ȱ or,ȱ literally, translatingȱlettersȱandȱreadingȱwordsȱ“inȱreverse”ȱorȱfullȱsentencesȱ“fromȱtopȱto bottom”ȱtoȱ“revealȱaȱhiddenȱmeaning”ȱinspiredȱbyȱ“God’sȱtransmissionȱofȱthe FaithȱtoȱMoses”:ȱ lesȱEthbasȱouȱtranspositionȱdeȱlettres:ȱThmurah,ȱleursȱcommutationsȱmaterielles:ȱZiruph combinationsȱ&ȱeschangesȱformels,ȱquandȱonȱlesȱtransporteȱdeȱleurȱvrayeȱfacultéȱ& puissanceȱenȱd’autres:ȱGhilgul,ȱvneȱquottitéȱnumerale:ȱleȱnotariacon,ȱmettreȱvneȱlettre ouȱvneȱsyllabeȱpourȱvnȱmot,ȱ&ȱauȱrebours:ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱToutesȱlesquellesȱvarietezȱviennent commeȱdientȱlesȱcabalistes,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱdeȱceȱqueȱDieuȱdonnaȱàȱMoyseȱlaȱfoyȱescriteȱenȱlettres confusesȱ &ȱ embarrassees,ȱ siȱ [bien]ȱ qu’onȱ yȱ pouuoitȱ lireȱ deȱ tousȱ costez,ȱ àȱ droit,ȱ à gaucheȱ;ȱàȱl’endroit,ȱàȱlenuersȱ;ȱduȱhaltȱenȱbas,ȱduȱbasȱenȱhaut,ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ&ȱchacunȱseȱformer deȱlàȱdiuersȱ sens,ȱquiȱestȱlaȱvraieȱSteganographieȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱLaȱpremiereȱdonquesȱdeȱces manieresȱseȱsoubsdiviseȱenȱdeuxȱautres;ȱlȇuneȱparȱequivalenceȱdeȱnombres;ȱlȇautreȱpar desȱmetatheses,ȱetȱtranspositionsȱdeȱlettres,ȱsyllabesȱetȱdictionsȱentieresȱhorsȱdeȱleur

25

SeeȱBartȱWesterweel,ȱPatternsȱandȱPatterningȱAȱStudyȱofȱFourȱPoemsȱbyȱGeorgeȱHerbertȱ(Amsterdam: Rodopi,ȱ1983).ȱ

742

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen ordre,ȱsuitte,ȱetȱassiete;ȱdequoyȱresulteȱunȱnouveauȱsensȱcachéȱsouzȱleȱcontexteȱde l’escriture. [.ȱ.ȱ.ȱtheȱEthbasȱorȱletterȱtransposition:ȱTemurah,ȱtheirȱmaterialȱcommutation:ȱTsiruph combinationsȱ andȱ formalȱ exchanges,ȱ whenȱ theirȱ trueȱ facultiesȱ andȱ powersȱ are translatedȱintoȱothers:ȱGematria,ȱaȱnumeralȱcorrespondence:ȱnotaricon,ȱi.e.,ȱputtingȱa letterȱ orȱ aȱ syllableȱ inȱ placeȱ ofȱ aȱ word,ȱ andȱ inȱ reverse:ȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Theseȱ variousȱ devices originating,ȱasȱCabbalistsȱhaveȱtaughtȱus,ȱwhenȱGodȱgaveȱtoȱMosesȱtheȱLawȱwritten inȱconfusedȱandȱmixedȱlettersȱsoȱ[that]ȱtheyȱcouldȱbeȱreadȱfromȱallȱsides,ȱfromȱleftȱto rightȱorȱinversely;ȱtheȱrightȱwayȱorȱbackwards;ȱfromȱtopȱtoȱbottom,ȱorȱbottomȱtoȱtop,ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱeachȱoneȱcanȱcomposeȱdiverseȱmeaningsȱthereof,ȱwhichȱisȱtrueȱSteganography .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ Theȱ firstȱ ofȱ theseȱ methodsȱ mayȱ beȱ subdividedȱ intoȱ two;ȱ oneȱ basedȱ onȱ the equivalenceȱ ofȱ numbers;ȱ theȱ otherȱ onȱ metathesisȱ andȱ theȱ transposingȱ ofȱ letters, syllablesȱandȱentireȱwordsȱoutȱofȱtheirȱorder,ȱsuitȱandȱplace;ȱfromȱwhichȱresultsȱaȱnew meaningȱconcealedȱunderȱscripture.]26

Accordingly,ȱ thanksȱ toȱ hisȱ recurrentȱ permutingȱ ofȱ syllablesȱ orȱ mereȱ letters, Herbertȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ considerablyȱ reinforcedȱ theȱ friendshipȱ conceptȱ while compactingȱhisȱtextȱinȱaȱremarkableȱway,ȱthusȱprovingȱthatȱ“lessȱisȱmore”ȱasȱis expresslyȱ wordedȱ inȱ “Ana–(MARY/ARMY)–gram”ȱ whereȱ aȱ singleȱ fourȬletter “name”ȱgetsȱturnedȱintoȱanȱ“army”:ȱ HowȱwellȱherȱnameȱanȱArmyȱdothȱpresent, InȱwhomȱtheȱLordȱofȱHostsȱdidȱpitchȱhisȱtent!27

Manyȱ otherȱ instancesȱ areȱ farȱ lessȱ noticeableȱ andȱ willȱ onlyȱ discloseȱ themselves underȱ closeȱ scrutiny.ȱ Accordingly,ȱ “aȱ diligentȱ collationȱ ofȱ Scriptureȱ with Scripture”—and,ȱpotentially,ȱofȱtheȱtwoȱ“H.ȱScriptures”ȱpoems—asȱadvisedȱin Herbert’sȱ proseȱ workȱ Aȱ Priestȱ toȱ Theȱ Templeȱ orȱ Theȱ Countryȱ Parson,28ȱ helpsȱ the readerȱ ofȱ Theȱ Templeȱ graspȱ thatȱ theȱ “Lamb(e)”ȱ ofȱ Godȱ boreȱ theȱ “blam(e)”ȱ and becameȱaȱhealingȱ“balm(e)”ȱforȱmankind.ȱAȱsimilarȱpermutationȱofȱ“rood(e)”ȱinto “door(e)”ȱ exemplarilyȱ compactsȱ theȱ typologiesȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ writingsȱ of thirteenthȬcenturyȱCistercianȱmonkȱGerhardȱofȱLiègeȱwho,ȱaccordingȱtoȱJeffreyȱF. Hamburger,ȱ

26

27

28

Traitéȱdesȱchiffresȱetȱsecretesȱmanieresȱd’escrireȱ(Paris:ȱGuyȱTrédaniel,ȱ1996ȱ(1585–1586)),ȱfol.ȱ132ȱr,ȱmy translation. Thisȱ poemȱ wasȱ obviouslyȱ inspiredȱ byȱ Frenchȱ Christianȱ Cabalistȱ Guyȱ Leȱ Fèvreȱ deȱ laȱ Boderie (1541–1590)ȱ whoȱ permutedȱ “Leȱ Bon”ȱ intoȱ “Noble”ȱ andȱ statedȱ “Voyȱ combienȱ ceȱ beauȱ nom convientȱbienȱàȱlaȱchoseȱ!ȱ/ȱSousȱleȱvoileȱduȱnomȱl’essenceȱseȱrepose”ȱ(“Beholdȱhowȱthisȱnoble nameȱfitsȱtheȱpurpose!ȱ/ȱUnderȱitsȱveilȱliesȱitsȱveryȱessence,”ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱinȱhisȱEncyclieȱdes secretsȱdeȱl’éternite,ȱIVȱ(Antwerp:ȱPlantin,ȱ1570),ȱinȱJanȱMiernowski,ȱ“Laȱ‘Rencontreȱd’allusion’ȱdans leȱ‘RondȱPleinȱdeȱSécrets,’”ȱPoésieȱencyclopédiqueȱetȱKabbaleȱchrétienneȱ(Paris:ȱHonoréȱChampion, 1999),ȱ50. ChapterȱIV,ȱ“TheȱParson’sȱKnowledge,”ȱC.E.W.,ȱ200.

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

743

String[ed]ȱtogetherȱscripturalȱpassagesȱtoȱidentifyȱtheȱdoorȱinȱChrist’sȱheartȱwithȱthe woundȱ inȱ hisȱ sideȱ madeȱ byȱ Longinus,ȱ throughȱ which,ȱ inȱ turn,ȱ theȱ sacramentsȱ are dispensed.ȱTheȱdoorȱ(andȱhence,ȱtheȱwound),ȱareȱinterȱalia,ȱtheȱfissureȱinȱtheȱrockȱwhich theȱsoulȱhidesȱfromȱtheȱterrorȱofȱtheȱLordȱ(Isaiahȱ2:10),ȱtheȱrockȱofȱHorebȱthatȱprovided theȱIsraelitesȱwithȱwaterȱ(Exodusȱ17:6),ȱandȱtheȱcleftȱinȱtheȱrockȱinȱwhichȱtheȱdove—that is,ȱtheȱsoul—findsȱshelterȱ(Canticlesȱ2:14)—allȱconventionalȱcomparisons.ȱComingȱfull circle,ȱGerhardȱconcludesȱbyȱparaphrasingȱtheȱsameȱpassagesȱfromȱRevelationȱandȱthe SongȱofȱSongsȱwithȱwhichȱheȱbegan:ȱ“BeholdȱhowȱChristȱopenedȱallȱhisȱdoorsȱtoȱyou. Modestly,ȱtherefore,ȱletȱyourȱdoorsȱnotȱbeȱclosedȱtoȱhim;ȱshoutȱ‘toȱtheȱdoor’ȱ[Revelation 3:20]ȱandȱsayȱ‘openȱtoȱme’ȱ[SongȱofȱSongsȱ5:2].”29

Inȱ thisȱ perspective,ȱ R.ȱ Darbyȱ Williamsȱ explainedȱ inȱ 1970ȱ thatȱ theȱ emblematic pruningȱ poemȱ “Paradise”ȱ composedȱ “anȱ elaborateȱ puzzleȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ thatȱ allowsȱ the readerȱtoȱpareȱcertainȱofȱtheȱcapitalizedȱlettersȱandȱendȱupȱwithȱtheȱstatementȱI GROWȱCHRISTSȱFR(I)END”:30ȱ IȱBlessȱthee,ȱLord,ȱbecauseȱIȱGROW Amongȱthyȱtrees,ȱwhichȱinȱaȱROW ToȱtheeȱbothȱfruitȱandȱorderȱOW. Whatȱopenȱforce,ȱorȱhiddenȱCHARM Canȱblastȱmyȱfruit,ȱorȱbringȱmeȱHARM, WhileȱtheȱinclosureȱisȱthineȱARM. IncloseȱmeȱstillȱforȱfearȱIȱSTART. BeȱtoȱmeȱratherȱsharpȱandȱTART, ThenȱletȱmeȱwantȱthyȱhandȱandȱART. WhenȱthouȱdostȱgreaterȱjudgmentsȱSPARE, AndȱwithȱthyȱknifeȱbutȱpruneȱandȱPARE, Ev’nȱfruitfullȱtreesȱmoreȱfruitfulȱARE. SuchȱsharpnesȱshowsȱtheȱsweetestȱFREND: SuchȱcuttingsȱratherȱhealȱthenȱREND: AndȱsuchȱbeginningsȱtouchȱtheirȱEND.

Theȱtrickȱisȱgreatlyȱfacilitatedȱbyȱtheȱpersistenceȱofȱtheȱmedievalȱspellingȱofȱtheȱlast wordȱ atȱ theȱ time.ȱ Followingȱ theȱ author’sȱ exemplaryȱ pruningȱ ofȱ eachȱ lineȱ in illustrationȱ ofȱ aȱ commonȱ gardeningȱ analogyȱ orȱ exemplumȱ andȱ depictingȱ God’s reducingȱofȱmanȱintoȱobedienceȱandȱthereforeȱelection,ȱtheȱreader’sȱownȱpruning ofȱ theȱ poemȱ enablesȱ himȱ toȱ obtainȱ theȱ puzzlingȱ “Iȱ GROWȱ CHARMȱ Iȱ START

29

30

Jeffreyȱ Hamburger,ȱ Nunsȱ asȱ Artists,ȱ 163.ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ Christianȱ Heck,ȱ L’Échelleȱ céleste,ȱ andȱ more specificallyȱ“LaȱCroixȱcommeȱporteȱetȱéchelleȱpourȱlesȱhommes,”ȱ179–80. “TwoȱBaroqueȱPoemsȱonȱGrace:ȱHerbert’sȱ‘Paradise’ȱandȱMilton’sȱ‘OnȱTime’,”ȱJohnȱR.ȱRoberts, AnȱAnnotatedȱBibliographyȱofȱModernȱCriticism,ȱ1905–1984ȱ(Columbia:ȱUniversityȱofȱMissouriȱPress, 1988),ȱ209.

744

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

SPAREȱFREND”ȱandȱrecomposeȱitȱintoȱ“IȱGROWȱCHRIST’SȱFRENDȱ/ȱIȱAMȱART,” thusȱ reconcilingȱ literatureȱ andȱ theology.ȱ Theȱ resultingȱ mottoȱ hasȱ theȱ double advantageȱof,ȱfirst,ȱproclaimingȱtheȱsupremacyȱofȱtheȱpoet’sȱreligiousȱwritingsȱand, secondly,ȱassertingȱthatȱtheȱlatterȱareȱpartȱandȱparcelȱofȱhisȱuniqueȱrelationshipȱto Christ.ȱButȱwhatȱmattersȱmostȱinȱtheȱpresentȱcaseȱisȱtheȱreader’sȱcontributionȱtoȱthe demonstrationȱthatȱsubsequentlyȱappearsȱasȱsomeȱformȱofȱcommunionȱwithȱthe writerȱandȱmakesȱhimȱfeelȱheȱhasȱjustȱestablishedȱanȱirrefutableȱproof.ȱ Whenȱ oneȱ readsȱ Theȱ Templeȱ theȱ bookȱ acquiresȱ aȱ genuineȱ “metaphysical” dimensionȱasȱoneȱprogressivelyȱcomesȱtoȱrealizeȱthatȱtheȱ“friend”ȱofȱmanyȱaȱpoem isȱbutȱanotherȱofȱtheȱparson’sȱpersonæ,ȱi.e.,ȱtheȱpoet’sȱsecondȱselfȱorȱinnerȱvoice elegantlyȱ replacingȱ theȱ amorȱ divinusȱ advisingȱ orȱ comfortingȱ animaȱ inȱ manyȱ a contemporaryȱAntwerpȬbasedȱJesuitȱemblemȱbookȱsuchȱasȱAnthonyȱWierixȱthe Younger’sȱCorȱIesuȱamantiȱsacrumȱ(1595),ȱOttoȱvanȱVeen’sȱAmorumȱemblemataȱ(1608) andȱ Amorisȱ diviniȱ emblemataȱ (1615),ȱ theȱ anonymousȱ Amorisȱ diviniȱ etȱ humani antipathiaȱ(1628),ȱorȱBenedictusȱvanȱHaeften’sȱScholaȱcordisȱ(1629).ȱ TheȱvariousȱliteraryȱdevicesȱthatȱHerbertȱexperimentedȱwithȱenabledȱhimȱto combatȱ theȱ CounterȬReformationȱ andȱ proposeȱ anȱ alternativeȱ toȱ continental pictorialȱpropagandaȱbyȱrelyingȱonȱtheȱWordȱaloneȱandȱturningȱTheȱTempleȱintoȱa uniqueȱ formȱ ofȱ Protestantȱ iconoclasmȱ thatȱ notȱ onlyȱ rephrasedȱ allȱ preȬexisting formsȱofȱreligiousȱartȱandȱliterature,ȱfromȱtheȱHolyȱScripturesȱthemselvesȱandȱthe Fathersȱ downȱ toȱ medievalȱ literatureȱ orȱ moreȱ contemporaryȱ mystics,ȱ butȱ also convertedȱinnumerableȱprofaneȱorȱpaganȱsources. TheȱfriendshipȱwithȱChristȱissueȱisȱinȱitselfȱemblematicȱofȱthisȱstubbornȱrewriting andȱisȱbutȱaȱsmallȱpartȱofȱtheȱauthor’sȱstrategy.ȱByȱoptingȱforȱtheȱvernacularȱshortly afterȱtheȱpublicationȱofȱtheȱ1611ȱKingȱJames’ȱBibleȱHerbertȱverbalizedȱhisȱAnglican recyclingȱofȱtheȱnotionȱandȱintendedȱtoȱproveȱitsȱcompleteȱsupremacyȱoverȱall others,ȱ especiallyȱ Latinȱ whichȱ heȱ hadȱ masteredȱ atȱ Westminsterȱ Schoolȱ and CambridgeȱUniversityȱbutȱhadȱdismissedȱasȱtheȱcorruptȱlanguageȱofȱPapists.ȱ Herbert’sȱsubstantialȱuseȱofȱplaysȱonȱwords,ȱpuns,ȱandȱanagramsȱforȱtheȱsole sakeȱ ofȱ religiousȱ dogmaȱ revealsȱ aȱ messianicȱ andȱ almostȱ millenarianȱ visionȱ of EnglandȱasȱtheȱNewȱJerusalemȱandȱtheȱEnglishȱasȱtheȱnewȱpeopleȱelect.ȱThisȱisȱbest illustratedȱinȱ“Prayerȱ(I),”ȱonceȱreveredȱbyȱT.ȱS.ȱEliot31ȱwhoȱhimselfȱknewȱonlyȱtoo wellȱtheȱpowerfulȱpotentialȱofȱanagrams:

31

Theȱauthorȱofȱ“TheȱWasteland”ȱonceȱremarkedȱthatȱTheȱTempleȱwasȱ“aȱbookȱconstructedȱaccording toȱaȱplan;ȱandȱasȱweȱgetȱtoȱknowȱHerbert’sȱpoemsȱbetter,ȱweȱcomeȱtoȱfindȱthatȱthereȱisȱsomething weȱgetȱfromȱtheȱwholeȱbook,ȱwhichȱisȱmoreȱthanȱaȱsumȱofȱitsȱparts,”ȱ“WhatȱisȱMinorȱPoetry?”ȱOn PoetryȱandȱPoetsȱ(NewȱYork:ȱNoondayȱPress,ȱ1969),ȱ42.ȱHeȱalsoȱexpresslyȱreferredȱtoȱ“PrayerȱI”ȱin hisȱownȱpoemȱ“LittleȱGidding”:ȱ‘AndȱPrayerȱisȱmoreȱthanȱanȱorderȱofȱwords,ȱ/ȱTheȱconscious occupationȱofȱtheȱprayingȱmind,ȱ/ȱOrȱtheȱsoundȱofȱtheȱvoiceȱpraying”ȱ(48–50),ȱinȱ“FourȱQuartets,” TheȱCompleteȱPoemsȱandȱPlaysȱ(London:ȱFaberȱ&ȱFaber,ȱ1969),ȱ192.ȱ

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

745

PrayerȱtheȱChurchesȱbanquet,ȱAngelsȱage, Godsȱbreathȱinȱmanȱreturningȱtoȱhisȱbirth, Theȱsoulȱinȱparaphrase,ȱheartȱinȱpilgrimage, TheȱChristianȱplummetȱsoundingȱheav’nȱandȱearth; Engineȱagainstȱth’ȱAlmightie,ȱsinnersȱtowre, ȱReversedȱthunder,ȱChristȬsideȬpiercingȱspear, ȱTheȱsixȬdaiesȬworldȱtransposingȱinȱanȱhoure, Aȱkindeȱofȱtune,ȱwhichȱallȱthingsȱheareȱandȱfear; Softnesse,ȱandȱpeace,ȱandȱjoy,ȱandȱlove,ȱandȱblisse, ȱExaltedȱManna,ȱgladnesseȱofȱtheȱbest, Heavenȱinȱordinarie,ȱmanȱwellȱdrest, TheȱMilkieȱway,ȱtheȱbirdȱofȱParadise, ChurchȬbelsȱbeyondȱtheȱstarresȱheard,ȱtheȱsoulsȱbloud, Theȱlandȱofȱspices;ȱsomethingȱunderstood.

Ifȱatȱfirstȱtheȱpoemȱdoesȱnotȱostensiblyȱtackleȱtheȱconceptȱofȱfriendshipȱitȱproves, onȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtoȱbeȱemblematicȱofȱHerbert’sȱenterprise.ȱOnȱcloserȱinspectionȱthe enigmaticȱ sixthȱ line—“Reversedȱ thunder,ȱ Christ’sȱ sideȬpiercingȱ spear”—can indeedȱmutateȱintoȱtheȱoxymoronicȱ“Christ’sȱsideȬpiercingȱspear,ȱtheȱdurn”ȱifȱthe readerȱdiligentlyȱfollowsȱtheȱauthor’sȱrecommendationȱtoȱ“reverse”ȱ“thunder.”ȱIf oneȱadmitsȱthatȱ“durn”ȱwasȱanȱalternateȱOldȱEnglishȱspellingȱofȱȱ“dern”—i.e.,ȱthe modernȱ“darn”—asȱpotentiallyȱimpliedȱbyȱtheȱO.ȱE.ȱD,ȱweȱareȱmadeȱtoȱunderstand thatȱtheȱspearȱopeningȱChrist’sȱflankȱalsoȱreunitesȱmanȱtoȱGod,ȱasȱmoreȱexpressly statedȱinȱHerbert’sȱearlierȱLatinȱpoemȱ“Latusȱperfossum”:ȱ“Christe,ȱvbiȱtamȱduro patetȱinȱteȱsemitaȱferro,ȱ/ȱSperoȱmeoȱcordiȱposseȱpatereȱviam”ȱȱ(“OnȱtheȱPierced side”:ȱ“Christ,ȱwhenȱremorselessȱsteelȱhasȱopenedȱupȱaȱpathȱinȱyou,ȱ/ȱIȱhopeȱthere canȱbeȱopenedȱupȱaȱpathwayȱforȱmyȱheart.”).32ȱ Onȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱunexpectedȱyetȱperfectlyȱsensibleȱrephrasedȱalternative reverberatesȱtheȱoptimisticȱclosureȱofȱJohnȱ15:20ȱ“Andȱyeȱalsoȱshallȱbearȱwitness, becauseȱyeȱhaveȱbeenȱwithȱmeȱfromȱtheȱbeginning.”ȱOnȱtheȱother,ȱtheȱimpression isȱ reinforcedȱ byȱ theȱ steadyȱ parataxisȱ blurringȱ allȱ temporalȱ distinctions,ȱ its dogmaticȱ implicationsȱ beingȱ thatȱ theȱ Newȱ Adam’sȱ fatalȱ woundȱ releasedȱ the SacramentsȱandȱreconciledȱmankindȱwithȱGodȱwhileȱtheȱdailyȱreȬenactmentȱofȱHis SacrificeȱinȱtheȱAnglicanȱliturgyȱmarksȱaȱnewȱbeginningȱandȱanȱadamicȱfriendship regained. Thisȱwouldȱratherȱtendȱtoȱproveȱthatȱtheȱfriendshipȱissueȱisȱpartȱofȱaȱmuchȱwider schemeȱbyȱtheȱauthor.ȱTheȱTempleȱundoubtedlyȱactsȱasȱaȱmanifestoȱdirectedȱatȱan autonomousȱreformedȱreaderȱandȱheraldingȱaȱnewȱreligious,ȱasȱwellȱasȱliterary,

32

Passioȱ Discerptaȱ IV,ȱ inȱ Theȱ Latinȱ Poetryȱ ofȱ Georgeȱ Herbert.ȱ Aȱ Bilingualȱ Edition,ȱ trans.ȱ Mark McCloskeyȱandȱPaulȱR.ȱMurphyȱ(Athens:ȱOhioȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1965),ȱ64–65.ȱ

746

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

age.ȱHenceȱtheȱclosingȱlinesȱofȱtheȱaccompanyingȱpoemȱ“TheȱChurchȱMilitant” pointȱinȱthatȱdirectionȱandȱcameȱcloseȱtoȱbeingȱeditedȱbyȱtheȱroyalȱcensorsȱinȱ1633: ReligionȱstandsȱonȱtipȬtoeȱinȱourȱland, ReadyȱtoȱpassȱtoȱtheȱAmericanȱstrand.ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ WhenȱItalieȱofȱusȱshallȱhaveȱherȱwill, Andȱallȱherȱcalendarȱofȱsinnesȱfulfil; Wherebyȱoneȱmayȱforetell,ȱwhatȱsinsȱnextȱyear ShallȱbothȱinȱFranceȱandȱEnglandȱdomineer: ThenȱshallȱReligionȱtoȱAmericaȱflee:ȱ .ȱ.ȱ.ȱ ButȱasȱtheȱSunneȱstillȱgoesȱbothȱwestȱandȱeast; SoȱalsoȱdidȱtheȱChurchȱbyȱgoingȱwest Stillȱeastwardȱgo;ȱbecauseȱitȱdrewȱmoreȱneare Toȱtimeȱandȱplace,ȱwhereȱjudgementȱshallȱappeare.ȱ

(235–36)

(243–47)

(274–77)

Additionally,ȱtoȱdeterȱandȱsilenceȱaȱcontemporaryȱPuritanȱpreacherȱtheȱprotagonist ofȱ“Conscience”ȱpositionsȱhimselfȱasȱaȱreformedȱChurchȱmilitantȱtoȱdeclare:ȱ“The bloudieȱcrosseȱofȱ[his]ȱdeareȱLordȱ/ȱIsȱbothȱ[his]ȱphysickȱandȱ[his]ȱsword.”ȱUsing “words”ȱasȱaȱ“sword”ȱheȱhintsȱatȱErasmus’sȱEnchiridionȱmilitiisȱchristianiȱ(1624)ȱand itsȱpunȱonȱ“enchiridion,”ȱmeaningȱalternatelyȱ“dagger/shortȱsword”ȱorȱ“book.” Theȱ friendshipȱ issueȱ thereforeȱ clearlyȱ appearsȱ toȱ haveȱ beenȱ oneȱ ofȱ manyȱ that Herbertȱ tackledȱ andȱ Anglicanizedȱ thanksȱ toȱ hisȱ uniqueȱ andȱ revolutionary masteringȱ ofȱ theȱ vernacularȱ toȱ combatȱ theȱ Catholicȱ andȱ Protestantȱ factions. Similarly,ȱ theȱ earlierȱ “dated”ȱ religiousȱ practicesȱ ofȱ medievalȱ devotionȱ and monachismȱ areȱ metaphorizedȱ inȱ “Content”ȱ andȱ “Discipline,”ȱ inȱ whichȱ words replaceȱdeedsȱandȱmortificationȱisȱtranslatedȱintoȱtheȱmentalȱsphereȱtoȱtakeȱover ostentatiousȱflailingȱandȱspiritualizeȱtheȱissue. Herbert’sȱpoeticȱnarrationȱofȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTempleȱisȱnoȱselfish enterpriseȱeitherȱsinceȱitȱurgesȱeachȱindividualȱreaderȱtoȱcommuneȱwithȱHim,ȱas inȱ “Theȱ Sacrifice”ȱ (213–16)ȱ thatȱ combinesȱ aȱ uniqueȱ formȱ ofȱ imitationȱ toȱ the ultimateȱverbalȱeconomy: But,ȱOȱmyȱGod,ȱmyȱGod!,ȱwhyȱleav’stȱthouȱme, Theȱson,ȱinȱwhomȱthouȱdostȱdelightȱtoȱbe? MyȱGod,ȱmyȱGodȱ––––––––––––– Neverȱwasȱgriefȱlikeȱmine.

OneȱcanȱimagineȱtheȱreaderȱcompletingȱaloudȱtheȱmissingȱwordsȱfromȱMatt.ȱ27:46 heȱ undoubtedlyȱ knewȱ byȱ heartȱ and,ȱ byȱ doingȱ so,ȱ performȱ aȱ uniqueȱ typeȱ of imitationȱofȱChrist,ȱimpersonatingȱHimȱforȱaȱmereȱsecond.ȱThroughoutȱTheȱTemple weȱareȱmadeȱtoȱunderstandȱthatȱsubmissionȱandȱtheȱensuingȱidentificationȱand friendshipȱ withȱ theȱ Wordȱ ofȱ Godȱ canȱ onlyȱ beȱ achievedȱ throughȱ aȱ constant

GeorgeȱHerbert’sȱFriendshipȱwithȱChristȱinȱTheȱTemple

747

renegotiatingȱofȱlanguage,ȱoneȱofȱGod’sȱearliestȱgiftsȱtoȱmankind.33ȱAlthoughȱhe masteredȱmoreȱthanȱaȱcoupleȱofȱEuropeanȱlanguagesȱandȱhadȱskillfullyȱtriedȱhis handȱatȱLatinȱandȱGreekȱpoetryȱduringȱhisȱCambridgeȱyears,ȱHerbertȱasserted,ȱin “TheȱSonne,”ȱthatȱthisȱwasȱbestȱachievedȱinȱtheȱEnglishȱlanguageȱofȱtheȱnewly publishedȱKingȱJamesȱBible: LETȱforrainȱnationsȱofȱtheirȱlanguageȱboast, Whatȱfineȱvarietieȱeachȱtongueȱaffords: Iȱlikeȱourȱlanguage,ȱasȱourȱmenȱandȱcoast; Whoȱcannotȱdresseȱitȱwell,ȱwantȱwit,ȱnotȱwords. Howȱneatlyȱdoȱweȱgiveȱoneȱonelyȱname Toȱparentsȱissueȱandȱtheȱsunnesȱbrightȱstarre! Aȱsonneȱisȱlightȱandȱfruit;ȱaȱfruitfullȱflame Chasingȱtheȱfathersȱdimnesse,ȱcarriedȱfar Fromȱtheȱfirstȱmanȱinȱth’ȱEast,ȱtoȱfreshȱandȱnew Westernȱdiscov’riesȱofȱposteritie. SoȱinȱoneȱwordȱourȱLordsȱhumilitie Weȱturnȱuponȱhimȱinȱaȱsenseȱmoreȱtrue: ForȱwhatȱChristȱonceȱinȱhumblenesseȱbegan, Weȱhimȱinȱglorieȱcall,ȱTheȱSonneȱofȱMan.

Accordingly,ȱ alongsideȱ theȱ “rood/door”ȱ andȱ “lamb/balm”ȱ doubleȬentendres mentionedȱearlierȱthatȱareȱscatteredȱinȱTheȱTemple,ȱtheȱlettersȱofȱ“JESU”ȱrecompose “Iȱeaseȱyou”ȱ(9)—and,ȱpossibly,ȱ“Iȱisȱyou,”ȱasȱlinesȱ5ȱandȱ6ȱseemȱtoȱsuggest—toȱinsist onȱtheȱSaviour’sȱbenevolenceȱinȱtheȱeponymousȱpoem: JESUȱisȱinȱmyȱheart,ȱhisȱsacredȱname Isȱdeeplyȱcarvedȱthere:ȱbutȱth’otherȱweek Aȱgreatȱafflictionȱbrokeȱtheȱlittleȱframe, Ev’nȱallȱtoȱpieces:ȱwhichȱIȱwentȱtoȱseek: AndȱfirstȱIȱfoundȱtheȱcorner,ȱwhereȱwasȱJ, After,ȱwhereȱES,ȱandȱnextȱwhereȱUȱwasȱgraved, WhenȱIȱhadȱgotȱtheseȱparcels,ȱinstantly Iȱsatȱmeȱdownȱtoȱspellȱthem,ȱandȱperceived ThatȱtoȱmyȱbrokenȱheartȱheȱwasȱIȱeaseȱyou, AndȱtoȱtheȱwholeȱisȱJȱEȱSȱU.

Thisȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱachievedȱwhenȱtheȱ“littleȱframe”ȱholdingȱtheȱWord/word,ȱi.e.,ȱthe narrator’sȱ heart,ȱ isȱ shattered.ȱ Theȱ poemȱ isȱ inȱ itselfȱ emblematicȱ ofȱ Herbert’s strategy:ȱoriginallyȱcausedȱbyȱtheȱsacrificeȱandȱphysicalȱabsenceȱofȱhisȱ“friend,”ȱthe narrator’sȱgriefȱandȱcontritionȱturnȱintoȱjoy.ȱOnceȱexȬpressedȱandȱimȬpressedȱ(i.e., “printed”),ȱ hisȱ sighsȱ areȱ workedȱ intoȱ signsȱ andȱ rewardedȱ byȱ Hisȱ everlasting

33

Gen.ȱ2:19–20.

748

JeanȬChristopheȱVanȱThienen

presenceȱwhenȱHisȱnameȱgetsȱfinallyȱrephrasedȱasȱ“Iȱeaseȱyou,”ȱtheȱundeniable presentȱtenseȱprovingȱHisȱundyingȱfriendship.ȱ Thisȱ lastȱ exampleȱ compactsȱ Herbert’sȱ complexȱ approachȱ toȱ friendshipȱ with Christȱandȱitsȱresolution.ȱAsȱopposedȱtoȱtheȱratherȱcontrivedȱLatinȱpoetryȱofȱhis youthȱwhereȱsomeȱearlyȱsuchȱattemptsȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱandȱoperateȱtoȱaȱmuchȱlesser extent,ȱ theȱ Englishȱ languageȱ enabledȱ theȱ Anglicanȱ authorȱ toȱ treatȱ tropesȱ as malleableȱmaterialȱthatȱheȱcould,ȱasȱsuch,ȱobstinatelyȱdismantleȱandȱreassembleȱto extricateȱandȱobtain/revealȱfurther—andȱdeeper—meaningȱfrom.ȱThisȱenabledȱhim toȱ findȱ solaceȱ andȱ forgeȱ aȱ reformedȱ poetryȱ ofȱ tearsȱ intendedȱ toȱ supplantȱ the contemporaryȱ Catholicȱ devotionalȱ practices—somewhatȱ inȱ theȱ veinȱ ofȱ the fifteenthȬcenturyȱ Devotioȱ moderna—andȱ theirȱ dubiousȱ pictorialȱ representations whileȱproclaimingȱtheȱsupremacyȱofȱtheȱnascentȱChurchȱofȱEnglandȱandȱrestoring bothȱtheȱWordȱandȱsolaȱscriptura.

Chapterȱ20 AndrewȱCrome (UniversityȱofȱManchester)

FriendshipȱandȱEnmityȱtoȱGodȱandȱNation:ȱThe ComplexitiesȱofȱJewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱthe WhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

InȱDecemberȱ1655ȱOliverȱCromwellȱsummonedȱtogetherȱ“severalȱDoctors,ȱand otherȱpreachers,ȱgodlyȱmen,ȱandȱsomeȱMerchantsȱandȱlawyers”1ȱtoȱWhitehallȱto discussȱtheȱquestionȱofȱJewishȱreadmissionȱtoȱEngland.ȱSinceȱ1290,ȱwhenȱEdward Iȱhadȱexiledȱtheȱnation’sȱJewishȱpopulation,ȱthereȱhadȱofficiallyȱbeenȱnoȱJewsȱinȱthe country.2ȱTheȱpressureȱonȱtheȱgovernmentȱtoȱreadmitȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱtheȱnationȱhad beenȱgrowingȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱmidȬseventeenthȱcentury,ȱreachingȱaȱpeakȱin theȱperiodȱleadingȱupȱtoȱtheȱconference.ȱWhatȱisȱfascinatingȱaboutȱtheȱarguments marshaledȱbyȱthoseȱinȱfavorȱofȱreadmissionȱisȱhowȱoftenȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱportrayed asȱ“friends”:ȱeitherȱofȱGod,ȱorȱofȱtheȱEnglishȱnationȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱYetȱwhileȱthisȱmay suggestȱaȱgenerallyȱpositiveȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱJewishȱpeople,ȱasȱaȱwholeȱitȱwas formedȱ withoutȱ anyȱ referenceȱ toȱ actualȱ Jews.ȱ England,ȱ withoutȱ anȱ established Jewishȱ populationȱ forȱ overȱ threeȱ hundredȱ years,ȱ hadȱ formedȱ itsȱ attitudesȱ to JudaismȱinȱanȱenvironmentȱsealedȱoffȱfromȱanyȱlivingȱJewishȱinfluence.ȱ ItȱwasȱonlyȱwhenȱoutspokenȱAmsterdamȱRabbiȱMenassehȱbenȱIsraelȱarrivedȱin Londonȱ inȱ 1655ȱ thatȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ thoseȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ readmissionȱ hadȱ to

1

2

[HenryȱJessey],ȱAȱNarrativeȱofȱtheȱLateȱProceedsȱatȱWhiteȬHall,ȱconcerningȱtheȱJewsȱ(London:ȱPrinted forȱL.ȱChapman,ȱ1656),ȱ1.ȱTheȱprimaryȱtextsȱforȱthisȱchapterȱwereȱconsultedȱatȱtheȱBritishȱLibrary, JohnȱRylandsȱLibraryȱManchester,ȱandȱthroughȱtheȱdigitizationsȱofȱmicrofilmsȱavailableȱatȱEarly EnglishȱBooksȱOnline.ȱ Thereȱwere,ȱofȱcourse,ȱoccasionalȱJewishȱvisitorsȱtoȱtheȱnation,ȱbutȱnoȱsettledȱcommunityȱorȱopen worshipȱwasȱallowed.ȱAsȱweȱwillȱseeȱatȱtheȱconclusionȱofȱthisȱessay,ȱthereȱwasȱaȱsmall,ȱsecret communityȱofȱSpanishȱJewsȱlivingȱinȱLondonȱbyȱtheȱmidȬseventeenthȱcentury.ȱOnȱtheȱwhole, however,ȱtheyȱremainedȱundetected.

750

AndrewȱCrome

contemplateȱtheȱrealityȱofȱcontemporaryȱJudaism.ȱForȱwhileȱEnglishȱwritersȱ(and theirȱreaders)ȱprovedȱonlyȱtooȱhappyȱtoȱacceptȱtheȱideaȱofȱtheȱJewishȱnationȱasȱa corporateȱ“friend”ȱofȱGod,ȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱwithȱindividualȱJewsȱbeganȱto exposeȱnotȱonlyȱoldȱantiȬSemiticȱfears,ȱbutȱalsoȱanȱunderlyingȱanxietyȱaboutȱthe boundariesȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱChristians.ȱ Thisȱ essayȱ exploresȱ themesȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ andȱ enmity—toȱ bothȱ Godȱ and nation—foundȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱwhichȱprecededȱandȱfollowedȱtheȱconference.ȱThis literatureȱemergedȱinȱtwoȱwaves.ȱFirstly,ȱaȱseriesȱofȱpublicationsȱthatȱappearedȱin 1649–1652,ȱ basedȱ aroundȱ initialȱ politicalȱ discussionsȱ onȱ Jewishȱ readmissionȱ to England.ȱSecondly,ȱworksȱwhichȱwereȱproducedȱinȱtandemȱwithȱandȱfollowedȱthe Whitehallȱ Conferenceȱ itselfȱ inȱ 1655.3ȱ Theseȱ worksȱ tendedȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ the ‘friendship’ȱ tropeȱ inȱ twoȱ differentȱ ways.ȱ Theȱ firstȱ waveȱ ofȱ literatureȱ failedȱ to considerȱtheȱquestionȱofȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentilesȱonȱanȱindividual basis.ȱInstead,ȱdiscoursesȱofȱfriendshipȱrevolvedȱaroundȱtheȱJewsȱasȱfriendsȱofȱGod andȱtheȱnation.ȱ Theȱsecondȱsetȱofȱliterature,ȱemergingȱinȱ1655–1656,ȱwas,ȱhowever,ȱcomplicated byȱ theȱ presenceȱ ofȱ Mennasehȱ inȱ London.ȱ Hisȱ friendshipȱ withȱ delegateȱ Henry Jessey,ȱasȱwellȱasȱincreasingȱdialogueȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentiles,ȱforcedȱwriters toȱwrestleȱwithȱtheȱpracticalȱconsequencesȱofȱJewishȱreadmissionȱandȱreassessȱtheir previouslyȱheldȱbeliefsȱaboutȱtheȱJews.ȱThis,ȱasȱweȱwillȱsee,ȱledȱtoȱanȱincreasing focusȱ onȱ theȱ religiousȱ andȱ racialȱ alterityȱ ofȱ Jews,ȱ evenȱ asȱ theyȱ wereȱ hailedȱ as directlyȱblessedȱbyȱGod.ȱEvenȱthoseȱmostȱinȱfavorȱofȱJewishȱadmissionȱbeganȱto openlyȱquestionȱtheȱwisdomȱofȱallowingȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱsettleȱinȱtheȱnation.ȱBefore comingȱtoȱtheȱconferenceȱitself,ȱhowever,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱexamineȱtheȱwayȱin whichȱattitudesȱtowardȱtheȱJewsȱevolvedȱinȱtheȱperiodȱleadingȱupȱtoȱtheȱ1650s.ȱAs weȱwillȱsee,ȱitȱwasȱtheseȱdevelopmentsȱwhichȱallowedȱforȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱthe Whitehallȱconferenceȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplace.ȱ

ȱChangingȱAttitudesȱtoȱJudaism Overȱtheȱlateȱsixteenthȱandȱearlyȱseventeenthȱcenturiesȱaȱmajorȱshiftȱoccurredȱin theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ viewedȱ inȱ England.ȱ Initially,ȱ theȱ negative medievalȱviewȱofȱtheȱJewsȱasȱChristȬkillersȱandȱusurersȱpersisted.ȱJohnȱFoxeȱcould, forȱexample,ȱdescribeȱtheȱJewsȱasȱ“aȱpeopleȱmostȱabhorredȱofȱGod,ȱ&ȱmen,ȱ[that] wouldȱneverthelesseȱmostȱarrogantlyȱvauntȱthemȱselvesȱtoȱbeeȱmoreȱesteemedȱand

3

Forȱanȱexcellentȱoverviewȱofȱthisȱliterature,ȱseeȱMordecaiȱWilensky,ȱ“TheȱLiteraryȱControversy inȱ1656ȱConcerningȱtheȱReturnȱofȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱEngland,”ȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱAmericanȱAcademyȱfor JewishȱResearchȱ20ȱ(1951):ȱ357–93.ȱ

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

751

moreȱpreciousȱinȱtheȱsightȱofȱGod,ȱthenȱallȱotherȱnations,ȱpeopleȱandȱtongues.”4 Whileȱsuchȱattitudesȱremained,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱaȱmoreȱsympatheticȱapproach towardȱ Judaismȱ wasȱ developing.ȱ Initially,ȱ thisȱ wasȱ apparentȱ throughȱ aȱ new interestȱ inȱ Hebraicȱ studies,ȱ withȱ Oxfordȱ andȱ Cambridgeȱ establishingȱ chairsȱ of Hebrewȱ asȱ earlyȱ asȱ theȱ 1540s.ȱ Thisȱ ledȱ toȱ anȱ increasingȱ awarenessȱ ofȱ Jewish scholarshipȱonȱtheȱBible,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱrealizationȱthatȱRabbinicȱscholarsȱwereȱstill producingȱ worksȱ whichȱ couldȱ beȱ instructiveȱ forȱ Christianȱ exegetes.ȱ Theȱ most notableȱexponentȱofȱthisȱtraditionȱwasȱtheȱvolatileȱHughȱBroughtonȱ(1549–1612), whoȱspentȱhisȱlaterȱyearsȱinȱMiddelburgȱdebatingȱRabbisȱandȱattemptingȱtoȱsolicit supportȱforȱaȱHebrewȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱbookȱofȱRevelation.ȱAȱsimilarȱinterestȱin theȱ legalȱ sideȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ wasȱ evidentȱ inȱ Johnȱ Selden’sȱ work,ȱ aȱ focusȱ which continuedȱthroughoutȱhisȱlife.5 YetȱperhapsȱtheȱgreatestȱevidenceȱofȱaȱshiftingȱattitudeȱtowardȱJudaismȱwasȱthe increasedȱeschatologicalȱinterestȱinȱtheȱJewsȱwhichȱemergedȱasȱanȱimportantȱtheme overȱ theȱ seventeenthȱ century.6ȱ Thisȱ interestȱ canȱ beȱ splitȱ intoȱ twoȱ branches:ȱ a generalȱ conversionistȱ positionȱ andȱ aȱ “JudeoȬcentric”ȱ approach,ȱ whichȱ gained popularityȱfromȱtheȱearlyȱ1600sȱonwards.ȱTheȱfirstȱpositionȱhadȱbeenȱcommonȱin bothȱtheȱpatristicȱandȱmedievalȱperiod,ȱandȱwasȱprimarilyȱbasedȱuponȱSt.ȱPaul’s discussionȱofȱIsrael’sȱprivilegesȱinȱRomansȱ9–11.ȱThereȱtheȱapostleȱhadȱconcluded thatȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱeventuallyȱinheritȱsomeȱformȱofȱspiritualȱblessing.ȱTheȱJews, nowȱcutȱoff,ȱwouldȱbeȱ“graftedȱintoȱtheirȱownȱoliveȱtreeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAndȱsoȱallȱIsraelȱwill beȱsaved”ȱ(Romansȱ11:24b,ȱ26).ȱWhetherȱthisȱwasȱtakenȱtoȱmeanȱthatȱthereȱwould beȱaȱmajorȱendȬtimesȱconversionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱorȱthatȱaȱlimitedȱnumberȱofȱelectȱJews wouldȱcomeȱintoȱtheȱchurchȱthroughoutȱhistoryȱwasȱdebatable.7ȱHowever,ȱtheȱidea ofȱ someȱ formȱ ofȱ conversionȱ towardȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ worldȱ remainedȱ theȱ most commonȱinterpretationȱofȱtheȱpassage.ȱ Theȱ1560ȱeditionȱofȱtheȱinfluentialȱGenevaȱBible,ȱforȱexample,ȱglossedȱtheȱverse asȱdescribingȱ“theȱtimeȱ[that]ȱshalȱcomeȱthatȱtheȱwholeȱnationȱofȱyeȱJewesȱthogh [sic]ȱ notȱ everyȱ oneȱ particularly,ȱ shalbeȱ joinedȱ toȱ theȱ churchȱ ofȱ Christ.”8ȱ Many

4

5

6

7

8

JohnȱFoxe,ȱAȱSermonȱPreachedȱatȱtheȱChristeningȱofȱaȱCertaineȱIewȱ(London:ȱChristopherȱBarker, 1578),ȱsig.ȱ27r. ElianeȱGlaser,ȱJewsȱWithoutȱJudaism:ȱPhilosemitismȱandȱChristianȱPolemicȱinȱEarlyȱModernȱEngland (Houndmills,ȱBasingstoke,ȱHampshire,ȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPalgraveȱMacmillan,ȱ2007),ȱ52–55. Forȱtheȱbestȱexaminationȱofȱthisȱtheme,ȱseeȱRichardȱW.ȱCogley,ȱ“‘TheȱMostȱVileȱandȱBarbarous NationȱofȱallȱtheȱWorld’:ȱGilesȱFletcherȱtheȱElderȇsȱTheȱTartarsȱOr,ȱTenȱTribesȱ(ca.ȱ1610),”ȱRenaissance Quarterlyȱ58.3ȱ(Fallȱ2005):ȱ781–814. AȱgoodȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱvarietyȱofȱinterpretationsȱinspiredȱbyȱthisȱpassageȱisȱfoundȱinȱJeremy Cohen,ȱ“TheȱMysteryȱofȱIsraelȇsȱSalvation:ȱRomansȱ11:25–26ȱinȱPatristicȱandȱMedievalȱExegesis,” HarvardȱTheologicalȱReviewȱ98.3ȱ(Julyȱ2005):ȱ247–81. TheȱGenevaȱBible:ȱAȱFacsimileȱofȱtheȱ1560ȱEdition,ȱed.ȱLloydȱEasonȱBerry;ȱWilliamȱWhittingham, (Madison:ȱUniversityȱofȱWisconsinȱPress,ȱ1969),ȱNewȱTestament,ȱ75l.

752

AndrewȱCrome

writersȱthereforeȱawaitedȱaȱfutureȱconversionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱasȱtheȱprecursorȱtoȱthe endȱofȱtheȱeschaton.ȱAsȱWilliamȱPerkinsȱargued,ȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱworldȱwasȱnotȱan imminentȱevent,ȱforȱtheȱJewsȱhadȱfirstȱtoȱbeȱconverted.9 JudeoȬcentrismȱ emergedȱ fromȱ andȱ developedȱ thisȱ conversionistȱ position.ȱ The centralȱbeliefȱinȱtheȱJudeoȬcentricȱstrandȱofȱeschatologyȱheldȱthatȱtheȱJewishȱpeople wouldȱnotȱonlyȱconvert,ȱbutȱthatȱtheyȱwouldȱalsoȱreturnȱ(asȱaȱdistinctȱgroup)ȱto Palestine.ȱWhenȱestablishedȱthere,ȱtheyȱwouldȱformȱaȱhighlyȱvisibleȱandȱGodly nation,ȱexceedingȱallȱothersȱinȱholiness.ȱThisȱideaȱemergedȱmostȱforcefullyȱinȱthe commentariesȱofȱThomasȱBrightmanȱ(1562–1607),ȱwhoȱimaginedȱaȱrestoredȱ(and converted)ȱ Jewishȱ nationȱ fightingȱ bothȱ Turkȱ andȱ Catholicȱ inȱ theȱ Middleȱ East, beforeȱsurpassingȱtheȱrestȱofȱtheȱChristianȱworldȱinȱblessing.ȱ“What,ȱshallȱthey returnȱtoȱJerusalemȱagaine?”ȱBrightmanȱhadȱasked,ȱ“thereȱisȱnothingȱmoreȱcertaine, theȱProphetsȱdoȱeveryȱwhereȱdirectlyȱconfirmeȱitȱandȱbeatȱuponȱit.”10Theȱideaȱwas embracedȱenthusiasticallyȱbyȱthoseȱwhoȱfollowedȱBrightman.ȱ Tractsȱ byȱ theȱ diplomatȱ Gilesȱ Fletcherȱ andȱ clergymenȱ Richardȱ Bernardȱ and ThomasȱDraxeȱwereȱallȱexpoundingȱtheȱthemeȱinȱtheȱ1610s.ȱTheȱlawyerȱSirȱHenry FinchȱwasȱbrieflyȱjailedȱforȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱkingsȱwouldȱpayȱhomageȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱin hisȱ1621ȱTheȱWorldesȱGreatȱRestauration.ȱPerhapsȱmostȱinfluentially,ȱJudeoȬcentrism mergedȱwithȱtheȱpreȬmillennialismȱofȱnotedȱCambridgeȱacademicȱJosephȱMede (1586–1638).ȱWhileȱMedeȱwasȱuncertainȱofȱtheȱdetailsȱofȱJewishȱrestoration,ȱhe nonethelessȱbelievedȱthatȱthereȱwouldȱbeȱaȱmiraculousȱconversionȱofȱtheȱJewish peopleȱtoȱChristȱasȱtheȱmillenniumȱapproached.11 Theȱ JudeoȬcentricȱ eschatologyȱ setȱ outȱ byȱ commentatorsȱ suchȱ asȱ Medeȱ and BrightmanȱthereforeȱpresumedȱanȱingatheringȱofȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱPalestine.ȱThisȱwas based,ȱprimarily,ȱonȱaȱmoreȱconsistentlyȱliteralȱinterpretationȱofȱOldȱTestament prophecyȱ andȱ generatedȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ potentiallyȱ troublingȱ theologicalȱ issues. MainstreamȱProtestantȱthought,ȱasȱBarbaraȱLewalskiȱhasȱdemonstrated,ȱbelieved thatȱGod’sȱcovenantȱofȱelectionȱwithȱIsraelȱwasȱtheȱsameȱasȱthatȱmadeȱwithȱthe electȱ Christianȱ inȱ theȱ Newȱ Testament.12ȱ JudeoȬcentricȱ eschatology,ȱ however, requiredȱthisȱtoȱbeȱreȬevaluated.ȱPredictionsȱwhichȱreformedȱwritersȱhadȱonce appliedȱtoȱtheȱchurchȱshouldȱbeȱmoreȱcorrectlyȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱJews:ȱ“WhereȱIsrael,

9

10 11

12

WilliamȱPerkins,ȱ“AȱFruitfullȱDialogueȱConcerningȱtheȱEndȱofȱtheȱWorld,”ȱWorksȱ(London:ȱT.ȱB. forȱR.ȱBird,ȱ1631),ȱ470. ThomasȱBrightman,ȱTheȱRevelationȱofȱSt.ȱIohnȱ(London:ȱPrintedȱforȱSamuelȱCartwright,ȱ1644),ȱ544. Forȱ moreȱ onȱ Mede’sȱ viewsȱ onȱ Judaism,ȱ seeȱ Jeffreyȱ K.ȱ Jue,ȱ Heavenȱ Uponȱ Earth:ȱ Josephȱ Mede (1586–1638)ȱandȱtheȱLegacyȱofȱMillenarianism.ȱArchivesȱInternationalesȱd’ȱHistoireȱdesȱIdeыes,ȱ194. (Dordrecht:ȱSpringer,ȱ2006),ȱ109–37. Barbaraȱ Lewalski,ȱ Protestantȱ Poeticsȱ andȱ theȱ SeventeenthȬCenturyȱ Religiousȱ Lyricȱ (Princeton: PrincetonȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1979),ȱ110–44.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

753

Judah,ȱTsion,ȱJerusalem,ȱ&c.ȱareȱnamedȱinȱthisȱargument,ȱtheȱHolyȱGhostȱmeaneth notȱ theȱ spirituallȱ Israelȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ butȱ Israelȱ properlyȱ descendedȱ outȱ ofȱ Jacobs loynes.”13Thisȱ reȬexaminationȱ ofȱ Oldȱ Testamentȱ prophecyȱ ledȱ manyȱ writersȱ to concludeȱthatȱGod’sȱinitialȱcovenantȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱpeopleȱstillȱstood.ȱ TheȱJewsȱandȱtheȱGentiles,ȱFinchȱwrote,ȱhadȱuniqueȱpromisesȱ“severallyȱand apart”ȱ fromȱ oneȱ another.14ȱ Whereȱ previouslyȱ theȱ covenantȱ promisesȱ madeȱ to Abrahamȱhadȱbeenȱappliedȱtoȱtheȱ“spiritualȱIsrael”ȱ(theȱelect),ȱnowȱtheyȱshouldȱbe reappliedȱtoȱtheȱJews.ȱ“God’sȱcovenantȱwithȱtheȱJewes,”ȱasȱMosesȱWallȱwould writeȱlater,ȱ“isȱnotȱnulledȱorȱbroken,ȱbutȱonlyȱsuspended.”15ȱThisȱhadȱimmediate implicationsȱforȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱInȱGenesisȱ12:2ȱGodȱhad promisedȱAbrahamȱthatȱheȱwouldȱ“blessȱthoseȱwhoȱblessȱyou,ȱandȱcurseȱthoseȱthat curseȱyou.”ȱInȱZechariahȱ2:8,ȱmeanwhile,ȱGodȱhadȱpromisedȱZionȱthatȱthoseȱwho attackedȱtheȱJewishȱnationȱattackedȱ“theȱappleȱofȱhisȱeye.”ȱIfȱsuchȱpromisesȱcould beȱappliedȱtoȱnaturalȱIsraelitesȱratherȱthanȱtheirȱspiritualȱsuccessors,ȱthenȱtheȱway inȱwhichȱindividualsȱandȱnationsȱinteractedȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱbecameȱofȱparamount importance.ȱ Englishȱ writersȱ began,ȱ asȱ weȱ willȱ see,ȱ toȱ suggestȱ thatȱ anyȱ man claimingȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱofȱGodȱalsoȱhadȱtoȱclaimȱtoȱbeȱaȱfriendȱofȱtheȱJews.ȱ ThisȱstrandȱofȱeschatologicalȱinterpretationȱledȱwritersȱtoȱponderȱhowȱtheȱJews wouldȱbeȱrestored.ȱBrightmanȱhadȱsuggestedȱthatȱGodȱwouldȱmiraculouslyȱdryȱthe Euphrates,ȱallowingȱtheȱlostȱtribesȱtoȱreturnȱfromȱtheirȱexileȱinȱtheȱEastȱ(asȱperȱRev. 16:12).16ȱAsȱanȱalternativeȱtoȱthis,ȱMedeȱarguedȱthatȱJewishȱconversionȱwouldȱbe modeledȱonȱSt.ȱPaul’sȱDamascusȱroadȱconversionȱexperience.17ȱItȱwouldȱtherefore beȱ aȱ suddenȱ andȱ miraculousȱ event.ȱ Inȱ tandemȱ withȱ bothȱ ofȱ theseȱ positions, however,ȱaȱgrowingȱawarenessȱofȱcertainȱunfulfilledȱpropheciesȱbeganȱtoȱtrouble someȱwriters.ȱSeveralȱBiblicalȱpassagesȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbeȱscattered acrossȱtheȱworldȱbeforeȱtheirȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱLand.ȱDeuteronomyȱ28:64,ȱfor example,ȱpredictedȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbeȱdispersedȱfromȱ“oneȱendȱofȱtheȱearth toȱtheȱother”ȱbeforeȱtheirȱfinalȱrestoration.ȱIsaiahȱ11:12ȱsimilarlyȱsuggestedȱthatȱthe Jewsȱwouldȱbeȱcalledȱfromȱtheȱ“fourȱcornersȱofȱtheȱearth.”ȱThatȱanȱoverȱliteral

13

14 15

16

17

[HenryȱFinch],ȱTheȱWorldsȱGreatȱRestaurationȱorȱTheȱCallingȱofȱtheȱJewesȱ(London:ȱEdwardȱGriffin forȱWalterȱBladen,ȱ1621),ȱ6. [Finch],ȱWorldsȱGreatȱRestauration,ȱ6. MosesȱWall,ȱ“ConsiderationsȱuponȱtheȱpointȱofȱtheȱConversionȱofȱtheȱJews,”ȱMenassehȱbenȱIsrael, HopeȱofȱIsraelȱ(London:ȱPrintedȱbyȱR.I.ȱforȱHannahȱAllen,ȱ1651),ȱ49. ForȱmoreȱonȱthisȱseeȱPhilipȱAlmond,ȱ“ThomasȱBrightmanȱandȱtheȱOriginsȱofȱPhiloȬSemitism:ȱAn ElizabethanȱTheologianȱandȱtheȱReturnȱofȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱIsrael,”ȱReformationȱandȱRenaissanceȱReview 9.1ȱ(Springȱ2007):ȱ3–25ȱandȱRichardȱCogley,ȱ“TheȱFallȱofȱtheȱOttomanȱEmpireȱandȱtheȱRestoration ofȱIsraelȱinȱtheȱ‘JudeoȬCentric’ȱStrandȱofȱPuritanȱMillenarianism,”ȱChurchȱHistoryȱ72.2ȱ(Juneȱ2003): 304–32. JosephȱMede,ȱTheȱWorksȱofȱtheȱPiousȱandȱProfoundlyȱLearnedȱJosephȱMedeȱ(London:ȱPrintedȱbyȱRoger NortonȱforȱRichardȱRoyston,ȱ1672),ȱ891–92.

754

AndrewȱCrome

translationȱ ofȱ “Angleterre”ȱ couldȱ beȱ renderedȱ asȱ theȱ “endsȱ ofȱ theȱ earth”ȱ had suggestedȱ toȱ someȱ Rabbisȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ hadȱ toȱ beȱ presentȱ inȱ Englandȱ forȱ a completeȱcallingȱtoȱoccur.18ȱChristiansȱquicklyȱpickedȱupȱonȱthisȱexegesis,ȱand beganȱtoȱuseȱitȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱreadmissionȱtoȱEnglandȱcouldȱplayȱaȱcentralȱpartȱin Jewishȱconversionȱandȱrestoration. TheȱinterestȱinȱJewishȱreadmissionȱandȱrestorationȱpickedȱupȱpaceȱacrossȱtheȱ1640s andȱ earlyȱ 1650s.ȱ Itȱ wasȱ drivenȱ byȱ bothȱ millenarianȱ andȱ humanitarianȱ reasons. Perhapsȱmostȱinterestinglyȱforȱourȱtheme,ȱitȱwasȱaȱmovementȱwhichȱmadeȱexplicit usesȱ ofȱ theȱ “friendship”ȱ trope.ȱ Theȱ literatureȱ whichȱ emergedȱ inȱ favorȱ of readmissionȱmadeȱexplicitȱreferenceȱtoȱJewsȱasȱfriendsȱofȱbothȱGodȱandȱtheȱnation, asȱweȱwillȱsee.ȱInȱspiteȱofȱtheseȱdevelopments,ȱtheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipsȱbetween individualȱJewsȱandȱGentilesȱprovedȱproblematicȱforȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱseventeenthȬ centuryȱwriters.ȱShakespeare’sȱMerchantȱofȱVeniceȱprovidesȱaȱclearȱexampleȱofȱthe imaginedȱdifficultiesȱinȱrelationshipsȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱ“Iȱwillȱbuyȱwith you,ȱsellȱwithȱyou,ȱtalkȱwithȱyou,ȱwalkȱwithȱyou,ȱandȱsoȱfollowing,ȱbutȱIȱwillȱnot eatȱwithȱyou,ȱdrinkȱwithȱyou,ȱnorȱprayȱwithȱyou,”ȱShylockȱforcefullyȱtellsȱBassanio onȱtheȱreceiptȱofȱaȱdinnerȱinvitation.19ȱ Theȱ idea,ȱ notȱ uniqueȱ toȱ Shakespeare,ȱ limitsȱ Jewish/Gentileȱ relationsȱ toȱ the businessȱsphere,ȱaȱpointȱmadeȱforcefullyȱbyȱAntonioȱlaterȱinȱtheȱsameȱplay.ȱUsury, forȱAntonio,ȱmarksȱoutȱShylockȱasȱanȱenemy:ȱ“forȱ whenȱdidȱfriendshipȱtakeȱa breedȱ forȱ barrenȱ metalȱ ofȱ hisȱ friend?”20ȱ Suchȱ suspicionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ ledȱ some writersȱtoȱhighlightȱclassicalȱantiȬSemiticȱtropesȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱdistanceȱbetween JewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱThusȱJohnȱWeemesȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱsufferedȱfromȱthe foetorȱJudaeus:ȱ“aȱloathsomeȱandȱstinkingȱsmellȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱaȱstinkingȱbreath.”21ȱThomas Calvertȱmadeȱtheȱsameȱpoint,ȱwhilstȱemphasizingȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱalsoȱdissolved barriersȱbetweenȱtheȱsexes:ȱ“Jews,ȱmen,ȱasȱwellȱasȱfemales,ȱareȱpunishedȱcursu menstruoȱsanguinis,ȱwithȱaȱveryȱfrequentȱBloudȬfluxe.”22ȱForȱmanyȱEnglishmenȱthe Jewsȱthereforeȱconstitutedȱtheȱotherȱinȱitsȱmostȱextremeȱform,ȱblurringȱboundaries ofȱrace,ȱreligionȱandȱgender.ȱEvenȱamongstȱsomeȱJudeoȬcentristsȱtheseȱconcerns remainedȱandȱbeganȱtoȱemergeȱwithȱsomeȱforcefulnessȱwhenȱtheyȱwereȱfacedȱwith theȱrealityȱofȱcontemporaryȱJudaism.ȱForȱothers,ȱhowever,ȱburgeoningȱfriendship withȱJewsȱwouldȱproveȱaȱcatalystȱforȱtheirȱphiloȬSemiticȱimpulses.ȱ

18 19

20 21

22

MenassehȱbenȱIsrael,ȱVindiciaeȱJudaeorumȱ(London:ȱR.ȱI.ȱforȱLivewellȱChapman,ȱ1656),ȱ37. WilliamȱShakespeare,ȱTheȱMerchantȱofȱVenice,ȱed.ȱCharlesȱEdelman.ȱShakespeareȱinȱProduction (Cambridge:ȱCambridgeUniversityȱPress.,ȱ2002),ȱ1.3.27–31. Shakespeare,ȱTheȱMerchantȱofȱVenice,ȱ1.3.125–26. JohnȱWeemes,ȱAȱTreatiseȱofȱtheȱFoureȱDegenerateȱSonnesȱ(London:ȱThomasȱCotesȱforȱJohnȱBellamie, 1636),ȱ330. ThomasȱCalvert,ȱTheȱBlessedȱJewȱofȱMaroccoȱ(York:ȱT.ȱBroadȱforȱNath.ȱBrookes,ȱ1648),ȱ20.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

755

ȱTheȱ“FirstȱWave”ȱofȱLiterature,ȱ1649–1652 Theȱ firstȱ majorȱ developmentȱ towardȱ theȱ callingȱ ofȱ theȱ Whitehallȱ Conference occurredȱonȱ5ȱJanuaryȱ1649,ȱwhenȱtwoȱEnglishȱBaptistsȱlivingȱinȱAmsterdamȱsent aȱpetitionȱtoȱThomasȱFairfaxȱandȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱWarȱinȱfavorȱofȱtheȱJews.ȱThe petition,ȱsentȱbyȱJohannaȱCartenrightȱandȱherȱsonȱEbenezerȱCartwright,ȱisȱaȱuseful signpostȱforȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱJewishȱdebateȱwasȱinfluencedȱbyȱaȱmixtureȱof bothȱscripturalȱinterestsȱandȱcontactȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱpeople.ȱWhereȱtheȱJudeoȬ centricȱviewsȱofȱBrightmanȱandȱMedeȱhadȱdevelopedȱwithoutȱanyȱcontactȱwithȱthe Jewsȱthemselves,ȱtheȱCartwrightȱpetitionȱmadeȱitȱclearȱthatȱitsȱgenesisȱlayȱinȱa burgeoningȱfriendshipȱandȱdialogueȱbetweenȱtheȱEnglishȱwritersȱandȱtheȱDutch Jews.ȱIndeed,ȱitȱwasȱthisȱfriendshipȱwhichȱformedȱtheȱbasisȱforȱtheȱfirstȱappealȱfor readmission:ȱtheȱ“heavyȱoutȱcryesȱandȱclamoursȱagainstȱtheȱintolerableȱcrueltyȱof thisȱourȱEnglishȱnation”ȱlearnedȱofȱthroughȱ“discourseȱwithȱthem.”23ȱ Theseȱ discussionsȱ withȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ however,ȱ hadȱ beenȱ mixedȱ withȱ both millenarianȱandȱnationalȱinterests.ȱTheȱpetition’sȱauthorsȱwereȱhauntedȱbyȱthe knowledgeȱthatȱEnglandȱhadȱcommittedȱterribleȱsinsȱtowardȱtheȱJewishȱpeople, particularlyȱtheȱ“inhumaneȱexceedingȱgreatȱmassacreȱofȱthem,ȱinȱtheȱRaignȱ[sic] ofȱRichardȱtheȱsecond.”ȱReadmission,ȱtheyȱargued,ȱwouldȱserveȱtwoȱpurposes. Firstly,ȱitȱwouldȱshowȱtheȱnation’sȱfriendshipȱtoȱGod:ȱ“[we]ȱareȱassuredȱofȱthe wrathȱofȱGod,ȱwillȱbeȱmuchȱappeasedȱtowardȱyou,ȱforȱtheirȱinnocentȱbloodȱshed.”24 Onȱaȱmoreȱpositiveȱnote,ȱtheȱpetitionersȱbelievedȱthatȱthroughȱreadmissionȱthe JewsȱwouldȱbeȱenabledȱtoȱconvertȱtoȱChristȱandȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱLand:ȱ“this NationȱofȱENGLAND,ȱwithȱtheȱinhabitantsȱofȱtheȱNetherȬlands,ȱshallȱbeȱtheȱfirst andȱreadiestȱtoȱtransportȱIZRAELLSȱSongsȱ&ȱDaughtersȱinȱtheirȱShipsȱtoȱthatȱLand promisedȱtoȱtheirȱforefathers.”25ȱTheȱpetitionȱwasȱreceivedȱpositivelyȱbyȱFairfax, whoȱ nonethelessȱ setȱ itȱ asideȱ untilȱ moreȱ pressingȱ politicalȱ mattersȱ (suchȱ asȱ the executionȱofȱCharles)ȱhadȱbeenȱdealtȱwith. TheȱsameȱthemesȱvisibleȱinȱtheȱCartwrightȱpetitionȱwereȱtakenȱupȱinȱaȱremarkable bookȱ publishedȱ laterȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ yearȱ byȱ theȱ otherwiseȱ unknownȱ Edward Nicholas.ȱHisȱApologyȱforȱtheȱHonorableȱNationȱofȱtheȱJewsȱcataloguedȱaȱdamningȱlist ofȱ indictmentsȱ againstȱ Englandȱ forȱ herȱ sinsȱ inȱ theȱ Civilȱ War.ȱ Theseȱ paledȱ in comparison,ȱ however,ȱ withȱ theȱ nation’sȱ majorȱ trespass:ȱ “theȱ sinȱ principally intendedȱ hereȱ isȱ theȱ strictȱ andȱ cruelȱ Lawsȱ nowȱ inȱ forceȱ againstȱ theȱ most

23

24 25

Johannaȱ Cartenrightȱ andȱ Ebenezerȱ Cartwright,ȱ Theȱ Petitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewesȱ (London:ȱ Printedȱ for GeorgeȱRoberts,ȱ1649),ȱ2. CartenwrightȱandȱCartwright,ȱPetition,ȱ3. CartenwrightȱandȱCartwright,ȱPetition,ȱ2.

756

AndrewȱCrome

honourableȱNationȱofȱtheȱworld,ȱtheȱNationȱofȱtheȱJews.”26ȱNicholasȱarguedȱthat EnglandȱshouldȱthereforeȱseekȱGod’sȱforgivenessȱforȱitsȱsinsȱagainstȱthatȱnation. ThisȱshouldȱbeȱachievedȱthroughȱreȬestablishingȱbothȱaȱfriendlyȱdialogueȱwithȱthe Jewishȱpeopleȱandȱthroughȱtheȱpassingȱofȱnewȱlawsȱfavoringȱtheirȱreadmission. Thisȱwould,ȱclaimedȱNicholas,ȱbeȱofȱasȱmuchȱbenefitȱtoȱtheȱnationȱasȱitȱwouldȱto theȱJews:ȱ“Nowȱweighingȱwellȱwithȱourȱselvesȱbothȱtheseȱthreatsȱandȱpromises, wereȱitȱnotȱaȱstrangeȱnegligenceȱ(Iȱconceiveȱitȱaȱmadness)ȱinȱusȱtoȱforegoȱsoȱgreat privileges,ȱasȱbyȱthoseȱhonourableȱpeopleȱofȱtheȱJewsȱmayȱaccrueȱuntoȱus,ȱandȱas greatȱ wilfulnessȱ toȱ layȱ ourselvesȱ openȱ toȱ thoseȱ judgementsȱ threatened.”27 Nicholas’sȱworkȱwouldȱproveȱinfluentialȱinȱtheȱdebateȱonȱJewishȱquestionsȱover theȱfollowingȱfiveȱyears.ȱ TheȱquestionȱofȱJewishȱreadmissionȱremainedȱunexamined,ȱhowever,ȱuntilȱ1651. ThatȱyearȱmarkedȱOliverȱSt.ȱJohn’sȱdiplomaticȱmissionȱtoȱtheȱUnitedȱProvinces, whichȱ includedȱ aȱ visitȱ toȱ Amsterdam.ȱ Whileȱ there,ȱ St.ȱ Johnȱ wasȱ givenȱ the opportunityȱofȱmeetingȱtheȱcity’sȱJewishȱcommunity,ȱattendingȱtheȱsynagogueȱof RabbiȱMenassehȱbenȱIsrael.ȱDuringȱhisȱvisitȱtheȱdiplomatȱwasȱentertainedȱ“with musick,ȱandȱallȱexpressionsȱofȱjoyȱandȱgladnesse,”ȱwithȱtheȱcongregationȱtaking theȱopportunityȱofȱbestowingȱtheirȱfriendshipȱonȱtheȱEnglishmanȱand,ȱindeed,ȱon theȱnationȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱTheyȱthereforeȱ“pronouncedȱaȱblessing,ȱnotȱonelyȱuponȱhis honour,ȱthenȱpresent,ȱbutȱuponȱtheȱwholeȱCommonȬwealthȱofȱEngland.”28ȱ MenassehȱwasȱtoȱbecomeȱaȱcentralȱfigureȱinȱlaterȱdebatesȱonȱJewishȱreadmission. EarlierȱinȱtheȱsameȱyearȱheȱhadȱpublishedȱhisȱSpesȱIsraelis,ȱaȱworkȱheȱhadȱdedicated toȱtheȱEnglishȱParliament.ȱThisȱwasȱquicklyȱtranslatedȱintoȱEnglishȱandȱpublished asȱ Theȱ Hopeȱ ofȱ Israelȱ byȱ Mosesȱ Wall,ȱ aȱ ferventȱ millenarianȱ andȱ friendȱ ofȱ John Milton.ȱTheȱbookȱsetȱforthȱMenasseh’sȱhopeȱthatȱtheȱtenȱlostȱJewishȱtribes,ȱexiled byȱtheȱAssyriansȱinȱ722ȱB.C.E.,ȱwereȱcurrentlyȱresidentȱinȱAmerica.ȱThisȱlineȱof thoughtȱhadȱevolvedȱfromȱtheȱrecollectionsȱofȱAntonyȱMontezinus,ȱaȱSpanishȱJew whoȱclaimedȱthatȱheȱhadȱstumbledȱacrossȱaȱtribeȱofȱIndiansȱwhoȱrecitedȱtheȱshema andȱ keptȱ Hebrewȱ customs.29ȱ Thisȱ testimonyȱ wasȱ ofȱ specialȱ interestȱ toȱ English millenarians,ȱwhoȱhadȱlongȱsoughtȱtheȱlocationȱofȱtheȱelusiveȱtribes,ȱinȱhopeȱof

26

27 28 29

EdwardȱNicholas,ȱAnȱApologyȱforȱtheȱHonorableȱNationȱofȱtheȱJewsȱ(London:ȱJohnȱField,ȱ1649),ȱ4. FieldȱalsoȱprintedȱaȱSpanishȱversionȱofȱtheȱpamphletȱlaterȱinȱtheȱsameȱyear,ȱpublishedȱasȱApologia porȱlaȱnobleȱnacionȱdeȱlosȱIudiosȱ(London:ȱJohnȱField,ȱ1649).ȱThisȱwasȱeitherȱforȱcirculationȱonȱthe continentȱorȱamongstȱSpanishȱimmigrantsȱ(seeȱnoteȱ118ȱbelowȱforȱfurtherȱdetailsȱofȱthis).ȱ Nicholas,ȱApology,ȱ7. benȱIsrael,ȱVindiciaeȱJudaeorum,ȱ5. Forȱmoreȱonȱthisȱbelief,ȱseeȱClaireȱJowit,ȱ“RadicalȱIdentities?ȱNativeȱAmericans,ȱJews,ȱandȱthe EnglishȱCommonwealth,”ȱSeventeenthȱCenturyȱ10.1ȱ(1995):ȱ101–19.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

757

theirȱeventualȱrestorationȱtoȱPalestine.30ȱJohnȱDuryȱwroteȱtoȱtheȱRabbiȱtwiceȱinȱlate 1648ȱrequestingȱtheȱconfirmationȱofȱMontezinus’sȱ reports.ȱItȱseemsȱthatȱitȱwas Dury’sȱpromptingȱwhichȱledȱMenassehȱbothȱtoȱgoȱintoȱtheȱdetailȱwhichȱheȱdidȱin hisȱ Hopeȱ andȱ toȱ aimȱ theȱ workȱ towardȱ anȱ Englishȱ audience.ȱ Whereȱ Duryȱ had requestedȱonlyȱaȱletterȱonȱMenasseh’sȱviewȱofȱMontezinus’sȱreport,ȱtheȱRabbi,ȱ“to giveȱmeȱsatisfaction,ȱhadȱwrittenȱinsteedȱ[sic]ȱofȱaȱLetter,ȱaȱTreatise,ȱwhichȱhee shortlyȱwouldȱpublish,ȱandȱwhereofȱIȱshouldȱreceiveȱsoȱmanyȱCopiesȱasȱIȱshould desire.”31 Menasseh’sȱ textȱ thereforeȱ recordedȱ bothȱ Montezinus’sȱ reportsȱ andȱ theȱ fervent argumentȱthatȱ“theȱpropheciesȱconcerningȱ[theȱJews’]ȱreturneȱtoȱtheirȱCountry,ȱare ofȱnecessityȱtoȱbeȱfulfilled.”32ȱInȱtheȱHopeȱMenassehȱwasȱalsoȱkeenȱtoȱemphasizeȱhis kinshipȱwithȱParliament,ȱinȱtheȱhopeȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱmightȱreceiveȱaȱpositiveȱhearing inȱ England.ȱ Yetȱ heȱ wasȱ quickȱ toȱ denyȱ thatȱ heȱ wasȱ motivatedȱ byȱ anyȱ ulterior motives.ȱSome,ȱheȱwrote,ȱdedicatedȱbooksȱ“byȱcovetousness,ȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱget moneyȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[or]ȱthatȱtheyȱmayȱobtainȱvotes.”ȱHe,ȱhowever,ȱwasȱmotivatedȱonlyȱby “meereȱandȱpureȱfriendship”ȱtoȱEngland.33ȱThisȱfriendshipȱwas,ȱforȱMenasseh, basedȱaroundȱanȱinherentȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱJewishȱandȱEnglishȱpeoples.ȱWhileȱhe admittedȱthatȱthisȱhadȱbeenȱchallengedȱsinceȱtheȱexpulsionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱinȱ1290,ȱhe nonethelessȱ feltȱ thatȱ thereȱ wasȱ aȱ fundamentalȱ (andȱ unbreakable)ȱ connection betweenȱ them:ȱ “youȱ loveȱ ourȱ nation,ȱ andȱ asȱ partȱ ofȱ it,ȱ theȱ Authorȱ ofȱ this Discourse.”34ȱHisȱhopeȱinȱEngland’sȱresponseȱwas,ȱofȱcourse,ȱbasedȱaroundȱhis eschatology.ȱ“Theȱeiesȱofȱallȱareȱturnedȱuponȱyou,”ȱheȱremindedȱParliament,ȱ“that theyȱmayȱseeȱwhitherȱallȱtheseȱthingsȱdoȱtendȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[to]ȱallȱthoseȱthingsȱwhichȱGod isȱ pleasedȱ toȱ haveȱ foreȬtoldȱ byȱ theȱ Prophetsȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ andȱ shallȱ obtainȱ their accomplishment.”35 Menasseh’sȱappealȱtoȱParliamentȱandȱhisȱfaceȬtoȬfaceȱmeetingȱwithȱSt.ȱJohnȱwere clearlyȱsuccessful,ȱasȱheȱwasȱgrantedȱaȱpassportȱforȱentranceȱintoȱEnglandȱinȱ1650. WhenȱtheȱAngloȬDutchȱwarȱintervened,ȱmakingȱtravelȱimpossible,ȱMenasseh’s

30

31

32 33 34 35

TheȱearliestȱexampleȱofȱthisȱwasȱGilesȱFletcher’sȱattemptȱtoȱlinkȱtheȱlostȱtribesȱtoȱtheȱ“Tartars”ȱwho inhabitedȱtheȱCrimeanȱregion.ȱAlthoughȱunpublishedȱuntilȱtheȱ1670s,ȱFletcherȱhadȱcomposedȱhis workȱnoȱlaterȱthanȱ1610.ȱForȱmoreȱonȱthisȱseeȱCogley,ȱ“‘TheȱMostȱVileȱandȱBarbarousȱNation,’” 781–814. JohnȱDury,ȱ“AnȱEpistolicallȱDiscourseȱOfȱMr.ȱIOHNȱDURY,ȱTOȱMr.ȱTHOROWGOOD,”ȱThomas Thorowgood,ȱJewesȱinȱAmericaȱ(London:ȱW[illiam].H[unt].ȱforȱTho.ȱSlater,ȱ1650),ȱsig.ȱc2r.ȱ MenassehȱbenȱIsrael,ȱTheȱHopeȱofȱIsraelȱ(London:ȱR.ȱI.ȱforȱLivewellȱChapman,ȱ1651),ȱ42. benȱIsrael,ȱHope,ȱsig.ȱA3v. benȱIsrael,ȱHope,ȱsig.ȱA4ir. benȱIsrael,ȱHope,ȱsig.ȱA2v–A3r.

758

AndrewȱCrome

documentsȱwereȱrenewedȱannually.36ȱInȱtheȱmeantime,ȱhisȱHopeȱofȱIsraelȱsparked somethingȱofȱaȱdebateȱinȱEngland.ȱMPȱEdwardȱSpencerȱrespondedȱtoȱtheȱRabbiȱin Latin,ȱandȱpublishedȱanȱEnglishȱtranslationȱofȱtheȱletterȱsoonȱafterȱtheȱoriginal publicationȱofȱtheȱHope.ȱSpencerȱagreedȱwithȱMenassehȱthatȱthereȱwasȱaȱspecial linkȱbetweenȱEnglandȱandȱtheȱHebrewȱnation.ȱAddressingȱtheȱRabbiȱasȱhisȱ“deare brother,”ȱSpencerȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱEnglishȱwouldȱprobablyȱbeȱtheȱcauseȱofȱJewish redemption:ȱ“weȱareȱtheȱlikeliestȱNationȱunderȱHeavenȱtoȱdoeȱit.ȱForȱweeȱhate Idolatryȱasȱmuchȱasȱyou.”37ȱYetȱSpencerȱwasȱcautiousȱofȱaȱmillenarianȱinterestȱin Jewishȱreadmission,ȱwarningȱMenassehȱthatȱbothȱheȱandȱtheȱmillenariansȱwere deeplyȱdeceivedȱtoȱexpectȱaȱsuddenȱandȱmiraculousȱredemption.38ȱThisȱnegativity towardȱmillenarianȱinterestsȱfacilitatedȱaȱlivelyȱexchangeȱbetweenȱSpencerȱand Wall,ȱwhichȱtheȱlatterȱreprintedȱasȱanȱappendixȱtoȱlaterȱeditionsȱofȱtheȱHopeȱof Israel.ȱ Theirȱ correspondenceȱ highlightsȱ theȱ inherentȱ differencesȱ betweenȱ the generalȱ conversionistȱ positionȱ takenȱ byȱ Spencer,ȱ andȱ theȱ JudeoȬcentric millenarianismȱofȱWall.ȱ TheȱMPȱwasȱcriticalȱofȱWall’sȱbeliefȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbeȱcalledȱenȬmasseȱand remainȱ asȱ aȱ separateȱ groupȱ evenȱ afterȱ theirȱ conversion:ȱ “theyȱ mustȱ notȱ exalt themselvesȱasȱaȱNation,ȱforȱtheyȱmustȱbeȱingraftedȱagaineȱuponȱthatȱbranch,ȱor vine,ȱChristȱJesus.”39ȱWall’sȱcourteousȱreplyȱreaffirmedȱhisȱbeliefȱinȱaȱtemporal JewishȱkingdomȱbasedȱinȱJerusalemȱandȱarguedȱthatȱwhileȱbothȱheȱandȱSpencer stronglyȱdisagreedȱonȱhowȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbeȱconverted,ȱthisȱshouldȱbeȱnoȱbarȱto coȬoperationȱ forȱ theirȱ commonȱ purpose.ȱ Inȱ earlyȱ 1651ȱ Spencerȱ responded, suggestingȱ thatȱ heȱ andȱ Wallȱ workȱ togetherȱ toȱ promoteȱ Jewishȱ conversion, regardlessȱofȱhowȱorȱwhenȱitȱwouldȱultimatelyȱbeȱachieved.ȱTheyȱarrangedȱtoȱmeet andȱdiscussȱtheȱmatterȱatȱaȱlaterȱdate.40 TheȱcorrespondenceȱbetweenȱWallȱandȱSpencerȱservesȱtoȱshowȱsomethingȱofȱthe complexȱsystemȱofȱalliancesȱthatȱbeganȱtoȱformȱaroundȱtheȱJewishȱquestionȱin England.ȱ Thoseȱ inȱ favorȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ readmissionȱ approachedȱ theȱ subjectȱ fromȱ a numberȱofȱangles,ȱmanyȱofȱwhichȱservedȱonlyȱtoȱconflictȱwithȱoneȱanother.ȱThe conversionistȱ approachȱ ofȱ Spencerȱ wasȱ candidȱ regardingȱ theȱ motiveȱ of readmission—theȱJewsȱwereȱtoȱbeȱallowedȱtoȱenterȱtheȱcountryȱsoȱthatȱtheyȱcould convertȱtoȱChristianity.ȱThisȱconversion,ȱasȱSpencerȱwrote,ȱwouldȱbreakȱdown

36

37

38 39

40

DavidȱS.ȱKatz,ȱTheȱJewsȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱEnglandȱ1485–1850ȱ(OxfordȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱClarendonȱand OxfordȱUniversityȱPress,ȱ1994),ȱ115. EdwardȱSpencer,ȱAȱBriefȱEpistleȱtoȱtheȱLearnedȱManassehȱbenȱIsraelȱ(London:ȱUnknownȱprinter, 1650),ȱ2. Spencer,ȱBriefȱEpistle,ȱ6–9. QuotedȱinȱMosesȱWall,ȱ“Considerations,”ȱ57.ȱSpencerȱinitiallyȱbelievedȱJohnȱDuryȱtoȱhaveȱbeen theȱtranslator. Wall,ȱ“Considerations,”ȱ60.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

759

barriersȱbetweenȱJewȱandȱGentile,ȱactingȱoutȱSt.ȱPaul’sȱpromiseȱinȱGalatiansȱ3:28 thatȱinȱChristȱthereȱwasȱneitherȱ“JewȱnorȱGreek.”ȱThisȱmadeȱcertainȱassumptions aboutȱtheȱmalleabilityȱofȱtheȱdivisionȱbetweenȱJewȱandȱGentile,ȱpositioningȱthese boundariesȱasȱprimarilyȱreligiousȱratherȱthanȱracial.ȱ Theȱ clarityȱ ofȱ thisȱ positionȱ underminedȱ notionsȱ ofȱ outȱ andȱ outȱ friendship betweenȱconversionistsȱandȱJews—forȱthoseȱwhoȱheldȱtoȱthisȱpositionȱbelievedȱthat onceȱconvertedȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱloseȱallȱdistinctiveȱmarkersȱofȱtheirȱJudaism.ȱThe JudeoȬcentricȱ approachȱ ofȱ Wall,ȱ however,ȱ presumedȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ shouldȱ be readmittedȱbothȱtoȱabrogateȱEnglishȱguiltȱforȱpreviousȱsinsȱtowardȱthemȱandȱto hastenȱ theirȱ returnȱ toȱ Palestine.ȱ Friendshipȱ betweenȱ millenariansȱ andȱ Jews thereforeȱ hadȱ aȱ curiousȱ sideȱ toȱ it,ȱ asȱ theȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ theoreticallyȱ returningȱ to Englandȱonlyȱtoȱleaveȱagainȱonceȱtheȱmessianicȱmomentȱwasȱreached.ȱThisȱledȱto twoȱ seeminglyȱ contradictoryȱ positions.ȱ Onȱ theȱ oneȱ hand,ȱ theȱ JudeoȬcentric positionȱpresumedȱsomeȱsharedȱpurposeȱwithȱmoreȱmessianicallyȱmindedȱJews, suchȱasȱMenasseh,ȱandȱallowedȱaȱmoreȱfriendlyȱandȱfruitfulȱdialogueȱbetweenȱJew andȱGentile.ȱYetȱthisȱposition,ȱasȱSpencer’sȱfinalȱreplyȱtoȱWallȱsuggested,ȱwasȱstill basedȱaroundȱtheȱhopeȱofȱaȱmajorȱnationalȱconversionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱChrist.ȱRather thanȱ breakingȱ downȱ theȱ Jew/Gentileȱ dichotomy,ȱ asȱ Spencerȱ argued,ȱ JudeoȬ centristsȱbelievedȱthatȱevenȱafterȱconversion,ȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱremainȱaȱdistinct (indeed,ȱaȱsuperior)ȱgroupȱtoȱtheȱGentiles.41ȱ TheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱJewȱandȱGentileȱwentȱdeeper,ȱinȱJudeoȬcentricȱthought, thanȱmerelyȱthatȱofȱoutwardȱreligiousȱconviction,ȱorȱevenȱinherentȱracialȱtraits. Rather,ȱthereȱwasȱaȱfundamentalȱdifferenceȱpresumedȱbetweenȱJewȱandȱGentile whichȱrenderedȱtheȱJewȱaȱconstantȱother,ȱwhetherȱconvertedȱorȱnot.ȱThusȱitȱwas possibleȱforȱJudeoȬcentristsȱtoȱsuggestȱthatȱJewsȱshouldȱloseȱtheirȱreligiousȱidentity throughȱconversion,ȱyetȱstillȱremainȱaȱdistinctȱandȱvisiblyȱ“Jewish”ȱgroup,ȱevenȱas “Christians.”ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱtheȱreȬenforcingȱofȱboundaries,ȱthisȱissueȱofȱconversion wasȱthereforeȱaȱseriousȱbarrierȱtoȱbothȱcollaborationȱandȱfriendshipȱbetweenȱJews andȱChristiansȱinȱtheȱdebateȱoverȱreadmission.ȱ Spencer’sȱworkȱcanȱbeȱtakenȱasȱanȱexampleȱofȱthis.ȱWhilstȱapparentlyȱfriendly toȱtheȱcauseȱofȱJews,ȱheȱnonethelessȱarguedȱforȱtheȱimposingȱofȱsevereȱconditions onȱ theirȱ arrivalȱ inȱ theȱ nation.ȱ Theseȱ includedȱ aȱ mandatoryȱ registerȱ ofȱ Jewsȱ in England,ȱ forcedȱ attendanceȱ atȱ Goodȱ Fridayȱ sermonsȱ andȱ theȱ banningȱ of circumcision.42ȱ EvenȱmoreȱvehementȱresponsesȱcameȱfromȱthoseȱtotallyȱopposedȱtoȱaȱJewish return.ȱEliazarȱBarȬIsajahȱ(alsoȱknownȱasȱPaulȱIsaiah),ȱaȱconvertedȱJew,ȱissuedȱa furiousȱrebuttalȱofȱJewishȱreligion:ȱ“Iȱthinkeȱitȱwillȱbeȱinȱfire,ȱthunderȱandȱlighting,

41 42

ForȱmoreȱonȱthisȱseeȱCogley,ȱ“Fall,”ȱ327–30. Spencer,ȱBriefȱEpistle,ȱ13–19.

760

AndrewȱCrome

[that]ȱ willȱ beȱ allȱ theȱ honourȱ Godȱ willȱ shewȱ uponȱ theȱ cursedȱ Jews.”43ȱ Others attackedȱJudaismȱonȱtheȱsameȱgroundsȱinȱaȱdirectȱreplyȱtoȱMenasseh.ȱTheȱpractice ofȱ Judaismȱ wasȱ anȱ abomination,ȱ andȱ resettlementȱ wasȱ dependentȱ onlyȱ on conversion.44ȱ Evenȱ theȱ millenariansȱ worriedȱ aboutȱ theȱ possibilityȱ ofȱ theȱ free practiceȱofȱJudaismȱinȱEngland:ȱ“DoȱnotȱthinkȱthatȱIȱaimeȱbyȱthisȱTranslation,ȱto propagateȱorȱcommendȱJudaisme”ȱwroteȱWall,ȱ“Iȱhaveȱbetterȱlearnedȱtheȱtruth.”45ȱ TheȱmemoriesȱofȱJohnȱTraske’sȱJudaizingȱmovementȱwhichȱhadȱcausedȱsuch controversyȱinȱtheȱlateȱ1610sȱstillȱcastȱaȱlong,ȱpainfulȱshadowȱoverȱdiscussionsȱof theȱJewishȱquestionȱinȱEngland.46ȱAtȱthisȱstage,ȱhowever,ȱdebatesȱonȱtheȱpractice ofȱJudaismȱinȱEnglandȱwereȱstillȱlargelyȱacademic.ȱAsȱweȱshallȱsee,ȱhowever,ȱwhen facedȱwithȱtheȱrealityȱofȱJewishȱreluctanceȱtoȱconvert,ȱevenȱmillenarianȱdiscourses ofȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱbeganȱtoȱbecomeȱstrained. Evenȱatȱthisȱearlyȱstage,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱfactȱthatȱMenassehȱwasȱclearȱaboutȱhisȱdesire forȱ theȱ openȱ practiceȱ ofȱ Judaismȱ wasȱ somethingȱ ofȱ anȱ embarrassmentȱ forȱ his supporters.ȱYetȱtheȱlingeringȱnegativityȱtowardȱJudaismȱasȱaȱfaithȱ(asȱopposedȱto Jewsȱasȱaȱracialȱgroup)ȱdidȱnotȱdeterȱtheȱRabbi.ȱHisȱsonȱSamuelȱarrivedȱinȱEngland inȱOctoberȱ1654,ȱaccompaniedȱbyȱtheȱPortugueseȱManuelȱMartinezȱDormido,ȱalso knownȱ asȱ Davidȱ Abrabanel.ȱ Dormidoȱ hadȱ fledȱ theȱ inquisitionȱ inȱ hisȱ native country,ȱandȱbecomeȱsuccessfulȱwithinȱtheȱJewishȱcommunityȱinȱAmsterdam.ȱHe hadȱsentȱbothȱofȱhisȱsonsȱandȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱhisȱinvestmentȱtoȱPernambucoȱin Brazil,ȱrecentlyȱsurrenderedȱtoȱPortugal.ȱThisȱinitialȱmissionȱtoȱEnglandȱtherefore hadȱaȱtwofoldȱaim—SamuelȱbenȱIsraelȱhopedȱtoȱtestȱtheȱwaterȱforȱtheȱprospectsȱof aȱJewishȱreturn,ȱwhilstȱDormidoȱhopedȱtoȱgainȱCromwell’sȱassistanceȱinȱregaining hisȱ fortune.ȱ Toȱ thisȱ end,ȱ Dormidoȱ submittedȱ twoȱ petitionsȱ toȱ Cromwell—one personal,ȱandȱoneȱcallingȱforȱJewishȱreadmissionȱwhichȱemphasizedȱtheȱfinancial benefitȱofȱreadmissionȱtoȱEngland.ȱ Interestingly,ȱbothȱofȱtheseȱpetitionsȱwereȱendorsedȱbyȱJohnȱSadler,ȱlaterȱmaster ofȱ Magdaleneȱ College,ȱ Cambridge,ȱ aȱ ferventȱ JudeoȬcentrist.ȱ Nonetheless,ȱ both wereȱrejectedȱbyȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱState,ȱalthoughȱCromwellȱpersonallyȱwroteȱtoȱthe KingȱofȱPortugalȱonȱDormido’sȱbehalf.47ȱThisȱappearedȱaȱclearȱsignȱofȱtheȱLord

43

44

45 46

47

EliazarȱBarȬIsajah,ȱAȱBriefȱCompendiumȱofȱtheȱVainȱHopesȱofȱtheȱJewsȱMessiasȱ(London:ȱUnknown printer,ȱ1652),ȱ17. I.ȱE.,ȱTheȱGreatȱDeliveranceȱofȱtheȱWholeȱHouseȱofȱIsraelȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱinȱanswerȱtoȱaȱbookȱcalledȱTheȱHopeȱofȱIsrael (London:ȱPrintedȱbyȱM.S.,ȱ1652),ȱ53. Wall,ȱ“ToȱtheȱReader”ȱbenȱIsrael,ȱHope,ȱsig.ȱA3iir. OnȱtheȱTraskeȱcontroversyȱseeȱDavidȱS.ȱKatz,ȱPhiloȬSemitismȱandȱtheȱReadmissionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱto Englandȱ1603–1655ȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversityȱPressȱandȱClarendon.,ȱ1982),ȱ10–32 andȱJamesȱShapiro,ȱShakespeareȱandȱtheȱJewsȱ(ChichesterȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱPrincetonȱUniversityȱPress, 1996),ȱ23–26. Katz,ȱPhiloȬSemitism,ȱ193–95.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

761

Protector’sȱ willingnessȱ toȱ listenȱ toȱ Jewishȱ pleas.ȱ Thisȱ wasȱ apparentlyȱ further reiteratedȱwhenȱSamuelȱreturnedȱhomeȱwithȱwhatȱheȱclaimedȱwasȱanȱhonorary doctorateȱfromȱOxfordȱUniversity.ȱInȱfactȱitȱwasȱaȱforgery,ȱalthoughȱMenasseh appearsȱtoȱhaveȱremainedȱunawareȱofȱthis.ȱTakingȱthisȱasȱaȱsignȱofȱtheȱcontinued goodwillȱ ofȱ Englandȱ towardȱ theȱ Jewishȱ nation,ȱ Menassehȱ finallyȱ arrivedȱ in Londonȱinȱ1655.

ȱTheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱandȱtheȱSecondȱWaveȱofȱLiterature Menassehȱ hadȱ chosenȱ aȱ prodigiousȱ yearȱ toȱ makeȱ hisȱ arrivalȱ inȱ London.ȱ Since Brightman’sȱcommentaries,ȱJudeoȬcentricȱmillenariansȱhadȱfocusedȱuponȱtheȱmidȬ 1650sȱasȱaȱtimeȱofȱremarkableȱpropheticȱactivity.48ȱBrightmanȱhadȱbelievedȱthatȱthe firstȱstirringsȱofȱJewishȱconversionȱwouldȱoccurȱinȱ1650,ȱanȱinterpretationȱbased aroundȱhisȱreadingȱofȱDanielȱ12,ȱwhichȱpredictedȱmessianicȱeventsȱwouldȱoccur 1,290ȱdaysȱafterȱtheȱ“abominationȱwhichȱcausesȱdesolation”ȱwasȱsetȱup.ȱBrightman, followingȱ Johnȱ Napier’sȱ lead,ȱ interpretedȱ thisȱ asȱ aȱ referenceȱ toȱ theȱ attempted restorationȱofȱtheȱJewishȱtempleȱbyȱtheȱEmperorȱJulianȱinȱ360ȱC.E.ȱTakingȱeachȱday describedȱ inȱ Danielȱ asȱ aȱ yearȱ (aȱ commonȱ eschatologicalȱ interpretationȱ atȱ the time),49ȱBrightmanȱreasonedȱthatȱtheȱ1,290ȱdaysȱpointedȱatȱ1650ȱasȱtheȱbeginning ofȱJewishȱrestoration.50ȱBrightman’sȱmethodȱwasȱhighlyȱinfluential.ȱHisȱdatingȱwas acceptedȱbyȱwritersȱsuchȱasȱFinchȱandȱThomasȱWilsonȱduringȱtheȱ1610sȱandȱ1620s, andȱ significantlyȱ expandedȱ uponȱ inȱ theȱ Civilȱ Warȱ period.ȱ Mostȱ importantly, Brightman’sȱdatingȱwasȱmalleable—theȱdatesȱofȱJulian’sȱreignȱandȱhisȱattempted reconstructionȱwereȱsomewhatȱambiguous.ȱThusȱtheȱhighlyȱinfluentialȱmillenarian Johnȱ Archerȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ Julianȱ beganȱ constructionȱ ofȱ theȱ templeȱ inȱ 366—

48

49

50

Forȱ moreȱ detailȱ onȱ thisȱ speculationȱ seeȱ Davidȱ S.ȱ Katz,ȱ “Englishȱ Redemptionȱ andȱ Jewish Readmissionȱinȱ1656,”ȱJournalȱofȱJewishȱStudiesȱ34.1ȱ(1983):ȱ73–76.ȱThereȱisȱanȱimportantȱdistinction toȱbeȱmadeȱhere—whereȱKatzȱclaimsȱthatȱmillenariansȱwereȱexpectingȱtheȱ“secondȱcoming”ȱin 1656,ȱitȱisȱmoreȱaccurateȱtoȱsayȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱactuallyȱhopingȱonlyȱforȱJewishȱconversion.ȱWhile manyȱ heldȱ thatȱ Christȱ wouldȱ appearȱ spirituallyȱ toȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ hisȱ finalȱ returnȱ wasȱ inevitably delayed.ȱTheȱmajorityȱofȱcommentatorsȱsawȱtheȱJewsȱasȱcausingȱtheȱdownfallȱofȱtheȱPapacyȱand Turk,ȱandȱthusȱleadingȱtoȱaȱperiodȱofȱearthlyȱblessingȱbasedȱonȱtheȱthousandȱyearsȱofȱRev.ȱ20:1–6. Inȱbroadȱterms,ȱmillenariansȱwereȱsplitȱbetweenȱthoseȱwhoȱsawȱChrist’sȱreigningȱonȱearthȱforȱthe millennium,ȱ andȱ thoseȱ whoȱ sawȱ Christ’sȱ reignȱ asȱ spiritual.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ respect,ȱ Katz’sȱ useȱ of astrologicalȱdatingȱwhichȱsawȱ1656ȱasȱtheȱstartȱofȱGod’sȱfinalȱjudgmentȱisȱnotȱrelevantȱtoȱthe millenarianȱargument.ȱ ForȱthisȱtraditionȱseenȱIrenaȱBackus,ȱReformationȱReadingsȱofȱtheȱApocalypse:ȱGenevaȱZurichȱand Wittenberg.ȱOxfordȱStudiesȱinȱHistoricalȱTheologyȱ(NewȱYorkȱandȱOxford:ȱOxfordȱUniversity Press,ȱ2000),ȱxii–xiv. Napier,ȱwhileȱusingȱaȱsimilarȱdatingȱsystem,ȱdidȱnotȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbeȱrestoredȱto Palestine.

762

AndrewȱCrome

pointingȱ toȱ 1656ȱ asȱ theȱ yearȱ ofȱ Jewishȱ calling.51ȱ Thisȱ combinedȱ withȱ aȱ second numerologicalȱcoincidence.ȱItȱwasȱwidelyȱbelievedȱthatȱthereȱhadȱbeenȱ1656ȱyears fromȱ creationȱ untilȱ Noah’sȱ flood.ȱ Similarlyȱ momentousȱ eventsȱ wereȱ therefore expectedȱbyȱsomeȱtoȱoccurȱ1656ȱyearsȱafterȱChrist’sȱbirth.ȱAsȱtheȱyearȱapproached, soȱdidȱtheȱmillennialȱspeculation.ȱSamuelȱHartlib’sȱRevelationȱRevealed,ȱforȱexample, emphasizedȱ itsȱ findingsȱ onȱ theȱ titleȱ page:ȱ “Itȱ beingȱ clearȱ thatȱ theȱ prophetical numbersȱcomȱ[sic]ȱtoȱanȱendȱwithȱtheȱYearȱofȱourȱLORDȱ1656.”52ȱInȱ1653,ȱJohn TillinghastȱhadȱagreedȱwithȱHartlib’sȱassessment:ȱ“theȱJewsȱdeliveryȱbeingȱtoȱbegin .ȱ.ȱ.ȱin,ȱorȱaboutȱtheȱyeerȱ56.”53ȱ Itȱwasȱunsurprising,ȱgivenȱtheȱlevelȱofȱmillenarianȱhopeȱattachedȱtoȱtheȱfollowing yearȱthatȱMenasseh’sȱarrivalȱwouldȱbeȱinterpretedȱasȱanȱimportantȱforeȬrunnerȱto theȱredemptionȱofȱtheȱJewishȱnation.ȱHisȱentranceȱandȱconductȱinȱtheȱcapitalȱwere anȱintriguingȱandȱwellȱstageȱmanagedȱevent.ȱAsȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱnoted,ȱMenasseh’s missionȱtoȱEnglandȱwasȱenthusiasticallyȱsupportedȱbyȱOliverȱCromwell,ȱwhoȱalso entertainedȱhimȱonȱatȱleastȱoneȱoccasion.54ȱTheȱRabbiȱwasȱprovidedȱwithȱlodgings onȱ theȱ fashionableȱ Strand,ȱ andȱ soonȱ afterȱ hisȱ arrivalȱ setȱ aboutȱ making arrangementsȱtoȱprintȱhisȱpetitionȱtoȱtheȱLordȱProtector.ȱAsȱtoȱbeȱexpected,ȱthe Rabbi’sȱpetitionȱusedȱmanyȱofȱtheȱsameȱfriendshipȱmotifsȱthatȱemergedȱinȱthe debatesȱofȱtheȱearlyȱ1650s.ȱMenassehȱwasȱquickȱtoȱremindȱCromwellȱthatȱtheȱJews heldȱaȱspecialȱpositionȱasȱGod’sȱpeople.ȱFriendshipȱ(orȱenmity)ȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱwould beȱtheȱmakingȱorȱbreakingȱofȱhisȱregime:ȱ“Forȱnoneȱhathȱeverȱafflictedȱthem,ȱwho hathȱnotȱbeenȱbyȱsomeȱominousȱExit,ȱmostȱheavilyȱpunished.ȱ.ȱ.[while]ȱnoneȱever wasȱ aȱ Benefactorȱ toȱ thatȱ people,ȱ andȱ cherishedȱ themȱ inȱ theirȱ Countries,ȱ who thereuponȱhathȱnotȱpresentȱbegunȱveryȱmuchȱtoȱflourish.”55ȱTheȱbasicȱrequestsȱof theȱpetitionȱwereȱsimple.ȱMenassehȱaskedȱforȱreadmission,ȱtheȱestablishingȱofȱa publicȱsynagogue,ȱandȱtheȱfreeȱexerciseȱofȱtheȱJewishȱreligion.ȱInȱadditionȱtoȱthis, heȱ desiredȱ aȱ publicȱ cemeteryȱ andȱ theȱ rightȱ toȱ tradeȱ inȱ bothȱ Englandȱ andȱ her dominions.56ȱ

51 52

53 54

55

56

JohnȱArcher,ȱTheȱPersonallȱReignȱofȱChristȱuponȱEarthȱ(London:ȱBenjaminȱAllen,1642),ȱ52–53. Samuelȱ Hartlib,ȱ Clavisȱ Apocalyptica,ȱ or,ȱ Theȱ Revelationȱ Revealedȱ (London:ȱ Williamȱ duȱ Gardȱ for ThomasȱMatthewes,ȱ1651),ȱFrontispiece. JohnȱTillinghast,ȱGenerationȬworkȱ(London;ȱR.ȱI.ȱforȱLivewellȱChapman,ȱ1654),ȱ51. DavidȱS.ȱKatz,ȱ“MenassehȱbenȱIsrael’sȱChristianȱConnection,”ȱMenassehȱbenȱIsraelȱandȱHisȱWorld ed.ȱYosefȱKaplan,ȱHenryȱMéchoulanȱ,andȱRichardȱH.ȱPopkin.ȱBrillȱStudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory, 15ȱ(LeidenȱandȱNewȱYork:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1989),ȱ117–138;ȱhereȱ118–19. MenassehȱbenȱIsrael,ȱToȱHisȱHighnesseȱtheȱLordȱProtectorȱ(London:ȱUnknownȱprinter,ȱ1655),ȱsig. A2v. ForȱaȱreprintȱofȱtheȱpetitionȱseeȱPublickȱIntelligencerȱ12ȱ(18thȱDec.–24thȱDec.ȱ1655).ȱ

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

763

ThereȱisȱlittleȱdoubtȱthatȱCromwellȱwasȱsympatheticȱtoȱMenasseh’sȱappeals.ȱThe CouncilȱofȱStateȱwere,ȱnonetheless,ȱreluctantȱtoȱacceptȱsuchȱconditions.ȱCromwell hadȱ recommendedȱ theȱ petitionȱ toȱ themȱ onȱ 13thȱ Novemberȱ 1655,ȱ andȱ clearly desiredȱ aȱ quickȱ conclusionȱ toȱ theȱ requestsȱ Menassehȱ addressedȱ toȱ him.ȱ A committeeȱhadȱbeenȱappointedȱtoȱconsiderȱtheȱpetitionȱbyȱthatȱafternoon,ȱand whileȱtheyȱreportedȱbackȱthatȱtheȱgroundsȱMenassehȱdemandedȱwereȱ“sinfulȱin anyȱChristianȱnation,”57ȱtheyȱdidȱnotȱcompletelyȱrejectȱtheȱpetition.ȱInsteadȱofȱa firmȱ answer,ȱ itȱ wasȱ thereforeȱ decidedȱ toȱ callȱ aȱ generalȱ conferenceȱ toȱ discuss Menasseh’sȱ requests.ȱ Theȱ conference,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ toȱ meetȱ atȱ Whitehallȱ on Decemberȱ4th,ȱwasȱtoȱconsistȱofȱpoliticians,ȱlawyers,ȱdivines,ȱandȱmerchants—all those,ȱinȱotherȱwords,ȱwhoȱhadȱanȱinterestȱinȱwhetherȱorȱnotȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱtoȱbe readmitted.ȱFiveȱmembersȱofȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱStateȱitselfȱwereȱchosenȱasȱdelegates: LordȱPresidentȱHenryȱLawrence,ȱSirȱGilbertȱPickering,ȱSirȱCharlesȱWolsely,ȱFrancis RousȱandȱJohnȱLisle.ȱWalterȱStrickland,ȱaȱmemberȱofȱSt.ȱJohn’sȱdiplomaticȱmission inȱ1651,ȱwasȱaskedȱtoȱattendȱ(asȱwasȱSt.ȱJohn,ȱwhoȱdeclinedȱtheȱinvitation)ȱalong withȱWilliamȱSydenhamȱandȱJohnȱLambert.ȱ Representingȱ theȱ legalȱ professionȱ wereȱ Sirȱ Johnȱ Glynne,ȱ Chiefȱ Justiceȱ ofȱ the Upperȱ Bench,ȱ andȱ Williamȱ Steele,ȱ Chiefȱ Baronȱ ofȱ theȱ Exchequer.ȱ Amongstȱ six representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Londonȱ merchantsȱ wereȱ theȱ currentȱ Lordȱ Mayor,ȱ John Dethick,ȱandȱhisȱpredecessorȱChristopherȱPack.ȱTheȱmerchantȬministerȱWilliam Kiffin,ȱ andȱ Deputyȱ Governorȱ ofȱ theȱ Bermudaȱ Company,ȱ Owenȱ Rowe,ȱ also attended.ȱ Theȱ religiousȱ aspectȱ ofȱ theȱ conferenceȱ was,ȱ however,ȱ clearlyȱ of paramountȱimportance,ȱasȱshownȱbyȱtheȱnumberȱofȱdivinesȱwhoȱwereȱinvited.ȱThe listȱincludedȱsomeȱofȱEngland’sȱforemostȱreligiousȱminds:ȱJohnȱOwen,ȱThomas Goodwin,ȱ Thomasȱ Manton,ȱ Josephȱ Caryl,ȱ Henryȱ Jessey,ȱ Matthewȱ Newcomen, WalterȱCraddockȱandȱWilliamȱBridgeȱwereȱallȱinȱattendance.ȱRalphȱCudworth, RegiusȱProfessorȱofȱHebrewȱatȱCambridge,ȱDanielȱDyke,ȱChaplainȱtoȱCromwell, andȱAnthonyȱTuckney,ȱMasterȱofȱSt.ȱJohn’s,ȱCambridgeȱwereȱallȱalsoȱinvolved. Whilstȱthereȱwereȱaȱvarietyȱofȱeschatologicalȱopinionsȱrepresentedȱamongstȱthese divines,ȱitȱwasȱnoȱaccidentȱthatȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱpreachersȱinȱattendanceȱwere JudeoȬcentrists.ȱGoodwin,ȱforȱexample,ȱhadȱproducedȱaȱJudeoȬcentristȱcommenȬ taryȱonȱRevelationȱwhichȱexplicitlyȱembracedȱtheȱ1656ȱhypothesis.58ȱ Atȱthisȱpoint,ȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱnoteȱHenryȱJessey’sȱvitalȱroleȱinȱtheȱconference,ȱone whichȱwasȱinfluencedȱbyȱhisȱfriendshipȱwithȱMenassehȱandȱhisȱremarkableȱphiloȬ Semitism.ȱAsȱtheȱcoȬpastorȱofȱtheȱJacobȱcongregationȱinȱLondon,ȱJesseyȱwasȱone

57

58

QuotedȱinȱHermannȱAdler,ȱ“HomageȱtoȱMenassehȱbenȱIsrael,”ȱTransactionsȱofȱtheȱJewishȱHistorical SocietyȱofȱEnglandȱ1ȱ(1893),ȱ48. ThomasȱGoodwin,ȱ“AnȱExpositionȱUponȱtheȱBookȱofȱRevelation,”ȱWorksȱ(London:ȱJ.ȱD.ȱandȱS.ȱR. forȱT.ȱG.,ȱ1683)ȱVol.ȱ2.,ȱ67,ȱ183–85.ȱ

764

AndrewȱCrome

ofȱ theȱ mostȱ remarkableȱ charactersȱ inȱ theȱ complexȱ religiousȱ milieuȱ ofȱ midȬ seventeenthȬcenturyȱEngland.ȱWhileȱinvolvedȱwithȱtheȱmilitantȱfifthȱmonarchist movement,ȱJesseyȱwasȱnonethelessȱpragmaticȱandȱwellȱthoughtȱofȱevenȱbyȱhis opponents.ȱNotȱonlyȱwasȱJesseyȱanȱableȱHebraistȱ(heȱcarriedȱaȱcopyȱofȱtheȱHebrew Bibleȱwithȱhimȱwhereverȱheȱwent)ȱbutȱheȱalsoȱembracedȱmanyȱelementsȱofȱJudaism itself.ȱNotȱleastȱamongstȱtheseȱwereȱhisȱviewsȱonȱtheȱSabbath,ȱwhichȱheȱnotȱonly believedȱstartedȱ(inȱtheȱJewishȱfashion)ȱonȱtheȱeveningȱofȱtheȱpreviousȱday,ȱbut alsoȱcelebratedȱonȱaȱSaturday.59ȱAsideȱfromȱthisȱacademicȱopennessȱtoȱJudaism, JesseyȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱofferȱnotȱjustȱprayerȱforȱtheȱJews,ȱbutȱalsoȱpractical actionȱinȱtheirȱfavor.ȱ“TouchingȱtheȱJews,”ȱnotesȱJessey’sȱbiographer,ȱ“hisȱcharity wasȱfamousȱbeyondȱpresidentȱ[sic]ȱandȱmanyȱwaysȱexprest.”60ȱ Withȱ theseȱ clearȱ philoȬSemiticȱ sympathies,ȱ itȱ isȱ noȱ surpriseȱ thatȱ Jesseyȱ also enthusiasticallyȱ supportedȱ theȱ readmissionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ toȱ England.ȱ Heȱ had correspondedȱwithȱMenassehȱsinceȱatȱleastȱ1649ȱandȱhadȱmadeȱaȱdeepȱimpression onȱtheȱRabbiȱwithȱaȱshortȱbookȱentitledȱTheȱGloryȱandȱSalvationȱofȱJehudahȱandȱIsrael. Menassehȱwasȱsoȱtakenȱwithȱtheȱworkȱthatȱheȱreferredȱtoȱitȱ(alongȱwithȱNicholas’s tract)ȱinȱhisȱpetitionȱtoȱCromwell.ȱTheȱnobilityȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱMenassehȱwrote,ȱwas “knownȱ amongstȱ allȱ Christians,ȱ asȱ latelyȱ itȱ hathȱ beenȱ mostȱ worthilyȱ and excellentlyȱshewedȱandȱdescribedȱinȱaȱcertainȱbook,ȱcalled,ȱTheȱGloryȱofȱJehudahȱand Israel,ȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ ourȱ Nationȱ byȱ thatȱ worthyȱ Christianȱ Ministerȱ Mrȱ Henry Jessey.”61ȱ WhileȱbothȱtheȱoriginalȱEnglishȱversionȱandȱitsȱHebrewȱtranslationȱareȱnowȱlost, oneȱDutchȱcopyȱhasȱsurvived,ȱshowingȱevidenceȱofȱtheȱextentȱofȱtheȱminister’s philoȬSemitism.62ȱTheȱbookȱaimedȱprimarilyȱtoȱspeakȱtoȱJewsȱandȱshowȱthemȱthat ChristȱwasȱtheȱtrueȱmessiahȱpredictedȱinȱtheȱOldȱTestament.ȱHowever,ȱJesseyȱwas firstlyȱatȱpainsȱtoȱshowȱtheȱnaturalȱsuperiorityȱofȱtheȱJewsȱaboveȱotherȱpeoples. TheyȱwereȱuniquelyȱfavoredȱinȱGod’sȱplanȱwithȱprivilegesȱandȱnobilityȱwhich exceededȱanyȱotherȱnation.ȱTheirȱultimateȱprivilegeȱwas,ȱofȱcourse,ȱtoȱprovideȱthe messiahȱforȱtheȱworld—whichȱforȱJessey,ȱmeantȱJesus.ȱAlthoughȱMenassehȱcould notȱ fullyȱ agreeȱ withȱ theȱ conclusionsȱ theȱ Englishmanȱ hadȱ reached,ȱ theȱ central

59

60 61 62

Jessey’sȱ biographerȱ Edwardȱ Whistonȱ notesȱ thatȱ Jesseyȱ “keptȱ hisȱ opinionȱ muchȱ toȱ himself.ȱ .ȱ . [observing]ȱ theȱ dayȱ inȱ hisȱ ownȱ chamberȱ withȱ onlyȱ 4ȱ orȱ 5ȱ moreȱ ofȱ theȱ sameȱ mind.”ȱ Edward Whiston,ȱTheȱLifeȱandȱDeathȱofȱMrȱHenryȱJessyȱ[sic]ȱ(London:ȱUnknownȱprinter,ȱ1671),ȱ87. Whiston,ȱLifeȱandȱDeath,ȱ67. MenassehȱbenȱIsrael,ȱHumbleȱPetition,ȱ23. IȱamȱindebtedȱtoȱErnestineȱG.ȱE.ȱVanȱderȱWall’sȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱtract,ȱwhichȱheȱalsoȱdiscovered inȱtheȱHerzogȱAugustȱBibliothek.ȱHisȱfullȱexaminationȱisȱfoundȱinȱ“AȱPhiloȬSemiticȱMillenarian onȱtheȱReconciliationȱofȱtheȱJewsȱandȱChristians:ȱHenryȱJesseyȱandȱhisȱ‘GloryȱandȱSalvationȱof JehudahȱandȱIsrael’ȱ(1650),”ȱSceptics,ȱMillenariansȱandȱJews,ȱed.ȱDavidȱS.ȱKatz,ȱJonathanȱIsrael,ȱand RichardȱPopkin.ȱBrillȱStudiesȱinȱIntellectualȱHistory,ȱ17ȱ(Leiden,ȱNewȱYork,ȱetȱal.:ȱE.ȱJ.ȱBrill,ȱ1990), 161–84.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

765

themeȱ ofȱ Jessey’sȱ bookȱ provedȱ especiallyȱ pleasingȱ toȱ him.63ȱ Whenȱ Menasseh arrivedȱinȱEnglandȱtheȱmenȱhadȱregularȱmeetingsȱandȱbeganȱtoȱformȱaȱfirmȱbond ofȱfriendship. ItȱseemsȱlikelyȱthatȱinȱadditionȱtoȱJessey’sȱfriendshipȱMenassehȱwasȱonȱgoodȱterms withȱ Johnȱ Sadler,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ earlierȱ endorsedȱ Dormido’sȱ petition.ȱ Theȱ Rabbi became,ȱinȱDavidȱKatz’sȱwords,ȱsomethingȱofȱaȱ“selfȬappointedȱambassadorȱof worldȱJewry.”64ȱOthersȱheȱmetȱwithȱincludedȱWelshȱmillenarianȱAriseȱEvans,ȱJean d’Espagne,ȱtheȱministerȱofȱtheȱFrenchȱReformedȱChurch,ȱandȱseveralȱWhitehall delegates,ȱincludingȱEdwardȱLawrenceȱandȱRalphȱCudworth.65ȱTheȱimportanceȱof thisȱembryonicȱfriendshipȱnetworkȱshouldȱnotȱbeȱdownplayed.ȱItȱwasȱJesseyȱwho wasȱ responsibleȱ forȱ theȱ mostȱ influentialȱ commentaryȱ onȱ theȱ conference,ȱ his anonymouslyȱpublishedȱAȱNarrativeȱofȱtheȱLateȱProceedingsȱatȱWhiteȬHallȱConcerning theȱ Jews.ȱ Jessey’sȱ sympatheticȱ narrativeȱ remainedȱ theȱ onlyȱ accountȱ ofȱ the conferenceȱ untilȱ theȱ moreȱ detailedȱ reportȱ ofȱ Nathanielȱ Crouchȱ whichȱ first appearedȱinȱtheȱ1719ȱeditionȱofȱhisȱTwoȱJourneysȱtoȱJerusalem.66ȱ Crouch’sȱworkȱdiffersȱfromȱJessey’sȱinȱtwoȱimportantȱrespects.ȱFirstly,ȱwhere Jesseyȱhadȱkeptȱtheȱspeakers’ȱnamesȱanonymous,ȱCrouchȱnamedȱthoseȱwhoȱspoke forȱandȱagainstȱeachȱposition—aȱusefulȱtoolȱinȱgaugingȱtheȱattitudesȱandȱresponses ofȱthoseȱatȱtheȱconference.ȱSecondly,ȱCrouch’sȱworkȱwasȱfarȱlessȱsympatheticȱtoȱthe JewishȱpositionȱthanȱJessey’sȱnarrative.ȱIndeed,ȱheȱinsertedȱaȱgreatȱdealȱofȱclearly antiȬSemiticȱmaterialȱinȱhisȱreportȱofȱtheȱconference.ȱ WhileȱMenasseh’sȱarrivalȱhadȱbeenȱgreetedȱenthusiasticallyȱbyȱJessey,ȱitȱwasȱthe sourceȱofȱanxietyȱforȱmanyȱothersȱinȱEngland.ȱAsȱDavidȱKatzȱhasȱnoted,ȱitȱwas thereforeȱunsurprisingȱthatȱcertainȱ“fantastic”ȱelementsȱwouldȱemergeȱaroundȱthe discussionsȱatȱWhitehall.ȱAtȱtheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱwildȱrumorsȱsweptȱLondon thatȱtheȱJewsȱhadȱpurchasedȱtheȱBodleianȱLibraryȱandȱwereȱalsoȱattemptingȱto convertȱSt.ȱPaul’sȱCathedralȱintoȱaȱsynagogue—someȱwentȱsoȱfarȱasȱtoȱclaimȱthat theyȱwereȱattemptingȱtoȱbuyȱtheȱentireȱtownȱofȱBrentford.67ȱTheȱactualȱdiscussions onȱreadmissionȱwere,ȱhowever,ȱfarȱmoreȱsober,ȱandȱsawȱaȱreȬiterationȱofȱmanyȱof theȱthemesȱthatȱweȱsawȱemergeȱinȱtheȱpreȬconferenceȱliterature.ȱUnsurprisingly, itȱwasȱreligiousȱdiscourseȱwhichȱdominatedȱdiscussions.ȱ

63 64 65 66

67

VanȱderȱWall,ȱ“PhiloȬSemiticȱMillenarian,”ȱ169. Katz,ȱ“MenassehȱbenȱIsrael’sȱChristianȱConnection,”ȱ117. Katz,ȱ“MenassehȱbenȱIsrael’sȱChristianȱConnection,”ȱ117–18. PublishedȱunderȱCrouch’sȱpseudonym,ȱR.ȱB.ȱSeeȱ“TheȱProceedingsȱofȱtheȱJewsȱinȱEnglandȱinȱthe Yearȱ1655,”ȱR.B.ȱ[=NathanielȱCrouch],ȱTwoȱJourneysȱtoȱJerusalemȱ(London:ȱNathanielȱCrouch,ȱ1719), 167–74. Katz,ȱPhiloȬSemitism,ȱ180–82.

766

AndrewȱCrome

TheȱexactȱscheduleȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱremainsȱunclearȱdueȱtoȱtheȱnatureȱofȱJessey andȱ Crouch’sȱ descriptions,ȱ whichȱ wereȱ arrangedȱ aroundȱ thematicȱ ratherȱ than chronologicalȱreports.68ȱTheseȱdescriptionsȱareȱfurtherȱcomplicatedȱbyȱtheȱfactȱthat theȱ conferenceȱ didȱ notȱ comeȱ toȱ aȱ quickȱ conclusion.ȱ Insteadȱ itȱ draggedȱ on indeterminately.ȱ Itȱ reconvenedȱ onȱ Decemberȱ 12th,ȱ againȱ closingȱ without resolution.ȱAtȱtheȱnextȱsessionȱonȱDecemberȱ14th,ȱCromwellȱaddedȱthreeȱfurther preachersȱtoȱtheȱcommittee:ȱHughȱPeter,ȱPhilipȱNye,ȱandȱJohnȱBulkley,ȱProvostȱof Eton.69ȱ Cromwell’sȱ motivationȱ inȱ theseȱ additionsȱ wasȱ clear.ȱ Nyeȱ andȱ Peterȱ in particularȱwereȱwellȱknownȱasȱJudeoȬcentrists.ȱ AccordingȱtoȱCrouch’sȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱtheyȱplayedȱtheirȱpartȱwell, asȱNyeȱalliedȱwithȱGoodwinȱinȱaȱforcefulȱpleaȱforȱreadmission.70ȱNonetheless,ȱtheir additionȱcouldȱnotȱeffectȱaȱfinalȱdecision.ȱDiscussionsȱappearȱtoȱhaveȱstagnatedȱat eachȱofȱtheȱmeetings.ȱAȱfinalȱmeetingȱonȱ18thȱDecember,ȱwithȱCromwellȱhimself presentȱ atȱ aȱ publicȱ sessionȱ ofȱ theȱ conference,ȱ endedȱ withȱ theȱ Lordȱ Protector exasperated.ȱAsȱtheȱPublickȱIntelligencerȱsummarized,ȱ“nothingȱatȱallȱhathȱbeen concludedȱ touchingȱ theȱ pointȱ ofȱ theirȱ admission.”71ȱ Despiteȱ this,ȱ oneȱ major decisionȱwasȱreachedȱbyȱthoseȱpresent—ȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱlegalȱstatusȱofȱtheȱJews inȱEngland.ȱThisȱwasȱresolvedȱwithoutȱmuchȱapparentȱissue:ȱ“theȱLawyersȱsaid, ThatȱthereȱisȱnoȱLawȱthatȱforbidsȱtheȱJewsȱreturnȱtoȱEngland.”72ȱSinceȱtheȱJewsȱhad initiallyȱbeenȱexpelledȱbyȱroyalȱdecreeȱratherȱthanȱbyȱanȱActȱofȱParliament,ȱthe statuteȱwasȱdeemedȱtoȱbeȱnoȱlongerȱvalid. Itȱwasȱtheȱideaȱofȱaȱnationalȱ“friendship”ȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱwhichȱwasȱmostȱfrequently raisedȱ atȱ Whitehall.ȱ Thisȱ manifestedȱ itselfȱ firstlyȱ throughȱ aȱ fearȱ ofȱ judgment. NervousȱWhitehallȱdivinesȱnotedȱthatȱ“itȱisȱfeared,ȱitȱmayȱoffendȱtheȱLord,ȱifȱwe yieldȱnotȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱthisȱcourtesieȱwhichȱtheyȱdesire.”73ȱIndeed,ȱitȱwasȱentirely possibleȱthatȱEnglandȱwasȱalreadyȱmakingȱanȱenemyȱofȱGodȱforȱtheirȱprevious treatmentȱofȱtheȱHebrewȱpeople.ȱDiscussingȱJewishȱexpulsionȱfromȱtheȱnation,ȱthe theologiansȱatȱWhitehallȱconcludedȱthatȱ“forȱsuchȱgrosseȱinjuriesȱtheȱLordȱmayȱbe veryȱsoreȱdispleasedȱwithȱEnglandȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱNowȱifȱtheȱfavourȱofȱharbouringȱtheȱafflicted Jews,ȱ whichȱ nowȱ theyȱ intreat,ȱ beȱ grantedȱ toȱ theȱ survivingȱ Jews,ȱ itȱ mayȱ be

68

69 70 71 72

73

AȱgoodȱgeneralȱoverviewȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱcanȱbeȱfoundȱinȱPeterȱToon,ȱ“TheȱQuestionȱofȱJewish Immigration,”ȱ Puritans,ȱ theȱ Millenniumȱ andȱ theȱ Futureȱ ofȱ Israelȱ ed.ȱ Peterȱ Toon.ȱ Libraryȱ of EcclesiasticalȱHistory.ȱRpt.ȱ(1970;ȱCambridge:ȱJamesȱClarke,ȱ2002),ȱ115–25;ȱKatz,ȱPhiloȬSemitism, 201–31. ProbablyȱalsoȱknownȱasȱJohnȱBoncle.ȱSeeȱKatz,ȱJewsȱinȱtheȱHistoryȱofȱEngland,ȱ123–24. Crouch,ȱ“Proceedings,”ȱ172. PublicȱIntelligencer,ȱ12ȱ(18–24ȱDec.ȱ1655).ȱ [Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ9.ȱCrouchȱnotesȱthatȱGlynȱandȱSteelȱwereȱlargelyȱresponsibleȱforȱthisȱjudgment. Crouch,ȱ“Proceedings,”ȱ172. [Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ4.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

767

accountedȱasȱsomeȱkindeȱofȱsatisfaction.ȱButȱifȱthisȱbeȱdenyedȱthem,ȱitȱisȱfearedȱthe LordȱmayȱshewȱhisȱdispleasureȱtoȱbeȱgreatȱagainstȱEngland.”74ȱ Josephȱ Carylȱ wasȱ apparentlyȱ theȱ mostȱ vociferousȱ proponentȱ ofȱ thisȱ lineȱ of argumentationȱatȱtheȱconference.ȱAsȱWallȱhadȱpreviouslyȱargued,ȱCarylȱsuggested aȱfundamentalȱlinkȱbetweenȱtheȱEnglishȱpeopleȱandȱtheȱJews:ȱ“theȱgoodȱpeopleȱof EnglandȱdidȱgenerallyȱmoreȱbelieveȱtheȱpromisesȱofȱtheȱcallingȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱand moreȱearnestlyȱprayȱforȱitȱthanȱanyȱotherȱNation.”ȱOnlyȱthroughȱreadmission, thoughtȱCaryl,ȱcouldȱtheȱdepthȱofȱEngland’sȱfriendshipȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱnationȱbe shownȱtoȱGod.ȱ“Theȱcruelȱinjuriesȱandȱinhumanities”ȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱsufferedȱat Englishȱ handsȱ “mightȱ stillȱ lyeȱ asȱ aȱ sinȱ uponȱ theseȱ Kingdoms”ȱ andȱ shouldȱ be remittedȱbyȱaȱshowȱofȱloveȱtoȱtheȱHebrewȱnation.75ȱ SupportingȱtheȱJewsȱwasȱthereforeȱtheȱdutyȱofȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱthe friendȱofȱGod,ȱandȱtheȱmanȱwhoȱclaimedȱtoȱbeȱtheȱfriendȱofȱhisȱnation.ȱThisȱwas, ofȱcourse,ȱanȱextensionȱofȱtheȱargumentsȱweȱsawȱemergeȱinȱearlierȱdebates.ȱInȱthe literatureȱwhichȱwasȱproducedȱafterȱtheȱconferenceȱthisȱstrandȱofȱthoughtȱwas repeated.ȱ Williamȱ Tomlinson,ȱ whoseȱ broadsideȱ Bosomeȱ Openedȱ toȱ theȱ Jewes appearedȱinȱearlyȱ1656,ȱthusȱclaimedȱthatȱbothȱtheologicalȱandȱpatrioticȱreasons motivatedȱhisȱwork,ȱproducedȱ“asȱoutȱofȱloveȱtoȱtheȱNationȱofȱtheȱJewes;ȱsoȱalso outȱofȱloveȱtoȱmyȱowneȱCountry.”76ȱThomasȱCollier,ȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱinspiredȱto writeȱaȱJudeoȬcentricȱappealȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱtoȱconvertȱandȱreturnȱtoȱPalestineȱinȱthe previousȱyear,77ȱalsoȱweighedȱintoȱtheȱdebate.ȱGod,ȱheȱwarned,ȱ“hathȱaȱspecialȱeye overȱthemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱwillȱtakeȱvenganceȱ[sic]ȱtoȱtheȱfullȱonȱallȱtheȱnationsȱthatȱhave afflictedȱ them.”78ȱ Collierȱ wasȱ explicit.ȱ Theȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ nowȱ “friendsȱ toȱ usȱ that believeȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAndȱshallȱweȱbeȱunkindȱtoȱthemȱwhoȱareȱtheȱnaturalȱseedȱinȱtheir affliction;ȱOhȱno!ȱLetȱusȱhideȱthemȱrather.”79ȱTheȱsameȱthemeȱwasȱvisibleȱinȱan anonymousȱtractȱproducedȱbyȱaȱcertainȱ“J.ȱJ.ȱPhiloȬJudaeus.”ȱ Theȱauthorȱlamentedȱthatȱ“theȱnameȱofȱanȱEnglishȱmanȱmakesȱ[theȱJews]ȱafraid. TheȱLordȱChristȱwouldȱnotȱscornȱtheȱsmallestȱreed;ȱbutȱourȱNationȱhathȱdespised theȱLordsȱ[sic]ȱdayȱofȱsmallȱthings.”ȱTheȱbeastlyȱtreatmentȱwhichȱEnglandȱhad affordedȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱwasȱfurtherȱemphasizedȱasȱtheȱtractȱappliedȱBiblicalȱallusions toȱhighlightȱtheȱnation’sȱcruelty:ȱ“[God]ȱcameȱtoȱgiveȱlifeȱtoȱdryȱbones,ȱbutȱweȱbeat themȱtoȱpowder:ȱHeȱcameȱtoȱlookȱafterȱthatȱwhichȱhadȱbeenȱsoȱmanyȱyearsȱlost;

74 75 76 77

78

79

[Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ7. Crouch,ȱ“Proceedings,”ȱ173. WilliamȱTomlinson,ȱAȱBosomeȱOpenedȱtoȱtheȱJewesȱ(London:ȱGilesȱCalvert,ȱ1656). SeeȱThomasȱCollier,ȱTheȱDayȬDawningȱandȱtheȱDayȬStarȱArisingȱtoȱtheȱDispersedȱofȱJudahȱ&ȱIsrael (London:ȱHenryȱHillsȱforȱThomasȱBrewster,ȱ1655). ThomasȱCollier,ȱAȱBriefȱAnswerȱtoȱSomeȱObjectionsȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱAgainstȱtheȱComingȱinȱandȱInhabitingȱofȱtheȱJews (London:ȱHenryȱHillsȱforȱThomasȱBrewster,ȱ1656),ȱsig.ȱA2r. Collier,ȱBriefȱAnswer,ȱ19–20.

768

AndrewȱCrome

butȱourȱAncestorsȱcausedȱ[theȱJews]ȱtoȱflieȱintoȱtheȱsecretȱholesȱinȱtheȱrock.”80ȱAs CollierȱwarnedȱEnglandȱ“[God]ȱwillȱcauseȱtheȱworldȱtoȱknowȱthatȱheȱhathȱyetȱa respectȱtoȱthem.”81ȱ Indeed,ȱitȱwasȱunsurprisingȱtoȱfindȱthatȱMenassehȱhimselfȱplayedȱonȱtheȱsame ideasȱinȱhisȱpetitionȱtoȱCromwell:ȱ“‘tisȱsaidȱbyȱtheȱProphets,ȱthatȱtheyȱwhoȱshall wrongȱ[theȱJews]ȱshallȱbeȱmostȱseverelyȱpunished:ȱandȱthatȱheȱthatȱtouchethȱthem, touchethȱtheȱappleȱofȱGod’sȱeye.”82ȱ“PhiloȬJudaeus”ȱmovedȱfurtherȱthanȱthisȱin emphasizingȱ justȱ howȱ importantȱ Jewishȱ friendshipȱ wasȱ toȱ theȱ Gentiles.ȱ The judgmentȱmotif,ȱtheȱideaȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱguiltyȱofȱdeicideȱforȱtheȱkillingȱof Christ,ȱ hadȱ beenȱ activelyȱ underminedȱ byȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ writers.ȱ PhiloȬJudaeus continuedȱthisȱtrend,ȱusingȱitȱtoȱcomplicateȱideasȱofȱtheȱlinksȱofȱfriendshipȱbetween JewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱTheȱJews’ȱenmityȱtoȱChristȱwas,ȱafterȱall,ȱtheȱultimateȱactȱof friendship:ȱ“ItȱwasȱforȱourȱsakesȱthatȱtheyȱhatedȱChrist,ȱrefusedȱtheȱGospel,ȱand becameȱenemiesȱtoȱtheȱtruth,ȱthatȱweȱmightȱbeȱbroughtȱtoȱtheȱknowledgeȱofȱhim thatȱisȱableȱtoȱsaveȱutmostȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱWeȱhadȱnoȱrightȱtoȱtheȱpromisesȱofȱold,ȱasȱtheȱJews, butȱwereȱthatȱcursedȱseedȱthatȱweȱforbiddenȱtoȱenterȱtheȱCongregation.”83ȱItȱwas only,ȱ therefore,ȱ throughȱ aȱ deliberateȱ Jewishȱ rejectionȱ thatȱ theȱ Gentilesȱ could becomeȱGod’sȱpeople.ȱTheȱreasoningȱbehindȱthisȱideaȱwasȱstraightforward,ȱbeing aȱreworkingȱofȱRomansȱ9–11,ȱbutȱtheȱmannerȱinȱwhichȱitȱwasȱexpressedȱwasȱboth surprisinglyȱforcefulȱandȱsomewhatȱunusualȱforȱtheȱtime.ȱ Atȱthisȱpointȱitȱisȱimportantȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱidea,ȱfirstȱsuggestedȱinȱLucienȱWolf’s seminalȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱconference,ȱwhichȱaimedȱtoȱdownplayȱCromwell’s religiousȱmotivationȱinȱhisȱdesireȱtoȱreadmitȱtheȱJews.ȱInsteadȱWolfȱarguedȱthat Cromwellȱwasȱdrivenȱbyȱanȱeconomicȱmotive.84ȱWolfȱarguedȱthatȱthoseȱinȱfavorȱof readmissionȱ supportedȱ theȱ returnȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ advantageȱ their merchantsȱandȱfinancialȱacumenȱwouldȱbringȱtoȱEngland.ȱThisȱisȱsomethingȱofȱan exaggeration,ȱhowever.ȱCromwellȱwasȱfullyȱawareȱofȱtheȱhostilityȱthatȱEnglish tradersȱexpressedȱtowardȱanyȱchallengeȱtoȱtheirȱstatus.ȱJesseyȱrecordedȱthatȱthe merchantsȱ atȱ theȱ conferenceȱ arguedȱ thatȱ “suchȱ anȱ inȬletȱ wouldȱ beȱ toȱ enrich Forreginers,ȱandȱimpoverishȱEnglishȱmerchants.”85ȱ Theȱ debateȱ aboutȱ readmissionȱ wasȱ notȱ predominantlyȱ focusedȱ uponȱ the advantagesȱ Jewishȱ moneyȱ wouldȱ bringȱ toȱ theȱ nation,ȱ ratherȱ onȱ theȱ negative

80 81 82 83 84

85

J.ȱJ.ȱPhiloȬJudaeus,ȱTheȱResurrectionȱofȱtheȱDeadȱBonesȱ(London:ȱGilesȱCalvert,ȱ1655),ȱ103. Collier,ȱBriefȱAnswer,ȱsig.ȱA2r. Menasseh,ȱPetition,ȱ23. PhiloȬJudaeus,ȱResurrection,ȱ105. Lucienȱ Wolf,ȱ Menassehȱ benȱ Israel’sȱ Missionȱ toȱ Oliverȱ Cromwell:ȱ Beingȱ aȱ Reprintȱ ofȱ theȱ Pamphlets PublishedȱbyȱMenassehȱBenȱIsraelȱ[MenaššeȱBenȬJisraȬeȬl]ȱtoȱPromoteȱtheȱReȬAdmissionȱofȱtheȱJewsȱto Englandȱ1640Ȭ1656ȱ(London:ȱMacMillan,ȱ1901),ȱxxx–xxxvi. [Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ8.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

769

stereotypesȱandȱeffectsȱofȱtheȱarrivalȱofȱrichȱJewsȱintoȱEngland.ȱTheȱfearȱofȱusury, asȱbothȱTheȱMerchantȱofȱVeniceȱandȱlaterȱantiȬJewishȱworksȱshow,ȱwasȱaliveȱand wellȱinȱEnglandȱatȱtheȱtime.ȱAsȱweȱsawȱinȱtheȱearlierȱdiscussionsȱoverȱMenasseh’s Hope,ȱ itȱ wasȱ prophecyȱ (notȱ profit)ȱ whichȱ dominatedȱ theȱ debateȱ onȱ Jewish readmission.ȱAsȱCromwellȱhimselfȱinformedȱtheȱconferenceȱonȱtheȱ18thȱDecember, “heȱhadȱnotȱengagementȱtoȱtheȱJews,ȱbutȱonlyȱwhatȱtheȱScriptureȱholdsȱforth.”86 Nonetheless,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen,ȱnationalȱinterestȱwasȱatȱtheȱcenterȱofȱJessey’sȱrecord ofȱtheȱconference.ȱWhileȱthisȱwasȱprimarilyȱconceivedȱinȱreligiousȱterms,ȱJessey wasȱ notȱ ignorantȱ ofȱ theȱ probableȱ economicȱ benefitsȱ whichȱ readmissionȱ could bring.ȱAsȱheȱwroteȱonȱtheȱadvantagesȱofȱreadmission,ȱtheȱministerȱconcludedȱthat: “itȱmightȱtendȱtoȱtheȱbenefitȱofȱveryȱmanyȱinȱourȱNation,ȱevenȱinȱoutwardȱthings, besidesȱtheȱhopesȱofȱ[Jewish]ȱconversion.”ȱPerhapsȱsignificantly,ȱthisȱwasȱspoken atȱaȱprivateȱmeetingȱawayȱfromȱtheȱmainȱconference.87ȱ TheseȱpossibleȱfringeȬbenefitsȱofȱreadmissionȱwereȱnotȱignoredȱbyȱMenasseh,ȱwho wasȱalsoȱkeenȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱadvantagesȱofȱJewishȱreadmissionȱtoȱtheȱnation itself.ȱ Whileȱ thisȱ wasȱ expressedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ theȱ financialȱ benefitsȱ thatȱ theȱ Jews wouldȱ bring,ȱ theȱ primaryȱ benefitȱ heȱ identifiedȱ wasȱ theȱ loyaltyȱ andȱ friendship whichȱtheȱJewsȱcouldȱofferȱtoȱEngland.ȱTheȱJews,ȱhavingȱnoȱnationȱofȱtheirȱown, becameȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱnationȱwhereȱtheyȱsettled,ȱandȱ“makeȱaȱfirmȱresolutionȱnever toȱdepart”88ȱfromȱthoseȱlandsȱwhichȱtreatedȱthemȱwell.ȱThis,ȱofȱcourse,ȱneglected toȱmentionȱtheȱconceptȱofȱaȱmessianicȱreturnȱtoȱtheȱHolyȱLand,ȱbutȱtoȱfocusȱon suchȱ aȱ beliefȱ directlyȱ inȱ theȱ petitionȱ toȱ Cromwellȱ wouldȱ haveȱ beenȱ counterȬ productiveȱtoȱtheȱRabbi’sȱmotive.ȱ ThisȱdiscussionȱledȱMenassehȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱloyaltyȱofȱJewishȱsubjectsȱtoȱtheir rulers.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱhowever,ȱheȱcouldȱnotȱhelpȱbutȱhighlightȱtheȱveryȱalterity ofȱtheȱJews.ȱThoughȱdwellingȱwithinȱaȱnation,ȱandȱenrichingȱit,ȱtheyȱwouldȱnot becomeȱpartȱofȱtheȱgeneralȱbodyȱpolitic.ȱIndeed,ȱMenasseh’sȱfocusȱonȱtheȱdifference betweenȱtheȱinterestsȱofȱJewsȱandȱGentilesȱisȱnoteworthy.ȱ“Theȱnatives,”ȱheȱwrote, “buildȱthemselvesȱhousesȱandȱPalaces,ȱbuyȱLandsȱandȱfirmeȱ[sic]ȱgoods,ȱaimeȱat TitlesȱandȱDignities.”ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱthis,ȱtheȱJewsȱ“aspireȱatȱnothing,ȱbutȱtoȱpreferre themselvesȱinȱtheirȱwayȱofȱMarchandize.”89ȱWhileȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱaimingȱtoȱenrich theȱnativesȱofȱaȱcountryȱthroughȱtheirȱ“marchandize”ȱtheȱcontrastȱbetweenȱtheir interestsȱandȱthoseȱofȱtheȱnativesȱcouldȱnotȱhelpȱbutȱreinforceȱstereotypesȱofȱthe usuriousȱ(andȱfundamentallyȱdifferent)ȱJew.ȱ

86 87 88 89

[Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ9. [Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ9. Menasseh,ȱPetition¸ȱ4. Menasseh,ȱPetition,ȱ9.

770

AndrewȱCrome

WhileȱtheȱthemesȱwhichȱMenassehȱemphasizedȱinȱhisȱpetitionȱwereȱtakenȱupȱby Christianȱwritersȱthroughoutȱ1656,ȱaȱnewȱemphasisȱalsoȱbeganȱtoȱemergeȱatȱthe sameȱtime.ȱInȱbothȱtheȱliteratureȱwhichȱsurroundedȱtheȱconferenceȱandȱthatȱwhich followed,ȱitȱwasȱMenasseh’sȱpresenceȱitselfȱwhichȱservedȱasȱaȱcauseȱofȱgrowing disquiet.ȱFriendshipȱhad,ȱafterȱall,ȱonlyȱbeenȱbroachedȱinȱnationalȱorȱtheological terms—withȱ Menassehȱ nowȱ inȱ Londonȱ itȱ becameȱ increasinglyȱ anȱ issueȱ of personalities.ȱManyȱofȱthoseȱsupportingȱJewishȱreadmissionȱhadȱhopedȱthatȱthe Rabbiȱwouldȱdisplayȱsomeȱlikelihoodȱofȱconversion.ȱItȱwasȱclear,ȱhowever,ȱthatȱhe showedȱnoȱinclinationȱatȱallȱtoȱchangeȱhisȱfaith.ȱMenasseh’sȱpresenceȱservedȱto highlightȱtheȱuniqueȱstatusȱofȱtheȱJewsȱinȱearlyȱmodernȱEngland.ȱ AsȱtheȱJewsȱhadȱlackedȱanȱofficialȱpresenceȱinȱEngland,ȱmanyȱministersȱhad visualizedȱJewishȱpeopleȱasȱtheologicalȱabstractions,ȱcaricaturesȱandȱreȬimaginings ofȱOldȱTestamentȱsaints.ȱTheȱexpectationȱhadȱbeenȱthatȱwhenȱconfrontedȱwithȱthe purityȱofȱEnglishȱreligion,ȱuntaintedȱbyȱCatholicȱidolatry,ȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱquickly convert.ȱNow,ȱhowever,ȱJudeoȬcentristsȱcameȱfaceȱtoȱfaceȱwithȱaȱJewȱwhoȱgloried inȱ hisȱ Jewishness.ȱ Discoursesȱ ofȱ friendshipȱ thereforeȱ beganȱ toȱ becomeȱ more complicatedȱwithinȱtheȱconferenceȱatȱthisȱpoint.ȱPreviousȱworksȱhadȱimagined Christiansȱ befriendingȱ theȱ Jewsȱ asȱ aȱ meansȱ ofȱ theirȱ conversion.ȱ Asȱ itȱ became increasinglyȱclearȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱunlikelyȱtoȱconvert,ȱtheȱstartlingȱpossibility thatȱthisȱfriendshipȱcouldȱleadȱtoȱJewsȱconvertingȱChristiansȱbeganȱtoȱbeȱraised. Someȱ ofȱ theȱ ministers,ȱ “tho’ȱ theyȱ heartilyȱ desir’dȱ theȱ Conversionȱ ofȱ theȱ Jews” fearedȱthatȱ“ifȱtheyȱshouldȱreturnȱthatȱmanyȱwouldȱbeȱseducedȱandȱcheatedȱby themȱȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[that]ȱitȱwouldȱproveȱtheȱsubversionȱofȱmanyȱhere.”90ȱ Theȱsameȱanxietyȱbeganȱtoȱmanifestȱitselfȱinȱtheȱliteratureȱwhichȱfollowedȱthe conference.ȱWilliamȱHughes’sȱantiȬJewishȱAngloȬJudaeusȱthereforeȱwrestledȱwith theȱanxietyȱthatȱadmittingȱtheȱJewsȱwouldȱbreakȱdownȱtheȱboundariesȱofȱEnglish societyȱalreadyȱrenderedȱdangerouslyȱunstableȱbyȱQuakersȱandȱreligiousȱradicals.91 TheȱpossibilityȱofȱradicalsȱconvertingȱtoȱJudaismȱthereforeȱraisedȱtheȱspecterȱofȱthe dissolutionȱ betweenȱ theȱ Jew/Gentileȱ dichotomy:ȱ “thereȱ areȱ butȱ aȱ fewȱ steps betweenȱ[theȱQuakers]ȱandȱthatȱwherinȱ[sic]ȱprincipallyȱtheȱJewsȱdissentȱfromȱus.” IfȱtheȱJewsȱdidn’tȱdesireȱtoȱconvertȱtheȱEnglish,ȱHughesȱfeared,ȱthenȱperhapsȱthey intendedȱtoȱmakeȱtheȱEnglishȱsubservient:ȱ“theyȱtooȱwelȱ[sic]ȱknowȱtheȱmeaning ofȱthatȱsayingȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱDivideȱ&ȱregnes.”92ȱ

90 91

92

Crouch,ȱ“Proceedings,”ȱ168. ThisȱconcernȱatȱtheȱboundariesȱbetweenȱEnglishnessȱandȱforeignnessȱisȱexaminedȱinȱdetailȱby JamesȱShapiro,ȱwhoȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱdesireȱtoȱreadmitȱtheȱJewsȱwasȱbasedȱaroundȱ“redefiningȱwhat itȱmeantȱtoȱbeȱEnglish”ȱinȱtheȱmid–1600s.ȱSeeȱShapiro,ȱShakespeareȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱ57;ȱ167–93. W.[illiam]ȱH.[ughes],ȱAngloȬJudaeus,ȱorȱTheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱwhilstȱhereȱinȱEnglandȱ(London:ȱT.ȱN. forȱThomasȱHeath,ȱ1656),ȱ49–50.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

771

ThisȱgrowingȱfearȱappearedȱclearlyȱinȱaȱletterȱsentȱbyȱJohnȱDury,ȱcorrespondent ofȱ Menassehȱ andȱ supporterȱ ofȱ readmission,ȱ toȱ Samuelȱ Hartlibȱ inȱ theȱ period followingȱ theȱ conference.ȱ Asȱ weȱ saw,ȱ Duryȱ himselfȱ hadȱ previouslyȱ beenȱ in correspondenceȱwithȱMenassehȱoverȱtheȱquestionȱofȱtheȱJewishȱIndianȱtheory.ȱYet byȱ 1656,ȱ asȱ Davidȱ Katzȱ rightlyȱ suggests,ȱ aȱ growingȱ fearȱ andȱ skepticismȱ ofȱ the consequencesȱofȱJewishȱreadmissionȱhadȱbegunȱtoȱgripȱhim.93ȱHartlibȱhadȱwritten toȱDuryȱduringȱtheȱconference,ȱrequestingȱhisȱnotesȱonȱtheȱreturnȱofȱtheȱJews.ȱDury hadȱ repliedȱ “inȱ haste”ȱ onȱ 8thȱ Januaryȱ 1656,ȱ aȱ replyȱ whichȱ wasȱ printedȱ and publishedȱlaterȱthatȱyear.ȱTheȱimportanceȱofȱDury’sȱreplyȱisȱtheȱshiftȱitȱevidences fromȱhisȱpreviousȱ(friendly)ȱcorrespondencesȱwithȱMenasseh.ȱWhileȱitȱmaintains manyȱofȱtheȱstandardȱtropesȱofȱtheȱJudeoȬcentricȱapproach,ȱitȱalsoȱevidencesȱmajor uneaseȱ atȱ theȱ prospectȱ ofȱ Jewsȱ asȱ “friends.”ȱ Indeed,ȱ itȱ revealsȱ aȱ shiftȱ toȱ an approachȱmoreȱakinȱtoȱthatȱearlierȱadvocatedȱbyȱSpencerȱthanȱthatȱofȱtheȱmore positiveȱJudeoȬcentrists.ȱ Havingȱ witnessedȱ theȱ wayȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ treatedȱ onȱ theȱ continent,ȱ Dury remainedȱ convincedȱ thatȱ theyȱ shouldȱ beȱ admitted.ȱ However,ȱ heȱ wasȱ atȱ pains throughoutȱtheȱworkȱtoȱemphasizeȱthatȱtheȱdecisionȱonȱadmittanceȱmustȱbeȱmade byȱ theȱ stateȱ ratherȱ thanȱ theȱ religiousȱ establishment:ȱ “[theȱ decision]ȱ belong[s] chieflyȱtoȱthose,ȱtoȱwhomeȱtheȱpowerȱofȱadmittingȱofȱthemȱisȱgivenȱbyȱGod;ȱthat is,ȱtoȱtheȱRulersȱofȱtheȱState.”ȱDivines,ȱsuggestedȱDury,ȱthereforeȱhadȱlittleȱrealȱpart toȱplayȱinȱtheȱdecision.94ȱItȱwasȱapparentȱthatȱDury’sȱobservationsȱonȱtheȱcontinent hadȱaffectedȱhisȱhopeȱforȱJewishȱconversion.ȱHavingȱseenȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱthe JewsȱbehavedȱinȱEurope,ȱheȱwasȱincreasinglyȱgloomyȱaboutȱtheȱpossibilityȱofȱtheir integrationȱintoȱEnglishȱlife.ȱTheirȱveryȱothernessȱonceȱagainȱcameȱtoȱtheȱfore. Theyȱcouldȱneverȱbeȱpartȱofȱtheȱcentralȱbodyȱofȱtheȱstate,ȱasȱtheyȱ“formeȱaȱSocietie, orȱkindȱofȱCommonȬwealthȱamongstȱthemselves.”ȱ Wereȱtheyȱtoȱbeȱadmitted,ȱitȱwouldȱ“beȱexpedientȱthatȱtheyȱliveȱbyȱthemselves.” Indeed,ȱ Duryȱ nowȱ believedȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ presentedȱ anȱ ominousȱ threat:ȱ “they imagineȱthemselvesȱtheȱonlyȱnobleȱpeopleȱinȱtheȱworld,ȱandȱtheyȱthereforeȱaspire toȱ have,ȱ notȱ onleyȱ libertieȱ toȱ liveȱ byȱ themselves,ȱ butȱ richesȱ andȱ powerȱ over others.”95ȱWhileȱDuryȱdeploredȱtheȱGermanȱmethodȱofȱmakingȱtheȱJewsȱappear “baseȱandȱvile”ȱthroughȱtheȱwearingȱofȱdistinctȱclothingȱ(callingȱforȱ“moreȱfriendly wayes”),ȱheȱnonethelessȱunderminedȱmanyȱofȱtheȱpositiveȱreadingsȱformerlyȱput forwardȱbyȱJudeoȬcentrists.ȱTheȱcontrastȱhereȱbetweenȱDury’sȱattackȱonȱtheȱJewish beliefȱinȱtheirȱinherentȱnobility,ȱandȱJessey’sȱunequivocalȱstatementȱthatȱtheȱJews

93 94

95

Katz,ȱPhiloȬSemitism,ȱ216–23. JohnȱDury,ȱAȱCaseȱofȱConscience,ȱWhetherȱitȱbeȱlawfulȱtoȱadmitȱJewsȱintoȱaȱChristianȱCommonȬwealth? (London:ȱRichardȱWodenothe,ȱ1656),ȱ4. Dury,ȱCase,ȱ4–8.

772

AndrewȱCrome

possessedȱanȱ“excellencieȱaboveȱallȱotherȱnations”96ȱcouldȱnotȱbeȱclearer.ȱAtȱthe rootȱ ofȱ Dury’sȱ textȱ wasȱ theȱ beliefȱ thatȱ theȱ Jewsȱ wereȱ simplyȱ feigningȱ their friendshipȱ toȱ theȱ nationȱ asȱ aȱ coverȱ toȱ introduceȱ bothȱ theirȱ religionȱ andȱ their usuriousȱpractices.ȱWhilstȱtheȱJewsȱmightȱpromiseȱeconomicȱblessings,ȱtheȱfear remainedȱ thatȱ theseȱ blessingsȱ wouldȱ beȱ governedȱ byȱ aȱ desireȱ toȱ benefitȱ the separateȱJewishȱcommunityȱratherȱthanȱtheȱnationȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱDuryȱwas notȱtheȱfirstȱtoȱhaveȱencounteredȱJewishȱlifeȱonȱtheȱcontinent,ȱasȱweȱhaveȱseen. NeitherȱdidȱheȱabandonȱaȱbroadlyȱJudeoȬcentricȱposition.97ȱHeȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱJudeoȬ centrist,ȱ however,ȱ toȱ appreciateȱ theȱ practicalȱ difficultiesȱ thatȱ largeȱ scale readmissionȱwouldȱposeȱtoȱEnglishȱlife.ȱInȱotherȱwordsȱtheȱidealismȱofȱprophecy gaveȱwayȱtoȱtheȱrealityȱofȱtheȱbarriersȱbetweenȱJewȱandȱGentile—barriersȱthatȱeven Menasseh’sȱ“pureȱfriendship”ȱcouldȱnotȱbreakȱdown. Theseȱreconsiderations,ȱindeed,ȱaȱgrowingȱdiscomfortȱinȱtheȱJewishȱquestionȱcame toȱtheȱforeȱthroughȱaȱnumberȱofȱworksȱwhichȱfollowedȱtheȱconferenceȱinȱ1656.ȱThe mostȱwellȬknownȱexampleȱofȱthisȱbacklashȱwasȱWilliamȱPrynne’sȱnotoriousȱShort DemurrerȱtoȱtheȱJewsȱLongȱDiscontinuedȱRemitterȱintoȱEngland.ȱWhatȱisȱinterestingȱin Prynne’sȱ workȱ isȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ reworkedȱ theȱ friendshipȱ motifȱ asȱ an argumentȱagainstȱthoseȱwhoȱfavoredȱreadmission.ȱPrynne,ȱaȱwellȱknownȱlawyer andȱpolitician,ȱhadȱfirstȱrushedȱhisȱworkȱthroughȱtheȱpressesȱinȱlateȱ1655,ȱandȱit wasȱapparentlyȱinȱtheȱhandsȱofȱtheȱconferenceȱdelegatesȱatȱWhitehallȱinȱtimeȱfor theȱ finalȱ sessionȱ ofȱ theȱ conferenceȱ onȱ theȱ 18thȱ December.ȱ Prynne,ȱ alwaysȱ an industriousȱ writer,ȱ hadȱ producedȱ itȱ inȱ theȱ spaceȱ ofȱ elevenȱ days.ȱ Inȱ 1656ȱ he followedȱ thisȱ withȱ aȱ moreȱ detailedȱ (andȱ larger)ȱ secondȱ part,ȱ whichȱ expanded considerablyȱonȱhisȱarguments. Prynneȱbeganȱhisȱworkȱwithȱhisȱrecollectionȱofȱaȱchanceȱmeetingȱwithȱdelegate PhilipȱNye,ȱwhoȱwasȱthenȱtravelingȱtoȱaȱsessionȱofȱtheȱconference.98ȱAfterȱsharing hisȱlessȱthanȱpositiveȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱJewsȱwithȱNye,ȱPrynneȱmovedȱonȱto discussȱ theȱ opinionsȱ ofȱ theȱ generalȱ public—withȱ bothȱ soldiersȱ andȱ theȱ poor apparentlyȱ informingȱ himȱ thatȱ theyȱ mustȱ “allȱ turnȱ Jews”ȱ toȱ receiveȱ charity.99 Prynne’sȱ studyȱ firstlyȱ aimedȱ toȱ attackȱ theȱ millenarianȱ backgroundȱ toȱ Jewish conversion.ȱThereȱwas,ȱheȱargued,ȱnoȱrealȱconcernȱforȱJewishȱconversionȱamongst thoseȱwhoȱproposedȱtheirȱreadmission.ȱAsȱheȱshrewdlyȱpointedȱout,ȱitȱappeared

96 97

98

99

QuotedȱinȱVanȱderȱWall,ȱ“PhiloȬSemiticȱMillenarian,”ȱ182. Forȱexample,ȱheȱparticipatedȱwithȱJesseyȱinȱprovidingȱcharityȱforȱdistressedȱEuropeanȱJews.ȱSee Whiston,ȱLifeȱandȱDeath,ȱ75. ElementsȱofȱPrynne’sȱaccountȱareȱalmostȱcertainlyȱfictional—Nyeȱappearsȱconsiderablyȱmore negativeȱtowardȱtheȱJewsȱinȱPrynne’sȱworkȱthanȱhisȱcontributionsȱatȱWhitehallȱsuggest. Williamȱ Prynne,ȱ Aȱ Shortȱ Demurrerȱ toȱ theȱ Jewsȱ Longȱ Discontinuedȱ Barredȱ Remitterȱ intoȱ England (London:ȱEdwardȱThomasȱ1656),ȱsig.ȱA2iiv.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

773

strangeȱ thatȱ thoseȱ apparentlyȱ soȱ concernedȱ withȱ Jewishȱ conversionȱ wereȱ not preparedȱtoȱgoȱandȱevangelizeȱtheȱJewsȱthemselves,ȱratherȱthanȱbringingȱthemȱinto England.ȱAsȱGlaserȱhasȱrecentlyȱhighlighted,ȱthereȱwasȱalsoȱanȱimportantȱlegal backgroundȱtoȱPrynne’sȱwork.ȱAwareȱthatȱtheȱlawyersȱatȱWhitehallȱhadȱalready concludedȱ(inȱJessey’sȱwords)ȱthatȱreadmissionȱwasȱ“againstȱnoȱLAWȱneitherȱof theȱ land.ȱ .ȱ .ȱ norȱ ofȱ God,”100ȱ Prynneȱ scouredȱ theȱ recordsȱ forȱ aȱ concreteȱ legal argumentȱagainstȱreadmission.ȱPrimarily,ȱheȱsoughtȱtoȱproveȱthatȱtheȱJewsȱwere exiledȱbyȱanȱactȱofȱparliament,ȱratherȱthanȱbyȱroyalȱdecree.ȱ YetȱwhileȱGlaserȱhasȱshownȱhowȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱusedȱasȱaȱlegalȱprecedentȱin Prynne’sȱ longȱ runningȱ argumentȱ withȱ Hughȱ Peterȱ onȱ theȱ useȱ ofȱ theȱ common law,101ȱthisȱwasȱnotȱtheȱprimeȱfocusȱofȱhisȱwork.ȱInstead,ȱheȱaimedȱtoȱproveȱthatȱthe Jewsȱwereȱinherentlyȱdangerousȱtoȱtheȱnation.ȱWhereȱJesseyȱhadȱportrayedȱthem asȱfriendsȱofȱEngland,ȱPrynneȱwouldȱportrayȱthemȱasȱbrutalȱenemies—whereȱWall hadȱhighlightedȱtheȱJewsȱasȱeternalȱfriendsȱofȱGod,ȱPrynneȱwouldȱhighlightȱtheir enmityȱtoȱtheȱLord.ȱAsȱheȱnotedȱinȱtheȱpreface,ȱ“Ifȱanyȱmanȱchanceȱtoȱcensureȱme asȱoverharshȱorȱearnestȱinnȱmyȱexpressionȱagainstȱtheȱJews;ȱIȱhopeȱthatȱspeechȱof theirȱroyalȱProphetȱ[willȱbeȱrecalled]ȱDoȱnotȱIȱhateȱthem,ȱOȱLord,ȱthatȱhateȱthee?”102ȱIt wasȱnoȱsurpriseȱthatȱThomasȱCollier’sȱreplyȱtoȱPrynneȱthusȱusedȱdiscoursesȱof friendshipȱandȱenmityȱtoȱsumȱupȱobjectionsȱtoȱreadmission,ȱbemoaningȱthoseȱwho claimedȱ “weȱ shouldȱ notȱ shewȱ ourselvesȱ friendsȱ toȱ Jesusȱ Christ,ȱ ifȱ weȱ should permitȱthemȱaȱbeingȱamongstȱus.”103 TheȱresultȱofȱPrynne’sȱresearchȱwasȱnotȱtheȱwideȬeyedȱantiȬSemitismȱwhichȱ is sometimesȱimagined.ȱAsȱKatzȱhasȱpointedȱout,ȱtheȱworkȱwasȱ(inȱsomeȱsenseȱat least)ȱ“aȱseriousȱworkȱofȱscholarship,”ȱmakingȱitsȱlucidȱargumentsȱallȱtheȱmore shocking.104ȱPrynneȱscouredȱtheȱmedievalȱmanuscriptȱhistoriesȱandȱrecordsȱfor storiesȱ ofȱ theȱ Jews’ȱ enmityȱ toȱ Godȱ andȱ nation.ȱ Whileȱ mostȱ ofȱ theȱ talesȱ he discoveredȱwereȱmedievalȱlibelsȱandȱexaggerations,ȱPrynne’sȱscholarlyȱstyleȱmade theirȱrepetitionȱchillingȱtoȱhisȱEnglishȱreaders.ȱAlthoughȱwithoutȱanyȱfactualȱbasis, theȱ storiesȱ ofȱ bloodȱ libel—vividȱ depictionsȱ ofȱ theȱ ritualȱ murderȱ ofȱ childrenȱ in NorwichȱandȱLincolnȱbyȱtheȱJews—haveȱremainedȱstaplesȱofȱantiȬSemitismȱinto modernȱtimes.ȱFarȱfromȱbeingȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱPrynneȱargued,ȱtheȱJewsȱhad aȱnaturalȱ“impiety,ȱblasphemy,ȱandȱmalice”ȱrequiringȱthemȱtoȱcrucifyȱaȱChristian eachȱyear.105ȱTheȱEnglish,ȱasȱtheȱmostȱgodlyȱofȱallȱnations,ȱcouldȱthereforeȱclaimȱto

100 101 102 103 104 105

[Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ4. Glaser,ȱJewsȱWithoutȱJudaism,ȱ119–24. Prynne,ȱShortȱDemurrer,ȱsig.ȱBir. Collier,ȱBriefȱAnswer,ȱ4. Katz,ȱ“EnglishȱRedemption,”ȱ78.ȱ Prynne,ȱShortȱDemurrer,ȱ29.

774

AndrewȱCrome

haveȱnoȱresponsibilityȱforȱtheȱJewishȱnation.ȱOnȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtheyȱwereȱlockedȱin continualȱconflictȱwithȱtheȱJewishȱpeople.ȱTheȱEnglish,ȱinȱtheirȱroleȱasȱfriendsȱof God,ȱhadȱaȱdutyȱtoȱprotectȱthemselvesȱandȱtheirȱfriendshipȱwithȱtheȱLordȱthrough theirȱanimosityȱtowardȱtheȱJews.ȱItȱwasȱthisȱgodlinessȱwhichȱhadȱfirstȱprompted theȱEnglishȱtoȱexpelȱtheȱJewsȱinȱtheȱthirteenthȱcentury:ȱ“exceedingȱexecrableȱand detestableȱtoȱtheȱpeopleȱinȱallȱplacesȱwhereȱtheyȱresidedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱforȱtheirȱinfidelity, blasphemies,ȱ apostasies,ȱ [and]ȱ enmityȱ toȱ Christȱ andȱ Christianity.”106ȱ Theȱ same pointȱwasȱmadeȱmoreȱforcefullyȱbyȱWilliamȱHughesȱinȱtheȱsameȱyear.ȱTheȱEnglish, heȱargued,ȱinheritedȱanȱenmityȱtoȱtheȱJews:ȱ“derivedȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱfromȱtheirȱAncestors,ȱthat thoughȱitȱbeȱnowȱmoreȱthanȱ365ȱyearsȱsinceȱtheirȱexpulsion,ȱyetȱnotȱatȱallȱdothȱit seemȱmoderatedȱorȱabated;ȱanȱillȱsignȱofȱtheirȱfutureȱagreement.”107ȱThisȱenmity, asȱbothȱPrynneȱandȱHughesȱnoted,ȱranȱbothȱways.ȱThus,ȱEngland’sȱhistoryȱwith theȱJewsȱshouldȱactȱasȱaȱdiscouragementȱtoȱtheirȱreturn:ȱ“theyȱhaveȱlittleȱcauseȱor reasonȱatȱallȱtoȱdesireȱtoȱreplantȱthemselvesȱinȱEngland,ȱwhereȱtheirȱancestorsȱin timesȱpast,ȱsustainedȱsoȱmanyȱmiseries,ȱmassacres,ȱaffronts,ȱoppressions,ȱfleecings uponȱallȱoccasionsȱ&ȱthemselvesȱcanȱexpectȱlittleȱbetter.”108 WhatȱisȱremarkableȱinȱPrynneȱisȱhisȱattitudeȱtowardȱtheȱfateȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱevenȱif theyȱwereȱtoȱconvert.ȱTheȱanonymousȱI.ȱE.ȱ(probablyȱJohnȱEachard)ȱhadȱtakenȱthis themeȱupȱinȱhisȱearlierȱresponseȱtoȱMenasseh’sȱHopeȱofȱIsrael,ȱinsistingȱthatȱ“Our HonourableȱStateȱ(Iȱdoubtȱnot)ȱwillȱhonourablyȱentertaineȱyouȱtoȱinhabitȱhereȱwith usȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱandȱweeȱshallȱembraceȱyou,ȱasȱourȱChristianȱbrethren”ȱifȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱto turnȱtoȱChrist.109ȱYetȱPrynneȱwasȱgloomierȱinȱhisȱassessmentȱofȱtheȱJews’ȱallegedly inbuiltȱenmityȱtowardȱChrist.ȱLikeȱLutherȱbeforeȱhim,ȱwhoȱhadȱdespairedȱofȱany hopeȱofȱfutureȱJewishȱconversion,ȱPrynneȱwasȱskepticalȱthatȱthereȱwasȱanyȱchance ofȱtheȱJewsȱcomingȱtoȱChrist.ȱRomansȱ11:26,ȱtheȱscripturalȱcenterpieceȱforȱhopes ofȱJewishȱsalvationȱwithȱtheȱpromiseȱthatȱ“allȱIsraelȱwillȱbeȱsaved”ȱwasȱgivenȱa downbeatȱreading:ȱ“beingȱmeantȱonlyȱofȱtheȱelect,ȱtheȱtrueȱIsraelȱofȱGod.”110ȱ Thereȱwas,ȱfearedȱPrynne,ȱanȱinbuiltȱenmityȱtoȱGodȱinȱtheȱJewishȱpsyche:ȱ“Most ofȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ whoȱ sinceȱ theirȱ dispertionȱ [sic]ȱ haveȱ beenȱ baptized,ȱ andȱ turned Christiansȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ haveȱ doneȱ itȱ eitherȱ outȱ ofȱ fear,ȱ toȱ saveȱ theirȱ livesȱ .ȱ .ȱ .ȱ orȱ forȱ fearȱ of banishment.”111ȱAfterȱdetailingȱtheȱeffortsȱofȱtheȱpreachingȱfriarsȱtoȱconvertȱtheȱJews inȱtheȱtwelfthȱcentury,ȱheȱthereforeȱconcludedȱthatȱtheȱ“ZealotsȱandȱEnthusiasts whoȱsoȱearnestlyȱpleadȱforȱtheirȱreadmissionȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱareȱlikeȱtoȱfindȱnoȱbetterȱsuccess

106

107 108 109 110 111

WilliamȱPrynne,ȱTheȱSecondȱPartȱofȱaȱShortȱDemurrerȱtoȱtheȱJewesȱLongȱDiscontinuedȱRemitterȱinto Englandȱ(London:ȱEdwardȱThomas,ȱ1656),ȱ132. Hughes,ȱAngloȬJudaeus,ȱ47. Prynne,ȱShortȱDemurrer,ȱ52. I.ȱE.,ȱGreatȱDeliverance,ȱ53. Prynne,ȱShortȱDemurrer,ȱ90. Prynne,ȱShortȱDemurrer,ȱ93.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

775

thanȱ theseȱ preachingȱ Friersȱ did.”112ȱ Prynneȱ thereforeȱ aimedȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ the alterityȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewishȱ people.ȱ Theyȱ wereȱ not,ȱ heȱ claimed,ȱ likeȱ others—their conversionȱwas,ȱtoȱallȱextentsȱandȱpurposes,ȱimpossible. WhileȱhisȱbrutalȱattackȱpromptedȱMenassehȱtoȱwriteȱhisȱwidelyȱknown defenseȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeople,ȱtheȱVindiciaeȱJudaeorum,ȱtheȱdamageȱwasȱalready done.ȱTheȱattacksȱofȱPrynneȱmergedȱwithȱtheȱdoubtsȱofȱDuryȱtoȱhelpȱswayȱpublic opinionȱagainstȱanyȱformȱofȱformalȱJewishȱreadmission.ȱWhileȱtheȱJewsȱwereȱseen asȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱtheȱprospectȱofȱtheirȱpersonalȱfriendshipȱwasȱclearlyȱone stepȱtooȱfarȱforȱtheȱmajority.ȱThisȱbecameȱincreasinglyȱclearȱtoȱtheȱmoreȱfervent JudeoȬcentristȱwriters.ȱTheȱanonymousȱD.ȱL.ȱexpressedȱhisȱexasperationȱatȱthe increasingȱskepticismȱtowardȱthoseȱwhoȱwishedȱtheȱJewsȱwellȱ“asȱitȱwereȱbyȱway ofȱParenthesis.”ȱTooȱmany,ȱheȱnoted,ȱwereȱhappyȱtoȱpayȱlipȱserviceȱtoȱtheȱnobility ofȱtheȱJews,ȱwhileȱ“excludingȱthemȱ[from]ȱtheirȱcompaniesȱandȱCongregations, theyȱseemȱtoȱwishȱthemȱsomeȱgood,ȱbutȱtheyȱplainlyȱmanifestȱitȱthatȱtheyȱwould notȱhaveȱthemȱenjoyȱit,ȱorȱnotȱamongstȱus.”113ȱNoȱdoubtȱheȱhadȱinȱmindȱthoseȱsuch asȱHughes,ȱwhoȱafterȱ52ȱpagesȱonȱtheȱusurious,ȱmurderousȱandȱdisloyalȱnatureȱof theȱJewsȱnotedȱthatȱheȱ“shewȱnoȱevilȱwillȱtowardsȱthemȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ[and]ȱheartilyȱdesire theȱrealȱandȱfullyȱprosperityȱofȱJudah.”ȱTheȱkeyȱtoȱunderstandingȱthisȱapparent contradictionȱwasȱHughes’sȱnationalȱinterest.ȱWhileȱdesiringȱtheȱ“fullȱprosperity” ofȱJudah,ȱheȱnonethelessȱwasȱpredominantlyȱconcernedȱwithȱ“theȱgoodȱofȱones nativeȱCountrey.”114ȱThis,ȱweȱmightȱrecall,ȱwasȱalsoȱTomlinson’sȱmotivationȱin writing:ȱ“asȱoutȱofȱloveȱtoȱtheȱNationȱofȱtheȱJewes;ȱsoȱalsoȱoutȱofȱloveȱtoȱmyȱowne Country.”115 TheȱstrikingȱsimilarityȱbetweenȱHughes’sȱandȱTomlinson’sȱaimsȱinȱtheirȱworks chimesȱwithȱthatȱfoundȱinȱtheȱotherȱwritersȱexaminedȱabove.ȱWithoutȱexception, eachȱ foundȱ theȱ reasonȱ forȱ readmissionȱ inȱ nationalȱ terms,ȱ oftenȱ couchedȱ in discoursesȱofȱfriendship.ȱWhileȱbothȱsupportersȱandȱopponentsȱofȱreadmission cameȱtoȱtheȱsubjectȱfromȱradicallyȱdifferingȱperspectives,ȱtheyȱnonethelessȱutilized theȱsameȱapproaches.ȱForȱthoseȱinȱfavorȱofȱreadmission,ȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimedȱtoȱbe friendsȱofȱGodȱhadȱtoȱbecome,ȱbyȱassociation,ȱfriendsȱofȱtheȱJewishȱpeople.ȱThisȱled toȱanȱintimateȱconcernȱwithȱtheȱroleȱofȱtheȱJewsȱforȱtheȱnation—whetherȱthese wereȱ theȱ positiveȱ economicȱ benefitsȱ emphasizedȱ byȱ Menasseh,ȱ theȱ theological benefitsȱenvisionedȱbyȱJessey,ȱorȱtheȱjudgmentȱthatȱPrynneȱsawȱwasȱcomingȱon anyȱ nationȱ whichȱ acceptedȱ theȱ exiledȱ Jews.ȱ Eachȱ ofȱ theseȱ manifestationsȱ of

112 113

114 115

Prynne,ȱSecondȱPart,ȱ83. D.ȱL.,ȱIsraelsȱConditionȱandȱCauseȱPleadedȱ(London:ȱP.ȱW.ȱforȱWilliamȱLarnarȱandȱJonathanȱBall, 1656),ȱf.2v. Hughes,ȱAngloȬJudaeus,ȱ52. Tomlinson,ȱBosome.

776

AndrewȱCrome

friendshipȱ(andȱenmity)ȱwasȱstrikinglyȱcorporateȱinȱitsȱapproach.ȱItȱignoredȱthe potentialȱforȱindividualȱJewsȱtoȱbenefitȱtheȱnationȱasȱindividuals,ȱviewingȱthem (primarily)ȱasȱtargetsȱforȱconversion.ȱ Whenȱtheȱrealityȱofȱpersonalȱcontactȱ(andȱthusȱfriendship)ȱwithȱtheȱJewsȱbecame anȱ issueȱ throughȱ Menasseh’sȱ presence,ȱ theȱ challengesȱ ofȱ JewishȬChristian relationshipsȱ becameȱ clear.ȱ Thoseȱ whoȱ hadȱ previouslyȱ supportedȱ readmission withȱfewȱreservations,ȱconfrontedȱwithȱtheȱRabbi,ȱbeganȱtoȱemphasizeȱtheȱalterity andȱinherentȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱJewsȱandȱGentiles.ȱTheȱideaȱofȱfriendshipȱand communityȱwasȱundermined.ȱUniqueȱfiguresȱsuchȱasȱSadlerȱandȱJesseyȱremained bothȱpersonalȱfriendsȱofȱMenassehȱandȱsupportersȱofȱdeeperȱJewishȱintegration intoȱEnglishȱlife.ȱThisȱextendedȱtoȱmoreȱthanȱjustȱwords—Jesseyȱremainedȱactive inȱarrangingȱpracticalȱhelpȱforȱdisadvantagedȱJewsȱacrossȱEurope.ȱInȱ1658,ȱfor example,ȱheȱorganizedȱaȱcollectionȱofȱalmsȱforȱtheȱsufferingȱAshkenaziȱJewsȱof Jerusalem.116 Theȱ conclusionȱ ofȱ theȱ Whitehallȱ conferenceȱ remainedȱ uncertain.ȱ Cromwell’s postscriptȱtoȱtheȱconferenceȱonȱDecemberȱ18ȱcouldȱserveȱasȱaȱusefulȱdescriptionȱof theȱdebateȱasȱaȱwhole.ȱFarȱfromȱclearingȱtheȱissueȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱitȱhadȱonlyȱserved toȱcomplicateȱit:ȱ“heȱ[had]ȱhopedȱbyȱtheseȱpreachersȱtoȱhaveȱhadȱsomeȱclearingȱthe caseȱ[ofȱtheȱJews]ȱasȱtoȱconscience.ȱButȱseeingȱtheseȱagreedȱnotȱbutȱwereȱofȱtwoȱor threeȱopinions,ȱitȱwasȱleftȱtheȱmoreȱdoubtfullȱtoȱhimȱandȱtheȱCouncelȱ[sic]”ȱhow toȱproceed.ȱMenassehȱwasȱthereforeȱleftȱdisappointed—asȱJesseyȱrecordedȱinȱthe postscriptȱtoȱhisȱsummaryȱofȱtheȱconference,ȱ“[Menasseh]ȱstillȱremainsȱinȱLondon, desiringȱ aȱ favourableȱ answerȱ toȱ hisȱ proposals.”ȱ Withȱ obviousȱ regret,ȱ Jessey remindedȱhisȱreadersȱthatȱ“severalȱJewishȱmerchants”ȱhadȱcomeȱtoȱLondon,ȱbut seeingȱtheirȱcaseȱasȱhopeless,ȱnowȱ“removedȱhenceȱagainȱtoȱbeyondȱtheȱseas,ȱwith muchȱgriefȱofȱheart.”117ȱMenassehȱwasȱtoȱremainȱinȱsituȱuntilȱSeptemberȱ1657,ȱby whichȱpointȱheȱhadȱrunȱoutȱofȱmoneyȱandȱlostȱbothȱtheȱpatienceȱandȱsupportȱofȱhis Amsterdamȱcongregation.ȱCromwell,ȱhowever,ȱdidȱnotȱwithdrawȱhisȱfriendship, awardingȱtheȱRabbiȱaȱstateȱpension.ȱNonetheless,ȱMenassehȱfinallyȱleftȱEngland aȱbrokenȱman.ȱHeȱdiedȱatȱMiddelburgȱonȱhisȱjourneyȱbackȱtoȱtheȱNetherlands.ȱJohn SadlerȱcontinuedȱtoȱevidenceȱhisȱfriendshipȱtoȱtheȱdeceasedȱRabbi,ȱpleadingȱwith RichardȱCromwellȱforȱfinancialȱreliefȱforȱMenasseh’sȱwidow.

116

117

AnȱAngloȬDutchȱprojectȱwhichȱJesseyȱwasȱinitiallyȱinformedȱofȱthroughȱtheȱDutchȱmillenarian PetrusȱSerrarius.ȱSeeȱVanȱderȱWall,ȱ“PhiloȬSemiticȱMillenarian,”ȱ161–66. [Jessey],ȱNarrative,ȱ10.

JewishȬGentileȱRelationsȱinȱtheȱWhitehallȱConferenceȱofȱ1655

777

TheȱstoryȱofȱJewishȱreadmission,ȱofȱcourse,ȱdidȱnotȱendȱwithȱWhitehall.ȱTheȱsmall communityȱofȱsecretȱJewsȱinȱLondon—SpanishȱandȱPortugueseȱ“Marranos”118— wereȱsoonȱforcedȱtoȱrevealȱthemselvesȱbyȱinternationalȱevents.ȱWithȱEnglandȱat warȱwithȱSpain,ȱSpanishȱJewȱAntonioȱRodriguesȱRoblesȱwasȱdenouncedȱtoȱthe Englishȱ authoritiesȱ inȱ Marchȱ 1656.ȱ Withȱ aȱ recentȱ edictȱ renderingȱ allȱ Spanish propertyȱ liableȱ forȱconfiscation,ȱRoblesȱadoptedȱanȱunusualȱdefenseȱtoȱprotect himself,ȱadmittingȱthatȱheȱwasȱaȱJew,ȱratherȱthanȱaȱSpaniard.ȱOnȱMarchȱ24,ȱ1656, theȱremainderȱofȱtheȱsecretȱcommunityȱpetitionedȱCromwellȱforȱprotectionȱandȱthe rightȱtoȱprivateȱworship.ȱMenassehȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱsevenȱsignatories,ȱandȱalthough theȱpetitionȱwasȱstudiouslyȱignoredȱbyȱtheȱCouncilȱofȱState,ȱRobles’sȱdefenseȱwas accepted,ȱ andȱ hisȱ propertyȱ restoredȱ toȱ himȱ inȱ Mayȱ 1656.119ȱ Whileȱ official recognitionȱofȱJewishȱcommunitiesȱwouldȱhaveȱtoȱwaitȱuntilȱtheȱRestoration,ȱthe factȱofȱRobles’sȱacceptanceȱandȱtheȱrevelationȱofȱtheȱtinyȱJewishȱcommunityȱgave AngloȬJewryȱ itsȱ firstȱ officialȱ existenceȱ inȱ overȱ threeȱ hundredȱ years.ȱ Although Menassehȱneverȱrealizedȱit,ȱheȱhadȱunwittinglyȱachievedȱoneȱofȱhisȱprimaryȱaims.ȱ TheȱexactȱstatusȱofȱthisȱtinyȱcommunityȱandȱitsȱrelationȱtoȱEnglandȱwouldȱrearȱits headȱ onlyȱ occasionallyȱ overȱ theȱ nextȱ hundredȱ years,ȱ mostȱ notablyȱ atȱ the Restoration.ȱTheȱpublicȱinterestȱandȱdebateȱwhichȱsurroundedȱWhitehall,ȱhowever, wouldȱ finallyȱ subside,ȱ beforeȱ returningȱ withȱ aȱ vengeanceȱ inȱ theȱ “Jewȱ Bill” controversyȱ ofȱ 1753.ȱ Meanwhileȱ theȱ AngloȬJewishȱ community,ȱ nowȱ openly revealed,ȱ wouldȱ striveȱ toȱ showȱ itself,ȱ unquestionably,ȱ toȱ beȱ oneȱ ofȱ England’s greatestȱfriends.ȱ

118

119

Theȱ termȱ “Marranos”ȱ refersȱ toȱ Spanishȱ andȱ Portugueseȱ Jewsȱ whoȱ feignedȱ aȱ conversionȱ to Catholicism,ȱbutȱcontinuedȱtoȱpracticeȱtheirȱfaithȱinȱsecret.ȱWhileȱmostȱfledȱtheȱInquisitionȱtoȱthe Netherlands,ȱ aȱ fewȱ merchantsȱ hadȱ settledȱ inȱ London,ȱ whereȱ theyȱ outwardlyȱ practicedȱ as Catholics,ȱworshippingȱatȱtheȱchapelsȱofȱforeignȱembassies.ȱItȱisȱpossibleȱthatȱtheȱSpanishȱedition ofȱNicholas’sȱHumbleȱApologyȱwasȱaimedȱatȱthoseȱMarranosȱthenȱresidentȱinȱLondonȱ(seeȱnoteȱ26 above). ForȱaȱfullerȱdescriptionȱofȱtheseȱeventsȱseeȱKatz,ȱPhiloȬSemitism,ȱ231–44.

Illustrations

Illustrations to Miriam Marotzki’s article: [In her article she uses the German abbreviation ‘Abb.’ for ‘Abbildung’ = Figure] Fig.  1:  Leonardo  da  Vinci:  Profilstudien  eines  alten  und  eines  jungen  Mannes (Salaì?), die sich gegenüber stehen, 1500–1505, Rötel, 21 x 15 cm, Florenz, Galleria degli Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe. In: Leonardo da Vinci. 1452–1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Hrsg. Frank Zöllner (Hong Kong, Köln, et al.: Taschen, 2007), Fig. 198.  Fig. 2: Leonardo da Vinci: Studie zu den Herzklappen und zur Muskeltätigkeit des Herzens,  um  1513,  Feder  und  braune  Tusche  auf  blauem  Papier,  26  x  20  cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 19093 recto). In: Kenneth Clark, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, 2 (London: Phaidon, 1935). Fig. 3: Nach Leonardo da Vinci: Johannes der Täufer, um 1505–1507, Pappelholz, 71 x 51 cm, Basel, Kunstmuseum Basel, Vermächtnis Dr. Fritz Sarasin 1942 (Inv. Nr. 1879). Fotonachweis: Kunstmuseum Basel, Martin P. Bühler. Fig.  4:  Leonardo  da  Vinci:  Kopf  und  Schultern  eines  jungen  Mannes  im  Profil (Salaì?), um 1510, schwarze Kreide, 19,3 x 14,9 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 12557 recto). In: Leonardo da Vinci. 1452–1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Hrsg. Frank Zöllner (Hong Kong, Köln, et al.: Taschen, 2007), Fig. 203. Fig. 5: Leonardo da Vinci: Brustbild eines Mannes und einer jungen Frau im Profil, um 1478–1490, Feder und Tinte auf weißem Papier, 40,5 x 29 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (12276 verso). In: Kenneth Clark, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, 2 (London: Phaidon, 1935).

780

Illustrations

Fig. 6: Leonardo da Vinci: Kopf und Schultern eines jungen Mannes im Profil, Feder und Tinte auf weißem Papier, 13,7 x 8,2 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (12432 recto). In: Kenneth Clark, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, 2 (London: Phaidon, 1935). Fig. 7: Leonardo da Vinci, Angelo incarnato, um 1513–1514, schwarze Kreide oder Kohle auf blauem Papier, 26,8 x 19,7 cm, Deutschland, Privatsammlung. In: Daniel Arasse, Leonardo da Vinci (Köln: DuMont, 2002), Fig. 319. Fig. 8: Nach Leonardo da Vinci: Monna Vanna oder Gioconda nuda, ca. 1515, St. Petersburg, Eremitage. In: Donald Sassoon, Da Vinci und das Geheimnis der Mona Lisa (Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe, 2006), 152. Fig. 9: Leonardo da Vinci: Zeichnungen verschiedener Impresen (Lampe, Pflug und Kompass) und Profilstudie eines jungen Mannes, etwa 1508, Feder, Tinte und schwarze Kreide, 37,2 x 28,1 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 12282 recto). In: Leonardo da Vinci. 1452–1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Hrsg. Frank Zöllner (Hong Kong, Köln, et al.: Taschen, 2007), Fig. 409. Fig.  10:  Leonardo  da  Vinci,  Allegorien  der  Freude,  des  Kummers  und  der Missgunst, um 1490–1494, Feder und Tinte, 21 x 29 cm, Oxford, Governing Body, Christ Church (Inv JBS 17 verso). In: Leonardo da Vinci. 1452–1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Hrsg. Frank Zöllner (Hong Kong, Köln, et al.: Taschen, 2007), Fig. 398. Fig.  11:  Francesco  Melzi,  Flora  (oder  Columbine),  1517–21,  Öl  auf  Leinwand (transferiert von Holz), 76 x 63 cm, St. Petersburg, Eremitage. In: I Leonardeschi: lʹeredità di Leonardo in Lombardia, Hrsg. Giulio Bora und David Alan Brown (Mailand: Skira 1998), S. 375. Fig. 12: Francesco Melzi (?), Leonardo da Vinci, 1510–1515, Rötel, 27,4 x 19 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 12726 recto). In: Kenneth Clark, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, 2 (London: Phaidon, 1935). Fig.  13:  Francesco  Melzi,  Porträt  eines  jungen  Mannes  mit  Papagei,  um  1550, Mailand, Collezione Gallerati Scotti.

Illustrations

781

In: The Legacy of Leonardo: Painters in Lombardy 1490–1530, Hrsg. Giulio Bora, David Alan Brown und Marco Carminati (Mailand: Skira, 1998), Fig. 270. Fig. 14: Gian Giacomo Caprotti (genannt Salaì), Johannes der Täufer, Mailand, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana. In: The Legacy of Leonardo: Painters in Lombardy 1490–1530, Hrsg. Giulio Bora, David Alan Brown und Marco Carminati (Mailand: Skira, 1998), Fig. 288. Fig.  15:  Nach  Leonardo  da  Vinci  (?),  Johannes  der  Täufer  (mit  Attributen  des Bacchus), um 1513–1519 (?), Öl auf Holz, auf Leinwand übertragen, 17,7 x 11,5 cm, Paris, Musée du Louvre (Inv. 780). In: Leonardo da Vinci. 1452–1519. Sämtliche Gemälde und Zeichnungen, Hrsg. Frank Zöllner (Hong Kong, Köln, et al.: Taschen, 2007), S. 203. Fig.  16:  Leonardo  da  Vinci  und  Schüler,  Studienblatt  mit  einem  Engel  der Verkündigung, um 1503‐1506, Feder und Sepia auf grauem Papier, 21 x 28,3 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 12328 recto). In: Daniel Arasse, Leonardo da Vinci (Köln: DuMont, 2002), Fig. 320. Fig. 17: Leonardo da Vinci, Studie eines nackten, jungen Mannes (Johannes der Täufer?), ca. 1476, Silberstift, erhöht mit oxidiertem Weiß auf blauem Papier, 17,8 x 12,2 cm, Windsor Castle, Royal Library (RL 12572). In: Kenneth Clark, The Drawings of Leonardo da Vinci in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, 2 (London: Phaidon, 1935).

Illustration to Vera Keller’s article: Fig. 1: Peter Paul Rubens, “Peter Paul Rubens, Philip Rubens, Justus Lipsius and Johannes  Woverius”(“The  Four  Philosophers”),no.  117,  Florence  Palazzo  Pitti. Here borrowed from Hans Vlieghe, Rubens: Portraits Of Identified Sitters Painted in Antwerp.  Corpus  Rubenianum  Ludwig  Burchard  (London:  Harvey  Miller Publishers, 1987), figure 140.

Contributors

STELLA ACHILLEOS is a Lecturer in English at the University of Cyprus. Her research interests lie in the field of early modern literature and culture, focusing in particular on the production and transmission of literary texts in relation to social  and  political  contexts.  Her  publications  have  mainly  concentrated  on seventeenth‐century  poetry,  sociability,  and  cultural  exchange,  and  include  a number of essays on the dissemination of the Anacreontea within various social and political  networks  in  early  modern  England,  with  special  focus  on  the appropriation of the genre by Ben Jonson and his ‘sons’ and its use as a royalist marker  in  the  mid‐seventeenth  century.  Her  current  research  concentrates primarily on the discourses of friendship in early modern literature and culture.  ALBRECHT CLASSEN is University Distinguished Professor of German Studies at The University of Arizona, Tucson. He has published more than fifty scholarly books on medieval and early‐modern literature, with a focus on women’s writing, gender issues, violence, sexuality, history of mentality, and comparative literary perspectives. Since his Ph.D. diss. (1986, published in 1987) he has regularly turned his attention to the South‐Tyrolean poet Oswald von Wolkenstein, finally offering an English translation of his complete works in 2008. His latest books are: Deutsche Schwankliteratur des 16. Jahrhunderts: Studien zu Martin Montanus, Hans Wilhelm Kirchhof und Michael Lindener (sixteenth‐century jest literature, 2009), (together with Lukas Richter) Lied und Liederbuch in der Frühen Neuzeit (early‐modern songs and songbooks,  2010),  and  Laughter  in  the  Middle  Ages  (2010).  He  is  editor  of  the Handbook  of  Medieval  Studies  (3  vols.,  forthcoming),  and  editor  of  the  journals Mediaevistik and Tristania . In 2004 the German government awarded him with the Bundesverdienstkreuz am Band (Order of Merit). He has won numerous teaching and research awards. JENNIFER  CONSTANTINE‐JACKSON  is  a  doctoral  student  in    systematic theology and spirituality at Regis College, University of  Toronto. Her areas of interest  include:  rhetorical  theology,    philosophies  and  theologies  of  love  and prayer, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

784

Contributors

STAVROULA CONSTANTINOU is an Assistant Professor in Byzantine Philology at the University of Cyprus, and has published a book on Byzantine holy womenʹs hagiographies and the Body (Female Corporeal Performances: Reading the Body in Byzantine  Passions  and  Lives  of  Holy  Women,  2005),  and  a  number  of  articles  on Byzantine hagiography, genre, and gender. Her major research interests focus on Byzantine narratives, especially saintʹs Lives, and miracle collections. ANDREW CROME is a Lecturer in Religions and Theology at the University of Manchester,  specializing  in  historical  theology.  He  has  published  on  the hermeneutics of early modern millenarianism in Renaissance Studies and has works forthcoming  on  Jewish‐Christian relations and church reform in early modern England.  His research interests include eschatology and Biblical hermeneutics in seventeenth‐century England, the development and evolution of national identity, and contemporary apocalyptic thought. He is currently working on a range of topics including millenarianism in seventeenth‐century Biblical dictionaries, the historiography of Christian Zionism, and apocalyptic thought in British popular culture, namely the BBC’s Doctor Who.  He holds a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Manchester and a B.A. in Theology and Ancient History from the University of Wales, Lampeter.  JOHN A. DEMPSEY is Assistant Professor of History at Westfield State University in Westfield, MA, USA. His doctoral dissertation examined the life and times of Bishop Bonizo of Sutri (Boston University: 2006). He currently is working on a biography of Bonizo. Dr. Dempsey’s broader research interests in medieval history include the ecclesiastical reform movement of the eleventh century and popular religious movements. He is also a student of sports in World History and is at work on a monograph examining the religious origins of sport. JULIAN HASELDINE is Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Hull (UK).  His publications include Friendship in Medieval Europe (1999), an edition of collected papers from the first international conference devoted exclusively to friendship, The Letters of Peter of Celle, a critical edition and translation for Oxford Medieval Texts (2001), and many articles and papers on the subjects of medieval friendship and epistolography, including more recently “Friends, Friendship and Networks in the Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux” (Citeaux, Commentarii Cistercienses, 2006). Between  2005  and  2010  he  was  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  British Academy‐funded  series  of  international  workshops  on  friendship,  “Medieval Friendship Networks.” His current research interests focus on friendship and the application of social network analysis to medieval letters. C. STEPHEN JAEGER is the Gutgsell Professor emeritus in the departments of

Contributors

785

German and Comparative Literature, University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign.  He  is  the  author  of  Ennobling  Love:  In  Search  of  a  Lost  Sensibility  (University  of Pennsylvania Press, 1994) and Enchantment: On Charisma in Art, Literature and Film (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010).  His areas of interest are vernacular and Latin literature of the Middle Ages. L.  BELLEE  JONES  is  a  doctoral  student  in  the  English  Department  at  Emory University,  Atlanta,  GA.  A  2010  graduate  of  the  Hudson  Strode  Program  in Renaissance Studies at the University of Alabama, she also holds an M.F.A. in Creative  Writing  from  Georgia  College  &  State  University.    Her  poems  have appeared  in  Roger  and  Rhino.  Her  most  recent  research  interests  include homosocial relationships and representations in medieval and early modern lyric poetry, clothing in The Booke of Margery Kempe, and the use of the term “regard” in Milton’s Paradise Lost.   VERA KELLER, after having completed her dissertation at Princeton in 2008 on the  engraver,  alchemist,  and  inventor,  Cornelis  Drebbel  (1572‐1633),  was  a postdoctoral fellow first with the Making Publics Project (McGill University), and then  at  the  Early  Modern  Studies  Institute  of  the  Huntington  Library  and  the University of Southern California. She will begin as an Assistant Professor at the Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon in the Fall of 2011. Dr. Keller is interested in the circulation and administration of knowledge and is currently working on a book linking the empirical turns of politics and of the study of nature in seventeenth‐century Europe. THEODORE F. KAOUK is a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland where he  teaches  courses  on  drama  and  on  Shakespeare.    He  has  published  articles focusing on the problems of allegiance and on the politics of friendship in early modern drama.  He is currently preparing to write a dissertation on the literary representations of craftsmen in the early modern credit economy. MIRIAM SARAH MAROTZKI (M.A.) studied Art History, Philosophy, Romance Studies and Museum Management at University of Hamburg (Germany). Here she also  passed  praxis  studies  at  the  Museum  für  Kunst  und  Gewerbe  (Hamburg, Germany).    She  worked  as  a  curator  and  had  a  lectureship  at  the  Otto‐von‐ Guericke‐University of Magdeburg (Germany). Since 2010 shehas been  teaching at  the  Institut  of  Art  History  at  the  Ruhr‐University  Bochum  (Germany). Furthermore she works on a Ph.D project about a special concept of pictor doctus in  Renaissance  Italy.  She  has  published  about  gender  aspects  in  Leonardo  da Vincis, analyzed the importance of fine arts in the cultural conception of Johann Gustav  Droysen,  and  she  was  the  first  to  publish  about  Silke  Rath,  a  young

786

Contributors

German artist. Her major research interests focus on paintings of the early modern age, history of knowledge, and social history of knowledge in the arts as soon as history  and  methods  of  art  history  (with  a  special  focus  on  iconography  and Gender Studies, especially on the [art] history of men).  R.  JACOB  MCDONIE  is  an  Assistant  Professor  of  English  at  the  University  of Texas, Pan American, in Edinburg, Texas, where he teaches courses on medieval literature. Having received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine, in 2010, he is currently writing a book on absent and fictional friends in medieval religious  literature,  as  well  as  various  articles  on  Chaucer,  Heloise,  and  the medieval laity. He has just published with  Cistercian Studies Quarterly the first critical translation of Aelred of Rievaulx’s only extant letter, which he writes on the topic of friendship to his friend, Gilbert, bishop of London. MARILYN SANDIDGE is a professor of English at Westfield State University, MA, where she teaches medieval and early modern literature and history of the English language. She also directs the graduate program in English at the university. Her scholarship focuses on women writers or women as characters in early British literature. Along with Albrecht Classen, she co‐edits the series Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture published by Walter de Gruyter Press. MARC SAURETTE is an Associate Professor of History at Carleton University (Ottawa).  His  research  has  focused  on  twelfth‐century  monks  of  Cluny,  with particular attention paid to the modes of organization, affectivity and power that arose alongside an increasingly literate monastic body. Peter the Venerableʹs life and writings continue to occupy much of Sauretteʹs  heart and mind, but he is currently at work on a critical edition of another Cluniac monkʹs writings—the opera  omnia  of  Richard  of  Poitiers—supported  by  the  Social  Science  and Humanities Research Council of Canada. SARA DEUTCH SCHOTLAND is Assistant Professor (Visiting) of Literature at the U.S. Naval Academy, Adjunct Professor of Disability Studies at the University of Maryland  Honors  College,  and  Adjunct  Professor  of  Law  and  Literature  at Georgetown University Law Center. Her article on female homosocial bonding in “The  Squire’s  Tale”  connects  two  of  her  research  interests,  in  animals  and  in disability studies. She has authored articles in Comparative Literature Studies, the Disability Studies Quarterly, the Women’ s History Review, New Perspectives in the Eighteenth Century, the American Journal of Legal History, the Western Journal of Black Studies,  the  Journal  of  African  American  Studies,  and  Trickster:  A  Journal  of Intercultural Studies, among other publications. 

Contributors

787

ANTONELLA LIUZZO SCORPO has been teaching Spanish literature, history and culture in Modern Languages at the University of Exeter, where she was awarded her Ph.D. in Hispanic Studies with an interdisciplinary research project entitled The Idea of Friendship in the Literary, Historical and Legal Works of Alfonso X of Castile (1252‐1284). She has  got two articles in press and she is currently working on two other research projects, among which one in collaboration with the University of Salamanca, for which she is writing “El ejercicio del poder en la política y en las obras literarias de Alfonso X el Sabio,”which will be published in Studia Historica. Historia Medieval, 29 (2011). Her major research interests focus on the ideas of power and authority, as well as on the literary and historical representations of social  and  political  relationships  in  Medieval  Iberia,  in  particular  between  the twelfth and the thirteenth centuries. ROBERT  STRETTER  is  Assistant  Professor  of  English  at  Providence  College (Providence,  RI).  His  research  interests  include  Middle  English  romance,  the literary history of male friendship, and issues of gender, sexuality, and ethics in literature.  He  has  published  articles  on  Geoffrey  Chaucer,  John  Lydgate,  and English Renaissance drama in The Chaucer Review, Medievalia et Humanistica, and Texas Studies in Literature and Language.  He is currently at work on a book entitled Other Selves: Theorizing Friendship from Chaucer to Shakespeare. DAVID F. TINSLEY is Distinguished Professor of German at the University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA. His book, The Scourge and the Cross: Ascetic Mentalities of the Later Middle Ages, appeared in May 2010, with Peeters Publishers of Belgium. His current project, a translation with the philosopher Paul S. Loeb of Nietzscheʹs Zarathustra  and  all  of  the  unpublished  notes,  will  be  published  by  Stanford University Press in three volumes, beginning in 2011. JEAN‐CHRISTOPHE  VAN  THIENEN  teaches  specialized/technical  English  to History of Art, Ancient History and Archaeology students (L1‐M2) at Charles de Gaulle‐Lille3  University.  He  completed  his  dissertation  “Jeux  d’écriture,  tache aveugle et musée imaginaire dans l’œuvre de George Herbert (1593–1633)” in 2007 under  the  supervision  of  Professor  Jacques  Sys  (†)  (Artois  Université)  and Professor  François  Laroque  (La  Sorbonne  Nouvelle‐Paris  III  Université).  His current  research  interests  focus  on  text  vs.  image  issues  and  more  specifically Herbert’s recycling of the emblem genre via anagrams, puns, cryptograms, and plays on words to eradicate images from the religious sphere and restore, in a genuinely  Reformed  way,  the  supremacy  of  the  Word  while  asserting  the  full legitimacy  of  the  then  nascent  Anglican  Church.  His  publications  include  “La traversée des Alpes dans The Mysteries of Udolpho d’Ann Radcliffe (1794) comme version unitarienne de l’extase mystique et préfiguration du Sublime chez William

788

Contributors

Turner,” Actes du Colloque International ‘Le pittoresque: Evolution d’un code. Enjeux, formes  et  acteurs  dans  l’Europe  moderne  et  contemporaine  (2010),  and  “George Herbert’s Anglican Recycling,” Actes du Colloque International ‘Reprise, Recycling, Recuperating, the Authentic and the Déjà‐Vu in Anglophone Culture’ de l’université de Strasbourg (forthcoming). LISA WESTON is Professor of English at California State University, Fresno. She is the co‐editor(with Carol Pasternack) of Sex and Sexuality in Anglo‐Saxon England (Tempe, AZ: ACMRS, 2004), and has written numerous articles, on Old English wisdom  poetry  and  more  recently  on  the  literary  culture  of  early  medieval monastic  women,  in  journals  such  as  Medieval  Feminist  Forum,  Magistra, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, and Modern Philology. Her research currently focuses on intersections of literacy, gender, and sexuality.

Index:ȱPersons,ȱSubjects,ȱTitles,ȱConceptsȱ (Titlesȱofȱindividualȱworksȱareȱnotȱitalicized) AlbrechtȱClassen

abȱamicisȱmoerentibus abbotȱofȱClairvaux AbbotȱofȱMontierȬlaȬCelle

108 356

356,ȱ374 Abelard 12,ȱ82,ȱ93, 129–30,ȱ247–79 Absentȱfriends 323 ActsȱofȱtheȱApostles 240 Actsȱ4.32 310,ȱ341 Adages 637 AdamȱandȱEve 352 AdelardȱofȱBath 19 Adeodatus 186 AdolaȱofȱPfalzel 244 AdvancementȱofȱLearning 691 AdvertisementsȱfromȱParnassus 168,ȱ690 AelredȱofȱRievaulx 30–37, 79,ȱ124,ȱ130,ȱ136, 182,ȱ196,ȱ197,ȱ200,ȱ310, 338,ȱȱ351,ȱ355,ȱ361, 393,ȱ429,ȱȱ450,ȱȱ481 Aeneid 444 ÆlflædȱofȱWhitby 244 Ailber,ȱPeter 683–84 AlbericȱofȱOstia AlberoȱofȱLiège

363 388

album/albaȱamicorum 79,ȱ165–67, 671–77,ȱ681–85,ȱ689,ȱ693, 694,ȱ696 Alcuin 231,ȱ532 Aldhelm 233,ȱ242–43 Aldraed 242 AlexanderȱII,ȱPope 411,ȱ414 AlexanderȱofȱTelese, 303–04 Alexandre 287 Alfonsi,ȱPetrus 49–50 AlfonsoȱVIIȱofȱLéonȬCastille . . . 283, 298–300 AlfonsoȱXȱofȱCastile 49,ȱ53, 146–47,ȱ445–46,ȱ451–55, 457–58,ȱ468,ȱ470–71,ȱ473–75 Alfonsoȱd’Este 601 Alfred,ȱKing 97 Alsted,ȱJohannȱHeinrich 685 alterȱidem 333,ȱ711,ȱ715 Alypius 122–23,ȱ185–88,ȱ190–94 AmadeusȱIIIȱofȱSavoy,ȱCount 295 Ambrose,ȱSaint 7 amicitia 6–10,ȱ17,ȱ19,ȱ24,ȱ31, 32,ȱ40,ȱ63,ȱ72,ȱ80–81,ȱ92, 104,ȱ109–11,ȱ123,ȱ139,ȱ145, 146,ȱ156,ȱȱ182,ȱ185–200,ȱ231, 234,ȱ245,ȱ248,ȱ251,ȱ253–56, 260,ȱ262,ȱ265,ȱ269,ȱ281,ȱ282,

790 288,ȱ290–91,ȱ293,ȱ305,ȱ310, 312–13,ȱ323,ȱ325–26, 331,ȱ333,ȱ350–52,ȱ354, 358–60,ȱ363–65,ȱ368–70, 373,ȱ376–79,ȱ382–86,ȱ388–91, 449,ȱ450,ȱ455–56,ȱ478–81, 486–87,ȱ489–90,ȱ494–96, 499–500,ȱ527,ȱ550,ȱ563,ȱ669, 673,ȱ680,ȱ685–86,ȱ691,ȱ695, 699–700,ȱ702,ȱ706–08,ȱ711, 713–15,ȱ717,ȱ721 amigo 145,ȱ450–51,ȱ455,ȱ457, 465,ȱ472 AmisȱandȱAmiloun 23,ȱ150, 151,ȱ430,ȱ502–13, 515–18,ȱ520,ȱ522,ȱ523 amor 17,ȱ19,ȱ24,ȱ54,ȱ139,ȱ254, 258–60,ȱ265,ȱ269,ȱ272,ȱ291, 324,ȱ345,ȱ361,ȱ385,ȱ386,ȱ449–51, 455,ȱ456,ȱ465,ȱ675,ȱ706,ȱ714, 728,ȱ731,ȱ736 AnȱApologiaȱforȱAbbotȱWilliam 360 AnacletusȱII 281,ȱ301,ȱ305 AndrewȱofȱStrumi 399, 401–02,ȱ418 Androgynität 595,ȱ608 angeloȱincarnato 579,ȱ610–13, 626 AnselmȱdaȱBaggioȱofȱLucca 414 AnselmȱofȱCanterbury 309–48, 350,ȱ727 AnthonyȱEarlȱofȱShaftesbury 79, 178–79 anthropomorphizing 539 Antony 8 Aquinas,ȱThomas 19, 37–39,ȱ248,ȱ278–79, 448,ȱ456,ȱ529 Arialdȱof 395,ȱ399, 411,ȱ418,ȱ421,ȱ425

Index Arigoȱ(seeȱSchlüsselfelder) 76–77 AristotelesȱundȱPhyllis 595 Aristotle 6–7,ȱ38–40,ȱ52, 79,ȱ113,ȱ118,ȱ126,ȱ177,ȱ180–82, 185,ȱ187,ȱ188,ȱ213,ȱ251, 274,ȱ277,ȱ279, 310,ȱ312–13,ȱ337,ȱ345,ȱ446–47, 591,ȱ644–45,ȱ709–10 Aristoxeno 4 ArnulfȱofȱMilan 399 Aspasia 253,ȱ257–58,ȱ263,ȱ264, 269,ȱ274 Athanasius 497 Athelston 503,ȱ506,ȱ512,ȱ520,ȱ523 Athenaeus 263 AthisȱandȱProphilias 23 Atto,ȱarchbishop 422 Auchinleckȱmanuscript 151, 504,ȱ508 auctoritas 263,ȱ270,ȱ276,ȱ489 Augustine 7–8,ȱ14–17, 29,ȱ79,ȱ81,ȱ86–87,ȱ120,ȱ122–24, 129,ȱ148,ȱ181,ȱ185–88,ȱ190, 191,ȱ193–97,ȱ199,ȱ252,ȱ277, 313,ȱ316–17,ȱ337,ȱ406, 424,ȱ447,ȱ480–85,ȱ496,ȱ500 Ausonius 199 Ælflæd 244 Bacchus 125–27,ȱ129,ȱ602, 603,ȱ608,ȱ611–13,ȱ634 Bacon,ȱFrancis 41,ȱ57,ȱ110,ȱ162, 164,ȱ181,ȱ643–74 Baldwin,ȱArchbishopȱofȱPisa 362 BaldwinȱofȱRieti 362 Balthard 241 BaptistȱdeȱVilanis 568 Basil,ȱpriorȱofȱLaȱ GrandeȱChartreuse 363 BasilȱofȱCaesarea 124,ȱ190, 198,ȱ216 BattistaȱdeȱVilanis 567,ȱ569

Index Becket,ȱThomas 373 Becketȱconflict 373 Begierde 585 Benedict,ȱSaint 275,ȱ350,ȱ353 Benedictineȱrule 315 BenedictȱdeȱSpinoza 79 Beowulf 21,ȱ96,ȱ98,ȱ116,ȱ145,ȱ429 Berceo 466 BernardȱofȱTiron 19 BernardȱofȱClairvaux 31,ȱ36, 82,ȱ136–38,ȱ248,ȱ279,ȱ288, 300,ȱ310,ȱ320,ȱ323,ȱ338,ȱ352, 355,ȱ358,ȱ359,ȱ366–69,ȱ371–75, 377,ȱ379,ȱ381–85,ȱ388–91,ȱ393 Bernard,ȱRichard 744 Bernegger,ȱMatthias 682,ȱ687 Berhtgythȱ 241–45 Bessel,ȱChristianȱGeorg 690 Beziehung 52,ȱ118,ȱ570–72,ȱ577, 582,ȱ595–97,ȱ601,ȱ605–08, 613,ȱ615–16 Bible 36,ȱ171,ȱ399–401,ȱ452,ȱ481, 505,ȱ736,ȱ739 BishopȱofȱChartres 356,ȱ366, 376,ȱ383 BlaiseȱdeȱVigenère 733 Boccaccio 60–63,ȱ66,ȱ77,ȱ501,ȱ517, 527,ȱ551 Boccalini,ȱTraiano 690 Boeckler,ȱJohannȱHeinrich 679–80, 687,ȱ698–702 Boethius 13,ȱ18,ȱ32,ȱ34,ȱ36,ȱ90, 123,ȱ176,ȱ248,ȱ274,ȱ538 Boltraffio,ȱGiovanniȱAntonio 571 Bonaventure 496 Boniface 82,ȱ93,ȱ125, 127–29,ȱ231–41,ȱ243–45,ȱ424 BonizoȱofȱSutri 140–42,ȱ395–427 Bornitz,ȱJakob 693 Bornitz,ȱJakob 688 Bose,ȱJohannȱAndres 687–88

791 BosoȱdeȱMontivilliers 735 Brant,ȱSebastian 70–71 Brightman,ȱThomas 752,ȱ755,ȱ761 brotherhood 29,ȱ58,ȱ149–52, 154,ȱ156,ȱ194,ȱ200,ȱ380,ȱ448,ȱ494, 501–10,ȱ512–14,ȱ516–23,ȱ532 BrunoȱofȱCologne 189 BrustbildȱChristiȱenȱface 611 Caesar 8 CaesariusȱofȱHeisterbach 60 Canacee 100,ȱ153,ȱ154, 525–28,ȱ530–32,ȱ534–38,ȱ540,ȱ541 CantarȱdeȱMíoȱCid 20,ȱ429 TheȱCanterburyȱTales 87, 99,ȱ501,ȱ506,ȱ519,ȱ521,ȱ526, 529–30,ȱ532,ȱ540 CantigasȱdeȱSantaȱMaría 145, 445,ȱ446,ȱ451–54,ȱ457,ȱ464,ȱ473 Caprotti,ȱGianȱGiacomo 566, 567,ȱ579,ȱ633 caritas 9,ȱ123,ȱ136, 139,ȱ149,ȱ193–94,ȱ198–99,ȱ 275,ȱ278,ȱ286,ȱ349,ȱ351–53, 355,ȱ360,ȱ366,ȱ369,ȱ385,ȱ393, 456,ȱ478,ȱ480–81,ȱ489,ȱ495, 499–500 Carmenȱrhythmicum 233 Cassian 41,ȱ310,ȱ312–313,ȱ337, 341,ȱ345 Cassiciacum 186,ȱ193,ȱ193–94 Cassiodorus 408 CatherineȱofȱSiena 477 Caxton 97,ȱ105,ȱ116,ȱ150,ȱ152,ȱ639 Cereta,ȱLaura 89–91 CesareȱdaȱSesto 617 ChansonȱdeȱRoland 20–22, 429,ȱ506 Chansonsȱdeȱgeste 20,ȱ58, 349,ȱ430 Chapel,ȱEdward 109 CharlatanryȱofȱtheȱLearned 168,

792 698,ȱ702 Charles,ȱDukeȱofȱOrléans 503 Chaucer 99–101,ȱ151,ȱ153, 154,ȱ501,ȱ508,ȱ516–21,ȱ524, 525–26,ȱ528,ȱ530–36,ȱ538–40 childȱoblation 354 chivalry 540 ChoiceȱofȱEmblems 103 ChrétienȱdeȱTroyes 20,ȱ 99–100,ȱ430,ȱ518,ȱ520–21 Christ 19,ȱ20,ȱ31,ȱ32, 36,ȱ56,ȱ68–70,ȱ80,ȱ109,ȱ124, 130,ȱ134–36,ȱ170–72,ȱ198–99, 234–36,ȱ242–43,ȱ245,ȱ248,ȱ253, 257,ȱ263,ȱ268–70,ȱ273,ȱ303, 314,ȱ318–19,ȱ326,ȱ330–31, 334–35,ȱ340–41,ȱ344,ȱ348,ȱ352, 359,ȱ381,ȱ388,ȱ402–03,ȱ419, 457,ȱ467,ȱ469,ȱ471,ȱ481–82,ȱ 484–95,ȱ497,ȱ500,ȱ529–30, 637,ȱ727–28,ȱ731–39, 743–48 ChristianȱKabbalah 741 ChristinaȱofȱMarkyate 94 ChristineȱdeȱPizan 87–88,ȱ95, 181,ȱ525 Chroniconȱcluniacense 285 ChurchȱFathers 7–8,ȱ14,ȱ30,ȱ140 Chrysostom,ȱJohn 7 Cicero 6–14,ȱ16–17, 32,ȱ36,ȱ40,ȱ72–73,ȱ79,ȱ81,ȱ87,ȱ90, 113,ȱ118,ȱ130,ȱ136,ȱ146,ȱ156, 159,ȱ166,ȱ169,ȱ176,ȱ177,ȱ181, 187–90,ȱ194,ȱ200,ȱ249,ȱ251–54, 256–58,ȱ263,ȱ271,ȱ274,ȱ276–77, 310,ȱ312–13,ȱ333,ȱ337,ȱ345, 354,ȱ363,ȱ380,ȱ429,ȱ430,ȱ438, 447,ȱ545,ȱ550–51,ȱ643,ȱ651,ȱ708, 710,ȱ714–18,ȱ720–22,ȱ725 Ciocca,ȱLuigi 575 CityȱofȱGod 197

Index Clairvaux

31,ȱ36,ȱ82, 136–38,ȱ248,ȱ279,ȱ288,ȱ300, 310,ȱ320,ȱ323,ȱ338,ȱ352,ȱ353, 355–56,ȱ358–59,ȱ361,ȱ365–77, 379–85,ȱ388–91,ȱ393 Clerk’sȱTale 530 Cluny 131–33,ȱ281–89, 293–301,ȱ303–05,ȱ353,ȱ355, 356,ȱ363,ȱ364,ȱ378,ȱ380–81, 390–91,ȱ409,ȱ415–16,ȱ528 Cneuburga 244 Codiceȱsulȱvoloȱdegliȱuccelli 594 Coler,ȱChristoph 694 Collier,ȱThomas 767 Comenius,ȱJanȱAmos 695 CommentaryȱonȱtheȱEpistle toȱtheȱRomans 271,ȱ277 commodity 379 composition 314 Comnenus,ȱJohn 288 ElȱCondeȱLucanor 53–57 Conference 6,ȱ9,ȱ41,ȱ110, 172–75,ȱ313,ȱ317,ȱ422,ȱ446, 458,ȱ477,ȱ672,ȱ709 Confessions 15–17,ȱ30,ȱ123, 148,ȱ185–86,ȱ191–93,ȱ313, 317,ȱ681 confraternity 379 ConradȱIII 304 ConsolationȱofȱPhilosophy 13, 18,ȱ132 Constance 148,ȱ489,ȱ531–32 Constantinople 408–09,ȱ468 conversion 63,ȱ122–23, 125,ȱ173–74,ȱ185–87,ȱ191–94, 199,ȱ232,ȱ249–50,ȱ258,ȱ265, 266,ȱ268,ȱ270–71,ȱ279,ȱ284, 287,ȱ295,ȱ317,ȱ347,ȱ364,ȱ369, 370,ȱ407 Cosimoȱde’ȱMedici 615 Cotta,ȱErlembald 140,ȱ141,

Index 396,ȱ397,ȱ400–01,ȱ404, 414–15,ȱ421–23,ȱ425 Cotta,ȱLandulf 399,ȱ401–03,411 counterȬgift 126 Courtier,ȱTheȱ 728 Cramer,ȱDaniel 726 Crispin,ȱGilbert 325 Cromwell,ȱOliver 172,ȱ741–69 Crouch,ȱNathaniel 757 CurȱDeusȱHomo 318,ȱ319 curaȱmonialium 478,ȱ482, 485,ȱ489,ȱ499 custosȱanimi 479,ȱ490, 492,ȱ495, Cynehild 241 Czepko,ȱDaniel 686 Dalberg,ȱJohannȱFriedrich Hugoȱvon 1 D’Alembert 112 DamonȱandȱPithias 109 DanteȱAlghieri 58, 60,ȱ66–67,ȱ450,ȱ454,ȱ529 DaurelȱetȱBeton 151,ȱ505 DeȱAmicitia 31,ȱ6–10, 32,ȱ72,ȱ105,ȱ156,ȱ182,ȱ187–89, 255–56,ȱ310,ȱ313,ȱ333,ȱ351, 363,ȱ450,ȱ527,ȱ550,ȱ693,ȱ708, 714–16,ȱ719,ȱ721–23,ȱ725 Deȱl’amitié 707,ȱ714 DeȱSpiritaliȱAmicitia (OnȱSpiritualȱFriendship) 189,ȱ351 Deȱdifferentiisȱtopicis 252 DeȱdoctrinaȱChristiana 253 DeȱimitationeȱChristi 68–69 Deȱinventione 253,ȱ254,ȱ256, 258,ȱ263,ȱ274 Deȱamicitiaȱdeutsch 72 DeȱConstantia 667–69, 674,ȱ684–85 DeȱSpeculoȱCaritatis

793 (TheȱMirrorȱofȱCharity) 351 Deȱl’Amitie 714 DeȱConstantia 165–66 Decameron 20,ȱ61–63,ȱ76,ȱ77 Demetrius 90 Denewald 239–40 DerȱheiligeȱJohannesȱder Täuferȱ(JohnȱtheȱBaptist) 617 Derrida,ȱJacques 40,ȱ121, 126,ȱ212–13,ȱ224,ȱ248,ȱ312,ȱ333 Descartes 111 DesertȱFathers 148,ȱ480,ȱ482,ȱ484, 485,ȱ487–89,ȱ496,ȱ500 desire 7,ȱ11,ȱ12,ȱ14,ȱ19,ȱ21, 33,ȱ37–39,ȱ43,ȱ59,ȱ84,ȱ85,ȱ101, 104,ȱ113–14,ȱ123,ȱ128,ȱ138, 143,ȱ178,ȱ186,ȱ198,ȱ234–35, 239,ȱ241–43,ȱ255–56,ȱ265, 270,ȱ274,ȱ278,ȱ288,ȱ291,ȱ293, 296,ȱ323,ȱ326,ȱ330–32,ȱ337, 369,ȱ371,ȱ375,ȱ477,ȱ497,ȱ504, 512,ȱ517,ȱ533,ȱ538,ȱ544,ȱ547, 548,ȱ550,ȱ554,ȱ557–58,ȱ560, 734–35 Devil 29,ȱ398,ȱ407,ȱ412–13,ȱ466, 490,ȱ519 Devotioȱmoderna 748 DialogusȱMiraculorum 61 Diderot 112 DietrichȱofȱMetz 189 dilectio 19,ȱ139,ȱ197,ȱ241,ȱ260, 330,ȱ346,ȱ385,ȱ495 Diodati 108 DionigiȱdiȱBorgoȱSanȱSepolcro 63,ȱ65 DionysiusȱtheȱElder 3 DisciplinaȱClericalis 49–50, 52,ȱ61,ȱ77 DiuȱKlage 145 DivinaȱCommedia 58,ȱ66,ȱ454 Donne,ȱJohn 709–25

794 Dormido,ȱManuelȱMartinez 760 drawing 1,ȱ9,ȱ31,ȱ48, 104,ȱ106,ȱ157–58,ȱ160–62, 172,ȱ274,ȱ288,ȱ309,ȱ523, 543,ȱ561,ȱ588,ȱ677 DukeȱofȱSaintȬSimon 78 Dury,ȱJohn 695–96 Eadburga 232Ȭ35 Eangyth 237–40,ȱ244–45 EarlȱofȱLeicester 103 earlyȱmodernȱfriendship 104, 544,ȱ683,ȱ702 EberhardȱtoȱItaly,ȱCount 423 Eckhart,ȱMeister 279,ȱ489,ȱ495 EdwardȱIȱofȱEngland 749 EdwardȱIIȱofȱEngland 503 Edwards,ȱRichard 649 Ekphrasis 154,ȱ536 Eliduc 98 ElisabethȱvonȱNassauȬSaarbrücken 51–52 Elizabeth,ȱQueen 109 Elizabeth,ȱSaint 497 Elver,ȱHieronymus 688 Elyot,ȱSirȱThomas 657 Engelhard 4,ȱ23,ȱ152,ȱ430,ȱ507 Epicureans 40 Epicurus 7,ȱ180 epistolaeȱextraȱcorpus 386 Epistolaeȱduorumȱamantium 130,ȱ247–49,ȱ253–55,ȱ258, 260,ȱ277 Epistolaeȱrerumȱfamiliarium 66 EpitaphiumȱDamonis 108 ErasmusȱofȱRotterdam 108–09, 119,ȱ162,ȱ175–76,ȱ643,ȱ724,ȱ738 Erbe 575,ȱ578–89,ȱ601,ȱ604,ȱ608–09 Erlembaldȱ(seeȱCotta) Escoufle 47 EskilȱofȱLund 375 Essais 20,ȱ70,ȱ155–56,ȱ545,

Index 548,ȱ560,ȱ707,ȱ714 Essayes 162 EstoriaȱdeȱEspaña 461 EthicaȱEudemea 446,ȱ447 ethicsȱofȱcare 538 Ethics 7,ȱ12,ȱ40,ȱ58,ȱ77, 79,ȱ97,ȱ120,ȱ130,ȱ146,ȱ168–69, 187,ȱ188,ȱ254,ȱ259,ȱ264,ȱ313, 436,ȱ513–14,ȱ532,ȱ538,ȱ539, 549,ȱ693,ȱ717,ȱ718 ethos 58,ȱ262,ȱ403,ȱ436,ȱ442,ȱ449,ȱ500 Eudaimonia 7 EugeniusȱIII,ȱPope 286 ExeterȱBook 96 Fabulaȱduorumȱmercatorum 509, 518,ȱ532 FacekopfȱinȱRötel 611 falcon 100,ȱ153,ȱ525,ȱ528, 531–32,ȱ534–35,ȱ540 femaleȱfriendship 47,ȱ81, 83,ȱ85–87,ȱ91–93,ȱ95,ȱ101, 104,ȱ127,ȱ129,ȱ153,ȱ154 509,ȱ525,ȱ527–28,ȱ532 FerdinandȱII 680 FerdinandȱIII 451,ȱ471,ȱ472 fin’amors 149,ȱ502,ȱ516–18 flattery 35,ȱ36,ȱ89–90,ȱ163, 282,ȱ533 Fleck,ȱKonrad 43–44 Fleckhammer,ȱChristoph 674 Fletcher,ȱGiles 101,ȱ669,ȱ744 FlorisȱandȱBlancheflour 43, 99,ȱ506 Fonte,ȱModerata 89 Foxe,ȱJohn 742 Fortunatus,ȱVenantius 18 FrancisȱI,ȱKing 601 FrancisȱofȱAssisi 51 FrederickȱV 111 Freundschaftsalben 79 Freundschaftsbild 564–65

Index Friar’sȱTale Friend

519 310,ȱ311,ȱ313,ȱ314, 318,ȱ319,ȱ321,ȱ323–24, 326–30,ȱ332–45 friendship 185–200,ȱ231, 232,ȱ234–35,ȱ240,ȱ244, 245,ȱ247–51,ȱ254–70,ȱ274–78, 282–83,ȱ288–95,ȱ297–98, 300–05,ȱ309–19,ȱ323–24,ȱ326–34, 336–37,ȱ340–45,ȱ347–48, 349–50,ȱ349–66,ȱ368–76, 378–93,ȱ395–98,ȱ400,ȱ402,ȱ415, 429–32,ȱ434–43,ȱ445–51, 455–57,ȱ459,ȱ462–65,ȱ467,ȱ471, 473–75,ȱ477–83,ȱ485,ȱ487–89, 492–95,ȱ498–500,ȱ501–03, 505–10,ȱ512–16,ȱ518,ȱ523,ȱ525, 527–28,ȱ530–32,ȱ534,ȱ541, 543–46,ȱ548–60,ȱ562,ȱ675–81, 683,ȱ685,ȱ687–88,ȱ691,ȱ693–94, 705–06,ȱ714–20,ȱ722–25,ȱ727–32,ȱ735, 737,ȱ738,ȱ742,ȱ744–46,ȱ748 Frodelina 325,ȱ331–32 FünfȱGroteskeȱKöpfe 563 Galen 503 GalleriaȱdelleȱUffizie 561 Galmy 73 GeneralȱPrologue 533,ȱ540 GeoffreyȱofȱLoreto, ArchbishopȱofȱBordeaux 386 GeoffreyȱofȱVigeois 285 Georgetteȱ(seeȱMontenay) GeraldȱofȱAurillac 303 GestaȱRomanorum 76 Giampietrinoȱ 610 gift 194,ȱ232,ȱ256,ȱ261, 287,ȱ293,ȱ298,ȱ345,ȱ370, 373,ȱ379,ȱ381, 434,ȱ439,ȱ440,ȱ442,ȱ457, 467,ȱ474,ȱ487–88,ȱ493, 495,ȱ499,ȱ526,ȱ712,ȱ720

795 GilbertȱofȱSempringhamȱ GiulianoȱdeȱMedici Googe,ȱBarnabe Gottesfreunde GottfriedȱvonȱStrassburg Governour,ȱTheȱ GregoryȱVII,ȱPope

19 610 107 494 86 544

395,ȱ404,ȱ407, 409,ȱ411,ȱ414Ȭ26 GregoryȱofȱTours 503,ȱ507 GregoryȱtheȱGreat 317,ȱ401, 424,ȱ479 GregoryȱofȱNazianzus 124, 190,ȱ198,ȱ216 GregoryȱofȱTours 424 Grimald,ȱNicolas 649 GuibertȱofȱRavenna 404,ȱ407, 408,ȱ420 GilduinȱofȱSaintȬVictor 388 GuyȱofȱWarwick 504,ȱ516 Habbakuk 240 Hagedorn,ȱFriedrich 79,ȱ177–78 Haimeric 373 Hamlet 543,ȱ545–49,ȱ552–60 HardouinȱofȱLarrivour 378–79 Hartlib,ȱSamuel 695–96,ȱ762 HartmannȱvonȱAue 51 Hartwig 83–84 Haselin/Häslein (seeȱLittleȱBunnyȱRabbit) HatoȱofȱTroyes 292–93,ȱ364 Heaburg 232,ȱ234 Hegel 546,ȱ554,ȱ556 HeinrichȱJulius,ȱDuke 691 Heliod 6 Heloise 12,ȱ82,ȱ93,ȱ129–30 247–50,ȱ252–55,ȱ257–79,ȱ 297,ȱ323 HenryȱII,ȱKing 374 HenryȱIV,ȱKing 395,ȱ397–98,ȱ402, 404,ȱ407–08,ȱ414,ȱ419–20,ȱ423

796 HenryȱVIII,ȱKing 109 Henry,ȱBishopȱofȱWinchester 297 Heptaméron 75 Herbert,ȱGeorge 719–40 Hermengyld 531,ȱ532 Herzen,ȱA.ȱI. 116 HerzogȱErnst 28–30 Hildebrandslied 20,ȱ124–25 HildegardȱofȱBingen 83,ȱ94,ȱ244, 245,ȱ250,ȱ257 HistoriaȱCalamitatum 247, 249,ȱ251,ȱ253, 254,ȱ258,ȱ262,ȱ271,ȱ273,ȱ278 Homer 444,ȱ536 Homoeroticism 331,ȱ708 Homosexuality 309,ȱ330,ȱ512, 571,ȱ587,ȱ622,ȱ709 HouseȱofȱFame 530 HrabanausȱMaurus 172,ȱ741 HrotsvitaȱofȱGandersheim 82–83, 489 Hughes,ȱWilliamȱ 770,ȱ772–75 HughȱofȱPoitiers 285 HughȱofȱPontignyȱ 373 HughȱofȱSt.ȱVictor 279 HughȱofȱSemur 284,ȱ286 humility 190,ȱ265,ȱ267, 269,ȱ273–74,ȱ320,ȱ351, 360,ȱ368–69,ȱ373 485,ȱ487,ȱ495,ȱ499, 732,ȱ735 Iliad 444 induction 263,ȱ729 InstitutioȱOratoria 257 invidia 587 IsidoreȱofȱSeville 447,ȱ479 Isocrates 247,ȱ274,ȱ277,ȱ279 Iwein 53 JamesȱI 554 Jerome 7,ȱ199, 231–32,ȱ238,ȱ240,ȱ271,

Index 273,ȱ276,ȱ362,ȱ424 Jessey,ȱHenry 750,ȱ763–76 JohannesȱalsȱBacchus 619 JohannesȱderȱTäufer 565, 605,ȱȱ614,ȱ617 JohnȱofȱSaintȬMalo,ȱBishop 365–66 JohnȱofȱSalisbury 323, 360,ȱ366–67,ȱ374,ȱ383–84, 388,ȱ390,ȱ673 Johnȱ theȱ Baptistȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Johannes derȱTäufer) 314,ȱ333, ȱ340,ȱ561,ȱ613,ȱ625 Jünglingstypus 601 JulianȱtheȱApostate 206 Jupiter 537 Juzgo,ȱFuero 461 Kant,ȱImmanuel 77 Kaufringer,ȱHeinrich 43–44, 86–87 KingȱHorn 506,ȱ516 kingship 298,ȱ301–02,ȱ304, 408,ȱ468,ȱ557–58 Klage,ȱseeȱDiuȱKlage Kleist,ȱFriedrichȱvon 2 Knight’sȱTale 501–02,ȱ506,ȱ508, 516,ȱ518,ȱ521,ȱ532,ȱ536–37 KöniginȱElisabeth 51–52 Körner,ȱChristianȱGottfried 1 Konrad,ȱPriest 21 KonradȱvonȱWürzburg 4,ȱ23, 152–53,ȱ430 Körner,ȱChristianȱGottfried 1 Krünitz,ȱGeorg 115 Laeliusȱdeȱamicitia 187,ȱ256 Laelius 187,ȱ256,ȱ550,ȱ711, 714–15,ȱ717 Lancelot 80,ȱ502,ȱ521–23 Lanyer,ȱAemilia 102–03,ȱ170 lateȱhumanism 679–80 Latini,ȱBrunetto 57–60

Index layȱinvestiture 395,ȱ399,ȱ401,ȱ415 LegendsȱofȱGoodȱWomen 530 LehrerȬSchülerȬVerhältnis 582, 583,ȱ613 Leoba 234–37,ȱ241–45 LeoȱIX,ȱPope 409–10 LeoȱX,ȱPope 626 LeonardoȱdaȱVinci 561–624 letterȱcollections 355–56,ȱ358, 359,ȱ365,ȱ368–69,ȱ373–74, 377,ȱ379–80,ȱ384,ȱ392,ȱ393 lettersȱof 232,ȱ238, 247,ȱ254,ȱ257,ȱ259,ȱ260,ȱ264, 271–72,ȱ274,ȱ282,ȱ291,ȱ309, 310,ȱ314,ȱ323–24,ȱ326,ȱ328, 352,ȱ355–360,ȱ365–67, 377,ȱ379,ȱ381,ȱ384,ȱ388,ȱ390, 683,ȱ747 Letters 196,ȱ197,ȱ231–36, 238–41,ȱ243,ȱ244,ȱ247,ȱ249–50, 253–65,ȱ268,ȱ270–72,ȱ274,ȱ277–79, 282,ȱ285–86,ȱ288–95,ȱ297, 299–304,ȱ309–15,ȱ320,ȱ323,ȱ324, 326–31,ȱ344–46,ȱ350,ȱ352,ȱ354–69, 371,ȱ373–93,ȱ406,ȱ477,ȱ478,ȱ489, 498,ȱ540,ȱ548,ȱ558,ȱ677–80,ȱ683–88, 696–97,ȱ699–701,ȱ709,ȱ739,ȱ 741–43,ȱ747 Libanios 7 Liberȱadȱamicum 395,ȱ396 Llibreȱd’Amicȱeȱd’Amat 52 Libroȱenfenido 54 LifeȱofȱSoul 719 Lilienthal,ȱMichael 691,ȱ694, 701–02 Lipsius,ȱJustus 683–84,ȱ676, 694,ȱ696–97,ȱ700–08,ȱ712 LittleȱBunnyȱRabbit 42–43 LivreȱdouȱTresor 58 Livreȱduȱducȱdesȱvraisȱamans 87–78

797 Llull,ȱRamon 53–54 logic 189,ȱ248,ȱ251,ȱ257,ȱ259, 264,ȱ270–71,ȱ278,ȱ317–19, 332,ȱ334,ȱ340,ȱ342,ȱ344,ȱ347, 366,ȱ484,ȱ491,ȱ512,ȱ546, 555,ȱ565 logos 188,ȱ262,ȱ608 Lombard,ȱPeter 278,ȱ388 LouisȱVII 382 LouisȱVII,ȱKingȱofȱFrance 295 Lucian 7 Lul 241 Lydgate,ȱJohn 509 Machiavelli 677–78 MadonnaȱmitȱKindȱundȱLamm 606 Malory,ȱThomas 523 ManȱofȱLaw’sȱTale 100,ȱ531 Manciple’sȱTale 532–33 Manichaeism 186 Männerfreundschaft 563,ȱ623 Manuel,ȱJuan 52–57,ȱ697 MargueriteȱdeȱNavarre 75–76 MariaȱMeretrix 487,ȱ488, 492–93,ȱ496 MarieȱdeȱFrance 25–26,ȱ81,ȱ89, 98–99,ȱ518,ȱ520,ȱ536 Martinezȱ(seeȱDormido) martyr 374,ȱ402,ȱ403 MathildaȱofȱFontevraultȱ 378 MatildaȱofȱTuscany 397–98, 404,ȱ423 Matthias,ȱEmperor 688 Maturina 577 Maximianus 206 Mauss,ȱMarcel 202–05,ȱ212, 224,ȱ230,ȱ440 MaximosȱofȱThyros 7 Mede,ȱRichard 744 Melzi,ȱFrancesco 157,ȱ158, 561–62,ȱ566–72,ȱ574–77,ȱ583–85,ȱ

798 597–605,ȱ609–10,ȱ612z–14, ȱ 617,ȱ622–24 MenassehȱbenȱIsrael,ȱRabbi 749–77 Mencke,ȱJohannȱBurckhard 698 MerchantȱofȱVenice 173,ȱ754 Metaphrastes,ȱSymeon 206–07 MilagrosȱdeȱNuestraȱSeñora 466 Milton,ȱJohn 108 minnesänger 725 MinnesangsȱFrühling 435,ȱ528 MirrorȱofȱCharity 33 MonaȱLisa 563,ȱ579, 593–94,ȱ597,ȱ603,ȱ604,ȱ608–09 monasticism 200,ȱ304,ȱ354–56 Montaigne,ȱMichel 19,ȱ101,ȱȱ545, 547–48, 656,ȱ707–08,ȱ710,ȱ714–18,ȱ721 Montanus,ȱMartin 76–77 Montenay,ȱGeorgetteȱde 730 Moralia 690 Morsius,ȱJoachim 693 MorteȱDarthur 519,ȱ521–23 Murdac,ȱHenry 370 Naumann,ȱJohannȱGottlieb 1 Narrenschiff 70–71 Nebridius 186 Neuber,ȱJohann 72 necrology 294,ȱ296,ȱ306 nibbio 584,ȱ586,ȱ587 Nibelungenlied 20–21,ȱ142–45, 429–37,ȱ441–43 NicholasȱofȱStȱAlbans 372 NicholasȱofȱClairvaux 372,ȱ390 nicolaitism 395,ȱ399,ȱ401, 411–13,ȱ416 NicomacheanȱEthics 7,ȱ58, 187,ȱ213,ȱ313,ȱ446,ȱ645–47, 717,ȱ718 Nietzsche,ȱFriedrich 179,ȱ548,ȱ553 NjalsȱSaga 19

Index NotizbuchȱH3 603 NympheȱimȱFrühling 605,ȱ608 OdoȱofȱCluny 303 OgerȱofȱMontȬSaintȬÉloi 361 OfȱFriendship 543,ȱ546,ȱ552ȱ OrderȱofȱPreachers 478, 481–82,ȱ485,ȱ489–99 Origen 273,ȱ276,ȱ449 Ovid 259,ȱ529–30,ȱ536–37 pactumȱamiciarum 448 PaoloȱdaȱMozate 585 Paraclete 264–65,ȱ271, 272,ȱ274,ȱ276 Pardoner’sȱTale 519 Parisȱschools 366 parrhesia 643,ȱ666–70 Parzival 430 PassionȱofȱSergiusȱandȱBacchus 125–26,ȱ201–30 Pataria 395–406,ȱ408–11, 413–15,ȱ421–23,ȱ425–27 pathos 262 Paul,ȱSaint 248,ȱ497 PaulinusȱofȱNola 7,ȱ124,ȱ199,ȱ489 Personenverbandsstaat 354 PeterȱofȱBlois 323 PeterȱofȱCelle 355–56,ȱ360,ȱ365, 372,ȱ374,ȱ377–79, 381,ȱ383–89,ȱ673 PeterȱofȱPavia 378 PeterȱtheȱVenerable 82,ȱ281–91, 293–94,ȱ298–99,ȱ301,ȱ305,ȱ 323,ȱ355–56,ȱ365,ȱ367 Peter,ȱCardinalȱDeaconȱof S.ȱMariaȱinȱViaȱLata 361 PeterȱtheȱVenerable 281–305,ȱ353,ȱ355, 356,ȱ364,ȱ367,ȱ369,ȱ372, 374–75,ȱ377–79,ȱ382,ȱ384–86, 388–89,ȱ391

Index Petrarch

60,ȱ63–66,ȱ101, 707,ȱ709–15,ȱ717–08,ȱ720–25 Phaedrus 278 philia 446–47, 562,ȱ623 philosophy 192,ȱ193,ȱ198, 247–51,ȱ261,ȱ264,ȱ269,ȱ278, 341,ȱ350,ȱ352,ȱ446–47,ȱ452, 478,ȱ527,ȱ545–46,ȱ551,ȱ678–79, ȱ686,ȱ717,ȱ722 Piacereȱeȱdispiacere 598–99,ȱ603 PiersȱGaveston 503 PietroȱdaȱNovellara 583 PietroȱdiȱGiovanni 582 Plato 40,ȱ248,ȱ337,ȱ543, 544,ȱ558,ȱ711,ȱ717 Pliny 625,ȱ684 Plotinus 188 Plutarch 7,ȱ263,ȱ643 pneuma 188,ȱ193,ȱ197,ȱ703 poison 321,ȱ531 Politics 281,ȱ312,ȱ333, 354,ȱ356,ȱ545,ȱ683–85,ȱ678–86, 695–703,ȱ712 Pontius,ȱAbbotȱofȱVézelay 382 PorträtȱeinesȱjungenȱMannes mitȱPapagei 602,ȱ607,ȱ640 prayer 235–36,ȱ243, 255,ȱ266,ȱ269,ȱ275,ȱ311,ȱ313–19, 321–23,ȱ332–47,ȱ379,ȱ417, 481,ȱ531,ȱ552,ȱ742,ȱ745 PrayerȱtoȱStȱStephen 314,ȱ332,ȱ337 PrayerȱtoȱStȱPaul 314,ȱ342 PrayerȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱBaptist 314 PrayerȱtoȱStȱPeter 314,ȱ337 PrayerȱtoȱGod. 314,ȱ318 PrayerȱtoȱStȱJohnȱtheȱEvangelist 314 PrayerȱtoȱStȱNicholas 314, 336,ȱ338 Prayers 232,ȱ239,ȱ244,ȱ249,

799 255,ȱ266,ȱ270,ȱ288,ȱ295, 299,ȱ309,ȱ311–23,ȱ326, 329,ȱ331–34,ȱ336,ȱ337,ȱ340, 341,ȱ347,ȱ379,ȱ419,ȱ459 Prémontré 371 presence 186,ȱ232,ȱ234, 235,ȱ240–41,ȱ243,ȱ245,ȱ256, 265–66,ȱ275,ȱ298,ȱ309–10, 312,ȱ315,ȱ327,ȱ370,ȱ377,ȱ454, 478,ȱ494,ȱ510,ȱ518,ȱ552,ȱ559, 709–10,ȱ748 Prince,ȱThe 407,ȱ547,ȱ549,ȱ554 676,ȱ695 ProblemataȱHeloissae 249,ȱ253 Profilzeichnungȱeines altenȱMannes 562,ȱ583,ȱ597, 598,ȱ602 Proslogion 314,ȱ324,ȱ328–30,ȱ339 Prynne,ȱWilliam 764 Psalmȱ131 482 Pulci,ȱLuigi 591 Pythagoreans 188 QueenȱofȱSheba 486,ȱ497 RadbodȱofȱUtrecht 190 Raimondi,ȱMarcantonio 623 RaoulȱIȱofȱVermandois 283, 295–98 RaymondȱofȱCapua 477 reasonȱofȱstate 676–77, 681,ȱ686,ȱ687–90, 692,ȱ695 reciprocity 190,ȱ282,ȱ299, 312,ȱ343,ȱ345,ȱ479,ȱ483–85, 500,ȱ728,ȱ733 Reichardt,ȱJohannȱFriedrich 1 ReinfriedȱvonȱBraunschweig 40 renunciation 270,ȱ485,ȱ495 RichardisȱofȱStade 83–84 rivalry 189,ȱ190,ȱ288,ȱ354,ȱ377, 501,ȱ502,ȱ518 Robles,ȱRodrigues,ȱAntonioȱ 777

800 RogerȱIIȱofȱSicily 283,ȱ301–04 Roland 19,ȱ419,ȱ429,ȱ506 Rolandslied 21,ȱ429 Rollwagenbüchlein 73 Rome 186,ȱ236,ȱ239,ȱ244, 273,ȱ281,ȱ284,ȱ299,ȱ303–05, 320,ȱ352–53,ȱ356,ȱ377,ȱ395, 397,ȱ411–12,ȱ414–15, 417–19,ȱ447,ȱ667,ȱ673,ȱ678,ȱ724 RorgoȱofȱAbbeville 374–75 Rötelzeichnungȱeines Frauenkopfes 598 RudolfȱofȱFulda 235–36,ȱ244–45 RudolphȱofȱRheinfelden 420 RuleȱofȱSt.ȱBenedict 287,ȱ353 RuleȱofȱSt.ȱAugustine 482–85 RuprechtȱvonȱWürzburgȱ 41–42 SacraȱFamiglia 598 Sadler,ȱJohn 765 SaintȬRémi,ȱReims 356 SaintȬSimon 78 Saints 311,ȱ313,ȱ314,ȱ318,ȱ319, 322,ȱ328,ȱ332–33, 336–38,ȱ340,ȱ346–48 Salaì 561–64,ȱ567–86, 589–93,ȱ596–01,606–614,ȱ617–25 SanchoȱIV 451 Sappho 6,ȱ690 Schiller,ȱFriedrich 1–6,ȱ8,ȱ119 166,ȱ175,ȱ181–82 Schlüsselfelder,ȱHeinrich 76–77 Schoppe,ȱKaspar 165–66, 678,ȱ682–83,ȱ685 Schubert,ȱFranz 1 Schupp,ȱJohannȱBalthasar 167, 682,ȱ688–89,ȱ692 ScipioȱAemilianus ScipioȱtheȱYoungerȱ (Africanus,ȱetc.) 8 Scivias 83 Scripture 328,ȱ329,ȱ332,ȱ333

Index Senarclens,ȱC.ȱde 79 Seneca 188,ȱ312,ȱ323,ȱ337, 345,ȱ447,ȱ450,ȱ667 Sergiusȱ(seeȱPassion) SermonsȱonȱtheȱSongȱofȱSongs 311 Seuse,ȱHeinrichȱ(seeȱalsoȱSuso) 82,ȱ478,ȱ492 Sexualisierung 624–25 sexualization 562 Sforza,ȱMassimiliano 578 Shakespeare,ȱWilliam 101, 107,ȱ173,ȱ540,ȱ544,ȱ547,ȱ554,ȱ556, 558,ȱ681,ȱ707–08,ȱ711,ȱ714,ȱ754 Sieteȱpartidas 51,ȱ446,ȱ457–58 SigebertȱofȱGembloux 189 simony 395,ȱ399,ȱ401, 409,ȱ411–13,ȱ415–17, 422,ȱ424 Sin 314–16,ȱ318,ȱ320–26, 330,ȱ333–35,ȱ338,ȱ340–43, 345–47 SirȱAmadace 513,ȱ515–16,ȱ523 SirȱTristrem 506 socialȱcapital 384 Socrates 248,ȱ263 SongȱofȱSongs 242,ȱ311,ȱ320, 330,ȱ359,ȱ743 SongsȱandȱSonnets 709–ȱ11, 714–15,ȱ720,ȱ724–25 Sovereignty 543,ȱ545–48, 550–53,ȱ555–59 Speculumȱhistoriale 23 Spervogel 24 spiritualȱexercise 248,ȱ250,ȱ252 spirituality 199,ȱ248,ȱ256, 277–79,ȱ312,ȱ315,ȱ320,ȱ323, 349,ȱ388,ȱ396,ȱ478,ȱ480,ȱ485, 487–88 Squire’sȱTale 100,ȱ525–28, 530,ȱ531,ȱ533,ȱ535–37,ȱ539–40 Stagel,ȱElisabeth 82

Index Stammbücher Stephani,ȱCencius StephenȱofȱObazine StephenȱofȱPalestrina

682 418–19 19 383

543,ȱ545–46, 556,ȱ674,704 Stoics 447,ȱ545,ȱ675 Strauss,ȱJohannȱII 1 Stroop,ȱZ.ȱRandall 1 SummaȱTheologiae 248,ȱ257,ȱ278, 448,ȱ456 Summoner’sȱTale 519 Suso,ȱHenryȱ(seeȱalsoȱSeuse) 477, 478,ȱ481,ȱ482,ȱ484,ȱ487,ȱ493, 733,ȱ739 Symposium 257,ȱ384,ȱ452, 473,ȱ506,ȱ673 Tacitism 674,ȱ679,ȱ686,ȱ701 Tchaikovsky,ȱPyotrȱIlych 1 Temple,ȱTheȱ 536,ȱ727–30,ȱ746, 740–42,ȱ744–47 TeresaȱofȱAvila,ȱSaintȱ 738–39 Tertullian 729,ȱ737 TettaȱofȱWimbourne 244 Teuffenbach,ȱC.ȱvon 79 Thecla 244 TheobaldȱofȱCanterbury 366 TheobaldȱofȱChampagne 382 TheobaldȱofȱMolesmeȱ 378 TheologicalȱTreatises 319 Thomas,ȱDukeȱofȱClarence 503 ThomasȱàȱKempis 68–69, 729,ȱ737 Thomasius,ȱChristian 79,ȱ701 Tobias 497 Tomlinson,ȱWilliam 759,ȱ761 Tommasoȱde’ȱCavalieri 582 TragedyȱofȱHildeburh 98 transitus 353,ȱ370,ȱ377 Traske,ȱJohn 760

801 TrattatoȱdellaȱPittura 608 treachery 197,ȱ526,ȱ527, 531,ȱ533–34,ȱ536 Tristan 86,ȱ438 trivium 248

Stoicism

TroilusȱandȱCriseyde

100–01, 526,ȱ532,ȱ533 trouthe 520,ȱ526,ȱ535 trustȱbuilding 384,ȱ392 Tugendfreundschaft 624 TwelfthȬCenturyȱRenaissance 315, 320,ȱ323,ȱ349,ȱ350,ȱ355 TwoȱGentlemenȱofȱVerona 709, 715 TwoȱNobleȱKinsmen 101,ȱ709 UrbanȱII,ȱPope 415,ȱ425 Ulrich,ȱA. 79 Uffenbach,ȱZachariasȱConrad 702 union 194,ȱ258,ȱ269–71, 299,ȱ311,ȱ313,ȱ339,ȱ353, 503,ȱ510,ȱ530,ȱ541,ȱ551–53 VanȱHaeften,ȱȱBenedictus 734–35,ȱ744 vanȱVeen,ȱOtto 744 Vasari 566–68,ȱ570–76 580,ȱ598,ȱ603–05,ȱ610–13,ȱ615,ȱ623 veraȱamicitia 358,ȱ715 Verkündigungsengel 616,ȱ618 VertumnusȱundȱPomona 602,ȱ604 Vicken,ȱNicolausȱvon 672–73 VillainȱofȱMolesme 376 VincentȱdeȱBeauvaisȱ 23 Virgil 444 virtue 186–90,ȱ189–91, 193,ȱ196,ȱ198–200,ȱ251, 254,ȱ256–64,ȱ267,ȱ269,ȱ273, 289,ȱ303,ȱ312,ȱ319,ȱ327,ȱ331, 337,ȱ345,ȱ358,ȱ369,ȱ392,ȱ479, 489,ȱ509,ȱ510,ȱ521,ȱ525,ȱ527, 539,ȱ545,ȱ552,ȱ676,ȱ691–92,

802 714,ȱ717 Vitaȱnova 66–67 VitaȱPetri 285–87,ȱ289,ȱ305 VitaȱsanctiȱArialdi 399–403, 418,ȱ419 VitaȱdiȱLeonardo 569–70,ȱ615 Vitaspatrum 485,ȱ487–89,ȱ499 Wala,ȱAbbess 239,ȱ244 WaltherȱvonȱderȱVogelweideȱ 24–28 Welser,ȱMarc 682–83 Wethburga 236 Whitney,ȱGeorge 103 Whitney,ȱIsabella 101–02 Wickram,ȱGeorg 73 Wickram,ȱJörg 73,ȱ75 Widmann,ȱErasmus 79,ȱ119–20, 175–76 WierixȱtheȱYounger,ȱAnthony 736 Wife’sȱLament 96,ȱ238

Index WilliamȱofȱChampeaux 248 WilliamȱofȱPalerne 99 WilliamȱofȱSaintȬThierry 359–61 wills 312,ȱ330,ȱ404,ȱ551,ȱ693 WolframȱvonȱEschenbach 21–22,ȱ430 Women 47–48,ȱ69–70, ȱ 81–110,ȱ115,ȱ123,ȱ127–29, 146,ȱ150–51,ȱ153–55, 168–70,ȱ231–46,ȱ247–79, 477–99,ȱ502,ȱ505,ȱ507, 510–18,ȱ523,ȱ525–41 Wotton,ȱHenry 682–83,ȱ704 Xenophon 263–64,ȱ269 Yvain 430 YwainȱandȱGawain 519,ȱ527 Zedler 79–80 Zeuxis 253 Zumsteeg,ȱJohannȱRudolf 1 Zwinger,ȱTheodore 684